Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jul 2009 15:12

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

I won't be surprised by the results. Is there any independent audit of such polls ?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 31 Jul 2009 15:12

Delay in composite dialogue to benefit terrorists: PM Gilani
.
.
Responding to reporters after inaugurating the Islamabad Stock Exchange Towers, Gilani brushed aside reported comments by US representative Richard Holbrooke that said no information was handed over to India regarding Balochistan.

‘The issue was discussed between the two prime ministers,’ Gilani said, adding that ‘we will give them information (on Balochistan) once the dialogue starts.’

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jul 2009 15:29

shravan wrote:Delay in composite dialogue to benefit terrorists: PM Gilani

This threat flows directly from the capitulation. It will also serve as a cover for Gilani & Zardari to say "I told you so". This is a sure indication that the next attack is imminent.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Jul 2009 16:21

I don't think it is fair to doubt the patriotism of the Prime Minister to his country or of his readiness to strengthen it. Within that context, what can we ascribe js/ses to? Is there a pattern here we can recount?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 31 Jul 2009 16:41

The pattern here is described by the nursery rhyme

Ding dong bell
Pussy's in the well

Who put her in?
Little Paki Bin

Who pulled her out?
Little yindoo stout

There are no lines in the rhyme going:

What happened to Little Paki Bin?
Got tossed in the well with the rope and bucket too

Does not rhyme, u c.

Pakistan escalates, India de-escalates.

Lt. Saurabh Kalia and his entire patrol tortured to death. Sqn Ldr. Ahuja tortured to death, 533 dead, maybe 2000 seriously wounded, in the Kargil war, and all India did was to just stop when the surviving Pakis downhill-skiied. OK, Pakis lost 5000 scumbags, but that's their problem. Not retribution.

Followed by heavy inflitration in Kupwara and Doda sectors, murdering many innocents. No retribution.
Followed by IA hijacking to Kandahar and murder of Rupin Katyal. No retribution.

Followed by J&K Assembly blasts. No retribution.
Followed by murder of babies in arms in broad daylight in J&K; No retribution.
Followed by Akshardham temple attack: No retribution.
Followed by attack on Parliament: (the least destructive of all the terror attacks todate): OK, the buggers got stirred up enough to send troops to the border, but NO retribution.
Followed by bomb blasts - Mumbai commuter trains, Samjhauta express, some other train in northeast killing a lot of people, bridges... Varanasi, Mumbai commuter trains again, Mumbai near Gateway of India, other Indian cities, Ahmedabad, Mumbai commuter trains, Surat... NO retribution.
Followed by Mumbai hotels attack, NO retribution...
Followed by more terrorism in J&K -- STILL NO retribution.

I have completely omitted the continuing murder and maiming and torture of Indian citizens that goes on practically every day in J&K due to Pakistani terrorism. NO retribution.

U c a pattern? It is NOT Manmohan Singh. Vajpayee did the same: Insaniyat in return for Insanity. Indian Government policy is not to retaliate for the murder and maiming of Indian citizens. All the Sukhoi 30s and the tanks and the frigates and nuclear subs and Prithvis and Agnis are for show at Republic Day Parades and Navy Day float-pasts.

And 73% of Indian boobs with cellphones stuck between their ears, agree with this policy.

Jai Hind!

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE. END PAKISTAN

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 31 Jul 2009 18:11

So as per the great and strong leader, he is an admirer and follower of Nehru without a rose (ABV as per Snowji) who in turn, was inspired by the original Nehru with the rose.

How I wish the present "Sardar" was an admirer of another great congressman, the original Sardar Vallabhai instead! No one wants to emulate him.

I watched the debate and eagerly awaited the "carefully" drafted statement. It clearly states that the Indian consensus, doesn't it. No WAR with Pakistan and yes, we across the political spectrum believe really, that a stable and prosperous pakistan is possible and it is in our interest.

This may not be popular in a fringe forum like BR, but that is the truth gentle readers. Most Indians believe that this is possible. The statement was also conforming to my postulates here that the Indian world vision has only graduated from the earlier era of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism which resulted in attempts to become the political conscience keeper of the third world as our role in the global order to that of an economics based world view that is interested in "peace dividends" and growth, where we can be seen as one of the largest economies and markets of the world.

Of all the people, the PM chose to quote Reagan, who was of the firm opinion that for peace to happen, there should be a clear victory for the ideology of democracy and capitalism against the ideology of communism.

It ultimately boils down to the realization that to be a leader amongst nations, you have to act on your duties. Foremost amongst this is to be an upholder of peace and stability which means putting down those who promote violence. With an iron hand if need be. Apparently the need for this is not felt by the Indian polity and the Indian public. MMS genuinely believes he has not sold out but serving the cause of India.

He wants to trust Pakistan, because they are neighbours, because they shared a common history, because they are ethnically a kin to us, because we believe that they are the brothers who made the wrong choice. That is why I think we have to wait for a generational change in Indian leadership to start viewing pakistan as just another country like we view a China or Myanmar today. Even then, once can't be sure as this thinking is reinforced in every way in India.

The model of conduct that India aspires for is based on the reign of Ashoka and Buddhism, which was described by Nehru as the height of Indian civilization. The lesson that India forgets from history is that the empire of Ashoka declined as soon as he was gone!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jul 2009 18:37

For those at the helm of GOI, under Z^infinity security, any attack on an Indian is not ncessarily an attack on India. This is a long tradition of rulership where the ruler comes from a background or is trained to think of himself as someone different, separate and distinct from the people he lords it over. The identification of self with all the people of India is a crucial aspect of leadership carefully edited out.

Rajaramji, may I request you not to be disheartened? This darkness that you see is the forerunner of brilliant light. We should gain conviction and strength from this "capitulation" to eventually overturn all that has been done towards this capitulation. We here, even if an insignificant minority, represent a school of thought that refuses to accept what is being done. Minorities are "dangerous". They have the tendency in history to overturn and create new history - far exceeding the impact imaginable from their initial size.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 18:42

RaviBg wrote:Balochistan reference unilateral, says Pranab

Balochistan is a strawman. I matters little whether we talk Balochistan or not.

The question is why talk in the absence of action from Pakistan?

Congress is talking crap and they are sticking behind the booboo made - as they would be expected to do.

Why the f9uk should India suddenly delink terror and talks?

You can keep killing Indians. We will keep talking.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 31 Jul 2009 19:34

brihaspatiji,

I am not disheartened. On the contrary, I do believe that India will progress to its rightful tryst with destiny. The statement of the PM is not all negative. Actually, it is an attempt by him and his party to right the wrong. They have accepted that it was a blunder. The statement has striven hard to rollback the delinking of the resumption of talks and terrorism.

It is unrealistic to expect the PM and his party to accept on the floor of the parliament that we screwed up. So they have tried to limit the damage and taken refuge in quoting ABV and NDA's track record. That is the politics of it. To limit the damage, they can now be expected to be toughen their stance in the talks with Pakistan.

One can expect something good from this episode. The PM will now be forced to act on terror as he has invested political capital on behalf of his party. One can expect some clear action on that front. There will also be a hardening of stand in the talks with Pakistan and with the US when it comes to talks on pakis.

But the larger question of what is in our interest is something that still is work in progress. I am not in agreement with a vision centered largely economic growth. I am not in favour of a stable and prosperous pakistan being in India's interest. I think in BR at least, a majority is of the same opinion. I am being realistic enough to admit that majority of Indians do not share this disapproval. But the events that will unfold in the future will change that soon. Of that I have no doubt.

As the bard of Devonshire said, "some men are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them"... one day our leadership will achieve the greatness for themselves and for the country. Of that I am sure. And I do hope that I can play my small role in that turning!!!

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 19:46

thanks rajaram garu for injecting some hope.

meanwhile we have to make do with hem & haw leader

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jul 2009 19:52

It is sickening to listen to Dilli cowards repeat this mantra that war is not an option, India has no option but to talk and other crap. As much as I would like to see TSP blown away to smithreens, I realize that India can't do it. But certainly Indian military ought to come up with a plan to make TSP pay for their terror. And this is the crux of the problem IMO. The reason why TSPA/ISI won't touch LeT is because they are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the LeT attacks alone that has got India to talk. And it will be LeT alone that will deliver them Kashmir (joint control for a start). Of course, that LeT is nothing but TSPA in mufti is a different matter. See gobar Khan who is dutifully invited to puke his bile on Indian TV. The chutzpah and smugness on his face is evident. They know they have India by its b@lls. And India must find a way to disabuse them of this. TSP would not have touched the Talibunnises also, but US threatned to extract a price, and look how the TSP chameloens changed color and went after them (although half-heartedly).

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jul 2009 19:58

RaviBg wrote:Balochistan reference unilateral, says Pranab

[/quote]

Somebody should ask this clown to keep his trap shut. Here was the idiotic coward who was saying India has no option to kiss up to TSP, and what the f#$^k is he going to do when TSP does an equal equal on CNN/Fox/BBC? Both India & TSP run to US/UK for deliverence, and if US/UK refer to the joint statement saying equal equal on terror, where does India go?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 20:45

Delinking terror from the Composite Dialogue is indeed an extraordinary and incomprehensible step.

What is Pakistan's bone of contention with India - Kashmir and Kashmir alone.

Peace and normal life in Kashmir are held at ransom by the terror spread there by the Pakistan sponsored terrorists.

Even the spread of terror inside hinterland India is all because of their frustration at not making headway in Kashmir.

So, if terror is delinked, then what is the Composite Dialogue all about?

Trade, Pakistani artistes having free access to perform in India, medical tourism etc? Actually, if such mundane issue is Composite Dialogue, we can well do without it. It is hardly beneficial to India.

The mention of Baluchistan has only made it appear that India is not the victim of terror, but also a perpetrator of terror itself!

It lowers the moral high ground India had in the international arena.

Now, apart from raising the issue of Kashmir as a disputed territory to browbeat India in international forums, MMS has given them another straw to clutch - Balochistan and the terror India is perpetuating there!

Good and exciting times ahead!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jul 2009 20:50

Of course the government has done a u-turn and now claims that there will be no talks and the the GoI is effectively disowning the statement in SeS

But what the heck - why make the statement in the first place. Imagine I call someone on this forum a dirty ba$#ard first and then say "oops - it was badly worded. I disown the statement."

archan · Post by **archan** » 31 Jul 2009 20:51

CRamS wrote: Somebody should ask this clown to keep his trap shut. Here was the idiotic coward who was saying India has no option to kiss up to TSP, and what the f#$^k is he going to do when TSP does an equal equal on CNN/Fox/BBC? Both India & TSP run to US/UK for deliverence, and if US/UK refer to the joint statement saying equal equal on terror, where does India go?

I have given you enough gentle reminders regarding your language and tone. I realize the events get (pretty much each one of) us riled up and we feel like pulling our hair but a certain level of caution is required while posting on BRF. In the interest of this forum, I have to discourage these kind of posts. I am giving you a warning, which incidentally is your third and hence you will be now banned for a month.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 20:56

I maybe chastised but this is the way I see it. MMS had to return with a joint statement from S-e-S in order to reduce US pressure. You can whine about it but thats the reality that US pressures everyone it thinks is in its way. So he agreed to the unilateral insertion in the joint statement in order to ensure that the joint statement is released. If there was no joint statement the US pressure would have been tremendous and with the SoS visiting it would have been face to face and not a fa*twa from Duplicity. If anyone noticed in his 'unilateral' press confrence. He said the dialogue will resume only after verifiable action on terrorist by TSP. So he did what he had to in the joint statement and what he wanted in the press conference. For first time an Indian PM is moving away from the Roman way of sticking to paper and followign the Greek way.

Composite dialog is a dialog in which the there is an agreed agenda by both sides.

Delinking terror from talks had to be done to prevent the nuke flashpoint rhetoric from US. And all that troop mobilization does is unite the TSP factions and stop them form their self destruction and moreover forces US and PRC aid to prop them up due to duplicitious concerns of stability and keeping down India.

Now you may not like all this and can go in a tizzy but thats the reality. If this has to change then the sinews of pwoer that India needs have to be built up and all: officials, soldiers, merchants and scientists have to deliver and not be content with being alpha squirrels.

Its difficult being an alpha wolf when you are surrounded by alpha squirrels.

CRS dont get apoplectic and get banned.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 31 Jul 2009 21:05

makes sense , but there was always pressure, be it from unkil, or brother Ivan (Tashkent). So what is new?
we know that because of pressure LBS died after signing accord.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 21:08

This US angle is non convincing ; US pressure has always been there and that is what PMO is elected to do ..to handle GOTUS pressure . No one here is

about the JS itself , the point of contention is inclusion of Baluchistan and delinking of terror from composite dialogue.Now if someone is trying to say that the entire verbiage for the 'JS' was prepared and faxed by the GOTUS then ...I rest my case.

PS: btw use of emoticons is very addictive... and yes I picked it from N^3 saar

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 21:21

Hain jee and how do you think the PMO can handle the US pressure? With what? All alpha squirrels around.

The MOD officials are forever on take and delay procurements. The Army takes for ever to mobilize and wants to fight WWI Battle of Somme all over again. The scientists give duds. The economists do their best to screw the economy. The judical systems allows criminals to take over the internal society.

Pray with what the PMO can be tough with the US? MMS has bought time to clean up but will be wasted. However, a clever babu will come up with a procedure objection and derail everything and then the politicians will bandwagon on it and back to stasis and members getting banned here.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 31 Jul 2009 21:24

negi wrote: the point of contention is inclusion of Baluchistan and delinking of terror from composite dialogue.Now if someone is trying to say that the entire verbiage for the 'JS' was prepared and faxed by the GOTUS then ...I rest my case.

Pakistan's is the world's 10th most failed state in Foreign Policy magazine's 2009 Failed State Index.

Do you think the world listens or believes Pakistan. Let the PA be happy with the JS but they will be forced to enter Baluchistan there things will start to heat up.

When is the Winter going to start ?

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 31 Jul 2009 22:13

Raja Ram wrote:One can expect something good from this episode.

1. Terrorism sponsorship; == has been estabished
2. Unkil's influence is by far the biggest in every critical policy making; == has been established

I hope the following problems of Pakistan don't manifest in India (at least to the extent of what we see in Pakistan).

1. food and essential prices going up
2. Water and power crisis
3. sharp increase in insurgency level and resultant law and order problems
4. civic confidence and civic sense destabilized

If someone is hell bent on making things ==, then a lot can happen.

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 22:43

shravan wrote: Do you think the world listens or believes Pakistan. Let the PA be happy with the JS but they will be forced to enter Baluchistan there things will start to heat up.

The fact that you ask that question on this board implies you simply do not comprehend the seriousness of a 'Joint Statement' issued by heads of the two countries.

By using words like 'WORLD' people get to hide behind a huge abstract terminology , something on very similar to what Pranab da said

its mention in the India-Pakistan joint statement was a "unilateral" reference of Islamabad's viewpoint that was not shared by India.

Ofcourse JS is not endorsed by 'India' and hence the ruckus, however he does not mention that 'JS' is endorsed by an elected representative of India i.e. Hon PM.
coming to the world; world unlike most of us here is not Chanakian and it will go by what 'JS' states and not what people claim it to be.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 31 Jul 2009 22:51

What does pressure from the US look like? Any one here with diplomatic experience ready to describe? So let's assume that behind the scene there was this strong pressure forming to relieve pressure on the pakistanis by the indians, post mumbai. Something "they can take home."

On that continuum, there are many, many options, at least in my mind.
What explains Balochistan in js/ses?
Was the PM really battling it out with somebody and this is the best he could defend, or was this, "anything, brother, anything in the name of peace" (after the doosra)

S

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 22:57

ramana wrote:Hain jee and how do you think the PMO can handle the US pressure? With what? All alpha squirrels around.

My point is US pressure is/might be for getting India-Pak to talk onlee and I am willing to bet on the fact that PM Gilani also must be under a similar pressure from the GOTUS . However what transpires in the meeting and comes out is very much under the control of PM . It is obvious Baloch issue was brought up by the GOP and obviously endorsed by GOI my point is if it indeed is a conscious decision and a part of MEA's policy why fumble for words in the parliament and be so defensive or even apologetic about it...for anyone who is brilliant enough to formulate such brilliant strategy can defend it in the house ?

The GOI's U-turn and the events in the parliament make all those brilliant posts in previous dhaga justifying the capitulation and projecting it as some sort of a game changer look silly now.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 23:13

Sometimes its best to be taken for a fool and contiune what needs to be done.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 23:21

There is a gem from Rabindranath Tagore:

You can be a friend to your enemy through a lack of character!

Not my words!

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 23:25

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 31 Jul 2009 23:26

negi wrote:
OK. I don't understand the the Joint Statement. Please explain it to me and tell me if you were the P.M. what would you have done ?

The fact that you ask that question on this board implies you simply do not comprehend the seriousness of a 'Joint Statement' issued by heads of the two countries.
I understand the seriousness of a 'Joint Statement but I don't think its bad for India.

If there was another terrorists attack without Joint Statement what would have India done ?

By using words like 'WORLD' people get to hide behind a huge abstract terminology , something on very similar to what Pranab da said its mention in the India-Pakistan joint statement was a "unilateral" reference of Islamabad's viewpoint that was not shared by India.
The world is with us why should we care about what Pakistan says. Why suddenly so importance to Pakistan - Is it a ego problem ?

Ofcourse JS is not endorsed by 'India' and hence the ruckus, however he does not mention that 'JS' is endorsed by an elected representative of India i.e. Hon PM.
coming to the world; world unlike most of us here is not Chanakian and it will go by what 'JS' states and not what people claim it to be.

It would be great if you answer - what would you have done if you were the P.M. ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 23:32

^ Please re-read what you have posted above I guess you might want to re-phrase your stand ;some drafting error I guess.

ps: I will oblige once you have made your stand clear

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 31 Jul 2009 23:38

It would be great if you answer - what would you have done if you were the P.M. ?

It is simple.

I would have checked the public opinion.

How would I have done it?

I would have done it with the way it was earlier, where the State party organisation was decided by the State organisation and not by the 'High Command' the former being in touch with the grassroots.

Thus, I would know!

No Imperial Empress to tell me how to sneeze!

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 31 Jul 2009 23:39

negi wrote:^ Please re-read what you have posted above I guess you might want to re-phrase your stand ;some drafting error I guess.

ps: I will oblige once you have made your stand clear

I can't write in English as you. Henceforth I will only post the news on BRF.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 31 Jul 2009 23:41

some have speculated this to be the end-state of Musharraf. He will NOT visit Pakistan nor US/UK will provide him santuary in the long term. Only KSA can/will do it.

In a way it is good for psyops perspective.

Saudi Arabia will consider political asylum if requested by Musharraf: envoy

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Jul 2009 23:45

Shravan main...

OK. I don't understand the the Joint Statement. Please explain it to me and tell me if you were the P.M. what would you have done ?

I understand the seriousness of a 'Joint Statement but I don't think its bad for India.

Kindly decide what your stand is ...your statements are reminiscent of ...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 23:53

Satya_anveshi wrote:some have speculated this to be the end-state of Musharraf. He will NOT visit Pakistan nor US/UK will provide him santuary in the long term. Only KSA can/will do it.

In a way it is good for psyops perspective.

Saudi Arabia will consider political asylum if requested by Musharraf: envoy

He might suffer the fate of Khankhana enroute or even there.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 31 Jul 2009 23:53

negi wrote:Shravan main...
OK. I don't understand the the Joint Statement. Please explain it to me and tell me if you were the P.M. what would you have done ?

Your first para got deleted while replying. Sorry for that.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 31 Jul 2009 23:58

ramana wrote:Hain jee and how do you think the PMO can handle the US pressure? With what? All alpha squirrels around.

The MOD officials are forever on take and delay procurements. The Army takes for ever to mobilize and wants to fight WWI Battle of Somme all over again. The scientists give duds. The economists do their best to screw the economy. The judical systems allows criminals to take over the internal society.

Pray with what the PMO can be tough with the US? MMS has bought time to clean up but will be wasted. However, a clever babu will come up with a procedure objection and derail everything and then the politicians will bandwagon on it and back to stasis and members getting banned here.

IMO, there can not be war with Pakistan even if all this is sorted out and the foreign powers are checkmated for one simple reason - there is no plan for the aftermath. The final resolution of the Pakistan problem will have to be a Bharatiya civil war. But civil society in present day India will not be ready for that for quite some time.

Only thing that can change this is if the passage of time allows people in present day India to contemplate destruction of Pakistan similar to the rivalry between the USA and SU. I don't see that happening.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jul 2009 23:59

ramana wrote:Hain jee and how do you think the PMO can handle the US pressure? With what? All alpha squirrels around.

The MOD officials are forever on take and delay procurements. The Army takes for ever to mobilize and wants to fight WWI Battle of Somme all over again. The scientists give duds. The economists do their best to screw the economy. The judical systems allows criminals to take over the internal society.

Pray with what the PMO can be tough with the US? MMS has bought time to clean up but will be wasted. However, a clever babu will come up with a procedure objection and derail everything and then the politicians will bandwagon on it and back to stasis and members getting banned here.

But what exactly would that pressure be?

And I did not understand how delayed procurements/unprepared army come into the picture. India might be unable to teach Pakistan a lesson militarily, but that does not mean the PM has to sign a JS tacitly accepting India's possible involvement in Balochistan (when we are doing nothing of the sort) and delinking terrorism from talks with Pakistan.
All these post S-e-S parliament debates and statements by Pranab Mukherjee etc. are just to hide the fact that our super-intelligent PM was taken for a ride by the Pakistanis and fooled into committing a blunder that's going to cost us no end.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Aug 2009 00:04

RayC wrote:There is a gem from Rabindranath Tagore:

You can be a friend to your enemy through a lack of character!

Not my words!

But this aint personal, its a matter of politics and not of morality or charachter.
Lets admit the fact that we are economically, militarily weak comparimg to big power like US and and has to bear the preassure . We also keep electing many buffon politicians as leader , in fact too many oldies from 40s and 50s. Till we acheive the strength to avoid preassure and capability to pay /push back Paki 3 and1/4 Masters, buying time seems to be the best options in our politician ( not leaders) mind. I doubt if there is any one of them, given an oppertunity , who wont like to earn the glory of Puncturing Paki Musharraf with the policy of Thurst and Vivisectionalize.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 01 Aug 2009 00:12

Pak moves troops away from India to take on Taliban

Observers see a US push in this development.

They are also linking the redeployment to the Indian climb-down at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the controversial inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement with Pakistan.

The redeployment is seen as preparation for an offensive against Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan.

So, is Pakistan finally walking the talk?

It's commitment to take on the Taliban, which it fathered, is clearly on test.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 01 Aug 2009 00:24

Holbrooke's statement on the subject is interesting and can be used to create the picture of how the pressure play goes.

1) Getting US wishes in the talibunny wars by asking India to talk with Pak.
2) Getting Pak to hand (or threaten to) extra dossiers other than their old core issues to pressure India to accede to US wishes.
3) Have someone from US, flatly deny any India involvement in Baluch struggles to make India go along with US plans.

For the US this cycle repeated continuously, yield some returns for their missions along the western borders. For India, this gives some leeway to continue/increase covert support (as long as US denies it) to further aggravate pak's pain since India cannot do open war even if it was ready and wanted to.

I cannot think of no other reason to pretend to talk, make joint statements and then claim drafting errors etc.