Nuclear Deal Signed with India, American Diplomat Killed in Pakistan

President Bush's critical visits to India and Pakistan were bound to be anything but dull, and two events have occured in the last 12 hours that signify not only the diverging brand images of both India and Pakistan, but also how many issues of global importance converge on this region. 

India and the US have signed a nuclear energy agreement.  This not only helps world oil prices by easing India's demand for oil, it is essentially a stamp of approval for India as a responsible, democratic chaperone of nuclear weapons. 

This cartoon from Cox and Forkum says it all. 

Things are not so rosy over in Pakistan.  A US diplomat was killed by an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber, an attack strategically planned to complicate Bush's visit there later this week.  Additionally, a major terrorist commander was captured in Bangladesh, a country that used to be part of Pakistan until 1971.  The mainstream media barely mentions this. 

As India's brand image evolves to one of a globally influential democracy with rapidly growing, knowledge-based industries, the brand image of Pakistan continues to degenerate into that of a state full of Al-Qaeda terrorists and those sympathetic towards them.  This cannot be attributed to Islam alone, as India still has about the same aggregate number of Muslims as Pakistan, yet Indian Muslims rarely have been the cause of such suicide-bombings. 

This is also apparent in this Pew survey, indicating that India has a higher opinion of the US than almost any other country, whereas Pakistan is at the other end of the scale, mostly viewing the US negatively. 

We are witnessing a divergence in the fortunes of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), which were all one country until 1947.  Can Pakistan change from a dangerous path to join Indian on a productive one?  For the future of the world, it must.

India, Indo-US ties, India nuclear deal, Indian economy, India outsourcing

Comments

[jeffolie]

For investors, especially those who are internationally oriented, one of the most important developments this week is President Bush’s visit to India. As things stand, no one knows what the US wants from India, while the world found last summer that India is mainly interested in receiving US civilian nuclear technology.

[GK]

I don't agree. Above all else, both India and the US want to make money, and the two countries have many, many synergies with each other.

India-US trade has doubled in the last 3 years, and will amazingly double again in the next 3 years.

http://ia.rediff.com/money/2006/mar/02bush2.htm?q=bp&file=.htm

[jeffolie]

Did I miss something? What trade deals were accomplished at this event?

[GK]

That's tomorrow. But a strengthening of ties on something as sensitive as the N-deal automatically boosts more trade.

There has been a very close corelation between India's accelerating growth rate, the number of Indians living in the US, the number of US companies with divisions in India, and the closeness of the relationship between India and the US.

The gravitational pull affects all bodies involved.

[Dusty]

To lump the attitudes and prevailing opinions of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into one boat primarily on the basis of their once being a a single nation is inappropriate. To suggest that their fortunes run in parallel is inaccurate.

By the way, Bangladesh not only recently captured Abdur Rahman, but previous arrested some 600 suspected Islamist, 21+/- of which have been convicted and sentenced to death, for the 400 simulaneous bombings that took place in August of last year.

I think you misjudge the Bangladeshis.

[GK]

Dusty,

What you are saying was true for most of the last 30 years. Bangladeshis, after all, are Bengalis, rather than the Pashtuns that live in NW Pakistan. However, the increasing power of radicals in Bangladesh is taking the country down a bad path.

Pakistan has also arrested many terrorists, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Abu-Musab al Suri. Arrests do not corelate to a lack of sympathy for fundamentalists among the general population.

[bob]

You stated that India has more Muslims living in it than Pakistan. That is incorrect.

There are, however, over 100 million Muslims in India. This is a significant point, but there's certainly at least 10 million more Muslims in Pakistan than in India.

Where'd you get that incorrect info? Sounds like a source worth looking at more critically.

See CIA World Factbook.

[GK]

bob,

The number is about the same, as Pakistan is only 96% Muslim to begin with, and India is about 14% Muslim (out of 1,080 million).

Thus, both India and Pakistan come out to 150-155 million Muslims. The margin of error of 3% could put either one higher than the other.

[vineeth prabhanandan]

The american intention with devoloping nations like india and pakistan are simple.. give them more weapons and other equipments and they will fight to the last... americans care only for them they want contol over asia for it's very rich resources. Too bad for them that india is never gonna buy that..
the yankies are worng about the indians

[GK]

vineeth,

That is an ignorant comment.

America always buys natural resources at market prices. It is other countries (Russia, China) that take control of them.

From your poor grammar, you are not very well educated, so you should learn much more about this subject before commenting.

[vineeth prabhanandan]

fuck you !!!!!!!!! u r the one who is illiterate ..

[GK]

vineeth,

If that is the only form of argument you are capable of (rather than actually address the points at hand), then yes, you are illiterate, and are demonstrating it.

Note that 'you are' in my language means 'u r' in your illiterate language.

[aion kinah]

America always buys natural resources at market prices. It is other countries (Russia, China) that take control of them.