The eye absorbs, and the mind deciphers. Perception of course, dilutes interpretation, most often the truth . Often much I choose to to see that which does not exist, seldom be, I see, as it is. As every obsticle might riddle sight, I, believe. Let time play don it's most dangerous role; that of the Oracle. Let faith be my stead. Irrespective, I see; therefore, I believe.
That written, defines destiny, This futile, effort to alter, The past, present and future. Blots, what are the scrolls of life. Since inception, raw and in quest, I seek answers to those questions penned. Never in thought and action, has guidance, Been from that inked. In vain I scribble Illegible as always. The epiphany dawns at the pinnacle, of this journey traversed. Weary,I now know, I write that which is written.
The journey thus far, is real. The past and now, your tutor, perception and understanding your sieve, people, your accomplices. The divine, spiritual, signs, a choice. To each his own, interpretation unique. Vivid be yesterday, now, soon a memory, and tomorrow obscure; I strain , but I see not even, a measly one percent.
Today is yet another day. With much trepidation we awoke, for the law-lords decided to speak when the Sun was at its highest. The air is filled with apprehension and silence reigned supreme. For over half a century the matter was prolonged, I remind you, this interlude has brought about much change.
It is said, God is ubiquitous; asinine be this battle, for you contradict belief.
Strife in the name of sacred Earth? In vain, some have shed existence only to become one with that which they so furiously fought for. Each grain of sand is sacred, each life, equally so. Let realization dawn.
Here, you seek His guidance, His magnanimity, His ability to cleanse you of the filth this world has brought upon you, but remember if it be on this land, you cannot for all eternity. The filth will never be rid of, for your kind chose to blemish it with the red-ink of another. ‘You’ tainted what ‘you’ called sacred by depriving another of life. ‘You ‘assumed His role and took away what He so generously gives. And ‘you’ do this all in His name. Not even ‘He’ can redeem you.
Divided is this land, and us, yet ‘we,’ must stand as one. If it pleases those mortals, who with mere gestures seek to appease the immortal, so be it. We shall chart our path, and tread where our souls are unbound.
Our political masters besiege us, ‘What ever be the outcome, let there not be consequence’. How dare you?! It is men such as thou that prompt chasms; you are the harbingers of death! And the gall to say, content be, as dispensed.
As we, let us rekindle hope. As us, we shall erase antecedents. Together, let us raise upon these lands, untainted by any, a future.
Under Marshall Liu Bocheng, the People’s Liberation Army of China launched an assault on the Eastern and Western theatres of the Indo-China border in “self defence counter attack”. What ensued was a humiliating defeat to the Indian’s which exposed its un-preparedness and exposed its weak military capabilities. Consequentially, India saw sweeping changes in its military apparatus and steadily equipped itself to handle such situations in the future.
The Asian giant, in its quest for regional dominance, undertook a programme of large scale militarization whereas India spared no efforts in trying to match China’s military might. China successfully test fired its first nuclear weapon at Lap Nor on October 18, 1964 which led to panic in Camp India. A decade later, May 18, 1974 saw India’s first nuclear detonation at Pokhran, Project Smiling Buddha, a response of sorts to Chinese advancements in nuclear weaponry. This bold move by the Indians, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, was strident .This move gave birth to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a global cartel of countries exporting nuclear substances, initiated by the Americans with the objective of controlling nuclear proliferation.
According to reports released by US Department of Defence in 2006, military expenditure by the Chinese government exceeded $80 billion, though the Chinese denied such heavy spending. In an official statement, the Chinese have claimed an expenditure of only $30 billion, which according to experts is a gross understatement. Actual military might and expenditure is veiled to create a strategic advantage of uncertainty over adversaries. India spends $22 billion annually to upgrade military capabilities and does not conceal budget allocations. In its democratic system of functioning, the Government is accountable to its taxpayers. Four decades and more after the 1962 war, tension still looms across the North-Eastern borders of India and China .Dr . Rajan , Director of Chennai Centre on China Studies, says that the defence community of the People’s Republic of China don’t rule out a border conflict. From a strategic perspective, sources view India’s border military re-enforcements and counter measures as a process of equipping itself for military engagement.
In the event of war, both countries would engage in ‘partial’ or ‘total war’. Partial war involves a country using only some of its resources – be it military, human, economic, technological or natural resources – to engage in battle instead of all its resources. Partial war is the antonym of ‘total war’ which means unlimited mobilization of available resources to counter resistance with the intention of overpowering its enemy/enemies.
Experts believe that the Chinese are far superior in military capabilities when compared with India. The Indians don’t see the need to militarize as much as the Chinese since they don’t have a military adversary to be wary of other than Pakistan. The Chinese would have two reasons for flexing their military might: to establish Chinese dominance in Asia, including conflicts over Taiwan with the USA;and to make the Americans aware that it is a force to reckon with. Trade seems to dictate terms in the Sino-India context just now. War is not the most feasible option for both countries as they make all efforts in capturing markets to enhance their economic strength. Bilateral talks and tireless efforts by both Governments have put thoughts of war on the backburner. Only time will tell whether the relationship falls apart and spirals out of control.
The Indo-U.S civilian nuclear deal is a bilateral agreement between the United States of America and India on civil nuclear cooperation. The intent of pursing nuclear trade between the two countries for civil purposes was announced in a joint statement made in 2005 by the two heads of government, Prime Minister of India Dr.Manmohan Singh and President of the United States, George W. Bush. The initial framework required India to separate its civil and military nuclear establishments and maintain all civil facilities subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, including periodic inspection.
The agreement had to pass through several intricate procedures and complex stages to before either Government could ratify terms. There was stiff opposition from various quarters that even put to test the stability of Manmohan Singh’s government. The coalition government in India at the time, namely the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), a coming together of the Congress and the Left led by Communist Party of India (M), had serious differences over the civilian nuclear deal: both parties foresaw entirely dissimilar consequences for India’s national interests. Dr Manmohan Singh tirelessly stressed on the agreement’s development facet, which meant an addition of 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity by 2020. Nuclear power means less oil imports, thereby reducing the foreign exchange burden and mitigating pollution effects on the environment. This also meant that the nuclear energy market saw a business potential of $140 billion, to be lapped up by private and public companies alike over the next 10-15 years.
Obstacles were not limited only to internal differences. Project ‘Smiling Buddha’, India’s nuclear test at Pokhran in early 1974, saw an informal organization being constituted and led by the United States called the Nuclear Suppliers Group ( NSG), an export cartel that took the initiative in support of nuclear non-proliferation by controlling supplies of radio-active substances which could otherwise lead to the burgeoning of nuclear arsenals around the world. The Nuclear Suppliers Group with its 45 member countries did not unanimously agree on export of enriched nuclear substance to India, a nuclear weapon state which was not a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty(NPT). There was objection from member countries such as Switzerland, Ireland, Pakistan and Scandinavian countries which sought to include conditions in the waiver granted by the NSG. China too expressed worries over the waiver but quickly retracted its stance stating it had no objection to the agreement being finalized.
Former President and Missile Scientist A.P.J Abdul Kalam
The international community, comprising non-proliferation activists the world over, saw this coming together as tantamount to undermining the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Right from the deal’s inception, they had sought a tightening of the terms and conditions which would otherwise set a precedent for non believers in the NPT to take advantage of this soft stance. Israel’s ambitions of building its own nuclear power plant seem more likely after the Indo-U.S civil nuclear agreement. India’s un-friendly neighbour on the East, Pakistan has been seeking such cooperation from the North American giant but the latter is not as forthcoming.
The U.S Congress was prompt in making necessary amendments to the Hyde Act and certifying the new law. U.S experts say that with India promoting nuclear energy, it would help diminish demand for oil from the Middle East, which would help stabilize prices. Some believe this move by the Bush government was intended to carve a new path for in Indo-U.S relations, making India a worthy partner in the Asian region. India’s ‘deterrence policy’ and status as an emerging global economic power are probably reasons for the number of deviations allowed for this agreement to materialize. Is the agreement truly beneficial to India? The deal states that the United States has the right to terminate export of enriched substances if India test fires a nuclear weapon. Has India inadvertently accepted the NPT without actually signing it? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh threatened to resign if the deal was not ratified by Indian Parliament. His aggressive stance overshadowed his docile nature as he sought what was best for India’s tomorrow. October 10, 2008 went down as a red letter day in the books of history, for the Indo-U.S Civil Nuclear Co-operation Agreement was signed on that day by then Minister for External Affairs, Pranab Mukherjee and US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in Washington, opening a new chapter in nuclear relations.