India-US Relations : News and Discussion

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Feb 2015 06:32

chetakji:

Launched by the New York-based Sikh for Justice, the online petition had urged Obama before his India trip to raise the issue of “Sikh Genocide” and “Sikhs’ Right to Self-determination” during his talks with Modi.

The petition had attracted more than 125,000 signatures. The White House responds to petition in less than a month after it was launched.

Thanking those who signed the petition, the White House said during his recent trip to India, the President discussed the importance of religious freedom and tolerance in India on January 27 during his speech at Siri Fort in New Delhi.

This is complete BS. The Petition in question was tossed out from the WHOTUS website saying that less than 1000 of the signatures were genuine. The effort ended in utter humiliation for the Khalistan sh1ts.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 22 Feb 2015 11:23

KrishnaK wrote: There's never been any US attempt to "contain" india which seems to be a constant there here.

I sure hope your sarcasm sign is missing.

If not, Are you kidding me?

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 22 Feb 2015 14:50

Hari Seldon wrote:We should at most be as ahimsic as the Americans. Now can we have an Gandhian ahimsa index for countries (on the lines of the 'religious phreedom index' unkil's non-state actors routinely churn out and parade around as khangressional earrings)?

But yobama seeking to talk down to yindians yusing Gandhian memes was in poor taste.

Yawn.

This is good. You are on to something that could be tangible. Do you want to thrash it out on GDF OT thread?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Feb 2015 19:22

nageshks wrote:It seems that some people on this board have encountered deep & abiding Russian racism towards non-whites. Please educate me, ladies & gentlemen. Exactly when did you people travel in Russia & what are your experiences with Russian racism.

Add total lack of discussion about racism or outright silence about (no) secularism in USA. There is a video on the internet about 'national prayer breakfast' or such, where His Holiness Dalai Lama was also invited, and some speaker was on mic preaching dangers of not accepting Christianity which is 'you will go to hell' kind of direct statements!

No one talks of such things even when it is on video!

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 22 Feb 2015 20:18

Hitesh wrote:Food for thought. If this is true, this represents a complete different paradigm based on realities on the ground and in the geo-political sense. This should be encouraged and nurtured and can represent a mutual beneficial relationship.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/02/u ... lated.html
....
....
US is at a point where it recognizes the point of diminishing returns from Pakistan. India should keep this momentum up where US will come to the point that it would be in US interests if it allows India to deal with Pakistan as it wishes and just provide back support to India as it deals with Pakistan whenever the need arises and in exchange, India support US in its dealings on a global stage.
....
....

We should engage with USA and have a quasi-alliance with them. However we have to go into this quasi-alliance with USA with our eyes open. USA and PRC will never ever give us a free hand as far as Pakistan is concerned. And we should aim ourselves to be so strong so as not to be deterred by both of these entities combined when we need to take on Pakistan.

Pakistan will be a valuable tool for the USA, PRC and certain Gulf countries against India and in the wider context of Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. No matter what. Pakistan is like a rabid dog as far as USA, PRC and certain gulf countries are concerned. Yes filled with rabies but very helpful in keeping India contained. The easiest way to menace Delhi, Northwestern plains and central India is from the border of Pakistan and not from the Himalayas. Though in 25 years that will change too.

Let us not forget as far as USA is concerned, India and PRC both pose a long term threat to its dominance. India due to its geography in the Indian Ocean + Asian landmass and PRC due to its geographic presence in East Asia + Pacific. Our quasi-alliance with USA is just that, a temporary alliance against PRC. Once PRC threat is neutralized or no longer exists then the differences inherent in India-USA alliance will come to the fore.

We should learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. Gandhi supported the British imperial system during the eve of World War I by claiming, "only the British could be trusted to deal fairly with India’s just demands". That was a monumental Himalayan mistake, on the lines which Nehru made in 1950s-1960s in his dealing with PRC. Though to credit to Gandhi and Congress they corrected it in World War II, by launching one of the biggest agitation at the peak of WWII in 1942, when the Axis came closet to victory. Gandhi even refused British pleas through out the WWII. He had learnt his lesson. Let us be clear we will have a quasi-alliance with USA only to shore up our strength. We definitely should not fight for another imperial power or its interests or its battles like we wasted our lives in WWI and WWII.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2015 21:26

India has to reassert itself as one of the world's great maritime powers as we were centuries ago.We spread Indian culture,our religions,etc., all over Asia thanks to the maritime prowess of the ancient Indian kingdoms.When we neglected our navy and maritime fleet,we were subjugated. The rapid development of as many ports all along the India coastline and the use of the sea as a cheap method of transportation will spur rapid growth in the country.As of now,all our road systems are choked with massive road traffic and the excellent rail network we inherited from the British has been neglected. Transportation by water is the cheapest method and establishing as many major and minor ports along with Ro-Ro vessels also ,will help local goods to be rapidly transported without the traffic biottlenecks that roads suffer from. The US has an abundance of ports all along its eastern and western coastline and can export its goods anywhere with ease. landlocked nations suffer from the lack of ports. Let's leran from the US on this score.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 23 Feb 2015 06:09

KrishnaK wrote:
matrimc wrote:India's plurality could not sit with the abrahamic world view.

Emoticon games are fun

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 23 Feb 2015 06:12

panduranghari wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote:... Gandhian ahimsa index
This is good. You are on to something that could be tangible. Do you want to thrash it out on GDF OT thread?

This is a great idea. This beats HDI hands down.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 23 Feb 2015 09:53

Yeah, right. Arming a hostile entity for 50 years while professing friendship to democracy is not containment. Allowing the said hostile entity to procure even nuclear weapons (Clinton was aware of Chinese shipments around '95) and weapons so that India will always be looking over her shoulder is not containment. Closing the nuclear weapons door to us just after China tested in '64 through NPT was not containment. Imposing sanctions and asking other 'friends' like Canada to impose sanctions after the '74 PNE was not containment. (One may remember that our biggest neighbour tested nuclear weapons in '64 and our '74 was in response, sort of). USS Enterprise in '71 was a friendly tourist mission onlee, nothing to do with containment. Fomenting terrorism in J&K through cat's paws like the Hurriyat through the good offices of a certain Ms Raphael - thereby keeping us on the defensive always was not containment. Imposing sanctions on us after Pokhran II in '98 and confiscating the LCA CLAWs without respect for our IP, setting back our program by 10 years was not containment. Pressuring Russia to withhold the shipments of cryogenic engines and eventually setting our space programme back by ~20 years is not containment. Need I go on?

Plenty of unfriendly acts. That doesn't constitute containment.

The US was also India's largest provider of aid for decades. Ted Kennedy stated spoke out quite openly about the US abominable support for Pakistan during 1971 A shooting match with India over 1971 was never on the cards.

arshyam wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:That China must be contained is freely discussed in american strategic circles right down to the specifics. Care to show me any stretch of such discussion about India ?
What's there to discuss? Haven't we been contained since the fifties? Remember CENTO?

CENTO had nothing to do with India let alone containing it. I suggest you spend some time reading up instead of railing.

Modeled after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), CENTO committed the nations to mutual cooperation and protection, as well as non-intervention in each other's affairs. Its goal was to contain the Soviet Union (USSR) by having a line of strong states along the USSR's southwestern frontier.

Again, there's plenty of material out there about the need to contain the Soviet Union during the cold war and restricting China from lashing out now. A policy of containment will have to be built up very overtly and would be expected to sustain across changes in administration. Neither the US think tanks nor Indian ones have suggested that the US has a policy of containing India. That the US wishes to do that is just wishful thinking on your part. In fact it's downright ridiculous.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 23 Feb 2015 10:01

KrishnaK:

Strategic actions -- keeping India out of the nuclear club, sanctions after 1998 -- constitute containment. Does the US have a policy of containment for Iran and North Korea? Then India did worse, as it faced not just a religious onslaught, but also all the same treatment with sanctions and mistreatment.

India's friends in US administrations have been none to negative. And Ted Kennedy's speeches can not be held up as examples of anything more than "token" opposition. Ted Kennedy was often selected for just that role historically. You know, to give the whole "balanced argument and debate" charade some evidence.

If you overlook Pakistani terrorism for as long as the US has done, it is supporting overt and covert action -- just like Syria today. It wasn't just Kashmir, it was punjab too. And the north east, and the south. On one ground or the other. The State Department has historically tried to create countries inside India where non existed.

Today's statements are also just that -- statements. There is no question the US is trying to "contain" china. And if you don't disagree with that, then only the actors change, the treatment is exactly the same towards India.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 23 Feb 2015 10:43

May be Ted Kennedy was swayed a tiny weeny bit by his then GF Ms. Persis Khambhatta, you follow what I mean?

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 23 Feb 2015 12:40

Shreeman wrote:KrishnaK:

Strategic actions -- keeping India out of the nuclear club, sanctions after 1998 -- constitute containment. Does the US have a policy of containment for Iran and North Korea? Then India did worse, as it faced not just a religious onslaught, but also all the same treatment with sanctions and mistreatment.

Keeping India out of the nuclear club, sanctions don't constitute containment. It is amply clear what that phrase means. Just read up on how the Soviet Union was treated.

India's friends in US administrations have been none to negative. And Ted Kennedy's speeches can not be held up as examples of anything more than "token" opposition. Ted Kennedy was often selected for just that role historically. You know, to give the whole "balanced argument and debate" charade some evidence.

India's friends in the US administration notwithstanding, India has managed to secure critical aid from the US after criticizing it for it's actions, Korea IIRC. Again boss, India was the largest recipient of US aid for decades. India has always had pretty solid support in the US Congress. Again Hussain Haqqani's Magnificent Delusions is a good source.

If you overlook Pakistani terrorism for as long as the US has done, it is supporting overt and covert action -- just like Syria today. It wasn't just Kashmir, it was punjab too. And the north east, and the south. On one ground or the other. The State Department has historically tried to create countries inside India where non existed.

We overlooked US concerns over communism too. That the State Department has historically tried to create countries inside India where non existed is full blown CT. Not only is there not a shred of evidence to support your fanciful claims, US policy has been to the contrary.

Today's statements are also just that -- statements. There is no question the US is trying to "contain" china. And if you don't disagree with that, then only the actors change, the treatment is exactly the same towards India.

The treatment towards India has not been the same by far. For a very simple reason, India doesn't seek to alter the status quo, unlike Iran, North Korea and China. Again the policy towards North Korea, Iran and China is very clear and overt. That has been built up over decades and has been followed more or less by successive administrations. You cannot build up that level of consistency without clearly articulating that need and then build consensus for it across the political divide. The US declassifies it's hoard of archives on government activity. Instead of peddling this CT you could chose to spend some time reading up instead or present evidence for your claims.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 23 Feb 2015 13:04

KrishnaK,

There are just as many or more assumptions in your individual postings and the rest of the posters combined. For example, the discussion of declassified material. You may be a PhD in that material, but your post doesnt give the rest of us a clue on how to climb that mountain to see the burning Bush.

You are the most patriotic American on this board, outclassing TSJ by miles. I understand that.

I too would rather see a US India relationship that is closer than US-UK relationship. But its not happening based on misrepresentation.

This is *near* past. Some of us lived through this. India was a miniscule insignificant blip, a country the US could do away with anytime it wished. Closed to the outside world. Why would you see mountains of paperwork, other than the wikileaks type routine communications? Each tiny blip of "positives" is negated by aircraft carrier sized negatives. Come back to this when the US acknowledges its mistakes in ignoring the Bangladesh rapes and sanctions the lot that committed the atrocities and lives today still in luxury.

There is no point in lying or otherwise tinting the glasses a rosy color. The values that might have bridged US-India populations have ceased to exist. So any representations about past or future are of limited value to begin with.

Indian culture is extremely risk averse. Women hoard gold. Men take the least possible risk, prefering guaranteed government jobs, choosing not to move too far from home. Just because a small tiny fraction of the upper middle class appears visibly westernized doesnt change the rest of India. Just like Alabama isnt rushing to welcome Indians any time soon. They just cant. Its not feasible. The policies in effect will continue to reflect these realities.

You cant wish away 70 years of hostility in the name of "we gave you aid". And that is the strongest argument. India gave US the best brains. It is a transactional relationship. And my best guess says nothing is raising it to another level anytime soon.

I know I cant change your opinions, and I havent one either way. Just facts that seem to point in a general negative direction. So for the moment, to avoid being a distraction, I am ignoring you to my own loss, with apologies. Lets let the occasional factual report be posted.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 23 Feb 2015 13:46

KrishnaK wrote: Keeping India out of the nuclear club, sanctions don't constitute containment. It is amply clear what that phrase means. Just read up on how the Soviet Union was treated.

Does arming Pakistan to teeth, hosting and actively funding Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists, sending the seventh fleet, threatening dire consequences if West Pakistan was threatened in 1971, supporting Portugese claim on Goa, seem friendly to you?

India was the largest recipient of US aid for decades. India has always had pretty solid support in the US Congress. Again Hussain Haqqani's Magnificent Delusions is a good source.

So was China, and you agree that US has been actively trying to contain China.

Do you mean the same Hussain Haqqani who wished to see Bangalore and Indian IT industry be bombed and attacked by terrorists?

We overlooked US concerns over communism too.[/url].

Did we actively seek to encourage or propagate communist movements in US or US allies? The answer is a resounding NO. So how the hell does refusing to indulge your country's McCarthy inspired paranoia equate with actively funding and supporting terrorists and separatist movements? That's a truly bizzare and incredibly senseless assertion.

Instead of peddling this CT you could chose to spend some time reading up instead or present evidence for your claims.

Actions speak louder than some mythical de-classified documents and as far as those are concerned, your country clearly has anything but our interests and welfare in mind. You do not want India as an ally, but as a lackey and your actions within the region and beyond are an ample testimony to that.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 23 Feb 2015 17:06

KrishnaK,

Are you of indian origin?

shyams · Post by **shyams** » 24 Feb 2015 00:55

KrishnaK wrote: Instead of peddling this CT you could chose to spend some time reading up instead or present evidence for your claims.

On what basis are you calling this a CT? Is it because it does not fit the frame of reference that Uncle Sam has been feeding you since your school days?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Feb 2015 01:16

nvishal wrote:KrishnaK,

Are you of indian origin?

Please counter KrishnaK on his statements. Don't pull this card.

ramana

For help refer to the 7 levels of refutation triangle posted in Nukkad page 92 or the BRF 15 years memory thread.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Feb 2015 03:00

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 348836.cms

India counters Obama's religious intolerance jibe with facts and figures.

That'll teach them.

Oh, how many Muslims have died for the cause of freedom and in the last 30 years, anyone keeping track?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Feb 2015 03:23

sanjaykumar wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 348836.cms

India counters Obama's religious intolerance jibe with facts and figures.

Good rebuttal but wont undo the damage. Looks like Ombaba and Biden spoke for their supporters and took easy potshots at India.

We need to compile the facts and have them for ready ref as needed.

BTW nice move to send a senior babu to a WH summit. Tells the importance India attaches to such drama events.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 24 Feb 2015 05:29

KrishnaK wrote: ...

Here's one extract from Magnificent Delusions - excellent book. Do read it sometime.
...

“Blowtorch Bob” concluded that “Pakistan’s chief preoccupation will long remain India,” but if the United States had to choose among the countries of the subcontinent, “there is little question that India (because of its sheer size and resources) is where we must put our chief reliance.” Although the Ayub regime was seen as more “pro-Western” than the Indians, it was “questionable whether most Pakistanis are really less neutralist than Indians.”

Haqqani, Husain (2013-11-05). Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding (Kindle Locations 1942-1946). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.

hussain haqqani is a lowdown opportunistic RAPE slimeball and a rat. Applying the adjective "excellent " to anything by him shows extreme naievete and poor judgment.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 24 Feb 2015 06:57

KLNMurthy wrote: hussain haqqani is a lowdown opportunistic RAPE slimeball and a rat. Applying the adjective "excellent " to anything by him shows extreme naievete and poor judgment.

It is distressing to see alleged "Think tanks" in bangalore, kerala invite this RAPE HH to "teach" young minds on what India's pakistani policy should be. HH and the rest of his org Hudson Insitute and a bunch of pakis to give lectures on how pakistan views India to malleable and mostly clueless young Indians, and this is a think tank that claims to be top notch in teaching international politics to kids who don't know better. All of this orchestrated by people who are close to the pro-UPA babucracy in New Delhi.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 24 Feb 2015 08:26

U forgot 2 mention: "plagiarist".

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 24 Feb 2015 08:38

You mean Hussain haqqani is a plagiarist? How so?

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 24 Feb 2015 11:36

ramana wrote:
nvishal wrote:KrishnaK,
Are you of indian origin?
Please counter KrishnaK on his statements. Don't pull this card.

I was genuinely asking. I think most indians here have spotted a PoV of foreign origin.

From experience, these "arguments" were only made when I pushed firangs on another thread in the corner(wrt 1971). I didn't counter it because these particular PoVs were so foreign. It was an impulsive argument but they found themselves making it.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 24 Feb 2015 12:59

UlanBatori wrote:U forgot 2 mention: "plagiarist".

Oh no, now my heart is broken! TFTA People can be plagiarists? How is that even possible?

Melwyn · Post by **Melwyn** » 25 Feb 2015 02:34

This has been going on for some time now but finally it's here.

US to provide work permits to spouses of H-1B visa holders from May 26

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting applications for work visas from H-1B spouses on May 26.

Once USCIS approves the 'Form I-765' and the H-4 dependent spouse receives an Employment Authorisation Card, he or she may begin working in the United States.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 27 Feb 2015 07:39

Shreeman wrote: You are the most patriotic American on this board, outclassing TSJ by miles. I understand that.

Calling out your rants and CT ends up in this

.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 27 Feb 2015 07:42

Kashi wrote: Does arming Pakistan to teeth, hosting and actively funding Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists, sending the seventh fleet, threatening dire consequences if West Pakistan was threatened in 1971, supporting Portugese claim on Goa, seem friendly to you?

Precisely the nonsense that needs to be refuted. Arming Pakistan is well known. Where's any proof that Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists were actively funded ? Incidentally the US threw the same panchasheel nonsense in Nehru's face over goa. Having hectored them routinely, the US got the chance to rub it in and took up that opportunity with alacrity.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 27 Feb 2015 08:11

Precisely the nonsense that needs to be refuted.

Just saying "no it didn't happen, never" and "show me the proof or shut up" is hardly refutation. For example, Robin Raphael's involvement with Hurriyat and associated groups in J&K is public knowledge -- the Hurriyat openly supports pro-paki terrorist groups operating in J&K. Kashmiri groups were openly allowed to operate under Ghulam Nabi Fai for decades in DC and openly paid for by the ISI, as was revealed recently...surely you don't think the CIA and US intel was unaware of these ISI connections with paki terrorist groups operating in the US. Most of these groups were not designated as terrorist groups until recently, including JeM and LeT. The US support for the pakistani terrorist mofos and their ISI handlers cannot be quite so easily overlooked -- Indians get killed by these groups on a regular basis.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Feb 2015 08:57

or David headley...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Feb 2015 08:59

KrishnaK wrote:
Kashi wrote: Does arming Pakistan to teeth, hosting and actively funding Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists, sending the seventh fleet, threatening dire consequences if West Pakistan was threatened in 1971, supporting Portugese claim on Goa, seem friendly to you?
Precisely the nonsense that needs to be refuted. Arming Pakistan is well known. Where's any proof that Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists were actively funded ? Incidentally the US threw the same panchasheel nonsense in Nehru's face over goa. Having hectored them routinely, the US got the chance to rub it in and took up that opportunity with alacrity.

so you re saying the US carrier sailed into bay of Bengal as US was pissed about Goa??

ever read the white house tapes where Nixon & Kissinger ?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 27 Feb 2015 09:38

Putnanja where is the claim you are stating in the previous posts, you are making it up?

But the fact is that many and that too powerful Americans have an internal dislike for Pagan religion and this seems to be carried forward from British times. America started supporting Pakis and Saudis long before India met the Soviet Union or anything. There seems to be an ideological hatred in many Americans especially those and in West Europe who do not desire a strong and prosperous India and this is evident in actions since 1950.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 27 Feb 2015 10:00

Aditya_V wrote:Putnanja where is the claim you are stating in the previous posts, you are making it up?
...

US carrier coming into Bay Of Bengal to help Pakistan in 1971 war is well known. Why will I make it up?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Feb 2015 12:52

famous old saying,"with friends like these who needs enemies?" That Q has been used many a time to describe the duplicitous attitude of the US and Indo-US relations. Pak is a drug like heroin,which it is completely hooked upon and will not give up .The relationship between the Paki army/ISI runs so deep and for so many decades that to expect the US to reform its self is like expecting the sun to rise in the west! The US still sees Pak as a bulwark against the "Soviets",a force to keep India under control and an intel agency which it collaborates with to do its dirty work in the region. The popular Homeland TV series echoes the reality of the situ well.

Therefore,relations with India will remain forever stunted ,that it until Pak disintegrates. After the hooplah and hype of the O'Bomber visit,it is back to business as usual. All that has been achieved is a roadmap for better relations.The devil lies in the details. Expecting the US to take concrete action against Pak to halt its terror against India is like expecting two suns to rise in the east every day! The raison d'etre of Pak is the destruction of India. If we are not vigilant the JV between Pak and China might venture a more aggressive pro-active policy to achieve just that. One must remember in this context how the Clinton admin supported the PRC's nuclear proliferation benefiting Pak and stood shoulder to shoulder with China after the P-2 N-tests. Can a leopard change its spots?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Feb 2015 21:00

,

putnanja wrote:
KrishnaK wrote:<SNIP>
Precisely the nonsense that needs to be refuted. Arming Pakistan is well known. Where's any proof that Khalistani and Kashmiri terrorists were actively funded ? Incidentally the US threw the same panchasheel nonsense in Nehru's face over goa. Having hectored them routinely, the US got the chance to rub it in and took up that opportunity with alacrity.
so you re saying the US carrier sailed into bay of Bengal as US was pissed about Goa?? ever read the white house tapes where Nixon & Kissinger ?

Not to forget 'international' sanctions mechanism that are bypassed for pakis from time to time, but not for Iran or Iraq during times of Saddam Hussein. We have to consider the sanctions and can't buy more oil from Iran, can we?

A terrorist country like pakis survive, carry out terror attacks under nuke umbrella, sell nukes to Saudi, throw rabid dogs across the border to destabilize J&K, set up networks to send drugs across land and sea, print fake currency, - and generally go around frothing at mouth against Indian interests in 'international' fora - and still is the terror munna of unkil and other of 4fathers - even when pakis set up taliban for another round of bloodshed in Afghanistan. Let us not get our eyes off realpolitik for soft words. As already pointed out, American diplomat did a lot of politicking even within India -during her tenure as American diplomat- to prop up Hurriyat in India, and later even joined Pakistan as an adviser. That says a lot about American diplomacy.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 27 Feb 2015 22:07

putnanja wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Putnanja where is the claim you are stating in the previous posts, you are making it up?
...

US carrier coming into Bay Of Bengal to help Pakistan in 1971 war is well known. Why will I make it up?

Ya Allah I thought it is one more Bangalore,Kerala moment onlee.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 27 Feb 2015 22:19

For reference reg the US carrier in BoB in '71: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 28 Feb 2015 02:11

US action in 1971 couldn't have resulted in war. The president needs congressional approval to begin one, and none would have been given for one against India. Even the state department was against the actions of the duo of Kissinger and Nixon. Details of this are very much in the open if one wishes to read up on it. Neither the "The Blood Telegram", which takes a very dim view of Kissinger's actions, nor Magnificent Delusions both of which delve in that period show that Nixon and Kissinger were planning on taking military action against India. Their behaviour was certainly abominable and marked a low-point in our ties.

The argument that the US has something against India because it has undertaken unfriendly acts is specious. And of course depending on the person's own mindset, it gets portrayed as religious, racist or imperialist or whatever else. Incidentally, popular opinion in the US was against the partition of India and was supportive of Indian independence from Britain even during WWII.

After independence we didn't have enough to feed ourselves, implemented hare-brained economic theories while growing at miserly 2-3%, claimed to be the leader of the third world, lectured the US while at the same time seeking and continuing to receive substantial amounts of US aid just to get by. Wanting to contain such a country is one of the more absurd pronouncements. The absolute winner still remains India being at the center of gravitas/NAM gem.

Wanting to contain a country with a per capita of 1600 today, which incidentally gets most of the 50+% of it's GDP from the same country is only slightly less absurd. Especially so, when India has evinced no interest in changing boundaries, claiming parts of the world because it was vaguely indian a 1000 years ago or even picking up fights anywhere based on past grievances.

But then again none of you have to believe that position. Why not try to present what major think tanks in India think of the US. Is there any proof that the popular thinking is that the US wishes to contain India or has actively sponsored secession within the country ? That can easily be dismissed as handiwork of macaulayputras. Does the decidedly nationalist Modi government harbour such opinions perhaps ? Why bother with facts when one can resort to ranting against perceived grievances and cook up conspiracies to feed it ? Do continue to tilt most furiously at the windmills.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 28 Feb 2015 02:25

According to Special Representative William Phillips, President Roosevelt thought that the idea of partitioning India “sounded terrible” when the British chargé d’affaires, Sir Ronald Campbell, first mentioned it to him. “It reminded the President of the experience of the American civil war,” Phillips recalled. Although Phillips found Jinnah to be “brilliant” and was “personally attracted to him,” he could not agree with the leader’s views. “The more I studied Mr. Jinnah’s Pakistan,” he concluded, “the less it appealed to me as the answer to India’s communal problem, since to break India into two separate nations would weaken both and might open Pakistan, at least, to the designs of ambitious neighbors.”

Sir Bertrand Glancy, the governor of Punjab, the other major province designated to be part of Pakistan, shared similar anxieties about Jinnah’s scheme. Glancy revealed his concerns about the logic of the demand for Pakistan in a secret letter to the viceroy, Field Marshal Archibald Wavell, written in August 1946, ahead of elections that would choose India’s future leaders. “I must confess that I am gravely perturbed about the situation, because there is a very serious danger of the elections being fought, so far as Muslims are concerned, on an entirely false issue,” he wrote. “Crude Pakistan may be quite illogical, undefinable and ruinous to India and in particular to Muslims,” Glancy went on, “but this does not detract from its potency as a political slogan. The uninformed Muslim will be told that the question he is called on to answer at the polls is— Are you a true believer or an infidel and a traitor?” Glancy presciently warned that the Muslims would be swayed by “the false and fanatical scream that Islam is in danger” and that “if Pakistan becomes an imminent reality, we shall be heading straight for bloodshed on a wide scale.”

British Prime Minister Clement Atlee voiced the international consensus at the time when he told the House of Commons of his hope that “this severance may not endure.” He hoped that the proposed dominions of India and Pakistan would “in course of time, come together again to form one great Member State of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” During the same debate in the British Parliament, the secretary of state for India, Lord Listowel stated his expectation that “when the disadvantages of separation have become apparent in the light of experience, the two Dominions will freely decide to reunite in a single Indian Dominion, which might achieve that position among the nations of the world to which its territories and resources would entitle it.”

All from Magnificent Delusions. A pretty good book, if one wishes to open up their minds.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 28 Feb 2015 02:28

Aditya_V wrote: America started supporting Pakis and Saudis long before India met the Soviet Union or anything. There seems to be an ideological hatred in many Americans especially those and in West Europe who do not desire a strong and prosperous India and this is evident in actions since 1950.

Very much untrue. The premier US ally in the middle east was Iran. Saudi Arabia became the premier ally only after the revolution. The rest of it is way too absurd to even bother responding to.