Nuclear Thread - 3

[acharya]

Shoulder to shoulder

This refers to the article “Standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S.” (July 16). <b>Dr. Singh went overboard by describing India’s ties with the U.S. in such a flamboyant manner. Rather than standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S., India should keep a distance from it to make clear its opposition to Washington’s hegemonic and self-serving policies in the name of the war on terror.</b>

Satwant Kaur,

Mahilpur
India has always followed the policy of non-alignment. It has even guided other nations to take firm, unbiased and courageous stands. In the current international context, the Prime Minister’s remark at Hokkaido was unfortunate. He should have been aware that every word of his is our nation’s word.

Abhinav Saxena,

Jaipur

Dr. Singh’s statement at Hokkaido has dented his image further. He should have been mindful of the fact that he was representing a nation.

C.M. Karthikaeyan,

Tiruchi<b>
Dr. Singh, I am sure, did not suggest that India supports all U.S. policies. What he said was with reference to the nuclear deal. India should oppose the U.S. on issues where there are differences.</b> But certainly there are a number of areas in which we can cooperate with it. Iran is not a benign power. It has publicly demanded Israel’s annihilation and supports militancy in some parts of the world.

As a mature, confident, and large country, India should strive for an independent foreign policy without toeing any ideological or religious line. At the same time, we should work with all countries on mutually beneficial terms.

Haridas Ramakrishnan,

Seaside, California
<b>
By saying India should stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S., Dr. Singh meant that it wanted to stand on its own legs like the U.S. on the economic, hi-tech and educational fronts.</b>

Interpreting the statement as an expression of India’s desire to be in the company of killers in friendly countries is unfair.

Rahul Vijayan Valsala,

Bangalore
The Prime Minister was only stressing the need for stronger bilateral ties with the U.S., in the context of the nuclear deal.<b> What does his statement have to do with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? India has been traditionally opposed to such tactics of aggression by the U.S.</b>

However, the opposition should not come at the cost of the much-needed nuclear cooperation.

K.V. Vivek,

Tirupati
I think the best thing about the war on terror was the fall of the al-Qaeda backed Taliban and the formation of a democratic government in Afghanistan. Even while the NATO troops are present in the region, Pakistan is helping the resurgence of the Taliban. If it succeeds, India will be the greatest sufferer. We cannot vote for the withdrawal of troops, unlike Westerners who don’t see an immediate threat.

K. Sai Charan,

Anantapur