India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 29 Oct 2010 11:37

Now that everyone has added to the CT, let me add my own... Could this be a message to Shia population <add whatever you want to add> and grand chanikian move to wean away Shia's from Sunni (Barelvi,wahabbi et al) since Humayun did convert to being a Shia.

Why do we have to look at everything thru appeasement glass ?
Like it or not, HT is part of Indian civilizational milieu now as much as we may love or hate Humayun.
So if visiting HT is appeasement of "You know who", wouldn't visiting Harmindar sahib be counted in the same category. Why should it be treated any different.

PS: A cigar just might be a cigar in the end.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Oct 2010 11:55

Cohen calls for verification system to check Indo-Pak mutual suspicion in Afghanistan

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Cohen ... tan/704136

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 29 Oct 2010 12:10

ramana wrote:
SwamyG wrote:^^^
If not then mybad. So what did you imply with that sentence?
Obama Feels he has a personal connection with India

Obama feels he has 'a personal' connection with India
October 29, 2010 3:39:04 AM

PTI | Washington

Coming from a not-so-privileged African-American background, Barack Obama feels that he has "some kind of a personal tie" with the extraordinary history of India in the 20th century, even though he is yet to visit the country, says a top personal aide of the US President.

Obama grew up in his maternal family which is white.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Oct 2010 12:26

VikasRaina wrote:So if visiting HT is appeasement of "You know who", wouldn't visiting Harmindar sahib be counted in the same category. Why should it be treated any different.

How would a visit to Harmandir Sahib constitute appeasement? Appeasement of who? Not sure I understand the analogy...

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 29 Oct 2010 14:34

^^ Was responding to comments made that visiting HT would constitute some sort of appeasement.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Oct 2010 20:47

can US just mass manufacture Hell fire and lower the cost correspondingly?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Oct 2010 21:03

abhishek_sharma wrote:Cohen calls for verification system to check Indo-Pak mutual suspicion in Afghanistan

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Cohen ... tan/704136

This clown still can't let go off his beloved TSP. TSP is not interested in any form of mutual verfication. TSP wants a Taliban like entity in power so it can continue its terrorist machinations against India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2010 21:07

Nigthwatch related note!

In advance of the US President's visit to India on 5 November, Taiwan has postponed a purchase of US weapons that might have provoked China during the visit to India.

China/Taiwan-US: Taiwan will ask the United States to postpone the sale of two advanced weapons systems to save money, a senior legislator with ties to the military said on 28 October, Reuters reported.

Comment: A decision to not spend money usually and obviously means that money will be saved. However, the timing of the announcement is propitious because it neutralizes temporarily an issue that might have blemished the US President's visit to India late next week. Taiwan will want something in return.

US si taking care to make the visit a success ie no incidents from PRC or TSP. Baksheesh( $2B +) to TSP before the visit and concession to PRC re arms to Taiwan.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Oct 2010 21:49

VikasRaina wrote:^^ Was responding to comments made that visiting HT would constitute some sort of appeasement.

Well, there is no constituency to appease in case of Golden Temple....In any case, Babur came in as a foreign conquerer. I guess if the British had stayed as long as the Mughals had in India, we would have been showing off their memorials to foriegn dignitaries as well ?! Something to think about.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Oct 2010 21:58

Mort Walker wrote:If the Obama administration was serious about strategic ties, Hillary and Gates would be accompanying POTUS or at least be there for a day.

Hillary visited India in 2009.

Ramana garu: Thanks. Yeah yeah....those are all standard politicians talk and show thingies. It impresses only the gullible.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Oct 2010 22:00

'India and US to partner to rid the world of hunger, poverty
Press Trust of India / Washington October 29, 2010, 14:50 IST
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... /114033/on

Such attempts are great.

India can help create jobs in US: Pitroda
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 836150.cms

Some officials and intelligence folks in both sides do not wish to develop a better relationship. They try to bring to public irritating news time to time to disturb such relations. MMS and US high command should keep these kind of news leak to public down so that visit could be a successful. There are anti-american mindset in a few Indian top officials and also there are pro-Pakistani mindset in a few American which need to be educated about the importance of this relationship - both mutually benefiting and safeguarding both nations interest.

With China on mind, Obama for larger Indian role in East Asia
http://sify.com/news/with-china-on-mind ... jchfc.html

Once China is a democratic country then India and China can cooperate in manyways even play a major role in World politics. But with the present expansionist agenda of red army and imposition of Chinese culture and language on Tibetian people and all others even in African such cooperation is possible but with suspicion and mutual untrust.

India is indispensable for the US: Roemer
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-is-ind ... ml?from=tn

The following things can be practically completed soon
1. Nuclear business

2. mutual protection from the terror attacks and also expansionist attacks - supply of high tech arms

3. some universal role together such as fight against poverty, reduction of emissions (sharing technology),

4. investment both sides in solar and natural energy

5. Promoting democracy to the world - freedom to express, freedom to live together (with different races and with different religions) and so putting pressures on undemocratic oppressions such as in Myanmar (India has promoted democracy in Bhutan and also in Nepal though in Nepal has counter worked with red folks) and also in China.

6. promoting together a right to live with some self determination within National constitutions such as Tibetians, Srilankan Tamils and Kashmir people through dialogue and political process rather than through threat of violence

7. working together in isolating hatred spreading terror groups and murder groups in the name of religion, in the name of racce and in the name of languages and thus fighting the terrorism in all its forms

8. Addressing together a new life affirming economy where people can also bridge or reduce the gap between the richest and poorest rather than economy driven life.

Obama's India visit to consolidate strategic ties: Experts
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 835223.cms

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2010 22:02

NVS in Newsinsight.net writes:

The reforming of Pakistan
Barack Obama could salvage his presidency by containing Pakistani terrorism with India's assistance, says N.V.Subramanian.

London, 29 October 2010: There has been some recent commentating about how Barack Obama should salvage his presidency. At least one of those commentaries says he should attack Iran to cause a setback to its nuclear programme. If Iran's nuke plans are jeopardized even temporarily, it would portray Obama as a strong president ready for reelection.

Forgotten in all this is the old classicism about war. You can provoke a war but closure is not in your hands. This also holds true for a war with perfectly-crafted political objectives. The US's post-9/11 Afghan war started out well. But it was distracted and subsequently overtaken by George W.Bush's Iraq war.

The Iraq war had flawed objectives to start with. It ended up making the Middle East more unstable than before. One of the unintended consequences of that war was to make Iran the preeminent power in the region excluding Israel. The second consequence of that war was to fire Iran's nuke passions to retain preeminence after stoking its insecurities about regime-change. But attacking Iran seems no solution for this. Attacking Iran merely to salvage the Barack Obama presidency is a savage and despicable idea that is bound to fail.

What should the US president do instead? It is not really an either/ or question. Iran's illegitimate nuclear ambitions have to be thwarted. But rushing to war is a cure worse than the disease. Obama moved in the best possible way to bring the Iraq war to a closure. He hasn't marketed that particular feat at all well with American voters. Maybe he should.

Obama's second move should be to bring orderly termination to the US/ NATO engagement in Afghanistan. The US president blundered by firming a July 2011 withdrawal deadline. The blunder cannot be reversed. But orderly termination of the US war in Afghanistan is still possible if Obama and his advisors have a clear understanding of friends and foes in the region.

The US has a trustworthy friend if not open ally in India. On the issue of Al-Qaeda/ Taliban/ Haqqani/ Pakistan military and ISI terrorism both directed against Afghanistan and India, the US cannot find a better and more reliable partner than India. Russia will go along with the US on this subject as will, brokered by India and Russia, Iran. Remains the idiomatic elephant in the room, China, whose responses and reflexes are complex, since they are determined by its alliance with Pakistan.

There are at least two and possibly three Pakistans to deal with on the issue of terrorism in the region and as it radiates worldwide. The Pakistan military and ISI are clearly providing sustenance to terrorism {The Kabila guards I spoke about and their main aims} in the region. The primary aim of this terrorism is to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India. The second and long-term aim is to Balkanize India.

The Pakistan army and ISI fear that India may neutralize their terrorism by threatening Pakistani sovereignty via Afghanistan. So when the US leaves, Pakistan aims to capture Afghanistan with the help of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. While this may or may not assist Pakistan army and ISI designs against India, it exposes Pakistani nukes to huge risks from resurgent terrorism in Afghanistan. And doubtless, this makes the world, and particularly the US, more unsafe than ever.

But there is another Pakistan which has tasted democratic freedoms and seen the toll Kashmir-directed terrorism has taken of its body and soul. This Pakistan is a prisoner to the revanchism of the Pakistan military and ISI.{This is the main body of the Kabila not being allowed to esettle down and grow roots for the illusory dreams of green flags on Red Fort of the Kabila guards} Sections of this Pakistan look to the military for succour because Pakistan's political class has failed them now as before. Pakistan's democratically-elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, has become an object of hate and loathing for his corruption and for his lack of empathy for the sufferings of the people. Zardari & Co are threatening Pakistan's democratic future and giving space for Pakistani military and ISI terrorism to grow. The faced of civilians controlling the kabila is a manufactured one. These leaders were developed during the British colonial times and do not represent the people but are foisted on them. Their power does not come from the kabila but from their nexus with the West. Hence their propensity to loot.}

What this means is that a healthy and accountable Pakistani democracy is essential to curb terrorism in South Asia, which has become a vehicle for jihad international. A second Pakistani-American has been caught in a US terrorist plot. More Pakistanis are going to fall in the net. The fear is that one of them may escape the dragnet and succeed in terrorism.

It is, therefore, Pakistan that needs immediate redress from the US president and not Iran. Even Afghanistan would get by without US military micro-management provided the focus turns on Pakistan. It is this writer's considered opinion that there are limits to the Chinese-Pakistani alliance. China's alliance with Pakistan will be Chinese-centric. It will not come to Pakistan's aid (as it did not during the floods) for Pakistan's sake. To that extent, the US has nothing to fear from China in regard to Pakistan.

What Pakistan needs is for its democracy to be strengthened and for its army and ISI to be secularized. The old Turkish model seems best. It is absolutely essential for Pakistan to be denuked. This could be facilitated with cast-iron Indian guarantees not to attack Pakistan. After this, the Pakistan ISI must be weeded off anti-West, anti-India elements and recast to spy exclusively on terrorist groups. Then, the Pakistan military must be downsized and aided and equipped only for counterterrorism functions with robust accountability to the democratic government. Lastly, Pakistan's democracy must be strengthened with the accent on development and integrity.

This is a long-term project and may extend to Barack Obama's second term if he gets it. But reforming Pakistan is the agenda to approach US voters with. If 9/11 had the horrific signature of the Saudis, what's coming will be one hundred per cent Pakistani. If the world has to be made safe from terrorism, Pakistan has to be cleaned up. Denuking Pakistan will also fit the Democratic Party's non-proliferation ideology.

President Barack Obama should utilize his November state visit to India to gain further clarity on returning Pakistan to civilization. India knows more about Pakistan than any other country, and has considerable stake in keeping terrorism outside its borders. Indo-US relations are lagging in the absence of a great idea to propel them. The reforming of Pakistan could get both countries started as nothing else.

That's the big idea that will sell to US voters as well.

Unlkiely as the Anglo-Saxon elite cant stomach a resurgent India.

What I expect is there will be breakout further down the road in time.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Oct 2010 22:15

ramana wrote:Nigthwatch related note!
...

US si taking care to make the visit a success ie no incidents from PRC or TSP. Baksheesh( $2B +) to TSP before the visit and concession to PRC re arms to Taiwan.

Terrorism is a good business. $2B+ for being quite for six months...

How much India is paying directly or indirectly to maintain piss till 2014?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 29 Oct 2010 22:19

joshvajohn wrote:'
Some officials and intelligence folks in both sides do not wish to develop a better relationship. They try to bring to public irritating news time to time to disturb such relations. MMS and US high command should keep these kind of news leak to public down so that visit could be a successful. There are anti-american mindset in a few Indian top officials and also there are pro-Pakistani mindset in a few American which need to be educated about the importance of this relationship - both mutually benefiting and safeguarding both nations interest.

This is a India interest fprum and Indian interest comes first. Do not blame Indian people here for any bilateral issues.
US is not even the largest trading partner of India. US funds Pakistan military and condones attack on India by Pak based groups. So there is going to be long ways before things change.

CRamS wrote:Arun Jaitly eloquently articulates US double dealing with India

The US policy on global terror is well known. It should be first applied to Pakistan with equal force. So, what is true of western border of Pakistan must be equally true of its eastern border.

It can't be that Pakistan is an ally in the Afghan region so Americans go soft on them. As far as India is concerned Pakistan instigates terror here. So, we want America to maintain the same standard of sensitivity to terror to apply against Pakistan's western and eastern borders.

As far as Kashmir is concerned India's dignity and sovereignty must be respected.

You can't allow Pakistan to first use conventional war, then, soft-border terrorism and now instigate mob violence to destabilise the area. The Americans should firm up. Anyway, India would never accept the situation where to give comfort to Pakistan because of its co-operation with Americans on its western border America wants some concession for Pakistan on its eastern border. This will never be acceptable to any Indian.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 29 Oct 2010 23:01

all these news articles braying "indispensable", "Personal", "Strategic", "Counter to China" and other big words are real donkey crap...its all maskafying and buttering....our weakness is being exploited...unless and until our polticos and babus mean this visit as pukka business opportunity and shelf the "emotional trait" which Indians usually find it hard doing...we'll be bedazzled with something which is fake, false, lies, dhoka , klpd etc

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 29 Oct 2010 23:27

Pakistan On The Mind

Bruce Riedel, Oct 30, 2010, 12.00am IST
Barack Hussein Obama is about to become the sixth American president to visit India and the third in a row to do so. He is going in the first half of his first term; only Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon did so before him. Presidential visits are carefully planned and scripted but events invariably have a way of intruding onto the agenda and the stage. This presidential visit takes place against the backdrop of America's longest war ever in Afghanistan and a natural disaster in neighbouring Pakistan where Obama has invested a huge effort in trying to stabilise a deeply wounded state. The Afghan war and the future of Pakistan will dominate the behind-the-scenes discussions in New Delhi.

Obama does not have a deliverable, as they are called in the White House, of the size and magnitude of the nuclear deal his predecessor, George Bush, delivered in 2005. There will be agreements on security and economic cooperation, perhaps a large arms sale for C17 transports, and renewed commitment to close cooperation on global issues like fighting terrorism and addressing climate change.

But it will be Pakistan that dominates the private conversations between the president, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, because it is the future of Pakistan that is the most uncertain question in South Asia today. Pakistan has become the most dangerous country in the world for everyone, but especially for America and India. It is the epicentre of the global jihadist movement that attacked New York in 2001 and Mumbai in 2008. Its weak civilian government may have good intentions but seems powerless to address the country's multiple crises. The army remains the patron of parts of the jihadist Frankenstein even as it fights other parts of the monster. The ongoing revelations of David Headley on the ISI's role in Mumbai 26/11 only underscore how dangerous Pakistan is today. All this, and the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world.

The floods this summer graphically demonstrated the problems Pakistan faces: weak governance, poor infrastructure and a thriving Islamist extremist movement. The weak government next door in Afghanistan only makes the challenges harder. The Taliban cancer now dominates both sides of the Durand line. The Pakistani army is at war with those on the south side even as it assists those on the north.

Obama's visit will also take place against the backdrop of the revival of the Kashmir question. Pakistan will surely move to capitalise on the unrest. The intifada that exploded this summer in Kashmir cannot be ignored by the president during the visit but any comments on it will be potentially explosive.

Obama and Singh need to cooperate to help Pakistan solve its jihadist nightmare. It cannot be resolved by outsiders nor can it be contained and isolated from the outside. Senior Indian officials in private say that Washington and New Delhi now share a common diagnosis of the problems but neither has developed a strategy that promises success. It is an increasingly urgent concern but one that does not have any magical answers. Both agree that engagement with Pakistan is the only way forward but neither feels satisfied that its engagement is working.

Despite the difficulties, Obama must try to engage Singh to work together to engage Pakistan, even as both sides know how difficult changing entrenched interests in Pakistan will be in practice.

Afghanistan may be a good place to start. Pakistan's army and the ISI are eager to control any political process in Afghanistan in order to protect their influence with the Taliban and the Pashtun community and to minimise India's role. The army is paranoid about India's diplomatic presence in Afghan cities and concerned that the road India has built to give Afghanistan access to the Arabian Sea via Iran is designed to loosen Pakistan's hold on Afghan trade.

Obama can make clear to Singh that Washington is not going to let Pakistan monopolise Afghanistan and that America wants India to be part of the process of stabilising Afghanistan. More Indian aid for Afghan development is a good idea. More Indian-built roads and more Indian-financed education is good for Afghanistan.

At the same time, Washington needs to assure Pakistan that its interests in Afghanistan will be protected and that Afghanistan will not be a base for subversion. The United States can play the role of intermediary between Islamabad, New Delhi and Kabul to insure a genuinely independent Afghanistan that is no one's satellite or sphere of influence.

Washington should not do this alone. Other parties are also involved. In particular, Pakistan's ally China will also figure extensively in the private talks. Pakistani President Asif Zardari is about to make his seventh visit to China since taking office, underscoring the importance of the Chinese connection. Obama should be keen to find ways to use regional diplomacy to strengthen Pakistan and Beijing must be a player in that process.

By all accounts, Obama and Singh have developed a good working relationship and talk candidly. They will have to brainstorm together about whether they can collaborate to rescue the sick man of South Asia.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and chaired President Obama's policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 30 Oct 2010 00:42

Pratyush wrote:I have a feeling that we will be better off with Om baba not visiting the country. I am hoping that some thing or the other will cause the visit to be put off.

Why not? Let us not wish anything but good! I was never a big fan of any POTUS, except when they wave their goodbyes from Marine One. Because as a third-worlder, they come across as pompous dictators running a sophisticated version of a police state and having illusions of being Earth Emperor. The only thing preventing a POTUS from going postal is the fact that other wannabe dictators are awaiting in the wings to topple them if they go fully nuts. Not a happy state for a third-worlder, this constant fear of stupid behavior from the "greatest democracy".

That said, we should not be dour to a distinguished visitor. So Prez Obama is welcome to come by. Besides, he is not just any POTUS, he is an African-American icon and we need to be acutely aware of that, even if he doesn't want to acknowledge that due to his political compulsions. We shall welcome him, fete him and make sure he feels good. His visit will get him a lot of mileage, if his party looses badly and he needs to be seen as reaching out to India so big businesses anxieties are taken care. His grassroots fund raising capabilities does seem to leave some corporates anxious and a few good deals in India will help him with them.

What is in it for us, mango jingo? Not much, other than entertainment. But then we are being personally entertained by the allegedly most powerful dude in the world. Any Indian would hate to think of the future nightmare of administering a failed pakistan at some point, due to all US aid going to the military instead of say, real education. But for the time being, I wish to watch the show.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2010 00:51

Bruce Reidel should get his facts right. Obama will be the sevneth not th esixth Presiden to visit India. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush and now Obama in that order.
Secondly most of his analysis matches NVSubramanian's which I posted only a couple of posts before that. Thirdly he doesn't understand China. Why would China help US in stabilizing TSP when it serves its own purposes?

His ideas sound like thoes in Aesop's tales about the farmer and his sons who wait for harvest help from everyone and in the end do it themselves.

If he wants more credibility he should list those options US can do by itself to stabilize the TSP and has it run thru the list before calling for others.

Asking India to stabilize those who mean harm as shown by 26/11 is a non-starter. He himself has bought into the canard that Zaranj higway will be used to reduce dependence on TSP's roads when in reality its the Northern Areas route thru Russia that is being used right now by the US.

Is this schloarship or knavery?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Oct 2010 01:47

Kennedy did not visit as a President. He was a senator when he visited

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Oct 2010 01:56

joshvajohn wrote:'India and US to partner to rid the world of hunger, poverty
Press Trust of India / Washington October 29, 2010, 14:50 IST
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... /114033/on

Such attempts are great.

India can help create jobs in US: Pitroda
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 836150.cms

1. India has enough internal problems worry about. It would be doing great service to the world if it solves its own issues.
2. If US were to spend the money they spend on Iraq and Afghanistan wars on world hunger and poverty; the world poor wouldn't need India's help.
3. India has to help itself to create jobs in India. Let US president to worry about the job situation in USA.

The only strategic-partnership India needs with USA is where the outcome is beneficial to both parties -

1. Science and Technology - Remove restrictions on Indian scientific institutions
2. World peace - Make India, not a terrorist nation like Pakistan, its partner in fighting terrorism. Stop sponsoring Paki terrorist state.
3. Democratic values - Support india's increased role in world bodies, such as UNSC, WTO, IMF, WB etc.,

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Oct 2010 02:47

Lone voice of protest from the Left parties. Obama visit gives Left a reason to rally

When it comes to US, the Left's voice becomes very reasonable and nationalistic.

Alleging that the US was pressuring India to adopt economic policies which are “detrimental” to people in the name of a strategic alliance, they said it should stop asking India to open up agriculture, retail trade, education and other services to American capital and multinational companies.

Besides this, the Left parties said their protest will highlight justice for victims of the Bhopal gas accident, making Dow Chemicals pay for the damages and for the clean-up of the factory site and extradition of Warren Anderson to India to stand trial.

“Scrap the Indo-US Defence Framework Agreement which seeks to convert India into a military ally of the US. Stop pressurising India to give up liability claims on US nuclear suppliers,” the statement said.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Oct 2010 02:55

Just waiting for the Left Parties to demonstrate when Wen-Jiabao comes calling for the stapled visas, and sitting in Gilgit-Baltistan, and the missiles in Tibet pointing towards India......

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Oct 2010 02:55

US one-way traffic worry for Delhi - All-give-no-take fear before Obama visit

New Delhi, Oct. 28: Barack Obama’s India visit could fetch the US billion-dollar deals, thousands of jobs and a stronger foothold in Asia but some in the government doubt whether India will benefit as much.

This section — ministers and bureaucrats — believes the US President wants to return home with his bags full but is reluctant to give India enough.

....
...
In fact, home secretary G.K. Pillai’s comments yesterday that American agencies did not share specific information on David Coleman Headley are being interpreted in government circles as India making its unhappiness public.

Another area of concern lies in the civil nuclear sector. Officials believe the US needs to substantially remove restrictions on controls on dual-use technology and take more Indian companies off its list of banned entities.

...
...
Obama is expected to return home with deals worth over $12 billion that promise to create up to 60,000 jobs in the US in the coming years. The officials also stressed that this was one of Obama’s longest visits to any country.
...

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 30 Oct 2010 02:57

RajeshA wrote:Just waiting for the Left Parties to demonstrate when Wen-Jiabao comes calling for the stapled visas, and sitting in Gilgit-Baltistan, and the missiles in Tibet pointing towards India......

sorry sun doesn't rise in the west

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Oct 2010 03:01

Venkarl wrote:sorry sun doesn't rise in the west

Is that the reason, why it is always night in the USA!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Oct 2010 03:03

putnanja wrote:
This section — ministers and bureaucrats — believes the US President wants to return home with his bags full but is reluctant to give India enough.

....
Another area of concern lies in the civil nuclear sector. Officials believe the US needs to substantially remove restrictions on controls on dual-use technology and take more Indian companies off its list of banned entities.

...

When the elite is totally west oriented ignoring the national interest this is what happens. The weakness of the elite to flattery has resulted in a one way street.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Oct 2010 03:08

Obama visit may not yield much - Wait for more rhetoric than substance -by Balbir Punj

On the eve of the much-hyped visit of US President Barack Obama, Washington DC has announced an enhanced military aid of $2.50 billion to the Pakistan Army for its anti-terror drive. The US Commander in Afghanistan has admitted that he has enabled top Taliban leaders to travel to Kabul for a discussion on possible peace moves that would enable
American troops to leave.

...
...
How could you expect the Pakistan Army to give up what it considers as its strategic asset — that is the Taliban especially and terror groups in general — working against India? Clearly, the Pakistan Army is pressing the US administration for a deal that would push India out of Afghanistan and keep all the terror training camps in tact. So long as it is against India, it obviously does not matter to America.

The hopes expressed by the Obama administration that Pakistan will use the huge military aid it is getting to eliminate terror groups in North Waziristan are nothing more than a wish. A Time magazine report adds: “The US sends some $2 billion a year to the Pakistani military for its role in combating terrorist groups along the border with Afghanistan, and another $ 1.5 billion a year is earmarked for civilian institutions.

...
...
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may gloat over the fact that the US President has endorsed his (Dr Singh’s) foreign policy approach. But the bottom of this claim has been blown high with the exposure of the shopping list that the US President has sent to his host in advance. It has many items he wants from India; nothing whatsoever of concern to us.

America wants access to the Indian market for its agricultural products but India’s access to high-tech US products would still be subject to convincing end-user riders. On India’s request to support its case for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, there is no assurance from the US side; there is only a general statement that Washington DC is in favour of an expansion of the permanent membership. The last thing we have heard is that the visiting President will ease the visa restrictions on Indian applicants. That is just a distant hope, considering the visitor’s commitment to his electorate to protect American jobs.

...
...
The Indo-Pak dialogue for which Dr Manmohan Singh lowered India’s guard has gone nowhere. The current situation in Pakistan with the Generals back in power behind the tottering civilian government gives little hope that the several terror outfits that the Pakistani military is nurturing will cease to mount more terror strikes against India. The hope that America would succeed in getting Pakistan on its side in eliminating terror as an instrument of Islamabad’s foreign policy is fading. The Pakistan Generals calling the shots back in that country would count on the jihadi terror outfits in India to act as its fifth column.

...
...

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Oct 2010 03:18

Obama in India: Building a Global Partnership: Challenges, Risks, Opportunities

The video discussion is pretty interesting with views from Dennis Klux and Amb. Pickering, etc.

Ashley's paper: Obama in India: Building a Global Partnership: Challenges, Risks, Opportunities (PDF)

Key Recommendations:

* Pay greater attention to India. While Obama has largely focused on competing priorities—including the troubled U.S. economy and ongoing wars abroad—Washington must devote more resources to New Delhi to strengthen long-term ties.
{perhaps, but India for the most part is neither part of the soln, nor a problem....}

* Reaffirm U.S. support. The White House should endorse India’s quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, assimilate India more quickly into the global nonproliferation regime, and enhance bilateral cooperation in multiple areas to strengthen the U.S.-India relationship.
{Its not like, the US can say "endorsed" and it happens - the question is will this become part of the UNSC reforms being put together by US, how much capital will India and US have to expend and to what end?}

* Approach relations differently. Rather than viewing U.S.-India relations in purely transactional terms, Obama should seek to strengthen India’s national capacity so it can partner with the United States as a friendly democratic power.
{Could not agree more!}

“By reaffirming the U.S. commitment to aid India’s growth in power and emphasizing America’s fellowship with India … Obama can help bring the two countries together on shared interests and move their relationship forward significantly,” Tellis writes.
{This needs to be translated into a shared vision for Asia, but India cannot overlook near neighborhood issues where the US is limited in what it can do. So is the message to live with it while greater interest is pursued?}

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 30 Oct 2010 03:26

What is needed at this time for India is to make a clear cut bargain with US.

What is India's interest? We need strong weapons to protect our country. We need to work this with Russians and US whoever is ready to supply arms that will defend our country. There are many including left who wanted this Anti American mind to be spread. This is also an indirect way of keeping India isolated from getting weapons that are needed to upgrade India to the level of threatening neighbours.

It is also essential for us to maintain the business relationship with US through which many in India has benefited. Ask millions of Engrs and others who support Indian economy in various ways. Also American Investment in India is huge that India benefits in manyways.

It is essential even to maintain and continue our good relationship with US which is mutually benefiting without falling into the trap of leftists who wanted to see India to be isolated and fall like Pakistan into the hands of Chinese red army.

Secondly inspite of some confusion with some recent Headly cases US intelligence has been very close and helpful to many of our terror related attacks and issues. They were even positive to put pressure on Pakistan in many ways.

India US relationship will grow in spite of some folks who are trying to stop and thus trying to stop India moving forward in Asia as a giant democratic power mutually benefiting from all those who are ready to work with her. No one can stop it as both countries and people share common values and the cold war season is over and both will benefit with mutual relationship.

Even in future there are possibilities of working together in bringing down through some air raids the terror groups and camps in Pakistan with India along with Israel. Also if Chinese Red army keep encroaching other countries then Tibetian aspirations can be kept alive with India and other countries bring effective role for Tibetians in democratising their own and also their neighbours.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Oct 2010 03:44

joshvajohn wrote:What is needed at this time for India is to make a clear cut bargain with US.

What is India's interest? We need strong weapons to protect our country. We need to work this with Russians and US whoever is ready to supply arms that will defend our country. There are many including left who wanted this Anti American mind to be spread. This is also an indirect way of keeping India isolated from getting weapons that are needed to upgrade India to the level of threatening neighbours.

Very simplistic. Does not make sense.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 30 Oct 2010 05:26

Compare Indias interactions with MNC against Chinas and there is a world of a difference. Was speaking with some business folks working in China and it appears that right at the beginning the Chinese government gives an MNC a long wishlist which includes
- Grant to local university
- Set up research lab in next 4-5 years
- Manufacturing hub/plant to be created in areas of low employment and labour unrest
- Sometransfer of technology
- Etc
MNCs hate this and yet do it.
Compare this to the give all attitude of the Indian politicians (of course they get kick-backs)

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Oct 2010 06:54

US support for India at UNSC moot question ahead of Obama's visit

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 839057.cms

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Oct 2010 07:07

'The Arabs (and Indians and Chinese) Are Coming!'

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... g?page=0,5

"Good for India and China."

"Pro-outsourcing" is always a reliably effective epithet to throw at a politician who supports free trade. But with the current economic climate in the United States, frustration over jobs losses can easily translate into anxiety over the rising geopolitical ambitions of those "exotic" and "menacing" countries of the East: India and China.

In this ad Bobby Schilling, the Republican challenger to incumbent Democratic Congressman Phil Hare in the 17th district of Illinois, is charged with creating jobs (hey, that doesn't sound so bad)...in India and China. Zing! Yes, Schilling is on the record supporting a pending free trade agreement with South Korea, but the ad also casts his stance against any and all income tax increases as a sop to companies that outsource jobs to Asia. Meager pickings, but reason enough, apparently, to declare Schilling bad for the good residents of Illinois. No word yet on Schilling's poll numbers in Shanghai.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 30 Oct 2010 07:55

US terms India as one of its best counterterrorism partners

Lalit K Jha
Washington, Oct 30 (PTI) Ahead of the visit of US President Barack Obama to India next week, the White House has identified New Delhi as one of its best counterterrorism partners.

"The Indian government is one of our best CT (counter terrorism) partners," said John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism.

Brennan, who was responding to reporters'' questions at a hurriedly convened press conference after the latest round of terror plot was unearthed, said the US has been sharing information with Indian government on a regular basis.

"We share on a regular basis with the Indian government," Brennan said.

In fact counterterrorism cooperation between India and the US would be on top of Obama''s agenda during his India visit and in his talks with Indian leaders, another top White House official had said early this week.

"We want to underscore the closeness of our counterterrorism cooperation and the resilience of India in the face of terrorism, just as the US has experienced it," Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser, told a group of Indian reporters early this week.

"We share an interest in counterterrorism. We share an interest in a stable Afghanistan that doesn�t provide safe haven for terrorist groups," Rhodes said.

"We see India as a constructive partner in those efforts and we want to make sure that India is a part of our dialogue about the future of the region. And so this comes at a good time to continue those discussions," he said.

Anish Goel, Senior Director, South Asia, at the National Security Council said the (David Coleman) Headley case has underscored the fact that how far Indo-US counterterrorism cooperation has come in the past couple of years.

"The fact that we are -- have more initiatives going with them than we ever have before. And that we gave access to Headley I think sort of demonstrates how we kind of view this issue basically in the same perspective as the Indian government," he said.

Rhodes said after US authorities arrested Headley � the Mumbai terrorist suspect -- they learned a lot about 26/11.

"Not only did we share that information, but I think it''s a signal of the strength of our counterterrorism cooperation that we actually provided access to Headley for the Indian security services so they were able to ask him questions directly, which continue to flesh out the understanding of what took place on 26/11," he said.

arjunm · Post by **arjunm** » 30 Oct 2010 09:40

Can some one verify what was Paki PM Gilani's 16th October speech? Rajiv Srinivasn mentioned in his rediff article that Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani declared on October 16 (as reported in The Economic Times) that 'there will be good news about Kashmir soon'. What else could Gilani possibly mean other than Obama's November surprise?

Obama is no friend of India

Rajeev Srinivasan on why he dreads Obama's visit to India and a possible nasty November surprise.

Rediff
Friday, October 29, 2010

View image here:
http://im.rediff.com/news/2010/oct/20obama21234567.jpg

Bitter experience has convinced me to be wary of dignitaries' State visits -- usually no good comes of them.

I was terrified that Manmohan Singh's so-called first State Visit to the US would culminate in something negative. Fortunately, nothing much happened.

Now I am extremely worried that Barack Obama's visit to India in November is likely to end up in a major setback for India's national interests.

There is a tradition of 'October surprises' in the US: Just before the biennial November elections, one of the parties (usually the incumbent) is accused of coming up with some ruse -- often a crisis -- that enables it to come out smelling of roses, thus swaying public opinion in its favour, and thereby winning the elections.

This year, indications are that Obama and the Democrats will lose their majority in the House of Representatives (the Lower House) and possibly in the Senate (the Upper House) as well.

It appears there is no 'October surprise' this time. Just in time for his India visit, Obama will be seen as a lame-duck with little chance of getting his agenda through a hostile US Congress (their parliament).

Obama's record has been less than stellar, belying certain great expectations in the first flush of an amazing love-fest.

In domestic matters, his handling of the financial crisis has been pedestrian, and there is severe job loss and economic pain; his one victory, in healthcare, may yet be Pyrrhic.

The 'change' and 'hope' and all that simply haven't come to anything.

In foreign affairs, too, there's nothing of great import.

Instead of a thriving, peaceful democracy, it is a broken country; the Americans are simply running for their lives.

The same, or worse, is true in Afghanistan. The recent spectacle of the closure of Pakistani border crossings, the arson on NATO supply trucks, and the abject apology by the Americans for their killing of some Pakistani troops -- this points to a hapless America that has been bamboozled by Pakistan's army and its spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence.

The ISI is running with the hares and hunting with the hounds most successfully.

Obama has been clear from day one about Afghanistan -- his plan has always been simple: Surge, bribe, declare victory and run like hell. The surge has happened, but it has apparently had no impact, as in places like Marjah.

Now Obama is running up against his ill-advised 2011 deadline for pulling out troops.

The only option Obama has on hand is to bribe -- that is, to bribe the ISI. Even the Afghan government has concluded that the Americans will flee, leaving them to the tender mercies of the Taliban, the Haqqani network, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and other warlords.

So Obama has been showering largesse on the ISI, a billion here and another billion there, and surely more as per their latest strategic dialogue last week.

But money doesn't seem to be doing it -- the $25 billion that America has poured into Pakistan since 9/11 has sated the generals' greed for the moment. They want a bigger prize -- their strategic intent -- the dismemberment of India and the creation of their pet fantasy, Mughalistan, an emirate controlling the Indian subcontinent.

And that is the carrot that Obama is likely to offer them as part of his India trip. That will be the 'November surprise' for India.

It is likely that when Obama is in India, Manmohan Singh will announce a new 'package' which would, shorn of marketing verbiage, hand over either all of Jammu and Kashmir or just the Vale of Kashmir to the stone-throwers and other separatists who are fifth columnists of the ISI.

The stage has been set for this for some time. Witness how American military men as well as assorted grandees from the European Union have been stressing that Pakistan would be much more helpful if only they were 'not worried about India'.

In other words, India should sacrifice its territorial integrity for the benefit of the Americans, with no benefit to itself. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Obama has demonstrated categorically that he is no friend of India, despite pious pronouncements by many Indians and Indian Americans.

In addition to everything else, the Obama administration's attitude is evident from recent disclosures about David Headley (the former Daood Gilani) and the likelihood that the US authorities may have had prior warnings about 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks that they did not share with the Indians.

The exertions of the Americans (and the Chinese, too) on behalf of the alleged rights of Kashmiris to secede would play a lot better if they had tolerated separatism in their country.

Some might remember that the Americans actually went to war (it is called the Civil War) to keep their country from fragmenting. And we also have seen the tenderness exhibited by the Chinese towards 'splittist' Tibetans and Uighurs.

But then, the Indian government has implied in many fora that it is willing to accept Pakistani demands -- witness astonishing statements in Sharm-al-Sheikh, Havana, Thimphu.

More recently, its hand-picked interlocutors to the separatists are talking openly about 'azaadi' and about amending the Constitution to accommodate them.

The possibility that this will encourage other separatists, and that hate-mongering ethnic-cleansers and terrorists are being rewarded for crimes against humanity, do not seem to unduly worry these worthies.

Ominously, Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani declared on October 16 (as reported in The Economic Times) that 'there will be good news about Kashmir soon'. What else could Gilani possibly mean other than Obama's November surprise?

And in the middle of all this comes the nihilistic histrionics of famous one-horse novelist Arundhati Roy [ Images ]. This is someone who can always be relied upon to support any cause that is anti-India. This reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story about how the US application for citizenship once used to ask people if they would advocate the overthrow of the US by violence or sedition. It seems most people chose 'sedition'!

If Roy were given that choice regarding India, I suspect she would insist on answering, 'Both'.

Roy reminds me of the novel The Man Without a Country, about an American who renounced his country during a treason trial and declared that he hated it so much he never wished to see it or hear the word again.

The Americans obliged, and put him on a naval brig, whereon he spent the rest of his life out at sea.

If India were a normal country, its leaders would offer Roy the choice of fine accommodation on a naval brig in international waters, or domicile in her favorite nations, Pakistan or China.

There is just one small problem with the latter -- in a few short days, Messrs Kayani or Hu Jintao will offer to surrender to India on a single condition: That India take the shrill Arundhati back.

Be that as it may, Roy is merely a side-show. The real danger is that the Americans -- who demonstrate daily that they have no leverage over Pakistan -- seem to have some kind of a hold over India's leaders, and the stage has been set for a grand bargain wherein India exits J&K.

Obama will then be able to declare victory in Afghanistan and take his boys home.

In the feverish minds of many, this is considered a good outcome, and it will be sold as such to the Indian public, thanks to the Indian media's known ability to manufacture consent.

A fait accompli is in the works, which naturally will solve nothing. The ISI will then demand A

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2010 10:57

Obama's viisit appears to be going downhill, even before he has set foot on our soil.It is tragic because a genuine strong partnership with the US as equals is in India's interests.What has been sadly lacking from the Indian side is to have given the US and White House a clear statement of India's expectations from the US,with regard to Paki terror,China,regional security,the Middle East,global eco situ,a sustainable global devlopmental plan that preserves our fragile ecology,etc.The UNSC seat should be awarded to India without us having to lobby for it.In my opinion it would be demeaning for us to do so and if the UNSC is not reformed and India included as an equal with a veto,then the collapse of the UN is inevitable and we would be better off leaving it.Nuclear disarmament is vital and the neutralising of Paki nukes vital for global peace.

However,even from the US side there is disappointment as the US only "wants".In the "give and take" of diplomacy,India must give and the US must take! A recipe for disaster.Any deals founded upon sand will collapse once the Congress are out of power.A national consensus in relations with the US must be evolved for the betterment and understanding between both nations.A solo "own goal" by MMS will be catastrophic.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Oct 2010 11:04

arjunm wrote:[/b]
Obama is no friend of India

Rajeev Srinivasan on why he dreads Obama's visit to India and a possible nasty November surprise.

Rediff
Friday, October 29, 2010

View image here:
http://im.rediff.com/news/2010/oct/20obama21234567.jpg

There are a lot of points on which I concur with Rajeev Srinivasan, but I think there is an element of hyperbole that I sense in some of the points he makes. Let me debunk them. I challenge anyone, including the gentle but pedantic Johann or AmberJi who thinks my understanding of US is hollow, to prove me wrong.

Obama's record has been less than stellar, belying certain great expectations in the first flush of an amazing love-fest.

In domestic matters, his handling of the financial crisis has been pedestrian, and there is severe job loss and economic pain; his one victory, in healthcare, may yet be Pyrrhic.

The 'change' and 'hope' and all that simply haven't come to anything.

In foreign affairs, too, there's nothing of great import.

Instead of a thriving, peaceful democracy, it is a broken country; the Americans are simply running for their lives.

With all due respect to Rajeev Srinivasan , all of the above claims he makes are nothing but unadulterated nonsense. I don't want to dwell too much on US politics, but Obama has done the best he can on both domestic and foreign affairs in a short span of less than 2 years. Look at the situation objectively. From a state of total economic collapse in late 2008, he has stabilized the situation. On both Iraq & Afghanistan, he is upholding US interests, in the former, the Iraqi oil is in US kitty, and Israel faces no threat from a lame duck Iraq; and in the latter, AfPak while still uncertain, is not yet a lost cause and a work in progress. All that US is looking for is some H&D that they did better than the Russians. They have to show that they "defeated" the Taliban but the Russians tucked their tail between their legs and ran. Its laughable to claim that a a rag tag bunch of so called Al Queda doing rope tricks in Kabul poses a threat to mainland USA. And if MMS sells India down the Indus river, as he might very well will, AfPak will be a victory for Obama and US in that with Taliban in power, TSP will ensure that those so called Al Queda not attack US, while TSP is free to use its LET assets against India.

As I mentioned many times, as brilliant as Obama is, he is an artificial president. As a black guy, if he dare plays out his liberal, egalitarian instincts, his ass will be roasted by the white racist conservatives even more than it is now. Basically, he is a Clinton redux; following the likes of the brilliant Larry Summer & Co on economy, and the Zbieg/NotBrighht type approach to foreign affairs. And in this worldview, India is a not even a 2-bit player, except to elicit some pity and sympathy for being screwed by none other than US in the manner in which GWOT is being orchestrated with India being the sacrificial goat to please TSP. And of course, its the proverbial Indian containment at work.

Bottom line: The reason why his party (democrats) will lose include: 1) The nature of US politics, it is by design, a sitting president always suffers during mid-term, recall Clinton in 1994, and 2) the white conservatives’ hatred of a black guy at the helm and they have managed to use some peripheral politically correct issues to talk in code words ("liberal", "socialist", "big govt" and other nonsense).

And finally, please, I am sick & tired of even intelligent guys like Rajeev Srinivasan claiming that America is broke and Americans are running for their lives. Look at the billions of $s US is doling out to TSP. Give me a f$%&ing break.

But let me re-iterate that I agree with a lot of other things Rajeev Srinivasan says. I am not so sure of any November surprise though. But notice that MMS has indeed fallen in line with US diktats, he doesn't even talk about Mumbai anymore, he is so anxious to meet TSP more than halfway. So who knows, Rajeev Srinivasan may be right on India's impending surrender.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Oct 2010 12:00

arjunm wrote:
Rajeev Srinivasan on why he dreads Obama's visit to India and a possible nasty November surprise.

Bitter experience has convinced me to be wary of dignitaries' State visits -- usually no good comes of them.

I was terrified that Manmohan Singh's so-called first State Visit to the US would culminate in something negative. Fortunately, nothing much happened.

Now I am extremely worried that Barack Obama's visit to India in November is likely to end up in a major setback for India's national interests.

Kashmir and UNSC will be linked and openly discussed

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Oct 2010 12:11

Rudradev x POST

shiv wrote:
While kicking Pakistan, India really needs to shove a little rod up American backside for the trouble they have helped create and propagate in India - with sweet words and egregious warnings on the side. India Muslims are not going to revolt to support Pakistan or fulfil American policy. And neither are anyone else going to do that.

Recall that if Indians have been "too nice" to Pakistan by maintaining friendly relations we have literally been licking US backside for decades even as the US has armed and funded Pakistan

Oh we who have such large cojones when we speak of Pakistan, do we have even small ones to question the great US of A?

The real danger posed by the Americans is in Kashmir. Expect the Obama administration to come at us with guns blazing on that score, no sooner than the American economy has shown its first signs of stabilizing.

Here's what many of us tend to overlook. It's very common for NRIs, especially US-based NRIs like many people on this forum, to subscribe to a certain smug truism regarding America and the Paki snake it nurtured at its breast for decades.

We say, ah-ha, see how the Americans have been played for fools by the double-dealing Pakistan army! See how the terrorism emanating from Pakistan finally came around to hurt the Americans themselves! See, now the Americans will have to admit that supporting an Islamist military dictatorship against India (a secular democracy and "natural ally" of the West) was the wrong thing to do!

Even as we prepare ourselves to embrace our prodigal American allies with all-forgiving hugs, the fact is that we're only 2/3rds of the way correct in making that assumption. Yes, the Americans are only now beginning to realize that they have been on the receiving end of a Hudaibiya scam by the Pakis, ever since the Global War on Terror began. And they are only now responding to the scamsters by insisting on predator strikes, SF missions across the Durand line and so on.

And yes, the terrorism emanating from Pakistan did come around to hurt the Americans also, most spectacularly on 9/11/2001 of course, but for the better part of a decade in a number of other ways.

However, we're dead wrong if we think the Americans have learned some sort of "Dharmic Lesson" or Hitopadesha from all this.

Even if the US finally decides to destroy or break up Pakistan as a means to victory in its Afghan conflict, we'd be sadly mistaken to believe that such an action heralded the abandonment of US policies aimed at containing India through the manipulation of Islamism.

Because the US doesn't think it was a bad idea to play a "Moslem State" against India at all. It served them very well for many decades to do so. Pakistan just happened to be an instance of the experiment that began to go wrong, for reasons unrelated to India, sometime around 1988. Why should we expect the Americans to conclude from the specific failure of Pakistan, that the principles behind the experiment were themselves flawed?

No: in fact, if it becomes imperative for the Americans to destroy Pakistan, they will be all the more eager to carve off another slice of Hindoo land to serve that dual purpose... a Muslim rentier state providing unfettered strategic access to Central Asia, which can also be leveraged for the containment of India whenever necessary.

I believe the Americans will definitely attempt to partition our country once more, in pursuit of the same geopolitical advantages that the British reaped by partitioning us 60 years ago; they will try to break off another piece to replace the utility of the one broken off in 1947, which became gangrenous and failed; and they will do it along religious lines once again, so that Islamism remains a useful nemesis of the Indian union, both within its borders and from outside.

Having achieved an independent Islamic Republic of J&K, the Americans would have no difficulty maintaining access to it. The successor states of Pakistan will be falling over each other to provide a corridor from Karachi through rump-Pakjab, in exchange for American patronage and aid.

Beware. Maybe not all American thinkers have a second partition of India in mind, but you can be sure that people like Brzezinski do... and very likely the incoming SOS Hillary Clinton as well. We all remember Madeleine Albright's autobiography, in the preface of which Bill Clinton ascribed the Chittisinghpora massacre of 36 Sikhs to the "Indian Army". We've all been seeing renewed cartographic aggression against Indian territory on every single Democrat-friendly Western media outlet, from CNN to BBC to MSNBC.

We've also seen a recent Times of India poll-- following 11/26-- wherein 24% of respondents declared their willingness to "give up our interests in Kashmir" in order to stop future terrorist attacks. If one compared these respondents with those opining in favor of the sellout "nuclear deal" brokered by Manmohan Singh , I wonder how much of a correlation one would find. Clearly, a fifth column of deracinated elite Indians who will clamor in favour of America's interests has already been created.

Most of all, India may have given those Americans who seek to rip away Kashmir, a very strong reason to believe that the window of opportunity for carving up our territory is rather urgently limited in scope. Last year, amidst a chorus of scornful psyops from the Western media, we launched the Chandrayaan mission. The chorus fell abruptly and completely silent as the mission demonstrated our capabilities... entering lunar orbit and placing an object at an exact, predetermined location on the moon's surface. The question must have run through the minds of every Zbignew, Albright, Clinton, Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel watching this happen... if those Hindoos can do that today, how long can we count on their rockets not being able to deliver anything they want to any place in the world?

Last edited by Rudradev on 26 Dec 2008 05:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

arjunm · Post by **arjunm** » 30 Oct 2010 12:42

There are some pattern of significance one can see. i) Two US diplomats Visited Kashmir Valley to meet the Hurriyat terror group just few weeks back . GOI's choice of whole bunch of anti-national as interlocutors and some of whom even suggesting for Constitutional amendments to accommodate concept of "Azadi" . The sudden meeting on Azaadi in open display in Delhi where opponent stake holders,"Pandits " were deliberately kept out ,how they get even the clearance from GOI? Burns went to Kolkata to discuss what? what was so urgent? Why Gillani Is saying that, is some one leaking the Pakis some info or is it hot air? why a deliberate floating of conflicting opinions on UNSC seat?