As India tells Pakistan it will only talk terror, PM Narendra Modi’s core advisors mull next steps

[ranjeet]

And, what would you propose? India wouldn't do water games, remember the Indus originates in China, and Tibet's waters feed Indian rivers and land.

I don't propose anything, I shared my point of view regarding which issues could be raised by Indian side. And considering Modi's Pakistan policy is not clearly defined so just wondered whether India is planning to bring IWT into the mix. I might be wrong and an Indian member did point it out that it's too extreme an step.

 

[deckingraj]

This is a governmental position and stand, not a national one. Your country has to wait it out.

Apart from some extra drama the position is more or less same across govt. no?

Don't take that seriously. That is just bhakts dancing a 'haka'.

Agreed. This was not an issue even during full fledged wars however i do believe at one stage this is going to be an option worth exploring...With due course of time New Delhi is going to amass enough economic clout that exploting this option might sound alluring...

Let's start talking trade then. Both sides will save millions, if not billions, by simplifying trade.

Not gonna happen...they haven't even given us MFN status that every tom dick and harry has given to each other...so status quo is gonna go....

 

[Joe Shearer]

Apart from some extra drama the position is more or less same across govt. no?

Not enforceably so; it may be so by the conscious decision of the current government, but this government is not bound to take the earlier positions. While it is free to differ and to take a different tack, it will obviously reduce the credibility of the nation in some eyes, and restore it in other eyes by doing so. Just as it remaining with the pre-existing position will reduce its credibility in some eyes, and raise it in other eyes.

Agreed. This was not an issue even during full fledged wars however i do believe at one stage this is going to be an option worth exploring...With due course of time New Delhi is going to amass enough economic clout that exploting this option might sound alluring...

An option to be in breach of an international treaty arrived at without coercion is not an option.

Economic clout has NOTHING to do with honouring a treaty.

Not gonna happen...they haven't even given us MFN status that every tom dick and harry has given to each other...so status quo is gonna go....

So granting MFN status could be a talking point?

 

[Indrajit]

NOT generosity, fairness. There's a lot of difference between the two, and I know which one I would like to characterise my country.

The IWT is in my view, generous to a fault. Fairness would be the preferable choice in how we wish to characterise our country but generous is pretty much the only term I can see applicable w.r.t. IWT.

 

[idune]

looks like india get the realization that their occupation using army and propaganda tactics not working. So india instead of addressing the core issue of occupation, "crafting" new narrative of deception, farricated agenda and reviving tactics that will throw Kashmir freedom to dead end.

No critical observer can miss indian double speak and deception ploy to keep indian occupation going. popular sentiment in Pakistan and among Muslim in other countries to press on with demand to end indian occupation and mass killing of Kashmiris. Most importantly let Kashmiri decide their own fate by plebiscite; just like any civilized country would do. But india had not acted as civilized nation and doubling down its occupation and mass killing rhetoric. As soon any negotiation starts, india already prepared more brutal force for mass arrest, abduction and killing. Pakistan should not fall for indian trap for next phase of indian brutality and killing and terror in Baluchistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The IWT is in my view, generous to a fault. Fairness would be the preferable choice in how we wish to characterise our country but generous is pretty much the only term I can see applicable w.r.t. IWT.

That must remain your view, and Government of India has frequently made it clear that they support the Treaty. It cannot have been an unequal treaty. That would reduce our negotiators and experts to brainless morons. Considering the very long duration of this Treaty, we may have difficulty thinking of them as such.

 

[Indrajit]

That must remain your view, and Government of India has frequently made it clear that they support the Treaty. It cannot have been an unequal treaty. That would reduce our negotiators and experts to brainless morons. Considering the very long duration of this Treaty, we may have difficulty thinking of them as such.

Not just my view, it's one shared by most experts including Pakistani ones who point it out every time when some nut asks to reopen the IWT for negotiations. That is also the primary reason for many in India to ask that the treaty be renegotiated. The treaty remains among the most generous in terms of what an upper riparian state gave away to the lower riparian. Calling those negotiators & experts who worked on the treaty as brainless would be juvenile, they worked in their time when the technology & means to utilise the water on the Indian side was still some distance away. After all Nehru did make mistakes taking Kashmir to the UN & wrt his dealings with China. Does that make him a complete brainless moron? Hardly. The experts did then what they thought was sensible, they didn't write it down like a commandment for eternity.

 

[deckingraj]

Not enforceably so; it may be so by the conscious decision of the current government, but this government is not bound to take the earlier positions. While it is free to differ and to take a different tack, it will obviously reduce the credibility of the nation in some eyes, and restore it in other eyes by doing so. Just as it remaining with the pre-existing position will reduce its credibility in some eyes, and raise it in other eyes.

Agreed. However the larger point is how to break the deadlock? ....The wisest thing is to completely ignore them and fix our own shortcomings...From Kargil to Pathankot the sinister plots have Pakistani footprints however their lifeline is always shortcomings on our side...The current govt may be trying out something different...will it fruit result - i personally don't think so...however i am happy they are atleast trying to do something different....

An option to be in breach of an international treaty arrived at without coercion is not an option.Economic clout has NOTHING to do with honouring a treaty.

Absolutely...no denying the fact...However what i am trying to say is that the way relations are going south hawks are gaining footholds and there would be a time when these hawks will start looking at this so called treaty....Economic clout and geo-politics will simply shut the so called international community....they would know its a breach but they will not make much noise...Hawks wont mind that arrangement...

So granting MFN status could be a talking point?

Even a genuine attempt at it from Pakistan...actually there should by multiple independent channels of talking point...and trade should be one such channel....If it all boils down to one topic(terrorism for us kashmir for them) then talks will not go anywhere...and it would be better to not talk at all...

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agreed. However the larger point is how to break the deadlock? ....The wisest thing is to completely ignore them and fix our own shortcomings...From Kargil to Pathankot the sinister plots have Pakistani footprints however their lifeline is always shortcomings on our side...The current govt may be trying out something different...will it fruit result - i personally don't think so...however i am happy they are atleast trying to do something different....


Absolutely...no denying the fact...However what i am trying to say is that the way relations are going south hawks are gaining footholds and there would be a time when these hawks will start looking at this so called treaty....Economic clout and geo-politics will simply shut the so called international community....they would know its a breach but they will not make much noise...Hawks wont mind that arrangement...


Even a genuine attempt at it from Pakistan...actually there should by multiple independent channels of talking point...and trade should be one such channel....If it all boils down to one topic(terrorism for us kashmir for them) then talks will not go anywhere...and it would be better to not talk at all...

Superb.

Thank you so much.

@hellfire
@Spectre
@Nilgiri
@scorpionx
@MilSpec
@nair


Wanted to bring this to your notice in case you had not seen it. Please tag others who might enjoy the reasoning.

 

[Hellfire]

Superb.

Thank you so much.

@hellfire
@Spectre
@Nilgiri
@scorpionx
@MilSpec
@nair


Wanted to bring this to your notice in case you had not seen it. Please tag others who might enjoy the reasoning.

Interesting. I, however, heed your advice of no comments on this one.

 

[deckingraj]

Interesting. I, however, heed your advice of no comments on this one.

To be honest please do share your comments...trolls wont stop trolling...hawks wont stop spewing venom...then why should rational minds stop??

 

[Nilgiri]

Superb.

Thank you so much.

@hellfire
@Spectre
@Nilgiri
@scorpionx
@MilSpec
@nair


Wanted to bring this to your notice in case you had not seen it. Please tag others who might enjoy the reasoning.

Its pretty common sense statement to be honest.

This is an issue of debate here among people?

 

[Thorough Pro]

Modi is already talking about indian state sponsored terrorism in Pakistan, that's what one expects from a world renouned and world declared terrorist

NSA Ajit Doval and Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar have been working closely to craft a wider strategic response to the crisis in response to the impasse in relations with Pakistan.

Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar has written to his Pakistani counterpart, calling for talks on cross-border terrorism, describing it as a threat to “regional security”. The letter, delivered to Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry on Wednesday night, also proposes a dialogue on the status of Pakistan-occupiedKashmir. Pakistan had written to India on August 15, calling for a dialogue on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, and humanitarian issues related to the violence there.

The letter, government sources said, was cleared by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, after consultations which involved the heads of the intelligence services and the Ministry of Home Affairs.

New Delhi’s letter in essence reiterates its earlier, August 19, response to Pakistan’s letter, stating its willingness to engage in Foreign Secretary-level talks, but not on issues chosen by Pakistan. Pakistan had responded to the August 19 letter the same day, drawing the Indian response delivered Wednesday.

Behind the letter, government sources say, is a foreign policy team that has pulled together to shape a strategic response to combat multiple crisis that have threatened to leave India isolated from several of its neighbours.

“The letters tell Pakistan that if you want a serious conversation of the kind we’d hoped we were beginning when Pathankot happened, we’re open to that,” a senior official involved in drafting the documents said. “However, if you want to reduce our engagement to scoring propaganda points at home, fine, we can play that game too”.

National Security Advisor Doval and Foreign Secretary Jaishankar have been working closely to craft a wider strategic response to the crisis in response to the impasse in relations with Pakistan, officials working with them told The Indian Express.

“It’s obvious to everyone that while talking to Pakistan isn’t a policy, not talking isn’t a policy either,” the senior official said. “The big question is how to compel Pakistan to cut back its support for terrorist groups and secessionists in Kashmir, and that will involve carefully thinking about our diplomatic, political and security options. This isn’t something there is an easy answer to, but we’re agreed we have to try new things.”

Key to the strategy is broadening engagement with China, putting aside the bitterness which flowing from that country’s opposition to India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, to avoid a crisis in relations with both of India’s major adversaries.

Earlier this month, during Chinese Foreign Secretary Wang Yi’s visit, Foreign Secretary Jaishankar initiated a new dialogue on a range of issues, including, among other things, climate change and India’s demand for the listing of Jaish-e-Muhammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar on the list of sanctioned individuals maintained by the United Nations Security Council.

For his part, National Security Advisor Doval remains in charge of the critical Special Representative-level negotiations on China-India border negotiations. Yang Jiechi. Jiechi, as a State Councillor, outranks China’s Foreign Secretary; Doval, for his part, has the rank of a Minister of State.

“The Special Representative talks had expanded to include a number of non-core areas like energy security under former National Security Advisor MK Narayanan,” an official said. “The thinking shared by both China and India is that this is an impediment to the business at hand”.

“Keeping China engaged served India best”, another official said. “Even though many bitter statements were made in the wake of the failure to gain NSG membership, we have nothing to gain by sabotaging the entire relationship”.

Both graduates of the King George’s Military Schools, now known as the Rashtriya Military Schools, Doval and Jaishankar have have been cast as hawk-dove opponents in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strategic team. The two men are, however, described by officials working with them as pragmatists, whose decision-making processes do not appear coloured by strongly-held ideological beliefs.

Following the attack on the Pathankot Air Force Base on January 2, 2015, both men had pushed for a diplomatic efforts to secure action against the Jaish-e-Muhammad. The two men argued that India ought to test Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s promises to act against terrorists operating against India, which led on to National Security Advisor-level talks, and a parallel diplomatic engagement between the Foreign Secretaries.

However, their critics contend the strategy—leading up to Prime Minister Modi’s December, 2015 visit to Pakistan—was based on the flawed assumption that Lieutenant-General Nasser Khan Janjua, Pakistan’s National Security Advisor, had the backing of that country’s military establishment.

Doval and Jaishankar also worked closely together through the Nepal crisis, an issue on which they were reported to have deep differences over the blockade imposed on commercial traffic into that country. The two men agreed on fundamentals, including the need to back ethnic communities living in Nepal’s plains, who were angered by its new Constitution.

“The fact is that that Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli’s government, with its anti-Madhesi bias, fell, and the country’s pro-China tilt has been reversed”, an official argues. “Indian policy has not turned out to be the disaster that it was claimed to be”.

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...narendra-modis-core-advisors-mull-next-steps/

 

[Joe Shearer]

Its pretty common sense statement to be honest.

This is an issue of debate here among people?

My DEAR chap.

Common sense is the least common commodity available in general.