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

[enqyoob]

See the brave mujahids who fight the jehad for the Pakis.

http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll ... 39974/1008
Lobby of one

Last Updated: July 23. 2009 4:49PM UAE / July 23. 2009 12:49PM GMT

Taha Gaya on Capitol Hil this month: the Pakistani-American lobbyist is keenly aware that he is one of a few lonely advocates of an unpopular cause in Washington. Andrew Council for The National

As the Obama administration makes Pakistan its top foreign policy priority, some Pakistani-Americans are attempting to emulate their Indian counterparts by wielding influence in Washington. Miranda Kennedy meets their young leader.

In a personable interview with the Pakistani newspaper Dawn a few weeks ago, Barack Obama revealed that he reads Urdu poetry and cooks Pakistani dishes like dal and keema. It was an attempt to charm one of the world’s most persistently anti-American countries, and it may or may not have succeeded, but it certainly pleased one Pakistani-American: Taha Gaya, a 27-year-old lobbyist, who takes credit for initiating the interview. Gaya runs a tiny Washington advocacy organisation called the Pakistani-American Leadership Center (PAL-C), and he made it known to various officials that the community was disappointed Obama had not yet talked to a Pakistani outfit; soon after, the administration reached out to Dawn. Gaya is still crowing about the results: “I had a field day with it,” he says. “I teased my friends that you can’t even cook keema, and the American president can – what are you doing with your life?”
Gaya, a devout Muslim with a beard and spiky black hair, divides his days between meetings with Congressional staff and Pakistani-American groups. In a town defined by protocol and prestige, Gaya takes the Metro rather than taxis, and carries his papers in a bike messenger bag, which makes him look more like a college kid than a powerful K Street lobbyist, even when he’s wearing a suit and tie. But despite his youthful enthusiasm, he now has the ear of some of the most senior figures in the foreign policy establishment.
Obama created a specific diplomatic posting to deal with the region on his second day in office, naming Richard Holbrooke the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Pakistan’s representation in the capital remains minimal – and Gaya’s own inexperience is emblematic of Pakistan’s overall lack of savvy in Washington.

In the past, Islamabad has spent serious resources on lobbying in America – it even for a time retained the infamous Jack Abramoff – but now, it lacks the high-profile official representation that is de rigueur for even the smallest nations. India spends more than {$100,000,000,000,000,000} a month to retain {two hundred thousand} of Washington’s most prominent lobbying firms – BGR and Patton Boggs – but Pakistan is primarily represented in Washington by Mark Siegel, a long-time friend of the late Benazir Bhutto, even though he works at a firm better known for litigation than for lobbying, and rarely has dealings with the administration. Perhaps, as one US official suggested, “Pakistan has decided it is not a good use of its resources to spend lots of money on a lobbyist to push the US government, because it knows the US needs Pakistan now.”

In the meantime, Pakistani-American organisations have languished. “The State Department didn’t know anything about Pakistani-American groups until recently,” says Shamila Chaudhary, a senior adviser to Holbrooke. {The Dee Ech Ess certainly do} Chaudhary, who is herself Pakistani-American, says it is hard for Washington to take community-funded groups seriously. ... She says the administration is determined to change that, which explains why Holbrooke’s office has been so receptive to Gaya’s suggestions. Gaya, who refers to Holbrooke as “the man” in joking deference to his importance, is the only paid representative of the Pakistani-American community in Washington, which is buzzing with politically active, well-connected lobbyists of Indian descent. But he is benefiting from the administration’s decision to reach out to Muslims in the US – as well as abroad – in the wake of Obama’s recent speech in Cairo.

This spring, with the Taliban gaining ground in Pakistan, Obama laid out a new “Af-Pak” strategy in a high-profile speech, creating a separate problem with India, by stoking fears that the United States was shifting its emphasis toward Pakistan. India was so worried, in fact, that it {blah-blah-blah}

...Gaya says even Pakistani-Americans consider AIPAC “the gold standard”. “They talk about the Jewish lobby as though it is the most powerful institution in the world,” he says. The India lobby ranks a close second: Gaya can reel off a litany of victories that he attributes to Indian-American efforts, none greater than last year’s US-India nuclear deal. High-profile Indian-American political donors pushed hard for the bill’s passage, which ended a three decade-long moratorium on nuclear trade with India.

In New Delhi this week, Secretary Clinton announced agreements intended to foster sales of advanced weapons and nuclear power reactors to India. Clinton presents this strategic relationship – which the US shares with only about a half-dozen other countries – as evidence that ties with India have been “upgraded” to what she calls “US-India 3.0”. ... Clinton invited India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to meet Obama in November, in what will be this administration’s first state visit by a foreign leader.

... But, she says, there really is no contest: the United States is serious about a partnership with India; its interest in Pakistan, by contrast, is driven by fear.

“Pakistani-Americans may be trying to get more politically involved,” Schaffer says, sceptically, “but frankly, they don’t have as good a story to tell.”

Chaudhary, the Holbrooke adviser, has met with several Pakistani-American groups, including PAL-C, and she points out that they’ve had some successes, such as setting up a Congressional Pakistan Caucus in 2004. But Chaudhary says the community desperately needs to unify its {self} goals, which is why the State Department has been supportive of a new diaspora group called the American Pakistan Foundation {formerly known just as PORTOILET}. It does not aim to be a lobbying organisation, but Chaudhary hopes it will help draw the community together and identify a young dynamic leader {who is full of pakistan} .

It is this leadership role that Gaya now hopes to fill. Born in California’s Bay area, he was raised in a peripatetic family that established strong ties to the local Pakistani-American community wherever they lived. He went to college and law school in San Diego, and passed the California bar before moving to Washington. When he decided to take a job on Congress’s judiciary committee, he placed himself in a small minority of Pakistani-Americans with experience in Washington. Gaya took the position with PAL-C mostly because the board of directors convinced him they needed his services. He had some savvy about the US political system – at least, he had more than the first-generation Pakistanis who hired him – although he knew very little about the country where his parents were born. He admits that when he was hired, two years ago, he wouldn’t have been able to identify Asif Ali Zardari, now Pakistan’s president.

Parvaiz Lodhie, a Los Angeles engineer who cofounded PAL-C in 2004, wasn’t concerned about such details. He’d decided he needed someone like Gaya – a Pakistani who is more American than Pakistani – if he was to gain a sympathetic ear on Capitol Hill. Gaya is a practicing Muslim who prays on Friday afternoons at the Capitol with young Hill staffers, but he can also navigate the maze of Congressional subcommittees and organise events on Facebook.

Like other first-generation Pakistani-Americans, Lodhie says that when he moved to the states, “we all just tried to make it on our own. For 42 years, I’ve been living the American dream and ignoring Pakistan.” Now he’s unequivocal about the consequences of that choice: “Our community has failed.” Like other financially successful Pakistanis, Lodhie occasionally held political fundraisers: he’d invite a congressman to his home, and his Pakistani-American friends would raise tens of thousands of dollars. Afterwards, he had a photo of himself posing with the politician, but he never followed up to ask for action on issues that affect Muslims in America or his relatives back in Pakistan. It was only after Lodhie witnessed discrimination against Pakistani-Americans after September 11 that he decided he wanted to get political.

PAL-C’s most obvious priority is to mobilise Pakistani-Americans like Lodhie, who have previously limited their engagement to what Gaya calls “fakey photo-op assets”. Gaya asks them to go back to the politicians and call in their chits. He also works to develop friendly relationships with key politicians like the former presidential candidate John Kerry, who chairs the Senate’s foreign affairs committee, and his counterpart in the House, Howard Berman.

This spring, President Obama urged Congress to approve an unprecedented $1.5 billion in annual {terrorism baksheesh} to Pakistan for the next five years. When the funding bills were before the House and Senate, Gaya and other Pakistani-Americans were on the Hill every day. They lobbied to eliminate elements they saw as problematic, such as a clause that made the aid conditional on Pakistan’s co-operation in dismantling nuclear material supply networks. Shamila Chaudhary says this confused some congressmen, though: she heard from some House and Senate staffers that they couldn’t work out whether the Pakistanis who came to visit them actually wanted the bills to pass.

Perhaps because of their confused messaging on the Hill, the Pakistani-American lobby did not manage to cleanse the aid package of everything they found objectionable. But on balance, Gaya considers the bill a major victory. .... Gaya can only smile wanly. “There’s a reason Pakistan has been getting a lot of attention,” he says. “If anything, India should feel grateful that the US hasn’t been focused on it for the same reason that it’s been focused on Pakistan.”

Miranda Kennedy’s book about women and globalisation in India will be published worldwide next year.

[Satya_anveshi]

(OT)

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.

I was more interested about the "new" information that the postor was referring.
and what does sardhakanamam mean? Namesake?

[negi]

Aye..Guru Narayanan weren't you supposed to not log on to BRF for couple of days ?

Anyways..coming back to the significance of JS (joint statement) and the reason for , it is needless to say that folks in MEA, IFS , the one's who drive our foreign policy and all the strategic analysts (including the erudite folks on BRF who follow Indo-Pak relations) do a considerable amount of research and most of the times know what happens behind the scenes and are able to see more than what meets the eye.

Infact I guess folks I deserve a pat on the back...look what I found on google

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/newsle ... rorism.pdf

However despite all this look ,at the way TOI,IE,Hindu and needless to say DAWN,BALOCH media are covering this issue.
The BRF community by no means is a representative of a common India , a common Indian when would read at least 3/4 stories of alleged Indian hand in Balochistan or other parts of Pakistan it is obvious that doubts about GOI would arise in his/her mind for he/she does not have luxury of 'Chanakian logic' to decipher GOI's 'Chanakian move' .

He/She would obviously relate the MEDIA propaganda with the MMS's endorsement in S.e.S . In this case the net result is an 'equal equal' comparasion as far as India and Pakistan are concerned.

Yes we on BRF have ridiculed the 'Log Kya Kahenge' syndrome of the GOI , but in different context i.e. when it comes to doing the 'RIGHT' thing .In S.e.S there was no compulsion to make such an admission and even if I buy a 'chankian' school of thought it shouldn't have made to the 'JS' rather should have been limited between the Groper and MMS .

The JS is for public consumption and needs to be prepared keeping this in mind and for god's sake India being the victim should have played it cautious .

[enqyoob]

Aye..Guru Narayanan weren't you supposed to not log on to BRF for couple of days ?

Exile over onlee. Check dates

[negi]

^ Btw you should give us energizer bunnies some credit for had it not been for us you guys would not have been pressed to dive deep into your grey matter and come up with such solid defense for MMS and S.e.S ...eh ?

And yes will be watching this space for your article.

[JwalaMukhi]

Perfect opportunity for Unkil. Light a few matches in Baloch. Of course, Bakis being Bakis will light few matches similar to Mumbai (Retaliatory onlee). Unkil raises red flag, about the New Clear Flash point, most dangerous place on earth thesis. Look two equal equal kids at each other throats, best way forward is for India to sign NPT as deescalation and confidence building measure onlee. Opportunity for CRE has never been better. Unkil is laughing all the way and smirking.

[putnanja]

Govt, party plan joint statement on Indo-Pak

The top leadership of the Congress is set to strongly endorse Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s diplomatic initiative on Pakistan and counter the Opposition as it prepares to step up its campaign against the Egypt joint statement.

This became clear at the party’s core group meeting tonight where Singh, sources said, explained how and why the joint statement did not undermine any Indian interests. And, instead, gave the Government more flexibility in taking the diplomatic process forward.
...
...
It was decided that the Prime Minister would explain the import of the statement in his intervention in the Lok Sabha on July 29. The next day, Congress president Sonia Gandhi would announce the party’s unequivocal backing to the government at the Congress Parliamentary Party meeting.

...

The core group is also learnt to have discussed the strategy to counter the Opposition’s campaign against this issue. NDA leaders have sought an appointment with President Pratibha Patil to submit a joint memorandum seeking her intervention to “course correct” the UPA’s foreign policy initiatives.

These include “de-bracketing of terrorism from the composite dialogue process and reference of Balochistan” in the Indo-Pak statement and the Indo-US End-User Monitoring Agreement. They are expected to meet her next week.

“We have sought an appointment with the President. But we will make our announcements only after everything is decided,”
...
“Sharad Yadav came to me with the proposal to go along with the NDA to meet the President. We are not associating with them. BJP’s demand is that there should be no dialogue with Pakistan. But our views are different. We want the dialogue to continue and at the same time want action against perpetrators of Mumbai terror attacks. We want continued pressure on Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism,” CPM’s Basudeb Acharia said. “We will talk to parties like TDP, AIADMK, BJD and, possibly, the SP to come together to meet the President on the issue of End Use Monitoring Agreement.”
...

[archan]

Unkil really really wants to cut the losses in A'stan. I would think that getting the yindoos to sign X or Y treaty would be lower in the priority than getting out of A'stan with some honor and dollars left.

[JwalaMukhi]

Unkil will gladly want to see a minion who is defanged of actual New Clear capability, but possessing token New clear capability. Whether, it is achieved by way of signature X or otherwise, unkil will be willing to pay that price. Short term goals donot render long term plans obsolete, I would think.

[enqyoob]

BJP’s demand is that there should be no dialogue with Pakistan. But our views are different. We want the dialogue to continue and at the same time want action against perpetrators of Mumbai terror attacks. We want continued pressure on Pakistan to end cross-border terrorism,” CPM’s Basudeb Acharia said. “We will talk to parties like TDP, AIADMK, BJD and, possibly, the SP to come together to meet the President on the issue of End Use Monitoring Agreement.”

Gee! So the agenda b4 the Prez practically mirrors the top threads on BRF - no doubt left where these ppl read their news every afternoon when they wake up. If the jarnails hadn't banned krikit and romance discussions here, those would also have been on the agenda.

But I am deeply hurt. No representative of BENIS going 4 the discussions to represent the interests of the (Good) Taliban.

BTW, negiji: Full 400% credit to the EB community. Without such persistence, there could not have been the deep, thorough analysis and "full, frank discussions" (2 put it in diplo-greji) on the following issues:
1. Godhra riots
2. New Clear Deal
3. Sri Lankan war
4. Mumbai terrorist atrocity
5. S-e-S (chankianness / blunder)
6. EUM
But that's no excuse to not point out the essentials.

Infact I guess folks I deserve a pat on the back...look what I found on google

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/newsle ... rorism.pdf

Sorry, but you just disqualified urself from the EB community. You did diligent research and REPORTED what you found, though it clearly debunks the notion that the SeS "joint" declaration was anything new. It just reported what comes out of the quarterly desi-paki chai-biscoot. India hands over pictures of terrorists that the pakis can put on their walls. The pakis make noises about "Indian hand in balochistan due to indian consulates in Afghanistan".

This time, India called their bluff completely, and we can see that the pakis have nothing to pin on India, re: Balochistan. Not 6 months ago, not 3 months ago, and not now.

THANKS!

[Gagan]

... and we can see that the pakis have nothing to pin on India, re: Balochistan. Not 6 months ago, not 3 months ago, and not now.

And that is something we should not be proud of.

[archan]

Unkil will gladly want to see a minion who is defanged of actual New Clear capability, but possessing token New clear capability. Whether, it is achieved by way of signature X or otherwise, unkil will be willing to pay that price. Short term goals donot render long term plans obsolete, I would think.

Perhaps you are right. But it seems to me that the recession has hurt enough to make those long term goals a bit murky. They are worried about the cost of the proposed healthcare plan would be $1T over 10 years. I believe Iraq cost more than that with no discernible benefits. Now their tankers are getting burnt in Af-Pak, and they have to somehow manage all those troops there, Osama is nowhere to be found and no real hope to find him either. So it is a damage control exercise now.

[Raja Ram]

The great defence of the great and dear leader continues unabated. Glory be to the faithful cheerleaders led so ably now once again. I think we can enjoy the show for what it is and move on.

I am picking up the thread from ramana's post. What is it that could have been offered by the USG to GOI to make our distinguished PM relent and do his 180 degree turn from the Zardari meeting to Gilani meeting? Let us for a moment, gentle readers, that there was something special in the offering made by USG for us to sign up to an "unsigned" "probably poorly drafted" Joint "Unstatement".

Going by some more emeriging reports and noises from the distinguished madam who came visiting and also from other statements made by the USG personnel. It seems that the following are possible carrots offered to GOI:

1. Public announcement by the USG for the first time that ISI was and is involved in exporting terror to India

2. Stating that the US does not intend to prevent India from accessing Enrichment Technologies despite G8 statements

3. Agreeing to an arrangement on EUM rather than an agreement, so that both sides can engage more freely in terms of defence trade

4. Maybe offering a deal to India over pakistan. By way of making India providing some breathing space to pakistan so that the PA and the ruling establishment can survive, and also provide for some say for Pakistan in afghanistan in return for access to high technology, and shutting down of terror acts against India aided and abetted by the ISI (thinking that pakistan will actually honour such a commitment made to the US, if US also promises to them that they would help "solve" kashmir issue)

5. India's call for Pakistan to go after the LeT and JuM like they went after SWAT taliban is an indicator that there is some assurance given by pakistan to the US on this and the GOI wants to ensure that it happens.

This is what I could come up with ramana. But all this is based on a rather fantastic assumption that both the USG and Pakistan Government have come to realise the futility of their terror based leverage on India and want a last chance from India to ensure that Pakistan survives.

Just my thoughts as usual. Take it for what it is worth.

As for the mocking cheerleaders brigade for the enlightened leader and distinguished chanakyan, it is important to know when to stop an argument - otherwise the old adage of opening ones mouth and removing all doubt will come true, Just a friendly suggestion. No brickbats please.

[Dhiman]

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

First GoI said it would take action unless Pakistani does something regarding Mumbai terror attacks. No action was taken and Pakistan did not do anything regarding Mumbai attacks. Then MMS started chit-chatting with Zardari and now MMS is having long poetry sessions with Gilani while Pakistani establishment is releasing Mumbai terror attack suspects and "experts" in India are warning that other such attacks could easily take place.

The basic issue being that GoI has successively de-legitimized its own stand ( 1. not taking "action" after Mumbai attacks, 2. No "talks" with Pakistan, etc) while successively legitimizing Pakistani establishment by first shaking Zardari's hand and now having long chit-chat sessions with Gilani and issuing ridiculous "non-statements". Much of this because of US insistence on "talks". No serious government of this world worth its name would let this happen.

So GoI's defeat is in the fact that GoI has itself de-legitimized its previous stands and Pakistani establishment victory is in the fact that GoI has legitimized them by talking to them, not taking any action, issuing joint statements (and even worse an ambiguous joint statement that would be perceived as pro-Pakistani). As a result Pakistan does not have any pressure or motivation to act against India specific terrorist activities (i.e the main instrument of their "foreign policy")

It is time to end the pacifist and passive foreign policy that successive governments in India have pursued. While Pakistan is doing nothing regarding India specific terrorism, US is putting pressure on GoI to go soft on Pakistan so that they US itself can carry out its own active and assertive policies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both taking Indian interests for granted and as secondary while pursuing their own interests while lazy GoI is putting the faith of its foreign policy in US hands and not willing to do its own hard work. What is MMS scared of?

[ramana]

Rajaram, Good thinking. So of those what probability would you assign to each? And besides that any other incentives you can think of eve if its far out?

[Raja Ram]

Frankly, ramana, I dont assign much of a probability in India gaining anything. For two principal reasons.

1. Going by what is on offer, which is just a bit more than platitudes, and the previous track record of the USG in terms of delivering what it promises (nuke deal is one example), there is no evidence of their seriousness of intent to deliver.

2. The growing evidence that the present GOI administration is clearly looking at India being a purely economic global power with a limited ability to influence the region. The efforts of the GOI therefore seem to "buy peace" and agree to international power brokering if it can guarantee economic growth being sustained. So there is no serious effort to pursue Indian interests or protect soverign options.

Anyway, my so called carrots list that the USG has provided to India for starting talks with pakistan is based on such a fantastic assumption for which there is insufficient evidence.

[Dhiman]

Some relevant articles:

Holbrooke cancels India trip over scheduling mismatch

US risks alienating India

A war that cannot be won or lost

COMMENT: A good result
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2009_pg3_4

[Sanku]

I was going to take a stab at Ramana's reason for the S e S -- however Raja Ram did a much better take on that than I could have and yet said it better than I could.

I only humbly submit one point -- the phrase "sell out", though a little obnoxious, might be in the end the real reason behind S e S. Please note when I say this I don't mean "sell out" in a Ottoavio Q, kind of way, but more at a "moral & vision" level. MMS has many times indicated how the bulk of his world view has been formed.

As such he may have a very different take on what we jingos consider correct and how Bharat centric he is, but he does happen to to be the Indian PM and not the jirga at BRF so he gets to make the rules.

So far I have said nothing which has not been said more eloquently by Raja Ram before.

----

The only point I want to make it (in general and not on any poster etc) -- on BRF we are so staunchly nationalist that we almost reflexively defend the actions of the PM of the country in context of dealing with external agents (state and non state) we find the very concept of doing anything otherwise offensive (N^3 did go to extent of openly admitting this about his piskology, but I think it is true for most of us including me)

I only wish to beseech that we do not fall into that trap, yes I know I too am a nationalist "Its my PM good or bad" types, but we do be aware that the concept of a wrong man in the top job is not unheard of, it has happened before (IKG was terrible) but briefly in context of strategic interests. However that is not a reason why it cant happen for a longish term in now.

I think we should not shy from discussing this alternative while considering the real reason. It may very well be the real reason.

[csharma]

I was just wondering if it is entirely accurate to say that MMS's vision of India is that of an economic power alone. Along with economic growth MMS has been increasing the defence budget and we came to know that he is very supportive of the nuclear submarine project and has even sanctioned building bigger ones.

In the last few years India has been militarising and recent articles by foreign authors have shown the moves India is making in Indian Ocean and Asia pacific including some countermoves against Chinese containment.

The joint agreement might be a disaster but there are other data points to suggest that India is becoming a serious military power. What might be true is that India might be punching below her weight. But GoI is making some strong moves in Arunachal Pradesh and other regions to counter China.

[Raja Ram]

csharma,

I have been one who has been stating in quite a few threads and in this one too, that MMS vision is largely economic and he does not have a vision of India as a global power in all its dimensions.

As you have rightly pointed out, that this may not be an accurate depiction. While MMS has played a significant role in terms of supporting projects like ATV, some of the increases in defence and starting of projects precede his era. He has not started any strategic initiative as far as I can remember, barring, the recent sanction and breakneck level speed in which infrastructure is being developed along the china border.

Congress regimes and non-congress regimes have taken national projects forward barring some minor aberrations. If you look at MMS record when he was AEC it is less than spectacular. His previous stints as Fin Minister was not great in terms of the funding he could provide to defence projects. But he was a FIn Min in difficult circumstances.

As PM, his handling of Pay commission reports, Sachar committee surveys on Armed Forces etc does not show him in much of a positive light. I would say most of his actions related to National Security is viewed from a purely economic prism. In essence his approach seems to be - Do only that much that is necessary to continue on growth path, Compromise on long held soverign options if necessary. That is where he is different from all previous PMs.

But you have a point. There could be evidence that points to MMS having a vision of India that is not purely economic. Only thing is I don't see much evidence of it. One could say that I have juandiced eye and therefore unable to see them. Maybe true, we may all have some biases. I can only say, that I will not have any ego problem to change my views if I get convincing evidence/data points. None would be better pleased than me, if it was true.

[enqyoob]

Dhiman:

All your points are correct and true. But at the end of the day, if India were to be more "like other governments", India would be doing what the PA/ISI desperately want India to do, which is to go to war. It is pretty clear that there is no consensus in India to go to a full-scale war with Pakistan, and there is a great deal of fear that any war will become a full-scale war.

Instead, India has been consistently following a disciplined approach ( which none of us like). The approach has, I must admit, generated results far better than what could have been achieved, and at far lower cost to India, than anything that I would have advised. So I continue to resist the temptation to jump off the deep end and blame the apparent inaction on a "weak" PM or on US obstruction of the Indian Armed Forces.

The Americans follow different compulsions. The American approach, too often in the past, has been to "send in the Marines" (or, more recently, the cruise missiles and the F-117s )before there is any understanding of what is going on. This has worked as long a geographical distance and, more recently, air superiority, guarantee minimal losses to the mainland USA. India has no such luxury, so there is a need for a great deal of thought and deliberation before starting any military offensives.

While I would love, probably more than you, to read in the newspaper one morning soon that all of Pakistan's military centers are being "reconstructed" after overnight demolition, even the US armed forces do not believe that this is practical. So they too are forced to consider such humiliating ideas as "negotiating with Mullah Omar" a man who has been on the Wanted List since October 2001, and is being obviously sheltered by the Pakistan govt. Is this military weakness? Do you think the US is not capable of leaving Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and Rawalpindi in smoking ruins?

The only US "pressure" on India I see is that there is an urging to formulate policy with care and deliberation, looking out 10 years. In 1999 I wondered who in the GOI was capable of looking out ahead and seeing how to end the slum of Pakistan. Today, it looks like Pakistan has reached very close to where I hoped it would reach. So I would give the GOI the benefit of the doubt.

[csharma]

Raja Ram, In general I agree with you. There were a lot of things in the last five years that were very frustrating. It is also true that MMS's vision might be economy centric and lacks geostrategic emphasis.

Overall maybe he is "kaam chalegaa" as far military view is concerned. Note that PVNR was not supportive of the nuclear sub program.

The other thing to be happy about is that at least MMS is economy centric. What if we had a third front govt. Wonder what those guys would have centred on?

Having said that it is still unclear to me what was the strategy behind the joint statement.

[Raja Ram]

I made earlier posts, in one of the earlier TSP threads. This was before the events unfolded in Sharm -el - Shiek. Here is the link to the same

http://rajaram-india.blogspot.com/

In one I had expressed my discomfort with regards to what I called as a "Policy of Drift", in the other sort of "predicting" the resumption of dialogue between Pakistan and India, I had written a column on "Shackled by self doubts, working for others....India resumes talks with Pakistan".

I thought it may be worthwhile to put it in here on this thread once again.

Admins: I hope it is ok to link to my blog, it just has posts that I made in BR. If it is not, i shall remove the link and delete this post.

[Lalmohan]

I'm with Narayanansaab on this one. Gillani raised the stakes - probably to outsmart zardari, MMS called his bluff. The paks will raise baluchistan which will block all the other talks on kashmir, peace, normalisation, whatever whatever. no one from unkil to dragon to the norwegian whaling society for prevention of cruelty to smaller animals gives a damn about the pakistan government's stand on any thing any more - everyone wants them to stop promoting global jehad. the net result (whether deliberately or accidentally done) will be to tie up the paks in more knots than ever and prevent progress on any other issue. the spin-offs, notably a liberated baluchistan, is in the interests of many...

[John Snow]

What is it that could have been offered by the USG to GOI to make our distinguished PM relent and do his 180 degree turn from the Zardari meeting to Gilani meeting?

Insofar India is concerned Unkil does not make offerings, unkil threatens to take away or put impedements.

The list is endless, vis a vis Indo Pak relations history is replete with many instances of unkil curbing Inida and encouraging TSP with arms equipment aid and even nukes.

So in nut shell I feel that some severe threats were issued for compliance with SD/pentagon games in Af-Pk geo politics.

[SSridhar]

Another attempt at excuse-making for the joint statement fiasco

“The fact is that it [joint statement] was drafted in bits and pieces. It was supposed to be reflective of what was discussed and since Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had mentioned Balochistan we had no problem in leaving it in. We would be happy to discuss Balochistan because we have clean hands and a clear conscience,” the [South Block] sources maintained.

Each passing day adds more mirth.

[ramana]

Folks there is a reason why I post the Nightwatch quotes. It is to develop a dispassionate way of analysing the information. We should look at all the facts and see them from the various seen and unseen aspects and then come to judgement. We will be right more often than the media chatterati and op-ed writers who are hedgehogs to our foxes(Isaiah Berlin's essay which also I posted.)

If MMS is a sellout then how come he funded the follow-on submarine program at twice the cost per boat? And reproted by Sandeep Unninathan who is no DDM.

And the pics of MMS with LKA are most cordial. We never see either grimacing.

We should understand India has leaped into the post modern age without going through the transformations in thought and ideas. A myriad competing advices and actions are at play and the job of the Pradhan mantri/ Wazir-e-Alam, Prime Mnister (in that order) is to navigate through all this and deliver. Even a duffer witin a couple of months is transformed by the weight of that office. Millions depend on him and he cant sellout. No matter and live with himself and is legacy for India is here to stay and not fracture.

"lift the veil and see the reality"

[sum]

We would be happy to discuss Balochistan because we have clean hands and a clear conscience,” the [South Block] sources maintained.

Not sure if should be happy or sad about this.

[RajeshA]

If India was a country that knew how to wield raw power, then Indians both the leadership and 'strategic thinkers' wouldn't have minded any joint statement. But India is not such a country but rather one that grasps at odd straws of 'stands' and 'principles'. And when one is prepared to give up on them also, then how do you hide your cowardice?!

[svinayak]

If MMS is a sellout then how come he funded the follow-on submarine program at twice the cost per boat? And reproted by Sandeep Unninathan who is no DDM.
Millions depend on him and he cant sellout. No matter and live with himself and is legacy for India is here to stay and not fracture.

It not about sellout but about telling about the truth and about reality. UPA has long relations with the US establishment and democratic party. There is coordination on some regional issues. They need to let Indian population know that govt is trying to change the situation by working closely with US and not hide under the manufactured controversy of the EUA.

Well read Indians in BR also got attention diverted with the manufactured controversy of the EUA. The govt has been holding on the end user agreement fro three years and got what it wanted in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

We should understand India has leaped into the post modern age without going through the transformations in thought and ideas.

Indian govt and media control has made sure that Indians are underinformed and mis informed for several decades. The media has deliberately kept even educated Indians clueless on international relations and geopolitics

[Gagan]

The pakistanis are going to act like pakis and try and use this to defame india for terrorist involvement in balochistan. Let them try. Who is going to believe the pot when it calls the ivory cup black?

The pakis need to start preparing for the day when India uses this to make itself a party in Balochistan. That is what the pakis fear, this is their worst nightmare.

71 redux

[Prem]

Does Pakisatan understand that anytime they indulge in terrorism ,India will get more and more economic and other concessions from the develop world and grow stronger by every day . In the end , it will be too expensive for Paki masters to keep their "izlamic' slave alive and kicking with no benefit to them , then Paki will have to deal with Indians alone , most probably soon. And , Baki Lurkers, remember, we will deal with you justly and fairly so you forget 47. Writing is on the wall, at below in fine letters, bend over and read before its too late .

[Bhima]

PM in Pak fire, Sonia to spell Cong line

This means there is serious dissension within the Congress party regarding what happened at Sharam-el-Sheikh

No government-party rift over Pakistan: Manmohan

India-Pakistan diplomatic duel on joint statement

[Kakkaji]

Kanchan Gupta's take in dailypioneer.com. Posting in full. My apologies if already posted:

Sharm debacle scripted in US

Kanchan Gupta

Shashi Tharoor may have been cavalier in describing the July 16 India-Pakistan joint statement, issued after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh, as a mere “diplomatic paper that is not a legal document” and hence not binding on either country or worth the attention it has attracted, but the Pakistanis are hopping mad. On Friday, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said, “The insinuations made by Shashi Tharoor were unwarranted and inconsistent with diplomatic norms.” Both countries, he added, should refrain from remarks that “detract from the progress made in Sharm el-Sheikh.”

While Mr Tharoor’s supercilious comments, which should really have been put out by him as part of his daily ‘tweet service’ instead of being told to mediapersons at Parliament House, are unlikely to have stumped too many people within and outside the Government, what is surprising is that the Pakistanis are incensed. Here was an opportunity for them to turn around and say, “If the joint statement is not binding on India, nor is it binding on us.” And that would have put to an end needless speculation over whether or not Mr Gilani will fulfil his assurance that “Pakistan will do everything in its power” to “bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice”, an assurance that, we are now told by Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna, prompted our Prime Minister to compromise national interest by delinking terrorism from talks.

But neither Mr Tharoor’s flippancy nor Mr Krishna’s stout defence of the joint statement answers questions that have come to dominate public discourse ever since our pusillanimous Prime Minister’s shameful capitulation in Sharm el-Sheikh. Nor, for that matter, does Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon’s sly attempt to deflect criticism of Mr Singh by suggesting that the joint statement’s “drafting was not perfect” provide us with a clue as to why our tough-talking Prime Minister turned so disgracefully timorous when he met Mr Gilani.

Soon after the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai, the Prime Minister told a shocked nation that “some Pakistani official agencies must have supported” the fidayeen attacks. On December 11, 2008, while speaking in the Lok Sabha, he was all fire-and-brimstone when he described Pakistan as the “epicentre of terrorism”. He added that “the infrastructure of terrorism has to be dismantled permanently” before India can even consider resuming dialogue with Pakistan. On June 16, when the Prime Minister met Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg, he told him bluntly, and in front of mediapersons, “I must tell you quite frankly that I have come with the limited mandate of discussing how Pakistan can deliver on its assurances that its territory would not be used for terrorist attacks on India.” On July 9, Mr SM Krishna told Parliament, “Notwithstanding Pakistan Government’s assurances to us, terrorists in Pakistan continue attacks against India.”

Between July 9 and July 11, something happened that turned all that bluster into pitiful whimper. On his way back from the G-8 summit in L’Aquila, the Prime Minister, discarding all pretensions of pursuing a tough, no-nonsense policy on Pakistan, said India would “walk more than half the distance” if Islamabad offered a “renewed reaffirmation” of its promise to “bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre to justice”. The demand that the “infrastructure of terrorism has to be dismantled permanently”, that “Pakistan must deliver on its assurances that its territory would not be used for terrorist attacks on India”, suddenly metamorphosed into a timidly expressed expectation of “renewed reaffirmation” of a promise that the whole world knows Pakistan has no intention of fulfilling.

By the time the Prime Minister met Mr Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh, that expectation had turned into snivelling submission to Pakistan’s insidious motives, best exemplified by the inclusion of the implied allegation of India’s involvement in the separatist violence in Baluchistan in the joint statement. No less worse was the Prime Minister’s endorsement of Pakistan’s long-held contention that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”.

Perhaps the Prime Minister believed that he would be feted back home for his gutless deed in Sharm el-Sheikh, if not by the masses then the morally bankrupt middle classes which had collectively ensured his continuation in office by voting for the Congress in this summer’s general election. We can also presume that he had hoped the Congress would be ecstatic and ruthlessly put down any dissenting voices in Parliament and outside. On his part, he would claim that nothing had been conceded to Pakistan, insist that it was a splendid diplomatic victory, and demand that all patriots should support the appalling sell-out of India’s national interest. After all, that’s how he craftily manipulated public opinion and political support in his favour so as to let the US have its way on the nuclear deal.

This time, however, the Prime Minister’s bluff has been called, if not by the middle classes, which are still besotted with him for not finding it offensive to be called an American stooge, then by the masses. There is national outrage over his capitulation in Sharm el-Sheikh and even the Prime Minister’s spin masters masquerading as journalists in the English language media have been compelled to ask some discomfiting questions. As for his party, the Congress, sensing popular revulsion, has steadfastly steered clear of coming to the Prime Minister’s defence.

To the Prime Minister’s credit, he did try to sell the sell-out as a great achievement that his genius alone could accomplish. No, he told Parliament, delinking Pakistani terrorism from peace talks does not mean we will talk to the sponsors of cross-border jihadi violence. Only to be controverted by his Minister for External Affairs who subsequently told India Today that the Prime Minister agreed to delink terror and talks because “we will have to continue to talk to Pakistan (as) there is no alternative”. But to talk, both Mr Singh and Mr Krishna insist, is not to resume the ‘composite dialogue’. That’s bunkum because the joint statement clearly mentions the ‘composite dialogue process’, which includes the ‘Kashmir issue’, and not casual tittle-tattle over tea and biscuits.

What, then, forced the Prime Minister to swallow his brave words and do a grovelling act? Was the debacle at Sharm el-Sheikh scripted in Washington, DC? Or is this the first step towards the Prime Minister facilitating the fruition of President Barack Hussein Obama’s AfPak policy which can succeed only if Pakistan is suitably mollycoddled and allowed to regain its ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan via the Taliban? That would also involve India winding up its development programmes and shutting down its diplomatic missions in Afghanistan. The line of least resistance which has come to define the Obama Administration’s approach to Pakistan is now being slavishly replicated in South Block under the Prime Minister’s tutelage.

[ramana]

Do we have a list of people that met Hillary Clinton in Mumbai? Business and politicians and eminent people.

[Kakkaji]

Nothing shameful about Sharm: PM

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

Clarification can’t dilute monumental lapse: Jaitley

Faced with a political storm slowly but surely building up over the India-Pakistan joint statement that de-links composite dialogue from terrorism, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tried to dismiss speculation of differences within the Congress on the issue and said it was all a “media creation”.

Though Singh tried to defend the joint statement and claimed he had all the “relevant answers”, the Congress, though ready to defend him in Parliament, maintained a studied silence outside. Sensing the dilemma, the BJP has intensified its attack on Singh, calling the statement a “monumental lapse”.

“The language of the joint statement between India and Pakistan is clear. The language is loaded against India. Unilateral explanations by either the Prime Minister or the ruling party cannot dilute the monumental lapse,” senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley said.

Under attack over the joint statement, which has for the first time a reference on Baluchistan, Singh said, “I have made a statement in Parliament and Parliament is again going to discuss the issue (on Wednesday). I will clarify.” Singh was speaking to reporters here at Rashtrapati Bhavan after presentation of Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

When asked about the controversy over the joint statement which had mentioned Baluchistan and de-linked terrorism with holding composite dialogue, Singh said he had all the “relevant answers”. Singh refused to speak on the matter further, saying, “Pending a debate in Parliament, it is inappropriate to answer any specific questions on the issue.” He, however, expressed confidence that “we have all the relevant answers”.

While the Congress may be ready to back the Prime Minister on the joint statement, the party has continued to maintain silence on the issue. Sources said that this was part of a media exercise to create an impression that it was not too happy with the drafting of the joint statement. A source said, “Over the last one week, the party has made a conscious decision to maintain distance from the Government to relay to the people that a debate is on in the party.”

Sources said it was a way to insulate itself against any probable mishap, especially before Assembly election in the crucial State of Maharashtra. A senior leader said, “God forbid, if something untoward happens like a terror blast or something before the election, the party would lose its face.” The Opposition would obviously sharpen its attack saying that Prime Minister gave Pakistan more leeway with the joint statement. In such a scenario, the party would be able to salvage its position and manage to remain slightly distinct from UPA Government at the Centre.

According to sources, the Congress media department had regular briefings — sometimes twice a day over the last one week — to decide the strategy on India-Pakistan statement. The brief from the party high command was clear — neither support nor criticise. This led to intense speculation that Congress high command was not too happy about the joint statement.

Sources said the party had no choice but to support the Prime Minister in Parliament because opposing him would mean giving a no-confidence motion against its own man. That explains the reported instruction by Sonia Gandhi to her party leaders to support Singh. But the party would continue to remain distant till Wednesday — neither endorsing nor criticising the statement.

“The life of a party is more than the life of a Government. This is basically to show that the party could have differences with the Government,” a senior party leader said.

The BJP has been quick to seize the opportunity. It said “unilateral explanations” could not cover the “monumental lapse.”

[JwalaMukhi]

Brave are the people who can clearly see ONLY way Forward.
[youtube]vo9AH4vG2wA&feature=related[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo9AH4vG ... re=related

[RamaY]

I have a strong feeling, based on info collected in “predicting next attack” thread and current S-e-S issue, that the INC party has made the current deal with TSPA that Pakjabis will not do anything funny before Maharashtra elections.

Secondly, the INC as a party separated itself from the current administration, in public view so any fall out from S-e-S issue doesn’t impact its prospects in upcoming state elections. This is similar to the party’s view/actions during the nuke deal.

Thirdly, my paranoid mind sees a trend in the past few years. The media is honed so that any issue that really matters to day-2-day life is not discussed in any negative perspective and the media is allowed to discuss (sometimes against the establishment) when it comes to international issues. The aam-admi sees the impartial press and buys whatever BS they spew as far as the local issues are concerned.

Whether we call it a sellout or not, the current capitulation implies that….

1. That the current administration is more interested in whatever priorities it has and it doesn’t care sacrificing few hundred Indians here and there. So tomorrow it can sacrifice few hundred thousand citizens if it meets its objectives. For example this administration was willing to lose power for a nuke deal but wouldn’t pursue the Afjal Guru hanging or Mumbai terror attack with the same vigor.

2. The current administration does not find informing Indian public about its policy direction and choices as part of its job description and/or constitutional responsibility, be it J&K issue, Naxal issue, Sachar committee issue or any other issue of national importance.

Or
3. MMS, is a true chanakya sishya (PVNR) and is focusing on long term interests of the nation while letting the state and local govts focus on the short term interests/dynamics of the nation.

JMT...

[John Snow]

I think MMS is on the Right path, Warpath is not the answer, Shanti path is.

I am glad that it took Super power super human effort from unkil to make MMS change his heart. Mumbai massacre like all others is history, we need to move on. Wise man Al Bin calling Powell also said the same, past is past. Look even super can not attack pakistan , eventhough 9/11 terrorists were trained in pakistan. Sole super power took on Saddam. We also need to find suitable match in Maldevis or something like that. If somebody explains to me why US cant take on Pakistan I will remain highly indebted. There is game plan by obama, yes he can.

Oh I forgot SM Krishna said exactly what I said

[RayC]

I think MMS is on the Right path, Warpath is not the answer, Shanti path is.

Yes, there is a Santi Path in New Delhi, but no War Path!