India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

[Gus]

Sadly, there are enough Indians, who, after listening to her talks on our negihbour, will start listening to her on other issues as well,

--
she is useful in the former because she is unique there - an american with urdu skills and exposes paki perfidy.

she is pretty useless in the latter because there is already a huge pool of idiots clamoring for the top idiot position there and she is no worse than the average ELM/MSM idiot..at least she is useful for exposing pakis.

[SSridhar]

India, U.S. set to ink pact on terror database - Vijaita Singh, The Hindu

India could soon get access to a U.S. database of 11,000 terror suspects if the countries sign a pact to exchange information on terrorists, during the Homeland Security dialogue in December. The information would be shared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s legal attache at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi.

Though some security agencies expressed concern over giving unhindered access to the U.S. on such “sensitive database”, the government is of the view that it would be beneficial in the long run. India is, however, insisting that “privacy issues” be taken care of, and the agreement not be a tool to serve only the interests of the U.S. In return, it wants access to Internet-related data from U.S.-based service providers like Google, Yahoo, and Bing, among others.

The Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD -6) is a model text agreement proposed by the U.S. for exchange of terrorist screening information between the Terrorist Screening Centre of the U.S. and an Indian agency.

[chetak]

India, U.S. set to ink pact on terror database - Vijaita Singh, The Hindu

what do they want in return?? that could be the kicker.

[Shreeman]

India, U.S. set to ink pact on terror database - Vijaita Singh, The Hindu

India could soon get access to a U.S. database of 11,000 terror suspects if the countries sign a pact to exchange information on terrorists, during the Homeland Security dialogue in December. The information would be shared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s legal attache at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi.

Though some security agencies expressed concern over giving unhindered access to the U.S. on such “sensitive database”, the government is of the view that it would be beneficial in the long run. India is, however, insisting that “privacy issues” be taken care of, and the agreement not be a tool to serve only the interests of the U.S. In return, it wants access to Internet-related data from U.S.-based service providers like Google, Yahoo, and Bing, among others.

The Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD -6) is a model text agreement proposed by the U.S. for exchange of terrorist screening information between the Terrorist Screening Centre of the U.S. and an Indian agency.

Dont look at this as a big positive --- american databases are notoriously badly populated. What with all names not being "john smith". You wont catch any hadleys this way and sooner or later random ramkishen abdulrehman will end up in some random jail due to a us database. The whole search metadata bit is a red herring too. Do you really think crimes in india are happenning on google, bing or yahoo?

[Paul]

In 17:00 Robert Kaplan argues US should not go for a strategic alliance with India. But he does not clearly articlulate the reason. oint to ponder for all the US drones profilerating on this Forum

[arshyam]

x-post from the solar thread to get more eyeballs:

WTO Ruling Against India's Solar Push Threatens Climate, Clean Energy

The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Wednesday ruled against India over its national solar energy program in a case brought by the U.S. government, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.

As power demands grow in India, the country's government put forth a plan to create 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules, and included incentives to domestic manufacturers to use locally-developed equipment.

According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies—siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO's highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country's food security program in 2014.

The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was "inconsistent with the global norms."

What strategeric partnership?

[Melwyn]

^ USA wants poodle not partner.

[Pulikeshi]

In 17:00 Robert Kaplan argues US should not go for a strategic alliance with India. But he does not clearly articlulate the reason. oint to ponder for all the US drones profilerating on this Forum

If you listen carefully - he is saying that the US will have India as a strategic partner, if it does not make it a formal relationship. Meaning - India can by itself naturally limit China due to geography. If the US formally tries to ally with India, it will be counter productive as India does not need such a push and the push itself would be counter productive.

There is much to argue about all this, but wanted to get what Kaplan is saying correctly understood.

[krishna_krishna]

My apologies posted by mistake in this thread**deleted**

[Pulikeshi]

^^^seriously? the dude doesn't know the difference between Hindi and Hindu - what does that video do in this thread?

[Multatuli]

krishna_krishna what are we supposed to learn from that video? Why give them more importance than they deserve? Why should Indians pay notice to the ignorant and likely motivated opinion of some white turds?

There are many in EU countries, the US, Australia and Canada who like to accuse 'Hindu India' of all sort of discrimination and crimes against Muslims and Christians.

Now suppose it's true that India wants to keep out the Muslims (illegal immigrants) from Bangladesh. So?? Why should that be a problem for whites in the west?

As Puleshki points out, he doesn't even know that Hindi is an language, not a people or religion. And we are supposed to listen to him? Really!

[krishna_krishna]

Gurus deleted that link wrong thread, btw whole intention was to show what kind of videos shows up when one searches narendra modi on youtube and kind of crap that goes around

[krishna_krishna]

Toilet...Rona shona started on namo's silicon valley visit, don't do business with them (most of them indian academia , I read them as berkley):
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 766091.cms

[arun]

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

Indian origin Aparna Pande, Director of the India Initiative at the US think tank, the Hudson Institute writes an article titled “U.S. Should Stop Reinforcing Pakistan's Delusions” in the Huffington Post:

The Pakistani assumption is that America protests but does not really care about its nuclear proliferation or support for terrorism as long as Pakistan's target is India or Afghanistan.

American policy makers have consistently ignored, even when internal intelligence and staff memos said otherwise, the harsh reality of Pakistan never sharing American goals. When the Americans turned to Pakistan to fight international communism, Pakistan saw Hinduism as the threat. Now, despite being America's nominal allies in the fight against international terrorism, Pakistan still sees 'Hindu India' as the principal threat. Jihadi groups, such as the Haqqani Network, are Pakistan's instruments in its own war with India for influence over Afghanistan.

Washington has known -and ignored -- Pakistan's security fears (and paranoia) about India and Afghanistan for decades.

High-level visits by American officials to Pakistan do not help change Pakistan's strategic mindset. They only reinforce the belief of Pakistani leaders in the centrality of their country to global order. The belief that Pakistan is indispensable to the United States and is the pivot of the world for other major powers has encouraged Pakistan's irresponsible behavior.

From here:

U.S. Should Stop Reinforcing Pakistan's Delusions

[arun]

Coalition Support Fund Report - Examples Of Pakistani Cheating And/Or Expense Padding

Details of how U.S. Government was being duped can be found on Page 7 of the Report :
-$ 45 Million Billed For Phantom Road And Bunker Construction !
-$ 200 Million For Air Defence Radar, out of 'thin air' !
-$19,000 per naval vehicle, per month for Pak Navy reimbursement claims !

Many such 'gems' can be found in the detailed reading of this GAO Report to US Congress

$ 200 Million For Air Defence Radar ............... Since when has the Afghan or Pakistani Taliban had an Air Force? Seems like nothing but a deliberate India centric reimbursement by the US .

[Kashi]

American policy makers have consistently ignored, even when internal intelligence and staff memos said otherwise, the harsh reality of Pakistan never sharing American goals.

Now that's being unfair..they do share goals...keeping India in check.

[RoyG]

It's not paranoia. It's a well thought out strategy for the PA-Jihadi complex to subjugate the population and retain power by creating the myth of the evil hindu. Whether it is a viable tool today is a diff issue altogether.

Balkanization is looking more and more likely. Conditions are ripe and we have a strong center to expedite it and deal with fallout. Once the fire in Balochistan picks up it'll be impossible to stop. Expect the Chinese to make some moves in PoK.

[SSridhar]

India-US defence cooperation stuck in a Catch-22 situation until India approves foundational agreements - Seema Sirohi & Abhijit-Iyer Mitra, ToI

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second visit to the US draws near, excitement and anxiety are both rising on bridging the gap between promise and delivery. The effort is to match the enthusiasm of the first visit although US officials would rather that visits by Indian leaders be treated as ‘normal order of business’ without demands for a breakthrough. But breakthroughs are needed given the long history of non-cooperation and suspicion.

It seems the Obama administration has offered to ‘up’ the strategic relationship but India is mulling over the offer because the bargain involves definitive steps by New Delhi without a clear counter commitment.

The Odd Couple

The Americans remain officially optimistic, even if a little impatient, at India’s pace of economic reforms. But when two countries as diverse as India and the US get together to face complex challenges of the world, there will be things that don’t work. The focus, say US officials, is and should be on implementation. Both Barack Obama and Modi are sensitive that past rhetoric about the world’s most powerful and the largest democracies walking into the sunset together has begun sounding hollow. When they last met, they agreed to focus on getting things done.

Washington says coordination has increased manifold — Exhibit A being the recent earthquake in Nepal. Pentagon officials were ‘deeply moved’ by the ‘extraordinary’ help from Indian defence forces in locating the missing US helicopter. It was an ‘ethos-building’ experience. August was a good month for breakthrough meetings — both the inaugural meeting of the joint working group on aircraft carrier cooperation and the fourth across-the-government session on cyber security registered success.

The US Navy hosted a senior Indian naval delegation led by Vice Admiral S P S Cheema and briefed the visitors at a Virginia shipyard on US’ next-generation carrier, PCU Gerald Ford. The two sides have signed the terms of reference. India is interested in getting the electromagnetic aircraft launch system technology for its carrier under construction.

On cyber security, the delegations had ‘meaningful’ discussions. More frank with each other than in the past, they talked about cyber threats, cyber security information sharing on a greater scale and managing cyber incidents that, although occurring with alarming frequency, are still not acknowledged by governments.

Chinese hackers are giving the Americans a huge headache. Washington is also angry at the increasing Chinese pressure on US companies to part with technology. There is a growing sense of ‘angst’ about China’s hacking army but with no direction home. India seems like a logical partner even in this cutting-edge area where governments don’t yet want to reveal their capabilities.

While the good is getting better, the bad may be getting worse. The situation in Afghanistan, including Pakistan’s role in planting designated terrorists as the new Taliban ‘leaders’ with apparent US acceptance, has alarmed New Delhi. Washington’s continuous tendency to believe in Islamabad’s myth-making abilities has always been a sour point but the latest play has made New Delhi extremely unhappy.

To assuage Indian feelings, the US apparently has a ‘bargain’. While the exact contours of the offer are unclear, it is said to involve space and satellite intelligence cooperation, technology transfer and a greater international role for India. Intelligence sharing would go up to a level available only to the closest US allies.

But there’s a catch: India should sign what the US calls ‘foundational agreements’ on security, monitoring, interoperability and communications that are both a legal and operational prerequisite to sharing sensitive information and equipment.

India has two problems with these agreements: first, the military doesn’t deem such interoperability to be positive and, second, believes the agreements would compromise operational secrecy. But if Modi says India and the US are natural allies, then either the defence ministry hasn’t got the memo or it believes this cooperation should have stringent limits.

The lack of trust is not entirely misplaced, according to Indian officials. For them, the concept of ‘strategic autonomy’ has clear goals: primarily that India and India alone will decide its security prerogatives and actions and will not accept a US veto on anything it does vis-à-vis Pakistan. Signing the foundational agreements would enable US inspections of when, where and against whom US-supplied equipment is used.

As an Indian official said, “The Pakistanis are killing US troops in Afghanistan, yet, a large section of the US administration is busy making excuses for them and shielding them. This, when American lives and direct US interests are involved. Now imagine in an India-Pakistan face-off, why would this considerably pro-Pakistan bureaucracy not hinder or compromise India’s actions?”

War as a Test

They point to the 1991 Gulf War when Israel was denied codes to retaliate against Iraqi Scud strikes or the several US inquiries Israel has had to face for using American weapons in areas it wasn’t authorised to do.

India-US defence cooperation, then, is stuck in a Catch-22 situation where meaningful transfers of intelligence and technology can’t take place until India approves the foundational agreements. But India’s institutions are unlikely to give a nod so long as defenders of Pakistan dominate the US policy machine.

It is just too dangerous to trust the US and be its ally.

[RoyG]

The future of land warfare

In my new book, "The Future of Land Warfare" (Brookings Institution Press, 2015), I attempt to debunk the new conventional wisdom (which began with the Obama administration but also permeates thinking beyond): Messy ground operations can be relegated to the dustbin of history. That is a paraphrase and dramatization, to be sure—but only a modest one, since the administration’s 2012 and 2014 defense plans both state that the U.S. Army will no longer size its main combat forces with large-scale counterinsurgency and stabilization missions in mind.

This is, I believe, a major conceptual mistake, even if not yet one that has decimated the Army. But it will cause increasing harm with time if we buy into the idea. The active-duty Army is already below its Clinton-era size and only slightly more than half its Reagan-era size. Reductions to the Army Reserve and Army National Guard have been almost as steep. None need grow at this juncture, but the cuts should stop.

Army Annual Budget as Portion of All Department of Defense Spending

I recognize that we need to maintain counterinsurgency and stabilization capacity, as well as a robust deterrent against possible threats to NATO by Russian President Vladimir Putin and to South Korea by North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, among other concerns.

But we also need to think about nontraditional scenarios. While unlikely—and unpalatable—on an individual basis, they may be hard to avoid. To paraphrase the old Bolshevik saying: We may not have an interest in ugly stabilization missions, but they may have an interest in us. In some cases, the needed response may entail not just trainers and drones, but brigades and divisions.

Escalation in South Asia

The scenario that I’ll focus on here—though I develop more in the book— concerns India and Pakistan and how the two countries might come to the threshold of all-out nuclear war. It is, I fear, all too plausible—and there are ways it could unfold that could make American ground forces nearly unavoidable. A nuclear confrontation would be devastating in South Asia, enormously disruptive to the world economy, and highly dangerous to the whole planet (particularly with the prospect of loose nukes afterwards).

An Indo-Pakistani war remains a real possibility today. There have already been three or four, depending on whether one counts the Kargil crisis of 1999, and it is remarkable that there have not been more. If the nuclear weapons threshold were crossed in the future, a foreign military role could become much more plausible, particularly to reinforce a ceasefire. To date, Delhi in particular has eschewed any foreign role in diplomacy over Kashmir or related matters. But in the aftermath of the near or actual use of nuclear weapons, calculations could change dramatically—such a world could be characterized by a far different political psychology than today’s.

The path to war could begin, perhaps, with a more extremist leader coming to power in Pakistan. Imagine the dangers associated with a country of 200 million with the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, hatred of India and America, numerous extremist groups, and claims on land currently controlled by India. Such an extremist state could take South Asia to the brink of nuclear war by provoking conflict with India, perhaps through another Mumbai-like attack.

Why could nuclear weapons be employed, even after 70 years of non-use globally? Even if it was the provocateur, Pakistan could come to fear for its own survival in this type of scenario. Having aided a group like Lashkar-e-Taiba, with its extremist anti-Indian views, Pakistan would have given India ample grounds for retaliation. Even a limited Indian conventional counterattack, perhaps influenced by its so-called Cold Start military thinking, could quickly put Islamabad, Lahore, and other Pakistani cities at risk.

In such a situation, Pakistan might well see military logic in the use of several nuclear weapons against Indian troops, facilities, or other tactical targets. It is not even out of the question that Pakistan could conduct some attacks over its own territory. If the weapons were detonated a kilometer or so up in the air, the effects of the explosions could be catastrophic to people and military equipment below, without creating much fallout due to dirt and rock upheaval that would later descend on populated areas downwind.

Beyond their immediate military effects, such attacks would signal Islamabad’s willingness to escalate. Despite the huge risks, there would be few better ways of making a threat to attack Delhi credible than to cross the nuclear threshold in tactical attacks. Presumably, Pakistanis would have to assume the possibility of Indian attacks against Pakistani armed forces. But that might be a risk the country’s leadership would be willing to accept, if the alternative seemed to be defeat and forced surrender after a conventional battle.

It’s not clear whether Indians would interpret such a finely graduated nuclear attack as a demonstration of restraint, particularly if any of the Pakistani attacks went off course and caused more damage than intended. Thus, the danger of inadvertent escalation in this kind of scenario could be quite real. It might not even take nuclear attacks by Pakistan to cause nuclear dangers.

A role for U.S. troops?

Possible Scenarios of Relevance for Ground Force Planning

If such an Indo-Pakistani war with nuclear implications began and international negotiators became involved, it’s imaginable that an international force could be proposed to help stabilize the situation for a number of years. Kashmir might be administrated under a U.N. mandate and protected by a U.N.-legitimated force, with an election eventually determining the region’s future political status. The fact that nuclear conflict might have occurred by this point would have raised the stakes enormously for both sides, making it hard for any leader to accept a simple ceasefire absent a credible political process. The mission could last a decade or more, time enough to allow for a calming of tensions, for political transitions in both countries, and for Pakistan to clamp down on terrorist groups.

India in particular would be adamantly against this idea today. But things could change fundamentally if such a settlement, and such a force, seemed the only way to reverse the momentum toward all-out nuclear war in South Asia. American forces would likely need to play a key role, as others might not have the capacity or the political confidence to handle the mission. By my estimates, an international force numbering into the low hundreds of thousands of troops could be needed for a period.

Is such a scenario likely? Hardly. Is it crazy or implausible? I don’t think so. Could we really sit it out if it happened? I fear not. Can we design the future American Army without factoring in such possibilities? In fact, it would be a big mistake. As we consider questions from the imminence of possible sequestration this fall on the proper size, character, and cost of the U.S. military under our next president, such considerations must factor clearly in our minds

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-fr ... re-ohanlon

Example of pathetic quality of scholarship that Brookings produces. He seriously believes that Pakistan air-bursting a nuke over our IBGs will amount to current PMO twiddling its thumbs. We'll throw 2/3rds of our arsenal at them and glass the entire country. Just like in 1971, we'll wait till Balochistan and Sindh demand independence and then we'll march right in.

[arshyam]

And here it comes, the so-called foundational agreements. It's not useful to us in any manner, so no can do. In any case, the US is not making it easy for itself, given their frequent supplies of offensive weapons to a certain neighbour free of cost, ostensibly to fight terrorism.

[Yagnasri]

US do not have any allies. It has some servants who think that they are US allies. If they do not agree with Uncle then french fries become freedom fries. Further US interests in the world do not match with that of India in many fronts. We just need to manage these disagreements. That is all.

[svinayak]

A role for U.S. troops?

Possible Scenarios of Relevance for Ground Force Planning

If such an Indo-Pakistani war with nuclear implications began and international negotiators became involved, it’s imaginable that an international force could be proposed to help stabilize the situation for a number of years. Kashmir might be administrated under a U.N. mandate and protected by a U.N.-legitimated force, with an election eventually determining the region’s future political status. The fact that nuclear conflict might have occurred by this point would have raised the stakes enormously for both sides, making it hard for any leader to accept a simple ceasefire absent a credible political process. The mission could last a decade or more, time enough to allow for a calming of tensions, for political transitions in both countries, and for Pakistan to clamp down on terrorist groups.

India in particular would be adamantly against this idea today. But things could change fundamentally if such a settlement, and such a force, seemed the only way to reverse the momentum toward all-out nuclear war in South Asia. American forces would likely need to play a key role, as others might not have the capacity or the political confidence to handle the mission. By my estimates, an international force numbering into the low hundreds of thousands of troops could be needed for a period.

Is such a scenario likely? Hardly. Is it crazy or implausible? I don’t think so. Could we really sit it out if it happened? I fear not. Can we design the future American Army without factoring in such possibilities? In fact, it would be a big mistake. As we consider questions from the imminence of possible sequestration this fall on the proper size, character, and cost of the U.S. military under our next president, such considerations must factor clearly in our minds

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-fr ... re-ohanlon

Example of pathetic quality of scholarship that Brookings produces. He seriously believes that Pakistan air-bursting a nuke over our IBGs will amount to current PMO twiddling its thumbs. We'll throw 2/3rds of our arsenal at them and glass the entire country. Just like in 1971, we'll wait till Balochistan and Sindh demand independence and then we'll march right in.

India as a nuclear power should never allow such scenarios and make sure there is no plausible reason for such events.
India should never allow any other outside forces to intervene in the internal affairs of India and make sure that it does not give any chance for outside forces.


With a client state like Pakistan Uncle may get many ideas on resolution including forcing India to except agreement in favor of the client state. Uncle will try to get the promise to Pakistan on Kashmir which includes many carrots to India including UNSC and other global roles. But there are sticks which include force and occupation.

[SBajwa]

I am supporting Ben Carson for U.S president (Republican)

he explained his decision to enter politics: "I believe it is a very good idea for physicians, scientists, engineers, and others trained to make decisions based on facts and empirical data to get involved in the political arena"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

[nachiket]

^^He is no less of a bible-thumper than Jindal and the rest of the loony gang.

[CRamS]

SBajwaJi, being a BRite, that alone qualifies you as someone with a superior IQ who has the wherewithal to sift through the blather spouted by by Uncle Tom clowns like Ben Carson. Also, US presidential campaign is one long drawn out reality circus providing entertainment to one and all, and to keep the massive propaganda media industry gainfully employed. So, in a few months time, this guy will be history. There was another Uncle Tom last election, forget his name, some pizza mogul who fizzled out after among other things, it was learnt that he was chasing women out of wedlock wile preaching "family values" .

[Vayutuvan]

Ben Carson is a mixed bag. That said, sorry to see him go. While Jindal is a lawyer Pol.Sci. (BS doesn't count as much), Dr. Carson very accomplished physician. That itself puts them in different categories.

[Kashi]

India as a nuclear power should never allow such scenarios and make sure there is no plausible reason for such events.
India should never allow any other outside forces to intervene in the internal affairs of India and make sure that it does not give any chance for outside forces.

But it appears that such scenarios are deemed very much plausible by those at the helm of the affairs in GoI. I recall a newsreport that published some details of a cabinet meeting post 26/11 and Pranab Mukherjee had stated something to the effect of "keeping the foreign powers out of Jammu and Kashmir".

[Vivek K]

This scenario should be considered very plausible. India is scared of acting tough and constantly projects a soft image. When challenged by China in the South China Sea India did not show the balls to stand up and call their bluff. There is never any response to Bombay/Gurdaspur or other attacks. Why then are we surprised?

[Shreeman]

Ben Carson is a mixed bag. That said, sorry to see him go. While Jindal is a lawyer Pol.Sci. (BS doesn't count as much), Dr. Carson very accomplished physician. That itself puts them in different categories.

Dont be sorry. Not about either. Carson actually "taught" a class I took for credit. Carson's turning to politics says a lot. And we have already thrashed through "I am not white enough" jindal in great depth. There isnt one candidate worth a second thought in this race. And nor will the bush vs clinton/biden/etc be very popular in the general.

[Vayutuvan]

Something to keep in mind about O'Hanlon (From Wikipedia page.)

Controversy[edit]
Critics however, have called into question the veracity of O'Hanlon's claim to have been a harsh critic of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, arguing that it was a deceitful assertion intended to lend the article increased credibility.[13] According to attorney and columnist Glenn Greenwald, O'Hanlon and Pollack "were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well".[14]
On August 25, 2007, he made an attempt to answer his critics in an Op-ed in Washington Post.[15] In response to the charge that he based his judgment on "dog-and-pony shows" in Baghdad, he claimed that his assessment was also informed by years of study of the situation through a large number of knowledgeable sources, including many that were reflected in the Iraq Index (and contributed to its sober message for much of the war).
Writing in the National Interest in May 2008, O’Hanlon gave himself 7 marks out of 10 for his predictions about Iraq, although he acknowledged that among his incorrect positions was his initial support for the war – given the Bush administration’s poor preparations for the post-Saddam period.[16]

Anybody know what MSE degree mean (From Princeton) and what subject his MA and PhD degrees are in? Seems to be a player of games. Either economics or Pol. Sci. is my guess. He seems to be a flip-flopper and can change his positions to suit prevailing wind and in the process claim credit to having "predicted" what ever has taken place (after the fact).

In Economics and Pol. Sci. everything goes. Thankfully he seems to have not all that much power, not that Inidia should not counter.

[Hari Seldon]

There isnt one candidate worth a second thought in this race.

Not even Bernie Sanders?

[Vayutuvan]

Bernie Sanders seems to be quite good at the outset on several social and civil liberties issues and holds a few objectionable - speaking for myself - views vis a vis taxes and nuclear power. I Indian context it will boil down to pressing India hard on Global Warming front with no alternatives for India (may be hold back on clean power ToT). I am not sure though. May be the best of the worst (for India), but far to left of the center for US upper middle class. I think he wants to redistribute wealth - no new wealth creation. Businesses will suffer.

[Gus]

the problem for indians in massa is - they want the diversity friendliness of democrats with tax friendliness from republicans (for rich indians). there is no such candidate and even if there is somebody who meets expectations half way, there will be no neutrality/benevolence in foreign policy to india.

best to avoid most harmful - trump like baiters, and pick least harmful from the remaining.

[SaiK]

if you take a trade-off, you would choose diversity over taxes. we should not be talking like born with white-silver-spoon

[Vipul]

Internet governance: US considering India's pitch to locate 'root server'

India has made a bid to be a major player in global Internet governance — by making a pitch with the US to locate a 'root server' in India. There are only 13 such servers,of which 10 are in the US, two in Europe and one in Japan. The US, Indian officials told ET on the condition of anonymity, is favourably disposed to the idea. A root name server, as it's technically known, is at the base of the Internet. These servers translate readable host names into IP addresses, which is how a user gets to the right portal link.

In short, root name servers are essential to name resolution, which is at the core of managing the Internet.These root servers also have mirror servers — six are in India — that are networked to share the load. Any change in Internet addresses gets simultaneously updated in a root server. And a change in any one server automatically reflects in other root servers.

Senior officials told ET that India made its pitch at the Indo­US cyber dialogue two weeks ago, making the point that New Delhi's acceptance of the US backed stakeholders model on Internet governance should also encourage Washington to diversify structures of Internet management. At present, the 10 root servers in the US are mostly located in NASA, military research labs and universities.

The US, officials said, was positive in its response and asked India to start a conversation with ICANN on the subject.However, it did the make the point that such a decision may be possible only if a call is taken to have a 14th root server. New Delhi, on the other hand, feels that even relocating one of the 13 servers will go a long way in displaying confidence in India's democratic credentials. Moreover, India now has the thirdlargest Internet user base.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY
The Modi government has, in fact, elevated Internet governance as a strategic priority. In a recent decision, the PMO has made it clear that all calls related to this subject will be taken by astanding committee headed by the deputy national security adviser. The committee will have relevant stakeholders, including the Department of Information Technology, which was until now the nodal ministry.

Senior officials told ET that a root server will give India considerable clout in the Internet governance structure besides prompting a major technological upgradation within the country. "Placing a root server in India will also be a great symbol of trust in Indo­US relations," said an official.

In the meeting with US authorities, India also raised the issue of slow compliance of Indian requests by US­based Internet services such as WhatsApp and Facebook. In particular, the Muzaffarnagar riots case was brought up where an inflammatory YouTube video went viral through WhatsApp causing serious law and order problems. Indian security agencies have complained that they just could not block the video because of lack of cooperation from WhatsApp managers. While the US has said it will look into the issue, it also cited problems enforcing its will upon private enterprises.

India, on its part, has made a strong case based on which further talks are expected.

[SaiK]

^that means we must GUBO to FBI probes., which I think it is okay, if we can get a mutual agreement to GUBO each other.

[Tuvaluan]

There is nothing that stops India from hosting its own root server -- that is how China implements its great firewall of china...India can shut out american companies with that sort of approach, if they act too big for their boots. What is the strategic value of having a DNS root server in India? One is to be able to filter out requests made from within India to specific sites for FQDN translation...but that can be easily faked with VPNs, so what is this all about really? One possibility is being able to sniff requests made from other countries in the neighbourhood.

[Singha]

In general I see no reason why USA institutes get to rule the roost on internet governance.

[UlanBatori]

Why can't India just build its own? Surprised to hear that India does not have a root server.

[pravula]

Why can't India just build its own? Surprised to hear that India does not have a root server.

There is nothing special about a root server technically. India (or any other nation) creating one will just "fork" the internet.

IIRC, most queries do not reach root servers anyway. They are handled by DNS servers from ISPs that cache the root servers normally.