Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan - July 07, 2009

satya · Post by **satya** » 23 Jul 2009 02:15

There are independent moves to prop up CJP for him being in position to directly affect the fortunes of quite a number of players from TSP Establishment . Pakjabis are with CJP for some reason he is their savior . Mushy was a '' bhaiya'' ( as per Pakjabis) so if he is prosecuted , Pakjabis will support CJP against him . This is posing a first time question for TSPA Jernails .......................... All know TSPA stands for Pakjab but to do so in action will be a first.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 23 Jul 2009 02:17

ramana wrote:Lets see if the TSPA comes out of the barracks!
Oneof the conditions from Kiyani for the "peaceful" transfer of power was Mushy wasn't to be punished for his crimes.
Isnt the turd in London?

It is my suspicion that Mushy will also be implicated in the BB's case. That would completely drive people nuts against Mushy and also the Army.

With all the problems in pakistan (power, economy, gas unavailability, water problems, jihadi, legal, political - this is really a complete breakdown of the nation), TSPA will be lynched by the street mobs.

Acharya wrote:It means they were defending him before and keeping him in power

I don't know how that forms the corollary but no one needs the proof that US was behind Mushy before he quit. He made his eminent choice when Bush asked him "with us or against us."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 02:27

But Mushy is involved in BB's roof top lever IED Mubaarak.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 02:29

Mushy won't be associated with BB's killing. That blame has already been laid on Baitulla Mehsood's door step.
Most likely mushy will be facing something like staging a coup, or stealing Pakistani rupees 2 only from the exchequer and sentenced in absentia, persona non grata. He is now officially in exile forever.
The pak army will keep out of this. Mushy has already been advised to stay out of the country.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 02:39

Gerard wrote:ISI chief to India: talk to us, we make policy too

Is the discipline breaking down or are they trying to negotiate a separate peace? This to me looks like a plea to get talking to Indian military. Recall I had suggested a way forward to de-Partition which would involve the Ind Armed forces talking to them to establish a timeline a process for re-integrating with the Indian Army forces.

ISI chief to India: talk to us, we make policy too

Nirupama Subramanian and Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi will only respond to request made by Pakistani government

ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: Days before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani met in Egypt, the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence floated a suggestion that India deal not just with Pakistan’s civilian government but also directly with its Army and intelligence agency.

Lt. Gen. Shuja Pasha made the out-of-the-box overture during a meeting earlier this month with the three Indian defence advisers representing the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force attached to the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, The Hindu has learnt.

The sit-in at Lt. Gen. Pasha’s office in Rawalpindi on July 3 took place entirely at his initiative, though it was ostensibly convened in response to a request made by the Indian High Commission “years before.” ......

During their discussion, Lt. Gen. Pasha and the defence advisors did not refer to the Mumbai attacks or the investigations into it, either on the Indian or Pakistani side. Nevertheless, senior officials in Delhi saw the interaction as an attempt by the ISI to “reach out” to India in the run-up to the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting of the two Prime Ministers.

The Hindu has learnt that during the course of the extremely cordial meeting, Lt. Gen. Pasha came clean in stating that the ISI and the Pakistan Army were involved in framing Pakistan’s India policy, along with the Foreign Office. He made the oblique suggestion that India deal directly with these three institutions if it had a similar three-way mechanism.

In their effort to understand the genesis of this idea, Indian officials sought to establish whether the ISI chief — who has a reputation for speaking his mind freely — had merely made an off-the-cuff remark or was floating a trial balloon after consultations with all other “stakeholders” in the Pakistani establishment.

{They are the only stakeholders. Try to understand the kabila guards are askign for talks. No one else matters}

Ministry of External Affairs officials asked Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India Shahid Malik about the ISI chief’s suggestion, but the envoy was unaware that the meeting had even taken place. This led the MEA to conclude that the Pakistani foreign office may not be in the loop.

.....

Highly placed South Block officials told The Hindu that India is not averse to talking to the Pakistani military or the ISI even as it engages with the civilian government but there were two problems with the suggestion. First, any proposal to open new lines of communication must come from the Pakistani government. And second, the power structures in India and Pakistan cannot really compare with each other.

{Yes they wont believe anyone but their uniformed counterparts. Add to that the old regimental ties. Try to see from their prespective}

....

But apart from form, it is the question of structure that poses an obstacle. “The Research & Analysis Wing operates within the law and is subordinate to the government,” a senior intelligence official told The Hindu. “There, the government is subordinate to the ISI, which is a law unto itself.”

South Block officials said the Indian High Commissioner and his officers could and should be in touch with the Pakistani army and intelligence chiefs. “But I wonder what would be the point of the Indian Army Chief talking to his Pakistani counterpart … their job definitions are so different.”

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 23 Jul 2009 02:40

ramana wrote:But Mushy is involved in BB's roof top lever IED Mubaarak.

I need to watch that interview again (Hamid Mir with Aitzaz). There is an oblique and very subtle reference to it but both try their best to supress it.

You may recall that a recent UN investigation is being conducted and people were/are anticipating names to be revealed. I am sure there is a place for Mushy in that

Musharraf rejects involvement in Bhutto’s assassination

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jul 2009 02:58

ramana wrote:
Gerard wrote:ISI chief to India: talk to us, we make policy too

Is the discipline breaking down or are they trying to negotiate a separate peace? This to me looks like a plea to get talking to Indian military. Recall I had suggested a way forward to de-Partition which would involve the Ind Armed forces talking to them to establish a timeline a process for re-integrating with the Indian Army forces.

ISI chief to India: talk to us, we make policy too

Nirupama Subramanian and Siddharth Varadarajan

New Delhi will only respond to request made by Pakistani government

Highly placed South Block officials told The Hindu that India is not averse to talking to the Pakistani military or the ISI even as it engages with the civilian government but there were two problems with the suggestion. First, any proposal to open new lines of communication must come from the Pakistani government. And second, the power structures in India and Pakistan cannot really compare with each other.

{Yes they wont believe anyone but their uniformed counterparts. Add to that the old regimental ties. Try to see from their prespective}

But apart from form, it is the question of structure that poses an obstacle. “The Research & Analysis Wing operates within the law and is subordinate to the government,” a senior intelligence official told The Hindu. “There, the government is subordinate to the ISI, which is a law unto itself.”

South Block officials said the Indian High Commissioner and his officers could and should be in touch with the Pakistani army and intelligence chiefs. “But I wonder what would be the point of the Indian Army Chief talking to his Pakistani counterpart … their job definitions are so different.”

Wouldn't NSA be the right discussions partner for the ISI chief? He is the political face of national security!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 03:00

No. Not in their eyes. It has to be the Chief of Staffs for starters. The ISI is facilitating the meeting. He is not the prime mover. I didn't know this will happen so soon.

Is MAF Arjan Singh still hale and hearty?

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 23 Jul 2009 03:39

IndraD wrote:Proof of RAW terror acts given to India: Pak paper
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS ... 807278.cms

Pakistan says it has handed over to India evidence of the involvement of its external spy agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in terrorist activities in this country, including the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore and on a police academy on the outskirts of the city earlier this year.

seriously, these buggers couldnt event catch a gunman and now are coming up with dossier on RAW involvement?

OK, here we go NWFP getting ready for the winter battle
Kalashnikov demand soars with violence in NWFP

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 23 Jul 2009 03:40

Pakistan's 'mock war' on Taliban

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 23 Jul 2009 03:44

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/world ... &ref=world

Pakistan protests US plans in Afghanistan...

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 23 Jul 2009 04:07

Russian arms seized

The efforts, so far made to trace the arms supply root of the Taliban, indicate that there was a third party also, which has been supplying arms and ammunition to Taliban through Afghanistan. As per evidences, the third party consisted of agents of Indian Secret Intelligence Authority RAW, who are working with such a great skill that even the militants do not have a perception of reality.

OT
P.S, Cant look at my post number. kaam ke wajah se kuchh din ke liye bahar kya chala gaya ke meri saari kamai loot ke chal diye.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jul 2009 04:18

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?s ... 6j7&ref=nf
Foreign Policy Blogs is the largest network of global affairs blogs online. Staffed by scores of professional contributors from the worlds of journalism, academia, business, non-profits and think tanks, the FPB network tracks global developments from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and everywhere in between, daily.

The Foreign Policy Blogs network was launched in 2007 as part of the Great Decisions discussion program, and has since grown to include nearly 50 blogs on a multitude of global issues.

With the hostage taking of a US solider this week in Afghanistan, a fresh wave of attacks in Jalalabad, and President Obama’s nearly double deployment of U.S. troops since he took office, Pakistan is increasingly looked to as a forefront ally in cooperation with the U.S. led War on Terror.

It’s a complex relationship that neither state is unaccustomed to having cooperated heavily since the very inception of Pakistani statehood in 1947: first with Pakistani support of the U.S. throughout the Cold War and now Post 9/11. And while some experts, like Retired General Bacevich might claim the current fight in Afghanistan is “unwinnable” or even unnecessary, in close cooperation with Pakistan the United States has an opportunity both counter such criticism and also create meaningful, lasting and progressive change in the region.

In her address to students in Delhi yesterday, Secretary Clinton quite astutely commented on the crux of the current Pakistani predicament::

“Over the six months that we have been office, I’ve seen a real commitment on the part of the Pakistani government and Pakistani people in taking on the extremists that threaten them. It’s no longer about someone else, it’s their hotels, and police and people who are being blown up and mistreated for simple things that no one would think are in any way an offense”.

This acknowledgement of Pakistani investment, consequences and interests is an effective means to garnering much needed social and political support in Pakistan. The U.S. lending understanding words of diplomacy in a strategic setting as such is a meaningful step forward for a country where masses are economically, educationally and politically deprived at the moment. In turn, this is substantial in ensuring the United States has meaningful Pakistani support in the War on Terror. Secretary Clinton’s speech at Delhi is further valuable as it enables the United States to skillfully tread tepid (at best) India-Pakistan relations. Especially now, at the heels of increasing speculation that a perpetrator in the Mumbai atrocities from last fall had ties to groups in the north of Pakistan as per his confession in court this week.

Another hopeful note this week for U.S. Pakistani relations comes as US special envoy Richard Holbrooke visits Islamabad to

“focus on a range of economic and security issues, in particular, the situation of the internal refugees and reconstruction plans for their return to their home.”

As with Secretary Clinton’s diplomatic efforts, Holbrooke’s attention to the grave refugee issue is very meaningful. Masses of innocent civilians have been displaced from the north of Pakistan and it is in the U.S. interest to ensure those persons are not perpetually destitute in this currently volatile War on Terror where Pakistan and the U.S. are working hard to uproot terrorist groups on the nebulous Afghan-Pakistan border. Strong international concern for this issue is also declared this week by the U.N. Humanitarian affairs chief, John Holmes:

“Pakistan has seen probably the most dramatic and dramatically changing humanitarian situation this year with up to two million people fleeing the military operations in parts of NW Frontier Province. Up two million, as I say. That has meant scaling up, putting up or scaling up a major aid operation with a consequence of large figure of dollars attached to it,”

So despite the refugee problem and our possibly escalating war in Central Asia, progressive steps are being taken toward stability. Hopefully, astute diplomacy, tangible social policies that garner Pakistani support to sustain a meaningful cooperation will continue and lead toward lasting change in the region.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jul 2009 04:30

ramana wrote:No. Not in their eyes. It has to be the Chief of Staffs for starters. The ISI is facilitating the meeting. He is not the prime mover. I didn't know this will happen so soon.

Is MAF Arjan Singh still hale and hearty?

Maybe this explains Gen Kapoor visit to DC and US

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2009 04:55

abhijitm wrote:Russian arms seized
The efforts, so far made to trace the arms supply root of the Taliban, indicate that there was a third party also, which has been supplying arms and ammunition to Taliban through Afghanistan. As per evidences, the third party consisted of agents of Indian Secret Intelligence Authority RAW, who are working with such a great skill that even the militants do not have a perception of reality.

I have wondered if Pakistan was a RAW experiment that went horribly wrong.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 23 Jul 2009 05:41

SSridhar wrote:
VikramS wrote:For all practical purposes 10% is a non-entity in Pakistan. He tried to wear shoes bigger than he could fit into and has been put in his place by the TSPA. Some news suggest that he is virtually in a house arrest kind of situation with no one wanting to drop any grass his way. Just because he made the right noises about India is meaningless right now he does not matter.
Yes, he is the least popular politician in Pakistan today, but Gilani is equally irrelevant there. The only person who matters if Nawaz Sharif, who will win handsdown if there is an election today. However, he cleverly does not want to force the issue because he wants the PPP to bear the cross of lawlessness, poor economy, power shortage etc. In this situation, we need to sharpen the differences between Gilani and Zardari.

At least Gilani is the official PM or whatever and the Americans want him to be propped up because they want some sort of civilian cover for the hoped for TSPA actions against the Taliban. 10% does not even have that cred. Ganja is lying low because there is no point being in the firing line right now.

SSridhar wrote:
The 3½ friends will find a reason to help the TSP if it serves their interest. They know TSP very well and are not idiots. Anything India says does not make the slightest difference in their plans; what India is willing and capable of, does. They are enough fig leaves floating in the air to find a reason for helping the TSP. A joint declaration between TSP-India which mentions the challenge in Balochistan is hardly a game-changer in any way. It is just hot air.
I quite agree with you on the motives of the 3½ friends. I am not saying that the reference to Balochaistan will change their behaviour in any way, but, it gives them an opportunity to turn back at India and say "Hey, you guys are not exactly angels and you have yourself implicitly admitted to that".

Quite frankly the 3½ will likely treat India with more deference if there India is indeed doing something of significance in Balochistan. For once India will have shown some will and capability to respond to their munna's perfidy. When it comes to international relations you do not get any credit for being Angels; on the contrary you are likely to be stepped on.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 23 Jul 2009 06:16

ramana wrote:No. Not in their eyes. It has to be the Chief of Staffs for starters. The ISI is facilitating the meeting. He is not the prime mover. I didn't know this will happen so soon.

Is MAF Arjan Singh still hale and hearty?

If this ever happens, shouldn't it be the Director general of MI or the head of RAW who should be talking to the head of ISI? Why should our COAS talk to someone who is lower than him in protocol ?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 23 Jul 2009 06:41

The awam and donkeys --- Zafar Hilaly
Excerpt

When it comes to our awam, that repository of Pakistani wisdom, America can do no right. If America is generous with her assistance it is because our support is indispensible; if America is forthcoming with equipment and weaponry it is only to better enable Pakistan to fight America's war; if America engages with Pakistan intensively it is merely to pressurise Pakistan to bow to Washington's demands; if America extends assurances of friendship it is because Americans are shameless liars; if Washington offers intelligence sharing it is a mere ruse to enable the CIA to penetrate Pakistan's intelligence agencies; if the Americans install a command and control system for the safety of our nuclear assets it is a tactic to undermine Pakistan's nuclear programme and eventually seize our nuclear weapons. And when western organisations spend millions on family planning in Pakistan it is nothing but an attempt to destroy the Muslim family system.

But if, on the other hand, America is not forthcoming or niggardly with succour it is because of the animus America has for Islam and hence Pakistan. And which is also the reason why Washington is conniving furiously with India, Israel and assorted Jewish and Hindu lobbies to make Pakistan subservient to India; bring about Balochistan's secession and undo Pakistan. And just for good measure America and India have armed and launched the 'Indian' Taliban to attack targets in Lahore and elsewhere.

'Unquestioning, overly simplistic, poorly informed and self-righteous summations' is what most awams adopt, says an analyst, and ours are no different. To as many as nearly 65 per cent Pakistanis, according to a recent poll, America is not merely the devil's advocate but the devil himself.

India's half-step to talks ----- Asif Ezdi
Excerpt

There is no doubt about it. India climbed down at Sharm el-Sheikh. It had earlier made a dismantling of the "infrastructure of terrorism" and the prosecution of those accused of involvement in the Mumbai atrocity a precondition for the resumption of the suspended composite dialogue. In the Joint Statement issued at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, India backed down from this linkage. This is a vindication of Pakistan's position.

Besides the de-linking of the terrorism issue from the dialogue, another sore point with the Indian critics of the joint statement has been the reference to Balochistan, dubbed in the Indian media as the "Balochistan bungle." Actually, the language on Balochistan was so anodyne that it is the Pakistani press that should be talking about a bungle. The relevant sentence simply speaks of unspecified "threats" rather than any interference from outside.

When Pakistan and India first agreed in the Lahore Declaration of 1999 on a comprehensive dialogue, Pakistan's main demand was that the focus should be on a resolution of the core issue of Kashmir. Since then there have been two major developments that have changed the entire context: Musharraf's Kargil blunder and 9/11. As a result, the Kashmir freedom struggle is now viewed by the international community mostly through the prism of the international fight against terrorism. A settlement which meets the aspirations of the Kashmiri people for azadi is therefore unrealistic under the present circumstances. The only "solution" that can be achieved is a permanent division of the state along the Line of Control. This would be rejected by the Kashmiri people as well as most Pakistanis. Pakistan needs to rethink its approach. While retaining Kashmir on the bilateral agenda, Pakistan should therefore revert to the policy of raising it in the international fora and reaffirm the sanctity of UN resolutions that form the basis of Pakistan's stand.

Resolve 'Af-Kash' ----- Ahmed Quraishi
Excerpt As usual tall claims

Over the weekend, Iran's state-run media has shown a televised confession by the brother of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of the Jundullah group that claims to be based in Pakistan. Islamabad helped Iran arrest the brother. "Abdulmalek and his group," says the brother, "had a purpose to sow discord among Shia and Sunni on the orders received from the US. He said his brother "had held several confidential meetings with CIA agents in Karachi and Islamabad," according to Iran's PRESSTV.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2009 06:43

g.kacha wrote: If this ever happens, shouldn't it be the Director general of MI or the head of RAW who should be talking to the head of ISI? Why should our COAS talk to someone who is lower than him in protocol ?

I find the idea hilarious.

There is no ISI equivalent in India in terms of scope, power, independence and whatever other parameter you choose. So this "protocol" business amuses me. And besides what would be there to talk about? How India can commit suicide? Or hand over the keys of Lal Qila?

RAW by itself would never call upon some other military for a sudden meeting out of thin air and demand "Talk to us - talk to RAW" any more than the head of CBSE or head of IB would go to a foreign nation and ask for a separate meeting. One has to have a peculiarly paki-budhi for one's mind to work like this .

The entire story reeks of something that is extremely suspicious. There is an outside possibility that ISI is getting khujli for being left out in the cold by a "civilian govt"

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 23 Jul 2009 06:50

x-posting from Mil Forum Pak arms doctrine thread...
French connection, déjà vu ---- Taj M Khattak

The only blemish on this otherwise healthy relationship between France and Pakistan was the detention of the Pakistani Navy's submarine, PNS/M Khalid, after our nuclear explosion, when it had been handed over to the Navy and was flying the Pakistani ensign. This was an unheard-of breach of international law and norms.

The earlier French acquisitions were relatively free from corrupt practices. The French not having perfected the art of commercial marketing in their early forays into Pakistan or the officials negotiating contracts were not for sale in the good-old days.

yeah right.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2009 07:14

Actually its not such a bad idea to "talk" to the COAS and ISI chief in Pakistan - after all they are main "policy makers" there...And their interlocutors here need not be their counterparts, can well be our NSA or the PM's special envoy, given the very different nature of the Paki Army Chief's job definition..

Talks with them directly has to benefits. One, it allows us get their POV from the "horse's mouth"..Second, it creates further political disequilibrium within the Paki system - the PM and President know that the Army Chief is been directly spojken to (without him being fully in the loop, obviously!) - exacerbates the tensions between the civililan leadership and the army..Something that is entirely laudable..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2009 07:22

somnath wrote:Actually its not such a bad idea to "talk" to the COAS and ISI chief in Pakistan - after all they are main "policy makers" there...And their interlocutors here need not be their counterparts, can well be our NSA or the PM's special envoy, given the very different nature of the Paki Army Chief's job definition..

Talks with them directly has to benefits. One, it allows us get their POV from the "horse's mouth"..Second, it creates further political disequilibrium within the Paki system - the PM and President know that the Army Chief is been directly spojken to (without him being fully in the loop, obviously!) - exacerbates the tensions between the civililan leadership and the army..Something that is entirely laudable..

What is there to talk about?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2009 07:30

shiv wrote:
somnath wrote:Actually its not such a bad idea to "talk" to the COAS and ISI chief in Pakistan - after all they are main "policy makers" there...And their interlocutors here need not be their counterparts, can well be our NSA or the PM's special envoy, given the very different nature of the Paki Army Chief's job definition..

Talks with them directly has to benefits. One, it allows us get their POV from the "horse's mouth"..Second, it creates further political disequilibrium within the Paki system - the PM and President know that the Army Chief is been directly spojken to (without him being fully in the loop, obviously!) - exacerbates the tensions between the civililan leadership and the army..Something that is entirely laudable..
What is there to talk about?

Well, the US has long had the same view on Iran - its gotten them nowhere..Ditto for NK - again its gotten them nowhere..Adn the power asymmetries are far greater there..

In most "talks", what one is trying to do is to gauge intent, and convey our intent directly...For example there was contacts between RAW and ISI during the height of the Punjab crisis, when RAW's random bombings in Lahore and Karachi started to pinch the Pakis...We conveyed in no uncertain terms that the bombings will stop once their support to the Khalistanis do! Part of the very successful CI strategy in Punjab..

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2009 07:36

Joint Indo-Pak Statement Mentions Foreign-Sponsored Terror in Balochistan??

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Pak ... 809978.cms

And India is held responsible for the jihadi attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team?

I've told you that Kaangress has sold out the national interest, for the purpose of earning US patronage to keep themselves in power.

BR mods can censor my comments all they like, but it doesn't change the reality of what I've said.
You can spray perfume on the manure, but it will still be filthy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2009 07:38

somnath wrote:
Well, the US has long had the same view on Iran - its gotten them nowhere..Ditto for NK - again its gotten them nowhere..Adn the power asymmetries are far greater there..

In most "talks", what one is trying to do is to gauge intent, and convey our intent directly...For example there was contacts between RAW and ISI during the height of the Punjab crisis, when RAW's random bombings in Lahore and Karachi started to pinch the Pakis...We conveyed in no uncertain terms that the bombings will stop once their support to the Khalistanis do! Part of the very successful CI strategy in Punjab..

This is called "Torn shirt vs open fly"

Because the US did not talk to Iran and NK and it got them "nowhere" it is your contention that India should talk in parallel with the Pakistani army to "gauge intentions". The logic you are pushing here is as follows: My neighbor who was searching for shaving cream had no joy in the North side of town. Therefore I, who am searching for flour should avoid the North side. There is no link between one and the other. Why are you trying to suggest that such a link is sensible and necessary?

What is it about the Pakistani army's intentions that you imagine will come out in parallel talks? What random bombings by RAW? Can you give cites? I think you are making things up to support your argument.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2009 07:38

Well, the US has long had the same view on Iran - its gotten them nowhere..Ditto for NK - again its gotten them nowhere..Adn the power asymmetries are far greater there..

Why is that you have to bring ...'US' angle everywhere..btw just being curious here what have IRAN and NoKo done until now to harm or threaten the life of a common American ?

Unlike the above case TSP's role in perpetrating terrorism in India is known to everyone ;PM had summoned the ISI chief after 26/11 he did not honour the invitation , now after the JS in SES they seem to have suddenly got this urge to talk eh ?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2009 07:48

shiv wrote:
This is called "Torn shirt vs open fly"

Because the US did not talk to Iran and NK and it got them "nowhere" it is your contention that India should talk in parallel with the Pakistani army to "gauge intentions". The logic you are pushing here is as follows: My neighbor who was searching for shaving cream had no joy in the North side of town. Therefore I, who am searching for flour should avoid the North side. There is no link between one and the other. Why are you trying to suggest that such a link is sensible and necessary?

What is it about the Pakistani army's intentions that you imagine will come out in parallel talks? What random bombings by RAW? Can you give cites? I think you are making things up to support your argument.

To start with, I am not making up anything..Anyone who follows the intel literature of those times would know this..B Raman has written extensively on it..So has Ayesha Siddiqa, hardly an "establishment" Paki...

You can see some references here from CFR.

"The ISI diverted part of these funds and arms and ammunition to the Khalistani terrorists," alleges Raman.
In retaliation, in the mid-1980s, RAW set up two covert groups of its own, Counter Intelligence Team-X (CIT-X) and Counter Intelligence Team-J (CIT-J), the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani groups. The two groups were responsible for carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan (Newsline), writes Pakistani military expert Ayesha Siddiqa. Indian journalist and associate editor of Frontline magazine, Praveen Swami, writes that a "low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore" was carried out. This forced the head of ISI to meet his counterpart in RAW and agree on the rules of engagement as far as Punjab was concerned, writes Siddiqa.

About talks, it is much better to take "action" while you are keeping the veneer intact than to shout from the rooftops that you are "acting" in ways X and Y..Unless of course you are waging a war..And even then, the idea should be to keep talking till you manage to shoot off the first shot!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jul 2009 07:51

Now that "India has agreed" on insurgency in Baluchistan, India must bring down Baluchistan. Why worry? What is there to be scared about?

Else this is going to get to be a long Pakistani crying sequence, in a never ending film.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 23 Jul 2009 07:53

Shiv saar , SSridhar posted about Indian involvement in Krachi here
As per the post pain inflicted by India was NOT ENOUGH.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jul 2009 08:12

Ah I see now. India, specifically RAW has been involved in bomb blasts in Karachi.

Then I guess there should be no real issue with the idea of Indian involvement in Baluchistan. Why the angst?

What has been given away by tagging Balochistan as an Indian inspired problem? After all we have a case of left hand doing something and right hand denying it.

RAW is being shown as involved in Karachi bombings. Why not Baluchistan? And by the same token, why should the ISI not be involved in Mumbai.

Someone please explain the logic of making sudden "admissions" of RAW activity in Pakistan? Why blame Manmohan Singh when this forum is not beyond scoring the very self goal that MMS is accused of scoring. I dont' suppose anyone on this forum is looking to please a Muslim vote bank as has ben suggested as a a reason for MMS accepting an Indian link top Baluchistan?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2009 08:14

VikramS wrote:At least Gilani is the official PM or whatever and the Americans want him to be propped up because they want some sort of civilian cover for the hoped for TSPA actions against the Taliban. 10% does not even have that cred. Ganja is lying low because there is no point being in the firing line right now.

VikramS, if Gilani is official PM, then Zardari is official President and in today's Pakistan, the President enjoys more powers. Hardly any difference. As for the Americans, they are simply bypassing the Prime Minister and the President and are directly talking to Kiyani. If you recall, it was the Gilani-Kiyani combination that was against military action in Swat in March/April timeframe and asked for Nizam-e-Adl. At least, Zardari delayed signing the Nizam-e-Adl declaration. If the Americans want a civilian cover, and I don't think they are plainly bothered about seeking any such cover, they would be better off with Zardari.

Quite frankly the 3½ will likely treat India with more deference if there India is indeed doing something of significance in Balochistan. For once India will have shown some will and capability to respond to their munna's perfidy. When it comes to international relations you do not get any credit for being Angels; on the contrary you are likely to be stepped on.

You are right about realpolitik not recognizing Angels. That's why I cry myself hoarse that we have shown enough patience and time for action has long since passed. However, India has always placed faith in taking a 'high moral ground' thereby carrying personal traits in the practice of statecraft which is a thorough mistake. But, my whole point is if we are up to some mischief in Balochistan, which is perfectly legitimate, we don't need to say that openly. Deny any such attempt strenuously and nip attempts to link India with terrorism in the bud. The 3½ friends of Pakistan do not depend on India or Pakistan to find out what is happening in Balochistan. Or, if our unmentionables have suddenly grown, then let's be brazen about that from now on. Yes, we are doing this as a retribution for all the pain TSP has inflicted on us for 62 years. It appears to me we are undecided how to proceed. Besides, there are many ways to pass our threats of moral and diplomatic involvement in Balochistan to the powers that be in Pakistan and outside than what was attempted in Egypt which only implicated us in terror.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Jul 2009 08:30

RAW is involved with everything in Pakistan including impregnating Gilani's mother which resulted in the Pak PM

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Jul 2009 08:30

Someone please explain the logic of making sudden "admissions" of RAW activity in Pakistan? Why blame Manmohan Singh when this forum is not beyond scoring the very self goal that MMS is accused of scoring. I dont' suppose anyone on this forum is looking to please a Muslim vote bank as has ben suggested as a a reason for MMS accepting an Indian link top Baluchistan?

these are niether sudden, nor are they recent..anyone who follows intel literature has known this for many many years..The reference to Baluchistan in the recent joint statement is puzzling, but hardly anything that is "game breaking"...Musharraf singed up to "not supporting terrorists emenating from Pak" - what happened? Statecraft is not about pieces of papers that are signed (or not signed, as in the joint statement!

), it is about capabilities and intent..

I would take the Baloch thing further - we should admit "political, moral and diplomatic" support to the Baloch nationlaists and ask Pak to resolve the "core issue"....Make it a formal part of our interlocution - maybe directly with the ISI and Army chief!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Jul 2009 08:47

Gagan wrote:The pakistanis have always been methodical when pulling coups. Think this is an inborn genetic trait they have.
Here again, the law in pakistan is not bringing Mushy to justice, it is pulling a coup on him to bring him to justice.

The thing I am fascinated about is that pakjabi CJP builds political alliance with pakjabi political party to take on a Mohajir. Lets see if the army will still support Mushy.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 23 Jul 2009 08:56

NRao wrote:I have wondered if Pakistan was a RAW experiment that went horribly wrong.

RAW was formed in 1968, a full 20 years after "tribal lashkar" raided cashmere and another "lashkar" attacked us in 1965. The intricate steaming pile that is pakistan, is 400% pindigenous.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2009 09:06

somnath wrote: I would take the Baloch thing further - we should admit "political, moral and diplomatic" support to the Baloch nationlaists and ask Pak to resolve the "core issue"....Make it a formal part of our interlocution - maybe directly with the ISI and Army chief!

Somnath all this innovative and seemingly intelligent suggestions notwithstanding you seem to have missed out on a fundamental fact i.e. TALKS yield results where either/both of the party/parties are ready to compromise on their stand ; in Indo-Pak scenario I don't see India making any concessions on J&K ; so unless Pakistan gives up on J&K I don't see all this chai biskoot going anywhere regardless of Baloch issue .

Btw I read Sridhar sir's article on IWT and to be honest imho sharing the Indus water is gonna be another major issue where Pakistan would want to push India into one corner infact to me it appears its gonna become a major bone of contention between the two parties ..even bigger than J&K.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 09:09

Anujan wrote:The thing I am fascinated about is that pakjabi CJP builds political alliance with pakjabi political party to take on a Mohajir. Lets see if the army will still support Mushy.

The problem is that mushy has blue 'army' blood flowing through his veins, that is a much darker hue than a punjabi=punjabi blue color. Hence this carefully planned coup on him.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Jul 2009 09:14

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=189400
India's half-step to talks
Ass of Ezdi

Broadly, there are four main objectives which are indirectly tied to a resumption of the composite dialogue.

First, India is keen that the talks on Kashmir held through the back channel should be resumed from the point they had reached under the Musharraf regime. In these talks, the military dictator agreed to legitimise India's occupation of the state in all but name. India would now like Zardari to complete the sell-out of the Kashmir cause that Musharraf started.

Second, India would like that Pakistan acknowledge the role assigned to it in Afghanistan under Obama's AfPak policy. Obama has proposed a contact group on Afghanistan and Pakistan, with India as an important member. This arrangement, which would amount to recognition of India's hegemonic role in the region, has not yet been formalised because of Pakistan-India differences. India hopes that with a resumption of the bilateral dialogue with Pakistan, Pakistan would be more accommodating.

Third, India would like Pakistan to open the Wagah-Torkham transit route for Indian exports to Afghanistan. A transit-trade agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan is to be finalised by December and there is quiet but steady American pressure on Pakistan to open the Wagah route to India.

Fourth, India would like the liberalisation of trade, economic relations, travel and cultural exchanges with Pakistan in order to achieve the economic and cultural penetration of the country.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 09:16

wrt balochistan,
This is not another east pakistan.
East pakistan was hampered by a very poor logistic supply chain, where most of the arms and ammo and fuel was coming in from the west. This was completely at India's mercy from the day India became independant.

Balochistan's situation is just the opposite. Here india's logistical chain is non-existant to speak of for now, and there is no hope of improving it much either. Iran will not allow it beacuse of their concerns about their own baloch diaspora and the fact that balochistan will be a pro-US state. India has minimal presence in afghanistan. If we had actually deployed a huge armed force there, which we could have rapidly inducted into balochistan to back up an upswing in hostilities, we would have some hope.

Unfortunately, we are not even in a position to threaten an escalation there. The pakistanis know this, and are relatively assured on that account.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jul 2009 11:58

Iran could feel better if Baluchistan were to become a part of the Union of India, but not if it were to become independent, because that would only create secession in their own province of Balochistan-Sistan, and Iran would be wary of any American control of the new formed country as well.

As far as supply lines are concerned, those can to a large extent be secured from Afghanistan. Indian, Iranian & Russian weaponry can find their way into Baluch hands. Baluchistan's freedom from Pakistan will come out more in a background of a total breakdown of TSPA, under a steady onslaught from the Taliban, other Pushtun, South Pakjab Islamists, Karachi gangs, etc. There would be dissensions and desertions in the Army, under the strain of American subservience and Wahabbi propaganda by the Islamists and Taliban.

To secure Baluchistan, India would surely have to send troops over the sea, and that too in large quantities.

Important is to assure the Americans that they would have a secure access to Afghanistan and Central Asia over Baluchistan, and Indians would be willing to build the necessary infrastructure for that. No way is India going to get Baluchistan without American acquiescence, so that would have to be the payback.