The Problem Of Pakistan: How Should India React?

The whole of India had been left shellshock when Pakistan’s “banana” court gave a sudden death sentence to Kulbhushan Jadhav: a retired Navy officer turned businessman. He was sold to the ISI by the Taliban after being abducted from Iran. The Pakistani establishment defied all possible International Treaty including the “Vienna Convention” during the trial. They refused to give consular access to Kulbhushan Yadav 14 times as of now. They are yet to give the charge sheet and the judgment to India.

Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention affords the following privileges to the consular officers of states for communicating with their national detained in another state: (a) consular officers can freely communicate with nationals of the state where the individual has been detained; (b) upon request of the detainee, the detaining state must immediately inform the consular post of the detainee’s state and (c) consular officers can visit the detained individual and arrange for legal representation.

But the question in Every Indian’s mind is: What should India do to next?
The Govt. doesn’t seem to have a clear blueprint against Pakistan and at times even looked clueless while dealing with the “terrorist state”. The govt. Instead is very keen on giving “most favored nation” status to Pakistan. What on earth will get loose if India cut off all diplomatic ties with Pak? Will we all starve to death? Even if we had to, we would have probably died with pride and a smile on our face.

When on the one hand we aspire to be a superpower and demand a place in the Security Council, the reality is that our Govt. can’t even take a stand against a state who trades with the Taliban; abducts one of our citizens and sentences him to death! Can’t we just for once and for all forget that there is one Pakistan to our neighbor and cut off all kinds of diplomatic and cultural ties. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the Govt. when it comes to Pakistan. Why does our rage always come down to Parliament speeches and “Kadi Ninda” and not reflect on our deeds? It is a said that “You are known for what you do not what you say.” So why does the Govt. who has raised a nationalist movement in our country only restricted to banning cow slaughter; why not put sanctions against Pakistan?

On the 3rd of Feb this year there was an Independent bill moved for discussion in the parliament called as The Sponsor of Terrorism Bill, 2016 to impose legal, economic and travel sanctions on citizens of countries which promote terror.

“We have diplomatic relations with the neighboring country which includes High Commissions as well as trade relations. It will be not prudent to declare any state as a terror state as India is bound by international norms,” said a senior government official.

Why can’t India, the world’s biggest democracy adopt a bill that declares a terror state as “terror state”? When any terror activity happens in India (The Mumbai attack, Pathankot, etc..) we go to the U.S and the U.N to declare Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror. When a bill comes in the U.S Senate to declare Pakistan a “State sponsor of terror,” it becomes breaking news and when it fails to pass we call Americans, hypocrites. Why the hell can’t we being the fastest growing economy take the first call? Why this hypocrisy? Why should we let the Pakistani terrorist kill our brave soldier? If we can’t solve one single issue and don’t have the courage to take a much more bold stand, do we deserve a place in the Security Council?
If we want to pose ourselves as a powerful state, we have to take some brave and daring decisions.
It’s very evident that Pakistan is inciting violence in Kashmir. There was a time when our Prime Minister from the ramparts of the Red Fort praised the Balochi people for their support for India. Kulbhushan Jadhav is being accused of espionage and inciting violence in Baluchistan. So my question is why can’t the Govt. pass a bill and considering Baluchistan as a separate state and set up an exiled Govt. in India (As suggested by Subramanian Swami).

The bigger point is that we have a stable Govt. in power with a strong Prime Minister in Narendra Modi. Why can’t we take a high ground? Are we afraid of the so-called “International laws” which Pakistan rather vehemently defies?
When we did the “Pokhran” nuclear test, countries like the U.S, Japan had put sanctions against India. What is the situation now? They come begging to India to sell their goods. So, why they couldn’t break us apart? Because of the power of the billions. No country had the courage to face or force India; to put a break on our nuclear program because a billion people were right behind the Government. So, the excuse of “International law” might not go long and being a fence sitter might as well not show the actual potential of a Superpower state like India.

Advertisements
The Election of the Doom….and the Liberals

The Election of the Doom….and the Liberals

After the recent American election, it seems as though the world’s come to an end. The election, which was declared very much in favor of Hillary Clinton went “Shockingly” results: or rather “Surprisingly ” to a “Clown faced bigot” [Not my phrase] created ripples across the political sphere with every single intellect giving his/her points of view in accordance with the results.

However, there were certain sections of people who could not digest: the mainstream liberal media. Before we start dissecting the mainstream media, let’s put some facts straight: Only 1 out of 50 media houses saw the wind coming. The L.A Times was the only newspaper that predicted a Trump victory; giving trump an edge of 5.4% against the Democrat’s stalwarts Hillary Clinton. All other major organization including the media Behemoths CNN, The New York Times, The Washington post among others predicted Hillary as the 45th president of the United States.

The New York Times: “Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.”

Now as Donald J. Trump Sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, the American Media should Smear their heads in Shame and apologize for misleading the American public.The American media, which, on one hand, calls itself the epitome of Journalistic ethics, not only took sides but even forged data to make one candidate look superior to another.

index

A major pollster has some stark news: “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year,” writes Art Swift, an analyst for the Gallup poll, which first asked the nation to weigh in on the press in 1972.These surveys show that the trust deficit in media is rising constantly.

So, how exactly did Donald Trump interact with his audience and where did the media go wrong? Donald J. Trump had a very special weapon which is one of the most abstract inventions of human intelligence: The Social Media. Donald Trump used the social media as his messenger and conveyed all his messages and ideals[some being as ridiculous as building a Wall and banning Muslims from entering the U.S ] through the social media.

But how could did Donald Trump win?In this last part let us talk about what propelled the American people to vote for a person who was “a Manti-Black”,”anti-Latinos”, and most importantly “Anti-Muslims”. Actually, to be frank, and neutral he was all of those during Primaries and some of his initial rallies.But believe me chanting  “Anti-Muslims”, “anti-Black” rhetoric was not the sole characteristic of his rallies. In fact, he talked about the things which mattered the most to the general public. He talked about Jobs Creation, Reducing Tax, defeating ISIS and most importantly not being what is called “Politically correct”. He referred to “terrorism”[as said by his rival] as “Radical Islamic terrorism” which echoed to the American voters as someone who could take stern stands and does believed in him.

maxresdefault

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and the liberal media kept on playing the old broken records; his 20-year-old tapes, the interviews of women who were allegedly assaulted by him in yesteryear. Apart from sole rhetoric and allegation against Trump, She lacked the vision and her policies never made the ears of her voters. She was further humiliated with the FBI again re-investigating her alleged corruption case, which further engulfed her: resulting in her negative publicity.

post-truth-banner

So, with the inaugural of the new president, the media must introspect within and also realize that there is no such thing as Post-Truth. Even if there is, it’s certainly not a byproduct of the American election or Brexit. Lastly, there is a nexus which has been there for a long time, not only in western countries but also in democracies like India. When everything happens according to them, everything’s fine; but as soon as people reject their version of philosophy, they call it unbelievable, surprising, and even discover new words such as “Post-Truth era”.