India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[Sanjay M]

Obama slammed, praised for backing NYC mosque

Mark Williams, a controversial tea party political movement supporter, said the center would be used for "terrorists to worship their monkey god."

[Manishw]

Obama slammed, praised for backing NYC mosque

At this time of monetary problem's in unkilland giving green light to mosque at ground zero is like putting ghee on fire unless the idea is just to do that.

[Amber G.]

^^^Williams is considered such a racist that even Tea Party kicked him out from National Tea Party Federation. From the link above:

(He was publicly ousted by the National Tea Party Federation last month after posting a satirical letter supposedly from ..

.

[Sanjay M]

At this time of monetary problem's in unkilland giving green light to mosque at ground zero is like putting ghee on fire unless the idea is just to do that.

Even the Atlanticist mouthpieces are expressing their sense of unease that their man Obama may be overreaching himself by going out on a limb for this Babri-GroundZero mosque:

Obama mosque dispute: In backing plans, he parts with many Americans

The mosque controversy, argues British commentator Douglas Murray on The Daily Beast website, highlights a central credibility problem for the Islamic world: While Muslim adherents demand respect for the tenets of their religion, they, in the case of the ground zero mosque, have failed to show equal deference for what's been called "the psychological shadow" of the former twin towers.

"It doesn't matter what Muslims believe, anymore than anybody else," Mr. Murray writes. "But it matters how they behave. If the New York mosque is anything to go by, that test at least is being failed by some American Muslims very conspicuously indeed."

Islam just simply isn't designed for such sensitivity towards others.

[Sanjay M]

Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement


But the Babri-GroundZero mosque will get built anyway.

more:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/14/ ... index.html

I'm sure even Fareed Zakaria will look for ways to backpedal, as he's done so many times in the past.

[Cosmo_R]

Today is August 14 and I guess the Indian Independence day parade was held in NYC. I was just motoring down on the main drag in one of the burbs (not Edison, NJ) and I see this really expensive Bimmer (M5) with license plates that read "India" and a huge great Indian flag sticking out of the sunroof being waived by the passenger. All well and good but everyone around me in traffic is not amused—not that they said or did anything but...

I thought of CRamS' comment somewhere to the effect "Don't overdo it!" And, I have to confess it was a Cinco de Mayo moment (CMM). This moment is symbolized by flag (Mexican that is) waving Mexican-Americans protesting something or the other some 20 years ago. The backlash was intense and understandably so. No Mexican would tolerate gringos waving the S&S south of the border nor would Indians be amused by expat Americans waving it on July 4 in Bangalore.

Memo to well-to-do Indians (or at least bimmer leasing ones) in US: Wave two flags on 8/15 the tricolor and the S&S next year. Oh! and perhaps license plates that read "INDUS"

Happy I-day all

JMT

[Sanjay M]

^^ I agree, and that's why I object to the whole "Hotel Nation" concept.

It's no different than if IMs start waving Pakistani flags - which should trigger deportation proceedings.

I also remember that li'l Macaca guy provocatively filming that Senator in Virginia in the midst of his own campaign rally. Or our illustrious Prime Minister's daughter trying to be an activist zealot for the Left in the US. Pathetic.

[SwamyG]

x-post from geo-political dhaaga.

Rama garu:
Nenu edho raasannu....meeru artham cheskondi. I hope you are able to discern the patterns and reasons for the relationship. Remember, I am simple IT coolie, and not even an amateur arm-chair strategist; I tried to keep it simple and informal - numbered points ityadi so that we can explain the thought patterns and relationship to our parents, siblings, offspring, friends and enemies in zimple english and they understand the 'matter'. {ps - this is my longest post in BR , felt like I was writing a paper }

I popped it on Stan saar's blog as well: http://dharma-yuddham.blogspot.com/2010 ... story.html

I am interested in your thoughts, counter questions ityadi. I have not given my views yet - what is there to give onlee no?. So I just regurgitated what I read. I will be interested to hear your arguments for your case. If you don't convince me, I declare myself the winner

All for the sake of gyan onlee.

***********************
Prior to WWII
1.America’s disinterest towards India was primarily because the countries did not share history. However the American missionaries were interested in India. Missionaries were a prime source for uninformed information about India.
2.Katherine Mayo projected India as either opulent or having pervasive poverty. Mayo’s India resembled British and Missionaries’ India. {ref 14}. School textbooks, the media, and the academic writings depicted India as a backward society. Hence the public opinions were predominantly negative. Indian immigrants were considered undesirable. Read more under section ‘American images of India’.
3.A few New England philosophers admired and sought solace in some Indian sacred texts. They came to know about India from 18th century European missionaries and writers.
4.American Isolationism {ref 12}
a.America felt, by participating in the European wars, it would be weakened thereby reducing survival chances of America or that America would cease to exist as a free republic.
b.WWI had left a bad taste in America’s mouth – Europe, except Finland, did not pay America its war debts. The horrors of war had reduced the appetite to support European wars. In addition Americans perceived Britain & France did not nurture democracy in Europe at Munich. Some thought Britain and France to be the destroyers of democracy.
c.Isolationism did not mean America did not seek new territories or strong defense and seek economic spheres of influence. America would pursue all of them for the sake of the republic’s survival, and helping capitalism & corporations flourish. Geography & natural resources helped America to achieve isolationism.
d. Some scholars point out America was not isolationist but expansionist all the time. They point to the history of America.

1940s and 1950s
1.After 1946, America hoped India will emerge as the stabilizer in Asia. In order to do this America hoped India will open its commerce, investment and raw materials to America and the West. USA considered India and Nehru as an unofficial spokesman for most of South East Asia.
2.Jawaharlal Nehru had a different view of the World as he had just witnessed the birth of a new country – India, and understood the horrors of WWI and WWII. He chose to remain neutral and nationalistic. Nehru chose to see the World, rightly in my opinion, in terms of communism and anti-communism. Nehru’s nationalism butted India and America’s head in the Cold War. V.K.Krisna Menon saw America as attempting to be the next Great Britain in Asia.
3.The “tragic holocaust of Hindu-Muslim massacres” overshadowed a sympathetic image of Indians fighting for their freedom. India was a fanatic and violent mob.
4.Norman A. Graebner argues that until the defeat of Chinese Nationalism in 1949, India mattered little to Washington. Norman concludes Nehru was the winner as he understood the power of Nationalism in Asian affairs better than America.
5.American invited Nehru and attempted to convince him & India regarding the matters of Communism; Nehru visited but did not dance to the tunes of Washington. Nehru, who WAS India in those years, and America viewed the growing Communism in Asia differently.
6.Eisenhower rubbed India the wrong way by having Defense agreements with Pakistan. America embraced Pakistan and India tilted towards USSR. This made the American elite hostile and dismissive of India.
7.As years went by America became more stringent against Communism, leading to more criticism from India. Nehru was convinced that Communism did not pose a danger to India. India and America exchanged rhetoric, long story short America began to consider India to be anti-American.
8.In 1949, after deciding to make India central to its Asian plans, America disengaged from this strategy. Truman’s administration downplayed India and set the containment policy – emphasized military aid but no economic assistance. America, instead, decided to increase defense capabilities in Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, French Indo-China and the pacific.

Between 1950s and 1960s
1.“India became an experimental laboratory for American backed development” {ref 15}. America strove to indirectly control India’s future by making India a model for capitalistic economic growth.
2.After Indo-China war, and ambivalence from JFK, Indo-US ties improved. JFK objected to Dulles Doctrine, which was: ‘non-alignment was neutrality between right and wrong and a sign of anti-Americanism’. JFK engaged neutral countries more and American-Indian relations turned less hostile.
3.Lyndon Johnson thought Indians were weak and indecisive. {ref. 9}.John Lewis, a former AID official, describes majority of White House personnel, State Department and Congress to be anti-Indian, in the 60s. {ref. 9}
4.In 1965, INS reversed decades of discrimination and initiated preferred admission of skilled Asian workers. The ensuring impact was arrived only in 1980s.

1970s
1.Nixon had a long-standing dislike for India and Indians. Nixon’s tilt towards Pakistan in 1971 sent the relationship south. Cold-war fears and prejudices against India were key factors in dispatching the Enterprise in 1971. {ref. 9}
2.Carter accepted Asia’s version of nationalism, and the Indo-US relationship improved. Carter administration ratified the decision to treat India as the dominant state in South Asia, rather than build Pakistan’s military. Reagan continued the pleasant relationship but continue to also work with Pakistan.
3.America began to build strategic alliance with China against USSR. Though India disliked the alliance, India saw reasons in America’s actions.
4.Academic scholars still considered India to be backward {see prior to WWII section}.
5.“The Asia Society, in a review of some 300 school textbooks, found that the presentation of India was the most negative of all Asian countries”. American attitudes concerning India focused on disease, death, and illiteracy more than for any other place in the World. {ref. 9}
6.After the 1974 nuclear tests, India lost support from American activists and disillusioned the liberals.

1980s
1. With the collapse of Communism, American interests and outlook towards international order changed.
2. India was bothered by American and Chinese help to Pakistan in the context of Afghanistan. But India still saw a reason.

1990s
1.In 1993, Congressmen Frank Pallone (D) and Bill McCollum (R) created the Indian Caucus in the House of Representatives. 96-97 saw improved relations.
2.Cold-war habits hung over America even after the end of USSR. However, American businesses began to warm up; but the American elite nursed the cold-war ideologies – they still were dismissive or hostile towards India. India did not like the cold-war like behavior in the 90s – especially Clinton’s views on strategic alliance with China.
3.Indian Nuclear tests caused sanctions against India, but USA began to look at India more seriously. America began to think it terms of India’s security concerns and capabilities.
4.In ’99 USA blamed Pakistan for initiating the Kargil crisis.
5.Ayoob feels America courted China, in the post cold-war to counter Japan. America did not want East Asia to be under any one dominant or regional power. {ref 3}
6.China alone now stands in the American path to spread democracy across the World. China’s support to Pakistan emboldens Pakistan to defy American pressures.

Ideologies, beliefs, thoughts espoused by American Elite over centuries:
1.Open Door – a policy of commercial and political expansion to extend American influence in the World.
2.American Capitalism needed ever expanding markets to make the World more democratic.
3.Favored private enterprises over state owned enterprises to remedy social ills.
4.America provides benevolent leadership and international system to the World – representative democracy and market capitalism.
5.America could achieve economic hegemony by supporting IMF, World Bank and GATT; and political hegemony by becoming a great power in the UN.
6.“Free trade and the free flow of capital and, along with it, privatization and deregulation have become the order of the day. Policies consistent with this strategy are supported with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by most elite state and by nearly the entire political class, Democrat as well as Republican.” {ref. 6}
7.It is against American global interest for any one power to dominate Europe, hence America dropped its tradition of isolation to counter USSR.{Kissinger}.
8.Democrats and Republicans both have displayed ethnocentrism & appalling ignorance of “third world” countries. Superior & patronizing attitude and the insistence that America knows what is best for these countries. Liberalism or Conservatism might throw its weight little more than the other at times, but over a long period they have behaved the same.
9.America has power over the globe because of its power to move ships and aircraft. Michael Lind views that India could translate its economic power into naval, air and space power. India is expected to challenge America in South Asia in the years to come {ref. 11}
10.Michael Lind thinks India & China’s ascension will hurt Europe more than America. He also thinks the affluent Indian population offers a good market for America.
11.India’s poverty so repulsed many Americans that India represented to them the “living end” of mankind. {ref. 13}. India and Indians were viewed as deep and peculiarly concerned with religious life. India because associated with mysticism in Asia.
12.South Asian, that included India, was spoken in terms of potential value to America’s economic and security interests.
13.Olaf Caroe’s geo-strategic ideas found grounds to grow America’s role as an offshore balancer in South Asia. This act actually destabilized the region. Caroe worried about ‘wells of power’. Pakistan was used by America to balance Indian hegemony in South Asia. {ref 16}
Note: The American ideology has two components Economic and Political, as seen above.

Nehru’s beliefs:
1.The key to eradicating differing standards of living was in economic development and industrialization.
2.American model was not the only one to follow, and that Socialism offered a viable model too (probably a better one per Nehru)
3.Wanted to avoid the errors of Capitalism and Communism. However, he criticized Capitalism harsher.
4.Sought American aid, but did not want India to become dependent on America.

Kissinger’s beliefs:
1.Hinduism is a religion of endurance and not a religion of personal salvation. Considers Islam and Christianity as egalitarian religions.
2.India maintained identity, for centuries, without a specific Indian state. Considers Britain to have brought homogeneous administration, law and government to India.
3.Thinks India survived because of its cultural imperviousness and psychological skill in dealing with foreigners.
4.Opines that India under Nehru, correctly, like the Founding Fathers of America, chose to stay aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests.
5.Considers India a major player in South East Asia and expects India to dominate from Singapore to Aden.

India underrated, unimportant, hostility and not taken seriously by America:
1.Ayoob feels it was because of two reasons: 1) USSR & China. All other policy concerns took back seat when it came to Cold War concerns. 2) India’s non-alignment policy. Ayoob feels the historical baggage is carried by both the countries. {ref. 3}
2.India did not have natural resources vital to American economy. Unlike Latin America, there was no serious American private investment. Geo-politics of India posed no danger to America. India did not have cultural or historic ties to America, unlike China. Unlike Western Europe, Israel, Greece no significant population of India settled in India {ref. 9}
3.Apart from lacking natural resources that interested West, India was not seen vital in terms of communication routes. America did not see any gains from large scale support of India’s development. India’s economic growth mattered little to America’s economy{ref 13}
4.America believed India was on the wrong side during WWII and Cold-War. Though millions of Indians fought in WWII, INC refused to support against the Axis. As far as Cold-war see Nehru and the 1940s-1950s section.

Role of race, ethnicity & religion
1.Benjamin Franklin wished the number of White people was more than the others; he termed his partiality as only natural to mankind. His racism, contributed to his opinion on acquisitions and opening of new lands.
2.In the 1800s, race still was a factor in “external affairs” especially to the people in the Southern USA. Race contributed to the feeling of “American Greatness” and reflected in American foreign policy.
3.The Southerners hated the “African Americans”, while the Frontier people hated the “Native Americans”.
4.In the early part of the 20th century all Indian immigrants were deemed Hindus and subjected to prejudice against Asia & India that existed in USA in those times. Supreme Court in 1923 ruled Indians, being Hindus were “not whites” and hence were ineligible for citizenship. India retaliated in 1924 {gone are those days, right when India had the spine to retaliate} passing the Indian Naturalization Act.
5.Apart from Indians considered as dark skinned, owing to white racist prejudice, Indians were always associated with caste system and untouchability. Indians were deemed to have strong color feeling and race prejudices and people who hated each other.

American images of India:
Types of Images: {ref 14}
1.Visual: “sacred cows roaming the streets; mobs of religious fanatics hurling themselves into the Ganges; naked ascetics, scrawny fakirs on nails; the multiarmed goddess; the burning ghats; the skull-laden figure of Kali; Benares; obscene Hindu sculpture, phallic symbols and erotic carvings on the temples…”
2.Judgment: “a debased, hopeless sort of religion; a complicated, alien mess; mystic nonsense; stupid taboos; horrible practices in a clutter of cultural dead weights; a benighted, superstitious, fatalistic philosophy; fanatical, barbarous religiosity; the elevation of animal life above the human…”
3.Social commentary: “caste system; untouchability; child marriage, purdah, suttee; religion as a dragging burden on growth and development; terrific waste from the animal cult, cows and monkeys sacrosanct amid starvation; oppression of ignorance, of religious and caste prejudice; a ridiculous idealization of poverty; religion as a sanction for barriers between people between clean and unclean, making for crippling social differences and divisions…”

Some of the entities involved in shaping Indian image in America
1.Missionaries
2.Katherine Mayo
3.Time magazine
4.Ripley’s cartoons (was seen by millions)
5.National Geographic
6.Sunday supplements
7.Rudyard Kipling
8.Olaf Caroe’s ideas

Between 1947 and 1956: {ref 13}
1.“Geographically remote, culturally exotic, psychologically unfathomable, lacking in religious or philosophical exactitude, socially disunified, economically inefficient, oppressive in physical environment, its people poor, non-aggressive, oppressed, keen-minded but in large numbers uneducated, morally sensitive but difficult to deal with personally.”
2.Hollywood propagated several stereotypes, notably highlighted tribesman rising against British forces.
3.America was perceived as the richest country, India the poorest. India was filled with poverty and spiritualism was a panacea. India was a land of contrast, ethnic differences and POVERTY.
4.The term “Indian Mind” equated to “Hindu Mind” and this was perceived as a reason for the non-aligned movement. The term ‘Muslim’ was associated with Pakistan (after 1947).
5.India was perceived as a country that did not ask the right questions to solve problems, and hence reached wrong conclusions. “Hindu Mind” was attributed the cause.
6.American humanitarianism, liberal internationalists create a new ‘love affair’ that ended in 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru made favorable impressions among the American Liberals. They looked upon Nehru and the liberated Indian upper class upon which Asian democracy would rest.

In 1960s: {ref 13}
1.Under Kennedy administration, image of India as a permanent friend grew.
2.In the minds of the public, America was still a generous patron and India was a needy client. India was the petitioner calling upon American charity. Indians were depicted as destitute, sleeping on the city streets or starving in the villages. After self-interest American sense of humanitarianism led to the aid. Indian representatives nurture this sentiment.
3.India’s poverty was a key in policy making, but there was still a sense of an enlightened democracy struggling out of poverty; and India could be won over to the West my massive economic support.
4.Popular writers and editors in America sought sensational formats to sell their products, and Katherine Mayo’s grisly portrayal of India still lingered in the publishing field.
5.Some Americans spread the image of India awakening and controllable in the future and thus portrayed India eligible for American support.

Between 1960s and 1970s {ref 13}
1.India was still exotic, but now a land of despair, political institutions were faltering, economic growth stagnating, and social tensions leading straight towards chaos.
2.Doubts began to creep in about the effectiveness of the earlier aids to India; an image of complacent India entered into the minds.
3.India, Nehru & NAM began to increase the negative image.
4.The image of India being a non-ally caused Nixon to perceive the 1971 crisis from Pakistan’s point of view. He saw a friendly nation being dismembered; and ordered Kissinger to tilt policies towards Pakistan.
5.Americans saw India as ungovernable force and ‘biological multiplication’ beyond American capacity to influence; India became an enemy from a “threat to human survival” perspective.

References:
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=URSAgR ... &q&f=false
2. http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/For ... /namer.htm
3. http://www.twq.com/winter00/231Ayoob.pdf
4. http://books.google.com/books?id=95bJwl ... &q&f=false
5. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/curprob.htm
6. http://books.google.com/books?id=5Z2vc_ ... &q&f=false
7. http://books.google.com/books?id=LXgSgV ... &q&f=false
8. http://books.google.com/books?id=rJYmir ... &q&f=false
9. http://books.google.com/books?id=hWjDSV ... &q&f=false
10. http://books.google.com/books?id=4SmMvq ... &q&f=false
11. http://books.google.com/books?id=AMIQLE ... &q&f=false
12. http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_1.pdf
13. http://books.google.com/books?id=4mNBog ... &q&f=false
14. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1ka7r ... &q&f=false
15. http://books.google.com/books?id=2JdfzA ... &q&f=false
16. http://rempost.blogspot.com/2006/03/why ... inked.html

[darshan]

I agree with not waving Indian flag in US. However, I do not see it as a big deal either as being in southern US I regularly see Mexican flag being waved at many places and occasions.

Added later: I also see a "RUSSIAN" license plate at my workplace. And, it is the last place you would expect it.

[CRamS]

I also remember that li'l Macaca guy provocatively filming that Senator in Virginia in the midst of his own campaign rally. Or our illustrious Prime Minister's daughter trying to be an activist zealot for the Left in the US. Pathetic.

Cut the crap. The "lil" Macaca guy is a bonafide US citizen eligible to be president of US. In other words, he was born here, and he is a red-blooded American albeit with darker skin. What George Allen did in Virgina was a classic, viscous, racist insult to a fellow American. And whats wrong with MMS's daughter being a leftist activist? She is not trying, she is an activist.

Finally, on expressing overt patriotic sentiment in US, I personally find it quite hollow. Plus, as I mentioned many times, neither should one should express Indian jingoism so overtly, nor at the other extreme, be too much of an Uncle Tom US patriot like Dinesh D'Souza and Fareed Zakariah at times. My view is that we are honored guests in US, enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities that US offers, and do what you can for India without being apologetic about India's problems.

A good example of immigrants taking their American citizenship too seriously are those Muslim Americans who want to build that mosque near ground zero. Its not the legal issue, legality is on their side; rather, it is the need for being sensitive to the majority Amercians, after all, it was their own co-religionits, inspired by their religion, that undertook 9/11. If I were a well-meaning Muslim with no extremist tendencoies, I would urge my fellow Muslims to move that mosque somewhere else, and yet quietly build bridges with majority Americans including the kith and kin of 9/11 victims without such an in-your-face attitude.

[Manu]

actually, CRamS, I have a different objection: Do folks here protest the "in your face" displays at:
(1) Chinese New Year and Parade
(2) St Patrick's Day Parade
(3) Columbus Day Parade

See : http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ltnBMPY9 ... C8ALc42uG7
OR
http://www.life.com/image/51467020

People should leave their own inferiority complexes at home.

[SwamyG]

Ram: You raise several good points.

Meanwhile, look at the public opinion on India: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0879870/boa ... /168472930

Yes, I know it is from the message board of the movie "Eat, Pray Love", but IMDB message boards has a good mix of people - perspective to dumb.

[Cosmo_R]

Manu, I looked at the zimbio and life.com pictures you referenced. In both of them please note that there are American flags shown. In the first they are flagpoles alternating with the Italian one. In the second, the guys waving the Italian flag are wearing US flag vests.

I have not been at a Chinatown parade so I can't comment but I doubt they are waving PRC flags. The Mexicans have learned their lesson: even on CdM (which I understand is an event not recognized or celebrated in Mexico), there are American flags in profusion.

I know your comment above is not addressed to me and all I wish to note is that the event I witnessed had nothing to do with a parade. They were inviting a trifecta of resentment: The expensive car, the license plates and the really huge (3'x5' flag on a 6ft pole. If they'd simply added an American flag alongside, all the 'looks' I saw would been smiles.

As my daughter keeps saying (with some concern): "We're the new Jews dad!" and I remember how all along that community debated about being 'in your face'.

What I've gotten out of it all is the realization that the US really does welcome you if you assimilate, and even celebrates your origins as long as you display it through the prism of an American identity. What you do always trumps who you are.

However, it is important as you said to leave the inferiority complexes and emotional baggage behind.

[SwamyG]

Absolutely. A bimmer owning SDRE friend proudly announced his heritage with the tricolour badge on the windscreen and a couple of other bumper stickers. Many of my other friends decided to follow suit and got vanity plates to match. I see no harm. There are several immigrant communities proudly carrying their flags and bearing their nation's flags. Accepting citizenship does not preclude being proud of one's heritage.

National Flag is more of a political thingie than cultural or heritage related. Just because Mexicans wave the flags, does not mean Indian origin people have to wave them too.

Just because one has a right does not mean one can be oblivious to human fears and desires. Let dharmam and wisdom light the way.

[Satya_anveshi]

A good example of immigrants taking their American citizenship too seriously are those Muslim Americans who want to build that mosque near ground zero. Its not the legal issue, legality is on their side; rather, it is the need for being sensitive to the majority Amercians, after all, it was their own co-religionits, inspired by their religion, that undertook 9/11. If I were a well-meaning Muslim with no extremist tendencoies

Boss it has nothing to do with one being muslim or not. It is the election time. If the elections are over Economy , Afghanistan, or even BP spill as primary issues; it is all over before it begins. It is a search to make the opponent step on a mine and this mosque at or near ground zero is designed in that regard. It is only between demirats and pubes; muslim/mosque is a shadow issue.

[Carl_T]

CRamS is right. Immigrants are supposed to take advantage of the host community and make a life for themselves while contributing something back, but not get in the way and demand too many things. Building a mosque near ground zero is wearing out your welcome as they are not really integral parts of the nation yet. Hispanics and Irish are much more integral parts.

[Hari Seldon]

Bah, doesn't matter, really.

I don't see how it matters any from Yindia's POV who wins the Nov polls.

Just that if there's legislative gridlock in DC then the spending diarrhea will take a pause, for a while, perhaps. Rest unkil khan could well do with at the moment, but its long lost control over its monetary bowels, seems like.

Besides, I'm picking up some vague hints, signals that yet another meteoric rise awaits, this time from the GOP side, of a man on a horse, who will steady america with his iron fist, lead her with an iron will and reassure her with bible in hand.... A certain sri Ilario Pantano contesting for congress from PA this nov is being discreetly talked about....Here's one first person account from a wag on the web...

If the people of the US are so disenchanted with their leadership, that they are looking for a "Strong Man", the strong man has arrived. I watched him this morning at a Baptist Church Town Hall Meeting. His name is Ilario Pantano, and he is running for Congress against Democratic incumbent, Mike McIntyre. I watched McIntyre's performance at that same church just two weeks ago. McIntyre came off as the second coming of John Edwards, while Pantano came off as the second coming of a tall, handsome, imperially slim, young Jimmy Swaggart.

Tears welled up in Pantano's eyes and his voice got choked up as he described, over and over again, how he, a sinner, who had grown up in Hell's Kitchen, found his way to Jesus. In 2005, Pantano, who at one time had been a trader for Goldman Sachs, received a trial verdict of "innocent", after having pumped 60 rounds into two unarmed Iraqis. There will be more about that later.

There was a huge difference between McIntyre's performance and Pantano's performance. When McIntyre was done, the audience applauded. During Pantano's performance, the audience burst into applause, time after time, as Pantano promised to do his part in getting rid of gay marriage, anchor baby immigration, radical Muslims, Russian and Chinese spies and tax increases. He also promised, if elected, his unwaivering financial support to Israel, and to bring back the kind of Christian rule that our Founding Fathers had intended when they penned the Constitution.

I have never witnessed a more charismatic performance by a politician. I had been impressed when watching videos of Obama campaigning in front of black audiences, but Obama was an amateur performer in front of his black constituency, compared to Pantano, who totally captured the attention and gained the affection of his 100%, older white audience; an audience of 200 that got itself to that Church at 7:30 AM, to bear witness to this hero. This is the kind of audience that will also get itself to the voting booth. The audience punctuated Pantano's performance with Amen after Amen.

Pantano referred to himself as a warrior, time after time. There is no reason to doubt him. He appears to have the ability to physically rip any person's head off who might get in his way. He is smooth, articulate and knowledgeable enough to go head-to-head with almost anyone. It will be very interesting to watch his debate with McIntyre on Aug. 20.

Pantano is well rehearsed in his speeches about God, the Bible, the Constitution and National Security. He also says the right things about Obamacare, cutting the budget, including Defense, term limits, States rights, the ACLU and forcing members of Congress to live with a 25% pay cut and the same benefits as the average American is stuck with. He even says, in front of this older audience, that 65 is too early to receive Social Security benefits.

Recall sri obama's meteoric rise? Well, seems the banks and big moneybags that be have decided this time they could use a fascist with a cross better only.....GWB poor chimp chump, didn't make the cut to the bankers' liking, appa-rent-ly.

Only.

Jai ho.

BTW, here's more on sri panteno, from the same wag...

Marine lieutenant cleared of killing Iraqis
By David Zucchino
May 27, 2005

A Marine lieutenant accused of murdering two detained Iraqis and hanging a taunting sign over their corpses was cleared of all charges Thursday, a decision the Marine Corps said was in "the best interests" of the officer and the country.

Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario G. Pantano — a Wall Street energy trader who rejoined the military in response to the Sept. 11 attacks — did not deny shooting the suspected insurgents 60 times or hanging the sign that displayed a corps slogan: "No better friend, no worse enemy."

Conspiratorial, eh? Am sure our resident CT experts will be on the case after sri pantene makes president, who knows?

[Carl_T]

Ilario Pantano is a serious prospect, but Obama had four years to prepare for his presidential run, Pantano has only two...

[Hari Seldon]

Here's the man on video.... he's being played up and he's playing them as well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGxIkEJ ... r_embedded

[Christopher Sidor]

If a guy is on an H1B visa or H4 or L1 or B1 visa, then will it be all right for him to wave the Indian flag? Such a person is not a citizen of America. For an Indian immigrant waving an Indian flag in an American city, does not mean or imply that he does not love or does not admire or will not defend his adopted country in time of need. Nor does it mean that he is unpatriotic or has split loyalties.
With the Mexican flag, the story is different. The history between these two countries, i.e. US and Mexico, is pretty complex. Applying the same, to the INDO-US relationship will not do justice to both of these relationships.
However in spite of all of these, if America or Americans find it distasteful for Indian flags to be flown in America, then it can be stopped. Maybe there is some truth in the story that "Indians are the new jews," at least in the US.

[Cosmo_R]

Well, here's an interesting perspective. Not really US-India Strategic but illustrates how differently flag viewing or displaying is treated:

Nine British students have been booked on the charge of disrespecting the Indian flag during the famous Nehru TrophyBoat race here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... z0wglPUtHc

The UK students probably thought they were doing the right thing. This is what Naveen Jindal has been fighting for :

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... ndian+flag

IN the US as you all know, displaying the S&S is always seen as a good thing. We can learn a lot...

[JwalaMukhi]

Maybe there is some truth in the story that "Indians are the new jews," at least in the US.

"Indians are the SDREs -new or old doesn't matter". Being SDREs; it is right in the face, that one conveys that one is SDRE to the americans. So, the experience of Jews may apply to some extent, but it is not complete picture. Indians will have a unique trajectory which will more be a combo of "Indians are the old blacks, and the new Jews".
My guess, if Jews were like SDRE in appearance, they would still be the new Jews in US.

[SwamyG]

It is the election time.

In America, election time has a 365/24/7 schedule. The 24 hrs news channel and the Internet sites have nothing but sensationalism to market. It is nothing but Kaliyugam.

[SwamyG]

If a guy is on an H1B visa or H4 or L1 or B1 visa, then will it be all right for him to wave the Indian flag? Such a person is not a citizen of America. For an Indian immigrant waving an Indian flag in an American city, does not mean or imply that he does not love or does not admire or will not defend his adopted country in time of need. Nor does it mean that he is unpatriotic or has split loyalties.

Why the penchant to wear patriotism on ones sleeves? Why the need the get into the faces of locals in displaying publicly political affinity? On split loyalty, I think isn't it evident even @ BRF? There seems to be many Indian origin people who are citizens of countries other than India. Their heart seems to beat for India. The fact that they took a new citizenship means they are bound to the new country, no? Split loyalty would be more prevalent in the first generation, no?

[biswas]

It's not a matter of split loyalties. My loyalties are to noone other than family and relatives, but I am Indian by race.

[Sanjay M]

Cut the crap. The "lil" Macaca guy is a bonafide US citizen eligible to be president of US. In other words, he was born here, and he is a red-blooded American albeit with darker skin. What George Allen did in Virgina was a classic, viscous, racist insult to a fellow American. And whats wrong with MMS's daughter being a leftist activist? She is not trying, she is an activist.

It's not me who's spewing the crap.

Macaca guy may be a US citizen, but citizenship doesn't guarantee acceptance - nor should it. You can't legislate credibility.
It is upto everyone to earn acceptance from society - nobody can demand it.
Otherwise the Islamists in every country will all be marking the local Independence Day as a Black Day while waving their Bin Laden flags every year.

MMS' daughter is an idiot. Just as she claims freedom to be a left-wing activist, I am free to condemn her for it. She is not working for all Americans, she is working for her own narrow little ethnocentric leftist brigade.

I am against the concept of the Hotel Nation - the nation as a hotel.
If you want to live somewhere, then don't act like the tail wagging the dog.

A good example of immigrants taking their American citizenship too seriously are those Muslim Americans who want to build that mosque near ground zero. Its not the legal issue, legality is on their side; rather, it is the need for being sensitive to the majority Amercians, after all, it was their own co-religionits, inspired by their religion, that undertook 9/11. If I were a well-meaning Muslim with no extremist tendencoies, I would urge my fellow Muslims to move that mosque somewhere else, and yet quietly build bridges with majority Americans including the kith and kin of 9/11 victims without such an in-your-face attitude.

On the contrary, the Ground Zero mosque is an example of Muslims not taking their American citizenship seriously enough. You don't see Japanese-Americans building a cultural centre next to Pearl Harbour. Next you will claim that Babur built Babri Masjid in order to make himself more Indian and identify with the locals. You'll also tell me that IMs who oppose hanging of Mohammad Afzal are doing so out of patriotic concern for a fellow Indian citizen.

Extraterritorialism identifies itself very clearly.

[SwamyG]

It's not a matter of split loyalties. My loyalties are to noone other than family and relatives, but I am Indian by race.

Indian Race

[CRamS]

To those who read some "inferiorit complex" into my suggestion that ex patriate Indians in US should not have an in your face attitude in independence day celebrations, please, all I am saying is that lets be reasonable guests, thats all. I practice my religious belief, revel in my ethnicity etc in the privacy of my house. In public, I speak up for India boldly and unapologetically, but within the realm of American mores and accepted rules of engagement. For e.g., when Americans only talk about "Al Quiad" as the torch bearer of evil, I point them to LET and TSPA/ISI. When they reminsice of 9/11, I remind them of 26/11. If they try pull this caste thingy on me, I remind them of black struggle for equality. In other words, I engage Americans whenever I can on these kind of issues and create the right opportunities to do so. All that those jingoistic in-your-face celebrations achieve is either contempt from Americnas or "just ignore them" attitude. Thats all I am saying. But please, for those who want to celebrate, go ahead, noting wrong with that per se. My approach is different, thats all I am trying to say.

[Venkarl]

I don't think waving flag is a big deal. I had a Han Chinese roomie whose parents migrated to Suriname and he then acquired Canadian citizenship and was planning on GC in US...this guy's nissan was an attraction with a rear glass which is red tinted and Beijing Olympics mascot sticker on the top right corner...have lived in Flushing, NY and saw few chinese travel buses with a small PRC flag sticker...so lets take it easy on this..


"Indians are the new jews"...Last time I heard that it was implying brahmins

[CRamS]

Sanjay M:

You are crapping dude, and this is my last post on this topic. The Macaca guy is a bonafide American born in this country. What George Allen did was insult him with impunity purely based on his ethnicity/looks. And yes, that can be legislated. The Macaca guy did not demand that george Allen invite him to his house and feed him cake & wine. That kind of camaradare cannot be legislated. Since you can't seem to see the difference between the two, I am not surprised why the Atlanticism bug irritaes the unmentionable part of your anatomy so much.

[Cosmo_R]

I think we (including me) are clogging up the strategic nature of this thread with what might be more properly termed The Indian Experience in America—that is divorced from US-India politics. Is it worth it? Will Mods allow it? Anyone care to start a separate thread?

One parthian shot: “One hundred years ago, Jews and the Irish were not considered white! I think it’s only a matter of time before we redefine groups ..."

Professor Mitchell Moss, NYU in NYMag.com

I guess that having green makes you white.

[ramana]

Please stick to the thread topic. Its not about Indian experience in US.

Thanks.

ramana

[Sanjay M]

This is my last reply about Macaca, and the only useful description of him:

Na ghar ka, na ghat ka

[Karna_A]

Ombaba has made a strategic error with Mosque at 9/11 site comment.
The freedom of speech does not extend to someone shouting Fire in a crowded cinema hall as its can cause mayhem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_f ... ed_theater

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic

Similarly freedom of religion does not extend to rubbing other people the wrong way, all the time so as to provoke them and US still has a substantial population of rednecks.

Defeat of Ombaba party in midterm elections and election of Republican to Presidency look almost certain now, and its possible a hardcore right wing Christian can become next US President. India by 2013 would be all set to reap benefits again like in GWB era.

[Carl_T]

I would not be so sure about right wing Christian president benefiting India. That is not well reasoned Karnaji.

Now the better question is who will beat Obama?

[Sanjay M]

Archan, your warning is unfair. I started my post before Ramana's had appeared, and mine appeared immediately after it. I also further stated that it was my last reply on the subject. You are giving me a warning after I already myself said that I would not discuss the issue further. Besides that, I had not even seen Ramana's warning yet. That's very wrongful of you.

[Karna_A]

I would not be so sure about right wing Christian president benefiting India. That is not well reasoned Karnaji.

Now the better question is who will beat Obama?

You are right.
Not directly, but indirectly yes. India has now situated itself in such a quadrant that what is good for US has become good for India.

Pro Business policies result in Pro India policies.
Anti terror policies are Pro India
Pro defence sales are pro India
Stand up to China are Pro India
Pro AFG are Pro India etc.

[Karan Dixit]

^ I look at it this way. Our interests are converging in some areas. That is it.

[svinayak]

National Flag is more of a political thingie than cultural or heritage related. Just because Mexicans wave the flags, does not mean Indian origin people have to wave them too.

Just because one has a right does not mean one can be oblivious to human fears and desires. Let dharmam and wisdom light the way.

Boss, One is on his own. I was in a area where more than 20,000 Indians converged for the India parade. What do you think they were doing.

[SwamyG]

^^^^
I think expressing their varying emotions towards India.