and nuke agreement is civil which will help US companies earn billions from Indian energy market. 
Not really.. The 1st line of the snippet refers to Obama backing India's stance and asks for Gilani's reaction to it. And he promised action. If nothing else this shows that there was some conversation about 26/11. And thats contradictory to the big bold lettersin the post that I responded to
).To get US to do India's bidding the bar has to be raised...the Govt shows no courage..or gumption..for decisions...its also a matter of perception...if I think GOI is weakneed I wonder what Pakistan/China/US will think...not too differently, Im afraid.
WASHINGTON: The United States has urged both India and Pakistan to limit the number of their nuclear weapons and secure their stockpiles, while emphasising that Pakistan needs to be invested in the non-proliferation regime rather than being singled out as a violator.
In a speech at the University of Louisville in Kentucky on Friday evening, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached this issue rather carefully, noting that the United States and Russia had so many more weapons than any of the other countries by a very, very big margin.
And before mentioning the two South Asian nuclear states, she noted that there were other countries that pursued nuclear weapons too.
India and Pakistan, for example, have done so in a way that has upset the balance of nuclear deterrent, she said.
And thats why were working with both countries very hard to try to make sure that their nuclear stockpiles are well tended to and that they participate with us in trying to limit the number of nuclear weapons.
At a separate briefing, Assistant Secretary of State P. J. Crowley approached the issue of Pakistans refusal to endorse the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a different way, indicating the possibility that the United States would like to see Pakistan included in a new arrangement rather than singling it out as a pariah state.
Mr Crowley, when asked to explain the reasons for inviting Pakistan to the nuclear summit and for Washingtons confidence in Islamabads commitment to non-proliferation, argued that the US wants to see Pakistan be part of the solution in the future.
Weve had significant discussions with Pakistan on these issues. But if were going to strengthen the non-proliferation regime going forward, we want to see Pakistan invested in this process, he stressed.
And to the extent that other countries demonstrate through their cooperation with the international community that they are willing to assume that same responsibility, then the door would be open for further cooperation, the spokesman added.Both statements important on their own assume a greater significance because of a two-day nuclear summit US President Barack Obama inaugurates in Washington on Monday.
A total of 47 countries, including India and Pakistan, are attending the conference, which focuses on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and on preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials.
In her speech, Secretary Clinton indicated that the participation of India and Pakistan in the nuclear summit provides the United States with an opportunity to discuss both the issues proliferation and nuclear terrorism with them.
Her decision to talk about both India and Pakistan despite a US nuclear deal with New Delhi indicates a realisation in Washington that singling out Islamabad on an issue of such a strategic importance to both will send negative signals and harm US interests in the region.
Also while talking about nuclear terrorism, she avoided naming any country. Instead, she described nuclear terrorism and proliferation as a challenge confronting the entire international community. A challenge that is bigger than any one administration or any political party. It is protecting our families, our neighbours, our nation and our allies, she observed.
Mr Crowley went a step ahead, expressing confidence in Pakistans ability to protect its atomic programme. While doing so, he also highlighted Islamabads cooperation in shutting down the A. Q. Khan network, coupled with the safeguards put in place for its strategic assets.
Pakistan recently has demonstrated a willingness to help the international community shut down the A. Q. Khan network. We still have questions about that and we still pursue those with Pakistan, he said.
The US official said that Dr Khans activities had made Pakistan a source of concern in the past, but since then Islamabad had demonstrated that it can secure its own nuclear weapons programme, and we have confidence in the steps that Pakistan has taken.
Mr Crowley said the three countries - Iran, North Korea, Syria that were not invited to the nuclear security summit were currently not cooperating with the international community on the security question, while Pakistan was.
Secretary Clinton also stressed this point, pointing out that nuclear proliferation, including the programmes pursued by North Korea and Iran, also endangered US troops and its allies.
Proliferation endangers our forces, our allies and our broader global interests. And to the extent it pushes other countries to develop nuclear weapons in response, it can threaten the entire international order, she added.
Hillary Clinton also spelled out the Obama administrations new nuclear policy released this week, noting that the main elements of the US strategy were to safeguard our country and allies against nuclear attack by supporting the basic framework of the NPT.
In a nutshell, I believe you are saying that its 'cheaper' and 'easier' for US to partner Pakistan as compared to India, with whom it has to deliver more....I agree.
Infact, I dont think India should partner US as its unreliable given the political dichotomy as I mentioned earliar.If Pakistan partners US, thats fine too...unless US goes ahead and arms it to its teetth or harbours/encourages Headley's...in other words becomes India's enemy.
The issue is one of policy...you need a decisive policy and not a middling path (esp as India is noew 'big' enough for it). But with Dr Singh we will get slow change and not the revolution thats needed...
Why couldnt Krishna(FM) go and attend the Summit instead of Singh(PM)? To give US the message that Headley's extradition is a pre condition for India to trust US again..(for whatever thats worth
With the recession and leftist policy of the govt (which I support)..all our growth will comeinternally and we need stability for it...without US either controlled (through co-dependency) or be friended...stability wont be forthcoming.
Agreed then that the KLL tangibly does little in terms of imposing any conditions on Pakistan that Pakistan does not agree with.You are correct in your interpretation of the fineprint Sir. My only submission to that = this was exactly the waiver option which the U.S President needed to exercise to authorize delivering the F-16s for which Pakistan paid years back.
That is a first = POTUS.
U.S has long back given up on the civilian government in Pakistan and the Army is clearly identified as an establishment to be dealt with. Even India is also more comfortable dealing with the Army in Pakistan. So I do not personally think that any coup in Pakistan will make any difference to the current US approach or the signing of the waiver if needed by the incumbent U.S President (at least on the short horizon). However, any such scenario does not concern India. There is one clearly stated goal of the Indian establishment = Curb state support to anti India terrorists groups operating out of Pakistan and it is my firm belief that U.S being in Afganistan or not being there will not stand in the way of its support to India on this front.
There are several inaccuracies in your comments. First, there are two entities here that you are mixing up. The Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban (TTP). The TTP rose in the Tribal areas of Pakistan after the US invasion of Pakistan, and the focus of their activities has been Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan had nothing to do with this group, and their decimation is, as I said, very advantageous in that it frees up Pakistan from an internal threat.
We have been hearing about 'proverbial straws on the camels back' for years now, and none of it has come true now has it? This straw on the camel thing is like a fetish for those who wish to see Pakistan dismembered, and every little event in Pakistan sends these people, already salivating at the thought of Pakistan's implosion, into raptures - but you know what they say, 'if wishes were horses ...'
Pakistan cannot cease that which does not exist, i.e 'State support for terrorist groups'. And as reports around the events in the US suggest, the US isn't really pushing that line either, so Indian is really having no luck with its propaganda being pushed by the US government through tangible pressure on Pakistan.
Spread the word: Obama says he digs Urdu poetry
If you want to make high-brow small talk at one of President Barack Obama’s cocktail parties, don’t bother brushing up your Shakespeare. Try reading Urdu poetry.
As POLITICO’s Ben Smith points out in his blog, Obama showed off his intellectual flair by evoking a standard of Pakistani culture in a recent interview with Dawn, a popular English-language newspaper in Pakistan.
“‘I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,’ said Mr Obama.
‘What can you cook?’
‘Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.’
‘You read Urdu poetry?’
‘Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.”
It may sound somewhat esoteric, but this ancient form of mystical and oft-times philosophical love poetry has been popular in Pakistan and parts of India for centuries. And there are a few things to know before you try to impress the poetry-lover-in-chief.
One of the most popular poets was Mirza Ghalib, whose work dates from the mid-19th century. The still-popular art form usually features the story of a lover scorned by his beloved. And there is almost never a happy ending. “Often the beloved is often a total witch,” says Gwen Kirk, a University of Texas master’s candidate in the subject of Urdu poetry. “She breaks the lover’s heart all the time; she neglects him. It’s all about the process of trying to get closer to the beloved, and it’s got a lot of Sufi and mystical elements as well.”
The ghazal is the most common form of Urdu poetry, and, like sonnets, it follows strict rules of form: four to 12 couplets with a meter and rhyme scheme. But the similarities end there. Couplets in an Urdu poem can sometimes be completely unrelated to each other, each delving into themes that range from unrequited love to the meaning of life.
Fear not if your Urdu — one of two official languages in Pakistan — is a little rusty. Obama likely reads one of the many translated compilations of the texts, according to Kirk. Or if he is a truly savvy Urdu poetry enthusiast, he may choose to listen to the poems recited or sung, as it is commonly performed in the region.
Obama’s admission that he shares an affinity with the “great Urdu poets” may get him further in the region than most think. The language and poetry are commonly associated with Pakistan’s and India’s Muslim population, according to Kirk, and it remains intensely popular in the region — poetry recitals sometimes attract gatherings of thousands of people.
“It does show a willingness to understand that part of the world,” says Kirk.
And in general, it gives Obama further credibility as a supporter of the arts. Not only is he one of three American presidents to have poetry read at their Inaugurations, but he reads the stuff, too!
Want to dig into Urdu poetry? Here’s an example of what awaits you:
To hell with all hindering walls and doors!
Love’s eye sees as feather and wing, walls and doors.
My flooded eyes blur the house
Doors and walls becoming walls and doors.
There is no shelter: my love is on her way,
They’ve gone ahead in greeting, walls and doors.
The wine of your splendor floods
Your street, intoxicating walls and doors.
(Translated by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi and Frances W. Pritchett)
