The year's at the Spring,
the day at the morn,
morning's at seven,
the hill-side's dew-pearled,
The Lark's on the wing,
the snail's on the thorn....!!!!!
PS:- Right Ho,J!!!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sharm-El-Sheik: Its implications for India in the global context
While Prime Minister Singh’s signing of the joint declaration at the above mentioned place with our neighbour has been dubbed by the opposition as an act of cowardice and submission to the “American Agenda” as usual even more important is its implications in the current geopolitical context. With India and China rapidly emerging as the two new centre of Economics if not power this apparent backing off by the PM might be seen in many Quarters as India’s inability to deal with situations in a manner that is befitting of a country demanding a permanent membership of the dysfunctional yet prestigious Security Council of the UN.
The questions being raised do not in any way ask about the Prime Minister’s intent but about issues which remain unresolved between the states of India and Pakistan and whether signing a document of this nature at all has any thing to offer except perhaps a pat on the back of the Pakistani diplomats by General Kayani. While the sentiments echoed by the both the signatories were very close in letter there is considerable doubt about them being on the same pole in spirit. In the past there have been too many situations that have indicated Pakistan’s unwillingness to enter into a dialogue which would lead to peace in Jammu and Kashmir.
Even bigger questions are being raised about the statement regarding the de-linking of action against terrorism with the dialogue process simply because the second becomes meaningless without the first. It would serve no purpose at all if the valley continues to be paralyzed with terror strikes while the diplomats have endless talks about restoring relationship between the two countries. Moreover the very use of the word Baluchistan in the aforementioned document might end up haunting the Indian diplomats for ages to come. In spite of Mr. Tharoor advocating that its not a legal binding document every thing suggests that Pakistan would use it as an effective shield against any statement that India might make in the UN or any other such International body.
One can only hope against hope that PM Singh turns out to be right but history tells otherwise. Does Nehru and 1962 ring a bell?
The questions being raised do not in any way ask about the Prime Minister’s intent but about issues which remain unresolved between the states of India and Pakistan and whether signing a document of this nature at all has any thing to offer except perhaps a pat on the back of the Pakistani diplomats by General Kayani. While the sentiments echoed by the both the signatories were very close in letter there is considerable doubt about them being on the same pole in spirit. In the past there have been too many situations that have indicated Pakistan’s unwillingness to enter into a dialogue which would lead to peace in Jammu and Kashmir.
Even bigger questions are being raised about the statement regarding the de-linking of action against terrorism with the dialogue process simply because the second becomes meaningless without the first. It would serve no purpose at all if the valley continues to be paralyzed with terror strikes while the diplomats have endless talks about restoring relationship between the two countries. Moreover the very use of the word Baluchistan in the aforementioned document might end up haunting the Indian diplomats for ages to come. In spite of Mr. Tharoor advocating that its not a legal binding document every thing suggests that Pakistan would use it as an effective shield against any statement that India might make in the UN or any other such International body.
One can only hope against hope that PM Singh turns out to be right but history tells otherwise. Does Nehru and 1962 ring a bell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)