Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): July 07, 2010

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:03

derkonig wrote:Seems like INC apologist dlones have struck this thread.

Yes and they are showing up how weak their opponents are despite the bluster.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 09:03

The Paks are playing on the 'dissensions' in inner circles. All those selective tweets show that. Instead of being pleased that outsiders are stroking egos time to close ranks and present a united face. If any one has takleef they can go to rest room.

-----------
Lets be clear about a few things. Uncle arrested and plea bargained with DCH to be sure he isn't extradited to India.And they didn't want to gvie India access until they were read the bilateral treaty obligations. Even then they stalled and delayed and finally gave access with a whole slew of watchers to make sure DCH stays on the message. And the cavet after all this drama was that India couldn't use the info legally.
India made the best use of it diplomatically and ripped the veil of non state actors from TSP and linked them directly to the Mumbai attack. Can the US deny that there own secret agent who is double and maybe treble agent had told all this in their presence? Also if DCH as their secret agent then how come they didnt know about the Mumbai attack before it happened?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:12

If all Pakistanis are patriotic and are totally supportive of their army, then Pakistan has achieved what others can only jealously hope for.

Rhetorical question follows:

If there exists a Pakistani who does not support his army fully and is unhappy with the direction that Pakistan is taking what would he do. Soosai is one option, but short of soosai, what options does a Paki have in Pakistan to voice his concerns about his army?

I have a reason for asking this question and I have one answer - but will leave that for later.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 23 Jul 2010 09:18

Muppalla wrote:Added later: I was talking to few friends at a get together and the anger is extending to all those who immigrated from Pak. One was proposing to ban all of them + the folks from border districts from PM post. People are perceptively-visualising them as someone with some psychological disorder.

While it does not offend me, it does tickle me when I hear things like these. OK, Punjabis, especially from border areas should be banned. Can you name one region of India that has produced men who are confrontational? Can you name one region that does better then other regions?

We are all equally f*(ed.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 23 Jul 2010 09:23

Karan M wrote:Rgearding the great Chankian GOI led by MMS

Countless reports have identified these character flaws in this ridiculous excuse for a PM, yet we have long posts debating the GOI's "chankianness". ...

Nor are his credentials as an administrator any better. ...

Frankly put, some folks are still in denial and acting petulant, without realizing their hero has feet of clay. This man is NOT an Indira Gandhi or some savant out for India's economic salvation.

He is a man who has put his ethnicity and desire for personal glory (a legacy) over and above India's national interest, countless times. ...

One wishes that his tenure ends, the sooner the better, and he is left alone to his antics and attending seminars and giving long speeches, without having the country suffer for them

Completely agree with Karan except for the ethnicity remark which I think is off the mark. I don't know how much credit MMS deserves for the ecomonic progress of the country, but this man is definitely responsible for the current sorry state of India's diplomacy vis-a-vis Pakistan.

MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly. War with Pakistan at this point may not be in the best interests of India; fine, but there is absolutely no need to indulge in talks with those disgusting b******s before they change their terror policy and act against the perpetrators of 26/11. Some BRFites say we gained nothing by not talking, so let's talk; I would say there is nothing to gain from talking, only losing the dignity of the country, if any is left.

sum · Post by **sum** » 23 Jul 2010 09:25

Indo-Pak Peace Caravan to ‘carry’ friendship message

Even as the foreign minister-level talks between New Delhi and Islamabad ended disastrously, a slew of NGOs from both sides of the border have joined hands for better people-to-people contact through an “Indo-Pakistan Peace Caravan”.

The initiative will start simultaneously from Mumbai and Karachi on July 28 and culminate at the Wagah-Attari border on August 14, Pakistan’s Independence Day, Magsaysay Award-winning social activist Sandeep Pandey said.

On the Indian side, the caravan, comprising activists as well as interested members of the public, will move through Vapi, Valsad, Surat, Vadodara, Ahmedabad, Godhra and some other places in Gujarat, Kota, Sawai Madhopur, Bharatpur and other towns in Rajasthan, Delhi, Panipat in Haryana and Ludhiana and Jalandhar in Punjab before reaching Amritsar on August 12.

From there, it will be taken to Wagah on August 14, the day when the similar caravan on the other side reaches Attari. “Witnessing the ongoing blow-hot blow-cold attempts of our governments towards the process of dialogue, we are now emboldened to take up this one more joint people-to-people initiative,” Pandey said.

“This we hope will pressurise the governments to listen to the voices of the peace-loving peoples of the two countries and help build an atmosphere that should ultimately persuade the two governments to listen to the voice of sanity.”

NGOs like Institute for Peace and Secular Studies, Sangat, INSAF, Centre for Study of Secularism and Society, National Alliance of People’s Movements, ANHAD, Kriti, Swayam, Jagori, Disha, Women Action Forum, Global Gandhi Forum, Mumbai Sarvodaya Mandal, Awami Bharat and quite a few others have lent support to the idea.

The caravans from both sides will merge with a candle-lighting programme at Attari border on the night of August 14, which is traditionally organised every year by noted journalist Kuldip Nayar and others.

A similar candle-lighting event will take place on the Wagah border by Pakistani participants.

Some people never learn...

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 23 Jul 2010 09:28

shiv wrote:Surinderji my objection is to the false parallel that you are drawing where you are saying India vs Pakistan should be like US vs NoKo. To me this sounds like another paroxysm of "Why can't we be like the US?" of which I see too much. There is nobody on earth who does not want to be like US. If only my aunt had a #**#.

Would you be able to expand on what India could do after not talking to Pakistan? India is talking to Pakistan because we are getting no further by not talking. We are not about to declare war. India has already decided that war is not an option.

Perhaps you would be able to say how war might be an option? Or something else? Or should we talk via proxies like the US.

Even before I wrote that I knew that I lay myself open to criticism that I am asking someone (India) to be like US. I can give a detailed explanation, but it would not help. All I can say is that one hand is the US like clear well thought out policies on negotiations, and on the other hand you have Indian sommersaults and policy that no sane person can understand or explain. If US is logical and consistent and India is not, that is not my fault. I am not asking India to be like US, I am asking India to be strong, coherent, clear and consistent and strong. If that is what the US is, that is besides the point.

Why have we landed ourselves in a position where we have no options left. That is despair, and defeatism. It us us who are to blame for lack of options, to state the obvious. Furthermore, if war is not an option, it is tantamount to saying that we are so pathetically weak that we cannot wage fight.

Logically, even if we accept that India is too weak to fight, then still why talk. It is not as if there is a necessity to have one or the other (why can't we simply shut up and stay put in Delhi).

India can talk through Proxies also, but US is not a proxy. Maybe India could have Mauritius represent us. That would be fun to watch the TSP'ians react to that.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 23 Jul 2010 09:30

a_bharat wrote:MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly.

Do you serously beleive that if MMS goes, we will have a PM who will be rock solid and defiant?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:38

Long ago a Paki on this forum claimed that Pakis wanted a way out of this mess (with India) where they could retain their honor and tell Pakis that they have won.

The latest version of this appears to be the tactic that says "Oh we are moderate Pakis. We want peace and love with India. Our hardliners are stopping us because of your hardliners. Please ask your hardliners to shut up and then we will be able to make peace with you"

Now the Paki version of "Indian hardliner" is a person who fails to resolve Cashmere, water, Sir Creek blabla and wants to talk only about terrorism "which both countries face"
Any Indian line that talks about terrorism and fails to address "core issues" is a hardliner.

The new tactic is that Pakis (claiming to be moderate) are saying that they cannot control their hardliners (the military) unless India stops taking a "hard line position" and insisting on talking about progress regarding terror.

I am unable to comment whether SMKrishna was playing a game with Pakis or giving them some rope or was being plain naive, but India has lost a chance to show if people like Qureshi are pretend moderates. This is not a big loss. I have no doubt that Jacques is a real jackass, but I would really like to see how deep the support for the army runs in Pakistan given that the army is completely contemptuous of the civilian "leadership". Criticism of the army in Pakistan is always veiled and minimalistic giving the impression that the army is greatly loved.

The only way may be to give some of these self proclaimed "moderates" some rope to see whether they use that to rein in their army or whether they use that to hang themselves. This is what I mean. These "moderates" are asking that they should not have too much pressure on them while they do their work. OK. So we are not fighting. We are only talking, and they are asking that we stop pressing them too much on terror because that upsets their army bosses. Are they telling the truth or are they lying? The real test is to see if there is a let up in terror or not.

I believe there are no easy choices for India here. The obvious choice seems to be to say "fc off" to all Pakis and threaten them. But that latter bit "Threaten them" is what we are unable to do effectively. Under the circumstances what choices do we have?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2010 09:43

surinder wrote:
Why have we landed ourselves in a position where we have no options left. That is despair, and defeatism. It us us who are to blame for lack of options, to state the obvious. Furthermore, if war is not an option, it is tantamount to saying that we are so pathetically weak that we cannot wage fight.

Logically, even if we accept that India is too weak to fight, then still why talk. It is not as if there is a necessity to have one or the other (why can't we simply shut up and stay put in Delhi).

India can talk through Proxies also, but US is not a proxy. Maybe India could have Mauritius represent us. That would be fun to watch the TSP'ians react to that.

Surinder - I do not believe that we have no options left. We actually have lots of options including war. The only questions are

1) What is the option that saves the most Indian lives
2) What options can last for a long time

Add to that the fact that Indians whether they are "Indic nationalist"or "pappi jhappi" types (I don't even know what pappi jhappi means) are all convinced of India as a great power in the future and all want to manage Pakistan n some way and gain control of people and events. The only differences of opinion are they way of going about that.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Jul 2010 09:44

I say increase RAW's budget by 10 times and let them do what they can.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 23 Jul 2010 09:46

surinder wrote:
a_bharat wrote:MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly.
Do you serously beleive that if MMS goes, we will have a PM who will be rock solid and defiant?

I didn't ask for much. Just someone who would put the country's dignity ahead of one's quest for personal glory.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jul 2010 09:52

surinder wrote:
a_bharat wrote:MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly.
Do you serously beleive that if MMS goes, we will have a PM who will be rock solid and defiant?

Guess, lets bring VP Singh, Desai, Charan Singh, Gouda back !! Think of Natwar Singh or M.S Ayer or Patil known for crying bucket load for everyone except Indians they ruled . Just accept the fact that INC is controlled by DIE. A cursory glance at Maharani Ji's Navratans fail to find any nationalistic personality. There is greater chance in finding fish in pee than expect Congress to act nationalistic.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 23 Jul 2010 09:53

This thread needs some serious chillax.
It is still jaw-jaw time as it has been for past 60 years...
why get langots in a bunch and await a certain thread death?
Peeps, it is still smoke them bidis time.

shiv wrote: After the talks failed we have two parties being blamed
1) Pillai
2) Pakistan Army

1 Pillai == Pakistan Army!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 09:56

Hari Seldon wrote:. For me, the fact that no repeat of 26/11 happened is a significant data point in favor of a 'do drama of talks etc' approach. Maybe.

This conclusion appears based on far too narrow a timespan, IMO. The big picture tells a different story.

Consider the the situation during the NDA government, which adopted a uniformly confrontational posture towards Pakistan following the Parliament Attack.

Three major Pakistan-sponsored terrorist atrocities took place in the period between the start of Parakram and the end of the NDA's term:

1) Kaluchak, May 14 2002
2) Akshardham, Sep 25 2002
3) Mumbai Aug 25 2003

(By "major" I mean that they killed at least 20 people. Sorry to sound cold-blooded but the tragedy of our national security situation is such that we have to draw the line somewhere for meaningful analysis.)

Note that of the above, only one... Kaluchak... actually took place during the Parakram mobilization, and it was within J&K, a state with significantly different security ramifications than the rest of India.

So we have a total of three major ISI terrorist strikes over a three-year period 2002-2004, or an average of one per year.

In late 2004 the UPA government came in and MMS adopted a far more conciliatory attitude towards Pakistan (including, it is reported, talks on Kashmir with Musharraf and Kasuri during the 2005-07 time frame.)

Since the change in policy, let's look at the number of major Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks:

1) Delhi, Oct 29 2005
2) Mumbai, Jul 11 2006
3) Malegaon, Sep 8 2006
4) Samjhauta Express, Feb 19 2007
5) Hyderabad, Aug 25 2007 (all these five while Kashmir talks with Musharraf are in progress!)
6) Jaipur, May 13 2008
7) Ahmedabad, Jul 26 2008
8 ) Guwahati, Oct 30 2008
9) Mumbai , Nov 26 2008

Even considering that no "major" terrorist attack happened between Nov 26 2008 and the present, this still amounts to 9 major ISI terrorist strikes over a 6-year period 2005-2010. This is an average of 1.5 per year.

If you take into account that J&K is a special situation and consider only the rest of India, all nine major terrorist strikes from 2005-2010 took place in the rest of India while we conducted a policy of appeasement and negotiations with Pakistan, whereas only two took place in the rest of India between 2002-2004 while we adopted a confrontational attitude towards Pakistan.

That's more than twice as many major Pakistani terrorist strikes per year, since the policy of appeasing Pakistan was adopted over confrontation with Pakistan.

To me, this is far from reason enough to express confidence that the "drama of talks" approach has anything to do with it. After all, if we REALLY believe MMS wasn't actually going to sell out Kashmir and Siachen to Musharraf, everything that took place since 2005 was a "drama of talks" only, correct?

It also gives the lie to this myth about MMS' approach to Pakistan being dictated by the need to maintain economic growth. Economic growth did not falter while the NDA adopted a confrontational attitude towards Pakistan... they continued the policies of liberalization (which MMS and PVNR should be duly credited for initiating.)

The rate of economic growth has been steadily increasing as economic inertia was overcome, and it does NOT correlate in any way with the posture we have adopted towards Pakistan. Terrorism against India, however, DOES correlate with the posture adopted towards Pakistan, and by any yardstick, confrontation has meant less terrorism than appeasement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2010 10:00

While it maybe appropriate for Cabinet Minsters to diss Mr Pillai, I think we need to refrain from slinging mud at Mr. Pillai.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2010 10:14

abhishek_sharma wrote:I say increase RAW's budget by 10 times and let them do what they can.

Abhishek_sharma, funding is not a problem, especially nowadays. Obviously, GoI has a strategy which of course, we don't see. We are only suggesting here approaches that we think would be effective. Somebody suggested before that we recall our diplomats or ban overflights etc. GoI decided not to play cricket. So, GoI has a strategy to inflict pain on Pakistan and make it see reason. The only problem is most of us want to see a solution within our life times while GoI seems to be employing a Hindu-rate of squeezing TSP.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 23 Jul 2010 10:27

Reminds me of a joke in a Blackadder serial where the guy says 'are you planning to tickle me to death'...our strategy is death by thousand dossiers...

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 10:32

Karan M wrote: ...
As such, we are indeed in a very shoddy state of affairs, that its taking a faction within the current administration to stymie talks with a sponsor of terror.

See Rajesh A's succint summary of the available information some posts back.
...

Karan, excellent run of posts there. It's very telling that your opponents' first response to your first post was to ask that you be banned... a sign of ideological bankruptcy if there ever was one.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Jul 2010 10:35

a_bharat wrote: I didn't ask for much. Just someone who would put the country's dignity ahead of one's quest for personal glory.

So which joker do you support - laloo, Mulayam, IKG, Advani (Jinnah is secular fame), Deve Gowda (busy with personal stuff), Arun Jaitley, Rahul Gandhi? Put a name to your quest. Nehru's quest for personal glory landed us in the UN.

Everyone has their political bent. Please don't color the debate by biased opinions. Talk material.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 10:41

surinder wrote:
a_bharat wrote:MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly.
Do you serously beleive that if MMS goes, we will have a PM who will be rock solid and defiant?

It's a question of degrees. P. Chidambaram may not be perfect by any means, but even as Home Minister he has shown himself to be far more solid and defiant than Manmohan Singh.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 23 Jul 2010 10:50

sum wrote:Indo-Pak Peace Caravan to ‘carry’ friendship message

Even as the foreign minister-level talks between New Delhi and Islamabad ended disastrously, a slew of NGOs from both sides of the border have joined hands for better people-to-people contact through an “Indo-Pakistan Peace Caravan”.

The initiative will start simultaneously from Mumbai and Karachi on July 28 and culminate at the Wagah-Attari border on August 14, Pakistan’s Independence Day, Magsaysay Award-winning social activist Sandeep Pandey said.

On the Indian side, the caravan, comprising activists as well as interested members of the public, will move through Vapi, Valsad, Surat, Vadodara, Ahmedabad, Godhra and some other places in Gujarat, Kota, Sawai Madhopur, Bharatpur and other towns in Rajasthan, Delhi, Panipat in Haryana and Ludhiana and Jalandhar in Punjab before reaching Amritsar on August 12.

From there, it will be taken to Wagah on August 14, the day when the similar caravan on the other side reaches Attari. “Witnessing the ongoing blow-hot blow-cold attempts of our governments towards the process of dialogue, we are now emboldened to take up this one more joint people-to-people initiative,” Pandey said.

“This we hope will pressurise the governments to listen to the voices of the peace-loving peoples of the two countries and help build an atmosphere that should ultimately persuade the two governments to listen to the voice of sanity.”

NGOs like Institute for Peace and Secular Studies, Sangat, INSAF, Centre for Study of Secularism and Society, National Alliance of People’s Movements, ANHAD, Kriti, Swayam, Jagori, Disha, Women Action Forum, Global Gandhi Forum, Mumbai Sarvodaya Mandal, Awami Bharat and quite a few others have lent support to the idea.

The caravans from both sides will merge with a candle-lighting programme at Attari border on the night of August 14, which is traditionally organised every year by noted journalist Kuldip Nayar and others.

A similar candle-lighting event will take place on the Wagah border by Pakistani participants.
Some people never learn...

Someday I will infiltrate such a peace parade, wearing a peace tee, with a box load of candles & flags on my face, do pappi-jhappee with desi WKKs, anything that convinces them that I'm a true WKK (may be I'll recite some poems by Iqbal except Sare Jahan Se Accha). Imagine what would be the look on their faces when they, completely immersed in GUBOing with their Paki counterparts at Wagah, suddenly hear blood curdling cries of "Vande Mataram", "Bharat Mata ki Jai" and "Suaristan Murdabad" coming from a piss activist on their side.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jul 2010 10:52

MMS is the PM of the country. Please dont expect him to some thing grossly un constitutional. Moreover, is there any evidence that India was about to compromise on its core interests at Islambad. If its there pls point it to me.

India from day one was focused on the reduction of terror from TSP. But TSP as is usual tried to bluff its way out of the talks. Now we haev the curious spectale of every one attacking MMS for selling out on Indian Interests. Please educate me what interste afre served by not talking to TSP. OTOH, talking gives us a very long stick with which to beat TSP.

We want justice for 26/11 and we will have it. TSP trying to wriggle out of talks is an extreamy entertaining spectacle on world TV.

So please sit back and enjoy the show.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Jul 2010 10:56

There seems to be a lot of foolish bravado (the kind that George Bush displayed in Iraq) here. Ron Reagan said a long time ago - "talk softly but carry a strong stick" or something to that effect. What does smooth talk get anyone in the India-Pak matter? So what if Qureshi the nitwit made Krishna look nitwitter? does that mean we now have to give up Kashmir because of it? No.

So what would MMS achieve by appearing on TV everynight and lambasting Musharraf, kayani, Gilani and all the other Paki jokers? Will that get Pakistan squared up? No. Since ABV, Indian administrations have realised that in a uniploar world where China is the emerging superpower on our doorstep, we need a strong ally (kind of sugar daddy). We cannot take on the Chinese and the Pakis together because we have wasted every opportunity since 62 (please don't make that the fault of the current PM too) to develop our capabilities. The blame for this lies with all of us - the armed forces and the DRDO for not developing solid domestic tech base to provide a qualitative or a quantitative edge over the collective enemy. The blame also lies with the Governments for not laying a strong economic base on which to take on the Chinese. We have been busy with caste warts (Mayawati), civil wars (khalistan, naxals, ULFA etc.) instead of building a mightier nation. We have jokers like Raj Thackeray and Bal Thackeray running around in the financial capital asking all non-Marathis to get out. There is mamta Banerjee in Bengal who threw out Tatas and a chance to turn around the fortunes of her state. Yet the people of Bengal made her victorious in recent elections. Go on, blame MMS for all these while you're at it.

With all our development, why have been able to successively not raise defence spending to 6%? We want to fight on two fronts yet the funds to fight even one are not provided adequately.

So there is a lot of blame to go around to all corners. Statements like "nani yaad dila doonga" can be made anytime but do not achieve anything. We have seen a better defence rebuilding efffort in the past 10-15 years. The stick is being prepared and the talk is gentle. Rhetoric is good for votes but is it good foreign policy?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jul 2010 10:58

Chandragupta wrote:
Someday I will infiltrate such a peace parade, wearing a peace tee, with a box load of candles & flags on my face, do pappi-jhappee with desi WKKs, anything that convinces them that I'm a true WKK (may be I'll recite some poems by Iqbal except Sare Jahan Se Accha). Imagine what would be the look on their faces when they, completely immersed in GUBOing with their Paki counterparts at Wagah, suddenly hear blood curdling cries of "Vande Mataram", "Bharat Mata ki Jai" and "Suaristan Murdabad" coming from a piss activist on their side.

Leave them be, their activities will be useful subsequent to the collapse of TSP and at the time of reassimilation of its population.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Jul 2010 11:03

Rudradev wrote: It also gives the lie to this myth about MMS' approach to Pakistan being dictated by the need to maintain economic growth. Economic growth did not falter while the NDA adopted a confrontational attitude towards Pakistan... they continued the policies of liberalization (which MMS and PVNR should be duly credited for initiating.)

The rate of economic growth has been steadily increasing as economic inertia was overcome, and it does NOT correlate in any way with the posture we have adopted towards Pakistan. Terrorism against India, however, DOES correlate with the posture adopted towards Pakistan, and by any yardstick, confrontation has meant less terrorism than appeasement.

Rudradev,

I think you misunderstand. The argument is NOT that confrontational approach is inversely related to economic growth. Infact the argument is that it is pointless to have a 'permanently' confrontational approach or a confrontational approach that does not go to its logical conclusion - which is: have a goddamn confrontation. What is the point in yelling about 'aad paad ki laadai' and getting people excited about donating blood and then not having one?

I think it is also not quite correct to argue that NDA had a uniformly confrontational approach to Pak. ABV tried peace at lahore - and we had that little fracas over Kargil while he was there. India's response to Kargil was primarily reactive. We had a god given opportunity to cross LOC at the time. What stopped ABV then was of course what stops us today (post 26/11) from marching into lahore. However, what MMS should have learnt from that episode is that pakis consider amicability to be a sign of weakness. (Maybe he did, which is why he is trying to throw US into the equation and at the same time trying to get the US business lobby on India's side).

The second opportunity was of course Parakram. I'm a bit circumspect about accepting that sole data point as proof of change in paki infiltration policy, because it also coincided with a time when Unkil was getting increasingly interested in the neighbourhood. But here again you have a scenario where we were mobilised for 8-9 months, we had factored in forex losses, oil disruptions, banned paki overflights (they did the same to us and it was more costly for us because well we have more flights to europe which had to be diverted, than they have towards east asia). But again nothing happenned.

So we were in a situation where between 1999 - 2002, we were solely focused on TSP and we got absolutely nothing to show for it. Notice that we were permanently in a reactive mode. So this obviously got people asking - there is so much to do to fix issues within the country and we are only focusing on an event which killed 12 odd policemen and sadly enough, no MPs

Obviously INC (UPA) learnt from this (electorally speaking).

Now post 26/11, we are in a scenario where we have had no TSP sponsored major terror attacks for close to 2 years but we have a belligerent maoist movement. We have no mobilisation, but we have commenced a process of lot of strategic arms acquisition. We have a god given opportunity of the North atlantic financial crisis, where the economies of the west are going backwards (which means the paki economy is going backwards), but we are growing at 9 % p.a. Will we use this opportunity in the future? Remember it was on the basis of the strngth of the economy that ABV conducted pok-II while PVNR was unable to do it (even though he started the process).

So in my humble opinion, let us not look at our approach to TSP through the discrete rule of alternative governments, but as one continuous process, which builds on the successes (or rectifies the failures) of earlier governments. It will not be perfect, but it will lay the groundwork for a permanent solution to TSP.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Jul 2010 11:07

Rudradev wrote:It's a question of degrees. P. Chidambaram may not be perfect by any means, but even as Home Minister he has shown himself to be far more solid and defiant than Manmohan Singh.

So defiance is the yardstick for capability? And his defiance is not a credit to the MMS administration by your own yardstick?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Jul 2010 11:40

If we resort to pappi-jhappi - Pakis take that as a sign of weakness

If we get to beligerent - Pakis try to escalate terror strike and leave blame on us for not talking.

So what option do we have apart from towing the middle line during peace, with more talks, CBM's, diplomatic visits etc. My problem is that right now we seem to be getting a bit too much on the pappi-jhappi style and Pakis being Pakis are taking this as a sign of our weakness given the current afghanistan situation. We are giving them the impression that we are desperate for influence in Afghanistan and begging TSP not to hit us there. This is exactly how they percieve the current situation.

When people show their frustration with MMS, this is more to do with his ever increasing tom-tomming with TSP. Sure, we should keep talking to Pakis but not let them percieve this as a sign of weakness.

Chabahar port and the transit road to Afghanistan are key in securing transit to Afg.and that too in the Northen Alliance dominated North and West sections. For Access to CAR again we should use Iran and go ahead with the secure underwater gas pipeline, forget the expenses involved and think of it as a strategic defence aquisition. It's good to know that there have been recently developments on both these issues as they directly reduce TSP's imaginary leaverage over us.

Another thing being IWT. It's good to know that Kisanganga construction is on in full swing even while the matter is international court and from Sridars sir's posts in IWT thread I gather that TSP cannot stop india from constructing Kisanganga or any of the other dams we have planned. Once the Pakis come to realize this and the fact that beligerence will never work, we can always reach a mutual understanding of "Uninturrupted Water Flow in excahnge for Zero Terror".

IMHO, we did 3 good things by talking of undersea pipeline with Iran, speeding up matters on Chabahar and going ahead with damn projects but took a step back with Krishna reprimanding Pillai, if anything he should have supported Pillai and be representative of a United India. MMS made a mistake there, just like S-e-S, but we have to get past that now.

Pakis look for tactical gains everywhere and if we can deny them that vis-a-vis India , then we can dictate terms much better.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jul 2010 11:47

arnab wrote: Now post 26/11, we are in a scenario where we have had no TSP sponsored major terror attacks for close to 2 years

The Pune German Bakery bombing qualifies as a fairly major attack, imho.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Jul 2010 11:49

I'm sorry to have to say this but after reading the "analysis" by some of our so-called "intellectual" stalwarts I can only conclude we all have Pakistani Jacques sleeping within our heads.

Otherwise how can one explain gazillion word-long posts (and even longer ones defending and saying "wah, wah!") which conclude on the basis of a survey which consists of a grand total of two people that Punjabis should not become PM because due to their ethnicity they are more likely to give Kashmir on a platter to the Pakis. Only a Jacques growing up in a Madrassa could come up with this logic.

Mind you this is not to say that IKG or MMS were/are great PMs or anyone from Punjab could or would be great PMs. However, if one needs to bring in a stupid and weak argument like ethnicity to criticise their policies then there is only two possibilities: a) they were/are so good at their jobs that it's hard to find fault; b) there is a singular Intellectual gap in the person who is trying to find the fault.

Or is this a manifestation of the mirror image of the "apologist" propaganda which Rudradev is so fond pulling out every time someone posts something which clashes with his views?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Jul 2010 11:54

Vivek K wrote:
Rudradev wrote:It's a question of degrees. P. Chidambaram may not be perfect by any means, but even as Home Minister he has shown himself to be far more solid and defiant than Manmohan Singh.
So defiance is the yardstick for capability? And his defiance is not a credit to the MMS administration by your own yardstick?

PC has been complaining about limited mandates and he is being subjected to significant flak from Sonia loyalists.

amit · Post by **amit** » 23 Jul 2010 12:02

Vivek K wrote:
It's a question of degrees. P. Chidambaram may not be perfect by any means, but even as Home Minister he has shown himself to be far more solid and defiant than Manmohan Singh.
So defiance is the yardstick for capability? And his defiance is not a credit to the MMS administration by your own yardstick?

It's good to see that both the Congress "apologists" as well as non "apologists" seem to agree on one point.

And that is that the Congress and its extension UPA runs as a true democratic set up where different leaders and power centres have the freedom to express their opinion and fight their turf wars! The Lady from Italy seems to run a free and easy ship!

More seriously: I think the Krishna interview was a self-goal on his part and by extension his team that is the entire government.

However, that doesn't detract from the fact that the overall strategy of keeping the Pakistanis engaged with the hope extracting concessions without actually making any seems to be a sound one.

As has been pointed out many times, if MMS and UPA was hell bent on appeasement they would have found an excuse to give away things by now. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but thrice and more?

During the Siachen discussions we heard that the Army saved the day. After the SES fiasco we heard that it was a loyal group of babus who saved the day. Now we are hearing that Pillai ji and his boss Chidambaram saved the day. I wonder who will save the day the next time?

Don't people find it curious that there's seems to always be someone within the UPA dispensation who is ready to "save the day"?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Jul 2010 12:11

ramana wrote:While it maybe appropriate for Cabinet Minsters to diss Mr Pillai, I think we need to refrain from slinging mud at Mr. Pillai.

Quite right. Let us save our mud for MMS and the Punjabis.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 12:27

arnab wrote:
Rudradev wrote: It also gives the lie to this myth about MMS' approach to Pakistan being dictated by the need to maintain economic growth. Economic growth did not falter while the NDA adopted a confrontational attitude towards Pakistan... they continued the policies of liberalization (which MMS and PVNR should be duly credited for initiating.)

The rate of economic growth has been steadily increasing as economic inertia was overcome, and it does NOT correlate in any way with the posture we have adopted towards Pakistan. Terrorism against India, however, DOES correlate with the posture adopted towards Pakistan, and by any yardstick, confrontation has meant less terrorism than appeasement.

Infact the argument is that it is pointless to have a 'permanently' confrontational approach or a confrontational approach that does not go to its logical conclusion - which is: have a goddamn confrontation. What is the point in yelling about 'aad paad ki laadai' and getting people excited about donating blood and then not having one?

I refer you to the data. Parakram utterly reversed all trends of Pakistani infiltration into Kashmir. It enabled India to hold the first successful democratic elections in Kashmir, with a nearly 70% turnout, since 1989. It quieted things down to the extent that we were able to kill off huge numbers of previously infiltrated terrorists in the valley, and to build a fence along the LOC that further minimized infiltration. By any yardstick that was worth the posturing of "aar paar ki ladaai"... the only people who have cause to despair that a confrontation did not actually happen are jingoes who would have watched the war on television from the comfort of their homes.

I think it is also not quite correct to argue that NDA had a uniformly confrontational approach to Pak. ABV tried peace at lahore - and we had that little fracas over Kargil while he was there. India's response to Kargil was primarily reactive. We had a god given opportunity to cross LOC at the time.

In fact I have not argued that... in my post, I've clearly said that the uniformly confrontational attitude of NDA towards Pakistan began after the Parliament Attack. Vajpayee certainly had his own delusions about Pakistan... but he was wise enough to abandon them less than half-way into his term as Prime Minister. Manmohan Singh, on the other hand, clings to his delusions well into his second term.

I also don't think we had a "god given opportunity" to cross the LOC during Kargil. To fight a successful war you need a substantial intelligence network in enemy territory, among the enemy's institutions, especially within the Pakistan Army. Bangladesh might have turned out very differently if it hadn't been for the extensive involvement of RAW in preparing the ground.

Vajpayee, however, inherited the debacle perpetrated by the Gujral government, which had deliberately dismantled *all* of our intelligence networks inside Pakistan... on the very eve of the NDA government's formation. We suffered for that decision during Kargil and during the IC 814 incident... deprived of eyes and ears inside Pakistan, we were flying blind in both instances.

What stopped ABV then was of course what stops us today (post 26/11) from marching into lahore. However, what MMS should have learnt from that episode is that pakis consider amicability to be a sign of weakness. (Maybe he did, which is why he is trying to throw US into the equation and at the same time trying to get the US business lobby on India's side).

The second opportunity was of course Parakram. I'm a bit circumspect about accepting that sole data point as proof of change in paki infiltration policy, because it also coincided with a time when Unkil was getting increasingly interested in the neighbourhood.

You miss the point. Parakram was not a "data point"... it was a considered strategy that took into account all available data points at that time, INCLUDING the increasing interest of Unkil in the neighbourhood.

What was the interest of Unkil in the neighbourhood? Certainly not minimizing Pakistani terrorism against India. Make no mistake about this... it would have worked out very well for both Unkil and Musharraf if Pakistan had been able to divert its jihadi "freedom fighters" towards India and J&K, while Unkil exclusively took on the "bad terrorists" in Afghanistan.

If the NDA government had responded to the Parliament Attack with Sharm-el-Shaikhs and dossiers, I believe that is exactly what would have happened.

Instead, the NDA took measures that compelled Unkil to force Musharraf to GUBO on Kashmir. A key aspect of those measures was Parakram.

Parakram did not just brown the pants of Musharraf... it also browned the pants of Unkil, who saw the possibility of his Afghanistan strategy going completely awry if hot war began between India and Pakistan. It was only at this point that Unkil realized he had to force Musharraf to rein in terrorism against India in J&K, otherwise all would be lost for him in Afghanistan.

It was thus the NDA... not Manmohan Singh, as you allege, who brought the US into the equation.

But here again you have a scenario where we were mobilised for 8-9 months, we had factored in forex losses, oil disruptions, banned paki overflights (they did the same to us and it was more costly for us because well we have more flights to europe which had to be diverted, than they have towards east asia). But again nothing happenned.

It is amply clear that very much happened; the numbers from South Asia Terrorism Portal speak for themselves. What happened may not have been a made-for-TV war, but that can't be helped.

In spite of whatever losses accrued from oil disruptions and Paki overflights... it cannot be denied that the NDA administration was a time of then unprecedented prosperity in India. The economy continued to grow, and the foundation was laid for continuing economic growth throughout the decade. US business interests were very much in the picture at that time as well... "outsourcing" became a household word in the US while the Vajpayee government was in power in India.

In effect we were able to curb and reverse the trend of Pakistani terrorism in Kashmir, greatly alleviate the extent of Pakistani terrorism in the rest of India (compared to the situation under Manmohan Singh), and achieve all this while maintaining an impressive pace of economic development. We were able to do all this without the sacrifices of actually fighting a hot war with Pakistan.

By contrast, the Manmohan Singh administration has only encouraged Pakistan to perpetrate more terrorism by its overt display of weakness. Dossiers and lectures do not make the same impression on either Pakistan or the United States as a military deployment on the scale of Parakram.

The results are plain to see... a doubling of the rate of terrorist attacks by Pakistan in the rest of India, relative to the NDA regime.

So we were in a situation where between 1999 - 2002, we were solely focused on TSP and we got absolutely nothing to show for it. Notice that we were permanently in a reactive mode. So this obviously got people asking - there is so much to do to fix issues within the country and we are only focusing on an event which killed 12 odd policemen and sadly enough, no MPs Obviously INC (UPA) learnt from this (electorally speaking).

Unfortunately the facts do not bear you out on this assertion. The explosion in services exports, the engendering of projects such as Arihant and Chandrayaan, the drive to begin revitalizing infrastructure with the golden quadrilateral, the determined pace of disinvestment maintained by Arun Shourie, all indicate that the NDA regime was anything but "focused on Pakistan".

The NDA dealt with Pakistan in the best way available to deal with Pakistan, while advancing on all other fronts. The fractured mandate of 2004 that resulted in a UPA government, had much more to do with the fact that masses of people were uncomfortable with the necessary consequences of economic liberalization, a factor that the Congress exploited to the hilt with a populist platform during the 2004 elections. This was the same effect that cost PVNR's government the elections in 1996. It took nearly fifteen years from the beginning of liberalization for the beneficial effects to percolate down to a level where a substantial middle class became comfortable with them.

Now post 26/11, we are in a scenario where we have had no TSP sponsored major terror attacks for close to 2 years but we have a belligerent maoist movement. We have no mobilisation, but we have commenced a process of lot of strategic arms acquisition.

Again, the process of arms acquisition was well under way during the NDA administration... it is not something that the current administration initiated. It was NDA's dealings with Israel that made Israel our biggest arms supplier, of everything from night-vision infantry equipment to Phalcon systems. It was during NDA's tenure that the nuclear submarine development program began and BrahMos was completed. It was also at this time that we began to build up the IAF's fleet of Su30-MKIs, our mainstay of air superiority.

As against this the UPA has been kite-flying an MRCA "tender" for years and years. By the time it is finalized, the aircraft on offer will likely be obsolete... even as the IAF's current fleet ages past its prime. In the meantime the Chinese have surpassed us in air power. Fortunately other projects such as the LCA and missile programs appear to be continuing apace.

We have a god given opportunity of the North atlantic financial crisis, where the economies of the west are going backwards (which means the paki economy is going backwards), but we are growing at 9 % p.a. Will we use this opportunity in the future? Remember it was on the basis of the strngth of the economy that ABV conducted pok-II while PVNR was unable to do it (even though he started the process).

That is true. And hopefully our next PM will find the wherewithal to take the next step in consolidating our strategic interests as our economy grows even further. I have my doubts about the present one.

So in my humble opinion, let us not look at our approach to TSP through the discrete rule of alternative governments, but as one continuous process, which builds on the successes (or rectifies the failures) of earlier governments. It will not be perfect, but it will lay the groundwork for a permanent solution to TSP.

I am not looking at it in terms of the discrete rule of alternative governments, any more than you are. The UPA is continuing with economic policies that have served the country well over the last fifteen years under different governments.

I must also give credit to the UPA administration for one thing... it includes a number of nationalists who have taken on the prevailing trend of Pakistan-appeasement, upholding Indian interests (no doubt at considerable political risk to themselves). M K Narayanan was certainly one among them; P Chidambaram appears to be another. To the extent that the damaging consequences of our policy of appeasement have been minimzed, I would credit these nationalists in the current administration. More power to them.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 12:35

Vivek K wrote:
Rudradev wrote:It's a question of degrees. P. Chidambaram may not be perfect by any means, but even as Home Minister he has shown himself to be far more solid and defiant than Manmohan Singh.
So defiance is the yardstick for capability? And his defiance is not a credit to the MMS administration by your own yardstick?

Your logic is so scintillating it blinds me beyond all understanding.

Are you familiar with the context in which I made that statement? It was a response to this post:

surinder wrote:
a_bharat wrote:MMS is hurting the pride and dignity of this nation by letting ourselves slapped by Pakistan repeatedly.
Do you serously beleive that if MMS goes, we will have a PM who will be rock solid and defiant?

Where in this exchange, or my response, have you found a statement by me to the effect that "defiance is the yardstick for capability"?

Or is it just easier to attribute nonsense to other people than to come up with real counterpoints to arguments they have actually made?

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 23 Jul 2010 12:39

I think this discussion calls for a domestic political discussion thread.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Jul 2010 12:46

this thread needs to get back to the core issue!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Jul 2010 12:48

amit wrote:
As has been pointed out many times, if MMS and UPA was hell bent on appeasement they would have found an excuse to give away things by now. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but thrice and more?

During the Siachen discussions we heard that the Army saved the day. After the SES fiasco we heard that it was a loyal group of babus who saved the day. Now we are hearing that Pillai ji and his boss Chidambaram saved the day. I wonder who will save the day the next time?

Don't people find it curious that there's seems to always be someone within the UPA dispensation who is ready to "save the day"?

A brave attempt to put one plus two together and make four.

Neither the Army who stepped in to stop the Siachen giveaway, nor the civil servants who fought back against MMS' sellout at Sharm-el-Shaikh, are part of the "UPA dispensation". They are loyal citizens of India who could not countenance the betrayals being played out in front of them, even at the potential cost to their careers in retribution.

Chidambaram is clearly being targeted and isolated within the party and the administration by Manmohan Singh's cabal. The unwarranted, public attack on him by Digvijay Singh (general secretary of the party) amply bears this out. He is already facing the guillotine that claimed M K Narayanan, and may fall to it soon. But at least he managed to stop SM Krishna compounding the "spirit of Thimpu" with an all-out GUBO to Qureishi while David Headley's revelations still rang in the air.

So on the other hand, we have SM Krishna's public media attack on the Indian Home Secretary. Happenstance? We have Digvijay Singh's public media attack on the Indian Home Minister. Coincidence? Let's see, would the ouster of M K Narayanan count as a third, or will we have to wait for more wrathful vengeance and character assassination by the sultans of sell-out?

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 23 Jul 2010 12:50

Heavy rains and floods in Punjab and KP kill 50

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2010 12:55

Guys, cool down. Enough has been said about all sides. No more political discussion. I mean it.