What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

Party which was supposed to finish corruption in India is now standing behind some of the most corrupt people in our country when they are set to stand trial in court. :lol:

CV1YUCKUYAEiQTu.jpg:large


Sorry I HAD to post this tweet here:-

----------------------------------------
A big WOW if this is true. I didn't know the Congress was a Real-Estate firm too :P @fsayed
----------------------

An editorial in the Hindu on the National Herald scam
CV1YwssU4AA7YeA.png:large

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Herald in the Telugu Media:-
Cartoon in the Eenadu
LOL!! :lol: :cheesy: :rofl: @itachii @mooppan @Srinivas @jaiind @Bombermanx1 @SamantK
For those who don't know Telugu, the dinosaur is the National Herald Scam & Sonia is playing the Indira Gandhi ki bahu card.
You can see the sweat on Sonia's face if you look carefully
CV1gsfaUAAIJwRN.jpg


Sakshi editorial:
Congress trying to evade National herald case is like trying to cover from sun with hand.
If Cong did no wrong in National herald why is it so afraid to face the courts
CV1fSiGUYAEK60d.jpg
 
Modi will be wasting his political capital in these talks, nothing will come out of it.

Political capital is a currency to be spent for the welfare of the Nation.

Not to be kept in the bank like a foolish miser.

If there is NO Talks, NOTHING will come of out that. IF there are Talks SOMETHING MAY come of of that.

That is simple Game Theory.

But to understand that you need to have a firm grasp on Logic and Reasoning.
 
What is the % chance of Sonia and Rahul getting convicted and jailed for their scams?

Only if they are very unlucky. Jayalalitha's case is a good example. We are still awaiting the verdict on Salman Khan but the observations of the judge are not looking good.
 
Only if they are very unlucky. Jayalalitha's case is a good example. We are still awaiting the verdict on Salman Khan but the observations of the judge are not looking good.

Would be happy even if they are jailed for a short period like Jayalalitha or Salman Khan. That would be an improvement. :lol:
 
This not 60's era, Rahul going to jail will not create much sympathy now, rather, it will create an impression among the common folks that he must have been involved in something wrong ( which is true also ). However, corruption charges have little impact in Indian politics, otherwise we wouldn't have so many utterly corrupt but popular politicians!!

Is that why Jagan Reddy became so Popular ? :P

Only if they are very unlucky. Jayalalitha's case is a good example. We are still awaiting the verdict on Salman Khan but the observations of the judge are not looking good.

Jayalalitha was acquitted by Hight Court. Her case is now in Supreme court.

Correct example is Lalu Yadav who stands Convicted and sentenced for 5 years yet is out on Bail :cheesy:
 
The mere picture them standing in the court & being interrogated is enough to nearly destroy the credibility of the Italian & the imbecile.

But rest assured, the Gandhi Parivaar will do everything it can to make sure they don't end up inside jail & add to that the slow speed of the Indian Judicial System.
12360325_10153806378696477_5603578828989766000_n.jpg


Would be happy even if they are jailed for a short period like Jayalalitha or Salman Khan. That would be an improvement. :lol:
@Bang Galore @anant_s @Roybot
You have to see this amazing piece in the Business Standard
National Herald issue: How the Gandhi family revived Associated Journals | Business Standard News

Basically speaking there was never any scam :lol: What we saw was the brilliant business acumen & entrepreneurship skills of the Gandhi Parivaar in function.

What idiots we Indians are. :lol:

For others:-
Please check S Gurumurthy (@sgurumurthy) | Twitter taking this article & logically rebutting & proving it wrong
 
If there is NO Talks, NOTHING will come of out that. IF there are Talks SOMETHING MAY come of of that.

Mani Shankar Aiyar would surely approve.:D While I don't disagree, this is not very different from the argument that MMS & his government put out, one that was criticised severely by the BJP, including Modi. My point, which I have made earlier is not particularly critical of the steps being taken now by the Modi government but about the unnecessary harshness & stridency that was demonstrated publicly when they had no real intention of sticking by those statements. The Pakistanis had asked for FS meetings alongside the NSA meetings during the cancelled meeting in August. That was not agreed to but was accepted in the meeting at Bangkok. No issue with the meetings per se but very unnecessary to climb a pedestal for no real purpose. It may well turn out that there are very good reasons for the U turn but from the knowledge publicly available, it looks like a climbdown.

Jayalalitha was acquitted by Hight Court. Her case is now in Supreme court.

Exactly. It's why I'm pessimistic.


Call me cynical but I don't have a good feeling about this.

Would be happy even if they are jailed for a short period like Jayalalitha or Salman Khan. That would be an improvement. :lol:

Except that, it would be spun off as a clear case of vendetta. You need a couple of politicians being sent to jail by the Supreme Court before we see any change.

All we get now is the trial judge sentencing them & the High Courts letting them off in some fairly dubious decisions.
 
Bjp's gutter level floor management at display in parliament. Modi with a decisive mandate also seen whining that opposition not allowing parliament to function :lol:
 
@jaunty @Bang Galore the article is regarding the talks with paksitan


'The talks in Bangkok, virtually on Indian terms, is an event where Pakistan seems to have blinked first,' says Colonel Anil A Athale (retd).

In the dying days of Rome, Edward Gibbon observed that public discourse was monopolised by 'actors, bards and acrobats.' Though certainly not in that kind of state, India exhibits these traits on many important issues. This is an attempt to carry out a rational dialogue on India-Pakistan relations. It needs to be reiterated that all through the Cold War, the antagonists, the then USSR and the US, never broke off their dialogue, carried out secretly in Warsaw.
Indian and Pakistan national security advisors and foreign secretaries had a 'secret meeting' in Bangkok and appear to have resumed the dialogue agreed to at Ufa, Russia, between the two prime ministers. The meeting can hardly be called secret since it was officially acknowledged to have taken place.
At best these can be called 'unpublicised' talks. No sooner had the announcement been made, the media circus began in earnest with the ruling party defending it and the Opposition claiming that its stand of 'uninterrupted dialogue' policy has been vindicated.

Coming as it does in the wake of border tensions/firings and the disclosure of a
spy ring in India, some have cried 'betrayal.' In reality, it was a great triumph for Indian diplomacy and a personal victory of sorts for the Modi government's tough posture.
By holding talks in a third country, the two sides deftly side-stepped the issue of the role of Kashmiri separatists. The last scheduled talks in Delhi broke up over the issue of Pakistani consultations with Kashmiri separatists.
By holding the talks unannounced and in a third country, that issue never arose. This is certainly an acknowledgement of Indian sensitivity over this issue.
More importantly, these talks have been resumed after India began a new policy of 'disproportionate' response to border firing by Pakistan. Despite the media hype in India about the suffering of the border population on the Indian side, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan suffered much greater damage.

The border area on the Pakistani side is much more densely populated and lies close to the heartland of Punjab, especially the Sialkot sector. Through the escalation of border tensions, the Modi government conveyed a message that it would not be satisfied with a 'proportionate' response but would go in for punishment to Pakistan.
This is not jingoism or warmongering, but a very necessary step needed to restore the credibility of Indian deterrence.
Deterrence is a strategy of ensuring peace with a threat of certain and devastating retaliation. A deterrence strategy has two components: Capability and credibility. India has the capability to respond to security challenges, but our credibility suffered a major blow when in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, India failed to retaliate.
The constant reiteration by misguided and naive peaceniks that talks and dialogue will continue despite the Mumbai attacks actually increased the probability of its recurrence.

The biggest challenge before the Modi government was to restore the credibility of Indian deterrence to terror attacks. Mere statements not backed by actions were of no use. It is here that the retaliation on the border played a role in convincing Pakistan that the next time a Mumbai 26/11-like attack takes place, India will retaliate.
It appears that the Modi government has been successful in conveying to Pakistan and other world powers that not responding to the next Mumbai 26/11-like terror attack was not an option. It would mean political suicide for the Modi government that came to power on the promise of a robust national security policy.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's no nonsense style and image as a tough leader with a full mandate played a role as well.

Pakistan attempted a way out of this dilemma by floating the idea of tactical nuclear weapons, to be used against an Indian retaliatory attack. India has maintained that it does not distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and any nuclear use will meet with the 'full force of an Indian retaliatory nuclear attack.'
This impasse between the two countries and Pakistan's escalation of a nuclear arms race set alarm bells ringing and provoked an adverse global reaction.
American think-tanks and the media (the venerable New York Times) have been unanimously critical of this Pakistani move. The world is aware that even a limited nuclear exchange within South Asia will have a devastating impact on the world environment, already in a fragile state due to global warming.
In addition to the fear of a nuclear winter, the world is concerned that the use of nuclear weapons in South Asia will break the taboo, which has been in place since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The genuine fear is that this will usher an age of nuclear anarchy, with unforeseen consequences.
The scenario of a Pakistan origin terror attack in India, a retaliatory attack by Indians in response and the Pakistani use of nuclear weapons against the attacking Indians, leading to a full-fledged nuclear war in South Asia has backfired on Pakistan.
The talks held in Bangkok, virtually on Indian terms, is an event where Pakistan seems to have blinked first. In this game of chicken, it is the first time after Kargil in 1999 that India seems to have had the better of Pakistan.

This may also signal the end of the successful Pakistani strategy of calculated irrationality (colourfully described as the 'Mad Mullah' strategy by the Washington Post in 1987). The basic premise of this was that Pakistan is irrational and therefore prone to aggression unmindful of the consequences and therefore India as a rational and peace-loving nation must make concessions!
By insisting that while India is peace-loving but has no choice but to retaliate, India has for the time being negated the Pakistani advantage with the help of global pressure.
It is speculation, but one feels that in Bangkok, Pakistan must indeed have given assurances that it will rein in non-State actors like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba. Whether the talks succeed or fail will depend on the internal dynamics of Pakistan between the rationalists and fanatics and between politicians and the hawkish army.
For the first time after Kargil, India has the better of Pakistan - Rediff.com India News
 
If anything Pakistan has ramped up their terrorist activities in Kashmir, border incursion has gone up, every week soldiers die in Kashmir.

Pakistan always complain and then send thousand of more terrorists, i can post stats as to how army casuality and border incursion have gone up, but you can always google. So yes breast beating.

A nagging kid who is habituated to get whatever he demands if he cries hard and throws tantrums, will continue with his strategy and end up becoming a spoiled brat. If one wants to change that, he should say a firm 'no' and hold his ground no matter how much the kid cries. The kid will surely increase his crying and create a bigger scene as that's the only 'successful' strategy he knows, but one should keep firm on his stand, maybe hold the kid tight if he is resorting to throwing around things, or maybe a tight slap in typical desi style if he is uncontrolable....repeat this a few times, and the kid will realize that his blackmailing strategy isn't working anymore, and quit it and become civil.

I thought this was Modi's strategy with Pakistan, and it was different from the rather unsuccessful line we took so far with Pakistan. This strategy was likely to increase hostility from the Pakistani side for some years, and it did increase, but if we have continued with our strategy of no-talk-till-guns-stop and firing back to their provocations, that would have forced Pakistan to think and act differently, probably in a more civil manner. But the increasing hostility from Pakistan was not a 'failure' of Modi's strategy of no-talk.

I think Modi should have continued with his previous stand, talks will result in nothing in any case. However, we don't know what transpired in the back channel talks.

Political capital is a currency to be spent for the welfare of the Nation.

Not to be kept in the bank like a foolish miser.

If there is NO Talks, NOTHING will come of out that. IF there are Talks SOMETHING MAY come of of that.

That is simple Game Theory.

But to understand that you need to have a firm grasp on Logic and Reasoning.
 
Mani Shankar Aiyar would surely approve.:D While I don't disagree, this is not very different from the argument that MMS & his government put out, one that was criticised severely by the BJP, including Modi. My point, which I have made earlier is not particularly critical of the steps being taken now by the Modi government but about the unnecessary harshness & stridency that was demonstrated publicly when they had no real intention of sticking by those statements. The Pakistanis had asked for FS meetings alongside the NSA meetings during the cancelled meeting in August. That was not agreed to but was accepted in the meeting at Bangkok. No issue with the meetings per se but very unnecessary to climb a pedestal for no real purpose. It may well turn out that there are very good reasons for the U turn but from the knowledge publicly available, it looks like a climbdown.

MSA approval or disapproval is irrelevant.

1. MMS had no principle guiding their talks with pakistan. THAT is what was criticised not the talks itself. Just because most idiots failed to understand it, does not make it any less true. Foreign policy is not guided by the lowest denominator.

The harshness is the result of talking blunt, not of disinterest in talks. Stridency was a result of being driven by principles. Again if some people cannot understand the difference then modi govt. is not responsible.

GoI stand always has been to have substantive talks on ALL subject provided the terrorism stops. This however means that if pakistan wanst to talk about kashir, it has to stop terrorism.

All other matters are to be discussed in National interests. This will involve agreements on a common stand on Climate control where Indnia is a Leader representing 88 odd countries, Pakistan included. Recently China too has broken up from US and has come and join India group.

To gain this leadership means India will have to concede some space to pakistan and maybe pak govt. has asked for resumption of cricket to show its domestic audience that it got something bac, from India.

That does make India look soft on Terror, but it also makes India look Strong during Climate change discussions and can guide global policies that is in OUR best interests. During MMS time, India was seen as an obstructionist. Today India is seen as a Global leader.

Once the COP21 ends, India can go back to being hard on Terror, bt COP 21 is and should be our immediate concern.

2. During SCO when Modi and NS met, it was decided that first the ministers will meet, then the NSA will meet and then the Secretary will meet. Only they decided to speak only on Terror.

Pakistan however was not able to sell this domestically so it had to seek a way to pull out of this commitment.

What happened is history. They refused to provide dates for NSA level talks and instead direcly wanted to go with FS level talk. India refused to play ball.

This time pakistan has honoured its commitment and has set up the NSA talks. The meeting happened on 6th Dec. went on for 4 hrs so one assumes it was productive.

The next was FS talk which happened on 8th Dec under the cover of a "conference".

All in All India got what it wanted and paksitan got what it wanted. I fail to see the loss here.

What is the climb down here ? Spell it out for us.

Exactly. It's why I'm pessimistic.

Dr. swamy did not press for Jaya's conviction the second time. He gave her space to create an escape route.

No such luck for Sonia. Dr. Swamy is out to get her and make her weep blood. He will take this right up to SC and public pressure is HUGE on the judges so they cannot be seen to play favourites either.

Still time will tell.
 
Last edited:
@jaunty @Bang Galore the article is regarding the talks with paksitan


'The talks in Bangkok, virtually on Indian terms, is an event where Pakistan seems to have blinked first,' says Colonel Anil A Athale (retd).

In the dying days of Rome, Edward Gibbon observed that public discourse was monopolised by 'actors, bards and acrobats.' Though certainly not in that kind of state, India exhibits these traits on many important issues. This is an attempt to carry out a rational dialogue on India-Pakistan relations. It needs to be reiterated that all through the Cold War, the antagonists, the then USSR and the US, never broke off their dialogue, carried out secretly in Warsaw.
Indian and Pakistan national security advisors and foreign secretaries had a 'secret meeting' in Bangkok and appear to have resumed the dialogue agreed to at Ufa, Russia, between the two prime ministers. The meeting can hardly be called secret since it was officially acknowledged to have taken place.
At best these can be called 'unpublicised' talks. No sooner had the announcement been made, the media circus began in earnest with the ruling party defending it and the Opposition claiming that its stand of 'uninterrupted dialogue' policy has been vindicated.

Coming as it does in the wake of border tensions/firings and the disclosure of a
spy ring in India, some have cried 'betrayal.' In reality, it was a great triumph for Indian diplomacy and a personal victory of sorts for the Modi government's tough posture.
By holding talks in a third country, the two sides deftly side-stepped the issue of the role of Kashmiri separatists. The last scheduled talks in Delhi broke up over the issue of Pakistani consultations with Kashmiri separatists.
By holding the talks unannounced and in a third country, that issue never arose. This is certainly an acknowledgement of Indian sensitivity over this issue.
More importantly, these talks have been resumed after India began a new policy of 'disproportionate' response to border firing by Pakistan. Despite the media hype in India about the suffering of the border population on the Indian side, the fact of the matter is that Pakistan suffered much greater damage.

The border area on the Pakistani side is much more densely populated and lies close to the heartland of Punjab, especially the Sialkot sector. Through the escalation of border tensions, the Modi government conveyed a message that it would not be satisfied with a 'proportionate' response but would go in for punishment to Pakistan.
This is not jingoism or warmongering, but a very necessary step needed to restore the credibility of Indian deterrence.
Deterrence is a strategy of ensuring peace with a threat of certain and devastating retaliation. A deterrence strategy has two components: Capability and credibility. India has the capability to respond to security challenges, but our credibility suffered a major blow when in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, India failed to retaliate.
The constant reiteration by misguided and naive peaceniks that talks and dialogue will continue despite the Mumbai attacks actually increased the probability of its recurrence.

The biggest challenge before the Modi government was to restore the credibility of Indian deterrence to terror attacks. Mere statements not backed by actions were of no use. It is here that the retaliation on the border played a role in convincing Pakistan that the next time a Mumbai 26/11-like attack takes place, India will retaliate.
It appears that the Modi government has been successful in conveying to Pakistan and other world powers that not responding to the next Mumbai 26/11-like terror attack was not an option. It would mean political suicide for the Modi government that came to power on the promise of a robust national security policy.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's no nonsense style and image as a tough leader with a full mandate played a role as well.

Pakistan attempted a way out of this dilemma by floating the idea of tactical nuclear weapons, to be used against an Indian retaliatory attack. India has maintained that it does not distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and any nuclear use will meet with the 'full force of an Indian retaliatory nuclear attack.'
This impasse between the two countries and Pakistan's escalation of a nuclear arms race set alarm bells ringing and provoked an adverse global reaction.
American think-tanks and the media (the venerable New York Times) have been unanimously critical of this Pakistani move. The world is aware that even a limited nuclear exchange within South Asia will have a devastating impact on the world environment, already in a fragile state due to global warming.
In addition to the fear of a nuclear winter, the world is concerned that the use of nuclear weapons in South Asia will break the taboo, which has been in place since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The genuine fear is that this will usher an age of nuclear anarchy, with unforeseen consequences.
The scenario of a Pakistan origin terror attack in India, a retaliatory attack by Indians in response and the Pakistani use of nuclear weapons against the attacking Indians, leading to a full-fledged nuclear war in South Asia has backfired on Pakistan.
The talks held in Bangkok, virtually on Indian terms, is an event where Pakistan seems to have blinked first. In this game of chicken, it is the first time after Kargil in 1999 that India seems to have had the better of Pakistan.

This may also signal the end of the successful Pakistani strategy of calculated irrationality (colourfully described as the 'Mad Mullah' strategy by the Washington Post in 1987). The basic premise of this was that Pakistan is irrational and therefore prone to aggression unmindful of the consequences and therefore India as a rational and peace-loving nation must make concessions!
By insisting that while India is peace-loving but has no choice but to retaliate, India has for the time being negated the Pakistani advantage with the help of global pressure.
It is speculation, but one feels that in Bangkok, Pakistan must indeed have given assurances that it will rein in non-State actors like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba. Whether the talks succeed or fail will depend on the internal dynamics of Pakistan between the rationalists and fanatics and between politicians and the hawkish army.
For the first time after Kargil, India has the better of Pakistan - Rediff.com India News

This is an very optimistic view, one that I personally see no basis for. Time will tell.

Dr. swamy did not press for Jaya's conviction. He gave her space to great an escape route.

Not just about Swami, he had very little to do with the High court decision. The decision was extremely dubious with some very fuzzy maths involved. Why I remain very pessimistic.
 
A nagging kid who is habituated to get whatever he demands if he cries hard and throws tantrums, will continue with his strategy and end up becoming a spoiled brat. If one wants to change that, he should say a firm 'no' and hold his ground no matter how much the kid cries. The kid will surely increase his crying and create a bigger scene as that's the only 'successful' strategy he knows, but one should keep firm on his stand, maybe hold the kid tight if he is resorting to throwing around things, or maybe a tight slap in typical desi style if he is uncontrolable....repeat this a few times, and the kid will realize that his blackmailing strategy isn't working anymore, and quit it and become civil.

I thought this was Modi's strategy with Pakistan, and it was different from the rather unsuccessful line we took so far with Pakistan. This strategy was likely to increase hostility from the Pakistani side for some years, and it did increase, but if we have continued with our strategy of no-talk-till-guns-stop and firing back to their provocations, that would have forced Pakistan to think and act differently, probably in a more civil manner. But the increasing hostility from Pakistan was not a 'failure' of Modi's strategy of no-talk.

I think Modi should have continued with his previous stand, talks will result in nothing in any case. However, we don't know what transpired in the back channel talks.

I am not sure if you are talking to me, if you are there is a FATAL flaw in your theory.

The Child in your example is NOT a normal child. Its a child with a Dissociative identity disorder, better know as Split Personality.

That is why you can NEVER know WHICH personality controls that child.

The best way to cure DID (Dissociative identity disorder) is to encourage the strongest and positive personality to take over and make it the permanent identity of that child.

Second option is to kill that child or lock it up forever. That was tried with North korea and it has not worked out well. Its a bad plan.

Now use the same example to figure out what is the best way forward.

Not just about Swami, he had very little to do with the High court decision. The decision was extremely dubious with some very fuzzy maths involved. Why I remain very pessimistic.

Without Dr. Swamy there was no pressure on the prosecution to perform. When the prosecution will not present its case strongly, the High court will have NO OPTION but to release the accused. If we add Judicial corruption into the mix, the rest may be more clear. But that is unknown.
 
This is an very optimistic view, one that I personally see no basis for. Time will tell..

Exactly the point of the author he did point out that everything depends on how the internal dynamics of Pakistan and PA's response to this . However the main point is India is having talks on it own terms which I feel is not bending to Pakistan like what congress have been doing
 
Hehe @Bombermanx1 @SarthakGanguly @Koovie :lol: :laugh:

Woman speakers missing here! - The Hindu

A Seminar organised to discuss role of Muslim women has none representing them. The hall itself was segregated for men and women clad in burkha.
08HYYYL01---Wom_HY_2650067f.jpg

The stage was set and the seminar’s topic was the ‘Role of Muslim Women in the Changing World on national-level’. And the venue was the Urdu Ghar, which is in the heart of the old city at Moghalpura. It might sound empowering, but it lacked something very important: women speakers.

How a seminar can be held on the role of women without actually having even one woman to speak on the issue itself was perhaps not lost on the speakers, who participated in the Urdu and Persian seminar here on Tuesday.

In fact, at the venue, the irony of the situation could not have been more apparent, as the hall itself was segregated for men and women clad in burkha.

And though the seminar’s topic did not sound religious, it was in fact an ‘us versus them’ kind of discussion, in which about a dozen of Muslim scholars and clerics participated in. For example, Dr. Syed Tanveer Khuda Numaee, former head of the Persian Department, Osmania University, in his talk, talked about the mistreatment of women a few centuries ago in the West, and lamented the loss of the Islamic Caliphate in the 1920s.

Between Dr. Numaee and the other speakers, contemporary matters concerning Muslim women in India were not even brought up.

Some of those who spoke at the seminar were Mufti Mohd. Hasnuddin, head Mufti, Jamaitul Mominath, Dr. Abdul Hameed Akber, head of the Urdu and Persian Department, Gulbarga University, Akhter Abbas, a scholar from the Jamaitul Mustafa Al Aalamia, Iran, among others.

During his talk, Dr. Numaee also blamed Mohammed Reza Pehlawi, the former king of Iran, for Muslim women choosing to not wear the veil in the country before the Islamic revolution.

The only thing involving a woman in the event was a performance by a woman, who sang a song. But, even that did not happen on the stage, as she was given a mike to sing where she was standing.

“They never call women to speak during such events. Participation by Muslim women used to be higher in the 1980s, when the front rows were reserved for them. In fact, now you won’t see a mixed Muslim or Urdu event,” said Jamila Nishat, who runs the Shaheen Resource Centre in the old city. She added that even if women want to participate in such programmes, they are often jeered at, deterring them. The organisers however, did not wish to comment.

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

"The only thing involving a woman in the event was a performance by a woman, who sang a song. But, even that did not happen on the stage, as she was given a mike to sing where she was standing." :hitwall: ....:lol:
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom