India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[abhischekcc]

Carl_T, I was not suggesting a direct comparison between security and other needs.

See, the logic goes this.

1. India's main problem is the lack of a nationalist and public minded leadership, all we got till now is trash. Some genuinely good people like Lal Bahadur Shastri did not last long.
2. The main impact of this paucity of leadership manifests itself as destruction of coherent public discourse and developmental policies. IOW, the confusion that prevails in Indian public life now is the direct result of lack of leadership.
3. This confusion causes poverty, corruption, etc, etc - as the rule of the jungle prevails in public life.
4. Why is there a lack of strong leaders? Because the strong ones are eliminated - think IG, SG, Madhavrao Scindia, Pramod Mahajan, LBS, Rajesh Pilot, etc
5. To protect our leadership, we need a mechanism that will punish the aggressor. I am thinking of Indian assassination squads and non-conventional warfare. And it should be made clear that no matter who it is that attacks India's leadership, they will be punished.

Unless we have a long lasting leadership, we won't have a long lasting policy structure - IOW, we will have instability. Hence, we need a method to kill leaders of 4 permanent members of the security council (excl France) if we are to achieve prosperity for all.

[Carl_T]

If I understood your point, maybe the problem is that India is simply too big to be governed by a unitary state and a strong central leadership, at least in a democratic structure. JMT

[krisna]

omaba running away from bangalore

"No final decision about the other city to visit has been taken yet. But the US-Mexico Border Security Bill has seen protests in Bangalore,” the official said. Both countries are keen to avoid any such embarrassment while Obama is in India.

Bangalore’s IT community is dead against the Bill since it envisages a substantial hike in work permit fees from foreign professionals intending to work in the US. It intends to raise funds to strengthen security along the US’s border with Mexico and stem illegal immigration.

Obama has also made no secret of his opposition to outsourcing of American jobs, and once famously declared that he wanted to see job opportunities grow in Buffalo, USA and not Bangalore, India.

In contrast, a visit to Mumbai, India’s financial capital, will avoid any possible controversy, and will also be seen as expressing solidarity with 26/11 terror victims.

[svinayak]

omaba running away from bangalore

In contrast, a visit to Mumbai, India’s financial capital, will avoid any possible controversy, and will also be seen as expressing solidarity with 26/11 terror victims.

Attack facilitated by an american person

[Jarita]

^^^ Please clarify

[svinayak]

^^^ Please clarify

I was refering to the american - David Headley

[AnimeshP]

Again, my opinion -- you can take it as a sweeping statement and call it absurd if you like -- is that India gained nothing from its so-called alliance with the USSR except three decades of irrelevance while the rest of Asia raced ahead on the US-led economic system that we finally entered in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

Sir, 2.5% of a small amount is an even smaller insignificant amount. The USSR traded little and it gave little advantage to economies attached to it unlike the US-led system. That was why the Soviet bloc collapsed and why every nation in that bloc was much, much poorer than neighboring states in the West.

That quote shows the US would not have intervened. The only reason China didn't intervene was because the cost analysis of a much more powerful Indian army in 1971 made intervention a losing proposition. The USSR did nothing to stay either hand.

Well good sir ... everyone has a right to their own opinion ... I guess on this matter you and I have different opinions so I guess it is better for us to agree to disagree ... I have nothing more to say to you ...

[g.sarkar]

[quote="chola"Again, my opinion -- you can take it as a sweeping statement and call it absurd if you like -- is that India gained nothing from its so-called alliance with the USSR except three decades of irrelevance while the rest of Asia raced ahead on the US-led economic system that we finally entered in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.
[/quote]
Cholaji,
There is much that I agree with you. But this is not correct. This is not the weekend, so, I can not sit and argue all the points with you in detail, as this is a vast topic,and that is unfortunate. So, a quick reply is as follows: The fact is, India is 1947 was very weak. Years of British rule had sucked it dry. Then there was the partition. Joining the US at that time would have been catastrophic. Remember, there were only handful of engineering schools in India those days, the life expectancy was about 27 years (?) and population was starving from the repeated famines caused by the rulers. (Indians were not even allowed in the US till 1965.) At that moment India tried to buy stuff from the UK and the USA and were rebuffed. That was the main reason why India turned to USSR. (Or the USSR offered to help). That too after the demise of Stalin. To go to USA would have been to accept conditions that we really could not accept, and would have left us prone to political control of the US a la South America. Coups and military Juntas. Remember, even though both Japan and Germany had to come into the US orbit due to the defeat in 1945, they are a set apart due to their achievements in every field of science, technology and in basic civilization.
But I will have to leave it at that.
Gautam

[shiv]

(Indians were not even allowed in the US till 1965.)

Not sure where you got this information from

My grandfather travelled overland across the US from East to West in 1915 or so. My late father did his PhD in the US in 1946. I had family members staying in the US from the early 1960s. India had friendly enough relations with the US for US aircraft to to come into India to help out in case war with China in 1962 escalated. India's early nuclear program benefited from the "Atoms for Peace" program, and the first rockets ISRO fired were, IIRC American Nike sounding rockets (or some such thing).

[abhishek_sharma]

S. Chandrashekhar taught in US before 1965. FDR was relatively pro-India. Our relations with them worsened during the Eisenhower administration.

[abhishek_sharma]

Home is where the heart is

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... e_heart_is

What's more, it would also make America an even more reluctant actor on the world stage. If you think we are looking increasingly inward now, imagine what would happen if we get a double dip in U.S. housing markets or if people are chronically economically insecure. It would be the effective end for a long time of American involvement in all but the most critical issues around the world. And it would, of course, mean the end for President Obama if it happened on his watch. It's why that the best gauges on which to read his future...and for determining what kind of an international stance you can expect from the U.S. going forward ... are the ones that track American optimism and self-confidence as manifest in U.S. wealth creation either expressed through home ownership, housing prices, employment figures and wages

[Carl_T]

S. Chandrashekhar taught in US before 1965. FDR was relatively pro-India. Our relations with them worsened during the Eisenhower administration.

Ambedkar too.

[abhishek_sharma]

A president in need of a political spark

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02962.html

Let's examine first the people who got bounced. Adm. Dennis Blair's biggest crime as director of national intelligence, near as I can tell, was that he talked too much in briefings, inserting what the president thought were personal opinions. Greg Craig's demise as White House counsel is still a puzzle, given his legal talent, but critics argued that the expansive Craig ran an untidy shop.

An interesting example of the administration's ability to shrink large political personalities is Richard Holbrooke, the special coordinator for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke's garrulous style is utterly different from Obama's, and the White House appeared to be on the verge of dumping him early this year when the secretary of state is said to have intervened. Holbrooke has been on a short leash -- not making trouble, but not as effective as he might be.

Now look at the people who have Obama's ear: Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They're low-key, low-maintenance personalities who could fit in a moderate Republican administration as easily as this one.

If national security adviser Jim Jones (another disciplined, button-down guy) retires at the end of this year, there's talk he may be replaced by Gen. James Cartwright, the current vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His precise, laser-sharp briefing style has impressed Obama.

...

Maybe Obama, the anti-politician, really doesn't care if he gets reelected, so long as he's doing what he thinks is right. Somehow, I can't imagine this breakthrough president stepping aside to write law-review articles. But to stand a chance in 2012, he's going to need someone to light a fire under him, someone who can play politics fiercely -- and also can bring in some new voters.

Surely it's obvious that I am describing Obama's second-term masterstroke: Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[abhischekcc]

If I understood your point, maybe the problem is that India is simply too big to be governed by a unitary state and a strong central leadership, at least in a democratic structure. JMT

No, I said that India needs a method to punish foreign countries if they meddle in our affairs. This is exp true because they keep killing our leaders.

[svinayak]

No, I said that India needs a method to punish foreign countries if they meddle in our affairs. This is exp true because they keep killing our leaders.

Several foriegn countries have been told that India is not one country and it needs just a little push to bring it down. So they keep trying

[Hari Seldon]

S. Chandrashekhar taught in US before 1965. FDR was relatively pro-India. Our relations with them worsened during the Eisenhower administration.

Good point. And Ike, thx to his wartime days was enamored with briturd advice on how best to handle the ex-colonies. Pity. And shame.

[chandrasekhar.m]

^^^ Good point. In general, we're screwed thoroughly.

While its great spraying examples like Japan SoKo Germany etc who attained per capita nirvana riding unkil's coat-tails, the fact also is that these are very ethnically (and religiously and climactically and and work-ethically) homogeneous countries where standardization, fiat, tough love, regimentation and all those nicey things countries need in a particular stage of development (between $1k and $15k per capita) was possible, plausible, feasible, desirable and seen as desirable to implement.

Not to make excuses for our pathetic past, present and future, but we're simply too diverse a country with neither the strength nor the stomach to do whatever it takes (e.g. ethnic cleansing of aborigine populations) to get at and happily exploit the resources beneath their lands.

So yes, we're screwed. The 'race' with cheena is long lost (circa 1980) and the one with soko et al was lost back in 1960 itself. Right now, the only race we're in (and are inherently capable of being effortlessly competitive in) is the race to the bottom. We'll get there, after all, nothing lasts forever. Jai Ho.

OT, but Hari, unlike earlier, have observed a despondent tone in your posts nowadays

[Carl_T]

America's First Muslim President

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _president

[abhishek_sharma]

Lab rats? Drugs for US children tried on Indians

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 423130.cms

[ramana]

A president in need of a political spark

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02962.html

Let's examine first the people who got bounced. Adm. Dennis Blair's biggest crime as director of national intelligence, near as I can tell, was that he talked too much in briefings, inserting what the president thought were personal opinions. Greg Craig's demise as White House counsel is still a puzzle, given his legal talent, but critics argued that the expansive Craig ran an untidy shop.

An interesting example of the administration's ability to shrink large political personalities is Richard Holbrooke, the special coordinator for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Holbrooke's garrulous style is utterly different from Obama's, and the White House appeared to be on the verge of dumping him early this year when the secretary of state is said to have intervened. Holbrooke has been on a short leash -- not making trouble, but not as effective as he might be.

Now look at the people who have Obama's ear: Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They're low-key, low-maintenance personalities who could fit in a moderate Republican administration as easily as this one.

If national security adviser Jim Jones (another disciplined, button-down guy) retires at the end of this year, there's talk he may be replaced by Gen. James Cartwright, the current vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. His precise, laser-sharp briefing style has impressed Obama.

...

Maybe Obama, the anti-politician, really doesn't care if he gets reelected, so long as he's doing what he thinks is right. Somehow, I can't imagine this breakthrough president stepping aside to write law-review articles. But to stand a chance in 2012, he's going to need someone to light a fire under him, someone who can play politics fiercely -- and also can bring in some new voters.

Surely it's obvious that I am describing Obama's second-term masterstroke: Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I posted this on August 07, 2010.....

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 45#p918145

My prediction is they won't wait till 2012 elections but could make the transiton earlier by way of resignation.

The reasons are tlike this:

- Biden is spent force and hasn't added much value tothe ticket.
- Hilary is getting some rave reviews and consolidates the women vote
- Need to position Hilary in case of Palin run in 2012. Jindal is dropping plans anyhow on Repub side
- Need to correct wrongs in US history to women- right to vote etc..

[g.sarkar]

(Indians were not even allowed in the US till 1965.)

Not sure where you got this information from

My grandfather travelled overland across the US from East to West in 1915 or so. My late father did his PhD in the US in 1946. I had family members staying in the US from the early 1960s. India had friendly enough relations with the US for US aircraft to to come into India to help out in case war with China in 1962 escalated. India's early nuclear program benefited from the "Atoms for Peace" program, and the first rockets ISRO fired were, IIRC American Nike sounding rockets (or some such thing).

Dr. Shiv,
I meant allowed to settle. The Asian exclusion act was applicable for India, though it was meant for the Japanese. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Exclusion_Act) The British were also happy with this as the Indian settlers had in the past caused troubles back in India (Gadar). As far as I remember the numerical limit of Indian immigration to the US was hundred or so. Getting visitors or students visa was very difficult as the US considers everyone to be a potential immigrant (this is true even today). This exclusion policy changed when President Johnson stopped the race based quotas around 1965. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigratio ... ct_of_1965)This allowed significant Indian immigration into the US for the first time. (I am writing this from memory, if you want I can research out actual dates.) I am sure there were Indian traveling in the US before that. Tagore came visiting, he was treated very badly. Vivekananda also had his troubles. My friend's father also did his Phd. in Chemistry in the early 50s on a scholarship. I remember telling me the racial abuses that he had to endure. But these occurrences were really few and far between. After the first World War groups of Sikhs came into California. Their descendants are to be seen in Yuba City. They are now into growing fruits and nuts. Those days, they could not bring their women, and they were not allowed to marry whites. Laws barring non-whites from marrying white women existed in the books till recent times. Some did marry Mexicans , this allowed them to own land here. The Chinese were also not allowed to bring women from their country. Some literature is available on this topic. Those days the Californian courts delivered some very strange and racist rulings. In one an Indian man's US citizen was revoked. The Courts ruled that he was Caucasian, but not white. In another case a Japanese man was ruled to be white but not Caucasian! (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076) The first wave of Indian migrating was about the time Dr. Khurana got his award.
Gautam
PS Yes I forgot about Chandrashekhar. Again they allowed one brilliant Indian to stay. Dr. C was also excluded from research in areas of national security. Also, FDR may have been pro-India in his dealings with the British. But he did not allow Indians to come. Also, he did not end racial discrimination in the army. And he did not stop US citizens of Japanese descent from being rounded up into intern camps. After the war, these people lost everything.

[ramana]

Op-Ed in Pioneer.
26 August 2010...

Wonder why she feels this way even after the Nuke Liability bill was passed as gesture to the visit!

EDITS | Thursday, August 26, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back


Nothing to be excited about

Shobori Ganguli

There is little that Barack Obama has held out to India as yet that inspires optimism or justifies any euphoria over his planned visit.

A simple Google search will tell you that US President Barack Obama, into his second year in office, has already travelled to more countries than any other American President in the past. In fact, America’s frequent flyer has raised eyebrows among his own people, leaving critics to wonder whether the President, in his zeal to woo the international community, has not actually lost sight of his country’s myriad domestic problems. Even as that debate continues on American soil, India is getting ready to receive Mr Obama this November. Naturally, there are questions about what the visit would concretely translate into and whether the high profile engagement would go beyond ceremony to underline India’s relevance to the US as a major global ally. Given the tone and tenor of Mr Obama’s communication with some key Asian countries in the past year, there is reason for some scepticism.

On the positive side, Mr Obama is visiting India right in his second year in office while his predecessors, Mr Bill Clinton and Mr George Bush, only reserved their second term for an Indian rendezvous. However, this factoid inspires little confidence about India-US engagement in general, given the skewed prioritisation Mr Obama has so far accorded to Asia.

First among Mr Obama’s Asian priorities to be spelt out was his AfPak policy that instantly reduced India’s sphere of influence in the South Asian theatre. America’s intense desire to keep Pakistan proactively engaged in Afghanistan led to incessant pressure on India to resume dialogue with Pakistan post-26/11 in the course of which New Delhi was roundly rebuffed by Islamabad for carrying on with the “fiction” that Pakistani operatives were involved in the Mumbai terror attack.

Even more glaring were the India and Pakistan bilaterals Mr Obama held in Washington this April. The readout of his meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said, “both countries were working against extremists in South Asia” and that they were both “truly facing a common enemy”. Further, Mr Obama laughably patted Pakistan on its back for taking nuclear security seriously, even asserting that, “appropriate safeguards were in place.” In the same breath he reiterated America’s commitment to $125 million worth energy sector projects in Pakistan. Last heard, the American largesse continues.

Mr Obama’s meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the same time and venue was starkly different in content. A noticeably tepid readout said the two countries would continue to work on their “robust relationship”, that the US appreciated India’s humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, and that the two had a shared vision of a strong, stable and prosperous South Asia. Terrorism being a common enemy and India’s track record on the nuclear front, of course, found no mention.

In the context of Mr Obama’s forthcoming visit, one needs to be acutely aware of the fact that his vision of South Asia, at least for some time to come, will be refracted through the Afghan prism wherein the Americans live in the merry delusion that Pakistan is a valuable ally in the war against the Taliban and that a pliant India must keep Pakistan in good humour, no matter how grave the latter’s provocation.

To come to Mr Obama’s other Asian priority. Even though Mr Singh may have gushingly admitted that the President had fired the imagination of millions around the world and that people in India were anxious to see him, the truth is Mr Obama is coming to India only this November, exactly a year since he opened his Asian account with a China visit. That India had slipped on Mr Obama’s priority list was quite evident during that trip to Beijing where a joint statement with Chinese President Hu Jintao re-hyphenated India and Pakistan — this, after India had fought, and won, a strenuous battle to be counted as a major global player and not simply a nuclear-armed country that remains caught in petty bickerings with its western neighbour.

Mr Obama’s China visit had two unmistakable messages for India. One, it shattered the myth that the US would prop up India as a counter to growing Chinese hegemony and use it to neutralise China’s steady and sure rise as a superpower. In visiting China long before he even started planning his India visit, Mr Obama sent out the unambiguous signal that the US can, and will, do little to stymie China’s growth. In fact, Mr Obama said during that visit, “The Sino-US relationship has never been more important in our collective future".

The second message automatically flowed out of this re-prioritisation that Mr Obama had undertaken. The joint China-US statement said both countries “support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan”. The highly offensive and patently unacceptable hyphenation of the two South Asian neighbours was firmly back in place. Worse, it had happened on the soil of a third country whose overt and covert support to Pakistan’s anti-India state policy is well documented. Shockingly, China was virtually crowned the guardian of South Asian peace at a time when India-China relations were passing through one of its worst phases.

Clearly, the Obama Administration is being far from receptive to Indian concerns, minor or major. Sample the latest irritant, the H1 B visa controversy. Sponsored by New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, who incidentally called IT giant Infosys a “chop shop”, the US Border Security Bill says that companies with less than 50 per cent Americans in their workforce will have to pay an additional $2,000 for H1 B and L1 visas. Although meant to address the problem of illegal immigration across the US-Mexico border, the Bill effectively, if not directly, places Indian IT companies along side illegal immigrants. India has duly expressed its concerns over the issue, saying the Bill would impact Indian companies that have invested millions of dollars in the US and have hugely aided job-creation. While the Bill fits in well with Mr Obama’s famed election promise of not allowing US jobs to go to India, China and Germany, it is indeed a thankless slap for the Indian IT industry that has made a stupendous contribution to the American economy.

Given this background, therefore, there is reason to employ a huge dose of caution in the run-up to the US President’s India visit. For, while general bonhomie managed to redeem Mr Clinton’s visit and the civil nuclear cooperation deal buoyed up Mr Bush’s trip, there is little Mr Obama has held out to India as yet that inspires optimism.

Maybe they will announce power reactors as a trifecta.

[abhishek_sharma]

State adds new official for India policy

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... dia_policy

State Department sources confirm that Alyssa Ayres will soon come on board as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, covering U.S. policy toward India.

Ayres worked at State during the latter years of the Bush administration as a special assistant to then under secretary for political affairs Nicholas Burns and she was involved in the crafting of and negotiations surrounding the U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement. Since then, she has been leading the India and South Asia practice at the consulting firm McLarty Associates, according to her personal website. Last year, she authored a book on language and nationalism in Pakistan entitled, Speaking Like a State.

The position had been widely expected to go to Georgetown professor Christine Fair, but Fair took herself out of the running late last year for reasons that remain unclear. Ayres will report up to SCA's assistant secretary, Robert Blake.

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has worked with Ayres, praised the choice while simultaneously lamenting the fact that it took the Obama administration more than 18 months to fill the slot.

"She has worked in the government before, she understands the importance of India strategically, and her heart is in the right place," he said. "This is a smart decision they've made, even if they've made it late."

...
According to her McLarty bio, Ayres speaks fluent Hindi and Urdu and previously worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross as an interpreter in Jammu and Kashmir. She received an A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.

[abhishek_sharma]

Articles written by Alyssa Ayres

http://alyssaayres.com/content/articles/

[Rangudu]

Chris Fair is too outspoken to work for the State Department, plus she hates Holbrooke and the "Cashmere" crowd. She was never going to take that offer anyway.

Alyssa Ayres is at least less tainted by the Uneven Cohen influenced school of thought. She wrote about LeT and its importance to TSPA years before others caught on.

[abhishek_sharma]

I think Christine Fair was tainted by her remarks blaming India for Balochistan problem.

[abhishek_sharma]

Press Release at the initialing of Agreement for Cooperation on Joint Clean Energy Research Development Center

http://www.indianembassy.org/prdetail15 ... ent-center

[Mort Walker]

Indian Film Maker Arrested While Traveling to Houston

[CRamS]

Chris Fair is too outspoken to work for the State Department, plus she hates Holbrooke and the "Cashmere" crowd. She was never going to take that offer anyway.

Alyssa Ayres is at least less tainted by the Uneven Cohen influenced school of thought. She wrote about LeT and its importance to TSPA years before others caught on.

I know and have met Alyssa Ayres. I was on good terms with her until Kargil when like all other US charlatans she was doing the equal equal despite brazen attack by TSP. Plus, she has worked with some red cross or some other "human rights" crap organization in J&K. She belongs to the "will of the Kashmiri people" cabal. Mirwaiz Umar fakroo and other traitors in J&K have probably hob knobbed with her. In short, while she has made some noises about LET, she is at best equal equal, at worst blatantly pro TSP and pro-KM; either way, TSP wouldn't be too unhappy with her.

[chetak]

Indian Film Maker Arrested While Traveling to Houston

Anyone know what this bearded moron was doing with brass knuckles in the US, packed in his checked in baggage not withstanding??

Remarkably low IQ and imagination for a film maker.

A case of foreskin but no fore thought?

[amdavadi]

New wikileaks has lot of information regarding US citizen involve in terrorism in India, Pakistan & other place.This suppose memo was circulated among all US intelligence agency.

It may be part of what US knew about DH & rana activities.

[pgbhat]

^

Foreign regimes could request information on US citizens they deem to be terrorists or terrorist supporters, or even request the rendition of US citizens. US failure tocooperate could result in those governments refusing to allow the US to extract terrorist suspects from their soil, straining alliances and bilateral relations.

In extreme cases, US refusal to cooperate with foreign government requests for extradition might lead some governments to consider secretly extracting US citizens suspected of foreign terrorism from US soil. Foreign intelligence operations on US soil to neutralize or even assassinate individuals in the US deemed to be a threat are not without precedent. Before the US entered World War II, British intelligence carried out information operations against prominent US citizens deemed to be isolationists or sympathetic to the Nazis. Some historians who have examined relevant archives even suspect that British intelligence officers assassinated Nazi agents on US soil.

If foreign regimes believe the US position on rendition is too one-sided, favoring the US, but not them, they could obstruct US efforts to detain terrorism suspects. For example, in 2005 Italy issued criminal arrest warrants for US agents involved in the abduction of an Egyptian cleric and his rendition to Egypt. The proliferation of such cases would not only challenge US bilateral relations with other countries but also damage global counterterrorism efforts.

If foreign leaders see the US refusing to provide intelligence on American terrorism suspects or to allow witnesses to testify in their courts, they might respond by denying the same to the US. In 2005 9/11 suspect Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted by a German court because the US refused to allow Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a suspected ringleader of the 9/11 plot who was in US custody, to testify. More such instances could impede actions to lock up terrorists, whether in the US or abroad, or result in the release of suspects. (S//NF)

[svinayak]

I know and have met Alyssa Ayres. I was on good terms with her until Kargil when like all other US charlatans she was doing the equal equal despite brazen attack by TSP

Get to know her again. It is better to keep in contact

[Sanku]

Indian Film Maker Arrested While Traveling to Houston

Anyone know what this bearded moron was doing with brass knuckles in the US, packed in his checked in baggage not withstanding??

Remarkably low IQ and imagination for a film maker.

A case of foreskin but no fore thought?

Surprise surprise

http://www.timesnow.tv/Setback-for-Indi ... 352356.cms

Kumar was in Houston to lecture a Hindu organisation about Islamic fundamentalism and the books packed in his checked luggage were educational tools, authorities and his lawyer told the court.

Attorneys for Kumar said that he has surrendered his passport while he mulls the deal. He does not want a criminal record to interfere next time he visits the US, his attorney Grant Scheiner said.

This guy works for the Patriots foundation in India, started by a retired IB officer -- working to create awareness about Islamic Jihad and such threats

The geniuses in US arrested him for being a Jihadi

[Philip]

The US an "exporter of terror"! Sounds just like our neighbours's best export,no wonder they are bedfellows.

CIA memo on United States as 'exporter of terrorism' published by Wikileaks
A classified CIA memo discussing the United States as a possible "exporter of terrorism" because of al-Qaeda recruitment in America has been posted on website, Wikileaks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... leaks.html

[abhischekcc]

Historically, the biggest creator of terrorists is Britain.

[Aditya_V]

This guy works for the Patriots foundation in India, started by a retired IB officer -- working to create awareness about Islamic Jihad and such threats

The geniuses in US arrested him for being a Jihadi

One more thing about the Geniuses in the US. if Brass knuckles are packed in his checked in Baggage, WTF is thier problem, he can't possibly access it while flight, it can't explode? My in laws were once questioned for asking how many what is size of the ferry boat they are going to travel? I guess for them one brown/yellow guy is good as a anther. Like Rush Limball, Shitoism/hinduism are the same. This ignorance will cost them some time

[Hitesh]

Another example of stupidity in the TSA and Immigration officials. Brass knuckles are legal in the state of texas and he was carrying them in a checked luggage so he had no intention of using it until he unpacked it in his room.

Immigration and LEO are just making a big mountain out of a molehill.

[ramana]

Maybe to bolster the idea of "saffron terror" so they dont look like they are pciking on Islamist terror?

PC's ravings are too coincidental.

[ManjaM]

Another example of stupidity in the TSA and Immigration officials. Brass knuckles are legal in the state of texas and he was carrying them in a checked luggage so he had no intention of using it until he unpacked it in his room.

Immigration and LEO are just making a big mountain out of a molehill.

Hitesh ji,

Brass knuckles are illegal in Texas as they are in many US states. The film maker who has been arrested should first be charged with stupidity.