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

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 28 Jul 2009 00:06

Just a curious george question, is somnath the re incarination of Naradar of previous yuga?

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 28 Jul 2009 01:06

Pak army chief exploits Baloch bungle

Encouraged by its success in getting Balochistan inserted in the India-Pakistan joint statement in Sharm el-Sheikh, Islamabad is

cranking up its propaganda machinery to raise the bogey of India's meddling in its volatile province.

Reports in the US media quoting official sources said Pakistan army chief Ashfaque Kayani recently sought to link Pakistan's actions against Lashkar-e-Taiba with India putting a stop to its alleged covert operations in Balochistan.

The reports in US media said that while Kayani had promised to "control" LeT, claiming "we are being more vigilant", he stressed that India should halt its operations in Balochistan. "By the way, India has to stop messing around in Balochistan," US media quoted Pakistani officials as saying.

The attempt at drawing a parity between ISI’s brazen sponsorship of anti-India terror and the alleged meddling by India in Balochistan strengthens the fears that Pakistan was not going to proceed against Lashkar masterminds of 26/11 and raises doubts about the explanation that Singh walked the

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Jul 2009 01:54

shynee wrote:Pak army chief exploits Baloch bungle
Encouraged by its success in getting Balochistan inserted in the India-Pakistan joint statement in Sharm el-Sheikh, Islamabad is cranking up its propaganda machinery to raise the bogey of India's meddling in its volatile province.

The chickens of Murkhta are coming home to roost.

"We have done nothing wrong. We have nothing to hide. We are an open book.". Well in that case, there is not much MMS can do to stop the Baluchistan insurgency, as it is not India-made. And until the Baluchistan insurgency does not die out, the Pakistanis do not need to do anything against LeT or put a leash on any terrorism directed at India. It is open season now. Indians first have to stop the non-existent support to 'Baluchistan terrorists'.

Mr. Prime Minister, your goose is cooked. Transfer power to the next generation and simply walk into the sunset. Thank you.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 28 Jul 2009 02:41

The best way for Indian diplomats and politicians is to stop talking about it (the B word) and make sure we never agree to talk about it ever with pak or anyone else. Pakistan is only looking for a way out of the tough spot that it finds itself in, after 26/11. The best way they can do it is by finding an "equal-equal" excuse to not do anything against india centric terrorists.

What a stupid mistake by MMS and his MEA babus......

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 28 Jul 2009 03:15

I don't think that the MEA babus share the blame as much. They are bound by what their PM wants.
The only way out is, if india is indeed being maligned for intervention in balochistan, then we might as well go ahead and do it properly.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 28 Jul 2009 03:53

Katare wrote:The best way for Indian diplomats and politicians is to stop talking about it (the B word) and make sure we never agree to talk about it ever with pak or anyone else.

Katareji,

An honest question (not in the context of joint statement):

What should be the strategy of Balochis? When and how should they come out internationally? What will make their neighbours support them?

They have very real grievances, faced real losses, divisions with Pakjab are irreconciliable.

What should they do? What should their friends in neighbourhood do to support them *internationally*?

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 28 Jul 2009 03:59

Well i found a study on Balochistan from Pakistan. Interested jingoes can go through it.

http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/559/1/60.htm

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 05:03

Gilani briefs his cabinet on S-e-S

Pakistan is prepared to work with sincerity to open a "new chapter in improving relations" with India and the two sides should share credible information to counter possible future terrorist threats, Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Monday.

Describing the results of the meeting as "a major breakthrough," he praised his Indian counterpart, saying: "I hold Dr Manmohan Sign in high esteem and respect and consider him a statesman with the vision of peace and prosperity."

He said he had told Dr. Singh about the need to resume the stalled composite dialogue process in order to resolve all outstanding issues.

"I underlined the importance of the early resumption of the composite dialogue process and Pakistan believed in the imperative of moving forward this process for confidence- building which was the pre-requisite for resolution of all outstanding issues," he said.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 28 Jul 2009 05:55

If this had to happen I so much wish Rahul Gandhi should have done it. That would be an end to his political career period and with that also of his mother.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 06:10

Has it occurred to the gentle ppl here that the reason Pakistan was so desperate to include the B word in the Hashish Joint statement, is precisely to make India shy of mentioning the B word?

Because they are about to embark on massive genocidal operations against the Balochistani Independence Movement.

The more Indian dummies rant about the Mention of The B Word, and the more the Indian Diplos get traumatized, the better off Pakistan is.

SO, people, MENTION THE BALOCHISTAN GENOCIDE. As loud as you can!!! Try to save the lives of the innocent Balochis.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 28 Jul 2009 06:14

Where Pakistan is going with the B-word

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 28 Jul 2009 06:18

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... ce-play-to

Indo-Pak peace: Play to win, Mr Prime Minister --- MJ Akhbar

If war between two nuclear powers is unthinkable, what is thinkable? States who sponsor terrorism have done their thinking: surrogate war, not easily traceable to its masters. This leaves India with a problem. Since we are a status-quoist power, without territorial ambitions upon any neighbour, our defence forces are what they say they are. Their purpose is to defend India's space and peace. Their mechanisms for offense are designed for counterattack, not attack. When we did attack in the special circumstances of Bangladesh, we left within four months of completing our mission. We had no territorial aims. Pakistan's armed forces, in contrast, still play war games whose end-point is Srinagar.

This is the strategic dilemma of Delhi: if war is not a policy objective, what options, including pre-emptive, are we left with? Conversely, the enemy can be sanguine that India will respond only when provoked by formal war.

One cannot argue, in principle, with Dr Manmohan Singh's bid for peace with Pakistan. India is slowly rising out of the quagmire of community conflict that sucked the air out of the three decades before he became finance minister in 1991. He wants to release the subcontinent from this debilitating, suicidal malaise.

Peace, alas, is too elastic a term; war is taut, specific. When Dr Singh looks for peace, he must be absolutely sure that India and Pakistan are searching for the same thing. Does Pakistan want peace in order to resolve a six-decade conflict, or does it want peace because its armed resources have been diverted towards America's war in Af-Pak?

In 1965 Lal Bahadur Shastri thought a little give would purchase a lot of take at Tashkent. In 1972, Indira Gandhi bought Bhutto's plea that what remained of Pakistan would crumble without her sympathy. She did not insist on a written agreement ending the Kashmir dispute along the Line of Control. Atal Bihari Vajpayee reached out to shake Pakistan's hand at Lahore, and got slapped in the face at Kargil.

In 1972, Pakistan accepted peace because its army was incapable of war. We provided a decade of rest and recuperation. The moment Pakistan's army was rejuvenated, in 1980, with American aid (after the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) Pakistan resumed action on its eastern front. It armed and abetted an insurrection in Punjab, where it had no dispute with India. The cost was catastrophic: the tragic destruction of the Golden Temple, assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi, anti-Sikh riots. The price of trust can be unbearable.

For Dr Singh, the gamble is on. He has staked vital diplomatic assets at Sharm el Shaikh. He cannot walk away from the table. Dr Singh can explain his joint-statement gambit only as an interim bet, not a final show of the cards. Poor drafting is an alibi, not an explanation; the written word is the sole value in this game, the spoken word is irrelevant. Dr Singh either gets up with massive winnings, or he ends up a pauper. The moment of truth must come, soon. If he can get explicit commitment from Islamabad on a deal left implicit in 1972, he will be a hero. If not - well, you do the math.

He has already done Yusuf Raza Gilani an incalculable favour. Gilani's credibility has multiplied to the point where he feels strong enough to challenge Asif Zardari. The ISI, not famous for doveish sentiments, has already planted a dossier blaming India not only for Balochistan but also for the attacks against Sri Lanka's cricketers in Lahore. The ramifications are unfolding. In the political calculus, Gilani does not have to do much more to survive. After all, what can India do if he does nothing? Start a war?

It would be unwise to forget that the Mumbai outrage, and the post-operation legal soft-pedalling against terrorist masterminds, happened under Zardari-Gilani's watch. Islamabad's first reaction to Ajmal Kasab's detailed confession, from defence minister Chaudhury Mukhtar, does not augur well: "The confession is made by a person under the custody of Indian jail authorities. It is no evidence." Did Mr Mukhtar want a statement from Kasab after he had been awarded a medal for valour in the custody of ISI? Pakistan is still interested in the least it can do, not the most. It will not be doing India any favours by arresting Lashkar-e-Toiba chief Hafeez Sayeed. It will be meeting its obligations under international law.

The Indo-Pak conflict was begun by Pakistan within six weeks of freedom because it wanted to seize the Kashmir valley from India. There is only one way to end it: a treaty in which Pakistan abandons its claim to the Kashmir that is now a part of India.

The Sufis had a wise theory: when you are trapped in a vicious circle, draw a larger one around it. The first circle will tighten and suffocate the government unless the prime minister can draw the larger circle of a final settlement on Kashmir.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 06:34

There is only one way to end it: a treaty in which Pakistan abandons its claim to the Kashmir that is now a part of India.

I was with Mr. Akbar all the way until I hit that rock. So WHY will Pakistan honor a "TREATY" so much better than all the "400% guarantees" (Musharraf to Colin Powell, to end cross-border terrorism) and the "Summits"? And should Indians be stupid enough to give up the rightful claims of India to POK and Aksai Chin, just for the sake of a worthless piece of paper with a worthless signature by a convicted bribe-taker or a sugar thief, who are themselves separated by the most slender thread of Fate from a short march to the nearest lamppost, or to a lethal Sunroof lever?
THIS is Mr. Akbar's idea of "PLAY TO WIN"? Win for whom?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 28 Jul 2009 07:44

Folks all I have seen is India and Indian PM Mverick , brilliant moves. All discussed thread bare

Now consider if in fact our over worked RAWed officers were morally supporting some disaffected Balouchis, then there must be help from some other countries to do so. Now are they not in limbo because of our pujya pradhan mantri and his Narayanan & Shankara menon (dynamic duo of siva and kesava)?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Jul 2009 07:49

The treaty where TSP gives up its quest for kashmir will mean that the territory is no longer considered "disputed". It will take the pressure off India from the western powers who are pressurizing India for "concessions" on the "disputed" territory.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 07:51

Congress wants PM to undo the Baloch reference damage

The Congress on Monday made it public that it wanted Manmohan Singh to repair the political damage from the controversial Indo-Pak
joint statement - a development that reinforced the perception of a disconnect between the party and the prime minister on his diplomatic gamble. . . . In private, party leaders make no bones of their displeasure over the "wording" of the joint statement, or for that matter, the regret that the PM and the officials accompanying him were lax. They, however, feel that an unambiguous statement by PM may help contain the damage that he acquiesced to Pakistan's pressure to de-hyphenate its actions against terrorism and resumption of composite dialogue.

The party, however, is not sure whether and how the government can "wriggle out" of the spot it has put itself in by letting Pakistan slip Balochistan into the joint statement.

The Congress's grievance also shows that the PM's unilateralism may have dented the trust quotient with the leadership. The omerta practised by the party even when Singh came under attack from the Opposition for the "Egyptian blunder" have been seen as reflecting both the party's unhappiness as well as its reluctance to embrace the folly.
Senior Congress leaders as well as his Cabinet colleagues are sore with the PM for letting his proclivities trump the party's position vis-a-vis Pakistan as well as its political needs ahead of the polls in Maharashtra where 26/11 will be in play.

On Monday, the expectations expressed through Dwivedi's statement as well as Singhvi's stubborn refusal to endorse the Sharm el-Sheikh document gave rise to the perception that misgivings of individuals may have begun to cohere into an organizational view.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Jul 2009 07:53

John Snow wrote:Folks all I have seen is India and Indian PM Mverick , brilliant moves. All discussed thread bare

Now consider if in fact our over worked RAWed officers were morally supporting some disaffected Balouchis, then there must be help from some other countries to do so. Now are they not in limbo because of our pujya pradhan mantri and his Narayanan & Shankara menon (dynamic duo of siva and kesava)?

Were PA/ISI officers in limbo when Musharraf made the "no terrorism allowed from Pakistan" declaration with ABV? Our objectives in Balochistan are fairly limited, as are our options IMHO. We should be keeping the pot boiling, but not exacerbate to a point where Iranians start feeling jittery about a pan Baloch nationalist sentiment across th borders...Prevent optimal utilisation of Baloch territory (incl Gwadar port) by the Pak military...Our access to Balochistan is fairly limited - no common borders, and we are dependent on Iran for the same...This is one area where our and Iran's strategic objectives converge...

If the Pakis want to take up the B issue in a bigger way, our next stand will automatically be "root cause analysis" of the issue! Now thats a case of a bona fide internal issue being internationalised, by the status quoist himsefl!!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 09:05

X-post from TSP thread.
India and the Baloch Insurgency - Hamid Mir in The Hindu
Excerpts

The situation in the province came in for detailed discussion during the first meeting of the Foreign Secretaries at Sharm-El-Shaikh in the evening of July 14, two days before the meeting of Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told his Indian counterpart, Shiv Shankar Menon, that India must delink the composite dialogue process from action on terrorism, otherwise Pakistan would be forced to produce before the international media at least “three Indian Ajmal Kasabs” who were directly or indirectly part of the terrorist activities in Balochistan. He added that Pakistan would easily establish that the Indian Consulate in the Afghan city of Kandahar was actually a control room of terrorist activities organised by the separatist Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The three Indian nationals were arrested in Pakistan in the last few weeks. According to Pakistani officials, they have undeniable evidence of the links of these Indians with Baloch militants.

Mr. Bashir told Mr. Menon that Pakistan and India could not afford a blame game. If Pakistan were to come out with evidence of India’s involvement in the attack on Chinese engineers in the Gwadar port city, not only would India’s credibility be damaged but also more anti-India feelings would spread in Pakistan. The extremist forces would be the ultimate beneficiaries, Mr. Bashir said. {That is, there will be more jihadi terrorist attacks in India, clearly a blackmail}

One must understand why the Pakistani authorities are very careful in exposing the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan. First, this new blame game will only help the extremist forces who successfully organised the attacks in Mumbai {wow, a very considerate Pakistan extremely mindful of Indian massacres !!} on November 26, 2008 to derail the India-Pakistan peace process. Secondly, it will harm Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The U.S. does not want tensions between Islamabad and Kabul at this stage because the NATO forces are trying their best to conduct a presidential election in Afghanistan in a few weeks. Thirdly, the PPP-led coalition government is aware that Balochistan is not a serious dispute like Jammu and Kashmir; it is a problem of provincial rights. Instead of internationalising the issue, therefore, Islamabad should address the problem realistically. It cannot get away by blaming India alone for the unrest in the province. It has engaged many Baloch militants in talks behind-the scenes. Good news is expected soon.

Pakistan is making noises about the alleged Indian involvement in the Baloch insurgency in a careful, calculated and “limited manner.” The U.S. magazine, Foreign Affairs (March 2009) published the report of a roundtable discussion on the causes of instability in Pakistan. Christine Fair of RAND Corporation said, “having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan.”

If Pakistan plays the India card in Balochistan, many anti-U.S. forces in Pakistan will demand to know why it is silent on the CIA’s role in Balochistan.

Keeping in view the sensitivity of the problem, it is difficult for India to openly support the Baloch insurgency because it may harm its relations with Iran. If Indians come out openly in support of the BLA, anti-Indian elements in Pakistan will quickly bracket New Delhi with the alleged great game of the U.S. against Iran.

Why must India discuss Balochistan with Pakistan? For, it will be the transit route of at least two multinational gas pipelines — one from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan and the other from Iran to Pakistan. India could be a beneficiary of both pipelines, which could be extended from Multan to New Delhi. A stable Balochistan will, thus, ultimately benefit India.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China and India should join hands, and stop proxy wars in Kashmir and Balochistan. They can then change the fate of the whole region.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Jul 2009 09:32

The Pakis place too high an importnace on this gas pipeline thing..First up, the shortage of gas in the world is no where as high as the shortage of crude oil..In fact its reflected in gas prices coming off so sharply...Second, in a few years time, India will most likely have a very large internal supply of gas (quicker if the Ambani brothers are forced to make a deal, or simply chucked out of the KG platforms by the govt)..Therefore this whole gas pipeline business through Baloch territory is a bit rich..

Pak needs Baloch much more- for Gwadar, as the "strategic pace" they require to position their nuke missiles...there is no reason for us to play ball and put the lid on Baloch at all...

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 09:38

Another take on the S-e-S blunder

The party’s calibrated silence has been mandated by the ‘high command.’ Uncertain about the political fallout of the joint statement – particularly, if there is another terror attack in India —the leadership thought it best to maintain a careful distance from this decision of the government. And, the media department was instructed to neither criticise nor support the joint statement.

Another line of thought that has gained currency within the Congress is that this was the leadership’s way of asserting itself on the government by “orchestrating” a view with some media help that the Prime Minister had been isolated on this issue. Mindful of the efforts that have always been at play to drive a wedge between 10 Janpath and 7 Race Course Road, Congress leaders say only Ms. Gandhi can put an end to this.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 09:56

Joint Statement raises dobts, admits Congress - Rediff

The Congress party has, for the first time, admitted that 'there were questions, apprehensions and speculation in relation to the Indo-Pak joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt' but said that it was 'confident that when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaks in Parliament on July 29, he will set them all at rest'.

Highly placed sources in the party state that the prime minister's statement to Parliament is being drafted in consultation and co-ordination with the party as well as some senior ministers of the government. They insist that this time there should be no slip-ups , hence the need to be very careful.

Privately, an AICC official said that it now well established that there is a problem with the language of the joint statement, he said that de-linking talks from terror can be interpreted and explained away by bad drafting but the same excuse cannot be made for 'Baluchistan', which cannot be blamed as the case of 'bad drafting'.

Sources in the government state that with preparations having begun for the July 29 debate, there are no MPs from the Congress coming forward to defend the government. The government is interested in fielding a mix of young and senior mps but many of them have said they are not well versed in the subject. The MEA is likely to give a crash course to the speakers on how best to defend the government with the prime minister himself the main speaker. There is also concern as to how the Minister for External Affairs SM Krishna will handle the reply since he is also new to the job and has so far not shown any great ability to handle the sensitive and tricky portfolio. {Very true indeed}

When rediff.com asked leader of the Lok Sabha, Pranab Mukherjee whether he would be speaking in the debate on the issue, he replied in the negative. {Pranab, AK Antony are in a separate league now}

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 10:25

This should be good slapstick comedy, since the Lok Sabha proceedings can now be seen "live" (a loose use of the term) on TV.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 28 Jul 2009 11:01

narayananji,

As much as I would have liked your narayanan special inspirational rumours, seems like we had seen at Sharm-el-Sheikh the sharm of India only.

As they(me) say, what can be attributed to foolishness should not be attributed to geniusness

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jul 2009 11:12

narayanan wrote:Because they are about to embark on massive genocidal operations against the Balochistani Independence Movement.

While I end up disagreeing with N many a times including here, I strongly agree with above, the whole tamasha is to prvide Pakis a reason to move against the baloch's once more.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2009 11:29

ravi_ku wrote:narayananji,

As much as I would have liked your narayanan special inspirational rumours, seems like we had seen at Sharm-el-Sheikh the sharm of India only.

As they(me) say, what can be attributed to foolishness should not be attributed to geniusness

From wiki

A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933: "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 11:46

As they(me) say, what can be attributed to foolishness should not be attributed to geniusness

OTOH,

Never attribute to draftological inexactitude, what is adequately explained by chankian drunkenness

Here is what must have happened: Menon, MMS, Groper and Das Berjent sit in VVIP Box at the Al Nasser Belly Dance Gala.

Groper: "Wah, wah! I am thinking, Mammoooohanshingi, bhee should menshun this belly (hic!) bally (hic!) balo (Hic!) chee! dance, do you have anything like this in India?

MMS: "I am in (hic!) phool agreement onlee! Balle! Balle! Belly dance! Menshun in ishtatement (hic!) if you want, we are in India very intereshted in bellydance onlee!"

SSM: "Yes, saar! If you say so, saar, We will menshun (hic!) Balle (hic!) Bally (hic!) Ballo (hic).. zzzzzzzzzzz!

Assistant Joint Secretary: "Yes saar, we will menshun (hic!) Baloch (hic) statement.

Great improvement from 1966. Then, Lal Bahadur Shashtri went to Tashkent in January (makes the South Pole seem like Tahiti by comparison) and drank cold grape juice while Ayub Khan fortified himself with vodka. Rest is history. Present desi continjant seems perfectly capable of matching anyone in the world, drink for drink.

Next morning, I suspect that none of them could read anything:

SHUT THAT WINDOW! WHAT'S THAT *&^* BRIGHT LIGHT?? MY HEAD FEELS LIKE THE WHOLE BJP IS BANGING THEIR SHOES ON IT!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2009 11:52

Somnath,here's the evidence.

1.US keeping India out of Centcom to keep Pak happy.

There are many problems at operational level as different regional commands have different vision for India. PACOM see India as a potential partner in ensuring stability in Asia-Pacific and possible counterweight to China in future. In contrast, CENTCOM which has close working relationship with India’s rival Pakistan has a different perspective. They don’t see any meaningful Indian contribution in area of their responsibility. In fact they view India as ‘obstructionist’ and any representation of Indian military in CENTCOM is surely going to make Pakistan very unhappy. Currently, CENTCOM is actively involved in the hotspots and its commanders are in no mood to invite India at the table. They don’t see any positive contribution from India. In fact, they see Indian presence as negatively affecting their operations by alienating Pakistan. If Pakistan does not raise serious objection, then Washington may allow posting of an Indian officer to CENTCOM staff.

India resents the fact that it is attached to PACOM. Many Indian analysts argue that some of India’s major security concerns such as extremism and terrorism, protection of energy supply lines in Gulf and stability in Afghanistan and Central Asia lie outside the area of responsibility of PACOM. To make their point, Indian leaders have many times bypassed PACOM and worked directly in Washington. Indian military wants a seat at CENTCOM table to be able to assess and interject their point of view in the area of responsibility of a command where some Indian security interests are also involved. India demanded a seat at CENTCOM and raised the issue at the high level meetings of DPG. Washington steadfastly refused the request but in 2005 it was willing to allow posting of an Indian officer at CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida. It also suggested posting of a senior Indian naval officer on the staff of PACOM.

2.US's selfish motives.

The defense relationship is a strong one and something we intend to see is further knitted together as we go forward in the months and years ahead’. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, December 2004

U.S. as a dominant power with global interests has diverse security interests and its relations with India are part of a big puzzle. For long time, U.S. view of India was in the context of its rivalry with Pakistan and nuclear proliferation. These two factors are still in the background but the newly added focus on anti-terrorism has opened a window of opportunity to expand their relations. There are several areas where U.S. and Indian security converge and limited cooperation in these areas is in the best interest of both countries. In areas of mutual interest, Washington wants maximum concessions from New Delhi. It wants to gradually increase its defense relations with India until a time comes where more responsibility is assigned where Indian military muscle is complimentary to U.S. interests.

3.Obama's vision,latest speech.

Barack Obama: US and China will shape 21st century
US President Barack Obama said the US and China will "shape the course of the 21st century" as he opened high-level talks in Washington

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ntury.html

PS:No space for India at the high table,lackeys and vassal nations are meant to pick up the crumbs after the feast!

Other reports say that Hillary is being sidelined in Washington by the "O-Team" and she is trying to defeat them by carving out her own agenda.

The surrender at S-al-S" has a foster father's hand in the "drafting".That the US wants both India and Pak to reduce tensions and both be Uncle Sam's vassals has been the long term objective.Here,the US is adopting the same strategy used at Camp David,where a peace between Israel and Egypt was signed.Egypt was detached from the Arab fold by this agreement,which saw the assassination of Sadat,considered a traitor to the Arab cause.Though it bought peace between Israel and Egypt,there has been no peace between Israel and the Palestinians,the central issue in the Middle East conflict.Egypt was effectively castrated and forced to buy US weaponry.The same is expected from India,to abandon non-alignment and an independent foreign policy as the price to pay for the US N-deal and a few economic sops,which actually was a backdoor method to make us adhere to the NPT regime.

Now with the "Baluchi bungle" at the "surrender summit",Pak has a handle with which to equate RAW and the ISI,as if we are conducting a sinister terrorist campaign as it has been doing to us for decades.It is desperate to try and wriggle out of the clear and mounting evidence of 26/11,which from the book by Wilson John just released,shows that the Paki army chief,Gen.Kill-any and the old Bandicoot Mushar-rat were deeply involved.As an editorial in Business Line has writen,the nation has "had enough" of Pak's chicanery and the Congress can ill afford to ignore this at its peril what with the surrender on the EUM and future surrender on the NPT too.The rumblings and dissatisfaction within the GOP indicates that MMS is on a very sticky wicket indeed .

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 28 Jul 2009 12:51

Under fire for "sellout" to Pakistan at Sharm El-Sheikh, prime minister Manmohan Singh's media managers use Kargil, N-sub to prop image

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Jul 2009 13:06

Philip,

Its quite strange to gauge our importance from which mil command of the US "attaches" itself to us! Mil commands are not "high tables"..High tables are places like G8, WTO, Climate change etc. Thast where the negotiations happen at the very highest political levels between major powers - and India is a sought after interlocutor there...It is inferior states like Pakistan that can be "happy" by being attached to a supposedly more important mil command of the US - we are playing much bigger games..

Obama was speaking at a sino-US summit meeting, what else do you expect him to say? In an Indo-US summit meeting, similar platitudes will be mouthed! Of course the Chinese carry greater weight than us, at least just yet, but we carry a very very significant weight these days!

You place a great deal of, almost touching, importance to the joint decclaration. I dont..Nation states, as I say always, dont behave according to joint declarations.They behave in line with their capability and intent..As you yourself point out, no PM can "surrender" our interests all that easily - public opinion, and perceived opinion, matter in a democracy..If there is something material being given away, trust the "system" to react violently enough to rick the boat and make everyone aware....

The bogey of "independent foreign policy and non alignment" has been touted for far too long...We were supposedly "independent" in the dark decades ('60s, '70s, '80s) - but we never opposed the crushing og the Prague spring, or the invasion of Afghanistan...For all our non alignment, all we got was the status of an international moralist with no muscle...We spurned engagement with the West, turned insular and gave our people the "hindu rate of growth"..The wasted decaddes spawned a wasted generation, where the only source of prosperity was a ticket out of India..

Now, nearly two decades of 6.5% growth and a greater engagement with the WEst has transformed us, and instead of celebrating that and calling for greater engagement, naysayers are falling back on the hackneyed "selloff" line...The "dur hato yeh duniyawalon" philosophy..comparing us with Egypt?!! I have seen comparisons on this forum comparing our position to that of Indon, Egypt...We are WAY above them in status, as a nation state...

No one's forcing us to buy US weaponry - but addition of the US to our bouquet of suppliers improves our bargaining position by many times....

BTW, whats the link with NPT and the nuke deal? the latter subverts the NPT in a big way to make an eecption for India - you only need to check the reaction of the NPAs to see how incensed they are on this deal..

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 14:19

Philip & somnath, your discussion is interesting but doesn't have much relevance here. Move them somewhere else please.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 17:45

NDA asks Pres. to give correct advice to the Govt.

"Our demand to the President was that she should intervene and give correct advice to the government on these issues," Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani told reporters, after submitting a memorandum to Patil.

"One-by-one, facts about the India-Pakistan Joint Statement have come to light which have raised doubts," the senior BJP leader said.

Two major doubts which arose after this Joint Statement were delinking of terrorism from the composite dialogue process and the mention of Balochistan in the document, the leader of Opposition said.

Mr. Advani said, till now there was a consensus inside and outside Parliament that until Pakistan took "satisfactory steps" in combating terrorism, there could be no progress in talks. Similarly, Balochistan — which had never been mentioned in any talks — has found a place in the Statement, he said.

The manner in which it has been mentioned in the Joint Statement gives the impression that we are "doing something" there, Mr. Advani said.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 28 Jul 2009 19:58

Philip:

To say that Obama has any vision is an oxymoron. Once again lts left to CRamS to get straight to the core: just like we have a few token blacks on the republican side serving as loyal mouthpieces, Condi Rice, and before her Powell (until he started speaking his mind a bit)), Obama is a little pygy in the hands of the dems to show off their phony egalitarianism. And Obama is just happy being in the lime-light. Heck, the guy couldn't even take the heat for expressing moral outrage at a bunch of thuggish racist cops humiliating a black professor in the heart of 'liberal' America, Cambridge, MA. The shameful climdown by Obama after whites at large came down on him like a ton of bricks shows you how much independence he really has. No, his so called vision towards India is not his; its the vision forumated by dem heavyweights: NPA ayathollahs, Halfbright, Briziensky, Clinton, Talbott etc.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Jul 2009 20:44

somnath wrote:
Its quite strange to gauge our importance from which mil command of the US "attaches" itself to us! Mil commands are not "high tables"..High tables are places like G8, WTO, Climate change etc.

Get real. High table are Mil commands and influence over regions. Rest are all ...

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 28 Jul 2009 20:48

PM to reply in Lok Sabha over Sharm al Sheikh

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is expected to make a short statement before the Lok Sabha tomorrow (on July 29).

TIMES NOW has learnt that the Prime Minister will elaborate India's stand as presented before Pakistan at Sharm Al Sheikh in Egypt. The Prime Minister will stick to the earlier defence that India will go ahead with any dialogue with Pakistan only on the condition that they will deliver on what was promised on tackling terror.

Then again, sources have confirmed that the Prime Minister will seize credit for successfully delinking Kashmir from peace talks.

PM is expected to make this statement tomorrow at around 2 to 3 pm. There are two crucial issues that had attracted controversy after his Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting with the PM of Pakistan Yusuf Raza Gilani- Delinking talks with terror and intervention of India in Balochistan. Dr. Singh is expected to address these two issues.

PM's team is working on the short concise statement that the he will make before the Lok Sabha. And on his list of key issues to be covered are-

• Need for statesmanship in moving peace process forward
• Commitment extracted from Pak on terror issue
• Great chance to prove Pak wrong on Baloch issue.
• Succesfully delinked K-word from talks

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jul 2009 20:53

narayanan wrote:Has it occurred to the gentle ppl here that the reason Pakistan was so desperate to include the B word in the Hashish Joint statement, is precisely to make India shy of mentioning the B word?

Because they are about to embark on massive genocidal operations against the Balochistani Independence Movement.

The more Indian dummies rant about the Mention of The B Word, and the more the Indian Diplos get traumatized, the better off Pakistan is.

SO, people, MENTION THE BALOCHISTAN GENOCIDE. As loud as you can!!! Try to save the lives of the innocent Balochis.

Maybe you are right.

Quoting B Raman on the issue.

' BALOCHISTAN: The Pak Psywar ’

Pakistani leaders are fond of describing Jammu & Kashmir as the jugular vein of Pakistan, using an expression originally coined by Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Pakistan cannot emerge as an industrial power if Balochistan, the most mineral rich of the Pakistani provinces, remains in a state of revolt. The Baloch revolt has made the Pakistani leaders realise that Balochistan is Pakistan's real jugular vein. Pakistan's economy will be perpetually in a state of near collapse if there is no stability in Balochistan.

Just as China's problems in Xinjiang are due to the Han colonisation of the province, Pakistan's problems in Balochistan are due to the Punjabi colonisation of the province. The Baloch freedom struggle is the outcome of the Punjabi colonisation. India has had nothing to do with it.

Despite considerable sympathy and friendly feelings for the problems of the Sindhis, Mohajirs, Balochs and Pashtuns, far-sighted Indian leaders, who succeeded Indira Gandhi as the Prime Minister, refrained from taking advantage of Pakistan's internal problems in retaliation for its use of terrorism against India. The late G.M.Syed, the father of the Sindhu Desh movement, openly visited India when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Similarly, many Pashtun, Baloch and Seraiki leaders had openly visited India on many occasions to interact with Congress (I) leaders. The message conveyed to them was very clear: They should sort out their problems with the Government of Pakistan. India would have no role in it.

Despite this, since 2005, Pakistan has been alleging Indian intereference in Balochistan and now is talking of an alleged Indian role in the Pashtun belt. It is being helped in this exercise by some US non-governmental analysts not well disposed towards India. Pakistan has now stepped up this campaign for two reasons: Firstly, its economy is steadily worsening as a result of the continuing freedom struggle in Balochistan. Secondly, its intelligence agencies find in this psywar a pretext for not acting against the LET.

India should not fall into this trap . It should follow a two-pronged approach. Firstly, it should make it clear that Balochistan is Pakistan's internal affairs and that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Hence, it could not figure in Indo-Pakistan discussions on terrorism. Secondly, Pakistan's attempts to divert the attention of the international community away from the LET activities will not be allowed to succeed.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 28 Jul 2009 23:58

Just check out: our ball less leadership, lack of coherent vision & substantial action have reduced us to begging in front of pukes.

Rising political heat over Egypt deal

On the eve of the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament, comments by Pakistan's interior minister have caused more embarrassment to an already beleaguered government.

Indian officials have made it clear that if Pakistan is a civilised society, it would act against the Lashkar chief, Hafiz Saeed and charge him under domestic laws. But with such a huge political storm raging here, the Foreign Ministry quickly deflected any questions.

"I think the Prime Minister is the authority on this subject and he will give the answer in Parliament tomorrow," said Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State, External Affairs.

But the opposition has stepped up its protests submitting a memorandum to the President on Tuesday detailing their objection to the joint statement.

While the Congress has publicly said there are no differences with the PM, sources say Dr Singh is expected to tell Parliament:

*There will be no composite dialogue till there is concrete action against terrorism

* And Balochistan is Pakistan's internal matter

The Congress hoping that the Prime Minister's statement will put the concerns to rest, but won't be easy for Dr Singh especially on the issue of Balochistan.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 29 Jul 2009 01:52

With all due respect shri B Raman garu has reduced himself to be a joker.

If indeed India has nothing to with B in TSP then the PM is "stupid" to have included it in the joint communique, If India is having a finger then B Raman confirms what he is.

I thought Raj Narain was the best, then emerged lallu, Now the PM is himself leading by example.

"A million mafia in power ruling a billion clueless people"
Chalta hai ji

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 29 Jul 2009 02:38

Gilani’s draft, Singh’s bit - S Gurumurthy

Guddu · Post by **Guddu** » 29 Jul 2009 06:03

CRamS wrote:Philip:
Heck, the guy couldn't even take the heat for expressing moral outrage at a bunch of thuggish racist cops humiliating a black professor in the heart of 'liberal' America, Cambridge, MA. The shameful climdown by Obama after whites at large came down on him like a ton of bricks shows you how much independence he really has.

This is not accurate, Obama was wrong in siding with a race baiter (Mr.Gates), without knowing the facts. This is OT for this thread....so I will stop.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jul 2009 08:06

Pakistan launches psywar over Baluchistan

Despite this, since 2005, Pakistan has been alleging Indian interference in Baluchistan and is now talking of an alleged Indian role in the Pashtun belt. It is being helped in this exercise by some US non-governmental analysts not well disposed towards India.

Pakistan has now stepped up this campaign for two reasons: Firstly, its economy is steadily worsening as a result of the continuing freedom struggle in Baluchistan. Secondly, its intelligence agencies find in this psywar a pretext for not acting against the LeT.

India should not fall into this trap. It should follow a two-pronged approach. Firstly, it should make it clear that Baluchistan is Pakistan's internal affair and that it has nothing to do with terrorism. Hence, it could not figure in Indo-Pakistan discussions on terrorism. Secondly, Pakistan's attempts to divert the attention of the international community away from the LeT's activities will not be allowed to succeed.