<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am a Brahmin<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sure? Ask your Mom who were your familyâs neighbors before you were born.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fundamental to all this is the need for a solid infrastructure - potable water system, safe and secure network of transportation and reliable power with minimal impact on the environment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Indian history has taught us anything it is the fact that economic progress has little meaning without a strong militarily to back it. India was one of the richest countries in the world till 17th century.
Yet from 9th century onwards till 17th century India was subjected to regular Islamic invasions which resulted in massacre of 80 million Hindus and more than 300 million Hindus being forcibly converted to Islam. Then again under Portuguese rule in Goa thousands of Hindus, who refused to convert to Christianity, were literally burnt at the stake.
Brit rule in India resulted in millions of people losing their lives in Bengal famine, thousands more Indians were brutally hanged after 1857 uprising and we still havenât forgotten what happened in Jalianwallah bagh etc. Also it must be noted that by the time Brits left India, they had reduced India to one of the poorest nations on the planet.
Even after independence, Pakistan invaded and illegally occupied POK, China invaded and occupied Aksai-Chin in 1962. Even today both China and Pakistan want to grab more of Indiaâs land (Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir etc). The fact is India still is surrounded by hostile neighbors, who have evil designs on India, so India needs powerful armed forces & also an effective nuclear deterrent in the years to comeâ¦
Therefore no.1 though India is becoming economically prosperous with each passing day but such economic progress will have little meaning if India remains militarily weak. No.2 Economic and military progress are not mutually exclusive but have to happen simultaneously.
Let me also add here that lowly creatures like Commies, evangelistâs flunkies as well as Islamic terrorists are a cross between animals and eunuchs. These ***holes have sold their soul to the devil for a few crumbs and all they can now do is abuse India and Hindus.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ajatshatru+Jul 22 2007, 02:39 PM-->QUOTE(Ajatshatru @ Jul 22 2007, 02:39 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
You sure? Ask your Mom who were your familyâs neighbors before you were born.
Hmm...he's about as much a 'brahmin from Thanjavur' as I am Japanese from Japan (and I most certainly know who my neighbours are). It is possible - just an inkling of possibility - that he is from Tamil nadu (willing to give him the benefit of doubt, simply from experience at handling little trolls in various guises from TN), but most certainly to be the MK 'dravida' type (if you get my drift), the one that is vehemently anti-hindu, and once in while (when enough drinks are poured into him) will call for a separate 'tamil dravida' country, away from rest of 'arya' India.
Many I've come across like to, for some weird reason, take on brahmin (or hindu) user-names in various forums (some kind Freudian issue?), and then bash at hinduism and hindus, as if assuming a 'brahmin or hindu' identity and bashing at hinduism would lend greater credibility to their banal or counterproductive posts.
(sigh) When they are ignored - which is probably the first step most adults will take when dealing with a badly behaved child - they will kick and scream and hurl abuses, and call everyone Hitler, or Mc-this and Mc-that (all part of the attention-seeking strategy - something to do with the childhood depravity?); when they continue to be ignored, they get meaner and louder - they mock, leer, spit, and if possible kick, and their name-calling gets more interesting and innovative; when still ignored, they eventually run out of steam, curl up on the floor exhausted and go to sleep. If they are still acting up, well the option would be to 'ban' them from the room, so that others don't have to hear all that offensive, abusive language emanating from such a 'small' person.
(sigh - this one emanating from the pit of my stomach) But then I could be entirely wrong about his original identity. He could well be a Timbuktoo-ian from Timbaktoo.
<b>UPA gets clean chit from US on religious freedom, BJP slammed </b>
<b>UPA gets clean chit from US on religious freedom, BJP slammed </b>
And we have another addition to the growing line of products from the US State Department, White House etc..
Watch out Angel Soft
...Watch out Charmin
...the competition is getting fiercer with each passing day, with each flush... <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
HP is ruled by COngress.
CONgress George forget to give upto date information to US state department.
Did US listed its own states in hate crime, they will beat any country hands down.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
09-20-2007, 05:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2007, 05:39 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Sep 15 2007, 06:32 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Sep 15 2007, 06:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://in.news.yahoo.com/070915/43/6ksbo.html
<b>UPA gets clean chit from US on religious freedom, BJP slammed </b>
[right][snapback]73184[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->From that link:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A report sent to the US Congress by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Further down:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The BJP continued to advocate for <b>contentious measures such as</b> the passage of 'anti-conversion' legislation in all states in the country, the construction of a Hindu temple in the Ayodhya site and <b>the enactment of a uniform civil code, it (the US report) said.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh, so the US is against a uniform civil code? Finds it 'contentious', does it. And seeing as how it is mentioned in this 'religious-freedom' report, the US is obviously an advocate for <i>separate</i> civil codes. Perhaps this is an invitation for Sharia laws for islamics to be introduced into the US. If the US govt keeps coming out with these lame reports, they might one day convince me to support separate civil codes too - only in the US, mind, since <i>they</i> find it such an important thing for religious freedom <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
When Sharia finally comes to the US, their govt should especially remember not to enact any anti-conversion laws in their land when the islamics start forcibly converting Americans ... US shouldn't be a hypocrite now, should it. (Dharmics don't like the christoislamic missionary tactics of bribing, lying, terrorising, killing in India. But the significantly christian population of America might only have a problem with such things when the <i>islamics</i> do it to <i>them</i>.)
In a duel with guns, when you take the first shot and miss, you have to stand still and wait for the other side to fire at you - as it's only fair. So let's see how the US takes it when Sharia comes a-calling in its own lands.
<b>Meanwhile in recent news, here's Hindu people - including Bajrang Dal</b> (dubbed as 'terrorist' by US govt and lying outlets. But will the other groups that the US think thanks have identified as terrorist - such as the AQ/Taliban, ever do something like the following for non-muslims?)
Hindustan Times - long link
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Muslims find home in Durga mandap</b>
Katrasgarh (Dhanbad), September 17, 2007
Itâs almost like a lesson in national integration taught in school.
When Raveena Khatoon and her ailing husband Md Safdar Ansari fell on hard times and were forced to live on the streets, the vendors in the locality put them up at a Durga Puja mandap. Most of them are Hindus, and some are even Bajrang Dal activists.
(Raveena is a Hindu name though. But I guess she must have converted when she married into islam...)
For a while, Raveena, her husband and their three children stayed outside Katrasgarh railway station. But soon, the vendors of the area decided a railway station was no place for a family to live.
<b>So, they got together and with the members of the Goods Shed Durga Puja Committee, set up a place for the family within the sanctified confines of a Durga mandap close by. </b>
âItâs like a homecoming for me. After staying on platforms to pavements, I have finally found a home, thanks to my Hindu brothers. That they showed the courage to put us up at a place that is considered sacred speaks volumes about their humanity,â Raveena told HT.
(It is not considered 'heresy or kaffiri' in Hinduism to help non-Hindus. That's islam.
Many Hindu temples regularly help poor non-Hindus - including Muslims - besides all the Hindus they help. And they never ask <i>nor intend</i> for anyone to convert.)
Puja committee member Arun Kumar said: âDurga Puja, after all, is in praise of divinity, and divinity is another name for humanity. They needed help and we just offered them a place to stay,â he said.
<b>Viplav Dey, a Bajrang Dal volunteer pointed out that Dal members had even donated blood to Raveenaâs husband, when he was sick.</b> âMost shopkeepers in this Hindu-dominated locality are Bajrang Dal sympathisers, but they too have come forward to help the distressed family,â he said.
But what will happen when the Durga Puja festivities begin? âSnack seller Prakash Ram and tea vendor Debu have decided they will take the family to their homes,â Dey said.
Residents of the Railway Colony, next to the Durga Mandap offer food to Raveenaâs daughter Roshni. And every evening, before the vendors at the station go home, they make sure Raveenaâs family is fed.
âWhat bothers us is how long this arrangement would last. Her husband is sick and needs to be treated at a good hospital. Raveena too is not very strong. Someone must take care of them,â said Pappu, a snack vendor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Guess US govt report is just more lies. So too those their hopeless 'think tanks' trying to present Hindu groups as terrorist. Must be a christian thing: everything not christian is 'terrorist'. No wonder they can't tell the difference between AQ/Taliban and Hindu groups.
09-20-2007, 07:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-20-2007, 07:34 PM by Shambhu.)
Husky,Sep 20 2007, 05:23 PM Wrote:[quote=k.ram,Sep 15 2007, 06:32 PM] Must be a christian thing: everything not christian is 'terrorist'. No wonder they can't tell the difference between AQ/Taliban and Hindu groups.
Exactly. The inability to see the world as it is, the ability to see it only through your own little world-view. So if your relogion tells you to look down upon all other religions, why, evey other religion must be the same onlee..
That man from Louisiana
Robert M. HathawayPosted online: Saturday, October 27, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Robert M. Hathaway
Related Stories 'Economic fallout of N-deal failure significant'
US hopes N-deal not dead, only postponed
Centre must clear Iran sanctions issue: CPI(M)
NRIs to persuade BJP, Left parties to accept deal
Centre must clear Iran sanctions issue: CPI(M)
Many, in the United States and abroad, have been dismayed by the intolerance and downright ugliness that has crept into American politics since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet, for all the unseemliness in the American political firmament today, there is also reason for satisfaction: apparently, it is the season for shattering glass ceilings erected long ago by prejudice and ignorance.
Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favourite to become the first woman elected president of the United States. If Clinton falters, Barack Obama would then have a very realistic chance of becoming Americaâs first black president. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, one of the leading contenders for his partyâs nomination, would be the first president of Mormon faith in US history. And now Bobby Jindal, the son of Punjabi Hindus, has been elected governor of Louisiana, the highest elected office ever won by an Indian-American.
Take note: Jindal was elected not in liberal Massachusetts or hip San Francisco, but in a politically and culturally conservative southern state that is still struggling with the racial demons of the past. Louisiana has figured in the news recently as the home of Jena, the town where nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree triggered school fights that resulted in five black students being charged with attempted murder â an apparent miscarriage of justice that set off nationwide protests. Yes, that Louisiana.
In some respects, Jindalâs triumph represents less of a breakthrough than the election of Clinton or Obama would. He had already shown his ability to win elected office in Louisiana; three years ago, voters in the stateâs first congressional district sent him to Washington as the first Indian-American elected to the US Congress in nearly half a century.
Moreover, having converted from Hinduism as a boy, he is Catholic in one of the most Catholic states in the country (nearly a third of the stateâs population). This religious affiliation may have helped him seem less âforeignâ to many voters. Also as a boy, he anglicised his name, abandoning Piyush for the quintessentially American âBobby.â And his political and economic conservatism places him squarely within the political mainstream of a state that gave George W. Bush 57 per cent of its vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Jindal fared poorly in the predominantly black precincts of the state. One post-election analysis estimated that he won 63 per cent of the white vote but only about 10 per cent of the black vote. On the other hand, he carried many of the deeply conservative portions of the state that, not long ago, supported the gubernatorial campaign of the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
Jindalâs election comes at a time of rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States. One contender for the Republican presidential nomination has based his candidacy almost entirely on a âget toughâ approach to illegal immigration. More broadly, many Americans worry that the United States is somehow losing its âAmericanâ character because of the influx of newcomers, many of them from Latin America. In this context, Jindalâs triumph seems a vote for tolerance and pluralism.
But most probably, his victory represents a vote for competence â in the face of the hapless response by Democratic state and local officials to the devastation from Hurricane Katrina two years ago â and an expression of disgust with Louisianaâs richly deserved reputation for corruption. His impressive resume lent credibility to his claims that he could provide good governance to a state that has known very little of that commodity over the years.
Members of the Indian-American community have embraced his victory, and there is some talk that Jindal could help bring that community â which has traditionally leaned toward the Democratic party â into the Republican fold. On the other hand, his conservatism places him at odds with the views of many â probably a majority â of Indian-Americans. For instance, he opposes hate crimes legislation, favoured by many minorities as a necessary legal protection.
The recent years have seen a lot of happy talk about the Indian-American community coming of age politically. The communityâs role in persuading the US Congress to support President Bushâs civilian nuclear agreement with India is often cited as a case in point. The large sums of money donated by the community to political candidates is seen as another indication that Indian-Americans have become key players in the political arena. Jindalâs victory in Louisiana will now be trumpeted as further proof that the community has joined the political mainstream.
Such claims ought to be tempered. In the case of the nuclear agreement â now shelved, at least temporarily, until New Delhi can sort out its political differences â it is exceedingly difficult to substantiate the boasts of community leaders who brag that they delivered Congress. It is one thing to hire lobbyists, host political fund-raisers, and visit congressional offices. It is quite another to demonstrate that these efforts actually swayed votes.
Compared to 20 years ago, the Indian-American community has made giant strides in claiming its right to participate fully in the American political process. Still, Indian-Americans must take care to distinguish between the appearance of power and the actual possession of power. Too often, they still seem willing to accept photo-ops and largely meaningless congressional resolutions commemorating Diwali as a substitute for genuine influence.
Even so, Jindalâs electoral success is a source of community pride. And given the size and affluence of the Indian-American community, the smart would bet that there will soon be other Bobby Jindals rising to positions of political prominence.
Jindalâs first comments to supporters following his victory touched not on his election triumph, but on the state universityâs football win over an arch rival earlier in the day. In this understanding of what most voters actually care about, he truly demonstrated his American roots. And thatâs why he won.
Should we be proud of Bobby Jindal?
The election of Bobby Jindal as governor of the US state of Louisiana has been greeted exultantly by Indians and Indian-Americans around the world. Thereâs no question that this is an extraordinary accomplishment: a young Indian-American, just 36 years old, not merely winning an election but doing so on the first ballot by receiving more votes than his 11 rivals combined, and that too in a state not noticeably friendly to minorities. Bobby Jindal will now be the first Indian-American governor in US history, and the youngest currently serving chief executive of an American state. These are distinctions of which he can legitimately be proud, and it is not surprising that Indians too feel a vicarious sense of shared pride in his remarkable ascent.
But is our pride misplaced? Who is Bobby Jindal and what does he really stand for?
There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of Indian migrants in America: though no sociologist, iâll call them the atavists and the assimilationists. The atavists hold on to their original identities as much as possible, especially outside the workplace; in speech, dress, food habits, cultural preferences, they are still much more Indian than American. The assimilationists, on the other hand, seek assiduously to merge into the American mainstream; they acquire a new accent along with their visa, and adopt the ways, clothes, diet and recreational preferences of the Americans they see around them. (Of course, there are the in-betweens, but weâll leave them aside for now.) Class has something to do with which of the two major categories an Indian immigrant falls into; so does age, since the newer generation of Indians, especially those born in America, inevitably tend to gravitate to the latter category.
Bobby Jindal is an assimilationistâs dream. Born to relatively affluent professionals in Louisiana, <b>he rejected his Indian name (Piyush) as a very young child, insisting that he be called Bobby, after a (white) character on the popular TV show âThe Brady Bunchâ. His desire to fit in to the majority-white society he saw around him soon manifested itself in another act of rejection: Bobby spurned the Hindusim into which he was born and, as a teenager, converted to Roman Catholicism, the faith of most white Louisianans.</b>
<b>There is, of course, nothing wrong with any of this, and it is a measure of his precocity that his parents did not balk at his wishes despite his extreme youth.</b> The boy was clearly gifted, and he soon had a Rhodes scholarship to prove it. But he was also ambivalent about his identity: he wanted to be seen as a Louisianan, but his mirror told him he was also an Indian. The two of us won something called an âExcelsior Awardâ once from the
Network of Indian Professionals in the US, and his acceptance speech on the occasion was striking â obligatory references to the Indian values of his parents, but a speech so American in tone and intonation that he mangled the Indian name of his own brother. There was no doubt which half of the hyphen this Indian-American leaned towards.
But there are many ways to be American, and itâs interesting which one Bobby chose. Many Indians born in America have tended to sympathise with other people of colour, identifying their lot with other immigrants, the poor, the underclass. Vinita Gupta, in Oklahoma, another largely white state, won her reputation as a crusading lawyer by taking up the case of illegal immigrants exploited by a factory owner (her story will shortly be depicted by Hollywood, with Halle Berry playing the Indian heroine). Bhairavi Desai leads a taxi driversâ union; Preeta Bansal, who grew up as the only non-white child in her school in Nebraska, became New Yorkâs Solicitor General and now serves on the Commission for Religious Freedom. None of this for Bobby. Louisianaâs most famous city, New Orleans, was a majority black town, at least until Hurricane Katrina destroyed so many black lives and homes, but there is no record of Bobby identifying himself with the needs or issues of his stateâs black people. Instead, he sought, in a state with fewer than 10,000 Indians, not to draw attention to his race by supporting racial causes. Indeed, he went well beyond trying to be non-racial (in a state that harboured notorious racists like the Ku Klux Klansman David Duke); he cultivated the most conservative elements of white Louisiana society. <b>With his widely-advertised piety (he asked his Indian wife, Supriya, to convert as well, and the two are regular churchgoers),</b> Bobby Jindal adopted positions on hot-button issues that place him on the most conservative fringe of the Republican Party. Most Indian-Americans are in favour of gun control, support a womanâs right to choose abortion, advocate immigrantsâ rights, and oppose school prayer (for fear that it would marginalise non-Christians). On every one of these issues, Bobby Jindal is on the opposite side. Heâs not just conservative; on these questions, he is well to the right of his own party.
That hasnât stopped him, however, from seeking the support of Indian-Americans. Bobby Jindal has raised a small fortune from them, and when he last ran (unsuccessfully) for governor in 2004, an army of Indian-American volunteers from outside the state turned up to campaign for him. Many seemed unaware of his political views; it was enough for them that he was Indian. At his Indian-American fundraising events, Bobby is careful to downplay his extreme positions and play up his heritage, a heritage that plays little part in his appeal to the Louisiana electorate. Indian-Americans, by and large, accept this as the price of political success in white America: itâs just good to have âsomeone like usâ in such high office, whatever views he professes to get himself there.
So Indians beam proudly at another Indian-American success story to go along with Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams, Hargobind Khorana and Subramaniam Chandrasekhar, Kal Penn and Jhumpa Lahiri. But none of these Indian Americans expressed attitudes and beliefs so much at variance with the prevailing values of their community. Let us be proud that a brown-skinned man with an Indian name has achieved what Bobby Jindal has. But let us not make the mistake of thinking that we should be proud of what he stands for.
<b>'Bush comments aimed at mounting pressure on India' </b>
Sun, May 4 04:44 PM
Chennai, May 4 (PTI) The BJP today said US President George W Bush's comments that global food shortage was due to increasing demand from India's middle class for quality food, was aimed at <b>mounting pressure on India to accept the agricultural practices propounded by the country</b>. Bush was trying to put the blame on India, instead of having a look at his country's policies and the way rich countries were managing globalisation, senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi told reporters here <b>"Instead of agriculture, they have gone for agri-business</b>.
America's diversion of corn to produce ethanol and trading practices have resulted in acute food shortage," he said, adding that the major objective of the Western food policy was to keep a large number of countries dependent on them. <b>"Our Prime Minister has already entered into an agreement with the US on agricultural sector </b> <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> and it's unfortunate that the Centre has not come out openly to discuss the agreement.
" Joshi said the Centre has already appointed a board, with representatives from <b>Monsanto and Wal-Mart in it, to implement the provisions of the agreement.</b> "However, both multinational companies do not have any knowledge on the Indian agricultural sector," he said.
He alleged that the economic policies framed after the 1990s was one of the main reasons for rising inflation and acute food shortage in India and demanded that the policies be reviewed. "We should have a re-look at the fundamentals of the country's agri-policy.
The Indian agriculture sector should not be completely linked with the international agricultural market," he said. PTI.
NEW DELHI: Nine-year-old Nalanda had no hesitation in telling the Supreme Court on Wednesday that she would like to stay with her mother, little realising that her wishes were diametrically opposite to the orders of a US court, which had asked her mother to give her back her father.
The minor's wishes weighed more with the Supreme Court. It directed that the mother would have the interim custody of Nalanda, even if it amounted to virtually overriding the US court order
<!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Which country is the TOI located in and operates in? Is there a whiteman must be obeyed dictum at TOI?
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jun 5 2008, 05:09 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jun 5 2008, 05:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Which country is the TOI located in and operates in? Is there a whiteman must be obeyed dictum at TOI?
white man must be obeyed and feted is a dictum not just in many publications but also on some web forums . As I found out recently. Moreover some people in this country are now hell bent on seeing the white man's pseudo war with Islam as their war as well. they bask in the glow of the sunshine the white man is blowing up their whatever .
And before I am banned out of this forum as well , given that it seems to have the same milieu of moderators that another site as , I must point out that "hindu discourse " must keep it's sanity and not end up giving too much importance to Islamists and forget the threat from the west altogether. Moreover it should provide a "cultural alternative" and not seem reactionary .
Continuing with my rant since this will probably be my last post ( and even this may be deleted) , there is no point in forming cliques on the web with pseudo ideologues who think nobody else knows anything about Islam/deterrence/America whatever and focus on reducing ourselves to the level of an Islamist . However these very same people become admins on sites that purport to defend India , which sorry to say are of late only alienating people. then like shameful hypocrites whine on their own forums about how others are "sniping" and "trolling" without seeing the glowing example that they have set themselves.
hope a few people see this and take it for whatever they think it is worth.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The US and India are two great democracies. And we know that our systems require compromise for the greater good. Sometimes our leaders have to make tough choices that are in our long-term national interests," Gutierrez said.
Speaking about global food crisis, Gutirrez said, "Many countries have unilaterally lowered food tariffs in response to the rising food crisis. Yet many of these countries balk at eliminating these same tariffs within the Doha negotiations. Here's where national interests could be linked to the global good. By making permanent agriculture reforms, we can boost farm trade and expand access to food."
Gutierrez also argued that nothing could immediately help the world's poor more than the completion of a meaningful and ambitious Doha Round.
"This is why we need India's help. India is a major leader, not just among developing nations, but across the whole world. We can't have a successful Doha Round without India's leadership. While success at Doha is critical, together we can also make progress in addressing impediments to economic growth including reducing shortages of food.
India is a major leader and across the whole world. This is flattery to fool the Indians.
America, sunny side up
Thu, Jun 19 02:01 AM
Acres of news space in the United States have been devoted to lamenting America's falling reputation. Americans want desperately to be loved. But the country's popularity has been steadily decreasing for the better part of this decade, particularly in Europe and Southwest Asia. Moreover, there are indications that blame for a future global economic slowdown may be pinned on its economic policies.
Most Americans believe that the next US president will mark a decisive shift for the better for the US's worldwide popularity, especially if Democratic candidate Barack Obama is elected in November. Indians, however, appear unconvinced. The Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs, Turks, and Mexicans are among those who seemingly share India's wariness concerning Obama's slogan of 'Change'.
The latest Pew Global Attitudes survey report, released on June 12, measures attitudes on a wide spectrum of issues in 24 countries. The findings on India, particularly with regard to US policies and politics, are incisive. The sample size for India is small (2,056) and those polled are overwhelmingly urban, yet the consistency of the survey's findings in India over the past years reinforces its value, as does the increased breadth of those polled in India. Additionally, Indians' positions on issues can be accurately compared to the Chinese, Pakistanis and Brazilians, who were all represented disproportionately by urban residents in this survey.
After the US, India has the narrowest difference between those who have confidence in Barack Obama as US president and those who have confidence in John McCain, with Obama leading 33 to 28 per cent. Both, however, lag behind the incumbent president George W. Bush, whose confidence rating among Indians is still astonishingly high at 55 per cent. Indians are also the only people who rate Bush higher than Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. Obama, meanwhile, fares worse only in Mexico and in four Muslim countries: Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan. After Poland and some Muslim countries, India has the largest percentage of people who think the US polls will bring a change for the worse in terms of US foreign policy (21 per cent).
What does this indicate about Indian attitudes towards the upcoming US elections? Indians are among the most suspicious of change brought about by either a McCain or Obama presidency. Basically, current American policies relevant to India are seen as overwhelmingly positive.
This is buttressed by some of the survey's other findings. Indians have a 66 per cent favourability rating of the US, behind only South Korea and Poland among the countries polled. More significantly, India is also one of only four countries where people have higher approval ratings of the US than of Americans (the others are Nigeria, China and Mexico).
The predominant causes for this goodwill appear to be the potential benefits of economic and commercial cooperation with the US and an appreciation of the American-led global economic order. At 41 per cent, Indians are by far the most positive about US economic influence. India is also the second most pro-trade country, with 90 per cent of people saying it is good (behind only Nigeria). And at 87 per cent, Indians are the most optimistic of any people on the personal benefits of trade. More surprisingly, Indians are by some margin the most good-willed towards foreigners buying domestic companies (59 per cent). We have a indoctrinated population.
To a lesser degree, Indian goodwill towards the US is reinforced by relative agreement with the current American leadership on political issues. Other than African states, Mexico and some formal US allies, India has the largest percentage of people who consider the US a partner (40 per cent). Indians are more accepting of a partnership with the US than many of its formal allies, including Spain, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan and Argentina. Surprisingly, given the anti-American rhetoric of the Indian chattering classes, more urban Indians think US influence in their country is beneficial (34 per cent), than those who perceive it as detrimental (25 per cent). Other than Nigeria, India is also the only country where the majority of those polled believe US efforts in Iraq will succeed.
Indians, therefore, appear unfamiliar with the major US presidential candidates and undecided about whom to support. What they do know is that the current US leadership's policies - political but especially economic - have been beneficial to India. They're uncertain whether a John McCain presidency will continue where Bush leaves off. But they also appear concerned that Obama's message of 'Change' - music to the ears of so many Americans - may not necessarily mean a change for the better.
The writer researches US foreign policy towards South Asia in Washington DC
U.S. Muslims Again Seek Visa Denial for Gujarat Massacre Figure
June 19, 2008
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking that an Indian official accused of complicity in the massacre of Muslim civilians in that nation again be denied a visa to travel to the U.S. Recent news reports indicate that supporters of Narendra Modi, chief minister of Indiaâs state of Gujarat, hope to have him attend the upcoming second World Gujarati Conference in Edison, N.J., on August 29-31, 2008.
In 2005, CAIR partnered with the Indian Muslim Council-USA and the Coalition Against Genocide (CAG) to oppose Modiâs visa request to travel to the U.S. to speak at a convention in Florida. His request for a visa was denied.</b>
In a letter to Secretary Rice, CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed wrote in part âIf a visa application is made for Chief Minister Modi, we request that it be denied on grounds similar to the Department of Stateâs visa denial in early 2005. Specifically, we request that if Modi requests a visa he be ruled inadmissible to the United States based on Section 604 of the International Religious Freedom Act, which bars entry to any foreign official who has engaged in âparticularly severe violations of religious freedom.ââ
CAIR, Americaâs largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. End
To know more about this phony moderate islamic group:go here
Council on American-Islamic Relations - Wikipedia
CAIR hits a new low of defamation
âLet there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially fundedby terrorists, founded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in Americaâ from http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Towns has generally been solid on foreign affairs, but holds a few positions that are just bizarre, like when he lobbied the Clinton Administration to declare the Republic of India a "terrorist nation":
In July, Towns published a list of attacks on Christians indicating "the pattern of Indian terrorism against its minorities" and demanded that "India should be declared a terrorist nation." Towns, who is regularly provided material by the Council of Khalistan headed by Gurmit Singh Aulakh, alleged that the Chattisinghpora massacre was the handiwork of the Indian government. (The White House dismissed the allegation saying there is absolutely "no credible evidence" of any government involvement in the massacre.)
With Barron opting against another run, choosing instead to run for Brooklyn Borough President, the man opposing Ed Towns this year is Kevin Powell.
Those who are US citizens can support Kevin Powell.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S.
Any hitching of our wagons to the U.S. global agenda at such a juncture when unprecedented fluidity has appeared in world politics will be incredibly foolhardy.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singhâs remark at Hokkaido last Wednesday that âIndia and [the] United States must stand tall, stand shoulder to shoulder, and thatâs what is going to happenâ constitutes an unfortunate statement. We would never know what prompted the Prime Minister to make such a brave statement in the contemporary world situation. Even if the statement was made to flatter U.S. President George W. Bush who was present by his side, that was carrying personal diplomacy a bit too far. Surprisingly, Dr. Singh added while saying so that his opinion was shared by the âthinking segments of our [Indian] population.â
Dr. Singhâs statement plays out very awkwardly in the current regional and international situation. Hardly had Dr. Singh spoken that an American aircraft once again indulged in a war crime in Afghanistan, killing 41 Afghan civilians who formed a marriage party, most of whom were women and children. Again, a well-known forum of anti-war agitators in the U.S. put out the figures that as of July 9 â the day Dr. Singh spoke â 1,236,604 Iraqis have lost their lives since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
Those hapless Afghans and Iraqis will think so poorly of us Indians when we insist on standing tall and shoulder to shoulder with the Bush administration at this point. Even the thinking segments of Indians will be hard-pressed to agree. Indeed, Dr. Singh was amazingly nonchalant about what is going on in Indiaâs neighbourhood. The sabre-rattling over Iran has grown louder. The Iraqi media, citing Defence Ministry sources in Baghdad, have reported that the U.S. has allowed Israeli aircraft to use its airbases in Iraq and to fly over Iraqi airspace for any attack on Iran. Iran has taken the precaution of test-firing missiles, including a new version of its long-range Shahab-3 missile, which puts Israel within Iranian striking range. Hardly 24 hours before Dr. Singh spoke, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Al Khamenei warned that Tehran would âset on fireâ any aggressor.
Meanwhile, the tempo of U.S.-Israeli consultations has also picked up. Israelâs Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli armed forces chief Lt. General Gabi Ashkenzai are separately visiting Washington this month. Israeli diplomatic sources have admitted that âIran will top the agenda.â The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, had visited Israel only two weeks ago. Now comes the sensational story in The Sunday Times newspaper in London, which quotes Pentagon officials as revealing that Mr. Bush has given an âamber lightâ to Israel. âAmber means you get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when youâre ready,â the unnamed Pentagon official helpfully explained.
Dr. Singh will have a serious problem if Mr. Bushâs amber light ever turns green. His senior Cabinet colleague, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, seems to anticipate such an anti-climax. At any rate, on Monday, South Block issued a statement distancing New Delhi from any U.S. plans to attack Iran. Mr. Mukherjee might have taken the precaution of ensuring that India is not seen tall and shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. just at this moment at least. Or the government could be assuaging domestic Muslim opinion so that Minister of State E. Ahmed is not embarrassed in his political constituency. It does smack of a lack of principles. Charles-Louis De Secondat wrote in The Spirit of the Laws (1748): âThe deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.â
But no matter South Blockâs peregrinations, the damage is done to our regional policy. Dr. Singhâs statement in Hokkaido would certainly have been noted in Tehran and in the region. Eyebrows would have been raised in the region, which is already tense about the Bush administrationâs intentions in the coming critical weeks and months. Possibly, Mr. Bush may not trigger another war. What goes on in his inner world is difficult to divine. The risk of potential conflict in the region is increasing. The possibility of Israel attempting a strike against Iranâs nuclear facilities, with tacit U.S. support, cannot be ruled out. Tehran has not closed the door on negotiations but an agreement with the world powers during Mr. Bushâs term is improbable. It means the situation in the region will remain tense all the way until the morning of January 20 when Mr. Bush relinquishes power and retires to Texas.
Suffice it to say that Indiaâs image and reputation in the region would not exactly gain by identifying with the Bush administrationâs belligerent policy towards Iran. All the good work Mr. Mukherjee and his team painstakingly undertook in the past several months by way of mending the broken fences in ties with Tehran goes for a six when the Prime Minister proclaims New Delhiâs solidarity with Washington. Actually, Dr. Singhâs statement in Hokkaido runs contrary to the grain of opinion regarding the âwar on terrorâ in the West.
Take the Afghanistan problem, for instance. A multi-national Pew Global Attitudes Project poll conducted in April â even before the bloody months of May, June, and July â revealed that public opinion was vehemently turning against the war in Afghanistan. In the U.S., 44 per cent of respondents favoured troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, up from 32 per cent in February. In the NATO member-countries of Europe â France, Germany, Spain, Poland and Turkey â majorities ranging from 54 per cent to 72 per cent favoured withdrawal.
Against this backdrop, why should Indian foreign policy go out on a limb? The astounding thing is that Dr. Singh, while speaking in Hokkaido, seemed to have been oblivious of the storms gathering in international politics. The day before he spoke, a watershed event took place in Prague when the U.S. and the Czech Republic signed an agreement regarding the deployment of components of the U.S. missile defence system in Central Europe. As a noted Moscow commentator put it: âthe deployment of [U.S.] missile defence systems on the Russian border will close the era in global history that began with Mikhail Gorbachevâs perestroika and glasnost.â
Unsurprisingly, the Russian reaction has been sharp. President Dmitry Medvedev reacted from Hokkaido itself on July 9. He said Russia was âdismayedâ over the U.S. missile defence deployment. The Russian Foreign Ministry warned, in a statement, that Moscow would be forced to respond with a âmilitary-technical approachâ rather than a diplomatic one. Russiaâs envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rozogin, said the U.S. deployment in Central Europe would be âa totally destabilising element between the East and the West.â Top Russian military experts have called on Moscow to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the United States. There are reports that Russia might deploy tactical Iskander-M missiles in the Kaliningrad Region, from where they could reach the U.S. systems in Central Europe.
Surely South Block cannot be in the dark about all that is happening. The issue is whether a serious regional power such as India can remain indifferent to these developments, more so, as this cannot be seen as Russiaâs problem alone. Two days later, on July 11, Chinaâs Peopleâs Daily noted that the U.S. move âimplies a vital, crucial step â¦ of far-reaching significance in the security and political fields.â The commentary criticised the U.S. move as being based on the doctrine of nuclear superiority and absolute security. It said it therefore âviolates the global strategic balance and undermines the existing arms control regime.â
The Peopleâs Daily warned that not only Russia but other nations too would âseek ways for their own protectionâ from the U.S.âs pursuance of absolute security and they would be âobligedâ to resort to âtechnical upgrading and increased quantitiesâ of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. Most important, the Chinese commentary underscored that âa missile race between regions and nations is inevitable and the proliferation of the related technologies is also very likely.â
Clearly, the international system is heading for a period of turbulence. A prolonged period of readjustment may ensue in all likelihood. India cannot be indifferent. Several factors come into play, including the acute problems facing the U.S. economy, the looming crisis over energy security, NATOâs continuing expansion, and the potential defeats in the âwar on terrorâ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only the most audacious judgment bordering on the reckless can be certain about the denouement. To say the least, any hitching of our wagons to the U.S. global agenda at such a juncture when unprecedented fluidity has appeared in world politics will be incredibly foolhardy. Besides, it is all highly unnecessary.
The only charitable explanation that can be given to Dr. Singhâs extraordinary statement is that he was simply overwhelmed by the unique occasion on the wind-swept island of Hokkaido â Mr. Bush standing by his side expressing fulsome compliments for rushing the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal past the Rubicon.
(The author is a former Ambassador belonging to the Indian Foreign Service.)
(2008, Mar) "Whither American Foreign Policy in the Next Administration?"
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA
2008-06-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253183_index.html
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The president who succeeds George W. Bush in office will face several challenges, not least of which will be the attempt to reestablish American credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness among many governments and populations around the world. This paper argues that while a new president can overcome a certain degree of resistence to US policy by virtue of a personnel change alone, this will not be sufficient to fully repair strained relations, and to reestablish an American global role that resembles the pre-9/11 world. First of all, while the US can change its policies, it cannot control the effects of past policies. In addition, developments such as 1) political and leadership changes in France, Britain and other EU countries; and 2) the impacts of Chinese and Indian economic growth, as well as the more globally engaged diplomacy of these countries, have produced changes in the international system that cannot be changed by a new American president and new American policy priorities.