India-US Strategic News and Discussion

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 03 Nov 2011 22:03

Acharya wrote:But southern states are known for talking about their religion and are not used to 'secular' govt

USA has freedom of expression(and religion) and hence people are free to talk about anything including religion.Let southern states talk about christianity.Hindus can talk about hinduism.I do not see any problems.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 03 Nov 2011 22:33

devesh wrote:nope, that bolded part is necessary Taqyia. his point is hatred towards "pagans". that's what he's trying to say but sugarcoating for PC requirements. it is Hindu-phobia born out of the Christian hatred for diversity and "paganism"...

Devesh ji, maybe you are right.This Williams guy might be an anti hindu for all I know.But the report posted by AGupta ji which had williams' comments do not prove any such thing if look at it objectively.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Nov 2011 23:20

US Defence Secretary Panetta planning India visit
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/us-de ... 111103.htm

United States Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, who places much importance to America's relationship with India , is looking forward to his maiden visit to India in his capacity as head of the Pentagon [ Images ], a senior US official has said. "We are looking to try to get Secretary Panetta out to India in the not too distant future," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for South and Southeast Asia Robert Scher told the media at a news conference."I was travelling with Secretary Panetta recently and I know how much importance he places on the US-India relationship. And we are trying to find the right time for that to happen," he said in response to a question.Under the Obama administration, Panetta had visited India as head of the Central Investigation Agency.Panetta is still to visit India after he took over as the country's defence secretary a few months ago, he said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 00:29

Darshann,
Please go and read the comments and see what people think about Williams.

He is appealing to the Christian voters in is state. In the process he is making uncalled for remarks on hindu religion. What freedom of religion allows him to do that. Also his opponent's running mate is Jewish and he makes similar remarks.

BTW he is trailing by 54% -29% hence this rallying call to his base.

Also do you have issues that you dont see him for what he is?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2011 00:50

ramana wrote:Darshann,
Please go and read the comments and see what people think about Williams.

He is appealing to the Christian voters in is state. In the process he is making uncalled for remarks on hindu religion. What freedom of religion allows him to do that. Also his opponent's running mate is Jewish and he makes similar remarks.

BTW he is trailing by 54% -29% hence this rallying call to his base.

Also do you have issues that you dont see him for what he is?

Ramana ji, as I said earlier Williams might very well be an anti hindu.But the link that was put up by AGupta ji does not prove that.As far as comments are concerned America is an extremely divided society today.If you go a leftist forum you will only find venom against libertarians and conservatives.Similarly if you go to conservative/libertarian forum you will find hatred against left.

And because of first amendment he is well within his rights to say anything about hinduism or anyother religion , even if it is wrong.

My point is that Hindus should stop whining about each and every anti hindu comment made somewhere.America is a nation of 300 million and there will always be some nutjobs.Instead start proselytising agressively using the same first amendment and bring Americans in Dharmic fold.This is the way of the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 00:52

Where is the whine?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 04 Nov 2011 04:03

who cares about the American constitution on BRF? is anybody here saying that Williams should be "banned"? we are simply bringing to notice the truly enlightened nature of American political spectrum. it is a matter of concern for India/Darmics that their religion is so maligned by EJ's. we are simply bringing this to notice. what is your problem? it is not the "rights" that are in question. it is simply a process of bringing out the skeletons from the closet and making it easy for all to see...

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 04 Nov 2011 06:08

"Polytheism" is an interesting construct. If Williams were to be taken at face value then the Catholic Church would come into view:

I am quoting below and interesting paragraph from Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion":

"But it is especially the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The Trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, 'Queen of Heaven', a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers. The pantheon is further swollen by an army of saints, whose intercessory power makes them, if not demigods, well worth approaching on their own specialist subjects. The Catholic Community Forum helpfully lists 5,120 saints, 18 together with their areas of expertise, which include abdominal pains, abuse victims,anorexia, arms dealers, blacksmiths, broken bones, bomb technicians and bowel disorders, to venture no further than the 'B's.

And we mustn't forget the four Choirs of Angelic Hosts, arrayed in nine orders: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels (heads of all hosts), and just plain old Angels, including our closest friends, the ever-watchful Guardian Angels. What impresses me about Catholic mythology is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along. It is just shamelessly invented.

Pope John Paul II created more saints than all his predecessors of the past several centuries put together, and he had a special affinity with the Virgin Mary. His polytheistic hankerings were dramatically demonstrated in 1981 when he suffered an assassination attempt in Rome, and attributed his survival to intervention by Our Lady of Fatima: 'A maternal hand guided the bullet.' One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether. Others might think the team of surgeons who operated on him for six hours deserved at least a share of the credit; but perhaps their hands, too, were maternally guided. The relevant point is that it wasn't just Our Lady who, in the Pope's opinion, guided the bullet, but specifically Our Lady of Fatima. Presumably Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Medjugorje, Our Lady of Akita, Our Lady of Zeitoun, Our Lady of Garabandal and Our Lady of Knock were busy on other errands at the time."

Hinduism only recognizes one God with many manifestations. Time we set Williams straight. More than anything, it is a talk back basis for those who would like to belittle us on the basis of polytheism/idolatry.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 06:47

We have to start with our own people before going to Williams.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Nov 2011 07:38

The End of the Innocents: How America's longtime man in Southeast Asia, Jim Thompson, fought to stop the CIA's progression from a small spy ring to a large paramilitary agency -- and was never seen again.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 04 Nov 2011 07:58

I have previously alluded to the polytheism in Christianity, did not realize Dawkins had also explicitly drawn the parallel. However much of his presumably Anglican prejudices come through this paragraph. I have no problem with polytheism as distinct froma supposedly more rational monotheism, but I do resent polytheists masquerading as monomaniacal monotheists and leaving a two millennia legacy of liquidation of, and forced conversions of other polythesists all leavened with the basest hypocrisy.

I once came across a smirking Christian and a flustered Hindu having a discussion on this topic. I left in disgust.

Which explains why I post these ahem, critiques. If the appalling state of liberal education in India were better, if the media were not wholly omertà, it would be much easier for Indians to be informed to have more cogent discussions.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Nov 2011 08:13

Cosmo_R wrote:"
Our Lady of of Medjugorje

Croats smuugled lot of arms using her help.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Nov 2011 15:10

I have never seen what the problem with polytheism is. As a Hindu, who may choose to worship and believe in many gods or none, I fail to see how it is less rational than believing in just one god. If a person can consider one god "rational", then why not many? What makes many gods less rational? Just the number?

And speaking of idolatry, I'm waiting to see when they are going to destroy the Kaaba and the meteorite remnant which Muslims jostle to touch or kiss when they go on the haj. Not to mention, as Dawkins has eloquently done in his great book, the multitude of saints and assorted angels whom Christians of virtually all sects revere in one way or another. Additional reading of Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Chris Hitchens gives a lot of enlightenment on the subject. Or you can watch tons of videos of them on youtube...

Finally, guys there is a thread for this (I think two maybe even) in the GDF forum. So please let's take it there, if you want to take it further.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Nov 2011 16:28

JE Menon wrote:I have never seen what the problem with polytheism is. As a Hindu, who may choose to worship and believe in many gods or none, I fail to see how it is less rational than believing in just one god. If a person can consider one god "rational", then why not many? What makes many gods less rational? Just the number?

Bravo... Bravissimo.. Spoke what is in my Antaranga (inner spaces). Belief in one true god is as irrational as belief in many. In fact, I find belief in many gods at least more vivid and rich. Why imagine just one god, when we can imagine millions.

The philosophical debate on existence of Ishwara has been around since the day of Rigveda's composition. We have a hymn questioning existence of creator right there in 10th book of Rigveda (very famous, Nasadiya sukta). But that is not the point. The point is what is so true about One true god, hain ji? At this stage of my life, I am more into Samkhya-yoga. There is no need of Ishwara in this path. But there can be as many Devas and Devis as possible. After all, what is a deva but an entity with a peculiar combination of Purusha and trigunatmaka Prakriti (matter and energy of three flavours) and with karmic baggage? There can be as many flavours since the combinations of three gunas and purusha are infinitely possible. and each deva (and human, and bacteria) acts according to the levels of three gunas (characteristics) in him/her/it. Once the karmic baggage is nullified, the deva dies. Bhagvata says, Brahma dies, Vishnu dies, Shiva dies too. And new ones replace them. Of course their ages are vast and different as compared to human ages. and so are their powers but also so are their duties as compared to human being. Duties of a branch manager of SBI are essentially similar to duties of Vishnu in universe/multiverse (whatever it is. Again, why only "uni"verse? are we so sure that there are only 1 Vishwa? Our texts are replete with references of multiple lokas, vishwas). Only the magnitude of that power is different, so is time for which branch manager and Vishnu is in office. And both of them are respected for duties they perform, not for what they are.

Why is this fascination with "one true god"? What's so special about this number one? Our seers seemed to be fascinated by numbers like Zero and Infinity. They were never fascinated by number 1. As I said in Deracination dhaga, the denomination of Dharmik lifestyle is number infinity or zero. The denomination of western lifestyle is number 1.

ANyways, this is off topic. Pasting this in Deracination dhaga for continuity. but would like to explore this line of thought ahead. Anyways, nothing much happening on political and geopolitical front. Unkil making documentaries on things which we already knew for past 800 years. or should it be past 60 years. They are yet to dawn on complete knowledge. Or may be they know everything and were part of it and now are trying to say what is in their interest. Anyways, it is in our interest that they are saying these things loudly.

About bobby jindal, and douchebag william, well, they have their political targets to meet. We have had our traditions of jaichandras and mir jafars. Jindal if elected will be a true MUTU to win over his political masters. One who can convert to be politically relevant, he has shown what value dharma is to him. Even if he converts back to Dharma and conducts an Athirathram and Agni-Chayanam Yagnas along with donating 100 golden cows to brahmins from kashi to show his "true allegience to dharma", I would keep him at safe distance and take his allegiance with bag of salt.

And about Williams, well all one can do is give a condescending smile and move on. Those readers who are living in the constituencies of these mofos, to them I can say,"vote for them only if what they are doing or what they promise to do is good for you and the Indian (dharmik) community in your constituency and in US. ignore the jibes, they won't take you far".

Shubham astu..

habal · Post by **habal** » 04 Nov 2011 16:42

Duties of a branch manager of SBI are essentially similar to duties of Vishnu in universe/multiverse

Having multiple Gods akin to having multiple centres of power/influence seems more consonant with the natural order and scheme of things rather than predominance of just one God. But that being said, it is also possible that there was a heavenly 'great game' and after everybody had their fun, earth was left in the hands of a luciferian single God or fallen angel who assumed status of God and toyed around with nature for a specific period of time until the heavenly general assembly called a 'games up' and put an end to his mis-rule. One God would have meant a uniformity in his creation, he would never have assembled such a multitude and variety of specimens as found on earth. Common law would have come pre-installed and a moses would never have had to strive to force a common law on his subjects.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Nov 2011 17:13

Atri,

Exactly.

A lot of our own people, perhaps through lack of knowledge, perhaps through decades of passive conditioning, have come to regard "polytheism" as somehow less rational or less defensible (more likely) than "monotheism" - which is why you see a lot of intellectual contortionism engaged in to say, in effect "no, no, no ... we are not actually polytheistic... we are monotheistic like you onlee"...and some, no doubt finding it hard to suppress the innate intellectual need for one-upmanship go even further and say we are not even "monotheistic" like you chaps we are "monist" even... Take that!!!

In my humble opinion: FU(K THAT. I am not ashamed that my mom has uncountable statues of many gods in her temple at home, and she worships them and believes in them with equal (Ok, she may be partial to one or the other at times

) awe and humility. And when she drags me by the ear and insists I "make an effort chekka - oru minute ninnu endhangum paraye"... I do it with reverence. And I'm sure many of us here have mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers who are exactly the same. So screw the "we are monotheistic just like you crap". I'm a polytheist when I need to speak up for Hinduism and no apologies, if we are talking about "faith".

Sorry guys, broke my own suggestion to take it to General Discussion Forum (analysis of political christianity thread).... No more from me on the subject here.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 04 Nov 2011 17:16

JE Menon wrote:WTF? Seriously? Rajni is from Maharashtra? Good lord. Had no clue... Someone please to confirm or deny!!!

If yes, that would be truly wonderful and sublimely Indian.

Come on JEM, you did not know this?

BTW, M.Karunanidhi is a Telugu and MGR was a mallu.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Nov 2011 17:24

I didn't know Rajni boss... I thought he was Tamil... rather just took it for granted. Never followed. Explained in a subsequent post on this thread... Too long outside, and nearly no Indian community where I am... well initially anyways

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Nov 2011 17:30

>>>"Unkil making documentaries on things which we already knew for past 800 years.....give a condescending smile and move on. Those readers who are living in the constituencies of these mofos, to them I can say,"vote for them only if what they are doing or what they promise to do is good for you and the Indian (dharmik) community in your constituency and in US. ignore the jibes, they won't take you far".

100%

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Nov 2011 17:38

The point is that it is acceptable within one of the two major political parties of the USA to raise such issues. I don't see any Republican leaders slapping down Williams. The Democrats may not be friends; but the Republicans certainly are not friends.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Nov 2011 18:18

Cosmo_R wrote:.........
1. Cary Grant : Archibald Alexander Leach
2. John Wayne: Marion Mitchell Morrison
3. Robert Taylor: Spangler Arlington Brugh

Why should Vera not do the same to advance her career?

rajiv bhatia to akshay kumar etc etc.

JEM, I am not big on bollywood either but at least watch rang de basanti and gulaal.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 04 Nov 2011 18:49

OT Alert:Karu is a isai vellala-I dont think he is a telugu speaker.

SriVaishnavas,Madhvas,Gaudiyas,Sikhs,Lingayats,Vallabhacharya followers,followers of Nimbarka,Saivas of multiple traditions,Sakthas,kaumaras,Ganapathyas-Are they not part of Dharmic traditions.They consider themselves to be monotheists in the sense they believe in One God and other devas.

Yes,polytheism is part of our heritage too but let us not forget the above traditions and the 'monotheists' in the Advaita fold too.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 04 Nov 2011 18:57

Sanatana Dharma does not has multiple Gods. We have just one Ishwara, Para-Brahaman. What is being alluded to is Devtaa and Devi's who very convinently were translated to God for want of an appropriate word.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 04 Nov 2011 19:03

svenkat wrote:OT Alert:Karu is a isai vellala-I dont think he is a telugu speaker.

SriVaishnavas,Madhvas,Gaudiyas,Sikhs,Lingayats,Vallabhacharya followers,followers of Nimbarka,Saivas of multiple traditions,Sakthas,kaumaras,Ganapathyas-Are they not part of Dharmic traditions.They consider themselves to be monotheists in the sense they believe in One God and other devas.

Yes,polytheism is part of our heritage too but let us not forget the above traditions and the 'monotheists' in the Advaita fold too.

Of course and I remember our discussion on this and agree as well. The context here was snide taken by Jindal at "pagans" and williams stating about sitting down with "legs crossed" and "dot on head" praying along with "polytheists" does not suite governor of some state in US. it is implied here that in this guy's opinion polytheists are subhuman or to use the popular word "heathen". our internal dynamics is different, Venkat ji.. outsider need not take a jibe at our internal dynamics without understanding, certainly not an ignorant douchebag like williams and similar nutjobs from elsewhere.

We also say, in the end, sarvam khalu idam brahma (everything that exists is brahman). I am also aware of the mistranslation of word "Deva" as god. But staying in Dharmaarthik dimension of life (socio-politico-economic), I have quote following verse by Yudhishthira from Mahabharata. The spiritual (adhyatmik) aspect of Indic thought process and differences therein are too complex for people like these to understand.

परस्परविरोधे तु वयं पञ्चश्चते शतम् । परैस्तु विग्रहे प्राप्ते वयं पञ्चाधिकं शतम् ॥ -

When there is argument amongst ourselves, we are five and they are a hundred. But when the threat comes from outside, we are hundred and five all on one side.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 04 Nov 2011 19:35

Atri,
somebody in US attended a private function.The function had a bhumi pooja.It was not a govt function.A christist bigot is making a big issue of it.The bigot is showing his true colours and the intolerance of his cult view.It has nothing to do with Sanatana Dharma,polytheism or monotheism.The bigot is mixing religion in public domain with a private function.The bigot might have a genuine grievance with his opponent on christian culture in American life as darshann pointed out but he was exhibiting his bigotry over a private function.Why should we bring hinduism into this?

This is an issue of basic freedom to profess any religion,which the westerners yak about endlessly.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 04 Nov 2011 20:32

JEM and Rangudu, here is some info on Mu Ka:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1189456

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2011 20:44

An essay by Condoleeza Rice

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defi ... icle/98706

Building a New Relationship with India

On February 28 [2006], the President left for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The trip required the most delicate balancing act to get the messaging right in each of the places. Our delinking of relations with Islamabad and New Delhi was working—there was no more talk of U.S. policy toward India-Pakistan, or Indo-Pak, as it was sometimes called. We now had distinct approaches to both important countries. And we were doing really well with India: while there the President would sign the landmark civil nuclear deal.

The nuclear deal was the centerpiece of our effort to build a fundamentally different relationship with India. From the earliest stages of the 2000 campaign, it had been our intention to change the terms of U.S.-Indian engagement. As I noted earlier, the crucial nuclear agreement required breaking many taboos. India had refused to sign the NPT in 1968 and had then conducted a nuclear test in 1974. Only five countries had been “grandfathered” as nuclear powers in 1968—the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. Any country that subsequently acquired a nuclear capability was deemed to be in violation of this important set of prohibitions. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed a bill that cut off all nuclear trade with India.

The United States thus maintained a web of restrictions on technology transfer and cooperation with India. The list of prohibitions grew over the years, with the condemnation reaching its height in 1998. That year, in response to a long-range missile test by Pakistan, Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee authorized the Indian military to conduct a series of underground nuclear tests, including India’s first test of a thermonuclear weapon. When Pakistan followed up with its own nuclear test, the two countries became linked as the poster children for crimes against the non-proliferation regime.

Their behavior was different, however. India had developed an excellent record of respecting proliferation safeguards in terms of not transferring technology to other countries. Pakistan—well, it was the home of the nuclear proliferation entrepreneur A. Q. Khan, who had spread nuclear enrichment technology to North Korea and Iran, among other places.

India needed civil nuclear power and wanted to break out of the constraints on high-technology cooperation that were stunting its growth. The proposed civil nuclear deal would make it possible for the United States—and American companies—to help India develop its potentially rich market for this environmentally friendly energy source. But the breakthrough was not just about nuclear power—it would unlock a wide range of possible areas of cooperation with a country that was an emerging power in the knowledge-based revolution in economic affairs. The Indians made clear, too, that they hoped to become a customer for U.S. military hardware. That was an exciting prospect for the defense industry. And for us, even though we were not seeking to “balance” China, cooperation with another emerging power in Asia, especially a democratic one, was a welcome development.

The interests of the United States and India were in substantial alignment. But any change of this magnitude brings resistance. In Washington, the high priests of non-proliferation accused us of gutting the NPT, a treaty that had significantly limited the emergence of nuclear weapons states.

Our problems were considerable in 2006 but Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s were far more complicated, stemming from the Indian national security elite’s almost existential attachment to the “independence” of its nuclear program. For some officials, the requirement to place India’s nuclear reactors (only the existing civilian ones and any new ones) under IAEA supervision amounted to nothing less than an attack on India’s sovereignty. Many of those Indian bureaucrats and pundits also valued their country’s “non-aligned status,” a relic of the Cold War, when India had declared itself as belonging to neither the Soviet nor the American “bloc.” When confronted with that argument, my Indian counterpart, K. Natwar Singh, said, “The Cold War is over. Exactly against whom are we non-aligned?” Good point. But for many in New Delhi the idea of close technological cooperation with the United States was just too much to swallow.

As a result of these tensions, the deal suffered several near-death experiences before and after Singh and Bush signed it in New Delhi. The first had come a year before in Washington, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the United States in July 2005.

The two leaders were expected to sign a framework document to end the moratorium on nuclear trade and pave the way for a full agreement on civil-nuclear cooperation. I met the day before with my Indian counterpart Natwar Singh in his suite at the Willard Hotel. Frankly, there was so much buzz around the State Department that we wanted to work in a location away from the press and where the atmosphere was more informal. I also thought it a sign of respect to go to him, even though we were in Washington.

Natwar was adamant. He wanted the deal, but the prime minister wasn’t sure he could sell it in New Delhi. We pushed as far as we could toward agreement. Finally, Natwar said that he would take the document to the prime minister and let me know.

That evening, [Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs] Nick Burns asked to see me. With Bob Zoellick, the deputy secretary, and several members of the senior staff, Phil Zelikow, Brian Gunderson, and Sean McCormack, in tow, he came down the hall from his office and entered mine. “It isn’t going to work,” Nick said. “The foreign minister tried, but the prime minister just can’t sign on to the agreement.”

I was a bit surprised, perhaps having misread Natwar’s determination as an indicator that he had the authority to speak for his government. It was late, and I was tired. “Well, if they don’t want to get out of the nuclear ghetto, I can’t do anything about it,” I said. “Why don’t you go and meet with the Indians and try one more time.” I called the President. “It isn’t going to work. Singh just can’t make it happen,” I said.

“Too bad,” he answered and didn’t press further. Later that night Nick called to tell me what I already knew—there wouldn’t be a deal. I went to bed, constructing a script in my head for the press the next day about needing more time for the negotiations. That sounds lame, I thought as I drifted into a fitful sleep.

I woke up at 4:30 a.m. and sat straight up in bed. I am not letting this go down, I thought. I called Nick at 5:00 a.m. “I am not prepared to let this fail. Arrange for me to see the prime minister,” I said. The meeting with the President was set for ten. “How about breakfast at eight?” Nick called while I was exercising to say that the prime minister didn’t want to meet. “Get the foreign minister,” I answered. Natwar picked up the phone. My heart was beating pretty fast—maybe from the exercise, maybe from the sense of an important initiative slipping through my fingers. “Natwar, why won’t the PM see me?”

“He doesn’t want to tell you no,” he said. “I’ve done my best. I told him that the United States wants to take this thirty-year millstone from around your neck. You should do it. But he can’t sell it in New Delhi.”

I wasn’t ready to surrender. “Ask him again,” I pleaded. A few minutes later, Natwar called to say that the prime minister would receive me at his hotel at 8 a.m.

I went to the office for a few minutes and then to the Willard, having called the President to tell him I would try personally one more time. Steve asked if I wanted him to go with me. “No, I think I need to do this alone,” I said. I entered the prime minister’s suite and sat there with Natwar and his boss—all three of us not bothering to touch the pastries and coffee that had been served.

“Mr. Prime Minister, this is the deal of a lifetime. You and President Bush are about to put U.S.-Indian relations on a fundamentally new footing. I know it’s hard for you, but it’s hard for the President too. I didn’t come here to negotiate language—only to ask you to tell your officials to get this done. And let’s get it done before you see the President.” Prime Minister Singh, a mild-mannered man who speaks slowly and softly, pushed back but eventually gave the nod to his people to try again.

I went directly to the White House and told the President what I’d done. When the Indians arrived, our negotiators and theirs sat in the Roosevelt Room, trying to find agreement, while the President, Prime Minister Singh, Natwar, and I sat nervously in the Oval pretending to focus on other matters. Finally, I got a note to join the negotiators. Natwar and I entered the room to the smiling Nick Burns and his counterpart. “We’ve got it,” Nick said.

The two leaders released the framework agreement to the press, most of whom were already writing stories of failure. Bob Zoellick came into my office. “Sometimes the secretary of state gets tested. You wouldn’t take no for an answer,” he said. I felt very good, but the New York Times’s editorial board soon reminded me that there would be a push back. The U.S.-India deal, it opined, would cause responsible NPT signatories to “be more inclined to regard the non-proliferation treaty as an anachronism, reconsider their self-restraint, and be tempted by the precedent that India has successfully established and that now, in effect, has an American blessing.”

The arguments from the non-proliferation community were not without merit. The whole premise of the regime was that countries who pursued civilian nuclear power under safeguards—inspections, reporting, and so on—would not pursue military weapons programs. It was too easy, it was thought, to divert technology from one to the other. That, some said, had been the argument vis-à-vis Iran. How could we argue that India was different?

It was a good question, but, unlike Iran, India was not lying to the IAEA about its enrichment activities and the fact of the existence of a military program was well known. Though ideally India—or Pakistan, for that matter—would not have built a nuclear weapons program, this was now a fact of life. The key from our point of view was to get India within the IAEA regime, even if they could not and would not be party to the NPT. Our thinking tracked closely with that of Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA and thus the guardian of the NPT. Better to have India in the tent in some fashion, even if New Delhi could not formally join the NPT. ElBaradei understood this point.

At least new construction of reactors would be under safeguard. India already had more than enough nuclear material for its military program. It needed help on the civilian side and we needed the strategic breakthrough with this emerging, democratic power.

The work to move from that initial announcement of a civil-nuclear deal in 2005 to a more detailed framework agreement by March 2006, when the President would visit New Delhi, was extremely difficult and the effort almost failed several times. The prime minister had indeed encountered difficulty when he returned home from Washington in the summer of 2005. By the time of the trip, the Indian delegation was trying to walk back some of the language on IAEA safeguards. Steve and Nick went to the Foreign Ministry to try to hammer out a solution. I thought that I would stay away this time, giving us another bite at the apple should they fail. After several ups and downs and near misses over a period of eight hours, they succeeded. The United States and India had a civil-nuclear deal. Now the really hard work would begin. The reality was that the deal could not go into force until we met a number of criteria stipulated by U.S. law. But we’d lived to fight another day—and that was good enough for the time being.

The nuclear deal was the news of the President’s visit to India. Yet other elements of the trip demonstrated why it was time to change the relationship with this emerging global power. I remember well the President’s meeting with students at the business school in Hyderabad, a center of technological sophistication that personified India’s potential as a high-tech leader and economic dynamo. This could be Stanford, I thought.

There was a lot of discussion—but no commitment—regarding India’s pursuit of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Indians had a good argument and one for which I had some sympathy. The UN Security Council did not reflect the changes in the balance of power that had taken place with World War II. International institutions are like the rings of a tree—you can date their birth by looking at their membership. The original permanent five members of the Security Council (those with veto authority) were the Soviet Union (Russia became the successor state in 1991), China (with the PRC replacing Chang Kai Shek’s ROC in Taiwan in 1971), France, the UK, and the United States. But now there were other important powers and whole continents that were not represented. What about Japan, the world’s third largest economy? What about the Middle East? And of course the emerging market powers of Brazil and India did not hold permanent membership either.

The United States had long championed Japan’s case but frankly the politics of UNSC reform were just too complicated to take on. The incorporation of India was opposed by China. Brazil’s candidacy raised the question of Mexico’s exclusion. The Africans could never settle on a candidate to represent a continent split between the Arab north and the Sub-Saharan black south. And reform would have raised a sticky question for our closest allies. Germany wanted membership, too. Did it make sense to have three European representatives—particularly when the European Union was supposed to have a common foreign policy?

We adopted a strategy of acknowledging the importance of reform and welcoming reasonable proposals, but we never acted on any of them. That said, the continued focus on the issue by emerging powers such as India underscored their growing insistence on a voice in international affairs.

***

By way of contrast to our time in New Delhi, the trip to Pakistan began with the news upon arrival that there had been an attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi. A U.S. consular officer had been killed. The President, always gracious to his hosts, endeavored to convince the Pakistanis that this in no way cast a shadow on the visit. But of course it did. There was an air of unreality as we fought to make the visit appear normal. The Pakistanis had been insistent that the President sleep just one night in Islamabad to show that it was safe. After a lot of debate, he decided to push the Secret Service beyond its comfort zone and grant the Pakistanis’ request: we’d stay at our ambassador’s fortress-like home.

The contrasts continued. The meetings with Prime Minister Singh had been focused on technological cooperation and removing bureaucratic barriers to foreign investment. The President met for lunch with the members of a joint U.S.-Indian CEO council. But the meeting with Pakistan’s President Musharraf was dominated by talk of terrorism and our response.

And it wasn’t just the conversation that was different. In India, we were treated to a beautiful dinner outdoors on the veranda of the Presidential Palace, a fresh breeze blowing through as we looked out across the beautifully manicured grounds. In Pakistan, aware that we needed to be wheels up for Washington that evening, we sat in the Palace for a hurried two-hour dinner and a “cultural performance” that oddly featured a Western-style fashion show.

Still, the visit to Islamabad allowed us to see a glimpse of a different Pakistan. Musharraf, a classic “man on horseback” who came to power in a military coup, was making important changes in his country. I was struck by the presence of strong women ministers representing the Pakistani government in our meetings. It was also encouraging to see a vibrant press corps peppering both presidents with questions about everything from the possibility of a civil-nuclear deal with Pakistan—not possible from our point of view—to expectations about coming elections in the country. For all his limitations, with the freeing of the press and of the judiciary, Musharraf had laid the groundwork for a civilian government to return. Ironically, those changes would soon turn out to be his undoing.

India and Pakistan were successfully delinked. Unfortunately, the stop in Kabul underscored a link of another kind—Pakistan and Afghanistan were tied together more than ever as the problem of cross-border terrorism deepened. And a proposed policy change in Pakistan would only exacerbate the problem.

In September 2006 we had first gotten wind of a possible deal between the Pakistani military and the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, the territory deep in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Negotiating with the Pakistani Taliban, Musharraf agreed to withdraw troops from their territory in exchange for assurances that the tribal leaders would cease attacks on the military and stop the infiltration of militants across the Afghan border. The territory has been ungoverned throughout its history. The British had tried and failed, and the Soviet Union had simply left the suspicious, pious, and xenophobic tribes to their own devices. Pakistan had rarely interfered in the area either, but the war on terror required military engagement in the region, as al Qaeda and the Taliban had fled there after our invasion of Afghanistan.

The Pakistani military proved unequipped and poorly trained for the mission and reluctant to transform its capabilities to do a better job. Still focused on India, the Pakistani army was ready for an engagement in Kashmir but not in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier province. Though we had already given Pakistan more than $4.5 billion in security-related assistance by October 2005, Pakistan had accomplished very little in restructuring its armed forces. In fact, Islamabad’s primary concern was the release of the F-16s that had been purchased and then withheld in 1990 when Pakistan was suspected of secretly producing nuclear weapons.

The President had acceded to Musharraf’s plea to deliver the airplanes. “This will make it easier to work with my military and build a spirit of partnership,” Musharraf told me on one occasion. But it said something about the mind-set of the Pakistanis that high-performance aircraft, rather than the nuts-and-bolts of equipment and training for counter-terrorism, dominated our conversations.

The truth is that the Pakistanis had no stomach for fighting in the rugged border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Musharraf decided to cut a deal with the tribal leaders—a kind of live and let live. In exchange for a stand-down of the Pakistani military, the tribes agreed to control their “guests,” the terrorists. Only the first half of that deal was realized and the region became a safe haven for several terrorist groups: fighters commanded by Baitullah Mehsud; the Haqqani network, still active after we left office; and remnants of al Qaeda.

In late September 2006, Musharraf would come to Washington to present this deal to the President. We told Musharraf that the United States wouldn’t criticize him publicly and that we’d give the deal a chance to work. But the President made clear to him in the Oval Office meeting that the United States would take action itself if we learned of an imminent threat to our territory or if we learned that key al Qaeda figures were being harbored there. Musharraf was told point blank that we considered it our prerogative to act without permission or—possibly—Islamabad’s knowledge.

That night, the President invited Musharraf, Afghan President Karzai, and their respective ambassadors to a small dinner in the family dining room at the White House. The Vice President, Steve Hadley, and I joined President Bush at what turned out to be a contentious affair.

The dinner started routinely enough, with Karzai and Musharraf sharing their thoughts about how things were going against the Taliban and al Qaeda. But after about an hour, Musharraf started to explain the agreement that he’d made with the tribes. Sugarcoating the facts and overselling the potential benefits, he talked for more than thirty minutes. Karzai suddenly interrupted, saying that Musharraf had made a deal not with the tribal leaders but with the terrorists. When Musharraf protested, Karzai dramatically pulled out a piece of paper from his long flowing cape. “See, it says right here that the Taliban will not be disturbed,” he said. Musharraf tried to answer, but Karzai was on a roll, stopping just short of accusing the Pakistani of complicity in the cross-border raids into his country.

Things were getting pretty hot. The ambassadors were shifting in their seats, and, frankly, so were we. It was as if we were watching a heavyweight bout where one overmatched fighter had somehow gotten into the ring by mistake. Karzai was proving to be a brilliant prosecutor, and Musharraf had few answers; he seemed suddenly not to know what he’d signed.

President Bush interjected the thought that perhaps they could monitor the progress on the deal together. It was a bit lame but about all anyone could think of at the moment to separate the verbal combatants. It didn’t work, and the two were getting hotter under the collar by the moment. A photograph from that dinner says it all: Karzai and Musharraf glaring at each other while we, the ever-sunny Americans, sit with nervous—almost silly—grins on our faces.

Finally Karzai mentioned something about a joint loya jirga (tribal council) that he’d proposed. He’d never received an answer. We jumped on the opening, turning the conversation to getting such a council established. I said that I’d call Ryan Crocker and Ronald Neumann, our ambassadors in Islamabad and Kabul, to help coordinate the establishment of the jirga. When the two men left, the Vice President, Steve, the President, and I looked at one another in amazement. “They almost came to blows,” the President said. Everyone nodded in agreement.

The management of the relationship between our allies in the war on terror suddenly seemed daunting in the extreme. However, the relationship between the two men had soured well before that dinner, and the strains were very much on display as we visited Afghanistan during the President’s trip on March 1, 2006, months before their Washington encounter. When we arrived in Kabul, Karzai vented about Musharraf, whom he accused of wanting to annex Afghan Pashtuns into Pakistan. Musharraf had made a similar claim about Karzai’s desire for a greater Pashtunistan during our time in Islamabad.

The President turned the conversation with President Karzai to the training of the Afghan security forces, fighting corruption, and—most troubling—the failing effort to rid Afghanistan of poppy. The President gently suggested that we might have to use some of the methods that had succeeded in Colombia, including aerial spraying.

Hamid Karzai is a proud man, and, as had been the case in my encounter with him the year before, he tended to emphasize the positive. But it was frustrating as he declared problem after problem to be under control. “We’re making real progress with the governors on poppy eradication,” he said, a statement belied by the estimates of numerous monitoring organizations. “All we need are some alternative crops—maybe pomegranates—for them to grow,” he continued, only to note that the road network didn’t allow for the transport of perishable fruits and vegetables to market. “So we need roads, roads, roads—as quickly as possible,” he added. There was always a story of villagers who’d come to him promising to plant good crops, not bad ones.

In fact, it was good that Karzai was an optimist—maybe that was what got him up in the morning to do one of the hardest jobs on Earth. But sometimes I couldn’t tell if Karzai believed what he was saying or just thought that we might. He did not want to even acknowledge the possibility of dramatic measures such as crop destruction through aerial spraying. The issue would be a source of tension between our two countries for the remainder of the President’s term. But as frustrating as the relationship with Karzai sometimes was, he was the elected president of Afghanistan. Though in time we would come to see the importance of the governors of the provinces in addressing the country’s challenges, there was no alternative to Karzai, who stepped up to be the first freely elected president of his country.

That afternoon, the President and Laura, Karzai, our ambassador Ron Neumann, and I cut the ribbon dedicating the gigantic but not particularly attractive new U.S. Embassy in Kabul. The President asked if I’d had anything to do with the architectural design. I made clear that I hadn’t. But the big, ugly building would serve its purpose and it sent the message that, for better or worse, we were in Afghanistan for the long run.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 21:00

If that was the case why did Holebroke et al try to paint Karzai as the problem in peace in Afghanistan?

What changed between Bush and Obama admins vis a vis US and Karzai?

Was it Holebroke''s inner Pakistaniyyat?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2011 21:14

ramana wrote: Was it Holebroke''s inner Pakistaniyyat?

You bet.holebrook was more paki than pakis themselves.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 04 Nov 2011 21:16

Rangudu wrote:
JE Menon wrote:WTF? Seriously? Rajni is from Maharashtra? Good lord. Had no clue... Someone please to confirm or deny!!!

If yes, that would be truly wonderful and sublimely Indian.
Come on JEM, you did not know this?

BTW, M.Karunanidhi is a Telugu and MGR was a mallu.

OT: Just another one for JEM ji if he didn't know - Jayalalitha is a Kannadiga

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2011 21:22

Ramana ji , Another point that comes out of this article is how certain US officials in connivance with their media cohoots have painted Hamid Karzai as the prime villain for the current Afghanistan situation.

The truth is that since US doesn't have the will or the courage to resolve the Pakistan problem , it has made Karzai the scapegoat.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2011 21:53

darshann, TO me it appears that there was compact between Democrats and INC that the Repubs broke when they came to power in late sixites. The INC thought they had a deal with US. The Repubs thought the deal was with Democrats and not all US. It led to the smiling Buddha. The Democrats then got angry that INC reneged and setup the NSG regime agaisnt India. Circumustances led to POKII. While the Repubs were ready for real poltick the Democrats in Congress were not. Eg Hyde (bound) act.

The inner anger is still not yet resolved for the Democrats. Hence the urge to prop up TSP against India which is laughable.

Can a dung beetle match an elephant?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 04 Nov 2011 22:04

From the above,

In September 2006 we had first gotten wind of a possible deal between the Pakistani military and the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, the territory deep in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They had a whiff of this only in 2006?? Seriously are they dumb or are they dumb?

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2011 22:55

Prasad wrote:From the above,

In September 2006 we had first gotten wind of a possible deal between the Pakistani military and the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, the territory deep in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
They had a whiff of this only in 2006?? Seriously are they dumb or are they dumb?

It might be true for this incident but as far as Paki links with Taliban are concerned Americans were always aware.Remember the infamous Kunduz airlift after the fall of Taliban in late 2011 where thousands of Pakistani Army and ISI advisors to Taliban were flown back to Pakistan.Could it ever had taken place without American approval..Infact it has been aware of Pakistan's involvement with Taliban all along.But as I said before it lacks the stomach to take on Pakistan openly even as Pakis continue to murder American soldiers with near impunity in Afghanistan.

There are those who will say it is India which lacks the balls to take on Pakistan and America is uber powerful which can even defeat the martians.But if you look at the statistics it is indian military which has killed more pakistani soldiers than the Americans.When it comes to dealing with Pakistan the American becomes American't.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Nov 2011 01:17

darshhan wrote:An essay by Condoleeza Rice

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defi ... icle/98706

Building a New Relationship with India

The United States thus maintained a web of restrictions on technology transfer and cooperation with India. The list of prohibitions grew over the years, with the condemnation reaching its height in 1998. That year, in response to a long-range missile test by Pakistan, Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee authorized the Indian military to conduct a series of underground nuclear tests, including India’s first test of a thermonuclear weapon. [/b]When Pakistan followed up with its own nuclear test, the two countries became linked as the poster children for crimes against the non-proliferation regime.

Why would she say that? Unless, it is true

India needed civil nuclear power and wanted to break out of the constraints on high-technology cooperation that were stunting its growth. The proposed civil nuclear deal would make it (1) possible for the United States—and American companies—to help India develop its potentially rich market for this environmentally friendly energy source. But the breakthrough was not just about nuclear power—it would (2) unlock a wide range of possible areas of cooperation with a country that was an emerging power in the knowledge-based revolution in economic affairs. The Indians made clear, too, that they hoped to (3) become a customer for U.S. military hardware. That was an exciting prospect for the defense industry. And for us, even though we were not seeking to “balance” China, (4) cooperation with another emerging power in Asia, especially a democratic one, was a welcome development.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 05 Nov 2011 03:59

@RamaY
Rice didn't say the TN test was a successful test.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 05 Nov 2011 04:56

Musharraf, a classic “man on horseback” who came to power in a military coup,

In the article by Rice, the above statement gives me an piskological insight.

US is looking at the Pak problem with its own version of history. It is looking at Pak as the wild west. It is understanding the Pak Kabila as the variation of the wild west.

taliban = mexican gangs/native american Indians

I might have to read through the 1800s history of US to understand these.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Nov 2011 06:48

KLNMurthy wrote:@RamaY
Rice didn't say the TN test was a successful test.

If we assume the test is failed then why would she even mention that?

Since the message is to make friendship with India, I doubt she would venture sarcastic. That is my thought.
Anyways let's not have another discussion this.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 05 Nov 2011 23:35

RamaY wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:@RamaY
Rice didn't say the TN test was a successful test.
If we assume the test is failed then why would she even mention that?

Since the message is to make friendship with India, I doubt she would venture sarcastic. That is my thought.
Anyways let's not have another discussion this.

No assumptions on my part. Rice's purpose is to tell her story and make it interesting without lying; she is no longer a policymaker and wouldn't be too concerned about flattering or insulting India, but wouldn't like to cause a problem for her successor. If she thought the TN test failed and didn't say it, I would say it is a diplomatic omission, not sarcasm.

All I am saying is, Rice's choice of words don't nececessarily tell us whether she or the US thought the TN test was successful.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 06 Nov 2011 07:28

This universe is very big. So it is logical to assume there were more than one god who built this universe i.e. if you believe that universe was built by someone. The notion that a team of gods built this univers is more plausible than one god building the whole thing by himself. One god building the this universe seems impossible even with all the overtime. Christians are ignoring the burnout factors.