Shatranj ke Khiladi

HisExcellency #285

`` These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India. ``

What makes you think drilling of an Indian BSF officer makes India any less potent than it is ? Killing of Pakistanis in Afghanistan or Iran has no relevance to the strength of Pakistan.

Comparing the size of the current Bangladeshi army with Pakistani deployment in the 1970s is silly. Pakistan never had a plan to defend East Pakistan. Bangladesh is an independent state. 7 divisions of infantrymen is a pretty small force for a country of 140 million people.

When is Nepal a benchmark of stability and wisdom ? It is a country in chaos.

Nepal requires access to the sea through India. Bangladesh requires the help of India to control flood waters. Irrespective of their elites warped thinking they will come back to the table to negotiate with India.

correction to my previous post -
no Indian leader has the option of transfer of land today or anytime in the future.

HisExcellency,
Pakistanis can think whatever they want, but no Indian has the option of trasfer of land today or anytime in the future. If that means the end of the talks period then so be it.

Prashant,
Pal try to convey your point without abuses.

Re: # 284
Very Simple,
Siyasat only works like this.

Re: # 291

Is Sethi a Pakistani too?
Sethi te Sikh hondey ney.

Prashant123 #292 {``But if Pakistanis actually believe that Indians are willing to give up even the tiniest piece of territory...I want to know what they are smoking.....``}

Pakis have been concentrating on J&K for too long. When you bang your head against a brick wall and the brick wall doesn`t give, you must simply go around it.

What Pakis need to do is to take Rajasthan, then UP - Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and J&K will come without a fight. When you pull them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. :)

HisEx
//....imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful” ...//

Najam Sethi and other paki ``editors`` don`t know sh!t even when hits them right on the face. These fools have been crowing about kashmir for a long time. it`s always the same old tune: ``......India has to do this, India has to do that. ....... Otherwise, Freedom fighters would do this to india.......Poverty will increase in India...... South Asia will be a bad place...... Mushy should be strengthened, otherwise `hardliners` will take over ..... blah blah blah``

Like I said - we don;t give a damn. So you can ask Mr sethi to stuff his editorial wherever he wants.

``But at the end of the day, the fact remains that India has not budged a millimeter from its rigid positions on Kashmir. ``

Perhaps..India can afford not to budge a millimeter from its `rigid` positions on Kashmir ? The problem here is that Pakistanis seem to believe that India-Pakistan are equal-equal , and so for every concession by Pakistan , India should respond accordingly. But obviouslyly that ain`t the case. We will have bus travel now and possibly train travel in future. More people-to-people contact. But if Pakistanis actually believe that Indians are willing to give up even the tiniest piece of territory...I want to know what they are smoking.....

In Sethi`s immoral words,

`` you can measure the depth of his (Musharraf`s) courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India. ``


this is why, whenever there will be a People`s revolution in Pakistan, newspaper columnists should also be sent to Lahore Fort for a final phaintee before execution along with generals, bureacrats, profiteering-cronies and corrupt businessmen and feudal lords.

Reading HisChutiyaExcellency`s posts would give one the impression that it is Pakistan that has 11 times the economy of India , and not the other way around...

Now here is a man who knows its important not to put the cart before the horse:

True worth and limitations of Musharraf’s Kashmir policy
Najam Sethi`s Friday Times Editorial


The One Day cricket match between Pakistan and India in Delhi on April 17 promises to be a thrilling clincher. But it isn’t even the pretext any more for General Pervez Musharraf’s forthcoming trip to India. He wants some palpable, perceptible, movement on resolving the Kashmir dispute before doubts of a “sell-out”, especially in the rank and file of the army and among the hardliners of the Pakistani establishment, begin to weigh him down.

Most Pakistanis can live with a “freeze” on the status quo on Kashmir, as they did from 1965 to 1989. But not General Musharraf. He is, after all, the architect of Kargil. He is the coup maker who accused Nawaz Sharif of “selling out” on Kashmir during the Lahore summit with Mr Vajpayee in 1999. He is the general who returned from Agra 2001 in a huff because Mr Vajpayee wouldn’t accept Pakistan’s Kashmir-related pre-condition for a dialogue without posing India’s own cross-border terrorism pre-condition. He is the general under whom the jihadis became audacious enough to attack the parliament in Srinagar and then the parliament in New Delhi. So if you consider the distance he has traveled in the opposite direction since then, you can measure the depth of his courage in seeking a durable, honourable and realistic peace-settlement with India.

Pakistan under General Musharraf in 2005 has closed the jihadi tap and stopped infiltrating militancy into Indian-held Kashmir. That is saying something. Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has accepted the notion of “composite dialogue” first advanced by India in 1992 and constantly rejected by the military establishment since then. Indeed, there are no Pakistani pre-conditions to the current dialogue and CBMs between the two countries today. That is saying something. Indeed, Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has enabled the road links between the two Kashmirs to be restored after 58 years and made the Line of Control “soft” without any concession by India on the core question of how to settle the Kashmir issue. That is saying something. Pakistan under Musharraf in 2005 has unilaterally stopped harping about the UN resolutions in an effort to reach a compromise on Kashmir. That is saying something. In fact, Pakistan under Musharraf has publicly floated the “various-options” approach to resolving Kashmir. Indeed, by suggesting that both sides should abandon their maximalist positions, Pakistan under Musharraf has all but admitted that Indian-held Kashmir will probably never become part of Pakistan. That is saying something. And Pakistan under Musharraf has confirmed that the Kashmir issue is not a bilateral territorial issue of dispute between India and Pakistan but one that involves the life and blood and aspirations of the Kashmiris. In fact, in pursuance of this, he wants the Kashmiris on the table in a three way dialogue. This is a far cry from stressing the theme of the “unfinished business of partition”. That is saying something, really saying something, about how far Musharraf has traveled in just two years in his search for a peaceful compromise on all issues, including Kashmir, with India.

But this cuts both ways. If it indicates Musharraf’s swift reappraisal of the new ground realities, it also puts his peace initiatives on the spot at home. If the “peace-with-India” lobbies in Pakistan and in the West see his new policies as bold and beautiful, certain hard line vested interests at home see them as nothing short of a duplicitous “sell-out” to the “old enemy”. This makes it imperative that the response from India should be equally “bold and beautiful” so that the anti-India hardliners in Pakistan can be suitably silenced and Musharraf can secure his flanks and move forward with confidence.

It must be admitted that Mr Vajpayee’s decision to reopen negotiations with General Musharraf at Agra after the “distrusting” episode of Kargil was a bold move. His risky decision to send the Indian cricket team to play in Pakistan just months ahead of the Indian elections was truly “bold and beautiful”. The Congress, too, has taken laudable steps in the same direction. But at the end of the day, the fact remains that India has not budged a millimeter from its rigid positions on Kashmir. Indeed, the recent statements of various Indian officials, including prime minister Manmohan Singh, on the inviolability of “borders” only sour the dialogue-environment by posing pre-conditions.

General Musharraf’s New Delhi visit aims to spur the Kashmiris into uniting under one platform, showing flexibility and taking bold decisions. He also wants more flexibility from India on the urgency of a tripartite dialogue and settlement of the Kashmir dispute. If the Kashmiris can stamp their approval on any settlement with India, he can “sell” such a Kashmir solution to Pakistanis instead of being accused of selling out to India. The sooner India recognizes the true worth, and limitations, of General Musharraf and his strategic approach, the better. It would be a great mistake to view his flexibility as a sign of current weakness rather than potential strength.

//..utopian ideas of Big Game and sibling partnership that the respectable dost-mittarji is writing about....//

Exactly my point. I have been trying to drill this into DM`s[and other old coots] head for long. But fools like DM don`t listen. Now you tell him.

Like you pointed out - bdeshis just dragged an indian army officer and murdered him, for no good reason. The viciousness of the killing is beyond barbaric - the hatred towards India is beyond mention. And this is from a people who were liberated by us - we gave them liberty and a country. We shed our blood for them. This is how they reciprocate......And yet people like DM are talking about some grand ``sibling partnerships``. Fools never learn.

So you are right. These ``sibling partnerships`` aint gonna have an IPO any time soon. We don`t even want it. We don`t care. We can do it alone. As long as commies and fools keep their trap shut and let the hard-working Indians do their job.

So Mr HisEx, I hope you understand. We don`t need pakis, bdeshis or whoever else to be our ``partners``.

#286 by HisExcellency on April 21, 2005 12:34pm PT


Let India sober up first.


India has control of Indian Kashmir..India isn`t going to let go of what it has...nothing Pakistan can do about it....period..end of story...

re: arjun_m, mohar11

From myths about the power of Shivaji to delusions about global power, the modern Indian seems to be getting drunk on an (empty) bottle of Powerade! Let India sober up first. Then we talk about the utopian ideas of Big Game and sibling partnership that the respectable dost-mittarji is writing about.

re: arjun_m, mohar11

Your posts just prove the point that I had made in my earlier post #144.
These posts accurately reflect the self-righteous delusions of the Indian mind, the kind of delusions that lead the Indian mind to overestimate the extent of its power. Heck, even the Bangladeshis can drag an Indian BSF officer and drill him with lead. And they don`t even have nukes. Today the Bangladeshis have 7 army divisions, twice more than the number Pakistan had posted before 1970. And no, these militart divisions are not meant for the Burmese! Now even Nepal is rethinking its relationship with India.

These ``sibling partnerships`` aint gonna have an IPO any time soon :))

delhiwala #275

`` Babu Ji,
What I am saying is this;
At the end of the day, Nations will do what they want to do. Everybody knows that Pakistan was with old Afghan regime for whatever reasons, and they were pushed into no choice after 2001. They had to comply with the USA for their own survival and Mush had to do this task. He could have picked different words to make his argument or case. Thats All. ``

What you say may be true. It begets the question why some people want to adopt irredentist positions only to make U-turn after U-turn under external pressure.