abhishek_sharma wrote:Robert Blackwill on Strengthening U.S.-India Cooperation
Wanst this guy warning India while arguing for giving the Taliban all of Sotuhern Afghanistan!
abhishek_sharma wrote:Robert Blackwill on Strengthening U.S.-India Cooperation
Sanku wrote:shivajisisodia wrote: The world doesnt know that Hindus never will. It is out of the West's frame of reference that a people can just keep on taking it and taking it and taking it.
You seriously misunderstand the world; and you seriously misunderstand Indians too.
The top most echelons of the "world" do understand "Hindu's" very well, and know they will never use terror, since the fundamental ideological underpinnings that form the basis of terror are different..
However, that to your understanding can not go beyond the second half of the statement.
However despite knowing that pretty well, they will still accuse "Hindu's" of terror if it serves their purpose. They are inherently excellent opportunists.
WASHINGTON: A blue ribbon panel tasked to identify "shared national interests" between the US and India has suggested among other steps, secretly planning together for exigencies in Pakistan such as its collapse and loss of control over its nuclear weapons.
The joint study group led by experts from both countries has also called for regular mutual briefings and intensifying consultations between US and India on China "given worrisome and heavy-handed Chinese actions since 2007."
The seven steps of American officials dealing with the puzzles of Pakistan
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 11:18 AM Share
By Tom Lynch
Best Defense department of dysfunctional diplomacy
Recent comments by Senator Kirk from Illinois exemplify a familiar pattern by senior U.S. political, military and diplomatic officials struggling to understand the devilish intricacies and deep challenges of South Asian politics through the constrained access portal of experience in or focus on Afghanistan. This struggle all too frequently takes the pattern of a seven-step process of "discovery learning" regarding the complexities of South Asia security by Americans first introduced to Afghanistan without background in the wider region. That process goes something like this ....
STEP 1 - MEET Afghans, find them engaging, look for the quick way to help them with a "hand up," ignore the vexing, decades-long regional security dilemmas underpinning their plight.
STEP 2 - DISCOVER Afghans suffer from multiple internal and external challenges -- take the (northern) Afghan viewpoint that theirs is all a problem of Pakistan's making.
STEP 3 - BLAME Pakistan for all Afghanistan's ills and despair of American engagement with Pakistan or Afghanistan, throw out the "I" word suggesting that more India in Afghanistan would "teach" Pakistan a lesson (and presumably save some cash).
STEP 4 - DISCOVER Pakistan already believes there is an Indian under every rock in Afghanistan - and that threatening a quicker Coalition departure and greater Indian involvement won't faze Pakistan.... Rawalpindi will move more quickly to bolster its Afghan Taliban allies for a proxy war.
STEP 5 - DETERMINE that India isn't really interested in bailing out the Coalition (or American politicians and diplomats) on western terms, has its own regional objectives and timetables, and isn't much responsive to boisterous American rhetoric accelerating the timelines on a Pakistan-India proxy war in Afghanistan. That proxy war may come, but India will work to prolong its onset as long as possible.
STEP 6 - RECOGNIZE that a rapidly-accelerating proxy war between two nuclear-armed nations encouraged by a precipitous withdrawal of US/Coalition forces before some political mechanism in place to limit the possibilities for that war is irresponsible, an approach that is all too similar to America's walk away from Afghanistan and Pakistan back the early 1990s that led to a proxy war in Afghanistan between India and Pakistan before both were fully tested nuclear-armed states.
STEP 7 - RESOLVE either to remain engaged with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India for a lengthy and challenging diplomatic-military process (including some level of non-trivial economic and military aid to both Afghanistan and Pakistan for some time); or, SUCCUMB to the personal frustrations of it all and quit the field, making room for the next nouveau American to start the process at STEP 1.
The “highly personal, often bitter animosity existing between senior White House officials and senior Asia players at State” is how one of Washington’s nonpareil foreign-policy insider newsletters, Chris Nelson’s eponymous NelsonReport, describes the forces at the bottom of the Obama administration’s latest national security crisis: whether to sell 66 new F-16 fighters to Taiwan to replace unsafe Vietnam War-era F-5 jets.
Taiwan has hundreds of supporters on Capitol Hill, and two dozen House members made a point of greeting a visiting Taiwanese presidential candidate, Tsai Ing-wen, at a reception in the Rayburn House Office Building on Sept. 14. Several senators also made the trek across Capitol Hill to show their support, including the venerable Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, chairman of the Senate Defense appropriations subcommittee, an unmistakable signal of broad bipartisan support for U.S. defense sales to Taiwan, especially the new F-16s.
Also on Sept. 14, an unnamed “senior American official” phoned a Washington correspondent of the FinancialTimes, a respected British newspaper, to ungraciously badmouth Ms. Tsai. He then declared he was speaking for the Obama administration. The State Department, which had been very supportive of Ms. Tsai, quickly denounced the “senior official” and flatly asserted that whoever he was, he “certainly did not speak for the administration.”
The “senior official,” who quickly was traced to the National Security Council staff, apparently was motivated by anxieties that Congress might force the Obama White House to approve new F-16s for Taiwan. Because Beijing is quite unhappy with any Taiwanese politician who isn’t wholeheartedly committed to Taiwan’s unification with China (and Ms. Tsai is not), the “senior official” no doubt hoped that discrediting Ms. Tsai would ingratiate Mr. Obama to the Chinese leadership. The Obama White House is on the verge of announcing “upgrades” of Taiwan’s existing fleet of 20-year-old F-16s and worries that China will be displeased. Trashing Ms. Tsai may have been a way to soften the announcement with Beijing.
The whole episode was bizarre.
Congress sees Taiwan as an authentic Asian democracy worthy of America’s support and, not incidentally, a customer for advanced aerospace weapons systems that would bring 20,000 new jobs to depressed defense production lines in Texas, Florida, Ohio and California and keep additional tens of thousands of engineers and skilled technicians employed in high-tech industrial sectors that are essential to America’s economic recovery.
Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the Pentagon also has a statutory mandate “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force” and another to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” The Defense Department, therefore, hopes to keep Taiwan’s armed forces strong enough to defend the island because otherwise U.S. forces will have to do the job.
The Pentagon has completed a congressionally mandated report on Taiwan’s air-power requirements, which, though still classified, warns that the military balance in the Taiwan Strait has tilted decisively toward China. Without replacement fighter aircraft, Taiwan will be unable to defend its airspace and the full responsibility of defending that island nation will fall completely on the United States. Pentagon analysts also point out that war-gamers running the latest iteration of “Terminal Fury” - a scenario for a crisis in the Taiwan Strait - cannot see how even the newest versions of the F-16 could survive a Chinese air assault for more than a few hours. Taiwan’s air force, they say, needs a new fleet of STOVL “short take-off and vertical landing” jets that can use the island’s modern highways as runways. In short, Taiwan needs the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, a STOVL jet that is designed for export to America’s friends and allies.
This is where bureaucratic “animosities” come in. President Obama’s top Asia advisers in the National Security Council (NSC), Daniel R. Russel and Evan S. Medeiros, are firmly pro-China, or at least do not believe anything - anything at all - is worth a confrontation with the Chinese. At the State Department, Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific, and his team are firmly pro-everybody-else in Asia, or at least they do not see how the United States can sustain its core interests globally - human rights, democracy, freedom, fair trade, freedom of the seas and airspace, access to resources and a world safe from the rampant proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems - by abjuring its global leadership.
Taiwan is not a small part of America’s security architecture. For 60 years, since 1951, the United States has maintained a robust defense and trade relationship with Taiwan that has been a key link in America’s network of security cooperation and alliances in the Western Pacific. The broad question debated in the Obama administration is whether the United States will withdraw from Asia in the face of China’s inexorable military rise. Mr. Obama’s NSC apparently thinks the United States should simply bow to Chinese expansion, while State and Defense see Taiwan as emblematic of America’s commitments to the rest of Asia, from Japan and Australia through Southeast Asia to India. When asked about the Obama administration’s reluctance to sell the new F-16C/Ds to Taiwan, State people caution that the administration has not ruled out consideration of new jets for Taiwan at some point.
Congress has weighed in on the State-Defense side. Several new bills seek to require the administration to sell the latest F-16s to Taiwan, and there is an appreciation on the Hill that simply “upgrading” Taiwan’s deployed fleet of 145 older F-16A/Bs, while clearly necessary, equally clearly is not sufficient. Congress also sees that sustaining and creating new jobs in America’s advanced aerospace sectors is essential to economic recovery. New jet fighter sales to Taiwan should be a no-brainer; they help Taiwan defend itself and they employ U.S. aerospace engineers.
NSC staffers in the Obama White House, on the other hand, are letting “highly personal, often bitter animosity” get in the way of national security - and jobs. They also are abetting America’s demotion to a second-class power unwilling - but not quite unable - to challenge the hegemony of China’s ruthless, new brand of state mercantilism in Asia.
JE Menon wrote:>>India and US as civilised democratic societies have to ask a common question about punishments, particularly that of Capital punishments. What does it serve? Does it serve as a purpose of creating a fear for legal systems to be followed or as a lesson for others to follow? or Does it serve the purpose of eliminating those murders as a revenge and so a satisfaction for the victims?
Boss, capital punishment is a matter for the US penal system. All your questions above are best addressed in a forum dedicated to social issues in the US. Capital punishment in India is a rare enough event, and there is virtually no point to discussing or comparing or whatever you intend to do ... in this thread. Please desist.
abhishek_sharma wrote:Srinagar-bound US broadcaster is deported from New Delhi
India has sought an early resolution to the problems being faced by the IT industry over H1B visas in the US.
He drew attention to the estimates by Indian industry that the uptake of H1B visa this year has been less than half of the annual prescribed limit, and the rejection rates had gone up.
He said India has signed totalization agreements with several European countries, whose social security systems are different from the Indian system and from the US system.
( the figures run in $millions likely)India has been pursuing a totalisation agreement with the US for several years now. According to government sources, there are 300,000 Indians working in the US and they lose their social security contributions if they do not complete 10 years of employment. If a totalisation agreement is signed it would exempt payment of social security contribution for those on short term work contracts if contribution is already being paid in the country of origin. It would also help in portability of benefits on relocation.
The US side has assured that they would seriously consider the proposal but there has been no substantial progress on the issue, sources say.
Unlike China, which imposed its own matrix of law and culture on invaders so successfully that they grew indistinguishable from the Chinese people, India transcended foreigners not by co-opting but by segregating them. Invaders might raise incredible monuments to their own importance as if to reassure themselves of their greatness in the face of so much indifference, but the Indian peoples endured by creating relationships all but impervious to alien influence. Like the Middle East, India is the home of great religions. Yet unlike those of the East, these are religions not of exaltation but of endurance; they have inspired man not by prophetic visions of messianic fulfillment but by bearing witness to the fragility of human existence; they offer not personal salvation but the solace of an inevitable destiny. Where each man is classified from birth, his failure is never personal; his quality is tested by his ability to endure his fate, not to shape it. The caste system does not attract civilizations determined to seek fulfillment in a single lifetime. It provides extraordinary resilience and comfort in larger perspectives. The Hindu religion is proud and self-contained; it accepts no converts. One is either born into it or forever denied its comforts and the assured position it confers.Foreign conquest is an ultimate irrelevancy in the face of such impermeability; it gives the non-Indian no status in Indian society, enabling Indian civilization to survive, occasionally even to thrive, through centuries of foreign rule. Of course, so many invasions have had to leave a human, not only an architectural, residue. The Moslem conquerors, representing a proselytizing religion, offered mass conversion as a route for lower-caste Hindus to alleviate their condition. They succeeded only partially, for once converted the new Moslems lost the respect to which even their low-caste status had entitled them. Here were sown the seeds of the communal hatred that has rent the subcontinent for the past generations.
As the prospect of nationhood appeared, the polyglot nationalities that he flood of invasions had swept into India now were left alone with their swelling numbers, their grinding poverty, and above all with one another. Nearly a third of the total population was Moslem, concentrated in the West Punjab and East Bengal but with important pockets all over India. Many of these peoples, by now outcasts of Indian society, found it unacceptable to live in a secular state dominated by those who through the centuries had disdained them. The British solution in 1947 was partition along religious lines.
Few old neighbors have less in common, despite their centuries of living side by side, than the intricate, complex Hindus and the simpler, more direct Moslems. It is reflected in the contrasts of their architecture. The finely carved Hindu temples have nooks and corners whose seemingly endless detail conveys no single view or meaning. The mosques and forts with which the Moguls have covered the northern third of the subcontinent are vast, elegant, romantic, their resplendent opulence contrasting with the flatness of the simmering countryside, their innumerable fountains expressing a yearning for surcease from a harsh environment and a nostalgia for the less complicated regions that had extruded the invader.
We took at face value Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's claim to be neutral moral arbiter of world affairs. We hardly noticed that this was precisely the policy by which a weak nation seeks influence out of proportion to its strength, or that India rarely matched its international pretensions with a willingness to assume risks, except on the sub-Continent where it saw itself destined for preeminence.
But Nixon and Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Indian Prime Minister and daughter of Nehru, were not intended by fate to be personally congenial. Her assumption of almost hereditary moral superiority and her moody silences brought out all of Nixon's latent insecurities. Her bearing toward Nixon combined a disdain for a symbol of capitalism quite fashionable in developing countries with a hint that the obnoxious things she had heard about the President from her intellectual friends could not all be untrue. Nixon's comments after meetings with her were not printable. On the other hand, Nixon had an understanding for leaders who operated on an unsentimental assessment of the national interest. Once one cut through the strident, self-righteous rhetoric, Mrs. Gandhi had few peers in the cold-blooded calculation of the elements of power. The political relationship in substance was thus far better than the personal one.
devesh wrote:Kissingers defecation is a pointer towards the "intellectual understanding" of India that the West has. the propaganda imposed by Judeo-Christian thinking is applied to India.
... two inventors and a researcher - figure in a celebrated White House honors list this year, broadly underscoring India's continued contribution to American science and technology streams. Two of them are IIT-ians....
New York University's Srinivasa SR Vardhan, Purdue University's Rakesh Agarwal, and North Carolina State Univeristy's B Jayant Baliga are among the select dozen named by President Obama to receive the National Medal of Science, and for Technology and Innovation, the highest honor bestowed by the U.S government on scientists, engineers and inventors.
Willard pointed out that "we renewed engagement with India in about 2002 and on the military side we renewed military to military relations in 2004 when I was the 7th Fleet Commander. So, I was having opportunities to engage with India's navy at that time."
"Ever since then, so only for six or seven years, we've been working very hard to improve relations," he said, but added, "there's a lot to overcome in terms of our lack of acquaintance with one another. Just understanding how we work organisation to organisation has been an important part of the relationship-building."But Willard said, "Right now, all of our services engage at a pretty robust pace with the Indian armed forces. We are exchanging on issues ranging from extremism, counterterrorism, and counterinsurgency to maritime security in the Indian Ocean region."Thus, he reiterated, "So there is a very robust engagement with India. I think President Obama's [ Images ] visit and the visit of our cabinet members and many leaders within the United States to India, and vice versa, have been a good illustration of that."
Meanwhile, asked about how the Pacific Command views the burgeoning military ties between China and Pakistan and how it would impact on the Asian region, Willard said, "Certainly the relationship between China-Pakistan is very pronounced. They have a very strong government-to-government as well as military-to-military relationship, have had for a long time.""And certainly," he added, "It counts in the overall security dynamic within South Asia, which as we all know, is very complex, given India's neighbourhood and long history with Pakistan, the Kashmir [ Images ] issue, the contested border between India-China along the northern reaches -- frontiers of India, Afghanistan, Central Asian states, and the overall dynamics of the region."Willard said, consequently, "We certainly pay attention to and understand the relationship between China-Pakistan. One thing I think that we should account for is the inherent convergence and interest by all nations and that is a stable Pakistan and a favourable outcome and ultimately stability in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and security in and around India."He argued that he believed, "China recognises, just as the US does, the importance of an outcome in all of this where Pakistan is -- winds up a very stable and peaceful state, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, India relations continue to be stable and managed."Wiilard said, in such a situation, "China's interests and US interests in the region, while we don't spend a lot of time dwelling on this, are inherently convergent and desire a stable South Asia."
Prem wrote: "Certainly the relationship between China-Pakistan is very pronounced. They have a very strong government-to-government as well as military-to-military relationship, have had for a long time.""And certainly," he added, "It counts in the overall security dynamic within South Asia, which as we all know, is very complex, given India's neighbourhood and long history with Pakistan, the Kashmir [ Images ] issue, the contested border between India-China along the northern reaches -- frontiers of India, Afghanistan, Central Asian states, and the overall dynamics of the region."Willard said, consequently, "We certainly pay attention to and understand the relationship between China-Pakistan. One thing I think that we should account for is the inherent convergence and interest by all nations and that is a stable Pakistan and a favourable outcome and ultimately stability in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and security in and around India.
"He argued that he believed, "China recognises, just as the US does, the importance of an outcome in all of this where Pakistan is -- winds up a very stable and peaceful state, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, India relations continue to be stable and managed."Wiilard said, in such a situation, "China's interests and US interests in the region, while we don't spend a lot of time dwelling on this, are inherently convergent and desire a stable South Asia."
LONDON: In one of the largest shipwreck hauls, nearly £150 million worth of silver has been found on a British ship that was travelling from India but was sunk by a German U-boat in the Atlantic in 1941. The wreck of SS Gairsoppa has been found to contain 200 tonnes of silver by the American exploration company, Odyssey Marine, which will keep 80% of the cargo's value according to a contract with the department of transport
THE BAY CITIZEN
Element of Indian Culture Feeds a Rising Crime Wave
By SCOTT JAMES
Published: September 29, 2011
A husband, wife and their 6-year-old son had just returned from the airport to their suburban home in Fremont. It was a sunny Sunday afternoon, Sept. 11, as they unloaded luggage from their car. Seemingly out of nowhere, two men appeared, one pointing a handgun.
“He said, ‘You’ll get hurt if you do anything,’ ” the husband later said, asking that his family and their street not be identified for fear of being further victimized. “They took us into the bedroom and made us kneel down. I was very scared that we might be shot.”
But the invaders were not there to kill — they wanted gold. The men ripped chains off the wife’s neck, tore at the husband’s bracelet and then ransacked the home until they found the rest of the jewelry, worth as much as $25,000. The thieves have not been caught.
That the family had so much gold is not unusual. As immigrants from India, it is their tradition to own and wear gold. The precious metal indicates prosperity, is a means of savings, and some gold jewelry can signify a woman’s marital status. It is a common wedding gift in many Indian cultures.
Thieves, it appears, have learned of these traditions, leading to a rash of robberies throughout Silicon Valley’s Indian-American communities in recent months. Indian-Americans are one of the fastest-growing Bay Area populations, and in Santa Clara County alone their number nearly doubled, to 111,000, in the past decade, according to the United States census.
The exact number of gold thefts is difficult to determine because the crimes have happened in several jurisdictions and victims’ ethnicity is not always made public. But interviews with the police, government and civic leaders, and representatives of the region’s Indian-American community confirmed the trend and growing alarm.
“It increased significantly nine months ago,” said Anu Natarajian, a Fremont city councilwoman. “It’s not a random thing that’s happening. People are afraid. People are nervous about it.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests