Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[Bang Galore]

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.

During the cancelled NSA talks, the Pakistanis had a couple of points they were making. One was that India's position of talks on terror & Modi's formulation of no talks on other issues before India is satisfied on the terrorism front was not acceptable to them. They pointed out that India could put off all talks on other issues permanently by the logic of that argument. Hence they insisted on bringing in other issues & finally made an offer to have the FS meet alongside the NSA where they could atleast prepare a road-map for the discussions on other issues. India refused, Sushma Swaraj made that clear as also a statement on no talks being held in a 3rd country.

What has happened now is that the FS's met alongside the NSA's in a 3rd country & the joint declaration left it open to interpretation, the discussions on Kashmir. Exactly the formulation that Pakistan had asked for in August and was refused.

Regardless of whether the discussions were productive or not, the ink was hardly dry and with no obvious proof of Pakistani intentions on terror, let alone actual actions, India then upgraded the discussions to FM level (there was an available option to send MoS MEA, V.K. Singh) where they have now decided that the FS's will talk to prepare a roadmap for future talks. Almost taken out of the Pakistani playbook.

I have no issues with the steps taken, I think they are as valid as the policy to refuse dialogue till certain conditions were met but what is jarring is that the transition from the second to the first has happened without any known change in the Pakistani position. Essentially, we are telling the Pakistanis that there are no red lines that we will not roll back, that this government is essentially no different on diplomacy than the previous one. I also think that if the government had decided to alter its position, the transition could have happened slowly. Why this tearing hurry to go from one end of the spectrum to the other.

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

I beg to disagree.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salman Khan Acquitted By Bombay High Court In 2002 Hit-And-Run Case

Salman Khan Acquitted By Bombay High Court In 2002 Hit-And-Run Case


..and someone was asking if the Gandhis would be convicted..........

 

[anant_s]

The mere picture them standing in the court & being interrogated is enough to nearly destroy the credibility of the Italian & the imbecile.

is there any left?

 

[HariPrasad]

What is TDK?

Tadika, The lady monster m the sister of Ravan.

 

[anant_s]

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.

i guess this could work out as a bargaining chip for several issues later on in Parliament.

 

[Shankranthi]

During the cancelled NSA talks, the Pakistanis had a couple of points they were making. One was that India's position of talks on terror & Modi's formulation of no talks on other issues before India is satisfied on the terrorism front was not acceptable to them. They pointed out that India could put off all talks on other issues permanently by the logic of that argument. Hence they insisted on bringing in other issues & finally made an offer to have the FS meet alongside the NSA where they could atleast prepare a road-map for the discussions on other issues. India refused, Sushma Swaraj made that clear as also a statement on no talks being held in a 3rd country.

Modi's philosophy has been "no substantial talks can be held over the din of gun fire."

There is no shift in this principle. However there has to be a common mechanism over which the reduction in terror can be substantially measured. Since India and the world has been unable and unwilling to penalize pakistan on Terror, the second best approach would be open a door to let our pressure work and let pakistan come back to us with a concrete agenda.

This pressure by India has worked and now pakistan is willing to talk to India on our terms. Naturally they would want something in return and that is inclusion of kashmir in the talks.

Do you have a link that showed pakistan wanted NSA with FS level talks together in August 2015 ? Even then this was not agreed upon.

Sushma's statement on 3rd country was mean to not have any other nation get INVOLVED in our bilater talks. That still holds true. Thailand was chose so that NSA could meet outside the glare of the press and pakistan could avoid the hurriyat without any backlash at home. The idea of NSA meeting was to talk on Terror. The FS met on other issues.

What has happened now is that the FS's met alongside the NSA's in a 3rd country & the joint declaration left it open to interpretation, the discussions on Kashmir. Exactly the formulation that Pakistan had asked for in August and was refused.

The joint deceleration is not an agreement, its just an acknowledgement of the list of items that was discussed during the meeting. It is never specific, its always ambiguous, so what is the issue ?

Regardless of whether the discussions were productive or not, the ink was hardly dry and with no obvious proof of Pakistani intentions on terror, let alone actual actions, India then upgraded the discussions to FM level (there was an available option to send MoS MEA, V.K. Singh) where they have now decided that the FS's will talk to prepare a roadmap for future talks. Almost taken out of the Pakistani playbook.

The talks on FS level is for mutual interest. India cannot let its self interest be held hostage to terror and pakistani terrorism. I don't see how that is pakistani playbook. Their playbook is to keep talks hostage to terror.

OUR playbook is to delink it from terror and put pressure on pakistan to end terror not from "talks" but by ACTION. National and International.

You are confusing the play here. This is what INDIA WANTS. Not what pakistan wants.

India will continue to put pressure and pakistan will keep coming back to us to ease off the pressure and in return we will continue to seek steps that reduce Terrorism.

I have no issues with the steps taken, I think they are as valid as the policy to refuse dialogue till certain conditions were met but what is jarring is that the transition from the second to the first has happened without any known change in the Pakistani position. Essentially, we are telling the Pakistanis that there are no red lines that we will not roll back, that this government is essentially no different on diplomacy than the previous one. I also think that if the government had decided to alter its position, the transition could have happened slowly, why this tearing hurry to go from one end of the spectrum to the other.

You were expecting the Terror to end before talks could resume

But if Terror ends we have NOTHING to talk about. The whole premise is wrong.

Modi's policy is to end Terror for any SUBSTANTIAL engagement to take place. The roadmap the FS has revealed probably gives a clear picture about what India expects for talks to resume and what pakistan hopes in return.

That is the way to go.

The Red line is that Terror has to decrease as per the Roadmap for our engagement to expand and NO THIRD PARTY Involvement which includes the Hurriyat. How has that been erased or Moved ? The Red Line is pakistan is expected to stick to its commitments if it wants to be taken seriously by India.

All those Red lines still exist.

There is an tearing hurry to END TERRORISM. I do not see how that is a bad thing.

 

[Bang Galore]

Do you have a link that showed pakistan wanted NSA with FS level talks together in August 2015 ? Even then this was not agreed upon.

Pakistan wanted foreign secretaries to talk on Kashmir on the fringes of NSA-level dialogue - Times of India

The FS met on other issues.

They were in the same room during the same meeting.

"
Swaraj said India was prepared to discuss all outstanding issues, including Kashmir—as envisaged by the ‘Renewed Dialogue’ and the earlier ‘Composite Dialogue’ process—only if the two sides were able to bring about an improvement in bilateral atmospherics by ensuring an end to terrorism. “Dialogue cannot take place if there is the sound of gunfire,” she said, quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. That is why the Ufa statement had said the NSA-level talks would focus on terror, she added."


The Talks Are Off, Now Get Ready for India-Pakistan Relations to Enter Free Fall | The Wire


Slightly off-topic:
Btw, do you recognise the 2nd guy from the right in the photo? Modi seem to have sent in the whole cavalry.....

 

[magudi]

Indira Gandhi’s 1978 template may not work for Congress chief now : The Hindu - Mobile edition

 

[Jason bourne]

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.

Agar Salman ko jail ho jaati to mera paiso pe se vishwas uth jaata..

 

[ranjeet]

https://twitter.com/x/status/674892893681614849

 

[Shankranthi]

Pakistan wanted foreign secretaries to talk on Kashmir on the fringes of NSA-level dialogue - Times of India

They were in the same room during the same meeting.

"
Swaraj said India was prepared to discuss all outstanding issues, including Kashmir—as envisaged by the ‘Renewed Dialogue’ and the earlier ‘Composite Dialogue’ process—only if the two sides were able to bring about an improvement in bilateral atmospherics by ensuring an end to terrorism. “Dialogue cannot take place if there is the sound of gunfire,” she said, quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. That is why the Ufa statement had said the NSA-level talks would focus on terror, she added."

The Talks Are Off, Now Get Ready for India-Pakistan Relations to Enter Free Fall | The Wire

Slightly off-topic:
Btw, do you recognise the 2nd guy from the right in the photo? Modi seem to have sent in the whole cavalry.....

I meant proof for pakistan asking for NSA and FS in AUGUST as per you claims. I am aware of the December meet.

We remain ignorant about the steps pakistan has taken to improve the bilateral atmosphere and are second guessing the govt. and assuming an step down.

Maybe pakitan offered unilateral support to India during COP21 to improve the atmosphere. Maybe they helped India arrest a few ISI / Terror operatives. We can only second guess what happened.

Going with full strength for talks seems to indicate a substantial level of engagement. It could also be proof that Indian strategy is working.

That seems more probably that to assume its pakistani strategy that seems to be working.

 

[Bang Galore]

I meant proof for pakistan asking for NSA and FS in AUGUST as per you claims. I am aware of the December meet.

Err....Did put up the link


Pakistan wanted foreign secretaries to talk on Kashmir on the fringes of NSA-level dialogue - Times of India

 

[LaBong]

I disagree on cricket. Playing Pakistan in a bilateral series with Pakistan as a host guarantees huge revenues to the PCB. See no particular reason to help them financially.

Not in Pakistan, Im talking about playing in India.

 

[Bang Galore]

Not in Pakistan, Im talking about playing in India.

There is no issue about playing in India except that once they do, it would be seen as churlish to refuse them a tour.

 

[Shankranthi]

What did we gain out of stopping the cricket tour with pakistan ? Nothing.

It was done to demonstrate our solidarity with our dead and dying soldiers. Re - Starting it is a bad idea.

It sends out a message that its business as usual.

 

[magudi]

@Darmashkian still no tweet from top editors