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

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2009 20:03

Another Insurgency Gains in Pakistan by Carlotta Gall: New York Times

The New York Times report on Baluchistan came out on 12.07.2009.

In that report, not once is India's name mentioned. Now NYTimes is the mouthpiece of the Liberal Dems, people close to Obama. The Baluchistan question is becoming internationalized, and all for the reasons not palatable to the Pakjabis.

At least that should have been a warning to the Pakjabis to tread carefully where Baluchistan is concerned. With a mention of Baluchistan in the Joint Declaration, the Pakistanis have further internationalized the issue. The reason could have been to show that the Baluchistan insurgency is the work of Indians and not an internal insurgency. The problem for the Pakistanis is that any tension with India on Baluchistan would make Baluchistan an even more important issue for the world, a sort of another nuclear flashpoint, thereby making the world more aware of Baluchistan, where the people did not earlier even know on which side of the moon Baluchistan lay. A single article in NYTimes would not have been sufficient, but now with tension with India on the question of Baluchistan means it will become part of the world's consciousness. The question, whether Pakistan will be able to prove to the world that India is involved in the Baluchistan insurgency is a mute question, because there will be sufficient evidence coming out of Pakistan, that the Baluchis want independence and there is no love lost for Pakistan.

The Joint Statement must be having inputs from the Americans. Most probably Americans were aware of the inclusion of the Baluchistan statement. In fact it is likely that the statement was included at the behest of the Americans. If USA had wanted to put pressure on India because of alleged Indian involvement in Baluchistan, then the articles in the newspapers would have been about these allegations. The article mentioned above does not even mention India.

We have to observe how this plays out in the next weeks, and how Western media covers Baluchistan to discern what the intentions are.

The core issue is moving from Kashmir to Baluchistan. A Pakistan under siege is hardly the Pakistan that can sustain their support for Kashmiri separatism, as easily as a Pakistan without the siege, and the siege ain't goin' anywhere!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2009 20:18

MMS might have OKed the inclusion of Balochistan in the jt statement as he knew India wasn't there. So if they dig to prove it the real perpetrators would come out. Also if the mad dog analogy is correct the right way is to throw a bone especially one which is not a bone! All I can say is the office has info that we don't have and it could be the best option. Yes it looks bad but might not be in the end.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2009 20:18

RayC wrote:Rajesh,

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

It can happen because of any of the two catalysts:

1) A change in Indian leadership, especially an accompanied generational change, which will happen sooner than later. This japphi-puppy policy will be forgotten then.

2) The US deems an Indian intervention would supplement its goals. A Pakistani state under constant siege, loss of territory under government writ, perceived threat to the nukes, increase in anti-American feelings in the Pakistani Leadership, a rethink on Baluchistan, all could provide that trigger.

But RayC saar, as you see, there is a heavy dose of optimism in this guessing.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2009 20:24

It is possible that US wants greater control over Baluchistan. So including it in the statement provides a concrete excuse for tradeoffs. The question is whether that tradeoff is going to be officially borne by India in terms of concessions on Kashmir. But then for such concessions, GOI has to be compensated somehow - a permanent UNSC seat perhaps, to make it all look good and manageable for the dhimmedia?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 19 Jul 2009 20:45

Guys, as IndraD points out, there is a very very simple fact:

INDIA HAS NOT MENTIONED BALOCHISTAN. So why on earth should MMS now "explain" anything?

MMS stood by, biting his beard and trying not to

as the Pakis did their usual brilliant leap into the Pu. IMO, the issue is that the Americans are asking the Pakis why they can't control Balochistan, and the Pakis are pointing desperately at the Indian Consulates in Afghanistan as their excuse. For internal consumption, this is great for the Paki kleptocracy's Honor and Dignity. The alternative is to let the PA launch full-scale genocide a la East Pakistan, as opposed to the piecemeal genocide.

Smart move for MMS now: continue biting beard. TRY to look sad, and not

One should also look to the future, as in "what may the Pakis be PLANNING to do?" not just "what has already happened to them in Balochistan?"

The Paki Statement may also be their straw-grasping to forestall massive Indian intervention for their PLANNED full-scale genocide in Balochistan. I hope this is not the case, but the possibility is there. Of course, it may be a bit hard to do that, given that the "internationalisation" has resulted in editorials in the West describing the Balochistan Freedom Movement as "Another Insurgency" - note the difference from "Al Qaida Spreads to Balochistan".

In any case, what I focus on during these tamashas is what WE can do to be proactive and ***of course!***** give maximum publicity to the Paki Fauj's bravery and brilliance in Balochistan, as we did for their victorious campaigns on the Shomali Plain, Waziristan, and now Swat/Buner. Post those photos of the Al Qaida disguised as 2-year olds and 3-year olds, lying in bloody pieces, courtesy of the Pakistan Army and Air Force and Hillary Clinton's American Aid.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2009 21:16

The mention of Baluchistan in the Joint Statement means

1. The Pakistanis accuse India of abetting separatism in Baluchistan and supporting the 'rebels' there!

2. That puts India on the defensive.

3. What do people do in their defense? They defend themselves against such blatant accusations.

4. How do people defend themselves against false accusations? By revealing the truth, which means India would be commenting a lot on Baluchistan, commenting on the alternate and true reasons why people in Baluchistan are waging war against Pakistan.

5. Would Pakistan look kindly upon India talking on Baluchistan and about causes for insurgency? Of course not. Hey but you accused us of fomenting trouble? Aren't we supposed to defend ourselves?

6. Yes but why make all this defending so public? The world has a right to know. We have done nothing wrong. We are a open book. We have nothing to hide.

munna · Post by **munna** » 19 Jul 2009 21:31

CRamS wrote: With all due respect, you are putting a brave, positive spin on a cowardly sell out which is nothing but treason.

First of all, what is crap 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 to point out US's stinking hypocricy 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

Send Indian kids to US Univs, get US companies to invest in India and make US one of the largest markets for our products after all this it would be really naive for us to believe that India can be devoid of any US influence. Indian elite are as immune to US pressures and tactics as you and me, however I believe that Indian establishment does have a lot tricks up its sleeve and let us judge the process by outcomes and not tactical brilliance displayed by US and its toady.

On Kashmnir, you must by smoking some highoctane pot.

A very humble and sincere request to all posters, I know smoking pot is a very common analogy used on the forum but being a Punjabi and believer in Gurus smoking is an anathema to me like eating beef. No body can get me to smoke or eat beef even if they threaten to kill me, as smoking is like renouncing my religion. Please do not attribute this filthy habit of Mughal army to me thanks.

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 from India or will prefer to make love to Paki pigs. So, yes, Pakis are a big player in Kashmir, contrary to your delusion. 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.

If my aunt were male she would be my uncle! Crams sir the very fact that despite kashmiri muslims have diplayed hajaar percent love for Pakis and with all the assorted tanzeems waging war on Indian state, Kashmir is much more firmly under our grasp than ever after 1987! Our writ runs unequivocally in the valley and I dare any power to try challenging that. Even the Hurried Rats are beginning to understand that their game will be up and hence it is better to contest elections pretty soon or they shall risk marginalization. Bravado and big words like "Cowardly Prime Minister" seldom win you strategic battles as proven by political harakiri of one Mr Advani! For better or for worse MMS is a very potent leader and he shall leave a lasting legacy, wait till his ideas bear fruits.

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.

It is you who is bringing in equal equal! Baluchistan is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan now and there is only one party that is going to lose and its name is Pakistan. Those unwitting deep-low-mats from wazarat-e-kharija have managed to dispute their own territory and at the same time forgotten the Masla-e Kashmir. Regarding selling India down the Indus I would say this
"Woh Lamhon Khuda Ban Baithey, Hamein Sadiyaan Lag Gayin Insaa sa Hone Main"
Literally translated "They became be all and end all of everything in a few moments while it took us an entire lifetime to become a simple human being". Let us not arrogate to ourselves the exclusive rights of Indian patriotism. . . .

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 19 Jul 2009 22:18

Interesting that there're 2 sets of opposing views on the events in Egypt. Time will tell which version is right, I guess.

The Baloch issue now made bilateral may yield some gains to India going fwd but dunno what gains will occur from delinking terror with talks. Simply because, the next 26/11 will happen during some talks to test the joint statement.

Anyway, discretion is the better part of valor. Des is facing hajaar challenges on many fronts. Better to take head-on the maoist menace with singular focus. Why muddy the water with distractions like baluchistan or xinjiang? 1 thing at a time hi sahi, get it done though.`

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2009 22:41

Arun_S wrote:
Rahul M wrote: 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?................

saar ji, I was just stating a fact, not cribbing about not being mentioned by username. I would prefer not to !

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Jul 2009 22:46

De-linking talks with terror! Does it make any sense?

I have speculated on the GoI Thinking in an earlier post. But does it make sense regardless of their 'compulsions'?

Most BRFites are of the view that Pakistan is a failed state, and it is destined for break-up! No matter how much money USA or PRC or the Saudis may pump-in, it wouldn't improve Pakistan's balance of payments situation in any durable way, as its exports are rapidly dwindling. It has got several insurgencies going on. The only stable area are a few pockets in North Pakjab and a bit of Sindh. FATA, NWFP, Northern Areas, Baluchistan with 2 insurgencies, Karachi are either already in flames or about to go up in flames. There are tensions with 4 neighbors - Afghanistan in the North, Iran in the West, India in the East and USA in the Indian Ocean. All are signs that Pakistan is destined for the dung heap of history.

With this as background, some groups will continue to attack India. Such groups may even include sections of TSPA and ISI.

Any attack would mean GoI would have to suspend all talks with Pakistan.

The question facing India is how to manage the upcoming disintegration of Pakistan. For that India would have to keep itself engaged with several groups in Pakistan in some form or another. Such talks with some groups is not possible, if India is not officially open to dialog with the highest leadership of the country. GoI wants to tell those who commit terrorism against India, that their activities will not stop the Indian engagement with Pakistan groups. They do not have the power to dictate to India with whom to speak and with whom not to. Soon there could be many groups who would be begging India to provide them with some respite, an exit strategy, both from Nazariya-e-Pakistan and from Indo-Pak enmity.

Those who consider Pakistan as a viable sovereign country would object to India indulging in talks with any Pakistanis. Those who believe that Pakistan is moving ever closer to chaos and disintegration would appreciate that India needs to keep the channels open to several regional power centers there, in order to 'guide' that transition.

Only those who engage can have a say in the matter. India simply needs to be there when the disintegration starts.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 19 Jul 2009 22:59

And anything that keeps the "civilian" kleptocracy in "power" is good to accelerate the birth of Free Balwaristan, ParadaRayja, Sindhustan, and KanishkaRajya

Incl. the pretense of being willing to indulge in "talks" with the bloody terrorist sex-offenders.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 00:50

narayanan wrote:And anything that keeps the "civilian" kleptocracy in "power" is good to accelerate the birth of Free Balwaristan, ParadaRayja, Sindhustan, and KanishkaRajya

Incl. the pretense of being willing to indulge in "talks" with the bloody terrorist sex-offenders.

I like Sindhudesh much batter.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 01:11

Oh, absolutely, thx 4 the correction.

Anticipated Bojitive Neuj items:
1. Pakistan National Championship Wrestling. Closer ties (i.e., like fist to teeth, feet to musharraf) between PeePeePee's Das Berjenti and Sugar Thief Sharif. See picture already at BENIS.
2. Fallout (I mean the social kind, not the glowing kind yet) between TTP and their bosses, the Pakistan Fauj (already underway to some extent, but when the Americans start linking baksheesh delivery to C.O.D of TTP leaders at Guantanamo ....)
3. Bakistan Fauj goes chaaaaaaaarging into Balochistan. Slight problems with rail lines not being tied to sleepers over certain bridges....

4. Sudden Vacuum Inflation of oil and gas pipelines...
5. Scenery improvement around the Karakoram Highway.
6. Bridge and tunnel improvement around the Gilgit Highway.

I have always maintained that India should continually support those who work for the Pakistani Construction Industry's benefit. Reconstruction of bridges, highway overpasses, tunnels, oil and gas facilities, railroad trestles, and all Fauji Foundation buildings. Anything that allows Paki Faujis to stay in their own cantonments in Pakjab and not venture at speed between the hostile provinces. The bridges across the Indus, and the rail-road links circa RYK are of particular interest.

Oh, and Law and Order, absolutely. I hope Mian Sharif comes to power very soon - and this time, is able to welcome the Herrow Musharraf properly as his plane lands at Islamabad airport, and escort him to Attock where fresh paint is being applied to the lampposts.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2009 01:35

munnaBhai:

1) I agree USA has India by its b@lls, both in a material sense that you highlighted, and also psychologically. Look at the fawning reception Hilary is receiving in India, and recall how our demented MPs were fighting with each other to suck up to Clinton when he 'blessed' India with a visit. And the irony is that many of those women sucking up to Hilary or the MPs would have beaten an Indian to death in broad daylight had he done a Monica like Clinton did; not to mention the outcaste status that would have befallen his wife

. My point being that when you don't exhibit self confidence and self respect, is it any wonder goras can demand something and say or else ... if you don't comply? But the issue you ducked is what is it that India thwarted by signing the surrender document with TSP before Hilary arrived. You made the laughable claim that it was same great Chanakyan move to check mate USA.

2) On Kashmir, you are underestimating TSP's obsession and US perfidy. TSP has just invested too muich, just too much to agree to anything short of territorial concessions from India, most likely, the valley. And likewise, the goras want to snatch the Kashmir jewel away from India, so the 'freedom loving Kashmiris', will bend down on their knees and welcome the goras to ride their white horses down the alleys of Srinagar, not to mention installing their military toys.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 20 Jul 2009 01:50

archan wrote:
Baljeet wrote: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.
Baljeet wrote:
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.

You got your last warning for using unacceptable language in relation to Indian PM and his religion.

When did I say anything against his religion. Get your facts straight dude.

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

I have no problem with anyone who differs in opinion, thats what makes an analyst great. You on the other hand has your chaddis in wad.

Any ways I don't give a crap about a pea brain like you. I am done posting here. I won't be coming to this site any more, with the exception of 10-15 people others just follow the moderators.
Adios Bharat-rakshak
GFY Dude

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2009 01:57

Arey yaar Baljeet, take it easy and stay on.

munna · Post by **munna** » 20 Jul 2009 01:57

CRamS wrote: But the issue you ducked is what is it that India thwarted by signing the surrender document with TSP before Hilary arrived. You made the laughable claim that it was same great Chanakyan move to check mate USA.

Now you've nailed it! So let us see what it is it??? Hainji.
Well the problem is that USA has seen a sudden rise of messiah called Big O ( short for Big Owl or Bada Ullu) who thinks that he is the chosen one to resolve all outstanding issues on mother Earth including Non proliferation, Middle East, Georgia, Tibet-East Turkestan and of course Cashmere. Now due to his allergy to all previous Bush era policies he is looking to rub India the wrong way cause as per his logic if Bush drove on left he should do so on right. Hence we can safely conclude that in terms of temperament Khan has got a Paki President BO who is looking to do away with all the gains painstakingly built up by India over the past decade from 1998-2008. MMS wanted to have some sort of declaration at SAS to escape the cross hairs of mighty one and save India from active persecution by bada ullu. Come to think of it he has taken the jewish lobby head on by admonishing Israel and making them come to talking table, hence we also have to come up with out dog and pony show! Relax nothing given away only Pakis are brahmos-ing themselves in the foot.

Also the thing is that while we make claims of being more mature than Pakis we often display Paki like behaviour of maintaining H&D. We have given away nothing in any terms and a dispassionate analysis reveals that it is a stall tactic on display by by MMS who has less fig leaves to hide behind in terms of showing negative pressure at home vis a vis his pacific policies to Unkil. The joint declaration has given nothing away unless a person is too taken in by the Paki propaganda machine, they have managed to internationalize their own territory and we are calling our PM names!

CRamS wrote:On Kashmir, you are underestimating TSP's obsession and US perfidy. TSP has just invested too muich, just too much to agree to anything short of territorial concessions from India, most likely, the valley. And likewise, the goras want to snatch the Kashmir jewel away from India, so the 'freedom loving Kashmiris', will bend down on their knees and welcome the goras to ride their white horses down the alleys of Srinagar, not to mention installing their military toys.

Again I am underestimating neither, having lived through the halcyon days of Khalistani yahoos I know what hostile population means and where they get all the ammunition from. However my dear you are underestimating Indian state's capability to fight a war of attrition, when we could cap, roll back and end the at least two big insurgencies while fighting numerous others at the same time in 1980-90s there is nothing that can stop us now. Kashmiri majloom and their cou-jinns in Isloo will keep dreaming but neither will gora come nor shall they ever get to go there without an Indian visa

.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 20 Jul 2009 01:58

Hang around Baljeet. This is no reason to leave.

Meanwhile, I never knew about the following history of Balochistan. The place definitely deserves to be an independent country. Balochs have a very strong case historically. The Baloch nawab turned traitor and signed on the dotted line with Jinnah without consulting the main tribal decision-making body.

For six decades Balochistan has been Pakistan’s most troubled province, an internal colony the natural resources of which are exploited by outsider Punjabis. There is a history to this.

The principal Baloch kingdom, Kalat, was not an Indian princely state. Balochis traditionally owed suzerainty to Kabul and Muscat (Oman). As such, Kalat was recognised as different from the 550-odd kingdoms that merged into either India or Pakistan in 1947. At one stage, it was discussed as the equivalent of Nepal — sovereign but dependent on its big neighbour.

In March 1948, “acting in his private capacity”, the Khan of Kalat signed the Instrument of Accession under persuasion of M.A. Jinnah, then the governor general of Pakistan. Crucially, the Khan had not consulted the parliament of Baloch chiefs. His brother escaped to Afghanistan and launched the first anti-Pakistan Baloch insurgency.

Over the years, Baloch nationalists have received support from Afghanistan, which sees Balochistan as within its area of influence. In the 1980s, the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul sought to arm Baloch militia.

Post-9/11, intelligence sources say, sections close to President Hamid Karzai have helped finance Baloch insurgents, deploying the surplus from the opium trade in which the Afghan leader’s brother is supposed to play a role. This is a response to Islamabad’s sponsorship of anti-Karzai Taliban forces.

It is a fascinating cat-and-mouse game in a wild, rugged terrain at the edge of South Asia. India’s role, however, is peripheral. New Delhi did try and get involved in Baloch politics in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the Bangladesh war. Indian intelligence still has a network among senior Baloch leaders and, for example, an acquaintance with the erstwhile Kalat royals now in Afghanistan. However, in the absence of political direction, it has never undertaken any serious strategic mission to activate these assets and cripple Pakistan.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage ... isturbance

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 20 Jul 2009 02:10

Post-9/11, intelligence sources say, sections close to President Hamid Karzai have helped finance Baloch insurgents, deploying the surplus from the opium trade in which the Afghan leader’s brother is supposed to play a role. This is a response to Islamabad’s sponsorship of anti-Karzai Taliban forces

Hmm hence

about supporting the Pashtunistan cause by Baloch Nationalists.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 02:55

Baljeeteya,
paraava, inha gussa ni karida. Gussa Pakiyan lai bachaa ke rakheen!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 03:03

India’s Diplomacy: Between Semantics and Grammar by C. Raja Mohan: Indian Express

Why is India so jumpy about words? The recent Indian strategic tradition as well as the popular discourse is so focused on the ‘semantics’ of joint statements that they have little time for the ‘grammar’ of global power politics.

When it comes to our emotional approach towards Pakistan, words acquire a near religious significance. Since our Pakistani cousins are no different from us, framing and debating joint statements have become an all-consuming passion on both sides of the border.

There is trouble when the leaders of India and Pakistan can’t produce a statement (Agra, 2001), and even more when they do (Lahore, 1999; Islamabad, 2004; and Egypt, 2009).

For the PM and India, is not the joint statement that should matter but a tangible change in Pakistan’s behaviour towards extremism. That is likely come about only when India can help alter Pakistan’s internal and external balance of power. The finest word play by the foreign secretaries can’t substitute for that unfinished but consequential power play with Pakistan.

Na rahega Pakistan, aur na hi rahega balance of power.
Joint Statement is simply Toilet Paper by another name. It means nothing. A joint statement would not have resolved terrorism threat to India.

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Jul 2009 03:29

Baljeet wrote: I won't be coming to this site any more

Damn right you won't...

Hang around Baljeet. This is no reason to leave.

Unfortunately he won't be making that choice anymore. Evil, evil admins.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Jul 2009 03:52

Is there a chance in billion that Baki BC Leaders can now tell Aam Baki BCs that if they keep talking about Cashmere they will loose milking Balochmare ? This saves their H&D at home and with Hillrahi just adding dummy reassurance about Indian understanding of Baki tough situation fighting various insuregencies while serving great Khan's interests.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 04:11

activate these assets and cripple Pakistan.

VERY interesting choice of words, and casual relationship. Hit that switch, MMS!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 05:32

For all those who want to call the Poojya Pradhan Mantriji "names": thank Allah that u r not in Pakistan

It would seem that in Pakistan, there is nothing you need to watch out for more than making a joke about President Asif Ali Zardari by SMS (Short Messaging Service). If you mistakenly, or just for fun, share with a friend one of the hundreds of derisory jokes about the leader floating around electronically, you could get a 14-year prison sentence.

Pakistan's interior minister Rehman Malik announced last week that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has been tasked to trace SMS (or text messages) and e-mails that "slander the political leadership of the country" under the vague Cyber Crimes Act.
In addition to facing up to 14 years in the jail, violators could have their property seized, Malik said, adding that the government would seek Interpol assistance in deporting foreign offenders.

..
But many jokes hint that Zardari still acts as "Mr 10 percent" - a label referring to the percentage he would allegedly receive in kickbacks in the 1990s during the two terms as prime minister spent by his assassinated wife, Benazir Bhutto.

One such joke portrays a school for demons at roll call. All the demons report for class, except one named Zardari. When the demon teacher asks where Zardari is, a student replies that he has "gone to rob Pakistan".

...
"We now draft the text in such a way that Zardari's name is not mentioned and yet everyone who receives it knows the joke is about Zardari," laughed Bashir.

"We are not running some organised political campaign against Zardari, but we cannot stop writing about him," he said. "You know, he is such a funny character."

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 20 Jul 2009 05:46

^^ Wonderful onlee. Looks like Poojiya Pradan Mantri's joint declaration is atleast having some unintended side effects. Well, with equal = equal onlee, now thank heavens, we can compare and look upto Bakis and feel grateful that although we are equal we are more equal in some areas. Heck at this rate, MMSji has more room to descend, because one needs to work hard to match Baki standards.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 07:32

Instead of

, perhaps you guys should take inspiration from the industrious Pakis

Just when we thought it had ended, major newspapers published the original comment page with the new fabricated comment and the funniest had to happen after that. It was turned into a huge issue and the columnists who had written about this whole thing were criticised as the “presidential spokesman has taken strong exception to a malicious campaign initiated by some anti-democratic elements to tarnish the image of President Asif Ali Zardari.”

arun · Post by **arun** » 20 Jul 2009 08:19

Excepted, question about India’s role in Balochistan (and Kashmir) asked by Pakistan’s Dawn Television of US Secretary of State and her rather ambiguous answer:

Interview With Anwar Iqbal of Dawn Television

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 17, 2009

QUESTION: There are some in Pakistan who say that Indians are using Balochistan to interfere in Balochistan. Will you discuss this with the India? In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that Kashmir is one issue that needs to be resolved. And now, your administration does not seem to talk about it. It seems that they no longer see Kashmir as an issue that needs to be resolved.

SECRETARY CLINTON: 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. I think that the disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long-standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes, and there should be an effort to build some mutual trust. And from what I hear, it was a very good meeting between Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Gillani.

The United States stands ready to support the steps that India and Pakistan may take together, but we know that the only way these matters can be finally resolved is between the two countries, but it’s not just the government, but the people. And so we will encourage that, but we know that it has to be left to Pakistan and India for there to be any resolution.

US State Department

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 20 Jul 2009 08:47

This makes me wonder about a possibility, I raise it because it is entirely possible.

MMS does a meeting with geelani, some things are discussed behind doors, including terrorism specifically the 26/11 perpetrators in pakistani custody, amongst other issues. Many of these issues can't be disclosed to the media.

How ever GoI goes ahead and briefs the US about a few of the matters discussed, the pakis do the same. However because of the acrimony by the opposition parties in parliament, GoI does not discuss these issues with India's own opposition parties.

The funny thing is that the US knows about things, our own politicians don't yet know about. Where does national consensus then stand? How can India draft an independent foriegn policy if the entire spectrum of india's elected representatives are not even aware of the facts?

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 20 Jul 2009 14:10

After 13 odd pages, the only thing that has happened is the coming true of some simple predicitions made by me

Complete from the launch of high octane selling of the sell out as statesmanship par excellence and MMS as the shrewdest PM ever by the media and "intellectuals", the laudatory statements of visiting dignitary Madam Hillary, down to the increased policing by moderators in BR trying every tactic, from the usual sparsing of words to downright mocking of postors in order to smother criticism of the PM for his actions

.

Let us leave that aside, and try to look at what is in store next under this administration. For sure, we are going to get 9% growth, because as per the vision of our great leader Singh, South Asia will transform itself into one big economic engine now that peace can be restored. FDI is going to come in a torrent and a slew of big investments are going to be made in India.

Hmmm what next.......Oh yes, maybe even a UNSC seat with dhimmi status, after all according to MMS himself, he is inspired by Nehruvian vision of India being a moral super power. When we are so moral and upright why do we need veto, army, nukes etc, we can talk and reason with anyone and the world will acknowledge our power. We can of course be assured of 9% growth. Since we are very moral and concerned with growth that is inclusive, we will include jehadis in our growth plans and ensure that they have their share of the pie. After all aam admi everywhere should be taken care of.

Plus we will also take care that we do not spoil the environment, we will voluntarily accept emmission caps and not wait for less moral nations to do so

We will be able to solve all problems by talking to others as well and in a gesture of our moral super power status ask the others to draft whatever they want as joint statements. We have nothing to hide. So the next time our great, economist, brilliant tactician, helmsman extradionnaire, humble intellectual, strong leader PM meets the wily Hu of China, he can do a similiar joint statement that we will discuss Indian involvement in Tibet and Xinjiang and are willing to discuss Arunachal Pradesh, so that we can secure peace and partnership with them as well. Then we can even shoot for 19% GDP growth, India will then rival america and become even greater moral force.

So much so, that we will use this moral force as the ultimate weapon or strategic asset and can sign up as a gesture of our moral superiority silly things like NPT and CTBT. Then America will recognise Indian leadership and build nuclear plants in every state of India and we will have power to light up every statue of every leader in every village.

There, now that I have seen the

as explained by some of the seniors here, I have stopped my

and see the great

thinking that our great and esteemed Prime Minister has adopted to serve so well the interests of our Great Family (I mean only India here moderatorjis not any other "The Family or Familia"!) .

As it is said many times, that one can always learn something that is not very obvious at first sight, easily when you read the BR forums.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 15:31

Govt. attacked in LS over Indo-Pak Joint Statement
Excerpts

A BJD member on Monday attacked Government in the Lok Sabha over the mention of Balochistan in the Indo-Pak joint statement and delinking of terror from dialogue, saying it was a "grave blunder" and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should have shown "prudence".

B Mahtab said the joint statement issued after talks between Singh and Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh last week marked a "dramatic reversal" of India's position on terrorism and Balochistan.

"The Prime Minister should have exercised prudence," he said, while raising the issue during Zero Hour.

Contending that the joint statement was at "odds" with India's stand on terrorism and Balochistan, he said, "We have gone back on our position" following the Mumbai carnage.

"There is no India-sponsored activity in Balochistan. So the reference to Balochistan is a grave blunder. It will open a Pandora's box like reference of the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1947-48," Mahtab said.

"Indian diplomacy has been found wanting," the BJD member said, adding New Delhi's stand at the Singh-Gilani meeting was "amateurish".

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 15:33

Raja Ram, good post.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 15:44

X-post from the Baluchistan thread

Neilz wrote: India unwitting party to demonising Baloch struggle

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/jul/ ... ruggle.htm

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 20 Jul 2009 17:10

Raja Ram wrote: So the next time our great, economist, brilliant tactician, helmsman extradionnaire, humble intellectual, strong leader PM meets the wily Hu of China, he can do a similiar joint statement that we will discuss Indian involvement in Tibet and Xinjiang and are willing to discuss Arunachal Pradesh, so that we can secure peace and partnership with them as well. Then we can even shoot for 19% GDP growth, India will then rival america and become even greater moral force.

Rajaramji please dont give the esteemed individual any ideas. You never know.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 17:25

How can India draft an independent foriegn policy if the entire spectrum of india's elected representatives are not even aware of the facts?

Arre Baba! How it ish, that one can be INDEPENDENT onlee, when one has to go take permission from all and sundry Opposishun politicians and give baksheesh to one's own party members, hain?

"Independent Foreign Policy" == Policy owned by Foreigners, and Independent of thought or effort.

Salaam! Jain Hind! (I have permission from Amreekan and Oxford guvrmand to say so)

PooPeeEMji's statement, "you can put whatever you want in our JOINT statement, it is your internal affair onlee!", reminds me of the Kabir ke Dohe that I studied in the Eye-Eye-Tee - taught to me by my Hindi expert co-denizen to pass the dreary hours in the Fitting Shop Gulag. First part is censored out to keep RayC saar from banning me

, but the ending is etched in what passes 4 my brain:

**** jaa baitthe ped pe..
apne ****** *******
jisko jitna chahiye
kaat kaat le jayiye!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2009 17:35

when is the klingon due in India ? can't be bothered to hunt for the dates in TOI haw-haw reports.
TIA>

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 17:39

I thought that already happened - heard about some grand speech from the swimming pool at the Taj Mumbai.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2009 17:46

SSridhar wrote: India unwitting party to demonising Baloch struggle

http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/jul/ ... ruggle.htm

[/quote]

Can someone explain how ?
--

I think now Pakistan Army has to enter Baluchistan they can't give any reasons to Uncle.

Why suddenly we are caring so much about Baloch people. Let the Pakistani Army kill 1000's of Balochi's. Let them repeat 1971.

---

Can someone tell me - what will India do if there is another terrorists attack with/without talks ?

Will America allow India to attack Pakistan till they are in Afghanistan ?

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Jul 2009 17:55

Can someone tell me - what will India do if there is another terrorists attack with/without talks ?

Unkil is powerful, but there is a limit to his power and influence, even on soft states like India.
Indians have an aversion to war, and there is no limit to that aversion.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2009 18:00

archan wrote:Unkil is powerful, but there is a limit to his power and influence, even on soft states like India.
Indians have an aversion to war, and there is no limit to that aversion.

Will they allow India to attack Pakistan till America has presence in Afghanistan ?

What would have BJP done is she was in Power ?
--

Our Army Chief has reached America