Drama drama drama at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in New Zealand last week.
You remember that big nuclear deal between India and the US a couple of years ago, right? You know, the one where Bush gave away the whole store to secure some sort of foreign policy legacy? Well, that decision appears to be coming back to bite the US right in the nuke. China now wants to build two nuclear reactors in Pakistan. Given the lengths the US went to make sure its deal with India went through, it’s going to have a hard time objecting to this agreement without upsetting Pakistan or further alienating China.
The reason the India-US nuclear deal was a good idea, at least the way it was sold to Congress, was that the deal would promote non-proliferation by bringing India into the fold of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its monitoring and regulation. But India only agreed to this on the condition that it would split its civil nuclear program from its military nuclear program, and that only the former would be subject to inspection and regulation.
The US also pushed through an exemption in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which allowed India to trade in nuclear material and technology even though it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Signing the NPT is a prerequisite for participation in the NSG for every country except India. This blanket exemption drew concerns from the non-proliferation crowd. Their argument was that if India was supplied with enrichment and reprocessing technology for their civilian program, there was no mechanism preventing them from using that technology for their military program.
Makes sense, right? An inspection of a facility can establish whether or not the right amount of nuclear material is there, but how can an IAEA inspector determine whether a particular reprocessing method has been duplicated in a military facility that’s off limits?
It appears that the Obama administration is on board with this reasoning, because at last week’s NSG meeting, the US was apparently lobbying hard to pass restrictions on the trade of enrichment and reprocessing technology. It isn’t clear who said what, but these restrictions did not pass, and the only note we have on the record are two bullet points from the vague NSG release (pdf):
• Participating Governments agreed to continue considering ways to further strengthen guidelines dealing with the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.
• The Group discussed practices used by Participating Governments addressing the challenges posed by the intangible transfer of technology and end-use control.
Similarly, the much-anticipated Chinese announcement that it would be supplying two nuclear reactors to Pakistan seems to have resulted in nothing official. The relevant bullet point:
• The Group took note of briefings on developments concerning non-NSG states. It agreed on the value of ongoing consultation and transparency.
The two new reactors would be added to the Chashma Nuclear Power Complex, started in 1991, which already houses two Chinese-built reactors. The Pakistani and Chinese governments argue that the two new reactors are part of an already existing agreement between the two countries which pre-date the NSG, which was created in 2004, and are therefore not subject to any NSG restrictions. The US argues that the two new reactors represent a new agreement rather than a continuation of the old agreement, and that it should be subject to NSG approval.
Reports that China not only avoided bringing up the agreement with Pakistan at the NSG meeting but flat out refused to answer questions from other countries seem to indicate that they will proceed without the NSG’s approval.
The way the Bush administration bullied the NSG into exempting India seems to have undermined the NSG’s legitimacy, and the Obama administration’s current backtracking doesn’t seem to be enough. China is now flouting the rules that the US bent. India made out like a bandit in the end, free to import uranium for its civilian program and use its domestic supply for bombs, and how that promotes non-proliferation is beyond me.
Here are some reactions to the proposed Chashma reactors:
In an editorial in The Dawn, Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy argues that Pakistan doesn’t need more facilities, it needs to make more efficient use of the facilities it already has.
Siddharth Varadarajan, who’s written extensively on the India-US nuclear deal for The Hindu, suggests that India should “[encourage] the international community to discuss the contours of an agreement that would lead to the orderly induction of Pakistan into the global nuclear regime” (The Hindu), making such an induction contingent on non-proliferation.
Former Indian Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan argues in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that India and the US should protest the deal.
There are many other issues to discuss, and here are a few, briefly:
The issue of non-proliferation itself is fraught with power. Nuclear nations are constantly bickering between themselves about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons without leading by example in any sort of meaningful way.
What’s the big freaking deal if Pakistan gets two more reactors in Chashma? They seem to be managing the ones they already have just fine.
Nuclear energy itself. Is it really safe and clean? How to dispose of spent nuclear fuel?
Finally, I want to draw attention to an important article Siddharth Varadarajan wrote in The Hindu a few weeks ago which has to do with India’s ability to hold nuclear suppliers accountable for gross negligence:
At Washington’s request, the Manmohan Singh government has agreed to delete a key provision of the draft civil nuclear liability bill allowing American suppliers to be sued for recovery of damages in the event of an accident caused by gross negligence on their part.
The only window for legal action against a supplier of faulty or unsafe equipment is now Section 46 of the nuclear bill, which says the Act’s provisions “shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.” This, say Indian officials, will allow the filing of tort claims and even criminal charges in case a nuclear accident is caused by negligence on the part of the nuclear operator or its equipment suppliers.
But the draft bill contains no provisions to make the filing and pursuit of these claims or charges easier, raising the prospect of lengthy and eventually fruitless litigation of the sort the victims of the Bhopal gas disaster have had to endure for 25 years (The Hindu).
Great.
Let’s not get into a tizzy about this. First off, both the U.S. and India work long and hard to reach agreement with each other, and then decided to lobby the NSG to change its rules so that India can come into the global nuclear regulatory system.
China has been a proliferator since the 1970s, and was never penalized. Pakistan has been a proliferator since the 1980’s, and was never penalized. So, it is not surprising that 2 counties that flouted rules before are flouting them again. That they try to excuse their current bad behavior by citing the U.S.-India deal, which the IAEA signed-off on, is laughable.
It is already estimated that Pakistan has developed more nuclear warheads than India, thanks to Saudi financing and Chinese technical assistance. Saudi Arabia is basically asking Pakistan to build & hold some warheads for them, in the event that Iran gets their own nuclear deterrent. Yet those actions do not have the hypocritical non-proliferation crowd up in arms.
HELL no, it’s not clean, and you better believe that the cheapest disposal option will be utilized in both India and Pakistan. The Bhopal reference is too appropriate.
Additionally, the NPT is a joke; and our (US) attitude toward Iran right now is the unfunny punchline.
India has a need for a LOT of power. The US-India nuclear deal will allow India to replace thermal power plants (CO2 emitting) with nuclear power plants (Nuclear waste – Different problem but more contained than global warming). India has no history of selling nukes to the highest bidder and I see no problem with such a nuclear deal. India flouted no rules here. India refused to sign the NPT because it is discriminatory and allows the P5 to maintain their nuclear weapons forever. An NSG exception was required to sell nuclear materials to India because of this, and India along with the US got that exemption. There was no bending of international rules here. Just an exemption from a group of nuclear suppliers that the rules of the group allows.
Pakistan on the other hand has a history of gross irresponsibility with nuclear materials, and should not be allowed to have any sort of nuclear deal until they demonstrate some minimum level of responsibility. It would be highly foolhardy for the NSG to approve any sort of nuclear deal for Pakistan.
Those are the facts irrespective of leftist hand-wringing trying to pretend that the US-India nuclear deal is somehow the same as a China-Pakistan nuclear deal. And that it will somehow lead to rampant nuclear proliferation is just fear mongering based on fluff. Nuclear proliferation was happening before the US India nuclear deal with Pakistan and China being the most egregious violators, and will continue to happen after the deal. The deal has flaws like the liability limits (which are not likely to pass in the Indian parliament anyway) but overall it is good for the US and good for India.
Darth Paul, thanks for reading the whole thing!
I forgot to add: Canada and India just signed a deal of their own.
How interesting and horrible. Not that India has a side deal (good for them, actually), but that Canada’s going big baller now with the nuclear industry.
I should add that the NPT, lineating between military and civil use, and the idea of non-proliferation are all jokes. Trying to reign in Pakistan NOW is like trying to put an egg back into its broken shell- messy, pointless, and stupid. Besides, the point in having nuclear weapons is deterrance. That means, ‘you see what I have, so f&ck off’. Hiding them belies a destructive compulsion (looking at Israel, Saudi Arabia here).
@KXB Doesn’t Saudi Arabia know Pakistan’s (and China’s) historical involvement in Iran and Iraq’s nuclear programs? Good deal for Pakistan. Help Iran with its nuclear program and then keep nukes for Saudi Arabia for when Iran actually goes nuclear.
“…Pakistan’s contributions to the nuclear programs of the Islamic Republic of Iran date back to the early 1980s. In 1984, for example, a Nuclear Research Institute was opened in Isfahan with technical assistance from France and Pakistan. In February 1986, Pakistan offered to train Iranian nuclear scientists in return for financial support for Pakistan’s own nuclear program. The Iranians were trained on Chinese equipment. Subsequently, in June 1990, Tehran signed a contract with the PRC for the supply of another reactor for the Isfahan Nuclear Research Institute. The Isfahan institute opened the door to Iran’s short-cut to the production of its own bomb.
Meanwhile, Dr. Abdus Qadir Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, attended a high level meeting of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists held in the Amir Kabir College in January 1987. He visited both Tehran and Bushehr to assess the Iranian nuclear potential and discuss future cooperation with the Iranian leadership. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then Iran’s president, also took part in the conference. Soon afterwards, Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement on technical cooperation in military nuclear fields. Two senior Iranian scientists, Sayyid Reza and Hadi Rambashahr, went to Kahuta. They were later joined there by few Iranians and began organizing a training program. Within a year, 31 Iranian nuclear specialists were sent to Pakistan, mainly Kahuta, to join this program and receive advance training. These Iranians are involved in several key aspects of weapon building including Uranium enrichment and Plutonium extraction.
There was a corresponding progress in Iran’s nuclear technological capabilities. In 1988, the installations in the Amir Kabir College, most likely the German-Argentinian equipment, were already capable of extracting some Plutonium. In early-1989, Iran began “producing the fuel required for the production of atomic weapons,” using materials and chemicals purchased in Japan as late as 1987. In late-1989, Pakistan started helping Iran to build a reactor for the extraction of Plutonium. In the early 1990s, Iran was also expected to become the first export customer to Pakistan’s new reactor of indigenous design – achieved with extensive Chinese assistance. Speaking in an exhibition of Chinese electronic equipment in Karachi on 16 January 1991, Munir Ahmad Khan, the Chairman of Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission, declared that “Pakistan has achieved some extraordinary success in the manufacturing of nuclear fuel and is now manufacturing a nuclear reactor and a power generating reactor.” He added that “China’s backing for Pakistan’s peaceful nuclear efforts is encouraging and praiseworthy.”
Although of a lesser magnitude, Pakistan’s support for the Iraqi military nuclear program might have been more decisive. In early 1990, once committed to the instigation of a cataclysmic event that would shock the Middle East and ensure Saddam Hussein’s prominence – at the time Baghdad was still wavering between attacking Israel and liberating Kuwait – Baghdad resolved to complete the acquisition of one or a few nuclear weapons in order to have a rudimentary deterrence.
Toward this end, senior Iraqi intelligence and weapons program officials made a series of clandestine visits to Pakistan in the Spring and early Summer of 1990, virtually until the invasion of Kuwait. They launched a series of efforts to buy anything – from nuclear technology to nuclear weapons. At first, Saddam Hussein’s emissaries were rebuffed by official Islamabad. However, the Iraqis launched a supposedly secret initiative to recruit, through both bribes and capitalizing on Islamist sentiments, some of Pakistan’s leading experts. One of the Iraqi documents retrieved after the war includes a scrawled footnote describing an offer made to Iraqi intelligence by an unidentified Pakistani offering to establish contacts with “senior figures in Pakistan’s nuclear programme who were willing to help President Saddam Hussein’s regime to manufacture a bomb.” Pakistani Intelligence – the ISI – was aware of these efforts from the beginning for some of those approached notified them. It did not take long for the ISI to discover that the Iraqis were organizing a procurement network relying on Islamist activists. At first Islamabad provided tacit, though deniable, support for the Iraqi effort that was then “apparently run from the embassy,” in the words of an ISI senior officer. This effort seemed to have come to an end when Iraq invaded Kuwait and Pakistan sided with the US-led coalition…. ” http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul98/bodansky.htm
It is not a big deal for someone sitting in US. Also who is managing it well? US spends lots of money in protecting Pak’s nuclear arsenal. From wiki: US assistance
So do you mean let US keep on spending tax payers money on protecting Pak’s nuclear programs? Also why does someone weigh both Pak & India on the same scale? They are entirely different & have moved far away after partition. Pak’s involvement in providing nuclear technology for one of the most repressive societies – North Korea is well known (well they got missile technology in exchange). It is disheartening to see that you think Pakistan is as responsible country as India. For starters, India has ‘No first use’ policy. We are brown that doesn’t mean we are same.
You are willing to cut your nose to spite your face.. Even if one was to grant what ever point you are trying to make by saying – India ‘made out like bandits’ etc. – that is a done deal now. A much more dangerous transfer is about to take place, something that will place Indian in ever more danger and all you can do is to say ‘I told you so’?
About ENR technology, India already has an ENR tech. that is good enough to produce weapons grade maal, we even have fast breeders to get super grade maal. We also had enough non IAEA reactors to make more than 200 nukes an year if we wanted to..
So we dont need reprocessing to make weapons. Reprocessing is needed to reduce the amount of nuclear waste to more manageable levels. If the US commits to the idiocy of Yucca mountain repository, why do you expect other countries to do the same?
There seems to be a pro-pakistani and pro-islam bias in almost every single post on this site. Guess the almost thousand year jihad has left a dhimmi mentality in most indians.
Thankfully – we have guys like you who can show us the way.
Vivek,
Thanks for bringing this up. Sometimes I wonder whether India’s desire to be a superpower is driving the nation to be a pure hypocrite. Really like your work. Keep it up, machi.
Vivek, it’s not really a question of India desiring to be a superpower. It’s just that India finds itself in a neighbourhood full of aggressive, irresponsible non-democratic and/or military dominated countries. India has fought wars with 2 of those countries. India has to be on its guard and be ready for any eventuality. Nuclear weapons also give India a degree of strategic autonomy, a currency of power, a measure of respect( though this aspect is of course exaggerated), and an almost guarantee that it’s views and stances will be heard. And this power is combined with India’s democracy, freedom, pluralism, openness and economic dynamism.
“Their argument was that if India was supplied with enrichment and reprocessing technology for their civilian program, there was no mechanism preventing them from using that technology for their military program.”
Here is where one doesn’t understand the moral argument of the critics, doubters and nay-sayers.
What exactly is their problem with India? What do they have against the country?
If India were like North Korea, Iran, Saudi, China or Pakistan, you could see their objection and inability to trust. India is not only a responsible country, it happens to be the world’s most populous and pluralistic democracy.
“There seems to be a pro-pakistani and pro-islam bias in almost every single post on this site. Guess the almost thousand year jihad has left a dhimmi mentality in most indians.”
One wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘every single post on this site’, but there are too many references to Pakistanis and South Asian Moslems. There should be a focus on those ethnic Indians who have an Indic heritage. Many Moslems and Christians disavow this heritage. Only those Moslems and Christians who accept, are comfortable with, and take pride in, the 5000 year civilisation of India, should be written about and sympathised with. Pakistan is of course way out; it’s very raison d’etre( reason for being) is anti-India, anti-Hindu and anti-Indic civilisation. It’s a wonder the country and its ethnics get any respectful coverage in this forum.
A democracy? Are you kidding? There’s no such thing as a democracy on this planet as of yet- the closest we have are democratic republics. And how does population and pluralism amount to a right to any weapon over another country? Your post #13 made reasonable sense to me, but then you step to us with this laughably sanctimonious nationalism and I have to sneer.
10 (Interesting) – Take it to Malkin, you tool. Non-alignment rules.
“And how does population and pluralism amount to a right to any weapon over another country? “
I’m not suggesting that nuclear weapons are wonderful, or that any country should actually threaten another country with them. I’m asking why the objectors and opponents of the nuclear deal with India feel the way they do. One could understand if India were North Korea, Pakistan or Iran. These critics from the old NPT school have some innate dislike or bias against India, for no really good reason. They even often crazily link or equate India with those countries, and that is very insulting.
I’m sorry – I must be mistaken with my South Asian history then – I could have sworn that the creation of Pakistan only happened in the past 60 years and that for the past 5,000 years of civilization of India that Pakistan and Bangladesh were a part of that history. As well as Muslims and Christians were a part of the 5,000 years of civilization as well. Mughal Dynasty? Taj Mahal? Really?
Talk about disavowal.
As the sole Muslim blogger on this site – I challenge readers to do a statistical analysis on the “Moslem” references on this blog before they make blanket statements that there are “too many references” to the “others.” This is after all a South Asian American website, covering stories across the South Asian diaspora. If you are looking for a blog with a Hindu- Indian centered focus, then I suggest you stop lurking these pages.
You make it so easy for me to appreciate the person I’ve grown up to be, despite all my faults. Thank you.
“The reason the India-US nuclear deal was a good idea, at least the way it was sold to Congress, was that the deal would promote non-proliferation by bringing India into the fold of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its monitoring and regulation” Congress may generally be stupid, but even the most naive of the lot wouldn’t buy the above as a reason for the deal. The real reason the US signed this deal is for billions of dollars in orders for nuclear plants and materials from India, and most in congress who voted for it understood that. India signed this deal to build more reactors to address the growing power needs while having enough fissile material for a minimum credible deterrent.
A win-win if you ask me. All the other non-proliferation arguments are worthless when all the current non-proliferation regime does is to legitimize the nuclear arsenal of the P5 while looking the other way when one of the P5 proliferates.
With the discriminatory, worthless non-proliferation regime that currently exists, more power to India in demolishing that regime.
Varun,
You raised some interesting initial points but then ruined it with all that anti muslim crap.
Vivek,
Do you feel that India is not justified in maintaining itself as a Nuclear power given the threats it faces ? I’m not sure how the US/India nuclear deal was a case of the US giving away the store, India was already a declared nuclear power at that point, now at least some of its facilities have to be opened up for inspection, and it is being brought into the fold of the IAEA. I remember there was a lot of objection to the deal in India at the time, as it was felt that the India was sacrificing a lot of its own nuclear independance in agreeing to this deal. As to the Chinese assistance to Pakistan, that was going to happen regardless of the India US deal, as China has been responsible for assisting the Pakistani nuclear program for some time for its own geostrategic objectives, and this is only likely to continue.
However as Pakistan does have a track record for nuclear proliferation, there are greater risks with Pakistan increasing it’s amount of nuclear material than with India’s program.
Well said, Brahmastra. It should also be pointed out that India, not China, Japan, South Korea or Myanmar, has the oldest nuclear programme in Asia. It was India that built the first reactor in Asia, purely for research in 1956. India also commissioned the first nuclear power station in Asia, with the help of the US in 1969. The programme has always been civilian controlled and civilian oriented. Unlike China’s, Pakistan’s and North Korea’s where the emphasis is on the military and weapons. India’s nuclear sector is involved in diverse activities like agricultural hybrids, desalination, radioisotopes, even astronomy. India was essentially pushed into developing weapons capability by the aggressive, irresponsible behaviour of countries like China, Pakistan and North Korea.
There isn’t a single responsible player in this whole game.
None of your comments has convinced me that there is a significant difference between the US bending rules to accommodate India (because it can) and China breaking rules to accommodate Pakistan (because it doesn’t have the political capital to bend the rules).
Sudeep, if India’s ENR technology is as great as you say it is, then why should India care enough to ask for an exemption from possible NSG restrictions on ENR trade?
Yes, the whole non-proliferation scene is fraught with problematic power relations, secrecy, etc. On the other hand, it’s amazing how many people suddenly become anti-imperialist when it suits their national interest to do so. Just because you commit an act that defies those in positions of power – be they individuals or states – does not make that act inherently responsible, worthy, whatever.
As to the agreement between Pakistan and China: there are two existing reactors at Chashma. China wants to add two more reactors to the same complex in the same physical location. So 2 + 2 = War?
Is the US providing funds to secure the Chashma Nuclear Complex? Is there some security threat to Chashma that I haven’t been able to find? The only compelling argument I’ve found so far that indicates that Chashma might have been a terrible idea was written in 1999 by Zia Mian:
Vivek,
All states act in their own self interest, and as citizens of these States we benefit from those policies. From a US perspective you can make a case that allowing an exemption for India is beneficial to the US , as the risk that India will proliferate this material is low and with its no first use policy on its existing arsenal, it’s unlikely that India would initiate any nuclear conflict. The possible entrance of US companies into this new lucrative market is also a benefit from a US perspective.
Regarding the Chinese assistance to the Pakistani program, the risks of nuclear material/technology spreading from Pakistan to those who are inimical to US interests is a lot higher than with the Indian program. We know that this has already happened in the past, and it is not all that far fetched to consider the possibility of a repeat.
So although both examples are that of the rules being bent/ignored, I would still argue that the risk of proliferation to elements hostile to US policy is greater from the Pakistani program. In any case the current system of a few countries deciding which other countries are responsible enough to be nuclear powers is hypocritical anyway..
However I don’t think we can really say that the Chinese deal is happening only because of the India deal or that it would not have happened anyway.
2+2 = more proxy war. Which is already happening from a long time (May be you need to look up what happened in Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore… ). Pak is not dumb to get into one more direct war with India & get beaten up. More nukes means more power to terrorists, since Pak can threaten with usage of nukes if there is any direct attack from India. It happened during Kargil war.
I already provided a link for this. It clearly tells “to aid Pakistan in guarding its nuclear material, warheads and laboratories”. So do you mean ‘Chashma reactor’ is not in Pak or it does not use any nuclear material & hence all these does not apply? I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
“None of your comments has convinced me that there is a significant difference between the US bending rules to accommodate India (because it can) and China breaking rules to accommodate Pakistan (because it doesn’t have the political capital to bend the rules).”
Vivek, I have no illusions that any of our comments will convince you of anything. I’ve seen enough idealistic leftists over the years who fail to distinguish between practical reality and utopian idealism.
The fundamental problem in Vivek’s position is his constant equation of India with Pakistan. That is really a non-starter, or it should be. You cannot equate a responsible, stable( though still third world) pluralist democracy with a terrorist state controlled by the military. It was shocking to learn that 70% of the capitalisation of the Karachi stock exchange is accounted for by military owned entities. India does not use nuclear technology as some kind of shield to promote terrorism against countries, much less to advance an obnoxious ideology and power structure.
Akash, the source for your wiki link is a 2007 New York Times article that only talks about warheads and weapons labs. It makes absolutely no mention of nuclear reactors.
Look, my question is incredibly simple: what is the risk added in this new China-Pakistan deal? There are already two nuclear reactors at Chashma. They produce energy. There are going to be two more reactors in the same location, producing more energy. How does this pose enough of a security threat for you to be worried about it?
Your answers so far have involved nukes and weaponization. Is your fear that someone will steal uranium from a nuclear plant and put it in a warhead?
Sam:
Proliferation of what, exactly? What is the physical substance or specific technology that you are talking about?
I agree with both points. The problem is that the only diplomatic argument against the China-Pakistan deal is that it circumvents the existing agreements in place regarding the trade of nuclear material and technology – and we both agree that the structures which are supposed to uphold and enforce these agreements are completely farcical. Hence my argument that there is hypocrisy all around, regardless of who’s more responsible than whom.
I don’t think that is the only diplomatic argument. Lets look at the facts: – India and Pakistan are non-signatories of the NPT – The NSG guidelines state that the group must approve sales to non-NPT states (Note that these are guidelines and not binding on any of the members of the NSG) – India got an NSG exemption based on a need for energy, a history of non-proliferation and responsible use of nuclear power and opening up of some nuclear facilities for International inspections
For Pakistan, you can make the argument based on energy needs, and even opening up some of the facilities, but would fail miserably when it comes to the proliferation argument. So I completely disagree with you here – You cannot make the same diplomatic argument for Pakistan that was made for India. As much as you would like to think India and Pakistan are the same, they are not.
And this is exactly why I think the deal is good. The international non-proliferation regime is inherently hypocritical and I am glad India now has the ability to strong-arm this system into doing something beneficial for India’s energy needs and defense needs.
The NSG and China are free to do business with Pakistan since they are just a group of states who would act in their own interests – It just strikes me as something that would be against the interests of a majority of Countries in the NSG for them to provide additional nuclear materials to Pakistan based on their history of proliferation.
Brahmastra, Vivek and others also fail to appreciate India’s concerns regarding China. Remember that China attacked India in 1962, and “won”, taking territory. And this was after China invaded and occupied Tibet, slaughtered tens of thousands of people, and pushed hundreds of thousands more as refugees into India. Since that time, China has also given Pakistan military assistance and later, nuclear and missile capability. So how can any discussion of the nuclear issue fail to address the India-China dynamic? China has also, by the way, been the principal supporter of the Myanmar junta, this practically forcing India to engage the regime, after maintaining an idealistic boycott of it for many years.
spoorlam, I need you. Please come back.
This is a test comment. Moderator please delete if published.
Maybe India is more stable than Pakistan but neither country is particularly stable. And the indian government is weak. I can see them engaging in the same type of things
As for # 16- I don’t know what your problem is your moron. I simply expressed a view than I saw on this site. I didn’t need your opinion on what site to go to fool.
-Because Pakistan has a history of nuclear blackmail (see Kargil War) -Because Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal with the intention of potentially causing even more catastrophic damage to India -Because more nuclear plants in Pakistan allow for more highly enriched uranium which is used for nuclear weapons -Because legitimate energy concerns are better addressed through natural gas (see IPI pipeline deal which was recently inked between Iran and Pakistan) -Because Pakistan has started 4 wars with India and continues to fund fundamentalist terrorism in India -Because Pakistan, unlike India, is driven by a national ideology steeped in territorial expansionism and extremism -Because Pakistan, unlike India, does not have a No First Use policy -Because nuclear energy is not clean and nuclear plants are easy targets for attacks by extremists
And the list goes on and on…Vivek, you are really out of your depth here. If you’re going to comment on the issue and take a heavy-handed stance against people like Varun making legitimate points, at least educate yourself on the topic. Rather than cry for help from a third rate parodist, please do some more backround reading to make for a more informed debate. And really, the effort to establish a moral equivalence between India and Pakistan is rather tiresome and misguided, whether one considers responsible players on the international stage, religious pluralism, liberal democracy, women’s/minority rights, or nonproliferation. I understand that this is a South Asian blog and that there are a number of moderate, civil, and legitimate pakistani/pakistani origin posters here, but we can distinguish between them and the state of Pakistan. Diluting facts and papering over serious crimes and problems to engender further a sense of unity actually damages the efforts in the long run.
Satyajit Wry, excellent points. The mindset of those who are opposing India’s nuclear deal, and consequently excusing the recent China-Pak deal, is simply this: India and Pakistan are equivalent, China and the US are equivalent, India has no legitimate concerns vis-a-vis China directly, the NPT is wonderful and it works, hence India should fall in line with the current global nuclear order, and not link its own disarmament with global nuclear disarmament. In a word, AWFUL.
To “Interesting”, India’s government may or may not be weak( depending on the specific government), but India’s institutions are strong, as well as its philosophical and ideological commitment to democracy, secularism and pluralism. Also, very importantly, India does not define its identity or existence in relation to opposition or hostility to another country. Pakistan’s raison d’etre is opposition if not outright hostility to India, based on difference of religion and ideology- and ethnicity too.
Actually, Varun, the benefits of the nuclear deal to India are debateable. However, I think Brahma Chellaney is better qualified to enumerate the reasons why.
Start from the bottom and read up for the proper chronology.
But yes regarding legitimate concerns and false moral equivalency.
“Actually, Varun, the benefits of the nuclear deal to India are debatable.”
It ends the ‘outcast’ status India endured for 3 decades, allows India to import uranium freely, allows import of components and instrumentation for nuclear reactors, permits other countries to set up nuclear stations in India. The drawbacks are that India must separate its purely civilian reactors from its military or dual-use ones; and India must not conduct another test. So far, it is France and Russia that have availed themselves of the new deal, starting operations in India. The US hasn’t done anything as yet; we cannot really speak of India being forced into dependence on the US, when the US hasn’t commenced any activity in India,while other countries have.
I can write a factual white paper on this subject, but you know what? I will have to *ill you all if I reveal what I know. You get the drift!
India’s thermonuclear test in pokhran ii was a failure, it must reserve the right to test if it is to sufficiently deter china and pak.
India becomes dependent on foreign suppliers who can pull the plug on a whim for its power plants–see Tarapur. This leverage can be used to extract anything from economic preferential treatment to fissile material cutoffs and ICBM development moratoriums.
The “outcast” status is irrelevant. A true emerging superpower takes it and does not bother about approval from others. If anything, the deal is more beneficial to the moribund western nuclear industry.
One of the MMS advertised benefits was ENR technology–don’t hold your breath on that
Indian research reactors are also subject to intrusive inspections, which can more easily open the door to espionage on india’s hard earned efforts on thorium fast breeder reactor research
India’s military plants are capped at 8, and unlike npt de jure powers, it no longer has the right to change designations from civilian to military.
Instead of curtailing its much needed strategic options for an ill-negotiated and dubious energy deal, India should take a page out of china’s book and invest heavily in renewable.
The devil is always in the details. Please do read the Brahma articles, Varun. They are well composed, insightful, and incisive.
@ Satjajit Wry
Thanks for your “facts”:
-Because Pakistan has a history of nuclear blackmail (see Kargil War) Unlike India which tested Agni 2 after 2002 to send “a clear message to Pakistan”.
-Because Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear weapons arsenal with the intention of potentially causing even more catastrophic damage to India Unlike your “pull a Gaza on Pakistan”.
-Because more nuclear plants in Pakistan allow for more highly enriched uranium which is used for nuclear weapons Unlike India which creates more nuclear plants to plant more trees.
-Because legitimate energy concerns are better addressed through natural gas (see IPI pipeline deal which was recently inked between Iran and Pakistan) Please meet our energy expert.
-Because Pakistan has started 4 wars with India and continues to fund fundamentalist terrorism in India And Kashmiris have waged 2 since 1989 and are starting a new war against India now.
-Because Pakistan, unlike India, is driven by a national ideology steeped in territorial expansionism and extremism Kashmir. Hyderabad. Goa. Sikkim.
-Because nuclear energy is not clean and nuclear plants are easy targets for attacks by extremists True. How long will it take the Naxxal to blow one up?
well anonymous, it appears that you not only can’t put together a cogent and “fact” based argument, you can’t even read (it’s Satyajit)
Umm, you can ignore facts all you want. Even the pakistan leaning bbc has remarked about Pakistan and its abominable actions during Kargil war. It’s funny how a missile test in your book is the same as preparing to launch a first strike during a localized war that Pakistan instigated.
Pull a gaza? Wow, you guys really must be living in a dreamworld, or actually just believe your own lies. India has given pakistan Most Favored Nation status; pakistan’s response? a virtual ban on bollywood movies. India has outstretched its hand in peace numerous times only to have Pakistan continue to finance proxy war and engage in open war.
India has a legitimate need for nuclear weapons due to China’s nuclear posture. If Pakistan knew how to behave itself, it wouldn’t have to worry about military confrontation with India. Unfortunately, you guys are too busy lying to yourselves about how you are destined to be the ruling class of the subcontinent.
Yes, courtesy of fundamentalism sponsored by Pakistan. Good job, such wonderful global citizens yaar. Sponsoring instability every where you go. Btw, how are those poor POK kashmiris doing? Oh that’s right, you ill-treat them at every turn with your punjabi colonialism–good job.
Kashmir-Pakistanis sent in pashtun tribesmen to rape and pillage. That is why your beloved Kashmiris failed to support you in 1948 and in 1965 in spite of your calls for religious solidarity.
Hyderabad-A majority hindu population in the middle of India was being terrorized by the raping and murdering razakars of the Pakistan-supported Nizam. What is with you guys and the use of rape as a tool of war? First Kashmir, then Hyderabad, then Bangladesh. Shame on you.
Goa-Umm, colonial power refused to leave in spite of peaceful entreaty after peaceful entreaty. What could your gripe possibly be? Where is the extremism?
Sikkim-Voted to join the Indian union.
I know it must be sad for you to see your country referred to as “an international migraine” (courtesy of Madeleine Albright), “international basketcase”, “epicenter of global terror”, etc etc. Instead of deluding yourselves, why don’t you actually invest in the development of your people instead of wasting their lives in extremism and imperial hubris? This childish attempt to justify Pakistan’s crimes is really rather puerile. Perhaps a little self-reflection might do you some good.
satyajit wry,
First and foremost, don’t assume anybody who points out about India’s hypocrisy must be a Pakistani. Given your country’s (I assumed you must be an Indian, another one among the 52 million Indians who have access to internet) desire to be a regional mafia and bully, perhaps Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Maldivians, Chinese and Afghans are united in the desire to fend you off. Add Joel Stein to the crowd too.
1) The desire to pull a gaza was explained by Shahsi Tharoor. Do me a favor, do a psychoanalysis of your middle-class.You will see yourself in the mirror. (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/india-s-israel-envy-1.268722).
2) “3. India has a legitimate need for nuclear weapons due to China’s nuclear posture. If Pakistan knew how to behave itself, it wouldn’t have to worry about military confrontation with India. Unfortunately, you guys are too busy lying to yourselves about how you are destined to be the ruling class of the subcontinent.”
Really? Maybe India should set a lesson to Pakistan by NOT acquiring nukes. Now keep talking hypocrite.
3) “4. Yes, courtesy of fundamentalism sponsored by Pakistan. Good job, such wonderful global citizens yaar. Sponsoring instability every where you go. Btw, how are those poor POK kashmiris doing? Oh that’s right, you ill-treat them at every turn with your punjabi colonialism–good job.”
Punjabi-coloniasm? Too much sound-bites ugh? What ethnic group you think people in Azad Kashmir belong to? Bengalis? Maybe Punjabis in India’s Punjab should talk about Hindi belt colonization of Khalistan, no?
4) “Kashmir-Pakistanis sent in pashtun tribesmen to rape and pillage. That is why your beloved Kashmiris failed to support you in 1948 and in 1965 in spite of your calls for religious solidarity.”
That’s why in 2010 they are waving tricolors in Srinagar in great gusto today. Switch on your tv, maybe your media will tell you ISI was the one holding the placard “UN, we are not Indians”.
5) “I know it must be sad for you to see your country referred to as “an international migraine” (courtesy of Madeleine Albright), “international basketcase”, “epicenter of global terror”, etc etc. Instead of deluding yourselves, why don’t you actually invest in the development of your people instead of wasting their lives in extremism and imperial hubris? This childish attempt to justify Pakistan’s crimes is really rather puerile. Perhaps a little self-reflection might do you some good.”
That’s very a delusional suggestion coming from a country that has one of the largest numbers of rape, honor killing, child marriage and famine in the world. Put your feet on the ground, you are no better than Subsaharan Africa.
Anonymous, the type of baseless bile you’ve been piling on India almost always originates from a Pakistani. Whether you are one or not is really irrelevant to me. I will take a minute to respond to your silly contentions, and then that will be it for our little repartee. I’ve had a number of constructive discussions with Pakistani posters on this blog. It is obvious that you are not one of them. Hmm, China and Pakistan United, two of the world’s most irresponsible and destablizing countries, you really must be hardpressed to make any case(please don’t even bring up maldivians and afghans. maldivians love india because it saved the government there from a coup attempt–see operation cactus and compare with pakistan’s sponsorship of the taliban. and afghans, why don’t you ask them yourself about how they view pakistanis: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/fullpage?id=6797795 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/13+most+afghans+see+karzai+as+winnable+candidate+survey-za-06 http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_opinion-poll-71pct-afghans-favour-india-2pct-pakistan_1337095)
United indeed…
Umm, Shashi Tharoor doesn’t speak for all Indians, and considering his recent forced resignation, apparently not the government either. Given Pakistan’s track record of financing terror in India, it is little wonder that Indians have grown tired with your country. Most indians don’t care about Pakistan, and were it not for its puerile tantrums, we’d be more than happy to ignore you and your Chinese master to focus on our growth and investment in human capital. Unlike you, we care about developing our economy and our people. We care about democracy (real democracy and not stage managed army rule) and civilian control of the military. I think you need to stop watching Zaid Hamid videos and take a look in the mirror yourself.
Hmm, let’s see, India attacked by China in 1962 (please don’t roll out the brain dead Neville Maxwell brand tripe)in spite of long standing attempts at brotherly relations (remember hindi chini bhai bhai and panchsheel?). India targeted by nuclear tipped Chinese ICBMs. Yes, you’re absolutely right, India should be an example to the world by denuking itself to be held hostage by an ethnic cleansing authoritarian govt on the one hand and a religious cleansing basketcase on the other all to avoid your silly “hypocrite” tag.
Regarding Pakistani oppression in POK and Northern Areas: http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/humanrightsinPOK.html
Not a soundbite, but your very own Pakistani Supreme Court on the topic.
Dude, Khalistan? Really? Take one look at the composition of the Indian Army, take one look at the Indian prime minister and ask yourself how most Sikhs see themselves.
Hmm, yes, because there are no Kashmiri hindus who were massacred and ethnically cleansed in the late 80s/early 90s. There are no JK buddhists who are treated like second class citizens by the state govt. There are no Jammu hindus who would rather stay in India. There are no Kashmiri shiites who balk at the very idea of a fundamentalist sunni pakistan. There are no Kashmiri sikhs who were massacred by kashmiri militants chattisinghpura (The US state dept corrected itself). Your fundamentalist friends may delude themselves into believing they will be spared the fate of their POK cousins, but they do not have the sole claim to Kashmir. Considering Pakistan’s track record of reducing its hindu population from 25 percent at partition to 1 percent now (compared with India’s muslim population of 10% at partition to almost 15% now), I think we know how minorities are treated in your country. If there are any doubts, please ask the Ahmadis. Having a good friend who is one, I know all about how they are treated there. I would say check with the Pandits and all those other groups first before your paint with a broad brush.
Hmm, from the looks of this failed state index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state it is clear who has the most in common with subsaharan Africa (see your little country at number 10–only four spots away from Afghanistan!)
India is the second largest country in the world, so please don’t direct me to absolute numbers. India has its problems, but that’s the difference between it and Pakistan, it admits them and actually sets out to tackle them. That is why seats are reserved in Parliament for women, that is why we pass laws to help deal with these problems,that is why we have Indian NGO’s tackling all the issues you listed.
Considering the hudood ordinances and tribal council mandates for rape in your country (just ask mukhtar mai), you really have no leg to stand on in this department.
Pakistan: Begs for American and Chinese aid just to stay afloat. Instead of spending the money on development it spends it on arms and religious fundamentalism to further ridiculous dreams of empire
India: 8 percent annual growth, a world beating services sector,a growing manufacturing sector, 200 billion dollars in reserves, a soft power that is the envy of even your communist patron and that resonates even among your arab friends, and genuine liberal democracy and religious pluralism. Please rant somewhere else about how you wish to view India. Your opinion is irrelevant and your attempts to bring us down to your level are futile. Having rebutted all your silly points, I suggest you gracefully exit the discussion. There’s no longer any point in discussing with you since the record is clear for all to see and there are more constructive people on your side of the debate who can be more productively engaged. Adieu.
India admits to its many problems, and deals with them in the context of its pluralist democracy. India is also a very dynamic country with a huge multi-faceted economy. Pakistan and its propagandists will always try to drag India down to the level of Pakistan, because that’s part of the raison d’etre of the country. It’s not to promote anything elevating, uplifting or progressive. Everything regressive and reactionary.
” Varun Shekhar on July 3, 2010 10:59 PM · Direct link
India admits to its many problems, and deals with them in the context of its pluralist democracy. India is also a very dynamic country with a huge multi-faceted economy. Pakistan and its propagandists will always try to drag India down to the level of Pakistan, because that’s part of the raison d’etre of the country. It’s not to promote anything elevating, uplifting or progressive. Everything regressive and reactionary.”
The gold kept coming.
Anonymous, i tried to post earlier but i had links to rebut all your points, so the post has to be approved. Here is a streamlined rebuttal after which I will leave you to your own devices. I don’t recommend responding since you will just look silly.
Maldives loves India because it restored its government after a coup attempt there (see operation cactus). Why don’t you ask Afghans whom their prefer? According to an ABC/BBC poll which I was to post, India polled 71% and Pakistan 2%. India has close relations with Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina especially due to our liberation of that country after Pakistan’s genocide of 3 million people there. Sri Lanka and Nepal have traditional ties with India. The only country that you have left is itself a regional mafioso loathed by neighboring countries precisely for its bullying and imperial policies: see japan, vietnam, s korea, philippines, taiwan, russia, etc etc. Quite the coalition of the willing you’ve assembled.
India does not have that luxury due to the five wars foisted on it by China and Pakistan alike. Why don’t you ask China to give up its nukes? So please don’t lecture me on hypocrisy given your own glass house.
Not really, your own Pakistani Supreme Court censored your government for its treatment of the Northern Areas and POK. Assuming my link isn’t filtered through by the blog owner, here is the quote from the PSC: “it was not understandable on what basis the people of Northern Areas can be denied the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution†i.e. right to equality before law, right to reside and move freely, right to vote, right to be governed by their chosen representatives, right to form political parties, right to assemble peacefully, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to habeas corpus and against illegal detention, right to acquire, hold and dispose property, and the right to have access to an appellate court of justice for the enforcement of all other rights guaranteed under the latest constitution of the country (since independence, Pakistan has devised and binned three written constitutions and the standing fourth one was drawn up in 1985). The verdict was an eye opener to the world on the brutality, abuses and exactions perpetrated upon the five million inhabitants of POK and a vindication of the long-standing efforts of human rights activists within and outside the country to alter the grossly unfair treatment meted out to what is officially called “Azad Kashmir.â€
another quote from the article: “residents of “Azad Kashmir†are mostly Sunni Muslim and predominantly Punjabi-speaking, with barely 20 percent Kashmiris”
I hope vivek lets that other commment through at least for the links or even just the links. Balwaris and the shiites in POK deserve to have their treatment by the pakistani punjabi martial class examined as well.
Perhaps you have forgotten the half million pandits who were driven out of the Kashmir Valley by your fundamentalists friends through an orchestrated campaign of rape and murder. Or the ladakhi buddhists and jammu hindus still treated like second class citizens. Or the kashmiri shias on their thoughts re: sunni pakistan. Or the kashmiri sikhs who were massacred at chattisinghpura (the US state dept finally corrected itself). Considering Pakistan’s extirpation of its minority population from 25% at partition to less than 1% now, I think we know who has the better claim and whose grievances are legitimate. It is only a matter of time before the Baloch answer that question once and for all.
India, as both I (in the held post) and Varun noted, admits its problems. India is also the second largest country in the world, so don’t bother with absolutes. The difference between India and Pakistan is that it is trying to improve the situation through parliamentary reservations for women, legislation to punish criminals, and NGOs and government initiatives to tackle problems. Please compare the Hudood ordinances, legally sanctioned rape (ask mukhtar mai), and the blasphemy laws of your country. And I know you don’t want to talk about honor killing.
India: 8% annual growth, millions lifted out of poverty, 200B dollars in reserves,a world beating services sector, a nascent manufacturing and pharma/biotech industry, membership in the G20 (where is pakistan in their btw?), a soft power envied by your communist patron and beloved by your arab friends, and the world’s largest democracy
Pakistan: 10th on the failed state index (just four below afghanistan and in good company with subsaharan africa), millions reduced to poverty, sponsorship of religious extremism, oppression of women and minorities, army rule with a puppet civilian government, and a moribund aid-dependent economy.
All you have to do is ask pakistani cabbies what country of origin they claim to american passengers to find out who really has more in common with subsaharan africa. Having rebutted all your points, I think anything you say at this stage will only make you silly. Might I suggest a graceful exit, sir. Adieu.
@satyajit wry,
“All you have to do is ask Pakistani cabbies what country of origin they claim to american passengers to find out who really has more in common with subsaharan africa. Having rebutted all your points, I think anything you say at this stage will only make you silly. Might I suggest a graceful exit, sir. Adieu.”
Really? Where’s the proof? Times of India’s article? Maybe you should read Lakshmi’s blog for some analysis of that article. Pakistanis want to be known as Indians? Sure, sure. I heard Punjabis want to be known as Punjabis and not as Indians. Ask cab passengers in Canada. There’s my proof too.
1) “1. Maldives loves India because it restored its government after a coup attempt there (see operation cactus). Why don’t you ask Afghans whom their prefer?”
Hmm, really? Take a look at this priceless article:http://www.dhivehiobserver.com/speicalreports/China-base-in-Maldives0705051.htm. It was established with the help from Pakistan. Seem like citizens of some nations tend to have a delusional idea about those who “adore” them.
2) According to an ABC/BBC poll which I was to post, India polled 71% and Pakistan 2%. India has close relations.
Most Afghans do not know about Modi and BJP.
3)” with Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina especially due to our liberation of that country after Pakistan’s genocide of 3 million people there.” Next time back up your number. For a country that speaks about liberating Bangladesh, you are now hunting Bangladeshi Muslims within your land: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sena-mns-restart-anti-bangladeshi-migrant-campaign_1350167. Look how much compassion you have for Bangladeshis!!
The most trustworthy human rights record put the number killed to 26,000 and the max to 300,000:”The historian branch of the State Department held a two-day conference on June 28 and 29 on US policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972, inviting scholars from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to express their views on the declassified documents.During the seminar, Bangladeshi scholars acknowledged that their official figure of more than 3 million killed during and after the military action was not authentic.They said that the original figure was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million.Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the Bangladesh ambassador in Washington who was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1969 but had joined his country’s war of liberation in 1971, acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake. Instead, he suggested that Pakistan and Bangladesh form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India.
A huge number and should never been forgiven or forgotten. But to see Indians who have killed 47,000 Kashmiris (out of 2-4 million Kashmiris) shedding crocodile tears for Bangladesh sounds very sanctimonious. (see http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL356088.htm)
4) Sri Lanka and Nepal have traditional ties with India.
They surely prefer Pakistan and China: 1)http://www.lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=545707841, 2) http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/gopa.detail.php?article_id=32299&cat_id=29
5) So who is again :”The only country that you have left is itself a regional mafioso loathed by neighboring countries precisely for its bullying and imperial policies: see japan, vietnam, s korea, philippines, taiwan, russia, etc etc. Quite the coalition of the willing you’ve assembled.”?
6) Let’s do some analysis, shall we?
Read the first passage you wrote: “3. India has a legitimate need for nuclear weapons due to China’s nuclear posture. If Pakistan knew how to behave itself, it wouldn’t have to worry about military confrontation with India. Unfortunately, you guys are too busy lying to yourselves about how you are destined to be the ruling class of the subcontinent.”
and then read my reply and move on to your second passage: “2. India does not have that luxury due to the five wars foisted on it by China and Pakistan alike. Why don’t you ask China to give up its nukes? So please don’t lecture me on hypocrisy given your own glass house.”
Now do some analysis. Got it? Now, who’s the hypocrite here? The one who suggested India has an enemy and therefore deserved to have nukes while demanding Pakistan to behave and stopped seeing India has an enemy, no?
7)”The difference between India and Pakistan is that it is trying to improve the situation through parliamentary reservations for women, legislation to punish criminals, and NGOs and government initiatives to tackle problems. Please compare the Hudood ordinances, legally sanctioned rape (ask mukhtar mai), and the blasphemy laws of your country. And I know you don’t want to talk about honor killing.”
You have just quoted Pakistan’s supreme court and you spoke about legally sanctioned rape? Things that didn’t befit with your idea about Pakistan aren’t worth quoting?
8) “India: 8% annual growth, millions lifted out of poverty, 200B dollars in reserves,a world beating services sector, a nascent manufacturing and pharma/biotech industry, membership in the G20 (where is pakistan in their btw?), a soft power envied by your communist patron and beloved by your arab friends, and the world’s largest democracy”
envied? loved by Arabs?? India’s GDP per capita is not that far away from Pakistan’s and worse than Sri Lanka’s and Maldives’. Terribly worse compared to China. But if you removed all the wealth owned by India’s billionaires, India’s GDP should equal to those in subsaharan africa.
9)”Pakistan: 10th on the failed state index (just four below afghanistan and in good company with subsaharan africa), millions reduced to poverty, sponsorship of religious extremism, oppression of women and minorities, army rule with a puppet civilian government, and a moribund aid-dependent economy.”
Pot, meet kettle. A quarter of India’s territory is under Naxxal. Keep living with the idea that Pakistan is the 10th failed state. It allows you to be mirrorless for a moment.
@satyajit wry,
“All you have to do is ask Pakistani cabbies what country of origin they claim to american passengers to find out who really has more in common with subsaharan africa. Having rebutted all your points, I think anything you say at this stage will only make you silly. Might I suggest a graceful exit, sir. Adieu.”
Really? Where’s the proof? Times of India’s article? Maybe you should read Lakshmi’s blog for some analysis of that article. Pakistanis want to be known as Indians? Sure, sure. I heard Punjabis want to be known as Punjabis and not as Indians. Ask cab passengers in Canada. There’s my proof too.
1) “1. Maldives loves India because it restored its government after a coup attempt there (see operation cactus). Why don’t you ask Afghans whom their prefer?”
Hmm, really? Take a look at this priceless article:http://www.dhivehiobserver.com/speicalreports/China-base-in-Maldives0705051.htm. It was established with the help from Pakistan. Seem like citizens of some nations tend to have a delusional idea about those who “adore” them.
2) According to an ABC/BBC poll which I was to post, India polled 71% and Pakistan 2%. India has close relations.
Most Afghans do not know about Modi and BJP.
3)” with Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina especially due to our liberation of that country after Pakistan’s genocide of 3 million people there.” Next time back up your number. For a country that speaks about liberating Bangladesh, you are now hunting Bangladeshi Muslims within your land: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sena-mns-restart-anti-bangladeshi-migrant-campaign_1350167. Look how much compassion you have for Bangladeshis!!
The most trustworthy human rights record put the number killed to 26,000 and the max to 300,000:”The historian branch of the State Department held a two-day conference on June 28 and 29 on US policy in South Asia between 1961 and 1972, inviting scholars from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to express their views on the declassified documents.During the seminar, Bangladeshi scholars acknowledged that their official figure of more than 3 million killed during and after the military action was not authentic.They said that the original figure was close to 300,000, which was wrongly translated from Bengali into English as three million.Shamsher M. Chowdhury, the Bangladesh ambassador in Washington who was commissioned in the Pakistan Army in 1969 but had joined his country’s war of liberation in 1971, acknowledged that Bangladesh alone cannot correct this mistake. Instead, he suggested that Pakistan and Bangladesh form a joint commission to investigate the 1971 disaster and prepare a report. Almost all scholars agreed that the real figure was somewhere between 26,000, as reported by the Hamoodur Rahman Commission, and not three million, the official figure put forward by Bangladesh and India.
A huge number and should never been forgiven or forgotten. But to see Indians who have killed 47,000 Kashmiris (out of 2-4 million Kashmiris) shedding crocodile tears for Bangladesh sounds very sanctimonious. (see http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL356088.htm)
4) Sri Lanka and Nepal have traditional ties with India.
They surely prefer Pakistan and China: 1)http://www.lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=545707841, 2) http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/gopa.detail.php?article_id=32299&cat_id=29
5) So who is again :”The only country that you have left is itself a regional mafioso loathed by neighboring countries precisely for its bullying and imperial policies: see japan, vietnam, s korea, philippines, taiwan, russia, etc etc. Quite the coalition of the willing you’ve assembled.”?
6) Let’s do some analysis, shall we?
Read the first passage you wrote: “3. India has a legitimate need for nuclear weapons due to China’s nuclear posture. If Pakistan knew how to behave itself, it wouldn’t have to worry about military confrontation with India. Unfortunately, you guys are too busy lying to yourselves about how you are destined to be the ruling class of the subcontinent.”
and then read my reply and move on to your second passage: “2. India does not have that luxury due to the five wars foisted on it by China and Pakistan alike. Why don’t you ask China to give up its nukes? So please don’t lecture me on hypocrisy given your own glass house.”
Now do some analysis. Got it? Now, who’s the hypocrite here? The one who suggested India has an enemy and therefore deserved to have nukes while demanding Pakistan to behave and stopped seeing India has an enemy, no?
7)”The difference between India and Pakistan is that it is trying to improve the situation through parliamentary reservations for women, legislation to punish criminals, and NGOs and government initiatives to tackle problems. Please compare the Hudood ordinances, legally sanctioned rape (ask mukhtar mai), and the blasphemy laws of your country. And I know you don’t want to talk about honor killing.”
You have just quoted Pakistan’s supreme court and you spoke about legally sanctioned rape? Things that didn’t befit with your idea about Pakistan aren’t worth quoting?
8) “India: 8% annual growth, millions lifted out of poverty, 200B dollars in reserves,a world beating services sector, a nascent manufacturing and pharma/biotech industry, membership in the G20 (where is pakistan in their btw?), a soft power envied by your communist patron and beloved by your arab friends, and the world’s largest democracy”
envied? loved by Arabs?? India’s GDP per capita is not that far away from Pakistan’s and worse than Sri Lanka’s and Maldives’. Terribly worse compared to China. But if you removed all the wealth owned by India’s billionaires, India’s GDP should equal to those in subsaharan africa.
9)”Pakistan: 10th on the failed state index (just four below afghanistan and in good company with subsaharan africa), millions reduced to poverty, sponsorship of religious extremism, oppression of women and minorities, army rule with a puppet civilian government, and a moribund aid-dependent economy.”
Pot, meet kettle. A quarter of India’s territory is under Naxxal. Keep living with the idea that Pakistan is the 10th failed state. It allows you to be mirrorless for a moment.
Well said Satyajit. The Pakistani elite keeps saying the same drone like things year after year. It’s that immature, idiotic obsession with religion , more specifically religious separatism and religious difference, plus an obsession with the military, that drives all this nonsense. The movement that created Pakistan was not something elevated, uplifting and progressive.
Pakistan’s key problem is ( not dissimiliar to India, but more exaggerated)that like Israel , it defined itself on Religion ( a danger that would have made Khalistan go the same way) and can’t back pedal…most of the elite is Punjabi, who have taken the “foreign” Urdu language, displaced all its natural languages ( especially Punjabi) and now is a lost nation with no cultural id other then religion. Afghanistan, USA policy, 9/11, Arab Wahabbism have all joined in creating Muslims as the bad guys, which is made worse by the liberal Muslims failing to admit to the mad minority, which has resulted in a situation where if the status quo of religion is questioned, you are a traitor….so all are forced to sing the same tune..in short the sensible Pakistanis are gagged, eg those who even hint they love their hertiage Punjabi language are seen as low lives and traitors…so there is only one way..the road of blaming everyone as enemies of Islam..the youth can’t even speak Punjabi, so can’t link with that heritage, so when they feeled bullied ( eg since 9/11 they go to the Wahabbi Islam, as their culture, which is wrong)..this is a circle they can’t get out of, but all of us picking on Muslims does not help..let us be honest, Sikhs in the past have been extreme, Christians also have been, whilst some Jews still are and many Hindus still are…
That helps push their Pcyche towards paranoia, and the weak towards right wing views..
Religion is the illness of the Indian Sub Continent..
It is not the average Indian or Pakitani..it is the elite of both nations… Pakistan has too look at the fact that daily there are acts of violence in their Country and need to be honest to themselves about why…