The US and China in Pakistan - their respective roles

[shivajisisodia]

we'll be stuck in neutral gear for a long time to come.

This may be a good strategy

There is a "do nothing" lobby in India which will only get stronger. Pakistan may have somethin to do with it.

Just kidding Acharya, dont take this one too seriously.

[ramana]

Ambar, During chaos with uncertain future it might be good strategy. In US some of those who sundry rush into real estate boom are the winners. In this game if you are standing at the end you win.

[svinayak]

Just kidding Acharya, dont take this one too seriously.

I am going to take this seriously

[shiv]

"Diplomacy" is meeting the other party midway between their interests and our interests.
<snip>
Unless we draw a strategy what we want from the US and what we can do for US,we'll be.

Unless we understand where the other party is coming from, understand the other party's interests, any diplomacy or negotiation may be a useless exercise.

In any given interaction with the US
1. Is the US trying to subdue India
2. Is the US trying to get concessions from India that is not in our interests to give
3. Is the US trying to do some pathetic hotch potch job of negotiation because of internal political and economic problems in the USA? (remember Nixon and Vientam. Reagan and Osama bib Laden?)
4. Is the US interested in a bright equal world of cooperation between nation states ( tell me another one! )
5. Is US diplomacy driven by commercial interests of multinational companies who have many US senators in their pocket?
6. Is a President or politician in the US actually informed about what Indian interests are or is Ghulam Nabi Fai and some Lobby group responsible for some temporary voting choice?

I have heard different opinions on every single one of these questions, as well as other question/points I can't even recall and write on here. Indian interests have to tale all this into account.

I believe that the general feeling in India that guides Indian diplomacy (this is my opinion - not a statement of diplomatic fact!!!) is that the US's actions, based on US interest have in general tended to cause more problems for India rather than offer solutions. Therefore Indian relations with the US should be guided by diplomacy that looks for a more advantageous relationship for India. if that is not possible we could get:

stuck in neutral gear for a long time to come

[shiv]

..and that has been our strategy from the past 64 years. If we have continue in that mode it gives us no real right to whine about other striking alliances to harm our interests.

No. The right to whine is an inalienable right. Someone may not like it but that's tough shit.

[Johann]

I hope critics can recognise that what Shiv has written is a very far cry from those who claim America's primary (or even secondary) objective is keeping India down.He has acknowledged that US objectives often have nothing to with India one way or another, but that its strategies often have negative consequences both for itself and India.

I have had disagreements with Shiv in the past on the subject of US thinking in the Cold War wrt Pakistan, but his posts in recent exchanges with others on this subject have been entirely reasonable and I would add, largely accurate.

It sometimes feels as if some people are confusing what Indian policy towards the US was in the past, what it is, and what Americophiles and Americoskeptics would like it to be. These should all be clearly treated as distinct things.

My two shillings.

[shivajisisodia]

Let me try this one last time, and then I will give up.

Look at Pak. What has Pak ever done for the US, that has been against Pak's own national interest ? Zilch

But in return, Pak has extracted from US, its survival for 65 years, against a much stronger India.

In this case the situation is reversed. The Whore has shagged the John.

Perhaps, with our superior intellect, Indians can now extract from US an actual disintegration of Pak, through adept diplomacy. If not, it will be a gross failure of Indian diplomacy and brains. I repeat, India will be faced with a renewed Jihadi vigor of the Paki Jihadi establishment after US retreats and Paki controls all of Afghanistan again.

And as for being in neutral, it will cost the lives of untold Indian boy soldiers and countless hapless citizens in our cities and towns. But what do I know. Life is cheap in India.

On a lighter note, let me add my two bit about Shiv. Dont get me wrong. I too think that Shiv has made some excellent points in this and other exchanges and I too absolutely support Shiv. 100%.

[Ambar]

Unless we understand where the other party is coming from, understand the other party's interests, any diplomacy or negotiation may be a useless exercise.

In any given interaction with the US
1. Is the US trying to subdue India
2. Is the US trying to get concessions from India that is not in our interests to give
3. Is the US trying to do some pathetic hotch potch job of negotiation because of internal political and economic problems in the USA? (remember Nixon and Vientam. Reagan and Osama bib Laden?)
4. Is the US interested in a bright equal world of cooperation between nation states ( tell me another one! )
5. Is US diplomacy driven by commercial interests of multinational companies who have many US senators in their pocket?
6. Is a President or politician in the US actually informed about what Indian interests are or is Ghulam Nabi Fai and some Lobby group responsible for some temporary voting choice?

I have heard different opinions on every single one of these questions, as well as other question/points I can't even recall and write on here. Indian interests have to tale all this into account.

Shiv, if i have to use a analogy from my own line of work about US policies in 20th/21st century, i look at them as a successful trader. As a major power they make trades in every sector of the market,all of them are flash trades towards one final strategic goal - to make lots of money. Some of these trades work against you in the short term, but you hedge them with a opposing trade and hope things will turn around.Most of the times they do,sometimes they don't,that's when you close that position and limit your loss.

As for your points, i would take them as rhetorical questions but i'd like to answer atleast a few of them. 1) "Subdue" India - although this might have been valid concern in 1950s considering the general understanding that much of their S.Asian policy was based on Britain's policies towards India, what threat have we ever posed to the US that they would want to "subdue" us? Is it our lack of understanding of US' intentions or just triteness of old policies ?

2) The only "concessions" that i can think of that really matters to US at this point is economical and partly political (to use India as a lever to keep Pak/China on edge). Remember the Ratnagiri Alphonsos and Harley-Davidson story ? When US decided to ban Indian alphonsos,we buried HD motorcycles under a bed of Delhi bureaucracy.When mangoes were finally allowed to be exported to US, we cleared the HD deal. That to me is a small but important lesson in meeting someone midway where our interests can merge.

4) The "bright equal world" is a world where US aspires to be the sole superpower. We need to live in the same world where we can benefit from US all the while reassuring US that its interests will be taken good care of .Many countries including Russia and India have already done this in the sphere of commodities and services - this probably answers (5). Why not expand it politically ?

6) The regular US congressman knows/cares as much about India as a New Delhi babu knows about 5th congressional dist.of Ohio! We fight a battle with whatever weapons we have on that day, if Pakis hired Fai, why not double our lobbying efforts in DC to highlight Paki perfidy ? Why not use the "soft power" (motel chains in US, IT companies, banking sector) to tug a strong Indian line all the while assuring US its in both our interest? Heck! Even the expat Chinese are doing it.

In the end, being "stuck in neutral" gear may or may not prove to be the best strategy. India could well turn out to be a rubberneck bystander who gets shot in a drive-by shooting.

[sukhish]

shivajisisodia,
you are correct on this one. this is exactly what worries me all the time. the only hope is that as time passes by India
will get stronger and the gap between our capability and their widen to a great extent. also any kind of jihandi
episode like the 26/11 in future would cost pakistan direly

[shiv]

the only hope is that as time passes by India
will get stronger and the gap between our capability and their widen to a great extent.

The exact opposite of this is what the Pakistani army, the jamat ud dawa and the Paki establishment wish. That wish has been supported by China. Pakistan's strength vis a vis India has also been augmented by a Pakistan milking US fears and US wars.

Disruption is easier than construction. It takes only one drunken reveller to spoil a party. That is Pakistan's disruptive strength. (They (Pakis) know it and keep saying it in fact)

For India to outgrow and outmatch Pakistan's disruptive ability we have a few options:
1. India (the Indian "party") grows so big that the actions of one drunken reveller becomes insignificant
2. India can exert some control on the source of the drunkard's strength and disruptive ability.

Pakistan's main sponsors have been the USA, China and Saudi Arabia. When it comes to solving the "Pakistan problem" it is desirable to reduce the influence of one or more of these three agents.

Of these three it is only the US on which we can have some influence. I think most people are agreed on that. Perhaps we can have some influence on KSA but that is OT for this thread. China is the most problematic supporter of Pakistan over which we have the least influence.

What does India need to do to stop US funding and arming of Pakistan?

[darshhan]

The limits of US power is self evident in the recent Chinook attack case in which Pakistani establishment led by Gen Kiyani and his associate Shuja Pasha(ISI chief) carried out the murder of 30 US soldiers including 22 seals from Team Six who are the elite of elite.For those who do not know , the Team Six(also known as DEVGRU) has less than 300 trigger pullers.In other words ISI managed to wipe out 8% of this elite force in one single swoop.To give a better context , it is akin to US pacific fleet losing an Aircraft Carrier.Inspite of this , ISI and indeed the Pakistani Army as a whole have managed to get away scot free or so it seems.

In addition the recent news reports state that a US foreign national has been kidnapped from Lahore by armed men.No prizes for guessing which agency is responsible for that .Most probably this person will be decapitated in front of a camera and the video will be uploaded to some jihadi website or even liveleak for the whole world to watch.Will the agency responsible be ever be taken to task by the world's so called "only superpower".I seriously doubt that.

[RajeshA]

Perhaps, with our superior intellect, Indians can now extract from US an actual disintegration of Pak, through adept diplomacy. If not, it will be a gross failure of Indian diplomacy and brains.

There is a system in their madness.

We are all brains in a vat, and in this vat we try to move mountains. Our intellect first has to decipher the mystery of our shivering dhotis, and why our politicians like to become motionless statues even before they die!

[shivajisisodia]

Perhaps, with our superior intellect, Indians can now extract from US an actual disintegration of Pak, through adept diplomacy. If not, it will be a gross failure of Indian diplomacy and brains.

There is a system in their madness.

We are all brains in a vat, and in this vat we try to move mountains. Our intellect first has to decipher the mystery of our shivering dhotis, and why our politicians like to become motionless statues even before they die!

I quite agree with you. If we have superior intellect why cant we fix our own domestic problems and then we will ourselves be strong enough to automatically "fix PAki" for good without US or anybody else's help. People like Shiv Sab also have similar sentiments as you, that India is all alone in this and that it should therefore plan on taking care of its problems itself. In my view they are mistaken and rather naive in this view. Although, this is a very noble view to have, if it has any possibility to come about, and any self respecting person will want that - to have the capability to solve one's own problems without anyone's assistance. I want it to. But wanting it and getting it are two different things.

I do not believe that Indians collectively have the intellect to ever solve their domestic problems and build a genuinely strong society and political system. Solving India's domestic problems require one of two things: either someone wielding a big stick and imposing benevolence on the whole population and the country OR the population in general developing as a part of their DNA, a highly sophisticated art of finding common ground-the right common ground which has nationalism and national interest at its base and also the tenet that this national interest and nationalism can never be compromised no matter what. The first is not in the cards because at this point in Indian history, almost every Indian has created for himself a stake in the current system, as corrupt as it is and therefore, not willing to risk that personal stake in favor of authoritarianism or even moderate reform in favor of a stronger government. The second option of developing the ability to find common ground is not in the cards, because Indians do not have superior enough intellect to sacrifice now for rewards later, nor do they have the superior intellect to carry public trust with honesty and integrity, which will then create enough confidence in individuals that if they sacrifice something personal today, they WILL get the rewards tomorrow and that some corrupt guy will not run away with the benefits resulting in them losing twice.

When I say that Indians have superior intellect, I should have qualified. I meant to say that we only have superior intellect compared to PAkis (some may find even that debatable). The point I was making is that if Paki can extract so much from US, even get the US to act against their national interest, Indians with superior intellect oughta be able to get a favorable deal from the US, when destroying Pak is actually in the US national interest too. I dont know if we have that superior intellect within our Diplomatic corp, but I sure would hope so, presuming that our best and brightest are in the foreign service.

The intellect required on our part to convince the US is far less than one that is required to "fix" our domestic issues. If we had that ability, then we would never have to rely on others, but Indians have always had to rely on others in our recent history, whether people like to acknowledge it or not. Starting with food aid, post independence, and all kinds of other aid, then our reliance on the Soviets, and still our reliance for strategic arms (non nuclear) on others and even our reliance on others for certain strategic components of our nuclear and space programs, there is no end to our reliance on others. Therefore, for us to talk in grandiose and lofty terms like, "we are all alone and can solve our own problems", and then foreclosing the option of reaching some common ground on Pak with the US, is in my view immature and childish.

[RajeshA]

shivajisisodia ji,

I consider a superior intellect one, which can better translate wishes into reality. Pakistan has not been able to break India, nor able to snatch Kashmir from us, not could they save East Pakistan!

As far as East Pakistan is concerned, I would say their intellect was poor. As far as snatching Kashmir and India was concerned, I would say their wishes were a bit over the top. But if one considers playing a good game with a bad or mediocre hand is concerned, then I think Pakistanis (the Kabila) have been very good. If the project was to Islamize a big chunk of West India, then their play has been brilliant.

India has survived, but going from the civilizational foundation we had going for us, I would say we had a great hand. Of course the centuries had dhimmified and macaulayized us which weakens our starting hand. If our wish was survival, then we have played well. If our aim was a respectable economy, then we are on the right path. But if our goals were something comparable to those of Pakistan, of making our presence felt, then I must agree with Brajesh Mishra, that India has no place in the world order.

In geopolitics, if India was not there, many may not even miss us! This may trouble many, but if Brajesh Mishra can say it, then so can I!

At the moment we have a strong hand with our economy and military, or could have if we wanted to.

Having such a hand, I would say, if the question is one of converting wishes into reality, then we don't really score high on intellect!

[shivajisisodia]

shivajisisodia ji,


Having such a hand, I would say, if the question is one of converting wishes into reality, then we don't really score high on intellect!

Quite true.

Although, our economy and military are not as strong as it is made out to be. The economy is highly inefficient and not built on a strong foundation of honesty in exchange, real innovation (as opposed to circumventing the law type innovation commonly refered to as Jugad), transparency, level playing field, fairness for all and just rewards for the right kind of people. At best, such an economy moves forward slowly and noisily like a rickety train or a 1970s Indian bus. Due to its many imbalances it concentrates money in the hands of the very few, and to top it all the least deserving very few, creating further imbalances. Unless some of these flaws are fixed we can't aspire to be real players in the world economy, all the hype by us and outsiders going gaga over our economy, notwithstanding.

Our armed forces too has many holes and flaws, but I dont want to discuss those in details. Suffice it to say, it is not where it is generally advertised to be at. I must add, however, that the bravery, courage, innovation, integrity and intelligence of our jawans and lower officer corp(upto major) is beyond compare and beyond question. If only that was enough.

So, with all the shortcomings, we can still "convert wishes to reality", with one master stroke of diplomacy if we can turn US around and get them to defang Paki, considering India or no India, it is in US national interest to do so, anyway. I see an opening here at this time, and India should make a strong push. The beauty of this approach is that if Indian diplomacy fails despite its best efforts, there is no downside, as we are back to where we are, not in any worse situation.

[Y I Patel]

What has been very frustrating to Indian supporters of USA is that India has always been heard to say "India will have nothing to do with USA". I have been one of those who has found this frustrating, until I realised shiv was saying something subtly different: he is saying, "India will have nothing to do with USA unless..."

What follows that unless is loaded with a world of possibility. The real invitation I sense is for USA supporters to come up with a vision whereby USA and India can jointly work towards their common interests, interests that do not necessarily have to be limited to the ambit of the subcontinent but should have the core issue of Pakistan as the starting point.

Pakistan always says it will refuse to negotiate with India until the core issue of Kashmir is addressed. Hakimullah is saying that India will refuse to have anything to do with USA until the core issue of Pakistan is addressed.

The wily old #%#%@.

[eklavya]

What does India need to do to stop US funding and arming of Pakistan?

The US funds and arms Pakistan because the US needs to use Pakistan's roads to supply their troops in Afghanistan. Once the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan winds down, so will US support, as per the status pre 9/11. Strengthening the Afghan national armed forces will permit a more rapid withdrawal of US forces. So, India could work to strengthen the Afghan national armed forces.

Looking beyond US involvement in Afghanistan, its clear that the focus of US efforts is shifting to containing China. Given the strong links between China and Pakistan, the US will beeven more wary of supporting Pakistan in any way (unless compelled to do so, as it is currently due to the need to supply 100,000+ troops in Afghanistan).

Saudi support to Pakistan is mainly economic (and ideological). I can't imagine the Saudi ruling family was delighted by the discovery that OBL was shacked up in Abbottabad Cantt with his harem and AV equipment; after all, OBL's primary objective was to come to power in his own homeland. Some careful diplomacy there could pay rich dividends.

[shiv]

The US funds and arms Pakistan because the US needs to use Pakistan's roads to supply their troops in Afghanistan.

With respect, I consider this a "two steps backward" statement. Everyone know why the US is funding Pakistan now. But these reasons were non existent 50 years ago. Your stated reasons are rubbish to explain arms to Pakistan in 1959. The reasons again are rubbish in explaining F-16s to Pakistan and the white lie told by a US President to the US Senate about proliferation. Believing your statement would stupid.

May I point out the following (once again)?

1. The USA has had some reason or other to fund and arm Pakistan for the past 50 years
2. Pakistan has reason to hit India with those arms
3. Why the fck should Indians be "understanding" of US need to fund and arm Pakistan?

Who cares why the US is doing it? The US must stop. Then we can do business with the US. How can India do business with the US with a US gun held at India's head via Pakistan and say "Oh no problem - the gun will go away in a few decades?". It has not gone away for 6 decades.

That sort of relationship is possible as a master-slave relationship. I have been told that the US is so powerful that India is better off accepting that and accepting its position and status as a sort of "ghulam" in order to gain some advantage. Maybe this scheme is attractive to some people. It is not attractive to me.

Personally I am absolutely amazed and also deeply troubled by the number of educated Indians on this forum who either say that US arms and funding to Pakistan are OK because the amounts are not significant to defeat India, or alternatively offer long explanations as to why the US, great power as it is, need not care about India sentiment and will carry on and do whatever it wants unless we Indians accept that and somehow adjust to the reality of USA supplying arms to Pakistan.

I am in deep, violent and vehement disagreement with both these viewpoints. Not having a powerful Pakistan being armed by the top military exporters is fundamental to Indian interests. If a country such as the USA cannot bring itself to accept a fundamental Indian interest there is very little reason why India should be bothered about US interests except to fight them where they are in conflict with our interests.

[shivajisisodia]

I am in deep, violent and vehement disagreement with both these viewpoints. Not having a powerful Pakistan being armed by the top military exporters is fundamental to Indian interests. If a country such as the USA cannot bring itself to accept a fundamental Indian interest there is very little reason why India should be bothered about US interests except to fight them where they are in conflict with our interests.

Sir,

What we want from the US is, and I have been consistent on this in all my posts here, to not stop arms shipments to Paki. We want the US to DESTROY the Pakis, not because it is in Indian fundamental interests, but because it is in the US fundamental interests.

To covince US of this reality, India has to engage with the US using skilled diplomacy.

If the US does not at least stop supplying arms to the US in any significant way, despite our diplomats explaining all of the above to them, US is the enemy, not Paki.

What can we do about it ? Even less than what we do about PAki, unfortunately, unless of course we form a militant Hindu organization called Tandav Sena which has the range to strike anywhere in the world (if you know what I mean).

[shiv]

Many people will know that I have been demanding that the US stop supplying arms to Pakistan, and, as I stated above - people who are skeptical of this demand have confronted me with both the excuse that arms supply is insignificant, or the explanation that the USA, Great Power (TM) will do what it wants and India can accept it or stuff it. Like I said - "accepting" this situation should not be on the cards.

More curiously, I have often been asked on this forum "OK the US is supplying arms to Pakistan. So what will India do for the US to stop that?"

The US is powerful. The powerful US supplies arms to Pakistan. Then India gets a message that says "You want this to stop?. Well then what are you going to bring to the table to offer the USA to stop it?"

The explanation that is offered (by various people right here on this forum) to sweeten the fact that this is pure blackmail is "Might is right. The US has the might, so what do you have?" and "jiski lathi uski bhains" (The buffalo belongs to the man with the stick). The US has related in this way to many countries. Some have accepted the blackmail and some have not. Prominent among nations who have not succumbed to US blackmail is China. However - despite suffering a few other countries have stood up to American blackmail and these include Vietnam, Iran and Cuba.

Nations who do not succumb to US pressure are confronted with "Attractive offers that they cannot refuse". The "Attractive offer that India cannot refuse" is "What will India give to the US for the US to stop arming Pakistan".

Pakistan to me looks like a country that succumbed to US blackmail ("attractive, irresistible offers") - but is slowly spinning out of the US orbit. As I see it - this is an ideal time for India to force the USA to meet India demands for not supplying arms to Pakistan.

If you leave aside the dharma crap and say that Indians are stupid in being moralistic in not supporting the USA over Iran/whatever in exchange for the US supporting India - it still is in Indian interest to see a stoppage of support to Pakistan. If the US is so powerful, surely the time to pressure the US is when it is weaker. That is the best time to do it.

It so happens that it is both in Indian interests and on moral grounds that the US should be pressured to stop supplying arms to Pakistan. It is not as if US arms supply to Pakistan looks good and attractive if India drops its moralistic tone. That is a strawman if I ever saw one.

[shivajisisodia]

Shiv,

You are right in everything you say, Sir. And I share your anger.

What are we going to do about it, if US doesnt stop supplying arms to Pak, Sir ?

Just not talk to them ?

What if sulking will not produce any results either ? What will we do then ? Sulk some more ? Perhaps, go into neutral ?

[shiv]

Shiv,

You are right in everything you say, Sir. And I share your anger.

What are we going to do about it, if US doesnt stop supplying arms to the US, Sir ?

Just not talk to them ?

What if sulking will not produce any results either ? What will we do then ? Sulk some more ? Perhaps, go into neutral ?

You tell me sir if you can offer any solution other than all the "solutions" you and I and others have collectively mentioned

1. Sulking
2. Succumbing to US pressure and supporting the US on Iran, FMCT, CTBT, WTO, you name it without having heard even once, a single chirp from the USA that it is willing to stop arms supplies to Pakistan because that hurts India
3. Accepting that US arms to Pakistan is something we cannot control and trying to deal with Pakistan alone without worrying too much about US arms and rationalizing (as some have done on here) that the arms supply is not significant or very lethal and that we need to "move on" because we are getting so soo strong and wealthy

Recall that on this very thread, non acceptance of the three poor "solutions" above has been called cruising in "neutral gear". Is there a solution better than cruising in neutral gear? More to the point, is there any surprise that we are cruising in neutral gear?

[shivajisisodia]

Recall that on this very thread, non acceptance of the three poor "solutions" above has been called cruising in "neutral gear". Is there a solution better than cruising in neutral gear? More to the point, is there any surprise that we are cruising in neutral gear?

Sir,

"Doing nothing" is better than accepting defeat, but not better than any other option. If an entity or a person is alive, it should always try something pro-active, even if those efforts yield no results and fail miserably. In fact, I would venture to say that even if those pro-active efforts in some cases cause us to be worse off than "not doing anything", we should err towards taking the risk and on the side of action. This is a question of attitude. If we have an attitude to always act, then something or the other tends to work out and is the route to success.

We all know what the ideal solution is. The ideal solution is to fix our internal problems and become strong. The reason I come up with other solutions is because we all know that India can never fix its internal problems to a point where it can be powerful enough to tackle its own external problems on its own. So given that constraint, the solutions seem less than ideal, in fact even amateurish, but the fault doesnt lie with the person proposing the solution, but with the constraints under which the person has to propose solutions.

I have been championing one solution rather vigorously in my last 10 or 15 posts, which is to aggressively and actively engage the US diplomatically to get them to "finish off Paki". I think that US may be more open to this pursuasion today than at any time in the past. It is also a risk free approach and is not predicated on fixing our internal problems.

What if the diplomacy does'nt work, you say ? Well, then perhaps, aseembling of a Hindu militia with international strike range can be the answer. This is also not predicated on us having to fix our internal situation and can be organized by some private groups in places such as Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and some other places, on the principles of independent cells operating in a decentralized manner. The Jews used such tactics during their struggle for homeland in Palestine with great effect and the Islamists are using it for decades very effectively. Why get original, when you know what works.

[Ambar]

Unless we come up with a new strategy on what we can take to the barter table with US, the arguments about US dealing with India solely based on Indian interests or Indian diplomatic capitulation solely on US interests is like a dog trying to bite its tail. Atleast in the last decade, there has been a mutual economic interest between US and India. India provides US with cheap services in turn this helps India's massive skilled labor force. India opening up its economy to US companies has helped them reap huge profits but has also helped India through capital accumulation and investment. Such convergence of mutual interests has trickled to some strategic development : Amendment NSG to accommodate India's civil nuclear aspirations while rebuking Pakistan's demand that they get the same and a reduction of direct US arms/weapons aid to Pakistan compared to the 1980s despite US now being directly involved in the region.

Cuba,Vietnam (which btw is now a "US poodle" as some would say!) and Iran are poor examples of this so called "defiance" to US (please look up Iranian pharma or refinery reliance on NATO for all its "defiance"). If a starving,deprived,inherently weak population is what some would aspire for where the only people who live well are the dictatorial heads,then yes,Cuba,NoKo and Iran have done exceedingly well! Countless examples of currently ME "color revolutions", collapse of E.Germany, millions of Cubans who risked/continue to risk their lives in little boats to make it to Miami are examples of shell states. Nobody wants Indian policies to be same as Pakistan's, but then again nobody wants India to be Cuba or NoKo either. The solution lies somewhere in between.

India's "jitteriness" to take any bold steps either towards an alliance or firmly away from it is akin to a guy who waits out too long to approach a girl in a bar only to find the girl walking away with someone else. If we have a firm belief we can never have mutual interests with US, we either go back and isolate ourselves the way we did during our socialist days or build a tier-2 trade/diplomacy channels with non-western world but alas we've been out-thought there by Chinese already. 26/11 was an eye-opener not just highlighting the security lapses but also displaying the Achilles-heel of our political and diplomatic limits. This begs the question if we want further alienation at the cost of real-politk ?

[svinayak]

Many people will know that I have been demanding that the US stop supplying arms to Pakistan, and, as I stated above - people who are skeptical of this demand have confronted me with both the excuse that arms supply is insignificant, or the explanation that the USA, Great Power (TM) will do what it wants and India can accept it or stuff it. Like I said - "accepting" this situation should not be on the cards.

The US is powerful. The powerful US supplies arms to Pakistan. Then India gets a message that says "You want this to stop?. Well then what are you going to bring to the table to offer the USA to stop it?"

It so happens that it is both in Indian interests and on moral grounds that the US should be pressured to stop supplying arms to Pakistan. It is not as if US arms supply to Pakistan looks good and attractive if India drops its moralistic tone. That is a strawman if I ever saw one.

If Indians are worried in US then they should start with a anti Pakistan lobby inside US. That way they dont need to feel frustrated with US India relations. To prevent anti american lobby in India they should start with a anto Pakistan lobby in US.

[shiv]

Unless we come up with a new strategy

With respect to the stoppage of US arms to Pakistan, which is what i have been talking about, what strategy do you believe might work? Or is your basic argument that we should not worry too much about that and just get on? I have already mentioned that as a poor "strategy" that is fundamentally against Indian interests.

If a starving,deprived,inherently weak population is what some would aspire for

Come come sir! Please don't delude yourself. India now has, and has had since 1947, the world's largest absolute number of starving, deprived and inherently weak people. That is the magnitude of our problem. Imagining that Cuba or Vietnam are worse is like Pakis saying "We are better than Ghana".

As long as we ignore that elephant in the room, we can proceed to ignore the supply of US arms to Pakistan as a minor irritant

[shiv]

If Indians are worried in US then they should start with a anti Pakistan lobby inside US. That way they dont need to feel frustrated with US India relations. To prevent anti american lobby in India they should start with a anto Pakistan lobby in US.

Ok that is a good suggestion. How would India have to go about doing that?

[svinayak]

If Indians are worried in US then they should start with a anti Pakistan lobby inside US. That way they dont need to feel frustrated with US India relations. To prevent anti american lobby in India they should start with a anto Pakistan lobby in US.

Ok that is a good suggestion. How would India have to go about doing that?

Indians in US who are frustrated should start with this. Start a lobby and get a caucus created in the US congress to campaign against Pak

[shiv]

Indians in US who are frustrated should start with this. Start a lobby and get a caucus created in the US congress to campaign against Pak

Acharya - what do frustrated Indians have to do exactly. If you perhaps have any connection with the US or know someone living there would you or they be able to help in mentioning the exact steps that need to be taken for this.

Does one have to take out a newspaper ad?

Or does on have to contact a member of USA parliament and offer a bribe? Or contact a secretary and say "i want to pay election donation"?

It is not possible to know living in India. All these things happen in India. Maybe they happen in the USA also? Any useful inputs on this?

[gakakkad]

Ok that is a good suggestion. How would India have to go about doing that?

Indians in US who are frustrated should start with this. Start a lobby and get a caucus created in the US congress to campaign against Pak[/quote]

We need a lot of money , support from the Indian consulate and RAW to start this . We have none . Indian embassy in US is filled with bunch of useless slobs. Their is an ISI front organisation which targets NRI's .They collect money from unsuspecting NRI's and finance anti India charities. I tried informing them . They gave me a BS lecture on democracy etc. The least they could do is spy on them .

Writing letters to the senator is equally useless. You get the same reply . One brfite posted the letter he got . The reply my cousin got was exactly the same.

[shiv]

Just curious. Does a caucus need government support? Could a private organization like - say Microsoft or Lockheed Martin not be able to fund a caucus? Fai's activities after all were perfectly legal and perfectly illegal at the same time. He got arrested for working on behalf of a foreign government - so GoI will not necessarily support private groups who might want to do this.

Who takes the money? A lobbying firm? What do they do with that money? Are there any names of lobbying firms that I can Google for to get more info?

Is the cost of lobbying a secret or are there any ballpark estimates about how much it costs to set up a caucus in the US? Where does the money go and what purpose would it be used for?

[shiv]

While Googling for lobbying firms I came across this news item from 2004
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... government
India sacks its US lobbying firm
Indrani Bagchi, TNN Dec 17, 2004, 10.59am IST

NEW DELHI: The F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan seem to have claimed their first victim. India has sacked its high-profile US lobbying firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Field, for failing to lobby effectively against the sale.

This is the second time in as many years that India has changed its Washington lobbyists. In 2003, India moved its account from Verner, Liipfert to Akin Gump to tap the Republicans in the administration and on Capitol Hill.

Although the Republicans are back, Akin Gump has lost India's account. The reason being trotted out is that a new election calls for a fresh start.

[shiv]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... gton_n.htm
Pakistan, Libyan rebels tap into lobbying firms
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY

Updated 5/12/2011 9:12 AM

All across Washington this spring, well-connected lobbyists and PR firms are working to shape the U.S. government's response to tumult across the globe. Pakistan, for instance, is combating calls in Congress to yank U.S. aid to Pakistan amid revelations that Osama bin Laden hid for years near the Pakistani capital. Pakistan's U.S. representatives include veteran Democratic strategist Mark Siegel and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel to President George W. Bush.

Their firm, Locke Lord, earns $75,000 a month from Pakistan, Justice Department records show.

[darshhan]

Just curious. Does a caucus need government support? Could a private organization like - say Microsoft or Lockheed Martin not be able to fund a caucus? Fai's activities after all were perfectly legal and perfectly illegal at the same time. He got arrested for working on behalf of a foreign government - so GoI will not necessarily support private groups who might want to do this.

Who takes the money? A lobbying firm? What do they do with that money? Are there any names of lobbying firms that I can Google for to get more info?

Is the cost of lobbying a secret or are there any ballpark estimates about how much it costs to set up a caucus in the US? Where does the money go and what purpose would it be used for?

Shiv ji , External Govt support is not required for a caucus/lobbying group in US.Infact it might even be illegal.By the way one of the most successful lobbying groups in US is AIPAC(American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_I ... _Committee

Another organisation which has been very successful wrt lobbying is NRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

[shiv]

here is a list of Lobbying fims. In fact it is a list of states and you have to click on each state to see the lobbying forms
http://www.lobbyingfirms.com/
When you click on a state you get a list to refine your search

Refine By:

*
Accounting
*
Advertising
*
Aerospace
*
Agriculture
*
Alcohol & Drug Abuse
*
Animals
*
Apparel/ Clothing/ Textiles
*
Arts/ Entertainment
*
Automotive Industry
*
Aviation/ Aircraft/ Airlines
*
Banking
*
Bankruptcy
*
Beverage Industry
*
Budget
*
Appropriations
*
Clean Air & Water
*
Commodities
*
Chemicals
*
Civil Rights/ Civil Liberties
*
Communications / Radio/ TV
*
Constitution
*
Computers
*
Consumer / Safety/ Protection
*
Copyright/ Patent/ Trademark
*
Defense
*
Disaster Planning/ Emergencies

*
District of Columbia
*
Economics/ Economic Development
*
Education
*
Energy/ Nuclear
*
Environmental/ Superfund
*
Family Issues/ Abortion/ Adoption
*
Financial / Securities
*
Firearms/ Guns
*
Food Industry
*
Foreign Relations
*
Fuel/ Gas/ Oil
*
Gaming/ Gambling
*
Government Issues
*
Health Issues
*
Homeland Security
*
Housing
*
Immigration
*
Indian / Native American Affairs
*
Insurance
*
Law Enforcement/ Crime
*
Labor/ Antitrust/ Workplace
*
Manufacturing
*
Maritime/ Boating/ Fisheries
*
Medical Disease Research
*
Media
*
Medicare/ Medicaid

*
Minting/ Money
*
Natural Resources
*
Pharmacy
*
Postal
*
Religion
*
Real Estate/ Land Use
*
Retirement
*
Roads/ Highway
*
Railroads
*
Science/ Technology
*
Small Business
*
Sports/ Athletics
*
Taxation/ IRS
*
Telecommunications
*
Tobacco
*
Torts
*
Travel/ Tourism
Refine By:

*
Accounting
*
Advertising
*
Aerospace
*
Agriculture
*
Alcohol & Drug Abuse
*
Animals
*
Apparel/ Clothing/ Textiles
*
Arts/ Entertainment
*
Automotive Industry
*
Aviation/ Aircraft/ Airlines
*
Banking
*
Bankruptcy
*
Beverage Industry
*
Budget
*
Appropriations
*
Clean Air & Water
*
Commodities
*
Chemicals
*
Civil Rights/ Civil Liberties
*
Communications / Radio/ TV
*
Constitution
*
Computers
*
Consumer / Safety/ Protection
*
Copyright/ Patent/ Trademark
*
Defense
*
Disaster Planning/ Emergencies

*
District of Columbia
*
Economics/ Economic Development
*
Education
*
Energy/ Nuclear
*
Environmental/ Superfund
*
Family Issues/ Abortion/ Adoption
*
Financial / Securities
*
Firearms/ Guns
*
Food Industry
*
Foreign Relations
*
Fuel/ Gas/ Oil
*
Gaming/ Gambling
*
Government Issues
*
Health Issues
*
Homeland Security
*
Housing
*
Immigration
*
Indian / Native American Affairs
*
Insurance
*
Law Enforcement/ Crime
*
Labor/ Antitrust/ Workplace
*
Manufacturing
*
Maritime/ Boating/ Fisheries
*
Medical Disease Research
*
Media
*
Medicare/ Medicaid

*
Minting/ Money
*
Natural Resources
*
Pharmacy
*
Postal
*
Religion
*
Real Estate/ Land Use
*
Retirement
*
Roads/ Highway
*
Railroads
*
Science/ Technology
*
Small Business
*
Sports/ Athletics
*
Taxation/ IRS
*
Telecommunications
*
Tobacco
*
Torts
*
Travel/ Tourism
*
Transportation
*
Trade
*
Trucking/ Shipping
*
Unemployment
*
Urban Development/ Municipalities
*
Utilities
*
Veterans
*
Waste
*
Welfare
*
Transportation
*
Trade
*
Trucking/ Shipping
*
Unemployment
*
Urban Development/ Municipalities
*
Utilities
*
Veterans
*
Waste
*
Welfare

[darshhan]

Lobbying in the United states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_i ... ted_States

[shiv]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_lobby

Pakistan lobby in the United States

The Pakistan lobby in the United States refers to the professional lobbyists paid directly by the government of Pakistan to lobby the public and government of the United States on behalf of Pakistani interests and/or on behalf of Pakistani American rights and interests.

Stephen Payne is believed to be the preeminent paid lobbyist for the government of Pakistan in the U.S. According to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Payne played a pivotal role in U.S. Pakistan relations, serving as Pakistan's lobbyist through a group called Team Eagle (also known as Team Barakat).[1][2] Payne worked as a lobbyist for Pakistan to deliver a multibillion dollar U.S. aid package and to remove U.S. economic and military sanctions against Pakistan that had been in place for several years. He also helped Pakistan secure Major non-NATO ally status, which Pakistan received in 2004 as well as helping to secure F-16s, C-130s and military helicopters for Pakistan.[2]

Pakistan has paid lobbyists to obtain “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones,” industrial development zones with the privilege of exporting goods manufactured in Pakistan duty-free to the United States and to maintain high levels of U.S. foreign aid.[3]

Pakistan has sought to furthen its foreign policy interests in the United States through lobbying. In one particular incident on March 1997, the member of the House of Representatives from Indiana Dan Burton was accused of demanding a $5,000 contribution from a Pakistani lobbyist. The lobbyist said that when he was unable to raise the funds, Burton complained to the Pakistani ambassador and threatened to make sure "none of his friends or colleagues" would meet with the lobbyist or his associates.[4]

The lobbying firm Janus-Merritt Strategies led by Iranian-American lawyer David Safavian was also briefly registered by the Pakistani government for lobbying. In 2011, the FBI arrested Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, allegedly on charges of secretly lobbying for the Government of Pakistan on influencing decisions made in the US regarding the Kashmir conflict.

[darshhan]

Shiv ji , These are the following acts which govern the lobbying in US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist_Disclosure_Act

And where interests of foreign parties are involved the following act too comes into play

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Ag ... ration_Act

[RajeshA]

The US is powerful. The powerful US supplies arms to Pakistan. Then India gets a message that says "You want this to stop?. Well then what are you going to bring to the table to offer the USA to stop it?"

It so happens that it is both in Indian interests and on moral grounds that the US should be pressured to stop supplying arms to Pakistan. It is not as if US arms supply to Pakistan looks good and attractive if India drops its moralistic tone. That is a strawman if I ever saw one.

If Indians are worried in US then they should start with a anti Pakistan lobby inside US. That way they dont need to feel frustrated with US India relations. To prevent anti american lobby in India they should start with a anto Pakistan lobby in US.

Acharya garu,

thanks for pointing in a constructive direction.

I believe however that one should tone the message of such a lobbying effort. Basing the message on simply stopping giving weapons to Pakistan, as they could be used against India, may be a message, which may not sell that well.

USA has a long history of buying influence by providing weapons. Provision of weapons is simply a well-established means to an end for them. This may be like asking Americans to not put shoes on, as these could kill the insects in their path. A bit of an exaggeration, but ...

I think, Indians must give the US Congressmen and the Administration, a far potent weapon - "American National Interest crouched in American Values applied universally"!

I would suggest a four-pronged lobbying attack - on the following fronts!

1. Baluchistan - Indian Americans should establish close contacts with Balochi expatriates in USA, fund them well, hone their message, act as advisers to them and get them to lobby US Congressmen much harder. This in an area, which can be sold to US Congressmen as important for American national interests - Access to Central Asia, Containment of Iran, etc. It is also about freedom, especially as Pakistan's claim on Baluchistan is legally quite weak. When the time comes to punish Pakistan, these US Congressmen should open the purse-strings for a Baluchistan Liberation War. Since the Indian Americans would be heavily involved in this effort, they can better orient the direction of Baluchistan Liberation Struggle.
2. Balwaristan - Same is the case with Balwaristan. Here American interest is the containment of China, and stopping China from expanding into the Gulf through Pakistan. Indians should build a lobby which emphasizes that Gilgit-Baltistan do not belong to Pakistan, and Pakistan should retreat from the area. The lobby should emphasize the human rights and native rights violations by Pakistan. The lobby should highlight the entry of China into the area. Indian Americans can join the likes of Senge Sering, from the Institute for Gilgit Baltistan Studies, and others, and get USA to focus on this area on a priority basis.
3. 9/11 Truth movement - Indians should also join the 9/11 Truth movement and its various organizations and try to highlight Pakistan's complicity in the 9/11 attacks, that it was Pakistan all along which organized and funded the 9/11 Attacks including giving shelter to the perpetrator of those attacks - Osama bin Laden. All those who were complicit in giving shelter to him, which involves the whole ISI and TSPA should be brought to justice or justice should be taken to them.
4. USINPAC - Concerned Indians should also donate to USINPAC, or some other similar organization and try to steer its direction into one that is pro-Indian. It is through this effort, that we should highlight the Pakistan sponsored terrorism against India.

Funding the Baluchistan, Balwaristan, 9/11 Truth Movement Effort, all are very pro-Indian efforts! These are not simply efforts which concern other people or just USA. Indian American should see these efforts as their own!

Then of course there is the effort of concerned citizens to write to one's Senator or House Representative or Administration about Pakistan's perfidy and terrorist nature, and demand that US avenges the death of all those US soldiers who died in the battlefield of Afghanistan.

[VikramS]

I should have been sleeping but thought I will revisit this thread. Started reading the posts from early March 2011 (pages 3-7). All I can say, WOW, We have come a long way, baby and in a very short time.

With the OBL incident, the turmoil in the Middle-East, the GCC-KSA-TSP linkup, the Shia uprising, the breakdown in Europe, the downgrade of the US. The wheels are turning.



Rajesh: The Truth About 9/11 people are primarily the "inside job" / "controlled demolition" camp. They are looking at the other end of the pole. I think by now, there are not that many who doubt that TSP had a key role to play. OBL's role as a permanent guest (and potentially a visiting professor) in Abbotabad sealed the deal. The question still remains, what can they do about it.