India-US News and Discussion

[csharma]

Retired Army Chief Padmnabhan spake thusly in 2004

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/feb/03paddy.htm

General Padmanabhan does not think the present Indo-US bonhomie is based on sound fundamentals. "How long will this kind of two-pronged bonhomie (America's friendship with both India and Pakistan) work?" he asked.

"There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests," he said.

General Padmanabhan's tenure as�Chief of the Army Staff was marked by the conduct of Operation Parakram involving mobilizing the army along the border with Pakistan.

During the operation, India was on the verge of going to war with Pakistan in 2002.

He denied India was daunted by Pakistan's nuclear threats. It was American pressure, in the form of a visit by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, which spiked India's war�plans.

[abhishek_sharma]

Many U-turns and a full circle

Suhasini Haidar

http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/26/stories ... 641400.htm

Since the London conference on Afghanistan this January, that policy has further twisted around like a spirogyra — with the latest round of talks between President Karzai's government and the dreaded warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ‘s group. Originally created by the ISI and CIA to fight Russian forces, Hekmatyar is feared for the violence that his group — the Hizb-e-Islami unleashed on Kabul in the early 1990s, attacks that eventually paved the way for the Taliban to take power. Hekmatyar, a former Afghan Prime Minister has, over time, been accused of allying with everyone from the U.S. and Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Iran, and then betraying them. He now seems poised at getting back at the helm of his country's affairs — aided, ironically by American officials who proclaimed him a ‘global terrorist' in 2003. That Hekmatyar himself claimed in 2006 that he had helped Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora, and that he and the Hizb were once charged with an assassination attempt on Hamid Karzai, are forgotten facts.

President Karzai's own turnaround this year has been remarkable too — his recent statement likening Pakistan to a conjoined twin came after years of accusing Islamabad of fomenting violence in Afghanistan, and directly blaming the ISI for blasts like the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in July 2008. In August 2008, Karzai had gone as far as to threaten that Afghan troops would cross over the border to fight the Taliban, if Pakistan refused to crack down on them. Increasingly in the New Year though, Afghan officials are blaming their other neighbour, Iran for funding and arming the Taliban.

Other curious events have followed inside Pakistan as well — the arrest of Mullah Baradar, Mullah Omar's deputy, was hailed by the U.S. as evidence that Pakistan was finally cracking down on the “big fish.” But then it emerged that Baradar had been in talks with members of Karzai's family, and had reportedly even agreed to join the ‘grand reconciliation' Loya Jirga scheduled for May 1st — the arrest the result of a double game on a noted double-gamer.

...

Conversely, India is feeling some rigidity in the U.S. position, and a hardening of the Pakistani one when it comes to its own war on terror. In the past few months the Pakistani government has made it clear it doesn't intend to act against Hafiz Saeed, believed by India to be a mastermind of the Mumbai attacks. Shutting down the Lashkar-e-Taiba seems an even more remote possibility, given the public rallies its leaders are able to address, including one on Tuesday in the POK town of Kotli, addressed by LeT chief Abdul Wahid Kashmiri and Hizbul Mujahideen Chief Syed Salahuddin. Despite statements by visiting U.S. dignitaries on acting against the LeT, Washington has also snubbed New Delhi in the David Headley case. First, the U.S. government entered into a plea bargain that saved the LeT operative from both execution and extradition. Then, despite an assurance from President Obama to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last November, officials are dragging their feet on even granting Indian officials ‘direct access' to the man. A man who admitted in court last week that he helped plan, prepare and execute the Mumbai attacks.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh now heads to Washington in April for the Global Nuclear Security Summit and must be fully prepared for what may follow. It is extremely likely that fresh from his victory on Healthcare Reform, President Obama will lay out his next priority — global nuclear disarmament, with a special emphasis on curbing nuclear weapons capability in South Asia. According to many U.S. analysts, he could best achieve this by pushing both India and Pakistan into test ban treaties, with promises of more nuclear energy deals in the bargain.

Ironically, with the U.S. administration's willingness to even consider Pakistan's five-year-old request for nuclear parity with India, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are, as one analyst put it, setting the clock back to a decade ago: India and Pakistan being put on par with each other (something the Bush era worked hard to de-hyphenate), the U.S. more dependent on Pakistan for logistics, a military chief gaining control in Islamabad and the Taliban closer to sharing power in Kabul. In such a scenario the U.S.'s U-turns don't just bring the region full circle, but may leave India, unless South Block reads all the signs together, out of the loop.

[csharma]

Haven't heard from KS lately? What is his take on the evolving US Pakistan relationship and the impact on India.

[shiv]

Haven't heard from KS lately? What is his take on the evolving US Pakistan relationship and the impact on India.

sharmaji - has any evolution occurred recently?

[csharma]

shivji, I am not capable of discerning evolution. Lot is being written in the media. Would be good to hear what the old sage has to say.

Added later: KS has been of the view that US is serious about tackling the terror/ Taliban threat and now it appears that US is going soft on LeT. Suhasini Haider's article mentions that. That's why KS's views will be interesting to see.

[Rudradev]

The comparison with China is meaningless.

Shivji, when something inconvenient to one's point of view is perceived as meaningless... I believe that's what they call "cognitive dissonance" .

China bought nothing from the US and reactors and weapons are not on offer.

Actually military technology was offered to China by Ford and Kissinger as long ago as 1976
http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad02.html

But the Chinese were smart enough not to buy anything as critical to their strategic security as weapons from the US. The US armed and continues to arm three potential wartime adversaries against China... Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. China realized that "engaging" the US by buying its armaments, would give the US far too much control over the Chinese ability to exercise a military option against these adversaries.

And.... reactors are not on offer? Is Westinghouse building a giant dim-sum kettle in Sanmen?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 217433.htm


But here again, the Chinese have been smart enough to insist on complete transfer of technology. They have not sold themselves cheaply, like some "governments" seem ever willing to do.

China however bandwagoned with the US against the Soviet Union and used its workforce to produce goods that the US bought. With China now sitting on a load of US$ - It suits them both to cooperate. China has a grip on US testimonials. The US is capable of returning the compliment.

It suits business interests in the US and China to cooperate as long as both sides are making a profit. If that changes, as with an economic crisis that puts the two countries' fiscal health at odds... all is finished. There are signs that something like this may be brewing even now; absent an economic recovery in the US, GOTUS concerns about China's protectionist practices and currency valuation trickery would trump the Wal-marts of the world.

Beyond that where is the cooperation? China giving nuke technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran... and baiting the US on every issue from Serbia to Sudan, hardly amounts to cooperation with US interests.

And, does China really have a grip on US testimonials? You have yourself recognized:

What stopped China from taking over Taiwan when unkil was tied down by 2 wars - Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe it was the same thing that stopped India from hitting Pakistan no?

They have not been able to do a damn thing about the US giving $6.4 billion worth of the latest and most sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan either.

The Chinese have gained a certain amount of economic leverage with the US and the US has gained even more economic leverage with China... as a result of their bilateral trade relationship. India can aspire to a similar level of mutual economic leverage if it develops a similar volume of trade with the US. But if India purchases US items critical to its strategic security, the price to pay will far exceed the benefits of any such leverage.

India is a joke. We have no influence on the US. Indians are too scared to deal with the US. The US can still screw us via a condom.

India is a joke compared to the US. If we buy US arms or reactors we won't gain any meaningful degree of extra influence with the US. Whatever we gain will be dwarfed to insignificance by the corresponding extra influence the US will achieve over us. Then the US will not need a condom, because we ourselves are presenting it with extra holes to screw us in.

What would make the US cooperate with India? Not the spirit of panchsheel surely? More paranoia? More pointless whining and asking Botswana and Lesotho for support for high seat at high table? "Taking out" Pakistan? Growing spine? Steel knees? PM with haircut and no bangles? Firm stand? Deep voice? More sleep? More fear of cutting deals with the real big boys?

Bombast cloaked as piskology is still bombast onlee. Rhetoric about "fear of cutting deals with the big boys" may well persuade kindergartners, but doesn't really make the grade as substantive argument anywhere else.

That said, in India itself nothing revolutionary or new-fangled is needed. Maybe a Prime Minister who is actually elected by the Indian people, who is genuinely the leader of the majority party in the Lok Sabha. The way it was in India, for many decades of our existence as an independent country. Then we might start walking all those extra miles in the right direction at last.

To your question, assuming it wasn't rhetorical:

What will make the US cooperate with India is if the US has no choice. There are some things that even the mighty US' power has not been able to accomplish. To achieve its stated objectives in Iraq or Afghanistan for instance. Under some circumstances the US can find itself at a particular time and a place with no acceptable option... that has been demonstrated any number of times since its "superpower" arrival in 1945.

The question then becomes... do those circumstances where the US has no choice arise as a result of sheer chance? Or can they be created, or at least helped along, by the policies of other nations? That is worth looking at... if BRFites' worst fears about AfPak are indeed realized, it would indicate that such conditions can be created (or harnessed) by other nations to co-opt the US into fulfilling their agenda.

Aside from this, there is no chance the US will willingly cooperate with India in any major way regarding strategic security...unless you define a man giving dog food to a poodle as "cooperating" with the poodle. This is because their interests and ours (apart from trade in non-critical sectors and a few minutiae like Somali pirates) simply do not coincide under the present geopolitical circumstances. Nor will they for the foreseeable future.

[Hari Seldon]

^^^well argued, RD. Thanks for posting.

[vera_k]

MMS seems to be under stress domestically for some reason. While Ms. Haidar is just the latest, a number of other known MMS shills have been having a go at the US in the Indian press.

[somnath]

Rudradev ji,

Things are not as black-and-white as they look..It might be ok for writers in "mass circulation" dailies to dumb down analyses in those terms, but serious analysts look at the issues differently, of course policy-makers do so at very different level altogether..

To start with, a factual inaccuracy on

Actually military technology was offered to China by Ford and Kissinger as long ago as 1976
http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad02.html

Sanctions after Tiananmen still remain in force for military trade, for the US as well as for Europe..If lifted, China will 100% buy stuff from Europe, and maybe from the US as well..

Anyways, the argument that we are somehow in our current posture without influence is as fallacious as assuming big "balls"...

The US is today dependent on Pakistan to do two things:
1. Keep enough troops on the Pak-Afghan border to keep the logistics lines safe and open.
2. Share intel about the Taliban to either nab/kill them or get them into an arrangement..

the first is key, and India has agreed to play ball for now (remember the news about 35k IA troops withdrawn from Kashmir?)..If we really want to upset the applecart, all it takes would be repositioning a couple of divisions back to the LoC..the whole posture will unravel then..The US is painfully aware of this, have no doubts...

Second, greater engagement on trade - any trade, only builds leverage..And using that strategicallly yields disproportionate leverage...On an absolute basis, we are far behind China..however, if we buy the F16, that leaves the Texas lines open for another decade...Impact of that will be HUGE on our influence with the US...How do we ringfence our interests against possible US sanctions is a second part of the deal - there are ways and means of doing that (for example, insist on shifting the global overhaul lines for F16s to be based in India as offsets?)...Iran manages to keep its F14s in air till date, no reason why we cant manage if push really came to shove..But as of now, purchase of F16s give us enormous leverage right now...

Ditto for nuke trade...Thanks to the deals we have signed with various other people, US wont be able to throw a spanner (a la Tarapur) unilterally...But buying more reactors from them does two things - gives us access to the really bleeding edge in tech, and second, increases our levergae that many more tiems with General Electric...And GE talks louder than anyone when pushes are coming near shoves...

the good news is that we understand this now...Deciphering every turn of diplomatic phrase maybe a journalistic prerogative, but the long term trneds are quite clear...We have much greater influence over the US today than before, and engaging them more on strateguic areas wil only increase that..

[Sanku]

To start with, a factual inaccuracy on

Actually military technology was offered to China by Ford and Kissinger as long ago as 1976
http://www.atimes.com/china/DD24Ad02.html

Sanctions after Tiananmen still remain in force for military trade, for the US as well as for Europe..If lifted, China will 100% buy stuff from Europe, and maybe from the US as well..

Somanth ji I always find your comprehension skills, unique, for example can you explain, how in english language does the statement

China was offered Mil first as long back as 1976
is shown factually incorrect by saying
Sanction after Tinammen (1988)

Is this also like 51% == 100% type of mathematics that you have taught us elsewhere?

Second, greater engagement on trade - any trade, only builds leverage..

Sir ji, once again, the question is never that it does not build leverage. The question is by who on whom?

What single example in the WHOLE wide world in WHOLE of history can you quote to show, that ONLY TRADE of such a leverage?

You see sir, just because you have some objects of faith that you believe in, it does not translate to truth for others in a general sense.

Impact of that will be HUGE on our influence with the US.

Hain jee? Really? How HUGE? Can you describe please?

And why should we believe this another article of faith by you. You see Sir, we dont buy snake oil, when the appointed PM of the country sells it, do you think it is likely that we shall buy yours?

You should learn sir, if you want people to believe you, you should persuade with case studies, and defined extrapolations and other such artifacts of logical discussion.

Repeating a vacuous "YES WE CAN" over and over again may win you one election, but will not convince a single thinking individual.

[shiv]

Bombast cloaked as piskology is still bombast onlee. Rhetoric about "fear of cutting deals with the big boys" may well persuade kindergartners, but doesn't really make the grade as substantive argument anywhere else.

Saar the above paragraph occupies about 25% of your reportedly well argued post and is not an argument at all. It is merely verbose rhetoric adding no information of value. It could have been left out but its inclusion suggests that you needed to fluff up you post.

Aside from this, there is no chance the US will willingly cooperate with India in any major way regarding strategic security...unless you define a man giving dog food to a poodle as "cooperating" with the poodle. This is because their interests and ours (apart from trade in non-critical sectors and a few minutiae like Somali pirates) simply do not coincide under the present geopolitical circumstances. Nor will they for the foreseeable future.

This is your opinion saar. You are welcome to hold on to it. Thanks for letting me know that you feel different. The analogy used to to fluff up the word count is amusing, but suffers from the usual faults of all analogies. But I am not about to be diverted into tearing down analogies. We will continue to disagree on this point.

[shiv]

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12602
Asking for dowry before wedding? Or offering dowry in exchange for loyalty after marriage.

[Amber G.]

Bombast cloaked as piskology is still bombast onlee. Rhetoric about "fear of cutting deals with the big boys" may well persuade kindergartners, but doesn't really make the grade as substantive argument anywhere else.

Saar the above paragraph occupies about 25% of your reportedly well argued post and is not an argument at all. It is merely verbose rhetoric adding no information of value. It could have been left out but its inclusion suggests that you needed to fluff up you post.

Well said. But if it makes you feel better, at least there are no "Is it your birthday Madam" type queries.

Aside from this, there is no chance the US will willingly cooperate with India in any major way regarding strategic security...unless you define a man giving dog food to a poodle as "cooperating" with the poodle. This is because their interests and ours (apart from trade in non-critical sectors and a few minutiae like Somali pirates) simply do not coincide under the present geopolitical circumstances. Nor will they for the foreseeable future.

This is your opinion saar. You are welcome to hold on to it. Thanks for letting me know that you feel different. The analogy used to to fluff up the word count is amusing, but suffers from the usual faults of all analogies. But I am not about to be diverted into tearing down analogies. We will continue to disagree on this point.

There is no need to spend energy to tear down silly and amusing analogies involving US/India cooperation , dog food, Somali pirates, poodles.

Meanwhile I think an example of more relevant items that could measure of cooperation between these two countries is:
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2010/mar/vinson032310.html
Here is , an Ex IIT'an (who was trained in India), teaching in MIT (which is in US), who could be next NSF director, is delivering Jack R. Vinson Lecture at the University of Delaware.

[SwamyG]

CPI-M flays India's strategic alliance with Pakistan

'(This) has exposed the blind spot in India's foreign policy and the counter-productive nature of the Manmohan Singh government's strategic alliance with the US,' the party said in a statement after a politburo meeting here.

'Contrary to the repeated assertions of the Indian government that the US should stay the course in the fight against the Taliban, both the US and President Hamid Karzai are moving for negotiations with sections of the Taliban to ensure an early exit for the US-Nato forces.

'Pakistan, whose (intelligence agency) ISI has close links with the Taliban, has come into the picture for any future negotiated settlement. India has been virtually left out in the cold,' it said.

'The US-Pakistan partnership is being strengthened. A high-level US-Pakistan strategic talks has just concluded in Washington. The US is stepping up military assistance to Pakistan while it has got the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government to buy large-scale weaponry worth billions of dollars from it.

'Even on the vital issue of terrorism, the US is refusing to have any reciprocity as evident in the manner in which it has denied Indian authorities access to (Mumbai terror suspect) David Headley. The illusion perpetuated by the government that the US considers India as its primary strategic ally in the region now stands exposed.'

The CPI-M asked the government to explain 'why it is embarking on buying billions of dollars of US equipment and getting further tied to the US when it is amply clear that the Afpak strategy is central for the US in this region'.

[Amber G.]

. You see Sir, we dont buy snake oil, when the appointed PM of the country sells it, do you think it is likely that we shall buy yours?

.. if you want people to believe you, you should persuade with case studies, and defined extrapolations and other such artifacts of logical discussion.
Okay, let us have the case studies, which PM was selling snake oil to you?
(I sincerely hope it is not a case of absurd calculation of multiplying cost of Uranium with the age of reactors to come to a number which someone here used to show that PM - or was it AK? -- who was selling the snake oil. In any case I will wait to see what is your basis of that snake oil)

Repeating a vacuous "YES WE CAN" over and over again may win you one election, but will not convince a single thinking individual.

But to win an election (at least the election, which I think you are talking about), didn't one need millions of votes (majority of votes)? What is the basis that there was not "a single thinking individual" among them?

[Amber G.]

From WP:
Access to Mumbai terrorist creates rift between India, U.S.

New Delhi's interest in interrogating Headley is causing a diplomatic rift between the United States and India. American diplomats have offered conflicting signals on whether Indian investigators will be able to question Headley, 49
...Since the Mumbai attacks claimed the lives of six Americans, the FBI felt it had an automatic entitlement to that [Kasab] meeting. But the murder of more than a hundred Indians in the same attack; one that left India naked and vulnerable forever, does not apparently give us the same right," Barkha Dutt, a national talk show host, said in a recent column in the Hindustan Times. "But we are being asked to forget all of that and be grateful for the fact that Headley may now testify in the trial via videoconference. What a joke."

Many Indians have even speculated that Headley was a CIA operative who went rogue, an assertion Washington has denied.

"If the shoe was on the other foot and the Indian authorities had in their custody an Indian citizen involved in major terrorist attacks in the U.S., Washington would no doubt expect to be given direct access to this person. So India is justified in expecting to question David Headley directly," said Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

"Until India gets direct access to Headley," she said, "there will be an underlying suspicion that the U.S. is trying to cover something up."

[negi]

Meanwhile I think an example of more relevant items that could measure of cooperation between these two countries is:
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2010/mar/vinson032310.html
Here is , an Ex IIT'an (who was trained in India), teaching in MIT (which is in US), who could be next NSF director, is delivering Jack R. Vinson Lecture at the University of Delaware.

How is this an example of cooperation between two countries ?

USA encourages migrants with extra ordinary capabilities or others whom it sees as candidates with potential to contribute to its growth the said IITian in question is being promoted because of his contributions to relevant field in USA and not because he is an Indian.

I however concede that increase in number of such individuals might bring in some tangible benefits to the relevant sector in India , however it is more of a consequence and not something intended or consciously planned by GOTUS.

As far as Indian scientific or research establishment is concerned many of them are still black listed by the Unkil under the garb of control on export of dual use items and similar chutzpah.

[Sanku]

Okay, let us have the case studies, which PM was selling snake oil to you?

Detailed discussion will be OT on this thread, here it was merely illustrative that even PMs when their statements were found wanting, (SeS for one) was not accepted as truth, so why accept a statement of some one with far less credibilty? Esp when not backed up by any real world facts what so ever.

As far winning elections and the presence of thinking people, I do believe "You can fool some of the people, all the time, all of the people some of the time etc.." To win a election a combination of the same works since its a instance and depends mostly on a large number of people from the class 1 Also some people always vote party irrespective of the candidate, or vote anti-candidate I will leave it to you if that is "thinking", personally of course not would be my answer.

Finally if you wish to have detailed discussion on single sentences which are secondary (illustrative) to the main thrust of the argument as well as have nothing to do with the thread. I wish you would take it in the thread where it makes sense.

[Amber G.]

How is this an example of cooperation between two countries ?

Yes, if you look closely the cooperation part becomes quite clear.
Take IIT, for example take Kanpur IIT. It there was tremendous amount of cooperation and joint effort from Nine American Universities (Princeton, MIT, Caltech etc) (For details see wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ins ... ogy_Kanpur .. Labs, professors, even the textbooks there was a joint effort. Even now there is cooperation between these (and many other institutes, both in US and India).

many of the graduates from these institutes (by their own will) came to US institute, they teach and do research here in US. That is cooperation.

The person, who is giving Jack R. Vinson Lecture at the University of Delaware, not too long ago also gave keynote address at Banglaru's EmTech Meet. (see news item)

This is why I consider that this could be an example of cooperation. At least it is not as absurd as ad nauseum declaration of "there is no chance of US India cooperation"

Hope this helps.

[Sanku]

How is this an example of cooperation between two countries ?

Yes, if you look closely the cooperation part becomes quite clear.
Take IIT, for example take Kanpur IIT. It there was tremendous amount of cooperation and joint effort from Nine American Universities (Princeton, MIT, Caltech etc) (For details see wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ins ... ogy_Kanpur .. Labs, professors, even the textbooks there was a joint effort. Even now there is cooperation between these (and many other institutes, both in US and India).

Yes India and US did cooperate in Kennedy era, up to 1962-63. Then US chose sides.

many of the graduates from these institutes (by their own will) came to US institute, they teach and do research here in US. That is cooperation.

No that is not, immigration from country A to B is not those country cooperating. On that count Mukhatarn Mai single handedly instituted Pakistani Canadian cooperation.

ad nauseum declaration of "there is no chance of US India cooperation"

Actually you dont have to look for that data from that far back. India and US certainly cooperate, they cooperate against piracy for one. They cooperate in trade (WTO is both cooperation in some areas as well as competition) etc etc.

The above is never said in a context free manner, it is only in the context of strategic relationship, like India and Soviet Union and perhaps India-Russia.

[Amber G.]

Sankuji - For someone who not too long ago reprimanded others, and asked them to learn how to "persuade others (so that they can be belived) by "case studies, , defined extrapolations and logical discussion. I was stunned when you said:

Okay, let us have the case studies, which PM was selling snake oil to you?

Detailed discussion will be OT on this thread, here it was merely illustrative that even PMs when their statements were found wanting, (SeS for one) was not accepted as truth, so why accept a statement of some one with far less credibilty? Esp when not backed up by any real world facts what so ever.

Of course, the part: "

why accept a statement of some one with far less credibilty? Esp when not backed up by any real world facts what so ever."

I agree 400%, Exactly!
But I was expecting a case study or some link to some result showing chemical analysis of at least one PM's oil to "logicvally" deduct that it was snake oil. (Did not want to assume that you will take a dig at PM, OT or NO OT, whenever you can)

But what I get, sorry no other way to describe it, weaseling out by mentioning something about SeS.

I certainly do not want to go OT, but since you mention SeS, Let me confirm that we were NOT talking about proof that India's 500,000 RAW agents were doing terrorists act with the help of 200,000 consulates in Kandhar .. and SeS statement proves that.

Forgive me, but what that has to do with your needlessly dragging PM's SeS in this Snake oil business?

..As far winning elections and the presence of thinking people, I do believe "You can fool some of the people, all the time, all of the people some of the time etc.."

And that I believe too,( that you believe that). Take that nuke thread, for example, even after thousands of posts people are still discussing - rho is r, Indian scientist do not know spherical coordinates and that will make people believe something...

.. I will leave it to you if that is "thinking", personally of course not would be my answer.

What will you call thinking, assuming that NOT a single person among those tens of millions were, according to you, not thinking?

Finally if you wish to have detailed discussion on single sentences which are secondary (illustrative) to the main thrust of the argument as well as have nothing to do with the thread. I wish you would take it in the thread where it makes sense.

No my friend, itwas NOT a detailed discussion on a single sentence. I was trying to understand why your posts will go on, and on and on, on matters, which in my opinion, should be simple. (No disrespect intended to you)

I will, if time permits, and people here do not start attacking me personally, will start a new thread or use nukkad.

[Sanku]

^^^
Wow Amber G, that was a good post. Surprisingly short on any content and basically a rho-dho on what a nasty person I am for not obliging to your simple (make it simplistic) world view.

And you hold forth on personal attacks?

You are going to get some, and more if you continue on that tone, and no this is not a threat, merely a statement of how things are.

Meanwhile, this thread is not to discuss your penchant for my posts and as such considering that you have nothing to say on the basic points of Indo-US interaction, shall we call quits to the sweet nothings?


PS> I am flattered though.

[ramana]

If I ask both of you to lay-off I will be branded as pulling ==


Still knock it off you two.

[Amber G.]

Yes, if you look closely the cooperation part becomes quite clear.
Take IIT, for example take Kanpur IIT. It there was tremendous amount of cooperation and joint effort from Nine American Universities (Princeton, MIT, Caltech etc) (For details see wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ins ... ogy_Kanpur .. Labs, professors, even the textbooks there was a joint effort. Even now there is cooperation between these (and many other institutes, both in US and India).

Yes India and US did cooperate in Kennedy era, up to 1962-63. Then US chose sides.

Kanpur Indo-American Programme (KIAP) was quite live till at least 1972. I have first had knowledge of late 60's.

Even now, the guru dakshina (annual fund - raised by grateful shisyas) from many Ex-IIt'ans (some of them are in USA), and personal interest in joint US/India programs (I am sure this is not limited to IIT - other schools are there too) is an ongoing program and nothing to be ashamed of. A few years ago some one started it, and had a modest goal of raising $1,000,000. It turned out that it was raised very quickly - top 5 contributions itself made that goal to be reached.
US govt, makes the gift tax-deductible. No big deal, but at the same time it is nothing to be ashamed off either.

many of the graduates from these institutes (by their own will) came to US institute, they teach and do research here in US. That is cooperation.

No that is not, immigration from country A to B is not those country cooperating. On that count Mukhatarn Mai single handedly instituted Pakistani Canadian cooperation.

First, the comment about "Canadian Visa" is, to put it mildly, crude, I did not except that here and would not dignify it with a response. Number of students/scientists/businessmen etc is a good measure to gauze relationship between two countries.

[Amber G.]

You are going to get some, and more if you continue on that tone, and no this is not a threat, merely a statement of how things are.

For that I have no doubt. As an old BRF'er I know about group-think, and have seen old members showing their creativity and class by putting "Amber" and "balls" in same sentence for about 12+ time.

Hello Ramanaji ! saw your what you called "==". I am done with this discussion though.
Have a nice day.

And Sankuji -call it it what you want, there is India, US related parts are there (at least in my post).. No rhona-dhona or personal attacks. (You called yourself a nasty person, I did not)

You have a nice day too.

[Amber G.]

If I ask both of you to lay-off I will be branded as pulling ==
Still knock it off you two.

Ramana garu - If OT, you can respond in nukkad or send a PM (I can not send PM to you), but assuming I am one of "you two" can you provide some clarity on exactly what part of my messages are objectionable? Thanks in advance.

[negi]

Now what , are we gonna count remittances from US based NRIs as an example of Indo-US cooperation ?

On a serious note GOTU's stance on issues which directly affect India is despite all this hoo haaa around Indo-US cooperation in various areas , basically all those exchanges are mutually beneficial to the institutes or relevant entities involved nothing more nothing less .

To be honest the ostensible Indo-US cooperation sounds like a pipe dream akin to Nehru's romanticism around hindi-chini bhai bhai sham i.e. concept based on rhetoric and tokenisms while the GOTUS as usual appeases the bakis and shafts the GOI (just like Chipanda in 50's and 60's).

[shiv]

Now what , are we gonna count remittances from US based NRIs as an example of Indo-US cooperation ?

Isn't it "cooperation" of a very skewed sort - exactly like the skewed relationship we have now?

US based NRIs - (especially the oldest and wealthiest ones today who are arguably sending/have sent the most money back ) went to the US for education and economic reasons. India gave them an initial education in English which made a big difference to their employability in the US. The US also had a structured plan to absorb them and never placed restrictions on the repatriation of funds to India. (via legal routes anyway - but hawala was active for decades)

If you compare the situation with many other countries to which Indians have migrated or attempted to migrate you find that all sorts of barriers have been placed, including things like repatriation of funds and lack of rights as immigrants.

I think it would be wrong to consider NRis in the US as some special group who have nothing to do with good India-US relations. Throughout the years when India US relations were strained neither country fiddled with NRIs (except for India saying, we'll take your dollars, but no sending them back). Both countries saw gain from that community. The US got skilled and loyal people. India had too many educated who could not get jobs anyway. And India benefited from the money

[shukla]

India and Pakistan on the U.S. see-saw

[shukla]

Holbrooke not welcome in India

New Delhi’s doors, it appears, will not open anytime soon for Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy for Af-Pak. He has been frozen out of India yet again, after his recent statement that Indians weren’t really targetted in the February 26 attacks in Kabul.

It was a callous remark that was so blatantly aimed at pleasing Pakistanis that the Indian foreign office was forced to make an official complaint about it. Particularly, since it was evident from the beginning that the attack was intended to get India out of Afghanistan, and by Pakistan-supported terror groups. So when Holbrooke announced on March 20 that he would “definitely be going to India soon”, he got the familiar cold shoulder from the MEA. Holbrooke was supposed to travel to Kabul and Delhi in the coming days, stopping by in Brussels.

In the last year, Holbrooke has found that after such public displays of determination to visit India, his travel plans invariably dry up. In fact, after two such freeze-offs, Holbrooke stopped trying in 2009. It was in early 2010 that the MEA decided to let him come to India.

His visit, when it did happen, went off rather well, with Holbrooke getting face-time with everyone in the leadership, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

But his remarks after the February 26 attack on guesthouses in Kabul mainly used by Indians brought back the Indian distaste for the special envoy. Speaking to reporters in Washington soon after the attack, Holbrooke held forth, “I don’t accept the fact that this was an attack on an Indian facility... There were foreigners, non-Indian foreigners hurt. It was a soft target. Let’s not jump to conclusions.”

He added, “I understand why everyone in Pakistan and everyone in India always focus on the other. But please, let’s not draw a conclusion for which there’s no proof.” He rendered a qualified apology later.

This guy should be on a leash... He has no clue what he's talking about..most times.

[Malayappan]

Obama tells Pak to catch 26/11 brain KP Nayar writes. Some of the stuff is interesting at least attributed to a 'source.' Others?

[Malayappan]

IE editorial Track the options

India’s problem is not that American arms will tilt the South Asian military balance in favour of Pakistan. What should bother India is the real possibility that America’s embrace of General Kayani will embolden his army to step up support for anti-India terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Delhi must make it clear that if Washington cannot persuade Kayani to shut down the LeT, India will be under no compulsion to show military restraint. Delhi must also convey to Washington that if the US accepts Pak primacy in Afghanistan, India will be free to turn to other powers, including Iran, to stop Kayani from turning southern and eastern Afghanistan into a base for violent extremism.

[Malayappan]

Shekhar Gupta Oped in IE. He wastes a lot space trying to sketch out paki viewpoint - quite pointless. But goes on to say something that could make sense - I post the last paragraph -

we have to start making use of the new strategic space of our own, particularly after that much-celebrated de-hyphenation. Only we must not let ourselves down. We look stupid protesting any arms consignment to Pakistan when we fail to buy even one of our desperately needed and budgeted artillery guns just because some dim-witted CBI director produced a list of charges against one likely vendor on an unsigned sheet of plain paper. We have to fix that nonsense, because big powers must learn to look after their own security. Similarly, India should exploit this expanding strategic space to look more carefully at the world besides America and terrorism. The continuing vote against Iran at the IAEA is principled and should continue. But we have to be less shy of negotiating energy deals with Iran, giving visas to its students, even launching its civilian satellites. The Af-Pak endgame in Washington also signals an opportunity for India to dehyphenate its own America policy

Hype and hyphen

[Karan Dixit]

Climate fight: India rejects US pressure tactics

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 730098.cms

[SSridhar]

US building deeper ties with India-Pak

He {Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley} said the US is building 'a deeper relationship' with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"This is good for the United States, it's good for these countries individually, and it's also good for the region as a whole."

Though Holbrooke is designated as Special Envoy for Af-Pak (after being designated for India also and withdrawn at India's protest), he continues to function as the Viceroy for these regions. He might be politely asked not to come to India, but, the American Government is working on the Af-Pak-India equation.

"It's a shared threat for Pakistan, it's a shared threat for India, it's a shared threat for others,"

BS to say the least.

[csharma]

Obama tells Pak to catch 26/11 brain KP Nayar writes. Some of the stuff is interesting at least attributed to a 'source.' Others?

Instead of asking Pakistan to do something that they would not do, why does not Obama do something that can easily accomplished; like giving access to Headley.

[Airavat]

Purchasing power shifting to consumers in emerging markets

"Purchasing power has shifted very quickly because the largest emerging economies, like India and China, with very large populations, have not only done well economically in the last decade but their personal incomes have risen exponentially, too," says Mauro Guillen, professor and director of the Lauder Institute. Even though these markets aren't isolated from the global economy, China and India have decoupled from the U.S. and have managed to grow even as the U.S. went through a deep recession and remains in trouble.

and how this change will help the US:

As demand in emerging countries outpaces demand in the U.S., American exports grew at roughly a 20% average quarterly rate in the second half of 2009, the highest pace in more than three years.

[Sanku]

If you compare the situation with many other countries to which Indians have migrated or attempted to migrate you find that all sorts of barriers have been placed, including things like repatriation of funds and lack of rights as immigrants.

Shiv, that analogy would be appropriate IFF
1) US had favorable rules for Indians compared to others
2) The places where Indians had trouble, there were India specific rules.

Has it happens, in US, it is far easier for a western to come in and even work, A Norwegian or Israeli passport does far more than a Indian pass port.

Also for most part of it history, immigration for Indians, was far more difficult, especially for a average Indian, the immigration became easier later for the IIT graduate types, with IIT setting the trends and other IITs following, which later opened the door in 80-90s for most other Indian colleges.

Compare the US immigration for Whites for most part of its history compared to browns, we can clearly say that US did actively discourage immigration from India in a relative manner.

There are almost no other places where, Indian passport is especially looked down upon in comparison to other places, the places where Indians have had a tough time immigrating are tough for ALL people equally period.

A very causal observation will lay rest to the canard that the immigration from India to US is cooperation, it is not.

US is basically picking up the best minds to use in its own interests, and India has nothing to with it. They would take people if they were from Timbuktu and could do the deed.

Finally I agree that NRIs in US have changed the picture of US and India cooperation as nations, but that is purely serendipitous, and probably unwelcome to an extent who would rather do without the Indian lobbies restricting the space.


I think it would be wrong to consider NRis in the US as some special group who have nothing to do with good India-US relations. Throughout the years when India US relations were strained neither country fiddled with NRIs (except for India saying, we'll take your dollars, but no sending them back). Both countries saw gain from that community. The US got skilled and loyal people. India had too many educated who could not get jobs anyway. And India benefited from the money[/quote]

Jai ho to NRIs and no such cheers for the US.

[arun]

India to write to US for access to Headley

X Posted.

The battle to get Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David coleman Headley is going to be a long and bruising one as the US has practice at shielding terrorists.

Take the case of the terrorist Luis Posada Carrilles.

The association of Luis Posada Carrilles with the CIA and FBI besides the fact that his terrorism targeted long time US bête noire Cuba and more recent US bête noire Venezuela, has ensured a long and tortuous path just to bring the terrorist to trial in the US.

The foregoing should be a pointer on what the US could dish out to India notwithstanding protestations of combating global terrorism together.

Check out the declassified documents available at the National Security Archives website maintained by George Washington University which establishes the prior knowledge of the CIA and FBI of the career Luis Posada Carrilles’ in International Terrorism and his connections to U.S:

LUIS POSADA CARRILES : THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD

X Posted. The US goes out of its way to protect the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and stonewalls on the question of the involvement of the military of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack.

It is more and more looking like that in the case of the Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley, the US is going to follow the route they have taken in the Luis Posada Carriles case.

Daily Press briefing by Philip Crowely in which he claims to know nothing about the involvement of Pakistani “State Actors” in the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack :

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 26, 2010 …………………………..

QUESTION: On Pakistan and the David Coleman Headley case, The New York Times is reporting that Mr. Saeed, who is David Coleman Headley’s key contact, is a member of the Pakistani military. And the question is: Does the U.S. have a response on evidence that a member of the Pakistani military class played such a key role in plotting Mumbai and the Danish newspaper plot?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not familiar with that information.

US State Department

[shiv]

Cross post

Has this been posted before? Apologies if so.

Obama tells Pak to catch brain behind 26/11

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100327/j ... 269595.jsp

Very interesting. KPN always has the best inside info (somehow).
ToI and HT's news about unkil signing nooclear deal with TSP gets a new meaning.
Was it deliberately planted by GoI to put unkil on backfoot?

I am not at all sure how much credence I should give to this news item - but I cross post it here because I want to make a point.

As I see it -Pakistani society is so radicalized that no Paki would dare arrest Hafiz Saeed - not even the Army - at least that is the impression that the Pak army would like to give.

But let me point out a curious fact and admit I was wrong. Maybe 2 or 3 years ago I there was some discussion on BRF where many stalwarts (Sridhar??) insisted that the Pak army was in total control of the terrorists. I recall having made a counter argument saying that it was possible that there were some out of control groups.

But seeing the lull of 2009 (apart from Pune) I am sure that by and large the Paki army has the terrorists under control."Under control" may be a relative term. You have a rapist son - and you allow him the odd whore to bang every weekend. So Kashmir inflitration is up. But clearly teh jihadis are under control of the Paki army.

Naturally what the Paki army has been doing is protecting the anti-US jihadis by giving them the LeT alibi - i.e that they are "anti-Indian" onlee, expecting the US to ignore those who are anti Indian. but if the US has any sense they will read this ploy.

It them becomes convenient for India and the US to cooperate. The gains of quietening the forces of jihad and defanging them mean oil and gas pipelines apart from other good things. There is IMO an outside chance now of serious US-India cooperation to slap Paki wrist in some way or the other to make them keep their jihadis in check. The next step IMO would be to cut down on indoctrination. I will leave my views on this to another post.

Not much chance of "all out war" or "punishing Pakistan" IMO unless the Pakis make a mistake. 26/11 has actually given them more headaches than they anticipated. Primarily because (IMHO) the SIM cards were owned by India's intel agencies and the FBI did the IP Phone tapping. And they shared some relevant info with each other.