JDUBJP combine wrest power in Bihar
JD(U)-BJP combine wrests power in Bihar
JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar has led the NDA to a comfortable victory in the Bihar Assembly elections.The JDU led alliance did phenomenally well winning 146 seats and gaining an absolute majority in the 243-seat house. Lalu's RJD alliance did worse than in February, ending up with 66 seats. Even though voting patterns are yet to come in, it is clear that almost every segment in each area has voted against the RJD.The results have been particularly humbling for LJP Chief Ram Vilas Paswan. If he was the kingmaker, playing truant after the last election, he was pretty much a nobody in this election with just 14 seats.Even the number of independents has fallen to 17.Nitish Kumar will be sworn in as Bihar Chief Minister at Patna's Gandhi Maidan on Thursday.People's mandateDescribing the NDA's sweep in Bihar as a "victory of the people," Kumar said the coalition will work towards providing good governance. "I want to congratulate the people of Bihar. It is their victory, they wanted a change and they voted for a change," Kumar said in his first reaction after the alliance's victory became clear. "Every caste, every community in the state voted for change and stability. People in Bihar wanted good governance and we are grateful they have reposed faith in us. We will try to fulfill their ambitions," he added.Nitish congratulated the Election Commission (EC) for conducting an impartial and free election. "There was a myth that free elections were not possible in Bihar and the EC has destroyed that myth. We will also destroy another myth that there can be no governance in Bihar," he said.BJP extends support The BJP also assured JD(U) of complete coordination in government formation.The party rubbished suggestions of differences with its senior alliance partner in the state."There is absolutely no contradiction between the BJP and JD(U). We fought the elections on a common agenda and will proceed further with ease," BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley said.He attributed the poor showing of RJD-led Secular Democratic Front to its "unconstitutional" behaviour after the February elections that threw up a hung Assembly."The results have proved that people of Bihar want governance, rule of law and development. You just cannot fool people all the time," Jaitley added.Parting waysA close associate of Lalu till a decade ago, Nitish parted ways with the RJD supremo following differences over his style of functioning. Despite being instrumental in the installation of Lalu as chief minister in 1990, Kumar's relations with the Yadav strongman came under strain in the years that followed. The two parted company and Nitish along with Fernandes and 12 other MPs quit Janata Dal to form the Samata Party in 1994 and waged a sustained battle against the Lalu-Rabri rule.When the NDA government was formed in 1998, Kumar became Railway minister with additional charge of Surface Transport Ministry. He, however, resigned owning responsibility for the Gaisal train disaster in August 1999. Crucial mergerKumar was later accommodated in the union cabinet and was Agriculture minister from November 1999 to March 2000. He again became the Railway minister from March 2001 to May 2004.He was also instrumental in the merger of Samata Party with JD(U) that enhanced the influence of the two socialist- leaning parties vis-a-vis BJP. Though the NDA's campaign was built around the backward class leader, Kumar did not contest the assembly elections and retained his position as JD(U) leader in the Lok Sabha. Nitish has often been dubbed as NDA's perennial chief minister-in-waiting. With the baton of power finally being passed on to him, the real challenge will be to transform a state, which is among the poorest in India. (With PTI inputs)
PM Not in power
'Not in power' PM leaves intelligence agents confused
The latest issue of the Economist describes Mr Manmohan Singh as a Prime Minister who is "in office but not in power... someone to be pitied rather than admired".
It would be no exaggeration to suggest that intelligence operatives and those tasked with combating jihadi terrorism from Kashmir to Kanyakumari share the Economist's perception.Confusion created by political signals sent out by the Prime Minister and his men who have been extremely chary of saying anything harsh about Pakistan or Gen Pervez Musharraf is fast turning into contempt."You can't hold hands with Gen Musharraf in New York and refuse to castigate Pakistan for its continued support to cross-border terrorism and expect us to fight terror in New Delhi," says a senior intelligence official. According to him, intelligence agents have a "unilinear mind" and are easily confused by political statements that run contrary to what is expected of them.Another senior operative points out that if the political leadership publicly declares that it "would not allow terrorism to impede the peace process (with Pakistan)", then agents are bound to pick up the wrong signal - that the threshold of tolerance has been raised and fresh terror strikes will not be met with a tough response."It is amazing. After his meeting with President George Bush, the Prime Minister talked of zero tolerance towards terrorism. He mentioned cross-border terrorism in his UN General Assembly speech. Yet, he was most mellow and cautious about his choice of words after his meeting with Gen Musharraf," he says.He goes on to add, "When the Prime Minister merely talks of external linkages of those behind Saturday's terrorism during his telephone conversation with Gen Musharraf, although by then intelligence agencies had more than indicated that Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Tayyeba had a role in the bombings, it is most distressing.""The announcement about opening the LoC," according to a security analyst in South Block, "could have been deferred by a couple of days. But it was done within hours of the Delhi bombings". He also pointed out that instead of opening the Line of Control at five points to facilitate aid for the victims of the October 8 earthquake in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Government should have insisted on sending teams across the LoC."The only reason why Gen Musharraf did not allow us to send teams to Muzaffarabad and its adjoining areas is because he did not want India to get hold of credible evidence about terrorist camps still existing in and operating from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. And we capitulated," he added.Another senior official involved with monitoring cross-border terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir cites figures that do not reflect any dramatic decline in either jihadis crossing over from Pakistan or violence unleashed by them. For instance, till October 24 this year, terrorist violence in Jammu & Kashmir has claimed 1,522 lives, compared to last year's toll of 1,810. Of those killed this year, 882 were terrorists, 183 security forces personnel and 457 civilians.There is an increasing feeling within intelligence agencies involved with tracking the 'chatter' and following the 'footprints' of potential terrorists who form sleeper cells that while Mr Manmohan Singh and his team steer clear of blaming Pakistan or reminding Gen Musharraf that he is yet to deliver on his promise made to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, when things go wrong, as they did in Delhi, they will be used to cushion the blow of popular resentment."We are expected to be the fall guys... the blame is ultimately pinned on us," says an operative with the Special Intelligence Bureau. He also points out the command and control structure which has become a stumbling block.With National Security Adviser MK Narayanan, a former IB Director, bringing all intelligence agencies under his command and control, the Union Home Ministry and the Cabinet Secretariat have been virtually cut out of the loop. Access to both raw and processed information has now become the sole prerogative of the NSA and, to some extent - if Mr Narayanan so decides - the Prime Minister.What has helped Mr Narayanan tighten his hold over both IB and R&AW is the fact that both the premier intelligence agencies are headed by his hand-picked men. Secretary (R) Hormis Tharakan has just been given a two-year extension. And, since Mr Narayanan micromanages both IB and R&AW, everybody is cautious not to step out of the line or do anything that could be remotely construed as contrary to the political thinking in the PMO.In the absence of a decisive leadership calling the shots, the counter-terror strategy of the NDA era has all but collapsed. The Prime Minister and his team have adopted a policy of treating terrorism as a mere law-and-order problem that should be left to the police. Such an approach cuts out intelligence agencies from playing a proactive role in locating sleeper cells and busting terror networks.Within IB, operatives say, the effort is to pump human resources into gathering political intelligence. This has reached a situation where the best are being asked to divert their attention from tracking terrorist organisations and their members to electronic surveillance, including monitoring e-mail and forum discussions."The Pakistanis are laughing at us... we can't blame them, can we?" asks a former Director of IB.
Air Commodore Jasjit Singh
July 26, 2005
The new nuclear bargain means different things to different people, both here and in the United States -- a case of the elephant and the blind men!
Dire consequences to our national security are forecast by our strategic community because we would have access to nuclear power trade and international cooperation.
So the first question that we must address is: Why do we need international cooperation in nuclear power, and what would be the bargain?
To begin with, we all know how deficient the country is in total energy as well in electricity. We have a lot of coal, but it has a very high content of ash (which requires technology and capital to improve it) and is a serious environmental problem. Meanwhile we import better quality of coal from Australia.
The nuclear deal
With the rising consumption in the country, we will be importing over 90 per cent of our oil and gas needs in a few years, mostly from unstable regions to the west of us. This has its own vulnerabilities. Oil prices have soared in the past two years and are likely to keep hovering around $60 per barrel with obvious negative impact on our economy.
Energy deficient countries like Japan, France etc had to rapidly build nuclear power capacity after the oil shock of 1973. China now is building its nuclear power base from near-zero capacity to 40,000MW of electricity by 2020.
We have an ambitious plan to build 20,000MW of nuclear power by 2020. But our indigenous uranium reserves can support, at best, a capacity of only 10,000MW!
A good deal
If we want to increase our nuclear power capacity to even the targeted figure, we will need to import fuel for decades till the fast-breeder reactors are able to take over.
The NDA government was fully cognisant of this, and that is why it had included 'nuclear energy' as the first item for cooperation with the United States under the NSSP (Next Steps in Strategic Partnership) agreed upon in January 2004 by then prime minister Vajpayee and negotiated by then National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, which have been praised so much and for which they took so much credit -- only to slam it now that those steps are moving forward!
The second big question is: Does this agreement jeopardise our national security?
Continuation of pro-US shift: Left parties
Enhancing nuclear power availability in the country would actually enhance national security since it would help economy to grow, reduce poverty and build national comprehensive power. What is less known here is that nuclear power now has become the most economical, most environmental friendly and most reliable form of energy among various types available for commercial use.
But there is no way we can access international cooperation, especially fuel for reactors, without some adjustments in our policies. What we are expected to do beyond the traditional policy of the country is that
i. We will assume all responsibilities and practices (and acquire same benefits and advantages) as other nuclear weapon states like the United States;
ii. we will separate civil and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a 'phased manner' and 'voluntarily' place them under IAEA inspections;
iii. sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with IAEA covering such civilian nuclear facilities.
Third, what would be the implications, especially for our nuclear deterrence capabilities?
The loudest objections in the country have been that separation of civilian facilities from the military facilities would undermine our nuclear defence capability. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
India-US: The blunt truth
We have never had any problem with placing civil nuclear power reactors under IAEA inspection system (Tarapur was voluntarily placed under such inspection in 1993 when our treaty obligations expired). The two Russian supplied reactors near Chennai are under IAEA inspections, and so are the Kota reactors.
The point is that we have an efficient autonomous capability to manufacture nuclear weapons and the facilities for this all would obviously not be placed under any international oversight. But the civil nuclear power reactors built with any international cooperation component would have to be under IAEA inspection and it is crazy to claim that this jeopardises our security.
President Bush has given up the long-held US demand for India becoming a non-nuclear weapon state and in fact put India at par with the US in this respect for nuclear energy cooperation.
Fourth, would this agreement go through, and if not, would it then leave us high and dry with commitments that regress from our present positions and capabilities?
There is no doubt that Bush would find it an uphill task to get the necessary legal authority and international concurrence to the proposal. But he also has the bulk of his second term ahead of him.
US lawmakers say N-deal will be a tough-sell
A joint working group to progress this agreement has already been set up, and senior US officials have been speaking to Congress and US allies. First reactions are fairly positive and 100 Senators and Congressmen at a convention of the Indian American Friendship Council the other day have promised to make the nuclear deal a reality.
President Bush and Prime Minister Singh will meet early next year to review the progress, and the personal role of the US president would matter greatly. If for any reasons the new enterprise does not go through, India still gains by being labelled as a 'responsible State with advanced nuclear technology' (read 'State with nuclear weapons'). Surely, that is not something that we should be complaining about?
Fifth, what does the US get out of what is obviously a major shift in its policy?
Indo-US nuclear treaty: A good deal
The answer to this lies in the macro picture of global trends.
The obvious incentive is the burgeoning market (growing at an impressive rate) of a liberal democracy of over a billion people. But the second Bush administration is also seeking to re-orient its grand strategy after experiencing the negative fall-out from its first tenure. It is badly bogged down in Iraq while it is unable to get enough recruits for its army. Central Asian leaders are seeking its military withdrawal from the region at an early date.
But above all, Washington is finally beginning to readjust its strategy in the context of what has come to be accepted as the 'rise of China.' New tensions have been building in US-China relations in recent months. High-level Chinese generals have been publicly threatening America with 'hundreds of its cities' being burned by Chinese nuclear weapons if there is US-supported conflict over Taiwan.
N-deal no compromise: Saran
Above all, there has been a growing realisation of a global power shift from the West to the East, where China stands out as the rising superpower. The US National Intelligence Council in its projection for the next 15 years raised the issue of how the US would manage the rise of China and India in the coming decade.
By any logic, a successful and prosperous India would be a natural balance to China even while the two remain friendly; and strong India-US relations are crucial to Bush's stated goal of supporting India's rise to global power status. But the nuclear and the contradictory policies of the two have been at the core of their divergences for three decades.
Without finding a way out --- or around them --- the relationship would continue to be severely limited.
Air Commodore Jasjit Singh (retd) is one of India's leading experts on strategic issues.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made to a joint session of the United States Congress, on July 19
Mr Speaker, Mr Vice President, distinguished members of the US Congress, ladies and gentlemen
I deem it a privilege to be invited to address this Joint Session of the US Congress. I thank you for the invitation. I bring you the greetings and good wishes of the people of India.
India and the United States have much in common that is very important to both countries. You are the world's oldest democracy, we are its largest. Our shared commitment to democratic values and processes has been a bond that has helped us transcend differences.
We admire the creativity and enterprise of the American people, the excellence of your institutions of learning, the openness of the economy, and your ready embrace of diversity. These have attracted the brightest young minds from India, creating a bridge of understanding that transcends both distance and difference between us.
In addition to the values we share as democracies, there is also a convergence in our perceptions of a rapidly transforming global environment, bringing us much closer together than at any time in the past.
Globalization has made the world so inter-dependent that none of us can ignore what happens elsewhere. Peace and prosperity are more indivisible than ever before in human history. As democracies, we must work together to create a world in which democracies can flourish.
This is particularly important because we are today faced with new threats such as terrorism, to which democracies are particularly vulnerable.
Indian democracy has been fashioned around India's civilizational ethos which celebrates diversity. Our society today is the culmination of centuries of assimilation of diverse peoples and ethnic groups. All the major religions of the world are represented in India.
We have a tremendous diversity of languages, customs and traditions. The Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, called for universal adult franchise as early as 1931, long before India became independent. Our political leadership remained true to this commitment and the Constitution we adopted after Independence enshrined democracy based on free elections and the associated principles of tolerance of dissent, freedom for political activity, protection of human rights and the Rule of Law.
Complete coverage: PM in Washington
Our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, addressing this very forum in 1949, acknowledged our debt to America on this score. He said that you could hear in our Constitution the echo of the great voices of the Founding Fathers of your Republic.
Ladies and Gentlemen
The real test of a democracy is not in what is said in the Constitution, but in how it functions on the ground. All Indians can be proud of what we have achieved in this area and our experience is also relevant beyond our boundaries. Free and fair elections are the foundation of a democracy.
Over the past six decades, governments in India, at both the national and state level, have regularly sought the mandate of the people through elections. Our elections are conducted under the supervision of a statutory independent Election Commission, which has earned respect for its fairness and transparency, both at home and abroad. The independent judiciary has been a zealous defender of our Constitution and a credible guarantor of the Rule of Law.
The Press is a key institution in any democracy and our media has a well-earned reputation for being free and fearless. Our minorities, and we have many, participate actively in all walks of national life -- political, commercial and cultural.
Civil society organisations are thriving and are vigilant in protecting human rights. They are also watchful of threats to the environment. Our Army has remained a professional force, subject throughout to civilian control.
Recently, the Constitution was amended to ensure constitutionally mandated elections to village and municipal councils. This process has produced no less than three million elected representatives in the country, with one million positions reserved for women.
This has brought democracy closer to the people and also empowered women and promoted gender balance.
View from Washington
Our commitment to democratic values and practices means there are many concerns and perceptions that we share with the United States. The most important common concern is the threat of terrorism. Democracy can only thrive in open and free societies. But open societies like ours are today threatened more than ever before by the rise of terrorism.
The very openness of our societies makes us more vulnerable, and yet we must deal effectively with the threat without losing the openness we so value and cherish. India and the United States have both suffered grievously from terrorism and we must make common cause against it. We know that those who resort to terror often clothe it in the garb of real or imaginary grievances. We must categorically affirm that no grievance can justify resort to terror.
Democracies provide legitimate means for expressing dissent. They provide the right to engage in political activity, and must continue to do so. However, for this very reason, they cannot afford to be soft on terror. Terrorism exploits the freedom our open societies provide to destroy our freedoms.
The United States and India must work together in all possible forums to counter all forms of terrorism. We cannot be selective in this area. We must fight terrorism wherever it exists, because terrorism anywhere threatens democracy everywhere.
We know from experience that democratic societies which guarantee individual freedom and tolerance of dissent provide an environment most conducive to creative endeavour, and the establishment of socially just societies. We therefore have an obligation to help other countries that aspire for the fruits of democracy. Just as developed industrial countries assist those that are less developed to accelerate development, democratic societies with established institutions must help those that want to strengthen democratic values and institutions.
In this spirit, President Bush and I agreed yesterday on a global initiative to help build democratic capacities in all societies that seek such assistance.
The capacities we have in mind are those related to the electoral, parliamentary, judicial and human rights processes of emerging democracies. Respect for cultural diversity, minority rights and gender equality is an important goal of this initiative.
Democracy is one part of our national endeavour. Development is the other. Openness will not gain popular support if an open society is not a prosperous society. This is especially so in developing countries, where a large number of people have legitimate material expectations which must be met. That is why we must transform India's economy, to raise the standard of living of all our people and in the process eliminate poverty.
India's aspirations in the respect are not different from those of other developing countries. But we are unique in one respect.
There is no other country of a billion people, with our tremendous cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, that has tried to modernise its society and transform its economy within the framework of a functioning democracy.
To attempt this at our modest levels of per capita income is a major challenge. We are determined to succeed in this effort. To achieve our developmental goals, our policies and strategies must be in step with changed circumstances and especially the opportunities now available in the global economy.
Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, standing at this very podium two decades ago, spoke of the challenge of building anew on old foundations. He started a process of reorienting India's economic policies, which has been continued by successive governments.
The economic policy changes that have been made in India have far-reaching implications. They have liberated Indian enterprise from government control and made the economy much more open to global flows of trade, capital and technology. Our entrepreneurial talent has been unleashed, and is encouraged to compete with the best. We will continue this process so that Indian talent and enterprise can realize its full potential, enabling India to participate in the global economy as an equal partner.
We are often criticised for being too slow in making changes in policy, but democracy means having to build a consensus in favour of change. As elected representatives, you are all familiar with this problem. We have to assuage the doubts and calm the fears that often arise when people face the impact of change. Many of the fears we have to address are exaggerated, but they must be addressed. This is necessary to ensure sustainability. India's economic reforms must be seen in this light: they may appear slow, but I assure you they are durable and irreversible.
I am happy to say that our efforts at transforming India into an economy more integrated with the world have borne fruit. Our rate of growth of GDP has increased steadily, and has averaged around 6.0 per cent per year over the past two decades. Poverty has declined although more slowly than we would like. We are determined to improve on this performance. We hope to raise our growth rate to 8 per cent or so over the next two years, and we will ensure that this growth is "inclusive" so that its benefits are widely spread.
For this we must act on several fronts. We must do much more in health and education, which are crucial for human development. We must continue to open up our economy. We must impart a new impetus to agricultural development. We must expand investment in economic infrastructure which is a critical constraint on our growth prospects.
India's growth and prosperity is in American interest. American investments in India, especially in new technology areas, will help American companies to reduce costs and become more competitive globally.
Equally, India's earnings from these investments will lead to increased purchases from the United States. The information technology revolution in India is built primarily on US computer related technology and hardware. There are many other examples of such two-way benefits, with both sides gaining from the process.
US firms are already leading the foreign investment drive in India. I believe 400 of the Fortune 500 are already in India. They produce for the Indian market and will hopefully also source supplies from India for their global supply chains. We welcome this involvement and look forward to further expansion in the years ahead. India needs massive foreign direct investment, especially in infrastructure. I hope American companies will participate in the opportunities we are creating.
The 21st century will be driven by knowledge-based production and India is well placed in this area. We have a large and relatively young population with a social tradition that values higher education. Our educated young people are also English-speaking. This makes us potentially an attractive location for production of high-end services whether in software, engineering design or research in pharmaceutical and other areas.
Our laws on intellectual property rights have been recently amended to comply fully with our international obligations under the WTO. We look forward to attracting business in these areas from the United States.
The presence of a large number of Indian Americans in high technology industries here makes the US and India natural partners. It gives you confidence about India's human resource capability. It also gives you an edge over your competitors in the ease with which you can operate in India. We are proud of what the Indian American community have done in this country.
I was touched, as were many of my countrymen, by the news that a Resolution of this House celebrated the contribution of Indian Americans to research, innovation, and promotion of trade and international cooperation between India and the US.
Ladies and gentlemen
To fully exploit potential areas for cooperation between our two countries, we need to make special efforts to bring our private sectors closer together. To this end, President Bush and I have constituted an India-US forum of chief executive officers. I hope this forum will promote greater understanding of each other's perspectives and also a better assessment of prospects for future cooperation. The two governments will draw on their experience and advice on how to realise the full potential of our relationship.
The bulk of our population still depends upon agriculture for a living. The United States was an early partner in this area, helping to establish agricultural universities and research institutions in India in the 1960s.
It was an American, Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug, supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, who developed high yielding varieties of wheat in Mexico which were then adapted to Indian conditions in the Agricultural Universities you helped establish.
This was the start of the Green Revolution in India that lifted countless millions above poverty.
I am very happy to say that President Bush and I have decided to launch a second generation of India-US collaboration in agriculture. The new initiative will focus on basic and strategic research for sustainable development of agriculture to meet the challenge of raising productivity in conditions of water stress. It seeks to take information and knowhow directly to the farming community and promote technologies that minimise post harvest wastage and improve food storage.
It will also help Indian farmers to meet phyto-sanitary conditions and enable them to participate more fully in global agricultural trade.
Energy security is another area where our two countries have strong common interests.
The world's reserves of hydrocarbons are finite and we must tap new energy sources. India's reliance on coal and hydro-power will increase. We have to invest in new oil and gas exploration and in enhanced recovery of oil and gas from available fields. We must also tap the full potential of nuclear energy. The US can help in all these areas.
I am happy to say we have initiated an Energy Dialogue with the US to explore the scope for cooperation in each of these areas in the years ahead.
The field of civil nuclear energy is a vital area for cooperation between our two countries. As a consequence of our collective efforts, our relationship in this sector is being transformed.
President Bush and I arrived at an understanding in finding ways and means to enable such cooperation. In this context, I would also like to reiterate that India's track record in nuclear non-proliferation is impeccable. We have adhered scrupulously to every rule and canon in this area. We have done so even though we have witnessed unchecked nuclear proliferation in our own neighbourhood which has directly affected our security interests.
This is because India, as a responsible nuclear power, is fully conscious of the immense responsibilities that come with the possession of advanced technologies, both civilian and strategic. We have never been, and will never be, a source of proliferation of sensitive technologies.
We are conscious that plans to meet our energy requirements will have implications for the environment. This is especially so since any energy scenario for India will involve heavy dependence on coal. Clean coal technologies that can make an impact need to be developed and should be affordable for poorer countries. We need to find ways whereby sufficient resources can be devoted to ensure the development of these technologies. We must also find ways of allowing greater access for developing countries to these technologies including ways of undertaking cooperative research.
We stand ready to explore new partnerships in this area with you, which will help enable a more efficient use of our hydrocarbon resources.
There are other areas too where we can collaborate. Our combined effort in providing relief and succour to the millions affected by last December's tsunami is an example of what partnership can achieve.
Building on this experience, President Bush and I have launched a joint initiative to ensure that our capabilities will be readily on call for those in need in similar situations in future. The global challenge of HIV/AIDS is another area for India-US cooperation. President Bush and I have agreed on the need to provide increased international access to safe and effective anti-retroviral drugs.
Ladies and gentlemen
Globalisation has woven a web of inter-connections across the world. This makes it all the more necessary that we evolve a system of global governance that carries credibility and commands legitimacy.
Such a system must be sufficiently participative to be able to generate a global consensus. It must also reflect contemporary reality. The Doha round of world trade negotiations and the reform of the United Nations are two major processes in the international arena where we need to work together to strengthen the system of global governance.
India is committed to strengthening the multilateral trading system and we will work with the US and other partners for a successful outcome of the Doha Round. I am sure that we can find a reasonable and balanced outcome that is mutually beneficial. We will make every effort to do so.
On the reform of the United Nations, we believe that it is time to recognise the enormous changes that have occurred since the present structure was established. There must be comprehensive reform of the United Nations to make it more effective and also more representative.
The UN Security Council must be restructured as part of the reform process. In this context, you would agree that the voice of the world's largest democracy surely cannot be left unheard on the Security Council when the United Nations is being restructured.
Mr Speaker, Mr Vice President, distinguished senators and members of the House of Representatives, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to conclude by saying that the Indian people look forward to a bright future, full of confidence, based on a growing recognition of our economic capabilities and the readiness of our society to meet the challenges before us.
We have had some success in improving the quality of life of our own people and we will redouble our efforts to this end. We will also work towards securing a world order in which democracy can flourish, and in which developing nations can strive for greater prosperity.
As two democracies, we are natural partners in many respects. Partnerships can be of two kinds. There are partnerships based on principle and there are partnerships based on pragmatism.
I believe we are at a juncture where we can embark on a partnership that can draw both on principle as well as pragmatism. We must build on this opportunity.
My objective on this visit was to lay the basis for transformed ties between our two great countries. I believe that we have made a very good beginning. With the support and understanding of the Congress, the full benefits of our partnership will be realised in the months and years to come.
India is today embarked on a journey inspired by many dreams. We welcome having America by our side. There is much we can accomplish together.
Thank you
This is the text of the speech Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made to a joint session of the United States Congress, on July 19
India haunted by corruption, money: President Kolkata, July 14: "Sweat, sweat, sweat,' President APJ Abdul Kalam said today, spelling out the recipe for success. The President was replying to a query from a student of the Scottish Church Collegiate School here, who wanted to know the secret of his success. Taking part in his trademark interactive session with students of the school at the concluding function of its 175th anniversary celebrations, Kalam touched on a wide range of subjects including astronomy, India's achievements in science, the need for moral education as also the scourge of corruption. ''This nation is haunted by corruption, of power and money. Now, the time has come when only the youth can change the system,'' the President said, and dictated a oath to the students that they would strive to create a corruption-free India. ''West Bengal has played a pioneering role in our Freedom Movement and also in science. Time has come for Bengal to be the pioneer in another big movement (to free the country from corruption),'' the 73 year old space scientist said. Narrating anecdotes about his teachers, Kalam urged school authorities to inculcate strong moral values in students. The President put questions to students and patiently listened to their answers. ''You get 90 marks,'' he said patting a student, who gave a satisfactory reply to one of his queries. ---- everybody knows abt the problem. but what about solution
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1167757.cms RSS asks Advani to step down
I dont know whether Advani is leader of BJP or RSS. Its one of the examples of hiting your own with axe. After flirting so many years with RSS, now they have to pay their dowry......
We are angry, it is not cheap politics: Advani
--- Its not the way to express your anger Mr. Advani. If you people are really very angry, then go to Kashmir and other naxal affected area fight with the people who are behind it. Bandh and all your displays are of no use.
