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

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jul 2009 22:26

Raja Ram wrote:sigh.... I give up CRamS... I disagree with your view that we are a failed nation state.....all I can say is that you need to learn a lot more.....All the best!

We are to the extent that we are so dis-united that we can't even agree that TSP is evil incarnate; reason being the "Indians" from one part of India could care less if another part was attacked. If that were not so, Mumbai would not have gone unpunished.

I just stand by my statements that India was let down by this PM in S-e-S. On that, I guess there is no disagreement. You ascribe ulterior motives to the PM.

I do because when he had to show spine, he does. The Magelon blast witch hunt is a case in point. His sheer body language, long lost brotherhood, when he meets Paki scum tells it all.

I ascribe a different vision, that which I find reprehensible and not commensurate to what India deserves. I also acknowledge that most Indians are comfortable with the vision that this PM stands for.

Once agian lets be honest. Indians have displayed brutality of the highest order; witness the horrific caste/religious riots. So I don't know what vision you are talking about except its "me, my family, my caste (in the case of Hindus), or my religion (in the case of Muslims/Christian/Sikhs)" vision that Indians have. We need a nationalistc party and leadership that can change this course or else India will perish to the ash piles of history.

I also believer that his party and some of his partymen do not share such a vision. The congress party of yore was not party to such a circumscribed vision of India and would never be a party to putting Indian interests secondary to the interest of any power, no matter what the economic benefits would be.

Where are they and its a pity they are silent.

This PM has done that this time. India deserves better than this PM. On that too I hope we are not in disagreement.

The sooner he goes the better. He & Mush can be offered honorary Ph.Ds. from Harvard, Kushy, lush houses in suburban Virginia, and both can write books on their 'South Asia' vision. Thooo.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Jul 2009 22:37

g.kacha wrote:vera_k ... I am a pretty pro-BJP guy but we can't have it both ways ... when we argue that NaMo has been vindicated by his getting re-elected twice in Gujarat, we will have to accept that MMS/Cong policies have been vindicated by their re-election. That is how our parliamentary democracy (first past the post system) works ...
Paraphrasing NaMo's own words "In India out of a 100 people, 50 vote and the person who gets 26 votes gets to rule and set policy".

He may have said that, but that is not the reality. That equation modified at the national level is more like "In India out of a 100 people, 50 vote and the person who gets 17 votes gets to rule and set policy".

My point is that it is faulty logic to assume that the the government has the backing of majority of the people on any single issue. Specially one regarding foreign policy which tends to be low down the list of priorities for most people.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 21 Jul 2009 22:37

Straight from the horse's mouth

'Joint statement' may be bad drafting, admits Menon

"One can argue how good or bad the drafting was...you can say it is bad drafting, but the meaning is clear," he said responding to criticism of the joint statement issued from Egypt

"We said no, and made it quite clear that the issue is terrorism and we are not going to start any composite dialogue without that," Menon said responding to Pakistan's stand of linking the resumption of the composite dialogue with the action against terrorism.

On the inclusion of Balochistan in the communique, Menon said, "Pakistan has been saying this for long. We said we have nothing to hide."

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 22:38

Anujan wrote:'Joint statement' may be bad drafting, admits Menon

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 21 Jul 2009 22:40

vera_k wrote: He may have said that, but that is not the reality. That equation modified at the national level is more like "In India out of a 100 people, 50 vote and the person who gets 17 votes gets to rule and set policy".

My point is that it is faulty logic to assume that the the government has the backing of majority of the people on any single issue. Specially one regarding foreign policy which tends to be low down the list of priorities for most people.

But vera_k , what other mechanism (apart from elections) do we have to see if a majority of people agree with Govt. policy? I know our system has a lot of loop holes but it is what it is. Don't you think if a majority of the people disagree with the Govt decision, they would vote them out in the next election?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 22:48

Anujan wrote:Straight from the horse's mouth

'Joint statement' may be bad drafting, admits Menon

"One can argue how good or bad the drafting was...you can say it is bad drafting, but the meaning is clear," he said responding to criticism of the joint statement issued from Egypt

"We said no, and made it quite clear that the issue is terrorism and we are not going to start any composite dialogue without that," Menon said responding to Pakistan's stand of linking the resumption of the composite dialogue with the action against terrorism.

On the inclusion of Balochistan in the communique, Menon said, "Pakistan has been saying this for long. We said we have nothing to hide."

Is he going to resign and set a precedent?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Jul 2009 22:50

g.kacha wrote:But vera_k , what other mechanism (apart from elections) do we have to see if a majority of people agree with Govt. policy? I know our system has a lot of loop holes but it is what it is. Don't you think if a majority of the people disagree with the Govt decision, they would vote them out in the next election?

People will vote out the Government if they disagree on a particular issue, only if that issue is important enough for them to base their vote on it. In most cases, there is no reason to suppress dissenting views by claiming that the majority of the people have signed off on some Government policy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 22:52

You havent answered the question. Does the elected govt have the mandate to frame policy or not?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Jul 2009 22:55

ramana wrote:You havent answered the question. Does the elected govt have the mandate to frame policy or not?

By law, it does. But it does not mean opposing viewpoints can't try to show that it does not have the mandate and therefore should desist.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 21 Jul 2009 23:01

Menon is trying to defend the indefensible. Why allow such dubious writings in the first place? Were his hands tied and mouth gagged by "somebody"? Or is he in cahoots with that "somebody"?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 23:17

narayanan wrote:Snow garu: add to this, please?

snow garu, second that ! it will be interesting to say the least about how your particular style of writing lends itself to a BRM/SRR article

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 21 Jul 2009 23:18

ramana wrote:
Is he going to resign and set a precedent?

Why should he resign Ramana Garu he will simply throw away the pen. Kal ko they might give away things and then say bad drafting sorry we replaced accede with secede I am throwing away the pen that wrote with

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 00:35

A different view from Ashok Mehta

EDITS | Wednesday, July 22, 2009 | Email | Print |

Praise PM for Sharm deal

Ashok K Mehta

The hurriedly drafted joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh has generated a lot of heat and dust. The points exciting people are “terrorism is the main threat to both countries”; “sharing real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats”; the real hit; “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”; and, the clincher: “Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”.

The decoupling of terrorism from the peace process and insertion of Balochistan are seen as surrender, sellout, diplomatic capitulation and so on in India, while Pakistan, which was pushing for resumption of the composite dialogue, regards it as a breakthrough and a victory. These are simplistic judgements and do not reflect the complexities of India-Pakistan relations choreographed, not subtly, by America.

We have been through this charade before. The composite dialogue was interrupted by major terrorist attacks on Parliament in 2001 and in Kaluchak in 2002, the Mumbai train bombings in 2005, the Samjhauta Express bombing in 2007 and the Mumbai carnage in 2008. In between there were any number of minor bombings elsewhere in India, sourced to Pakistan. But after 26/11, there has not been a single attack anywhere in India — the longest terror-free period ever. The US has certainly restrained the powers that be in Pakistan. {Inst it too short a period? And what about the strike forces which are still out there? Werent they a deterrent?}

In the past, former President Pervez Musharraf had pledged at least thrice to end cross-border terrorism and not allow the use of Pakistani soil for terrorist attacks against India. The assurance was repeated by President Asif Ali Zardari who recently admitted that Taliban, not India, was the real threat to Pakistan. He also said “terrorists were created and nurtured in our country to get short-term tactical gains”, but his ISI chief, Lt Gen Shuja Pasha, has described them as strategic assets. On his return from Sharm el-Sheikh, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani clarified that “it was too early to say India was not a threat”. With diffused power centres in Pakistan, it is not clear who is responsible for honouring pledges: The President, Prime Minister, Army chief or ISI chief.

In the joint statement there is no reassurance from Pakistan that no further attacks will be launched from its territory though both sides agreed to “fight terrorism and cooperate with each other to this end”.

In September 2006, at Havana, Gen Musharraf broke the ice by declaring both Pakistan and India victims of terror. Further both sides agreed to establish the farcical Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism which was, in a sense, resurrected at Sharm el-Sheikh. Mr LK Advani’s charge that India went to Sharm el-Sheikh as a victim of terror and returned as the accused does not stick because India had already accepted equality of victimhood status at Havana. {I thought it was M.J. Akbar who said this!}

India has made concessions to Pakistan now and in the past. It is no longer insisting on dismantling of terrorist infrastructure, only judicial action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. The timing of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India and her appeal to “encourage Pakistan as it fights extremism” was balanced by her statement that the US has put no pressure on India to resume the composite dialogue.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is convinced that India will not be a great country without engaging Pakistan, a process in which the US could be of immense help. Mr Singh had offered a ‘No War Pact’ to Pakistan in 2006 while in Amritsar and repeated it in 2007 at a FICCI meeting in Delhi as part of his vision for the neighbourhood. “I dream of a day when while retaining our respective national identities, one can have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch at Lahore and dinner at Kabul…”. Both the ‘No War Pact’ and cuisine-hopping were dismissed as utopia in Pakistan.

But like his predecessor, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Mr Singh is determined to make history without changing geography. Hamid Mir, executive director of Pakistan’s Geo TV, told an Indian channel that Mr Singh displayed political sagacity in saving the talks form collapsing — presumably by allowing Balochistan to infiltrate into the joint statement and de-bracketing terrorism and talks.

But who knows, Mumbai may be the turning point. On Monday Ajmal Kasab, one of the 10 terrorists captured alive and whom Pakistan has accepted as its national, suddenly volunteered a confession in court even as Pakistan pressed charges in an anti-terrorism court against the Mumbai culprits and promised to book Jamaat-ud-Dawa’h chief Hafiz Saeed who was earlier released from detention.

Mumbai is different from all past attacks because, for the first time, you have a living Kasab in custody. Pakistan has admitted, also for the first time, that the attack was mounted from its soil and that Lashkar-e-Tayyeba was responsible for it. The international community, especially the US and the UN, are demanding justice for the crime.

Pakistan has refuted allegations that elements of the state (ISI-Army) were linked to the attack. Mr Singh is not pressing the point as he wishes to bolster the civilian Government, which, despite the differences between the President and the Prime Minister, is able to show a modicum of civilian control over the Army in the fight against the Taliban. On this India and the US are on the same page, hoping that the troika can arrive at a power-sharing arrangement.

In the past, Pakistan used to maintain that Kashmir was the core issue (not mentioned in the joint statement) and that progress on other items on the composite dialogue was contingent upon progress on Kashmir. India at the time had linked movement on Kashmir with progress on cross-border terrorism. There were clear inter-linkages. While both sides unofficially dropped their respective conditionalities, cross-border terrorism continued to take its toll in stalling/freezing the composite dialogue.

After Sharm el-Sheikh, Pakistan’s perception is that India has abandoned its single point agenda that there can be no progress in dialogue without Pakistan addressing terrorism. The challenge clearly is a firewall between the two like the fencing along the Line of Control which has almost stopped infiltration and reduced violence to its lowest level since 1990 and terrorist numbers to a mere 600. {To me even that is too mcuh. Why should TSP send terrorists against India at all?}

India has to work with the US to help stabilise Pakistan and insulate the peace process from cross-border terrorism. The cost for this will be reopening the dialogue on Kashmir, preferably facilitated by the US. The security situation in Kashmir cannot get any better for attempting a political solution before the Talibanising Pakistan-occupied Kashmir spoils it. If Mr Singh wants India to be a great country, it must start resolving Kashmir — everything else could fall in place. {Now we know why IA chief went to DC!}

Looks like the eilte are giving up on Kashmir with a Munich mindset or Chamberlainesque attitude.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 22 Jul 2009 00:38

Apologies if already posted....Ashok Mehta in Pioneer see's positives:

http://dailypioneer.com/190682/Praise-P ... -deal.html

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Jul 2009 00:49

A certain helplessness is very obvious to notice in the tone of any Pakistani who mentions Kashmir in his/ her article. In their heart of hearts everyone has given up on a change of geography or for that matter Plebiscite.

Coming back to topic though , the bigger blunder seemed to be the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement - this will reflect very badly on us and perhaps give TSP room to maneuver in the future by accusing us of supporting insurgency in Balochistan and citing the joint statement as an admission (lawhori-logic).

The de-linking of talks mention is nothing but symbolic and aims to show us as a mature and understanding nation in the eyes of the worlds , it has become quite obvious in the couple of days that talks of any sort will not resume until TSP prosecutes the guilty.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Jul 2009 00:52

look at it another way, pakistan is admitting it is not in control of baluchistan either... or NWFP... and soon Karachi and Lahore...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Jul 2009 00:58

that may already be a well known fact by now across the world , while they may be referred to as a Sovereign state - their sovereignty is raped everyday by Drones , Taliban and a few more.

TSP is hardly ashamed of the fact that it's not in control of it's territory , therefore in line with keeping it's "shame India" policy in mind , TSP will not hesitate to bring up Balochistan whenever we bring up cross border terror.

We have taken the first step in giving them a perpetual stick with which they can beat us with in the form of their un-settled province.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Jul 2009 01:09

With all due respect, Ashok K Mehta is repeating what we know, and doesn't offer any insight into why MMS ought to be praised? Just gallons of hot air blurted out with a phony self confident tone.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 22 Jul 2009 01:36

The real harakiri has been going on in this thread. People defending MMS & his right to have his own 'vision' for India neglecting the fact that his glorious 'vision' is nothing but to quash nationalism & turn India into Unkil's GUBO partner. Any chankian interpretation of his GUBO act at Sharm is an attempt in vain. I'm ashamed to have such a man leading my country.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jul 2009 01:36

Baloch leaders back Manmohan on Sharm el-Sheikh Declaration

...
But Baloch nationalist leaders see things differently. Many have welcomed the Declaration, and called on India to use the opportunity to raise the issue in talks with Pakistan.

Suleiman Khan, the United Kingdom-based heir to the throne of the Khanate of Kalat, is among those who hope that the Declaration will lead to international intervention in the conflict in his province.

“We earnestly hope,” he told The Hindu, “that India will now act on its moral responsibility to raise the Balochistan issue with Pakistan and the world.”

“In this century,” Mr. Khan said, “India has acquired great influence and power. With power come obligations. We are surprised that India, despite claiming that it is a democracy and a supporter of human rights, has so far chosen not to take a proactive role in Balochistan.”
...
Wahid Baloch, president of the Baloch Society of North America, agreed. “It is imperative,” he says, “for India to now speak up against the terrorism perpetrated by the Pakistan Army in Balochistan.”

“For a variety of reasons,” he argued, “India has been very hesitant to support the Baloch cause, even though among all nations it is the only one to have voiced some concern for our plight. But if Pakistan can provide support for groups in Jammu and Kashmir, and raise the issue on every available international forum, why is India hesitant to do the same for our people?”

Both leaders were insistent that India had no role in supporting Baloch insurgents — but both said New Delhi ought to offer Baloch insurgents military support.

“As far as I know,” Mr. Khan said, “there is no Indian support for Baloch freedom fighters. If there were, I would welcome it.”

Mr. Baloch went further. “India rightly supported the just war of the people of Bangladesh against tyranny, and helped them win freedom. It is morally obliged, as a democracy, to provide Baloch groups with training and material support to stop the slaughter of our people.”
...

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 22 Jul 2009 01:40

CRamS wrote:With all due respect, Ashok K Mehta is repeating what we know, and doesn't offer any insight into why MMS ought to be praised? Just gallons of hot air blurted out with a phony self confident tone.

Mehta Sahib is among the illustrious American mouthpieces in Indian newspapers (of the same level as the one who inhabits Singapore). I have been reading his column in Pioneer. The way Mehta Sahib bats for the Nepal Maoists is not amusing ...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 01:51

AllahoAkbar! This thread should be named the

thread. All the whining and wailing of the Energizer Bunnies has been shown to be exactly what it always is - a mirror world of the Pakis gloating.

ramana, I don't think Menon should resign. In fact, he should be given a medal. For he has shown that "Joint Statements" etc, don't mean squat. The ground reality remains: Unless Pakistan stops and acts against terrorism,

Also, now we see the other side:

Mr. Baloch went further. “India rightly supported the just war of the people of Bangladesh against tyranny, and helped them win freedom. It is morally obliged, as a democracy, to provide Baloch groups with training and material support to stop the slaughter of our people.”

There is a bold, straight appeal FROM THE RECOGNIZED LEADER OF THE PEOPLE OF BALOCHISTAN for Indian support.

OTOH, the Pakis government also wants India's role in Balochistan to be recognized - as an honest broker whose only interest is in the well-being of the people of Balochistan, but is willing to facilitate negotiations between the Pakistani Oppressors and the Afghan relatives of the Balochistani people.

I would say that Indian diplomacy has come of age - far from hiding and waffling, India is willing to shrug off these "joint statements" saying: "Oh, that's not how we read it, maybe a typo, so what, the reality remains" - and move on. (Oh, yeah, sure, "typo"! The Indian diplos must have bitten their beards too, to keep from

as they signed the Final Joint Declaration.

Leaving the Energizer Bunnies and the Pakis dancing around the same Pu pit.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 02:00

So it was good error afterall! I like the appeal of Sri Suleiman Khan the heir of the Khan of Kalat appealing to India. Heck its better than all the scenarios we have been dreaming up. All along the Balochis were not wanting GOI help.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 02:01

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
CRamS wrote:With all due respect, Ashok K Mehta is repeating what we know, and doesn't offer any insight into why MMS ought to be praised? Just gallons of hot air blurted out with a phony self confident tone.
Mehta Sahib is among the illustrious American mouthpieces in Indian newspapers (of the same level as the one who inhabits Singapore). I have been reading his column in Pioneer. The way Mehta Sahib bats for the Nepal Maoists is not amusing ...

SC, Lt gen Ashok Mehta is an India firster and also a realist who supports what can be achieived.

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Jul 2009 02:03

ramana wrote:So it was good error afterall! I like the appeal of Sri Suleiman Khan the heir of the Khan of Kalat appealing to India. Heck its better than all the scenarios we have been dreaming up. All along the Balochis were not wanting GOI help.

Ramanaji grab some beer and pop corn (replace with lassi if non-alcoholic) while deep low mats from Isloo tie themselves up in knots all the while thinking they have cornered MMS by some puppy jhuppy! Real victory is one in which the defeated party realizes its loss after the time for corrections has passed by or shall I say water has drained down the Satluj.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 02:04

I see it as the equivalent of the command in the "Patton" movie:

Commence firing. Fire at will!

on supporting the Balochistani Liberation Struggle and bringing the Genocide in Balochistan to the attention of the world. So far I was always hampered by the fear that our writing could cause the death of some innocents in Balochistan, and that they did not want any association with India. It's open season on the Paki Fauj at this point.

Tactical Brilliance from the Groper and Das Berjent, indeed!

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Jul 2009 02:05

edited-double post

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Jul 2009 02:07

>>>replace with lassi if non-alcoholic
Search for 'tiranga' in BRF - that is Ramana gaaru's cocktail recipe.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Jul 2009 02:51

Samuel-ji... could you pls drop line at ramay.brf at gmail?

thanks

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Jul 2009 03:04

Looks like India has gotton a small part say in managing Pakisatan via backdoor. If true, it will have far reaching consequences. India can now possibily become representative for both Pathan Balochi victims of Pak Army terrorism and negotiate on their behalf . Balch leaders have asked for help and now the children of Khan Baba can do same. lets watch who goes to PeeKing for breifing as Chicom are going to come out as the biggest lossers within a decade.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Jul 2009 03:48

After 26/11, Pakistan desperately needed an = = with India on the issue of terror. Because here was an incident where they were caught with their pants down. Not only was a terrorist captured alive, but serving pakistan military officers were caught giving instructions to the terrorists on tape.
The evidence has circulated wide enough all the way to the UN. (Like it matters anyway)
The world sees that the pakistanis were responsible.

This is probably why Geelani came in with "evidence" of indian involvement in balochistan at S-E-S. MMS and his team should have been more adroit diplomatically than they have been. Now they have gone one step too far (The 'we are both victims of terror' was bad enough), now India has accepted that it is discussing balochistan with the pakistanis, that India stands for peace there.

Each time that there is an incident in balochistan, india will be berated by pakistan about why it happened.

Each time we mention cross border terror, the pakis will retort with a 'you're doing it in balochistan also'.

All this is apart from the spin the pakis will be giving to this back home, there they will say that india got weak kneed when confronted with 'evidence' (Under lungi photo ops) in balochistan and other areas.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2009 04:02

Prem wrote:Looks like India has gotton a small part say in managing Pakisatan via backdoor. If true, it will have far reaching consequences. India can now possibily become representative for both Pathan Balochi victims of Pak Army terrorism and negotiate on their behalf . Balch leaders have asked for help and now the children of Khan Baba can do same. lets watch who goes to PeeKing for breifing as Chicom are going come out as the biggest lossers within a decade.

Well, I think it is too soon to say anything. Let us see if the Indian leadership responds at all to the Baloch leadership and if it does, it doesn't go with "this is Pakistan's internal matter". It is keeping fingers crossed time.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 04:39

Now that Mr Suleiman Khan & Wahid Baloch have expressed their opinions, it is the time for the next steps. The next time Pakistan makes some accusations, India should say we will thoroughly look into the matter. Then we should say Indians don't even know that a Baluchistan exists, much less be involved in support to some insurgency there.

Then we ought to invite all important Balochis to Delhi, and hold a Baluchistan Awareness Conference. Give a platform to all Baluchis to air their views on freedom and show presentations on the atrocities committed by the TSPA. If Pakistan objects, we can always say, we have first understand the problem, before we can answer Pakistan's accusations.

Let speaker after speaker plead for Indian intervention and curse us from this platform for turning a blind eye to their predicament.

And the chess game progresses!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 04:43

there they will say that india got weak kneed when confronted with 'evidence'

Dear Gaganji: In your determination to cast the Prime Minister of India as traitor, coward etc. etc., you have managed to get your accusations entangled.

Now let's see:

1. The whole duniya incl, UN (not that it matters) realized that 26/11 was done by Pakistan.
2. India appeared weak-kneed because there was no visible Indian retaliation after 190+ Indians were murdered in cold blood by agents of the Pakistani govt.

3. Now Pakistan says that India is destabilizing Pakistan in Balochistsn. Note that most of the violence that Pakistan blames on others, is violence that degrades Pakistan Army's abilities. Attacks on infrastructure, fuel supplies etc. Not bombing hotels and machine-gunning infants in their mothers' arms - that is a Pak Army specialty after all, as we have seen so many many times.

4. SO THE WORLD WILL NOW SAY THAT INDIA GOT WEAK-KNEED WHEN CONFRONTED WITH EVIDENCE?

This is what happens when ppl put their prejudices and resentments and superstitions ahead of their data and refuse to look at their own arguments: they trip over them.

I am also a part of the duniya. If I see that India is acting, coolly and without fuss, to bring down the Pakistani terrorist "Army", I say: "Right on!"

Far from "getting weak-kneed", India has said - please take the trouble to read: "What we are doing in Balochistan is there for all to see, and we have nothing to hide!"

Sounds like a very audible "ungli" up the Pakis' musharraf.

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Jul 2009 05:12

In the little and dusty pind of Punjab that I come from there is a saying "Gusse ch apne kapre paaran naalo banda aap hi nanga hunda ae" roughly translated it goes like "tearing your own clothes in anger serves to make oneself naked only". I would recommend friends and jingos here to understand the nuanced positions that GOI takes and stop imputing ulterior motives left, right and centre. Judge MMS by outcomes of his schemes and not in heat of the moment. The demure looking darji has got the Isloo deep low mats discussing their formerly settled but now DISPUTED territory(

) within 6 moths of his second innings and I hope we shall lord over greater area by the time he demits office. (I know being too optimistic but who knows....)

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 06:08

While I agree

rothudu BRFites do get overboard with their

; the Chankian one's are a step ahead they see opportunity even where there has been a huge self goal inflicted by the GOI.

Are people here on this board trying to imply Baloch movement is as strong as the separatist movement in J&K; is the whole duniya bewakoof to only talk about J&K , last I read rags like CNN,NYT or even BBC I only came across the need to include J&K in the peace process what is this jubilation over Baloch movt about...hain ?

The ISI chief was summoned by the PM after 26/11 which was out rightly rejected by Ashfaq ullah Kiyani; and now the former has expressed his desire to meet the RAW chief...why ?
It's not chankian ..its common sense maanniya PM ji has agreed to include Baluchistan in the composite dialogue process so now ISI chief can sit on the table with

face and....errr... smirk at Chankians ofcourse...

On a serious note may I know from learned Jirga what is expected from the peace/composite dialogue process ? for a record we

rothudu BRFite don't expect nothing ...life goes on...what goes my father's.

Jai ho and all

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Jul 2009 06:29

negi wrote:While I agree rothudu BRFites do get overboard with their ; the Chankian one's are a step ahead they see opportunity even where there has been a huge self goal inflicted by the GOI.

This is not about being the flag bearer of MMS or the sarkar, the Chakians are merely trying to look into implications of MMS' acts and not the bravado that some of us here would like him to exhibit.

Are people here on this board trying to imply Baloch movement is as strong as the separatist movement in J&K; is the whole duniya bewakoof to only talk about J&K , last I read rags like CNN,NYT or even BBC I only came across the need to include J&K in the peace process what is this jubilation over Baloch movt about...hain ?

The implication is that it was not at the same as keel as J&K but foolish Deep Low Mats from Isloo have done a Sun Tzu on their own government by disputing a settled region and acknowledging our role in the region. The past was different as Balochistan was an internal issue of Pakis but now its a bilateral/outstanding/core/ maslaa between two nuclear powers and hence is a flash point

The ISI chief was summoned by the PM after 26/11 which was out rightly rejected by Ashfaq ullah Kiyani; and now the former has expressed his desire to meet the RAW chief...why ?
It's not chankian ..its common sense maanniya PM ji has agreed to include Baluchistan in the composite dialogue process so now ISI chief can sit on the table with face and....errr... smirk at Chankians ofcourse...

Have you ever seen someone kicking "ghar aayi Lakshmi", when Pakis think that their piece of land is disputed and want to share their deep reflections on the issue with then why not let them? Also let ISI chief meet RAW/IB/IIT/IIM/AIIMS/ICICI any chief as long as he reports to our PM with his H&D intact

On a serious note may I know from learned Jirga what is expected from the peace/composite dialogue process ? for a record we rothudu BRFite don't expect nothing ...life goes on...what goes my father's.

Jai ho and all

Baiji we neither expect any dialogue nor any composite chai biskoot. All is maya only we signed a badly drafted statement and will attend a badly attended meeting.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 06:52

^ Height of Optimism....

How many times have you heard POK being a part of composite dialogue process (I am not gonna even mention Tibet and Aksai Chin for its no longer funny ....

) ? We will talk about Balochistan later . Geez...how can you guys imagine such stuff specially when we are busy molly coddling the separatists in our J&K ?

Btw MMS has scored a golden goal by doing a equal equal onlee ; i.e. any untoward incident in Balochistan will now be blamed on India and ofcourse incidents in J&K will be justified as a causal response....duh.Advocating freedom for Balochistan == Freedom for J&K and ofcourse we are talking about billions of dollars of aid in the name of bringing peace and stability to the Baloch people .

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 22 Jul 2009 06:55

And so the second charge begins on this thread to defend the indefensible sell out. To boldly see what mere mortals cannot see. Original spinster (JSnowji) is here on the thread, that too fresh from his tour of Africa. So let him comment on the amateurish spin attempted here to save the H&D of the glorious leader, modern day chanakya, distinguished economist, oxford scholar, strong sardar PM and his great defeat of Pakistan.

As I keep saying, there is no Indian interest being served by resuming talks. There is no Indian interest being served in rewarding pakistan with a badly drafted Joint Statement. There was no interest being served in meeting with the Pakistani PM in the first place. Some other country's interest was being served.

There was no clamour for talks to resume in India. Neither from the communal bad BJP nor from the peace loving secular parties like CPI(M). Heck, not even from the Gandhiji loving Congress. Then why this act of stupidity?

The PM of India should and act and behave as PM of India, not as a head clerk. Is that too much to ask from an Oxford educated scholar, economist?

amit · Post by **amit** » 22 Jul 2009 06:58

I never thought that India getting official sanction from Pakistan to provide "moral and diplomatic" support to the Baloach Freedom Fighters would cause so much takleef among the mujahids of BRF.