ODDs and EVEN of NARENDRA MODI speech in UNO

                               LION COULD NOT ROAR

It was certainly a delight to hear MODIJI in UN. But the speech he is famous for he could not deliver the same. Media follows NAMO, and media favours NAMO but what INDIA lacked in the regime of congress in the speeches of premier of the country that cannot be compensated as speculated by the country.He spoke in Hindi and this made media to compare his speech with that of ATALJI but to my surprise his speech was nowhere near to that of ATALJI extempore speech,as he was seen looking in to paper for source. Even in the matters of PAKISTAN he seemed to be more like a statesman that leader of a country which is facing terrorism and insurgency since independence. When PAKISTAN raised the issue of referendum in Kashmir what prevented MODI to raise the issue of terrorism,violation of cease-fire,insurgency, and Al quaeda. Although he talked about it indirectly by using terms like good and bad terrorism, and condemned some nations for allowing their soil to be used for rise of these terrorist, but this also seemed to be bureaucratic effort by not taking the name of PAKISTAN directly.I don't think the leaders of RSS would be happy to hear his speech.

Now talking about Even, there major three things he talked about, 1. global village, 2. co-operation in field of cyber space and clean water 3.global terrorism. Talking about the first he connected the effort of INDIA in global cooperation to her culture by using phrase वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम। He also advocated for reforms in UNO by talking about the side effects of less participation of Nations in UNO by citing examples of different groups and advocated unity among them. He also demanded cooperation from UN in fields of cyber space and clean water indirectly.Lastly he talked about global terrorism and appreciated efforts to finish it, but at the same time he advocated for the inclusion of assent of all nations in such operations. By talking about good and bad terrorism he indirectly tried to surround PAKISTAN,but this indirect blame would have gone in vein if he would have prevented himself by directly commenting on PAKISTAN which he finally does not. As he said that the issue of Kashmir cannot be solved by raising it in UN and also said that INDIA want bilateral talks with PAKISTAN which clearly sidelined any role of UNO in Kashmir. But certainly he would have replied in a better way, may be the pressure of UNO affected his flow. Similar bureaucratic approach is not expected in his policies when dealing with PAKISTAN.