Bharat Rakshak

Worth keeping in mind what Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (retired) wrote:

There are never any clear answers in long drawn out irregular conflict campaigns and if there are any they can only be ambiguous.

We were fully aware that ours would not be the cliched thought process of victory and defeat in a battle or a campaign. That approach leads to unrealistic objectives and overkill. Tackling the situation by limited objectives allows the flexibility of approach.

It also reminds me something from Mahatma Gandhi:

"The Shastras have taught us both our ideal dharma and our practical dharma....

"However, we do not seek solutions to such problems by regarding them as matters of absolute dharma. Relative dharma does not proceed on a straight path like a railway track. It has, on the contrary, to make its way through a dense forest where there is not even a sense of direction. Hence in this case, even one step is sufficient. Many circumstances have to be considered before the second step is taken and, if the first step is towards the north, the second may have to be taken towards the east. In this manner, although the path may appear crooked, since it is the only one which is correct, it can also be regarded as the straight one. Nature does not imitate geometry. Although natural forms are very beautiful, they do not fit in with geometrical patterns."

Yes, I know, the first is talking about niti and the second is talking about dharma. But there is a deeper underlying pattern of thought here.

The ideal is to dissolve the hostile Pakistani entity (I hesitate to call it a state). The relative is a set of limited objectives, pursued or dropped depending on circumstances.

Those who are looking for straight lines are bound to be disappointed and to feel frustrated.

IMO, Modi's Ufa ploy was an example of a limited objective engagement that is aligned with a major goal.

^+101 AoA

Arjun wrote: We can separately evaluate what has been the trajectory of Indian success against these three forces, in their respective home theaters. As regards terrorist violence outside of these three theaters, UPA-1 was the worst in terms of terrorist killings. The SATP link to this statistic would validate, I'm sure...

What are the terror threats to India outside Jihadi, Maoist and NE insurgency? Why dont you point out from the SATP data how UPA was "worst" in terms of terrorist killings?

manoj wrote:Now it all depends on the the meaning of national interest is ...

Guess what, that is exactly what folks at the National Security Council, MEA Policy planning Div etc do, or at least try to. Though India's institutional structures arent nearly as good as they should be in these things.

National objectives cannot be rhetoric ("we need to regain intellectual glory") or a random wishlist. It has to be calculated, cold blooded identification of specific objectives, within realisations of constraints of national power.

That is exactly what ABV did by calling off Op Parakram, once the travel advisories started coming in and IT companies in Bangalore (incl likes of Nandan Nilekani) started to flag off big risks to Indian IT (then a still-fledgling sector) from continued border tensions. That is also what MMS did by voting against Iran in IAEA while the nuke deal with the US was being negotiated. Both were examples of clear headed assessment of national objectives and decsion-making to achieve them.

Its not necessary we would always have a good, neat idea. But we need to at least attempt to evaluate our core objectives, all the time.

Porkonomic-Mominomic Dukhionomical Saga
Pakistan's economy facing revenue generation crisis: report

ISLAMABAD: Despite recent optimism surrounding Pakistan's economy, the country is facing an “existential crisis” stemming from its woeful tax collection rates and inability to finance itself, a report said Wednesday.Pakistan's economy grew at 4.24 per cent during the 2014-2015 fiscal year with per capita income rising a significant 9.25 per cent, markers that come as investor confidence in the long-underperfoming South Asian giant have also increased.But according to the report by non-profit organisation Raftar, funded by Britain's Department for International Development (DFID), Pakistan's economy continues to rely heavily on “commercial loans, concessionary donor loans and aid”.The country's tax-to-GDP ratio of 9.4 per cent is among the lowest in the world, leading to a public debt of 17 trillion rupees ($163 billion). This an almost three-fold increase since 2008 for the $232 ( exposing lie of 270Billion in 2012) billion economy, with 44 per cent of tax revenue going toward interest payments.
The report blamed the lack of a “tax culture” on non-revenue sources of funds the country has historically enjoyed in the form of foreign aid and loans. ( Fourfathers's Crime) It said 68 per cent of tax revenue was being generated through indirect taxes on fuel, food and electricity, which unfairly penalises the poor.The lack of revenue collection also negatively affects infrastructure development including power generation, with the country facing a massive shortfall of up to 4000MW in the summer that shaves about $15 billion off the country's GDP.Pakistan is currently in a $6.6 billion loan programme with the International Monetary Fund, which was granted on condition that Islamabad carried out extensive economic reforms, particularly in the energy and taxation sectors.

jrjrao wrote:Nothing interesting here. Just standard issue chut1yagiri from Shahzad Chaudhry. Note that even sophisticated sounding Pakis like this cannot help themselves from showing off their bigot genes:

Similarly, resettling long-gone Kashmiri Pundits back in secure settlements is meant to replicate the Israeli model of Zionising the West Bank and Gaza.

Rest of the garbage from this is very reassuring, however. Retired air-vice marshal Chaudhry promises that the Pakis may eat grass for one thousand years, but they still will not let go of the monkey trap. That sounds plenty like wonderful music, I think.

Theatre of the absurd?

My letter to Hot-Air Marshall Chaudry. He has displayed his email online.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Chaudry,

In your above mentioned column, you wrote: "We need a long-term plan through a deliberate, dedicated approach with strong hands at the helm to deal with India. Making nice will not do."

Please allow me to revisit your options to "punish India".

1) Isolate India on the world stage: Pakistan has been trying that for several decades now. The end result is, Pakistan has zero friends except North Korea and China. Everyone else including your Godfather, UAE, is firmly in India's camp. Even the commonwealth summit in Pakistan was cancelled and moved to New York. Not to mention that no country wants to play any form of sports in your country.

2) Increase terrorist activities in India: You are already doing it and Indian defense forces are firmly giving you the reply. The security grid is holding up well.
You may think of doing another Mumbai, in which case please remember Ajit Doval's warning to be "ready to lose Balochistan".

3) Nuclear attacks: This is your last and only option. As you are aware, Nukes did not help you during the Kargil war. You had to give up the territory and run to Washington for help. Neither did they help you during the APS school attack.
Most importantly, India presently has 2 cities covered under the Anti-Ballistic missile shield. This is enough to call your Nuclear bluff. Once your bluff is called, the Nukes are as good as nothing.

Please advise on what other options you are left with to "Punish India".

Your fellow "Aman Ki Tamasha"

Rajagopal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JE Menon wrote:

>>We can't absolve Modi from Ufa. If MMS is guilty of Sharam-e-Shek, Modi is guilty of Ufa.

Guilty of what, exactly? Please read above posts by various people, and say exactly what Modi has "lost" and what he is "guilty" of?

The only thing I can think of is that he did not satisfy the junket-monkeys and the unreformable presstitutes. More of that is required.

The ability of Indians for own goals/needless infighting is just mind blowing!


SSridhar posted: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 580358.ece

Based on his study of the group in Pakistan and operatives in Europe and other countries, Dr. Tankel says there are growing divisions within the LeT, including on the succession plan for Hafiz Saeed.

“I think there are divisions in the LeT between those who want to push for political influence in Pakistani society, and those who want to stick to militancy. Also those who want to globalise, and those who don’t. There are those more willing to abide by state diktats, and some who want to fight the state. And then there is the generational shift,” he says explaining that the group could face pressure from those such as the Islamic State.

He says that as a result, an “Osama-style” operation against Hafiz Saeed may not actually shut down the LeT’s operations against India.

“Any plan of Indian operatives targeting Hafiz Saeed would have a very destabilising effect on the region. So I can’t suggest it. I would just say the costs and benefits have to be weighed,” Dr. Tankel, who is writing a second book about the U.S.’s counter-terrorism partners, said.

If the above is true (divisions within the LeT), than it would make perfect sense for India to exterminate the present LeT leadership, as currently the LeT is only focussed on attacking India but with the present leadership culled, the LeT would fracture and the factions would all focus on different targets, some on the west, others on the Paki state. This is a hugely positive outcome for India.

No matter how many divisions exist in the LeT, all of them will be under the control of the army, given that LeT is managed and owned by the paki army -- they will either just rename the org or find a new leader for it. Seems futile to try and use internal divisions in the LeT, as that only targets a symptom, leaving the source of the problem to operate as it is.

http://www.ianslive.in/index.php?param= ... ATIONAL/13
Rangers, BSF commanders to meet in New Delhi from September 9

Islamabad, Aug 26 (IANS) Top commanders of Pakistan Rangers and Indian Border Security Force (BSF) are scheduled to meet in New Delhi from September 9 to 13, Pakistan's paramilitary force spokesman told the media on Tuesday.

"As per border ground rules 1961, a routine, biannual meeting of Insp. Gen. BSF and Dir. Gen. Pakistan Rangers is scheduled to take place in New Delhi starting September 9, 2015," Dawn News quoted a spokesman for Pakistan Rangers as saying.

A good take down of the RAPE liberals of Al Bakistan, including this high-pitched specimen:

Raza Rumi – When Silence is Murder

Then there are fake liberals; they too are liberal in some sense but their objective is to save the Pakistani state, not the Pakistani people. The easiest way to identify the fake liberals is this: they promptly get offended by any criticism of Pakistani military and its Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. Like true liberals, the fake liberals also advocate democracy and women’s rights, but they are intentionally silent on the Pakistani military’s role in Balochistan. Their criticism of ISI’s protection of jihadist hideouts in Bahawalpur, Muridke, Rawalpindi and Muzaffarabad is shrill and cosmetic, not beyond a few passing remarks. In their writings they advance the ISI’s narrative of foreign policies, especially with regard to India, Afghanistan and the U.S.

Raza Rumi writes: “These fundamental flaws of a policy – necessitated by domestic appeasement of the Hindu Right – confound the task of securing normalization in the region.” Unfortunately, for you, confronting Pakistani jihadism is tantamount to “domestic appeasement of the Hindu Right” – you might be right because the Indian seculars have always turned the other cheek: each time you send jihadists into India, secular Indians have invited you, hosted you and served biryani dinners both at official levels and at unofficial levels. This biryani politics will end, not because secular Indians want to end it but because common Indians are getting more knowledgeable about ISI’s jihadist role in India. Rumi views every Indian writer whose articles could be critical of ISI as Modi’s supporter. No surprises here either: for generations of Pakistanis, Indian nationalism was always limited to Hindu nationalism, as taught throughout Pakistani curriculum.

Raza Rumi writes that Modi’s supporters “consider that India’s rise on the global stage will ensure that Pakistan is sidelined and ultimately cowed down.” Cowed down from what? Why Pakistan should not be cowed down internationally for its support of jihadist terror organizations? Morally, you should also support it. Granted that you have a concern for Pakistan’s reputation, but it is not for India to salvage Pakistan’s future. The fact is this: the Pakistani military is fully capable of unilaterally ending its support to jihadist organizations overnight and salvage a bright future for the Pakistani people but it wouldn’t do so – to understand this, you can read C. Christine Fair’s authoritative book, “Fighting to the End – The Pakistan Army’s Way of War.”

Rumi adds: “Modi’s 56-inch nationalism actually strengthens all those in Pakistan who prefer status quo.” Do you believe this nationalism is only 56-inch, or are you speaking in received language, received from the biryani analysts of India?

eklavya wrote: The heroes of sharm el sheikh and their supporters need to hang their heads in shame. Instead they are trying to teach statecraft to this government. Given half a chance, these people would have given up Siachen and repealed the application of AFSPA in J&K. They are much below contempt.

Eklavya
You need to tweet this!
Very nice

Rahul M ji
I am currently using a hotel internet, and this one doesn't have enough bandwidth to even see youtube videos.
I can't post the links to all the videos with the rona dhona of Modiji's UAE visit. Some are in the links with the videos posted here earlier.

Gagan Can I have your e khat pata, there is something I came across on the inet want to run by you

So apparently Good Haqqani and his Motorma are running "extricate good people from Al Bakistan before they get Qadrified" operation. A little birdie told me. Raza Rumi is one of them.

Tuvaluan wrote:No matter how many divisions exist in the LeT, all of them will be under the control of the army, given that LeT is managed and owned by the paki army -- they will either just rename the org or find a new leader for it. Seems futile to try and use internal divisions in the LeT, as that only targets a symptom, leaving the source of the problem to operate as it is.

The "divisions" are likely to be managed by TSPA itself, keep them together but do not allow them to coalesce into an entity that may take on TSPA itself one day. TSPA will step in as the "benevolent benefactor" to resolve these disputes and "gently" shepherd them towards the real objectives that they were raised for- India.

^^^ Anujanji strike Raza Rumi from the list as he has already taken the canadian visa route after an attempt on his life by the establishment/jihadi elements.

are BSF / Rangers commanders also going to discuss Kashmir? Is hurriyat also invited to BSF/ Rangers meeting to discuss core issue?

somnath wrote:What are the terror threats to India outside Jihadi, Maoist and NE insurgency? Why dont you point out from the SATP data how UPA was "worst" in terms of terrorist killings?

Comprehension problems?...I had talked of terror outside of the traditional home theaters. Kapiche? So Mumbai 2008 was an Islamist attack but outside of the traditional Islamist home theater (J&K). Here's the SATP link for killings in that category since 2000: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... ttacks.htm

National objectives cannot be rhetoric

After the gyan on 'national interest' you suddenly switch tack to 'national objectives'. Either way, whether 'national interest' or 'national objectives' do drop in your list so we can critically evaluate.

Anujan wrote:So apparently Good Haqqani and his Motorma are running "extricate good people from Al Bakistan before they get Qadrified" operation. A little birdie told me. Raza Rumi is one of them.

Vipul wrote:^^^ Anujanji strike Raza Rumi from the list as he has already taken the canadian visa route after an attempt on his life by the establishment/jihadi elements.

Yes, per Tufail's article posted above, Rumi may in fact be trying to head back in .

KLNMurthy wrote: Amit has provided a very good insight into what is the real meaning of the Indian commentators' rage against the Modi policy: they personally fear they may lose something (like track 2 junkets), and to them India==themselves.

KLNMurthy wrote: Change is hard. It is also costly.

KLNM,

Since I wrote that I've been thinking on this. I now believe that something bigger is at play. If you look at the intellectual level, our chatterati have been influenced by a steady dose of very fashionable Fabian socialism for at least a couple of generation. Which is why the "so-called" Leftist orientation in strategic thought process is so deeply ingrained, especially among our IAS, IFS etc babus and especially in our analysts and assorted journalists. Even confirmed "nationalist" journalists such as Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra started out as firebrand "leftists" when they went to England to do their PhDs in History. Their initial writing after they came back and became journalists are quite indistinguishable from the stuff that the much younger people like Suhasini Haider peddles nowadays. All very reasonable sounding, clichéd and very left establishment oriented. It is only at a later stage that these two had their epiphany moment and realised what was going on and made a course correction.

What Modi's win has done is set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the rules of engagement among the chatterati in India and the flutter is still discernible. Atal Behari Vajpayee saab, LK Advani, Arun Shourie, Jassu Mithawala et al are/were all very able politicians but they still belong to the Lutyens Delhi cabal - the St Stephens, Delhi University, JNU, Calcutta University et al - which has dominated strategic thinking in India. But the new team, folks like Smriti Irani, Amit Shah etc are like Modi outsiders in this circle.

This is causing massive churn and suddenly the well known pressure points which folks in the US, UK and Pakistan, among other places, have been used to press when they wanted to get India to do certain things are either no longer working or are not responding as they used to before.

If you look at what is happening in this perspective then it's relatively easy to understand where trash like Praveen Swami's grandmother story comes from or why NDTV deliberately decides to downplay Sushma Swaraj's press conference. When you willingly or otherwise become a pressure point you amass a lot of power and prestige. Who likes it when both disappear? And whom do you blame for the loss of power and prestige? Any guesses?

The angst in the press and among the ex-IFS types over the NSA talks is the latest manifestation of this. There will be more to come.

However, I'm hopeful that from this churn a new power or influence centre which is less left oriented will emerge and this should happen around the time the Modi sarkar goes into a second term (fingers crossed). A new breed of journalists, strategic thinkers etc will emerge who are not blinkered by Fabian leftism and do not think a right wing approach to issues is intellectual suicide. India needs pressure groups which are on the Centre Left and Centre Right in order to develop as a mature society. I don't want the Centre Left to disappear entirely because then we are back to square one. It should be like the US, where it needs both Fox as well as NBC, CBS etc for a balanced strategic view.

manjgu wrote:are BSF / Rangers commanders also going to discuss Kashmir? Is hurriyat also invited to BSF/ Rangers meeting to discuss core issue?

The Rangers delegation must meet the Harried Rats before they meet the BSF! Come on Pukes you've got to show these Hindus the stick so that they slither back to their narrow dark places.

What does one make of the following Farooq Abdullah Interview?

Q: The NSA level talks are stalled: an ominous sign?

A: That the talks are not taking place is a tragedy for J&K. This means firing will continue. The Pakistanis will fire from their strongholds. We will fire from our strongholds. Boys, girls, women children, adults will die. What are we going to achieve by all this? Nothing.The only way forward is talking. We must talk. Is it in the interests of India and Pakistan that innocent villagers are dying in the firing? Does anybody in the rest of the county care when our people die on border? Has Mr Modi come to see them in the border villages? He should immediately visit the border so that people see the suffering in the villages.

We were all very disappointed when the talks were called off. The people on the border must have been most disappointed. They must have cried like hell. If nothing is done, there will be far more casualties on the two sides. We must open back channels, open every channel that we can.

Q: Should the government have allowed the Hurriyat to meet the Pakistani leadership?

A: They have always met. Whether they meet or don't meet does not solve the Kashmir problem. Why make the Hurriyat so big? The Indian government should ignore the Hurriyat. The Hurriyat is a creation of Pakistan and Pakistan has always spoken to them. They went to the High Commissioner's Pakistan Day event. Our minister, VK Singh also went. We didn't stop them at that time. Why now? The Hurriyat should be ignored. They do not represent the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Q: Is Modi's policy towards Pakistan too hardline?

A: What's hardline? Telling Pakistan where he draws the red line? Why is that a hard line? Did he not open his doors when he was sworn in? Did he not invite the Saarc heads to Delhi to signal he wants friendly relations? Modi can't be taken for a ride by anybody. He'll do exactly what he wants to do. He tried to speak to them. You want him to go down on his knees? There's never been trust between India and Pakistan. There was a ray of hope when Gen Musharraf was in command, a feeling that something new will emerge, that there would be a solution out of the box. When the next general takes over, we might find a way forward.

That's why I always felt Kashmiris are inconsistent, ambivalent and have no idea at all of what they want.

On the divisions within the LeT that Prof Tankel talks about, one has also got to remember the usual PA tactics of splitting tanzeems some times and stitching tanzeems together at other times so as to maintain their overall control and meet strategic goal.

Gagan wrote:Rahul M ji
I am currently using a hotel internet, and this one doesn't have enough bandwidth to even see youtube videos.
I can't post the links to all the videos with the rona dhona of Modiji's UAE visit. Some are in the links with the videos posted here earlier.

here or in multimedia thread ?
I did look on youtube but didn't get much.

SSridhar wrote:What does one make of the following Farooq Abdullah Interview?

Q: The NSA level talks are stalled: an ominous sign?

A: That the talks are not taking place is a tragedy for J&K. This means firing will continue. The Pakistanis will fire from their strongholds. We will fire from our strongholds. Boys, girls, women children, adults will die. What are we going to achieve by all this? Nothing.The only way forward is talking. We must talk. Is it in the interests of India and Pakistan that innocent villagers are dying in the firing? Does anybody in the rest of the county care when our people die on border? Has Mr Modi come to see them in the border villages? He should immediately visit the border so that people see the suffering in the villages.

We were all very disappointed when the talks were called off. The people on the border must have been most disappointed. They must have cried like hell. If nothing is done, there will be far more casualties on the two sides. We must open back channels, open every channel that we can.

Q: Should the government have allowed the Hurriyat to meet the Pakistani leadership?

A: They have always met. Whether they meet or don't meet does not solve the Kashmir problem. Why make the Hurriyat so big? The Indian government should ignore the Hurriyat. The Hurriyat is a creation of Pakistan and Pakistan has always spoken to them. They went to the High Commissioner's Pakistan Day event. Our minister, VK Singh also went. We didn't stop them at that time. Why now? The Hurriyat should be ignored. They do not represent the people of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Q: Is Modi's policy towards Pakistan too hardline?

A: What's hardline? Telling Pakistan where he draws the red line? Why is that a hard line? Did he not open his doors when he was sworn in? Did he not invite the Saarc heads to Delhi to signal he wants friendly relations? Modi can't be taken for a ride by anybody. He'll do exactly what he wants to do. He tried to speak to them. You want him to go down on his knees? There's never been trust between India and Pakistan. There was a ray of hope when Gen Musharraf was in command, a feeling that something new will emerge, that there would be a solution out of the box. When the next general takes over, we might find a way forward.

That's why I always felt Kashmiris are inconsistent, ambivalent and have no idea at all of what they want.

Observe that the interviewer too didn't ask, after hearing the first answer, "so, is it your belief that if we had talks, pakistan would stop the cross-border firing? In that case, why did they create a ridiculous pretext to cancel the talks? Unless they don't really want to stop firing on us?"

What is worrisome is that it is not just Farooq Abdullah or kashmiris alone in this kind of confused (even within the same interview or article) and incoherent thinking. It is as though DIE have all given up even trying to pretend to make any kind of sense. It is almost as though they have all collectively degenerated into something less than rational beings capable of logical thinking.

Or maybe I am just noticing.

amit wrote:

KLNMurthy wrote: Amit has provided a very good insight into what is the real meaning of the Indian commentators' rage against the Modi policy: they personally fear they may lose something (like track 2 junkets), and to them India==themselves.

KLNMurthy wrote: Change is hard. It is also costly.

KLNM,

Since I wrote that I've been thinking on this. I now believe that something bigger is at play. If you look at the intellectual level, our chatterati have been influenced by a steady dose of very fashionable Fabian socialism for at least a couple of generation. Which is why the "so-called" Leftist orientation in strategic thought process is so deeply ingrained, especially among our IAS, IFS etc babus and especially in our analysts and assorted journalists. Even confirmed "nationalist" journalists such as Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra started out as firebrand "leftists" when they went to England to do their PhDs in History. Their initial writing after they came back and became journalists are quite indistinguishable from the stuff that the much younger people like Suhasini Haider peddles nowadays. All very reasonable sounding, clichéd and very left establishment oriented. It is only at a later stage that these two had their epiphany moment and realised what was going on and made a course correction.

What Modi's win has done is set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the rules of engagement among the chatterati in India and the flutter is still discernible. Atal Behari Vajpayee saab, LK Advani, Arun Shourie, Jassu Mithawala et al are/were all very able politicians but they still belong to the Lutyens Delhi cabal - the St Stephens, Delhi University, JNU, Calcutta University et al - which has dominated strategic thinking in India. But the new team, folks like Smriti Irani, Amit Shah etc are like Modi outsiders in this circle.

This is causing massive churn and suddenly the well known pressure points which folks in the US, UK and Pakistan, among other places, have been used to press when they wanted to get India to do certain things are either no longer working or are not responding as they used to before.

If you look at what is happening in this perspective then it's relatively easy to understand where trash like Praveen Swami's grandmother story comes from or why NDTV deliberately decides to downplay Sushma Swaraj's press conference. When you willingly or otherwise become a pressure point you amass a lot of power and prestige. Who likes it when both disappear? And whom do you blame for the loss of power and prestige? Any guesses?

The angst in the press and among the ex-IFS types over the NSA talks is the latest manifestation of this. There will be more to come.

However, I'm hopeful that from this churn a new power or influence centre which is less left oriented will emerge and this should happen around the time the Modi sarkar goes into a second term (fingers crossed). A new breed of journalists, strategic thinkers etc will emerge who are not blinkered by Fabian leftism and do not think a right wing approach to issues is intellectual suicide. India needs pressure groups which are on the Centre Left and Centre Right in order to develop as a mature society. I don't want the Centre Left to disappear entirely because then we are back to square one. It should be like the US, where it needs both Fox as well as NBC, CBS etc for a balanced strategic view.

Well, I guess the "small idea"--guarding personal privileges, and the "big idea"--leftist indoctrination, are quite consistent and compatible with each other.

Leftist / socialist mindset, under some circumstances, leads to a parasitic class of people--who are incapable of anything much--taking charge of everything, in the name of "the people." If they are incapable, they don't have big ideas, or the capability to carry them out if they had such ideas. So, eventually they will settle for the markers of privilege--peons, free trips, government-issued bungalow, status that is self-sustaining (because they have control of the propaganda vehicles, they will simply reinforce each other through those vehicles). There are terrified to let it all go, because they would have to face up to their own total uselessness. Have you ever seen a bad interview candidate who will keep on talking nonsense because he is afraid that if he becomes quiet, then his unfitness will become obvious? (even though his own nonsense makes it obvious, it is a painful sight to see).

All this doesn't have to be the result of a conscious conspiracy or even collective malice. As Noam Chomsky pointed out in his Manufacture of Consent book, this kind of echo-chamber unanimity grows organically through drift, driven by self-interest plus herd instinct.

If it is organic, then it that much harder to root out--there is no center of conspiracy to identify and eliminate. No hive or queen bee. Only something revolutionary and out of the box, like the small boy shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, will have a chance of dethroning this order.

Modi is that revolution. But now Modi has to govern and raise up the people from poverty and dejection. That means he can't have large numbers of people going haywire and creating a ruckus to hide their own uselessness. We are the ones that have to be the small boy.

amit wrote:If you look at the intellectual level, our chatterati have been influenced by a steady dose of very fashionable Fabian socialism for at least a couple of generation. Which is why the "so-called" Leftist orientation in strategic thought process is so deeply ingrained, especially among our IAS, IFS etc babus and especially in our analysts and assorted journalists. Even confirmed "nationalist" journalists such as Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra started out as firebrand "leftists" when they went to England to do their PhDs in History. Their initial writing after they came back and became journalists are quite indistinguishable from the stuff that the much younger people like Suhasini Haider peddles nowadays. All very reasonable sounding, clichéd and very left establishment oriented. It is only at a later stage that these two had their epiphany moment and realised what was going on and made a course correction.

Amit, I think it is deeply problematic to ascribe nationalistic certificates to people on the basis of their ideological predilections. Ram Manohar Lohia and Sardar Patel were on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum - who was the greater "nationalist"? Rajaji was Inida's original "right wing" philosopher - his views on Kashmir would qualify him for treason in today's "nationalist" discourse - would you say he was "anti national"?

LK Advani and Jaswant Singh - latter day "nationalists" - what were their views on Jinnah? ABV - what were his views on Nehru?

But there is a point on the general orientation of the intellectual elites of this country - it has been somewhat on the left of centre. It is visible in our elite campuses - DU, JNU of course, but also the IITs and IIMs. Part of the reason is the quality on display - the Indian Left has a rich history of intellectual work across the social sciences. The Indian Right? After RC Majumdar, who? Arun Shourie? Actually thats it. The Left has a lot more intellectual heft (pun unintended) to attract the young.

Even today, where is the "Right" talent? Sudarshan Rao versus Ram Guha? Is that even a contest?

But the key point though is, most of the younger lot in India are socially left, and economically right. Thats what is reflected in the cacmpuses - students flock to hear Ram Guha and then step out for an interview with Unilever. So they are pro-left (in personal, sexual, religious and dietary choices) and pro-right in economics (free market, pvt sector etc). The Indian Right however, at least publicly , is largely the opposite - they are extreme retrogressive right on social matters, and close to Sitaram Yechury on economic ones!

Last, its an easy cop out argument to allege that the IFS folks are "against Modi" in order to protect Track II junkets. Maybe some of them are out of tune, and I agree that they are. But the debate needs to be intellectually won, not on the basis of motive attribution.

The Left has a lot more intellectual heft (pun unintended) to attract the young.

Which is why this needs to be broken by delegitimizing their work and the network effects of the dark side attracting more to them should stop. Anyway OT I guess for this thread.

KLMN,

Very good post. And Oh yes, having spent the most part of my life growing up in West Bengal I know just how parasitic the Leftists are. There has hardly been any original thinking in terms of what to do and what not to do, which is why the Naxal movement was such a waste of precious human resources in terms of brilliant minds going astray. But most of that would be OT here so I won't go on.

Back to topic: Pakistan's reaction leading the NSA talks cancellation is IMO a classic example of how confused the usual suspects have become because the pressure points don't work any more. Meeting the Harried Rats was one such point which they had begun to accept as their right and even idiots like MSA also started believe indeed it was.

But have you noticed two interesting points in the sub-text of Indian red line with regard to such meetings? One is that when this happened the first time when the Pak Amby met the jokers and India cancelled the Foreign Sec level talks, there was an uproar in the press with Hindu, Indian Express carrying highly critical articles and the usual talk shows spouting indignation. This time, since it's become the new normal there was much more muted reaction. The second point is more interesting, Salman Khurshid giving the Congress response of course criticised the cancellation but he also let slip a gem: He said that Pakistan has no right to discuss Kashmir with the Harried Rats.

This what he said:

On the question of the Hurriyat leadership and other separatist representatives meeting with the Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz in New Delhi on Sunday, and Pakistan's insistence that the views of the Hurriyat be taken onboard during the talks, Khurshid, said, "Hurriyat can't be a part of this talk."

Link

This means that this is now become the new normal from the previous normal, espoused by MSA and his ilk, that it's OK for Pakis to talk to the Harried Rats on Kashmir sitting in Delhi.

Expect more such incremental changes.

CRamS wrote:If Suhasini Haidar has even a tiny fraction of her father's nationalist bone, she would question the above premises

Subramanian Swamy is the darling of the nationalist crowd these days. This is what he said, not so long ago.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1702/17020950.htm
This is what he says:

"Today the creeping fascism of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is coming upon us not as gradually as imperialism did, nor as suddenly as did the Emergency. Its spread is being calibrated adroitly by seven faceless men of the RSS, the RSS "high comma nd"."

Anyways, this is OT - but I referenced this to show how dangerous it is to bandy around certificates of nationalism.

Arjun wrote: After the gyan on 'national interest' you suddenly switch tack to 'national objectives'. Either way, whether 'national interest' or 'national objectives' do drop in your list so we can critically evaluate.

Doesnt matter what the semantics are, interest or objectives, as long as we are specific.

As far as I am concerned, the over-riding objective for India should be churn out a 15 year period of 8%+ growth. To facilitate that, we need peace at our borders (so that foreign investors are not spooked by "tensions" between nuclear neighbours), and management of terrorism inside Indian territory.

In my view, low level engagement with Pak to keep the world fobbed off, along with strong internal security measures to detect and neutralise attacks serve the purpose.

KLNMurthy wrote:Observe that the interviewer too didn't ask, after hearing the first answer, "so, is it your belief that if we had talks, pakistan would stop the cross-border firing? In that case, why did they create a ridiculous pretext to cancel the talks? Unless they don't really want to stop firing on us?"

The interviewer is Sagarika Ghose and the questions she is asking are therefore with an agenda.

somnath wrote:Amit, I think it is deeply problematic to ascribe nationalistic certificates to people on the basis of their ideological predilections. Ram Manohar Lohia and Sardar Patel were on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum - who was the greater "nationalist"? Rajaji was Inida's original "right wing" philosopher - his views on Kashmir would qualify him for treason in today's "nationalist" discourse - would you say he was "anti national"?

LK Advani and Jaswant Singh - latter day "nationalists" - what were their views on Jinnah? ABV - what were his views on Nehru?

Somnath,

I'm sorry to have to have to say this as I respect you as a poster but in this instance you are displaying exactly the same Fabian-inspired dogma that I was talking about. I have NOT ascribed any Nationalistic or otherwise certificate to anyone. Neither have I said that all Leftist oriented analysts are traitors.

What I have said, in case it was not clear, was that the strategic narrative in India has been dominated till now by only one strand of ideology, the Left oriented one. There has been no credible Rightwing oriented strand. As it happens in such circumstances it has become an echo-chamber as KLMN just put it where the same ideas are used, rehashed and rephrased, which is why India is so predictable. This has given rise to the well-known pressure points that I talked about.

Indian strategic thinking in order to mature needs both strands to contribute - Centre Right and Centre Left. It is only then that there will be a healthy equilibrium. I personally know that contarian thinking on these kind of issues is highly discouraged in the places that matter, which is dominated by Leftwing ideology. That is why no credible alternatives have emerged.

You compare Sudarshan Rao vs Ram Guha. But have you asked yourself why, in a nation of a billion people why there is no Ram Guha equivalent in the Centre Right? Surely something is wrong for that to happen?

Part of the reason is the quality on display - the Indian Left has a rich history of intellectual work across the social sciences. The Indian Right? After RC Majumdar, who? Arun Shourie? Actually thats it. The Left has a lot more intellectual heft (pun unintended) to attract the young.

I'm sorry you got the cart before the horse. The Indian Right does not have a track record because of group think which actively discouraged contrarian thinking which is why even folks who had doubts moved away. Believe me I know this from watching this happen from very close up.

The moot point, as Indians it is nothing to be proud of that we can only produce one strand of strategic thinking only. How different are we from China?

But the key point though is, most of the younger lot in India are socially left, and economically right. Thats what is reflected in the cacmpuses - students flock to hear Ram Guha and then step out for an interview with Unilever.

This is the hallmark of Fabian socialism, it makes you a hypocrite.

Last, its an easy cop out argument to allege that the IFS folks are "against Modi" in order to protect Track II junkets. Maybe some of them are out of tune, and I agree that they are. But the debate needs to be intellectually won, not on the basis of motive attribution.

Again you are using a tactic which I have seen, Oh so many time taken by DSF, SFI etc student leaders!

This is how it works: You say some students in the 3rd year of XX course were cheating during the exam. The SFI/DSF leader would rush into the 3rd year classroom and shout: "So and so said ALL 3rd year students are cheats they are copying during the exam.

I hope you can understand the irony!

But then you may not because you use the same tactic:

The Indian Right however, at least publicly , is largely the opposite - they are extreme retrogressive right on social matters, and close to Sitaram Yechury on economic ones!

Understand ALL Indian Right is....

Sorry for all the OT posts. My last on the subject on this dhaga.

amit wrote:KLMN,

Very good post. And Oh yes, having spent the most part of my life growing up in West Bengal I know just how parasitic the Leftists are. There has hardly been any original thinking in terms of what to do and what not to do, which is why the Naxal movement was such a waste of precious human resources in terms of brilliant minds going astray. But most of that would be OT here so I won't go on.

Back to topic: Pakistan's reaction leading the NSA talks cancellation is IMO a classic example of how confused the usual suspects have become because the pressure points don't work any more. Meeting the Harried Rats was one such point which they had begun to accept as their right and even idiots like MSA also started believe indeed it was.

But have you noticed two interesting points in the sub-text of Indian red line with regard to such meetings? One is that when this happened the first time when the Pak Amby met the jokers and India cancelled the Foreign Sec level talks, there was an uproar in the press with Hindu, Indian Express carrying highly critical articles and the usual talk shows spouting indignation. This time, since it's become the new normal there was much more muted reaction. The second point is more interesting, Salman Khurshid giving the Congress response of course criticised the cancellation but he also let slip a gem: He said that Pakistan has no right to discuss Kashmir with the Harried Rats.

This what he said:

On the question of the Hurriyat leadership and other separatist representatives meeting with the Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz in New Delhi on Sunday, and Pakistan's insistence that the views of the Hurriyat be taken onboard during the talks, Khurshid, said, "Hurriyat can't be a part of this talk."

Link

This means that this is now become the new normal from the previous normal, espoused by MSA and his ilk, that it's OK for Pakis to talk to the Harried Rats on Kashmir sitting in Delhi.

Expect more such incremental changes.

I think congis / seculars (also farooq abdullah in the interview quoted by SSridhar) are trying to gauge how to split this huriyat baby, that's why they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

1. they know that they can't come down too hard like they did last time--Modi sircar has shown that they won't bend on this, there will no return to biz-as-usual. They also know that for any normal person, it sounds crazy to involve huriyat at all, now that normal people have started paying attention to the huriyat nonsense thanks to noisemaking by anti-Modi forces.

2. Now they have to explain how come they were fine with the huriyat meetings in the past. Only pakistan can say, "huriyat is genuine rep of kashmiri people bwahahaha." Our fellows can't say it, since every Indian knows that there is a normal elected govt. in J&K, so they will ask, where did these huriyat guys come from?

3. So they are saying, "bwhaat is there? huriyat is not important, pakis meeting them is symbolic only, let them meet, no?" This is a lie because pakistan says clearly they are meeting huriyat because (acc to pakistan) they are sole genuine reps of kashmiri people. Most Indians don't pay attention to what pakees say, so they too may agree with "bwhat is there? what goes of our father?" kind of talk.

4. They are also saying, "see, see, huriyat is not important, but Modi is making them unnecessarily important by stopping the meeting." This is BS, but also kind of right. BS because huriyat is in fact important, because pakistan says it is so, and our panga is with pakistan which can, potentially, nuke us. But it is also kind of right because huriyat guys are just cowardly punks who got into this game because they thought umreeka and bakistan will make them kings. They can't even "fight" an election. Or do enough halla to stop an election.

So, Modi sarkar is, in fact making them important in a way. It is a kind of "gangster" move, as they say in US. Modi sarkar is, in fact, giving them importance, or at least recognizing the importance that pakistan has conferred on them. People won't appreciate it if you bring down the hammer of the Indian Government on small-small punks, but if they are somehow important, and an enemy, then people will be fine with applying the hammer.

I think Modi sarkar's big plan is to cure the kashmiris of their azadi addiction, by removing / neutralizing even small, seemingly insignificant representation of azadi from their world. It is kind of a "tough love" cure of the addiction, which is known to work quite well. Once they lose all hope of azadi which was driving them (if they were never sincere about it, well and good), they will have nothing left, and will turn to the nearest powerful entity, which is yindoo India.

I think shahazad chowdary, who is probably very well versed in glorious Islamic conquests and conversion, recognized the underlying psychological (there's that word again ) process. Muslims specialized in crushing the spirit and hope of conquered nations, who turned en masse to Islam to fill that deep spiritual hopelessness and vacuum. (so, all that "Islam spread due to sufis, not sword" is true enough, except that the sword was needed to first prepare the ground for the sufis to offer a ray of spiritual and material hope after the natives' lives have been reduced to a wasteland) That is why chowdary is beating the alarm drum for bakistan to wake and get tough with the yindoos, and putting out wishful thinking for the cashmeeries to grow a pair and fight for real.

Interesting times, so this is what a yeevil baniya (actually a shudder-baniya) yindoo looks like when he starts playing 3-D chess and grabs the initiative.

SSridhar wrote:

KLNMurthy wrote:Observe that the interviewer too didn't ask, after hearing the first answer, "so, is it your belief that if we had talks, pakistan would stop the cross-border firing? In that case, why did they create a ridiculous pretext to cancel the talks? Unless they don't really want to stop firing on us?"

The interviewer is Sagarika Ghose and the questions she is asking are therefore with an agenda.

Quite true, but it is also true that la Ghose is an airhead par excellence.

somnath wrote:

amit wrote:If you look at the intellectual level, our chatterati have been influenced by a steady dose of very fashionable Fabian socialism for at least a couple of generation. Which is why the "so-called" Leftist orientation in strategic thought process is so deeply ingrained, especially among our IAS, IFS etc babus and especially in our analysts and assorted journalists. Even confirmed "nationalist" journalists such as Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra started out as firebrand "leftists" when they went to England to do their PhDs in History. Their initial writing after they came back and became journalists are quite indistinguishable from the stuff that the much younger people like Suhasini Haider peddles nowadays. All very reasonable sounding, clichéd and very left establishment oriented. It is only at a later stage that these two had their epiphany moment and realised what was going on and made a course correction.

Amit, I think it is deeply problematic to ascribe nationalistic certificates to people on the basis of their ideological predilections. Ram Manohar Lohia and Sardar Patel were on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum - who was the greater "nationalist"? Rajaji was Inida's original "right wing" philosopher - his views on Kashmir would qualify him for treason in today's "nationalist" discourse - would you say he was "anti national"?

LK Advani and Jaswant Singh - latter day "nationalists" - what were their views on Jinnah? ABV - what were his views on Nehru?

But there is a point on the general orientation of the intellectual elites of this country - it has been somewhat on the left of centre. It is visible in our elite campuses - DU, JNU of course, but also the IITs and IIMs. Part of the reason is the quality on display - the Indian Left has a rich history of intellectual work across the social sciences. The Indian Right? After RC Majumdar, who? Arun Shourie? Actually thats it. The Left has a lot more intellectual heft (pun unintended) to attract the young.

Even today, where is the "Right" talent? Sudarshan Rao versus Ram Guha? Is that even a contest?

But the key point though is, most of the younger lot in India are socially left, and economically right. Thats what is reflected in the cacmpuses - students flock to hear Ram Guha and then step out for an interview with Unilever. So they are pro-left (in personal, sexual, religious and dietary choices) and pro-right in economics (free market, pvt sector etc). The Indian Right however, at least publicly , is largely the opposite - they are extreme retrogressive right on social matters, and close to Sitaram Yechury on economic ones!

Last, its an easy cop out argument to allege that the IFS folks are "against Modi" in order to protect Track II junkets. Maybe some of them are out of tune, and I agree that they are. But the debate needs to be intellectually won, not on the basis of motive attribution.

Having the idea of socialism / rightism is quite different from being immersed in the world created by putting those ideas in practice. And other factors might also play into how people turn out.

Lohia was a leftist thinker but never lived in a left world, i.e., he was not an apparatchik in a left-wing steel frame. Rajaji was a right-thinker but never lived in a right-wing world.

I actually did a search / review of at least one doyen of India's leftist social science thinkers--Ashish Nandy. None of his work is of global caliber in scholarship. I suspect many of the other leftist intellectual giants are also similarly blessed by the echo chamber of mediocrity that is Indian social science academe.

somnath wrote: As far as I am concerned, the over-riding objective for India should be churn out a 15 year period of 8%+ growth. To facilitate that, we need peace at our borders (so that foreign investors are not spooked by "tensions" between nuclear neighbours), and management of terrorism inside Indian territory.

Mumbai ( the financial capital of India ) carnage was on nov 2008 , GDP growth in 2008 = 7.4% , GDP growth in 2009 = 7.4%( wiki data )

So the net affect of terrorism on our GDP is ZERO( though the statistics don't give up the clear picture at micro level but its affect is minuscule )

somnath wrote:In my view, low level engagement with Pak to keep the world fobbed off, along with strong internal security measures to detect and neutralise attacks serve the purpose.

what do you think the present GOI is doing ??? DG level talks is on the table .

somnath wrote:Amit, I think it is deeply problematic to ascribe nationalistic certificates to people on the basis of their ideological predilections.

In this data-driven age of social research, it has become easier to probabilistically associate certain characteristics with communities or ideologies, that would not have been possible earlier.

For example - one can prove that Republicans are likely to be more 'nationalist' and believe in US exceptionalism than Democrats. Backup is available here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -greatest/

Unfortunately India has been slow in allowing such PEW-type social research. Any such exercise would undoubtedly show similar divergence in India - with the right being far more nationalist and believing in Indian exceptionalism than the left. In general, it stands to reason that Muslims, Christians and Leftists would be less nationalist due to their belief in strong ideologies that take precedence over 'narrow' nationalism.

It is visible in our elite campuses - DU, JNU of course, but also the IITs and IIMs.

Poppycock. Any PEW-type survey is likely to find more support for the right in the IITs and IIMs.

Part of the reason is the quality on display - the Indian Left has a rich history of intellectual work across the social sciences. The Indian Right? After RC Majumdar, who? Arun Shourie? Actually thats it. The Left has a lot more intellectual heft (pun unintended) to attract the young.

Even today, where is the "Right" talent? Sudarshan Rao versus Ram Guha? Is that even a contest?

Again, complete poppycock.

Reminds me of bygone years when we sat for the JEE. As we awaited the results, inevitably there were a small bunch of jokers who were highly confident of having 'cracked' the paper. Post the results - it was of course very clear to everyone who really had çracked it and to what level and who had not!

All this silly claims of intellectualism on the part of Ram Guha and the Left evokes similar sentiments in my mind. Certainly every idiot is entitled to think he is some kind of 'intellectual' and I don't grudge them the right. But actual IQ is determined by more objective methods.

In fact, in India, it is probably even easier than in most other countries to estimate the IQ associated with ideologies - simply because of spurious caste divisions. Support for parties by caste and education etc is widely available for the 2014 elections. I am sure you can dig that out and form your own conclusions. I would encourage you to dig into this data.

amit wrote:I have NOT ascribed any Nationalistic or otherwise certificate to anyone. Neither have I said that all Leftist oriented analysts are traitors.

I wasnt accusing you specifically, took your post as a reference point only. Its the general narrative I was referring to - "Congis, IFS folks, leftists, Suhasini Haidar, Kc Singh are "traitors""...

amit wrote: You compare Sudarshan Rao vs Ram Guha. But have you asked yourself why, in a nation of a billion people why there is no Ram Guha equivalent in the Centre Right? Surely something is wrong for that to happen?

Thats a worthy question to ask. My hypothesis is that its the intellectual adroitness of the respective strands of mass politics. Post independence, the mass politics represented by Congress appropriated a Left-centre intellectual heritage, and it chose wisely. From Nehru to PC Mohalanobis to Irfan Habib to Ram Guha - the intellectual heft is unimpeachable, even if one doesnt agree intellectually.

The "right wing" strand, on the other hand, picked, well, nothing. The RSS/BJS/BJP strand, the most successful one in mass politics, vacillated between one woolly headed notion to another - they didnt pick Rajaji, not BR Shenoy, they dont even like Arun Shourie! Socially they represent a level of retrogression that is way off modern charts. Economically, they have graduated from "gandhian socialism" (whatever that meant!) to somewhere close to Sitaram YEchury!

KLNMurthy wrote:I actually did a search / review of at least one doyen of India's leftist social science thinkers--Ashish Nandy. None of his work is of global caliber in scholarship. I suspect many of the other leftist intellectual giants are also similarly blessed by the echo chamber of mediocrity that is Indian social science academe.

Your views are yours, thats fine (even though Nandy won the Fukuoka Prize and was voted as one of the top 100 public intellectuals globally). But I agree with the "echo chamber" theory. There is quite a bit of that. But the only way to break that is through solid scholarship that is superior, not by complaining about the echo chamber. It certainly doesnt get done by putting in rank invalids (like Smriti Irani) to wage an intellectual battle

Anyways, this is OT, so my last post.

somnath wrote:Subramanian Swamy is the darling of the nationalist crowd these days. This is what he said, not so long ago.

http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1702/17020950.htm
This is what he says:

"Today the creeping fascism of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is coming upon us not as gradually as imperialism did, nor as suddenly as did the Emergency. Its spread is being calibrated adroitly by seven faceless men of the RSS, the RSS "high comma nd"."

All that shows is that Subramaniam Swamy changed his views and became a nationalist.

Anyways, this is OT - but I referenced this to show how dangerous it is to bandy around certificates of nationalism.

Yes after all, if nationalism becomes an acceptable virtue, what will the left do?

Doesnt matter what the semantics are, interest or objectives, as long as we are specific.

As far as I am concerned, the over-riding objective for India should be churn out a 15 year period of 8%+ growth. To facilitate that, we need peace at our borders (so that foreign investors are not spooked by "tensions" between nuclear neighbours), and management of terrorism inside Indian territory.

Ah yes. The super strategic approach of economix with peace at the borders and management of terrorism within Indian territory, so that India can keep getting hit and managing things within and what not. Others would describe it as lunacy.

In my view, low level engagement with Pak to keep the world fobbed off, along with strong internal security measures to detect and neutralise attacks serve the purpose.

And its good that your views no longer resonate in places that matter with the left leaning loons in the INC far far away from the corridors of power.

Shaun wrote: Mumbai ( the financial capital of India ) carnage was on nov 2008 , GDP growth in 2008 = 7.4% , GDP growth in 2009 = 7.4%( wiki data )

So the net affect of terrorism on our GDP is ZERO( though the statistics don't give up the clear picture at micro level but its affect is minuscule )

what do you think the present GOI is doing ??? DG level talks is on the table .

I agree, it didnt, because we kept it from becoming a matter of routine. Random terror attacks have no lasting economic impact, but if they become routine it starts scaring away investors. Which is why the reaction to a random terror event is not to ratchet up war threats, but to prepare internal capacities.

And the DG-level talks etc is the right approach, we should keep that going. The issue is of trying to pull off spectacular summitry, between PMs, between NSAs etc. Realistically there isnt much to talk to the Pakis about, barring terror (which they dont want to talk about anyways). Pitching talks at high level, media-driven events makes for inevitable disappointments and poltiical noise.