India not against US-Pak nuclear deal: Pranab

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its just another affirmation that India doesn't want to be Pakistan centric anymore.

Pardon the cynicism Vinod, but as of a few months ago India was opposing Pakistani weapons sales to Vietnam and Sri Lanka.

I'll buy this shift from being 'Pakistan centric' when I see policies that actually will have an impact - unlike in this situation where we all know that there is almost nothing India can do to influence the outcome.

 

[nitesh]

Ice the point is that you can sign an agreement with china but then china has to get it passed from the NSG and IAEA. Then that deal can be done. The heavy lifting required for that purpose was done by US for India. US carries a significant clout at NSG. Does china carry that? i doubt it. So Pakistan has to get the deal done from US. And as Mr. pranab said that India does not have a problem with that. So at least India will not play the spoilsport here. That is what is conveyed by the statement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM, you must admit that no American administrations (executive or legislative) was willing to listen to David Albright report. Simple case is that he has shown biased towards India proliferation.

Surely you jest? That is hardly cause for rejection of his work - what 'bias' towards Indian proliferation? Even if there was a bias, the proliferation needs to exist for him to have one in the first place.

Have you not followed his alarmist reports on Pakistan's Plutonium production plans and infrastructure?

The reason no American adminsitration is listening is not because India has a clean record, far from it, it is because it doesn't fit in their strategic plans and economic interests - its as simple as that.

 

[Vinod2070]

Pardon the cynicism Vinod, but as of a few months ago India was opposing Pakistani weapons sales to Vietnam and Sri Lanka.

I'll buy this shift from being 'Pakistan centric' when I see policies that actually will have an impact - unlike in this situation where we all know that there is almost nothing India can do to influence the outcome.

The move away from "Pakistan centricity" is a reality. I don't remember any statement by any minister on Pakistan for a long time. If at all it will be for a very specific issue.

I didn't read much in the Indian media about the two issues you talked of. For Sri Lanka I guess it would be because of the impact it would have on the Sri Lankan domestic situation when India is not supplying weapons to them and may be for some domestic compulsions.

Vietnam, I am not sure, may be for commercial reasons.

These small issues non-withstanding, the de-hyphenation is complete. In the mind of India and the world.

 

[IceCold]

I don't think that will happen. That is the point of the statement by Pranab Mukharjee.

Its not a question of love or hate for Pakistan. Its not having the intention to do a "phate me taang" for others.

Its just another affirmation that India doesn't want to be Pakistan centric anymore.

Yeah really.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod,

If India cannot help but be Pakistan centric on small issues, then it really isn't moving away from being 'Pakistan centric'.

Smaller issues are usually the easiest to shift positions on.

Like I said, unless I see evidence, which I do not based on India's most recent policies, I cannot believe that she has shifted from her traditional stance of undermining Pakistan globally.

 

[Vinod2070]

Personally I see these things as regional/commercial in nature and not Pak-centric.

Obviously Pakistan being a major player in the region, there would be some places where our paths would cross, but the clash will be limited to those areas only.

As India looks to increase her presence and footprint outside the region, this will occupy an increasingly smaller part of our outlook and interests. That doesn't mean there won't be small issues here and there but it will be a small part in the overall scheme of things unlike may be a decade back.

 

[Desipride]

1. Who hires an ex con? How about other ex cons.

haha, witty one but you know what I mean..

Remember that AQ Khans proliferation, both in helping develop Pakistan's nuclear program, and in the aftermath, was done hand in glove with institutions and individuals in the West.
David Albright recently released his own analysis of Indian proliferation, so no one's hands are clean here.
Hypocrisy and double standards?
Sure, you can see those galore - its a world based on interests after all, but thats the point here. Using the 'proliferation' argument, the West should be sanctioning itself and India should never have gotten the deal.

India had been under sanctions for 34 years. Double standards at its finest, unfortunately for Pakistan at present its not the blue eyed boy of the hypocrites. Media reports about nukes falling in wrong hands do not inspire confidence either.

Your points 2, 3 and 4 are interconnected so I'll answer them together. India will not dump the US, it can't afford to.

It may make some noises about this and that, but at the end, US dominance, economically and strategically prevails.

India may make noises here and there, to get some more goodies from the US in exchange for cooperation,

Well the moot point is that US warmed upto India rather than the other way round. It was US who made the effort, who gave concessions,(who is yet to extract its pound of flesh) carrot and stick policy cannot work with India, esp not now considering India's present stature and its historic suspicions regarding US. Undoubtedly US can have its way but all their hardwork in winning India over to its side would be for nought. As I see it, India is a far better friend to have right now and in the future for US than Pakistan.

You are right in saying this

There is too much global interconnectivity for nations to go around just cutting relationships off.

Hence US would be unwise to offer this deal to Pakistan by antagonizing India at least for the forseeable future. Pakistan still can be won over(placated) with a few planes/billions/threats, India cannot.

To be honest I would be aghast if Indian govt stoops this low (anything offered lesser in importance than a nuclear deal would be insanely sacrilegious if it comes to that)

but it will not oppose something the US decides to support.

Quite true if we continue to have a spineless govt but it would also be "The End" of this whirlwind romance (of India and US) something which would be stupid too considering the holistic situation.

 

[Vinod2070]

Yeah really.

You don't believe that or don't want to believe that?

I hope you don't miss the attention though.

 

[jeypore]

Vinod,

If India cannot help but be Pakistan centric on small issues, then it really isn't moving away from being 'Pakistan centric'.

Smaller issues are usually the easiest to shift positions on.

Like I said, unless I see evidence, which I do not based on India's most recent policies, I cannot believe that she has shifted from her traditional stance of undermining Pakistan globally.

Mr. AM

I must disagree that India is Pakistan centric and agree with Vinod that it isn't. Only small issue is the Kashmire. For last five years or so the think tanks of India has geared towards being China centric.

 

[Contrarian]

1. AQ Khan episode has permanently blemished Pakistani reputation irresp if on paper or on ground Pak's safeguards are better than the best, who hires an ex-con right?

One thing that i have seen is that there is nothing permanent in international afffairs. That is fact.

2. Personally, US's need to seek India's approval would rise, as time passes by, as India's importance/influence increases at the world stage and US's influence stagnates at best. Pakistan the way it is poised right now doesn't appear to become a powerful economic military entity at the global arena.

You seriously underestimate the US's influence in the future. If and when the US wants to give a nuke deal to Pakistan, India will not be able to play spoilsport.

4. As I said if the situation comes to that or if pros outweigh the cons, then of course US can provide such a deal to Pakistan. Who knows may be India can supply Thorium to Pakistan? but looking at the future Pakistan is sometime away from a deal with USA at least, my 2 annas.

That is true, when Thorium based reactors become commercially viable, India will certainly gain a lot of additional clout. We will cross the bridge when we come to it.

 

[Contrarian]

Like I said, unless I see evidence, which I do not based on India's most recent policies, I cannot believe that she has shifted from her traditional stance of undermining Pakistan globally.

Then you dont understand the concept of India starting to be less and less Pakistan centric. Being less or not Pakistan centric does not mean that India will stop opposing everything given to Pakistan, but it will have the wherewithal and diplomatic might to put effort into matching China.

India would still, at the peak of its power and the lowest of Pakistan's power would still object to anything sold to Pakistan vis-a-vis the military. But it will not be BOUND in the South Asian straitjacket-which it has been till now. It means the decoupling of India with Pakistan. It means that Pakistan ceases to be the primary threat against which Indian military has to prepare. Note that I have used the word threat-it doesnt mean that Indian military will not be geared for operations against Pakistan, but the threat of Pakistan will be reduced.

It means gearing up for China as we have for Pakistan till now.

 

[Desipride]

Though its flattering for a Pakistani to hear India is Pakistan-centric and laughable for a Chinese to hear that India is Sino-centric but the ground realities as I see it are different. India is becoming far more self-centered and too an extent world-centric rather than dwell on a single nation or region.

Pakistan/China could've been the bete noire/whipping board a decade or three back, today not so. Pakistanis are all over the idiot box , starring in the most popular shows, peddling Indian Products and China is the largest trading partner. Armed Forces are too going in for purchases aimed at expeditionary warfare.

 

[Desipride]

One thing that i have seen is that there is nothing permanent in international afffairs. That is fact.

As I said if the situation comes to that or if pros outweigh the cons, then of course US can provide such a deal to Pakistan.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...st-us-pak-nuclear-deal-pranab.html#post205817

You seriously underestimate the US's influence in the future. If and when the US wants to give a nuke deal to Pakistan, India will not be able to play spoilsport.

Though if the Indian govt remains as spineless as it is now aka not commensurate with the power it ought to command then yes US can engineer this seemingly uphill task with ease.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...st-us-pak-nuclear-deal-pranab.html#post205817

Here I am granting additional power to India considering the situation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DP:

Though its flattering for a Pakistani to hear India is Pakistan-centric

Trust me it isn't flattering by any means.

Most Pakistanis, if you were to ask them on how India's "Pakistan centric' policy plays out, woudl point to alleged Indian support for militancy and terrorism in Baluchistan and elsewhere, and attempts to undermine Pakistan globally any chance it gets. Thats not really 'attention' that is welcome.

Malay:

Then you dont understand the concept of India starting to be less and less Pakistan centric. Being less or not Pakistan centric does not mean that India will stop opposing everything given to Pakistan, but it will have the wherewithal and diplomatic might to put effort into matching China.

In that sense 'Pakistan centric' is inaccurately applied. Perhaps what would more accurately reflect my sentiment is that India will continue to be a hostile entity as far as Pakistan is concerned. Whether India is 'Pakistan centric' or 'China centric' or 'World centric' doesn't really matter - what does, for Pakistan, are Indian attempts to undermine another nation at every opportunity, and it is really that hostility, or the continuation of it, that I refer to when expressing skepticism of the EA Ministers comments.