India and US - III - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (
+--- Thread: India and US - III (/showthread.php?tid=652)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 04-06-2010

<img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> US wants troop cut in Kashmir to win Afghan war

S Rajagopalan | Washington

To get Pak on its side, Washington mulls exerting pressure on India to reduce operations in Kabul

Reducing the number of Indian troops in Kashmir or pulling back forces along the border is among the “ideas” being discussed by the Pentagon in internal debates as part of measures to ensure that US efforts to win Pakistani cooperation for its Afghanistan operations do not suffer. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the Pentagon push for “more pressure” on New Delhi comes in the wake of President Barack Obama issuing a “secret directive” to his top officials to work hard for an Indo-Pak détente.

India and US - III - malushahi - 04-06-2010

[url=""]Geithner Tries to Forge Stronger Economic Ties With India[/url]

Quote:NEW DELHI — Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, arrives in New Delhi on Tuesday for a two-day trip to inaugurate a new economic and financial partnership between two of the world’s largest and oldest democracies.

Timothy F. Geithner, the U.S. Treasury secretary, will visit India on Tuesday.

It is a return of sorts for Mr. Geithner, who lived for five years in New Delhi as a child.

Mr. Geithner has his work cut out for him, economists and policy analysts in both India and the United States say. Reaching economic agreements between the two countries has traditionally been an arduous task.

“On principle, they both agree on everything,” said Jahangir Aziz, chief India economist at J. P. Morgan in Mumbai. “It always comes down to the nitty-gritty and that’s where things get stuck. Part of the problem is neither of them wants to give the other side an inch.”

It took nearly 20 years for the United States to lift a ban on imports of Indian mangoes, for example, and a deal to allow energy-strapped India access to American nuclear technology, agreed to in principal four years ago, still has not cleared all the legal hurdles that would let American companies sign contracts here. (French and Russian companies, by contrast, have signed contracts and are expected to begin work soon.)

The two countries remain far apart on American farm subsidies and India’s unwillingness to open its markets to foreign farmers, because they both want to protect their agricultural sectors. The countries’ disagreements there helped to scuttle global trade negotiations in 2008.

Indian officials expressed cautious optimism about Mr. Geithner’s visit.

“There is good reason to believe that there will be real economic outcomes to match the avowed ambition of such engagement,” Rahul Khullar, India’s commerce secretary, wrote in an e-mailed response to questions.

This should, in theory, be a fertile time for India and the United States to forge a new economic relationship. American companies, facing moribund sales at home, continue to flock to India, where the economy is projected to grow 8.5 percent this year.

United States businesses also remain the largest customers for India’s marquee information technology industry. India, for its part, needs billions of dollars in infrastructure, and could benefit from American technology.

Some American media and Internet companies like Google and Facebook, which have either left or been banned from China, have captured huge audiences in India.

“This doesn’t mean everything is perfect in India, but the challenges firms are facing in China are certainly causing companies to take a second look — with the benefit accruing to India,” said Ron Somers, president of the United States-India Business Council, a group based in Washington that promotes business ties between the two countries.

Those ties have grown significantly since India began to open its economy in the early 1990s. Bilateral trade has tripled in the last 10 years, to $37.6 billion. American private investment in India is worth $16.1 billion, about 10 times what it was in the late 1990s.

But India still lags far behind the United States’ most important economic partnerships.

Moreover, political leaders in Washington and New Delhi have often struggled to establish trust with each other. The Bush administration won over many Indian leaders because it championed the nuclear deal and was seen as tough on terrorism. But many Indian politicians and newspapers have a less favorable view of President Obama because they think that his administration is pushing India to open negotiations with Pakistan prematurely.

“This issue has generated doubts in Indians’ minds that makes it a lot more difficult to reach the comfort levels we achieved during the Bush administration,” said C. Raja Mohan, an Indian academic who is the Henry Alfred Kissinger scholar at the Library of Congress.

India and the United States need to have a “total tectonic shift” in the way they look at each other, suggested Amit Mitra, the secretary general of Ficci, India’s main chamber of commerce. From a business point of view, that means removing India from a list of countries that cannot be sold numerous American-made technologies, among other things, he said.

“Americans aren’t in the big picture in the big projects in India,” he said. Japanese and Korean companies, for example, are collaborating to build a nearly 1,500-kilometer (930-mile) freight corridor between Delhi and Mumbai.

Some of that work should be going to companies from the United States, he added.

During a briefing last week, Treasury officials said trade would not be high on the agenda during Mr. Geithner’s visit. But he is expected to discuss infrastructure financing.

He is also expected to encourage Indian officials to raise the limits they have placed on foreign banks and insurance companies, but New Delhi seems reluctant to allow more foreign banks into the country unless the Federal Reserve allows more Indian banks to set up branches in the United States.

Any argument Mr. Geithner makes for a greater opening of financial markets is likely to be quickly shot down by Indian officials, who have said that the country’s conservative regulations helped it avoid the worst elements of the recent crisis that started on Wall Street and engulfed many Western financial markets.

“He should not publicly press India to open its financial sector,” Arvind Subramanian, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote on the institute’s Web site.

“India will open up its financial sector but at its own pace,” he said.

One executive in Mumbai said policy makers in both countries needed to look beyond their domestic interest groups and open up their economies. While India limits foreign investments in several industries, American immigration policy restricts the free flow of people.

“Policy makers in both countries will need to combat internal barriers and expedite action on pending reforms to open up new sectors,” said Harshal Shah, chief executive of Reliance Venture Asset Management, a investment firm based in Mumbai.

In recent weeks, the Indian authorities have given new banking licenses to Credit Suisse and Australia and the New Zealand Banking Group. But the Indian authorities have not allowed most American and European banks that have operations in India to open many new branches in the country.

Mr. Geithner appears to understand the nuance of the complex Indian-American relationship.

Speaking to Indian reporters in Washington before he left, he praised Indian policy makers for their management of the economy. He also said the United States could help the country set up a corporate bond market. Just a few days earlier, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India needed a well-functioning bond market to help finance $1 trillion in infrastructure investment.

India and US - III - Guest - 04-15-2010

[url=""]Does Mr. Obama Care About India?[/url]
Quote:Very little was said publicly about U.S. President Barack Obama's meeting Sunday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Blair House in Washington. That's probably because neither side wants to draw attention to just how strained this important bilateral relationship has become over the past year.

One of the biggest sticking points is how to deal with Afghanistan. The Obama administration has promised to "reconcile" with the Taliban and talks openly about U.S. troop withdrawals, commencing in 2011. Both points deeply disturb New Delhi, whose long history of dealing with terrorism suggests the U.S. approach won't work. The U.S. has also shunned advance consultations on Afghanistan with its Indian partners.

As a result, India is rethinking its approach, which it has long coordinated with Washington, and a review of Afghan policy is now underway. There are indications that New Delhi is going to hedge its bets and enhance contacts and cooperation with Russia and Afghanistan's neighbors of Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which share India's aversion for any return of the Taliban.

Another issue is how the U.S. and India will prosecute terrorists involved in the November 2008 attack on Mumbai—something that was raised by Mr. Singh in Sunday's meeting. There is incontrovertible evidence that the planning and advance reconnaissance for the massacre were carried out by a Chicago-based American, David Coleman Headley, who has entered into a plea bargain with federal prosecutors that precludes the death sentence or any possibility of his being extradited to India. There is now an almost universal belief in India that Mr. Headley was a double agent for the U.S. who turned rogue.

The Obama administration's flip-flops on giving Indian investigators access to interrogate Mr. Headley has infuriated New Delhi. The suspicion is that the administration wants to prevent Indian access to information about the involvement of Pakistan's security services in the Mumbai attack.

Then there are the strains on the ground in India—literally. After the terrorist attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in February, the Afghan government alluded to the attackers having come from Pakistan, with the specific aim of attacking a rest house almost exclusively occupied by Indians. Yet the Obama administration's Special Representative for "Afpak," Richard Holbrooke, said: "I don't accept the fact that this was an attack on an Indian facility. Let us not jump to conclusions." He added: "I understand why everyone in Pakistan and everyone in India always focus on each other."

Mr. Holbrooke later tendered a qualified apology, but the damage had been done. When he announced on March 20 that he would "definitely be going to India soon" and scheduled an early visit, New Delhi conveyed that Mr. Holbrooke was not welcome in India.

These developments, together with emerging differences on issues like the lack of any meaningful consultations on the emerging architecture of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific or in the Persian Gulf, do not bode well for the Indian-American partnership. With the political climate vitiated, it appears unlikely that parliament will pass anytime soon the proposed Nuclear Liabilities Bill considered essential to implement the U.S-India civil nuclear deal—a blow to companies like General Electric and Westinghouse.

Moreover, there is irritation in New Delhi over the encomiums showered on Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who is no friend of India. Indian officials were astonished at the unprecedented presence of three Cabinet-level officials—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser General James Jones—at a recent dinner hosted by Admiral Mike Mullen for the Pakistan general. There is a distinct possibility that Lockheed Corporation will be ruled out as a contender for an $8 billion contract for the supply of 126 fighter aircraft for India because of its readiness to provide advanced F-16 jets to Pakistan.

The fact that President Obama didn't take questions from reporters after he left Sunday's meeting with Mr. Singh speaks volumes. What a change from the heady days of the Bush administration, when there was growing recognition in India about the potential for a "new era" of bilateral ties with the U.S.

Mr. Parthasarathy, a visiting professor at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, was India's ambassador to Pakistan from 1998 to 2000.

India and US - III - agnivayu - 04-15-2010

[quote name='Mudy' date='15 April 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1271311187' post='105913']

[url=""]Does Mr. Obama Care About India?[/url]


India is on it's own. So called democratic unity was all just worthless rhetoric. Good wake up call. Bush was probably the most pro-India President ever.

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 04-30-2010

But in 2009-10, the number exceeded the cap only in the third week of December. In this financial year, until the third week of April, there have only been around 16,000 applications in the first category and 6,700 in the second, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services figures.

With the US economy yet to recover from financial meltdown and unemployment remaining high, it is no longer the El Dorado for professionals it once used to be.

Leading New York-based immigration lawyer Cyrus Mehta said, "This year, the cap may not be reached unless there's some pick up in the economy."

India and US - III - Guest - 04-30-2010

[quote name='agnivayu' date='15 April 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1271339084' post='105916']

India is on it's own. So called democratic unity was all just worthless rhetoric. Good wake up call. Bush was probably the most pro-India President ever.


But India's tragedy, they are slapped with appointed Prime Minister.

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 05-01-2010

India, which sends the highest number of students to the US, stands to benefit most from the proposal by Senate majority leader Harry Reid and senators Charles Schumer and Bob Menendez.

The senators have also proposed tightening of rules for H-1B and L1 visas, coveted by Indians. H1B visas allow US employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations for six years. <img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />

In this connection, I am reminded of my blog written light heartedly on 1st April, '07

India and US - III - Arun_S - 05-03-2010

[url=""]Anti-India mindset entrenched in Pakistan[/url]

Quote:By Prakash Nanda

Column: Right Angle Published: April 14, 2010

[right][Image: print_btn.gif]Font size: [Image: smalltype_btn.png][Image: largetype_btn.png][/right] New Delhi, India — If a recent report in the leading U.S. daily The Wall Street Journal is to be believed, the Obama administration is to intensify efforts to make India resolve its tensions with Pakistan, a priority for the progress of “U.S. goals in the region.” U.S. President Barack Obama has directed his officials to intensify diplomacy aimed at easing tensions between the two countries, asserting that without detente between them the administration's efforts to win Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan would suffer.

The Obama directive, apparently issued last December, concluded that “India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on the U.S. goals in the region.” Accordingly, the Pentagon has put more pressure on New Delhi.

Despite Pakistan being the most hated country in Afghanistan, the Obama regime has legitimized what could be a Pakistani veto on affairs concerning Afghanistan. Pakistan wants Afghanistan to provide so-called “strategic depth” against India and therefore insists that India, the most popular country in Afghanistan, stop all its activities, primarily aimed at socio-economic development in that country.

But this is not all. With Obama under increasing pressure to order a troop withdrawal, Islamabad calculates that not only will it be able to secure a Pakistan-centric solution in Afghanistan, but it will also manage to convince the Americans to rediscover the virtues in the pre-Bush policy of hyphenating India with Pakistan.

The Bush administration had ensured that India and Pakistan must not be seen through one another’s prism. This policy hurt the Pakistani establishment, which always considers that India and Pakistan should be treated as equals by the international community.

[color="#0000ff"]In its recent strategic dialogue with the United States, Pakistan presented a 56-page wish list that included, among other things, a plea for a civilian nuclear deal similar to that concluded with India.[/color] The United States has already pledged a US$7.5 billion, five-year assistance package for Pakistan’s energy, water, agriculture and education sectors. US$1 billion in reimbursements for fighting the Pakistani Taliban will also begin flowing to Pakistan soon.

In addition, Pakistan will receive significant defense supplies in the coming years, including P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, five 250 TOW anti-armor missile systems, six AN/TPS-77 surveillance radar systems, six C-130E transport aircraft, twenty AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters and new F-16s. Needless to say, most of these items can only be used against India, not the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It is against this background that Obama’s directive must be seen. Its core feature is that Pakistan’s support is essential for operations in Afghanistan; therefore U.S. representatives must be sensitive when Pakistan complains about India, whether it is about Kashmir or the nonexistent water dispute.

In fact, Kashmiri separatists should realize the true color of the Pakistani establishment when it says that India is blocking water that belongs to Pakistan. Though this charge is absolutely rubbish – in fact, India does not utilize the water even for irrigation purposes, something it is entitled to do under the Indus treaty – the question arises as to where India could divert the water.

If water from the Sindh, Jhelum and Chenab rivers could be diverted, it could only be to the state of Kashmir to the benefit of Kashmiris. If so, why should Pakistan worry about something that would benefit the Kashmiris? This only exposes how Pakistan sheds crocodile tears for the Kashmiris.

[color="#0000ff"]The truth is that the United States, or any other country for that matter, can never satisfy the Pakistani establishment when it comes to India. The fundamental reality is that Pakistan’s very existence is dependent on its anti-India posture. Take India away and Pakistan will have an identity crisis. [/color]

On March 17 Majid Nizami, editor-in-chief of The Nation, one of Pakistan’s leading newspapers, stated that “Pakistan is destined to defeat India because our horses in the form of atomic bombs and missiles are far better than Indian ‘donkeys.’

“If one wants to have an idea as to what would have been our condition, had Pakistan not come into existence, he should visit India to apprise himself about untold pathetic living conditions of the Muslims there at this point of time.” Nizami then added, “We were grateful to the Almighty Allah that today we had been blessed with Independence. The day is not far off when we would once again conquer India.”

In fact, if one goes by the history books written for students in Pakistan, the intensity of the anti-India venom and the ferocity with which it is being injected into young minds are mind-blowing. This great historic discovery is taught: "Previously, India was part of Pakistan."

In these books, Muhammad-bin-Qasim, the first Muslim conqueror of the Hindu-dominated Sindh province in the 8th century, is declared the first Pakistani citizen. In Social Studies for Class VI (Sindh Textbook Board, 1997), the story of the Arabs’ arrival in Sindh is counted as the first moment of Pakistan, with the glorious ascendancy of Islam.

This textbook teaches that “The Muslims knew that the people of South Asia were infidels and they kept thousands of idols in their temples.” The Sindhi king, Raja Dahir, is described as cruel and despotic. “The non-Brahmans who were tired of the cruelties of Raja Dahir joined hands with Muhammad-bin-Qasim because of his good treatment.” According to this historical narration:

[indent]“The conquest of Sindh opened a new chapter in the history of South Asia. Muslims had everlasting effects of their existence in the region…For the first time the people of Sindh were introduced to Islam, its political system and way of government. The people here had seen only the atrocities of the Hindu Rajas…the people of Sindh were so much impressed by the benevolence of Muslims.”

[/indent] Another textbook says: “Pakistan came to be established for the first time when the Arabs led by Muhammad-bin-Qasim occupied Sindh and Multan in the early years of the eighth century, and established Muslim rule in this part of the South Asian sub-continent. Pakistan under the Arabs comprised the Lower Indus Valley.”

It is interesting to note the flight of imagination of this author:

[indent]“During the 11th century the Ghaznavid Empire comprised what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan. During the 12th century the Ghaznavids lost Afghanistan, and their rule came to be confined to Pakistan…By the 13th century, Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal…Under the Khiljis Pakistan moved further Southward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan… Many Mongols accepted Islam. As such Pakistan remained safe for Islam… During the 16th century, ‘Hindustan’ disappeared and was completely absorbed in ‘Pakistan’…Although Pakistan was created in August 1947, yet except for its name, the present-day Pakistan has existed, as a more or less single entity, for centuries."

[/indent] The moral of the story is obvious. Unless the typical mindset of the Pakistanis is changed, India will remain their eternal enemy. That being the case, what does Obama expect India to do? In fact, it is high time that Obama and his advisors changed their mindset about Pakistan, which is entrapping the United States – offering selective help in exchange for bags of cash and weapons that are to be used against India.


(Prakash Nanda is a journalist and editorial consultant for Indian Defense Review. He is also the author of “Rediscovering Asia: Evolution of India’s Look-East Policy.” He may be contacted at ©Copyright Prakash Nanda.)

India and US - III - G.Subramaniam - 05-05-2010

The foolish NRIs are proud of USINPAC, so they give donations to 200 congressmen and get photo-ops

but nothing useful gets done

Better to wind it up

The USINPAC founders are also secularists

To prove their secularism, they even hired muslims as staff members

Mostly rich NRI give donations to US politicians for a photo-ops

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 06-27-2010

Indian companies have been investing abroad for decades, though the pace of foreign investments has accelerated significantly since 1991, and especially in the 2000s. This development is a result of several factors, including Indian companies’ ability to arbitrage their cost advantages, access to a large talent pool, success at home – in a huge domestic market with cut-throat competition, reasonably well-developed institutions (compared to many other emerging markets), business acumen arising from an entrepreneurial tradition, business sophistication, financial market sophistication, production efficiency, a long exposure to Western and Japanese multinationals and their management practices, and Government of India’s progressive relaxation of foreign investment rules.

India and US - III - Arun_S - 07-28-2010

[url=""]Military assistance to Pak not a threat to India: U.S.[/url]

Learnt from a key Indian defense Policy maker that the new F16's delivered to TSP takeoff only after getting approval from on-base American officer, on TSP airfield.

India and US - III - ramana - 08-09-2010

Why is it that when India looks at TSP they turn their blinders to the CIA-ISI links since 1970s? David Headley/Daud Gilani is a symptom of that shortcoming.

India and US - III - agnivayu - 08-09-2010

[quote name='Arun_S' date='28 July 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1280296421' post='107655']

[url=""]Military assistance to Pak not a threat to India: U.S.[/url]

Learnt from a key Indian defense Policy maker that the new F16's delivered to TSP takeoff only after getting approval from on-base American officer, on TSP airfield.


That could be true and it's great news if it is.

I heard India will probably be buying the Eurofighter or Rafael in the $10 Billion fighter deal.

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 08-09-2010

New Delhi / New York: Criticising companies outsourcing highly-paid American jobs, a US Senator has described Indian IT major Infosys as a "chop shop", a place where stolen cars are dismantled and parts sold separately.

Democrat Senator of New York Charles E Schumer described Indian IT major Infosys as a "chop shop", a place where stolen cars are dismantled and parts sold separately. The comments were made during discussions on the Border Security Bill, a $600-million emergency package aimed at strengthening security along the porous Mexican border.

The comments were made by Democrat Senator of New York Charles E Schumer during discussions on the Border Security Bill, a $600-million emergency package aimed at strengthening security along the porous Mexican border.

"The emergency border funds will be paid for by assessing fees on foreign companies known as chop shops that outsource good, high-paying American technology jobs to lower wage, temporary immigrant workers from other countries.

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 08-15-2010

NEW DELHI: Upset over being branded as a child labour employer, India's apparel export body AEPC has sought access to key documents of the US Labour Department which were used to "defame" the Indian industry.

The access to these documents has been sought under 'Freedom of Information Act' - equivalent to India's Right to Information Act - by the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC).

AEPC is an industry body sponsored by the Textiles Ministry.

India and US - III - BlessedAgni - 08-19-2010

[url=""]The wages of the nuclear deal[/url]!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!1238.entry

Quote:The quiet signing of the reprocessing agreement on 30 July has completed the last remaining bilateral element of the nuclear deal with the U.S. The multilateral elements are not only complete, but also being implemented. For example, India already has brought 16 of its nuclear facilities under permanent international inspection — a number scheduled to progressively go up to cover two-thirds of all Indian nuclear installations within four years. In addition, India is set to shut down by this year-end its main military-production workhorse, the Cirus reactor — the biggest cumulative contributor of weapons-grade plutonium to the country’s stockpile.

Yet, despite the deal being in force, India continues to battle major technology controls. China has greater access than India does to U.S. high technology, and this is unlikely to change after the ongoing Obama administration review of American export controls. Because the review is being driven by the barely disguised business goal to increase U.S. share of the Chinese market so as to reduce the yawning trade deficit, the China-India access gap can only widen in Beijing’s favour.

What tangible benefits, strategic or otherwise, has the deal yielded for India? Let’s face it: The Americans were more honest than the Indians about the deal. The final deal has turned out to be in line with what the U.S. Congress mandated, not what the Indian Parliament had repeatedly been assured by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In fact, the deal conforms fully to the provisions of the 2006 Hyde Act. The congressional ratification legislation — the 2008 Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-Proliferation Enhancement Act, or NCANEA — actually tightened some of the Hyde Act provisions. The Indian side had publicly claimed that the Hyde Act would not determine the final deal, with some in authority even seeking to creatively differentiate between “operative” and “non-binding” parts of that Act. It had further been claimed that the 123 Agreement, once ratified, would become the “last expression of the sovereign will” and override all other laws including national laws.

These too-clever-by-half arguments have fallen flat on their face. Nothing can be more embarrassing to the Indian side than the fact that the bilateral accords it negotiated and signed — the 123 Agreement and the reprocessing pact — match up to U.S. congressional stipulations.

Worse still, the accords have been made subservient to American law. Take the 123 Agreement, which neither contains the international-law principle (found in the U.S.-China accord) that neither party will invoke its internal law as justification for a failure to honour the accord, nor provides (unlike the U.S.-Japan or U.S.-South Korea accord) for an arbitral tribunal to settle any dispute. As the NCANEA makes explicit, “Nothing in the [123] Agreement shall be construed to supersede the legal requirements of the Henry J. Hyde Act.”

As a result, the final deal ends up giving America specific rights — enforceable through the pain of unilateral suspension or termination of cooperation — while saddling India with obligations. The NCANEA actually records that the promise of uninterrupted fuel supply is a “political,” not legal, commitment. It cannot be anything else because the 123 Agreement itself confers an open-ended right on the U.S. to suspend fuel supplies straight away while issuing a one-year termination notice. In fact, as a corollary to that right, the U.S. has retained the prerogative in the reprocessing accord to unilaterally suspend its reprocessing consent to India.

What stands out about the final deal are the four “No”s for India: No binding fuel-supply guarantee to avert a Tarapur-style fuel cut-off; no irrevocable reprocessing consent; no right to withdraw from its obligations; and no right to conduct a nuclear test ever again. The no-test obligation constitutes the first instance in the nuclear age where one nuclear-weapons power has used a civilian cooperation deal to impose such a prohibition on another nuclear-weapons state. The Cirus’s impending dismantlement is another weapons-related obligation thrust on India.

No country in history has struggled longer to build a minimal deterrent or paid heavier international costs for its nuclear programme than India. Despite Asia’s oldest nuclear programme, India now has the world’s smallest nuclear arsenal — smaller than even Pakistan’s. More significant is that India still does not have a single Beijing-reachable nuclear missile in its inventory or production line. It is against that background that the nuclear deal marks a turning point.

The lasting legacy of the deal, in which the Indian government invested considerable time and diplomatic resources, will be to ensure that India stays enmeshed in its struggle to build regionally confined nuclear-weapons capability while becoming more reliant than ever on conventional arms imports to meet its basic defence needs. If ever there was hope of India becoming a full-fledged nuclear-weapons state like China, that prospect has passed.

A closer relationship with the U.S. is in India’s own interest. But it could have been built without a deal that carries serious, long-term costs. Indeed, such are the wages of the deal that India has refrained from speaking up on regional-security issues that directly impinge on its interests, including the continuing transfer of offensive U.S. weapon systems to Pakistan, now the largest recipient of American economic and military aid in the world. Islamabad, in fact, has managed to cut its own deal to buy two China-origin reactors without the burden of conditions cast on India.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi

Comments are welcome at

I knew it! This bast*rd (wo)man mohan singh has sold out our country!

India and US - III - Guest - 08-24-2010

[url=""]BJP wont allow UPA to work under US pressure'[/url]
Quote:Senior BJP leader Gopinath Munde on Tuesday said his party will not allow UPA government to work under US pressure. Referring to Nuclear Liability Bill, Munde told the concluding session of Maharashtra BJP's executive meet that BJP wont allow the bill to be passes as it is since Opposition is in majority in Rajya Sabha.

Quoting a survey, he said popularity of UPA Government is decreasing day by day. A latest survey made by India Today says that if elections are held now BJP will get 178 seats. If this trend continues BJP may be the ruling party after next Parliament elections.

Munde accused Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for covering Suresh Kalmadi on the issue of corruption in Commonwealth Games.

Later talking to media, he criticised UPA government's import-export policy of sugar.

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 08-25-2010

Leading high tech companies cite the role that highly educated foreign nationals have played in their success. The report writes about Google's reference to Krishna Bharat who joined the company in 1999 through the H-1B programme. "A native of India, he received his PhD from Georgia Tech in human computer interaction. His work on web search at DEC Systems Research Center and at Google earned him several patents, and he is a noted authority on search engine technology. Krishna was one of the chief creators of Google News, our service that aggregates more than 4,500 English-language news websites around the world," Laszlo Bock, VP for people operations at Google, in testimony before the House of Representative's immigration subcommittee is quoted as saying.

Read more: Corporate America backs immigration - India Business - Business - The Times of India

India and US - III - Guest - 12-12-2010

[url=""]US working out ways to avoid repeat of Shankar episode[/url]
Quote:"We have been told that a formal complaint is coming. I just don't think it's arrived yet," Crowley said when asked if the State Department has received a complaint.

"As we've said, and properly so, everyone from diplomats to ordinary citizens are screened prior to boarding airplanes. That happens here. It happens around the world. But certainly, there may be ways in which we can improve coordination so that this kind of situation will not happen again," he said.

Sure, India won't do anything, lacks spine. One tit for tat will solve problem for ever. But we know appointed PM will always protect his "real" master.

India and US - III - Guest - 12-14-2010

[url=""]Another pat down of diplomat in US, India takes up issue[/url]
Quote:Krishna had described Shankar's experience as 'unacceptable'. 'We are going to take it up with the government of the US that such unpleasant incidents do not recur,' the minister told reporters outside parliament Thursday.

He had said there were 'certain well-established conventions, well-established practices as to how members of diplomatic corps are treated in a given country'.

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns made a personal call to Shankar to apologise for the incident.

[color="#FF0000"]Former Indian diplomats have reacted to the latest incident by pointing out that there should be reciprocal treatment of foreign envoys in India.


'The issue is not just of diplomats, but also of our Sikh brethren, whose issue we had taken up several times,' former Indian ambassador to US, Ronen Sen told Times Now television channel.

He said the security check of Puri's turban violated the reassurances given by US authorities on sensitivity in handling religious symbols during checks. 'We had explained to them that a pagri (turban) that a Sikh wears is not a headgear. It is a religious symbol, which should be treated with respect,' said Sen.

He said that there should be a 'reciprocal (treatment) across the board'. Similarly, former foreign secretary Romesh Bhandari said that 'reciprocity may be desirable'.