India-US News and Discussion

archan · Post by **archan** » 27 Oct 2009 02:05

prad wrote: Health Care Reform

prad, I am trying to figure out what does your post have to do with Indo-US relations. Care to help me a little?

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 27 Oct 2009 06:57

Well, I voted for Obama even though I am a BR type jingo when it comes to matters related to India.

That said, it is far from clear yet that Obama has harmed relations with India. There is a lot of hue and cry and the usual Indian whining before anything happens. And yet they say nothing when China openly questions Indian territorial integrity.

What was certainly clear is that the repugs are not Bush's party anymore, and Bush himself was hardly a Reagan repug. At least the Bush adm. had some of the libertarian pragmatists on board. McCain's pandering to the Limbaugh-Palin-Beck right wing nut jobs does noone any favor, least of all India. Given that even Peggy Noonan, Reagan's former chief of staff, and Colin Powell all voted for Obama, in addition to numerous other repugs, it's kind of silly for any Indian American to side with latter day racist, religious nut jobs on some vague notion of better relations with India (entirely unfounded for the repugs, Bush excepted: Nixon-Kissinger? Reagan and Zia? It was Clinton who did a state visit to India in the aftermath of the nuclear tests, the first since Kennedy. And people seem to forget the other odius India-baiting thugs amongst the repugs: Rohrbacher, Jesse Helms, those two cretins Guida and Saghir from the New Hampshire legislature who were farting about Kashmir a few years ago, and all the evanjihadis) , even as they burn down the house here and make India's friendship moot by destroying America.

Yes, some of the sanctimonius liberals in America who infest the Democratic party do take an odious position with respect to India, not unlike the criticism leveled against India itself for its own moral lecturing throughout the cold war. But for that Indians should elect leaders with spine who can stand up to that lecturing. At the end of the day, if Indians elect people like Manmohan Singh with his own percieved lack of spine, Kangress and it's "liberal bent", no use trying to blame Obama. It's not like Indians have been voting for nationalist right wing parties of late. Reminds me of India extending "Most favored nation" to our favorite neighbor while simultaneously wanting that neighbor to be declared a terrorist state by Amerikhan.

India should be more easily able to work with Democrats. There is a far greater value system that is shared there. India at its most right wing dispensation is probably still to the left of America at its most left wing dispensation. Why Indians do not do a better job of articulating these values and concerns is the real issue.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Oct 2009 08:31

Obama is a clear case of a fundoo idealist who thinks that world needs a hero and even worst he believes he is the chosen one.

From an Indian pov the bad thing is he has just turned out to be one of those guys who talk big but when it comes to acting on the world stage they opt for the easy route i.e. "appease the culprits and corner the meek". Cornering India over climate talks ,non proliferation and a clear statement about not being bound by the deal between GWB admin and GOI are few instances of his pusillanimity.Having said that he sits on a high moral altar talking about extending a hand to Islamists ,craps about bringing peace to the sub continent but when it comes to meeting the Dalai Lama Lizard gets his GOAT .

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 27 Oct 2009 08:41

Murthy,

I don't think you read my post. US-India relations will ALWAYS be based on trade, not some vague nonsense of shared ideas. At its core, the US is a white Christian country, and although there are non-white leaders, they will behave white & Christian since it has brought success for 200+ years. Once US-India trade is above the $100 billion/year mark, relations will dramatically improve and rest assured any political party in the US will be more receptive to Indian concerns. That said, this will not happen with the Democratic party, and the current US administration, as they are protectionists and even Obama and his party want to limit the relocation and off-shoring of US businesses to India. India does not figure in the US international calculus since there are so many pressure points regarding it, so its easy for any US president to lavish bullsh!t praise on Indians and India. Anyone who falls for this nonsense is a fool.

The left and right political distinctions in India are entirely different than the US and doesn't even fit in the same spectrum, so quit talking nonsense. Integral Humanism is the path for India where decentralization is the key for economic success.

Finally, don't get caught up in US domestic politics, as it is irrelevant and not germane to US-India relations.

archan · Post by **archan** » 27 Oct 2009 20:23

prad wrote:
archan wrote: prad, I am trying to figure out what does your post have to do with Indo-US relations. Care to help me a little?

absolutely nothing. but since this is the only thread related to the US, and healthcare reform seems to be the predominant issue in American politics right now, i posted it.

I trust that you won't be doing this again. Not everything needs to be discussed on BRF. OT posts are unwelcome. Thanks.

Mort Walker wrote: don't get caught up in US domestic politics, as it is irrelevant and not germane to US-India relations.

Heed to this.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Oct 2009 23:12

Excerpt from Fareed Zakaria’s interview of Shashi Tharoor.

An explicit enough message on the malign impact of US financing of Pakistan on India from the otherwise meek and diffident Congress led Government of Dr. Manmohan Singh

.:

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS

Interview With Hamid Karzai; Interview With Shashi Tharoor

Aired October 25, 2009 - 13:00 ET ………………..

ZAKARIA: Do you support what the United States is doing with Pakistan? That is, the bill, the military aid bill, the Kerry-Lugar bill, that has some fairly tough conditions on it, but gives them a lot of money?

THAROOR: You see, we have actually applauded the U.S. supporting Pakistan on two things. First is its own economic development, and the second is equipping it to overcome the homegrown horror of terrorism. Whether in Swat, Mir Ali (ph), Waziristan, or whatever, these are things that Pakistan needs help from the U.S. to deal with. What we don’t want is for the extensive resources the U.S. is offering to be diverted for the purpose for which it was not intended, namely, to be used against us.

But our bitter experience over the last 25 years has been, ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, money gets poured in from Washington into Islamabad, and a colossally high percentage of it is actually spent, not on the purposes that Washington intends, but to buy tanks and planes and artillery aimed directly at India.

This is something that frustrates us enormously.

Read it all:

CNN

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Oct 2009 23:20

prad wrote:these people vote based on their ideology and their take on the local politics and US's needs. many other indian ameircans who are citizens just blindly vote Democrat. after all, how dare us shy little Indians vote for the evil warmongering Republicans?!?!?!

I don't understand where we get this stereotype of Indians being shy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2009 01:49

A bunch of India baiters like Wally Herger and Dan Burton had local constituents(Khalistanis and Pakis) who were supporting them in their anti-India stance. So need to look at local politics on case by case basis.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 28 Oct 2009 02:31

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/oct/ ... -kerry.htm

Good that Kerry lost otherwise he would be a bigger pain for India.

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 28 Oct 2009 03:58

Mort Walker,

I think you are mistaken about who is talking nonsense. You are the one who's been shrieking like a shrill school girl about "NRIs who voted for Obama having Indian blood on their hands". That's pretty nonsensical don't you think? And now the rant about trade and protectionism. Yeah, let's wait and see how much they can become protectionist. They can't even agree on things like net neutrality or whether health care needs fixing.

I don't want to hijack this thread and make OT posts, but [editted-read "fine folks"] claiming that a vote for Obama is a vote against Indian interests need to quit saying things like that. As I said, I care deeply about Indian interests, and I voted for Obama, and will most likely do so again in 2012 unless he's somehow become communist and world dictator and snatched away India's nukes

.

Ok I editted out an offensive word!

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Oct 2009 04:00

prad wrote: have you warned everybody else who is doing the same??? or is it official BR policy to penalize by picking and choosing?

I have not warned you yet, but I could always start from you. What I have gave you was a quiet nudge to not repeat OT posts. If I find anyone else doing so, I would do the same to them. I do not and can not read every post made on this board. It does not mean that I condone them and pick on you simply because....errrm...maybe I don't like your userID? (couldn't think of another reason why I would pick on you and you alone).
So relax. It is not hard to follow rules even if 1% of users are not following them. They will be dealt with when they are noticed.
No discussion on US internal politics in this thread. If I see someone doing that, I may issue an official warning because I have stressed this enough here.

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Oct 2009 04:02

MurthyB wrote:Mort Walker,

I think you are mistaken about who is talking nonsense. You are the one who's been shrieking like a shrill school girl about "NRIs who voted for Obama having Indian blood on their hands". That's pretty nonsensical don't you think? And now the rant about trade and protectionism. Yeah, let's wait and see how much they can become protectionist. They can't even agree on things like net neutrality or whether health care needs fixing.

I don't want to hijack this thread and make OT posts, but idiots claiming that a vote for Obama is a vote against Indian interests need to quit saying things like that. As I said, I care deeply about Indian interests, and I voted for Obama, and will most likely do so again in 2012 unless he's somehow become communist and world dictator and snatched away India's nukes .

MurthyB, mind you language. Do not call anyone an idiot on this board regardless of how you feel. Such feelings are best kept in your heart. Express them here and you will invite undue attention from mods.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Oct 2009 05:32

I think you guys should wait till the HBO's "Of the people", a documentary on Obama, comes out next week.

He is no ordinary politician.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 28 Oct 2009 05:58

we are the one we've been waiting for.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 28 Oct 2009 08:55

MurthyB wrote:Mort Walker,

I think you are mistaken about who is talking nonsense. You are the one who's been shrieking like a shrill school girl about "NRIs who voted for Obama having Indian blood on their hands". That's pretty nonsensical don't you think? And now the rant about trade and protectionism. Yeah, let's wait and see how much they can become protectionist. They can't even agree on things like net neutrality or whether health care needs fixing.

I don't want to hijack this thread and make OT posts, but [editted-read "fine folks"] claiming that a vote for Obama is a vote against Indian interests need to quit saying things like that. As I said, I care deeply about Indian interests, and I voted for Obama, and will most likely do so again in 2012 unless he's somehow become communist and world dictator and snatched away India's nukes .

Ok I editted out an offensive word!

Murthy my Dear,

Both US parties have provided aid to TSP and this time the Obama administration has provided the most with $7.5 billion + convincing the Japanese and others to provide an additional $1+ billion. The monies are to be disbursed over a period of less than 5 years. This money isn't designated for any big ticket military items that defense contractors in the US can overcharge TSP for on goods and services. Now tell me if this new money isn't going to be used for terrorism aimed directly at India? Yes, NRIs contributing to the messiah's campaign are partly responsible, but can be forgiven once since they didn't know better; however, now you know better, and if you and other NRIs choose to vote for him after knowing this fact, there is blood of Indian children on your hands. See this article from Feb. 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/fe ... kistan.usa

If you can't see the link between improved India-US relations and trade volume, then you're being naive, and now look what India is getting ready to face regarding the imposition of climate change treaties by the west which will effectively limit India's development.

By the way, the US health care system can not control costs and is going to fail in one way or another, its just a matter of time, regardless of central government action. This topic only has relevance to India-US relations in the sense that it will be so expensive for medical treatment in the US that many people will have to go to India for medical tourism. Your health insurance company will buy you a 1st class return ticket to any big metro area in India for world class medical treatment, which is so inexpensive that even after adjusting for the difference in cost of living, its still cheaper than US.

markos · Post by **markos** » 28 Oct 2009 11:03

Beck has an audience of 30 million per month. i hardly think that's a bunch of fringe elements.

That would be 10% of US population or 15-20% of all US adult population. Actually his audience size at its peak was around 3 million, if I recall right i.e. 2-3% of the total adult population, which can be considered a fringe.

One more thing, according to all the recent polls including the most recent wallstreet journal and ABC news poll (except Rasmussen polling by Rasmussen who is a republican), more americans support public option than those oppose it. Since it is annual enrollment time in US for those on employer health plan, they are sobered by the rising healthcare premium. I bet all that Glenn Beck spirit from summer is slowly wearing off

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nt-option/

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday, 48 percent of those questioned favor a public option, with 42 percent opposed to such a plan. That's a 10-point swing from August when 47 percent were opposed and 43 percent in favor.

The NBC/WSJ survey joins two polls released last week, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation and ABC/Washington Post, that also indicated a jump in public support for a government option.

Sometimes I think threads in this forum starts sounding more like a Glenn Beck show, with all the conspiracy theories and speculations, with scant attention paid to FACTS!!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Oct 2009 21:27

Mort

And you think there is no consensus on this aid package??

what about all the aid that were given during Republican rule

Lets start with the jackass who initiated this - Ronald Reagan.
Thats when the ISI learnt how to run a covert ops.

And its that bunch of asses from that era - State Dept and 3 letter agencies who still support the kid glove treatment of the Pakis.

So lets stop this nonsense about voting democrat means blood on your hands

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Oct 2009 21:44

prad wrote:^^^ i would respond to that if i didn't know that discussing internal US politics has been prohibited.....but definitely itching to respond...

Good thing you did not respond because I am going to warn him for the OT post. I had given enough unofficial warning to not get into local US politics in this thread. People don't learn, so warnings have to be given.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 28 Oct 2009 21:52

Surya's comments are not OT, as they relate to India ( US support of Pakistan during Reagan's time). It is not about the internal politics of US like health care reform or election etc. And what supporters of Democrats/Republicans think of their heroes in US is not of concern to Indian citizens. It is only their actions which affect India that matters. Obama or Regan or Bush might be gods to their supporters in US based on their domestic/US-centric policy. But Indians will judge them based on their actions which affect India.

This is an Indian interest based forum. Democratic/Republic cheerleaders can take their arguments about US domestic policies to some other forum. But if any of the US actions impact India( including support of TSP, ignoring proliferation in the region etc), they deserve to be discussed here.

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Oct 2009 21:53

prad wrote: and where are our esteemed moderators? when one opposes the Savior of Us All....one gets warned not to talk about internal US politics. when one bashes the other side of the political spectrum (by more than one forumer), the moderator(s) remain passive.

As some others with experience might tell you, whining about moderation won't get you much more than the feeling of "being the victim of unfair treatment by the powers that be". We deal with matters when we get to them. The post report feature is very helpful to us and many good users use it to good effect. However, whining should be done in the whine thread.

Surya's comments are not OT

Yup, since he mentioned Pak, he gets the benefit of doubt there on that issue.

However, such colorful language is discouraged on this forum.

archan · Post by **archan** » 28 Oct 2009 21:57

There, two warnings issued. Hopefully this thread will be back on track now and survive the sword of deletion.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 28 Oct 2009 23:15

awww

Its a word used by the President himself recently

All it means is stupid and I hope the word stupid is allowed.

Its an apt description for a policy of arming jihadis from all corners of the world who then came into J&K and caused a lot of bloodshed.

not to mention blooding a whole bunch of ISI guys to learn to run these sort of ops

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 29 Oct 2009 04:06

What Surya said.

It's a bit strange that people want to discuss Indo-US strategic relations and not want to discuss any US domestic politics, especially meta narratives of democrats and republicans and their historic behaviors and worldviews. And NRI voting habits can be criticized by ignoramuses but yet any discussion of why they might be voting that way is "local politics"--off discussion!

Anyway, back to your scheduled programming

.

S.Gautam · Post by **S.Gautam** » 29 Oct 2009 05:17

Isn't NRI defined as a citizen abroad? "NRI voting habits" seems like an oxymoron. In any case, the U.S. political environment is an utter joke right now. It's poisonous and best off ignored or else it will descend into irrelevant partisan attacks between Indian Americans - and, what do you know, that's what we're seeing already in this thread or at least the beginnings of it!

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 29 Oct 2009 05:34

^ aptly put, Gautam.

I am disillusioned with both the parties in the khanate when it comes to India-friendliness. Of course, I am Indian so my opinion ain't worth anything. But all the partisan fun n games are a distraction, a diversion and a red herring from the real domestic issues -such as healthcare, pensions, soc security, fin sector reforms etc, that neither party appears willing or able to tackle. IMHO.

arun · Post by **arun** » 29 Oct 2009 19:34

Ashley Tellis in a October 2009 Policy Brief put out by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace titled “ The United States and India 3.0: Cave! Hic Dragones “:

Though many issues related to economic, social, and human development will play an important role in sustaining the partnership’s upward swing, this trajectory will be substantially constrained if the two nations cannot agree on the three central national security issues—the balance of power in Asia, terrorism, and Kashmir—that brood like the mythical dragons off charted territory on medieval maps.

On the differing perceptions of terrorism emanating out of the Islamic republic of Pakistan:

By traditional American standards, Pakistan remains a state sponsor of terrorism, because organs of the Pakistani government, primarily the army and intelligence services, continue to either actively support various armed groups that conduct murderous attacks on civilians in India and Afghanistan or acquiesce to their activities. But Islamabad also happens to be Washington’s partner in the struggle against terrorism—and therein lies the rub. Because Pakistan is thus part of both the problem and the solution to terrorism, Washington’s policy toward Islamabad has been far more indulgent than most Indians, and increasingly many Americans, would like.

On the US strategy of doling out Arms and Aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

U.S. strategy for securing Pakistani support for counterterrorism is increasingly undermining India’s security, not to mention America’s. Although the Obama administration administration has allocated most of the vastly increased U.S. assistance to Pakistan to civilian programs, Indian security managers, aware that financial resources are fungible, fear that the net ability of the Pakistani military to support terrorism has actually increased at a time when its conventional war-fighting capabilities are also being augmented by U.S. assistance on the grounds of improving Islamabad’s counterinsurgency capacity.

On the hatred for India within the ranks of the uniformed Jihadi’s of the Military of the Islamic republic of Pakistan:

the Pakistani military’s antipathy toward India goes beyond any particular issue. Instead, it is produced by a malignant mélange of the army’s own hold on power in Pakistan, its vast economic and financial interests within the country, its role in upholding the raison d’être of an otherwise infirm state, and its desire to avenge its defeat and the vivisection of its homeland in 1971—along with all the specific disputes that could in principle be resolved.

Read it all:

The United States and India 3.0: Cave! Hic Dragones

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Oct 2009 20:07

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/ ... litics.pdf
Rising India = India is Asian geopolitics

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 29 Oct 2009 21:01

See below:

Nozette met twice with the agent in recent weeks and exchanged sensitive information for $11,000 via a U.S. post office box in the District, authorities have said. Nozette worked as a contractor for NASA and the Defense Department from 2000 to 2006, and had held other sensitive government jobs over the years.

He pleaded guilty in January to overbilling the U.S. government by about $265,000 and faced at least two years in prison. The case was sealed because Nozette was cooperating with authorities investigating unrelated corruption charges. He had told a colleague that he planned to flee to India or Israel if the government sought to put him in jail for fraud. He told the co-worker he planned to share everything he knew with officials of those governments, authorities have said.

Why India? India has an extradition treaty with US? Or no? I guess the former RAW guy did not get extradited from US, come to think of it.

And all this time I thought Colombia was the only good choice!

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 29 Oct 2009 22:08

who initiated this - Ronald Reagan.
Thats when the ISI learnt how to run a covert ops.

And its that bunch of asses from that era - State Dept and 3 letter agencies who still support the kid glove treatment of the Pakis.

So lets stop this nonsense about voting democrat means blood on your hands

their consensus on the world view runs much deeper and is godfathered by a socio-political elite. Republican and democrat is just for public consumption and is an elaborately staged drama The elections hold no further significance than a successful enactment of this drama.

Pakistan was established as a destabilizing agent in the region by the erstwhile baps of the Americans, the British empire. They handed over the baton lock, stock and barrell and encouraged pakistani bureaucrats to lie, cheat and steal their way through geo-politics and the pakistanis took to it like duck to water. You are absolutely correct.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Oct 2009 23:19

I would advise people to disconnect themselves from US domestic policy differences and see US policy toward India and how it has developed in the last 30 years. Regardless of what one says, domestic policies implemented by whichever political party has generally benefited the US. Sure there are issues of public debt, health care and unemployment, but much of this is cyclical in nature.

US policy toward India was crafted in the 1960s and 1970s after Nehru. India was viewed as sympathetic toward Soviet dominance and seen as a hindrance to US strategic goals. This policy was the standard used in US agencies and taught as part of strategy in US military institutes such as West Point and Annapolis. After POK-I in 1974, this policy of containment of India took more urgency. Even Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, pursued this policy and in 1978 established the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) out of this fear, but looked the other way when it came to Israel and South Africa. The people who were lower level officials in the 1970s became higher officials in the US govt. by the 1980s, and they continued the policy and were given fresh impetus in 1979 to expel the Soviets at any cost from Afghanistan. In comes TSP to help do the dirty deeds and Zia of course saw aid money as an opportunity to wage terrorism in Punjab and consolidate political power. Again, the US views India through this distorted lens.

By the 1990s, Clinton is elected president and one of his promises is to review most favored nation status for China granted by Bush-I. However, he quickly realizes that US companies can increase revenue by moving cheap manufacturing to China and at the same time cheap Chinese goods can control inflation at home. The Clinton administration is now beholden to the Chinese, but continues the same old containment policy toward India. Although now the cold war is over, but the cold warriors are still in US govt. One good thing is that as US businesses need to maximize profits the outsourcing work now flows to India and the Clinton administration publicly recognizes India for its positive role. Strategically nothing much changes though.

Now comes the 2000s. The Bush-II administration prior to taking office suggests a strategic opening toward India as proposed by the group of “Vulcans” in 1999/2000. They see China as a long term threat and want India as a counterbalance. This policy is similar to the Nixon administration approach with China and the USSR. Now, 9/11 comes along and this idea is setback with the US need for TSP to do the dirty deeds once again. However, a few years later and the idea of changing strategic policy toward India is back on track, but the old ideas of containment are not gone and there are plenty of its supporters who haven’t died out yet. By now time is up for Bush-II and perhaps the Obama administration will continue that, but from what has been seen from a policy point of view is that old habits die hard and the clock for India-US relations has been set back to the 2nd term of the Clinton administration.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 30 Oct 2009 01:10

Indian investigators to question LeT operative in US

New Delhi, Oct 29 (PTI) With the aim of unravelling the entire conspiracy hatched by Lashkar-e-Taiba to carry out attacks here, a team of Indian intelligence officials will travel to the US next week to question David Coleman Headley, an operative of the outfit arrested there.

The team, comprising officials of Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) will attempt to extract information about the LeT plot, official sources said.

"We are working with FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US) to follow up what needs to be done in India while they are investigating what needs to be done in the US," Home Minister P Chidambaram told reporters here.

He said the FBI has shared with India the documents, like the complaint and affidavit filed by it in the court, a little while before it was made public.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Oct 2009 02:40

Mort Walker wrote:I would advise people to disconnect themselves from US domestic policy differences and see US policy toward India and how it has developed in the last 30 years. Regardless of what one says, domestic policies implemented by whichever political party has generally benefited the US. Sure there are issues of public debt, health care and unemployment, but much of this is cyclical in nature.

US policy toward India was crafted in the 1960s and 1970s after Nehru. India was viewed as sympathetic toward Soviet dominance and seen as a hindrance to US strategic goals. This policy was the standard used in US agencies and taught as part of strategy in US military institutes such as West Point and Annapolis. After POK-I in 1974, this policy of containment of India took more urgency. Even Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, pursued this policy and in 1978 established the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) out of this fear, but looked the other way when it came to Israel and South Africa. The people who were lower level officials in the 1970s became higher officials in the US govt. by the 1980s, and they continued the policy and were given fresh impetus in 1979 to expel the Soviets at any cost from Afghanistan. In comes TSP to help do the dirty deeds and Zia of course saw aid money as an opportunity to wage terrorism in Punjab and consolidate political power. Again, the US views India through this distorted lens.

By the 1990s, Clinton is elected president and one of his promises is to review most favored nation status for China granted by Bush-I. However, he quickly realizes that US companies can increase revenue by moving cheap manufacturing to China and at the same time cheap Chinese goods can control inflation at home. The Clinton administration is now beholden to the Chinese, but continues the same old containment policy toward India. Although now the cold war is over, but the cold warriors are still in US govt. One good thing is that as US businesses need to maximize profits the outsourcing work now flows to India and the Clinton administration publicly recognizes India for its positive role. Strategically nothing much changes though.

Now comes the 2000s. The Bush-II administration prior to taking office suggests a strategic opening toward India as proposed by the group of “Vulcans” in 1999/2000. They see China as a long term threat and want India as a counterbalance. This policy is similar to the Nixon administration approach with China and the USSR. Now, 9/11 comes along and this idea is setback with the US need for TSP to do the dirty deeds once again. However, a few years later and the idea of changing strategic policy toward India is back on track, but the old ideas of containment are not gone and there are plenty of its supporters who haven’t died out yet. By now time is up for Bush-II and perhaps the Obama administration will continue that, but from what has been seen from a policy point of view is that old habits die hard and the clock for India-US relations has been set back to the 2nd term of the Clinton administration.

This is a clear and succinct appreciation of the current situation as existing on the ground.

One that mms fails to appreciate. He seems to prefer the uncle tom approach.

Wonder what blunders that the forthcoming US visit of mms has in store for us.

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 30 Oct 2009 02:44

The new lobbyists vying for US attention - the BBC's Diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports on the struggle between the Indian and Pakistani lobbies for influence in Washington.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8331612.stm

Highlights:

.....But the Mumbai attacks last year changed all that.

"When Mumbai happened," he explained, "we saw a resurgence of participation from the older generation of Indian-Americans - those who had grown up in India" - who, he claimed, reverted to what he described as "the old more negative dynamic".

Inevitably then the two lobbies seem destined to be on different sides of the barricades.

The recent US foreign aid bill for Pakistan is a good example. Pro-India groups lobbied hard for all sorts of conditions to be inserted into the bill.

The battle may be joined on Capitol Hill but Professor Andersen notes that it is an increasingly unequal struggle.

"As Americans look at India and Pakistan," he told me, "the gap is growing in terms of positive and negative; much more positive on the Indian side and much more negative on the Pakistan side."

Perceptions of India, he explains are very different.

It is viewed as a vibrant democracy with a dynamic economy. And of course India is seen by many Americans as confronting a similar terrorist threat to that faced by the United States.

Professor Andersen also emphasises the impact of the Mumbai attacks.

"These had almost three days of continuous coverage on US television," he told me. "There was American interest in what happened; there was American sympathy and Pakistan, by contrast, came off quite badly."

All in all, the growing strength of the India lobby is a factor complicating the Obama administration's approach to the region.

"I suspect that that the Obama administration was not at all happy with the conditionalities that were written into the appropriations bill for Pakistan," Professor Andersen said.

"The pro-India groups were explicit that they wanted such conditionalities and they had friends in the Senate and the Congress who went along."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2009 03:07

This is BS. The good prof is pulling wool over the starry eyes of Indian American eyes. Those conditons enhance the Adminstration's control over the k-L bill and provide a palsuible exit clause. The Admin cant sell the bill to India, if it had persisted with the same old policy of shoving money down TSP ignoring India interests. So only those conditions that enhance the Admin's stand were allowed.

I have told many Ind-Am political types to go after mainstream issues and not get bogged down in the India US dynamic which is hostage to US-TSP and PRC ties if they want to further Ind-Am causes in US.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Oct 2009 03:18

Dalai Lama Lesson ( Are they trying to pump India)
India shows the world how to stand firm with China.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 85246.html

As Barack Obama prepares for his trip to Beijing next month, hed be wise to cast an eye toward New Delhi, where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is showing the rest of the world how to deal with Beijing when it gets into a bullying mood.

At issue is the Dalai Lamas proposed trip next month to visit Tibetan Buddhist believers in Arunachal Pradesh, a province governed by India but claimed by China since the border war in 1962. Chinese spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said last week the trip "further exposed the anti-China and separatist nature of the Dalai clique."

But India stood firm. During a regional summit over the weekend Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says he "explained to Premier Wen [Jiabao] that the Dalai Lama is our honored guest; he is a religious leader." The prime minister went on to imply that the Dalai Lama was free to travel where he pleased, so long as he did not engage in political activities.

Mr. Singhs stance stands in sharp contrast to Mr. Obamas decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama earlier this month. His cave-in broke Presidential precedent and emboldened Beijing to step up anti-Dalai Lama rhetoric, particularly inguess whereIndia, which has hosted the Tibetan government-in-exile for more than 50 years.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Oct 2009 03:21

The Admin cant sell the bill to India, if it had persisted with the same old policy of shoving money down TSP ignoring India interests.

Ramanaji, isn't that exactly what was implied in the article?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2009 03:23

I am saying what they have as conditions are for their own interests and not just because Ind-Am lobbyists want it. Sorry for not being clear. I thought it was clear. Guess not.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Oct 2009 03:26

Prem ji, it's a good example from India and a good tone article from Wsj. It's not baiting us, but understanding and stating the pulse of our Nation than has been stated before.

Those irritants are more reason for Mr. Singh to stand firm on the principles for which India stands—the very same principles of democracy and freedom that America holds. Therein lies a lesson for Mr. Obama, too.

Thanks Ramana ji, got it. But it's sort of pertaining to the above..got 2 similar sentiments one after the other Premji's and yours..

I am saying what they have as conditions are for their own interests and not just because Ind-Am lobbyists want it.

Ok so irrespective of however we put it lobbying by Indians or American interests, do you think that the value systems of the US and India are ultimately unifying in some way? Seems so. In that case it would'nt really matter if Indians lobbied or people thought the lobbying helped so, would it?

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Oct 2009 04:08

harbans wrote:Prem ji, it's a good example from India and a good tone article from Wsj. It's not baiting us, but understanding and stating the pulse of our Nation than has been stated before.

Those irritants are more reason for Mr. Singh to stand firm on the principles for which India stands—the very same principles of democracy and freedom that America holds. Therein lies a lesson for Mr. Obama, too.

Thanks Ramana ji, got it. But it's sort of pertaining to the above..got 2 similar sentiments one after the other Premji's and yours..

I am saying what they have as conditions are for their own interests and not just because Ind-Am lobbyists want it.

Ok so irrespective of however we put it lobbying by Indians or American interests, do you think that the value systems of the US and India are ultimately unifying in some way? Seems so. In that case it would'nt really matter if Indians lobbied or people thought the lobbying helped so, would it?

Just by way of perspective, WSJ editorial policy has long been one of (a) demanding a tough line on China (while their business section is all cozy with outsourcing to China) and (b) portraying the Democratic party as weak; they will take any event in the world and if plausible, use it to make that case.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Oct 2009 04:13

Just by way of perspective, WSJ editorial policy has long been one of (a) demanding a tough line on China (while their business section is all cozy with outsourcing to China)

Strike 3: Most of us want that too, don't we? If not outsourcing at least we want trade relations to go on healthily?

Coincidence of interests? Or do you think there's something more devious?

Ramanaji/ Premji and you point out all a commonality of US and Indian thought/ interests for sure.