Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (2688)	7/21/2007 11:27:59 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

I posted that info on this thread a few hours ago. Message 23721969 I dont think it will make any difference in terms of relationships with Pakistan. The Prime Minister of India, not the President, usually takes the lead role in Foreign Affairs, and then the President usually endorses a deal. Many folks call it a "ceremonial role with no clout". Reality is that the President of India is the only person, that is authorized to dismiss Parliament, and to declare war on another country.

To: Sdgla who wrote (2688)	7/22/2007 12:06:16 AM
From: kumar	Respond to of 4152

Re a female president of India : there are some aspects to consider : - The President of India is elected by representatives of every state in India (consider it similar to the US Congress electing a President) - The President of India also gets elected by both houses of Parliament (consider it similar to the British House of Commons and the House of Lords). - the votes are added up, and a winner emerges. - Contrast that to Pakistan : Gen Ayub Khan, Gen Zia ul Haq, Gen Musharraf. Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is the only Prime Minister of Pakistan that I remember, that was elected in a democratic process. Later he was in prison and then sentenced to death. I think the difference would be obvious.