posted March 10, 2006 05:48 AM              

quote:

---

you can't talk of PEACE when whole of your existence is contrlloed by a push of a button . a single wrong move and we'll be extinct . imagine a situation where china goes the ussr way or if musharraf is assisinated tomorrow and some taliban sympathiser takes on the seat . (and even the US intelli says , there are a lot of taliban symapathisers in pak establishment )
think from that persepective and you will understand our position .

---

posted March 10, 2006 06:03 AM              

we were already in the firing line in one way . we are facing the wrath of afghani terrorists ably supported by pak .

posted March 10, 2006 10:24 AM              

I see India's conundrum too. It's a stable moderate democracy surrounded by countries that ... well ... aren't. But ...

quote:

---

It would seem to me that "the single wrong move" would be to make enemies of your volatile neighbours by making a very public deal with a person they're violently against.

---

Using that theory, should they take up arms with the likes of China, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan? They can't stand alone. They need friends. Or membership in a mutual aid society, however you want to look at it.

posted March 10, 2006 10:54 AM              

quote:

---

Using that theory, should they take up arms with the likes of China, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan?

---

posted March 11, 2006 12:22 PM              

quote:

---

Using that theory, should they take up arms with the likes of China, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan? They can't stand alone. They need friends.

---

you have a point there .
but you can't make friends on our own . any relation needs reciprocation . same applies here !

and as you said , there are no permanent friends in politics , in the same way there are no permanent enemies too . and how do you make them respect you . the answer lies in detterent .thats the logic .
coming back to quoting MAO , friendships is between equals .

posted March 11, 2006 01:39 PM              

As for the bomb, I have no particular isssues with India having it. Obviously I wish no one did, but the world being what it is, better India than China, you know? Western countries won't use it unless we are invaded. And I don't see that happening any time soon, no offense to Al-Qaeda. The only real threat is from a religious fanatic or an up-and-comer trying to prove himself or both.

posted March 11, 2006 02:16 PM              

quote:

---

whom are you afraid of ? dont be !
i myself have supported hindu fundamentalist once , i am ashamed of them now . and i say it openly.
i hope you can do the same . infact LL is a great place to do that.

i remember , you once told , you were basically from kashmir. right?

---

I don't support Muslim fundementalists, and I don't support any other fundementalists, whether they're Hindu, Sikh or American. Though I may side with a group...but my sympathies don't last long.

Actually my mother is Kashmiri and father Punjabi. What's your background?

I'm not sure where in Delhi my grandparents lived. I'll have to ask. My mother's parents also lived in Calcutta because they were in business.

quote:

---

i am amused . what kind of impression do i make day ?
infact, i tried to keep my posts very staright . i think "BUSH's visit might help us strategically and i said only that

---

posted March 13, 2006 09:57 PM              

WASHINGTON, Mar 3 (IPS) - While U.S. President George W. Bush hailed Thursday's nuclear accord with India as a major breakthrough in forging a "strategic partnership" with the South Asian giant, the pact has been broadly denounced by non-proliferation experts here as a devil's bargain.

The agreement, which must still be approved by the U.S. Congress, marks a significant blow to the prevailing international non-proliferation regime, according to the critics, who have argued that it effectively rewards India for behaviour that differs little from what Iran is trying to do today.

"It's going to be tough to argue that Iran and North Korea should be denied nuclear technology while India -- which has failed to even join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- is given the same technology on a silver platter," said Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin.

"The deal is a disaster for the nuclear non-proliferation regime on the planet," agreed Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, a leading proliferation specialist in the U.S. Congress, who is expected to spearhead efforts to defeat the accord as signed.

"It blows a hole through any attempts in the future that we could make to convince the Pakistanis, or the Iranians, or the North Koreans, or for that matter any other country in world that might interested in obtaining nuclear weapons, that there is a level playing field, that there is a real set of safeguards," he added in an interview with public television.

While most observers believe that a majority in Congress will eventually go along with the deal, they also expect a spirited fight, and not only from Democrats like Markey.

A number of high-ranking Republican lawmakers have also indicated strong doubts about the deal, precisely because of the likelihood that it will encourage proliferation and thus undermine national security. Among the doubters, for example, are the chairmen of the two houses' foreign affairs committees, Rep. Henry Hyde and Sen. Richard Lugar.

Even the head of the increasingly powerful Congressional Caucus on India, Rep. Gary Ackerman, has warned that Bush will have to become personally involved in the effort to gain legislative approval.

"The president has, thus far, done a horrendous job of convincing Congress that the agreement is a good idea," he said Thursday. "Now that there is an agreement with India, he must get to work and make the case to Congress, or else the nuclear deal will blow up in his face."

The agreement, which was concluded only at the eleventh hour of Bush's first trip to India this week, ends a U.S. moratorium on sales of nuclear fuel and equipment to India since it first exploded a nuclear device 32 years ago.

In exchange, India agreed to separate its nuclear programme into separate military and civilian components and to open the latter to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time. India also agreed to abide by international non-proliferation agreements, such as those of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

But non-proliferation specialists like Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace charged that agreement's specifics -- notably the exemption of "military" reactors from international inspections and safeguards -- deal a mortal blow to the international non-proliferation regime.

Under the plan, about one third of India's existing 22 nuclear reactors are designated as military, including a prototype fast-breeder reactor, which produces plutonium needed for the production of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the accord gives India the authority to assign future nuclear reactors, including fast-breeders, to the military side of its nuclear programme, thus making them, too, exempt from international safeguards.

"The deal appears to give India complete freedom not just to continue but to expand its production of fissile material for nuclear weapons," according to Robert Einhorn, a top non-proliferation specialist in the Bill Clinton administration (1993-2001) now with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) here.

"In the future, any reactor it designates as 'military' can be used for the weapons programme," he said, questioning what Bush received in return.

Carnegie's Cirincione was more blunt: "Pres. Bush has now given away the store. He did everything but actually sell nuclear weapons to India."

Indeed, India, which, 32 years after its first nuclear test, is believed to have accumulated about 50 nuclear weapons, could almost double that arsenal each year with the plutonium produced by breeder reactors.

The Bush administration and its backers defend the accord as a major advance on a variety of fronts. They point out that the agreement will bring a significant part of India's nuclear programme under international safeguards for the first time and also enable New Delhi to make improvements that will contribution to its overall safety and security.

They also stress that the construction of new nuclear power plants in India will reduce its fast-growing economy's reliance on fossil fuels. Not only will that mean cheaper oil and gas for other energy-hungry countries, but, according to the administration -- with no hint of irony -- it will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

To most critics, these justifications ring remarkably hollow, and not only because the administration has opposed efforts to mandate limits to U.S. greenhouse emissions.

"Nuclear power plants, even at the officially projected level of 20,000 megawatts for the year 2020, are not going to significantly contribute to solving India's energy problems," according to Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) here. The percentage of India's electricity generated by nuclear power would rise from three percent to five percent, if projections are realised.

Rather, the main motivations for the deal appear to be both strategic and economic.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis, many of the largest U.S. companies regard India as the "next big frontier" and have come to believe that a nuclear accord "will open the way for a spate of deals, not just in potential nuclear sales, but in everything from turbines and jets to road construction". These companies, which include General Electric and Ford, among others, stand poised to lobby hard for Congressional approval of the pact.

The strategic rationale -- namely, the hope that India, along with Japan, will become a strategic counterweight to China in Asia -- may be even more decisive, according to analysts here who note the fervent interest shown by the Pentagon, and U.S. arms manufacturers, over the last several years in cultivating New Delhi.

Indeed, this interest was underlined, as noted by the New York Times Friday, by the Pentagon's release of "an unusually explicit statement" praising the deal as a way to enhance bilateral military cooperation, including arms sales.

"Where only a few years ago, no one would have talked about the prospects for a major U.S.-India defence deal," it said, "today the prospects are promising, whether in the realm of combat aircraft, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft or naval vessels."

Not only will the deal enable India to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons, but it may also contribute to an increase in tensions between India and China, which, according to Circincione, is already reported to be considering a similar accord with Pakistan -- another nuclear power that has defied the NPT. (END/2006)

posted March 14, 2006 08:49 AM              

so you are essentially a punjabi ( in indian terms! hahahahahahaha...... . i am not sure if you call yourself that . )

my family actaully belongs to " dera ismail khan " in present pak ( nwfp ) bordering afghnaistan . so we are punjabis .

what was your friend's view about your family moving to pak . just inquistive , never actauuly knew someone in that way.

whats your sign ? and you are a female ? right!

yup ! one more question , how is india perceived in canada ?

quote:

---

Not only will the deal enable India to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons, but it may also contribute to an increase in tensions between India and China, which, according to Circincione, is already reported to be considering a similar accord with Pakistan -- another nuclear power that has defied the NPT. (END/2006)

---

thats a concern !

and btw , its cancerrg ,not cancergg

quote:

---

I said India needed friends, and I stand by that. You are, after all, surrounded. On the other hand I readily admit that my country needs friends in that part of the world - and India fits the bill both politically and economically.QUOTE]

i think ,we both are saying the same thing but in different ways .

[QUOTE] The word on the street is the Indians are stubbornly independent minded, so I don't personally expect them to become Bush's lapdogs any time soon. (hi Tony!) They also, as cardinalgal pointed out, at the very least need to appear just a bit coy, so as not to offend the nutcases.

---

is that so ? sounds good !
i hope the govt. decides to be that way .

i would be repeating the same question to you as well , how is india perceived in there ?

posted March 14, 2006 01:44 PM              

quote:

---

hi Tony

---

posted March 14, 2006 05:57 PM              

That's kewl you're from nwf. I know that much! My father was actually born in Karachi(Sindh, right?) and mother in Lahore (Punjab). So that would make my Kahmiri mother a Punjabi and father a Sindhi as well.

I never knew anyone with such views on people moving to Pakistan either. She's an Indian Muslim from a small town in Canada, so maybe they are her own? She just thought lowly of my family moving to Pakistan and not staying in India...sorta like cowards?

Guess my sign And yes I'm female. Let me guess you're Cancer, and male right?

Well really there are mixed views on how India is perceived here in Canada, since it is so diverse. I went to university with a lot of Indians and there are tons in the GTA. I've never been to India myself, and only been to Pakistan once when I was young. I think most people here see the modern and metropolitan aspects to India by way of some of the cable television programmes we have here and also from Bollywood.

posted March 15, 2006 10:47 AM              

very honestly , the first time that i came to know of the size of canadian economy and that it actually helped us built in our first nuclear reactor . i was astonished . surprised big time !
and if thats what i felt , i am sure a lot of people would feel the same here about canada .
i dont think canada actually registers on indian radar ( i mean on people's mind)
the basic reason would be , indains are pretty ploitical people , its their fav. pass time and canada being a very silent country especially on the ploitical issues .the other major reason would be , whole of north ameraican continent( to an extent even south america) is dominated by USA . its very recently that leaders like lulla have started getting prominence in india .
i bet a lot of indians , if asked to point out chile , will first try to search it in europe .
yeah , one place were everyone knows of canada is " punjab " bcos every punjabi especially sikhs want to land somehow in canada. they are obsessed with it .

about cbcd , hmmmmmmmmm , infact i am myself confused about them .

quote:

---

never knew anyone with such views on people moving to Pakistan either. She's an Indian Muslim from a small town in Canada, so maybe they are her own? She just thought lowly of my family moving to Pakistan and not staying in India...sorta like cowards?

---

infact, its the first time , i am hearing of anything as such .

quote:

---

Guess my sign And yes I'm female. Let me guess you're Cancer, and male right?

---

BRILLIANT !
to know that you could guess , i am a cancerian ,hahahahahahahahahahah.........'
(feeling very proud to know you !!!!!! )

and to guess your sign , i searching your old posts . ( to tell you a secret , i am brilliant too ,heheheeheeheheheh )

quote:

---

once when I was young.

---

posted March 15, 2006 06:42 PM              

I didn't know that Canada helped build India's first nuclear reactor. I just checked it out on here.... http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-104-898/science_technology/candu/clip4

Hope you don't think I am against India's right to atomic energy. In the video on that website above, they even say the Non-Proliferation Treaty is discriminatory!!

Yes Canada is a pretty quiet and friendly nation, relative to the US, and most prefer it that way. Most Canadians don't no a thing about Indian politics. What do Indians think of World and American politics nowadays?

Yeah Punjabi Sikhs basically have their own town here, Brampton in Ontario, and I hear BC is populated with Sikhs.

CBCD, if you're confused is actually Canadian Born Confused Desi

I think my roommate might have had a personal vendetta against me, and thus my family? It was the first time I ever heard of it, though not the only time.

It took special psychic powers to figure out you are a Cancerian. Goodluck sorting through old posts for my birthday! I'll give you a clue...you're right there is some Piscean influence, my moon.

posted March 16, 2006 09:15 AM              

quote:

---

Hope you don't think I am against India's right to atomic energy. In the video on that website above, they even say the Non-Proliferation Treaty is discriminatory!!

---

ofcourse not !
even if you did , i would probably agree with you bcos i dont support bomb .
and even india's policy is also very clear regarding it , if every one disowns , we will too . no second thinking on it .

and yeah , npt is discriminatory against non nuclear states .

quote:

---

What do Indians think of World and American politics nowadays?

---

I can't really say about the world but as far as american politics is concerned , we are against them acting as the world policemen and we do think iraq was a wrong decision .
but even after that , you will be astonished to know , its one of the most favoured nation here .
i dont know if this has anything to do with a wavelength that a cancer and leo share .

quote:

---

CBCD, if you're confused is actually Canadian Born Confused Desi

---

oh , i knew about cbcd . we have a lot of abcd's here . remember I AM in the city of punjabis

i was just confused what to say about them .
i i dont feel like laughing on their confusion , its so natural infact ,culture change can make a lot of difference . i see a lot of such people here , confused with their own culture .
if you go a bit deep into , fundamentalism is a confusion , isn't it ?
i have myself been confused , THANKGOD , i am out of it .

quote:

---

Yeah I'm young now. But I was much younger when I went to Pakistan. 5 years old to be exact, so unfortunately I don't remember all that much. Definitely will track you down once I reach Delhi If you ever visit Canada and the Toronto area give me a shout and I'll show you around the good spots.

---

posted March 16, 2006 11:47 PM              

I didn't realize there were alot of abcd's in the city of Punjabis Well I don't feel as confused as I was while I was growing up. Definitely fundamentalism is a confusion...and I think it stems from those that trying to differentiate and divide groups, and alot of the times to get revenge. How did you snap out of the confusion?

quote:

---

theek hai , yaad rakhonga !

---

posted March 21, 2006 07:48 AM              

quote:

---

...and I think it stems from those that trying to differentiate and divide groups, and alot of the times to get revenge. How did you snap out of the confusion?

---

exactly !
yeah, it has a lot to do with revenge .
do you know how sikhism as a religion originated ?
actually , sikhism was a way of life propogated by " GURUNANAK" the first guru of sikhs . in the same way as say, osho . it wasn't something rigid or with some definite form . infact, the starting phrase of the religious book starts with the remebrance of SHIVA ,the hindu god.
by the time of the ninth guru " GURU GOVIND SINGH " the mughal rulers had turned so cruel ( mainly aurangzeb ) that the ninth guru gave a definite form to this faith by propagating the idea of five K's ( the words start with k in hindi ) kara - iron bangle , kesh- long hairs , kacha- underwear ,kripan -dagger , kangha - comb . the main idea behind this being was not religious but save the believers and abolish the cruelty .
(btw, if you ask a lot of sikhs , they wont even be able to tell you how their religion originated )

posted March 22, 2006 12:58 AM              

There's so much to Indian and World history I need to learn...topics that were never even mentioned in schools here, for pretty obvious reasons.

You're right most of the Sikhs I know don't know much about Sikhism's origins. I've always thought that it was sort of like a mix of Islam and Hinduism? Haven't Hindus and Muslims lived mostly in peace in India for all the...what is it about 1300 years Islam was introduced there?

posted March 24, 2006 08:37 AM              

quote:

---

I've always thought that it was sort of like a mix of Islam and Hinduism? Haven't Hindus and Muslims lived mostly in peace in India for all the...what is it about 1300 years Islam was introduced there?

---

i am not sure if it has much islamic influences apart from the regional ones .

oh,yeah , hindus and muslims have lived peacefully for all these long years . thats the reason i dont believe in the logic of partition besides the political ones .
and thats also why , i can see the motives of the people who go on harping the gujrat carnage as an example to malign us ,citing it as an example that minorities are illtreated here . ( btw, even i am a part of the minority group in one sense )
i dont disagree , we are not at fault but i always say , give me an example of such vast
differences but then even no home grown al-qaedaites . if the minorities weren't allowed to express their grievances in a democratic ways . do you think , we could have been able to pacify the hurt sentiments of the second biggest population of muslims . i dont think it can even be handled with force as some people want to suggest .

posted March 25, 2006 02:33 AM              

I see what you're saying about the carnage. What can possibly be done in this situation to help both sides? And how are things there now?

posted March 25, 2006 07:23 AM              

quote:

---

see what you're saying about the carnage. What can possibly be done in this situation to help both sides? And how are things there now?

---

things are as normal as they were earlier . the point is , it wasn't a nation wide genocide . it was done by the tactical support of the provincial govt. and central one . president rule ( rule by the nominal head chosen by president , there is nothing that politicians can do at those times) couldn't be forced bcos both the govt. seats were occupied by the same party 'bjp' .
to add some thing more , it would be idiotic to blame bjp only bcos other parties have been as shrewd to use religion to their benefits one or the other way and thats the trend world over , remember 'ku klax klan' .
the answer lies in making the system mature . we are still not there . but there have been progresses .
if you are interseted , i'll try to find out the important haaprenings relating to gujrat riots .
recently , the courts sentenced some of the culprits to death row.

quote:

---

Hmmm...I would rather have you keep guess my sign Is that a clue? If not here's another one...I'm an air sign. And nope I dont have a pic in the photoshop. Im too chicken to post my pic on the world wide web, and plus I dont think you'd want to see a pic of a cbcd. Do you have a pic posted there?

---