India-US Strategic News and Discussion

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 30 Nov 2012 21:10

Rony wrote:Bill O'Reilly comes up with new interpretations, says Christianity is not a religion but a philosophy.Christmas tree is not religious but a secular thing.

Technically Bill O'Reilly is right. He said that Christianity is a philosophy and not a religion to prove the point that one can't distinguish between the religious and non religious. The atheist pov and secular pov is the same in this case.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2012 12:20

http://newindianexpress.com/thesundayst ... 363163.ece

India's "tilt" towards the US arms industry exposed by the CAG.

CAG puts offset question to Defence Ministry

By N C Bipindra | ENS - NEW DELHI

Published: 02nd Dec 2012 08:20:24 AM

Photos

The defence ministry, while admitting that DFI proposals do not qualify for offsets, noted that the same had been conveyed to Boeing. (FilePTI)

Was Defence Minister AK Antony party to his ministry’s decision to waive rules in favour of US aerospace major Boeing to escape its obligation to plough back $1.74 billion as offset into the Indian defence and aerospace industry? India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has put the defence ministry on the mat over the $4.1-billion deal with Boeing to supply 10 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift cargo planes for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and eight P-8I Poseidon long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy. The defence offset policy mandates that a foreign vendor who wins any Indian defence contract worth over Rs 300 crore ($55 million) should plough back at least 30 per cent of the deal back into India.

On Boeing’s P-8I deal, the company had agreed to provide DFI worth $153.90 million (Rs 750 crore) in the form of safety, reliability and air-worthiness seminars; establishment of fire finder classrooms; transfer of metallurgy and hydraulic lab facilities; composite manufacturing assembly/tooling; mobile broadband; friction stir welding and aero structures tools and processes. CAG objected that these, too, don’t fall under the three offset rules. “The DFI proposals relating to safety, reliability and airworthiness seminars and establishment of fire finder class rooms were not valid offset as there was no value addition through the IOP. The remaining proposals relating to transfer of metallurgy/hydraulic lab facilities, composite manufacturing assembly/tooling were also a kind of direct import without any value addition through the IOP,” the CAG audit found.

The defence ministry, while admitting that these DFI proposals do not qualify for offsets, noted that the same had been conveyed to Boeing, which had not yet claimed offset credit so far. Defence companies are awarded points for executing their offset responsibilities. The CAG isn’t convinced. “The reply, however, does not reckon the fact that the elements of offset once included in the contract are liable to be claimed by the vendor. Moreover, even if a claim by the vendor is not admitted by the ministry, offset deficit of $153.90 million (Rs 750 crore) would still remain,” says the report.

Comments(2)

It is very clear that for some strange reason the present government wants to grovel before the US. This again will go against the government in the coming Gujarat elections. It is equally clear that the CIA/Pentagon machinery has for many years used funding through some religious assemblies to further its own interests in India. The government of India and Sonia Gandhi in particular must make their stand on this issue clear.There must be a clear white paper trail of how funds of religious organisations throughout India receiving aid from abroad are being used. Equally important is for Modi to state his stand on the issue. Its high time we bring to an end funding from abroad once and for all with respect to religious organisations.They are sowing the seeds of divide and rule

Posted by Raj at 12/02/2012 10:50 Reply to this Report abuse

Well the deal must be scrapped if the rules were not followed This again goes to show that some sections of the defence industry are on the pay roll of the Pentagon To my mind Antony himself is honest and a true Indian who cannot be bought by the US But there are many in the defence ministry unfortunately who can I again stress that in addition to a certain amount of money being ploughed back into Indian Industry, transfer of technology is a must and there must be a clear time table for India to become completely self reliant in the Defence sector over the coming decade

Posted by Raj at 12/02/2012 11:36 Reply to this Report abuse

Ashley Kravitz · Post by **Ashley Kravitz** » 04 Dec 2012 20:57

Twenty-five US Representatives write to Hillary Clinton supporting Modi’s visa ban

Washington DC: Twenty-five members of US House of Representatives have urged the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to continue the visa ban on Gujarat’s chief minister Narendra Modi. Signatory to the letter included John Conyers, Trent Franks, James Moran, Michael Honda, Bill Pascrell, Barbara Lee, Edward Markey, Jim Jordan, Dan Burton, Michael Capuano and Dough Lamborn.

Full letter:

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

In March of 2005 and again in June of 2008, a number of us wrote to then - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to raise our deep concern regarding a possible visit of Mr. Narendra Modi, the current chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat. The Bush Administration rightly denied Mr. Modi a visa to enter the United States. As Mr. Modi is currently seeking support for a possible bid for prime minister of India, including meetings with leaders of foreign nations, we expect that he may again request entry into the United States. We respectfully request that the U.S. government deny Mr. Modi entry due to numerous reports of his involvement in horrific human rights violations in India.

As you may know, Mr. Modi served as the chief minister of Gujarat during the 2002 riots that ultimately resulted in the rape of countless women and children, the destruction of homes and businesses and the loss of 2,000 lives. Non-governmental organizations have alleged that the state government in Gujarat, lead by Chief Minister Modi, provided leadership and material support to the perpetrators of these horrific crimes. After their investigation of violence, Human Rights Watch stated that the “attacks against Muslims (and other religious minorities) in Gujarat have been actively supported by state BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government officials and by the police.”

In the past, the State Department has denied Mr. Modi a visa under the authority of the International Religious Freedom Act for his complicity in the riots. Furthermore, the Department has stated that the Gujarat government has not adequately pursued justice of the victims of the 2002 violence. As there has been no further resolution to these issues and justice has yet to be fully realized for the victims of the riots, we ask that you continue to deny Mr. Modi a visa. As Mr. Modi continues to pursue a potential run for higher office, we believe a change in policy to his request for a visa will only embolden Modi and his government’s efforts to obstruct further investigations and the tandem prosecutions that have still to be finished to bring the perpetrators to justice.

India is a thriving democracy, and one that is aspiring to a high standard of leadership and progress. It is disturbing that certain parties in India are considering elevating Modi, despite his tie to these attacks. Allowing him to enter the United States will only serve to abdicate his responsibility for the 2002 human rights abuses.

Thank you for the consideration of our request. We look forward to hearing from you on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Congressman Joe Pitts and others

Code: Select all

http://twocircles.net/2012dec04/twentyfive_us_representatives_write_hillary_clinton_supporting_modi’s_visa_ban.html

archan · Post by **archan** » 04 Dec 2012 21:31

Is he applying for one?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 04 Dec 2012 22:10

If he becomes pm of India, massa cannot do anything except allow him in. All massa cares for is moolah, and all so called values go for a toss.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Dec 2012 22:46

If he becomes PM of India, he will cause much pain for Massa! I am sure, they will keep flipping coins for every transaction and calls.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 04 Dec 2012 23:00

^^No pain. Perhaps for a week it may be big news in the world section of major newspapers. It will probably make the front cover of TIME magazine. Not many care anymore about 2002, secularism, etc. Many NRIs who were opposed to him have already jumped ship. They are more scared of being labelled "leftist" or even worse "congressite" than anything else.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 05 Dec 2012 00:48

Who are the American lawmakers saying No to Narendra Modi? http://www.firstpost.com/politics/who-a ... 44982.html

What’s noteworthy about this letter, even though there is nothing new about its content, is it does not come from just predictably bleeding heart liberals but from across the US political spectrum — from the deepest blue to the fieriest red. The signers also come from across the country geographically — from New Jersey to California, from Arizona to Michigan.

Some lawmakers have signed on clearly because of long standing relations with the American Muslim community which Modi’s backers have not been able to match. Bill Pascrell, Democrat form New Jersey is closely associated with Council on American-Islamic Relations. His hometown of Paterson has a large Arab population though New Jersey has a strong Gujarati population as well.

Some have signed on to the letter because like Congressman Trent Franks, Republican from Arizona, they are members of the International Religious Freedom Caucus. Others are just well-known India-baiters. Dan Burton, conservative Republican from Indiana, is a founding member of the Pakistan Caucus and took money from Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai’s Kashmir Center and vigorously championed the Kashmiri American Council till it was revealed that it was a front for the ISI.

The liberal members have opposed Modi from the human rights angle. Jim Moran is a Democrat who was arrested along with George Clooney outside the Sudanese Embassy for protesting human rights abuses by the government of Sudan. Michael Capuano of Massachusetts has been very vocal about the plight of the victims of the crisis in Sudan. Edward Markey is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus John Conyers, one of the longest serving Congressmen in Washington DC, is the last remaining member of the Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon.

I keep saying, when it comes to Indo-US relations, Indians cannot rely on any one party. Neither is the Democratic or Republican party concerned about India, they are primarily concerned about USA (rightly so), and it is up to Indian political parties and babus to look after India interests.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 05 Dec 2012 09:27

Raja Bose wrote:If he becomes pm of India, massa cannot do anything except allow him in. All massa cares for is moolah, and all so called values go for a toss.

And what are these precise 'values' that enable American imbeciles to take decisions not backed by any court judgement in India?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 05 Dec 2012 09:59

Looks like an attempted shakedown of the Gujarati community. The expectation is that this affluent community would have to fork out more to get them to stop writing

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Dec 2012 10:03

I hope its being roundly ignored. Events will take their course, if namo wins the big game these barkings will stop instantly...if nit, it does not matter anyway.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Dec 2012 10:20

It's a shakedown. Must be contemptuously dismissed. If he does not become pm, the issue does not arise. If he does, the issue does not arise. Some idiot legislators will get their boxers in a bunch in the not too distant future when they will have to grin and bear it. But the shakedown is not of just the gujjus who I'm certain will see thru this racket ...so these clowns may make something in the end financially speaking.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 06 Dec 2012 02:35

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/the- ... 121204.htm
The Untold Story: How Kennedy came to India's aid in 1962

The future world will bear a heavy impact of this military clash between the two Asian giants. The Sino-Indian clash sounded a virtual death knell for the Communist movement in India, till then the best organised political party after the Indian National Congress.If Communism was to triumph in India, the history of the Cold War era may well have ended very differently.In November 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated, he was genuinely mourned by millions of Indians. He was seen by many Indians as the great big hope for the future of mankind. Aside from his obvious personal charisma, the influence Kennedy wielded in India had much to do with the policies his administration followed vis a vis India.It was one period in the history of otherwise difficult India-US relations; when the Indians regarded the US as their friend. The prompt and generous American response to Indian needs at the time of military reverses against the Chinese in October/November 1962, had a deep impact on the Indian psyche.President Kennedy was preoccupied in dealing with the Cuban crisis and he left it to then US ambassador Professor John Kenneth Galbraith to handle the situation, supporting him to the hilt.
When the Indian situation became particularly desperate, US Air Force [ Images ] squadrons in the Philippines were alerted; through its contacts in Warsaw, the US conveyed its resolve to the Chinese to come to India's assistance.C-130 Hercules aircraft carried out drops of arms and ammunition supplies as well as essential clothing to Indian soldiers on the battlefront.Indian national morale had hit rock bottom on November 18, 1962 when news of further reverses reached New Delhi [ Images ]. The Indians felt isolated, vulnerable and betrayed, when even the 'friends' of India took ambivalent positions.
On October 25, 1962, when war with the United States was potentially imminent, the Soviet newspaper Pravda published a front-page article that put the entire blame for the 1962 war with China on India.
The article called the McMahon line, which New Delhi accepted, 'notorious', 'the result of British imperialism', and legally invalid.Pravda also accused India of being incited by imperialists and being the main ringleaders of the conflict. The Soviet Union's hostile attitude contrasted with President Kennedy's generous help to India in its hour of need. This made a deep impression on the Indians.Professor Galbraith, speaking to me in 2003, recalled the sea change that had occurred in Indian attitude towards the Americans. American aircraft regularly landed in Delhi and carried out photo missions over the Indo-Tibet border.The India-US honeymoon barely lasted a year or so. According to Galbraith, old imperialists warhorses like Duncan Syndys and Louis Mountbatten played a major role in making India drift away from the West.No sooner had the fighting ended, Pakistan, with tacit British support, demanded that India 'solve' the Kashmir [ Images ] issue.There was talk of 'joint' control over the Kashmir valley. It seemed that India was prepared to concede some ground in Kashmir, but Pakistan insisted on not just the valley, but also the Doda-Kishtwar districts as essential to control the water sources of major rivers.Once Nehru became aware of these designs, the Indians hardened their position on Kashmir. Free from the immediate threat of the Cuban crisis, the Soviet Union also modified its position. It was almost back to square one, as far as India-US relations were concerned.But there were some enduring legacies of this brief honeymoon. Under Biju Patnaik's stewardship, Indian intelligence established close relations with the Central Intelligence Agency for support of Tibetan resistance.The second and more troubling inheritance is that India deliberately did not develop alternative land routes (via Manali and the Rohatang pass) to Ladakh as its claim over the Kashmir valley was based on the need to keep the Srinagar-Leh route open.Sadly, this mindset and sheer inertia in the establishment continued even after 1972 when the Sino-US equations changed.

Nehru's handling of the crisis and panic reactions were in marked contrast to the cool and confident Kennedy. The generous and prompt response by JFK made him an icon in India. But the US State Department, under pressure from Pakistan and with British support, scuttled the chances of an India-US alliance.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 08 Dec 2012 21:51

‘US to back India’s leadership role in Indian Ocean, South Asia’

Washington: Seeking a “long-term security relationship” with India, a top US military commander has said his country will support New Delhi’s “leadership role” in the Indian Ocean and South Asia.
The US Pacific Command (PACOM) “will increase its efforts to nurture the strategic partnership and expand engagement with India as well as support her leadership role in the Indian Ocean and South Asia,” PACOM Commander, Admiral Sameul J Locklear III, said in an address to the Asia Society here.
“We will improve our interoperability,” Locklear said. Referring to his maiden trip to India in October, he said he witnessed firsthand the invaluable perspective of the world’s largest democracy and one of the world’s most rapidly growing economies.
“Our two nations share and embrace the same values: a love of freedom and an entrepreneurial spirit that fuels the potential of the global economy,” he said. Earlier in the day at a Pentagon news conference, Locklear said he has been directed by US President Barack Obama to seek a long-term relationship with India.
“I have been directed by the President to seek a — as all of the parts of our government have — long-term security relationship, a partnership with India. And that covers a lot of different areas; but in the military area, we look for opportunities to interoperate with each other,” he said. “We are headed in that direction,” Locklear sad. “We very much support India’s military, India taking a leadership in the security issues in and around the Indian Ocean. And we are looking for opportunities to participate and interoperate with them where we can,” said Locklear, whose jurisdiction expands over the entire Asia-Pacific region. “The Asia-Pacific has been described as stretching from ‘Hollywood to Bollywood’ and that’s really the area of my focus, from California to India. It encompasses over half the earth’s surface and well more than half of its population... the Pacific Ocean itself is the largest physical feature on the planet,” he said. If all the world’s landmasses were placed in the Pacific, there would still be room left over for an additional Africa, Canada, United States, and Mexico, Locklear said. “So that gives you an idea of the size of it...it’s like taking a ship from San Diego to Hawaii or Norfolk to England.” PTI

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 10 Dec 2012 08:28

Phil Goldberg in Abinavagupta yahoo discussion forum on why he did not use the word "Hindu" in naming of his book "American Veda" . It perfects tally's with Rajiv Malhotra's "digestion without acknowledging Hinduism " phenomenon. Of course part of this blame should also go to our gurus who peddle Hindu philosophy everywhere without mentioning the word Hindu once.

Let me expand on your explanation about why my book was not called "American
Hinduism" or "Hinduism in America" or a similar title. It's actually a bit
more complicated than what I might have indicated earlier.

It was mainly to avoid confusing the reading public about the book's
contents.

In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms.
Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least
heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born
into a family from that tradition. So, it was felt that people would think
"Hinduism in America" was about the Indian diaspora, because they associate
"Hindu" with "Indian." Also, the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America -
which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as
religious. It's impacted psychology, science, medicine, etc., and we felt
that point might get lost if we used a term people think of as religious in
the title.

Plus, as you know, it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the
methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative
Hinduism of India. Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the
US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages. We
felt that having Hinduism in the title would narrow the scope of the book in
people's minds, and they would think it's only about pujas, bhajans, and
holiday celebrations.

Finally, as I say in the book's Introduction, "the most influential gurus
and Yoga masters who came to the West made a big point of saying they were
not preaching Hinduism. They were Hindus themselves, of course, but they
asserted that all could utilize their teachings without deserting their own
religions. Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to
be viewed religiously at all.." I remember thinking, Swami Vivekananda did
not start the Hinduism Society, he started the Vedanta Society; Paramahansa
Yogananda did not write Autobiography of a Hindu, and he called his
organization the Self-Realization Fellowship, not the Hinduism Fellowship;
and Maharish Mahesh Yogi did not call his TM practice Hindu Meditation. In
other words, we felt we were being faithful to the decisions made by the
great teachers who brought the Vedic gifts to the US.

I hope that further clarifies the choice of titles. These decisions about
language are very delicate, and I understand perfectly that many Hindus
would prefer that we made a different decision. As I said in the book, I
hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books
will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this.

Phil

sum · Post by **sum** » 11 Dec 2012 08:06

X-post:

sum wrote:India, Boeing haggle over aircraft deal

India has offered one-fourth of the price reportedly quoted by US aviation major Boeing to purchase 15 heavy-lift Chinook helicopters and 22 Apache attack helicopters for the air force.

India’s combined offer for the two deals was around Rs 5,500 crore while Boeing demanded close to Rs 20,000 crore.

“The acceptance of necessity cost for 15 heavy-lift helicopters and 22 attack helicopters is Rs 2,468.41 crore and Rs 3,094.98 crore respectively. Boeing’s Chinook-CH-47F (I) and Apache AH-64D has emerged as the L1 vendor (lowest bidder) respectively,” Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Boeing had reportedly quoted $ 1.4 billion (Rs 7,600 crore approximately) for the Apaches and $ 2.4 billion (about Rs 13,000 core) for the Chinooks.

The final price will depend on the outcome of the contract negotiation with the L1 vendor, the minister said, stressing that all capital procurements were carried out according to norms laid out in the defence procurement procedure.
How is there a 4X difference between the quoted and expected price for the deal??

member_23686 · Post by **member_23686** » 11 Dec 2012 18:16

Rony wrote:Phil Goldberg in Abinavagupta yahoo discussion forum on why he did not use the word "Hindu" in naming of his book "American Veda" . It perfects tally's with Rajiv Malhotra's "digestion without acknowledging Hinduism " phenomenon. Of course part of this blame should also go to our gurus who peddle Hindu philosophy everywhere without mentioning the word Hindu once.

Let me expand on your explanation about why my book was not called "American
Hinduism" or "Hinduism in America" or a similar title. It's actually a bit
more complicated than what I might have indicated earlier.

It was mainly to avoid confusing the reading public about the book's
contents.

In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms.
Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least
heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born
into a family from that tradition. So, it was felt that people would think
"Hinduism in America" was about the Indian diaspora, because they associate
"Hindu" with "Indian." Also, the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America -
which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as
religious. It's impacted psychology, science, medicine, etc., and we felt
that point might get lost if we used a term people think of as religious in
the title.

Plus, as you know, it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the
methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative
Hinduism of India. Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the
US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages. We
felt that having Hinduism in the title would narrow the scope of the book in
people's minds, and they would think it's only about pujas, bhajans, and
holiday celebrations.

Finally, as I say in the book's Introduction, "the most influential gurus
and Yoga masters who came to the West made a big point of saying they were
not preaching Hinduism. They were Hindus themselves, of course, but they
asserted that all could utilize their teachings without deserting their own
religions. Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to
be viewed religiously at all.." I remember thinking, Swami Vivekananda did
not start the Hinduism Society, he started the Vedanta Society; Paramahansa
Yogananda did not write Autobiography of a Hindu, and he called his
organization the Self-Realization Fellowship, not the Hinduism Fellowship;
and Maharish Mahesh Yogi did not call his TM practice Hindu Meditation. In
other words, we felt we were being faithful to the decisions made by the
great teachers who brought the Vedic gifts to the US.

I hope that further clarifies the choice of titles. These decisions about
language are very delicate, and I understand perfectly that many Hindus
would prefer that we made a different decision. As I said in the book, I
hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books
will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain this.

Phil

great

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 11 Dec 2012 22:30

The correct Name for Phils Book

American VYADHA

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Dec 2012 06:45

Susan Rice withdraws herself from running for Secy of State, leaving John Kerry as the most likely candidate to replace Hillary Clinton.

Although the pakis had wanted this, I wouldn't consider it an automatic negative for India. Very little was known about Susan Rice's possible attitudes towards India or Pakistan so it's reasonable to suppose that it could have gone either way with her as SOS. However, she was a pro-Israel hawk in the UN and that may have bothered the pakis some. On the other hand, a lot has changed in the past few years between the US and India, most notably the major American arms purchases and the vastly increased interaction between Indian and US forces. At the same time, the pakis were publicly shafted by the OBL raid which told the world that America doesn't trust anyone in that country. Kerry is a military man and this will undoubtedly play a part in his thinking. A lot will also depend on how our people handle him if he replaces Clinton.

kish · Post by **kish** » 14 Dec 2012 23:35

Breaking news: Shooting in a U.S school, more than 27 children killed. BBC

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 14 Dec 2012 23:36

^^What is strategic about it?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 15 Dec 2012 09:59

Both Rice and Kerry will stick to the so far immutable twin policies of US in the sub continent:

1. India TSP equal equal
2. Prop up TSPA/ISI so it continues to be a valuable terrorist asset in US arsenal and a perpetual pain in India's arse

All the diplomatic mumbo jumbu is about achieving the above 2 aims without explicitly saying so. Only difference between Kerry and Rice is that Kerry is a rich white Boston Brahmin Bahadur and has a mind of how own, while Rice is a loyal slave who does what she is told to do. She dare open her mouth a little too loud and white nationalists like John McCaine & Fox news will slap her butt cheeks pretty hard. TSP will be happy with both.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 15 Dec 2012 10:11

I have met, listened and talked to Phil Goldberg. I had raised the question too, and he did give a genuine answer. He mentions this in the book too (IIRC). While Rajiv Malhotra is right on so many occasions and things, I think one has to give the benefit of doubt to Phil, until there is concrete evidence. We have to wait and see if Phil does a U-Turn, and hopefully Rajiv does not push him in that direction with his opposition and lack of recognition of Phil's work.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Dec 2012 11:52

Hindu Americans should define own lifestyle. There should not be any problem since USA is a first world country and there are freedoms defined in constitutions.

Phil Goldberg has nothing to lose after talking for others and appear genuine. The least he could do is to understand that others and Hindu Americans are not defining his lifestyle.

He and others could do well by acknowledging how Hindus define own lifestyle.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 Dec 2012 14:26

Well put vishvak. I fully agree.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 15 Dec 2012 15:26

There is much more to this than what meets the eye.

He is hiding panth nirapekshata to make Hindu "psychology, science, medicine" as secular as well as 'religious'. He also fails to mention that in USA, sects of Christianity are exclusive, with roster of members each and so on and mutually exclusive following. So he is not even qualified to give such labels.

The fact is that Vedanta Society was formed by Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu swamy.

Other comments:

In the minds of Americans, the words Hinduism and Hindu are religious terms

So what is the problem? There should not be any problem in minds of Americans considering people are free.

Hinduism is the name of one of the five world's religions they've at least heard about, Hindu is the name of people who practice Hinduism, or are born into a family from that tradition.

Born into Hindu family easily means practicing Hindu as well, which the author tries to hide here by differentiating. For a Christian mind, diversity is not a unifying factor and uniformity/symmetry is a differentiating factor, as in a post-modern egalitarian society symmetry/uniformity is a virtue over diversity.

the impact of Sanatana Dharma on America - which is the real subject of the book - has been secular as well as
religious.

How can Sanatana Dharma be 'secular' or only 'religious'?

it has mainly been Vedanta philosophy and the methodologies of Yoga that were adopted in the West, not the normative Hinduism of India.

Now he is differentiating Hinduism again in some western terms such as 'normative', etc which is distinct per his own choice to the rest!!

Temple Hinduism is a relatively new phenomenon in the US, and its influence on the culture as a whole is in its early stages.

Another differentiation. What is the problem with temples? Link this with how leftist apologists, who have been invited to USA as scholars of some times, throw out propaganda that temples were looted only for wealth etc. What does he mean by Temple Hinduism exactly? Watch out for such differentiations.

Indeed, the ideas and practices they proffered did not have to be viewed religiously at all

Because Hinduism is not just a religion.

I understand perfectly that many Hindus would prefer that we made a different decision. As said in the book, I hope that the historic misconceptions are overcome soon so "future books will use the term Hinduism freely, without fear of misleading the public."

So what has he been doing about it except postponement? Why is he unable to clarify it in this book itself and not postpone it to future books only when 'historic' misconceptions are overcome!

A very narrow understanding of Hinduism here.

kish · Post by **kish** » 15 Dec 2012 23:51

kish wrote:Breaking news: Shooting in a U.S school, more than 27 children killed. BBC

RoyG wrote:^^What is strategic about it?

Nothing. Just a word of caution for NRIs surfing BRF, so that they can check if their children are safe in that school. Posted it here, because this was the most visible US related thread at that time. Seems like it has outlived its purpose.

Mods: Please delete my post.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 16 Dec 2012 11:41

I partly disagree with Rajiv Malhotra regarding Phil Goldberg. Phil's focus on Vedas / Vedanta without mentioning Hinduism is not necessarily a problem. What IS a problem though is that the spirit of the Vedas & Yoga is fundamentally antithetical to an exclusivist, history-centric outlook. Accepting the Vedas implies a rejection of exclusivist Christianity - and that is the core issue that Phil may not have adequately highlighted in his book.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 16 Dec 2012 12:07

To put it more bluntly, where are the moderates among Christians in Europe or America ? Where are the voices that say love Jesus, but don't proseletyze an exclusivist, narrow interpretation of Christianity taking advantage of poverty in poorer societies ? Where are the active voices that rally to the cause of protecting indigenous traditions and culture worldwide ?

And the most obvious answer - there is simply no moderate voice in Western Christianity and never has been.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 19 Dec 2012 12:41

I don't know which section of American society Phil's books is targeted towards. In many liberal parts of the US religion is thought of as a dirty word. To quote an example a quote from a jewish person to his born catholic, don't care about it now friend: religion is like your genitals. You might be very proud of it, but please please desist from showing it off to everybody. Say this in any bar in San Francisco, Seattle, NY and you'll find most people agreeing with you. Spiritual is marketable and religious is not. And while it's almost completely because of the Christian right, religion in general is looked down upon.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 19 Dec 2012 14:53

KrishnaK wrote:Spiritual is marketable and religious is not.

Isn't your answer right there?...That's precisely why the Vedas and Yoga are marketable. Americans seem to be thirsting for Eastern spirituality.

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Dec 2012 22:28

Untrustworthiness on full display as a country which the Ra Ra USA brigade would have us Indian's emulate tamely accepts the death of its own citizens as accetable collateral damage and then even more damagingly reneges on the committment made to India regards 26/11.

Press release by our Ministry of External Affairs:

Official Spokesperson's response on Statement of Interest filed by U.S. State Department on Immunity for Pakistan’s ISI in District Court of New York

December 19, 2012

In response to a media query on the Statement of Interest filed by the U.S. State Department on immunity for the ISI and two former DGs of ISI in the Eastern District Court of New York, in the civil case of wrongful death filed by U.S. family members of victims of the Mumbai Terror Attacks, the Official Spokesperson stated:

"We have noted that the US Department of State has taken the position in a US Court that the Pakistani ISI be accorded immunity from the civil suit on the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26, 2008.

For India, it remains of vital importance that justice is done and that those who organized and perpetrated this horrible crime be brought to justice, irrespective of the jurisdiction under which they may reside or be operating. It cannot be that any organization, State or non-State, that sponsors terrorism enjoys immunity.

Our position has been made known to the United States consistently .

India is not a party to the civil suit filed in the Eastern District Court of New York. The details of what was conveyed to the Court by a sovereign Government are a matter for that Government to explain.

From our perspective, this decision is a matter of deep and abiding concern. The leadership of the U.S. has publicly stated its commitment to counter terrorism, to dismantle terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and to bring those responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks to justice. In this context the decision of the U.S. authorities in this case is a cause of serious disappointment."

New Delhi
19 December 2012

From here:

MEA Press Release

This pattern of the US tamely accepting US deaths is not a unique phenomena . Over the past seven days we have had these events.

On December 14 a report on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan contributing to US deaths:

Pakistan: Ally or Killer?

On December 17 a report of the US rewarding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan despite contributing to US deaths:

In Sign of Normalization, Pentagon to Reimburse Pakistan $688 Million

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Dec 2012 23:42

Does anyone know why Kerry loves TSP so much? what is the background behind his lovefest?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 20 Dec 2012 06:18

Because he is Naval officer with a Nelson's eyei

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 20 Dec 2012 07:59

Theatre of the absurd to deny Modi a US visa

The move by four US Congressmen to deny Narendra Modi a US visa is a disrespect to India's free and fair ballot and even its Supreme Court, says Aseem Shukla.

Four legislators stood at a podium on another unseasonably warm December day in the shadows of Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Sombre and stern, they took turns delivering blistering monologues into microphones that outnumbered the stray staffer milling about.

As America's attention sits riveted on a lame duck US Congress that should be consumed with the fiscal cliff, four Congressmen had time for this -- a theatre of the absurd.

Absurd, because the calumny they heaped were on a democratically elected leader thousands of miles away, Narendra Modi, over a visa to the United States that he covets not.

Absurd, because at issue is a tragedy ten years passed over which dozens have been sentenced and held accountable, but the Indian Supreme Court's Special Investigative Team absolved Modi of guilt.

And absurd, because in the ostensible goal of ostracising Modi, this act will likely play as another attack on Gujarati asmita, or pride, and certainly not weaken his hand for the state elections.

It is telling that at Ground Zero in Gujarat, Modi's culpability in the aftermath of the Godhra train arson is a non sequitur during election season. Sonia Gandhi nor any Gujarat Congress party worker, even in the heat of the campaign, ever once recalled 2002, as the issue is dormant for Gujaratis.

But just as aspirational entities as Dalitistan, Khalistan, and Nagaland find life from time to time in the annals of the US Congressional Record, a mix of new and old actors in Congress fancy themselves jury and judge in the case of Modi and the theatre commences.

Even putting aside the terrible optics of American legislators disrespecting the free and fair democratic ballot in India, not to mention a fiercely independent judiciary that has convicted many -- but absolved Modi thus far -- for the riotous aftermath of Godhra, it is instructive to make note of the cast that rendered judgement.

Keith Ellison, Joe Pitts, Trent Franks and Frank Wolf are well known ideological and religious activists vis a vis India, and their history of engagement with Indian Americans speaks to motive.

Trent Franks (Republican, Arizona) is a far-right evangelical Christian conservative that most recently made news in joining the redoubtable Congresswoman of Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann, and only two others in calling for a sweeping investigation of the Muslim Brotherhood's insidious infiltration among American Muslims.

Working along with his long-time foreign policy advisor, Melody Divine, who serves on the board of the Dalit Freedom Network, a Colorado evangelical church based group, Franks routinely provides a Congressional forum to that group that ties caste-based discrimination directly to Hindu scriptures and promotes conversion to Christianity as the only solution.

And despite multiple requests from Hindu Americans, Franks refused to sign another Congressional letter to Secretary Hillary Clinton asking that American engagement with Pakistan be predicated upon ending ongoing persecution of Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadiyyas there.

An ideological soul mate to Franks, Pitts is another evangelical conservative who has made opposing not just Modi, but the Bharatiya Janata Party , specifically, a target of several Congressional hearings.

From inviting activist Teesta Setalvad -- whom the same Supreme Court SIT reportedly condemned for perjury by fabricating affidavits implicating Modi -- to Capitol Hill hearings and repeatedly co-sponsoring bills on behalf of Christian Dalit leaders, Pitts also trumpeted his hosting a film screening, India's Hidden Slavery, that was sponsored by Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

Perhaps Pitts faced his greatest embarrassment when his Indian agenda focused on Gujarat, Orissa, and Dalits began congealing with that of Dan Burton, that anti-India stalwart (who also signed the letter against Modi), and expanded to parroting the Pakistani view on India.

Those calls for a plebiscite in Kashmir , forming the Congressional Forum on Kashmir, and benedictions to erstwhile president Pervez Musharraf were the ones Pitts likely hoped to retract when the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that after Burton, Pitts was the highest recipient of largesse from the Virginia-based, convicted Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence agent, Ghulam Nabi Fai.

Modi may be a polarising figure in India, but what to say about that same visa-deprived Gujarati who manages to bring together onstage Trent Franks, whose conservative.org rating is 100 percent, with Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) whose rates a meagre 8 percent?

Bipartisan unity -- however fleeting in Washington these days -- notwithstanding, the only Muslim in Congress, Ellison, bitterly opposed Franks' Muslim Brotherhood hunt. It was the hurt that Ellison tearfully conveyed that resonated with a Hindu American Foundation delegation, including Minnesotans, that met with him over two years.

The delegation hoped to find in Ellison a person with an understanding of political engagement as a religious minority. A potential ally in shared goals for a liberal society. But the encounters did not go well.

Two years ago, the Congressman opened his meeting with HAF with a direct query: "Are you affiliated with radical Hindu nationalist groups?" And he began with probing for ties to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and other Indian groups he considered 'Hindu radicals'.

The team of mostly American-born Hindu American lawyers, engineers, students, and business owners was stunned. What did their agenda of the separation of Church and State, liberalising of the religious worker visa, educating Americans about Hinduism, international human rights, and the like have to do with radicalism?

Had the Congressman presumed that South Asians identifying themselves as Hindus must be suspect of a hidden agenda?

Did he presume that Hindus in America must be tied in to socio-political realities in India?

The following year, it only got worse. Due to a 'scheduling conflict,' instead of the Congressman's office, the HAF delegation was escorted to the cafeteria to meet with a staffer.

This staffer, a former outreach director for the Indian Muslim Council, and blogger who often alleged Modi's direct involvement in the 2002 riots, blindsided the delegation with a grilling about the foundation's opposing a move by Indian Communist groups to cancel Sadhvi Ritambhara's US visa tour raising money for her Vatsalyagram charity project.

Ellison's activist not only criticised HAF's positions, but implied dark affiliations and sympathies to violence against Muslims in India. Several of the HAF delegates stormed off in disgust, as did the staffer, and HAF found itself combating a false narrative rife with innuendo and accusations.

And what to make of the array of organisations that orchestrated the event? From the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists to the Association of South Asian Progressives, from Coalition Against Communalism to Friends of South Asia, the potpourri of self-professing Indian radical groups joined with the Indian Muslim Council and the Federation of Indian American Christian Organisations to push an agenda to overrule the Indian judicial system and perpetuate a visa ban on one man.

Is a decade-old riot the only contemporary human rights issue deserving a coalition of the concerned?

Will these Indian leftists be called out for doling out the morally dubious imprimatur of legitimacy to the anti-India and anti-Hindu antics of a Burton, or Pitts or Franks?

Hypocrisy is never a lonely noun on Capitol Hill. The United States protects the leader of Rwanda despite his support of genocidal Tutsi rebels in the Congo. Chinese leaders enjoy visits here despite their violent religious persecution of Tibetans, and Burmese leaders got a President Barack Obama visit in spite of that government's summary executions and rape of the Indian-origin Rohingya people.

For Theatre du Modi, the absurd first act in Washington is over. Shall the next act be left to the voters in Gujarat and the Supreme Court of India?

Dr Aseem Shukla is co-founder of the Hindu American Foundation and a pediatric urologist in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Dec 2012 11:41

Hats off dr shukla for this hard hitting article should be widely circulated

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 20 Dec 2012 12:57

Indeed! Superb stuff.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Dec 2012 19:01

There is an aporcryphal story about a Saudi Prince who has 30+ containers/briefcases of ultra-sensitive operations between the Saudis and the US,that even US presidents do not know about.Such is the depth of the underworld of intel ops between the Saudis and the US,esp. between the two families,.the "House of Saud" and the "House of Bush". The tip of the iceberg was revealed in Craig Unger's book of the same name.

Thus far,no such book has arrived on the stores exposing the depth of the sordid Paki-US devilry,especially ops targeted against India during the Cold War.It is why the debauched,depraved and lustful nature of the Paki American intel establishments will never be severed,because they know too much and cannot extricate themselves from their lust for devilry. Suspicions of dual involvement in the cross-border war against India in J&K,the Khalistani movement and assassination of Mrs.G,Clandestine LTTE support and assassination of Rajiv G,are but a few cases where if the truth were to come out ,the outrage could reignite conflicts.The truth of 26/11 is slowly oozing out with the confessions of Headley and the capture of Kasab and his revelations before his hanging.The assassination of "Bibi" and the shelter of Osama are other Paki scandals that involve the same entities.Therefore,expect nothing from Uncle Sam.His lust for his poxed bedfellow is eternal.Only the future disintegration of the failed state of Pak will see more of the truth emerge.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 21 Dec 2012 21:09

^^ above is cent percent true. Truth cannot go more true than this.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Dec 2012 23:22

KrishnaK wrote:I don't know which section of American society Phil's books is targeted towards. In many liberal parts of the US religion is thought of as a dirty word. To quote an example a quote from a jewish person to his born catholic, don't care about it now friend: religion is like your genitals. You might be very proud of it, but please please desist from showing it off to everybody. Say this in any bar in San Francisco, Seattle, NY and you'll find most people agreeing with you. Spiritual is marketable and religious is not. And while it's almost completely because of the Christian right, religion in general is looked down upon.

That is perhaps just for show, or export only version.

Consider the message from Krisna here just a few post later link

If religion is like genitals that are hidden and therefore outside scrutiny/critique/change etc. then why are Americans funding conversions and related activities outside while ignore human rights of, say, Roma people in Europe and as such?

What does it say about such selective comments then? For one, there is one standard for people within for one religion and another standard for others, meaning that these are no standards other than standards for convenience and chatter value. Meaning no standards at all.