India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 May 2011 03:55

@UBannerji^^: It does get annoying when such people anoint themselves "representatives of Indian people". But note him for what he is (an American voice) and move on."

Could not agree with you more. There is no shortage of self-appointed guardians of Indian patriotism especially with respect to unkil. To have emigrated is to have 'crossed waters' and all that it entails.

These are the same people who will sell the same patriotism down the river when it comes to China or Russia.

They are quick to label people as modern day Jaichands acting at the behest of unkil and yet at the same time (and even while living in the US and enjoying the benefits of 'turncoatism'), expecting the FZs to become advocates for India against the interests of their adopted country. A diaspora necessarily owes its allegiance to the country in which it lives. The Jews will tell you why.

I don't particularly care for FZ. He has issues. But, at the end of the day he is not anti-India and he's not pro Pakistan or China. He's seeking a convergence of India-US interests and unlike the self-appointed 'Indian patriots', he has an audience beyond BRF.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 14 May 2011 04:17

India & US: Ties that don’t bind

For the US, “the unkindest cut of all” must be the role played by India at the Brics Summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda.

The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either.

what is the author talking about. He himself is a former ambassdor. crap.

similar treatment to be given to the envoys of uncle in India also.

does not even talk about the main issue of arming to the teeth of the terrorist nation by uncle, support to it in various forms.
crappy farticle.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 May 2011 04:24

I really dont understand his POV. Is he Indian Ambassador or other way round? If the IAF says the planes didnt make it then by pushing for US planes the writer doesn't think much of the evaluation. In that case what can we say? Its not worth the paper its printed on.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 14 May 2011 05:03

According to the US, India got a good deal with the Nooklear stuff. So, India has to pay back by severing the Iran relationship, give up Cashmere, leave Afghanistan to Pakistan and Allah, sever the Burma relationship, blow hot and cold with China at US whim, give multi-billion dollar defence contracts to US companies at terms and conditions that are inferior to the competitors, buy US nooklear power generation equipment that are of older technology or unproven, and ultimately let US congress have a veto on Indian policy, the list is endless. All this for a future promise of making us a super power if we do as we are told today. I am not even bringing up old perfidy such as Nooklear fuel for Tarapur, the Russian cryogenic engines and the delay in GE engines and many other hindrances put by US to hijrafy our foreign policy. It is better that we have started to say no now, later would have been more difficult.
Gautam

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 May 2011 07:12

krisna wrote:India & US: Ties that don’t bind

does not even talk about the main issue of arming to the teeth of the terrorist nation by uncle, support to it in various forms.
crappy farticle.

What else do you expect from a "South Asian". He is SAJA big-wig, columbia "journalism" prof Sreenath Sreenivasna's dad. Contrast this nonsense with the insightful op-ed in the Reuters by Uday Bhaskar.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 May 2011 07:24

well... that is bunkum, when you consider $10b is going there way pretty soon.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 14 May 2011 07:24

I wish some Indians would be tough on China and Pakistan the way they are on the US.

arun · Post by **arun** » 14 May 2011 08:07

X Posted from the TSP thread.

The plan to build nuclear reactors 3 and 4 at Chashma with assistance from P.R.China by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan despite being in violation of Nuclear Supplier Group guidelines progresses as evidenced by the release of funding.

So what “heavy lifting” and “taking a major risk to accommodate India” is the US supposed to have done for India in concluding the nuclear co-operation agreement?

In the end, as I have said before, the Nuclear Deal was a dismantling of a control regime that the US themselves actively participated in for the purpose (amongst others?) of shackling India. Thus the Nuclear Deal itself is no more than a correction of a past hostile act of penalizing India for acts India was not treaty bound to follow and the US should stow away talk of the need of being rewarded for “heavy lifting”, “taking a major risk to accommodate India” and such like.

Back to the funding of reactors 3 and 4:

In the nuclear energy sector, the entire allocated amount of Rs3.58 billion has been released for units three and four of the Chashma nuclear power plant.

From Dawn:

Funds for dozens of power projects, dams stopped

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 14 May 2011 08:11

Manny wrote:I wish some Indians would be tough on China and Pakistan the way they are on the US.

It is easier to be tough on the US because it is accompanied by "what can we do onlee?". With all the hand wringing going on, a newcomer reading this thread would simply conclude that India is a helpless bumbling fool. All the blame is placed on MMS's feet, but I have not yet seen a good practical way out of this situation.

Sure, US is screwing India, just like China, TSP, Saudi et al are all trying to screw India. That is so effing obvious. Repeating it ad nauseam does not make for a debate but simple desperation.

In reality, foreign affairs is about compromise and deal making. Most of us are unaware of the deals that are being made between US and India. We have a choice to sit back and watch or be proactive and whine.

The implication seems to be that the deals are (presumed to be) anti-India and hence the high decibel of whining.

One can ask for clarification -- that's all. Beyond that it is each to his own. Everyone has a choice to feel comfortable and secure or feel betrayed and lost. All of this is chai-biskoot onlee.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 May 2011 08:14

US Ambassador to India Roemer meets Lockheed VP

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassyn ... otostream/

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 14 May 2011 08:36

Terrorism Trial Poses Test for Strained Pakistan Ties

Prosecutors say Tahawwur Hussain Rana helped his high-school friend, Pakistani-American David Coleman Headley, conduct surveillance ahead of a three-day attack that killed more than 160 people, including six Americans. Mr. Rana also is accused of helping Mr. Headley in a bomb plot against a Danish newspaper.

Mr. Headley, who pleaded guilty in connection with his role in the Mumbai attacks, will testify against his old friend in return for being spared the death penalty. What makes the case potentially explosive is the chance it will provide an inside look at the Pakistani government's posture toward terrorism. The question has taken on greater urgency since U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a home in Pakistan two weeks ago.

Mr. Headley is expected to testify that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, was directly involved in plotting the Mumbai attacks carried out by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba terror group in November 2008. Mr. Headley is also expected to testify that Mr. Rana knew of his work on behalf of ISI and allowed Mr. Headley to use Mr. Rana's immigration business as a cover.

Court filings remain sealed, but in an April ruling, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber quoted from a defense motion that Mr. Rana had acted "at the behest of the Pakistani government and the ISI, not the Lashkar terrorist organization."

Prosecutors have charged six other men besides Mr. Rana. In court filings, defense lawyers identified several as Pakistani intelligence officers. All are fugitives. Mr. Rana, 50 years old, will be the only defendant in court.

U.S. prosecutors refer to the co-defendants only as being leaders of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Co-defendant Ilyas Kashmiri is a former Pakistani commando who U.S. officials say leads a terror group believed to be allied with al Qaeda. Another defendant is identified by the U.S. as a retired former major in the Pakistani military.

A spokesman for the Pakistan embassy in Washington said the allegations of Pakistani involvement in the plots were being "made up for the sake of defense.…There is no involvement, or complicity, by any state institution, or any Pakistani security official."

Mr. Rana, who wears glasses and a graying beard, said he was duped into helping an old friend, whom he thought was working with ISI.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 14 May 2011 10:33

ranjbe wrote:Just to refresh the memory of BRF'tes, Fareed's father was a hard-core Congressman, and a minister in many MH cabinets. Also, he (along with Azim Premji's father Hasham Premji) was one of a (very, very) few well-educated and well-off Muslims from Mumbai who rejected Jinnah's personal blandishments to migrate to Pakistan. Fareed's father was rich enough (I believe he was from old Hyderabadi aristocracy, who came to MH when Marathwada merged with the new Maharashtra State in 1960) to send both of his sons to the US for under-graduate education. He would have been a classic RAPE if his father had migrated to Pakistan!

Father of Fareed Zakaria, Rafiq Zakaria, wrote an article when APJ Abdul Kalam became Indian President that he is not a true muslim and doesn't represent Indian muslims because Abdul Kalam doesn't do namaz and didn't go for haj. Scratch the surface and you see it. If father Zakaria was rich and did not go to Pakistan, then he stayed back to preserve his wealth. The article he wrote was totally uncalled for.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 May 2011 11:27

Manny wrote:I wish some Indians would be tough on China and Pakistan the way they are on the US.

I hope you are not refering to me. I am tough on anyone, including Indians themselves, who work against India. It has its unique place in the world just as the west does, just as confusians do, just as Africans do, just as the Slavics do etc. There is a civilizational and racial and ethnic struggle going on, and India has its place.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 May 2011 13:08

shyam wrote: Father of Fareed Zakaria, Rafiq Zakaria, wrote an article when APJ Abdul Kalam became Indian President that he is not a true muslim and doesn't represent Indian muslims because Abdul Kalam doesn't do namaz and didn't go for haj. Scratch the surface and you see it. If father Zakaria was rich and did not go to Pakistan, then he stayed back to preserve his wealth. The article he wrote was totally uncalled for.

this is the sort of utter unmitigated rubbish that passes on as "nationalist" opinion these days.

Have you read anything of note written by Rafiq Z? And he has written extensively. If there is any single author who has chronicled Jinnah's perfidies, it has to be him. For a critical analysis of Jinnah, no better source than him, incl his last book, "Jinnah:the man who.....".
Comprare that to the touching appreciation of the leading lights of our uber nationalists on MAJ! Now Jinnah is a complex personality, so opinions of all shades are natural , but to conclude imputed motives to a person with a lifetime of public service and distinguished scholarship is just displaying the sort of uneducated trash that our so called nationalists are capable of.

Critique the opinion if you have to, why rubbish an honourable person?! Without even an iota of awareness about him, his opinions or his works?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 May 2011 13:15

arun wrote:X Posted from the TSP thread.

The plan to build nuclear reactors 3 and 4 at Chashma with assistance from P.R.China by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan despite being in violation of Nuclear Supplier Group guidelines progresses as evidenced by the release of funding.

So what “heavy lifting”

Back to the funding of reactors 3 and 4:

Funds for dozens of power projects, dams stopped

this has been addressed many times in the nuke thread. The Chinese deal for pak is not dissimilar to the Russian vver deal for india, pre nuke deal. These are exceptions made using a disproportionate amount of political capital, and not scalable at all. Russia flatly said so as well, when we asked for kudunkulum iii and iv.

This Chinese favour to pak too is a similar exception. Can be done again, maybe in 20 years time. For pak it's a question of just the optics, nothing material.

For India, the nuke deal opened up a full new market and political space, somethig unprecedented, basically de facto formalisig our status as a recognized nuke power, even if not de jure.

It's a far far bigger deal than a couple of Mickey mouse exemptions

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 14 May 2011 13:33

abhishek_sharma wrote:US Ambassador to India Roemer meets Lockheed VP

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassyn ... otostream/

The photo caption:

Ambassador Roemer met with Orville Prins, Vice President for Business Development - India, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, May 13 in New Delhi. Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Mr. Prins worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. They discussed the vibrant U.S.-India defense relationship.

Looks like the official GOTUS line is a lot more realistic than the

done publicly by "well-placed" anal-ysts.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 May 2011 13:46

somnath wrote:this is the sort of utter unmitigated rubbish that passes on as "nationalist" opinion these days.

Have you read anything of note written by Rafiq Z? And he has written extensively. If there is any single author who has chronicled Jinnah's perfidies, it has to be him. For a critical analysis of Jinnah, no better source than him, incl his last book, "Jinnah:the man who.....".
Comprare that to the touching appreciation of the leading lights of our uber nationalists on MAJ! Now Jinnah is a complex personality, so opinions of all shades are natural , but to conclude imputed motives to a person with a lifetime of public service and distinguished scholarship is just displaying the sort of uneducated trash that our so called nationalists are capable of.

Critique the opinion if you have to, why rubbish an honourable person?! Without even an iota of awareness about him, his opinions or his works?

Why the fulminations ? You haven't addressed the 'substantive' point raised by Shyam, which is Rafiq's opinion on Kalam.

As regards Pakistan, I do agree that Rafiq was actually strongly against the two-nation theory. Hindu interest-centric folks are split into two camps - those who believe that partition was in the Hindu interest and those who believe that Hindu interests would be better served in a unified subcontinent. Similarly Muslim interest-centered folks have exactly the same two camps - with one camp believing that Muslim power and prestige in the subcontinent actually got diluted by partition. RZ clearly belongs to this camp...but he is very much looking at this from a perspective of Muslim interests (also fits in with his views on Kalam). Nothing wrong in having that perspective - just pointing that out so it is understood where he is coming from.

sum · Post by **sum** » 14 May 2011 13:53

Comprare that to the touching appreciation of the leading lights of our uber nationalists on MAJ! Now Jinnah is a complex personality, so opinions of all shades are natural , but to conclude imputed motives to a person with a lifetime of public service and distinguished scholarship is just displaying the sort of uneducated trash that our so called nationalists are capable of.

Errr, his other writings might be fine but does that mean he can write the trash he wrote on APJ? Are you saying he never wrote the mentioned article??

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 14 May 2011 14:10

somnath wrote:Have you read anything of note written by Rafiq Z? And he has written extensively. If there is any single author who has chronicled Jinnah's perfidies, it has to be him. For a critical analysis of Jinnah, no better source than him, incl his last book, "Jinnah:the man who.....".
...
Critique the opinion if you have to, why rubbish an honourable person?! Without even an iota of awareness about him, his opinions or his works?

I used to read the articles by father/son Zakarias on magazines regularly, and used to consider them highly till I saw the one about APJ. Using one's intellect people can write excellent pieces, but when they don't think it comes from their heart, and that some times exposes them.

I haven't read his Jinnah piece, nor do I plan to, but I can guess why he was pissed off with Jinnah even though he fought for Islamic homeland in the subcontinent. Jinnah was a whiskey drinking, pork eating, non-haj, non-namaz anglicized muslim.

Anyway, I don't want to discuss more about this topic.

After googling, I got link to a copy of the mentioned article.
What’s Muslim about Abdul Kalam? – Dr Rafiq Zakaria

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 14 May 2011 17:22

shyam wrote:

Anyway, I don't want to discuss more about this topic.

After googling, I got link to a copy of the mentioned article.
What’s Muslim about Abdul Kalam? – Dr Rafiq Zakaria

If this is the source is angst against RZ, maybe you should read again. He makesthe point emphatically that APJ is eminently suited to being the president. The limited point he is making is that apj isn't a "cultural" muslim, and therefore should not be designted as a "Muslim" president. That's a pov, if anything apj himself would agree with that. Even JLN could be described as someone who would feel intensely uncomfortable being descried as a "cultural" Hindu - he would be more comforable being described as an agnostic! Among other Muslims, I know for a fact that azeem premji is intensely uncomfortable in any description of him that starts with "Muslim", eventhough he isn't an agnostic by any means.

This is an India US thread, too much of the zakarias is OT, but there is a tendency to simply impute motives on the basis of superficial readings and understandings. First we had someone alleging that they stayed back to "preserve Teiresias wealth". Then someone else, I think Arjun describing RZ as an opponent to partition because of his views that it took away Muslim domination of the subcontinent. None of the above can be established, but are used as ceteris paribus to colour all opinions.

Anyway, eenough of RZ. It would be useful for people to form opinion based on something a bit more subsabtive than random blog and press reports.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 May 2011 17:36

somnath wrote:The limited point he is making is that apj isn't a "cultural" muslim, and therefore should not be designted as a "Muslim" president. That's a pov, if anything apj himself would agree with that. Even JLN could be described as someone who would feel intensely uncomfortable being descried as a "cultural" Hindu - he would be more comforable being described as an agnostic! Among other Muslims, I know for a fact that azeem premji is intensely uncomfortable in any description of him that starts with "Muslim", eventhough he isn't an agnostic by any means.

OT!

Muslim, Hindu, Christian, etc. labels is all about your religious affiliation and identification. Whether one is a "cultural" xyz or an "observant" xyz or a "practicing" xyz or an "orthodox" xyz is a matter of further qualification, but it does not really change the identification. A person's actual world view, his spirituality, his philosophical musings, etc. do not really change his basic religious identity labels.

APJ is a Muslim if he identifies himself as a Muslim, and the world should accept that.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 14 May 2011 18:50

somnath wrote:If this is the source is angst against RZ, maybe you should read again. He makesthe point emphatically that APJ is eminently suited to being the president. The limited point he is making is that apj isn't a "cultural" muslim, and therefore should not be designted as a "Muslim" president. That's a pov, if anything apj himself would agree with that. Even JLN could be described as someone who would feel intensely uncomfortable being descried as a "cultural" Hindu - he would be more comforable being described as an agnostic! Among other Muslims, I know for a fact that azeem premji is intensely uncomfortable in any description of him that starts with "Muslim", eventhough he isn't an agnostic by any means.

You are missing the point that in your examples it is the person himself deciding by what appelation he / she would be known as - whereas in Kalam's case it is RZ who takes it on himself to decide for Kalam.

There is no right answer here - but whatever it is needs to be applied reciprocally to all cases. If you believe that there are some external trappings that need to be adhered to in order to be known as a member of a 'faith'....RZ is not wrong in objecting to Kalam being termed a Muslim, based on whatever yardsticks he can come up with in his sole discretion and I suppose you are Ok with Hindus similarly describing other co-coreligionists as 'non-Hindu' at their sole discretion ?

somnath wrote:Then someone else, I think Arjun describing RZ as an opponent to partition because of his views that it took away Muslim domination of the subcontinent. None of the above can be established, but are used as ceteris paribus to colour all opinions.

I use language fairly precisely and I would appreciate if you could return the favour...My precise words were that RZ viewed partition as a dilution of Muslim power. That does not automatically translate to 'taking away Muslim domination'... Here's RZ in his own words on the effect of partition-

Jinnah, who had no love for Islam, exploited religion to whip up communal frenzy among the Muslims and made them believe that only a separate homeland, carved out of united India, would free them from Hindu domination. The result has been exactly the opposite.

In undivided India they were in power in five out of the eleven provinces; being one-third of the population they were a decisive factor at the Centre. After Partition they have been divided into three parts: Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims and Bangladeshi Muslims, with little contact with one another. Far from being freed of ‘Hindu domination’, two-third of them have been put under, to use Jinnah’s terminology, ‘permanent Hindu domination’.

RZ was very much a person focused on Muslim interests and that's where his world-view derives from - that is my sole point. However he was at the same time extremely forward-thinking in the kind of life he wanted Muslims to lead and he was very much a nationalist. He was a Muslim nationalist in the same mould as there are Hindu nationalists who care about their community as well as the nation - because his was not a pan-Islamist vision but one which was highly 'assimilative' and pluralist and where he visualized extensive integration with the majority Hindus.

His views on Kalam and Muslim power are somewhat surprising but probably in the same mould as those of Indian Americans regarding themselves - they would like the community to assimilate into American culture, but not to the extent that they lose all notions of their 'Indianness', and they are keen to increase the political clout they carry with the federal government.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 May 2011 20:23

There are 15 Indian origin kids that have been named US Presidential Scholars for 2011. There are a total of 141 scholars selected and it is difficult to make the selection.

15 Indian-Americans as 2011 Presidential Scholars
2011 US Presidential Scholars Announced

It appears there are at least 30 Chinese origin kids in the same list, but of course I haven't worked out the numbers per capita based on how many specific ethnic origin there are in the US.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 May 2011 21:11

Cosmo_R wrote:@UBannerji^^: It does get annoying when such people anoint themselves "representatives of Indian people". But note him for what he is (an American voice) and move on."

Could not agree with you more. There is no shortage of self-appointed guardians of Indian patriotism especially with respect to unkil. To have emigrated is to have 'crossed waters' and all that it entails.
.

Why the rant? The discussion was about MUTUs like FZ and his trying to pretend to be Indian while talking to Indians while batting for American interest. Why give a free chit to such questionable people by ranting against all and sundry and bringing in irrelevancies.

And those who say Indians dont hammer and tongs at China have probably never taken the takleef of visiting those threads. The good part however though is that there are no attempts by any poster to tell us that we are wrong. (Other than obvious chicom drones) No chinese versions of FZ (Indians living in China and speaking Chinese perspective while attempting to use Indian ethnicity) no apologists for Chinese.

These however abound in US thread.

Aryavarta · Post by **Aryavarta** » 14 May 2011 21:28

somnath wrote:
shyam wrote: Father of Fareed Zakaria, Rafiq Zakaria,
...
this is the sort of utter unmitigated rubbish that passes on as "nationalist" opinion these days.

....
Critique the opinion if you have to, why rubbish an honourable person?! Without even an iota of awareness about him, his opinions or his works?

I am sorry Somnath, I did not understand what is utter mitigated rubbish in the above or what makes this nationalist opinion? Do you disagree that Rafiq Zakaria did not write what Shyam mentions he did? http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/2 ... q-zakaria/

Or is pointing out the above rubbish? Rafiqji's positive contribution as you have mentioned does not mean that he shouldn't be criticized when he writes politically motivated trash like above.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 14 May 2011 23:47

why all the debates about US not being a trojan horse etc etc? the point is simple. why are we trying to put FZ on a pedestal when he is clearly a US mouthpiece??? why do we delude ourselves by making this guy the "indian ambassador" in US when he is clearly an establishment mouthpiece??? that is all we care about. rest everything is side drama and useless info. he is a US mouthpiece and represents US interests. now let's move on.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 14 May 2011 23:53

somnath wrote:
shyam wrote:

Anyway, I don't want to discuss more about this topic.

After googling, I got link to a copy of the mentioned article.
What’s Muslim about Abdul Kalam? – Dr Rafiq Zakaria
If this is the source is angst against RZ, maybe you should read again. He makesthe point emphatically that APJ is eminently suited to being the president. The limited point he is making is that apj isn't a "cultural" muslim, and therefore should not be designted as a "Muslim" president. That's a pov, if anything apj himself would agree with that. Even JLN could be described as someone who would feel intensely uncomfortable being descried as a "cultural" Hindu - he would be more comforable being described as an agnostic! Among other Muslims, I know for a fact that azeem premji is intensely uncomfortable in any description of him that starts with "Muslim", eventhough he isn't an agnostic by any means.

This is an India US thread, too much of the zakarias is OT, but there is a tendency to simply impute motives on the basis of superficial readings and understandings. First we had someone alleging that they stayed back to "preserve Teiresias wealth". Then someone else, I think Arjun describing RZ as an opponent to partition because of his views that it took away Muslim domination of the subcontinent. None of the above can be established, but are used as ceteris paribus to colour all opinions.

Anyway, eenough of RZ. It would be useful for people to form opinion based on something a bit more subsabtive than random blog and press reports.

this is either deliberate "closing of the eyes," or you are incapable of seeing the truth. the author focuses a few sentences to "praise" Kalam and then goes on to spew nonsense about how Kalam is not pious and pure enough.

the praise for Kalam is only perfunctory and a "necessary evil" not any real meaning behind it. the rest of the article is the real agenda. he is having takleef because Kalam is not pious enough.

if a Hindu wrote a similar article about another Hindu, you would be ripping him apart for being intolerant to differing views. if a Muslim writes the same about another Muslim, then he is simply expressing his views!!!!

that is the level of hypocrisy on which you operate, Somnath ji......amazing!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 May 2011 23:53

devesh:

Thats my point too. But the f%^&king thing that bugs me is the goddmam Indian elite in Delhi gubo before the likes of him in their India Today conclaves or Hindustam Times summit and other crap. Heck they even invite a terrorist like Mush to spew venom. They beg the likes of FZ to come and pontificate. My problem is not with FZ, screw him, he is having a ball, my problem is with the Indians who treat his like a demi God.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 14 May 2011 23:57

^^^
CRamS ji,
exactly. who cares about the inner working of FZ's mind? who cares for his "inner" views? he is ultimately dependent on US imperial establishment for nourishment and sustenance....so it is natural that he is a US mouthpiece. that's all that matters. there is no need for us to bow before him or appoint him the "Indian ambassador" to US...

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 May 2011 10:54

somnath wrote:
CRamS wrote:This knee jerk condescending tripe, "how can India spurn a US offer" from Fareed tells you 2 things: 1) What an establishment moutpiece he is, and 2) If it were chic to do so, he would have done it, and that is to look at this from India's POV, India's travails with US policies etc
Thats very very unfair to Fareed Z IMO...Just because he holds a particular opinion on a specific issue does not make him "anti Indian"...He is one of the consistent articulators of the India line in the US media...His closeness to the US establishment actually enhances the influence he has...It doesnt mean that all his views need to be congruent with a specific POV, bu broadly he is a perfect example of useful influence in Washington...As for being "anti India", read his "Post American World", or look through the trends in his op-ed pieces...

People like Fareed Z (and his brother too!) are precisely the sort of constitutency that India has (and will need to have) as we expand our global footprint..Let not one opinion colour that reality..

Did someone say Fareed Z was "anti-India?" If so, where? If not, why are you refuting it?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 May 2011 15:56

US VP Lyndon Johnson in India: Good fotus

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 16 May 2011 21:11

X-POSTED - Rana Trial
X-POSTED - The Curious Case of Daood Gilani alias David Headley & co
X-POSTED - Pakistani Role in Global Terrorism

Canadian’s trial in Mumbai terror case could link Pakistan, terror group
Sophia Tareen, Associated Press

CHICAGO—A Chicago courtroom could become the unlikely venue for revealing alleged connections between the terrorist group blamed for the 2008 rampage that killed more than 160 people in Mumbai and Pakistan’s main intelligence agency, which has come under increased scrutiny following Osama bin Laden’s killing.

Jury selection begins Monday in the case against businessman Tahawwur Rana, a Canadian national who has lived in Chicago for years.
He is accused of helping a former boarding school friend serve as a scout for the militant group that carried out the three-day attack in India’s largest city. Though the accusations against Rana are fairly straightforward, the implications of the trial could be enormous.

<snip>

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... group?bn=1

&

NIA to finalise charges against Rana after US trial
New Delhi, May 16, (IANS):

India's main terror probe wing, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), would soon file charges against David Headley and Tahawwur Rana after the latter's trial concludes in a US court for his alleged role in the 26/11 Mumbai carnage, sources said Monday.

Pakistani-born Rana is set to appear in for the trial in Chicago that India is closely monitoring because it may unmask the links between Pakistan's spy agency ISI and terrorists.

The court proceedings, which Indian investigators expect could throw more light on the Mumbai attack conspiracy, could come handy for the NIA in finalising its chargesheet against the Headley and Rana, sources said.

<snip>

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/161 ... -rana.html

&

Tahawwur Rana's trial to begin in Chicago today, could expose ISI role in 26/11
PTI | May 16, 2011, 11.00am IST

CHICAGO: The trial of Pakistan-born Canadian citizen Tahawwur Rana, co-accused with David Headley in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, could reveal ISI's links to terrorists and any evidence of spy agency's "malfeasance" would worsen US-Pakistan relations.

<snip>

"What he discloses could deepen suspicions that Pakistani spies are connected to terrorists and could potentially worsen relations between Washington and Islamabad," New York Times reported.

<snip>

"Any new evidence of ISI malfeasance that emerges from the trial will reverberate in Washington," the daily said.

<snip>

A growing chorus on US Capitol Hill argues that the discovery of bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad and the evidence in Headley's case leave no doubt that the ISI and its Pakistani military overseers have played a cynical double game with the United States, the Times said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 354267.cms

&

Terror suspect Tahawwur Rana in Chicago court
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Chuck Goudie

May 11, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A Chicago man accused of committing terrorist crimes 8,000 miles away was in federal court Wednesday in Chicago.
In this Intelligence Report: The government is gearing up for the most significant terrorism trial ever in Chicago.
Wednesday's court appearance by Tahawwur Rana was intended to smooth some legal wrinkles in a contentious and complicated case. This trial has far-reaching implications, not only in the U.S. war on terror, but also in relations between the United States, Pakistan and India-- and between those two nations themselves, a relationship already frayed and on edge.
<snip> INCLUDES TV VIDEO REPORT

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sectio ... id=8125933

&

Trial Raises Questions On Pakistan's Terrorism Ties
by Dina Temple-Raston
May 13, 2011
A terrorism trial set to begin in Chicago next week could end up further inflaming tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan. The case involves Tahawwur Rana, who was arrested two years ago and charged with conspiring with others in the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. Jury selection in his case begins Monday, but the question of Rana's guilt or innocence has taken a back seat to a bigger issue: Pakistan's role in the deadly attacks.

<snip>

"I can't remember a case in terms of either its substance or timing that has such potential grave political impact," said Juan Zarate, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former member of the Bush administration. "In a very real way, you have the Pakistani intelligence services, and perhaps the military, on trial here for its potential complicity in the 2008 attacks — and that's in the wake of all the questions that have arisen about Pakistan complicity in harboring bin Laden. This is a volatile mix coming at a volatile time."

<snip>

"I think people will be left wondering why the United States not looked closer at the ISI and everything that is going on in Pakistan," said Charles Swift, Rana's defense attorney.

<snip>

"For the first time, America has confirmed what India has been saying all along: That the 10 men that came onto Mumbai shores were not acting alone; they were trained and tutored by the ISI — that the entire operation was monitored from Islamabad," said the anchor of the Indian news channel TimesNow. "We knew it."

Swift, the defense lawyer, says he expects the courtroom will be filled with Indian reporters, and now, in the wake of the bin Laden raid, the U.S. media are going to be there in force, too. All of that attention might explain something prosecutors have just done: NPR has learned that a couple of days ago, they asked for a special hearing — something called a Section 6, SIPA hearing, in which the prosecution and the defense hash out what can be safely said in court without revealing classified information.

Calling a SIPA hearing this late in a case is an unusual maneuver. Those kinds of details are usually settled months in advance. Amid all the sturm und drang of the past two weeks, prosecutors may have had some second thoughts about what they want to reveal in court.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/13/136254210 ... orism-ties

&

Perfidious Pakistan
By Jed Babbin on 5.16.11 @ 6:09AM [Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies.]

Last weekend, Pakistan's parliament... <snip> ... was called to debate "the situation arising from unilateral U.S. action in Abbottabad." The Pakistanis declared that continuation of the U.S. drone attacks was "unacceptable" and resolved that, "Such drone attacks must stop forthwith, failing which the government will be constrained to consider taking necessary steps including withdrawal of [the] transit facility allowed to NATO."

<snip>

What to do about Pakistan? There may be little we can do, and what little there is we must undertake without delay. To understand why Pakistan is so committed to terrorism requires the observation of one key fact: terrorism is, and has been for decades, the weapon of choice Pakistan uses against India in the dispute over Kashmir. The large, rich province of Kashmir has a Muslim majority and was left in India's hands when the British pulled out in August 1947. The two nations have repeatedly fought conventional wars over Kashmir and two years ago came to the brink of nuclear war.

Unable to wrest Kashmir from India, Pakistan chose terrorism as its strategy to undermine India in Kashmir and force its withdrawal. Pakistan-based terrorists have committed assassinations, airline hijackings and many bombing attacks against Indian targets. When India confronts Pakistan, the latter denies its obvious complicity and refuses to take action against the terror networks it harbors.

<snip>

Last March, India gave the Pakistani government a list of fifty terrorists operating from Pakistan believed to have been involved in attacks, some going back twenty years. Among them reportedly were Dawood Ibrahim (wanted in connection with bombings in Mumbai in 1993), LeT chieftain Hafiz Saeed and LeT commander Azam Cheema as well as Illyas Kashmiri, one of the leaders of the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan has not, and certainly will not, surrender the men because they are protected by the Pakistani military and/or the ISI. Their value to Pakistan as weapons against India outweighs, in Pakistani terms, the damage Pakistan may suffer from America and other nations for doing so. That judgment is right, because President Obama isn't likely to hold Pakistan accountable.

<snip>

Just as the Pakistani commitment to terrorism results from the Kashmir dispute, so does the long-term solution to it. And here's what some Republican presidential aspirant should say about it.

We have sacrificed too many American lives at the altar of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has failed in Iraq, and is failing in Afghanistan. We need to withdraw from both nations as quickly as we can and focus on forcing the nations that sponsor terrorism -- Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- to cease doing so.

Pakistan is a natural enemy of the U.S., not a friend. Their cooperation in Afghanistan -- which has been vital to the war in Afghanistan -- comes at too high a price. Pakistan depends on our aid -- now over $3 billion a year -- to keep up the pretense that their government is stable and that they cooperate with us in the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That aid should be stopped forthwith.

India, Pakistan's blood enemy, is a natural American ally. To deal with Pakistan's terror-sponsorship, we should -- quietly and slowly -- re-engage with India.

They need to know that America understands Pakistan's terror war against them and doesn't object to Indian rule in Kashmir so long as Pakistan's aggression continues. We should ask for permission to covertly base our forces in India to operate against Pakistani terrorism, and for them to join our covert actions against that threat.

<snip>

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/1 ... s-pakistan

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 May 2011 20:28

X-rays reveal 513 US-bound migrants crammed in trucks

410 of the migrants were from Guatemala, 47 from El Salvador, 32 from Ecuador, 12 from India, six from Nepal, three from China and one each from Japan, the Dominican Republic and Honduras.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 18 May 2011 23:01

Japan...really! Strange!

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 18 May 2011 23:34

abhishek_sharma wrote:US VP Lyndon Johnson in India: Good fotus

Is that ABV in the back in this pic?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassyn ... 606895735/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 May 2011 23:56

The person with glasses is Dr. P Subbarayan, father of Gen. P. Kumaramangalm and his brother Mohan Kumaramanglam.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 May 2011 02:35

India has done its bit to relieve Pak fears of an attack:Jones

Pakistan has been extremely reluctant to positively respond to friendly gestures from India despite the Manmohan Singh-led government doing ''quite a bit'' to relieve its fears of an Indian attack, a former US national security advisor told lawmakers.

Observing that Pakistan may be making too much noise of a "modest" Indian presence in Afghanistan, former National Security Advisor James Jones said Prime Minister Singh has been "visionary" in taking political risks to defuse tense situations and Pakistanis need to "seize this moment".

"I think India has done quite a bit to relieve the fear that there might be an Indian attack. I think Prime Minister Singh has been visionary and taken political risk in India to do this.

"We've had some benefits in the sense that Pakistan has been able to take some of its forces off the Indian border and bring it over to the west," General (rtd) Jones told US Senators at a Congressional hearing on Pakistan.

Jones, who was Obama's National Security Advisor for nearly two years, said for Pakistanis even a single Indian in Afghanistan can be too much.

"If the Pakistanis can seize this moment and we can pivot in a new direction with more clarity, more precision and more accountability, then something good might come of this. But it's going to be difficult," he said.

Jones said it will take "political courage and military support of that political courage" to recognise that there is a better way with regard to India.

"But so far they have been extremely reluctant and in some cases resistant to grasping that opportunity," he said.

Responding to a question from Senator Chris Coons, Jones said the Indian presence in Afghanistan is modest.

"But from the way I've come to understand Pakistan's view with regard to India, one Indian would be too much in Afghanistan. So there's no way to satisfy that, except to continue to be a good interlocutor between India and Pakistan," he observed.

Senator Richard Lugar, Ranking Republican of the Committee, said India-Pakistan relationship is clearly at the heart of the problem.

The Obama Administration, Jones said, has tried to play an indirect role in defusing tensions and carrying messages back and forth, and encouraging foreign ministers to meet.

"I think Prime Minister Singh deserves a lot of credit for taking a political risk in his own country to show a more reasonable side in terms of this issue, by working to defuse tensions along the border. He showed great restraint after the Mumbai attack," he said.

Jones said the situation in region presents some unique challenges, but it also provides unique opportunities.

"I think that this is one problem that the Pakistanis will have to think very hard about as they decide how they want to play in this regional situation that they find themselves in the centre of on both sides.

India, he observed, stepped up during the floods and offered USD 25 million worth aid "and would have done more if they'd been properly thanked and there had been a reciprocal gesture of goodwill".

Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has just returned from Islamabad, said Pakistan is careful to not over commit to doing anything in Afghanistan, because of the India factor.

"Unfortunately, their concern with India has something to do with Afghanistan. If you're looking at it a little bit through their eyes, you're a little bit worried perhaps that you have India to their east, Afghanistan to the West.

"And an Indian presence in Afghanistan just incites their fears for the long-term future," he said.

Jones said in 2009, when Obama assumed the presidency and turned his attention to the region, th US opted to consider more of a strategic approach.

"Instead of dealing with the three countries -- India, Pakistan and Afghanistan -- separately, it became clear that increasingly we couldn't talk about Afghanistan without talking about Pakistan and vice-versa, simply because of the border and the safe havens," he said.

"We adopted and, I thought, did a pretty good job in consulting with both the civilian and military leadership in all three countries, to include India.

"We put together the elements of a long-term strategic partnership plan with all three countries. We emphasised in this partnership that there would be three main pillars to it: the security pillar, an economic pillar, and governance and rule of law pillar, particularly for Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said.

He said among the goals laid out for the region was for Pakistan to shun terrorism.

"For Pakistan it was, from our viewpoint, a fairly straightforward request of renouncing terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy and to be able to show a willingness to move, in due time and within means and capabilities, against other safe havens and terrorist networks in their country," he said.

He noted that the Obama administration has spent a lot of time trying to help the Indo-Pak relationship following the Mumbai attack.

"Obviously (we were) very concerned that another attack might happen and, if such an attack took place, particularly on Indian soil, it would be very difficult to control the reaction of India," he said.

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 19 May 2011 03:27

ramana wrote:The person with glasses is Dr. P Subbarayan, father of Gen. P. Kumaramangalm and his brother Mohan Kumaramanglam.

Thanks, but is the person next to him ABV?

If so, it would be a rare pic with three PMs in it (unless the person partially hidden by Morarji Desai is LBS).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 May 2011 03:34

I don't think its ABV. But the person hidden by Morarji Desai is LBS.

Also note JLN grip on LBJ.

jiteshn · Post by **jiteshn** » 19 May 2011 13:33

^that guy in the back(in suit and shades) totally looks like shourie