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

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Jul 2009 09:52

Forced out?

I don't think so.

He was not forced out after the Havana Joint Statement which had many issue common to the Sharm al Sheik Jt Statement.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 10:07

Thought I'd bring in a different tune after 23 pages of this thread.
Question: How many people know where Sharm-el-sheikh is in egypt?
At the tip of the red sea.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jul 2009 10:09

More pictures: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... &oq=sharm+

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 10:13

Quite a resort.
The whole city's coastline has been landscaped it seems. The egyptians are seriously into tourism.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 23 Jul 2009 10:18

The current excuse for joint statement is that MMS screwed up. Plus, a former Indian President gets frisked at an Indian Airport and that news is revealed only after 3 months? Shouldn't there have be a governing mechanism setup already to deal with such things (both the joint statement and the frisking episode) immediately?

Apparently, this government is sleeping and indulging in idle useless chit chat when they are awake as opposed to giving some semblance of governance to the country.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Jul 2009 10:18

>>Question: How many people know where Sharm-el-sheikh is in egypt?
I did not even know such a place existed. I think it was some creative juices of BRFite guru to use Urdu/Hindi word "Sharm" {shame} and make a word play out of it. Because the first few pages kind of alluded it as "India's Shame.....". As I began to dig some background material, I realized in horror that it was really a place.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Jul 2009 10:19

Raja Ram wrote:I am one of the few who found that Rahul Mehta had a point. He used to make a 3 axiom statement.

1. There is a God
2. No matter what, one cannot do without a Microsoft Product
3. Finally, everyone will have to agree with Rahul Mehta (replace that last one with me )

I had posted that this thread should be locked as otherwise perfectly normal gentlemen will start nasty sniping. Look at this this thread now. Even moderators have joined in. Suprising show of selective neutrality to boot. Some of the great contributors (names shall not be taken of such Dark Lords) can do their mocking bit and personal put downs, because that is their style, and in the eyes of some of the moderators is well within limits, hey this board is fun onlee, and last of all they means it all in a positive sense with no intended insult.

For the lesser mortals, even a slightly critical tone on the great leader, strong PM, distinguished economist is like a red rag that attracts instant censure and public warning.

But for the lesser mortals, I do have a message, do not get provoked, play by the rules, however flawed its implementation may be and we can still make a point. See I have used all positive adjectives to describe our wonderfully talented great, dear, strong leader and yet managed to diss him for what he did, and not him personally. If you react to the personal insults you are falling into a trap, just keep it at the realm of ideas and take them (the rediculers) down. When someone neutral reads this thread, it will be pretty obvious who ran out of ideas and resorted to mere taunts and tangential potshots.

To the moderators, noting personal, but it pays to heed some old postors here, even if they are not high profile. Sometimes we can be right too. This thread should have been locked. Now even great shiv is reduced to making posts comparing feacal matter of the congress and non-congress variety. Was this necessary?

These are very valid points. Some moderators are posting in such a way that one is compelled to ignore their posts.
It would be good if the same standards that apply to normal posters is also applied to moderators and exalted contributors.

While it is ok to be supporters of MMS, there is no need to call anyone who is criticising the joint statement a whiner or what not. As long as the criticism is civil, it should be tolerated without attempts to smear the people who are criticising the GoI or MMS. Moderators do not have to be bullies.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2009 10:24

sum wrote:It’s a sellout -- Satish Chandra

One more in the long list of those who see the light.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2009 10:27

Gagan wrote:Question: How many people know where Sharm-el-sheikh is in Egypt?

Not many Egyptians know about that place and also Hurghuda. More popular among tourists who throng there for scuba diving.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 10:28

Sridhar-ji,
Unfortunately this seeing the light won't last long. Many of these people who are critical of india's stand today will be back to their WKK ways when this thing blows over.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2009 10:29

MMS has just done the big sellout -- the Great Indian Auction and Firesale.

Kaangress can always be counted on protect its own interests, even while undermining the very nation it uses as its matress.

It's a pity that the establishment drones will follow like lemmings running off a cliff.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 23 Jul 2009 10:29

Gagan wrote:Or, there is a possibility that MMS has really stepped out of line this time around. His first ever departure from the well laid out script.
The entire media is acting on cue here, these were mostly the same news outlets who were spewing = = till recently. It seems there is a band master who is coordinating the media's tune.

All this does not sound good for MMS.

This sounds like the beginning of the first ever serious request for the prince to take over.

This seems like a well rehearsed drama. MMS apart from this goof up would definitely commit a couple of other mistakes in the coming months and i think the new year would see the murmurs growing louder and calls for someone young to replace the ageing MMS would be heeded to after the budget in time for the crucial assembly elections coming up. MMS already has goofed up in the sharamdaan summit and in the EUMA.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Jul 2009 10:35

For MMS and the Cong govt, the surrender might provide some temporary reprieve with US being happy with them but politically it can be costly in two ways. First of all the U turn is something that may not go down well with the electorate.

Secondly, with Pakistan emboldened and sure that there will be no Indian military or diplomatic retribution, will definitely launch more terror attacks in India. At that time, MMS and the govt will look like fools and that will be politically very damaging. Congress should move in to fix this or pray that there are no terror attacks for the next five years.

But I am glad that people in the Congress itself are not buying this. That itself shows there is some hope left.

The first thing Congress can do is have a real foreign minister, somebody like Pranab or Antony. That way PMO influence on foreign ministry would come down. Maybe American are going to veto that.

This whole episode raises very valid questions: What is this strategic relationship with the US? What does it mean and what is it buying for India. Can India be in strategic relationship with US and yet have an independent foreign policy? Does India think that it is absolutely essential to have this strategic relationship with US in order to counter China? Is India willing to be a junior partner in achieving the goal?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2009 10:35

Heh, well we all know which young one will be recommended, I'm sure.

Let's just re-name the country: NehruGandhi-stan

It's their property, and we're just serfs to cultivate the soil for them.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 10:36

Arright,
Now that the sell out has been done, and the likely implications discussed. The point is, where do we go from here?
1. Do we back track and say, 'what MMS said was not what he really meant, there will be no dialogue until there is 'progress' (The word progress is a sham, it should be 'the guilty are punished') made on the terrorism issue.
2. We still have to wean pakistan from its habit of exporting terrorism into india.
3. We have to do more for the people of balochistan.

At the end of this entire episode, there is still a pakistan that has to be dealt with.
Now the pakistanis have propped up their ISI chief, who seems to be eager to begin a 'strategic dialogue' with india. Is this as a direct result of S-E-S or was this planned earlier?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jul 2009 10:38

csharma wrote:For MMS and the Cong govt, the surrender might provide some temporary reprieve with US being happy with them but politically it can be costly in two ways. First of all the U turn is something that may not go down well with the electorate.

Secondly, with Pakistan emboldened and sure that there will be no Indian military or diplomatic retribution, will definitely launch more terror attacks in India. At that time, MMS and the govt will look like fools and that will be politically very damaging. Congress should move in to fix this or pray that there are no terror attacks for the next five years.

But I am glad that people in the Congress itself are not buying this. That itself shows there is some hope left.

The first thing Congress can do is have a real foreign minister, somebody like Pranab or Antony. That way PMO influence on foreign ministry would come down. Maybe American are going to veto that.

This whole episode raises very valid questions: What is this strategic relationship with the US? What does it mean and what is it buying for India. Can India be in strategic relationship with US and yet have an independent foreign policy? Does India think that it is absolutely essential to have this strategic relationship with US in order to counter China? Is India willing to be a junior partner in achieving the goal?

They're not buying anything for India, they're buying whatever they can for themselves. They'll get a nice LDP one-party system for themselves, able to buy anything and everything to marginalize the opposition. What they're buying is perpetual privilege - for themselves, not for the rest of us.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 23 Jul 2009 10:40

Where is mullah khyber durrani, why is he silent?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 10:50

Gagan wrote:Arright,
Now that the sell out has been done, and the likely implications discussed. The point is, where do we go from here?
1. Do we back track and say, 'what MMS said was not what he really meant, there will be no dialogue until there is 'progress' (The word progress is a sham, it should be 'the guilty are punished') made on the terrorism issue.
2. We still have to wean pakistan from its habit of exporting terrorism into india.
3. We have to do more for the people of balochistan.

At the end of this entire episode, there is still a pakistan that has to be dealt with.
Now the pakistanis have propped up their ISI chief, who seems to be eager to begin a 'strategic dialogue' with india. Is this as a direct result of S-E-S or was this planned earlier?

Well the news report said he had that chat with the embassy attaches on July 3rd which makes it earlier to the summit held on July 16th.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 10:56

Who else does he want to talk to? He's already spoken to the attaches there. Surely they know that protocol will come in the way of what they want.
The most that they will get, is an indian special representative dedicated to talk to them.

But I feel that this was something that was needed for a long time. India needs to have a dialogue going both with the current democratic government and the permanent government in pakistan.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 23 Jul 2009 11:05

Manasvi wrote:Jis Desh Ka Raja Vyapari (Vaypari=Economist?) wo Desh Ki Praja Bechari

vyapari = business man

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Jul 2009 11:06

Aur jis desh ka raja dus percenti us desh ka kya?

Aur jis desh ka raja wakeel us desh ka kya?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 23 Jul 2009 11:09

David Milliband's visit earlier in the year clearly showed that the US and UK were upto. What happened in Egypt is the result of the stance of US/UK.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 23 Jul 2009 11:10

Iam trying to be optimist and keep saying to myself that the night is darkest before sunlight. But the next moment a horrible thought strikes me , may this is still not the darkest and the darkest of the night is may be yet to come

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Jul 2009 11:52

I am not here to say who is right or wrong.

But this thread is becoming unmanageable.

Can we calm down?

Can we not use more temperate language?

Or else should we close it?

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 23 Jul 2009 12:11

arun wrote:DNA alleges that our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh exceeded his brief:

Manmohan did his own thing in talks with Pakistan

Arati R Jerath & Javed M Ansari / DNA
Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:00 IST

New Delhi: Prime minister Manmohan Singh appears to have gone beyond his brief when he turned India's Pakistan policy on its head by agreeing to two controversial clauses in the Indo-Pak joint statement issued at Sharm el-Sheikh last week. ………..................

Before the prime minister left for Sharm el-Sheikh on July 13, the cabinet committee on security (CCS) discussed his forthcoming meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani. The CCS approved the draft of a possible joint statement which the prime minister carried with him. There was no mention of the B-word or any endorsement of the delinking that crept into the final statement.....................

DNA

Just an observation.

The particular writer , i have been following for long, gives the going ons in Dilli close to das janpath.
Sometimes a bit sycophnant, sometime humourous and sometimes rabidly anti Bhajpa.
Usually she is supposed to be close to das janpath.

IIRC, after rahul gandhi's press con fiasco , she was the first to write about Moily departure.
Now she has turned overtly sarcastic towards the Prime Minister.
With this article, she gives out the message that party wants to give out...

Another article from the same writer : http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_ ... kh_1275250

The PR fiasco at Sharm el-Sheikh didn't sour the mood in the first-class cabin of the PM's plane. As the PM and his team winged their way back to India, national security adviser MK Narayanan threw an impromptu farewell party in mid-air for outgoing foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon.

They popped bottles of champagne, cut a cake, and showered him with good wishes for the future. The NAM summit in Egypt was Menon's last foreign trip with the PM. He retires on July 31 and his successor, Nirupama Rao, will be arriving shortly for a brief overlap period to prepare for the challenges ahead.

But even as Menon gets ready for retirement, speculation refuses to die that he may be accommodated in some capacity in the prime minister's office after a suitable cooling-off period.

Nirupama Rao's tenure could be worthwhile to be extended.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Jul 2009 12:40

Makes interesting reading.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 23 Jul 2009 13:08

RayC wrote:Makes interesting reading.

Praveen Swami is spinning for the Congress. There is no way India can officially endorse Baloch freedom struggle. This is because (i) Balochistan is not a disputed territory between India and Pakistan and India has no locus standi in the issue, (ii) Baloch insurgency is an internal matter of Pakistan and (iii) it will make India vulnerable to charges of promoting international terrorism in other countries.

If India does this blunder, then it will be open season on all India's insurgencies. Pakistan will extend support to Indian Maoists and China will extend support to North-eastern terrorists.

Intellectual dishonesty is the main curse of Indian journalists. They can spin any which way depending on whose side they are on.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2009 13:17

"Sell-out Singh" (SOS) seems to have bitten off more than he can chew this time,as the rumblings within the Congress cannot be kept under wraps for ever.The Empress might impose a gag order so that "sell-Out" can survive the roasting that the House will give him on both the sell-out at S-al-S and to Cowgirl Clinton on the EUM.My instinct,many a time spot on,tells me that we are beginning to see another non-coincidental "eclipse",this time of SOS!

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Jul 2009 13:21

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
RayC wrote:Makes interesting reading.
Praveen Swami is spinning for the Congress. There is no way India can officially endorse Baloch freedom struggle. This is because (i) Balochistan is not a disputed territory between India and Pakistan and India has no locus standi in the issue, (ii) Baloch insurgency is an internal matter of Pakistan and (iii) it will make India vulnerable to charges of promoting international terrorism in other countries.

If India does this blunder, then it will be open season on all India's insurgencies. Pakistan will extend support to Indian Maoists and China will extend support to North-eastern terrorists.

Intellectual dishonesty is the main curse of Indian journalists. They can spin any which way depending on whose side they are on.

Eh - but neither was east pakistan?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2009 13:22

In the meanwhile, back at the ranch..the porki spin continues

‘ India's half-step to talks ’

India's half-step to talks
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Asif Ezdi

The writer is a former member of the

Pakistan Foreign Service.

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.

For Manmohan Singh it has not been easy to sell this change domestically. Even the External Affairs Ministry mandarins are said to be unhappy. Hence the convoluted semantics in which Manmohan Singh has entangled himself. Shortly after the summit meeting he told reporters that the composite dialogue could not begin until the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in mumbai were brought to book, contradicting the de-linking of the two issues in the joint statement.

Then, in a statement in the Indian Parliament the next day, Manmohan Singh tried to stand on its head the commitment made at Sharm el-Sheikh and laid out a sequence which amounted to re-linking the two. Action on terrorism, Manmohan said in a remarkable twist, should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and therefore could not await other developments. As for the dialogue, he left it completely open. "Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments," Manmohan told Parliament.

All these verbal acrobatics did not save the Manmohan Singh government from some blistering attacks from the opposition BJP and sections of the media. Advani has called the joint statement a capitulation. K C Singh, a former secretary in the Indian Foreign Ministry, outdid everyone else, complaining that Manmohan Singh had betrayed the maxim that "great countries negotiate on their own terms."

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.

Similarly, it is quite incomprehensible why we agreed to the inclusion of a sentence on India's oft-touted interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, when we know that Delhi is trying to destabilise Balochistan and "other areas." At the very least, our side should have countered by a similar affirmation of interest in a democratic, secular India at peace with itself.

Despite the formal de-linking of terrorism from the dialogue, it is clear that India will maintain an effective connection between the two. The least that the Indians would like Pakistan to do before resuming the composite dialogue is that the trial of Lakhvi and the others allegedly involved in the Mumbai attack should proceed expeditiously. India will also maintain bilateral and international pressure on Pakistan to close down the "terrorist networks" that are allegedly behind attacks in Occupied Kashmir and India.

At the same time, despite Manmohan Singh's warning in the Indian Parliament that the "whether" and "when" of a broader dialogue remain open, it can be safely predicted that, barring another major terrorist attack, the composite dialogue will start sooner rather than later. India has taken the first half-step at Sharm el-Sheikh. It cannot indefinitely delay the next half-step if Pakistan takes action to prosecute those who allegedly masterminded or orchestrated the Mumbai attack.

Manmohan Singh is keen to resume the dialogue because, whatever the importance of curbing terrorism following the trauma of Mumbai, India's broader objectives towards Pakistan and in the region cannot be realised without holding talks. It is this recognition that compelled Manmohan Singh to change gear on this issue after his election victory. Since then, he has said repeatedly that he is willing to meet Pakistan "more than half way" if it cracked down on militants. The Indians have also welcomed Zardari's admission that Pakistan nurtured terrorists in the past. Many Indian analysts who have gone beyond a simple parsing of the joint statement have also welcomed Manmohan Singh's policy of seeking dialogue with Pakistan.

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.

The suspension of the composite dialogue has held up progress on all these matters, which are close to India's heart because they are linked to the realisation of its great-power ambitions.

Manmohan Singh hinted in his speech in Parliament that India might press for a review of the format of the composite dialogue. This issue could come up in the foreign secretaries-level talks expected in the coming weeks. Although Pakistan has indicated a preference for the existing structure, this is not likely to become a make-or-break issue.

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.

After Kashmir, the most important item on the agenda is peace and security. The two sides have agreed on some confidence-building measures. But India refuses to discuss any bilateral restraints on either conventional or nuclear forces. This item has therefore been more or less exhausted.

The fact that India conceded ground at Sharm el-Sheikh on the question of linkage between terrorism and the holding of a dialogue does not mean that Pakistan triumphed. The real test will be what results these talks bring when they are held. India has set clear goals for itself. Ours are more nebulous. This is particularly true on the issues of economic and cultural relations, on which Pakistan has been mostly in a reactive mode. What we need to do is to carry out a comprehensive review of our policy to determine our goals and then to measure the utility of the talks against those goals.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Jul 2009 13:37

arnab wrote:Eh - but neither was east pakistan?

Arnab, absolutely not. There were ten million East Pakistani refugees in India and it placed an enormous burden on the Indian economy. And, it created other problems for us as well. Calls by India to Pakistan to take them back or calls to other nations (including a whirl-wind tour by Mrs. IG to several western capitals) ended upon deaf ears. They were not even generously helping us with assistance for the refugees. India was forced to act as it could not allow any deterioration of its economy or its security. Besides, East Pakistan had borders with India which saw action from the Pakistani troops as they pursued the fleeing refugees. All in all, the situation continued to deteriorate and India couldn't take it any longer except militarily as diplomatic initiatives had completely failed.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jul 2009 13:38

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
RayC wrote:Makes interesting reading.
Praveen Swami is spinning for the Congress. There is no way India can officially endorse Baloch freedom struggle. This is because (i) Balochistan is not a disputed territory between India and Pakistan and India has no locus standi in the issue, (ii) Baloch insurgency is an internal matter of Pakistan and (iii) it will make India vulnerable to charges of promoting international terrorism in other countries.

If India does this blunder, then it will be open season on all India's insurgencies. Pakistan will extend support to Indian Maoists and China will extend support to North-eastern terrorists.

Intellectual dishonesty is the main curse of Indian journalists. They can spin any which way depending on whose side they are on.

India still have some space to give nuanced support to the Baluchis and not touch the trip wires of sovereignty.

India can have conferences on Baluchistan, and simply state, that we are merely trying to understand the problem of the Baluchis, as there is little awareness of the Baluchi issue. If Pakistani raise accusing fingers at us, we should at least better know, what we are being accused of.

India, when asked of its political support to the Baluchistan's freedom, can always say it is not government policy and if someone in India expressed support, then it is their personal opinions.

India, when asked for her stand on Baluchistan, can always counter that we do not as yet have a stand. We are still studying it. In principle, India is dead-set against interfering in the internal affairs of another country, but we are still studying whether Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan or not. India would be referring the matter to International Court of Justice to comment on whether India should treat Baluchistan as a part of Pakistan or not.

. "Bee are conphujed onlee!"

Every other accusation of military support to the Baluchis from the Pakis can be countered as pure speculation and rhetoric. We have a token presence in Afghanistan in form of a few consulates, just like all other countries. It is beyond all realism to expect Indian consulates, which are already overburdened by the many social and developmental projects that we are carrying on in Afghanistan, as well as looking after own security which is challenged by Pakistani-sponsored Taliban units, to find time to delve in such adventures as giving material support to the Baluchis. Yada, Yada!

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

Pakistan's accusation of Indian interference in Balochistan has an entirely different agenda. They are quite confident, and rightly so, that India will not be able to yank Balochistan off unlike East Pakistan. Their agenda is therefore to limit or even eliminate Indian influence in Afghanistan as time is getting nearer for a denouement there. The Americans have given their timeframe (Robert Gates said by summer next year) for exiting (or at least reduce their presence) in Afghanistan. There is therefore urgency among the Pakistanis to ensure the Indian presence also wanes while their own influence builds up.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 23 Jul 2009 14:18

Well whatever India intends to do or not in Balochistan does not necessitate, including Balochistan in joint statement. The joint statement is deflection of the Bakis from their culpability that they got caught red-handed with terrorism at Mumbai. So harping on Balochistan's deallngs by India is likely to result in deflection of the import of this gaffe. Bakis have thrown open challenge, that the Mumbai happenings are a closed matter, and implying lets indulge in bhai char till next Mumbai. So now, India has stopped asking for actions on Mumbai, and is defending some non-sense thrown by Baki accusations.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 23 Jul 2009 14:29

^^With respect, Barking dogs seldom bite.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2009 14:34

Chetak,the Paki For.Service scribe has made an interesting point from a Paki viewpoint,that Musharraf had all but agreed to turning the LOC into a permanent border.I was told in a chance meeting not too long ago,with a man in the know,who knows Mushy well,that we had almost reached a deal with him.He put the blame upon us for not reaching a deal.In retrospect with my reasons given below,it was fortuitous.

From an Indian viewpoint,formalising the LOC into an international border does do the Kashmiris as the Paki diplomat has said a disservice.For them to remain in the failed state in any future Indo-Pak partition of Kashmir only legitimises the annexation of POK,going against India's rightful stand since independence.It is far better for India to let the LOC remain opaque,in effect a joint trusteeship of the state between India and Pak which has existed since '48,until the failed state fails.All we have to do until then is to "manage" the terrorist pigs who cross the border.Then the Kashmiris in POK faced with internal chaos on an unimaginable scale will be sorely tempted to join the Indian union and J&K for their own economic and security wellbeing.After all,even in the Paki constitution,the so-called territory of "Azad Kashmir" is NOT part of Pakistan!Therefore,making the LOC a boundary between India and Pak will be a sellout of the Kashmiri and Indian people and another surrender by India of 5,000sq.km and a population of 4+ million Kashmiris. It will be treason on the grandest scale!

Therefore,let us emulate that patient bird,the vulture,and let the fruit of the tree of partition ripen by itself.The fruit is ripening with each passing day.So let us prepare for its plucking at the right time.After all we in India have a different concept of time than other mortals!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jul 2009 14:50

Philip wrote:It is far better for India to let the LOC remain opaque,in effect a joint trusteeship of the state between India and Pak which has existed since '48,until the failed state fails.All we have to do until then is to "manage" the terrorist pigs who cross the border.Then the Kashmiris in POK faced with internal chaos on an unimaginable scale will be sorely tempted to join the Indian union and J&K for their own economic and security wellbeing.After all,even in the Paki constitution,the so-called territory of "Azad Kashmir" is NOT part of Pakistan!

Philip ji,
wouldn't it then simply be better to not reach any accord whatsoever on Kashmir. Isn't status quo even better for a future reintegration of PoK into India.
At the moment "Azad Kashmir" has been given an independent status, but "Northern Areas" have not been given any status whatsoever, other than a colony controlled by Islamabad. This hanging in the wind, has caused much dissatisfaction in Balwaristan. Any accord with Pakistan on Kashmir may remove the cause for this particular dissatisfaction.
Any agreement over Kashmir would give Pakistan a new lease of life, as some of its existential conflicts may get removed. We don't want that. The status quo is adjusted for India's rise and Pakistan's break up.

Philip wrote:Therefore,let us emulate that patient bird,the vulture,and let the fruit of the tree of partition ripen by itself.The fruit is ripening with each passing day.So let us prepare for its plucking at the right time.After all we in India have a different concept of time than other mortals!

Tathastu!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jul 2009 15:10

That's exactly what I've written and meant.The "trusteeship" I've referred to is the state of affairs/situ that has existed since the war of '48 over Kashmir."Opaque" and the opacity means the reduction of tension in the LOC,easy movement of civilians at certain LOC points,allowing the people of POK to see for themselves across the LOC a better life being part of India.Any agreement would be confined to making the lives of the people of Kashmir easier,which with the reduction in tension would benefit India in the Valley from the security point of view. Cross border terrorism would become unpopular in similar fashion as did Al Q's mindless suicide bombings in Baghdad,which ultimately lost them support.Under no circumstances should we give legitimacy to the partition of Kashmir."Azad Kashmir',once the failed state fails,could just switch allegaince to India,for starters, become a "protectorate" as Bhutan is and later on to be further "merged" when the time is ripe as was Sikkim.So let us be like the "Old Turkey Buzzard"!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jul 2009 15:33

Philip wrote:Therefore,let us emulate that patient bird,the vulture,and let the fruit of the tree of partition ripen by itself.The fruit is ripening with each passing day.So let us prepare for its plucking at the right time.After all we in India have a different concept of time than other mortals!

Bravo, Philip, your ability to think squarely from the Indic perspective as well as to put it those terms is excellent.

bart · Post by **bart** » 23 Jul 2009 15:36

Manasvi wrote:on second thought:

PM-ji has deliberately and consciously said what-so-ever he said and signed in the joint statement, as if he is trying to send a message

We tried to be good every time taking high moral ground, you (western nuts) did nothing and instead mollycoddled Terrorist State of Pakistan since its inception. Now enough is enough, we will also support all sorts of separatist activities inside TSP you (western nuts) accept or not. Baluchistan is to start with.

or am i day dreamin??!!??

There is no need to make 'points' like that in a joint statement. Private channels are much more effective.