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

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

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

Post by csharma »

According to Brajesh Mishra, it is the PM who is behind SeS, talks etc. Maybe MMS can't say no to US, UK.

http://www.zeenews.com/zeeexclusive/201 ... 9news.html#
Swati: Shiv Shankar Menon was our Foreign Secretary at Sharm-el Sheikh where for the first time, Balochistan was brought to the agenda. Now he is special envoy to the Prime Minister. They say that this U-turn was based on national interest due to Menon?

Brajesh Mishra: I don’t talk about personalities. When M K Narayanan was NSA even then Sharm-el-Sheikh was held. It is not a matter of personalities. Government servants just act on orders.

Swati: And who is giving the orders?

Brajesh Mishra: The PM is giving the orders.

Swati: If all this is true, then why is Home Minister P Chidambaram and Defence Minister A K Antony telling the government via the CCS that what you are doing will send the wrong signal. Does there exist divergence in the views of the government?

Brajesh Mishra: Our Foreign Minister has given an interview to two TV channels saying that we are talking but no dialogue yet. If Pakistan says something about Kashmir, and we say we are ready to address its concerns via talks, then what is this if not the start of a composite dialogue process?

It is useless to concentrate on image-building now. We must instead build our military capacities by way of getting the latest technologies. Economic growth will be useless in its absence. National security and economic growth share a cause-effect relationship.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4439
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

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

Post by vera_k »

charma wrote:Maybe MMS can't say no to US, UK.
No. As per the HT articles, MMS is of the opinion that -

1. The Kashmir problem prevents India from being counted as a Tier 1 power and

2. Spending less money on arms will allow more development spending
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

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

Post by csharma »

Do the HT articles say how MMS wants to resolve the Kashmir issue? Is he willing to provide concessions? That would be total disaster.

With LKA threatening unprecedented agitation over any Kashmir concession, something could be in the offing.

We can just hope that these talks will be chai biscuit only and nothing more.

Just found this.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 593973.cms
Senior leader L K Advani, in his concluding address at the party's national council meeting here on Friday, said, "There has been a fraud... no meetings or discussions were held, yet a report on Kashmir was prepared and submitted. We are shocked to gather that the Congress government is seriously toying with the idea of reversing the clock back, and restoring the pre-1953 position. I wish to warn New Delhi that if there is any move in that direction, the government will be inviting the biggest political confrontation free India has seen, and the BJP will spare no sacrifice to thwart New Delhi's unholy intentions."

The tough rhetoric comes after the BJP's estimate that the forthcoming talks between India and Pakistan have been brokered by the US and could result in major concessions to Islamabad on Kashmir as part of a larger gameplan to secure Pakistan army's involvement in the war on terror.
Last edited by csharma on 22 Feb 2010 14:09, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

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

Post by Sanku »

RayC; I am completely with you when you say that I (and others like me) am in a minority of sorts in terms of the our approach towards Indian national vision etc.

However (and since this is OT only one sentence here) -- currently the way our democracy is structured, a Govt can be in power without remotely being majority preference for people this is a consequence of first past the post system along with vote bank politics.

I also agree that we need to hit them covertly, however they should know where the hit came from (in a diffused manner) without being able to prove it -- a cause and effect has to be established in their mind between crime and punishment.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4439
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

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

Post by vera_k »

charma wrote:Do the HT articles say how MMS wants to resolve the Kashmir issue?
Link
So why not find a Kashmir solution based on soft borders and regional cooperation and prosperity?
Link 2
Last edited by vera_k on 22 Feb 2010 14:35, edited 1 time in total.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 695
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

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

Post by csharma »

That kind of solution will not fly because Pakistan will not make peace with India and also it will lose its utility to China if it gives hostility to India. So even a guy like Vir Sanghvi can figure this out.

The other thing is that such kind of solution will not fly with Indian people after Mumbai attacks.

India's defence spending is already low at 2.5% of GDP. After soft border and the utopian solution of the Pakistan problem, will it go to 1% to aid development efforts? I think if India gives Tawang to China as well as hand over Dalai Lama then defence spending can go down to 0.5% It can go down to 0% only if any territorial disputes with Bangladesh are resolved in Bangladesh's favor. Luckily, there is no land boundary with Sri Lanka.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

self-deleted.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Feb 2010 14:37, edited 1 time in total.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Post by Philip »

There are three interests at work here.First,the US which wants a Pax Americana for the region,which supports the US's selfish interests.Then comes the interests of the Pakis,who want a castrated India,which they imagine they can conquer on the battlefield,or a neutered India,with US asisstance,which they can defeat across the diplomatic table,obtaining their desires without fighting.Last of all there is "good Dr.Singh's" interests,which need not represent those of India.Well knowing that he is on borrowed time,with his heart condition,our good spin-doctor ,will try and peddle some more snake-oil to the nation for "peace" before he sails out into the sunset with his legacy as peace-maker intact (and possibly a ig-noble prize too!).With the comforting assurances of the Americans,perhaps not too far into the future,we will see the good doctor Singh return from Islamabad,Lahore,Karachi,London or wherever waving to the crowds with a document in hand,with these words....

"My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back (this time) from Pakistan to India peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time . We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds."

...words made immortal by that great statesman of the last century on his return from Munich,Neville Chamberlain.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

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

Post by Airavat »

Pakistan's obsessive aim
Pakistan’s powerful army chief, General Ashraf Kayani, recently said his country has “opened all doors’’ to cooperation with US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. But he warned that Pakistan’s “strategic paradigm has to be realized’’ in Afghanistan. He meant a postwar Afghan government friendly to Pakistan and resistant to India. This has been the obsessive aim of Pakistani policy in Afghanistan ever since Pakistani intelligence forces midwifed the birth of the Taliban in the mid-’90s. Afghan-Pak hostility actually dates much further back to the time of the creation of Pakistan

.....US military commanders in Afghanistan have wisely insisted that the war be concluded by political means. The current troop surge is aimed at convincing insurgent factions to seek a peace deal with the Afghan government. So President Obama needs to warn Pakistan that true cooperation means helping, not hindering, such an agreement.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

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

Post by Hari Seldon »

As for pressure tactics on TSP, I'm told that Sri PVNR hinted at the use of water as a pressure tool to get TSP to back off and easen up on Khalistan thereby allowing the Punjab state govt polls to go through. Those polls brought the INC and Beant Singh to power and the rest, as they say, is history.

It takes an open mind to see potential tools for what they can be (not necessarily water only) and not just for what they are. I'm hoping to see current sarkar show some sign it understands and is doing everything it can to press home India's advantage.
Sen_K
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 07:13

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

Post by Sen_K »

Devil's Advocate: Debate on Indo-Pakistan talks with Mani Shankar Aiyar and Kanwal Sibal

Kanwal Sibal was realistic whereas Mani Shankar Aiyar was clearly upbeat as a Pakiphile.
Karan Thapar: But the Pakistanis continue to perpetrate terror upon us. We believe that they are responsible for Pune and that hasn't put us off talking. Rather than punish them, we seem to be rewarding them with talks.

Mani Shankar Aiyar: I think its A) Not our business to be punishing them and I don't think we will succeed and B ) I don't think there is any reward given to Pakistan in doing something which is in our national self interest.
..
Kanwal Sibal: But what reality. The reality that we should accept is that Pakistan is not going to change. Pakistan would use terror as an instrument of state policy which Prime Minister said couple of months ago.

Karan Thapar: No, the reality that you are accepting is that by refusing to talk you haven't got Pakistan to cooperate on terror. Now, what you must try is to encourage them by talking.

Kanwal Sibal: But they won't be encouraged.

Karan Thapar: How do you know?

Kanwal Sibal: Because they consider terror as an instrument of state policy against India. They want to use terrorism as an instrument of pressure. They want to do both things - bring you into talks - but to make sure that you are continually pressed to make concessions that they want. To have periodic terrorist attacks against you to send the signal to you that this pressure is not going to be given up and therefore you must accept the reality of this pressure and tally your policy accordingly.
...
Karan Thapar: Kanwal Sibal, I am asking you a different question. If you are correct and the response is disappointing on terror which is the critical subject for India, what should the Indian government do?

Kanwal Sibal: I think they have no choice but to continue talking because then we would look even more foolish.
---
Karan Thapar: --But surely you are not saying we should give up testing Pakistan forever?

Kanwal Sibal: How many years do you want to test this? You had lots of blasts in India. You had your embassy in Kabul blown up twice. You had Pune
---
Karan Thapar: Can I interrupt. Are you suggest that it is bribes that has changed Pakistan's position vis-à-vis afghan Taliban and therefore only bribes will succeed at the end of the day.

Kanwal Sibal: No bribes, reality of building pressure. Reality of military strength. Reality of determination and reality of sanctions.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Hari Seldon wrote: The argument that development and security are somehow a zero sum game - i.e. focus on one is == slippage in the other - is as specious as it is dangerous.
In fact nothing could be better news than his. My only argument has been that Pakistani entities have been attempting to force India's hand by making India spend more and more on internal security so that attention on any other governance needs will be reduced. If it is not happening as you (and others) say then holding Pakistan at bay should not be a problem even as development continues apace in the presence of acts of terror from time to time. This is where we are now.

But that leads to the next set of questions

What will it take to stop even those few acts of terror which India has cheerfully absorbed even as it retains enough money and material for development?

Can India absorb the cost of doing what it takes to stop terrorism altogether from Pakistan, even while it retains enough manpower and wealth to continue or even accelerate development activity?

What does India need to do to stop all acts of terror from Pakistan?

Are there any cheap military options?

Are there any cheap options?

What are the costly options?

There is a completely separate subject of non military pressure on Pakistan which we never talk about. I will try and bring up some points in a separate post - currently it is whirring around in my mind.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

Rudradev wrote:On this note one should consider Taiwan, the rival that has long been propped up by the West against the PRC. For decades, Taiwan's GDP and rate of growth towered over that of PRC, a differential that has never applied to Pakistan against India. The Taiwanese were also supplied by the West with the latest armaments, all directed against the PRC. Yet, the PRC never made compromises with respect to Taiwan, in order to catch up with Taiwan's GDP or develop economically in its own right. It stood up to the Western proxy, armed itself with enough capability to invade the island if necessary, and still continued with its own economic development in an unflagging manner.
I’m afraid this is an overtly simplistic assessment of China’s stand vis a vis Taiwan. China is very explicit on its claims on Taiwan and yet the Taiwanese armed forces have been armed by the US for decades and was definitely till recently far superior to the Chinese forces in terms of quality.
It’s only now that China has threatened overt economic sanctions against US entities which arm Taiwan. Before it’s typical reaction was a lot of bluster and military exercises and pointing more missiles against Taiwan etc. Nothing was directed against the US except for a lot of verbiage. Let’s not put Uncle Jiang on a pedestal for the sake of promoting one POV.
Today we say: $1.3 trillion GDP isn't enough for us to stand up to Pakistan (let alone the US). It isn't enough for us to consolidate our strategic, diplomatic and security interests even in our own near abroad. Instead we must do exactly as the US says, and pursue peace with Pakistan at any cost, at least until 2015 or whenever we have a $4-$5 trillion GDP (as China has now).

Let's say we do this (at the incalculable price of sacrificing our national interest even within the confines of our own neighbourhood). Let's say we continue along the path MMS is taking now and wait to develop a $4-$5 trillion GDP.

When we have it, what then? Will we look at China's $10 trillion GDP and say "well, $4 or $5 trillion doesn't really cut it in terms of global influence. Let's just make more compromises and count on losing another six or seven thousand Indian lives to terrorism every year until we hit the $10 trillion mark"?

This makes no sense to me at all. India is not a corporation, not a cash cow with shareholders to answer to. India is a nation, a nation of people whose interests must be secured for generations to come. For all their ruthless corporatism the Chinese have never lost sight of the difference.
I’m sorry boss but either you did not understand my argument or you are twisting it.

I’m quite clear in my mind that we are at a level where we can swat the Pakistanis any time we want to provided the US and its friends don’t prop them up. However, the whole premise of my argument is how we can realistically build influence within the US so that it makes sense for pressure groups on Capitol Hill to drive a change in the US govt policy.

While all this reference to Wilsonian idealists and Hamiltonian realists in politics and economics respectively sounds nice, in bare bone terms what matters is a question of: Show me the Money.

And ultimately the levers of US power is best manipulated via US business interests. In order to get them sufficiently interested we need a bigger economy so that the prize of economic cooperation with India is bigger and is worth letting the Pakis go.

Now will it pan out after we hit US$4-US$5 trillion? I think it’s obvious that that’s not an immediate given. It will ultimately depend on the political leadership and whether they have the political acumen and skill to use this new found economic clout to India’s advantage. If we don’t have the right leadership even the world’s third or fourth largest economy would not help.

The other point is at present even assuming we had a “braveheart” Nationalist government in power today, we/they wouldn’t have the wherewithal to sufficiently sway US interest groups.
Previous governments have exercised coercive diplomacy against Pakistan (and the US) without ending up in a confrontation, yet leading to very tangible national security benefits.
I’m sure you’re referring to Operation Parakram here as apart from that mobilization I don’t recall any other coercive actions from the NDA govt apart from heavy rhetoric. (Please note here that while the NDA govt pulled the nuclear trigger and deserve compliments for that, the ground work was done by the PVNR govt. This is the same as your point later about the ongoing nature of such projects. The NDA govt did not pull Pokharan out of its hat).

You have highlighted the benefits which Parakram brought. And I personally think it was a good move on the part of the NDA govt.

But I’m sure you’d agree that even that didn’t prove to be a permanent solution. We may have got Musharraff browning his pants but despite that there were the Delhi and Ayodhya blasts after that, not to speak of Mumbai. So long term I don’t see how coercive diplomacy would/will work with the Pakis as long as we can’t wean away the Amercians.

It is to squeeze the US so that they guarantee our interests, economic and political and military, in exchange for our avoiding a confrontation.
Undoubtedly it’s basic baniya logic. But it’s also baniya logic that you need to get to the capability to be able to do that. How do you propose that India does that? By playing a spoiler with Iran and in Afghanistan? Do you think the US would be so scared of that they will back off from Pakistan? If wishes were horses…
If the MMS government can guarantee the safety of the Indian people by internal security means alone, and without yielding any concessions to the Pakistanis, well and good. If it cannot guarantee the security of the Indian people while maintaining its "holding operation" then the "holding operation" has failed and must be replaced by a strategy that imposes retaliatory costs on those endangering the Indian people... no two ways about it.
I agree with you on this but the point is we really don’t know yet whether the holding operation has failed or not. I don’t know how it was done or whether it is just good fortune but the fact remains that after 26/11 it was the first time since terror strikes started in India outside of J&K we’ve had more than a year without any incidents before the Pune blast.

I agree with you the IPL and Commonwealth Games are prime targets as would be the Hockey World Cup and the remaining two One-Dayers with South Africa. Now there’s two options before India. One is the easy way out. Take IPL overseas and cancel all the other events. Or tighten security as much as possible and hope for the best. Now tell me what is the better option?
This is why it can take years for anything to happen. The nuclear submarine ATV program was begun by the NDA government in leasing INS Chakra from the Russians but has only borne fruit today. Missile research, LCA development, Arjun development all proceed at their own pace no matter who happens to be the government of the day. If any of these programs meet their milestones during a particular government's tenure, it does not necessarily mean that the government of the day should get any credit for it.

Of course, the government *can* if it wants, change things. The PM (along with his MOD and COAS) can take personal interest in accelerating defense acquisitons and if he does, it will have a dramatic effect. The MRCA could be decided on and purchased within weeks if MMS decided to move on it.
I’m sorry but your facts are bit mixed up here. The ATV programme started much before the NDA govt. However, procurement of big ticket defence items is not the issue. It’s the willingness to test missiles and develop new ones. You know if the govt really wanted to go slow on defence it could have deferred the anti ballistic missile tests, the Agni 3, Shourya and a host of other projects which all seem to be moving towards culmination.

And I’m sure you’ve seen press reports that state that there’s a move to speed up the MRCA acquisition. Also there’s a massive move to ramp up security in the North East. Now surely you’re point is not that the UPA govt which is a cat in the west becomes a tiger in the east?
Since the 1960s, the only GOI that has actively prioritized jumpstarting the military acquisitions process has been the Rajiv Gandhi government. Of course they were sloppy about kickbacks and such, and lost re-election largely on account of the Bofors scandal.
I agree with you on this. And it is the singular responsibility of the non-Congress parties that they have kept the ghost of Bofors alive all these years by not getting to the bottom of the so called Rs64 crores kickbacks and the net result has been a badly crippled the Army which hasn’t been able to induct much needed artillery for more than two decades. Was it too difficult to bring the perpetrators of this kickback to book in the years that VP Singh and others were in power or more later when the NDA govt was in power for six years? Neither was that done, nor did the non Congress govts have the nerve to go out and buy new guns. Isn't just picking up the UPA govt on this a case of selective blame fixing?
Last edited by amit on 22 Feb 2010 17:09, edited 1 time in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

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

Post by amit »

When the GOI responded to this dismal state of affairs by launching "Aman ki Asha", and then making this offer of talks... I think that sent a lot of optimistic fence-sitters over the edge into complete loss of faith in the government. The continuation of this travesty after Pune has not helped.
TOI's Aman ki Asha tamasha is one of the most idiotic campaigns I've seen and the articles printed there seems straight out a kind of WKKs in Wonderland bringing the latest news to your living room kind of idioticy.

However, saying GOI launched Aman ki Asha without any proof is unfortunately akin to floating a Strawman. And very soon this will become a part of popular BRF folklore and people will keep on repeating it. And we all know that something repeated sufficiently enough becomes the truth. A good psy-ops tool I must say.

I see this Govt launched Aman ki Asha will soon join the UPA won because the EVMs were rigged as the top favourite Urban Legends on BRF.
Last edited by amit on 22 Feb 2010 16:29, edited 1 time in total.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

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

Post by Pranav »

RayC wrote: I laud your nationalistic sentiments, but since the INC has been voted in with a large majority, your views are not shared by the majority. Unfortunate as that it maybe, you have to concede to that. You are the vocal minority that has to sit under the banyan tree. Rajiv Gandhi?

The reality that you talk about is not what Manmohan feels. He is wrong, right? What can you do about it? It is a democracy we live in.

The INC is failing us internally (terrorism and price rise) and externally too (appeasement; heard Brajesh Mishra interview on News X?). India having voted Manmohan can only grin and bear it! Lets now await the Budget.
The bold statements are all debatable (in the EVM thread).
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Some interesting bells ring in my mind reading the Brajesh Mishra and Sibal-Aiyer interview

Some quotes:
Swati: But we have still not stopped talking to Pakistan. Is it owing to US pressure? Has our nation become a stooge of America?

Brajesh Mishra: It is not just USA. Even UK is involved in this. Both these countries are jointly exerting pressure thinking that till Pakistan is worried about Hindustan, they won’t be looked at. This has only encouraged it more. Initially it was just Kashmir, now it is the Indus Water treaty, Balochistan and the demand for India to leave Afghanistan. The Army Chief of that country has himself stated that Pak Army is India-centric. So if this is the attitude, how can we talk?
And from the Thapar-Sibal-MSAiyer talk
Karan Thapar: And let me put to you one reason why talking actually is a sensible thing to do. Pakistan has just shown that by arresting Maulana Baradar, the number 2 man in Taliban, they are beginning to cooperate with Americans. Since then, two of the shadow governors of Taliban, both Abdul Salam and Mullah Mohammad have also been arrested. Now, possibly, even Mohammad Haqqani has been targetted with Pakistani cooperation. If they are beginning to change their policy vis-à-vis the Afghan Taliban, there is reason to believe...test them, they may also change their policy vis-à-vis LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba). What's wrong in that test?

Kanwal Sibal: What pressure would you bring? Are you going to give three and a half billion dollars of military aid to the Pakistan, ten billion dollars of economic aid to Pakistan? Are you going to launch drone attacks into Pakistan's territory? Are you going to threaten them that if they do not behave, America will do the job itself?

Karan Thapar: Can I interrupt. Are you suggest that it is bribes that has changed Pakistan's position vis-à-vis afghan Taliban and therefore only bribes will succeed at the end of the day.

Kanwal Sibal: No bribes, reality of building pressure. Reality of military strength. Reality of determination and reality of sanctions.
Both Kanwal Sibal and Brajesh Mishra are very clear about the position taken by the US (and the UK) and the clout that the US has.

But Brajesh Mishra goes on to say soething else
US has given USD 12bn as aid to Pakistan. It has even sent it some F-16s recently. America is not anti-India.(really?? Well blow me down! :shock: ) By helping Pakistan, it is only promoting its own national interest. But China is an ally of the enemy country. China and Pak are one against India. This time we have been left all alone. The only way out is to strengthen internal defences (Only internal defences? No war?) so much so that both these countries understand that pressure on India will no longer be able to work.
Clearly we will never fight war against Pakistan unless Pakistan starts the war. That option is out.
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

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

Post by Nihat »

amit wrote:However, the whole premise of my argument is how we can realistically build influence within the US so that it makes sense for pressure groups on Capitol Hill to drive a change in the US govt policy.
.
right here Amit , you hit the nail on the head. It's been long known that US knows only it's intrests and rightly so too.

We want to take care of TSP for good , then we've got to learn to manage it's aliies as right from the beginning TSP has been a proxy state , it could be KSA , US or now China. We can continue to beat the pulp out of TSP but the terror will not stop , the rhetoric and threats will not go away until TSP has backing from the US.

It's a battle for our diplomacy , not for our military to gain sufficiant pull over the US and make certain that after it withdraws from Afghanistan after 2011 , India is there to fill the void and increase the differences between Islamabaad and Washington without putting our strategic intrests on the line or becoming the next Japan.

Come to think of it - where would TSP be today without US support. It's economy would have crashed long ago and most of it's modern military equipment would be off the shelf.

The United states is in post-Cold War handover wrt to TSP and it is India's responsibility shake Unkil out of it.
AjayKK
BRFite
Posts: 1520
Joined: 10 Jan 2008 10:27

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

Post by AjayKK »

Pak Sikhs want to return to India: Kin of Taliban victim
New Delhi: Pakistani Sikh community has appealed to India to provide visas to them so that they could migrate to the country to escape the Taliban. A day after a Sikh was beheaded in the Khyber Agency of Pakistan, the cousin of the victim has said it was getting more dangerous for Sikhs to live in the country.

“We want to return to India but we are not getting the visas. The Taliban keep demanding jiziya (religious tax) from us,” Arvind Singh, the cousin of Jaspal Singh beheaded by the Taliban on Sunday, told a TV channel.
We give Pak CBMs and they give us ICBMs - ISI Cross-Border Militants
(50 kb image capturing the essence of chankian talks)
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

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

Post by anupmisra »

Why is India giving the pakis access to the Hurryiat? In exchange will the Indians ask access to the Baloch and Balti nationalists?
The team is expected to interact with several persons, including Hurryiat Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

MJ Akbar
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/540 ... itics.html
Singh knows he is taking huge risks. He has deliberately underplayed hard evidence from Indian intelligence that Pak-based, anti-Indian terrorist organisations continue to get active support from the Pak military, and that they are not non-state actors. Pakistan’s army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has reiterated, in his latest doctrine, that India remains the pre-eminent threat to Pakistan, implicitly justifying the military’s support for the second arm of his country’s response to India, the terrorist network. Elements of Pakistan’s political class have not helped Delhi by immature grandstanding, describing India’s return to the talking table as a victory for Islamabad. This obviously grates on Indians. The biggest risk is here: Singh has moved far ahead of Indian public opinion in his peace gambit. This is in direct contrast to the Indo-US nuclear deal, when middle class opinion was cheering on the deal at each stage of negotiations. The middle class that wanted a closer relationship with America is not equally eager to buy the American prescription for peace on the subcontinent, of which these talks are the opening move.
It is not certain that Pakistan will buy it either, because the tail at the end of the dog is that Pakistan might have to dilute its deep friendship with China, which does not fit into the US-Pak strategic paradigm. America would be much happier with a US-Pak-India relationship built on a shared perception of regional threats. Senator John Kerry has described the resumption of the Indo-Pak dialogue as “critical to the United States”, and suggested that the Indian initiative is an extension of the new India-US relationship. More specifically, the US believes that India-Pak cooperation is essential to victory against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, Senator Kerry might have to convince General Kayani first.

Perhaps Singh is depending on the US to tweak an ear or twist an arm in Islamabad at the appropriate moment as he tries to woo Pakistan by diluting the status of Kashmir’s relationship with India. This is high-wire politics. We shall watch with some hope and greater apprehension. :eek:
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25368
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Post by SSridhar »

Pakistan has always been able to offer more than what we can to the US. First it was to stop spread of Communism. Then it was more of the same when the USSR came into Afghanistan. After communism was eliminated as a threat in the 90s, it has been Taliban and Islamic terrorism. The next phase is the stability of Af-Pak region. God alone knows what would be the next. All we know is that Pakistan will somehow contrive to create a new threat that would again demand the US and the remaining 2½ friends to align with it, shower it with goodies, demand India must show restraint (not that the US requires much effort as the dhimmis are never going to do anything devastating wrt Pakistan), praise India sky high for its enormous restraint, condone Pakistani terrorism against India etc and the cycle will repeat ad nauseum.

India does not have much of a leverage with the US when it comes to Pakistan. Even if it has, it is doubtful if India would be able to extract meaningful and decisive results or influence the US policy to the extent we want vis-a-vis Pakistan. India always looks for economic, scientific and technical benefits from the US. Pakistan is not interested in these things. It wants military supplies from the US, it wants money from them and above all it wants diplomatic support for its activities against India. The US is therefore able to meet both sets of demands, from India and Pakistan, as there is no conflict or overlap of interests. I doubt if any Indian leader will ever ask the US to mediate in the dispute. Pakistanis have for long been asking that. After the mending of relationship between the US and India after the Cold War and the increasing trust and cooperation between both the countries, the farthest India has gone is to use the US to bring some pressure on Pakistan (as in Kargil and then in Kabul and 26/11) while trying to fend off a reciprocal pressure from Pakistan. Such an approach is fraught with danger because the US will relentlessly apply all sorts of pressure on us to do things that would only benefit them. The US is a solid practitioner of realpolitik. Unprincipled and shameless Pakistan can go to any extent to use the US against us. The practitioner of realpolitik and the shameless Pakistan are therefore 'made for each other'.

It is therefore futile to expect that we can cause a rift in US-Pak relationship that would be to our advantage or that somehow Indian diplomacy can upstage Pakistani diplomacy.

India will have to work within the constraints of the US-Pak framework for many, many years to come. We cannot outsource handling Pakistan to the US and keep quiet. We must use every possible avenue to hit Pakistan, whether supporting terrorism there, or hitting terrorist training camps in Muzzafarabad, or eliminating important players through hit squads, or canvassing for no funds to Pakistan in international finance organizations, or continuously highlighting through direct and indirect means about Pakistani terror activities, squeezing them by running up a huge trade balance in our favour, projecting our soft power over the masses, influencing other Islamic nations to rile against Pakistan, etc. etc. We can even resort to talks if we are covertly and overtly following other options. A singular approach will not work with Pakistan because, Pakistan, like a good chess player, has multi-layered defences and options. We have to fire on all cylinders.

Keeping quiet or debating endlessly and getting ourselves into knots, which we are famously known for, is not an option anymore.
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

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

Post by Nihat »

Of course what all you mentioned is necessary , everything from trade surplus , water wars , military conviction etc etc.

Engaging Unkil is only a spoke in the wheel , India does not need US to stand side by side with it. What is essentially required is a situation whereby when Pakis cry , Unkil turns a deaf ear or offers only symbolic concessions allowing India to deal much more assertivly with TSP.

I don't believe that the Us-Pak framework is a hopeless situation for Indian diplomacy, with concerted push and pull we can surely get.

Unkil to limit military supplies to TSP.
Complete non-interference in India's internal matters or bilateral dealings with TSP.

To a certain extent this may already have been achieved (albeit not thanks to our efforts) and it must continue that way.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10205
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

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

Post by sum »

anupmisra wrote:
Why is India giving the pakis access to the Hurryiat? In exchange will the Indians ask access to the Baloch and Balti nationalists?
The team is expected to interact with several persons, including Hurryiat Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq.
Some kindly soul/guru please explain the rationale behind getting Paki hockey players to meet Hurri-rats...
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

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

Post by Gerard »

It is not certain that Pakistan will buy it either, because the tail at the end of the dog is that Pakistan might have to dilute its deep friendship with China,
Pakistan will not buy it because Kashmir is not really the problem. All offers of "soft borders" and "joint administration" do not solve the core issue for Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/20040813.htm
The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory.


What Pakistanis want cannot be provided by India or anyone else.
Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

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

Post by Chinmayanand »

Ok.This is nice.We should get those Sikhs here and send MMS there for all the paki love blooming in his heart. Perhaps, he can help the pakis with their economy and fulfill his love fest with pakis. All these pakiphilia infested people be thrown across the border. :evil: :evil: :evil:
kenop
BRFite
Posts: 1335
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 07:28

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

Post by kenop »

IAF planning exercise with China

Stealing the affection of tarrel than ocean and depper than mountain fliend.
Looking forward to reaction.
Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

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

Post by Pranav »

from the J&K thread:

The Giving Away of Kashmir: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... px?id=1101

Good expose on the treason being planned. The BJP is almost as complicit as the Congress.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

TV news speaks of outrage in India about the beheading of two sikhs. Rajdeep Sardesai asks "Is India helpless?"

But India is helpless isn't it? Those two poor sikhs are the latest in a long line of Indians killed by Pakistanis.
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9418
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

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

Post by vijayk »

We want to return to India but we are not getting the visas. The Taliban keep demanding jiziya (religious tax) from us,” Arvind Singh, the cousin of Jaspal Singh beheaded by the Taliban on Sunday, told a TV channel.
Looks like Mr. Mumbles has no problem in sleeping. Why should he? These people are not terrorists and their rights are not being violated by legal courts.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

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

Post by Jarita »

shiv wrote:TV news speaks of outrage in India about the beheading of two sikhs. Rajdeep Sardesai asks "Is India helpless?"

But India is helpless isn't it? Those two poor sikhs are the latest in a long line of Indians killed by Pakistanis.

But these people are Pakistanis, are they not? Also, if all minorities finally leave Pakistan, Pakistan would have won
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

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

Post by harbans »

“We want to return to India but we are not getting the visas. The Taliban keep demanding jiziya (religious tax) from us,” Arvind Singh, the cousin of Jaspal Singh beheaded by the Taliban on Sunday, told a TV channel.
But terrorists are being welcomed back in Kashmir. Talk about mixed priorities.. :|
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

shiv wrote: Perhaps Singh is depending on the US to tweak an ear or twist an arm in Islamabad at the appropriate moment as he tries to woo Pakistan by diluting the status of Kashmir’s relationship with India. This is high-wire politics. We shall watch with some hope and greater apprehension. :eek:
Apprehension maybe, but where is the hope? M.J.Akbar blows hot and cold when it comes to Pakis. Wonder where he actually stands? Finally, if MMS wants to dilute the status of Kashmir's relationship with India, where is the need for US to nudge TSP? What a disgrace that MMS is the only leader, that India, a nation of a billion people can trot out to represent them. I can't recall who said that, but a nation always doesn't deserve the leaders it gets, but the leaders it gets are, whether in a democracy or a dictatorship, are representative of the people's ethos, culture, history, aspirations, etc at large.
Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

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

Post by Avinash R »

Sikh killings may turn public mood against talks


Relevance to the US gives Pak advantage in talks with India
Everyone knows the Afghan Taliban is the creation of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Now when there is talk of reaching out to these elements, the ISI and the army can both be useful.

After the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in a joint Pakistan-US operation in Karachi 10 days ago, Islamabad’s stocks went up even higher with the Americans. After all, a top Afghan Taliban — in fact, the commander believed to be extremely close to the one-eyed Taliban leader Mullah Omar — was nabbed after the Pakistani intelligence co-operated actively.

Baradar’s arrest has revived the ISI’s traditional Pentagon and CIA links and will come to the fore more and more in the next few months.

In fact, Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Af-Pak, arrived in Islamabad on Thursday to thank Pakistan for this big catch.

Under these circumstances, the fresh bid by New Delhi to initiate foreign secretary-level talks is being seen as a concession by India to US pressure. “Yes, we need to talk to Pakistan certainly but this kind of abrupt turn-around by the government does not inspire confidence,” says KC Singh, former secretary in the ministry of external affairs.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

shiv wrote: The only way out is to strengthen internal defences (Only internal defences? No war?) so much so that both these countries understand that pressure on India will no longer be able to work.

Clearly we will never fight war against Pakistan unless Pakistan starts the war. That option is out.
I would cut Brajesh Mishra some slack on this one. Everyone knows that TSP, while crying victimhood is actually the agressor through its terrorsts. Once you thwart TSP's game plan, 90% of the battle is won. As far as I am concerned: tough internal defense denying TSP outright "victories" like the one in Mumbai (26/11 and train bomb) or Parliament attack, no to mention Kargil, and locking up the local traitor scum who aid & abet TSP thereby avoiding even small scale attacks like Pune, and shunning the Paki pigs like the IPL action; I would say, those alone are suffient to bring TSP to its knees. This, along with a constant drumbeat to westerners, that TSP is not victim, and that it is India that is the victim, not only TSP's terror, but also their perfidy, should help a bit. And finally, this is important, Indian political and media elite must stop this nonsense about India's impoending 'super power' status and get down to some good honest, dirty, nation building and cohesiveness.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

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

Post by Jarita »

harbans wrote:
“We want to return to India but we are not getting the visas. The Taliban keep demanding jiziya (religious tax) from us,” Arvind Singh, the cousin of Jaspal Singh beheaded by the Taliban on Sunday, told a TV channel.
But terrorists are being welcomed back in Kashmir. Talk about mixed priorities.. :|

But the terrorists are Indians
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2654
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

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

Post by Jarita »

Forget where MMS's head is at currently? What have his allegiances been throughout his career? Can someone articulate please
How much do the likes of Ahmed Patel(most powerful man currently) and Salman Khursheed have to do with this?
Last edited by Jarita on 22 Feb 2010 21:50, edited 1 time in total.
CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6865
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54

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

Post by CRamS »

Gerard wrote:It is not certain that Pakistan will buy it either, because the tail at the end of the dog is that Pakistan might have to dilute its deep friendship with China,

Pakistan will not buy it because Kashmir is not really the problem. All offers of "soft borders" and "joint administration" do not solve the core issue for Pakistan.
TSP will galdly accept that in the interim whichs is what MMS is offering them. They view that as good first step towards their eventual dream:
The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory.

What Pakistanis want cannot be provided by India or anyone else.
India will provide it. If a billion people can elect a leader like MMS for whom Indian soverignty over Kashmir is not sacred, anything is possible.
Locked