Bharat Rakshak

deleted. pointless

rajpa wrote: You can *turbate all you like - but facts will remain facts and perceptions cannot be changed.

If perceptions cannot be changed, what is the point of talking about anything? Then one must simply act to enforce one's will the best one can. The whole premise behind talking, debating, negotiating is that perceptions can be changed.

Tuvaluan wrote:

Your story can be rewritten to support both sides. There is another panchantantra story for that.

Pakistan does what it does regardless of what is written is the moral of the story -- utter poppycock to claim that India does likewise. India has stuck to agreements it has signed, unlike the pakis that have made a habit of not doing so, but who needs facts when swinging politcally motivated axes, eh?

Bro we are on the same side. I am just sayin watch what you say, so even a seven year old can get it. Somebody named Einstein also said something similar.

Please gentlemen no blue on blue and no personal attacks. Take this as a gentle Admin guideline

From Admin: Rajpa, please edit your posts. Dont attack people. Others, please maintain civility. Do not derail this thread. I dont want to hear which poster did what first and which poster started what first.

rajpa wrote:I think I can hear the sound of where you come from. If you ask me.

Sigh...Boss, where I come from I like the sound of logic.

Was Ufa a win-win for India or not, irrespective of whether the Pakis did or did not turn up? I fail to see the connection between 'Indo-Pak relations' that you harp on and India gaining a diplomatic win. A logical explanation would be useful.

>>I am happy to believe it to be part of Modi's design to put Doval as the tip of the spear and use Sushma to deliver the hammer.

This is again your perception. So far as we know, there is nothing to validate this analogy.

>>That may have been the reason why Doval and not Sushma was there at Ufa.

If memory serves, Sushma was elsewhere at the time. Jaishankar (as the link posted above shows) drafted it with his team and his Pak counterpart. In fact, I think it was jointly read out by them after.

rajpa wrote:The no talking to hurriyat thing will be tested a lot going forward. But it is probably a good thing to have happened.

Absolutely, it is essential if we don't want to lose the valley in slow motion. Just think about out. If WKKs and other assorted elites in India have their way, as does US, then we are back to this MMS Mush 4 point formula which is very detrimental to India's interests, and especially so if the rats are given a say as TSP would like.

Arjun wrote:

rajpa wrote:I think I can hear the sound of where you come from. If you ask me.

Sigh...Boss, where I come from I like the sound of logic.

Was Ufa a win-win for India or not, irrespective of whether the Pakis did or did not turn up? I fail to see the connection between 'Indo-Pak relations' that you harp on and India gaining a diplomatic win. A logical explanation would be useful.

I think it was a masterpiece. But Modi may need his MEA team to ramp up for the upcoming assaults. NSA alone may not cut it.

JE Menon wrote:>>I am happy to believe it to be part of Modi's design to put Doval as the tip of the spear and use Sushma to deliver the hammer.

This is again your perception. So far as we know, there is nothing to validate this analogy.

>>That may have been the reason why Doval and not Sushma was there at Ufa.

If memory serves, Sushma was elsewhere at the time. Jaishankar (as the link posted above shows) drafted it with his team and his Pak counterpart. In fact, I think it was jointly read out by them after.

I will not belabor this point but it would have been healthy to have Sushma around.

Pakis assaults are likely to be the usual: 1) more firing on the LoC 2) whining in the UN general assembly (we all know how many people were around in the UNGA last time he did that 3) more terrorism in India.

1 is being handled well already
2 is ignorable
3 requires India working with UAE and other countries where pakis can plan terrorist attacks without drawing attention to themselves.

yawn. same old.

The Foreign Minister was used to deliver the final (and only) ultimatum, and the pakis buckled. All other interactions were leaks from the pakis to the Indian media, which went to town speculating on such leaks.

Tuvaluan wrote:Pakis assaults are likely to be the usual: 1) more firing on the LoC 2) whining in the UN general assembly (we all know how many people were around in the UNGA last time he did that 3) more terrorism in India.

1 is being handled well already
2 is ignorable
3 requires India working with UAE and other countries where pakis can plan terrorist attacks without drawing attention to themselves.

yawn. same old.

The Foreign Minister was used to deliver the final (and only) ultimatum, and the pakis buckled. All other interactions were leaks from the pakis to the Indian media, which went to town speculating on such leaks.

If ever there are going to be talks again, just try to imagine how much will work will need to go into it. Food for thought?

rajpa wrote:I think it was a masterpiece. But Modi may need his MEA team to ramp up for the upcoming assaults. NSA alone may not cut it.

Even a superpower like the US needed a moral reasoning (albeit a faulty one) to attack a relatively puny country like Iraq. The fallout of Ufa is that Pakistan is getting painted as a rogue nation that cannot be trusted to stick to any international agreements. India's hand has become immeasurably stronger for the hard response that only seems now to be a matter of time.

lol.....people are feeding a troll .....hehe ,signout.

@rajpa
Nowadays when I read, "modi is too confused", "modi should have more precise language ", "modi is running a one-man show" etc., etc., my brain auto-translates it to, "I have been giving too much importance to media-ites with no knowledge or experience at all, only the baseless belief that they are any day better than modi. In everything."

The paragraph "we are *prepared* to discuss outstanding issues " is in the preamble which is there to set the context. The agenda for NSA meeting laid out in the document is a model of clarity, there is no ambiguity at all. I am afraid you have zero basis for your claim that the fault lies in poor drafting.

The clarity is amazing considering that these joint declarations are usually the product of negotiations between two competing interests, and are thus a model of ambiguity.

And what is your basis for saying that Modi is bypassing or leaving behind Sushma Swaraj? Other than a lot of media people are saying it, so you think it must be true?

In any organization's leadership team, there are people with different strengths and one top leader. Most of the people who write about modi's so called leadership style (which according to them is lacking) have no idea what they are talking about, they don't even know they have no idea.

Somebody commented about Ufa not helping Indo-Pak relations! There are NO Indo-Pak relations. We have a terrorism and border security situation with Pak. That is not called relations.

Ufa had following purpose:

1) If talks go through, then set up a formal common agenda and ToDo list on terrorism front for return to normal dialogue.

2) If talks fail, then set up a new red line for resumption of any diplomatic interaction at all between India and Pak. Secondly it puts Pakistan on the backfoot as a party unwilling to talk terrorism with India and India is freed from any "diplomatic pressure".

In both cases, the ball would be in Pakistan's court.

This does not affect India's liberty for any military response to Paki terrorism and border attacks or for that matter strategic repositioning.

The question is only whether Pak is one huge step or two huge steps from being treated diplomatically as a normal nation.

KLNMurthy wrote:@rajpa
Nowadays when I read, "modi is too confused", "modi should have more precise language ", "modi is running a one-man show" etc., etc., my brain auto-translates it to, "I have been giving too much importance to media-ites with no knowledge or experience at all, only the baseless belief that they are any day better than modi. In everything."

The paragraph "we are *prepared* to discuss outstanding issues " is in the preamble which is there to set the context. The agenda for NSA meeting laid out in the document is a model of clarity, there is no ambiguity at all. I am afraid you have zero basis for your claim that the fault lies in poor drafting.

The clarity is amazing considering that these joint declarations are usually the product of negotiations between two competing interests, and are thus a model of ambiguity.

And what is your basis for saying that Modi is bypassing or leaving behind Sushma Swaraj? Other than a lot of media people are saying it, so you think it must be true?

In any organization's leadership team, there are people with different strengths and one top leader. Most of the people who write about modi's so called leadership style (which according to them is lacking) have no idea what they are talking about, they don't even know they have no idea.

Without using the modification I have provided, any discussion between the two sides can potentially be used to table all issues.

Anyway compulsive IB4TL types are flagging people as trolls, so let's cut this discussion short. I think I have made my point.

rajpa wrote:...

Without using the modification I have provided, any discussion between the two sides can potentially be used to table all issues.

Anyway compulsive IB4TL types are flagging people as trolls, so let's cut this discussion short. I think I have made my point.

You should watch the video of Sushma Swaraj press conference on the issue. She is explicitly clear why NSA level talks and why these talks were limited to terrorism. So, no this time and even previously all talks between India - Pakistan are detailed to the persons / office holders who will meet and the agenda they will discuss. Even this was clarified by Sushma ji.

Based on your posts it seems you have not heard her. She was clear - no, she was crystal clear and repetitive in her answers to repetitive questions.

And your point is ????

Edited for better words.

rajpa wrote:
If ever there are going to be talks again, just try to imagine how much will work will need to go into it. Food for thought?

What is there to talk about? India has to take back POK and it won't be through talks. Open war or covert war to cut down pakistan would be ideal.

With due deference to troll hunters, I will continue to respond...

If she had clarified all this before all the brouhaha started, perhaps ideally at Ufa itself, things may have turned out way better. Perhaps she could have helped Jaishankar draft those words in a crystal clear manner in Ufa.

Bheeshma wrote:

rajpa wrote:
If ever there are going to be talks again, just try to imagine how much will work will need to go into it. Food for thought?

What is there to talk about? India has to take back POK and it won't be through talks. Open war or covert war to cut down pakistan would be ideal.

War is the last option, even for warriors.

rajpa wrote:
...

I think it may simply be purely on the basis of the fact the minister was not there. F.Sec may not take orders from NSA. There is a rapport between F.Minister and F.Sec etc. Things getting done out of turn tends to upset the rhythm. Take it or leave it.

It's not that simple a choice when you post uncooked stuff with an air of authority. (Gentle suggestion: watch out for weasel words like "clearly ", "obviously " etc. Usually they mean there is no basis for what the writer is claiming but he is doing a flimflam job anyway)

Do you know the job description of foreign secretary? He/she has all executive powers other than making policy.

Are you aware that, if the NSA talks had gone forward, the FS would have been present, to assist the NSA?

even if we decide to get hung up on rank (meaningless at this level in a well-run team, but still) IIRC NSA is a cabinet level post and FS doesn't outrank the SA.

Yes but covert one is the first.

KLNMurthy wrote:

rajpa wrote:
...

I think it may simply be purely on the basis of the fact the minister was not there. F.Sec may not take orders from NSA. There is a rapport between F.Minister and F.Sec etc. Things getting done out of turn tends to upset the rhythm. Take it or leave it.

It's not that simple a choice when you post uncooked stuff with an air of authority. (Gentle suggestion: watch out for weasel words like "clearly ", "obviously " etc. Usually they mean there is no basis for what the writer is claiming but he is doing a flimflam job anyway)

Do you know the job description of foreign secretary? He/she has all executive powers other than making policy.

Are you aware that, if the NSA talks had gone forward, the FS would have been present, to assist the NSA?

even if we decide to get hung up on rank (meaningless at this level in a well-run team, but still) IIRC NSA is a cabinet level post and FS doesn't outrank the SA.

Lets not talk about events after the fact.

rajpa wrote:Every org needs to be included with input from PM. When that happens nobody will complain. Thats just how it is.

How do you know it wasn't?

KLNMurthy wrote:

rajpa wrote:Every org needs to be included with input from PM. When that happens nobody will complain. Thats just how it is.

How do you know it wasn't?

You are inviting the sheep that hunts the trolls.

Let me just say it is a gut feeling. But an important indicator is the absence of the foreign minister and a draft that appears to be slightly vague or not clear enough.

Rajpa wrote: If ever there are going to be talks again, just try to imagine how much will work will need to go into it. Food for thought?

Not sure why this "talking to pakistan" is even a concern. Why would an future interaction require any more work than this time around? The same fundamentals can remain because the pakis will never respond positively, guaranteed, especially if India focuses on verifiable actions before it moves to the next level. It all depends on India's tenaciousness really --- making concessions to pakistan to overcome its calculated irrationality, as was the norm in the past, is not going to cut it. It is doing such self-defeating actions, that questions like the one asked above even become an issue. The current regime seems to have a stomach for tough political decisions unlike all previous ones, and it would have to stop going down the same paths that the previous regimes to change perceptions, both internally and externally.

Let me just say it is a gut feeling. But an important indicator is the absence of the foreign minister and a draft that appears to be slightly vague or not clear enough.

seriously, "gut feeling" is your basis for making arbitrary claims about how this govt. is operating? Sure you are not just repeating all the baseless bilge you read in the Indian media? One would have to quote from a named source in the govt. to actually make such proclamations, in order to be taken seriously.

rajpa wrote:With due deference to troll hunters, I will continue to respond...

If she had clarified all this before all the brouhaha started, perhaps ideally at Ufa itself, things may have turned out way better. Perhaps she could have helped Jaishankar draft those words in a crystal clear manner in Ufa.

Are you assuming that India and Pakistan did not clarify this at Ufa itself? Are you saying that the agreement to meet was made without clarifying these?

The PC of Sushma Swaraj was a clarification for media and general public. The Paki Gov knew this all along.

Tuvaluan wrote:

Rajpa wrote: If ever there are going to be talks again, just try to imagine how much will work will need to go into it. Food for thought?

Not sure why this "talking to pakistan" is even a concern. Why would an future interaction require any more work than this time around? The same fundamentals can remain because the pakis will never respond positively, guaranteed, especially if India focuses on verifiable actions before it moves to the next level. It all depends on India's tenaciousness really --- making concessions to pakistan to overcome its calculated irrationality, as was the norm in the past, is not going to cut it. It is doing such self-defeating actions, that questions like the one asked above even become an issue. The current regime seems to have a stomach for tough political decisions unlike all previous ones, and it would have to stop going down the same paths that the previous regimes to change perceptions, both internally and externally.

I think that is a good takeaway from the Ufa talks. But I do have a nagging feeling that it could have been done better. But I am trying to give up my perfectionism. We will end up talking to TSP at some point in the future. As Vajpayee said "you cannot choose neighbours."

@deejay On clarity of issues etc, please read my earlier posts.

Rajpa wrote: But I do have a nagging feeling that it could have been done better. But I am trying to give up my perfectionism.

Your premise is that there exists some "perfect formulation" of words that would have brought out different outcomes this time is mostly baseless -- which was illustrated with the panchatantra tale earlier. There are no set of words or thoughts that could have made the pakis behave any differently than they did this time --- any paki watcher would know this based on a vast gallery of precedents of paki behaviour.

The current outcome was the best case (i.e., not having talks with pakis setting the agenda) no matter what -- your perfect formulation would have to make serious concessions to the pakis even before the discussions start. That is far less perfect the current outcome, realistically.

rajpa wrote:With due deference to troll hunters, I will continue to respond...

If she had clarified all this before all the brouhaha started, perhaps ideally at Ufa itself, things may have turned out way better. Perhaps she could have helped Jaishankar draft those words in a crystal clear manner in Ufa.

The document was amazingly clear, considering that it was the joint product of two enemies with solid drafting skills, who would fight over every comma. (These *joint* docs are not high school english compositions to just get "improved " by arbitrary corrections from teacher.)

SS explained that there is a protocol: it means they issued an invite to the other side based on the agreed agenda and were waiting for a response. During that time, it is not proper to go before the media and yak about the document.

None of us was present during the actual process. I respectfully suggest we and the forum would all benefit from focusing on reading and listening comprehension to properly evaluate the information we are provided. We can try to picture the process and apply common sense.

There is no benefit to taking hostile or detrimental commentaries at face value.

Tuvaluan wrote:

Rajpa wrote: But I do have a nagging feeling that it could have been done better. But I am trying to give up my perfectionism.

Your premise is that there exists some "perfect formulation" of words that would have brought out different outcomes this time is mostly baseless. The current outcome was the best case (i.e., not having talks with pakis setting the agenda) no matter what -- your perfect formulation would have to make serious concessions to the pakis even before the discussions start. That is far less perfect the current outcome, realistically.

Is that statement some well known epistemological conjecture? Sounds good.

Now it is back to trading allegations between us and TSP. What good is that compared to having a clear draft that lays out things in the correct perspective? As I pointed out earlier, the very first statement is a problem "we are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues".

KLNMurthy wrote:

rajpa wrote:With due deference to troll hunters, I will continue to respond...

If she had clarified all this before all the brouhaha started, perhaps ideally at Ufa itself, things may have turned out way better. Perhaps she could have helped Jaishankar draft those words in a crystal clear manner in Ufa.

The document was amazingly clear, considering that it was the joint product of two enemies with solid drafting skills, who would fight over every comma. (These *joint* docs are not high school english compositions to just get "improved " by arbitrary corrections from teacher.)

SS explained that there is a protocol: they issued an invite to the other side based on the agreed agenda and were waiting for a response. During that time, it is not proper to go before the media and yak about the document.

None of us was present during the actual process. I respectfully suggest we and the forum would all benefit from focusing on reading and listening comprehension to properly evaluate the information we are provided. We can try to picture the process and apply common sense.

There is no benefit to taking hostile or detrimental commentaries at face value.

What is amazingly clear about "we are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues" when it comes to an NSA to NSA discussion? Please read my posts with the same amount of intensity that would apply to the regular classes attended on reading and listening comprehension.

rajpa wrote:...
@deejay On clarity of issues etc, please read my earlier posts.

This statement itself is an assumption.

I have and I still say you are assuming. It was clear from the beginning and the clarification to the public was provided at the PC. You think that the lily livered brown shalwared down hill skiing puke worthies were waiting to read clear text. Anyways, read the text, it is clear like crystal.

I say they down hill skied all over again at the prospect of having to face 'the man we admire'. They were busy plotting how not to attend and words on the Ufa agreement would make no difference to the final outcome.

I am guessing, Sartaj Aziz would have personally asked Gen Sharif to spare him the visit to meet our NSA.

deejay wrote:

rajpa wrote:...
@deejay On clarity of issues etc, please read my earlier posts.

This statement itself is an assumption.

I have and I still say you are assuming. It was clear from the beginning and the clarification to the public was provided at the PC. You think that the lily livered brown shalwared down hill skiing puke worthies were waiting to read clear text. Anyways, read the text, it is clear like crystal.

I say they down hill skied all over again at the prospect of having to face 'the man we admire'. They were busy plotting how not to attend and words on the Ufa agreement would make no difference to the final outcome.

I am guessing, Sartaj Aziz would have personally asked Gen Sharif to spare him the visit to meet our NSA.

Reads well. I assume you read my posts. Hope that is not a wrong assumption to make, because it does appear that way

If there was total clarity in the document, it could be pointed out very clearly to prove that K and Rat do not exist in the scope of the NSA level discussion. Somehow that part cannot be traced back to that document.

rajpa wrote:

KLNMurthy wrote:
...

What is amazingly clear about "we are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues" when it comes to an NSA to NSA discussion? Please read my posts with the same amount of intensity that would apply to the regular classes attended on reading and listening comprehension.

Did you read what I wrote? The document was a compromise between two enemies, both top-level professionals who know their job better than you and me. Presumably, if they didn't have that line in the preamble (do you know what that is?) , the other side wouldn't have signed.

I have to stop here.

KLNMurthy wrote: Did you read what I wrote? The document was a compromise between two enemies, both top-level professionals who know their job better than you and me. Presumably, if they didn't have that line in the preamble (do you know what that is?) , the other side wouldn't have signed.

I have to stop here.

The existence of that line is ok. But with the modifications I listed out earlier.

Me too. Gotta sleep. Gnite all.

rajpa wrote: Reads well. I assume you read my posts. Hope that is not a wrong assumption to make, because it does appear that way

So, your assumptions continue instead of answering. It is okay if you made a wrong assumption initially as long as you correct it later.

You suggested that the kind of wordings on the Ufa agreement as suggested by you, are clearer than those on the actual agreement, is working on an assumption that the Pakis had a comprehension problem with our wordings.

So, as per you I have a comprehension problem, some one else also had a comprehension problem a few posts back and of course the Pakis have a comprehension problem.

As I understand "we are prepared to discuss all issues" is a statement of intent and is not part of the operative part.

That statement is to assuage Nawaz Sharif's compulsions, for otherwise there is no need for any party in Pak to even think of a joint statement. The meat however was in the other parts related to terrorism. That is the operative part.

Ufa joint statement was excellent. It cannot be perfect, because other parties have contrary views. Those criticizing the formulation should offer concrete suggestions for alternatives.

Rajpa wrote: Is that statement some well known epistemological conjecture? Sounds good.

Perhaps you need to watch pakistan a bit more first, if you want to term judgement calls based on the weight of past precedent as conjectures, then you are not considering available information, which makes you view quite detached from reality. As I see it, you are basically writing nonsense that ignores past precedents of paki behavior, and making even handed statements that ignore the reality that Pakistan uses "dialogue process" as a tool to be seen as engaging India while it continues to commit terrorism and otherwise damage Indian interests in any way possible.

Now it is back to trading allegations between us and TSP. What good is that compared to having a clear draft that lays out things in the correct perspective?

I did not "trade allegations"...let me ask this a bit more crudely since past attemps have been overlooked by you...What good is laying out things in "correct perspective" if the pakis use that paper for wiping their ar$e instead of reading it? What is your "perfect formulation" going to achieve in that case? Because that is what the pakis do when they change the agenda of talks after the framework was agreed to on paper. India cannot let them talk about J&K before paki terrorism in India, just because they want it that way.

The pakis agreed to the formulation in Ufa and the paki army had second thoughts and wanted to change the agreement post-hoc, which the GoI refused to consider, quite firmly.

Either way, a govt. that did not agree to their proposed changes to Ufa last week, is unlikely to have agreed to it in writing in Ufa. And if the Indian govt. agreed only to this specific formulation which did not allow the pakis to bring up the topic of J&K at NSA level talks as it did, why is that any different from what was agreed upon in Ufa. All of this "perfect formulation" seems like a round-about way to say "India should have made more concession in Ufa or last week"....that is nothing but a political statement, not an assessment of what was wrong with the Ufa wording.

Ex -Husband Of Mrs. Imran Khan Says That She Used Him "Like Toilet Paper To Clean Up Her Image "

The wrath of Mrs Khan's ex: She's the ambitious ex-BBC presenter who - as Imran Khan's wife - may become Pakistan's First Lady. But can she recover from the damning claims of the husband she left behind?

Ms Khan filed for divorce in 2005 after 15 years together with Dr Rehman
He claims he was forced to leave the house with just one suitcase
Dr Rehman denies Ms Khan's claims he didn't finance her children
Reham Khan has developed a reputation as a broadcast journalist and champion of women's rights

Washing the dirty shalwar in public
Now it is beginning to make sense of the Great Khan's immediate family who had advised him not to go ahead with this deal ; is it possible that he too may be taken for a ride; time will tell

Whatever is said about BBC presenter Reham Khan – and people have said plenty in recent months – there is no doubting her fierce ambition.
In just three years she has gone from covering local fetes on the regional news programme South Today, to becoming one of the foremost television presenters and political activists in Pakistan.
[/b]

A canny marriage to the former international cricketer-turned-politician, Imran Khan, 62, has helped, of course, and so has depicting herself as an abused wife and an abandoned mother-of-three who was left to bring up her children on her own. 'I have earned my freedom,' she told one interviewer.

These shocking claims won widespread public sympathy for the glamorous 43-year-old and made her a champion of women's rights.

But there is one man who has a very different take on Reham's emotion-fuelled back story. He is Dr Ijaz Rehman, her first cousin and also the ex-husband she left behind in Britain.

He says, bluntly, that she used him 'like toilet paper to clean up her image' after she found herself harshly criticised by traditionalists in Pakistan who saw Imran's bride as far too Westernised

.

Pictures of Reham handling pork sausages, dancing with other men and wearing revealing clothes [*]while at the BBC, caused national outrage among some of her new husband's ardent supporters.

[*] But has'nt the Kaptaan himself gone through a similar metamorphosis, since his migration back to Pakiland from Londonistan

Tall and impressive, Dr Rehman bears a passing resemblance to Imran – they even share the same accented and richly mellifluous voice. In the elegant sitting room of his compact home on the edge of Warrington, he speaks calmly, insisting that he can prove every statement.

His attractive second wife, Sam, [*] 34, also a doctor, hovers supportively, occasionally censoring his more contentious comments.

[*] Does not sound halal

A spokesman for Imran Khan[*] said he was disappointed that Dr Rehman had chosen to speak about his family in public. He said Dr Rehman had not considered the impact on his children.

[*] He should know by now that when you enter public life, nothing is private