Swapan Das Gupta calls it the outrageous joint statement issued from Sharm el-Sheikh.
“Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”
Who is to act on terrorism? Pakistan.
Who is involved in dialogue process? India and Pakistan.
Now let us substitute and read the statement again: Pakistan acting on terrorism should not be linked to the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Can it get any clear? Whether Pakistan acts on terrorism or not, India and Pakistan should continue their composite dialogue.
MJ Akbar elaborates it here:
Now, for the interpretation from N.Ram:
The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : There must be no backsliding
“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
In yet another instance of spin, N.Ram tries to project it as a low-level affair between foreign secretaries: "The Foreign Secretaries would meet as often as necessary and report back to the two Foreign Ministers, who, in turn, would review the state of the bilateral relationship on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this fall." But the secretaries are talking only because "both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward".
The capitulation is glaringly evident when PM Singh is making concessions to discuss all outstanding issues. But not to N.Ram who is wearing blinds as a Congress cheerleader.
In another extraordinary instance of using a baseless premise, N.Ram writes, "While Pakistan has taken more meaningful action in the aftermath of Mumbai than it has perhaps taken in the past three decades of cross-border terrorism...". We continue to hear how the LeT has morphed into another social service organisation or how the top leader Hafiz Md Saeed is released on lack of evidence. Minor details, really.
Whatever clarifications PM issues in parliament is irrelevant. As things stand, the joint statement is the only thing that counts. On that front, it has been a diplomatic disaster.
Amusing tales from Sharm el-Sheikh
“Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”
Who is to act on terrorism? Pakistan.
Who is involved in dialogue process? India and Pakistan.
Now let us substitute and read the statement again: Pakistan acting on terrorism should not be linked to the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Can it get any clear? Whether Pakistan acts on terrorism or not, India and Pakistan should continue their composite dialogue.
MJ Akbar elaborates it here:
This absolves present and future Governments of Pakistan from any guilt in cross-border terrorism, a scourge India has had to face for decades. It is a commitment that Governments should continue the process of dialogue no matter how much havoc a terrorist group from Pakistan creates in India. If this principle had been in operation last year, India and Pakistan could have continued their composite dialogue in December after the savage Mumbai terrorism in November.
Now, for the interpretation from N.Ram:
The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : There must be no backsliding
In plain English, this means both processes must proceed on the basis of their own logic, independently of each other. Pakistan must take action against terrorists regardless of whether the composite dialogue process resumes; and India must not link the process of composite dialogue to the quantum of action Pakistan takes against terrorism.It takes incredulous leap of imagination to come up with this interpretation. But this is just one part of the story. The above statement becomes even more clear when read it in its context:
“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.”
In yet another instance of spin, N.Ram tries to project it as a low-level affair between foreign secretaries: "The Foreign Secretaries would meet as often as necessary and report back to the two Foreign Ministers, who, in turn, would review the state of the bilateral relationship on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this fall." But the secretaries are talking only because "both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward".
The capitulation is glaringly evident when PM Singh is making concessions to discuss all outstanding issues. But not to N.Ram who is wearing blinds as a Congress cheerleader.
In another extraordinary instance of using a baseless premise, N.Ram writes, "While Pakistan has taken more meaningful action in the aftermath of Mumbai than it has perhaps taken in the past three decades of cross-border terrorism...". We continue to hear how the LeT has morphed into another social service organisation or how the top leader Hafiz Md Saeed is released on lack of evidence. Minor details, really.
The Prime Minister struck the right note in Parliament by clarifying what India expects Pakistan to do but emphasising that the only way forward in the coming months is engagement. This newspaper could not agree with him more — and expects him to hold firm on the course worked out.With falsifications, deliberate misinterpretations and ommissions, N.Ram has come out in emphatic support of Manmohan's capitulation to Pakistan. It is hard to find one single statement in the entire editorial which is not misleading.
Whatever clarifications PM issues in parliament is irrelevant. As things stand, the joint statement is the only thing that counts. On that front, it has been a diplomatic disaster.
Amusing tales from Sharm el-Sheikh
The joint statement from Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt ... has turned into a public relations disaster with the PM virtually disowning, under intense domestic pressure, the agreement with his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Gilani, to delink the composite dialogue process from Islamabad's crackdown on terror.I encourage you all to read Kanchan Gupta's article: For PM Indian blood is cheap.
The backtracking began in Sharm el-Sheikh itself, almost as soon as the joint statement was issued, with hilarious results. There were the Pakistanis celebrating with jhappis and pappis while stunned Indian officials digested the import of the scene unfoding in front of their eyes.
Can't let Pakistan get away with this. So, to dispel the impression of a sellout, the PM was hastily summoned to address an unscheduled press conference.
Posts
8 comments:
Not surprisingly, Siddharth Varadarajan's article in The Hindu struck a tone very similar to that of N.Ram. In the past, he has gone further and said that India must even offer carrots to Pakistan. Somehow not many seem to be asking what the government has to show for eight months of diplomacy since the 26/11 attack. Our blog had correctly questioned this stance then and we appear to be entirely vindicated.
Chief Ram has become more Paki than a diehard Paki can be. In a recent editorial he wrote: "...The remark reinforces the belief that the democratic regime in Pakistan means well by its neighbours and is sincere in its desire to break with the past."
And then advises the Indian govt.: "Still for India, which is preparing for another round of talks with Pakistan at Sharm-al-Shaikh this week, Mr. Zardari's words are a timely reminder that it must engage positively with the elected government of Pakistan."
All the world (including Chindu) knows that any "democratic regime in Pakistan" is a joke. And to advise that we should "engage positively" with any Paki govt. ("elected" or imposed) is as good as asking a man with full vision to go and drown himself in a well.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/13/stories/2009071351060800.htm
Bold admission
(Editorial)
There seems to be some murmur even among Congis:
Rising disquiet in Cong over PM's Pak line
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-India-Rising-disquiet-in-Congress-over-PMs-Pak-line/articleshow/4791225.cms
After reading Ram's editorial, even the external affairs officials would have been amused that there is someone who supports the statement so vehemently! The editorial sounded as if it was Ram who drafted the statement, and therefore he is taking the pains to explain to all of us that is the best deal any PM could get. I wonder why?!
Atleast Siddarth's article was critical of the fact that the entire drafting was a bungled attempt, though he took the sell-out criticism to heart, and reminds us about Vajpayee's summit in 2004. Vajpayee and Manmohan are dealing with two entirely different regimes, and more importantly, in two entirely different circumstances.
If you people observe, even the visual media is going easy with the government. There is no hardline questioning as to how two contradictory statements are supposed to mean the same, according to our PM. Like Kanchan Gupta says, we cannot question the "genuine, sincere, clean, non-corruptible" Prime Minister because he is a man of wisdom and he can do no wrong! It is disgusting that even the media fell prey to this line thinking!
Can you please provide Feeds instead of just links to your favorite blogs?
I suggest adding these 3 blogs to the blogroll:
http://www.sandeepweb.com/ http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/ http://www.swapan55.com/
xinhua ram, good suggestion. i am trying to catch up with technology.
Great, HF. Much better. Thanks!
In today's edition, http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/20/stories/2009072055500900.htm the kind of adjectives used to describe Dr Binayak Sen shows the his prejudices. I guess he doesnt even have the guilt pangs that mr Narayanan might have faced while defending Chindu's biased articles. Ram like a true communist took out a guy because he didnt toe His master line. Way to go( down) for Chindu
Post a Comment