तुम मेरे नागरिक मारो और मैं तुम्हे आदाब के साथ आत्मसमर्पण करूंगा।
(You Terrorize & Mass murder my countrymen and I will Bow & Surrender to you)
No wonder his Muslim Rightist party's symbol is hand. वाह रे, Bharatiya Domestic-Foreign policy Tamasha. Someone is busy kissing enemy's a** internationally by doing Adaab, Musharraf-ishtyle, while someone else is busy domestically learning how to Hail (salute).
Its the same Pervez Musharraf who on the 10th Anniversary of Kargil war victory today, a fact which present Congress Government has chosen to ignore and families of those soldiers who died are being neglected, has just termed the war as a "big success" for Pakistan as it forced India to discuss Kashmir post-war in 1999. In an interview to a news channel he said, "Yes, indeed, it was a big success because it had (an) impact even on the attitudes of the Indian side. How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute? How was it that the Indians agreed that we will discuss Kashmir and there must be a negotiated settlement? Before this there was no such thing at all,".
What a role model, Overrated World Renowned Mythical Economist and Dhimmi Regent Sellout PM Mr. Manmohan Singh has chosen.
It's for sure that someone was smoking a joint while writing that disastrous blunder of a joint statement because no sane nationalist & patriot Bharatvaasi will so as to even think of surrendering Bharat's sovereignty to an enemy which has mass murdered through terror so many Bharatiya citizens and persecuted its minorities particularly Hindus whose population has gone down from double digits to point decimal places. Sadly, articles below tell a different story. Credit for the articles goes to their respective fearless authors. In days when the Government may be arm twisting media houses or latter chooses to be a sellout and toe Government's line, such articles which bring out truth are need of the hour. Posting excerpts from them here before they get censored and removed from original source.
Manmohan Singh introduced Balochistan, terror delink in Egypt statement by Times Of India
Who drafted the controversial joint statement in Sharm-el Sheikh?With an adaab, PM capitulates by Swapan Dasgupta
Sifting through the clutter, this is the picture that has been culled.
On July 14, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon had his first official talks with his Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir.
Bashir handed over a paper that detailed the actions taken by Pakistan on the 26/11 terror attacks from January 5, the day India handed over its first dossier to Pakistan.
The talks continued through July 15, at various forums on the sidelines of the NAM summit, without much headway, except for a line here, a paragraph there. Menon even reportedly met Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani. The Indian side had travelled with a draft statement, but the problem was getting Pakistan to agree to it.
On July 16, when PM Manmohan Singh finally met Gilani, the two leaders sat down for a one-on-one chat that went on for a long time, and was apparently peppered with a lot of Urdu poems. The bilateral ran on for over an hour, according to the PM himself. "Afterwards we called the foreign secretaries. I asked the Pakistan Prime Minister to sum up what we had agreed. I added a little bit. Then we instructed the two foreign secretaries to come up with an agreed draft."
After that the two foreign secretaries and their delegations retired to hammer out a statement. The crux of the agreement was the "delinking" of action on terrorism with the composite dialogue. But India also decided that the "farce" of holding Pakistan to its pledge of January 6, 2004 should be done away with, because Pakistan had regularly flouted this pledge.
It's very clear that the two "new" elements were introduced by the PM. The first was the delinking, and the second, Balochistan.
The PM quite candidly explained why he included Balochistan in the statement. "The Prime Minister of Pakistan did bring up this thing when I said about terrorist acts aided, abetted and inspired from Pakistan's side. He said that in his country people say India is active in Balochistan. I said our conduct is an open book. We are willing to discuss all issues because we are doing nothing. And I said to him that I have been told several times that Indian consulates in Afghanistan are engaged in undesirable activities and I said these consulates have existed not today, they were set up way back in the 1950s. But if you have any evidence, we are willing to look at it because we are an open book; we are doing nothing. Therefore, we are not afraid of discussing these issues."
Extraordinarily, the almost conciliatory tone of the statement was at odds with the PM's own remarks barely an hour later. In fact, it was clear the PM was trying to interpret the statement in a particular way, because by then the Pakistanis had already interpreted the statement to mean that they were off the hook -- the umbilical cord between terror and dialogue was cut.
Shiv Shankar Menon, a seasoned negotiator, has defended the statement saying the "intention was clear". "You can call it good drafting or bad drafting, but the meaning is clear," he had told a group of questioning MPs earlier this week.
A photograph, it is said, is more telling than a thousand words of succinct prose. Last Friday morning, the readers of many newspapers may have observed a very revealing photograph from the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh where Indian and Pakistani delegations, led by their respective Prime Ministers, met on the sidelines of the redundant Non-Aligned Movement Summit. The photograph showed Manmohan Singh, flanked by Yousuf Raza Gilani, greeting a woman member of the Pakistani delegation with what, presumably, is either an adaab or a feeble imitation of the signature Pervez Musharraf salute.The silence of Mr Singh by Ashok Malik
How the Prime Minister of India chooses to greet a foreigner is an individual decision. He may offer a limp handshake or even a firm one; he may copy Fidel Castro’s bear hug; he may, though this is extremely unlikely, greet the visitor with a peck on both cheeks; he may favour a deep Japanese-style bow; and alternatively he may offer the traditional Namaste. It is entirely a personal decision and one that need not be bound in protocol, as long as it is laced with courtesy.
Not even his worst enemies will accuse Manmohan of either rudeness or discourtesy. He would not have invited charges of either cultural insensitivity or inappropriate conduct had he chosen to greet the Pakistani lady with folded hands. Most foreigners, in fact, expect to be greeted with a Namaste by an Indian, especially when it is a formal occasion.
That Manmohan chose to greet the Pakistani officials with an adaab is revealing. It suggested a mindset centred on supplication which translated politically means a desperate desire to accommodate and please. Pursuing the line of least resistance has been the signature tune of the PM in his relationship with the owners of the Congress, his coalition partners and in his conduct of foreign policy. Some may see in this Manmohan’s grand vision of reconciliation: Breakfasting in Delhi and lunching in Lahore. But attributing profundity to inanity is a well-known Indian trait, except these days it passes off as media management.
The outrageous joint statement issued from Sharm el-Sheikh has been analysed threadbare by a country which wants to know whether the ‘tough on terrorism’ stand adopted by India after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai was meant for electoral consumption alone. Read with the apology the PM issued to President Asif Ali Zardari for miscuing his rehearsed lines at Yekaterinburg in Russia last month, the joint statement’s clear willingness to not let the trivial issue of terrorism mar the composite dialogue reveals the spinal condition of Indian diplomacy under Manmohan.
Manmohan’s inclination to appease the rogue state in Pakistan was first in evidence at the Havana summit of NAM two years ago when it was proclaimed that India and Pakistan were co-victims of terror. The groundwork for this shameful retreat from the Islamabad declaration of January 2004 had, in fact, been done at the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Delhi immediately after the UPA Government assumed power in the summer of 2004 when it was stated that terrorism would not be allowed to derail the peace process.
However, what is intriguing about the latest reiteration of a decision to delink dialogue from acts of aggression is that it even caught the decision-making apparatus of the Government unawares. The overall consensus in the Ministry of External Affairs and the intelligence agencies was that it would be imprudent to resume formal dialogue with a duplicitous neighbour unless there was clear evidence that it was taking firm and effective steps to defang the terrorists operating from within its territory. It was felt that any engagement with Pakistan could well be conducted within the framework of discreet back channel diplomacy.
This was the gist of the briefing by the Foreign Secretary to the Indian media accompanying the Prime Minister to Egypt. At best, Manmohan was expected to show some recognition of the civilian Government’s difficulties in confronting a monster that had been nurtured by the Pakistan military establishment and the ISI. After all, Zardari had owned up to Pakistan’s role in sustaining fanatical jihadis. Not even the most clued-in expected Manmohan to walk the entire mile to placate Pakistan, going to the ridiculous extent of even tacitly conceding an Indian role in the disturbances in Baluchistan.
Conspiracy theories tend normally to be a little fanciful but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Manmohan’s actions may be guided by a nudge and a wink from the US. That Washington no longer has the stomach to continue the fight in Afghanistan is hardly the world’s best kept secret. But no disentanglement from Afghanistan is possible for the US unless it has some assurance that Pakistan is not going to fill the vacuum with a barbaric Taliban regime intent on wreaking havoc in the heartlands of Western ‘decadence’. Was India chipping in to raise Pakistan’s comfort level? Has India become a collaborator in the US’s AfPak policy?
At this juncture only questions can be raised. But there is merit in scrutinising a number of other steps taken by Manmohan to placate the US. First, there was the change of the Commerce Minister followed by clear indications that the ‘intransigence’ of Kamal Nath would be reviewed in future WTO negotiations. Second, in signing the G-8 declaration, Manmohan indicated a retreat from India’s existing policy on Climate Change. Finally, by adding his signature to the G-8 proclamation on non-proliferation, Manmohan may have taken the first covert step in accommodating the Obama Administration’s determination to rollback India’s gains from the agreements with the IAEA and NSG.
These are early days yet but Manmohan’s adaab suggests that accommodation of others rather than enlightened self-interest may become the new principle of Indian foreign policy. Maybe the time is fast approaching when India should prepare to do its Namaste to him, before he travels down the IK Gujral route.
For PM, Indian blood is cheap by Kanchan Gupta
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a decent and honest man. His admirers would say he is an economist too. His detractors (a plague on their houses!) don’t quite see it that way and his critics (may they never escape the damnation of hell!) think he is a feckless man given to spinning webs of deceit to cover up his sins of omission and commission. So, there is no reason to doubt that when he met Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (yes, it still exists) Summit at Sharm el-Sheikh last Thursday, Mr Singh did the tough-guys-don’t-cry act with him.Sharm surrender not surprising by Balbir K Punj
It takes a whole new level of talent ...
A Sharm-less surrender by G Parthasarathy
Assertions by Mr Singh that India and Pakistan are both equally “victims” of terrorism, that they share a “common destiny”, or that a rising India cannot assert its rightful place in the comity of nations without good relations with Pakistan, are factually incorrect and undermine Indian diplomacy. A democratic, secular India cannot share a “common destiny” with a theocratic, feudal and military-dominated Pakistan, which is being challenged by terrorists the ISI backed to ‘bleed’ India and seek ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. India, on the other hand has been a victim of the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. Equating the two countries, as we have done in Sharm el-Sheikh, is ill-advised. India’s economic growth has accelerated and its international profile has flourished by its partnership with the international community in forums like the G-8 and G-20, despite Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and diplomatic hostility. We can ‘rise’ in the world with or without Pakistan’s cooperation. The more we suggest that we need Pakistan’s meherbani to accelerate economic growth, or rise in world affairs, the more those who cannot countenance India’s rise in the world within Pakistan’s establishment will continue to ‘bleed’ us.Even fundamentalist Muslim Rightist MJ Akbar is pissed (Manmohan endorses a statement out of joint) about this blunder by Overrated World Renowned Mythical Economist and Dhimmi Regent Sellout PM Mr. Manmohan Singh. May be now the latter would try and reverse the damage in order to at least appease his Muslim Ummah.
There are serious differences between Mr Zardari, who has genuinely sought accommodation and cooperation with India, and Mr Gilani, who rose in politics with the support of Gen Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. Mr Gilani echoes the hardline approach of Pakistan’s military establishment. How then are India’s national interests served by embarrassing Mr Zardari in Yekaterinburg and appeasing Mr Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh?