India-US News and Discussion

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Mar 2010 03:19

THE ART OF DECEPTION - Nirupama Rao’s visit would serve notice on the Obama administration - K.P. Nayar

...
It was on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran — which Rao recently visited — that she did the most plain-speaking with her US interlocutors. She may have convinced the White House and the state department that if the US looks at Afghanistan through unifocal Pakistani lenses at this critical juncture, other countries such as India, Iran, China and Russia, which have interests in Kabul, will fight that trend with some degree of coordination. But the problem is that the Obama administration is in a bind. The swagger among Pakistanis that they have had their way in Afghanistan is proof that the US has surrendered beyond redemption to Rawalpindi’s army general headquarters on Kabul.

Rao’s honest report back to New Delhi ought to be that while India is assiduously courted by the Obama administration, it is not respected unlike China, Russia, or even Saudi Arabia for that matter. That situation will change only if the UPA government resolves to stand up for itself a little more without worrying about what “they” will think in Washington. But it is a report that the Prime Minister’s Office may not want to hear.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Mar 2010 07:14

^^^^
A common complaint among Democrats about Obama is that his instinct is to appease those who attack him.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 17 Mar 2010 07:19

The KP Nayar clearly talks about the prevailing attitude in PMO.

But it is heartening to see India doing some plain talk. India has also come out openly against sanctions on Iran.
A India-Russia-Iran-China coordination on Afghanistan will be interesting.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Mar 2010 08:03

U.S. export control regulations

http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/17/stories ... 161300.htm

View from the U.S.

Responding to some of the concerns regarding export controls voiced by the Indian side Deputy Secretary of State Dennis Hightower said (via a representative) that while it was critical that the U.S. increased trade, it would simultaneously maintain its strong commitment to national security.

While he pointed out that in 2009 the U.S. exported $16 billion of goods and services to India and only three percent of these exports required a license from the Department of Commerce, he however acknowledged that “As trade in high technology grows our export control system will have to change to keep pace.”

Deputy Assistant to the President Michael Froman also commented on the Indian questions about excessive controls highlighting the fact that ten years ago 24 per cent of U.S. exports to India required individual licenses from the Department of Commerce while today only 0.3 percent of U.S. exports to India require individual licenses.

Further, he added, the licensing process and time for India now is down to 28 days, a decrease from 31 days in 2008 and less than the worldwide average of 35 days. Mr. Froman also said in 2009 BIS reviewed 985 export and re-export licenses for India, valued at approximately $334m, for which the denial rate was about 2.1 per cent.

Arguing that “Many of the U.S. high-technology items are eligible for export to India under licenses that are not available to many other countries, including China,” he said that they had to however be mindful of the diverse threats from state actors, transnational groups and even individual actors.

Suggesting that the U.S. was seeking a balance between expanding trade and not compromising on national security Mr. Froman said, “To address these challenges the U.S. is conducting a fundamental review of its export controls system.” The U.S. needed a dynamic export control system that “focuses on a core set of technologies that are critical to our national security while further unleashing the innovative power of U.S. industry to compete for sales in less sensitive items around the globe,” he said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 Mar 2010 08:46

Press Release on the Visit of the Foreign Secretary to Washington (15-16 March 2010)

http://www.indianembassy.org/newsite/pr ... /Mar/5.asp

Foreign Secretary, Smt. Nirupama Rao visited Washington DC from 15-16 March 2010 to co-chair the 7th meeting of the India-US High Technology Cooperation Group. This was the first meeting of the High Technology Cooperation Group, a component of the India US Strategic Dialogue, with the new US Administration.

...

During the two days of deliberations – between the industry representatives of both countries followed by the Government level meetings to consider the recommendations of the industry - on promotion of high technology trade between India and the USA , the two sides were able to consolidate the progress made in the last five years and identified the next steps for further expanding high technology trade between India and the US - especially in the areas of Defense and Strategic Trade, Biotechnology and Nanotechnology. They also agreed to create new groups for focused attention on cooperation in Health IT and Civil Aviation.

The Indian side requested the US Department of Commerce to review US Export Controls applicable to India and update them to bring them in keeping with the changed political realities that contextualize India-US strategic partnership today.

...

On March 15, the Foreign Secretary also met Michelle Flournoy, Under Secretary for Policy in the Department of Defence.

On March 16, Foreign Secretary met her counterpart, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Mr. William Burns. Secretary of State, Ms. Hillary Clinton dropped in and joined the discussions. Smt. Rao also met the National Security Advisor, General James Jones, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Mr. Robert Hormats and Under Secretary of State for Democracy Global Affairs, Ms. Maria Otero.

The Foreign Secretary also met Congressman Gary Ackerman and Senator Joseph Lieberman.

It may be recalled that the two sides had instituted a Strategic Dialogue in July 2009 when Secretary Clinton visited India. The Indian External Affairs Minister is expected to visit Washington soon for the first round of Strategic Dialogue with Secretary Clinton.

...

Discussions also focused on regional issues including India’s neighbourhood. Foreign Secretary briefed the US side about her talks with the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan last month. She exchanged views on recent developments related to Afghanistan and stressed that Afghanistan presented the foremost security related challenge in the region. She reiterated India’s long held position that it was important for the international community to stay the present course in Afghanistan for as long as it is necessary. The US interlocutors conveyed their appreciation of the important developmental work being done by India in Afghanistan.

...

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 17 Mar 2010 10:12

Dunno if this was posted.
Putting India on the Atlantic ---- Robert Farley

Thus, while the QDR confidently projects about India’s role in supporting the US-defined international order, it conveniently ignores what might become serious differences in foreign policy outlook. At some point and to some degree, India’s desire to restructure the international order (at least at a regional level) may come into conflict with the US desire for stability. This does not imply fault on the part of either country, but rather the simple recognition that different states view the world differently and seek different (if often compatible) ends. The QDR’s treatment of India on this point stands in contrast to its treatment of China. According to the QDR, China must choose between supporting and trying to revise the international order. India’s contribution, however, isn’t treated as a choice, but rather as an assumption.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2010 11:06

Nirupama Rao on the US's "anachronistic" attitude towards India.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/17/stories ... 161300.htm

U.S. export control regulations “anachronistic,” says Nirupama Rao
Narayan Lakshman

Excerpts:

Nirupama Rao, Indian Foreign Secretary, on Tuesday described the United States Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Entities list “anachronistic” saying, “It is anomalous that a body like the Indian Space Research Organisation, which is developing several collaborations with National and Aeronautical and Space Administration, should continue to be on the list.”

Co-chairing the 7th meeting of the India-U.S. High Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG) along with Daniel Hill, Acting Under Secretary for Industry and Security, Ms Rao exhorted attending delegates from the U.S. Department of Commerce to reconsider control restrictions for U.S. exports to India. She also addressed the Entities List issue at another speaking engagement at the Woodrow Wilson Centre later in the day.

The BIS's Export Administration Regulations contain a list of names of foreign businesses, research institutions, government and private organisations and individuals that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, re-export and transfer of specified items.

At present the list includes ISRO, Bharat Dynamics Limited and Department of Atomic Energy entities such as the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre, Indian Rare Earths and most nuclear reactors (including power plants) not under IAEA safeguards.

Arguing that the earlier trend of restrictions being reduced had been halted, Ms. Rao said that among the early results of the HTCG were the removal of a number of Indian organisations from the Entity List by 2005, de-licensing of certain categories of dual-use items and institution of a presumption of approval policy in other categories. “This process of easing of controls seems to have slowed down; we need to address this issue,” she emphasised.

Indian record “exemplary”

There would appear to be significant support for this view from the private sector, notably Indian industrial lobbies with a presence in the U.S.. For example Ms Ranjana Khanna of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) said, “We appreciate that further liberalisation of export controls needs to be accompanied by the responsible use of high technology items and preventing its diversion to unintended uses… India's record has been exemplary in this area.”

Yet Ms Rao did admit she was reassured by the U.S. government's announcement of its intention to overhaul their Export Control policy and hoped to see the enhancement of trade in such goods and technologies between our two countries and removal of remaining Indian organisations from the Entity List. “We hope that your response and the outcome of your review would be such that it would reflect — and reaffirm the strategic nature of our partnership,” she said.

She may have some cause for relief — overall, total exports of advanced technology products exported from the U.S. to India have increased from $1.3 billion in 2003 to over $4 billion in 2009, despite the backdrop of the global economic slowdown.

Progress would also appear imminent with the civil nuclear agreement between India and the U.S.. Regarding the deal Ms Rao said, “Once the 123 Agreement is implemented, a structured bilateral interaction with the Industry on both sides could take forward the process.” Even in the interim period there has been a steady and direct interaction between U.S. nuclear industry and NPCIL, with two MoUs already signed with GE Hitachi and Westinghouse, she said.

View from the U.S.

Responding to some of the concerns regarding export controls voiced by the Indian side Deputy Secretary of State Dennis Hightower said (via a representative) that while it was critical that the U.S. increased trade, it would simultaneously maintain its strong commitment to national security.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 18 Mar 2010 07:43

Taking Tea with the Taliban by Michael Rubin of the AEI.
The piece is worth a full read. Posting excerpts of some observations on the US State Department ways of working

Robin Raphel traveled repeatedly to the region to meet Taliban representatives. What resulted was theater: the Taliban would stonewall on terrorism but would also dangle just enough hope to keep diplomats calling and forestall punitive strategies. It was not hard for the Taliban to string diplomats along

when American diplomats face a conflict between national security and cultural relativism, they usually defer to the latter.

State Department’s Pakistan unit wanted to remain the point group for the initiative and insisted that all engagement be conducted through the U.S. mission in Pakistan

Bill Richardson......credited himself with winning a cease-fire in the civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There followed some of the most intense fighting of the civil war

Rather than stonewall on Bin Laden, they simply told U.S. diplomats what Washington wanted to hear.

The fiction that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were functionally different should have ended on Christmas Eve 1999, when five Pakistani nationals hijacked an Indian Airlines flight and diverted it to Afghanistan. After the plane landed in Kandahar, the Taliban resupplied the hijackers with weaponry. Nevertheless, in the wake of the hijacking, Inderfurth met senior Taliban officials and opened the session “by emphasizing the importance of continued dialogue, despite differences.” The Taliban, however, continued to stonewall.

the State Department fell prey to clientitis, the great occupational hazard of diplomacy—the condition that befalls diplomats who confuse their own attempts to achieve a smooth relationship with their host governments for their actual purpose, which is to secure and advance the interests of the United States.

Obama’s willingness to accept the conventional history—we lost Afghanistan because we ignored Afghanistan—is reason for grave concern.... diplomacy for its own sake is a cornerstone, perhaps the cornerstone, of Obama’s foreign policy. And specifically in Afghanistan, he is already signaling a readiness to repeat the mistakes of engagement with the very extremists whose behavior made possible the attacks of 9/11 and who have returned to torment Afghanistan....His chief Afghanistan envoy, Richard Holbrooke, has handpicked a team that includes, among others, Robin Raphel, an architect of pre-9/11 efforts to engage the Taliban. Thus the mistakes of the past may be repeated, with potentially dire consequences, in the very near future.

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Mar 2010 08:45

Chidanand Rajghatta of TOI describes Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s Washington foray as “The atmospherics are good but the ground realities are unfavourable. India is struggling to stay relevant and advance its geo-political equities with the United States”:

India out of the loop on Af-Pak

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 18 Mar 2010 09:45

Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama by Robert Kagan in WaPo

The president who ran against "unilateralism" in the 2008 campaign has worse relations overall with American allies than George W. Bush did in his second term.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 18 Mar 2010 09:49

Congress asks PMO to go slow on Nuclear Liability Bill

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/ ... y-bill.htm

Questions are being raised among the Congress brass why the government needs to make overtures to the United States through the bill when the US did not show enough concern for India after the 26/11 terror attack.

"Even after the 26/11 terror attack, where Pakistani handlers masterminded and controlled the entire attack, the US has not stopped its supply of sophisticated weapons to the Pak army. It is also pressurising New Delhi [ Images ] to restart the composite dialogue process with Pakistan. In this situation, why do we need to pander to the US by pushing the Civil Nuclear Liability bill?" asked a senior Congress leader.

Now are these Congress leaders saying this because their favourite party is not in power? When the same thing was pointed out by some posters they were ascribed to some political affiliations. Here we have Congress leaders themselves saying the same thing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Mar 2010 09:59

arun wrote:C
India out of the loop on Af-Pak

Interesting comment

Agthagola Kansas 18/03/2010 at 05:59 am
Tables are turned on india. Time has changed and so the ground realities. The best course for india will be to instead to keep on sitting on stupidity of pundit Nehru, get out of Kashmir before US and Western forces are out of Afghanistan. Because if it is still there while West is out then!

AK Australia 18/03/2010 at 03:50 am
India is saddled with its own devisive problems. Before India can have a say in the world stage, it needs to be united and strong internally. The current political system (including the constitution) does not allow that unity to happen.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Mar 2010 10:14

Acharya wrote: Interesting comment
Agthagola Kansas 18/03/2010 at 05:59 am
Tables are turned on india. Time has changed and so the ground realities. The best course for india will be to instead to keep on sitting on stupidity of pundit Nehru, get out of Kashmir before US and Western forces are out of Afghanistan. Because if it is still there while West is out then!

What is interesting about this comment? I don't understand what he means.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Mar 2010 10:44

US empire is shrinking but MMS is still looking with wide eyes . Instead of carving place for India , teh effort is still on to borad the sinking ship. Talbans were tehre before 911 and if they remain now , nothing change. We dealt with them before alone and will deal with them again. The onlee question is , has the Indian elites learned appropriate lesson or still starry eyed? Start making plan to elimimate the enemies without remorse by removing the velvet glove. Talibani foray in K will provide good oppertunity to clean the mess left by Nehru.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Mar 2010 10:44

CRamS wrote:
Acharya wrote: Interesting comment
Agthagola Kansas 18/03/2010 at 05:59 am
Tables are turned on india. Time has changed and so the ground realities. The best course for india will be to instead to keep on sitting on stupidity of pundit Nehru, get out of Kashmir before US and Western forces are out of Afghanistan. Because if it is still there while West is out then!

What is interesting about this comment? I don't understand what he means.

I think he means India had better get out of Kashmir before the US/West leave from Afghanistan, because otherwise we will feel the full force of ISI's jihadi terrorists who can focus on us exclusively once the US/West have left Afghanistan. It is a threat made in Paki english.

When I looked at that article on the TOI website, ALL the reader comments were pro-Paki, by Pakis, for the Pakis.

Goes to show what the readership of the TOI-LeT has become these days.

Aman ki Asha!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Mar 2010 11:13

"Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must allow foreign policy and decision making to come back to India from Washington, and evolve a strategy that furthers Indian and not American interests."

http://expressbuzz.com/edition/story.as ... wcg==&SEO=

India needs new strategy

Seema MustafaFirst Published : 18 Mar 2010 11:42:00 PM ISTLast Updated : 18 Mar 2010 01:18:46 AM IST

Afghanistan is proving the quagmire for not just the US and the NATO allies, but also for Pakistan and India. Both the countries are now getting wrapped in the Afghan cloak, with relations strained and angry at all levels as terror blasts continue to take their toll, and diplomacy continues to fail to settle what should be simple issues but are getting increasingly complex by the day.

Pakistan is America’s strategic ally for Afghanistan to the point where India has been isolated. India, however, continues to strive to hold on to its few assets in Afghanistan in a bid to foil Islamabad’s plans to control Kabul, politically and strategically if and when the Americans manage to execute their exit policy. The attack on the guesthouse in Kabul that is a favourite with visiting Indians was a clear indication that their safety and security is now at high risk. And that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is not just incapable but also unwilling to ensure that all Indians working and living in Kabul are given adequate protection.

It is apparent from the few leaked stories that are now appearing in the media that national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon returned from his visit to Kabul with the distinct impression that Indians there are no longer secure. The government seems to be seriously contemplating reducing the strength of missions in Kabul, and recalling soft targets like doctors and others. It is clear that the decision to send paramilitary forces for the protection of Indians in Afghanistan is not a foolproof arrangement against suicide bombers, and the issue of security will remain wide open.

Pakistan has been urging the US to put pressure on India so that it closes its consulates in Afghanistan and curtails its presence in that country. New Delhi refused to succumb to the pressure but clearly now the threat of violence and the lukewarm response of the Karzai government is forcing a decision that does not serve Indian interests in the long run. But the choice is difficult and the government cannot be blamed for whittling down its presence in the violence torn country.

Terrorism continues to unsettle Pakistan, but instead of coping with the situation the Gilani government has decided to up the ante against India by blaming it for every old and new act of violence. The Lahore attack recently is a case in point with Gilani’s absurd charges drawing an irate response from the government here. The point however, is that Pakistan has decided not to continue talks with India and to keep the hostilities alive so that it does not have to shift the troops from the borders with India into ongoing operations along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s willingness to talk despite the odds has been interpreted by Islamabad as weakness, and the anti-India cacophony has only intensified as a result.

The hardening of Pakistan policy is evident from this, as well as its decision to parade anti-India jihadi groups on Kashmir Solidarity Day all over that country, and its decision to invite the hardline Kashmiri separatists to visit Pakistan. Islamabad has decided to recognise only the Geelani faction of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, ignoring the more moderate voice of Mirwaiz Omar Farooq. It has also sought to create a new leadership that can replace the ageing and ailing Geelani, with two new invitees — the rabid Asiya of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat and Adbul Qayum of the Kashmir Bar Council.

New Delhi seems to be bereft of strategy as the visit of Menon to Kabul suggests. His agenda should have been to get Karzai back on track but clearly he either did not even venture into this territory but this is hard to believe, or he just did not meet with any success. The last seems more likely as Karzai who was always vocal in criticising Pakistan, is now Islamabad’s friend and has moved quite a distance away from India.

The result of what could well be a complete diplomatic misadventure is that India will have a Taliban government sitting in Kabul and eventually even dictating to those in charge of Islamabad. The question is not of a good or bad Taliban as everyone knows it is of a pliable and rigid Taliban. And the bad might be present in large numbers in the ‘pliable’ that Pakistan is trying to get to form a government in Kabul. The choices before India are now very few, as the strategists in government should have seen this coming but obviously were too arrogant or blind to sense it. Instead of opening all links with the remnants of the Northern Alliance, the war lords and even sections of the Taliban, Indian foreign policy focused for several years only on the nuclear deal with the US, and the dialogue with Pakistan. Afghanistan was handled in a totally kick jerk fashion and now that New Delhi is waking up to the reality it finds itself pretty much on the periphery with insignificant say in developments in the region.

Indian nationals have become the target of the Taliban, which is not fighting the US in the same manner as al-Qaeda. New Delhi does not have the support it needs to protect them, and this has been pretty much made clear to the government here. US envoy Richard Holbrooke’s first comment after the terror attack in Kabul that Indians were not the intended target is a striking example of the US disinterest, and although he retracted later, the message had come through with all its implications. This is adding to muscle-flexing in Islamabad with its foreign minister and prime minister making statements that just do not compliment politicians of their seniority.

This has to stop. And it is time that the PMO, MEA and MHA sat down in strategy sessions, invited strategic experts who necessarily do not see eye to eye with the government, and worked out a strategy for the region that could help India handle Afghanistan and Pakistan from a position of strength and not weakness. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must allow foreign policy and decision making to come back to India from Washington, and evolve a strategy that furthers Indian and not American interests.

About the author:
Seema Mustafa is a commentator on political affairs

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 18 Mar 2010 22:30

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/15/va ... eadership/

comedy from leftist rag editor-shoma chaudhary of tehelka

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 18 Mar 2010 23:58

Philip:

Coming from Seema Musharaffa, who melts at the sight of her Musharaff like American teen age girls do when they see the latest American idol, lets take her crap with a pinch of salt. She has a hidden agenda. Note she places the culpability of attack on Indians by Taliban and not LeT. She holds India at the same moral equivalence as TSP. Her bold vision of "India first" is nothing more than MMS redux, except she wants MMS to do it independently and not under US diktat; and she wants India to distance herslef from US; perhaps her Paki friends discussed this. Favorite talking points among WKKs like her is that India and TSP are the best of buddies but for USA. Now as much as USA is no great friend of India, but buying into WKK sophistry that US is a bigger villian than TSP is naivety at best and selling pro-Jihadi, pro-Paki sentiments at worst.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Mar 2010 04:40

Shifting Indian, Russian and U.S. roles

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Mar 2010 07:16

X Posted. Our Home Secretary G K Pillai says that the US has indicated to India that Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David C Headley is not an US agent.

Our Home Secretary has also confirmed that India is seeking to have Daood Gilani extradited:

We'll protest strongly if Headley is let off: Govt

NDTV Correspondent, Thursday March 18, 2010, New Delhi ....................

Home Secretary G K Pillai has told NDTV that it would be "disturbing" if the American terrorist is let off.

"India will lodge a strong protest if Headley is let off lightly," he said, adding, "Our ultimate aim is to get Headley extradited. We will continue to demand access, and that will be easy if he's out of court jurisdiction."

But the Home Secretary also said that Headley is not a US agent - as widely rumoured. "The Americans have told us that David Headley is not their agent; we believe them," Pillai said, adding, "If the US had known that there was an anti-India plot, they would have told us; they have cooperated with us in providing answers." ............................

NDTV

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 19 Mar 2010 07:29

Vikram Sood in Pioneer
The decline of America
Many observations in that piece have been made before, but struck as the best and succinct statement was this -

The US is in the unhappy situation where one of its prominent allies in the region — Pakistan — has been duplicitous, while another — Saudi Arabia — stands for creeds that are the very antithesis of all that America stands for, and the third — China — is simply waiting for the US to get sufficiently unpopular before it will move into the vacuum that will unavoidably occur once American troops leave.
The US could have had three friends and allies — Russia, Iran and India — who do not want Afghanistan to become a Talibanised Wahaabi state. But the Americans chose otherwise.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Mar 2010 07:33

arun wrote: "The Americans have told us that David Headley is not their agent; we believe them," Pillai said, adding, "If the US had known that there was an anti-India plot, they would have told us; they have cooperated with us in providing answers." ......

Too much trust in the Americans? I guess they have a choice, unless they get access to questioning Headley..

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 19 Mar 2010 08:04

Friends of sorts - Because India won't advance American strategic goals unless it assists it, Indo-US relations will always be limited, says N.V.Subramanian.

If the deal comes for examination, it is in the negative sense, of long-drawn-out and possibly stalled negotiations with the US on reprocessing rights, and in relation to a controversial piece of legislation called the nuclear liability bill. Worst of all, from prime minister Manmohan Singh's perspective, the US president, Barack Obama, is not the most ardent champion of the nuclear deal. He would prefer India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons' state.

But with the end of the Cold War, there was a new potential to Indo-US relations that were not met. Part of the reason lies with the nature of India's democracy, which is solidly wedded to strategic autonomy. Although non-alignment may be dead, its organizing principles remain very relevant to India. Such being its democracy, India cannot become anybody's tool. It may be argued that democracy makes subservience to another democracy improbable. This is not entirely true if you consider US-NATO relations or America's ties with Australia-New Zealand, although the worm has turned in several of these places. And yet, if it is accepted on a broad principle, of democracy's generic non-subservience to another democracy, it would explain the relatively more "easy relations" between democratic US and dictatorial Pakistan (the present civilian government is a cover for a military state). "Easy relations" must be qualified for what they mean: master-slave ties. The US is the master and Pakistan the slave. Certainly, it is not so simple in the Af-Pak case, where Pakistan's idea of a good/ bad Taliban is the veritable tail that is wagging the American dog. But it is an idea that suits US interests and enables a tidy retreat from Afghanistan next year. And what's more important, Pakistan, more precisely, the military, is willing to do everything to make the US exit from Afghanistan smooth. It is another matter that Pakistan hopes to gain strategically against India by such assistance to the US. The point is that Pakistan is at the ready disposal of the US. A dictatorial regime can make itself so available to America, become its willing client state. India cannot, because it is both a democracy and permanently impressed with the principle of strategic autonomy, despite Manmohan Singh's attempted lurches out of this framework.

Check back even on the much-touted Indo-US nuclear deal and its stasis may be linked to modest American-Indian military ties (combined and joint operations and equipment sales only skim the surface of such relations). When Bush II's America intervened in Iraq, it tried and failed to get the A.B.Vajpayee government to deploy troops there. Vajpayee used the Left to create public and parliamentary opinion opposing Indian military involvement in Iraq. When the first Manmohan Singh government was elected, and the nuclear deal was offered, its signing was preceded by the defence framework agreement. Pranab Mukherjee, the then defence minister, was rushed to the US to sign the framework pact despite his acute discomfiture. The nuclear deal immediately followed the framework agreement. The agreement envisaged Iraq War-like scenarios where India would not hold out. Interoperability was specifically sought to tap on Indian military resources (soldierly and material) in any such future war. It is another thing that because of political opposition and India's commitment to strategic autonomy that prevents joining other countries' wars, the defence framework agreement with the US has not met American expectations. Which is why India's relations with the US are stagnating and going downhill. The compromises that the US seeks to extract from India's independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy cannot be accepted. This is as good as India's relations with the US will ever get without making them adversaries.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Mar 2010 11:54

Behind the New U.S. Terror Cases

Several terrorism cases in recent months have involved American citizens or residents, many from backgrounds that do not fit the expected profile of a jihadist.

The cases of Najibullah Zazi, Colleen R. LaRose (“Jihad Jane”) and David Headley suggest that radicalization in the U.S. is increasing. Another American, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, was detained and released last week in connection to a terrorism case in Ireland.

On Thursday, Ms. LaRose pleaded not guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to kill a Swedish cartoonist, who depicted the prophet Muhammad atop the body of a dog. Mr. Headley, a Chicago businessman, pleaded guilty on Thursday to helping to provide surveillance for the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

How significant is the radicalization threat? What are the factors driving this trend?

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ror-cases/

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Mar 2010 12:47

Robert Blake on Listening Tour in Af-Pak and India

“The nuclear issue brings us to the final pillar of the Dialogue, which addresses strategic cooperation, including global issues, defense cooperation, counterterrorism, and non-proliferation.“On the defense side, our bilateral exercise program continues to grow and to strengthen. We have a robust exercise program that has enabled us to enhance an already great military-to-military relationship with exercises such as Cope India, Malabar, and Shatrujeet.

Defense sales are also of great interest to American companies. We’ve already seen some very important defense sales just in the last year or two of C-130Js and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.“The Indian government also recently submitted a Letter of Request for ten C-17 aircraft worth about $2.5 billion. And that’s not the end of it.“There are large numbers of important potential deals, up to $18 billion worth of new opportunities that will become available in the next several years, most notably the multi-role combat aircraft purchase which by itself is a roughly $10 billion sale in which two American companies -- Boeing, headquartered here in Chicago, and Lockheed Martin -- are competing. That the Indians are now considering U.S. manufacturers and U.S. technology to meet their military aircraft requirements—which would have been unimaginable just ten years ago—is just one measure of how far and how rapidly our relationship is evolving.

“A critical component of the strategic cooperation framework is, of course, counterterrorism. You’ve seen our two countries cooperate more and more, particularly since the horrific November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which the Indians refer to as 26/11.“Home Minister Chidambaram’s highly successful visit here last September, which gave him the opportunity to consult with senior officials in just about every U.S. agency involved in the all-important challenge of battling terrorism, underscored the breadth of our still-expanding cooperation on this crucial issue.“When Prime Minister Singh visited Washington in November the two leaders stressed that our partnership in counterterrorism efforts is “indispensable for global peace and security,” and agreed on a Counterterrorism Initiative to strengthen our work together in this vital endeavor.

The last area in strategic cooperation is that of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Now this is an area where there’s a very different and more positive dynamic between our countries as a result of the civil nuclear deal.“Prime Minister Singh also shares the President’s far-reaching vision for a nuclear weapons-free world.“Our broader challenge is to strengthen the global non-proliferation system and I think this is an area where the United States and India can work more closely as partners.

“The Nuclear Security Summit President Obama will host in Washington in April, to which 43 nations have been invited and which we expect Prime Minister Singh will attend, provides an excellent opportunity to highlight this evolving partnership.

“In addition, the civil nuclear deal turned probably our most significant irritant in bilateral relations into an opportunity for cooperation. This has the potential to lead to billions of dollars worth of opportunities for American companies, and many thousands of jobs as a result of that. A few more steps are still required, and we expect them to be completed in the next few months.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 19 Mar 2010 21:50

deleted - copyright

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Mar 2010 02:49

One positive outcome of the current cold-shoulder from US to India could be SDREs and DDM doing some introspection about their abject weakness as a country and make amends instead of the "great power" delusion.

Another DDM trait has been to take some SDRE accomplishment in US, significant or otherwise, and go into a tizzy. In a well-oiled country like US that takes the best & brightest from anywhere to advance their interests and their system, it is not surprising that the best SDREs from India do quite well in US. For example, this is a commendable SDRE accomplishment, but that is no cause for DDM to declare India has having "arrived on the world scene":

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 972/1438-b

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Mar 2010 05:52

shukla wrote:
arun wrote: "The Americans have told us that David Headley is not their agent; we believe them," Pillai said, adding, "If the US had known that there was an anti-India plot, they would have told us; they have cooperated with us in providing answers." ......
Too much trust in the Americans? I guess they have a choice, unless they get access to questioning Headley..

A very recent article states that the US provided India wit state of the art snooping capabilities. Seems like this was used to snoop on the Pasha-Karzai conversation.

I suspect there are camps within the US - as in any country I guess.

So .............. ????????????? all over the place. Plenty of wolf skins to go around in every which way.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 20 Mar 2010 08:04

Mr. Pinto is the first chief technology officer of a major American tech company to move to China. The company, Applied Materials, is one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent firms. It supplied equipment used to perfect the first computer chips. Today, it is the world’s biggest supplier of the equipment used to make semiconductors, solar panels and flat-panel displays.

In addition to moving Mr. Pinto and his family to Beijing in January, Applied Materials, whose headquarters are in Santa Clara, Calif., has just built its newest and largest research labs here. Last week, it even held its annual shareholders’ meeting in Xi’an.

....
Mr. Pinto is a well-known figure in Silicon Valley in his own right. While still a doctoral student at Stanford in the early 1980s, he wrote the first widely used two-dimensional computer simulation of how semiconductors work. This allowed engineers to test each one on a computer before building prototypes, shortening the semiconductor development process.

Later, he became a celebrated researcher at Bell Labs.

With China’s economy gaining strength, Mr. Pinto and his wife, then living in Santa Clara, began insisting in 2005 that their sons study Chinese once a week.

Now 10 and 11, the boys are improving their Chinese and mastering the art of eating with chopsticks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/busin ... earch.html

Look at it this way - if there was a choice, would Americans prefer to move to India or to China? Right now, India is not a choice.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 09:05

How is Clinton doing?

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... nton_doing

Secretary Clinton does not appear to be the key foreign policy player on any topic of importance. On the one hand, this means that she is not primarily implicated in the various missteps: the mishandled Israel-Palestine issue, which is replete with snafus like the initial settlements ultimatum or the empty trip to Saudi Arabia; the serious erosion of relations with key European partners (although she does bear some responsibility for the awkward handling of the Falklands dispute); the gradual slide in the American position in Asia, especially the disturbed relations with the three most significant powers in the region, China, Japan, and India; and so on. On the other hand, it means that she was apparently not positioned to prevent any of these set-backs and she also was not the pivotal player on any of President Obama's best foreign policy moves, such as the decision to back General Stanley McChrystal's surge in Afghanistan.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2010 09:12

deleted

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 20 Mar 2010 09:27

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... um/389144/

Jyoti Malhotra: Filling the post-US vacuum

Two days later, when Delhi protested against the insensitivity of the top US diplomat’s remarks, Holbrooke backtracked, saying he “regretted any misunderstanding caused” by his comments. “The willingness of India to take risks and make sacrifices to help Afghanistan is testament to India’s commitment to global peace and prosperity and a vital part of the international commitment to Afghanistan’s future,” he added.

Although Holbrooke’s carefully-worded denial of his own intemperate remarks was aimed at appeasing a furious Indian establishment, the fact is, the clarifications still haven’t found their way into the US State Department’s website in Washington DC, nor the State Department’s website in Pakistan.

In fact, the US establishment seems increasingly divided down the middle over its Af-Pak war, with Holbrooke tending to very much overlook Pakistan’s complicity, because he feels it will endanger and discourage the critical role Islamabad is playing in the war effort.

On the other hand, Delhi believes that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is much more circumspect about Islamabad’s intentions and much more willing to keep India in Afghanistan, in the short as well as the long term. When Kayani, followed by Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, reaches Washington in the coming days, they are likely to find that it is Clinton who takes the tough calls.

Clinton understands that when the US forces get out of Afghanistan, sooner rather than later, India and to a certain extent, Russia, will be the only regional players — not Pakistan, China or Iran — that the US will be able to depend upon to settle the chaos that is likely to ensue.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 20 Mar 2010 09:44

A_Gupta wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/busin ... earch.html

Look at it this way - if there was a choice, would Americans prefer to move to India or to China? Right now, India is not a choice.

Boss, I would cut whites some slack on this. Even us SDREs who grew up in India and had to deal with the dust & the filth etc; when we go to visit India have a tough time first couple of days adjusting; just imagine the shock whites would get even if they get royal treatment from the local SDREs and 5-star accomodation. But as Shiv said, this is no reason to be defensive, Indians have enough to be proud, and going upward, in their own smelly filthy way

.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Mar 2010 10:30

A_Gupta wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/busin ... earch.html

Look at it this way - if there was a choice, would Americans prefer to move to India or to China? Right now, India is not a choice.

OK. Which begs the question, why for do we SDREs want a firang brigade crowing in here? Sure, feels good to the superficial ego perhaps but what tangible benefit does it give Yindia?

For example, let's not forget that Japanese and Chiniese trade mercantilism in goods was to export with full gusto but put up all kinds of administrative, lingual, visa and other nontariff barriers where ever they could to imports from outside.

Yindia, unwittingly and perhaps unwillingly, is doing this kinda trade mercantilism also, but in human capital rather than in goods. Its easy for Yindians to go and succeed abroad but its harder for the firangs to come and work here due to reasons beyond our willingness and ability to correct. What to do, only?

Anyway, that was more of a tongue-in-cheek perspective but something worth thinking about perhaps.

Boss, I would cut whites some slack on this. Even us SDREs who grew up in India and had to deal with the dust & the filth etc; when we go to visit India have a tough time first couple of days adjusting; just imagine the shock whites would get even if they get royal treatment from the local SDREs and 5-star accomodation. But as Shiv said, this is no reason to be defensive, Indians have enough to be proud, and going upward, in their own smelly filthy way

Agreed 400%.

Firangs conjure up slumdawg visions of Yindia (and who's to say its false, eh?) and caste atrocities like no other. One gora I knew said he so wanted to visit India but wouldn't come because he couldn't do without clean toilets or whatever. Good. Whatever floats their boat, I guess. Meanwhile, their skills, their competencies, their methods and their work can all be done in Yindia, slowly, over time, by SDREs alone, seems like.

Welcome to the brave new world.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 21 Mar 2010 05:07

Saran: US, UK tried to divide developing nations at Copenhagen

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Saran ... gen/593510

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 21 Mar 2010 05:38

Hari Seldon wrote:
A_Gupta wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/busin ... earch.html

Look at it this way - if there was a choice, would Americans prefer to move to India or to China? Right now, India is not a choice.
OK. Which begs the question, why for do we SDREs want a firang brigade crowing in here? Sure, feels good to the superficial ego perhaps but what tangible benefit does it give Yindia?

Sorry, total misunderstanding here. Follow these steps:

[a.] Economic reality - the chief consumers of this company's technology - manufacturing technology - are in China.
[b.] Economic reality - India is not yet in the same manufacturing league as China.
[c.] Economic reality - India is not a choice as a place for this company to move.
[d.] Hypothetical - Suppose India was closer to China in infrastructure and manufacturing prowess. Where would an American CEO contemplating a move want to move his corporation?

A strategic thinker would say - India would have an edge. Why?
[e.] India is part of the Anglosphere.
[f.] India is not on a collision course with the US of A. Any number of political crises can and will come up between China and the US of A that will be potentially damaging to business.

Are such [hypothetical] moves to India good for India?
Answer: mostly yes.
[g.] More opportunity for Indians.
[h.] Technology development rubs off - people become more savvy.
[i.] Technology development tends to take place in hubs, not in distantly scattered places. These corporations would form hubs or add to existing hubs in India.
[j.] Additional manufacturing would come to India, because of new technology.

---

Frankly, I had no thought of Indian dust or living conditions, or what Indians and Firangs think of each other. This is a board dedicated to the discussion of strategy, no?

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Mar 2010 07:15

Official press release... US Attorney General discusses headley issue with Chidambaram

The US Attorney General yesterday discussed with the Union Home Minister, Shri P. Chidambaram various aspects relating to the plea agreement between Headley and the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. In a statement issued here today, Shri Chidambaram said that the plea agreement should spur Pakistan to take action against all the conspirators of the 26.11 attacks. Following is the text of his statement.

“Yesterday, at the media briefing, I tried to explain the import of the ‘plea agreement’ between David Coleman Headley and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Later in the evening, Mr. Eric Holder, Attorney General and Head of the Justice Department of the US Government, called me and we had a long conversation. I am happy to state that the conversation has clarified a number of aspects concerning the plea agreement.

Mr Holder drew pointed attention to the following portion under the Chapter “Cooperation”:

Defendant agrees that, when directed by the United States Attorney’s Office, he will fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information. Defendant further agrees that, when directed by the United States Attorney’s Office, he will fully and truthfully testify in any foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States by way of deposition, video conferencing or letters rogatory. Defendant agrees to the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.”

It is my understanding that India would be able to obtain access to David Coleman Headley to question him in a properly constituted judicial proceeding. Such judicial proceeding could be either pre-trial or during an inquiry or trial. It is also my understanding that David Coleman Headley is obliged to cooperate fully and truthfully in such proceedings.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has already registered FIR No.4 dated 11.11.2009 against David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana. I have today directed NIA and the other Agencies concerned in the case to quickly prepare the documents necessary to start a judicial proceeding in which Indian Authorities could require David Coleman Headley to answer questions and/or to testify.

There is another aspect of the “plea agreement” which is of enormous significance. The plea agreement is the most damning indictment of the role played by certain persons in Pakistan. In his plea agreement, David Coleman Headley has admitted to conspiring with LeT members A, B, C & D; he has admitted to meeting with and receiving instructions from them; he has admitted to attending training camps organised by the LeT on five separate occasions; he has admitted to meeting in Pakistan with various co-conspirators including but not limited to LeT members; and he has admitted to being privy to the attacks planned in Mumbai and the despatch of a team of attackers by sea.

Pakistan was in a state of denial for many months after the attacks of 26/11. Thereafter, grudgingly and bowing to the pressure applied by India through the dossiers and otherwise, Pakistan initiated proceedings against a few of the persons involved in the conspiracy, even while key conspirators are still at large. The “plea agreement” should spur Pakistan to take action against all the conspirators and bring them to justice. Nothing short of that will be acceptable to India or will satisfy world opinion.”

So uncle Sam is fully aware of all this........also to admit its knowledge......but still............

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Mar 2010 07:22

a_gupta dude,

The CXO level expats can be paid USD salaries and kept in first world cocoons enough to get by reasonably comfortably in Yindia, IMHO.

Moi post was more from the POV of the aam joe 6 pack contemplating a move to the turd world in the spirit of 'going where the jobs are'. So yes, total misunderstandings of perspectives only.

As for jobs, tech, hubs, clusters etc moving en masse to PRC, yes it is happening and there's not much we can do about it. POSCO wants to open shop in India, use local raw material that's currently being exported to manufacture finished product that's currently being imported. They're willing to create the infrastructure locally to drive their enterprise. Yet, Yindia hasn't been able to deliver for POSCO sofar. So what to do, do away with the legalities and niceties of being a democrazy, saar??

Frankly, I had no thought of Indian dust or living conditions, or what Indians and Firangs think of each other.

The posts above mine were playing on this angle which was picked up and responded to. TIA for understanding.

This is a board dedicated to the discussion of strategy, no?

Among other things. No?

Jai ho, jai ho, dollahoakbar!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Mar 2010 09:31

Cross post - a reply that is OT in the Paki thread

Just writing to thank those who responded to my question below, with links to their replies

shiv wrote:If thread consensus is that it is bad to ally with the US,in what way have Pakistan, Japan, South Korea and even China suffered by bandwagoning and forming some sort of anti-someone else-alliance with the US?

As far as I can tell it sounds like allying with the US is the way to development (Japan, China, SoKo) and "shatruvinaash-ment" (Pakhanastaan).

kittoo
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 31#p841931

munna
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 46#p841946

Raja Ram
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 53#p841953

a_kumar
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 75#p842075

No specific disagreement with any of the views there. The one thing to note as far as I can tell is the defence and military needs of Japan, North Korea and Taiwan (which was not on my list for unknown reasons) were more or less outsourced to the US

China never allowed that but in many ways China has been "kept in check" by the US. For all China's arrogance about its people and its history, it really has adjusted well to geopolitical realities. We all know that the Chinese political system allows coercion and requires people to follow the dictates of the communist party with little dissent. Accepting the US Navy sitting all around its sea-lanes was something China had to do to achieve detente. It was in different terms - a massive downhill ski by China in a salute to US power. In fact China went beyond detente into entente where Chinese actions amounted to a de facto alliance with the US. But this de facto alliance required China to swallow (along with its pride) the following bitter pills:

An unrelenting opposition to its political system from the US
Unrestrained arming of nations seen as enemies of China
Sanctions on anything that the Chinese may have desired

The only thing that China did not do was to outsource its entire military and armed forces to the US, but short of that it had to play second fiddle to the US and acquiesce to US global games. How badly has that reflected on China? This is not a rhetorical question. It is easy to argue that China is now a world power to contend with by playing second fiddle to the US and going the detente/entente route despite clear loss of echandee. But it tends to go beyond forum consensus to see if China has suffered in any way by playing this particular type of game. But that is OT for me now.

South Korea is totally dependent on the US for its military requirements. It has virtually no independent thinking or global aspiration beyond the sales and spread of its products. To some extent that is true for Japan and Taiwan as well. That means that the US can play it both ways with these countries. If the US (for its self interest) chooses an informal alliance with China or chooses not to oppose China - there is bugger-all that Japan, Taiwan and the SoKo can do.

For a minute, shift to West Asia and see what the US does there. The US is a powerful supporter of Israel and the latter must depend on the US. But that equally gives the US leeway to play various players in various ways. The US buys influence in countries like KSA and Egypt by supplying them with some seriously threatening US military hardware. For Chrissake KSA? F-15s and AWACS

! This is a double game that Israel must swallow and depend on the Israel lobby and US goodwill apart from whatever Israel can do to ensure its independent survival. Fact is even Pakistan is a threat to Israel, but that never stopped the US from arming and supporting Pakistan.

So what of South Asia?

What can check Chinese aspirations in South Asia if they are against US interests? Not Pakistan. But by virtue of a strained India-China relationship, India becomes a "natural ally". Did you know that Geckos (common house lizards) in my kitchen are "my natural allies" by eating cockroaches? But I cannot manipulate them

What can check Indian aspirations if they get too big for US interests? Pakistan is an all weather ally in this. China too is a "natural ally" that the US cannot manipulate easily.

Who can check Pakistani aspirations in the region if they start going against US interests? (remember 9-11?). India yes. China no.

In this triangular South Asian game, Pakistan is useful against India, but not China
China is useful against India but not Pakistan. It is only Indian interests that can help to keep both China and Pakistan in their places if Indian interests can be made to coincide with US interests.

Leave aside Indian desires and Indian traitors and patriots for the time being. It is clearly in US interests to outsource part of its headaches to India especially when both those headaches are Indian headaches too. This would fit in well with US desire to "maintain stability". But why can't the US include India in its plans?. There is clearly deep mistrust of the US in India. We like US technology. We like US money, but do not accept it as aid. We do not trust the US. India's viewpoint is very well defined "black and white". No greys. Any one of us can make whole list of acts that the US has committed to undermine India.

What India has done in effect is to keep the US out for fear of what the US will do to us. But in keeping the US out we have also forfeited any influence we can have on the US in terms of jobs and economy in the US. For various reasons we have not done that with the UK. But we have kept the US at arms length. Letting the US in is, according to common Indian wisdom, a recipe for being controlled by the US and arguments in favor of this view are numerous and convincing.

But is there another way of doing things? Can we buy influence with the US. After all the US for all its strength is vulnerable. The US worries about Pakistan and possibly China, and is by itself not powerful enough to stay the course and keep it in check. India has faced off both these countries for 6 decades with no virtually no US help and plenty of US opposition.

Before I conclude my contention, let me shift tack. For a nation with armed forces of the size that India has - how many years would it be to make a complete change of supplier from say mixed sources today to a complete US based armed forces? My reply to this is "never". Even if we import all our import needs from the US we are too proud a nation to let go of our own faulty indigenous capabilities. But total dependence on the US - if we accepted that in principle would take at least 50 years if we started it today as a declared plan with total political consensus. Without political consensus India would never go the US route - or would take 100 years or more, and probably never allow itself to be totally US dependent.

So the traitors who want to sell India to the US do not have a free hand. If we can have that much confidence in ourselves to thwart the plans of the sellers of India (whoever they may be) - is there any room left for pragmatism (realpolitik/chankianness)

Why not throw some crumbs at the US? Buy Helicopters, Transport aircraft and fighters. Make wage earners in the US earn wages from Indian money. Make a few US politicians dependent on the votes of people who are earning their wages in money from India. Work India into a position where we can dictate to the US what they can give to Pakistan. We currently have our heads buried in the sand. And despite that we are still not immune to US actions in Pakistan. Why not change that? A conditional bandwagoning with the US is desirable.

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Mar 2010 11:32

X Posted.

Vir Sanghvi of Hindustan Times on the US refusal to extradite Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley to India:

What does America have to hide?