India insults Pakistani FM on his maiden official tour to India for SCO Meetup

[AA_]

I shall keep you in that state of bliss. More where those came from; they are generated by foul language.

I don't know what the previous 5 were about. I only know about the last 2.

Suck a Brahmins co*k!

 

[Joe Shearer]

Indian Administrative Services

Foreign Service.

Tougher sub-section than the general Administrative Services.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What? That's the US system you seem to be confused with. You need the grades.


He's great for your standards.



Just listen to him.
Let's ignore that but who invites a guest and then proceeds to insult him. He's also uncouth and vile.

There's more to it than that.

He comes from a family that is academically highly distinguished. His brother, an eminent historian, has a very high reputation in his profession. His father was equally highly regarded, both for his academics and for his service.

This fellow is the runt of the litter, and a sycophant and strutting little self-dramatising tinpot. He has had the BJP bug in his bonnet due to his father having been abruptly removed from office on an occasion when Mrs. Gandhi returned to high office. That is as childish as one can get.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It shows media is not free in India and takes directives from Government.

This is news to you?

Have you never heard that lobotomised idiot Arnab Goswami? Or our Major of six years' seniority?

India's weird Pakistancentric complex never ceases to amaze.

That being said, GHQ is perfectly fine with the characters they've put into power.

Now eat your cake.

Why?

What happened to make you say that?

This was this his response when a congress leader asked him about rescuing Indians from Sudan

Particularly irritating considering that he (Jaishankar) never contested an election in his life (he is an appointed Rajya Sabha member), and Siddu is a seasoned politician, one of two in the running to be Chief Minister if the BJP gets knocked out.

Siddaramaiah was specifically asking about those Kannadigas trapped in the Sudan, and not fishing in troubled waters.

theek to bola

petty politics in the middle of evacuation efforts

You mean now nobody is allowed to ask what is being done, given that one's state's people are involved, and that the central government has not opened its mouth about what is being done?

 

[Joe Shearer]

TBH, Jaishanker's behavior was unprofessional for a man of his credentials.

This is how you treat your guests?

I don't like it, but there's a back story to it.

Not one that reflects credit on BBZ.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1654739305514909701

While I don't think highly of Jaishankar, what the man said on television here is accurate, isn't it?

Jaishankar did join the very difficult to get IFS after completing his PhD, he did serve in China and in the US, he was involved in the nuclear clearance agreement with the USA, and he was employed in a very high position in private industry after retirement, when Modi picked him up and placed him as replacement for Sushma Swaraj.

 

[Joe Shearer]

- Is a policy of taking India to task (what PTI was doing) or going into complete submissive mode (PDM and their handlers) a viable option? Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

First question, what is either policy supposed to achieve?

Is completely suspending trade with India a viable option? Can there be a case for lowering the rhetoric, keeping the LoC and engage in ‘some trade’ with India. Both countries can benefit a bit with exporting to each other rather than via UAE?

I hope that this is said bearing in mind that India gave Pakistan MFN status several decades ago.

Is there a case for improving relations with Russia (which PTI was doing) and hence benefit from oil, gas prices and other investments.

Nobody is stopping Pakistan.

India is a member of QUAD, but continues to buy cheap Russian oil, paying for it in rupees, even though Russia apparently has no means of spending it.

Is there a case of going into a non aligned group of countries where Pakistan doesn’t have to side in any conflict. US-China, India-China, China-Taiwan, Iran-Saudi, Middle East-Israel etc etc.

Indians would suggest you do so.

Please look at the list above, your list.

1. US - China: India is in increasingly stronger terms with the US, and China is her very large trade partner;
2. India - China: speaks for itself;
3. China-Taiwan: strong trade relations with both;
4. Iran-Saudi: friends with both;
5. Middle East - Israel: does this even need detailing?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Does there need to be a rethink of Afghan policy. While they are our neighbors, does the movement of the Afghans need to be regulated and does there need to be a revisit of Afghan Transit Trade altogether.

India will watch with great interest.

That's where everything leads to, right. Kashmir atut ang instead of trying to sort out things. The bravado and false ego is where all the bullshit rhetoric leads, eventually.

So BBZ can go to India for an SCO meeting, and on the sidelines, give interviews to the BBC and others, presenting his opinions about Kashmir and India, and nothing should happen?

Disclaimer: I do not like Jaishankar's behaviour, but he has enough to defend himself with.

 

[Enigma SIG]

Naah, not now.

Lo BC. Now is the best time. Abhi nahi to phir bhul jao.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Exactly everyone bashing bilawal. But it was story of ethics. India displayed unethical behavior to the invited guest. Shame on Indians should not be proud of the work of their fm.

Please take the trouble of finding out the full story.

The Pakistani Foreign Minister gave a clandestine interview on the sidelines of the conference, to be released after his departure.

It was only on finding out about this interview that Jaishankar reacted.

I think it should have been handled differently, but there was clear provocation.

 

[Zhukov]

Aewin Emptional Mat ho.
Ham ne Konsa Salahudin Ayubi Bhjea tha India jiski Beizzati ka itna dukh laga hua. Yahan Bari Izzat hai uski jesey.

 

[Joe Shearer]

his political affiliation binds him to display crass comments and tone to a guest minister. It is one thing to speak against your enemy at home but completely another thing to speak publicly when you invite him to your home. The journalist who inquired him didn't even provoked him to reply as such.

I have said before, I say again, I think Jaishankar is a disaster, but on this occasion, after Zardari Bhutto had indulged himself, while a guest on Indian soil, giving a hostile interview to the BBC, should it be held against Jaishankar that he schooled Zardari Bhutto?

 

[Joe Shearer]

One crucial difference being that bhutto was leading a country at war and bad things happen in war.

Just a reminder.

Bhutto's negative role started long before Operation Searchlight.

He played a negative role prior to the 1965 conflict, assuring Ayub Khan that China and the US would both back Pakistan, and then standing delicately aloof when none of that happened.

In 1971, leading his own powerful political party in what was then West Pakistan, he swept the polls. Unfortunately the West had less seats than the East, Mujib and the Awami League swept the East, and Mujib landed up with more seats overall than the PPP.

It was then that Bhutto broke Pakistan.

His famous message to Mujib should ring in every Pakistani ear,"Udhar tum, idhar hum". Totally confused by this, Yahya flew to East Pakistan, talked to Mujib, understood that Mujib was not willing to give up his constitutional rights, and left, assuring Mujib that all would be settled once he, Yahya, reached Rawalpindi. He also simultaneously instructed Tikka Khan to crack down.

Bhutto did not lead the country to war, or to surrender, or to a compromise solution. He simply sought the biggest gain for himself. Thousands died because of that.

And Modi, a mere state CM at the time, was lobbied against?

This is a bhakt canard.

Nobody lobbied against him. They didn't have to. The facts stuck out a mile.

 

[villageidiot]

Just a reminder.

Bhutto's negative role started long before Operation Searchlight.

He played a negative role prior to the 1965 conflict, assuring Ayub Khan that China and the US would both back Pakistan, and then standing delicately aloof when none of that happened.

In 1971, leading his own powerful political party in what was then West Pakistan, he swept the polls. Unfortunately the West had less seats than the East, Mujib and the Awami League swept the East, and Mujib landed up with more seats overall than the PPP.

It was then that Bhutto broke Pakistan.

His famous message to Mujib should ring in every Pakistani ear,"Udhar tum, idhar hum". Totally confused by this, Yahya flew to East Pakistan, talked to Mujib, understood that Mujib was not willing to give up his constitutional rights, and left, assuring Mujib that all would be settled once he, Yahya, reached Rawalpindi. He also simultaneously instructed Tikka Khan to crack down.

Bhutto did not lead the country to war, or to surrender, or to a compromise solution. He simply sought the biggest gain for himself. Thousands died because of that.

Yes. No one here is absolving Bhutto. It was first and foremost his lust for power and refusal to recognize the people's mandate that resulted in the unfortunate series of events.

 

[Joe Shearer]

He wasn't doing anything, whether you like it or not, in 90% of riots against muslims in India they're responsible in some way or the other themselves. Modi didn't burned the train full of Hindu devotees returning from Ram Janmabhoomi, ghanchi muslims did since the place is where Babri Masjid used to be and apparently hated them for their "mandir wahi banayenge" ideology.

Had Modi been directly responsible the courts would've jailed him long time ago, even under congress rule the SC declared him innocent.

1. How convenient to allege that the victims asked for it!
2. An independent investigation run by a retired High Court judge found grounds to show that the fire started inside the compartment, due to someone lighting a stove inside, at a halt.
3. The court - the Supreme Court - appointed a Special Investigation Team, one of whose members was deeply involved during the riots, to look into Modi's role. Not surprisingly, they came back with a finding that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges.
4. When a senior policeman, Sanjiv Bhatt, offered evidence obtained through clandestine means - the cellphone service provider's track record of Modi's cellphone movements during the riot - the CD was mysteriously lost, Bhatt was tried on charges of grievous assault of a prisoner in his custody, where all the witnesses were policemen, and sentenced to a very long jail sentence.
5. When a senior Army officer was rushed by the Army Chief, Padmanabhan, to the site, to control the situation, he and his detachment were isolated in the airport for two days. On the third day, Zamiruddin Shah (if the name is familiar, his brother achieved some fame in cinema circles) asked for a meeting, went direct to Modi's house, and found him very much at ease with George Fernandes, having dinner. Modi was shocked to see that this General Shah was a Muslim, and fended him off, but finally gave in, and on the third day after the Army arrived, they were given transport.

It is sickening to see people defend this murderous conduct.

Yes since congis considered him to be a threat, people were willing to replicate the "Gujarat Model of development" pan-India and it ended up being true in 2014.

There was no Gujarat Model of development. The only gainers over the very stable infrastructure and excellent foundations left by earlier governments were people like Adani and Advani. We have seen the joke that the so-called Model was, when it was promoted as the answer to Indian under-development, and when it failed so hugely to have any effect, since it did not exist in the first place.

Sure! A minority in India would burn a train full of Hindus in a region dominated by the most fanatical Hindu leader who has risen to power in Indian history, a leader who was banned from even entering some Western countries. A minority in India would burn the train of Hindus when that minority had faced many pogroms and lynching in the post Partition India? Even before the Information Age began, the world headlines would be about mass killings of Muslims in India.

Why would Muslims burn a train of Hindus? How does that make sense?? I think it was an accident inside the train but in a Muslim dominated part of Gujarat and Modi capitalized on that. Why don't you be honest and admit that Modi's rise to power has its roots as much in the Congress Party's corruption as it is in based on a communal agenda? And you should be aware that alienating 180-200 million Indian Muslims will have disastrous consequences for India.

Please read my post #239 on this.

Sure! A minority in India would burn a train full of Hindus in a region dominated by the most fanatical Hindu leader who has risen to power in Indian history, a leader who was banned from even entering some Western countries. A minority in India would burn the train of Hindus when that minority had faced many pogroms and lynching in the post Partition India? Even before the Information Age began, the world headlines would be about mass killings of Muslims in India.

Why would Muslims burn a train of Hindus? How does that make sense?? I think it was an accident inside the train but in a Muslim dominated part of Gujarat and Modi capitalized on that. Why don't you be honest and admit that Modi's rise to power has its roots as much in the Congress Party's corruption as it is in based on a communal agenda? And you should be aware that alienating 180-200 million Indian Muslims will have disastrous consequences for India.

Please read my post on this.

They might be "dare hue bechare musalman" for you but you've to live in India to know their realities. They have a huge number of extremists within them.

You can fool the Pakistanis with this crap. Not another Indian.

As far as Godhra train burning is concerned, it had been ascertained it was done by them. Thats it. Creating stories to fit your narrative won't change history or present.

It has also been found by an independent enquiry that it started within the compartment, that the distance from the outside level surface to within the compartment was too high to permit combustible fuel being thrown in.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why would isn't an excuse, they rape, riot, kill, lynch, behead, bomb whichever place they want, your media and society ignores them is none of my issue. Somehow repeating the lies of Modi being involved in the violence doesn't corroborate with the investigations and supreme court verdicts.

If you want I can create a thread documenting all of them, but I'm sure that will be deleted and/or hijacked.

Feel free. I will guarantee it stays on record. I will also guarantee that for each case you mention, there are one hundred cases that provoke retaliation by a frustrated, frightened, desperate community.

Not exactly, they hardly contribute to the Indian nation, they neither enroll their kids in schools and colleges as much as they should and love running roadside businesses and do blue collar jobs.

They rather are a burden.

It's called give a dog a bad name and hang him.

You are playing with fire and your nation's future with those words and mentality!
Modi was at least complicit in the Godhra massacre which happened during the time when Americans were cozying with India. But even Americans couldn't ignore Modi's crimes and banned him.

This is the raving of an andh-bhakt, primed to the gills with the party line, and willing to defend their bigotry to their last breath.

You are playing with fire and your nation's future with those words and mentality!
Modi was at least complicit in the Godhra massacre which happened during the time when Americans were cozying with India. But even Americans couldn't ignore Modi's crimes and banned him.

This is the raving of an andh-bhakt, primed to the gills with the party line, and willing to defend their bigotry to their last breath.

We're not playing with fire.
What Americans believed is none of our business since they've committed genocides themselves. They banning under pressures of political lobby doesn't make one convict.

Whataboutery much?

I'll believe the Supreme Court over any Leli journo, Darbari media or firangi diplomats' opinion.

The Supreme Court did not give anyone a clean chit. It could not go forward because the team investigating it found insufficient evidence.

Remind yourself that Geeta Johri was on the team, and undertook the bulk of the investigation. Remind yourself also what her role was during the riots. Finally remind yourself what happened to her, how she became the first woman police chief to head the police in Gujarat.

Muslims of India should realise that its in their benefit to think beyond their religion. When I see them support the biggest mafia of Uttar Pradesh who just happened to be muslim because of their religion, I seriously feel doubts on their character.

Nobody supported a murdering assassin. The objection was to the disgraceful way in which he was assassinated.