India-US Relations : News and Discussion

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 21 Sep 2014 08:17

Relations between nations (thus the consulates, embassies, and yes visits) depend upon the substance in the relationship. One aspect is resident expats aka NRI, RNIs, NIs etc; another is trade; a third is mutual understanding (aka we wear dhoti but are not an ahmedinijad). Sale of defense equipment is plain commerce and except as a special case should covered under trade. So, having no real expectations from either side I am just waiting to see what the visit accomplishes. Will certainly note my own view after the visit.

Re. "diplomats" and such, passing the UPSC doesnt make you a better human being. The reltionship of Indian missions with indian expats can be improved. But that is an issue worldwide, not just the US.

Re. racism, Indians are NOT the worst racists. Thats a hoirrible thing to say. Lets leave it at that. There are better places to argue about this if you would like.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Sep 2014 09:12

UB ji: MOU is just that. it is same as "no MOU". nothing is binding on either party garma garam hawa.

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 21 Sep 2014 12:30

So where are the headlines of our newspapers saying

Days before PM visit, US state department okays weapons worth $200 million to bakistan.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 21 Sep 2014 13:13

K Mehta wrote:So where are the headlines of our newspapers saying
Days before PM visit, US state department okays weapons worth $200 million to bakistan.

Probably trying to come up with how to link this to Modi becoming the PM of India.

Probably Pakis used the same tack while begging for US weapons..not that US needed any excuses to arm the terrorists.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 21 Sep 2014 14:20

Kashi wrote:
K Mehta wrote:So where are the headlines of our newspapers saying
Days before PM visit, US state department okays weapons worth $200 million to bakistan.
Probably trying to come up with how to link this to Modi becoming the PM of India.

Probably Pakis used the same tack while begging for US weapons..not that US needed any excuses to arm the terrorists.

You come to visit me, I have you sit on the floor while I am seated on a gold throne. I tell you, your wife has been insulted and a wall knocked down just before you came. And where 200 hammers were supplied is a godown of 10,000 hammers that will go to waste. Also my wife and children have no time to talk to you. And we think you killed that cat found dead in the street years ago. It would be good to clear the air regarding that. We are unhappy about food you served the last time and cant understand why we cant jam our metal concerts in your living room at 3am. And we are telling you all this before you come so you have time to prepare.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Sep 2014 15:12

UB I agree.I've seen it first hand .We have to remove the mote out of our own eye before attempting to remove it from others. However,I think that O'Bomber and the SD's understanding of how to deal with India is way off the mark and too simplistic. The fundamental Q is ,"what does India want from the US and what does the US want in return",or vice versa.Can the two lines on the graph meet at some point? It may be high,it may be low.The task is to see that it meets somewhere.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 21 Sep 2014 15:15

KLNMurthy wrote:
nvishal wrote:Better to have a pariah ambassador here than a firangi ringing needlessly for chai biskoota
Maybe Obama's gut feeling about India is dictated by the time he spent in Pakistan the country

Obamas decisions are based on what his group of advisor's tell him.

Neither the US nor India see each other as partners. Neither does the BJP or congress see the US as a partner.

The congress leadership lived through the cold war, they'll be the last one to forget anything. Manmohan tried his best to engage with the US(deals etc) without ever getting physically pulled in their games.

Modi has engaged in trade talks with japan and china within a matter of months. He is also slated for talks with the US this month. Basically, he is following the same policy followed by the UPA. India's foreign policy team is more or less the same group of individuals and regime change do not effect it.
--------

India abstinence in south china sea has forced the US to make a pivot to asia. The point for india is to never get tricked and absorbed into foreign wars(af-pak, syria, south china sea etc) even if a foreign army provokes by putting tents on the indian side of the border. Look at the larger picture.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 21 Sep 2014 15:45

Philip wrote: However,I think that O'Bomber and the SD's understanding of how to deal with India is way off the mark and too simplistic.

I believe that it's simply too jaundiced..They want to deal with India in a specific manner- that is master-slave, senior-subordinate, US-UK type..maybe even worse and more over they want India to bend over. Anything else seems to be unacceptable.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Sep 2014 17:16

However,I think that O'Bomber and the SD's understanding of how to deal with India is way off the mark and too simplistic. The fundamental Q is ,"what does India want from the US and what does the US want in return",or vice versa.Can the two lines on the graph meet at some point? It may be high,it may be low.The task is to see that it meets somewhere.

Agreed. But let us suspend distrust in the motives for a moment and step back. Suppose (is this likely? I am not very optimistic) that the BO WHOTUS actually sits down one day in what passes for Brain-Storming, and discusses the Strategic Trajectory with Indiapakistan.

BO says: Why are we caught with our thumbs up our oiseules so often in dealing with these indiapakistanis? First banning Modi from visiting, then that whole custodial-rape thing, then the American Tax-Cheat School thing. How can we change this?

Advisor: Sir, it's because we keep sending Ambassadors there that are dimwits. These Asians don't think like us, they don't subscribe to Western Cultural Values. We need to be able to deal with them with a deeper understanding.
BO: So whom can we send as the next Ambassador?
Advisor: There is this guy D1ck Worm-A who is US-ejjikated, and a SD professional with excellent credentials. He's a Redskins fan, so he's all-American. He can talk to the natives in Hindu.
BO: OK, Send him. I can't find anyone else anyway, they are all terrified that they will be cavity-searched. Also, they can't live there anymore, what with all them BRF members bissing against the Embassy wall 5 times a day, they are that it stinks there.

It doesn't signify any intent to be nice, nor the opposite: it's just to send someone who has some clue what is going on, and can relate to it. How he is received in India, will show whether the Indian Babucracy has a clue.

Let us suppose that instead of D1ck Worm-A, the name was Bhadrachalam Ramaswamy Patel Singh ('Bud') Aiyengar. Would we have been impressed?

Note that the editor of The Hindu is a pucca brahmin - and a Chinese lifafa. Whom else should BO have appointed? KissMyAssinger? Another Hahvahd professor, a Sanskrit professor, such as Witzel? Diana Eek? Wendy Doniger? Paul Courtright, good friend of the Dalai Lama and Salman Rushdie? Biju Matthew? Richard Shapiro, ex-CIIS anthropology Head?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 21 Sep 2014 17:20

UlanBatori wrote: Note that the editor of The Hindu is a pucca brahmin - and a Chinese lifafa. Whom else should BO have appointed? KissMyAssinger? Another Hahvahd professor, a Sanskrit professor, such as Witzel? Diana Eek? Wendy Doniger? Paul Courtright, good friend of the Dalai Lama and Salman Rushdie? Biju Matthew? Richard Shapiro, ex-CIIS anthropology Head?

N Ram does not belive in Sanatana Dharma and does not follow any of the requirements. Lets not stick to casteism.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Sep 2014 18:07

^^^ ".... even if a foreign army provokes by putting tents on the indian side of the border. Look at the larger picture."

Is that the "not even a blade of grass grows there" doctrine?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Sep 2014 18:59

Guys, watching Fareed Zakariah's interview with Modi (its been ages since I watched his show). Nothing insightful as always from him, true establishment guy.

UlanBatoriJi, whats a "pucca Brahmin"?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Sep 2014 19:51

From an expert on SD (Sanatana Dharma, not State Dept):

Dr. Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program is world renowned for both its access to world leaders from every country from Putin in Russia through the Secretary General of the UN, through the President of the United States.
His commentaries are amongst the most tightly written, and for the most part reasonably objective and balanced expositions that one is likely to come across in either broadcast or print journalism.
Please do watch the piece on Sri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, today at 10:00 AM. This is usually repeated AT 1:00 PM. It should be interesting.Fareed Zakaria, (BTW he is a Muslim from Gujarat, India, Modi’s home state) for those who do not know. His father Dr. Rafiq Zakaria was a renowned intellectual and his brother is a noted Wall Street tycoon. There are persistent whispers that he will be Secretary of State one day.

No comment. I don't have cable in Ulan Bator, so no danger of watching this.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 21 Sep 2014 23:01

Kashi wrote:
K Mehta wrote:So where are the headlines of our newspapers saying Probably trying to come up with how to link this to Modi becoming the PM of India.

Probably Pakis used the same tack while begging for US weapons..not that US needed any excuses to arm the terrorists.
Modi should cancel visit to USA to protest doles to terrorist munna Pakistan. Pakistan seem to be pivot of USA policy in the Indian subcontinent while USA sends Mr. Richard to India as representative!

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 21 Sep 2014 23:04

http://news.oneindia.in/feature/why-jou ... 25419.html
Oneindia » News » Feature Why Fareed Zakaria can't pass a sensible judgement on Narendra Modi ever? Written by: Shubham Ghosh
Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared for his first television interview when he spoke to Indian-born American journalist and author Fareed Zakaria of the CNN International over a wide range of issues. More than Modi, it's the interviewer Fareed Zakaria who needs more focus This interview is significant not because it is the first time that Modi spoke to the media after becoming the prime minister and put his thoughts across on issues of international significance particularly to the West ahead of the much talked-about trip to the USA, it is also important from the viewpoint of Fareed Zakaria, whose observation on the Indian prime minister continues to baffle the readers and the audience. Zakaria, in one of his pieces penned for the Washington Times on Friday, said Modi is a deft leader in international affairs and one who is clever to not get embroiled in controversies by projecting himself as a nationalist figure, something his party and its affiliates aspire for. This observation, Zakaria said, was based on his talks with the Indian prime minister. The journalist, however, thought Modi was underperforming in fields of reforms that India needs urgently and apprehended that not a bold Modi but a not-bold-enough Modi could make India suffer. He said the leader's honeymoon period was fast coming to an end and the recent bypoll results in key states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and even in his own state Gujarat proved that point. Modi not India's face, Zakaria had said in 2012 Zakaria's observation is nothing new but what is baffling is the man's dishonest take on the Indian prime minister. In April 2012, the same Zakaria had remarked that forget Modi emerging as a national leader, he was not likely to become a regional leader, i.e., by winning the assembly polls in Gujarat in December that year. About the prospects of the BJP's rise, Zakaria quoted Karl Marx saying: "History repeats itself twice. First time as a tragedy, second time as a farce". He added that Modi could never become the face of India, saying there were more complicated issues that would define India in the next 10-15 years.
.......
Gautam

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Sep 2014 23:43

Thx. Zakaria Al Chameleoni?

Interesting that an American CNN interviewer went through an entire interview without a single reference to 2002. What next? CNN's Moni Basu invited to Gujarat? Very dangerous development. Here we were hoping that GOI would get smart enough to kick See Enn Enn out of India..

It seems that Zakaria's single moment of clarity came when he declared that USG was wrong in the vija denial tamasha.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Sep 2014 00:06

^ Well I am not sure if you saw the entire report on TV , when asked by TV anchor about how did he find Modi , Zakaria replied he is extremely shrewd and sharp , Zakaria categorically stated that Modi is a very hard negotiator and was very clear as to what could be discussed and addressed during the interview. I think 2002 even if on Zakaria's script must have been struck off by the PM.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 22 Sep 2014 00:07

^^^vittu thaan pudikannum... that said, the interview was not about either of them...

आन्हर गुरु बहिर चेला, माँगे गुड़ तऽ देबे ढेला

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Sep 2014 00:12

One thing I am sure you guys must have noticed was how China took center-stage as against TSP when it came to Zakaria's questions about a neighbor's military might , seems to me Unkil already knows that TSP is not going to be a major player in the region after MMS's departure. NM's reply to Zakaria's ungli maroing on Ukraine was evil (Iirc he said something on the lines of only those who have never committed a sin have a right to give a sermon to another country )

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Sep 2014 00:23

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - or something of the sort, per desi media.

EyeRak WMD and UkBapZi mercenaries rolled into one for a swift kick in the musharraf.

U can be 400% sure I wouldn't watch Zakaria or See Enn Enn on Tee Vee: I don't pay for See Enn Enn. We Ulan Batoris do have some standards, hain? Reading on Internet is different.

So the "tough", "hard" etc refer to NaMo/baniyas saying

to See Enn Enn. Classic!!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Sep 2014 00:28

Here Come the Traitors,Baiters &Haters

Hindu Nationalist Group Seeking to Cleanse Christian Presence From India Is Not Unlike ISIS, Watchdog Group Warns

nternational Christian Concern has warned that Sangh Parivar, an umbrella Hindu nationalist group, is inflicting suffering and looking to cleanse the minority Christian population in India, much like terror group ISIS is doing in Iraq and Syria.The watchdog group said in a press release that the nationalist group and its associate organizations have been directing hate speech toward Christians and leading attacks on pastors and churches in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. Believers are reportedly worried that radical Hindu nationalism and persecution of minorities will escalate.John Dayal, a member of the Indian government's National Integration Council, said: "There has been a sharp rise in hate campaigns against Christians by political organizations. This threat of purging Christians from villages extends from Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh to now Uttar Pradesh, and to the borders of the national capital of New Delhi."There have been reports of churches being turned into Hindu temples, and entire mobs attacking Christian houses — ICC shared of one incident in July where a church in Sahakarinagar village was rampaged by a group of 25 Hindu radicals, led by Hemanth Singh, a leader in the local Bajrangdal group. Rev. R. C. Paul, who was leading a Bible study at the church at the time, was beaten along with several other members.
"We were shaken and are very scared of the situation in the area. We are concerned of our safety, even going alone outside looks very dangerous at the moment," Paul said.ICC noted in its press release that news headlines will continue to focus on Christian persecution at the hands of terror group ISIS in Iraq, but argued that the international community "must take notice of the issues of Christian persecution globally.""Like Christians facing ISIS in Iraq, millions of Christians across India are facing persecution at the hands of radical Hindu nationalist groups," the watchdog group added."Without drastic change, this difficult situation will likely only get worse, as radical Hindu nationalist groups popping up across India have been given almost complete impunity under the new Hindu nationalist government led by BJP and Narendra Modi."Following May's election of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, several Indian church leaders had said that they were not concerned that extremist groups would rise up against minorities."Minorities, such as Christians and Muslims, are an integral part of the nation and of the social fabric of Indian society. Minorities are protected by the Constitution, I believe that the new government cannot and will not want to go against the Constitution. As Christians we are confident," His Exc. Mgr. Stanley Roman, bishop of Quilon, in the state of Kerala, had said at the time.His Exc. Mgr. Albert D'Souza, archbishop of Agra, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, and general secretary of the Indian Bishops' Conference, added that sometimes "small groups of fanatics can give us concern," but argued that the Church "will continue in its mission to pray for the new government and contribute to the common good of the nation, supporting democracy, respect for pluralism, the rights of all and a secular concept in the political agenda."New Delhi Archbishop Anil J. Couto has now also raised concern, however, at the rising attacks on Christians and churches in India in recent months."It is very disturbing, and we request local authorities to take adequate measures to book the miscreants threatening to weaken the social fabric of this great nation," Couto said."The Sangh Parivar plan [is] to carry out shuddhikaran — attempts to re-convert Christians to Hinduism," the Archbishop continued."This move by fundamentalist groups is a grave assault on the fundamental rights of individuals and people and groups." Other persecution watchdog ministries, like Open Doors, have also noted a rise in Hindu extremism targeting Christians. The group ranks India as number 28 on its list of countries where Christians face the most persecution

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 22 Sep 2014 00:29

UlanBatori wrote:Thx. Zakaria Al Chameleoni?

Interesting that an American CNN interviewer went through an entire interview without a single reference to 2002. What next? CNN's Moni Basu invited to Gujarat? Very dangerous development. Here we were hoping that GOI would get smart enough to kick See Enn Enn out of India..

It seems that Zakaria's single moment of clarity came when he declared that USG was wrong in the vija denial tamasha.

Probably part of the ground rules of the interview was that 2002 not be mentioned. Would be interesting to see the raw footage of the interview in the original Hindi.

Ardeshir · Post by **Ardeshir** » 22 Sep 2014 01:32

If this report is true, I will be extremely pissed with this government. While I have to show property and a money in the bank and establish 'ties to the country' and then get fingerprinted and undergo retina scans, these Yanks can just walk in and get a visa?

At the very least, we should fingerprint them and have them undergo biometric scans, the way Brazil did even if we are allowing them a visa on arrival.

Modi govt cosies up to Obama: US tourists might soon get visa on arrival in India
New Delhi: India is working on a proposal for Visa on Arrival (VoA) facility for US tourists, one of the big-ticket announcements expected to be made during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's high-profile visit to the US beginning September 26.
The Ministry of Home Affairs is working overtime to finish the work on the VoA proposal to finalise it in time for the Prime Minister's visit, according to government sources. MHA in consultation with the Tourism ministry is working on the Tourist VoA under which visa can be granted to US citizens who do not have a residence or occupation in India and whose sole objective of visiting India would be recreation, sightseeing, casual visit to meet friends and
relatives, etc, the sources said.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Sep 2014 01:32

What does it matter when or why RZ had an epiphany. He 's now saying the right things and he's got an audience.

The WH correspondents game works the same way with 'scoops' doled out.

Think 'useful idiots', RZ can be made an 'asset'.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Sep 2014 01:39

Blog post on what happened behind the scenes to deny VISA to NaMo:
U.S. Evangelicals, Indian {SOUTH ASIAN? schemed} Expats Teamed Up to Push Through Modi Visa Ban

..
In 1996, Nina Shea, the director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, organized a summit sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group that represents 42,000 Evangelical Churches. At the conclusion of the event, the delegates pledged their collective efforts to “take appropriate action to combat the intolerable religious persecution now victimizing fellow believers and those of other faiths.”
..
and the new batch of Republican Congress members were eager to see that protection of Christians be a central part of United States foreign policy.

The result was the International Religious Freedom Act, which Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, introduced in March 1998 to wide, bipartisan support.

Though Mr. Wolf’s original vision called for sanctions on countries that violated religious freedom, that idea ran into resistance from corporations that worked in countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
..
In the new piece of legislation, most of the language on sanctions was dumped. However, one clause would carry over and would later prove fateful to Mr. Modi. Section 604 of the new legislation
..
Many of the initial commissioners had strong evangelical leanings, but when Felice D. Gaer, the director of the American Jewish Committee’s human rights program, was selected as a commissioner in 2001, she decided to widen the panel’s scope to other religions.
..
Ms. Gaer tried to arrange an official commission trip to India to survey the damage caused by the 2002 riots but was denied permission to enter India.

Instead, the commission decided to hold a hearing in Washington in June 2002. Ms. Gaer was “shocked” by the findings at the hearing. “I can’t forget what I heard that day,” Ms. Gaer said.
..
an Indian-born, Washington-based evangelical Christian named John Prabhudoss led a delegation to riot-affected Ahmedabad that included two Republican congressmen, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Mr. Wolf. Another person on the trip was Raju Rajagopal, an Indian-born retired health professional
..
In a report on violence against women during the 2002 Gujarat riots, written by a collection of Gujarat-based nongovernmental organizations known as Citizen Initiative, the authors found that the violence followed “an escalation of tension and build-up by the V.H.P. and the Bajrang Dal,” another Hindu nationalist group.
..
In a report in 2002, Human Rights Watch described a letter, bearing the name and logo of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, that called for an economic boycott of Muslims in Gujarat, creating a climate of fear. However, Human Rights Watch acknowledged that the letter could not be traced and that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad denied authorship.{so they lied}
..
co-wrote a 91-page report that alleged that the India Development and Relief Fund, which was based in the United States, had collected $4 million and sent some of the funds to right-wing Hindu groups.

Soon after the release of the report, Silicon Valley companies with large numbers of Indian-American employees promised to either stop or suspend donor matching programs with the fund.
..
Soon after Mr. Modi’s United States visit was announced, 41 South Asian groups across the country came together to form the Coalition Against Genocide. On Feb. 24, 2005, a letter organized by the group was signed by over 100 professors and sent to the hotel association, asking them to rescind Mr. Modi’s invitation. Another pressure group flooded Mr. Matthews with letters.

On March 8, 2005, Mr. Matthews backed out of the conference for “scheduling reasons.” On March 15, Amnesty International said it had written a letter to American Express asking it to withdraw its sponsorship of the conference.
..
Mr. Prabhudoss focused on Washington. “If this was going to work, we had to make a legal and not a political argument as to why the United States should deny a visa to Modi,” he said. He zeroed in on the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which stipulates that no person who has violated religious freedom could enter the country.

He knew he could count on Mr. Pitts, the Republican lawmaker who accompanied him on a visit to Gujarat in 2002, but he had a tough time convincing Democrats to block Mr. Modi’s visa.

“We needed a Democrat so the White House could say there is bipartisan support against Modi,” Mr. Prabhudoss said. He hired two professional Democratic lobbyists to assist him with his efforts, for an amount Mr. Prabhudoss declined to disclose.
..
Mr. Prabhudoss found an ally in John Conyers Jr., a Democrat from Michigan who is the longest serving African-American member of Congress and has a large Arab and Muslim constituency. {All rascals appearing to look most democratic}

On March 16, 2005, House Resolution 160 was introduced in Congress, condemning Mr. Modi “for his actions to incite religious persecution.” On March 18, the State Department denied Mr. Modi a visa.
..
Mr. Modi called the visa denial in 2005 “an attack on Indian sovereignty” and raised the question, “Will India also consider what America has done in Iraq when it processes visa applications of Americans coming to India?”
..
Joseph Grieboski, the founder of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy in Virginia, who also was deeply involved in trying to block Mr. Modi’s visit
..

Read it all, very informative.

Questions to see-near maulanas, why are jokers such as Arap/evangelicals at first define a religious prosecution policy, then let go off a large chunk of it LOL and then selectively apply it so that the Arap/evangelical jokers look the most civilized?

On the other hand, why did learned USA fellow like Zakaria NOT ask NaMo whether India has such religious prosecution policy?

Indians seem to live the most passive life in the world, and not able to pass sanctions even against terror munna Pakis even when USA can from half way across the world. We need 'International religious prosecution' act to sanction international acts of religious prosecution at once!

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 22 Sep 2014 03:26

Cosmo_R: You mean FZ (Farid Zakaria) RZ was his father.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 22 Sep 2014 03:47

For the curious, I havent watched it: youtube.

Anant · Post by **Anant** » 22 Sep 2014 03:56

Did you folks really pay attention to the interview? Fareed mentioned the visa denial, Gujurat riots and showed b roll footage.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 22 Sep 2014 04:02

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140922/j ... B9aShY54pY
US diggers find a Kargil resolution
- ‘HR 227’ and the Modi connection
K.P. NAYAR
New Delhi, Sept. 21: With exactly a week to go before Barack Obama and Narendra Modi meet for the first time, Americans are discovering that the new Prime Minister is no pushover.As inter-agency meetings to give concrete shape to an imponderable Indo-US summit began within the Obama administration last fortnight, documents surfaced in Washington which pointed to a hitherto unknown role played by Modi in securing the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Kargil at the heavy prodding of then US President Bill Clinton. These documents, which were shared by well-connected sources in Washington and are now in the possession of The Telegraph, have convinced those working on the September 29-30 summit that Modi was not a stranger to foreign affairs even in 1999 when he visited the US as a pracharak of the RSS.
Modi’s visit took place five days before Nawaz Sharif flew into Washington and agreed after a day-long meeting with Clinton to pull out of Kargil, enabling a ceasefire in the conflict that worried the world because it began soon after India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers.
Modi’s role in the turn of events, it is now revealed, was critical. The discovery of these Kargil documents and revelations that are not on paper have alerted the Obama administration that they will have their hands full when the US President and other top American leaders meet the Prime Minister in a week. The documents, which were recovered from the mists of time 15 years ago, are the result of painstaking research and a tribute to America’s institutionalised memory of dealings with events around the world as a superpower. The story they have to tell is as follows and points to how history can look very different with the passage of time and how contemporary events are not what they are as they happen. They also offer a window into the BJP-RSS ways of doing things, often very different from other political organisations.
After the Pakistanis sought strategic advantage over India in the spring of 1999, a full military conflict erupted along approximately 150km around Kargil by June. As Indian casualties mounted, the Americans assessed that then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was considering opening another front “to force Pakistanis to fight on territory favourable to India”, according to Bruce Reidel, who was Clinton’s special assistant and senior director for near east and south Asia in the White House national security council from 1997 to 2001. Vajpayee concluded that although India could fight a long war and win conventionally, international pressure on Islamabad, particularly from Washington, could force a Pakistani withdrawal from Kargil and end the loss of lives and other destruction. But the Clinton administration, in particular the state department, was ambivalent: Foggy Bottom, the seat of the state department, like the Pentagon had a history of supporting Pakistan. So, all of India’s efforts were concentrated on getting the US Congress to mount pressure on the American executive on behalf of New Delhi. On the other side, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif feared a coup and his overthrow if the conflict continued. He wanted to pursue the path of Lahore, where Vajpayee had gone and extended the hand of friendship. But Pervez Musharraf, his army chief, wanted to press for strategic advantage with India and he saw Kargil as the route to achieve that goal which had eluded Pakistan throughout its history. By the last week of June, before the US House of Representatives was a two-and-a-half-page resolution, at the core of which was a declaration that “it should be the policy of the US to oppose the government of Pakistan’s support for armed incursion into Jammu and Kashmir, India.”
It will never be acknowledged, of course, but the text of that House resolution, “HR 227,” was virtually written by Indian lobbyists on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Indian embassy in Washington.Going through transcripts of meetings of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations for that week, it is clear the draft had the support of all members but one. The resolution was to leave the committee in that form and would have been passed by the House, but Narendra Modi arrived in Washington and with support from Overseas Friends of the BJP, launched into a whirlwind of meetings with key Congressmen. Earlier, he had spent a few days in New Jersey brainstorming with Indian Americans, especially of BJP and RSS persuasion, and assessed the situation. At meetings on Capitol Hill, Modi asked for reopening of the text of HR 227 arguing that it was toothless and would not do anything to persuade Musharraf to call off his dangerous Kargil adventure. Modi said the only thing that would hurt Islamabad was a financial crunch and he called on the US to work towards cutting off funds for Pakistan from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. .....
Gautam

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Sep 2014 04:17

g.sarkarJi,

If this report is true, then India did seek active US intervention. And it did work in India's favor to the extent that TSP withdrew (that India should have blown TSP to smithereens for its invasion is only day dreaming by the likes of me

). But usually, India opposes US involvement in anything to do between India & TSP. I wonder how Indian diplomats manage this contradiction, i.e, actively seek US involvement when it suits, but oppose it as a matter of principle. On the same token, could India mobilize support in US to force TSP to accept LOC == IB in Kashmir. Or in general, to get TSP off India's back? What price will US ask. Seems to me that helping India by forcing TSP to pull back from Kargil, no major prices was conceded by India to US. Or am I missing something?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 22 Sep 2014 04:27

CRamS wrote:g.sarkarJi,
If this report is true, then India did seek active US intervention. And it did work in India's favor to the extent that TSP withdrew (that India should have blown TSP to smithereens for its invasion is only day dreaming by the likes of me ). But usually, India opposes US involvement in anything to do between India & TSP. I wonder how Indian diplomats manage this contradiction, i.e, actively seek US involvement when it suits, but oppose it as a matter of principle. On the same token, could India mobilize support in US to force TSP to accept LOC == IB in Kashmir. Or in general, to get TSP off India's back? What price will US ask. Seems to me that helping India by forcing TSP to pull back from Kargil, no major prices was conceded by India to US. Or am I missing something?

CRamSji,
I am only partially quoting a popular Indian daily newspaper, because I find it interesting and think readers of this forum will find it interesting too. There is nothing that I have added. If you believe the report is not true, write to Daily Telegraph, Kolkata and tell them.
Gautam

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Sep 2014 04:30

matrimc wrote:Cosmo_R: You mean FZ (Farid Zakaria) RZ was his father.

Yes

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Sep 2014 05:04

g.sarkarJi,

I was just commenting, not directing the question at you per se. Once again is this report is true, then it adds yet another mystery to Kargil. My understanding to date has been that Mush hid behind Badmaash bending down on his knees before Billy "BJ" C to get a face saver That narrative still holds, but what is new is that India actively lobbied US to force this outcome. I find it hard to believe that US did not extract a price from India. Or could it be that TSPA was under intense pressure from Indian army that by India agreeing to a cease-fire, they got a dog bone and were spared further humiliation? Also, if TSP wanted a cease-fire, why did India not push for more, for e.g., a settlement of Kashmir along LoC == IB?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Sep 2014 05:20

Ah! Another Report from the best of Brookhaven-Sandia!

NOW REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME: IT WAS SULTAN MUNGHIS KHAN OF ULAN BATOR THAT PERSUADED HITLER TO LOSE WW-2!

The famous Think Tank National Institute for Total War on Integrity and Thought has come out with the latest in its Brookhaven-Sandia Reports...

Pakistan did not "withdraw" under advice from DupleeCity. Pakistan's entire Kargil invasion was destroyed, the Northern Flight Infantry was WIPED OUT, by brave Indian soldiers who scaled the peaks. Please read the detailed history of the conflict.

If Pakistan had tried to reinforce them or launch air strikes, that would have set off the IAF to destroy Pakistan.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 22 Sep 2014 05:36

Modi delivers resounding jhapads to US on these two attempts:

On US's attempt to create fissures between India-China:

Q from CNN $hitworm: China's behavior in the east China seas and the south China seas over the last two years has worried many of its neighbours. The head of the governments in Philippines and Vietnam have made very sharp statements worrying about it. Do you worry about it?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi: India is different. It is a country of 1.25 billion people. We can't run our country if we get worried about every small thing. At the same time, we can't close our eyes to problems. That's why India maintains that we are now in a different era. We are not living in the eighteenth century. China is also a country with an ancient cultural heritage. Look at how it has focused on economic development. It's hardly the sign of a country that wants to be isolated. It wants to stay connected. That is why we should have trust in China's understanding and have faith that it would accept global laws and will play its role in cooperating and moving forward.

On US's attempt to create fissures between India-Russia:

Q from CNN $hitworm: With regard to Russia's action in Ukraine. India has not been particularly active. Do you, how do you view Russia's annexation of the Crimea.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi: Firstly, whatever happened there, innocent people died in a plane accident. That's very saddening. These are not good things for humanity in this age. We have always expressed those views. There is a saying in India that the person who should throw a stone first is the person who has not committed any sins. In the world right now, a lot of people want to give advice. But look within them, and they too have sinned in some way. Ultimately, India's view point is that efforts need to be made to sit together and talk, and to resolve problems in an ongoing process.

Indian diplomutts should take a leaf out of this.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 22 Sep 2014 05:39

CRamS wrote:g.sarkarJi,

If this report is true, then India did seek active US intervention. And it did work in India's favor to the extent that TSP withdrew (that India should have blown TSP to smithereens for its invasion is only day dreaming by the likes of me ). But usually, India opposes US involvement in anything to do between India & TSP. I wonder how Indian diplomats manage this contradiction, i.e, actively seek US involvement when it suits, but oppose it as a matter of principle. On the same token, could India mobilize support in US to force TSP to accept LOC == IB in Kashmir. Or in general, to get TSP off India's back? What price will US ask. Seems to me that helping India by forcing TSP to pull back from Kargil, no major prices was conceded by India to US. Or am I missing something?

India is opposed to third-party mediation over Kashmir. On the other hand, India has, for a very long time, trying to get US to make its munna behave properly. That's what happened in this instance--if the report is accurate--and should never be confused with giving up the principle of no third-party mediation.

For his part, Badmash tried to sell the forced-withdrawal from Kargil as a win, in that he pretended it was an "internationalization" of the conflict, just because he had a meeting with Clinton. However, Vajpayee studiedly stayed away from the Badhash-Clinton meeting, though he was getting updates from the White House.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Sep 2014 08:57

>>>If this report is true, then India did seek active US intervention.

No it does not mean anything like that. Modi was not GoI at the time, more like the equivalent of the opposition party leader of say Texas... No offence to Americans.

The resolution was going to happen anyway so this politician was not even "seeking" intervention.

Indian expats basically acting on their own initiative with minimal GoI financial support if any got the wording in as needed, with support from the embassy (whatever that means, maybe steady supply of samosas).

Non-state actors only.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Sep 2014 09:02

I guess in all the embassy and people try to engage other nations and get them to do things which are advantageous to them. Making US (or any other nation for hat matter) to take strong action on pakis and other anti India forces is part of the duty of Indian diplomats stationed there. Indian leaders whether it is NM or others also will play some role in getting other nations on board in any matter important to us. It will done more in war situation. After all "war is politics by other means".

Mediation and involvement are totally different from the normal things that goes on as mentioned above. Gurus will remember Khan had asked Atal to come there during Kargil and Atal has refused. Munna Mia had run khan to save his paki ( I am using the words in both meanings)

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Sep 2014 09:28

"There is no need to bad mouth anyone. Just talk sweetly to and about evey one and do your best for your nation and people." seems to be NM's mantra. He will initially try to make friends with all nations and if they come forward then it is ok otherwise also it is ok. China and Pakis proved to be in capable to be friends of India. Let us see how Khan will fare. I do not have much hope.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Sep 2014 12:10

Modi decides to reciprocate the US gesture of presenting MRAPS to Pakistan by proposing a visa on arrival scheme for US citizens. He sure does love his evangelists.