New Delhi. The government of India has clarified why it gave a clean chit to the Pakistani army in the case of ambushing and killing Indian soldiers.
The Defense Ministry had issued a statement yesterday blaming the Pakistani army, but the statement was changed soon after and “terrorists dressed in Pak army uniforms” were blamed, thus giving a “clean chit” to the Pakistani army.
“It is a well thought of plan to export clean chits and earn some international trade revenues,” clarified Finance Minister P Chidambaram.
This is the first time Finance Minister has said anything substantial about the economic health of the nation, else the general impression was that the job had been outsourced to the governor of the RBI and other such positions.
“This step will boost our international trade and will help us earn some dollars – the currency for international trade – which should stop further weakening of the Indian rupee,” Chidambaram explained the benefits of exporting clean chits.
It’s not yet known how many dollars Pakistan paid to get this clean chit, but experts doubt Pakistan’s ability to pay anything.
“They are virtually a bankrupt nation. It’s only through export of terror that they are earning enough to sustain their livelihood,” an international trade expert told Faking News, “I don’t think they can pay any amount that can make any difference to India’s current account balance.”
“And I’m referring to the amount that will be documented in the account books after provisioning for bribes, commissions, and kickbacks,” the expert clarified.
However, some other analysts and economists have hailed the step by India.
“Domestic clean chits were not resulting in any economic activity,” an economist pointed out, “They were handed out for political expedience and legal comfort. Astute politics is not always astute economics. But this is clever; the whole business of giving clean chits has been monetized now. We should be exporting more of them.”
“They should now give clean chit to China in frequent excursions case and make sure to earn good money,” the economist advised.
“At least it’s better than repeating meaningless statements condemning the act,” an analyst said.