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

[RamaY]

I have a wierd feeling that the events in the past couple of weeks are an attempt to snatch 21st century from Asian powers...

Once again it reminds me the article I read on PVNR. In that article the author notes PVNR's opinion that India should align with PRC in next struggle... Does anyone have that article? It should be circa 2000...

[Gerard]

PVNR's opinion that India should align with PRC in next struggle

Alleged Han Chinese saying... Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain

[enqyoob]

Alleged Han Chinese saying... Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain

NOW I understand the "Taller Than Oceans, Deeper Than Mountains" friendship between PRC and Pakistan. For, the other part of the Han saying is:

... but a panda and a pig can (b)iss on the same elelphant's leg

BTW, where is this alleged BRaman use of moi's famous sayings? I need to add this to the very short list of useful things that have come out of my sojourn here...

[archan]

Impeach this Prime Minister. Try him for Treason.

You are entitled to your opinion and please remember that there is a certain level of freedom of speech allowed on these boards (which is solely on a Moderator's discretion). You got your last warning for using unacceptable language in relation to Indian PM and his religion. Whatever your opinion is, it is fine but please know that not all of your views will be allowed here and if you repeatedly try to cross the line, another warning will take away your posting privileges for a longer time.

Anyone who is feeling generous and identifies with this idiot please stay out of this Dhaga.

Please do not try to tell others, who differ in opinion with you, where they can and cannot post.

[Kakkaji]

Swapan Dasgupta's take in today's dailypioneer.com. Posting in full. My apologies if already posted:

With an adaab,PM capitulates

Swapan Dasgupta

A photograph, it is said, is more telling than a thousand words of succinct prose. Last Friday morning, the readers of many newspapers may have observed a very revealing photograph from the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh where Indian and Pakistani delegations, led by their respective Prime Ministers, met on the sidelines of the redundant Non-Aligned Movement Summit. The photograph showed Manmohan Singh, flanked by Yousuf Raza Gilani, greeting a woman member of the Pakistani delegation with what, presumably, is either an adaab or a feeble imitation of the signature Pervez Musharraf salute.

How the Prime Minister of India chooses to greet a foreigner is an individual decision. He may offer a limp handshake or even a firm one; he may copy Fidel Castro’s bear hug; he may, though this is extremely unlikely, greet the visitor with a peck on both cheeks; he may favour a deep Japanese-style bow; and alternatively he may offer the traditional Namaste. It is entirely a personal decision and one that need not be bound in protocol, as long as it is laced with courtesy.

Not even his worst enemies will accuse Manmohan of either rudeness or discourtesy. He would not have invited charges of either cultural insensitivity or inappropriate conduct had he chosen to greet the Pakistani lady with folded hands. Most foreigners, in fact, expect to be greeted with a Namaste by an Indian, especially when it is a formal occasion.

That Manmohan chose to greet the Pakistani officials with an adaab is revealing. It suggested a mindset centred on supplication which translated politically means a desperate desire to accommodate and please. Pursuing the line of least resistance has been the signature tune of the PM in his relationship with the owners of the Congress, his coalition partners and in his conduct of foreign policy. Some may see in this Manmohan’s grand vision of reconciliation: Breakfasting in Delhi and lunching in Lahore. But attributing profundity to inanity is a well-known Indian trait, except these days it passes off as media management.

The outrageous joint statement issued from Sharm el-Sheikh has been analysed threadbare by a country which wants to know whether the ‘tough on terrorism’ stand adopted by India after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai was meant for electoral consumption alone. Read with the apology the PM issued to President Asif Ali Zardari for miscuing his rehearsed lines at Yekaterinburg in Russia last month, the joint statement’s clear willingness to not let the trivial issue of terrorism mar the composite dialogue reveals the spinal condition of Indian diplomacy under Manmohan.

Manmohan’s inclination to appease the rogue state in Pakistan was first in evidence at the Havana summit of NAM two years ago when it was proclaimed that India and Pakistan were co-victims of terror. The groundwork for this shameful retreat from the Islamabad declaration of January 2004 had, in fact, been done at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Delhi immediately after the UPA Government assumed power in the summer of 2004 when it was stated that terrorism would not be allowed to derail the peace process.

However, what is intriguing about the latest reiteration of a decision to delink dialogue from acts of aggression is that it even caught the decision-making apparatus of the Government unawares. The overall consensus in the Ministry of External Affairs and the intelligence agencies was that it would be imprudent to resume formal dialogue with a duplicitous neighbour unless there was clear evidence that it was taking firm and effective steps to defang the terrorists operating from within its territory. It was felt that any engagement with Pakistan could well be conducted within the framework of discreet back channel diplomacy.

This was the gist of the briefing by the Foreign Secretary to the Indian media accompanying the Prime Minister to Egypt. At best, Manmohan was expected to show some recognition of the civilian Government’s difficulties in confronting a monster that had been nurtured by the Pakistan military establishment and the ISI. After all, Zardari had owned up to Pakistan’s role in sustaining fanatical jihadis. Not even the most clued-in expected Manmohan to walk the entire mile to placate Pakistan, going to the ridiculous extent of even tacitly conceding an Indian role in the disturbances in Baluchistan.

Conspiracy theories tend normally to be a little fanciful but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Manmohan’s actions may be guided by a nudge and a wink from the US. That Washington no longer has the stomach to continue the fight in Afghanistan is hardly the world’s best kept secret. But no disentanglement from Afghanistan is possible for the US unless it has some assurance that Pakistan is not going to fill the vacuum with a barbaric Taliban regime intent on wreaking havoc in the heartlands of Western ‘decadence’. Was India chipping in to raise Pakistan’s comfort level? Has India become a collaborator in the US’s AfPak policy?

At this juncture only questions can be raised. But there is merit in scrutinising a number of other steps taken by Manmohan to placate the US. First, there was the change of the Commerce Minister followed by clear indications that the ‘intransigence’ of Kamal Nath would be reviewed in future WTO negotiations. Second, in signing the G-8 declaration, Manmohan indicated a retreat from India’s existing policy on Climate Change. Finally, by adding his signature to the G-8 proclamation on non-proliferation, Manmohan may have taken the first covert step in accommodating the Obama Administration’s determination to rollback India’s gains from the agreements with the IAEA and NSG.

These are early days yet but Manmohan’s adaab suggests that accommodation of others rather than enlightened self-interest may become the new principle of Indian foreign policy. Maybe the time is fast approaching when India should prepare to do its Namaste to him, before he travels down the IK Gujral route.

[Kakkaji]

Kanchan Gupta in dailypioneer.com:

For PM, Indian blood is cheap

Kanchan Gupta

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a decent and honest man. His admirers would say he is an economist too. His detractors (a plague on their houses!) don’t quite see it that way and his critics (may they never escape the damnation of hell!) think he is a feckless man given to spinning webs of deceit to cover up his sins of omission and commission. So, there is no reason to doubt that when he met Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (yes, it still exists) Summit at Sharm el-Sheikh last Thursday, Mr Singh did the tough-guys-don’t-cry act with him.

“I conveyed to him the strong sentiments of the people of India over the issue of terrorism, especially the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. We are reviewing the dossier of investigations into these attacks which Pakistan has provided to us. I also conveyed to Prime Minister Gilani that sustained, effective and credible action needs to be taken not only to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice, but also to shut down the operations of terrorist groups so as to prevent any future attacks,” the Prime Minister told Parliament on Friday. Since he is a man of impeccable integrity, and because the Right to Information Act won’t allow us access to the ‘Record of Discussion’, we must believe that this is indeed what he told Mr Gilani.

And having read out the riot act, presumably in a stern though whiny voice and with an unsmiling face, the Prime Minister agreed to endorse a joint statement along with Mr Gilani, whose contents, in both letter and spirit, fly ruthlessly in the face of what he now claims to have said. Since 72 hours is a long time for public memory to remain fresh, it would be in order to quote the salient points of the joint statement:

“Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries.”

“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.”

“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.”

“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”

Here’s a commonsensical interpretation, which is not quite different from how diplomats with commonsense would interpret it, of the joint statement, based entirely on an understanding of what used to be the Queen’s language:

The Pakistan-sponsored jihadi terrorism India has to cope with, and pay for with the blood of innocent Indians, according to Mr Singh, is no different from the bloodletting in Pakistan caused by those jihadis who have turned rabid and begun to bite the hand that once lovingly fed them. Nothing distinguishes the victim, our saintly Prime Minister believes, from the perpetrator of macabre misdeeds. So, 10-year-old Devika Rotawan, whose right leg has been disabled after she was shot during last November’s fidayeen attack on Mumbai, should feel contrite for deposing against Ajmal Kasab, the Pakistani who remorselessly crippled her and sat grinning in the court while she relived the horror of that night at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus.

Our firm and not easily persuaded Prime Minister demanded Pakistan must bring those responsible for 26/11 to justice. Mr Gilani assured him everything is being done in this regard. We must believe Mr Gilani, because our wise Prime Minister trusts him. Never mind minor details like Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the chief terrorist of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba who operates under the cover of a bogus Islamic charity, Jamaat-ud-Dawa’h, and the mastermind behind the carnage in Mumbai, being allowed to walk free and plot the next attack on India. Nor should we feel distraught if others ‘arrested’ in the case by Pakistani authorities are also set free on account of ‘insufficient evidence’.

The US, more specifically the CIA, wants us to share real time, credible and actionable intelligence with Pakistan. The Americans have been haranguing us on this score for some time now. We might as well give in and do Washington’s (or should it be Langley’s?) bidding. Why rub the Americans the wrong way, especially since they have us by our short and curly over our now compromised nuclear programme? And why upset the 300-million-strong middle class which aspires to see India become an American stooge? After all, they determined the outcome of this summer’s general election and ensured that we would continue to have a decent, honest and, not to forget, economist Prime Minister who oozes integrity. So, we shall pass on real time, credible and actionable intelligence to the Pakistanis and they shall rework their terror strategy accordingly so that our security agencies cannot pre-empt future jihadi attacks. No, there's no need to get upset about it. To cavil would be unpatriotic as all patriots are expected to back the Prime Minister who genuinely believes capitulation will “serve to further advance India’s interests”.

Pakistan, we are now told, has “some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”. The sly reference to Balochi separatism in the joint statement need not shock us, even though this amounts to legitimising Pakistan’s absurd claim that Indian agencies, more specifically R&AW, have been fomenting trouble in Balochistan. The Prime Minister says there’s nothing to fear, ours is an “open book”. So, why feel apprehensive that this shall pave the way to Islamabad accusing New Delhi, and convincingly so, that India has been doing unto Pakistan what Pakistan has been doing unto India? The Prime Minister’s silence on the inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement when he spoke in Parliament need not intrigue us — he wasn’t being cunning or deceitful; that’s not what decent and honest men do; he was merely glossing over a minor detail whose consequences can be disastrous.

The Prime Minister sincerely believes “action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”. He is also “ready to discuss”, as the US wants him to, “all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. However, this does not really mean what it means, or so we are told by the Prime Minister. What it really means, and I quote from his statement in Parliament, is that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process”.

Further comment would be tantamount to questioning the integrity of a decent and honest man, and lending credence to what the Prime Minister’s critics say, that he is a feckless man given to spinning webs of deceit.

[Kakkaji]

MJ Akbar in dailypioneer.com:

Manmohan endorses a statement out of joint

MJ Akbar

A principal purpose of diplo-speak, and more particularly diplo-write, is to state the obvious. Platitudes are the daily diet of dialogue. Prudent officials wander from the obvious with great trepidation, and when tasked to create a new approach, they agonise over every word. Babur was wise when he warned, in Baburnama, “He who lays his hand on the sword with haste/ Shall lift to his teeth the back of his hand with regret.” This tenet of war is applicable to diplomacy. He who lays his hand on the pen with haste on foreign shore, shall scratch his head on returning home with deep dismay.

One sentence in the joint declaration issued by Mr Manmohan Singh and Mr Yousuf Raza Gilani is going to hover over the future relationship: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”

You do not need a dictionary to decipher its meaning. This absolves present and future Governments of Pakistan from any guilt in cross-border terrorism, a scourge India has had to face for decades. It is a commitment that Governments should continue the process of dialogue no matter how much havoc a terrorist group from Pakistan creates in India. If this principle had been in operation last year, India and Pakistan could have continued their composite dialogue in December after the savage Mumbai terrorism in November.

It reverses a consistent position taken by India from the time Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, and General Zia-ul-Haq financed and armed a massive terrorist upsurge in Punjab, even as his intelligence agencies trained and prepared young Kashmiris for a decisive ‘jihad’ in the Valley. The role of the Pakistani state in this strategy of “war by other means” has now been documented in countless books and research papers. President Asif Ali Zardari admitted as much when he said, very recently, that “yesterday’s heroes are today’s terrorists” — although officials tried to dilute the implications by suggesting he was talking about the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, they could not obscure the fact that he was referring to the hero-terrorist syndrome in operation against India.

There is no evidence, as far as the Government of India is concerned, that Pakistan has changed this policy. Terrorism remains its major export to India. The joint statement was signed on July 16, 2009. On July 9, just seven days earlier, Foreign Minister SM Krishna told Parliament, “Notwithstanding Pakistan Government’s assurances to us, terrorists in Pakistan continue attacks against India.” If Mr Krishna was misleading Parliament, he should be dropped from the Cabinet. If he was reflecting the Government of India’s considered position, then one can only infer that Delhi had decided to delink Pakistani terrorists from Pakistan’s Government even before the Prime Minister left for Egypt. Otherwise there would have been no consensus in Sharm el-Sheikh. The delegation accompanying the Prime Minister, including Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and National Security Adviser MK Narayanan, was aware of this change and party to it. Junior Minister Shashi Tharoor was clearly not considered important enough to be kept in the loop, since, as he told a television journalist, the media had seen the joint statement before he did.

The Prime Minister has been very keen to resume talks with Pakistan, as he wants to expand his legacy. One can see some merit in this desire. The Indo-Pak gulf is infested with sharks. One treads with care. Some thought on how to handle the language would have given him what he wanted without compromising India’s options. Here is an alternative formulation, without the now infamous brackets: “No peace process can go forward without the support of the people, and people will not offer support until terrorism is eliminated, since they are its direct victims, as evident in the tragic events in Mumbai last November. The composite dialogue shall resume as soon as possible, but only after the Indian people are convinced that credible action has been taken against the perpetrators of the Mumbai havoc.” The second sentence is, in fact, precisely what the Prime Minister said at his explanatory Press conference after the joint statement.

The problem is that Press conferences have no status in international affairs; signed statements are the only documents that matter. Who recalls what was said before, during or after the Shimla summit in 1972? The signed agreement is what holds.

The Pakistani delegation used some very thin fudge to explain its impotence in the case of Hafiz Saeed, head of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba or whatever that terrorist organisation’s current name is. It passed the blame on to the State Government of Punjab, run by Mr Shahbaz Sharif, brother of the more famous Nawaz Sharif. Any reading of the Government lawyer’s statements to the Lahore High Court, widely reported in media, would make clear that Islamabad was complicit, since the judges were not convinced that Islamabad was certain that the LeT was a terrorist organisation. There was deliberate ambiguity in the official stance. Moreover, action against a single individual would be inadequate. The danger is organised and spread across more than one network.

This leads us to a fundamental flaw in the joint statement, which may have escaped those who drafted it.

The text repeatedly uses the term “terrorism”. It is very easy for India and Pakistan to agree on terrorism. What they do not agree on is a collateral question: Who is a terrorist? Pakistan still refuses to admit that any ‘jihadi’ who uses terrorism in pursuit of an independent Kashmir, or in support of Kashmir’s merger into Pakistan, is a terrorist. Pakistani diplomats and interlocutors repeatedly sought to condone the Mumbai attacks through the ‘root cause’ theory. Kashmir was the root cause of terrorism, and therefore unless the Kashmir problem was sorted out (presumably to Pakistan’s satisfaction) terrorism would never end. America has bought this argument, because Pakistan has some excellent advocates in Washington. Should one surmise that New Delhi is now nodding its head in the same direction?

Curiously, the joint statement includes a reference to Balochistan, lending implicit credence to Pakistan’s accusation that India is behind its troubles in Balochistan. If this were not the case, why mention Balochistan in an India-Pakistan statement? We did not make any effort to include the Maoist violence in the statement, did we?

India may have gone to Sharm el-Sheikh as the victim of terrorism, and returned as the accused.

[Rahul M]

>>>shameless NDTV host vikram lifted shivji's pit bull analogy word to word without giving any credit.
Hey, even B.Raman did not give credit to Avram & Narayanan; why expect from lesser folks - we will get disappointed onlee.

Added: Can anybody share Shivji's analogy again here please?

do you mean the 'hindutva' article ? even my post was reproduced verbatim !

btw, the pit-bull analogy was originally by someone else, probably shivani.

[ashish raval]

If we had people with stretegic vision and any form of intelligence, we would have "vapourised" those 50 listed fugitive rats who are sitting in pakistan and whom we consider a threat, atleast 5 years ago. WTF in the world stops India assassinating these pigs in pakistan !! Do we not have any form of intelligence gathering capacity in pakistan !! If we dont it is a real shame on us. Why dont we just hire some paki traitors drop gps receivers and attack these dogs when they are at home !! It will be easy just to blame that Amirkhans did it because we are allies!!

As long as India does not stand on its spine or develop a pesticide to kill paki weeds, they will grow again and eat our prepared pasta lunch as those ba5stards did in past 800 years of India's history. We are whining folk who had/will never learn from our mistakes I dont know which part of body does Indian politico's and babu's think from (if they ever did).

[Yayavar]

Guys, time to start a bit of thinking here, just a short break from the , you can go back to that right after this. Question: What is the true international implication of this news?

INDIA DOES NOT OBJECT TO PAKISTAN REFERRING TO BALOCHISTAN IN JOINT STATEMENT! AGREES TO TALK TO PAKISTAN REGARDLESS!

My take is that the astonishing non-objection to the "Baluchistan reference" was a clear, clear statement by India. That unless Pakistan ends terrorism, or if there is any more nonsense, Baluchistan is bye-bye. Probably followed by Sindh, Balwaristan and Pakhtoonistan. More to the point, the Indian delegation conveyed the airy attitude that they don't BELIEVE that Pakistan is going to stop terrorism, therefore, they may as well whine to the whole duniya about Indian action to break up Pakistan, for all that India cares.

If I were a Paki jarnail that is precisely the message that I would read from that. This is the message that Dus Berjenti and Groper Gilani take back to 'Pindi to the Corps Commanders. This faaar more effective than saying "we won't talk to Pakistan" which does nothing at all.

So MMS is truly chankian in that the outcry in India (and on BRF) about it, very nicely provides cover as a "boo-boo" for what is a blunt, blunt message to TSP.

I very much want to believe this. It could be a threat. However, could this not have been informed quietly? Is there more to be gained by making it part of the joint statement?

Not sure if the following is gain enough - one can talk about Baluch human rights without the declaration.

Why complain. India can now openly talk about Baluchistan based on the besharam al sheeshkabob or whatever declaration it was.

[brihaspati]

So some think
(a) Mere mention of Balochistan in the joint statement is trivial, and not worth BRites high BP
(b) Disconnection of terrorism from composite dialogue is also "trivial" in the same sense.

Okay :
(a) Mere mention of Balochistan in the joint statement is trivial, (or of unknown Chanakyan purpose) and not worth BRFites high BP

Why should this inclusion be "trivial"? Kashmir is not mentioned! So what? What is the main item in the "composite dialogue", at least on the insistence from the TSP side? That is Kashmir. So a reread of the joint statement could also be read as : Balochistan comes into discussion in addition to Kashmir. Some are interpreting this as a swap. Why so? Kashmir is not being exchanged for Balochistan - or is that the offer? From TSP claims, TSP is the legitimate claimant to all of Kashmir, and in reality occupies a big chunk of it. India does not own any part of Balochistan, and does not even formally claim any rights to it.

Let us even tentatively suppose that GOI's long long hand is active in Balochistan, with or without the USA helping. Why should the provision of discussing that be such a big scoring point for TSP? Long hands are after all always deniable. And discussing deniable long hands, does not bring the long hands anywhere near to be cut short. Just as TSP denies its own long hand in Kashmir. And discussing that long hand does not cut that long hand short. And TSP knows that too well.

So this inclusion is apparently senseless and purposeless. And that is what is disturbing. We do not always credit the TSPians with a great deal of Chanakyan ability. But there are others, behind TSP, whom we include in that class of ability. If indeed the long hand of the GOI was working behind the scenes in Balochistan then is it possible that now the Indian hand needs to be cut short as the TSP backers are getting uncomfortable and the initial purpose of enlisting Indian contributions has been satisfied, so India needs to be booted out from there.

(b) disconnection of "terror" from composite dialogue.

For some, nothing real on the ground is going to be affected by these comments. What are these ground realities - the celebrated never-fulfilled prophecy of internal problems ripping TSP into shreds, some unknown Chanakyan purpose in a multigenerational game of patience in responding to the infantile disorder in TSP's national obsession with Kashmir, some unknown trump card which will be whisked out by the eminent leadership of India at some as yet unknown but most opportune moment.

Well, here, what is disturbing is the fact that if the composite dialogue really has to be joined up by India, it means all the "gorund realities" get affected. Composite dialogue provides a means for channelizing national attention by keeping the "Kashmir" issue and the much larger iconic "devil" of India in the common TSP mind. This helps in focusing on a common foreign devil rather than fighting each other. The dialogie could be milked for all its worth for this purpose.

But the even more serious damage done to the Indian cause will be the fact that GOI now has to come to the negotiating table and speak of birds and bees. This deprives the GOI of its Chankyan strategy of the multigenerational game of patience or the ability to keep the unknown trump card hidden for an unknown and unspecified period of time.

What a disaster!

[SwamyG]

Narayanan:
IIRC, the first point he quotes is of yours. #4 is Avram's. And #2 or #3 is Rahul M's. I have bad memory all advance sorries to any wrong recollection of trivia.

[NRao]

PVNR's opinion that India should align with PRC in next struggle

Alleged Han Chinese saying... Two tigers cannot live on the same mountain

India should work hard to make Pakistan a tiger.

Or are they the behind of the other tiger?

Confusing.

[Arun_S]

>>>shameless NDTV host vikram lifted shivji's pit bull analogy word to word without giving any credit.
Hey, even B.Raman did not give credit to Avram & Narayanan; why expect from lesser folks - we will get disappointed onlee.

Added: Can anybody share Shivji's analogy again here please?

do you mean the 'hindutva' article ? even my post was reproduced verbatim !

btw, the pit-bull analogy was originally by someone else, probably shivani.

I think we need to take a deep breath on the attribution/credit business.
What will be more apt: Using Shiv or Avrams words to serve Indian interest OR first give credit to his mom/dad/unkill/wife/guruji/therapist and then Shiv for the idea that serves Indian interest?

The very fact that BRF/BRfites are helping shape policy propagated by main stream media, I think that should be gratifying.
IMHO end is more important and then the means.

I think BRFites should start writing in mainstream media and serve/create a constituency of thinkers that care for Indian interests.
IMHO what is written in BRF is in public domain and attribution is not required not necessary.

[enqyoob]

Oh, that! I am very happy to have been quoted - and happier without my username attached! Thanks on both accounts to Shri Raman. He can quote me anytime, and when it is from my posts at BRF, I am deeply grateful to NOT be mentioned by name.

Regarding this sharam-sharam business, I really don't know what to say any more. Maybe India's leaders are way too old, and maybe the Chain of Command, and the Official Statement Preparation process, have become so messed-up and the Prime Minister so overloaded that he has "lost it" and is all muddled up about what statements are true, false, important, insignificant, etc. etc.

Or, since I am right more often than I am wrong, perhaps I am right. The ONLY significant event that occurred at Sharm El Sheik is:

PAKISTAN INTERNATIONALIZES ITS BALOCHISTAN GENOCIDE

This also means that Pakistan is losing the war in Balochistan, despite its mass-murdering habits.

Added later: From interview with Groper Gilani:

Asked about Dr Singh's response when he raised the issue of Balochistan, Gilani evaded a direct reply, saying both India and Pakistan are "victims of terrorism" and "joint effort" is required to fight it.

To a question, Gilani said Dr Singh was "very clear" that he was ready to discuss all issues. "Just put the cards on the table, I am not scared," he quoted Dr Singh as saying during their three-hour-long discussions.

All is explained. Pls see the reference to MMS reverting to "Punjabi" to talk to Gilani and Zardari. This is the key. See what another famous Punjabi, Harbhajan Singh, said in Punjabi to Andrew Symonds.

This is all a storm in a teacup. With biscoot to go with it.

[munna]

Or, since I am right more often than I am wrong, perhaps I am right. The ONLY significant event that occurred at Sharm El Sheik is:

PAKISTAN INTERNATIONALIZES ITS BALOCHISTAN GENOCIDE

This also means that Pakistan is losing the war in Balochistan, despite its mass-murdering habits.

Paki Deep-Low-Mats have in a brilliant display e deep-low-messy brought a formerly Indic territory back onto negotiating table and I am happy about it!!

[Gagan]

The significance I see is this:
1. This meeting was to discuss action on terror.
2. Kashmir wasn't mentioned => Kashmir is not terror.
3. Balochistan was mentioned => Balochistan is terror.

MJ Akbar got it right.

India may have gone to Sharm el-Sheikh as the victim of terrorism, and returned as the accused.

Now to undo this, india will have to behave like a paki, MMS will have to say, well I meant it, but then I really did not mean it.

[enqyoob]

This just in:

NEW JOINT PAKISTAN-INDIA STATEMENT!!!

Pakistan and India jointly affirm that: The Core Issues are:
1. Dhaka December 17, 1971.
2. 20-20 Finals, 2008.
3. World Cup Semi-Final, few years ago when Sehwag smashed Shoiab Chucktar
4. Reberj Shwing and Umpire Darryl Hair
5. PNS "Ghazi"
6. Karachi Harbor Defense, 1971.
7. Operation Asal Uttar
8. Brilliant coup by Pakistan in hijacking IA airliner, 1970, resulting in Indira Gandhi banning overflights between West and East Pakistan
9. Tiger Hill, July 4, 1999.
10. Northern Flight Infantry Downhill Skiing Demo, May-July 1999.
11. Siachen
12. Shomali Plain
13. KhemKaran
14. Longevala, Rajastan, 1971.
15. PN "Atlantique".
16. Junagadh
17. Srinagar, 1948
18. Haji Pir Pass, 1965, 1971
19. Defence of Icchogil Canal, 1965.
20. Battle of Sialkot, 1965
21. The word "Predator".
22. The words "Pepto Bismol".

India has agreed to Pakistan mentioning these and .

[SwamyG]

Arun:
I disagree to some extent. While the content is in public domain; a gentleman of his calibre should have either summarized the thoughts in his own words or utmost mentioned his source of information. More over the information does not reveal any State secrets. It is a common practice on the Internet for journalists and bloggers to provide excerpts or quotes directly from their sources; even in the case where they use a full article the practice is to at least mention the source or link to it.

Whether it is gratifying or not is a different matter, what Raman did was not correct. There is a senior member who is teased here all the time for not revealing his sources or not providing links. We expect more from BRF member than Raman. I am not even going to the part where he labelled us. Another day perhaps.

Just because it was Raman who did it what was done, does not make it correct. He lifted Avram's post almost in full. There are journalists and bloggers who actually even mention userids when they quote or summarized. Forget that, he did not have to get that granular he should have atleast mentioned BRF. Was he protecting BRF?

Well that is my view; and I know most of you disagree with it.

[munna]

The significance I see is this:
1. This meeting was to discuss action on terror.
2. Kashmir wasn't mentioned => Kashmir is not terror.
3. Balochistan was mentioned => Balochistan is terror.

MJ Akbar got it right.

India may have gone to Sharm el-Sheikh as the victim of terrorism, and returned as the accused.

Now to undo this, india will have to behave like a paki, MMS will have to say, well I meant it, but then I really did not mean it.

To answer your assertions Gagan
1. This meeting was to neither to discuss terror nor did we expect something out of it. The meeting took place to deny Amirkhans a handle to beat us with.
2. Kashmir was not mentioned because Pakis do not have a strong hand in that place anymore and all they can do is talk which obviously they do not want to. They will rely more on Khan for delivering Kashmir to them and would not talk about it as India has made them a vitual non-entity in strategic terms when it comes to Kashmir. The only leverage that Pakis have when it comes to Kashmir is a function of Khani benevolence.
3. Baluchistan has become a bilateral issue and with clear admission of Indian stakes and role in Baluschistan we are an established player now in that region. Well played I must say to MMS.

We will not undo the discussion and elevation of Baluchistan, it is Pakis who are slowly undoing Pakistan limb by limb . Calling names and shouting murder is very easy but a clear dispassionate analysis based on outcomes is the need of the hour!

[CRamS]

{Sorry, but I have to intervene here, to keep CRamS from getting banned (yet again?) .. Unacceptable conduct marked in red, some deleted. I realize that this is an emotionally charged topic, so, hey, go outside and kick a tree or a rock until you feel that you can post without making yourself look so bad}

To answer your assertions Gagan
1. This meeting was to neither to discuss terror nor did we expect something out of it. The meeting took place to deny Amirkhans a handle to beat us with.
2. Kashmir was not mentioned because Pakis do not have a strong hand in that place anymore and all they can do is talk which obviously they do not want to. They will rely more on Khan for delivering Kashmir to them and would not talk about it as India has made them a vitual non-entity in strategic terms when it comes to Kashmir. The only leverage that Pakis have when it comes to Kashmir is a function of Khani benevolence.
3. Baluchistan has become a bilateral issue and with clear admission of Indian stakes and role in Baluschistan we are an established player now in that region. Well played I must say to MMS.

We will not undo the discussion and elevation of Baluchistan, it is Pakis who are slowly undoing Pakistan limb by limb . Calling names and shouting murder is very easy but a clear dispassionate analysis based on outcomes is the need of the hour!

With all due respect, you are putting a brave, positive spin on a cowardly sell out which is nothing but treason. {code orange}

First of all, what is {crap - pls change to "my brain", that is perfectly clear} about denyting Americans anything?. They twisted and contorted India's b@lls to forget Mumbai and other Paki terror. No Indian elite has the f#$&*(ing guts {er... if you r using your guts to "f#$&*(ing " there is a minor anatomical misunderstanding, pls get some advice on Birds Bees and Beer Gut} to point out US's stinking hypocricy {fine, but pls note spelling of "hypocrisy" unless you mean Hipp Chrissy} in demanding that India surrender to paki terrorists. And the Americans are quite happy with what happened at Egypt, thank you very much, and they are patting MMS on his butt for a job well done. {I assume that you have been crouching under said bu** to observe this..}

On Kashmnir, you must by smoking some highoctane pot. {OK, direct, moronic personal attack on a postor. Hilal-e-Bakistan, Class 1 material} Lets be brutally honest, once again, not the hallmark of the cowards who represent India. 99.9% of Kashmir Muslims will either vote to seceede {note spelling "secede"} from India or will prefer to make love to Paki pigs. So, yes, Pakis are a big player in Kashmir, contrary to your delusion {Hilak with hashish leaf cluster}. The TSPA/ISI/LeT/JeM combine can cock a snook with impunity at any move India makes and highlight India's impotence. Even after 1000s and 1000s of dead Indian army soldiers, India has been unable to unequivocally establish its writ in the valley. But India need not be apologetic. But for our cowardice and lack of self confidence, we should announce to the world, that while India is a democracy, democracy does not offer the right to seceede. What is happening in Kashmir is Isalmo fascism, and India will fight till its last breath to defeat this plauge. India is willing to talk to Kashmiris about their grievances, but no secession, and NO, NO, NO, Paki will be allowed to have any say on our part of Kashmir. This ought to be India's position, as simple as that.

M.J.Akbar is right on Baluchistan. Now if India were as powerful as the west, and Indian controls information, Paki squeals about Indian involvement in Balouchistan will be confined to leftist rags. But now, with MMS having signed the dootted line, it will be India TSP equal equal, TSP meddles in Kashmir, and India meddles in Baluchistan. In one stroke, MMS has sold India down the Indus river. Is this becoming of a great power? No, this is indicative of a worthless bunch of billion eunuchs for the leadership they voted to power.

*** User warned for personal attack on munna. Whatever be your personal view/s, we tolerate a lot of whining, especially in this thread. But when people get personal, red lines are crossed. **** Thx. Archan. Older edits by narayanan preserved.

[RajeshA]

From TIRP Thread

Gilani has already made Balochistan and Indian 'interference' a platform to project himself as a sharp cookie in whose hand Pakistan is safe.

India and MMS are eating crow!

Whichever way Gilani handles this issue, he is doing India a favor:
1) If he was sincere to MMS to use the ammunition MMS has given him in the Joint Statement, in order to wage the internal power struggle between the civilian 'leadership' and security establishment in Pakistan to stop terrorism directed against India, then he will be doing India's bidding.

2) If he is using the text of the Joint Statement only to show how he made India eat crow, then Gilani has decided to backstab the last Indian Prime Minister, who would have had any soft corner for the Pakistanis, a member of a dying Indian generation, for whom Pakistan was more than just the source of all terrorism. Should the Pakistani civilian 'leadership' now try to increase the level of rhetoric accusing India of involvement in Baluchistan, then he inflames Indian ire against MMS and makes his position 'untenable'. That helps India get rid of a PM who is long past his shelf-life.

India does not want to give an inch to Pakistan either in Kashmir or anywhere else. We do not want an agreement on Kashmir. India only wants Pakistan to return the part of Kashmir it illegally occupies, and more than that to self-destruct.

For that we need a new mind set in Delhi, a new generation, where there is no desire for any accommodation with Pakistan. Indians approach the world with a mind-set of accommodation, in many cases a self-destructive attitude. We need an external pressure to save ourselves from ourselves. Every Pakistan's perfidious action allows India to resist the accommodationist attitude of the jahphi-puppy generation for another 5 years.

So Indian nationalist will just say, "Com'on punk, make my day!"

[csharma]

To answer your assertions Gagan
1. This meeting was to neither to discuss terror nor did we expect something out of it. The meeting took place to deny Amirkhans a handle to beat us with.
2. Kashmir was not mentioned because Pakis do not have a strong hand in that place anymore and all they can do is talk which obviously they do not want to. They will rely more on Khan for delivering Kashmir to them and would not talk about it as India has made them a vitual non-entity in strategic terms when it comes to Kashmir. The only leverage that Pakis have when it comes to Kashmir is a function of Khani benevolence.
3. Baluchistan has become a bilateral issue and with clear admission of Indian stakes and role in Baluschistan we are an established player now in that region. Well played I must say to MMS.

We will not undo the discussion and elevation of Baluchistan, it is Pakis who are slowly undoing Pakistan limb by limb . Calling names and shouting murder is very easy but a clear dispassionate analysis based on outcomes is the need of the hour!

This is not convincing at all. Even Congress has so far not made any public support for the PM and are waiting to see which way the public opinion turns on this one. However, some posters have already started spinning heavily.

This whole thing looks very bad and that's what most professionals are saying. Let's see what happens. Signing EUVA agreement will make a bad thing worse.

Here is an opportunity for the BJP to function as a genuine opposition by highlighting the erosion of India's autonomy. Hope they do it the right way because that is in India's interest.

[John Snow]

It is obvious that after 8 months since 11/26 we have nothing to deliver.
The leadership of India is once again contributing the exotic concept of Zero.

No leadership
No ownership
No responsibility
No strategy
No Governance
No perofrmance
No understanding
No Goals
No Pride
No Nationalism
above all
No principles
No scruples

[ashish raval]

^^ probably this is what people of India wants, deserves and will get even in future.

[RayC]

Well played I must say to MMS.

We will not undo the discussion and elevation of Baluchistan, it is Pakis who are slowly undoing Pakistan limb by limb . Calling names and shouting murder is very easy but a clear dispassionate analysis based on outcomes is the need of the hour!

Oh yes, he played a master stroke - but for Pakistan!

<snip>

“Manmohan Singh is a much more confident leader today. But he has very little choice but to talk to Pakistan. This is an Indian government which is under the influence of the United States,” Ayesha Siddiqa, an independent security analyst, said by telephone from Islamabad.

<snip>

In an editorial published on Saturday, The News argued that India needed to stop supporting insurgencies in Pakistan, such as the one underway in Balochistan, and Pakistan needed to be sincere in its effort to stymie any terror attempt in India that may in any way be linked to Pakistani soil.

“That Balochistan was mentioned in the joint statement is a big step towards admitting mistakes and moving on,” the paper added.

<snip>

Smart move? Think Again!

[SSridhar]

Pak, terrorism to figure in Hillary, Krishna talks

In an interview to DAWN, Hillary had indicated that she would raise Balochistan also with India. After Sharm-el-Sheikh, the US will have a new stick to beat India with.

link

‘There are some in Pakistan who say that Indians are using Afghanistan to interfere in Balochistan. Will you discuss this with the India?’ she was asked.

‘Well, I’m going to raise everything that we believe is of significance with the Indian government. I believe that it is in India’s interest for Pakistan to be stable, democratic, free of terrorism,’ she said.

[enqyoob]

So that means one of two things:
1. Hilarious was going to "raise" Balochistan with India anyway
2. Hilarious is not going to discuss Balochistan.

If (2) then
2a: US knows India is doing nothing in Balochistan
2b: US knows India is doing something in Balochistan and observes 3-Monkey Protocol.
Either way, end of discussion.

If (1) then
a. She was going to raise it anyway
b. She raised it because she read in the newspaper, or a papparazzi asked her.

If (1b) then it would be share a laugh, so forget that.

If (1a) then
x. India is not doing anything in Balochistan "and other areas", but US and TSP are creating this bogey to get India to reduce Afghanistan presence
Else
y. India is doing something in Balochistan "and other areas", and US and TSP are creating this bogey to get India to reduce Afghanistan presence

If (1ax) then
India says
Else

1.a.y. holds true. In which case,
I say and India says

Why? Anyone who IS doing something in Balochistan "and other areas" is not going to "admit the error and back off" just because the terrorists Pakis and their sponsors ask.

[RayC]

Schoolchildren still refuse to sing the national anthem at assemblies, instead breaking into a nationalist Baluch song championing the armed struggle for independence, teachers and parents said.

<snip>

The nationalist opposition stems from what it sees as the forcible annexation of Baluchistan by Pakistan 62 years ago at Pakistan’s creation. But much of the popular resentment stems from years of economic and political marginalization, something President Zardari promised to remedy but has done little to actually address

<snip>

Even the governor, who is the president’s representative in the province, expressed exasperation at the Zardari government’s inaction in addressing the needs of the population. Many Baluch are increasingly cynical about the government’s ability to change things

New York Times Announces an Insurgency in Balochistan

Blesse mon coeur d'une langueur monotone

[RajeshA]

If Balochistan has to be an issue between Pakistan and India, and Pakistan really wishes to accuse India, as yet falsely, of supporting Baluchi insurgency, and we are going to get a bad name anyway, then India might as well support Baluchistan wholeheartedly.

Pin down Pakistan with insurgencies in Taliban areas, South Pakjab and Karachi through proxies and walk in militarily to free Baluchistan from Pakjab grip.

Russia, Iran, India, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan should come together a form a new coalition for the support of Afghanistan with direct support to Afghan Government, Afghan Intelligence, Afghan National Army, Afghan National Police, and various Northern Alliance warlords. We need an Afghan strategy independent of USA.

The fact that USA is now dependent on Russia for its supply lines, that the supply lines through Pakistan have been blocked, and that USA has a working relationship with India augurs well for such a coalition to be successful, as USA would be willing to tolerate it.

The whole Taliban insurgency raging in Afghanistan has to be transferred to Pakistan. USA has already played a very important part in it. Now it has to become self-sustaining.

Should we be able to put up a coherent coalition for Afghanistan together, with a parallel coalition of Taliban and South Pakjabis, like JeM, breathing down the necks of TSPA, the break up of Pakistan can indeed be realized. America needs only the scalps of OBL and Ayman-al-Zawahiri to call it a day and take the exit, draining away much of the monetary support for TSPA.

The most ideal situation is if Taliban is released from Al Qaeda's grip, and it can be coopted by the Coalition for Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan for once and for all times.

It is a doable goal, but India's security establishment needs to start thinking differently. For that there is a need for generational change in Delhi.

[shravan]

^^
Americans want PA to enter Baluchistan. But it seems like they are not prepared.
---
http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1187
May 21, 2009

ADM. MULLEN: But your point and I've discussed this with General Kiyani very specifically, your point about insurgents going, particularly into Baluchistan, but particularly across that border is one we all share the concern for that. He shares the concern for that. Where I'm comfortable is at least planning for it and having some expectation will allow us to address that and that is going on, not just where I live, but certainly where General Kiyani is as well.

Can I -- 100 percent certain that won't destabilize Pakistan? I don't know the answer to that. I don't think it will because we're aware of it and I think Pakistan is further away from being totally destabilized than a lot of people realize. The military and civilian leadership recognizes this potential and so we're addressing it ahead of time.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Have you seen a change in Pakistani behavior in Baluchistan?

ADM. MULLEN: Not significant at this point, and where I find General Kiyani in distributing his and apportioning his capability and shifting his weight to the west, he does it in a measured way and he does it within the capacity that he can in terms of rotations and being someone who is also fighting two wars, I have sympathy with the need to provide forces in two different places and, in fact, one being a conventional fight, basically, and the other one being a counterinsurgency fight. So he's changing on the run and he's worked his way through Mohmand and Buner and Dir and he's now back in Swat. The key for Swat is to follow the military capability -- the security with some hold capability, which gets to the importance of this bill and to hold and build and that's -- he's moving, starting to move into that phase in parts of Swat right now, but there's North Waziristan, South Waziristan, Baluchistan, which he also knows is a problem. It's a question of how do you execute a campaign plan and you can't do it all at once.

[RayC]

Rajesh,

Is it doable when the policy is - Peace at any cost!

[shyamd]

Folks, the ones interfering in Balochistan are not India, or at least very little from india if there is. The paki's are afraid to confront the real supporters, because it is at risk of heavy H&D damage. The supporter is a leader who is half Balochi himself.

[IndraD]

Any comment from Zaid Hamid on MMS's admission about Balochistan??

[RajeshA]

Blesse mon coeur d'une langueur monotone

Wasn't there an article by SSridhar comparing Pakistan with Nazi Germany!

[Gagan]

Pakistan has built up a rethoric within about the war with the bad taliban in NWFP and swat. Their assertion is that india is involved there, to rally public support. Otherwise the islamized people of pakistan would not have backed whatever little army operations are going on there. They would have come in in hordes to join the taliban ranks against the army.

This is the standard op procedure for the pak army. Bring India into all their troubles, and blame it. They begin with Balochistan, because balochistan is starting to look like Bangladesh - II. The spin all these years was that India had 'fooled' and 'corrupted' the bangladesh leaders into liberating bangladesh. The current generation is begining to see what the pakistani armed forces and intel agencies have done in balochistan, the feelings of hatered towards pakistan are for all to see.

Pakistan now has this desperate need to involve india into this debate:
1. To malign the baloch nationalism as India sponsored terrorism
2. To point india as the reason behind baitulla mehsud etc, giving the pak army cover to go after these people
3. Ultimately rally public support to re-energise jihad in kashmir, because of what 'India did in balochistn and NWFP'.

All this was plain to see for everybody. India needed to keep itself off the scene. Earlier there were only the accusations by the pak army, which the people of pakistan did not really trust fully. Now with MMS's actions, the illeterate pakis will be told that MMS has accepted in the presence of Geelani that India is sponsoring terror, when Geelani threatened to show all the proof he had. This is the way the rumour mongering pakistan quam functions.

This is all in line for a new wave of jeehadis to be recruited in pakistan, and be directed at india and balochistan, for now India's PM himself has accepted that they are doing something in balochistan and other parts.

[Gagan]

Any comment from Zaid Hamid on MMS's admission about Balochistan??

The pak army, ISI, and their civil services are studying the document already to see how best to utilize it. Once their decision has been made, shrileen and zaid hamid will make an appearence.

[enqyoob]

walk in militarily to free Baluchistan from Pakjab grip.

GeorgeJi's "Tea At Rahim Yar Khan Challenge Cup" takes on a whole new reality.
So does Mullen's description of Kiyani:

So he's changing on the run

[IndraD]

MMS has adopted the policy of silence is gold when trouble breaks. During Bombay attack (or even after) AFAIR he kept quite. Similarily at a time when people want him to issue statement regarding why he endorsed the joint statement and come clean on this, his silence is deafening.

[sum]

Folks, the ones interfering in Balochistan are not India, or at least very little from india if there is.

Dammit, i was actually hoping we were upto something to justify the harakiri at sharm-el-shaikh...