Bharat Rakshak

ramana wrote:CRS, Dont be fooled. What India can do and what it cant do is not very well understood. So chill and believe.

abhijitm wrote:History!!! mdrfkrs!!! what happened 4 years back is a history!!! In that case then kashmir, sir creek, siachen and 1971 all are history and pakis should have forgotten them long time ago.

BijuShet wrote:From Tribune (Opinion piece - posting in full).
Which is the real Pakistan?

By Jyoti Malhotra - Published: September 11, 2012

So here’s the counterargument: if both countries should, indeed, move on, does this mean that Pakistan is willing to forget the Kashmir dispute and accept that the Line of Control is really an international border? That India and Pakistan must keep their respective parts of the states that they control and not yearn for the other? That Pakistan must accept the current status quo on Siachen and Sir Creek?

nakul wrote:I think its a question of balancing lives. If we go to war, military lives are lost. If we don't, civilian lives are lost due to terrorism. Perhaps they want to minimise loss of lives. Due to terrorism, there are fewer lives lost than say, a Kargil type limited war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that after fighting a limited war, Pakistan would stop sending terrorists. Unless we decapitate the head, war or no war, we will continue to lose lives.

nakul wrote:Idiot here. They have listening powers. Like in the Kahuta episode, we know a lot of info. We don't act on it. Case in point: MMS had just revealed that terrorists will attack India from sea based routes. We liberalized the visa rules. Now if they attack us, it would be our reluctance (or failure??) to act on info. Many posters have said that RAW does not have the authority to act. Having ears & eyes is a bit different from having knives & guns. Raw ajint out.

anupmisra wrote:But Mr. Kapor is of a generation far removed from that era. What has turned him to believe this way? Does he only see Veena Malik and Nusrat Fetah Ali and not remember Lt. Kalia and others who suffered from the likes of paki jehadis? I weep for this new oblivious tweeting SMSing generation. History is replete with, and brutal to, people like Mr. Kapoor who dont seem to learn from it.

Lalmohan wrote:CRamS-ji, it seems to me that GOI (including successive governments) are following a policy of not striking back above a certain threshold. The logic for which seems to be that retalliation is exactly what the paquis want us to do. having a clearly identified belligerent india gives the jarnails all the excuses they need for following their dr strangelove strategies. not retaliating means that paquis have to either put up or shut up. but we underestimate their fervour and ingeniousness for finding new and more unpleasant ways to inflict pain upon us.
its a new great game

nakul wrote:I think its a question of balancing lives. If we go to war, military lives are lost. If we don't, civilian lives are lost due to terrorism. Perhaps they want to minimise loss of lives. Due to terrorism, there are fewer lives lost than say, a Kargil type limited war. Moreover, there is no guarantee that after fighting a limited war, Pakistan would stop sending terrorists. Unless we decapitate the head, war or no war, we will continue to lose lives.

Rangudu wrote: What India chose NOT to do after the worst act of war on its own soil and the gloating of the perpetrators is a clear indication of what it cannot do.

Rangudu wrote: What RamaY theorizes is India having better than US covert intel acquisition AND strike capability.

If India has such powers then what logical reason exists for it not to have been used to take out 26/11 masterminds until now? After all, if it's covert, then it's deniable, no?

This is becoming like Amartya Sen-ish talking shop where people try to invent convoluted and internally inconsistent reasons for India to bend over and keep taking it while it supposedly has all these super-duper covert capabilities.

If you're a restrained but tough guy and your neighbor rapes your wife, kills your kids and gloats about it, then what use is the toughness?

Maybe I, CRS and a few others are not that sharp or well connected to understand this. So I request anyone who believes what RamaY is saying to explain in plain desi English to us why India chooses not to use all these super duper powers to take out 26/11 chiefs?

Go ahead, enlighten us idiots

nakul wrote:Its not my fault the PMO, RamaY & ramana don't share their raw data & sources with me. You can check their data. I can only provide open source data during my travels on BRF. Rest is maya.

We also have nuclear weapons, 180 Su 30 MKIs, nuclear subs. We don't go to war with Pakistan doesn't imply that we don't have the means. The rest is for the reader to decide.

Rangudu wrote: Please read what I wrote.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOING TO WAR

This is about covert strike capabilities i.e. take out Hafiz Saeed, Dawood Ibrahim etc.

Thanks

By MARGARET COKER The US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed when suspected Libyan religious extremists stormed the US Consulate in Benghazi late Tuesday night, according to Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour

Anindya wrote:Given that we have not heard of beards taking to the streets in Pakistan, as has happened in Libya and Egypt - it would seem, that the beards are essentially puppets on a string. But, I do expect that the beards and burkas in Pakistan will come out in protest quite soon.

arun wrote:Holding my nose and suppressing my gag reflex:

Aman Ki Asha: How I started loving Pakistan

jash_p wrote:

By MARGARET COKER The US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed when suspected Libyan religious extremists stormed the US Consulate in Benghazi late Tuesday night, according to Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagour

Egyptians and Libians have scored against satanic kauffer. Why still McDonald and KFCs are standing witout harm in land of PURE? How come Pakis are docile?Are not they are sward of Islam? What Mullahas and Imran Khan is doing? Are they hiding behind their women?

Anujan wrote:^^^^
To all Indians who say "Pakistan - India equal equal" I ask them to run one simple experiment
1. Go to Srinagar, grow a beard, yell "Aaaazaaadeeeee!!!" in lal chowk
2. Go to Balochistan, get clean shaven, yell "Aaaazaaadeee!!!" in Quetta city square.

I will make sure their body pieces are flown back home and given a proper funeral.

Rangudu wrote:If India has such powers then what logical reason exists for it not to have been used to take out 26/11 masterminds until now? After all, if it's covert, then it's deniable, no?

BijuShet wrote:From Tribune (Opinion piece - posting in full).
Which is the real Pakistan?

By Jyoti Malhotra - Published: September 11, 2012

The new visa regime enables discussion about what Indo-Pak relationship is really about.

The writer is a consultant and a freelance writer based in New Delhi, where she writes for Business Standard and blogs for The Times of India.
....
My friend and fellow The Express Tribune columnist Ejaz Haider had another interesting thesis that I hadn’t heard before or — more to the point — hadn’t wanted to hear before. According to him, the Indian army was known to conduct false flag marches in (Indian) Kashmir, meaning they had killed scores of Indian — read, Muslim — civilians in Kashmir under the guise of offering protection to them.

What did this have to do with Mumbai, I asked Mr Haider? Was he implying that the Indian security forces — the army, paramilitary or the police — could have turned upon its own people in Mumbai? That could be one possibility in a range of several possibilities, he replied.

Khar’s forceful passion at the press briefing notwithstanding, the penny seems to have finally dropped in my own head: a section of the Pakistani intelligentsia believes the terror attack against Mumbai was just retribution — for 1971, for Balochistan, for Karachi, and anything else it believes India is responsible for.

...
Published in The Express Tribune, September 12th, 2012.

ISLAMABAD: This is with reference to Jyoti Malhotra’s article of September 12, “Which is the real Pakistan?”. Never did I think that I would have to write such a clarification, and that, too, regarding a friend, and, even more significantly, a seasoned journalist. Not only has Ms Malhotra described what I said incorrectly and without context but, worse, she has made public a private conversation without bothering to clear it with me. I am appalled, to put it mildly. Ms Malhotra should know that a) her reproduction is incorrect and decontextualised and b) she has made public a conversation which was private.

Ejaz Haider

Published in The Express Tribune, September 13th, 2012.

By Shahbaz Rana - Published: September 12, 2012
"A lot has to be done to bring down the non-tariff barriers for greater intra-regional trade," says Qamar. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan urged its regional peers to bring down non-tariff barriers for promotion of trade as the pool of regional experts suggest to reinvent the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) and to break barriers before finding solutions to common problems.

While proposing finding common grounds to emerging problems, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Naveed Qamar said that a lot has to be done to bring down the non-tariff barriers for greater intra-regional trade. Qamar was speaking at the inaugural session of the fifth round of South Asia Economic Summit on Tuesday.

Delegates gathered in Islamabad for the three-day conference with an aim to find ‘out of the box solutions’ to break from the chains of the past to achieve greater regional integration. The prime objective of the summit is to formulate policy recommendations for the 18th Saarc summit. The participants suggested establishing a South Asia Commission on Environment to tackle emerging climate change problem.

Speaking on abolishment of tariffs, Qamar said that progress has been made and in January 2013 the tariffs will be further reduced, hinting at complete trade normalisation between India and Pakistan. Islamabad is expected to remove the last legal hurdle in the complete trade normalisation process but that requires repealing the non-tariff barriers enacted by India.

Qamar said that the issue of climate change has long been ignored by South Asia and has now begun to haunt the region. He suggested formulating a regional climate change policy and to allow food movement across the borders.

He hoped that thaws in relations between India and Pakistan will give a boost to the efforts to find mutual solutions to mutual problems.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 12th, 2012.




Reader Comments (10)

gp65
23 hours ago
This is a deliberate lie that Pakistani leaders are telling its people. PAkistan is not in compliance with WTO and has not been for last 16 years by denying MFN to India. India’s non-trade barriers on the other hand are NOT Pakistan specific. Thus India is and has been in compliance with WTO since 1996 – when along with other WTO member countries it also granted MFN status to Pakistan.

To link the 2 things is deliberate deviousness and a way to provide excuse for not meeting their own commitments when India met its commitments in terms of releasing its objection to Pakistan specific trade exemptions by Euro.


Raj - USA
21 hours ago
What exactly are the non-tariff barriers from the Indian side. i have heard Pakistan complain on this often but have not read the specifics anywhere. Would appreciate if someone can list the barriers.


gp65
19 hours ago
@Raj – USA: The non-tarriff barriers are not Pakistan specific and relate to India’s red tape and infrastructure bottlenecksmaking imports more expensie in relation to domestic goods . Some examples:
1) Delays and corruption on Indian ports which add cost and delays to the overall transport process
2) The requirement for local testing instead of relying on international certifications which agains adds to cost and time
3) Import rates which even after 2 decades of liberalization are higher than our key trade partners.

I hope this helps.


khan
19 hours ago
cannot understand how people in pak believe these lies one after another.. its so shameful that our country is in blatant violation of WTO rules. Other countries like India can drag our nose to ground on international forums over this. We must be grateful to indians, instead telling lie and double speak.


Raj - USA
18 hours ago
@gp65:
Thank you for the info. Appreciate it.
Nothing could be done for item # 1 you have mentioned. However the remaining two items can be and should be addressed. In the long run it would be beneficial for India also.


gp65
17 hours ago
@Raj – USA: The first issue also can be addressed through
-addressing the labour unions and mathadi workers issues at large ports like Bombay port
-greater investments in containerization
-more berths (some delays are due to botlenecks which can definitely be cleared.
– th corruptio is actually directly liked to point 3. If import rates are lower the corruption motivation automatically goes down.

At one time customs duty was viewed as a key source of revnue (constituted 40% of total tax collection in the cuntry). It now constitutes just about half as much i.e. 20% of tax base. But the resistance to lowering tax rates comes from domestic manufacturers who want protection. Car making is a classic example. In fact duties on iported cars is one of the biggest holdups in the Indo -Euro FTA from their side.


Gary
16 hours ago
@Raj – USA: It’s not so simple and India might not do it for now. India is following what Japanese, and other developed nations did. It’s an another way to compel companies to set up manufacturing facilities in India…


BlackJack
15 hours ago
@gp65:
A couple of points where I have a different PoV:
1. The port delays and infrastructure bottlenecks are not non-tariff barriers that can easily be dismantled. However, given that Pakistan is the only country that will use the Western land route, any infrastructure bottlenecks on that side will indeed be Pakistan-specific barriers. Further, there are NTBs in place such as designated imports through specific terminals that need to be addressed.
2. Local testing, lab testing of textiles and labelling requirements are indeed major NTBs, and labeling/ safety standards regulation is one that most western nations impose.
3. Import rates are not NTBs since they are related to the tariff itself; however, imposing restrictions on minimum import prices for certain goods is an NTB with which India safeguards itself from dumping by China – again most other nations have some form of this NTB in place.
4.Additional documentation is a big bottlneck that can be eased. As you indicate, this is applicable for all trading partners. However, Pakistani products and documents are subject to a high degree of scrutiny which can cause delays. This has already been brought up in the last trade talks.

Apart from these, quantitative restrictions on certain categories, rules of origin (not really practiced by India), and phytosanitary restrictions are also in vogue in most markets in the world including India.


gp65
8 hours ago
@BlackJack: “mport rates are not NTBs since they are related to the tariff itself; however, imposing restrictions on minimum import prices for certain goods is an NTB with which India safeguards itself from dumping by China – again most other nations have some form of this NTB in place.”

You are right about this ofcourse. Seems to me our opinion did not differ on much else, though you did elaborate on some other NTBs.


Hamid
5 hours ago
For God sake, go and sleep !!!!!!!!!!

anjan wrote:

Rangudu wrote:If India has such powers then what logical reason exists for it not to have been used to take out 26/11 masterminds until now? After all, if it's covert, then it's deniable, no?

Given that the organizations are heavily trained, equipped and probably manned at places by personnel from Pakistani government agencies/forces, I'm not sure what taking out one, two or even 10 people would do. It's a bit like trying to assassinate a Corps/Army Commander. In a war you might do it to spread confusion for a while and damage enemy morale. With time to regroup and no loss of organization though they'd simply be replaced by someone else. And the cost needs to be assessed in terms of likely loss of own troops, possible escalation etc. beyond the monetary cost, which is not trivial either. The only exception is some super charismatic leader I suppose but even then you have to wonder.

I'm not saying super dooper covert capability exists. I'm saying even if it did it might make little sense to exercise it in taking out individuals. I wonder if the US is any safer for taking OBL out.

KLNMurthy wrote:Taking out a chief, even if replaceable sends a message that there will be a price to pay, hence deterrent. Some things are worth more than money and risk though both need to be managed.

KARACHI: The death toll from a garment factory fire in Karachi’s SITE area rose to 289 as more bodies were recovered from the gutted building, the city’s top administration official said Wednesday.“The death toll is 289. This is not final, search for more bodies continues,” commissioner Karachi Roshan Shaikh told AFP.Karachi city’s police chief Iqbal Mahmood also said rescue teams were still trying to gain access to parts of the factory, which caught fire late on Tuesday, and the death toll could rise.“We found dozens of people dead in a large room of the factory’s basement. It was totally burnt and parts of it were smouldering, which we put out before shifting the bodies to hospitals,” Karachi fire chief Ehtesham Salim told AFP.

ISLAMABAD, Sept 11: Service extension given to Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has been challenged in the Islamabad High Court.But Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman has directed the petitioner to satisfy the court about his locus standi (being aggrieved) and to submit copies of relevant documents annexed with the petition and adjourned the hearing.Petitioner Col (retd) Inamur Rahim, convenor of ex-servicemen legal forum, told the court that the forum was of the opinion that the extension given to the army chief was immoral and unconstitutional.He said there was no provision in the Pakistan Army Act of 1956 and in the rules under which an extension of complete tenure could be granted to any person subject to the Army Act.The petitioner said the ex-servicemen society, which represented hundreds of thousands of retired military men, had been expressing serious concern over extension given to uniformed people because it would adversely affect the entire fibre of command – a hallmark of any disciplined force.He said the extension of Gen Kayani was granted by the authority concerned in a mechanical manner. While granting a tenure extension of three years nobody bothered that it would surpass the age of superannuation (60 years) on April 20, 2012. As per the army list, the date of birth of Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is April 20, 1952, and under the Army Act nobody is permitted to remain in uniform after attaining the age of 60.

anjan wrote:

KLNMurthy wrote:Taking out a chief, even if replaceable sends a message that there will be a price to pay, hence deterrent. Some things are worth more than money and risk though both need to be managed.

Did taking out al-Mussawi deter Hezbollah? Heads of organizations are often replaceable people. Especially when the organization has the support of an untouched government. Anyway, then what? Take out the next guy after the next terrorist attack and so on? Each time with proportionally increasing risk to your own assets?
...