Amending the NPT: A Peacenik's Pipedream

Aaron Tavish argues in an op-ed today that India should not try to dodge the NPT but instead propose an amendment to it. Here is what he says:

Instead of trying to sneak around behind the back of the NPT, India should boldly enter through the front door. India should ask one or more of it close allies in the Non-Aligned Movement to propose an amendment to the NPT that has the effect of making India a nuclear-weapon state. It could be the most concise amendment in the history of diplomacy, changing just two digits in the Treaty’s definition of a nuclear-weapon state: “For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 196775.” In one stroke, all the problems of Article I compliance and the 1995 decision relating to full-scope safeguards would be resolved, and for India alone.

The consensus requirement would also be reduced. The NPT amendment process allows for an amendment conference on the basis of requests from just one-third of the States Parties — any one-third. Adoption of the amendment requires ratification by a simple majority, but not just any majority. Article VIII(2) of the treaty requires the majority to be “of the votes of all the Parties to the Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, are members of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.” While amending the NPT is a more far-reaching decision than approving a safeguards agreement, the favourable treatment recently accorded the India-specific agreement by the 35-member Board of Governors makes this requirement less daunting than the 45-member NSG consensus requirement.

What a joke. If getting the safeguards agreement itself is being so hard despite the support of the US, does he seriously expect an amendment to the NPT to be passed, that too without American involvement? The countries that are objecting to the agreement currently are also those who are wary of making any exception on any ground to any country lest others too might demand the same. Does he seriously believe that changing the cut-off date to 1975 from 1967 will actually fly given that the same nations would see the effort as undermining the very basis of the accord? The main objection right now is that approving the accord would set a bad precedent for other countries such as Pakistan but doing what he asks would open a Pandora's box for other countries, many of which joined many years after the treaty came into being. The suggestion is so preposterous as to merit no more than a contemptuous dismissal. I thought that even N.Ram was sufficiently politically savvy not to waste newsprint on pipedreams of this sort.

Is the Government to Blame for the Current Crisis in Kashmir?

Today's editorial in The Hindu on the Kashmir issue revealed more by what it did not say than what it did. There has been plenty of criticism of the UPA government over its handling of the recent Kashmir crisis. To be sure, the Ministry of Home Affairs does not inspire a lot of confidence but then, Kashmir is different because it has been a problem for every government, not just this one. Here are some excerpts:

New Delhi and Srinagar failed to act when Islamists first started a campaign claiming the diversion of land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board was a conspiracy to change Kashmir’s demography. Panicking when the protests snowballed in Kashmir, the State government revoked the order — sparking off a communally charged backlash in Jammu. Subsequently, the State and Central governments failed to assuage fears that Kashmir was facing an existence-threatening blockade, thus fuelling support for an attempted march across the Line of Control. Force had to be used to stop the marchers, sparking off another round of violence. At this point, the State government simply collapsed, ceding power to Islamists in Kashmir and Hindutva groups in Jammu.

Put simply, New Delhi allowed matters to drift to a point where it was left with no resources other than coercive tools.

All right, things went wrong but what could have been done different? No one could have predicted that transferring land to the Shrine Board would set off a riot. Once it did, would The Hindu have been happy if the government had refused to revoke the order and allowed things to inflame further in Kashmir? Very likely not. Yes, it sparked off angry riots in Jammu but then what would have been the paper's answer to this event? The government did point out on several occasions that traffic was plying normally on the Srinagar-Jammu highway but everyone knows that reality can get easily obscured particularly when the truth comes from the mouth of an unpopular, nay detested government. The separatist leadership of course has obviously nothing to gain by calming people by letting them know how things really stand.

Praveen Swami points out in his thoughtful op-ed today previous incidents that sparked riots - the loss of the so-called Prophet's hair at the Hazratbal shrine in 1963 and the discovery of a supposedly blasphemous picture from a colonial-era encyclopedia in 1973. As he points out, there is a common thread running through all of these - a mob incited unexpectedly by an irrational fear of a seemingly innocuous fact. What then is any government to do in dealing with a paranoid and xenophobic people led by opportunistic leaders feeding their existing insecurity with a constant stream of inflammatory rhetoric based on false claims and twisted facts?

Criticism of the government's inability to resolve the crisis is all very well but unless the paper can offer a different approach or solutions, its attack amounts to little more than a rhetorical exercise of one-upmanship. The paper should follow the example of the New York Times Editorial Board which never publishes an opinion critical of anyone on any contemporary issue without having a real alternative - right or wrong - to offer.

Praveen Swami's articles suffer from the same infirmity. The analysis is excellent but he too fails to say what if any are the choices before the government and what can be done to defuse the situation without having to resort to repressive measures indefinitely.

Sordid Soren show

No outrage, no condemnation; just reckless journalism from N.Ram. Obviously, he finds no culprits in this sordid episode where a convict is pulled out of the jail and made a chief minister of a state which is desperately in need of good governance. N.Ram consumes the editorial space by giving a good background of the proceedings. But carefully avoids stepping on his political benefactors.

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Second chance for Soren

His second bid reflected considerable political opportunism and reckless adventurism

All deaths are not equal, especially soldiers

Recently terrorists attacked Jammu and killed 4 people and captured 7 others as hostage. The Chindu reports the incident with usual bland candor. The fact reporting is absolutely abhorable like,

Police said two civilians, a jawan, identified as Havildar Vijay Kumar, and a Junior Commissioned Officer Naik Subedar V.V.K. Paarkashan were those killed.

Had these been a few minorities killed by so called fundamentalists the Chindu and its friends the NGO's would have risen in anger.
But unfortunately these are soldiers protecting our country.
How can they be given any respect or their families any support?
The key note of this article is,

The militants, suspected by the police to be those who infiltrated across the border under a cover of firing by the Pakistani forces, came in a goods carrier and attacked an Army checkpost in the Domana-Mishriwala area on the Jammu-Akhnoor-Poonch highway in the morning.

There are several issues with this,
1. The Pakistani government with whom the Chindu wants India to get into bed talking peace is back to its old tricks stabbing civilians.
2. Who owns the goods carrier?
3. Why is the border security so lax?
Unfortunately none of this will be questioned as Chindu resides in the heart of Chennai than the borders of Jammu. But the least it could do is support our troops, but for whatever reasons it will not.

Update:
When I started out on this post, the crux of the thought process is to shed some light on how partisan Chindu has become when it does not pay homage or even lip service to the men and women who serve our country. It treats rabid anti-nationalists and communists to high regard but shows little respect to the real people serving our country. One such person was a victim of the 7/7 attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul Mr. Venkateswara Rao.
While reading another blog more facts came about on this diplomat and patriot. Unfortunately most Indian media being the a-holes they really are would rather focus on non-issues and pseudo sick-ular news.
Props to Outlook on a real good article though.
Mera Bharat Mahan, par saala Chindu hai Shaitan

Conflicting Claims on the Kashmir Question

I was intrigued by two contrasting articles in the current issue of Frontline. One by Praveen Swami analyzing the historical political currents in J&K notes that the National Conference (NC) led by Sheikh Abdullah played on communal sentiments as much as other parties and is as responsible for the communal divide between Jammu and Kashmir as the others. A second by Noorani portays the late Sheikh as the epitome of transparency and statesmanship who was deeply wronged by Nehru. Historical perspective apart, Noorani insists on tying the J&K problem to Nehru's treatment of Abdullah. He claims that this slight was never forgiven by the people of that state and the road ever since his imprisonment in 1953 on trumped-up charges has gone steadily downhill.

Noorani has made this point in articles many times before. He routinely insists on tying the latest Kashmiri uprising to perceived slights of the past. This is something the NC leadership also claims - Farooq Abdullah used to throw a similar charge at New Delhi when he was the CM and I would not be surprised if Omar now asserts the same. But beyond the NC faithful, do the Kashmiri streets hold such a feeling? There is no evidence of that which makes it hard to take this view seriously. Also, one must not forget that J&K politics has taken several turns over the course of the last six decades. The NC under Abdullah which held out for a negotiable version of azadi for a long time through the '50s and '60s made its peace with India in 1975 when Sheikh Abdullah signed the Kashmir accord with Indira Gandhi. In what has been termed a completely free election, the NC under his leadership also won the subsequent assembly election in 1977 - the idea that the 1975 accord had no popular legitimacy at that time is debunked by this fact.

The accord however did not end the movement for azadi: while it allowed the mainstream NC to settle down to business as usual, it forced the opposition to offer a more extreme version of azadi repudiating the association with India. As the violence escalated towards the end of the '80s, the agenda of the opposition was steadily galvanized by the backing of the various militant outfits. Not surprisingly, the demand for azadi, always latent and implicit in the accord itself, got a new lease of life. The current struggle being led by the Hurriyat thus has its origin in the non-NC opposition. Geelani and co. care little about the compromises the NC made and are anxious to undo them. They are not particularly bothered by what happened to Sheikh Abdullah even if they are willing to deploy his treatment as a rhetorical point. The idea that Abdullah's shoddy treatment has left open a wound that now festers is a figment of Noorani's imagination - it was sutured and closed in 1975 and has given no further cause for trouble ever since. What we have now is a new wound that, despite being relatively disinfected, has turned into an abscess and continues to plague the body. It remains to be seen whether the UPA will manage to drain it and restore normalcy or will allow the past to be repeated albeit in a new form with a different set of actors.

How Buddhadeb is falling into Chindu's bad books

The Chindu has been an outspoken supporter of left wing principles even when it has been destructive to the country and its people, even when it has been divisive, even when it has been anti-patriotic.
It parrots Left wing comments and the standard principles of communism which have been proved to be inefficient over the world.
Now Buddhadeb a reasonably pragmatic mind in the WB government of idiots decides to talk about bandhs and gheraos,

Bandhs do not help the country, he said at an interactive session with the industry, organised by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry. But since I belong to one party I have to keep mum if they call a strike, he said in his usual candid style. But he had decided that the next time, he would open his mouth.

Speaking bravely without looking at repercussions, he continues to put a leash on the unions,

Mr. Bhattacharjee said trade unions need to behave and the State government was trying its best to change the mindset of their leaders and workers.

Now the mouse has decided to bell the cat. Lets see how Karat, Biman Bose and his cronies respond.

Ghoul of Calcutta ritual

In what is turning out into an annual ritual, Chindu publishes another flowing tribute to Mother Teresa. This article too is by Navin Chawla, that boot-licking bureaucrat, who was rewarded with a plum post post-retirement.

We take a moment to remember the exploits of the ghoul.

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Mother Teresa and the joy of giving

The Nobel laureate’s biographer in his annual tribute on her birth anniversary notes that there was no difference between her precepts and her practice.

Preferential treatment to M.F Husain

Chindu often has pet themes which it tends to harp on with little reason and similarly there are issues it will ignore.
In a recent editorial, " The harassment of Husain ", it decides to vent against how the intolerant (read as Hindu right-wing fundamentalists) have harassed MFH for some paintings done in the past.

Since the controversy over some paintings he did of Hindu goddesses erupted in the mid-1990s, Husain who deserves to be treated as a national treasure has been hounded and eventually forced to go into exile.

The editorial goes on to blame the Central Government for not providing security to Husain and display his art works.
I'm sure that LiC views those paintings of Bharat Mata and other goddesses as artistic liberties, then why has not stood up to condemn the Islamic fundamentalists who have hounded people like Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen etc.?
LiC would like to apply one set of standards for a particular artist simply because the activists who support MFH's cause also support Chindu on its left leaning agenda when called upon.
The minions of left leaning sick-ularism have banded together here.

Why there is no Patriotism within Kashmir?

As per the implementation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution there are thousands of crores being spent on the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir every year. This includes the military resources used to protect the common citizens from militants. In the light of the Amarnath issue which was precipitated a state logjam by certain Kashmiri Islamist groups who now decide that the money and security provided by India is not enough. They would rather decide to live in poverty, squalor and terrorist mayhem that is Pakistan. As reported by the Chindu in an article titled, Islamists plan pro-Pakistan protest .
Mr. Praveen Swami a proponent of the imaginary theory of socio-economic inequality being a key reason of Islamic terrorism is the bearer of the bad news.

In an unprecedented development, the Jammu and Kashmir government has allowed Islamists to stage a massive pro-Pakistan protest in the heart of Srinagar ignoring warnings from India’s intelligence services that the decision could lead to a meltdown of state authority.

The entire article reads how the various pro-Islamic and quasi-terrorists like the Hurriyat have held the state in a state of virtual blackmail. Even the police is no exception,

Last week, Kulgam Senior Superintendent of Police Imtiaz Mir was reported to have been surrounded by a mob and compelled to raise pro-Pakistan slogans.

The silver lining here in this case appears to be that the moderate leaders like Yasin Malik and Maulvi Shaukat Shah have condemned the secessionist approach followed by the Islamist leaders.

Protestors from various political groups have infiltrated crowds celebrating Shab-e-Baraat a night of fasting and penance when, in popular Islamic tradition, Allah prepares the destiny of mortals for the coming year.

One hopes that in addition to preparing the destiny, some pragmatism is also given to the Islamists.
The Chindu has blamed everyone from Ghulam Nabi Azad to Saurav Ganguly to the BJP and has abrogated the Islamists so far for all their nonsense.
It would be interesting to see how LiC and his cronies would approach the patriotism test when the Islamists ask for an Independent Kashmir or perhaps secession to Pakistan.

Inflation and UPA's dismal record

At 12.44%, a 16 year high, inflation is a clear indicator of the government's failed economic policies. N.Ram acknowledges it in passing here. When he wrote an editorial on inflation, he saw silver lining in the spiraling inflation, which was then at 8.24% and constantly nudging upwards. On several occasions in the past, N.Ram has displayed poor understanding of economics and financial matters.

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Paying and delivering

Further, spiralling inflation, which the government has been unable to contain, has deflated, to an extent, the euphoria the pay increases have generated.

On Shankar's point:
Pay is ok, what about work?

The overall fiscal deficit, taking into account off-budget times, runs therefore to about 7.5 per cent of GDP, as the prime minister's Economic Advisory Council has just noted, and not 2.5 per cent. As a result, after 18 years, India is more or less back where it started on the fiscal front.

Chindu has stood up for NREGA and other such profligate schemes in spite of its obvious impact on the economy. More recently, it justified the increased outlay for farm loan waiver in terms of administrative burden. Rarely has Chindu considered the economic implications of UPA's quixotic schemes.

The malaise called media bias

The media's vengeance against BJP is driving the ELM to extremes. Biased coverage is now giving way to naked lies.

Seriously Sandeep : Revenge of the Turd

Yet, with such a strong tailwind of middle class approval, on such an important mission of creating the democratic opposition to the Congress, what was the public image we saw of the BJP on the fateful day of the trust vote against the Manmohan Singh government? We saw LK Advani deliver a rather rambling half-hearted speech. We saw him look on in forlorn loneliness as 13 MPs of the NDA cross voted, 8 from the BJP alone. Whatever the truth of a "purchased" trust vote, we saw an octogenarian public personality, someone who had created a powerful ideological challenge to Nehru-Gandhi dominance, we now saw him asking for a television sting operation.

This doesn’t qualify for "taking liberties with the truth."  It is a lie. Ms Ghose, can you please care to narrate the sequence of events over the course of a week all the way leading up to the trust vote? When did l.k. advani ask for a sting operation? Did he ask for a sting operation or did he demand that the original sting operation tape be shown? Also Ms. Ghose, if you find the forlornly lonely octogenarian leader’s appeal this pathetic, why did you agree to conduct the sting operation in the first place?

N.Ram chooses China over Islamic terrorism

The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : Terrorism in Xinjiang

The recent revival of terrorist activity in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in northwest China has coincided with the opening phase of the 2008 Summer Olympics and it is reasonable to conclude that there is a linkage.

Grand opening by the drum-beater. They are not militants but terrorists. By contrast, the serial blasts and suicide attacks in India are by militants.

What is clear after the attacks of August 4 and 10 in the minority region is that Islamist terrorism menaces China as well.

Couple of attacks is enough to label it Islamist terrorism. I am sure if the same incident happened in India, N.Ram would look at it in terms of ethnic conflict or independent movement.

According to this theory, Uyghurs were restive about Han Chinese migrating to the province in large numbers. These stock critiques failed to take into account the fact that the economic condition of the people of Xinjiang, both indigenous and immigrant, has improved significantly after the People’s Republic began its programme to develop the natural resources of the region.

Is this not the same argument used to ridicule the Tibetan movement. Economic grounds is hardly any justification for China to indulge in ethnic cleansing.

That the Chinese central government financed the rebuilding of mosques and other religious institutions was also overlooked.

This is a poor argument. China is altering the demographics of Xinjiang by migrating Han Chinese. The Uighurs are reacting. That China is rebuilding mosques is hardly an issue in this discussion.

The Uyghur extremists have demonstrated, in much the same manner as their fellow jihadists in other parts of the world, that their agenda is not shaped by a desire to redress socio-economic grievances!

We have demonstrated on several occasions how Chindu justified jihad in India on the grounds that it was a reaction to the socio-economic inequalities. Here Liar-in-Chief goes on to say that jihad worldwide is not shaped by socio-economic grievances. Turncoat editor views China and the rest of the world with different lenses.

China, which repulsed the first wave of Uyghur extremism in the 1990s, should be able to contain the recent attempt at a revival by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. However, it could certainly do with more assistance than it has received so far from the leading actors in the campaign against global terrorism.

Now he indulges in his characteristic drum-beating for the Chinese. Not only is he standing up for China but asking the whole world to put its weight behind China.
What a contrast with all those editorials we see from N.Ram on Islamic terrorism in India.

Biased coverage of the Amarnath protests

Chindu's double standards in covering the Amarnath dispute is appalling. Praveen Swami, while covering the firing against the mob marching to cross the LoC, writes :

Police in the remote mountain town of Kishtwar killed two members of a mob that attacked homes belonging to the region’s Hindu minority.

He does not name the suspects nor does he make any mention of the community of the attackers. Good journalism, if consistently done.

However, two lines down, he adds:

Earlier, Hindu chauvinist mobs initiated several arson attacks against Gujjar Muslims’ homes in and around Jammu.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/08/13/stories/2008081360960100.htm

Strong words. They aren't even "alleged" attackers. They are chauvinists, Hindus,arsonists and brutal attackers . I am amazed that he managed to pack so much into a single line.The benefit of doubt, which is so liberally awarded for some attackers, is denied outright.The principle of not identifying the community of the attackers, that was adopted just a couple of lines above, has been kissed goodbye. Chindu's commitment to secularism and its "unflinching" adherence to the highest principles of journalism is truly hair raising.

Interview with Abdullah

For a pointed question whether he condemns Pakistani interference in J&K protests on TimesNOW, Farooq Abdullah says Pakistan is a part of the J&K issue. He is happy that Pakistan did not take the issue to UN. Condemn what?
He also says that the firings were unprovoked. Intelligence says protesters fired at the police. Whom would you believe? Which side would you take?

Blaming the BJP for the J&K Unrest

The Hindu strongly criticizes the Sangh Parivar in its editorial today for the flare-up in J&K. Compare the difference in language to previous editorial comments on this issue (see this one for example). Note also the claim it makes in the editorial today.

Hindutva leaders in Jammu claim that the revocation of the land transfer is an affront to Hindu ‘religious rights’ — a claim as bizarre as that of Islamists who claimed the transfer was part of a conspiracy to alter Kashmir’s Muslim-majority character.

It is not as bizarre as it sounds. For one thing, the land transfer was originally agreed upon owing to the reasonableness of the request. The opposition to the transfer was no doubt bizarre but once the transfer was revoked under pressure from the Kashmiri far right, why is it so unusual to suggest that it was not an affront to minority Hindu rights? If the majority in Kashmir did not hold the key to power in the state, would the government have revoked it nonetheless in deference to a regional sentiment? Let us take an easier case. When Mulayam Singh announced a 27% OBC quota throughout the then-undivided UP, a strong anti-quota agitation was launched in Uttarkhand. The result? Absolutely no concession. Mulayam refused to even consider the idea of lifting the quota in response to it. The reason the reverse happened in this instance is precisely because of the power that Kashmir enjoys. And when that power is used to advance a xenophobic agenda, why do the minorities not have a right to resist? They most certainly do.

It is a reflection on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s cynical political agenda that it refused to call for calm or endorse Governor N.N. Vohra’s appeals for dialogue. BJP leaders must reflect on the grave implications of the course they have taken in India’s most troubled and vulnerable State.

Of course the BJP which has no base in Kashmir is not going to endorse a call for calm if nothing is conceded by the government. If you want change, asking people to calm down amounts to endorsing the status quo. Its that simple. Yes, the state is vulnerable but does pandering to extreme and false propaganda of the kind witnessed recently in Kashmir make it any less vulnerable? The Islamist far right will declare victory and become emboldened to demand even more. Where does that leave anyone?

The Hindu is out advising and criticizing everyone it can find - BJP, PDP and the Congress. All except the venerable Left are of course to blame (the lone CPI(M) MLA Mohamed Yusuf Tarigami has surprisingly not been getting the big coverage he got earlier in The Hindu).

A Proposed 'Solution' For Tibet

Read Nicholas Kristof's column in the NYT today. He talks of new concessions the Dalai Lama is willing to make, most importantly his willingness to recognize Communist rule in China. He also speculates on the possible outlines of a mutually agreeable settlement of the Tibetan question. Some of the elements of the possible solution that he mentions have the feel of a capitulation by the Tibetan government-in-exile to it. He admits candidly that both sides would flinch at some of the terms he proposes. The final outcome:

The upshot would be a Tibet that remains politically under the control of the Communist Party. It would not be a democracy or a multiparty system, but it would be able to preserve its character indefinitely as a distinctly Tibetan and Buddhist region, both inside and outside the formal Tibet Autonomous Region. And Tibet can be free only if it is first preserved.

For the Chinese, such an agreement would resolve the Tibet question and end an international embarrassment, as well as prevent the rise of protests and terrorism for decades to come.

Take a look.

Chindu manipulates Solzhenitsyn even after his death.

A frequent reader and friend of this blog asked about Chindu's coverage of Nobel Prize winner Solzhenitsyn's death. For those who do not know who Solzhenitsyn please do take the time to find out. A very strong writer who chose to write about the inhumane conditions most Russians lived under Stalin's communist regime and his depictions of the tortures in the Gulag (books like Cancer Ward, Gulag Archipelago) bring are very poignant. Chindu covered his death in an article here.
However the headline blurb of the article reads,

The fierce Russian nationalist denounced West’s "hedonism"

Is this objective journalism? I can understand the fact that Chindu would find it hard to praise someone who adeptly and successfully criticized the Marxist Communist ideology which it supports. He pointed out that,

Communism will always be totalitarian and violent

However Chindu does not find any facts about him worth headlining, like his support for human rights or his literary skills. It is sad that Chindu has to taint his contributions by taking potshots at the West.

Real question about India-Pak peace talks, can puppets make progress?

The Chindu and its Pak dhimmi Nirupama Subramanian has often been the flag bearer of a blindly optimistic view of a benevolent Pakistan in the past. With the recent bomb blasts in Kabul at the Indian embassy followed shortly by blasts in Indian cities all linking the ISI to the blasts, there is obvious suspicion of Pakistan's overt gestures of peace and friendship.
However the Chindu in its Leader (Dhimmi) page article titled India-Pakistan peace process: hopes & fears does not think so.

It took a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf in Cuba to set the process back on track. Despite their fears, Pakistanis who desire peace and friendship with India are hoping that Prime Ministers Singh and Gilani will be able to recreate some of that Havana magic in Colombo.

I'm sure Pakistanis want peace. How about talking to the Indian families who have lost their kin due to ISI sponsored blasts? Surely they are holding the olive branch too.
In the past India has had several discussions with Pakistan several times, each time peace has been short lived mostly by ISI or ISI supported terrorists attacking India or creating some disruption. With the recent power struggle between the Pak Govt. and ISI, won by the goons at ISI handily, what point does this meeting to trade with Pakistan serve? How does talking peace with a snake lead to anything positive for India? Don't these idiots have any memory of what happened in the past?
The Prime Minister of Pak does not have the power to control his Army, the ISI, half of his country is already lost to the Taliban and the US Government is conducting ops against terrorists within his soil without his knowledge. What power or authority does he have for the Indian Government to conduct discussions with him?
The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh just won a no-confidence vote simply because of help from few brokers like Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel who managed to coerce enough votes for cash. The main control happens to be with the Balidaan Devi Sonia Gandhi (Thanks to Prudent Indian for the term). The recent blasts and the ineffable response of the Indian Government is proof of the real potency of the UPA when it comes to national security. Hence the discussion between these puppets promises to lead to nothing solid or positive.
It is ironic that Chindu does not acknowledge the fact that Pakistan is a failed state and is ready to implode now more than ever with the lack of the balancing (however flawed) force that was Gen. Musharraf.