It reminds me of PL 480 eaten in my childhood and the fear of an american intervention with the deplyment of Seventh Fleet in Indian ocean.

I see the missiles hit Afganistan crossing Indian sky. I remember all those days and nights of attacks on Bagdad. I have to remember the Vietnam War. and the war of 1971 on the soil of East Pakistan. I imagine the dawn filled with killing gas in Bhopal. I am surrounded by Singur, Tehri, Narmada and Kalingnagar.

And they say, Superpower in the Making and thet is India, it seems to be the slogan of much sponsored new ads of Shining India.The rise of this growing nation will change the balance of power in Asia—and potentially the world, armed by globalisation and the epic Indo- Us nuclear deal, it seem to be the theme of the swan song of the Indian feudal ruling class well represented by the statepower as well as the classical colonial democratic setup.

Resistanc against internal as well as external imperialism by the Indian underclasses , best reflected in Singur and Kalingnagar, don`t ahve any significant mileage in the media worldwide.Recent visits from leaders and officials from the United States,France,China, Germany and Russia have spotlighted India's rise. These

wealthier nations see India as a trading partner with enormous potential. The new Indo Us Nuclear deal has heralded a new era of Pro- US Indian foriegn policy, no doubt.

In fact, Indian polity has made ists people innocent scapegoats of postmodern colonialism. The state itself, with soveriegnity mortgaged long before, have transformed it into a very useful tool to safeguard American Interests in Asia. Bush has realised that US defeat is imminent in Iraq and it is well trapped in the desertstorm. Thus, US prods India to have its nose in the distant desert.

The nuclear deal is the launching pad for US dictates to follow.Although it has not yet matched the financial performance of China—currently the fastest-growing economy in the world—according to some analysts, India shows even more long-term potential for rapid growth. India is the second largest consumer market next to china which has opened its door for US corporates like Union Carbide causing Bhopal tragedy, Colas, etc with much glee. Now the US companies have too much on stake physically in India.

The deal ensures to execute the constant blackmail to destroy indigineous productiobn system, particualrlt the agro sector. Americanisation of the ruling classes is complete and we have the generation next non committed to anyyhing and just waiting a call from the far away west. Leaders from both nations have discussed the creation of a

Chinese-Indian common market based on the European Union model.Although only an idea at present, if realized, it would be thelargest economic system in the world, home for about 2.5 billionconsumers—almost 40% of the human race (or 3 of every 8 people onearth)!

During his visit to India earlier this year, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh established a framework for closer U.S.-India ties, a centerpiece of which -- a civilian nuclear accord -- received congressional approval on Dec. 9 and was signed by Mr. Bush on Monday.

India sees China as a long-term rival, and perhaps because of that it also sees Japan as an increasingly important and increasingly natural ally. A strong alliance between New Delhi, Tokyo and Washington may be essential to maintaining a balance of power in the Pacific that is to America's liking. It's clearly in U.S. interests to see India continue to develop as both a strategic and an economic power, and the signing of the nuclear cooperation accord is a good effort to facilitate that growth.

Budhadev will be sleeping well because the import of nuclear reactors for the proposed Haripur Plat is ensured despite the Marxist opposition. And the resistance also seems to be a mendetary as well.Whatever its nuclear aspirations, the country has a long militaryshopping list. Last year, it announced plans to build the first aircraft carrier ever put to sea by a developing nation, and to lease two nuclear submarines from Russia. America has openly discussed the sale of naval vessels, combat aircraft, patrol aircraft and helicopters to India. One former U.S. ambassador to

India opined, "Of course we should sell advanced weaponry to India. The million-man Indian army actually fights, unlike the post-modernmilitaries of many of our European allies" (The Economist).

President Mussarraf and Prime minister Manmohan singh plays well under Washington directives. So is the status of the most third world countries as they have surrendered the soveriegnity, freedom, human rights, natural resources and production system to the corporate unipolar Imperialism. Opposition in every nation have nothing to do but pacifing the hurt public sentiments with doublespeak as we witness in India.

After the demise of Mrs Indira Gandhi, the Indo Us relations enhanced in qualities under direct directives of Pentagan, World Bank and IMF. Soviet model is replaced by disinvestment and privatisation. On one ever raised voice on and against US aggression in Asian countries.

And now, with the disintegration of Soviet Union, Warsa Pact and Non Alligned movement, India has to be an informal part of Nato.The United States has an enormous stake in the success of a rich, confident, democratic India that shares American ambitions to manage Chinese power, protect Indian Ocean sea lanes, safeguard an open international economy, stabilize a volatile region encompassing the heartland of jihadist extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and prove to all those enamored of the Chinese model of authoritarian development that democracy is the firmest foundation for the achievement of humankind's most basic aspirations.India has placed a high priority onimproving its military capabilities as well.

US sees its interests endangered in Asia as, though a degree of tension does remain between the two nations, withlingering memories of the brief 1962 war in which China soundly

defeated India, the relationship between these two Asian giants iswarming up. Trade between them is now increasing at a vigorous pace,and diplomatic relations are at a post-1962 highpoint. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, during a recent visit to New Delhi, hailed cooperation between the two nations as the driving force of a new "Asian Century." Indian Prime Minister Singh spoke of the potential for India and China to rearrange the world order by working together.Many have pointed out that their economic strengths seem to be tailor-made for a partnership. India seeks to be a major player in the computer software world in the same way that China is in the area of hardware. Cooperation between Beijing and New Delhi could prove a dominant force in the information technology market.

The bill carves out an exemption in American law to allow U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants; eight military plants would remain off-limits. Congressional action was needed because U.S. law bars nuclear trade with countries, such as India, that have not submitted to full international inspections.

We have to serve american interests as Us choses us to be the most suitable ally. Three recent events illuminate the contours and fault lines of Asia's emerging strategic landscape, amid the lengthening shadows cast by China's growing power.First, the United States and India consolidated a wide-ranging military, economic, and diplomatic partnership on December 9, when Congress passed legislation enabling U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation.

Then, at a summit in Tokyo on December 15, the leaders of India and Japan declared their ambition for a strategic and economic entente between Asia's leading democracies. This stands in sharp contrast to the intensifying rivalry between India and China: Tensions over territory and Tibet simmered at a summit on November 21, where Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's assertion that "there is enough [geopolitical] space for the two countries to develop together" sounded more like hope than conviction.

India's economy is divided between agriculture (which accounts for a quarter of the gross national product), manufacturing (constitutinganother quarter) and the high-tech service sector, which now makes up fully half of the gross national product. Striving to becomea "knowledge superpower," it hopes to skip the intermediate step of industrial development that has preceded other nations' march into the Information Age.Scientific and information technology companies from around the world are opening research and development labs in India—more than

100 in the past five years. One mainstay of the new economy is software development, with ever more global firms outsourcing to India the time-intensive work of programming. Businesses worldwide also rely on the country for customer service—phone calls from around the world are directed to call centers in Indian cities such as Bangalore. Other developing markets include pharmaceutical and biotechnology research. Currently, the majority of top American

companies send some of their IT work to India, and there is little evidence of a slowdown in this trend.

Critics have said the measure undermines efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia by boosting India's atomic arsenal. The Bush administration said India has long maintained a responsible nuclear program.

The two countries must now obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Indian officials must also negotiate a safeguard agreement with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Speaking in Parliament on the same day that U.S. President George W. Bush planned to sign the bill on nuclear cooperation into law, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India has some concerns about the U.S. legislation.However, he said they would be dealt with during technical negotiations on an overall U.S.-India cooperation agreement. He didn't elaborate on India's concerns.

"The United States has assured us that the bill would enable it to meet its commitments" made in agreements struck in July 2005 and March 2006 by Bush and Singh.Singh said India would not accept new conditions and its nuclear weapons program would not be subject to interference of any kind because the agreement with the United States dealt with civil nuclear cooperation.

The India-U.S. deal would allow shipments of civilian nuclear fuel to India, overturning a three-decade-old U.S. anti-proliferation policy.In return, India would accept safeguards and inspections at 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants would be off-limits.

Earlier, opposition leader L.K. Advani of the Bharatiya Janata Party said India should not accept the U.S. legislation.

"I want this law to go," Advani said, adding that the deal would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests in the future.

"The primary objective is to cap, roll back and ultimately eliminate its (India's) nuclear weapons capability," Advani warned.Singh asked Advani to wait for the conclusion of the overall U.S.-India cooperation agreement.

India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and followed it up with a series of nuclear tests in 1998.

Advani called the U.S. bill "unequal," saying its conditions would cripple India's nuclear program and not assure uninterrupted fuel supplies for the country's civilian nuclear reactors.

India's two main communist parties, which support the ruling coalition, have asked Singh's government to seek U.S. clarification of clauses that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said would "seriously undermine" New Delhi's foreign policy.

India's government has pushed hard for the deal, saying it is urgently needed to help meet the country's energy needs.

But the version it approved has raised concerns in India over provisions that could limit India's right to reprocess spent atomic fuel and employ other sensitive nuclear technologies.

There are also concerns over provisions that would require Bush and his successors to determine whether New Delhi is cooperating with Washington's efforts to confront Iran about its nuclear program.

On Monday, the Indian prime minister rejected such concerns and said his government would continue to pursue an independent foreign policy consistent with its national interest.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) on Monday described Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement on Indo-US nuclear deal as 'untenable', saying President George W Bush was bound by the legislation enacted by the US Congress. "The prime minister's assertions are untenable as George Bush is bound by the legislation passed by the US Congress," CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, a Rajya Sabha member who sat through Singh's speech in the Lok Sabha gallery, told reporters. He argued that the Dr Singh has pointed out that US would address India's concerns on the deal, but President Bush was bound by the new law.

With the law on the India-US civil nuclear accord in place, Washington hopes to win the agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) including China and get the deal going in six months.

"The major hurdle was the agreement between India and the United States, number one, and the votes in the Congress," Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said on Monday shortly before President George Bush signed the India bill into law.Describing the India deal as unique, Burns said US has no plans whatsoever to provide this kind of legislation for any other country, including Pakistan.The choice before Washington was continued isolation of India or bringing India into the international system with all the benefits of strategic, energy, environmental, and proliferation, he said.

But Washington had kept Pakistan informed about the progress of the deal. President Bush had himself described the civil nuclear accord with India to President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan when he visited Islamabad last March."There are some Pakistanis who are not happy about it, not President Musharraf, but people beneath him. But I think the Pakistanis know that this is something very important that will build a new strategic relationship with India. So it's in our national interest," Burns said.

After signing the landmark nuclear bill into law, US President George W Bush has sought to address some of India's concerns.In a statement released in Washington, Bush said Section 103 of the Act, which talks about US foreign policy and getting India to isolate Iran, will be treated as advisory since the President chooses to conduct foreign policy. In any case, Section 103 is not binding on India, as it is merely a statement of policy. However, its language has irritated officials in Delhi.The US President's statement is also significant because Section 103 talks about seeking a halt of fissile material production by India and crucially, giving fuel to India based on 'reasonable' reactor operating requirements, which critics said amounted to no assured fuel supplies.

Bush has also said another contentious Section 104(d)(2) will be treated as advisory.It says America should not transfer any item to India contrary to Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) transfer guidelines.

For the Americans, the deal on the whole is also a building block of what is becoming an increasingly important relationship for the United States. In economic terms, the Indian juggernaut has shown great resilience, with annual growth around 8-9 percent. Politically, Indian officials understand the value of democratic governance, and India has already shown itself as a force for promoting democracy in its small, politically unstable neighbor Nepal.

Although India has not yet achieved the status of a world power, its potential reaches beyond South Asian hegemony. Because of its location, India can be a key player in terms of its strategic and economic importance to both the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

As the world's largest democracy, and with a foundation of shared values with the United States, India's leadership in both regions makes it an important ally. Standing animosity between India and Pakistan makes it difficult to embrace one without alienating the other, but the Bush administration has managed the feat of strengthening relations with both simultaneously. India shares a strong interest in the stability of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, a region that is still a hotbed of Islamist extremism.

Citing IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, Burns said it would actually stem proliferation in the future, because India has not sold its nuclear technology anywhere. It hasn't sold it outside of India, it certainly hasn't let it go on the black market, as some countries have.

And so it's a positive example of a country that's been abiding by the civil commitments.In the next few months the two countries have to conclude the 123 civil nuclear agreement, essentially codifying their negotiations of the last 18 months. India will also have to negotiate an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards agreement. And then hopefully the NSG will follow the lead given by US and lift their restrictions on India as well, he said."If we move fast at the beginning of 2007, I would hope we could do all that in six months. And this will represent a sea of change in the way the world works, in India's acceptance in the world," Burns said."It also, I think, in many ways speaks of the emergence of India as a global power, and the acceptance of India by the United States and the other powers in the world," he added.

Burns said he was confident about NSG arriving at a consensus on the issue with Russia, Germany, Britain, France, Japan and Australia having publicly announced their support."I do not believe the Chinese will block this. I think they will agree to consensus," he said. But there are some countries, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, the Nordics, that have had some questions.But we're hopeful that they will join consensus," he said.

With nearly 1.1 billion inhabitants, India is the second largest country on earth in population, and seventh largest in geographical area, over 1.1 million square miles. This is almost 1,000 people for every square mile of area nationwide—much denser than even China.

Since achieving independence from British rule in 1947, it has seen its share of conflict, struggle and setbacks. Although India still faces many challenges, it is now poised to reach a higher position on the world scene than at any previous time.

The Indian economy has grown an average of around 6% annually over the past decade and 8% per year over the past three years—among the fastest rates in the world. It boasts an emerging middle class and increasing gross domestic product, exports, employment and foreign investment. This is complemented by a roaring stock market (index value up by a third in 2005 and by 200% since 2001), low external debt and large foreign exchange reserves.

Welcoming the landmark enabling law signed by President George Bush Monday, the US-India Business Council - said it marked 'a defining moment in US-India relations, reminiscent of - Nixon's opening to China'.The move had broad implications for the US-India relationship, USIBC president Ron Sommers said.

'This is more than simply sharing of civilian nuclear technology. This is about removing the cinder from the eye that had been the nagging aspect in our relationship for the last three decades.The business council said India's nuclear industry has announced plans to greatly increase its generating capacity, an expansion estimated to be worth $150 billion over the next 26 years. That expansion could lead to substantial business for US companies.

Timothy J. Richards, senior manager for international trade and investment at General Electric, called the development 'very important', given India's plans for new generating capacity.

Teresita C. Schaffer, director of the South Asia programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the law signed by President Bush Monday was the most difficult of the four steps that need to be taken for civilian nuclear-technology sales to be made to India.

However, striking a different note, the Los Angeles Times commented in an editorial Tuesday that while critics say the deal could do more harm than good to US interests, 'They're wrong. It already is complicating US strategy in Asia and elsewhere'.

The US rightly condemns Kim Jong II's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003, yet it overlooks India's refusal to sign it. It's hard not to see a double standard at work here - nuclear weapons are okay for our friends but not for our enemies, it said.

Vikram Chowdhury writes from Amritsar:

Prime minister Manmohan Singh welcomed Pakistan President Musharraf's recent proposals for a solution to the Kashmir dispute. Speaking at a rally in Amritsar, the PM said India welcomed all proposals with an open mind.

Fresh proposals

President Musharraf made the fresh proposals in an interview to Prannoy Roy earlier this month.

The Prime Minister has also said that relations with Pakistan should normalise so that a Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship could be reached.Musharraf's four-point proposal are autonomy for Kashmir, making the border irrelevant by allowing Kashmiris on both sides to cross more easily and conducting trade.Third is thinning out troops on both sides and a joint mechanism to discuss all Kashmir related issues.Singh's response will be carefully read in Islamabad and other world capitals and it could set the tone for External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's much awaited visit to Pakistan next month.

US forces not winning in Iraq: Bush

December 20, 2006 17:33 IST

United States President George W Bush has conceded that the country is not winning the war in Iraq.This is the first time President Bush has gone on record saying that US forces were `stressed' in Iraq. In an interview to The Washington Times, he said plans were underway to expand the overall size of the armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term war against terrorists.In sharp contrast to his administration's opposition to increasing the force levels, Bush said he had ordered Defense Secretary Robert M Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps.`

A force structure expansion will accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to US officials.More than 2,900 US troops and thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the US-led invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Nuclear states can't tell others not to have atom bomb: Annan

December 20, 2006 00:25 IST

Outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday told the nuclear weapon powers that they cannot tell others not have atomic arms if they themselves keep and upgrade their own arsenal. If the nuclear weapon states take the plea that they need them for their own defence, they cannot tell the non-nuclear weapon states that they don't need them for the same purpose, he said. Replying to a question about the suspected ambition of Iran to produce nuclear weapon in the context of Israel declaring that it has such arms, Annan said that India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and hence are not under that pressure.

But Iran, having signed the treaty, needs to abide by the obligations it has undertaken, he told his last press conference before he hand over the reins of the organisation to the new incumbent Ban Ki-moon on January 1, 2007.

But he agreed that Israel admitting that it has nuclear weapons would have an effect in the region as several countries say they are looking to produce nuclear power.

Without saying that American led invasion of Iraq was illegal as it not had the backing of the Security Council, Annan told reporters that where broader international threats are concerned, the Security Council's approval give legitimacy to such an action. Agreeing that a country could take action in self-defence, he said the council's consent is the right course where threats have international dimensions.

Blair in Middle East

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 (Dubai):

British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrapped up his Middle East tour on Wednesday with a stark speech warning that the world faced "a monumental struggle" between moderates and extremists.He labelled Iran as a threat to hopes for peace in Iraq and across the Middle East and warned it was time to "wake up" and mobilise to defeat the extremists."Nothing matters more, nothing should stand in the way of it, nothing should be more galvanizing of our collecting will," he said.He identified his chief foe in the region - the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.Iran is a sponsor of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Western countries claim Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and Blair has accused Iran of backing Shiite insurgents fighting British troops in southern Iraq."Here are elements of the government of Iran openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratically elected government in Lebanon; flaunting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine, at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.""Yet a huge part of world opinion is frankly indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't so deadly serious," Blair said.

Annan comments on UN role in Iraq

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 (New York):

In his last press conference of his ten-year post at the helm of the United Nations, Ghanaian diplomat Kofi Annan listed what he feels were his worst moments, as well as the greatest threats facing the world.He also warned against any kind of military intervention in Iran.

Annan, who on December 31 will end ten years as the Secretary-General of world's most powerful organisation, said it was not hard to identify the worst moment of the past decade.

"The worst moment, of course, was the Iraq war which as an organisation we couldn't stop," Annan said. "I really did everything I can to try to see if we can stop it. The other really painful one was the loss of our colleagues in Baghdad which was a very painful thing for all of us and for me personally."

'India has important role in Central Asia'

Ambassador Richard Boucher, who replaced Christina Rocca last month as the new Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, says the expanded bureau with the addition of Central Asia, has opened up new opportunities and that India has a "very important role to play" in this region.

"The thing people need to remember is, there is a strategic change on the ground, it's not just our bureaucratic reorganization," Boucher, who traveled with President Bush to India, told Managing Editor Aziz Haniffa in an exclusive interview--his first after assuming his new position.

CRITICAL VIEW: You must have an indigenous programme, so that it can grow, said P K Iyenger.

New Delhi: Nuclear scientists in India continue their opposition even as US President George Bush is expected to sign the nuke deal into law on Monday evening. They say that there are contradictions in the agreement which need to be resolved. As the White House prepares for a ceremony, where US President George W Bush will sign the landmark Henry Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, thus transforming it into a law.

A group of former nuclear heads in India are saying that the Bill in its present form is discriminatory and that it does not serve the interests of the Indian nuclear establishments.

"You must have an indigenous programme, so that it can grow. So at this point of time get back and say, we need uranium urgently and making a compromise of our policies," said former Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission P K Iyenger.

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar discussed the finer details of the nuclear bill with the scientists on Friday. They are suggesting that some key points missing till now be included in the 123 agreement.

Firstly India, say the scientists, should not be asked to participate in international non-proliferation efforts with a policy that serves primarily serves US interests.

Secondly, there should be full-scale civilian nuclear co-operation from the US with an assurance of constant fuel supply.

United States Interests and Foreign Policy Priorities in South Asia Christina B. Rocca, Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs Statement before the House Committee on International Relations Washington, DC June 22, 2004

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to come here today to talk about our policy priorities in South Asia. September 2001 placed a South Asia riven by conflict and division at the front lines of the global war on terrorism. Not quite three years later, with the support of the American people, the Congress, and the Administration, the region stands at the verge of potential breakthroughs.

The next few years will provide a crucial opportunity for the United States to help South Asia become a peaceful, democratic and prosperous region, free from terror and nuclear threat. We are winning and consolidating the peace in Afghanistan—and while not a focus of my testimony today, success in Afghanistan is critical to long term regional stability.

Our commitment to assist Pakistan's full transformation into a modern and moderate Islamic democracy remains a pillar of our long-term strategy in the war on terrorism. As India increases its global reach, we are working to build an effective strategic partnership. Strong U.S. engagement is vital to ensure that Bangladesh does not fall back into poverty and fall victim to extremism. Due to its location, aspirations and capabilities, the future of Sri Lanka is assured, if it can achieve a lasting peace, and our long term strategic interests dictate that we pursue this goal.

A fragile democracy is at stake in Nepal, where a Maoist insurgency has unraveled the weak political and economic threads that held it together, and the United States must help South Asia avoid the potential humanitarian crisis and instability this could cause as well as the presence of another failed or authoritarian state.

Over the last year, and especially in recent months, the momentum for positive change has increased. Pakistan continues as a major ally in the war on terrorism. Al-Qaida and Taliban operatives continue to be captured there, and the government has intensified its operations around the country and near the western border. Pakistan's economy has moved from crisis to stabilization and growth, and the impasse between President Musharraf and the legislature was resolved in December with his agreement to step down as head of the army at year's end.

The public exposure of A.Q. Khan's activities and investigations by various governments has severelydisrupted his black market proliferation network. It is now in the process of being dismantled. It appears that Pakistan is taking these investigations seriously. The recent rapprochement between India and Pakistan has enabled a new composite dialogue and given a new boost to regional cooperation meetings—in stark contrast to the threat of a possible nuclear confrontation in 2002.

The United States and India are also working to formally expand strategic cooperation while deepening their partnership across multiple fronts. The suspension of Sri Lankan peace negotiations last year did not end the ceasefire or informal cooperation between the government and the LTTE. In Bangladesh and throughout the region, we continued to advocate and assist progress towards accountable democratic governance, sustainable development, and mutual understanding in order to address the underlying causes of extremism and instability.

************************************************************************
(Palash Biswas writes from Sodepur, Kolkata, India. E Mail : palashchandrabiswas@gmail.com)
************************************************************************