Baluchistan included in Indo-Pak joint statement.

[afriend]

If the two sides continue to engage on the issue of Baluchistan, that only further validates Pakistan's accusations against India. When, and if, Baluchistan is discussed, it will be in the context of India sponsoring terrorism in Baluchistan - I am not sure how you can call that a positive issue to have the focus on from India's perspective.

As for the 'shifting of focus' - why would that happen? Pakistan is not going to stop talking about it, nor is the Pakistani military going to move from the LoC and IB to Baluchistan. At the end of the day the inherent assumption is that dialog has to be about Kashmir.

India's meddling in Baluchistan is due to the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. So if Baluchistan is in the spotlight, the focus automatically falls on Kashmir as well, since Kashmir is the central dispute that drives other events.

See even if Pakistan brings in Baluchistan, it should be normally ignored as many claims that Pakistan makes against India, unless and until Pakistan proves it with solid evidence, however that is highly unlikely as Indian prime minister allowed Baluchistan to be included in the document which by itself proves he is confident of non involvement of India in Baluchistan. However on the other hand, the issue of Baluchistan is going to get internationalized. Which i believe will be a step that should backfire for Pakistan. Because Kashmir is already internationalized, but Baluchistan is not yet. So it is going to be another game of never ending tennis volley for sure.

 

[IceCold]

Including balochistan in the joint statement, may be out of sheer confidence of knowing india has nothing to hide about balochistan, india have literaly taken the issue to a global level. Now the unheard struggle of balochistan freedom shall be focused more.. Many like me didnt even know anything about balochistan before i came tot his forum. So i think gilani have dug his own grave rather by bringing in an internal issue into bilateral relations between india and pakistan.

The issue is not of Balochistan that has been included but the terrorism in Balochistan that India is sponsoring. Try to learn the difference between the two before making such outrageous comments.
You Indians are beating around the same bush day in and day out and frankly we are tired because its not a debate but rather a rant that many of you actually enjoy to carry on.

Good day.

 

[afriend]

The issue is not of Balochistan that has been included but the terrorism in Balochistan that India is sponsoring. Try to learn the difference between the two before making such outrageous comments.
You Indians are beating around the same bush day in and day out and frankly we are tired because its not a debate but rather a rant that many of you actually enjoy to carry on.

Good day.

I get the difference brother..!!! But i believe Indian confidence comes from the fact that there is no terrorism in Baluchistan but mere freedom struggle for which india have no part of. Now Baluchistan separatist would have a new friend in India, who can take up this issue at a global level. Now we have a Baluchistan for a Kashmir.!!! Now the separatist would have a renewed vigor for their struggle.

 

[IceCold]

I get the difference brother..!!! But i believe Indian confidence comes from the fact that there is no terrorism in Baluchistan but mere freedom struggle for which india have no part of. Now Baluchistan separatist would have a new friend in India, who can take up this issue at a global level. Now we have a Baluchistan for a Kashmir.!!! Now the separatist would have a renewed vigor for their struggle.

Well before making separatists as your friends understand that Kashmir isnt the only thing which can be related to Baluchistan because its already a disputed territory but how about Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. I am sure we too can make alot of new friends there in the name of supporting freedom struggle and moreover by the exact same definition your provided above, the issue or should i say issues can be taken to a global level.

 

[nwmalik]

I get the difference brother..!!! But i believe Indian confidence comes from the fact that there is no terrorism in Baluchistan but mere freedom struggle for which india have no part of. Now Baluchistan separatist would have a new friend in India, who can take up this issue at a global level. Now we have a Baluchistan for a Kashmir.!!! Now the separatist would have a renewed vigor for their struggle.

so it is freedom struggle when it suits and terrorism when it is required.

 

[ouiouiouiouiouioui]

well as we observe south asia....there were several pacts....MOU..an various things....signed...where are those docs.....it hardly matter.....untill the partners sit together to resolve it

 

[Born In The USA]

so it is freedom struggle when it suits and terrorism when it is required.

Its a very fine line.

 

[afriend]

Well before making separatists as your friends understand that Kashmir isnt the only thing which can be related to Baluchistan because its already a disputed territory but how about Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland. I am sure we too can make alot of new friends there in the name of supporting freedom struggle and moreover by the exact same definition your provided above, the issue or should i say issues can be taken to a global level.

There is a difference brother.. Well only if india wants to.!!! India made a mistake on kashmir.. and you are starting to make the same..!!!

so it is freedom struggle when it suits and terrorism when it is required.

Sweety.. India doesn't support baluchistan freedom struggle its all your hallucination, where as you do support armed terrorism in kashmir which even many members of your establishment have acknowledged..!!! So India have a case and you don't since no intelligence agencies in the world have accused India of interfering in Baluchistan..!!! Interfering in another sovereign countries problem and talking highly of peaceful resolution is different from merely supporting the concept of freedom..!!!! So refrain from interfering and then we will be able to talk with confidence..!!!

And same argument can be raised against you, you consider baluchitan as a non issue and consider kashmir as a freedom struggle.. and you have been doing this all this while..!! So who is the biggest hypocrite.?? Well the answer is we all are..!!!!

 

[advaita]

There is a difference brother.. Well only if india wants to.!!! India made a mistake on kashmir.. and you are starting to make the same..!!!

Most of what is talked about as mistake committed by Indians in Kashmir, can also be read as Majboori (we never had enough choices and were always hard pressed financially). Remember both Punjab terrorism and Kashimir terrorism was started by Pakistan when Indian economy was not growing and they had ready tap of finance from US. At that time US looked the other way (remember amenesty international coming down hard on India every time Pakistanis told them to), when Pakistanis were trying to get away with terrorism.

where as you do support armed terrorism in kashmir which even many members of your establishment have acknowledged..!!!

Forum members both Indian and Pakistanis and others do not drive the policies of their respective members. Dont get too serious.

So India have a case and you don't since no intelligence agencies in the world have accused India of interfering in Baluchistan..!!!

No intelligence agency works for itself they always work for their countrys policy makers (ISI could be an exception not the rule)

And same argument can be raised against you, you consider baluchitan as a non issue and consider kashmir as a freedom struggle.. and you have been doing this all this while..!! So who is the biggest hypocrite.?? Well the answer is we all are..!!!!

You have some point there.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Including balochistan in the joint statement, may be out of sheer confidence of knowing india has nothing to hide about balochistan,

- That's one way to put a positive spin on it. You have nothing to do with it, but lets include it in a joint statement focusing on bilateral relations.

india have literaly taken the issue to a global level. Now the unheard struggle of balochistan freedom shall be focused more.. Many like me didnt even know anything about balochistan before i came tot his forum. So i think gilani have dug his own grave rather by bringing in an internal issue into bilateral relations between india and pakistan.

Unheard of? Western journalists and writers have been talking about Baluchistan for decades. Are you forgetting the infamous Ralph Peters map, that showed Baluchistan, united from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as an independent nation?

Almost every single doomsday analysis about Pakistan has some mention of the Baluch insurgency. So your point is invalid here, though it was a nice attempt to find some justification for India in terms of including a reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement.

Sorry to say, the only way it will get more attention is if it keeps popping up in the Indo-Pak dialog and relationship, and the only context in which Baluchistan will pop up is in the context of India's supporting the insurgency in Baluchistan, which is a negative in terms of PR for India.

The freedom part will carry no weight internationally, just like the Kurdish freedom issue carries little weight (the only reason it might see the light of day in Iraq is because the country was essentially destroyed by the US and the Kurds propped up in the ensuing sectarian and insurgent violence), because the accession of Baluchistan was completely legal and according to the rules of partition.

Again, nice try though.

The GoI dropped the ball on this one.

I mean read how pathetic the defence by Menon is here:

The foreign secretary had on Tuesday virtually conceded that the draft could have been better drafted. "One can argue how good or bad the drafting was... you can say it is bad drafting, but the meaning is clear."

Poor draft? BJP wants foreign secretary Menon out - India - NEWS - The Times of India

Can I back out of my debt obligations by saying that the 'contract was poorly drafted'. What I actually meant to say was that I would pay back my debt if I was given twice the amount I borrowed.

But hey, the GoI did this with respect to the UNSC resolutions, and with respect to the Simla agreement when invading Siachen.

Is any agreement with India worth the paper it is written on given that you guys try to back out of it or violate it every single time?

 

[afriend]

- That's one way to put a positive spin on it. You have nothing to do with it, but lets include it in a joint statement focusing on bilateral relations.


Unheard of? Western journalists and writers have been talking about Baluchistan for decades. Are you forgetting the infamous Ralph Peters map, that showed Baluchistan, united from Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan as an independent nation?

Almost every single doomsday analysis about Pakistan has some mention of the Baluch insurgency. So your point is invalid here, though it was a nice attempt to find some justification for India in terms of including a reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement.

Sorry to say, the only way it will get more attention is if it keeps popping up in the Indo-Pak dialog and relationship, and the only context in which Baluchistan will pop up is in the context of India's supporting the insurgency in Baluchistan, which is a negative in terms of PR for India.

The freedom part will carry no weight internationally, just like the Kurdish freedom issue carries little weight (the only reason it might see the light of day in Iraq is because the country was essentially destroyed by the US and the Kurds propped up in the ensuing sectarian and insurgent violence), because the accession of Baluchistan was completely legal and according to the rules of partition.

Again, nice try though.

The GoI dropped the ball on this one.

I mean read how pathetic the defence by Menon is here:


Can I back out of my debt obligations by saying that the 'contract was poorly drafted'. What I actually meant to say was that I would pay back my debt if I was given twice the amount I borrowed.

But hey, the GoI did this with respect to the UNSC resolutions, and with respect to the Simla agreement when invading Siachen.

Is any agreement with India worth the paper it is written on given that you guys try to back out of it or violate it every single time?

Hey just wanted know, is a joint statement a contrat or a diplomatic document legaly binding, and does inclusion of baluchistan in the draft means india is actually supporting terrorists??? Because i didnt see india agree to that and say india will,will not, withdarw support baloch terrorists. . Its only pakistan's concern and prerogative to prove it and India can only be compassionate to Pakistan and should be ready to help them if they require any assistance in quelling Baluchistan insurgency..!!!!You brought your problem to our table, it can be for accusing India or for asking help from India which by itself is not clear in the document..

And the inclusion of balochistan was purely Mr.Manmohan singhs prerogative, In MEA draft policy it was never mentioned till the last minute. So manmohan singh would have been candid and taken away by the friendly talk between him and gilani and decided to include it as he is sure that the case of india was of like an open book.

But yes it adds fuel to conspiracy theorists and the people who want to exploit it, like mr. gilani said in the press conference in pakistan, i am sure the tone he talked to manmohan and those in pakistan is entirely different for which mr. manmohan fell for..!!!! And surely though it is embarrassing. But still i dont think this will make much difference..!!!

 

[afriend]

US bails out India from Balochistan wrangle - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India


WASHINGTON: Pakistan has not provided any evidence to the United States of India's involvement in the insurgency in Balochistan, and Washington attaches no credibility to Islamabad's charges in this regard, a top US official has indicated.

The US view on Pakistan's allegation came during a briefing by the Obama administration's ****** envoy Richard Holbrooke, who, while acknowledging that Pakistan brought up the subject during his recent visit to the country, told Washington's foreign press corps, "I would be misleading if I said it didn't come up, but the narrow answer to your question (has Pakistan given you any credible evidence of India's involvement?) is no."

Holbrooke's terse response to the Balochistan wrangle -- the latest between India and Pakistan -- broadly squares with the assertion in New Delhi that while Pakistan has raised the issue of India's alleged involvement in the region, it has offered no evidence, even as it falsely propagates in the Pakistani media that it has give a dossier to New Delhi in this regard. The Pakistani press is full of dark conspiracies of Indian intelligence involvement in the province, an inference to which New Delhi credulously allowed Islamabad to incorporate in a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

The US has now, in effect, bailed out New Delhi. Holbrooke has previously rubbished Pakistan's charges about alleged Indian provocations from its consulates in Afghanistan, saying he had no reason to believe Islamabad's charges, and Pakistan would do well to examine its own internal problems. Other officials too have said Pakistan is merely trying to externalize a serious internal crisis while evading responsibility to crack down on home-grown terrorism.

In fact, Holbrooke's briefing following his latest visit to the region was notable for its dire tone with regard to Pakistan, a country which he characterized as "facing a staggering number of front-page story problems at one time." Describing Washington's efforts to stamp out terrorists in Pakistan frontier province, Holbrooke said it "hard to imagine a more dangerous area on the face of the earth today than an area which contains al-Qaida, Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, two and a half million refugees. It's just extraordinary how difficult it is."

The US envoy also trashed speculation about a rift with India that led to the reported cancellation of his visit to New Delhi with an extraordinary revelation. "You know, if there's a rift between me and India, it would be the first rift between me and India since I was seven years old. You know, India was the first country in the world I was ever aware of. I have a very special feeling for it," Holbrooke said.

Such expression of personal affection for countries is seldom expressed by US officials and is certain to rankle Pakistan, which is already sour about a perceived American tilt towards India over the last decade. Holbrooke went on to clarify that the only reason he scrubbed the New Delhi leg of his visit was because three of the four Indian interlocutors he engaged with were all going to be out of town. He would be going back in mid August, "within the limits of Indian independence (day).

 

[IceCold]

US bails out India from Balochistan wrangle - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India


WASHINGTON: Pakistan has not provided any evidence to the United States of India's involvement in the insurgency in Balochistan, and Washington attaches no credibility to Islamabad's charges in this regard, a top US official has indicated.

The US view on Pakistan's allegation came during a briefing by the Obama administration's ****** envoy Richard Holbrooke, who, while acknowledging that Pakistan brought up the subject during his recent visit to the country, told Washington's foreign press corps, "I would be misleading if I said it didn't come up, but the narrow answer to your question (has Pakistan given you any credible evidence of India's involvement?) is no."

Holbrooke's terse response to the Balochistan wrangle -- the latest between India and Pakistan -- broadly squares with the assertion in New Delhi that while Pakistan has raised the issue of India's alleged involvement in the region, it has offered no evidence, even as it falsely propagates in the Pakistani media that it has give a dossier to New Delhi in this regard. The Pakistani press is full of dark conspiracies of Indian intelligence involvement in the province, an inference to which New Delhi credulously allowed Islamabad to incorporate in a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

The US has now, in effect, bailed out New Delhi. Holbrooke has previously rubbished Pakistan's charges about alleged Indian provocations from its consulates in Afghanistan, saying he had no reason to believe Islamabad's charges, and Pakistan would do well to examine its own internal problems. Other officials too have said Pakistan is merely trying to externalize a serious internal crisis while evading responsibility to crack down on home-grown terrorism.

In fact, Holbrooke's briefing following his latest visit to the region was notable for its dire tone with regard to Pakistan, a country which he characterized as "facing a staggering number of front-page story problems at one time." Describing Washington's efforts to stamp out terrorists in Pakistan frontier province, Holbrooke said it "hard to imagine a more dangerous area on the face of the earth today than an area which contains al-Qaida, Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, two and a half million refugees. It's just extraordinary how difficult it is."

The US envoy also trashed speculation about a rift with India that led to the reported cancellation of his visit to New Delhi with an extraordinary revelation. "You know, if there's a rift between me and India, it would be the first rift between me and India since I was seven years old. You know, India was the first country in the world I was ever aware of. I have a very special feeling for it," Holbrooke said.

Such expression of personal affection for countries is seldom expressed by US officials and is certain to rankle Pakistan, which is already sour about a perceived American tilt towards India over the last decade. Holbrooke went on to clarify that the only reason he scrubbed the New Delhi leg of his visit was because three of the four Indian interlocutors he engaged with were all going to be out of town. He would be going back in mid August, "within the limits of Indian independence (day).

Well this was expected, nothing surprising. But then again people wonder why Pakistanis look towards the US and its role in the region with wary eyes

 

[humblehobbes]

Well this was expected, nothing surprising. But then again people wonder why Pakistanis look towards the US and its role in the region with wary eyes

wel.. It was Pakistan who first brought the issue of Kashmir despite indian protest, wher India insisted that it is a bilateral issue.. Remember? the nineties and early 2000s when Pakistan complained to US about this

 

[BATMAN]

Well this was expected, nothing surprising. But then again people wonder why Pakistanis look towards the US and its role in the region with wary eyes

Who's playing Pakistan's shadowy Great Game?

Shobhan Saxena, TNN 9 August 2009, 12:18am IST
Blame it on bad excuses. South Block’s best explanation for the Sharm el-Sheikh “blunder” was bad drafting. That means the poor language skills of some of our top diplomats led India to make two huge concessions to Pakistan. But “bad drafting” was not the full story, namelt that the Indians weren’t really that careless; the Pakistanis were more cunning.

Balochistan was included in the document because the Pakistani team had carefully planned it that way. Sources say that Pakistan’s foreign secretary Salman Bashir played a key role in exerting pressure on India to include Balochistan in the statement Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani. Bashir is said to have chalked out the "Sharm el-Sheikh plan" in the Prime Minister House. Gilani, officers from the Pakistan Army headquarters and interior ministry officials were present. It was so meticulously planned that senior Pakistani journalists reversed their decision not to travel with the delegation to Egypt. The hacks, it’s said, knew that Gilani and Bashir were “going to do something spectacular in Egypt.”

Hamid Mir, executive editor of the Islamabad-based Geo TV, was in Sharm el-Sheikh. He says, “Salman Bashir told Menon on July 14 not to link India-Pakistan talks with terrorism. He told Menon, ‘If you make noise on the Mumbai attacks, we will have no other choice than to expose the Indian role in Balochistan through Afghanistan and it will create problems for Afghanistan, NATO and also for US’.’’ The next day Gilani put two opposition MPs, who were part of the delegation, before the Indian Prime Minister. “They actually told Manmohan Singh that ‘we, the opposition, are with our government on the issues of Kashmir and Balochistan’,” says Mir. It was a carefully planned move to show that there were no fissures within the Pakistani establishment on this crucial matter.
The whole affair is thought to underline the hard work Pakistan is putting in on three fronts – the West, India and China. The team that’s doing the bold thinking and heavy lifting is a mix of hawks and doves:

l Prime minister Gilani
l Foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi
l Minister of state Malik Amad Khan
l Foreign secretary Salman Bashir
l ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha

Qureshi, whom Pakistan considers a dove, was not at Sharm el-Sheikh. “Qureshi is close to President Zardari who is also seen as soft towards India. So, it’s not surprising that Malik Amad went to Sharm el-Sheikh. He is 36, a former army officer from the Armoured Corps Regiment and an expert on military-strategic affairs,” says a source in Islamabad. “He is also considered close to the GHQ because of his background.”

Qureshi, meanwhile, has been focusing on taking the “all-weather friendship” with China to a new level. In October 2008, he chose China to make his first trip abroad as foreign minister. He went with the President but is thought to have worked overtime to make the visit a major success. The two countries signed agreements for a major cash infusion from China, arms sales and energy assistance. There were also moves on a possible civilian nuclear pact similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal. “Before leaving Beijing, Zardari called China the ‘future of the world’ and promised to return there every three months. It was all Qureshi’s work,” says an observer in Lahore.

Qureshi is said to work closely with Bashir on China. Bashir was Pakistan’s ambassador in Beijing before becoming foreign secretary. Meanwhile, it’s on the India front that General Pasha and his men play a key role. Insiders say that Pakistan’s defence and foreign policies are deeply entwined when it comes to India. The India desk at the ISI office has the final say on bilateral matters, in collaboration with GHQ. Policy briefs are reportedly directly conveyed to the President’s House and to the foreign secretary.

Bashir, whose younger brother Admiral Noman Bashir heads the Pakistan Navy, is often the pointsman and is thought to have been fairly successful at engaging the Americans and Chinese on the Balochistan issue. Mir says that “Americans want to open a consulate in Quetta and maybe some bases as well. They need it to coordinate with their forces in south Afghanistan.”

Indeed, it’s on the Afghan front that Pakistan’s foreign policy honchos have achieved real success. The Pakistani army’s successful campaign against the Taliban in Swat valley seems to have not only destroyed the militants’ bases, but restored the ISI’s tarnished image somewhat.
The Great Game continues.