35 posts • Page 1 of 1
I promised to write a sequel to this post(Part I & II) which I had posted a couple of months ago. While there have been new developments in the TSP, surprisingly my own view of the larger dynamic between the 2 countries remains unchanged and hopeful. It is hard to summarize the multifaceted aspects of this relationship in a short note, something which really needs a book. So, feel free to add perspectives to this that are missing and certainly if you feel that what I have said is unsubstantiated or uncalled for.<P>Kaushal <P> In Greek Mythology Prometheus is the God of Fire, chained to a craggy rock in the Island of Scythia. His crime – Prometheus had shared the secret of fire with mankind, thereby giving them the means for sustenance, warmth and to provide material goods with the metals that could be forged with fire. This so angered Zeus that he had him chained to the rock. So also did the US try to punish India for trying to harness the fire of the nucleus in the service of the poorest of mankind and in the defense of its people.<P>PART I -US/India Bilateral relations <P>The relationship between the 2 largest democracies has not been a happy one during the last half of the 20th century and is not going to alter dramatically at the stroke of midnight at the beginning of the millenium or any time shortly thereafter. But improve these relations, the 2 nations must, for there is no alternative. We are all aware by now of the reasons for this long ranging hostility and I do not wish to go into them here. Suffice it to say that a lot of these reasons have long since ceased to be valid, among them not least the cold war. <BR>It is also true that many of these reasons for the overt hostility between the 2 nations still remain. There is the mutual propensity to deliver moral judgments, although with the passing of the Nehru era, India no longer indulges in this superfluous pastime. There is also a perception that what happens in India is not of great vital interest to America, arguably a very superficial judgment. <P>One issue where the 2 countries have differed almost from day one is Kashmir. Ever since India’s disastrous experience at the UN, and it needs to be recalled that India was the one to take the Kashmir problem to the UN, India has been extremely chary since then of ‘Internationalizing’ the Kashmir issue and extremely suspicious of any US offers to mediate in this dispute. India feels that countries that mediate bring in their own set of agendas, and are less interested in solving the problems according to the merits of the case. However, suspicious Indians maybe of this kind of mediation, this does not mean that India should stop publicizing its viewpoint in the world arena. India in fact has a very strong case based on the legal accession of the state of Kashmir, much as was the case of accession in the case of Alaska, or Texas and certainly a stronger case than the accession of Hawaii or the accession of the vast areas of Asia to Russia in the 19th century. <P>But what has changed dramatically is the perception that the US relationship with India’s neighbor Pakistan not only does not offer any tangible benefits, but is also turning out to be a liability. Pakistan , it is being realized is a major exporter of not only illegal opium and heroin, but a particularly virulent kind of Islamic fundamentalism that views as its goal the suppression of all cultures and religions other than its own. India has been particularly unfortunate in that a succession of events have convinced the US to use Pakistan in a variety of roles during the last 50 years. <P>So what should India’s relationship with the US be in the new millenium ? Can 50 years of irritation and overtly hostile moves be forgotten and a new beginning be made. The answer is good relations between the 2 countries are essential not only for each other but for the whole planet, not only because the 2 represent a very large portion of humanity (India is the 2nd largest country and the US is the 3rd in population) but also because this hostility has far reaching effects not only in the well being of the subcontinent and the many nations within it, but also because of lost opportunities to act in concert where democratic values provide a platform for common action.<P>Part II – US, India, Pakistan & Kashmir<P>The Kashmir issue remains one of the thorniest issues not only between India and Pakistan but also between India and the US. We need to look at the genesis of the issue in some detail before we can understand the reasons for the US stance on Kashmir. <P>The origins of the Kashmir issue are fairly clear. Kashmir acceded to the Union of India and this accession was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir, whose Dogra family had ruled Kashmir for approximately a 100 years, initially as a general in the army of Ranjit Singh. India then sent troops to Kashmir to clear invaders from Pakistan who were pillaging and looting the countryside. India eventually took the issue to the UN hoping that the rest of Kashmir still occupied by Pakistan would be returned to India. To India this was a clear-cut case of invasion and theft of land. But to the consternation of India and Indians nothing of the sort happened. <P>To understand the reasons why, one has to go back to the Great Game that Britain had played with Russia for much of the previous 100 years. The great game involved preventing the spread of Czarist Russian ambitions. Czarist Russia had become the country with the largest landmass on this planet. To travel on the Trans Siberian Railway, you had to cross 13 time zones. Clearly this land and the country to which it belonged was a power to be reckoned with. Britain, as the predominant naval and colonial power naturally took a dim view of any potential rival. Kashmir and Afghanistan were important strategic outposts for the British in preventing the Russians from acquiring a warm water port, something that the Czars had been trying to acquire since the time of Peter the great. <P>When finally Britain was forced to relinquish control of India, they followed the dictum of the Romans – Divide and Quit. In this case India was divided into 2 countries India and Pakistan. The British from long experience immediately recognized that India would be a major world power in the not too distant future. Why make it easier for the Indians and certainly why let a plum like Kashmir fall into their hands. There was also the suspicion, eventually to come true in later years that India would be the more difficult country to deal with because of its larger size. <P>In addition, Britain did not expect that India would be so spectacularly successful in persuading all the Princely states in to joining the Indian Union. Certainly their expectation was that Kashmir would join Pakistan. To their chagrin, India finessed the whole issue thanks to Sardar Patel by accepting the instrument of accession from the Maharajah.<P>In the meantime the mantle for protecting the Western world from Russia (now the Soviet Union) and the Communist nations would fall on the newly emergent superpower the United States. The US, properly coached by Britain, also inherited the problem of containing the power of a potentially resurgent India. Thus began a 50-year sequence of events between India and the US, which while not making them bitter adversaries made them highly suspicious of each other. The US made it a point from day one to oppose India on the Kashmir issue. Despite periods of relative calm in the relationship, this adversarial relationship continued pretty much undisturbed till the present day. <P>The US and Americans are disingenuous when they suggest that the reason for the deterioration of relations had to do with a number of third party issues, such as the Non Aligned Movement etc. But this is really a chicken and egg issue. The US drew first blood by questioning the sovereignty of India over Kashmir and this was a fundamental issue of national integrity for India. The world’s most powerful democracy was questioning the territorial integrity of the world’s largest democracy. It took many years for Indians to understand that the US was actually hostile to the Indian conception of India and in fact many Indians continued to blame Nehru, suggesting his woolly headed idealism was the cause of this rift between the 2 countries. It did not help matters much that India had a very free press and all the bickering that the Indians would indulge in were there for all the world to see.<P>In the early years, especially during the 50’s and 60’s it was common to read articles in the western newspapers that India was going to break up. They would contemptuously quote Indian newspapers talking about ‘fissiparous tendencies’ and predict that India would break up within 25 years. The 65 war was the first time that such preconceived notions would receive a rude shock. Both the US and Britain realized that India was not a banana republic and this was after all the true inheritor of the British Indian army which undertook major campaigns on behalf of Britain in both world wars. While at the beginning the US acted as a cheer leader for Pakistan during the first few days, when it realized that the Pakistanis were losing badly, they immediately went to the UN to stop India from doing further damage.<P>Many have asked why the US continues to support Pakistan. After all this is the country that has had more Anti American demonstrations than even Beijing or even most Latin American countries. This was the country that burnt down their embassy. This was a country that killed and raped embassy personnel, an act that Teddy Roosevelt would surely have replied with some vigor. This was a country that trained people to bomb the World trade Center in New York. This was and is a country exporting huge amounts of drugs to the US. This continues to be a country that exports a virulent kind of fundamentalist Islam that has difficulty coexisting with other cultures and religions. What possible benefit could the US derive from patronizing such a country? Americans have given all the usual answers, that Pakistan was a bulwark against communist Russia (hmm – someone needs a reality check here), acted as a travel agent for Henry Kissinger when he went on his trip to Beijing (an expensive travel agent), acted as a conduit for weapons to the Afghan mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union (was the result worth it?) and so on. For most Indians these seem bizarre explanations for bizarre behavior. A democratic superpower aligning itself with a medieval theocratic state against the worlds largest democracy for benefits of a dubious nature .<P>One exasperated Indian has asked why the US doesn’t declare Pakistan to be what it blatantly is – a rogue state. The answer is that the US is not a church and this is not a morality play. The US does what it perceives to be in its best interests. Till now, the US has deemed it to be, rightly or wrongly that supporting Pakistan was in its best interest. It is my belief that this era is now coming to a close. The US is beginning to question its half a century of investment in this country and is now asking, where is the beef. The US is not a country prone to admitting mistakes, and it certainly will never come out and say we were wrong for 50 years. Of course very little of this change in policy had to do with anything that India did, although many will argue that India’s entry into the nuclear club had something to do with it. In the next segment, we will examine what precipitated these changes , the nuclear issue and what the future holds for US Indian relations.<P>PART III The Future of Indo/US relations<P>Where do the US and India go from here. But before we get to that , how eager are the 2 countries to improve relations. Despite misunderstandings, there remains a considerable amount of admiration in each of the 2 countries for the other. In India figures like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy evoke considerable admiration. Even lesser known Black Americans like George Washington Carver of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama form part of the American folklore, known to Indians.<P> On the American side there is less awareness of India, other than as a distant country with elephants, snakes, palaces, tigers and a somewhat unusual individual by the name of Gandhi. But almost every university in the US now has faculty from India. Large proportions of motels and hotels in the US are now owned by Indians. A very large proportion of the US population has had contact with at least one physician from the Indian subcontinent. More recently, there are increasing numbers of Indian entrepreneurs in High Technology areas such as Silicon Valley, many of whom have become wealthy using the ‘great American wealth builder’ called the IPO, the Initial Public Offering. Every Research Lab in the US has a fair representation of scientists and engineers from the Indian subcontinent, and we need not mention the virtual explosion of software engineers without whom America could not have done the giant audit need for Y2K compliance. Indian companies are making their appearance increasingly on American stock exchanges and are proving to be good wealth makers for their American investors<P>Despite this, the distrust between the 2 governments remains and is particularly acute in geopolitical issues relating to the Defense and Military. There is however considerable eagerness on both sides to improve relations and the realization that the potential for much warmer relations is there. The question is to how to get to that point from where we are today.<P>From the Indian side there is now evident a new pragmatism. In the early days there was considerable resentment that the US always took sides with Pakistan ever since 1947 when the US voted against India in the UN Security council resolutions on Kashmir. But now India realizes, that it is unrealistic to expect the US to abandon its long standing ally, even though it has not been a democracy for most of its life. India wants to build a relationship with the US quite independent of Kashmir. While this may sound difficult at first blush, recent pronouncements from the National Security Council (John Daley) that the relationship with the 2 largest countries in the subcontinent would take different trajectories sound promising. By this it is assumed by the Indians that the relationship with each of the 2 countries would be less dependent on the other. One particularly irritating habit of the Americans of referring to both countries in the same sentence on almost every occasion, may become a casualty of this new approach (we hesitate to call it a doctrine yet) much to the relief of the Indians. Despite the recent developments in Pakistan leading to military rule, I remain optimistic that the distance between the US and India on this question is not as far as it appears on first blush.<P>The proper approach as far as America is concerned is to stop looking at India through the narrow prism of subcontinental South Asian politics and as the 20th century inheritor of the British Raj . India has to be recognized for what she is, the 2nd largest country in the world, the 5th largest economy with a diverse and arguably versatile industrial base. Militarily India is no slouch either , although I would caution Americans from being beguiled into thinking that India will somehow be a military superpower much like China and therefore that would be reason enough to improve relations. The fact of the matter is , that it will be many decades, if ever that India can be regarded as a military superpower and it would be misleading to use that as the excuse for improving relations. Far better to leverage on the immense purchasing power of the Indian populace, probably the largest in the world and build up strong commercial ties that will be more enduring.<P>A word needs to be said here on the larger question of the different perspectives each country has on global security in general and non-proliferation (NP) in particular. For the US NP means Nuclear Weapons should be restricted to the P5. In enunciating such a doctrine, the US basically does not answer the question uppermost in the mind of Indians. How should India find security when sandwiched between 2 hostile powers ? Most in the American foreign policy establishment brush this aside with a bland statement that India’s security concerns are not alleviated by resorting to nuclear weapons. They never offer a positive prescription which says this is what India should do to ensure her security. Furthermore, India’s perception of NP, driven as it necessarily is by reasons of geography and geopolitics, is basically that it means a world shorn of all nuclear weapons. This is an unbridgeable gap between the 2 countries. The only way this can be finessed is for the US to realize that India cannot pose a threat to the US or any of its NATO allies for several decades if ever. It must also be accepted by the US that India has no ulterior designs on US allies such as Australia, and does not covet the real estate there as a safety valve for its own population.<P>To conclude, it is evident that the picture that emerges is hardly crystal clear in terms of where the relationship is going between the 2 countries. If that were the case, either India and the US would have been close allies or bitter enemies. Alas, reality intrudes as always and simplicity is the first victim. The surprise really is the extent of the hostility between the two given that neither country has ever attacked the other or spilt the blood of the other or has burnt down a consulate or an embassy or has colonized the other. I predict realism will dawn on the policy makers of both countries and with the right touch of pragmatism, there is every reason to hope for brighter days ahead for the checkered US/India courtship.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 19-10-1999).]
PartI<BR>The Indo-US relation has been in strain ever since independence.This was due to the reason that after 1947 India was regarded as Britain's patch.After 1950 US and Soviet Union became the World power's.The animosity between the 2 affected Indo US ties.<BR>India's first PM Nehru appreciated the Soviet style of management of economy and 5 year plans.He has also passionately written in praising terms of the evolution of USSR.This in the eyes of the Western World made him a suspect.Many in US felt that in a crunch Nehru would support USSR.But US could not ignore Indian democracy and it was this reason that India had good relations with US .Indo US relations can be at best called cordial .In 1962 when India was humbled by China US rushed to Indian help.This was regarded as a turning point in relations but the actual turning point came 9 yrs later.In 1965 US refused to support the Pakistani armoury during war.This was also an upswing in relation.<BR>One of the main turning point in Indo US relation camein<BR>1971 .Prior to the Bangla war US had warned PM Indira Gandhi that US would not interfere in case of China interfer's.This promted Ms.Gandhi to sign the friendship treaty with USSR.This made India tilt towards the Soviet Union for military support.<BR>India till now could be considered as neutral .The reason was <BR>1.India was ideologically close to US but in land proximity closer to USSR.India could not have pacts like many European countries had with the US as Indian cities would be targetted by Soviet missiles.India was not ready to accept Soviet pact's as the Warsaw cause it had genuine ideological differences with USSR.<BR>Indira Gandhi had signed the pact that came in review in 1975 to protect India from a Chinese nuclear attack.In 1975 the pact was signed but the security clause was not present cause a year ago India had tested a nuclear device.<BR>US in 71 was concerned by Indian military gains in Western Pakistan.US did not want Pakistan humbled and so sent a carrier group to the Bay of Bengal.India<BR>stopped the war in all fronts and the product of war was Bangladesh.The implicit US nuclear threat hardened PM Gandhi's resolve to have nuclear capabilities.Indo-US relations were affected also by the NPT,Vietnam and Cuba with India opposing US in international forum's.<Br>The US intervention gave rise to Indian fears of a possible US tilt towards Pakistan with a plan to capture Kashmir.US conventional and nuclear superiority made Indian planners to form a plan that can deter US intervention .US action in Panama , Iraq and Yugoslavia have lately made Indian defence planners think hard on a way to gain strategic superiority in the Indian Ocean.<BR>In 1974 India tested a nuclear device in Pokhran.This event started the major thaw in Indo US relations.<BR>A surprise twist came in 1979 when USSR invaded Afghanistan.US wanted to support the Afghani movement.For this Pakistan formed the base for US covert ops in Afghanistan.Till now US had refused any sort of military sale to Pakistan but for a intel base for<BR>Afghanistan US gave state of the art weapons to Pakistan.India viewed this with distrust.This lead to further souring of Indo-US relations throughout the 80's.<BR>Indo-US relations till 1990 was only on economic basis with each having different strategic goals.In the meanwhile many Indian's had settled in US forming a credible influence.Indian software proffesional exports and intellect export is one of the main reasons that today Indo US relations are in an upswing.This group in the meanwhile has formed a powerful caucus in US which combined with many US MNC's support gave credence to the idea that India and US seem to and should be natural allies with same sort of goals.In India the middle class market larger than the population of US was an impressionable market.<BR>In 1991 PM Rao bought Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister.In Singh India had a first FM who thought that the only way to solve Indian economic chaos is by integrating it by the World market.The opening of economy gave rise to a massive<BR>investment in Indian market.India now was on way of becoming an economic superpower.This combined with the collapse of USSR gave rise to US and India groping for a policy for productive relations.<BR>The main thaw now was the nuclear and missile development by India for the US, while for India the mum by US on PRC-Pak nuclear and missile ties.Also India was not happy about US ban on dual technology products sale to India.<BR>In 1994 India tested Agni -1 succesfully to a range of 1500 kms.The Prithvi had just been tested again.US was deeply concerned .When Rao visited US he allowed Coke into the Indian market.He also accepted a cap on Agni testing.This has given rise to the opinion in US that India viewed economic succes as more important than military development.In 1995 US scuttled a Indian nuclear test making US believe that it can pressurise India.After 1996 India had weak Govt's who could not negotiate with the US on CTBT.<BR>In 1998 India tested nuclear weapons in Pokhran.Subsequently India and US had<BR> had high level dialogues on all matters with CTBT,nukes and missiles on the front.<BR>Indo US relations were in an upswing.In the 90's US and India suffered terrorist attacks.There also seemed to be an inclination for India and US to co-operate in anti narcotics and terrorist ops.Also both viewed Islamic fundamentalism as a menace to the civilian society.<BR>In 1999 during the Kargil crisis US for the first time openly supported India.It appreciated the Indian restraint by not crossing the LOC as a mature and responsible nuclear power.US again came to the conclusion that India viewed the larger picture and the Indian elite intellect was not quick in retaliation and prone to view a situation strategically and not go for short term tactical gain's.By now in the US State Dept. one of the main goals was nab Bin Laden, the one man with American blood on his hands and who vowed to kill more Americans.After Kargil India adopted to a tough stance against Taliban and Bin Laden when it was known that their men were<BR>active in Kashmir.In the past one month despite a caretaker GOI India and US have had exchanges on dealing with terrorism.<BR>Till last year US policy was maintaining an equilibrium with India and Pakistan but this has changed with India potentially on the verge of becoming an international power.<BR>Write about Part II and Part III soon.<BR>Kaushal the above post is a nice way to celebrate your 4K.
You are definitely the man Kaushal! A very clear description of opinion I must say.<BR>BTW, heartfelt congratulations on reaching 4k posts.<BR>Admins, cld we archive this? Or maybe put this up on BR MONITOR as an opinion piece?
Kaushal, Thanks for the follwoup article. After all comments are addressed please send it to this outfit for wider audience. <A HREF="http://www.americanfriends.org/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.americanfriends.org/</A>
Kaushal, <P>Have you ever read Dennis Kux "Estranged Democracies" ? It might be worth it - you'd get a rather different perception of US policy considerations in the 1950s and 1960s. It might strengthen your case a little bit, since you currently (if I read correctly) base your analysis of that period on recollections and/or newspaper headlines.<P>Just a suggestion, meant to be helpful. Kux's book isn't bad.<P>All the best, <BR>Tim Hoyt
Kaushal congrats on a fine, lucid and coherent exposition on India-US relations.<P>Recently the MushyRAT takeover of TP is being turd-polished by the Western press, especially in the US. We are seeing benign photos of the RAT and his RAT family, including mini-RATs. There is an attempt to gloss over glaring operations like Kargill, and make MushyRAT as moderate. P Constable is back with her usual low IQ reporting and horrible facts. <P>It may take a while to change the mindset. The biggest obstacle is the entrenched TP faction in the state dept, Pentagon and CIA (that still clings on to Cold-war principles and cites American "Interests").
Bruce Reidel and Mat Daley are small fries in the administration and I suspect the reason they are in India is to molify/pacify the Indian govt or to engage in dialog just for the sake of it.<BR>I wonder how much of clout they have within Clinton administration. Could it be to calm the anxieties of Indo-Americans or an attempt to get their votes in the coming election? Please remember that Clinton is a showman and if he visits India next year it will all be energized towards the election of Al Gore. If I were an Indian, i would suspect the sincerety of such a visit.<P>As i have said several times earlier in other threads, the only way to make the USA more accomodating towards India is by Indo-Americans organizing themselves into a very influencial group with far reaching influence compared to their numbers. Organize,organize, organize. Use the money that affluence affords. Maintain one big kitty instead of many small ones. Have a bigwig PR firm in your pockets. Have your people write opinions in WSJ, NYT, WP etc. Have your man/woman appear on NPR, NBC (I like that cutie Laura Ingraham on Watch It), Larry King etc. This requires money and I believe that the Indo-Americans have lots of it but mostly under matress. It is time to take out those matress money to help Mother India. Hey, nothing is impossible.......it can be done.<BR>AS
I thought that Reidel and Daley were here to exchange data on terrorism .Also they want to prepare a ground for visit of Clinton.Last year Albright and Richardson had come for the same.I would take these men seriously cause they advise Clinton's ABC team on policies.<BR>
Everyone,thanks for the comments.<BR>bharat, appreciate your lengthy discussion.<BR>Tim, i havent read the book you mention, but it appears i should since it seems to deal with the theme that i emphasized. I assume it is still in print and is available from one of the on-line stores.<P>I agree with Tim that these guys Reidel and Daley are not to be dismissed (esp.Reidel who seems to be like a personal emissary of the president). They are almost certainly going to occupy higher level positions should a democrat come to office in 2000. In any event the trick is to catch these guys when they are in relatively lower level positions so that they can form a good network when you need it. There is not a whole lot of head shaping you can do with the Albrights and the Talbotts.<P>Kaushal
<B>Part II[/b].<BR><B>Kashmir[/b]<BR>It can be easily described as paradise on Earth.During peace time it can have a tourist intake that can match any other tourist spot in the world.Strategically it is vital as it can be a route to connect India and Central Asia.For Pakistan it gives a massive advantage to their forces.At present in both India and Pakistan there is hardly any thinking of strategic advantages.It is viewed as a matter that is worthy of destroying the country itself.<BR>To talk about Kashmir One has to go back 52 yrs during Independence.After Independence the sovereign states had an option of joining India or Pakistan.The ruler of Kashmir opted for being independent initially.But a few months after Independence Pakistan sent a tribal invasion force backed by its army.At this point of time Maharaja Hari Singh came to Delhi to sign the accession treaty.PM Nehru refused to sign the treaty till the popular leader of Kashmir Sheik Abdullah agreed to it.After Abdullah agreed to accession<BR>,Kashmir became a part of India.Indian troops fought valiantly in 48,65 in Kashmir without a feeling that they were fighting for someone else, it was a part of motherland for them.At this point of time India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire line.In 1971 this was amended and called as the LOC.<BR>Pakistan question the accession as not true to the wishes of people as it was signed by a Hindu Maharaja over a Muslim dominated state.For India the question of accesion is that it was a provision by the British and many states merged into India in this manner.The accession treaty was one of the main legal basis of formation of the Indian union.Also India asserted that since the treaty on Kashmir had the local support of a popular leader it can be accepted as the wish of the public.<BR>In the 60's India was regarded as a state that would balkanize soon.Many Western analysts who have studied their proffesion on the basic rule that only people having same sort of living can co-exist as a nation, wrote that India's<BR>diverse culture would rip it apart.They did not have an inkling to Indian thinking.They did not understand that in Indian diversity was its main strength.<BR>How Kashmir affected Indo US relation?<br>US viewed India and Pakistan in the Cold War thinking.They wanted to keep a strategic balance in South East Asia.They maintained that Kashmir was a disputed territory to maintain a standing in Pakistan.They also wanted to negotiate a deal on Kashmir.India viewed Kashmir as a bilaterall problem.India had firmly maintained that it would not talk to Pakistan over Kashmir in presence of a third party.In Jammu and Kashmir electionss and local Govt's ran the state of affairs.India viewed elections and voter turnout as people accepting the treaty of accession.This is in direct contrast to POK where a puppet Govt. is in place.<BR>India maintains that any talks on Kashmir must be on the Simla agreement.Also India maintained that UN resolution that a plebicite be held in Kashmir was invalid as voter turnout indicated<BR>the people's wishes to be a part of India .Also since Pakistan had not withdrawn from the territory of Kashmir.US maintained stand that it would talk on Kashmir irked India as it views outside interference as tantamount to supporting Pakistan and questioning the very formation of the Indian Union.Also India views on maintainance of a strategic equilibrium in South East Asia as a virtual putting down of the rising star of India in the international fora.India with a democracy of a billion people, the second largest scientific pool in the world, the largest middle class in the world and the rising economic power is well poised to become a major mover in World affairs in the new millenium.US stance on Kashmir is a major thaw in relations.Lately it seems that US has changed its policy on Kashmir by calling for bilateral talks.This combined with other factors contribute to an upswing in Indo US relations.<BR>Part III would deal with areas where Indo US ties would benefit each other and the World in general.<BR>Hope I am not boring forum members by writing on a well debated topic.IF YES pls tell I will then refrain from posting Part III.<P>------------------<BR>bharat<p><br>
Since no one has said I am boring this iss part III<Br><B>Part III<br>Why will Indo US relations improve[/b]<Br>The reason is simple.IT is not just about ideology or economic benifits.The main reason is that from 50's there has been a huge migration of Indians to US.This has increased human contact's between the 2 very well.Today these men are propagating Indian values and ideas to the US.The ad in the WT is a simple example.<BR>India and USA have similar thought's on most problems affecting the World.Except for development of military technology there is a shared view on matter's like terrorism,drugs.In India there is a view that with US economic help Indian lower class will be bought into the middle class level.This is also something that the US feels is beneficial cause then the Indian middle class would become upto 600 million making a huge market for end user consumer products.The Indian cloth market is viewed as a multi billion dollar market.<BR>Areas that can be benifitted by Indo US ties<BR><BR>On the international fora India and US can combine forces to form a bastion against terrorism and drugs.<BR><B>Terrorism.[/b]<BR>US and India have suffered terrorist attacks from fundamentalist groups.In the 50-70's terrorism was on a class struggle hence it was felt that once solving economic problems would solve the issue.But the Gulf fight against Israel gave rise to Islamic terrorism.What in the KORAN was written as fight against tyranny is important and death in the fight open's door's of paradise was interpreted by selfish men as per their needs.This brand of fundamentalist terrorism is presently hell bent on destroying civilization.India and US , both being moderate secular nations are facing an overt declaration of terrorist's to destroy their very existence.<br>Today the hub of World terrorism has shifted from Libya and Iran to Afghanistan.Today the Taliban uprising can be described as the most dangerous for World civilization.IT calls for what it claims is Islamic law based on KORAN.The main<BR>problem is that the KORAN has been interpreted by many men of repute in a way to satisfy their need's.<BR>To tackle terrorism India and US must tackle Afghanistan and Pakistan.There must be an effort to immediately tackle activities by co-ordinated intel ops combined with overt and covert military type action.India due to it's proximity to Afghanistan and Pakistan can provide human intel .Also the fight against terrorist's in Kashmir has given Indian troops first hand details on their abilities.US with it's vast economic and technical resource can be the perfect partner.<BR>India and US can also look at the long term solution to the matter of fundamentalist terrorism.India with the second largest Muslim population can provide the scholar's and historian's who can tackle the problem of terrorism which emnates from misguided teaching and a poor economic state of affairs.To tackle this the best way is education and providing of living.Here too the upcoming Central Asian states economy can prove useful.<BR>Afghanistan being a conduit will get a positive effect on its economy.<BR>The proverb " a happy working man will neitheer have the desire nor the time to pursue terrorist activities".<BR><B>Drugs[/b]<br>The long term plan to contain narcotics is same as above.For the short term India and US can combine forces to take out trafficking routes.A huge amount of drugs comes from Afghanistan.This can be taken out by taking out these poppy feild's.In this matter US technical help will be most useful.I would say many Asian countries would support an anti narcotics squad.India is one of the countries which suffers from narcotic addiction among the youth's.<BR><B>Both drugs and terrorism are childs of illitteracy.They are taking place on a global level.It is hence essential to tackle them at a global level.India and US share identical views on these matter's which is eroding our society.We must hence take the initiative to tackle them very quickly.[/b]<BR><B>Economic development[/b]<BR>Most BR analysts regard that<BR>in the next 25 yrs the Indian economy will be among the most prosperous in the World.India , still will not become an economic superpower till it's lowest class of people can be provided with education,food,shelter.To uplift this class we have to provide education and work for them.The rising market would land them jobs but for skill education is vital.Education is also vital as it provides teaching of principles among men.At present Indian investment in education is very less , here US help can be important.Many US bussiness schools based in India can be asked to invest in primary and secondary education.<B>In the Indian society many malaises are there which can be cured by economic development and education.[/b]Indo US co-operation can be an usefull tool to eradicate our social evil's.<br><B>How does this benifit US?[/b]<br>India would its vast market can provide an ideal end user market for US.Indian natural wealth can be a good raw goods market.Some might call it the policy that became the main reason<BR>of British rule over India.I would disagree, at that time India had more than a dozen powerful states which tied with the British to improve their local standing.Now we are an union hence need not worry about such occurances.Also at that time British had a technological superiority now India has enough technological and military prowess and unity to defend itself.<BR><B>Joint Research[/b]<BR>India has one of the best scientific pools in the World.In future years with education and Economic development we will produce technicians in lakhs every year.They can participate in high end research.The US can provide with their vast accumulated data and both countries can share the product.<br>Joint research can be carried out in areas of space , Earth and Ocean exploration and medicine.<BR><BR>Admins, sorry if this seems more suited for the E&P forum.I have posted this here cause it is my sequel to Part I and II.Also it is being discussed here.I did not want to start an another thread for it<P>------------------<BR>bharat<p><br>
With all due respect and admiration for the authors of these posts, let me throw in the usual firecracker and leave. <P>I get in the mail very detailed expositions on why the stock of a given company is due to shoot up and double, treble, whatever, in the next year. Very fine logical discussions, very solid numbers. <P>The stock goes down, and keeps going down. <P>Today, despite all the sense about democracy, elections, history, stable governments, terrorism, bigotry, economic performance, etc., I see the US leaning very strongly, back in the direction of the terrorist tribe of Pakiland. <P>Is Laurie out there? Right now I would say that the "Atlanta false spring" is over and the snow-storm is beginning. Looks pretty with the little snowflakes on the flowers, but those who have seen it before know what is to come. <P>BTW, as Kaushal's "exasperated Indian" (can I call myself e-indian.com?) I ask again, the simple question: "Why is the US not declaring Pakiland a terrorist state?"<P>The evidence is crystal clear: all I have to read are the editorials and news reports from the PAKI newspapers like DAWN, Frontier Post and Jung. The monster who has now taken over Pakiland at gunpoint is Osama Bin Laden's Boss, the one who sent Osama Bin Laden to have fun with the people of POK. <P>The coup was clearly motivated by the need to stop Nawaz Sharif's belated and under-pressur e move to control the terrorists and the drug dealers (see the web page <BR> <A HREF="http://www.webpost.net/ep/epak/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.webpost.net/ep/epak/</A> for the original sources and statements)<P>And yet, clearly, the US govt. is putting out the word that Pervert Mush is a Santa Claus, Jesus and Kemal Attaturk rolled into one. Mainly Santa Claus, to the arms dealers and the multinational companies. <P>I should sit back and say: "Great. US-India relations are warming up because all the "garam hawa" about mutual interests makes sense that they should do so"? Or should I be gathering firewood and storing propane tanks because the lights and heat are about to go out in the blizzard? <P>
Narayan , I think you are again equating Indo US ties with Pak US ties.Why should we do that?We are concerned only if US sellss arms to what you fondly refer to as TTP.If US is talking with Paks on reducing terrorism the better for us.You can agree that if US pressurises Pakss to stop supporting Terroristss then the better forr us.We know that come what may Pak won't stop terrorism , now if it supports terrorism then another Laden is bound to come up for US.This will affect their ties.If Pak supports terrorism then it can't confine it to India , it is bound to spread to all parts of the world.<BR>My analysis on present US soft stance on Musharraf is cause they don't want to sour ties before knowing his agenda.They hope that he would take tough descisions vis a vis Taleban and Laden.<BR>We must also wait for a month or 2 before formulating a policy for Pakistan.I think our wait and watch stand is good for the time being.Let loud rheotoric be done by Australia,UK,Canada and Japan.
From Economictimes<P><BR>Clinton trip to India on despite coup in Pakistan<P><BR> US President Bill Clinton is determined to visit India and his trip<BR> will be unaffected by the military coup in Pakistan, according to<BR> the US ambassador to New Delhi Richard Celeste. <BR> In a video conference from New Delhi with participants at the<BR> 1999 Fall Meeting of the Indian American Forum for Political<BR> Education (IAFPE) here, Celeste said: "I don't believe events in<BR> Pakistan will influence whether or not the President makes his<BR> trip to India.’’ <BR> He reiterated that the upheaval in Islamabad would not pose "an<BR> obstacle for his visit’’ to India and the trip would take place<BR> "some time between mid-January and end of March, 2000.’’ <BR> Celeste, however, said he had no fixed dates to announce "and I<BR> can't really discuss details of the trip because much of it is still<BR> work in progress.’’ — IANS
Paris, Thursday, October 21, 1999<P> Time to Back Away From 'Rock Bottom' Pakistan<P><BR> By Jim Hoagland The Washington Post<P> WASHINGTON - Justifiable homicide is one way to think about the coup that<BR> General Pervez Musharraf staged against the corrupt, inept, democratically<BR> elected civilian government in Pakistan last week. He deserves no applause but<BR> thus far he has not earned hanging, either.<P> General Musharraf acted in self-defense when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif<BR> abruptly ordered him ousted and exiled. The army rallied to the general, who<BR> became chief executive officer of a national enterprise that is broken almost<BR> beyond repair - and which also happens to have the world's newest nuclear<BR> arsenal.<P> ''We have hit rock bottom,'' the general said in his first address to a nation that<BR> must treat that assessment as optimistic. For three decades Pakistan has been<BR> ruled by charlatans, crooks, fanatics and a certifiable war criminal or two. The<BR> considerable talents and graces that individual Pakistanis manifest have been<BR> relentlessly driven outof their national politics.<P> Throughout that downward spiral, with brief respites when sober-minded<BR> technocrats were put in charge, the United States has been there to cheer on<BR> the quack of the day as the only hope that things would not get even worse, and<BR> to welcome the next quack when things got even worse.<P> I experienced the strength of the U.S. tilt toward Pakistan in covering, from<BR> Calcutta and then Islamabad, the 1971 India-Pakistan war, a conflict in which<BR> Pakistan's leaders had authorized genocidal campaigns against the population of<BR> Bangladesh. That was not what counted in Washington.<P> In his 1979 memoir ''White House Years,'' Henry Kissinger described Richard<BR> Nixon's deep antipathy toward Indira Gandhi as the two leaders wandered in<BR> ''the never-never land of U.S.-Indian relations.'' When war broke out ''Nixon<BR> was for whatever course would hurt India more,'' Mr. Kissinger wrote. It was<BR> an emotion that other U.S. presidents hid better but still followed.<P> The United States sought to build up Pakistan as a counterweight to a huge,<BR> headstrong Indian democracy that Washington has never been able to<BR> accommodate easily in its strategic thinking. And India has seemed determined<BR> to increase U.S. support and friendship for Pakistan. New Delhi incessantly<BR> moralized about U.S. iniquities, imagined and real, while fully supporting<BR> Moscow during the Cold War.Things have not become simpler. The defiant<BR> nuclear tests ordered last year by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party<BR> and that party's confirmation in power in elections earlier this month make India<BR> as prickly and difficult as ever.<P> So maybe the new CEO in Islamabad has it right. Perhaps things can only go up<BR> from here in the Asian subcontinent. One factor: General Musharraf's coup is<BR> rooted in career survival rather than in an Islamic crusade or grandiose personal<BR> ambition. Its petty origins should make everyone more realistic and modest<BR> about Pakistan's place in the world and the region. General Musharraf's quick<BR> decision to withdraw his troops from the Indian border goes in this direction.<P> U.S. officials report that General Musharraf was engaged in a nasty<BR> bureaucratic struggle with Mr. Sharif over the creation, of all things, of a<BR> U.S.-style National Security Council. Would a dictator set on absolute control<BR> spend his time studying how this White House works? General Musharraf's first<BR> act as CEO was in fact to create a six-person NSC to run the country.<P> If the Pakistanis do not draw lessons from the dead end they have reached (and<BR> history and human nature suggest that they won't), the United States must<BR> nonetheless seize this opportunity to show that it has finally learned where its<BR> paramount interests lie.<P> Washington has nothing further to gain by manipulating, cajoling or<BR> overestimating Pakistan as a regional ally, or by pretending to treat it on an<BR> equal footing with India or as a strategic bridge to China.<P> There is no democratic regime in Islamabad, however corrupt, that needs<BR> encouragement. There is no important ally working in concert for mutual goals.<BR> Mr. Sharif and presumably General Musharraf ignored President Bill Clinton's<BR> pleas not to go nuclear last year. Pakistan has become a sideshow in geopolitical<BR> terms.<P> The Clinton administration does not shed even crocodile tears over Mr. Sharif's<BR> fate. Washington urges only a return to democracy, not restoration of a prime<BR> minister who systematically undermined Pakistan's other institutions.<P> Such restraint about Mr. Sharif is prudent. It should be matched by U.S. distance<BR> from the new military rulers until they show that their political homicide was<BR> justifiable - that it opened a new way out of a national dead end.
Military keeps its grip on Pakistan<P>BY HOLGER JENSEN<P>ALL the international hand-wringing about the military coup in Pakistan has an air of hypocrisy about it.<P>The United States is no exception in this regard. While demanding a return to democracy, our government has always worked better with Pakistan's military regimes. Field Marshal Ayub Khan and generals Yahya Khan and Zia ul-Haq were all friends of Washington.<P>Zia's death in a 1988 plane crash ended 25 years of overt military rule.<P>But, while Indian democracy has thrived since the partition of the Asian subcontinent, Pakistan's civilian governments all have been subservient to the military, similar to the situation that exists in NATO ally Turkey.<P>Throughout its 52-year history, Pakistan has never had ``democracy'' as we know it. Since achieving independence from Britain in 1947, it has been ruled either by military dictators or a sorry run of ``feudals,'' rich landowners typified by the Bhutto family, who spent 25 percent of the national budget placating the powerful generals.<P>The Bhuttos own thousands of acres of farmland in Sind province, where Zulfikar Ali Bhutto launched a political career that made him prime minister until he was overthrown by Zia in 1977 and executed in 1979. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, was prime minister after Zia died in 1988 but was dismissed by the military in 1990, staged a comeback in 1993 and was again removed from office in 1996 for corruption.<P>Her successor, Nawaz Sharif, accused Bhutto of demanding kickbacks for every government contract signed in Pakistan. He went after the ``missing millions'' with a vengeance, demanding that her bank accounts be frozen in Switzerland and Britain.<P>Ironically, he and many of his cronies now are accused of similar crimes.<P>In a crackdown on corruption ordered by Pakistan's new military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, 40 charges have been leveled against Sharif, who is under house arrest, and warrants have been issued for 54 other government officials.<P>Musharraf has frozen the bank accounts of some 500 politicians including Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and many legislators in hopes of recovering $5 billion lost to tax evasion and loan defaults by Pakistan's ruling elite.<P>However, neither army nor civilian rule has made Pakistan more livable. As one senior official of the European Union once put it: ``Neither democracy nor dictatorship seems to work.''<P>The Muslim nation in awash in guns, drugs and uncontrolled sectarian violence.<P>Pakistan is the world's fourth largest producer of opium and hashish. Its gun factories churn out unlicensed replicas of the world's most lethal firearms.<P>Sunni Muslims, 80 percent of the populace, regard minority Shiites as infidels who should be driven out. Their battles, once confined to Punjab, now engulf the entire country. Muhajirs, Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated from India during the 1947 partition, also wage war on resident Pashtuns, and sometimes each other, for control of their Qaumi Movement.<P>Pakistan also is an economic basket case. It owes $32 billion in foreign debt, per capita income averages $470 a year and annual growth has dropped below 4 percent.<P>Sharif tried to counter this by pumping cheap credit into ambitious state-sponsored housing, transportation and small business promotion schemes. But he was opposed by a broad coalition of opposition parties that accused him of leading the country to financial ruin.<P>Even so, he could have survived opposition from the civilian sector if he had the support of the army. But he lost that in this summer's Kashmir crisis, when fierce fighting between India and Pakistan nearly brought the two nuclear-armed neighbors to war for the fourth time in half a century.<P>There is no doubt that Musharraf, as Pakistan's army chief, instigated or abetted an incursion of Islamic guerrillas into India's portion of the Himalayan region. Sharif's July 4 order withdrawing that invasion force, under pressure from President Clinton, put the two on a collision course.<P>Musharraf has promised a return to civilian rule but the Clinton administration wants a timetable. It does not, however, want to reinstate Sharif, whose human rights record was getting to be worse than some of Pakistan's military strong men. So why all the fuss?<P><BR>Holger Jensen is international editor for the Denver Rocky Mountain News.<BR>
This is very disappointing. It insults TTP by calling it the "4th largest exporter of opium and hashish". And here I thought TTP led the world in that and terrorism. (have to ask for some changes in certain web pages).
<B>Washington has nothing further to gain by manipulating, cajoling or<BR>overestimating Pakistan as a regional ally, or by pretending to treat it on an<BR>equal footing with India or as a strategic bridge to China.<BR></B><P>Finally some words of wisdom from a veteran journalist who is not just out of diapers. I was waiting to see who would be the first to utter these prophetic words. But it is noteworthy that I am still waiting to hear this from one of the battle hardened corps of think tank veterans. Generally I am impressed with this column and it forms a good supplement to Part II and Part III of what I have been saying.<P>Kaushal
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Finally some words of wisdom from a veteran journalist who is not just out of diapers. I was waiting to see who would be the first to utter these prophetic words... <P>Generally I am impressed with this column and it forms a good supplement to Part II and Part III of what I have been saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Kaushal:<P>I am stunned. I am speechless. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined a truthful and unbiased column on this subject from the Washington Compost. I mean, this stuff is old hat to most of us on this forum, but to see it in the WP... (shaking head) I still can't believe it. Maybe the end of the world really is at hand. <P>Cheers,<BR>Mohan<P>P.S. Someone please draw Pamela's attention to her colleague's column. <p>[This message has been edited by Mohan Raju (edited 21-10-1999).]
Agee agee dekho, hota hey kya...<P>Just when you thought you had enough, here's more good news...again from WP!!!<P>himanshu<P> DC Hilton -<BR> $198/night <P> <BR> U.S. Won't Lift Pakistan Sanctions<P> By Tom Raum<BR> Associated Press Writer<BR> Thursday, Oct. 21, 1999; 1:52 a.m. EDT<P> WASHINGTON –– The Clinton administration is<BR> prepared to lift a range of economic sanctions imposed<BR> on India after last year's nuclear tests, but will keep<BR> them in place against Pakistan. <P> "We've made very clear that there won't be business as<BR> usual with Pakistan until there is a prompt restoration of<BR> civilian and democratic rule," White House spokesman<BR> Joe Lockhart said Wednesday. <P> The administration wants Pakistan's new military<BR> leader, Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, to "announce a clear<BR> timetable for the early restoration of constitutional,<BR> civilian and democratic government," said Karl<BR> Inderfurth, assistant secretary of state for South Asia. <P> Back-to-back nuclear test explosions in May 1998 by<BR> India and Pakistan triggered a U.S. law that<BR> automatically imposed trade and other sanctions on both<BR> countries. <P> Congress gave President Clinton authority to<BR> temporarily suspend some of them – principally to<BR> allow U.S. farmers to keep selling their agricultural<BR> products to both countries. But those waivers were<BR> expiring today. <P> Legislation to give the president new and permanent<BR> authority to suspend the sanctions is on Clinton's desk. It<BR> is part of a $268 billion defense spending bill for the<BR> fiscal year that began Oct. 1. <P> Assuming he signs the bill – still not certain because of<BR> spending disputes with the GOP-led Congress – Clinton<BR> is prepared to begin waiving sanctions that apply to<BR> India, Inderfurth told a House International Relations<BR> subcommittee. <P> But the administration will not do the same for Pakistan,<BR> Inderfurth said. <P> Furthermore, he said that the Oct. 12 military coup also<BR> triggered another law denying U.S. aid to a country<BR> whose democratically elected government is deposed. <P> The reimposition of the sanctions on Pakistan "is likely<BR> to adversely affect U.S. wheat exports to Pakistan,"<BR> Arona Butcher, an analyst for the U.S. International<BR> Trade Commission, told the International Affairs<BR> subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. <P> The financial impact on Pakistan would be about $57<BR> million, much of it in lost credits from the United States<BR> to purchase wheat from the United States, she said. <P> Meanwhile, the 22-year-old son of deposed Prime<BR> Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a written appeal to the<BR> United States to help bring international pressure to<BR> obtain the release of his father and other members of his<BR> family. <P> "The silence is terrifying," Hasan Nawaz Sharif said in<BR> a statement from London that was delivered to the<BR> subcommittee during Wednesday's hearing. <P> "It is with great fear and trepidation that I submit this<BR> statement for inclusion in the record," he wrote. "I take<BR> this step with faith in the committee members to focus<BR> attention on the personal safety and security of my father<BR> ... and the members of our family." <P> There has been no word on the whereabouts of Sharif,<BR> who was put under house arrest in the early hours of the<BR> coup. With him were another son, Hussein, and a<BR> brother, Shabbaz. <P> Sharif's son-in-law was also arrested at his home and<BR> documents detailing family businesses were seized. <P> "Communication between family members has been<BR> terminated," Hasan's statement said. "I myself have been<BR> unable, in spite of repeated attempts, to contact any of<BR> my family members in Pakistan." <P> © Copyright 1999 The Associated Press <P> Back to the top <P><BR> <P>
Hi!<BR>Did anyone on BR read the Indian-Express (IE) article about Brajesh Mishra going to D.C. this week?<P>The reporter, Chidanand Rajghatta, was very optimistic about good Indo-US relations.<P>In summary, Mishra is coming here leading a delegation of business and security leaders to talk about the up-coming Seatle Round of WTO talks and about the on-going security dialogue that is getting hotter by the day! Bruce Reidel and MAthew Daley went to Delhi and now they will welcome Mishra. Mishra is also set to meet Energy secy. Richardson, and US WTO rep. Charlene Barshevsky. That lady is a nut when it comes to protecting US interests, I mean REALLY a YANKEE!!<P>himanshu
The editorials by the Denver gentleman and the one from Paris show what can be achieved by speaking out. <P>This is why we need to post our analyses of the situation on the web, in greater numbers. People do read, and some do think. <P>The war is not over by any means, but I think the tide is turning. The voices saying: "wait a minute: this is not an improvement in TTP" are being heard. <P>Now we have to hammer home the point that its not only not an improvement, Musharraf is a real monster, a war criminal, a back-stabber, a coward and a liar, a front-man for the drug dealers, and a protege of the fundamentalist virus. <P>
Contrary to what has been alleged earlier in this thread, Bruce Reidel and Matthew Daley are both people with clout in the Admin. I believe Matthew Daley is the brother of the Commerce secretary and the son of the famous Richard Daley who was mayor of chicago during the famous 1968 riots. The Daley family are one of the power brokers in the Democratic Party and definitely need to be cultivated (aka smooching) by India. <P>There is absolutely nothing wrong in smooching. Such smooching is a way of life in America and goes on constantly in all walks of life. That is the only way India will be able to counter the constant propaganda barrage from the TSP and its powerful lobby allies who also work for China.<P>Kaushal<p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 21-10-1999).]
Sorry for taking so long. Jim Hoagland has been very clear about his views on TSP for a long time. The more significant thing is the WP chose to publish it. Holger Jensen is a respected Foreign Affairs commentator from Mid-West. In a sense he speaks for middle America.<BR>---<BR>There were three other factors that influenced the US policy towards India in the early decades. <BR>Resurgent nationalism in post independence India could turn into expansionism. Most of the policy makers had cut their teeth on Japan policy and were wary of potential for this happening in South Asia. The speed and ease of States Integration bothered them that Indian elite harboured expansonist ideas. Every time Indian leaders talked of cultural ties to SE Asia, it reinforced this flawed perception. All the sins of Japanese expansionism before and during WWII were wreaked on India. This perception was because of incomplte understanding of the idea of India. The State Dept. sent some very dubious scholars to its Delhi posting. In fact it was considered a punishment post and hence did not attract any good talent. Chester Bowles and J.K. Galbraith were Presidential appointess and came much later after the damage was done.<BR>Secondly Indian elite was suspected of being Communist sympathisers at the core. The cetral Plans, NAM etc. were considered as acts which reinforced this view. This was also flawed as the Indian elite drew its inspiration from the socialist dogmatists of the London School of Economics in the pre/post WWII era-Harold Laski etc. But in the us versus them school of JF Dulles thought, this fine nuance was lost.<BR>Thirdly, there was a perception reinforced by the Brits that India with all its diversity would be an unrelaible partner. This is because its diverse polity will pull it apart and make it difficult to aid the West in its needs. There was the feeling that Pakistan with its homogenous population could be a more reliable partner in Western projects. It could act as source of reliable troops, a role akin to British India. True Indian had more troops but they would probably not be committed abroad due to the diversity of the Indian polity.<BR>Congruent with this belief was the hidden advantage in the Mid East, which was beginning to ferment, of being seen as supporting an Islamic state against a non Islamic state and this was thought to be able to endear themselves to the Mid East population. This also did not happen as the reasons for radicalization of the Mid-East had other factors which I have commented on before. (Briefly it is the drive for modernization which sets up conflict between traditional and modern forces in Mid-East)<BR>
It appears India is inexorably moving closer to the US, despite the myriad problems and disagreements facing the two nations. The BJP coalition is signalling to the US with this visit by Brajesh Misra, that improvement in US/India relations is a top priority. As long as these talks are anchored in the cold realities of realpolitik, there is absolutely nothing wrong and much to be gained from this. Indians have a habit of lapsing into mushy sentimentality ( I had dinner with John Kenneth Galbraith in 1962 and therefore Americans are the greatest thing since sliced bread). <P>Kaushal<BR>Mishra discusses coup with US<BR> officials <P> CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA <P> WASHINGTON, OCT 22: The coup in Pakistan and<BR> President Bill Clinton's upcoming visit to the region dominated<BR> talks on Thursday between India's special envoy Brajesh<BR> Mishra and a host of American political officials as the two<BR> sides sought to bring their dialogue on track and harmonise<BR> their views following the turbulent events in the subcontinent.<P> On Friday, Mishra switched roles and was engaged in<BR> extensive discussions with US Trade Representative Charlene<BR> Barshevsky and Commerce Secretary William Daley to<BR> match notes on the upcoming World Trade Organisation<BR> (WTO) meeting in Seattle late November and also clear<BR> some of the gremlins that are stalling expanded Indo-US<BR> trade ties.<P> The discussions are also expected to cover areas of<BR> cooperation that can be finalised by the time the President<BR> comes to India.<P> The acting Secretary of State Strobe Talbott hosted a<BR> two-hour luncheon meeting for the Indian delegation where<BR> the two sides also talked about the upcoming WTO meeting,<BR> the developments in the Indiansub-continent and the<BR> programme of the new Indian government, US officials said.<P> Mishra is said to have expressed New Delhi's concerns over<BR> the military takeover in Pakistan and its ramifications. He also<BR> acknowledged the latest Pakistani offer of a dialogue on<BR> Kashmir but reiterated India's position that Islamabad should<BR> first stop cross-border terrorism to create an atmosphere for<BR> talks to take place.<P> The US side is believed to have reiterated several points it<BR> has made over the past few days: It is keen that democracy is<BR> restored as soon as possible in Pakistan; the Clinton<BR> Administration will not use the Presser Amendment waiver to<BR> reopen arms supply to Pakistan; and it would press<BR> Islamabad to address India's concerns over cross-border<BR> terrorism.<P> There are still no dates in the air for President Clinton's visit<BR> to the region but US officials suggest a window of anywhere<BR> from late January to mid-March, as Washington seeks to get<BR> a hang of the pace of developments in Pakistan.<P> For his politicalparleys, Mishra was accompanied by the<BR> Indian ambassador Naresh Chandra, a four year veteran in<BR> Washington, and his deputies T P Sreenivasan and Francis<BR> Vaz. Talbott drew in Assistant Secretary Rick Inderfurth and<BR> the State Departments non-proliferation guru Robert Einhorn<BR> among others.<P> From the kind of meetings slated for Mishra, it is evident that<BR> the two sides are seeking to go far beyond the security<BR> oriented dialogue the two sides have been having in recent<BR> times.<P> On Friday, Mishra was scheduled to meet a slew of trade<BR> and commerce officials, including Commerce Secretary<BR> William Daley and Acting Under Secretary for Economic<BR> Affairs Allen Larson. Mishra is accompanied by Commerce<BR> Secretary P P Prabhu and India's ambassador to the WTO,<BR> S Narayan.In the unspoken choreography the two sides have<BR> in mind, a gesture by each side is reciprocated by the other.<P> Thus, even as Washington moves to ease sanctions and prune<BR> the list of forbidden entities in India, New Delhi is rushing<BR> through what it describes asthe second generation of reforms,<BR> including far reaching steps like opening up its insurance<BR> sector.<P> There is also a suggestion at this time that India will soon<BR> announce the signing of the test ban treaty but will keep in<BR> abeyance the two steps that will seal it -- ratification, and<BR> depositing the instrument of ratification with the UN.<P> Although some experts argue that under the Indian system,<BR> merely signing it is tantamount to ratification, others say the<BR> Union Cabinet would be required to ratify it. In any case, it<BR> now appears that New Delhi will move one step closer to the<BR> treaty soon.<P> Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)<BR> Ltd. <BR><p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 24-10-1999).]
I think India is reading this whole CTBT affair in a wrong way. The CTBT is dead in the US. Not all the kings men and kings horses can put it back together again. The only possibility of its being revived is with a Republican president and a republican congress and the odds of that are probably less than 1 in 2. India should simply tell the US, that her position is identical to that of the US. India is observing a moratorium but will not sign until several things happen;<P>1. She gets a permanent UNSC seat with veto power.<P>2. She is considered a full fledged NWS with the same status and privileges as the other P5.<P>Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for India to sign. Furthermore the choice of Bill Richardson as emissary is odd. Let us hope, he does not have a good memory of his previous visit, because he is reported to have felt he was 'deceived' that he was not told of POK II, especially when the US informed India prior to everyone of its 1200 tests. It appears he has been sent to sound out the status of India's stockpile.<P>Kaushal<P>CTBT -- India, US not in harmony<BR> yet <P> CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA <P> WASHINGTON, OCT 23: The United States has<BR> unexpectedly reverted to its tough posture towards India on<BR> the nuclear issue saying the tone and content of President<BR> Clinton's upcoming visit ``hinge on the progress we make in<BR> our security and non-proliferation dialogue.''<P> The prepared remark came from Energy Secretary Bill<BR> Richardson, who is coming to India this weekend, and<BR> suggested a hardening of stand by Washington at a time when<BR> the two sides are said to be in the process of harmonising<BR> their views on security matters. Richardson said at a press<BR> conference on Friday that while the United States continues<BR> to believe that India is better off without nuclear weapons,<BR> ``We recognise that India feels it needs such a capability.''<P> When some journalists sought to interpret this as American<BR> acceptance of India's nuclearisation, Richardson clarified the<BR> familiar US position: Washington understands India's needs<BR> and concerns vis-a-vis nuclear weapons but does not agree<BR> that the weapons advance India's securityinterests.<P> In fact, Richardson reeled off the usual laundry list of US<BR> objectives for India: adherence to the Comprehensive Test<BR> Ban Treaty (CTBT); constructive engagement on the Fissile<BR> Material Cut-Off Treaty; participating in a multilateral<BR> moratorium on fissile-material production for weapons,<BR> pending conclusion of a cut-off treaty; restraint in missile<BR> development, including non-deployment; and strengthened<BR> controls over the export of nuclear material.<P> ``Although we have heard India's intentions with respect to<BR> several of these steps, we have been disappointed frankly at<BR> the lack of concrete action to achieve them,'' he added.<P> No such disappointment appeared to have infected a parallel<BR> dialogue India's special envoy Brijesh Mishra had with other<BR> top administration officials. Mishra told journalists at a<BR> separate press conference that the comprehensive talks<BR> between the two sides and the US attitude during the Kargil<BR> crisis have ``provided us with an opportunity to further<BR> develop ourrelations.''<P> In reply to a question about the US pressure on India to sign<BR> the CTBT, Mishra said India would not give to any such<BR> pressure. Its stand was to evolve a national consensus on the<BR> adherence of the pact and the issue would be debated in the<BR> coming winter session of Parliament, he said.<P> But Richardson said Washington was encouraged by India's<BR> efforts to build a domestic consensus for the Test Ban Treaty,<BR> despite the failure of the US Senate to ratify it, and suggested<BR> the New Delhi could take a leadership role in this matter.<BR> However, it was evident from both media briefings that the<BR> two sides are far from discussing any transfer of high-tech or<BR> heavy duty items.<P> While Richardson said selling or transferring nuclear power<BR> plants or nuclear energy technology was not on the agenda of<BR> his trip (he suggested the Indians had not asked for it),<BR> Mishra said his talks did not touch on the transfer of dual-use<BR> technology. Richardson, however, said he wanted to see<BR> increased scientific co-operationbetween the two sides within<BR> the parameters of Congressionally mandated barriers. His<BR> visit would mainly deal with non-nuclear energy cooperation,<BR> he indicated.<P> Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)<BR> Ltd. <BR><p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 24-10-1999).]
Kaushal and Bharat and others,<P>Very Good posts and analysis. Captures all the nuances and falvours of the relationship both past and present. India should respond to every positive overture of the US (in other words when US speaks respond in speech with equal warmth). However, watch the actions as they are a better indication of intentions than words. (Spinster will agree ). It is more important to respond to match every positive act with an act of our own and not match every positive word from the US with a positive action from our side. It kind of becomes one-sided then <P>Just another point to consider.<P>Rajaram
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>``Although we have heard India's intentions with respect to several of these steps, we have been disappointed frankly at the lack of concrete action to achieve them,'' he added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think the term for this is "chutzpah". Coming from a bureaucrat of the only nation in the world to have explicitly rejected the CTBT. Because it might hinder their blatant intentions to develop more and more dangerous and destabilizing nuclear weapons, like miniaturized warheads suitable for giving to terrorists. A public announcement of this nature by India would be so welcome!<BR>
Richardson, is a very influential member of the Clinton cabinet and his visit is not without significance. It could mean that the screws are being tightened on India or that there will be a new modus vivendi between the 2 countries. Richardson is a pugnacious fella and wont back down very easily. He is not like Talbott who is always looking for overarching solutions.<P>Kaushal<P>US wants concrete steps by India on N-benchmarks: Richardson <BR>Ramesh Chandran<P>WASHINGTON: The United States continues to believe that India is better off without nuclear weapons, yet it recognises that ``India feels it needs such a capability,'' Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told reporters during a meeting at the Foreign Press Centre.<P>This comment had enough ambiguity for reporters to seek clarification. Richardson then proceeded to carefully expound it saying the US is in the throes of discussing a number of ``concrete, near-term steps India can take that would address our concerns, and in our view,<B> that would be in India's national security interests.''</B> <I> the US should not presume to tell India what is in its national interest </I><P>The ``steps'' were the benchmarks relating to CTBT, engaging on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, being part of a multilateral moratorium on fissile material production (pending conclusion of this treaty), non-deployment and restraint in missile deployment and <B>strengthening controls over export of nuclear material</B> <I>this last condition is a piece of cake for India, since India is a virgin in the field of nuclear proliferation to other countries, unlike the US, Russia and China </I>.<P>Richardson, a former US Ambassador to the United Nations and the highest- ranking Hispanic in the Clinton administration, is scheduled to travel to India next week. He is the first cabinet member to visit India after the new Vajpayee coalition government assumed power. He has been a seasoned politician having served seven terms as a US Congressman from New Mexico and when he was appointed Energy Secretary, President Clinton offered one of his nifty sound bytes for the media. He said, ``If there's one word that comes to mind when I think of Bill Richardson, it really is energy.''<P>The Energy Secretary pointed out that despite the emphatic vote in the US Senate not to ratify the CTBT,<B> the United States remained philosophically committed to the Treaty and will not resume weapons testing.</B> <I>many in the nuclear establishment in the US are certainly not committed philosophically to the treaty. India's position is not that far off from the US in this respect, since India also has a moratorium on testing. So, what is he griping about </I> In the light of the Senate vote, he pointed out that both he as well as the President were encouraged by statements attributed to Prime Minister Vajpayee and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh that they wanted to build a ``domestic consensus'' within the country so that the CTBT could be signed. He added: ``I think that's very commendable, and that's something that makes a lot of sense and we want to encourage that.''<P>As for the five benchmarks, Richardson noted in his statement that although Washington had heard India's intentions with respect to several of these steps: ``We have been disappointed, frankly, at the lack of concrete action to achieve them. We do hope the new government will use restraint in the nuclear area.'' He saw the setback in the Senate as giving India an opportunity to play a ``leadership role in disarmament and non-proliferation'' by moving forward on the test ban treaty.<P>As Energy Secretary, he has had an ``action-packed'' tenure so far--the most rivetting piece of news being allegations of Chinese nuclear espionage in America's sensitive weapons labs. He instituted sweeping reform of security programs establishing tough counter-intelligence measures in the laboratories as well evolving a new Cyber security program. Under his watch, he also signed a series of non-proliferation agreements with Russia including a program to bring private businesses and jobs to Russia's 10 closed ``nuclear cities'' --a critical program to prevent economic hardship from driving Russia's nuclear weapons scientists to employment in high-risk places like North Korea and Iraq. Richardson said the ``shared interests'' between India and the US, such as in energy and the environment, economic interaction, international security, fighting terrorism and promoting democracy, were the reasons why President Clinton intended to travel to South Asia early next year.<P>Richardson also referred to India's vast energy requirements and it would also have an important role to play in ``rolling back the tide of climate change'' and said he would emphasise to his Indian interlocutors the importance of using ``clean energy technologies.'' Asked if the US, would consider supplying civilian nuclear power plants, he said the US would need to know precisely what were the requirements and the level of cooperation that was being sought by the Indian government.<P>Richardson, who has served as Clinton's special envoy on numerous occasions, was nominated for the Nobel peace prize twice. As diplomatic ``trouble-shooter'' he has been active in securing the release of American servicemen and hostages in North Korea, Iraq, Cuba and Sudan. He told correspondents: ``I don't want to equate India with anybody else.<B> I've always felt that India is a great nation and I've always wanted the United States to pay more attention to South Asia, pay more attention to India.</B> <I> Just saying India is a great nation is not going to change anything. He should stop treating India like a doormat and stop accusing India of misleading him for starters </I> I think for years we didn't do that. That is changing.'' He maintained that with a new government in New Delhi, with some positive statements on proliferation, with an American administration eager to engage India on a ``wide variety of fronts'' there now existed a ``great potential for cooperation.'' <P><BR> <p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 25-10-1999).]
This editorial from TOI makes some valid points,<P>Kaushal<BR>Nuclear Niceties <BR>US energy secretary Bill Richardson's visit to Delhi should be fully utilised to communicate to Washington India's concerns on the developments in the international nuclear security field. According to reports from Washington Mr Richardson told a meeting in the foreign press centre that the US -- while recognising India's felt need for nuclear capability -- believed that India was better off without such weapons. Strangely enough, this is precisely the Indian perception about the US. India has been of the view that the mightiest country in the world, protected by oceans, did not need nuclear weapons and was in a position to commit itself to global nuclear disarmament; yet we recognised the US belief that it needed a nuclear arsenal. The two countries, having arrived at such overlapping perceptions of each other's position, should start addressing each other's concerns. India's policies in the nuclear field will be determined by the ``steps'' the US takes to reassure the international community. Russia and China are moving a resolution before the UN General Assembly reiterating the crucial role of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the first major arms control measure in the Cold War. Attempts by the US to renegotiate this treaty are a matter of concern to the international community as a whole, and India in particular. The US move to develop and deploy a national missile defence is bound to lead to counter measures by China in increasing its missile stockpiles and further modernising its arsenal. In turn, this will have an adverse impact on Indian security. This destabilising move is against the allegedly positive trend in international security which the great powers have loudly proclaimed has been developing over the last decade. Washington owes it to the international community to explain why the US alone needs a missile defence when there is no visible credible threat. The US has lived with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at it for decades; there has been no new threat which would justify its destabilising the international security environment with provocative missile defence efforts. <P>It might also be appropriate to reiterate the moratorium that India has declared on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). There are reports in the US media that intelligence agencies are not confident of detecting all nuclear tests. As such, the Republican leadership in the Senate has called the treaty unverifiable. Indeed, some of the stories circulated in the US media about the yield of the Indian thermonuclear test and the success of small yield tests conducted on May 13, 1998, raise serious doubts about the present capability of verification systems. While India should not do anything at this stage which would be detrimental to a CTBT emerging in due course, New Delhi's signing the instrument in the immediate wake of the US Senate's rejection of the treaty would be seen in this country as an exercise in arm-twisting by the sole superpower. It would be prudent on the part of the US administration to intensify its campaign for the ratification of CTBT by the US and other nuclear weapon powers before it pressurises India to counterproductive effect. Mr Richardson should be left in no doubt that ``benchmarks'' in assessing nuclear concerns have to be mutually acceptable. <P>
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests