Pickled Politics






Family

Comrades

In-laws







Site Meter

India - the doubled edged sword


by Sunny on 2nd March, 2006 at 7:43 pm    

George Bush today announced a deal giving India access to US nuclear fuel and technology without it first having to sign the non-proliferation treaty - which I’m not happy about. Firstly it means we waste more money on nuclear technology for energy and weapons instead of investing in renewable energy or education programmes.

Countries like Iran will also look at it as another example of US hypocrisy - America allows its friend’s to build weapons but those in the bad books get referred to the Security Council.

Much of the Indian media is positively having an orgasm over Bush’s visit because it’s the first since Nixon or something. It’s a great chest-puffing exercise for them, and the government.

But Manmohan Singh harping on about India’s achievements ring hollow when the country’s archaic law-and-order system ensures only the rich and powerful get justice. Two recent cases in the media highlight this:

On 29th April night, seven years ago…a young model Jessica Lal who offered to act as a celebrity bar-tender was shot dead at a party in Tamarind Court (a newly opened bar then, in South Delhi) for refusing to serve drinks to a guest who landed up at 2 am, way after the bar was closed. This unfortunate incident took place in a ‘high class’ gathering were most of the guests were VIPs, businessmen, top industrialists and celebrities who showed up for the party thrown by Delhi socialite Bina Ramani and fashion designer Malini Ramani. …

However today, prime accused Manu Sharma, son of serving Haryana minister Vinod Sharma, walked free along with eight others after the additional Sessions Judge S L Bhayana said that there was no evidence against the accused and the prosecution had failed to prove its case. [Via Sakshi]

Much of the Indian blogosphere has quite rightly been expressing outrage that the case was dropped without acquittal.

Another case that hasn’t been getting as much attention is that of Bant Sing, in Punjab.

Bant Singh is a Dalit and a singer in the village of Burj Jhabber, Mansa, Punjab. In 2000, his minor daughter was raped. The rapists were given life sentence in 2002. In retaliation, Bant was attacked on January 5, 2006. He was left bleeding to death. His arms and leg had to be amputated. He says his tongue is there, he can still sing. [via Other India]

A blog has been started to highlight the case along with a petition for the Indian PM.

To para-phrase a mate - Indians shouldn’t rip their arms out of the sockets patting themselves on the back just yet.

On a side note, it seems Pakistani ISP’s are blocking Blogspot too.



  |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Digg this   |   Filed under: South Asia, Culture, India




54 Comments   |  


  1. T — on 2nd March, 2006 at 8:37 pm  

    georg bush is a hypocrite..already pre-written, the leaders of the world will be the worst of its people..what really could a fan of the ‘new world order’ expect to gain from this?

  2. raz — on 2nd March, 2006 at 8:50 pm  

    I hope Bush can use some of his clout to get India and Pakistan to make some progress in resolving the Kashmir issue. Both countries need to spend less money on defence and more on their people.

  3. Limerick — on 3rd March, 2006 at 1:19 am  

    Jessica Lal’s case so heartbreaking. How can anyone can get away with killing in almost broad daylight? Law and order there is a chaos.

  4. Al-Hack — on 3rd March, 2006 at 1:48 am  

    Raz I wouldn’t hold my breath even if it is a good idea. Bush doesn’t have many good ideas.

  5. Gaurav — on 3rd March, 2006 at 2:36 am  

    What has nuclear deal got to do with Jessica Lal Case ??

    Or is this Anti-Indian sentiments cloaked in Non sequiturs

    Or is this finest bunch of liberal trash

  6. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2006 at 3:01 am  

    Gaurav, I believe these lines might help:

    But Manmohan Singh harping on about India’s achievements ring hollow when the country’s archaic law-and-order system ensures only the rich and powerful get justice.

  7. Gaurav — on 3rd March, 2006 at 3:22 am  

    Sunny,

    You are opposing Nuclear Deal, What has that got to do with Law and Order ??

    As much as I am critical of Law and Order failure in India, I fail to understand how can that be upheld against Indian nuclear program.

    India had nuclear know how since last three decades, and if India wanted she could easily sell it to Libyans or Persians. She did not do that, inspite of the fact that she could use some money for “poerty and education programmes”. Contrast this with China which had no compunction in merrily proliferating nuclear know how.

    Why the double standards ??

    (How long before one invokes Iran and North Korea)

  8. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2006 at 3:47 am  

    The way I see it Gaurav… the nuclear issue part of the bigger bravado and chest beating - as if India will never be recognised as a ‘proper’ power until it has nukes.

    The BJP announced nuclear testing, and it was received by some, as if that made them MEN.

    Why are you comparing us to a totalitarian and undemocratic regime… is that what we aspire to? We didn’t leak any secrets, that in itself is a good thing.

    But I’m questioning the bravado that accompanies acquiring nukes. When there is so much else to do, when there is so much need for the money to go elsewhere, when the government should really be focusing on the needs of the people…. they’re being hoodwinked into thinking that things are great just because Bush has come over.

    It’s also a message they want to send out internationally - “oh look we’re a superpower… we’re growing fast… we’re going to be the strongest”… yada yada.

    But until the basic needs of society are dealt with, all this is a facade to me.

  9. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:22 am  

    But until the basic needs of society are dealt with, all this is a facade to me.

    While that is true, it is also true that if India hadn’t developed nuclear weapons, Pakistan still would have, with help from the Chinese. And unlike India, neither of these countries has a no-first use policy. And AQ Khan would still have proliferated to North Korea and others. It’s true that India spends too much on defense but look at the neighbourhood she’s in. The macho bravado is unnecessary (but probably a function of developing something practically from scratch in the face of international isolation and non-cooperation and double standards on the NPT and some annoying and hypocritical preaching from the “good ol boys nuclear club”), but the West developed even when their societies were inequitable and their priorities should have been elsewhere. Sometimes it’s just not pragmatic to wait until all basic needs are fulfilled. No society or country ever has. This is not to say that this isn’t important, of course it is.

  10. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:28 am  

    Also, this nuclear deal is about improving India’s civlian nuclear energy program, which will be one key part of fulfilling people’s basic needs in the future - at least one hopes.

  11. Gaurav — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:31 am  

    Sunny,

    If you are implying that Indians have forgotten that there are issues beyond nuclear weaponary, you are incorrect.

    Yes there was excitement (bravado as you say) when India tested nuclear bombs,It was an achievement and I dont see any reason why one shouldn’t feel pride.

    Yes it made some feel that Indians hae become men,and yes it is naive. But what do you propose that until poverty and hunger has been eradicated, Indians should not feel proud and should always hang their heads in shame 24/7. Do you think by doing this India will be able to achieve prosperity ? Do you think that India shouldn’t assert herself and instead content with being a well behaved vassal of Anglosphere.

    Yes Indian media is having orgasm over Bush visit,
    it had orgasm when General Musharraf came too, it is silly. However, that doesn’t take from the fact what Bush has achieved is pathbreaking in history of Indo-US relations.

    I am not advocating India to be like China, I was pointing that India has behaved more honourably than some of the elites.

  12. SloganMurugan — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:47 am  

    Great, now we dont just have to hunt around for scarce oil, we have to look for uranium too!

  13. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:56 am  

    Great, now we dont just have to hunt around for scarce oil, we have to look for uranium too!

    Yes, now those Aussies have said they will refuse to sell it to us!

  14. Amit — on 3rd March, 2006 at 12:11 pm  

    Hypocrisy is an understatement in my opinion.

  15. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2006 at 12:24 pm  

    but the West developed even when their societies were inequitable and their priorities should have been elsewhere

    xyz - I’m not denying there is plenty of hypocrisy on the side of the west… only about 5-6 years India was a pariah state because of nuclear testing, now it’s a mate as if the country has suddenly changed from being a full-on dictatorship to democracy.

    But while it is important for the country to protect itself, this is pure nuclear bravado.

    I don’t buy two arguments - that we need a nuclear arms race in south asia… because it has never the country more secure, only led each side to grow more paranoid.

    Secondly, nuclear energy is not a viable option for me… I’d rather the country spend money on developing more renewable sources of energy.

    Gaurav:
    But what do you propose that until poverty and hunger has been eradicated, Indians should not feel proud and should always hang their heads in shame 24/7.

    Not exactly, but I’d rather the country celebreate real achievements that help the people than some silly nuclear bravado rubbish.

  16. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:19 pm  

    Nuclear energy is a viable option. France generates the majority of it’s electricity using nuclear energy and in fact sells electricity to many European countires.

    This deal is not about nuclear weapons at all, it is about giving India the means to satisy it’s demand for energy.India is presently overly dependent on oil from the Persian gulf and needs to diversify it’s sources of energy. It’s a win win deal for India and the world too as it will arrest the steep rise in the price of oil in the long run.

    Just to remind you, India has a better non proliferation record than many of the P5 powers like China and Russia. India developed it’s nuclear weapons as a matter of suvival in a neighbourhood consisting of a communist autocracy and an Islamic terrorist state , both with nukes.

  17. shiva — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:21 pm  

    The BJP announced nuclear testing, and it was received by some, as if that made them MEN. Indira Gandhi arranged to conduct India’s first nuclear test. The site of the 2nd nuclear test in 1998 is named Shakti Sthal. And nuclear weapons make some feel like MEN! Ironic isn’t it. Anyway what is wrong with being masculine?

  18. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 4:31 pm  

    “Islamic terrorist state”

    You really are a fucking cock. It’s a shame PP is being infested by Hinduvata types these days.

  19. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:01 pm  

    raz your islamic upbringing has obviously left you with a rich vocabulary , no doubt gleaned from your holy book. Please do continue to display your fine Islamic debating skills .

  20. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:13 pm  

    Sunny,

    I’m curious. If India had never developed nuclear weapons (in an ideal world), do you think China (which already had them) would still never have helped Pakistan develop them or that Pakistan would not have helped proliferate them to North Korea, Libya etc.? And how do you think India’s lack of nuclear weapons would have helped it in any negotiations with nuclear-armed neighbours, especially those with a first-use policy. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m asking an honest question. Thanks.

  21. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:19 pm  

    Pakistan had no N-weapons program until Indians stupidly tested their ‘peaceful’ device in 1974. Not only did India create a nuclear Pakistan, in doing so they completely negated any advantage their much larger conventional forces gave them. Hilarious :)

  22. shiva — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:23 pm  

    Thomas Babington Macaulay,
    From a speech made to the House of Commons, March 9, 1843

    …His Majesty is the ruler of a larger heathen population than the world ever saw collected under the sceptre of a Chriistian sovereign since the days of the Emperor Theodosius. What the conduct of rulers in such circumstances ought to be is one of the most imortant moral questions, one of the most important political questions, that it is possible to conceive.

    There are subject to the British rule in Asia a hundred millions of people who do not profess the Christian faith. The Mahometans are a minority: but their importance is much more proportioned to their number: for they are an united, a zealous, an ambitious, a warlike class.

    The great majority of the population of India consists of idolaters, blindly attached to doctrines and rites which, considered merely with reference to the temporal interests of mankind, are in the highest degree pernicious. In no part of the world has a religion ever existed more unfavourable to the moral and intellectual health of our race. The Brahminical mythology is so absurd that it necessarily debases every mind which receives it as truth; and with this absurd mythology is bound up an absurd system of physics, an absurd geography, an absurd astronomy.

    Nor is this form of Paganism more favourable to art than to science. Through the whole Hindoo Pantheon you will look in vain for anything resembling those beautiful and majestic forms which stood in the shrines of ancient Greece. All is hideous, and grotesque and ignoble. As this superstitition is of all superstititions the most irrational, and of all superstitions the most inelegant, so is it of all superstitions the most immoral. Enblems of vice are objects of public worship. The courtesans are as much a part of the establishment of the temple, as much ministers of the god, as the priests. Crimes against life, crimes against property, are not only permitted but enjoined by this odious theology. But for our interference human victims would still be offered to the Ganges, and the widow would still be laid on the pile of the corpse of her husband, and burned alive by her own children. It is by the command and under the especial protection of one of the most powerful goddesses that the Thugs join themselves to the unsuspecting traveller, make friends with him, slip the noose round his neck, plunge their knives in his eyes, hide him in the earth, and divide his money and baggage. I have read many examinations of Thugs; and I particularly remember an altercation which took place between two of those wretches in the presence of an English officer. One Thug reproached the other for having been so irreligious as to spare the life of a traveller when the omens indicated that their patroness required a victim. “How could you let him go? How can you expect the goddess to protect us if you disobey her commands? That is one of your North country heresies.”

    It seems not much has changed in 150 years.

    Raz,

    Pakistan can save a lot of money by opting out of this unwinnable arms race with India. Let India bankrupt itself by overspending on its military. Then Pakistan can step in and take away all those clients who are now India’s. Slovenia has done something like that in the Balkans; while Serbia and Croatia have slugged it out.

  23. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:26 pm  

    Actually shiva, if you read my earlier comment in this thread, I was advocating that if Pakistan and India can come to some agreement on Kashmir (with Bush’s help), both can reduce spending on defence and start dedicating more money to things like education, poverty, etc. Sadly, as long as the current impasse continues, that seems unlikely. If the USA can dedicate so much time to the Israel-Palestine situaiton, surely it can play a role in resolving the India-Pakistan issue.

  24. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:30 pm  

    India’s initial nuclear tests were not so much aimed at Pakistan but as a deterrent to China. I still think it’s naive to assume that China-Pakistan would never have cooperated in nuclear proliferation if India had never developed nuclear weapons. Anyways, Pakistan started thinking about nuclear weapons in 1972, before India tested in 1974.

  25. Geezer — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:31 pm  

    raz your islamic upbringing has obviously left you with a rich vocabulary , no doubt gleaned from your holy book. Please do continue to display your fine Islamic debating skills[FOB]

    You talk to him about debating skills when you throw in cheap digs at peoples religious beliefs.

    You really are a piece of work or to be more exact a piece of…….

  26. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:36 pm  

    You talk to him about debating skills when you throw in cheap digs at peoples religious beliefs.

    You really are a piece of work or to be more exact a piece of…….

    yes, and immediately labelling someone Hindutva (and we know in what sense he meant that) because you don’t like what they said or view things differently than them is not a cheap shot????

  27. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:37 pm  

    FOB, if you think calling Pakistan an Islamic terrorist state is
    going to be tolerated on here, you’re an idiot. Don’t cry when someone calls you out on your stupidity.

    xyz, Pakistan did have a nuclear energy program since 1955, but it wasn’t until India’s 1974 test that Pakistan began actively seeking a weapon (which they gained by 1984), as evidenced by the famous ‘we will eat grass’ quote by Bhutto. There’s no doubt that India introduced N-weapons into the subcontinent, both with the 1974 ‘peaceful’ test and the 1998 ‘weaponised’ test, and acted as a catalyst for Pakistan’s own program.

  28. Geezer — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:41 pm  

    yes, and immediately labelling someone Hindutva (and we know in what sense he meant that) because you don’t like what they said or view things differently than them is not a cheap shot????[xyz]

    Did you miss the part where he labelled Islamic terrorist state?

  29. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:44 pm  

    There’s no doubt that India introduced N-weapons into the subcontinent, both with the 1974 ‘peaceful’ test and the 1998 ‘weaponised’ test, and acted as a catalyst for Pakistan’s own program.

    Raz,

    Well, there’s no doubt then that china introduced N-weaponjs into Asia and its belligerence towards India didnt’ help. But even Nehru, as early as independence, said India had the right to develop whatever weapons, regretably including nuclear, to defend herself. It may sound strange, but I think the nuclear deterrent may actually help keep things more peaceful between Pakistan and India. I don’t think it will help solve Kashmir because one person’s solution is another person’s failure. You may not want to hear it, but the biggest danger is Pakistan’s weapons falling into the wrong hands if Musharaff (and I’m not a huge fan of his) loses control. They also didnt’ help matters by proliferating their nuclear technology. However, I do not buy into the usually condescending Western attitude that India and Pakistan’s militaries (and India’s is under civilian control) are so immature as to not realize the dangers of nuclear weapons.

  30. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:51 pm  

    Pakistan is an Islamic terrorist state.

    It is a country where the government and intelligence provide arms, training and funding to groups on the US terrorist list including Laskar-e-Toiba, Jasih-e-Muhammad,Harkut -ul-Mujahiden etc.
    Osama, Ayman et al are all in Pakistan also and this is common knowledge.
    The ISI was the mastermind behind the Taliban who are regrouping in Pakistani tribal areas.
    Dawood , desingated a global terrorist and wanted by Interpol, resides in Karachi and is a guest of the ISI. This has been dpcumented by interanational media and even Pakistani media.
    Pakistani links were found to all major terrorist attacks including WTC-I and 9-11 , where the money for the operation was wired from Pakistan.
    Pakistani nuclear establishment proliferated WMDS to Iran, Libya and North Korea and their “great scientist” AQ Khan was made a scapegoat by Musharraf.

    Pakistan as a country is a terrorist’s paradise, a laboratory for true Islam and a picture to the world of what Islam stand for.

  31. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:52 pm  

    “I think the nuclear deterrent may actually help keep things more peaceful between Pakistan and India”

    I agree. Full scale war between the two countries is unlikely now. Having said that, it only takes a slight miscalculation to fuck everything up.

    “the biggest danger is Pakistan’s weapons falling into the wrong hands if Musharaff (and I’m not a huge fan of his) loses control”

    Not going to happen. This whole ‘Islamist takover of Pakistan’ scenario is not rooted in reality, even if Musharraf dies. The biggest threat, IMO, is the BJP, a religious party which, unlike MMA in Pakistan, DID gain power in India. No suprise that this party was responsible for conducting the nuclear tests, not to mention trying to start a war in 2002, only backing down when Pakistan made it clear that they would fight back with and means neccessary (which is why the first use option is a good idea from Pakistan - it deters any conventional aggression from India).

    “I don’t think it will help solve Kashmir because one person’s solution is another person’s failure”

    Maybe, but compromise is the only way forward. Pakistan and India have a lot of potential as nations, it is a shame that this dispute holds them back.

  32. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

    FOB, your true colors are exposed for all to see. Why don’t you fuck off back to Bharat Rakshak where you belong.

  33. Geezer — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:56 pm  

    Lol ^^^^^^^

    I liked the one about Osama in Pakistan oh and the Pakistani links to 9/11.

  34. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:57 pm  

    raz , quoting Muhammad again I see. Thanks for displaing your ignorance and lack of debating skills and resorting as usual to the Islamist version of debate: abuse.

  35. Geezer — on 3rd March, 2006 at 5:59 pm  

    Of course you have not resorted to abusing people at all have you FOB?

  36. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:05 pm  

    I have not used any profanities or abuse in any of my posts.

  37. Geezer — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

    Just abused a persons faith, great debating skills there I must say.

  38. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

    “Islamic terrorist state”

    “Pakistan as a country is a terrorist’s paradise, a laboratory for true Islam and a picture to the world of what Islam stand for”

    The sickening extent of FOB’s bigotry, exposed for all to see.

  39. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

    he biggest threat, IMO, is the BJP, a religious party which, unlike MMA in Pakistan, DID gain power in India. No suprise that this party was responsible for conducting the nuclear tests, not to mention trying to start a war in 2002, only backing down when Pakistan made it clear that they would fight back with and means neccessary (which is why the first use option is a good idea from Pakistan - it deters any conventional aggression from India).

    well I’m going to have to really disagree with you there and say that is a really far-fetched statement. Whatever the fautls of the BJP, it came to power democratically (unlike Musharaff) and went out of power democratically. There was no coup, it did not try to stay in power beyond its democratically allotted time. When is Musharaff’s “democratically” allotted time going to end? It seems he keeps pushing the deadline. Whatever its faults, the BJP acted fairly responsibly in national security matters and had the support of the Opposition Congress on that count. It could never have done anything without opposition support. To think otherwise is to be unaware of the Indian political system. It was also under the BJP that the current peace intitiave really got its first impetus after a long time, with the Vajpayee-Musharaff meetings. To say the BJP, which had to function within a coaltion govt., is a bigger danger is wishful thinking. No political party in India can exercise control like Musharaff exercises over Pakistan. No party can take it upon themselves to launch a war. It has to seek the approval of India’s Parliament.

    As for the 2002 , well you’ve given the Pakistani version of things. We could argue back and forth - needless to say there is also an Indian version. It’s like Kashmir - there are many viewpoints and many people involved (including Buddhists in Ladakh whose voices as Kashmiris are always ignored and Pandits who have not been allowed to return to their homes).

  40. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:12 pm  

    I forgot to add and repeat again, that India has a strict no-first use policy that the BJP, Congress and whoever else have always adhered to, no matter who was in power. Unfortunately, Pakistan and China reserve the right to first use of nuclear weapons.

  41. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:18 pm  

    “Unfortunately, Pakistan and China reserve the right to first use of nuclear weapons.”

    Can’t speak for China, but in Pakistan’s case, fully justified. First strike, particular with tactical battlefield weapons, was an integral part of NATO doctrine against larger conventional Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. Pakistan faces a similar disadvantage in size against India. Thus it is fully appropriate for Pakistan to use first strike, especially against an invading Indian army on Pakistani soil. First strike does not mean Pakistan is going to start lobbing nukes at Delhi or Bangalore. It may very will be this pre-emptive strategy stopped the BJP’s warmongeringin its tracks in 2002.

  42. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:25 pm  

    It may very will be this pre-emptive strategy stopped the BJP’s warmongeringin its tracks in 2002.

    Again, that’s your version. Personally Pakistan threatening a first strike and risking a return strike seems far fetched. But even if that was true, I guess the BJP, contrary to your view, acted responsibly then, didn’t it and didn’t take the opportunity to hit back even harder and risk a nuclear war. But I guess it’s easy to bravely threaten a first strike when you know your neighbor will not threaten a first strike and then claim victory.

    Anyways, this whole nuclear deal is about meeting India’s future energy needs. If Pakistan can secure a similar deal, I suppose there wouldn’t be this antipathy. So good luck to it.

  43. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

    No, you misunderstand. If India invades Pakistan, Pakistan may strike first with tactical weapons (low yield) against the Indian forces (not India itself). India would have no basis to use weapons against Pakistan, given that the nuclear strike was on Pakistani soil. If India retaliates by nuking Pakistan, India would be the nuclear aggressor, and Pakistan would have full justification in launching strategic weapons against Indian cities. NATO had similar plans to use nuclear tipped cruise missiles against invading Warsaw Pact armies. The bottom line - if India tries to attack Pakistan it risks losing its army at best and a full nuclear exchange (with disasterous consequences for both countries) at worst. A no-win situation - thus any warmongering by India is kept in check by Pakistan.

    “Anyways, this whole nuclear deal is about meeting India’s future energy needs. If Pakistan can secure a similar deal, I suppose there wouldn’t be this antipathy. So good luck to it.”

    Pakistan doesn’t need this deal. China is already supplying us with everything we need in the nuclear energy stakes. But maybe for the sake of ‘parity’ Pakistan may ask for something similar from US. We’ll see. The ‘antipathy’ is a result of FOB’s disgusting comments about Pakistan.

  44. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:44 pm  

    Well, India, no matter what you think, has no interest in invading Pakistani soil (unlike a certain Musharaff :) ) So hopefully these are just hypothetical scenarios. What if Pakistan invaded Indian soil? India would still have a first no-use policy. Would Pakistan use its first use option on Indian soil if it meets a conventionally superior Indian army?

    And I have no doubt that China is supplying you and will continue to do so, even though it violated the NPT, to which it is a signatory and India is not, in doing so. That’s why I don’t understand all the fuss about this U.S.-India deal, it’s not like it’s without precedent. China has already done it with Pakistan. So, to turn your earlier argument on its head, maybe China-Pakistan are responsible for this escalating of the nuclear problem??

    The funny thing is China issued a rather pompous statement yesterday urging India to abandon nuclear weapons! A major proliferator that violates the very agreeement it signs. Hilarious. Apparently this deal has really upset them.

  45. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 6:49 pm  

    Given that India was threatening to invade Pakistan as recently as 2002, I think you’re mistaken.

    What ‘nuclear problem’ are you talking about? As far as nuclear energy goes, I don’t have a problem with US supplying India or China supplying Pakistan. As far as weapons goes, we all know Russians have been helping India, so India can hardly complain about China helping Pakistan. Hell, even USA/UK have been involved in proliferation, so really there’s no moral high ground to take. All’s fair in love and war :)

  46. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 7:12 pm  

    Given that Musharaff orchestrated an invasion of Kargil long before 2002…..see, this could go on forever. :)

    All’s fair in love and war

    Exactly. Which makes China’s call to India to abandon nuclear weapons (are they living in la-la land?) but not to Pakistan look silly and puerile. Anyways, it elicits a good laugh. As does the UK, US, France etc. preaching about a non-nuclear world while they hold on to theirs (and develop it even more in some cases). I mean, why do Britain and France need nuclear weapons now anyways?

  47. raz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 7:19 pm  

    “I mean, why do Britain and France need nuclear weapons now anyways?”

    Good point. People talk about Pakistan and India being ‘macho’ about nuclear weapons, but at least they have a need for it. UK and France are just trying to maintain ‘great power’ status.

  48. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 7:32 pm  

    Good point. People talk about Pakistan and India being ‘macho’ about nuclear weapons, but at least they have a need for it. UK and France are just trying to maintain ‘great power’ status.

    In fact, we can just blame the French for those 1996 tests that “encouraged” India and Pakistan.:) And at least we tested on our own soil instead of going halfway around the world to some small poor Pacific atolls far enough away from us.::) (which the Brits also did):)

  49. FOB — on 3rd March, 2006 at 7:32 pm  

    India’s no first use policy is clear that even a tactical nuclear strike against the the Indian armed forces whether in India or abroad, would be responded to by an overwhelming second strike .
    That would be the end of Pakistan for sure.

  50. buxton — on 3rd March, 2006 at 9:16 pm  

    With their nuclear proliferation record (AQ Khan), its unlikely Pakistan will be offered a similar deal by the Americans.

    Some valid points made here - maybe if these countries spent less on defence then they wouldnt have to beg the western world for help when disasters such as the kashmir earthquake happen. Having said that I think India spends 6/7% of their total spending on defence! With Pakistan its 2 or 3 times more - I cant see them sustaining this in the long term.

  51. xyz — on 3rd March, 2006 at 9:30 pm  

    Some valid points made here - maybe if these countries spent less on defence then they wouldnt have to beg the western world for help when disasters such as the kashmir earthquake happen. Having said that I think India spends 6/7% of their total spending on defence! With Pakistan its 2 or 3 times more - I cant see them sustaining this in the long term.

    If you don’t want to give countries aid, it would also help then if your governments didn’t preach nuclear non-proliferation on the one hand and then turn right around and grovel and try to outdo one another for defense weapons contracts (that provide US, UK jobs ) with these very same countries on the other hand.

  52. Jay Singh — on 3rd March, 2006 at 9:40 pm  

    I wish the Prime Minister would wear a different colour pughri than light blue occasionally. I think he would look good in grey or black.

  53. Vladimir — on 3rd March, 2006 at 9:43 pm  

    I have to disagree with you Jay, I think Manmohan would look great in a lime green pughri.

  54. Sunny — on 3rd March, 2006 at 10:03 pm  

    FOB - you’re an example of one of those Indians wh start sticking their chest out when people talk about India having nukes, with your head stuck so far in the sand you have no clue about anything else. Typically wrecked the frikking thread.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2006. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.