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

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 24 Jul 2009 17:39

The amount of backtracking happening in the last few days is mind-boggling and not too many of our higher ups(former bigwigs atleast) seem to have anything good to say about the SeS affair

One small relief from this backtracking is that the "MMS made a Chanakiyan move" cheerleaders are now nowhere to be seen.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 24 Jul 2009 17:40

Ah ! some backbone is still present or just eye wash?
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/four-us-airl ... 818-3.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 18:42

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The amount of backtracking happening in the last few days is mind-boggling and not too many of our higher ups(former bigwigs atleast) seem to have anything good to say about the SeS affair
One small relief from this backtracking is that the "MMS made a Chanakiyan move" cheerleaders are now nowhere to be seen.

Oh no they have all scooted to the EUM thread where they continue the hero worship, you will have to go there to engage them now.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Jul 2009 18:48

John Snow wrote:Same shame lame excuses

remember during Nuke deal our famous Narayanan Security Agency (NSA) and Shiva Shankar Menon (SSN) were tarpedoed by Americans and the excuse was the Americans had lawyers in their side we did not have.

One more of their caliber we have the three Larry,Curly, Mowe

Sabash IFS and IPS cadre, damn the drafting damn the English. Mind The (Language) Gap!

JS Garu,

the English drafting errors are due to the saffronization of education system during NDA rule onleee

. Bunch of incompetent people. The same idi*ts behave extremely arrogant and supremacist when addressing Indian public/issues.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 24 Jul 2009 19:57

SSridhar wrote:This is true. On the morning of 16 June, when the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Advisor exchanged notes the general sense was that there was going to be no joint statement.

At 9.30 am, Manmohan Singh met his host, Egyptian President Hosni Mobarak. Scheduled for 10.30 am was the meeting with the Pakistani prime minister. The plan was that after the meeting, Dr Singh would hold a press conference to brief reporters. He would then proceed to the concluding session of the NAM conference and fly back home.

Knowing who Mubarak is, I find this detail very significant.

SSridhar wrote:Things began going wrong just about then. An accident on the main Sharm el Sheikh road caused a traffic pile-up, forcing the prime minister to take another route to his hotel where Gilani was coming to call on him. Then, the cars reached the wrong gate, causing another delay. Just as the protocol chiefs on both sides were ready to strangle their respective teams, the Indian side called the Pakistanis and told them there would be a ten-minute delay. All this is incidental but it added to the generally fraught environment.

A NAM meeting is about to happen in one of the most upscale resort, roads were not blocked to make way for the foreign dignitaries.

Even if it were, the PM's entourage just bypasses the traffic and criss-cross the streets of S-e-S? Security breach?

Did MKN play James Bond

(I can imaging he indulging in this long, long, long, long fantasy)? Did they use GPS or were guided by India's "most advanced" cartosat or some such?

I think MMS, Menon, MKN are making a mockery of Indian parliament and citizens.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 24 Jul 2009 19:59

Guys, 26 pages discussing MMS's shameful surrender, and I haven't still seen the views of R-man. Boss, R-man, where are you? Why are you hiding? Give us your views. Ditto Rye.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 24 Jul 2009 20:01

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
The amount of backtracking happening in the last few days is mind-boggling and not too many of our higher ups(former bigwigs atleast) seem to have anything good to say about the SeS affair
One small relief from this backtracking is that the "MMS made a Chanakiyan move" cheerleaders are now nowhere to be seen.

Who are they boss? I think the criticism or "reserved skepticism"

was across the board.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 24 Jul 2009 20:02

Satya_anveshi wrote: I think MMS, Menon, MKN are making a mockery of Indian parliament and citizens.

No, its the abomination called the terrorist state of Pakistan (TSP) making a mockery of a billion people who like to believe they are an emerging 'super power'.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 24 Jul 2009 20:06

I am waiting with baited breath to see how reporting and BR speak will change when Nirupama Rao takes over from Menon.

Will the name calling stop then under the same dear leader of the masses. When will the 3 stooges from the small southern state be replaced by a new set of 3 stooges from the biggest southern state to pacify BR pundits from that the biggest southern state going ape.

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Jul 2009 20:13

sanjaychoudhry wrote: One small relief from this backtracking is that the "MMS made a Chanakiyan move" cheerleaders are now nowhere to be seen.

Sanku wrote:
Oh no they have all scooted to the EUM thread where they continue the hero worship, you will have to go there to engage them now.

Now that some of you guys are done stroking your egos, perhaps it is time to lock this thread before a few more warnings/bans are handed out. By all means, go hound "them" out in the EUM thread, have a grand fight, and declare victory, and in the process prove that BRF isn't much better than rediff comment section.

The posts have begun to go way off topic in this thread and unless some interesting news comes out in this topic, this thread is locked.

archan · Post by **archan** » 25 Jul 2009 01:44

Topic unlocked as some new information is still trickling out. I hope this pause would have helped in cooling down some emotions.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2009 02:05

Tariq Ali in his dairy published in London Review of Books writes of attending a US embassy shindig on July 4th where the US Amby was talking to someone from Balochistan and he speculates whether B will be the next hot spot.

LINK: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n14/ali_01_.html

I left Islamabad on 1 July, a day before the Independence Day party held by the US ambassador, Anne Patterson. Probably the most heavily guarded event in the global social calendar, this is the modern equivalent of the viceroy’s garden parties in old New Delhi. The leaders of the political, military and economic elite jostle with each other and with favoured journalists for the attention of the ambassador. Observers note that Patterson spent more time talking to X from Baluchistan than to Y from Peshawar. Might this mean that the frontline is going to be shifted to Baluchistan? Less important guests peer over heads and shoulders to see who else is present so that they can determine the pecking order of flattery.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 25 Jul 2009 02:26

Seems like even the Pakis are offended by the Congress spin.

'Tharoor's remarks on joint statement unwarranted'
Taking exception to the reported remarks of Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor on Indo-Pak joint statement, Pakistan today said both sides should refrain from any move that "detract from progress made" at recent talks between the two premiers.

Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said the insinuations made by Tharoor were "unwarranted and inconsistent with diplomatic norms". He was responding to questions on Tharoor's remarks about Pakistan as reported in the Indian media.

Tharoor had reportedly said that the India-Pakistan joint statement issued after the recent meeting between Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Egypt is a "diplomatic paper" and not a "legal document".

"It is a diplomatic paper that is released to the press -- different from legal papers.

http://ptinews.com/news/192792_-Tharoor ... warranted-

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 25 Jul 2009 02:32

Outrageous surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh
Virendra Parekh

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... spx?id=716

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jul 2009 02:35

I think the journalists in India are fast running out of new adjectives for "surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh".

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Jul 2009 02:53

RajeshA wrote:I think the journalists in India are fast running out of new adjectives for "surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh".

Soon they will write an article titled "India's Sharm-el- Sheikh Harakiri"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2009 03:02

Good one.

Meanwhile Op-ed Pioneer

EDITS | Saturday, July 25, 2009 | Email | Print |

The silence of Mr Singh

Ashok Malik

Over the past week, the UPA Government has almost willed itself into a crisis. In the end, the controversy over the India-Pakistan joint statement — following the meeting of the two Prime Ministers on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Summit in Egypt — will blow over. Yet, completely needlessly, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Congress have exposed crucial chinks in their armour.

There were, really, three episodes. First, the joint statement was drafted in decidedly ambiguous language. Next, the Congress declined to back its Prime Minister and left him hanging. Finally, Mr Singh repeated mistakes that have troubled him in the past, reopening the debate about his political acumen.

As is well-known, the joint statement had two unexpected elements. One, it ended up conveying India was willing to restart the composite dialogue with Pakistan without requiring that country to show concrete action on combating terrorism. Two, there was a tantalising single-line reference to Baluchistan.

Not surprisingly, there was uproar in India. To be fair, it was soon made clear that New Delhi had no intention of recommencing the composite dialogue. However, the Baluchistan mention had worrying implications. The Pakistanis had been telling Mr Richard Holbrooke, the American special representative for AfPak policy, that India was behind the Baluch rebellion. In being expansive because he felt India had nothing to hide, had Mr Singh given away too much?

The most significant response came from the Prime Minister’s own party. In a sense, the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement reinforced the Congress’s essential doubts about Mr Singh’s political astuteness. Despite the electoral victory, despite the goodwill that Mr Singh enjoys among urban middle classes, the media and the business and intellectual elite, the perception that he is a solo player and the Congress just isn’t comfortable with his political instincts is back in currency.

True, this will not lead to any dramatic change, resignation or removal. Even so, to expect the equation between the Prime Minister and the Congress to be exactly the same as it was before he took that flight to Egypt would be unrealistic. In some manner, the party will want greater ownership of and say in policy-making. Having given the Congress its chance, Mr Singh will inevitably have to thwart attempts to cramp his autonomy.

What India is seeing is not so much a clash of personalities as a cultural misfit. The Prime Minister’s inability — and in some cases refusal — to learn the art of political communication is continuing to handicap him. Take the Baluchistan interpolation. Nobody in the establishment has cared to explain it, spin a theory justifying it, sought to camouflage it as being part of a well-planned, long-term strategy. Congress spokespersons themselves admit they are puzzled and the Government hasn’t educated them.
Even if the Baluchistan insertion was a last-minute error of judgement —and all Governments can make errors of judgement — it was not irredeemable. For instance, the Pakistanis have been celebrating the “internationalisation of Baluchistan”. This is absolutely bizarre. Which country would want a domestic insurgency — in a province where the Federal Government has much to hide — to be internationalised?

Now see the Tariq Ali piece I linked in LRB and the Nightwatch piece of July 15th.}

In the coming months, after a specific violent incident in Baluchistan, Pakistan could point fingers at India. Equally, New Delhi could blame Islamabad for human rights violations and oppressing a domestic minority, and demand a third party — United Nations, SAARC, whatever — inquiry.

{Could the Baloch insertion be a joint game of US and TSP to blame India for their interventions over there?}

Admittedly, all of this may not have been thought through before the joint statement. Yet, it is perplexing that the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of External Affairs came up with no post facto rationalisation, no attempt at damage control. There were no spin doctors at work, no background briefings. The Government didn’t sense the urgency, the Congress refused to step in. It was astonishing paralysis.

{Rather its congnitive dissonance. They couldnt think there would be controversey at their magnanimous gesture.}

The joint statement affair has coincided with the war of words on the India-United States End-Use Monitoring arrangement, which was finalised during the recent visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The juxtaposition of the India-Pakistan and the EUM issues is a mixed blessing. Immediately, it has added to the turbulence in Parliament and has had the Opposition — for a variety of opportunistic reasons — uniting to attack the Government. In the long run, however, it could be the Government’s saviour.

After all, the UPA has far less to answer for on the EUM mechanism than on the joint statement. The EUM arrangement — it is not yet an agreement — was necessary to facilitate India’s purchase of defence equipment from the US. It is standard operating protocol and in line with similar EUM agreements signed for commercial technology. Further, with India retaining the right to decide the time and place of monitoring, it is far from a sell-out. Certainly, it cannot compare with the Baluchistan blunder.

Yet, in its own way, the EUM issue was also a sample of the Prime Minister’s reluctance to politically engage a wider audience. As Mr Singh’s friends have repeatedly stressed, he is a straightforward man and, when he acts in a manner that is patently correct and in the broader interest, does not understand why others oppose him. One can sympathise with this position. When an action is clearly beneficial, it should ideally find unanimous support. Truth should not need to be marketed.

However, such rules from everyday life don’t always apply in politics. As was apparent with the India-US nuclear agreement — a good deal, horribly mismanaged by the Government on the domestic front — it is occasionally necessary to reach out to opponents, re-state the obvious and make an effort to carry people along.

Despite this precedent, Mr Singh allowed history to be replayed. What stopped him asking the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to brief the Leader of the Opposition on the EUM negotiations, detail what had been agreed upon, and point out why it was needed to secure and safeguard India? If nothing else, this would have pre-empted a silly squabble.

Sadly, Mr Singh did nothing of the sort. Instead, he spent his precious political capital — accumulated after the May 16 election victory — not on pushing economic policy or education reforms, but on propagating a strange line on Pakistan and unnecessarily mystifying an otherwise fine EUM arrangement with America. Can one blame the Congress for being exasperated?

-- [email protected]

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 25 Jul 2009 03:19

Anujan wrote:
RajeshA wrote:I think the journalists in India are fast running out of new adjectives for "surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh".
Soon they will write an article titled "India's Sharm-el- Sheikh Harakiri"

Hope that at least other journalists would give the credit for the title where it belongs...

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 25 Jul 2009 03:19

archan wrote:Topic unlocked as some new information is still trickling out

Such as?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 25 Jul 2009 03:23

While the media is mostly unanimous in going after MMS post-mortem, I am waiting for a day when Government/media engages at least 10% of this time in preparation for such an event.

Maybe my limited exposure to Indian visual media skews by view, can somebody comment?

(1) Was there any discussion or panel before S-e-S discussing what various options are available? Hell, the first time I heard S-e-S was after things got completely out of hand.

(2) Did any discussion happen on EUM before Clinton was bound to arrive? I can imagine channels singing paens of Clinton era and Bush era, but was there any discussion on getting a sense of our redlines?

archan · Post by **archan** » 25 Jul 2009 03:31

Satya_anveshi wrote:
archan wrote:Topic unlocked as some new information is still trickling out
Such as?

Not news (news ke liye bacha hi kya hai) but more analysis, like posted by ramana ji.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Jul 2009 03:37

a_kumar: EUM has been on the agenda for some time, as has another treaty with the US to allow them more staging rights for ships and planes with more straightforward accounting arrangements. these agreements are part of a broader engagement model that the US uses to build up 'inter-operability' or atleast foreign deployment ability with friendly nations. There has been consistent pressure for some time to get these things 'out of the way' in order to deepen the level of cooperation. the US is buying options for its Asia strategy and its ability to favourably influence the fak-ap game plan. naval cooperation is a key cornerstone of this grand plan. I don't think that the americans are naive enough to contemplate us as the indian ocean poodle (like UK/Atlantic and Australia/Pacific) but will think of us more like a Germany or Japan as 2nd tier reliable partners to execute their global game plan.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 25 Jul 2009 03:41

a_kumar wrote:While the media is mostly unanimous in going after MMS post-mortem, I am waiting for a day when Government/media engages at least 10% of this time in preparation for such an event.

Maybe my limited exposure to Indian visual media skews by view, can somebody comment?

(1) Was there any discussion or panel before S-e-S discussing what various options are available? Hell, the first time I heard S-e-S was after things got completely out of hand.

This S-e-S meeting was initially with Zardari, who was supposed to come. But after his slight by MMS, he didnt come and the meeting was changed to gilani. So yes, people knew about this upcoming meeting at NAM with atleast 2 months in advance.

That was the most important point of this harakiri. After the events in Russia, no one was able to see this MMS turnaround and so for everyone it became a jolt. After saying to Zardari infront of the media, why did MMS make this turnaround within 1 month - he did not give even a single meaningful reply to it. and then came the gymastics by Tharoor and co, which made the govt and MMS a laughing stock, like trying to explain it of as, unsigned statement - god knows what this means. saying that the statement says Gilani talked about Baluch, forgetting the joint part of joint statement and so on.

MMS silence on this issue has been deafening. But he is supposed to give a statement today in parliament

(2) Did any discussion happen on EUM before Clinton was bound to arrive? I can imagine channels singing paens of Clinton era and Bush era, but was there any discussion on getting a sense of our redlines?

Yes, there were discussions. Infact just before Clinton came, there were press reports stating EUM might be the only important document signed and the sense of redlines by strategic experts about physical onsite checks was known, though on this issue too, there is only silence from govt as usual.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Jul 2009 03:54

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... a-trip.htm

"I think the Ambassador (Holbrooke) is not going to stop in India on this trip. There was a mismatch in terms of scheduling. So, he will do that on this -- on a future trip to the region," Crowley said.

Stating he didn't know the reason for Holbrooke postponing the trip to India, one former senior US official said: "There's a hornet's nest in India now because of opposition attacks on two parts of the India-Pakistan joint statement just agreed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt . I suppose it's possible the Indians didn't want a discussion about Pakistan with the United States just now. But I doubt that's the reason."

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 25 Jul 2009 03:59

Crowley wrote:There's a hornet's nest in India now because of opposition attacks on two parts of the India-Pakistan joint statement just agreed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt . I suppose it's possible the Indians didn't want a discussion about Pakistan with the United States just now. But I doubt that's the reason.

Why do you doubt that is the reason? That is exactly the reason. Indians are fed up of Americans dictating India on Pakistan. We are fed up of Holbrooke's stupid assertions about both being victims of terror. Holbrooke's presence in India right now would have been a red-rag.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 25 Jul 2009 04:06

RajeshA wrote: Why do you doubt that is the reason? That is exactly the reason. Indians are fed up of Americans dictating India on Pakistan. We are fed up of Holbrooke's stupid assertions about both being victims of terror. Holbrooke's presence in India right now would have been a red-rag.

thats not Holbrooke's assertion it was mms' copyrighted harakiri at havana same as balochistan thing at S-e-S.Holbrooke is just referring to wat mms blurted out at havana.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 25 Jul 2009 04:24

Was this posted here?
PM introduced Balochistan, terror delink in Egypt statement
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 817599.cms

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Jul 2009 04:55

Stan,it was not posted but we could clearly derive that from the various statements appearing.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 25 Jul 2009 05:16

ramana wrote:In the coming months, after a specific violent incident in Baluchistan, Pakistan could point fingers at India. Equally, New Delhi could blame Islamabad for human rights violations and oppressing a domestic minority, and demand a third party — United Nations, SAARC, whatever — inquiry.

{Could the Baloch insertion be a joint game of US and TSP to blame India for their interventions over there?}

Ramana, absolutely. I posted a DAWN interview with Hillary just before her India visit and the interview was conducted in D.C. on July 16, a few hours after the Joint Statement fiasco.

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.

Read more:

It is very clear that the US wants to bring India's level of moral high position down so that it could extract a more flexible approach from her. At the same time, it will please the Pakistani ears too and the US can extract more from that state for its own benefit at the cost of India.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 25 Jul 2009 05:19

@ Lalmohan/Ravi_ku,

Thanks for the insight. While I am aware of some, some of it is new.

Coming back, there was enough literature "discussing" this (especially EUM) on the web, not to mention BR. While I gather experts have given their opinions, I am specifically looking for debate/discussion on primetime TV, rather than mention of it in the evening news.

For example, if there were any shows or panels on either NDTV/TimesNow/CNN-IBN discussing these "before" the summits inviting people for call-in/Text/polls and things like that. Maybe that is asking for too much.. but curious.

ravi_ku wrote: This S-e-S meeting was initially with Zardari, who was supposed to come. But after his slight by MMS, he didnt come and the meeting was changed to gilani. So yes, people knew about this upcoming meeting at NAM with atleast 2 months in advance.

That was the most important point of this harakiri. After the events in Russia, no one was able to see this MMS turnaround and so for everyone it became a jolt. After saying to Zardari infront of the media, why did MMS make this turnaround within 1 month - he did not give even a single meaningful reply to it.

I have witnessed such unexplained tendencies with folks (hell, even I had that tendency), where instead of going for the kill, guilt/remorse/pity takes over and we end up giving a lifeline instead, only to regret later.

btw..if Zardari dropping out had something to do with previous MMS interaction, Gilani hit jackpot, ended up gaining by any conciliatory mood of MMS.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Jul 2009 05:48

a_kumar wrote:
That was the most important point of this harakiri. After the events in Russia, no one was able to see this MMS turnaround and so for everyone it became a jolt. After saying to Zardari infront of the media, why did MMS make this turnaround within 1 month - he did not give even a single meaningful reply to it.

I have witnessed such unexplained tendencies with folks (hell, even I had that tendency), where instead of going for the kill, guilt/remorse/pity takes over and we end up giving a lifeline instead, only to regret later.

btw..if Zardari dropping out had something to do with previous MMS interaction, Gilani hit jackpot, ended up gaining by any conciliatory mood of MMS.

Well one person may trip due to pressure. But why were all the advisers who were accompanying did not correct the situation even after one-on-one. Surely, MMS did not do the clerical job of releasing the statement. Basically, the advisers who accompanied him, were drawing salary to perform the work of scribes, without doing the job for what they were paid for. Easily, this could have been done by MMSJi recording his thoughts and sending the audiofile to call center/translation center in Bengalooru, who could have done the job done by the "advisors".

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 25 Jul 2009 05:53

a_kumar wrote:@ Lalmohan/Ravi_ku,

Thanks for the insight. While I am aware of some, some of it is new.

Coming back, there was enough literature "discussing" this (especially EUM) on the web, not to mention BR. While I gather experts have given their opinions, I am specifically looking for debate/discussion on primetime TV, rather than mention of it in the evening news.

For example, if there were any shows or panels on either NDTV/TimesNow/CNN-IBN discussing these "before" the summits inviting people for call-in/Text/polls and things like that. Maybe that is asking for too much.. but curious.

Sirjee,
media is more interested in shahrukh's marriage and some pub-beatings. They will run scrolls for months on these issues. But when it comes to strategic issues, mention on the national news after even midnight can be considered too much. and then the important strategic experts will be mahesh bhatt, john abraham only.

I have witnessed such unexplained tendencies with folks (hell, even I had that tendency), where instead of going for the kill, guilt/remorse/pity takes over and we end up giving a lifeline instead, only to regret later.

you as a person changing depending on mood is different from changing the nation's viewpoint altogether, which is what MMS did.

btw..if Zardari dropping out had something to do with previous MMS interaction, Gilani hit jackpot, ended up gaining by any conciliatory mood of MMS.

or MMS made a nose dive.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jul 2009 06:10

So facts are:
- Zardari was supposed to meet MMS at S-e-S. Claiming hurt or snub he sends Gilani. Clear indication to cry off the summit.
- Dark hints emerge from July 4th that Balochistan would be dragged into this. Tariq Ali's LBR report.
- Confirmed in Nightwatch report July15th.
- From post S-e-S the statement was in jeopardy till MMS met Gilani. Most likely there was an SOS in the mtg.
- MMS decides to ensure statement is issued no matter what.
- delinks talks with terrorism
- allows Baloch to be brought up
- Orders SSM to draft the statement.
- Statment released and seen to be victory for Gilani.
- Uproar in India:INC, press, experts, BRF and what not.
- No response from MMS. Takes the full heat like asbestos shield.
- people say he takes unilateral decisions. Well he is PM no? He as to take spot decision to ensure India is not used as excuse by TSP.

Now what can explain this rationally.
MMS cant explain because:
- He sold out. Ruled out as ridiculous.
- He didnt know the uproar it would cause. Assumes he is foolish. SSM took the heat that drafting errors were made. And that too on his retirement watch

i rule that out.
- He had reasons that cant be revealed. What could be the reason?

I think there is US hand in this. The fact that Holebrooke doesn't want to step in India and Crowley alludes to it shows some chance of it being true.

So what was the US hand? Well ensure that TSP doesn't wiggle out or give excuse to act on own terrorists.

What does India get out of this?

-Well the EUM turns out much softer than advertised and everyone claims Clinton upgraded the ties mcuh beyond what was expected of the Obama Admin. clinton mutters softening stand about ENR .

So why cant MMS say this?

Well that would unleash a firestorm that US is running Indian FP.

The problem with dots is they can connect to a friendly cat or a ferocious dragon! So its somewhere in between.

And Satya_anveshi, Admins open and close threads and close on their perceptions. And if you want to be sardhakanamam then you shouldn't be bothered.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 25 Jul 2009 06:13

Most interesting part from ToI article:

The PM quite candidly explained why he included Balochistan in the statement. "The Prime Minister of Pakistan did bring up this thing when I said about terrorist acts aided, abetted and inspired from Pakistan's side. He said that in his country people say India is active in Balochistan. I said our conduct is an open book. We are willing to discuss all issues because we are doing nothing. And I said to him that I have been told several times that Indian consulates in Afghanistan are engaged in undesirable activities and I said these consulates have existed not today, they were set up way back in the 1950s. But if you have any evidence, we are willing to look at it because we are an open book; we are doing nothing. Therefore, we are not afraid of discussing these issues."

What a passive mentality MMS has. Anyone who had a bit more courage and motivations to protect India's interest would have stated the following: We have already investigated your allegations regarding India interfering in Baluchistan and I would like to assure you again that there is no such interference. Furthermore, in the interests of maintaining good relationships, I would encourage you to track down the source of such rumours in Pakistan and quell them accordingly - we would be willing to assist you in doing so. Please also understand that my government may be incompetent when it comes to foreign affairs, but there are no multiple power centers in India, so I am very well aware of what India is doing or not doing and hence, I suggest that you disregard such bullshit.

If MMS is unable or unwilling to protect India's interest, he should step aside and his government should resign. He has both the things that a good negotiator looks for in negotiations: a position of strength and morally higher ground and he seems to have squandered it both. GoI should rescind that joint statement.

Extraordinarily, the almost conciliatory tone of the statement was at odds with the PM's own remarks barely an hour later. In fact, it was clear the PM was trying to interpret the statement in a particular way, because by then the Pakistanis had already interpreted the statement to mean that they were off the hook -- the umbilical cord between terror and dialogue was cut.

So MMS is not only passive, casual, and unmotivated when it comes to protecting India's foreign interests, but his foreign policy team is also incompetent. Also, there is no mechanism to ensure that such blunders don't happen.

Shiv Shankar Menon, a seasoned negotiator, has defended the statement saying the "intention was clear". "You can call it good drafting or bad drafting, but the meaning is clear," he had told a group of questioning MPs earlier this week.

At least someone is willing to call a spade a spade even though very indirectly.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Jul 2009 06:38

ramana wrote: What does India get out of this?
-Well the EUM turns out much softer than advertised and everyone claims Clinton upgraded the ties mcuh beyond what was expected of the Obama Admin. clinton mutters softening stand about ENR .

Ramanaji, right on cue, the media is going to be flooded about the generosity of Ms.Clinton. Life is grand when one can own media..
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... uld-do.htm

' Not every one can love India as much as Bush did, but Hillary showed enough affection for India and her chemistry with people was really reassuring."

Its time to say thanks to Hillary, says a diplomat, because she tried her best in the given circumstances.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 25 Jul 2009 06:48

But if you have any evidence, we are willing to look at it because we are an open book; we are doing nothing.

He states we're doing nothing. And then says we're willing to look at it. What does that mean? If we're doing nothing at all, then why do we need to even encourage the porkis to show evidence or even take the issue further and give them space to bring it up any further?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Jul 2009 07:13

ramana:

So basically it was a case of Tug-of-War where India suddenly walked away from the rope, leaving Gilani on his musharraf, leaving a totally useless rope.

Let's see: TenPercent tried

off to cancel summit - look at the state of the Kasab trial to see why. Then Gilani tried the usual :"If you keep asking us to act against terrorism, we will bring in Baluchistan". The stupid response to that would be what the brilliant postors above advice:
Go into a tizzy demanding that

If you threaten to bring up Balochistan, we won't talk to u

Think about that for a moment, and we see what's wrong with that. Instead, the Indian response was pretty-much what I described before:

Teri ***ki. Go bring up Balochistan or the planet Jupiter for all we care, and try showing that we are doing anything at all in Balochistan

Very dignified response, devastating to Pakistan in the long term. Now the fact remains that
1. Kasab has confessed to being Pakistani (not that there was any doubt, but now it is not "India alleges that" any more), and presumably has given a lot of court-proceedings records of Pakistani government sponsorship of terrorism. And, shockingly to the Pakis, the court just recorded that, and went right ahead with the other 86 murder and terrorism charges. Unthinkable in Pakistan, where "confession" by all 200,000,000 of the "murderers of Daniel Pearl" confessed separately to having cut his throat, and that ended all curiosity in the west about the Paki government hand in that.
2. The US is forced into being disturbed yet again in its pretended unawareness that US taxpayer dollars are being poured into SUPPORTING a regime that blatantly sponsors international terrorism.
3. Pakistan Army's genocide in Balochistan is Internationalized. Investigations and reports galore, if GOI and Indian media have any skills at all in this.
4. Pakistan's bluff: "IF you keep bringing up Pakistani state sponsorship of terror, we will bring up Balochistan" has been called.

Time to demand, I think, that anyone who feels that this "non-statement" constitutes a victory for Pakistan (as many here seem to be much louder than even YAWN does) sit down and write up why. instead of keeping on cluttering a thread after 27 pages with the same old

I plan to be writing up and publishing the other side, which is now so obvious and easy.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Jul 2009 07:41

Victory and pakistan is Oxymoronic. Even if victory were to offered on a platter Bakis would not recognize it.
As anyways Bakistan is in Soup, and eventually be not victorious; was singing duet with Bakis necessary. Did singing of the duet hastened the process of Bakis being not victorious?
So the spin now is India is loosing an apparent tooth, so that Bakis will loose a Jaw, when they have no jaw in the first place to loose it.

P.S.: If that is a "NON STATMENT", then how can it have other side of the story to it. If it is zero, zilch, how would one derive positive out of it? It will be interesting to see how this "NON Statement" is going to be spun as positive,

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Jul 2009 08:22

The answer is in both Menon's and MMS' statements and demeanor on the issue. Indian "diplomacy" and "Foreign Policy" appear to have been dominated in the past by the theme:

Speak loudly and pontificate and look like pompous idiots, but do nothing

I am not saying that this is the REALITY of Indian effectiveness, just the way that the diplos and AIR/DD portray it. Standard "headlines" on AIR 9PM broadcast coming over the radio interference from the cosmic rays, sounding terribly important:

This is All India Radio, the News at 9PeeEm.
The Prime Ministah today said that blahblahblahblah
India and Pakistan today signed a joint statement blahblahblahblah
Speaking to the Press, the External Affairs Minister said that no terminological inexactitude has apparently been committed in the joint statement signed last week in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt, and rejected demands from the Opposition that a Blue Ribbon Inquiry Commission should be appointde to investigate whether the term "joint" referred to the nations of Indiapakistan or to what the diplomats were smoking. The Minister stated that there was no room for doubt on this issue..
.....
In other news, floods in North India have killed 300 and left 10 million people on rooftops. The President has conveyed her PERSONAL condolences to the families of those killed.

For the first time I am seeing an Indian Govt. that says:

U say we said WHAT? Who cares? Maybe there was a typo in the statement. Typo, bypo, the reality is the same today as it was yesterday. Pakistan doesn't get the time of day until it stops being terrorist

This is still not up to the "act decisively, say nothing" days of Indira Gandhi and ABV's first 2 years, but those who have (like me, silently) been disgusted about the pomposity and lack of substance in the PUBLIC versions of Indian diplomacy and foreign policy, have much to celebrate in these events.

Now BRF is wondering what is going on in Balochistan, and whether the world won't think that India IS doing "something" in Balochistan. IOW, "Phoren Log kya kahenge?" If MMS has achieved that at no cost in Indian lives, well...

How long have we pined for an Indian govt that acts WITHOUT all that fear of "Phoren Log kya kahenge?"

Whether you can appreciate the beauty of this situation or not is up to you, but I am certainly not unhappy about it, and see no need to "spin" it. All you

ppl are PLAYING for the spin, it's the lack thereof that's rattling your stumps.

Read Musharraf's claim of how Kargil was a victory because it "changed the attitude even inside India and they are more willing to discuss Kashmir". At the cost of 5000 Pakistani lives and a headlong tumble from being a US-UQ Favorite Nation to being the world's most-dissed terrorist slum. Inside a decade, and accelerating.

If you read this thread from first post to last, you see that the whole "Joint statement" was a complete non-event in terms of anything new. All that has happened is that the Pakis leaped with all their might into the usual Pu, and the Indian delegation gave them that extra push to make sure they landed right inside it. Gradually the facts have come out and the days have passed, showing that:

1. There is really nothing in Balochistan that Pakistan can blame on India.
2. Which means that the Paki whining about Indian Consulates in Afghanistan has been exposed as a complete lie.
3. MMS has said all along that India is not doing anything in Balochistan.

So the Pakistani bluff on Balochistan has been called, with India APPARENTLY not even intending to lead Pakistan into that disaster.
In summary:
There is no Paki "dossier" that has any credibility at all.
Imran Kasab is singing.
The 'talks" if any are still linked firmly to Pakistan stopping terrorism.

The continuing wailing and moaning here is thus excellent, keep it up. PakDef needs the help, with their level of literacy.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 25 Jul 2009 08:39

narayanan wrote: All that has happened is that the Pakis leaped with all their might into the usual Pu, and the Indian delegation gave them that extra push to make sure they landed right inside it.
The continuing here is thus excellent, keep it up. PakDef needs the help, with their level of literacy.

Well

or not, the issue will blow over in a week, if not in a few days. One can always make best out of any situation and I agree this is no exception. However, any time you touch the Bakis, even to push them in Pu, the stink always accompanies because of the touch. As soon as the deed is done, it will be always good to sanitize hands that gave the push. And better if the hand wash and the sanitization process is done in public by the govt.