India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 10 Oct 2010 22:47

CRamS wrote: BossGaru, you are too much of an intellectual to take these tea party Nazis seriously. I hope you have not fallen for the US media. Fareed Bhai is doing his duty on GPS slicing and dicing with his pompous guests, comparing tea party Nazis with founding fathers and revolutionaries bla bla. If one were to slice and dice Hitler also, one will find something truthful he said. I am sure Hitler also said that sun rises in the east and roses smell good. Somewaht like Uneven hair-splitting TSPA to cast it in good light.

The tea part Nazis are nothing but a bunch of bigoted demagouges who are mighty energized seeing a black guy as presdient who they believe is a Muslim. Thats all there is to it.

What I don't understand from this so called "free press" is why is they cannot come around to calling tea party for what it is, and in benign terms it is just a white Christian nationalist party. A phrase they would use with gay abandon when talking about BJP for example.

Then from India's point of view that is far good. See it is always easy to deal with blunt ones as opposed to the liberals. The liberals here are more bigoted than anyone I have seen and it is just that they have a different front end.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 10 Oct 2010 22:53

Muppalla:

I agree. With the tea party, it will just be a business to business relationship with none of the smok screens. Since tea party or any party for that matter will be vassals of businesses and corporations, I'd like to see how tea party will spin outsourcing if thats what their business and corporate sponsors want

.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 11 Oct 2010 02:57

Cosmo_R,.. Thanks, as you know, the link you gave does not give any poll to backup the claim. Most of the polling has groups like 'Asian American' but do have more fine-grain data..Best available data, at least that I have seen, (for last two presidential elections) as I said before, do not support the conclusion which that story claims. ...

Some random thoughts -

I don't believe, all, or even majority of Indian Americans (or other Americans for that matter) are that naive to fall into that broad brush labeling.. they vote their interests..over the years I have seen them working for both campaigns... more often than not, same people supporting candidates without party loyalty...not that much different than India.

What makes it interesting to US-India relationship is, I (and I believe majority) will not support a democratic candidate (Say Like Green in SC) or Republican/Tea party candidate .. O'donnell ..Not because she belongs (or not belong) to "Tea party" ..but things like she will mock Krishna..or Vegetarianism, lie about her degree(s), and even more seriously, she said (even after Mush's support for Terrorists was on the recent news) and went on talking about 'How Mushraff .. was great a ally .. etc' in the only in depth interview I heard about her foreign policy.

Folks.. Silly rhetoric and questions which have no interests to us , should not be our (or at least this thread's) concern ..

JMT

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 11 Oct 2010 04:19

Amber G. wrote:Cosmo_R,.. Thanks, as you know, the link you gave does not give any poll to backup the claim. Most of the polling has groups like 'Asian American' but do have more fine-grain data..Best available data, at least that I have seen, (for last two presidential elections) as I said before, do not support the conclusion which that story claims. ...

Some random thoughts -

I don't believe, all, or even majority of Indian Americans (or other Americans for that matter) are that naive to fall into that broad brush labeling.. they vote their interests..over the years I have seen them working for both campaigns... more often than not, same people supporting candidates without party loyalty...not that much different than India.

What makes it interesting to US-India relationship is, I (and I believe majority) will not support a democratic candidate (Say Like Green in SC) or Republican/Tea party candidate .. O'donnell ..Not because she belongs (or not belong) to "Tea party" ..but things like she will mock Krishna..or Vegetarianism, lie about her degree(s), and even more seriously, she said (even after Mush's support for Terrorists was on the recent news) and went on talking about 'How Mushraff .. was great a ally .. etc' in the only in depth interview I heard about her foreign policy.

Folks.. Silly rhetoric and questions which have no interests to us , should not be our (or at least this thread's) concern ..

JMT

Agreed. I think I may have been lazy in not stressing the 'docs' part of the 'Indian docs' phrase. An overwhelming majority of all docs voted for Bush against Kerry because of pocket book issues related to medicare, malpractice etc. IIRC, Indian docs followed that pattern—not because they were Indian but because they were doctors.

Ultimately, it's a pocketbook issue. The other factors are reinforcers. For example, Carter lost because people were hurting at the pump, interest rates were high, inflation was rampant. The Iranian hostage recur debacle was merely icing on the cake.

Reagan rode the supply side economic boom that began in August 1982 when credit was loosened because of the Mexican debt crisis. You may recall the S&L binging on real estate and driving real estate prices 5x.

Bush Sr. presided over the inevitable post Reagan bust (1987 crash) and lost. The fact he did not know what price scanners were at the supermarket and proudly purchased $20 of black socks to 'help end the recession' was just icing.

What I think may happen going forward is that the Tea Party (much like Perot's Reform Party or George Wallace's American Independent Party) serve only to hive off the right wing extremists from the Republicans.

The Republicans will need to reinvent themselves if they are to survive. They have alienated the emerging majorities with the emphasis on nativism, EJs and tax cuts that benefit only the very rich.

From an Indo-American vantage, the Democrats OTOH, seem (repeat seem) to be saying 'wait your turn, we've got a whole lot of minorities ahead of you like African Americans, Hispanics, Chinese along with white women'.

Now, I can't stand Bobby Jindal—his politics or his person. I dislike Nikki Haley's politics but that's SC yet I like her as a person. The interesting thing though is how the Republicans in Red states have embraced these two. The Democrats have focused on two Indian stereotypes as CIO and CTO or some such.

One thing I've observed about American politics from Gene McCarthy's run in 1968 to Obama is how the the parties reinvent themselves. After all, weren't the Republicans the party of Lincoln and the Democrats of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox?

Indo-Americans of the second and third generation need to keep their options open and to run for office. America in 2020 will look a lot different than it does now and now is a lot more different than in 1967 when I fell off the boat.

jaibhim · Post by **jaibhim** » 11 Oct 2010 11:07

Just wanted to direct the attention of members towards the thinktank Brookings Institute's viewpoint on India's millitary modernisation and the bottlnecks that prevent it---http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/09 ... gupta.aspx, there is a audio file and a full paper in pdf as well.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2010 13:30

The "big idea",solar sats to do what? Beam down energy from the sky? If one can do that so easily,then it makes these sats a very userful solar "weapon" too! Why do we need massively expensive solar sats at all,when an abundance of solar energy gets into earth's atmosphere where we have vast areas of our country perfect for establishing giant solar power stations.Plus, if energy was the goal,let us follow the example of the Europeans who are investing massively in off-shore windfarms,where an advanced country like Britain,on one day recently,had 25% of its total energy produced by windpower alone!

If solar sats are to be used for space exploration and research,then it is best being an international ndeavour,where all nations can join together in that great ultimate ambition of the human race,to explore and colonise the Cosmos one day as the earth will be "recycled" in a few billion years.

The US must understand that it must drop all sanctions against Indian tech/scientific entities before any meaningful relationship can ensue.Why can't it give us what the Russians are offering us and the Europeans too without strings attached which come with every US offer? Dr.Singh and his "teams" of babus and diplomutts,loyal to his cause, might sweat day and night in the confort of their Washington hotels trying to join India and the US at the hip,but if there is no "equal" joining,then what will emerge will be a gross,grotesque mutant of a relationship which can amount to neither beauty nor value.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 11 Oct 2010 13:40

Because USA does not seem able to take Indian national interests into concern when formulating its policies for the South Asian and Central Asian region, and thus not able to find a strategic alignment with India either regionally nor globally due to differences on Trade and Climate, USA is offering India cooperation in some dreams simply out of this world - in outer space - "Look USA and India have a solid strategic relationship going on on Alpha Centauri"!

If Obama has nothing to offer, he should stay home!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Oct 2010 15:22

Obama is in deep trouble,as more disciples are fleeing his sinking ship! The Messiah has been found to actually have feet of clay,he cannot "walk on water",perform miracles,cast out the demons of AlQ or the Taliban, and his parables bore everyone.His sermonising from the mountain top have seen droves turning away from his word,because he couln't give them either "food for thought" or "loaves and fishes",leaving his flock hungry and angry.He is now being called,not the "Messiah",but "Carter-II"!

The rodents abandoning his ship of state ,stuck in the doldrums and holed in the hull,include such heavweights as James Jones-NSA,Robert Gates-Def.Sec. and Sr.Adviser David Axelrod.These Judases have exposed the Messiah as a man without miracles,who will be brought to his feet cometh the elections and then crucified in the next presidential election should he dare to stand for a second term! The betrayal by '"Judas" Jones et al,at a time when a latter-day "crusade" is on,is the bitterest blow,more akin to the pain of Brutus' blade,than Judas' kiss!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... staff-quit

White House staff exodus exposes Obama to charges of disarrayMore senior staff including defence secretary Robert Gates, and senior advisor David Axelrod, leave their jobs.

senior advisor David Axelrod, leave their jobs.
Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010

National security adviser James Jones announced his resignation this week. Jones was often at odds with Obama's closest aides. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters

More senior White House staff are to leave in the next few months, adding to the high exit rate from President Barack Obama's administration.

Political analysts attribute the attrition rate to exhaustion, but Republican opponents blame disarray inside the White House, with an insular team responsible for too many policy failures.

The imminent departures include those of defence secretary Robert Gates, who has said he hopes to retire early next year, and Obama's senior White House adviser, David Axelrod, who is planning a return to his home town of Chicago early next year to concentrate on planning for Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has been mentioned in the past few weeks in connection with a range of jobs, including White House adviser or chairman of the Democratic national committee, which runs the party.

This follows the departure of the national security adviser, General James Jones, after less than two years in office, as well as almost the entire economics team, of whom Peter Orszag and Christina Romer have already gone. Larry Summers is due to return to Harvard before the end of the year. The chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, left last month to stand for mayor of Chicago.

The changes provide Obama with a chance to reshape his team after the 2 November midterm elections, in which polls indicate the Republicans stand to make big gains.

Obama's popularity in opinion polls has dropped from 70% last year to the mid-40s this year, so a reshuffle offers an opportunity to reverse that trend and to change economic and foreign policies and political strategy. Regular staff changes were not uncommon during the Bill Clinton presidency and those of his predecessors, but this exodus is unusual in that it is happening before the result of the mid-term elections, when staff reshuffles normally take place.

In a blog on the Politico website, Alvin Felzenberg, the presidential historian and author of The Leaders We Deserved, writes: "These departures are a reflection of Obama's leadership style. Why he has such a difficult time earning and retaining the loyalties of people outside his circle of intimates is anyone's guess."

Gibbs last month attributed the changes to 15-or 16-hour work days, seven days a week. Professor Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, agrees exhaustion is a factor but attributes the exodus to the scale of the problems the team has faced, especially over the economy.

"The exhaustion rate for this administration is more accelerated due to the problems they encountered in January 2009. There was no presidential 'honeymoon'," Baker said today. He added that some of them had been working intensively on economic policy in the six months before Obama took over.

"These are worn-out, depleted people who are not waiting for the fire alarm to be sounded before heading for the emergency exit," Baker said.

PS:I enjoyed that one Rajesh! The US and India will forge a strategic alliance in defeating any alien invasion of the planet,but an invasion of ungodly beardies from across the border,funded by default by the US,cannot be stopped!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 00:36

Dup post - delete ...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 00:37

Cosmo_R,
Thanks for the post. few points..

Cosmo_R wrote: Indo-Americans of the second and third generation need to keep their options open and to run for office. America in 2020 will look a lot different than it does now and now is a lot more different than in 1967 when I fell off the boat.

Yes, in 2010 there are about (at-least) 6 Indian Americans running for US congress, a few for governor/AG/state rep etc... and for many in 2nd 3rd generations, it is cool be to non-engineer/doctor and even dabble into politics..

One point, by no means to beat a dead horse, but I think it is worthwhile to look at the polls and trends ..your comments caused some curiosity so..I will put a comments and a few links below which I found ...

I think I may have been lazy in not stressing the 'docs' part of the 'Indian docs' phrase. An overwhelming majority of all docs voted for Bush against Kerry because of pocket book issues related to medicare, malpractice etc. IIRC, Indian docs followed that pattern—not because they were Indian but because they were doctors.

I understood that you did say 'docs', but have you seen this data (among demographics of doctors ) From what I recall (or I'll guess at present) Bush/Kerry this was something like (47-53 - In Kerry's favor - Not too different from McCain/Obama)..
(I may be off, but the split was nowhere close to 'overwhelming majority' in anyone's favor)
For Indians in general the link below gives only 9% for Bush (which I find hard to believe - my impression of the figure was something like 60-40 (for gore '00), 75-25 (For Kerry '04) and little higher (80 or 90% for Obama).. (or at least thats what tI remember) (As I said, among my extended family - subgroup doctors - 100% (strongly) supported democratic candidate for presidents in 08, as well as in 04)
(Also , recall that Bush/India good relationship (nuclear deal, visit etc) was in Bush's second term, after 04 election and Kerry was seen as fighting the Pakistan based BCCI .. Kerry also wooed Indian Americans rather successfully- speaking at a few Indian gatherings - and sounded much tougher on Pak then)

Anyway some links here may be interesting.. I am quoting a few figures, but for details and proper context see the link(s)
NYtimes Exit polls : (Has Historical data - for presidential and other elections)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/resul ... polls.html

Asian Nation (2008 poll only)
http://www.asian-nation.org/headlines/2 ... s-victory/

2005 Article in http://www.littleindia.com/may2005/Money.htm

The Indian American community is stolidly Democratic, an exit poll finds, debunking developing conventional wisdom in Republican circles...
In September, a more-comprehensive survey of Asian Americans, which broke down into national groups, such as Chinese Americans, India Americans and Filipinos, found a 43-36 percent plurality for Kerry with 20 percent undecided.

But it also found major differences within the Asian-American community, with Vietnamese and Filipinos generally more favourable toward Bush, and Hmong, Chinese Americans and Indian Americans tilting strongly toward Kerry.

Democratic Under Ground: Are Indian-Americans Mostly Democrats or Republicans?
This has few good links with polls and stories... among some quotes:

The media, both Indian and mainstream, lapped up the myth {about heavy Republican tilt} . The Indian community’s traditional and conservative values, its deeply religious inclinations and its relative affluence made it a logical GOP constituency, the argument went. Then there was ofcourse the wisdom of being attached to the winner. The GOP was on a roll.

Indian American Republicans boasted that a third to half of all Indian Americans would switch to Bush-Cheney in the 2004 elections. It was an easy myth to peddle, because mainstream exit polls, don’t segregate their data for individual Asian groups.

Except, it wasn’t true.

A just released exit poll conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund found that far from shifting to the GOP, South Asians, predominantly Indian Americans, actually solidified in the Democratic column this election cycle. By an 8 to 1 margin, South Asians are registered Democrats. 74% percent identified themselves as Democratic, the highest of any Asian group. Just 9 percent were registered Republicans and another 16 percent listed themselves as independent

South Asians voted for John Kerry by a 10:1 margin: 90 percent for Kerry against only 9 percent for Bush, once again the highest of any Asian group. South Asians, it turns out, are more Democratic than even the strongest Democratic constituency, African Americans, 11 percent of whom voted Bush.

Another article with poll numbers (with Indian Americans) is from Asia Times (Around 2004)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI16Aa01.html

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 12 Oct 2010 02:22

Donilon: Obama's new NSA.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... nilon_the/

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 07:48

Rediff story about Obama's plans to visit to Golden Temple..
Is Michelle the reason for Obama's Amritsar visit?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 12 Oct 2010 08:42

In more important news:

Rihanna reveals pal Katy Perry will marry Russell Brand in India

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 12 Oct 2010 08:59

A_Gupta wrote:Donilon: Obama's new NSA.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... nilon_the/

Donilon's wife is Jill Biden's chief of staff and Donilon is personal friends with Biden. An independent assessment by the NSA, outside of political influences, is now out of the question. It may be a situation where Biden and Hillary don't agree, but Biden's team may have more influence.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 12 Oct 2010 09:05

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/ ... s-book.htm

Indira's Cong took money from US, claims book

An allegation that the Congress party took money from the United States during the Indira Gandhi era has been made in a book to be released on Tuesday, but the party dismissed the charge as 'unsubstantiated and malicious.'

The allegation is contained in the book which is a collection of personal letters and journal entries of former US Senator and ambassador to India, late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is edited by Steven R Weisman, public policy fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute.

Moynihan, who was Washington's envoy to India during the crucial years of 1973 to 1975, refers to the then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's meeting with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 28, 1974 in New Delhi.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 10:28

Mort Walker wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:Donilon: Obama's new NSA.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archiv ... nilon_the/
Donilon's wife is Jill Biden's chief of staff and Donilon is personal friends with Biden. An independent assessment by the NSA, outside of political influences, is now out of the question. It may be a situation where Biden and Hillary don't agree, but Biden's team may have more influence.

Obama has picked a loyal committee man who wont rock the boat but who can call a meeting to order and take notes. No diplomatic experience, no military experience, no intelligence experience, no law-enforcement experience. Does this mean Obama wants to take the national security strategy decisions himself, or is it that he simply doesn't want anyone to take any decisions? We shall have to see. Perhaps he feels that his appointment of Leon Panetta as Director of Central Intelligence, a man similarly lacking in relevant qualifications has been a success that ought to be imitated.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 11:25

Obama's seems to be experiencing a mutiny aboard his ship of state with the key crew members abandoning ship.As Johann said,there are serious doubts as to his handling of security affairs.Is he upto the task? Check out this view from Asia.

(Cross-posted from the US-PRC-Ind. thread.)

"Uncle Sam to senile to lead Asia"

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002 ... 61254.html

Viewed from a practical prism, the so-called US-ASEAN realignment as the US has been assiduously seeking after is far from an ironclad wholeness, but a patchwork. The Free Trade Pact the ASEAN countries have been yearning for cannot be granted by the U.S., owing to its mounting domestic pressure and sluggish economy. Likewise, the U.S. intention in aligning with ASEAN countries to encircle China and encroach upon China's regional preeminence seems nothing but an empty talk, as the ASEAN countries could not and would not start the conflict with China, a giant with whom they have already formed a well-established and win-win cooperative mechanism.

Instead, on the chessboard of Uncle Sam, all the ASEAN countries as well as China are taken as the chess pieces which can be positioned at will and as he sees fit, even though the senile Uncle always overestimates his intelligence and obstinately believes he is the unchallenged player.

The sad fact is that, although he has a splendid history left behind, today's Uncle Sam is unable to retrace his powerful yesterday. The robust emerging economies are enlivening the skyline of a new Asia, out of its own design. Uncle Sam is at the moment an unexpected guest to the region, let alone gaining the initiative and leading the hosts.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 12:16

I actually think Obama has done alright with PRC and North Korea, and actually done quite well with Iran. He has also created a more productive relationship with Russia.

His two great failures are

a) Israel-Palestine, mostly because unlike other U.S. Presidents who have negotiated Arab-Israeli peace agreements he has not been firm with Israel.

and

b) Af-Pak.

Perhaps its not surprising that these are the areas where he has his 'special envoys' while the others have been delegated to Hilary.

There's simply too many cooks mucking around with the broth, while the commander-in-chef plays around with recipes. I do find myself wondering how Hilary would have handled things.....would she have chosen to put Iran on the front burner and pushed Af-Pak to the back? I do think she would have done far better at managing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Oct 2010 14:07

JOhann,should he have chosen a special hands on point man for each crisis spot,to whom all info flowed in and who would be entrusted with overall command of both diplomatic and military aspects? What appears to be the crux of the problem is that the two requirements,military successs and political success often clashed with each other.Like the UCAV attacks,exterminating enemy leaders but causing enormous collateral damage,enraging the locals and losing the "hearts and minds". Tony Blair was made the Middle-East peacewallah but it appeared to be more of a golden handshake rather than an honest attempt to bring both parties to the table.I think that it is here that Obama's judgement-and that of his closest party advisers has failed him,in finding individuals who would create their own visionary strategies if he was unable to do so.

I also wonder after so many years of conflict in Af-Pak what the US's priorities really are? They appear very confused and change colour each time a new man is sent out to bat.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 15:59

When I look at the policies of the US. I am reminded of of a story I read a long time ago. Dont remember the source of the story. But it goes like this. Once a fox and a cat were having an argument. The fox boasted that he knew a 100 ways of escaping danger. The cat said thet it knew only one way of escaping danger.

The fox claimed victory. The cat conceded the point. After some time a hungry tiger happned to pass through the area. The cat escaped and the fox was eaten up.

Why??

The fox was trying to use one of its hundred trickes to escape could not decide what to do. Therby exposing himself to danger for too long. The cat used the one trick it knew and climbed the nearest tree to hide from the Tiger.

JMT

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Oct 2010 16:43

Archives: Nixon visits India, July 31, 1969

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassyn ... 075055866/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 20:07

Blaming Obama for Af-Pak is not right. This one has many fathers and the underlaying circumustance of using TSP to destabilize: India, Central Asia and now Iran.

So long as that goal is not set aside, dealing with TSP becomes well neigh impossible. To deal with TSP, US has to reconcile with those three actors and then marginalise TSP.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 20:14

Amber G. wrote:Rediff story about Obama's plans to visit to Golden Temple..
Is Michelle the reason for Obama's Amritsar visit?

A lot of problems in the mind of the reporter. What is this new category called Sikh Americans? Is this a new ethnicity? And how do we knows its not a roundabout way to boost Khalistanis? I do not like foreigners trying to patronise sub-nationalsims in India. There is ussally a covert hand behind such overt recognitions.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 21:20

Ramanaji:

What is this new category called Sikh Americans? Is this a new ethnicity?

It is very well accepted term used everywhere: Just means Americans who are also Sikh .. Just like Hindu Americans, Jain Americans ...

And how do we knows its not a roundabout way to boost Khalistanis?

IMO, with all due respect, the question is little odd. When our local temple was having special collection, some one asked something to the effect "How do we know it (the money) is not going to Hindu extremists".. (You also know the IDRF saga very well, where the worthies were able to do quite a bit of mischief by their 'stop funding hate' campaign)..May be more useful to raise serious allegation based on some evidence.. I hope you are not suggesting that just because WH celebrated Guru Nanak Jayanti, they are boosting Khalistanis. ...

There is ussally a covert hand behind such overt recognitions.

Can you give a little more details/evidence/basis ? Thanks.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 12 Oct 2010 21:40

ramana wrote: What is this new category called Sikh Americans? Is this a new ethnicity? And how do we knows its not a roundabout way to boost Khalistanis? I do not like foreigners trying to patronise sub-nationalsims in India. There is ussally a covert hand behind such overt recognitions.

Sikhs were one of the first waves of Indians to hit the American shores. Between 1899 and 1920, 8000 "South Asians" migrated to USA and Canada. 85% of these were Sikhs and 13% were Muslims from Punjab. Many of the Sikhs were in the British Indian Army in Canada. In USA, the Sikhs took to working at farms, steel plants and in the logging industry. After braving discrimination they entered farming and started to own farms. The transition from common workers to land owners troubled the native population. A lot of them were in Northern California. It is estimated that the descendants of these people constitute 15% of the NRI/Indian origin population. Gujarati population account for another 15%.

The next (second) wave of Indian immigration did not start until the 1960s - these were Doctors. The third wave was in 1970s by Indian students entering upper tier of American Universities. The fourth wave, in 1980s, were the less educated people; especially from the Gujarat region. They entered the dry-cleaning, fast food and convenience store businesses. The fifth wave, began in the 1990s/2000s - IT professionals.

For a detailed analysis, check this out: India Arriving See Chapter 11 from page 187.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Oct 2010 21:45

Amber G. wrote:
There is ussally a covert hand behind such overt recognitions.
Can you give a little more details/evidence/basis ? Thanks.

When "Indian americans" is removed or not given importance compared to Americans of south asian descent, Sotuh asians, Hindu/Jain/Latin Americans etc. then this is a terminology promoted by US and US media. Other western media do not use these terms.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 21:54

I prefer Indian Americans to Telugu Americans. When sub-nationalism is emphasised there is a covert agenda.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 22:11

All people of Indian descent in USA should categorically reject any other means of denoting them other than as Indian Americans. Any sub-categorization should be without the American suffix at the end.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 22:16

Yeah atleast abroad we should present a united face and keep the divisons or sub-nationalisms at home.

munna · Post by **munna** » 12 Oct 2010 22:22

As a punjabi and someone who was directly theratened by the Khalistani fire any terms such as "Sikh-Americans", "Tamil-Indians" or "Indian-Muslims" emanating from official sources appears sinister without an iota of doubt. The whole idea of South Asia-South Asia and then a straight hop to "Sikh-Americans" or "Hindu-Americans" with nothing in between is a very blunt negation of India. Period

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 12 Oct 2010 22:34

Johann wrote: Obama has picked a loyal committee man who wont rock the boat but who can call a meeting to order and take notes. No diplomatic experience, no military experience, no intelligence experience, no law-enforcement experience. Does this mean Obama wants to take the national security strategy decisions himself, or is it that he simply doesn't want anyone to take any decisions? We shall have to see. Perhaps he feels that his appointment of Leon Panetta as Director of Central Intelligence, a man similarly lacking in relevant qualifications has been a success that ought to be imitated.

Donilon has served for several years in the State Department under the Clinton Administration. He does have government experience.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 22:37

Indian is good, Indian-American is good, Sikh is good, Gujarati is good, but not Sikh-American, or Gujarati-American.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 22:53

When "Indian americans" is removed or not given importance compared to Americans of south asian descent, Sotuh asians, Hindu/Jain/Latin Americans etc. then this is a terminology promoted by US and US media. Other western media do not use these terms.

No truth in that, Western media (or even eastern media), of course, use these terms all the time. As to the opinion that it is 'promoted by US' etc.. my opinion is that such opinion is propagated by narrow minded insecure people. (Of course, no personal disrespect intended).

I prefer Indian Americans to Telugu Americans. When sub-nationalism is emphasised there is a covert agenda

Depends on context.. 'sub-nationalism' is nothing to be ashamed of. I will proudly use 'Indian' prefix, as well as 'Hindu' or 'Jain' or even a "IIT alumni' prefix .. granted , if we are celebrating 15th August parade .. there it will little sense to classify myself further .. but if I am at an IIT alumni meet there is nothing wrong in identifying myself with that group...

Point is, if some one lobbies for a particular group or a cause (say I want to raise money for a Jain Temple - or scholarship for young Math students).. unless that group is harming OUR interests, one should not quibble.

We always had groups like, 'Kaveri' (Karnataka/Tamil-Nadu), 'maharastra mandal', 'Jain samaj' or even 'math counts'

(Trust me, they do not hate other sciences

) ...nothing wrong with that. (Although reasonable people may disagree) .....unless, of course, they harm our interests, as a whole).

Indian is good, Indian-American is good, Sikh is good, Gujarati is good, but not Sikh-American, or Gujarati-American.

Why? (Also, Sikhism is a religion and not a person from a state )

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Oct 2010 22:55

Amber G. wrote:
When "Indian americans" is removed or not given importance compared to Americans of south asian descent, Sotuh asians, Hindu/Jain/Latin Americans etc. then this is a terminology promoted by US and US media. Other western media do not use these terms.
No truth in that, Western media (or even eastern media), of course, use these terms all the time. As to the opinion that it is 'promoted by US' etc.. my opinion is that such opinion is propagated by narrow minded insecure people. (Of course, no personal disrespect intended).

US South asia policy and area studies does talk about promoting such distinction. It is not my words or opinion here.
It is in the policy papers from the 1970s

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 12 Oct 2010 22:56

Not to worry, with any news item about domestic abuse, drug gangs, violent attacks, Sikh Canadians quickly become Indo-Canadians.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 12 Oct 2010 23:03

US South asia policy and area studies does talk about promoting such distinction. It is not my words or opinion here. It is in the policy papers from the 1970

Link? Just curious what kind of authority these 'policy papers' from 1970 (once you provide a link) will have?
(And also notice that you did not EVEN qualified your sentence with 'according to policy papers of 1970'.. people have right to their opinions but not their facts)

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 12 Oct 2010 23:07

ramana wrote:Blaming Obama for Af-Pak is not right. This one has many fathers and the underlaying circumustance of using TSP to destabilize: India, Central Asia and now Iran.

So long as that goal is not set aside, dealing with TSP becomes well neigh impossible. To deal with TSP, US has to reconcile with those three actors and then marginalise TSP.

Ramana,

Af-Pak is an enormous challenge, but Obama's vacillation has more to do with his lack of experience and conviction.

In any case its not the idea of using Pakistan as a destabilising force that is dangerously entrenched in the West - its the very *opposite*.

It is the idea that the Pakistani Army is a vital source of manpower to fight forces that destabilise the region and threaten America's energy interests
- Soviet Communism [Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Gulf, and they hoped Vietnam]
- Militant Arab Nationalism [Iraq, 1990]
- Militias in failed states [Somalia, 1992-4]
- Global Jihad [Af-Pak 2001-]

Every now and then American Presidents get fed up with Pakistan when they fail to deliver what they were paid to do. Military aid in the 1950s and 60s was tied to Pakistan's *active* membership in CENTO and SEATO.Lyndon Johnson ended military aid when it was clear Pakistan was the only SEATO member unwilling to assist in the Vietnam war. Kissinger and Carter both targeted Pakistan's nuclear programmes in the 1970s until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan's willingness to cooperate. The Clinton administration more or less abandoned Pakistan after it lost interest in peace-enforcement and nation-building in places in the Indian Ocean like Somalia.

The main post-9/11 idea is that the Pakistan Army now does not just protect America's energy supplies (and thus American energy security and growth), but contributes to Homeland Security by enabling US operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well its own operations.

In the Musharraf/AQK exposure era a new idea crept in apocalyptic combination, and that is that the Pakistan Army is the only Pakistani institution that is even remotely capable of preventing the leak of fissile materials out of Pakistan.

As long as the American establishment regards the PA as a shield against radical forces that threaten the energy supplies of the Middle East, or post-2001, the American Homeland itself, its very difficult to confront the most dangerous source of proliferation and extremism; the PA itself.

American ideas are changing, but the PA itself makes the choice quite difficult by offering partial cooperation and holding out the threat of ending cooperation and dramatically raising the costs for America.

munna · Post by **munna** » 12 Oct 2010 23:15

Amber G. wrote:No truth in that, Western media (or even eastern media), of course, use these terms all the time. As to the opinion that it is 'promoted by US' etc.. my opinion is that such opinion is propagated by narrow minded insecure people. (Of course, no personal disrespect intended).

Well this can be replied by an ad hominem attack suffixed by a "no personal disrespect intended". But let us move beyond discussing "mentalities" broad or narrow!
You know what Mr Amber? If people feel insecure then they have a right to do so. We have seen our friends, acquaintances and relatives coming to harm or dying at the altar of foreign sponsored/stoked sub-nationalism. Or do you suggest that nothing ever happened? Reminds me of a recent verdict by Allahabad HC! Pahh

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Oct 2010 23:16

Its like deputizing the chief outlaw to keep the peace in the frontier..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Oct 2010 23:18

Johann wrote:
It is the idea that the Pakistani Army is a vital source of manpower to fight forces that destabilise the region and threaten America's energy interests
- Soviet Communism [Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Gulf, and they hoped Vietnam]
- Militant Arab Nationalism [Iraq, 1990]
- Militias in failed states [Somalia, 1992-4]
- Global Jihad [Af-Pak 2001-]

What about Paki Jihad between 1985 - 2001 which killed many Indians. Who is going to account for this?
Indians cannot ignore this.