Pres. Obama's visit.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 08 Nov 2010 10:10

The visit is turning out to be a damp squib and Obama's insulting speech in parliament will be the same. Luckily, Obama doesn't have to answer to MPs questioning him.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Nov 2010 10:22

It was always clear that even if the US explicitly supports India for the UNSC
The solutions to India's challenges is her's alone to sort out.
Hopefully this visit will bring that clarity to some who were unclear and lead to some self reliant action.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 08 Nov 2010 11:13

Loved this article: Obama in India: First Marriage Then Love

PS: what it didn't talk about was $10 Bn dowry paid by bride's family

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 11:22

The fault with this visit is that thanks to Quisling Singh's diplomacy over the last few years,is that the US thinks that India and Indian leaders are eunuchs unlike the tough macho Pakis! Our dear PM is "a sheep in sheep's clothing"! Therefore,they feel that they can browbeat India and send in a couple of "disco-dancers" to (snake) charm us and dance away with lucrative contracts,while still allowing the Pakis the pleasure of orchestratating terror attacks against India.Just wait for the Mess-iah to leave our shores and watch the next wave of terror waged from Pak.What will Sheepy Singh then do? I am also disappointed with the Indian corporate crowd which should've hel;d a seminar just before the visit pointing out US duplicity in economic ties.

As for the BJP,the party must put its money where its mouth is.It cannot sit on the fence when Indian interests are concerned,else it will fall off the fence.If I was BJP party pres. and during Obama's speech to our MPs, no condemnation of Paki terror emanated from Obama's mouth,with more of his "stable Pak being good for India bullsh*t",I would stage a dramatic walk out during his speech.At least the Left is planning to have demos across the country in protest.After the first few days of Obama's defence of Paki terror,it is clear that he by default is a sponsor of terror and as Mercutio put it,"a plague upon both the US and Paki houses".

PS:For those apologists for Obama not saying anything harsh about Pak on Indian soil as being undiplomatic,what about his condemnation of Burma's elections? That is a gross insult to Burma and India as it was made on Indian soil.The MEA must immediately counter his speech and restore Indo-Burmese confidence by congratulating Burma on having engaged in holding elections even if they are flawed.At least Burma is far better than Pak ruled by a despotic terror-minded military.Obama's duplicity is very clear here.As for his being "Gandhian',it is anything but given his lust for rent-boy Pak.The only true "Gandhian" leader in the world today is Mandela.Obama is a fraud.The US only behaves when it is kicked in the butt as is happening to it in Af-Pak .

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 08 Nov 2010 11:31

Dancing Queen Michelle Rocks India

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Nov 2010 11:32

brihaspati wrote:
What remains in Delhi of India's cultural heritage anyway! Its Turko-Afghan-Mongol-Brit!

B,

Isint the Rashtra pati bhawan and the Parliament house and the Nort and South blocks a nice representation of Indic heretage even thought they were designed by a firangi.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Nov 2010 11:38

chetak wrote:Of late Arnab Goswami of Times Now seems to get into convoluted arguments with pakis invited by him to pontificate on his channel.

Why does he insist on inviting them and let them air their terrorist and lame views?

The pakis who appear on this channel seem to have decided to be extremely nasty and rude.

It is becoming embarrassing to watch goswami and the pakis arguing on the channel.

Right now we have an angry paki yelling his head off with goswami.

Wasn't the Times group involved in some aman ki tamasha nonsense? How does it explain goswami going off the reservation??

Perhaps its all chanakian by the times group by showing the colours of the educated elites of the TSP to the Indian masses. It is vital to know the face of the enemy after all.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Nov 2010 11:44

Arjun wrote:Loved this article: Obama in India: First Marriage Then Love

PS: what it didn't talk about was $10 Bn dowry paid by bride's family

As with all Indian marriages the fun is for spectators...
The bride and groom are sweating it out onlee

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Nov 2010 12:11

WRT the business deeals signed between India and the US. We need to make sure that we have 100% offset clause in every deal that is signed. These guys will not take both our money and jobs. They need to pay back what they take.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 13:10

Interesting point made above.

What exactly is this strategic relationship"?
If it is a "marriage" ,according to Indian tradition,then there is to be a large dowry which Obama has greedily demanded! Will he keep asking for "more" after the nuptials are over like some cads do ? But,if one also goes by US marriage traditions in best Hollywood fashion,there should be "pre-nup" agreements in the marriage contract.This is sure to contain from the Indian side a "no-fornication" clause reg. Pak! Now how can Uncle Sam give up his rent-boy of decades.Will it be "Love's Labour Lost" then? Or has Uncle Sam already "married" the Paki rent-boy and these days "same-sex" marriages are legal in the US! Now does that make MMs.Singh the "second wife",allowed under Paki Muslim law,or a "kept wo-man"? Plus what about the disputed dwelling place of Kashmir which both first and second wives/lovers lust after? What about "tresspass" by the "party of the first part" with intention to cause "greivous bodily harm"? Is the " groom" secretly making a covert agreement with the Kashmiri children of both first and second parties to keep Kashmir as an independent entity for himself as custodian of the children from both families?!

The chicanery of the groom knows no bounds.I strongly suggest to the bride,before she,sorry...he (!) loses his virginity,to read the fine print of the pre-nups."Marry in haste,repent at leisure (there'll be no pleasure)!"

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 08 Nov 2010 13:34

The joint press conference is just over.

I particularly liked Dr.Man Mohan Singh saying clearly that there could be no talks with Pakistan unless terror machinery is stopped. He was emphatic about that. He said that once terror-induced coercion is stopped, India will engage with Pakistan. I hope that he sticks to this even when Pakistan takes some cosmetic steps to induce India into talks as it did before Yaketerinburg or Sharm-el-Sheikh.

Obama hinted that the US was willing to play a mediatory role even while he acknowledged that consistently Man Mohan Singh has been pursuing peace with Pakistan. I thought Obama's offer of a mediatory role was slightly more than what Americans have been saying traditionally.

Obama also confirmed the C-17 deal. Man Mohan Singh outlined America's indispensability in the growth of India in the coming decades, both economically and militarily.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 13:43

Mess-iah's Divali "disco-dancing" a PR raspberry back home.

The locals loved it but Obama jig is a PR pratfall
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 28039.html

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 08 Nov 2010 13:52

rahulm wrote: ..
Also, during Q&A time he seemed disconnected from the Xaviers audience. Probably, speaking to the American audience.

Spot on I think. Obama's op-ed published in DC supposedly addressed to India infact read as an in toto addressal to his American audience. He is a beleaguered president and looks like he has lost the ability to think global or strategic anymore.
Unfortunate as it is, he needs to understand that solutions to the American economic woes could have been addressed by bringing in large potential players like India more firmly into a mutual paternership. MMS/India has played the host to the tilt and even gone further than is required. Obama should atleast take a few steps forward in this tango no? Sad.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 13:57

Barack Obama India visit: President refuses to condemn Pakistan

Barack Obama risked incurring Indian anger on a trip to the country by putting ties to Pakistan before succumbing to local pressure to condemn outright its links to terrorist groups.

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

.....His comments were made in response to a question from a pupil at Mumbai's St Xavier's School during a "town hall" meeting, who asked why the United States had stopped short of branding Pakistan as a terrorist state.

The answer provoked a wider disappointment that he had not echoed British prime minister David Cameron's comments during his July visit when he accused Islamabad of "looking both ways" in the war on terror.

India has expressed grave concerns that a terrorist suspect now in American custody has admitted filming the targets of the 2008 Mumbai attacks and that senior Pakistan military intelligence figures had been involved in the planning of the massacre.

David Headley's two wives have also reported his terrorist links and activities in Mumbai to the US embassy and FBI staff but Washington failed to pass on the information to India.

A spokesman for the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who said it was a "complete disappointment" that Mr Obama had not mentioned the role of Pakistan's intelligence service.

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 08 Nov 2010 13:57

I should say that MMS did steal the show on this one. POTUS agreeing to most of India's core interests vis-a-vis Pakistan and terrorism has set a stage of engagement for India with Pakistan.

POTUS clearly said that simple issues should be engaged with first and then contentious issues should be delt with. Further having established his credentials with the world on India's sincerity on engaging pakistan and pakistan's tactically brilliant approach to dialogue with India has given India the high ground on dialogue with pakistan.

This India-US relationship is on the right track with India achieving most of the objective it had set itself vis-a-vis pakistan and china. Further high-technology trade is always in India's favour. I have to give it to MMS to fashion this transformation of India's relationship with US.

There are still a lot of loopholes in this relationship, but the direction is very good and we are slowly but surely weaning US away from its rent-boy Pakistan

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 14:07

I wish I had your confidence Abi,remember Hillary's glowing embrace of Pak recently.Wait for the next US/NATO connvoy to be torched and see how the US backtracks.As many observers have said,India must do the "business" with pak by itself.We have been led down the garden path by the US time and time again especially under MMS's regime.He has had no option but to speak out as the Cong- Party thinks differently from him,remember the furore after S-Al-S.

http://public.dawn.com/2010/11/08/us-an ... oblem.html

US and India to work closely on terrorism problem
AP

NEW DELHI: US President Barack Obama pledged Monday to work more closely with India to combat terrorism around the world, but stopped short of committing the United States to intervene in India’s long-standing dispute with Pakistan over the Himalayan region of Kashmir.

PS:In other words,India and the US will work against terrorism EXCEPT Paki cross-border terrorism into Kashmir! Obama's non-interference is a tacit nod to the pakis that he will do NOTHING regarding their "dispute" with India and can do what they like to keep India bloody and "contained".This strategy will always keep servile govts in Delhi running crying to Uncle Sam like squealing oinks everytime pak hits us,pleading with Uncle to make Pak stop bashing India.Pathetic!

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 08 Nov 2010 14:51

I think their is a lot to be optimistic about. Lets look at the positives immediately vis-a-vis our immediate engagement with pakistan.

Once the basic framework of engagement with pakistan is terrorism and not the K-word then our engagement with pakistan is good. I think the emphasis on pakistan on dismantling terrorism and no effort on kashmir clearly puts india's diplomacy in the right direction.

Once the pressure on terrorism is there on pakistan, it ability to extract any concession on kashmir reduces and indeed kashmir start becoming a bilateral or regional issue with no ramifications on india's relationship with the world and the effect of kashmir is reduced.

Overall this fruitful engagement with US will move the needle towards india's national interest. I think with more time at our time and with pakistan tactical brilliance we may finally have a world opinion largely reflect indian national position on kashmir and on pakistani sponsored terrorism

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 08 Nov 2010 15:00

"Of late Arnab Goswami of Times Now seems to get into convoluted arguments with pakis invited by him to pontificate on his channel.

Why does he insist on inviting them and let them air their terrorist and lame view"

"Arnab Goswami got his 10 mins of fame with us on BR during Mumbai and we hoped he would carry the nationalist toruch, but after watching him many times now, I feel he is nothing more than another loud-mouthed papprazi with no substance"

Let's appreciate the fact that here is a media person who does tend to stand up strongly for India by bringing up important facts, and is a very visible and spirited face for that. Don't expect perfection. For instance, when he rightly grilled Wintermute over the whole visas for ethnic Pakistanis in UK matter, he could have raised the subject of whether it is really legitimate to equate terror in N.Ireland to that in Kashmir and rest of India(Wintermute was bragging that during that whole N. Ireland terrorism phase, Irish did not have troubles getting visas to UK). Still, he and Raza strongly countered the Brit's points.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 08 Nov 2010 15:03

Xinhua puts out its own negative spin on meeting: Obama, Singh differ over Pakistan, Kashmir

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Nov 2010 15:08

the only people who worry about the K word are pakistanis and their liberal left newspaper friends in the west and WKK land

no one else really gives a flying-musharraf about it anymore (perhaps never did) apart from unkil who sees it in the simplest of black and white terms

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Nov 2010 16:13

X post from the TSP thread.

Published in TOI Blog.

Obama is right. Stable Pakistan is good for us

My response to the Blog

Wishing that Pakistan is stable and a stable Pakistan are two diffrent issues.

The world may wish for a stable Pakistan. But Pakistan knows that it is its instability which gets it all the civil and military aid. In that situation it has no incentive to be stable.

The world will have to undertstand it. If Pakistan is to be genuinely peaceful.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Nov 2010 16:51

Hmm, reading some of the articles today (Link and Link) it seems that, contrary to popular mythology, MMS didn't hand over K on a platter to Ombaba.

Of course the spin is that what happened behind closed doors is different from...

I agree with Abhishek, there are lot of positives. It seems our "weak" PM has been able to wrest quite a few concessions, the most important being the (partial) lifting of the tech denial regime and the membership of various clubs, the most ironic being the NSG!

PS: Slightly off topic, but I'd like to add one note here. Imagine what the dialogue (and Western media reports) would have been, if at this point of time, our Booker heroine had been oinking from behind bars!

(Let me make a confession for some esteemed members here, this last bit is indeed a teeny winy spin on my part!

)

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Nov 2010 17:00

Regarding NSG, Ayatollahs Perkovich and Kimball are also oinking away as this link faithfully records all the interesting sounds they make.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 08 Nov 2010 17:01

Airavat wrote:
Venkarl wrote:Apologies for a delayed response. The Newshour Edition I was talking about is not up on their website.....
America's six clauses to bind India
Venkarl wrote:Some Chaudhry (P'ably an Army guy cuz of his whiskers) says Americans do not sell anything to any foreign nation without such agreements being signed.
General Shankar Roychowdhury, former army chief.

Thanks Airavat....thats the one I was talkin about.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Nov 2010 17:36

Both Obamba and India's INC are lameduck regimes. The talk of giving something on a platter to either does not happen as there is nothing that they can do. Even MMS cannot go beyond what he did so far regarding Kashmir even if he has intentions to do. His party cannot even pass a bill in Indian parliament and forget if there are any amendments that are required. For MMS at the least he will be on the "right" side if he does not talk too much of K or Pak-Peace. I beleive he learnt that and as a true chameleon he may be changing his color a shade.

The only achivements that they can count is negotiations on some trade stuff that does not need any bill-passing dramas in both the parliaments. Hence more the dance type stuff more better for them.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 08 Nov 2010 17:42

^^^
Amitji,

I think it would have made no difference if the zeroine was behind bars. Ombaba came for bijjiness. All other things would have made no difference. See he made no mention of K. I think all these are scripted and thrashed out and the heads of state just play their parts. Nothing else. Not that I want her behind bars. Why waste resources in feeding her.
The only thing which might not have been pre planned might have been ombaba's stupid dance

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Nov 2010 18:08

Obama just completed the Parl speech. Sumit Ganguly, Bharat Karnad, MJAkbhar and Lalit Man Singh are on the panel on HT

saip · Post by **saip** » 08 Nov 2010 18:12

CNN has a curious headline. But I cant find Ombaba saying anything about UN membership

It said Obama has recommended India's UN membership.

http://www.cnn.com/

NOw they changed it!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Nov 2010 18:18

An absolutely first rate speech! As someone mentioned a 9/10. I doubt if there was anything more that he could have put in. Another good thing i noticed was less visible presence of SS (in Bill's interaction with the MP's they were actively pushing some that time), Glad that embarassment was not there this time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 18:18

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/

Latest Asia News
Obama supports India on UN Security Council
President Barack Obama backed India for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council on Monday, a dramatic diplomatic gesture to his hosts as he wrapped up his first visit to the country.
08 Nov 2010

"The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate," Mr Obama said in prepared remarks. "That is why I can say today – in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

The announcement does not mean that India will join the five current permanent Security Council members in the near future. The U.S. is backing its membership only in the context of unspecified reforms to the council that could take years to bring about.

That makes Mr Obama's announcement more of a diplomatic gesture than a concrete step. Nonetheless, it underscores the importance the U.S. places on fostering ties with this nation of 1.2 billion people, something Mr Obama has been seeking to accomplish throughout his time here.

PS:A matter of quiet satisfaction for India and Dr.Singh,but Obama is merely stating the facts of India's case.The second largest nation on the planet population wise and the largest democracy-a nuclear power too to those to whom that fact matters most! Denying India a permanent UNSC seat would be asinine by any standard.So he is actually not doing us that great a favour,but we must be gracious and thank him,as it puts a spoke in the machinations of the PRC.
To deny India's legitimate case would be a diabolic act by the US which prides itself upon promoting "democracy" worldwide.Many other nations have endorsed India's case much earlier and the British PM went even further calling a spade a spade with regard to Paki terror.Therefore,let us view Obama's visit in its proper perspective.The crucial issue of stopping Paki terror against India has been fudged and this is where India will have to either act on its own or sit back and get repeatedly "raped" by the Pakis.Expect nothing from the US here as they have been "lovers" of Pak for decades.

This is the harsh reality that we must live with,we cannot expect too much from the US-the "taming" of Pak has to be done by India all alone.We have more VVIP guests with us before the year end,old loyal friends and it is with them that we must "bridge the gaping chasms" that exist in the Indo-US relationship.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Nov 2010 18:26

although 90% of the speech was good, he dropped in 3 specific unglis
1. support US on Iran's nukes
2. condemn burma
3. left aspirations for self determination open ended... which i take to be code for kashmir-sunni-wahabi action to appease paquis

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 08 Nov 2010 18:31

Lalmohan wrote:although 90% of the speech was good, he dropped in 3 specific unglis
1. support US on Iran's nukes
2. condemn burma
3. left aspirations for self determination open ended... which i take to be code for kashmir-sunni-wahabi action to appease paquis

Absolutely on dot. Even Bharat Karnad made same points. He gave 3.5/10 rating of the speech. Obamba wants India to delink from Mayanmar's Junta while US can have deep penetration enjoyment with Paki generals.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 08 Nov 2010 18:35

A reasonably good speech ...

Plus points were the mention of the invention of zero, quotation from Tagore, and mention of Vivekananda ..

However his points about Burma, Iran and the alleged global warming effect should be received with circumspection.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Nov 2010 18:39

he's teasing... you can have all this... but i need you to gubo on these things...
ultimately, india has to start throwing its elephant weight around before anyone really takes us seriously. right now we are still a 'caged elephant'
time for a mast-driven rampage across the neighbourhood

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Nov 2010 18:48

india is hardly in bed with myanmar the way US has been sleeping with Pak for decades. we have some understanding with the rangoon junta to hand over terrorists from both sides, a bit of border trade etc . we do not supply arms to myanmar to terrorize and threaten laos or thailand. myanmar is not a center of intl terrorists.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Nov 2010 18:53

all said and done, this guy seems as much endowed in the top floor as bush, once you take away the prepared speeches away from him. he is a good showman, I'll give you that but little besides.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Nov 2010 18:56

the POTUS is the front man for the system

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Nov 2010 18:57

Selig Harrison on the visit.

Pakistan divides U.S. and India
Washington should stop providing Islamabad with weaponry that can be used against India and take a realistic view of the reasons for Indian-Pakistani tensions

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 0458.story

Xcpts:

" Obama Mission: Billions to Pakistan, Billions From India" — This screaming headline in the Times of India ahead of President Obama's visit to New Delhi explains why a quiet crisis is developing in what seems, on the surface, to be an increasingly promising relationship between the world's two largest democracies.

Calling for a strategic partnership, Washington has pressed New Delhi to buy $11 billion in U.S. fighter aircraft and to sign defense agreements permitting U.S. military aircraft to refuel at Indian airfields and for U.S. naval vessels to dock in Indian ports. But New Delhi responds that the United States can hardly be a strategic partner if it continues to build up the military capabilities of a hostile Pakistan that sponsors Islamist terrorists dedicated to India's destruction.

The Obama visit this weekend will no doubt strengthen growing cooperation between the United States and India in trade, investment and high technology that contrasts strikingly with the mutual suspicions of the Cold War decades. Promising plans explored at recent G-20 meetings for a new global currency exchange rate regime were also on the agenda.

But the full potential of U.S.-Indian cooperation, including naval cooperation in the face of an increasingly ambitious China, will not be realized until Washington stops providing Islamabad with weaponry that can be used against India and takes a realistic view of the reasons for Indian-Pakistani tensions.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has showered $13.5 billion in military hardware on Islamabad, and it pledged another $2 billion last month. The Pentagon justifies this buildup in the name of combating terrorism. But the big-ticket items have all strengthened Pakistani air and naval capabilities needed for potential combat with India, not for counterinsurgency mountain warfare against the Taliban.

For example, post-2001 U.S. military aid has more than doubled Pakistan's fleet of nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets, equipping them with state-of-the-art missiles and laser-guided bombs, and has tripled the number of its anti-submarine helicopters and anti-ship missiles. Before 2001, Pakistan had 200 TOW antitank missiles, crucial in plains warfare with India but of little use in mountain warfare against tribal jihadis. Now it has 5,250.

The message from Islamabad is that Pakistan's "insecurity" in the face of Indian power explains why it aids the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that a settlement over the disputed Kashmir region would lead Pakistan to abandon support for Islamist forces. Bob Woodward's book, "Obama's Wars," shows in detail that the U.S. intelligence community has accepted this argument uncritically and that it has impressed the president.

But the reason Pakistan supports the Taliban is that it wants to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan with its own surrogates. This objective would not be altered by a Kashmir settlement. More important, the underlying reason for Pakistan's feelings of insecurity is that it is an artificial entity hastily patched together by the British Raj in the 1947 partition.

The Muslim League movement that campaigned in then-undivided India to create Pakistan had limited mass support in the areas that were to constitute the new state. Recent historical studies have conclusively established that Pakistan came into being primarily because league leaders had agreed to give Britain military bases there, while India's Jawaharlal Nehru had declared his intention to pursue a nonaligned foreign policy.

No state had ever combined the four incompatible ethnic regions that make up Pakistan today, encompassing the dominant Punjabi and large Baluchi, Pashtun and Sindhi minorities, each with their own ancestral territory. The minorities had fought throughout history to resist domination by the Punjabi, but it was a Punjabi-dominated army that took over the new state.

The U.S. has held Pakistan together for the last half-century by pouring billions in military aid into a series of military dictatorships, initially in return for intelligence-monitoring facilities to spy on Soviet missile sites, later for helping to aid the Afghan resistance and, since 2001, to compensate for cooperation in the "war on terror."

The army has become a bloated behemoth that dominates Pakistani politics and fans tensions with India to justify the huge defense budgets that underlie its privileged position in Pakistani society. Apart from their dominant position in real estate, current and retired generals run army-linked business conglomerates with net assets totaling $38 billion.

Civilian political leaders have consistently faced opposition from the army in their efforts to reduce tension between India and Pakistan. This was especially true in the case of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who secretly negotiated conventional arms control measures in 1989 with Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that were snuffed out when discovered by the army. In 1999, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif wanted to de-escalate the crisis resulting from the army's invasion of Kargil in Kashmir, and this was one of the factors that led to his ouster by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Now President Asif Ali Zardari has made clear that he would like to pick up where Bhutto, his late wife, left off.

Zardari is often dismissed as a corrupt playboy incapable of governing, and he has indeed been a weak administrator. But he has demonstrated surprising courage and consistency in seeking to downgrade the Kashmir issue and to jump-start trade with India as the key to easing Indian-Pakistani tensions.

Significantly, it was in the weeks preceding the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack that Zardari first went public with his peace overtures. Dismissing the threat of an Indian attack, he declared that the Muslim insurgents fighting Indian rule in Kashmir were "terrorists." Then, two days before the Mumbai attack, he said, "I can assure you Pakistan will not use nuclear weapons first against India."

This reversed Pakistan's policy of deliberate ambiguity on the first use of nuclear weapons and outraged military leaders. Was this the last straw for the army? Was the Mumbai attack instigated by Islamist hard-liners to wreck Zardari's peace campaign, as one of his closest advisors suggested to me? In any case, the army has largely succeeded in silencing him.

To demonstrate sensitivity to Indian concerns about Pakistan, Obama should make clear that the United States accepts the findings of an Indian intelligence probe of the Mumbai attack. The inquiry showed that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) supported the attack by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. The director of Obama's own initial review of his Afghanistan policy, Bruce Riedel, who has had access to the Indian report, concluded that it "reinforces the sense that Pakistan is riding a jihadist Frankenstein." Given the level of detail in the Indian probe, he declared, there appears to be "no question that the ISI had a role in Mumbai." Acknowledging that the ISI is behind Pakistani-based Islamist efforts to destabilize and dismember India is the necessary first step for the United States to demonstrate that it is serious about a true partnership with New Delhi.

Selig Harrison is director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Nov 2010 19:01

LM ji, i observed those 3 references.

1. Burma: India should be clear the message for many smaller nations is to look at the Beijing Model of development. So there are many dictatorships around our neighbourhood. But that model in the past has been legitimized by giving China a UNSC seat and India left in the cold. If the Nixons and Clintons reward China, Pakistan why should smaller countries not feel like doing so? This can be easily put back on the US. Indeed he did recognize and counter this by saying US supports India's UNSC bid and India's success is not despite democracy but because of it. A good message for neighbouring states who are tempted by Beijings model.

2. UN Resolutions on Kashmir: We all know why the resolutions are useless now and who failed to honor them in the first instance.

3. Iran: I'm no friend of Ahmedinijad. A person who keeps raving he'll wipe out Israel with nukes is indeed the last person who should possess them. But it's not to difficult to counter Americans that we look at it this way that you did'nt feel strongly and winked when Paki's were getting Nukes and massive proliferation was on between China and Pak (becasue you thought those nukes would only affect 3rd world India), why do you want us now to feel strongly about Iran, since that too does not affect us directly.

4. Copenhagen: India did give a commitment IIRC. I've not read much in detail about that. But there's no harm if we try and meet the commitments as best. I feel that in everything we may not have complete agreements even in the future. But thats about it..we do agree on our goals and methods. Thats what Obama acknowledged. And it's a big step.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 08 Nov 2010 19:04

Muppalla wrote:Both Obamba and India's INC are lameduck regimes.

I can understand people's opinion on Obama's tenure, but why do you say INC regime is lameduck?