India's Sharm-el- Sheikh Harakiri...

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 17 Jul 2009 12:05

Today is one of the days, when I feel bad about one of my predictions coming true. The statement in Egypt underscores the point I was making here on this forum. One could see this coming, right from the time the General Elections were over. We as a nation are marching to someone else's script. This is what we get. This is what we deserve! Let us acknowledge the unpalatable truth that majority of Indians wants this policy and this government. They think terrorism does not matter. Only growth does.

When we have a PM who does not have to answer to either the people or their elected representatives and owes his position purely to one individual, what can we expect? It is not correct to defend the indefensible. The PM has let the nation down. He has let down those who lost their lives to Pakistani sponsored terror.

Frankly this was expected. What is even more sad is that the principal opposition is in a state of disarray and has not come out forcefully before the PM left for the NAM meeting. The day the Indian stance changed in G8 on climate commitments and the G8 statement came out on nuclear proliferation treaty, it should have done its national duty as an opposition and censured the government. The other opposition parties either have no vision or they hold the agenda of another country too dear to be bothered about India. So there is no one to even raise a meaningful objection to this ill advised move by the GOI.

Only time will tell how much more India is going to pay for this through blood and lives of innocent. During the Spanish Civil War, Nehru had visited the Republicans and had commented on the silence of Allied powers with regard to Franco and the support extended to him by Hitler stating that, "history, long ages hence, will remember this day of infamy, and will not forgive them".

MMS and this GOI administration, will be remembered by every Indian who felt personally seared by 26/11 and many other such attacks, in the same way his illustrious predecessor once remarked.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 12:07

kenop wrote:K-word out but big B-word in: Balochistan

That's the quid-pro-quo that was negotiated between the two sides, perhaps. You don't raise Kashmir and we will let you slip in Balochistan, so that both can claim vicitory, or as Hamid Mir says at least 'no defeat'. But, the damage to India is enormous. After all that horrible whacking that Pakistan has been giving to India through its terror outfits, Pakistan denies any wrong doing or wriggles out even when caught with its pants down a number of times. OTOH, BLA's rockets usually fall innocuously and at the most some power pylons are destroyed (which only poor Balochis of electricity), some railway tracks, on which freight trains to Iran run once a week, are blown up and some gas pipelines are blasted (the Punjabis have learnt to live with no gas) and India gets accused of sponsorship of terrorism in a joint statement signed by an Indian Prime Minister.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Jul 2009 12:09

RayC wrote:
Gilani to send gifts to Man Mohan Singh
He should not accept.

It has some unpleasant connotations for a public servant!

Ray C,

From a purely legalistic viewpoint there are no "unpleasant connotations" for our VVIPs to receive gifts from foreign dignitaries.

That gifts will be given to Indian VVIP’s by foreign dignitaries is recognised and thus has a laid down set of regulations, namely the Foreign Contribution (Acceptance Or Retention Of Gifts Or Presentations) Regulations , 1978.

As for the morality of receiving the gift, my reservations can be overcome by Mr. Gilani being given as return gift a Vietnamese Potbelly

.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 17 Jul 2009 12:13

A goat will be a nice present in reply

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Jul 2009 12:31

Thanks.

I am aware of what Public Servants can accept but I was not aware of foreign gifts.

Here is what made me wonder

Can Manmohan wear the Brazilian jersey?

NEW DELHI: This is no ordinary yellow jersey. If the Brazilian team wins the 2010 World Cup it might go down in history as one of the most expensive football jerseys around. And even in the unlikely event of Brazil not making it to the finals it could still fetch Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a cool Rs 5 lakh, that is, if he ever plans to auction it.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 767647.cms

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Jul 2009 12:46

FWIW MMS is going to make a statement in Rajya Sabha about his meeting with Groper. Please stay tuned.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 12:56

RayC wrote:Thanks.

I am aware of what Public Servants can accept but I was not aware of foreign gifts.

RayC, I thought your comments wrt mangoes were in light of what happened to a certain C-130 and the evil connotations that have been associated with crates of Pakistani mangoes thereafter !

Duangkomon · Post by **Duangkomon** » 17 Jul 2009 13:07

Reaction in India seems to be muted. With a worthless opposition, media and public intellectuals I don't see the world's largest democracy getting alarmed by any of this. They are more concerned about helping Pakis fight terror than care about their own people.

There is a clear perception of the core principles around which nations like US, China and Russia conduct their foreign policy even if the details and methods of achieving them are not that clear. In India's case the grand vision is shrouded in some chanakyan mystery known only to our brilliant babus.
Meantime wrt other major powers India's fate seems to be that of a perennial brides maid turned unhinged bumbling loser epitomised by her leaders.

Story of India's foreign policy so far from a lay man's point of view is that of chronic inaction, inconsistencies, compromises, concessions and feeble threats. This stems from the contempt and distrust the ruling elites have for its own people. Nothing is going to change at least for the next few generations.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 13:13

Najam Sethi's editorial

. . . the Indians reportedly wanting Kashmir out of the dialogue and Pakistanis putting forward proof of Indian interference in Balochistan and the Tribal Areas. {So, both were accommodated in the end. While non-inclusion of Kashmir doesn't mean much, inclusion of an insinuation against India matters a great deal for India however much Man Mohan Singh spins the web later on} If something positive occurs before the summit adjourns it will be because the United States and the European Union want India and Pakistan to talk instead of fighting their covert war in South Asia.

The pressure on India would be against its current policy of not talking and thus complicating the situation in Afghanistan and putting Pakistan’s back up needlessly despite Islamabad’s efforts to help India investigate the Mumbai episode and promising to punish the culprits in view of any incriminating evidence.

The world wants both sides to talk. But while it favours India, it has also shown some weariness regarding India’s position that terrorism must first come to an end before anything meaningful can be done. The problem is that terrorism in today’s world is not a phenomenon that can be toggle-switched by any state. Neither can it be seen sans any context in which inter-state conflicts in this region have unfolded. What Pakistan is doing now is quite correct: it is fighting the non state actors and trying quite honestly to get its internal sovereignty back. What India wants from it will be possible only if New Delhi begins to understand that contexts cannot be set aside, not least because nothing takes place in a vacuum. {So, Najam Sethi is back to the familiar argument that J&K, alleged treatment of Muslims in India etc. are valid contexts for terrorism}

. . . an internally weakened Pakistan cannot deliver the entire “peace” agenda in one go. It must be helped militarily and economically if the region is to be saved from the heat produced by the insurgencies and terrorism racking the region. India knows this too but is reluctant to take a politically bold step because of domestic reasons.

The talks must not be a repetition of what has been happening in the past. They must be based on a new agenda formulated after back-stage diplomacy and a prior mutual accommodation over the basic issues.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 Jul 2009 13:20

India puts Pakistan talks on hold

India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has said his country will not start peace talks with Pakistan until the Mumbai attacks suspects are brought to justice.

Mr Singh was speaking after meeting his Pakistani counterpart at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Egypt.

A joint statement said the two countries would co-operate to fight terrorism, and this should not be linked to wider peace talks.

Fiona Werge reports.
---

There is a video in the above link

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 13:33

BJP questions Govt 'what prompted this reversal of policy'

"Surprised" by India-Pakistan joint statement that action on terrorism should not be linked with the composite dialogue, BJP on Friday
asked the government what "prompted" it to change stance towards Islamabad.

Raising the issue during Zero Hour in the Rajya Sabha, leader of opposition Arun Jaitley said the joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt that "action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite duologue process and these should not be bracketed" has come as a "surprise and also disappointment".

He said this was a "reversal of India's long standing policy" that as long as cross-border terrorism, state sponsored terrorism and terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil continue, there would not be any dialogue.

Jaitley wanted the government to make a statement on the issue demanding full discussion.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Jul 2009 13:40

I have never felt so demoralised as now before!

Maybe I have not understood the brownie point India scored!

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Jul 2009 13:56

Just logged in to see if any BRFite could find some Chankyian move in our Egyptian fiasco but seeing even experienced (and usually optimistic) BRFites throw the towel has depressed me even more and confirmed that all fears of a sell-out after the elections are slowly coming true!!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Jul 2009 14:03

sum wrote:Just logged in to see if any BRFite could find some Chankyian move in our Egyptian fiasco but seeing even experienced (and usually optimistic) BRFites throw the towel has depressed me even more and confirmed that all fears of a sell-out after the elections are slowly coming true!!

sum et. al. -- some of us have been vociferously raising our voice and warning against this situation, however we were considered to be either BJPites at worst or CTs etc at best.

Please realize that many people who have been expecting those things have been "expecting" it. That is a clear rational unemotional look at the facts at hand leave no conclusion but this. This was not a "fear" or a "worry" -- neither does any of us great satisfaction in painting a PM of our nation black merely because he does not belong to the party or ideology we like.

We are not current congressmen and their ilk who can only consider any opposition to a personal opposition since they have long ago forgotten ideology as well as the capablity to understand that any critism does not have to do with political posturing alone.

I hate thinking that I am living in a country where my leaders are .......

-------

Yet for all that we must say the truth as we see it no? Does it make sense to treat MMS with special deference only because he has been given the PMs chair?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 14:07

Post Cold-War, there is a new dynamic entering into the Indian Foreign Policy. Its acquiescence to United States is directly proportional to the level of US leverage over Pakistan and level of cooperation with PRC, even as the warmth in our relations is directly proportional to the pro-Indian attitude of USA.

Indian Foreign Policy probably thinks that as of now the warmth India had enjoyed with the Bush Administration, is nowhere to be seen in an Obama Administration. The old Democrats are still in power, who look at India with blinkered glasses of non-proliferation, third level power status, etc. In order to break their hold over State Dept. policy towards India, India seems to be going out of the way to prove to them, that India is a trustworthy 'ally'. Especially as the Obama Administration has decided to shower Pakistan with monies and apparently move close to TSPA, the Indians Foreign Policy babus probably feel, that they do no want to allow Pakistan, based on its level of heightened access to power centers in Washington D.C., to wage a kaan-bharna campaign against India, with their complaints and critic falling on fertile ground of a Democratic Administration. So as long as the US Govt. lends Pakistan heightened importance, and India feels that it has earned goodwill in the Democratic Administration on a self-sustainable basis, India would continue to buy its way in into America's good books.

Considering that India cannot give in too much in areas of national scrutiny like on the Nuclear Front on NPT, CTBT, etc. and only reluctantly in areas of WTO trade deal, climate change, it has probably been decided that India could concede in an area of prime importance for the USA, the Af-Pak dynamics, which involves improving on the atmospherics between the two countries. A bitter pill to swallow in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks but nevertheless a concession one could give considering UPA's substantial mandate in the 2009 General Elections.

Another way of looking at it is the old tradition where an outlying kingdom pays a tribute and sends gifts when a new Pharaoh is crowned, in this case Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States of America.

Now the reasons are fourfold as to why it is deemed necessary to appease America.
1. The Nuclear Deal: MMS invested a lot of political capital in this Deal. Should the non-proliferation obsessed Obama Administration renege on its commitment to pursue the Nuclear Deal or fail to keep India's concessions in it, obfuscated in diplomatic language, then it would mean a huge loss of face for MMS personally and all the political forces in the country would pounce on him baying for his blood.

2. It is known wisdom that the situation in Pakistan would get worse before it gets worser. India wants to be intimately briefed by the Washington on the going-ons, and would want to be a trusted dialog partner of USA when the situation goes beyond control, and everything starts falling apart over there. Cooperation would be needed in fields from denuking, to intelligence gathering and sharing, to supporting various groups, to hindering other groups from power grabs, to managing eventually the birth of new states in an 'erstwhile' Pakistan.

3. The big reason is, of course, the trio tango between USA-PRC-India. As USA becomes more dependent on PRC for the health of its economy, India gets relegated to an ignorable. With PRC becoming more aggressive in the North-East India, bringing up its string of pearls, shoring up its proxy Pakistan vs India, etc. it was felt that it will be difficult to hold back PRC's mischief by India all alone. PRC has to feel that on this front USA is with India, and as such should not feel too overconfident of pulling off another 1962 or something even worse. An equi-distant US position on this would not help. USA has to see India as an ally. The doctrine of balance of power in Asia should remain, and Obama should not feel like giving the keys to Asia to Beijing, at least not as long as India has closed this power-differential with PRC to some extent.

4. India's only escape pod from the containment field in which China and Pakistan has forced India into is massive economical growth and a parallel decent military capability buildup. Every economy that has prospered in the last 60 years has done so, only in cooperation with USA. India too needs a benign, indeed a positive, business climate with USA, especially during the present financial crisis, where the forces of protectionism have grown louder including in USA. India lags far behind in infrastructure compared to China. Usually only when the US gives the nod, do its allies come forth with support for such projects, like as in the case of Japan, willing to finance the Mumbai-Delhi Industrial Corridor, etc. Only Infrastructure growth can assure a dynamic manufacturing base in the country, which is what is needed to compete with the likes of PRC.

India has been able to have a productive and warm relationship with a Republican Administration. Indian Foreign Policy establishment probably thinks, that Indo-US relations would only then be considered self-sustainable when India manages to have a similar quality to that relationship with a Democratic Administration as well.

There is an awareness in Policy circles that from Pakistan, India will get absolutely nothing, not even a decrease in terrorism. There is no use of talks for the sake of peace. So it matters little whether there is any mutual joint statements, composite dialogues, or anything of the kind. India is not going to be giving Pakistan anything other than time-pass talks. These have only the agenda of keeping US happy, and nothing more.

People looking for something Chankyan on the Indo-Pak front would not find anything like that there, because all the posturing is on the Indo-US front. The shopkeeper has given the brat a lolly so that he can flirt with the Nanny.

Any Indo-Pak reconciliation etc. is nothing bilateral. It is a Indo-US understanding.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Jul 2009 14:47

RayC wrote:I have never felt so demoralised as now before!

Maybe I have not understood the brownie point India scored!

Can someone please explain what I may be missing here: is there a plausible path FROM

a. India "helping" Pakistan by giving up on its demands on terrorism TO
b. Pakistan succeeding in saving itself from a real or imagined Taliban takeover and becoming internally cohesive and strong TO
c. Pakistan reliably ceasing terrorism against India?

I am asking in all seriousness--I suspect that most of us are angry at what happened in Egypt, and it is easy to see the analogy to Munich 1936. What I am asking is whether there is any honest way to give the benefit of the doubt to India's action or whether the only possible conclusion is that India's policy has nothing to do with ending terrorism against itself.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jul 2009 14:48

"Radiation detectors".Rather late in the day,when the horses might have bolted long ago to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere! Ask AQ Khan if you can,as the Paki establishment is keeping him in quarantine and incommunicado.

Judging from his latest statement,Subedar MM Singh seems to have beaten the retreat in Egypt unlike Indian troops in the 8th army in WW2 who instead made Rommel retreat! A great pity that he did not do the same to the Paki PM.This about turn is probably due to a missive from 10 Janpath after the enormity of his faux-pas committed was evident to the nation.The report that India and Pak would "cooperate on defeating terrorism" regardless of terror attacks like that of 26/11 appeared to be a shocking example of cowardice and submissiveness by India.The wording of the statement smelt as if it was drafted by a foreign foster-father,who has earlier wanted India and Pak to do the same using these exact words earlier on Pak. soil.Whatever the facts of the matter,MMS has lost credibility by appearing to be another species of jellyfish.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Jul 2009 14:56

Will we remember MMS just like we remember IKG currently, a misguided WKK who blunted all our offensive capabilities against Pak despite repeated jhapads?

I sense history (bad for India) in the making!!!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 15:22

Whereas one could understand (though not necessarily agree with) the logic behind this restarting of talks, MMS and his team were still über den Tisch gezogen (pulled over the table, as the Germans say it), were tricked into things that were not necessary.

The formulation of "being both victims of terror, etc.", "the insertion of Baluchistan", all point to only one thing.

MMS wanted to have a joint declaration with the Pakis to present it to Hillary when she comes calling, and the Pakis could sense Indian desperation in the air. The Pakis made full use of that Indian desperation and got their wording into the joint statement.

Whereas before this meeting, the Pakis were begging for a resumption of talks, at the meeting itself MMS and his team appeared to being the desperate party.

As Indians are not going to give two hoots about this document, it as such doesn't matter, but still all that wording could have been avoided, if the MEA team accompanying MMS had been up to the task. They should have had the attitude of take it or leave it, we don't care.

Ultimately it shows that those babus have done untold harm to the image of the Indian Babu, and need to be thrown out. It is the job of the Babus to save Indian PMs from their own stupidity, but this time they failed badly.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Jul 2009 15:30

Raja Ram garu

Our PM goes to africa and becomes leaf eating Singh like this one from South Africa forest/savanah

Gass Boos singh ji

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 17 Jul 2009 15:39

RajeshA wrote:
People looking for something Chankyan on the Indo-Pak front would not find anything like that there, because all the posturing is on the Indo-US front. The shopkeeper has given the brat a lolly so that he can flirt with the Nanny.

Any Indo-Pak reconciliation etc. is nothing bilateral. It is a Indo-US understanding.

I don't think Nanny is going to depart from her agenda and her misguided approach and see the worthiness of the shopkeeper. Her concern is with the brat.

sum · Post by **sum** » 17 Jul 2009 15:56

Raja Ram garu

Our PM goes to africa and becomes leaf eating Singh like this one from South Africa forest/savanah

Gass Boos singh ji

I always used to feel CRamS was being too pessimistic about his views on Indian netas/babus but seeing the way things are going, i don't think that the day of a "Grand Bargain on Kashmir" which CRS keeps talking about is very far off.

Damn, this govt still has 4 1/2 years to go and no election to fear (not that our aam aadmi cares two hoots about national security). Future is looking grim on the strategic front.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 17 Jul 2009 15:56

Sushma Swaraj seeks clarification on Indo-Pak joint statemen

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jul 2009 16:00

KV Rao wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
People looking for something Chankyan on the Indo-Pak front would not find anything like that there, because all the posturing is on the Indo-US front. The shopkeeper has given the brat a lolly so that he can flirt with the Nanny.

Any Indo-Pak reconciliation etc. is nothing bilateral. It is a Indo-US understanding.
I don't think Nanny is going to depart from her agenda and her misguided approach and see the worthiness of the shopkeeper. Her concern is with the brat.

Yes, it is still to be seen if the Nanny flirts back, though one should keep one's hopes down.

But brat as it is, it will sooner or later try stealing more lollies in the shop (a macabre metaphor for terrorism), upon which the shopkeeper would again threaten to spank the brat (increase the troop levels on the border). Should something happen to the brat (Taliban takeover of nukes), her job is on the line (American security). It is better for Nanny to keep up the flirt.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:07

Bhima wrote:Court in Pakistan acquits Sharif

Pakistan's Supreme Court has acquitted opposition head Nawaz Sharif of hijacking charges, removing the final ban on him running for public office.

The corollary then is that Musharraf is now acknowledged officially as a liar. This is only he beginning for him and more will come. Knowing what was coming he took refuge in the UK.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Jul 2009 16:14

B.Raman’s aptly titled article in Rediff.

Not being in heaven, rather than feeling like shedding tears, I feel more llike retching for the pusillanimity shown by our Congress headed Government.

The Sharm El Sheikh statement is yet another climb down foisted on our nation following the Havana declaration fiasco perpetrated once again by this Congress Government of ours:

Indo-Pak statement lets down the martyrs of 26/11

July 17, 2009

……………. This agreement, which seeks to whitewash years of Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism against Indian civilians and security forces, will make all those who died at the hands of the terrorists shed tears in heaven. ………………

Rediff

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 Jul 2009 16:16

No dialogue with Pak till credible action is taken against terrorists: PM

In an apparent climbdown, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said there would be no composite dialogue with Pakistan till it takes credible action against the perpetrators of Mumbai terror attack and further maintained that so far both sides have agreed for only foreign secretary level talks.

In the second top-level meeting since the Mumbai terror attacks, Singh and Gilani met for more than two hours, virtually signalling a thaw in relations that had soured after the 26/11 strike when India suspended the dialogue process.

A joint statement issued after the meeting said both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both the countries and affirmed their resolve to fight the menace by cooperating with each other.

Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward.

India has particularly been maintaining that the dialogue process cannot resume till Pakistan takes "concrete" and "visible" action against perpetrators of Mumbai attacks.

On top of it, the joint statement also contains a reference to "threats" in Balochistan, where Pakistan has been alleging Indian hand in terror incidents.

Gilani told reporters after the meeting that his feeling was that India was "convinced" that the "way forward" was dialogue.

"All core issues that were pending under composite dialogue should be discussed... That should not be bracketed with this Mumbai incident," the Pakistan Prime Minister said.

"They are satisfied with my commitment that whosoever was behind Mumbai attack will be brought to justice," he said.

After India suspended the Composite Dialogue over Mumbai attacks, Pakistan has been pressing for its resumption, arguing that talks should not be linked to terrorism.

Gilani said he had raised the issue of "terrorism" in Balochistan.

The joint statement said that Singh emphasised the need for action against perpetrators of Mumbai attacks and Gilani had promised to "do everything in its power" in this regard.

The two sides agreed to "create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence".

During the talks that focussed on terrorism against the backdrop of Mumbai attack, the two sides also decided to share "real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terror threats".

The two leaders agreed that their Foreign Ministers will meet on the sidelines of UN General Assembly in New York. Prior to that Foreign Secretaries will be in constant touch.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 17 Jul 2009 16:18

If no dialogue, then why foreign secretary level talks? What are the foreign secretaries going to do other than talk?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:21

A ridiculous comment

Asked about Joint statement mentioning Baluchistan issue on which Pakistan had in the past accused India of fomenting trouble, Tewari said, "If Pakistan's Prime Minister wanted to put some information about Baluchistan in it, India has no objection because we do not interfere in any country's internal affairs and are also ready to talk, if anybody wants."

Can we have a dumber person than this Tewari ?
Veerappa Moily, for his part:

Replying to questions on criticism that the statement was a sell-out of the country's interests, Union Law Minster M Veerappa Moily told reporters, "those who do not understand about some of these concepts about external affairs, they are speaking about it. {The honourable minister should explain to the nation what these concepts are about external affairs}

"Those who understand that relationship (between the two countries) has to be maintained at a certain level, they will not speak like this. The joint statement is self explanatory and does not require any interpretations. {That's the easiest way to avoid answering any questions/criticism}"

Manish Tiwari, the spokesman for the INC, has always been a chump.

But this one takes the cake!

Totally assinine.

Of course, we don't interfere with other nation's affairs, but what has Balochistan got to do with the Joint Statement? Why did they not add Balwaristan and Sindh and Punjab?

Moily, with his broad and bored face does not know what he says and that is why he was chucked out during the election campaign as the spokesman.

I think having got a sizeable number of seats in the LS, they are becoming the effete lot that they had become earlier.

Sadly, too soon are they becoming Neros!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:35

arun wrote:B.Raman’s aptly titled article in Rediff.
Indo-Pak statement lets down the martyrs of 26/11

Rediff

From the above,

While even Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] banned the LeT for some months after the December 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament, Zardari has till today not banned the JUD, the post-2001 moniker of the LeT.

Not only that, Pakistan offered a funny reason for not banning JuD after the UNSC notification. It claimed that such an action was separately not warranted after the UN had added JuD under its terror list. Smart, eh ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:40

Pak Govt at a loss to find evidence against Hafeez Saeed

The government is finding it difficult to have sufficient cogent evidence and material against Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed to present it before the Supreme Court, seeking his preventive detention.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Jul 2009 16:46

RajeshA wrote:
Ultimately it shows that those babus have done untold harm to the image of the Indian Babu, and need to be thrown out. It is the job of the Babus to save Indian PMs from their own stupidity, but this time they failed badly.

Especially the nonplussed pair of Shivshankar Menon and the incumbent NSA.

Time for them to cut from the scene. They seem way out of their league.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 17 Jul 2009 16:47

SSridhar wrote:A ridiculous comment
Asked about Joint statement mentioning Baluchistan issue on which Pakistan had in the past accused India of fomenting trouble, Tewari said, "If Pakistan's Prime Minister wanted to put some information about Baluchistan in it, India has no objection because we do not interfere in any country's internal affairs and are also ready to talk, if anybody wants."
Can we have a dumber person than this Tewari ?

A fine lawyer that Mr. Tiwari is, how does he accept this statement when it is a joint statement. Not a Pak PM statement.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:48

Even the Pakis are surprised by our PM's capitulation

But what came out after the three-hour diplomatic huddle between the two teams, including a near sixty-minute one-on-one exchange between the prime ministers, was nothing less than a shocking surprise. To quote a top Pakistani diplomat and one of the key players in these parleys who, when asked to rate on a scale of 1-10 the element of surprise and success of the summit, said “the pleasant surprise would be at 5, but the success would have to be at 7”. And this coming from a man, who only an evening earlier had told me categorically that the summit would most likely prove a continuation of the Moscow mood and that while Pakistan had hoped for the best, it was a given that the summit was going to be a non-starter because of India’s regressive attitude.

It obviously means that Shiv Shankar Menon was unrelenting and the PM over ruled him and took the decision for the re-start of the dialogue and the contents of the joint statement.

No Indian Prime Minister should be allowed to have a one-on-one because they always give up Indian interests in such situations. History is replete with such instances. Tashkent, Simla, Agra and now Sharam-el-Sheikh.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 Jul 2009 16:49

Pakistan on Agenda of US-India Talks
10 June 2009
A high ranking American envoy is in New Delhi for talks with top Indian officials. The visit comes at a time when the United States is urging India to restart peace talks with Pakistan.

The visit of William Burns marks the first formal talks between the Obama administration and the new Cabinet of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It comes ahead of an expected official visit next month by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meant to deepen the relationship between the world's oldest democracy and the world's largest one.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Jul 2009 16:55

More from the same article cited above.

Arguably Pakistan has achieved a couple of very significant milestones, including the first ever formal inclusion of the Balochistan issue in the India-Pakistan bilateral conflict resolution agenda. In fact, the joint communique paragraph even goes further than just Balochistan to include “other areas”, an oblique reference to the purported Indian involvement in fomenting trouble not just in Balochistan (where it is accused to funding Brahamdagh Bugti and the BLO) but also in strife-torn areas of Malakand, Swat and certain tribal agencies. {Turn the screws on India. Turn them on. India deserves it} Admittedly, it’s too early to read too much into this inclusion but the very fact of its being recognised, albeit in a watered down manner as “threats in Balochistan and other areas” is a very critical development, even more so in the backdrop of international implications of the Balochistan-related complications vis-‡-vis Iranian Balochistan. There was definitely a delicate compromise here with Pakistan not insisting on putting in the ‘K’ word in lieu of inserting Balochistan in the communique but even then the Kashmir issue was amply covered in the statement that read “...India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. And Pakistan had reiterated and reaffirmed the outstanding status of Kashmir issue on the NAM floor only a day earlier.

The other major breakthrough was the de-linking of the terrorism issue from the hitherto stalled composite dialogue process. But the diplomatic jargon used here is very interesting as it allows both governments to put a positive spin and claim victory at home, but in essence it is the process of dialogue that has come out a winner. The communique reads: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” Pakistan has persistently argued that the composite dialogue must not be allowed to become a hostage to the emotional hyperbole sired by the Mumbai tragedy and specially so now that the compulsions of campaigning in the general elections no longer forces the Congress government’s hand. India on the other hand had also proven keen to milk the issue to the max to garner all international sympathy and support purely at the expense of Pakistan’s image and credibility. According to a senior Indian journalist, the Indian government amongst other factors was also apprehensive about restarting the dialogue and then ending up looking like a schmuck in case another Mumbai-style incident happened. Gilani apparently managed to convince Manmohan into taking the plunge.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s agreeing to review the Mumbai dossier is also very interesting because according to the Foreign Office sources, there are many serious flaws in the Indian provided evidence and the Indians know it as well and that’s why certain major changes in perceptions are expected once this review is completed.

According to diplomatic and political observers here, India’s sudden diplomatic generosity could also have been influenced, notwithstanding a demonstrably firm stance of Pakistan, by a desire to appear forward looking and stately just before the arrival of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with its gesture of beginning to normalise things with Pakistan “the critical US ally in its war against terrorism”. Having said that credit cannot be taken away from the prime minister and his foreign policy team to have stuck to their guns and not allowing India to dictate the agenda. The decision to take a firm stand on the issue of restarting the composite dialogue, including the Kashmir issue, had been taken in the meeting which ran into the wee morning hours of the planned summit. According to one informed insider, who told before the summit, “It had been decided that in the event of India putting any preconditions, Pakistan would respond by presenting its own preset list of preconditions”.

It, however, never came to that. Manmohan Singh, according to one of the participants, walked in with a very positive attitude and was met halfway by an equally eager Gilani. The two are said to have struck it really good and that’s why an open-ended one-hour meeting stretched into a three-hour meaningful exercise and the results are there for all to see. According to a top diplomat, while officially the joint communique has stopped short of the formal announcement of the reactivation of the composite dialogue process but, as he put it, “in spirit the structured talk process has been cautiously reactivated as suggested at the very end of the communique which talks of both foreign secretaries ‘to meet as often as necessary’ (meaning in the coming days) and report to the two foreign ministers who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly. If this isn’t the resumption of informal structured dialogue then what is”. The enthusiasm of the diplomat is understandable but this is definitely not the resumption of the stalled composite dialogue, but nevertheless, Sharm el-Sheikh does hold the promise of proving the birth site of a new possible equation between the two countries held back by decades-old problems. Maybe now, the wary prime ministers and their diplomatic aides can go for a snorkelling session or whatever. They have definitely earned their time out.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 17 Jul 2009 16:58

Sigh..what a let down, but not really shocking is it. All of us were waiting for this, it was a question of when GoI will concede not if it will.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Jul 2009 16:59

I have never felt so demoralised as now before!

Ah! Time for the N^3 Inspirational Rumor.

Read the Minister's comments very carefully.

Looks like India has shifted from Speak Loudly Of Befitting Replies and Turn the Other Cheek (SLOBRTOC) to
Be Agreeable and Kick Them (BAKT). This GOI seems to be operating on the notion that 4 years is plenty of time to make the Pakis pay.

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 17 Jul 2009 17:00

SSridhar wrote:A ridiculous comment
If Pakistan's Prime Minister wanted to put some information about Baluchistan in it, India has no objection because we do not interfere in any country's internal affairs and are also ready to talk, if anybody wants."
Can we have a dumber person than this Tewari ?

Thanks to the generosity of "Pakistan's Prime Minister", India was saved from being blamed on NWFP et al. After all, if Pakistan's Prime Minister wanted to put some information about the province in it, India (would) have no objection because we do not interfere in any country's internal affairs and are also ready to talk, if anybody wants.

Preventing the said region/s from being inserted in the joint statement was the Chankian action that we all have failed to see.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 17 Jul 2009 17:02

Mark my words gentle readers, now there will be a concerted effort by the media to paint and hail MMS as a statesman who has a vision of peaceful growth oriented South Asia. The usual suspects of "intellectuals" and "liberals" and peaceniks will come out in force. Congress will claim that this is the Gandhian legacy and continuation of Nehruvian policy.

The visiting dignitary, Hilary Clinton, will commend and praise India to the hilt and this will be seen as a great visionary move. The educated telegenic new age leaders of the congress will come out in the media and say what we can achieve if move past the hostilities, how India's tryst with destiny is at hand. How inclusive growth must include neighbours. All this will be seen as India's arrival on the world stage. Backed up with fawning and condescending opinion pieces in "influential" foreign publications and media.

And yes, even in BR forum this will be hailed and some virtue seen in this PM. He is after all the PM of our country and we should not attack him would be the argument, even if the critque is directed at his actions and not him personally.

I for one will not stop criticising this PM on this forum when he does something that is to be rightly criticised.

This PM has let down India badly. There is nothing that we gain by starting talks with Pakistan. The leadership of this government has too many enslaved minds. One cannot think freely if the mind is shackled.