Since public attention has been focused on the havoc wreaked by eight years of the Musharraf dictatorship on the institutions of state, the dismal record of his foreign policy has largely escaped notice. The India-US nuclear deal, now in the final stages of its completion, is just one of the many foreign policy debacles that the country owes to Musharraf. When President Clinton visited India and Pakistan in March 2000 shortly after Musharraf's military coup, the British weekly Economist wrote: "Their new nuclear credentials apart, the two [countries] have never seemed more unalike." In the eight years since then, we have all but lost the parity of nuclear credentials that we then had with India. When the coup took place, both Pakistan and India were negotiating with the US for a lifting of the sanctions imposed on them following their nuclear tests in 1998. Today, India is about to be given full access to nuclear technology, while the worldwide ban on civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan remains. Once the deal is finalised, India will also stand admitted to the league of nuclear-weapon states, while Pakistan's nuclear programme will continue to be eyed with suspicion.
The safeguards agreement to be concluded by India with the IAEA for its civilian nuclear reactors is expected to be approved by the agency's board of governors in early August. The next step â approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) â will take a little longer, but no serious opposition is expected. Major supplier countries like the US, the UK, Russia and France are openly backing the India-US nuclear deal. US officials have indicated that China will also be supportive. In an interview with The Times of India on March 2, 2008, Nick Burns, then Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs and the main architect of the new strategic relationship with India, named China as one of the "champions" of the nuclear deal and expressed the confidence that China would not block it.
The nuclear deal has serious implications for Pakistan's security. The supply of imported fuel to India for its civilian nuclear reactors will free up more of its domestic uranium for the production of weapons material and allow for the rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal. According to Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts, the nuclear deal will boost India's bomb-making capacity perhaps sevenfold, to as many as 50 bombs a year. The access to advanced nuclear technology that India will get under the deal will also enable it to make qualitative improvements in its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Although some concern was expressed in the US Congress that India might accelerate its nuclear weapons programme once it gets access to foreign nuclear fuel, Nick Burns said on July 27, 2007, that this was not a US concern. "[W]hat India does on the strategic side," Burns said, "is India's business."
<b>Although US domestic law (Atomic Energy Act) mandates an end to nuclear trade with a non-nuclear-weapon state that conducts a nuclear test, the bilateral "123 agreement" on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy concluded by India and the US in July 2007 is silent about consequences of a nuclear test by India. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Indian government maintains that it has not given up the right to conduct nuclear tests and is not bound by US legislation, only by its bilateral agreement with the US.</span>
The 123 agreement in fact pledges US help to India in the development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against "any disruption" of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>This means that if the United States, under its domestic law, were to cut off nuclear supplies to India because it had conducted a nuclear test, Washington would be required to help India in pursuing a resumption of outside fuel supplies by other countries. If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include Russia, France and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India. In addition to fuel assurances, New Delhi secured a US commitment in the 123 agreement to permit India to reprocess US-origin spent fuel. The US has given this permission so far only to Japan and the European consortium EURATOM.</span></b>
The 123 agreement, as well as the safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA, also state that India may take unspecified "corrective measures" to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies. This means that if there was a cut-off in the supply of nuclear fuel following an Indian nuclear test, India would have the right to withdraw its civilian nuclear facilities from safeguards and convert those sites to the production of fissile material usable in warheads.
A safeguards agreement of this kind, which allows India to withdraw its nuclear facilities from IAEA inspection in case of a fuel supply cut-off should it resume nuclear testing â and divert safeguarded nuclear facilities and material to military use â makes it less likely that a cut-off would be imposed in the first place. The safeguards agreement thus virtually guarantees India continued fuel supply even if it carries out a nuclear test. As The New York Times wrote in its editorial on July 5, there is no promise from India to stop producing bomb-making material, no promise not to expand its arsenal and no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The whole world is these days moving ahead into expanding nuclear power because of skyrocketing oil prices and environmental concerns. Well over 100 reactors are either already under construction or in the planning stages. India, which currently has 17 reactors, is planning to dramatically increase that number. After the NSG lifts its restrictions on nuclear trade with India, Pakistan will be the only country in the world to which the supply of civilian nuclear technology is embargoed. That will seriously hamper our economic development, as we do not have sufficient oil and gas reserves of our own and our hydro-electric power resources will soon have been fully harnessed.
The India-US nuclear deal, which was announced in July 2005, did not happen overnight. It had been under negotiation for two years. The Musharraf government was either not aware of it or it did not grasp its huge significance. Both are equally inexcusable.
While conceding all of India's demands for access to nuclear technology, Bush and other US officials have rejected a similar deal for Pakistan in the most categorical terms. Bush made clear on March 4, 2006, at a joint press conference with Musharraf in Islamabad, that Pakistan should not expect a civilian nuclear agreement like the one with India. He said bluntly that the two countries could not be compared to each other. While Bush spoke so disparagingly about Pakistan, Musharraf simply stood by, looking every bit like the Bush flunkey that he is, and did not utter a word to contradict the US president. Not only that, in a meeting with the Pakistani press two days later, Musharraf faithfully echoed Bush's remarks that Pakistan could not claim the same rights as India. "We are not in competition with India," Musharraf said, as if reading from the same script as Bush. "India has global and regional aspirations. We do not have such aspirations. ⦠[The Indians] are going in a different direction and we are going in a different direction."
US officials have sought to justify their refusal to make a deal on civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan because of proliferation and terrorism concerns. They cite Pakistan's "abysmal" record on export controls while that of India is said to be good. Moreover, India is a democracy and a highly stable country, while Pakistan is not. These arguments have a certain plausibility because of the activities of the A Q Khan network, but American officials conveniently ignore the fact that India is the only country in the world to have diverted nuclear fuel and technology received by it for peaceful purposes. Pakistan's record in this respect is impeccable. In India's case, it was the Indian government that broke solemn international agreements. A Q Khan, on the other hand, was acting as a freelancer and there was no breach of an international agreement or international law. Moreover, even Washington concedes that Pakistan has now instituted an effective export control system.
<b><i>The writer is a former member of the Foreign Service. Email : asifezdi@yahoo.com</i></b>
Nareshji,
Article is wrong about 123. Hyde act will be over head all the time plus Washington says it is committed only to a âcleanâ and not âunconditionalâ waiver for New Delhi.
So babu and Moron Singh sold India. Now Babys can do lot of shopping and send their kids to western Universities, now a days Oz unversities are also popular among them.
Nareshji,
The article you have quoted above is in line with the handouts given by the congress and the babus. Such information is not for this forum, as members are much more informed and their analysis has been that the deal will only bring disaster to India. In fact, Pakistan should feel happy that India is soon to go to the dogs. You may like to enlighten the Pakistani decision makers on this issue and assure them that they should not have any apprehension on account of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. Almost all the scholars in this forum as well as all the political pundits belonging to the extreme right BJP as well as the extreme left e.g. the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India are all of one view that the agreement will bring an end to India as an independent political entity. It is most unfortunate that Pakistan of late has become so clue less after the Civilian Government coming to power, that they have not noticed what tragedy has to befall on India shortly with the signing of the agreement.
I agree. Nareshji, the forum members here are absolute idiots and can't appreciate an alternate point of view. Only English reading, beef eating seculars can appreciate the pearls of wisdom that we are being fed daily.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is most unfortunate that Pakistan of late has become so clue less after the Civilian Government coming to power, that they have not noticed what tragedy has to befall on India shortly with the signing of the agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hahahahaha!!!
Oh my God, i never imagine Indian Muslim Jihadist are so prepared, as soon as Indian MP made fool of themselves and declared themselves most corrupt democracy, Indian Muslim start blowing up innocent citizens without any preparation or logistics etc. Hire them in defence manufacturing plants ASAP.
India had not sign any agreement yet. They just declared start depositing first installment of bribe money to desiginated accounts abroad.
Agreement will wait till US Congress change and twist some conditions. I am waiting to see US Congress draft, I think they are still working on draft. I will post here as soon I see draft.
<b>Arms control experts group opposes nuclear deal</b>
Washington (PTI): Ahead of the crucial IAEA meeting on Friday, a group of arms control experts on Wednesday said both the atomic watchdog and Nuclear Suppliers Group should look at the Indo-US nuclear deal "very carefully and remove all ambiguities."
Sharon Squassoni of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace cautioned that the "end game" does not stop with the agreement coming before the US Congress for approval but it lies with the 45-member NSG.
"The reality is that the end game is the NSG. India will be able to trade with other states once the 45-member group gives a clean exemption for New Delhi," Squassoni told a press briefing on the subject at the National Press Club.
Ambassador Robert Gray, former US Representative at the Conference on Disarmament, said that the United States was walking away from a treaty signed by 178 nations and termed the agreement as an "unmitigated disaster".
"If any exemption has to come about, it perhaps would have to be addressed by those who initialled the Non Proliferation Treaty," he said.
"The United States has given India a blank cheque... Now we are assisting them (India) to cash the cheque in another Bank, the NSG," he said.
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association and a long time critic of the civil nuclear cooperation between India and US, maintained that the exemption from the NSG is not going to be a "quick one".
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 30 2008, 09:35 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 30 2008, 09:35 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree. Nareshji, the forum members here are absolute idiots and can't appreciate an alternate point of view. Only English reading, beef eating seculars can appreciate the pearls of wisdom that we are being fed daily.
[right][snapback]85412[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Viren Ji :</b>
Firstly as Dr. Samuel Johnson stated âPolitics is the last resort of a Scoundrelâ - so let it be with Indian Politicians (Marcus Antonius in Julius Caesar by Shakespeare)
Now to the epithets <b>âpryogofiedâ</b> for our Prime Minister.
Do we have an alternative? Would you support Lal Kishen Advani? I did until he went to Pakistan and on Bended Knees with Folded Hands and Bowed Head declared âQaid-E-Paedophileâ was Secular.
[1] : I hope I am not included in Honours accorded to this August Company!
[2] : What does the Hindu Cattle Owner do with his Cows that have gone âDryâ and Bullocks who are too old to plough the field or pull the cart i.e. Act as a Beast of Burden.
<b>Bhai Ji : He sells it to the Muslim Butcher</b>
Please appreciate that neither of us are traitors nor Anti-Hindu but have to live with the after effects of Mahatma Gandhiâs Hindu-Muslim Bhai-Bhai changing Ram Dhoon to âIshwar Allah Tero Naamâ and âRam Rahim aur Krishan Karimâ - Did any of my Muslim Brothers join in - No.
Please note that I do not blame them but marvel at Mahatma Gandhiâs Gigantic and Stupendous Stupidity.
J L Nehru in his quest for the Noble Peace Prize is the cause of the so called Indiaâs âLeftist Secular Liberalsâ.
The damage done by MG and JLN will take possibly a Century to undo.
I do remember at a Party one of the guys termed his Boss as âAn Ar*e Holeâ. One of our most respected members then stated âBuddy, then you must be the âShizer Panâ which is below an ar*eholeâ
So if our Prime Minister is a Moron - I am not defending him - then what are we âThe Common Indiansâ?
It is therefore requested that we try and not partake in the continuous usage of derogatory language or make the use of sarcasm - it being the lowest form of wit - as every second word a part of our daily language.
To end : We Indians - over a Billion - have put the Illegal Indian Citizen of Italian Origin (She had full Italian Citizenship in 1985 when she took her first Indian Passport and could not surrender her Italian citizenship due to the Italian Law which forbade and did not accept the surrender of Italian Citizenship) as the head of our Nation. Her Children - upon birth - naturally acquired Italian Citizenship and are therefore Illegal Indian Citizens.
So <b>Viren Ji</b>, can we really blame our Leaders or for their matter our Bureaucrats?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So if our Prime Minister is a Moron - I am not defending him - then what are we âThe Common Indiansâ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those who had voted for them should be ashamed of themselves. [FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME! the ...]
Moron Singh is appointed not elected, smart South Delhi citizens rejected him, but his bend down in front of Queen gave him PM position anyway, he is not fool but full fledge Moron.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is therefore requested that we try and not partake in the continuous usage of derogatory language or make the use of sarcasm - it being the lowest form of wit - as every second word a part of our daily language.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously, it is tongue in check. Not using every single adjectives here because lot of kids also read this forum. We need humor in life.
Hellllllllllloooooooooooo..... Mammohan's not elected by us commons. Let's get that fact straight. As far as I know he even lost when contesting some MP seat. Same for Home Minister and Law Minister - heck Pakis are electing their MPs these days.
However, it shouldn't be a reason to call him a 'moron' though some of his acts/deeds and statements have been moronic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->some of his acts/deeds and statements have been moronic. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought every ounce is moronic.
<i>Opposite of Manmohan is dull </i>
Moron was originally an English scientific term, coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.
Someone's who posted this (without bothering to respond) about this forum, can't really take a high road on name-calling:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you have been unable to comprehend the thinking in the minds of the bloggers with whom you have been interacting.The following are the wishful thinking of most of them:-
1. How to get rid of Muslims from this world.
2. How to remove Pakistan from the map of the world.
3. How to remove traces of Urdu language from the conscious and sub conscious state of mind of the human race.
4. Hindu gagaran at the earliest, first in India and than in the entire universe.
5. Establishment of Hindu Talabani form of society etc.All meat eaters to be termed as trators.
I just gave you the highlight of the wish list. If you have ample time to devote in day dreaming, this is the best company that one can have for relaxing .
Jai Hind <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad that you have said whatever you have said else if I had said the same, our Ravishji would re-attributed all the above listed points to me and every other member of this forum.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I do remember at a Party one of the guys termed his Boss as âAn Ar*e Holeâ. One of our most respected members then stated âBuddy, then you must be the âShizer Panâ which is below an ar*eholeâ<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell your buddy this joke next time so he can put all holes into proper perspective:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys - all on different levels, some climbing up. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but a**holes.
All the time, the monkeys on the top will get the fruits first, and most of the time, they will eventually produce SH*T for all the monkeys below. And all the time, that's what the monkeys below will get.
For those monkeys who are climbing up, they have to first kiss plenty of a**es in order to move up. How high they climb, will depend on how good they kiss. And always if a monkey does not kiss any a**, his a** will get KICKED !!!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So Viren Ji, can we really blame our Leaders or for their matter our Bureaucrats?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Normal citizens do their bit on a daily basis, pays his taxes with an expectation that the people we elect or hire (our babus) will do the right thing. Any reason we need to excuse gross dereliction of duty by our leaders and their sycophants in IPS/IFS/IAS.
We have some monkeys who've have made it to the top and and now crying <i>hey, you put me up here, don't blame me if you are at receiving end of my droppings</i>.
As for legality of Indian citizenship etc, for me personally it's not an issue while others might object which is their right/prerogative. I for one would be perfectly happy with honest person even if he's not a citizen - say like Robin Singh (it's a different matter that he's not in politics).
<b>IAEA meets tomorrow to discuss Indian safeguards pact</b>
Vienna (PTI): As India hopes to resume nuclear commerce with the global community after a gap of 34 years, the IAEA Board of Governors meets here on Friday in a crucial session to consider for approval a key step for operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal.
If the 35-member Board approves the India-specific safeguards agreement by consensus leading to the signing of an unprecedented document, it would pave the way for India's integration into the world of nuclear commerce.
Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar, who has already arrived here, will have a series of meetings to ensure a smooth sailing at the IAEA Board of Governors and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), sources said.
He is expected to hold talks with all NSG members also during his stay to bring them on board for giving India a "clean and unconditional waiver" ahead of the group's first meeting early next month. India is a member of IAEA but not the NSG.
Kakodkar told PTI he would take part in all discussions including the negotiations that are underway on an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA agreement will form the basis for approaching the Nuclear Suppliers Group for removal of restrictions on nuclear trade with India and the so-called bilateral agreement with US in the form of the 123 agreement which gives exemption to New Delhi for nuclear commerce with that country.
New Delhi is working on an India-specific 'Additional Protocol'. There is a possibility that the IAEA Board might insist that the India-specific 'Additional Protocol' is signed along with the safeguards agreement to enable operationalisation of inspection of the nuclear units declared by New Delhi as civil.
An Agreement on the 'Additional Protocol' is mandatory as per the Indo-US joint statement on the civil nuclear cooperation of July 18, 2005, which was issued during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Washington visit.
Additional protocol is just not another document but an instrument to operationalise and set forth a protocol to enable the agency to carry out its mandate as per the agreement, experts said.
For the first time India will be going for an India-specific additional protocol and since it is a de facto nuclear weapons state, INFCIR 540, which is meant for non-weapon state, may not be directly applicable to India, A N Prasad, former director of Bhabha Atomic Energy Agency, said adding there may be some exceptional conditions.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing a note to circulate among the 45 NSG member countries next week after tomorrow's IAEA meeting.
A draft of that note was supposed to have been given to Indian government for their opinion before finalising it, a US strategic planner said.
Twenty-six of the IAEA board members are also part of NSG.
On July 18, New Delhi had organised a meeting to brief members of the IAEA board and NSG on the India-specific safeguards agreement.
The IAEA and NSG agreements are expected to lead to several bilateral cooperation pacts with countries such as France, Russia in the near future.
Russia has explicitly said that for future reactors to be set up at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, the agreement with the IAEA is required.
<b>
Once New Delhi is out of the shackles of the embargo imposed 34 years ago following the Pokharan nuclear tests, there is scope for many such agreements to be reached to open nuclear commerce for India for imports as well as exports.</b>
In other words, an IAEA agreement, though no doubt originating with the requirement set forth by the US to have a nuclear agreement with India, has much deeper implications in the international context.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 31 2008, 02:32 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 31 2008, 02:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Those who had voted for them should be ashamed of themselves. [FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME! the ...]
Moron Singh is appointed not elected, smart South Delhi citizens rejected him, but his bend down in front of Queen gave him PM position anyway, he is not fool but full fledge Moron.
[right][snapback]85435[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Mudy Ji :</b>
More Fools we!
We keep harping & moaning as well as whinging & whining at the Effect.
It is necessary that we Address the Cause Directly for the Effect is nothing but another manifestation of the Cause.
Your âQueenâ appointed Man Mohan Singh to the post of Prime Minister as he does not have a âConstituencyâ and therefore will not challenge her.
Why is your âQueenâ on the Throne? Apparently - by hook or by crook - over a Billion Indians have cowered down in front of her.
I may be wrong, but, I think our Prime Minister must be a Member of the Lok Sabha.
If my supposition is correct then why has the Indian Opposition accepted this appointment?
If so then is MMS a Moron or is the whole Indian Political System is âMoronicâ?
Mudy Ji : Please Address the cause - then we can expect improvement!!
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 31 2008, 02:32 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 31 2008, 02:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, it is tongue in check. Not using every single adjectives here because lot of kids also read this forum. We need humor in life.
Lets get back to Nuclear Thread.
[right][snapback]85435[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the moment it does seem - in my humble opinion - that we are going down the deaf&dumform.com path!!!
I think if we eschewed the usage of single adjectives then we would have - hopefully - a better
Ambiance at this Forum. Humour is Good but harping & moaning as well as whinging & whining does become drivel - something one would not dream of accusing you of.
Yes Indeed. Let us get back to the Nuclear Thread - Bravo.
We all have different views on matters of national interest. That is but quite natural in a democratic set up. However, as matured persons we should try to analyse each and every problem from different angles and should also try to comprehend the compulsions and limitations of the Government of the day and the whole machinery of the State.
The machinery of the State as well as the legislature needs continuous monitoring and course correction in the face of new situations and realities. Presently, the point of discussion relates to the proposed Nuclear Agreement between India and USA. The calling of names of political leaders only brings us to ridicule in the Cyber Highway rather than serving any other purpose. Till such time that we the voters of India give a clear mandate to any political party or personality, unexpected people will continue to occupy high and important position by accident. It is better to have purposeful discussion as to what should be done to improve upon the situation.
NARESHJ-- For yr information the present PM is a member of the Rajya Sabha leected from Assam.
I agree that let us return to the Nuclear Issue.
Someone's who posted this (without bothering to respond) about this forum, can't really take a high road on name-calling:
I'm glad that you have said whatever you have said else if I had said the same, our Ravishji would re-attributed all the above listed points to me and every other member of this forum.
[right][snapback]85439[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Viren Ji :</b>
I do believe - in all humility - that I have voiced the feelings of a Common Indian and I include our Fellow Forum Member Ravish Ji in the Over Billion of us.
<b>Added Later :</b> One does believe that one did not post the Five Points you refer to. If so then please let me have the refercence to the post and then one will eat humble pie as well as eat crow.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell your buddy this joke next time so he can put all holes into proper perspective:
[right][snapback]85439[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shriman Ji : I did not state a Joke - It was a Statement of Facts.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Absolutely. Normal citizens do their bit on a daily basis, pays his taxes with an expectation that the people we elect or hire (our babus) will do the right thing. Any reason we need to excuse gross dereliction of duty by our leaders and their sycophants in IPS/IFS/IAS.
We have some monkeys who've have made it to the top and and now crying <i>hey, you put me up here, don't blame me if you are at receiving end of my droppings</i>.
[right][snapback]85439[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fault of Electing our Leaders lies squarely at our door.
IPS - IFS - IAS : These, and other, Services in the Civil Sector have been emasculated by our Politicians.
This is the reason for Lallu Prasad addressing the Bihar Chief Secretary as âChaprasiâ and the Bihar Inspector General of Police as âConstableâ. Did the Indian People protest?
In the latest case we have a Member of Parliament - may be Rajya Sabha - addressing the Pilot of the Aircraft as âGlorified Bus Driverâ. This particular MP - stationed in Dubai for Business - is an Agent for Various International Principals i.e. a Dalal or Procurer. I suppose it would be correct to Address him as a âGlorified Pimpâ. Any case did the Indian People Protest? Did any of the Opposition Members of both Houses of Parliament Protest?
In both cases one will have to wait until Hell Freezes Over.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jul 31 2008, 03:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for legality of Indian citizenship etc, for me personally it's not an issue while others might object which is their right/prerogative. I for one would be perfectly happy with honest person even if he's not a citizen - say like Robin Singh (it's a different matter that he's not in politics).
[right][snapback]85439[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Bhai Ji, if you can accept an Illegal Indian Citizen without even considering the Law or Act of Reciprocity in the Indian Constitution when why all this hue and cry about a Legal Indian Citizen?
<b>]In an interview on Dec 18, 2006, Under-secretary Burns said "There are some Pakistanis whoâ¦are not happy about [the nuclear deal with India] â not President Musharraf, but people beneath him." The question naturally arises why Musharraf was "happy" â or at least not unhappy â with the deal. Why was he able to declare that the results of Bush's visit, in which the US president bluntly and categorically told the Pakistani people that Pakistan would not be given civil nuclear technology, were "positive"? Why did Musharraf not refute Bush's arguments, at their joint press conference, that Pakistan could not get nuclear technology while India would?</b>
The answer is to be found in the fact that Musharraf has a very different order of priorities than those "beneath" him. His main concern, as a military dictator bent on perpetuating his rule, was that Washington should not push him too hard on the issue of democracy, on holding an honest election and on giving up the office of army chief. Since Bush obliged him on all these vital issues, Musharraf did not want to press his honoured guest on a question as unimportant as nuclear energy for Pakistan.
One of those "beneath" Musharraf who was initially "unhappy" with the deal was then Foreign Minister Kasuri. His reaction to the nuclear deal was at first quite robust. In an interview with the British daily Financial Times (March 17, 2006), Kasuri warned that the Indo-US agreement would bring about the collapse of the NPT. "The whole Treaty will unravel. It's only a matter of time before other countries will act in the same way." He added: "Once this [deal] goes through, the NPT will be finished. It's not just Iran and North Korea. Brazil, Argentina and Pakistan will all think differently." However, Kasuri quickly changed his tune after a rebuke from Washington and "clarified" that he had been "misquoted" in his Financial Times interview.
The statement issued by the National Command and Control Authority (NCA) on April 12, 2006, like Musharraf's public comments, played down the implications of the deal for Pakistan's security. The NCA expressed satisfaction at the current state of Pakistan's strategic deterrence, noting that the strategic capability was sufficient to meet current and future challenges. It nevertheless noted with concern the implications of the nuclear deal on strategic stability in South Asia in view of the fact that the agreement would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactors. Pakistan's then ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, currently national security adviser to the prime minister, said in an interview with The Washington Post (Dec 21, 2006) that the nuclear deal did not "worry" Islamabad, although there was recognition that the uninspected Indian reactors could be used to produce weapons-grade material.
The official position adopted by the government under Musharraf was that Pakistan was not opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal but wanted a non-discriminatory and objective, criteria-based approach which would offer equal opportunity to both Pakistan and India to access civilian nuclear technology by meeting the relevant benchmarks. The NCA also resolved that Pakistan was determined to pursue its legitimate energy requirements, which included nuclear power generation under IAEA safeguards, with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, including the United States. However, consistent with Nick Burns' "revelation" that Musharraf was "not unhappy" with the India-US nuclear deal, our then military ruler made no serious effort to pursue this matter with the United States or with other supplier countries.
In particular, Musharraf made no use of Pakistan's leverage as an "indispensible" ally of the West in the war against terror to win backing for their cooperation in meeting our nuclear energy needs. Instead, his endless harangues on his numerous junkets abroad focussed on how unstable a country Pakistan would be if he was not at the helm. The underlying message was that if he was not kept in power, our nuclear assets could fall into the hands of extremist elements. In his interview with the BBC on Nov 17, 2007, he made it explicit. Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Musharraf said, could not fall into the wrong hands "as long as the military [is in charge]." But if elections were held "in the wrong environment," the results could lead to chaos, and if that happened, Pakistan's nuclear weapons could become vulnerable. Since early 2007, Musharraf was, in any case, more focussed on the vital question of making a power-sharing deal with Benazir Bhutto under Washington's patronage than in working for Pakistan's nuclear energy needs.
This unimportant matter â from Musharraf's point of view â of nuclear power for Pakistan was left solely to the official level and to our missions abroad. The assessment that Musharraf was not unhappy with the India-US nuclear deal was shared by Washington with other NSG members. Given Musharraf's lack of interest and his warnings about Pakistan's nuclear assets falling into the wrong hands, it is not surprising that these countries were not inclined to pay much heed to efforts made by officials "beneath," as Nick Burns described them.
Musharraf's sell-out on the nuclear issue has done serious harm to our security and economic interests and should be added to the list of charges for his impeachment. To undo this damage, the new government needs to take immediate corrective steps. So far, the actions of the government on this issue give mixed signals.
On the one hand, Pakistan has done well to circulate a letter to the IAEA board of governors expressing concern that if the safeguards agreement is approved, it will lead to increased Indian access to nuclear fuel and may contribute to a renewed nuclear arms race between the two South Asian nuclear powers. On the other hand, the statement by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in London on July 24 that Pakistan "does not want to be obstructive" suggests that the government might buckle under US pressure not to delay approval of the nuclear deal with IAEA.
<b>The US ambassador to India has publicly warned Pakistan to be "cooperative" and "see things in the right light." The issue is also expected to be taken up by the Americans during the prime minister's visit to Washington. The move by Washington to shift $230 million of counterterrorism aid to Pakistan for upgrading its F16 fighters is also aimed at softening up Pakistani resistance in the IAEA. The US is in such a hurry to get the deal cleared by the IAEA and the NSG to enable Congress to approve it before it adjourns in late September. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Without Congressional approval, every NSG member except the US would be able to make nuclear sales to India while US companies would still face legal restrictions.</span></b>
The Musharraf regime was culpably derelict in not pursuing a nuclear deal with the US for Pakistan because his main priority was to consolidate and perpetuate his own hold on power with Washington's support. The new government now bears the heavy responsibility of making up for the lost time and opportunity. It will be difficult, but it can be done, though it will take time, commitment and perseverance. If the government seriously pursues the matter, Pakistan will not be without supporters in the US. For example, in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security on June 12, Stephen Cohen recommended that United Sates should "consider a criteria-based nuclear 'deal' with Pakistan as a way of encouraging it to limit and secure their existing nuclear weapons."
We should make civil nuclear cooperation a high-priority issue in our agenda with the United States and other leading NSG members. Just as the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban tops the bilateral agenda of these countries with us, we should let them know that civil nuclear cooperation is the number-one item on our agenda with them. The prime minister should start by taking up the matter with President Bush.
<b><i>The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service. Email : asifezdi@yahoo.com</i></b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One does believe that one did not post the Five Points you refer to. If so then please let me have the refercence to the post and then one will eat humble pie as well as eat crow.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's still archived on this very forum (Paki thread, strange that you missed it). The name of author's missing since software periodically removes name of members who go inactive - but subsequent posts by other IF members should not leave any doubt about authorship.
No need for eating any crows. If and when we meet, the choicest murg tandoori/mussalam is on me. Along with a Patiala peg of Lagavulin <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I did not state a Joke - It was a Statement of Facts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shrimanji, neither did I since jokes have metaphoric way of holding mirror to ourselves.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fault of Electing our Leaders lies squarely at our door. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In ideal world we'd all elect perfect leaders or all just stay home on election day. Yes, fault's ours for electing whoever we elect. But this doesn't mean I as a citizen have given up my right criticize the elected leader(s) of the day - whoever he/she is; whether I voted for him or not.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IPS - IFS - IAS : These, and other, Services in the Civil Sector have been emasculated by our Politicians. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then these people should come out in open stating their real affiliation and motives in promoting one sided agenda rather than preaching to choir here. If they are holding a candle to a particular party over the interests of the nation, it's understandable too, but the shouldn't shoot sanctimonious advise to rest.
I don't know who's fooling whom here?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> This is the reason for Lallu Prasad addressing the Bihar Chief Secretary as âChaprasiâ and the Bihar Inspector General of Police as âConstableâ. Did the Indian People protest?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laloo is Lalloo only, man. Here's a quiz for you: who called another politician 'maut-ka-saudaagar'? If that's easy, who's the opposition leader who called a sitting PM a 'gadaar' at the time when nation was at war. Who (latter became a PM) slapped a Dr of AIIMS in public? I could provide more examples such behaviour which would make our good old Laloo look like an angle of virtue and humility.
So if one of the citizen here calls sitting lame duck a 'moron' - I can see where he/she's coming from though I might not necessarily I endorse it. However I do agree that tone of the discussion should change and will leave it up to individuals.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->if you can accept an Illegal Indian Citizen without even considering the Law or Act of Reciprocity in the Indian Constitution when why all this hue and cry about a Legal Indian Citizen?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bhai-saab, read my post again, I (personally) don't have problem and I'm not making hue cry about her citizenship when issues like qualification, honesty, credibility etc itself are questionable.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->over a Billion Indians have cowered down in front of her.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not addressed to me, but let me ask as to where you picked this 'billion' number from? Doing a little math check on how UPA got into power will go a long way in terms of addressing the cause.
<!--QuoteBegin-ravish+Jul 31 2008, 04:45 AM-->QUOTE(ravish @ Jul 31 2008, 04:45 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is better to have purposeful discussion as to what should be done to improve upon the situation.
[right][snapback]85497[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm all ears Ravishji. Any time you are ready, let us know and I'll help facilitate discussion to the good governance thread.
But given the fact in all the time you've been on the forum with us and you have yet to find one iota of fault in the 50 months of UPAs rule, my guess is that our wait will be a long one.
<b>US can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the eve of the vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors on the India-specific safeguards agreement, the chief negotiator of the India-United States nuclear deal Nicholas Burns has said the 123 Agreement 'absolutely is consistent with every part of the Hyde Act'
....
<b>But he said it was highly unlikely that India would conduct a nuclear test</b>
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&