Political pundits in Delhi and Islamabad have berated the West for its relativism and double-standards. After all why should Britain have a nuclear arsenal but not India? It is a reasonable question.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
India is one of the world's largest and most peaceful states with advanced nuclear technologies and has been isolated from the rest of the world on nuclear issues.
India can live without nuclear weapons. That's our dream, and it should be the dream of the U.S. also.
India, in particular, is looking to develop nuclear power for domestic, commercial use, and we should work with them. This is a good deal for both countries.
India has a consistent and well-known position on terrorism. We oppose all acts of terrorism, wherever they occur. We have repeatedly said that no cause can justify violence and destruction, particularly aimed at civilians.
Pakistan has assured that it would not allow its territory to be used against India for any acts of terror. India must also reciprocate and address our concerns which are very genuine. Dialogue is the only way forward. Absence of dialogue leads to tension.
No one will expect the British Government or the Government of India to give way to threats of violence, disorder and chaos; and, indeed, representatives of large sections of Indian opinion have expressly warned us that we must not do so.
Though blessed with many able administrators, the British found India just too large and diverse to handle. Many of their decisions stoked Hindu-Muslim tensions, imposing sharp new religious-political identities on Indians.
India absorbs things; India's not a divisive place.
We woke up one day, and Pakistan had nuclear weapons.
Neither India nor Russia perceives a threat from the strength of the other. Each sees a benefit for itself in the increased political and economic strength of the other.