India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 30 May 2015 16:06

General elections got over in 2014. The next election is not until 2019. Both pro and anti modi crowds need to take a vacation NOW for the next 3 years else they'll get bored if they continue like this by the time its 2018.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 May 2015 21:44

chandrasekhar.m wrote:US human rights commission to hold briefing on violence against religious minorities in India
• Rev. Dr. Joshva Raja, Research Supervisor, University of Amsterdam
• Dr. Iqtidar Karamat Cheema, Director, Institute for Leadership and Community Development, UK
• Professor Gurdarshan Sing Dhillon, Professor of History (retired), Punjab University, India
• Sahar Chaudhry, Senior Policy Analyst, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Almost all of them are open Pakiesque entities. No surprise here at all.
It only means failure for these guys. One surprise is sane person like Dr Kapani acting as patron of Dhillon . Like the Quranic way where True Muslim sees Jew behind every stone , tree and conspiracy, This man Dhillon sees Hindu behind every stone, nook and tree,Conspiring to rob, hurt or injure true Sikh. Man is fond of Quoting Jinnah and Brit and like SS Maan think Gora Sahibs still rules India.

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 May 2015 07:59

It is a great tragedy that so many fellow Indians have been compelled to immigrate for economic reasons resulting in our Nation losing the opportunity to capitalise on their undoubted talents:

Indian-Americans again owned the Scripps National Spelling Bee, as Vanya Shivashankar and Gokul Venkatachalam were declared co-champions Thursday. That makes it eight years in a row that Indian-Americans have won the spelling championship. With co-champions in the past two years, it means that the last 10 champions have all been born to parents of Indian descent.

National Spelling Bee shows need for high-skilled immigration

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 May 2015 12:50

ramana wrote: China is still allowing its reptilian brain to dominate its mind and that needs pacification. The message is not yet going to the limbic and neo-cortex which is where the higher thinking can take place.

Entomophagy perhaps may be the cause. Reptiles do not have Limbic System and Neo-Cortex. However, even reptiles in general do not act like aggressors until they are threatened. Chinese seem to behave differently. Saying that, how different are Americans? They too seem to be missing Neo Cortex. Adam Smith-THE founder of Western economics- always believed the western man to be a rational thinking self centred individual. A rational man does not create killing fields. Do Indians let the limbic system which deals with emotions dominate our thought and action. 'Log Kya Kahege (what will people say) is a hump of the hill we must go over. And fast. Ahimsa as propounded by MKG falls into this trap of appealing to the limbic system. Shri Krishna forced Arjuna out of his comfort zone and forced his Neo-Cortex to make the decision. May be Arjuna's limbic system was in control when he dropped his 'Gaandiva'.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 May 2015 12:53

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

PF: In the book you criticise the Obama administration, above all else, for failing to take a long-term, strategic approach. What does that mean for China as it emerges as a rival superpower?
IB: "In the past 35 years there's only been one geopolitical constant in the entire world. Only one. And that's the rise of China. What's really dangerous is that China is the only country of size right now that has a global strategy. We should not pretend that that's not true. They have money, they're spending it. They're building architecture and infrastructure. They're trying to align countries more with their long term strategic and economic interests as they see them. The fact is the Americans, by far a greater power than China in every aspect, have nothing to respond to that with. That's ludicrous.
“I think we massively underestimate the Chinese. We spend virtually no time thinking about them. There's no question that China has very real problems, and those problems are going to affect them a great deal over the long term. But they understand what they need to do to resolve them; they are taking very significant steps both domestically and internationally. And we're not. It's one thing to cede space to the Chinese out of a strategy. We're ceding them space that we haven't even considered.”

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 31 May 2015 12:54

arun wrote:It is a great tragedy that so many fellow Indians have been compelled to immigrate for economic reasons resulting in our Nation losing the opportunity to capitalise on their undoubted talents:

National Spelling Bee shows need for high-skilled immigration

And they will return for the exact reason -Economics.

chaitanya · Post by **chaitanya** » 01 Jun 2015 04:02

Not really news, but I just discovered this today through google and wiki and thought I would share.

Before it became a movie, Mother India was the name of a book released by an American 'historian' Katherine Mayo and would give Doniger a run for her money. This racist piece of trash came out in 1927 and was written to oppose Indian Independence from British rule by "attacking Hindu society and religion, and the culture of India" according to wiki. Her reasons?

The book pointed to the treatment of India's women, the untouchables, animals, dirt, and the character of its nationalistic politicians. Mayo singled out the allegedly rampant and fatally weakening sexuality of its males to be at the core of all problems, leading to masturbation, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, venereal diseases, and, most importantly, premature sexual intercourse and maternity.

Gandhi's response:

This book is cleverly and powerfully written. The carefully chosen quotations give it the false appearance of a truthful book. But the impression it leaves on my mind is that it is the report of a drain inspector sent out with the one purpose of opening and examining the drains of the country to be reported upon, or to give a graphic description of the stench exuded by the opened drains. If Miss Mayo had confessed that she had come to India merely to open out and examine the drains of India, there would perhaps be little to complain about her compilation. But she declared her abominable and patently wrong conclusion with a certain amount of triumph: 'the drains are India'.

It seems like the arguments against India and Hindus from the west haven't changed in a century...

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Jun 2015 07:46

From Katherine Mayo to Alicia May.....from Mother India to India's Daughter. Leslie Udwin surely had an illustrious lineage of exalted White trash dimwits to look upto for inspiration.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 02 Jun 2015 16:01

"US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter on three-day visit to India"
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-us ... ia-2091589

American Defence Secretary Ashton Carter on Tuesday started his three-day visit to the country during which India and US will sign the 10-year defence framework agreement that will steer bilateral ties in the crucial sector.

The agreement, decided during the visit of US President Barack Obama in January, will focus on issues ranging from maritime security, aircraft carrier to jet engine technology cooperation and joint training.

Carter arrived at INS Dega here and was briefed by top officials about the activities of the Eastern Naval Command that looks after security in Indian Ocean. This is Carter's first visit to India as Secretary of Defence. He had earlier visited India in September 2013 and July 2012 as Deputy Secretary of Defence.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 02 Jun 2015 17:40

chaitanya wrote:Not really news, but I just discovered this today through google and wiki and thought I would share.

Before it became a movie, Mother India was the name of a book released by an American 'historian' Katherine Mayo and would give Doniger a run for her money. This racist piece of trash came out in 1927 and was written to oppose Indian Independence from British rule by "attacking Hindu society and religion, and the culture of India" according to wiki. Her reasons?

The book pointed to the treatment of India's women, the untouchables, animals, dirt, and the character of its nationalistic politicians. Mayo singled out the allegedly rampant and fatally weakening sexuality of its males to be at the core of all problems, leading to masturbation, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, venereal diseases, and, most importantly, premature sexual intercourse and maternity.
Gandhi's response:
This book is cleverly and powerfully written. The carefully chosen quotations give it the false appearance of a truthful book. But the impression it leaves on my mind is that it is the report of a drain inspector sent out with the one purpose of opening and examining the drains of the country to be reported upon, or to give a graphic description of the stench exuded by the opened drains. If Miss Mayo had confessed that she had come to India merely to open out and examine the drains of India, there would perhaps be little to complain about her compilation. But she declared her abominable and patently wrong conclusion with a certain amount of triumph: 'the drains are India'.
It seems like the arguments against India and Hindus from the west haven't changed in a century...

even if all else is rubbish,

got to admit, that she characterized nehru quite accurately, though.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 02 Jun 2015 21:09

chetak wrote:even if all else is rubbish,

got to admit, that she characterized nehru quite accurately, though.

Perhaps she too had been "had" and "thrown away" by Banditji and was taking out her frustration on the Indians at large.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 02 Jun 2015 21:51

chaitanya wrote:
It seems like the arguments against India and Hindus from the west haven't changed in a century...

Two centuries. This from 1813, in the British House of Commons:
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... ndoos.html

“Upon the whole, we cannot help recognizing in the people of Hindostan a race of men lamentably degenerate and base; retaining but a feeble sense of moral obligation; obstinate in the disregard of what they know to be right; governed by malevolent and licentious passions; strongly exemplifying the effects produced on society by great and general corruption of manners; sunk in misery by their vices, in a country peculiarly calculated by its natural advantages to promote the happiness of its inhabitants.”

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 Jun 2015 00:16

a country peculiarly calculated by its natural advantages to promote the happiness of its inhabitants.”

Hmm!!! Poster for Incredible India

chaitanya · Post by **chaitanya** » 03 Jun 2015 07:16

UlanBatori wrote:
a country peculiarly calculated by its natural advantages to promote the happiness of its inhabitants.”
Hmm!!! Poster for Incredible India

the only thing they got right!!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 04 Jun 2015 00:14

"Govt officials head to US to make case for social security deal"
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/J91QX2 ... ity-d.html

Armed with the government’s latest social security measures such as the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana, officials from the ministries of labour and overseas Indian affairs will visit the US later this month to make a case for the long-pending totalization agreement between the two countries.

Individuals working in foreign countries are sometimes forced to pay social security contributions in their home country as well as their country of residence. To avoid such double contributions, countries often enter into so-called totalization agreements. However, despite the large number of Indians working in the US, India and the US do not have such an agreement so far.

India has long been trying to convince the US authorities to sign such a deal, which could help bring back contributions of up to $1.5 billion made by Indians while working in the US even though they were not allowed to avail of that country’s social security benefits.

During President Barack Obama’s visit to India in January, both sides issued a joint statement saying they have agreed to hold discussions on the “elements required in both countries to pursue an India-US Totalization Agreement”.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jun 2015 19:48

Klaus wrote:Pentagon concerned about what would happen if Modi is hit by a bus

Very carefully worded even by rediff's standards, normally avoid posting this rag but this caught my eye. Talks about NM 'suddenly disappearing from the scene', 'suddenly exit the world stage', 'slip in the shower and hit his head and is removed from government'.

Is this part of the stated intentions policy of West/Vatican? To ensure NM is atleast incapacitated/crippled/made invalid if not outright eliminated so that they can regain control of the levers.

What does the West/Vatican stand to gain from NM's removal that they dont get with Putin's removal?

During the Nehru era US think tanks were most seized or constipated about After Nehru who? and wrote reams of papers and published books.

Even after Indira Ganshi was voted out after Emergency, and Janata Party govt led by Morarji Desai was in constant crisis due to petty leaders, the US think tanks biggest issue was who will succeed Morarji Desai.
An obscure scholar figured out Charan Singh would succeed and launched a new career of predicting political risk.

Falijee · Post by **Falijee** » 04 Jun 2015 23:08

Ramana-ji:
Interesting article: ( Pentagon concerned about what would happen if Modi is hit by a bus) .
I have read many postings by this gentleman, who bills himself as the Managing Editor/ Chief Correspondent of this Washington based (but India owned) Online Magazine.
His reports always carry an impression that he has an 'inside track' with US Politicos, SD pundits, influential expatriate Indians,& US Think Tank insiders. His views are unabashedly pro- US ( that is where his bread and butter lies) and I doubt that he has done any ground reporting from the country where his company ( Rediff.com) is based.
Therefore, any speculations he puts on-line should be interpreted from that context.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Jun 2015 21:22

New Delhi: Livid after 21 members of its 31-strong team were denied US visas, the Archery Association of India (AAI) on Friday decided to withdraw from the World Youth Archery Championships in that country as a mark of protest.
Apart from the archers, India's well-travelled Korean coach Chae Wom Lim was also refused visa by the US embassy here for the championship in Yankton, South Dakota.
"We have decided to withdraw the team from this tournament as a mark of protest. This was decided by AAI President Vijay Kumar Malhotra even though we had reapplied for visas," Archery Association of India treasurer Virender Sachdeva told PTI.
The Indian contingent, comprising Under-20 boys and girls, was scheduled to leave for the US tomorrow for the June 8-14 event.
But the US embassy here granted visa to only seven archers, two coaches and a Sports Authority of India official while rejecting 21, thereby putting serious doubts over India's participation in the event.
Besides Lim, three Indian coaches Mim Bahadur Gurung, Chandra Shekhar Laguri, Ram Awdesh and masseuse Pinki were also denied visa.
Sachdeva said the denial was on the ground that the visa officer was not satisfied with the interview of the rejected individuals and doubted that they may not return after the completion of the event.
"It is really a shocking incident. Most of the archers are from lower strata and hail from states like Assam, Jharkhand, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Most of them are not well versed in english and hence lack in communication. When the visa officer asked them what they do for living, they simply said we are archers and play archery," Sachdeva said.
"This might have raised doubts in the minds of the visa officer, resulting in refusal of visa. But I don't understand why Lim was denied because he is a known figure in world archery and has travelled worldwide," he added.
Sachdeva said what was more shocking was that the visas were denied despite having the Government of India's sanction order and invitation from the US Archery Association.
He said the AAI approached the Ministry of External Affairs and the Sports Ministry on this issue but to no avail.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Jun 2015 21:45

India needs to respond to these incidents. Pay back in kind. Having a chip on the shoulder is not always a bad thing. It fuels you to extract penalties for such slights and insults.

And actually we need to go on offensive & proactively deliver similar insults to USA every once in a while. They understand that language better.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 05 Jun 2015 21:54

This shows that U.S cannot and must not be allowed to conduct sporting events. If they cannot give Visas whom they expect to compete with? May be avoiding competition through shameless means. Some Timbuktu nation is far better than U.S in conducting sports events.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 05 Jun 2015 22:02

Singha wrote:New Delhi: Livid after 21 members of its 31-strong team were denied US visas, the Archery Association of India (AAI) on Friday decided to withdraw from the World Youth Archery Championships in that country as a mark of protest.
Apart from the archers, India's well-travelled Korean coach Chae Wom Lim was also refused visa by the US embassy here for the championship in Yankton, South Dakota.
"We have decided to withdraw the team from this tournament as a mark of protest. This was decided by AAI President Vijay Kumar Malhotra even though we had reapplied for visas," Archery Association of India treasurer Virender Sachdeva told PTI.
The Indian contingent, comprising Under-20 boys and girls, was scheduled to leave for the US tomorrow for the June 8-14 event.
But the US embassy here granted visa to only seven archers, two coaches and a Sports Authority of India official while rejecting 21, thereby putting serious doubts over India's participation in the event.
Besides Lim, three Indian coaches Mim Bahadur Gurung, Chandra Shekhar Laguri, Ram Awdesh and masseuse Pinki were also denied visa.
Sachdeva said the denial was on the ground that the visa officer was not satisfied with the interview of the rejected individuals and doubted that they may not return after the completion of the event.
"It is really a shocking incident. Most of the archers are from lower strata and hail from states like Assam, Jharkhand, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Most of them are not well versed in english and hence lack in communication. When the visa officer asked them what they do for living, they simply said we are archers and play archery," Sachdeva said.
"This might have raised doubts in the minds of the visa officer, resulting in refusal of visa. But I don't understand why Lim was denied because he is a known figure in world archery and has travelled worldwide," he added.
Sachdeva said what was more shocking was that the visas were denied despite having the Government of India's sanction order and invitation from the US Archery Association.
He said the AAI approached the Ministry of External Affairs and the Sports Ministry on this issue but to no avail.

My nephew (Aditya Partap Singh) is among those who got visa ( 10 years). He visited me several time in Belgium and has entry and exit stamp to prove that. He has permanent residency card for Belgium now. During interview he proved that he has no interest to stay in USA and he is happy with life as it is. He has Ist ranking in Haryana and good ranking in India. So my point is that visa section was playing per rule. But once backed by GOI........this issue was to be resolved immediatlly. Why MEA is not intersted in this matter?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 05 Jun 2015 23:51

^^That above is an EXCELLENT opportunity to deny visas to amriki evanjihardies arriving by the horde here in south India.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 05 Jun 2015 23:51

I thought this was routine. The visa officers paandus are mostly middle class white folks (of the Paco/non veg variety), but they are royalty in Lootyens, Dilli. Their SUVs rush through traffic lights in Dilli as if they are the President of India's motorcade. They hob-nob with the rich and famous of Dilli. They hold a big position of power and authority among the macaulayized intellectual house slaves that forms our elites here.

When they see a bunch of dark-skinned "hoodlums" who have been fed a low-protein diet all their lives applying for a "sports visa", they have the same contempt and hatred that the DIE elites of dilli have for these people. The hatred is even more acute if the paco-owner is an immigrant hater who hates em "wetbacks" for wading into what is "rightfully ours".

It does not matter if GOI has guaranteed their return, because "GOI itself is involved in hyooman traffiking u see, isn't the entire consulate in NYC involved in it?".

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 06 Jun 2015 01:37

uddu wrote:If they cannot give Visas whom they expect to compete with?

That's why they play handball, basketball and basebell among themselves and call them 'super' bowl, 'world' series, etc.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 06 Jun 2015 02:37

Did we just loose a war on Chickens??

“India’s ban was thinly veiled protectionism,” James Sumner, president of the USA Poultry and Egg Council, and Michael Brown, president of the National Chicken Council, said in a joint statement. "Free and fair trade, particularly with food, should never be used as a political bargaining chip." (WTF are you talking about?? When was the last time you checked subsidies to your Agri business??)

How is it economical to ship chickens 8000+ miles to chase a $300 million business. And, Indians can't produce at home and beat Amir Khan on cost, com on? I don't get the math.

Wait a sec, these chickens were supposed to somewhere else...

Russia limits poultry imports

Russia's Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service (VPSS) said on Thursday it was implementing temporary restrictions on imports of poultry meat and poultry products from the United States because of "harmful residues." ...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jun 2015 02:40

1979 book for reference

Title: India: A Rising Middle Power
Ed: John W. Mellor
Publisher: Westview, Colorado.

Abstract: India, one of the largest and most broadly industralized
of the rising middle powers of the Third World, has increasing
influence on the outcome of major issues of global interdependency:
nuclear proliferation, natural resources control, trade relations,
and population growth. Yet the western world generally, and the
United States in particular, remains ill equipped to understand and
adapt to this rapidly changing global reality. The topics of this
volume are chosen for their importance to understanding the basis of
India's global role.

John W. Mellor, director of the International Food Policy Research
Institute, was formally chief economist with the US Agency for
International Development. Dr. Mellor has lived for several years in
urban and rural areas of India.

CHAPTER 1: India and the United States

by: John Mellor and Philip Oldenburg

The United States and several large Third World countries are now
in the early stages of a major change in their relations. And
compard to the traditional powers of Europe, or to Japan, the rising
middle powers of the Third World have population and natural
resource bases more nearly comparable to those of the US and the
Soviet Union. The rising political, economic,and military power and
the large aggregate size of leading Third World states indicate they
will eventually play a global role. This will require new modes of
response by the US as such issues as population growth, natural
resource control, nuclear proliferation, and trade relations become
increasingly important.

Americans have recognized China as global force throughout the post
war period because of its historical association with the US, its
proximity to the Soviet Uion, and its colossal size. In contrast the US
has found it difficult ot accomodate the changing global circumstances
of India, the largest, after China, and most broadly Industrialized
of the Thirld World countries. While India has become a middle power
with respect to many issues of importance to the US, the public image
of poverty and incapacity continues to make it difficult for policy
to change, even when the policy establishment recognizes the need.
That need for policy change is urgent, and current negotiations should
recognize not only the rapidity of change in the relationships of the
two countries but also how these relationships will develop over the
next decade or so.

THE REALITY OF SIZE AND POWER

India now has the industrial base needed to mobilize its huge
population as a world force. And as that base grows and political
development proceeds, the massive population and large, diverse
geography of the nation will count for India, as they do for other
nations, in international negotiations.

At the begining of the First Five Year Plan in 1950 India's population
was twice that of the US; in 1978 it was almost three times larger. On
the basis of somewhat optimistic assumptions about economic development,
India by the year 2000 will have a demographic pattern that will
eventually stablize its population at about 1.4 billion. India's
populationwill then be five times that of the US and about twice that of
the Soviet Union and US combined. India's population density relative
to the area cropland would still be less than that of present-day
Germany and about one-third that of Japan. India's climate, soil, and
water resources are conducive to much higher levels of cropping intensit
than Germany's.

Population growth retards economic development and growth in national
power as long as a country has low rates of capital accumulation and
low levels of education. Once broadly participatory growth is well under
way, however, high population densities and an underutilized labor force
are conducive to high rates of economic and international power.

India's appalling povery and lack of development-oriented institution
at the end of the colonial era should not be allowed to mislead as to
the underlying resource base. The Gangetic plain, already supporting
high population densities, is a highly productive agricultural resource
that is responsive to modern high-yield agricultural technology. Only a
small proportion of its potential has been exploited. India's hydro-
electric and coal resources although expensive to develop, are massive.
Oil exploration is still in an early stage but off-shore potentials
suggest eventual self-sufficiency at much higher than present levels of
consumption. India's thorium reserves are large, and the nation has
underway a long-term drive to develop a thorium based breeder reactor
technology. Geologic explorations has been delayed by Indian policy
to develop its own institutional capacity. Even so, known reserves
of iron ore, which represents 10 percent of world's total, and those
of a wide range of other minerals suggest that India has the potential
for a relatively independent economy. This is in sharp contrast with
Western Europe.

India's human and natural resources of course represent a potential
for growth rather than curent reality. Even now, however, India ranks
thirteenth in industrial output and its gross national product of over
$100 billion makes it the world's ninth largest economy. Except for
the People's Republic of China, India has the most diversified indus-
trail sector of the Third World. By the year 2000 India will be seventh
in overall gross national product and eigth in industrial production,
assuming that the nation achieves the high growth rate depicted in CH4
and that rates in the presently industrialized nations continue at
current levels.

A large sophisticated, well organized capacity for scientific and
technological development is essential for a major power, not only for
effective untilization of its resources, which are allways in subst-
antial part unique, but also for attaining self-sufficiency in high
technology military potentials.

India's science and technology establishment is immence. India is
third among nations in the number of scientists and publications, though
it ranks lower in quality. As indicated in CH12, India's scientific
and technological capacity ranks in the World's top ten, is comparable
with that of Italy, and is growing relatively rapidly. The decision to
join the nuclear club in May 1974 reflects the tip of neclear science
capacity, let alone total science capacity.

India's high rank in science and technology has been achieved even
though an exceeding small proportion of the country's resources is
to this purpose. The tradition of elitism in education and long and
continuing contact with the US, Western Europe, and the Soviet Union
have gradually built a relatively large capacity. Although it is
difficult to make such comparisons, India may be ahead of China in
scientific capacity despite the much largeer size of the Chinese economy
Perhaps only Brazil among other Third world nations can soon play a
substantial leadership role in science and technology.

Military development reflects growth of industry, science and tech-
nology, and the sheer size of India. In 1947 the Indian armed forces
totaled about 300,000 but had almost no high-level officers and only a
skeleton navy and air force. Thirty years and four wars later, India has
world's third largest standing army (1.2 million), fifth largest air
force, eigth largest navy. It has demonstrated the ability to acquire a
strategic nuclearweapon and delivery systemwithin a decade or so.
Development of military production capacity is even more substantial:
41 major ordinance and defense establishments employing 225,000 workers
produce sucj diverse items as small arms, field and aircraft recoilless
guns, howitzers, mortars, support electronics items, antitank, antiair-
craft, and naval missles, armoured tanks, personnel carriers, sunsonic
and supersonic planes, helicopters, antisubmarine frigates, fast patrol
boats, and missile boats. Except for submarines and nuclear defence
systems, this is comparable to China's capacity. India is attempting
to phase out remaining dependence on foreign supply of weapons and
weapon design by 1985, while continuing to expand the range of weapons
including domestically produced, intermediate range rockets. All this
has been accomplished by expenditure of a relatively moderate 3 percent
of gross national product per annum.

India's size and elitist educational tradition has produced the
most highly trained and experienced diplomatic negotiators among Third
World nations. They deal skillfully with the many highly technical
and complex legal issues of modern diplomacy, from law of the sea to
nuclear controls. Despite differences in approach, Americam and Indian
negotiators, even in the past decade of strained relations, have frequ-
ently been able to work out acceptable compromise positions on Third
World issues.

THE AMERICAM IMAGE OF INDIA

The image of India in the United States, developed and reinforced by
school textbooks, the press, and the academic literature, remains one of
povery and helplessness.

The Asia Society, in a review of some 300 textbooks in use in 1974-75
found that the presentation on India was the most negative of all Asian
countries treated. According to recent State Department analysis,
American attitudes focused on disease, death, and illiteracy more than
for any other country. Indian are believed to be unable to handle
technology, even though the nation is one of the world's largest indus-
trial powers. Press coverage of India is dominated by "human interest"
stories that emphasize starving people and "peculiar and unfathomable
religios customs." The prevailing image is perhaps best represented by
Daniel Moynihan's widely quoted question: "What does India export but
communicable disease?" From a former US ambassador to India fully aware
of her multibillion-dollar-a-year exports, which include more than $250
million of manufactured items to the US, such a statement reflects a
clear view of the perceptions in gallaries to whic he was playing.

Why is there so deep a chasm between image and reality? FIRST, such
views support certain US interests that have been persued over the past
decade or two. SECOND, they are based at least partly on India as it
was in the colonial period and thus dated. THIRD, India has an open
society that lends itself to criticism and its documentation. FOURTH,
and perhaps most important, India has been a major recipient of foreign
assistance, which has been viewed frequently as alms givingrather than
as a liberal persuit of American self-interest. FIFTH, India's
perceived past proclivity to moralize has not helped to improve its
image in the US, which itself was a major moralizer and perhaps parti-
cularly resentful of moral pronouncements form poor, Third World
countries.

For at least two decades, the US sought to foster a balance of
power between Pakistan and India in South asia despite large differences
size. This reflected the effort to maintain Third World countries in
a subsidiary position, even on thirld world issues, by minimizing the
importance of the more powerful. The Third World's positions on such
issues as nonalignment, foreign assistance flows, rules governing
operations of international financial institutions, and commodity
agreements could be at least partly discredited by characterizing as
inept their largest and most articulate exponent.

The US also sought to justify low levels of foreign assistance by
emphasizing the largest potential recepient's poor capacity to use
assistance. This argument has been used to offset the special claim
to western assistance that India might otherwise have as the "world's
largest democracy." From the US point of view, it has been especially
important to argue for low aid to India in order to keep overall foreign
assistance flows small with a high proportion of that small flow meeting
short-run political demands. It is not surprising that an establishment
oriented American press runs a prepondarance of stories consistent with
these interests.

But US policy in South Asia is changing. In the new policy context a
quite different image of India is needed which recognizes its pre-emi-
nent role as a South Asia regional power and as a growing middle power
on the global scene. This is supported by the division of Pakistan,
its continuing political instability, and the declining importance of
small allies on the Soviet border. In addition, India's greatly accele-
rated trade performance and its entry into western commercial capital
markets are attracting increasing attention. Finally, the view that
a country's political system does matter, as signalled by the Carter
Administration's initially clumsy expression of its concern for human
rights, is gaining ground. India is one of the most advanvced Third
World countries in its democratic political developement.

Americans are prone to judge India's economic performance on short-
run progress in reducing extreme poverty. However, India has consist-
ently given priority to its long-run objectives, choosing large-scale
capital goods industries over small-scale production of consumer goods
for poor, and evolutionary broadening of political representation rather
than revolutionary transfer of power to the masses. Progress ahs been
scant measured against the objective of short-term poverty alleviation,
but very substantial in terms of longer-term objectives.

Economic development is a protracted process of creating institutions
and training massive numbers of people to operate them. It is difficult
to buy time in tis those processes. This has been a general problem
in judging the economic progress of Third World countries. Indeed the
very processes of building these institutions may often be seen by
foreigners as a masochist refusal to make use of readily available
foreign capital, technology, personnel, and even institutions. The
building of post colonial India has moved on three interrelated fronts:
the political system has been broadened immensely to encompass a major-
ity of the population; the administrative structure now includes complex
development as well as law and order functions; and the industrial
sector has been diversifie toproduce both capital and consumer goods,
many of them highly sophisticated.

India's political system was initially dominated by a small elite
made up of the leadership of the natinalist movement and an elitist
education service. Both had ties to large industrial and commercial
interests and to organized labor. That leadership was devoted to demo-
cratic forms, and a parliament was elected on the basis of adult fran-
chise in 1951-52.An expanding proportion (from 46 percent to 61) of the
"world's largest electorate" has voted in national elections since then.
At the state level, elected representatives wield impressive influence
in directing benefits to their constituents and acting as channels of
complaint and pressure within the bureaucracy. The system moved fairly
rapidly to broaden its base of support, most notably by bringing the
bulk of peasantry into the system, but also by including small business
and trading interests. The evolution of such a system from authore-
rian colonial rule was accompanied by tension and uneven progress. As
the political base expands to represent more and more complex interests,
the addition of further interests maymay become more difficult. There
have been times, including Mrs. Gandhi's electoral triumphs of 1971
and 1972, when it appeared that the rural landless poor who make up
most of the low-income 40 percent of the population, would organize
into an effective interst group. But this has not occured. Like their
counterpart in the US (lower 10 percent of income distribution), they
vote and affect the outcome of the elections but are not an effective
pressure group.

Development of a democratic pluralistic system is likely to be
noted more for its tensions, instability, and failure to encompass the
poor than for its ability to resolve complex issues. In contrast,
India ahs managed to solve major disputes on language policy and
regional autonomy, problems originally exacerbated by the needs of the
former colonial power. At the same time, religious caste-based, and
even Communist organizations have been brought into the largely peace-
ful democratic process. And the negative verdict of India's poor on
the regime of "discipline" Mrs. Gandhi instituted in 1975 was clear,
despite the real economic benefit the regime had brought.

Building effective, dynamic institutions for economic development
is always difficult. To do so while democratic institutions are growing
magnifies the appearance of inefficiency because the difficulty evolving
bureaucracies and political mechanisms have in making developement
decisions. Those problems have often diverted attention from the
general excellence of the Indian Administrative structure as it evolved
from a colonial force for law and order to a developement force. If the
Indian civil service had initially been what "developers" would like,
Indiaalready be a developed nation. If it had been less than it was,
India might well have disintigrated. Indeed, there are those who claim
that Vallbhbhai Patel's greatest contribution to India was not the skill
ful merging of the princely states for which he is properly credited,
but his success in preserving India's civil service as an all-india
cadre committed to national unity.

Accompanying the administrative and bureaucratic changes was the
conversion of the Indian economy to diversified industrial structure.
This involved a shift toward steel and heavy machinary, with which
India had little experience, and away from such traditional sectors as
textiles. The result was slow growth in the short run, but a much more
deiverse base that provided greater flexibility for the long run. This
approach could not measurably improve incomes for the lowest-income 40%,
althoughthey undoubtedly have shared somewhat in the lower birth rates,
increased education, and improved health. In theory at least, the base
was being laid for their future participation in the pokitical and econ-
omic life of the nation. The poor in India, like those during the
Western industrial revolution, are paying most of the price of rising
national power.

Except for the brief period of the emergeny, India has had an open
society wit an activew press and intellectual community. Indian polit-
ical and economic affairs are subject to constant intensive criticism.
Foreign critics find data more readily available than for Pakistan,
China, and several other developing countries. Further, the colonial
heritage provided a class of Western-educated people, many of whom cont-
inued to identify with the West. Many of this elite class feel alineated
from the polulist tendencies of democratic India, and they continue to
provide highly critical information to uncritical foreigners. In addi-
tion, there is a constant flow of conservative criticism from internal
sources. Intended as a means for improvement, this criticism can be
used out of context to demonstrate incompetance.

Foreign aid has had a particularly unfortunate effect on the attitudes
of a significant portion of the Western scholarly community. First it
encouraged them to judge and prescribe to India, and to advise Americans
who provide aid. Second it encouraged them to act as though they had
ownership rights in India rather than guest privilages. In the case of
China, quite aside from currying favor for visas, the American scholar
tends to present a symphathetic interpretation to an American audience
that wishes to understand.

India has confronted the immense problems of political, administra-
tive, and economic change with an openness that enabled others to see
all the tensions and difficulties. Many foreigners saw these difficu-
lties in the context of a foreign aid program that they felt gave unlim-
ited license to criticize. The result was a loss of perspective as to
the progress being made and a tendency to underrate India's growing
importance, thus creating a difficult environment for adjusting US
policy to the new realities.

Very valid.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 Jun 2015 05:07

My nephew (Aditya Partap Singh) is among those who got visa ( 10 years). He visited me several time in Belgium and has entry and exit stamp to prove that. He has permanent residency card for Belgium now. During interview he proved that he has no interest to stay in USA and he is happy with life as it is. He has Ist ranking in Haryana and good ranking in India. So my point is that visa section was playing per rule. But once backed by GOI........this issue was to be resolved immediatlly. Why MEA is not intersted in this matter?

Denying visas for people going to conferences and international sports events is plain crude. The 'visa officer' is an asshole, plain and simple. This is 2015, not the 1970s. If India wants to be taken seriously, the GOI needs to stand up for Indian citizens and do some serious butt-kicking here a la Anmol-Paco (AP).

Demand that the tournament be shifted out of the US, and demand that all other sports tournaments scheduled in the US be shifted out. Cancel visas to anyone who has been on a US sports team.

The External Affairs Ministry as usual turn out to be unter-wimps. They should have called the Ambassador on the carpet with a summons, and cancelled visas of a whole bunch of US trade missions, etc etc., telling them bluntly that it is because of boorish behavior by their Embassy, and to go talk to the Ambassador if they want an explanation on why their business is being affected.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 06 Jun 2015 06:00

Looking at recent FeeFA allegations/charges brought on pharein nationals, in the spirit of keeping politics/corruption away from Sports, I can't imagine MEA/Sports authorities let go of this opportunity to highlight the hypocrazy

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 06 Jun 2015 06:46

I think a campaign on mu-ki and teetar is in order. If the story goes viral and there is a campaign to snap sporting links with racist nations, then Mantri-Babu kursi becomes warmer and faces redden in the Paco-Mahal. Desis are too passive in the face of this continued pig-headed imperialist racism, time to change that.

a_bharat · Post by **a_bharat** » 06 Jun 2015 06:49

A_Gupta wrote:"Govt officials head to US to make case for social security deal"
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/J91QX2 ... ity-d.html
Armed with the government’s latest social security measures such as the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana, officials from the ministries of labour and overseas Indian affairs will visit the US later this month to make a case for the long-pending totalization agreement between the two countries.

Individuals working in foreign countries are sometimes forced to pay social security contributions in their home country as well as their country of residence. To avoid such double contributions, countries often enter into so-called totalization agreements. However, despite the large number of Indians working in the US, India and the US do not have such an agreement so far.

India has long been trying to convince the US authorities to sign such a deal, which could help bring back contributions of up to $1.5 billion made by Indians while working in the US even though they were not allowed to avail of that country’s social security benefits.

During President Barack Obama’s visit to India in January, both sides issued a joint statement saying they have agreed to hold discussions on the “elements required in both countries to pursue an India-US Totalization Agreement”.

Anybody knows if this deal covers the social security payments already made, or does it only cover the future payments. People who made SS payments for 40+ quarters are eligible for US SS benefits even if they don't reside in US anymore (this is as of now, may change in future). If the deal goes through, would they transfer such payments to NPS in India?

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 08 Jun 2015 16:09

The Secret History of Indian and African-American Solidarity

http://blackdesisecrethistory.org

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 08 Jun 2015 19:23

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/ ... id=2932555

Carrying signs that read “India out of Sikh homeland” and “10,000 Sikh pilgrims murdered in cold blood,” the marchers’ goal was to bring awareness to the June 6, 1984, storming of the Golden Temple by the Indian army. The march proceeded along Market Street to the Civic Center.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 08 Jun 2015 20:49

Well. Some people do need to leave the Arya homeland. Fortunately Muslims of west Punjab are eager to have these same people back. They will make 1984 look like kindergarten.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 09 Jun 2015 04:24

sanjay,

there is more to this than a march. If I were a little better AND had known ahead of time, I could have poked out some context. Dont have the bandwidth (and increasingly the motivation).

But there ought to be enough readers around in Dera DOO khan to interpret this regardless.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jun 2015 08:15

It is ambiguous, but I hope you are keeping well.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 09 Jun 2015 10:43

Shreeman wrote:sanjay,

there is more to this than a march. If I were a little better AND had known ahead of time, I could have poked out some context. Dont have the bandwidth (and increasingly the motivation).

But there ought to be enough readers around in Dera DOO khan to interpret this regardless.

The khalistanis see an opportunistic and selfish chance, undoubtedly sponsored by friends on the other side of the border to bring the khalistan issue to the fore again.

The mufti govt sees another "innocent" chance to embarrass the Modi Govt in the name of "free speech" and also eat into the BJP votes in the jammu region.

This fiasco for India has paki and ISI written all over it.

All under the cover of Art 370 onlee

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 10 Jun 2015 21:00

Friends,

You may have noticed that there is a deeply-driven current of effort in the US media aimed at "repositioning" Pakistan. There have been a rash of public-domain image-building exercises aimed at restoring faith among the US public that Islamabad is in fact not a terrorist capital, but an unjustly estranged ally of America whose motivations in supporting the Taliban against US troops need to be "understood".

As one example, the Seymour Hersh article which claims that the Paki military and intelligence establishment were cooperating all along in the hunt for Bin Laden, citing former ISI propagandists like Asad Durrani are cited as "reliable sources", has probably been discussed here before:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m- ... -bin-laden

Yesterday on NPR I heard something far more disturbing. Terry Gross, the host of the very popular "Fresh Air" programme, giving space to a Pakistani-American author Nisid Hajari to boost his recent book "Midnight's Furies". This piece of trash provides a blatantly false revisionist narrative of the history of partition that is drawn directly from the grand delusion with which Pakistan justifies its existence as a terrorist Islamic state. It goes on to explicitly link modern day Paki terrorism with the horrible injustices that Muslims of the subcontinent allegedly suffered at the hands of monstrous, fanatical Hindu organizations in those dark days. Cashmere is, of course, repeatedly invoked as the Kore Issue. Direct Action Day is whitewashed in the most innocuous of terms...Noakhali is described as an event that may or may not have ever happened, and Gandhi is blamed for fostering violence by not "questioning the sketchy reports of what happened there"... meanwhile, alleged Hindu atrocities such as the Bihar riots are conveyed as absolute historical fact.

All of this is delivered in the very reasonable-sounding, American-accented tone of voice of Nisid Hajari, with no explicit acknowledgment that his is a 100% Paki RAPE point of view. Terry Gross is entirely complicit in the propaganda delivery, providing unctuous summations of Hajari's most egregious lies in a couple of pat, authoritative sentences that her listeners amongst the American liberal NPR crowd will undoubtedly absorb as the gospel truth.

I reproduce here the entire transcript of this interview. Read it and retch. Then GET ON TWITTER, GET ON THE NPR WEBSITE, and FIGHT BACK.

Mark my words... we are facing a return of the discourse to the Kargil-era days of the SeeEnnEnn wars that Enqyoob and other sages have spoken of in their accounts of antiquity. Do not be complicit in the idea that the Western public now equates Pakistan with terrorism. A major campaign is under way to reverse that impression, and as usual, the favored mechanism is to place the blame on India (now conveniently ruled by a Hindoo-nationalist monster) instead.

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript ... =413121135

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. Mahatma Gandhi became a symbol of peace when he used passive resistance - civil disobedience - in the fight for Indian independence from its British colonial rulers. But Americans know much less about the violence that erupted when the British announced their intention to pull out of India, and Muslim leaders demanded to have at their own state. And all hell broke loose - riots and massacres in which Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs attacked each other.

The 1947 partition that created Pakistan as a separate state, the violence surrounding partition, why those tensions persist today and how they've led to Pakistan's support of extremist groups, including the Taliban, is the subject of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition." My guest is the author Nisid Hajari. He led international coverage at Newsweek for more than a decade as a foreign editor and managing editor and now oversees Asia coverage for Bloomberg View.

Nisid Hajari, welcome to FRESH AIR. Why did you want to write about the partition between India and Pakistan?

NISID HAJARI: Well, I started thinking about this book in 2010. And this was after 10 years of working at Newsweek, where a great part of my job was overseeing our coverage of the war on Afghanistan after 9-11. And I found that a lot of Americans, in particular, didn't quite understand something fundamental about that conflict, which was why did Pakistan, an ostensible U.S. ally on the War on Terror, accept billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. and, at the same, support the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups that were killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan?

And this made more sense to people in the region because it goes back to Pakistan's of strategic worldview, in which India poses the greatest threat to its security and stability. And they support these militant groups in order to gain influence in Afghanistan and block Indian influence there. And this strategic worldview goes that all the way to 1947, to the months just following the independence of both India and Pakistan. And that was the story that I wanted to explain.

GROSS: So before India and Pakistan were partitioned, they were one unit, ruled by the British. They were colonial. And the Hindus and the Muslims were united against British rule. So where there already seeds of animosity, or did that just come to the surface when British rule was coming to an end?

HAJARI: Well, what - there had always been tensions between communities in India, as there are, you know, elsewhere in the world. And there were Hindu - you know, there have been Hindu-Muslim riots throughout history. But they tended to be localized, fairly short-lived and had sort of, you know, immediate provocations - you know, Hindus marching in a religious procession, banging drums and cymbals past the mosque during prayer time and things like that, which would set people off.

What was different about what happened in 1947 was exactly what you said - that people knew that the British were leaving, and there was a fight for power, for control that was about to take place. And that heightened the tensions and the fears and the insecurities, particularly of the minority community, which was the Muslim community in India, which made up about a quarter of the population before independence.

GROSS: So Muhammad Jinnah, who was one of the leaders of the Muslim League, the Muslim contingent in the Congress in India, advocated partitioning. What were the fears he played on about what Muslims would face in a majority Hindu, independent country?

HAJARI: What he was doing was pointing out what would happen in a democratic system if the British left and India remained united. There were - had been elections. The British had held elections and allowed Indians to elect their own representatives to provincial legislatures, so sort of the equivalent of state governments here in the U.S. And, of course, the Indian National Congress Party, which was open to all faiths, not just Hindus, but which was dominated by Hindus because they dominated the population, won these elections.

And what happened naturally was that they then would appoint their colleagues, their supporters to positions within the administration. They controlled the schools, so they controlled the educational curriculum. They oversaw the police, and they gave out jobs and patronage to their own followers. And Muslims could see - particularly, professional Muslims, Muslims who would otherwise have perhaps won of these jobs - could see that they would have very little power in a democratic system, a parliamentary system after independence.

GROSS: And Jinnah was not religious himself?

HAJARI: Not at all. That's actually one of the most interesting things. We think about partition, in a lot of ways, as a religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims. But the leaders on both sides - Jinnah on one side and Nehru on the other - were two of the most secular figures in this whole drama. Both where educated in London, were extremely modern men.

Jinnah drank alcohol. He reportedly ate pork - all these things that Muslims are not supposed to do. He only went to mosque to give political speeches, not to worship. And he also didn't think of Pakistan - he never imagined Pakistan as a religious state. He wanted a state where Muslims would be in a democratic majority and so would be in control of their fate. But any time anyone asked him whether it would be a Muslim theocracy, he would laugh them off. He would say that's absurd, and that's not at all what he was intending.

GROSS: So Gandhi was revered - is revered in India and in many places around the world as fighting for independence from the British through civil disobedience, through nonviolent struggle. And he was an inspiration to Martin Luther King, who took those tactics to the civil rights movement. But you write that he alienated Muslims by introducing religion into the independence movement - in what ways?

HAJARI: Gandhi came back to India in 1915 after spending a couple decades in South Africa. And he - part of his genius was that he was able to broaden out the appeal of the independence movement, which, until that point, had been restricted to fairly wealthy lawyers and landowners and so on who would debate things like percentages in these legislatures in various drawing rooms. But he broadened it out to the masses, but the way he did it was by using Hindu iconography and stories, mythology.

Every evening, he would have a prayer meeting where they would, you know - granted, they would chant Hindu hymns, but also read from the Quran and so forth. He was personally very unprejudiced about this, but his natural background was Hindu. And his audience was almost entirely Hindu, and he, you know, appealed to them in the language that they understood. But for Muslims - ordinary Muslims who would see this and listen to these speeches and so forth - he seemed like a Hindu figure more than a national figure - not all Muslims, of course, but a great many of them.

GROSS: So Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was the leader of the Muslim contingent in the Indian Congress, called for a Direct Action Day, demanding a separate Muslim state. This was in 1946. And after he announced at this, there were riots on that Direct Action Day. Describe a little bit of what happened on that day.

HAJARI: Yes. So the first thing to understand is that Jinnah had never been comfortable with mass popular action. Part of the reason he split with Gandhi and the rest of the independence movement was that he mistrusted this tactic. He was afraid that once leaders riled up ordinary Indians and got them out on the streets, that it would be hard to control the movement. But in 1946, as it was becoming clear that the British were leaving, and he was desperate to bolster his position, he said, you know, that I'm going to call this protest movement out into the street, essentially as a way - as blackmail, as a way to threaten the British and get them to concede his demands.

And so for weeks ahead of time, you know, various Muslim figures around the country, particularly in Kolkata, were issuing these are vague threats - vague, but very menacing-sounding threats about what would happen to Hindus in these Muslim majority areas after independence and so forth. And Hindus in Kolkata were listening to this and feared that there would be violence, and so they armed themselves, as well. And all over the country, actually, there were - there were meetings held on this day, and there was no violence whatsoever. There were just political speeches given, and Jinnah himself very clearly said that's all he wanted. He wanted his followers to go out and make the case for Pakistan, and that's all.

But in Kolkata, which was a very turbulent city, there was - you know, it's a great industrial center. It had been bombed during World War II. People were still semi-traumatized from their experience during the war and at the famine that occurred during the war. And there were lots of leftover weapons lying around that Americans had - soldiers had left behind huge cases of ammunition, so it was a tinderbox. And on that day, the speeches that were given were fairly inflammatory. And some of the Muslim listeners to these speeches went out and started burning and looting in Hindu areas. At the same time, Hindus in different parts of the city were also sort of throwing bricks and stones at Muslim marchers, so it's unclear - it's very hard say exactly how it started or who started it.

GROSS: But both sides behaved violently.

HAJARI: Both sides behaved violently. And what was interesting about these riots - these riots, I should say, were, at the time, the worst riots that had ever happened under British rule in India. They lasted for four days, and anywhere from five to 15,000 people were killed. But the reason they were different from what the British had been expecting was in previous protests and riots, they'd been directed at the British presence - at British official buildings, at British people. That's not what happened here.

And in fact, after the first day or so, you didn't really see Hindus and Muslims fighting each other, either. What you had were mobs going after vulnerable individuals or small groups of people. So if there were a few Hindus living in a Muslim area, the Muslim mobs would go after them, and vice versa. So it was more of a pogrom than a riot, even though riot is the word we always use about it.

GROSS: And the violence was brutal and gruesome.

HAJARI: It was, and that part is a little hard to explain. It's - you know, it may have had something to do with what people had experienced during the war and the sort of - what they had seen, what they had sort of gotten used to. But there were - you know, there's stories of people finding the heads of their servants placed on their desk. Or, you know, there was one story about a butcher who was slicing up meat for a customer and then walked across the street and used the knife to slit the throat of a passerby.

If you look at pictures of these riots, there are bodies piled, you know, up to the second story of buildings. And in places, people said they had to use a respirator just to go to the morgue because the stench was so terrible. It was really - you know, once it got out of control, it devolved very, very quickly. And I think even afterwards, the people who had taken part in it were stunned by what had taken place.

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Nisid Hajari, who's the author of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition." Let's to take a short break, then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is Nisid Hajari, who's the author of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition." And India was partitioned to India and Pakistan in 1947. And the tension and animosity dating back to those days still exists and explains a lot of what's happening in that region now. And Nisid Hajari is with Bloomberg View, where he oversees Asia coverage. He's based in Singapore now. Although Gandhi represented nonviolence, you write that he may have done the most damage at what is normally considered to be his moment of triumph, the waning months of British rule. And you write about how he, during a subsequent period of rioting, accepted what were actually exaggerated claims of violence to be the truth and that that led to more violence. Would you describe what happened?

HAJARI: Yeah. So what happened was, you know, these Calcutta riots took place in August of 1946. And a couple months later, in October, sketchy reports came out of a different part of Bengal Province - a very remote area called Noakhali - and the report suggested that there were huge Muslim mobs roaming across this countryside and massacring the Hindu minority in the area and raping women, forcing people to convert to Islam and so forth. You know, again, this is very remote. Most of this was rumor. It was mostly exaggerated.

But figures within the Congress Party that Gandhi still sort of unofficially led exaggerated these reports and there was talk of, you know, 3 million dead and tens of thousands of Hindu women ravished and so forth. Gandhi, who was in Delhi at the time, you know, very clearly told his followers that - you know, non-not to engage in violence, not to engage in revenge, but he didn't question these reports. He sort of accepted them. And his advice, actually, to the Hindus of Noakhali was to let themselves be killed, and in particularly for the women, he suggested that they commit suicide, that they drink poison rather than allow themselves to be raped.

And this - you know, it's similar to advice he gave to the Jews during World War II, you know, not to fight back, to sort of shame their oppressors by the courage of just standing up and allowing themselves to be killed. But, you know, this translated at ground level into something very different. It inflamed passions among Hindus in the area. And in the province next-door, a province called Bihar, politicians decided to call a day of remembrance for the victims of Noakhali at the end of October, and they gave inflammatory speeches there, and there was talk of revenge and blood for blood. And what happened there was that huge mobs did form in the countryside. And these were Hindu mobs who outnumbered the Muslims, I think about 7 to 1 in the area. And over the next couple weeks, they went through and massacred something like 7,000 Muslims in this province. And, you know, it's hard to hold Gandhi personally responsible for this, but I think he was typical in that the leaders in the national capital - in Delhi, didn't always understand the impact of their words on, you know, peasants in the countryside in a place like Bihar. You know, people just got the impression that Muslims were out there rampaging and killing their brethren, their coreligionists.

GROSS: Did these pogroms, these mass killings and revenge killings basically eliminate the hope of compromise between the Muslims and the Hindus in the Indian Congress?

HAJARI: Not within the Congress per se, but within the country, it made it very difficult. So there was a chain reaction of riots starting in August 1946, exactly one year before independence. Then there was these Noakhali incidents and then these riots in Bihar. And then a few months later in March of 1947, the violence spread to the West to a province called Punjab, which was an especially volatile province because even though Muslims were a majority there, they were a very slight majority. There was a big Hindu community and a big Sikh community. And it was also a very martial province. It had sent a quite a few people to serve in the Indian army, so there were people that were - had military training and had weapons and so forth. And there were riots in March of '47. These riots were in retaliation for the riots in Bihar, so they were Muslims leading the pogroms. And they were directed against the Sikhs, so as these things spread, the feelings between the communities grew more and more bitter. Even, you know, the politicians at the local level would be sort of acting as a demagogues and inspiring these mobs - you know, it wasn't - it wouldn't have been impossible perhaps to still find some political solution at the national level and then hope that with good law enforcement and time that tempers would cool. But it made it extremely, extremely difficult because people were hearing just crazy stories about the sorts of atrocities that were being committed. And what they learned from that was that they could not trust the other community - that if they were a minority in a particular area, they would never be safe.

GROSS: The Sikhs started to clamor for their own homeland since they were a minority even smaller than the Muslim minority. And they were afraid of being divided between the Muslim state and the Hindu state. And in fact, there were riots pertaining to that, where Sikhs wanted to make sure that they were - that their own communities weren't divided in half when the country was partitioned.

HAJARI: Right, exactly. The Sikhs really were the accelerant to the riots in August 1947, which is - when people talk about partition, this is what they're talking about. These are the massive riots that broke out around the time that the British withdrew from India and in which, you know, anywhere from 200,000 to a million people were killed. And the reason they broke out in the Punjab, which is where the new border ran, was because the border split the province in two. And the Sikhs were a small community - about 6 million nationally, but 5 million of them lived in the Punjab - they were split almost in half by this border because they were concentrated in the center of the province and their holy sites and their farms and so on were in this border area.

And they - as you say, because they were such a small community, were particularly fearful of being a minority and there had historic had tensions with Muslims. They, you know, had felt oppressed under Mogul rulers before the British. Then they had taken over the area themselves and ruled for a while and had, you know, allegedly oppressed the Muslim community in the province at that time. So there were, you know, stories about what would happen to them under Muslim rule. There was, you know, a lot of bad blood. And at independence, all sides - as independence was approaching, all sides were forming militias which they claimed were for self-defense. The Sikhs, because so many of them had served in the army, were the best trained and the best armed and the best organized of these militias. And therefore, the rampages that they engaged in were more effective and bloodier and more damaging.

GROSS: My guest is Nisid Hajari, author of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition." After a short break, we'll talk about that legacy, including the tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross, back with Nisid Hajari, author of the new book, "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition." When India's British colonial rulers pulled out, Muslim leaders in India succeeded in breaking away and forming the new state of Pakistan. It ignited religious and ethnic divisions, leading to massacres on both sides of the border. Hajari's book is about the history of Partition and how it explains the continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, and between Pakistan and the U.S. Hajari oversees Asia coverage for Bloomberg View and is former foreign editor and managing editor of Newsweek. So, when Jinnah, the leader of the Muslims in the Indian Congress, was pushing for Partition, the British offered some kind of compromise. What was that compromise?

HAJARI: It was a extremely complicated constitutional compromise that involved a three-part structure. You would have a national government that was fairly weak - it would control defense, foreign affairs and communications, but not much else. Most of the powers would rest with the individual provinces, sort of the equivalent of American states, and then, to satisfy Jinnah's demands, there was a sort of in-between level, whereby the groups of Muslim majority provinces in the Northwest and the Northeast, if they chose to, could form sort of an intermediary government that would have certain powers that the provinces would give to it. And this would be a sort of ersatz Pakistan, so the country would be united, it would have one army, it would have one foreign policy, but Muslims in these areas would have a great deal of autonomy. And it almost worked - Jinnah did accept it at one point.

GROSS: But it didn't work. Jinnah was really worried that if Pakistan did become a separate state, that it would be weak, that it wouldn't have enough resources, it wouldn't have enough power, it wouldn't have a big enough military and that India could easily overpower Pakistan. So, when the final agreement to Partition was reached, did Jinnah feel confident that he had a state that could survive?

HAJARI: He acted confident. It's interesting. It's very hard to read exactly what Jinnah's motivations were because he didn't leave behind very revealing letters, he didn't keep a diary - his papers are all very formal and legalistic. So, you know, it seems like he was demanding a bigger Pakistan - he wanted to include the whole province of Punjab and the whole province of Bengal - up until the very last minute. But this may have just been a bargaining position because once it became clear that he was not going to get that, he accepted very quickly what, you know, the size of the Pakistan that he was going to get, and very confidently said that it would be able to survive and it would have the army that it needed and that it would be fine. And if relations between this new Pakistan and the new India had been friendly, that could've well have been true, you know, these two countries could've shared trade and economic relations, they could've had a common foreign policy - they had more in common with each other than any other two countries in the world at that point in time.

GROSS: The boundary between Pakistan and India was never really fully resolved. There's still tension over that. Two wars were fought over that. How did that happen?

HAJARI: This is the boundary in Kashmir that you're referring to?

GROSS: Yeah.

HAJARI: So, one thing that happened in the Partition - one thing people - a lot of people don't realize - is that only about half of the subcontinent under the British was controlled directly by the British. The other half were kingdoms that were - ostensibly had independent rulers, who had established treaties with the British. And at independence, they were supposed to decide which country they wanted to join - India or Pakistan. And Kashmir, which is up in the Himalayas, so in the northern part of the subcontinent, had a Hindu ruler, but his population was 85 percent Muslim. So both sides believed that it should belong to them. Jinnah assumed that it would naturally become part of Pakistan. Nehru wanted it as part of India. His family was originally from Kashmir. And in order to encourage, I guess you would say, the Maharajah to not join India, some Pakistani officials started a covert plan to get tribesmen from the North-West Frontier to invade Kashmir, and try and drum up a local insurgency that would overthrow the Maharajah and then bring the state into the fold in Pakistan. And that's what started the conflict there between the two sides.

GROSS: And is it still contested in Kashmir?

HAJARI: It is. I mean, if you were a magazine or newspaper, you'd try and show a map of Kashmir that doesn't show all of Kashmir as part of India that, you know, Indian censors will block it out, and, of course, Pakistan claims all of the state, as well. I mean, the problem was that after this invasion took place, the Indians sent troops to repel the invaders and were able to control part of the state but not all of it, and, so, the dividing line right now is about where the two sides ended up in a stalemate in 1948. But, there was supposed to be a vote - a referendum of the people of Kashmir - to ask them which state they wanted to join - India or Pakistan - and that never took place, and that is the sort of bone of contention now, that people have supposedly never been given the right to decide which country they would like to belong to.

GROSS: Here's a question that might sound stupid, but why do India and Pakistan care so much about having Kashmir as part of their state?

HAJARI: It's a matter of - almost pride at this point. I mean, you can make the point that there are, you know, military advantages to controlling the high ground in various areas and so forth, but at this point - well, even at that point in 1947 Kashmir was, as I said, a majority Muslim state. It was very important to Nehru that India be a secular, multiethnic, multi-faith nation...

GROSS: And Nehru became the first prime minister.

HAJARI: Exactly. Exactly. Jawaharlal Nehru was the first prime minster of India and he was a Hindu, but very secular, and his family was originally from the Kashmir. And the idea that a Muslim-majority state, like Kashmir, would voluntarily choose to join India was very important to him. It would validate his idea of how the various communities of the subcontinent could and should live together. For Pakistan's leaders, on the other hand, the idea was that any Muslim-majority area would naturally belong to Pakistan, that the people of the state would have their rights better protected with a Muslim government. So they have always felt that the state was stolen from them.

GROSS: We're talking about the Partition of India into India and Pakistan with Nisid Hajari, who's the author of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy of India's Partition." Let's take a short break, then we'll talk some more. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is Nisid Hajari. He's the author of the new book "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition." And it's about the events leading up to the 1947 partition of India, leading to the creation of two countries - India and Pakistan.

So as you write in the book, a lot of the tensions between India and Pakistan today and a lot of the tensions between America and Pakistan today relate to the partition of India into India and Pakistan. So let's use as an example Pakistan's support of the Afghanistan Taliban. That has led to a lot of trouble in Afghanistan. That has led to an increase in terrorism around that whole region. That has soured relations - that and many other things have soured relations between the U.S. and Pakistan. How does the partition of India and Pakistan relate to Pakistan's support of the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s?

HAJARI: So the Pakistani support for the Taliban had to do with their desire to have an influence in Kabul and to block Indian influence in Afghanistan. Pakistani strategists had this idea of strategic depth, that if they were engaged in a major conflict with India that they would be able to use Afghanistan as a sort of rearguard area to fall back to. And they have a fear of being encircled by Indians, and there's sort of always been rumors that the Indians were trying to gain influence with various Afghan governments and, you know, and that they had spies in Afghanistan and so on. And Afghanistan has never fully agreed to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that creates more tensions. But this fear of Indian encirclement, that's what goes back to partition in 1947. The seeds of that rivalry were planted in these weeks and months of violence and bloodshed, you know, back when both countries were still being born. And they were exacerbated over the years by further conflicts and by various military dictators and politicians and so forth. But the basic pattern was set very quickly. As the smaller, weaker country, this sort of asymmetric strategy of using surrogates to do your fighting for you seems appealing, but it has, you know, very destructive repercussions.

GROSS: Well, the surrogates were largely extremist groups, Islamist extremist groups.

HAJARI: Exactly because to take Kashmir as an example, again, from the very beginning, the struggle there was pitched as almost as a sort of jihad. It was - the idea was to defend the Muslims of Kashmir against their oppressive Hindu king and his allies in the Indian government. And it was a way to rally support and to get volunteers to go fight there. And so the conflict has always been cast in religious terms, even though it's really more of a territorial issue.

GROSS: And that's starting to backfire on Pakistan now, isn't it?

HAJARI: Exactly. And they're starting to realize this now because all these various militant groups - you've got the Afghan Taliban, you've got groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which conducted the 2008 attacks in Mumbai - who have all received some degree of official favor. And then you've got other groups - the Pakistani Taliban -who are fighting the government. And there's no clean division between the two. I mean, these groups are mixed up. They share logistical operations and training and so forth. And this distinction between good Taliban and bad Taliban that the Pakistanis have tried to maintain for decades now is starting to fall apart. And they're starting to realize that all militant groups are responsible for creating instability within Pakistan itself.

GROSS: And enabling these extremist terrorist groups has also really hurt the United States's relationship with Pakistan, even though we armed Pakistan against the Soviets in the '80s. So just - can you discuss a little bit how the U.S. relationship with Pakistan has been undermined by the aftermath of the partition?

HAJARI: It's - you know, it's interesting, Pakistan always knew - even Jinnah, you know, the first leader of Pakistan, knew that in order for it to survive and for it to compete against India, it would need strong friends. And so he tried back then to pitch Pakistan as an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War against the Soviets, which was just then getting under way. And at the time, the Americans favored India and didn't really respond. But, you know, not that long afterwards - and, you know, by the 1950s, when there was more of a fear of Soviet influence spreading within Asia, this appeal worked. And the Pakistanis have ever since then always used this idea, whether the enemy is - was the Soviets, which, you know, was true up through the Afghanistan war in the '80s, or since then - whether it's the al-Qaida and other militant groups in the area, the idea has always been that you must support us, you must arm our military and we will do your fighting for you here and prevent these threats from reaching you in the homeland. So it's an appealing argument to some, but the Pakistanis have always known - or always considered India to be their main threat. And a lot of the weaponry and so forth that they have procured from the Americans has been designed to counter India as a rival.

GROSS: And one of the reasons why Pakistan hasn't been exactly the partner that the U.S. has hoped for is that a lot of Pakistan's troops are on the border with India because it perceives India as the major threat, not Islamist terrorism.

HAJARI: Yes, exactly. That's starting to change now. They - you know, Pakistani troops have launched an assault on militant strongholds on the other side of the country. And they're now saying that they understand that India's not their main threat, that these militant groups are. It remains to be seen whether that will really be true and how long it will hold for, but it's possible. I mean, I think the Pakistanis now have a friendlier government in Kabul that they seem to trust more. And they're being pressured by China as well to get a grip on this militant problem because the Chinese themselves are worried about violence spreading out of Pakistan and Afghanistan into western areas in China. So this dynamic may be changing for the better, but it's still pretty early to tell.

GROSS: Well, Nisid Hajari, thank you very much for talking with us.

HAJARI: Thank you for having me.

GROSS: Nisid Hajari is the author of the new book, "Midnight's Furies: The Deadly Legacy Of India's Partition."

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 13 Jun 2015 01:45

A Deshmukh wrote:Development is slow and limited, as most of the items are restricted.
Things that can be used on LCA, cannot be openly used on Rustom.

What do you mean by limited development ??? The Rustom is almost ready to be flown so whatever restricted items there was have either been developed or solutions have been worked around.

I guess you are pointing to the actuator case with Rustom for which I squarely blame DRDO for being a dumbass and trying to cut development time by slacking on the job which ultimately lead to the delay they were trying to cut down. I hope MoD makes it crystal clear to DRDO that no such adventurism takes place in the future. They have developed the necessary actuator, so that isn't going to be an issue in the future.

A Deshmukh wrote:My point being, we usually associate MTCR with missiles.
We are getting to being self sufficient on missiles.

But we may need entry to catch up on UAVs.

What catchup ??? The only top dog in UAV is Murica and we ain't facing Murica in any war in the near future nor are they selling their top of the line UAV's to any of our neighbours, you are merely trying to bankroll on unfounded fears to sell MTCR. We must focus on indigenous programmes and in due time we will "catch up" just like in the case of missiles.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Jun 2015 02:11

^^
Rudradev ji,

I agree that we are slowly returning back to pre-9/11 times in multiple spheres, be it Pakistan or Afghanistan and even ME.

In earlier yuga moha-madaasura used agneyastra against tarakaasurabhavans. Perhaps we would see brahmastraprayoga in this yuga?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 13 Jun 2015 05:37

The Rebalance Within Asia: The Evolution of Japan-India Relations and Japan wants to mediate between India and US
Japan and India are the two largest democracies in the most populous and dynamic region in the world. Both countries are also facing the challenge of dealing with rapidly changing security as well as economic realities. While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has looked increasingly toward greater multilateral cooperation to ensure regional stability, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking to develop closer ties in East Asia through Japan. Japan and India share many common concerns, including the prospect of accommodating China's rise and broader changes in regional geopolitics, as well as meeting energy needs and ensuring continued economic growth. Join us in a discussion about prospects for a strategic partnership between the two countries and how closer ties will impact relations with their neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region.