Rupee News

Indian terror group hits what it calls world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy'

Share

The ephemeral and evasive local Indian group called “The Indian Mujahideen” has struck the heart of Bharat once again. The Indian Muslim group has carried out numerous terror attacks in Bharat over the past several years. The IM has waged a war all over Bhart–and is supposedly composed of young students of India.

The Hindustan Times reports on the latest act of violence carried out by the IM.

“Eye for an eye; the dust will never settle down”. Email sent by the Indian Mujahideen (IM) on September 13, 2008, the day Delhi was ripped by five synchronised bomb blasts that killed more than two dozen people. “As we bleed, so will you seep”. The email sent on September 19, 2010, after two tourists almost lost their lives outside the Delhi Jama Masjid.

“Lets feel the pain together.”

This latest email — sent on Tuesday, after the Varanasi blast — claims the explosion is a retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Masjid.

The similarity in the style of writing is difficult to miss. Sources say the mail might be written by Iqbal Bhatkal as he had written the earlier mails.

“Indian Mujahideen attributes this attack to the 6th of December that will haunt your nation of world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy’”, says Tuesday’s 5-page email that refers to the Allahabad HC judgment on Ayodhya and the “manhandling and heckling of the Kashmiri leadership in Indian cities”.

The email — dated 6th December — also blames the Congress for its “hidden agenda” and ridicules the clean chit to Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.

The IM logo, pasted in the beginning of the mails, was created in July 2008 on the instructions of Bhatkal by a techie and alleged IM operative Mubeen Kadar Shaikh. Also, at the bottom, there is a signature ‘Al-Arbi’, considered to be Bhatkal’s. Hindustan Times

Indian terror group hits what it calls world’s ‘Greatest DemoNcracy'

Share

Can India and China reconcile their differences

Share

China India eastern border depicting disputed areas in this sector including NEFA. India has to evaluate the threat potential of the situation dispassionately but realistically, having reference to China’s demonstrated determination to set its own history in order. Tibet was successfully concluded in 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army marched into the country against a feeble and disjointed resistance, and re-established China’s authority.

The Bharatis are suggesting two quid pro quos. Delhi is willing to give up its claim to Aksai Chin if China gives up its claim to Southern Tibet which Bharat calls Arunchal Pradesh. Delhi is also trying to get Beijing to accept Bharati sovereignty over Indian Occupied Kashmir in return for Delhi accepting Beijing’s suzerainty over all of Tibet.

The problem is that Delhi has already accepted China’s control over Tibet, and Beijing is still skeptical over Delhi’s take over of Sikkim. So China would be the net loser in this deal.

An Indian military analyst Shankar Roychowdhury writing for the Asian Age  says the following “All wars commence in the mind, and escalate with words. “Zhang Nan” or “Southern Tibet”, the designation bestowed by the People’s Republic of China on India’s state of Arunachal Pradesh bordering Tibet, is one such example. China now claims Arunachal Pradesh as its historic territory comprising the three southern districts of the Tawang Tract unilaterally acquired by the then British Empire after the Treaty of Simla in 1913. New demands, which were first articulated around 2005, initially concerned Tawang as a traditional tributary region of Lhasa, being the birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama (Tsangyang Gyatso, enthroned 1697, probably murdered 1706 by Mongol guards who were escorting him to Beijing under arrest).

Subsequently, a day prior to the visit of China’s President Hu Jintao to India in 2006, Sun Yuxi, the then Chinese ambassador to India, stridently reiterated in public China’s claims to the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh in a deliberately provocative gesture designed to put New Delhi on notice of Beijing’s intention to dominate the agenda of interaction according to its own priorities. In a longer-term perspective, these needlessly provocative claims could escalate to a flash point with the potential to provoke a major confrontation between the two countries, and create an existential crisis for the entire region, a contingency for which India has to prepare itself adequately.”

Special representatives of India and China will hold the crucial 14th round of border talks here on Monday to resolve the long-running boundary dispute between the two countries, ahead of a key visit of Chinese premier Wen Jiabao to New Delhi. National security advisor (NSA) Shivshankar Menon, the designated special representative of India who is arriving here tomorrow on a three-day visit, would hold talks with his Chinese counterpart state councillor Dai Bingguo on November 29 and 30 to find a way forward to resolve the boundary dispute. The last round was held in New Delhi in 2009 between the then NSA, MK Narayanan and Dai which ended without much progress. India and China share about 4,000km long borders. China has staked claims to Akasai Chin in the Ladakh region and Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing refers to as southern Tibet. Though India-China began discussions to resolve the border difference since 1980, the process got an impetus after the two countries agreed to hold talks by designated Special Representatives.

Shankar Roychowdhury further adds “The present Sino-Indian equation is almost irresistibly reminiscent of the run-up to the Sino-Indian border war of 1962, and provides a fascinating playback of China’s postures at that time with its disconcertingly similar sequence of claims along the McMahon Line in North East Frontier Agency (Nefa), as well as along the Uttar Pradesh-Tibet border and in Ladakh, as relics of historic injustices perpetrated in earlier days by British imperialists. A naive and militarily ill-prepared India, with an exaggerated self image of its own international relevance as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, had sought to dissuade a determined China with platitudinous Nehruvian philosophies of anti-colonial solidarity, all of which were contemptuously disposed of by “a whiff of grapeshot” on the desolate slopes of the Namkha Chu and Rezang La. India’s collapse and comprehensive downsizing in short order in 1962 was primarily because it lacked military capability vis-a-vis China, a fatal flaw which has a disconcerting tendency of repeating itself when lessons of earlier debacles wear off from the country, as they seem to be doing now. “1962 redux” is slowly grinding into gear again, with end results unforeseeable, except that an enhanced replay at some stage (2020?) can never be totally discounted. India must not repeat its follies of the past because this time around it has been adequately forewarned.”

The Sino-Indian meeting a couple of weeks ago ended in total failure, when Beijing refused to budge on the visa issue. Beijing also refused to support Bharat on the UNSC issue. China refuses to stamp a visa on the passports held by folks who have Kashmiri or Southern Tibet (Arunchal Pradesh) residency. The issue led to the cancellation of military exercises and the withdrawal of Bharat from a World Maritime conference.

Shankar Roychowdhury further adds “If similar Chinese pressures develop regarding Arunachal Pradesh, and cannot be resolved through diplomacy and mediation (again as in 1962), India will be left with starkly limited options — either capitulation to China, or military defence of its territory.

In the latter contingency, even a speculative overview would suggest that for India a full fledged Sino-India war would likely be a “two-and-a-half front”, with Pakistan and China combining in tandem, and an additional internal half front against affiliated terrorist networks already emplaced and functional within the country. For India it would be a combination of 1962, together with all of India’s wars against Pakistan (1947-65, ’71 and ’99), upgraded to future dimensions and extending over land, aerial, maritime space and cyberspace domains. Nuclear exchange at some stage, strategic, tactical or both, would remain a distinct possibility, admittedly a worst case, but one which cannot be ignored. The magnitude of losses in terms of human, material and economic costs to all participants can only be speculated upon at present.

China is obviously very much ahead of India in military capabilities, a comparative differential which will be further skewed with Pakistan’s resources coming into play. India has to develop its own matching capabilities in short order, especially the ability to reach out and inflict severe punitive damage to the heartlands of its adversaries, howsoever distant. There would be national, regional and international repercussions that would severely affect the direct participants as also close bystanders like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan, if not countries further afield as well.
“.

Related articles

• After Obama, China to engage Delhi on Kashmir (rupeenews.com)
• China’s trip to Delhi hits Kashmir snag (pakistanledger.com)
• Sino-Indian talks fail to resolve visa issue or renew defense ties (rupeenews.com)
• The world through Indian RAW eyes (rupeenews.com)
• Rising tensions: India loses invite to World Maritime meet hosted by China (rupeenews.com)
• 1962 redux? (indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com)
• India’s threat perception of China (rupeenews.com)
• Mr. Chidambaram: India has not fulfilled it promises (rupeenews.com)
• History records Delhi’s broken policies (pakistanledger.com)

Can India and China reconcile their differences

Share

Delhi frustrated at incapacity to dictate to Rawalpindi

Share

Bharati analysts are full of frustration at the inability of Delhi to strike at Pakistan and neutralize its military capacity. The admission by another Bharati writer that “Rawalpindi is fully aware that India is nowhere near acquiring the conventional military capability to punish Pakistan” clearly describes the impotence of the Bharati defense establishment beset with corruption and and incompetence. The colossal failure of the Kevari and the LCA and the Armiral Gorshkov are classic cases on what Bharat should not be doing–throwing money and getting little for it. Various DRDO reports from the Bharati department of defense describe the failures and the impotence of the Tri-Coloreds to design or build defense equipment–in other words its a replay of the CWG.

After the impotence of Operation Parakarm destroyed by Pakistan’s Uzm e Nao, Bharat tried to play with Cold Start etc. Pakistani retaliated by perfecting small, medium-range and long range missiles which would put the brakes on Bharat’s rapid deployment units. Now Bharat denies having a Cold Start Strategy–even Stephen Cohen one of its authors eventually disowning it.

Unable to produce the Migs, Bharat then went on a buying spree–the only problem is that most of the jets ordered won’t be part of the IAF for a decade. In the meantime almost half of the IAF is grounded–the obsolete Migs add up to many planes, but very few combat-ready fighters. Thus the level of anger displayed by the DRDO, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of External Affiars. The “risen” Superpower does not have a capacity to intimidate its nemesis–and that a colossal loss of face in a tough neighborhood. So what does Bharat do to make up for its imminent eviction from Kabul–send terror squad to Pakistan

Raja Mohan has written an article dripping with irritation, letdown, resentment, setback, and vexation.

Rawalpindi is fully aware that India is nowhere near acquiring the conventional military capability to punish Pakistan. To deter the Pakistan army from facilitating future cross-border terror attacks, India needs to act on a range of fronts.

These include more purposeful modernisation of the armed forces to generate some military pressure against Rawalpindi and strengthening India’s nuclear arsenal which continues to lag behind that of Pakistan. India must also focus on building up a serious missile defence programme that can introduce some uncertainty into Rawalpindi’s strategic calculus.Finally, on the diplomatic front, India has had some success and a lot more frustration.

Delhi knows the limits to international pressure on Pakistan. Despite giving nearly $20 billion in civilian and military aid to Pakistan during the last decade, the US is still having trouble getting Pakistan to act against groups that directly target American troops in Afghanistan. It was logical then for India to find ways to directly engage Pakistan to bring the Mumbai plotters to book.

But all indications are that India is unlikely to get any satisfaction on terrorism from its current talks with Pakistan. Our interlocutors across the border have no control over the terror machine, which is run by the Pakistan army. The real challenge for India, then, is in finding ways to compel Rawalpindi to change its calculus of support for cross-border terrorism. This in turn means exploring Rawalpindi’s own weak points.

The ISI’s influence over the Pashtuns across its western frontiers is at the heart of Pakistan’s success in holding the international community hostage in Afghanistan. It is also potentially the weakest element of Rawalpindi’s strategy, for the Pashtuns, including the Taliban, have never recognised the legitimacy of the Durand Line that is supposed to be the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. India must step up its engagement of the Pashtuns and put the question of the Durand Line’s future on the international agenda.

India must also begin to focus on Pakistan’s civil-military relations and step up its support for genuine democratic change. While Rawalpindi’s dominance over Pakistan’s polity is real, it is no reason why India should not make it a political issue. Further, Delhi must take a more disaggregated view of our neighbour.

Instead of negotiating with the civilian government that is sat upon by the army, India must consider a direct engagement with the political parties in Pakistan both at the federal and provincial level. Capacity-building holds the key to India’s progress in the areas of defence and deterrence against terrorism. That will take time, persistent effort and strong political leadership in Delhi. On the diplomatic front, India will have to continuously look for bold approaches to contain the Pakistan army. Indian Express. raja.mohan@expressindia.com

Raja Mohan is typical of Bharaits who have gotten caught iIn flagrante delicto over-reach. They have purchased Viagra pills in the shapes of Nuclear Subs which don’t have Nuclear power plants, hundreds of Migs that turned out be Flying Coffins, and Aircraft Carriers that don’t have planes.

Unable to defeat the Pakistan or wish it into oblivion, the huffed and puffed in 2001–marching their entire army to the Pakistani border, and then withdrawingin ignominous defeat. They huffed and puffed in 2009, but faced with “loss of Territoty”, the took the advice of the Bharati Army and did not try out any of the silliness that was tried in 2001.

Now they wish to place a wedge between the PPPP and the Army and resurrect old skeletons from the closet. Reaching far back into 1893 they want Afghanistan to talk about dead issues which even the US isn’t ready to touch.

Despite the bluster in Lisbon, the planet knows that the withdrawal of US and NATO forces will begin in 2011 and way before 2013.

Related articles

• Why Bharat couldn’t cross into Pakistan in 2009 and can never attack Pakistan ever (rupeenews.com)
• How Pakistan defeated India’s Operation Parakram in 2001 (rupeenews.com)
• 2001: Why Bharat’s Operation Parakram failed (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• ‘No’ to India on MFN (pakistanledger.com)
• The case against MFN status to India (rupeenews.com)
• Rear Admiral (retd) K R Menon called Operation Parakram a politico-military failure for Bharat (militarystrat.wordpress.com)
• Operation Parakram was a politico-military failure: Rear Admiral (retd) K R Menon (rupeenews.com)
• You: Pakistan, US, India face common enemy: Holbrooke (nation.com.pk)
• Strategi headache: USA’s India problem in Afghanistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan’s national nightmare over: Obama leaves Delhi (rupeenews.com)
• USA’s realises that the problem in Afghanistan is India (rupeenews.com)

Delhi frustrated at incapacity to dictate to Rawalpindi

Share

India's threat perception of China

Share

Immediate situation post-1947 independence Wikipedia

The Chinese Premier is about to visit Bharat. Delhi wonders if China will straddle the fence, or support Bharat’s global’s aspirations.

Indian officials are about to get seduced by a UNSC seat appeal during Chmn Hu Jin Taos visit.

http://ishare.rediff.com/video/entertainment/india-not-downplaying-threat-perception-from-china/713310

P. Stobdan describes the  threats to Bharat in the following manner. “External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee‘s recent outburst that China poses a security challenge indicates a dangerous ambiguity in India’s China policy. The fact that Mukherjee has aired such a view after his intense and long diplomatic rapport with the leadership of that country needs to be noted seriously. It is not that China has not been a puzzle to Indian strategic thinkers. Even former Defence Minister George Fernandes considered China as India’s number one enemy, but his views were transformed after he paid an official visit to Beijing.”

Western countries’ concern over China’s rapid development, which they consider ‘a threat’, won’t deter the country from contributing to world peace, experts have said.

Shanghai Daily, in an article on its opinion page, said in the face of concerns by some Western countries about China’s ongoing development, which they think is `a threat’, Chinese experts stressed the country will pursue a path of peaceful development.

The article comes a day after US President Barack Obama announced in New Delhi support to India for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. He also signed $15 billion worth of trade deals during his Nov 6-9 India visit. Obama is on a Asia trip during which he will also go to Indonesia, South Korea and Japan.

Shi Yongming, a research fellow at the Department for International Strategic Studies of the China Institute of International Studies, a key government think tank, said: ‘China’s development depends on world peace and it will contribute to world peace.’

Shi said that to foster global peace, China has given priority to ‘mutually beneficial cooperation’, which is an effective way to tackle disputes in international relations.

The country’s economy witnessed an annual growth of 11.4 percent on average during the first four years of the 11th Five-year Program (2006-10). The first half of this year saw an 11.1 percent growth, ‘outshining the pace of developed nations’, a media report said.

It quoted President Hu Jintao as saying recently: ‘China respects the right of the people of other countries to choose their own path of development.’

‘China will never interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, never impose its own will on others, and is dedicated to peaceful settlements of international conflicts.’

Gao Zugui, director of the Institute of World Politics of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said China’s development path was ‘completely different from the growth mode of some Western powers‘.

China would ‘never follow the footsteps of Western nations that sought hegemony once they grew strong’, Gao said, adding that China’s growth would ‘never harm or pose a threat to anyone’.

Zhou Qingan, a research fellow at the Center for International Communication Studies at Tsinghua University, observed that while China’s influence would continue to grow in the future, Western nations would become more ‘worried and vigilant’ about China’s growth, and voices would arise calling on China to ‘shoulder more responsibilities’ and ‘play more important roles’. Beijing, Nov 9 (IANS)

China is extremely astute at managing their strategic interests. One must not forget their indulgences have been in and around India for the past sixty years. Bharat’s inflammatory statements regarding Beijing surely didn’t help.External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s recent outburst that China poses a security challenge indicates a dangerous ambiguity in India’s China policy. The fact that Mukherjee has aired such a view after his intense and long diplomatic rapport with the leadership of that country needs to be noted seriously. It is not that China has not been a puzzle to Indian strategic thinkers. Even former Defence Minister George Fernandes considered China as India’s number one enemy, but his views were transformed after he paid an official visit to Beijing.

Bharat’s threat perception of China is as follows:

P Stobdan describes the threats “What may have irked Mukherjee the most is China’s renewed bid to thwart India’s chance to find a permanent seat in the UNSC. In fact, soon after the NSG episode, China attended a closed door meeting on September 26 of the ‘Coffee Club’ countries chaired by Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini that opposed the UNGA’s efforts to forge a consensus on UNSC expansion. As the UNGA sets February 29, 2009 as the deadline for the negotiations, China is expected to lobby openly against the G4’s (Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan) formula for a consensus on the expansion model. This is yet another proof of China backtracking from its earlier stated position to support India’s aspirations to enter the UNSC.”

(1) The construction of dams in the Himalayan region to divert water flowing in to India. Bharatis this  is their most important strategic control move. Bharatis think that the dams will effect agriculture, business and socially politically and militarily.

P Stobdan says “Interestingly, Pranab Mukherjee also referred to the Prime Minister’s growing concerns on the future of trans-border rivers during his visit to China last month. In the coming years, China’s surprise actions in the Himalayas could bring fresh shivers in New Delhi. Despite Beijing’s denial, China is likely to go ahead with the project to divert the Brahmaputra as early as next year or by 2010. The Indian media recently missed the news that PLA engineers on October 14 have resumed a major strategic road construction programme to link Tibet’s last road-less Medog County from where the Brahmaputra takes a U-turn at the Great Bend and enters Arunachal Pradesh. The road project is linked to a dam construction plan at the Yalung Tsangpo River, aimed at diverting a major portion of its waters (200 billion cubic metres) to Northern China.

China’s propensity for big hydro projects to support its hyper economic growth could portend real time and unthinkable catastrophe of water stress for downstream countries”

(2)  Bharati’s fear the construction of tunnels and support of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Delhi fear Beijing’s de facto control of Nepal and assimilation of Tibet. Delhi fears the threat from the southern border where China has ostensibly gotten a lot of influence in Sri Lanka. Of course Delhi is chagrined at Beijing’s strategic friendship with Pakistan on what some think as Indias Northwest. Delhi is also scared of Chinese inroads into and around Indias Northeast border in South Timet (Arunchal Pradesh), Assam, West Bengal etc.

P Stobdan says “Building the railway to Tibet was clearly meant to resolve China’s water dilemma. Many environmentalists and security experts feel that China is circumspect about Tibet’s hydro resources. The issue is politically sensitive and therefore does not get enough attention, but it is fraught with critical strategic importance. India’s traditional response to trans-border issues has been meek so far, perhaps daunted by the fear of China’s quick mobilization in Tibet. Beijing has been avoiding an agreement on the protection of the trans-Himalayan Rivers and has limited its cooperation with India to sharing of hydrological data. Any intention to extend the velvet glove to Beijing would amount to chopping off the tree branch India is sitting on. The Economist Prime Minister surely understands the implications. As we move ahead into 2009, there would be several such incidents cropping up, which would strike at the core of mutual trust that was supposed to have been built painstakingly over the years between India and China.”

Delhi frets the communist Naxal movements all-over India.

(4) Bharat is scared of the recent cyber attacks on India’s security information

(5) Bharat frets China’s world stature in Africa, Asia and the Middleast. Its recent foray in becoming a less expensive arms supplier is considered toxic on multiple fronts.

Bharat Verma says “The Indians unwittingly made the Chinese task a cakewalk as they were preoccupied with internal bickering for short-term personal gains, overlooking the vicious expansionist agenda designed jointly by Beijing and Islamabad [ Images ] to tear apart the country.

Even as it pretended to withdraw its covert support to the rebels in India’s northeast in the late seventies, China took advantage of Islamabad’s hatred for India, and deftly invested in Pakistan to carry out the task on its behalf.

The primary segment of the Chinese strategy moved with clockwork precision by investing in autocratic and Islamic fundamentalist elements in countries on India’s periphery — Myanmar, Bangladesh and the Maoists in Nepal.

In Sri Lanka [ Images ], while Indians dithered, Beijing and its proxy Pakistan quickly moved in to help arm Colombo against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, develop the Hambantota port etc.

While the adversary invested in encircling India on its land and sea frontiers, the Indians merrily continued to indulge in their favorite past time — meaningless and endless debates.”

Bharati analysts feel that by garnishing a $200 billion trade deficit with the USA it has economically  “neutralized” the US  its only effective hurdle to world domination. Bharat has tried to tell the US that China has its sights on America’s military prowess globally.

Bharatis see the dependence of Europe and the US on its arms base for other countries lays the foundation for supplies, ammunition, etc in future and dependence. Bharatis describe this  akin to distributing free drugs to kids. In Delhi’s parnoia Pakistan is seen as a tool for China.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/652508

Related Articles

• China checkmates India in Trilateral statement (rupeenews.com)
• The Elephant by the tail (pakistanledger.com)
• Titanic Tempest in a Tiny Teacup (rupeenews.com)
• China’s trip to Delhi hits Kashmir snag (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan, China, CfC to scuttle India’s UNSC bid (rupeenews.com)
• China supports Pakistan-nixes Indian rhetoric in joint-statement (pakistanledger.com)
• Why no mention of any Indian role in Afghanistan: There isn’t any (rupeenews.com)
• Mentioning ‘K’ during Obama’s Kashmir trip to India (pakistanledger.com)
• India sees itself as a Republican ‘Red state’ nostalgic for Bush era (rupeenews.com)
• A tepid reception for Obama in Delhi spells failure (rupeenews.com)
• Mentioning ‘K’ during Obama’s Kashmir trip to India (rupeenews.com)
• Garmany, Japan, Brazil mad: CfC, China oppose Indian UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)
• Implications of Chinese advancement in Super-Computers (rupeenews.com)
• Bharati aspirations dies on knife of Obama’s sales pitch (pakistanledger.com)
• Bundu’s Biryani bedeviled by bungled Bharati Bureaucracy (rupeenews.com)
• Nepali Maoist Prachanda’s 5th Beijing trip raises hackles in Delhi (rupeenews.com)

India's threat perception of China

Share

Titanic Tempest in a Tiny Teacup

Share

Humayun Gauhar has written a prodigious article on the tempest in a tea-pot in Delhi. There were a lot of statements made for the consumption of the media in Delhi. We would however like to challenge the the hocus-pocus of creating 50,000 jobs is far removed from reality. The jobs mantra is to try to stem the tide of the Anti-Outsourcing legislation that is coming down the pike. In fact $10 Billion doesn’t really create that many jobs. Much has been written on how complicated it is to create high level defense jobs.

To put things in perspective The American defense budget is larger than the GDP of India. The US spends $10 billion in a few days in Afghanistan. According to some estimates it has spent more than $3 Trillion in the past decade. Trumpeting $10 billion is funny to say the least.

The Bharati GDP is smaller than the GDP of tine Benelux countries of Europe. The US just signed a $60 billion defense deal with Saudi Arabia, without the hoopla of a state visit or the bad dancing. The Gulf States are in the midst of signing defense deals with the US worth $120 billion. The US president didn’t take 3000 people to the Gulf and didn’t spend $200 million per day on the trip–or a fraction thereof if the White House is to be believed.

China is now building a lot of Boeing, Airbus parts, and is exporting planes to airlines. Its trade with the US exceeds $500 billion (mainly exports to the US) dwarfing Bharat’s trade (mainly imports from the US) $50 billion. China’s trade surplus with the US is no laughing matter–it is a major chunk of the Bharati GDP. Bharati trade with US measures to less than 2% of US trade. Bharat has nothing to sell to the US except Call-Center Services which total only $50 billion per annum–and this industry is now facing a colossal backlash from the businesses in America.  Bharat has not been able to produce products or software which Americans want to buy. Mangoes don’t count. The influx of 100,000 students to the US has not impacted Bharat’s trade balance or its basic infrastructure. The Indians simply buy motels and Subways.

Opening up to the West has impacted India in a negative manner. While it has created a couple of billionaries, the latest slide in HDI indices show that the Bharati general population has not benefited from the money–most of money now hidden in overseas account. The increase in trade has taken corruption to astronomical levels where $1.5 Trillion is sitting in Swiss banks. The Bharati PM is engulfed in theft personally attributed to him worth $29 billion. The opposition BJP holds him personally culpable. The recent CWG games vividly described the sorry state of corruption and incompetence in Delhi. The failed Kevari and LCA (was supposed to be the mainstay of the IAF) defense project are just shining examples of how money can be wasted without any results.

If the US wanted to send a message to China, then we are right on the money–however Obama’s support for Delhi runs counter to any logic on the subject. Chinese help is necessary, indeed crucial to expand the UNSC. If the Obama Administration really wanted to help Delhi, it would have worked behind the scenes with Beijing to get India in the UNSC. How silly is it to stand in Delhi, show Bharat as a long term partner, display India as a counter-weight to China, and then announce support for India’s UNSC hopes. Wouldn’t that kill any chance of China witholding the veto? Why would China allow another US ally to get into the UNSC so that both of them can pass resolutions on Tibet, Taiwan, South China Sea and the disputed islands.

It doesn’t really make sense.

Here is how the Indian press would have us believe it sounds “Hey! China–Screw you! The US has  a new buddy, that we are building to a challenge you. BTW: will you let our new partner India in the UNSC, so both of us can harass you on Tibet and Taiwan”.

In all likelihood, Obama was trying to salvage a failed trip to Delhi and used a carefully crafted line in the parliament to assuage fears of an Anti-US backlash. In all likelihood Beijing already knew about the “we will welcome India–sometime in the future–if India listens to us” statement. Those Neocon PNACers who envisage India as an Anti-China Counterweight are in the minority and are on the wrong path.

President Obama’s UNSC announcement has to be taken with a grain of salt–actually it would require a Sahara desert of salt to digest it. The US doesn’t hold all the cards in the UN–despite the fact that the UN is billed as a US Club. The waning Superpower wants to push in acolytes which will help it numerically–however the Africans, and the CFC will fight the G4 tooth and nail. The Forbes map of Africa with a Chinese flag on it is the reality of Africa. Beijing’s investment in all of Africa is unprecedented and dwarfs American presence on the Black continent. Africa would never go against China. The new world let by China will not allow the status quo to be maintained, and surely it would not allow a Chinese enemy in the UN–at lest not with veto powers.

Mr. Gauhar, a seasoned analyst has described the 4th world war and the growth of Chinese power in the news century.

What a silly storm in a small Indian teacup. We should be looking at the Chinese teacup. Obama goes to India to get something, flatters to sell by saying what the Indians wish to hear and the sated go ape. The wretched of the earth could not give a fig. They want food. Flattery is marketing, my dear compatriots, it’s all marketing. Those who fall for it soon come a cropper. There’s no gainsaying that the Indians fell for such crass K&F – kowtowing and flattery.

Obama went to India with two objectives:

1. To get orders for US products to help kick start his economy and create jobs in his country. For this he offered India some lollipops that may not get past the new Congress.

2. To send China the message that the great USA is standing in India’s corner. China has been turning up the heat on India since early last year.

Should Obama have come to Pakistan too? Certainly not. Better this than the disgraceful six-hour Clinton visit, when he closed down our capital, changed the airport-to-city road to the wrong side, refused to be photographed with our president, lectured our chief justice at a luncheon not to hang Nawaz Sharif (no one was going to hang him anyway) and then had the gall to lecture us too. More to the point, we let him do all it.

America has now lumped Pakistan with Afghanistan, Iran and the Central Asian Republics, not South Asia. That’s their business. It’s their way of looking at things. Lumping on the basis of strategic considerations is clearer than lumping according to geographical convenience.

Is China quaking? Obama has climbed the back of an Indian elephant to kill the Chinese tiger. China can appear in many incarnations. It can also become an ant – who is better at guerilla warfare? An ant is like a guerilla that climbs up an elephant’s trunk and drives it crazy, until it is dead. Those who are riding it fall off and are crushed by the elephant or eaten when the ant reincarnates itself as a tiger. America should know this, if nothing else from Vietnam and Korea. If it still doesn’t, sheer need for survival will, hopefully, make it understand. Obama’s India visit should be viewed in this context.

We are in the throes of that rare seminal change that is caused by the collapse of a World Order. The period of transition turns order into disorder. The usual catalyst is acute financial strain caused by military misadventures that throw up internal contradictions long hidden beneath the surface. Stability returns only when a new order has been painfully forged with global and regional power shifting wholly or partially elsewhere, only to go again with the next great flux. Such is the ebb and flow of world power.

Today’s flux is greater than those caused in the aftermath of the two World Wars with the Great Depression thrown in between. The map of Europe changed after both. Power shifted from a tired Europe to a budding United States and the Soviet Union after the Second World War, with the latter drawing down what Churchill called the ‘Iron Curtain’, resulting in the ‘Cold War’. The US became a new kind of superpower, largely without conquest and direct control – colonization without responsibility. We saw the advent of consensual rather than coercive hegemony. Instead of conquering and occupying territory (until Afghanistan and Iraq) like the European colonizers had done and the Soviets were still doing, America won world market shares and influence not only through great international marketing but more via economic domination by making countries indebted to it and its institutions. Countries always faced the threat of being left out in the cold (sanctions) – the redoubtable carrot and stick policy rather than the European Divide and Rule doctrine.

America had learned well the lessons imparted by two of its early presidents. George Washington realized that America had fought its War of Independence against the British with British weapons. This was unacceptable. He set America on the course of producing its own arms and ammunition, and later marketing some often through the old gunrunner turned ‘agent’. No country was sovereign unless it was self-sufficient in defense. Quincy Adams declared that hegemony could be achieved by force or by making countries indebted – that was the advent of consensual hegemony. Loans were given to create a false dawn of growth. Countries forgot the obvious doctrine of self-reliance. Loans became drugs and the countries became completely dependent on them, junkies at the mercy of the drug peddler and his touts. You see the results today. After the demise of the Gold Standard and the illusion of the ‘mighty dollar’ as the benchmark currency of exchange, America’s headiness made it forget this cardinal principle and it became dangerously indebted to China. You see the results of that too today.

The Cold War was the Third World War, with the world largely divided between the US and the Soviet Blocs. And just as WWI became a new kind of war with the first-time use of aerial power and WWII with nuclear bombs, the Cold War was a new kind of war fought neither by conventional nor nuclear weapons but by the threat of the use of them. Like all wars, it too was about the control of world market shares and access to cheap labour, raw materials and markets made captive by economic dependence caused by increasing indebtedness to the US and its instruments. Proof lies in the fact that not one developing country has come out of the pejorative Third World category because of the Bretton Woods institutions. The Cold War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union and the US acquiring the mantle of sole superpower.

From 1990, we saw the dawn of a uni-polar world. It had to be brief. Unable to function outside an adversarial framework, America saw enemies where there were none. Instead, it chose to become the global bully led for eight years by the global village idiot. We then saw the advent of the Fourth World War with the events of 9/11, which is also a new kind of war. America has all but lost it in Afghanistan and is dangerously dependent on Pakistan to pull its chestnuts out of the fire.

Only one country remained outside the two main superpower blocs during the Cold War, its strength coming from its strong ideology. That was China. And it is China and only China that is emerging as the new superpower, to share global power and influence with a diminished United States. Whether it leads to another US-China Cold War remains to be seen, but if it does it will be a war America cannot win. I therefore hope that America realizes that it can extract greater mileage if it works with China. That will require an extraordinary leap of maturity on its part, something that has been lacking since it acquired superpower status. It may be forced to learn now, since I find it difficult to accept that it won’t realize that in an adversarial relationship with China it will be the ultimate loser. Both have a cooperative relationship with one another because right now both are dangerously dependent on one another. Andreas Lorenz calls this new possible relationship ‘The Rise of Chimerica’.

Now with another economic crisis triggered by the Afghan and Iraq wars, the uni-polar world is giving way to a multi-polar world as power shifts from West to East, from the US to China. The new Great Powers will have to again carve out the world into spheres of influence as they did in Yalta after World War II.

To survive, America will have to share global power with China, and with Russia and perhaps Germany too getting some share of the pie. That could happen in Shanghai under the umbrella of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with perhaps a new global currency, something new as benchmark and a new United Nations. Where does India come into this equation – or for that matter and the so-called ‘Muslim World’? Indian elephant, Chinese tiger, Humayun Gauhar. humayun.gauhar786@gmail.com

Related articles

• Bharat’s UNSC seat tied to NPT – despite denials (newpakistantimes.com)
• Despite public denials India’s UNSC seat tied to NPT signature (pakistanindependent.com)
• Joint statement: China thwarts India rhetoric obsessing on Pakistan (timesofislamabad.com)
• China supports Pakistan-nixes Indian rhetoric in joint-statement (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistan’s national nightmare over: Obama leaves Delhi (rupeenews.com)
• Delhi trip: Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth (newpakistantimes.com)
• Obama’s Delhi trip: Gains, Loss and Risks (timesofislamabad.com)
• Obama’s Trip: Who was sold down the river? (pakistanakhbar.com)
• Obama’s trip: The truth and the reality (pakistanindependent.com)
• China deletes India’s rhetoric on ‘terror havens’ (pakistanindependent.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi on Indian UNSC quest (azadkashmirtimes.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (newpakistantimes.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (timesofislamabad.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (pakpunch.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (rupeenews.com)
• India in UNSC is ‘incomprehensible’: Delhi shouldn’t hold its breath (rupeenews.com)
• Knocking Out Bharat’s UNSC bid (pakpunch.com)
• Bharat faces uphill task on UNSC seat (greenviewsusa.blogspot.com)
• Uphill battle for India on UNSC seat (moinansari.blogspot.com)

Titanic Tempest in a Tiny Teacup

Share

Bundu's Biryani bedeviled by bungled Bharati Bureaucracy

Share

Image by WanderingtheWorld (www.LostManProject.com) via Flickr

Bundu Khan and his progeny are part of the elite family of restaurateurs who have made Pakistani cuisine world famous. For his original stand in Karachi and Lahore, the Bundu’ have now branched out into a multi-faceted food empire that spans many borders.

Shahid Bundu’s soujourn into Bharat have mostly been profitable trips–except for this time, where a plethora of sangs have kept him bottled up and frustrated.

New Delhi, Nov 17 : He came here hoping to do brisk business at the India International Trade Fair (IITF) but Pakistan-based restaurateur Shahid Bundu Khan says he got entangled in an ‘unprecedented’ web of formalities and procedures.

The man from Karachi struggled to participate in the fair right from the day he sought permission as the organisers denied him the nod to set up a stall – for no clear reasons, he says. However, he was finally permitted just a few days before the fair commenced.

But his problems continued. Even as a stall has been allotted to him, he cannot yet sell his famous kebabs and biryanis.

‘The organisers want a trade license issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Delhi Police,’ 47-year-old Khan told IANS.

‘The MCD said it will take 10 days to issue the license and the police are refusing to allot the NOC without the license,’ he added.

‘The organisers confirmed my participation Nov 11. I was delighted. But now that I have reached here, they are again creating a fuss. The behaviour is unprecedented,’ Khan maintained.

He said he was never told about the trade license and now with all the complications, he might not be able to participate.

‘Moreover, the stall allotted to me is still under construction and is situated in a secluded corner of the Pakistan pavilion,’ Khan said.

‘I requested them (the organisers) to exchange the stall with a vacant one which was more suitably located but they refused to budge, citing no particular reason,’ he added.

Pakistan Pavilion director Mazhar Mufti said: ‘Khan has participated in the trade fair earlier too but never did he go through so much of discomfort.’

The IITF, which began Sunday, attracts a large Pakistani delegation which usually sells the country’s well-known textiles, crafts and food. Khan had last come here in 2008, when he had done roaring business. (IANS)

Related Articles

• Exasperation continues for this Pakistani restaurateur (topinews.com)
• Pakistani man’s kebabs ready, will Indians get a taste? (topinews.com)
• Pakistan’s pavilion at the Delhi Fair does well (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistani products selling like hot cakes at trade fair (topinews.com)
• Indian’s chagrined that Obama did not disparge Pakistan (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan creativity shined at Expo 2010 Shanghai (pakistanledger.com)

Bundu's Biryani bedeviled by bungled Bharati Bureaucracy

Share

India's UNSC seat tied to NPT: US publicly denies

Share

The denials are loud, but the whispers in Washington and Delhi inform analysts that Preisdent Obama made the American support for Bharat’s UNSC seat conditional to Bharat signing the NPT. Since Bharat is unlikely to sign the NPT, the seat is simply an ephemeral goal which is far far away.

The United States says it does not see its support for India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council at odds with New Delhi’s refusal to sign two nuclear treaties.

“Well, we don’t see those as being at odds,” State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told reporters Tuesday when asked to explain US support for India’s bid despite its refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) andthe nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Asked if given President Barack Obama’s interest in removing nuclear weapons from the world, India’s candidature should be looked at par with Japan and South Africa, which have shunned nuclear weapons, he said: “India has shown itself to be a responsible global stakeholder.”

“And the President announced our position on India’s membership in the Security Council. And our support for India is not exclusive of our support for other countries as well,” Crowley said.

But “We are supportive of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” he said. US had also “encouraged Pakistan to sign on to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Regime.” UNSC seat for India not linked with NPT: US, Washington, Nov 17 (IANS).

WASHINGTON: The United States has acknowledged that despite its support, India was unlikely to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council anytime soon.

Robert Blake, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, told a briefing at Washington’s Foreign Press Centre that the expansion of UNSC was, “a very complex process that has to take place — many, many contenders for permanent seat — there is a whole question of veto”.

The United States, he said, “needs to have a very serious and detailed conversation with all our friends who are competing for these seats”.

During a visit to India last week, President Barack Obama endorsed India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC saying that the world body needed reforms to accommodate the changes that have taken place since the World War Two.

“I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon,” Mr Blake said.

“I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we are committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats,” he said. The official said the only “real change” Mr Obama announced was US support to India’s permanent seat in the 15-membered UNSC, but “we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process”.

Mr Blake, however, said that the US support for India’s bid was unconditional.

He noted that in statements made during his visit to India, President Obama had emphasised the need to fight terrorism in South Asia but he was also “very clear that Pakistan itself has been the chief victim of international terrorism”.

Related articles

• Garmany, Japan, Brazil mad: CfC, China oppose Indian UNSC seat (rupeenews.com)
• ‘Hunooz Dilli door ast’: FM Qureshi to India on UNSC quest (rupeenews.com)
• Pakistan, China, CfC to scuttle India’s UNSC bid (rupeenews.com)
• India for UNSC: Pakistan cabinet criticises US support (topinews.com)
• Will Obama’s Unsc Permanent Seat Assurance to India See The Light of Day? (socyberty.com)
• ‘US support on India’s UNSC seat aimed against Pakistan’ (topinews.com)
• Pakistan must get UNSC seat in Non-Muslim Club (rupeenews.com)
• China checkmates India in Trilateral statement (rupeenews.com)
• China supports Pakistan-nixes Indian rhetoric in joint-statement (pakistanledger.com)
• Justice and Fair Play: UNSC seat for Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)

India's UNSC seat tied to NPT: US publicly denies

Share

Pakistan's pavilion at the Delhi Fair does well

Share

New Delhi, Nov 16: The India International Trade Fair 2010 in New Delhi recorded the maximum presence from Pakistani traders, who set up the biggest pavilion at the fair.

The India International Trade Fair (IITF) commenced here on Sunday at the Pragati Maidan.

This year’s IITF has specific focus on Energy-Technology and Eco-Technology as twin themes of the fortnight long fair that wil last till Nov.28, 2010.The trade fair, on the first day, showcased hues of green and giant posters highlighting the significance of saving energy.

Every year India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), the nodal agency of the Central Government of India hosts this annual trade exposition. This year, the partner States are Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh.

The inaugural day witnessed presence of various political leaders at State pavillions. In the morning, the Union Commerce and Trade Minister, Anand Sharma, inaugurated the IITF 2010 today.

New Delhi, Buyers are thronging the Pakistan pavilion at the 30th India International Trade Fair which has over 15 stalls ranging from fabrics to chandeliers to jade and marble products.

Currently open for business visitors only, the trade fair kickstarted Sunday and will open for the public Friday. Hall 18, which houses the international stalls, sees the maximum people at the Pakistan pavilion.

‘Buyers are showing keen interest for painted glass chandeliers and lamps with bronze finish, wall hangings and decorative pieces in painted glass. The prices range from Rs.600-10,000. Some more expensive pieces are also there,’ Hussain, one of the stall owners, told IANS.

This time, the stalls selling fabrics have overpowered the famous jade and marble stalls. ‘The jade and marble products are less in number,’ Hussain said.

Pakistani products selling like hot cakes at trade fair

Most of Pakistan’s fabric stalls offer the traditional handmade kurta called ‘Kanchidi’, with thread and mirror work all over it. The stall owners hope that it will be bought by a lot of buyers in the general public as well.

‘A number of designers have bought the Kanchidis from us – stitched and unstitched. The kurtas start from Rs.1,200. The hand embroidered shawls and bedcovers are also selling like hotcakes,’ said the owner of Paras stall.

He added that maximum sales take place during the business days.

‘Once it opens for the public, it gets very crowded. We hardly get time to show anything properly. And with people thronging every stall in huge numbers, there’s hardly any time and place for anybody to give a proper look to the materials on display,’ he added.

The fabric stalls like Laila art, Couture collection and Indus art has chiffon saris and salwar kameez in pastel colours – mostly with heavy silver embroidery.

‘The saris from these stalls are often bought by Meena Bazaar sari store,’ Nazia, one of the stall owner, told IANS.

Also, a range of dress materials with Phulkari work got all the attention from the ladies.

‘I bought three Phulkari saris and two dupattas for myself. Though it cost a bomb, I have no regrets. They are worth it,’ said Kamini Malhotra who owns a boutique in Hauz Khas.

But the footwear stall which has the traditional ‘jooti’ has a weary look with its owners hoping for a few customers.

In no mood to address any queries, one of the stall owners, Firoze said: ‘We have better business when it is open for all. The public is more keen on buying jootis than the business visitors. We are more accessible to public as the prices are affordable – starting from Rs.300.’

The jade and marble products, which had been a favourite among Delhiites in the earlier fairs, do not have separate stalls this year.

‘This year, I don’t see much of jade products, though I have bought a lot of jade stone show pieces. It’s exquisite and I was hoping to buy more. The fabrics and coloured glass paintings are in majority,’ said Ramesh Dutt, a collector of jade marble memorabilia.

Tags: collector, collector of jade marble memorabilia, jade products, Kamini Malhotra, Kanchidis, marble products, Meena Bazaar, New Delhi, pakistan, Pakistan pavilion, Paras stall, Ramesh Dutt, Rs

In his address, the Union Minister highlighted the twin themes of Energy-Tech and Eco-Tech for the fortnight long fair.”It is clean technology, green technology have assumed a special place in the planning, in policy formulation, in investments

in innovation, in research worldwide. India has also embraced it, it is country conscience of the changes that are taking

place I the environment around us in the climate. India has the fifth largest installed capacity of renewable energies in the

world,” said Anand Sharma.Rajashtan Chief Minsiter Ashok Gehlot and the newly appointed Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, visited the State

pavilions along with Union Minister Anand Sharma.Delhi Chief Minsiter Sheila Dikshit inaugurated the Delhi pavilion and visited each stall.”All (are) eco friendly. Whether it is the use of power, whether it is the use of water or products made out of eco friendly

materials all that is being done (at the pavilion). So I think it is a very cheerful and a happy pavilion,” said Sheila

Dikshit. Taking a cue from the recently held Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, authorities of Indian Trade Promotion Organisation

(ITPO) have decided to use latest state-of-the-art security gadgets during the ensuing India International Trade Fair.The Fair will be thrown open to the general public from November 19, as first four days have been solely reserved for

exclusive interactions between the manufacturers, traders and exhibitors and the buyers.The estimated budget of this grand trade expo is expected to be in the range of one billion dollars towards varied

arrangements.Twent three countries will showcase their wide range of products and services and special arrangements are being made at

their stalls and pavilions for security. (ANI)

Related articles

• All goodies gone: US turns down India on FTA (rupeenews.com)
• China’s trip to Delhi hits Kashmir snag (pakistanledger.com)
• Chinese visit to India hits Kashmir roadblock (timesofsrinagar.com)
• Pakistan creativity shined at Expo 2010 Shanghai (pakistanledger.com)
• Pakistani products selling like hot cakes at trade fair (topinews.com)
• Himachal pavilion to have 60 stalls at trade fair (topinews.com)
• Pakistani man’s kebabs ready, will Indians get a taste? (topinews.com)

Pakistan's pavilion at the Delhi Fair does well

Share

Kashmir Azadi Conference

Share

The slogans for Azadi

Geelani Part 1

Geelani Part 2

Aurandhati Roy exceprts

Repeat of Roy–different sections 4 mins only

Related Articles

• ‘Free Kashmir’ will allow liquor consumption: Geelani (topinews.com)
• Arundhati Under Attack for Kashmir Statements (via ScarletGuju) (leftyprof.wordpress.com)
• Geelani’s help sought to restore normality (thehindu.com)

Kashmir Azadi Conference

Share

Pakistan's national nightmare over: Obama leaves Delhi

Share

Image via Wikipedia

The daily images streaming out of Delhi created more Anti-Americanism in three days in Pakistan–than in fifty years. President Obama shamelessly played to the peanut gallery in Bharat.

The Pakistani masses disliked the fact that President Obama did not appreciate Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war on terror and that the Cold War antagonist was visited with pomp and ceremony. They did breathe a sigh of relief that mr. Obama took care not to disparage Pakistan–though the joint statement was full of some of the same old rhetoric.

Mr. Obama’s stated objectives of drumming up business and brining back jobs for America surely does not stand the scrutiny of logic or sense. $10 billion and 50,000 so called jobs does not justify such a high profile trip billed America’s most expensive foreign trip ever. The US jsut signed a $60 billion Dollar deal with Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states have signed a $120 Billion deal. Wouldn’t it make more sense to take businessmen to countries who actually buy US goods on an ongoing basis. The US-China trade is over $500 billion per year. American trade with Bahrat is $50 billion per annum, an amount that the US spends in a a few days in Afghanistan.

So why did President Obama head out to Bharat and why did he skip Pakistan? These are important questions that will be answered here. President Obama timed the trip right after the electoral defeat (which had been expected). He wanted to change the subject and take the wind out of the Republicans as they prepared to gut his health program and criticize him for failing to improve the economy. Low ratings were dealt with President Bush by waging two unnecessary wars on two countries. President Reagan invadad Grenada. President Obama does not have that luxury.

President Obama’s trip to Delhi was to ensure that the impediments to his face saving withdrawal from Afghanistan does not hit any snags. He has to tie the knots in Delhi before he talked to Pakistan (in Washington and possibly in Islamabad). President Zardari was invited on a state trip to America–something that Bharat has not had. Prime Minsiter Singh’s visit to Washington was not a state trip, as he is not the head of state.

The tour was more style than substance. The 123 Nuclear Deal remains log-jammed in paperwork, and Bharat was told in no uncertain terms that Delhi has not political role in Afghanistan. Delhi was free to engage in arts and crafts activities in Kabul, but under rules set by the new government which would include the Taliban. The US now believes that there are good Taliban and bad Taliban, and that the US would talk to all of them. Obama clearly stated that Pakistan had an enormous role to play in the political structures of Afghanistan. No major accomplishments were achieved in Delhi, however the US did make ephemeral promises to Bharat about UNSC seats etc. Similar promises were made the US to many countries including Pakistan in the fifties and the sixties.

The Obama mission to Delhi was simple, convince Delhi to forget about Afghanistan and to resolve Kashmir. We called it Obama’s Kashmir trip. In order to give Bharat a blunt message, Mr. Obama had create a substantial distance from Pakistan. To make the message palatable to Delhi, Mr. Obama had to keep mum about “K” in public. A fly on the wall during the meetings with PM Manmohan Singh would have shown that there were deep discussions on three things.

1) Resolution of Kashmir.

2) An end to Bharat’s role in destabilizing Pakistan.

3) No role for Bharat in Afghanistan.

These three messages was repeated on many occasions and in many speeches. However the message was encrypted. Let us analyze the press and see who got it and who didn’t.

Bharat was publicly told to resolve her small and big issues with Pakistan (read Kashmir, Junagarh, Manvadar, Sir Creek, Siachin, Water etc). The carrot thrown out for Bharati good behavior would be support for the UNSC seat sometime down the road. Of course the Times of India played to the same gallery that the US President was playing to. The TOI headline screamed “US supports UNSC seat for India”. There was no comprehension of what the real intent of the US was. The Hindu of course is a bit more sophisticated, and its headline said that “US puts India on probation”–with the possibility of a UNSC seat if Delhi plays ball.

It is pedagogical to note that one of the most poignant moments of Mr. Obama’s trip was when responded to a question on Pakistan and terror. Mr. Obama in a carefully rehearsed, and meticulously delivered response to the Bharati “student”  did not vilify Pakistan. In fact he defended Pakistan and refused to be baited. Mr. Obama on that occasions and several others said “Stop interfering in Pakistan”. Of course the message was sugar coated as “A stable Pakistan is in the interest of India”. In affect Mr. Obama was educating the peanut gallery that a prosperous Pakistan was here to stay, and that a stable Pakistan was in Delhi’s interest. He was also telling that Bharati Army and RAW that Pakistan he wants and stable Pakistan, so they should “back off”. The peanut audience in Bharat has been weaned on the mothers milk that Pakistan is about ready to die. Mr. Obama’s message on this was clear. Stop dreaming about “Akhand Bharat“.

There was no announcement of Bharat’s role in Afghanistan. Neither in any speech nor in the final communique. Pakistan’s enormous role was mentioned several times. Bharat however was free to invent in Kabul if it so wishes. However there was a subtle restriction on that investment too. Bharat had to do it in conjunction with the US in a joint US-Bharat venture. Bharat has suspended all its activities in Kabul and its role in the Karzai cabinet has been diminished. Occasional barbs emanating from Kabul emanating display Mr. Karzai’s  frustration, more than anything else.

Mr. Obama has polity asked Bharat to focus on the East (a not on the West). The US promises Bharat great tidings if it is a good boy, forgets about Afghanistan and builds relations with Mayanmar. It is important to note that Mr. Obama actually named Burma as a symbol. Bharat should look East to ASEAN, Vietnam and Thailand to build its economic structures. Mrs. Hillary Clinton‘s message on the South China Sea was a link in the same  general premise of asking Delhi to look as sea power.

President Obama is now in Indonesia talking about Muslims. Distant Indonesia it of no major significance to the US, but as a major Muslim country it has a colossal role in Asia.

Related Articles

• Obama doesn’t mention any political role for Delhi in Afghanistan (rupeenews.com)
• Why no mention of any Indian role in Afghanistan: There isn’t any (rupeenews.com)
• Indian’s chagrined that Obama did not disparge Pakistan (rupeenews.com)
• Not publicly mentioning ‘K’ in India would confirm deep discussions on Kashmir (rupeenews.com)
• The ‘cornerstone’ that America likes today (rupeenews.com)
• Obama’s visit to India and Pakistan (pakistanledger.com)
• Mentioning ‘K’ during Obama’s Kashmir trip to India (pakistanledger.com)
• China-Pakistan Civilian Nuclear deal: 1 Gig Plant in Chasnupp (pakistanledger.com)
• So Obama can boost US economy with $12 billion in sales? (pakistanledger.com)
• A tepid reception for Obama in Delhi spells failure (rupeenews.com)
• Can India digest bitter pill on Kashmir to get UNSC seat (pakistanledger.com)
• Obama ties UNSC seat to Kashmir solution without using ‘K’ word (rupeenews.com)
• Mentioning ‘K’ during Obama’s Kashmir trip to India (rupeenews.com)
• Tit for Tat Pakistan-China Civilian Nuclear deal: New 1G plant (C-5) for Pakistan (rupeenews.com)

Pakistan's national nightmare over: Obama leaves Delhi

Share