Bharat Rakshak

sudham wrote:

chetak wrote:The United States now has two Presidents impeached for embarrassing Hillary Clinton.

Shanmukh wrote:A question for the US gurus here. How come Minnesota always elects rabid Muslims like Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar, etc? A look at the demography shows that Muslims are not so numerous in Minnesota. So what gives here?

Five men, all associated with the front company “Business World” in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and including Muhammad Kamran Wali (Kamran), 41, of Pakistan; Muhammad Ahsan Wali (Ahsan), 48, and Haji Wali Muhammad Sheikh (Haji), 82, both of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; Ashraf Khan Muhammad (Khan) of Hong Kong; and Ahmed Waheed (Waheed), 52, of Ilford, Essex, United Kingdom, were indicted in federal court for conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Control Reform Act. The grand jury returned the indictment on Oct. 16, 2019, and it was unsealed today.

“The defendants smuggled U.S. origin goods to entities that have been designated for years as threats to U.S. national security for their ties to Pakistan’s weapons programs,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “This indictment puts the world on notice not to do business with these defendants and demonstrates our commitment to holding them accountable. It also stands as an example of the kind of deceptive behavior U.S. businesses need to watch out for in designing appropriate export control and sanctions compliance programs.”

“Federal export control laws are vital tools that help prevent items from being exported overseas where they could be used in ways that can jeopardize our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Scott W. Murray for the District of New Hampshire. “In order to protect the safety and security of the American people, we work closely with our law enforcement partners to identify those who violate these important laws. We will continue to be vigilant in our efforts to identify individuals whose actions may jeopardize the national security of the United States.”

“The alleged behavior of these five individuals presented more than a violation of U.S. export laws, it posed a potential threat to the national security interests of the United States and to the delicate balance of power among nations within the region,” said Jason Molina, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI’s Counterproliferation group proactively works investigations into U.S. import-export licensing laws violations because of the threat it can pose to our national security.”

“The indictments unsealed today are a result of the ongoing coordination and collaborative counter proliferation efforts by the Office of Export Enforcement, the Justice Department, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and Homeland Security Investigations,”said Special Agent in Charge William Higgins of the Office of Export Enforcement. “The Boston Field Office of the Office of Export Enforcement will continue to vigorously pursue violators with all its partners to stem illicit trade that threatens U.S. national security and undermines U.S. foreign policy.”

"Stopping the illegal exportation of sensitive defense technology is a top priority for the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and today's indictment is the result of a multi-agency effort," stated Special Agent in Charge Leigh-Alistair Barzey, DCIS Northeast Field Office. "The DCIS is committed to working with the USAO-NH, Homeland Security Investigations and the Office of Export Enforcement, to protect our nation's security by identifying, investigating and prosecuting criminal procurement networks."

According to the indictment, between September 2014 and October 2019, the defendants operated an international procurement network of front companies that existed to acquire U.S.-origin goods for the Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO) and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), and to cause those goods to be exported from the United States to the entities without export licenses in violation of federals law. Both AERO and PAEC were on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, which imposes export license requirements for organizations whose activities are found to be contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. PAEC was added to the Entity List in 1998. AERO was added to the Entity List in 2014, after the U.S. Government found that it had used intermediaries and front companies to procure items for use in Pakistan’s cruise missile and strategic UAV programs.

According to the indictment, the defendants attempted to conceal the true destinations in Pakistan of the U.S.-origin goods by using the conspirators’ network of front companies as the supposed purchasers and end users of the goods and as the apparent source of payments for the goods, even though the goods were ultimately received in Pakistan and paid for by AERO or PAEC. The defendants caused the U.S. companies to file export documents that falsely identified the Ultimate Consignees of the shipments as entities other than AERO and PAEC. The defendants never applied for or obtained an export license from the Department of Commerce authorizing the export of goods to AERO or PAEC in Pakistan.

The indictment identified 38 separate exports from the U.S. that the defendants caused, involving 29 different companies from around the country. Three of those companies are in New Hampshire. None of the U.S. companies is alleged to have been complicit in the illegal exports. Each defendant is charged with two felony counts of conspiracy. Although arrest warrants are pending, none of the five defendants has thus far been apprehended.

This matter was investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement; the Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney John Davis and Trial Attorney Nicholas Hunter of DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, National Security Division.

The charges and allegations contained in an indictment are merely accusations. A defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

chetak wrote:The United States now has two Presidents impeached for embarrassing Hillary Clinton.

The indictment identified 38 separate exports from the U.S. that the defendants caused, involving 29 different companies from around the country. Three of those companies are in New Hampshire. None of the U.S. companies is alleged to have been complicit in the illegal exports. Each defendant is charged with two felony counts of conspiracy. Although arrest warrants are pending, none of the five defendants has thus far been apprehended.

According to the indictment, between September 2014 and October 2019, the defendants operated an international procurement network of front companies that existed to acquire U.S.-origin goods for the Advanced Engineering Research Organization (AERO) and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), and to cause those goods to be exported from the United States to the entities without export licenses in violation of federals law. Both AERO and PAEC were on the Commerce Department’s Entity List, which imposes export license requirements for organizations whose activities are found to be contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. PAEC was added to the Entity List in 1998. AERO was added to the Entity List in 2014, after the U.S. Government found that it had used intermediaries and front companies to procure items for use in Pakistan’s cruise missile and strategic UAV programs.

According to the indictment, the defendants attempted to conceal the true destinations in Pakistan of the U.S.-origin goods by using the conspirators’ network of front companies as the supposed purchasers and end users of the goods and as the apparent source of payments for the goods, even though the goods were ultimately received in Pakistan and paid for by AERO or PAEC. The defendants caused the U.S. companies to file export documents that falsely identified the Ultimate Consignees of the shipments as entities other than AERO and PAEC. The defendants never applied for or obtained an export license from the Department of Commerce authorizing the export of goods to AERO or PAEC in Pakistan.

The indictment identified 38 separate exports from the U.S. that the defendants caused, involving 29 different companies from around the country. Three of those companies are in New Hampshire. None of the U.S. companies is alleged to have been complicit in the illegal exports. Each defendant is charged with two felony counts of conspiracy. Although arrest warrants are pending, none of the five defendants has thus far been apprehended.

Shanmukh wrote:A question for the US gurus here. How come Minnesota always elects rabid Muslims like Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar, etc? A look at the demography shows that Muslims are not so numerous in Minnesota. So what gives here?

Let us turn to defence. The spectacular growth in US exports in recent years obscures fundamental differences. The dominant discourse is focused on promoting US market access rather than India’s overall military modernisation. So, Indian attempts to pursue alternative technological options immediately invite negative policies and pressure. The points of friction, however, run deeper. Through its arms sales, the US aims to develop a network of states that would integrate into a broader US-controlled ecosystem of technologies and intelligence, and, would collectively share the burden of managing a US-led security architecture. But for India, such a concept is not only incompatible with the vision of an inclusive multipolar world order, it also undermines the very basis of strategic autonomy – where the ability to autonomously operate its military forces is vital for the independence of India’s foreign and security policies.

ramana wrote:What a CHSO4.
There are no insults.
India wants precisely that hardware which US is willing to sell.
So many deplorables are gathered by Couptaji in his rag.

ramana wrote:What a CHSO4.
There are no insults.
India wants precisely that hardware which US is willing to sell.
So many deplorables are gathered by Couptaji in his rag.

Amber G. wrote:Meanwhile .. another IIT graduate is in the news .. Arvind Krishna is CEO of IBM.

Meet Arvind Krishna, the IIT Kanpur graduate who will be new CEO of IBM

Q. What is your view about the American reaction to India purchasing S-400 ?

A . I personally have a lot of problems with the CAATSA legislation both generally and within India-U.S. relations. Philosophically I have a problem with the idea of telling other countries who they can and can't buy weapons from. Particularly a close strategic partner like India. I think it's punishment enough to be cut off from advanced weapons systems like the F-35. I think Russia would like nothing more than to drive a wedge between the U.S. and India. So while I understand why the Hill wants to punish Russia for interfering in U.S. elections, I don't think secondary sanctions on India are the answer. You don't try to punish a third party by undermining one of your own strategic partnerships, ironically making the third party more attractive to your partner! I've frankly been a little surprised by the fact that the administration has seemingly just ignored the CAATSA legislation with regard to Turkey and Capitol Hill hasn't taken a more proactive approach to the matter. I've always felt India was a stronger candidate for a presidential waiver than Turkey was but nothing is guaranteed. So we're just going to have to see. But if the administration does nothing whatsoever with Turkey they're going to have a tough case to make that India should be targeted with sanctions.

Q. Why has America still not let go of Pakistan completely ?

A. The U.S. relationship with Pakistan has been a great irritant for me since I arrived in Washington over a decade ago. I used to spend a great deal of my time writing articles trying to expose Pakistan's double game before I realized everyone in Washington was well aware of the game, they were just willing to accept it. Not because of any hatred for India, not because of KSA, UAE, and Israel. But because of Afghanistan. Time and again the Pentagon was insistent that it would be impossible for us to prosecute the war in Afghanistan without Pakistan's help. It was the cold hard reality of logistics. Pakistan had convinced Washington that we need Islamabad more than Islamabad needs the U.S. And frankly, at a time there were over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan, they may have been right. Thankfully, that's no longer the case and with the U.S. withdrawal of the majority of forces it eased some of the pressure on us. Which eventually allowed the Trump administration to cut off aid to Islamabad. Now, however, Islamabad has done a fairly successful job convincing the administration that it is the only one that can play kingmaker in the Afghan peace negotiations and is trying to work itself back into Washington's favor. Personally, I'm very skeptical, but the President has given his administration orders to find a way to resolve the conflict peacefully and expeditiously and Pakistan has positioned itself as a spoiler.

Q. It sounds counter productive to me when I hear America giving weapons and money to Pakistan which it uses to train Al Qaeda and Taliban to fight in Afghanistan. Don't you think America is giving money and weapons to Pakistan and fighting them in Afghanistan ?

A. Yes. I was urging the U.S. to cut aid to Pakistan over 10 years ago. I used to write on Pakistan frequently. And then realized I was writing the same oped over and over again. I kept saying that you can't change a country's cost-benefit calculation if you never impose any costs for its destructive behavior. I'm glad President Trump had the good sense to suspend the aid despite most of the South Asia community in Washington insisting that doing so would cause the apocalypse.

Q. Do you think the current Indian Govt has been more offensive in their stand against the Chinese than the previous regimes ?

A. I think the Modi government has been more assertive with China in general. I think this manifested most directly in India's opposition to the BRI. The Modi gov't really went out on a limb early on in being the only country to stand in direct opposition to the premier strategic initiative of President Xi. It had greater reason than others to do so, given CPEC/BRI traversed disputed territory in Kashmir. But I don't think observers appreciate how bold of a stand India took on arguably the key geostrategic initiative of our time, and the role Delhi played in eventually persuading the U.S. and others to take similar stands in opposition. I think Doklam was another good example of India taking a more assertive stand with China. But more often this has taken form in indirect ways. Perhaps the biggest example is how far India has come in recent years in strengthening its strategic partnerships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, in particular. [To be fair, I also give the UPA gov't a lot of credit on this but under Modi India has moved farther, faster]. I think there were many factors preventing greater alignment in the past. Some of them domestic. But a deference to Chinese sensitivities and fear of Chinese retribution were two influential factors as well. I think the Modi gov't has rightly moved past that thinking. The signing of the military agreements with the U.S., the revival of the Quad, upgrading it to a ministerial level, doing joint sails with the U.S. through the South China Sea, signing joint vision statements and intelligence sharing agreements with the U.S. There was a time when these things would have been viewed as too provocative toward China. I think the Modi government has flipped that thinking on its head, realizing that stronger external partnerships actually strengthen its hand with Beijing.

Q. Do you think the Chinese have already started ruling the world, Considering not only trade but their influences and lobbying in different regimes across the world ?

A. I don't think the Chinese rule the world. But their power and influence has spread at rate that likely has no historical precedent. They are incredibly influential. In some capitals the most influential. But so long as there are countries that remain sovereign, independent, and uncompromised by Chinese influence, capable of making their own autonomous choices without giving Beijing a veto, China will not "rule the world." This is in part why I think the great struggles of the 21st century are playing out not through broadsides from battleships but in a subtler struggle for access, information, and influence. It's one reason I've been so active on the question of Huawei and 5G.

Q. USA has the Lautenberg-Specter Amendment which grants refuge to non Islamic minorities in Iran facing persecution and includes reasonable classification to exclude Muslims. Very similar to India's CAA. The LS Amendment was lauded by the USCIRF and has never faced opposition from US Liberals. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical of USCIRF, a handful of US congresspersons, presidential candidates, US Liberals and a few publications in the US to posture on India's CAA saying that it's 'immoral' & 'Anti-Muslim' when it is anything but and has got nothing to do with Indian Muslims?Infact the same USCIRF called for the continuation of LS Amendment and praised it, yet the body passed a scathing remark on CAA. Whats your take ?

A. On the first question I do see a disconnect in some of the criticism of the CAA. I suspect there are very few in Washington or the U.S. more broadly that are aware of the Lautenberg-Specter Amendment. I believe there is a difference insofar as the Lautenberg Amendment provides an accelerated path to refugee status, rather than citizenship, but I agree the principle is the same. If the CAA is discriminatory and malevolent, then so is the Specter Amendment. I've finally written something long and in-depth on how I view the recent controversies over Article 370/CAA/NRC, etc. In it I raise the L-S Amendment. I hope it will offer U.S. audiences a more balanced perspective. In my opinion the more potent criticism of the CAA is that it *could* be combined with a nationwide NRC and abused in a manner that would give a backdoor path to citizenship for Hindus, Christians, etc. unable to provide the adequate documents but leave Muslims with no such recourse. My problem is that the anti-gov't critics seem to have taken this as an accepted fact rather than a hypothetical scenario. I'm not as convinced as they are that the BJP and Prime Minister Modi are hell-bent on stripping all Indian Muslims of citizenship.


Q. What risks are there for India-US relationship on their way up ?

A. Maybe the biggest risk I see on the horizon is a fracturing of the bipartisan support for India in the U.S. It's possible to envision a Democratic administration assuming a different disposition toward India than that assumed by the last three administrations (including the Obama administration). I can imagine them trying to prioritize human rights and take a more activist approach to India's internal affairs, which I think could be detrimental to the strategic partnership. I still don't think this is likely. And I think even if it did happen it would result in a slowing of the growth of the partnership rather than a sharp rift. But it is more of a possibility than it has been at any point in recent memory.

Q. Why is there such an imbalance in the American media coverage of India, be it NYT or WP or CNN or NPR? Do you think it has led to dissonance of opinion between the truth of India and the American media's image of it ?

A. I think if you've watched the NYT/WaPo/New Yorker coverage of Republicans over the years you would find a lot of similarities with how they're covering the BJP government now. I think in part it is a product of the BJP government now being more associated with Trump/right-wing/conservatism. The Howdy Modi event played a role in that. It wasn't as easy to portray Modi as a right wing fascist when President Obama was hailing him as a great friend and touring the Martin Luther King Memorial with him. But it's also because many of these reporters genuinely believe there are troubling developments happening in India. They have a certain lens through which they see the CAA/NRC/Kashmir and in their view India is moving away from its democratic and liberal traditions. It's become a new go-to cause. I think it is a mistake to assume they are all motivated by some anti-India conspiracy theory agenda, though. Many of them are not. But they are caught up in a narrative and an environment rife with groupthink and confirmation bias that rewards coverage critical of the BJP and is hostile to contrasting viewpoints or anything that suggests the reality may be more complex than they're portraying.

Q. Will US policy shift towards India if Democrats win the presidency? Some dems have been making noises against the repeal of 370 as well as CAA now.

A. I try not to comment on domestic politics. But I do have some concerns that Democratic support for the India-U.S. relationship isn't as strong as it once was and that a future Democratic administration could try to place more of an emphasis on India's internal politics in ways that could be detrimental to the relationship. That's not guaranteed, and I don't expect any major rupture in the relationship, but a slowing of the pace of progress is possible. I still don't think that is likely but we can't discount the possibility and we have to keep making the case to both parties why the relationship has served both countries so well.

Q. A lot of fuss is being made around adding more countries to the UNSC Permanent Members. do you think India getting a perm seat is necessary or more like a token gesture ? Since adding more members is going to be more of a balancing out of new players which again leads to stalemate situations in almost all debates/resolutions.

A. If India were to get a permanent, veto-wielding seat on the UNSC it would be much more than a token gesture but I don't see that happening anytime in the near term. Naturally, the biggest obstacle is that one of the five perm UNSC members still doesn't support a seat for India. I'll give you one chance to guess who that is. But even if they were to change their position there is still no agreement among the major powers on precisely how the body should be expanded, who should be brought in, and what powers should be allocated to them. Even if all five recognize that the existing structure is probably unfair and outdated.


Q. Is the Russia-China-Pakistan alignment real? (or as we Indians call it, - ' The Unholy Alliance'). Also, has Iran any place in it ?

A. I wouldn't call it an "alignment" yet but there certainly has been some growth in the Russia-Pakistan relationship the last few years. It's always felt like Moscow signaling to Delhi that there will be consequences for moving too closely to the U.S. Which seems a bit petty to me. Why does Moscow have a right to tell India who it can and can't work with/buy arms from/do military exercises with? At a time the Russians have grown quite close to China (which also encourages more Moscow-Islamabad dialogue) I don't think they are in any position to dictate to India how to conduct its foreign relations. I think it's possible we could see the Russia-Pakistan relationship grow more in the future but for now the engagements remain fairly low-level.

Q. How deep goes Sino-Russian relations ?

A. The China-Russia relationship is a bit of an enigma. Skeptics have repeatedly noted that there are many conflicts of interest between the two countries and a lot of mistrust bubbling beneath the surface. Both assessments are accurate in my opinion (privately the Chinese very much look down on the Russians) but nevertheless, the China-Russia partnership has so far beat the expectations of all its detractors. It's endured longer, and grown broader, than many people would have anticipated a decade ago. In large part because Russia has been willing to take a backseat and play junior partner to Beijing. I don't think this will continue indefinitely but as I said, they've proven their critics wrong before.


Q. Do you think India will incur USA's wrath if it accepts Huawei for 5G? (Heard they are already pretty annoyed with UK)

A. I don't think the U.S. would seek to punish India if it were to allow Huawei into its 5G networks but it might curtail some cooperation and intelligence sharing. Ultimately the big cost would be to India's own security.

Q. How do you see India as a geopolitical entity: is it on the fringe of the Arab-Muslim world to its West, on the fringe of ASEAN and China to the East, or a more inward-looking country within the subcontinent? What role does India play in the world ?

A. I see India and its immediate neighborhood as its own distinct entity separate from ASEAN, the Middle East (I include Iran here), and Central Asia. Traditionally, yes, India has been more inward-looking but that is changing fast. One of the more remarkable feats India has achieved on the international stage is to promote engagement and productive partnerships with everyone. Saudi and Iran. The U.S. and Russia. China and Japan. I don't think any other major power can claim to enjoy as strong relations with as wide a variety of powers. Some see that as a bad thing, a relic of Non-Alignment. If you're friends with all, you're really friends with none. There are risks to this approach. Of course, I would like to see it move even closer to the U.S. in the future, and become more open about the challenges China poses. There may indeed be more pressure on India to choose sides moving forward. But I have to say, on balance, and so far, this disposition has served India well.

Q. Many people have this thinking here that USA want to ally with India just to counter China but it doesn't want India to get too big either so it critisize Pakistan for terrorism on surface but support it from backhand so that India continues to waste it's resources on Pakistan. What do you think about that ?

A. Let me take this opportunity to dispel one myth: U.S. aid to Pakistan has NEVER been about "keeping India down." Never. Pakistan made itself a useful partner in the struggle against the Soviet Union. Aid to Pakistan during the Cold War was always a function of that struggle. Since 2001, aid to Pakistan has been about securing cooperation against al Qaeda and providing ground lines of communication to Afghanistan. In fact, we frequently got ourselves into trouble with Pakistan by trying to make sure that they didn't do anything reckless to start a war with India, that they didn't use American weapons in any conflict with India. We had to intervene forcefully to prevent them from trying to take advantage of China's attack in 1962 to press their claims in Kashmir. We took a lot of heat for being neutral, or even partial to India, during the Kargil conflict.

Claims that America was biased toward Pakistan in the past, that it overlooked many of Pakistan's sins (including support to anti-India jihadis), that it let Pakistan get away with murder are all fair. I understand why Indians have major grievances with U.S. support to Pakistan over the years (I do too) but I hope over time they come to better appreciate the context.

Q. do the separatist movements in Pakistan, especially in the Baloch and Gilgit regions pose any actual threat to the country? Or are these movements on their last legs ?

A. I'm skeptical of prospects for an Arab spring-like situation in Pakistan. I think the army remains too powerful for that, both from a hard power standpoint but also because it remains the most popular institution among the Pakistani people. I'm sure if I was watching and reading military-backed news 24/7 I'd have a high opinion of the military too. Every time there has been a popular uprising, the army has ensured it is directed against the politicos, sidestepping the blame. You have to give them credit: they play the game well. At this time I don't see the military having trouble containing the separatist movements in Baluchistan or Gilgit Baltistan.

Q. In your opinion, are the organizations like Amnesty International, Open Society Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy among others actively involved in organising anti-state activities in India ?

A. I can't really vouch for Amnesty or Open Society-I've never had firsthand interactions with them. I have had them with NED and I think there are some very good folks working for NED. In general, I think the fear that U.S. human rights organizations are working against the state is overblown. Many of these organizations are populated by very good, very well-meaning people. When they criticize Chinese human rights abuses in Tibet we all applaud them but if they report on mistreatment of Christians in India then they're covert CIA programs designed to undermine India. Groupthink works both ways, comrades. Where I do think there's some fair criticism is in where these groups decide to direct their attention/priority/focus. As I noted previously on Twitter, I was shocked when I looked at the websites of (I believe it was Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and found 50+ reports on humanitarian conditions in Indian Kashmir over the past 10 years and like 2 or 3 on Pakistani Kashmir (sorry guys, I'm not going to get into the verbal gymnastics of PoK/PaK etc). This despite the fact that conditions in Pakistani Kashmir are worse by almost every metric. If I were an Indian, that would appear biased to me. But that doesn't change my opinion that many of these groups (perhaps not all) are largely interested in promoting human rights--not undermining democratic governments. Even if their priorities seem skewed sometimes.

Q. Do Indian-Americans have the numbers to push forth our agenda independently, in terms of votes or money, irrespective of who is in power in India ?

A. I think Indian Americans are finally making their presence felt in Hollywood, in the media, in politics, in everyday American life. I think in the past the Indian American community was perhaps a bit more insular. I know for a fact they have become much more politically active in recent years. And I see more Indian stand up comedians, movie stars, television actors, etc. every year. It's a great thing. I also think the average American's conception of Indians has changed. Sadly, 20 years ago the impression of Indians among the average American was probably shaped by The Simpsons and Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. Now, if I had to guess, when the average American thinks of an Indian he thinks of someone smart, funny, hardworking, polite, and moderate.

Q. Do you think Indian right wing should be non aligned as we are non Christian right wing and the only country which is non Christian right wing is japan but we can't trust japanese because well they themselves don't trust anyone something not found in Christian right wing as they try to help each other.So is it better for Indian right wing to remain neutral as we don't share similarities with others at all.

A. I don't think we should view geopolitics and foreign relationships exclusively through religious prisms. Where do we have shared interests with other countries? Where do we have conflicts of interests with other countries? That should be guiding principle, in my humble opinion.

Q. As an Indian, I think we're just better off negotiating a deal with China and settling all of our disputes. Do you think US or any western world will oppose it and if yes up-to what extent they can go to avoid an Indo-Chinese alliance ?

A. I don't think the West would oppose a China-India rapprochement but I don't see Beijing willing to bend on the core friction points: the border dispute, China's support for Pakistan, and its growing influence in India's neighborhood (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, etc.) I don't see a lot of opportunities for a major breakthrough in China-India relations.

Q. Do you ever think India will surpass China in infrastructure, defence sector, biotechnology and industrial production? Also till how long can China oppress Tibet,Hong Kong and Uyghurs? Will there ever be a nation-wide revolution ?

A. I think all things are possible over the long term. India has such tremendous untapped potential that it could easily be the world's largest economy at some point this century. But that is over the mid-to-long term and would require a lot of reforms, a lot of investments, and a lot of improvements to governance between now and then.

I'm skeptical of betting against the Chinese Communist Party's ability to suppress dissent. I think anything is possible, and I think there is already a great deal of discontent within China that is hidden from the public eye, but I also fear the prospects for a nation-wide revolution are shrinking, rather than growing, and the Chinese surveillance state is becoming more and more intrusive, oppressive, and effective. Technology is giving dictators and autocrats the world over some scary new tools to oppress their people.

khatvaanga wrote:a very good interview. Heritage is like GOP brain so having them on our side is good only.

The Seattle City Council votes to pass resolution 32196 that condemns the recent Citizenship Law and NRC in India.
Remarkable win, and big thanks to everyone who made this happen.

Kolhapur municipality council should pass a resolution calling for transparent voting in Iowa primary.

chetak wrote:we should also stop buying boeing aircraft

The Seattle City Council votes to pass resolution 32196 that condemns the recent Citizenship Law and NRC in India.
Remarkable win, and big thanks to everyone who made this happen.

Kolhapur municipality council should pass a resolution calling for transparent voting in Iowa primary.

chetak wrote:

The Seattle City Council votes to pass resolution 32196 that condemns the recent Citizenship Law and NRC in India.
Remarkable win, and big thanks to everyone who made this happen.

In terms of political corruption, we are as bad as any city in the country has ever been.

An independent citizen journalist recently posted on his website, sccinsight.com, some hidden truths about Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant’s finances.

When Kshama Sawant first got elected to the Seattle City Council, she pledged that she would only accept an ordinary worker’s salary, $40,000 per year, and would give the rest of her salary away. How noble.

Now that she has updated her filings, I want you to see what a fraud this “caring socialist” is. I want you to hear how a person who pledged to live on an ordinary worker’s salary finances her life at a much higher level than the ordinary worker. She lives in a house that is worth between $800,000 and $900,000 and has over a half-million in equity in her house. Yeah, she’s part of that “proletariat.”

But what does she do with the money she gives away? First of all, let’s talk about her husband. She got rid of the six-figure Microsoft guy — I guess it doesn’t look too good to decry the rich when you’re married to a Microsoftie. So she’s now married to a guy named Calvin Priest. Priest has what is described as “an undefined relationship” with an organization called 15 Now — an organization dedicated to raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Fifteen Now is not registered with the FEC or IRS as a political group, so there’s no paper trail there.

Last year, Sawant gave a total of about $25,000 to 15 Now and Socialist Alternative.

Let’s talk about what those groups do for her. Sawant and her husband have had over $13,000 worth of travel paid for by … drumroll … Movement for the 99 Percent and Socialist Alternative. So she gives money to Socialist Alternative and they pay for her and her husband to fly all around the country. Well that’s odd.

Sawant’s husband apparently works for Socialist Alternative, where he last year made between $10,000 and $25,000. Sawant gives $13,800 to Socialist Alternative, and Socialist Alternative pays for her and her husband to fly all around the country, and they give a salary between $10,000 and $25,000 to her husband.

So the money Kshama Sawant “gives” to Socialist Alternative comes right back to Kshama Sawant. That’s a pretty handy little relationship there.

Socialist Alternative, which is no longer a nonprofit, paid for Sawant and her husband to go to Minnesota and represent them at a conference. This is all, by the way, to do with her building her personal brand as a firebrand socialist, not to do with her being a Seattle City Councilmember.

So that’s what this kind, generous philanthropist is doing with the money she claims to give away. I’m not saying this is illegal — she is well within her rights. I’m simply showing what a phony she is, pure and simple. She’s a con artist. She deceives people and lies to them.

Sawant has a lot of dopey people following her around, cheering for her as some socialist icon. But really, she is all about herself.

chanakyaa wrote:

chetak wrote:

Ha. They can’t fix their own social problems. Google following search “seattle homelessness problem“ and watch some long videos.

Akhil Bavdhan Resident Association, led by its President has condemned the Seattle City Council resolution number 32196

ABRA passed resolution number STHU/420/Feb2020 in this regards

For and on behalf of ABRA

SD/-
Authorised Signatory

Bernie Sanders campaign manager is Pakistani Faiz Shakir working for law firm Holland and Knight . This firm was hired Pak embassy in Washington This explains Sanders Article 370 statement

Aditya_V wrote:All Democrats, Huma Abedin- Hillry Clinton, that Debbie Shultz , now Sanders all seem to have Pakis manage thuer affairs, any reason for this?

Mort Walker wrote:Shewtankji,

Don’t get wrapped up in Amreeki politics. This has nothing to do with India-US relationship. Right now we have to see what sort of trade and defense deal comes out of Trump’s visit at the end of this month. I’m also interested in the Kem Cho Trump MAGA style rally planned for Ahmedabad. It should be fun as Trump wants at 50,000 to show up.

chanakyaa wrote:

Shanmukh wrote:A question for the US gurus here. How come Minnesota always elects rabid Muslims like Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar, etc? A look at the demography shows that Muslims are not so numerous in Minnesota. So what gives here?

Shanmukh-ji, here is some data points, from which you can make educated guess. This should be understanding US dhaaga, but we will do it here. It doesn't matter what % of muslims are in state. It is important to know their % by district.

Representative Ilhan Omar represents Minnesota's 5th congressional district. The district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs. Please check the link below. Minnesota is currently divided into 8 congressional districts. Guess which district Keith Ellison represented, yup, District #5. Historically, district #5 and parts of #2 where refugees (mostly muslim) from Africa (e.g. Ethiopia, Somalia etc.) were settled in 90s. These refugees joined traditional working class neighborhoods where African Americans lived.

Minnesota's congressional districts

Most Dangerous Neighborhoods In Minneapolis

The correct question to ask or worth exploring is, of the class of 89 new representatives in the US Congress, why do we hear the most from theses two-least-accomplished members (Ilhan Omar and AOC). Please explore the educational or professional qualifications of these 2 distinguished members and compare to the other freshman members. Hope you have made the connection that they are there (and their shouting) by design not by accident. In terms of effectiveness of such representatives in policy making, I use following saying in Hindi as a rule of thumb -- "Jo garajte hain woh baraste nahi" (actually, unhe barasne nahi dete).

List of freshman class members of the 116th United States Congress

Here is something for the future. Many Nepalese and Bangladesis (refugees) are being propped up to be future leaders (to represent indian subcontinental population). Such refugees are easy to control and nice for photo ops on tv. They will be ready in two election cycles. These people will demand votes from desis. The way Ethiopian and Somalian refugees were settled in the midwest, new round of refugees from Syria and other troubled areas are being settled in other least sexy neighborhoods of midwest.

tandav wrote:The brains behind AOC and other leftists in US democrats is Saikat Chakrabarti, the prime mover behind a Tennessee-based PAC called the “Justice Democrats,” whose support was largely responsible for getting Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ro Khanna, and Pramila Jayapal elected last November. Chakrabarti has now set up shop in the House, ostensibly as AOC’s chief of staff. A very smart dude it appears (Harvard CS grad)

https://spectator.org/meet-aocs-brain-s ... akrabarti/