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

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jul 2009 05:21

Rahul Shukla:

Lets give TSP the credit due. Their single-minded obsession to live on and fight India is alive & kicking. I thought that 9/11, Mumbai, nuke-peddling, AfPak, you name it, would have done them in, but all they asked US, and was granted, was we will do anything you want, just don't let us down visa vi India. They have even turned their worst nightmares into opportunities. They turned the terror tables on India by casting themselves as equal equal victim, while preserving the ability to hit India at any time of their choosing. TSP has brilliantly calibrated its strategy to be in synch with that of US.

I cannot imagine us SDREs under similiar circumstances and such pressure and not crack from within. A thought experiment. Imagine somehow a bunch of Shiv-Sena louts were injected with some cojones, and instead of going after poor defenseless Biharis or "Madraasis" in Mumbai, they did what the LeT did by going to Lahore or Karachi, and it was proved, do you think India would have survived both the internal and external pressures?

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Jul 2009 05:31

CRamS wrote: I thought that 9/11, Mumbai, nuke-peddling, AfPak, you name it, would have done them in, but all they asked US, and was granted, was we will do anything you want, just don't let us down visa vi India.

At what cost sir? are their citizens better off today than they were in 2000?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 21 Jul 2009 06:09

A corollary to the thought experiment: am I ok with having Predators parked in our own airfields, killing whomever moves in some areas of Maharashtra? Am I ok with Indian Govt saying "only a few Nepalis and SriLankans, who settled in <insert your place> got hellfired"? F**k no. Pakis can have that sort of victory over India. A thousand times if need be. Resisting external pressure they most definitely are not.

That said, the aftermath of this meeting leaves one uneasy. my concern is this: how smooth are we managing the breakup of Pakistan. Or are we letting them Unklo-Sexies buy time again? Balochistan has been firmly in the limelight for past few years. It is for us and the Balochis to utilize it.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 21 Jul 2009 06:30

>>>[edited]
Hey..What did that place do to you to mention it on paki related thread?

BTW: LTNPosts

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 21 Jul 2009 06:39

Satya_anveshi wrote:>>> <insert your place>

Hey..What did that place do to you to mention it on paki related thread?

You are right. My apologies, as I dont think I have a good answer to that. Not even the fact that I was pointing out something in somebody's else' thought process, should make me bring up a name. I edited it out to <insert your place>. You can edit or leave it behind to remind me of me bad.

My point was this - A "Paki victory" is neither military or political. It is something we give them. For they are not going to win it. If any one suggests so, it is not helping.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Jul 2009 06:58

archan wrote:
CRamS wrote: I thought that 9/11, Mumbai, nuke-peddling, AfPak, you name it, would have done them in, but all they asked US, and was granted, was we will do anything you want, just don't let us down visa vi India.
At what cost sir? are their citizens better off today than they were in 2000?

Archan-ji

Is this the rationale we want to use on BR?

if we start comparing with paki we will settle next Somalia in HDI

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 07:06

Has Pakistan stopped export of terror into India since 2000? Is India going to disregard terrorism inflicted on itself just because the perpetrators are worse off than before?

When America took action against the 9/11 perpetrators , was it comparing the economic condition of the terrorists with them.

This is pure rationalization and does not help inspire confidence.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 07:13

Admins please lock this thread as majority of the BRfites are unable to appreciate the Chankian move of the GOI .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2009 07:18

SSridhar wrote:
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.

There is a deeper thought process here.

India does not want to attack Pakistan, but Indians are too shy to admit that. They look at the US, Russians, Israelis and even the Pakis and feel that they too should be attacking - but are afraid. They cover up that fear by saying "Someone else will stop us if we attack"

You will find the "someone else will do xyz if we attack" argument being thrown up by a large number of people across threads and discussions. And you are right - it is a characteristic of being Indian.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2009 07:19

negi wrote:Admins please lock this thread as majority of the BRfites are unable to appreciate the Chankian move of the GOI .

No need to lock the thread. We are Indian onlee. We must wail and moan.

Carry on..

munna · Post by **munna** » 21 Jul 2009 07:22

negi wrote:Admins please lock this thread as majority of the BRfites are unable to appreciate the Chankian move of the GOI .

Aptly put our dear MMS has caused not only royal but imperial scale confusion everywhere with nationalistic analysts baying for his blood and anti-national apologists* spinning chankian motives (mea culpa

). I think this smoke and mirrors style confusion can really confuse and perplex the bada ullu (Big Owl) perched on DC trees.
*yours truly==apologist as of now

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Jul 2009 07:56

RamaY wrote: Archan-ji

Is this the rationale we want to use on BR?

if we start comparing with paki we will settle next Somalia in HDI

hey hey hey, please do not quote me "out of context"!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 08:04

shravan wrote:Good intention, bad drafting

Former Ambassador T P Sreenivasan

That is one of the best opinions on this issue that I have read. It shows the extent to which India has gone previously to protect its interests against wily Pakistanis so that no room is given. That's why the Sharm-el-Sheikh's incompetent drafting is so glaring. Whatever information is available to the PM in his private domain need not lead to shooting ourselves in the public domain through giving up our rights and implicating ourselves to deeds that we should not, even if they were true. It is just not the India-Pakistan equation that we are concerned with, it is India's prestige as a nation state.

IMO, the missing reference to 'Kashmir' is purely a jugglery of semantics. The word 'outstanding' is interpreted by the Pakistanis as 'prominent' (as in 'Tendulkar is an outstanding batsman') while the Indians interpret it as 'those that remain unsettled'.

These ideas of encouraging democracy in Pakistan, isolating the military etc have been tried several times before and they haven't worked. The failure comes from within Pakistan itself. The Indian diplomats and the MEA have monumental knowledge. Ms. Clinton has been talking of 'India encouraging Pakistan to fight terrorism' etc. Obviously, it is the US which has influenced the Indian thought process, probably the Prime Minister's because they thought the Babus were not amenable. Simultaneously, Gilani was made to say things in his private pleading with the PM that pleased the Indian ears and hence the Joint Statement.

The serious flaw in this line of thinking is that one has to realize that the PA cannot be sidelined at all. Even the Pakistani politicians do not prefer that. From ZAB, to Ms. BB to Nawaz Sharif to Gilani, everyone has approached the PA to settle the political disputes. It is the much revered final arbiter within Pakistan. That's where they turn to when things reach a breaking point. Besides, the PA must exist in order that the corrupt political class can survive. Otherwise, there won't be a nation for them to make their money. So, the PA and the political class reinforce each other and one will never let-down or let go of the other.

I am also not sure for how long the current US thinking of 'encouraging democracy' in Pakistan be sustained. Till March, 2008, the US invested heavily in Musharraf. From the early 50s, the US has stood solidly by military dictatorships even when their Islamabad embassy building was burnt down, even when the PA was double-crossing the USA forces etc. When the US switches its support, we will be left in even more tatters than we already are with our Sharam-el-Sheikh joint statement.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 21 Jul 2009 08:26

I'm not sure I understand why anyone gives a ding-dong about these statements. There is a new opportunity at every meeting to create a new twist of a statement. At the next one, we can say, composite dialog for framework shall begin without delay and specific dialog will be started upon successful implementation of composite measures against specific grievances including ones that are jointly outstanding. And then, something else.

The shame, as I see it, is our dhimmitutional inability to feel trauma for more than three months or remember pain for more than three months and a day. An inability to set and live by the rules because it is too much fun to break em. If we were serious about rules, agreements, statements and all that, the first time we said enough would've been enough. That was 47, what?

S

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jul 2009 08:47

As much as I would have like retaliation to TSP's terror provocations, the least India could have done was to ignore the Paki pigs. Short of Unkil's pressure, what would ignoring the pigs cost us?

sukhdeo · Post by **sukhdeo** » 21 Jul 2009 09:23

negi wrote:Admins please lock this thread as majority of the BRfites are unable to appreciate the Chankian move of the GOI .

Chanakya was not an idiot

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 09:25

Is there trouble bewing within the Congress ?
Excerpts

The Prime Minister also wanted total control over external affairs ministry and in this he had his way as the party see-sawed with a number of names before they zeroed-in on S M Krishna.

Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.

The pro-active nature of the PM's role on Pakistan is an evidence of it.

The Congress party which for the first time refused to sing praises of the Prime Minister over his handling of Pakistan in the joint statement has now privately admitted that the inclusion of Baluchistan in the joint statement was a "blunder ", and could give Pakistan leverage which they could exploit in times to come.

A senior Congress leader said that tomorrow if anything happens in Baluchistan, Pakistan can always turn around and blame India or worse still, Pakistan can engineer a situation in Baluchistan and blame India for it to get the upper hand.

Sources in the Congress party admit that the situation in the second innings of Dr Manmohan Singh is qualitatively different from the first one.

sukhdeo · Post by **sukhdeo** » 21 Jul 2009 09:42

sukhdeo wrote:
negi wrote:Admins please lock this thread as majority of the BRfites are unable to appreciate the Chankian move of the GOI .

Chanakya was not an idiot

Nor was he an American agent

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 21 Jul 2009 10:16

It will interesting to see if somebody from the government has anything to say to it.
Pak Defence Minister on Kasab's "confession.
If they wish this can be used to go back on the statement in a substantial manner.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 21 Jul 2009 10:30

For those inclined to dismiss this sell out stating it is only a statement and India is not going to really carry out what is in it in terms of reviving talks, please note that this is followed up by action. The Foreign Secretary's have been asked to begin talks on all outstanding issues and report on progress. This is to be followed up by the Foreign Ministers themselves.

For those inclined to believe that this PM and administration shares a vision for India as a global power, there is one more data point to consider. Hillary Clinton has indicated in Delhi that global power need not mean military capability but soft power. A clear indication of what kind of global power the US wants India to be. It looks like that this is a shared vision by our most honourable, astute and humble statesman, pre-eminent economist, man of impeccable integrity, oxford educated intellectual, mild mannered yet strong, PM.

I have never been so

with myself for being right with my predictions!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 10:40

SSridhar wrote:Is there trouble bewing within the Congress ?
Excerpts
The Prime Minister also wanted total control over external affairs ministry and in this he had his way as the party see-sawed with a number of names before they zeroed-in on S M Krishna.

Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.

The pro-active nature of the PM's role on Pakistan is an evidence of it.

The Congress party which for the first time refused to sing praises of the Prime Minister over his handling of Pakistan in the joint statement has now privately admitted that the inclusion of Baluchistan in the joint statement was a "blunder ", and could give Pakistan leverage which they could exploit in times to come.

A senior Congress leader said that tomorrow if anything happens in Baluchistan, Pakistan can always turn around and blame India or worse still, Pakistan can engineer a situation in Baluchistan and blame India for it to get the upper hand.

Sources in the Congress party admit that the situation in the second innings of Dr Manmohan Singh is qualitatively different from the first one.

They can do that even now. I still think that MMS had his reasons and we will find out. This is his LKA's Jinnah moment.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Jul 2009 11:50

The aptly described "Fak-Ap" at S-al-S,has displayed the glaring fact known to many of us but ignored by the mainstream media ,that the emperor (of eunuchs) has neither clothes nor "shockings"! We were treated to this astonishing spectacle yet again during the visit by Hillary Clinton,where we appear to have succumbed yet again to the US,this time in agreeing to buy obsolete third rate US nuclear power plants and equally obsolete defence equipment,which seems to have been a secret integral part of the N-deal,hiddden from the Indian people.Pakistan and the US could wish for no better PM of India at this crucial time than the nudist in our midst.From Bhagat Singh to...... How mighty India has fallen!

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 21 Jul 2009 12:55

In the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, the fault primarily lies with the Indian electorate who did not bring to power a party that would be more assertive in defending and putting forward India's national interest. Basically the electorate give MMS a license to do such things.

Also, the only rational reason why MMS would virtually capitulate in the joint statement is to make Pakistani government look good in the eyes of Pakistani people otherwise this joint statement is pretty much useless and not worth the paper that it is printed on. By making the Pakistani government look good to Pakistani people, the Americans hope to have enough space to continue their highly unpopular activities in Pakistan, so they pressurized / begged / charmed MMS to give them this space by capitulating. MMS probably thinks that India and US have some common interests in Pakistan and that American's will do a better job of solving India's problems in Pakistan/Afghanistan instead of his own government, so he does not mind capitulating based on this retarded Ideas of what a statesman should do.

American's have already seen what MMS can do: his party can expend a lot of political capital (and bribes) in order to get the nuclear bill passed through parliament in face of a no-confidence vote. Expect more such demands from our American "friends" from MMS in future as long as they percieve MMS to have political capital to expend. Given the fact that Indian public re-elected MMS in the wake of televised Mumbai attacks, his political capital seems to be without any limit at least at the moment.

Sometimes I wonder if voters will continue voting for MMS even if he handed India's foreign, economic, and defence policy to America on a golden platter. Off course the American's would never dream of asking the Chinese to do something like this, but unlike the Chinese, we have a had a decades long defeatist mentality of a passive (or pacifist if you prefer) foreign policy.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 12:55

privately admitted that the inclusion of Baluchistan in the joint statement was a "blunder ", and could give Pakistan leverage which they could exploit in times to come.

So, can we now take it that Balochis are working in Indian interests and that the consulates in Afghanistan are the nerve centres, as Pakistan claims?

I sure hope MMS does not say that Xinjaing foment is also of Indian origin!

I thought someone in a post somewhere on this forum cautioned that MMS was elected by the majority.

I will not comment on MMS. He is my PM.

But, then the people deserve the govt they elect! That says much.

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Jul 2009 13:32

csharma wrote: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 .....................

I offer no comment on spin.

A couple of other articles suggesting that there is opposition within our Prime Ministers own Congress party to the Sharm El Sheikh declaration:

Cong leaders disapprove of Balochistan remark

Congress washes its hands of PM-Gilani statement

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 21 Jul 2009 13:45

I think MMS is trying a replay like Nuke deal brinkmanship game here again.He and his supporters may have calculated that with opp down and showing no possibility of getting up , the cong leadership will not take a decision to replace him so early after the election.
After all in cong only Yuvraaj can replace cong and they would not want to be seen as doing injustice to the "gentleman " PM. The media which praised Rajmata and Yuvraaj will go hammer and tongs at them. This is assuming that they do not approve this joint statement.
Skynet is getting its own life

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 14:16

ramana wrote:They can do that even now. I still think that MMS had his reasons and we will find out. This is his LKA's Jinnah moment.

Ramana, MMS might have had genuine reasons for what he did in S-al-S based on private domain knowledge. However, I still believe, and strongly so, that one doesn't need to do all that in the fashion it was done. It has only brought us ignominy and given an opportunity for people inimical to India a stick to beat us with. This will live with us for ever. That feeling of despair cannot be gotten over.

There are two big differences between LKA's praise for Jinnah and the Joint Statement of S-al-S. LKA praised Jinnah which didn't didn't diminish India's stature or implicate India negatively. Besides, LKA was not holding a position in the Government when it happened. OTOH, S-al-S has and irretrievably so because the Joint Statement came from our PM.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 14:36

An alcoholic beverage that is surreptitiously altered to induce diarrhea or stupefy, render unconscious, or otherwise incapacitate the person who drinks it.

That is what is a 'Mickey Finn'!

We are drinking that?!

Maybe knowledgable here would show I am wrong!

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 21 Jul 2009 14:48

From the link provided by arun:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Pol ... 801051.cms

Congress attributed the error in the drafting of the Indo-Pak document to the “emotional one-to-one” meeting between Mr Singh and Pakistani prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

This is the most stupid excuse I have ever heard. Is such an emotionally immature man who can barter away national interest on the basis of his personal emotions while dealing with heads of state, fit to be Indian prime minister? Will the rest of Indians have to do penance and sacrifice themselves only because MMS migrated from Pakistan 60 years ago? In internatioanl negotiations, is MMS representing the collective interests of Indian civilisation, or is he representing his personal emotions? The man seems to have the personality of a small child who can be coaxed by anyone to hand over the lollipop. Maybe in the next negotiations, we send a nanny along with him to keep a watch over what he says.

The party said what should have been a “tip-toeing” on question of resuming talks with Pakistan actually became an inadvertent “leap”.

This keeps getting better and better. The famed Oxford-educated economist wanted to "tip-toe" but ended up "leaping," that too in international negotiations! I am already writing a self-help manual called "How not to Leap When you Want to Tiptoe in International Negotiations." 500 copies will be posted to 1, Race Course Road for free.

I heard the Congress is officially going to declare 2009 as the Leap Year.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 15:00

sanjaychoudhry wrote:From the link provided by arun:

Congress attributed the error in the drafting of the Indo-Pak document to the “emotional one-to-one” meeting between Mr Singh and Pakistani prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Cong leaders disapprove of Balochistan remark
This is the most stupid excuse I have ever heard.

If the Congress calls the Joint Statement as an 'error' due to 'emotional one-to-one' meeting, then what happens to all the Chanakyan spin ?

Also, it validates what I said right at the beginning that one-on-one meetings involving Indian PMs have more often than not ended up as disasters for the Indian nation state.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 15:04

SSridhar wrote:If the Congress calls the Joint Statement as an 'error' due to 'emotional one-to-one' meeting, then what happens to all the Chanakyan spin ?

Do you think we can make that kind of an error while mentioning BALUCHISTAN...

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 21 Jul 2009 15:08

Congress attributed the error in the drafting of the Indo-Pak document to the “emotional one-to-one” meeting between Mr Singh and Pakistani prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

If the Congress calls the Joint Statement as an 'error' due to 'emotional one-to-one' meeting, then what happens to all the Chanakyan spin ?

Also, it validates what I said right at the beginning that one-on-one meetings involving Indian PMs have more often than not ended up as disasters for the Indian nation state.

Our PM sees a PakJabi PM gets emotional and surrenders. Our PM sees massacre at mumbai, train blasts, etc etc, but no emotion, only l#ose motion for the aam Janta/aadmi

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 15:09

Shravan, we have made the mistake, rather a blunder IMO. Why do you think we are infallible ?

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 21 Jul 2009 15:12

Our PM sees a PakJabi PM gets emotional and surrenders. Our PM sees massacre at mumbai, train blasts, etc etc, but no emotion, only l#ose motion for the aam Janta/aadmi

MMS loses sleep and gets emotional only when he meets dudes of a certain community. I never heard him get emotional while meeting the Shankracharya.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Jul 2009 15:14

sanjaychoudhry wrote:I heard the Congress is officially going to declare 2009 as the Leap Year.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 15:21

SSridhar wrote:Shravan, we have made it. Why do you think we are infallible ?

We just did what America told us to do. And we had our own little spin in it.

Do you remember this news.

India has key role in Af-Pak strategy: US
9 April 2009

When asked whether US was applying pressure on India to resume talks with Pakistan, Holbrooke's answer was an emphatic no. ``I watched television reports in the morning which said that the US was trying to negotiate between India and Pakistan. I want to state in unambiguous terms that we did not come here to ask India to do anything. We came here only to consult and inform India. There was no request from us,'' said Holbrooke, who was accompanied by the chairman of US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and US charge d'affaires Peter Burleigh.

----

US Charge d'Affairs Peter Burleigh meets Advani
May 13, 2009
US Charge d'Affairs Peter Burleigh on Wednesday met BJP's Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani here and discussed the bilateral ties and regional matters, particularly developments in Pakistan.

--

I am saying is BJP would also have done the same thing...

You still think its a Mistake ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 15:25

shravan wrote:I am saying is BJP would also have done the same thing...

No past behavior of BJP points that they would have done it. In any case this is a pathetic excuse, yes I am an idiot but then I think that everyone else is so its ok.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 15:31

shravan wrote:We just did what America told us to do. And we had our own little spin in it.

I am saying is BJP would also have done the same thing...

You still think its a Mistake ?

I really don't care about political parties. How would BJP, or any other party for that matter, make such a mistake more acceptable and a Congress less acceptable ? Yes, I consider that not only as a mistake but a monumental blunder.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 15:40

SSridhar wrote:I really don't care about political parties. Yes, I consider that not only as a mistake but a monumental blunder.

For a moment we will think it as a monumental blunder.

Should we have said no to America in Af-Pak strategy ?

If your answer is yes then instead of Gen. Kapoor some Chinese Guy would have reached America. Is that what you want ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 15:44

shravan wrote:
SSridhar wrote:I really don't care about political parties. Yes, I consider that not only as a mistake but a monumental blunder.
Should we have said no to America in Af-Pak strategy ?

If your answer is yes then instead of Gen. Kapoor some Chinese Guy would have reached America. Is that what you want ?

Another sad and pathetic excuse to justify the unjustifiable -- what gives credence to the assumption you make that we have to say no to US Af-pak strat to not sign that stupid document?

So we have only two choices, yes to all that US asks us to do or no to everything they say? We have no possiblity of flexibility a middle position saying yes when it makes sense and no when we dont?

So either we are their full servants or we at war with them?