World Cup cricket boosts India and Pakistan ties
India and Pakistan's prime ministers vowed to repair relations between the countries, as they watched India beat Pakistan in the cricket World Cup in July, 2011.
Manmohan Singh hosted his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani for the semi-final in the city of Mohali.
Mr Singh said cricket had been a "uniting factor" and that they should cast aside "ancient animosities".
Relations between the nuclear-armed rivals plummeted after the 2008 Mumbai (Bombay) attacks. More than 170 people were killed when gunmen launched a co-ordinated assault on various targets across the city. The planning and execution of the attacks were blamed on Pakistan-based militants.
Before the Mumbai attacks, the two sides held formal peace talks known as a "composite dialogue" for several years but made little headway, apart from a number of confidence-building measures.
Peace moves were put on hold after the 2008 attacks, which left at least 174 people dead, nine of whom were the gunmen. One attacker was caught alive and has been sentenced to death. Significant progress was made when the two sides agreed to let their officials visit each others' countries to investigate the Mumbai attacks.
The main disputes between the two sides centre on counter-terrorism and the Himalayan territory of Kashmir - which both countries claim. But there are also a number of economic issues and smaller territorial disagreements which divide the sides.
Wednesday's match (2011) was the first time the two sides had played in either India or Pakistan since then. The two leaders shook hands with both sets of players before sitting down together to watch the game, with Mr Singh hosting a dinner in honour of his guest during the match.
More than a billion people around the world are thought to have watched the historic match. Both countries largely ground to a halt as the sides battled each other. Celebrations erupted across India once their victory was confirmed. India now plays with Sri Lanka in the final in Mumbai on Saturday.
On the diplomatic front, Mohali was hailed as a "win" for the dialogue process by a Pakistan foreign office spokesman, reports Pakistan's APP news agency.
Mr Gilani described the talks as "positive" and also invited Mr Singh to visit Pakistan. He said he hoped that the Indian cricket team would play in Pakistan soon.
The prime ministers met the players before the game
At the dinner, Mr Singh said that the two countries should "put our ancient animosities behind to attend to the problems of our nations".
"We have the will to persevere; we have the will to overcome. We should be working together to find co-operative solutions."
Mr Singh later said "the beautiful game of cricket" had united the two prime ministers.
After the game, the two leaders returned to their respective capitals, Delhi and Islamabad. Mr Singh said: "The message from Mohali is that the people of India and Pakistan want to live in peace."
He said that the joyous atmosphere of the game contrasted with the often strained relations between the sides. Officials had met earlier in the week as part of intermittent efforts to put the peace process back on track.
6. Read the text and find analogues for the following Russian variants:
a. …будь то латинский, французский или английский язык;
b. наша страна не может оставаться равнодушной к…;
c. общение друг с другом;
d. осторожные заявления;
e. говорить резкие вещи, не прибегая к вызывающему тону (вызывающей манере);
f. у Правительства Его Высочества вызывает озабоченность…;
g. Правительство Его Высочества будет вынуждено пересмотреть свою позицию;
h. чрезвычайная обходительность;
i. его заявление на самом деле означает ультиматум
II. DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE
The expression “diplomatic language” is used to denote three different things. In its first sense it signifies the actual language (whether it be Latin, French, or English) which is employed by diplomatists in their converse or correspondence with each other. In its second sense it means those technical phrases which, in the course of centuries, have become part of ordinary diplomatic vocabulary. And in its third, and most common sense, it is used to describe that guarded understatement which enables diplomatists and ministers to say sharp things to each other without becoming provocative or impolite. For example, if a statesman or a diplomatist informs another government that his own government “cannot remain indifferent to” some international controversy, he is clearly understood to imply that the controversy is one in which his government will certainly intervene. If in his communication or speech he uses such phrases as “His Majesty’s Government view with concern” or view with grave concern” then it is evident that the matter is one in which the British Government intend to adopt a strong line.
By cautious gradations such as these a statesman is enabled, without using threatening language, to convey a serious warning to a foreign government. If these warnings pass unheeded he can raise his voice while still remaining courteous and conciliatory. If he says, “In such an event His Majesty’s Government would feel bound carefully to reconsider their position”, he is implying that friendship is about to turn into hostility.
If he warns a foreign government that certain action on their part will be regarded “as an unfriendly act”, that government will interpret his words as implying a threat of war. If he says that “he must decline to be responsible for the consequences,” it means that he is about to provoke an incident which will lead to war. And if he demands, even in terms of exquisite politeness, a reply before “six o’clock on the evening of the 25th,” then his communication is rightly regarded as an ultimatum.
The advantage of this conversational form of communication is that it maintains an atmosphere of calm, while enabling statesmen to convey serious warnings to each other which will not be misunderstood. (H. Nicolson, “Diplomacy”)