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.
This is a modern day example of "Oriental studies" in which a book is written based on hearsay and personal tales of some other guy which the authors sit ensconced in their cushy European universities.
This is one of the pillars that led to the rise of "Western" Universalism in which the West writes for itself about others ad sets itself apart as the shining/guiding light.
The first para of the Shitistan section revealed that these doctors have no clue. A doctor may know more about someone's anus that anyone might imagine, but these guys know zilch about the collection of assholes that is Pakistan and they come off looking like assholes for their pretend scholarly work.
Gagan wrote:Mods, how does one not see some speceific person's posts?
For example if one does not want to see CramS's posts, is there some way to do it?
CRamS will be genuinely happy the day India becomes like America.
However, my viewpoint is that Pakistan will only sink along with America and unless the US changes its stance. The US will have to be made to sink overall in terms of power and influence in order to push Pakistan down further. In my view there is no short cut. Pakistan's fate is tied up with its sponsors - especially those who give without getting much in return. I believe that CRamS would rather not see the US go down and would rather see India push Pakistan down despite what he believes is the US's inalienable right and irresistible might to do whatever it wants with India, Pakistan and the world. The latter viewpoint irritates many Indians but we have to suck it up and live with it. This is the fate of being Indian. We need to bow our heads, grit our teeth and move on despite the fact that CRamS' posts all sound like insulting taunts. But there is nothing in those posts that we can show to be false. If he was white American we could accuse him of white supremacy. But no such escape route..
CRamS is correct in pointing out that the US displays a kind of brazen cockiness in words and actions. He also acknowledges that Pakistan displays a similar brazen cockiness in word and deed. But he believes that Pakistan is under US control and that India needs to display similar brazen cockiness with Pakistan in porder to find its place in the world - or else India will remain at Pakistan level
Just put up with the taunts. We are exactly as he says - an inferior people compared with America, a nation that can control Pakistan with a twirl of its little finger. We are only Pakistan's equal. Not the US. We need to do better than that and take a cue from the US in twirling Pakistan around our little finger, but India and Indians just not have the right stuff. Eschew ego and smell the coffee.
DoCJi saar, you are way over interpreting my stance as have many others. I count myself as one of ModiJi's supporters, and please see what even his ardent supporters like Harsh Pant are saying
Having said that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and that is true for you and Harsh Pant. The interesting feature about the opinions you expressed and that expressed by Harsh Pant is that they will come as an irritant to two entirely separate groups of people
1. One group are ardent Modi supporters who think Modi will cure all ills. Criticism of Modi is bound to anger them
2. The other group are a bunch of realists who may or may not support Modi but understand that we have a problem with Pakistan that cannot be solved easily, Modi or no Modi. For this group criticism of Modi is a silly side-game when it was always a no brainer that lover's tiffs like not talking can only be symbolic. When we maintain a Pakistan embassy in India we are talking to them. When we maintain Indian embassies in Pakistan, we are talking to them. Whether our men get murdered at the border or whether we retaliate and kill, we eventually end up talking to them at least to exchange bodies. We have been and will continue to talk to Pakistan in so many ways.
I don't know what Harsh Pant might be thinking and perhaps I have no idea what you think. But I certainly observed that there was a great deal of cheering on BRF when Modi said that there would be no talks. I think we naive people on BRF were too enamoured by Modi's ostensible tough talk that we (and Harsh Pant perhaps) actually believed that all talk would stop. Modi made the political statement that talks cannot continue in an atmosphere of violence. He did not say anything more but we danced and sang on BRF and in Harsh Pant land imagining that all talk has ended. A brief respite to think would have shown that the promise was going to be empty. We need to break diplomuttic relations with Pakistan if we must stop talking. Why did everyone simply imagine that there was something more than political rhetoric? Or are people hurt that Modi now looks like Yudisthira doing an Ashwatthama the elephant is dead?
The problem can't be solved easily with or without Modi. It is, in my view, extremely naive to see Modi as anything but a wily politician. Wily politicians can make good leaders and we need good leadership. But Modi is not a magician and only magic can make the Pakistan problem disappear. Overall India can wield only so much power over Pakistan and no single leader can change that very much. Over time it would have to be a national goal to change that. Anyone looking for Magic would be better off reading PC Sorcar's website.
As far as the way your posts come out on the forum - you make it a point to highlight the way the US is brazen in funding or playing with Pakistan and you use that as an example to hold up against Indian actions in showing of how weak and ineffective India is. You are telling the truth and the truth hurts. People have certain views about some flaws in your viewpoint but your erudition is able to bypass all objections. So you are right and your being right about India hurts.
shiv wrote:
The problem can't be solved easily with or without Modi. It is, in my view, extremely naive to see Modi as anything but a wily politician. Wily politicians can make good leaders and we need good leadership. But Modi is not a magician and only magic can make the Pakistan problem disappear. Overall India can wield only so much power over Pakistan and no single leader can change that very much. Over time it would have to be a national goal to change that. Anyone looking for Magic would be better off reading PC Sorcar's website.
Yeah. We need to be patient and have a long term strategy. I haven't seen any of our leaders talk about the long term goal vis-a-vis Pakistan though. Of course, every leader says we want ever lasting peace between two countries but do they really mean it? It sure is the politically correct thing to say in public. We don't want to be seen having grand plans to break up Pakistan. India's goal should probably be to create Iraq or '71 type situation in Pakistan. This may already be the case. I doubt if such goals will ever be made public. Such a situation will create room for Indian intervention which will be difficult for 3.5 friends to oppose.
But Modi is not a magician and only magic can make the Pakistan problem disappear.
Nobody can make the Pakistan problem disappear. Even if the US and China abandon Pakistan because it is an irritant in their ties with India, the Saudis will bankroll the Pakistanis.
Modi is no magician either, but Modi has been trying his best with the Act-East policy to put the Pakistan problem in the right perspective, but even the biggest of Modi-bhakts are obsessed with Pakistan.
PS: If you thought that Modi's strategy was to mercilessly apply jhapads to Pakistan, you're no doubt worried about his flip-flops. If you understand the strategy as outlined here: http://www.firstpost.com/world/counter- ... 23601.html
shiv wrote:
The problem can't be solved easily with or without Modi. It is, in my view, extremely naive to see Modi as anything but a wily politician. Wily politicians can make good leaders and we need good leadership. But Modi is not a magician and only magic can make the Pakistan problem disappear. Overall India can wield only so much power over Pakistan and no single leader can change that very much. Over time it would have to be a national goal to change that. Anyone looking for Magic would be better off reading PC Sorcar's website.
Yeah. We need to be patient and have a long term strategy. I haven't seen any of our leaders talk about the long term goal vis-a-vis Pakistan though. Of course, every leader says we want ever lasting peace between two countries but do they really mean it? It sure is the politically correct thing to say in public. We don't want to be seen having grand plans to break up Pakistan. India's goal should probably be to create Iraq or '71 type situation in Pakistan. This may already be the case. I doubt if such goals will ever be made public. Such a situation will create room for Indian intervention which will be difficult for 3.5 friends to oppose.
Pakistan is not under anyone's control. Even the most powerful groups in Pakistan do not control every part or every group. I think that this is such a difficult or inconvenient fact to accept that no one wants to talk about it. Everyone who engages 'Pakistan" is simply engaging one or more groups who will talk to them and those groups invariably have no control over things happening in other parts of Pakistan.
These are simply hallmarks of a failing state. The word "anarchy" can be split means "an-" (without) "-archy" (ruler). Pakistan has no single ruler. Even China and the US only engage those with whom they can strike deals. Unfortunately for us that happens to be the Pakistan army. There are others in Pakistan whom we can engage and India seems to be engaging with them. When we consider Pakistan as a single, united, monolithic entity we make the error of assuming that we can punish or reward all of Pakistan. We have to selectively punish some groups of Pakis. We have to selectively engage others.
I try to repeat the following fact but it seems difficult for most people to swallow. BRF went on steam in maybe 1996 or 1997. Since then Pakistan's population has grown from about 120 million to 200 million. Most are uneducated. Pakistan's industrial economy has not improved much. They are still exporting cotton and footballs. they still don;t have refineries for oil. Back in the late 90s they (Pakistani government and army) claimed that they had an active space program and a vibrant stock market and later they claimed a vibrant car industry and a great Infotech industry. Now they claim that they are manufacturing jet fighters and armed UAVs and miniature tactical nuclear weapons.
Shortly before 9-11 Pakistan had US $ 11 billion in reserves. They now have a similar figure. Their claims have become bigger. Their population has become bigger. Their wars have increased. Their economy has not become bigger.
How much should we obsess with putting this area of land called Pakistan down? I repeat. If terrorism stops, Pakistan wil simply drop out of India's consciousness. Only terrorism makes Pakistan relevant to the world.
Asserting that Singh was not the first minister of state to go there and he certainly will not be the last minister of state to go on such occasions, the spokesperson said, “There is a carefully calibrated approach that we follow on such matters and government nominates a person to go on such occasions. On this instance it was minister of state for external affairs Mr V.K. Singh.” Asked if government has adopted a soft approach towards talks between Pakistan high commissioner in New Delhi and Kashmiri separatist leaders, he did not give a direct answer and said, “In diplomacy, contextual specificities are of importance.” “We carefully examined the situation. We take responses based on our understanding of the contextual situation and we have taken this decision based on contextual situation including the reciprocity of who had come to the Indian Republic Day celebration sometime ago,” he added.
^It was Obama after all. Modi needs business from US of A and therefore he compromised on Porkistan. He is in it for the long run and has to look at the bigger picture. That is all there is to it.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) will be approaching the Interpol to issue Red Corner Notices against two Pakistani High Commission officials posted in Sri Lanka whose role has been established in multiple terror plots against India.
The home ministry has learnt that the two officials — Amir Zubair Siddiqui who served as Counselor (Visa) and a Pakistani intelligence officer Vineeth, alias Rana — have since been recalled to Pakistan.
The NIA has, however, got concrete proof in the form of Vineeth's voice on tape directing a Sri Lankan spy Arun Selvarajan to do a recee of sensitive defence installations in India which will help in future terror attacks.
NIA has procured latest photographs of the two officials and their e-mail records. "At some stage, Pakistan will be confronted with this evidence," a home ministry official said.
An NIA charge-sheet submitted on March 6, which has been accessed by ET, cites a confession made by Selvarajan that he had the habit of recording the conversation in micro cassettes between his handlers and him, since he wanted to keep a proof of his conversations so that he can demand fund from his handlers.
"The micro cassettes were recovered on 11.09.2014 from the possession of Selvarajan and forwarded to TNFSD, Mylapore, Chennai, for analysis. The result is yet to be received," the NIA chargesheet has said. A top ministry official said this could be a "clinching proof " of Pakistan's involvement.
NIA also has another strong piece of evidence in the form of a legally intercepted call of Selvarajan before his arrest last year when he was under surveillance.
"During one of the lawfully intercepted calls, Selvarajan has made a voluntary confession to one of his friends that he acted at the behest of Pakistan embassy officials in Sri Lanka, collected and disseminated vital information on Indian defence installations," thecharge-sheet says.
Selvarajan worked as an employee in event management groups functioning at Chennai Port, Indian Coast Guard, Indian Army, etc., and could therefore enter prohibited areas. Selvarajan, on the pretext of being an event manager, also managed to visit other important sensitive instllations.
Arun Menon wrote:^It was Obama after all. Modi needs business from US of A and therefore he compromised on Porkistan. He is in it for the long run and has to look at the bigger picture. That is all there is to it.
Quote:
That said, the risks of heightened military competition with Pakistan recall the historical lesson that while Reagan intensified his competition with Moscow, he simultaneously placed an enormous emphasis on diplomatic outreach and summit diplomacy. Reagan’s goal was never to fight and win a war, but to force negotiations to a point where Moscow would willingly make concessions. Modi’s goal should be the same. At present, however, he has taken India out of serious bilateral negotiations with Pakistan. This missing piece of India’s strategy is profoundly dangerous, even counterproductive.
End quote.
Arun Menon wrote:^It was Obama after all. Modi needs business from US of A and therefore he compromised on Porkistan. He is in it for the long run and has to look at the bigger picture. That is all there is to it.
What did Obama do? I must have missed it.
Like we ever really get to know what khan does behind the scenes. There was a connection made between Modi's mellowing on porkistan and the obama visit before, now we hear it from the horse's mouth.
A_Gupta wrote:People write articles like these: http://viewsweek.com/south-asia/pakista ... ive-peace/
Then Obama meets Modi.
Then Modi apparently resumes pappi-jhappi with Pakistan. Must be Obama's doing, people think.
Quote:
That said, the risks of heightened military competition with Pakistan recall the historical lesson that while Reagan intensified his competition with Moscow, he simultaneously placed an enormous emphasis on diplomatic outreach and summit diplomacy. Reagan’s goal was never to fight and win a war, but to force negotiations to a point where Moscow would willingly make concessions. Modi’s goal should be the same. At present, however, he has taken India out of serious bilateral negotiations with Pakistan. This missing piece of India’s strategy is profoundly dangerous, even counterproductive.
End quote.
If this is Modi's plan in reality, then he has sold an already well-thought-out move to obama as a concession on porkistan. That is one wily PM we have.
>> How much should we obsess with putting this area of land called Pakistan down? I repeat. If terrorism stops, Pakistan wil simply drop out of India's consciousness. Only terrorism makes Pakistan relevant to the world.
But is it a good thing if Pakistan drops out of India's consciousness completely? After all, we want our occupied lands back, don't we? I agree we need not obsess over Pakistan but at the same time we should not ignore it to the extent that we lose track of our objective.
I will judge Modi Sarkar only on substance and a few symbolism here and there that is not so jingoistic is ok for me. Here is what I see Modi's policies are so far:
1. Military engagement
A tit for tat response and complete freedom for local commanders to hit them at will.
Build capability/capacity to face two front war.
2. Diplomatic Pressure
Keep squeezing them in every way possible, while showing our readiness to talk if the attitude changes
3. Intelligence/Counter Intelligence
Find moles and destroy them where possible.
Build covert capability to detect and destroy terrorists and their infrastructure
4. Economic Engagement
Just ignore them
I am satisfied in all these fronts so far. More could be done, but we don't know what other pressures internal and external Modi is facing.
Pakistan on Monday said India should continue to focus on achieving higher growth rates as it has direct correlation with the success of the South Asian region and SAARC at large.
"We in South Asia do believe that India does have a wherewithal and resolves to step to the plate and ensure that it achieves its economic goals because if India rises we are confident the entire region will rise with India," Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit said at an Assocham meeting.
He said that it is important to create a level playing field within the eight member- South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and stressed that economic development should not get subdued in the political noise.
"This is especially true in the context of our region where politics often drums economics ... In my view these two constitute the warp and woof of modern economic diplomacy," he added.
Without promoting regional integration, one does not know how one becomes part of the global supply chain".
^^^
Pakistanis don't have any policy.
Any foreign policy they have is a function of what the ISI wants, which changes as and when a 3.5 master's emissary meets the army chief.
The diplomutts are therefore left doling out neutral sounding, loose statements without any meaning and without anything concrete at all.
So the thing is,
Pakistan has this huge youth population who are mostly madarssa educated, and are pure deadweight to their society.
Their only use is as terrorists or as cannon fodder for the fauj.
uneducated society will invariably split along ethinic, linguistic, religious subsect divisions.
In their melting pots, eg Karachi, where these all different ethinic groups come in contact with each other, there is bound to be conflict. And rightly so, we see in karachi, areas which have been cornered by different groups along lingusitic (Urdu speaking), ethinic (Baloch / pashtun / Sindhi), and shia-sunni lines.
There is NO solution to the situation at least in this generation, because there is a trail of murder and revenge that have solidified these divisions.
Pakistan is not about to educate its population - the politicians and the army do not want this.
They don't have the wherewithal to develop economically at all. Their powers that be have a well oiled system of siphoning off dole money for rentier services provided, that they are not going to give up.
These divisions will therefore carry back to their different states and will create conditions where there will be increasing conflict amongst the different states, divisions and subdivisions.
As the number of young faithfools increases, the more fragmented their country is going to be, the chances of them splitting into 4-5 different nations increases.
He said that it is important to create a level playing field within the eight member- South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and stressed that economic development should not get subdued in the political noise.
Pigs are not quite flying yet, I believe. Translating from paki-speak, This is just the pakis wanting economic cooperation with India (i.e., more conduits to push in terrorists and heroin) and once that has been set up right, the pakis reserve the right to start screaming about Kashmir nukular fleshpoint jaguar vein. The only constant has always been that pakis in the army and government are "tactically brilliant" lying scum who are up to no good always.
shiv wrote:
What did Obama do? I must have missed it.
There was a connection made between Modi's mellowing on porkistan and the obama visit before,
That connection was what I missed - especially the fact that Obama had to travel all the way to India to give dictation when a phone call could have sufficed. In 1999 a connection was made between India ending the Kargil offensive after a phone call from Clinton to Vajpayee.
^Of course, I have no solid proof for any of this, but it is an awful coincidence that what seems like the conclusion of a deal between Modi and obama happens at the same time that Modi seems to mellow on porkistan. One wonders if Modi even put pressure on porkistan (border flareups) to indirectly put pressure on USA (with pakis moaning and whining to it about no troops for the western border). Sounds like wishful thinking really, but one wonders.
Strange indeed!
A phone call from Wahington can make an Indian leader end a war.
But a visit has to be done, across seven seas, halfway around the globe to make an Indian leader start talks.
Stranger indeed that Al-Presidente from Khanate can order Indian PM to start talking or not declare war on Al-Bakistan but can't get him one Nobel prize that MMS waited for.
No seriously, what has USA offered in return to start the talk..Think Think !!
I'm sure there are so many awful coincidences going around. It's a coincidence I posted just as my left testimonial was itching. Makes you think, it does. Strange.
Arun Menon wrote:^It was Obama after all. Modi needs business from US of A and therefore he compromised on Porkistan. He is in it for the long run and has to look at the bigger picture. That is all there is to it.
how do you conclude that "it was Obama after all?" According to my understanding of English, what the spokesman is implying is that someone of the level of Minister of State from Pakistan had attended Indian Republic Day event in Indian Embassy in Pakistan; therefore reciprocity required that we send someone of the same level to their equivalent of Republic Day celebration in their embassy.
Arun Menon wrote:
Like we ever really get to know what khan does behind the scenes. There was a connection made between Modi's mellowing on porkistan and the obama visit before, now we hear it from the horse's mouth.
I responded to you earlier but I think I'll now make a stronger statement.
Akbaruddin is not your horse. Here, you were evidently in communion with your personal horse which confirmed your own smug personal prejudice, unsupported by actual evidence, about GOI's decisions and what drives them. Because, if we read Akbaruddin 's statement as normal, simple English, without the filter of any rigidly held personal prejudice, there is no other interpretation possible than the one I gave.
We have seen this kind of mindlessly twisted and illogical interpretations to suit their prejudiced opinions from political and media pundits and have seen fit to label such people traitors, sepoys ad so forth. I think now that we have to consider that, as a nation, we, including the media we despise so, all share a quality of smugness and a tendency to put reinforcement of our beliefs and prejudices ahead of actual reading, interpretation, analysis and understanding.
That is a tendency that marks an intellectually under-developed but overly self-important people who are doomed to be dominated by the first adversary that comes along with the minimal intellect needed to cross the low threshold such people set.
Last edited by SSridhar on 31 Mar 2015 07:27, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:Tone down your rhetoric. Everybody is entitled to his/her view. You can rebut it less aggressively.
People are entitled to their own opinions on how Modi handles Pakistan, but here is mine, FWIW.
Let Modi resume peace/security/counter-terrorism/economic/any-other-BS chai biskoot with Pakistan. At the foreign secretary level or the ministerial level. I am not concerned.
Let Modi make offers to sell Pakistan gas or electricity from India. I am not concerned.
Let Modi send his officials to rub shoulders with Pakistanis at multilateral meets, or shake Nawaz Sharif's hand when they meet somewhere. Let Modi even visit Pakistan if he wants. I am not concerned.
If troops are moved back from the LOC/IB, or the army's hands are tied when it comes to retaliating for cross-border shelling or beheading expeditions...
If an additional watt of Indian power or an additional cc of Indian gas actually ends up crossing the border to Pakistan...
If any noises are made at bilateral fora about putting Indian territory (Sir Creek, Siachen, Kashmir valley) "on the table", or at multilateral fora about "conceding to Indian involvement in Baluchistan", etc...
IF any of these things happen, then, MAYBE I will be concerned. But probably not even then.
Why, you may ask? Why would the same actions which caused me such grief and concern from the Manmohan/Maino regime be of little or no concern to me from the MAD government?
The answer is trust. I did not trust that the Sonia Maino-controlled, Manmohan Singh-"led" dispensation had India's national interest at heart. I don't think I need to make the case why. Everything from Sharm-el-Sheikh to "Saffron Terror" to an endless roster of scams has already made the case for me.
Meanwhile, I simply do not believe that MAD will ever give anything of any substance to Pakistan. Ever.
Now I understand the argument that some put forward... why talk to Pakistan at all then? Why even acknowledge their existence? Even if it is only about "optics", don't the "optics" simply feed into Pakistan's delusions about being "equal" to India, about being able to influence Indian policy? Why give them even that milligram of izzat which they will convert into a ton of reeking jihadi hubris?
The only answer I have is the counterfactual. If we do NOT feed their delusion, do the Pakis become LESS delusional? Has that ever happened, even after we amputated half their country? Does it cure them to disillusion them? Also, are we the only ones feeding their delusion? Isn't that being fed by a whole industry of people in the West, in the PRC, in the Arab world? If we stop feeding does that mean they stop eating?
Therefore, the downside of feeding their delusion by such optics on our part is minimal compared to the potential third-party advantages we might gain (such as being able to portray ourselves as a peace-loving and conciliatory member of the international community, undermine the "nuclear flashpoint" narrative, etc.)
The true test of MAD's Pakistan policy will come when the Pakis try some $hit. They have tried a little, in J&K. Immediately afterwards, Baluchistan has reached boiling point. Coincidence, maybe. But I at least allow for the possibility that one hand clad in velvet can make gentle gestures ("optics") above the table, while another hand reaches firmly for the Paki gotas under the table.
If a man like Ajit Doval, out of all 1.2 billion Indians, isn't capable of this, then maybe only "Bahadur" from Indrajal Comics is the leader we can count on.
The question each one of us has to answer for himself is... do I trust MAD, or not? If you don't trust, you will continue to experience heartburn every time one of these "optics" is highlighted (and that too, highlighted by a mainstream media which we loathe, and which is universally recognized to have an anti-Modi agenda). That's all there is to it.
Having asserted his dominance, the alpha male then reverts to more normal behavior; dominance assertion is not perpetual; those who hoped it would be so are sadly mistaken in their beliefs.
Gagan wrote:Strange indeed!
A phone call from Wahington can make an Indian leader end a war.
But a visit has to be done, across seven seas, halfway around the globe to make an Indian leader start talks.
Boo Hoo
Did they talk. What did they talk
Did they talk about who and how talk will talk to talk.
A_Gupta wrote:If you thought that Modi's strategy was to mercilessly apply jhapads to Pakistan, you're no doubt worried about his flip-flops. If you understand the strategy as outlined here: http://www.firstpost.com/world/counter- ... 23601.html
I haven't seen Modi deviate from it yet.
I can bet one thing. Even a single movement of India and Pak will do X, and whatever be that X maybe will lead to a change of regime in Pak. All it needs is small agreement such a let us talk about military position in sir creek to see end of Badmaash.
No one really wants India to do anymore. Everyone wants India to not do anything and what they have to do for India to no do anything. India's conditions are no more hara-kiri where as everyone want to take few hits as attrition and be quite. They just don't want India to escalate from Afghan theatre and Baluch theatre. The talks are just that much these days. " sir jee please allow more Lahore buses, could you allow our cricketers in IPL, could you reign in your friend in Baluch/Afghan ... Pleazeeeeeee "
Let Iran-US Nuke deal be over and we will see how the Shia and Sunnis live together in Pak and in that situation what will be even meaning of "talks about talks". Pak joined the Sunni coalition against Shia rebels of Yemen.
Gagan wrote:^^^
Pakistanis don't have any policy.
Any foreign policy they have is a function of what the ISI wants, which changes as and when a 3.5 master's emissary meets the army chief.
The diplomutts are therefore left doling out neutral sounding, loose statements without any meaning and without anything concrete at all.
Now they are creating policy based on India internal policy.
Pakistan on Monday said India should continue to focus on achieving higher growth rates as it has direct correlation with the success of the South Asian region and SAARC at large.
"We in South Asia do believe that India does have a wherewithal and resolves to step to the plate and ensure that it achieves its economic goals because if India rises we are confident the entire region will rise with India," Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit said at an Assocham meeting.
"This is especially true in the context of our region where politics often drums economics ... In my view these two constitute the warp and woof of modern economic diplomacy," he added.
Without promoting regional integration, one does not know how one becomes part of the global supply chain".
Now they are even saying Indian growth cannot be just for India alone. They are experts on Indian supply chain also. Indian globalization cannot go by itself now. It needs to be connected with region also as if Pak are experts in Indian policy making.
PESHAWAR: Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on Monday claimed responsibility for the killing of Lieutenant Colonel Tahir Azeem who was shot dead a day earlier by unknown gunmen in Peshawar's Hayatabad area, in a statement issued by Taliban spokesman Mohammad Khorasani.
Pakistan on Monday said India should continue to focus on achieving higher growth rates as it has direct correlation with the success of the South Asian region and SAARC at large.
"We in South Asia do believe that India does have a wherewithal and resolves to step to the plate and ensure that it achieves its economic goals because if India rises we are confident the entire region will rise with India," Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit said at an Assocham meeting.
He said that it is important to create a level playing field within the eight member- South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and stressed that economic development should not get subdued in the political noise.
"This is especially true in the context of our region where politics often drums economics ... In my view these two constitute the warp and woof of modern economic diplomacy," he added.
Without promoting regional integration, one does not know how one becomes part of the global supply chain".
One thing pakis and their azadipasand chelas do well is to orchestrate the current version of the propagandu formula assigned by ISI.
Recent edition of the formula tries to hook into the Indian preoccupation with growth and a secondary, and diminishing interest in bringing the prodigal son pakis "home" to the motherland. The next line of the formula, right after invoking growth, is to threaten to stall that growth if cashmere is not solved. While doing needed papi-jhapi to feed the yindoo yearning for the prodigals.
Pakis have no ability or interest in participating in the growth in any constructive way. It is either a narrative lead-in to crying about cash-mere, or it is about getting mere-cash as parasites. We already called their bluff many years ago and gave them MFN. They can't even reciprocate something so basic. QED.
Pakistan may miss the export target of $27bn for the current fiscal by a billion dollars. The duty-free access to Europe under the GSP Plus has led to a diversion of merchandise exports to the region, but done little to boost the country’s total exports, early indicators suggest.
Pakistan’s exports have been stagnant for the last four years (since FY10-11), vacillating in a narrow band of $24-25bn. During the first seven months of this fiscal (July 2014-February), exports stood at $16bn. Bangladesh’s exports surpassed the $30bn-mark last year and is set to hit the current year’s target of $34.5bn.
According to a recent UN study covering a 30-year period (1980-2011), India’s share of world exports improved from 0.43pc to 1.7pc; Bangladesh’s from 0.04pc to 0.14pc; Malaysia’s from 0.74pc to 1.34pc; and Thailand’s from 0.37pc to 1.35pc. Pakistan’s share, however, remained stagnant at 0.15pc.
KLNMurthy wrote:
Pakis have no ability or interest in participating in the growth in any constructive way. It is either a narrative lead-in to crying about cash-mere, or it is about getting mere-cash as parasites. We already called their bluff many years ago and gave them MFN. They can't even reciprocate something so basic. QED.
This is true that they are not interested.
but they are preview to some other geo political plans of the west for a long time. The entire south asia project of HK and others are still unfolding and things may not go in favor of them in the future.
There is a independent thinking elite which has developed in Pak which is taking control over the country. But they are a client state and a rentier state.
A_Gupta wrote:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 385_1.html
India does have a wherewithal and resolves to step to the plate and ensure that it achieves its economic goals because if India rises we are confident the entire region will rise with India,"
The Paki who said that is such a hilarious oiseaule that he can get away with it only because the people whom he is addressing are bigger oiseaules.
If literacy in India rises and literacy in the Islamic Republic of Shitistan remains stagnant, the average literacy of the "whole region" will still rise. The same holds true for economy. In other words Pakistan needs to do nothing - they will simply bask in reflected glory. However it still makes a change from the earlier stance of "You cannot rise if we don't allow you" and an even earlier stance of "You will not rise at all" and an even earlier stance of "We will come and rule you"
Arun Menon wrote:^It was Obama after all. Modi needs business from US of A and therefore he compromised on Porkistan. He is in it for the long run and has to look at the bigger picture. That is all there is to it.
how do you conclude that "it was Obama after all?" According to my understanding of English, what the spokesman is implying is that someone of the level of Minister of State from Pakistan had attended Indian Republic Day event in Indian Embassy in Pakistan; therefore reciprocity required that we send someone of the same level to their equivalent of Republic Day celebration in their embassy.
This is news to me. Who is this MOS level porki guest at the Republic Day celebrations? Would you care to share that?
CRamS will be genuinely happy the day India becomes like America.
