Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Feb. 26, 2010

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Apr 2010 02:17

Certainly, the suggestion that the US might bring up the subject of Kashmir and Pakistan's sensitivities in their discussion with us must be taken with a degree of seriousness. But only to the extent that we need to roll our eyes and roll out the same old arguments plus a few more. Forty years ago, or twenty years ago, when they did this sort of thing we were in a much weaker position, and there was not much give from our side. The worry that inordinate flexibility on the issue might be displayed by GoI simply because Holbrooke got an itch in his derriere on the subject, or because the military men in Washington spent too much time with their ranking Pak counterparts, is not high, although it is not entirely unwarranted.

The Indo-US relationship is miles away from what it was in 1970, or 1990. To some extent, this is a matter for the Pacific and Central commands to settle. Mullen's statement should not be overplayed. What is unusual, and pleasantly surprising if true, is that it is Foggy Bottom which is now exhibiting a reluctance to take the Kashmir way out. Note that the WSJ report is itself likely part of the tussle going on at the top in Washington.

Although I'm no fan of Obama, and never was, I don't think he can be "blamed" for the tussle itself. He can be blamed if he takes it forward and raises the issue with us. Strictly speaking, there is no case for the US to bring up the subject, by ANY measure of judgement. It's not like Pakistan made a roaring success of Afghanistan when it had control of the country via its Taliban proxy; that's hardly a precedent anyone wants to repeat in Kashmir, even if India were to allow it. Not that there's a chance in hell of that happening.

This clutching at the Kashmir straw is really a reflection, if it is anything at all, of the way in which the US has lost the plot in Af-Pak. They are fantastic at doing war, but not quite so astute at defining the Af-Pak problem. (Is there one? Maybe I've missed it). Or maybe they have, and don't want to make it public in order not to complicate their lives further. But judging from happenings on the ground on the political front and going by information that is public, clearly America is having an off form season in the Great Game, to put it mildly. So it is, unfortunately, easier than it should be to develop an unhealthy disrespect for the great Amirkhan at this juncture.

The problem, of course, is not Af-Pak. It is, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, just Pak. Were it not for the ideological and material sustenance received from Pakistan, there would be no "Taliban" in Afghanistan - at least not one worth bothering about.

Let us look at what Pakistan wants.

1. It wants to be the dominant power over Afghanistan, without considering the latter as a sovereign country, or even as a neighbour which may have its own interests, however basic those might be. It wants to treat Afghanistan as an appendage that can be used (if it has a favourable dispensation in power) or abused if it has a leadership that Pakistan's military/civil elite deems is leaning towards others. In other words, it wants the US to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan as a sort of semi-colony, which it can use as a part of its larger confrontation with India.

2. It wants the US to pressure India to talk about Kashmir. The Pak elite (mainly Punjabi with sundry elements incorporated from other provinces) believes that it has done enough as part of the American war on terror to make such demands, and to expect a favourable response from the US. Hence the repeated references to the number of Pakistani soldiers killed, etc. This elite is persistent and persuasive, and quite experienced in dealing with the US government in somewhat similar circumstances in the past.

Now the Americans, listening to the same paranoid formulations repeated ad nauseam are bound to internalise some of it. They are likely to believe that the Pakistanis are, indeed, scared witless of the "Indian threat", of the assertion that "capabilities not intentions" are what count, because intentions can change, that something must be done to ease what has morphed over decades of repetition into Pakistan's "legitimate security concerns". It also happens to dovetail nicely into a clean solution whereby, as the Pak elite packages it, success in Afghanistan and over Al Qaida is virtually guaranteed if the former is turned into a Pakistani dependent and at least a part of Kashmir is handed over on a platter.

Americans like such nice, clean solutions - and they want to get the hell out of Afghanistan, or at least to declare victory. And the Pentagon people are the ones who hear the whines of the Pak elite the most because, naturally, they deal with them the most on a one to one basis. I mean, which American general in his right mind will deal with Zardari? or for that matter that nincompoop Gillani?

So we shouldn't be surprised if, every now and then, one four-star general or another, comes out with the K word. There's no need to give it too much importance. There is nothing they can do about it, other than talk. They can, and will, as in the past, turn a blind eye to the terrorism that the Pak elite orchestrate against India, in Kashmir and elsewhere - some elements within their government might even encourage and facilitate it - but they will have to be more circumspect about this than in the past, if only because they have to deal with us too, much more intensively than in the past, and on the other hand they've found out that blowback is a biatch.

The miscalculation that Pakistan is making is that it assumes the America of 2010 is the America of 1980. America wasn't gullible then, and it isn't gullible now. What the US wanted then was a convenient proxy against the Soviet Union, and it found one. It had a clear goal, to kick the Russians out, and it was successful.

America does not know what it wants now. All it knows is that it has an acute discomfort with things as they are in the Af-Pak area, and it is, as mentioned before, clutching at straws. Sometimes, the goal seems to be to simply get out. And it spits out a date. Sometimes the goal is nation-building, and it looks at Karzai and curses him for the flaws of his administration - as if they have any better, cleaner, more efficient, option. Sometimes it looks at Pakistan and says, hoping against hope, that maybe if the Pak elite gets what it wants, everything will be OK and we can declare victory and go home.

At one point, it is going to look at Pakistan and say, hey, the elite of this country is the problem. Many already are, but critical mass has not been reached yet. Increasingly, though, more and more individuals within the monstrously complex American government system will recognise and articulate that the Pak elites are the ones causing all this confusion, and if it were not for the disproportionate resources and power in the hands of these people, the situation would be far less volatile. And, in its typically methodical, plodding, hand-wringing fashion, it will slowly set about dismantling this evil construct. Ultimately, it has no choice. We will help. Quietly.

Unless the Punjabi Muslim elite of Pakistan decide to change ideological course 180 degrees. Fat chance.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 06 Apr 2010 02:41

JE Menon wrote:America wasn't gullible then, and it isn't gullible now.

Nice sum up of the attitude in Washington, but I do not agree with the above statement. America is more gullible now than ever before. How else do you think that the Pakistanis are able to sell their story to Obama?

Also, Obama wants "CHANGE" no matter what. He wants change in every aspect of American policy making which includes its foreign policy. He has already managed to really piss off the British and the Israelis because of his urge of "Change". I won't be surprised if India is next. The Indo-US ties are taking a very dangerous turn IMO. We are allowing ourselves to be more and more dependent on the Americans (when the rest of the world is moving away from it). Obama does not fully appreciate the benefits of cooperation with India either.

Sure, we were in a weaker position 20 years ago but we did not have this false sense of cooperation with the Americans. We looked at them with a far more critical eye (which was good). Not to mention, our political leadership was much more firm when it came to Kashmir (not trying to pass secret deals with TSP like MMS is now).

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Apr 2010 02:44

Nicely put JEM-ji

Most of us underestimate India. We have survived the cold war with our freedom of policy making intact through some deft manipulations. In the meantime CEATO and SENTO not withstanding, we defeated the Pakis 3 times in war. We have our nukes, survived CRE, we have our missles, survived "technology demonstrator onlee Agni 1". Got a nuke deal, which to large extent is okay. I am sure we will survive a few "South Asian Experts". No need for hand wringing and self flagellation.

For a second, forget US and allusion to some dark conspiracy of Media-Army-Political parties cleanly and presciently forecasting the future and working in unison to undermine India's interest. Look at the consensus in India about Pak. Pre 26/11 there was Indo-Paki bhai bhai, Chenab formula, Lets give them Kashmir yaar and get it over with, Your Arundhati Roys, Teesta Setalvads, The commies who protested the Nuke deal because "It would hurt the sentiments of minorities" -- In short, the official line is still "A strong and stable Pakistan is in India's interest". Parrotted by the media, chaterati, ABV and now MMS. Except for this nice little cubbyhole in BRF where people have been drilled with the Maxim "Give peace a chance, destroy Pakistan" by N^3, the mango SDRE still comes with all manner of solutions, including talks, magnanimity, giving territory, assuaging Paki concernes ityadi.

There is no consensus within India that the aim of the Pakis is for religious nuts to get into bed with the elites to illegitimately bear teeming, wretched poor masses who willingly become canon fodder for an Islamic army bent on conquering India and then central asia and then Europe, Israel and ultimately the US.

What would you expect from the US? That too if US self interests are thrown in. That too if 500 TFTAs show up, sweet talk and offer to GUBO for a few dollars? (as opposed to the Indians who have lengthy fierce debated on everything from the Nuke deal to Nuclear liability bill and whether US is providing access to DCH). You will get Netas, Jernails, Chatterati and South asia experts who suggest all manner of solutions which are not in India's interest and in most cases, not even in America's interest

There is good news and bad news. The bad news is that a country full of tall fair mards with a tight musharraf trained at being seductive are present, persistent and offer 24 hour GUBO for very cheap. There are bunch of self appointed "South Asia experts" who shoot their mouths and write idiotic columns. There are a bunch of "strategic types" who just want to pay everone off and hope the war ends.

The good news is that economically, culturally and diplomatically we are leaving the Pakis far behind. Their selling point is that they can train many taliban and be an international migrane. Our selling point is that we represent a large market, a large pool of talent and are marching forward. We dont need unkil to take sides and moderate the fight.

As my fourth cousin in teetar tweeted (pinglish removed)

India-Pakistan fight is like a drunk bully fighting a malnourished midget. The bully cant land a punch and the midget cant win

What was left unsaid is that the midget has cancer, and the bully is not going to be drunk forever.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 02:49

sourab_c wrote:
Sure, we were in a weaker position 20 years ago but we did not have this false sense of cooperation with the Americans. We looked at them with a far more critical eye (which was good). Not to mention, our political leadership was much more firm when it came to Kashmir (not trying to pass secret deals with TSP like MMS is now).

I agree with this. This is a deep change in the Indian world view.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Apr 2010 02:55

>>How else do you think that the Pakistanis are able to sell their story to Obama?

Where is the evidence that they have? In real terms. All we have heard from the Americans after and during that visit are promises. Not one mention of India in negative light during the visit. Hillary and Gates were extremely careful on that score, despite repeated pestering by Pak journalists desperate to twist the most innocuous of quotes into an anti-India headline. (Check out the interview between Choudhary and Gates posted by Acharya). He flatly refuses to take a stand. It's almost embarrassing, but of course the Paks have no idea what that means.

Do the Pakistanis have sympathisers and supporters within the US. Of course they do. Do the Americans care about the terrorism that Pakistan unleashes against India? Their words say yes, but their actions say no. We will go by actions. Don't expect a uni-dimensional, clear-cut situation in terms of our dealings with the US, or with any other major power for that matter.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 06 Apr 2010 03:03

sourab_c wrote:
JE Menon wrote:America wasn't gullible then, and it isn't gullible now.
Nice sum up of the attitude in Washington, but I do not agree with the above statement. America is more gullible now than ever before. How else do you think that the Pakistanis are able to sell their story to Obama?

It is not just Obama. Mullen, Petraeus all "buy" into it. Bob Gates was the one who was supposedly working with the Mujahideen in the 80s. They all know what Pakistan does and who it sponsors. US needs to get out of Afghan fast, if Pakistan is willing to take over, US will happily oblige as long as these Talibs don't attack the US again.

We are peripheral.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Apr 2010 03:08

>>Sure, we were in a weaker position 20 years ago but we did not have this false sense of cooperation with the Americans.

Boss, we did not have any sense of co-operation with the Americans then. Now how do you know that the sense of co-operation is "false"? Is this a personal feeling, because you mistrust the American government in general and combine it with a general unease about the Indian government? My point is, how would you define a "true sense of co-operation"? Personally, I don't really care whether the sense of co-operation is true or false, as long as India profits financially and/or in terms of consolidating/expanding its strategic autonomy. I see no action taken by either the US or GoI to suggest a weakening on either front. On the contrary, one can point to cases where both objectives have been advanced.

>>We looked at them with a far more critical eye (which was good).

Aren't we looking at them with a critical eye now? Or are we projecting that every positive article we see in the media about the US, or every positive comment from a politician/government official, represents the thin edge of the sellout wedge? In the past we only, or largely, looked at them with a critical eye. Nowadays, it seems to me, the balance is tilting towards under-critical, but by no means entirely one-sided.

>>Not to mention, our political leadership was much more firm when it came to Kashmir (not trying to pass secret deals with TSP like MMS is now).

That was because they were much more forthright on Jammu & Kashmir issue as well. When was the last time any US official actually urged us in public to do anything about Kashmir? Occasionally, someone or otherwill say that Kashmir is an issue that needs to be addressed, etc, etc., but really it is more a question of reluctant form than substance. Times have changed.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 03:11

Pentagon for pressure on India to ease tension with Pakistan: WSJ
IANS, Apr 5, 2010, 11.39am IST

Daily Pioneer has this:
Tuesday, April 6, 2010

US wants troop cut in Kashmir to win Afghan war

S Rajagopalan | Washington

To get Pak on its side, Washington mulls exerting pressure on India to reduce operations in Kabul

Links Fixed - JE Menon

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2010 03:14

^

Why wouldn't USA chalk-out a plan for Afghanistan without Pakistan? Is it really impossible, if USA is willing to work with other regional players?

Why TSPA onlee? Because solving Af-Pak issue is not the ultimate goal for USA. USA wants to have a non-state actor in this region to contain various regional and global players. That is what makes TSPA's hand stronger.

IMHO it is a futile exercise to solve our TSP problem thru USA. India must be assertive on its interests and separate POK, Pakjabis from Balochis, Pakthunkwa, and Sindhis. Use every terror attack as an opportunity to hit PakJabis. Focus on reclaim-POK strategy.

The terrorism will continue no matter what kind of deals we make with USA or others, including giving up entire cashmere, unless the entire Af-Pak region is pacified. This is not going to happen in next 50 years, at best.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 03:27

RamaY wrote:
Why TSPA onlee? Because solving Af-Pak issue is not the ultimate goal for USA. USA wants to have a non-state actor in this region to contain various regional and global players. That is what makes TSPA's hand stronger.

I will give you another hint.
Do you think there was need for 8-9 years in AfPak by the US and Nato to stabilize the region. That is a long time.
It may have been diversion for something.
Is "solving" Kashmir the real reason for US troops in the region and not the problem of AfPak

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2010 03:29

I think its good cop bad cop. The real issue is the US is stuck in Pak-Af and it will become Fak-Ap and wants to get GOI to take the heat. It wont work even if India removes all troops from its own land. The pakis will go even more ballistic. The jihadis will launch the coup that US fears for that will be taken as sign from Allah.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 06 Apr 2010 03:30

The US wants to use Pakistan for Iran. Pakistan wants to use the US for India. The US also wants to use Pakistan for China very very quietly. Afghanistan happens to be in between. Pakistan wants to be overlord of Afghanistan. The US, Russia, China, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan say nothing doing. It's a clusterfvck. What to do onlee?

I mean, seriously guys, do you really seriously think that (a) the US is simply going to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistani management, and (b) all of Afghanistan's neighbours are simply going to sit on their thumbs as a result. Come on. Afghanistan has been a hell-hole for 40 odd years. Generations there do not know any better lifestyle. The Afghans will happily turn Pakistan into the same, and are already working on it.

>>USA wants to have a non-state actor in this region to contain various regional and global players. That is what makes TSPA's hand stronger.

This is a reasonable assumption. Trouble is that the US wants a reliable non-state actor, i.e. it wants a proper principal-agent relationship. This has always been, and will continue to be, the problem with Pakistan. It is not a reliable agent, because it is in its own mind a principal actor in the region with its own interests in neighbouring areas which are often diametrically opposed to those of the US. So the US recognises that Pakistan is only a tactical major non-NATO ally. It has been trying to convert it into a proper strategic ally without much success. But even as a tactical ally, it no doubt makes the TSPA's hand stronger than it otherwise would have been.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Apr 2010 03:39

IMHO, little bit of Panga is always useful . Let there be many contentions , unsolved issues so we can punish the culprits when oppertunity arise. This provide the oppertunity to pursue national interest regardless of international relations. Little noise should not disturb Indian Giant's snoar .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2010 03:40

All this is nice but what are India's options?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 03:41

ramana wrote:All this is nice but what are India's options?

One strong option

ShibaPJ · Post by **ShibaPJ** » 06 Apr 2010 03:42

Gerard wrote:
All of this is off-topic, and I do not want to get on the wrong side of Gerard, so will let this be my last comment on this topic.
Boss, have no fear about that.

Also there are numerous threads where the conspiracy by everyone else in the world (be they human, dolphin, penguin or parrot), to deny India its rightful place is discussed ad nauseum. Outside India, behind every rock and tree, lurks an enemy. Inside India, behind every second rock or tree lurks someone on the enemy payroll. All babus and netas are fools and traitors. Only forum members wise enough to discern the conspiracies (and whine about them) are true patriots.

Gerard, this is tooo much!!! I came here to the thread to have my daily load of h@h!sh and I almost choked on my tea. Had to break out of my lurking mode

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Apr 2010 04:06

Acharya wrote: I will give you another hint.
Do you think there was need for 8-9 years in AfPak by the US and Nato to stabilize the region. That is a long time.
It may have been diversion for something.

Yes, they got diverted by Iraq.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Apr 2010 04:09

RamaY wrote:^

Why wouldn't USA chalk-out a plan for Afghanistan without Pakistan? Is it really impossible, if USA is willing to work with other regional players?

Why TSPA onlee?

Simple, US needs at least one of Iran or Pakistan. Iran is ruled out for a variety of reasons, including the fact that via Hezbollah and Hamas it poses a threat to US's 51st state, Israel. What is left is Pakistan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Apr 2010 04:19

What are US's real options to "pressure India"?

Why would such "pressure" work any better on India that it currently is working on Pakistan?

Seems to me US "pressure on Pakistan" has resulted in squeezing several billion dollars out of the US treasury, some desultory action by Pakistan in FATA, and not much else.

Very curious, why is India seen (by BRFers) as more vulnerable to US pressure than Pakistan?

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 06 Apr 2010 04:45

India, Pak to launch major wargames at same time From TOI(let)

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Apr 2010 04:52

Newly developed technology has made gas production from shale rather cheap. One of the reasons why the IPI pipeline wasn't getting off the ground is the price for gas that Iran wanted. Now Iran cannot charge as much because gas prices have fallen because of this new technology.

NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/11 ... 24064.html

Now the gas-laced rock has doubled the discovered gas resources of North America, providing 100 years of supply to a country that a few years ago was planning a host of new terminals to import liquefied natural gas, or LNG. Shale gas now accounts for 20 percent of the country's gas supply, up from 1 percent in 2000.

"Some people even forecast the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter," Mulva said.

I doubt the US cares one way or the other about CAR gas.

Petroleum may be a different matter.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 06 Apr 2010 05:04

I am surprised how people missed this

As the saying goes....once a p*** always a p***

http://www.cricinfo.com/pakistan/conten ... 54897.html

Nasir Jamshed, the Pakistan opening batsman, has been arrested for cheating during a school exam, according to an AP report.

Added later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_Jamshed

Controversy

On 4 April, 2010 Nasir Jamshed was jailed on cheating in ninth grade examinations of english paper

He is born in 1989....and appearing for 9th grade examinations

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 06 Apr 2010 05:07

In paquis case. It should be "green handed"..

How on earth 20 year old taking 9th grade english exam? I must have flunk my 4th grade too many times.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 06 Apr 2010 05:09

amdavadi wrote:In paquis case. It should be "green handed"..

How on earth 20 year old taking 9th grade english exam? I must have flunk my 4th grade too many times.

Maybe, primary education is 10 years in "madrassa mathemagic" and if you don't make the moojahid cadre, then fall back to regular schooling!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Apr 2010 05:24

Never doubt the Paki Pestication,
http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1 ... =&supDate=
Seminar on 'trade facilitation in South Asia': visa restrictions biggest impediment towards trade growth
Ik BAAL MIRZA

Engre Jabbar said that India and Pakistan need to share the experiences of SMEs from both sides informing that "we are having 5000 patents with the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research " which could become the reason for commercialisation of the same among the SMEs of both countries by way of economic integration.That is one part manufactured in India and other part manufactured from Pakistan to cross border to make a finished product for intra-trade or for consumption of other countries. He said that this is true in EU across 27 countries happening, so it is not a new thing to talk about. Korea model of economic integration with China due to presence of both countries in various trade corporation platforms is an example that leading technology component of Korea gives the quality advantage to Made in China Product.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Apr 2010 05:44

These Pakistanis are peculiar people. All this talk of trade and making components in India and Pakistan. No mention of ending the state of subconventional war. No talk of dismantling the infrastructure of jihadi terror.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 06:21

A_Gupta wrote:
Acharya wrote: I will give you another hint.
Do you think there was need for 8-9 years in AfPak by the US and Nato to stabilize the region. That is a long time.
It may have been diversion for something.
Yes, they got diverted by Iraq.

That is too simple. Iraq was stable mode by 2006/2007

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Apr 2010 06:23

Lazy Djinna Loose Jugular vein
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2010_pg3_6
( Link is halal on my browser)

“As regards our attitude towards Indian states, I may make it clear once more that the policy of the Muslim League has been and is not to interfere with the Indian states with regard to their internal affairs. But while we expect as rapid a progress as possible in the various states towards the establishment of full responsible government, it is primarily the concern of the ruler and his people.”Jinnah had taken this position to safeguard the position of Hyderabad Deccan, which was a state the size of Belgium, and had aspirations of independence similar to those of Kashmir. It was alleged that Jinnah lost Kashmir when he refused to trade Kashmir for Hyderabad on Patel’s offer. This is actually hogwash. Jinnah lost Kashmir when he did not mobilise the Pakistan Army against the Maharaja of Kashmir, naively hoping that the Maharaja, who was averse to Nehru even more than he was to Jinnah, would sign a document of accession in Pakistan’s favour following the standstill agreement between the two states and this would leave Hyderabad and India to battle out their own issues. He had thus imagined Kashmir a ripe apple, which would naturally fall in his lap, leaving him to cry foul over Hyderabad legitimately when it logically was taken over by India. Here our hero miscalculated and that miscalculation has cost us dearly.

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 06 Apr 2010 06:44

Two former ISI officers with close ties to Taliban kidnapped.
clicky

Extract: They were on way back to their homes after having a meeting with the Taliban leadership in tribal areas when they were allegedly picked up by unknown people. It is yet not clear who kidnapped them.

However, it is pertinent to mention that both the former ISI officers were having close relations with Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Apr 2010 07:02

Anujan wrote: Most of us underestimate India. We have survived the cold war with our freedom of policy making intact through some deft manipulations. In the meantime CEATO and SENTO not withstanding, we defeated the Pakis 3 times in war. We have our nukes, survived CRE, we have our missles, survived "technology demonstrator onlee Agni 1". Got a nuke deal, which to large extent is okay. I am sure we will survive a few "South Asian Experts". No need for hand wringing and self flagellation.

, Cold war ? were we even a part of it last I checked some romanticist got us involved in some sham by the name NAM and we ended up like trishankoo .

As for the nuke deal India is the world's 7th largest country in terms of area and 2nd in terms of population I see it as a huge market for selling civilian reactors specially when the country in question has mastered and demonstrated capability in both civilian and military spheres , so whats the big deal about the deal ? I only see it as the hypocrites in P-5 realizing the above . Btw these same bozos had formed the NSG cartel to deny India a space in world's civillian nuclear market and not only that Unkil used it as an excuse to deny technology to Indian scientific institutions .

Defeated Pakistan , let us sit and analyze those grandiose victories . What did we gain ? The 1971 conflict which resulted in Bangladesh was fought under a leader who kicked Nixon and Kissinger right between the legs (first and probably the only instance where Unkil was put its sorry place ) , a leader often described as a maximalist and even crazy by the GOTUS at that time and all this despite our not so impressive economy or military might in 70s as compared to today.

And the rot that came to power after her ignored BD to an extent that the country became a hub of anti India activities being controlled by ISI.

Both 65 and 98 conflicts remind me of desperate punches thrown by a injured man in a street fight who just does enough to survive and lets the offender escape to fight another day (and yes I am awaiting for the so called pragmatic folks to come and explain how Unkil would not have allowed India to finish the TSP , but isn't this the point we are pressing i.e. chootiyap@ of Unkil ) . Heck unlike other countries we never made any territorial gains or even make the TSP pay war damages instead every time a toilet paper was signed under Unkil's watchful eye . So what is this victory we yap about ? They to are classic examples from history to show how to not fight a WAR.

mango SDRE still comes with all manner of solutions, including talks, magnanimity, giving territory, assuaging Paki concernes ityadi.

Mango abdul is as weak or as brave as the people at the helm , such BS never crossed mango abdul's mind during IG reign even if it did it did not matter the Aman ki asha or similar tamasha cannot be sustained without GOI's approval .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Apr 2010 07:11

sujoy wrote:Shiv,

I am happy to report that your video has been reinstated, though it had to be made age restricted.

Wow. I am speechless. If you had anything to do with this. Thanks

arun · Post by **arun** » 06 Apr 2010 07:15

hulaku wrote:38 killed at ANP rally as per this report

Not long before the Peshawar blasts, a suicide bomber killed 38 people and wounded scores more at a celebration organised by the leading secular political party in Timargarah, the main town in the district of Lower Dir in northwest of the country.
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaki ... -rmvq.html

The death toll in yesterdays demonstration of the IED Mubarak variant of the IEDology of Pakistan at Timergara in Lower Dir has climbed to 45:

45 die as bomber hits ANP meeting in Timergara

Joseph · Post by **Joseph** » 06 Apr 2010 07:43

A_Gupta wrote:What are US's real options to "pressure India"?

Why would such "pressure" work any better on India that it currently is working on Pakistan?

Seems to me US "pressure on Pakistan" has resulted in squeezing several billion dollars out of the US treasury, some desultory action by Pakistan in FATA, and not much else.

Very curious, why is India seen (by BRFers) as more vulnerable to US pressure than Pakistan?

India should be less vulnerable to US pressure than Pakistan and I don't know why some here think that it is.

Perhaps that Pakistan is deemed as incorrigible while India will be a Goody-Goody to gain acceptance - acclaim - approval from the U.S. The value of acceptance - acclaim - approval from the U.S. is somewhat undetermined.

This brings up a related question.

Why is India seen (by Pakistan) as more vulnerable to US pressure than Pakistan?

Pakistan has gotten much more than India has gotten over the decades from the U.S., yet Pakistanis think that India should be more easily influenced by the U.S. than Pakistan is.

arun · Post by **arun** » 06 Apr 2010 07:47

Brad Goodman wrote:Not sure if this has been posted but I think there are some snippets worth discussing

DAWN http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... awatts-540

From the article linked:

Conversely, Pakistan is severely malnourished in this area and can only produce 19,540MW of electricity with an enormous 3,000MW shortfall. The country’s two nuclear power plants contribute a paltry 245MW to the total production.

By the Planning Commission’s estimate, Pakistan’s energy requirements will rise to 162,590MW in 2030. To run the risk of oversimplification, it can be assumed that a malnourished and economically weak Pakistan may actually be seen as a threat not only to India but to the world at large.

So why not help it in building its energy capability with a hybrid of thermal, hydel, solar, wind and above all nuclear power sources? If 170 million Pakistanis become prosperous by 2025 the space for militancy and non-state actors will be automatically marginalised. Everyone will benefit from such a win-win situation.

For the record the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s electricity shortfall is currently 5200 MW and not 3,000 MW as mentioned in the article:

Power shortfall rises to 5,200 MW

Updated at: 1550 PST, Monday, April 05, 2010

LAHORE: The duration of load shedding has been increased with the increase in power shortfall, which has been reached to 5,200 MW ……………………….

The production is 9,900 MW whereas demand is 15,100 MW …………………………..

The News

Now that the minor detail is out of the way, is it halal for a writer in an Islamic Republic like Pakistan to suggest solutions like nuclear power?

After all there is reportedly an "Islamic Science" solution for solving the Issamic Republic of Pakistan’s energy problems.

That Islamic Science solution is the tapping of Djinn / Jinn / Geneie for energy mooted by the founder of Al Qaeda linked UN designated terrorist outfit UmmahTamir-e-Nau who was also a former senior director of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood (Djinn Energy) .

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 06 Apr 2010 07:47

Acharya wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
Yes, they got diverted by Iraq.
That is too simple. Iraq was stable mode by 2006/2007

No it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq

Maybe 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Iraq
e.g., April 2008

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that Iranian agents and weapons are fueling the ongoing strife there and that further U.S. troop withdrawals will have to wait. Although the last of the additional U.S. combat brigades dispatched in 2007 is scheduled to leave in June 2008, Petraeus said he would recommend against further withdrawals for at least 45 days. Future troop levels be based on conditions on the ground. In the seven months since their last appearance before Congress, U.S. and Iraqi forces made progress toward tamping down the violence but the progress was "fragile" and "reversible."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2010 07:50

A_Gupta wrote:
No it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq

Maybe 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Iraq
e.g., April 2008
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that Iranian agents and weapons are fueling the ongoing strife there and that further U.S. troop withdrawals will have to wait. Although the last of the additional U.S. combat brigades dispatched in 2007 is scheduled to leave in June 2008, Petraeus said he would recommend against further withdrawals for at least 45 days. Future troop levels be based on conditions on the ground. In the seven months since their last appearance before Congress, U.S. and Iraqi forces made progress toward tamping down the violence but the progress was "fragile" and "reversible."

With US a hyperpower with a defence budget of $1T do you want to give excuses. Come on

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2010 08:04

JE Menon wrote:The US wants to use Pakistan for Iran. Pakistan wants to use the US for India. The US also wants to use Pakistan for China very very quietly. Afghanistan happens to be in between. Pakistan wants to be overlord of Afghanistan. The US, Russia, China, India, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan say nothing doing. It's a clusterfvck. What to do onlee?

I mean, seriously guys, do you really seriously think that (a) the US is simply going to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistani management, and (b) all of Afghanistan's neighbours are simply going to sit on their thumbs as a result. Come on. Afghanistan has been a hell-hole for 40 odd years. Generations there do not know any better lifestyle. The Afghans will happily turn Pakistan into the same, and are already working on it.

>>USA wants to have a non-state actor in this region to contain various regional and global players. That is what makes TSPA's hand stronger.

This is a reasonable assumption. Trouble is that the US wants a reliable non-state actor, i.e. it wants a proper principal-agent relationship. This has always been, and will continue to be, the problem with Pakistan. It is not a reliable agent, because it is in its own mind a principal actor in the region with its own interests in neighbouring areas which are often diametrically opposed to those of the US. So the US recognises that Pakistan is only a tactical major non-NATO ally. It has been trying to convert it into a proper strategic ally without much success. But even as a tactical ally, it no doubt makes the TSPA's hand stronger than it otherwise would have been.

JEM saar,

Isn't it a benign thinking?

0. How did we get here? Al-keeda attacks US homeland on 9/11. USA was able to figure out that all the hijakers are from KSA but couldn't figure out that the terror capital is in TSP. Then in the fit of rage USA attacked Iran and Afghanistan. Does it really resemble the capability of a omni-present and omni-potent superpower?

And then the super power allowed TSPA to airlift al-keeda/ISI/Taliban leadership from Afghanistan to TSP and then invades Afghanistan.

The world's sole superpower didn't 'quantitatively' need any help in invading much stronger Iraq. But it somehow felt that only TSPA can solve Afghanistan conundrum. And we need to believe that.

How much of financial help US is putting in Afghanistan's nation building project? How much it is giving to TSP?

Is it really TSP's nuke weapons? Then is N^3 utterly wrong in his analysis that TSP is nuke-nude to start with? If TSPA has nuke weapons and if USA is afraid of them going into Taliban/Al-keeda hands why didn't it use the CRE-logic against TSP?

1. US is in Afpak for Iran and Pak wants to use US against India - Is it really true? Does USA really need Afghanistan to attack Iran? Does it really want to invade Iran and put a puppet govt? Why does it need Iran when it has KSA safely in its pocket? Isnt it a better option to keep Iran boxed in so that its competitors cannot use Iran's resources until KSA is dried up? Can USA have all Shias, Sunnis, and Israel in its control all at the same time?

If USA's leadership, administration, military strategists are dumb enough to be exploited by nut-jobs in TSPA/ISI then how is it wise to ally with such a stupid super power?

2. Let us do a balance sheet. Whose strategic interests USA hurt in the past 40+ years? How do current US actions help Indian strategic interests? Is it in Indias strategic interests to have USA settled in POWI region?

3. Didn't the world powers and Afghanistan's neighbors allow TSPA's sixth-finger the Taliban to rule Afghanistan? Which world power twisted Paki-arms? Didn't TSPA build and test nuke-weapons in this period? Didn't they open the nuclear-walmart at the same time?

+++

Let us assume that USA wants a reliable non-state actor in this region, to control whomever. It has been proved beyond that TSPA (and the society to some extent) will never see Indian in positive light. Then what are India's options?

What I don't get is India's hesitation to shape the events in its neighborhood? In what way it is in India's strategic interests to contribute 10,000 soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions, while staying away from its backyard. Whom does it to impress with this? Pakistan or China? Why cant India contribute, say the same 10,000 soldiers to NE Afghanistan and shape/influence the events from inside the tent?

My bottomline is that India cannot be nice to everyone in this region as its national interests will not be congruent with other players, especially TSPA and its 3.5 parents.

The permanent solution to this is either pacifying TSPA on one or the other pretext or resign to its fate. Sitting on thumbs is not statesmanship even after what happened in the past 20 years in Indian subcontinent. Before you ask this is what happened in the sub-continent in past 20 years.

- Afghanistan is Talibanized
- Pakistan became a nuclear power
- Raise and demice of Khalistani Terror
- Raise of JK Terror
- Raise of Islamic terror in India-proper
- Nepal getting out of Indian influence
- Bangladesh out Indian influence and harboring anti-India elements

just my humble thoughts...

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 06 Apr 2010 08:09

Joseph wrote:
This brings up a related question.

Why is India seen (by Pakistan) as more vulnerable to US pressure than Pakistan?

You sir are a genius.

Pakistan knows that they have USA by the balls with this so called "War on Terror."

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2010 08:24

If Massa is so weak to get tangled in Af-Pak then his strategic value for India diminishes significantly. I am not talking in terms of economies, but in terms of Indian national interests. Unkil cannot help India in achieving its national interests be it POK or POWI or afghanistan or Myanmar or Nepal or BDland or you name it.

He becomes another nuicense to India. And it is not new to India as that is the story for the past 60 years.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2010 08:27

ramana wrote:All this is nice but what are India's options?

Get into the tent somehow. India cannot fight this from outside.

It will be painful and will be costly. But national interests do not come cheap. India should mentally put aside $10-$15B aside for this initiative in next 5 years. Things get ugly before the problem is solved to India's satisfaction.

If India is a true bania nation then it makes others pay to achieve its objectives.