Bharat Rakshak

Karan M wrote:

sukhish wrote:has attacking on indian convoy's every now and then lead to any war. by the way sushma swaraj the grand standing foreign minister did have her dinner in islamabad just two days ago.

india has more to lose than pakistan. it wants to be a power & a successful civilization. pakistan army is ok with its citizens eating grass. each & every year this contrast gets more and more evident. india can wage war, annihalate pakistan, lose a decade or more & be vulnerable to further incidents of force. is that in its best interest? no.
answer then is to deter TSP but without all out war. its not easy. especially when keeping the pretence of reasonableness.
especially when there are countries eg PRC which want a war so that india gets pulled down. others in the west who back TSP to the hilt and support it.

and as regards "grand standing" SS - this is the sort of rhetoric that has no business in a serious discussion. have you even tracked how responsive and responsible she has been as a FM? compare and contrast to her predecessors. she has been given a task, and she is doing it.

as regards comprehensive wagehra.. talk, talk, hit, hit.

ps: if the hit, hit was going on people wouldn;t have had an issue with MMS either. but the man was delusional and even prevented indian retaliation at the border. he made us into a soft state which kept taking hits. thats the difference here. modi has a limited number of tools at his disposal and he is using them all.

Sukhish wrote:they tested shaheen-III today with the range of 2750, they are not relenting either

if get little FDI and get more prospurous they will also escalate the threat matrix by raising there minimum deterence.

basically the ratio of (indian economic progress/ pak threat level) will kept the same , it has been kept the same for a long time

we will get more FDI, they will more free - equipment in return from uncle SAM. so that ratio does not change. if ukil gives them less china will fill the rest.

if india wants to get out of this game of ratio, it has to do think differently. more FDI to India is directly propotional to more military aid to pak one way or the other.

Karan M wrote:

sukhish wrote:every indian prime minister as far as I can re-collect has been under pressure by uncle SAM.

other indian PMs were not cut from the same cloth in terms of fixing things asap. CWG, 2G, myriad scams showed where the remote control/s were.

wasn't the MMS composite dialogue in the same line ?

MMS was an ideologue who got his fuzzies speaking to TSP and wanted a noble peace prize legacy to offset his remote control image. he almost compromised on core national issues. the huge furore over siachen was admitted to be a reality by his own advisor Baru.
a bunch of rtd military & establishment types sabotaged his attempts to buy a legacy at the cost of hard won indian territory.
sharm e shaikh another.

in short, he was compromised.

nobody was compromised, it was all to show to the rest of the world that we are engaging and keep getting more FDI on side, same strategy is being applied now as well.

so because MMS had pind in pak, he agreed to a composite dialogue, i never saw that in any joint statement in any indo pak affairs. I'am not in comparison business

the pakistanis liked MMS. he was pliable. Modi is not. simple evidence is the amount of hit back we are doing at the borders. yes, pakistan is still infiltrating but that is to be expected. MMS even prevented that. enough reports posted already. you should know it.

it is not about pilable, you cannot take siachen or J&K away in any joint statement. it is all being fed upon to you by some you only know best.
what reports. did anything happened on the ground to change the calculus ?

but just trying to gulp the objective rational behind the comprehensive dialogue joint statement.

you already have the rationale. whether you are objective enough to admit it, as versus being clouded by your bias of "not my Modi, your Advani" is your choice to make.

IOW, get used to the occasional talks, smiley faces etc between india and TSP. a week later you'll hear of firing at the border.

its going to be a hot peace.

sukhish wrote:MMS was not delusional (just not) , he wanted economic progress .

hitting pak hard along LOC is not going to change the behaviour of pak. it has not in the past it will not in the future.

something more bigger has to be done to change the calculus.

disha wrote:^^ Sukhish'ji - are you from Hyderabad, Bangalore?

Fact is that Bakis have lost all H&D - even in duplicity. It is now a race for which parts of Bakistan is controlled by whom. Bakistan is the "prize" where Amerikhans, Russians, Chinese and Indians are in a race to control and carve piece off. And among the four, Chinese and Russians are waay behind.

sukhish wrote:nobody was compromised, it was all to show to the rest of the world that we are engaging and keep getting more FDI on side, same strategy is being applied now as well.

it is not about pilable, you cannot take siachen or J&K away in any joint statement. it is all being fed upon to you by some you only know best.
what reports. did anything happened on the ground to change the calculus ?

The former Afghan President Hamid Karzai has rejected the remarks by President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani for calling the residents of Waziristan tribal regions ‘Pakistanis’.The office of the Former President issued a statement following President Ghani’s remarks he delivered during the Heart of Asia summit in Islamabad, the capital city of Pakistan.The statement further added that the Former President has expressed hopes that President Ghani’s visit to Pakistan will result to peace and stability in the region and lead to strengthening ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan.However, Karzai said he strongly rejects President Ghani’s remarks for calling the residents of Waziristan ‘Pakistanis’, insisting that the Durand Line was imposed and drawn on the chest of Afghanistan during the British colonial government and therefore will never be accepted by the people of Afghanistan.Karzai also added that the residents of Waziristan were forced to shift on this side of Durand Line after losing their homes in airstrikes and military raids, insisting that they have only shifted from one home to another home.He said the residents of Waziristan are therefore not refugees of Pakistan and have equal and complete right similar as the Afghan people.

Intense lobbying by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval with the American authorities could have led David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, to turn an approver in the case, a senior government official told The Hindu .

shiv wrote:U.S. bowed to Indian pressure

Intense lobbying by National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval with the American authorities could have led David Coleman Headley, one of the main conspirators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, to turn an approver in the case, a senior government official told The Hindu .

I find the headline quite insulting. For a nation that is taking orders from the US the claim that the US bowed to Indian pressure is preposterous. Leftist presstitute Hindu posturing. More likely Modi begged Obama and said he would order more American arms and talk to Pakistan and Obama allowed this

NRao wrote:Pigs are starting to fly? Wishes .......................?

Pakistan losing the America pillar


Bharat Karnad

Pakistan, it was said, was defined by the three As — Allah, Army, and America! It is in serious danger of losing America as pillar to lean on, and without which the dyad of Allah and the Army will render that country even more unstable than it already is. This trend of the US retracting from its blind support of Pakistan may be seen particularly in the views aired by the ranking majority Republican Party and minority Democratic Party in recent Congressional Hearings on a possible nuclear deal with Pakistan along the lines of the one with India.

Members of the sub-committee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in the Hearings held on Dec 8, 2015, were one with the four experts — former Pak ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani and currently at Hudson Institute, Daniel Markey of SAIS, Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Education Center, and George Perkovich of Carnegie called in to testify, in stating plainly that a civilian nuclear deal to insert Pakistan in “the international mainstream” that the Obama Administration is considering (prompted principally by Michael Krepon and his colleagues at the Henry L. Stimson Center) has not a spitball’s chance in hell!

The Congressmen were scathing. Pakistan was called “the only schizophrenic nuclear state” in the world, one that was both confused and confusing the US about its intentions and policies, and described as a “difficult partner” in America’s counter-terrorism and nonproliferation missions. The Chairman of the subcommittee, Poe, went so far as to say that in the Eighties he was called “Pakistan’s man in the Congress” but he thinks he made a mistake then because he said going to Pakistan and interacting with Pak Army officers, who because they “looked like British officers, we believed were not radical!” and that he now thinks Pakistan which was “once a friend is now an enemy”! All of them voiced their anger at Pakistan channeling N-weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Gaddafi’s Libya, and in the future, possibly to Saudi Arabia, and making a fool of America.

Haqqani was the most outspoken. Time and again he reminded the Congressmen that the US govt’s institutional and instinctive habit of bypassing the civilian authority and dealing directly with the army since 1947 has strengthened the military’s hold on the Pakistani state. And that Congressional conditions on aid to Pakistan were routinely ignored by the US President of the day. Moreover, he was straight forward in saying that all military aid sent by the US, the latest being the F-16s Obama has promised, end up being used solely against India. He was joined by the other three experts in saying NO when they were asked by the sub-committee if the US can anymore “trust” Islamabad not to undermine US interests and discard terrorism as aeapon. He also reminded the American legislators that Islamabad sought a civilian N-deal for the sake of “parity” of treatment and not because it’d buy any power reactors from the US, considering China was supplying all the reactors needed to generate electricity and w/o the onerous conditions that’d attend on a deal with the US. Tellingly, Haqqani likened Pakistan’s desire to be seen as the equal of India to Belgium wanting to be the equal of France and Germany!

But it was also an occasion for Sokolski and Perkovich — both of whom opposed the N-deal with India, to say that if ever there was a civilian N-deal with Pakistan that it will have to meet certain criteria — liking curbing its N-weapons growth and the rate of missile production, the sort of thing they rued was not insisted upon with regard to India.

The Pak embassy must have telegraphed the trending situation, because it had an immediate impact some hours later in the warmth with which Sushma Swaraj, the minister for external affairs, was received by PM Nawaz Sharif, and in the reasonableness the Pakistan Establishment displayed in quickly agreeing to discuss anti-India terrorist outfits, especially the LeT, operating fairly freely in that country, as part of the “comprehensive” talks. The opening to India is important to both the Sharifs — the politician Nawaz and the army chief, Raheel, to counter the impression gaining ground in Washington of an unreconstructed Islamabad bent on making trouble for everyone and, therefore, needing firm handling.

Abhay_S wrote: Dishaji,

Why are the chineese behind ? They have done quite a lot for Tspa

CRamS wrote:Guys, did anyone watch the interview IK gave to Turdesai. I just caught a glimpse of it, where Turdesai asked him if he (IK) asked (nah begged) ModiJi for kirket. IK's reply was that he did and ModiJi just laughed.

Paul wrote:Shiv, are you being sarcastic or are you serious?

sukhish wrote:MMS was not delusional (just not) , he wanted economic progress . hitting pak hard along LOC is not going to change the behaviour of pak. it has not in the past it will not in the future. something more bigger has to be done to change the calculus.

shiv wrote:Imran Khan meets PM. Shah Rukh Khan meets someone else. What shit are the media reporting?

Have Indian goods started moving via Pakistan to Afghanistan or not? If they have not started moving then we are looking at Fart of Asia more than Heart of Asia. Are Afghan goods coming to us? Has Obama given the necessary permissions to Pakistan and issued his orders to Modi?

abhijitm wrote:

sukhish wrote:MMS was not delusional (just not) , he wanted economic progress . hitting pak hard along LOC is not going to change the behaviour of pak. it has not in the past it will not in the future. something more bigger has to be done to change the calculus.

Changing behavior of pakis towards India is a futile exercise. Only a deluded person can think that. Pakistan needs to be shown its place time to time by hard slaps and size 12 shoe in their bottom.

johneeG wrote:It is always give & take. If something was given, then something was taken. If something was taken, something was also given. No one can afford to only give or only take.

SOME important remarks made by the State Bank governor, Ashraf Mahmood Wathra, about transparency in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects deserve careful consideration.

In an interview given to Reuters, Mr Wathra said that “CPEC needs to be made more transparent”, going on to indicate that many crucial details of the various projects to be executed under the CPEC umbrella remain hidden even from him [the Central Bank's Governor]. {AoA}

For example, he said that out of $46bn, he does not know “how much is debt, how much is equity and how much is in kind”. {AoA}Details of this sort are important to know because they can help us understand the potential economic impact that CPEC will have in the future, given the many hopes attached to this project.

The State Bank has also repeatedly invoked the CPEC projects as the best hope for reviving growth in the country, but whether this is merely wishful thinking or a realistic expectation can only be determined if crucial financial details of the projects are known.

In a later clarification, the State Bank asserted that it remains positive about CPEC, but it stood by its transparency concerns.

The governor’s remarks are notable for a number of reasons. This is the first time that the need for greater transparency in CPEC has been mentioned from such an important platform as the State Bank.

Since the economy is faced with dwindling inflows of foreign investment and exports, it is crucial to know how its foreign exchange-earning capacity is going to shape up in the years to come, especially in light of the rising external debt burden that the government has been taking on.

Even though the government tells us that its plans to build industrial estates along the route of the road link from Gwadar to Khunjerab will help boost exports, Mr Wathra is entirely correct when he acknowledges this vision but adds that “we need to see this plan with more clarity”.

The CPEC project may indeed have tremendous potential for the country but only if it is implemented properly. By steadfastly refusing to share any of the crucial details of the various projects that make up the CPEC bouquet — even with stakeholders as important and central to its execution and impact as the State Bank — the government is not shoring up confidence in its capacity to oversee the implementation of such a large vision.

Bhurishrava wrote:Why was the previous meeting cancelled? Meeting with Hurry rats?! What has changed since?

SSridhar wrote: Very true. The only thing that needs to be ensured is that there is equitable give-and-take.

rudrak wrote:Hello all..My first post here.
I am not really sure what the whole sell out logic of the talks with Pakistan is.... Ufa statement said border must be quiet and NSAs should meet to discuss terrorism. Once terrorism is addressed, composite dialog will resume. The borders are quieter as per recent news. The only sell out was meeting outside of India of the NSAs but the Ufa statement never said where the meeting would be.

Now SS in Pakistan essentially said the same thing. Terror should end and accordingly composite dialog will begin. In fact Pakistan assured of speedy Mumbai trials.

Where is the back tracking?

nirav wrote:Peregrine ji :

Road transit via paki land allows us access to Afghanistan and Iran too.. Let them build cpec. Some part of it will be useful for our purposes too.

Also transit is just one of the aspects.pakis know well that this Indian govt means business and is fully capable on delivering on its promises if pakis breach the red lines.

The massive retaliation on the border is ample proof of our resolve.heck our DM actually acknowledge that pakis begged us to stop.

After delivering those jhapads, if pakis are desperate to talk it out, what's the harm in talking to them ?

If they resort to their famed duplee city and genetic perfidy, border can be heated up in an instant by desh.

A ceasefire is in everyone's interest. Must wait and watch what happens post talks. This way BSF and IA also get some time off of blasting PAjis and get much needed R&R.

In my mind there are two ways of looking at these talks.one is with shivering negativity 56 inch to 26 and all that.
Other is that we are engaging in these talks from a position of strength.it was the pakis, PAjis who were desperate and came begging to us to "talk".
Talk we will. Its up to them to walk the talk.

A_Gupta wrote:

rudrak wrote:Hello all..My first post here.
I am not really sure what the whole sell out logic of the talks with Pakistan is.... Ufa statement said border must be quiet and NSAs should meet to discuss terrorism. Once terrorism is addressed, composite dialog will resume. The borders are quieter as per recent news. The only sell out was meeting outside of India of the NSAs but the Ufa statement never said where the meeting would be.

Now SS in Pakistan essentially said the same thing. Terror should end and accordingly composite dialog will begin. In fact Pakistan assured of speedy Mumbai trials.

Where is the back tracking?

As a trainee, you should learn that making sense on this thread is frowned on.

SSridhar wrote:Pakistan's Central Bank is giving a warning signal on CPEC - Dawn

SOME important remarks made by the State Bank governor, Ashraf Mahmood Wathra, about transparency in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects deserve careful consideration.

In an interview given to Reuters, Mr Wathra said that “CPEC needs to be made more transparent”, going on to indicate that many crucial details of the various projects to be executed under the CPEC umbrella remain hidden even from him [the Central Bank's Governor]. {AoA}

For example, he said that out of $46bn, he does not know “how much is debt, how much is equity and how much is in kind”. {AoA}Details of this sort are important to know because they can help us understand the potential economic impact that CPEC will have in the future, given the many hopes attached to this project.

rudrak wrote:Hello all..My first post here.
I am not really sure what the whole sell out logic of the talks with Pakistan is.... Ufa statement said border must be quiet and NSAs should meet to discuss terrorism. Once terrorism is addressed, composite dialog will resume. The borders are quieter as per recent news. The only sell out was meeting outside of India of the NSAs but the Ufa statement never said where the meeting would be.

Now SS in Pakistan essentially said the same thing. Terror should end and accordingly composite dialog will begin. In fact Pakistan assured of speedy Mumbai trials.

Where is the back tracking?

nirav wrote:Peregrine ji,

You've made valid point wrt to transit.I didn't mean to focus on solely transit.

We are not privy at the moment to what's being offered by Pakis for us to go to the table.

By talking, we are in no way compromising our interests. A 24/7 hot border is not in our national interest nor in the interest of our border population who faces the brunt.

If these talks yield visible progress on a ceasefire and terror, its good. Else we will go back to status quo of no talks and a hotter border. :/

abhijitm wrote:I am too of opinion we should stay away from this idea of using pak as a transit route....unless if they are willing to put $20b deposit with us as an insurance. Then we might think.

On the subject of the foundering bilateral cricket series with India, Aziz said that he had raised the issue with Swaraj at the dinner table who replied that since relations between the two countries were improving, it would ensure smooth cricketing between the two countries.