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

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 22:59

archan wrote:
negi wrote: Sir I never saw similar request when the said group was making fun of so called group .So I thought game was on .
See, it was SSridhar sir who reported this harakiri and started with a strong criticism of the deed. Do you think anyone called him a whiner?

Repeat

Boss(es) before you censor negi for taking a mocking line towards some explanation, please also restrain N^3 from doing the same to perfectly reasonable arguments.

Equal equal standards onlee please, especially now that our world view so completely happens to magically coincide with that of the US.

-----

Negi Ji, I am cool that you are cool with N^3 (truth be told so I am) what I am not cool with is that when I think you (or any one else less blessed) does 1/N^3 of sarcasm in his/her post, the entire mod brigade comes knocking.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2009 23:00

negi wrote:
Archan maharaj I have never used phrases like "MMS is a traitor!!" "Impeach him" "He is on American payroll" "These people will sell Kashmir" ... and the like. (last time I called him 'napunsak' I was banned , I have stopped using any adjectives for PM since then).

I know you haven't (and I keep an eye on people whom I have warned in the past

), which why I ask you, why do you willingly club yourself in the category of

s and fight back when it is not necessary?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 23:02

Folks dont recognise friends when they see them and get unnecessarily comabtive. Look at all who got shaeed for nothing.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 22 Jul 2009 23:03

Detatching baluchistan from pakistan pays huge dividends for Unkil, both near term (supply lines to afghanistan) and long term (oil and pipelines to CAR). a rapid detachment may not be too difficult to engineer or even prevent. the pakjabis have lost the pashtun lands and are in turmoil in punjab and sindh. kashmir is already off the geostrategic agenda

the baluch will be very pro-unkil and happy to oblige unlike the ungreatful eye-rackis

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Jul 2009 23:03

Fearless Leader seems to have gone running to mummy.

‘ Sonia makes party line clear to Congress ’

Pallavi Ghosh, CNN-IBN’s Chief Political Reporter, reports that certain Congress leaders have been voicing their concern about the joint statement Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart issued in the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh after meeting at the fifteenth Non-Aligned Summit.

These Congress leaders believe the statement is weighted in Pakistan’s favour and may affect the party’s image, particularly during the Maharashtra Assembly elections.

Sonia concerned is about the party’s bland response to the joint statement and believes this may affect Prime Minister Singh’s image. Singh came out as a strong leader during the Lok Sabha elections when he challenged BJP leader L K Advani’s attack on him.

Sonia wants that image of the Prime Minister to be kept intact and has asked the party to back the Government on policy issues. The Congress appears to be defensive on another foreign policy issue, too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:04

ramana wrote:Folks dont recognise friends when they see them and get unnecessarily comabtive. Look at all who got shaeed for nothing.

So if the mods have been Shaadeing a lot of folks for nothing, shouldnt they revisit their predator algo? Specially when some real trolls are all around?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Jul 2009 23:05

Lalmohan wrote:Detatching baluchistan from pakistan pays huge dividends for Unkil, both near term (supply lines to afghanistan) and long term (oil and pipelines to CAR). a rapid detachment may not be too difficult to engineer or even prevent. the pakjabis have lost the pashtun lands and are in turmoil in punjab and sindh. kashmir is already off the geostrategic agenda

the baluch will be very pro-unkil and happy to oblige unlike the ungreatful eye-rackis

or the equally ungrateful bangladeshis vis-a-vis India!

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2009 23:06

Like archan just did

I would like to drop a thought however raw....perhaps Pak wants to drop Kashmir from the core issue (with uncle pressing hard) and make Baluch the core issue for now with regard to future talks with India instead. Something to hold the other end of bargaining table before the next incident like Mumbai. Everyone and his aunty knows India's positions with respect to J&K is not going to change.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Jul 2009 23:08

Sanku ji I would have no problem letting sarcasm pass once in a while. I only cautioned him when he was doing it again and again, post after post. Part of my job is to preemptively avoid unnecessary arguments on hot threads like these. When there is so much good stuff to discuss on this topic, why keep repeating sarcastic remarks that only increase the noise level. I know n^3 uses sarcasm in his posts, but he does not overdo it.
If you find this intervention intolerable then I will back off and you guys continue mocking the "other party" until their postors return the favors and we can have a nice match of wit and sarcasm and the whole thread commits hara-kiri.
Anyway my point to negi was, he is himself bracketing himself in the whiner brigade when no one has called him that and returning fire. Why I gave SSridhar's example was that he is one of the strongest critics of GoI on this issue but he does it in a way that does not make it a whine.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 23:15

X-Posted....
....

RaviBg wrote:Gilani-Zardari rift: Upset Gilani may axe Rehman Malik

...
Gilani is upset with several key aides of the President, including Malik, for bypassing him and other members of the ministry, media reports said here.

...
...

Gilani, the reports said, is "now in an aggressive mood" and "very confident after emerging victorious from Sharm el-Sheikh".

Gilani earned praise here for bringing up the issue of alleged "Indian interference" in the restive Balochistan province during his July 16 meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Sharm el-Sheikh.

So the unintended consequence of S-e-S 'drafting error' is it has started a cat fight among the pigeons! What did Chanakya say about enemies defeating themselves?

......

I know. I did say it was uninteded.

BTW, Mrs SG should have told her minions to not

earlier before they started

ing.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:20

archan wrote: I know n^3 uses sarcasm in his posts, but he does not overdo it.

Well Sir that gets into a little grey area.

If you find this intervention intolerable then I will back off and you guys continue mocking the "other party" until their postors .

No Sir the the request is to nip it at the source, the source.

I am sure you/other mods understand what I am trying to say.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2009 23:27

Even after 21 pages of this thread, I can't think (and accept) of a single half decent reason about what MMS and his gang did in Egypt. The whole thing just looks so stupid and suicidal that it's hard to beleive that it actually happened........

Hope remadial measures will be taken and the damage contained and eventually repaired in due course.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 23:27

Ramana saar what bearing has turbulence in puppet cabinet in TSP on Indo-Pak relations and situation on ground zero ? It is the IA-ISI nexus which calls the shots .

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 23:38

I take a day off to do some work - and to read this thread one would think it is I who am supporting (morally and diplomatically of course) the Balochistani Independence Movement.

And at the core of the Offended Brigade is of course, dear Sanku.

Sankuji, I did see your post (many riots ago, now, but on this thread) calling my reasoning something like "contextually flexible" - and you credited me with learning that from the US Govt or someone like that - it also had to with something about the dedicated postors like yourself being assigned "labels". Thanks, thanks, but let me pick up on that and explain something.

Many postors (incl me for sure), cannot be predicted. IOW, neither you or anyone else can predict, in a given news situation, what my opinion would be. Some usual guesses can be made, and I hope these include:
1. If India is being attacked by some writer, I will usually find some reason to diss that writer. True, true, one should focus on the CONTENT and not the PERSONALITY, but I do that when I write professionally, and am afraid of people hitting me back. Here, I am not writing professionally (I am SURE you won't disagree) and I don't care a whole lot who "hits back".

2. If most postors are jumping up and down on the same theme, I will try to find a reason to ask some question that flies in the face of their "logic". Just to watch the fun, of course.

3. If there are Pakis involved, I will try to make sure that the situation is turned, twisted, guided, kicked, whatever, into their faces. Which as you know are located behind them.

But OTHERWISE, you cannot predict my reaction, for a very simple reason: I DON'T KNOW IT MYSELF.

The same holds, I believe, for many others here.

So you are absolutely right. My logic and opinion depends on the context. I don't come in with preconceived notions. I am just not smart enough to know beforehand, what the real answer is.
*********************

Now compare that to somelike like,...... whom shall I cite???? ..... YOU!!!!

I would not say that you post often. You are very selective about where and when you will let us see your opinion. As a true wise man, you hold your own (counsel, I mean) closely, until you see that there is an issue where you must comment.

BUT... I can PREDICT what those will be:
1. If it makes the Govt. of India look bad, you will be there,

and

more.
2. If it makes the Congress (I) party look bad, you will be there, likewise.

The theme is very very predictable. It can be summarized as (see above).
And I give you the highest possible marks for persistence. Unlimited reservoir of energy.
And you will keep coming back to the same line of (see above) regardless of how many facts and arguments have been advanced that (to lesser people of course) appear to have completely demolished the reason for the

And so, in recognition of these wonderful, reliable-as-clockwork, repeatable, periodic and unidirectional qualities, I have in the past used the term "Energizer Bunny" to describe people who exhibit these qualities.

Totally complimentary. NOTHING disrespectful. If you watch the Energizer Bunny commercial (many times), the following qualities stick in your mind:
1. Keeps on going.
2. Unlimited energy.
3. Makes a lot of noise. (POWER)
4. Goes around in a very regular circle.
5. Beats the same drum.

So, please, don't take me wrong. Its a highly complimentary description. Two words that mean so much, ALL POSITIVE.

Now, unfortunately, I won't be checking the web for another couple of days, and I strongly suspect that this thread is on its way to Houristan. R.I.P., thread.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Jul 2009 23:45

Katare wrote:Even after 21 pages of this thread, I can't think (and accept) of a single half decent reason about what MMS and his gang did in Egypt. The whole thing just looks so stupid and suicidal that it's hard to beleive that it actually happened........

Hope remadial measures will be taken and the damage contained and eventually repaired in due course.

And that too after MMS spoke elegantly and tough to 10% a few weeks earlier. Who can take India's tough talk seriously after such comical tergiversation (guys/gals, those preparing for GRE/GMAT/CAT etc; look this word up

)?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:46

Something has hit home eh N?

I must have said something right.

Meanwhile please check my posts, on Arjun thread as well as on the EVM thread and see how your algorithm breaks down on assumption about my stand on GoI (will always accuse)

-----

Meanwhile yes its no secret that I will post if I see MMS leading us to (yet another) harakiri.

Since I have already said it more than once that I think that one individual is ******* who happened to become Indian PM I have no love lost for him, I am surprise that you have to deduce it. Wow!!

I have said this before and I said it now, there is a difference between condemning the individual Mr Singh, and the position of PM of India.

I thought we were over the "Indira is India" syndrome, evidently not.

(I am a great fan of PVNR, was he congressman or not? I cant ever be sure, perhaps BJD, since I hate congress so much)

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

Meanwhile surely you can distinguish between "context sensitive rules for logic" and context sensitive logic?

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

PPS> To my limited mind, the forum cant be a place for both a joke board where just for fun, comments are made as well as serious place. Mods will have to chose one or the other.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 23 Jul 2009 00:02

Katare wrote:Even after 21 pages of this thread, I can't think (and accept) of a single half decent reason about what MMS and his gang did in Egypt. The whole thing just looks so stupid and suicidal that it's hard to beleive that it actually happened........

Hope remadial measures will be taken and the damage contained and eventually repaired in due course.

It happened, it happens all the time, in the administrative machinery. These guys (most of them most of the time) are out of touch and they don't have any conviction in what they are doing. They are capable of smarts and brilliance but it is to no avail when they don't have the emotional drive to defend the people of India. When the heart is not in it, even smart people will make utterly stupid and inept choices.

Luckily for us, our enemies, while they are passionate about their cause, they are (a) not very smart for the most part and (b) out of touch with how anachronistic their values and goals are, and how limited their scope of movement is in today's real world. That accounts for their ineptness.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 23 Jul 2009 00:12

Please see link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/world ... 1&ref=asia

"Pakistan is objecting to expanded American combat operations in neighboring Afghanistan, creating new fissures in the alliance with Washington at a critical juncture when thousands of new American forces are arriving in the region.

Pakistani officials have told the Obama administration that the Marines fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan will force militants across the border into Pakistan, with the potential to further inflame the troubled province of Baluchistan, according to Pakistani intelligence officials.

Pakistan does not have enough troops to deploy to Baluchistan to take on the Taliban without denuding its border with its archenemy, India, the officials said. Dialogue with the Taliban, not more fighting, is in Pakistan’s national interest, they said."

The objective of the joint statement was to make sure that the jihadis wearing Pak Army uniforms keep killing their brothers and cousins and other animal forms in the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 00:19

Shivashankar Menon says "The joint statement has just mentioned the list of issues raised during their discussions, he said, adding a new twist that the joint statement was not a signed document."

‘ -Shariq's emotional outburst -Why talk to Pak on Kashmir? ’

Menon clarified that discussion on Kashmir with Pakistan was aimed to just improve the lives of people and ending terrorism and infiltrations from across the Line of Control (LoC).

"There was no question on debating the territorial status or the history of Kashmir with Pakistan. There is attempt by Pakistan to drag us into that. But we firmly believe that state of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India like any other state," said Menon when Shariq wanted to know why Kashmir figures in discussions with Islamabad.

Foreign Secretary said no government in India would have mandate ever to change borders. "What we are discussing with Pakistan is that part of our territory is under their occupation and to make LoC more fluid to make live of people better," he maintained.

Clarifying on the joint statement issued by both countries at the Egyptian city of Sharm-el-Sheikh, Foreign Secretary said, "though India has agreed to talk to Pakistan but would not discuss anything except terrorism. Our single issue with Pakistan is terrorism. We demand perpetrators of terrorist crimes be brought to justice and to end infrastructure of terrorism on their soil," he said.

On including Balochistan in the joint statement, Menon said, "Pakistan had been off and on raising the issue of Indias involvement. Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani raised the issue during his talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh." The joint statement has just mentioned the list of issues raised during their discussions, he said, adding a new twist that the joint statement was not a signed document.
Foreign Secretary told MPs that talks with Pakistan were not a 20-20 over cricket match, where one lofts for sixes or fours. He said, "India's attempts to bring back terrorism as a fundamental issue have succeeded. They tried to divert attentions focused on resumption of composite dialogue process as if nothing had happened to do business as usual." He added that India had told them (Pakistan) firmly that there no question of talking on any other issue or staring composite dialogue process unless they take credible actions against terrorism.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jul 2009 00:21

chetak wrote:Shivashankar Menon says "that the joint statement was not a signed document"

Thats correct, thumbprints onlee, with blood for ink.

Sahi hai....

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 00:27

Sanku wrote:
chetak wrote:Shivashankar Menon says "that the joint statement was not a signed document"
Thats correct, thumbprints onlee, with blood for ink.

Sahi hai....

Sanku,

I agree with you 100% onlee about our Fearless Leader.

But all may not be lost....

In the next meeting we may wish to raise the issue of jinnah's ugly hand in MKG's murder. It has to be recorded, no?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 00:38

From GP in Pioneer, 23 July 2009

EDITS | Thursday, July 23, 2009 | Email | Print |

A Sharm-less surrender

G Parthasarathy

On July 12, Indian security forces in Jammu & Kashmir captured two well-armed Pakistani terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Mohammed Adnan and Mohammed Shafkat, hailing from Sahiwal district of Pakistani Punjab, who had infiltrated across the Line of Control. The captured terrorists revealed that they belonged to a group of 15 militants who had been trained in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to attack the Baglihar dam in Jammu & Kashmir. They also revealed that a secret tunnel was being built near the border town of Sialkot for infiltration into India across the international border. Three days later, Mr Richard Barrett, the coordinator of the UN Security Council’s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee warned that there was a “real risk” that the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba would target India again.

In these circumstances it has not only been necessary, but essential to make it clear to Pakistan and the international community, more so after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist outrage, that there cannot be “business as usual” with Pakistan, unless Islamabad provides a categorical assurance that it will not allow territory under its control to be used for terrorism against India and that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan will be dismantled. Barely a month ago when Mr Manmohan Singh met Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg the normally soft spoken Prime Minister bluntly told him: “My mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India.” But recent developments show that the Prime Minister’s warning has gone unheeded as the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan remains alive and kicking.

The Vajpayee-Musharraf Declaration of January 6, 2004 makes it clear that India agreed to resume the ‘composite dialogue process’ with Pakistan only after a categorical assurance from Gen Musharraf that “territory under Pakistan’s control” would not be used for terrorism against India. There has thus been a direct link between Pakistan dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism and India agreeing to continue the composite dialogue. Despite this, the joint statement issued after Mr Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met in Sharm el-Sheikh astonishingly notes: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” Any number of statements or any amount of sophistry that this does not constitute an assurance that we will continue dialogue irrespective of whether or not the infrastructure of terrorism is dismantled will be laughed at by anyone who understands the basics of diplomacy, or even has a rudimentary understanding of the English language.

This provision will haunt us when the next major terrorist attack hits us. Pakistan will deny its citizens were involved and insist that we continue with dialogue. Let us not forget that there were two main reasons why some progress was made after the Mumbai outrage. The first was the capture of Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab. Even though Pakistan denied for over a month that Kasab was a Pakistani national, it was compelled to ultimately climb down in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Moreover, as American, British and Israeli nationals were killed in Mumbai, unprecedented international assistance was forthcoming for the investigations and for pressure on Pakistan. It would, however be naïve to believe that any of the accused now under arrest will be punished. Pakistan is yet to complete the trial process of Omar Syed Sheikh, convicted of brutally murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2001. People like Omar Syed Sheikh, AQ Khan, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed or Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi cannot be punished because they will spill the beans on the involvement of Pakistan’s military establishment in terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s comments suggest that he at least recognises this reality.

Pakistan has been trying to counter growing international support for India’s accusations that the ISI has been sponsoring terrorism against India, by alleging that India is sponsoring terrorism in Baluchistan and even aiding pro-Taliban forces in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province. Given the presence of nearly 100,000 American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, any action by India that complicates the Nato mission would have invited American wrath and even retribution. The Americans have ignored and, by implication, rejected Pakistan’s baseless claims of Indian interference. But the statement issued in Sharm el-Sheikh asserts: “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and elsewhere” — a signal to the whole world that Mr Gilani told Mr Singh that India was meddling in Baluchistan and the NWFP. Pakistan will use the fact that India did not deny Mr Gilani’s assertion in the joint statement as Indian acceptance of baseless Pakistani allegations. This is the most disastrous feature of the fiasco at Sharm el-Sheikh.

Assertions by Mr Singh that India and Pakistan are both equally “victims” of terrorism, that they share a “common destiny”, or that a rising India cannot assert its rightful place in the comity of nations without good relations with Pakistan, are factually incorrect and undermine Indian diplomacy. A democratic, secular India cannot share a “common destiny” with a theocratic, feudal and military-dominated Pakistan, which is being challenged by terrorists the ISI backed to ‘bleed’ India and seek ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. India, on the other hand has been a victim of the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. Equating the two countries, as we have done in Sharm el-Sheikh, is ill-advised. India’s economic growth has accelerated and its international profile has flourished by its partnership with the international community in forums like the G-8 and G-20, despite Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and diplomatic hostility. We can ‘rise’ in the world with or without Pakistan’s cooperation. The more we suggest that we need Pakistan’s meherbani to accelerate economic growth, or rise in world affairs, the more those who cannot countenance India’s rise in the world within Pakistan’s establishment will continue to ‘bleed’ us.

There are serious differences between Mr Zardari, who has genuinely sought accommodation and cooperation with India, and Mr Gilani, who rose in politics with the support of Gen Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. Mr Gilani echoes the hardline approach of Pakistan’s military establishment. How then are India’s national interests served by embarrassing Mr Zardari in Yekaterinburg and appeasing Mr Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 00:52

ramana wrote:From GP in Pioneer, 23 July 2009

No need to quote the entire post for your comments. ramana

A great pity that someone like GP has little say in the obviously foreign policy challenged mms government.

As always, he is firmly in the Indian corner and makes eminent sense in all that he writes and speaks.

As usual, no sign of hide nor hair of that master spymaster, the NSA.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 00:59

csharma wrote:One reason why MMS would have done this is to give the Americans what they wanted on Pakistan because otherwise Hillary's visit might have been dominated by Pakistan talks etc. He probably wanted that out of the way and talk to US on things that are of importance between India and US. Sort of treating Pakistan as a nuisance.

The same logic was used by India under the NDA govt in 2004 when they resumed talks with Pakistan.

The only problem is that the joint statement gave away too much. The fact that MMS met Gilani is itself a concession. Explicitly delinking talks with terror was not a wise thing to do. The other problem is India giving in to US pressure on making concessions to Pakistan.

While Pakistan is indeed a nuisance, when Indian lives are concerned GOI cannot take it lightly.

It also takes away the flashpoint hungama of the US. And when one is willing to do something anyway why not give the apearance of giving in?

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 23 Jul 2009 01:08

ramana wrote:From GP in Pioneer, 23 July 2009

... embarrassing Mr Zardari in Yekaterinburg and appeasing Mr Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh?

This was a heavy burden on our PM's mind in Sharm-el-Sheikh. PM MMS did not want a part deux of the Yaketerinburg controversy which culminated in the last instance with him having to say "sorry" to "Zardari Sahib". Hence the urge to issue a joint statement and a bit more leeway to accomodate Pakistan's point of view so they can go home and soothe their ego. Oops!

All this reminds me that somebody in the TSP thread did comment on the body language of MMS vs. Gilani a few days ago and we called Gilani names and MMS was Chanakya... Oops again!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 01:08

ramana wrote:
csharma wrote:One reason why MMS would have done this is to give the Americans what they wanted on Pakistan because otherwise Hillary's visit might have been dominated by Pakistan talks etc. He probably wanted that out of the way and talk to US on things that are of importance between India and US. Sort of treating Pakistan as a nuisance.

The same logic was used by India under the NDA govt in 2004 when they resumed talks with Pakistan.

The only problem is that the joint statement gave away too much. The fact that MMS met Gilani is itself a concession. Explicitly delinking talks with terror was not a wise thing to do. The other problem is India giving in to US pressure on making concessions to Pakistan.

While Pakistan is indeed a nuisance, when Indian lives are concerned GOI cannot take it lightly.
It also takes away the flashpoint hungama of the US. And when one is willing to do something anyway why not give the apearance of giving in?

Boss,

You are all trying very hard to justify a huge blunder by an inexperienced PM.

PPJ is no way to secure our country. Hard headed realism is the way to go.

We have a billion examples of porki perfidy for over sixty years.
Can we not learn from all that or is every PM trying to reinvent the wheel?

Are the amrekis dangling the very same nobel peace prize that they tried to entice Vajpayee with?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 01:13

ramana garu,

May one ask, just what did you edit?

A great pity that someone like GP has little say in the obviously foreign policy challenged mms government.

As always, he is firmly in the Indian corner and makes eminent sense in all that he writes and speaks.

As usual, no sign of hide nor hair of that master spymaster, the NSA.

Last edited by ramana on 22 Jul 2009, 19:25, edited 1 time in total.
Edited. ramana

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 01:58

MMS was chankiyan alright.
In pakistan, India's kiss is akin to the kiss of death. Therefore,

India likes Zardari, therefore MMS publicly rebukes him => Zardari's shares go up
India dislikes Geelani, therefore MMS does puppi-jhuppi with him => Geelani's shares go down.

But from the looks of things happening, this move fell on its face.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jul 2009 02:13

Could somebody elaborate on the difference between a signed Joint Statement and an unsigned one!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 02:16

RajeshA wrote:Could somebody elaborate on the difference between a signed Joint Statement and an unsigned one!

No ownership?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 02:32

Chetak,
these articles are four days old, they have already been posted and discussed.

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 23 Jul 2009 02:34

chetak wrote:‘ -With an adaab,PM capitulates ’

That Manmohan chose to greet the Pakistani officials with an adaab is revealing. It suggested a mindset centred on supplication which translated politically means a desperate desire to accommodate and please.

Lousy logic.

But yes, PM MMS does seem to be the type of person that will avoid a fight at all costs and would go out of his way and beyond the call of duty to "help" others. MMS is a nice man. But the problem is that he is too nice a man to be an effective PM when confrontation is the need of the hour.

Adaab everyone!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 02:43

And he is not answerable to the people of india, only to madam.
Which is why he has gone into hiding and not a peep coming out of him. Any other elected PM would have gone into damage control, all guns ablaze.

Come to think of it an elected PM would have the sagacity, the body language, the shrewdness to not make a blunder like this.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jul 2009 02:48

ramana wrote:So its the South Indians again! Instead of saar you should have said ayya!

It is the second time I notice your dislike of the word 'Saar'. I know ayya is more Indic; but the tamilians with their own accent have made 'Sir' almost as Indic as possible in the word 'Saar'. I would say the word 'saaar' is very tamilian onlee. Sorry for the OT.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 02:52

SwamyG wrote:
ramana wrote:So its the South Indians again! Instead of saar you should have said ayya!
It is the second time I notice your dislike of the word 'Saar'. I know ayya is more Indic; but the tamilians with their own accent have made 'Sir' almost as Indic as possible in the word 'Saar'. I would say the word 'saaar' is very tamilian onlee. Sorry for the OT.

Sir, saar, saaru, is a colonial connatation.

I dont mind other Indic forms when among Indics. Of these saheb and saab are less desirable but ok I guess.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 23 Jul 2009 02:55

A humble suggestion: why dont we at BRF organize a signature campaign condemning the hara-kiri, expressing solidarity with the Mumbai victims (for whom this must feel like insult added to injury) and ask the Hon. PM to explain his actions?

If I am reading this right, the majority in this forum think that this is a sell-out. And this forum has served one of its purposes IMO, which is to act as a pressure relief for how pissed off many of us feel. Why not take this to the next level?

Would such a signature campaign make a notice'able difference: doubtful. But if we dont express our anger, we will see more such sell-outs.

There is so much passion amongst the posters here - why not channelize it?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 02:57

He is supposed to reply in Lok Sabha on 23rd July 2009.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 23 Jul 2009 02:59

Prem Kumar wrote:A humble suggestion: why dont we at BRF organize a signature campaign condemning the hara-kiri, expressing solidarity with the Mumbai victims (for whom this must feel like insult added to injury) and ask the Hon. PM to explain his actions?

If I am reading this right, the majority in this forum think that this is a sell-out. And this forum has served one of its purposes IMO, which is to act as a pressure relief for how pissed off many of us feel. Why not take this to the next level?

Would such a signature campaign make a notice'able difference: doubtful. But if we dont express our anger, we will see more such sell-outs.

There is so much passion amongst the posters here - why not channelize it?

Unless one cannot get major newspapers on your side, it amounts to zilch. Signing those online petitions without a major media house backing you, is simply waste of one's time.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 23 Jul 2009 03:43

Ravi_ku & Ramana: thanks for the feedback. Following your comments, I did a bit of googling about the effectiveness of online petitions & the consensus seems to be that its largely ineffective. I also a learnt a new word to describe it – slacktivism!!

So, back to square one.

The bigger question is this: do we Bharat-Rakshaks, want to do more than discuss topics like this in a forum? Do we want to be a bit more “activist”? The “buying quick clot kits” was a good example of activism. Should we do more of it?

If the answer is “yes”, then we can start brainstorming ideas

Thoughts?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jul 2009 03:58

Sonia takes stock of Pak, US tangles

...
Sources said the Congress had two main concerns. One, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon’s admission that the joint statement was “badly” drafted. Menon was present in Sharm-al-Sheikh, where the statement was signed, as a key member of Singh’s team. “If he admits to something like this, it means the ruling establishment was not on the same page,” a source said.

Sources said the draft cleared by the cabinet committee on security bore no resemblance to the final version.
...

..
Others say Singh has acquired enough political savvy to know that as long as he has Sonia and Rahul Gandhi on his side, the Congress would fall in line. “There is no way he would have signed the joint statement without briefing and consulting Sonia and Rahul,” a source said.

Also, just as the nuclear deal had no negative fallout — it did not alienate the Muslims and, instead, won over pro-BJP urban votes — sources said the political ramifications from the US and Pakistan pacts should be seen in the “correct” perspective.

“We are not worried about the impact of the Pakistan statement on the Maharashtra polls, not even in Mumbai. The paradigm will be very local. It will be about bijli, sadak and paani and dal-roti issues,” said Nationalist Congress Party leader and civil aviation minister Praful Patel, who is from Maharashtra.