India-US News and Discussion

[ramana]

The US finance cos will make Harshad Mehta blush.

[svinayak]

The US finance cos will make Harshad Mehta blush.

Indian regulators will be Pigmy's in front of these financial companies.

[abhishek_sharma]

Strong Ties With India Goal of Trip By Geithner

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/busin ... thner.html

“On principle, they both agree on everything,” said Jahangir Aziz, chief India economist at J.P.Morgan in Mumbai. “It always comes down to the nitty-gritty and that’s where things get stuck. Part of the problem is neither of them wants to give the other side an inch.”

It took nearly 20 years for the United States to lift a ban on imports of Indian mangoes, for example, and a deal to allow energy-strapped India access to U.S. nuclear technology, agreed in principal four years ago, still has not cleared all the legal hurdles that would let American companies sign contracts to do business here. (French and Russian companies, by contrast, have signed contracts and are expected to begin work soon.)

The two countries remain far apart on U.S. farm subsidies and India’s unwillingness to open its markets to foreign farmers, because they both want to protect their agricultural sectors. The countries’ disagreements there helped to scuttle global trade negotiations in 2008.

Indian officials expressed very cautious optimism ahead of Mr. Geithner’s visit.

“There is good reason to believe that there will be real economic outcomes to match the avowed ambition of such engagement,” Rahul Khullar, India’s commerce secretary, wrote in an e-mailed response to questions.

...



But India still lags far behind the United States’ most important economic partnerships, with India ranked 14th on a 2009 survey, behind Venezuela, Italy and Brazil.

Moreover, political leaders in Washington and New Delhi have often struggled to establish trust with each other. The administration of President George W. Bush won over many Indian leaders because it championed the nuclear deal and was seen as tough on terrorism. But many Indian politicians and newspapers have a less favorable view of President Barack Obama because they believe that his administration is pushing India to prematurely open negotiations with Pakistan, its neighbor and rival.

“This issue has generated doubts in Indians’ minds that makes it a lot more difficult to reach the comfort levels we achieved during the Bush administration,” said C.Raja Mohan, an Indian academic who is the Henry Alfred Kissinger scholar at the U.S. Library of Congress.

Specifically, reports in The Wall Street Journal that the Obama administration plans to push for increased diplomacy between India and Pakistan were greeted here with derision.

India and the United States need to have a “total tectonic shift” in the way they look at each other, suggested Amit Mitra, the secretary general of Ficci, India’s main chamber of commerce. From a business point of view, that means removing India from a list of countries that cannot be sold numerous U.S.-made technologies, among other things, he said.
“Americans aren’t in the big picture in the big projects in India,” he said. Japanese and Korean companies, for example, are collaborating to build a nearly 1,500-kilometer, or 930-mile, freight corridor between Delhi and Mumbai.

Some of that work should be going to companies from the United States, he added.

During a briefing last week, U.S. Treasury officials said trade would not be high on the agenda during Mr. Geithner’s visit. But he is expected to discuss infrastructure financing.

He is also expected to encourage Indian officials to raise the limits they have placed on foreign banks and insurance companies, but New Delhi seems reluctant to allow more foreign banks into the country unless the U.S. Federal Reserve allows more Indian banks to set up branches in the United States.

Donald L. Kohn, the vice chairman of the Fed, will accompany Mr. Geithner to New Delhi.

Any argument Mr. Geithner makes for a greater opening of financial markets is likely to be quickly shot down by Indian officials, who have said that the country’s conservative regulations helped it avoid the worst elements of the recent crisis that started on Wall Street and engulfed many Western financial markets.

“He should not publicly press India to open its financial sector,” Arvind Subramanian, of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, wrote on the institute’s Web site.

“Indian public opinion will remind him that post-crisis America has little standing in trumpeting the benefits of financial sector deregulation, let alone in pushing the interests of the still-maligned U.S. financial sector,” he said. “India will open up its financial sector but at its own pace.”

In recent weeks, the Indian authorities have given new banking licenses to Credit Suisse and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. But the Indian authorities have not allowed most American and European banks that have operations in India to open many new branches in the country.

Mr. Geithner appears to understand the nuance of the complex Indian-American relationship.

Speaking to Indian reporters in Washington before he left, he praised Indian policy makers for their management of the economy. He also said the United States could help the country set up a corporate bond market. Just a few days earlier, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said India needed a well-functioning bond market to help finance $1 trillion in infrastructure investment.

...

[Prem]

Does anyone have an idea of what 1,894 trillion cubic feet of shale gas translates into equivalent barrels of oil ?

~315 billion barrels of oil if you assume all 1,894 tcf is extractable. Use 6000 ccf gas to 1 barrel crude conversion ratio.

Realistically, use an Expected Value of gas for a more meaninful number...

Its not feet but Metres so multiply it by factor of 35 , enough to buy few hundred Saudias or supply the whole world for few hundred years But i believe the gas hydarte figure is about underwater methane noodles and last i heard was small scale production to be started this year with the help from Japan and Roosi Bhais.

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.hindu.com/2010/04/06/stories ... 161200.htm

United States President Barack Obama will visit India soon. The announcement was made by U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy J. Roemer during a brief interaction with journalists after calling on Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee here on Monday.

Mr. Roemer said he discussed a host of issues with Ms. Banerjee, as also India-U.S. relations. However, he declined to directly comment on whether he had specifically discussed the controversial Nuclear Liability Bill with the Minister.

The Ambassador remained closeted with Ms. Banerjee for over 40 minutes. Senior officials, including Railway Board Chairman S.S. Khurana, left the Minister's chamber after exchanging pleasantries, underscoring that they intended discussing more urgent matters.

Mr. Roemer's courtesy call on Ms. Banerjee comes ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington on April 12 and 13 to attend the Nuclear Security Summit convened by Mr. Obama.

Equally important is the fact that Parliament reconvenes after a recess on April 15.

“Good discussions”

Mr. Roemer said he had just paid a courtesy visit to Ms. Banerjee and his discussions with her were very good. He presented to her a copy of Mr. Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.

Ms. Banerjee said Mr. Roemer called on her in the wake of the Prime Minister's visit to the U.S. She also parried questions whether the Nuclear Liability Bill had cropped up during their discussions.

Ms. Banerjee said Mr. Roemer raised several issues and sought her opinion, but she declined to elaborate. “Whatever opinion they ask we give,” she said.

[shiv]

cross post from Packee thread

As I see it:

• India has no option than to tell the US that it is helping Pakistan and that help is a problem for us
• Pakistan sees it as an attractive option to tell the US that it is favoring India and that Pakistan needs much more help to solve its problems
• But without US aid - Pakistan will sink
• India has managed without US aid, so it is Pakistan that is more vulnerable.
• The US realises that Pakistan is vulnerable and tries to "redress the balance"
• Taking Pakistan down is useful for India
• Taking the US down will help take Pakistan down
• Taking India down is useful for Pakistan
• Taking the US down is not going to help Pakistan
• Pakistan's survival is linked to the power of the US
• India's survival is not linked to the power of the US. India's power is undermined by US power as long as Pakistan is aided
• Therefore Pakistanis find it convenient to work for US interests
• The US is happy to have the Paki army whore working for its interests as long as the US is safer and balls to India

As a corollary to my own post

The US cannot be ignored. India has two options vis a vis the US.

1) To work for US interests
2) To work against US interests


Now let me ask a question:

Should India work for US interests and ask the US for goodwill and pressure on Pakistan?

or

Should India work against US interests and let the US do its darndest to help Pakistan or any enemy of India and finally hinge any cooperation with the US on stopping of aid to enemies?

[tejas]

Hi, Rangudu. Thanks for the conversion tip Boss. Even if we assume only a third of the gas is recoverable thats 100 billion barrels of oil! Who needs Saudi Arabia with those numbers at our disposal.

Cheers.

[Rangudu]

Hi, Rangudu. Thanks for the conversion tip Boss. Even if we assume only a third of the gas is recoverable thats 100 billion barrels of oil! Who needs Saudi Arabia with those numbers at our disposal.

Cheers.

I wish this were true but in reality, the probabilities to be used are fractions of the 33% you are using.

[abhishek_sharma]

Obama’s insensitivity to India’s interests

http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2010/0 ... interests/

So far, India’s signals of displeasure and annoyance have been quiet and behind the scenes. It is time to raise the temperature. Given that the UPA government in introducing some very important legislation in the current session of parliament, Dr Singh would do well to stay in New Delhi to see it through, leaving it to the foreign minister to attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, on his behalf. And since the bilateral relationship is mature and everything, New Delhi could let it be known that there’s no real hurry for Mr Obama to visit India.

[Rudradev]

As a corollary to my own post

The US cannot be ignored. India has two options vis a vis the US.

1) To work for US interests
2) To work against US interests


Now let me ask a question:

Should India work for US interests and ask the US for goodwill and pressure on Pakistan?

or

Should India work against US interests and let the US do its darndest to help Pakistan or any enemy of India and finally hinge any cooperation with the US on stopping of aid to enemies?

The flaw in this assessment is the assertion that India has only the two options listed above. We have more options than total cooperation or outright hostility.

One option is as follows

1) Work selectively and in good faith to cooperate with the US in spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves. This will earn us the confidence and goodwill of those factions in the US who do not demand wh0redom from all US allies (the factions which do demand that are out of reach anyway).

2) Work even harder to create new spheres of interest... circumstances and situations, in which the US' need of our cooperation greatly exceeds our potential cost of offering that cooperation. Then offer the US "cooperation" which is worth a lot to them and costs little to us. And name our price in return.

Step 2 has been achieved before. In their own crude, ham handed way it is exactly what the Pakis have achieved... creating the AfPak situation with their support of Taliban and international Islamists, perpetrating 9/11, precipitating a US "need" for Pakistani cooperation, and coming out of it ten years later with AfPak back in their hands plus several billion dollars, F 16s, lifted sanctions, AMRAAMs, frigates, P3Cs, Harpoons, Cobras, LGBs etc in the bargain.

Of course the Pakis in their tactical brilliance may have underestimated the real cost to themselves of offering the necessary "cooperation" for which they created a need in America. But note: that's a flaw in implementation. As a proof of concept it is entirely sound, and if combined with a more subtle and better planned approach there is no reason why it couldn't work for other nations as well.

[shiv]

One option is as follows

1) Work selectively and in good faith to cooperate with the US in spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves. This will earn us the confidence and goodwill of those factions in the US who do not demand wh0redom from all US allies (the factions which do demand that are out of reach anyway).

I deliberately did not include this option because I expected responders to ask me the question I am now going to ask you:

What are the "spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves"

I realize that it will be easy to pounce on you and bash your virtual head down in response to any suggestion you make - but I for one will not do that. Let me hear from you and others that these spheres of mutual interest might be.

[Rudradev]

One option is as follows

1) Work selectively and in good faith to cooperate with the US in spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves. This will earn us the confidence and goodwill of those factions in the US who do not demand wh0redom from all US allies (the factions which do demand that are out of reach anyway).

I deliberately did not include this option because I expected responders to ask me the question I am now going to ask you:

What are the "spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves"

I realize that it will be easy to pounce on you and bash your virtual head down in response to any suggestion you make - but I for one will not do that. Let me hear from you and others that these spheres of mutual interest might be.

Just a few that come to mind:

1) Cooperation in policing the sea lanes of the Indian ocean

2) Cooperation in Afghan "nation building"... building infrastructure in Afghanistan, bringing critical services to the Afghan people, training Afghan security forces and civil servants. Make no mistake... this IS a mutual sphere of interest where our efforts have really helped the US. If it were not, the US would have taken an inexpensive option to appease the Pakis by insisting that we leave Afghanistan.

3) Cooperation between scientific, technological and educational establishments, of a sort that does not impact India's core strategic concerns. For example in chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Indian made generic drugs have been used by the US to supply African nations , and now with the Obama healthcare initiative they could be very useful to supply low income or under insured American citizens at home. Similarly new technologies in many spheres that fall within the alternative energy bracket. If GOI were smart we would offer our cooperation in terms of research rather than signing on to hare brained western dictated "global warming" protocols as is.

4) An expansion of business relationships in all sectors not critical to India's strategic security (but with a laxman rekha imposed on Indian private entities that, if they should in any way behave in a manner suggestive of a fifth column, their days of doing business-- anywhere-- are over).

These are among the opportunities available today ... but if we make a conscious effort to watch for more such, we can consider new ones as they emerge.

[James Cockburn]

There can be no mutually beneficial interests between a soul super power and a sole super power.

And shiv is always right in the long he is going to be proven right on all counts.

Soles die hard goes the saying.

[Philip]

According to Shiv's hypothesis,there are only two options in dealing with the US.Either we support the US or act against it.I give a third option.
Why should we always myopically look at the world through the eyes of US foreign policy?This is the cardianl mistake that we've been making during the MMS era.WE should look at global affairs through an Indian perspective and get our friends around the globe to view our interests through our perspective.We haqve been trying to accomodate the US's interests which is why we are in "sh*t creek without a paddle" reg. Paki everlasting terror and the pathetic sight of the US also supplying it with arms and aid in perpetuity so that the Pakis can use these gifts against India.

Unless we talk tough to the US,just as Gen.Kill-any has been doing, it will never understand or give value to India's minimum stance on the establishment of "good" relations with Pak..Under no circumstances can we abdicate our national interest by compromising with Pak on Kashmir,terror,water,its nuclear proliferation,etc.In fact Pak will continue to blackmail India and the US ,as is the habit of a blackmailer.The only way in which a blackmailer can be stopped is to "stop" him.For that,India has to do a complete about turn in drawing up its startegic objectives-without a role for the US-useless in any case so far,and revamp the military massively to meet the enhanced military challenges that will definitely arise from Pak's successful strategy of using terror as an instrument of blackmail to get what it wants from the US.

The only fly in the ointment is the abjectly pro-US PM of ours,who has placed the US's interests first ,not that of India's.It is upto the combined forces of the opposition to steel themselves and defeat the insidious lgislation/deals in the making on N-liabilities,etc.,and shelving arms deals and militayr cooperation with the US as long as it supplies Pak with arms and aid to wound India.With such a pro-Paki behaviour,a duplicitous US cannot be rewarded under any circumstances.It woiuld be tantamount to treason.

[James Cockburn]

US does not need India's support. It cares two hoots.

for that matter India does not support itself on many issues.

[JE Menon]

Welcome back. I might be in your neck of the woods within the year. I have not forgotten the offer of a cup of Bru

[James Cockburn]

The brew awaits you!

[Kavu]

US does not need India's support. It cares two hoots.

for that matter India does not support itself on many issues.

I completely agree.
It is not America's fault that India is run by idiots. They are not doing justice to their people if they are not serving their interest even at the cost of innocent Indians. India should do the same, be as ruthless as Americans when it is their interest. As any nation state should. But can India get away with everything what do US does now, No,mayne some . India cant do all. But one day India will, Such is Geopolitics.

[brihaspati]

The third option? How can there be a third option when no regime in India has really been assured of complete and unanimous support behind its foreign policy from its own nation? The relationship between the GOI and its electorate has always been that of mutual suspicion. For example, with respect to dealing with POWI or POGWI, GOI's have always been pondering the fine balance in their imagination of taking any steps that can backfire on domestic religious sentiments and affiliations. Imagination perhaps, but still, because of the penchant from certain faiths to internalize external issues in what they consider their religious/cultural heartland - ME.

Kayani or Gillani's of POWI have no such problems, because they share in the ideological drives of their populations, and know that any extortionist tactics they apply on the USA or the West under the garb of Islamic interests will have unanimous support from their populations. There will be no vicious fissures like in India with Aman-Ki-Asha and a host of screaming media obsessed with "Hindu fascists" as the greatest danger to the nation.

India could have played similar games with USA as POGWI does. However that needs a complete unanimity within the nation about a basic ideological approach to such tactical problems. Because of the internal hesitation and persistent confusion about our attitudes towards Islamism, Communism, for that matter say even EJ-ism or shall I say, "Israelism" (rather than just "Judaism") - foreign policy is forced to be confused and hesitant.

None of three options presented so far are relevant or appropriate, with all due respects. First have a clear understanding of what the ideological drives and programme appears to be in the three greatest threats to the rashtra of India - Islamism, Communism, EJ-ism. Reject them clearly, and firmly as having no place in the Indian rashtra. That clears the way for a consistent counter-programme for a no-holds barred campaign to uproot and liquidate them. As long as you are sympathetic to them or see overlaps with them - you cannot adopt the ruthlessness that tis required. That clear rupture with these ideologies and programmes also automatically clears the way for foreign policy, since any GOI under that situation knows that the nation will be completely behind it in any manipulations - "ethical" or "unethical" to deal with the enemy even outside current borders. Clarity about Islamism clears cobwebs in strategy towards POGWI. Clarity about communism clears cobwebs in strategy towards China. Clarity about all three clears cobwebs in strategy towards the USA.

USA can be bought off. But do not make the dumb assumption that there is no ideology behind US actions in ME and AF-POWI. So the price will be stiff - and we have to compensate extra to neutralize the penchant for Biblical interpretations and racial constructs that appears consistently in many long term US policies - over and above mere economic interests. But it can be done. we need a clear long term vision about what we want to happen in AF-POWI for that. That vision in turn depends on the clarity about the three ideologies and the futuer extent of India.

[Johann]

Bretton Woods was an orderly formal transition to a new reserve currency for the West in the closing days of WW2. But clearly the prospective holders of this currency did not have unmitigated faith in it. Hence it had to be convertible into gold at a set ratio of 1 ounce of gold to be paid by the US for every 35 dollars returned. Furhtermore market access in itself could not be taken advantage of by Western Europe or Japan. Their industries and infrastructure was destroyed by the war. The US stepped in and provided the capital via the Marshall Plan to Western Europe. Japan was also helped in a similar fashion.

Bretton Woods should be seen as part of the larger, new global political economy that liberal internationalists in the West believed would help prevent another World War while making them rich.

Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, the United Nations - it was a sweeping, integrated vision of a different kind of global order.

The liberal internationalists did not expect the Cold War and fervently wished against it, but when it did arrive they mobilised the resources of this system towards victory.

The one area which I have not explored is the degree to which and the manner in which capital was provided to China to kickstart its rapid and massive industrialization. Of course once the self sustained investment production income savings cycle started in China it has not looked back. If we assume that in the late 1970s, world capital markets were not as efficient and transparent as they are today, and if we also posit that the US helped China in its initial kick start in return for an anti Soviet alliance, how exactly did that happen in terms of the nuts and bolts.

The initial capital largely came from two sources;

- The first was the Chinese diaspora, particularly in Taiwan and Hong Kong which provided much of the capital and expertise needed for low cost, globally competitive mass manufacture and distribution. These businessmen had always been ready to invest in the PRC, and the second Deng Xiaoping changed CPC ideology from class war and revolution to growth and modernisation in 1978 they came swarming in. These are the guys who made that first wave of cheap Chinese goods in the 1980s possible - pencils, toys, clothing, plastics, etc.

- The second source were billions in soft loans from Japan. The Japanese had a range of interests. Long term interest in becoming part of the Chinese economy, the desire to normalise the political relationship with China, and a shared fear with the Chinese of the massive Soviet air and naval build up in the Far East during the 1970s and early 1980s.

- US direct investments in Mainland China were pretty minimal until 1992. That is when Deng pushed through his second round of 'opening up' within the Party. In Deng's argument there was no way around economic engagement with the US market if China was to modernise and grow in to a top world power.

The additional short to medium term benefit would be to blow away all of the Western sanctions and attacks on the CPC legitimacy that came in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. With the Cold War over, strategic relationships had to be based on economics rather than mutual enemies.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"and a shared fear with the Chinese of the massive Soviet air and naval build up in the Far East during the 1970s and early 1980s."

Remarks like this confirm what people like myself have always thought, that the whole cold war was a fraud and a sham. If the moral underpinning of the cold war was a principled, uncompromising opposition to totalitarianism, then where is the question of China being part of such an opposition? China and Russia were friends and allies right up until the 60's. Of course, the US-UK led combine supported and propped up countries that were very unfree, non pluralistic and undemocratic, which discredited the whole cold war position to begin with. But roping in a totalitarian fascist state like China to counter another totalitarian fascist state like Russia, takes the proverbial cake.

[ramana]

Thats called realpolitik. Its the way of life. Yes it goes against the Indian ideal of absolute purity in your dealings. But when the other side does it you need to do the same or you lose. Recall the Ghazni/Ghori invasions onwards

[Varoon Shekhar]

And furthermore, from time to time, we hear murmurs from China about their 'concerns' over Japan and India cooperating in this or that area( including space, for some strange reason). If the Chinese have a principled, intelligent, philosophical opposition to the Japanese, why then take their massive investment (far more than the Japanese investment in India, btw) and technology? And also share their 'concern' over Russian/Soviet military expansion in the far east? Are the Chinese against Russian totalitarianism, Japanese past or present militarism, both, neither, what?

Again, fraud and sham.

[SwamyG]

21st century Jataka Tales
Bald Eagle needs the Elephant as much as it needs Panda. But the Elephant is like the King of Bears (Jambavan), it does not realize its own strengths. So the elephant, in the bear mode morphs into a tail wagging dog that sometimes rolls over and lifts all legs. And I hear dog meat is popular in some parts of China.

[SwamyG]

What are the "spheres of mutual interest that are important to the US but ultimately low-risk to ourselves"

US companies need to find new consumers. India can convert several million citizens into consumers with ease. In India it is easier to bypass existing regulations.

[Johann]

"and a shared fear with the Chinese of the massive Soviet air and naval build up in the Far East during the 1970s and early 1980s."

Remarks like this confirm what people like myself have always thought, that the whole cold war was a fraud and a sham. If the moral underpinning of the cold war was a principled, uncompromising opposition to totalitarianism, then where is the question of China being part of such an opposition? China and Russia were friends and allies right up until the 60's. Of course, the US-UK led combine supported and propped up countries that were very unfree, non pluralistic and undemocratic, which discredited the whole cold war position to begin with. But roping in a totalitarian fascist state like China to counter another totalitarian fascist state like Russia, takes the proverbial cake.

Varoon,

There is a direct precedent.

Many found the idea of alliance with the totalitarian Stalinist Soviet Union against totalitarian Nazi Germany utterly repulsive, but they were forced to accept it because there was no other way to hold back, let alone defeat the Nazis.

Ideological Conservatives in the US, the people we call Neo-cons today were deeply unhappy about both compromises.

On the other hand the PRC's strategic partnership with the US 1978-1989 did not come for free. They did have to give up the export of Maoist revolution.

Despite the partial thaw between the US and PRC 1969-71, no deeper strategic engagement was possible (despite the wishes of Nixon and Mao) because of the deep and fundamental ideological divide that persisted until Mao died in 1976, and Mao's ideological successors like Gua Huofeng and the 'Gang of Four' were defeated by Deng Xiaoping.

Even so, the US-PRC relationship has been very difficult since the loss of their mutual enemy, and only smoothed over by mutual economic dependence. Without that the Sino-American relationship would have looked a lot like the US-Soviet relationship after Hitler's defeat.

[ldev]

Bretton Woods should be seen as part of the larger, new global political economy that liberal internationalists in the West believed would help prevent another World War while making them rich.

I like the the bolded caustic sentence. So true.

The second source were billions in soft loans from Japan. The Japanese had a range of interests. Long term interest in becoming part of the Chinese economy, the desire to normalise the political relationship with China, and a shared fear with the Chinese of the massive Soviet air and naval build up in the Far East during the 1970s and early 1980s.

I had forgotten how significant Japanese soft loans were in the early years to help kickstart Chinese industrialization. In those years a billion dollars was a lot of money. Now that I think about it, those soft loans continued for a long time making China the largest recepient of Japanese aid for years.

[RamaY]

First have a clear understanding of what the ideological drives and programme appears to be in the three greatest threats to the rashtra of India - Islamism, Communism, EJ-ism. Reject them clearly, and firmly as having no place in the Indian rashtra. That clears the way for a consistent counter-programme for a no-holds barred campaign to uproot and liquidate them.

Golden words!

This is the question I asked a year ago at the beginning of "Strategic Future and Strategic Leadership" threads. To what end all these options, strategies and actions? What values does the nation of Bharat represent?

[Amber G.]

Indian Americans rally to block F-16s sale to Pakistan

[Prem]

First have a clear understanding of what the ideological drives and programme appears to be in the three greatest threats to the rashtra of India - Islamism, Communism, EJ-ism. Reject them clearly, and firmly as having no place in the Indian rashtra. That clears the way for a consistent counter-programme for a no-holds barred campaign to uproot and liquidate them.

Golden words!
This is the question I asked a year ago at the beginning of "Strategic Future and Strategic Leadership" threads. To what end all these options, strategies and actions? What values does the nation of Bharat represent?

The threat within is the most dangerous one and it is the above prepetual weakness which dont let us concentrate on wholesale ,wholesome development of Indicians.Almost all the major countries we interact with have no such issue to solve before dealing with external threat .The mistakes of our forefathers visit us now and same will happen to our kids if we keep sitting on our Cittars and dont solve it for good. National cohesiveness is must to assert the right to protect national interests without compromise.

[James B]

Obama calls nuclear strategy 'significant step'

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them. The policy would not apply to states like North Korea and Iran, however, because of their refusal to cooperate with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

[negi]

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them

Let me guess just like Afghanistan and Iraq ? Big deal .

[SwamyG]

Why doesn't USA ditch Pakistan and hitch totally with India? What can Pakistan do that Indian cannot?

[James B]

Why doesn't USA ditch Pakistan and hitch totally with India? What can Pakistan do that Indian cannot?

GUBO

[ramana]

Under the new plan, the U.S. promises not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have them

Let me guess just like Afghanistan and Iraq ? Big deal .

in late 70's the SU and US gave what are called negative security assurances which say the very same thing-not attacking the non NWS NPT signatories. Then after end of Cold War, US came up with something called "expanded" deterrence i.e. respond with nukes against CBW usage. In first Gulf War Bush did use that language against Saddam Hussien.
In 1996 CW was signed and by now all known stocks of CW are destroyed. The BWC is in work and the statement hedges that the level of BW will be a determinant.

[Gerard]

They resisted formalizing these NSAs though... an unwritten promise. The NNWS indefinitely extended the NPT without receiving any guarantee on this or on their Article VI obligations from the NWS.

[ramana]

X-posted..

D-Company provided logistic support for 26/11: Report

Karachi-based D-Company of the fugitive Indian underworld don Dawood Ibrahim possibly had an important role in 26/11 carnage by providing logistic support to the LeT-operatives to carry out the deadly operation, adding a new dimension to the Mumbai terror attacks.

The involvement of the D-Company in the Mumbai attacks has come out in a report on Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) released by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, the Department of Defence, which says that the D-Company is now closely tied with LeT activities in India.
......................

In exchange for his refuge in Pakistan, the report said a percentage of D-Company's profits were diverted to ISI-supported Islamic militant groups such as LeT.

"Evidence demonstrates that these links were formed in late 1993 or early 1994. Photographs of Tiger Memon posing with leaders of the Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) at an ISI safe house in Muzaffarabad surfaced and served as the first proof of the involvement of mafia money in Kashmir," the
report said.
.........................

LeT, which is estimated to be responsible for 60 per cent of terrorist killings in India, has been able to
establish cells in several parts of the world as a result of assistance received from elements within ISI and Dawood's network within India and in the Gulf," the report said.

"There have been arrests of LeT operatives all over the world, including seven arrests by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during then Pakistan President Musharraf's June 2003 visit to the United States.[/b]

Even though the information was repressed in order to avoid embarrassing Musharraf, the operatives from Washington and Philadelphia were eventually charged with "stockpiling weapons and conspiring to wage jihad against India in support of terrorists in Kashmir," it said.
....................

Wonder who the IB and RAW were ranting to all this time?

Would suppressing the LeT's role for wahtever reason's be construed as supporting their acts?

[svinayak]

Why doesn't USA ditch Pakistan and hitch totally with India? What can Pakistan do that Indian cannot?

It is to deal with the US policy of the middle east politics, Oil and geopolitics. According to many western policy makers India is not one country. Pakistan is one entity with one army head with whom the west can negotiate.

[SwamyG]

Why doesn't USA ditch Pakistan and hitch totally with India? What can Pakistan do that Indian cannot?

It is to deal with the US policy of the middle east politics, Oil and geopolitics. According to many western policy makers India is not one country. Pakistan is one entity with one army head with whom the west can negotiate.

I don't buy that argument. For all purposes India is a democratic country and the West knows it. It has the ability to transfer power peacefully from one cabinet to the next. What is Pakistan giving to USA in terms of Oil and ME politics?

[amdavadi]

Unkil belives in one mantra. It is better to work with known devil than unknown devil.They been working with known devil paqis for so long that they know what paqis can & cant do.