Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Aug 05, 2011

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Sep 2011 09:03

I am beginning to believe that the only Kashmir solution MMS wants is secession. There has been not one nationalist move by this government where Indian territory is concerned.
That brings us to a bigger question - who is MMS working for?

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Sep 2011 09:06

From cable on Headley:

In December 2009, national security adviser M K Narayanan had told then US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer that New Delhi's demand for extraditing Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley was mere posturing to mislead the Indian public, and the government was not seeking his extradition "at this time

I believe the same holds for our Pak policy wherein all the hot air from time to time is for public consumption only( which some sections of BRF buys as Chankianess at work) whereas the powers that be are actually itching to make love with Pak and be a "good/kind/considerate big brother", for reasons best known to them.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 04 Sep 2011 09:22

And to think BRFites, the so-called more enlightened and security conscious amongst the rest, were only a few days ago openly dancing in joy on MMS's purported chankianess. How much more would it take for people to get it into their skulls that INC and UPA is filled with traitors? Anybody who praises these scum is a traitor.

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 04 Sep 2011 09:32

Military threats will bind Pakistan and China together.
By Brig. Shaukat Qadir.
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalco ... a-together

This year Pakistan has held three joint military training exercises with China. Two of them were in the Chinese province of Xinjiang, but the one this month was a new development. A brigade-level exercise was conducted in Pakistan's portion of the Rajasthan desert, barely 25 kilometres from the border near the Indian town of Jaisalmer, where the Indian lines of communication to the south are very vulnerable

can some one tell, me how our communication lines to south are vulnerable in jaisalmer sector?

Although Chinese participation was limited to an engineering regiment, the first known joint manoeuvre near the Indian border demonstrated Beijing's role in this balance of power. This was the first show of joint operational readiness inside Pakistan, but there are already Chinese soldiers in Gilgit in the north, working on the Karakorum Highway. Economic and development cooperation has a long track record.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Sep 2011 09:33

derkonig wrote:And to think BRFites, the so-called more enlightened and security conscious amongst the rest, were only a few days ago openly dancing in joy on MMS's purported chankianess. How much more would it take for people to get it into their skulls that INC and UPA is filled with traitors? Anybody who praises these scum is a traitor.

Did'nt MMS have links with that ISI funded failed bank?

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 04 Sep 2011 09:40

derkonig wrote:And to think BRFites, the so-called more enlightened and security conscious amongst the rest, were only a few days ago openly dancing in joy on MMS's purported chankianess. How much more would it take for people to get it into their skulls that INC and UPA is filled with traitors? Anybody who praises these scum is a traitor.

It was just an error of judgement on their part. One of the problem with us BRFITES is that we over analyse.
We try to search hidden meaning where none exists. The BRFITES who supported MMS were in fact victims of their own tremendous intellect. It has happened to me even. Though not in the case of MMS.

I ll quote Albus Dumbledore from one of Harry Potter's novels.

"In fact, being - forgive me - rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."

Most IIT-B alumni I know are clearly enraged. Even most current students are. Not many are keen to participate in the aman ka tamaasha . There is pressure from government .
Those who take the WKK path are unaware of PAKI'S due to their lack of knowledge . But they are the minority.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 04 Sep 2011 09:44

^^^
Of what use is this tremendous "intellect" if it fails to see the obvious? In fact lets not attribute any intellect to anyone who doesn't detest this govt. BRF has to move from being just another forum into one that truly disseminates nationalist thought and that starts with open criticism of the traitors in power. Let there be no one on this forum ever again who supports the INC.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 04 Sep 2011 09:45

Jarita wrote:I am beginning to believe that the only Kashmir solution MMS wants is secession. There has been not one nationalist move by this government where Indian territory is concerned.
That brings us to a bigger question - who is MMS working for?

I have been saying this for a while, and there is no conspiracy as such. MMS is an ideolouge. His pre-dilection is "South Asian". He does not have the primacy of India in mind, because that would mean the primacy of Hindus. What he wants at heart is a "South Asian" federation of states. And in this it may be a mere coincidence that he shares this vision with US. And I agree 100% that he advocates secession for Kashmir, but he is also slimy in that he knows many Indians around him won't agree to that, and hence he will negotiate some crap like pre-1953 borders, "borders are irrelevant" etc, so he can claim that there is no secession and J&K is still "part of India".

If you ask me, we are barking up the wrong tree in blaming MMS or finding fault with him for Kashmir slowly but surely slipping away from the Indian union (and thereafter India as well). He is living up to his vision. The real loosers are the Indian people who have installed someone like MMS as their a PM. And they deserve what they get.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 04 Sep 2011 09:46

Jarita wrote:
derkonig wrote:And to think BRFites, the so-called more enlightened and security conscious amongst the rest, were only a few days ago openly dancing in joy on MMS's purported chankianess. How much more would it take for people to get it into their skulls that INC and UPA is filled with traitors? Anybody who praises these scum is a traitor.

Did'nt MMS have links with that ISI funded failed bank?

Yes, that BCCI bank.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Sep 2011 09:46

gakakkad wrote:
derkonig wrote:And to think BRFites, the so-called more enlightened and security conscious amongst the rest, were only a few days ago openly dancing in joy on MMS's purported chankianess. How much more would it take for people to get it into their skulls that INC and UPA is filled with traitors? Anybody who praises these scum is a traitor.

It was just an error of judgement on their part. One of the problem with us BRFITES is that we over analyse.
We try to search hidden meaning where none exists. The BRFITES who supported MMS were in fact victims of their own tremendous intellect. It has happened to me even. Though not in the case of MMS.

I ll quote Albus Dumbledore from one of Harry Potter's novels.

"In fact, being - forgive me - rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."

Most IIT-B alumni I know are clearly enraged. Even most current students are. Not many are keen to participate in the aman ka tamaasha . There is pressure from government .
Those who take the WKK path are unaware of PAKI'S due to their lack of knowledge . But they are the minority.

Error of judgement

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Sep 2011 09:49

MMS said that we and TSP share a common destiny ; assuming he was speaking for himself I sincerely hope that lord Mahakal fulfills his wish. Who are we to deny anyone what he wishes for.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 04 Sep 2011 10:09

Of what use is this tremendous "intellect" if it fails to see the obvious? In fact lets not attribute any intellect to anyone who doesn't detest this govt. BRF has to move from being just another forum into one that truly disseminates nationalist thought and that starts with open criticism of the traitors in power. Let there be no one on this forum ever again who supports the INC.

One of the problems with Indian's is the tendency to live in denial . We have a phrase in hindi "Jo hota hain acche ke liye hi hota hain." . Thats because most Indian's however accomplished they end up , have a string of failures and lost hopes because of the system. Those who go abroad are often tasked with defending the indefensible . "Republic of India."

In January I attended an international conference . There was neuro radiology people from NIMHAN'S and AIIMS . They presented a paper on stereotactic neurological surgery. They had done some state of the art research. Sometimes quite a bit of leg pulling goes in medical conferences . Some one remarked that India would be better off reducing its infant mortality etc than spend so much money on hi-tech research . That should be left to "developed countries" . This ended up being a slugfest . It is not true that India spends huge money for hi-tech medical research, though no one mentioned that . Yet Indians (including yours truly, I played both sides) defended our stand . They were forced to bluff out of our Musharrafs . They even ended up defending the government in order to win the slug fest . I have often pretended to my western colleagues that all is hunky-dory in India and slums et al is just negative media portrayal .

In conclusion most Indians acclimatise to the Pathetic conditions we live in , and inadvertently start defending it.
One can only blame our naseeb.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 04 Sep 2011 10:15

CRamS wrote:
Jarita wrote:I am beginning to believe that the only Kashmir solution MMS wants is secession. There has been not one nationalist move by this government where Indian territory is concerned.
That brings us to a bigger question - who is MMS working for?
I have been saying this for a while, and there is no conspiracy as such. MMS is an ideolouge. His pre-dilection is "South Asian". He does not have the primacy of India in mind, because that would mean the primacy of Hindus. What he wants at heart is a "South Asian" federation of states. And in this it may be a mere coincidence that he shares this vision with US. And I agree 100% that he advocates secession for Kashmir, but he is also slimy in that he knows many Indians around him won't agree to that, and hence he will negotiate some crap like pre-1953 borders, "borders are irrelevant" etc, so he can claim that there is no secession and J&K is still "part of India".

If you ask me, we are barking up the wrong tree in blaming MMS or finding fault with him for Kashmir slowly but surely slipping away from the Indian union (and thereafter India as well). He is living up to his vision. The real loosers are the Indian people who have installed someone like MMS as their a PM. And they deserve what they get.

The ceding of territory to Bangladesh can be seen in this light.
Also, MMS was the primary guy who selected those 3 interlocutors.

I know I may sound like Rahul Mehta but a cambridge scholarship under MMS name is funded directly by the Rothschild family

Economist Dr Ashok Mitra whowas also Chief financial Advisor to Indira Gandhi wrote a book titled ‘A Prattler’s Tale’ Samya, 2007, ISBN : 81-85604-80-0, Dr Ashok Mitra was a well known economist and was a former Finance Minister of West Bengal. His book says that the USA asked P.V. Narasimha Rao to make Manmohan Singh as finance minister in his Cabinet. Manmohan Singh was flown back from Washington in a CIA plane, late in the night 20-6-1991 and on 21-6-1991 Singh was sworn in as Finance Minister along with PV Narasimha Rao as PM. The media should do the digging on Manmohan’s true background.

Mr. Manmohan Singh when he was the governor of Reserve Bank of India was advised by RAW not to issue license for opening the ISI bank BCCI in Bombay as BCCI was funding spying in India and was also funding the Pakistani nuclear programme. Yet Manmohan simply approved it.
http://krishnajmafia.blogspot.com/

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Sep 2011 10:37

BCCI also financed the Mirage 2k deal with France.

dada · Post by **dada** » 04 Sep 2011 10:38

# negi

I think, the emergence of an effective strategy for dealing with TSP may begin in right earnest if india appoints a PM who can detach himself from any affiliation with Kashmir,Punjab or Areas of Present Day Pakistan(Pre-Partition). We need a Hard headed PM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2011 10:57

I think the signals should be very clear to anyone who watches the IndiaPakistan waltz.

1. India has no intention of attacking or hitting Pakistan, leave alone occupying PoK
2. India favors continuous diplomatic engagement with Pakistan despite provocation.
3. India has outsourced to the US the task of keeping the Pakistan army and their proxies in check and has, to a small extent, hinged India-US relations in Pakistan Army-US relations.

Regarding the "engagement" with Pakistan, I attended a talk by Bharat Karnad at the IISc last week courtesy Prastutha in pretty much the same hall that I met Dr. R.Chidambaram in 2001-2002 approx. I met Karnad, spoke to him and was honored to present him the memento after his talk.

I will summarize Dr. Karnad's talk in a separate appropriate thread - maybe I will start a new thread. People might be surprised at some things Dr. Karnad said but I am talking crap unless I post what he said first.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 15:37

abhishek_sharma wrote:Indian troops no threat to Pak, PM told Clinton

http://wikileaks.org/cablegate.html
Only has cables till 2010/02. The above claims to be from 2010/11.

Ps: Clinton's 2010 travel
http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/2010/index.htm

PPS: the only stories in the New York times mentioning Manmohan Singh during nov20to nov30 2010 relate to the telecom scam. The above story claims a meeting in Washington.

A US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks on a meeting between Singh and Clinton on November 24 last in Washington said Singh acknowledged that India's troop positions might have caused concern in the past, but the situation had changed vastly since the 1999 Kargil war.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 16:14

Bradley Manning, the person who obtained the cables in the first place was arrested May2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
No way Wikileaks has a cable from Nov 2010.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 04 Sep 2011 16:23

derkonig wrote:Let there be no one on this forum ever again who supports the INC.

No one cares who you think people on the forum should support. No on is asking you or anyone else for a certificate of "patriot" or "traitor".

saadhak · Post by **saadhak** » 04 Sep 2011 16:49

From http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09NEWDELHI782.html

The Prime Minister added that India wants a strong, stable, peaceful, democratic Pakistan and makes no claim on "even an inch" of Pakistani territory.

Chankian spin/hair-splitting over wordsmithing notwithstanding, I would think it is safe to assume that PMji was talking about PoK as Pakistani territory in the above statement (certainly not Pakjab, KP, Sindh or Balochistan)

Taken in conjunction with other reports that an agreement on Kashmir was reached with Musharraf that did not involve any exchange of land, wouldn't GoI be going against the parliamentary resolution that the entire J&K including PoK is an integral part of India?
Does a unanimous resolution by the Parliament of the Republic of India have no value and is so easy to ignore for the GoI?
If not, how does GoI plan to manage the fallout of going against it?

If the parliamentary resolution does carry weight and knowing Pakis will never agree to return PoK without a war, does this not make an agreement with Pakistan on resolving the Kashmir dispute impossible?

archan · Post by **archan** » 04 Sep 2011 17:18

People, kindly stick to topics. Taunting "other BRFites" for their current/past held views is a sure way to attract flames and thereby mod attention towards you. Similarly, let there be no comments on "BRFites properties" of over-analyzing etc. You realize the size and diversity of our membership, don't you?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Sep 2011 17:20

to add to what archan said, heckling other members on their real or assumed political affiliations (from whichever camp) is a sure way to attract board warnings.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 18:54

Was the cable from 2009? Perhaps, but haven't been able to locate it yet.

saadhak · Post by **saadhak** » 04 Sep 2011 19:18

A_Gupta wrote:Was the cable from 2009? Perhaps, but haven't been able to locate it yet.

If you are referring to cable at the link: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09NEWDELHI782.html
yes - creation date / time is: 2009-04-21 06:19
In fact, you posted the link and extracts earlier today

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 19:39

While searching,
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09NEWDELHI2396.html
Nov 27 2009

He delivered a bleak long-term prognosis for India-Pakistan relations. “Call me a cynic,” Sinha sighed, “but even if India were to lop off Kashmir and hand it on a platter to Pakistan, they would still find a reason to make trouble for us.” ROEMER

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 19:41

The Hindustan times story refers to a wash dc meeting of MMS and Clinton nov 2010. There was such a meeting nov2009. Certainly not the April 2009 meeting.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2011 19:44

I was quite surprised to hear Bharat Karnad say what Mani Shankar Aiyer has been saying - albeit in different words. In that hated Aman Ki Asses program Maino Shankar Aiyer said that there would be no use of India talking with Pakistan while we maintained a threatening posture at the border. Karnad said pretty much the same thing and inisisted that Pakistan is not the problem, China is.

Neither of them have actually addressed the question of how to respond to terrorism from Pakistan, the lack of clamping down on Rasool's army Jaish e Mommed , or the infiltration attempts. Maybe both meant that offensive formations and missiles should be placed elsewhere - eg on the border between Mumbai and Bihar perhaps?

But I do begin to see the point they make - and that is Pakistan is less of a problem and Pakistan is at least partly dysfunctional because India makes them shit in their shalwars and both Aiyer and Karnad want to move beyond that. The position on BRF is that "moving beyond that" is to attack them and take over PoK. The position that Karnad maintains is "Don't worry about Pakistan. Worry about China"

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Sep 2011 19:44

http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2 ... han-singh/

The hindustan times story could have been referring to this in 2009, not 2010. So far I have not located a cable.

abhishek_sharma wrote:Indian troops no threat to Pak, PM told Clinton

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 04 Sep 2011 19:52

Prem wrote:BCCI also financed the Mirage 2k deal with France.

What this means?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Sep 2011 20:05

^^^MMS is to blame

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 04 Sep 2011 20:20

shiv wrote:
But I do begin to see the point they make - and that is Pakistan is less of a problem and Pakistan is at least partly dysfunctional because India makes them shit in their shalwars and both Aiyer and Karnad want to move beyond that. The position on BRF is that "moving beyond that" is to attack them and take over PoK. The position that Karnad maintains is "Don't worry about Pakistan. Worry about China"

Maybe both are wrong or deluded for the wrong reasons. Or at least in the case of Bharat Karnard, he is coy to admit that TSP actually poses a huge threat to India, to which India has no response, and that is a humiliating testimony to an aspiring superpower and many times larger than TSP. Also, given that Bharat Karnard himself points out that India's Pokhran-II was a dud, does India even have a nuke deterrant? I ask becasue TSP is so brazen in demanding Kashmir or else it will nuke India, and India can only respond with offering pre-1953 status to the valley (de-facto hand over to TSP). Can India retaliate if TSP vaporizes Mumbai or New Delhi with one of their Chinese, Noko ding dongs? Is it only US pressure on TSP that prevents TSP from provoking a nuke war and not any fear of retaliation from India? I wonder if we can ask Bharat Karnard these questions?

I don't believe there will be any WiKi leaks on this, but if I read between the lines of what Tom Friedman said in one of his books (I think Lexus and the olive tree), "BJ" Clinton did in fact threaten India with something massive, and thats what led to Jassu bhai go down on his knees before "my friend Strobe", and VajpayeeJi declaring victory and halting further tests. Tom Friedman does in fact say in his book that after much bravado, India is involved in an embarassing climbdown. And recall, "BJ" did in fact say that we have to "come down on these guys like a ton of bricks" post Pokhran-II.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Sep 2011 20:54

CRamS wrote:I ask becasue TSP is so brazen in demanding Kashmir or else it will nuke India, and India can only respond with offering pre-1953 status to the valley (de-facto hand over to TSP). Can India retaliate if TSP vaporizes Mumbai or New Delhi with one of their Chinese, Noko ding dongs?

No India cannot retaliate. I think we are wasting our time imagining that India can take over PoK. Clearly India has a pre-1953 nuclear deterrent and it is therefore only right that we should return to the pre-1953 status of Kashmir.

About Clinton coming down on India - I am not surprised. The US is tough with anyone who does not have nukes - Kosovo, India, Iraq etc. But the US gets the dhoti shivers with the tough guys - Pakistan, China, Iran etc. So much for the BJP being nationalistic blah blah blah.

But this is where Bharat Karnad's argument fails. Why is Pakistan so afraid of India that Karnad calls for a removal of Indian threat? What threat?

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 04 Sep 2011 20:58

This BCCI affair happened at a time when i was in my early teens , after searching thru the net I found an article in Time for the same
Hope it helps others who dont know about it.

B.C.C.I. was started in 1972 with the putative mission of becoming the Muslim world's first banking powerhouse. Though it was incorporated in Luxembourg and headquartered in London, had more than 400 branches and subsidiaries around the world and was nominally owned by Arab shareholders from the gulf countries, B.C.C.I. was always a Pakistani bank, with its heart in Karachi. Agha Hasan Abedi, the bank's founder and leader until his ouster last year, is a Pakistani, as are most of the bank's former middle managers. And it was in Pakistan that the bank's most prodigiously corrupt division was spawned.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html
Would be interesting to know MMS' involvement in this whole affair. if not appropriate for this thread please guide me where I should post.

sum · Post by **sum** » 04 Sep 2011 21:04

I will summarize Dr. Karnad's talk in a separate appropriate thread - maybe I will start a new thread. People might be surprised at some things Dr. Karnad said but I am talking crap unless I post what he said first.

Please do post as to what Karnad mentioned.... if a "super hawk" in Indian establishment speaks like MSAiyar ( as per your earlier post), cant even imagine the language of our "doves" ( MKB is a fine example)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Sep 2011 23:29

sum wrote:

I will summarize Dr. Karnad's talk in a separate appropriate thread - maybe I will start a new thread. People might be surprised at some things Dr. Karnad said but I am talking crap unless I post what he said first.
Please do post as to what Karnad mentioned.... if a "super hawk" in Indian establishment speaks like MSAiyar ( as per your earlier post), cant even imagine the language of our "doves" ( MKB is a fine example)

sum ji,

Bharat Karnad is indeed a hawk. What he is saying is that we should not fall for the trap set up by China - to get trapped in an unending struggle with TSP. We have much bigger challenges than TSP.

He somehow feels that TSP is a failed state already (at least in his mind) and does not need too much of our time. I disagree with him somewhat. I think TSP still needs to be taken down and taken down fast, without expending too much of our time.

However we should concentrate on the Chinese Threat, much more than we have done till date. Whenever China was portrayed as India's most potent threat, it was laughed at by some senior Maulanas here, and the focus was changed to American help to Pakistan. It can happen.

GoI seems to be always 30 years behind China is strategic planning. Indian planning is far too defensive oriented. We need to get out of this mold.

Bharat Karnad is saying our first priority is to start nuclear testing again. Many would concur here. I do it wholeheartedly. He is saying we should provide nukes to the Vietnamese. I have been advocating that since the last 3 years on BRF.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 05 Sep 2011 00:55

CRamS wrote: Maybe both are wrong or deluded for the wrong reasons. Or at least in the case of Bharat Karnard, he is coy to admit that TSP actually poses a huge threat to India, to which India has no response, and that is a humiliating testimony to an aspiring superpower and many times larger than TSP. Also, given that Bharat Karnard himself points out that India's Pokhran-II was a dud, does India even have a nuke deterrant? I ask becasue TSP is so brazen in demanding Kashmir or else it will nuke India, and India can only respond with offering pre-1953 status to the valley (de-facto hand over to TSP). Can India retaliate if TSP vaporizes Mumbai or New Delhi with one of their Chinese, Noko ding dongs? Is it only US pressure on TSP that prevents TSP from provoking a nuke war and not any fear of retaliation from India? I wonder if we can ask Bharat Karnard these questions?

I don't believe there will be any WiKi leaks on this, but if I read between the lines of what Tom Friedman said in one of his books (I think Lexus and the olive tree), "BJ" Clinton did in fact threaten India with something massive, and thats what led to Jassu bhai go down on his knees before "my friend Strobe", and VajpayeeJi declaring victory and halting further tests. Tom Friedman does in fact say in his book that after much bravado, India is involved in an embarassing climbdown. And recall, "BJ" did in fact say that we have to "come down on these guys like a ton of bricks" post Pokhran-II.

I think you are barking on wrong conclusions, and if you were a Paki advisor you will get the Porkis in trouble!

First of all the Pokhran II controversy was about the yield of the thermonuclear device (Shakti I), and depending on whose version you believe in, it may or may not have underperformed. BARC claimed a combined yield of 55 kT, seismic data from far flung observatories (5.2 at the USGS in US ) point to a yield of 25 - 28 kt. IMO destructive interference was definitely a factor in lower seismic measurment at the distant observatories since both the thermo-nuclear, and the fission decvice were fired at the same time and in very close proximity.

In any case considering that the fission device (Shakti II), was capable of yield of about 12 kT, the rest of the yield still came from the Shakti I ( Shakti III was a sub kT device).

Point here is to cook Pork Roast Shakti II type devices should suffice!

Now for the second part, I think you recollections are not right. IIRC what Clinton actually said was that he had no choice but to impose sanctions as it was mandated by congressional ammendments. In any case what Clinton said back then is not relevent now.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Sep 2011 04:16

Here is theClinton-MMS 2009-11-24 meeting
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09STATE124358.html

The hinustan Times quoted this cable.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 124358

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/24/2019
TAGS: OVIP CLINTON HILLARY PREL ECON ENRG MASS
IN, CH, PK, AF, IR
SUBJECT: Secretary Clinton meets Indian Prime Minister
Singh

¶1. Classified by SCA Assistant Secretary Robert O.
Blake, Jr. Reason: 1.4 (b), (d)

¶2. November 24, 2009; 5:00 PM; Washington, DC

¶3. Participants:

U.S.
The Secretary
Under Secretary Bill Burns
Under Secretary Robert Hormats
SCA Assistant Secretary Robert O. Blake, Jr.
Ambassador Timothy Roemer
S Staff Huma Abedin
S Staff Jake Sullivan
Donn Titus (SCA Notetaker)

India
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna
National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan
Special Envoy Shyam Saran
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao
Ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar
Joint Secretary Pankaj Saran (Prime Minister's Office)
Joint Secretary Gaitri Kumar (Ministry of External
Affairs)
I.S. Chaturvedi (Personal Secretary to the Prime
Minister)
Virander Paul, Director of the Prime Minister's Office
Political Counselor Naveen Srivastava (notetaker)

¶4. (C) SUMMARY. The Secretary and Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh had a cordial meeting that
extended well beyond its scheduled time on November 24.
They discussed regional issues, including Afghanistan,
Pakistan and China. The Secretary promoted U.S. defense
sales to India and sought Indian support for an IAEA
Board of Governors resolution on Iran's nuclear program.
She also encouraged Singh to remove domestic caps on
foreign direct investment and to cooperate on efforts to
combat Trafficking in Persons. They agreed to work
toward a resolution of nuclear reprocessing and export
licensing control issues for full implementation of the
Civil Nuclear Initiative. The Secretary and Minister
Krishna pledged to continue their Strategic Dialogue
process, which had produced during the PM's visit
Memoranda of Understanding on Energy, Agriculture, and
Counter-terrorism. The Secretary and Singh also
underscored the need to address food security and water
scarcity issues in order to usher in a second Green
Revolution. END SUMMARY.

¶5. (C) Prime Minister Singh began the meeting by
describing his private interaction with President Obama
earlier that day, noting three major areas of
discussion: Afghanistan, Pakistan and China. He looked
forward to the President's future visit to India and to
continuing to build upon the bilateral relationship.

-----------
AFGHANISTAN
-----------

¶6. (C) Singh said that if the international community
did not stay the course in Afghanistan, terrorist
elements would conclude that they had defeated the
Soviets and now the United States in Afghanistan, which
would have "disastrous consequences" for peace and
security in the Middle East, Central and South Asia.
Singh noted that the new government in Afghanistan had
its shortcomings (a poor governance record and
corruption), but it was important for the international
community to support the new government. Singh added
that it would take time for democracy to take hold in
Afghanistan, and there would only be modest returns in
the short term. Referring to the McChrystal report,
Singh said he was not an expert on such things, but any
premature exit would have "severe consequences."

¶7. (C) The Secretary said that President Obama would

STATE 00124358 002 OF 004

SUBJECT: Secretary Clinton meets Indian Prime Minister
Sin
soon announce his decision on Afghanistan. We want to
create stability in Afghanistan to prevent the spread of
the Taliban and the use of the country to launch terror
attacks. She thanked Singh for the positive role that
India had played in Afghanistan and with President
Karzai. She noted that Karzai's inauguration speech
demonstrated a stronger sense of commitment, that we
would work with him and that India should also continue
to work with Karzai. The Secretary also said that
Afghanistan's stability would not improve without
Pakistan taking concerted action against the Taliban.
We were encouraged by Pakistan's efforts to go after the
Taliban in Swat and South Waziristan, but Pakistani
authorities needed to go after all terrorists that found
refuge on Pakistani territory. The Secretary added that
we would continue to encourage prosecution of those
responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

¶8. (C) Expressing appreciation for Indian efforts in the
region, the Secretary recognized the unstable political
situation in Pakistan and welcomed India's ideas on
Pakistan. She said we would continue to share
information with India and Pakistan to prevent attacks
and to help bring about the prosecution of those
responsible for the Mumbai attacks. She added that the
Pakistan view is colored by its perception of India,
despite the clear evidence of attacks within the country
on police stations, military establishments and
universities that demonstrate that Pakistan's greatest
threat is internal. She said that the more India could
reassure Pakistan, the better it would be for everyone
concerned.

¶9. (C) Singh noted that U.S. intelligence reports on
Balochistan should prove to Pakistan that India is only
interested in helping Afghanistan. Singh added that
India could not realize its full growth potential
without peace and tranquility in the region.

--------
PAKISTAN
--------

¶10. (C) Singh noted that American officials could tell
Pakistani officials that they could safely remove all
Pakistani troops from the Line-of-Control without worry.
India's forces were stationed far from the border and
were no threat to Pakistan. Singh acknowledged that in
the past, including during the Kargil war in 1999,
Pakistan might have had cause for concern about India's
troop positions, but circumstances had changed. Singh
added that quiet dialogue had worked well in the past
and could be re-established if Pakistan gave up "using
terror as an instrument of state policy."

¶11. (C) Citing the United States' "enormous" influence
with Pakistan, Singh asked for U.S. help with the
Government of Pakistan, which he said had not taken
"effective action" against those who used Pakistani soil
to launch attacks against India. India also wants the
U.S. to impress upon the Government of Pakistan that it
has an obligation to bring the Mumbai attackers to
justice. Singh added that the international pressure on
Pakistan has been diluted recently and that known
terrorists like Hafiz Saeed are allowed to "roam
freely." Singh added that the Chinese were holding up a
UN 1267 sanctions declaration regarding Saeed and Masood
Azhar.

¶12. (C) Singh said that everyday he receives
intelligence reports authored by the USG that refer to
threats to India from Pakistan-based groups,
specifically mentioning the reports from the Headley
case regarding possible military targets in India.
Singh said India was ready to talk to Pakistan on all
things that have bedeviled the two countries for the
last 50-60 years, but cannot do so when it is worried
about terrorist attacks. The Secretary noted the good
relationship that had been formed between both our
governments' National Security Advisors and suggested
that they work together to determine how best to deliver
the message to Pakistan about the priority to address
its internal threats.

-----
CHINA
-----

STATE 00124358 003 OF 004

¶13. (C) India too wants to see the peaceful rise of
China, Singh said. He noted that they had been engaged
for the past five years through special representatives
to discuss border issues. Both sides agreed to maintain
peace and tranquility, but Singh noted India was
bothered by the recent "assertiveness" of China. The
Prime Minister also noted that the U.S.-China joint
statement had created the impression in India that there
would be "outside interference" in South Asia, which
would not be acceptable.

¶14. (C) The Secretary responded that we wanted good
India-China relations and that we wanted China to be
successful without acting as a threat to its neighbors
and the rest of the world. We also had an interest in
encouraging China to persuade Pakistan to confront
internal threats. We would also look to India for
guidance in the region, she said. The Secretary added
that China's interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan were
mostly economic, citing its copper mine operations in
Afghanistan as a prime example.

--------------------------------------------- -----
DEFENSE, CIVIL NUCLEAR AND EXPORT LICENSING ISSUES
--------------------------------------------- -----

¶15. (C) The Secretary welcomed recent Indian purchases of
U.S. military equipment and said we should explore ways
to create more trade, noting as an example that Boeing
and Lockheed were strong competitors for the Medium
Multi-role Combat Aircraft. The PM said that India had
reviewed its defense procurement system and was seeking
to broaden its base of suppliers. The U.S. could play
an increasingly important role in India's defense
modernization. Singh noted that sometimes, as in the
case of the Civil Nuclear Agreement, Indian officials
thought technology could be immediately transferred
after an agreement was signed.

¶16. (C) Singh said he was pleased to hear President
Obama agree to review U.S. export licensing controls
regarding India. The Secretary agreed, noting that
Under Secretary Burns was working on the matter, as well
as on resolution of outstanding issues associated with
reprocessing negotiations. She said the two sides
should be able to come up with a check list of what both
sides need to do to avoid any misperceptions.

¶17. (C) National Security Advisor Narayanan noted three
issues holding up the reprocessing talks; India wants
approval for reprocessing at multiple facilities, has
concerns about our requirements for security inspections
and wants assurances regarding suspension of technology
transfers. Under Secretary Burns said that we were
looking for ways to be more flexible as part of our
review, and we would ask for Indian flexibility on a
number of issues in return. Singh responded that it was
important to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

----
IRAN
----

¶18. (C) The Secretary asked Singh for India's support
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board
of Governors resolution that would be discussed during
their meetings in Vienna November 26-27. She said that
the P5+1 had agreed on the resolution, and we hoped the
world community would show its support. Singh responded
that India was not in favor of another nuclear weapon
state in the region and had made that clear to the
Iranians.

--------------------
TRADE AND INVESTMENT
--------------------

¶19. (C) The Secretary encouraged Singh to remove foreign
direct investment (FDI) caps in the finance and defense
industries. She said that U.S. industry was very eager
for that to happen. Under Secretary Hormats, a long-
time friend of Singh's, said he would be willing to work
on the issue. Singh said that the India would raise the
limit on FDI in pensions from 26 to 49 percent in the
next budget session of Parliament. He said that he
would see how raising the cap on pensions worked before

STATE 00124358 004 OF 004

----------------------
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
----------------------

¶20. (SBU) The Secretary mentioned our annual report on
Trafficking in Persons and said we had some ideas to
share with India. Foreign Secretary Rao said that she
had spoken with Under Secretary Otero about Trafficking
in Persons and that she looked forward to receiving U.S.
ideas on the matter.

-----------------
STRATGIC DIALOGUE
-----------------

¶21. (C) Wrapping up the discussion the Secretary noted
that she was pleased with the Strategic Dialogue in
general, how we were listening to one another, and
singled out the signing of the Energy Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). Singh said he was pleased with the
Agriculture MOU that he described as an umbrella
agreement in which we could work together on some
pressing issues, such as food security and water
scarcity. Singh added that agriculture cooperation was
of the "greatest significance," because 65 percent of
Indians depended on agriculture for their employment.
He recalled that the U.S. helped India's first
generation Green Revolution. India had achieved food
self-sufficiency; now it was time to work with the
United States on a second Green Revolution. He
concluded by stating how very pleased he was with the
visit. He thanked the Secretary for laying the
foundation for the recent advances in the bilateral
relationship, in her various roles as First Lady, U.S.
Senator, India Caucus founder and Secretary of State,
and for taking the relationship to its next, higher
level.
CLINTON

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Sep 2011 05:48

No offense meant but Bharat Karnad's argument that TSP is not an issue but China is akin to saying that don't worry about high BP, control blood sugar onlee.

Firstly China has had nukes and tested delivery platforms for more than 3 decades now and in a strict sense we went nuclear only in 1998 when a weaponised form of PoK-I device was tested; we did not even have the Agni-II operational until what 1999/2000 (?). My point being when China did not attack a relatively weaker India during 90s (when insurgency in NE and J&K was at it's highest, economy not doing so well along with a weak nuke delivery capability) then what is the basis of the fear that China will pull the trigger any time soon in the future ? Another point to be noted is while China might not be our well wisher unlike TSP it's not a dysfunctional state ruled by Jihadis , it is well aware of the fact that war with a NWS like India is going to cost it men and material.

The need to address the terror emanating from TSP assumes even greater significance because TSP is already doing to India what China could not i.e. keeping our state machinery engaged in a prolonged low intensity conflict while China nicely chugs along in various other spheres. Even otherwise if for a moment I concede the point about China being a bigger threat than TSP what does one expect GoI to do to address the same if the latter cannot even address a far smaller threat ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Sep 2011 06:02

Negullah,

We are mixing two opponent points because the message is same - "engage Pakistan"

The first group,WKK Dhimmis, wants to engage pakis because they believe in psky orgy. the first group agrees with Pakis that their cross-border terrorism is a 'legitimate' right against a much stronger India and a religiously sanctioned approach.

The second group, so-called hawks, want to engage pakis because they think PRC is a bigger threat to India. Please recollect Ram Jetmalani's advise to the female donkey. The second group doesn't want to waste Indian energies on pakis because they understand (or gave up on) Indian fault lines that were carefully nurtured over decades if not centuries. On the other hand there is not enough dhimmism towards China yet.

Many CTs discussed on BRF came to reality in last 3 years. Then why did they become CTs in the first place? The rather long and unnatural INC rule made many minds to do a == between pro-establishment (GoI) stand of BRF with pro-INC stand.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Sep 2011 06:24

As usual B Raman saar too like MMS shares a destiny with TSP

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... istan.html

So he asks a question

In this web of geopolitical complexities, what are the policy options before India? Should it keep adding to Pakistan’s feelings of insecurity and instability or take the initiative to lessen Pakistani concerns? Is it possible to lessen those concerns and help Pakistan rid itself of its anti-India reflexes without changing the status quo in J&K and without giving up India’s growing links with Afghanistan?

Look at the prilliant answer in the next paragraph.

Any exercise to demotivate the Pakistani state and help it to rid itself of its fears—which are seen by its army as real and by India as imaginary—has to start with frequent and sustained interactions between the institutions of the two countries: political parties to political parties, parliament to parliament, army to army, intelligence agencies to intelligence agencies, Foreign Office to Foreign Office, and Home Ministry to Home Ministry. Increasing institutional contacts are is as important as increasing people-to-people contacts to dispel the two countries’ imaginary fears of each other.

How should India and Pakistan increase their institutional interactions with each other? That is the basic question to be addressed, and it should be addressed in the context of an overall vision statement agreed to by the two countries. The imaginary fears are more in Pakistan’s mind than in India’s mind. India’s prime minister should take the initiative by visiting Pakistan to set the ball rolling toward an agreed common vision.

Hain salo ? For last 6 decades all you have been doing is having these chai-pakora talks with TSP and have a big ghanta to show for it and now suddenly the solution for the problem is chai-pakora again ?