India-US News and Discussion

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jan 2010 08:23

From Schaffer's book

Second Round of Talks (January 1963): Page 83-84

At this second round of talks, diplomatic dueling continued as the two sides seriously discussed the principles on which a boundary in Kashmir could be drawn. The Pakistanis suggested that these should include the composition of the population, security requirements, and control of the rivers, factors they thought would give them the most territory. The Indians, for their part, said that any territorial adjustment considered necessary should take into account geographical, administrative, and other considerations, and involve the least possible disturbance to the life and welfare of the Kashmiris. This last point was very much to India's advantage; it was widely expected that transfer to Pakistan of Indian-held areas in the Valley and elsewhere would lead to the wholesale flight of their non-Muslim residents. The Indians also warned, as they had before, that such a transfer would lead to serious anti-Muslim violence in India proper. In a joint statement that was not made public, the two sides agreed that a settlement should include the delineation of an international border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. The disengagement of the two countries' forces in and around Kashmir would be an essential part of such a settlement. The delegations undertook to present maps showing their sides' concepts of the boundary at the next session, to be held in Karachi in early February.

American policymakers believed that the third negotiating round would be crucial. They became increasingly convinced that if India and Pakistan failed to make a breakthrough at that session the United States and Britain would have to develop a proposal of their own. (US Ambassador to India) Galbraith welcomed this prospect. Both before the negotiations began and while they were in progress, he had urged Washington to adopt a more active role, only to be rebuffed. He found that the current approach of "urging the Indians to be forthcoming and the Pakistanis to be patient and backing this with an appeal to this self-interest plus the awe and majesty of the United States" was wearing thin. McConaughy agreed with his assessment.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 04 Jan 2010 10:30

India needs to be careful and limit, if not severely reduce road & rail links, with TSP. I've seen Pakis travel on direct US-DEL flights on a US Passport, and then go on to travel by surface links to the other side of the border. Hopefully the new rules stop this sort of thing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2010 10:45

Marten wrote:U.S. Intensifies Screening for Travelers From 14 Nations
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/us/04webtsa.html?hp
Citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, countries that are considered “state sponsors of terrorism,” as well as those of “countries of interest” — including Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen — will face the special scrutiny, officials said.

Passengers holding passports from those nations, or taking flights that originated or passed through any of them, will be required to undergo full-body pat downs and will face extra scrutiny of their carry-on bags before they can board planes to the United States.

In some countries that have more advanced screening equipment, travelers will also be required to pass through so-called whole-body scanners that can look beneath clothing for hidden explosives or weapons, or may be checked with a device that can find tiny traces of explosives.
*hope this is the right thread for this news. Would someone consider cross-posting it in the appropriate Pak thread as well.

Is India mentioned in this news report?

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 04 Jan 2010 18:27

^^No.
From CNN today:

A senior government official, not authorized to speak on the record, provided CNN with the full list of 14 countries that fall under the TSA's "countries of interest" label -- which will automatically trigger the enhanced screening.

The State Department lists four countries as those that sponsor terror: Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran. The other 10 countries of interest are Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen, the government official said.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jan 2010 06:25

3rd Uninvited Guest Got Into Whitehouse State Dinner for India Without Checks

The man traveled to the White House from the hotel where the Indian delegation was staying. The Secret Service said the man arrived with members of that delegation. But he was not in the Secret Service's database of people prescreened and approved to attend the event. Part of the security screening is a criminal background check that the Secret Service does before a guest enters the White House. The Salahis and the man traveling with the Indian delegation did not go through that background check.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 06 Jan 2010 05:50

Not sure if this is the appropriate thread ...

The Elephant in the Room
The biggest pain in Asia isn't the country you'd think. !!

Wonder what is the source/reason for this much vitriol.

India, first and foremost, believes that the world's rules don't apply to it. Bucking an international trend since the Cold War, successive Indian governments have refused to sign nuclear testing and nonproliferation agreements -- accelerating a nuclear arms race in South Asia. (India's second nuclear tests in 1998 led to Pakistan's decision to detonate its own nuclear weapons.)

In 2008, India single-handedly foiled the last Doha round of global trade talks, an effort to nail together a global deal that almost nobody loved, but one that would have benefited developing countries most.

... is hardly a liberal democratic paradise. India limits outside assistance to nongovernmental organizations and most educational institutions. It restricts the work of foreign scholars (and sometimes journalists) and bans books. Last fall, India refused to allow Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan journalists to attend a workshop on environmental journalism.

India also regularly refuses visas for international rights advocates. In 2003, India denied a visa to the head of Amnesty International, Irene Khan. Although no official reason was given, it was likely a punishment for Amnesty's critical stance on the government's handling of Hindu attacks that killed as many as 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat the previous year.

Just last year, after Sri Lanka had pounded civilians held hostage by the Tamil Tigers and then rounded up survivors of the carnage and put them in holding camps that have drawn universal opprobrium, India joined China and Russia in subverting a human rights resolution suggesting a war crimes investigation and instead backed a move that seemed to congratulate the Sri Lankans.

Ms. Crosette is welcome to enlighten us with a similar one on PRC and may be one on TSP, touching the same points.

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 06 Jan 2010 06:09

Masaru wrote:Not sure if this is the appropriate thread ...

The Elephant in the Room
The biggest pain in Asia isn't the country you'd think. !!
Ms. Crosette is welcome to enlighten us with a similar one on PRC and may be one on TSP, touching the same points.

India happily attacks individuals, as well as institutions and treaty talks. As ex-World Bank staffers have revealed in interviews with Indian media, India worked behind the scenes to help push Paul Wolfowitz out of the World Bank presidency, not because his relationship with a female official caused a public furor, but because he had turned his attention to Indian corruption and fraud in the diversion of bank funds.

Ha! Cry us a river Ms.Crosette!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Jan 2010 06:20

Of course, India gets marvelous press. Feature stories from there typically bring to life Internet entrepreneurs, hospitality industry pioneers, and gurus keeping spiritual traditions alive while lovingly bridging Eastern and Western cultures

Has crossette ever written a positive story on India?

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 06 Jan 2010 06:24

Those are the reasons? I was expecting something more spectacular for the claim of most troublesome nation. Very disappointed.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Jan 2010 06:31

Copenhagen stuck in her craw
In Copenhagen, a New World Order on Display

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 06 Jan 2010 11:20

I've been reading articles written by Barbara Crossette about India, almost always negative, for nearly 20 years since she's been with the NY Times. Barbara is 70 years old and hopefully, she'll hang up her pen and quietly collect her pension. There is no need for chuthias like her who are merely a western version madam jalebi next door to the west.

Here are some of her books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=s ... te&x=0&y=0

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 06 Jan 2010 11:32

Masaru wrote: The Elephant in the Room
The biggest pain in Asia isn't the country you'd think. !!

Ms. Crosette is welcome to enlighten us with a similar one on PRC and may be one on TSP, touching the same points.

Thanks for posting this link -

In saying no, one is sovereign
In making others say yes, one is a power.
Still have a long way to go India!

Ms. Crosette hope you do not lose your appetite for chai biscoot

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 06 Jan 2010 11:43

There's the Columbia connection again.

India "seems bent on self-destruction," opines Crossette, a research associate at Columbia University's Southern Asian Institute and a New York Times senior editor who until 1991 was a correspondent in New Delhi.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 06 Jan 2010 13:29

Let me summarize the article:

Uppity India didnt sign NPT, stalled in climate talks and stole 600 million from world bank.

US hasnt ratified CTBT, p1ssed all over the Kyoto Protocol, stole 5 trillion from the world economy.

India certainly has a long way to go to grow up and come to the level of the US !!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 06 Jan 2010 20:49

Bret Stephens in the WSJ on 'civilisational incompetence'
Take with salt only.

krithivas · Post by **krithivas** » 06 Jan 2010 21:16

Ms. Crosette is an ancient cold war relic desperately searching for some miniscule relevance in an otherwise changed world.

The state department used her extensively through NYT to abuse India during 80's and early 90's during USSR Afganistan occupation days. She has been discarded since, but now trying to Mazarify her way out of irrelance.

The only difference now is that Indophiles see her through -- YACC*.

R. Krithivas

// * Yet Another Cold war Condom.

Pulikeshi wrote:
Masaru wrote: The Elephant in the Room
The biggest pain in Asia isn't the country you'd think. !!

Ms. Crosette is welcome to enlighten us with a similar one on PRC and may be one on TSP, touching the same points.
Thanks for posting this link -

In saying no, one is sovereign
In making others say yes, one is a power.
Still have a long way to go India!

Ms. Crosette hope you do not lose your appetite for chai biscoot

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 06 Jan 2010 23:04

Really, Barbara isn't going to have any luck convincing either conservative or liberal Americans that India is their biggest problem in Asia, or even their second or third biggest problem.

Not when the Chinese were at the front in Copenhagen, or have a veto in the UNSC, or when North Korea/Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen compete for most dangerous failed state, or Ahmadinejad calls for the elimination of Israel.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 07 Jan 2010 00:56

It appears Ms.Crossette's retirement savings have dwindled and that she's back in the workforce hacking away like it's the summer of '89 all over again.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Jan 2010 00:57

Suraj wrote:It appears Ms.Crossette's retirement savings have dwindled and that she's back in the workforce hacking away like it's the summer of '89 all over again.

This is probably the correct picture. Her retirement fund was made on dissing India and Indians.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jan 2010 02:03

Mort Walker wrote:I've been reading articles written by Barbara Crossette about India, almost always negative, for nearly 20 years since she's been with the NY Times. Barbara is 70 years old and hopefully, she'll hang up her pen and quietly collect her pension. There is no need for chuthias like her who are merely a western version madam jalebi next door to the west.

Here are some of her books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=s ... te&x=0&y=0

She is an embittered modern Kathrine Mayo.

Unfortunately there are desi versions of her ilk too.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Jan 2010 03:35

Hari Seldon wrote:Bret Stephens in the WSJ on 'civilisational incompetence'
Take with salt only.

I do find our "civilization" to be incompetent. Those who pretentiously use the word "civilization" all the time tend to be the ones who have the least to boast about. I'm referring to ourselves, naturally.

You'll never see the Japanese referring to their "civilization" all the time. They'll refer to values, to honour, to ethics, etc, but they don't use superficial self-pompous words like "civilization". No, it's for the lesser accomplished, more ego-oriented people like Indians to do these things.

Whan Honda and Toyota cars started taking off during the 70s, did you see the Japanese boast of their "rising civilization"? Nope, but the minute any Indian starts selling tiffin boxes to the rest of the world, every Indian commentator is immediately crowing about our forward-marching "civilization".

Some people concentrate on goals, and meantime we are doing victory dances when we haven't even left our side of the playing field.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jan 2010 03:42

You should post this in the Know your india thread.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Jan 2010 08:18

Sanjay M wrote:You'll never see the Japanese referring to their "civilization" all the time. They'll refer to values, to honour, to ethics, etc, but they don't use superficial self-pompous words like "civilization". No, it's for the lesser accomplished, more ego-oriented people like Indians to do these things.

Really? Lookup Japan's 'rise' leading upto WWII. Loaded stuff on uber-nationalism, heightened militarism, 'self-evident' racial/national/cultural and (dare-I-say-it?!) civilizational superiority and what not. That Japan got nuked, drawn and quartered and beaten into what it became for 2 generations afterwards. Apt baseline for comparison with us Injuns, am sure. Checked up on the Chinese lately?

And your loathing for the (to quote you verbatim)

lesser accomplished, more ego-oriented people like Indians

is quite well known. I can only marvel at the selflessness, altruism and genuine humanitarian compassion that causes a more-accomplished, egoless person like you to continue to associate with us know-not-what-we-do 'Indians' only. Thank you for enlightening us at how and how much we have sinned, sir.

/Have a nice day.

You should post this in the Know your india thread.

Amen.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 07 Jan 2010 08:56

Acharya wrote:
Suraj wrote:It appears Ms.Crossette's retirement savings have dwindled and that she's back in the workforce hacking away like it's the summer of '89 all over again.
This is probably the correct picture. Her retirement fund was made on dissing India and Indians.

I see the foot prints of lizard all over her farticle

jash_p · Post by **jash_p** » 07 Jan 2010 09:24

Ms. Crossette is now United Nations correspondent for The Nation and a freelance writer on foreign policy and international affairs. Most recently she was a co-author with George Perkovich of a section on India in the 2009 book Powers and Principles: International Leadership in a Shrinking World.

No wonder she writes what she was told.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 07 Jan 2010 16:02

Really? Lookup Japan's 'rise' leading upto WWII. Loaded stuff on uber-nationalism, heightened militarism, 'self-evident' racial/national/cultural and (dare-I-say-it?!) civilizational superiority and what not. That Japan got nuked, drawn and quartered and beaten into what it became for 2 generations afterwards. Apt baseline for comparison with us Injuns, am sure. Checked up on the Chinese lately?

Very well said Hari! Another thing i notice, Chinese and Pakistani's cannot stop saying India compares itself all the time to China, but if you see their forums including deff n dum there are more threads and posts on India-China than on BRF or any Indian forum. Irony is Paki's call us 'bhangee's', 'dalits' casteist in the same breath. Even on deff the comments by Chinese posters are so shockingly racist, it defies imagination.

I travel to Japan very often and i must say they are extremely nationalist and racist even institutionally. So many night clubs in every city are only for Japanese and possibly whites/ Americans. As pointed out by Hari the US was and is instrumental in keeping their nationalism on the leash in modern times.

On the contrary i notice Indians are the most self flagellating, self cynical people i have met anywhere. The slogans of 'India shining', 'superpower' are created by a very few macaulized feudal origin elite as the ones that dominate TOIlet and other media channels.

China was taking it's superpower role seriously even in the 90's, when it's economy was a 3rd of India's today. No one then talked Chinese nationalism. In India look at rediff columns, any superpower talk is laughed, mocked and ridiculed by Indians.

Another irony is that ultimately US will have to seek India's help to curb 'civilizational nationalism' as propagated by the CPC and Zahil Hamids in Pakistan at some point of time. It is these type of entities that spew 'civilizational nationalism' all of the time and pounce on the exception made the rule for countries like India, US.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jan 2010 01:02

JEM and Rangudu we need a detailed rebuttal of Crossette's bilge to be put on blog.

Matthew_H · Post by **Matthew_H** » 08 Jan 2010 01:09

I found that this article which the author cited to be a bit more detailed. It is worthy of a look: http://cryptome.org/in-dual-tech.pdf

Best to all.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Jan 2010 01:38

Barbara Crossette sits on CFR board. Prannoy Roy and Mukesh Ambani used to be on the International Advisory Board (don't know if they still are).

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 08 Jan 2010 01:52

^^ They are still there

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 08 Jan 2010 02:39

[quote="Thefineprint"][/quote]

saar need to change ur name to meet forum guidelines

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jan 2010 06:21

Check the comments

Bush favours UNSC seat for India
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 48#4127254

PTI 31 October 2009, 05:26pm IST
Print Email Discuss Bookmark/Share Save Comment Text Size: |

NEW DELHI: Pitching for a greater role for India globally, former US President George W Bush today favoured its entry into the expanded UN Security
Council, which he acknowledged had got caught into political complications over questions like size and criteria.

Bush, whose tenure saw a transformation of Indo-US ties, also "heartily" supported President Barack Obama's remarks that America's relations with India should not only be one of the most important ones but must be one of the best ones.

He favoured a push to the strategic ties and review of the immigration rules, particularly in the context of H1B visas to allow skilled workers, most of whom come from India, to contribute to the US economy on a long-term basis.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Jan 2010 08:42

Not negotiating between India and Pakistan: Holbrooke

arun · Post by **arun** » 08 Jan 2010 08:53

Reaction of Anne Patterson, US Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, on our COAS Gen. Deepak Kapoor’s comment on fighting a two front war.

The MEA must get the State Department to muzzle Anne Patterson. A rap across the snout will also help:

US envoy to Pak dubs purported Kapoor comments as 'silly'

Press Trust Of India
Islamabad, January 07, 2010
First Published: 15:35 IST(7/1/2010)
Last Updated: 15:36 IST(7/1/2010)

"That was a silly thing to say, in my view. And I know it had a reaction here that was unfortunate but then again, lots of people say silly things on both sides of the border”

PTI via HT

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Jan 2010 10:20

Why India Is No Villain

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... no_villain

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Jan 2010 11:03

abhishek_sharma wrote:Why India Is No Villain

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... no_villain

Do Americans secretly hate India and Indians?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jan 2010 11:07

Is this a Know your India type question?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Jan 2010 11:26

Acharya wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:Why India Is No Villain

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... no_villain
Do Americans secretly hate India and Indians?

I think it is difficult for them to respect others. They are so full of themselves.

negi · Post by **negi** » 08 Jan 2010 12:41

ramana wrote:JEM and Rangudu we need a detailed rebuttal of Crossette's bilge to be put on blog.

I don't see any Jingo comment on the main article it self , I posted two but were removed after half an hour or so (but the dammage was done

).

Pattom · Post by **Pattom** » 08 Jan 2010 12:48

In the comments section of Nitin Pai's response to the Croissant article:

Why are we so worked up over the writings of this lady?

Ms. Crossette went to India with an exaggerated sense of self-importance that didn't impress many over there. It didn't help that she had never quite understood the concepts of journalistic ethics and objectivity. She was rude and aggressive, quick to judge, and dismissive of people who welcomed her into their country. She alienated India and its people through her own arrogance and conceit. They were glad to see her go. So she's been nursing a deep resentment towards India all these years.

Lady, you are in your seventies. Get over your vanity and your petty grievances. Spend these last few years in meditation or in helping the needy.

Take Miralax regularly. It will do your insides and your disposition a world of good.