And I am sorry to be so judgmental but the article is a whole load of BS.
For this blog post, I will only talk about those lines which, in my humble opinion, are the most bogus.
The first paragraph had these lines.
"...it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power."
The NY times does not waste time and space. The patronizing attitude starts from the first paragraph itself. The paper sets the stage for India by saying its about time she behaved like a power. Oh! wow! Finally some recognition !!
After a few paragraphs of Pakistan bashing, the paper then drops the line and I quote.
"India is essential to what Pakistan will do."
So what does it mean? Does it mean the US should involve India on all its plans in Af-Pak? Or does it mean India to some measure contributes to the situation by its silence? or perhaps the paper cannot make a determination of what it wants?
Anyways, the next few lines not only makes it abundantly clear what the paper wants but also what the administration of President Obama has in store for India.
And I quote again.
"New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same."
Says the NY Times - "New Delhi exercised welcome restraint...". And so the paper approves of India's restraint but that's just not enough.
Continues the NY Times - "India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China...stop producing nuclear weapons fuel...That would provide leverage for Washington...to exhort Pakistan..."
Simply put the paper wants India simply to roll over and play dead. Waste of so many words above to express this intent!
Wait there is more. The paper then drops the K-word.
"Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option."
Oh really! Pray why, may I ask the venerated paper, should Kashmir suddenly come into the picture now? Is it because the US has miserably failed to make Pakistan play ball and wag its tail?
And then comes the most naive of them all.
"India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan."
What!? What was that? India should bend over backwards to make Pakistan feel its not being encircled? Are you really that dumb? Why would we want to do that? India IS encircling Pakistan, period. And just because the US finds it inconvenient for its War on terror, why should India give up its legitimate security concerns.
The Op-Ed then closes with these patronizing words.
"India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities."
Oh please! Go sell this to someone born yesterday.
Did any of you watch former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf's interview in Fareed Zakaria GPS?
Pervez list out all the divisions and infantries of the Indian army posted on its border with Pakistan and sights that as the primary reason for Pakistan not being able to direct more troops to its western border to fight the Taliban.
What President Pervez does not say is that India needs to keep troops there on account of two reasons -
1. Export of terror from Pakistan for decades now, latest one in Mumbai.
2. Pakistan army's penchant for high risk battles, the latest one in Kargil.
Pakistan's Mumbai gamble to provoke India into action to enable it (Pakistan Army) to move troops to its eastern border thereby giving some elbow room to their Taliban fell flat. And so once again they have created this mirage of a Taliban take over to jolt the US into complying with whatever Pakistan wants.
The proof is in all the papers. The administration which said it will question every penny spent by Pakistan, now within days is pushing to approve billions of dollars to aid Pakistan in its so called fight against the Taliban. I can only feel sorry for the Americans.
How many of you have heard of the "Super Nanny" TV show on ABC? I picked this up from the TV show's website and it says -
"Jo Frost, as Supernanny, can tame the wildest toddler, soothe the savage six-year-old and get the most difficult child to overcome problems with behavior, sleep, mealtime, potty training and other challenges that have vexed parents around the world for centuries."
Sounds similar?
United States = Vexed Parent
Pakistan = Wild, Savage, difficult child
May be Obama should give Richard Holbrook's job to The Super Nanny.
No comments:
Post a Comment