Twirp: Terrorist Wahabi Islamic Rep Pakistan 4

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India may have gone to Sharm-el-Sheikh as the victim of terrorism, and returned as the accused. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who is ruling India? Bunch of morons.

[Naresh]

<b>Pakistan set on taking water from India : Khurshid</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LAHORE : Minister for Labour and Manpower Syed Khurshid Ahmad Shah Saturday said Pakistan resorted to International Court of Justice against India over stanching water flow to Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.
.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The federal minister said Pakistani agriculture incurred damage as Pakistan did not get water; however, Pakistan has started tapping tharcoal reservoirs to overcome power crisis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>With an adaab,PM capitulates</b>
pioneer.com
Swapan Dasgupta
A photograph, it is said, is more telling than a thousand words of succinct prose. Last Friday morning, the readers of many newspapers may have observed a very revealing photograph from the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh where Indian and Pakistani delegations, led by their respective Prime Ministers, met on the sidelines of the redundant Non-Aligned Movement Summit. The photograph showed Manmohan Singh, flanked by Yousuf Raza Gilani, greeting a woman member of the Pakistani delegation with what, presumably, is either an adaab or a feeble imitation of the signature Pervez Musharraf salute.

How the Prime Minister of India chooses to greet a foreigner is an individual decision. He may offer a limp handshake or even a firm one; he may copy Fidel Castro’s bear hug; he may, though this is extremely unlikely, greet the visitor with a peck on both cheeks; he may favour a deep Japanese-style bow; and alternatively he may offer the traditional Namaste. It is entirely a personal decision and one that need not be bound in protocol, as long as it is laced with courtesy.

Not even his worst enemies will accuse Manmohan of either rudeness or discourtesy. He would not have invited charges of either cultural insensitivity or inappropriate conduct had he chosen to greet the Pakistani lady with folded hands. Most foreigners, in fact, expect to be greeted with a Namaste by an Indian, especially when it is a formal occasion.

<b>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. Pursuing the line of least resistance has been the signature tune of the PM in his relationship with the owners of the Congress, his coalition partners and in his conduct of foreign policy</b>. Some may see in this Manmohan’s grand vision of reconciliation: Breakfasting in Delhi and lunching in Lahore. But attributing profundity to inanity is a well-known Indian trait, except these days it passes off as media management.

The outrageous joint statement issued from Sharm el-Sheikh has been analysed threadbare by a country which wants to know whether the ‘tough on terrorism’ stand adopted by India after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai was meant for electoral consumption alone. Read with the apology the PM issued to President Asif Ali Zardari for miscuing his rehearsed lines at Yekaterinburg in Russia last month, the joint statement’s clear willingness to not let the trivial issue of terrorism mar the composite dialogue reveals the spinal condition of Indian diplomacy under Manmohan.

<b>Manmohan’s inclination to appease the rogue state in Pakistan was first in evidence at the Havana summit of NAM two years ago when it was proclaimed that India and Pakistan were co-victims of terror. The groundwork for this shameful retreat from the Islamabad declaration of January 2004 had,</b> in fact, been done at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Delhi immediately after the UPA Government assumed power in the summer of 2004 when it was stated that terrorism would not be allowed to derail the peace process.

However, what is intriguing about the latest reiteration of a decision to delink dialogue from acts of aggression is that it even caught the decision-making apparatus of the Government unawares. The overall consensus in the Ministry of External Affairs and the intelligence agencies was that it would be imprudent to resume formal dialogue with a duplicitous neighbour unless there was clear evidence that it was taking firm and effective steps to defang the terrorists operating from within its territory. It was felt that any engagement with Pakistan could well be conducted within the framework of discreet back channel diplomacy.

This was the gist of the briefing by the Foreign Secretary to the Indian media accompanying the Prime Minister to Egypt. At best, Manmohan was expected to show some recognition of the civilian Government’s difficulties in confronting a monster that had been nurtured by the Pakistan military establishment and the ISI. After all, Zardari had owned up to Pakistan’s role in sustaining fanatical jihadis. Not even the most clued-in expected Manmohan to walk the entire mile to placate Pakistan, going to the ridiculous extent of even tacitly conceding an Indian role in the disturbances in Baluchistan.

<b>Conspiracy theories tend normally to be a little fanciful but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Manmohan’s actions may be guided by a nudge and a wink from the US</b>. That Washington no longer has the stomach to continue the fight in Afghanistan is hardly the world’s best kept secret. But no disentanglement from Afghanistan is possible for the US unless it has some assurance that Pakistan is not going to fill the vacuum with a barbaric Taliban regime intent on wreaking havoc in the heartlands of Western ‘decadence’. Was India chipping in to raise Pakistan’s comfort level? Has India become a collaborator in the US’s AfPak policy?

At this juncture only questions can be raised. But there is merit in scrutinising a number of other steps taken by Manmohan to placate the US. First, there was the change of the Commerce Minister followed by clear indications that the ‘intransigence’ of Kamal Nath would be reviewed in future WTO negotiations. Second, in signing the G-8 declaration, Manmohan indicated a retreat from India’s existing policy on Climate Change. Finally, by adding his signature to the G-8 proclamation on non-proliferation, Manmohan may have taken the first covert step in accommodating the Obama Administration’s determination to rollback India’s gains from the agreements with the IAEA and NSG.

These are early days yet but Manmohan’s adaab suggests that accommodation of others rather than enlightened self-interest may become the new principle of Indian foreign policy. <b>Maybe the time is fast approaching when India should prepare to do its Namaste to him, before he travels down the IK Gujral route</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What else people are expecting from Appointed clown?

[Guest]

<b>For PM, Indian blood is cheap</b>
Kanchan Gupta

[dhu]

MMS is only doing more secular holy work. Why should Hindus be burdened with all the notoriety of being Hindu terrorists. The Indian state should also share the burden. If Hindus are to be blamed for the crimes of Jihadis (as in the Samjhauta blasts), then GoI should also partake responsibility for Balochistan insurgency. Very responsible fellow, this MMS. India gets repeatedly attacked and humiliated internationally, and then MMS blames India for Baluchistan while giving the clean chit to Pakis!!

And all this is being served up as diplomatic victory! It doesn't matter on the ground anyway, so why not grovel and debase oneself endlessly while sitting on the edge of one's seat like an attentive schoolboy or servant, take your choice.

[Guest]

MMS is serving US and madamji interests very well, like an obedient dhimmi. We should perhaps have a thread - "What did MMS sell out today?!" Wonder what MMS apologists are dreaming up this time...

[ramana]

From GP in Pioneer, 23 July 2009

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <b>Let us not forget that there were two main reasons why some progress was made after the Mumbai outrage. </b>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. <b>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.</b> 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. <b>This is the most disastrous feature of the fiasco at Sharm el-Sheikh.</b>

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. <b>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.</b>

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. <b>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?</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<span style='color:red'><b>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.</b> </span>

Looks like Zia Ul Haq faction is still strong in Pakistan and is recognized by US and ES establishment.

[ramana]

You realize the implications. Gilani the Pakjabi, a Zia protege, infiltrated the PPP and rose to heights and with BB's assasination got the reins of power. So its Pakjabi show all the awy. And why Zardari's days are numbered.

[dhu]

It’s a sellout
By Satish Chandra

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>The joint statement will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us.</i>

The Manmohan Singh government’s post-26/11 Pakistan policy has taken a dramatic U-turn. From the position hitherto taken that there wouldn’t be any talks with Pakistan until it brings to book the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks and dismantles the infrastructure of terror, the India-Pakistan joint statement of July 16, 2009 signals a sellout.

This should not, however, come as a surprise to a people long inured to the government’s brazenness and ineptitude as demonstrated by its handling of 26/11, its conclusion of a seriously flawed nuclear deal with the United States and its sudden discovery, after over five years in office, that it had ‘underestimated’ the menace of left wing extremism.

Showing an utter lack of professionalism, the joint statement, issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani after their talks in Egypt, is harmful to our interests and was best avoided as evident from the textual analysis given below:

The two prime ministers “considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations” and agreed that the foreign secretaries should “meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers” who would meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

The above formulation, along with the fact that the two prime ministers met for two hours, indicates that the India-Pakistan dialogue is already under way and contradicts our assertion that the dialogue would begin only after the perpetrators of 26/11 are brought to book and that there is no roadmap for resumption of talks.

Take a look at this second important formulation in the statement: “Both leaders agreed that that terrorism is the main threat to both countries.” This equates India and Pakistan in respect of terrorism, glossing over the fact that the latter is involved with terrorist activities directed against the former. It constitutes a flashback to 2006 when Delhi made out that Pakistan like India is a victim of terror.

Third, according to the statement, the prime minister asked his counterpart to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice. To this Gilani stated that Pakistan would “do everything in its power in this regard,” that it had given an updated status dossier on investigations into 26/11, and that it sought additional information/evidence. PM said that the dossier was under review. Obviously, Singh’s demand was minimalist, restricted only to seeking satisfaction on 26/11 with no call for dismantling the infrastructure of terror or even an assurance, as given by Pakistan in January 2004, that the area under its control would not be used for terrorist attacks against India.

Pakistan’s response was also minimalist and not even in the nature of a guarantee that those responsible for 26/11 would be brought to justice.

Most significantly, through the statement, Gilani mentioned that “Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.”

What is the relevance of such a formulation? It is, from a Pakistani perspective. This is the first time that an India-Pakistan joint statement hints at Indian involvement in Balochistan and in “other areas.” It is myopic to see this as a harmless formulation as it virtually equates India with Pakistan as perpetrators of terror. The international community, which hitherto was convinced of our bonafides on this count, will now begin to have doubts. Islamabad will no doubt use this to discredit the Balochistan freedom struggle and take harsher measures against it.

And, then the final act. Both the 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.”  Singh added that India was ready to discuss with Pakistan all issues “including all outstanding issues.”

It is a cardinal error to renounce all one’s options for dealing with any country. In the instant case, it relieves all pressure on Pakistan to eschew the use of terror as an instrument of foreign policy against us.  Secondly, it demonstrates that India is a paper tiger unwilling to stand up for its critical national interests. Thirdly, the sentence read in its entirety, debunks the Indian assertion that Pakistan is required to give us satisfaction on 26/11 before the composite dialogue can begin. It is puerile to contend, as some have, that the “K” word does not figure in the statement as the phrase “outstanding issues” is shorthand for the same.

The joint statement is not only badly worded but also not in the national interest as it will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us and will undermine our standing particularly in the region. This is all the more so as it comes at a time when Pakistan has thumbed its nose at us on the Hafiz Saeed issue.

Had Singh wanted a dialogue with Pakistan only on terrorism this could have been held at the official level without the drama of a long prime minister level meeting and an elaborate joint statement. Obviously, the US pressure is at work and the conclusion of the joint statement on the eve of Hillary Clinton’s visit gives the game away.

<i>(The author is a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan)</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Capt M Kumar]

New Delhi: The India-Pakistan joint statement issued in Egypt was a "diplomatic paper" not a legal document, Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor said Thursday, reiterating that what mattered was "not the perception of words on paper" but the conduct of Islamabad in preventing future acts of terror.

"It is a diplomatic paper that is released to the press -- different from legal papers. Ultimately what matters is not the perception of words on paper, it is the conduct of government," Tharoor told reporters outside parliament on the statement released after a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.as...=3114276&page=1

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jul 22 2009, 05:17 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jul 22 2009, 05:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You realize the implications. Gilani the Pakjabi, a Zia protege, infiltrated the PPP and rose to heights and with BB's assasination got the reins of power. So its Pakjabi show all the awy. And why Zardari's days are numbered.
[right][snapback]99887[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THis is deadly combination and the Zia faction of the Pakjab will control the military, all the political parties in PAK and also all the Tanzeems in Pak land.

US establishment has long term relationship with the Zia faction from 1977 with both democratic party and the Reagan Republics. No wonder the Paks are sitting pretty.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> New Delhi: The India-Pakistan joint statement issued in Egypt was a "diplomatic paper" not a legal document, Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor said Thursday, reiterating that what mattered was "not the perception of words on paper" but the conduct of Islamabad in preventing future acts of terror. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When Mushy tried same failed trick on Vajpayee in Agra whole media was all over Vajpayee and BJP. Now Dhimmis are silent and calling and believing that this is just MEA nonsense.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India wants Pakistan to fight all terrorists with 'same force'</b>
pioneer.com
IANS | On Board Special Aircraft
<b>India on Thursday asked Pakistan to "show the same force" in fighting anti-India terrorists on its soil as it has done in combating the Taliban and other militants ranged against the West.</b>

<b>"Pakistan has taken certain steps like fighting the Taliban in the Swat valley," </b>External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna told journalists when asked if Islamabad was showing commitment in fighting terrorists who target India.

<b>"We expect Pakistan should go after the terrorists, who are targeting India, with the same force,"</b> he added.

He was interacting with journalists while returning from the Thai island resort of Phuket, where he participated in the 16th ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) Regional Forum (ARF) meeting.

Asked about Jamaat-ud-Daawa (JuD) chief Hafeez Saeed, suspected to be a mastermind of the Nov 26 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Krishna said Pakistani authorities had made an appeal in court against his recent release. "The law should take its course," he said.

"Pakistan should take action against any head of a terrorist organisation working against India," he added.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indian leadership tail is back between legs. These fools are trusting wolf.

[dhu]

Sharm surrender not surprising
Balbir K Punj

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blink at the meeting with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh? The truth is that he was under tremendous pressure from the US to give the beleaguered Pakistani regime a breather, notwithstanding all the nice things that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say during her recent visit to New Delhi earlier this week.

With Mr Gilani hailing the so-called Indian ‘admission’ on Baluchistan as a huge victory, Mr Singh has been left with little room to manoeuvre. Although the Prime Minister has claimed that the reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement issued in Sharm el-Sheikh was not a climbdown, his counterpart has given it a different twist. Speaking to the media after his return to Islamabad, Mr Gilani said, “The joint statement ...underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Baluchistan and other areas.”

The Government’s apologists have been arguing that in exchange of India agreeing to include Baluchistan, Mr Gilani had agreed not to make any reference to Kashmir in the joint statement. This is hardly justifiable. By putting Baluchistan on the table, Mr Singh has given Pakistan an additional issue to deflect the blame for cross-border terrorism. Besides, it will be naïve to believe that Pakistan will actually give up on Kashmir.

On the other hand, our position on the composite dialogue process has also shifted, courtesy Mr Singh. Ever since 26/11, our stand had been that the dialogue process would only resume when there was credible evidence to show that the Pakistani authorities had taken appropriate action against those who planned the Mumbai terror strikes.

But in a baffling turnaround, Mr Singh actually agreed to de-link the two issues. Thus, in one move Mr Singh relinquished all the strategic-diplomatic advantage that New Delhi had over Islamabad.

The Government, in its enthusiasm to curry favour with the Obama Administration, has clearly overlooked the nuances of Islamabad’s relationship with terrorist organisations. Studies by US think-tanks and Congressional groups have revealed how these organisations are an intrinsic part of Pakistan’s strategic diplomacy vis-à-vis India. In dealing with Pakistan we have to constantly remind ourselves that it is the Pakistani Army that calls the shots in that country and that civilian Governments have limited clout.

Surely our Government’s strategists know what Pakistan’s chief military spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas, said in an interview with the CNN. In effect, Gen Abbas revealed that the Pakistani military was still very much in touch with the top leaders of the Afghan Taliban and could facilitate negotiations between them and the Obama Administration. The report of this interview adds: “The quid pro quo, he (Abbas) said, for any role as a broker between the US and the Taliban, Pakistan wants concessions from Washington with respect to long-term rival India. ‘What we see as a concern is the over-involvement of the Indians in Afghanistan. This becomes a concern particularly if one is watching the security calculus in the region,’ Abbas said. ‘The fear is what will happen tomorrow if the Americans move out and they are replaced by the Indians...’.”

In this background we have to be greatly concerned when our Prime Minister concedes so much to Pakistan. The US has to ensure some quid pro quo for Islamabad for its ‘action’ on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. For the Americans, India’s acceptance to resume the composite dialogue process with Pakistan without linking it to the latter’s progress on checking anti-India terrorism would be a significant diplomatic victory as they could then pressurise Islamabad to do even more on its western border.

Mr Singh might try to give the joint statement his own interpretation. But it is as plain as daylight that the present Government’s strategy against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism essentially depends on Washington, DC getting Islamabad to deliver. The Pakistani Army is presently moving against the Taliban and their allied terror outfits under American pressure. The basic objective of the US AfPak policy is to somehow stabilise the situation in Afghanistan and strengthen the administrations both in Kabul and Islamabad to facilitate a withdrawal of American forces from the region. India’s security concerns are secondary. In Egypt, Mr Singh, eager to score brownie points with the Obama Administration, bartered away India’s strategic interests.

For the Congress this may not be anything unusual — did not another Congress Prime Minister let the Russians score a diplomatic triumph at India’s expense in Tashkent? Similarly, the first Prime Minister of India had given up our historic clout in Tibet in return for a paper promise from the then Chinese Prime Minister respecting Tibet’s autonomy. Yet another Congress Prime Minister in 1971 gave up the advantage India had by way of 90,000 Pakistani POWs in return for some vague promises by a wily Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Mr Singh, in keeping with tradition, has now given Pakistan an issue to counter the charge of terrorism that New Delhi levels against Islamabad. The history of Congress Governments jeopardising our national interests continues to be played out time after time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

An article by the ever secular B Raman. All of a sudden, he has included references to the Hindu plight in Pakistan, while imploring the Italian for understanding. Is this damage control form kangress??

India unwitting party to demonising Baloch struggle


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Ms Sonia Gandhi  <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->
..

When Babri Masjid was demolished by a Hindu mob in December 1992, mobs in Pakistani Punjab encouraged by the local officials retaliated by demolishing Hindu places of worship. There were acts of retaliation in Sindh and the NWFP too -- but not on the same scale as in Pakistani Punjab. Balochistan was one province which did not see such horrendous acts of retaliation as one saw in Punjab.

Baloch leaders such as Khair Bux Marri, Ataullah Khan Mengal, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and many others took the Hindus and their places of worship under their protection and saw to it that no harm came to them from the Punjabi settlers in Balochistan.

The Hindu population of Balochistan has considerably come down in recent years due to their forcible ejection from there by the Army after it launched the project for the construction of the Gwadar port with Chinese assistance. The Inter-Services Intelligence looked upon them as potential Research and Analysis Wing agents and forced them to shift.

But the Hindus who have managed to remain, have continued to enjoy the protection of the Baloch leaders and people. When Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti was killed by the Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] government in a military operation in August 2006, among those who died with him were Baloch Hindus whom he had taken under his protection.

When Indira Gandhi ..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Naresh]

<b>Dhobi Ka Kuta - Naa Ghar Ka Naa Ghat Ka</b>

<b>Zardari declines Musharraf's wish list</b>

ISLAMABAD - President Asif Ali Zardari has expressed regrets to ensure VIP protocol and security to his predecessor Gen ® Pervez Musharraf if he returns to defend himself in the PCO judges’ case being heard by country’s apex court.

The Nation has learnt from credible sources on Friday that former President Musharraf had contacted President Zardari through a friend seeking VIP protocol and security if he returns and defends himself in the PCO judges’ case.

However, sources said that President Zardari had expressed his inability to make any commitment and instead had advised the former president to better postpone his return until conducive conditions prevail.

In a related development, the former President has hired services of legal experts headed by renowned lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada to defend him in the Supreme Court.

It was further learnt that Abdul Hafeez Pirzada had advised his client to cash in on the case, as it would bring him again in the limelight to enter political arena. The former President, sources said, was also in touch with PML-Q buddies to keep him posted about the judicial case.

Sources privy to these developments were of the view that the former President was facing no threat whatsoever as being speculated in the national media. “The case in question is pretty weak and Musharraf’s legal team is confident to defend him tooth and nail”, a source said.

However, some other legal experts were upbeat that the former president, by joining the proceedings of PCO judges’ case through his legal counsel, would fall prey to punitive action if he failed to satisfy the apex court.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[acharya]

<b>
Indo-US cooperation</b>
Published: July 22, 2009


US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton signed two cooperation agreements with India on Monday, at the beginning of the New Delhi leg of her Indian visit, which would allow her to claim that her visit has been a success for corporate America. However, the agreements are likely to set off an arms race in the Subcontinent, and that cannot serve American national interests, especially as the other runner in the race will be Pakistan, distracted from the USA's War on Terror in which it has so far been a resolute ally. Ms Clinton signed an 'end-use' agreement which US law requires to permit any military sales to another country, as well as an agreement on sites for American nuclear power companies.

The first agreement removes another hurdle in the sale of a US fighter to India, which plans on buying 125 in coming years. This would provoke Pakistan, which has so far relied on the USA to supply its air needs, but in this case, it would turn to one of the unsuccessful competitors, and if they happen not to be American, that has happened before. The second agreement represents for India the first fruit of its civilian nuclear deal with the USA, and will result in Pakistan increasing activity to secure such a deal, probably from France, which has offered such a deal, or China, a tested ally with which it already has engaged in some civilian nuclear cooperation.

This visit by Ms Clinton, in which she also carried an invitation for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to be the first foreign head of government to visit President Barack Obama, was meant to cement the growing of US ties with India, which it has nominated in effect as its bulwark against China. Ms Clinton's agreement with Indian Foreign Minister Krishnan to institutionalize a strategic dialogue meeting, at the foreign-minister level, is another sign of this, apart from the agreements also made. However, as US engagement with India continues, and as it is sucked into the disputes India has with all its neighbours, it will realize the harm it is doing to its own national interests.

[Naresh]

X-Posted on the Jammu & Kashmir Thread :

<b>PoK leaders seek India’s help in fight against Pak</b>

<b>WHILE India has been extremely sensitive about being seen to be getting involved in Pakistan’s internal affairs, a number of political groups in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) have now been openly seeking New Delhi’s help in their fight against what they describe as their persecution by Islamabad.</b>

Their argument is simple. Officially, India continues to consider the whole of Kashmir, including the areas under Pakistan control, as its own territory and therefore it becomes its duty to protect them against a foreign aggressor, which is how they describe Pakistan.

<b>A motley group of these political leaders and intellectuals from areas around Gilgit and Baltistan in PoK, referred to as Northern Areas by Pakistan, assembled in New Delhi to participate in a two-day international seminar on ‘Society, Culture and Politics in the Karakoram Himalayas’ that was dominated by tales of discrimination and persecution of the people in these areas at the hands of Pakistan’s civilian and military establishment.</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Naresh]

<b>1. Pakistan to drop legal action against ICC</b>

LAHORE : Chairman Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) Ijaz Butt is leaving for Dubai on Sunday to attend along with ICC officials an important meeting in connection with the World Cup 2011.

A reconciliation is expected among the PCB and the ICC in the meeting.

Pakistan was ruled out as World Cup venue after gunmen attacked Sri Lanka's team bus and security detail during a March Test, killing six police officials and a van driver. Several Sri Lanka players and officials also suffered injuries.

The PCB had taken legal action questioning the authority of the ICC to make the decision, but after a long thinking the PCB has decided to reconcile with the ICC and the issue is strongly expected to be resolved out of the court.

However, Pakistan in result will not get the hosting of 14 matches of the World Cup but the ICC has assured the PCB that Pakistan will be the host of these matches which will be held anywhere.

Pakistan will certainly get gate money and royalty of these matches and also the hosting fee but the PCB will have no TV share with Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh.

<b>2. Decision to drop action against ICC is right : Abdul Qadir</b>

ISLAMABAD : Former chief selector Abdul Qadir said that lawyer of the PCB Mark Gay has rightly advised to take back the case against the ICC because Pakistan will be saved from being left alone in the world of cricket.

In an exclusive talk with Geo News, Abdul Qadir said that the Pakistan Cricket Board should have taken the same decision in the present circumstances as the current security situation of the country does not allow any foreign team to tour Pakistan.

He said that by surrendering the case the ICC may have a soft corner for Pakistan <b>and it is likely that India would also support the PCB.</b>

Cheer <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->