The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Shivji, has been saying this for the past few months, let me reiterate it. The lone Super power is shit scared of pukistan.
The thoughts of talking to LeT or including LeT in peace talks with pukistan, was never contemplated by even Anti-National elements in India. The American administration is already willing to talk to butchers of Americans (the haqqani network).
If it is true, then the Yanquis are being stupid as usual.
If the statements from the "unamed" Paki officials are just an H&D exercise, then I can give more intelligence credits to the Yanquis.
The whispers in Washington are growing louder: Divorce is inevitable, maybe even imminent. The always difficult “strategic partnership” between the United States and Pakistan has become even more acrimonious in the wake of the November 26 US airstrike that killed more than two dozen Pakistani soldiers in Pakistani territory.
Tempers on both sides are frayed to the breaking point. Opinion polls in Pakistan reveal that support for the US does not reach double digits. Pakistan’s supercharged media clamours for a full rupture in relations. In Washington, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — the nation’s senior-most military officer — has called relations “a mess.” For the first time in memory, serious people are talking about “containing” Pakistan, although what that means is not at all apparent.
Yet, writing Pakistan out of the US foreign policy script is not an option. Pakistan will soon have the fifth largest population in the world. It already has the seventh largest army. It’s close to overtaking the United Kingdom as the fifth largest nuclear power.
The crisis touched off by the errant NATO airstrike follows on the heels of a series of mishaps that made 2011 a rotten year for US-Pakistan relations. In January a CIA contractor shot two Pakistanis who, he claimed, were trying to rob him. In May, US Special Forces swept into Abbottabad and killed Osama bin Laden; the discovery that the world’s most wanted terrorist had been living for many years in plain sight in a Pakistani garrison town resurrected doubts whether the countries shared a common counterterrorism agenda. Other crises followed in quick succession — the suspension of US military assistance; an assault on the US embassy in Kabul, purportedly by a Pakistan-based group; a widely publicised story alleging US collusion in a scheme to prevent a military coup in Islamabad; and mounting fury in Pakistan at US drone strikes, anger amplified by Pakistan’s inability to stop the attacks.
Collapsing ties with its most powerful backer, however, is not Pakistan’s biggest problem. The country, already a fragile state, faces a host of internal stresses: an economy approaching free fall, escalating conflict between military and civilian authorities, an education system that fails to educate, a deeply flawed judicial system, a political class that’s uncaring and unresponsive, a huge youth bulge about to engulf Pakistan’s cities. This looming tsunami of economic, political and social challenges is poised to test the assumption that the country always muddles through.
Pakistan, not yet a failed state, is rapidly failing. Meanwhile, wearied of one foreign problem after another, faced with economic distress, a stubborn jobless rate that refuses to come down and a profusion of needs at home, many Americans understandably ask why they should care, let alone shoulder the burdens of a country whose policies seem at such odds with US purposes.
US differences with Pakistan are serious. The fundamental strategic imperatives of the two countries are at odds, most notably in Afghanistan.
Recognising the value of a productive partnership with Pakistan, Congress approved the Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) Act in 2009, committing the US to providing Pakistan with $1.5 billion in economic assistance in each of the next five years.
A report recently released by the Woodrow Wilson Center concludes that a robust programme of US civilian assistance to Pakistan serves vital American interests. It warns that substantial mid-course corrections are required if KLB is to fulfill the hopes of its proponents. It urges Congress not to confuse security aid to the Pakistani military with economic assistance designed to shore up civilian government; address food, health and energy shortfalls in Pakistan; and lay the groundwork for a successful Pakistan and a long-term US-Pakistani partnership.
But Washington must also reform the way it delivers aid by recruiting more seasoned technical experts, extending the Pakistan tours of US aid officials, and bringing local civil society organisations and prospective beneficiaries more fully into the design, implementation and evaluation of aid projects.
As tempting as it might be, the US cannot simply walk away from Pakistan. The Congress and the administration should live up to their pledges to provide Pakistan with $1.5 billion a year in economic assistance through 2014. Members of Congress should not penalise Pakistan’s struggling civilian sector because of their anger at Pakistan’s military. They should resist the urge to lump new conditions pertaining either to security or economic reform on the US civilian-aid programme. And they should repair and reenergise the manner in which the US delivers civilian aid to Pakistan. Doing so will not be inexpensive, but failing to act could be infinitely more costly.
Robert M. Hathaway directs the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC
More of the same "Pakistan cannot be allowed to fail".
More of the same "Pakistan cannot be allowed to fail".
Problem is that there is nobody to question these so called "truisms". Iran is evil, TSP cannot be allowed, US cannot walk away from TSP yada yada. Nonsense that gets etched in average public consciousness.
KLNMurthy wrote:@shiv why not assume that I am being uber-confident (the way you say Tharoor is) and not "demeaning myself?"
I could do that. But you did write the following in the post that I responded to:
KLNMurthy wrote:
I guess that gets points in someone's book for cleverness but stupid me doesn't get what it has to do with defending India or getting TSP under control.
Army, ISI chief statements to SC not approved by govt: PM
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani Monday said that any official action by a government functionary without the prior approval of the government was unconstitutional and illegal.
In an interview to a Chinese newspaper, Prime Minister Gilani referred to the observation of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry that any act of a government functionary without the government’s nod is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
PM Gilani pointed out that the responses given by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and DG ISI Ahmed Shuja Pasha to the Supreme Court in connection to the alleged memo controversy did not contain the approval of the competent authority as required.
No summary seeking approval of a competent authority was initiated by the Ministry of Defence, nor was any approval obtained from the defence minister in this regard.
The Prime Minister stated that in two simultaneous issues, one relating to the Nato attack on Pakistani borders and the other relating to a letter written by an American national to another American, the civil and military leadership of Pakistan held detailed meetings and took immediate decisions.
The tug - of - war between the civil and military constituencies warms up.
Porki cup of pig fat floweth over. Now that the yanquis are not poking their noses in, a la drona and/or janaat for Porki troops, whom to fight but amongst themselves. Wonder which side will score a self goal?
Army, ISI chief statements to SC not approved by govt: PM
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani Monday said that any official action by a government functionary without the prior approval of the government was unconstitutional and illegal.
PM Gilani pointed out that the responses given by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and DG ISI Ahmed Shuja Pasha to the Supreme Court in connection to the alleged memo controversy did not contain the approval of the competent authority as required.
No summary seeking approval of a competent authority was initiated by the Ministry of Defence, nor was any approval obtained from the defence minister in this regard.
The tug - of - war between the civil and military constituencies warms up.
That would be so in any normal democratic country but when the military always appoints the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (always a retired Lt. Gen.) and when that Secretary files an affidavit (no less) in the Supreme Court admitting that the Army and the ISI are outside the control of the Ministry and when the military frames its own budget every year (without any details whatsoever) which the Cabinet and the Parliament have to simply approve, then we are dealing with a very extraordinary one-of-a-kind country. In that country, the Army does not need to get the approval of its Supreme Commander for anything.
More of the same "Pakistan cannot be allowed to fail".
Problem is that there is nobody to question these so called "truisms". Iran is evil, TSP cannot be allowed, US cannot walk away from TSP yada yada. Nonsense that gets etched in average public consciousness.
What is revealing is the US presumption that engaging with TSP and giving it money are synonymous. Almost like an internalized belief that the only attractive thing about US is its money.
KLNMurthy wrote:@shiv why not assume that I am being uber-confident (the way you say Tharoor is) and not "demeaning myself?"
I could do that. But you did write the following in the post that I responded to:
KLNMurthy wrote:
I guess that gets points in someone's book for cleverness but stupid me doesn't get what it has to do with defending India or getting TSP under control.
It was in 1988 that a Pakistani dictator had to die before the country could have another chance at democracy.
Nearly twenty years later, another dictator had to be thrown out before the people of Pakistan could hope for another shot at democracy. Then, as now, these hopes seem to have been belied. Then, as now, the Army rules supreme, by remote control most of the time, by manipulation at other times or by revealing its hand when necessary. The doctrine of necessity has been a wonderfully useful and abiding doctrine for the Pak Army. Today we have the President of Pakistan pitted against his Army Chief.
What is happening today in Pakistan borders on the bizarre? It hovers between a Greek tragedy and a march of folly where the protagonists know they are moving towards an abyss but are unable to stop themselves . A letter which is believed to be the handiwork of a maverick and a loose cannon and which any responsible leadership would have scoffed at has become the cause celebre.
The Pak Army, paranoid about most issues, has taken upon itself to convert this letter episode into a national security issue and challenge the civilian government for trying to keep the Army under control. The civilian government of Prime Minister Reza Shah Gilani has taken upon itself rather bravely to challenge the Army's supremacy.
History between PPP and TSPA-
PPP and Pak Army relations were strained ever since the time Z A Bhutto walked out on Field Marshall Ayub Khan in 1966 and formed the PPP. Bhutto's hanging by Zia set the seal on a frosty, mutually suspicious and hostile relationship between the Army and the PPP.
This hostility saw the Army's unsuccessful endeavour to prevent BB from attaining power in 1988. Nawaz Sharif was the Army's candidate then and this is the game the Army has played consistently since then. Having failed in preventing her election, it succeeded in overthrowing BB twice. This is being re- enacted again today.
'They' assassinated Benazir on December 27 and four years down the line the world still does not know who 'they' were and it seems, never will. Asif Ali Zardari who had inherited the PPP throne on behalf of his son Bilawal, installed Hussain Haqqani, an Army-hater and a Benazir acolyte as Pakistan's Ambassador in Washington DC. This was a bit in your face kind of thing although he did try to assuage the Army's feelings by giving both Gen Kayani and Gen Pasha three year extensions.
Nawaz Sharif-
The political opportunism of Nawaz Sharif got the better of him when he failed to see the signals that the Army was playing one major party against the other. Instead of closing ranks with the PPP and with only the March Senate elections in mind, Nawaz Sharif thought he would go for the PPP jugular and filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the Memogate scandal. Maybe this was the result of some secret talks that PML(N)'s leadership believed to have had with a brigadier of the Intelligence. It is well known that the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice Ifthikar Choudhry is not well disposed towards Asif Zardari.
On JUD
Everyone knows that the JuD is only a proxy for the military in Pakistan. And we still hear comments that the Pakistan military is on board for a more normal relationship with India. Or we take solace in the fact that the US is Pakistan's enemy number one, almost as if we are grateful to be let off the hook.
(coming from ex RAW man, every intelligence official knows this, GOI does chai biskoot sessions for aman ki tamasha types)
TSPA-
The Pakistan military has been having problems in 2010 mostly connected with the war on Terror. The US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in May, the terrorist attack on PNS Mehran in Karachi a few days later and the Mohmand attack in November by NATO forces that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers only heightened the image that the Army was incapable of performing its primary role - the defence of the nation. The image of the Army has to be refurbished once again. The PPP has to be finished forever through what is now called a soft quasi judicial coup that would bring in the likes of Imran Khan centre stage with the Army controlling events backstage.
And Islamabad must have a more amenable person leading the civilian government who is also acceptable in the West.
This may be part of a typical sand model exercise of the Army but there is nothing in politics that works according to sand models. (ANI)
The whispers in Washington are growing louder: Divorce is inevitable, maybe even imminent. The always difficult “strategic partnership” between the United States and Pakistan has become even more acrimonious in the wake of the November 26 US airstrike that killed more than two dozen Pakistani soldiers in Pakistani territory.
.....
And they should repair and reenergise the manner in which the US delivers civilian aid to Pakistan. Doing so will not be inexpensive, but failing to act could be infinitely more costly.
Robert M. Hathaway directs the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC
More of the same "Pakistan cannot be allowed to fail".
I think what we are seeing is cognitive dissonance. The cold-warriors found Pakhanastan to be a useful tool to needle the Soviets. I believe in the days of Anti-Soviet jeehard, the cold-warrior slogan was we need Pakhana more than Pakhana needs us. This got repeated so many times, that the whole millitary-intelligence organization got biased in this direction.
Once an organization gets biased and looks at the world with colored lenses, it is very difficult to get those off because of the enormous cost involved in correcting the bias of every individual. Its exactly like a stock market bubble. Americans invested in the Pakhana bubble, the Jernails made the bubble bigger and bigger and rode the waves.
At this juncture, people are realizing that the stock market has crashed. Things are really not what they are. But there are a lot of people who put their sweat and blood in Pakhanastan and enabling Pakhanastan, they refuse to remove their lenses. So they give confusing messages like the above. All they need to say is: Pakhanastan is the trouble, we should destroy them. Instead of Pakhanastan is the trouble, we should help them. The diagnosis is correct, the same old medicine is prescribed out of habit and a belief that this time it would be different.
While the Jernails inflated the Yankee bubble, they also created the homegrown jeehardy bubble. And while inflating the Yankee bubble, they also inflated the Jeehardy bubble as well. The Common abdul has basically nothing to eat, so they fed him delusions from the book about Purity, about Arap ancestors , about killing the kaffir. So the common abdul ate grass but invested in the jeehardy bubble. In return he was promised 72 and Jannat.
Note that these two bubbles inflate each other, jeehardy bubble gets bigger --> Jernails beg more after scaring the world about "nuclear armed failed state" --> Yankee military says "ohh $hit, i better get them some $$$" --> inflates the Yankee bubble. As long as these bubbles dont interact, things should be all fine and dandy for the Jernails, so they kept internal consumption separate from external (read Yankee) consumption. However after Raymond birader, Osama saahib attaining 72 via the SEALs, and finally the November 26th air strikes, the bubbles have collided. Now the Jernails cannot even appear to be begging for Yankee help. Interesting times ahead
We should make sure we double our surveillance at the border, and also get some beer and popcorn. Its going to be a perfect storm!
In 1996 India removed restrictive regime and gave Pakistan MFN status and since then it has remained subject of immense debate based on political considerations rather than purely on trade and economics.
India did not contest MFN status in WTO providing an opportunity to Pakistan to walk away despite violation of international trade laws. “Had India gone to the WTO, it would have embarrassed Pakistan”, said Mahmood.
Has India ever taken pakis to WTO wrt MFN even during any terrorist attacks incluidng 26/11.
Since 1996 we have GOI of various combinations. surprising to me at least.
From same article-
Trust deficit within Pakistan is ten times more than trust deficit between India and Pakistan. We will take forward the process of free trade regime by protecting industries,” said Mahmood.
(time to reduce deficit by truncating pakiland)
In case Pakistan grants MFN, Indian exports would immediately increase due to legalization of illegal Indian imports to Pakistan, said Mahmood. Currently, the trade is in favour of India as Pakistan’s exports to New Delhi are $264 million against imports of $1.7 billion.
The MFN would be in benefit of India and there will be replication of China syndrome, said Senator Haroon Akhtar of PML.
Letter to Hillary Clinton from the Heritage Foundation.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
(Courtesy- The Heritage Foundation)
January 7, 2012
Dear Madame Secretary:
We are writing today to express our deep concern over the safety and well-being of former Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani. It has come to our attention that Ambassador Haqqani is under intense pressure in Pakistan, including possibly threats to his life, over the so-called “Memogate” affair.
Questions have been raised about the manner in which this case is proceeding against Ambassador Haqqani and whether due process of law is being followed. Internationally recognized human rights defender Ms. Asma Jehangir recently quit as Haqqani’s lawyer, citing her lack of confidence in the judicial commission established by the Pakistani Supreme Court to investigate the case. Because of her doubts about the commission’s impartiality, Ms. Jehangir refused to appear before it.
Ms. Jehangir described the Supreme Court decision to admit the memo petitions as a “black chapter” in the judiciary’s history and further noted her concern that Ambassador Haqqani could be picked up by Pakistan’s intelligence services and intimidated, and even possibly tortured, into providing a statement that suits their interests. In this context, the fact that Haqqani was forced to surrender his passport, despite returning to Pakistan voluntarily to face the charges, is particularly troubling.
The case against Haqqani follows an ominous trend in Pakistan. The assassinations of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, and journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad this past year have created a culture of intimidation and fear that is stifling efforts to promote a more tolerant and democratic society. Significant segments of the Pakistani media have already judged Haqqani to be guilty of treason, which could inspire religious extremists to take the law into their own hands as they did with Taseer and Bhatti.
While we, as individuals, may not have always agreed with Ambassador Haqqani’s views, we regarded him as an effective presenter of Pakistani positions in the Washington context. In keeping with its traditional support for human rights and its deep interest in a firmly democratic Pakistan, the U.S. government should do all it can to ensure Haqqani receives due process without any threat of physical harm.
We commend the State Department for its statement on Friday calling for fair and transparent treatment of Ambassador Haqqani in accordance with Pakistani law and international legal standards. We would urge the U.S. government to continue to weigh in with key Pakistani leaders and to make appropriate public statements to ensure that Husain Haqqani is not physically harmed and that due process of law is followed.
With High Regards,
Dr. Stephen P. Cohen, Brookings Institution
Ms. Lisa Curtis, Heritage Foundation
Mr. Sadanand Dhume, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Toby Dalton, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Dr. C. Christine Fair, Georgetown University
Dr. Robert M. Hathaway, Woodrow Wilson International Center
Mr. Michael Krepon, Stimson Center
Ambassador Dennis Kux, Woodrow Wilson International Center
Ambassador William B. Milam, Woodrow Wilson International Center
Dr. Aparna Pande, Hudson Institute
Dr. George Perkovich, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Mr. Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution
Ambassador Howard B. Schaffer, Georgetown University
Ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer, Brookings Institution
Dr. Ashley J. Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum, Middle East Institute
cc.
The Honorable U.S. Vice President Joseph R. Biden
The Honorable U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta
The Honorable U.S. National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon
The Honorable Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency David H. Petraeus
Heated India Pakistan Debate with Dr. Shashi Tharoor? (Sochta Pakistan, 7 Jan 2012)
The excrecable Ejaz Haider, Moeed Pirzada, and Nassem Zehra take on Shashi Tharoor in the so called lion's den at the Jinnah institute. Some notes:
1) Ejaz seems a little drunk, and very intimidated. This is one case where a RAPE is outmatched in accent and affectation by an SDRE, and initially he can't even speak in English, preferring chaste urdu all of a sudden. Later the pinglishi accent slips out, and compares unfavorably (as far as Pakistani marketing goes) to Tharoors diction and command
2) Pirzada is amused and chagrined that India has successfully equated Kashmiri terror with world-wide terror. He thinks this is not fair, and that Tharoor should apologize
3) Pirzada is also chagrined that India talks about terrorist attacks from Pakistan and gives Pakistan a bad name
4) Pirzada is even more incensed that Indians do not agree to Pakisani narratives of why Pakistan was formed. Even though they themselves cry hoarse about the TNT, which Indians reject, Indians, by pointing out the TNT to the wider world, have make Pakis look bad. Instead, according to this rat, Indians whould talk of how the cabinet mission plan was axed by INC, and were it not for that, there would have been a harmonious confederation, regardless of the fact that Djinnah saw it as a first step to secession, with twice the moth eaten Pakitan (undivided Bengal, undivided Punjab, Assam, and Kashmir, with borders running through Gurgaon. Of-course, just as they had no trouble driving out 7-8 million Hindus from Bangladesh, and 7-8 million Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs, they would have had no trouble with ethnic cleansing. But an Indian is supposed ignore all that, and instead not give Pakis a bad name by pointing out that India still believes everyone can live together under 1-man-1-vote.
Tharoor does a good job of keeping up his diplomats mask and never loses his cool, although one wishes he had given them a few more punches. All in all, he is on message, and in a bizarre role reversal, is the lone wolf standing with a grin while 3 little piggies ..er I mean pakis huff and puff and try to blow the wolf away (from Siachen for instance)
Sahib Singh said that minority particularly Sikh community had completely been ignored by ANP-led government.
Wait till Imran Khan assumes power. Then, Mr. Sahib Singh would know. Not that I want Mr. Singh and his community to suffer. They have already been forced to pay jizya, subjected to kidnapping for ransom and ethnic-cleansing too. Everyone pities the status and the plight of the minorities, especially in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Sikhs, Hazara, Shia and the Hindus there have been subjected to horrendous atrocities. But, the goose was cooked a long time back for these minority communities (along with Christians and Ahmedis). The situation can never become better, it will only get worse especially when Imran Khan gets to power. Unlike Nawaz Sharif who is at least a closet jihadi, Imran Khan is an open admirer of Islamism and jihadism. I suggest the minorities in Pakistan migrate whenever an opportunity presents itself. Things are going to go horribly wrong for them in the next couple of years.
MurthyB wrote:Heated India Pakistan Debate with Dr. Shashi Tharoor? (Sochta Pakistan, 7 Jan 2012)
Poor Tharoor, he was hounded by a bunch abominable paranoid zombies who really believe in their delusions. He says Kargil, they say Siachen, he says pigLeTs, they say LTTE and Mukti bahini, he says TSP terror in Kashmir, they say Indian "terror" in Balochistan. TSP is truly an abomination. Thats why its a waste of time talking to those pukes, but MMS does not think so.
But one thing I cannot excuse Tharoor was when those perverts alleged that BJP cleansed the valley of pundits, and not valley KMs and TSP pigLeTs. Tharoor said he and his wife agree with the TSP assessment and deplore that. What was Tharoor smoking?
MurthyB wrote:Heated India Pakistan Debate with Dr. Shashi Tharoor? (Sochta Pakistan, 7 Jan 2012)
I am surprsed that Tharror did not bring Djinah's stinker after Ham sandwitch and onion that Pakistan was born the day MB Qasim scartched his gonads in public.
...
That’s precisely it, as far as the calculations of the Pakistani high command are concerned. Above all, there is the fear of India, the belief that once the Americans have gone the non-Pashtun nationalities in Afghanistan will inevitably look to India for support and will turn Afghanistan into some kind of client state. That theory is exaggerated but it’s not paranoid. I have heard indirectly of plans by hardline elements in Delhi which sound very like that...
I think experts like Uneven Cohen and Anatole Lying feed the Pak paranoia with such nuggets and make them even more crazy.
What hardline elements are in Delhi? Dilli is full of WKK billis all eager to fall for 400% assurances of that haram crore Mushy or the Ghilzai Pathan.
Tharoor seemed to be polite more than engaged in this pakistani orgy of paranoia, envy and self loathing. His weary smugness was balanced just right.
I fear that India occupies much too much mindspace for Pakistanis. The jaunty superciliousness of some years ago as been replaced by a bitterness that can only come from the knowledge that they are dead men walking. The job for Indian diplomacy is to ensure that they die without making too big a mess.
A telling anectode was the fuming ejaz's: that the US is engaged with India on many matters ( of great import) and that Indian activity in Baluchistan cannot be central to the indo-American equation.
CRamS wrote:
Poor Tharoor, he was hounded by a bunch abominable paranoid zombies who really believe in their delusions. He says Kargil, they say Siachen, he says pigLeTs, they say LTTE and Mukti bahini, he says TSP terror in Kashmir, they say Indian "terror" in Balochistan. TSP is truly an abomination. Thats why its a waste of time talking to those pukes, but MMS does not think so.
But one thing I cannot excuse Tharoor was when those perverts alleged that BJP cleansed the valley of pundits, and not valley KMs and TSP pigLeTs. Tharoor said he and his wife agree with the TSP assessment and deplore that. What was Tharoor smoking?
I am surprised you are calling him poor, he kicked some paki ass!
Failed or allowed to let off the anger after Abortabad?
Thanks
It was me and the if the report is true then it makes the whole thing even murkier. This attack and the one on Sri Lankan cricketers were remarkably similar in many ways
MurthyB wrote:Heated India Pakistan Debate with Dr. Shashi Tharoor? (Sochta Pakistan, 7 Jan 2012)
1) Ejaz seems a little drunk, and very intimidated. This is one case where a RAPE is outmatched in accent and affectation by an SDRE, and initially he can't even speak in English, preferring chaste urdu all of a sudden. Later the pinglishi accent slips out, and compares unfavorably (as far as Pakistani marketing goes) to Tharoors diction and command
Is this fluency in a foreign language something that important ?
jamwal wrote:
Is this fluency in a foreign language something that important ?
LOL Perfectly valid point! But the fact is that Tharoors language style has an appeal to a peculiar class of "Indian public school" types who go hahaha about Wodehouse. Unfortunately or not it includes me because a part of my own personality was shaped in a similar background.
I could call it an Indian Anglophone Macaulayite old school network that is tickled/titillated by the language.
Last edited by shiv on 10 Jan 2012 15:24, edited 1 time in total.
Addressing a rally in Karachi of his All Pakistan Muslim League via video link from Dubai, former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf announced that he would be returning to Pakistan between January 27 and 30 despite threats and court cases. He said he would face the cases against him and stand for election from Chitral. He indirectly, without naming him, blamed his bête noir Nawaz Sharif for joining hands with extremists in Balochistan to hatch conspiracies against him. He then went on to list the achievements of his period in power, including better economic management and raising the prestige of Pakistanis internationally.
The fly in the ointment for the aspiring politician Musharraf is that the federal interior minister Rehman Malik thinks he could be arrested on arrival, while the Sindh government has categorically announced he would be arrested the moment he sets foot on Pakistani soil. Those seeking his arrest are, from within the PPP government, those who (belatedly) accuse him of involvement in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, and from Balochistan, the heirs of Nawab Akbar Bugti, who seek his arraignment on charges of murdering the Nawab. What is interesting in the change of fortunes of the former military ruler is the fact that under a military-guaranteed deal, he was allowed to leave office and Pakistan without a hair on his head being touched. Times change, and for none more than former military dictators out of power. However, the original ‘guarantor’s’ attitude to these ominous portents as far as Musharraf is concerned is still unknown, although it could easily feed into the already strained civil-military relationship because of the memo case.
So long as he was master of all he surveyed, Musharraf may have had detractors, but today his attempt to make a foray into the swamp of Pakistani politics may invite more than gentle criticism. A quick survey of Musharraf’s policies and performance in power may be salutary. On coming to power through a military coup in 1999, the General was privileged by the Supreme Court with not just validation of his takeover, but gratuitously with the power to amend the constitution, both patently illegal and unconstitutional favours. In 2001, he arranged manipulated local bodies elections in military rulers’ traditional penchant in our history to thereby create a grassroots base of support for himself. The 2002 rigged general elections and presidential referendum followed to sprinkle salt on the wounds of the country. Between 2001 and his eventual departure in 2008, his ‘tight buddy’ President George Bush showered his regime with largesse that defied logic or accountability, thereby allowing the military dictator to boast even now of the ‘successes’ of his regime’s economic management. That economic ‘prosperity’ was eventually exposed for the bubble it was. Many of the country’s problems inherited from Musharraf’s years continue, and arguably have been worsened by the incumbent government’s inept handling, the example of the energy crunch being sufficient to make the point. Musharraf ‘repaid’ Bush’s largesse by framing the dual policy of moving against al Qaeda and supporting the Afghan Taliban, a duality that persists to date. The foundations for the current standoff with the Americans was therefore laid in Musharraf’s years by, on the one hand, making too many secret concessions to the US to operate in Pakistan, and on the other, double dealing Washington. The chickens of this foundation have by now come home to roost and threaten Pakistan with increasing international isolation. Musharraf ‘repaid’ his debt to the superior judiciary that had legitimised his illegal rule by emasculating the institution in an unprecedented ‘decapitation’. This however, proved the last straw for even those who had (mistakenly) supported him initially and the lawyers’ movement proved the last nail in his political coffin.
The serious charges of extra-judicial assassination of Nawab Akbar Bugti and involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Benazir Bhutto could do more than political damage to Musharraf’s ambitions. They could land him in serious trouble. Wiser counsel would be for him to forget about returning, let alone plunging into Pakistan’s political vortex and instead continuing to bask abroad in the lifestyle he has been enjoying since leaving power. But knowing the General’s high opinion of himself, this is unlikely to happen. End January could turn out more interesting than even the most hardened observer may have imagined.
A lot will depend on the 'original guarantor', the PA.
jamwal wrote:
Is this fluency in a foreign language something that important ?
Pakis attach great importance to it. In fact, Musharraf once proclaimed that Pakis speak better English then Indians, so why not IT in Pakistan. Of-course, it matters not a wit for Indians, and someone sporting a foriegn accent like Tharoor is more likely to be mocked in India I suppose.
DUBAI: Urgent action is needed to salvage Pakistan’s dire relations with the United States, former president Pervez Musharraf said, after announcing he would return home soon to re-enter politics.
“Today Pakistan-US relations are at their lowest, this is because of a trust and confidence deficit,” Musharraf told Reuters in an interview in Dubai.
“I believe Pakistan needs to justify and clarify the issue of Osama bin Laden having been found in Abbottabad,” Musharraf said. “At the same time the United States needs to identify what environment they are leaving in 2014 when they quit because that is going to affect Pakistan directly.”
Islamabad: The house in Pakistan where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was shot dead by US Navy Seals will be flattened by rocket-propelled grenades and then bulldozed.
Pakistani military chiefs have planned to do so in order to prevent the walled complex becoming a sick shrine to the al Qaeda terror master, The Sun reports.
“We will hit it like an enemy fort. But first we must erase everything related to bin Laden from our country,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.
According to the report, the demolition will take place next month.
Pakistan chief military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said US and European officials will be invited, adding that “it would be a big event”.
Pakistan has been accused of turning a blind eye to the hideout in Abbottabad, 30 miles from capital Islamabad.
US intelligence officers have completed a forensic trawl and Arabic translators are wading through 187,000 documents seized after Osama’s death on May 2011.
Our brothers to the west are not content with just bulldozering the Osama complex. A bit more drama will likely erase the memory of their complicity in harboring Osama it seems. Typical paki stunt.
Every time he used to see a religious inscription painted or plastered across the back of a vehicle, a friend of mine used to say that the owner of the vehicle had doubts about his faith.
“Alhamdulillah, I am a Muslim and a Pakistani.” How often does one come across statements such as this? But what does such a declaration really mean in a country where more than 95 per cent of the population is Muslim – and, of course, Pakistani?
Why do we keep hearing it over and over again? Do most Pakistanis have doubts about their religious and patriotic inclinations? Whom are they talking to?
It is Pakistanis talking to Pakistanis. So then why the constant reminders about them being Muslims and Pakistanis? The reasons are rather simple. Our’s is a country where there is no one cohesive understanding of faith or culture.
Though there is nothing wrong in being a diverse society (in fact the diversity should be celebrated), the problem starts when the state and certain intellectual and religious circles begin to shape and enforce a single concept of “correct religion” and “true patriotism.”
When this supposedly correct version of religious belief and nationalism is given constant currency and propagation, an overriding social psyche starts to develop in which anyone criticising or even debating this version automatically becomes suspect and is likely to be accused of being “anti-Islam” and (thus) “anti-Pakistan.”
This psyche has not only hindered the development of the culture of holding informed discourses, it has also given birth to a mind-set that explains the act of mud-slinging as “debate,” and which encourages the floating of bizarre conspiracy theories as a way to actually fatten one’s credentials as a “political analyst”, “religious scholar” and “economic expert.”
Thus, even when a view is aired, especially if it is a learned, insightful and well informed opinion, the person is subconsciously bound to also apologetically explain his Muslimness and Pakistaniat – as if trying to speak one’s mind is a no-go-area and can bring the involved person’s religious and patriotic beliefs into question.
Constant declarations such as, “After all we are all Muslims …” have become mantras of apologia without which a person is exposed to all kinds of accusations by the keepers of faith and nationalism who can be found in great numbers across large sections of the society, media and the ‘establishment.’
But the progressive and the less religiously demonstrative politicians, journalists and intellectuals are not the only ones forced by this psyche to constantly announce their faith and patriotism.
Artistes, cultural figures and the common man too – especially when they are given a public platform like, for example, television – find themselves subconsciously and almost instinctively invoking the words, “Islam,” and “Pakistan,” even while talking about a totally secular and unrelated topic.
It is as if each one of them feels that while in front of a camera, more than anything else, it is their religious and patriotic credentials that are being judged.
One can expect this from an actress, a pop star, politicians, cooking show host and common people. The psychological pressure to do so is such that they are bound to add a statement like, “Akhir hum Muslaman aur Pakistani hain” (After all, we are Muslims and Pakistanis), to whatever they may be saying.
This is actually them answering an invisible and unsaid, but nonetheless, forceful question: “Declare your faith?” As if not answering this question can get them accused of being “un-Islamic” and “un-patriotic.”
This is a sad state of affairs. It smells of an elusive and unspoken form of fascism imposed in the name of faith and patriotism. The situation gets even worse when such declarations are ironically not expected from people who perhaps make the biggest mockery of faith and nationalism. These are certain politico-religious figures, conservative personalities and most televangelists.
They seem to be free to distort faith and history, clutter minds with crackpot conspiracy theories, mock intelligence and rationality, and sometimes even instigate hatred and violence – yet not a single question is asked of them.
Nobody is judging their credentials in this respect. Maybe because their declarations in matters of faith and patriotism come in the shape of loud reactionary ranting, hare-brained theories and their “Islamic way of dressing.” As if being a good Muslim and a concerned Pakistani only amounts to being loud, exhibitionistic and self-righteous.
After all, isn’t it true that though the mindset I am talking about is always quick to call an actress “fahash” (obscene), a secular politician “anti-Islam,” a liberal “pro-West,” and an objective/progressive political analyst “anti-Pakistan,” it never bothers to question preachers, fanatics, TV personalities and those televangelists who openly peddle faith and patriotism through hate speeches, reactionary insinuations, reckless conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated gossip?
Think about it.
And by the way, I too must declare: I am a Muslim and a Pakistani. Just in case.
But first we must erase everything related to bin Laden from our country,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.
