Bharat Rakshak

Senate intelligence committee chair, who has been a loyal defender of the NSA, demands a 'total' surveillance review
Beta

Paul Lewis and Spencer Ackerman in Washington
The Guardian, Monday 28 October 2013 22.11 GMT

Dianne Feinstein
'It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary,' Feinstein said. Photo: J Scott Applewhite /AP

The chair of the Senate intelligence committee, who has been a loyal defender of the National Security Agency, dramatically broke ranks on Monday, saying she was "totally opposed" to the US spying on allies and demanding a total review of all surveillance programs.

California Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein strongly criticised the NSA's monitoring of the calls of friendly world leaders such as German chancellor Angela Merkel.

Feinstein, who has steadfastly defended the NSA's mass surveillance programs, added that both Barack Obama and members of her committee, which is supposed to received classified briefings, had been kept in the dark about operations to target foreign leaders.

"It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community," Feinstein said in a statement to reporters.

"Unlike NSA's collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed.

She added:

With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of US allies – including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany – let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

The senator also provided the first official confirmation of a German report that indicated Merkel's phone had been monitored for more than a decade. "It is my understanding that President Obama was not aware Chancellor Merkel's communications were being collected since 2002," Feinstein said. "That is a big problem."

The senator's dramatic intervention comes as the White House struggles to contain the diplomatic fallout from a series of revelations about the NSA's spy operations abroad. They include a report in the Guardian, based on documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that at least 35 world leaders have been monitored by the agency.

"Unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and prime ministers. The president should be required to approve any collection of this sort," Feinstein added.

The White House has informed me that collection on our allies will not continue, which I support. But as far as I'm concerned, Congress needs to know exactly what our intelligence community is doing. To that end, the committee will initiate a major review into all intelligence collection programs."

Feinstein's statement also comes at a crucial time for the NSA, one the eve of legislation that will curtail the agency's powers – and amid the first signs the White House may be starting to distance itself from security chiefs in recent days. On Monday, the White House's chief spokesman, Jay Carney, said the administration "acknowledged the tensions" caused by Snowden's disclosures.

"The president clearly feels strongly about making sure we are not just collecting information because we can, but because we should," Carney said. "We recognize there needs to be additional constraints on how we gather and use intelligence."

Obama told ABC news on Monday evening that he would not discuss classified information but accepted that security operations were being reassessed to ensure proper oversight of the NSA's technical abilities.

He said: "The national security operations, generally, have one purpose and that is to make sure the American people are safe and that I'm making good decisions. I'm the final user of all the intelligence that they gather. But they're involved in a whole wide range of issues.

"We give them policy direction. But what we've seen over the last several years is their capacities continue to develop and expand, and that's why I'm initiating now a review to make sure that what they're able to do doesn't necessarily mean what they should be doing."

On Tuesday morning, James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican and author of the 2001 Patriot Act, will introduce a bill called the USA Freedom Act that will ban warrantless bulk phone metadata collection and prevent the NSA from querying its foreign communications databases for identifying information on Americans. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, will introduce the bill's Senate counterpart that same day.

Also on Tuesday, the two most senior intelligence leaders are set to testify before the House intelligence committee on Tuesday. Both are now expected to be grilled on why they appear not to have informed either the White House or congressional oversight committees about the spying activities directed at foreign leaders.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence who is under fire for misleading Congress on bulk domestic collection, will testify about surveillance reform Tuesday afternoon. He will be accompanied by General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, who last week mused to a Pentagon blog that "we ought to come up with a way of stopping" reporters' stories about the NSA's bulk collection programs.

Their performance tomorrow is likely to be influential toward members of Congress on the fence about bulk domestic collection ahead of a vote on Sensenbrenner's bill, as a July predecessor came within seven votes of passage.

Feinstein's shifting position was not the only emerging challenge confronting the NSA late Monday. A new disclosure from the Electronic Frontier Foundation added to the agency's woes by suggesting that it began testing means to gather location data on cellphones inside the US before informing the secret surveillance court that oversees it.

A short document apparently written in 2011 by an NSA lawyer discussed a 2010 "mobility testing effort" involving "cell site locations." The lawyer, whose name was redacted in a document obtained by the group under the Freedom of Information Act, said that the Justice Department was believed to have "orally advised" the so-called Fisa Court that "we had obtained a limited set of test data sampling of cellular mobility data (cell site location information) pursuant to the Court-authorized program" under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the NSA uses to justify collecting Americans' phone records in bulk.

Alexander recently conceded that the so-called "pilot program" for cellular geolocation collection existed and said it was potentially a "future requirement for the country." It was previously unknown that the pilot program proceeded before the Fisa Court knew of it.

Just one month ago, in her own committee, Feinstein, delivered a full-throated and unequivocal defense of every surveillance activity conducted by the NSA.

"It is my opinion that the surveillance activities conducted under FISA, and other programs operated by the National Security Agency, are lawful, they are effective, and they are conducted under careful oversight within the NSA, by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and by the FISA Court and the Congress," Feinstein said on September 26.

In August, following disclosures that the NSA had improperly collected data on thousands of Americans, Feinstein accused the Washington Post of misquoting her, saying her committee "has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes".

Feinstein is bringing her own legislation to enable superficial reforms of the NSA and the secret court system, but stops short of curbing the intelligence community's powers, is being marked up at her committee on Tuesday.

Feinstein's about-face presents the major challenge for the White House, which perceives the California Democrat as a key Senate surrogate on surveillance issues.

Obama has yet to take a position on the Leahy and Sensenbrenner bills. Congressional aides expect a major push by the NSA to defeat the bills, but are unsure how vigorously the White House will oppose them.

Carney's remarks on Monday, prompted by a growing sense of diplomatic backlash against the US over the NSA, provide additional uncertainty. US officials have distanced Obama from the foreign-leader spying in anonymous comments to the Wall Street Journal.

The United States government is preparing to hit India-based outsourcing giant Infosys with the largest immigration fine ever levied, after an investigation found that the company illegally placed workers on visitor visas at American corporate clients. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the fine would be approximately $35 million. The Journal reported that a probe conducted by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department found that Infosys was able to bring a number of its employees to the U.S. for long-term stays by using B-1 visas as opposed to the more expensive H-1B visas.B-1 visas are meant to be used for short stays and can be obtained in a matter of days for $160. H-1B visas entitle the holder to remain in the U.S. for as long as three years. The U.S. issues a maximum of 65,000 H-1B visas per year and acquiring one can cost up to $5,000 per individual. The settlement in the case is expected to be announced Wednesday, according to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Texas. A company spokesman told the Journal that Infosys had set aside $35 million to settle the case and cover legal costs. The investigation stemmed from a 2011 lawsuit filed by an Infosys employee named Jack Palmer, who sued the company for harassment and breach of contract, claiming that his managers had retaliated against him after he raised concerns that the company was violating immigration laws.Palmer alleged that he had attended meetings at Infosys headquarters in Bangalore, India, where he was asked to prepare letters in support of B-1 applications that would claim employees were coming to America for meetings as opposed to working at a job. Palmer's lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in 2012, but his attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, told the Journal Palmer had co-operated with the federal investigation.

Washington went on the defensive over the weekend as new reports citing unnamed US intelligence sources gave embarrassing details of the National Security Agency's surveillance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama's knowledge thereof.

German media on Sunday aired new details and accusations of the depth of the NSA's spying in Germany, ramping up the tensions between Berlin and Washington.

Bild am Sontag quotes an unnamed NSA official saying that NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander had briefed Obama in 2010 on the agency's surveillance of Mrs. Merkel, reports Agence France-Presse. "Obama did not halt the operation but rather let it continue," the source added. And Der Spiegel reports that according to documents it obtained, Merkel was first put under surveillance by the NSA in 2002.

But US officials, on the record and anonymously, deny that Obama knew the particulars of the NSA spying on world leaders, including that Merkel was specifically targeted.

RECOMMENDED: How well do you know the world of spying? Take our CIA and NSA quiz.

The Wall Street Journal reports that, according to an unnamed US official, the decision to spy on Merkel would have been made within the NSA, and Obama would not have been consulted. "These decisions are made at NSA," the official said. "The president doesn't sign off on this stuff."

The Journal notes further that if Der Spiegel's report that the spying dates back to 2002 is true, "it is less likely NSA would have had a reason to brief the Obama White House without a specific reason to do so, because it would have been seen as one of many continuing surveillance programs at the agency."

And the NSA denied the Bild report outright, with a spokesperson saying that General Alexander "did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel," according to AFP.

RECOMMENDED: Monitor Frontier Markets Free Trial. Intelligent analysis

Jhujar wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10 ... iolations/
US will reportedly hit Infosys with record fine for immigration violations

In June, the Senate, dominated by Obama's Democratic allies, passed a historic reform package that would create a pathway to legal status and eventual citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants.
The Senate plan, crafted and approved with Republican support, would strengthen the border with Mexico and reorganize the visa system to give priority to high-demand fields, including engineers and farm workers.
But in the House of Representatives, Republicans hold the majority, and they are more hostile toward so-called "amnesty" for the millions of foreigners living illegally in the United States.
According to Democrats, immigration reform provides a chance to improve the image of conservatives, whose popularity sank after being blamed for the recent political paralysis in Washington.
"We have here a golden opportunity," said Democratic political consultant Maria Cardona. "We have a window of opportunity of one or two months, when the House can vote the reform."
Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez was more cautious.
"It is hard to be optimistic about the prospects for anything happening in a bipartisan manner on Capitol Hill these days," he said, though predicting immigration reform could be taken up "before the end of the year."

Some Republicans are in favor of immigration reform, which could help the party regain some influence among the increasingly critical contingent of Hispanic voters, who largely cast Democratic ballots today.

By Ken Dilanian and Janet Stobart

October 28, 2013,
WASHINGTON -- The White House and State Department signed off on surveillance targeting phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said Monday, pushing back against assertions that President Obama and his aides were unaware of the high-level eavesdropping.

Professional staff members at the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies are angry, these officials say, believing the president has cast them adrift as he tries to distance himself from the disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that have strained ties with close allies.

The resistance emerged as the White House said it would curtail foreign intelligence collection in some cases and two senior U.S. senators called for investigations of the practice.

France, Germany, Italy, Mexico and Sweden have all publicly complained about the NSA surveillance operations, which reportedly captured private cellphone conversations by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, among other foreign leaders.
FOR THE RECORD:
U.S. spying: An article in the Oct. 29 front section about U.S. spying on foreign leaders misidentified Sen. John McCain as the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a member of the committee, but no longer the ranking member.

On Monday, as Spain joined the protest, the fallout also spread to Capitol Hill.

Until now, members of Congress have chiefly focused their attention on Snowden's disclosures about the NSA's collection of U.S. telephone and email records under secret court orders.

"With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of U.S. allies — including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany — let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"Unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and prime ministers," she said in a statement.

Feinstein said the Intelligence Committee had not been told of "certain surveillance activities" for more than a decade, and she said she would initiate a major review of the NSA operation. She added that the White House had informed her that "collection on our allies will not continue," although other officials said most U.S. surveillance overseas would not be affected.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, said Congress should consider creating a special select committee to examine U.S. eavesdropping on foreign leaders.

"Obviously, we're going to want to know exactly what the president knew and when he knew it," McCain told reporters in Chicago. "We have always eavesdropped on people around the world. But the advance of technology has given us enormous capabilities, and I think you might make an argument that some of this capability has been very offensive both to us and to our allies."

In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Ministry officials summoned the U.S. ambassador to object to the alleged NSA communications net in Spain. Citing documents leaked by Snowden, El Mundo, a major Spanish daily, said the U.S. spy agency had collected data on more than 60 million phone calls made in just 30 days, from early December 2012 to early January 2013.

PHOTOS: President Obama's past

Precisely how the surveillance is conducted is unclear. But if a foreign leader is targeted for eavesdropping, the relevant U.S. ambassador and the National Security Council staffer at the White House who deals with the country are given regular reports, said two former senior intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing classified information.

Obama may not have been specifically briefed on NSA operations targeting a foreign leader's cellphone or email communications, one of the officials said. "But certainly the National Security Council and senior people across the intelligence community knew exactly what was going on, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous."

If U.S. spying on key foreign leaders was news to the White House, current and former officials said, then White House officials have not been reading their briefing books.

It may mean being so angry at the larger failure of the system, the physical failure — the potholed roads, the power shutdowns — that one’s anger can become utterly mute from its weight. And it may also mean being so bored by the failure of cultural originality — the absence of anything beyond Bollywood, and the fact that most of our contemporary art is shamelessly derivative of Western work — that the inertia of imagination can knock you out cold.

And sometimes, when it appears the revolution will exhaust itself before ever beginning, the computer servers in India for Getmeoutofhere.com will crash.

CRamS wrote:Guys,

who is this guy SIDDHARTH DHANVANT SHANGHVI. Heavy whining op-ed in the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opini ... ndian.html

Some choice quotes

It may mean being so angry at the larger failure of the system, the physical failure — the potholed roads, the power shutdowns — that one’s anger can become utterly mute from its weight. And it may also mean being so bored by the failure of cultural originality — the absence of anything beyond Bollywood, and the fact that most of our contemporary art is shamelessly derivative of Western work — that the inertia of imagination can knock you out cold.

and this one

And sometimes, when it appears the revolution will exhaust itself before ever beginning, the computer servers in India for Getmeoutofhere.com will crash.

In spite of all the rumors of shoddy infrastructure and insidious corruption, with my boots on the ground, it appeared to me a healthy, hopeful time to return to India.
I was in my 20s at the time, and I thought a lot about what it meant to be a “young person in India.” I was a part of our largest demographic (over half of the nation is under age 25). This fact was billed as something attractive by the liberal press. Although later I came to think more deeply about the other things we also associate with youth — bad credit, for instance, and binge drinking — for the moment, inexperience and healthy knees formed an exciting counterpoint to the traditional Indian veneration of old age and senility (our incumbent prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is now past 80). Youth, the new malls told me, was king. To fit in, I even bought a pair of jogging track pants. I almost bought a hoodie, too.

I’m in my 30s now — still young, yet old enough to be fabulously bitter. When I go out now, the talk at the bars is about which Maldivian island is best for diving. People in Mumbai say they want to get out of the “slum capital of the universe.” They want to go deep-sea diving instead. I’m told I’m part of India’s privileged elite, the powerful, unconscionable ruling class that says in public, “Actually, get four bottles of that red.” It’s a little like being stuck in a Bret Easton Ellis novel, where the protagonist orders chai after a night spent on Special K. With this lot of new friends I sometimes cruise down the now-completed Sea Link, all the while listening to the Icelandic rock band Sigur Ros, which my friends claim “speaks to their pain.”

Though rarely used, the full name of the bridge is the Rajiv Gandhi Sea Link, so called for the former prime minister, who was assassinated in 1991. A few weeks ago, Rajiv Gandhi’s son, Rahul, publicly criticized legislation supported by his party, the Indian National Congress, that would allow legislators convicted of crimes to seek public office. Regretting his public outburst, the former hope for change in India said that his mother, Sonia, had pointed out that his choice of words to denounce the ordinance — “complete nonsense” — was strong. “But I am young,” he countered (he is already in his 40s, although in Indian politics, 81 is when you get your driving permit).

I’d have liked to ask Mr. Gandhi what that means: “I am young.” I myself no longer have a clear idea. Perhaps it means being so disillusioned with life in modern India that, quite frankly, never mind the Congress’s election promise of eradicating poverty, I’d like him to buy me a Scotch and soda now. It may mean being so angry at the larger failure of the system, the physical failure — the potholed roads, the power shutdowns — that one’s anger can become utterly mute from its weight. And it may also mean being so bored by the failure of cultural originality — the absence of anything beyond Bollywood, and the fact that most of our contemporary art is shamelessly derivative of Western work — that the inertia of imagination can knock you out cold.

If Mr. Gandhi believes youth is given to impetuosity, I’d say to him that it is also marked by restlessness: Young people drift. Sometimes the forces in a country, be it corruption in the political classes or bad grammar in the national press, provoke a revolution. And sometimes, when it appears the revolution will exhaust itself before ever beginning, the computer servers in India for Getmeoutofhere.com will crash.

Rony wrote:Karan, the point is not that the governance has taken downhill in India.The point is there is no need for a brown guy to whine about India's problems in a psudo-liberal American newspaper whose hatred for India is well known.If he wants to whine about India's problems, he should do that in a Indian newspaper addressing Indians not in American newspaper addressing Americans.The result os that article is it will have zero effect on Indians but negative stereotypes about India will get reinforced in American minds. It puzzles me that Indians fight their internal battles fighting on videsi shoulders without any inhibitions, a unique disgusting quality which we don't recognize much but others do.

"a brown guy to whine about India's problems in a psudo-liberal American newspaper whose hatred for India is well known."

he wants to whine about India's problems, he should do that in a Indian newspaper addressing Indians not in American newspaper addressing Americans.The result os that article is it will have zero effect on Indians but negative stereotypes about India will get reinforced in American minds.

It puzzles me that Indians fight their internal battles fighting on videsi shoulders without any inhibitions, a unique disgusting quality which we don't recognize much but others do

Alice Arnold, the BBC announcer, has become a national heroine by tossing a plastic bottle back into a car from which a passenger had thrown it. In view of the growing perversity of our law-enforcement agencies, she was lucky not to be charged with threatening behaviour, or worse.

As everyone knows, disputes over litter can become violent, which is why Arnold is now held in such high regard. In 2008, Evren Anil was stabbed to death in a busy London street after a youth threw a chocolate wrapper into his car and he objected. An elderly passer-by, who tried to intervene on Mr Anil’s behalf, was threatened with death. “If you do not get out of the way, I will kill you, too,” said the youth.

Not every confrontation ends so badly, of course. Recently in Nottingham – whose streets, incidentally, are paved with chewing gum – a boy of about 13 started to throw food at his friends, some of which landed by my feet at the bus stop where I was waiting. “Excuse me,” I said, mildly and politely, “could you pick that up?”

“Shut the ---- up!” he replied, and departed in triumph as there was absolutely nothing I could do to correct him without putting myself on the wrong side of the law.

Likewise, at the entrance to Euston station, a woman threw her cigarette end down at my feet, almost defiantly. When I asked her, again politely, to pick it up, she just said “No!” What could I do except bear my humiliation and despair?

It makes matters worse that I vet the people whom I ask to pick up their litter. Those with pit-bull faces I do not approach, as they are inclined immediately to fly into a murderous rage at the gentlest of implied reproaches.

CRamS wrote:Karan MJi,

You make some very good, well thought out points. And believe me, after having lived in US for a quarter century, I could give a rat's ass for how I or Indians are perceived by NYT chutiyas. I am inured to that.

I am with RoniJi to the extent that this article in the NYT served no purpose other than a few mins time pass for those few whites who know about India and might have read it. And for those India haters, and there are many, this is cannon fodder.

But it does show the disgusting tendency among Indians to wash our dirty linen in the midst of foreigners. You dissected his piece very well. And every point you make is legitimate. But NYT is not the place for that. I would welcome an article in the NYT by someone who can talk about the US fraud in AfPak, and how it can make India's situation worse. I would welcome an article in the NYT by someone like him talk about US's diabolical alliance with TSP etc, and how that, coupled with an inpet govt in Delhi means TSP terrorism is being rewarded. A subject like this might have an impact because it impinges not only on India's faults, but puts a mirror in front of US. (Whether NYT will publish something like that is another story).

The problem with these kidns of articles by brown Sahibs is that it focuses on India's shit and absolves the whites of their crimes against India. To use a US analogy, this article is tantamount to say a white feminist in US whining about the lecherous, lewd lifestyle of many college women in an ultra right wing Christian conservative newspaper that at best has an apathetic attitude towards date rape, and at worst condones rapists by pointing out the faults of the victim. Or one of those African American Uncle Toms used by Fox news to talk about the dysfunctional nature of many inner city African families. Does pouring scorn over your own even if points out the truth serve any purpose when done so in front of those who have contempt for you in the first place? You get the drift.

I understand the frustration of this guy, as I do for many, many Indians like him. But in his zeal to login to "getmeoutofhere.com", he embraces the very nemesis of India who are no better towards Indian than MMS and other leadership he is lamenting. Thats the point I am making, and I assume RonyJi as well.

this article is tantamount to say a white feminist in US whining about the lecherous, lewd lifestyle of many college women in an ultra right wing Christian conservative newspaper that at best has an apathetic attitude towards date rape, and at worst condones rapists by pointing out the faults of the victim. Or one of those African American Uncle Toms used by Fox news to talk about the dysfunctional nature of many inner city African families. Does pouring scorn over your own even if points out the truth serve any purpose

Karan M wrote:First, do you think being brown, you should only write in "brown" newspapers? If tomorrow, anybody gets a chance to really point out India's issues and why they need effective governance, as versus the fake pablum being spread by the INC/media cabal, they shouldn't do so? So if somebody (like NYT recently) makes fake claims about Modi, and another "white newspaper" allows you to reply, you wouldn't? Is there any specific niti/rule/text that mentions what to, what not to?

Karan M wrote:Next, Do you think any "brown newspaper" will print all this? Take a look at all the brown media and who owns them.

Karan M wrote: From his perspective, he is writing in an US newspaper, not a Pakistani one.

Karan M wrote:Your issue is not that whether what he wrote is right or wrong. Your issue is whether "negative stereotypes about India will get reinforced in American minds".

Karan M wrote:Your priorities are out of whack. You should be more concerned about whether what he wrote is the truth. Not whether Indians abroad are sneered at by the Goras. Guess what they do and will continue to do so until and unless India advances to the point that all the folks return or India itself climbs the stakes.

Karan M wrote:Pretending that things are fine does nobody any good.

Karan M wrote:Go look outside - there are dozens of blog articles written by Chinese complaining about mainland China and how pathetically corrupt/polluted it is. There are blogs from UK folks cribbing about how drunken louts have spoilt social standards and why they are moving abroad for more civilized climes.

Karan M wrote:how exactly will you handle the far more trenchant comments that come from videsis who do visit India & reply in a coherent manner? Or dismiss all that as whining? Neither works.

Contrast New Delhi's isolation in Pakistan with how the US addresses multiple constituencies there. It matters little to America that it is the single most hated country in Pakistan (even more so than India). Washington addresses the government, and the spectrum of opposition parties, academia and civil society. It maintains contact with the Pakistani military and the ISI, even knowing that they have masterminded the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in Afghanistan. US intelligence agencies talk non-stop to jihadi groups, even as they listen non-stop to their radio and digital conversations. The American people and the US Congress are no more enamoured of Pakistan than is India. But Washington knows that anger must be cloaked in engagement, since estrangement takes away the power to influence.

CRamS wrote:Karan MJi,

You make some very good, well thought out points. And believe me, after having lived in US for a quarter century, I could give a rat's ass for how I or Indians are perceived by NYT chutiyas. I am inured to that.

I am with RoniJi to the extent that this article in the NYT served no purpose other than a few mins time pass for those few whites who know about India and might have read it. And for those India haters, and there are many, this is cannon fodder.

But it does show the disgusting tendency among Indians to wash our dirty linen in the midst of foreigners. You dissected his piece very well. And every point you make is legitimate. But NYT is not the place for that. I would welcome an article in the NYT by someone who can talk about the US fraud in AfPak, and how it can make India's situation worse. I would welcome an article in the NYT by someone like him talk about US's diabolical alliance with TSP etc, and how that, coupled with an inpet govt in Delhi means TSP terrorism is being rewarded. A subject like this might have an impact because it impinges not only on India's faults, but puts a mirror in front of US. (Whether NYT will publish something like that is another story).

The problem with these kidns of articles by brown Sahibs is that it focuses on India's shit and absolves the whites of their crimes against India. To use a US analogy, this article is tantamount to say a white feminist in US whining about the lecherous, lewd lifestyle of many college women in an ultra right wing Christian conservative newspaper that at best has an apathetic attitude towards date rape, and at worst condones rapists by pointing out the faults of the victim. Or one of those African American Uncle Toms used by Fox news to talk about the dysfunctional nature of many inner city African families. Does pouring scorn over your own even if points out the truth serve any purpose when done so in front of those who have contempt for you in the first place? You get the drift.

I understand the frustration of this guy, as I do for many, many Indians like him. But in his zeal to login to "getmeoutofhere.com", he embraces the very nemesis of India who are no better towards Indian than MMS and other leadership he is lamenting. Thats the point I am making, and I assume RonyJi as well.

paramu wrote:If you have a problem within your family, will you tell and discuss that in your own house or in your neighbour's house or in the public so that everybody knows the truth? Will you be happy if your kid tells the problem in your family to everyone because you have an honest kid?

There is a saying "don't wash your dirty linen in public". This doesn't mean that you should not wash, but don't display the dirt to public.

Rony wrote:You are not getting the point. I would reply to NYT if they make false claims about Modi/India/etc etc.But i would not post a article in NYT showing how my country is corrupt, how the system is inefficient etc etc.

'Brown newspapers' are know for their self flagellation and there are many critical articles about governance in Indian media. Not sure what you are implying here.

And whats the point of Indian whining about Indian problems in a American newspaper which majority of Indians don't read ? And i don't see a difference between writing in a US newspaper and a Paki one. The former display contempt and the latter display hatred for India.

Karan M wrote:Your issue is not that whether what he wrote is right or wrong. Your issue is whether "negative stereotypes about India will get reinforced in American minds".

Absolutely. American newspaper is not the place to whine about wrongs about India. Rights are fine.

Karan M wrote:Your priorities are out of whack. You should be more concerned about whether what he wrote is the truth. Not whether Indians abroad are sneered at by the Goras. Guess what they do and will continue to do so until and unless India advances to the point that all the folks return or India itself climbs the stakes.

There are (media) places to put your opinions and there are (media) places to keep your mouth shut. I don't see any value other than negative one where Indians self flagellate in NY times/Al zazeera/BBC/Dawn etc etc .

Karan M wrote:Pretending that things are fine does nobody any good.

I guss whining and self flagellating in front of Goras makes lot of good.

Dozens ?? I can count on my fingers the number of mainland chinese who self flagellate in the opinion pages of NY times like some Indians do. Even for those minority, they have to endure hate mail from the hundreds of mainland chinese in sina weibo accusing him/her of being a "traitor" .

Karan M wrote:how exactly will you handle the far more trenchant comments that come from videsis who do visit India & reply in a coherent manner? Or dismiss all that as whining? Neither works.

A videshi giving his trenchant comments after visiting India is different from a self flagellating Indian giving his trenchant comments on India in a videshi paper.

paramu wrote:If you have a problem within your family, will you tell and discuss that in your own house or in your neighbour's house or in the public so that everybody knows the truth? Will you be happy if your kid tells the problem in your family to everyone because you have an honest kid?

There is a saying "don't wash your dirty linen in public". This doesn't mean that you should not wash, but don't display the dirt to public.

nachiket wrote:^^Shukla should pontificate after India pulls off a US like raid to send Hafiz Saeed and DI to meet their 72. The US engagement with pakistan is "Mooh me Raam, Bagal me Churi" type. We either have no churi or have no intention of using it.

paramu wrote:Did you come to the assumption that what is happening in India is rape, sexual molestation, incest and cannibalism??????

Karan M wrote: On the other hand, somebody may do exactly the opposite in the hope that it may jolt India's apathetic govt into taking a stand. As things stand, the Indian media is lock stock and barrel complicit with the govt ..

Karan M wrote:What I am implying is fairly straightforward, that given the language he used he would not be allowed to carry that article in an equally mainstream paper here.

Karan M wrote:What is the point of whining anywhere, as you put it? Would you rather he waved the flag, bared his chest and throatily expressed his patriotism instead, which you would be the judge of, given your comments on what is kosher and what is not? And you may not see a difference, but others do. And therein lies the point. The world is bigger than you, there are many other Indians apart from you, and they will do what they think is within the bounds of civility. What you are doing is classic projection. You have arbitrarily decided what is good and what is not, and are hence complaining about anyone who does not think as you do even when they pen their thoughts. Should they have sought your permission?

Karan M wrote:Which attitude makes little sense, and is entirely driven by your thoughts about what is right or wrong. Like it or not, you don't define India.

Karan M wrote:His choice to make. He is describing his life, his personal choices and how he perceives things. Why should it bother you?

Karan M wrote:And next, you say I can count on my fingers the number of mainland chinese who self flagellate in the opinion pages of NY times like some Indians do - so only some Chinese self flagellate, and only some Indians do so. That's what you wrote. In other words the claim that this is a uniquely disgusting Indian trait is misplaced.

Karan M wrote:What rubbish is this? So a "vides"i can call Indian issues out in "videsi" papers, but an Indian must never ever call anything out in a videsi paper. If this is not a weird form of racism, what else is?

Rony wrote:So in order to jolt India's apathetic govt, one needs to self flagellate and whine before the gora. Isn't it what Aroy does ?

Karan M wrote:What I am implying is fairly straightforward, that given the language he used he would not be allowed to carry that article in an equally mainstream paper here.

That is factually incorrect.Be it as it may, i don't see the logic of cursing Indian govt "with the language he uses" in a non-Indian newspaper because mainstream Indian paper does not carry it.

Karan M wrote:What is the point of whining anywhere, as you put it? Would you rather he waved the flag, bared his chest and throatily expressed his patriotism instead, which you would be the judge of, given your comments on what is kosher and what is not? And you may not see a difference, but others do. And therein lies the point. The world is bigger than you, there are many other Indians apart from you, and they will do what they think is within the bounds of civility. What you are doing is classic projection. You have arbitrarily decided what is good and what is not, and are hence complaining about anyone who does not think as you do even when they pen their thoughts. Should they have sought your permission?

All this and i still did not get answer to my basic question on what is the point of self flagellating and whining in a American newspaper about Indian problems.

Karan M wrote:Which attitude makes little sense, and is entirely driven by your thoughts about what is right or wrong. Like it or not, you don't define India.

No one said i define India.

Karan M wrote:His choice to make. He is describing his life, his personal choices and how he perceives things. Why should it bother you?

What BS. In the same vein, i am putting out my opinion on him and his attitude to self flagellate and whine in front of goras.Why should it bother you ?

Karan M wrote:And next, you say I can count on my fingers the number of mainland chinese who self flagellate in the opinion pages of NY times like some Indians do - so only some Chinese self flagellate, and only some Indians do so. That's what you wrote. In other words the claim that this is a uniquely disgusting Indian trait is misplaced.

"Some Indians do" as in not all but significant some . "Can count on my fingers" as in less than ten. You can crib on how i write but i hope you understand what i am trying to say. "Some" Indians have this disgusting habit to self flagellate and whine about negative things about India in front of goras and i don't see this that often from chinese.

Karan M wrote:What rubbish is this? So a "vides"i can call Indian issues out in "videsi" papers, but an Indian must never ever call anything out in a videsi paper. If this is not a weird form of racism, what else is?

Did you even read what i wrote. A gora pontificating in a Indian newspaper about Indias problems is different from a desi whining and self flagellating about India's problems in a NYT/BBC etc. In the first case, we need to reverse the gaze and show the gora a mirror.In the second case, there is no pointing in supporting such self flagellation .This stand of mine appears as racism to you ? lol

Karan M wrote:Au contraire, ARoy does not attempt to jolt India's govt, she writes rubbish and cooked up facts and is a plain and simple anarchist. Theres a difference.

Karan M wrote:How is that factually incorrect? Please provide me the facts - namely, tell me when you manage to get a mainstream Indian newspaper to write about MMS being senile or implying that he is, and also taking potshots at SG/RG.

Karan M wrote: Next, you may not see the logic, but I do and he did.

Karan M wrote:You got the answer, you choose not to see it. You asked a rhetorical question "What is the point of.." and got an answer pointing out that the point lies in the eye of the beholder. He wanted to write, so he did.What makes you the judge and jury on deciding he doesn't have a point but you do?

Karan M wrote:But you are acting as you do. You are being self righteous, judgemental and stating that people should NOT do x, they should NOT do y.

Karan M wrote:Lets see, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute in terms of changing the actual situation that made this guy vent, but all that bothers you is your perception about goras and how desis should not even dare to talk anything about India in front of goras.

Karan M wrote: What I was referring to were many expat Chinese who go for education abroad, return and then find how bad the situation is and openly discuss it.

Karan M wrote: I did read what you wrote and yes, it is pretty weird. An Indian cannot write in papers abroad, but a gora can. Oh wait, the Indian can write only if he writes about India in a positive light. But the gora can write bad things about India that's fine.

Karan M wrote:Yes, you are being pretty racist here because you have divided the world into "us" versus "them"

Karan M wrote: Saying show them a mirror, show them this, all sounds well and jingoistic, but in reality, it will backfire and just show us to be insecure dolts.

Karan M wrote: The US has amongst the highest rates of crime in the world. It has drug issues. It is hated by many for its military policies. Yet the world flocks to its shores. Food for thought.

matrimc wrote:Interesting duel going on there - just want to inject a small anecdotal observation of mine - Susan A Roy has quite an uncritical following in The US - especially the left leaning outlets like NPR. That in itself is not a problem. But if her opinions - motivated either because of a hankering for personal glory or being used knowingly or unknowingly as a tool - are projected to represent the wider Indian public and then are used in turn as a stick to beat India, then it becomes a nuisense that has to be dalt with.

rsangram wrote:The operative point here is that Susan A Roy spreads deliberate falsehoods, and this guy Sanghvi has spoken the truth. And that makes all the difference.........and that makes all the difference......

Rony wrote:

rsangram wrote:The operative point here is that Susan A Roy spreads deliberate falsehoods, and this guy Sanghvi has spoken the truth. And that makes all the difference.........and that makes all the difference......

The operative point is what is "truth" is subjective and varies from ones perspective. Aroy is falsehood for us but for countless others both in India and West, she is speaking the "truth". Once we accept the premise that our washing dirty linen in nyt/bbc/dawn/aljazeera is ok as long as what we consider is "truth" is published, then we are in slippery slope since for every one person who publishes our "truth", there are hundred who are publishing the western/paki version of the "truth". If the argument is since there are already hundred people peddling the western/paki version of "truth" and hence we need to have "our version of truth" as well, thats a different matter and i agree that we have no choice and we need to jump into the fray and put our perspective as well.But this will only reinforces my original comment that Indians wash their dirty linen in public lot more than say Chinese (of course the main culprits here are Aroy and other psudo-liberal and commie types who petition their maibaap in us/uk and penn a article in nyc/bbc against nationalist forces at the drop of a hat).