V_Raman wrote:all this talk about fear of indians by americans etc is misplaced. simple truth is indians love america. and americans love india. indian names are becoming more common etc. etc.
how about below, america has a base in J&K. India sends troops to afghanistan -- pak cannot play their shenanigans on india anymore and can fight in afghanistan.
the autonomy talk is getting louder and louder...
India supporting Baloch insurgents: FC IG
*Maj Gen Salim Nawaz says proof of Indian involvement has been provided
*Taliban leaders not in Quetta
QUETTA: India and Afghanistan are supporting an insurgency in Balochistan, trying to bolster the leadership of separatists fighting the government, chief of the Frontier Corps (FC) paramilitary force in Balochistan said on Saturday.
“A lot of evidence of Indian involvement through Afghanistan is there, supporting the separatist movement,” Major General Salim Nawaz, inspector general of the FC in Balochistan, said.
General Nawaz said the separatists were not very strong as they did not have enough foot soldiers or a proper command-and-control structure.
“The foreign element, especially the element there in Afghanistan, is trying hard to create more leadership,” he said.
Proof: The FC chief said proof of Indian involvement had been provided. “The proof has been given at various levels ... Photographs have been provided,” he said, but did not elaborate. ………………
Daily Times
Translation ki kya zarurat hai. The look on MMS's face says it all - Chiragho.n ko jalaanay mein, jalaa li ungliya.n hamnay (I burnt my fingers trying to light the candles)
Like 'Bangalored', the new term is 'SeSed'Muppalla wrote:Looks like a similar effort though not by MMS but by his cabinet member Jairam Ramesh. He may comeback as letter drafting error
Higher the stakes, lower the bendThe stakes are even higher here.
RaviBg wrote:From the Chindu, posting in full. Note that it is datelined from Hua Hin
Manmohan to seek end to verbal duelling with China
Crawling when asked to bend ...Hua Hin: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will meet here on the sidelines of the 15th Asean summit on Saturday morning in an attempt to put an end to the infelicitous and even sharp exchange of words between the two sides in recent weeks.
Beginning with exaggerated Indian media reports of an alleged increase in Chinese incursions along the undemarcated Line of Actual Control, the rhetoric has now taken on a life of its own with government-run newspapers in Beijing accusing India of “hegemony,” Indian analysts making dire predictions of conflict, and senior Chinese officials making repeated public demarches about Arunachal Pradesh as part of their claim that the Indian state is actually a part of Tibet.
Although the immediate focus of China’s assertive pronouncements and actions is apparently Arunachal and also Jammu and Kashmir — the Chinese embassy in Delhi recently began issuing visas to the State’s residents on a separate sheet of paper rather than stamping their Indian passports — the war of words has cast a shadow over not just the ongoing boundary negotiations but also the positive long-term trend in bilateral relations between the two countries.
Indian officials say the Prime Minister is keen to continue the positive momentum and work with China to give greater depth to the ‘strategic and economic partnership’ and that he hopes Premier Wen will agree that the two countries need to find ways of preventing differences over the boundary spilling over into other areas.
At the heart of the recent deterioration in optics is the proposed visit to Arunachal Pradesh by the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhists and a man Beijing reviles as a separatist bent on pushing for the independence of the Chinese province.
The Indian side has said repeatedly and publicly that the Dalai Lama is a guest and is free to visit any part of the country he wishes. Though there is no indication that New Delhi will rethink its position, senior officials say the intention is not to score points over China or to use the visit in order to underline the status of Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India.
Indeed, one official told The Hindu that the wider politics of the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang were complicated. China, after all, cites the monastic connection between Tawang and Tibet as the basis for its claim to the town and state, a connection that would be reinforced by the Dalai Lama’s forthcoming visit. During his visit to the monastery there in 2003, the Dalai Lama had in fact said he believed Tawang was a part of Tibet. Since then, the Tibetan spiritual leader has said he accepts the McMahon line, which forms the basis for the Indian demarcation of the Sino-Indian border. Some officials believe the Chinese fear is that the Dalai Lama may use the occasion of his visit to Tawang to declare the town to be an integral part of India.
As matters stand, it is not clear when the Dalai Lama will make the journey or whether he has applied for and received an inner line permit that all foreigners in India need to visit Arunachal Pradesh. His advisers initially said the Tibetan spiritual leader would travel to the State on November 8 but now maintain the dates have not yet been finalised.
As expected...As matters stand, it is not clear when the Dalai Lama will make the journey or whether he has applied for and received an inner line permit that all foreigners in India need to visit Arunachal Pradesh. His advisers initially said the Tibetan spiritual leader would travel to the State on November 8 but now maintain the dates have not yet been finalised.
he may suddenly develop some sickness which will postpone his visit indefinitelysum wrote:As expected...As matters stand, it is not clear when the Dalai Lama will make the journey or whether he has applied for and received an inner line permit that all foreigners in India need to visit Arunachal Pradesh. His advisers initially said the Tibetan spiritual leader would travel to the State on November 8 but now maintain the dates have not yet been finalised.
There was program on NDTV last night where Amitabh Matoo was saying that the current peace moves are extension of SeS, unfortunately he meant that positvely.Brihspati wrote: SG has finally made her stance clear that "there is nothing that can't be solved through dialogue" as per NDTV, in the context of Indo-Pak proposed discussions. After a cautious period of sleeping on it, until the media outrage about S-E-S dies out and loses steam. Now the J&K speech of MMS-ji on the back of SG's comment and Hilllary Clinton's urging of dialogue - means that the timeline for a new arrangement in the "north" cannot be delayed anymore.
It will be most interesting now to see all the deceptive parties in this game put on their deceptive colours. And how much the leaders of India play with the lives and dreams of the people as bartering pawns for their own overwhelming need to stay on in power.
That clearly shows that India deferred to the US pressure. Is there any link with the statement from Man Mohan Singh once again now with the visit of Ms. Clinton ? Well, we can only guess.Asked what efforts the US had made to engage India and Pakistan in diplomacy and reduce tension between them since President Barack Obama announced in March that he proposed to do so, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Philip J Crowley referred to Thursday's meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
ramana wrote:Well he offered conditional unconditional talks- talks only if TSP stop terrorism. The press read what they want in his speech in J&K.
"militancy and violence began to decline" in kashmir, but rest of the country was affected by many bomb blasts including train blasts in mumbai july 2006 killing 200. does the GoI detach the rest of the country and only keep Kashmir's violence in mind when it talks with Pakis?I had also said that I was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan. I did so not because of weakness but from a position of strength. We had the most fruitful and productive discussions ever with the Government of Pakistan during the period 2004-07 when militancy and violence began to decline. Intensive discussions were held on all issues including on a permanent resolution of the issue of Jammu & Kashmir.
For the first time in 60 years, people were able to travel by road across the LoC. Divided families were re-united at the border. Trade between the two sides of Kashmir began. In fact, our overall trade with Pakistan increased three times during 2004-07. The number of visas that we issued to Pakistanis doubled during the same period. An additional rail link was re-established.
These are not small achievements given the history of our troubled relationship with Pakistan. Inside the valley, as militancy declined, trade, business and tourism began to pick up. We were moving in the right direction. For the first time there was a feeling among the people that a durable and final peace was around the corner.
However, all the progress that we achieved has been repeatedly thwarted by acts of terrorism. The terrorists want permanent enmity to prevail between the two countries. The terrorists have misused the name of a peaceful and benevolent religion. Their philosophy of hate has no place here. It is totally contrary to our centuries old tradition of tolerance and harmony among faiths.
I strongly believe that the majority of people in Pakistan seek good neighbourly and cooperative relations between India and Pakistan. They seek a permanent peace. This is our view as well.
The cross-LoC initiatives have been well received on both sides of the border. But I am also aware that they are not as people friendly as they could be. Trade facilities at the border are inadequate. There are no banking channels. Customs facilities need to be strengthened. There are no trade fairs. The lists of tradable commodities need to be increased. Clearances for travel take time.
in this forum, it has been consistently highlighted the foolish idea of the 'one big permanent resolution - settlement' that Indian Pm's hold wrt Pakistan.call upon the people and Government of Pakistan to show their sincerity and good faith. As I have said many times before, we will not be found wanting in our response. In the words of a poet:
‘There are moments in history when wrong decisions are taken
The effects of which are felt for ages’
I appeal to the Government of Pakistan to carry forward the hand of friendship that we have extended. This is in the interest of the people of India and Pakistan.
In conclusion, I wish to convey my good wishes to the people of Jammu & Kashmir. I hope that the future will bring a new era of peace, reconciliation and development.”
Thats because the Indians still dont understand that though a 'one big permanent resolution - settlement' w.r.t. Pakistan is needed -- there is ONLY ONE such solution possible.amardeep_s wrote:in this forum, it has been consistently highlighted the foolish idea of the 'one big permanent resolution - settlement' that Indian Pm's hold wrt Pakistan.
) .Its a WTO rule, which our bureacracy has followed but as usual lies in dustbin, like all their words and agreements for Pakistannegi wrote:
Lastly will some enlightened soul tell me what purpose does it serve to have TSP as our MFN ? (this is an honest query
From Wiki:ravi_ku wrote:Its a WTO rule, which our bureacracy has followed but as usual lies in dustbin, like all their words and agreements for Pakistannegi wrote:
Lastly will some enlightened soul tell me what purpose does it serve to have TSP as our MFN ? (this is an honest query
In official quarters, there is a feeling that if the Sharm el-Sheikh fiasco had not happened, there may have already been some movement on talks with Pakistan. As of now, the PM is moving cautiously but seems keen to explore the possibility of progress on engaging Islamabad.
India's fate is also linked to other nations which pour money in India's neighbors to wage wars and create chaos.SSridhar wrote:India's fate linked with its neighbours: Man Mohan Singh
Baloch ‘blunder’ back to haunt govt
4 Dec 2009, 0610 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Sharm-el Sheikh joint statement came back to haunt Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a member of his own party providing a handle to the Opposition to take on the government on the Balochistan reference. Congress MP Vijay Jawaharlal Darda revived the Sharm-el Sheikh controversy when he asked the government if the inclusion of Balochistan was a drafting error. The Congress MP further embarrassed the government by asking what steps had been taken to counter Pakistan’s constant attempt to pin the blame on New Delhi for the insurgency in Balochistan.
Mr Darda’s question provided fodder for the Opposition which once again took the prime minister to task for the Balochistan reference. Seeking a clarification from the prime minister on the matter, BJP member Rajiv Pratap Rudy said, `` We went as a victim of terror and came back as accused.’’ ...........................
eCONOMIC tIMES
When our own Government foolishly bolsters Pakistani arguments of Indian involvement in Balochistan, as was the case of the Sharam El Sheikh joint declaration conjured up by our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, it is inevitable that India will be lectured on the topics by others as well.abhishek_sharma wrote:Mullen says raised Balochistan issue with India
http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=93118
WASHINGTON: Chairman of the US Joints Chief of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he has raised the issue of interference into Balochistan with the Indian leadership, Geo News reported Wednesday.
Talking to Geo News correspondent Sami Ibrahim, the US Army Chief said he held talks over the reservations of Pakistan with his Indian counterparts both former and the present one Gen Deepak in addition to the Indian political leadership.
Referring to the "agreement" between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh, Malik said, "something that we agreed on, has not been acted upon".
He noted that there has been no dialogue since then which "obviously shows that the agreement that we made in Sharm-al-Sheikh is yet to be implemented".
Asked if India had gone back on its commitment, Malik said to a private news chhanel, "They are too strong words and I would not like to use it."
On whether India was trying to relink the dialogue process and Pakistan's action against terrorism, Malik said, "You can put it that way."
Excellent. This shows maturity beyond our chankian netaship's long years.On whether India was trying to relink the dialogue process and Pakistan's action against terrorism, Malik said, "You can put it that way."
The Central Information Commission has allowed the inspection of files pertaining to controversial Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement of India and Pakistan last year, responding to a RTI application.
The RTI applicant had sought to know the names of officials involved in the drafting of the document, which had kicked up a political row here as it contained a reference to Balochistan, where Pakistan has been alleging Indian hand in terror incidents, and delinking of talks from action against terrorism by Pakistan.
Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit came down heavily on the External Affairs Ministry for not complying with its directive to produce the file for perusal on December 8, 2009 and not providing the information within mandated 30-day period before issuing show-cause notice.
RTI activist S.C. Agrawal had sought a copy of the statement by India and Pakistan issued at the Non Aligned Movement Summit at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt last year, besides names of the officials and persons involved in framing it along with file-notes on its drafting.
The Ministry provided the copy of the joint declaration and the list of officials in the delegation but did not give any names of the officials who had drafted the proposal and said there were no file-notes in its records.
The Commission directed the Ministry to produce the file to “verify the veracity” of reply but that was not provided even after specific directions and repeated telephone reminders from it.
The Ministry said joint statements issued after such meetings encapsulate the mutually agreed substance of the discussions between the leaders during such meetings.
It said no file-noting exists pertaining to decisions taken with regard to the drafting of the text of the joint statement as issued after the meeting.
The joint statement was drafted immediately at the PM-level meeting on the sidelines of the NAM summit, the ministry said, while requesting the Commission to drop the proceedings of show-cause notice.
“In view of the fact that the Joint Statement/declaration between Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan at Sharm el-Sheikh has been provided by the respondent (MEA) and it denies existence of any 'file-notings', the Commission directs that the complainant (Agrawal) be allowed to inspect the relevant files to locate all information as sought by him,” the Information Commissioner said.
With India having a history of not permitting access to any foreign office file, no matter how old, the CIC decision has left the MEA scrambling. Officials said such an order was likely to discomfit even those countries which allowed the opening up of their records after 20 or 30 years.
The CIC came under fire from the former Foreign Secretaries, Muchkund Dubey and Lalit Mansingh, who have termed the order impractical.
Second, many minutiae were incorporated at the last moment after one-to-one talks between the leaders and the subsequent verbal directive given by them to their officials (as was the case at Sharm-el-Sheikh) to come up with a joint statement or communiqué. Officials wondered how the “spur of the moment” decisions would be reflected in the notings on the files. They also wondered how revealing the sequence of events leading up to a joint statement would benefit the petitioner or the nation since, as was usual in diplomacy, this was still a very modest step towards normalising ties with Pakistan and a work-in-progress.
isnt it a rule of RTI that the motive of the petitioner cannot be asked?SSridhar wrote:CIC Order puts MEA in a spotThey also wondered how revealing the sequence of events leading up to a joint statement would benefit the petitioner or the nation since, as was usual in diplomacy, this was still a very modest step towards normalising ties with Pakistan and a work-in-progress.
I am not sure about that rule. However, the GoI has to pull all the stops now because even hardened supporters of SeS now realize the folly of the dumbest joint statement that MEA possibly ever prepared.ravi_ku wrote:isnt it a rule of RTI that the motive of the petitioner cannot be asked?
Errr, we had atleast 5-6 people ( if not more) who were convinced that it was the most Chankian move ever. Wonder if some still maintain the same view?SSridhar wrote:I am not sure about that rule. However, the GoI has to pull all the stops now because even hardened supporters of SeS now realize the folly of the dumbest joint statement that MEA possibly ever prepared.ravi_ku wrote:isnt it a rule of RTI that the motive of the petitioner cannot be asked?