India's Sharm-el- Sheikh Harakiri...

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 17 Jul 2009 20:08

Opposition welcomes Gilani-Singh meeting
By opposition it does not mean BJP

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 20:08

Gagan wrote:What's wrong with having a columbian wife? At least columbia will never sell arms to India so we are safe onlee.
Or has the columbian chapter come to a close?

No Columbian chica marries somebody who can't do salsa. I didn't get one even though I can!

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 17 Jul 2009 20:15

There is this desi attitude that being generous to the terrorist is magnanimous. That's true only if you do it from a position of strength. Otherwise its simple cowardice.

Many desies don't seem to know the difference!

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 17 Jul 2009 20:17

*** Deleted ***

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 20:19

g.kacha wrote:I wonder why our esteemed BRFites think that MMS hs betrayed the common citizens of India.
Do the common citizens care about what happened in Egypt.

kacha
the reason we think Statesman PM has betrayed the common citizens of India, some of us who are in shadows doing their 2 bit for their matribhoomi wonder if their efforts to protect their beloved country is worth the effort and cost. Aam Aadmi is not concerned about running country that's why they elect their representative, they are busy with their measly lives. Not every Aam Admi becomes part of protecting this nation, her citizens, her assets, her honor and dignity.
I personally know of some people who are doing their work for their mata at the risk of losing their life long success. I feel like statesman PM has taken wind out of my sails, why shall I risk my success for the sake of this nation if her chosen leaders are going to sell her out anyways.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 20:19

A betrayal has occured of the aggreed policy in dealing with pakistan. Letting pakistan get a foothold on the balochistan issue is unpardonable. MMS's immaturity and exceeding his brief, in agreeing to endlessly review any stupid dossier that pakistan throws back at india is sheer naivety, pakistan is only procastinating, and MMS just allowed it to, he equated action on 26/11 as a childish squabble between two neighbours.

Us commoners can commit mistakes, but the prime minister of india, backed by a mature and knowledgable foreign services can not put the interests of a billion people because of a personal whim of his. He can't overrule their experience with his proclivity at disbursing largess, and undermining the nations interest.

The path he has chosen will result in pakistan going scot free for all the indian citizens they have murdered over the years. I hate to be saying this, but his action is just short of being a direct accomplice in pakistan's terror policy, since his actions,both in havana and in egypt have allowed the pakistanis a fig leaf to cover their actions.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 17 Jul 2009 20:22

Gagan wrote:What's wrong with having a columbian wife? At least columbia will never sell arms to India so we are safe onlee.
Or has the columbian chapter come to a close?

Nothing wrong with having columbian wife but knowing the khaandan, some columbians will be salivating at big market for their product. After all we are an emerging economy, with large population to spend money.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 20:27

India's concession is no concession at all
Excerpts

Rule number one is that Pakistan "will do everything in its power" to bring the "perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice". This is what India has been pressing for. India has never discounted the possibility of resuming talks with Pakistan but has consistently asked Pakistan to deliver on its promise. The statement, in fact, is a step forward from the January 2004 statement which called upon Pakistan to act upon terrorist groups operating from its soil.

. . . he civilian leadership in Pakistan has remained subservient to the military leadership in matters such as these. This equation, it must be understood, cannot change for good if India refuses to talk to the civilian leadership and thereby, by default, allow the military to strengthen its hold even more.

It was essential to break the deadlock which, after a point of time, could have been counter-productive. When you are dealing with complex situations like the one which the Mumbai attack created, there is a need to look beyond the responses which you have tried and failed.

It has been our experience that there are only two ways to deal with Pakistan's recalcitrant towards terrorist groups like the LeT -- take punitive military action or exert pressure through a multi-pronged approach which relies primarily on dialogue. The military action is not an option India has been looking at;

The statement nowhere mentions the resumption of the composite dialogue . . . there would be a series of 'talks about talks' before a decision is taken to resume the dialogue.

Dr Singh's s decision to agree for a joint statement just before the visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, perhaps, has checkmated the possibility of making such a statement after or during her visit. As for heeding the international pressure is concerned, India has always been keen to part of the global community and therefore is obliged to be more broadminded about global concerns unlike North Korea.

The challenge before the Manmohan Singh government is to persuade the Pakistani leadership to understand that there are no good or bad terrorists and all terrorists pose an existential threat to civilized societies.

This article shows that we have influential people who are letting down India badly.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Jul 2009 20:28

yes, but we have enough opium for afghanistan onlee, no need for any columbian maal. Besides now afghanistan is a member of SAARC onlee, we promote products from our region onlee.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 17 Jul 2009 20:31

Baljeet wrote:
g.kacha wrote:I wonder why our esteemed BRFites think that MMS hs betrayed the common citizens of India.
Do the common citizens care about what happened in Egypt.
kacha
the reason we think Statesman PM has betrayed the common citizens of India, some of us who are in shadows doing their 2 bit for their matribhoomi wonder if their efforts to protect their beloved country is worth the effort and cost. Aam Aadmi is not concerned about running country that's why they elect their representative, they are busy with their measly lives. Not every Aam Admi becomes part of protecting this nation, her citizens, her assets, her honor and dignity.
I personally know of some people who are doing their work for their mata at the risk of losing their life long success. I feel like statesman PM has taken wind out of my sails, why shall I risk my success for the sake of this nation if her chosen leaders are going to sell her out anyways.

baljeet ... Please don't get me wrong. You will always have backing and full support from people like me ...

The point I am trying to make is that inspite of all the hue and cry we raise here about this capitulation it will not make an iota of difference. You are right when you say that aam aadmi entrusts their safety to their elected representatives, but the same aam aadmi is also supposed to hold them accountable as well. Which the aam aadmi won't do ... which is why these things will keep happening.
Sorry if I am sounding pessimistic, but at present I don't see how this situation will be remedied ...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 20:45

Paganism without Idols

Indeed, this neo-paganism helps explain the Western fascination with the only remaining ancient pagan system still extant, Hinduism. Hindus have been under Western rule, but it is only now that they have started taking to capitalism in large numbers. They too have adopted as the new god Science, which Westerners have set up in place of the idols of tradition. Hindus have as an advantage their retention of a vast number of idols, which increases the Western fascination with them, where once it fuelled disgust, when as occupiers they were still Christian.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 20:47

The whole question of Counter-Terrorism Policies should taken up by an all-Party Parliamentary Committee. Its recommendations on extent of cooperation with state sponsors of terrorism should be made mandatory.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 17 Jul 2009 21:04

How do the the following look?
1. Parliamentary committee to track progress made by the govt on extracting promised benefits from the joint declaration. As the joint declaration is done and matter is over, we need to get information on the benefits or otherwise of the new approach. The results should help take a logical next step (of a reversal) if no benefits are seen (by benefit I do not mean a Nobel Peace Prize to Singh-Gilani).
2. A white-paper on the conduct of the negotiations. It is a serious enough matter.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 21:14

kenop,

It should be a general counter-terrorism standing committee, which ought to be able to demand intelligence briefings in closed-doors, and make all laws concerning relations with countries on its own terror-watch list, as well as set up benchmarks to measure progress. The assessments should be periodic.

No Govt. should be able to ignore the recommendations of this committee.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 17 Jul 2009 22:20

Philip wrote:An outraged nation

An outraged nation?

LOL

Dr.Singh is the greatest PM we've ever had. Peace with Pakistan is the key to becoming a superpower, our fate is joined with Pakistan, did'nt you know? We can never become great until & unless we GUBO to everything that our Pakistani brothers & unkil says.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 17 Jul 2009 22:47

Can some lungi-dancers and I am it type Cong(I) supporters explain the wisdom of the UPA led GoI's Strategy at Sharm-el-Shaik. Chaddiwalla's here are shock-n-awed at the supposed naivety from the PM and his Foreign Policy Advisors and some are talking about black lentils.
"Naivety shrouds dark intentions" - Wisdom of BS

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 17 Jul 2009 23:10

BijuShet wrote:Can some lungi-dancers and I am it type Cong(I) supporters explain the wisdom of the UPA led GoI's Strategy at Sharm-el-Shaik. Chaddiwalla's here are shock-n-awed at the supposed naivety from the PM and his Foreign Policy Advisors and some are talking about black lentils.
"Naivety shrouds dark intentions" - Wisdom of BS

YBs defeated EBs on all platforms. why do you want to be suicidal?

There will always be some chanikan spin-logic even when India accepts to sign CTBT-FMCT.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 17 Jul 2009 23:13

SSridhar wrote:Paganism without Idols

Good find! I like the subtext here - the author associates paganism with modernity and dogma-based faiths with orthodoxy. Pretty revolutionary thinking for a Puki - but one that needs to gain wider circulation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Jul 2009 23:19

From Nightwatch, July 16th, 2009

India-Pakistan at the NAM Summit: Pakistan’s The News reported on 17 July that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Thursday, the 16th, that peace talks with Pakistan would remain on hold until Islamabad took action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.

“A composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist attacks that shook Mumbai are accounted for and the perpetrators of these heinous crimes brought to book,” Singh said. “The starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan has to have their commitment not to let their territory be used for terrorist activities against India,” Singh added. “If acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, there is no question of a dialogue, let alone a composite dialogue.”

Singh spoke the above remarks to reporters just after talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement’s summit in Egypt. The News assessed that Singh’s comments appeared to contradict the joint statement he made with Gilani in which the two leaders stipulated that action on terrorism “should not be linked” to the dialogue process.

In the joint statement briefing to the media, Singh said: “There should be serious, honest efforts to bridge the gap that separates the two countries.”He said the meetings of the top civil servants would be used to determine the nature of the future dialogue. On his talks with Gilani, Singh added: “I reiterated to him that we are willing to go more than half the way provided they create the conditions for a meaningful dialogue.”

Speaking to reporters later, Dr. Singh said Mr. Gilani had been keen to resume the composite dialogue “here and now. But I said that the dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist acts of Mumbai are fully accounted for and the perpetrators are brought to book.” Unless this happened, he stressed, “I cannot agree and our public opinion will not agree.” There was no road map for resumption yet, he said, but added: “We have an obligation to engage Pakistan.”

The two Foreign Secretaries have been tasked with meeting “as often as necessary” in the run-up to a review by the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers in New York this September.

In their interaction with the media, both sides exploited the ambiguity in the statement’s most dramatic new formulation —“Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these [sic] should not be bracketed.”

Some news services described the joint statement as a breakthrough and thaw in relations. Prime Minister Singh’s public statement to the conference conveys the actual state of affairs. His statements were misinterpreted by the news and apparently by Pakistani diplomats as signaling that dialogue could continue without being tied to the terrorism issue. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

Indian officials clarified that the statement meant Pakistan should not wait for the resumption of the composite dialogue to take action against terrorism.

Note to New Analysts: The precise use of language is critically important, as the above misunderstanding illustrates: two diametrically opposite interpretations of the same language in a joint statement to the entire world, with profound implications for the security relationship between two nuclear armed powers.

Work on your language skills. The words are your profession!

rags · Post by **rags** » 17 Jul 2009 23:21

I can't understand what the fuss is all about....
We have gone from just spectators ( of the war in Pakiland) to cheering spectators. This cheering obviously provides more ammunition to the weaker side. A good game is a balanced game.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Jul 2009 23:37

shiv wrote:
gogna wrote:PAF F-16 fighter jet crashes; pilot killed
I hope the plane is safe..

call me crazy.. but, after tracing back through the gloomy posts.. that was hilarious..

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 18 Jul 2009 00:23

Muppalla wrote:
BijuShet wrote:Can some lungi-dancers and I am it type Cong(I) supporters explain the wisdom of the UPA led GoI's Strategy at Sharm-el-Shaik. Chaddiwalla's here are shock-n-awed at the supposed naivety from the PM and his Foreign Policy Advisors and some are talking about black lentils.
"Naivety shrouds dark intentions" - Wisdom of BS
YBs defeated EBs on all platforms. why do you want to be suicidal? There will always be some chanikan spin-logic even when India accepts to sign CTBT-FMCT.

I was having a Shaheed Nayakuddin / Pottu Vaman moment after reading up on the last 4 pages of GOI's Chanakyan logic in the TSP dhaga. I still want to hear from those who cheered the Cong(I)'s election victory as to how they read this current strategy. One such rakshak lives in the real Bangalooru (not the Kerala one) and would like for him to give me insight into why GoI feels the need to begin talks. I have read Ramanasaar & Rajeshji's logic behind such moves but I guess I am not bright enough to really understand the nuances of the Foreign Policy of India.

Growing up my parents always taught me that I should not get into trouble and not get into fights. They did not want other parents complaining of my bad behaviour. At the same time they also taught me that if I were at the receiving end of a bully's misdeeds then I should not come home crying but should stand up and fight the bully. They said that the bully needs to understand that you will not tolerate such antics and will respond in a language the bully understands best. May be the current generation of leaders in India had no such parents. In this case I saw a cop out by GoI from really dealing with TSP and called it.

In the past few months the posts from Baljeet, Sanku, CRamS and even missile walla Arun were seeming Alarmist but now I am not so sure. I really suspect the intentions of this GoI towards my motherland.

archan · Post by **archan** » 18 Jul 2009 00:39

BijuShet wrote: I still want to hear from those who cheered the Cong(I)'s election victory as to how they read this current strategy. One such rakshak lives in the real Bangalooru (not the Kerala one) and would like for him to give me insight into why GoI feels the need to begin talks.

This shadow boxing is boring. Why don't you name names. Call them out loud and let us see then. Have you discussion that you are so wanting..

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Jul 2009 00:40

Indian officials clarified that the statement meant Pakistan should not wait for the resumption of the composite dialogue to take action against terrorism.

Note to New Analysts: The precise use of language is critically important, as the above misunderstanding illustrates: two diametrically opposite interpretations of the same language in a joint statement to the entire world, with profound implications for the security relationship between two nuclear armed powers.

Work on your language skills. The words are your profession!

GASP

Manmohan Singh is a HERROW

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 18 Jul 2009 00:42

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... e=js&sid=2

This agreement, which seeks to white-wash years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against Indian civilians and security forces, will make all those who died at the hands of the terrorists shed tears in heaven.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jul 2009 00:51

BijuShet wrote:I have read Ramanasaar & Rajeshji's logic behind such moves but I guess I am not bright enough to really understand the nuances of the Foreign Policy of India.

BijuShet ji,
The 'logic' that I wrote about, was how I read the current thinking in India's Foreign Policy Establishment. Please don't think that I support that logic.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 18 Jul 2009 01:03

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... sid=3&pn=3

And how did we react?

As a nation?

As a people?

As a political class?

As we have always done.

Brave and indignant words in the beginning.

And a subsequent reluctance to translate the words into action.

The day of infamy on December 7,1941, changed the history of the world.

And our own day of infamy of November 26,2008?

Has it changed the history of the sub-continent?

Have we created the fear of God in the minds of Pakistan and its terrorist surrogates?

Have our reactions made it certain that there will not be another 26/11 in our history?

Far from it.

Far, far, far from it.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 18 Jul 2009 01:21

MMS is comprehensively inept in international relations and diplomacy.

His world view about pakistan is based on his grasp of interpersonal relationship along the lines of "Let the angry man vent his feelings, don't do one upmanship, show him some graciousness and he will mend his ways". This world view is dangerous and has harmed Indian interests severely.

Terrorism arising from Pakistani soil is not a symptom of pakistani anger nor is it caused due to pakistan lashing out at India due to unspecified grievances. Terrorism is a deliberate state policy with deliberate and stated objectives of killing Indians, undermining its economy, destabilizing the society, creating Hindu-Muslim rift and severely undermining the unity of the country. Just like any well-run industry, it is deliberate, relentless, well managed, funded, planned and executed.

A rollback of terrorism from Pakistan is possibly only under three scenarios

1. The benefits of forsaking terrorism is highly rewarding.
2. The cost of Pakistani sponsored terrorism becomes unacceptably high for Pakistan
3. Pakistan ceases to exist

MMS by mortally wounding the pursuit of any of the three scenarios above, has all but ensured that Pakistani terrorism against India will continue.

In this context, I wish to humbly remind our Prime Minister two things that come to my mind

A. The path of peace and institutionalized solution to terrorism has been given its more than fair chance. The joint terror mechanism proposed by him has failed to meet its objectives and on the other hand has been used as a fig leaf to deny Pakistani involvement in terrorism. If he is shocked as to how Pakistan would refuse to even acknowledge terrorist activity and infrastructure from its soil, he only needs to refer to official statement attributed to the President of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Security advisor, the information minister, the interior minister as well as the ambassador to the United Kingdom at the time of Mumbai attacks.

B. By comprehensively failing to protect Indian interest, he has violated the oath of office that he took to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of Republic of India. By insinuating Indian sponsorship of terrorism in Baluchistan, he has not only insulted India and the people of Baluchistan but also condemned innumerable people in that province to violence and possibly death. By failing to persuade or do everything within his power to bring justice to the victims of Mumbai attack and numerous prior acts of terrorism against Indian population, he has failed the victims.

MMS might be a good man, and his instincts might guide him to compromise and placate, but the cost of the compulsions of his personality is the disrespect of the sacrifices of the dead and the wounded, and a violation of the oath of his office. He should contemplate whether being a "good man" is worth the blood, tears and treasure of the people he swore to protect.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 18 Jul 2009 01:24

Admins: Would like to consolidate all discussions (anguish and other feedback is across multiple threads currently)about the fallout from the NAM meeting at Sharm-el-Sheik and a seeming penchant by India's leadership to consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Indo/Pak negotiations.

If admins deem it worthy, please combine all relevant posts here...

India did it in 1965 by giving back the Haji Pir pass among other things...

India did it in 1971...(too many issues left unresolved to mention)

2009... Sharm-el-Sheik...

What is it in the Indian psyche that such shameful behavior gets repeated???

Attached below is the text of the Joint declarations by the two prime ministers...

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_ma ... xt_1274606

Manmohan, Gilani issue joint statement: Full text

Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt),: The text of the joint statement issued after the meeting between prime minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the sidelines of the 15th NAM Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt:

The Prime Minister of India Dr Manmohan Singh and the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani met in Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009.

The two Prime Ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-
Pakistan relations.

Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end.

Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed.

Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world ... &ref=world

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... e=js&sid=2

Another Day Of Infamy
Today's joint statement which seeks to white-wash years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against Indian civilians and security forces, will make all those who died at the hands of the terrorists shed tears in heaven. ...
B. Raman

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 01:36

No ‘sell-out’ at Sharm-el-Sheikh; Pakistan forced to admit terror link - Siddharth Varadarajan

...
Whether a credible prosecution is now mounted, it is clear the present government in Islamabad has gone further than any of its predecessors in acknowledging the fact that Pakistani nationals and organisations had used Pakistani territory to plan and launch a terrorist strike in India.

These admissions came as a result of sustained pressure from India and the international community after Mumbai and were made in the teeth of opposition from hardline elements within the Pakistani establishment that have still not made up their mind about the need to end the policy of using jihadi terror as a force multiplier against India.

In January 2004, on the basis of nothing more than an assurance from General Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan’s territory would not be used to launch terrorist strikes on India, the erstwhile BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government took the major step of restarting the composite dialogue.

That joint statement may not have said so explicitly but it was predicated on the kind of “delinking” of terror and talks that the BJP now describes as a “capitulation.” The reality is that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, despite his personal commitment to the need to engage with Pakistan, has actually been far more cautious in Sharm-el-Sheikh than Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in Islamabad.
...
...
Apart from misplaced ire on the ‘B-word,’ the joint statement formulation that has excited the greatest amount of nervous excitement in India is this: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” What this means is that action on terrorism must follow its own logic: No civilised society can allow its soil to be used for the planning and perpetration of terrorist acts on a neighbour. And that the composite dialogue process must also proceed on the basis of both sides engaging with each other for mutual benefit. Tomorrow, if a resumed dialogue process deadlocks on Siachen or some other topic, Pakistan should not use that as an excuse to resile from its obligation to fight terror. But implicit in this delinking is the controversial notion that India must not suspend the composite dialogue because it feels Pakistan has not taken enough action against terrorism. India has always made this link in the past. And Dr. Singh’s statement that meaningful dialogue is possible only if the Mumbai perpetrators are brought to book makes it clear India does not intend to delink the two in the future either.
...
...
Better drafting might have allayed some of the misplaced anxieties we have seen on both sides of the border but this is the price India and Pakistan must pay for running half way around the world for brief meetings on the sidelines of other events. At Sharm-el-Sheikh, the two Foreign Secretaries laboured under both the barrel of television cameras with their insatiable appetite and rolling deadlines and the clock of multiple appointments the two Prime Ministers had with other world leaders. One lesson to be learned from this experience is that the forthcoming meetings between the two sides should be conducted in a calmer manner, preferably in each other’s capitals, so that the concerned officials have ample time to discuss and work out their apprehensions. Following a “normal” routine of meeting rather than tailing the multilateral events calendar might also have allowed India to properly study Pakistan’s Mumbai dossier before the two Prime Ministers met. And that might well have produced greater clarity, if not a bigger breakthrough.
...
...
For despite the cries of “sell-out,” it is the status quo ante of a suspended composite dialogue that still prevails after Sharm-el-Shaikh, with the prospect of resumption kicked down the road. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,” Dr. Singh told Parliament on Friday. It is now up to both sides to make those future developments happen.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 01:41

No ‘sell-out’ at Sharm-el-Sheikh; Pakistan forced to admit terror link - Siddharth Varadarajan

...
Whether a credible prosecution is now mounted, it is clear the present government in Islamabad has gone further than any of its predecessors in acknowledging the fact that Pakistani nationals and organisations had used Pakistani territory to plan and launch a terrorist strike in India.

These admissions came as a result of sustained pressure from India and the international community after Mumbai and were made in the teeth of opposition from hardline elements within the Pakistani establishment that have still not made up their mind about the need to end the policy of using jihadi terror as a force multiplier against India.

In January 2004, on the basis of nothing more than an assurance from General Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan’s territory would not be used to launch terrorist strikes on India, the erstwhile BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government took the major step of restarting the composite dialogue.

That joint statement may not have said so explicitly but it was predicated on the kind of “delinking” of terror and talks that the BJP now describes as a “capitulation.” The reality is that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, despite his personal commitment to the need to engage with Pakistan, has actually been far more cautious in Sharm-el-Sheikh than Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in Islamabad.
...
...
Apart from misplaced ire on the ‘B-word,’ the joint statement formulation that has excited the greatest amount of nervous excitement in India is this: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” What this means is that action on terrorism must follow its own logic: No civilised society can allow its soil to be used for the planning and perpetration of terrorist acts on a neighbour. And that the composite dialogue process must also proceed on the basis of both sides engaging with each other for mutual benefit. Tomorrow, if a resumed dialogue process deadlocks on Siachen or some other topic, Pakistan should not use that as an excuse to resile from its obligation to fight terror. But implicit in this delinking is the controversial notion that India must not suspend the composite dialogue because it feels Pakistan has not taken enough action against terrorism. India has always made this link in the past. And Dr. Singh’s statement that meaningful dialogue is possible only if the Mumbai perpetrators are brought to book makes it clear India does not intend to delink the two in the future either.
...
...
Better drafting might have allayed some of the misplaced anxieties we have seen on both sides of the border but this is the price India and Pakistan must pay for running half way around the world for brief meetings on the sidelines of other events. At Sharm-el-Sheikh, the two Foreign Secretaries laboured under both the barrel of television cameras with their insatiable appetite and rolling deadlines and the clock of multiple appointments the two Prime Ministers had with other world leaders. One lesson to be learned from this experience is that the forthcoming meetings between the two sides should be conducted in a calmer manner, preferably in each other’s capitals, so that the concerned officials have ample time to discuss and work out their apprehensions. Following a “normal” routine of meeting rather than tailing the multilateral events calendar might also have allowed India to properly study Pakistan’s Mumbai dossier before the two Prime Ministers met. And that might well have produced greater clarity, if not a bigger breakthrough.
...
...
For despite the cries of “sell-out,” it is the status quo ante of a suspended composite dialogue that still prevails after Sharm-el-Shaikh, with the prospect of resumption kicked down the road. “Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments,” Dr. Singh told Parliament on Friday. It is now up to both sides to make those future developments happen.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 18 Jul 2009 01:43

My 2 bit attempt at understanding the chankiangiri if any behind the latest events from besharm al sheikh.

IMO, Yindfia is attempting to (unwittingly) tread the path of chinese inscrutability.

GoI is perhaps learning the great noble art of doublespeak. Say 1 thing, then immediately pre-empt what you just said with its opposite, then reconcile the 2 with something totally tangential. Then get the running media dogs spin spiel unbridled. Let the pundits and talking heads debate themselves into white lather. Let the jingo BP rise through the ceiling again. Let the rest of the world figure out what the hell is going on.

In true sun tzu tradition, keep the enemies lulled with platitudes, then unbalanced with reversals, then confused with reverse reversals!

AoA!

/Humble 2 cents onlee.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 18 Jul 2009 01:44

There must be no backsliding - N Ram

There is nothing in the language of the latest India-Pakistan joint statement to warrant the ill-informed cries of ‘sell-out’ that have rung out at home. What Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Raza Gilani agreed to in Sharm-el-Sheikh was this. The Foreign Secretaries would meet as often as necessary and report back to the two Foreign Ministers, who, in turn, would review the state of the bilateral relationship on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this fall. If, in the wake of Mumbai and the run-up to Sharm-el-Sheikh, the composite dialogue stood suspended, it remains so after the July 16 joint statement. As Dr. Singh has explained, Mr. Gilani wanted the composite dialogue process to be resumed immediately but the Indian side told him this would not be possible without the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attacks being brought to book. A legitimate question then is: what can be the meaning of this formulation in the joint statement, “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”? In plain English, this means both processes must proceed on the basis of their own logic, independently of each other. Pakistan must take action against terrorists regardless of whether the composite dialogue process resumes; and India must not link the process of composite dialogue to the quantum of action Pakistan takes against terrorism.
...
...
The Prime Minister struck the right note in Parliament by clarifying what India expects Pakistan to do but emphasising that the only way forward in the coming months is engagement. This newspaper could not agree with him more — and expects him to hold firm on the course worked out.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 18 Jul 2009 01:47

After what MMS has done in sharam city , many people are expressing their anger past 2 day,including me , but we are all ready to bury what he said if he tells us exactly what were the reasons for him to do so

Was he under pressure from congress high command?
EDITED

Gilani begged him outside his room to show mercy ,so that unkil shows mercy on bakiland ?

Did hillary warned, 'talk pakis or forget about the commission rate from the reactor deal and mrca' ?

etc,..

Until unless he explains for God sake ,what he was doing there
,questions will keep on arising ..

The picture shows even more shadows when on the meeting day the banker said that India will talk only when there is some progress on 26/11 (after his talking with baki pm) ,

and then in the parliament he was telling the madam speaker that during his talks ,, gilani ensured him that constructive measures will be taken

and the GoI is ready to believe baki pm on his past records that no terror attack will take place in future from paki land.,

and then there was walkout after he finished his speech,. ..

What bullshit is he doing ?,... why dont he just resigns (should have on 26/11 ,but made patil the scapegoat). ? and let some capable person do the job of pm instead of a banker babu ,. we want someone who could execute something than talking,talking,....

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 18 Jul 2009 01:50

Since most people agree that he is a great economist, a bhai log who works for IAIS who visited me few weeks ago said, Statesman PM is not held in such high regard in the corridors of power. Beside during G8 meeting all these invited ones were asked to sit on back chairs, listen while the wise and powerful people talk to solve the worlds problem. He is a good economist (not great) absolutely the worst PM material. He feels at home everytime he is in company of western leaders, he is always nostalgic about pakistan.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 18 Jul 2009 01:50

vsudhir wrote:My 2 bit attempt at understanding the chankiangiri if any behind the latest events from besharm al sheikh.

IMO, Yindfia is attempting to (unwittingly) tread the path of chinese inscrutability.

GoI is perhaps learning the great noble art of doublespeak. Say 1 thing, then immediately pre-empt what you just said with its opposite, then reconcile the 2 with something totally tangential. Then get the running media dogs spin spiel unbridled. Let the pundits and talking heads debate themselves into white lather. Let the jingo BP rise through the ceiling again. Let the rest of the world figure out what the hell is going on.

In true sun tzu tradition, keep the enemies lulled with platitudes, then unbalanced with reversals, then confused with reverse reversals!

AoA!

/Humble 2 cents onlee.

or by going with the logic, dont attribute to genius to what can be attributed to stupidity. We can say Rajmata and her servants have sold out India.
This simple statement explains everything which is going on.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 18 Jul 2009 01:51

No ‘sell-out’ at Sharm-el-Sheikh; Pakistan forced to admit terror link - Siddharth Varadarajan

India too forced to admit Baluchistan, its written in joint declaration. So now we are equal-equal, thanks to MMS.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 18 Jul 2009 01:53

I've edited an identical post ^^.
do heed the advice.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 18 Jul 2009 02:02

I never thought I would say that, I sure as hell miss the commies. They sure knew more about protecting national interest than this Statesman PM. This is monsoon season, wonder if Lightining can strike at a right place at right time.

I guess this was the payback to Statesman for what he said to Zardari. Gilani's position is cemented in pakiland he showed Mardangi and got India to admit of supporting terror tactics against pakistan. Let me just go sit in corner and drown my sorrows in desi Thurraa

Toilet is saying there is a rising disquiet in kangrees party

BeSharami in Sharm-el-sheikh

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 18 Jul 2009 02:09

Baljeet wrote:I never thought I would say that, I sure as hell miss the commies. They sure knew more about protecting national interest than this Statesman PM. This is monsoon season, wonder if Lightining can strike at a right place at right time.

monsoon is also delayed like most of the things of national interest