India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[Sanku]

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/us-d ... 61197.html

US drone strikes in Pakistan part of bigger conspiracy against India?

In a secret deal, Pakistan allowed US drone strikes on its soil on the condition that the unmanned aircraft would stay away from its nuclear facilities and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India, according to a media report.

Under secret negotiations between Pakistani intelligence agency ISI and the US's CIA during 2004, the terms of the bargain were set, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Pakistani intelligence officials insisted that drones fly only in narrow parts of the tribal areas ensuring that they won't venture where Islamabad did not want the Americans going: Pakistan's nuclear facilities, and the mountain camps where Kashmiri militants were trained for attacks in India, the paper said.

Pakistani officials insisted that they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets. The deal was reached after CIA agreed to kill tribal warlord Nek Muhammad who was marked by Islamabad as an enemy, the daily reported.

[Nandu]

^^^Where, exactly, did you hear that, Philip?

[SSridhar]

From the Wikileaks
Shut out of BARC, US scientist foresaw Indian Nuclear test - The Hindu

“As aura of Indo-Pak victory and 1970/72 electoral successes dim and as public disenchantment with PM and GoI mount reflecting increased economic distress it occurs to us in Bombay that in addition usual scapegoats, ‘demonstration’ of a nuclear device for peaceful purposes in not too distant future,” the U.S. Consul-General in Bombay wrote in the cable (1973NEWDE03743_b, secret) .

What is this 'Indo-Pak victory' ? I am sure that the Americans never really disabused themselves of this entrenched India-Pakistan equality even when they spoke of a 'different history' for India during Bush Jr's days. They probably took a tactical retreat and have begun to resume the old equation all over again as recent events show.

On the issue of a nuclear device test, why should it have come as a surprise to the US ? And, pray, what sort of hollow analysis is this which only talks about electoral prospects and economic distress as triggers for India demonstrating its bomb making capability ?

[svenkat]

India unhappy at US clean chit to Navymen

India has indicated it is dissatisfied with the United States Navy’s clean chit to its sailors who, in July last fired on a fishing boat off the coast of Dubai, killing Arumugam Sekar and injuring three others, all from Tamil Nadu.

Given a heavily redacted probe report through informal channels, India awaits a full report and until then wants the trial in the United Arab Emirates — where a case was registered after the shooting — to go on.

All that the U.S. Navy has reportedly done so far is give small amounts to the kin of the deceased and to the injured. Officially, India is yet to receive investigation reports from both the U.S. and the UAE. “Once these reports are received, we will decide on further steps,” said sources in the government.

A U.S. Navy report cited the failure of the boat to alter its course despite the firing of warning shots as one of the grounds for exonerating its personnel. But this claim was contested by one of the injured, Pandu Sanadhan. He denied that the American warship fired warning shots. “This is not the first time for us to go out in the boat and we all know what a warning is,” the 26-year-old said.

From his hospital bed at Dubai’s Jebel Ali port, Muthu Muniraj — injured in the legs in the machinegun fire — told Reuters the fishing boat crew “had [received] no warning at all from the ship.”

The U.S. Navy report concluded that its sailors were innocent because USNS Rappahannock had abided by the appropriate rules of engagement while firing at the small boat approaching the ship at high speed. The “use of force was appropriate” as the smaller 15-metre boat was deemed a threat, it said.

But Mr. Muniraj said his boat was “speeding up [only] to try and go around them [the U.S. ship] and then suddenly we got fired at.”

The U.S. Navy’s probe seemed to fully endorse its controversial initial response that the naval vessel had fired upon a small motor vessel “after it disregarded warnings and rapidly approached the U.S. ship.” “In accordance with Navy force protection procedures, sailors on USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) used a series of non-lethal, pre-planned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force.” The U.S. crew had “repeatedly attempted to warn the vessel’s operators to turn away from their deliberate approach before firing .50-calibre machine gun rounds.”

In India, the tragedy invoked perceptions of American high-handedness and led to demands for an apology. The Pentagon expressed “regret” over the incident, and the western media added context to the use of force by citing the USS Cole incident of 2000, in which American crew members failed to take timely action to stop an explosives-laden boat from smashing into the warship, killing 17 personnel on board.

In Delhi, the U.S. Embassy once again offered its condolences to the victim’s family and reiterated the Navy’s version that the boat’s apparent collision course and failure to respond to attempts to warn it represented an imminent threat. The embassy said the entire event occurred in less than two minutes, limiting the ability of the ship to employ other warning methods. But it felt the tragedy should trigger a rethink on how to handle such issues. One way could be exploring the use of different warning devices to communicate when small boats are perceived as a threat.

Five Indians, including the three injured, left for home in Tamil Nadu on February 24.

[abhishek_sharma]

Sri Srinivasan, the Supreme Court Nominee-in-Waiting

[Nandu]

Yes, this is of strategic importance.

"No More Foreign Medical Graduates for Residency Training Programs After 2015, Says Journal of American Medical Association"

http://www.medicalopedia.org/3946/no-mo ... sociation/

[ramana]

This was in the works for sometime. As a corollary they will increase the medical admissions and the number of residencies.

[Prem]

The missile tests you missed while watching North Korea
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... orth_korea
( What does this Qooinparsad wants to convey)

Last Sunday, India fired a medium-range, nuclear-capable Agni-II missile. The missile, which has a range of over 1,200 miles, was launched successfully from Wheeler Island in the Bay of Bengal. Then, on Wednesday, Pakistan tested its own Hatf-IV/Shaheen-I missile. Pakistani officials said the missile successfully hit its target at sea, and demonstrates the country's ability to deliver a nuclear payload with a range of more than 500 miles. The dueling missile tests aren't cause for alarm, though, says Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center. "These tests are frequent with Islamabad and New Delhi keeping each other informed," he told FP. "Both governments have lowered the rhetoric recently. Pakistan is pausing for elections. So expect no officially sponsored crises." "Missile tests by India and Pakistan are relatively routine and frequent," added Gary Samore, a former Obama administration WMD czar and now executive director for research at Harvard's Belfer Center. "We don't pay much attention to them." So we can all breathe easy -- for today at least.

[Nandu]

This was in the works for sometime. As a corollary they will increase the medical admissions and the number of residencies.

Well, I don't see any increase in residency seats yet.

[Mort Walker]

^^^How many FMGs are coming to the US from India now?

[Philip]

Obama's failed promise-to close down Camp Gitmo.It is an international embarrassment that the so-called most powerful democracy continues to incarcerate prisoners,many of whom have found to be innocent,in a 21srt century version of Nazi concentration camps.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72215.html

Guantanamo Bay - President Obama's shame: The forgotten prisoners of America's own Gulag

No charge, but no release. Yesterday the anger of hunger-striking detainees boiled over in clashes with their jailers

1 / 3
Related articles

Obama's U-turn on Guantanamo seals fate of lone Briton

Hopes rise for Guantanamo's last UK inmate

Guantanamo man may keep book profit

Guantanamo is 10 years old – and the last British prisoner is 'falling apart'

Guy Adams: Camp shows hollowness of Obama's rhetoric

For long periods we forget it, even though it is a human rights disgrace surely unequalled in recent American history. But now, 11 years after it opened, the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay is demanding our attention once again, thanks to the largest hunger strike by detainees in its infamous history. Al-Qa'ida has been decimated; America's war in Iraq is over and the one in Afghanistan soon will be. But the scandal of Guantanamo endures.

Today, 166 inmates remain. Three have been convicted, while a further 30 will face trial. Fifty or so are in a legal no-man's-land, deemed by the authorities too dangerous to release but against whom there is not enough evidence to prosecute. And then there are 86 who have been cleared for release, but who instead rot in a hell from which there is no escape. No wonder yesterday more than 160 of them were involved in clashes with guards that led to what the US said were "less than lethal" rounds being fired.

In 2009, Barack Obama entered office vowing to close Guantanamo within a year. Perhaps he should have listened more closely to his predecessor. George W Bush, too, wanted to shut Guantanamo; even he came to understand it was perhaps the most powerful single recruiting agent for global terrorism. But, he warned presciently, the devil was in the detail – or, more exactly, in Congress.

Mr Obama's planned to transfer most inmates to a high-security prison in Illinois, but that idea was blocked. Then Congress made things harder still, first scotching a plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the organiser of 9/11 and Guantanamo's best-known prisoner, in a civil court in the US, and effectively banning the use of public money to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the US or abroad.

Even so, Dan Fried, the special envoy in charge of closing the prison, managed to resettle 40 detainees during Obama's first term. But at the end of January, Mr Fried was reassigned and not replaced, his duties incorporated into the State Department's existing legal office. For the 86 inmates eligible for release it was the last straw. Within a week the hunger strikes started.

Detainees tell their lawyers that up to 130 now are taking part. The Pentagon claims they number no more than 40, of whom a dozen are being force-fed. Given the lack of independent access to Guantanamo, the exact number is impossible to establish.

Like others before it, the protest may have been sparked by complaints that guards were abusing detainees' copies of the Koran. But even the Pentagon admits the real reason was despair. Inmates were "devastated" by the signal that the administration no longer believed that closing the prison was a realistic priority, Marine General John Kelly told Congress, so "they want to turn the heat up, get it back in the media". And who can blame them?

By all accounts, the atmosphere within Guantanamo has never been as bleak. The Soviet Union had gulags, "but no Soviet gulag ever had 52 per cent of its prisoners cleared for release," says Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, who has been representing Guantanamo detainees almost since the place opened in January 2002.

One of his clients is the Saudi-born British resident Shaker Aamer, captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo in February 2002. He has been cleared not once but twice, in 2007 and then by the Obama administration in 2009. But the US won't let him go, not even back to its trusty ally Britain, where Aamer's family live. Fluent in English, Mr Aamer is regarded as a "leader" among the detainees. Many suspect that the Americans will never free him, because he knows so much, and would speak out.

Today, even George Orwell would have been pressed to conceive the plight of the 86: cleared for release, but denied freedom, using a hunger strike as their last weapon, only to be kept alive by the very people who will not let them go. On Thursday, Mr Aamer gave the most recent account of events at Guantanamo to Mr Stafford Smith in an hour-long phone conversation, described by his lawyer in a sworn affidavit.

Mr Aamer is participating in the hunger strike, although he is not yet being force-fed. But other harassments abound. He is in Guantanamo's Camp Five, where "non-compliant" prisoners are held. His health is poor and deteriorating. There is noise throughout the night. It is getting harder to speak to lawyers. Then there are the FCEs, or "forcible cell extractions", to use the euphemism for being picked up and shackled by a team of six guards who burst into your cell. "They FCE me just to give me water," Mr Aamer recounted.

Each day, he says, there are 10 to 15 "code yellow" incidents, when a prisoner on hunger strike collapses or passes out. Even contact with lawyers is a mixed blessing. "Each phone call [from a lawyer] is a curse. They hear what I am saying to you and use that against me to make things worse," he told Mr Stafford Smith. The situation, in short, is grimmer even than during what Mr Aamer calls "Miller time". For ordinary residents of the US, the phrase advertises a well-known brand of beer. But in the extra-territorial Hades of Guantanamo, the reference is to General Geoffrey Miller, the prison's second commandant before he was sent to Iraq in August 2003 to advise on "more productive" interrogations of prisoners, that is, to "Gitmo-ise" Iraq.

The hunger strike is succeeding in returning the spotlight to Guantanamo. On the day Mr Stafford Smith talked to Mr Aamer, Chuck Hagel, the Defence Secretary, told Congress he favoured closing the prison, while leading human rights groups wrote to Mr Obama demanding again that Guantanamo be shut and its inmates either released or tried in civilian court. But it seems optimism bordering on insanity to believe these entreaties will succeed where every other has failed.

Mr Aamer, by all accounts, is a proud man not given to self-pity. But by the end of the phone call, Mr Stafford Smith declared, his client seemed to be crying. "They are killing us, so it is hard to keep calm. It's hard to understand what they are doing, or why. No matter how much I show you I am tough, in reality I am dying inside. If you want us to die, leave us alone. But they do not want us to die, and they do not want us to live like a human being. What is worse than that?" What indeed?

Forced feeding

International medical groups have denounced the forced-feeding of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, which invariably involves strapping detainees into restraint chairs (marketed as a "padded cell on wheels" by their manufacturer), pushing a tube up their nose and down their throat, and pumping liquids into their stomach. Although it is considered a method of torture by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the US military insists forced-feeding is a form of "medical intervention" and that the practice is less aggressive than it was.

Forced-feeding first received widespread public attention in the Edwardian era, when it was used against hunger-striking suffragettes who were held down as the instruments were painfully inserted into their bodies, an experience that has been likened to rape. This technique was also performed on hunger-striking Irish Republicans: in 1917, Thomas Ashe died as a result of complications from the procedure.

Forced-feeding in prisons has been outlawed since 1975 when the World Medical Association issued the Declaration of Tokyo, guidelines for physicians concerning torture and other cruel or degrading treatment in relation to detention. The declaration stipulates that: "Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgement concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially."

Katie Grant

[CRamS]

"Missile tests by India and Pakistan are relatively routine and frequent," added Gary Samore, a former Obama administration WMD czar and now executive director for research at Harvard's Belfer Center. "We don't pay much attention to them." So we can all breathe easy -- for today at least.

Yeah right bloody a@ss hole slime ball, you don't pay any attention. You fake non attention because you make sure, through don't ask don't tell or quiet "facilitation" in diplomatic lingo, as your terrorist Paki munnas get a few toys and scare India to be in the South Asia hole you dug for it. The day India gets out of that hole, or your terrorist Paki munnas sink further into hell, and then India tests even a pipsqueak missile, you will be screaming through your mouthpieces in CNN/Fox/BBC.

Yesterday, there was some professor who had an op-ed in NYT calling to bomb NK. I sent him the following letter. Lets see if he responds.

Bombing NK

Professor Suri,

I am a private citizen with a deep interest in US foreign policy.

I read your article in today's NYT on the threat North Korea (NK) poses, and your call to bomb NK

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/opini ... -late.html

You cite several reasons to justify your call, and perhaps many would agree with you, I don't know. But what fascinates me about such a hawkish policy is against whom it is applied: against NK as you suggest, and against Iran that others have.

But if I look at who has has done the maximum damage to US interests over the past several years, the only country that comes to mind is Pakistan. If one looks at the number of casualties, in the 1000s, that US has suffered in the AfPak theater, they were inflicted by Pakistan's terrorist proxies. Pakistan has double crossed US, and but for Pakistan's perfidy, US objectives in Afghanistan would have succeeded. One also knows that Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal. It has long range missiles. And it has been been a brazen nuclear proliferatior, especially to NK.

Thus, it fascinates those like me who are US foreign policy watchers on the dichotomy in US approach to NK & Iran on the one side, and Pakistan on the other. Why is a pathological nuke proliferating, state sponsor of terrorism like Pakistan is offered billions of $s of military/economic aid to induce it towards good behavior, while such hawkishness on NK & Iran? One is at a loss to understand what crimes have NK and Iran committed that Pakistan has not?

I would appreciate your feedback and thoughts.

Cheers
CRamS

[Vayutuvan]

Good letter.

[ramana]

Folks please use the other thread.

Thanks,

ramana

[Anurag]

The United States, India and Pakistan: To the Brink and Back (cross posting)

[Prem]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-immigration-bi ... nance.html
US immigration bill could slow Indian outsourcers

MUMBAI, India (AP) — Low cost efficiency put India's outsourcing companies at the heart of global business and created a multibillion dollar industry that for years has skated over criticism it was eliminating white collar jobs in rich nations. Now, the industry's long-held fears of a backlash are being realized in its crucial U.S. market.
Provisions in an overhaul of U.S. immigration law will close loopholes that allow outsourcing companies, Indian and American, to pay guest workers in the U.S. at rates often below wages for equivalently skilled Americans. The proposed changes are in line with President Barack Obama's vows to make it tougher for U.S. companies to replace American workers with cheaper labor abroad, either by opening factories overseas or subcontracting their work to outsourcing companies.
The cost to the Indian companies, which do everything from running call centers to managing the massive amounts of transactional data generated by banks, could run to several hundred million dollars in lost profits.India's $108 billion outsourcing industry has shrugged off bad publicity in the U.S. and other countries since it began blossoming more than a decade ago. It has plenty of supporters among global corporations who prized outsourcing's ability to lower their costs and boost profits. But with the world economy stagnating, and U.S. unemployment at stubbornly high levels since the recession, a day of reckoning appears to be looming.
At issue in the U.S. are high-skill worker visas called H-1B that have been dubbed the "outsourcing visa" by critics who say the system allows companies to bring in cheaper tech workers from abroad instead of hiring Americans.

[Karan Dixit]

India's grand solar plans threatened by ugly US trade spat


In a tit-for-tat trade battle between the US and India over solar power, what is certain is that the environment will be the loser ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/t ... trade-spat

[Bharath.Subramanyam]

US Government regularly interacted with Gujarat & Modi abusing NGOs - from Wikileaks

http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/05NEWDELHI7725_a.html

Scribd document showing only the Gujarat Relevant paragraphs:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137802032/US- ... -Wikileaks


Indian NGOs: Partners and Resources
-----------------------------------

45. (SBU) We interact regularly with a cross-section of
NGOs, both religious and secular, that encourage inter-faith
dialogue, secularism, and actively counter religious
extremism of all kinds, as well as providing material comfort
to victims of hate crimes. We ensure these NGO leaders
participate in the IV program; USAID and PA ensure that they
have access to USG funding. We express our support by
visibly attending their public events. We make sure that
their information on the activities of extremists is included
in the Human Rights Report and the Religious Freedom Report.

46. (C) State and local governments in western India have a
complicated relationship with NGOs working on human rights
issues and on religious tolerance. NGOs often criticize
state bodies for not doing enough to deal with extremism. In
Gujarat in particular, NGOs have pointed out just how
widespread the state was involved in the fueling of the 2002
riots and how it has failed to bring those responsible to
justice. We tend to support such NGO views on Gujarat. NGOs
also report that the Gujarat state government is actively
working against them, using a variety of legal means such as
tax laws as well as political harassment. The state
government's activities in Gujarat have not contributed to a
healing of communal wounds that were incurred in 2002, and in
fact may be making extremist views more popular among
frustrated and scared Muslims in Gujarat, if many of our
contacts are to be believed. Still, in our view the vast
majority of Gujarat Muslims are as tolerant and moderate as
most Muslims elsewhere in India.

47. (SBU) We interact with many NGOs that focus on combating
extremism. Among those we meet with on a regular basis are
the following:

-- South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre: a network of
individuals that investigates, documents, and disseminates
information on human rights protections and violations
(http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc)

-- Asian Centre for Human Rights: promotes human rights
throughout Asia (http://www.achrweb.org)

-- Centre for Social Research: leading women's rights
organization (http://www.csrindia.org)

-- Druk National Congress: promotes human rights in Bhutan
(http://www.bhutandnc.com)

-- Institute for Conflict Management Studies: leading
think-tank on the causes and ideologies of terrorism and
extremism (http://www.satp.org)

-- Center for Study of Society and Secularism: promotes
secularism and inter-faith dialogue (http://www.csss-isla.com)

-- Citizens for Justice and Peace: uses the Indian legal
system to enforce India's laws on secular tolerance and
anti-communalism (http://www.sabrang.com)

-- Society for the Promotion of Rational Thinking: promotes
communal harmony in a state that was rocked by communal
violence in 2002 and where reconciliation and justice have
still not been achieved (http://www.mysprat.org)

48. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website:
(http//www.state.sgov/p/sa/newdelhi)
Mulford

[chetak]

Rajiv Gandhi's role in Boeing deal

Kavita Chowdhury in New Delhi

The recent Kissinger Cables released by Wikileaks might have suggested that former prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, could have been an "entrepreneur" for Swedish aircraft manufacturer Saab-Scania for its Viggen fighter aircraft. But, Gandhi was, perhaps, more than just that.

A Business Standard investigation reveals Gandhi's name also figured in the decision-making process that led to the controversial purchase of three Boeing 737 aircraft by Indian Airlines in 1976-77.The purchase and Gandhi's role in it have been described in the report of the Justice J C Shah Commission, which probed the excesses during the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi for almost 21 months from June 26, 1975.

The Boeing deal, concluded in February 1977, was valued at Rs 30.55 crore (Rs 305.5 million). The Kissinger Cables, containing American diplomatic messages, had assessed only Gandhi's "family" connections as valuable in aircraft procurement deals.

The Shah Commission report, on the other hand, in the section dealing with the Boeing aircraft purchase, goes a step ahead to point out that "the visit of Rajiv Gandhi to the office of the chairman of Indian Airlines where he was shown the financial projections by the director of finance, apparently under the instructions of the chairman, was a procedure which was totally outside the ordinary course of business".

The report notes Gandhi was ushered into the office of the IA chairman as an "Avro Commander" and "son of Indira Gandhi". He was then working for IA and joined politics much later - after the death of his brother, Sanjay, in 1980. The procedure for procurement of the three Boeing aircraft broke all standard rules and requirements, the commission had concluded.
Not only was the decision to zero in on three Boeing 737 aircraft - at a total cost of Rs 30.55 crore - taken without the mandatory "system study", the letter of intent was also sent to Boeing, and an order placed subsequently, after the Cabinet overruled objections raised by the Public Investment Board.

The commission records from the affidavit of N K Mukarji, the then civil aviation secretary, that "Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) was under the impression that the ministry of tourism and civil aviation was obstructing the purchase of the Boeing 737 aircraft". Then on, efforts were made to "haste(n) in rushing through the deal".

The story begins in May 1976, when a special group was constituted to study how to augment the IA aircraft fleet.

The tentative timeline fixed for induction of the aircraft was from October 1976 to March 1979. Boeing's competitors were the F-27 and British Aircraft Corporation's BAC111, which had completed route testing, whereas "Boeing 737 was considered on the basis of technical data supplied by the manufacturer but without any route testing".

In August 1976, therefore, it was decided that an Interline Committee would go into the details and study these proposals. However, in September 1976, even before the committee could come up with its findings, a meeting took place in the office of A H Mehta, the then acting chairman of IA, where Rajiv Gandhi was present. Also present were Kirpal Chand IA's director (finance), and A M Kapoor, IA's director (operations).

The commission observed there were "conflicting versions as to how Rajiv Gandhi happened to be there at the meeting". According to the IA chairman, it was Kapoor who rang him up requesting to bring along with him an "Avro Commander" to discuss certain technical and maintenance problems. However, he (Mehta) noted the Avro Commander who accompanied Kapoor happened to be Capt Rajiv Gandhi.

But Kapoor gave a slightly different version of the meeting, according to the commission. According to that submission, "Rajiv Gandhi was already in the room of the IA Chairman when Kapoor walked in" and was shown financial projections by the director (finance) Kirpal Chand.

The Shah Commission report also brings out another set of conflicting versions on the sequence of events. Chand, while testifying before the commission as a witness, said he had shown the financial figures to Gandhi at the instance of the IA chairman. In his submission, however, the chairman said he "did not remember having given any such directions to the director (finance) to show the financial projections to Gandhi".

It is significant that Kapoor, who according to Mehta brought Gandhi along with him to the meeting, was reported to have said that "he did not understand why there was so much delay in the progress of the case dealing with the purchase of the Boeing aircraft, which... were operational and technically superior".

Gandhi's presence in the procurement process ends at this point, according to the account of the Shah Commission. But that the deal came under political pressure was clear from subsequent recording of witnesses in the commission's report.

On October 29, 1976, N K Mukarji received a phone call from P N Dhar, secretary to the prime minister, Indira Gandhi. The Interline Committee had not finalised its views by then, though the September meeting in Mehta's room, where Rajiv Gandhi had been shown the "financial projections", had already taken place.

According to Mukarji, Dhar had "conveyed to him that it was the prime minister's impression that the tourism and civil aviation ministry was obstructing the purchase of Boeing 737 aircraft by Indian Airlines".

Mukarji wrote back to Dhar the same day that there was no proposal about the purchase of aircraft by IA pending with the ministry, but the matter had been referred to an Interline Committee and that it had been decided at a meeting chaired by Raj Bahadur, the then civil aviation and tourism minister, earlier the same day, that the deadline for the Boeing offer would be extended from the end of October to December 31, 1976.

The same day, Bahadur called Mukarji to attend a meeting where Mehta and Chand were also present. While the meeting was on, the civil aviation & tourism minister received a call from R K Dhawan, then additional private secretary to the prime minister; and the minister was heard saying: "Yes, Dhawan sahib, I am going into the matter with my officers, who are with me."

This was the meeting where Mehta suggested a letter of intent be placed on Boeing before its latest offer expired on November 1, 1976. Not surprisingly, the following day, the IA management sought permission to issue a letter of intent to Boeing for the purchase of three Boeing 737 aircraft, pending the receipt of the recommendations of the Interline Committee and the final decision by the IA board.

"This letter was actually handed over to the secretary at a meeting held on October 30, 1976, and it was agreed after discussion that the requisite letter of intent could be issued, subject to the condition that it did not involve any commitment for purchase of aircraft," the commission's report observed.

But things moved really fast; just three days later, on November 3, the Interline Committee recommended the purchase of Boeing 737 aircraft. And, by the third week of the same month, the IA board, too, had approved the selection and sought the government's approval.

However, trouble started thereafter. Already, Nitin Desai, consultant in the Project Appraisal Division of the Planning Commission at that time, had insisted on a system study report on the suitability of Boeing 737 aircraft for IA. At the meetings of the Public Investment Board on January 10 and 13, 1977, it was decided a system study should be undertaken and completed by IA by the end of February 1977.

This upset the top management of the airline and also the new civil aviation and tourism minister, K Raghuramaiah, who had taken charge of the ministry on December 24, 1976.

The Shah Commission report notes that Raghuramaiah, was "visibly annoyed over the postponement of the decision to purchase the Boeing aircraft".

Raghuramaiah also admitted to the commission that he had been directed by Dhawan to look into the matter urgently and what emanated from Dhawan was taken as "emanating from the prime minister". He went on to add that as minister in charge of parliamentary affairs in his earlier role, he had "obtained the resignations of Uma Shankar Diskhit, Swaran Singh, Raj Bahadur" and a number of other ministers just because Dhawan had told him to do so".

He took what Dhawan had said as coming from the prime minister herself, notes the commission. Raghuramaiah did not wait very long after PIB's rejection of the Boeing proposal on January 13. By the first week of February, he had already overruled Mukarji's suggestion to implement PIB's recommendation to conduct a system study and sent the proposal to the Cabinet.

The Union Cabinet met on February 5 to clear the proposal. Three days later, on February 8, 1977, Raghuramaiah informed Kirpal Chand that the Cabinet had approved the proposal to buy three Boeing aircraft. The "contract was signed immediately", on February 9, 1977, in which Boeing gave a discount of $15,000 per aircraft.

The Shah Commission notes the "infirmity" that the "delivery schedule limit given by Boeing company had expired on February 7". For a deal that was rushed through all along, why was there a delay of three days between the Cabinet clearance and the communication to the IA management to sign the deal?

Raghuramaiah says in submission before the Shah Commission that after the Cabinet meeting, Indira Gandhi told him about "a report that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal about some deal with the Boeing Company". She had asked him to wait before the purchase order was placed. Three days later, she told him to "go ahead, place the order".

Dramatis personae

Rajiv Gandhi: Avro Commander and son of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

A H Mehta: Acting chairman of Indian Airlines

Kirpal Chand: Director (finance), Indian Airlines

A M Kapoor: Director (operations), Indian Airlines

N K Mukarji: Secretary, civil aviation ministry

Raj Bahadur: Civil aviation and tourism minister (succeeded by K Raghuramaiah)

K Raghuramaiah: Civil aviation & tourism minister from December 24, 1976

P N Dhar: Secretary to PM Indira Gandhi

R K Dhawan: Additional private secretary to PM Indira Gandhi

Nitin Desai: Consultant, Plan panel

Sequence of events

May 1976: Special group constituted to study how to augment the Indian Airlines aircraft fleet.

August 1976: Indian Airlines board decides an Interline Committee would study the details of the proposals of aircraft in contention - the BAC 111, F-27 and Boeing 737.

September 1976: A meeting is held in the room of A H Mehta, where Rajiv Gandhi is present. Kirpal Chand and Capt A M Kapoor also present. Rajiv Gandhi is shown the financial projections by Chand.

October 29, 1976: P N Dhar calls N K Mukarji conveying the PM's displeasure with the civil aviation ministry for obstructing Indian Airlines' purchase of the Boeing 737. The same day, Aviation Minister Raj Bahadur holds meeting with the aviation secretary and I A chairman. The minister assures R K Dhawan the "matter" is being looked into.

October 30, 1976: Letter of Intent to Boeing Company for three 737 aircraft handed over to the aviation secretary. The offer is to expire on Nov 1, 1976.

November 3, 1976: Interline Committee recommends the purchase of Boeing 737 aircraft.

November 24, 1976: The Indian Airlines board approves the management's decision to seek government approval for purchase of Boeing 737.

January 10 and 13, 1977: It is decided at Public Investment Board meetings that a 'system study' should be undertaken and completed by the Indian Airlines by the end of Feb 1977. Minister K Raghuramaiah is "visibly annoyed over the postponement of the decision to purchase the Boeing aircraft".

February 5, 1977: The minister overrules the secretary and Union Cabinet clears the proposal for purchase of Boeing aircraft. As a news report on Boeing appears in the Wall Street Journal, PM Indira Gandhi advises Raghuramaiah to hold on.

February 8, 1977: Indira Gandhi gives the go-ahead; the civil aviation ministry sanctions purchase.

February 9, 1977: Indian Airlines signs contract with Boeing, obtaining a discount of $15,000 per aircraft.


son of gandhi received payments

[arun]

A reminder from C Christine Fair by way of some pretty convoluted arguments as to why the notion that India and the US are somehow “Natural Allies” needs to be treated with scepticism.

Her solution to the problem of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s notion that the “only assets it believes works for it: jihad under a the security of its ever-expanding nuclear umbrella” is to reward them with a civilian nuclear deal which she admits that she strongly opposed when it came to US’s deal with India.

In case the Pakistani refuse to accept this generous nuclear reward for “rolling back its nuclearized jihad” then C. Christine Fair recommends that the US reward the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by opposing India’s territorial claims over Pakistan Occupied Jammu & Kashmir by declaring “support to render the Line of Control cutting through those portions of Kashmir administered by Pakistan and India as the international border”:

Can This Alliance Be Saved? Salvaging the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship

[arun]

Possibly the Chairman of our National Security Advisory Board, Shyam Saran, was talking of people like C Christine Fair when he had this to say:

More recently, Pakistan's relentless build up of its nuclear arsenal, its refusal to allow the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to undertake multilateral negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and its threat to deploy theatre nuclear weapons to meet a so-called Indian conventional armed thrust across the border have all been laid at the door of the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, which it is claimed has upset the "nuclear balance" in South Asia. The votaries of non-proliferation in the West have criticised the Agreement as having allowed "exceptionalism" in favour of India, which has encouraged a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. Pakistan openly demands that it too be given a nuclear deal like India, otherwise it would continue to produce larger quantities of fissile material and push the nuclear threshold even lower in order to retain the credibility of its nuclear deterrent. The exception provided to India rests on India's universally acknowledged and exceptional record as a responsible nuclear state with an unblemished history in non-proliferation as contrasted with Pakistan's equally exceptional record as a source of serial proliferation and in possession of a nuclear programme born in deceit and deception. There is no moral equivalence in this respect between the two countries and this point must be driven home every time Pakistan claims parity.

The full text of the NSAB Chairman’s speech is available at the below weblink:

Is India’s Nuclear Deterrent Credible?

[Agnimitra]

U.S.-Japan-India Trilateral Meeting

Today at the State Department, the United States hosted Japan and India for their fourth trilateral dialogue, exchanging views on a wide range range of regional and global issues of mutual interest.

This discussion was co-chaired by Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert O. Blake, Jr. and Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James P. Zumwalt. The Japanese delegation was headed by Deputy Vice Foreign Minister for Foreign Policy Kenji Hiramatsu and Deputy Director-General Kanji Yamanouchi and the Indian delegation was headed by External Affairs Ministry Joint Secretaries DB Venkatesh Varma and Vikram Doraiswami.

These discussions focused on the prospect of greater Indo-Pacific commercial connectivity and regional and maritime security, and cooperation in multilateral fora. All sides welcomed the frank and comprehensive nature of the discussions and agreed the talks help advance shared values and interests. The group agreed to meet again in the fall in Tokyo to continue their deliberations.

[ramana]

Why here? Indira Nooyi is Pepsico CEO diva:

Pepsico pulls ad for Mountain Dew:Arguably the worst racist commercial in US hisotry

[svenkat]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/us-panel-wanted-to-push-back-strongly-on-promodi-lobbies/article4677762.ece

chindu instigative reporting

Says its recent actions were designed to "push back strongly" on any movement toward softening the U.S. stance on this issue
After a U.S. panel monitoring violations of religious freedom abroad urged the State Department to not reconsider its 2005 decision to deny a visitor visa to Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat, its Chairperson has said that its recent actions were designed to “push back strongly” on any movement toward softening the U.S. stance on this issue.

In a phone conversation with The Hindu, Katrina Lantos Swett said that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF)concern about the Modi case arose from its view that a “climate of impunity” was fuelled by the “failure of the Indian government to move with appropriate speed to closure on prosecuting those implicated” in cases of religious violence.

In its annual report, the USCIRF had noted that Mr. Modi should be “inadmissible to the U.S.” due to “severe violations of religious freedom,” a reference to his presiding over Gujarat in 2002, when riots claimed the lives of a thousand people or more, many Muslim.

Speaking to media earlier, Ms. Swett had said that there was “significant evidence linking him to the violence and the terrible events that took place in Gujarat and for this reason, a visa would not be appropriate.”

Ms. Swett further told The Hindu that the Commission was aware that the U.K. and Sweden have “softened their previously stronger stances on engaging with Mr. Modi,” and that some persons or groups in the U.S. were lobbying for a similar softening.

Arguing that the USCIRF saw it fit to “push back strongly on that,” Ms. Swett suggested that the U.S. should not be seen as being “all too willing to set aside human rights concern in pursuit of economic interests.”

In terms of the specific concerns regarding Mr. Modi’s alleged responsibility for the Gujarat violence, Ms. Swett indicated that the Commission had taken note of the affidavit filed by Sanjiv Bhatt, and particularly made note of his claim there that Mr. Modi had asked police officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger against Muslims in the wake of the Godhra incident.

She also said that the USCIRF had factored in the February 2012 Gujarat High Court ruling that said that “inadequacy, inaction and negligence” by the State government had led to the destruction of religious structures across the State and ordered compensation for more than 500 structures.

Further concerns about Mr. Modi’s alleged complicity were raised by the guilty verdict and the 28-year sentence handed out to Maya Kodnani in the context of the Narodya Patiya massacre near Ahmedabad, Ms. Swett said, referencing the involvement of the political leadership in Gujarat that this verdict implied.

In its annual report, the USCIRF reiterated this view, saying, “It was widely reported in the media that many in the Muslim community believe [Kodnani] was the ‘fall guy’ for Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time of the riots.”

While she confirmed that on November 14, 2012 the USCIRF wrote to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requesting that the “possible U.S. visa application by Narendra Modi... be denied until there is full transparency into the violence in 2002,” Ms. Swett did not rule out repeating that advice to the present Secretary, John Kerry, should that be appropriate.

Underscoring the panel’s perception of “complicity by state government officials,” Ms. Swett said, “There is certainly a lot of troubling evidence, of sins of omission if not commission.”

gora christists showing their true face.

[Philip]

Nandu,sorry,I just saw your query.From US citizens first person.There is a huge effort to derail the hearings on the Bhenghazi fiaco by the O Team ,trying to unearth the truth.There are several reports in the US media too,where was he during the night of the crisis?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nobo ... EE9QI7jYEM

The mystery always has been the third stage — the aftermath, or more accurately, the coverup. Even before the bodies of the four Americans came home, the White House was eager to tell any story except the real one.

Aides twisted and turned to create the false narrative that a protest over an anti-Muslim video was spontaneously hijacked by radicals. But two problems quickly emerged: There was no video protest in Benghazi, and the attack, which used heavy weaponry, was well planned.

So, why did the White House spin the web of deceit? Don’t they know the coverup is worse than the crime?

Finally, we have the answer, thanks to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. In his reluctant Senate testimony, he provided the missing piece of the puzzle: The commander in chief was MIA. The coverup was created to protect his absence.

According to Panetta, President Obama checked in with his military team early on during the attack, then checked out for the rest of the night. The next day, we already knew, he blamed the video maker and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Meanwhile, half a world away, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans had been slaughtered by Islamists. Their murders on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 gave the incident extra gravity and led the White House to conceal the facts. An honest chronology would have revealed the president’s shocking behavior during the most successful attack against Americans by foreigners since 9/11.

Imagine the questions that would have come: What did Obama do through the long, bloody night? Whom did he talk to? When did he learn that Stevens was dead?

There is still much we don’t know, but Panetta, under persistent Senate probing, revealed that Obama simply wasn’t involved. Did he just go to sleep?

That question, like other good ones, was asked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Martin Dempsey, told Graham they didn’t sleep, but said they didn’t know if Obama did.

You would think a presidential conscience would keep him awake and engaged until he knew what had happened in Benghazi. You would be wrong.

Instead, the two officials said they had only one, 30-minute conversation with Obama. It began at around 5 p.m. Washington time, 90 minutes after the first attack started, and they never spoke to him again that night.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/d ... azi+crisis

Dereliction of duty: Obama and Hillary AWOL during Benghazi Crisis

In short, the attack would merit a special warning system indicating an all hands on deck approach.[But instead the American CIA forces in the immediate area were allegedly told to "stand down."]

In fact,this is exactly what my US friends told me,that the rescue mission was waiting for the green light,but it never came.

[Prem]

US Stink tank seeks suspension of trade policies with IndiaBy PTI |
Hare We Go Again In Vain Pain With No Brain

WASHINGTON: Alleging that recent trade policies of India are jeopardising its trade ties with the US, a Washington-based think tank has recommended the Congress to suspend trade benefits for New Delhi."To be clear, a strong, growing, and collaborative trade relationship between the US and India is in both parties' best interests. But India's recent trade policies are placing that relationship in jeopardy," Stephen Ezell, senior analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), said in a paper released Tuesday."The US should not sit idly by as the Indian government enacts regulations that harm American industry and jobs."Strong leadership will be needed from both sides to ensure a continued constructive and robust trade relationship between the two countries," Ezell demanded.In an abstract of the report 'The Indian Economy at a Crossroads', Ezell said India's innovation mercantilist policies, if not significantly modulated, threaten to inflict harm not only on its own, but also the global economy.The full report would be released later. "US government and industry have been engaged in intense dialogue with Indian officials for well over a year towards modifying the PMA, compulsory licensing, and related policies without seeing significant improvement."It's time to add some sticks to the carrots, and Congress and the US government should look at all available options to level the playing field," Ezell said.He demanded that Congress should immediately direct the US International Trade Commission to investigate how India's mercantilist policies damage the US economy, as it did in 2011 to examine effects of China's intellectual property infringement and indigenous innovation policies."Congress should also begin the process of withdrawing India's participation from the Generalised Systems of Preferences (GSP), which provides reduced tariffs for Indian goods entering US markets," it said."In fact, India was the top developing country GSP beneficiary in 2011, with $3.7 billion in imports entering the US duty free, and the country has benefited significantly from the preference," he said. "Indeed, as a 2011 report finds, GSP concessions [have] helped to accelerate India's exports into the USA," Ezell said.
According to him, the best path forward for India is to offer globally mobile investment and enterprise all of the attractors of China with none of the 'innovation mercantilist policies' multinational corporations all-too-often encounter in China.The full report, Ezell said would make the case that India's robust economic growth over the past several decades has largely arisen from the country's choice to abandon the import substitution industrialisation policies of the 1970s and embrace core tenets of free markets, open and non-discriminatory trade, and openness to flows of goods, people, technology, and capital."Unfortunately, just over the past several years India has embraced a range of 'innovation mercantilist' policies such as forced intellectual property transfer or mandated local production as a condition of market access that seek to bolster Indian economic and employment growth by distorting global trade rules and forcing investment and production occur in India," he said."India has erected these policies in a diverse range of sectors from information and communications technology (ICT) to life sciences, clean energy, digital content, financial services, and retail," Ezell said.In reality, these policies will only serve to damage India's economy-while also hurting the broader global economy, including the US, the report notes.Moreover, India could more readily achieve employment and economic growth it seeks if it adopted a range of pro-innovation policies, such as improving its environment for business and investing in infrastructure, education, and scientific research, and also, playing an attraction instead of compulsion strategy with global multinational enterprises, it said."India's recent embrace of innovation mercantilist policies threatens to imperil the historically strong US-India trade relationship. US policymakers should meet this challenge first with dialogue, but then if necessary through a combination of carrots and sticks," Ezell said.

[svinayak]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-india-dance-aw ... 08788.html

US, India dance awkwardly around the man who might be India's next leader
If Narendra Modi wins India's elections next year it would inject discomfort into the deepening relationship between India and the US.

By Shivam Vij, Ben Arnoldy | Christian Science Monitor – 22 hrs ago

Narendra Modi, India’s potential next prime minister, addressed expatriate Indians in 18 US cities Sunday evening via video conference. He spoke of global warming and malnutrition, gave a shout-out to the mayor of Chicago, and applauded the Indian diaspora for their achievements. He even told them he was building a statue twice the size of the Statue of Liberty to be called the Statue of Unity.

[svinayak]

US Stink tank seeks suspension of trade policies with India

Ezell said India's innovation mercantilist policies, if not significantly modulated, threaten to inflict harm not only on its own, but also the global economy.

It is not about India US trade alone here. They are worried since India is " inflicting harm on itself and also the global economy"

[ashish raval]

One word to US, can you see middle finger Modi will turn India into Super power on par with China. US will go down by 2030 to distant third. Modi can make that earlier by 2025.

[JE Menon]

Modi or not we are going to become a major global player. But it will be good to do it with him at the helm. My personal opinion.

[Arjun]

Modi or not we are going to become a major global player. But it will be good to do it with him at the helm. My personal opinion.

Don't quite agree with the 'destined to be a major player' outlook. Some governments take the country forward on that path, while others are perfectly capable of pulling it backwards away from the goal. The current UPA-2 government, as is conceded even by MSM, has seen India regress in relative terms.

India will only be a major global player when it gets leadership commensurate with the goal.

[Arjun]

Seems Indians in the US are as easily misled in their political choices as they are back home in India:

Indian Americans Voting Against Their Interest

Indian Americans joined the Democratic Party nearly half a century ago, and show no signs of leaving. Their support has remained steady even as the Democratic Party of 1965 — whose immigration reform efforts opened the door to Indian emigrants — has evolved into a party inimical to the values and interests of the Indian American community. The problematic consequences of the Democratic Party’s agenda on issues ranging from taxes to healthcare to education are not entirely lost on Indian Americans. But they are met with a reasonable retort: For all its flaws, the Democratic Party remains the natural home of immigrants.

Influential Republican leaders are challenging this widely-held notion in the current immigration debate. With its emphasis on merit-based immigration reform, economic freedom, and equal opportunity, the G.O.P. is now a better guarantor of Indian American interests than the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party won Indian American sympathies during the immigration debates of the 1960s. Co-sponsored by Congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, the landmark Hart-Celler Act of 1965 replaced national origins quotas with a system favoring skills and family reunification. Hart-Celler facilitated the arrival of over half a million Indian emigrants within three decades of the law’s passage. Today, many naturalized Indian Americans remain Democrats in appreciation of the party’s Hart-Celler immigration legacy. According to a 2012 poll, 65 percent of Indian Americans identify with the Democratic Party compared to just 18 percent on the Republican side.

Indian American loyalty to the Democratic Party, however, has come at a price. The Democratic Party’s support for high taxes has placed a growing burden on Indian Americans, as they have become the country’s wealthiest minority group. Indian Americans hardly enjoy the redistributive benefits of ObamaCare, but endure the costs due to their heavy representation in small business and healthcare. And affirmative action policies advocated by the Democratic Party, by prizing certain types of racial diversity and disadvantage over merit, harm Indian Americans of all socio-economic backgrounds.

So why are Indian Americans seemingly voting against their own interests? To an extent, the G.O.P.’s lack of appeal among Indian Americans is symptomatic of the party’s broader difficulties in winning highly-educated, urban voters who feel alienated by the religious right. But this explanation only goes so far. Despite highlighting their conversions to Christianity on the campaign trail, Republican Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina — the only Indian Americans ever elected to statewide office — were able to rely on strong Indian American support in their respective electoral bids. And behind the often Christianized rhetoric of the Republican Party is a message consistent with the conservative social views and wholesome family values of Indian Americans.

A better explanation is that Indian Americans perceive the Democratic Party to be more tolerant of immigrants – recent realities notwithstanding. Democrats, it is true, do tend to be more supportive on some issues, like creating pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But in advocating for highly-skilled legal immigrants — the most pertinent aspect of the debate for Indian Americans — Republicans have been at least equally if not more proactive than Democrats. It was Republican President George H.W. Bush who signed the Immigration Control Act of 1990 into law – the most dramatic easing of restrictions on highly-skilled immigrants since Hart-Celler.

During the current immigration debate, Democratic agitation against outsourcing to India — a staple of President Obama’s campaign rhetoric — has posed the greatest obstacle to legislative reforms that would benefit highly-skilled Indian immigrants. Chief among these reforms are the removal of the 20,000-limit on U.S. advanced degree H-1B visas, and the exemption of foreign students who earn U.S. graduate degrees in science, technology, and mathematics (“STEM”) from the employment-based green card cap. Indeed, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, now the most likely vehicle for a bi-partisan deal on immigration reform, was stalled until recently due to disagreements over provisions concerning highly-skilled immigrants. Despite representing a state with over 188,000 Indian Americans, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois fought to impose punitive measures on companies that rely heavily on highly-skilled foreign workers. Ostensibly intended to crack down on outsourcing, Durbin’s proposals would have penalized American companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google for filling more than 30 percent of their workforces with H-1B visa holders. Ultimately, Durbin’s proposals were blocked by Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a likely presidential nominee in 2016.

Indian Americans face a choice. They can continue to vote in lockstep with the Democratic Party. In this case, the community risks being ignored or taken for granted due to their small absolute numbers relative to other minority groups. Or, they can become more open-minded to a Republican Party, which, as the immigration debate is showing, is increasingly intent on broadening its appeal to minorities. The latter path would better ensure that Indian Americans are represented in a politically divided country.

[JE Menon]

>>Don't quite agree with the 'destined to be a major player' outlook.

I have said nothing of the kind. It will be steady, probably too slow for BRF liking, and it will not depend on a leader or a single government, or a specific bureaucratic impulse. It will be a bit of all. Sometimes progress will be fast(ish), sometimes it will be slow... Modi, I think will be fastish, so I would like to see him in. Reason is nothing more than selfishness to see things happening and read about it before I return to carbon.

[Anindya]

So why are Indian Americans seemingly voting against their own interests?

'cos lots of Indian Americans do not like to be referred to, as Makaka.

[Lalmohan]

phillip - regardless of the rescue team being on standby or stand down, there is a chain of command and decision making and escalation points. if the president was asleep or hiding in red lips parlour, the chain should still be functioning. sounds too much like poltical point scoring about pres being awol

[ramana]

So why are Indian Americans seemingly voting against their own interests?

'cos lots of Indian Americans do not like to be referred to, as Makaka.

The article is an argument for the Indian American to hedge their support for political parties in the US. The Ind-Am community raises funds equally to both parties as it does not have the numbers. And Republican Party is more willing to put Indian American faces in prominent political offices unlike the Democrats who like the funds and take actions against the community preferences.

[svinayak]

http://www.businesswithoutborders.com/e ... sco/#event

As the world’s largest democracy and the third-largest economy by GDP purchasing power parity, India is poised to become the fifth-largest consumer goods market in the world by 2025*.

In addition to the macroeconomic indicators, higher disposable incomes from an emerging middle-class and a low-cost but skilled workforce contribute to India being an appropriate choice for entrepreneurs, multinationals and conglomerates looking to expand into this exciting and booming market.

This event will highlight:

How companies can leverage India’s trade network with its regional and bilateral free trade agreements with its many trading partners (the US accounting for 11.3% of India’s overall trade).
The rapid growth of the middle class making India, Asia’s biggest buying economy.
Strategic relationship building as an investment in long-term success.
The Indian regulatory framework and its attractiveness as a destination for foreign investors.

Can India become the Asia' biggest buying economy

[Vayutuvan]

Yes it can and the access to that market should be given at the proper price so that India gets more than equitable amount in cash and kind in return - mfg. and high tech., strategic space in the neighborhood, and most of all the Pakistani monkey off their back.

[ramana]

And how will it buy without generating income?

[Vayutuvan]

Internal demand needs to be created through proactive development of construction and mfg. industry through deficit budgeting - oh, well I see the problem.