Bharat Rakshak

Posted: **24 May 2014 02:06**

Most of my rants (standard disclaimers apply, I.e. I live and work in the US and have nothing against a vast majority of people etc.) are due to the inability of policy makers (Ombaba, JoKer, rest of SD etc.) to recognize that US needs India as much as India needs US. This could stem from arrogance, plain stupidity, or lack of awareness of changes on the ground. But, I disagree with the premise which seems prevalent in many circles that this impacts India more than the US. If anything reverse is true.

Posted: **24 May 2014 02:17**

Schinnas, you need to realize that India and the US do not have any natural unity or alignment of political philosophy or principle. Not even at the claimed level of superficial panaceas.

What do we hear? That India and the US are both "democracies", both committed to "freedom", "self-expression", "liberty", "individual rights" and so on.

These are indeed qualities that the US has claimed for itself since its foundation. Whether those claims are valid in reality is fodder for a different debate, but never mind that for now.

However, when people in the West cite these qualities as a basis for commonality with India, it is nothing but a projection of Western Universalism onto a civilization-state whose history, philosophy, interests and ethos are completely unrelated to the West. Even the Good-Cop, seemingly pro-India voices in the US who cite this "commonality" are effectively holding India to the espousal of attributes that have absolutely no inherent value of any kind, but are considered "good" and "desirable" only because the Western value system has been universalized.

What is deemed "good" in the West is automatically expected to be embraced as "good" by everybody in the world. Based on this assumption, the template report-card and grading scheme have already been drawn up for us, and we will be marked on our progress by the Good Cops of the West.

If India is a democracy, if India has freedom of expression, and if India decides to retain these things in whatever form it decides to retain them... then the reason is not that the West advertises these attributes as universally desirable qualities. The only reason is because, for the present anyway, they work well for India, in the Indian context.

This is not a hair-splitting argument made out of pettiness, but belies a very critical distinction. If India had indeed institutionalized democracy and free expression out of an attempt to model itself on Western democracy, then the West could legitimately claim the moral authority to judge the Indian practice of democracy. They would be the eternal guru, and we the eternal shishya having to listen to their hectoring on "human rights", "flawed elections", "majoritarianism" and what not.

In 1948-50, the Constituent Assembly may have modeled some aspects of the Indian Constitution on existing constitutions of democratic nations elsewhere, mainly on Westministerian Parliamentary democracy. 67 years later, if the system survives it is not because we want to ape the West; it is because we've been evolving the system in a way that works for us, on our own terms.

My point is this. If you, as an individual, want to lionize the "freedom", "opportunity", "inquisitive spirit" and so on of the United States... you as an individual are welcome to that opinion. But do not be telling India that we are civilizationally aligned or attuned to the US in some "natural" sense because nominally the West proclaims itself to have these qualities that YOU find desirable. It's a completely bogus argument. India is evolving a system that works for itself, and will abandon that system without favour or fear if someday it ceases to work for us.

To contend that (A) Indian democracy implies an underlying commonality of values with the West, and worse yet (B) to extend this argument into a basis for commonality of INTERESTS with the West, is totally fallacious.

Posted: **24 May 2014 02:23**

schinnas wrote:To support my theory of meeting point between US and Indian civilization, I do not consider the Judeo Christian values as the underpinning of US civilization. What represents US civilization is a passion for individual freedom and an inquisitive adventurous spirit with a quest for Truth via external means. In some ways, guilt inducing Christian mores are not fully consistent with this fundamental US spirit that seeks individual freedom. Thats the reason Christianity is on a decline in USA and there is strong fascination for Buddism and New Age philosophies and cults influenced by Hinduism / Indic thoughts. One can argue that rigid Christian notions are dying out in USA not because of any external influence but because of the questioning spirit of Americans themselves. The American elite have a lot of fascination for Indic thoughts that empower the Individual to pursue an experiential search for Truth without inducing feeling of guilt.

It is to this aspect of US spirit that we should speak to and aim our cultural relations at. The EJ lobby will look down upon heathen India and do its best to damage Indic society, but it is bound to die as it is inconsistent with native US civilizational spirt.

Well schinnas much as I like your moral lecture "US civilization" always moves on killing thousands of native Indians, looting the gold buried in their land, killing thousands of blacks for fun and keeping them as slaves, killing millions of innocent Muslims by fomenting troubles, propping dictators till they serve their interest, destabilising any nation on earth not wanting to business in us dollars yada yada. The list is endless. The truth of the matter is united states wants every country on earth on the boil so that they can play good cop bad cop game and rule the world and keep their dollah printing press running. What new age American is doing is simply picking up the best points of every other civilisation in the world and shaping its own on that basis.
I am sure americans are well aware about the part christianity played during the dark ages in Europe. The only think I may agree upon is that founding fathers of USA might be good guys and would have placed greater influence on freedom than others might.

Posted: **24 May 2014 03:36**

Faster, Stronger, Worse
by James Traub, foreignpolicy.com
May 23rd 2014

India is about to install a new prime minister who is not a Gandhi, not a member of the Congress party, not a policy intellectual, and not a product of India's westward-looking professional class. After a decade of increasingly stagnant Congress rule, India is heading into the great unknown. Narendra Modi had said a great deal about how he wants to change India's economic policy -- even if most of it is vague and hortatory. But he has said next to nothing about foreign policy. A figure as forceful as Modi and as disdainful of the country's political class would seem likely to reshape India's posture toward the world. But how?

First, it's worth noting that, like the United States, India is a continental nation with water on either side; very few people live near a foreign country. Questions of poverty, economic development, political corruption, and caste identity are vastly more pressing for voters than India's relations with its most powerful neighbors, China and Pakistan. Even India's professional and policy elites are far more preoccupied with domestic concerns than with foreign issues. For this reason, India's conduct of foreign policy has changed very slowly since independence and almost always owing to an evolving consensus rather than a change of government. Modi could, in fact, choose to let the machine run on its own.

I called Hardeep Singh Puri, Modi's spokesman on foreign affairs and India's former ambassador to the United Nations, to ask whether his new prime minister had a worldview and, if so, what it was. "Modi's worldview," Puri responded, "is captured in the Indian concept of 'the whole world is one family.'" That's good to know, but it doesn't dictate much in the way of policy choices. I posed the same question to a seasoned Indian diplomat whom Modi had consulted on foreign affairs. "His worldview is more economic than geopolitical," he said. "He speaks very warmly of East Asia and how they have outdistanced us economically. I have no doubt that Japan will be the first country he will visit." That was more helpful.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Modi visited China, Japan, and Singapore, seeking investments in his state. He is likely to focus his attentions as prime minister on countries that can increase investment in India. Modi would like to see the country urbanize, as China has, by developing the industrial sector, which now constitutes only 14 percent of India's GDP. He would also like to increase spending on infrastructure. Japan has been a major player in Indian infrastructure, including as a partner on the construction of highways to connect New Delhi to Mumbai and Chennai to Bangalore -- a crying need for a country with calamitously poor roads. (Even a quick trip on an Indian highway is both frustrating and terrifying.) India under Modi may thus practice a more frankly mercantilist policy toward the world, as China does.

On matters of national security, India's most fraught relationship is of course with Pakistan. Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with its roots in Hindu nationalism, has traditionally adopted a bellicose posture toward Pakistan. During the campaign, Modi took the kind of cheap shots at Pakistan that played to the gallery. He jeered at the Congress party defense minister, A.K. Antony -- who declined to authorize a sharp military response to a murky cross-border incident that led to the death of several Indian soldiers -- as one of several "agents of Pakistan and enemy of India." Puri dismissed the crack as an "election flourish," and said that Modi "will make a genuine effort to reach out to Pakistan."

That could be. India's previous BJP prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made a historic visit to Pakistan in 1999 in the hopes of advancing talks on the disputed territory of Kashmir. Ashutosh Varshney, an India scholar at Brown University, has suggested that Modi could be India's "Nixon in China." That might be stretching it, but Modi's shrewd campaign left the impression that, whatever his personal views, he is more politician than ideologue. He is, however, a chesty figure who will not abide incursions, especially from weaker neighbors. Puri says that Modi "will have much less tolerance for acts of terror" than did his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, who did not strike back at Pakistan after the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai's Taj Mahal hotel despite abundant evidence of Pakistani involvement. Modi almost certainly would have shown no such restraint. Give that both countries have nuclear weapons, that has to be a frightening thought for Western policymakers.

Modi is unlikely to give a high priority to relations with the United States, a country to which he has not been permitted to travel owing to his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. Indians did not miss the brusque undertone of President Barack Obama's invitation to Modi to visit the United States at "a mutually agreeable time." The Delhi policy elite believes, with some reason, that Obama has relegated India to the second-class status that it had endured until 2005, when President George W. Bush struck a "strategic partnership" with India, followed three years later by a major nuclear deal. Indians are mystified that Obama, unlike Bush, has not embraced an enthusiastically democratic nation with tremendous potential for economic growth.

Obama will be, if anything, warier about an India under Modi than he was when the country was governed, more or less, by the anodyne Singh. The problem, however, is not personal. India illustrates the fallacy of the assumption that democracies share a common outlook on the world. As a young nation under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, India, like the United States in its infancy, saw itself more as a collective idea than as a set of interests, standing up for the principle of nonalignment and for international peace.

But the 1950s were a long time ago. India is now a regional power with strong economic and national security interests, as well as a skepticism bordering on hostility toward many Western norms. It may well be the most vibrant democracy in the emerging world, but India does not believe in promoting democratic values abroad. India guards the sanctity of national sovereignty almost as zealously as China and Russia do, and it abstained on U.N. Security Council votes on intervention in Libya and Syria. In an essay in the volume Shaping the Emerging World: India and the Multilateral Order, David Malone, Canada's former high commissioner to India and a scholar of the United Nations, along with Rohan Mukherjee, a doctoral student, note a strange paradox: As India has grown stronger, it has become more defensive about sovereignty and less prepared to defend the international order. This inevitably places it at odds with the United States, the chief guarantor of that order.

India is an important partner for the United States where the countries' interests converge, as in Afghanistan, but not in the many places where they don't, most notably Iran, a major oil supplier to India. And with an aggressive nationalist whose party's slogan is "India First" in power, New Delhi will, if anything, make fewer concessions to Washington and the West than his predecessor did. Modi feels a much deeper intuitive bond with the disciplined and socially conservative countries of East Asia than he does with the United States and social democratic Europe. Worse, India's bad habit of aligning with authoritarian states on international questions is likely to increase under Modi, a man considered even by many of his most ardent supporters an autocratic, if benevolent, leader.

In short, Modi is likely to be a net negative for the West. But unless he picks a fight with Pakistan, that won't matter nearly as much as whether he can address India's sense of stagnation. Modi believes that he can spread the business-first, no-red-tape model he established in Gujarat across India. His stunning electoral victory (though with slightly under 32 percent of the popular vote) gives him a mandate to do so. Hundreds of millions of all-too-hopeful Indians are about to find out whether Modi can do what he said he would. Despite merited suspicions about Modi's commitment to democracy and secularism, Western leaders need to begin thinking about what they can do to help him succeed.

Posted: **24 May 2014 04:52**

great post rudradev!

Posted: **24 May 2014 04:57**

Rudradev wrote: This is not a hair-splitting argument made out of pettiness, but belies a very critical distinction. If India had indeed institutionalized democracy and free expression out of an attempt to model itself on Western democracy, then the West could legitimately claim the moral authority to judge the Indian practice of democracy. They would be the eternal guru, and we the eternal shishya having to listen to their hectoring on "human rights", "flawed elections", "majoritarianism" and what not.

Such fear of being judged

My point is this. If you, as an individual, want to lionize the "freedom", "opportunity", "inquisitive spirit" and so on of the United States... you as an individual are welcome to that opinion. But do not be telling India that we are civilizationally aligned or attuned to the US in some "natural" sense because nominally the West proclaims itself to have these qualities that YOU find desirable. It's a completely bogus argument. India is evolving a system that works for itself, and will abandon that system without favour or fear if someday it ceases to work for us.

To contend that (A) Indian democracy implies an underlying commonality of values with the West, and worse yet (B) to extend this argument into a basis for commonality of INTERESTS with the West, is totally fallacious.

The fact that the current political system India follows is modeled almost closely after the british one, seems to hurt you a lot. That doesn't detract from the fact that, India, as any other country, will always continue to have underlying commonality of values with any country that strives to run itself openly and fairly with respect to all it's citizens. It's only the west and some other countries that have chosen to do this consistently over the last few decades. Nobody's stopping the others from doing the same. If somebody were to come up with a far superior arrangement, I'm sure any country with a decent head on their shoulders would choose to follow it, without their egos getting in their way.

Posted: **24 May 2014 05:17**

@schinnas ^^: " ...Culturally Brits did lot of damage to India including making English as the language of choice of educated Indians and destroying our Indic school systems. We are yet to come out of that cultural subjugation.

That is understating it. The railway carriages with placards "No dogs or Indians allowed". Segregated public facilities and the 'our neer do wells are at the level of your ranees' left a huge emotional scar.

Just think: the Mughals insisted that Hindus ride donkeys and their spiritual descendents—the Nehruvian secularists and their spawn ensured that Hindus had to be ashamed in their own country.

All three are related.

Modi offers restoration of pride at no one else's expense.

Posted: **24 May 2014 06:01**

KrishnaK wrote:
Rudradev wrote: This is not a hair-splitting argument made out of pettiness, but belies a very critical distinction. If India had indeed institutionalized democracy and free expression out of an attempt to model itself on Western democracy, then the West could legitimately claim the moral authority to judge the Indian practice of democracy. They would be the eternal guru, and we the eternal shishya having to listen to their hectoring on "human rights", "flawed elections", "majoritarianism" and what not.
Such fear of being judged

My point is this. If you, as an individual, want to lionize the "freedom", "opportunity", "inquisitive spirit" and so on of the United States... you as an individual are welcome to that opinion. But do not be telling India that we are civilizationally aligned or attuned to the US in some "natural" sense because nominally the West proclaims itself to have these qualities that YOU find desirable. It's a completely bogus argument. India is evolving a system that works for itself, and will abandon that system without favour or fear if someday it ceases to work for us.

To contend that (A) Indian democracy implies an underlying commonality of values with the West, and worse yet (B) to extend this argument into a basis for commonality of INTERESTS with the West, is totally fallacious.
The fact that the current political system India follows is modeled almost closely after the british one, seems to hurt you a lot. That doesn't detract from the fact that, India, as any other country, will always continue to have underlying commonality of values with any country that strives to run itself openly and fairly with respect to all it's citizens. It's only the west and some other countries that have chosen to do this consistently over the last few decades. Nobody's stopping the others from doing the same. If somebody were to come up with a far superior arrangement, I'm sure any country with a decent head on their shoulders would choose to follow it, without their egos getting in their way.

That is a pure lot of BS that even many of the americans would be loathe to acknowledge. The west, like India has lots of laws on the books. But to claim that they have consistently treated their own citizen fairly and equally is laughable. The treatment that the US has given its own black citizens would have many people question their equality.

No country, including the US which talks about "commonality of values" ever used as a criteria to form alliances or friendships. The whole lot of tinpot dictatorships that the US has supported, and the regimes that it continues to support in middle east, china etc shows that it is only "interests" that matter, not "values". "Values" is something used to appeal to some Indians who think that just because we are a democracy and respects individual freedom and rights, US will somehow treat us differently than China or Saudi Arabia etc.

Ultimately, as propounded by US, it is only "self interests" that matter, and "strength" that is respected. Everything else is pure marketing, like the terms "common values", "shared values", "strategic allies" etc.

Posted: **24 May 2014 06:12**

putnanja wrote:
Ultimately, as propounded by US, it is only "self interests" that matter, and "strength" that is respected. Everything else is pure marketing, like the terms "common values", "shared values", "strategic allies" etc.

National interest and geopolitical interest takes over any commonality of democracy

Posted: **24 May 2014 06:39**

Supra,"Hard Times" would be a great title for a new book on the downfall of the Indian Left. Perhaps one should suggest it to N.Ram! A couple of years ago I had an engaging conversation with him,sitting next to him at a function where he was chief guest.Tickling him about the great threat from China and the Baluchi betrayal by Surrender Singh.

Posted: **24 May 2014 07:07**

putnanja wrote: That is a pure lot of BS that even many of the americans would be loathe to acknowledge. The west, like India has lots of laws on the books. But to claim that they have consistently treated their own citizen fairly and equally is laughable. The treatment that the US has given its own black citizens would have many people question their equality.

I believe the phrase that I had used was

country that *strives* to run itself openly and fairly with respect to all it's citizens

I never claimed anybody has consistently treated their own citizens fairly. Which is precisely why the importance on being open, to questioning and criticism. Treatment of black citizens in the US is very much under scrutiny and the US is a better country for allowing that. Even the worst off section of the US has better access to legal rights than say bonded labourers or the worst section of dalits in the Indian heartland. That doesn't make India inferior to the US. Both the governments regularly go back to the people to seek their mandate and have changed themselves for the better because of that. That is pretty much all that matters. Not how it used to be in the past, no matter how much saying that makes you feel better or more adequate. What you're doing is precisely what the good doctor piskologized as the "the torn shirt, open fly" argument.

No country, including the US which talks about "commonality of values" ever used as a criteria to form alliances or friendships. The whole lot of tinpot dictatorships that the US has supported, and the regimes that it continues to support in middle east, china etc shows that it is only "interests" that matter, not "values".

India does business with the Burmese Junta. That inspite of having an emotional attachment to Suu Kyi. For all their non proliferation efforts and machinations, I don't think the US fears Indian nuclear weapons anymore than India does America's. That can't be said about China and Saudi Arabia for either the US or India. So yes, values do matter. However that doesn't mean the US is going to offer us a bigger market share, solely because we're a fellow democracy.

"Values" is something used to appeal to some Indians who think that just because we are a democracy and respects individual freedom and rights, US will somehow treat us differently than China or Saudi Arabia etc. Ultimately, as propounded by US, it is only "self interests" that matter, and "strength" that is respected. Everything else is pure marketing, like the terms "common values", "shared values", "strategic allies" etc.

An open and transparent polity has advantages in trade and business too. The US isn't claiming that they will treat us as their best buddies because we're morally superior. What they're claiming is, democracies have natural advantages in trade and business besides having affinity on a people to people basis. If you only let us trade more, insert try to get as much of a bang as possible while we try to do the same, we'll not have to try to be nice to each other. That'll come about without any special effort on their part. I do agree with one part: the only way anyone will tread carefully around us is if they have much to lose by stepping on our toes. I wouldn't want anyone to be scared, just wary

Posted: **24 May 2014 07:12**

Philip wrote:As long as white supremacist,"crusaders" rule the US establishment,Indo-US relations will be rocky.India ,especially under Mr.Modi will never kowtow to the US under any circumstances.Even snake-oil Surrender Singh had his inability to go the whole hog batting for the US due to party pressure. But the US if it is smart will stop the BS about a "strategic relationship" to counter China and work in the commercial sphere,where good relations between US and Indian corporate houses will usher in better relations keeping the US establishment and supremacists at bay.

Why can't just China stop the BS pray ? If you only put out some logic instead of frothing at the mouth.

Posted: **24 May 2014 07:54**

anmol wrote:Worse, India's bad habit of aligning with authoritarian states on international questions is likely to increase under Modi, a man considered even by many of his most ardent supporters an autocratic, if benevolent, leader.

That's rich, coming from countries with the most history of aligning with autocratic tinpots of all hues.

Posted: **24 May 2014 08:08**

I do not consider the Judeo Christian values as the underpinning of US civilization. What represents US civilization is a passion for individual freedom and an inquisitive adventurous spirit with a quest for Truth via external means. In some ways, guilt inducing Christian mores are not fully consistent with this fundamental US spirit that seeks individual freedom. Thats the reason Christianity is on a decline in USA and there is strong fascination for Buddism and New Age philosophies and cults influenced by Hinduism / Indic thoughts.

Schinnasji, this is the HOPE that many of us have about the USA. But it is as yet far from reality, and it is not clear that the US is moving in this direction at all. The "strong fascination for Buddhism and New Age" is limited to a relatively small fraction of Americans.

However, that is neither here not there as far as I am concerned. What bothers me is that the US State Department and general policy establishment are not getting more civilized; instead they have regressed severely.

I do have a bit of experience of dealing with ppl in those settings, and have spent many hours listening to presentations by Ambassadors etc. One thing struck me early: they usually came wearing new clothes. Not expensive or extravagant clothes, just new clothes. I submit that there is a danger in listening to a presentation on
How To Deal With the North Koreans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs and Russians

from a person who has recently had to acquire new shirt, pants, underwear and jacket and tie.

I hope I do not have to explain what it is. It occurred to me that these people have no particular credentials. They were not top of their classes, they have no understanding of technology, no great skill in reading, or writing. In the US, the Foreign Affairs departments do not get first pick on college graduates. The college departments do not get first pick on high school grads, or even 17th draft pick. It is generally those who have no particular talents or discipline - or those who have family connections like Paco, who go into these. You should read an article called GROUPTHINK by KGOAN, available somewhere on this website, to understand this better.

Well... unfortunately, this gang of losers has been taken over by the cynical lobbies including the EJs. This is what has led to the present disastrous situation.

There are plenty of indicators, which I listed before. Look at what has happened to US credibility w.r.t. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Egypt... the list keeps lengthening. The mess created with India is no exception. But all that says that to deal with the US SD, sovereign nations must recognize that they are dealing with a department that is out of control, and that must be met with determined and forceful (not violent, just powerful) responses. Reason, logic and kindness do not work.

And that is what we have been articulating on this forum.

Posted: **24 May 2014 08:32**

Modi's invitations to South Asian leaders a strong signal: US
ibnlive.in.com | May 23rd 2014 3:27 AM

Washington: Prime Minister-designate Narendra Modi's invitations to the leaders of South Asian countries including Pakistan to attend his swearing-in ceremony on Monday sends a strong and positive signal, a top American diplomat has said. "I certainly think that having the regional leaders come (for the swearing-in ceremony) is a strong and positive signal. Beyond that I think, it is really for India and its neighbours to react and respond to," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Nisha Desai Biswal, said.

"I certainly think that it is for the Prime Minister-designate to make the decision and the determination as to what kind of swearing-in (he wants)," she added.

Biswal told a select group of Indian journalists in a media roundtable that the Obama Administration will give the new Indian government the necessary "time and the space" to decide on their own course and then engage with New Delhi on that basis. "We are very excited about the very strong mandate that the Indian election has turned out. We are looking forward to working very closely with the Prime Minister-designate Modi and his team on what we see a shared agenda for security and prosperity throughout the region and we think that there is tremendous scope for this relationship which has grown so much over the years," she said.

The diplomat acknowledged that there are certainly concerns about the events that existed in 2002 in Gujarat and that the US has been very clear and on the record about it. "But, we also recognise the Indian electorate has weighed in with resounding mandate for the Prime Minister (designate) and we want to work with him on advancing his goals for India as a regional and global player," she said.

Biswal said the US President, Barack Obama, was very clear in his invitation to Modi that the US looks forward to welcoming him here in the US at the earliest opportunity. "We have stated quite definitely that he will be welcomed here. That he will travel on A1 visa as a head of State, which is the appropriate category for all heads of State when they travel to the US. We look forward to having in engaged across all areas of endeavour," she said.

Biswal refuted reports that there was delay in appointing a new Ambassador to India. "Knowing how this relationship is, knowing what critical time this is as the new government comes in place, we have selected as charge for those interim months, while those selection and nomination process unfolds, Kathleen Stephens, who is the former US Ambassador to South Korea," she said.

Posted: **24 May 2014 09:03**

USA is soon going to find out the difference between dealing with Mohd Shah Rangilla vs Peshwa Baji Rao. I think Modi is too shrewd to indulge in rhetoric against USA but he is not a walk over either.

Posted: **24 May 2014 09:20**

schinnas wrote:
Respectfully disagree. US is an extension of European civilization and US embodies the European spirit of adventurism, quest for individual freedom, liberty and a search for Truth - an inquisitiveness to understand physical nature by scientific means. Its other cultural influences are unchecked consumerism and unchecked capitalism and what is called "western progressive" world view (where it gets enough support from West, especially France. In several aspects US as a civilization has the most impact on rest of the world in the past 100 years. Just merely taking its few hundred years of continental history ignores its civilizational continuity from the time of the Greeks. To a large extent US civilization = Western civilization.

Regarding China - there is a lack of moral underpinning in Chinese civilization which is well debated in BRF archives. Transactional model of relationship probably would work best with China - but as a civilization, it shares little with India other than antiquity. One can say that Indian civilization has a search for inner Truth at its base and Western civilization has a search for external Truth as its foundation. However, Chinese civilization is a search for greatness. It is the biggest imperial power waiting for its time.

Besides it is China which occupies our land and threatens our water resources and not USA. In terms of arming Pak, while in the past US propped us Pak with anti-India intentions, I doubt that is the case any more. US no more views Pakistan as a reliable strategic partner, but seems to believes that needs Pak for its various games in Af-Pak region, including to keep tabs on its nukes and avoid it falling into hands of jihadis. China, on the other hand has a consistent, purely anti-India aspect to its relationship with Pakistan.

Please correct me if I am wrong-

USA was the land of Indians(not sdres

) - they were killed by eurpoeans mericlessly. Now the remining Indians have worst in all- health morbidity and mortality- sort of protected/endangered species.Amongts europeans brits were the most successful. The present ones (majority)are the desecdants fo those brits. American civilsiation is not equal to european one and by no stretch of imagination to greek one.There is a huge disconnect between ancient greeks and present day western one. yes they may have taken some aspects from them but never ==.
The adventure stuff came from the twins of papal decrees and slavery(rise of colonalism sanctioned as told in bible ) and islam badlands in middle east stopping the land routes to India and China who were the reigning superpowers at that time. The colonalsim made them superpower. But americans did not need to do colonalsim as they had america with enormous land water resources with almost empty land(more than 2 times the size of present day india).

Individual freedom - america got independence in 1770s-women were not allowed to vote till 1920s and blacks were not alowed to vote till 1950s. elelctoral college were based on principle to to make a white always in charge of the destiny of america. white always comes with the baggage of chritsianism. funny thing about slavery- got abolished in 1860s but due to guilt of slavery which does not seem to go away from whitemen- now they have perfected the art of ngos doing human rights absues in non white countries -africa and asia. The white countries incluidng america are so perfect that no human rights abuses ever occur in them.

liberty- ironically the statue of liberty and surounding islands were used as detention for screening of immigrants till 1960s. Even today they allow only skilled immigrants like many of us into america.
america as a superpower has invaded directly or indirectly over 1/3-1/2 countries around the globe and scr@wed the native people. millions have been killed.

truth- means a lot to americans at individula level and at govt level. Individual american can be nice and gentle but govt is a different beast.

china is our neighbour - but america is not. america interferes a lot through various arms in India- terrorism EJ activites naxalites pakis fiberals support human rights etc . spending time in various related threads will help clear many misconceptions.

The only potent stuff I agree is american influence due to its econmic military might -its unchecked consumerism will last as long its economy is strong.military might also depends on its economy.

JMTs.

Posted: **24 May 2014 09:27**

By inviting SAARC countries and other neighbourhood countries plus friendly countries he has made his intent very clear. He would focus on them rather than planning a visit of no consequence to US as of now. He might visit US in connection with UNGA but otherwise I don't see any agenda on the table either from US of from India except those which are transactional in nature. However, friendship can be strengthened even without visiting US, that is, if US really wants to take it forward.

Some actions to be watched for

1. Going ahead with Military procurements planned by UPA from US under FMS program
2. Nuclear Deal and liability clause which is the bone of contention
3. Investment in Energy Sector which is going to be prime concern and would be tremendous if NaMo wants Energy for All.
4. Intellectual Property rights and related issues
5. Trade restrictions related issues where US has taken/threatened to take India to WTO
6. Diplomatic reciprocity and extent of Modi Govt action on US consulate/Embassy violating India laws as well as not giving reciprocal treatment.
In fact, Hardeep Puri , who is currently having ears of NaMo , was mistreated. Dr Kalam and other diplomats were mistreated. That is going to continue the chillness unlikely to be lifted soon as NaMo himself , as an Individual, was at the receiving end of US bigotry.
I think his domestic policy direction will indicate to what extent relations with US improves.

He is likely to increase interaction with China and we have to see how he scales the Chinese wall. With other countries Japan would be his close partner and rightly so. With Money and technology Japan is placed appropriately to invest in India.

I liked the Invitation Diplomacy as Win Win situation. No business is going to be transacted officially and hence no other outcome except friendly chit chat. And that is going to be significant in building personal rapport. If they accept the invitation and come that will help build the relations and if they don't come that will be an indicator to tread cautiously. Of course it has caught all foreign policy mandarins in those countries and India off guard. Unexpected and out of box thinking that is going to characterise his diplomacy. He can not be taken for granted even by jingos on this forum.

Posted: **24 May 2014 09:28**

schinnas wrote:Garshan,

Culturally Brits did lot of damage to India including making English as the language of choice of educated Indians and destroying our Indic school systems. We are yet to come out of that cultural subjugation.

<snip>.

as far as my knowledge goes- brits made India illiterate- they never made english as the language of choice of eduicated indians-. at independenc less than 10% were literate and a fraction of that had command over english. There goes the myth(many indians believe this ).brits only made some Indians learn english so that orders can be made to local Indians through these intermediaries.
Indian govt gave prominence to english by making it kids learn from schools.They invested huge amounts of Indian (not brits)money to make it happen.

Today the results of the above make India the largest englsih speaking population in the world.
In fact we speak better than the brit queen and its subjects.

Posted: **24 May 2014 11:55**

Lilo wrote:
FT wrote wrote:...Asia’s four horsemen have taken the time to read them.
So beople in FT are feeling Modi is one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who portend the doom of Western Civilization hain ji ?

These people are idiots, and frogs-in-the-well, with their easy assumption that they " doubt " Asian leaders have read this or that.

No understanding of US policies is possible without taking into account their Rahul Gandhi-esque intellects.

Posted: **24 May 2014 12:11**

schinnas wrote:To support my theory of meeting point between US and Indian civilization, I do not consider the Judeo Christian values as the underpinning of US civilization. What represents US civilization is a passion for individual freedom and an inquisitive adventurous spirit with a quest for Truth via external means. In some ways, guilt inducing Christian mores are not fully consistent with this fundamental US spirit that seeks individual freedom. Thats the reason Christianity is on a decline in USA and there is strong fascination for Buddism and New Age philosophies and cults influenced by Hinduism / Indic thoughts. One can argue that rigid Christian notions are dying out in USA not because of any external influence but because of the questioning spirit of Americans themselves. The American elite have a lot of fascination for Indic thoughts that empower the Individual to pursue an experiential search for Truth without inducing feeling of guilt.

It is to this aspect of US spirit that we should speak to and aim our cultural relations at. The EJ lobby will look down upon heathen India and do its best to damage Indic society, but it is bound to die as it is inconsistent with native US civilizational spirt.

All that about US values may be true, but quite useless to India as long as the US refuses to engage with India as a civilizational peer. The change has to come from the US side, there is nothing India can do at this point, on its own, to form a constructive, deep relationship. There is no point in preaching to India to change its supposedly wrong attitude towards the US.

Posted: **24 May 2014 12:22**

UlanBatori wrote:
I do not consider the Judeo Christian values as the underpinning of US civilization. What represents US civilization is a passion for individual freedom and an inquisitive adventurous spirit with a quest for Truth via external means. In some ways, guilt inducing Christian mores are not fully consistent with this fundamental US spirit that seeks individual freedom. Thats the reason Christianity is on a decline in USA and there is strong fascination for Buddism and New Age philosophies and cults influenced by Hinduism / Indic thoughts.
Schinnasji, this is the HOPE that many of us have about the USA. But it is as yet far from reality, and it is not clear that the US is moving in this direction at all. The "strong fascination for Buddhism and New Age" is limited to a relatively small fraction of Americans.

However, that is neither here not there as far as I am concerned. What bothers me is that the US State Department and general policy establishment are not getting more civilized; instead they have regressed severely.

I do have a bit of experience of dealing with ppl in those settings, and have spent many hours listening to presentations by Ambassadors etc. One thing struck me early: they usually came wearing new clothes. Not expensive or extravagant clothes, just new clothes. I submit that there is a danger in listening to a presentation on
How To Deal With the North Koreans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs and Russians

from a person who has recently had to acquire new shirt, pants, underwear and jacket and tie.

I hope I do not have to explain what it is. It occurred to me that these people have no particular credentials. They were not top of their classes, they have no understanding of technology, no great skill in reading, or writing. In the US, the Foreign Affairs departments do not get first pick on college graduates. The college departments do not get first pick on high school grads, or even 17th draft pick. It is generally those who have no particular talents or discipline - or those who have family connections like Paco, who go into these. You should read an article called GROUPTHINK by KGOAN, available somewhere on this website, to understand this better.

Well... unfortunately, this gang of losers has been taken over by the cynical lobbies including the EJs. This is what has led to the present disastrous situation.

There are plenty of indicators, which I listed before. Look at what has happened to US credibility w.r.t. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Egypt... the list keeps lengthening. The mess created with India is no exception. But all that says that to deal with the US SD, sovereign nations must recognize that they are dealing with a department that is out of control, and that must be met with determined and forceful (not violent, just powerful) responses. Reason, logic and kindness do not work.

And that is what we have been articulating on this forum.

Very nicely put, ulanbatoriji. I have consistently taken this line while defending Indian interests in news discussion forums from ukstan. None of these useful idiots can hold a decent conversation and start belittling others like pack of wolves. But hey, hunting in pack keeps them alive and their school of thought well funded. In west, they are used to achieve strategic interests when needed and ignored at other times. These dimwits are also kept entertained by introducing awards, tropies and medals etc.

Posted: **24 May 2014 12:37**

anmol wrote:
Modi's invitations to South Asian leaders a strong signal: US
ibnlive.in.com | May 23rd 2014

...

Biswal told a select group of Indian journalists
...

Is the reporter bragging about having been "selected" by the US rep or is he/she telling readers that US carefully controls whom it interacts with in Indian media?

Posted: **24 May 2014 12:56**

^^Pretty much...typical arse-kissing bullshite.

Posted: **24 May 2014 14:29**

The values that one associates USA with are only 50-60 yrs old - it would be too rich to call it civilization, yet. They were lynching blacks only a few decades back. Civilization is when you create something that will last several hundred years to thousands of years. However, I will agree the USA has future potential although it is doubtful whether being No.1 in S&T will qualify as civilization. May be in the age of robots, yes. But the point is as Indians (not Indian-American) we should ask what is in it there for us. Just civilizational congruence, even if doubtful, wouldn't suffice. The Chinese state (I don't know what the un-brainwashed Chinese people think about Indians but given the large no of Indo-Chinese marriages taking place in SG and MY may not be utterly negative) are transparent in their hatred of India and Indians. However, can we say the same about the US when the very state that they have propped up for the last 50-60 yrs continues to send terrorists that kill hundreds every year. Under these circumstances hypothetical civilizational congruence is just useless blabber. The US wants to follow a policy of equanimity between India and Pak. I would rather have a transparent enemy than an opaque friend.

Posted: **24 May 2014 18:33**

UlanBatori wrote:
I do not consider the Judeo Christian values as the underpinning of US civilization. What represents US civilization is a passion for individual freedom and an inquisitive adventurous spirit with a quest for Truth via external means. In some ways, guilt inducing Christian mores are not fully consistent with this fundamental US spirit that seeks individual freedom. Thats the reason Christianity is on a decline in USA and there is strong fascination for Buddism and New Age philosophies and cults influenced by Hinduism / Indic thoughts.
Schinnasji, this is the HOPE that many of us have about the USA. But it is as yet far from reality, and it is not clear that the US is moving in this direction at all. The "strong fascination for Buddhism and New Age" is limited to a relatively small fraction of Americans.

However, that is neither here not there as far as I am concerned. What bothers me is that the US State Department and general policy establishment are not getting more civilized; instead they have regressed severely.

I do have a bit of experience of dealing with ppl in those settings, and have spent many hours listening to presentations by Ambassadors etc. One thing struck me early: they usually came wearing new clothes. Not expensive or extravagant clothes, just new clothes. I submit that there is a danger in listening to a presentation on
How To Deal With the North Koreans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs and Russians

from a person who has recently had to acquire new shirt, pants, underwear and jacket and tie.

I hope I do not have to explain what it is. It occurred to me that these people have no particular credentials. They were not top of their classes, they have no understanding of technology, no great skill in reading, or writing. In the US, the Foreign Affairs departments do not get first pick on college graduates. The college departments do not get first pick on high school grads, or even 17th draft pick. It is generally those who have no particular talents or discipline - or those who have family connections like Paco, who go into these. You should read an article called GROUPTHINK by KGOAN, available somewhere on this website, to understand this better.

Well... unfortunately, this gang of losers has been taken over by the cynical lobbies including the EJs. This is what has led to the present disastrous situation.

There are plenty of indicators, which I listed before. Look at what has happened to US credibility w.r.t. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Egypt... the list keeps lengthening. The mess created with India is no exception. But all that says that to deal with the US SD, sovereign nations must recognize that they are dealing with a department that is out of control, and that must be met with determined and forceful (not violent, just powerful) responses. Reason, logic and kindness do not work.

And that is what we have been articulating on this forum.

UB-ji,

From recent US census: Close to 80% of US population is not Judeo-Christian and this tribe is increasing. It is a well known fact that Church is fast losing its hold on US society. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports The number of conscious adherents to Indic philosophies may be less, but their impact is much higher as they are among the thought leaders and elites of US. Several Indic concepts such as Karma have found their way into mainstream US vocabulary and way of thinking. Yoga has had similar success but in a reduced role as a set of conscious stretching exercises without its underpinning philosophy, but is a good steping stone for more Americans to understand and appreciate Indic thoughts and have a truly informed cultural dialogue between US and India.

Thanks for conceding that there is potential for Indo-US partnership based on common higher principles, even though it is not a reality today. One of my key points was that India's policy towards US should not be a passive or reactive policy. What you are saying is that we need to act forcefully due to the incompetence, and stupidity of SD along with their colonial / imperialistic / racist / condescending & ignorant worldview. However, I am looking for a discussion as to what we should pro-actively do in the meanwhile to realize the potential of Indo-US partnerships. There is a fast growing and highly affluent NRI population who though might be ignorant of nuances of diplomacy can be a strong vehicle in lobbying. We can and should invite several US thought leaders to India - not to give us lectures but to learn from our institutions and forums (and for that we may need to increase the number and quality of Institutions that can actually discuss Indic principles.. Naturally JNU / DU types cannot). That is the discussion I wanted to drive but it got side-tracked.

Not a response to UBji but to those that refute to consider the civilizational spirit of US: Since I dont want to spam this thread with multiple messages, responding to those in here.
It seems a few folks just don't get the notion of civilization. US cannot be seen as separate from that of the west. Western civilization existed before Christinanity and has significant Greek philosophical and cultural underpinnings including its worship of beauty and power. The difference between western and eastern civilization and where they meet have been discussed by professionals in the field and there are lot of voluminous books on this subject. No point discussing it in BRF.

Another argument I noted is someone asking how many average Americans live up to US civilization spirit. Same question can be asked for India or any country. In most countries, a substantial part of Aam Admi will be focused only on getting by. That is an illogical argument.

Posted: **24 May 2014 18:55**

Rudradev wrote:Schinnas, you need to realize that India and the US do not have any natural unity or alignment of political philosophy or principle. Not even at the claimed level of superficial panaceas.

What do we hear? That India and the US are both "democracies", both committed to "freedom", "self-expression", "liberty", "individual rights" and so on.

These are indeed qualities that the US has claimed for itself since its foundation. Whether those claims are valid in reality is fodder for a different debate, but never mind that for now.

However, when people in the West cite these qualities as a basis for commonality with India, it is nothing but a projection of Western Universalism onto a civilization-state whose history, philosophy, interests and ethos are completely unrelated to the West. Even the Good-Cop, seemingly pro-India voices in the US who cite this "commonality" are effectively holding India to the espousal of attributes that have absolutely no inherent value of any kind, but are considered "good" and "desirable" only because the Western value system has been universalized.

What is deemed "good" in the West is automatically expected to be embraced as "good" by everybody in the world. Based on this assumption, the template report-card and grading scheme have already been drawn up for us, and we will be marked on our progress by the Good Cops of the West.

If India is a democracy, if India has freedom of expression, and if India decides to retain these things in whatever form it decides to retain them... then the reason is not that the West advertises these attributes as universally desirable qualities. The only reason is because, for the present anyway, they work well for India, in the Indian context.

This is not a hair-splitting argument made out of pettiness, but belies a very critical distinction. If India had indeed institutionalized democracy and free expression out of an attempt to model itself on Western democracy, then the West could legitimately claim the moral authority to judge the Indian practice of democracy. They would be the eternal guru, and we the eternal shishya having to listen to their hectoring on "human rights", "flawed elections", "majoritarianism" and what not.

In 1948-50, the Constituent Assembly may have modeled some aspects of the Indian Constitution on existing constitutions of democratic nations elsewhere, mainly on Westministerian Parliamentary democracy. 67 years later, if the system survives it is not because we want to ape the West; it is because we've been evolving the system in a way that works for us, on our own terms.

My point is this. If you, as an individual, want to lionize the "freedom", "opportunity", "inquisitive spirit" and so on of the United States... you as an individual are welcome to that opinion. But do not be telling India that we are civilizationally aligned or attuned to the US in some "natural" sense because nominally the West proclaims itself to have these qualities that YOU find desirable. It's a completely bogus argument. India is evolving a system that works for itself, and will abandon that system without favour or fear if someday it ceases to work for us.

To contend that (A) Indian democracy implies an underlying commonality of values with the West, and worse yet (B) to extend this argument into a basis for commonality of INTERESTS with the West, is totally fallacious.

Rudradev-ji,
You are clubbing my arugment with the nearly nauseating shallow arguments that are generally made that largest and most powerful democracies should come together, etc., They lack substance and depth and also miss the point and we both agree to that. I wanted to take the discusison deeper. I never used the word democracy as it is just an imperfect method of governance and will be surpassed just like capitalism would be. If you have read me carefully, you might have noticed that stand solidly on Indian values but only seeking to form an integral relationship that can be built on the meeting points where our values meet.

The crux of my argument is two fold
1. There is a fundamental meeting point between the civilizational spirit / guiding principles between those of India and US. Granted that in both countries only a small section of its population stay true to their guiding principles. I also consider US as an extension of western civilization that draws from pre-christian Greek and Roman civilization. Volumes have been written about the meeting point of Indian and Western civilizations from Indic perspectives - from Vivekananda to Sri Aurobindo to Paramhamsa Yogananda to others. If i were to reduce it for sake of disucssion, I will say this: India's society was defined by a search for inner Truth. US (Western) society was defined by a search for external Truth. Any genuine society that is influenced by search for truth will naturally have respect for diversity that you can see in both India and US, though due to its fundamentalist Christian influence in 1900s slavery and persecution of Injuns happened before US could settle down on current diversity. US In addition, there is an emphasis on community in India and on individual in the West. This has far reaching influence in arts, cultures, traditions, etc., but they both have a meeting point. Fundamentalist religious values (be of whatever religion) are contrary to this search for Truth and are bound to lose out in the long run - if not now, in a hundred years. The meeting points in terms of search for truth and honoring diversity are not to be found amongst other countries such as KSA, PRC, etc.

2. Once we agree to the point above, we need to formulate our policy towards US that gives at least in part some sustained and bold efforts to realize this meeting point in our relationships. I am not justifying US SD or covering up their arrogant, snobbish attitude and policies and dangerous tactical games which for most part end up hurting India such as propping up Pak, etc. We need to have an integral foreign policy towards US that is not reactive as it is today, but includes all aspects - transactional in some areas, conscious friction in some areas where our dignity and rule of law need to be protected (Ex: Kobragade episode, tax evasion by US school in Delhi), etc. But at the same time part of our policy should be constructive and proactive. What has Indian government done to popularise and spread Indian thought to US or West? (Please dont give examples of the occasional cultural events conducted by our embassies).

How many grants we have given to various schools of Yoga (in a wholistic wider sense and not as exercise) of Indian origin that operate in US? How many US youngsters interested in Indic thoughts have been given scholarship by GoI to visit, study in India and participate in forums where they can truly learn Indic values? The answer is a big ZERO.

Posted: **24 May 2014 19:09**

TSJones wrote:
Don't underestimate her. From reviewing her wiki bio she appears to be quite good at immersion into the host culture. If she is in India for more than a few months she'll start picking up Hindi and try to be conversant in it. She's probably a natural linguist. The USSD wouldn't send her unless they thought she had the skills to trouble shoot.

Maybe this time it's different. However, Nancy Powell had the same qualifications: troubleshooter, experience in various hot spots and spoke passable Hindi. We know how that worked out. But that's not the point I'm making. She's not a heavyweight and a transitional figure. She won't get a chance. The lines of communication will go from PMO to WH during this phase. AT best, and this may be exactly why she's been sent is to put the USE in ND in order—transforming it from a country club cum PX to a diplomatic outpost.

I agree that it's going be tough to get a political appointee. Maybe Bill Gates

Posted: **24 May 2014 19:21**

UB-ji,
I take that you are some one in corridors of power in our diplomacy circles. Hope you can help change the passive, reactive and self defeating (in parts not fully) foreign policy we seem to have, especially with a new strong and culturally sensitive leadership about to assume office.

Some reality check about the (in)competence of our MEA, let me give an instance narrated to me by my friend in Argentina. Art of Living and its school of Yoga has caught the imagination and interest of Argentinians. When Sri Sri Ravishankar visited Argentina, hundreds of thousands of Argentinians (not Indians in Argentina) came to hear him out and participate in his group meditation exercises. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVi5m2e4Xmw

In a local interview, Sri Sri was discussing vegetarianism and Yoga and Indian Ambassador to Argentina had to jump out and loudly proclaim that he does not do yoga and loves meat, wine and salsa dancing. High IQ does not make our IFS mandarins any way smarter than SD. Many of them are incompetent and fail to sufficiently represent Indian interests or project Indian culture and Indic thoughts. Whatever soft power India has outside of India has very little to do with our MEA. I heard that previous UPA government not only did not support various Indian Yogis and saints who are actually propagating , it actually introduced roadblocks. At the very least MEA could help

I started this discussion as I got tired of incessant complaining and reactive spirit in our discussions regarding US, which is the sign of weak and incompetent country. There was very little (or no) discussion about what we can do to have part of our relationships be constructive and

I hope you can push for the following:

1. GoI grants and support to Indic NGOs and movements regardless of religion (There are several Christian leaders who have incorporated the wisdom of Bharath or atleast fully appreciate wisdom and values of Bharath. Ex: http://www.ocoy.org/, http://www.vagamon.com/kurisumala/kurisumala.htm, ) that actively propogate Indian culture, philosophy and Indic thoughts to outside of India. They don't even need to be religious. Ex: BKS Iyengar school of Yoga or schools that teach Kalaripayatu, Karnatic & Hindustani music, Bharatanatyam etc.

2. Actively promote Indic studies amongst youth of US and West. Since you agreed to the cultural meeting point between Indian and US civilizations, it naturally follows that we should do bold, concrete steps to build something constructive on it. Today there is none that is driven by GoI. Any little thing that happens is by private individuals. Some reports like Francois Gautier have done lot more for India than MEA in terms of molding public perceptions in the west and to propagate Indic values.

3. For other aspects of US relationship, I am not in a position to give advice to you, but hope we invest and build robust lobbying power to influence SD instead of complaining about the stupidity and arrogance and ugliness of SD and having 100% focus only on why we need to give a forceful message to SD.

I am signing off on this thread for the time being.

Posted: **24 May 2014 19:28**

One of my key points was that India's policy towards US should not be a passive or reactive policy. What you are saying is that we need to act forcefully due to the incompetence, and stupidity of SD along with their colonial / imperialistic / racist / condescending & ignorant worldview. However, I am looking for a discussion as to what we should pro-actively do in the meanwhile to realize the potential of Indo-US partnerships. There is a fast growing and highly affluent NRI population who though might be ignorant of nuances of diplomacy can be a strong vehicle in lobbying. We can and should invite several US thought leaders to India - not to give us lectures but to learn from our institutions and forums (and for that we may need to increase the number and quality of Institutions that can actually discuss Indic principles.. Naturally JNU / DU types cannot).

Western civilization existed before Christinanity and has significant Greek philosophical and cultural underpinnings including its worship of beauty and power. The difference between western and eastern civilization and where they meet have been discussed by professionals in the field and there are lot of voluminous books on this subject.

how many average Americans live up to US civilization spirit. Same question can be asked for India or any country. In most countries, a substantial part of Aam Admi will be focused only on getting by.

All of these are valid points for discussion, and need clarifying discussion. I will briefly note the following:

1. what we should pro-actively do in the meanwhile to realize the potential of Indo-US partnerships

I think the most important, right now, is to hit "reset" and say: Wait a minute. India has been ready and willing to engage the US on all aspects, but this will not lead to productive partnerships as long as the US does not correct and significantly improve the arms of the US that are entrusted with diplomacy and foreign affairs. The GOI should, yes, forcefully convey to the US that change is urgently needed, and is essential, in the SD setup and in the quality of advice and thinking that are coming into the US decision-making process.

No, the Rich Powerful NRIs or the Rich Powerful Indians are not going to be of much help here. The change has to occur at the grassroots level of the US government.

Just an example: the Khobragade affair. Look how much good has been done by the simple act of the GOI in FINALLY raising a meek voice of protest, and actually making some TINY moves to point out that American govt. officials in India have been breaking Indian law with utter contempt, for ages. Not a single American diplomat has been arrested or even detailed for an hour at the airport, still the mere act of speaking the truth has been seen as the equivalent of

THE BOY HAS ASKED FOR MORE!!!!

in the famous Charles Dickens novel "Oliver Twist".

The same happened when Din Nath Batra, a simple, financially poor old gentle Indian citizen who lives in a 1-room apartment, took the powerful Penguin Books and the po*n-peddler Wendy Doniger to Indian court, and pointed out that they have been committing felonies for decades with impunity.

The behavior of the US "diplomatic corps" has been utterly beyond the pale of international norms of civilized behavior. Attempting to "move on" and start meaningful civilizational discussions with such savages is worse than the classical Greek Philosophical notion:

Spreading Pearls Before Swine

Consider the Anmol-Revealed behavior of the US Embassy staff, and the very visible behavior of their friends back in Manhattan and DC. Even today, Nisha Desai continues to mouth the cr*p about

The US continues to have concerns about the 2002 events and has been very open...

WHAT concerns? Does she even understand the notion that there is no "concern" if there is no defensible case? Does she have any clue about the Presumption of Innocence, or the idea that the Supreme Court of India has done its due diligence on the whole affair for 12 years? Why should someone who keeps mouthing these idiocies be acceptable as the best that the US can do in representing America to India?

Desai may LOOK civilized, and I bet she speaks Gujarati much better than I can, but the above suggests that there is a vacuum where there should be some honesty and integrity in her.

President Obama needs to get his swine back into the sty and replace them with intelligent, dedicated Americans who understand the Oath that they take to abide by the Constitution of the United States. We here (at least I can speak for myself) ask for noting more.

Now for the Western Civilization bit. Sorry but I totally disagree. It brings back the memory of sitting in a big University Faculty Chair's office as a junior person who was doing his job for the School, and being asked why I was trying to bring in these (British-educated, world-renowned field expert and very "westernized" NRI!!) profs when the students needed to be taught about "western civilizational values". I have a name for that: it is simple, bigoted RACISM and RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.

I have read at least the Abridged for Kindergarten versions of the Greek Epics, and other great Books including the one called The Book. I have read enough discussions on the Western Values as laid out in what passes for the Ancient Literature of Britain, and America.

There is no divide between the Core Values of Indian (Sanatana Dharma) and of the best and deepest in Western Values, whether cultural or religious.

How should India be pro-active? First and foremost, by advancing Indian values and insisting on the rights of India and Indians.

How should Indian-Americans be pro-active? By insisting that the US government act according to the Constitution, not according to bigoted racist notions.

Right now, that means exposing the swine and their stink. Which is exactly what I am trying to do, so as far as I can see, I AM being most pro-active. So are many at BRF.

For the moment, all this will be sneered-at as being Far-RightWing Unwashed Hindootva or whatever (you read the sneering from Uneven Cohen).

Eventually, Satyam Eva Jayate, and the US will see that Experts like Uneven Cohen have been milking the US taxpayer, dispensing idiotic prejudices. This twerp is the one who published on his Brookings Institution webpage his great achievement in convincing the GOTUS to support the vicious dictator Pervez Musharraf, who came closest of any dictator to triggering nuclear holocaust.

A good ProActive step for BRFees might be to make a website (at least a thread, but really an extensive paper) listing the consistently disastrous and visibly indefensible advice dispensed by Cohen over the decades (contrast him to the Other Cohen, the one who writes on Russia/Ukraine, and the difference is so stark!!) Also, all the other Experts in the GOTUS and COTUS and universities in India and the US who have been consistently wrong and hence worse than a waste of taxpayer money.

The Business MNCs don't need my advice: they are already swarming all over to milk the Indian consumer. And Indian bijnejppl don't need my advice: they will also do anything that benefits them financially in the short term.

Posted: **24 May 2014 22:09**

@schinnas

I think you are too sold on American propaganda about American exceptionalism. What you call American civilization are largely good qualities or values that we Indians can learn from but are present in many advanced/developed countries. But I, being a SDRE Indian bania, would like to think what is in it for us Indians. To put it briefly there is a huge gain for India if there is American cooperation in technology and trade and a huge downside in terms of security both macro and micro as long as US continues to be one of the chief backers of Pak. So I will maintain that as long as America remains high on the Paki dope our relation should be transactional. I am discounting other issues like Khobragade, Doniger or even the menace of EJs.

Posted: **24 May 2014 23:33**

BG will go and start lot of hula gulla about AIDS in India or has his foundation moved off of that bogey in recent years? He would also give a lot of Win8 copies away to schools who would be better served by various flavors of Linux and the entire FLOSS movement. I am not sure whether he is culturally sensitive to the majority of Indians - those that live in the 500k villages and hamlets.

Posted: **25 May 2014 01:59**

One thing u can b sure of.

If NaMO GOI acts 404 about the commie-paki-ej nexus in usa and desh, it will not be because they have not been, and are not continually, informed by The Informed.

At the top level.

Whether the message filters down through the armored skulls of the babucracy/phoren sarbhij is another matter altogether.

Posted: **25 May 2014 03:07**

Why Modi's Victory Means a New Chance for the U.S. to Make Good on the Asia Pivot
by Neil Joeck, shadow.foreignpolicy.com
May 24th 2014

President Barack Obama's cramped vision for U.S. foreign policy resulted in the concept of a pivot to Asia. The term was introduced when the president's first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said that the United States was at a pivot point as troops were being withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. In an article for Foreign Policy, "America's Pacific Century," she called for "a sustained commitment to what I have called 'forward-deployed' diplomacy" in Asia. The term was soon replaced in common parlance, however, by "rebalancing," but both phrases spoke to this administration's defensive approach to foreign policy.

The approach is particularly inappropriate in Asia given the United States' historical alliance commitments: From its birth, the United States has been a naval power, and the geographic expansion of the American republic to the Pacific Ocean in the 19th Century made it a two-ocean naval power. Any president assuming office therefore has a historic mandate and responsibility to conduct U.S. foreign policy with attention to our friends and neighbors on the opposite sides of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Yet the idea that we somehow needed to pivot to Asia -- implying that U.S. responsibilities in Europe and the Middle East could be set aside while our attention turned elsewhere -- betrayed confusion in the White House rather than leadership.

The concerns that drove the administration to enunciate the pivot are not subject to dispute. As Clinton said almost three years ago, Asia "has become a key driver of global politics," "boasts almost half the world's population," and "includes many of the key engines of the global economy." Though Clinton's argument was in many ways a strong one, the action that followed unfortunately did not match the rhetoric.

The disconnection has created doubts in the region about U.S. will, with China evidently drawing the same conclusion as other bullies have in the past. We now see China reversing Mao's once-honored dictum not to seek hegemony, aggressively and unilaterally altering of the status quo in the South China Sea. This behavior should reinforce the Obama administration's commitment to Asia, whether couched in terms of a "rebalancing" or in terms consistent with America's historic role as a Pacific power.

India has arguably been the least appreciated and attended to element of Obama's foreign policy in Asia. The president started off on a good foot by inviting then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for a state visit in November of 2009 but little developed subsequently. A certain amount of the decline can be attributed to India's attention to its domestic concerns, but by and large the Obama administration looked at India through the prism of Pakistan's historic grievances, rather then in the context of a broader global strategy. It is not too late to correct that as we now have a new prime minister, Narendra Modi, in New Delhi, whose commitment to democracy, economic openness, and free market competition do not diverge from his predecessor's while they parallel basic U.S. interests. They also happen to place India in opposition to the Chinese state-centered command system, which has enriched the few at the top but denied political voice to the many at the bottom. It will not be easy for the United States to take advantage of this change in India, but as part of making good on the pivot -- making good on the United States' historic commitments and responsibilities across the globe -- the effort must be made.

The challenge of renewing the U.S.-India relationship, which drew enormous momentum from President Bill Clinton's wildly popular visit in 2000 and was expanded under President George W. Bush, is two-sided. It is not just for the United States to approach India but also for India to approach the United States. Although Modi is understandably aggrieved at having his visa revoked some years ago by U.S. authorities, if he lets that past insult stand in the way of an expanded economy, it will not serve his administration well. India's recent modest growth can be aided by a reinvigorated relationship with the United States, not by splendid isolation.

The challenge for the Washington is adjusting to Modi's past as chief minister of Gujarat in 2002 when violence targeting Muslims broke out on his watch. Thousands died and human rights activists pointed their finger at Modi behind the scenes. Modi reached out during his just-completed campaign and has pledged to be a prime minister for all Indians -- code words for representing Muslims every bit as much as Hindus. The fact that Modi grew up within and draws inspiration from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) need not alarm Washington's decision makers for at least two reasons. First, we worked closely with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who also was influenced by RSS thinking, and second, because the extreme versions of the RSS ideology represent a set of nationalist and cultural views that grew out of opposition to British colonialism in the early part of the 20th century. They continue to animate some Indian thinking but do not prohibit engagement on a wide range of common U.S.-India interests.

To paraphrase the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. The arrival of Modi as prime minister of India provides an opportunity to identify what road we want to take in Asia. Expanding relations with India under Modi may be difficult, but there is little in foreign policy that comes easy. Narendra Modi is the new prime minister in New Delhi and China is busy seeking hegemony. The United States and India share concerns about Chinese assertiveness. What first steps can we take, therefore, to promote U.S.-India relations under the new administration in New Delhi?

Three actions could go a long way toward rebalancing our relations with India. First, we need to name an ambassador who captures India's and America's imagination. Ambassador Nancy Powell has left New Delhi, leaving Obama a chance to make a splash. This is the right time to signal the importance of India to U.S. foreign and strategic policy by naming a new ambassador with close ties to Obama.

Second, Obama should consider inviting Modi for a state visit, putting him on the same plateau as his predecessor, Manmohan Singh. This may be too big a step now, given the high human rights quotient in the current U.S. foreign policy team, namely Susan Rice and Samantha Power, who impressed candidate Obama with their strong human rights concerns and have worked their way to the senior most levels of his foreign policy team. Welcoming Modi to Washington may therefore be a bridge too far for them to cross. But in October at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Modi will likely step onto the international diplomatic stage and renew India's position as a global leader. At a minimum, the White House should begin to plan now for how to connect constructively and positively with the new Indian prime minister.

Third, Obama should propose a multinational diplomatic effort with Afghanistan's new president (once the second round of voting is completed), Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and Modi to lay the groundwork for a hands-off policy in the new Afghanistan. As I noted in my last post, civil war in Afghanistan after U.S. and ISAF troops withdraw is a real threat that may be averted if political and economic opportunities are available for all of Afghanistan's neighbors, especially India and Pakistan. No one will be served well by renewed conflict - this is a chance to ensure that peace follows Afghanistan's decades of war.

As Clinton said in her Foreign Policy article, Asia is a key driver of global politics. India is one of the key states in Asia, now with a new prime minister ready to push hard for Indian development and global leadership. Obama should seize the opportunity to work with Modi toward the same goal.

Posted: **25 May 2014 04:23**

There are already articles in USA media goading Modi to swallow the insult of being denied the visa and look beyond that episode and develop a healthy relationship with USA. It is not going to be that easy.

The ONLY way Modi/India could reengage USA would be to for USA to show that they are done helping Pakistan. Words will not do, USA can demonstrate their sincerity by stopping all aid to Paksitan, and both USA and India should be able to resume healthy bilateral relations after that.

Posted: **25 May 2014 05:00**

India was always willing to go the extra mile with US and their munna. Antagonism towards China was brought to the forefront when MMS gave a speech at that snooty place called US press club or some such thing. They - the press club - think that inviting anybody there is bestowing a great honor. Somewhat self-serving IMHO. In any case, MMS said at that time (I am paraphrasing): "I don't know why but China started acting very aggressively towards us".

Posted: **25 May 2014 05:02**

matrimc wrote:India was always willing to go the extra mile with US and their munna. Antagonism towards China was brought to the forefront when MMS gave a speech at that snooty place called US press club or some such thing. They - the press club - think that inviting anybody there is bestowing a great honor. Somewhat self-serving IMHO. In any case, MMS said at that time (I am paraphrasing): "I don't know why but China started acting very aggressively towards us".

I do. Weakness is provocative. Blood in the water and all

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130001

Posted: **25 May 2014 05:18**

Cosmo_R wrote:
Kerry once said during his unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2004 that his hair was a flotation device. I think it's his head.

This Stephens character won't get a serious 1/1 with Modi let alone meaningful interaction. What are they thinking?

I always thought Kerry was a haircut in search of a brain.

US SD has stopped thinking for a long time. It seems the SD is either led by a political science enthusiast or a lawyer or an ex- army officer. They seem to not trust anyone else. Perhaps this is the main problem.

Posted: **25 May 2014 05:23**

India should tell USA:
We are a nice people, and want to have a good healthy mutually beneficial relation with you. But in order that to happen, you MUST FIRST STOP peddling BS to my brother (Pakistan). You leave my brother alone, we are family and will take care of ourselves. And then I will help you stand up on your feet, and then we will be equal partners.

Posted: **25 May 2014 07:38**

Just to illustrate a point. Read this quote from the deep article on US phoren polijy:

As Clinton said in her Foreign Policy article, Asia is a key driver of global politics. India is one of the key states in Asia,

WOW!!!! What a deep statement. This captures the quality of US Foreign Policy thinking at its highest level. They can't get their world view down to any sharper resolution than continent-wide. As in:

Let's see: what continent should we focus on for the next 4 years? spin the globe: Oirope? Naw! That ain't "diverse" enough. Africa? Naw, BO is already pouring $$B down the sewer there, and all he's getting for it is more Boko Haram and Somalian warlords. Antarctica? It's breaking up. South America? Nah! I cyaint speak Portuguese and them Brazilians are getting snooty. North America? Wait a minute, we are so close to it that it comes under the Dept of Homeland Security, not State.
That leaves: Australia? Nah! Not diverse enough. Which leaves ASIA!!

Oh, can I name one country in Asia? How about IndiaPakistan? Great! We're already owned by China, so that's fine. OK.

I mean, the way they decide is like: The SoS has said that we are going to focus on Asia. India is in Asia! So India QUALIFIES for this year's Attention Quota.

There is no hope until the US SD cleans house and hires people who can at least identify specific nations on a globe.

Bharat Rakshak

India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Re: India-US Strategic News and Discussion