Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Feb 2010 06:20

Shiv-ji

It is quite simple.

1. A stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest
2. Not talking to Pakistan strengthens the hands of "non-state" actors
3. Dialog is the only way forward for the welfare of 800 million south asians who live under $1 a day
4. Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism and a front line ally
5. There are several unresolved "core" issues such as water, cashmere & IPL
6. Ergo not talking to them hurts us!

Zimble onlee. May I recommend a course in Lahori logic for you to be able to understand such articles in the future?

Peace in the subcontinent will be achieved only if the SDREs gird up their loins, think creatively and produce options for deterrence (I dont mean the new-clear variety), so we can squeeze the b@lls of the Pakis at will. It cannot be (fully) based on the armed forces. It has to be something--economic, water, bribing their top leadership, flanking them in Afghanistan/Iran, trapping them in UN resolutions that govern states which express inability to control terrorism from their soil, an ability to politically destabilize them, ityadi.

Dialog is a red herring.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Feb 2010 06:52

Anujan wrote: Dialog is a red herring.

Absolutely. The "DIALOG DIALOG DIALOG!!!

" cauerwaul is like a person suddenly asking you to jump off a cliff. You ask "Why should I jump off the cliff?" and the response is because it is hurting you for not jumping off.

I mean - are these diarrhea-log who keep saying "dialog dialog dialog" crazy or something?

The other thing - and I apologise for bringing it up - but it is at least a way of explaining this stupidity to myself. There is a clear "cognitive bias" being shown by these diarrhea-log. They howl "Have dialog with Paquistaaan!! Have dialog with Paquistaaan!!"

Fine - but Pakistan is not a single person. Pakistan is a complex entity where the so called government is not in charge. It is the army. And the so called army is an cahoots with terrorists. And the army is not in full control of Pakistan. Do these dialog-cryers even understand what is happening in Pakistan?

OK. Lets talk to Paquistan.

Whom do we talk with? Zardari? Zardari is a beleaguered crook-president who says things that he has to retract if the army or groper Gilani does not like it. Zardari survives because of unkil.

Talk to Gilani? What power does Gilani have in Paquistan?

Talk to the army? But the army is not in power no? Paqui-land is a democracee no?

Talk to jihadis? Lashkar e Toiba? They are also "Pakistan" no?

How can these buffoon diarrhea- log call for talks with "Pakistan"? What is the matter with our country?

archan · Post by **archan** » 02 Feb 2010 07:10

The bottom line is they are getting left far behind. Bharat is leaving them behind with no real chance to catch up. So it does not matter how much they whine "there are xxxxxxx poor people in hindoostan", they know that it is the poor who are moving up to become the middle classes and the young ones of hindoostan are increasingly more focused on making their careers as opposed to blowing themselves up for houris.
They will whine louder and louder now. "Please talk to us" "Puhleeeze talk to us... as equals, you konw, we are equal onlee. You are not superior to us, remember... you are not superios...puhleeeze.."

There will be some in hindoostan who will echo them, for whatever reasons. Hindoostan always has had such folks, and they are not about to break hindoostan - for hindoostan was much weaker when they could not break it.
Hindoostan will still leave them behind, the power or people is something unstoppable. Their whining will only increase before they realize the inevitable.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Feb 2010 07:33

archan wrote: "Please talk to us" "Puhleeeze talk to us... as equals, you konw, we are equal onlee. You are not superior to us, remember... you are not superios...puhleeeze.."

This is EXACTLY what it is beginning to sound like. In fact this sort of need to beg to be recognized as equals is taking its toll on Pakistan - where I am seeing two constituencies emerge. One consists of the "new realists" who are reluctantly beginning to say the un-sayable - i.e that India is moving ahead and that Pakistan has a problem. The other constituency led by Rah Rah Zaid Hamid and some Paki media are walloping themselves on their breasts screaming that they are winning. I find the latter behavior of denial funny - but it might not actually be that funny. People in denial can sometimes behave irrationally. I say this because of the classic example of this a couple of days ago - Shahid Afridi. Anyhow that is OT

How is making Pakistanis feel reality going to harm India? OK if it is harming India it will be good for Pakistan no? It is a sacrifice that a big brother must make. No? We want to do good for Pakistan no? They are our brothers no?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 02 Feb 2010 07:43

Absence of dialogue is hurting India - Siddharth Varadarajan

Think like a Pakistani! Anything that hurts India must be good, so, no need for dialog.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Feb 2010 08:04

Sohail Tanvirs communally tinged ant—Hindu comment is slowly percolating into India’s consciousness. Trust this bigoted comment puts paid to any future appearance of Sohail Tanvir in the IPL.

Meanwhile author concludes that years of playing to galleries of Islamic prejudices has resulted in hatred seeping deep into the collective psyche of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Pak rightly snubbed in IPL

Decades of religious extremism to foment anti-India sentiments have resulted in the hate poison seeping deep into the Pakistani psyche

By Tapan Joshi
Posted On Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 02:04:03 AM

The India-Pakistan problem is more deep-rooted than Kashmir, and incidents like the Indian Premier League (IPL) snub are merely small ulcers in a body vitiated by mutual hatred. ....................................

Today’s jehadi believes the Muslim world’s problems are a result of the America-Israel-India nexus. Kashmir is just one reason; if that gets resolved, some other issue will come up.

In Pakistan, many of the educated, the middle-class and the elite believe the Indians are out to destroy them.

To give you an example, three highly reputed Pakistanis vented vitriolic religious hatred on air describing India post IPL snub. In a TV show hosted by a lady named Farah — Pakistan’s highest paid anchor — the guests were paceman Sohail Tanvir and a journalist named Zahid Farooq Malik.

Now, Tanvir became famous, and rich, only after his exploits for Rajasthan Royals in the first edition of the IPL. And here he was, saying on air, “Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)” while describing the IPL snub.

Hello, here’s a cricketer who’s driving a car and living in a house bought out of money he earned in IPL I, and he’s unabashedly bringing in religion in the whole issue!

Here’s a person, who as a cricketer is supposed to bring the aam aadmi from India and Pakistan together, talking absolute rot!

The journalist sitting next to Tanvir then calls Indians “baniyas” and goes on to say, “Unki bagal mein chhuri hain aur muh par Ram Ram” even as Farah smiled demurely.

The discussion then takes a ridiculous course, with the journalist saying “Hindus” — remember, not Indians — are responsible for Pakistan not hosting matches in 2011 World Cup. This particular episode has become a rage on YouTube. ..................................

Tapan Joshi, a firm believer in the philosophy of ‘live and let me freak out’, writes on sports and the games people play [email protected]

Ahmedabad Mirror

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Feb 2010 08:15

arun wrote:
Pak rightly snubbed in IPL

Decades of religious extremism to foment anti-India sentiments have resulted in the hate poison seeping deep into the Pakistani psyche

By Tapan Joshi
Posted On Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 02:04:03 AM

The India-Pakistan problem is more deep-rooted than Kashmir, and incidents like the Indian Premier League (IPL) snub are merely small ulcers in a body vitiated by mutual hatred. ....................................

The journalist sitting next to Tanvir then calls Indians “baniyas” and goes on to say, “Unki bagal mein chhuri hain aur muh par Ram Ram” even as Farah smiled demurely. ....................

Tapan Joshi, a firm believer in the philosophy of ‘live and let me freak out’, writes on sports and the games people play [email protected]

Ahmedabad Mirror

One can discern where Jawed Naqvi is coming from on the topic of bania's in the article I had posted earlier in this thread:

arun wrote:Jawed Naqvi’s article positively reeks of the religious prejudices prevalent among Muslims of the Punjab province of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the Hindu Bania’s.

Leaves me wondering if this endeavour to use the shoulders of biased others of British origin to malign the Bania is a covert proxy for hatred targeting that other group who exhibit great entrepreneurial spirit, the Jews:

Cricket: the new w*ore of India’s private enterprise

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Feb 2010 09:05

Ananya wrote:
putnanja wrote:Absence of dialogue is hurting India - Siddharth Varadarajan
this is apprisal time and any body who has to be on the good books of the communist Ram gets rewarded hence all this tamasha

The guy( Mr Varadarajan) is truly a lost cause.

Even on the CNN-IBN talk show with Ms. Sagarika Ghose, it was Ms. Ghose who was sounding more "hawkish" than this guy who sounded like a Paki spokesman. Says a lot about him if Ms.Ghose sounds less WKKish than him!!!!!!!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Feb 2010 10:17

Pakistan's further shackling by debt

Pakistan’s total external debt, which is more than twice its internal debt, is currently estimated to grow by more than 43 percent over the next five years. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), our external debt will increase by another $ 2 billion in 2011-12 and exceed $ 72 billion by 2015-16.

It is interesting to note that the IMF still believes that Pakistan’s external debt is sustainable. It claims this on the basis of confident projections regarding the size of Pakistan’s economy, on the basis of which our external debt servicing could remain manageable. This assessment is based on a forecast whereby the external debt alone stands at 27 percent of the GDP, and this would peak at 34.3 percent in 2011-12, before it starts subsiding to reach 31 percent of the GDP in 2015-16, when the growth rate of the country is supposed to reach 5.5 percent. Even if one were to concede these estimates, there is no denying the fact that in the medium term at least, increasingly higher debt-servicing costs will severely restrict our government’s ability to improve the dismal condition of the nation’s masses.

Also, before becoming overly complacent, lulled by projections made by entities whose own existence is assured by lending money to poor and developing countries, it should be noted that IMF estimates would change drastically if underlying assumptions for economic growth, interest rate and external trade are not fulfilled. Given our dismal security environment, the poor quality of governance, and the lax expenditure environment in the provinces, it does seem a bit foolhardy to expect much financial and policy discipline from our decision makers.

A range of factors have contributed to the recent surge in debt. These include the persistence of large fiscal and current account deficits, sharp depreciation in the exchange rate and unrestrained borrowing. These factors have combined to lead to a surge in external borrowings, and led our overall debt servicing ratio to again reach unhealthy proportions. In 1999-2000, a major proportion of the national revenue was being consumed by debt servicing alone. This ratio was almost halved by 2006-07, {through the munificence of the US alone which pumped in dollars and delayed and waived return of borrowed monies to various international lending agencies} which created some fiscal space for improving the lagging physical and human infrastructure across the country, and trying to reduce poverty. In the last two years, this debt servicing ratio has again risen sharply, leaving little room for public spending, given the other enormous budgetary drain of defence expenditure.

Moreover, despite its assurances, the IMF itself is also concerned about the growing risks to its own fund since Pakistan has again become its fourth-largest borrower. A debt sustainability analysis conducted by the IMF and the government shows that Pakistan’s external debt portfolio is highly vulnerable to shocks that might lead to a deterioration of the balance-of-payments position. This could include another spike in international commodity prices, a decline in exports and a slowdown in foreign exchange inflows into Pakistan. There is a real risk that such shocks are imminent given the lukewarm external demand and the rapid slowdown of financial inflows into emerging economies.

While politicians conveniently deflect blame by saying that it is faulty decisions of the incumbents that have led the nation to go back to the IMF, at least our prominent economic analysts and decision makers who remain entrenched in positions of authority must give more serious thought to why our nation required such large resources from the IMF so soon after stating that we had been freed from the stringent conditionalities of IMF lending. Further thought is required concerning the adoption of an expansionary fiscal policy when there was a resource crunch. There is also need to reconsider why we allowed our exchange rate to depreciate to an extent where we added nearly a trillion rupees to public debt, without increasing a single dollar in our exports. Moreover, why is it that despite have accumulated such an enormous debt burden, our government does not have a comprehensive borrowing policy even though there is a separate Debt Office located within the Finance Division since almost a decade?

Ordinarily, external borrowing is sought to accelerate economic growth, especially when domestic financial resources are inadequate and need to be supplemented with funds from abroad. Theoretically, reasonable levels of borrowing promote economic growth through factor accumulation and productivity growth. If borrowing countries channel the borrowed funds into productive investments, they can achieve macroeconomic stability and accelerate their economic growth to easily settle debt obligations. But foreign debt does not remain so easy to retire after it gets accumulated beyond a certain limit. Too much debt can begin to dampen growth when greater percentages of reserves are consumed in meeting debt service, causing creditworthiness to erode. Because of an injudicious utilisation of foreign loans, Pakistan’s capacity to pay back its debts has weakened considerably. Yet, the present government seems to continue raising debt to pay debt and the relief impact of the expected foreign loans remains difficult to see.

Due to overall global economic pressures, and the increasing cost of borrowing money, the recently signed agreements by our government for foreign loans from multilaterals are also becoming more stringent. According to the analysis of loan agreements signed by the Economic Affairs Division with the World Bank, there is a visibly decreased maturity period (from over 30 years back in 1970 to under 20 years currently, while declining grace periods from over ten years to just over five years). The interest rates paid on these loans are also said to have doubled, which is about 6 percent at present. Moreover, the extent of grants being received has estimated to have decreased from nearly 60 percent to less than 30 percent. In other words, Pakistan is now taking more loans from the World Bank at greater interest rates, and has to pay this money back much faster than it used to.

With total population estimated conservatively to be about 165 million, each Pakistani at end March 2009 was calculated to owe about $ 591 in public debt (domestic and external). This situation will certainly not improve if our foreign debt rises by the estimated projections over the next few years. Unless some serious steps are taken to rectify this situation, our future generations will have to increasingly suffer the effects of a coerced belt-tightening induced by international lenders to pay back their loans, the benefits of which are being squandered away without producing any significant results on the ground.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2010 10:18

Pakistan has nothing to worry.

They will get bailed out by the US and the Saudis as has always been the case.

The Taliban is their cheque. For the US, to check and for Saudis to uncheck!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 02 Feb 2010 10:25

This write up is a response to Mr. Varadarajan’s opinion, “Absence of dialogue is hurting India,” in The Hindu dated Feb 02 2010.

Has dialog benefited India?

Over the period of sixty odd years now we have had on and off dialogs between India and Pakistan. If history were a guide, only those dialogues post definitive battlefield action have resulted in frugal benefits to India. It is unclear what benefit, if any, has accrued to India by talking the language of Aman (peace). The onus is thus on those who are calling for a dialog to show how such dialog has benefited India in the past. Mr. Vardarajan fails to convince on this front and his desire for a dialogue, in the absence of such evidence, boils down to platitudes common in the analysis of India, Pakistan relationships.

Mr. Varadarajan adds further confusion on the role of the Government of India. The Indian government has a responsibility to the citizens of India. People-to-people relationship, engaging the rational elements in Pakistan, mending a fractured polity in Pakistan and other such loft goals are appropriate, if and only if, they benefit the citizens of India. Yet again, the historic data suggests all such engagements with Pakistan have come to naught. Like the proverbial dog with a crooked tail, the entity in question refuses to introspect, analyze and come to terms with an India that will be (if not is) a regional power in Asia. If anything, a rational Pakistan will try to seek cordial relationship with India. India seeking cordial relationship with Pakistan will not magically deliver rationality to that entity. Such thinkful wishing continues to characterize the pundits at The Hindu.

Further down into his opinion, Mr. Varadarajan assures us that dialogue with Pakistan would not be a concession. That is, dialogue in the hands of a skilled diplomatic establishment, would be a strength and India would give nothing away. There is reason in this argument, but only if India desires status quo. Recommending India continue the dialogue with Pakistan, with no tangible goals, only to entertain the bankrupt Political establishment, is akin to throwing a noose at a man stuck in quicksand.

The final opinion leaves one flabbergasted. He recommends a moratorium on sound-bites especially by those not in the loop or in sync with Prime Minister Singh’s thinking. Perhaps, Mr. Varadarajan is one of the lucky few in the loop and aware of the Prime Minister’s thinking. It would have helped those out of the loop very much if he had clued them into what the Prime Minister is thinking. Especially on the question of Pakistan, there seems to be no thinking, just a lot of hoping and praying. None would complain if such a perception were corrected.

Finally, as one continues to guess at what India’s leaders stay up at night thinking. The jaw-jaw will continue without an end goal in sight. Worse still, the recipe from the brightest minds India can produce is to continue non-productive dialogues even when history suggests otherwise.
In short, it is business as usual. As long as we dialogue, there is nothing to worry about! Is there?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 02 Feb 2010 10:28

Don't forget the lovable Japanese, Chinese and the British.
The chinese just mouth platitudes "Taller than mountain etc" and give moral support in general. But very little purely monetary support. But they make up for this by giving armaments for free.

SaraLax · Post by **SaraLax** » 02 Feb 2010 11:14

Pulikeshi wrote:This write up is a response to Mr. Varadarajan’s opinion, “Absence of dialogue is hurting India,” in The Hindu dated Feb 02 2010.

Has dialog benefited India?

Over the period of sixty odd years now we have had on and off dialogs between India and Pakistan. If history were a guide, only those dialogues post definitive battlefield action have resulted in frugal benefits to India. It is unclear what benefit, if any, has accrued to India by talking the language of Aman (peace). The onus is thus on those who are calling for a dialog to show how such dialog has benefited India in the past. Mr. Vardarajan fails to convince on this front and his desire for a dialogue, in the absence of such evidence, boils down to platitudes common in the analysis of India, Pakistan relationships.
.
.
.

Erudite Forum Members,
Just in case , you are not aware... the below link is the blog site of Siddarth Varadarajan... Deputy Editor of The Hindu....

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/

I think this recent related news article on dialogues has not yet been posted by him on his blog but there are numerous of his recent articles already posted there and you can comment on his articles. Some people have already used it to confront him on his one-sided hyper-secular offerings and the lack of objectivity in his articles....not suprisingly, neither he nor his supporters reply to such incisive comments of dignified language which shed light on his shortcomings. He seems to choose to reply to certain comments alone.

I request you to please do the necessary.

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 02 Feb 2010 11:24

Not talking to pakis hurts us in the opinion of at least some of the Indians. Let's call them group A. These are the usual suspects we know well and their goal to make India talk to pakis. Let's look at it from a different angle. Talking to pakis hurts some other Indians. Let's call them group B.

On the other hand, not talking to pakis, hurts almost all pakis (at least those who run the show). They are group C. Talking to pakis hurts almost no pakis, but is there a group among pakis to whom it is hurtful when Indian talks to pakis? How about the talibunnies (the bad ones - not the paki sarkari talibunnies)? Let's call them group D. Can one make a postulate that when India-pakis talk, the result is a more intense campaign against group D by group C - as a result of thawed borders and so on? (whether it actually happens or not is not pertinent at this point in the analysis) Now who in the world would desperately want such an outcome? Any entity come to mind? If such an entity existed, and had lots of money, prestigious universities and other incentives to offer in order accomplish such an outcome, would it not shower those goodies on group A?

Let's come back to the groups A and B. Apart from us jingoes, who else is ostensibly or apparently or believed to be part of group B? Unfortunately for India, the so-called Hindutva political constituency is also deemed to be intensely opposed to the idea of talking to pakis - at least in the minds of group A. As long as India doesn't talk to pakis, the group B gains strength and can turn it into electoral gains.

As I see it, group A has twice the incentive to beat the drums of peace - not only do they get paid for it by that third entity, they also benefit domestically in the political arena.

There are no wagah candle kissers - they are just political hacks. There are no 'peace activists' - they are just pocketing the payments from somewhere - in cash or kind.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Feb 2010 11:28

shiv wrote: Fine - but Pakistan is not a single person. Pakistan is a complex entity where the so called government is not in charge. It is the army. And the so called army is an cahoots with terrorists. And the army is not in full control of Pakistan. Do these dialog-cryers even understand what is happening in Pakistan?

OK. Lets talk to Paquistan.

On a related who-is-Really-in-charge-in-Pakistan note : I was actually taken aback by P.Chidambaram's statement last week. He said that state or non-state actors, Pakistan is still responsible if another attack comes from there! This came soon after Gen.Kapoor's statement.
Will have to wait and see if this view becomes consistent !

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 02 Feb 2010 11:29

10%'s technique of dealing with a heckler in the crowd.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2010 11:32

But he sure knows how to shut up hecklers!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2010 11:34

A leopard will not change its spots.

It is of no use to talk to Pakistan.

It is to pretend one is talking to Pakistan and then like Zardari tell them to Shut up!

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 02 Feb 2010 11:40

SaraLax wrote: Just in case , you are not aware... the below link is the blog site of Siddarth Varadarajan... Deputy Editor of The Hindu....

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/

Siddarth Varadarajan, to put it mildly is sympathetic to the (good old) Talibunnies.
In 2001, when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, he happened to report for the ToI.

His reports adopted the line that UN sanctions on the country were a problem, people enjoyed playing football and women nature as told to him by Taliban's friendly media savvy mulah, the existence of photo studios in an Islamic country thereby showing the amount of "openness" in the society, the Bamiyan Buddha's destruction was a political act not motivated by religion at all and drought was the real problem facing the Afghans and how the taxi drivers played Hindi film's music. So much bliss in Taliban ruled Afghanistan!

Later, he must have migrated to the natural habitat of such reporters, the Chindu. And he wrote a book "Gujarat 2002 - Tragedy " or something. He is fully secular only.

Meanwhile, here is another perspective on IPL.

Pak rightly snubbed in IPL

Like Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan can never live in peace with each other because the distrust and hatred stem from the most powerful tool invented by humankind — religion.Today’s jehadi believes the Muslim world’s problems are a result of the America-Israel-India nexus. Kashmir is just one reason; if that gets resolved, some other issue will come up.

In Pakistan, many of the educated, the middle-class and the elite believe the Indians are out to destroy them.
To give you an example, three highly reputed Pakistanis vented vitriolic religious hatred on air describing India post IPL snub. In a TV show hosted by a lady named Farah — Pakistan’s highest paid anchor — the guests were paceman Sohail Tanvir and a journalist named Zahid Farooq Malik. Now, Tanvir became famous, and rich, only after his exploits for Rajasthan Royals in the first edition of the IPL. And here he was, saying on air, “Hinduon ki zahaniyat hi aisi hai (the Hindu nature is like that only)” while describing the IPL snub.

Hello, here’s a cricketer who’s driving a car and living in a house bought out of money he earned in IPL I, and he’s unabashedly bringing in religion in the whole issue! Here’s a person, who as a cricketer is supposed to bring the aam aadmi from India and Pakistan together, talking absolute rot!

The journalist sitting next to Tanvir then calls Indians “baniyas” and goes on to say, “Unki bagal mein chhuri hain aur muh par Ram Ram” even as Farah smiled demurely. The discussion then takes a ridiculous course, with the journalist saying “Hindus” — remember, not Indians — are responsible for Pakistan not hosting matches in 2011 World Cup. This particular episode has become a rage on YouTube.

Pakistani TV shows are full of stories that claim that Ajmal Kasab’s real name is Arun, he lived in the slums of Dharavi and was trained by RAW to carry out the Mumbai attacks at the behest of Bajrang Dal!

The problem with Pakistan is, every single of its leader — dictator or democratic — has used religious extremism and hate-India card to woo the public. Now, they can’t afford to lead the population on the path of religious tolerance.

hasmukh · Post by **hasmukh** » 02 Feb 2010 11:47

Reading the comments made by miyan tanvir and others(ham zahid, bania's etc) and as someone who interacts with educated pakistanis on daily basis, I can only conclude that pakistan is one big mohammedean ghetto with it's people still having ghetto mentality and ghetto fears which is same as kind of any big muslim ghettos in India, Many pakistanis will tell you on your face and I am talking about highly qualified ones that the jews did 9/11, that "bala" thackeray did mumbai blasts, and that their ghetto is surronded by yehudi , yindu out to take their nukes and then finish them as country, the same crap i hear from my indian muslim acquaintances.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Feb 2010 11:48

Neela wrote:
shiv wrote: Fine - but Pakistan is not a single person. Pakistan is a complex entity where the so called government is not in charge. It is the army. And the so called army is an cahoots with terrorists. And the army is not in full control of Pakistan. Do these dialog-cryers even understand what is happening in Pakistan?

OK. Lets talk to Paquistan.

On a related who-is-Really-in-charge-in-Pakistan note : I was actually taken aback by P.Chidambaram's statement last week. He said that state or non-state actors, Pakistan is still responsible if another attack comes from there! This came soon after Gen.Kapoor's statement.
Will have to wait and see if this view becomes consistent !

Is a country not responsible when one of its armed citizens or even groups of them enter another country without the benefit of a passport, bypassing legitimate border controls and procedures and wreak havoc, murder and mayhem.

What is "non state" about these guys? or is it more like "non state of mind"

They have an "elected and democratic" government in pakiland. The people are the government.

They have yet to answer for Akshardam and the parliament attack.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 Feb 2010 11:57

Mushahid 'Mandela' Hussain on the success formula for Pakistan

Due to crucial geographic location in South East Asia, our importance to the US had increased manifold, he said adding our political and economic leadership could work out a strategy in the light of national objectives and goals to seek optimal advantage for Pakistan.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 02 Feb 2010 12:16

Abhijit wrote:Not talking to pakis hurts us in the opinion of at least some of the Indians. Let's call them group A. These are the usual suspects we know well and their goal to make India talk to pakis. Let's look at it from a different angle. Talking to pakis hurts some other Indians. Let's call them group B.

On the other hand, not talking to pakis, hurts almost all pakis (at least those who run the show). They are group C. Talking to pakis hurts almost no pakis, but is there a group among pakis to whom it is hurtful when Indian talks to pakis? How about the talibunnies (the bad ones - not the paki sarkari talibunnies)? Let's call them group D. Can one make a postulate that when India-pakis talk, the result is a more intense campaign against group D by group C - as a result of thawed borders and so on? (whether it actually happens or not is not pertinent at this point in the analysis) Now who in the world would desperately want such an outcome? Any entity come to mind? If such an entity existed, and had lots of money, prestigious universities and other incentives to offer in order accomplish such an outcome, would it not shower those goodies on group A?

Let's come back to the groups A and B. Apart from us jingoes, who else is ostensibly or apparently or believed to be part of group B? Unfortunately for India, the so-called Hindutva political constituency is also deemed to be intensely opposed to the idea of talking to pakis - at least in the minds of group A. As long as India doesn't talk to pakis, the group B gains strength and can turn it into electoral gains.

As I see it, group A has twice the incentive to beat the drums of peace - not only do they get paid for it by that third entity, they also benefit domestically in the political arena.

There are no wagah candle kissers - they are just political hacks. There are no 'peace activists' - they are just pocketing the payments from somewhere - in cash or kind.

Group B as you listed above has very little voice--even major political entities like the so-called hindutva brigade are inarticulate and confused in their approach, so they are not in a position to gain much by not talking to pakis. In any case, even most of group B are subject to the blandishments of universities, fellowships, and what have you, more or less the same as group A.

There is a key reason to not talk to pakis--in their worldview, they see talks as the first step in achieving a surrender by the kufrs, that is why terrorism will in fact increase after talks begin. For pakis it is a natural step, since the kufr has shown weakness and stepped off his perch and taken a step towards surrender, then it is logical to encourage him to take more steps by assaulting him even more. It is savage primitive warfare as far as they are concerned, period.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Feb 2010 12:18

Pulikeshi wrote:If anything, a rational Pakistan will try to seek cordial relationship with India. India seeking cordial relationship with Pakistan will not magically deliver rationality

Pulikeshi-ji

Bravo!

That aptly sums it up and calls out one third of the idiotic Indian thinking (the timid) and Pakis exploiting that thinking with the bluff of "Please talk to us else the bearded fundoos will take over"

There is the next one third. (the unimaginative) Unimaginative SDRE thinking goes "Pakis are our neighbors. You can change your friends but not your neighbors. They are likely to be our neighbors for next 100,000 years. We both have nukes. We cannot decisively win a war over them. Else if we do we will get annihilated. So the option that is left is to talk", and the Pakis exploit it with the bluff "Not talking strengthens the hands of non state actors and risks a nuclear conflict in cashmere. SDREs should talk"

The last one third (the lifafa) is the usual commie/domestic jihadi/WKK types.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Feb 2010 12:21

SSridhar wrote:Mushahid 'Mandela' Hussain on the success formula for Pakistan
Due to crucial geographic location in South East Asia, our importance to the US had increased manifold, he said adding our political and economic leadership could work out a strategy in the light of national objectives and goals to seek optimal advantage for Pakistan.

That aptly sums up Paki attitude "The world is indebted to us because we sat on our musharraf (in south east asia)". By the way, Pakistan used to be central asia, did it move? I didnt notice it crossing over India.

arun · Post by **arun** » 02 Feb 2010 12:36

Gagan wrote:Great news!

Pak not involved in bombing on Prince: S Arabia

Riyadh—Deputy Minister of Interior Prince Ahmad has contradicted recent reports that the Kingdom has traced militants involved in the attempt to assassinate Prince Mohammed bin Naif to Pakistan. “No detention or repatriation of any Saudi suspect from Pakistan in connection with the murderous attacks on Prince Mohammed bin Naif, assistant minister of interior for security affairs, has been made so far,” Arab News quoted Prince Ahmad as saying.

Prince Ahmed, who was conferred the medal of Commander of the International Order of Civil Defence here on Saturday night, said, “The attack on Prince Mohammed has not deterred our resolve. The doors are still open for deviants to surrender and repent in the name of religion and Allah.” The prince was referring to an attempt on Aug. 27 to assassinate Prince Mohammed, who was only slightly injured. The attack was later claimed by Al-Qaeda, which named the bomber as Abdullah bin Hassan bin Taleh Assiri.

...

It looks like the article by Pakistan Observer posted in the now defunct “Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - September 15, 2009” thread on Oct 7th 2009 was premature.

Saudi Gazette, quoting a Yemeni official, is saying the bomb used in the attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s Prince Muhammad Bin Naif Bin Abdul Aziz, was built by a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Namak Haramism of biting the hand that feeds prevalent in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, on full display:

Tuesday, 02 February 2010 - 17 Safar 1431 H

Pakistani built bomb to kill Prince, says Yemeni official

By Abdullah Al-Oraifij

ABYAN, Yemen – Dramatic new claims have been made that a Pakistani explosives expert was responsible for manufacturing the bomb that was used by a suicide bomber in a failed attempt to assassinate Prince Muhammad Bin Naif Bin Abdul Aziz, Assistant Interior Minister for Security Affairs at his palace in Jeddah last August.

Talking to Okaz, Ahmad Al-Maseeri, Governor of Abyan in Yemen, said that the man who made the explosive capsule, used by Abdullah Hasan Al-Asiri in his attempt to kill the Prince, was a Pakistani.

The Pakistani expert was killed sometime last year, after being blown up by his own explosive device, said Al-Maseeri.

Al-Maseeri claimed that the man had trained many members of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula on ways to build and detonate explosive devices. “The Pakistani expert was highly skilled in making explosive devices and had been teaching and training some individuals in Al-Qaeda on how to make and use explosives.” ………………………..

Saudi Gazette

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 02 Feb 2010 12:48

Peace in the subcontinent will be achieved only if the SDREs gird up their loins, think creatively and produce options for deterrence (I dont mean the new-clear variety), so we can squeeze the b@lls of the Pakis at will. It cannot be (fully) based on the armed forces

As is popularly said "Peace is about having a bigger stick than the other guy" .

Yes , we should talk to TSP but only when we have a big enough stick which can make them bend on our terms.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 02 Feb 2010 13:23

Off-late, I am finding myself in a difficult position when dealing with discussions on TSP. Some of you might have possibly experienced this as well.

What would you do if you are called a right-wing Hindutvadi esp. when talking about Pakistan?
This happens usually when the opposite party is cornered and use this as their last line of defence. This leads to a shutdown of brain activity and the repeated use of the said term!
What is the comeback?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Feb 2010 13:48

I usually accuse the other party of being an Islamist, child rape supporter and a possible terrorist sympathiser. Whatever you say about his economic policies, Bush-II can't be beat for the clarity on this subject.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Feb 2010 14:09

Gen."KIll-any" is a joker par-execllence. He doesn't want to 'control" PAFghanistan,but lusts after it as being Pak's "strategic depth"! Has he ahd a talk with the Afghan govt. or their people about this?Do they want to be Pak's "strategic depth".In fcat the "depths" to which the state of Pak has plummeted in recent times makes one wonder whether any right thinking state wants to have anything to do with pak,as Paki is the acknowledged global epicentre of Islamist terror.The Afghans least of al would want the insidious innnnnfleuence of Pak in any form especially Pak's diabolic offspring the Taliban to have anything to do with running the country.

Pakistan should be treated like a "leper colony" ot a toxic waste dump.All contacts with it cut off and it should be allowed to exist on its own without any contact with civilised nations.A foreign friend ,living in Pak attached to a foreign institution,recently told me how hated the individual was by the Paki establishment because my friend was blunt and forthright in showing the Pakis how badly they were treating their countrymen and their women (slaves) especially.Since the Pakis are bankrypt and depend upon foreign crumbs,they have to stomach the presence of foreign institutions,especially bankers.

In the absence of any entity in Pak who can assure India of movement upon the cessation of cross-border terror,we should simply stop talking.As Shiv said,quoting Sid Vardarajan's plea to talk to Pak because "we are hurting",I relish the "hurt" too! In fact we should emulate our mystics and take a vow of silence with Pak for another century! The Israelis are doing just that with the Palestinians who are now dominated by a militant Hamas,by building a wall to prevent their version of "cross-border" terror.True that the scale is vastly different,but the principle can be applied.A wall or fence all along the border,monitored by a chain of forts and bases and a "wall" of silence until Pak breaks up and disappears from the global map of nations,or a miracle happens and it understands (and acts ) that its future prosperity and peace lies with being a good neighbour to India.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Feb 2010 14:20

If you cant do the above then --

Smile condescendingly and mention that the party has no data points to talk of if they need to get to personal insults

Also wonder that the death of 6 year old Kashmir Pandit girls does not bother them but merely your "views" do -- wonder aloud in front of them how their minds are wired.

Shame them into the truth -- at least this we can learn from Mahatma's method.

---

I am assuming these are people you dont wish to destroy but bring them over to the side of light.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Feb 2010 14:59

Neela wrote: What would you do if you are called a right-wing Hindutvadi esp. when talking about Pakistan?
This happens usually when the opposite party is cornered and use this as their last line of defence. This leads to a shutdown of brain activity and the repeated use of the said term!
What is the comeback?

I usually start by saying. "OK so I am a right wing Hindutvadi so lets set that question aside. Nevertheless Pakistan is blah blah blah." In fact once you are declared a right wing Hindutvadi, it gives you room to play games with those who call you that. For example you can start saying that you would like to see all people of group X killed , or banished way beyond the northern sea and that you want group X to wear FFFD colored arm bands etc. Once you have gone those those lengths to prove that your opponents are right in calling you whatever - you can say whatever you like fearlessly and not have to defend yourself. And if they have any cogent arguments you can take those arguments on their merit or reject them. Never ever call them by names like "pseudosecular", "dhimmi" etc. That will start an equal equal game. You can take on moral high ground by not calling them anything but allowing them to call you names.

Sorry OT

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 02 Feb 2010 15:27

Store calls cops after fishy story about perfume
By Julie Manganis
Staff writer

PEABODY — Just about everyone has received a gift of perfume or cologne that they did not like.

http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_s ... 01117.html

Shah, 27, of Brooklyn, N.Y., insisted he had received the fragrances for Christmas but did not like them, a prosecutor said.

What Shah didn't know is that the store was already on alert after two men had just returned $500 worth of perfumes and colognes to another Sephora store at the Burlington Mall with a similar tale of holiday disappointment. And that the night before, thieves had made off with thousands of dollars' worth of fragrances from the Sephora store in Natick.

Now Manzoor and Shah are facing charges of receiving stolen property worth more than $250. Until yesterday, both were being held on $25,000 cash bail, after a Peabody District Court judge found their lack of ties to the state warranted a high bail.

Yesterday, lawyers for the pair argued for a reduction in bail. Salem Superior Court Judge John Lu agreed, knocking Manzoor's bail to $15,000 and Shah's to $10,000.

Both managed to come up with the cash within hours of the hearing.

They noted that both men, who are originally from Pakistan, are now United States citizens.

Both men have been ordered to surrender their passports as a condition of release.

They are due back in Peabody District Court on Feb. 23.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 02 Feb 2010 15:37

I'm not making this up, just unbelievably moronic or should i say simply only a Paki could think like this:

Please Allow Ball Tampering: Afridi

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 02 Feb 2010 15:42

Recall the Gujral doctrine anyone? And then the vajpayee doctrine? All of which failed w.r.t. Papistan? Well, now is Sri MMS is determined to get his own Manmohan doctrine w.r.t. TSP too?

After all that huffing and puffing on 'no talks till 26/11 perps are tried' etc, here's the new PC downhill ski line....
Talks with Pak possible during SAARC: Chidambaram

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 02 Feb 2010 15:52

Hari Seldon wrote:Recall the Gujral doctrine anyone? And then the vajpayee doctrine? All of which failed w.r.t. Papistan? Well, now is Sri MMS is determined to get his own Manmohan doctrine w.r.t. TSP too?

After all that huffing and puffing on 'no talks till 26/11 perps are tried' etc, here's the new PC downhill ski line....
Talks with Pak possible during SAARC: Chidambaram

"A bilateral meeting" is hardly equal to "Resumption of composite Dialog". For one ,I'll be happy with another few empty promises. After all , TSP has been doing this to us for the longest time , about time we did the same.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 02 Feb 2010 17:21

"A bilateral meeting" is hardly equal to "Resumption of composite Dialog". For one ,I'll be happy with another few empty promises. After all , TSP has been doing this to us for the longest time , about time we did the same.

Fair enough. Lets hope it won;t prove to be the proverbial slippery slope.

BTW, the 1-on-1 bilateral summit level meets at different fora like NAM in Cuba and all didn't produce much and in some instances actually pushed us back a bit (S-e-S anyone?). Thankfully, seems like MMS and AAZ didn;t get much time to hang out together at Copenhagen only.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 02 Feb 2010 17:42

Sticking to Nehru’s views

After bleeding a million bodies the blade of Partition had barely taken a pause, when Pakistan invaded Kashmir. Pakistan claimed they were the outraged tribesmen, but subsequent events were to prove the Pakistani army was also involved. But so vociferous and effective were the Pakistani claims of innocence that the world at large was taken in. Since then Pakistan has perfected ‘denial’ into an art form. This ‘state support’ to violence across the borders eventually turned into terrorism; first in Punjab, then in J&K and soon thereafter in the rest of the country.

Long after the blades of Partition had been sheathed, Pakistan continued with its strategy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India. It was a low cost, minimum risk but high returns enterprise. There is therefore little reason to believe that Pakistan will abandon terror as an instrument of state policy. If Pakistan has been consistent in its approach, so it seems are we. Ours however is the uniformity of the timid.

Despite Shashi Tharoor’s withering view of aspects of Nehru’s foreign policy, it will be hard to disagree with Nehru on India’s tepid response to Pakistan’s aggression. Regardless of Tharoor’s reservations, Nehru’s observations on a policy file at the height of tensions in Kashmir in December 1947 were to prove prophetic. On the issue itself he wrote: “What is happening in Kashmir is not merely a frontier raid but a regular war, on a limited scale, with the latest weapons being used on part of the invaders. It is clear that the Pakistan government is encouraging this in every way. Army officers and men are helping the invaders.”

He reflected on India’s response as: “It seems to me that our outlook has been defensive and apologetic, as if we were ashamed of what we were doing and we are not quite sure of how far we should go. I see nothing to apologise for and a defensive way of meeting raiders seems to me completely wrong.” Had Nehru been alive today, wouldn’t he have written similarly on the policy files of ministry of external affairs?

Essentially our response remains just along the lines of Nehru’s lament. Be it the terrorist attack on Parliament when we lined up troops futilely along the border, or the Kargil war when we refrained from crossing the LoC, or 26/11 when for long we kept insisting that it was the work of non-state actors; the essence of our response remains half-hearted and apologetic.
But having written what he wrote in 1947, would Nehru have handled any of these situations differently? Nehru himself provides a clue. In that note of December 1947 he goes on to add: “Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable… This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side.”

This was no moralistic running commentary. It was hardheaded realism. But having set out the issue and outlining the only effective course available to India, Nehru and his generation held back. Just as the succeeding generations have done, with the solitary exception of Indira Gandhi.

The point at issue is not war, but the nature of our response. Why was it that having diagnosed correctly and having made the right prescription, Nehru refrained from taking the action that he had advocated? Doesn’t that signal weakness? Isn’t this a major reason why deterrence is not seen by others as a part of our armoury? Call it complacence, fatalism or supine acceptance. This lack of an effective response on our part has nothing to do with the caste, creed or belief. It is simply a product of the benign Indian soil. Any one of our one billion would probably be equally soft and forgiving. Perhaps, this attitude has more to do with a deeply ingrained desire not to displease the other. The confidence that we will not strike back is a major reason why India has suffered foreign rulers for years. While our response, or lack of it, has remained static others have diversified.

The nature of aggression has changed; terror has added an important new dimension to war. State and non-state actors are coordinating their strategy brazenly; it is amazing how after every major terror strike the Pakistani state apparatus springs into a media offensive with readymade subterfuge and diversion — Look at the way they keep asking India for more evidence, when everything that happened in 26/11 was planned from Pakistan. The nature of targets has changed too. It is no longer simply a case of conquest of territory. Pakistan uses to the full its capacity to befuddle the west, with consequent pressure on India to accommodate and concede.

A manifestation of this tactic is the rumours afloat currently that India will initiate the dialogue. There is also talk that autonomy for Kashmir is a matter of time. But others warn grimly that autonomy would be the thin end of the Pakistani wedge. They doubt that Pakistan’s gameplan is limited to Kashmir; otherwise the targets of its terror would not have principally included India’s economic centres.

Today there is growing recognition that India is poised at the edge of economic greatness. A part of it may be wishful thinking by a west disenchanted with China. India may therefore find itself propelled towards high growth because it suits the strategists in Washington and Brussels.

But prosperity, and economic heights, cannot be sustained in isolation. To remain truly great a country must be powerful. It is a historic fact that financially rich, but militarily weak, nations are tempting targets; just as India was so often in the past. Therefore it would be simplistic to presume that goodwill alone will safeguard our prosperity. Or that conceding demands like autonomy will be the end of all our troubles. In fact they may just be the beginning.

Ever since Independence India has consciously used democracy as a tool for nation building Pakistan’s birth pangs were layered by its leaders with a coating of envy. In November 1957, Nehru must have been mulling over this contrast when in a letter to the chief ministers he wrote” “Our world is a haunted one in which every country has its own special ghost to carry”. For India it meant Pakistan. “No government in that country has any policy,” Nehru added, “except of fear and hatred of India and till that ceases the future is dark”. Those words are as valid today as they were when Nehru wrote them. His political heirs would do well not to ignore them .

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Feb 2010 18:16

Nihat wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote:Recall the Gujral doctrine anyone? And then the vajpayee doctrine? All of which failed w.r.t. Papistan? Well, now is Sri MMS is determined to get his own Manmohan doctrine w.r.t. TSP too?

After all that huffing and puffing on 'no talks till 26/11 perps are tried' etc, here's the new PC downhill ski line....
Talks with Pak possible during SAARC: Chidambaram
"A bilateral meeting" is hardly equal to "Resumption of composite Dialog". For one ,I'll be happy with another few empty promises. After all , TSP has been doing this to us for the longest time , about time we did the same.

Do not underestimate the capacity of our team to score a spectacular "self goal".

The nobel peace prize ka daud has blinded many a Indian politician
and the sharm el sheik fiasco was but a manifestation of that mindset.

The captain has recently brought in a new center forward to replace the last recalcitrant one who is now cooling his heels in a raj bhawan.

Some of our team members may be dressed in our opponent's colors.

The US coach, is as usual, calling the play.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 02 Feb 2010 18:46

harbans wrote:I'm not making this up, just unbelievably moronic or should i say simply only a Paki could think like this:
Please Allow Ball Tampering: Afridi

More on the ball-muncher from the Oz perpective:

Shahid Afridi's cheating defence: everyone does it
I tell ya, it gets dumber by the minute.

SHAHID Afridi is alleged to have taken chunks from the ball with his teeth. Afridi was caught on camera furtively biting into the ball like it was an apple during Rana Naved's 45th over in Perth.

"I was frustrated because the Pakistan team hasn't won any match for quite some time."

Aerodynamic experts who have conducted wind tunnel tests on swing bowling told The Australian yesterday the easiest way to gain reverse swing is to disturb the quarter seam close to the main seam. If the narrow seam is lifted by something like a player's teeth or fingernail it will reverse.

Afridi's ball tampering ban, however, is Pakistan's greatest embarrassment from a humiliating tour.

I wonder what else is left for the pakis to do on or off the field to top this embarrasment? Pee on the sidelines in full public view? No holds-barred brawl amongst the players on the field