Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): July 07, 2010

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Jul 2010 11:33

chaanakya wrote:I do not want to visit India for a leisure trip

I wonder if US, India's WKKs, and MMS pay attention to this. It doesn't get any more brazen than this. Basically TSP wants to cash the Mumbai & terror check. From "moral & diplomatic" support only, its a brazen challenge to India to give them what they want or else.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2010 11:36

abhishek_sharma wrote:Kanwar Sibal was very reasonable last night on NDTV. I thought he was a WKK.

Nope, he never was a WKK. All his articles so far are very balanced.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 11:39

Muppalla wrote:The chanikyan one: MMS orchestrated the whole thing step-by-step to kill two birds. One to talk to keep the international comunity in good humor and two to keep the talks focussed on terror onlee.

The amatuerish one (as defined by BR beeshmapitahmahs): there are clear divisions in the GOI. The hawkish folks ensured that MMS and EAM does not go beyond the mandate.

Your point is because it is the considered opinion of some posters here that the GoI in general and the UPA in particular is run by a bunch of amateurs.

It needs to be noted that when we talk about different camps within GoI/UPA - one so-called Nationalist and the other not Nationalist (actually the logical thing to do is say anti-National but that would hurt the sensibilities of some folks who are making these categorisations) - we in a way are giving a left-handed compliment to that jerk Qureshi.

Isn't this exactly what the Pukes have been saying all the way from Agra to this latest meeting? That the PM in power was all for Paapi Jhappi but the hardliners (their definition for Nationalists) are preventing everlasting peace under Paki domination?

Another point: the UPA has been in power with #*#* (add your expletive here) MMS as PM for quite a number of years. Can someone please tell me just exactly what territory/demand has been conceded to the Pakis?

We had heard about the despicable "concession" on Baluchistan some time ago which would come and haunt us. I think our FM's comment during the press conference and Qureshi's silence and the articles which appeared in the Paki press the next day on Qureshi's silence (all linked on this thread) is a good commentary on the Baluchi "concession" by India.

JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 11:56

CRamS wrote:
chaanakya wrote:I do not want to visit India for a leisure trip
I wonder if US, India's WKKs, and MMS pay attention to this. It doesn't get any more brazen than this. Basically TSP wants to cash the Mumbai & terror check. From "moral & diplomatic" support only, its a brazen challenge to India to give them what they want or else.

CRS,

Can you expand on why you think this to be a brazen challenge or threat to us that we should be quaking in our dhotis?

If the Pakis call of the talks, doesn't that play exactly into India's hands?

The next time the International community (read the US of A) nudges India on talks, it will be pointed out that:
a) the Pakis broke off talks; and
b) they are not moving at all on the terror front.

Do you suppose then the US of A will "arm-twist" India into sending its FM again to Islamabad?

But let me make a prediction: Quershi will be coming to Delhi where he will wear his TFTA suits, talk like fool, be belligerent and go back empty-handed. All the while his dhoti-wearing SDRE hosts will be having a quite laugh over the whole "Tamasha".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 12:22

There is one simple way of characterizing the actions of India, Pakistan and the US which obviates the need for any deep analysis

1) If India does it, it is an action of weakness, treachery and stupidity designed to send india deeper into doodoo with the eventual occupation of India by Pakistan and/or China

2) if Pakistan does it - it is a brazen and confident indicator of their power over both the US and India for which India will have no answer

3) What the US does is a master stroke of self interest - cold warriors who defeated the USSR finding no difficulty in sidestepping and wrong footing the guileless and/or treacherous Indians even as they treat Pakistan with the contempt that it deserves but know that weak and pathetic India will never be able to match.

This would make it a lot simpler for Indians to decide which side they should bet on.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 13:05

Not continuing the talks is not the challenge. Who wants to talk to the Pakis ? The challenge is that if we don't accept their demands, they will not punish Hafiz Sayed and the terrorist acts would continue.

Mahesh_R · Post by **Mahesh_R** » 18 Jul 2010 13:44

abhishek_sharma wrote:Not continuing the talks is not the challenge. Who wants to talk to the Pakis ? The challenge is that if we don't accept their demands, they will not punish Hafiz Sayed and the terrorist acts would continue.

I personally do not agree to this point...even if India agrees to each and every demand..they will not even touch Hafiz....that will become bargaining tool for them to blackmail and get what ever they want..

India should first send the message...First ACT then get the reward...hope our leaders think before they act....

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 18 Jul 2010 13:52

the long and short of it being that india murt find a way of keeping puki terror under relative control and beyond that , nothing.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Jul 2010 13:54

X Posted.

Iran tightens the screws on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for fomenting terrorism. The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani :

Pakistan must be held accountable for evil people presence: Larijani

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Jul 2010 14:33

putnanja wrote: Nope, he never was a WKK. All his articles so far are very balanced.

Kanwal Sibal is always supposed to have been one of the most hawkish FS of India ( Hawkish = in WKK terms. Not BR terms)..

Btw, does anyone know the attitude of Rajmata towards Pak since that is the final opinion which will decide how INC/UPA-II behaves towards Pak? Rahul-baba has once been quoted as saying "Pak is just anohter country and we shouldn't care too much about it" which is reassuring but what does Rajmata feel about Pak and Indian approach to Pak?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 14:36

The Congress party (read Rajmata) did not like S-e-S. The PM had to plead for their support. So that is good news as well.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 18 Jul 2010 14:40

Number of gilanis and headleys from Pak drop by nearly half

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 182411.cms

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Jul 2010 14:57

Furious backpedaling ( a.k.a downhill skiing in BR) :
Never said Krishna was always on phone: Qureshi

After making carping comments on his talks with S M Krishna [ Images ], Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said he never stated that his Indian counterpart was on the phone with New Delhi [ Images ] during their parleys on Thursday.

He, however, claimed that other members of the Indian delegation were receiving instructions on phone from New Delhi throughout the parleys.

"I never said Krishna himself was making calls (to New Delhi)," Qureshi told reporters at the Foreign Office last night after addressing a joint news conference with visiting British Minister Sayeeda Warsi.

The Pakistan foreign minister was responding to a question on the war of words that erupted between him and Krishna in the wake of the talks on July 15 during which sharp differences arose over a roadmap and timeframe for future engagements.

Qureshi contended that whenever he and Krishna agreed on any issue during their talks here on Thursday, a member of the Indian delegation would leave the room to confer with New Delhi and seek instructions.

The Indian delegate, who left the room, would then return and convey a message to Krishna, he said.

The Indian side would then say that the matter that had been raised was outside their "restricted mandate," Qureshi said.

The Pakistan foreign minister said there were about 15 to 20 people in the room where the talks were being held and they could vouch for his comments.

Qureshi further said that he and Krishna had "agreed on many issues" during informal talks over dinner the night before their parleys.

However, things changed during the formal talks on July 15, he said.

Am starting to feel tat some of the BR members may have been right about current GoI stratergy being about giving Pak a small rope which Pak will gladly use and hang itself before India has even handed it over fully.

The Qureshi spectacle will turn even more aam-aadmi away from Pak and any residual sympathy remaining for them...

Even uber-WKK Sheela Bhatt seemed to have sensed the direction of the wind ( had posted link for the article quoted below some posts back) :

Maybe that's why, even after Qureshi's diatribe, India said the talks had not collapsed. 'There are differences in perception but the gap is not unbridgeable,' Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao [ Images ] said on arrival in India. 'In diplomacy, as in life, such ups and downs are common.'

The biggest loss is that political support within India to carry on peace talks with Pakistan has been eroded.

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Jul 2010 15:03

From orbat:

*

Because Indians and Pakistanis are so obsessed with Kashmir and understandably because it has defined their relationship since Independence, it occurs to neither that the rest of the world generally has no clue as to what is the problem between the two states.
*

The background is simple. When the British decided to leave India, they ruled much of the county directly, but there were 600+ kingdoms that swore fealty to the British but were in theory independent. If a kingdom was entirely inside proposed Pakistan or proposed India, it had no choice which country it was to join. Thus, Hyderabad, the largest princely state, wanted to be independent. So did Baluchistan in western Pakistan. Just as Hyderabad did not get to be independent, neither did Baluchistan, because they were entirely within one or the other country.
*

The only princely states that had a choice were those on the border: they could join whom they wanted. It was not a democratic choice because these were not democratic kingdoms. It was to be purely up to the prince or king to decide which side to join. Kashmir was such a state.
*

Kashmir wanted to be independent, but was firmly told this was against the rules: join Pakistan or join India, that is your only choice. When Independence as declared, the ruler of Kashmir, a Hindu, had not decided and was cunningly - so he thought - negotiating with both countries for maximum concessions to join one or the other.
*

Pakistan, for whatever reason, assumed that Kashmir was promised to it - the K in Pakistan stands for Kashmir - in the basis it was a Muslim majority state. This one wrong belief is the basis of the trouble.
*

When Pakistan saw that the Hindu maharaja was leaning to India, it forced the issue by sending in armed tribals plus regulars, to seize Kashmir. The maharaja panicked, and asked for Indian troops. Nehru said he could do that only if Kashmir acceded to the Union of India - and he was legally right in his stand. So, with the raiders at the gates of Srinager, the Maharaja signed for India, and the rest is history.
*

We need to first discuss two Pakistani claims. The first is that the Maharaja did not sign, that the document is a fake. It is not, he did sign. The reason it took time for him to sign is that Nehru told the king he was morally an illegitimate king and while India would sign, it had to be the will of the Kashmiri people. And the will was represented by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim, the most popular politician in Kashmir, and who the king had put in the slammer. India made it clear that before India signed, Abdullah had to be freed and had to agree to the accession. Also, once the King signed, it was bye-bye kingy. Kingy would have his privvy purse, and his honors, but he would just another citizen of India.
*

Kingy was understandably freaked out, and kept delaying the signing. That is why the agreement took so long to sign.
*

The second Pakistan claim is that in the kingdom of Junagarh, a Muslim king ruled a Hindu majority - mirror image of Kashmir. The King's subjects begged for Indian intervention when the king decided for Pakistan. Saying a Hindu majority could not be ruled by an Muslim, India annexed Junagarh.
*

The Pakistanis say it is only after this outrage and breach of the independence agreement that they invaded Kashmir. This may be, but they would have invaded regardless, because as far as Pakistan was concerned, Kashmir was destined to be part of Pakistan.
*

India ended up with 2/3rds of Kashmir, Pakistan with 1/3rd, when the ceasefire was called for 31 December 1948. How, why and when Nehru agreed to the ceasefire is a long story which need not detain us here. All we need to known at this stage is that there was no military resolution on the ground, and both sides were left holding parts of Kashmir while claiming the whole.
*

India had the legal right of it, Pakistan had a moral case. Except: and this is a kicker. Pakistan allowed its Northern Areas no choice. They seceded from Kashmir on Independence, and were annexed by force. This kind of undercuts Pakistan's moral stand that when it invaded, it was at the invitation and will of the people.
*

Another complication: we know from history that Pakistan saw itself as a theocratic state and homeland for Muslims, in which no non-Muslims had any role. The non-Muslims, who had lived in the Kashmir for millennia before the Muslim kings came, would have been expelled - as happened with the minorities of Pakistan. This kind of blots the Pakistan claim of moral superiority. Still further, only approved Muslims had the right to live as free citizens equal under the law in Pakistan.
*

In due time another Pakistan claim fell by the wayside. This was that Pakistan was the natural homeland for the sub-continent's Muslims. East Bengal did not think so, and seceded in 1971 - both halves had about half each of the population, so East Bengal's departure kind of shot the natural homeland theory to bits.
*

Please understand we are not putting down Pakistan Editor expressly concedes that regardless of the legalities, which are clearly in India's favor, Pakistan had a moral claim to Kashmir. But by its own actions starting in 1947, it forfeited that claim. You cannot keep moral superiority when Pakistani Muslims of one ethnic group or another sect different from the ruling elite are declared children of a lesser God, as for example the Northern Kashmiris were, followed by the Bengal Pakistanis who seem to have been in an actual majority in Pakistan.
*

We will discuss events from 1948 in a different post. For now, readers need to keep only this in mind. If India lets Kashmir go simply because it is Muslim majority, the very existence of India as a secular state is undermined and you are paving the way for the destruction of India. There are many Muslim-majority nations that could be carved from India - just as there are Sikh majority regions, Naga majority regions, etc etc, to say nothing of the tribals of India and the outcastes of India and so on. Americans have been through this with their own civil war, and they are going to go through it as Hispanics gradually become the majority in America, So, Editor always tells Americans: you want India to let Kashmir go, then you please be prepared to say the civil war was wrong and the south had a right to secede, and you must let the Indian nations secede if that is they want, and if tomorrow Hispanic majorities in southern California, the South West, and Florida decide they want to be independent states, you're going to have to let them. If you insist the US is one nation - under God no less - then please don't lecture the Indians about letting Kashmir go. because India too is one nation under the Constitution. God is not invoked because Indians have many goods, best to avoid complication by leaving the Old Boy out of things.
*

Now turn to Pakistan. If Pakistan concedes that a Muslim majority in a given geographical area can live in India, the entire rationale for Partition collapses. The rationale was Muslims will never get a fair shake in Hindu India so they need their own country. So Pakistan also cannot afford to let Kashmir go.
*

So you have a zero-sum game, for stakes that involve the survival of the two nations. That is why to say the two nations are being silly and the problem is so easily solved is to fail to understand the real situation: it's about a lot more than Kashmir, and if one side wins, the other loses.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 16:01

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Congress party (read Rajmata) did not like S-e-S. The PM had to plead for their support. So that is good news as well.

Boss,

No offence but I hope you realise when you say something like this, you imply that there are two camps within the Congress Party. Couldn't it be SES was a Congress attempt to "think out of the box" which went horribly wrong?

How can you blame MMS for the fiasco and not the "Rajmata"?

Why is the most logical explanation the hardest one to accept? That is, the Congress party, after badly burning its fingers over SES, has wised up and has now formulated a much more nuanced policy towards the Pukes and it seems to paying dividends.

Nobody can accuse India of being unreasonable. It goes to talks and allows idiots like Qureshi to stomp around but ensures that focus remains on terrorism.

And in the meanwhile, Pakis remain busy doing what they do the best - kill each other. Let's have this going on for another five years. It should be fun to see what emerges out of the mess.

As regards terror attacks much as it pains me to say this, it's going to happen as long as demented sod across the border are willing to blow themselves up. Even Israel with its zero tolerance have not bee able to completely eliminate terror attacks.

What we need to do, is stem the criminal negligence to internal security and beef up intelligence gathering, training and equipment levels of our forces.

I have a bad feeling it is going to get worse before it gets better. As India pulls away the Pukes are going to get even more desperate.

JMT

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:14

amit wrote:
No offence but I hope you realise when you say something like this, you imply that there are two camps within the Congress Party. Couldn't it be SES was a Congress attempt to "think out of the box" which went horribly wrong?

Actually 'The Telegraph' (i.e. Pranab Mukherjee leaked the info) reported that the joint statement was very different from
what the Cabinet agreed before the PM left for Egypt.

After the PM backtracked, then Pranab Mukherjee defended him in the Parliament.

When a reported asked the Congress Party about S-e-S, the Cong spokesman said "Ask the govt."

amit wrote:
How can you blame MMS for the fiasco and not the "Rajmata"?

I have no great love for Sonia Gandhi. For example, I do not like her views w.r.t. the Maoist problem.

amit wrote:

Why is the most logical explanation the hardest one to accept? That is, the Congress party, after badly burning its fingers over SES, has wised up and has now formulated a much more nuanced policy towards the Pukes and it seems to paying dividends.

It is my understanding that only the PM and the NSA are behind this soft-policy. People like Pranab Mukherjee, MKN, and PC are against it.

amit wrote:

Nobody can accuse India of being unreasonable. It goes to talks and allows idiots like Qureshi to stomp around but ensures that focus remains on terrorism.

And in the meanwhile, Pakis remain busy doing what they do the best - kill each other. Let's have this going on for another five years. It should be fun to see what emerges out of the mess.

As regards terror attacks much as it pains me to say this, it's going to happen as long as demented sod across the border are willing to blow themselves up. Even Israel with its zero tolerance have not bee able to completely eliminate terror attacks.

What we need to do, is stem the criminal negligence to internal security and beef up intelligence gathering, training and equipment levels of our forces.

I have a bad feeling it is going to get worse before it gets better. As India pulls away the Pukes are going to get even more desperate.

JMT

I agree.

Moderators, sorry if this discussion is not relevant here.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:18

Indo-Pak talks shouldn't be judged as 2+2=4: Rehman Malik

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 183743.cms

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 16:18

abhishek_sharma wrote:It is my understanding that only the PM and the NSA are behind this soft-policy. People like Pranab Mukherjee, MKN, and PC are against it.

It is precisely because of this kind of "understanding" I wrote this a few posts above this one:

It needs to be noted that when we talk about different camps within GoI/UPA - one so-called Nationalist and the other not Nationalist (actually the logical thing to do is say anti-National but that would hurt the sensibilities of some folks who are making these categorisations) - we in a way are giving a left-handed compliment to that jerk Qureshi.

Isn't this exactly what the Pukes have been saying all the way from Agra to this latest meeting? That the PM in power was all for Paapi Jhappi but the hardliners (their definition for Nationalists) are preventing everlasting peace under Paki domination?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:26

The understanding is not based on insipid feelings. For example, before retirement from MEA, Mr. Menon angrily argued that MKN was not allowing him to improve relations with Pakistan.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 18 Jul 2010 16:28

abhishek_sharma wrote:Indo-Pak talks shouldn't be judged as 2+2=4: Rehman Malik

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 183743.cms

Check his degree as well.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:34

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100123/j ... 018945.jsp

Singh, who tends to lapse into moods at the slightest of setbacks, was upset that he was not getting the political backing from the Congress he had hoped for after Sharm-el-Sheikh.

At this meeting, the normally unflappable Menon let fly his frustrations and disappointments during the two years and 10 months that he had been foreign secretary, according to a cabinet minister and a senior bureaucrat who attended that meeting.

Menon’s primary target at that meeting was Narayanan, who was opposed to the Sharm-el-Sheikh initiative, notwithstanding the very cordial relationship the two men have shared for many years.

As a life-long intelligence official, he could not countenance the idea that India would delink action against terrorism from the so-called composite dialogue process with Pakistan or concede an inch on Islamabad’s allegations of Delhi’s role in Balochistan.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:38

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090826/j ... 410105.jsp

The outlines of the joint statement, as proposed by Gilani to Menon and Pakistan’s foreign secretary Salman Bashir, were at odds with a draft that Menon had carried with him from New Delhi, according to those familiar with that draft.

Unfortunately for Singh, he does not have many supporters of any such strategy, at least as of now, with even some members of his cabinet harbouring reservations about any such plan.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090723/j ... 271011.jsp

Sonia met Pranab Mukherjee and A.K. Antony, the finance and defence ministers, and her political secretary Ahmed Patel this morning to gauge whether the two issues would have a “political fallout” and whether they were as “detrimental” to India as some foreign policy experts and journalists had argued.

Sources said concern was expressed at reports of how the Congress was “upset” with the documents, and it was decided the party would counter the perception. Sonia, Patel, Mukherjee, Antony and home minister P. Chidambaram are to meet Manmohan Singh to carry the discussions forward.

Sources said the draft cleared by the cabinet committee on security bore no resemblance to the final version.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 16:42

abhishek_sharma wrote:The understanding is not based on insipid feelings. For example, before retirement from MEA, Mr. Menon angrily argued that MKN was not allowing him to improve relations with Pakistan.

Is there a cite - a report or a newspaper clipping that says this?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 Jul 2010 16:43

I posted some links a few minutes ago.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 16:44

So unnamed source/speculation all equate to there being two camps within the GoI?

You know what? I'm now beginning to think Qureshi isn't such a fool, he was just playing the moderates (anti nationalists) against the hardliners (nationalists). If hardcore BRFites think there are two camps why blame the poor f#*#?

Anyway I have no problems if you think there are two camps within in GoI.

But it would be interesting to know if you think in this latest round of "talks" whether India was about to make some "concessions" but was scuppered via the "nationalists" via Pillai.

After all if there were to camps during SES, the same two camps exist now, nobody has been removed or has moved on right?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 16:46

Anyone who saw that insincere moron Qureshi talking while 26/11 was ending will know that he is a good actor who is capable of appearing like he is a very sincere fellow who is very upset with someone else.

He is not a person to be taken seriously. I can never forget the sheepish grin he had while he tangled his tufts with Hillary Clinton and claimed he was "very satisfied" with the strategic dialog that got him nothing. He is a piece of dog turd.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 16:52

shiv wrote:He is not a person to be taken seriously.

Shiv,

Unfortunately we are giving credence to his comment that our FM did not have the mandate for the talks.

Ever since Agra the Pakistanis have been trying to play out to the world that the GoI of the day is divided between the moderates (our definition: people who will sell out) and hardliners (our definition: the true Nationalist who are fighting with their backs to the wall).

Considering that this narrative has become a part of BRF as well, I hate to say it but the Pakis have been very successful. I'm sure they sell the same line to their Amir Khan masters.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 18 Jul 2010 16:54

^^^^
And what is that going to achieve ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 16:59

shiv wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:The understanding is not based on insipid feelings. For example, before retirement from MEA, Mr. Menon angrily argued that MKN was not allowing him to improve relations with Pakistan.
Is there a cite - a report or a newspaper clipping that says this?

abhishek_sharma wrote:I posted some links a few minutes ago.

Two of the links say nothing on the issue.

One of the links says:

Menon asked Narayanan what option he had on Pakistan, other than keeping the channels of communication open and resuming the dialogue. He accused Narayanan of dragging his feet on the border dispute with China, a subject which the national security adviser was directly in charge of.

A China expert whose childhood was spent in a school in Tibet, Menon implied that Narayanan’s fear of shadows from his days in the Intelligence Bureau was contributing to unfounded suspicions about China and taking Sino-Indian relations downhill.

It was clear from the outgoing foreign secretary’s litany of complaints that Indian foreign policy could not continue the way it was plodding along.

Menon painted a picture of stagnation in dealings with the neighbourhood and the Prime Minister realised that the foreign secretary was talking precisely about the problems that had stymied his initiatives, making it impossible to create a legacy based on his foreign policy vision.

This was the moment Singh made up his mind that Menon had to be brought in at an opportune moment as national security adviser.

I do not see any sign of the statement:

abhishek_sharma wrote:The understanding is not based on insipid feelings. For example, before retirement from MEA, Mr. Menon angrily argued that MKN was not allowing him to improve relations with Pakistan.

There is no sign of Menon arguing about "improving relations". The meaning is compeletely different as far as I can see from the links provided.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 18 Jul 2010 17:00

MKN and Shyam Saran have had to leave jabki sri SSM has been given kind extensions.

I can understand some here pooh-pooing the views of some rather hawkish brfites.

But really, its not as if woolly-headedness on part of our top leadership has not costed us tremendously in the past. Sure past is no perfect guide to the future but its not as if its no guide at all.

Two instances that readily come to mind are the dismantling of our intell assets within TSP by pak-born uber WKK Sri IKG and before that, of handing over BD on a platter to Ershad and his jihadist cronies by that literal believer in the venerated piss process - sri morarji desai.

Again, there being differences of opinion (camps?) between ministries and within as diverse and large a body as goi is not unfathomable or even, unhealthy.

Sure, jingo dreams are often way divorced from reality. So occasional jhatka therapy does help. We watch silently, not so much due to ignorance or lack of will but lack of ability, as the dlagon encircles us with influence - from nepal to sri lanka to BD to burma, proliferates recklessly to tsp (justifiably?) expecting no repercussions, whole world notices as tsp slaps our dossiers and panjandrums around and so on. Its not that goi is unaware or maybe even unwilling but ore that it is unable.

Hence, I keep looking out for hopeful signs that some critical threshold in ability (or provocation?) will be reached after which some basic assertiveness on part of Dilli in protecting national interest, with force if necessary, may come about.

Again, just me and std disclaimers abound.

/Nice day, all.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 17:01

satyam wrote:^^^^
And what is that going to achieve ?

That is going to achieve absolutely nothing.

But that's not the point.

The point is the Pakis have been able to dictate how we perceive our Government is divided into two camps.

That's what they said after Agra. And that is what is implied when Qureshi says our FM did not have the mandate.

Why can't we accept that SES was a fiasco committed by the INC and not just by the PM and his NSA. And that after that the INC has probably grown wiser and now is more circumspect in its dealing with Pakistan.

Why do we have to do a salami slicing within the INC into Nationalists and Anti-nationalists and yet at the same time say the Rajmata's word is final?

If her word is final then how the hell do we have two camps?

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 18 Jul 2010 17:02

satyam wrote:^^^^
And what is that going to achieve ?

I think that is helpful because it adds to the chaos. Much more easy to do chai biskoot. "Gee.. we tried talking but these damn nationalists onree".

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 18 Jul 2010 17:04

@Amit:

This may be our version of non-state actors

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jul 2010 17:06

abhishek_sharma wrote: The challenge is that if we don't accept their demands, they will not punish Hafiz Sayed and the terrorist acts would continue.

Abhishek, but what are their 'demands' that we need to accept ? That India has a hand in Balochistan's terrorism as S-e-S implied ? That India is stealing the waters of the three Western rivers ?

Besides, Pakistan Army is presently restructuring its jihadi outfits. As it invariably happens, not every Punjabi Taliban group is like Prof. Hafeez Saeed who is manageable 99% of the time by the PA. JeM is a close second to LeT in that respect. Others are far more difficult, have always been so. It is PA's attempt now either to purge these difficult elements or chastise them and bring them back under control. With a friendly Taliban-dominating government that is waiting to be installed in Afghanistan, and with the exit of the USA save for a small presence to ensure that the situation did not get out of hand like before, PA dreams that it will be able to regain control of the tanzeems once again as it was before. In the meanwhile, Pakistan knows that the US can only go thus far and no further pushing Pakistan around as it needs Pakistan's support in its exit from Afghanistan. The IMF loans, which continue to flow despite Pakistan being unable to meet the expectations, and the continuous flow of arms from the US have emboldened the State.

So, it is biding for time. It sees absolutely no hurry to go ahead with talks. In fact, the more they are delayed, the better for Pakistan. By linking S-e-S blundered Balochistan and the water issue as equally serious like 26/11 and by not giving any evidence on Balochistan but by continuing to harp on it and by constantly branding India as a 'water thief', Pakistan is having enough ammunition to retaliate and cause a deadlock at present. If these are resolved and if somehow Pakistan is nudged to talks once again by the invisible hand that is choreographing the dance, Pakistan is capable of inventing a few more reasons.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 17:08

amit wrote:
Unfortunately we are giving credence to his comment that our FM did not have the mandate for the talks.

Ever since Agra the Pakistanis have been trying to play out to the world that the GoI of the day is divided between the moderates (our definition: people who will sell out) and hardliners (our definition: the true Nationalist who are fighting with their backs to the wall).

Considering that this narrative has become a part of BRF as well, I hate to say it but the Pakis have been very successful. I'm sure they sell the same line to their Amir Khan masters.

In fact it matters little whether the government is divided or not divided. That is an internal matter for the GoI not an excuse for the Pakistanis. The talks are being held not for agreement, but for putting across a point of view while we appear not to have given up the option of talks.

Why are the appearance of talks important? The appearance of talks is to make Pakistanis less able to give the excuse that India is threatening them so that they can keep on pointing at the India threat and fail to act against the Taliban or the anti-India terror groups based on that excuse. The "India threat" is important for the Paki army. When India is talking (as opposed to sanctions or chilling relations or mobilizing troops) it becomes next to impossible for the Pakistanis to talk of an "India threat"

For that reason they have to cook up a non existent problem to allege that India does not have its "heart" behind the talks and that the hardliners are stopping them. The fact of course is that the Pakistani army faces a very dicey situation if it cannot cite the India threat.
Let us see how long this tamasha can continue..

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 17:10

Hari Seldon wrote:But really, its not as if woolly-headedness on part of our top leadership has not costed us tremendously in the past. Sure past is no perfect guide to the future but its not as if its no guide at all.

Hari ji,

Nobody, at least not me, is arguing against this point. Even the most manly of all our PMs, Indira Gandhi, showed remarkable woolly-headedness during Simla where she all but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But my point is this idea that one section of the GoI led by our dear PM is forever scheming to gift away Kashmir, water and just about everything under the sun to the Pakis and are being prevent by valiant efforts of a small section of desh bhakts doesn't add up. Especially when in the same breadth folks say the Rajmata is the final word on everything because the dear PM is a place holder; is a bumbling bureaucrat; vagera vagera.

if there's a screw up, like SES it is the fault of the entire leadership of INC. And if the strategy works very well, thank you, like the present case (of course IMVVVHO), then we should doff our hats to the entire INC leadership instead of speculating who save the day yet again.

JMT

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 17:10

satyam wrote:@Amit:

This may be our version of non-state actors

I get your point.

satyam · Post by **satyam** » 18 Jul 2010 17:11

^^^^
I think it will be better if US pulls out. AID money will stop.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2010 17:13

amit wrote:
satyam wrote:^^^^
And what is that going to achieve ?
That is going to achieve absolutely nothing.

But that's not the point.

The point is the Pakis have been able to dictate how we perceive our Government is divided into two camps.

They have to say that. It is a lame excuse. It hardly matters. Any fool who has led anything will know that internal debate and disagreement are common. Wanting consensus from the other side or claiming absence of consensus is a ridiculous excuse and everyone knows that it is merely an excuse. It just happens to be the latest excuse to blame India. What matters is what happens at the talks - not what people are thinking privately or accused of thinking privately.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Jul 2010 17:14

shiv wrote:For that reason they have to cook up a non existent problem to allege that India does not have its "heart" behind the talks and that the hardliners are stopping them. The fact of course is that the Pakistani army faces a very dicey situation if it cannot cite the India threat.
Let us see how long this tamasha can continue..

Shiv,

Agree 400 per cent.

In fact I made some similar observations a few posts ago.