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

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 18:01

The Sharm-el-Sheikh Joint Statement dominates Advani-Hillary talks

Leader of Opposition L K Advani on Monday told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Joint Statement by India and Pakistan delinking terrorism from composite dialogue had "tried to disrupt the national consensus" among political parties here on the issue.

Mr. Advani also expressed his unhappiness over the reference to Balochistan in the statement, saying it puts India "in the dock" on disruptive activities in the region.

"In India, all political parties were one after 26/11 that till Pakistan takes strong measures there cannot be further progress....This joint statement has tried to disrupt the national consensus," senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj said quoting Mr. Advani on his talks with Ms. Clinton.

Ms. Swaraj said the Joint Statement issued by India and Pakistan in Sharm-el Sheikh, Egypt was the main topic of discussion between Mr. Advani and Ms. Clinton.

"We are in favour of good relations with the US but any action against this consensus will not get the country's support," Mr. Advani told Ms. Clinton.

"Therefore we should not succumb and try to placate others."

Mr. Advani also expressed his ire over the reference to Balochistan in the statement. "The statement has named Balochistan as if we are doing something there...as if we are in the dock," Mr. Advani told Ms. Clinton, according to Ms. Swaraj.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 18:03

shravan wrote:Will they allow India to attack Pakistan till America has presence in Afghanistan ?

Shravan, IMO, the question is "Does India want to attack Pakistan at all ?" Forget about whetehr somebodu else will allow us or not.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2009 18:23

SSridhar wrote:Shravan, IMO, the question is "Does India want to attack Pakistan at all ?" Forget about whetehr somebodu else will allow us or not.

Till America is there in Afghanistan not even BJP/Congress/etc. can attack Pakistan even if there is another terrorist attack.

Then why not help America to destabilize Pakistan ? Why are we blaming MMS.

Why did Peter Burleigh meet BJP leader L K Advani ?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Jul 2009 18:28

shravan wrote: Why are we blaming MMS.

At least, I am not blaming Mr. Man Mohan Singh for not attacking Pakistan. Lack of aggression is an Indian trait and why should MMS alone be singled out for that ?

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2009 18:38

SSridhar wrote: Lack of aggression is an Indian trait and why should MMS alone be singled out for that ?

We are not in a position to show aggression irrespective of who runs the Government.

Indian policymakers have not yet developed a comprehensive grand strategy to allow India to truly achieve its potential.

Without any strategy showing aggression is of no use.
-----

I am not singling out MMS. What i am trying to say is whoever was in power would have done the same thing.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 19:15

shravan wrote:I am not singling out MMS.

I am

What i am trying to say is whoever was in power would have done the same thing.

That is a poor excuse frankly. So poor that it is not even worth discussing.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2009 19:53

Raja Ram:

As much as I agree with you because I predicted the same

, but lets be honest and not lay all the blame at US appointed 'South Asia' CEO MMS alone. IMHO, the entire country, ordinary Indians, politicians, elites/media, and yes, above all, India's security apparatus (armed forces included) have let India down. And this surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh was the culmination of the rot that has set in India. I mean, lets get one fact straight here. In the absence of any military threat to retaliate to TSP's provocatsion (name a single instance in the past decade or so, where TSP felt the pinch from India), how can we expect any course correction from TSP through a joint statement? In other words, maybe BJP might have insisted on a different nuance; lets not forget BJP's Hajpayee began the love-fest based on sone vague promises from Mush. MMS has taken the love fest to its logical conclusion.

Bottom line: It is the apathy, ignorance, selfishness, and cowardice of a billion deludded toothless people that we are, that has resulted in this shameful, cast in stone path forward with TSP, namely, TSP's terror is the result of its disputes (real or imaginary) with India. What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of India as we nationaloists envision it. Please see this in the NY times. This is the prevailing TSP-desired, US-demanded thinking which MMS has codified throgh a legal document, which as I said is the culmination of the failure of India as a nation state.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 20 Jul 2009 19:57

There was no need to meet with any Pakistani Leadership anywhere until Pakistan delivered on the terrorists connected to Mumbai attacks at the least. No need to meet Zardari or Gilani or Kiyani or anyone. Period.

Even if we are being "encouraged" or "pressured" to meet with them in order to placate or serve the interests of the US, there was no need to agree to this kind of Joint Statement. There is nothing to be gained by India. Maybe there is something in it for Pakistan or the US. Period.

Any other government, both congress or bjp, could and would have stayed away from such forced meetings. So this defence that any other government would have done the same is not correct. Let it not go unnoticed that even congressmen are not convinced with the PM's statement or position.

This nothing but absolute lack of clarity in what would serve Indian interests. Period. Or the GOI does not have a vision of India as a global power as we understand it here on this forum, they are prepared for a dhimmi status.

So it is either incompetence or diabolical sell out of India. People can take their pick. Either way, this is not good for India. Either way, this PM does not deserve his position or any adulation for this act. Period.

Every other explanation or defence is nothing but refusal to see the obvious. One cannot wake up those who are pretending to sleep. Majority of Indians are pretending to sleep. Maybe even those who are in power are.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 20 Jul 2009 20:02

CRamS,

I disagree. India as a nation state is not a failure. The billion people are not all spineless. The party in power is not anti-national. India is much more than a mere administration that is elected for 5 years.

This act by the GOI, headed by a PM who lacks clarity of thought and is possibly hobbled by an enslaved mind is a blunder. India can survive this and more. So I dont take an alarmist view point.

You can crticise the government of day for dereliction of duty and letting down the people of India, but you cannot put down India. That is just sheer arrogance.

Sorry sir, but I have to disagree with you on this.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 20 Jul 2009 20:03

which as I said is the culmination of the failure of India as a nation state.

It is not the failure of India, nor of most of its citizens. It is essentially the failure of a very small traitorous minority of English-speaking Indians who have attached themselves to the Anglo-Saxon civilisation and wilfully adopted a stance of inferiority in relation to it. This minority of Indians is a creation of the Anglo-Saxons themselves through the system they put in place in India before independence. When the British left, they made sure that political power passed into the hands of this type of Indians, and not of the nationalists.

Essentially, the failure at Sharml-al-Sheikh is a failure of Nehru clones who have never tasted the salt of India. They are not anchored to this land. Instead, they float like a cork and get pushed in any direction depending on which way the wind is blowing from the land of the Anglo-Saxons. It is this traitorous minority of Indians which is harming Indian national interests everywhere. These people eagerly accept money from Anglo-Saxons to set up businessess or NGOs and then connive with them to promote their interests here.

It is very important that political power is grabbed back from such Anglicised Indians who are rolling in the mud of low self-esteem. The nationalists should seize the state from this minority of rabid Indians.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Jul 2009 20:10

Raja Ram,

"Failure" is in the eyes of the beholder. There are many who spin MMS's surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh as some Chanakyan "victory". Likewise, USA/TSP scaling back on terror against India in return for US-dictated concessions to TSP will also be spun as 'victory'. Furthermore, all of the other US-dictated castartions you mentioned, in return for an Indian hand in Windows 15.0, India's contribution to halt global warming will also be hailed as some grand victories. Beauty as I said is in the eyes of the beholder.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 20 Jul 2009 22:18

Good intention, bad drafting

Former Ambassador T P Sreenivasan

I have lived all my professional life with comments from fellow Indians that Pakistani diplomats were smarter than the Indian ones. The only consolation was that, according to Pakistani diplomats, they heard from their nationals that Indians were way ahead of them.

In fact, no one could tell, as both were smart and often the outsiders marvelled at the brilliance of South Asian diplomats. Any document produced between them was so balanced that both could claim victory.

But for once, the Indian diplomats have been outsmarted by the Pakistanis in Egypt. The joint statement may be no sellout in substance because India has made it clear that the composite dialogue will begin only after verifiable action is taken by Pakistan. But the text simply says the opposite.

'Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.'

This is simple English language, which cannot be interpreted in any way other than as a commitment by India not only to begin the dialogue without waiting for any action by Pakistan this time, but also not to suspend it even if there are other terrorist incidents in the future. There is only give and no take in this particular instance.

Some may claim that there is a major 'take' in the text in the form of the missing 'K' word. Yes, the word 'Kashmir' is not there in the text. But why all issues, including 'all outstanding issues'? Why did not the sentence stop with 'all issues with Pakistan'? Quite obviously, Kashmir is the outstanding issue in the text, as anyone can see.

The very fact that Pakistani spokesmen are gloating over their success, while many Indian thinkers and writers are agitated is proof, if proof were needed, that, for once, our capable diplomats let their guard down and let the Pakistanis run with the ball. There is no escape route in the text, even if our cleverest spokesmen like Minister of State Shashi Tharoor [ Images ], who apparently had no say in the drafting, argue that our options are open.

The only way is to refrain from starting the composite dialogue till we have satisfaction over Pakistani action on Mumbai [ Images ]. We simply do not budge and stick to our position regardless of the language of the statement.

I have no quarrel with the idea of resumption of talks if that indeed is the intention. There may be matters, which are not in the public domain, in the mind of the prime minister. He may want to strengthen the democratic forces in Pakistan as against the army and the ISI and President Zardari may well gain by the Indian gesture.

It may also please the Americans in light of the Hillary visit. But if that is the intention, we do not need to hide behind ambiguity. There may be some merit in saying in public what we say privately. If the honest judgement is that it will serve the national interests, by all means let us go for it. Let us not lose the substance and preserve the form.

NAM summits seem to be the places where we make concessions to Pakistan. It was in Havana that India conceded for the first time that Pakistan was as much a victim of terror as India was. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Pakistan was the obvious target in the eyes of the members of the UN when we talked about terrorism. We had managed to create such a vocabulary over the years and Pakistan felt compelled to exercise its right of reply every time the word, 'terrorism' was mentioned.

By conceding that the greatest perpetrator of terror against India was a victim of terror, we let Pakistan off the hook. Moreover, since Pakistan accuses India of State terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and also in Lahore , we were also unwittingly accepting the allegation.

By stating that 'terrorism is the main threat to both the countries' with an unprecedented reference to Baluchistan, we have given away our trump card. This aspect of the statement is even more damaging for us.

To say that the sentence on Baluchistan has been attributed to the prime minister of Pakistan is to question the whole logic of bilateral statements. Otherwise, why not have a sentence attributed to the Indian prime minister that Kashmir is an integral part of India?

The UN records are replete with the various tricks that Pakistan has tried to tie us in knots. One instance deserves special mention. In the midst of the preparatory work for the Vienna [ Images ] Conference on Human Rights in Geneva, the Indian delegate had to leave the committee to walk her dog.

Using this opportunity, the Pakistani delegate moved an amendment to the text to urge member states to refrain from violating human rights in 'UN recognised disputed territories'.

The committee was willing to accept it, but the chairman kept it pending till he could consult the Indian delegate. She was told the next day that the amendment would be included if India had no objection. She called me in New York and asked whether she could let it go. I was aghast because it was a thinly veiled reference to Jammu and Kashmir. There were many disputes in the world, but Kashmir was the only one which was mentioned as a disputed territory in every UN map. We were saved from great embarrassment because of the thoughtfulness of the chairman.

India-Pakistan problems have made their contribution to many UN resolutions of both the Security Council and the General Assembly. One celebrated case is on the question of self-determination. Although the UN Charter declares that all peoples have the right to self-determination, India had reserved its position on this issue.

India and Pakistan used to quarrel over this problem for many years, but it was agreed between us that all peoples 'under alien or colonial domination' have the right to self- determination, much to the relief of the rest of the world. Whenever the issue came up, this phrase was inserted and there was no more argument on it. I do not know the history of that formulation, but we believe that Palestine, but not Jammu and Kashmir, is covered by it.

I remember we had to put 'state(s)' in a text on peace-keeping because we wanted plural and Pakistan wanted singular. We were willing to accept 'state or states,' but Pakistan would not agree. We had the last laugh because neither the Chinese nor the Arabic text could accommodate the grand compromise between India and Pakistan. They just wrote 'state or states' without realising that it was not acceptable to Pakistan.

The latest joint statement may well become historic like the other compromises, but no interpretation of the text will meet our position unless we believe that terror or no terror, we will proceed with the composite dialogue. It will not matter since the battle will be in the composite talks and we will certainly mind our language there.

Former Ambassador T P Sreenivasan is a visiting fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC.

T P Sreenivasan

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 Jul 2009 22:26

NAM summits seem to be the places where we make concessions to Pakistan. It was in Havana that India conceded for the first time that Pakistan was as much a victim of terror as India was.

Interesting..what is it with NAM and hara-kiri?
Does the ghost of Nehru in these favorite summits of his, cause this to happen?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 22:29

WOW! Even TPS is sharamed at the performance at Sharm-el-Sheikh. So it was a bad defeat at S-e-S.

sum · Post by **sum** » 20 Jul 2009 22:32

Sorry but after reading what so many high level diplomats and spooks are saying about Sharm-el-Sheikh, i refuse to buy the argument floating around in BR about the Chankian move that is supposed to have unfolded.

It was plain and simple bungling, incompetence and American bootlicking.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Jul 2009 22:38

Interesting..what is it with NAM and hara-kiri?

Ah! A question worthy of the BENIS university's in-depth Seminars. Instead of the golden-tinged Chateau L'Etif 1989 that is served at the G-8 summit (made from grapes personally stamped by the dirty feet of 10,000 French and Italian grade-threshers who don't get to take urinal breaks) at the NAM summit they serve NimpuPani and Zam Zam Cola, made from the pristine glacier-melt waters of the Hindu Kush, where the sparkling waters trickle through the fragrant beds of hashish encrusted with goat-dung.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 20 Jul 2009 22:39

After reading the above article, I am boiling with rage. I feel if ever there was an occassion in independent India to impeach a prime minister and try him for treason, this is it. No P.M. should emerge unscathed from the kind of thing MMS has done. He has stabbed Indians in the back, the very same people who trusted him to protect their interests in international negotiations. (The only other incident I can remember that is worthy of a treason charge is Morarji Desai ratting to Zia that we are being offered blueprints of Kahuta nuke plant by a RAW mole). All I can say to MMS is, "For God's sake, take American citizenship, get out of this country and never come back."

Here is MMS' profile from Wikipedia:

Singh married Gursharan Kaur in 1958 and they have three daughters.[27] His eldest daughter, Upinder Singh is a professor of history at St. Stephen’s College and author of six books including, Ancient Delhi (1999) and A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India (2008).[28] His second daughter, Daman Singh, is a graduate of St. Stephen’s College, New Delhi and Institute of Rural Management, Anand, Gujarat, and author of The Last Frontier: People and Forests in Mizoram and a novel Nine by Nine.[29] Singh’s youngest daughter Amrit Singh is a staff attorney at American Civil Liberties Union[30] and is married to Barton Beebe, an Associate Professor of Law who specializes in intellectual property law.

Indians who have their wires and family connected to the Anglo-Saxon civilisation should be kept as far away from political power as possible. In no other country does this kind of thing happen.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 23:03

sanjaychoudhry wrote:Indians who have their wires and family connected to the Anglo-Saxon civilisation should be kept as far away from political power as possible.

Last time I read the UK thread, British girls were looking for jobs in Bollywood, now that their country is going to the dogs. All those third-worlders in Britain could feel discriminated.

I appreciate, that it was not a complaint across the board, but rather just restricted to Anglo-Saxon civilization. I would recommend our local expert Rahul Mehta, should there be any desire to explore any possibilities of legislating on the issue.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 23:09

RajeshA wrote:
sanjaychoudhry wrote:Indians who have their wires and family connected to the Anglo-Saxon civilisation should be kept as far away from political power as possible.

Last time I read the UK thread, British girls were looking for jobs in Bollywood, now that their country is going to the dogs. All those third-worlders in Britain could feel discriminated.

I appreciate, that it was not a complaint across the board, but rather just restricted to Anglo-Saxon civilization. I would recommend our local expert Rahul Mehta, should there be any desire to explore any possibilities of legislating on the issue.

Time will come when folks named Roger and Lori will say "you may call me Raj and Lakshmi!" even in the West.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 20 Jul 2009 23:13

ramana wrote:...
Time will come when folks named Roger and Lori will say "you may call me Raj and Lakshmi!" even in the West.

Saar I wont hold my breath for that and if that day ever comes, I further predict that Pakis will fly.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Jul 2009 23:16

The only chankian move here is that mms was planted well in advance to ensure delivery many years down the line. There is no other explanation. mms is too good a babu to get en meshed in drafting errors. In fact babu is all he is. No babu, good bad or ugly will follow the diaster of havana with the tragedy of sharm el sheik.

India has not benefited with this gent at the helm.

Look carefully over his every little action over the years. India has benefitted last and least of all. Other nations and people have benefitted much more than India has.

With the handicap of a truly short national memory (actually meaning the truly short memory of the majority) now being openly exploited as a national and cultural failure, we are being manipulated and herded in particular directions to deliver at specified intervals predetermined concessions.

We have only been shown the flash while the actual meat has been hidden adroitly from view and when sometimes this actual substance has been glimpsed and pointed out we have ridiculed and shot the messenger.

Hillary has come bearing gifts. The heavy bill will invariably follow, like an iceberg that is 99% out of view. The end user agreement is actually the first thin end of the wedge, the true beginning of the end.

We have truly become an amreki keep.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 23:25

OK.

Meanwhile Gautam Sen writes:

Mystery of Sharam -El-Sheikh

Mystery of Sharm el-Sheikh
Terrifying questions are raised from prime minister Manmohan Singh's decision to decouple the composite dialogue from Pakistani terrorism, argues Gautam Sen.

20 July 2009: The PM has put his name to a joint statement with his Pakistani counterpart on behalf of India that is proving a little too demanding to comprehend. Partisan anchors and ponderous academic opinion from Singapore have been straining to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for it all, but it really won't wash. The first outwardly plausible justification is that India should extend a helping hand to a civilian government seeking to impose its authority over the Pakistani state apparatus. Such a civilian dispensation, once genuinely in control of state apparatus, will supposedly be less belligerent towards India. A second explanation avows that India should evidently make a gesture in response to Pakistani admission of its own official complicity in the Mumbai assault and the naming of various culprits. A third implicit explanation that dare not speak its name, for the perplexing signing of the joint declaration, is some private US assurance that is apparently worth one additional national humiliation since that has become routine anyway during the past two decades. Another alarming inference is some sort of threatened military action along the Himalayan front that necessitates reduction of tensions along the Indo-Pak border.

Only those who are wilfully blind or determined to allow hope to triumph over experience at all cost can swallow the idea that civilian control over Pakistan is imminent and that it will be suit India. The sheer incompetence and massive corruption of the Zardari-Gilani regime, which Tariq Ali recently laid bare in the London Review of Books, should disabuse even hardened optimists that it will enjoy the requisite popular support to outmanoeuvre the redoubtable Pakistani military establishment. More to the point, Pakistanis from all walks of life and especially the elite are united in their hatred for "Baniya India" and no hint of divergence can be discerned in their private conversations with each other. Fortunately, such sentiments cannot be altogether concealed except from India's peace lobbies with their calculatedly selective memories and selective concerns over breaches to the peace.

That India should make a gesture in response to official Pakistani admission of complicity seems to ignore the brilliantly simple strategy already demonstrated by Pakistan to make monkeys out of India. Some well-known jihadis are solemnly accused and prosecutions commence, but the effort is suitably half-hearted. And then you are able triumphantly to proclaim the greatness of the Pakistani judiciary when it orders the release of the accused assassins. The purpose of shielding state-sponsored mass murderers is accomplished and the probity of the Pakistani judiciary is simultaneously broadcast to the world. The Indian monkey, as in Aesop's fables, holds on to the nuts in its fist, reluctant to open it and climb a tree, and gets devoured by the approaching lion. The Pakistanis will spin out the pursuit of every murderer until the psychological statute of limitations is reached and it is impossible to punish them for deeds that were committed far too long ago for either the world or indeed for Indians to remember or care about.

What the Americans might have promised India is a matter of speculation, but perhaps various assured rewards and threatened sanctions might be assessed to make potential inferences. Now that the agreement with the IAEA has been passed there is little the US can do directly to stymie Indian plans to acquire nuclear technology and enriched uranium since the permissive IAEA framework requires unanimity to overturn. On the contrary, US companies have an interest in not losing lucrative reactor contracts that India will be only too happy to sign with Russia and France. But the import of Australian uranium probably requires a US nudge to facilitate. The failure to gain access to it would be very unfortunate, but not a disaster. The US may have also discreetly conveyed to India developments in AfPak that our worldly-wise elites deem of far greater value than two hundred dead Indians in Mumbai, small beer compared to even daily victims of traffic accidents in a couple of major Indian states. India's capacity for absorbing punishment is legendary and the indifference of its elites to piles of corpses so callous and cynical that it hardly bears contemplation. One does not need to go back as far as the Moplah pogroms and Noakhali or the recent multiple assaults on numerous Indian cities and the utter devastation of Bhopal by Union Carbide to grasp the scale of the elite's amorality. On the final danger, it may be safely anticipated that however weakened and distracted, Pakistan will mobilise against India with alacrity at the behest of Beijing. Any Indian entreaty now, which is how it appears, will only embolden it by conveying an impression that India is fearful, a conviction deeply ingrained in the psyche of the Ghazi State that is Pakistan.

It is also possible that with the rapid criminalisation of Indian politics and the criminality of so many, few in public life are immune to blackmail that would not immediately terminate their public lives. Leading political families are equally vulnerable regardless of the vaunted probity of some, who merely offer useful camouflage for business as usual. Some of the scions of political families have enough skeletons in their cupboards...to require all of Delhi's real estate to create a cemetery large enough to accommodate all of them. The children of important bureaucrats invariably get funded to study in America and the threat of the loss of such annually renewable largesse will encourage all but the truculently patriotic to hold their tongue temporarily if required. In addition, huge amounts of money change hands strategically to gain access and influence policy outcomes. More cynically, still, provided key groups are implicitly excluded from direct terrorist attack of the kind that occurred against the Lok Sabha in December 2001, such outrages are not an unmitigated disaster for India's political elites. The electoral majority has recently reaffirmed the immunity of its voting loyalties to the failure of the State to protect them. By contrast, Muslim voters become understandably apprehensive after such outrages and their votes are mobilised and consolidated even more than they would otherwise be and thereby constitute a valuable prize for parties that compete for them successfully.

However, all of the above can be ignored and instead simple questions posed on the joint declaration separating the composite dialogue from terrorist outrages, reaffirmed in Parliament again by the prime minister himself. Is this declared compartmentalization of terror from dialogue applicable to the Mumbai outrage and similar earlier acts alone or will the composite dialogue, very, very crucially, continue even after more terrorist outrages in the future? Will the dialogue persist unaffected even if several Indian civilian aircraft fall out of the sky and land on highly populated areas of its capital city? Or will there be a pause for a day or so, if only to clean up and assemble a new team for the composite dialogue in case some interlocutors have perished in the calamity? If not, the PM needs to make a fresh statement outlining how he will react to new outrages since he has now given a virtually unqualified undertaking on the separation of the composite dialogue from terrorist outrages. After all, it is the same PM who emphatically conjoined Pakistan with India and recognised it as a victim of terrorist outrages as well. He had thereby shockingly exonerated Pakistan's terrorist state apparatuses, which are in fact the undeniable sponsors of privatised, arms' length terrorism against Indian civilians.

Professor Gautam Sen taught political economy for more than two decades at the London School of Economics and recently co-authored Analyzing the Global Political Economy, Princeton 2009. The expressed views are personal.

So looks like the joint statement was to please the US and Baloch was added by TSP for their own needs and India went along as usual. There are no drafting errors.

The PM then made his statement to the press which is outside the joint statement and thus doesnt have the force of the jt statement. But can be waved at gullible Indians.

So shows the great pressure on GOI from US to compromise with criminals.

What is most likely is the TPS will now do one more attack but this time with little leads to them. But the victim (India) and the perpetrator (TSP) both know who did it. And US will urge more platitudes.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 20 Jul 2009 23:29

Partisan anchors and ponderous academic opinion from Singapore

We all know who this worthy sitting in Singapore is, don't we?

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 21 Jul 2009 00:37

CRamS wrote:Raja Ram:

As much as I agree with you because I predicted the same , but lets be honest and not lay all the blame at US appointed 'South Asia' CEO MMS alone. IMHO, the entire country, ordinary Indians, politicians, elites/media, and yes, above all, India's security apparatus (armed forces included) have let India down. And this surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh was the culmination of the rot that has set in India. I mean, lets get one fact straight here. In the absence of any military threat to retaliate to TSP's provocatsion (name a single instance in the past decade or so, where TSP felt the pinch from India), how can we expect any course correction from TSP through a joint statement? In other words, maybe BJP might have insisted on a different nuance; lets not forget BJP's Hajpayee began the love-fest based on sone vague promises from Mush. MMS has taken the love fest to its logical conclusion.

Bottom line: It is the apathy, ignorance, selfishness, and cowardice of a billion deludded toothless people that we are, that has resulted in this shameful, cast in stone path forward with TSP, namely, TSP's terror is the result of its disputes (real or imaginary) with India. What we are seeing is the beginning of the end of India as we nationaloists envision it. Please see this in the NY times. This is the prevailing TSP-desired, US-demanded thinking which MMS has codified throgh a legal document, which as I said is the culmination of the failure of India as a nation state.

CRam i would give benefit of doubt to Armed forces.But it must be understand that they r not policy makers.its the political elites and others who guide india's policy.Armed forces just follow orders.There r my relatives fighting in Kashmir in army they simply question politician policy neither they allow them free hand over pakistan nor they let go kashmir.wat they say is why we fighting there when we themselves dont consider it as part of india.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Jul 2009 00:40

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Partisan anchors and ponderous academic opinion from Singapore

We all know who this worthy sitting in Singapore is, don't we?

The guy has been filly blown DIE PITA since Nuke deal time , dont even hide his servitude to Uncle.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 00:58

GP was on Times Now cursing Pakistan for its eternal perfidy, then he certainly stopped and said all of a sudden,

"But then WE have to go and sign that stupid self goal document at SeS.

It seems to me the ONLY PERSON SERIOUS ON THE ISSUE OF TERROR IS THE HOME MINISTER."

This on National TV -- from G Parthasarathi.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 01:02

While some posters are spinning on how great the joint statement, following is the reaction from within the Congress party.

http://www.livemint.com/2009/07/2023581 ... s.html?h=B

PM’s Pakistan stand irks Cong

New Delhi: The Congress sought to address growing disquiet within the party and opposition from rivals, reacting to last week’s decision by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to sign a joint statement with Pakistan that delinked terror from the composite dialogue between the countries, and which for the first time included Pakistan’s concerns about insurgency in Baluchistan—insurgency that according to Pakistan’s long-standing claim was being supported by India.
A senior Congress minister said party chief Sonia Gandhi wanted the party to intervene and limit the damage caused by a statement that is increasingly being seen within India and outside as a victory for Pakistan. “The situation is same as that of what had happened after the Prime Minister’s joint statement during the NAM (Non- Aligned Movement) summit in Havana (in 2006), where we agreed to arrange consultations for early solution of the Siachen issue,” the minister, who asked not to be identified, said.
In 2006, a statement issued by Singh and Pakistan’s then president Pervez Musharraf had agreed to “arrange consultations for early solution of the Siachen issue. Experts should meet immediately to agree on coordinates for joint survey of Sir Creek and adjoining area, without prejudice to each other’s position on the issue”, creating apprehension among top Indian Army officials.
On Monday, Congress spin doctors, while admitting that the government had erred, mounted rearguard action to mitigate the political damage, arguing that efforts were under way to retrieve the situation.
The swift response from the ruling party comes even as a rejuvenated Opposition has decided to raise the pitch of its protests in what it believes to be a potent issue. Ever since the 15th general election, which returned the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance to power with an unexpected margin, the Opposition has been in a disarray, largely due to infighting in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
“The wording in the joint statement (released following a meeting between Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh on the sidelines of the NAM summit) could have been different. We are trying to retrieve the ground,” said another Congress leader, who, too, did not want to be identified.
At least three Congress leaders admitted that the wording in the joint statement has given “enough room” for the opposition BJP to accuse the government of “surrendering” to Pakistan on the issue of cross-border terrorism.
The leaders also pointed out that New Delhi’s decision to acknowledge the “threats” in Baluchistan to Pakistan’s sovereignty in the joint declaration also was a “mistake”, even if it was “done as an incentive” to the neighbour to act swiftly against the terrorist elements operating from its soil against India.
However, Singh clarified in Parliament on 17 July that “the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment...not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India”.
Meanwhile, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj said the party would seek a “structured debate” on the statement the Prime Minister has made in Parliament on 17 July clarifying India’s position on talks with Pakistan. “We will seek a comprehensive discussion on all issues, including (the) India-Pakistan joint statement, the discussions on climate change at the G-8 meeting in Italy and also on the Doha Round of trade talks (for which the G-8 and the G-5 nations have agreed on the 2009 deadline to conclude). The BJP fears this government has made many compromises under pressure,” Swaraj said.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 01:06

csharma wrote:While some posters are spinning on how great the joint statement, following is the reaction from within the Congress party.

I think its directed towards me.

I will say again - its not a great statement we just did what America told us to do.

But I still see benefits in that (+ MANY terror attacks just like GP said on Times Now) ....

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Jul 2009 01:38

Take a number, Shravan, it's intended at ME!!!

BTW, hu is this "academic based in Singapore", pls?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 01:41

C Rajamohan ?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Jul 2009 01:53

{Post deleted. Warning issued. Cheers}

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 21 Jul 2009 02:21

Unkil has GOI by the ba**S for whatever reasons that we may not know for time being. I belive mms is just a pawn when big boys are playing so he is lining up to side with uncle. It may not be in our advantage to side with anyone when world order is in process of restructuring from winner of ww2 to new world order sometimes in near future. We keep hearing mms got mandate to rule, but he doesnt have mandate to sell India down to Ganges or so cheap that future generation will curse whoever was born prior to Independent India.

One of the reform we should carry out regarding election process is to prohibit anyone over 65 to run for elected office.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 21 Jul 2009 02:39

What I find it ironical is that MMS, atleast sometimes (?), takes an unsual stand on several issues and decisions that purplexes many a well known analysts and ofcourse various political parties including his own.

Yet he wants to remain untouched and unblamed for taking stands that do not appear to be in the interest of the nation. Further, his deeds quickly makes sense when you look from counterparty's perspective be it Pakistan or be US or perhaps anyother barring India.

I wonder if it is the "fresh perspective" or a consistent "ryling up" of his own constituency the objective of MMS. If it is the former, perhaps he should work on proposals that are "fresh" AND " those that do not appear as sellout in his own constituency."

The consistency is too stark to be continued as a modus operandi. is this fair?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Jul 2009 02:59

chetak wrote:{Post deleted. Warning issued. Cheers}

narayanan,

It had to be you.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 21 Jul 2009 03:03

I am very late to the party but still would like to register my disappointment at Indian linguistic Fak-Ap in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Pakis were indeed 400% better speakers of English this time...

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Jul 2009 03:15

Rahul Shukla wrote:I am very late to the party but still would like to register my disappointment at Indian linguistic Fak-Ap in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Pakis were indeed 400% better speakers of English this time...

C'mon sa'ar, this wasn't just a linguistic error! seriously doubt it. There is perhaps something that is not in the public domain.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Jul 2009 03:39

archan wrote:
Rahul Shukla wrote:I am very late to the party but still would like to register my disappointment at Indian linguistic Fak-Ap in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Pakis were indeed 400% better speakers of English this time...
C'mon sa'ar, this wasn't just a linguistic error! seriously doubt it. There is perhaps something that is not in the public domain.

May be not public domain to ornery folks like us onlee.

But for a gent like GP to rear up and cry foul on many a public fora
is indicative that a serious faux paux has been made.

He even said that mms had let down the country. That's a very serious accusation and extremely strong language for distinguished
diplomat.

For sure, GP is aware of the intimate goings on at SeS.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 21 Jul 2009 03:51

^^

Archan saa'r,

After Mumbai, Indian's wanted Pakistan to act against the miscreants responsible and declared "kutti" (i.e. "we ain't friends no moh) until such and such bad boys are punished. Pakistan stalled and stalled and stalled some more. After several months the loktantrik (gas) pressure built up in the Musharraf's of netas fizzled out and it was clear to everybody and their goat that "Bad-Boys" of Paa'stan "ride together and die together" with the ISI/Army-e-Pak. In other words India says, "Your non-state actors must be punished by your state" and Paa'stan says, "Bite me". So the Indo-Pak relationship turned into a stale-mate.

At this point Indian netas go "Well, damn it. We really thought the international political (gas) pressure will force Pakistan's hand this time around". Now evil yindoos look silly because 1). They can't be seen giving into Pakistani perfidy and 2). They don't have the cojones to high-five musharraf-e-Hafiz covertly either. Pakis sit pretty whining worldwide about their 200,000,000 million IDP's giving the ungli to yindoostan and their alledgedly 100 something something kafirs dead in some small skirmish that happened soooo long ago (compared to the ongoing GOAT-e-FATA).

So now the question for the two largest economies of South-Asia is, "How long will we be friends no moh"? With Pakis whining about yindoo stiff upper lip making them afraid of relocating their brownies to line-e-Durand, the relationship counselor Uncle Sam says to India "Get over it, already". A little bit of sweet talk between Indo-Pak-US, some random nobody's being halaled in a case being launched in the "independent judiciary" of Pakistan, and suddenly all of the "concrete action" requirements set out by evil yindoos were met. Allah be praised!

So now it's time for the piss-process again. But yindoos know that they can't afford to look silly again. Enter Chanakya! So if terrorism holds up the piss-process the we shall have TWO piss processes - one for terrorism and another for non terrorism issues - and neither will hold up the other.

BRILLIANT! Only if Chanakya's IQ was negative!

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Jul 2009 04:34

archan wrote:I am very late to the party but still would like to register my disappointment at Indian linguistic Fak-Ap in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Pakis were indeed 400% better speakers of English this time...
C'mon sa'ar, this wasn't just a linguistic error! seriously doubt it. There is perhaps something that is not in the public domain.

You could have the best possible skills and impress the hell out of the whole world, but if you don't have the passion to defend the people of India with all the power at your command, it is all worthless.

This is the lesson of sharm-el-sheikh.

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Jul 2009 04:46

Rahul Shukla wrote:^^
So if terrorism holds up the piss-process the we shall have TWO piss processes - one for terrorism and another for non terrorism issues - and neither will hold up the other.