India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 15 Feb 2016 10:03

Now I see why the US publicly offered to conduct joint patrols with IN a few days ago. They knew the F-16 sale was about to be announced.

Pathetic. I'm referring to all the Indians, including many on this forum, who were gleeful about the prospect of joint patrols with the USN. So naive.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Feb 2016 10:15

I do not understand why playing 'realpolitik' must be the sole preserve of the US and not the lowly Indians. India must shamelessly do whatever is in its best interests. If that means they have to protest F-16 sales while welcoming joint patrols (though I am not sure if there is a general welcome for that either in BRf or in India), then so be it. It is not as though India alone would benefit from a joint patrol, the US has much more at stake than India.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 15 Feb 2016 10:23

The joint patrols with the U.S is not going to happen. It was the trial baloon being floated every now and then by the U.S and their paid media. Our position in that aspect is clear. Also dont ever think that U.S is friendly to us. F-16 sales to Pakistan is a reminder of the same. Until and unless the Chinese are stupid enough to let the U.S play a major role, i dont see anytime, the Indians getting into such joint mechanisms with the U.S We may even go for joint patrol with the ASEAN but not with U.S.
Expect to see some provocation of the Chinese by the U.S military in the near future. They may try to escalate things in certain point in time to test the Chinese response.

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Feb 2016 10:28

Lt. Gen. Prakash Katoch (Retd.) in an article in First Post titled “Uncle Sam continues to court Pakistan: The reliability of India-US relations will remain suspect” rightly points out that when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the US cannot be trusted by India.

Excerpts:

The decision of the Barack Obama administration to sell eight F-16 Block-52 aircraft to Pakistan worth $699 million in the face of US lawmakers' opposition to the deal over Islamabad's alleged support for terrorist groups, has been most unfortunate. It belies the hope that the US actually wants to upgrade strategic ties with India beyond the money that US firms can make with India opening up to foreign investment in all sectors including defence.

But coming to Washington's love of Islamabad, while Pakistan's terror export has been supported by the US through financial and military aid — no matter how inadvertently — besides ignoring blatant nuclear proliferation by Pakistan (not even interrogating AQ Khan), of significance is the recent statement by James R Clapper, Director US National Agency to the US Senate Committee on Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Committee on 9 February, 2016. While multiple issues including terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and proliferation, and counter-terrorism were covered by him, the 30-page statement devotes just four lines to Pakistan, that too clubbed with India which says:

Relations between Pakistan and India remain tense despite the resumption of a bilateral dialogue in December. Following a terrorist attack in early January on Pathankot Air Force base in India, which New Delhi blames on a Pakistani-based group, India’s engagement with Pakistan will probably hinge in 2016 on Islamabad’s willingness to take action against those in Pakistan linked to the attack.

What more to signify the bias of the Obama administration and US intelligence towards a country that is acknowledged as the mother of terrorism?

From the foregoing, it appears that Obama administration’s interest in India does not go beyond cooperation on the high seas and as long as its interest in Asia-Pacific is secure and cooperation by India is available in the Indian Ocean Region, it does not mind India losing territory along the Himalayas to the China-Pakistan nexus — even if it is at the cost of India’s strategic interests.

See First Post here:

Uncle Sam continues to court Pakistan: The reliability of India-US relations will remain suspect

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 15 Feb 2016 10:58

As they say, unkil will fight the Chinese till the last Indian. If there are any left, then they will ensure the pakis will be around to contain the ones remaining, so they continue to remain the top dog. And there are some naive fanboys here who will argue till hell freezes over that based on what the beltway think tanks say, the great khans don't regard India as a threat, and they are really only being nice to the pakis.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2016 12:00

As I've said for over 2 decades,America is so addicted to its unnatural perverse promiscuous relationship with Pak,similar to acts of bestiality,that it will NEVER give up Pak and always turn a blind eye to Pak's acts of terror against India.
Most regrettably,the Indian leadership both Cong. and BJP continue to fondly believe that America will restrain Pak. Dream on !

Pak is like a pox-ridden whore threatening to expose her illicit scandalous covert ops and intel history with the US over 50 years,particularly aimed at India involving assassinations,terror,sedition,etc.,whose client Uncle Sam like a die-hard junkie simply cannot give up. Within India too there are pro-Paki/US rent boys,traitorus scumbags,babus and their "ars* channel" go-betweens who thrive on the ndo-Pak "p*ss industry".The Indian leadership should acknowledge the harsh truth that nothing will stop the US from providing overt and covert aid to Pak,which is directly aimed at India.What are P-3 Orions,Harpoon ,AMRAAM missiles and F-16s aimed at? The Afghan navy?

We have to take strong diplomatic measures against both Pak and the US. Send Pak into diplomatic "Coventry" and deny the US lucrative military deals and drastically reduce Indo-US mil exercises across the board. India too can play a tri-nation SCO card with Russia and China. China would love to have India on its side instead of against it. Politics and terror make for strange bedfellows.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 15 Feb 2016 17:54

While the perfidy of US is all too common and known, what is left unacknowledged and scrutinized is the role of perceived friendlies such as erstwhile USSR and Russia.
Modi administration is in unenviable position of weeding out insiders who have lot of axe to grind and have been for eons drunk the cool-aid provided by erstwhile USSR.

While the frenemy of US is seen, the sweet poison fed by Russia is unnoticed. USSR/Russia has been sponsoring the Commies inside the country for god knows how long. These are first step in creating a situation where the compromised people are led to become prostitutes. They are everywhere, from procurement, to judiciary to citadels of education. Now, that the price of these hires has increased and is being conveniently used by others including US.

Even Namo, remarks only his friendship with Obama, he naively remarked about Russia being a friend. That sort of blind belief has led the nation astray and Namo being a quick learner will apply course correction. This course correction, has its own fall out with separating those who are lobbying either for erstwhile pay masters, and loathe the new pay masters. This is truly a very very tough situation, to separate the useful idiots of Nehruvian school, from genuine folks. Given all that, Modi administration has done remarkably well in handling its relationship with US so far.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 15 Feb 2016 20:36

^^ Fair enough sir, but the issue here is the interpretation of the "stretegeric fraandship" America professes all the time, and then turns around and arms the neighbourhood bhikari. Most Indians (sadly including a few here on BRF) drink the kool-aid provided by the US (I admit, theirs is the best) and blindly believe whatever they propose: engine dev, joint patrolling, space cooperation, nuke tech, some alphabet soup stuff like DTTI, etc. Then there is this harebrained idea of building our next carrier as a nuke with EMALS which, coincidentally, will block us from funding more Vikrants. All of which we are ready to pay hard cash for, nothing free, mind you. Have any of them really taken off the ground? The reply as always is, "oh they will, and will be the best thing next to sliced bread, but pliss to have these few more alphabet soups, like CISMOA, LSA, ABCD, ZYX, and everything will be awesome".

What Russia did or does can be discussed on its own, no issues. But why this compulsion to bring in Russia whenever someone criticizes the US?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 15 Feb 2016 21:10

SSridhar wrote:I do not understand why playing 'realpolitik' must be the sole preserve of the US and not the lowly Indians. India must shamelessly do whatever is in its best interests. If that means they have to protest F-16 sales while welcoming joint patrols (though I am not sure if there is a general welcome for that either in BRf or in India), then so be it. It is not as though India alone would benefit from a joint patrol, the US has much more at stake than India.

+1

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 Feb 2016 21:26

>>Now I see why the US publicly offered to conduct joint patrols with IN a few days ago. They knew the F-16 sale was about to be announced.

The joint patrol issue was discussed a long time ago. I think you know it was not an "offer" just made a few days ago. And in all probability, they also discussed with India the "sale" of the F-16s to Pakistan well before the announcement. In any event, even if the sequencing is

>>Pathetic. I'm referring to all the Indians, including many on this forum, who were gleeful about the prospect of joint patrols with the USN. So naive.

"Many on this forum"? I barely recall one or two being positive about it. Everyone recognises this has pros and cons. On balance though, we may just go ahead with it. If you read the statement by the Indian side carefully, room was left open for joint patrols.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Feb 2016 22:35

^^^^^

There is a "deeper" understanding to the situation.

While the "joint patrol" is a PACOM effort (as much of the def deals with India are), he F-16 is a State Dept effort. And, when I say "PACOM" it is *not* even the entire Defense Dept. IF at all, you will come across a few in the Def Dept cursing TSP.

Babus for you.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 16 Feb 2016 01:05

Interesting discussion above. I must say that we should shamelessly go for our own interest be that with Russia or USA even though I personally will go with the russians given the weight of history and nature of their people and culture even though Gwalamukhi's points must not be forgotten. It is a fine balance.

More importantly we should go all out to support our own industry and that would mean taking decisions that may upset our friends like france or russia.

India will be pushed forward by it,s own people not by foreigners however good they are.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2016 01:23

^^^^^

Good to see that attitude on BR. 15 years.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Feb 2016 02:40

johneeG wrote:- There was no punishment on Pakistan EVEN AFTER Osama was found in Pakistan. On the contrary, more money and weapons have been given to Pakistan.

- China was not recognized by US for a long time. Modi was not given Visa by US for a long time. Such things can change in a jiffy. If US wanted, they could have easily recognized Taliban and made a deal with them. Infact, they are now negotiating with Taliban isn't it via Pakistan? The whole concept of good Taliban and bad Taliban. If negotiating with Taliban is such a bad idea, why are they doing it now? This whole story is riddled with contradictions. And contradictions keep increasing with the time.

- Ok, let me outline a scenario: US sanctions Pakistan. Stops all direct and indirect funds and weapons to Pakistan from US and its allies. Then, it gives funds and weapons to rebels in Pakistan like Balochistan Liberation Army in Balochistan, and some groups in Pakhtun lands, some groups in Karachi, ...etc. The first step would be to take the controls of ports in Karachi and Gwadar, Balochistan. That itself would send Pakistan into Paralysis. Do you think its going to take a decade for Pakistan to unravel? How long did it take in Ukraine for rebels to capture power with the support of US? I would say that Pakistan would splinter within an year at most if US wanted.

- So, the only option left is: US gives weapons and money to Pakistan because it wants Pakistan to survive and stay strong. Pakistan has stated again and again that it threatens only and only India. Infact, it is ready to even use Nukes on India. Surely, US understands this.

- Forget Indian govt views. US doesn't act according to the views of Indian govt. India has no leverage on US. India cannot force US to do anything except by agreeing to toe its line. Perhaps, the sole leverage that India has is: ability to hurt Pakistan.

- What sort of punishment would work? Nobody's sure who knew what, at what level. And at the end of the day, troops in Afghanistan still need to be fed and watered. Unless they pull out from Afghanistan, there aren't any ideal options for retaliation available.

- Again, fact is the Taliban would not have given up the Al Qaeda for whatever price. Aside from the whole Pashtunwali thing, there were familial relations binding them together (IIRC UBL & M.Omar married each other daughters. Sweet no?).

- Orchestrating a massive scaling up of the Balochistan insurgency wasn't doable for a myriad of reasons.

First, the Baloch themselves have only a slim majority within the province, thanks to an influx of Pashtuns encouraged by Islamabad. They could be expelled but such an exercise when carried out by non-state actors, will inevitably result in bloody ethnic cleansing. Second, the BLA doesn't have a safe base of operations, some place where training camps can be set up and run unmolested, while still being accessible by land. Third, whether we accept it or not, the PA is a disciplined well trained fighting force that the BLA cannot stand up to in any open fight. So there's no question of taking over Gwadar. At best, it can slowly bleed their foe something that'll take years to affect any real change. Fourth, any formal US military offensive again will unify the people, the country isn't going to collapse. Routing Pakistan's conventional forces is no problem, but once the counter-insurgency phase kicks in, it'll be an absolute nightmare. The highest intensity battle they've seen to date (Fallujah) is a cakewalk compared to what a quagmire, a megapolis like Karachi has the potential to become. And at the end, they'd still be no closer to finding OBL, which is what they were there for in the first place.

johneeG wrote:- So, the only option left is: US gives weapons and money to Pakistan because it wants Pakistan to survive and stay strong. Pakistan has stated again and again that it threatens only and only India. Infact, it is ready to even use Nukes on India. Surely, US understands this.

The trouble with this thesis as I've stated before is that US aid to Pakistan dried up the moment the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. And then only started again, when they needed to co-opt Pakistan for the new Afghan campaign. And over the last four years, they've been steeply winding down aid, to coincide with their withdrawal from Afghanistan. The India factor has not changed.

- Forget Indian govt views. US doesn't act according to the views of Indian govt. India has no leverage on US. India cannot force US to do anything except by agreeing to toe its line. Perhaps, the sole leverage that India has is: ability to hurt Pakistan.

Over the short term, India has limited direct influence, can't directly facilitate the war effort. But the medium-to-long term prognosis is very different. Its only a matter of time before the US gets overtaken by the China in economic terms, and as inevitable consequence of that, overtaken in military terms. And it'll happen within the next two decades, which isn't a very long time. (Unfortunately, China is an equal threat to us - and will continue to outgrow us for still, since their stats are measured on a far larger base.)

The only actor with the demographic heft and economic potential to even the scales is India. Something the Americans realised about 10 years ago. Which is why you'll find bilateral engagement further only deepening with time. There's already been a sea change over the last decade; take a look at the frequency of military exercises we conduct. Back in 2005, nobody'd have batten an eye at another 4-8 F-16s. Today we can make fuss, because we have that leverage.

And its not just a consequence of our improved geopolitical standing. What would happen if we summoned the Chinese ambassador over Yuan SSK exports? We'd merely amuse them. We don't summon the Russian ambassador over S-400 exports to China for the same reason. He'd politely hear us out and then advise us to buy more Russian gear if want a say in where Russia arms can be sold. All because we have limited leverage there.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 16 Feb 2016 03:09

The low IQ joker C. Rajamohan is back to pimping US's pakistan policies in India. Third-rate loser is now the head of "Carnegie Endowment for peace" think tank in India.

This is easily recognizable as a regurguitation of the Manmohan Singh line of Peace at any cost.

Recommendations for the Modi Government
Break the Mold

Continue to put politics, not bureaucratic conservatism, in command to drive the peace process with Pakistan.

Resist pressure from the media to suspend the peace process at the first setback.{as was done for 10 years by the UPA govt.}

Explore opening up a channel of communication with the Pakistan Army.

Broaden the Base

Draw the opposition parties, especially the Indian National Congress, into the peace process by encouraging their leaders to travel across the troubled frontier between the two countries. {as if the paki-lovers in the INC need "roping in" to travel to pakistan..they do that voluntarily, but Rajamohan is obviously not paying attention}

Invite the chief ministers of the states bordering Pakistan—Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat—to initiate contact with the neighboring regions across the frontier. {this has only resulted in the ISI developing assets in India to commit terrorist attacks, so what is Rajamohan's logic for claiming this time will be any different?}

Liberalize the visa regime to promote exchanges between religious communities, business groups, and civil societies.{Most paki businesses are run by the Army or people associated with it, so how is this going to help stop pakis from creating assets in India to harm India? }

Address Hard Issues

Build on the Bangkok Mechanism—the newly established dialogue on terrorism between the two countries’ national security advisers—to strengthen engagement with Pakistani security agencies. {Pakistan has not yet acted on any of the promises made to India about taking action against the terrorist groups run by the army, so what exactly is there to build on?}

Revive the negotiations on Kashmir conducted by the special envoys of then Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf between 2005 and 2007. {To what end? Is this current regime in pakistan willing to let go of PoK? if not, what's this talk to be about.}

Revisit the many negotiations that came close to fruition during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s decadelong engagement with Pakistan, ranging from trade liberalization to energy exchanges to the Siachen dispute in Kashmir.

Read more at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/02/10 ... logue/itp1

Seriously, how does this incompetent moron Raja Mohan lauded as "India's sharpest FP strategist" by American think tanks is a great mystery...probably he plays a willing pimp to whatever ideas they plant in the space between his ears.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2016 03:50

^^^^^

He forgot one key item: Invite the terrorists to setup an office in India?

He is growing old I guess. Or not keeping up with the times. Terrorism is in. THE thing to do.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Feb 2016 03:54

Some articles of interest:

Australia to query Chinese government over South China Sea claims

US Admiral Warns Against Chinese Fighter Flights From South China Sea Runways

SINGAPORE: Any move by China to fly jet fighters from runways on its new man-made islands in the disputed South China Sea would be destablising and would not deter US flights over the area, a senior US naval officer said today.

Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, the commander of the US Navy's Seventh Fleet, also urged Beijing to be more open over its intentions in the South China Sea, saying it would relieve "some of the angst we are now seeing".

"We are unsure where they are taking us," Aucoin said of China's recent moves during briefing with journalists in Singapore.

"So we are going to sail, fly, operate throughout these waters....like we have been doing for so long," he said.

That, he added, included "flying over that airspace."

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 16 Feb 2016 03:58

NRao wrote: He is growing old I guess. Or not keeping up with the times. Terrorism is in. THE thing to do.

If this guy calls himself a foreign policy expert and cannot pay attention to the single largest elephant in the room when it comes to pakistan, he has lost the plot. But, I have never read anything by Rajamohan that has not been feebleminded ever. Cannot think of any sharp insight he has provided on any topic -- he usually repeats someone else's ideas to an Indian audience. Of course, he also believes he is a legend (in his own mind).

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 16 Feb 2016 05:02

ThiruV wrote:Seriously, how does this incompetent moron Raja Mohan lauded as "India's sharpest FP strategist" by American think tanks is a great mystery...probably he plays a willing pimp to whatever ideas they plant in the space between his ears.

I believe you have answered your own question. He's being brazen enough to call for GoI to encourage INC leaders to "cross the border" (surprisingly no such recommendations for SP, BSP, RJD, JDU, MIM, TMC leaders?), exchanges between "religious groups" (read Islamists) and re-start Track II.

Baring all your cards in such a manner suggests either exceptional stupidity or exceptional desperation or something far more sinister. Basically he's conveying his masters wish list.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 17 Feb 2016 05:32

Check this short clip. The clip is a total package of humor, politics, and waaar. I'm not a political analyst, but Trrrrrump appears to have finished off his distant third opponent's chances.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 17 Feb 2016 06:22

ThiruV wrote:
NRao wrote: He is growing old I guess. Or not keeping up with the times. Terrorism is in. THE thing to do.
If this guy calls himself a foreign policy expert and cannot pay attention to the single largest elephant in the room when it comes to pakistan, he has lost the plot. But, I have never read anything by Rajamohan that has not been feebleminded ever. Cannot think of any sharp insight he has provided on any topic -- he usually repeats someone else's ideas to an Indian audience. Of course, he also believes he is a legend (in his own mind).

This guy is nothing but a congi pasand purveyor of the paki point of view, trying to give the congis some desperately needed hold on legitimacy.

did the congis do any of this??

why are all these creeps insisting that WE, meaning Modi "establish" contact with the paki army?? Why?? and to what end??

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 17 Feb 2016 06:25

CR was faculty in some singapore university, and before that, one-time protege of Indian strategegist K. Subramanyam IIRC. He has been writing this column called Raja Mandala for many years in IE, and all of this stupid nonsense he is advocating is a repeat of what he used to suggest in his columns, except he is now being paid by an American think tank.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Feb 2016 13:42

NR,,the terrorists already have their offices up and running in india.For quite some time now.Otherwise known as the INC!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Feb 2016 21:06

ThiruV wrote:CR was faculty in some singapore university, and before that, one-time protege of Indian strategegist K. Subramanyam IIRC. He has been writing this column called Raja Mandala for many years in IE, and all of this stupid nonsense he is advocating is a repeat of what he used to suggest in his columns, except he is now being paid by an American think tank.

If you see the video of KS Garu's memorial service, he is no where present.
I think there is a falling out with his guru.
KS garu was an India firster even while asleep.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 17 Feb 2016 21:21

Ramana wrote: KS garu was an India firster even while asleep.

No doubt about that. Absolute respect to him, apart from all his other significant achievements, for coming out and saying a couple of years before his passing, that Nehru called the US president before he called his own army in 1962. No one ever revealed that to the Indian public before he did...or maybe they did, but I never read/heard that. Absolute treachery at the highest levels that was kept a secret from the people for decades.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Feb 2016 18:45

F-16 sale to Pakistan: We’re not in a ‘single-issue relationship’ with US, says India

Of course !

Sticking to its position, India on Thursday said it disagreed with the U.S. rationale that supply of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan will help combat terrorism but at the same time noted that its ties with Washington were not a single-issue relationship.

External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said the U.S. decision to sell eight F-16 jets “will create negative sentiment” in the India-U.S. relationship.

“We have our concerns and we do not agree with their rationale. They said F-16s will be used for combating terrorism. It will be to fight against terrorists. We do not agree with that rationale,” Mr. Swarup said.

However, Mr. Swarup added that the relationship with the U.S. “is not a single issue relationship”.

Rejecting India’s disappointment over the issue, the Pentagon had on Wednesday said the decision to sell the F-16 jets to Pakistan should not be a cause of concern for New Delhi as the regional security situation was taken into account.

“We don’t think it should cause concern for India,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook had said.

Asked about Pakistan’s view that it was “surprised and disappointed” over India’s reaction to the U.S. decision, Mr. Swarup said it was on expected lines.

“We are not surprised at the Pakistani reaction. That was on expected lines,” he said.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 18 Feb 2016 21:14

MK Narayanan on Headleys deposition to an Indian court
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-things-headley-left-unsaid/article8249373.ece?homepage=true

Again, in reply to a leading question from the prosecutor, Headley also identified Ishrat Jahan as a terrorist belonging to the LeT (since her death in a police encounter in Gujarat in 2004, there had been many attempts to portray her as an innocent victim). Intelligence agencies, however, were aware that she was an LeT operative, and a key figure in a carefully planned LeT operation. The operational trail went from Pakistan to Dubai, Kochi, Kashmir and finally Ahmedabad. Headley provided neither names nor any details regarding this operation. His sole reason for identifying Ishrat as an LeT operative, it would seem, was to give a propaganda advantage to the LeT. The most glaring omission in Headley’s deposition was his unwillingness to identify Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, currently languishing in an Indian prison.

Reading between the lines of his testimony, Headley’s jihadi leanings are obvious. Answering one of Mr. Nikam’s questions, he identifies with jihad and the need to fight against enemies of Islam such as India. His jihadi belief was, no doubt, greatly strengthened during the years he spent in LeT and other training camps in Pakistan, but it would be a mistake to ignore the ‘Afghan effect’. Few international volunteers actually fought in Afghanistan; most worked, or remained, in Pakistan. From these volunteers have emerged several of today’s jihadis. History today is aware that among such elements was a pious young Saudi engineer, Osama bin Laden. Headley’s case is thus very instructive for us. Training camps that programmed Headley are well situated to produce many others to wage jihad against India.

Professor Christopher Andrew, who has written a landmark history of the British domestic counter-intelligence and security agency MI5, coined the term Historical Attention Span Deficit Disorder (HASDD) to describe the inability of today’s policymakers and intelligence specialists to situate any significant development within a broader historical context. He was speaking specifically about the world’s response to the emergence of transnational Islamist extremism as a security threat. In effect, what he suggested was that there is a general tendency to lose sight of what has transpired in the past. The Headley interlude is a reminder to us that we, as a nation, should not fall victim to HASDD.

He has avoided mention of the many hidden moles he is certain to have left behind from his several visits to India. Identifying an already known Rahul Bhatt means little. Not an inkling has been given by him about the nature of the terrorist trail from Pakistan to Dubai to Ahmedabad and of the many links in this chain. Headley is significantly silent about the ‘Karachi Project’, by which disaffected Indian Muslims were inveigled into becoming part of the Indian Mujahideen.

An inherent weakness in combating global terror at present is the absence of honest collaboration and cooperation among intelligence agencies the world over. What passes for cooperation today is an over-simplified framework of statements accompanied by limited follow-up actions. India was a victim of this kind of ‘faint-hearted’ cooperation in the case of the 26/11 attacks. The U.S., and to a lesser extent the U.K., had important information with them about a possible attack on Mumbai, having penetrated Zarar Shah’s computer. The U.S. possibly had more additional information via the Headley link, but seemed to play down his involvement with the LeT due to other ‘operational considerations’. The net result was that all the information available was not shared, and what was shared was inadequate to save the lives of over 160 people.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Feb 2016 21:22

Can Pakistan pay for the F-16s it plans to buy from the US?

February 17, 2016

Talk about bad signals. President Obama gave PM Modi the big brush off with his decision to stick with the sale of F-16s to Pakistan.

This despite Pathankot, despite Hafiz Saeed’s open call for more terrorist attacks against India, despite horrific violence against the Afghans by ISI-controlled jihadis, despite strong opposition in the US Congress and despite testimony from his own military commanders that Pakistan continues to provide safe havens to the murderous Haqqani network.

Trouble waiting to take off

You can add to the list ad infinitum and to your own chagrin. Here’s a president who is cerebral enough to grasp the real story and seemingly not afraid to shatter Washington orthodoxies (Iran and Cuba). Yet on Pakistan, he allows himself to be blind folded and led by the architects of failed policies.

But given the twisted history of US-Pakistan relations, and that of F-16 sales in particular, Pakistan can’t uncork the champagne just yet. The sale was notified on February 12 and the US Congress has a month to pass legislation (a “resolution of disapproval”) to prevent the sale. But it must also have the votes to override a presidential veto, which will surely follow.

Since this line of action is rarely used and has never succeeded in the past, key members in the US Congress decided to come back another way. Here’s the deal – they won’t allow US taxpayer money to subsidise the F-16s. Pakistan will have to come up with the cash on its own. All $699.04 million of it. Can it? Will it?

Anger against Pakistan on Capitol Hill is so high, important committee chairmen have put a “hold” on financing. If Pakistan wants those eight F-16s with their accoutrements, it must pay the full amount because the $330 million that was supposed to come through “foreign military financing” or FMF will not be made available.

The gravy train has stopped – for now.

Bob Corker ,Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who recently returned from his fifth trip to Afghanistan completely disillusioned, Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the committee, Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat, all feel there is no need to give freebies to a country that stabs the hand that feeds it.

An insider described the move thus: “It is a ‘yes’ to the sale because it’s Lockheed Martin and American jobs, but a ‘no’ to the financing because it’s Pakistan.” The overriding feeling: “enough is enough.” Corker also said he won’t allow any juggling or “reprogramming” of aid for Pakistan left over from last year. Clever bureaucratic tactics won’t help.

No doubt, this is a huge public embarrassment for the Obama Administration because it had promised General Raheel Sharif the planes were as good as delivered. Turns out, not quite and life for the White House smart set just got more complicated. It’s been clear for some time that the administration simply wants to run down the clock on Af-Pak until the next president takes over. In the meantime: “No disturbance on my watch.”

It’s noteworthy that the F-16s decision and particularly its timing angered New Delhi enough to summon the US ambassador – not something an Indian government would do easily or lightly in the post-nuclear deal era. Clearly, the cup of patience runneth over.

To New Delhi, Washington’s rewards programme for Pakistan implies the US does not care that ISI-supported terrorists bleed India. Or Afghanistan. It does not care that it emboldens the Pakistan army – the single-biggest institutional hurdle in making peace. The reasons peddled to justify arms sales – counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations – fail the basic intelligence test.

We can’t pretend this doesn’t affect the India-US bilateral relationship because it does. It raises old questions about American reliability and in the end, decisions like these reduce not enhance strategic convergence.

But at the same time New Delhi shouldn’t allow eight F-16s to crash into the Indo-US partnership because that would mean India is doing the re-hyphenating and looking at its equation with Washington through the Pakistan prism.

P.S. The Pakistan bill to America: around $70 billion since 1947, including $30 billion since 9/11. The gains: minimal. Stability in Afghanistan remains elusive and Pakistan continues to spawn terrorists.

By now it should be clear that Pakistan has a vested interest in maintaining instability while feigning cooperation.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Feb 2016 07:56

Hurt by U.S. plan to sell F-16s to Pakistan: Parrikar - The Hindu

Expressing “hurt” over the U.S.’ decision to sell Pakistan eight F-16 fighter jets, the government said it had made it clear that the deal was unacceptable to India.

“I am quite hurt by [the sale of F-16s to Pakistan] and we have expressed our opinion quite clearly to the U.S.,” Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told India Today TV’s ‘To The Point’ programme in an interview on Thursday.

The Minister’s statement comes nearly a week after the Ministry of External Affairs had summoned U.S. Ambassador Richard Verma to express India’s “disappointment” and displeasure over the announcement of the deal worth approximately $699 million.

While the U.S. government had formally notified its Congress of its intention to make the Foreign Military Sale (FMS) last Friday, the deal may take some months, especially after objections from Congressmen of any plans by the U.S. of subsidising the deal.

Sources said India had made it clear that not only was its opposition to the deal over the fact that the military hardware would be used to bolster Pakistani defences against India rather than counter-terror operations, it was also upset by the timing of the deal.

Senior officials said the F-16 sale came even as India was hoping to keep the pressure on Pakistan to deliver action on the Pathankot terror attack.

Asked if the U.S. decision and rejection of India’s concerns went against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement that India and the U.S. were “natural allies,” Mr. Parrikar told journalist Karan Thapar, “There are ups and downs in all relationships. Overall the relationship has improved a lot. Of course, this [F-16 sale] is a [down]. We don’t accept this deal and that is what we have told the U.S.”

But, of course, India-US relationship doesn't hinge on a single transaction, the 'hurt' notwithstanding.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 19 Feb 2016 22:13

Received in Email.

http://ktul.com/news/local/senator-lank ... -and-india

By the way, for all those who have adopted the completely meaningless political self-definition of "RW", and perhaps dream of international "RW Solidarity"... please realize that this Senator James Lankford is a Conservative Republican of Oklahoma. He has thrown his weight behind the Berkeley-Haas crew of Angana Chatterji, FOIL/FOSA and their nexus in the USCIRF.

It is time to understand clearly that "RW", "Left" etc. are purely relative terms have no absolute meaning whatsoever. From this EJ Conservative Senator to the claimed-"bipartisan" USCIRF to the loudly leftist Berkeley Haas crew, the ENTIRE spectrum is ranged against India in general and Modi in particular.

Senator Lankford asks President Obama to reevaluate ties with Cuba and India

BY RACHEL GOODWIN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH 2016

http://ktul.com/news/local/senator-lank ... -and-india

EXTRACTS FROM THE SENATOR'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

OKLAHOMA CITY - Today Senator James Lankford (R-OK) asked the President to reevaluate his decision to open diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba and India. This request comes in reference to their poor human rights and religious liberty records. In the following letter, Lankford named India and Cuba's speech policies and culture against religious minorities "as a reason to halt the increasingly close relations".

February 18, 2016

President Barack Obama

The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for vocalizing support for religious freedom and religious minorities both here in the United States and around the world. On September 23, 2015, after hosting Pope Francis at the White House, you advanced a series of values and objectives including: "Promoting and protecting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy. In recognition of the increasingly important role that religion is playing in international affairs, and of the core importance of freedom of religion and conscience as a universal human right...The United States will continue to stand for the universal right of all people to practice their faiths in peace and in freedom." It is imperative that the U.S. use every appropriate venue to support this vital human right, listed first among our own Bill of Rights. I appreciate the ongoing efforts of this Administration to defend the right of every human being to think, believe, and act according to their conscience.

As Pope Francis stated in his recent address to a joint session of Congress, "It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society." Freedom of religion is a fundamental human value that transcends physical and ideological borders. In light of its essential nature, I am concerned with the United States' increasingly close relations with nations that have not protected the religious liberty and human rights of their people.

Particularly, I am concerned with Cuba and India.

India has a very different cultural and governmental structure from Cuba, but USCIRF for years has placed this nation on its Tier 2. Although it has a religiously diverse society and a secular government, there are significant violations of human rights and freedom of religion. The campaigning prior to the country's 2014 general election was religiously-divisive and increased religious tensions. For three consecutive years, religiously motived and communal violence has increased. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is in power, has been linked to violent attacks and forced conversions undertaken by Hindu nationalist groups. Although Prime Minister Modi has recently stated his commitment to freedom of religion, he continues to be the only person who has ever had a visa revoked by the State Department for being "responsible for or directly carr(ying) outparticularly severe violations of religious freedom."

Even though there are some laws in place to protect religious minorities, these laws are often unfairly enforced or never enforced at all. Six of India's 28 states have enacted Freedom of Religion Acts which commonly are referred to as anti-conversion laws. Although the laws intend to protect religious minorities from forced, fraudulent, or induced conversions, they are only enforced with regard to conversions away from Hinduism. Furthermore, accusations of violating provisions of the Freedom of Religion Acts do not require evidence. These laws have created a hostile and violent environment for members of religious minority communities. The 6 Indian states with these laws reportedly have the greatest number of religiously-motivated attacks and incidents of communal violence.

Christians and Muslims are often the target of religious harassment and violence. Christians have reported violence, arson, destruction of property, and a reluctance of local police to protect them or investigate the incidents. According to the Evangelical Fellowship of India, in November and December of 2014 there were more than 38 incidents of harassment or violence against Christians. Additionally, there have been violent attacks on Catholic churches and communities. Muslims have been particularly targeted by Hindu nationalists and politicians who have perpetuated hate campaigns against them, which has resulted in discrimination, harassment, and severe violence - including an attack in January of 2015 of a majority-Muslim village by a 5,000 person mob after a Hindu man had been killed. During the incident, several people were burned alive and 25 houses were set on fire.

The United States has had a close relationship with India for decades, however, your Administration has advanced an even closer alliance. This has included two state visits to India, more than any other President. Additionally, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton started the U.S. - India Strategic Dialogue. Although five dialogues have been held since 2009, none have addressed India's significant religious liberty issues.

The United States should consider its role and relations with India with caution. While India continues to suppress religious liberty and human rights, I encourage the Administration to utilize the strength of our current relationship with India to support the religious liberty and human rights of Indian citizens of all faiths.

Religious liberty is a basic human right and one that is denied to many people across the world. In your words, "people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely." I respectfully request that the Administration reconsider increasing relations with nations that do not respect this fundamental right.

In God We Trust,

JAMES LANKFORD

United States Senator

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 20 Feb 2016 19:56

^^^ Very appropriate to bring the point to light - especially to address, some of the more naive response I get to hear from Indian Americans that line up with Democrats and reject the Republicans - perhaps too quickly - not recognizing that there is more in common with both parties on several issues, as there ought to be, and there are vast differences in approach between the two on other issues. The real danger is in what you point out that the "Breaking India" forces seem aligned across party lines perhaps based on prejudice or rather geo-politics. Either way, the response for now needs to be intellectual.

It is time to recognize that Hinduism is now an American Religion. Why do these senators not shed a tear for the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits? Why do Hindu, Sikh and other minorities in Pakistan, etc. find no champions? The fault lies in the Indian Americans themselves in that they do not write or protest to such senators and make their opinion known in a calm and composed manner.

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 21 Feb 2016 16:02

Coin toss, superdelegates and now this

After the Iowa coin toss Nevada uses cards to pick a caucus winner

After seven tied precincts in the Democratic caucus in Iowa were decided on the toss of a coin, a party official pulled out a deck of cards in the home of gambling, Nevada, to separate the candidates in a caucus where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders won the same number of votes.

And it was Hillary Clinton whose luck held.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 22 Feb 2016 00:49

link

Looks like the open letter by the Indian sepoy academics in US universities managed to ensure that the chairs at UCI were not funded by the DCF.

Apparently, practitioners of hinduism must not be BJP supporters or "hindutva" supporters, if they are to be hired to teach hinduism...same standard does not hold for Jews and other minorities. Very nice.

Contentious issues included DCF's prior and existing links with Hindutva proponents in India, which UCI professors and students were able to unearth using public sources of information. DCF had also previously 'black-listed' academics whose approach it disagreed with, and it had also trained its guns on established academics including Wendy Doniger.

This tendency, UCI’s Humanities teachers, among others, felt was a clear step towards lesser, rather than more academic freedom and rigour at UCI. They felt that the DCF leaned towards appointing “scholar-practitioners” at its chairs, which would violate the university's rules for non-discrimination on grounds of religion. Most controversial of all, the Irvine staff and many other India experts in the US saw the Foundation's approach unpalatable. They felt it was attempting to bypass the university's teachers, whose approval is mandatory for institution of new chairs.

Last December, after the Humanities Executive Committee (HEC) at Irvine protested these grants, humanities dean at UCI, Georges Van Den Abbeele, appointed an ad hoc committee to review all four DCF grants. Each of these is worth $200,000, including a $50,000 grant from the university.

The ad hoc committee has now recommended that DCF's grants should only be cleared if the terms they had earlier sought to impose through the gift agreements be "substantially modified". One of the terms, though not explicitly stated, amounted to appointment of "scholar-practitioners" at the chair for Indic studies. The notion of "scholar-practitioners" is backed and supported by the DCF, quite openly, in media interviews and other forums.
Dean Abbeele, in a statement to teachers on February 19, says, "The HEC recommends that we not proceed with the chairs endowed by the Dharma Civilization Foundation. I will support these and other recommendations."
His letter came a day after the HEC's report on Februrary 18, which has said that the UCI failed to set up a "meaningful consultation" on the grants, due to which the four new grants became publicly mired in controversy. The ad hoc committee also recommends that the gift agreements be "substantially modified to make sure that the language of these agreements is consistent with standards required of all recruitments in public research universities."

who were the members of the HEC and this "ad hoc" committee? These oiseaules do not have the same standard for Jewish groups

link

Why don't they hire a non jew to do this research huh?

Now, a prestigious and highly competitive Fulbright Senior Scholar Fellowship will take Lehmann to Tel Aviv University where he will continue his research project—a biography of Maurice de Hirsch.

Lehmann’s biography will offer a fresh perspective on modern Jewish history, moving beyond the usual paradigms of emancipation and enlightenment. He will show how Jewish people often resisted the demands of the modern nation state and navigated a world transformed by the rise of modern capitalism.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Feb 2016 03:25

Viv S wrote:Can Pakistan pay for the F-16s it plans to buy from the US?

paah! who pays for these f16s in pakistan? they barter for marijuana and drugs. it is a $trillion more worth than these fighter jets.

mr parikkar needs to review DTTI terms

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 22 Feb 2016 05:02

nvishal wrote:
RoyG wrote:Hand placed on Gita during oath ceremony.
What does that mean actually?

Does that mean he swears allegiance to india or the US?
-------------------

Whether a person has indian origins, reads gita or speaks some familiar languages doesn't mean positive outcomes for indian interests.

The recent installments of indian origin individuals appointed in foreign states facing against india has to do with this: - In the video, watch closely what they are trying to achieve:

Unko ek "ghar bhedi" type diplomatic setup chahiye so that they can upgrade from a "mehmaan" type interaction to a complete "parivaar" type gupshup interation

Ha, easy there. He's just aiming for a supreme court seat. It has nothing to do with Indian interests. He's just different front the two republican coconuts Jindal and Haley who view their heritage as a liability. Nothing more.

member_29228 · Post by **member_29228** » 22 Feb 2016 07:47

Is India prepared for Trump or Hillary presidency?

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 22 Feb 2016 07:59

Anyone but that lying, india-hating lowlife Hillary. Republicans better than Democrats if India-US relations are to improve.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Feb 2016 13:52

And after the report that the US will not provide us with N-reactor tech for a nuclear-powered CV,what is the so-called,much touted strat. alliance" worth? The US wants us to spend a few billion so that they can perfect their EMALS system for their supercarriers costing $17B apiece and buy their expensive aircraft too.This will given them permanent intrusive visiting rights as they please in perpetuity of the life of the weapon systems. If that isn't a vassal relationship what is?

Anyone but a Clinton.Bill C,was the guy who gave China a nuclear pass so that Pajk could obtain and proliferate its nuclear weapons and tech. China outsourced some of the work to NoKo so that Bill could declare that it wasn't involved in N-proliferation.The Clintons husband and wife are no friends of India.Any Republican is better. At least Trump speaks his mind openly,you know where he stands. One sincerely hopes that Sanders gets his act together and derails "that woman"!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Feb 2016 21:30

Universities are 'laboratories of thoughts': US envoy on JNU row

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 089_1.html

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 22 Feb 2016 21:43

^^
It is instructional as to how the US gained control over subversive behavior on their college campuses. Essentially, over a generation, funding for colleges has been progressively reduced until students are forced to focus on studies due to high tuition. Further, high cost tuition has ensured that students start taking college level courses before entering university and that they get done with university as soon as possible.

Not to say that all funding needs to be reduced in the Indian context. Funding needs to be increased massively for healthcare education, both undergraduate and specialty given that availability of medical staff is limited all over the country.