India-US Relations : News and Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 05 Sep 2014 06:41

ECB opens the liquidity tap. The horror. :D

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/euro-unde ... 44903.html

....singing....this train ain't movin' near fast enough........lordy lordy....... :) can I have an amen?

The poor US on the verge of economic collapse barely eking by, to be the next Zimbabwe, and now our vassel states across the Atlantic collapsing into the Russian maul of superior economics and state craft. How sad.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6514
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby CRamS » 05 Sep 2014 07:50

matrimcJi,

Pointed noted and made the appropriate change.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13134
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 05 Sep 2014 08:06

Hmm... the European Allies seem headed the same way as those who learned to sing Amazing Grace: guided by Rev. BO, they have all Sanctioned Putin effectively by shooting themselves in the foot, while BO's $$ keeps rising.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby TSJones » 05 Sep 2014 11:43

Ha! The Rodina scoffs at these US sycophants and jackals with their play money. The BRICs will gut the soft under belly of the western financial system. Just wait!

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby anmol » 08 Sep 2014 05:04

Well, this explains a lot. Only India is not paying them their price.
Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks
by ERIC LIPTON and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, nytimes.com
September 6th 2014


WASHINGTON — The agreement signed last year by the Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs was explicit: For $5 million, Norway’s partner in Washington would push top officials at the White House, at the Treasury Department and in Congress to double spending on a United States foreign aid program.

But the recipient of the cash was not one of the many Beltway lobbying firms that work every year on behalf of foreign governments.

It was the Center for Global Development, a nonprofit research organization, or think tank, one of many such groups in Washington that lawmakers, government officials and the news media have long relied on to provide independent policy analysis and scholarship.

More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

The money is increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington. And it has set off troubling questions about intellectual freedom: Some scholars say they have been pressured to reach conclusions friendly to the government financing the research. Selected Documents on Think Tanks and Foreign Money

The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal law, according to several legal specialists who examined the agreements at the request of The Times.

As a result, policy makers who rely on think tanks are often unaware of the role of foreign governments in funding the research.

Joseph Sandler, a lawyer and expert on the statute that governs Americans lobbying for foreign governments, said the arrangements between the countries and think tanks “opened a whole new window into an aspect of the influence-buying in Washington that has not previously been exposed.”

“It is particularly egregious because with a law firm or lobbying firm, you expect them to be an advocate,” Mr. Sandler added. “Think tanks have this patina of academic neutrality and objectivity, and that is being compromised.”

The arrangements involve Washington’s most influential think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council. Each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers, hosting forums and organizing private briefings for senior United States government officials that typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas.

Most of the money comes from countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia, particularly the oil-producing nations of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Norway, and takes many forms. The United Arab Emirates, a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quietly provided a donation of more than $1 million to help build the center’s gleaming new glass and steel headquarters not far from the White House. Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.

Some scholars say the donations have led to implicit agreements that the research groups would refrain from criticizing the donor governments.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.”

In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of donors, they said, was coincidence.

“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings, one of the oldest and most prestigious think tanks in Washington.

“Our currency is our credibility,” said Frederick Kempe, chief executive of the Atlantic Council, a fast-growing research center that focuses mainly on international affairs and has accepted donations from at least 25 countries since 2008. “Most of the governments that come to us, they understand we are not lobbyists. We are a different entity, and they work with us for totally different purposes.”

In their contracts and internal documents, however, foreign governments are often explicit about what they expect from the research groups they finance.

“In Washington, it is difficult for a small country to gain access to powerful politicians, bureaucrats and experts,” states an internal reportcommissioned by the Norwegian Foreign Affairs Ministry assessing its grant making. “Funding powerful think tanks is one way to gain such access, and some think tanks in Washington are openly conveying that they can service only those foreign governments that provide funding.”

The think tanks’ reliance on funds from overseas is driven, in part, by intensifying competition within the field: The number of policy groups has multiplied in recent years, while research grants from the United States government have dwindled.

Foreign officials describe these relationships as pivotal to winning influence on the cluttered Washington stage, where hundreds of nations jockey for attention from the United States government. The arrangements vary: Some countries work directly with think tanks, drawing contracts that define the scope and direction of research. Others donate money to the think tanks, and then pay teams of lobbyists and public relations consultants to push the think tanks to promote the country’s agenda.

“Japan is not necessarily the most interesting subject around the world,” said Masato Otaka, a spokesman for the Japanese Embassy, when asked why Japan donates heavily to American research groups. “We’ve been experiencing some slower growth in the economy. I think our presence is less felt than before.”

The scope of foreign financing for American think tanks is difficult to determine. But since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations, according to disclosures by the institutions and government documents. What little information the organizations volunteer about their donors, along with public records and lobbying reports filed with American officials by foreign representatives, indicates a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.

After questions from The Times, some of the research groups agreed to provide limited additional information about their relationships with countries overseas. Among them was the Center for Strategic and International Studies, whose research agenda focuses mostly on foreign policy; it agreed last month to release a list of [b]13 foreign government donors, from Germany to China, though the organization declined to disclose details of its contracts with those nations or actual donation amounts. [/b]

In an interview, John J. Hamre, president and chief executive of the center, acknowledged that the organization’s scholars at times advocate causes with the Obama administration and Congress on the topics that donor governments have funded them to study. But Mr. Hamre stressed that he did not view it as lobbying — and said his group is most certainly not a foreign agent.

“I don’t represent anybody,” Mr. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense, said. “I never go into the government to say, ‘I really want to talk to you about Morocco or about United Arab Emirates or Japan.’ I have conversations about these places all the time with everybody, and I am never there representing them as a lobbyist to their interests.”

Several legal experts who reviewed the documents, however, said the tightening relationships between United States think tanks and their overseas sponsors could violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the 1938 federal law that sought to combat a Nazi propaganda campaign in the United States. The law requires groups that are paid by foreign governments with the intention of influencing public policy to register as “foreign agents” with the Justice Department.

“I am surprised, quite frankly, at how explicit the relationship is between money paid, papers published and policy makers and politicians influenced,” said Amos Jones, a Washington lawyer who has specialized in the foreign agents act, after reviewing transactions between the Norway government and Brookings, the Center for Global Development and other groups.

At least one of the research groups conceded that it may in fact be violating the federal law.

“Yikes,” said Todd Moss, the chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development, after being shown dozens of pages of emails between his organization and the government of Norway, which detail how his group would lobby the White House and Congress on behalf of the Norway government. “We will absolutely seek counsel on this.”

Parallels With Lobbying

The line between scholarly research and lobbying can sometimes be hard to discern.

Last year, Japan began an effort to persuade American officials to accelerate negotiations over a free-trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of Japan’s top priorities. The country already had lobbyists on retainer, from the Washington firm of Akin Gump, but decided to embark on a broader campaign.

Akin Gump lobbyists approached several influential members of Congress and their staffs, including aides to Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana, and Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington, seeking help in establishing a congressional caucus devoted to the partnership, lobbying records show. After those discussions, in October 2013, the lawmakers established just such a group, the Friends of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

To bolster the new group’s credibility, Japanese officials sought validation from outside the halls of Congress. Within weeks, they received it from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to which Japan has been a longtime donor. The center will not say how much money the government has given — or for what exactly — but an examination of its relationship with a state-funded entity called the Japan External Trade Organization provides a glimpse.

In the past four years, the organization has given the center at least $1.1 million for “research and consulting” to promote trade and direct investment between Japan and the United States. The center also houses visiting scholars from within the Japanese government, including Hiroshi Waguri, an executive in the Ministry of Defense, as well as Shinichi Isobe, an executive from the trade organization.


Foreign Government Contributions to Nine Think Tanks OPEN Graphic


In early December, the center held an event featuring Mr. Boustany and Mr. Reichert, who spoke about the importance of the trade agreement and the steps they were taking to pressure the White House to complete it. In addition, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing later that month, Matthew P. Goodman, a scholar at the center, testified in favor of the agreement, his language driving home the very message Japan’s lobbyists and their congressional allies were seeking to convey.

The agreement was critical to “success not only for the administration’s regional economic policy but arguably for the entire Asia rebalancing strategy,” Mr. Goodman said.

Mr. Hamre, the center’s president, acknowledged that his organization’s researchers were pushing for the trade deal (it remains pending). But he said their advocacy was rooted in a belief that the agreement was good for the United States economy and the country’s standing in Asia.

Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the center, said that language in the agreements the organization signs with foreign governments gives its scholars final say over the policy positions they take — although he acknowledged those provisions have not been included in all such documents.

“We have to respect their academic and intellectual independence,” Mr. Otaka, the Japanese Embassy spokesman, said in a separate interview. But one Japanese diplomat, who asked not to be named as he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the country expected favorable treatment in return for donations to think tanks.

“If we put actual money in, we want to have a good result for that money — as it is an investment,” he said.

Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — two nations that host large United States military bases and view a continued American military presence as central to their own national security — have been especially aggressive in their giving to think tanks. The two Persian Gulf monarchies are also engaged in a battle with each other to shape Western opinion, with Qatar arguing that Muslim Brotherhood-style political Islam is the Arab world’s best hope for democracy, and the United Arab Emirates seeking to persuade United States policy makers that the Brotherhood is a dangerous threat to the region’s stability.

The United Arab Emirates, which has become a major supporter of the Center for Strategic and International Studies over the past decade, turned to the think tank in 2007 after an uproar in Congress about the nation’s plan to purchase control of terminals in several United States ports. After lawmakers questioned whether the purchase would be a national security threat to the United States, and the deal was scuttled, the oil-rich nation sought to remake its image in Washington, Mr. Hamre said.

The nation paid the research organization to sponsor a lecture series “to examine the strategic importance” of the gulf region and “identify opportunities for constructive U.S. engagement.” It also paid the center to organize annual trips to the gulf region during which dozens of national security experts from the United States would get private briefings from government officials there.

These and other events gave the United Arab Emirates’ senior diplomats an important platform to press their case. At a round table in Washington in March 2013, Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador to the United States, pressed Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about whether the United States would remain committed to his country given budget reductions in Washington.

Mr. Dempsey’s reply was quickly posted on the Facebook page of the United Arab Emirates Embassy: The country, he assured Mr. Al Otaiba and others in the crowd, was one of America’s “most credible and capable allies, especially in the gulf region.”

Access to Power

Small countries are finding that they can gain big clout by teaming up with American research organizations. Perhaps the best example is Norway.

As one of the world’s top oil producers, a member of NATO and a player in peace negotiations in spots around the globe, Norway has an interest in a broad range of United States policies.

The country has committed at least $24 million to an array of Washington think tanks over the past four years
, according to a tally by The Times, transforming these nonprofits into a powerful but largely hidden arm of the Norway Foreign Affairs Ministry. Documents obtained under that country’s unusually broad open records laws reveal that American research groups, after receiving money from Norway, have advocated in Washington for enhancing Norway’s role in NATO, promoted its plans to expand oil drilling in the Arctic and pushed its climate change agenda.

Norway paid the Center for Global Development, for example, to persuade the United States government to spend more money on combating global warming by slowing the clearing of forests in countries like Indonesia, according to a 2013project documentdescribing work by the center and a consulting company called Climate Advisers.

Norway is a major funder of forest protection efforts around the world. But while many environmentalists applaud the country’s lobbying for forest protection, some have attacked the programs as self-interested: Slowing deforestation could buy more time for Norway’s oil companies to continue selling fossil fuels on the global market even as Norway and other countries push for new carbon reduction policies. Oilwatch International, an environmental advocacy group, calls forest protection a “scheme whereby polluters use forests and land as supposed sponges for their pollution.”

Kare R. Aas, Norway’s ambassador to the United States, rejected this criticism as ridiculous. As a country whose territory extends into the Arctic, he said, Norway would be among the nations most affected by global warming.

“We want to maintain sustainable living conditions in the North,” Mr. Aas said.

But Norway’s agreement imposed very specific demands on the Center for Global Development. The research organization, in return for Norway’s money, was not simply asked to publish reports on combating climate change. The project documents ask the think tank to persuade Washington officials to double United States spending on global forest protection efforts to $500 million a year.

“Target group: U.S. policy makers,” a progress report reads.

The grant is already paying dividends. The center, crediting the Norwegian government’s funding, helped arrange a November 2013 meeting with Treasury Department officials. Scholars there also succeeded in having language from their Norway-funded research included in a deforestation report prepared by a White House advisory commission, according to an April progress report.

Norway has also funded Arctic research at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, at a time when the country was seeking to expand its oil drilling in the Arctic region.

Mr. Hamre, of the center, said he was invited to Norway about five years ago and given a presentation on the Arctic Circle, known in Norway as the “High North.”

“What the hell is the High North?” he said in an interview, recalling that he was not familiar with the topic until then.

But Norway’s government soon began sending checks to the center for a research program on Arctic policy. By 2009, after the new Norway-supported Arctic program was up and running, it brought Norway officials together with a key member of Congress to discuss the country’s “energy aspirations for the region.”

In a March 2013 report, scholars from the center urged the Obama administration to increase its military presence in the Arctic Circle, to protect energy exploration efforts there and to increase the passage of cargo ships through the region — the exact moves Norway has been advocating.


The Brookings Institution, which also accepted grants from Norway, has sought to help the country gain access to American officials, documents show. One Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Jones, offered in 2010 to reach out to State Department officials to help arrange a meeting with a senior Norway official, according toa government email. The Norway official wished to discuss his country’s role as a “middle power” and vital partner of the United States.

Brookings organized another event in April 2013, in which one of Norway’s top officials on Arctic issues was seated next to the State Department’s senior official on the topic and reiterated the country’s priorities for expanding oil exploration in the Arctic.

William J. Antholis, the managing director at Brookings, said that if his scholars help Norway pursue its foreign policy agenda in Washington, it is only because their rigorous, independent research led them to this position. “The scholars are their own agents,” he said. “They are not agents of these foreign governments.”

But three lawyers who specialize in the law governing Americans’ activities on behalf of foreign governments said that the Center for Global Development and Brookings, in particular, appeared to have taken actions that merited registration as foreign agents of Norway. The activities by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Atlantic Council, they added, at least raised questions.

“The Department of Justice needs to be looking at this,” said Joshua Rosenstein, a lawyer at Sandler Reiff.

Ona Dosunmu, Brookings’s general counsel, examining the same documents, said she remained convinced that was a misreading of the law.

Norway, at least, is grateful for the work Brookings has done. During a speech at Brookings in June, Norway’s foreign minister, Borge Brende, noted that his country’s relationship with the think tank “has been mutually beneficial for moving a lot of important topics.” Just before the speech, in fact, Norway signed an agreement to contribute an additional $4 million to the group.

Limits on Scholars

The tens of millions in donations from foreign interests come with certain expectations, researchers at the organizations said in interviews. Sometimes the foreign donors move aggressively to stifle views contrary to their own.

Michele Dunne served for nearly two decades as a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs at the State Department, including stints in Cairo and Jerusalem, and on the White House National Security Council. In 2011, she was a natural choice to become the founding director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, named after the former prime minister of Lebanon, who was assassinated in 2005.

The center was created with a generous donation from Bahaa Hariri, his eldest son, and with the support of the rest of the Hariri family, which has remained active in politics and business in the Middle East. Another son of the former prime minister served as Lebanon’s prime minister from 2009 to 2011.

But by the summer of 2013, when Egypt’s military forcibly removed the country’s democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, Ms. Dunne soon realized there were limits to her independence. After she signed a petition and testified before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging the United States to suspend military aid to Egypt, calling Mr. Morsi’s ouster a “military coup,” Bahaa Hariri called the Atlantic Council to complain, executives with direct knowledge of the events said.

Ms. Dunne declined to comment on the matter. But four months after the call, Ms. Dunne left the Atlantic Council.

In an interview, Mr. Kempe said he had never taken any action on behalf of Mr. Hariri to try to modify positions that Ms. Dunne or her colleagues took. Ms. Dunne left, he said, in part because she wanted to focus on research, not managing others, as she was doing at the Atlantic Council.

“Differences she may have had with colleagues, management or donors on Middle Eastern issues — inevitable in such a fraught environment where opinions vary widely — don’t touch our fierce defense of individual experts’ intellectual independence,” Mr. Kempe said.

Ms. Dunne was replaced by Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., who served as United States ambassador to Egypt during the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the longtime Egyptian military and political leader forced out of power at the beginning of the Arab Spring. Mr. Ricciardone, a career foreign service officer, had earlier been criticized by conservatives and human rights activists for being too deferential to the Mubarak government.

Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”

The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.

Brookings executivescited strict internal policiesthat they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.

But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.

Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.

“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12565
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby pankajs » 08 Sep 2014 12:32

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... 61363.aspx

Power-packed agenda awaits Modi in US
However, the power show begins on September 29 with PM Modi meeting former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton and South Carolina governor Nikki Randhawa Haley. He would also hold one-to-one meetings with James McNerney, chairman, Boeing Corporation; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman, GE, Virginia Rommety, chairman, IBM, Laurence Fink, chairman, Blackrock and Lloyd Fink, chairman, Goldman Sachs. The show does not end here with PM Modi hosting a luncheon for 10-11 chief executive officers of multinational companies like Pepsi, Abbot Pharma, Lockheed Martin, Master Card.

Top government sources said that PM Modi will attend a private dinner hosted by President Obama in Washington to discuss bilateral ties including in nuclear and defence areas. However, the key bilateral meeting is on September 30 with vice-president Joe Biden and secretary of state John Kerry hosting a luncheon for the visiting PM.

Why meet Bill and Hillary? And why meet Haley? I mean there are other Very successful Americans of Indian origin so why choose to meet Haley?

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6514
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby CRamS » 08 Sep 2014 18:13

anmolJi,

I read that report yesterday in the NYT. Recall, there was one Paki Ayesha whatever who said that US think tanks are an ISI front when it comes to "South Asia", but in that report I did not see any mention of TSP or India. Did I miss something?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13134
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Sep 2014 19:54

CRamS wrote:anmolJi,

I read that report yesterday in the NYT. Recall, there was one Paki Ayesha whatever who said that US think tanks are an ISI front when it comes to "South Asia", but in that report I did not see any mention of TSP or India. Did I miss something?


CRamSji, IMO the point of that article is the sheer extent of Dhimmification of the US media *AND* now phoren bolijy establishment. Read "0.001PRC and 0.005KSA" every time they say "Quatar" because the dhimmification is hajar times there. They don't even say the word in the NYT, they have to use inferences and code. Not to mention (because even I am Dhimmified onlee) any words starting with Is.. :shock: :eek:

TSP is in the noise level. As with all the finds of Anmolji, this just provides a clear evidence point for what was qualitively evident long ago: the lifafa nature of the Beltway Bandits Tail Waggers. Many saal pehle an oiseaule called Kenneth ****** (can't remember, the name that comes to mind is Bull Toad, but it can't be that) "former State Department Expert" etc, and then a Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council of the United States (ACUS) wrote a stinker saying that India had invaded all its neighbors. One of my dear colleagues on what was called the Rapid Response Team (in the best Anmol spirit) found that the ACUS 'Fellows' included numerous serving PLA OFFICERS, with rank colonels etc.

"We" from Ulan Bator wrote to the Prejident offering and volunteering, among other pleasantries, to make all 550 COTUSppl aware of this fine credential of his organization and his funding sources and loyalties. The guy actually responded in sheer panic, pleading lack of power to kick Kenneth Oiseule in the Oiuselue, but since then I have seen nothing from said oiseule related to India.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 08 Sep 2014 20:07, edited 2 times in total.

vivek.rao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3775
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby vivek.rao » 08 Sep 2014 19:55

Bill and Hillary are influence makers in Democratic party.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 08 Sep 2014 20:07

Japan's Infra Bet On India Shows U.S. Constraints

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alyssaayres ... nstraints/

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s five-day visit to Japan was a resounding success. Both the Indian and Japanese press have lauded the visit and its accomplishments—notably, the elevation of the India-Japan relationship to a “special” strategic and global partnership, and the big-ticket investments in Indian infrastructure announced to the tune of U.S. $35 billion in assistance over five years. From a Washington perspective, the India-Japan relationship is a positive development and one that the United States has fully supported. What the visit also shows, however, is the way the state-directed economic policy tools countries like Japan (and China as well) are mobilizing to further their relations with India substantially exceed comparable U.S. approaches.Virtually every account of the Abe-Modi summit emphasizes the Indian interest in attracting greater foreign investment for India’s enormous development needs. Infrastructure has been a particular focus for the government of India for at least a decade, and the scale is daunting. In March 2010 for example, then-prime minister Manmohan Singh estimated that India would need to invest U.S. $1 trillion in infrastructure development by 2017. India has some way to go to meet this target.
The government of Japan, with its state-directed tools of overseas development assistance (ODA) and large capacity to grant assistance in the form of soft loans, has been working closely with the government of India since 2006 on the high-profile Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, and has plans for a new collaboration in the Chennai-Bengaluru corridor. Of course there’s a clear Japanese commercial interest in this collaboration—the prospect of India adopting Japan’s bullet trains to upgrade rail travel between these cities—but that can’t fully account for a financial commitment that averages out to around $7 billion per year. It seems clear that Japan’s interests in India’s rise as a stable democracy in Asia, and supporting India’s ability to offset the growth of Chinese influence across Asia, has spurred Japan to meet Indian economic development interests with focused assistance on a large scale.The cataloguing of Indo-Japanese collaborations provided in the two countries’ recent joint statement, the “Tokyo Declaration for India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership,” shows how Japan’s ODA commitment to India focuses not on primary education, or strengthening governance or civil society—many of the important areas supported by multilateral development banks and national aid agencies—but rather on areas like “next generation infrastructure, connectivity, transport systems…manufacturing, clean energy, skill development” and others. According to the statement, Japan has just pledged a $476 million loan (50 billion yen) to develop a public-private infrastructure project in India.Japan’s approach contrasts in scale with the United States, although both support the same goals. Leaving aside the different development focus of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the American tools to enable similar kinds of infrastructure collaborations are the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA). (Ex-Im Bank helps finance U.S. goods and services exports; OPIC helps private capital address development challenges by providing risk insurance and financing; and TDA assists with feasibility studies and reverse trade missions to help U.S. companies do business in emerging markets.) India has become an increasingly important market for these economic agencies.The Ex-Im Bank has made India a large focus over the course of the last several years; in fact, according to the 2013 Ex-Im Bank annual report, India was the largest single-country portfolio for that year, with authorizations of $2.1 billion. Its cumulative exposure in India now exceeds $8 billion, second only to Mexico. OPIC has been active with India since 1971, and its cumulative commitment is $2.6 billion, in both financing and risk insurance. OPIC has become much more active with India since 2005 or so.But these numbers are far lower than what Japan is providing (again, $35 billion over five years, or around $7 billion per year). It’s also significantly lower than the offer reportedly made by China to provide a $300 billion infrastructure loan to India by 2017. By comparison, we come up short.
The Ex-Im Bank and OPIC help U.S. companies do business in India and on projects which might otherwise be difficult to finance. They are able to meet the interests of countries seeking financing for important infrastructure projects, which can help advance bilateral relationships. In the U.S. political environment, this kind of economic support has become controversial, seen by many as “corporate welfare.” The U.S. Congress has not renewed the Ex-Im Bank’s charter, which is set to expire in September. As Washington works to strengthen its ties with rising powers like India, we should bear in mind what other powers are bringing to the table to advance their relationships, and recognize where we might want an enhanced, rather than diminished, ability to compete.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13134
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Sep 2014 20:11

What I LIKE about the PM's schedule is its totally Secular, Liberal and Bijnej-Oriented nature. Yessir! NOOO time wasted on chai-biskoot with the Yindootva Fundootva Baby-Disembowelers onlee. 8) Yup!!
Wonder why they could not set up an Ophisial Dinner with the janitor at the USCIRF and invite Angana C and the Berkeley Haas gang too. :((
Reminds me of the title of the movie
NO TIME 4 SERGEANTS chaddis

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6514
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby CRamS » 08 Sep 2014 21:04

Plus Hilary is a thorough bred heavy weight unlike Obama who is just a figure head to show the world how progressive US is in having a black guy as president. Like MMS in India who is the darling of the secular brigade but real power lies in the hands of his madam.

That said, while meeting Bill and Hilary is fine, I doubt anything will come out of it because as I said, they are part of the solidly-grounded institutional hierarchy which means India TSP equal equal is etched in stone.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7392
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Prasad » 08 Sep 2014 21:07

Well Hillary could well be the next president if the republicans mess up the elections again. So laying the ground work?

Frederic
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Dec 2008 04:49

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Frederic » 08 Sep 2014 21:24

CRamS wrote:Plus Hilary is a thorough bred heavy weight unlike Obama who is just a figure head to show the world how progressive US is in having a black guy as president. Like MMS in India who is the darling of the secular brigade but real power lies in the hands of his madam.

That said, while meeting Bill and Hilary is fine, I doubt anything will come out of it because as I said, they are part of the solidly-grounded institutional hierarchy which means India TSP equal equal is etched in stone.


Is this the same Hillary who deployed secret sniffing teams in Gujrat, India to unearth mass graves so that Modi the mass murderer could be indicted for genocide in absentia?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5564
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby vishvak » 08 Sep 2014 21:36

Heh, or the Clinton Bill who gave nukes to pak? Says much about USA institutions scheming when you read "they are part of the solidly-grounded institutional hierarchy" for Clintons.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10263
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 08 Sep 2014 22:04

May be PM will tell them what he knows about them. These two's cupboards must be full of skeletons if my guess that what we have seen until now is only the tip of the iceberg.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 09 Sep 2014 09:31, edited 1 time in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4432
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby putnanja » 08 Sep 2014 22:56

So Modi is going in for a working lunch with Kerry? Couldn't Sushma do it? Why the step down in protocol?

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby anmol » 09 Sep 2014 05:24

CRamJi, read Strobe Talbott's response:

http://www.brookings.edu/about/media-re ... yt-article

http://www.brookings.edu/about/media-re ... hink-tanks

tldr: information came mainly from three sources: from ex-employees, from data provided by the think tanks to the nyt reporter, and data released by countries with "unusually broad open records laws".

So yes we are missing a lot, mainly because Pakistan does not have laws like those in Norway and because Qatar's pakiness is hurting America.

---------------------------------------------

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Visit of Prime Minister Modi of India

President Obama looks forward to welcoming Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India to the White House on September 29-30, 2014.

The two leaders will discuss a range of issues of mutual interest in order to expand and deepen the U.S.-India strategic partnership. They will discuss ways to accelerate economic growth, bolster security cooperation, and collaborate in activities that bring long-term benefits to both countries and the world. They will also focus on regional issues, including current developments in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, where India and the United States can work together with partners towards a positive outcome.

The President looks forward to working with the Prime Minister to fulfill the promise of the U.S.-India strategic partnership for the benefit of both our citizens and the world.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 09 Sep 2014 06:30

CRamS wrote:Plus Hilary is a thorough bred heavy weight unlike Obama who is just a figure head to show the world how progressive US is in having a black guy as president. Like MMS in India who is the darling of the secular brigade but real power lies in the hands of his madam.


Agreed.

That said, while meeting Bill and Hilary is fine, I doubt anything will come out of it because as I said, they are part of the solidly-grounded institutional hierarchy which means India TSP equal equal is etched in stone.

I don't know about Equal-equal; but check this out: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... _pals.html
And Kissinger was ... well ... kissinger.

Don't forget that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have every reason to be upset regarding the way we pulled Operation Shakti right under their noses and satellites.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13134
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Sep 2014 07:36

Speaking of satellites..
When we were growing up in Ulan Bator, the textbooks described the Triveni as the junction of 3 rivers: Ganga, Jamuna and the UNDERGROUND Sarasvati.

The whole western con game of Aryan Invasion Theory was that civilization had to have come rolling down in the spoked-wheel, horses-asses down the Khyber Pass and Bolan Pass, stopped to biss in Mehrgaarh (TSP) and then suddenly sat down on the banks of the Indus and wrote down the Vedas.

It was in the 1970s that the discoveries started, further north and east... near the Gagghar river, which ppl knew was the Sarasvati of old.
And then it became a flood, as 800, then 1200, Sarasvati sites were discovered, along with clear evidence of groundwater and increased vegetation exactly where the Sarasvati should have been, all the way to Dholavira on the Gujarat coast.

What was the breakthrough? NASA supplied LANDSAT imagery (plus probably ground-penetrating radar if they had that). Apparently from a detailed examination of the Great Indian Desert. When? That was my Aha! moment.

1975.

What happened in 1974 to induce such curiosity and dedication to map out and minutely examine the Indian desert? So to Slick Willy and St. Hillary I say: :P

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 09 Sep 2014 07:46

The upcoming visit is promising in becoming a normal state level summit focussing on business and economics with all this drama and defense hold ups played out up front.

These conversations need to move begond "cultural exchange" symbolism and the past patronising "grand gesture of state dinner" etc. Lets see if US SD manages to restore status quo of empty meetings and hyooman riots and equal equal or if a real change actually transpires.

We wont know from the clinton et al sideshow. Rather what is the delegation that is gracing the air india plane and what else they are doing. anything on who else is coming except for swaraj?

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 09 Sep 2014 07:57

Chronicles of Ulan Bator are very enlightening and revive old vagrant memories.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2260
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Jarita » 09 Sep 2014 07:58

Preet Bharara goes after yet another Desi origin guy while letting the Wall Street top dogs go

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/ ... blogs&_r=0

Speaking on the sidewalk outside the old federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Martoma’s parents said he had been wrongly convicted. The couple asked why Mr. Martoma’s former boss, Steven A. Cohen, the billionaire investor who founded SAC, was not also charged with insider trading if their son had done something wrong.

“He was framed,” said Lizzie Thomas of her son, Mathew, who was convicted in February by a federal jury in Manhattan. His father, Bobbie Martoma, then added that his son had refused to cooperate with the federal authorities against Mr. Cohen because he did not want to violate the Commandment against “bearing false witness.” His parents both criticized the nine-year sentence meted out by Judge Paul G. Gardephe of Federal District Court in Manhattan as being too severe. The couple suggested that Mr. Martoma was given a harsher penalty than most of the other 84 people who were convicted of or pleaded guilty in the insider trading investigation because of his Indian heritage. Mr. Martoma’s parents are both immigrants from India.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3762
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Shreeman » 09 Sep 2014 08:26

KrisP wrote:
CRamS wrote:Plus Hilary is a thorough bred heavy weight unlike Obama who is just a figure head to show the world how progressive US is in having a black guy as president. Like MMS in India who is the darling of the secular brigade but real power lies in the hands of his madam.


Agreed.

That said, while meeting Bill and Hilary is fine, I doubt anything will come out of it because as I said, they are part of the solidly-grounded institutional hierarchy which means India TSP equal equal is etched in stone.

I don't know about Equal-equal; but check this out: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... _pals.html
And Kissinger was ... well ... kissinger.

Don't forget that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have every reason to be upset regarding the way we pulled Operation Shakti right under their noses and satellites.


kissinger has a new book out. doing the rounds on sunday morning talk shows debating on krimea and kremlin to anything else under the sun.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9567
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 09 Sep 2014 08:39

It is the same Kissinger overseen the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh. But since it is done by US no body cares.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10263
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 09 Sep 2014 09:22

Kissinger is not exactly a darling of your politically aware average American. He is as much a straw man as the one who he called an intellectual pygmy.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10263
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 09 Sep 2014 09:25

Jarita: is this yet another Martoma? Or is it the same Martoma whose is sighted as "yet another Indian being bullied by the big bad preet Bharara" and is being over counted for the nth time?

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby anmol » 09 Sep 2014 09:33

matrimc wrote:Kissinger is not exactly a darling of your politically aware average American. He is as much a straw man as the one who he called an intellectual pygmy.


Who is the other straw man?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10263
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 09 Sep 2014 09:37

Dan Quayle who took a lot heat for winning :!: the spelling bee.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2793
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Rony » 09 Sep 2014 16:49

Jarita wrote:Preet Bharara goes after yet another Desi origin guy while letting the Wall Street top dogs go

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/ ... blogs&_r=0



From the comment section

What happened here is Cohen made a bunch of his underlings "wear the risk" al a Enron, for which they were paid handsomely. Unlike Andy Fastow however, these underlings - Martoma most significantly - were too dense to understand when the game was up, and time for the fat gentleman to sing.

If Martoma had sung a song, he woulda been a free man today, or at worst done proforma time, and probably got to keep a big chunk of his loot. The prosecutor absolutely needed him for a big clincher. He was in a strong position if only he coulda crooned.

But either he thought he was too smart or was badly advised. Who knows maybe his lawyer forged his transcripts, wasn't truly qualified, and didn't really know what he was doing. Something to look into in his spare time.

Once again, the low guy on the totem pole goes to jail, and the big guy who benefited most from his misconduct continues to live in the same luxury after paying a fine that has no impact on his standard of living. Is there something wrong with this picture? I think so.

f the point is to discourage young men (they are all men) from working for or with Mr. Cohen or some other hedge fund winner, then it is a misguided sentence. Martoma is not innocent but he shouldn't be Mr. Cohen's whipping boy.

Interesting how Mr. Cohen gets away with only a possible civil action while his employees go to jail. Are we to honestly believe he didn't know what was going on in his own company? That they were not operating with his consent and approval?

So, at the very worst, he's barred from further activity at age 58 and free to walk away with a few billion while his employees rot in jail. What a country!

I think unfortunately he has a good chance on appeal. The sentence is appropriate because he had many chances to turn in Cohen and get a light sentence but he didn't do it thinking either he would prevail or Cohen would take care of him - neither of which will happen unless he prevails on appeal. Unfortunately the real criminal Cohen got away.

Why is Martoma going to jail and Cohen still trading??

So Steve Cohen personally oversaw the trading for Mr. Martoma's account, but didn't know anything about any insider information... and has escaped any prosecution, and walked away with Billions. You just have to love how ju$tice works in America!

..and Steven Cohen is still free. There is something wrong with this picture.

Given the volume of insider trading and the very small number of people charged with violations, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this guy must not be very bright.

So Cohen gets a fine, and Martoma gets time AND a fine. I'm assuming the glaring travesty of justice here is not mine alone to see? With these outcomes, how can we claim the Rule of Law informs the United States of America. With this sentence, that concept is totally laughable. The two-tiered injustice system at work!

Considering Cohen hasn't been charged, what does this teach you? If you insider trade, do it big so you have enough money to pay your way out. It's ridiculous the employees get charged while Cohen, I read, continues with $10B in personal assets.

I work in the Hedge Fund Industry (compliance) and what puzzles me is the attitude of Bharara, who seems to go after the small fry and not the head. I full well know that these illegal trades come directly from the top, never from middle level managers citing what I see, so I am quite convinced that the latter must have been duly pressured to not go after the fat. Quite disgusted frankly and will just give a green light to those who will expect a slap on the wrist when doing their masters bidding. Martoma, I must say, though an unattractive character, commands my honest respect in one detail; he didn't rat on his boss and maintained his composure. But I hope to never hear his name ever again.

YA thinks Martoma didn't cop a plea and testify against Cohen because of honor among thieves (and is impressed!). Or did Martoma--disgraced, unemployable, and likely to forfeit most of his booty--calculate that a few years in jail were worth an 8- or 9-figure payoff down the road (see Barry Bonds's trainer). How much would someone with $10 billion pay to stay out of jail (Cohen surely has accounts around the world to make the payments discretely)? Does Martoma regret that he may serve double the time he anticipated? Perhaps, but less so if Cohen's deal set an annual rate, not a flat fee.

Victor is too sanguine about Cohen's fate. The only point of managing others' money is to get more for yourself, which he hardly needs at this point. Like all traders, he created nothing. He merely reallocated investment returns from others to himself. To do that legally is extremely difficult and worthy of the same respect accorded other difficult but insignificant skills. His legacy, like most of Wall Street's, is money, of which he will still have more than all but about 100 Americans. He surely wishes that it were not now plain to all that he obtained most, if not all, of it illegally, but it wouldn't take him long to choose between having a sterling reputation and the single-digit millions of a typical successful professional or his tarnished reputation and $10 billion. And he won't be turned away from charity galas or Christie's.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1081
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby sooraj » 09 Sep 2014 21:02

Firstpost is a joke

India-US meet: Can Obama look into PM Modi's eyes and see his soul? :lol:

http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-us-meet-can-obama-look-into-pm-modis-eyes-and-see-his-soul-1704091.html

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby JE Menon » 09 Sep 2014 21:22

^^More like Modi can look through Obama's eyes and see his oiseaule.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2014 23:45

JE Menon wrote:^^More like Modi can look through Obama's eyes and see his oiseaule.



A tweetable comment!!!!

UB, A UC scholar(Gupta) made a study of sat photos to understand 1974 PNE event. Among the imagery he had was an archive photo of Pokhran from 1960 i.e. way before the festivities. Noting the vintage, it was from photo imaging sats which had a premium on the images to be taken due to missile gaps etc. etc. Yet it was tasked to have dekko at Pokhran!!

My hunch is someone in Delhi chattered away more than he should and led to that visit.
Those days the studies were about when India would join the club and not if.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11632
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Sep 2014 23:58

sooraj wrote:Firstpost is a joke

India-US meet: Can Obama look into PM Modi's eyes and see his soul? :lol:

http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-us-meet-can-obama-look-into-pm-modis-eyes-and-see-his-soul-1704091.html


Wasn't that George Bush, a rather different creature from Obama?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia_Summit_2001

Slovenia Summit, 2001, about Putin:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Bush said.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10263
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Vayutuvan » 10 Sep 2014 00:19

Bush's assessment of Putin is right on the dot as opposed to President B. "My middle name is ..." Obama.

He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Bush said.


Instead of going into presidency with "republicans are anti-choice (to some extent they are), racist (may be a few are, ..." mindset, had President Obama put aside his messiah complex and given some attention to the lessons learnt by the previous administration Ukrain situation would have been a little better. That said, I do give credit to him for the healthcare reforms though he could have been a little more assertive and gone the whole hog.

FWIW (and OT as well).

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 10 Sep 2014 02:23

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ins ... story.html
Inside the RSS, India's Hindu nationalist movement, where Modi got his start
Desi Brown Spy Devi
( No More Soul but Haaart Now)

TIRUMANGALAM, India — Vellaichamy Pandiarajan gathers young boys in the neighborhood park every morning and conducts military-style marches, bamboo-stick fights and mud-wrestling games. Then he leads them in a prayer that they can find the strength as Hindus to propel their nation to global supremacy.Pandiarajan, 24, is a “pracharak,” or campaigner, in a secretive, mammoth Hindu nationalist organization called the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS is in the spotlightbecause of its most famous son: Narendra Modi, the country's new prime minister.Modi’s electoral campaign was focused on economic growth, not religion. But his victory has prompted fears that the RSS will wield undue influence in his administration, potentially antagonizing Muslims and other religious minorities in this predominantly Hindu but officially secular nation of 1.2 billion.RSS goals include building a Hindu temple on a disputed site in the city of Ayodhya, ending the special status of the Muslim-majority province of Kashmir and creating a common civil law that supersedes religious laws on marriage, inheritance and divorce. Those ideas found their way into the campaign manifesto of Modi’s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, which for first time will govern with a full parliamentary majority.Members of the RSS are thrilled to have one of their own at the pinnacle of Indian politics, but their ambitions do not stop there.“We want people who subscribe to RSS’ philosophy of nationalism in every occupation, every department of the government, every industry, every sphere of society,” said Pandiarajan, a thin software graduate with a soft voice and ready smile.he Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or National Volunteer Corps, was formed in 1925 during India’s struggle for independence. Its stated goal was to unite Hindus and restore national pride after centuries of Muslim invasions and foreign rule. In addition, it has 39 affiliated groups, including religious, social, student, labor and consumer organizations.Modi joined an RSS children’s group in his village in the western state of Gujarat, following morning drills like Pandiarajan’s. In 1971, he became a pracharak. They vow to follow an austere lifestyle — earning no salary and cutting ties with their families — and dedicate themselves to spreading the RSS ideology.You need someone to speak in the interest of the Hindus, too,” said Gaurav Yadav, a 27-year old accounting student and an RSS volunteer in New Delhi.Critics now fear that Hindu nationalist proposals will get a warm reception in Modi’s government, especially after seeing his senior ministers zipping around meeting RSS leadersin recent days.The RSS and its affiliates “may put pressure on the government, even though these issues may not be Modi’s priority right now because he knows that the voters expect something else from him — the return to economic growth,” said Christophe Jaffrelot, a visiting professor at Princeton University who has written a book on the RSS.Some Hindu groups tied to the RSS said they expect Modi to strictly enforce the law against religious conversions by Christian missionary groups, and the law against killing cows, which are worshipped by Hindus. Enforcement of such measures has been lax.Jaffrelot said the Modi government will “give to India a much more Hinduized public space, in terms of symbols and discourse.”Pandiarajan’s life provides insight into Modi’s experience as a pracharak, or RSS campaigner. “Our work is to create a people’s movement, Pandiarajan said. “My work will not come to a stop just because we have a pracharak at the helm.”
While the RSS has thousands of traditional campaigners like Pandiarajan, the group is also changing with the times. It has relaxed its uniform of loose khaki shorts, high socks and white shirts, and it offers flexible schedules for the morning drills. While RSS members used to avoid publicity, they now engage with journalists, and the group highlights its relief work during floods and earthquakes.At a recent Sunday morning RSS gathering of mostly IT professionals, the bamboo sticks were missing and members exercised in sweat pants and gym shorts. They discussed the rising number of “likes” on the RSS .The RSS, energized by the “Modi wave,” has been steadily growing. Last October, 2,000 people joined the group. In April, there were 4,800 new members.“Today, you can hate the RSS, you can love the RSS, but you cannot ignore the RSS,” Rajiv Tuli, a member in New Delhi, told attendees at a recent morning camp.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 10 Sep 2014 02:28

Look at the first picture in the article, guys fighting with bamboo sticks. Then there is a few RSS salute picture and a couple about skirmishes that happen here and there in India all the time.

The whole article gives a "Nazi" vibe to the western mind, who have limited depth of understanding of the "other". That writer is the definition of a House N*gger. Here is more about her:
Rama Lakshmi has been with The Washington Post’s India bureau since April 1990. She is a staff writer and India social media editor for Post World.

Rama was part of a team that won the ASNE Jesse Laventhol award for deadline news reporting for their work during the 2004 tsunami. A museum studies graduate, she has worked with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., and the Missouri History Museum. :rotfl:



Museum studies graduate :rotfl: , these are the kind of "qualified" House N8ggers commenting to Unkil about RSS and socio-economics of it. Unkiil is like an angry, blind and deaf guy with a big gun. He has no idea who his enemies are and pulls the trigger whenever his "friends" ask him to. Resulting in mayhem unseen in history.
Last edited by member_22733 on 10 Sep 2014 02:36, edited 1 time in total.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8216
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby Gus » 10 Sep 2014 02:36

matrimc wrote:FWIW (and OT as well).


heh..this is massa thread.

there was a time when i would whine why india cannot have an obama (young, energetic, idealistic, charismatic, "cool" etc),

obama the president has been a failure. he simply did not prepare for republican obstructionism. he should have gotten through more when he had both houses, and worked harder in preserving the majority in the house.

republicans, ineffective as they are at prez election level, managed to create tea party to capture house and with gerrymandering, can now hold on to it and obstruct the president. obama has been lame duck ever since he lost the house.

modi, although an 'outsider' in obama mould - understands his enemies better and has managed to negate their obstructionism. for ex, look at how toothless he made the hostile media from day one. he dictates the agenda, and not reacting to media cycles.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2014 02:39

LokeshC, Point out when RSS was founded- 1925, which means Hitler mamu was still dreaming about all those things.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 10 Sep 2014 02:44

There is no direct reference to Hitler Mamu in that farticle. Only indirect memes that point to a "Nazi" like organization. Westerners are programmed to identify such memes as an evil to be destroyed.

The message is subtle, just look at the pictures without reading the article and you will get what I am saying.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lisa, Shanmukh, vijayk and 60 guests