In recent months this building has been plagued by King Kong. Yes, that ape with a fetish for blondes. Or just a man in an ape suit who takes pleasure in standing outside as elevators doors open to give visitors a surprise. I've seen King Kong around several times but never ever Naomi Watts. Drat. Life can be unfair.
Talking of going ape, I need to turn to the other 800-pound gorilla that's been dominating discussions of late. Figuratively, of course. This is the civilian nuclear deal signed in July 2005 between the United States and India, and this deal seems some way from fruition.
In concentrating on the mega-fauna of recent Indo-US rhetoric, we seem to have let slip our concerns over the role (or lack of it) that the United States may play with regard to the ever-irritating issue of Kashmir.
By now, we're all aware of the interview President George W Bush gave to two Indian newspapers prior to his scheduled visit to India. The Times of India, obviously, tomtommed that interview, but for some strange reason, the prefatory remarks from Bush seem to have been ignored.
And those were crucial. According to the White House transcript, this is what he said: "I do want to make something clear in the speech I gave today. I said that - as to the Kashmir interest - issue, America supports a solution that is acceptable to all sides. As you might recall in my remarks, I said, "to both sides." I would like the record to be so that the world hears me say, "all sides." I fully understand that the deal has to be acceptable to the Indians, Pakistanis, as well as the citizens of Kashmir."
"Citizens of Kashmir"? Parse that. Do we say citizens of Maharashtra or Sindh, for that matter? What is the message this Administration is trying to get through?
Not just that, Indian diplomats have worked hard to reducing Kashmir to a bilateral issue, to be resolved between India and Pakistan. In fact, on September 15, 2005, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf gave his usual rousing speech at the United Nations General Assembly and spoke at length about the Kashmiri people, how they were the third side to the equation.
Six-and-a-half hours later, Indian diplomats claimed a victory of sorts when the joint statement issued by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh removed that triangulation. This is what the section read: "They expressed their commitment to ensure a peaceful settlement of all pending issues including Jammu and Kashmir to the satisfaction of both sides."
"Both sides" not "all sides". Nuance, the cornerstone of international negotiations.
I'm not sure whether Indian journalists, rah-rahing about the Bush visit have actually paid attention to the Bush bhasha.
The Pakistani media did. In an article headlined Bush wants "Kashmiri 'citizens' in India-Pakistan talks" on February 25, the newspaper, Dawn, described these as "landmark remarks."
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri latched on to those "landmark remarks" too as he said, "President Bush's statement that the solution be acceptable to Pakistan,
India and Kashmiris is the same which Pakistan and President Musharraf are saying for a long time."
Now, as Nicholas Burns tots up frequent flyer points traveling between New Delhi and Washington DC, is India so focused on the nuke deal that Kashmir seems so yesterday? Well, only tomorrow will tell.
first published:March 01, 2006, 06:20 ISTlast updated:March 01, 2006, 06:20 IST
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
62? Why 62? No, that number isn't the answer to the ultimate question. It's just the floor where our office is located in the Empire State Building in New York. If you peer out from the windows here, you get a panoramic view of the city. Across the East River and onto Queens. You can see the jets, descending or departing JFK or La Guardia. Or a couple of police choppers hovering above. Really really strain your neck and you could possibly catch a glimpse of Brooklyn.
In recent months this building has been plagued by King Kong. Yes, that ape with a fetish for blondes. Or just a man in an ape suit who takes pleasure in standing outside as elevators doors open to give visitors a surprise. I've seen King Kong around several times but never ever Naomi Watts. Drat. Life can be unfair.
Talking of going ape, I need to turn to the other 800-pound gorilla that's been dominating discussions of late. Figuratively, of course. This is the civilian nuclear deal signed in July 2005 between the United States and India, and this deal seems some way from fruition.
In concentrating on the mega-fauna of recent Indo-US rhetoric, we seem to have let slip our concerns over the role (or lack of it) that the United States may play with regard to the ever-irritating issue of Kashmir.
By now, we're all aware of the interview President George W Bush gave to two Indian newspapers prior to his scheduled visit to India. The Times of India, obviously, tomtommed that interview, but for some strange reason, the prefatory remarks from Bush seem to have been ignored.
And those were crucial. According to the White House transcript, this is what he said: "I do want to make something clear in the speech I gave today. I said that - as to the Kashmir interest - issue, America supports a solution that is acceptable to all sides. As you might recall in my remarks, I said, "to both sides." I would like the record to be so that the world hears me say, "all sides." I fully understand that the deal has to be acceptable to the Indians, Pakistanis, as well as the citizens of Kashmir."
"Citizens of Kashmir"? Parse that. Do we say citizens of Maharashtra or Sindh, for that matter? What is the message this Administration is trying to get through?
Not just that, Indian diplomats have worked hard to reducing Kashmir to a bilateral issue, to be resolved between India and Pakistan. In fact, on September 15, 2005, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf gave his usual rousing speech at the United Nations General Assembly and spoke at length about the Kashmiri people, how they were the third side to the equation.
Six-and-a-half hours later, Indian diplomats claimed a victory of sorts when the joint statement issued by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh removed that triangulation. This is what the section read: "They expressed their commitment to ensure a peaceful settlement of all pending issues including Jammu and Kashmir to the satisfaction of both sides."
"Both sides" not "all sides". Nuance, the cornerstone of international negotiations.
I'm not sure whether Indian journalists, rah-rahing about the Bush visit have actually paid attention to the Bush bhasha.
The Pakistani media did. In an article headlined Bush wants "Kashmiri 'citizens' in India-Pakistan talks" on February 25, the newspaper, Dawn, described these as "landmark remarks."
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri latched on to those "landmark remarks" too as he said, "President Bush's statement that the solution be acceptable to Pakistan,
India and Kashmiris is the same which Pakistan and President Musharraf are saying for a long time."
Now, as Nicholas Burns tots up frequent flyer points traveling between New Delhi and Washington DC, is India so focused on the nuke deal that Kashmir seems so yesterday? Well, only tomorrow will tell.
Comments
0 comment