India-US News and Discussion

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Nov 2009 08:34

vera_k wrote:But how come they chose to stay with India in 1947, if they were primarily islamic?

vera_k and others, please use your words carefully. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Islamic. There was at least an equal number of practitioners of Islam who chose to stay back in India at the time of Partition. Some even came back from Pakistan after a harrowing experience, to rejoice in the free, plural and catholic environment of India. Some others who migrated to Pakistan suffered their fateful decision openly admitting to their folly. Let us therefore not paint everyone with the same brush.

I hope you guys had a chance to read Rafeeq Zakaria's (FZ's father) book on 'The Man who divided India'. He tears into Jinnah and says why the unworkable idea of Pakistan was his egoistic culmination.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Nov 2009 08:37

VikramS wrote:The mods have permitted a tendency to paint anyone belonging to a particular group in the questionable category.

VikramS, stop this kind of unwarranted insinuation. If you have an issue with a post, use the 'REPORT' button to catch the attention of mods rather than whining about how mods perform or do not perform.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Nov 2009 08:52

SSridhar wrote:vera_k and others, please use your words carefully. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Islamic. There was at least an equal number of practitioners of Islam who chose to stay back in India at the time of Partition.

You said it better than I did.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Nov 2009 08:59

VikramS wrote:
The mods have permitted a tendency to paint anyone belonging to a particular group in the questionable category. .......

warned for unfounded allegations.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 23 Nov 2009 09:19

Rajamohan gives his take.

For the regulars there is nothing new, but this could be a worthwhile input to provide to an enquiring not-so-well informed American friend!

Dr Singh in DC, The Indian Express, Nov 21, 2009

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Nov 2009 09:39

MMS to be Obama's First State Dinner Guest:

Nandu · Post by **Nandu** » 23 Nov 2009 10:44

Masaru wrote: Well this video shows where his true loyalties lie, practising true deception as is the norm of his ilk.Watch from 3:55 onwards.

White raisins

There is absolutely nothing wrong or deceptive in what he said there. You are imagining enemies where there aren't any.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Nov 2009 11:23

The autonomous jihad in America

The article mentions an Indian preacher inspired a jihadi plot in America.

September saw the detection of three major plots. Inspired by Islamists at a Flushing mosque, and his imagination fired by the Indian televangelist Zakir Naik, Afghan-born and Pakistan-trained Najibullah Zazi is alleged to have been preparing to set off several improvised explosive devices.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 23 Nov 2009 13:05

The Rise of American Declinism by Dhruva Jaishankar.

He goes on to explore the Indian reactions, and attempts to categorise them. Interesting points there - Worth a read!

Where do Indians stand on this question, and what conclusions do they reach? Logically, most arguments can be attached to one of four admittedly broad categories.

First, there are those who see American decline as greatly exaggerated and argue that American hegemony serves as a stabiliser to the world order.

Second, there are those who agree that American decline is exaggerated but argue that the United States’ unparalleled power is fundamentally destabilizing.

Third, there are those who see American decline as ongoing or imminent, and also undesirable

Finally, there are those who see American decline as underway or imminent, but also desirable.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2009 13:48

Bharat Karnad in the IE has expressed his doubtful hope about MMS "kowtowing" to Obama,just as Obama did on his visit to Japan,to the Japanese Emperor.The demeaning "deep bow" that Uncle O performed,has been widely criticised back home.From my past experience of interacting intimately with the Japanese,an explanation is required.There are three kinds of bowing in Japan.A short bow-more of merely nodding the head from the neck which is given to your inferior,a respectful bow a little deeper from the chest to your equal and a deep bow from the waist with the top half of the body almost parallel to the ground.This is given to your superiors-the bow that Uncle O gave to the emperor! I am sure that his moronic mandarins of the State Dept. did not brief him properly on the appropriate bow to be used and the Japanese must be celebrating downing vast quantities of Suntory,Sake or Yoichi single malt!
In fact,was this bow of Uncle O a sub-concious acknowledgement of his inferiority,and has he from his insipid statements made in the land of the dragon,displaying a sad return to "form" of the early Afro-Americans,in that he is subconciously replacing his white "massas" for yellow ones?

Now Karnad's Q is how deep will MMS "bow" to Uncle O? He hopes that MMS's given his sudden new found spine against the Chinese insults will remain,though he ridiculed India's decision not to allow forign media reps to visit Tawang during HH the Dalai Lama's sojourn there.There is an interview with HH tonight on a local TV channel,worth watching.Though the thread is locked in the MIL Forum,I would advise members to check out the US's 21st century "full spectrum warfare" strategy,and its quest to dominate Eurasia.India is being inveigled to play its servile part in that new "Great Game".Does MMS and his advisers know anything about this at all?

James B · Post by **James B** » 23 Nov 2009 16:25

Zakaria's interview on CNN with PM Manmohan Singh

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/po ... .11.22.cnn

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Nov 2009 18:52

How condescending can Z get."The rise of India...." India "rose" up a long time ago! Asinine Yanquis cannot see beyond their meagre 200 yrs+ of history.India has to be seen and understood in the context of at least 10,000 years of authenticated history,even more given Poompuhar's undewater archaeological finds ,carbon dating of artifacts at around 14,000 BC.As for the MEA,they can't even see beyond their terms of duty.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Nov 2009 19:38

K. Subrahmanyam :: Partnering with the US: Yes we can!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Nov 2009 19:48

parterning is fine.. but we need to have these well defined for our strategic gains

1. cohesiveness that keeps our freedom and rights - no poodling. technology denial or strategic supplies and sanction regime.
2. coupling that encourages 1., and that is not driven like USA-China relationship., benefits not just mutual, but more for the seeker or denied party.
3. redundant laws that has a back claw on various things that "yes-we-can" get into.
4. controls and management are not directional, but helps in the long term relationship.
5. strategic objectives and boundaries have a clear line, and does not step on each others foot.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Nov 2009 20:22

James B wrote:Zakaria's interview on CNN with PM Manmohan Singh

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/po ... .11.22.cnn

The complete transcript of Fareed Zakaria’s interview of our PM Dr. Manmohan Singh is available here:

Interview With Manmohan Singh

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 23 Nov 2009 22:08

arun wrote:
James B wrote:Zakaria's interview on CNN with PM Manmohan Singh

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/po ... .11.22.cnn
The complete transcript of Fareed Zakaria’s interview of our PM Dr. Manmohan Singh is available here:

Interview With Manmohan Singh

Thanks Arun for that.

Man, I couldn't watch that CNN interview. PM Singh's communication skills are so bad. Why is it after studying in the UK and the US, these guys can't even string a few coherent words together without stuttering? IF ones communications skills are so bad, one becomes ineffective.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 23 Nov 2009 22:21

I didn't think his communication skills were so bad. I thought it was a good interview overall. And besides, actions speak louder than words!

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 23 Nov 2009 22:45

Obama has no strategic role for India -Stephen Cohen

...

"The relationship we have with India is moving into the zone that we have with France [ Images ] -- we understand each other, we disagree, and we get angry with each other from time to time, but we recognise that the relationship is important in the long run. But the French don't come back and say, 'Well, you like the Germans more than us, or the English more than us'. So in a sense, India has to float on its bottom."

...

Part of the problem, says Dr Cohen, is that there is lack of clarity on what India is up to vis-a-vis the nuclear issue, the environment issue and even with regard to China. "India wants the best of all possible worlds, and I am not sure how many Americans understand or appreciate it," he said. "So it comes down to simply satisfying the Indians symbolically, and in this regard support for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council would do that -- but again, that's hollow because there's not going to be a change in the UN Security Council for a long, long time."

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Nov 2009 22:53

There's no denying that having charismatic leaders would have helped with countering Pak assets like BB. Then again, the media can be told to blackout or give little play to even the most articulate leader.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 23 Nov 2009 22:57

I think the interview was excellent, and so were/are MMS communication skills.

Meanwhile, on the lighter side (or serious side for food lovers

) here is what was served in past White house dinners.. and other tidbits:

I liked the Laura Bush's menu for MMS the best with Illaychi and Kajoo Icecreeem, Basmati rice etc...
Culture: 60 years of WH meals for India

Largest affair (or any White house dinner) was Clinton's bash for ABV with about 700 people..

(Cut and paste excerpts ... for detail see the link above)

HARRY S. TRUMAN: October 1949: Nehru,
Five courses ...., including soup julienne; fillet of sole with tyrolienne sauce; roast turkey with oyster dressing, gravy and cranberry sauce; gingerale and peach salad, shredded lettuce, French dressing and toasted Triscuits.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER: December 1956: Nehru ..Sunday lunch of oysters on the half shell and roast leg of lamb.

JOHN F. KENNEDY:November 1961: Nehru's . Only about 14 people were at the table.
June 1963: Radhakrishnan was notable for featuring the first live orchestra performance ever at the White House. ..... planned entertainment program when a driving rain drove guests inside to the East Room ..

LYNDON B. JOHNSON:March 1966: Indira Gandhi ... sliced pheasant breast.

RICHARD NIXON: November 1971: Gandhi ....poached dumpling of pike in puff pastry, supreme of pheasant veronique, asparagus in melted butter and, for dessert, praline mousse and petit fours.

RONALD REAGAN: July 1982: Indira Gandhi's : seafood neptune, lamb wrapped in golden pastry and frozen black cherry bombe, in the State Dining Room. Gandhi wore a sari in raspberry silk; first lady Nancy Reagan matched her in a sari-inspired, one-shoulder, peach chiffon dress with silver trim.
June 1985: Rajiv Gandhi: : crab and cucumber mousse, breasts of Cornish hen and chocolate boxes with fruit sorbets and peach champagne sauce.

BILL CLINTON: September 2000: ABV largest dinner of his presidency honoring one person, . Their feast included a main course of wild Copper river salmon with red kuri squash and rice bean ragout. Dessert included mango and banner lotus, litchis and raspberry sauce, honey almond squares and chocolate coconut bars.

GEORGE W. BUSH: July 2005: Manmohan Singh . The chef paid tribute to India with chilled asparagus soup and lemon creme, pan-roasted halibut and ginger-carrot butter, and basmati rice with pistachio nuts and currants. Chocolate lotus blossoms and a trio of mango, chocolate-cardamom and cashew ice creams were served for dessert.

Let us see what Sweadish/Ethiopian guest chef and WH have in store for the menu

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Nov 2009 23:03

Muppalla wrote:Obama has no strategic role for India -Stephen Cohen

...

"The relationship we have with India is moving into the zone that we have with France [ Images ] -- we understand each other, we disagree, and we get angry with each other from time to time, but we recognise that the relationship is important in the long run. But the French don't come back and say, 'Well, you like the Germans more than us, or the English more than us'. So in a sense, India has to float on its bottom."

France does not have a unstable nuclear power next door with Islamic extremist trying to take over and attack the country. France does not have to complain that US is funding militarily for 50 years that unstable country.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 24 Nov 2009 00:19

Speaking of Pakistan --- C Christine Fair.

India and the U.S. share a common vision of a stable, democratic, civilian-controlled Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. But they have often disagreed on how best to achieve this end. It is unlikely that Mr. Singh's visit will yield an immediate consensus, but will likely continue to focus on law enforcement and counterintelligence cooperation.

Since 9/11, Delhi has watched warily as Washington enlisted Pakistan's help against al Qaeda by providing conventional military assistance and other allurements such as such as aid for Pakistan's participation on the war on terrorism. In total Pakistan has received more than $15 billion since 9/11. Washington had applied only episodic pressure on Pakistan to shut down militants operating in and against India and the disputed border region of Kashmir. Washington has wanted to encourage Pakistan to fight those militants that it can and will fight, even if Islamabad opposes actions against groups like Lashkar and the Afghan Taliban. And Washington needs Pakistan's support to fight the war in Afghanistan. Washington used to see Lashkar and other "Kashmiri groups" as India's problem, caring about these militant outfits only if they directly threatened U.S. interests. The United States and India have for too long been fighting their own, parallel wars on terror.

Second, whereas Lashkar was previously a "niche specialty" for counterterrorism experts within the U.S. government, now nearly every policy, law-enforcement, intelligence and military agency has dedicated resources to protect the U.S., its friends and its assets from Lashkar. The Mumbai attack lent increased urgency to deepening U.S.-India cooperation centered on joint law enforcement and counterterrorism concerns. While less "sexy" than military-to-military engagements, this kind of Indo-U.S cooperation is vital to securing both nations against future terrorist threats.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Nov 2009 01:03

Without comments: WH today..

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Nov 2009 01:04

The two old foreign policy fellows who have experience about India are Selig Harrison and Steven Cohen. Harrison is pro-India and Cohen is anti-India. Both are over 70 years old.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 24 Nov 2009 01:08

ZAKARIA: Do you think India's rise in that sense has a lesson to teach the world?

SINGH: I think, India, if it succeeds in remaining a functioning democracy, and simultaneously tackling problems of poverty, disease, illiteracy, that, if we do succeed, I think that is going to be an international public good. It would have lessons for the evolution of the countries of the hitherto Third World in the 21st century.

And so, the fact that there are very few countries of India's size, which have remained functioning democracy throughout the 60 years of our independence, I think the world has to recognize that, if we do succeed, it will have some bearing on the evolution of the countries of the Third World in the 21st century.

Overall good interview by MMS, not savy, but fairly done.

Here is my only criticism:

As a Prime Minister - your job is to make India succeed!
Yet you go about it with academic disinterest as if a billion+ people were a thought experiment.

The world, not just the so called "third world", as a whole could already learn a thing or two from India.
It is good to be humble, but Mr. PM, you do not have the mandate to be disinterested.

This is what happens when you look at India as a nation-state and are disconnect from Bharat the civilization!
India's success is your job!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Nov 2009 01:09

Amber G. wrote:Without comments: WH today..

As Nixon said in 1971 about the IG visit. "We really slobbered over the old hag..."

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Nov 2009 01:20

Pulikeshi wrote:
ZAKARIA: Do you think India's rise in that sense has a lesson to teach the world?

SINGH: I think, India, if it succeeds in remaining a functioning democracy, and simultaneously tackling problems of poverty, disease, illiteracy, that, if we do succeed, I think that is going to be an international public good. It would have lessons for the evolution of the countries of the hitherto Third World in the 21st century.

And so, the fact that there are very few countries of India's size, which have remained functioning democracy throughout the 60 years of our independence, I think the world has to recognize that, if we do succeed, it will have some bearing on the evolution of the countries of the Third World in the 21st century.
Overall good interview by MMS, not savy, but fairly done.

Here is my only criticism:

As a Prime Minister - your job is to make India succeed!
Yet you go about it with academic disinterest as if a billion+ people were a thought experiment.

The world, not just the so called "third world", as a whole could already learn a thing or two from India.
It is good to be humble, but Mr. PM, you do not have the mandate to be disinterested.
India's success is your job!

MMS is a good person and an academic, but to be PM you also need to be an astute politician. MMS was never really a successful Lok Sabha candidate and never really won any seat, maybe last election though. Being a politician and understanding the school yard mentality of world power politics has its place and it has to balance with being a great technocrat.

I do wish MMS would be in Mumbai from Nov. 26-29 to comfort the families who lost loved ones last year due to Pakistani terrorists. Perhaps that is the function of Raj Mata and agyakari putra?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Nov 2009 01:25

Here is Politco link again for the White House State Dinner for the PM of India:
http://www.politico.com/click/statedinner/index.html

Lots of interesting tid bits.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Nov 2009 02:11

pgbhat wrote:Speaking of Pakistan --- C Christine Fair.

Thanks, Interesting read from Fair (who was much maligned by some in this very thread). From this

...More broadly, there is a growing realization that Washington and New Delhi have many common security interests in Pakistan, which is a key country both to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and to the fight against Islamist terrorism.

So amid the fanfare of the Obama administration's first state visit, both sides will quietly focus on how they can best protect each other from the terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan. Americans are now more aware than ever of the threats India faces. Before the "11/26" assault, few Americans had ever heard of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terrorist group operating largely, but not exclusively, in India.

I hope for more concrete cooperation between US and India wrt to security.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 24 Nov 2009 02:18

It is time that Obama clears every hurdles for US- India nuclear agreement. India should also give assurance that she will not help Iran orother countries to develop nuclear arsenals.

It is also essential that US asks UN to lead a kind of army in Afganistan rather than NATO. It is better to work through UN though UN played very negatively in relation to Srilankan issue. It had shown its failures in this regard which makes me to think Bush and Blair could be right to get themselves involved rather than UN in Iraq. Now it is better to work through UN though there is a weak leadership in challenging the human rights issues around the world. It is better to go back NAM and strengthen their peace keeping military role in Afganistan.

Until China stops arming Pakistan India will have the fear of terrorism. Chinese Government has supported terrorism not openly but indirectly by supporting the Pakistan and other governments who counter India and also US and other Western threats. It is essential to put pressure on China not to supply nuclear arsenal to Pakistan or to any other countries. But they breach this clearly to counter West and India or any other country who would become threat to them.

US needs to engage with India in a reasonable way and do business in a fair manner by supplying sophisticated arms to counter and balance China and so Pakistan does not get more arms. Unless Chinese are under pressure they will continue to supply arms to Pakistan at all costs which indirectly will support confusions and leak of arms to the terror groups.

India needs to play a proper strategic plan in countering the threat from Pakistan and from China.while working closely with US and other European countries. It is essential to work closely with our neighbours but not at the cost of human rights abuse.

India needs to raise the Tibetian autonomy issue to change the reality and thus make sure Chinese are restrained from any claims of borders in India. but it is also for long term peace Tibet needs to get autonomy and should become a buffer state where Chinese army will not be there. India can really work with Pakistan in some settlement for Kashmir.

In this US has to provide India with sophisticated arms that will help India to protect from Chinese threat. If not the present trust will never be built again and we go back to the cold war times where things would look different. It will be difficult for US to engage with any of the countries in Asia as everyone will have a nuclear bomb at their backyard. Obama has to see this in the light of long term strategic policies which he cannot simply deviate from the previous government as they have seen it is in a long term relationship.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 24 Nov 2009 02:21

From WSJ (Sorry if already posted)Indian Prime Minister Offers Vision for U.S. Ties
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900683784261111.html

By HENRY J. PULIZZI

WASHINGTON -- Kicking off a high-profile U.S. visit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laid out his vision for "mutually beneficial" economic ties with the U.S. and said officials this week will sign a new memorandum of understanding on energy security and climate change.

"India's new and evolving relationship with the United States is in many ways the natural consequence of changes in economic policy and business practices that have occurred as countries have responded to processes of global economic integration," Mr. Singh said in a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The economic relationship, he said, is characterized by a "two-way flow," with U.S. corporations engaging in high-tech work in India, grooming talent and relocating research facilities there. At the same time, he said, Indian companies that make autos, tractors, pharmaceuticals and software are investing in the U.S. and creating jobs here.

The deepening link between the U.S. and India will be on display during Mr. Singh's trip to Washington, where officials will discuss critical trade and security issues, and sign a host of memorandums. Mr. Singh will be the guest of honor at a state dinner Tuesday at the White House, President Barack Obama's first since taking office.
<snip>

archan · Post by **archan** » 24 Nov 2009 02:58

Mort Walker wrote:
Amber G. wrote:Without comments: WH today..
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091121/i/r ... yP8rpRYg--

As Nixon said in 1971 about the IG visit. "We really slobbered over the old hag..."

I did not get the point of your post. Please explain the reason for posting what looks like an unnecessary flame bait.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Nov 2009 03:30

Archan,

The point is the WH can roll out the red carpet, but does not matter as true intentions are something else. Flattery was tried by previous administrations and Nixon did make disparaging remarks about IG in private, but on record. The photo should not fool anyone into thinking that the Ombaba administration will actually lead to deference in to thinking about its India policy.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 24 Nov 2009 03:33

SSridhar wrote:
VikramS wrote:The mods have permitted a tendency to paint anyone belonging to a particular group in the questionable category.
VikramS, stop this kind of unwarranted insinuation. If you have an issue with a post, use the 'REPORT' button to catch the attention of mods rather than whining about how mods perform or do not perform.

SSridhar:

I think you should be very well aware of what I am talking about.

When the Rahul name cropped up with Headley-Gilani, there were N number of posts about SRK being the guy and that being the reason he was questioned at an airport and yada yada. If anyone has read SRK's life story I doubt if they feel that he belongs to the dark side. But the mods do nothing to stop such insinuations.

I have seen many other such incidents, where people make blanket statements about others well-known people without a defensible justification. Even if their claims have merit, posting them without a reasonable justification reduces the credibility. These kind of posts do nothing to help the nationalists' cause; any person without BR re-education who comes and reads these posts, is likely to get a pretty bizarro impression of what is being discussed here.

At the end of the day it boils down to what the admins want BR to be.

=>If one of the primary purpose is to create awareness about nationalist issues among the everyday Macualay-RomilaThapar educated Indian, then posts like the once I have referred to defeat the purpose. I have personal experience about people who I have referred to BR not being particularly impressed; there are others who have said the same.

OTOH

=>If this has to serve as watering hole for jingos to vent their frustrations about way the world is, then carry on.

The nationalists anyway have an up-hill task with attack on their credibility coming from many sides; allow these insinuations and you hurt the cause more. The BR-reeducated can perhaps understand the thought behind it; those who are not. are not likely to be attracted to BR.

Know your audience.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 24 Nov 2009 03:45

VikramS: There's a limit to what moderators can do to balance option 1 and 2. Strictly speaking, we focus first on addressing explicit violation of forum rules, and try to keep members from going at each others throats. Moderating opinion, on the other hand, is something we'll never satisfy everyone on, regardless of what option we choose. The few times we do it is typically when a thread has been visibly derailed and temperatures need to cool down.

As SSridhar mentioned, there's an option for users to report a post that they think is in poor taste and leads to lowering forum standards. Please use it, rather than wait for a moderator to notice and hopefully have the same opinion as you. In borderline opinion-oriented cases like this, poster feedback is the best way for us mods to decide how to act. Posting a laundry list of issues later doesn't really help as much; it would be much more helpful if you and other posters report posts, so we can gauge opinions and act on that basis. Thanks.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Nov 2009 03:55

PM gives America Afghan advice - K.P. NAYAR

A day before his summit meeting with Barack Obama at the White House, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took an unusual step of giving some advice in public to the President on Afghanistan
...
...
Using an opportunity to address Washington’s strategic community at a meeting organised jointly by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Prime Minister said: “Democracy in an ancient land like Afghanistan will take time to take root and to come to terms with the country's history and tribal traditions.”

He boldly threw India’s weight publicly behind the embattled president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. “It is vitally important that all major regional and international players put their weight behind the government of Afghanistan.”
...
...
Indian officials will, however, lose little sleep over Holbrooke’s antics. It is well known in diplomatic circles here that the special envoy is increasingly isolated within the state department and that Obama has lately turned to Senator John Kerry and secretary of state Hillary Clinton to deal with Afghanistan and Karzai in particular.

...
...
Singh was anything but apologetic about an Indian role and an Indian presence in Afghanistan, which has been the subject of criticism from a section of the American government, the US army in particular.

“India has enduring civilisational links with Afghanistan,” the Prime Minister told the strategic community here. “We do not see Afghanistan as a theatre of influence,” he said in a thinly veiled criticism of Pakistan which insists that Afghanistan represents its strategic depth and, therefore, promotes its proxy, the Taliban.

“India will continue to assist Afghanistan in building its institutions and its human resources,” he asserted. “The evolution of Afghanistan as a stable and moderate nation state is so vital for the region and the world.”

But he also warned chicken hearts in the US who want Obama to pull out of Afghanistan that “the road to peace in Afghanistan will be long and hard. Given the high stakes involved, the commitment of the international community must be sustained by firm resolve and unity of purpose”.
...
....

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Nov 2009 04:08

VikramS wrote: =>If one of the primary purpose is to create awareness about nationalist issues among the everyday Macualay-RomilaThapar educated Indian, then posts like the once I have referred to defeat the purpose. I have personal experience about people who I have referred to BR not being particularly impressed; there are others who have said the same.

You mean speculating whether a certain Bollywood handle 'Rahul' is SRK or someone else is against the interests of Country ?

I hope you understand there is a difference between speculation and allegation.As far as I can recollect the posts in question were merely talking about the possible people , SRK's name came up for he is sported that name in most of his movies . You seem to be reading too much into it .

And what has Macualayite propaganda has to do with the above example ? I see a clear case of creating fuss over nothing.

Btw last I checked 'Rahul Roy' was also mentioned , but I guess his name does not cause much takleef.

The nationalists anyway have an up-hill task with attack on their credibility coming from many sides; allow these insinuations and you hurt the cause more. The BR-reeducated can perhaps understand the thought behind it; those who are not. are not likely to be attracted to BR.
Know your audience.

What good are these so called nationalists whose definition of nationalism is so fickle that it is shaken by inane in fact non issues as above ?

--corrected typos

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Nov 2009 04:09

Was this posted here? Dispelling Myths About India and Climate Change

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 24 Nov 2009 04:21

Just the name of the author of the above article discredits it.
Manish Bapna is a total psec climatophile who I last heard believes that Kashmir should be allowed to breakaway from India as should any other states seeking seccession.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Nov 2009 05:27

Russia-India-China: The Bush curse

However distasteful US actions are, the Russian leadership cannot risk closing the door completely on US efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, considering it was on the losing end against the Afghan resistance 20 years ago and is less than enamoured by an avowedly Islamic state there. But it is unlikely that China will join India and Pakistan as a US client state, and if India buries the hatchet with China and reconsiders its position on the Taliban, the situation for the US – and Afghanistan – could yet change dramatically. There is small reason for any of the RICs to be haunted by Bush’s curse – the US-inspired wars and subversion in their backyard.