Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 10:09

Please continue here.

And someone please lock the old thread and put it in the trashcan after which I will link it here

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 10:09

Thanks admins - last page of old thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=1280

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 Jul 2009 10:10

chetak wrote: The next areas where we can expect our fearless leader and renowned economist to be economical with the truth is for sure the two agreements proposed by the US. The first is the logistics support agreement and the second is the Communication Inter-Operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement.

Both these agreements are land mines and have great potential for for being perpetual and unending headaches. The usa is squeezing the orchises hard.

The debacle of the EUMA is already playing out as expected.

Once they have us by the short and curlies, it's but a very short ride for our Armed Forces into afghanistan " where we will be fulfilling our global responsibilities as a world power".

Havent studied the latter in any great detail, but how is the Logistics Support agreement going to be a headache? It would only mean that every time the IAF goes to the Red Flag, they dont have to wait agonisingly for the budgets to be approved for the exercise by the MoD babus..

Here is the US-Korea Logistics Support agreement..

Cant find a single objectionable word here..And even then, this statement stands out

Each party agrees to utilize its best endeavors, consistent with national priorities, to
satisfy requests of the other party

I would trust the India negotiators to "pull" out something even better..

Every single engagement with the US is denounced as a sellout almost in a PAvlovian fashion!

Even people who should be "in the know" are simply overhwelmed by this reflexxive anti Americanism...Way past its sell by date unfortuntely, and way out of tune with the real India...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 10:12

cross posting from locked thread

RayC wrote:
"Balochistan issue will haunt India in near future," Sinha told the Lok Sabha.

Raising a question that why Balochistan issue was included, Sinha said now Pakistan will raise the issue constantly before the world leaders.

Slamming Pak's U-turn on Hafiz Saeed, he said that Pakistan has freed Nov 26 Mumbai attacks mastermind LeT chief on lack of evidences. Despite being tightening noose on Islamabad, government included Balochistan issue for discussion, Sinha alleged.
Describing the drafting of dossier as a sensitive issue, he said that the drafting should be done carefully. He sought reply from the External Affairs Minister that where he was when drafting was done.

Sinha fired an array of questions on Government during the debate.

He asked whether Indo-Pak relations has widened or narrowed with this step?

He also sought reply from the government saying that it was a diplomatic failure by the government and one of the biggest mistakes witnessed by the country.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that no such dossier on Balochistan has been received.

Balochistan issue to haunt India in future: Yashwant Sinha

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 31 Jul 2009 10:15

Shiv Ji, What is left of S-e-S that we need to discuss it till judgement day. We have discussed every single word, comma, line, between th e lines, above and beyond the lines.
Have we really become the argumentative Indians on BRF, who just can not let go of something, which has been beaten to death ?

sukhdeo · Post by **sukhdeo** » 31 Jul 2009 10:26

I hate to generalize. I hate to brand a whole people and a region. But we do it all the time and sometimes, not often, but sometimes there may be some truth in generalizations. Maybe there is some in what I Am about to state, maybe there isnt. But I cant help but notice a regional divide on this thread. I think the North of India and South of India live in a different world, kind of a parallel universe where the frame of references are common, but the same frames exist in a different context. There is an appearance of commonality, while there really isnt. The north by and large is totally disorderly, chaotic, permissive and anything goes. There is anarchy and there really are no custodians, not even a very small number, of old fashioned human values of right and wrong, patriotism, duy etc. The middle class has completely sold its soul to the devil and leads in legitimizing anything and everything for the sake of accumulating wealth and money. The south is a little more orderly, a little more structured and therefore a certain minimal sense of decorum and sense of right and wrong exists, at least among a small educated middle class. To this small group of custodians(my term, not theirs) in the south, it is inconceivable that everyone in the North has sold out so utterly and completely. Their frame of reference doesnt allow them to contemplate a sellout of such a grand scale. Thefore their natural aversion to generalizatioe and sense of fairness is offended when the obvious truth is stated about the sellouts. However, a careful analysis of facts and some basic deductive logic will make it clear that the North and the Northern politician are an absolute lost cause and no one can put it past them to sell out their mother, leave aside their country. It is too much to ask those politicians to have any qualms about selling their mother and their country, when they have none about bending over and taking it up without grease for petty gain and political power.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 31 Jul 2009 10:30

I hold SSridhar’s views in great esteem and this is why I’m a bit nonplussed by his vehemence regarding the S-e-S issue.
My question to Gurus – Are words a substitute for action? IOW would we be satisfied if MMS had written a strongly worded letter in the Times accusing Pakis of…well being pakis, and the matter had ended there?

Second, if no ‘action’ is being taken by India – does it matter what joint statements we sign up to? (Pakis say India is active in Balochistan, GOI says no. We believe GOI).

Third, if ‘action’ is being taken by GOI, would we want it to be overt or covert? Overt may assuage our H&D but it would also serve to unify the hopelessly fractured pakis. Is covert more effective? I would rather that paki disintegrates into a slow spiral of death rather than vanish in a puff of mushroom cloud.

Fourth, the fundamental question – why talk to pakis? My view: I don’t know. I would rather we didn’t. But then in which case we should be railing against the fact that we went to S-e-S for a chat in the first place. What emerged from S-e-S shouldn’t really bother us.

As for the Govt’s action – I think MMS’s government is answerable to the people in terms of outcomes for India for attending the S-e-S summit. This in my view translates into:
 Prosecution of the Mumbai terror masterminds;
 Elimination of paki sponsored terrorist activities in India;
 Ending false paki propaganda against India;
 Elimination of covert war against India (through printing fake currency and drug transit)
 Non-interference in each other’s affairs;
 Pak extending MFN status and transit trade for Afghanistan; and finally
 Vacating POK.

archan · Post by **archan** » 31 Jul 2009 10:39

shiv wrote:Please continue here.

And someone please lock the old thread and put it in the trashcan after which I will link it here

I had already created a new thread. I guess you didn't see it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 10:40

VikasRaina wrote:Shiv Ji, What is left of S-e-S that we need to discuss it till judgement day. We have discussed every single word, comma, line, between th e lines, above and beyond the lines.
Have we really become the argumentative Indians on BRF, who just can not let go of something, which has been beaten to death ?

Well Vikas - locking the shameful old thread was not working - so I figured that a lateral dribble might take the game into goalless extra time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 10:40

archan wrote:
shiv wrote:Please continue here.

And someone please lock the old thread and put it in the trashcan after which I will link it here
I had already created a new thread. I guess you didn't see it.

whoops.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 10:43

Sau Sal Sukhdev ji.

As per my mothers wishes I had to immerse her ashes in Ganaga at Varanasi (circa 2003, she died the day I was in Toronto attending BRF meet where I had the good fortune of meeting one of our Admins, who is retd Admiral now

Rakesh ji).

I travelled by IA to delhi then by Spirit airlines (IIRC) from Delhi to Varanasi via Patna.

The attitude of the North (Indians) by and large was Mega Civil disobedience be it driving on highways (Varanasi to Allahabad) or public facilities Railways are the main facination to loot and plunder.

While in the south it is not ramrajaya, but we will soon catch up with north be rest assured. Our AP CM is good example. Satyam saga is another, DMK and Stalin rule is another in TN ( it is explosive in TN if you saya word against Blues Brothers Karuna and Co).

Coming to the other Sharam

Like many self inflicted wounds of India, this PM has contributed immensely be it his gratitude to english rule, or shedding tears for TSPaki terrorism or his misleading the parliament (to say it a political correct way) with no accountability or electability except for the saris behind.

So the nation India will survive with marks of scabs, small poxes inflicted by foxes in the grand old party of India.

We need to move on, past is past. My humble opinion this thread is irrelavant, as any new discovery will be adverserial to BRF decency and decorum. There will be more opportunities very soon ( The Pakis never disappoint) to talk about the missing hand of PM which he extends to Pakis and is chewed off.

with that, no more gut spilling
Jai Hind.

****
PS added later
arnab ji, ramana garu had addressed the questions you ask many times. India works in different way, when we sign a document or say something we are not bluffing or lying. There is to a large extent sincere action unlike TSPakis (pathalogical liers).

The PM should have had the shrewed brains to have not allowed Pakis to make him go beyond his original agenda, just because his counter part happens to be a Pakjabi not a sindhi he fell flat on his face. In any other democratic set up his head would have rolled long back. But then his lack of leadership qualities is what makes him PM aminable to the masters behind the curtains.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2009 11:03

Back to the "King of Capitulation",MM Singh! I wonder how many members saw the TV proceedings of the debate in the House.The King of Cap. sat motionless as if in shock,looking like a timid rabbit caught in the glare of headlights.Guilt was written all over his face.He knew that he blew it
at S-al-S and it had to call for Sonia to come to his and the govts. defence with her categorical statement.The FM Mr.Krishna,is as genial and softspoken as the PM and conveys as much confidence that the nation's interests as King-Cap.It was only the angry old veteran Pranab who tried to stiffen the back of the govts. stand by the use of decibel power,like a lawyer with a weak argument thumping his desk.The lukewarm support from the ranks of the congress indicated that MMS's catastrophic "Baluchistan Blunder" has weakened his reputation and authority a great deal.

Perhaps there is a silver lining in all this,as from now on the GOP will have to be exceptionally careful not to blnder further in its foreign policy and will take a thrashing if and when another Paki terror attack takes place.The GOI will then have to act decisively with Pak either militarily or diplomatically.It will also expose the hypocrisy and dupllicity of Uncle Sam which despite the overwhelming evidence of pak's chicanery,continue to support the TSP to the hilt.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 31 Jul 2009 11:04

John Snow wrote: ****
PS added later
anrab ji, ramana garu had addressed the questions you ask many times. India works in different way, when we sign a document or say something we are not bluffing or lying. There is to a large extent sincere action unlike TSPakis (pathalogical liers).

The PM should have had the shrewed brains to have not allowed Pakis to make him go beyond his original agenda, just because his counter part happens to be a Pakjabi not a sindhi he fell flat on his face. In any other democratic set up his head would have rolled long back. But then his lack of leadership qualities is what makes him PM aminable to the masters behind the curtains.

Well I disagree with the premise that good guys do not bluff or lie to win (Pandavs Mahabharath for instance). However, even if what you say is true - did the S-e-S statement on Balochistan commit us to any 'action'? As for 'delinking terror from talks' - we have been doing that anyway (that is what MMS argued when he gave the example of ABV). Why does it bother us to see it in black and white?

Finally, look at it this way - Chamberlain had his Munich, but the good guys still won

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 11:15

Philip sir
Uncle is still infatuated with Madame Butterfly (TSP) even after seveal beddings, he thinks (S)he has the charms and grace of woman. So lets leave him to his pleasures and focus on our self inflicted pain.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 31 Jul 2009 11:26

Message to balochis and all other friends helping them:

Now that uncle has given clean chit and said Indian hands are clean, continue with the program unabated.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 11:32

I have not seen the original Joint Statement document and my views are based on the Parliamentary Debate (two days), TV panel discussions and the newspapers.

1. Joint statement diplomatic paper not legal document, so said Tharoor. And someone said it was badly worded.

One wonders if it is being implied that Joint Statements are not worth the paper on which it is written. Does it mean we can renegade on whatever was written in the Joint Statement? If so, it is rather immoral, if one goes by principles of morality.

If it was badly worded, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the common Indians or those who are paid by the exchequer to ensure the wording is correct? After all, we have put our Fate in their hands.
2. On the issue that terrorism is a threat to both countries.

There is no doubt that is so the case. The subtle difference is one is the perpetrator of terrorism and are suffering from their misplaced Islamic zeal, while the other is the victim! Therefore, it is a whole lot of bilge. It is also Machiavellian gambit to downplay Pakistan’s and the ISI’s diabolical hand in the terrorist attacks on India and brush it under the carpet!

3. On the issue of action against the perpetrators of 26/11:

The Pakistan PM said that they would ‘do everything in its power in this regards’. It maybe noted that the real masterminds are scot free. And interestingly, those arrested will be dealt with once more details are available from India! This last proviso was displayed by TimesNow in one of its panel discussion.

In this context, the Home Minister, Chidambaram’s comments are pertinent. He said that everything has been given to Pakistan and that it is getting tiresome. He also wondered about the competence of the Pakistani lawyers!

This is a clear indication that Pakistan is not serious and it is only a charade being enacted! This is nothing new with Pakistan!

4. Both prime ministers agreed that they 'will share in real time credible information on any future terrorist threats'.

IIRC, similar sentiments were expressed at the Havana NAM. If so, how come infiltration in Kashmir continues? Is this not a ‘terrorist threat’? Or are they ‘Freedom Fighters’ and beyond the ambit of a terrorist and hence no intelligence was shared?

5. Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that 'Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas'.
What are these ‘other areas’? Everything in Pakistan except Punjab?

It is a tacit acceptance that India is involved in the Balochistan uprising. Dose it mean that it is tit for tat? Indeed, if it were so, could it not come out in the open and embarrass Indian forever and weaken the case of terrorism in Kashmir, promoted by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Lastly, I remain confused that while there is a Composite Dialogue, it does not include terrorism.

What is then the meaning of Composite?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 31 Jul 2009 11:36

Nightwatch comments

A controversy has arisen in Indian policy circles over the Prime Minister’s joint statement with Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani last week about resuming dialogue, moving beyond the issue of Pakistan-based terrorism. Earlier this week Prime Minister Singh suggested that his government’s absolute condition for talks, which Finance Minister Mukherjee repeated above, had been met by Pakistan’s acknowledgement in a legal dossier that the LeT launched the Mumbai attack from Pakistan. This prompted a storm of demurrers.

Singh’s conciliatory attitude is not shared widely in his government and in Parliament, which has now exposed to the public its factional disagreements about the sufficiency of Pakistani suppression of the LeT.

NightWatch’s basis for prediction is that Pakistan will never suppress the LeT because its attacks compel India to engage Pakistan or fight. Pakistani leaders, as well as Indian counterparts, recognize that India’s recession-immune economic growth rate depends on sustained peace on the sub-continent.

Singh is making the best of a bad situation and throwing Pakistan a bone to help Prime Minister Gilani maintain stability. The message is that if Pakistan has troubles, India is not to blame.

It really just boils down to this. We either talk to them or we should fight them. We have it-vity to worry about, the opinion of our COAS, travel advisories and WKKs. So we cant fight. Hence MMS & Co is right when he says "there is no alternative but to talk". What are our other options ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Jul 2009 11:38

If MMS had stuck to the CCS decision on the joint statement, things would have been good. However, "I am smarter than others and I can win a nobel prize" kind of mentality is what did him in. Look at some of this meetings, gushing over Obama like a teenage girl in love begging for his autograph, or telling Bush that everyone in India loves him or telling the british that everything good in India is due to them etc. He maybe a good economist, but he is not smart enough to realize the realpolitick in international relations. But the arrogance that he alone is smart enough and not having enough trust in others to have strong ministers is proving costly for India. He has this compulsive control streak to remote control all international interactions by India as domestic issues had political overtones and he had to toe madam's line. International relations was one area where he thought he could drive the policy. And the nuclear deal success in the previous innings and the enhanced results at the elections have made him feel more invulnerable. Hence all these initiates , the long term impact of which he is not able to forsee unfortunately.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 31 Jul 2009 11:40

RayC wrote:Lastly, I remain confused that while there is a Composite Dialogue, it does not include terrorism.

What is then the meaning of Composite?

Diplomatic language of throwing pepper into Indian's eyes AKA Kashmir, Siachen.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 11:45

At Havana and post Havana, he nearly gave away Siachen!

Poor chap, he should visit Siachen and be asked to rope up the ice wall!

Maybe he will realise the difference of an aircon office and the coolest of area in the world requiring no airconditioning but heating!

I have no hangup as to what the politicians decide.

My only worry is that it should not mean a futile war thereafter where soldiers (they are Indians too!) die and then the result are zero! If the soldiers have to die, let it be like 1971, where there was something worthwhile to die for!

Further, if we are in Balochistan (taking that Pakistan and MMS are right!), let's be more positive as they (Paksitan) are in Kashmir. Let's liberate them (Balochis). It is in our interest so that we ruin China's String of Pearls!

This wimpish we are there and yet not there is exasperating!

But are we there?

MMS is the new avatar of JL and 1962?

However, my worry is that based on the report that Sonia Gandhi and her party are not totally with the PM. Is it to degrade the PM and shove in the Prince of Wales as our Saviour?

archan · Post by **archan** » 31 Jul 2009 11:46

Anujan wrote: It really just boils down to this. We either talk to them or we should fight them. We have it-vity to worry about, the opinion of our COAS, travel advisories and WKKs. So we cant fight. Hence MMS & Co is right when he says "there is no alternative but to talk". What are our other options ?

Danda-e-covert. But that might already be in use. Whether it is, or it is not is beyond our domain or knowledge so IMO no intelligent discussion can be pursued in that regard. One can only hope.

niran · Post by **niran** » 31 Jul 2009 11:58

to me it is showbazi for a midterm leadership change,
suddenly Shree MMS is found harming national interest, so, he resigns
with accompanied drama of course, Kangress will beg Shreemati S.G.
to resque India, she will forsake the perils of Gandhi surname in power
and sacrifice her onlee son for nation's sake. and there will be another thread
dissing & cussing, life will go on as usual.

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Jul 2009 12:02

Excerpt from an article applying the Peter Principle to our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s conduct at Sharam el Sheikh (and else where) in DNA:

PM and the Peter Principle

R Jagannathan

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 21:06 IST

The Peter Principle suggests that every person rises to his level of incompetence. The principle, enunciated by Laurence J Peter and Raymond Hull some 41 years ago in a path-breaking book, has almost never been contradicted.

Its logic is simple: if you are good at your job, you get promoted. But at the higher level, the competencies required for success are different. If you still manage to do a good job, you get another promotion and the process continues till you find a job you are truly incompetent in.

Has prime minister Manmohan Singh risen to his level of less competence? Is he prime minister material? Was his goof-up at Sharm el-Sheikh, where he agreed to delink terror from a composite dialogue with Pakistan and also inserted Balochistan needlessly into the joint statement, just a one-off or part of his larger makeup?

And the authors answer to the question in the last paragraph above:

At Sharm el-Sheikh, Manmohan Singh decided to go solo with his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani. Without a balancing partner, or even a cautious bureaucracy for help, he goofed on terror and Balochistan. Gilani played to Singh's weakness -- the latter's desire to be seen as the man who brought peace to South Asia -- and scored a victory.

Manmohan Singh will succeed as PM only if Sonia Gandhi hems him in with people who can cover up for his weaknesses. He cannot succeed solo.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Jul 2009 12:22

Trust, But Verify - B Raman

...
It was ill-advised because it has enabled Pakistan to claim to the international community that our PM was satisfied with the action taken by it against some Pakistan-based members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) for their involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26-29, 2008, in the hope that this would result in a relaxation of the international pressure to act against the LET.

The international pressure on Pakistan to act against the LET has been there since the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. It was because of this pressure that Pervez Musharraf, the then Pakistani President, banned the LET through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The ban is still in force, but has not been implemented effectively by either the previous government of Musharraf or by the present government of Asif Ali Zardari.

...
As a result of the ill-warranted certificate of good neighbourly co-operation given by Dr Manmohan Singh to Pakistan, there are already signs of this pressure being relaxed. This would be evident from the absence of forceful international reaction to the farce of the legal proceedings against Sayeed, which has resulted in his being released from house arrest.

....
...
If the BJP members had carefully studied and mastered facts and figures, they could have effectively countered the PM’s claim of credit by pointing out the following:

•There have been four acts of mass casualty terrorism since 1981. All the four were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi.
•There have been three instances of targeted attacks on foreigners since 1991--two in J&K and one in Mumbai. All the three were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power.
•There have been seven acts of ISI-sponsored aircraft hijackings since 1971. Six of them were carried out when the Congress (I) and one when the BJP was in power.
•There has been one instance of an Air India plane being blown up in mid-air killing over 250 persons. This took place when the Congress (I) was in power.
•The LET was banned by the Musharraf government as a terrorist organization through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The Manmohan Singh government has not been able to get the JUD banned by the Zardari government even eight months after the Mumbai attack.
•Indira Gandhi was assassinated when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated when an ally of the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi and another ally in Chennai.
•The Indian Mujahideen came into existence when the Congress (I) was in power.
•The first commando-style complex terrorist attack in Indian territory by a group of terrorists, all hailing from Pakistan, has taken place when the Congress (I) is in power.
Despite the Congress (I)’s better counter-terrorism expertise and experience, it has not been able to deal effectively with jihadi terrorism.The BJP leaders were not able to bring this out.

...
The Prime Minister used former President Ronald Reagan of the US as a prop by quoting his remark: “Trust, but verify”. Yes, he had said it. In 1986 some US soldiers were killed by an explosion in a West Berlin discotheque. The US investigators established that the terrorists had come from Libya. After verification, he ordered the US Air Force to bomb the training centre in Libya.

Indian investigators have clearly verified and established that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were trained in the POK.

Will the Prime Minister emulate Reagan?
...

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 12:25

Manmohan Singh will succeed as PM only if Sonia Gandhi hems him in with people who can cover up for his weaknesses. He cannot succeed solo.

I think there is typo in the above
It should read "He can not succeed so low"

But I like the phrase

if Sonia Gandhi hems him in

which he is ever since he was picked up

Hem is the border of saree also which is folded and tuked in ( if its Hipster below the Navelity

)

Dictionary:
hem 1 (hěm)
n.(noun)

An edge or border on a piece of cloth, especially a finished edge, as for a garment or curtain, made by folding an edge under and stitching it down.

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Jul 2009 12:26

John Snow wrote:............. PS added later

arnab ji, ramana garu had addressed the questions you ask many times. India works in different way, when we sign a document or say something we are not bluffing or lying. There is to a large extent sincere action unlike TSPakis (pathalogical liers). ............

The Pakistani’s are indeed pathological liars who do not necessarily believe that there is a need to follow what they have signed. The Pakistani’s even seem to believe that this lying is sanctioned by Islam

.

Michael Krepon drawing from George P. Schultz’s memoirs “Turmoil and Triumph” on the subject of Pakistani lying:

…………….. One of my shoe box favorites concerns Shultz’s efforts to negotiate an agreement with the Kremlin on Afghanistan. One of the agreement’s provisions would obligate Pakistan to “prevent within its territory the training, equipping, financing and recruiting of mercenaries from whatever origin for the purpose of hostile activities” – pledges Pakistan and the United States were not inclined to honor. Indeed, Pakistan was doing precisely what the proposed agreement would prohibit. According to Shultz,

“After some discussion through our embassies, two phone calls were arranged. First, Pakistani Prime Minister Junejo called me to urge us to sign the accords and to pledge that regardless of the language the Pakistanis would agree to, they would continue to provide a home to the mujaheddin and be a place through which U.S. arms and other supplies would flow to them. Several hours later, President Zia, the truly authoritative figure in Pakistan, called President Reagan with the same message. I heard the President ask Zia how he would handle the fact that they would be violating their agreement. Zia replied that they would ‘just lie about it. We’ve been denying our activities there for eight years.’ Then the president recounted, Zia told him that ‘Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause.’” ……….......

From Arms Control Wonk:

Useful Fictions and Big Whoppers

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 12:33

B raman garu is making some progress looks like but still has to bring in BJP short comings in his writings. But thats OK without that there can never be progress for BJP. There is a severe shortage of Statesmen, debaters, eloquent extempore inspiring speakers in the parliament. Gone are those days, Ihope atleast some opposition MPs can RAP the ruling party for its short comings!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 12:33

Any comments on B Raman's article?

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261095

Analyse this rather than look at full stops and commas of the post posted.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Jul 2009 12:45

Ray, I have posted that article just a few post above yours, and John Snow was responding to that article in the post above yours

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Jul 2009 12:55

Balochistan reference unilateral, says Pranab

Using his skills gained over years of being in Parliament, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee sought to defuse the Balochistan bomb by
arguing that its mention in the India-Pakistan joint statement was a "unilateral" reference of Islamabad's viewpoint that was not shared by India.
...
...

So why was the "unilateral" reference included in the joint statement? It sound absurd to even claim that. If unilateral references can be added, why didn't India add the recent embassy attack in Kabul or the fake note racket of ISI or the ISI's meddling in NE in the joint statement? What a stupid defence, claiming that it was unilateral reference and not shared. Why include it all then??

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 13:04

How come there is no 'unilateral' statement from India on Balwaristan (Northern Area) when the leaders have asked for Indian involvement?

Even though some are allergic to the word 'sellout', my limited grasp of the language, does not help me to use any better word!

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 31 Jul 2009 13:13

Unilateral statement in a joint statement which India does not agree. Er ,was it not mentioned as "Joint" stmt. So IFS trainees will taught that different types of statements
1. Joint stmt which both agree
2. Joint stmt which both parties do not agree
3. Joint stmt where one agrees and other disagrees
4. Joint stmt with a unilateral stmt by one party but also signed jointly by both parties and one party does not agree.
5. Joint stmt with a unilateral stmt by both parties

signed jointly but to which both do not agree
6. A joint stmt ........... ok I will go to lunch.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 13:24

Pranab Mukh... is doing this and the meaning of "Unilateral in a Bilateral" is

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair

"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 13:27

Ray Saar>> you can use and resort to "Shell out" with out upsetting anybody

PS
{ As a bengali you reserve the right to use Sh for S like Shitty Bitty}

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 31 Jul 2009 14:14

RaviBg wrote:Using his skills gained over years of being in Parliament, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee sought to defuse the Balochistan bomb by
arguing that its mention in the India-Pakistan joint statement was a "unilateral" reference of Islamabad's viewpoint that was not shared by India.

This government has made itself the laughing stock of the world, with the "drafting error" and now this "unilateral reference in a joint statement" nonsense!

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 31 Jul 2009 14:49

Was it posted here or in the earlier thread? Take it FWIW

Drafting Diplomacy: Pandit Nehru and his Menon - C. Raja Mohan

..here is a story on joint statements from Jawaharlal Nehru's days.

One of Nehru's close political associates was a Menon whose first name was Krishna. As India's relations with China turned sour in the late 1950s, Defence Minister Krishna Menon was caught in the eye of Delhi's political cyclone.

As he reflected on the tragedy of Sino-Indian relations a few years later, Menon remembered objecting to the bad drafting of the now famous Panchsheel agreement when it was signed by Nehru and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in 1954.

Menon's reputation as a wordsmith was legendary and his rhetorical skills were awesome. Krishna Menon felt "the five points, as you can see, are not very well drafted... It is tautological in places, repetitive, and not very well constructed."

When Menon complained, Nehru said, "what does it matter; it isn't a treaty or anything, it's a preface to this Tibetan business". (See Michael Brecher, India and World Politics: Krishna Menon's View of the World, Bombay, Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 142-43.)

Nehru's advice not to read too much into Panchsheel might shock the 'Nehruvians' of our time. Menon, then the leading Nehru acolyte, had a good understanding what Panditji was saying.

Menon affirmed that Panchsheel "came out of in the course of a conversation (between Nehru and Zhou). It was rather like a communiqué. It was not a revelation. It was not a creed or part of a formulation of our foreign policy."

That is exactly what Dr Manmohan Singh and his foreign policy team is saying now about the Sharm el-Sheikh press statement. But his critics on the left and right, however, think text is everything and context matters little.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 31 Jul 2009 14:57

AjayKK wrote:Was it posted here or in the earlier thread? Take it FWIW

Drafting Diplomacy: Pandit Nehru and his Menon - C. Raja Mohan

This is the first time that MMS sent shivers into me. This article and the govts defence simply eeks of 1962 all over again.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 Jul 2009 15:05

Sorry guys CNN IBN confirms that this is what people want

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ftn-pm-gets- ... 37-p1.html

* SMS poll on ‘did the UPA misread the public mood on Indo-Pak peace?’

* No: 73 percent, Yes: 27 percent

We are burning our blood unnecessarily, Jai ho MMS

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 31 Jul 2009 15:09

Sanku wrote:Sorry guys CNN IBN confirms that this is what people want

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ftn-pm-gets- ... 37-p1.html
* SMS poll on ‘did the UPA misread the public mood on Indo-Pak peace?’

* No: 73 percent, Yes: 27 percent
We are burning our blood unnecessarily, Jai ho MMS

But yesterday the Yes was leading

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jul 2009 15:10

Airavat wrote:This government has made itself the laughing stock of the world . . .

Absolutely. There is a mind boggling number and variety of somersaults.

The Joint Statement says 'delinking of terror and dialogue', the PM and his deputies continue to say that dialogue will not start unless Mumbai planners are punished but our Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Ministers will meet.

On being questioned about the reference to Balochistan, the PM says that Gilani brought it up and since we are an 'open book and nothing to hide', that reference was allowed in the JS. Then, somebody from the GoI says that since the PM is a stickler for transparency, he decided that we should also be transparent about Balochistan. Shashi Tharoor, in the meanwhile said that the JS was not a signed, legal document ! Now, Pranab Mukherjee is saying it was a unilateral reference (Now, Pranab da is very clever, the cleverest of the lot in the ruling combine. He is conveying a message here by dishing out this unconvincing reason. He is essentially saying that the JS is plainly indefensible and he could only think of this stupid reason.)

When asked about what changed between Y'berg in Russia and S-e-S, the PM said it was the dossier and that was why he is embarking on a new strategy of 'Trust but Verify'. If this 34 page dossier can wipe out the trust deficit of 62 years, why did SM Krishna say in the same session of the Parliament that Pakistan never accepted any evidence we gave and have consistently refused to extradite Indian terrorists whom it has given refuge there ? Does the PM "trust" Pakistan when it says that Dawood didn't live in Pakistan ? His own R&AW has "verified" his presence there. What is he going to do about this ?

Then there was an open-ended reference to Indian mischief in 'other parts' of Pakistan. Nobody questioned the PM if that was also brought up in the S-e-S discussions just like Balochistan and what Mr. Man Mohan Singh understood by 'other parts' ? Why were not 'specific parts' mentioned by their names ?

This government is tying itself into more knots with each passing day.

BTW, the GoI should not let SMK meet his Pakistani counterpart in a one-on-one in the sidelines of the UNGA sessions. It will be disastrous.