India-US News and Discussion

[arun]

Extract from our Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s interview by CNBC-TV18’s Vir Sanghvi on Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley.

The US’s maternal instincts of protecting the Islamic Republic of Pakistan when it comes to terrorism targeting India is far from dead with the American’s seeming to have taken our Congress party led Dr. Manmohan Singh Government yet again for a ride.

Having got access to the lone surviving terrorist of the Mumbai 26/11 attack, Ajmal Kasab, they have denied us access to Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley.

Meanwhile our Home Minister, perhaps to make light of the denial of access by the US, claims that Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley “has nothing to do with this puzzle” ie: 26/11 :

Pak hiding real 26/11 culprits: Govt

CNBC-TV18
Published on Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 08:52 …………………………

Vir Sanghvi: Let me then take it to Headley, did you have any idea about this man or it even existed before the Americans told us?

P Chidambaram: No.

Vir Sanghvi: Isn’t that a failure on our part?

P Chidambaram: No.

Vir Sanghvi: The man comes here, he lives here, he does resonance and he goes back, files reports?

P Chidambaram: All that was before 26/11, he came to India only once after 26/11.

Vir Sanghvi: And we still didn’t know who he was?

P Chidambaram: He is a white, Caucasian looking person, American name, American Passport.

Vir Sanghvi: He has got his father’s name etc written on his passport?

P Chidambaram: It’s an American passport.

Vir Sanghvi: So we don’t suspect any American ever?

P Chidambaram: We do, provided there is some intelligence.

Vir Sanghvi: So isn’t that a failure that we didn’t have intelligence?

P Chidambaram: Because he didn’t do anything here after 26/11, he just came here once.

Vir Sanghvi: When we are piecing together the puzzle of what happened, this man appears to be in a large part of the puzzle yet we had no idea?

P Chidambaram: He has nothing to do with this puzzle.

Vir Sanghvi: With the 26/11 puzzle, he had no role on reckon at all?

P Chidambaram: He had a role in reckon, but he doesn’t appear in any pieces of the puzzle of 26/11 investigation. Because from what we gather through pictures, videos and that’s it, he did nothing else.

Vir Sanghvi: The other part of this Headley saga is that the American DEA sent him into Pakistan as an under cover agent, there are court records saying this, it is a matter of public record?

P Chidambaram: Much earlier there is speculation that once he changes identity or just before he changed his identity, he may have been used by one of the agencies of the US in drug enforcement.

Vir Sanghvi: This is not speculation, this is in court papers, he was let out of jail early by the DEA, the New York Times, every American papers carried this on the ground that they sending him as an under cover to Pakistan?

P Chidambaram: Americans have never admitted that.

Vir Sanghvi: They may not have admitted to you, but they newspapers have carried it, there are also court records?

P Chidambaram: The court records only show that his sentence was curtailed and he was let free.

Vir Sanghvi: This is what you thought was odd?

P Chidambaram: Why is it odd to me? It’s not odd, it’s quiet possible that he may have been used by one of the agencies.

Vir Sanghvi: You are accepting that?

P Chidambaram: I am willing to assume that.

Q Do you think he went rouge or was he working for one of the agencies?

P Chidambaram: We don’t know; we have no access to him.

Vir Sanghvi: Isn’t that in itself odd that they don’t give you access to Headley?

P Chidambaram: No, they have just reined him, there is a grand jury and there is a procedure there. We can still go to the Letter Rogatory route, please remember, the US is also governed by a tight legal system as ours; we would not give the access to the Americans to anyone here unless they go through the legal process.

Vir Sanghvi: Did we give them access to Kasab?

P Chidambaram: We did because at that time we needed the Americans very badly.

Vir Sanghvi: So is it that they don’t need us?

P Chidambaram: Not yet. If they want access to something else in India today I would ask them to go through the legal process, but the Kasab case is an exceptional case, we had to use the Americans.

Vir Sanghvi: I take the point you are making, but here you got Kasab who we gave access to and here they have Headley who they hide away from us?

P Chidambaram: I don’t think the two are counter comparable.

Vir Sanghvi: They haven’t even given many photographs of Headley?

P Chidambaram: They have. The access we gave to Kasab, they have done us quite a favor and in return for access to Kasab, they have helped us crack that case.

Vir Sanghvi: You think the case is now cracked?

P Chidambaram: I think so, but its sub judicious, so I don’t want to comment on it.

The verbatim interview transcript is available here:

CNBC-TV18

[Lilo]

US arms cartel cranking up its presence in Indian weapons bazaar

Finally a relevant article on national security from the ToI stable.

[VinodTK]

India's rising profile earning attention from United States

The Indian government asked the U.S. Army to bring the Strykers, which are relatively new but have earned a good reputation in Iraq.

[A_Gupta]

Prepare for a President Palin, 2012.

[Tamang]

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this...

50 killed in massive blast at US power plant

[pgbhat]

Dude the number is 2 not 50. Change the headline.

[shyam]

So pollution from "Kleen Energy plant" is a big kaboom

[abhishek_sharma]

Fareed Zakaria interviews John Yoo (the guy who wrote "the torture memo").

It is not relevant for India probably. But a good interview.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcas ... .02.07.cnn

(In the first 50%, he interviews the King of Jordan)

[CRamS]

Fareed Zakaria interviews John Yoo (the guy who wrote "the torture memo").

It is not relevant for India probably. But a good interview.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcas ... .02.07.cnn

(In the first 50%, he interviews the King of Jordan)

Damp sqib. Fareed Zakariah is a super establishment mouthpiece. It would be interesting to understand how this guy managed to become part of the foreign policy elite.

[vera_k]

His father was 2nd in command to Mrs. Gandhi at one time. Its quite a coup for the INC.

[abhishek_sharma]

US has never propped up India: Gates

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 548017.cms

United States has dismissed Pakistani perceptions that it was propping India, saying that New Delhi "did not need us for that purpose" and has advocated that the two neighbours resolve their differences bilaterally.

"I would tell you that the United States clearly has not or has ever propped up India. India has not needed us for that purpose and, in fact, those familiar with the history would know that our relationship with India was fairly strained until not too many years ago," defence secretary Robert Gates has said.

[Philip]

US N-plants need to come under "full safeguards" against such disasters and the US must be made accountable and liable for any such acidnets.Bhopal is a grim reminder about how the US got off lightly after a US company perpetrated the world's worst industrial accident for which the suffering continues to this day.

[Gerard]

The US Government does not provide such guarantees to US private companies selling reactors overseas. There is no way to 'make' the US state liable.
The buyer has the option of not purchasing the equipment and choosing a non-US option.

Not that the non-US option provides any direct tap into the French or Russian treasuries in the event of an accident. The liability will be capped, by direct government negotiation, as surely as it is done with the US option.

A third option... sitting in the dark, remains viable.

[Philip]

4th option.Give the US the most difficult and remote site for the N-plant locations and drag on the negotiations until the Russian,FRench and other plants have been completed! Buying US eqpt.,fuel etc. is no problem.

Connecticut power station explosion: dozens could still be missing
Rescuers are searching the remains of a Connecticut power station destroyed by a massive explosion that left dozens of workers unaccounted for.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ssing.html

[Gerard]

It is the Indian consumer that sits in the dark when negotiations are dragged out. It is the Indian economy that suffers due to lack of electrical power.

[Sanku]

It is the Indian consumer that sits in the dark when negotiations are dragged out. It is the Indian economy that suffers due to lack of electrical power.

And the same people will suffer when the plant goes kaput (just stating it for perspective)

[Gerard]

Have the US built reactors at Tarapur gone kaput in the decades since they have been operating?

[Rangudu]

"Punishing" the US by methods that actually end up punishing Indians and our economy does not make sense at all.

[harbans]

Just 2 things to put into perspective. The blast in the US power plant was a gas based plant not a nuclear one. Second, the US stopped installing nuke plants after the 79 3 mile Island disaster. However US companies like GE make Nuclear plants with state or art technology. Lots of collaborations with Japanese companies. AFAIK they're pretty active in Japan.

Edited after correction pointed out by Anant. Thanks

[Anant]

Harbans,

Not to nitpick but the incident was at 3 Mile Island. That is in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania not New York. Long Island is in New York, not Pennsylvania. Otherwise, your point is well taken. Thanks.

[abhishek_sharma]

America: A fearsome foursome

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6b4700a-10fb ... ab49a.html

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

...

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

...

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

...

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

...

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

[Sanku]

Have the US built reactors at Tarapur gone kaput in the decades since they have been operating?

Indeed, so why not give 100000000000000 Million $ of sovereign guarantee, after all they wont go kaput?

[amit]

Have the US built reactors at Tarapur gone kaput in the decades since they have been operating?

Indeed, so why not give 100000000000000 Million $ of sovereign guarantee, after all they wont go kaput?

Just curious, what kind of sovereign guarantee - in terms of $$$$$ - are the Russians and the French willing to give?

This question is for my education/knowledge only.

Thanks.

[amit]

Just to remind folks, the Connecticut power plant which exploded during construction was not a nuclear power plant. It was gas-based.

It's quite a leap of faith to extrapolate this unfortunate tragedy to possible future Nuclear plants that US companies may build in India. (We still don't have an agreement that allows Westinghouse and GE permission to start construction).

A less charitable view point would be that this is another example of "Crying wolf".

However, just to make things interesting, how about this contarian view:

These jokers can't even build a gas-fired thermal power plant without an accident. How can you trust them to build complex nuclear plant? We need "100000000000000 Million $ of sovereign guarantee" before we let them in India. Jai Ho!

[Neshant]

the Russians and the French willing to give?

I'm sure they will gurantee the moon but when a Chernobyl type incident occurs in India, they will high tail it out of there and never pay a cent.

All such gurantees are worthless unless there are assets of that country which can be seized in India itself to pay for the clean up.

The US has not built a single nuclear reactor in the last 25 years. That in spite of having easy access to all the fuel, materials and technology necessary. That should tell you how cost effective these reactors are. Per kwh, they are probably the most expensive means of generating electricity.

IMO India is wasting tons of money on these projects which will surely be a black hole for years to come financially speaking.

The security threat is huge as well and these reactors become a serious security liability.

[amit]

Neshant,

My point was not about the viability or otherwise of nuclear power plants. Or even about whether the US has the necessary competence to build a state-of-the-art N-plant. That's for another discussion on the appropriate thread.

What I find rather silly is the tendency to paint the Russians and French as some Knights in Shinning Armour riding in to take India to a Nuclear Nirvana, while the US of A is the big bad Ogre in the woods waiting to devour the poor Mango Indian who gets his light from a candle or kerosene lamp and dreams of an electric bulb hanging from the middle of his room.

Let's agree that all the guys are here for the moolah we are willing to pay for N-power plants and nobody is absolute evil just as nobody is a saint.

If we give them a chance all three countries will take us to the cleaners. To think otherwise and demonise one while championing the others serves no purpose.

[Sanku]

Errm for the French and Russians to first offer the moon and then run out of there after a failure of the plant -- there is a basic prerequisite -- for GoI to get its act together and NOT pander to the supplier but have rules which ensure that the supplier is liable.

It can be done in many ways like a escrow account, payment linked to the operation of the plant (not upfront payment) etc.

Yes it can be done, all it needs is setting the rules to our advantages and let the competition sort it out amongst themselves.

Right now, its clear bending of rules to benefit one particular party -- which is not India -- this despite all the spin that any one makes about it -- and R man no one is talking of punishing the US. Just making rules which are in favor of India, even if they make it more difficult for others.

[Philip]

Well said Sanku.that is if we put Indian interests first.In the entire N-deal saga,that interests' presence was debatable.The shoving of India into the NPT/CTBT through the backdoor,scuttling of our future testing despite the Paki-Sino N-juggernaut and the intersts of MNC beneficiaries dominated the debate.For a massive nation like India,largest democracy on the planet and second largest population wise,we behave like Haiti-peharps even Haiti protects its interests better by arresting US Baptist cradlesnatchers!
Ann N-suppliers should be treated equally,as far as conditions are concernd protecting India's interests.No especial favours for anyone,though those nations who stood by us when we had sanctions imposed upon us should get first peck.

[negi]

I can table zillion reasons for allotting the US's share to the French or Russians as long as they have the ability to build nuclear plants of requisite capacity (which they clearly have) but now that sites have been allocated to Unkil in Gujarat discussing this is of no use unless junta wants to increase their BP (again we have MMS Gobmint for that ).

[Sanku]

[krithivas]

Former congressman Charlie Wilson dead at 76
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/10/ ... tml?hpt=T2

Asked what led to the Soviet departure, Pakistani leader Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq was blunt: "Charlie did it," he told CBS News' "60 Minutes."

Some people criticized the film because it didn't do much to highlight what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets left: the Taliban's takeover of the country and al Qaeda's use of the nation as a base. Wilson was asked in 2008 about the consequences of helping the mujahedeen fighters.

"I don't think there was a serious blowback," Wilson said. "I think there was the point that [author] George Crile made in the [book's] epilogue, that the Muslims saw that they took down one superpower and then the radical ones

[Chinmayanand]

Terror suspicion: US national detained in Delhi

Reminiscent of the case of terror suspect David Headley, arrested in Chicago in October last for allegedly plotting terror strikes in India, Kensinghton Carmichael is a convert from Christianity to Islam.

The New York resident changed his religion some 40 years ago. Carmichael, who was flying to Doha in a Qatar Airways flight, is being questioned by security agencies and the American Mission had been informed about the same, sources said.

[bahdada]

YGTBFKM!

Kashmir Is the Key to Peace in Afghanistan
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthof ... istan.aspx
Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:00 AM
By Newsweek


Sometime in the past year, secret talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir--which made great progress in 2008 before Pakistan's strongman, Pervez Musharraf, was ousted--were restarted, say U.S. and Indian sources. If successful, the negotiations would represent a huge breakthrough for the subcontinent. But the payoff would stretch even further. Solving Kashmir is looking increasingly essential to another conflict: Afghanistan. That makes the Obama administration's reluctance to engage with the issue hard to fathom.
Advertisement

To understand the link between Kashmir and Kabul, remember that the U.S. can't defeat the Taliban without help from Pakistan, which continues to shelter (and, allegedly, support) the Afghan insurgents. But that won't change until Pakistan resolves its rivalry with India. It is fear of India that keeps Pakistan from pulling enough troops off its eastern border to police the Afghan frontier (which Taliban members cross at will), and that explains Islamabad's desire to turn Afghanistan into a vassal state (giving Pakistan "strategic depth" in case of an Indian invasion). Only taking Kashmir--the main bone of contention with India--off the table could change this.

Given that fact, you'd expect the Obama team to be pushing the peace process forward. Instead, it has avoided the issue, largely because India erupts with rage whenever the U.S. tries to get involved. Thus Richard Holbrooke, Obama's AfPak envoy, says the U.S. won't consider stepping in.

Yet even he concedes that Kashmir makes Afghanistan "more difficult to resolve." The U.S. simply can't afford to avoid it--but fortunately, it may not have to. The resumption of India-Pakistan talks now suggests there's a growing constituency for peace. A hard push from Washington could make the difference; the trick is assuaging India's fears. Obama has been much cooler toward New Delhi than Bush was. Were he to elevate the U.S.-India relationship to the level of U.S.-China ties, it might give Washington greater leeway to nudge India on Kashmir. So would pressing Pakistan to end its support for anti-India terrorists and helping New Delhi secure a prize it desperately covets: a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. As Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University puts it, "If that were to happen, India would roll over on any issue."

Washington finally seems to be getting the message: according to one high-level U.S. official, "People keep saying we have to deal with Kashmir. The buzz is in the air, and it's not like we're not hearing it." Let's hope they listen.

What a wet dream.

[CRamS]

Wonder what Newsweek means by "resolution of Kashmir"? And what does Ganguly, who blows hot & cold mean by India rolling over if offered UN membership.

But I don't think US hopes are a wet dream. Think about what a tizzy India media and public would go into if US offered India that much coveted UN sec council permanent membership in return for handing over J&K to TSP. Does anybody seriously believe that in today's India, which celebrates even slum dog Oscars, will be in position to mount serious opposition to such a US Chanakyan strategy? It makes my blood boil with rage, that India's impotence is so acute that something so disconnected, so illogical as linking the fight with Taliban and so callled Al Queda with the necessity for India to deliver Kashmir has now assumed center stage. Disgusting.

[RamaY]

Wonder what Newsweek means by "resolution of Kashmir"? And what does Ganguly, who blows hot & cold mean by India rolling over if offered UN membership.

But I don't think US hopes are a wet dream. Think about what a tizzy India media and public would go into if US offered India that much coveted UN sec council permanent membership in return for handing over J&K to TSP. Does anybody seriously believe that in today's India, which celebrates even slum dog Oscars, will be in position to mount serious opposition to such a US Chanakyan strategy? It makes my blood boil with rage, that India's impotence is so acute that something so disconnected, so illogical as linking the fight with Taliban and so callled Al Queda with the necessity for India to deliver Kashmir has now assumed center stage. Disgusting.

CRS garu,

This is the exact scenario I presented many moons ago in strategy discussion. If India loses J&K, there will be no-game for India in Indian Subcontinent and Asia. India can forget its regional influence and future growth.

People are mis understanding that IOR Mansabdari will provide Indian to extend its influence in ASEAN and African regions, but it will not bring "SECURITY" to Indian heart land.

IMHO, India should make a counter offer to US

- India will provide a $20B loan to TSP over 20 years. TSP Concedes POK to India.
- TSP will be made nuke nude, and in return India will offer them nuke-umberella.
- TSP will concede NWFP to new Pashtunistan. The good Taliban can control this area, which will have part of Afghanistan, and act as strategic depth to TSP.
- Remaining Afghanistan will be a separate nation and will have close links with India, as a security cover.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"..coveted UN sec council permanent membership in return for handing over J&K to TSP. Does anybody seriously believe that in today's India, which celebrates even slum dog Oscars, will be in position to mount serious opposition to such a US Chanakyan strategy? It makes my blood boil with rage, that India's impotence is so acute that something so disconnected, so illogical as linking the fight with Taliban and so callled Al Queda with the necessity for India to deliver Kashmir has now assumed center stage. Disgusting."

Yes, it is disgusting and repulsive. And there are actually Indians who would go for it. If such a 'deal' were ever to be made, you can also see the American media report on it as if were a trade between two professional sports teams like the Detroit Red Wings and the New Jersey Devils( or New Orleans Saints and Pittsburgh Steelers, for those who are more into football) . Going to Pakistan is the state of Kashmir, coming to India is a permanent seat on the UN security council. A defensive tackle for a quarterback?

[svinayak]

Wonder what Newsweek means by "resolution of Kashmir"? And what does Ganguly, who blows hot & cold mean by India rolling over if offered UN membership.

He is talking about the current ruling elite which will agree to such deals. The current ruling elite is a product of the western dominance.

But I don't think US hopes are a wet dream. Think about what a tizzy India media and public would go into if US offered India that much coveted UN sec council permanent membership in return for handing over J&K to TSP. Does anybody seriously believe that in today's India, which celebrates even slum dog Oscars, will be in position to mount serious opposition to such a US Chanakyan strategy?

All these plans are based on real study of the India's ruling generation and their weakness.

It makes my blood boil with rage, that India's impotence is so acute that something so disconnected, so illogical as linking the fight with Taliban and so callled Al Queda with the necessity for India to deliver Kashmir has now assumed center stage. Disgusting.

Indian media is not even publishing any counter to such false premise. The entire media is taking whatever comes from the western media.

[ramana]

Despite suffering from terrorism for last thirty years, to date there is no known Indian expert who can be quoted internationally without mumbling and hiding behind OAS nor has published a definitive book or study.

The retired gurus say what ever they want and when pressed for details invoke OAS. The non-official ones are all terrorist sympathisers under some pretext or the other.

[Sanku]

The retired gurus say what ever they want and when pressed for details invoke OAS. The non-official ones are all terrorist sympathisers under some pretext or the other.

Because it will necessarily lead to question and answer and discussions which are "verboten" in India.

[RamaY]

IMO it all boils down to someone presenting Indian answers/proposals to india's problems. But our babus and generals don't do that and politicians don't care