India-Pakistan |
Gilani seeks literati's advice on extremism, intolerance |
2011-07-26 |
[Dawn] ![]() ... Pakistain's erstwhile current prime minister, whose occasional feats of mental gymnastics can be awe-inspiring ... Monday acknowledging the positive contribution of literati towards a tolerant society, assured drawing up of a national strategy, based on their suggestions, to cope with internal and external challenges. Addressing a gathering of intellectuals, writers and poets at the launch of his new initiative -- "PM in dialogue with nation" -- here at PM Secretariat, Gilani said there was an urgent need to develop and pursue a vision that addresses the needs of changing times. Under the dialogue, Prime Minister Gilani will hold four interactive sessions with writers, artistes, vice chancellors of universities and media. The suggestions would be incorporated into the address of the prime minister to the nation on Pakistain Day. The participants urged the national leadership to stand up to the challenges facing the nation and take bold decisions. The writers and intellectuals from all over the country spoke on the necessity of developing a national curriculum that inculcates amongst the young minds a love for the country and a spirit of nationalism. The national writers spoke on role of media, which they said was now centred on "tickers" and "anchors" and stressed that it needs to take up its responsible role of building a society and creating hope. They also called for formulating a foreign policy based on national aspirations, without accepting any foreign pressures. Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistain desires good ties with all countries without accepting the hegemony of any, on basis of mutual respect and interests. He recalled his meetings with Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and President Hamid Maybe I'll join the TalibanKarzai ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtunface on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... and said these led to improvement of bilateral ties. Gilani said it owed to his interaction with the Indian Prime Minister, that following the recent bombings at Mumbai, there was no repeat of the blame-game of 2008 and the Indian government acted "maturely" and admitted its intelligence failure. He said Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto presented the 1973 Constitution when fissures were developing amongst the provinces and termed it an honour for his government to restore it to its original shape. He said had the provincial autonomy been given earlier, Pakistain would still have been united. He said the Pakistain People's Party would protect the constitution and the country at all costs, whether it was in power or not. Prime Minister Gilani acknowledged the role of President ![]() President Ten PercentZardari ... sticky-fingered husband of the late Benazir Bhutto ... for handing over his powers to the parliament in an unprecedented manner and corrected a historical wrong. Gilani said his government had always accorded respect to the state institutions and restored the judiciary. He dismissed any clash of the institutions and said these were passing through an evolutionary phase, with some teething problems. Responding to the issue of high prices of everyday items, Prime Minister Gilani spoke of the several challenges the country was facing, including the global recession. He said Pakistain was paying a high price in the war against extremism and terrorism and spoke of the rehabilitation cost of the 2.9 million Internally Displaced Persons within a short period of 90 days. He said 35,000 people have sacrificed their lives, while a heavy cost was incurred due to infrastructural damages. Similarly the country again had to undergo a loss of US 10 billion dollars due to the heavy floods of last summers. Prime Minister Gilani assured the writers that the government, with the help of provincial governments, would take strict action against the hoarders and crackdown against those causing artificial shortage of food items. He agreed with the intellectuals that the media must watch national interests and create hope. He noted the positive suggestion of creating Literacy Centers across the country, supporting regional languages and literature, encouraging arts, dramas and films, so as to bring more positivity and tolerance in the society. Prime Minister Gilani shared his concerns with the writers about the situation in Bloody Karachi and said the issue should not be politicised and peace be brought to the economic hub. In his opening remarks, Prime Minister Gilani said the suggestions could help the government in coping with social problems particularly extremism. He said the dialogue was meantto seek ways to develop an atmosphere of tranquility in society and promote a sense of accepting each others' views with patience. He said writers and poets being the builders of social norms could play a positive role. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Obama arrives in India for 4-day state visit |
2010-11-07 |
(KUNA) -- US President Barack Hussein Obama arrived in India on Saturday for a four-day state visit. His official plane "Air Force One" landed in the countrys financial capital Mumbai, it was officially reported. Here, the US President is scheduled to visit Hotel Taj, targeted in the 26/11 terror attack two years ago, and meet terror attack survivors and the memorial for terror victims. Later, he is also slated to celebrate Diwali with school children. This is Obamas first India visit, in reciprocation to Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singhs visit to the US in November 2009. The visit assumes significance even as it would be longest Obamas visit to any country in past two years since he assumed Presidency. In the evening, Obama would address a business meet to be attended by captains of the Indian industry. The main thrust of US Presidents visit would be to explore the growing Indian market for US exports. Before flying to India, Obama made it clear in Washington that his plan was to double US exports in next five years, and that the purpose of his India visit was to increase business. According to his official itinerary, tomorrow afternoon Obama would fly to New Delhi for the second and key leg of his India visit. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Six Indian security personnel killed in landmine blast |
2010-10-24 |
(KUNA) -- As many as six security personnel were killed in a landmine kaboom by Naxals in Indias northern state of Bihar at a time the state is witnessing elections, reported the New Delhi Television (NDTV). Naxals, also called Maoists, are a group of gunnies who mainly target state establishments and coppers for raising their demand for better infrastructural facilities to the landless labourers in some of the Indian states like Bihar, Maharashtra , Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa. The incident occurred in the states Sheohar district. The dead security personnel included four belonging to the Special Auxiliary Police (SAP) and two state police personnel. According to the TV report, the attack could have been a result of the intensive combing operations against the Naxalites by the Special Task Force of Bihar police and the CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force). The attack also assumes significance even as it came a day after the countrys Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh made some strong remarks against Naxals violence. He had said India will not allow its authority to be challenged. |
Link |
India-Pakistan | ||
Pakistan, India agree on secretary-level talks | ||
2009-06-17 | ||
YEKATERINBURG: The eight-month long Pakistan-India stalled peace process got a fresh lease of life on Tuesday, as President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh agreed for their foreign secretaries to meet on mutually convenient dates.
Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said both leaders had agreed to resume foreign secretary level contacts, but had chosen to focus only on terrorism. He said the officials would assess the steps taken by Pakistan to address Indias concerns. The meeting in Egypt would decide whether to resume bilateral process, and its format, he added. Qureshi said it was in the interest of both countries to resume the dialogue process. The most sensible thing to do now would be to resume dialogue as soon as possible. It is in our mutual interest. Both countries stand to gain by resumption of dialogue. Pakistan feels it is an useful exercise, he said. We made progress (through composite dialogue). It was slow but steady. The people of South Asia would stand to gain from it, he added. He said Pakistan itself was a victim of terrorism and the menace was not country-specific. We are victims of terrorism, but as a nation we have decided to act in a decisive manner and there has been lot of dislocation, he said, likely referring to the situation in Swat. He said all countries agree that terrorism has to be condemned and fought from wherever it emanates ... India, Pakistan, UK and America. To questions, Qureshi said Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilanis comments that Kashmir was the core issue between India and Pakistan were reflective of the issue being one of the components of the composite dialogue. It is an outstanding issue. Both countries recognise it as such, he said. He said Pakistan has to respect the independence of its court system, and could not interfere in the lawful release of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafeez Muhammad Saeed. The provincial government is contemplating appealing the courts decision, he added. On whether he thought India and Pakistan should make joint efforts to restore peace in Afghanistan, Qureshi said: There has to be a regional approach. All regional players can contribute and should contribute. President Zardari also reiterated Pakistans desire to cooperate with India in bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice, according to a statement issued by the Foreign Office. It is imperative the Pakistan-India Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism be reactivated, Zardari told Singh.
| ||
Link |
India-Pakistan | |
Pakistan likely to offer intelligence-sharing to India | |
2009-06-16 | |
YEKATERINBURG: Islamabad is expected to suggest an intelligence-sharing mechanism with its top investigators to New Delhi in the first meeting of both countries leaders since the Indian government suspended dialogue following the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
| |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Hand over Mumbai suspects: Singh |
2009-01-04 |
Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh asked Pakistan on Saturday to hand over the suspected perpetrators of last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai so that they could be tried in India. Talking to reporters in the northeastern city of Shilong, Singh said his country would root out terrorism using 'any means'. "War is no solution to the problems," the Indian prime minister said. "We sincerely hope that better sense will prevail with Pakistan because this is an area where there is a need for maximum possible cooperation between our two countries." Singh said the biggest challenges before India was the "menace of terrorism and Naxalism" and the global economic slowdown. Bangladesh: Calling Bangladesh another emerging terror front, Singh said Indian militants from the Northeastern states continue to operate out of bases in the neighbouring country. "The porous border that India shares with Bangladesh is a matter of concern for us as infiltration and cross-border terrorism does take place. We need to accelerate fencing and discuss this issue in next week's meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security," the he said. Asked whether his government was open to talks with banned militant outfits, Singh said, "All insurgent groups must recognise that the only course open to them is to lay down arms." |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
Singh, Zardari to discuss terror, infiltration |
2008-09-20 |
President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh are expected to discuss cross-border terrorism in an upcoming meeting in New York. In what will be their first meeting after Zardari's accession to the Presidency, the two leaders are also expected to discuss cross-Line of Control confidence building measures, including announcing the dates for lunching trade on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad route. Officials said Singh was likely to underline cross-border terrorism and infiltration needed to cease to ensure a conducive atmosphere for continuing the dialogue process. Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on Friday emphasised that an environment free from terrorism was necessary for the normalisation of relations with Pakistan. "We want an end to cross-border terrorism and ceasefire violations, and would like Pakistan to abide by its commitments," he said. Menon hoped that the upcoming meeting between Singh and President Zardari would help normalise relations. Singh is leaving for the United States on Monday to address the UN General Assembly in New York and to sign a nuclear agreement with George W Bush administration. |
Link |
India-Pakistan | ||
Qureshi: Pakistan asks for liberal visa regime | ||
2008-06-28 | ||
NEW DELHI: Pakistan wants a more liberal visa regime and improved people-to-people contacts and economic co-operation with India, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Friday. During a joint press conference with Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Qureshi announced that it was time to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir issue.
He told reporters that he and the Indian external affairs minister had discussed the composite dialogue process. He also extended a fresh invitation for Singh to visit Pakistan. Both ministers announced that India and Pakistan sought to build a mechanism of co-operation between their planning commissions to address inflation and poverty. They said terrorism was a common threat and the joint anti-terror mechanism would strive to achieve results through the exchange of information.
Qureshi, who also holds the petroleum portfolio, discussed the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline with Deora during a separate meeting on Friday. Following the meeting, both ministers announced that they had resolved the commercial differences holding up the pipeline. I am happy to report that as far as Pakistan and India are concerned, we have resolved all bilateral issues, Qureshi was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India, AFP reported. We have reached an agreement on the principles of charging transit fee. India remains fully committed to the project, Deora added. | ||
Link |
China-Japan-Koreas |
It's not India vs China anymore ("India is not part of any so-called 'contain China' effort") |
2008-01-16 |
Note that our guys also routinely say we're not part of any "contain" China effort. But we're beefing up the Pacific Fleet, anyway. Just in case. The India vs China syndrome is passe? From now, the global idiom for joint collaborative action will be India-China, says India's Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath, alluding to the growing friendship between the Asian giants. On return from a visit to China accompanying Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, Nath said the engagement with Beijing was an important milestone bilaterally as the two rising economic powers set an ambitious trade target of $60 billion by 2010 - three times the goal set just five years ago. "The engagement was important in the global context as well," Nath told IANS. Much of the global discourse, on trade or climate change, has centred around the fact that the two countries were experiencing steady economic growth - China at 10 per cent and India at 9 - and accounted for a third of the global population. But the two neighbours were also seen by the world as adversarial powers with competing claims to the world's riches, scarce resources and also global pre-eminence - a perception which Dr Manmohan Singh's visit sought to change. There had also been speculation in the Western world about India lending itself to co-option as a buffer in a US-sponsored strategic plan to "contain" China's growing military and economic ambitions. But the Indian prime minister, himself a great admirer of China's success story, insisted he would have no part in any alliance with the US, Australia and Japan aimed at "containing China". "I have made it clear to the Chinese leadership that India is not part of any so-called 'contain China' effort," Dr Singh was quoted as saying in Beijing. He was opting out of notions that New Delhi might, alongside Australia, the US and Japan, become a part of a new "quadrilateral" strategic pact conceived by Tokyo's former prime minister Shinzo Abe before his resignation. But the "quadrilateral" concept has had little traction since then, and Dr Singh's rejection Sunday suggested it might be stillborn. "Solid sustained growth of India and China was only in the nature of being an international public good," the prime minister said, especially at a time when uncertainty gripped the world economy amid fears of recession in US and Japan. The prime minister said growth would not only help India and China but the global economy as a whole. Nath, a strong and influential voice for the developed world in the global trade talks, said the global economic agenda in the future could well be set by India and China - a far cry from the days when the world would say: "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold". He said while the world viewed China and India as rivals in many respects, the two countries were pushing for energy and infrastructure projects in Africa and Latin America, and could drive the growth of these two regions in the future. There is no doubt Dr Singh, who visited Beijing for the first time and saw showpiece infrastructure projects of the Olympic Games, has come back an ardent admirer of China for the way it was managing its developmental problems. "China has become the world's manufacturing workshop. It's a phenomenal story and that is what development should be about," the prime minister told the accompanying media team. "China's achievements are quite remarkable. There is a lot we can learn." Nath, on his part, is convinced this was the "most successful" of official visits that Manmohan Singh had made to date since the reform-minded economist-turned-politician became the nation's prime minister in May 2004. "The Chinese regarded him highly, with Premier Wen Jiabao even telling him that he was the most popular of global figures among the Chinese netizens as a recent survey showed," the trade minister said. This was reflected in Chinese leaders breaking protocol to show their personal regard and admiration for him - like when Wen came out of the state guesthouse in the freezing cold of Beijing to see off Dr Manmohan Singh. Ahead of a meeting with Dr Singh in November 2006, Chinese President Hu Jintao had remarked: "When India and China and shake hands, the whole world will sit up and watch." The Indian leadership now firmly believes the time for such an impact has arrived. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
India govt in crisis: Singh to quit if US N-pact is scrapped |
2007-08-20 |
By Ravi S. Jha NEW DELHI Indias 40-month old United Progressive Alliance government is in turmoil. The government is likely to fall, much ahead of its full five-year term in April 2009 with its key ally, the Communists, putting the Congress-led UPA on ultimatum over the India-US nuclear deal. Political parties yesterday called for fresh parliamentary elections even though frantic attempts are being made to save the coalition from its untimely perish. However, if the UPA government tactfully manages to save its rule, they will have to let go the nuclear deal with the US forever. This could mean an end to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singhs tenure with the UPA government as well. Under the aegis of its chairperson and Congress President Sonia Gandhi, the UPA is likely to look for a change of prime minister, sources close to Sonia Gandhi said yesterday. Besides, it is said Dr Singh has unwittingly triggered the present crisis. Dr Singh may have been advised poorly on how to handle his political allies by mentors, but if the deal is scrapped then he would be in an embarrassing position to tell Washington that the much sought-after Indo-US pact is dead. If the the communists the Left parties having 59 seats in Parliament withdraw support, the government would fall with the country going for fresh polls. The Congress high command is of the view that scrapping of nuclear deal would mean key modification in Indias foreign policy objectives, and to placate the Left, Dr Singh may offer to quit. Congress sources said Dr Singh did offer to resign once, but Sonia Gandhi along with UPAs non-Left allies are keen that the decision on this be taken as a last resort. Congress is looking to find a middle ground with the four Left parties the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the All India Forward Bloc but to no avail so far. Dr Singh, a pro-economic reforms veteran, has never been a favourite of the Left parties for obvious reasons. Dr Singh also propagated a pro-US foreign policy very much on the lines of his Congress party that kicked off such a strategy of opening to the West way back during the pre-reform years of the then prime minister Narasimha Rao. Dr Singh recently said that the nuclear deal was not renegotiable under any circumstances. Peeved by the manner the Left parties issued political diktats to his government even when supporting the regime from outside, he dared them to withdraw support. Now if the government does decide to scrap the deal, he would have to give up his job, it is believed. Dr Singh is supposed to be a political prime minister having experience in executive more than in politics. It is said if the Left parties are made to conciliate by the Congress to save the government then Dr Singhs authority will be in question. Dr Singh has stood up with grit for the nuclear deal saying it is in the interest of the nation. His angry outburst against the aggravated communists telling them to take-it-or-leave-it has cast a shadow on his political image, if not his capable administrative skills as an honest and refined economist. If he resigns, the Congress may find it difficult to convince the world its global standing of being pro-reforms, if he stays with nuclear deal being intact then it could be worse. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
N-deal enters choppy waters: the implications |
2007-08-19 |
By C Uday Bhaskar Just when the historic India-US civil nuclear agreement of July 18, 2005, appeared poised for successful completion, with the consensus on the much contested text of the 123 Agreement having been arrived at in July, the situation looks very bleak in mid-August 2007. The deal has become the proverbial red rag for the principal opposition parties and it now appears that the very survival of the United Progressive Alliance coalition led by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh [Images] in its current form is at stake. While there was an inherent inevitability about the breakdown between the Left parties and their UPA allies even at its very formation in 2004 when the National Democratic Alliance government was defeated, three determinants merit preliminary analysis at this stage. What will be the implications of the current political impasse for India's long term politico-diplomatic, strategic-security and trade-technology interests? The short answer is "adverse." By distorting and deliberately altering the contours of the debate, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left parties are acting in a manner detrimental to India's interests in the early part of the 21st century. In preventing Dr Singh from realising what still is a very prudent agreement, which will enable India in a holistic manner, the opposition stance will ensure a Pyrrhic victory that will keep India in fetters and in the long run -- subaltern to China in the Asian geo-political context. The manner in which the current political debate is being contested indicates that the techno-strategic detail of the 123 Agreement is really a red herring. What is being bitterly contested is the nature of India's external orientation with the evolving strategic architecture of the 21st century -- and the relationship with the US in particular. The agreement has the potential to liberate India from the technology denial regimes and the politico-diplomatic ostracism that has been its cross to bear since May 1974 -- and in many ways admit India into the global 'panchayat' as a credible member. This admittance was being facilitated by US President George Bush [Images] and from inflexible 'estrangement' over the nuclear nettle, the India-US bilateral relationship exuded signs of moving towards mutually beneficial engagement. Clearly this policy shift is at complete variance with the ideological position of the Left parties for whom anti-Americanism is an article of faith. In the case of the BJP, the picture is more complex. The NDA government deserves credit for its May 1998 initiative and the manner in which it restored relations with the Washington Beltway culminating in Bill Clinton [Images];'s visit to Delhi in March 2000. Who could have accused the Indian Parliament of being anti-American when President Clinton received what must rank as the longest and most enthusiastic standing ovation when he addressed a joint session of Parliament at the time? However, the BJP and the Left have now found common cause in stoking anti-Americanism in the Indian polity and while this is being interpreted as cynical pre-election posturing that is part of Indian politics, it is moot as to how much of this will translate into tangible electoral gains at the next general election -- even if it is held well before mid-2009. Thus what we are now witnessing is a degree of manipulative racism and prickly nationalism in the domestic Indian political discourse. Hence engaging with the USA is deemed suspect and denounced as being inimical to India's sovereignty -- even if the assertion is counter-factual. The sub-text of this articulation is that India is better off as part of an elusive Asian solidarity leading to global multi-polarity (to balance the USA) wherein China and perhaps Russia [Images] will play the lead role with India in a complementary role. This is doubly ironic considering that over the last 50 years, China and the US have often acted in a manner that thwarted India's security and strategic interests to advance their own agendas. It merits recall that Beijing [Images] had little hesitation during the latter phase of the Cold War to tango with Washington against Moscow [Images]. But that is the stuff of realpolitik and this abiding tenet of international relations appears to have been lost sight of in the current emotive Indian debate. The current global strategic grid has three major nodes of relevance -- the US, Russia and China. (The EU and Japan [Images] are already part of the US framework.) India has the potential to be part of this grid and it was this deeper intent that impelled the July 18 agreement -- with tacit support from Moscow. An enabled India, free of technology denial fetters and strategic outcaste status will be a swing-state of considerable relevance in the 21st century and this would have made for some degree of credible multi-polarity to emerge at the global level. And this profile would have allowed India to deal more effectively with all the other principal players on the global stage without being subaltern to anyone -- be it Washington or Beijing. To that extent the highly visible nuclear strand of the July 18 agreement was both symbolic and substantive -- the former to herald India's strategic 'liberalisation', and the latter to ensure tangible gains such as the import of nuclear fuel etc. If the opposition parties have their way and the deal is either delayed or scuttled, then the world at large will come to an irrefutable conclusion. India's political spectrum prefers to remain insular and a country of one billion people with multiple aspirations will not be part of the global management grid in a formal sense. The Indian State will remain obsessed with more petty persuasions such as caste, reservations and communal issues. The world will move on and the major players will set the agenda -- be it on politico-strategic issues or the regulation of trade and technology and pressing energy and environmental challenges. Paradoxically, what the world is seeking from India -- access to its middle-class market and the new technology-savvy human resource -- will flourish. The Indian public that can afford it will not be denied the latest mobile phone and education cum employment opportunities abroad. Thus with the obstruction to the nuclear deal, the net result will be a stunted Indian State fending off technology denial regimes and placed below the global management hierarchy as a permanent 'outsider', while the Indian public will be increasingly drawn into the vortex of globalisation -- alas on unfavorable terms. Some facts about India are inexorable -- as for instance its economic and technology potential. The country is already a one trillion dollar economy and there is a sense that we do not need the nuclear deal. This is misleading. India's energy needs have not been met either by hydro-electric potential or coal for 50 years. Unless there is unfettered access to technology, investment, markets and higher education, much of India's proven potential will be exploited at sub-optimal levels. The time-line for realising the various inter-locking procedures such as the IAEA protocol and NSG concurrence is very tight. And above all, the concatenation of circumstances in the US is most favourable now. This may not be the case in early 2009 if there is a change of party in the White House. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Indian independence, one truism about Indian politics is self-evident. The manner in which Dr Singh is being pilloried over the India-US deal proves the adage that honesty, personal integrity, merit and the larger national interest will always be trumped by narrow self-interest in the Indian political arena. |
Link |
India-Pakistan |
'China's interest is our interest' |
2007-08-19 |
The current opposition of the leftist parties -- particularly, the Communist Party of India-Marxist -- to the agreement (the so-called 123 agreement) with the US on civil nuclear co-operation and to India's developing strategic relations with the US takes one's mind back to the days before the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to India in November last year. A Chinese company had won a contract for the construction of a gas pipeline from the Godavari area in Andhra Pradesh. It wanted to bring about 1,000 Chinese engineers to work in the project. The ministry of home affairs and the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India were not clearing the issue of visas to the Chinese engineers. They asked a number of inconvenient questions as to why it was necessary for the Chinese company to bring in so many of their engineers when unemployed Indian engineers were available. There was also a paper prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat of the Prime Minister's Office suggesting that proposals for foreign investments in sensitive sectors such as telecommunications from China, Pakistan and Bangladesh should be subjected to a special security vetting. Sitaram Yechury of the CPI-M, allegedly at the instance of the Chinese embassy in New Delhi, raised a big hue and cry about it and literally forced the Government of India to order the issue of visas to the Chinese engineers and to drop the proposal for a special security vetting for Chinese investment proposals in sensitive sectors. After Hu's visit was over, Times Now television news channel had invited me to participate in a discussion on the visit. Arnab Goswami of the channel anchored the discussions. D Raja, CPI's member of the Rajya Sabha, participated in the discussions from Delhi. I told Raja: "It is surprising that you pressurised the government to issue visas to 1000 Chinese engineers. You were not bothered about Indian engineers not getting these jobs. If a US company had wanted to bring 1000 American engineers, would you have urged the government to issue visas to them?" Raja told me: "Mr Raman, you are an eminent person. You should not mislead people by raising such scenarios." For the last two months, the Chinese authorities have been expressing their concern over reports that India has joined hands with the US, Japan [Images] and Australia to counter the growing Chinese naval power in the region and that the forthcoming naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal involving the navies of these countries plus Singapore is the beginning of this project to counter Chinese naval power and presence in the Bay of Bengal/Indian Ocean region. It is not without significance that the vigorous campaign of the leftist parties -- particularly of the CPI-M -- against the recently concluded Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation and against the growing strategic interactions between India and the US in particular has coincided with the beginning of the Chinese campaign against the so-called quadrilateral strategic interaction involving India, Japan, the US and Australia and the naval exercise with the additional involvement of the Singapore navy. The leftists' campaign against India's relations with the US reflects more China's concerns and interests than those of India. I have never been excited over the Indo-US agreement on civil nuclear co-operation. Nor do I share Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh's [Images] enthusiasm for US President George Bush [Images] and the Indo-US agreement. I am inclined to feel that what we are seeing now is a one-night stand between Dr Singh and Mr Bush. Like most one-night stands, the happy thoughts thereafter will become an embarrassment in course of time. I also feel -- as I have stated on many occasions in the past -- that we should go slow on the development of our strategic relations with the US, keeping in view the fact that we live right in the midst of the Islamic world, and that about 45 per cent of the world's Muslim population lives in the South Asian region. Ours is still a fragile society and we should not create misgivings in the Muslim community by overlooking their sensitivities on this subject. Having said that, I also feel that we should not let the leftists dictate our foreign policy and push it in a direction favourable to China. I find it difficult to discount the suspicion that the leftists have mounted their present campaign to promote Chinese and not Indian interests. After joining the IB in 1967, I went on a visit to Kolkata. Those were the days of China's Cultural Revolution. The Marxists were not yet in power in West Bengal, but were very active. As I was travelling in a taxi from the Dum Dum airport to downtown, I saw the following slogan painted by the Marxists on the walls everywhere: 'China's chairman is our chairman'. The present day Indian Marxists don't say this, but they do believe that 'China's interest is our Interest'. It is this belief which is behind their present campaign against the Government of India. Their hidden motive should be exposed. |
Link |