Geopolitical Analysis

(See M.K. Kaul’s answer on Maharaj K. Kaul’s Blog, and see Heidi’s comment ‘Democracy and slow progress‘ on the Humanitarian Texts).

By K.N. Pandita

The hornlock on Indo-Us nuclear deal does not portend well for the coalition government. As things unfold, the real problem is not in what the US wants India to do or not to do in regard to her nuclear capability: the real trouble lies in both sides trying to understate their motivation; one pushing the deal and the other obstructing it. What are kept under wraps are political undercurrents of the entire issue.

The comrades, no less than their opponents, are aware of immense potential lying in the deal’s womb capable of transforming India’s economy and quality of life drastically once things start moving. Raising the quality of life also means gradual erosion of their constituency. This weighs heavy on their mind.

Continue Reading…

By K.N. Pandita

Observers anticipate United States’ move to wriggle out of Afghan imbroglio. Face saving is the pre-requisite. The latest is that of goading two concerned states, Afghanistan and Pakistan, into organizing a joint peace assembly (jirga) of the Pushtun leaders on both sides of the Durand Line. It is they who are crucial to what ultimately unfolds in the volatile region where Taliban and Al-Qaeda warriors remain entrenched.

The deliberations of the jirga in Kabul last week, largely understated by the media, have much significance for us in Kashmir.

Relations between Pakistan and Karzai government are not cordial. They trade accusations and counter-accusations: US is skeptical of Pakistan’s intentions ever since Islamabad lost the crucial lever in Afghan crisis following American attack on Afghanistan and dismemberment of Taliban regime.

Continue Reading…

By K.N. Pandita

A 35-minute telephonic talk between President Bush and General Musharraf last week triggered a lovely controversy in the print media. It appears that each side wanted to convey something more than what was talked on the line. The purpose was served by the media as usual. Did Bush really want to reassure Musharraf that the provocative utterances of the running presidential candidate Obama could at best be his personal views and not the state policy of the US?

The world knows that in the US a running presidential candidate has to deal with all the questions and situations that the US will be required to deal with if he is voted to the White House. What a running presidential candidate says in his public speeches reflects the basics of his political party’s manifesto. Obviously, if he emerges victorious at the hustling, he shall have to implement the policy, domestic as well as foreign, as enunciated by him during his election campaign. Nobody will agree with President Bush that what Obama said about Pakistan could at best be his personal observations. Obama is as much serving national interests of his country as does George Bush.

Continue Reading…

By K.N. Pandita

A 35-minute telephonic talk between President Bush and General Musharraf last week triggered a lovely controversy in the print media. It appears that each side wanted to convey something more than what was talked on the line. The purpose was served by the media as usual. Did Bush really want to reassure Musharraf that the provocative utterances of the running presidential candidate Obama could at best be his personal views and not the state policy of the US?

The world knows that in the US a running presidential candidate has to deal with all the questions and situations that the US will be required to deal with if he is voted to the White House. What a running presidential candidate says in his public speeches reflects the basics of his political party’s manifesto. Obviously, if he emerges victorious at the hustling, he shall have to implement the policy, domestic as well as foreign, as enunciated by him during his election campaign. Nobody will agree with President Bush that what Obama said about Pakistan could at best be his personal observations. Obama is as much serving national interests of his country as does George Bush.

Continue Reading…

K.N. Pandita

Nearly sixty years after the apostle of peace departed from the stage, Gandhi has found favour with the UN, which will, henceforth, observe October 2, his birthday, as International Day of Non-Violence. Rightfully, the Indian nation will feel proud for clinching this unique recognition by world community.

With this honour coming to the country, it is all the more important that India becomes a pro-active member of world peace movement and makes substantial contribution befitting the status world body will be giving to the Father of the Nation. Of course, the UN requires to be sensitised to the truth that by keeping the second largest populated country in the world out of the Security Council structure means depriving the world of a mighty force capable of throwing in its weight in favour of world peace. We hope this realization will dawn upon the UN sooner than later.

Continue Reading…