Sunil's Blog

BJP rejects Pranab's statement, moves breach of privilege against PM- Hindustan Times

2007-08-16T14:37:00.000-07:00

BJP rejects Pranab's statement, moves breach of privilege against PM- Hindustan Times

Lack of maturity and diplomatic incompetence on the part of the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh will be a reason for an opporunity missed for advancing Indo-US relations. The Prime Minister should have known better. It is expected from a democratic leader to engage in serious deliberations with the other political parties before finalizing strategic treaties with other countries. Dr. Manmohan Singh never took advice from prominent leaders like Atalji. The Prime Minister should have invited the former Prime Minister for lunch and discuss the pact before giving India’s approval. He could call Shri Prakash Karat and go over the details before giving the green signal.

I am irked by the Prime Minister's insistence that the 123 Nuclear Pact is non-negotiable. What is this big fuss all about? It appears that both Manmohan Govt and the Bush Administration were in a rush to finalize the agreement before US Presidential elections in 2008 and India's General elections in 2009. So here we are - we have an agreement which is not acceptable to the majority in the Indian Parliament.

If this Pact fails (either in India or in the US Congress) a lot of blame should go to the Prime Minister. On the matters of serious national significance who gives a care if the government falls? The government of today can only use the mandate it has and not pretend that it can do whatever it likes. Instead of threatening the Left Front, the Prime Minister needs to look at his own actions. A treaty can't be legitimate and credible unless the Parliament debates and approves it.

On the matters of national significance and pivotal importance for Indo-US relations, the Prime Minister did not pull up his sleeves to do the fine tuning of the terms of the agreement. What made it worse is that the Prime Minister's advisers dropped the ball too.

To say that the 123 Agreement does not originate from the Hyde Act is like saying that we are Indians but have no relation to Bharat. 123 Agreement cannot be separated from the Hyde Act just like a child's DNA cannot be different from that of his/her father's.

***

US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

2007-08-14T20:07:00.000-07:00

US threatens to scrap India nuclear deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I was under the impression that the Indian Prime Minister told the Indian Parliament that the 123 Pact does not affect India's right to conduct a nuclear test. Let us first read this news that specifically addresses the issue of differences between the Prime Minister's statement and the statement by the U.S. Department of State Spokesman Mr. Sean McCormac. I have also pasted below the text of the Prime Minister's statement.

***
US to scrap nuclear deal if India tests weapons

Wednesday, August 15 2007 (www.philstar.com)

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will scrap a landmark nuclear deal with India if New Delhi conducts an atomic weapons test, the State Department said Tuesday.

The statement came as the two governments gave different interpretations of the controversial nuclear deal's recently adopted operating agreement, also known as the 123 agreement.

"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear cooperation is terminated," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

There is also a "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement," he said.
His comments came a day after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament that the agreement would not affect the Asian giant's military program or any plans to test nuclear weapons.

Singh said "the agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary."
"There is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy," Singh had said.

The operating agreement was officially approved by the two governments about two weeks ago after exhaustive discussions spanning two years.
But US law also requires mandatory Congress approval of the pact.

Legislators, who have vowed to go scrutinize the pact, last year approved in principle the "Henry Hyde Act" allowing export of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India.
The move reversed decades of sanctions imposed after India's nuclear tests.

Copyright 2007. Philstar Global Corp. All rights reserved. This article cannot be published or redistributed without the permission of the publisher.

***

The following is the text of the Statement of Dr. Manmohan Singh before the Indian Parliament.

***

PM’s statement in the Lok Sabha on Civil Nuclear Energy Cooperation with the United States

August 13, 2007

New Delhi

Excerpts of the Prime Minister's statement - this is a preliminary transcript that is yet to be corrected and matched with the official transcription from the Lok Sabha.

I rise to inform this august House that the Government of India has reached agreement with the Government of the United States of America on the text of the bilateral Agreement on Cooperation for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

2. This Government has kept Parliament fully in the picture at various stages of our negotiations with the United States. We have never shied away from a full discussion in Parliament on this important issue. I have myself made statements on several previous occasions – on July 29, 2005 soon after my return from Washington; on February 27, 2006 during which I took Parliament into confidence regarding our ongoing discussions with the United States on the Separation Plan; and on March 7, 2006 following the visit of President Bush to India. I also made a detailed statement in the Rajya Sabha on August 17, 2006 conveying certain solemn commitments to which I shall return shortly.

Our Government has adhered scrupulously to Parliamentary traditions and practices. We have in fact gone far beyond any previous Government.

3. After the conclusion of the Agreement we have also briefed many of the parties represented in Parliament on the details of the Agreement.

4. The Agreement is about civil nuclear energy cooperation. It is an Agreement between two States possessing advanced nuclear technologies, both parties having the same benefits and advantages. The significance of the Agreement lies in the fact that when brought into effect, it will open the way for full civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States. We have negotiated this Agreement as an equal partner, precisely because of the achievements of our scientists and technologists in overcoming the barriers placed around us in the past. This is an Agreement based on the principle of mutual benefit.

5. There has been considerable public debate and discussion on various aspects of the Agreement. On August 17, 2006, I had given a solemn commitment to Parliament and to the country regarding what we can agree and cannot agree with the United States to enable civil nuclear energy cooperation with India. I had stressed that it must be within specific parameters, which I had shared with Parliament. This was an unprecedented measure of transparency on our part even in the midst of complex negotiations.

6. I had given Parliament my assurance that the Government will make every effort so that the vision of the Joint Statements of July, 2005 and March, 2006 becomes a living reality. I believe that we have redeemed that pledge. In concluding this Agreement, we have ensured that the autonomy of our strategic programme is fully maintained, and that Dr. Homi Bhabha’s long-term vision remains our guiding principle.

7. With your permission, I wish to draw the attention of this august House to the main features of the Agreement in some detail. It would become evident that the commitments I had made to Parliament, including those on August 17, 2006, have been fully adhered to.

(i) Full Civil Nuclear Cooperation

Ø The concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in this Agreement. The Agreement stipulates that uch cooperation will include nuclear reactors and aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle, including technology transfer on industrial or commercial scale. It would also include development of a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of our reactors.

Ø A significant aspect of the Agreement is our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel. This has been secured upfront. We view our right to reprocess as a key element of a closed fuel cycle, which will enable us to make full use in our national facilities of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel used in our reactors. This important yardstick has been met by the permanent consent for India to reprocess.

Ø India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing foreign nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. India and the US will mutually agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing will take place in the new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either party and will be concluded within one year. There is no ambiguity with regard to the commitments of both countries.

Ø Any special fissionable material that may be separated may be utilized in national facilities under IAEA safeguards. Thus the interests of our three stage nuclear programme have been protected.

Ø The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. This Agreement provides for such transfers to India only through an amendment. Forward- looking language has been included for dual use transfers of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future. It is important to note that no prohibition that is specifically directed against India has been included in the Agreement.

(ii) The Principle of Reciprocity:

Ø The principle of reciprocity, which was integral to the July 2005 Statement, has been fully safeguarded in this Agreement. There is no change in our position that we would accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. This would also be in a phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this.

(iii) Certification:

Ø This Agreement emphasizes the desire of both countries to cooperate extensively in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as a means of achieving energy security on a stable, reliable and predictable basis. This Agreement further confirms that US cooperation with India is a permanent one.

There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India will be subject to an annual certification process.

Ø Hon’ble Members may recall that the 18th July 2005 Joint Statement had acknowledged that India be regarded as a state with advanced nuclear technology enjoying the same advantages and benefits as other States with advanced nuclear technology, such as the US. This Agreement makes specific references to India and the United States as States possessing advanced nuclear technology, both parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation.

(iv) Safeguards:

Ø As agreed in the March Separation Plan, India has accepted only IAEA safeguards that will be reflected in an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.

We have not consented to any provision that mandates scrutiny of our nuclear weapons programme or any unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. There are explicit provisions in the Agreement that make it clear that this Agreement does not affect our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and that it will not affect our right to use materials, equipment, information or technology acquired or developed independently. India and the United States have agreed that the implementation of the Agreement will not hinder or otherwise interfere with India’s nuclear activities including our military nuclear facilities. Nothing in the Agreement would impinge on our strategic programme, our three-stage nuclear power programme or our ability to conduct advanced R&D.

(v) Fuel Supply Assurances:

Ø I would like to reiterate that the March 2006 Separation Plan provided for an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, with assurances of uninterrupted supply of fuel to reactors that would be placed under IAEA safeguards together with India’s right to take corrective measures in the event fuel supplies are interrupted. An important assurance given is the commitment of support for India’s right to build up strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to meet the lifetime requirements of India’s reactors.

Ø This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India’s reactors. The Agreement reiterates in toto the corresponding portions of the Separation Plan.

It has endorsed the right of India to take corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supply.

Hon’ble Members will agree that these provisions will ensure that there is no repeat of our unfortunate experience with Tarapur.

(vi) Integrity and reliability of our strategic programme, autonomy of decision making and future scientific research and development:

Ø In my statements of March 7 and August 17, 2006, I had assured Parliament that the Separation Plan would not adversely affect our strategic programme, the integrity of the three-stage nuclear programme and the autonomy of our Research and Development activity.

Ø This Agreement does not in any way impact on India’s ability to produce and utilize fissile material for its current and future strategic needs.

Our right to use for our own purposes our independent and indigenously developed nuclear facilities has been fully preserved. The Agreement also provides for non-hindrance and non-interference in our activities involving use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology and military nuclear facilities produced, acquired or developed independently for our own purposes.

(vii) Cessation of cooperation:

Ø An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the Agreement. Both Parties have agreed to take a number of factors into account in their consultations so that the scope for precipitate or unilateral action is reduced.

Cessation of cooperation can be sought by the US only if it is prepared to take the extreme step of termination of the Agreement. India’s right to take “corrective measures” will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.

Ø In the case of termination of this Agreement and cessation of cooperation by either Party, each has the right to seek return of nuclear material and equipment supplied by it to the other. However, before the right of return is exercised, the Agreement commits the parties to consult and to take into account specific factors such as national security, ongoing contracts and projects, compensation at market value, physical protection and environmental issues. India and the United States have agreed to consider carefully the circumstances that may lead to termination, including a party’s concerns about a change in the security environment or a response to similar actions by other states that could impact on national security.

The Agreement stipulates that the two parties recognise that exercising the right of return would have profound implications and consequences for their relations.

Ø From India’s point of view our primary objective is to ensure the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors, in the context of the detailed fuel supply assurances provided in the Separation Plan and these are now reflected in full in the Agreement. The Agreement specifically states in regard to fuel supply assurances and India’s right to take “corrective measures” that there will be no derogation of India’s rights in this regard, including the right to take “corrective measures” to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its reactors. This reflects the balance of obligations consistent with the understandings of the July Statement and the March Separation Plan.

8. Among the significant and innovative features of this Agreement are specific mention of the right to run foreign supplied reactors ‘without interruption’ and to take ‘corrective measures’ in the event of fuel supply disruption. This has been made possible by crafting the provisions in a manner that provide for explicit linkages and interlocking of rights and commitments contained in the Agreement.

9. The Agreement does not in any way affect India’s right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary in India’s national interest. Let me hence reiterate once again that a decision to undertake a future nuclear test would be our sovereign decision, one that rests solely with the Government. There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India’s security and defence needs.

10. If I might sum-up, this Agreement does not in any way inhibit, restrict or curtail our strategic autonomy or capabilities. Our rights to pursue our three-stage nuclear power programme remain undiluted.

In the unlikely event of cessation of cooperation there is no derogation of our rights with regard to corrective measures. Our reprocessing rights are upfront and are permanent in nature. Advanced R&D programmes and IPR Protection are fully safeguarded.

11. As I have said, this is an Agreement for cooperation between India and the US on peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Its genesis is the shared perception between India and the US that both our countries need to address their energy challenges, and address them in a manner that is sensitive to concerns about the environment. For India, it is critically important to maintain our current GDP growth rate of 8 to 10% per annum if our goal of eradicating poverty is to be achieved. The energy implications of this growth rate over the next couple of decades are enormous. Even if we were to exploit all our known resources of coal, oil, gas and hydropower, we would still be confronted with a yawning demand and supply gap.

12. India’s three-stage nuclear power programme holds immense promise for the future. The unique thorium-based technology would become an economically viable alternative over a period of time following sequential implementation of the three stages. We must, in the meantime, explore and exploit every possible source of energy. Nuclear energy is a logical choice for India. Indigenous supplies of uranium are highly inadequate and hence we need to source uranium supply from elsewhere. In a globalised world, technology is always a premium item and we look forward to expanding our horizons in this regard as well. We intend to carry forward our cooperation with other countries in civil nuclear energy, in particular with major nuclear suppliers such as Russia and France.

13. We already have a comprehensive nuclear infrastructure. We have a corps of skilled and technically qualified manpower in this sector. It makes sense for us to leverage this valuable asset. As Hon’ble Members are aware, our target for the year 2020 is 20,000 MW of nuclear power generation. It is quite modest.

However, if international cooperation once again became available, we could hope to double this target.

14. On the basis of the Indo-US bilateral Agreement and the finalisation of an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which is being taken up shortly, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is expected to adapt its guidelines to enable international commerce with India in civil nuclear energy and all dual use technologies associated with it. This would be the beginning of the end of the technology-denial regimes against India that have been in existence for over three decades.

15. Apart from its direct impact on our nuclear energy programme, this Agreement will have major spin-offs for the development of our industries, both public and private. High technology trade with the US and other technologically advanced countries will expand rapidly.

16. I wish to draw attention to another major gain for India from this initiative.

We will be creating opportunities for our scientists to participate in the international exchange of scientific ideas and technical know-how and to contribute to the global effort to deal with the world-wide challenges of energy security and climate change. This includes the International Thermonuclear Research Reactor or ITER project, in which India has already joined as a full and equal member along with a handful of technologically advanced countries.

17. In discussions on this subject, questions have been raised about Government’s commitment to an independent foreign policy. I have clearly spelt out the Government’s position in this regard in my statements to Parliament in March and August 2006. I had specially underlined that the pursuit of a foreign policy that is independent in its judgement is a legacy of our founding fathers and an abiding commitment of my Government. India is too large and too important a country to have the independence of its foreign policy taken away by any power.

Today, India stands on the world stage as an influential and respected member of the international community. There is independence in our thought and independence in our actions.

18. I would like to reiterate that our engagement today with all global powers like US, Russia, China, EU, UK, France, Germany and Japan is unprecedented. Engagement with West, East, South East and Central Asia has been significantly stepped up with visible results. We are building new frontiers in our ties with Africa and Latin America. In South Asia we seek to develop a peaceful environment, one that is conducive to ambitious developmental targets. I urge those who question our commitment to an independent foreign policy to display the same degree of confidence in India, as others from outside do.

19. Thus, there is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy.

At the same time, we must not forget India’s long-standing commitment to the noble ideas of nuclear disarmament and our refusal to participate in any arms race, including a nuclear arms race. Our commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains undiminished. It was this vision of a world free of nuclear weapons which Shri Rajiv Gandhi put before the UN in 1988 and this still has universal resonance.

20. We remain committed to a voluntary, unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. We are also committed to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty or FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament. India is willing to join only a non-discriminatory, multilaterally negotiated, and internationally verifiable FMCT, as and when it is concluded in the Conference on Disarmament, subject to it meeting our national security interests.

21. Despite changes in government and changes in political leadership we have always tempered the exercise of our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility and with a commitment to the ideals of general and complete disarmament, including global nuclear disarmament. This Government believes that our commitment to these ideals and our efforts to realize them must continue, and continue with even greater vigour, now that we are a nuclear weapon state. The possession of nuclear weapons only increases our sense of responsibility and does not diminish it.

22. Pending global nuclear disarmament, India has maintained an impeccable non-proliferation record. As a responsible nuclear power, India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive technologies. We stand for the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime as the infirmities in this regime have affected our security interests. We will work together with the international community to advance our common objective of non-proliferation.

23. There are now other landmarks to cross before the goal of India joining the international mainstream as a full and equal partner becomes a reality. We have to finalise an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Thereafter, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has to agree, by consensus, to adapt its guidelines, we expect without conditions, to enable nuclear commerce with India and to dismantle the restrictions on the transfer of dual use technologies and items to our country. The US Administration is to secure requisite approval from the US Congress. The completion of these next steps will mark the practical realization of this initiative.

24. Our negotiators deserve credit for delivering to the nation an Agreement, which can potentially transform the economic prospects of our country. It is an Agreement that will enable us to meet the twin challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability, and remove the technology denial regimes that have, for decades, been a major constraint on our development.

At the same time, it will bring India the recognition it deserves thanks to the outstanding achievements of our scientists in nuclear and space sciences as well as other high technology areas.

25. This historic initiative has received the steadfast support of President Bush and senior members of his Administration. The strengthening and enhancement of our bilateral relations is an objective that has received his unstinting personal support and commitment. This Agreement is a shining example of how far we have progressed.

26. Finally, Sir, let me end by saying that we have achieved an Agreement that is good for India, and good for the world. I am neither given to exaggeration nor am I known to be self-congratulatory. I will let history judge; I will let posterity judge the value of what we have done through this Agreement. In days to come it will be seen that it is not just the United States but nations across the world that wish to arrive at a new equilibrium in their relations with India. This agreement with the United States will open new doors in capitals across the world. It is another step in our journey to regain our due place in global councils. When future generations look back, they will come to acknowledge the significance of this historic deal.

Thank you, Sir.

***

Left ups ante, Congress puts on a brave face- Hindustan Times

2007-08-13T10:45:00.000-07:00

Left ups ante, Congress puts on a brave face- Hindustan Times

After going through the statement made by the Prime Minister in the Parliament on August 13, 2007, I have two questions for Dr. Manmohan Singh:

(1) Do you have any objections to the fact that India's actions will come under the scope of U.S. Law?

(2) Are you more interested in securing a place for India among the 2nd tier countries in the world or 1st tier of countries?

Please allow me to explain to you what do I mean by 1st tier countries. These are the countries that can have an independent foreign policy without any interference by other members of the United Nations. The 1st tier nations are the U.S, the U.K, Russia, China, France, Japan and Germany.

It seems to me that the 123 Nuclear Pact will put India into the list of 2nd tier countries. Mr. Prime Minister, please remember that moving from 2nd tier to 1st tier is almost an impossible task. Pt Nehru, Smt Indira Gandhi, Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri and Shri Atalji all had the option of taking India to 2nd tier but they chose not to because India deserves a place among the 1st tier countries.

Rest is upto you.!!!

***

IndianExpress.com :: Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat

2007-08-12T16:32:00.000-07:00

IndianExpress.com :: Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat

WOW!!! I am not sure what Mr. Karat is trying to say here. I have been following this 123 Nuclear Pact thing since 2005. Let me try to simplyfy the mess which Congress has created for itself.

Firstly, Dr. Manmohan Singh has completely failed in building consensus on this issue. The very first step should have been to draft a rough agreement keeping in mind what Atalji & Mr. Karat were saying about this pact. Expectations of Indians should have been the beginning point for negotiation with the United States. There is nothing wrong if India could not agree with the US in the end. It is not necessary to have a strategic agreement when majority in Parliament does not agree to it. Dr. Manmohan Singh has acted irresponsibly counting on the Constitutional lacuna that the pact does not require approval by the Parliament.

Secondly, the rush to finalize the pact might have been the reason that it is not acceptable to the majority in the Parliament. Democracy means consultation with the stakeholders. People of India will not forgive the politicians if they pledge next 40 years of India's future without proper consultation and deliberations in the Parliament.

Thirdly, Congress got it completely wrong. UPA Chairperson and the Prime Minister are living under the assumption that the Left Front will continue to support the Congress government to keep BJP away from power. Folks, you are getting it completely wrong. The issue that we are discussing here is not BJP. In fact, we are discussing the sovereignty and independence of India. No wonder that the Left Front is upset with Congress pushing the 123 Nuclear Pact. On a lower lever national politics may be driven on political goals but if you look at the bigger picture responsible political leaders have to act to protect the interests of the country not their political agenda.

The Congress has tied this issue to continuance of the UPA coalition. However, the fact of the matter is that rejection of 123 Nuclear Pact by the Indian Parliament does not necessarily mean fall of UPA government.

I may be wrong but don't you think that a no-confidence motion is required to say bye! bye! to Dr. Manmohan Singh's bad governance? I think that there is nothing wrong with the Left Front's opposition to a no-confidence motion. After all, they have to share the burden of "bad" acts of the UPA government in 2009. I do not believe that the Left Front wants to leave the UPA coalition and wash its hands off the bad deeds of the UPA government.

Next week is most likely going to bring some interesting developments on the Indian political scene. I am sure it is not going to be a political drama but the serious debate will be on the merits of the pact. The sense I get is that majority of the Parliament is serious about this issue, hence, no political stunts are likely to follow.

Here is my question of the day - Is (some politicians') hatred towards BJP more important than the sovereignty of the country?

+++

Ask Congress if it wants to run this govt, says Karat

Rajeev P I

Posted online: Monday, August 13, 2007 at 0000 hrs IST (Indian Express)

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , AUGUST 12

A day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh dared the Left to withdraw support to the government over the Indo-US nuclear deal, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat hit back, saying the Congress should be asked “if it wants to run this government”.
Addressing the media here, Karat fended off queries on whether the Left had thought of going beyond sabre-rattling by considering withdrawal of support to the UPA government as an option. “This government is run on our support. But why do you keep asking us if we would withdraw support? Why don’t you ask the Congress if it wants to run this government?”.

Karat refused to discuss the possible course the Left would take in Parliament. “What we are going to do in Parliament will be decided soon,” he said, when he was asked if the Left would end up voting jointly with the BJP against the government on the issue.
“We are aware that the Prime Minister is very sensitive about his government’s relations with the US, but this is a matter of serious national import,” Karat said, reiterating that the Left would never want the government proceed with the 123 Agreement’s operationalisation.
The UPA should consider the fact that it is running the government with the support of the Left, Karat said, adding the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the ruling alliance did not say a word about the strategic alliance with the US.

“It is the responsibility of the Congress to see that the government does not take any policy which contradicts with the CMP,” he said.
Any discussion or debate in Parliament would show that the government did not have a majority in support of the nuclear deal and the government should heed that message of Parliament, he said.

****

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : 123: Rethink before we go forward

2007-08-11T08:22:00.000-07:00

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : 123: Rethink before we go forward

Shri Atalji has not been able to play active role in Indian politics due to his ill health. The coming few days will test three Indian leaders, (1) Mr. L.K. Advani, (2) Mr. Jaswant Singh, and (3) CPM Leader Mr. Karat. It is my hope that the upcoming Parliamentary debate on 123 Nuclear Pact will be guided by Shri Atalji's wisdom, his impeccable public service record and unparalleled expertise in foreign affairs.

This debate will also give people an idea as to who can be India's next Prime Minister. This is a very important moment in India's history. We should watch all these events unfold. During this debate, we will sourly miss Late Shri Chandra Sekhar Singh, Late Smt Gandhi and Late Sardar Patel.

But we are the custodians of today so the responsibility lies with us to bear this responsibility with sincerity and heart. We need not look for excuses for inaction.

+++

Follwing is an article written by an honest person.

Date:07/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/07/stories/2007080771701100.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion - News Analysis

123: Rethink before we go forward

Special Correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For energy production, the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be marginal. But the strategic costs, in terms of dependence, will be high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One associates government’s PR or news management with propaganda hand-outs that have low credibility and no impact. However, in the case of the India-U.S. nuclear deal, one must concede that the PR machine has been phenomenally effective. Coverage in the powerful media — the metropolitan newspapers and major TV channels — has been so positive (barring the rare exception) that the government may find it embarrassing. Commentators seem to be outdoing even the party spokesman in praising the government. In this climate of group think and positivity, it may be worth stepping back for a few moments and raising a few critical questions from a wider perspective.

First, the benchmark for judging the agreement: should this not be national interest rather than the Indo-U.S. statement of 2005? Does it provide what we need, which is primarily certain technologies and a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel for our civilian power programme, and unfettered freedom to pursue all aspects of our developmental and weapons activities?

The hype about an end to India’s nuclear ostracism is strange. It was by our own volition that we chose many years ago, through different complexions of government and despite pressure, to stay outside discriminatory agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The severe sanctions post our nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 were taken in our stride and our atomic energy programme has continued to progress well. Certainly, these were speed breakers; but the trade-off in terms of degrees of freedom has been worthwhile. Our technological progress and, equally importantly, our growing economy have taken us to the stage where we are in a position to negotiate from a position of some strength. In this context, one certainly feels that what we have got is far too little for what we have given. We have opened up a lucrative market for nuclear reactors, but the equipment and technologies of interest to us — for uranium enrichment and re-processing — will yet not be really available. Even fuel supplies are not guaranteed and our experience with Tarapur, when the U.S. reneged on an international agreement, requires us to create a stockpile. This, and the need to similarly keep an inventory of spares for imported equipment, will unnecessarily add to the cost of power from the nuclear power plants.

While the 123 agreement does open the door to import of civil nuclear equipment (to the obvious delight of U.S. suppliers), this can be taken back at any time. In this context, as expert commentators and U.S. sources have noted, the 123 agreement is, in effect, subservient to U.S. national laws. The Hyde Act has many conditionalities and even seeks to dictate foreign policy. This can be invoked at any time to create serious difficulties for India. While negotiators have clearly made much effort to protect India’s position, the consultation and other processes laid down can work only if there is a strong relationship between the two sides. At any time the relationship sours, everything can be in jeopardy. For example, aside from IAEA inspections — part of the safeguards that we are committing to, in perpetuity — there are end-use conditions that imply U.S. inspections. Irrespective of whether or not this is a slight to our self-respect and sovereignty, such inspections can, in adversarial circumstances, lead to any reports that the sponsor desires, as we know from Iraq, and pave the way for active intervention. As any strategist knows, in international relations there are no permanent friends (the Iraq-U.S. relationship being one case in point).

In any analysis, one looks for motives. In this case, there are two clear U.S. motives, articulated as explicitly as possible by various U.S. sources: the commercial gain from nuclear commerce, and the more important one of containing India’s nuclear weapons programme, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Bringing the breeder reactor programme under international safeguards, pushing India to sign the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and continuing embargoes on uranium enrichment and re-processing are all part of this strategy. Should this be acceptable to us?

A strong India is the world’s best bet for peace and stability in South, South East, and Central Asia, as also in the Persian Gulf. This volatile region, with some two billion inhabitants, needs a strong secular and democratic power from within the region, to ensure stability and to serve as a counterpoise to transnational fundamentalism as also to China. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can play this role, as they will end up stoking religious fundamentalism as has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Like the Americans, the Russians too have no cultural affinity or acceptability in most of this region. It is, therefore, in the U.S. interest to not curb the natural growth of India’s military and ‘soft’ power, so that it can play an increasing role in this region. While many of the Bush-Rice pronouncements have indicated an implicit recognition of this — and, therefore, the talk of “helping India become a major power” — the underlying rationale of many of the clauses of the 123 agreement seems to be aimed at emasculating rather than empowering India. Is the U.S. looking for an equal partner in a strategic relationship or a client state? This choice of U.S. policy is for the U.S. to make.

On the other hand, whether to be forever a second-rung country is a matter for India to decide. Today, countries that face no perceptible military threat feel the need to retain, grow, and modernise their nuclear capabilities (France and the United Kingdom). India, with two nuclear powers on its borders should have at least the same degree of freedom in pursuing its nuclear efforts. This will require enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and may require testing to prove and perfect weapons. Apart from severe constraints on dual-use technologies, the 123 agreement creates a separation between civil and military facilities, doing away with the ambiguity, cost, and facility-sharing that has been an essential part of the programme.

Arguments have been advanced about this being a purely civilian deal with no impact on India’s strategic programme; about how this will help reduce global warming by cutting down on fossil fuels; and even about the role this agreement will play in helping meet India’s energy needs. These hardly deserve rebuttal. For long years, nuclear power will form but a small part of India’s energy production and the incremental gain of importing reactors as against the slower indigenous approach will be little more than marginal. In terms of dependence, supplies of imported coal or hydro-carbons are far more reliable and offer more alternative sources than nuclear fuel. Moving the nuclear energy cycle to thorium as quickly as possible will vastly reduce our dependence on imports, since thorium is plentifully available in India. This, however, requires a strong R&D effort. Demotivating India’s scientific community through a deal that has little support amongst them is not the best way to go about this.

Some of these issues need serious debate, without casting the kind of aspersions that unnamed government sources have been indulging in. The Prime Minister set an outstanding example by having one discussion with some experts who are no longer in government. However, one does not know if their views have subsequently been sought. The strategic and scientific community needs to be heard with respect, especially those experts who are free to speak their mind. An informed public debate is essential on an issue of such tremendous import to the very future of this country.

(The author has had a long association with India’s technology establishment, and prefers a discussion of the issues here rather than his identity.)

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

+++

Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US - International Herald Tribune

2007-08-11T07:12:00.000-07:00

Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US - International Herald Tribune

The Indian Prime Minister seems to living far away from reality. First of all we should know that Left Front doesn't need Prime Minister's advice if it wants to withdraw the support for the UPA government in the Parliament. The real issue here is the ideology. The Left Front may not be able to handle the backlash if it decides to support the Prime Minister on the 123 Nuclear Pact. Supporting the pact would mean that the Left Front will lose support from a part of its core support group i.e., Muslims. Secondly, the Prime Minister seems to be in a rush to go ahead with the 123 Pact right away.

In a democratic system it is not without costs if the Prime Minister decides to ignore the majority in the Parliament.

In my view it is a minor event if the UPA government falls due to differences with the Left over the 123 Pact. Prime Minister should have known it better. He should have taken all major parties in confidence before finalizing the deal. On the matters of serious national significance who gives a damn if the government falls. The government of today can only use the mandate it has AND not pretend that it can do whatever it likes.

Instead of threatening the Left Front, the Prime Minister needs to look at his own actions. A treaty negotiated by bunch of bureaucrats can't be legitimate and credible unless the Parliament debates and approves it.

It may appear that the Left Front is artificially scolding the Prime Minister but issue is lot more serious than that. I do not think that the Left Front has too many options available to them. They can very well abstain from voting or vote against the 123 Nuclear Pact in the larger interest of the country. It is highly likely that we may even see a no-confidence against the UPA government in the Parliament. This debate will put many UPA govt partners on defensive.

***

Here is the text of the article I am blogging:

Indian PM challenges communist allies over nuclear deal with US

The Associated Press
Saturday, August 11, 2007
NEW DELHI: India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has challenged his communist party allies in a deepening rift over a nuclear deal with the United States, saying in a report Saturday they were free to withdraw their support from the government if they object to the pact.

The four-party, Left Front alliance said days ago that it rejected the deal, which allows India to buy nuclear fuel and technology from the U.S., and which has been hailed as the cornerstone of an emerging alliance between India and the U.S.

"I told them that it is not possible to re-negotiate the deal. It is an honorable deal, the Cabinet has approved it, we cannot go back on it," Singh said in an interview published Saturday in the Calcutta-based newspaper The Telegraph.

"I told them to do whatever they want to do, if they want to withdraw support, so be it," Singh was quoted as saying.

Calcutta is a bastion of the communist parties.

While the communists cannot torpedo the deal, which does not require parliamentary approval, they could bring down the Congress party-led governing coalition that they support from the outside.

However, analysts said that while the communists would continue to oppose the deal and closer ties with the U.S., it was highly unlikely that they would bring the government down because they stood to lose too much if the opposition Hindu nationalists returned to power.

"The left will not let the government fall," said Pran Chopra, a New Delhi-based political analyst.

The communist parties declined to comment on the remarks.

Singh said in the interview that the communists only opposed the deal because "they seem to have a problem with the U.S."

During the Cold War, India largely supported the Soviet Union.

The deal allows the United States to ship nuclear fuel and technology to India, which in exchange would open its civilian nuclear reactors to international inspectors. India's military reactors would remain off-limits.

India also needs to make separate agreements with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

***

Deccan Herald - Monsoon session from tomorrow; likely to be stormy

2007-08-09T19:50:00.000-07:00

Deccan Herald - Monsoon session from tomorrow; likely to be stormy

Good Morning India !!! Today India will be electing is new Vice President. The front runner is going to be the winner so there is no suspense. Let us file away that news and move on.

Indian Parliament's Monsoon session is going to start today. BJP wants a debate in the parliament on 123 Nuclear pact with the US. UNPA is also demanding the same. Folks let us not think that BJP and all constituents of UNPA have become anti-US. I think BJP is concerned that the Pact is not in India's long-term strategic interests. My personal take on this is that the pact will lack credibility and legitimacy if it is not approved by the Parliament.

I cannot understand what Indian foreign policy makers see in Iran that they have fallen in love with that country. Is it Muslim appeasement? I am saving that discussion for some other day.

In this blog I am trying to explore possible hypothetical outcome(s) of this issue in the Parliament. One or more of the following things can occur over the next few days:

-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may accept the BJP's request and allow debate followed by voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA does not have enough vote to win this debate in either House.

-- Even if the UPA wins the vote, NDA and UNPA may go ahead and move no confidence motion against Dr. Manmohan's Singh's government. That will put the Left Front in a very difficult position. God know what would be the outcome in that case. Mid-term polls? Oh no.. we should wait till 2009 and let UPA government do more bad work.

-- The Presiding Officers in the both houses may allow debate without voting on this issue. If that happens, UPA is safe for the time being. However, such a move will have huge political costs for the UPA and the Left Front.

-- After debate on this issue without voting, the opposition parties may still move a no-confidence motion against the UPA government on this issue. Once again it will be very costly for the Left Front and the UPA.

My political sense tells me that the UPA government may be heading for some rough time in the weeks to come. Every time the Left Front comes to UPA's rescue, more and more political capital will be spent by both. However, one can argue that both UPA and the Left Front have no political capital because people are frustrated with the performance of the UPA government in last 3 years.

Stay tuned for more updates !!!

****

IBNLive.com > 123, go! Govt walks into US 'trap', Left in lurch : face the nation, indo-us nuclear deal, Left

2007-08-09T14:01:00.000-07:00

IBNLive.com > 123, go! Govt walks into US 'trap', Left in lurch : face the nation, indo-us nuclear deal, Left

The finalization of 123 Nuclear Pact shows lack of diplomatic skills on India's side. There was absolutely no rush to finalize this deal in a hurry. This pact has a huge strategic value for India yet the government of Dr. Manmohan Singh decided to adopt "my way or highway" approach to this matter and ignored other political leaders' concerns on this matter.

It failed to take major political parties in confidence. It seems like all major political parties except Congress, RJD and NCP are against this deal. UPA government did nothing to build consensus in Indian political circles. The UPA government is one of India's weakest governments ever. I have said this before and I think it is not out of place to say it again - The UPA government has not acted wisely on India's international affairs interests. For example, there was no need to be a part of 4 nation group to stake claim for UNSC permanent membership.

Let us see what are the objections raised by the Left Front:

-Foreign policy prescriptions of the Hyde Act remain valid, for example, isolating and sanctioning Iran.

- Non-compliance can become a cause for terminating 123.

- Full civilian nuclear co-operation assurance of the Prime Minister not upheld.

- It denies "cooperation or access in any form whatsoever" to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water production technologies.

- Left is worried that the fuel supply assurances may not hold. "Whether fuel supply will continue even after the cessation or termination of the agreement solely depends on the US Congress".

- Hyde Act requires US to act with NSG to terminate all future supplies.

- India will be deprived of advanced nuclear or dual use technology.

It will be quite interesting to see how Indian Parliament deals with this contentious issue of 123 Nuclear Pact with the US.

Let me try to analyze the political support for the 123 Nuclear Pact in Indian Parliament.

In Lok Sabha 219 out of 545 (Indian National Congress 72, BSP 5, DMK 3, RJD 7, NCP 5)= 40% (Minority in Lok Sabha)

In Rajya Sabha 92 out of 245(Indian National Congress 150, BSP 18, DMK 16, RJD 24, NCP 11)= 38% (Minority in Rajya Sabha)

If the votes were taken today, it is highly unlikely that the 123 Pact will be approved by the Indian Parliament.

Recently, when I asked one of my Indian friends to give an opinion on the 123 Nuclear Pact, I got this response - It is like an Indian girl getting married to an Indian guy in an arranged marriage system knowing fully that it is the bride who will be expected to do everything. The groom can sit around, boss around and take her for ride for next 40 years. During this 40 years period, the groom can torture like hell for reasons like dowry and there is nothing she can do because she can't divorce him for 40 years. When this period of 40 years ends, she will be too damn old to think of divorce and getting remarried to someone else.

Please stay tuned !!!!!

++ Personally speaking, I cannot support the 123 Nuclear Pact unless I see India distancing itself from Iran.(our enemy no. 1)

***

2007-08-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

US Congress to wait and see about 123 agreement- Hindustan Times

After going through the full text of 123 agreement, I feel that I should continue to withhold support or opposition to this pact due to the fact that my opinion may be biased.

Indian media is celebrating big time as if it is a done deal. India's friendship with Iran alone can kill this deal. The problem for UPA government is that it cannot wash its hands with the Iran problem because its Left allies will make the life very difficult for the govt. If India has a right to choose Iran as its friend then why can't the U.S. Congress reject the pact because U.S. has a right not to do business with countries which support its enemies? Let us not forget that Iran is causing lot of trouble in Iraq and we are losing our soldiers there.

As an Indian American, I have always hoped to see India as our equal partner in the world. I also hope that India will overcome the temptation of becoming a country that depends on us. A strong India will be more helpful to us than India which acts like Australia and Poland. If Indian politicians choose to become like Australia & Poland (and many other countries), I am afraid that India will never be able to achieve its goal of becoming a superpower in strategic and economic sense.

I have no doubt that the wisdom will prevail when our Congress and Indian Parliament debate this pact in the weeks and months to come. However, India's aim to become a superpower may be imaginary if its Constitution does not provide for Parliament's approval for all strategic and trade treaties. Lack of that provision in the Indian Constitution weakens the negotiating capacity of Indian diplomats.

In the absence of a Constitutional requirement for ratification of treaties by the Parliament, a weak and incompetent future Prime Minister whose party has overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha can give away Kashmir or make a irreparable harm to India's long term foreign policy under pressure or otherwise. Indians need to move to a politics of consensus on important issues. The checks and balances in Indian system are either non-existent or non-working. Indian people should be encouraged to participate in Parliamentary committees' proceedings so that people know what MPs are doing.

There are many Indian Americans who neither support or oppose this pact. However, Iran issue may push them to take a stand because we cannot ignore Iran factor due to its activities in Iraq. Iran issue makes many of us very uncomfortable.

***

Here is the full Hindustan Times Article published on August 4, 2007:

***

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times
NY/Washington, August 04, 2007

First Published: 11:27 IST(4/8/2007)
Last Updated: 11:40 IST(4/8/2007)

US Congress to wait and see about 123 agreementThe release of the text of the 123 agreement coincided with much of the US Congress preparing to leave for their late summer recess. While staffers expressed concerns that the Bush administration had conceded too much on reprocessing rights and nuclear fuel guarantees, most Washington observers feel the US Congress would eventually vote in favour of the 123 agreement. However, the margin of victory could be smaller than occurred for the Hyde Act. "There is less support today for the deal than there was last November," said an Indian official.

Besides the obvious procedural prerequisites of an India-IAEA safeguards agreement and a yes vote from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, two key obstacles could muddy a congressional okay for the 123:

* The wild card that could trip up congressional support would be any sense that India is consolidating an economic or military relationship with Iran.

* The nuclear deal's traditional opponents, the nonproliferation lobby, will insist India got too much leeway in fuel guarantees and reprocessing rights.

The NSG vote remains uncertain, largely because of the China factor. However, some Indian-American lobbyists like Ramesh Kapur of the Indian-American Security Leadership, believe that if Beijing overplays its hand in the NSG, an angry "US Congress could vote in favour of the 123 without NSG approval."

Questions about India's ties with Iran continue to cloud the minds of many US congressional staffers. Despite repeated State Department explanations, many in Washington believe in a mythical Indo-Iranian military relationship. Says Teresita Schaffer, South Asia expert of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The staffers don't like the deal – they didn't like the Hyde Act either. The key will be to get to the elected members."

Part of the problem is that Congress tends not to look at the big picture and instead focuses on the week's front page news – which is often about Iran.

The US corporate lobby believes Iran is the only issue that could sink the deal.

The nonproliferation lobby, which inspired a petition by 23 Congressmen after the 123 agreement's conclusion was announced, is less of a worry. Michael Krepon of the Henry Stimson Center earlier summed up this lobby's argument: "The Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. It appears that the 123 agreement fails to meet these minimal standards."

Sanjay Puri of the US-India Political Action Committee says at least four of the 23 congressmen are "opinion leaders" on Capitol Hill. "They are all from California. A lot of them were originally troubled by this agreement."

Arjun Bhagat, an Indian-American lobbyist from California, explains this represents a "very idealistic position" common on the West Coast. "Californians would probably vote disproportionately for the US to unilaterally disarm itself of its nuclear weapons." This is not about India, he feels, but about nuclear disarmament. Says Lisa Curtis, regional expert at the Heritage Foundation, "Most members are likely to wait and see how India's negotiations with the IAEA proceed as well as its efforts with the NSG."

US President George W Bush's political decline makes Republican support more difficult to predict. His party no longer automatically takes his lead. Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation strongly believed that the contentious "right of return" clause be part of the 123 agreement. Kapur says, "If we had a vote today, we might see less Republicans ayes and more Democratic support for the deal." Senior Democratic leaders like Senator Ted Kennedy, he says, have indicated they favour the 123.

There are signs that the Indian-American community has been less generous in donations to the Republican electoral kitty, partly because there is no clear Republican candidate. Kapur warns, "This is going to be an uphill battle. Don't take anything for granted." Schaffer agrees, saying the next few months will be a "nail-biter" for the nuclear deal.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=e65f1c02-2bec-42db-88e8-dd77147a15b2
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times

2007-08-05T09:32:00.000-07:00

The Hindu : National : Advani slams Manmohan statement

I could not believe that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lost sleep thinking of (families of) Indians who were involved in London-Glasgow terror plot. Dr. Manmohan Singh told reporters that he could not sleep all night after seeing the mother of the two Indians break down on television. When I read comments made by the UPA Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, I felt that UPA government is being run by a King who is surrounded by cronies and has no idea what is happening in the outside world.

These statements by Dr. Manmohan Singh expressing sympathy with Indians accused of terrorism in Australia and U.K. raise serious doubt about India's commitment to war on terror. By expressing sympathies with the families of Indians accused of terror, Dr. Manmohan Singh has hurt the sentiments of thousands of victims of terrorism in India and abroad. I am afraid that these statements by Dr. Singh have also hurt the feelings of the loved ones of hundreds of Indian soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Kashmir. It is my hope that these statements by Dr Singh do not represent the views of over one billion Indian people.

I do not believe that Indians have forgotten the fact that two of their Prime Ministers were victims of terrorism. It may not matter to Dr. Manmohan Singh but it does matter to us and we will not allow terrorists to change our way of life. If any section of society feels discriminated against or left out, they have a right to use full democratic process and seek justice. There is no justification for using bombs against democracies.

Mr. Prime Minister, where are you living these days? Who has been briefing you on the world affairs? It is high time that you fire your staff and hire some non-chamcha people who can tell you what has been happening in the world. I know this in my heart that your UPA coalition has no respect for the law. Here are some examples :-

(1) Once upon a time one your Cabinet Minister went into hiding to evade arrest on criminal charges.
(2) One of your Ministers has visited a convicted criminal in a Bihar jail.
(3) One of your MP reportedly told the media that the Court might have made a mistake while finding actor Salman Khan guilty of a crime in Jodhpur.
(4) Your Left allies in West Bengal did nothing to prevent Nandigram massacre.

Your statement showing sympathy for the families of Indians accused of terrorism shows your insensitivity towards the human values and the laws of United Kingdom. Mr. Prime Minister please find some time during the day (so that you don not lose your sleep) to think of victims of terrorism in Kashmir, 9/11, 7/11, and 1993 blasts. You are the Prime Minister of whole India not just a group of Indians. Please step up to the plate and deliver tough stance on anti-terrorism efforts. If you keep giving oxygen to terrorists they will come back to harm more people of our civilized society.

Mr. Prime Minister if you are seriously interested in friendship with America, please support us on war on terror and do not provide life systems to the terrorists. If you have decided to have sympathy for terrorists, we will have difficulty with our friendship.

Please take a lesson from your "Partner in Peace" General Mussharaf. No one knows better than him that promoting or supporting terrorists is like writing script for future terrorist attacks.

**

Here is an article that was published in the Economic Times on July 11, 2007:

Printed from

Sleepless in South Block
11 Jul, 2007, 0116 hrs IST,P R Ramesh, TNN

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his minders in the Congress have been known to pander to the minority community with extraordinary indulgence. Last week, the world sat and watched with horror — and then relief — at the botched terror attacks in Glasgow. A couple of days later, while interacting with a group of women journalists in the Capital, he had said he couldn’t sleep. What caused insomnia was not TV clips of the jeep attack on the Scottish airport but the visuals of the distraught mother of the Bangalore boys allegedly involved in the UK terror plot.

The dry-eyed, who have been opposing the PM’s tendency to bend to the will of grievance-mongers and bleeding heart liberals have rightly reminded Dr Singh that he never talked about sleeplessness when gun-wielding, RDX-strapped jihadis attack innocent men, women and children in J&K and other parts of the country. He did not lose sleep when jihadis bombed trains in Mumbai; instead he waxed eloquent about preserving the spirit of the Mumbaikars. When police under the Congress’ charge rounded up members of Tabligh-e-Jamaat for the involvement of hardline community elements in the attack on the Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, his government’s leaders were advising the media to avoid hot-button terms like Islamic radicalism and militant jihadism. And when militants exploded bombs in a Delhi theatre, Dr Singh was presiding over a meeting to recommend to President A P J Abdul Kalam an illegal proposal to dissolve the Bihar assembly.

Naturally, questions are now being asked as to why the PM is indulging in this spectacle of “sensitivity” over the distraught family of the Glasgow bomber. If the attempt was to melt hearts, he has failed in the project miserably. For the discerning, there is nothing wise or compassionate in the PM’s efforts. They fear that it will be seen as the willingness of the ruling side to pander to hardline Islamic opinion. And there is revulsion over the glaring disregard for recent history and a strong feeling that we cannot permit political correctness to keep us from self-preservation.

The PM’s reflexes are not surprising as the regime presided over by him is suicidally persisting with the call for sympathy and the root causes that fuel violence. Even when the men who are tasked with protecting the lives of citizens argue for a new strategy to tackle members of the community who have been infected by the virus of Wahhabism, the itch is to act as public relations agents of liberals. It will affect inter-community relations is the constant refrain.

But anyone with common sense knows that it’s a flawed and dangerous approach. The involvement of the Bangalore boys in the UK terror plot explains the extent of the problem. It has demolished the myth that no Indian can be a member of a militant Islamic group. It also begs the question: why the Bangalore boys, brought up in well-to-do families, just can’t wait to die for the cause of religion. Why do they share the brotherhood’s concern for trans-national grievances such as “Israeli aggression”, “anti-Arab racism” and hatred for the west?

The government’s “commitment to tolerance” has been prompting it to look the other way when a sustained effort is made here to establish the hold of political Islam. Tabligh-e-Jamaat — the same group that indoctrinated the Bangalore boys — have been making a serious attempt to drive home the point that Islam has a different nuance than the rest of India. The ongoing investigations into Kafeel and Sabeel’s past have shown that they actively participated in Tabligh’s protests against Muslims following the customs followed by the rest of the community.

This is not the first time that the government has come across the rising influence of Tabligh. There was clear evidence to suggest that Barelvis were the target of Tabligh’s attack in Malegaon. Barelvis are considered inferior as they persist with “un-Islamic’ practices like ‘Shab-e-Barat’ involving visiting and lighting of candles at mazaars — a custom opposed by puritanical sects like Ahl-e-Hadis from which Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tabligh-e-Jamaat and Deobandis draw their inspiration. The Andhra Pradesh police, which investigated the Mecca Masjid blasts, have also pointed to the role of Wahhabis in the attack. The state administration publicised the involvement of Wahhabis in the blast.

All these point to the need to stop mindless violence in its tracks. The much-publicised insomnia is already being seen as overindulgence of a misplaced complaint that the entire community is being labelled as terrorists. And that will only send an impression that Islamists have made incredible progress in their efforts to play upon the grievance theory. Dr Singh insulates himself from the reality that the rest of us have to live with. May be, it would do the country some good if he skips some sleep and burns the midnight oil to find ways to end the dangerous vacillation on security issues. It may even help him get popular endorsement which he will desperately need less than two years from now.

***

Let LoC convert into Line of Peace: PM

2007-07-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

Let LoC convert into Line of Peace: PM

I am getting a weird feeling after reading some of the recent statements made by Dr. Manmohan Singh. I wonder who has been advising the Prime Minister during the last 2-3 months. Pakistan is heading towards a serious civil war like conflict. Waziristan and Baluchistan are on the verge of becoming Kashmir(s) of Pakistan. We don't even know how long Pervez Musharraf would last in power yet Dr. Manmohan Singh is ready to invest his money and time on the dictator. General Pervez Musharraf is the father of modern Islamist extremism in Pakistan and Kashmir. In my view, he is not capable of getting rid of his own creation. Pakistani Army and Intelligence have been infiltrated by extreme Islamists for many years now. India is making a serious strategic mistake by grating Pakistan an equal status and counting on General Pervez Musharraf as India's peace partner.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister please listen to the people of India and focus on strengthening India's armed forces instead of engaging in cheap vote bank politics. Pakistan is a serious threat to the future of India. You should listen to experts on this issue. Having a joint anti terror mechanism with Pakistan is like asking Dowd Ibrahim to help maintain law and order in Mumbai.

Furthermore, feeling sorry for the families of Indians accused of terrorism is a big and rude slap on the face of people worldwide who have lost their loved ones in attacks by Islamists.

Mr. Prime Minister, it is high time that you join the forces who are fighting against terrorists. You are letting your own people down by not remembering the Indian victims of terrorism. You are worried about the families of the people accused of terrorism. When would you start worrying about the soldiers who died in wars with Pakistan and in Kashmir?

**

IndianExpress.com :: Don’t be arrogant, Patil costly mistake, pull her out: Advani

2007-06-30T13:47:00.000-07:00

IndianExpress.com :: Don’t be arrogant, Patil costly mistake, pull her out: Advani

Congress/UPA nomination of Mrs. Pratibha Patil is likely to increase problems for the ruling coalition. It is troubling to note that there are allegations that Mrs. Pratibha Patil used her political clout to protect her brother in a murder case. Mrs. Pratibha Patil will also carry the legacy of her failed leadership of banks and instances of "loot" in favour or her relatives/friends in the banks headed by her. I feel that Mrs. Pratibha Patil will not be an effective President, if elected. Both politicians and general public will hesitate in accepting her moral and ethical leadership as the "First Citizen" of the country. The high post of President of India will face an integrity draught during the tenor of Mrs. Pratibha Patil.

UPA has been successful in weakening the constitutional institutions like Election Commission by appointing Mr. Navin Chawla as Election Commissioner. We are seeing the results already as it is my perception that the Election Commission now favours UPA and misses no opportunity to take action against NDA/BJP. In Goa there was blatant abuse of Indian election laws but EC didn't take any stern action. Mr. Rahul Gandhi talked about Babri Maszid to capture votes in U.P. elections even though elections cannot be used to inflame religious tensions. No action was taken against him. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi openly wrote letters to Muslim religious leaders to capture their votes but no action was taken. The Congress Party accepted the "fatwa" in its favour during U.P. elections but no action was taken.

I hope the "Rashtrpati Bhawan" would not become a political arm of UPA if Mrs. Pratibha Patil is elected president. There are many exceptionally qualified women leaders in India. There is no shortage of women leaders well respected by a large section of society in India. It is not too late to pick one of those leaders and give India a chance to have an able and non-controversial ""First Citizen" like President Abdul Kalam.

**

Edwards attacks Coulter, defends fundraising off her remarks - On Politics - USATODAY.com

2007-06-27T15:59:00.000-07:00

Edwards attacks Coulter, defends fundraising off her remarks - On Politics - USATODAY.com

Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards did the right thing. Freedom of speech does not mean you can keep offending others without limits by making baseless accusations. Ann Coulter has gained popularity only among hateful audience of not many. We can say worse things about the Bush Administration. But we should remember that we are a civilized nation so we should not stoop low like Ann Coulter and call people "faggot".

I am pleased that there are people in this country who will respond to cheap stunts by some columnists who do these things just to gain popularity. In our society we give lot of value to an individual's dignity.

**

2007-06-24T15:49:00.000-07:00

Dollar `Vulnerable' to Drop in Investment, BIS Says

I am very concerned with ``vulnerable'' dollar. We are the on the top because the world trusts us with their money. If we can't maintain our superiority over others, there is a fear that people will explore ways to put their money elsewhere. We have closed our eyes to our money and opportunities going to other countries like India and China. We have our borders open to state-sponsored migration on our southern borders. We are sending our low paid jobs to India and China and at the same time we are allowing uneducated migrants to cross our borders from Mexico. I am afraid that we might be moving towards a developing country like mentality here.

I am very concerned with India and China's foreign currency holdings. "The Indian rupee has gained 8.6 percent against the dollar in 2007, compared with a 1.7 percent advance for the whole of last year. The Chinese yuan has climbed 2.4 percent so far this year, after rising 3.3 percent in 2006." We might see some Indian and Chinese companies starting to buy U.S. businesses at a cheap price.

2008 presidential elections are still about 17 months away. I am hoping that the Congress will take a note of this emerging situation and will act fast in the larger interests of the country. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHlb_k7gVajg&refer=home

**

Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily - Yahoo! News

2007-06-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily - Yahoo! News

I am having hard time understanding what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace meant when he said that to quit in wartime would be letting down the troops.

The way our system works is that the military officials work under the supervision of an elected government. Secondly, the war in Iraq is in a very critical phase at this time. Thirdly, replacing General Pace before October 1, 2007 might have been a good decision.

General Pace has not been candid in his assessment of Iraq. It is not necessary for us fight all wars that the President likes. War has to be the last of all the solutions to any dispute. At the end of the day someone would have to take the responsibility for our inability to win Iraq war. There can be a long debate about whether we are winning or not winning the war in Iraq.

If we can't win a war after (a) Breaching the sovereignty of a nation, (b) Having thousands of war causalities, (c) Breaching the Geneva Convention and (d) Cooking up the intelligence to make a bogus case for war in Iraq, we need to evaluate our capabilities because next war may not be as small as this one.

It would have been better if General Pace made the way for his replacement so that the country can evaluate its new strategy in September 2007 when many GOP members of Congress would be forced to take a stand on Iraq war or lose 2008 elections.

***

Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links

2007-06-15T11:37:00.000-07:00

Obama camp attacks Hillary's Indian links

A lot is expected out of the President of the United States or even a presidential candidate. This attempt by Obama campaign to tarnish the image of the "Indian American" community has irked me. I do not like to write off a presidential candidate at such an early stage of campaigning. I am indeed getting closer to take Senator Barak Obama off my list as a serious contender for the post of the President of the United States in 2008 elections.

There is nothing wrong in criticising a politician's links to a person or a business owner or a special interest group. However, it is shameful that Senator Obama's campaign is not only targeting the Indian state of Punjab but also the Indian American Community at large. We don't deserve to be treated like this. Targeting a community is purely a racist move because not all Indian Americans are democrats.

Dear Senator Obama, come 2008 your name is unlikely to be on the presidential ballot because you are engaging in dividing the American people among ethnic or racial lines.

**

Action on Sachar committee recommendations soon: Sonia- Hindustan Times

2007-06-14T19:49:00.000-07:00

Action on Sachar committee recommendations soon: Sonia- Hindustan Times

If India wants be become a superpower, it needs to empower its citizens. I have been observing Indian politics for a long time. Indian politicians are best at setting up committees and for placing the action taken reports (ATR) before the Parliament. God knows what happens after that. New schemes come and no one seem to get benefits from these schemes. Sometime I wonder what kind of job security do the Indian bureaucrats have because I don't see any progress on the street. The poor darji (tailor master) in my locality is still there. The world has changed but a place (that I know) named Wazir Pura in U.P. is still the same.

Now Dr. Manmohan Singh shows a lot of care for Muslim people in India. I wonder when did Dr. Manmohan Singh visit a Muslim neighborhood last time? Does Dr. Manmohan Singh know a poor Muslim family for last 30 years like I do? Why not send this report to a Parliamentary Committee and hold public hearings on the subject? Why not invite experts who can tell us how to solve the social problems being faced by Muslims in India? Why not ask poor Muslim families and testify under oath before a Parliamentary Panel so we can ascertain why they have been left behind?

I have asked for a full copy of Sachar Committee report so that I can take a first hand look at the findings of the committee. I am getting bits and pieces in the media reports. I don't like what I have heard so far.

As a layman, I can summarize the Sachar Committee Report as a medical report talking about a patient suffering from anemia without any discussion about the causes of the disease (anemia) and prescribing that the patient be given 10 units of blood. The patient may be bleeding internally or may have other serious health conditions but I don't think Indian politicians care because after all it is a question of their "vote bank".

India cannot afford to leave any segment of its population behind if it really wants to influence the world in next 50 years. The consequences of leaving Muslims behind are going to be painful for the coming generations of all Indians.

As a society we need to take pains to find out if Indian Muslims are suffering because of (1) their family size, (2) lack of equal rights for the women, (3) reasons for children not going to school, (4) curriculum of the schools where children are being educated, (5) multiple marriages or divorces, and (6) lack of legal framework to hold the earning parent liable for the care of children in case of separation or divorce.

I will be writing extensively on this issue after I get the full text of Sachar Committee Report.

I will be dedicating my work on this issue to my High School teacher Mr. Naim Uddin Sir who helped me with my studies and showed me the way to success. Like we say in America, it takes a village to raise a child. Naim Uddin Sir was a very important part of that "village" for me.

***

Heat on Fed to ban abusive mortgage practices - MarketWatch

2007-06-14T19:14:00.000-07:00

Heat on Fed to ban abusive mortgage practices - MarketWatch

Comments of Sunil K. Dixit before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, N.W. Washington, DC 20551

Public Hearing; Request for Comment – Date of Hearing June 14, 2007

Home Equity Lending Market – Docket No. OP-1288

My name is Sunil K. Dixit. I am submitting these written comments to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Rule Making Authority of the Board

The Board should play an active role in formulating rules not only to prevent abusive lending practices but also to ensure that credit is extended to only those borrowers who can establish their ability to repay the loan as per the terms of the loan. Board should exercise its rule making authority over all loan products available in the market including A paper, Alt A, Subprime, 2nd Mortgages, Fixed rate, Exotic, Adjustable Rate Mortgages, and Home Equity Loans. Today there are hundreds of products available in the market but there are no uniform underwriting guidelines used by all lenders. Therefore, the first and the most important step in the direction of reforming mortgage industry would be to standardize products available and underwriting guidelines.

There are many lenders or brokers who are licensed to do business in several states. There is a need to make some important changes in the way mortgage lenders and brokers are licensed. In my view, there should be one federal license for mortgage brokers. Having one national mortgage license for mortgage brokers would be similar to how stock traders are licensed. State regulations on mortgage brokers and/or lenders are burdensome and make compliance difficult for the brokers who originate loans in several states.

Prepayment penalties

Should prepayment penalties be restricted? For example, should prepayment penalties that extend beyond the first adjustment period on an ARM be prohibited?

Prepayment penalties should be restricted. For example, no prepayment penalty should be allowed on the loans on borrower’s primary residence or first time home buyers or people who have fully documented their income. Borrowers above a certain FICO score should not be subjected to any prepayment penalties on non-investment properties. The amount of prepayment penalty should not be more than 3 months’ interest. Prepayment penalty should only be allowed to be calculated on a fixed rate disclosed at the time of origination of the loan.

Would enhanced disclosure of prepayment penalties help address concerns about abuses?

Prepayment penalty disclosures need to be improved. In addition to these disclosures the lenders should be asked to provide sample computations for calculation of prepayment penalty for each loan. Prepayment penalties should not be allowed on high LTV/CLTV loans. Prepayment penalties on high LTV/CLTV would make it very difficult for the borrower to refinance should his/her financial situation and credit scores improve a period of time. Prepayment penalties should not apply in case of sale of a primary residence.

How would a prohibition or restriction on prepayment penalties affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?

Lenders claim that prohibition on prepayment penalties will limit the availability of loans to borrowers with imperfect credit. Prepayment penalty should not be used to punish the borrower if he/she has taken a loan on his/her primary residence or his credit scores have significantly improved. A borrower should be free to choose any lender during anytime during the life of the loan. However, as a relief to the lenders, a borrower may be subjected to prepayment penalty during the first 9-12 months of the loan. Prohibition on prepayment penalty should not have a negative impact on the mortgage industry. In a competitive market lenders will need to adjust to this reality if prepayment penalty is prohibited or restricted.

Escrow for taxes and insurance on Subprime loans

Should escrows for taxes and insurance be required for Subprime mortgage loans? If escrow were to be required, should consumers be permitted to “opt out” of escrows?

Due to high debt-to-ratio (DTI) allowance for underwriting Subprime loans it is natural that the Subprime borrowers are left with lesser residual income than the conventional borrowers after payment of mortgage installments, property taxes and insurance. A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance.

Consumers should be allowed to “opt out” of escrows without paying any extra costs at the time of originations. We know that mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible for the purpose of calculating taxable income under the IRS rules. The tax deductibility gives borrowers an opportunity to reduce their tax withholding or tax liability at the end of the year freeing up extra money every month going into their pockets. They can use this cash to pay property taxes and insurance. In my view, it will be logical to make escrows mandatory in case of non-primary residence.

Should lenders be required to disclose the absence of escrows to consumers and if so, at what point during the transaction? Should lenders be required to disclose an estimate of the consumer’s tax and insurance obligations?

A big step in this direction could be to require the lenders to provide the borrower a “Projected Monthly Cash Flow Statement” with other disclosures highlighting the residual monthly income after payment of borrower’s monthly debt obligations, mortgage payments, property taxes and hazard insurance. This statement can be provided along with other loan disclosures at the time of issuing the loan commitment.

How would escrow requirements affect consumers and the type of terms of credit offered?

Both mortgage interest and property taxes are tax deductible and provide extra cash to borrowers in shape of lessening their tax liability. Therefore, lenders should not use escrows to increase the cost of home loans or charge extra from the borrowers. Presence or absence of escrow requirement should have no impact on the type and terms of the credit.

“Stated income” or “low doc” loans

Lenders have introduced some very creative loan programs such as “stated income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents”. These programs allow borrowers to state income on the loan application without having to provide documentary proof to support the income so disclosed, or provide little documentation to support income or assets, or show no income on the loan application, or leave income, employment, assets and liabilities blank on the loan application. One would think that these creative loan programs promote homeownership for all Americans. On the contrary, these programs have created an anomaly in our home mortgage system and have opened doors for possible abuse both by borrowers and lenders.

Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for certain loans, such as loans to Subprime borrowers?

The most important question is that if a borrower cannot document the income, what would be the criteria to ensure that he/she can afford to make housing payments? Or what would be the control procedures to ensure that the borrower has not overstated the income to qualify for the loan?

Few suggestions can be made to address the problems created by “stated income” or “no income” programs:

(1) Availability of “stated income”, “no income”, “no ratio”, “no documents”, and “super no documents” programs must be strictly regulated. These loans should be available to borrowers in very exceptional circumstances and only after thorough scrutiny of income and assets. These restrictions should apply to all borrowers including the Subprime borrowers. It should be mandatory for all borrowers to sign IRS Form 4506 so that the lender can verify borrower’s income from the IRS. The loan should not be funded unless the IRS verification of income is completed.

(2) Mortgage interest deductibility is a great tax incentive for homeowners. However, this tax deduction should not available to all taxpayers. The mortgage interest deductibility of the mortgage interest paid by the borrowers who obtained mortgage using these creative mortgage programs should be subjected to restrictions under the tax laws. Borrowers who cannot document their income should not be entitled to the benefits of the tax laws. If one has to take the benefit of the tax laws, it is important that income shown on income tax returns can be reconciled with the income shown on the mortgage application. If tax deductions are based on actual income then why the mortgage interest deduction should be allowed on a loan obtained by one of the above creative mortgage loan programs?

(3) For stated income borrowers, the income indicated on form 1003 (application for housing loan) should be reported to the IRS database so that the IRS can reconcile borrower’s 1003 income with the taxable income reported on the tax returns for that year and subsequent years.

(4) For all stated income loans, originators must be asked to sign an affidavit confirming that they do not have any knowledge of borrower's income being overstated and they have satisfied that the borrower complies with the underwriting criteria of a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

Should stated income or low doc loans be prohibited for higher-risk loans, for example high loan-to-value ratios?

Stated income or low doc loans should not be prohibited for high-risk loans. Instead, all borrowers’ income should be verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans.

How should a restriction on stated income or low doc loans affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?

If borrowers’ income is verified using IRS form 4506 for all types of loans, there will be no impact on consumers because loans would be made available only to those who have the capacity to repay the loans.

Should lenders be required to disclose to the consumers that a stated income loan is being offered and allow the consumer the option to document income?

The lenders should be asked to provide a disclosure to the borrowers indicating that their income would be verified with the IRS using IRS form 4506 and that the loan will not be funded if the verified income is not enough to qualify for the subject loan.

Unaffordable loans

Should lenders be required to underwrite all loans on the fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments?

All loans should be underwritten with fully-indexed rate and fully amortizing payments. The debt-to-income ratio with taking into consideration fully-indexed rate should not exceed 50%.

Should there be a rebuttable presumption that a loan is unaffordable if the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio exceeds 50% at loan origination?

From all practical purposes, a loan allowing debt-to-income ratio of more than 50% is unaffordable. Let us assume an average (hypothetical) income tax rate of 25%, an average (hypothetical) state tax rate of 3.5% and 7.65% FICA and Medicare deduction. The total deduction on account of these taxes would be 36.15% of the gross income. After adding 36.15% to debt-to-income ratio of 50%, the borrower would be left with only 13.85% of the gross income to take care of other living expenses.

Are there specific consumer disclosures that would help address concerns about unaffordable loans?

None.

How should such provision affect consumers and the type and terms of credit offered?

Home loan should be offered only to those who can afford to make a full repayment. It doesn’t not make sense to stretch the guidelines to give loans to borrowers who are unable to prove that they can pay back the loan.

***

'Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners. Market forces alone will not protect our most vulnerable homeowners.'

— Mark Pearce, deputy commissioner of banks in North Carolina

2007-06-06T10:54:00.000-07:00

World Politics Review | U.S.-India Nuke Deal Could Hinge On Behind-the-Scenes G-8 Meeting

I am wondering if this is the time to write obituary on the sad demise of U.S.-India nuclear deal.

I think the two key issues holding up this deal are:

(1) India’s demand that it must be allowed to reprocess the extra nuclear fuel, and

(2) India’s right to carry out nuclear experiments.

There is a growing discomfort in the U.S. political circles with India’s relationship with Iran. Perhaps, India is making a serious diplomatic mistake by not distancing itself from Iran. If India was so keen to maintain its independent foreign policy and closeness to Iran, it should not have negotiated a nuclear deal with the United States. A lot has been said in Indian media about India’s right to maintain good relations with any country it wishes (in this case Iran). I wonder if Indian politicians recognize America’s right to deny concessions on the nuclear deal.

With all fairness to Bush Administration, America has a right to protect its sovereign and strategic interests just like India does. A democratic controlled Congress, with most probably a democratic president in 2008, would result in more adverse attitude towards India on this nuclear deal. Time is running out for both parties.

The million dollar question is: -

Would the U.S. Congress go along with the Bush Administration if it made concessions to India’s satisfaction to close the deal?

In my view, there is still some (little) chance that the deal would be done before President Bush leaves office in 2008.

In the end, I must say that India is making a serious mistake by upgrading the status of a country like Iran. Iran has never supported India in time of need. It would do the same in the future. I am at complete loss that India finds a country run by Mullas so dear to its foreign policy.

***

2007-06-05T10:21:00.000-07:00

BJP at sea in Rajasthan- Hindustan Times

Mr. Vohra seems to belong to the Elite club of Indian media that doesn’t look at the bigger picture while analyzing issues that have serious impact on the country as a whole. The recent week of violence in Rajasthan is an ugly indication what the caste based reservation policy can do to put a country in chaos. It also shows that there is a general disconnect between the public and government in India both at centre and state level.

Mr. Vohra seems to think that recent violence is only going to have an impact on BJP. I most respectfully disagree. I think the recent agitation by Gujjar community would have serious ramification for the future politics of India. This agitation also refutes the UPA claim that reservation and quotas promote national integration. BJP and Rajasthan government were not “ill-equipped” to deal with the situation as claimed by Mr. Vohra. The fact of the matter is that the same agitation caused serious disruption of public life in Delhi during the Delhi Bandh called by Gujjars. It does not matter if you live in Delhi, Mumbai, Sydney or Los Angeles. If hundreds of thousands people come out to protest and disrupt the public life, there is very little you can do.

You don’t even have a system where you can charge the costs of loss of property to the organizers of these kinds of protests. If that was the case Tamil Nadu should have lost a sum equal to one day of plan allocations from the Centre since DMK government organized a “Bandh” there.

My questions for Mr. Vohra:

Do you think that the present UPA government is ready to deal will fast growing dissatisfaction in the Indian society with the politics of quotas/reservations?

What do you think that DMK government would do if the courts reject its policy of reservations/quotas in excess of 50% as stipulated by the Honourable Supreme Court?

I must remind Mr. Vohra that BJP is NOT a family business like many other Indian political parties. The answer to the question whether or not there is a serious threat to Raje government would depend on BJP leadership not one (God like) leader like in many other parties. The decision would be made by the collective leadership of BJP.

It is not out of place to mention that unlike UPA & Mr. Arjun Singh who believe in the politics of dictation as was evident during OBC quota stir in India, BJP has always believed in the politics of participation and negotiation. The UPA believes in “my way or highway” method of governance. However, Raje government wanted to make sure that Gujjar community does not feel oppressed.

In India corruption is so widespread that the scandals are common in all states. The CM spends more time outside the state is no reason to link the issue of reservation to her performance. Mr. Vohra states, “The general view is that an assurance should not have been given to the Gujjars in the first place. But when an administrative and political solution was not in sight, the state government should have used some method to transfer the issue to a judicial body.” I urge Mr. Vohra to review the promises made by other politicians in India. For example, UPA still claims that it will do OBC quotas in all circumstances.

My next questions for Mr. Vohra:

What would you say about UPA promises if the Honourable Supreme Court finds that OBC quotas are unconstitutional?

Can you make a promise to provide reservation/quotas based on a person’s religion in a secular country?

Mr. Vohra should know that there is a set criteria for determination of ST status. Before rushing to judgment, the author should have taken some pain to describe the criteria for determination of ST status in India. To say that the political measures can only be thought of by political persons and not by the kind who surround the CM at present is unfair to the BJP as a party and the Rajasthan CM. A Chief Minister can keep any advisors and this is not our call to judge the capabilities of those individuals unless we can give examples of inefficiencies.

Now let us talk out the possibility that the CM Raje may be axed. It is the prerogative of a political party to replace its CMs, PMs or any other officials at any time. We should not read too much into changing of guard in Rajasthan. Replacing CMs is something common in Indian political system.

I strongly favor changing of CMs mid-way during a legislature’s tenor to thwart the anti-incumbency factor in elections. It also gives a chance to the new leadership to bring about positive changes which the earlier administration could not do.

There is nothing wrong in calling mid-term polls either. There is nothing unusual, unlawful or undemocratic about it. Completion of the full term is no the only criteria for success. I must say that the present UPA government gets a grade “F” for its performance even though it will compete its full term (most likely).

Furthermore, BJP’s performance in UP has no relationship whatsoever with the recent crisis in Rajasthan. I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. The recent Gujjar agitation would have more impact on UPA than on BJP. UPA is the coalition that believes in dividing the country along the caste and religion lines. The recent crisis has more dangers for UPA’s future than BJP. BJP has always believed in fairness and justice for all.

I strongly feel that Indian columnists and political pundits should analyze the impact of Rajasthan crisis on India as a whole. In my view, India should start investing in education of ALL children if it is serious about becoming a superpower. This vote bank politics for reservation and quotas is taking India nowhere. You need to provide HEALTH, EDUCATION & FOOD to every child in India if you want to compete with the rest of the world. If you want to shine, you must empower your people.

**

Dollar Weakens, Gold Up in Europe - New York Times

2007-06-04T12:08:00.000-07:00

Dollar Weakens, Gold Up in Europe - New York Times

The Bush Administration would be remembered for its legacy of do-nothing government. Since coming into the power, Mr. Bush has been busy in promoting his ideological beliefs than doing the things for the common good of average Americans. There has been a total disconnect between the Main Street America and the Bush policy makers. I can give many examples to prove my point but I would like to keep this discussion confined to the current state of American dollar. However, one good example of Bush Administration’s loss of contact with people was obvious when Hurricane Katrina hit several states on the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005.

The falling value of American dollar should be a matter of great concern for all of us. It is not clear if the Bush Administration wants a stronger or weaker dollar. I am not sure if there are many things out there that Bush Administration can do to stabilize American dollar. We have been living under two assumptions i.e., (i) we have unlimited financial resources, and (ii) our financial strength is such that no other economy or a group of economies can ever get ahead of us. We are strong proponents of free markets. We don’t realize that there is no such thing as a “pure” free market unless every country in the world becomes a 100% free market economy. You got to adjust your policies in a way that matches the interests of your country both in the short and the long term.

We are counting on China to appreciate Chinese yuan so that American dollar can become weaker vis-à-vis Chinese yuan. The result would be increased costs of American imports in terms if American dollars. American consumers will have to pay more for their purchases. My gut feeling is that this action may worsen inflationary pressures on the American economy. Increasing prices of American imports from China may also decrease the demand for the good produced in China. For all technical purposes, it is safe to assume that Chinese may find it necessary to reduce their American dollar holdings in U.S. bond market if the demand for Chinese goods slides. In that case, I suspect that the increased pressure on the U.S. bond market would move the interest rates higher.

There can be no dispute that having an indifferent approach to the value of American dollar is NOT the best policy. Weaker American dollar reduces America’s buying power for international acquisitions and mergers. A weaker American dollar will definitely give more power to foreign companies. If American consumers’ buying power is significantly reduced, it would have devastating impact on domestic companies’ bottom line. As a country we need to shift away from the “borrow and spend” method of living our lives both at the personal level and at the national level. We got to bring fiscal discipline if we want to control our future standard of living. The financial success and prosperity of the future generations depends on our fiscal discipline.

I personally don’t think that the Federal Reserve can do too much to bring about a significant change in the way we handle our economic policies or our discussions regarding falling decline in dollar’s value. The members of the Federal Reserve are the bosses of money supply. They have no control over how American economy fits in the global picture and the actual behavior of American consumers and businesses. I take a very grim view of how American policy makers have handled our economic and fiscal policies in the recent years. We need to take immediate steps to strengthen American dollar if we want to maintain our way of life, innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness and standard of living. We need to control our Budget spending and government subsidies.

I am very concerned about the future of mortgage market in the U.S. The situation is still unfolding. We would not know the real impact till mid 2008 when many ARMs will become fully indexed and monthly mortgage payments will go up for some American consumers.

**

2007-05-28T13:53:00.000-07:00

Burns coming to iron out 123 pact- Hindustan Times

The Indo-US 123 Nuclear Agreement is most likely going to die if nothing is done this coming week when American Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns visits India. The agreement is 90% there. But the remaining 10% about the reprocessing rights and India's right to carry out Nuclear experiments are significant issues. The UPA government of Dr. Manmohan Singh will have to give in if it wants the deal to go through. Anything less that what the Bush Administrations is asking for is not going to work. The US Congress is unlikely to make concessions that India has been asking for. Bush Administration may make some concessions for India but it is no guarantee that those concessions would be approved by the US Congress. India's relations with Iran are making US lawmakers very uncomfortable and rightly so. Iran with a nuclear bomb would be a threat to the world peace. India cannot have it both ways. The UPA government should have thought about these issues before getting into 123 Nuclear Agreement.

For all practical purposes one can say that the UPA government is living in a dream world. India is trying to work out a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group to start nuclear commerce with the rest of the world. New Delhi is clear that the waiver should be "short and comprehensive".

(Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_seeks_quick_waiver_from_NSG/articleshow/2055613.cms)

If 123 Nuclear Agreement dies, India's efforts with the NSG would turn out to be futile. India should not expect too much from the NSG unless it is willing to make serious concessions on 123 Nuclear Agreement with the US. NSG might just wait it out till the agreement is cleared by the US Congress.

It seems that John Howard's party is going to be defeated in Australia's general elections later this year. If Australian Labour Party comes into power, it will be impossible for India to get any concessions from Australia. Labour Party is unlikely to resume nuclear commerce with India. Australians have already started giving indications to this effect.

".....observers are taking policy speeches at Labor Party's Sydney conference with much more seriousness. The Australian opposition party is expected to win the government in elections held later this year."

"Senator Chris Evans, Labor's energy spokesman has made it abundantly clear that Labor government would not sell uranium to India as the South-Asian country has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

(Source:http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=82518acb-1c73-4be8-b790-2436d5827fef&ParentID=1c7f2f09-fc38-4fdd-962c-fc0963ddc310&&Headline=India+can+bomb+us%2c+says+Aussie+party)

**

2007-05-27T14:41:00.000-07:00

How can BJP govern India minus Muslims?

Mr. Sudheendra Kulkarni is a noted political analyst. His article on BJP’s defeat in the recently help U.P. elections provides some useful hints for BJP as a political party and also to the parties who vehemently oppose the BJP. Mr. Kulkarni has asked some valid questions in this article. I am venturing to find answers to those questions in this blog.

Question 1. If Mayawati’s triumphant and praiseworthy concept of Sarvajan Samaj (all-inclusive society) has a place for Muslims, why is the BJP so queasy about accommodating Muslims in its own electoral strategy?

Answer: Behan Mayawati’s (BMW) latest experiment with UP politics is very new. It has not been tested by the divisive politics in UP. Behan Mayawati will have difficult time in keeping all constituents of Sarvajan Samaj together. UP is the hot bed for caste and religion politics. It is highly unlikely that this model will succeed unless Behan Mayawati is willing to sacrifice some of the core principles of BSP. It appears to be a power sharing arrangement for now.

BJP does not have problems with Muslims being a party of BJP’s national political agenda. However, BJP is right not to adopt the politics of accommodation for any caste or religion or any other group. In the politics of accommodation, it is impossible to govern a state or country. Different factions pull the party or the government in the different directions to promote their vested interests in politics of accommodation.

However, I have a strong feeling that Muslims have been pushed away by some extreme positions of a faction of BJP. Muslims will be better off working with a government which treats all citizens equally rather than working with so called secular forces that box minorities in their vote banks and use them as needed. My suggestion to Muslims is that they should join BJP in large numbers and try to influence it policies. If thousands of Muslims decide to join BJP, I have no doubt that it will field more Muslim candidates. BJP will have no choice but to accept more people like Navjot Singh Siddhu (minorities) into its political agenda.

Question 2: Why didn’t the BJP field a single Muslim candidate in any of the 403 assembly constituencies in a state where Muslims constitute 18.5 per cent of the population?

Answer: As a party when you do not have a base among a group of population, it is hard to find suitable candidates belonging to that group.

Mr. Kulkarni is right when he finds (partial) justification in BJP’s opposition to the Muslim “appeasement”. You create second class citizens when you adopt policies of appeasement. People do not become independent, self-sufficient and prosperous by taking government’s welfare money (of few hundred rupees every month). They become equal when they have equal opportunities and equal chance to compete with other citizens.

Question 3: But is it practicing its own precept — namely, “Justice for All” — when it neither takes up any just issues of Indian Muslims nor feels morally and ideologically obliged to give due democratic representation to such a huge section of Indian society?

Answer: Dear Mr. Kulkarni, in a free democratic society no one gives representation to anyone. You need to make efforts to find your place in the society, political domain and the government. BJP was in power when India elected a fine and capable President like Mr. Kalam. Let us not forget Najma Heptulla. Late Mr. Sikandar Bhakht was also from BJP. I will not be surprised if more prominent Muslims work with the BJP in the years to come. India badly needs a nationalist agenda and a backbone if it wants to become a permanent member of the UNSC with the Veto power. If India (especially its UPA government) is thinking that other countries would come to India and offer the Veto power, we may be living in a dream world. India will need to flex its muscle and use all types of diplomacy and force the world community to accept India as a veto power on UNSC. It has made a fatal mistake by giving too much importance to Pakistan. Pakistan must be told in clear terms that blocking India’s way to UNSC will permanently damage relations with Pakistan. Let us continue that discussion at some other time because we are focusing on BJP here.

Question 4: How can the BJP hope to govern India if it continues to have an emotional disconnect with Indian Muslims?

Answer: Muslims will gain by coming to the BJP and making it a diverse party. They have a better chance to succeed if they come to BJP because BJP is not run like a family business.

My prediction is that BJP will reach out to Muslims and encourage them to join BJP as members and make a difference themselves. The fact of the matter is that BJP wants Muslim leaders like late Maulana Azad and late Frontier Gandhi to come and join its cadres but it does not know to how to make that possible. BJP moderates like Shri Jaswant Singh may have to do something to bring about the change. India's push for globalization will have serious impact on India's future domestic policies. If a large majority of Indians (including Muslims) do not benefit by India's growth rate @ 9% per annum, Indian politicians better find some other occupation. My gut feeling is that the future Indian elections will be focused on policies not religion or caste.

**

2007-05-24T11:23:00.000-07:00

Poll Shows Opposition to Iraq War at All Time High - New York Times

63% of Americans disapprove the way President Bush is doing his job. There are plenty of claims and counter claims about who won the first round of war between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of conditional war funding. Democrats are wise enough to take this conditional war funding battle to the next round instead of giving an anxiety attack to voters while 2008 elections are 17 months away. Democrats know it well that if the GOP continues its support for war, there is a fair chance of political Tsunami -08 in favor of democrats. It is in the best interests of the democrats to linger on this battle of war funding because for all practical purposes, the Congress don't have the votes or will power to shut off the money supply to Iraq war. Growing opposition to war is also going to support democrats in Presidential polls in Nov 2008. Investigations launched by various Congressional committees (into the workings of the Bush administration) would at least generate negative public impression of the Bush administration and the GOP. It is not a far fetched imagination if these investigations yield some prosecutions of present or former members of Bush administration.

Furthermore, I am looking with a magnifying glass to find a credible GOP presidential candidate acceptable to the GOP base, so far I have failed to find one person who can challenge the democrats in 2008. Both McCain and Guilaini are moving away from what they have believed in for many years. They are changing positions and making statements that will most likely make them unacceptable to both the GOP base and the Independents. In today's America you can not be pro war with anti war views and pro choice with anti abortion stand at the same time. The speed at which the world is changing, the younger Americans would care less about these issues. GOP may find itself standing on the odd side of issues because next 50 years will demand that Americans become more educated, competitive, and global. All this pressure will give little time to young America to get carried away by these debates of present day.

**

The Hindu News Update Service

2007-05-17T12:22:00.000-07:00

The Hindu News Update Service

In the history of free India, this is the first time when the Central government has acted irresponsibly while dealing with a delicate constitutional issue. It is a sad phase in Indian democracy when the Constitution has been used to advance political agenda and strengthen the vote banks. It is my view that this case will turn out to be a landmark development for the future of India. Since 1947 all governments have done nothing to uplift the people. If you give education to all children, you would not have to worry about quota or reservation. The same maid has been working at my home in India for more than 20 years. Is this upliftment of SC/ST/OBCs? Sooner or later, India has to realize that elections and politics should be based on "what have you done for us?" and "what do you plan to do for us if you win the election?" These are the questions that Indians must ask politicians during the elections.

The NDTV.Com reports, "the following are some of the questions that the larger bench will look into:

What is the government's yardstick for measuring backwardness and how are the beneficiaries identified?

Should the concept of creamy layer apply to admissions as is the case in jobs?

Should the term Socially and Educationally Backward be replaced with Socially and Economically Backward?"

We should wait for the final verdict by the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. It is my hope that the final verdict will put the break on government's tendency to amend the Constitution for political gains and create further inequalities in the society.

**

Now, BJP plays a secular tune

2007-05-17T12:09:00.000-07:00

Now, BJP plays a secular tune

It confuses me when I see mainstream media in India accusing a national party of being communal. No one asks these media outlets about what is the definition of "secularism". If one reads the law properly, no Indian politician is supposed be talking about religion at all. No religious organizations can campaign in the polls. A letter written by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to Muslim leaders during UP polls soliciting their support is perhaps a non-secular act. In India the government, politicians and the elections are supposed to be "free" from religion because as per the Constitution India is a secular (without religion) state. The way politicians conduct themselves in India is purely non-secular. No government actions can be based on siding with one religion or the other or people belonging to any particular religion. Mr. Sripad Naik is right when he asks religious outlets to stay away from politics. He is right to say - "Not just church, we want that even Hindu institutions should keep away from politics,".

**

2007-05-17T09:44:00.000-07:00

Encounter opens up old wounds across India- Hindustan Times

This is great piece of journalistic work by these two Hindustan Times journalists. They seem to have avoided the temptation of journalistic support for UPA coalition politicians. We should not take Sohrabuddin case to be the last case of (fake) or otherwise encounter in India. Problem of encounter is widespread in India and is not something new. Sohrabuddin case has been used to politicize a serious problem that Indian society refuses to confront for many decades. India needs Police reforms to ensure a clean police administration and rule of law. What happens in India is that you start out your career as a criminal and your trip to the elective bodies will be short. The burning examples are many tainted ministers in Behan Mayawati's (BMW)cabinet. There is one convicted RJD MP sitting in the jail. There is another convicted JMM MP sitting in the jail. I have always wondered what it is like to be an IAS or IPS officer in India when you vow to follow the law and your boss is a convicted felon. How do you think that convicted felon can participate in public policy debates and uphold rule of law? My gut feeling is that first you have to empower individual citizens so that they can rise against felons and not let them become celebrities. In the US a criminal conviction of an elected official means end to his career. In this era when India is trying to replicate US model of life, is it hard to kick out convicted or tainted politicians from the public life? Or you want to wait till the Honourable Supreme Court cracks it whip?

**

Amar Singh dares Maya to arrest him-Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

2007-05-14T16:47:00.000-07:00

Amar Singh dares Maya to arrest him-Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

I have great admiration for Mr Amar Singh solely because he is very close to Amitabh Bachchan's family. In today's world it is very difficult to find loyal friends. From time to time, people try to drag Amitabh in the middle of controversies but he has always maintained the dignity of human relations. He has always treated others with dignity. I have been away from India for a long time but I don't remember exactly how Mr. Amar Singh came to public domain. From what I have seen on the television and read in the media, Mr. Amar Singh doesn't seem like a politician. One thing that I have noticed about him is that he likes to keep in headlines. If media doesn't pay attention to him, he finds a way to catch attention. It is my gut feeling that Mr. Amar Singh should not worry about getting arrested due to three reasons:- (1) Behan Mayawati (BMW) has her eyes on the Centre i.e., right now she may be thinking that it is a possibility that she can even become the Prime Minister of India if her social-(re)engineering model is replicated during the to next general elections, (2) Mr. Amar Singh has same constitutional rights as other Indian citizens, and (3) according to affidavits filed by the 49 ministers (in Mayawati cabinet), 22 have criminal cases pending against them, 16 have been accused of committing crimes like rape and murder and 10 Ministers out of 19 ministers of cabinet rank have criminal cases pending against them. Therefore, Behan Mayawati doesn't have time to worry about Mr. Amar Singh. My advice to Mr. Amar Singh is to focus on Bollywood because there is more entertainment there than in Lucknow. Every loss in elections should teach a lesson to losing politicians. It may be time for Mr. Amar Singh to focus on issues like poverty, education, international affairs and India's fiscal policy.

**

Karuna was upset with Maran's phone call to state home secretary- Hindustan Times

2007-05-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

Karuna was upset with Maran's phone call to state home secretary- Hindustan Times

This is a troublesome development in Tamil Nadu. Mr. Karunanidhi wants to maintain full control over the state. It is only possible in India. A Chief Minister should be worried about serving the people not launching a new TV channel. Dayanidhi Maran has consolidated his financial position since UPA came to power in 2004. Media has not focused on him so it is hard to say if there is any corruption involved in his functioning. DMK has polarized Tamil Nadu politics since it came to power. People who attacked the Sun TV station must be arrested. I feel that Mr. Karunanidhi and his sons are unnecessarily worrying about the future DMK leadership. The issue should be left to the people of Tamil Nadu. Politicians are only custodians of today in a democratic setup. There is no way to guarantee future victories in elections. "Ram Setu" issue is heating up. The outcome of trial of His Holiness Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Jayendra Saraswati, will be an indicator where the Tamil Nadu politics is going. Controversial reservation laws and the Ninth Schedule issues will definitely put Karunanidhi government in the dock. I remain concerned about the LTTE factor in Tamil Nadu. I hope that UPA's "soft" and "healing touch" policy and lack of a strong anti-terror law would not embolden LTTE.

2007-05-12T08:48:00.000-07:00

Mayawati to be sworn in as CM on Sunday-India-The Times of India

BSP's victory in U.P Assembly elections is a good sign for Indian democracy. Behan Mayawati (BMW) is ready to become UP's Chief Minister. I hail from UP so I am going through mixed feelings after watching UP election results. The credit for BSP's victory goes to Mayawati's simple campaign style. Her campaign was well organized. She delegated responsibilities to other leaders in her party. In a country where most of the political parties are run like family business, it was noticeable but pleasant change for democracy lovers. She focused on people from different castes and religions. Congress was busy in appeasing Muslims during the campaign. But Muslims in the state realized that Congress was not going to do anything for them. COngress has used them as a pawn for political games and leverage. Mayawati was not interested in talking about reservation instead she was seriously focusing on law and order and development. Indian politicians should learn a lesson from UP elections. I have been writing about this since long time but I must remind Indian politicians that the future Indian elections will be about policies not religion or castes.

I am very disappointed with BJP's performance. Even more disappointed I am by media speculations that UP elections would weaken, the BJP President, Mr. Rajnath Singh (http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=86331). I am not happy that the BJP did not take responsibility for its poor campaign strategy and execution. Mr. Rajnath Singh should have called Mayawati to congratulate her on BSP's victory. He should have assured her of full co-operation for UP's development and improvement in law & order situation. It is not too late. I hope that one of the senior BJP leaders in U.P. would congratulate her and support her while she fixes the ills of Mulayam Singh government. I can say for sure that U.P. electortate would have appreicated such a polite gesture from BJP leadership.

I don't believe in personal attacks, but it seems to me that some BJP leaders were campaigning in UP as if they were on vacation. I was in India in February this year. I could easily see BSP making headway because people I spoke to were most concerned about corruption, law & order, and division politics. BJP's campaign speeches did not impress me at all. I was missing Ms. Uma Bharti in the campaign. U.P people were looking for next leader for the state and BJP could not deliever one. Even today, I am not sure who was going to lead BJP if it won the election. I am sure there are many other Uma Bhartis in BJP. Charisma of Atalji is missing from BJP's words and actions.

BJP should have allowed younger leaders to come forward and execute its campaign strategy. BJP leaders should immediately stop creating negative environment for Muslims. I would strongly suggest that BJP should setup a task force to identify ways to integrate all religions in its cadres. We all know that BJP cannot become an extreme non-secular organization because by doing so, it would not be able to contest elections. BJP has some prominent Muslim leaders, like Nazma Heptulla, who are well respected by all. BJP should seriously think about how it can bring people from all walks of life under one tent. Instead of praising Jinnah, BJP needs to talk about Adbdul Hamids, APJ Kalams, and Maulana Azad. If you wonder who Abdul Hamid was, please save yourself embarrassment and read about India's 1965 war with Pakistan. Most of the Muslims who stayed back in India in 1947 were hoping for a better future, but, what have the political parties given to them? Isolation, separate Civil Code, unequal rights for Muslim women and have used them for political gains. I am a part of less than 1% minority in the US. I will never allow such a thing happen to me. Muslim leaders have betrayed them. Politicians have filled their vote banks yet no one cares about the future of country. When was the last time when Mrs. Sonia Gandhi spoke about Muslim women's rights, education and poverty among Muslim population?

If I was working with Mr. L.K.Advani, first thing I would do is setup a cell in BJP for Muslim women under Dr. Nazma Heptulla and come up with ways to improve their education. health and rights. BJP needs to support NGOs, setup think tanks, and go to the people.

2007-05-10T14:34:00.000-07:00

US launches campaign for more foreign investment - Yahoo! News

We should expect real change in this regard only after 2008 US Presidential elections. Bush administration has not paid enough attention to America's long term strategic financial interests. We have been living by the notion that American companies are going to continue to dominate the world marketplace. The fact of the matter is that the companies do not necessarily have nationalities. Businesses work in their own interest. For example, if an American company heavily invests in China & India, few years from now it will be knows as an Indian or Chinese company. Corporate governance cannot be based on a company's origin. If you live in a country and do business there, sooner or later you will have to adept to living and doing business there. With the passage of time, nation origin of a company will slowly disappear.

"Treasury figures showed the number of Americans employed by foreign firms declined from 5.7 million in 2000 or 5.1 percent of the private sector workforce, to 5.1 million, or 4.7 percent in 2005." This a warning signal for the future of America. The talent pool is increasingly becoming diverse. American kids would have to work hard to keep their country competitive. India and China are teaching their students about US and other Western economies. We, in the US, are still teaching our kids European History. American kids need to learn more about other countries and focus more time on core studies such as engineering, math, biology and medicine instead of debating abortion, stem cells research and gay rights. Values or as we call them "Sanskars" come from the family and upbringing not from the government or the courts. We need to start paying more attention to kids and what principles they believe in.

As we are learning now that there was no real debate in the Bush administration prior to Iraq war and still not one person in the administration resigned on moral grounds or in the interest of the country. This is a vivid example of how values and principles are slowly disappearing from our society. We might become a society without "values" or "ethics" someday.

2007-05-10T12:10:00.000-07:00

150th year of India's First War of Independence to be inaugurated- Hindustan Times

India is celebrating 150th anniversary of the Rising Day - Gadar. The significance of Gadar in India's freedom struggle does not need further elaboration. Today is the day to pay our tributes to the people who launched the freedom movement against a very powerful empire. In 1857 it would have been hard to imagine what a free India of 2007 would look like. Lets bow in honour of great martyrs who showed us the way to a free and democratic life. We should be grateful to them for showing us the path to freedom and liberty. As we wipe our tears in the memory of Gadar martyrs, we must remind ourselves that freedom and liberty did not come cheap. We must be grateful to those who had no hesitation in paying the price for freedom with their lives. They may no longer be with us because all humans come to the world as travellers but their memories are enshrined in the soul of the nation, people's freedom and country's desire to promote democratic values.

Apex court to rule on all reservations - livemint

2007-05-10T12:03:00.000-07:00

Apex court to rule on all reservations - livemint

The legal fight over OBC quota is nearing its outcome. As Honourable Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat outlined, there are four issues at the heart of matter being considered by the Honourable Court : -

(1) Is reservation the only mode for affirmative action?

(2) If yes, is caste the main criterion or is it economic (status)?

(3) How long will reservations go on? and,

(4) The slippery creamy layer (rich OBCs who don’t really need reservation).

With all due respect to the Honourable Court, it is not the time to make speculation about the outcome of the case. However, one can fairly assume that the decision in this case will prove to be a turning point for (a) development of Constitutional Law in free India, and (b) future of affirmative action or use(abuse) of affirmative action for political gains.

2007-05-08T22:17:00.000-07:00

The Hindu : National : India won't be cowed down: Deora

When Dr. Manmohan Singh included Murali Deora in his cabinet, he was presumed to be pro-western politician like Chidambaram. If I remember correctly, media felt that Mr. Deora would promote better relations with the U.S. When I read about Mr. Deora's statement in Rajya Sabha (Petroleum Minister Murli Deora said, "I assure you that India will not be cowed down by any threat.")

I felt that his words are inconsistent with the actions of the UPA government. Dr. Manmohan Singh's government has been very close to the Bush administration. His statement may have won him praise from his UPA coalition's MPs but it is unlikely to impress those US lawmakers who are worried about India's growing relations with Iran. There should be no doubt that the lawmakers who recently (I think on May 2, 2007)wrote a letter to Dr. Manmohan Singh mean business. These lawmakers belong to both Democratic and Republican parties.

India's interest in building pipeline which is going to pass through Pakistan is definitely not wise. Pakistan is far from being a democracy. Having financial and strategic relations with Pakistan will prove to be dangerous. India has to choose whether it wants to be friends with civilized societies or the countries ruled by extremists and mullas. Mr. Deora should not forget that President Bush won't be able to help UPA government if the US Congress took a serious note of India's cooperation with Iran. I think India is making a tactical mistake (one of many by UPA coalition) by ignoring the US advice. Friends dont threaten friends, they offer advice. The days of Cold War are over. Indo-US relations have significant financial and strategic implications. Closer ties with Iran would definitely be one of the reasons to kill the Indo-US nuclear agreement. President Bush cannot amend the law. As it seems now, Congress is unlikely to give India any more concessions. I am one of the people who believe that Indo-US agreement would be catching the dust if the law is not amended prior to 2008 US presidential elections.

I wonder where have gone the days of India's excellent diplomatic abilities which we saw under Smt Indira Gandhi and Atalji. I am afraid that cronies have taken the place of intelligent diplomats and Chankayas that India used to have.

Recently when President Bush called Dr Manmohan Singh, Indian media was elated. It makes me wonder if Indian analysts really think through how Indian politicians handle international affairs. A call from Bush does not mean that Indo-US nuclear agreement is going to be amended and enacted into law by the Congress. Newly elected Democratic Congress will ask lot more questions than the last "enabler" Republican Congress did. Some anxious days are ahead for the UPA coalition when it would have to deal with nuclear agreement and amendment to the US law.

2007-05-08T17:46:00.000-07:00

RSS funding hate against non-Hindus- Hindustan Times

This article caught my eye by accident only because I usually do not RSS feed for VHP or RSS. When I found this article on the Internet, I was at complete loss for a moment as to how funds can flow from India to US when Indian government still has strict foreign exchange regulations. As I started reading the details of this article, I was further confused. We have constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression in the US. All American citizens are entitled to express their political and religious views without fear of oppression by the government. People have a right to promote their religion and the principles they believe in. I would like to urge the author of this article to read about debates we have in our country about gay rights, abortion, immigration, terrorism and so on... All sides of these debates feel passionately about their beliefs and life goes on. I think the author's attention is misplacd about religious hatred in America. In daily walks of life, we Americas do not recognize others by their religion. There are seldom discussions about religion with people you know or don't know unless you are meeting them at a religios gathering. People do not care what your religion is when you are in school or at work or you are watching sports or shopping. Government does not have the power to destroy any places of worship unless the matter was settled in the court. Now the big question that comes to my mind is - how can one class of people create hatred for the other?

Then I decided to do some research about India Development and Relief Fund (http://www.idrf.org/). I did not find any political or religious agenda on its web site. It seems to me that it is a NGO. If this organization is indeed a religious outfit promoting extremism or hatred, I am sure the UPA government of Dr. Manmohan Singh would have already banned it. Laluji would have lost his sleep over it. In my recent memory of Indian politics I have never seen so many secular leaders governing the country at one time.

Unlike India our American society is not polarized along the religion. People belonging to all religions are free to express their views. Within the boundaries of the law, all Americans are free to pursue what they like to do. As a society we are more concerned with terrorism. We do not have a state government in our country which can help organizations like LTTE. We do not look at the religion of the criminals. If a terrorist should get death penalty, his/her religion will not matter to us. When our children go to school, teachers and the government do not identify them by our religion. Every religion has extreme believers and they are entitled to express their opinions without fear. It applies to all religions, therefore, singling out Hindus is unjust to Indian Americans. Most of us love our religion (whatever it is) and respect others'. In the name of secularism, we Americans will not give in to Osama Bin Laden or Al Quaida or any other terrorist outfit like LTTE.

The fact of the matter is that there is more religious hatred in India than in America. The Indian society is facing the problem of division for political gains. The politicians spread hatred there to maintain the vote banks. No one ever cares to uplift the people and provide them essential services. Politicians claim that they are secular, yet they make policies based on religion.

In nutshell, the author of this article seems to claim that India's religious hatred is somehow being exported to America. For all practical reasons, we must note that if activities of any of the organizations listed in the article were illegal, these folks would be prosecuted. We don't have a system of law enforcement based on people's political clout, religion or ethnicity.

2007-05-04T13:05:00.000-07:00

Forget Iran or friendship is over: US lawmakers

This is no brainer to see posisble decline in Indo-US relations. The UPA government has completely failed to formulate a solid and long term foreign policy for India. Traditionally, if a democratic country wants to establish and retain its influence in the world community, there should be no significant changes in foreign policy with the change in government. Dr Manmohan Singh is recognized for being a scholar in the area of Economics but world diplomacy is a brutal game. There are no permanent friends and enemies. A lot of thinking and shrewd attitude towards the future are needed for a sound foreign policy. UPA coalition can be termed as a marriage of odd domestic political interests. India's long term strategic interest is much more important than natural gas flowing from Iran or good or not so good relations with the US. UPA government has put India in a spot where the country will have to make some tough choices. Some of these choices may or may not be in India's long term strategic interests. Lack of foresight has put India in a bind where it might have to just reject Indo-US nuclear agreement. This did not have to happen. India could maintain excellent relationship with the US and yet reject Iran completely. Iran would never be India's strategic partner. Iran always sides with other Islamic countries even if that means standing against India. UPA foreign policies have been filled with flip flops. Indian foreign policy under UPA government has been very immature. India's candidate for UN Secretary General was vetoed by US. India's claim for UNSC permanent membership never got an endorsement from the Bush administration. India still did not get the hint. The US foreign policy is driven by its long term strategic interests. India's long term strategic interests are not necessarily same as those of the US. Now we will have to wait till next general elections in India before any big change in the foreign policy can be achieved. It is very likely that US Congress would be harsh towards India because President Bush is a lame duck President with low approval ratings. The era of GOP congress acting as enabler for the Bush administration is over. There would be more oversight hearings and it will be impossible for Bush administration to make any concessions to India on Indo-US nuclear agreement.

NSG clearance not imminent: Bildt- Hindustan Times

2007-05-04T10:02:00.000-07:00

NSG clearance not imminent: Bildt- Hindustan Times

Indo-US nuclear agreement is proving to have become headache for both countries. It appears that it was a part of India's calculations that an agreement with the US would immediately open the door for the Nuclear Supplier Group's (NSG) prefrential treatment towards India. Once again, it seems like the case of a diplomatic blunder by Indian government. Dr. Manmohan Singh's UPA government should recognize that NSG might be dragging its feet waiting for finalization of the Indo-US nuclear agreement or perhaps, the Bush Administration has asked the NSG to slow down so that India can be further pressurized to cave in to tough negotiation by the US. As the time passes, it is increasingly becoming clear that India will have to significantly restrict its nuclear program if it wants to seal the deal with the US and to get free pass from the NSG. NSG memebers might be playing good cop bad cop game with India. Alas, Dr. Manmohan Singh was a politican not a banker.

N-deal ball back in India’s court- Hindustan Times

2007-05-03T20:26:00.000-07:00

N-deal ball back in India’s court- Hindustan Times

Indo-US agreement has become a fish bone stuck into UPA government's throat. Dr. Manmohan Singh's government is going to have hard time swallowing it because of India's nationalist nuclear scientists. Let us not forget that these scientists decided to stay back in India and work on India's ambition of becoming a superpower while many left the country and decide to work in other countries. It is very unlikely that these scientists will digest highly intrusive IAEA inspections. Dr. Manmohan Singh's government has tried to bully and pressurise these scientists in the past but without success. Many hawks in the US have argued that Indo-US nuclear agreement is not in the interests of US either because it will open the doors for such agreements by Russia and China. Rigidity on the US side is an indication that this agreement will take its last breath if nothing gets done under Bush administration. Many hawks in India view this agreement as a poor diplomatic choice of Dr. Manmohan Singh government, and perhaps a compromise with India's sovereignty. It also shows how poorly Indian politicians and diplomats understand the US political system.

2007-05-01T11:33:00.000-07:00

'India could revert to pre-1947 state'

India is definitely in a situation from where things can get worse. The UPA government of Dr Manmohan Singh has been a government for only few people. DMK's rule in Tamil Nadu bolsters the activity of LTTE in Sri Lanka. DMK government fails to arrest Mr. Vaiko for his open support for the LTTE. Then there is left ruled government in West Bengal which is run by CPI(M) militia. Nandigram and Singur are just mini examples of how brutal CPI(M) militia can be. The administration has failed to check the left militia. This poses a serious danger to the country in the long run. There are many criminals or people accused of crimes sitting in Indian parliament. Dr. Manmohan Singh's government has failed to check Naxalites. There are no signs of hope at present.

TN to seek Centre's view on Vaiko issue : Tamil Nadu government, Centre, Congress, Vaiko, LTTE, comment : IBNLive.com : CNN-IBN

2007-04-29T14:11:00.000-07:00

TN to seek Centre's view on Vaiko issue : Tamil Nadu government, Centre, Congress, Vaiko, LTTE, comment : IBNLive.com : CNN-IBN

It is shocking that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister needs to consult with the Centre on the issue of Mr. Vaiko's support for LTTE and Tamil Terrorists. Mr. Chief Minister, law & order falls within your duties as Tamil Nadu's CM. Why are you passing the buck? The time that you have been spending on creating quotas and reservations for Muslims and Christians should be spend on national security and anti-terror efforts. There is no hope from the CM because UPA government at the Centre is already lax on anti-terrorism measures.

2007-04-29T13:46:00.000-07:00

Law of land will be supreme in Afzal Guru case: Kalam- Hindustan Times
Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam has once again shown his astute statesmanship. Indeed the Indian law will take its course on the matter of death penalty for Mohammend Afzal Guru. It is unfortunate that Dr. Kalam is not the Prime Minister of India. UPA government led by Dr Manmohan Singh has compromised with India's national security by closing its eyes on terrorism with the single purpose of wooing Muslim votes. Dr. Kalam is right, development politics is the key to India's future. Lets hope that vigilant opposition parties, the honourable Supreme Court and people of India will not let UPA government cause serious harm to India's constitution and its secular nature. Since 2004 UPA government has done nothing but divide the people and carry out repeated insults to the Constitution and Constitutional institutions. The debate about supremacy of the Parliament is politically motivated. There is no dispute about Parliament's powers to exact laws. At the same time there can be no dispute that the Supreme Court has the power to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Parliament does not have the authority to tinker with the original fundamental principles on which the Constitution is based.

Tamil Nadu Considering the Ban of Pro-Tiger Political Parties - ToTheCenter

2007-04-28T15:04:00.000-07:00

Tamil Nadu Considering the Ban of Pro-Tiger Political Parties - ToTheCenter
Since UPA came to power at the Centre in 2004, India's overall response to terrorism has deteriorated significantly. UPA government of Dr. Manmohan Singh fails to understand that efforts against terrorism must continue. UPA government does not think that anti-terror laws are needed in India. India is a victim of Pakistan and Bangla Desh sponsored terrorism yet UPA government has closed its eyes on the situation in Tamil Nadu. DMK government is not doing enough to counter LTTE's support from within Indian borders. LTTE has the capability to conduct air strikes against Sri Lanka. This situation should worry Indians because history is witness support for any form of terror will only come back to hurt its sponsors as we have seen in Pakistan. Not only LTTE supporting political parties be banned but also there is need to seal Tamil Nadu coast so the LTTE can not get support from the state and to prevent infiltration by LTTE elements in Tamil Nadu. A victim of terrorism must have sympathy with other victims because it is a global problem. If that is not the case for DMK then India's claims for fight against terrorism are mere hypocrisy because DMK is a partner in UPA coalition at the Centre and its minister are part of Dr. Manmohan Singh's cabinet.

House panel approves subpoena for Rice - Politics - MSNBC.com

2007-04-25T14:09:00.000-07:00

House panel approves subpoena for Rice - Politics - MSNBC.com

The quality of governance provided by the Bush Administration should get "F" grade. GOP has been acting as enabler for the Bush Administration since he came to power. It seems that Bush has forgotten that our Constitution provides for an oversight by the Congress. All the officials of Bush Administration are accountable to the public through the Congress. Now there seems to be no logic in Secretary Rice's pretending to be too busy for the Congress. We haven't seen any improvement in America's image in the world or improvement of the situation in the Middle East since Secretary Rice became busy for the Congress. This is such a lame excuse to say that the Secretary of State is too busy to find time to testify before a Congressional Committee. Defence Secretary Gates doesn't make that excuse because he knows what the law of the land is. There is no one above the Constitutional requirements. So Secretary Rice, please find time to testify before the Congress. You would not be able to enjoy enabling similar to the one you received by the GOP controlled Congress. There is no harm in telling the truth.

NDTV.com

2007-04-24T11:44:00.000-07:00

NDTV.com

The Honourable Supreme Court agreed to hear the OBC reservation matter on May 8, 2007. It may be termed as a victory for HRD Minister Arjun Singh. Now the SC has given 10 days to all sides to prepare their pleadings. One has to wonder now what kind of implications this decision might have on the outcome of the case? The fact of the matter is that the case will be decided on evidence and the main issue is the Constituionality of the Act under dispute. It is highly unlikely that the UPA government will come up with new facts to get a decision in its favour. This early hearing date of May 8, 2007 might just give the Supreme Court's final decision on the issue of OBC reservation in Higher Education Institutions run by the Government. The HRD Minister might have shot on his own foot in a hurry.

BJP not an enemy of the Muslims: Nazjma Hepatulla- Hindustan Times

2007-04-23T13:02:00.000-07:00

BJP not an enemy of the Muslims: Nazjma Hepatulla- Hindustan Times

Nazjma Hepatulla makes an objective assessment of how minorities have been treated in Post-Independence India. Rahul Gandhi's comments about how Gandhi family partitioned Pakistan is rather childish. Bangla Desh freedom was the result of freedom movement led by late Mujibur Rehman. It was a result of sacrifice of brave Indian troops and financial sacrifice of Indian people after 1971 war. Rahul Gandhi's comments are an insult to Late Smt Indira Gandhi and brave Indian soldiers.

The fact of the matter is that the BJP cannot be an enemy of any minority group including Muslims. Indian constitutions is very clear about India's secular status. In the long run, it will be beneficial for Mulsims to join BJP in large numbers because this is the only political party in India which believes in equality for all citizens. The welfare money coming from the Govt can never make any citizen rich. What makes the big difference is the right to equality and equal opportunities for all Indian children. Muslims should not depend on Congress and its UPA allies because all they want is to use Muslim votes to cling on to power not to uplift the health, education and social status of all Indians including Muslims.

US Treasury chief pleads for 'strong' dollar - Yahoo! News

2007-04-21T16:35:00.000-07:00

US Treasury chief pleads for 'strong' dollar - Yahoo! News

It is shocking that the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is depending on China to strengthen the value of US dollar. Secretary Paulson has long track record in business, therefore, he must know that when you send the economic (production) machine overseas and mass production is shifted out of your country, you are likely to have artificial economic effect on the US economy because there is no use of raw material in US factories and no wages are being paid to US labor. If the US doesn't balance trade with China, the possibility of further decline in the value of US dollar can not be ruled out. Another important fact to remember is that Bush administration has heavily relied on "borrow & spend" method of boosting economic activity with tax cut for the wealthy. These two actions are going to further hemorrhage the US economy in the long term.

Bush asserts progress in Iraq war - Yahoo! News

2007-04-21T16:25:00.000-07:00

Bush asserts progress in Iraq war - Yahoo! News

President Bush is trying to raise American people's hopes on a war which was lost the day Abu Gharib prisoner abuse came to the light. Instead of continue the failed war policy of losing brave American soldiers in a war that has become a civil war filled with ethnic cleansing, Bush needs to ask himself few questions:

(1) Why does he find himself without a decisive American victory in Iraq after more than five years into Iraq war?

(2) He needs to analyze whether it is Iraqi insurgency or America's war plan that is making the US lose this war?

(3) If there is no victory in Iraq then what is it? A defeat?

The key point here is that instead of dreaming victory in Iraq, we need to ask ourselves a question: This is how we handled the Iraq war - what would be do if there was a war between China & Taiwan or major regional conflict?

We should also remember that if (1) we do not allow American people to grieve for soldiers who sacrificed their lives for their country by hiding coffins from public news coverage or (2) we chose, at one point, using forklift to shift coffins to Airplanes for soldiers' last journey's to their motherland or (3) we failed to provide health care to wounded soldiers, we don't deserve to win wars because we are not sincere towards the brave people who sacrifice their lives for their country. This is what happens when wars are used to advance political ambitions.

2007-04-21T09:56:00.000-07:00

Communal forces destroying composite culture: PM- Hindustan Times

"Any political formation attempting to incite and divide people along religious lines is betraying India's civilizational values and its Constitution, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said."

Mr. Prime Minister your above statement seems to as far away from reality as your UPA government is from Secularism and respect for the Constitution. This is UPA coalition's first preference to divide people along religious lines. Lets review some examples:

(1) Congress government in Andhra Pradesh came up with reservation for Muslims right after it came to power in that state. Isn't this action dividing the people on the basis of religion? Why not some reservation for Jains or Buddhists?

(2) Your UPA coalition ally DMK has recently announced reservation for Muslims and Christians. Are they uniting the society by this religion based reservation policy?

(3) Secularism means that the Government has nothing to do with people's religion. But for UPA it seems that all policies have to do with the religion. When BJP talks about Hindutva, your UPA coalition is not far behind in that race. You appease minorities based on their religion. Have you ever tried to appease a poor Brahmin family on the basis of their poverty?

(4) If UPA & Congress are secular forces then why try to control Hindu temples in Andhra Pradesh? Why not take over other religion worship places.

(5) When Muslim clerics give fatwa in favour of Congress, you dont say a word? Isn't that communalism?

Mr. Prime Minister your UPA coalition and your leadership is living in a dream world. You are busy counting votes in the name of secularism while Assam is ready to become another Kashmir. Thanks to your full support for illegal Bangla Deshis who will make Assam a Muslim Majority state in coming 2-3 decades.

Indians are waiting for next general elections when they will look for real solutions to India's real problems instead of your failed leadership under which India has even mortgaged its sovereignty and free foreign policy.

It is time for reality check Mr. Prime Minister, we are waiting for UP election results. Mr. Prime Minister let me remind you what Indian Supreme Court has said about secularism in
Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 1999 -Decided On: 08.08.2005- Appellants: Bal Patil and Anr. Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors. I quote..

"Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nut shell, is that 'state' will have no religion. The states will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual rights of religion, faith and worship."

2007-04-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

NDTV.com

The Left Parties as a part of ruling coalition have proved to be opportunists. It was not too long ago that a massacre took place in Nandigram in West Bengal where the Left parties are in power. So far, there is no evidence that criminals who perpetrated Nandigram Massacre will be punished..and Left parties are worried about action against BJP MP Babubhai Katara. The BJP MP will be prosecuted without dobut and he should be !!!

Talking about the dignity of the Indian Parliament by UPA coalition is matter of shame because they seem to forget that it was under UPA rule that a Cabinet Minister (Shibu Soren) went into hiding to avoid arrest on criminal charges. That particular act was one of many UPA coalition's actions to show disrespect to rule of law. The courtesy begins at home so lets review UPA's actions to undermine democratic institutions and rule of law before we start discussing possible crime committed by an individual MP who has already been arrested.

India fails in Asian Games bid, Aiyar blamed

2007-04-17T11:07:00.000-07:00

India fails in Asian Games bid, Aiyar blamed

Another feather in UPA Government's cap. It is very disappointing that India missed a great opportunity to host Asian Games in 2014. Whether it is the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister or any other member of his cabinet, they all seem to be running independent personal government of their own. We have seen how the Health Minister Ramdoss has considered AIIMS his personal property. This is sad because the Honourable Prime Minister does not have the will power and the capacity to control members of his own Cabinet. It is not in the long term interests of India to have this poor level of governance at the Central level. It was horrible for the Sports Minister (Mani Shankar Aiyar) to say, " whether you hold the Commonwealth Games in Delhi or Melbourne, it makes no difference to the state of those living in the colonies opposite the stadium. In the case of Delhi, the reference could be to the slums on Yamuna bunds." Mani Shankar Aiyar has done it before in August 2004 when he showed disrespect to freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. I have always believe that a sound democracy has the natural power to correct its own ills. These examples of this power vested in sound democratic systems are many not only in India but around the world.

2007-04-13T21:46:00.000-07:00

Indo-US nuclear deal risks collapse: report- Hindustan Times

The UPA Government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh simply doesn't fully understand how we work in the Western Countries. Once the law was passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by President Bush, it is unlikely that any amendments will follow in near future no matter what the final outcome may be of Indo-US discussions on this matter. Foreign Policy experts were advising the UPA Government that this agreement is not in India's interest because it will adversely affect India's ability to emerge as a Superpower in many decades to come.

Now there is a serious concern on the part of experts in the US that the deal may collapse. The difference between the Manmohan-Bush agreement and the final law are so significant that making concessions will ultimately result in harming the long-term interests of the country which makes these concessions.

Let us hope that this whole issue stays in the cold bag till 2008 Presidential elections in the US.

2007-04-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

Kalam bound to take the advice of the Union Cabinet? Hindustantimes, Saturday, April 14, 2007

Since the UPA Government came to power in 2004 after forming an alliance with bad-marriage like allies, it has been trying to find ways to ignore the Constitution and weaken the Constitutional institutions. Now nothing more need to be said about the history and background of public life of Election Commissioner Mr. Navin Chawla. However, if readers are interested they can read more about Mr. Chawla at http://www.hvk.org/articles/0705/60.html Let me remind you that the job of an Election Commissioner is to oversee that elections are conducted in a free and fair way. A person who shows no respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens is least likely to be able to fulfill these high responsibilities. Mr. Chawla's close association with many Congress leaders will make it impossible for him to be fair to other political parties.

Let us hope that this matter will now be settled by the Supreme Court and once again Constitutional Institutions will gain their honor back.

The full article is available at:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=c0d133f0-c49d-4598-885e-db2221d67cc3&