• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India and US - III
Ugly American in South Asia

Gautam Sen

The idea that India and Pakistan comprise a hyphenated dyad for US policy makers is devoid of meaning. <b>It implies US failure to recognise India's claims to special moral and material worth by unjustly equating it with Pakistan.

Far from placing both on the same level, it is Pakistan that has always enjoyed US short and medium term priority. India may have a role to play in future US geopolitical plans in Asia, but on-going US policy suggests indifference to compelling Indian interests. It might also be noted in passing that the US would be foolish to pick a serious quarrel with China, which would be an unnecessary distraction and has avoided doing so.

This is why after every outrage committed by a Pakistan, with which India is supposedly unfairly treated as a hyphenated equal, what India gets is ritual sympathy. But it is almost as if India was the unfortunate victim of periodic natural calamities. Pakistan can evidently carry on with its merry murder of kafirs to satisfy jihadi blood lust.

And its invariable denial of involvement, cajoled by the US no doubt, merely prevents private Pakistani gloating becoming too uncomfortably public. Unfortunately, most Pakistanis, including the educated, gloat over India's ineffectual thrashing about after each bloody act.

They have accurately concluded that the only leverage they have against India is terror, which works a treat in the bargain. In the past decade, Indian governments have confirmed Pakistani cynicism by desperately clinging to the chimera of peace despite every outrage. Indians seem well and truly tangled up in their dhotis in bloodthirsty Pakistani eyes.

The US would surely benefit from the emergence of a strong India in Asia. But its strength can only grow in the unlikely event that Indian domestic politics escape the self-defeating re-distributive competitive trap into which its has fallen. A strong India would constitute a balancing mechanism to curb excessive Chinese ambitions. Alongside Japan, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries, India would comprise the ring of deterrence.

The US would be the major beneficiary of this power equation because neither Asian group would wish US strength to tip the scales in favour of their rival. The European Union has no collective policy and while individual countries can be envious none is foolish enough to truly oppose the US. Russia is geographically remote and without the naval capacity to chart a course in Asia independent of its location.

However, the short to medium-term US policy in South Asia is to protect Pakistan from Indian retaliation for menacing the very survival of the Indian Union. In addition to threatening Indian governments directly, the US has mobilised its numberless surrogates in India to chant a chorus of peace. The media and largely procured intelligentsia show remarkable unity in their unwavering demand for peace at any cost. In this context, the Left-Right divide is completely spurious because India's Leftist intelligentsia has collaborated with the CIA ever since the heady days of their conjoint defence of Yahya Khan in 1971. <b>very important information</b>

Of course the Left prefers to have their instructions transmitted via Beijing. This has proved entirely feasible since current Sino-US cooperation over South Asia remains robust though dark clouds of competition between them loom in the distant horizon. The cynicism of US policy in South Asia is the unavoidable hallmark of power politics just as Indian displays of hurt and sentimentality highlight frailty and self-doubt.

Worst of all, the failure of India's indigenous nuclear weapons' programme has cowed the Indian state and its armed forces. <b>It is Pakistan that has acquired the upper hand because it is capable of delivering a crippling nuclear strike. Indian vulnerability was exposed during operation Parakram when a Pakistani missile test forced India to step down.</b> He He He <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Both civil society and the state have been rendered impotent in the face of the most violent onslaught against India, the first prostituting itself, the other hog-tied by policy error and hubris.
Besieged by multiple revolts within and terror from without the Indian state is a mere shadow, solemnly engaged only with the inane and irrelevant. Mahatma Gandhi advised European Jewry to commit collective suicide rather than resist Hitler, a tragic homily his own are espousing with deadly conviction. The refrain of peace at all costs is likely to become India's own funeral dirge.

Nevertheless, ostensible US support for India's nuclear energy ambitions may constitute a breakthrough, but only barely. The Indo-US accord merely promises to lift an unfair embargo though, crucially, it will effectively mean India's de facto recognition as the sixth nuclear power. The lifting of the nuclear fuel embargo is a valuable outcome for India, but there is widespread hostility to the Indo-US accord in India itself.

So deep is Indian mistrust of the US, which the US cannot seem to restrain itself from stoking, many Indians suspect something ominous is afoot. And every Pakistani atrocity confirms Indian misgivings, as disingenuous expressions of US regret come thick and fast because it is suspected even mosquitoes in Pakistan require US permission to bite.

However, the Indo-US nuclear energy accord could be a part of its long-term Asian security strategy to strengthen India. It is evidently not synchronised with the short-and medium US policy to satiate jihadi lust for Indian blood.

There is a possible sinister explanation that could reconcile the contradiction between the apparent US desire for a strong India while remaining complicit in letting it bleed severely in the interim. The US wishes to create a strong India, but not in its present social and religious incarnation. US governmental agencies and a myriad Christian churches, which maintain a fictional distance but always collude to achieve national goals, are seeking to create a large constituency of converts in India.

The aim is to ensure that the empowered India that might emerge in the future with US help is one loyal to it. This is why various US agencies are assiduous in their concern for every Indian community that might have a possible grievance. These agencies have corrupted impecunious Indians and greedy media proprietors, getting them to incessantly propagate the message of caste, gender, religious and every type of imagined division.

The defence of Muslims rights is a useful decoy as well to accentuate the campaign though Muslims are streaming into India and enjoy a better life in it than any other place on earth. The conspirators are confident that Indians, though mostly illiterate, remain wary of Islam and will choose Christianity.

The objective is to persuade discontented groups that their rights are being violated and worth fighting for. Thus every possible societal fault line in India is carefully examined, catalogued by researchers and cultivated to ensure that they become gaping wounds. The obvious candidate to blame is upper caste Indians because they are an easily identifiable scapegoat to vilify for every affliction.

This is the group that clearly needs to be disenfranchised politically for any foreign power to dominate India. And Christian evangelism is the ideological instrument to ensure their permanent annihilation. Such a radical transformation in national religious identity has been achieved in recent memory in the Republic of Korea, which is now largely Christian. It is failing abysmally in China, which crushes foreign proselytisers mercilessly. India's fate hangs in the balance.
India-US links will make Pak, others prosperous'

Tuesday September 13, 2005 (1444 PST)

WASHINGTON, September 14 (Online): Dismissing apprehensions that the Indo-US strategic relationship may harm the interests of India's neighbours, the United States has said that contrary to this, the tie-up is beneficial to the whole region.

"We certainly do not see any cause for concern on the part of India's neighbours for the relationship that is developing between the United States and India," US State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters at the Foreign Press Centre of the State Department here yesterday.

"To the contrary, this is a relationship that holds the promise of greater stability, greater prosperity - greater prosperity for the entire region," he said when asked whether the tie-up may cause concern for India's neighbours.

"The way to look at it, frankly, is that the closer the integration, the greater the synergies between individual countries in a region, the greater the benefits for the region as a whole. This is both in terms of trade because you've got goods flowing more freely, you've got economies of scale that work more effectively, that leads to increased employment, increased productivity, and increased income."

"When you've got an economic power, like India, which India undeniably is, working together with another world economic power, the United States, to maximise scientific research, to enhance agriculture - and these are parts of our developing relationship - there are going to be ripple effects that have a positive impact on countries like Bangladesh, like Nepal, like Sri Lanka, like Pakistan," Ereli said.

"So I think that this is a forward movement that not only serves as an example and will help to support closer ties between countries of the region and the United States, but it also has a very real economic impact. "India is a rising power and the best way to deal with rising powers is to integrate them into partnerships, international institutions, international cooperative ventures because that channels the energy and the impulses of a developing power in positive, mutually supportive, mutually beneficial directions," Ereli said.

"And that really is, I would say, the philosophical premise of what we're doing and in that respect, India's neighbours, I think, should welcome this partnership, should see it as a move towards responsible cooperation that will help ensure that India's and the region's development - scientific, technical, economic - develop in ways that are constructive, that are integrated well into world systems, that are responsive to the needs of the people of India, needs of the United States, needs of the region, and consistent with the direction that the rest of the world is moving in," he said

Read what others have to say

Both, India and the US are not only economic powers but they are also aggressive military powers who tend to think that their interests must be protected by any means, even when those ineterests are outright unscrupulous. Both of these countries seek to dominate its neighbours and other countries and both of them beleive that it is their right, both of these countries have the history of engaging in illegal covert operations(another form of terrorism) in other countries which included political assassinations. This is why when these two countries form a partnership, others become alarmed. When Hitler had signed a pact with Stalin he also tried to tell the world that he had nothing but peaceful intentions. Then within a very short period Poland lost its sovereignty to Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. I believe countries in South Asia have plenty to learn from this history.

Posted by Tarek Masud, Bangladesh
Sunday, November 20, 2005

VIEW: US-India nuclear agreement will strengthen NPT —Ashley J Tellis

There is a fear that the US-Indian agreement will open the door to other nuclear suppliers engaging in reckless transfers of nuclear technology to their own preferred partners. This is possible, but not inevitable. A great deal depends on whether the international community will join the United States in viewing India as the only country worthy of special treatment

The Indo-US bilateral agreement providing New Delhi access to the long-denied civilian nuclear technology has emerged as a contentious issue in the US Congress. But it need not be because the deal is good for both countries’ national security interests as well as for preventing nuclear proliferation.

The July 18, 2005 agreement, many critics assert, would undermine the global non-proliferation regime and ultimately American security. At the first hearing on this subject on September 8, 2005, Congressman Henry J Hyde correctly noted that among the critical questions surrounding this agreement was whether its “net impact on our non-proliferation policy is positive or negative”. On October 26, 2005, at the second hearing on this issue, four out of the five witnesses empanelled by the House Committee on International Relations affirmed the conventional wisdom that such a deal weakens non-proliferation rather than strengthening it.

Contrary to these gloomy prognostications, the president’s new agreement with India is actually a bold step that will strengthen the non-proliferation order for many decades to come. Far from being a freebie for New Delhi, it represents a considered American strategy for integrating India into the non-proliferation regime, which India has not been part of since the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968.

The NPT was intended to prevent global proliferation by compelling all non-nuclear weapon states to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions as the price for enjoying access to civilian nuclear technology. This trade-off worked for most countries and represents a profound diplomatic accomplishment. For a variety of political and philosophical reasons, however, India chose not to sign the NPT and went on to build both a large civilian nuclear infrastructure and a nuclear weapons stockpile based mainly on indigenous expertise. Thus, the restrictions on nuclear commerce that the United States orchestrated since 1974 progressively lost their relevance as far as India was concerned. In effect, India became an exceptional case regarding nuclear weapons and non-proliferation.

Nevertheless, New Delhi established through this entire period an exemplary record of controlling onward proliferation. India’s commendable non-proliferation history, however, is owed entirely to sovereign decisions made by its government, not to its adherence to international agreements. As a result, any unilateral change in the Indian government’s policy of strict non-proliferation could pose serious problems for American security.

This concern has acquired particular urgency in the post-9/11 era because of the incredibly sophisticated capabilities present in India today and because India remains at the cutting edge of research and development activities in new fuel cycle technologies. Bringing New Delhi into the global non-proliferation regime through a lasting bilateral agreement that defines clearly enforceable benefits and obligations, therefore, not only strengthens American efforts to stem further proliferation but also enhances US national security.

The president’s accord with India advances these objectives in a fair and direct way. It recognises that it is unreasonable to continue to ask India to bear the burdens of enforcing the global non-proliferation regime in perpetuity, while it suffers stiff and encompassing sanctions from that same regime. So the president proposes to give India access to nuclear fuel, technology, and knowledge in exchange for New Delhi institutionalising rigorous export controls, placing its civilian reactors under international safeguards, and actively assisting the United States in reducing proliferation worldwide.

In other words, he offers India the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation in exchange for transforming a unilateral Indian commitment to non-proliferation into a formally verifiable and permanent international responsibility.

This deal, obviously, does not imply less US commitment to maintain through intense diplomacy in the months and years ahead the vitality of the NPT regime, which remains critical to American national interests. Extraordinary problems justify extraordinary solutions. The international community has long recognised India’s anomalous position in the NPT framework. Consequently, three out of the five legitimate nuclear weapon states have welcomed the Bush-Singh agreement and even the exception thus far — China — has been silent rather than opposed. Despite this fact, many fear that the agreement could undercut the basic bargain of the NPT and lead several current non-nuclear weapon states to seek those same benefits now offered to India.

This concern must be taken seriously, but it is exaggerated. For starters, there is no international pressure to re-negotiate the NPT from either its nuclear or its non-nuclear signatories. Further, those non-nuclear weapon states that joined the regime and continue to remain members in good standing did so because the treaty emphatically serves their national interests.

If anything, these countries should join IAEA Director-General Mohammed El Baradei in applauding the Bush-Singh initiative, because an India that undertakes binding international non-proliferation obligations promotes the security of non-nuclear weapons states as much as it does that of the United States. Not surprisingly, then, many non-nuclear weapon states such as Canada and Australia have endorsed the agreement.

Finally, with regard to worries about other NPT non-signatories demanding similar deals to the one that Bush and Singh have just brokered, it is worth noting that India currently remains the only outlier worthy of such unique treatment. Although India, Pakistan, and Israel have not violated any NPT obligations by developing their nuclear deterrents, New Delhi alone meets the following criteria that justify international cooperation: It has proven mastery over various nuclear fuel cycles, which must now be safeguarded in the global interest.

It has an exceptional non-proliferation record, despite having been a target of the international non-proliferation regime. Most importantly, it has enormous energy needs that cannot be satisfied without access to nuclear fuel (and to nuclear power more generally), if it is simultaneously expected to help mitigate the problems of climate change and environmental degradation.

Two other arguments often surface in the debate over proposed US-Indian nuclear cooperation. The first is that it would exacerbate the problems posed by Iran and North Korea. This claim must be rejected since the only thing common to these three cases is the word “nuclear” — nothing more.

Iran and North Korea violated their NPT obligations; India did not. This simple fact ensures that whatever the issues relating to accommodating New Delhi may be, they ought not to be mixed up with those of managing regimes that have consistently cheated on their international obligations and then repeatedly lied about it.

The second argument contends that the US-Indian agreement will open the door to other nuclear suppliers engaging in reckless transfers of nuclear technology to their own preferred partners. This is possible, but not inevitable. A great deal depends on whether the international community will join the United States in viewing India as the only country worthy of special treatment.

At present, an emerging agreement on this issue is in the works and the prospects for a consensus are bright because India is a democratic state, has not violated international agreements and has exhibited responsible custodianship of its nuclear assets. In any event, the administration is committed to working with its international partners to reach closure on this issue and, hence, it ought not to be assumed that the understanding with New Delhi will automatically open doors to other nuclear suppliers engaging in emulative arrangements.

On balance, there are many reasons why Congress should support the president’s historic civil nuclear agreement with India. It would be unfortunate if the legislative branch overlooked the fact that strengthening the global non-proliferation regime is clearly one of them.

Ashley J Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and served in the US Department of State as senior adviser to the ambassador at the Embassy of the United States in India. He is author of India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture. This article appeared in YaleGlobal Online (www.yaleglobal.yale.edu), a publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and is reprinted by permission. Copyright © 2003 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
<b>The United States of America is currently engaged in having more intense interaction with India.No one single reason can be attributed to be responsible for this shift in the US policy. In the last few months, we find that USA declared India to be a responsible Nuclear State.This was followed by the holding of a joint Naval Exercise off the West Coast and a two week long US India Joint Air Exercise near Kolkata.Immediately after that the US Pantagon announced leasing of two P-3C Orion aircrafts to India.At the same time, the US economic interaction with India is alos developing rapidly.There has been various different views voiced by different people as to what actually brought about the change. It is quite possible that the US wants to have India as its partner in Asia against the emerging economic power of China. Secondly, in view of the continuing growth of the Indian economy, USA may like to have a bigger share in the Indian market.</b>
what makes US think that its better to ally India to contain China, than ally with China to contain India?? Is it about our perception on ourself that we can't become a super power or is it China's that it can become one?

Does US believe that China is inching towards super-power status, if yes, what are reasons did it use to come to that conclusion.??
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what makes US think that its better to ally India to contain China, than ally with China to contain India??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
China is far ahead in technology, mass industrial production, nuclear, man power and controlled state. China is an only country at this moment that can or already threatens US. Don’t forget few years back Mr. Bush said sorry to China.
China is arming every nation or group who are against US.
US still think and believe that India is not immediate threat. India being a noisy democratic state can be controlled as and when required. India had talent but lacks infrastructure and far behind China in every aspect.
<b>You should remember that India and the United States of America are both democracies whereas China has still a Communist system in place. Therefore, it is much easier for USA to interact with India rather than with China. The only danger is that it may alienate USA from Pakistan. I am sure USA will be able to do the balancing act.

The majority of the Indians by character are pro USA, despite the fact that USA has sided with Pakistan in the past. There are several valid reasons for this attitude amongst the Indians.

We should also keep in mind the fact that in the process of decolonization of the world since 1946 till the late 1970s, the British, French, Belgium, Dutch and other colonial powers did not leave the colonies out of any great benevolence on their part. The United States made it a point at the height of the Second World War to get an undertaking from the Colonial Powers of Europe that they will make the world free once the war is over. In the case of India, the British left the country not only because the freedom movement of Mahatma Gandhi was making it impossible for Britain to continue its rule, but because there was intense pressure from the United States of America on this issue. While dealing with the subject under discussion, we should not look at the world on the narrow mirror of why USA sided with Pakistan. We should look at the overall world situation that was prevailing at that time.
Most of us are aware that USA has provided massive economic assistance to India since our Independence and there is no denying of the fact, that the economic and industrial structure of present day India would not have been possible without the blessings of the United States of America. It may not provided us with the M-48 Patton tank of the F-104 Star fighter, but it enabled India to stand on its own feet and made it capable not only to defend itself but also to be heard and acted upon at International Forums.

As an ordinary Indian citizen what I felt regarding India-US relation.
US directly supported India till Kennedy era. Downhill journey started during Nixon era and continued till Clinton's first term. US continuous aid to India through different agencies helped India to stand on its own, But it used to twist India's arm. US media or overt comments by US government officials were always negative. US public perception regarding India is changing but they still think India is a very poor country. Lot of goodwill by US citizens is due to yoga or they consider India as land of spirituality. Even when media or government became very negative US public were never against India. They don't hate us.
Regarding genesis of US India relations and its antecedents in Anglo Indian policy read my presentation on the South Asia File, presented at the recent BR-IF meeting at Paso Robles

The South Asia File

<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/IENov172005.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>Anti-India US Congressman visiting Delhi </b> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Congressman Dan Burton,</b> who has been seen with suspicion by New Delhi in the past for advocacy of Kashmir cause, is arriving in India on Monday at the head of a 15 member delegation of US lawmakers.

Burton, currently co-chairman of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, is tipped as the new chairman of Congress committee for foreign relations.  <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>The itinerary of Burton's team includes detailed deliberations with Kashmiri leaders. Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, National Conference president Omar Abdullah and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chief Mehbooba Mufti have been invited to New Delhi for a meeting with the Congressmen.</b> Sources said US Congress representatives are meeting with the Kashmiri politicians to explore the possibilities of an "interim solution" to the 58 year old issue.

Sources said that US ambassador in New Delhi David C Mulford would host dinner for Kashmiri politicians following their interaction with the Congressmen.

Burton and other Congressmen will be meeting Indian officials including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, sources said.

Ahead of the high profile visit of US lawmakers, Prime Minister Singh has sought durable and verifiable checks on human rights abuse in Kashmir.

Union Home Ministry had drawn up a list of verifiable measures to be put in place before Republican Congressman, who also heads a house sub-committee on human rights, starts his visit.

Burton has a peculiar hold on the current Indian administration because of his support for US-India nuclear cooperation in civilian energy, say analysts.
Why they had invited these idiots?
archive at

<b>Pro-Pakistan US politician hints at support for India</b> <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<i>* US delegation calls for serious consideration of Kashmir demilitarisation</i>

<b>NEW DELHI : A US politician who has long argued against closer ties with India said on Monday he was inclined to support Washington’s plan to share civilian nuclear technology with New Delhi.</b>

Republican Representative Dan Burton of Indiana, who heads a committee promoting Pakistan affairs in the US Congress, said he was very encouraged by the recent improvement in India’s relations with both the United States and Pakistan.

Burton, a member of the House Committee on International Relations, was leading a bipartisan congressional delegation to New Delhi and Islamabad to hold talks with Indian and Pakistani officials and separatist leaders from Kashmir - the Himalayan region that is at the core of the decades-old rivalry between the South Asian rivals.

<b>“As one of the people who has been considered an opponent of some of the things that have happened in India, I wanted to be here and lead this delegation,” he said. “Because I wanted them to know that everyone in America, everyone in America, wants to work with India and see our relationship grow.”

Burton said he expected the US Congress to approve a July agreement between President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to share civilian nuclear technologies.

“I am leaning toward the nuclear agreement. I think most of our delegation is,” he said.</b>

However, India must move to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities as agreed under the terms of the nuclear technology sharing deal, he said.

“We want to make sure there is a definite separation between civil and military usage of nuclear technology,” Burton said. “And if that is guaranteed and worked out, I think the Congress of the United States will look upon this favourably.”

The other members of Burton’s delegation were Democrats Sheila Jackson-Lee and Al Green from Texas; Carolyn McCarthy of New York; and Loreta Sanchez of California and Republicans Steven Pearce of New Mexico and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

The 12-member delegation also said the proposal of demilitarisation and self-governance in Kashmir deserved serious consideration by the parties to the dispute.

This was stated during a 90-minute meeting with All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC) Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq in New Delhi today.

Mirwaiz apprised the congressmen of the proposal’s significance in context of ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan. The American delegation told Mirwaiz that they fully appreciated the positive implications of the proposal and would discuss them with Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh and other authorities. The congressmen expressed concern over human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. After the meeting, Mirwaiz told journalists men that the congressmen’s was encouraging. Agencies

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Dan Burton is a spineless opportunist. He realizes now that the Paki Muslims he loved so much before want to kill him and his race. That finally woke up that moron to who his potential friends and allies are...
This is also a sign that India's power is rising fast, and ofcourse no wants to get on the bad side of the strong and powerful.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Chinese war was over by November end. Another very interesting point to be noted was that although India was theoretically non-aligned, it was practically leaning a little more towards Russia. However when this war broke out the one country that helped us was the United States. They sent planeloads of all kinds of help into Tezpur and there was some kind of understanding with India.. President Kennedy was the President of the United States at that time. Sometime in 1963, the early part of 1963 Jawaharlal Nehru sent Sudhir Ghosh to America to explain India's position etc. He went and met President Kennedy also and he showed him a passage from the Ideal of Human Unity which you can see for yourselves in the last chapter, a postscript chapter. I quote a passage from Sudhir Ghosh's book " Gandhi's Emissary:

"Since the President was so frank and warm in his replies, I shared with him Mr. Nehru's letter to me, dated 5th January 1963, on the problem posed by the military power of Communist China. The President read it slowly and carefully and ruefully remarked: "He cannot sacrifice non-alignment, eh? Are the people of India non-aligned between Communist China and the United States? I don't believe that anybody in India is non-aligned between China and the United States - except of course the Communists and their fellow travellers". Then something fell from his lips which was perhaps unintentional. He indignantly said that only a few months earlier when Mr. Nehru was overwhelmed by the power of Communist China he made a desperate appeal to him for air protection and, non-alignment or no non-alignment, the President had to respond. He added sarcastically that Mr. Nehru's conversion lasted only a few days. He was impressed by the speed with which the Prime Minister swung back to his original position with regard to the United States.

I also showed the President the last testament of Sri Aurobindo written on 11th November 1950:

"The basic significance of Mao's adventure is to advance China's frontiers right down to India and stand poised there to strike at the right moment and with right strategy, unless India precipitately declares herself on the side of Communist bloc. But to go over to Mao and Stalin in order to avert their wrath is not in any sense a saving gesture. It is a gesture spelling the utmost ruin to all our ideals and aspirations. The gesture than can save is to take a firm line with China, denounce openly her nefarious intentions, stand without reservation by the USA and make every possible arrangement consonant with our self-respect to facilitate an American intervention in our favour and what is of still greater moment, an American prevention of Mao's evil designs on India. Militarily, China is almost ten times as strong as we are, but India as the spearhead of an American defence of democracy can easily halt Mao's mechanised millions. And the hour is upon us of constituting ourselves such a spearhead and saving not only our own dear country but also South-East Asia whose bulwark we are. We must burn it into our minds that the primary motive of Mao's attack on Tibet is to threaten India as soon as possible".

There follows a brief description of Sri Aurobindo's life. He continues:

"The President read the words of Sri Aurobindo's last testament several times over and said: 'Surely there is a typing mistake here. The date must have been 1960 and not 1950'. I pointed out to the President that Sri Aurobindo passed away in December in 1950. He was somewhat shocked. 'So there you are.' Said the President. 'One great Indian showed you the path of non-alignment between China and America, and another great Indian, Aurobindo, showed you another way of survival. The choice is upto the people of India".


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"When President Eisenhower and Mr Dulles made the military pact with Pakistan the President had said entirely on his own initiative to Mr Nehru that for every weapon he gave Pakistan he offered India three. Would Mr Nehru accept? The President had added at that time that he did not want any assurances from Mr Nehru that these weapons would not be used against Pakistan, because he knew Mr Nehru well enough to know that Mr Nehru would never do such a thing. But at that time Mr Nehru rejected the offer with contempt because the acceptance of such military equipment would do serious damage to his policy of non-alignment."

Now this offer was made neither out of love for India nor love for Pakistan but because at that time the cold war was going on and the two camps, the American camp and the Russian camp were facing each other. In those days, when the satellites and the spying system was not as highly developed as today, Pakistan was an extremely useful ally. Peshawar became the centre from where they could spy on Russia. The U2s were sent. As a result of this, the Americans created two military organisations called CEATO and SENTO where they took the responsibility of the defence of Pakistan. So, while no doubt the Russians were somewhat friendly with us, the Americans were entirely on the side of Pakistan. Thus things did not go in our favour. Anything that went to the Security Council always was in favour of Pakistan because of American support.

<b>The New White Flight</b>
By Suein Hwang
19 November 2005 A1 English
(Copyright © 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

In Silicon Valley, two high schools with outstanding academic reputations are losing white students as Asian students move in. Why? Monta Vista High School's parent-teacher association, recently dissuaded a family with a young child from moving to Cupertino because there are so few young white kids left in the public schools. "This may not sound good," she confides, "but their child may be the only Caucasian kid in the class."

All of Ms. Gatley's four children have attended or are currently attending Monta Vista. One son, Andrew, 17 years old, took the high-school exit exam last summer and left the school to avoid the academic pressure. He is currently working in a pet-supply store. Ms. Gatley, who is white, says she probably wouldn't have moved to Cupertino if she had anticipated how much it would change. In the 1960s, the term "white flight" emerged to describe the rapid exodus of whites from big cities into the suburbs, a process that often resulted in the economic degradation of the remaining community.

Back then, the phenomenon was mostly believed to be sparked by the growth in the population of African-Americans, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, in some major cities. But this modern incarnation is different. Across the country, Asian-Americans have by and large been successful and accepted into middle- and upper-class communities. Silicon Valley has kept Cupertino's economy stable, and the town is almost indistinguishable from many of the suburbs around it. The shrinking number of white students hasn't hurt the academic standards of Cupertino's schools -- in fact the opposite is true. This time the effect is more subtle: Some Asians believe that the resulting lack of diversity creates an atmosphere that is too sheltering for their children, leaving then unprepared for life in a country that is only 4% Asian overall. Moreover, many Asians share some of their white counterpart's concerns.

Both groups finger newer Asian immigrants for the schools' intense competitiveness. Some whites fear that by avoiding schools with large Asian populations parents are short-changing their own children, giving them the idea that they can't compete with Asian kids. "My parents never let me think that because I'm Caucasian, I'm not going to succeed," says Jessie Hogin, a white Monta Vista graduate. The white exodus clearly involves race-based presumptions, not all of which are positive. One example: Asian parents are too competitive. That sounds like racism to many of Cupertino's Asian residents, who resent the fact that their growing numbers and success are causing many white families to boycott the town altogether. "It's a stereotype of Asian parents," says Pei-Pei Yow, a Hewlett-Packard Co. manager and Chinese-American community leader who sent two kids to Monta Vista.

It's like other familiar biases, she says: "You can't say everybody from the South is a redneck." Jane Doherty, a retirement-community administrator, chose to send her two boys elsewhere. When her family moved to Cupertino from Indiana over a decade ago, Ms. Doherty says her top priority was moving into a good public-school district.

She paid no heed to a real-estate agent who told her of the town's burgeoning Asian population. She says she began to reconsider after her elder son, Matthew, entered Kennedy, the middle school that feeds Monta Vista. As he played soccer, Ms. Doherty watched a line of cars across the street deposit Asian kids for after-school study. She also attended a Monta Vista parents' night and came away worrying about the school's focus on test scores and the big-name colleges its graduates attend.

"My sense is that at Monta Vista you're competing against the child beside you," she says. Ms. Doherty says she believes the issue stems more from recent immigrants than Asians as a whole. "Obviously, the concentration of Asian students is really high, and it does flavor the school," she says. When Matthew, now a student at Notre Dame, finished middle school eight years ago, Ms. Doherty decided to send him to Bellarmine College Preparatory, a Jesuit school that she says has a culture that "values the whole child." It's also 55% white and 24% Asian. Her younger son, Kevin, followed suit. Kevin Doherty, 17, says he's happy his mother made the switch. Many of his old friends at Kennedy aren't happy at Monta Vista, he says. "Kids at Bellarmine have a lot of pressure to do well, too, but they want to learn and do something they want to do." While California has seen the most pronounced cases of suburban segregation, some of the developments in Cupertino are also starting to surface in other parts of the U.S. At Thomas S. Wootton High School in Rockville, Md., known flippantly to some locals as "Won Ton," roughly 35% of students are of Asian descent.

People who don't know the school tend to make assumptions about its academics, says Principal Michael Doran. "Certain stereotypes come to mind -- `those people are good at math,' " he says. In Tenafly, N.J., a well-to-do bedroom community near New York, the local high school says it expects Asian students to make up about 36% of its total in the next five years, compared with 27% today. The district still attracts families of all backgrounds, but Asians are particularly intent that their kids work hard and excel, says Anat Eisenberg, a local Coldwell Banker real-estate agent.

"Everybody is caught into this process of driving their kids." Lawrence Mayer, Tenafly High's vice principal, says he's never heard such concerns. Perched on the western end of the Santa Clara valley, Cupertino was for many years a primarily rural area known for its many fruit orchards. The beginnings of the tech industry brought suburbanization, and Cupertino then became a very white, quintessentially middle-class town of mostly modest ranch homes, populated by engineers and their families. Apple Computer Inc. planted its headquarters there. As the high-tech industry prospered, so did Cupertino. Today, the orchards are a memory, replaced by numerous shopping malls and subdivisions that are home to Silicon Valley's prosperous upper-middle class.

While the architecture in Cupertino is largely the same as in neighboring communities, the town of about 50,000 people now boasts Indian restaurants, tutoring centers and Asian grocers.

Parents say Cupertino's top schools have become more academically intense over the past 10 years. Asian immigrants have surged into the town, granting it a reputation -- particularly among recent Chinese and South Asian immigrants -- as a Bay Area locale of choice. Cupertino is now 41% Asian, up from 24% in 1998. Some students struggle in Cupertino's high schools who might not elsewhere.

Monta Vista's Academic Performance Index, which compares the academic performance of California's schools, reached an all-time high of 924 out of 1,000 this year, making it one of the highest-scoring high schools in Northern California. Grades are so high that a `B' average puts a student in the bottom third of a class. "We have great students, which has a lot of upsides," says April Scott, Monta Vista's principal. "The downside is what the kids with a 3.0 GPA think of themselves." Ms. Scott and her counterpart at Lynbrook know what's said about their schools being too competitive and dominated by Asians.

"It's easy to buy into those kinds of comments because they're loaded and powerful," says Ms. Scott, who adds that they paint an inaccurate picture of Monta Vista. Ms. Scott says many athletic programs are thriving and points to the school's many extracurricular activities. She also points out that white students represented 20% of the school's 29 National Merit Semifinalists this year. Judy Hogin, Jessie's mother and a Cupertino real-estate agent, believes the school was good for her daughter, who is now a freshman at the University of California at San Diego. "I know it's frustrating to some people who have moved away," says Ms. Hogin, who is white. Jessie, she says, "rose to the challenge."

On a recent autumn day at Lynbrook, crowds of students spilled out of classrooms for midmorning break. Against a sea of Asian faces, the few white students were easy to pick out. One boy sat on a wall, his lighter hair and skin making him stand out from dozens of others around him. In another corner, four white male students lounged at a picnic table.

At Cupertino's top schools, administrators, parents and students say white students end up in the stereotyped role often applied to other minority groups: the underachievers. In one 9th-grade algebra class, Lynbrook's lowest-level math class, the students are an eclectic mix of whites, Asians and other racial and ethnic groups.

"Take a good look," whispered Steve Rowley, superintendent of the Fremont Union High School District, which covers the city of Cupertino as well as portions of other neighboring cities. "This doesn't look like the other classes we're going to." On the second floor, in advanced-placement chemistry, only a couple of the 32 students are white and the rest are Asian.

Some white parents, and even some students, say they suspect teachers don't take white kids as seriously as Asians. "Many of my Asian friends were convinced that if you were Asian, you had to confirm you were smart. If you were white, you had to prove it," says Arar Han, a Monta Vista graduate who recently co-edited "Asian American X," a book of coming-of-age essays by young Asian-Americans.

Ms. Gatley, the Monta Vista PTA president, is more blunt: "White kids are thought of as the dumb kids," she says. Cupertino's administrators and faculty, the majority of whom are white, adamantly say there's no discrimination against whites. The administrators say students of all races get along well. In fact, there's little evidence of any overt racial tension between students or between their parents.

Mr. Rowley, the school superintendent, however, concedes that a perception exists that's sometimes called "the white-boy syndrome." He describes it as: "Kids who are white feel themselves a distinct minority against a majority culture." Mr. Rowley, who is white, enrolled his only son, Eddie, at Lynbrook. When Eddie started freshman geometry, the boy was frustrated to learn that many of the Asian students in his class had already taken the course in summer school, Mr. Rowley recalls. That gave them a big leg up.

To many of Cupertino's Asians, some of the assumptions made by white parents -- that Asians are excessively competitive and single-minded -- play into stereotypes. Top schools in nearby, whiter Palo Alto, which also have very high test scores, also feature heavy course loads, long hours of homework and overly stressed students, says Denise Pope, director of Stressed Out Students, a Stanford University program that has worked with schools in both Palo Alto and Cupertino. But whites don't seem to be avoiding those institutions, or making the same negative generalizations, Asian families note, suggesting that it's not academic competition that makes white parents uncomfortable but academic competition with Asian-Americans.

Some of Cupertino's Asian residents say they don't blame white families for leaving. After all, many of the town's Asians are fretting about the same issues. While acknowledging that the term Asian embraces a wide diversity of countries, cultures and languages, they say there's some truth to the criticisms levied against new immigrant parents, particularly those from countries such as China and India, who often put a lot of academic pressure on their children. Some parents and students say these various forces are creating an unhealthy cultural isolation in the schools.

Monta Vista graduate Mark Seto says he wouldn't send his kids to his alma mater. "It was a sheltered little world that didn't bear a whole lot of resemblance to what the rest of the country is like," says Mr. Seto, a Chinese-American who recently graduated from Yale University. As a result, he says, "college wasn't an academic adjustment. It was a cultural adjustment."

Hung Wei, a Chinese-American living in Cupertino, has become an active campaigner in the community, encouraging Asian parents to be more aware of their children's emotional development. Ms. Wei, who is co-president of Monta Vista's PTA with Ms. Gatley, says her activism stems from the suicide of her daughter, Diana. Ms. Wei says life in Cupertino and at Monta Vista didn't prepare the young woman for life at New York University. Diana moved there in 2004 and jumped to her death from a Manhattan building two months later. "We emphasize academics so much and protect our kids, I feel there's something lacking in our education," Ms. Wei says.

Cupertino schools are trying to address some of these issues. Monta Vista recently completed a series of seminars focused on such issues as helping parents communicate better with their kids, and Lynbrook last year revised its homework guidelines with the goal of eliminating excessive and unproductive assignments. The moves haven't stemmed the flow of whites out of the schools. Four years ago, Lynn Rosener, a software consultant, transferred her elder son from Monta Vista to Homestead High, a Cupertino school with slightly lower test scores. At the new school, the white student body is declining at a slower rate than at Monta Vista and currently stands at 52% of the total. Friday-night football is a tradition, with big half-time shows and usually 1,000 people packing the stands.

The school offers boys' volleyball, a sport at which Ms. Rosener's son was particularly talented. Monta Vista doesn't. "It does help to have a lower Asian population," says Homestead PTA President
Kittu Reddy is a member of IF
Venable LLP , is Indian Govt Lobbying firm in USA
Government has engaged Venable LLP as a lobbyist firm for: securing the active support of the U.S. Government, Congress and public opinion for a strong bilateral relationship by projecting India`s priorities, policies and view points on issues of global importance like nonproliferation, human rights etc. and disseminating India`s economic and political developments and achievements expanding the areas of convergence between the two countries, and monitoring, analyzing and advising on various legislative measures in U.S. Congress and Senate for implications on India`s interests.
Given the steady progress in relations between India and the US in recent times, the engagement of this firm would be of substantial benefit in taking the relationship to a sustained strategic partnership level.

HEar this

In the last 5 min there is mention of India

<b>The U.S. and India: A Relationship Restored </b>
December 22, 2005
One of the most important successes of U.S. President George W. Bush's foreign policy is the progress being made in building a strategic partnership between America and India, thereby helping to create a strong democratic anchor in Asia. The foundations of this alliance are being set in shared democratic ideals, political and economic interests, and a global vision based on a common interest in ensuring strategic stability. But while the relationship between the two countries has gained significant momentum in recent years, serious issues remain that require immediate focus and resolution, lest these aspirations dissolve into mutual disappointment and recrimination.

During Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington in July, he and President Bush committed to follow a strategic road map that will lead the two democracies to a prosperous and secure future. Prime Minister Singh agreed to separate India's civilian nuclear-power operations from those related to India's nuclear-weapons program, place all civil nuclear operations under international inspections and safeguards and sign the International Atomic Energy Agency's 1997 Additional Protocol that provides for tighter international inspections. He also agreed to support a treaty to stop production of fissile material, and take other actions consistent with those taken by members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Bush, in turn, agreed to seek changes in U.S. law and America's international commitments that would permit the U.S. to transfer technology and provide other civil nuclear assistance to help India meet its growing civilian energy requirements.

Skeptics of this accord abound both in India and the U.S. In India, there are many who question whether the U.S. will modify existing law to permit the transfer of needed technologies; remain a reliable supplier of technology and support services; and demand that India bow to U.S. foreign policies that would compromise its traditional "nonaligned" status.

Members of the U.S. Congress are angry that they were not consulted by the Bush administration prior to striking the agreement with India. In addition, they are wary that the U.S. has signaled that it is no longer committed to a strong nuclear nonproliferation policy and that it has given India a stamp of approval in exchange for vague promises for future actions that will go unfulfilled.

A Gordian knot has formed that needs to be cut. Prime Minister Singh is not prepared to act without prior congressional action. But what he could do immediately is provide a detailed blueprint on how India plans to separate its civilian and military nuclear activities and adopt full safeguards and inspections once congressional approval is secured. This should be enough to satisfy the legitimate concerns expressed by members of Congress.

Any failure by India faithfully to comply with the pledges that it makes might result in a permanent breach in the strategic relationship between the two countries. India would be taking a comparable leap of faith in assuming that Congress would not interrupt or terminate the flow of technology if India should act in a manner that is inconsistent with, or stultifies, American foreign-policy objectives. 

Of immediate interest to both countries is the determination to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran's declared intent to proceed with its nuclear programs without regard to IAEA concerns crystallizes the choice that India may soon be called upon to make. India continues to maintain close political and economic ties with Iran, a significant source of its present and future energy needs.

Although India recently voted against Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons in the IAEA, India cannot treat this recent decision as a "one-time only" symbolic act. In remaining firm in its commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, India would not compromise its political independence. Rather, it would solidify its commitment to the view shared by the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, among others, that Iran's undeclared but unmistakable pursuit of nuclear weapons will contribute to instability, and possibly conflict, in the region.

India and the United States are embarking on a historic journey. The opportunity for progress and prosperity is at hand. Mistrust and misunderstanding should not be allowed to cloud this vision or derail this mission.

Mr. Cohen, a former U.S. defense secretary, recently led a U.S.-India Business Council delegation visit of senior American business leaders to India. He is currently CEO of The Cohen Group, a strategic advisory firm based in Washington, DC. 

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)