Bharat Rakshak

Modi’s existential challenge to Obama
Edward Luce, ft.com
If the US president is to retrieve the geopolitical initiative, he must win over India’s leader

Whatever you think of him, Narendra Modi’s victory is a global event. Nobody knows whether Mr Modi will embrace the US-India relationship or walk the multipolar walk. His swearing-in on Monday as India’s prime minister coincides with Vladimir Putin’s “pivot to Asia” with the 30-year China-Russia gas deal.

US President Barack Obama’s own pivot looks increasingly content-free. If the US president is to retrieve the geopolitical initiative, he will need to win over India’s new strongman. India, as they say, is the “global swing state” of the 21st century. Mr Obama must ensure it swings America’s way.

That looks like a bit of a stretch right now. Mr Modi is bristling with resentment at a US that denied him a visa in 2005 over his role in the 2002 Gujarat massacres and only lifted the ban recently. In contrast, Mr Modi visited Japan five times during that period and China on three occasions – always getting the red carpet treatment.

Normally Indian chief ministers meet one member of the Chinese politburo. On his most recent trip Mr Modi met four. Uniquely for a provincial leader, he was also received in the Great Hall of the People. President Xi Jinping clearly saw Mr Modi coming. Mr Obama denied him entry. That, at least, is how Mr Modi sees it.

Nor does he make a secret of his grievance. Mr Modi’s advisers have put it out that his first two trips are likely to be to Japan and China, both of which he admires for their ability to execute big projects and create manufacturing jobs – core planks in the Bharatiya Janata party’s election platform. After that, he is likely to visit the Brics summit in Brazil in July where he will get a photo opportunity with Mr Xi and Mr Putin. Only in September will Mr Modi touch down on US soil (visa in hand) for the UN summit in New York.

“There is no need for Mr Modi to go to Washington and beg for a lunch meeting with the US president,” wrote Kanwal Sibal, who is on the short list to be Mr Modi’s national security adviser.
Successive administrations – starting from Bill Clinton’s – might argue that the US has already bent over backwards to seduce India into its fold. George W Bush carved out a giant exception to his weapons of mass destruction policy by accepting India into the nuclear weapons club.

Mr Obama completed that deal and offered his first state dinner to Manmohan Singh, the then Indian prime minister, whom he described as his guru. Mr Obama even travelled to New Delhi in 2010 to declare that the US supported India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council – again, a giant exception that was offered to no other country. But Mr Obama’s UN gesture had little impact on Indians.

To borrow a phrase from Mohandas Gandhi, they viewed it as a postdated cheque on a failing bank. Can Mr Obama write any cheques that do not bounce?

The answer is clearly yes – if he wants to. For all of Mr Modi’s resentment at the US, he has already shown his pragmatism. In addition to having laundered his image since 2002 by focusing on Gujarat’s development, Mr Modi has swallowed one genuine enmity before he is even sworn in.

By inviting Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister, to attend today’s oath-taking in New Delhi, Mr Modi signalled he is open for business. His mandate is to lift India’s growth rate and create jobs for the millions of young men roaming the countryside. War with Pakistan would derail that agenda. So too would friction with China.

It is difficult to imagine he would pick a fight with the US, which remains the world’s largest investor. This is where Mr Obama’s diplomatic skills will be tested. In the first instance, he needs to restore Mr Modi’s “face”.

India’s prime minister believes America has treated him as an untouchable. Only the royal treatment would atone. It is very hard to imagine Mr Obama taking anyone into the Oval Office and calling them “buddy”. That was Mr Bush’s speciality. But he will need to make a big gesture to break the ice.

The US must also show it is willing to help Mr Modi’s agenda. In the past few years India has treated foreign investors badly, including US companies, by imposing arbitrary and retroactive tax bills. Assuming Mr Modi puts India’s venal tax bureaucracy in its place, the door will be open for the country’s foreign investment boom to resume.

Whatever lift the US can give to Mr Modi’s development goals will be worth its weight in diplomatic gold.

US business leaders remain agitated by India’s failure to give them a liability waiver on nuclear power plant accidents. They should move past it. The world has changed since the meltdown in Fukushima.
The US is unlikely to reap the commercial dividends of its nuclear deal with India. Like China, India has a limitless appetite for cheap energy. Mr Modi is likely to take whatever pipelines are on offer, whether they originate in Russia or Iran. Sentiment is unlikely to pose any obstacles.

Without meaning to, Mr Modi has laid down a challenge to Mr Obama. The US president was never happier than when he was exchanging words with Manmohan Singh – another well-intentioned leader seemingly powerless to act.

Like him or not, Mr Modi is a man of action. At a time when most of the Bric countries are moving away from the US, Mr Modi’s ascent poses an existential question. Can Mr Obama be a statesman of action?
[email protected]

Instead, Mr Obama called the Afghan leader from Air Force One on his way back to the US, officials said, saying he would be in touch before announcing any decision on the planned US troop presence after 2014.

Normally Indian chief ministers meet one member of the Chinese politburo. On his most recent trip Mr Modi met four. Uniquely for a provincial leader, he was also received in the Great Hall of the People. President Xi Jinping clearly saw Mr Modi coming. Mr Obama denied him entry.

Pratyush wrote:I for one will not hold my breath for O bomber to attend the swearing in of Modi.

mocking Modi's invite to Sheriff, asking will it be Dawood and Hafeez Pig next, whatever happened to no talks with TSP until 26/11 killers brought to justice etc.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top official in Afghanistan in an email to thousands of journalists during the president's surprise weekend trip to Bagram Air Field.

The officer's name — identified as "chief of station" in Kabul — was included by U.S. embassy staff on a list of 15 senior American officials who met with President Obama during the Saturday visit. The list was sent to a Washington Post reporter who was representing the news media, who then sent it out to the White House "press pool" list, which contains as many as 6,000 recipients.

The Associated Press is withholding the officer's name at the request of the Obama administration, who said its publication could put his life and those of his family members in danger. A Google search appears to reveal the name of the officer's wife and other personal details.

White House officials realized the error after the Post reporter notified them, and sent out a new list without the station chief's name. Other major news organizations, including the Post, also agreed not to publish the officer's name.

The reporter who distributes the pool report sends it to the White House to be checked for factual accuracy and then forwarded to the thousands of journalists on the email distribution list, so in this case the White House failed on at least two occasions to recognize that the CIA official's name was being revealed and circulated so broadly.

The intentional disclosure of the name of a "covered" operative is a crime under the U.S. Intelligence Identities Protection Act. A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, was sentenced to 30 months in prison in January after pleading guilty to disclosing to a reporter the name of an undercover agency officer.

1. There is really no reason to make the whole country an enemy of India. In fact if we want US to choose a side it is better to have them on our side instead of against us.
2. When it comes to leftist seculars, feel free to ignore, humiliate or even persecute them within legal framework. By opposing them, a huge portion of American population (republicans) will see India in favorable light.
3. It is a different matter that State Department works as a bridge between Democrats and Republicans and they will just ask these secular mofos to lie down for a while so as to reactivate them later but by opposing leftist liberals you will connect with a large constituency without making everybody an enemy of India.
4. There is a good chance that Republicans will form next government in Washington. In such a case being on the same side will certainly not harm Indian interests even if you question the benefits.
5. There is a popular misconception that Republicans will automatically be bad because they will push the agenda of ultimate evil for India i.e. EJ mofos. History is proof that Democrats are not shy about doing the same. In fact due to their image they just fly under the radar and hence are more dangerous on that front. On the other hand Republican conservatism manifests more in local issues such as abortion, gay rights etc. than supporting EJs outside America. We must not forget that the Church is nothing more than a tool in western imperialism that is used by both the sides equally and also by western Europe.

I have mixed feelings about this invite

Diplomatic protocolistic ceremonialistic terminological necessitude

A Pentagon report described the damage to national security by Edward Snowden's leaks of confidential National Security Agency documents as 'staggering'

The Defence Intelligence Assessment defined the report on the harm done to US Intelligence competence as 'grave' but did not provide any explicit information to support the assessment.

According to the Guardian, the assessment excluded NSA-related information and dealt exclusively with non-NSA defense materials. The report was distributed to multiple US military commands around the world and all four military branches.

Steven Aftergood, director of the project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American scientists, said that the essence of the report is contained in the statement that 'the scope of the compromised knowledge related to US intelligence capabilities is staggering', but all elaboration of what this striking statement means has been withheld.

Amber G. wrote: Anyway just a few points, FYI:

If a person is born in US, (s)he has right to be a US citizen.
GOI, or any decent Indian citizen, should have no issue with that. It's not as if being a US citizen is akin to 'infidel' simply because some one think that it is not "pure" enough.

US has no objection if a US citizen also has Indian (or other citizenship). India did not allow dual citizenship but with OCI, other than right to vote, such person can be a proud Overseas Citizen of India.. If some one thinks they are not Indian enough, it is only shows one's small-mindedness.

It is not up to parent(s) (or others) to "choose" their children's citizenship. If one's parents (or just one parent) is US citizen at the time the person is born, (s)he has a right to become US citizen. When the child becomes 18, (s)he may keep or renounce, any citizenship. The parent (let alone a poster in Brf) doesn't decide what citizenship the kid ought to have. (The parent may choose what passport or other document their child gets but this is different thing)

I don't know exactly what IFS rules are. May be some one can post them here. It is one thing to comment if any of the rules are broken. It is silly to pontificate otherwise and about, as rohitvats put it, irrelevant stuff. It is beyond silly to question others patriotism, just because you think you can do it.

Just think about it, I know Indian PM's, Presidents, and many others who have close family members who carry other than Indian passports.

"It is a conscious provision of law given to a minor so that he/she can decide within six months of completing 18 years of age as to whether he/she prefers Indian citizenship.

If a person does not renounce foreign citizenship or nationality of another country within six months of attaining full age, he/she shall cease to be a citizen of India,"

In such cases, the child can acquire U.S citizenship due to his place of birth being U.S.A. In case parents wish to obtain Indian passport for the child, birth registration with the Indian Mission is required before applying for passport for the newborn. Both the parents should sign a declaration of non-acquisition of an U.S nationality by the child and consent to issue of Indian passport to the child. You will need to submit Application Form duly filled in and countersigned by both parents. Copy of the record of landing or immigration document/PR card of the child and the parents would be needed. Also submit a copy of the birth certificate of the child showing the names of the parents. Personal appearance of the child may be required in some cases. Please also see the requirement for a normal Passport Re-issue case given above.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

vera_k wrote:^^^

The article doesn't settle the issue.

UlanBatori wrote:As the old commercial says,

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Gus wrote:

vera_k wrote:^^^

The article doesn't settle the issue.

it can never be settled. we don't allow dual citizenship. US claims a minor is always a citizen until minor becomes adult and gives it up.

kids born in US and staying in US/traveling to US will have this problem of being forced to have US citizenship.

Nowhere in the act does it say that these people are not citizens of India.

Nandu wrote:Just to be clear, this restriction was invented by bureaucrats. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2005 merely says the government can register overseas citizens of India. Nowhere in the act does it say that these people are not citizens of India.

An Open Letter To Sushma Swaraj: Don't Let Political Diffidence Constrain MEA
carnegieendowment.org

Ashley J. Tellis Op-Ed May 28, 2014 Economic Times

Dear Madame Minister,

Congratulations — you've got the job, now the work begins! Only recently, India was seen abroad as a wild success. Now it looks like just a flash in the pan. Obviously, the economic downturn has produced this dismay. But that doesn't make foreign policy optional.
To the contrary. If India has to make a comeback, that will no doubt be determined by what Prime Minister Narendra Modi does at home. But his success will hinge considerably on whether your ministry can nurture the external environment that enhances India's prosperity, safety and place in the world. Your work is cut out for you here. So, from a friend of India in Washington, a few thoughts.

First, remember that the business of India is business. If India is to protect its interests abroad, it can do so only on strong foundations. Nations that lack material power may occasionally command attention — as India did for a while in the 1950s — but this does not endure.

I think the PM understands this clearly. Your job is to help him out. But how? A great place to start would be by emphasising commercial diplomacy. Postwar history suggests that, beyond domestic policy, high and sustained growth is owed to foreign trade. Hopefully, new economic policies will make India a more inviting place for outsiders to do business. But you must push their external components aggressively.

If Modi eventually merges the commerce ministry with your own, you will have a powerful bureaucratic instrument. But even if he does not, your ministry should work to lead India's trade negotiations. Make these a success and you will be shocked at how quickly India enjoys renewed attention.

Focus on three things here. To begin, press hard to expand South Asian economic integration. India will come out vastly ahead, becoming the tide that lifts all boats. It might even distract your neighbours from their political grievances against you! Follow that by pushing for real preferential trade agreements (PTAs). Most current Indian PTAs are worthless.

For all the years spent negotiating them, they have produced meagre returns. No surprises here because they don't compel genuine factor reallocations domestically to maximise the gains from trade. So be bold and go for real PTAs, not fakes. Finally, think seriously about US Indian trade relations. Despite the baseless talk about American decline, the United States is still the world's largest investor and its most innovative engine.

Therefore, complete the bilateral investment treaty expeditiously and start talking about a PTA.

Besides the strategic benefits, there's a big economic reason for doing so: both our countries are furiously negotiating PTAs with others, but not with each other. If this continues, we'll end up in a situation where each finally discriminates only against the other — that would be crazy and, eventually, worse for India. So think PTA or, failing which, entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Second, even if India's first business is business, it is not the only business. Prioritise managing your neighbourhood. India, unfortunately, has to cope with all its neighbours' problems, not to mention the security threats that emerge from many of them. India's relations with Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka are in fine-to-reasonable shape, but you need to reassure them all about India's good intentions and its desire for constructive engagement.
Ditto for Pakistan and China — but don't be starry-eyed here. Threats from both will persist.

The Pakistan Army is still deeply suspicious of India and will continue supporting terrorist groups, while building up its nuclear forces. No prizes for guessing against whom. Yet you must work with Nawaz Sharif: he values a productive relationship with India and needs it for his success at home — which is in your interest.

China will be even trickier. Despite growing economic links, Chinese conventional and nuclear threats to India, and perhaps even territorial problems, will increase, becoming worse over time. Dealing with these challenges, just like Pakistan, will require persistent engagement and strong deterrence.

And Afghanistan after 2014 remains an open question: India has already made sterling contributions to Afghan reconstruction — now is not the time to let up.

Get the neighbourhood right, and India is freed to play on the world stage. Get it wrong, and you lose the power you could have deployed elsewhere.

Remember that whenever you are advised to do something "tough". India, surely, mustn't become a doormat, but think about how the country comes out at the end of the series, not simply the first innings. PM Modi has set a welcome precedent by inviting SAARC leaders for his swearing-in. Build on that: bears are best attracted by honey, not vinegar.

Third, forget slogans like "nonalignment" and "strategic autonomy," concentrate instead on maximising Indian power.Remember that only the powerful are truly autonomous: whatever the commentariat may say, a country does not enjoy autonomy because it screams the phrase.

If India therefore is to become powerful, it must rethink how it approaches its foreign partners. A confident India will not be afraid to collaborate with others because it fears for its independence; rather, deep engagements, especially with those who can aid its rise in power, are essential to expanding its autonomy.

Don't forget that India's biggest strategic challenge — outside its neighbourhood — lies in preserving a favourable Asian balance of power. In this connection, think about strong ties with Japan, Israel, Southeast Asia and especially the United States.

Even Russia and China, but with different caveats in each case. Most Asian powers (and yes, that includes America!) await an active India: you have a policy called "Look East"; now make it happen.

Deepen relations with those who wish you no harm, who don't threaten your territory and who will be sources of technology, capital and political support. Don't look over your shoulders as you do so. You don't have to apologise either at home or abroad for pursuing your national interests.

Nor should you fear that closer ties with Washington will constrain your choices. What constrains India's choices are its political diffidence and its material weaknesses. If its critical partnerships help to mitigate the latter, the former will correct itself.

PM Vajpayee understood this all too well. Now's the time to complete what he began. I wish you well as you start out in office.

This article was originally published by the Economic Times.
About the South Asia Program

The Carnegie South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan’s internal dynamics to U.S. engagement with India, the Program’s renowned team of experts offer in-depth analysis derived from their unique access to the people and places defining South Asia’s most critical challenges.

The New Indian Government

Speakers: Alyssa Ayres, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia
Jagdish N. Bhagwati, Senior Fellow for International Economics, Council on Foreign Relations; Coauthor, Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries
Robert D. Blackwill, Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations; Former U.S. Ambassador to India
Presider: Charles Robert Kaye, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Warburg Pincus LLC
May 28, 2014