Public Platform : India's Challenges

1.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:03 am

Link
Several comments regarding your editorial on what India should do in regards to Pakistan. You are right, India showed remarkable restraint in not attacking Pakistan after the Mumbai attack. Especially since the Indian government believes that elements of the Pakistani army/intelligence were involved. In addition, your paper reported sources in the US intelligence organization that Pakistan's ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed two senior Indian officials.

Even if US aid is not used directly to build Pakistani nukes, money is fungible, and the resources freed up by the aid will be used by the Pakistani's to build nukes.

So to ask India to unilaterally stop developing additional nuclear material and to go into arms control talks with Pakistan and China is unrealistic. Do you really think that China wants to have arms control discussions? China is a major security concern for India and the US. India's military calculus is more centered on China than Pakistan. Your proposal is a non-starter.

As far as Kashmir is concerned, India would have agreed to converting the current Line of Control as the International border. That is the only pragmatic solution. There are several precedents to this. Bengal was divided between India and East Pakistan. Punjab was divided between India and West Pakistan and Pashtunistan was divided by the Durand line. Pakistani leaders have come close to accepting such a deal in the past but unfortunately have been overtaken by events in their own country before consummating the deal.

The reason that there is a strong presence of the Indian army near the Pakistani border is to prevent infiltration by terrorists from Pakistan. Often under cover fire from the Pakistani army. Every week there are reports in the Indian press of pitched battles as the Indian forces try and stop the terrorists from entering India. Do you really think that any Indian government can order its military to withdraw from the border while terrorists are entering on a regular basis.

The only way the US Af-Pak strategy will work is if the ruling elite in Pakistan (i.e. the Army ) finally realize that it is not in their best interests to keep India as the bogeyman. Until now, the demonizing of India has allowed the Pakistani army to control Pakistan. Like some one correctly said, Most countries have an army while in Pakistan the army has a country. That calculus will have to change for the Pakistani elite. India getting stronger v.vs. Pakistan will help that cause not the other way around as your editorial suggests.

— Sanjiv, San Jose, CA
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers
2.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
May 19, 2009 7:09 am

Link
It is commendable to exhort India to show regional leadership because of the stable mandate. However - Pakistan's nuclear activities have little correlation to whether India shows leadership or not. Just because its a next door neighbor does not make India a big brother to Pakistan. Pakistan's big brother has always been the United States - and her nuclear activities and stability are directly correlated to US policies and funding. In fact, many of the suggestions made in this editorial have already been pursued ad nauseum by India with different Pakistani regimes - yielding very limited results. Kashmir has had democratically elected government for quite a while now. Asking India to "resolve" the Kashmir issue without specifying what the resolution is expected in this editorial makes it a very weak argument. India has lots of other challenges besides Pakistan that could have been addressed in this editorial. Trust me - Pakistan's nuclear activities were hardly in the Indian voter's mind when they were selecting one party over another.

Both the title and contents of this editorial are misleading. But I agree that the concern is genuine.
If there's a key to changing things in Pakistan one way or the other, it lies with the United States - and that mandate was given not last week - but on November 4th, 2008. I hope we see a game changer there.

— Susmit, PA
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
3.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You are not making any practical sense when you come up with these kinds of editorials. India has two main challenges..reducing poverty and keeping itself safe from the insanity around it. Arms control talks with Pakistan and China? Where's the US in all of this? India has to make Pakistan happy over Kashmir so Pakistan can do the US bidding? Stop unilaterally refining nuclear fuel when its surrounded by China and Pakistan, two of the worlds biggest proliferators?
Come one guys. Get a modicum of common sense before you come up with this kind of stuff. Its laughable.

— gr, Glenview, Il
Recommend Recommended by 44 Readers
4.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
History is testament to the fact that the United States has been on the wrong, short-sighted, self-serving path when it comes to the subcontinent. As a result, Pakistan is now a pathethic caricature of a client state. Its leaders have been reduced to barricading themselves from the extremists in their palaces whilst at home and shamelessly begging for unaccounted aid when abroad. India has taken a different path and must continue on it. Relationship with the United States is important but comes at a great cost. India must do what is in its own best interests, develop its own foreign relationships and defend its own self interests. It can not, and must not, reduce itself to being a pawn on a global chessboard as its neighbor has.

— Nuz2Me, Utah
Recommend Recommended by 26 Readers
5.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Does India really need advice from the editors at the New York Times ? For that matter, do they need advice from anyone in the west?

From what I read, Indians still believe in hard work, free markets and capitalism. Maybe we should be taking advice from them.

— m. jones, nm
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
6.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You guys mess up with every one and others have to take responsibility. You should probably stop being selfish and develop a human heart.

— Suresh, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
7.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
As long as this idea is being shoved down Pakistan's throat that India is the dominant power and Pakistan needs to submit to their leadership in the region, nothing can be resolved.
You talk about India's "constructive" role in Afghanistan. For Pakistan it is very suspicious why India being a country with no cultural or geographic affinity with Afghanistan is being allowed to have a dominant role there. On the other hand Pakistan which has a 2200 km long border with that country and a significant population which has cultural affinity with Afghanistan is being used with no regard to its own strategic interests.
I think the idea is very clear here. Pakistan is being encircled to fall in line with India's regional leadership role with the ultimate objective of countering China. The problem with the plan is that Pakistan is getting nothing in return and it is being left to India's goodwill to solve all mutual disputes. This kind of plan can easily backfire because although Pakistan is smaller than India, it is not insignificant.
I think it would behove the US to try and deal with Pakistan seperately from India in a way that takes into account Pakistan's interests also. That is the only way of dealing with this situation in fair manner.

— SAM, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
8.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
How can you deal with a state based on religion which preaches hatred of other religions? Until Pakistan gives up it's religious bigotry, accepts both pluralism and democracy, there is no hope for Pakistan. India might as well ask "Am I brother's keeper?"

— V.R.Anil Kumar, Mysore, India
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
9.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Pakistan is only sane to fear India. With India greatly expanding its conventional as well as nuclear capabilities, build more nuclear bombs is the only way Pakistan can balance India off. In terms of military buildup, there is no significant difference between India and Pakistan. Both are very poor countries in terms of living standard of their people, but both are spending disproportionally on arms. They created real fear and contempt toward each other, because they let pride get in the way and can not master pragmatism. India was colonized by the British for a long time, that damaged their self-confidence. India need a bold leader to turn their national psyche around, but sadly, we have not seen one in the past 50 years.

As for Pakistan, India and China to get together to negotiate arms control. This is just wishful thinking. The U.S. is directly and indirectly arming India as part of "League of Democracy" to contain China; China is arming Pakistan directly and indirectly as a way to squeeze India. Those relationship are deeply entangled. Without a grand bargain that also involve the shape of U.S.-China relations, south Asia will not see true tranquility in a long time to come.

— horsham, north carolina
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
10.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Asking India to negotiate with Pakistan is like asking Israel to negotiate with Iran - we don't hear that from you a lot, do we? Did United States negotiate with Iraq or Al Queda? Pakistan's nukes have only one purpose - to destroy Hindu civilization when it goes down.

— TruthPrevails, Mumbai, India
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
11.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
It is a fantasy to think a parliamentary-elected govt. could take a leadership role. Each member of the parliament is loyal to its special interests and.or ethnic group. Parliament-elected govts. are weak. They are the whips that the U.S. and more stable dictatorships like Iran crack.

— Lee Walker, Oakland, CA
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
12.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link

Yeah. Right. You keep pumping billions of dollars, and selling fighter jets to a crazed Muslim country with no history of democracy or even stability; that has nukes it cannot or barely control; cannot effectively control its own regions; whose army intelligence apparatus is autonomous of the government --

and then not just advocate India to show restraint -- which by the way it shows in ample measure, but to complain that it has not done enough?!!

What hutzpah!

— krish, SF Bay Area, CA
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
13.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
You are right - it is high time India solve the Kashmir issue by forcing Pakistan to vacate part of Kashmir it illegally grabbed in 1948. Pakistan can't control its own territory, how can it govern the land it illegally grabbed? India should take back its own country and do a better job than Pakistan.

Also to solve problem of terrorism, India should pull another Bangladesh on Pakistan. US has pampered and spoilt Pakistan for a long time and India had to bear the brunt of terrorism eminating from Pakistan. Even now US is following the same misguided policies. So let US wollow in its own ignorance and wishful thinking. By breaking Pakistan in four countries and spliting the army, the problem of terrorism will be solved once and for all.

— umok, WA
Recommend Recommended by 12 Readers
14.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Article:"Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough"

Every reader should remember the there were thousands of nuclear bombs in the hands of extremists for eight years, starting January 20th, 2001. Recall all the talk about from that administration about "needing" to use nuclear bombs as bunker-busters in Iraq. We almost became the third nation to use nuclear weapons, as well as the first and second such nation.

— Ken Belcher, Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
15.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
I agree. India must tell Pakistan that it has no intention to conquer or de-stabilize Pakistan. As widely felt in India, a vibrant and secular Pakistan is good for India as well. As an ordinary Indian citizen, I would want Pakistan to prosper on all fronts and develop tolerance for people of other faiths. If it happens, India will be at peace as well. With China, India competes in economic activity. It should not have any aspiration to counter China militarily. Because if it does, it would drain its already scarce resources which it should deploy in development and welfare of its people.

India must sign NPT. One nuclear bomb or 100 would not give security enough to any nation. In a nuclear war nobody wins. She should not support any nation that has nuclear ambitions and if possible destroy all its nuclear weapons. Even if Pakistan nukes India, nuking Pakistan will be act of revenge and destruction of common man, and what would we have achieved in the end?I am not saying do not protect yourself. But nuclear weapons are no means to achieve security. Besides, there won't be any invasion at nation's level anymore. All wars currently are low intensity conflicts. So we don't need nuclear weapons.

Kashmir can be made independent if Kashmiris of all faiths are part of it and want independence. Just Muslims and not Pandits desiring so, would not enable any peace process to reach its end. Pakistan should also ask for an inclusive Kashmir that has Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus unlike herself, where ethnic cleansing has been going on for the past 60 years.

Finally, India should control its extreme right. We were always a peace loving and a spiritual nation. Let us retain that image and move towards economic prosperity.

— dram48, Bangalore, India
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers
16.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
This is Washington's prescription for India for Washington's own good. This is the line which Obama administration would expect India to toe. Whether these policy reccomendations are in India's interests needs to be debated. Washington has been seen as a Pakistani crony in India and the perception there is that Washington has ignored all of Pakistan's past sins, co-habited with China and spawned regional terrorism. The very fact that Washington has been unable to curb Pakistan's nuclear programme is reason enough to believe that the Obama administration is failing to use its leverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America cannot afford an indifferent India which is also assidously being courted by the Chinese too. Ignoring India may just mean that the powershift to China may happen a lot sooner.

— James Baker, Toronto, Canada
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
17.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
Maybe the US should lead the way by cutting off billions of dollars of its own taxpayers dollars sent as aid to Pakistan that is ultimately used to fund terrorist training camps and purchase nuclear weapons. An American professor I know still finds the ignorance of US representatives in Pakistan about the perils of giving billions of dollars to any hand that is stretched out, unbelievable. He was called in by the USAID head in Islamabad to give a briefing about what to do with the cash pile that organization was sitting on. She had no idea what was going on in the country and was giving away funds to anyone who approached her. Maybe you should send people who have some knowledge about the ground realities there.

— Skasster, India
Recommend Recommended by 14 Readers
18.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
The possibility of good India-Pakistan relationship is far from being practical! Past experiences have shown that Pakistan government (or to be precise, Pakistani military!) can't be trusted! It is just that they thrive on propagating a sense of hatred towards their secular neighbour.So the government in India can do absolutely nothing about it!( But they won't admit it!!)

— ranjan, india
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
19.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
While the spirit of the article is acceptable, the tone leaves a lot desired. Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid while India gets sermons. What kind of logic is this?

Yes Pakistani citizens and civil society is suffering and that has to change. Also India and Pakistan can live together with harmony as there are many concerns that are common to both countries. Pakistan has a huge responsibility in making this happen. How come the economy of Pakistan is in doldrums yet they find resources to expand their nuclear arsenal and for what purpose? In the name of assisting Pakistan in fighting Taliban, looks like US creating another Frankenstein's monster in South Asia. US should not absolve itself of its moral responsibility in the damage it is causing by continuously pouring money into Pakistan without demanding and ensuring accountability.

Looks like even Obama is also gradually subscribing to the myopic approach that US embraced for the last four decades vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. India needs no sympathy from US. It needs US to be fair and firm in its dealings with Pakistan and India. Looks like this is not going to happen

— Vish, UK
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
20.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
There is nothing India can do in Pakistan. They are a lot that grew up on poison fed daily that "Hindu" India is going to get them eventhough is Pakistan that started three wars. Pakistan can only validate its existence by proving that a multicultural multireligious India is not feasible. And there are its partners..us and China pumping billions and arming them to the teeth despite knowing that they help Al Qaeda and Taliban will be nourished.

Funny reading this editorial-- our government is contemplating billions more aid, and at the same time asking that India refrain! Why? So that the "freedom fighters" won't send another plane to New York? Are Indian lives cheap?

Throughout history, we seem to have sided with despots and dictators. When will we change? If you believe democracy is a good thing, then there are over a billion people that voted peacefully just now. How about a security council seat for India that is a 6th of humanity?

How about partnering with India in fixing up Pakistan and Afghanistan? America had always dared to take bold steps throughout history when compelled with moral problems. Let us get it done!

— Veetri, Phoenix, AZ
Recommend Recommended by 25 Readers
21.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
India's reelection of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world's most capable and prudent heads of government, is heartening. The fact that he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be reelected after serving a full term suggests that India may indeed be entering a phase of stable growth. That should appeal to those investing in the subcontinent’s future, and comfort those, like the United States, who are increasingly reliant on it as an ally. Additionally, the success of this exercise in democracy at such a large scale also resonates in countries like China, who have resolutely contended that such a system cannot work in nations of such complexity and scope.

To continue the discussion, please visit www.twitter.com/halwoods

— Hal Woods, Chicago, IL
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
22.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am

Link
It is past time the US understood its predicament in Pakistan. You can neither stop nor continue feeding the beast that controls Pakistan - its army. The former risks implosion of the country and the latter explosions worldwide. Sorry, India cannot help you out of this mess. You cannot lay the blame for Pakistan buying nukes out of US aid for development or fighting terrorism on India. Pakistan does not need more nukes to avoid the threat of India. Pakistani army needs them to scare the US into parting with its money, which will be used to perpetuate the feudal stranglehold over ordinary Pakistanis. Honestly, does anyone still believe that India seeks any of the extremist-ridden Pakistani territory?

Please learn not to mollycoddle dictatorships for short term gains next time you are revisiting policy. Tutorial one: Start with Saudi Arabia which I heard builds most Madrassas in Pakistan.

— SK, NY
Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers
23.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Expecting India to play a role in stabilizing Pakistan in any manner, let alone through progress on Kashmir seems rather naive! Progress towards any solution on Kashmir is likely to cause serious internal problems for even a stable government in Pakistan, let alone the current lame-duck administration of Mr. Zardari. It's also important to understand that with most of India's neighbors, anti-India rhetoric and posturing is de rigeur for everybody in the political process - and more so in the case of Pakistan. Any attempt by India to get involved in "stabilizing" Pakistan would probably prove counter productive.

On a related note, the US Administration and policy wonks need to get real about the fundamental nature of the Pakistani State. 60 years of an Islamist foundational doctrine, virulent anti-Indianism, and 30 years of (american-sponsored) jihadism have given these ideologies deep roots in every facet of the state, and the transition that is being expected of them today requires that these very roots be torn from the ground.

The recent confrontation with the Taliban in Swat constitutes the first credible signal from the State of its willingness to transform itself and the US needs to hold the Pak Govt to this course.

The Indian Govt would be happy to move on Kashmir (as back channel negotiations on the subject with Musharraf were testament to), but the Pakistanis must necessarily abnegate recourse to terrorist proxies as instruments of state policy, and extradite known terrorist offenders currently claiming sanctuary there under the patronage of the intelligence services, before any Indian govt could reasonably reengage in a dialogue.

— Sreeram, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
24.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
This article shows naivete in discussing the region.
1. "Demand assurances" from pakistan? Who from, precisely? The President, who controls nothing? Or the Army, which took $10 Billion in the past to further their own interests? "Assurances" from any Pakistani institution means nothing.
2. "Persuade" Burma's regime? Are you aware that China and India are in competition for influence there, and that China is far ahead? That most of North Eastern Burma is full of chinese, and chinese currency is freely used there? India's interest in Burma are based on realpolitik vs China not on what the rest of the world wants vis a vis democracy etc.

— jetlagged, Northern Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
25.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Oh dear. This editorial needs a translator well-versed in imperialese. I'll give some of it a go.

"[A]rguably the most dangerous country on earth" means "Oops, we gave billions to a country to help it oppress its own people, and now this seems to no longer work it turns out they also spent much of it on nukes instead of bombing villages. Whatever shall we do? Note: get out of other peoples' business is not a valid answer."

"Resolving issues over Kashmir" means "India and Pakistan should get their act together - but whatever you do, don't take the wishes of the people of Kashmir into account. That would set a bad precedent."

"India must assume its responsibilities" means "We need a local policeman for the Empire. India has just been volunteered."

— Christian Haesemeyer, Los Angeles

26.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
India should not deal with a state which has shown little regard to its citizen's basic rights to education and social empowerment. Washington's advice on engaging the leader of Pakistan should be voiced to the country which remains its strongest ally both economically and in terms of providing military hardware - China.

— Nitin, Wellington
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
27.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
Kashmir problem will be solved in no time if the US stops giving military aid to Pakistan. Pakistani governments of both civilian and military varieties are experts in fooling US into thinking that Pakistan is a US ally in whatever the US wants to accomplish in the region - a base fro US operations against USSR, a conduit for arms to fight Soviets or holding the line against Al Queda. Whatever the US policy, the army ends up with more weapons and gets enriched and to maintain it's position the army tells the Pakistani population that India is the enemy.

— Lordknow, Palo Alo, CA
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
28.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
The editorial indeed makes some valid points about India’s rightful regional role, yet it overlooks a major barrier. And that is the Pakistan’s army and ISI who benefits immensely by having India as a perpetual enemy. Their constant, and often unjustified, blackmail of the Pakistan’s populace by creating the specter of India’s unbridled aggression gives them justification for fleecing the Pakistan’s national budget. Thus any overtures by India, except for delivering the Kashmir on a silver plater, will not placate the two institutions that have held their own country, and now the world, hostage. And even after such an overture, given their record there is no guarantee that the Pakistan army and ISI will not find any reason not to continue the enmity. In fact, it may embolden these two institutions, just as making concessions to Taliban in Swat valley gave the Taliban encouragement to reach for more. Moreover, for the last 20 years, the Pakistan army and ISI have come to believe that the western nations and the US need the Pakistan army badly enough to let them extract their pound of flesh and still get away with much more. Amassing nuclear weapons while receiving billions of dollars from the US to allegedly fight a war on terror is an excellent example Pakistan army’s strategy. Twisting India’s arms to make concessions is no guarantee that the game that is being played for the last 20 years will change. Negotiating arms treaty to include China is a good suggestions but it should be separated from the India’s relations with Pakistan which should be strictly a bilateral issues. Mixing the two, although they are somewhat interrelated, is not advisable. Suggestion on broader talks on environment and water with Pakistan is indeed a good one since it directly helps the people of Pakistan, and an issue that India should take seriously.

— PK, Sacremento, CA
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
29.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
It is preposterous to suggest that India should initiate arms control when Pakistan is bulking up on fighter jets and nukes, ostensibly to fight the Taliban. The government should first get down to the task of taking care of the development of the country, driving growth and combating terrorism (both within and Pakistan sponsored)

— Jeejo, Bangalore
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
30.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
the indian congress's victory should enhance india's image in the world besides bringing stability to indian government for the next five years. most election observers expected a fragile coalition to emerge from the election. the thumping victory for prime minister manmohan singh has given him a second term, an event that has only occured once before in india's post-colonial history when jawaharlal nehru was re-elected.manmohan singh's government has promoted programs for the low income sections of indian society.the manmohan singh led congress government has actively tried to improve relations with the united states. although the new york times opposed the us-india nuclear deal, it was important for india to sign the deal and maintain it's credibility with the bush administration. to manmohan singh's credit, he was firm and determined and saw the deal through,even though his communist allies withdrew their support and his government almost collapsed. he is also viewed as a person of integrity.india's growth has slowed due to the global economic downturn.manmohan singh's past background and experience as an economist should serve india well.

india's voters ignored the talibanization in neighboring pakistan, and communal and divisive politics in electing a party that defends the country's secular values.

india is one of the top troop contributers to UN peacekeeping operations. kashmir's accession to india in '47 was legal and it's constitution is closely aligned with india's after the last 60 years.unlike pakistan which is an islamic country, indias people view themselves as a secular society and kashmir,a state that has both hindus and muslims, as an integral part of their country. india is one of the largest troop contributers to un peacekeepingg efforts and has partnered with the us in the efforts to rebuild afghanistan.

india faces daunting challenges including a large budget deficit and a need to modernize it's infrastructure.

the indian congress's win has increased hopes that economic reform will continue in india.it's communist allies opposed these reformsin recent years.however, india will have to proceed cautiously in opening it's market in view of the global downturn.

pakistan's nuclear and arms build up,and the mumbai attack last november are reminders of india's external challenges.

— amber, us
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers
31.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
It is true that India has to assume greater role in Asian Subcontinent. But when it comes to Pakistan, we can not ignore the fact that Kashmir is not THE main problem, as it was impressed in the Editorial. Rather securing Pakistani state from Taliban and Separatists is the main issue. When it is not clear who exercises what influence in which part of the total Pakistani set-up (Government, Legislature, Armed forces, Judiciary and Media)with whom should India engage regarding Kashmir? What assurances can be given from the negotiating party that the rest of the stake holders agree? Please, let us all give Pakistani state time to set house in-order and then bring upon them additional burdens.
One at a time - Brick by Brick, a long lasting solution.

— Srikumar, Mumbai
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
32.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
The tone of the editorial is rather condescending. As the saying goes, for a person with a hammer the whole world seems like a nail. Not a single line in this editorial is really about India but more about protecting American's interests and ambitions - for example "...use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights". Can you please add preparing a venti tazo chai-latte with soy milk for President Obama to the list?
I am not here to suggest that none of this is important but please we have enough problems on our own. We are not sure how the recession would play out in India, what to do with farmer suicides, how to have an inclusive growth, what to do with the Maoist problem and growing terrorist strikes and ways to protect the secular fabric of our nation. The people of India voted on these issues more than anything and I am really glad that the people of India gave an almost decisive mandate for a sincere and hardworking man in Dr. Manmohan Singh. India should engage with the world on its terms and conditions and when it chooses and not at the bidding of anyone.

— KM, India
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
33.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am

Link
'India's challenges' reads a lot like 'What the US would like India to do'. How about the real challenges: economic reform and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, the environment and securing natural resources for future growth? Yes, Pakistan is important, but India seems to have limited ability to affect outcomes in its disintegrating neighbour.

— shaloub, Toronto
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
34.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am

Link
Well, I suppose Manmohan Singh and the South Block mandarins in New Delhi should profusely thank the NYT editorial for their generous sermon. What better way could one celebrate the successful conclusion of the largest democratic exercise in human history that led to significant upsets (e.g., the routing of the Communists in Bengal).

Note the number of times "should" and "must" are used. Such patronizing editorials, unfortunately, confirm that the reputation of the arrogant American is often well-earned.

Such a patronizing laundry list of action items would be laughable but is instead disturbing coming from a prestigious newspaper. Do we Americans have a better grasp of what's good for India than the Indians themselves?

It's interesting that NYT now considers Pakistani to be "arguably the most dangerous country on earth". India had made this point over a decade ago. Unfortunately, it took another 8 years after 9/11 for this thought to dawn to our mainstream media.

Let me offer an alternative view. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest. A stable Pakistan is one ruled by the Army, with arms purchases funded by our taxpayer money, and planning and executing mischief against India.

The dismantling of the Pakistani nation state into smaller states is in the best interest of India in particular and for the stability of South Asia in general. I would assume that India would do her best to exercise influence in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistani nuclear weapons would not be stationed there out of range of Indian Air Force (the "strategic depth" sought by the Pakistani Army). If the Indian administration has any strategy, it would be to assiduously work towards breaking up Pakistan.

I suppose it would take another decade for NYT to come to a similar conclusion that a feudal state devoid of a national identity cannot be propped up by foreign handouts and a common dislike of India.

Till then we will listen to the sermons over morning coffee :)

— Ajit, Sunnyvale, CA
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
35.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am

Link
and Srilanka...India in spite of fatal losses (e.g., Rajiv Gandhi) has failed to address Tamils concern in Sri Lanka for over 25 yrs now. Its initiative for peace keeping forces and to aid Sril Lankan military would not have been necessary had India has supported the cause of Tamils in Srilanka. In these post-mortem efforts, Indian government stance has also earned the wrath of its own people (in TamilNadu).

— Balaji Raman, Singapore