Bharat Rakshak

Free fall

The Manmohan Singh government has outsourced internal political mediation to the United States, says N.V.Subramanian.

9 May 2012: Whilst the United States cannot be faulted for trying to get close to powerful non-Congress chief ministers like Mamata Bannerjee, J.Jayalalithaa, Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik, it is moving into territories that rightfully belong to the Central government. And for this, the Manmohan Singh government must be squarely blamed.

The Congress party is not reconciled to coalition politics or the emergence of chief ministers who are determined to safeguard the rights and powers of states. Indeed, one of its own chief ministers, Tarun Gogoi of Assam, objected to the National Counter-Terrorism Centre in its present form. In the matter of multi-brand retail FDI too, the Centre did not take states into confidence. And as for Teesta water-sharing with Bangladesh, Manmohan Singh approved it without obtaining the concurrence of Mamata, who dropped out of his Dacca visit embarrassing him.

Constitutionalists may insist India is a unitary state. But coalition politics of the past two decades and more has strengthened Indian federalism. The two mainstream parties, the Congress and BJP, are struggling with eroding bases, and the 2014 general elections may deliver a fractured verdict, one reason, apparently, for the United States' frenzied diplomacy with Mamata, Jayalalithaa & Co. But it also indicates an abdication of Central responsibility in every way, which first came to light during the heated national debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The CPI-M/ Left were then supporting UPA-1. Prakash Karat was adamantly opposed to the nuclear deal. He had his reasons, and they were valid. Karat can be inflexible, so the Centre was trying to get around him by wooing the West Bengal unit of the party and its government, fronted in Delhi by the likes of Sitaram Yechuri. At some point, the previous George Bush administration wished to be educated about the nature of opposition to the deal, and the Manmohan Singh government pointed accusing fingers at the BJP and CPI-M. The United States went on frenetically to engage both parties.

The point is, how could the Centre perversely seek the passage of the nuclear deal by encouraging the intervention and mediation of a foreign power in India's internal affairs? There is more than subtle difference between a foreign power courting all shades of Indian public opinion on its own and the Central government actively inciting it to do so. Once the United States got into the game, China followed suit, raising hackles within government. If the Chinese outreach was objectionable, how could America's forward diplomacy be condoned?

The same thing has happened in different form with the US engagement of Mamata and others, but particularly the West Bengal CM. Prior to her meeting with Mamata, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she would raise both Teesta water-sharing and multi-brand retail FDI with the chief minister. Clinton cannot bamboozle and browbeat a chief minister on issues that carry enormous Indian sensitivities. But what encouraged Clinton in that direction? The free pass given by the Centre, since the nuclear deal, to raise any and all matters, sensitive and otherwise, with opposition leaders and chief ministers if it helped the government.

The American mission in Calcutta and the media gave their own spin on the Mamata-Clinton meeting, forcing the West Bengal CM to issue denials. She said neither multi-brand retail nor Teesta were discussed with Clinton. Mamata is smart. She won't be bowled over by a visiting American secretary of state. But surely, the Centre could have saved her embarrassment by drawing parameters of the Clinton-Mamata meeting in advance, and informing the American side about it. And yet, because it has unlearnt the art of politics, and treats non-Congress leaders as enemies, the Manmohan Singh government has become dependent on outside powers like the United States to resolve internal differences.

What a fall for India.

Washington's oddly relaxed approach to India's nuclear program goes back to 2008, when Congress approved the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Under it, India agreed to separate its military and civil nuclear facilities and to place the latter under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in exchange for a U.S. guarantee to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Today India is still the only country to have been accommodated in this way since the establishment of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968.In 2008, as a member of the House who sat on all of the major security committees, I was concerned about the quiet acceptance of India's nuclear activities that the agreement represented. I was one of 59 representatives who opposed it. Four years later, India's missile test leaves me even more troubled by Washington's tacit acceptance of New Delhi's nuclear program.The timing of the launch was puzzling to say the least. It came just one week afterNorth Korea'sfailed missile test, which cost that country 240,000 metric tons of food aid — estimated to be worth $200 million — that Washington had promised in February.
India has an explicitly stated no-first-use policy and is widely viewed as a U.S. security ally. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to India's actions. It was noticed around the world that Washington reacted so strongly against one missile test in the region while essentially turning a blind eye to another. Pakistan quickly followed with its own missile test and is believed to be expanding its already large nuclear arsenal at a time when its government is fragile and U.S.-Pakistan relations are at a low point.In Tokyo last month, an Indian policymaker told me there was nothing significant about the timing of India's missile test — that New Delhi had been planning it for a long time. It may be that India, and now Pakistan, thinks such conduct, the byproduct of a long-strained relationship, will not affect events outside of their sandbox. This myopic view is dangerous.In recent weeks, the word "wary" appeared in many reports about New Delhi's missile launch. "India, wary of Beijing, tests nuclear-capable missile," one headline read. Other articles noted that "China and Pakistan reacted warily" and that the U.S. had issued a "wary" endorsement.But "wary" may not be wise. Just as the killing of Kadafi in Libya may teach that giving up weapons of mass destruction makes you vulnerable, so these tests — without serious responses — may also spur reckless conduct. Wisdom counsels zero tolerance

India will curtail its imports of Iranian oil by 20 percent, officials said, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held talks in New Delhi to enlist India’s help with sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran over its nuclear program.Asia’s third-biggest oil importer will cut purchases of crude from Iran to 14 million tons from 17.5 million tons in the 12 months ending March 31, according to two Indian diplomats and two refinery officials who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The officials said Iranian crude would account for 7 percent of India’s imports in fiscal year 2013, down from 10 percent currently.
India is “certainly working toward lowering their purchase of Iranian oil” and “we hope they will do even more,” Clinton told a gathering of students and civic leaders in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata yesterday, before flying to New Delhi for government meetings. The U.S. believes that there is sufficient production from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Persian Gulf nations for Iran’s customers to find alternate suppliers, she said.

In their meetings, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Clinton agreed that Iran must fulfill its United Nations obligations to abandon any possible military dimensions of its nuclear program, according to a State Department official present at the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity. While India has abided by several rounds of UN sanctions on Iran, it has publicly criticized unilateral American sanctions as an infringement on its sovereignty. U.S. and Indian officials say that while Singh’s administration doesn’t want to isolate Iran, an important trading partner and a route for India into Afghanistan, the government in New Delhi is quietly cooperating with oil sanctions and seeking an exemption from the U.S. penalties on financial transactions with Iran

And yet, because it has unlearnt the art of politics, and treats non-Congress leaders as enemies, the Manmohan Singh government has become dependent on outside powers like the United States to resolve internal differences.

shyamd wrote:No no MMS Sell out onleeee....

Anyway, still US has to answer for Headley amongst other issues.

Jhujar wrote:http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 4339.story
Don't forget India's nukes
By Jaane Herr man

Washington's oddly relaxed approach to India's nuclear program goes back to 2008, when Congress approved the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Under it, India agreed to separate its military and civil nuclear facilities and to place the latter under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards in exchange for a U.S. guarantee to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Today India is still the only country to have been accommodated in this way since the establishment of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968.In 2008, as a member of the House who sat on all of the major security committees, I was concerned about the quiet acceptance of India's nuclear activities that the agreement represented. I was one of 59 representatives who opposed it. Four years later, India's missile test leaves me even more troubled by Washington's tacit acceptance of New Delhi's nuclear program.The timing of the launch was puzzling to say the least. It came just one week afterNorth Korea's failed missile test, which cost that country 240,000 metric tons of food aid — estimated to be worth $200 million — that Washington had promised in February.
India has an explicitly stated no-first-use policy and is widely viewed as a U.S. security ally. But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to India's actions. It was noticed around the world that Washington reacted so strongly against one missile test in the region while essentially turning a blind eye to another. Pakistan quickly followed with its own missile test and is believed to be expanding its already large nuclear arsenal at a time when its government is fragile and U.S.-Pakistan relations are at a low point. In Tokyo last month, an Indian policymaker told me there was nothing significant about the timing of India's missile test — that New Delhi had been planning it for a long time. It may be that India, and now Pakistan, thinks such conduct, the byproduct of a long-strained relationship, will not affect events outside of their sandbox. This myopic view is dangerous. In recent weeks, the word "wary" appeared in many reports about New Delhi's missile launch. "India, wary of Beijing, tests nuclear-capable missile," one headline read. Other articles noted that "China and Pakistan reacted warily" and that the U.S. had issued a "wary" endorsement.But "wary" may not be wise. Just as the killing of Kadafi in Libya may teach that giving up weapons of mass destruction makes you vulnerable, so these tests — without serious responses — may also spur reckless conduct. Wisdom counsels zero tolerance.

Jane Harman is director, president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She was a nine-term congresswoman from California and the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee from 2002 to '06.

She is a NPA jihadi who doesnt relaize the world has changed. To add to her colored prespective, she appears to be talking for China lobby.

Its a no brain opinion.

ramana wrote:My take. The PRC was shocked* at the non-response of the West to the A5 test. So it claimed A5 was tested for lesser range than capable to imply even the West was under threat from A5. Even that didnt get any supporters with NPA folks saying India is still far from an ICBM.
So now they activated their China lobby in US to get some support.
Note this lady is also an NPA while supporting China. A twofer.

*Shocked because they never thought India would develop a delivery system with that weight and accuracy. This is as shocking as the POKII. Recall the PRC spokesman's shock on May 13th "Two more?" when informed of the second series of tests.
------
A simple analysis process:
- What is the main message?
- Who is the audience for the message?
- What image is the message looking at?
- Does it reinforce the image or break it or is it neutral?

These results will help coming to conclusion about any op-ed.

Varoon Shekhar wrote:I don't get the reasoning. Is she advocating that countries like Libya perhaps should have had WMD to avoid the events of last year, when its leader died? But that if they do have them, it could spur reckless "conduct"? So should they have them, or should they not?

...

Yes, it does sound like some Beijing propaganda drone like language.

ramana wrote:My take. The PRC was shocked* at the non-response of the West to the A5 test. So it claimed A5 was tested for lesser range than capable to imply even the West was under threat from A5. Even that didnt get any supporters with NPA folks saying India is still far from an ICBM.
So now they activated their China lobby in US to get some support.
Note this lady is also an NPA while supporting China.

...

These results will help coming to conclusion about any op-ed.

RajeshA wrote:Acharya ji,

It is in fact naturally understandable that the Chinese would use American media.

ramana wrote:Its quite possible that the so called anti-India lobby would say their things regardless of whether they get PRC support or not. In that case might as well take the PRC support and mask their original anti-India stance.

Lalmohan wrote:US definitely thinks they were short changed on the nuke deal, and are claiming that other countries provide governmental backup to their companies.
would it not be easier for the US to financially guarantee its own companies rather than coerce a democratic country to change its laws?
in the context of which, didn't understand the reports of westinghouse setting up plants in Gujarat

RajeshA wrote:It is in fact naturally understandable that the Chinese would use American media.

ramana wrote:Its quite possible that the so called anti-India lobby would say their things regardless of whether they get PRC support or not. In that case might as well take the PRC support and mask their original anti-India stance.

Ms Harman has been anti-India for varoius reasons:Cold War, NPT break out, what not.
So throwing some gratitous refs to how existing world order meaning 'P5' is shaken is a freebie.

But the "unwise" Libyan overthorw and linking to China make it clear there is a pro-China angle to her article.

Maybe she needs a course on Critical Thinking so as to be more effective in her polemics?

paramu wrote:

RajeshA wrote:It is in fact naturally understandable that the Chinese would use American media.

US media is heavily influenced by the US Govt. If Chinese are able to use US media, that tells us that GOTUS allowed them to use its media.

An Indian diplomat's daughter, who was jailed for a day on suspicion of sending obscene emails to her teacher, has filed a lawsuit against the city of New York and her school authorities seeking USD 1.5 million in damages for her wrongful imprisonment and suspension from school.

ramana wrote:
Looks like PRC has cognitive dissonance. While they are being circled by US they want to circle India as if India is the lesser proxy for the US!

Must be some Sun Tzu axiom adapted by Mao!

When the Lizard is surrounded by the Eagle, surround the rabbit and feed the hyena!