Bharat Rakshak

Dipanker wrote: And it took US 10 years, nearly a $1 trillion, and about 2000 US soldiers lives to reach to this "US interest" stage???

You are painting the Americans like they are complete morons!

Altair wrote: Why B-52's? Does India lack the military capacity to pull that off? We may not have B-52's but we can do just as much damage if not more. I am sure many BRFites agree with my assessment. IAF can pound Rawalpindi and Islamabad with our "existing" armed force levels itself. Forget future acquisitions.
My point is India is just as equally militarily capable of bringing Pakistan to the knees as US of A.. However,US is just as equally afraid of a JDAM as India if TSPA is pushed too hard. So,finally, India and US are both doing the same thing. Letting TSPA survive another day till it dies of natural causes. Whatever ill intention US had to keep them alive is extinguished now.

CRamS wrote: Wrong, totally wrong. I empathize with SDREs, Iam a proud SDRE, a proud Indian American, and I can tell you,
[1]NO India does not have that capability.
[2]No country that has endured the kind of perfidy from TSP that India has would so pathetically beg it for peace if it did have the capability to punish TSP.
[3]But of course, there are lots of other ways to punish TSP IMO which India's WKKs and traitors don't want to pursue. Their grip is more with India's Hindu civilizational heritage than anything TSP does to India.
[4]As for JDAM, the fears are overblown. Transfer of fissile material, know how etc, yes. And are you telling me that as long as US gives TSP nuke and other parity with India, TSPA won't keep their end of the bargain, past nuke peddling notwithstanding?

SSridhar wrote:Flash: Pakistan cabinet approves MFN Status for India.

SSridhar wrote:Flash: Pakistan cabinet approves MFN Status for India.

"We are considering to import 500 MW of electricity from India," a spokesman for the water and power ministry told AFP.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's cabinet unanimously decided on Wednesday to grant India Most Favoured Nation status to liberalise trade between the two South Asian countries, Pakistan's information minister said, a move that could improve ties between the rivals.

"Today after an extensive briefing by the commerce secretary, the cabinet unanimously decided to grant India Most Favoured Nation status," the minister, Firdos Ashiq Awan, told a news conference.

chaanakya wrote:Now Pakistan would be truly screwed as BOP would shoot skyward unless India offers to purchase Land or waive of payments or gives grants, loans to meet the import cost. But they would remain ungrateful for the service we would do for their funeral.

saip wrote:Pakistan approves 'Most Favoured Nation' status for India

"We are considering to import 500 MW of electricity from India," a spokesman for the water and power ministry told AFP.

India has 500 MW of excess power? Then why all the power cuts?

Link

RajeshA wrote:

chaanakya wrote:Now Pakistan would be truly screwed as BOP would shoot skyward unless India offers to purchase Land or waive of payments or gives grants, loans to meet the import cost. But they would remain ungrateful for the service we would do for their funeral.

They could pay in food grain, dals and vegetables! It would help bring down the prices in India, so that the poor sections in India can get affordable food!

It would cause higher food prices in Pakistan, which is just as good!

saip wrote:India has 500 MW of excess power? Then why all the power cuts?

Link

Such an Afghanistan, Pakistani leaders fear, will lay claim to the
Pashtun areas that straddle a border that was drawn carelessly
by the British and that Afghanistan has never fully accepted.
They also fear that the Pashtuns might someday want a nation of their own. "

abhijitm wrote:I am not in favor of any trade with pakistan but now that we are going to then power export is good. At least lets make pakistan more and more India dependent.

by Abjijitm
India is risking a lot to get access to central asia via pakistan. We will be giving them our balls to hold, at least we should have their nose.

Theo_Fidel wrote:

abhijitm wrote:I am not in favor of any trade with pakistan but now that we are going to then power export is good. At least lets make pakistan more and more India dependent.

I'm not sure they can pay for it. Esp. long term. They depend on special deals which they will demand from India as well.
...

Just as I don’t buy the notion that we need to keep playing The Great Game in Iraq, I also don’t buy it for Afghanistan.

“If the U.S. steps back, it will see that it has a lot more options,” argues C. Raja Mohan, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research, in New Delhi. “You let the contending regional forces play out against each other and then you can then tilt the balance.” He is referring to the India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, China and Northern Alliance tribes in Afghanistan. “At this point, you have the opposite problem. You are sitting in the middle and are everyone’s hate-object, and everyone sees some great conspiracy in whatever you do. Once you pull out, and create the capacity to alter the balance, you will have a lot more options and influence to affect outcomes — rather than being pushed around and attacked by everyone.”

RajeshA wrote:More jiziya. More lagaan!

RajeshA wrote: So Pakistani isolation from the world, accompanied with a parallel embrace from India, would help India make the case to Pakistan!

‘Afghanistan endgame a sham’
News Comments (0)
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/11 ... %E2%80%99/

ISLAMABAD - “There is neither a peace process nor an endgame in Afghanistan,” said senior journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai while addressing a roundtable organised by the Institute of Regional Studies on the subject, “Afghanistan: An Elusive Peace Process”, on Wednesday.

He argued that all the peace talks were heavy on cosmetics and light in substance. While dispelling the notions about an endgame in Afghanistan, he said that all the signs were pointing toward a long-term US presence there no matter how limited in numbers. This, he believed, would mean a continuing war and instability in Afghanistan and, by extension, in Pakistan as well. He added that the long-term US presence would soon be institutionalised with a strategic partnership agreement between Afghanistan and the US after endorsement by the Afghan Loya Jirga, spelling an unstable future for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yusufzai also viewed the strategic agreement between Afghanistan and India as an impediment towards peace in Afghanistan, because he believed that the agreement had killed any incentive that Pakistan would have had in continuing to support the peace process. He shared that the Taliban had an office in Doha, Qatar, with Tayyab Agha in charge. He disclosed that he called it an act of sizing up the opponent by both parties and not any serious effort at bringing an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

The journalist said the way the NATO wanted to negotiate from a position of strength, the Taliban wanted to do the same and would never agree to a settlement as long as NATO ambitions would remain unclear to them. Yusufzai also made the interesting disclosure that some of the Taliban commanders negotiating with NATO in Germany were on the UN Blacklist and could not technically travel internationally. Yusufzai termed the story of Afghanistan characterised by conflict, corruption, and narcotics. He was of the view that all the elections in Afghanistan were rigged and that warlords were ruling the roost in the country.
He added that Karzai had also lost support and credibility after his second re-election.
Yusufzai maintained that the Taliban had fought the battle in Afghanistan with heavy casualties, but they were able to reinforce their ranks through fresh recruitment despite being outnumbered 15 to 1 by their opponents

WHO ARE THE TALIBAN?

The Taliban include several loosely allied factions in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The biggest are the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and the Pakistani Taliban.


RECENTLY: Residents on horse-led carts hurry past burning fuel tankers along the GT Road near Nowshera, located in Pakistans Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, last year. Picture: Reuters
REUTERS
The Afghan Taliban rose to prominence in 1994 under the leadership of Mullah Omar, a former imam and mujahideen guerrilla, whose army of young and fanatical fighters seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 but were ousted by US-backed forces five years later.

Often referred to in shorthand as the Quetta Shura because of its leadership’s base in exile, it prefers to call itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The Pakistani Taliban, or Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), is an umbrella organisation of about 13 groups in Pakistan’s north-western and western tribal areas. Established in December 2007, it is blamed for many suicide bombings across Pakistan. It has also struck US targets in Afghanistan, and it shares some resources and ideology with the Afghan Taliban.

The Haqqani network, based in the lawless tribal areas of the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is perhaps the most politically worrying for the US. The Haqqanis are battling for control over their traditional power base in eastern Afghanistan, spread over Khost, Paktia and Paktika provinces. Leader Jalaluddin Haqqani rose to power as a mujahideen leader in the fight against Soviet troops in the 1980s. He allied with the Afghan Taliban after Omar seized Kabul.

Omar is still the nominal head of the entire Taliban movement, and most other factions in both Pakistan and Afghanistan swear loyalty to him as Amir-ul-Mu’minin, or “Leader of the Faithful”.

HOW DO THESE GROUPS OPERATE?

Given the dispersed nature of the groups, the Taliban factions often act like franchises, comprised of myriad regional cells that operate independently at the local level, but which follow the grand strategy and Islamic principles of the movement’s shadowy leadership – primarily Omar’s. A Taliban cell at village level might typically have 10-50 part-time fighters and plenty more local mercenaries.

All three major factions share an ideology of jihad, or holy war. They often share resources, safe houses and fighters, with the Haqqanis often serving as the communications channel.

Pakistan has no doubt serious disputes with India which need to be resolved. So have China and Bangladesh. While keeping the disputes alive, both have maintained economic ties with India and the mutual trade has continued to increase. Not so in the case of Pakistan where the public was told that better economic ties leading to the expansion of economic opportunities would create a lobby in Pakistan soft on India. A new cause for confrontation has been added now to the list of disputes. It is maintained that with Indian influence growing in Afghanistan, it would turn Kabul into a hostile neighbour. Many think that with trade expanding with India and Afghanistan after removing unrealistic restrictions, and Pakistan serving as a vital link with Central Asia, dependencies would be created forcing India and Afghanistan to seek better ties with Pakistan.

Dipanker wrote:

CRamS wrote: The US started fighting Al Qaeda in 2001. One would have thought that the war should have ended with that heroic raid. Al Qaeda leader gone and all. "Osama bin Laden wanted dead or alive' Let's roll boys. Go get him. Rah rah rah" So what is the US doing now? Fighting Taliban. Fighting Haqqani faction. Begging Pakistanis with great "firmness" to go after Haqqani. Talking of reaching accommodation with Pakistan. You might like to call this "strength". it looks pathetic to me.

DocJi, I am with you 100%, actually 400%, in that all the grandiose ambitions US has set forth immediately post 9/11 have bitten the dust. But thats where the problem is as I have been saying for a long time. A few pipsqueak so called Al Queda who undertook 9/11 were hyped up as this gargantuan omnipotent enemy, and this so called GWOT became some kind of a mythical crusade of Biblical proportions in the minds of the average white joe six pack; so much so that demi God moron football players signed up for this orgy to go and get OBL & the "mighty" Al Queda. As you yourself pointed out, US loves this "get the bad guy" mentality, and if there is no "bad guy", they invent one.

But slowly, the real-politic but pragmatic slime balls like Zbigniew Brizinsky prevailed, and the realization now is that rather than annihilating the Taliban which means destroying TSP (which US can do in a heartbeat, just a few B-52 sorties over Rawalpindi will do the trick), and in the process opening up a geo-political can of worms; for e.g., India and Iran rising up far more than US can chew on, the US has settled for the more easily doable regional status quo that prevailed prior to 9/11 with the explicit understanding with TSPA/ISI that they will thwart any terrorist attack against whites launched from AfPak. Tell me why this doesn't suit US interests? And furthermore, the chameleon-like b@stards TSP RAPE, you cannot deny that TSP did indeed round up Al Queda big-wigs. (Of course, they kept the big fish like OBL in Kiyani's backyard to milk more moolah, but they got caught in the process ). Tell me, why restring this status quo is not in US interests?

And it took US 10 years, nearly a $1 trillion, and about 2000 US soldiers lives to reach to this "US interest" stage???

You are painting the Americans like they are complete morons!

Narad wrote:

RajeshA wrote: So Pakistani isolation from the world, accompanied with a parallel embrace from India, would help India make the case to Pakistan!

Saar i was thinking on the same lines. You have put it so eloquently here. The recent happenings make more sense when looked in this context. My Walikum Assslam to you.

Xinjiang keen on reviving historic trade ties with India
Ananth Krishnan


Photo: Ananth Krishnan
The site of the Indian Consulate in Kashgar which closed in 1950. The crumbling building is now a Chinese restaurant.



The regional government of China's far-western Xinjiang region is keen to revive the frontier trade with India that once flourished along the disputed western section of the border and is courting Indian involvement in plans to develop a special economic zone in the border town of Kashgar, officials have told The Hindu.

As the Governor of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Nur Bekri, begins a four-day visit to New Delhi and Mumbai on Thursday, the regional government has sought to downplay its role as a bridge for China's investments in neighbouring Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), which serves as a crucial land-link between China and Pakistan.

In a first, the regional government's Development and Reform Committee (DRC) appeared to implicitly acknowledge India's claims to PoK in written responses to questions ahead of Mr. Bekri's visit, making the case for increasing frontier trade with India and describing Kashgar as bordering India, not Pakistan.

There were particular advantages in developing frontier trade with India, said the DRC, pointing to recently announced policies by the Chinese central government to develop the Kashgar SEZ. The policies would support the “construction of the Kashgar economic development zone which borders with India”, said the DRC. “We welcome Indian companies to invest in Kashgar, which possesses great growth potential in bilateral trade.” The DRC said it would also favour the opening of international flights from Kashgar to India, and would “encourage” foreign airlines to open direct flights.

Officials from Xinjiang's Political and Legal Committee, who will accompany Mr. Bekri, said they would like to work more with India on counterterrorism. The XUAR government blamed recent attacks in Kashgar on local Uighurs — a Muslim ethnic Turkic minority group — trained in camps in Pakistan.

“China and its neighbouring countries should together face terrorism since we have mutual interest in this area to guarantee the stability of our countries,” the committee said. “Xinjiang will continue to enhance cooperation with neighbouring countries, including India.”

The government said it was also keen to increase the flow of people from India, in marked contrast with China's earlier reservations to opening up Xinjiang citing stability concerns. It did not, however, reply to questions on whether it would favour the opening up of an Indian trade office or Consulate in Urumqi or Kashgar in the future.

India's Consulate in Kashgar was closed in 1950, following which the Indian trade presence ceased to exist in the region. Since then, an increasing number of traders from Pakistan have established a presence in Kashgar.

However, deep-rooted cultural links with India, sourced in a long history of commercial and cultural engagement between Kashgar and Ladakh and through the Silk Road, have left a strong appeal for Indian culture among Uighurs, evident today in the widespread popularity of Indian films.

Mr. Bekri's visit is part of a recent initiative by India to revive these forgotten links with a region rarely recognised as neighbouring India, and to build closer links with provinces on China's borders.

His invitation by the Government of India, under the India-China Distinguished Visitors' Programme, followed the organising of a cultural performance in Kashgar last year — one which the Indian Embassy in Beijing lobbied hard for — and a visit by Ambassador to China S. Jaishankar to the regional capital Urumqi last week, where he met official from energy companies TBEA and Goldwind, which are looking to expand their commercial interests in India.

Trade between India and Xinjiang has soared this year, increasing 92.4 per cent year-on-year between January and September, reaching $47 million, the highest in the past five years according to the DRC.

“Xinjiang and India enjoy strong trade complementarities,” the DRC said. “There is great cooperation and broad development potential in agricultural products, food, mechanical and electrical products, IT and other areas as well.”

CRamS wrote:

Altair wrote: Why B-52's? Does India lack the military capacity to pull that off? We may not have B-52's but we can do just as much damage if not more. I am sure many BRFites agree with my assessment. IAF can pound Rawalpindi and Islamabad with our "existing" armed force levels itself. Forget future acquisitions.
My point is India is just as equally militarily capable of bringing Pakistan to the knees as US of A.. However,US is just as equally afraid of a JDAM as India if TSPA is pushed too hard. So,finally, India and US are both doing the same thing. Letting TSPA survive another day till it dies of natural causes. Whatever ill intention US had to keep them alive is extinguished now.

Wrong, totally wrong. I empathize with SDREs, Iam a proud SDRE, a proud Indian American, and I can tell you, NO India does not have that capability. No country that has endured the kind of perfidy from TSP that India has would so pathetically beg it for peace if it did have the capability to punish TSP. But of course, there are lots of other ways to punish TSP IMO which India's WKKs and traitors don't want to pursue. Their grip is more with India's Hindu civilizational heritage than anything TSP does to India. As for JDAM, the fears are overblown. Transfer of fissile material, know how etc, yes. And are you telling me that as long as US gives TSP nuke and other parity with India, TSPA won't keep their end of the bargain, past nuke peddling notwithstanding?

The Pakistan Army should let foreign policy go. One says it because all armies attach foreign policy to geopolitics and, therefore, disqualify themselves as arbiters. They tie a most changeable category to the most unchanging physical aspect of the country where they imagine they see permanent advantage. Geopolitically, India is a permanent enemy. Geopolitically, Pakistan’s median ‘transit territory’ status gives it permanent advantage. Nothing could be more wrong.

The military view of Pakistan’s geopolitical importance has been proved wrong by the failure of the theory of ‘strategic depth’ as a kind of corollary to our self-image as a geopolitical obstacle. As some textbooks recognise, the geopolitical view of international affairs is favoured by all armies because it is linked to geography and, therefore, is of fixed value. And it obviates the periodical rewriting of textbooks army officers read during training.

The only geography that works, however, is the one based on the civilian view: Finland could exploit its ‘median’ location between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War while Pakistan uses it today to block India.
The civilian geopolitical advantage is a part of the war equation in South Asia. The military imagination is fixed on it as ‘one-time advantage’: it is wrong in thinking that once a trade route is given to India, Pakistan will lose its upper hand. The fact is that the advantage will start materialising only after the trade route becomes functional and billions of international dollars become committed to it.

abhijitm wrote:

saip wrote:India has 500 MW of excess power? Then why all the power cuts?

Link

I am not in favor of any trade with pakistan but now that we are going to then power export is good. At least lets make pakistan more and more India dependent.