Doomed If They Do, Doomed If They Dont

#14 by dost-mittar

[India today seems to be attracting favourable attention of the U.S, Russia, China, Europe, Iran and even Pakistan.]

I agree with your post. But I just wish you hadn`t included Pakistan in this list.

It`s like saying ``USA today is attracting favourable attention from China, Russia, France and Cuba``. Americans are not too cut up about whether Cuba looks at them favourably. Similarly Indians are not too cut up about whether Pakistan looks at India favourably. Pakistan is much smaller than India in every way as well as a rogue state that is the center of International terrorism, and has been our enemy in every respect and always.

They are not in a position to have a ``favourable view``. They are not in any position to do us any ``favours``. In fact, the situation is quite the contrary.

Silly article, typical of reflexive anti-american (and pro-chinese) attitudes and fundamentally empty-headed mindset of so-called ``left-wing`` writers. Not a single real idea is present, just regurgitation of slogans and adjectives. I have noticed that for a certain class of people, especially left-wingers, knowledge of english appears to be all that is needed to expound on any and all topics.

A combination of a reversal of the disastrous earlier economic and diplomatic course by India and changes in the geopolitical situation in the post cold-war period has put India in what the stock-pickers would call a diplomatic sweet-spot. India today seems to be attracting favourable attention of the U.S, Russia, China, Europe, Iran and even Pakistan. But you wouldn`t find any hint of this in this ideologically-driven piece; the author would probably want India to go back to 1962 when, at the height of the non-alignment movement, it found itself abandoned even by its most-aligned, non-aligned friends when attacked by China; when people of the author`s class lived in relative comfort while feeding the opium of `garibi-hatao` slogans to the poor people. They would dearly want to take the mobile phone from the poor vegetable seller and have him join in a demonstration against imperialism and colonialism at Vijay Chowk. Ah, those were the days!

Re: # 14
Dost-mittar,
Any comments on the three points raised by me.

Now coming to your non-alignment. Well it was a policy adopted in concert with Pancsheel and was connected to many issues including Kashmir. Nehru thought that it would serve the Indian purpose which it did to a great extent. What kept India back was the Fabian Socialism. Once India liberalised in the 90s, India got an economic jump start. So I dont think that the arguement can be extended in the manner that you are reasoning, because India`s core Grand Design has not changed.
Respects and Cheerios

Re: # 14 dm
//.... the author would probably want India to go back to 1962 when, at the height of the non-alignment movement...//

Yep - every commie worth his salt[chinese variety] is pouring his heart out on all the broad sheets. Newspapers are full of their verbal diarrhea.

That`s a shame. The very fact that these fools still retain any credibility is a failure on part of Indians. And that shows. The country is still filthy, poor and wretched. India will continue to be a ``leper and h!jra``[as kaura put it] as long as these commie low-lives allowed to dominate the discourse.

India’s Nuclear Sell-Out?

By Jacob Leibenluft Page 1 of 1


Posted July 2005

Both critics and supporters thought India got the better end of last week’s U.S.-India deal on nuclear technology. Yet, in India, many feel that New Delhi gave up too much for too little.




This is the easy part: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, pictured with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (left) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (right), was received warmly in Washington.


Win McNamee/Getty Images


Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit to Washington seemed about as good as it gets. He arrived to an elaborate state welcome on the White House South Lawn and was feted at only the fifth grand banquet of the George W. Bush presidency. Addressing a joint session of congress, he was interrupted more than two dozen times by applause from U.S. lawmakers. The biggest triumph appeared to come at the bargaining table, where Singh and Bush agreed to a deal that effectively ended nuclear export restrictions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. In the United States, the deal has been portrayed as such a boon for India that critics such as Democratic Rep. Ed Markey have denounced the Bush administration for “playing favorites.”

But for all the talk of a resounding diplomatic victory, Singh received less than a hero’s welcome when he returned home. As part of the deal, India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and bring the civilian ones under international safeguards. Now, from both the left and the right, the prime minister is facing difficult questions as to whether he gave up too much for too little.

In Washington, India is seen as a big winner in two ways—by shedding its identity as a nuclear pariah state and by taking an important step toward addressing its growing energy needs. But for Singh’s critics, those victories appear rather hollow. In the Deccan Chronicle, one of south India’s leading daily newspapers, a cartoonist lampooned the deal by depicting Singh being wrapped in a sash that read “IAEA,” with a nearby advisor telling him, “Congrats, sir—it means we’ve been given a nuclear power status!” In return for concessions, these critics argue, all India received was acknowledgement of what everyone already knew. Many also emphasize what India didn’t get: U.S. support for a permanent seat on the U.N. Secretary Council or formal recognition as a “legitimate nuclear power.”

Several prominent Indian nuclear scientists and defense analysts argue that the separation of India’s military and civilian nuclear facilities will be difficult and perhaps even prohibitively expensive. “These have been integrated from the very beginning.... To now try to sort out the integrated whole into these constituent parts is just about impossible,” says Bharat Karnad, a military analyst at the Centre for Policy Studies in New Delhi. “People like me, and in the Indian nuclear establishment, are completely mystified as to what we can gain from this collaboration and cooperation with the United States.”


Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his fellow members of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) argue that the separation of civilian and military facilities will limit the amount of fissile material India can possess and weaponize—leading to a de facto cap on its nuclear arsenal. And the Communist Party, a key ally of the Congress Party-led government, has been no less critical of the deal, claiming that it has compromised India’s independent nuclear policy and that it marked an unwelcome “pro-U.S. shift” in Indian foreign policy.

Those criticisms have been amplified by mistrust that lingers from nearly 60 years of strained relations between the world’s largest democracies. Only three weeks before Singh arrived in Washington, declassified documents were released showing U.S. President Richard Nixon calling Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi an “old witch” and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger remarking that “the Indians are bastards anyway.” It was front-page news in India, even if it barely earned a mention stateside. Despite polls suggesting that Indians are among the most pro-American people in the world, disappointment with Washington’s post-9/11 coziness with Pakistan and mixed feelings about the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East have kept old suspicions alive.

Even supporters of the deal’s substance remain anxious about Washington’s ability to hold up the American end of the bargain. Bush must get congress’s approval and will face opponents on both sides of the aisle. And even if Capitol Hill signs on, the Bush administration must convince other nuclear supplier countries to reopen nuclear commerce with India. For supporters and opponents of the deal alike, the attitude is “wait and watch,” says Harinder Sekhon of the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi think tank.

The big question for Singh is how much of the criticism he faces is serious, and how much simply reflects the rough-and-tumble of Indian politics. When the BJP held the reigns from 1998 to 2004, it brought India closer to the United States. But recently, it has grasped at every opportunity to criticize Singh’s Congress-led government. “[The BJP] is trying to make some noises in order to establish its position as an opposition party,” says Pankaj Vohra, political editor of the Hindustan Times. But those noises, joined by outcries on the left, may ensure a steady downpour of debate as the Parliament’s monsoon session begins this week. Back in New Delhi, Manmohan Singh may soon feel nostalgic for Washington hospitality.



Jacob Leibenluft, currently in India, is editor in chief of the Yale Daily News.

Here`s what an honorable citizen has to say about the PM`s visit to D.C.I hope this chutiye reads this.........
.
Gujral praises N-deal, calls for a united front

Listen carefully to Singh, don’t rush into polemics: former PM’s advice to parties

C. RAJA MOHAN

Posted online: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 0238 hours IST

NEW DELHI, JULY 26: Expressing political satisfaction with the recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington, former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral called for a reasoned parliamentary debate on the Indo-US nuclear pact.

Gujral, who stoutly resisted US pressures on India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during 1996-98, said the new nuclear pact signed with the United States could “bring stability to India’s nuclear policy”.

“The Indo-US nuclear pact should be judged in perspective rather than derogatory adjectives,” Gujral said in a conversation with The Indian Express.

Responding to the BJP and Left criticisms of the pact, Gujral emphasised the “essential continuity in India’s foreign and nuclear policies” and called for a “consensual approach” in the impending parliamentary debate on the Indo-US nuclear pact.

Asked whether BJP leader Atal Behari Vajpayee was departing from the tradition of former prime ministers not raising controversy over nuclear issues, Gujral did not respond.

But he insisted that India’s nuclear diplomacy should be seen as a “national policy” rather than “belonging to one particular party”.

Referring to the intense national debate on the CTBT in the mid 1990s, Gujral said no responsible person in the country called for signing the treaty and the national consensus on the subject was deep.

On the moral arguments against nuclear weapons, of the kind offered by the Left parties, Gujral said India’s position evolved during the CTBT debate when “national security arguments” prevailed over the idealist ones. That debate is now behind us, Gujral suggested.

Arguing that India’s strength lay in “consensual politics,” Gujral underlined the success of different coalition governments over the last decade in managing the nuclear challenges faced by the nation. Gujral added that political parties must carefully consider what Prime Minister Singh has to say in Parliament on the Indo-US nuclear pact rather than “rushing into polemical assertions”.

Singh is expected to make a suo motu statement to the Parliament on Friday.

Questioned on the importance of separating civilian and military nuclear programmes, Gujral said India should have little difficulty doing this. He pointed to the fact that India has always accepted this basic principle and had put many of its peaceful facilities under international safeguards. On the nuclear pact’s implications for the size of India’s atomic arsenal, Gujral said: “Bush has not asked us to quantify India’s minimum deterrent”.

Gujral was confident that Prime Minister Singh would have taken into account all technical and security considerations in signing the nuclear pact.

Congratulating Singh for conducting himself with “great dignity” in Washington, Gujral said the US clearly wants to “befriend India”.

The process of engagement between India and the US which began when he met President Bill Clinton in New York in September 1997, has begun to pay off, Gujral said.

There was a story I read in my High School English Text book. It was called a ``A table is a table``... Nice story, that. It was about an old lonely man, who began to find his life quite dull and boring. In order to bring some excitement into his routine, he decided to rename things. For example, he started calling the `table` - `window`, and the `window` - `shoes`.... and so on. He interpreted people`s conversations as per his new vocabulary, and laughed at the new meaning their sentences acquired. But alas, a time came, when he forgot the original language. His condition became pitiable as there was no one who could understand his new found language.

Sorry, but this current article, which began on an interesting note, seems to have a similar tone. The author seems to have overdone the humor.

The length of the article has cut down on the crispness.

Tariq Siddiqi

Re: # 10

``The author seems to have overdone the humor.``
Humour? Really?

This nuclear deal is pretty much the same deal the BJP had been trying to push through for quite some time. Without any access to the military establishments, the IAEA`s inspections won`t have much teeth. It is only a ploy to get the nods from the US congress.

Much as we dislike the hypocrisy of US nuclear plants being outside the bounds of the IAEA, this is a small price to pay for acquiring the latest technology without spending huge amounts on R&D. And as someone commented, if the US Congress declines, it will be much easier for India to get this technology from Russia or France.

As for commies not wanting us to be a deterrent to China, I say - emigrate to China! Leave today. And don`t come back.

[The Indian Nuclear Menace May Get Worse]

I hope it does and I hope the leaders of quite a few countries spend sleepless nights worrying about if they will awake to the next day.

[A simple cost-benefit analysis of the “India nuclear deal” would reveal the nasty picture that is emerging. We will have Uncle Sam sitting in our living room poking his imperialistic nose into every sphere of our national life constantly calculating his selfish gains and cunningly pushing us into our neighbor’s yard. We would be doing the dirty job of confronting China at the cost of jeopardizing our (relatively) good neighborly relations.]

Yep, good neighbor occupying 15,000 square miles of Indian territory. No matter what you Commies say, the end of a unified China is not too far. What happened to the USSR will happen to China too. If we can do something to help that process along, we should do it.

[The already anti-democratic and anti-people money-guzzling Indian nuclear establishment will continue with its lackadaisical performance and gain considerably from the newly found international legitimacy. The nuclear expenditure will increase exponentially; there will ensue militarism, arms race with China, insecurity and underdevelopment. The ordinary Indian citizen will scrape along in poverty and misery as he has always been.]

What happened, you don`t like the Koodankulam powerplant in your backyard? Tough noogins. I hope they build more nuclear powerplants. The one in Kalpakkam outside Chennai is humming along fine. With American technology, the audible hum should be reduced.

As to your beloved fishermen, tell them the days of marginal living would end only if they stop overfishing. That, and they should limit their families. And get their kids into schools.

The ordinary Indian citizen is NOT some farmer or fisherman nor is he a US-minted PhD with Commie leanings like you. He is trying to make a living anyway he can and succeeding after you Commies were forced to loosen your vice-like grip on the citizenry.

Thank you for shutting up.

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Uncle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Uncle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

Well, this Bombay born Tellis is rumoured to have played a big role in drafting Indian Nuclear Doctrine and then praising it in his paper for RAND for the yes of State Department. His policy papers on South and Central Asia form the basis of US policy in the region.

Indo US nuclear cooperation however covert has been there for a long time. There was diplomatic murmer that India had used Israeli albeit US designs for its weapons in 1998.Now it is open.

Three new developments can be hypothised.
1. The triangle of China-India-Pakistan get locked in a new arms race, something that could retard the Chinese fast track development. Perhaps too wishful.
2. Degrade Pakistan`s nuclear capability. Something in the realm of possibles.
3. First contours of a new Balance of Power model comprising USA, UK, Israel and Australia including the Insian Ocean Rim against a possible Russo-Sino-Pakistani-Iran with EU acting as a balancer. Possible.

So India hopes to nuetralise the Middle King (China), enemy(Pakistan) and befriend the Vijughishu( Incle Sam).

Interesting days lie ahead.
Cheerios

Udayakumar:

when push comes to shove

the leading world...powero uno and her allies have the weapons of mass destruction and the economic muscle, influence and deliver systems

the near-vanquished who do not yet have ``the weapons of mass destruction nor the economic muscle, influence and deliver systems`` have an inordinate amount of an intangible supreme faith in their cause*

result: inconvenience and sufferings for the civilians in and out of battle zones and `occupied` territories!

the seemingly unstoppable suicide bombers are a disenfranchised people`s weapon of mass destruction in this uni-polar world replacing the surface check and balance of the cold war

when the policy makers in the powerful world capitals recognise and act on this then only will a semblance of peace will rule the world again...only then will the enemy become visible...visibility is important for checks and balances, for quid pro quos, for talks and negotiations and discussions...otherwise it is dark ages for us

the west cannot bomb them all into submission
they cannot bring the west down on it knees
stalemate and mayhem will rule
and the innocent civilians everywhere will suffer the consequences

rgds

t

*i vehemently disagree with their cause and misplaced belief system

Underneath the donated/begged finery, India remains a leper and a hijra.....who will clap to any tune.

Even with acquired weaponary, Indian is impotent even against Paksatan, let alone China. In the partnership, the US is the driver and the conductor of the bus. India is the cleaner and some minor maintenance of the bus.