Obama's Regional Strategy and India

Re: # 125
I do respond to the substance of such reports in addition to questioning their credibility by offering data. For example, look at my criticism of Zakaria and how I debunked his claim that India is "stable, peaceful and prosperous" by showing you what was actually happening in India when he said this.

Mishra probably didn't even look at the substance of report and simply dismissed it without explaining.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

#124
Gee whiz,
you dismiss reports that don't suit you as "Jewish dominated Western media" or "Muslim puppets who tell the West what they want to hear (to make money)" or "they have no credibility with me"?!

fancy you accusing mishra about the same thing...when you point to bigotry & hypocrisy on Chowk, look at yourself in the mirror, for a change.

Re: # 123
You are the loser here! Look at the content and see if you can rebut any of it. I bet you can't! So you use the convenient response of attacking the source.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

"www.panthic.org" - this is your source for human rights?

a bunch of machine gun wielding murderers - people who have murdered hundreds of innocent civilians.

Whats next? The chinese govt will comment on Tibet? The nazis will comment on jews?

What a loser you are..

Re: # 116
You want to know India's human rights record? Here's something to chew on:

India's Human Rights Record: Myths and Reality Exposed

India's Solicitor General reacted angrily to repeated assertions made at the UN in Geneva that Indian armed forces have carried out human rights violations with impunity, calling them "totally off the mark". Given the largely ritualistic diplomatic niceties of the occasion - India's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under the new Human Rights Council procedures held at the UN in Geneva on 10 April 2008 - this was a conspicuously odd reaction which brought laughter from journalists and NGO representatives who sat in on the session.

Indeed there was a series of grave human rights issues raised by a number of states in the three hour session which saw the Indian delegation having to respond in what most observers saw as a shameless attempt to hide India's appalling human rights record behind the spin of claiming complete constitutional and legal safeguards which it protect the vulnerable. In essence it was the stark difference between the theoretical legal position and the actuality of systematic abuses and impunity that will characterise the world's assessment of India's human rights situation.

Attacks on Minorities

Many states, especially the USA and the UK, asked what India was doing to stop attacks against religious minorities. Whether Muslims, Sikhs or Christians there have been numerous mass attacks on them in contemporary India where the state has been at best complicit in the abuses if not directly responsible for them. India's unwillingness to punish the guilty remains a serious problem which has been noted by the international community. India's own written submission to the UPR makes not a single reference to the anti-Sikh pogroms of November 1984 in which 10,000 Sikhs were killed in three days of genocide, the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat or the recent attacks on Christians in Orissa, despite official findings by formal government enquiries that cited the involvement of government officials in the mass killings of Sikhs in 1984 and Muslims in 1993 respectively. The very same submission claims "India's approach towards protection and promotion of human rights has been characterised by a holistic, multi-pronged effort" which is based on a constitution in which "fundamental freedoms are guaranteed without discrimination to all citizens".

In relation to abuses (primarily systematic extra-judicial killings and secret cremations) against the Sikhs in Punjab, Human Rights Watch's formal submission to the UPR called for the guilty to be punished and condemned the policy of impunity. It noted how India's National Human Rights Commission has refused to order an investigation in to the killings and has restricted its interest to whether "proper procedures were not followed by state authorities in cremating unidentified bodies". India's representatives offered no response to the NGO's call for action.

Use of Torture, Extra-judicial Killings and Impunity

Several states questioned why India - some 11 years after India signed the UN Conventional Against Torture it has still not managed to ratify the treaty or agree to be bound by the terms of its Optional Protocol. New Delhi's representative prompted derision when she asserted that ratification was being "actively pursued" by the Government of India. The widespread use of torture in India was glossed over by India's delegation even though the UN is fully aware of India's refusal to agree formal requests by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in 1993 and 2007 to visit India. India has also not agreed to formal requests made in 2000, 2005 and 2006 by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. In a blatant mis-representation of the position, India's Solicitor-General intervened to claim that India had in fact acceded to every request made by UN Special Rapporteurs.

The significance of India's approach to the use of killings and torture should not be lost on anyone. Human Rights Watch, in its submission to the UPR noted that "security forces in India have been responsible for abuses such as extra-judicial killings, disappearances and torture, especially in Punjab and Nagaland in the 1980s, and currently in Jummu and Kashmir, Assam and Manipur, and in states where there is a Maoist insurgency". They further state that "impunity is a major problem in India; serious crimes perpetuated by security forces are rarely investigated or prosecuted".

Religious and Caste Discrimination

India's representatives, without embarrassment, stated that India does not see caste discrimination as racism when confronted with widespread criticism of systematic caste-based discrimination in India.

When the US representative spoke of evidence of restrictions on freedom of conscience, they retorded that freedom of religion was a pillar of the Indian Constitution. Unsurprisingly they made no reference to the decades-long opposition of Jains and Sikhs (who refused to accept the document when adopted in 1950 and ever since) to their being classed as Hindus in Article 25 of the Constitution. Explaining the rationale for this provision, India's Supreme Court declared in a judgement in 2005 as follows:

"The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies. In various codified customary laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and other laws of pre and post- Constitution period, definition of 'Hindu' included all sects, sub-sects of Hindu religions including Sikhs and Jains. "

Denial of Self-Determination: State Policy in defiance of the UN Covenants

India's submission made repeated reference to "internal" conflicts as purely law and order (and terrorism) concerns, without addressing the underlying causes of those conflicts. It offered nothing in terms of responding to the UN's earlier recommendations that it establish political dialogue with the minorities involved. The UN Human Rights Committee, a separate body which monitors the compliance of states with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has suggested dialogue but there has not been any.

India has in fact taken the opposite approach based on a 'Reservation' it made when acceding to the ICCPR to the effect that the right of self-determination of peoples and nations (Article 1 and a foundation of the ICCPR) is not considered to be applicable to India. The UN Human Rights Committee, which has stated that self-determination is a human right the denial of which leaves other rights susceptible to open abuse, in 1997 formally requested India to withdraw that 'Reservation' but it has failed to do so. In fact, India's latest formal report to that Committee was due in 2001 and still has not yet been submitted. Sikhs, Kashmiris, Nagas, Assamese, Manipuris, Bodos and other national groups can draw their own conclusions for what this attitude means for them.

A Challenge to the UN

The UN's recommendation that India's notorious Armed Forces Special Forces Act, (which effectively guarantees impunity by stipulating that central government permission is needed before security personnel can be prosecuted for abuses) be repealed was raised by a number of states including the UK, Canada, Germany. India's delegation rejected the move by insisting that the draconian provisions of the Act were sanctioned by India's Supreme Court and that the international community need not be concerned as all members of the armed forces are given lessons in how to conduct themselves! That response perhaps epitomised a session which saw many in the human rights community question the effectiveness of the new UPR procedure which apparently allows violators of human rights to simply hide behind rhetoric and falsehoods. It will be a challenge for the UN to redress the balance between victims and perpetrators of state terrorism within its review processes.

Sikh Reaction

The UPR session was attended by Sikhs from the Council of Khalistan and Dal Khalsa International who took the opportunity to brief journalists and a number of NGOs about the reality of the humanitarian situation in India, whether in terms of collective or individual human rights. They also met with a representative of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and urged the UN to take concrete steps to hold India account for its past as well as its continuing violations. Amrik Singh Sahota, OBE deplored India's brazen contempt for human rights and said that the international community would not be fooled by India' s preposterous claims made at the UPR. Manmohan Singh Khalsa expressed satisfaction at seeing India's representatives have to squirm in front of the world's representatives in their futile attempt to hide the record of a state which has become an acknowledged serial violator of human rights. India's representatives had ironically reminded decision makers why it was not only inappropriate but also dangerous to entertain India's claims to a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

http://www.panthic.org/news/124/ARTICLE/4044/2008-04-25.html
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Pew#120:

This is why I said "close" scrutiny. This is true of not only Pakistan but all aids given by USAID, CIDA and other national or international aid agencies. All were subject to certain conditions, but the fact is that close monitoring can be done only by the domestic agencies, otherwise Africa would be a developed continent by now.

Re: # 117 Dost

Verification procedures can be written into law - this is routinely done in arms control treaties. If there is a will, there is a way.

#116 Posted by Miramax on June 16, 2009 2:52:18 am
Re: # 113
Indian army never used Helicopter gunships or fighter jets on Kashmiri people. Elections were held more regularly than Pakistan ( not POK ) and generally people participated inspite of boycott calls by self styled hurriyat. A few incidents here and there cannot be allowed to compare it with what happened in East pakistan.Minorites enjoy equal rights and have reached the highest executive posts in India.
..................

Just replace India with Iran .So Obama's strategy is adversarial toward both by that account .

nkg#109:

I have not suggested that the travel advisory will have a huge effect. I merely interpret it as another indicator of the changed stance of the US policy. Travel to India would be more affected if there is another Mumbai type attack or unrest in India for other reason.

Pew#107:
"in his recent Pak aid bill, he has added accountability strings that Bush did not."

Obama should know, if he doesn't, that Pakistan is a sovereign country and, once the funds have been handed over, it is mostly outside the close scrutiny of the US Office of the Accountant General. Once again, the details of how the funds are spent will be known much later by investigative journalists, both Pakistani and foreigners. It is quite evident that Obama has chosen to ignore the past experience that almost all of the aid provided to Pakistan went to the army and most of it was spent for procuring weapons against India. This can change only if the civilian government establishes supremacy over military in Pakistan and not because the US doesn't like it.

Re: # 113
Indian army never used Helicopter gunships or fighter jets on Kashmiri people. Elections were held more regularly than Pakistan ( not POK ) and generally people participated inspite of boycott calls by self styled hurriyat. A few incidents here and there cannot be allowed to compare it with what happened in East pakistan.Minorites enjoy equal rights and have reached the highest executive posts in India.
Your effort to rebuff harish_hyd post was ridiculous and unconvincing although I know for sure that you respond very intelligently on other occasions.

Re: # 110 Tahmed

Agreed and as Dost points out, Indians would be naive to expect that Obama view Pakistan as Indians do. US-Pak do not have a territorial dispute that India-Pak do.

#113 by tahmed32

so...you know that in a few months in 1971 when it already had its hands full fighting overwhelming odds the Pakistan army caried "one of the worst massacres second only to the holocaust"!! even more than what India has done with 700,000 troops occupying Kashmir over several decades.

And you also know that the motives behind this was " because they were a shade darker than you."

It is not me, it is those who were witness to the massacre who say so. Paki soldiers told the women they raped that they were actually doing public service and guess what that service was? Improving the gene pool so that future generations were fairer in color. Are you really unaware of the facts or are you just pretending? If it is the former, do let me know; I will be happy to supply references.

Israel has occupied Palestine for almost 60 years and the Indian army is in Kashmir since the outbreak of the insurgency in 1989, yet neither army has carried out such gruesome acts as the Pakistan army has done.

and you also think that "Mob attacks in India happen because there are sizeable minorities."!!

Don't tell me there is no mob violence in Pakistan; only, it is Muslim against Muslim. Just a few days back, there was one in Karachi where Pushtuns and Mohajirs battled each other and several dozen people were killed. And isn't it a fact that most minorities have either converted to escape persecution or have been physically eliminated. Just the other day, the Taliban asked Sikhs in the tribal areas to cough up Jiziya. Are you unaware of this?

#112 so...you know that in a few months in 1971 when it already had its hands full fighting overwhelming odds the Pakistan army caried "one of the worst massacres second only to the holocaust"!! even more than what India has done with 700,000 troops occupying Kashmir over several decades.

And you also know that the motives behind this was " because they were a shade darker than you."

and you also think that "Mob attacks in India happen because there are sizeable minorities."!!

Give me a break.

#111 by tahmed32

Why am I not surprised? You will hem and haw, hop and skip but never ever address the fact that your army (is it because your dad belonged to it too?) carried out one of the worst massacres, second perhaps only to the holocaust, and that too of fellow Muslims, all because they were a shade darker than you.

Mob attacks in India happen because there are sizeable minorities. Unlike you, we have not eliminated or converted them to our religion. So next time you bring it up, please understand that mob attacks don't happen in Pakistan because you don't need mobs.

which is the only country in the world that is disappointed when someone speaks respectfully of Islam and muslims?

There is a reason why people ridicule you. I read through that board and you (and only you!) completely got it wrong. Truly, you've lost your marbles to have read it differently from everyone else.

harish: quiz for you

1. which is the only country in the world where mobs are formed to attack those belonging to a minority religion?

2. which is the only country in the world that is disappointed when someone speaks respectfully of Islam and muslims?

let me spell it for you: I N D I A

Pew Research: My point was that Obama does not see the India-Pakistan situation the same way the Indians would like him to see it.

DM...
I am not sure, how this travel advisory may effect on India...Once the GE,Intel,IBM,HP, Oracle,Boeing etc, decides that India is safe country, the Govt. advisory makes not much dufference...I am seeing students from US university visiting our campus in Bangalore...

#103 by RiazHaq

That obviously creates problems for Bush allies like Israel and India, who have been getting away with murder of innocent Muslims for too long under the cover of "war on terror".

OK, quiz time. Let's see if Riaz mian can answer this.

1. Which "Muslim" country has the unique distinction of killing more of its own citizens than any other country? Clue: the killings happened to the east of India.
2. Which is the only "Muslim" country in the whole wide world to be using helicopter gunships against its own citizens who happens to be Muslim too? Clue: that country happens to be to the west of India.

Since Pakis are not all that great at either General Knowledge or accepting facts, here's the answer: P A K I S T A N.

Morons!

Re: # 98 Tahmed

"...Tell that to Obama..."

I don't understand what your point is. Obama, in fact, has outdone India and George Bush when it comes to focusing on the Afghan war. During his election campaign he dared Bush to increase the heat on Pakistan and in his recent Pak aid bill, he has added accountability strings that Bush did not. Further, he has personally approved the strategy of increased drone attacks in NWFP despite Pakistani protests.

Re: # 105
I think the tide has begun to turn against the Taliban because of the popular support for Pak military ops in north west. I see that both the civilian and military leadership are now taking a much tougher line against the Talibs that will begin to show results in future. But it's not going to be quick or easy.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 103RiazHaq saab,I agree but pushing Taliban from Afghanistan to FATA will not solve the problem either,they need to crush Taliban both in Pakistan(FATA) and Afghanistan.India sat on former Soviet Union lap for decades and I don't think India is important tool for Washington.
http://pukhtunkhwatimes.blogspot.com/

India is a separate country from the USA. Each has its foreign policies tailored to its own national interests. There is no reason for the USA to be singing the praises of India and vice-versa.

USA has virtually no leverage over India on Kashmir, even if it wanted to exert it. I think the USA is well aware of it. Plus there is little to be gained from Pakistan by trying to be "tough" toward India -- the Pakistani khakis are already doing the US bidding and the Pakistani public appears to be irretrievably lost to the US. If at all the US does anything along those lines, it will merely reflect the immaturity (Milliband style) of a greenhorn administration -- but they are quick learners -- so will likely correct themselves quickly (anybody remember how "Af-Pak" was coined and "India" dropped from Holbrooke's portfolio?)

Re: # 97
It seems to me that Obama and the Americans are getting wiser about "war on terror". They are developing a more subtle, nuanced understanding of it after denouncing almost all violence as "terrorism" since 911. That obviously creates problems for Bush allies like Israel and India, who have been getting away with murder of innocent Muslims for too long under the cover of "war on terror".
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 94masadi u r a frustrated psycho man,u could not afford education in US that why u r cant shut ur mouth.

masadi opened his filthy mouth again.ignorant is back on chowk.

sri ram pmishra: life is tough for you hindus. first you get ruled for 1000 years by anyone with time to spare and drop by the subcontinent. and now no one buys your "islam is evil" card either.

#97

You forgot to mention "root cause" - as in "it doesnt matter 100s were killed in Mumbai, we should first consider the root cause". Meaning - violent terrorism is OK if we can find some justification or the other for it.

Strangely, now that 100s are being killed in pakistan, no one is interested in the "root cause". They just want to get rid of the murderers. Similarly situation in Saudi Arabia, once suicide attacks became common, they stopped their bakwaas about "root cause".

Pew Research: Tell that to the Obama. Maybe he will make a speech denouncing Pakistan as a terrorist state.

Re: # 95 Tahmed

"...if attacks on the indian parliament are a fact, then the illegal takeover of kashmir by india is a fact too..."

Aha! There we have it - a justification for the use of terror as an instrument of state policy to advance political interests! Shahbash!

dost mittar: and while you may not mention obama's speech - the fact is that before obama made the speech indians (not you) were falling over one another naming indian names among obama's advisers. and after the speech, they are all referring to the "disappointment" that obama has proved to be for them (the statement that you quoted approvingly in #58).

what i find disgusting is this indian attitude where even a statesmanlike speech like obama's Cairo's speech which was geared to promote peace around the world is received by indians with cries of agony simply because it is respectful of islam and islamic history and muslims!!

dost mittar #93 you keep presenting your viewpoint as "facts". fine. if attacks on the indian parliament are a fact, then the illegal takeover of kashmir by india is a fact too. present that - and you will see the picture the way the world sees it. not the way indians would like the world to see it.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

tahmed32#89:

"And my original question (why Obama's respectful and conciliatory speech with muslims has caused so much agony to Indians) was raised in response to what you wrote in #58 even if you dont mention it in the article."

Post#58 did not make any reference whatsoever to the Obama speech to muslims, but who am I to prevent you from reading whatever you want to in a post?

I am sorry to say that you have neither understood the article nor its viewpoint. The article just presents the world 'as is' not what it should be. It does not lament the fact that the Obama doesn't see the world the way Indians do, it simply interates the fact. If you go the last para, which summarises my view, you would notice that, far from lamenting, I am suggesting that this should not have much effect on India.

#91 re-iterating the usual indian line makes you feel better about your miserable self. it doesnt change anything i wrote.

re: 90

Again we have a paki who thinks that islam = pakistan. Indians hate Pakistan because of the terrorism emanating from there. Indians do not "hate muslims", and certainly have better relations with the arab and persian worlds than pakis might be deluded into believing. As a matter of fact, Indians don't even give a crap of what goes on in that muslim world at large. They only care about pakistan because of the violent india-tyargeted jihadi infested cesspool it is. Even the afghans hate the pakis and love the indians as opinion poll after poll there shows. So, no, it's only YOU. Don't flatter yourself by extrapolation!

As far as Obama's "change" goes, it is a small change as the article itself points out. Given that the west and pkaistan has been unable to do anything to india when they were in a much stronger position 20-50 years ago, it is laughable that an irritating word or phrase here and there by the new administration will change the ground reality today when India is 10 times stronger and richer. In any case, the real test will be isreal and how the big O manages to rein them in.

dost mittar: I read your article - if I might summarize this you are basically expressing regret at the fact that Obama does not share your (and presumably the majority of indians who think about politics) worldview (india's victimization by cross-border terrorists from pakistan, india's rivalry with china). But..what you are sayin in this article is exactly what I have been saying past 10 years as one indian after another has tried to equate the indian viewpoint with that of the civilized world (with Arjun getting the gold medal for effort by equating drones as "paki-whackers" - even as time has shown that in fact the "paki-whackers" were the ones getting targetted by the drones).

So, perhaps Obama's speech should serve as a good wake up call for Indians - the world does not see Islam or muslims as being an evil the way you do in India. And the whole world does not think that insulting and ridiculing any people (muslims in this case) or religion (Islam in this case) is the mark of the civilized nation that so many Indians presume themselves to be.

And my original question (why Obama's respectful and conciliatory speech with muslims has caused so much agony to Indians) was raised in response to what you wrote in #58 even if you dont mention it in the article.

pmishra#85:

You may be reading too much into what someone said. I read the article which says that there are not too many Indians in Egypt and most of them are temporary residents; so they would have no motivation to build a temple.

Maharana:

Even the negative you mention is not a negative in my opinion. If the Indians are under the illusion that the US or any other power would look after their security interests, the sooner they get rid of that notion, the better it is.

Re: # 86

Something about intellectual.they can dig silver linings like a rabbit off a hat .There was huge thing about including Sonal Shah .Then eveytime Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general or whatever was to be inObama Team all felt there muscle pumping harder .Are you for Obama or Against him?????

Dost,
Good summary of the recent Indo-American turn of events.

Overall I believe it is good for India that we're not a focus of powers like US. It gives us the space to mold and shape our destiny without interference. It also allows us to continue on a path of self reliant econmoic, social, political paths. The only undesirable in this scenario is the inability of India to take care of its own security threats. We seem to be relying just on the US pressure in the region without having to make any efforts of our own. Either way, that scenario should change and India should become a little more self reliant there also.

Adios

#57 dost_mittar

So why isnt there a hindu temple in Egypt? Why do the hindu expats say things like "as long you keep religion private its OK"?

Lets get over this dhimmitude, yaar, you know very well that these annoying hindus always want gazillion temples wherever they go. And its absence in Egypt has meaning for me at least.

Vijay Prashad and Riaz Haq ! Two india-haters together - one a marxist theoretician and other a paki ultra-nationalist.

Its a match made in heaven. Where should I send the wedding announcement to?

Re: # 81

'being alive' and 'doing' something about it are two different animals

correction to #80:

"Mr Raman says in the excerpt that Pakistan sees India through Pakistani eyes" should read "Mr Raman says in the excerpt that Obama sees India through Pakistani eyes"

Pew_Research#79:

The Obama administration is quite alive to the ISI-Taleban nexus. Even now, the administration envoys have not given a clean chit to the Pakistanis on the agencies' link to the taleban. However, they have forced the Pakistani army to move against the insurgents. What happens next is anyone's guess.

tahmed32#75:

This is what happens when you read interacts only and not the article.

Obama has not disappointed me but he has disappointed those Indians who expected him to be tough on Pakistan. Mr Raman says in the excerpt that Pakistan sees India through Pakistani eyes; this is similar to what I said in the article that Obama agrees with those Pakistanis who see a strong link between extremism in Pakistan and Kashmir.

As for the Cairo speech, Indians have applauded the speech. The only sour note that I have seen has come from the prominent Muslim journalist M.J.Akbar and his beef is that he Obama seemed to equate the Arab world with the Muslim world.

Re: # 76 Dost

"...I think that his regional approach makes a lot of sense from the US point of view..."

Ah yes - like the previous approach of not listening to India's several warnings about the cultivation of Taliban by the ISI in the 1990s. The warnings did not hit home until 2001 (pun not intended).

Re: # 74 Tahmed

"...obama's speech was about .....The Barack Obama Administration has been a disappointment. .."

Ah! I think I now understand your issue: You believe that B Raman was responding to Obama's Cairo speech. He was not!

Re: # 72 Tahmed

I have not been following every Chowkie Indian's reaction to Obama's Cairo speech, but I am fairly certain that it has not evoked any 'disappointment' in Indian media or government. I don't think that India's govt. has any problem with any portion of Obama's Cairo speech. I don't know what the basis of your concern is.

Pew#64:

I am actually not criticizing Obama's AfPak policy. I think that his regional approach makes a lot of sense from the US point of view. He probably views it also best for India, if the Indians had gone along with his approach. However, his approach would require more flexibility by Indians on Kashmir than they have shown.

I personally have also stood for greater flexibility on the Kashmir issue. However, since Indians are unwilling to do so, they have to accept the consequences of not cooperating with Obama's strategy.

dost mittar: the statement in #58 you cut and paste as being in agreement with your article, as I already indicated:

"Security analyst B. Raman, seems to agree with this article;[http://www.rediff.com/news/column/2009/jun/15/raman-foreign-policy-prio rities-for-the-new-government.htm];

Excerpts:

"..The Barack Obama Administration has been a disappointment."

Dash_dot #63 obama's speech was about the muslim world and about Islam - not about just Pakistan (which was mentioned only in passing).

tahmed#70:

"you avoided my question ("why are you all hopping around like burnt pakoras?")."

To respond to your question, I would need to know which particular statement of mine are you referring to?

pewresearch: please dont try to deflect away from the fact that it was after obama's speech that indians have suddenly been "disappointed" with him.

madani sahib (if reading this) to please note use of "what goes it" in rhetorical fashion, per the madani style of writing.

Dost Mittar: you avoided my question ("why are you all hopping around like burnt pakoras?"). what goes it of you indians if Obama makes a positive speech towards muslims?? thanks in advance for your response.

Re: # 68
But these things change, as they have in the past. So Israel maintains relations with both Congress and BJP to hedge its bets. In practical terms, though, there has been no difference between Congress and BJP as far as relations with Israel are concerned. The Israeli army chief visited Kashmir LOC last year while Manmohan Singh was prime minister. Israeli military sales and training to India have dramatically increased under Congress in the last five years.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Riaz:

Hindu nationalists are not in charge of the Indian foreign policy, nor are the Marxist friends of Vijay Prasad. Both have been roundly defeated in the recent elections.

Re: # 54
As long as India and Israel have close relations on military cooperation and continue trade, I think the Israeli lobby will be happy. Besides, the Zionists see common cause with the Hindutva groups in India in their common hatred of Muslims described by them as fight against "Islamic Terrorism".

Writing for Counterpunch website, South Asia scholar Vijay Prasad found evidence suggesting close collaboration between Indian and Jewish lobbies in Washington. Prasad wrote as follows: "To prepare for the January 27 day of action, the Task Force released its “information document.� The primary author of the document is the US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), a group founded in the aftermath of 911 with the close support and encouragement of the American Jewish Committee (AJCommittee) and the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). At a meeting of Jewish American and Indian American partisans of the right, Charles Brooks of the AJCommittee said, “We’re fighting the same extremist enemy. We want to help [the new Indian group] become more effective in communicating their political will.� Who is this “enemy�? Sue Ghosh Stricklett, who was then with USINPAC, told a conservative publication in 2003, “the terrorism directed against India is the same as that directed against the United States and Israel. We would like to see closer ties between the United States and Israel [with India].� Stricklett urges this alliance to deal with what these organizations often call “Islamic militancy� or “Islamic extremism,� or what the late Congressman Tom Lantos called it at an Indo-Jewish forum, “mindless, vicious, fanatic Islamic terrorism.� The USINPAC document on the Mumbai attacks argues, “We believe the problem of Islamic terrorism is global and requires an urgent global approach and solution.�
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

tahmed#62:

"all he did was show respect and appreciation for islam and a desire to rebuild US relations with the muslim countries."

Please read the article. Yes, that desire of Obama is commendable, especially since your former hero Bush had done havoc with that relationship. India has 150 million Muslims and they too have been affected by the negative stereotyping of Muslims in the US. There are a few Bollywood films being made on that subject, one starring Shahrukh Khan.

Pew_Research#64:

Don't be harsh on tahmed saheb. He has probably not read the article.

Re: # 62 Tahmed

You are mixing two separate issues here: (a) US Admin's policy towards AfPak/India, and (b) Obama's overture to the Muslim world (Cairo speech). Dost is referring to (a), not (b).

You seem to be incorrectly perceiving Dost's criticism of (b)

Re: # 60 Tahmed32 - a small correction - not deep rooted spite towards islam - but deep-seated dislike for what the State of pakistan stands for and does in the name of Islam.

Its as if, Pakistan is the only state which really understands islam - and everyone else are a bunch of duffers!

#61 obama never stopped india from building themselves economically. all he did was show respect and appreciation for islam and a desire to rebuild US relations with the muslim countries.

so whats the problem with you indians? why are you all hopping around like burnt pakoras?

tahmed32:

Obama is not a disappointment for the US and that is his job. It is not for Obama to look after the Indian interests but for Indians to do it themselves. And the Indian interests lie in building themselves up economically with the same singlemindedness that the Chinese did.

dost mittar: but seriously - do you people seriously expect the rest of the world to bear the same deep-rooted spite towards Islam as you people do?

"The Barack Obama Administration has been a disappointment."

alas! if only the lord gave indians the gift,
to see themselves
as others see them...they would not be so disappointed..

Security analyst B. Raman, seems to agree with this article;[http://www.rediff.com/news/column/2009/jun/15/raman-foreign-policy-prio rities-for-the-new-government.htm];

Excerpts:

"The Barack Obama [ Images ] Administration has been a disappointment. As pointed out by Robert Blackwill, the former US Ambassador [ Images ] to India, it has been looking at India through Pakistani eyes. At the same time, I would add as my personal view that it has been consciously avoiding looking at Pakistan through Indian eyes. It has been interested only in providing more and more incentives to Pakistan with no disincentives. Its only interest in India is in having political influence to be able to prevent us from retaliating against Pakistan for its acts of terrorism in Indian territory. This policy will act as a speed-breaker in taking any new initiatives for further strengthening Indo-US relations. Despite this, we should be open to all new ideas coming from the US provided those ideas are not detrimental to our national interests."

pmishra2:

Egypt does not have a sharia law and I don't think that there is any restriction on building a temple there.
I can confirm on the basis of personal experience that Egyptians are quite friendly towards Indians. There is a lot common between them and us and Cairo feels a lot like Bombay. They also swindle tourists like we do.

ahmedmadani#47:

Your unique insights are always welcome. While Pakistanis may have to wait for some time to get Kashmir, here is a gift for you from a Kashmiri Pandit. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=shiv+kumar+santoo r

anil#45:

The naxal issue is very important, more important in the long run than the Kashmir issue. So far, they are active in mainly tribal villages but they do have bigger plans. The Indians have to adopt a dual policy, address the social issues which are the root cause of the support for rebels and at the same time provide security to the common people in the villages; as of now, even the police does not feel safe at night in these areas.

Riaz#44:

The jewish lobby and Indians were on the same side when the Iran issue went to the UN. But will they support Indians if they change their stance on Iran which,I think, they will now that the nuclear deal is done?

Sad to see the disease of intolerance afflict even cultures like Egypt - just shows how the hatefilled influence of islamo-supremacy is present in every islamic nation.

Until the OIC debates it openly, we should declare them a group of racist and hatemongering states.

[quote]
“There is no religious conflict because our religious practices are not manifested in the public sphere,� Pillai says. “In Egypt, there is no Hindu temple, and [even if] we had one, I do not believe there would be trouble.�
[quote]

from -
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=8517

Re: # 48
"This allows India to continue to enjoy the benefits of trade with and remittances from the Arab world. "

Actually, Arab land is full of financial and other mafias - just a typical Islami habit.

It is time we stopped all these so called "benefits of trade" which means under invoicing, over invoicing and money laundering.

India would do better without any such corrupt services being offered by the worthless Arabian sheikhs!!

the mullah and Jernail suckers would be set right once both the mullahs and the jernails are punished for their crimes!!

Riaz babu,

This allows India to continue to enjoy the benefits of trade with and remittances from the Arab world.

Arabs employ Indian menial labour not becuase they love Indians but becuase they need cheap labour and Indians provide just that. Similarly they trade with Indians becuase Indians need the oil which Arabs can provide and in turn can provide some consumer goods and foodstuff which the Arabs need.

And as Harishbhai points out India may not have done Palis a great deal of good but they didnt also slaughter them in large numbers as your great mard-e- momin Zia did.

Regards

#48 by RiazHaq

India manages its relationship with Arab regimes well by paying regular lip service to the Palestinian cause, and by occasionally criticizing Israel for its excesses. This allows India to continue to enjoy the benefits of trade with and remittances from the Arab world.

India at least pays lip service. What do you do? Your dictator kills Palestinians using tanks to make an Arab regime happy. Any wonder the Palis hate Pakis with a vengeance?

At the same time, it is India's wink-wink, nod-node deal with the Israelis that helps India get sophisticated US defense technology through Israel, get military training from IDF, and keeps the Israel lobby in Washington happy.

Your favorite dictator Mushy also tried to do the same by actually trying to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, but the Mullahs street power stymied that. Why grudge India for successfully doing what your favorite dictator failed to do?

Re: # 47
India manages its relationship with Arab regimes well by paying regular lip service to the Palestinian cause, and by occasionally criticizing Israel for its excesses. This allows India to continue to enjoy the benefits of trade with and remittances from the Arab world.

At the same time, it is India's wink-wink, nod-node deal with the Israelis that helps India get sophisticated US defense technology through Israel, get military training from IDF, and keeps the Israel lobby in Washington happy.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 44 Indian lobby and israli loby are working hand in hand. Some how no body thinks how much their defence relationship is growing and Arabs are not making even creaky noise. This silence is due to money ( they want to sell oil to india and sell palestanians.) There is complete failure of foreign ministry of making big issue in arab lands. If foreign ministry raises stakes arab will be forced to act, out of shame. Kashmir question is not raised in Arab lands. Arabs are key to Kashmir returning to Muslim lands.Pakistan can give call of bycot of trade no black liquid gold Indina will come running down to start compromise but keep hot solution option open, once TTP problem is solved K can be next goal. Without time bound goals army will not take action. IF oil is denied by muslim world india will come to knees. Unless Ummah comes with real concrete measures they can start loosing support from pakistan. We are the strongest biggest and with maximum military power an atomic and hydrogen power, we should tell Ummah stop charade and come out in support for Kashmir or we will not attend meeting ummah will come to senses. Ummah without pakistan is like america taking ut army from war in AFpak region. If you do not use power you loose it a arab professor philosopher in big USA univ wroe is true. We need to remind Ummah the true path which is to believe is to act. Good day. Too much reading what mr. Obma is not fruitful. He is aginst India and has tilt towards for pakistan but as he does not do much it does not matter. We need to look at his appoints how many indians he has appointed. Too much thinking is silly like one sindhi here locaal was over excited due to pres. Zardari for nothing. It does not matter in real sense as told him Karachi it is A.Hussain matters not far away sitting president. I am afraid people are looking for little gesture with microscope and feeling that finally Obama is going give Kashmir but like usa black man feels something for nothing and over rates all things.

Nice article on Indians in Egypt in an Egyptian magazine...
---------------------------------------------------
June 2009

http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=8517


Color Me Indian

The Indian community thrives in Egypt, thanks to our cultural affinities and the Indian worldview of tolerance for religious and social diversity

By Ethar El-Katatney
:
:
In recent years, the number of Indian tourists visiting Egypt has surged. According to the Egyptian Tourism Authority, 47,000 Indians visited the country in 2005; that number almost doubled within two years, with 90,000 Indians visiting in 2008 — a number that has already been reached in 2009 thus far.

Along with their visiting counterparts, the resident Indian community in Egypt has increased substantially, and much of this can be attributed to economic relations between the two nations. The trade relationship that began during the Pharaonic era is now booming, worth almost $3.5 billion (LE 19.42 billion) in 2007, quadrupled from $700 million (LE 3.88 billion) in 2003.
:
:
:

Re: # 42

Dost sahib:

"...it is also important for India to address the serious social tensions which give rise to problems like the Naxalite terrorism; Naxals are nothing but disaffected youth who rebel against the oppression of an extreme unjust social order in the areas where they are active..."

You are absolutely correct. CMD of ITC is a friend of mine and has direct experience in setting up a venture in Naxalite areas of Andhra. According to him, at that time he was responsible for setting up of one of the largest tobacco processing plant for ITC in that area. Naxalites came to him and told him that ITC would not be allowed to set up any such venture. My friend was able to create a partnership with them so that they gained employment, healtcare, housing and school, and ITC got the operation going. Today, it is one of the most successful operation for ITC. This turned him into a proponent of rural and tribal area enterprises. He is now retired and lives in New Delhi.

Re: # 42
DM: "Just a minor point: the jewish lobby exists only for Jewish/Israeli interests. It did not lend its weight in support of the nuclear deal and, if India wants to be closer to Iran, it would oppose India as well."

Israel lobby had the power to scuttle the US-India nuke deal, but it didn't do it. Israel lobby also welcomed India's vote for US-sponsored Security Council resolution against Iran's nuke ambitions.

India policy-makers and Washington lobbyists have long believed and decided that the road to success at Capital Hill in Washington goes through Israel.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

hope that indian policy makers have similar opinions as DM and Anil.

So summary is that: as always relying on outside support was never an option for India, nor it is now and Obama is less reliable for India then even Bush was.
Nor can India blackmail anyone like Pakistan neither in short term nor in long term.

In short term India will be troubled by all sorts of adversaries, be it Obama's ambition in region or vis a vis Islamic world, or Islamic world's underlying dislike for India, or China's tactics to keep creating trouble for India at all fronts. But in long term all of them may need to support India to some extent for their own advantage. This predicts a slow but steady growth for India in both political as well economic clout provided India's internal security remains good.

anil:

I mostly agree. In addition to economics, it is also important for India to address the serious social tensions which give rise to problems like the Naxalite terrorism; Naxals are nothing but disaffected youth who rebel against the oppression of an extreme unjust social order in the areas where they are active. Personally, I would also like India to address the Kashmir problems, not for the sake of Pakistan or even the umma-oriented Kashmiris whose insurgency is nothing but Islamic separatism, but for the sake of India and Indians.

Just a minor point: the jewish lobby exists only for Jewish/Israeli interests. It did not lend its weight in support of the nuclear deal and, if India wants to be closer to Iran, it would oppose India as well.

antimuslim comments.blasphamy

Dost:

The current priority of the U.S. in that part of the world does not fall in India’s sphere of priorities. India needs to be watchful its strategic and security interests in its part of Kashmir. As far as the rest is concerned, it can tow the U.S. line. I think you are reading too much in tea leaves.

The amount of coverage in the U.S. media for Iranian elections is a very strong indication of shift in the U.S. policy toward Iran. This is good for India. India did not participate in IPI, I had met someone from RAW who was its representative in negotiating team. The casual expression I got was that until Pakistan’s economy is sufficiently balanced and would be equally if not more affected in case of future hostility, India will not enter into this IPI. Problem is not Iran; problem is erratic relations with Pakistan and non-economic drivers that drive Pakistani actions. You can see that obsession with “not India� here on Chowk also.

Indian trade with China has grown leaps and bound. In the next five years this trade is destined to be the largest for Chinese in Asia.

The scenes with EU, Japan and Russia are similar.

India must relentlessly toe “Economy First, Stupid� policy at all cost. It should factor in attacks like in Mumbai and on the Parliament. Two responses were different, and reflected where Congress thinks priority (Economy First, Stupid) should be, and where BJP (more emotional and somewhat driven by testosterones) thinks the policy should be. Therefore, Congress win is good for the country.

State or non-state actors from Pakistan can be pin pricks. Pakistan in its current circumstances cannot touch nuclear button. Pakistanis know this, so there leverage from this “threat� is nothing.

Ex consulate general of India in San Francisco once remarked through its economy, market development and even with defective democracy (something Riaz mian gets his thrills), India can and will create multi-polar world for influence peddling in South Asia, even in the uni-polar world. According to his thesis, India can play each card well to get the best economic benefits, and must not allow emotions on Pakistan issues dictate.

When markets become large and real, countries lose political clout and will. Economic interests trumps all other. You have witnessed that in China. There was a magic number $32 billion of FDI in a country was touted as the turning point until late 80s, because there only so much capital is available to flow across the border. I do not know what that number is now. India probably is there or about to reach there. China crossed that threshold in 80s.

Indian relationship with the U.S., once the critical mass is reached will be viewed very differently. Foundations that Clinton started to lay, Condi Rice/Bush built further through nuclear agreement are more powerful indications. India has a trump card in Jewish lobby’s support for any acts contrary to India’s concurrence on Indian Kashmir. Therefore, India must not panic just because Nicholas Burns made a statement in New Delhi, after his meetings with Indian officials. This statement must have been cleared by India for Pakistani consumption. No diplomat speaks on third countries soil without concurrence, unless there is some catastrophe worse than war. After all, the U.S. waited Japanese diplomat to leave before declaring war on Japan.

Re: # 37 dm sb,
thanks for the clarification. for a while i was under the impression that u actually understood something about pakistan...

CoolAl#36:

I do hope you are right. We do want to sell those Candus and nobody seems to be buying them these days.

banjara#33:

I consider you all to be Pakistani elite. :)

#30

The Indo Canadian Civilian Nuke deal was signed in September 2008 before the US deal was signed. Canada lobbied FOR India at the NSG and has dropped the signing of CTBT & NPT as pre-conditions to conducting civilian nuclear trade with India.

The loong relationship I mentioned is with CANDU reactors. That is the technology that Inida is most familiar with. In fact, they have managed to extend and further CANDU reactor development, so Canada definitely has an inner track and I expect them to fully exploit it regardless of whether the US drags its feet or not.

Obama's election to the presidency might turn out to be the biggest blessing for the West.

For decades, liberals in America and other western countries have been feeding the public the idea that the reason that terrorists behave the way they do is because of bad US policies - totally ignoring the fact that Islamic behavior has been fixed for the last 1400 years - even when there was no US or colonialism. NOW that Obama wants to be "nice" to the terrorists - and surely Islamists could not consider his policies as neo-colonial? - the liberal lie will be exposed. Americans will see how little effect Obama's "tickle the terror suspects with feathers and read them the Miranda Rights" policy will have on Muslims.

This will lead to a very strong and lasting rejection of all these liberals in the American polity, and a permanent realization of the ever-increasing existential threat that the free world faces from Muslims.

This Obama election was REQUIRED for this to happen. This is going to be the proof that finally opens the West's eyes.

DM,

I generally agree with the points you are making in this article.

However, after having read B Raman's blog entry about the advisory - I think your using that as a basis (indicator?) for changing American policy is incorrect.

Have a look at this link from Raman's blog:

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/06/much-ado-about-ameri can-security.html

4. Such advisories are routine and are issued by the security officers of all important missions to their nationals travelling to or residing in India. This is part of their responsibility towards the personal security of their nationals in India. The Israeli missions periodically issue such cautionary advice to their nationals in India----particularly to those planning to visit Goa. After the Mumbai terrorist attack of November,2008,in which many foreigners of different nationalities were killed by 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the frequency of such advisories has increased.

5. There are two kinds of advisories---- an advisory against travel to a country and an advisory about security precautions to be observed ina country. The advisory against travel to a country is issued by the Foreign Office of a country on the basis of the advice from the intelligence agencies. The advisory about security precautions to be observed in a country are routinely issued by the security officers of the diplomatic missions.

6. The advisory to which objection has reportedly been taken by P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister of the Government of India, has been routinely issued by the officer in charge of security in the US Embassy. There is nothing objectionable in the advisory and there is no ground for our protesting against it.

Re: # 31
i didn't know that pakistani elite spent any time on chowk. whose "lips", exactly, have u been "reading"?

Re: # 27
DM,
I think you are correct in the short term. US needs China more than any other country to deal with the current economic crisis (and perhaps North Korea), hence the terms such as Chimerica and G2 have entered the lexicon in the West. But, as soon as the current crisis abates, China will be seen more as a menace than a friend in America.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

banjara#22:

"r u putting words in the mouth of the pakistani elite?"

No, I am merely "reading the lips" of the Pakistani elite at chowk.;)

CoolAL:

The bilateral relations with Canada wrt nuclear program were suspended following the Pokhran test in 1974 but negotiations are on now to revive those relations.

Pew:

Yes, the Indo-US relations are now on an independent trajectory, especially as far as the economy is concerned. The only difference would be a tilt towards Pakistan. The Pakistan army is now doing what the US wants it to do and if there is a significant blowback to the army action, the US would feel obligated to come to Pakistan's rescue.

jang#15:

Yes, the US would want India to "do something" about the Kashmir issue but really has no leverage. India withstood the entire western block's pressure on Kashmir during the non-alignment era and would be able to do so even now. This is not to say that India should not try to resolve the problem in her own self interest.

Riaz:

I am not sure if Obama administration views China as a potential rival, as Bush administration did. There are some pointers that the US is increasingly viewing China as a potential partner in solving not only economic but also political problems, such as in Korea, Iran and Sudan. This is an area where significant changes are taking place. In the developing scenario, the US may not see the need to contain a rising China or the need to seek India's cooperation towards that objective.

pmishra#10:

As others have pointed out, the US OAG's office is asking a lot or questions about accountability of funds approved for Pakistan. But, all said and done, Pakistan is a sovereign country and there is a limit to what a foreign agency can do to monitor how the funds, once provided, are spent. At the end of the day, the US has no choice but to accept what Pakistan does with the funds or stop them altogether and face the consequences.

dude40000#9:

That is quite an insightful speech. The only think that I would add is that Shyam Saran perhaps underestimates China's ability to meet a challenge, such as that of reducing dependence on exports, once its leadership recognizes it and turns its attention to solving it, as the Chinese leadership is doing now. As an example, a few years ago, everyone was predicting catastrophe in China because its banks were weak and burdened with bad loans. However, today the Chinese banks are considered to be among the strongest in the world.

pardesi#8:

"Pakistan will always be loved (although they have recently upped their price) and Indians will be just liked and hopefully respected :)"

I am not sure if Pakistanis are loved or their leaders have mastered the art of blackmailing the US, "Give us what we want or face the doomsday scenario."

DM-ji, I am sure that Obama will be leaving his office a wiser man that going in. I am equally sure the Indians will do their part in educating him and his entourage. Enjoy Mr. Haq.

He also agrees with the Pakistani elite that the support of Taleban in Afghanistan is exacerbating Islamic extremism in Pakistan and the primary cause of this extremism is the Pakistani agencies’ sponsorship of jehadi elements whose activities were directed against India.

dm saab,
r u putting words in the mouth of the pakistani elite?

One comment regarding the US-India nuclear deal.

The US nuke industry will put enormous pressure on the US administration. The fact is, India's current nuclear power generation capacity is around 3000 MWe. It will double to 6000 MWe when Kaiga 4 (202 MWe), Rawatbhata 5&6 (200 MWe each), Koodankulam (1 & 2 950 MWe each) and Kalpakkam PWBR (450 Mwe) come on line in the next year. It is now set to get to 21,000 MWe by 2020.

This is a huge pie and if Obama and congress drag their feet, then the French, the Russians, the Germans and the Canadians will make out like gangbusters. Westinghouse and GE stand to lose out Big time. They will not site quietly by and see that happen.

India on the other hand, has long established relationships with the Russians and the Canadians. The US has no special leverage after the sanctions have been lifted in the NSG. Also, India recently signed a Uranium supply deal with Kazakhstan so it is all falling into place nicely.

Re: # 16
In US and Europe, India is widely blamed for the collapse of Doha, with Wall Street Journal calling Kamal Nath as "The Villain".

Backing India's demands, including right to impose food import tariffs and end to agriculture subsidies in US and Europe, were Brazil, China and other developing nations in Asia. But Africans were angry that their trade issues, particularly cotton, were not even discussed as the negotiators from developing giants fought pitched battles with their counterparts in developed nations in Geneva last year.

Before hitting the food import tariff deal-breaker, there was a weeklong meeting of 35 trade ministers of leading countries, including Pakistan, which produced significant agreements. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, Pakistan’s Ambassador to WTO, told Dawn that it has been agreed that the US would cut its allowable subsidies by 70 per cent from $48 billion to $14.7 billion while EU has agreed to cut them by 80 per cent.It had also been agreed that developed countries could cut their agricultural tariffs by an average of 60 per cent.

But all of that work was scuttled in the end.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 18
Executive may not be as powerful or material in India, but it does matter a lot in foreign and security policy in the US. There is clear separation of powers between executive and legislature in the US constitution, and Bush asserted executive authority over all sorts of issues repeatedly in the last 8 years.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Dost-Mittar

Relations between India and US matter less than ever before on who happens to live in the White House or 10 Safdarjang Road. Relations are driven much more by the active lobbies in both countries and the US Congress. I don't think that there is a critical item on an Indian 'wishlist' that Obama is ignoring.

nexusa, i said partnering and DEALING..it does mean at times standing firm..the west and developing world (with india and brazil leading) stood their respective ground..in other words the parties did not see any benefit in multilateral pact..they were happy to pursue bilateral deals and will continue to do so.

Re: # 15
Actually, the Doha round of World Trade talks have been in a deadlock since 2001 mainly because the developing world, led by India and Brazil among others, has refused to concede the demands made by the EU and the United States. This is despite the immense pressure from the erstwhile Bush administration brought upon India. So there is really no partnering between India and US in that regard as you suggested.

Kashmir remains a "no go" area for the Obama administration. They can support and facilitate a dialog between the two countries, they may even act as a messenger between the two, but that is just as far as they will go and no farther. The US knows that there is a strong streak of nationalism on the Indian side and instigating that will be counterproductive.

india is confident of partnering and dealing with the US in most areas like trade-commerce (WTO), and even afganistan-pakistan, general level of paki-jihadi terrorism. the only ungal that US can do, the big push button, is kashmir vis-a-vis pakistan. this is one issue where india is likely to be emotional, and intransigent and US is likely to try leverage...

offcourse this one too has limited shelf life but this is one issue where US can play the hindoo like a kathputli. hindoo will have to be really mature to play this one.

Re: # 2
In the long run, the US does want to co-opt India in its bid to slow the ascent of China as a world power. So there is something in common between the two nations: their common fear of China's emerging super-power status.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

It seems that India's ploy backfired after it issued terror warnings to draw world attention to the release of Hafiz Saeed in Pakistan.

According to a Times of India report, India was left with little to protest about after the United States informed it that the much maligned "travel advisory" was a result of the Indian government's own warnings of possible terror attacks.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

US travel advisories do not have much impact ordinarily, such advisory have been and are in effect for Israel and other nations. It's the threat perception of the US companies and what they do in response that matters.

In 2002, it was the response by major US corporations such as GE and IBM, not the travel advisory itself, that forced India to back off, after the Bush admin failed to persuade India by other means. The scene of thousands of foreigners heading for the exits at major Indian airports sent the message to Vajpayee loud and clear.
Riaz Haq, PakAlumni Worldwide

Re: # 10

"Are you aware of any groups that are systematically tracking US funds for pakistan?"

You have touched upon an important and topical subject.

US aid to Pakistan has been the source of much discussion recently in the US. Both sides (US and Pakistan) acknowledge that there was little accountability of the billions Pakistan received during the Bush/Musharraf era. Musharraf, in a recent TV interview, said that most (I think he said 80%) of the aid he received was reimbursement to Pakistan for use of its military against US interests (Al Qaeda and Taliban). Aid without accountability is no different than bribe and paying bribes is unlawful in the United States.

The lawmakers in the US are extremely concerned about where and how this aid is being used. Influential members of the senate including Jim Webb (Dem-Virginia, Obama's own party) have taken up this issue (see http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9014023). Zardari's reputation is well known in the US. I believe that Congress will keep a very close eye on how future funds are deployed so humanitarian aid gets to the needy and military aid is not mis-directed.

Aid to Pakistan is not popular in the United States and any news about its misuse will very quickly tilt the scales against it.

DM-ji,

George W. was the aberration, he changed US policy in many areas, including india. Obama returns US policy to its traditional focus. Hence the downgrading of india, hedging on Kashmir and so on. I think this is fine, india wasnt formed due to the kindness of america, but I do want to understand where the money for pakistan is going etc.

Are you aware of any groups that are systematically tracking US funds for pakistan? If not, maybe we need to form one.

DM,

The other day I came across a recent policy speech by Shyam Saran, Indian PM's special envoy.

Here's the link:

http://meaindia.nic.in/cgi-bin/db2www/meaxpsite/coverpage.d2w/coverpg?s ec=ss&filename=speech/2009/02/28ss02.htm

There are clear indications that India wants to move to a more non-aligned position again.

pmishra2 and DM,

India is used to this 'just friends' relationship with USA and overall it has worked out fine. No a$$kissing and no special favors. Just business. Remember, it was not US that built first steel plant or first IIT or first Heavy Electricals (if I remember correctly) in India. The West always followed USSR in this area.

Mishra sahib - in answer to your three questions, I think US corporations (#3) probably will love to directly participate if Indians open the economy enough. So definitely, American business interests are there and hopefully they wont like to miss out on that.

But overall, DM sahib is right. US has simply too much vested in Pakistan not to mention the fact that Pakistani elites/generals are much easier to deal with for USA policy makers in areas of strategic manipulation/control of that area than Indians will ever be.

Pakistan will always be loved (although they have recently upped their price) and Indians will be just liked and hopefully respected :)

nexus#4:

Yes, India is in real sweet spot for an accelerated, yet balanced, economic growth right now and one hopes that MMS should make the best of it. Obama's indifference cannot change that.
I also think that the policies of inclusive growth have paid off. The global recession has largely affected the "shining India" and those dependent upon it. Programs like NREGA which have delivered purchasing power to the rural areas have escaped from the ill winds from abroad and are largely responsible for India sustaining an almost 7% economic growth.

pmishra2:

I agree with your comments. The point,however, is that the US interests have not changed because of the change in the administration but because this administration has a different worldview than the previous administration. It is this change in orientation which has resulted in the changed stance towards India.

delhiwala:

The travel advisory is not an isolated incident. There are other indications of a steady distancing from the Bush policies. The latest indicator are the comments the visiting US undersecretary Burns in India about Kashmir. He said that India should resolve the Kashmir issue taking into consideration the wishes of its people. A very innocuous statement on the surface but this caveat was not used during the Bush administration.

I agree with the last part of your essay. India must continue to work on its many deficiencies with regards infrastructure, education, poverty etc if it seeks to sustain the marvellous growth that it has enjoyed in recent years. Relationship with the US is important but should by no means be central to India's future. Dependency on foreign powers can wreck havoc on a country in the long term and that is one thing that we can all pretty much agree on this forum.
India is managing to sustain moderate growth despite the recessionary environment in the west. This indicates that India's growth is not entirely dependent on trade and internal demand plays a very important role. Political stability as a result of the recent elections bodes well for the foreseeable future. With a team of able technocrats at its helm, and the marginalization of the communists and the religious right distraction, has given India the best environment for economic progress in decades.
In the end, economic development is by far the best known cure for poverty and I think that the current leadership in India understands this very well.
I hope that as part of the India-Pakistan peace process, trade between the two nations is liberalized. This can favorably impact the GDP of both countries and do so rather quickly. All that is keeping the two countries from getting to this low hanging fruit is, ahem, mutual distrust.

A saying among common folks: It is not good to be friends with the policeman. It is bad to be in conflict with them.

dost mittar,

Obama is american pragmatist in foreigh policy (right of center) and extremely articulate and smart. He is 1000% focused on US interest and completely disinterested in
other stuff...

India is fundamentally non-aligned in its orientation. This means it has its own long-term orientation, friendly to US but not a US ally. India will also seek relationship with Iran, Turkey, China, Russia, Japan and SE Asia and so on. This is the correct path for india, one of the many things J Nehru got right.

So why should US pay special attention to india?

Will it get Indian army to fight for it in Afghanistan/Iraq?
Will it get good vibes in middle-east from being seen as big friend of India?
Will it get lots of US companies directly participating in Indian economy?

Answer to all of these is NO - because of non-alignment. But for india to deliver against its policy of non-alignment, and not sucking up to US or China, it has to perform at a higher level, provide better security to its citizens and so on. Otherwise, it is like a 100 lb guy who is walking around and saying, I am very important body builder, pay attention to me, kinda interesting but no one pays serious attention to it.

DM Sir, Sat Sri Akal!
This was a very small article by your standards.

Anyways, my only comment is that Obama's Foreign policy is determined by what American Public perceives and their interests.

India is not on any American's mind but Islam and Muslims are.

Any President of USA will issue travel advisory against India to protect it's own Citizens if 1) Parliament was attacked b) 5 Star hotel was turned into battle station galactica.

This is a very normal reaction from USA, it's intent is not to hurt India but protect US citizens.

As a consequence India is suffering and that bothers India.

Truth of the matter is that USA has no incentive to give special treatment to India. It is America's hegemony on their terms.