India Forum Archives
Monday, November 24, 2003
  India and US
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 9 2003, 04:50 AM THE DAILY STAR (LEBANON'S LEADING NEWSPAPER), SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 OPINION A PAKISTANI THORN IN THE AMERICAN SIDE The long arm of the US war on terrorism employs remarkably tender gloves when it comes to Pakistan, the original backer of the Taleban movement that offered Osama bin Laden sanctuary as he plotted the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks - and the only state in the Muslim world certainly known to possess weapons of mass destruction. Billions of US dollars in military and economic aid have poured into the country since then, although, before the attacks, Pakistan was more often cited as a sponsor of international terrorism. It had backed ruthless cross-border insurgencies in Kashmir and India, developed a nuclear weapons program that provoked US sanctions and acquired banned technologies from North Korea, China and Iraq. After bin Ladens arrival in Afghanistan in 1996, Pakistans all-seeing Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency turned a blind eye to the passage through its airports of tens of thousands of graduated.gifs from his training camps on their way to attacking their foes. Throughout the 1990s, Pakistan routinely sub-contracted its foreign policy objectives to movements like the Taleban, or jihadi groups like Harakat al-Mujahedin, assigning officers and NCOs to train and advise them. In 1999, India and Pakistan barely escaped going to war again after Pakistani-backed mujahedin and their allies in the regular army transgressed the Line of Control that divides the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir. That same year saw Pakistans corrupt democracy again overthrown in a bloodless coup that brought President General Pervez Musharraf to power. For half of its 56-year existence, Pakistan has been ruled by a military that, despite a series of draconian IMF programs, is still the countrys largest corporation, dominating the transport, construction and banking sectors to the exclusion of the private sector. In short, Pakistan is everything that President George W. Bush claims to despise: a military dictatorship that is also an anti-freedom, anti-free market Islamic state which sponsored international terror in the past, is dangerously unstable and has a first-strike nuclear capability trained on its more secular and successful neighbor, India. Yet it is also Americas closest ally in the South and Central Asian region. What can possibly make such a marriage work? The short answer is that it doesnt really work. However, with no Muslim country in the region that is more stable than Pakistan, Washington has had to accept the current situation, at least when it comes to military cooperation, which still preoccupies Washington to the exclusion of all other considerations. In the first days of the war on terror, when Americas focus was on the Taleban and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Bushs military and intelligence advisers had a hard, strategic choice to make: whether to identify and target all the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, or only those against which it was possible to launch effective military action. The result was that, despite all the evidence proving collusion between the ISI and Al-Qaeda, Pakistan was granted an unofficial pardon for its past crimes, in exchange for becoming Americas strong right arm in the regional fight against terrorism. Pakistans motives for entering the alliance with the US were defensive. Yet today its commitment remains less than enthusiastic and bin Laden is still believed to be hiding in the lightly governed Pakistani tribal lands near the Afghanistan border. This is testimony, many say, to the selectivity that rules the Pakistani militarys conformity with Washingtons priorities. Nevertheless, Islamabad did make the right noises during the Afghanistan war: It banned the jihadi groups it had fostered; purged the ISI of its pro-Islamist officers; and made its airspace and military facilities available to the US military. The rewards of compliance were generous: the rescue of Pakistans economy, military power and international reputation. Musharraf drove a hard bargain, demanding, and getting, the lifting of US sanctions, the rescheduling of Pakistans foreign debts and an enormous influx of aid. In June, Bush pledged $3 billion in assistance over three years, and last week Pakistani officers visited Washington with a shopping list of weapons and spare parts, including 40 brand-new F-16 jets, with a total value of $9 billion. The similarities between Americas treatment of Pakistan after Sept. 11 and its treatment of Saudi Arabia, another ally with unofficial Al-Qaeda ties, invites comparison of the esteem in which the two are held in Washington. In the same way the US has shielded Saudi Arabia and assuaged the kingdoms sensitivities, it has also failed to mention Pakistans past misdemeanors. Scour the US congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks and there is no reference to the role played by Pakistan either in furthering Al-Qaeda objectives before the attacks, or in protecting bin Laden and the Taleban afterward. Though frozen these past two years because of Washingtons need to foreclose on the weaknesses exposed by Sept. 11, Pakistans defense concerns remain unchanged: the acquisition of strategic depth in Afghanistan to counter the perceived threat from India. A military concept more relevant to cavalry tactics than to the nuclear war hanging over the sub-continents inhabitants, strategic depth implies guaranteeing a hinterland to where Pakistans military forces can retreat and re-deploy after a successful first-strike by India. After three bitter defeats in wars with India since independence, Pakistani strategists instinctively plan for the worst possible outcomes. Though Pakistan is supporting the US and its efforts to nurture democracy in Afghanistan, its survival instincts dictate a drive toward a set of totally opposite objectives - the withdrawal of American troops, the subversion of Afghan President Hamid Karzais government and the continuing fragmentation of a country that, unofficially, it considers little more than an arena for its own army exercises. The recent upsurge in Taleban activities in southern and eastern Afghanistan confirms a view, widely held in diplomatic circles, that Pakistan is no longer willing to take a back seat in managing its neighbors affairs. Though the targets were Afghan soldiers and police, not their better-armed US allies, the attacks were characteristic of a planned military campaign, unlike earlier raids blamed on the Taleban or other groups hostile to the US. The fighting climaxed in a battle in Zabul province whose scale was not seen since the battle of Shah-e-Kot in March 2002, the last major deployment of the Afghan war. US jets pounded Taleban positions in Dai Chupan district for seven days, before the Taleban made an orderly retreat in the face of 1,000 US and 800 Afghan troops. Pakistan has not declared its hand, blaming the fresh incursions on geography and the porous Afghan-Pakistani border. Nor has the US publicized its irritation, though the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI regularly grumble at the lack of Pakistani cooperation in pursuing Taleban and Al-Qaeda members. But to the US and Afghan soldiers fighting the offensive, one thing must be obvious: that Washingtons reconciliation with Pakistan after Sept. 11 has paralleled, at the state level, the alliances of convenience the Pentagon made with Afghan warlords to spare American lives during the war against the Taleban. Re-armed, enriched and made respectable by their efforts, Pakistan and the Afghan warlords now pose the most immediate threat to the US plan for Afghanistan - and the man who crystallizes it, Hamid Karzai. Michael Griffin is author of Reaping the Whirlwind: Afghanistan, Al Qaida and the Holy War, published in paperback by Pluto Press. This commentary was written for THE DAILY STAR
Posted by: Gill Sep 9 2003, 08:08 PM
There is no US-India. There is only US interests and Indian interests. Today US has acknowledged that since the Cold War, India has emerged as a functioning democracy which is capable of bonding a nation for future. With diversity and internal political strifes, India has not broken up [according to Henry Kissenger's thesis in which he claimed that India will disintegerate into smaller countries [1973] in next 20 years. US today has accepted India's importance but wants to keep a tight leash. It does not want another economic power house to be dealt with. Its hands are already busy with China. Contrary to many people, India will be used to counter-weigh China. China has been trying to limit US influence in the region. Current stand-off between N. Korea and US has been taken over by China. China is using its weight in talks between the two and signalling to S. Korea and Japan that the red dragon is taking over. China has slowly started to expand its sphere of influence. In coming years US will have to re-think its priorities and will have to gain a foothold in South Asian theater. Logicall guess seems to be Bangladesh. From India point of view, coming govts must accept friendly relations with the US on equal terms. One must not forget that during Cold War US restricted India's growth in all sectors. Thus, we should not be cautious about US friendship but must have our interests in mind and not surrender these in wake of dollars or investments. US has no other choice but to turn to India and its huge market. India should in no uncertain terms let the US know that we are extremely displeased with its initiative against terrorism. Bullets fired by these terrorists on Indians have Made In USA markings. It should be brought to US notice that by providing arms and ammunition to a dictatorship under the disguise of democracy will not solve problems. Restoration of democracy and annihalation of religious fanatism is the answer. It seems both parties are aware of each other's delimma and have very uneasy friendship. Well US has to make a choice this time, India should let the US know, we cant wait anymore. Indian national interests and its security is paramount to US interests. Will this happen? Or our PM will again scummb to photosessions in the White House? Keep watching the soap-opera. Gill hannibalsmiley.png
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 9 2003, 09:11 PM
Gill, granting everything you say has some degree of validity, it makes sense for India to play the game. India has its own axe to grind , which is to sever the connexion between the US and Pakistan. This will take time. India will steer the US in the direction of Iran and will constantly work to create a rift between the US and Pakistan (which is not difficult to do given the propensity of Pakis to indulge in terrorist acts). Pakis are held in high contempt by the US Justice Department and that is not likely to change. Each country plays the game as its sees fit and in consonance with its national interests. That is OK. There are no permanent friendships between nations only permanent interests. Of course india should not fall into the trap of assuming that all this is happening for altruistic reasons.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 10 2003, 08:03 AM
News item of interest. Edward Teller was one of the key people in the twentieth century who transformed the world with his advocacy of the large use of nuclear weapons. What set him apart was that he was never apologetic of the role he played in moving the world towards nuclear deterrence. ‘Father of H-bomb’ played pivotal role in U.S. policies on defense, energy ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 10 2003, 07:22 PM
Despite some dubious statements about israeli occupation of the West Bank, there are some interesting nuggets here. September 10, 2003 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's visit to India will reinforce the strategic ties between India and Israel within the broad framework of a US-Israel-India alliance. If it was just a coincidence that India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra was closeted in his office on September 11, 2001 with his Israeli counterpart Major General Uzi Dayan discussing 'joint security strategy,' when the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon occurred, it is calculated scheduling that brought Sharon to India during the second anniversary of the attacks. India and Israel were among the few countries which enthusiastically applauded President Bush's declaration of the war on terror with its famous injunction 'with us or with the terrorists.' While Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his letter of October 2, 2001 to President Bush, eloquently mixed obsequiousness towards the US with hawkishneess towards Pakistan placing cross-border terrorism in the framework of the war on terror, Sharon got on its bandwagon, declaring that 'Arafat is our bin Laden.' India and Israel signed a joint agreement along with six agreements on environment protection, drug trafficking, visa-free travel for diplomats and cooperation in health, education and culture. But the more important secret pacts will be scrupulously kept away from public gaze and there will be little reference to the bourgeoning military ties. The rationale behind the US-India-Israel strategic partnership was expounded by Brajesh Mishra before a responsive audience of the American Jewish Committee this May. Only a 'core' consisting of democracies such as India, Israel and the United States can deal with terrorism, he maintained. 'Distinctions sought to be made between freedom fighters and terrorists propagate a bizarre logic,' he pontificated. The theme of India, the United States and Israel being 'prime targets of terrorism,' having a 'common enemy,' and requiring 'joint action' which Mishra explained had already found favour in the three capitals. In fact, immediately after the September 11 attacks, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal featured an article arguing that Israel, India and Turkey were Washington's only 'allies for the long haul' in the coming war against terrorism. While an increasingly democratic Turkey turned out to be a major disappointment for the US, the three way ties between Israel, India and the US grew fast spurred along by precisely the same forces in Washington which championed the invasion of Iraq. Some of the biggest boosters of US- Indian military ties both inside and outside the Bush administration are also prominent neo-conservative with close ties to Israel's ruling Likud Party. The visit takes place at a critical juncture when the entire strategic calculus in the Middle East and South Asia stands totally changed due to events of September 11, the Afghanistan war and Gulf War II. Professor Martin Sherman in an article in the Jerusalem Post on February 28, 2003 argued, 'An alliance between India and Israel openly endorsed by the US would create a potent stabilizing force in the region and could contribute significantly toward facing down the force of radical extremism so hostile to American interests in Western and Central Asia.' Sherman pointed out there were major considerations beyond regional stability that made a strong case for a vibrant India-Israel axis. 'For example in the emerging balance of geo-strategic power, the growing Chinese challenge to US primacy will almost invariably dictate the need for a regional counterweight to Chinese domination.' Similar views on meeting the Chinese challenge were expressed by Lloyd Richardson of the Hudson Institute, a think tank very close to the US administration, when he said that India 'is the most overlooked of our potential allies in a strategy to contain China.' It was in the vacuum in technological imports and military supplies, created by US sanctions on India, in the wake of the nuclear tests that Israel stepped in as India's friend in the hour of need. The Kargil war, utilized by Tel Aviv to prove its special relationship with New Delhi, made India's military establishment deeply indebted to Israel. Despite pressures from various quarters, not to supply ammunition to any party engaged in war, Israel responded within days to India's desperate requests by supplying Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for high altitude surveillance, laser-guided systems and many other items. Washington gave its special blessing to the Israel-India strategic alliance when it gave the clearance to Israel to sell their powerful Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control System to India. It is actively considering approval to sell the more militarily important Israeli anti-missile system jointly developed with the US. The US calculates that both these systems will serve also its own interests. It has openly stated that any strengthening of India's military capability is in America's interest. India and Israel are nuclear powers, the former a declared one and the latter an undeclared one. Of particular interest to the Israelis now is cooperation with India in the nuclear field. In Israeli perception the emerging strategic imperative is the development of sea-borne second strike capability. This can be operative only from the Indian Ocean and hence strategic cooperation with the Indian navy is essential. It is presumed that India's own perception cannot be otherwise as the credibility of its second strike capability would largely depend on the sea-borne leg of its nuclear triad. The first meeting of India's Nuclear Command Authority held just a few days before Sharon's visit assumes significance in this connection.this is an interesting but not unwelcome development In spite of the proforma reiteration of India's 'unwavering support' to the Palestinian cause, during the hastily arranged visit of Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabeel Sha'ath just a few days ago, the red carpet welcome to Ariel Sharon sends a clear signal of India's approval for Sharon's policies. An Israeli commentator Lev Grinberg wrote in June 2002, anticipating the US invasion of Iraq: 'Sharon is deeply satisfied with Bush's Middle East plan that practically means a global war managed by the 'Busharon' team in which Bush will play the role of the global Sheriff, imposing a new order in the Islamic states. Sharon has been nominated as the regional Sheriff and allowed to impose a new order in his area of influence.' President George Bush endearingly called Sharon 'a man of peace' on the occasion of the launching of the 'road map,' the plan for the Palestinian state. Sharon's call for an end to 'occupation' prompted a false sense of hope among many. Sharon did not indicate any willingness to relinquish Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza strip, merely expressing instead a desire to end any Israeli responsibility for the Palestinian population, a statement echoing Israeli prime ministers from 1967. Focusing on Sharon's use of the word 'occupation' or possible dismantlement of 'outposts' blinds us to the larger reality of an apartheid style Palestinian 'Bantustan,' where the fig leaf of autonomy hides the reality of continued Israeli occupation. One Sharon initiative that has sparked deep antagonism among Palestinians is 'The Wall,' the 347-km long 'security barrier' 8 metre high 2 metre thick fencing, in the entire West Bank north to south, 'a ghastly racist wall' in the words of Edward Said. The high profile welcome by the Indian government to the 'regional sheriff' is another clear illustration of India's subjugation of its national interests to the US' strategic designs for Asia.It is not at all clear where the subjugation arises. The writer needs to be less opaque when he makes such statements. The writer is a political activist and commentator based in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala and is the author of The War on Terror: Reordering the World, LeftWord Books, New Delhi,2003
Posted by: Gill Sep 10 2003, 10:35 PM
Mr. Kaushal, What game are we playing? What exactly are the paramount threats to India? Terrorism. The entire world knows that Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border-terrorism. Even their CEO has claimed it, when he says he cannot control it. Then what options do we have? Plenty. 1] Agree to US request for sending troops in Iraq. Ask for US troops in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Ask the US to man the Pakistani side of LoC to check influx of murderers into India. It seems fair. 2] Ask US to stop all form of military aid to Pakistan. How is pakistan going to utilize F-16s to hunt for Osama? Or take direct control of Pakistan's nuclear assets. In return India will agree to check in China. It seems fair. 3] Enter Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. POK is not a part of Pakistan. US should welcome this as India is doing exactly what US has done in Iraq, applying Pro-Active Policy of Pre-emptive strike. In return we help US in Iraq. Seems fair. 4] Ask the US to place sanctions on Pakistan [as on Libya]. Indian govt allows Indians who have been effected by Pakistani Sponsored terrorism to take the Pakistan CEOs govt to court for compensation. In return we will allow US to have a base to counter China. It seems fair. So far the game India is playing is like a strip tease. Slowly India is giving US what it asks hoping for gains in future. Why would Uncle Sam give a damn for Indian lives or concerns? The Phalcon Deal, Isreali ties etc are not at behest of US ok, instead they are desires between both Isreal and India to work together. US cannot stop this even if it wanted to. To this day India hasnt gained anything from a hypocritical US war on terrorism. Instead we have had many more dead Indian lives. I guess they must be worth 50 cents or so. I understand your views, but we are no bannana republic. We are a nuclear power with a tech savvy people and a strong market. It seems Indian management again is unable to utilize its plus points for rapid and much bigger gains. I hope you are right. Gill Jai Hind
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 11 2003, 08:54 AM
Gill, again while i understand the basic thrust of your argument, it is a reality that India is not strong enough to go it alone. I dont mean just military or economic strength but the national character to go it alone, like China. India has been screwed for a thousand years and there are large sections of the population that refuse to think independently, preferring to mouth the opinions of others. We need to see a new generation of leadership which puts more of a premium on boldness rather than caution. Eventually it will happen. I like to think it will be sooner rather than later.
Posted by: AJay Sep 12 2003, 12:45 PM
Mr. Gill Besides being unrealistic, there are several technical problems with your action plan. In point 1 you say that India should ask US to send troops into POK and man the border. But in point 3 you say India should enter POK. This will lead to a war between Indian and US troops. I don't think that is you intention. In point 4 you say US should impose sanctions on Pakistan. Has India done that yet other than the weak excuse of a sanction like denying overflights. The reasons given by India are large domestic muslim population and dependence on oil. What has India done for US that US should put India's oil security and good relations with Isliamic world before its own oil security and good relations with the Isliamic world? As believers of real-politik, US would not do it. Other than the current issue of sending troops to Iraq, India does not have any leverage with US. That is in the short term. If India plays its cards right, there is a very good chance that India would have a hold on several pressure points to control US policy but this will happen only in the long term. You bring up the issue of India being a nuclear power. That is a double-edged sword and should never be used in any negotiations explicitly. India's nucs are NFU and thus are of deterrent value only. That is how it should be. Otherwise India will be targeted by a covert P5 axis.
Posted by: Gill Sep 12 2003, 11:30 PM
Mr. Ajay & Kaushal, You views are accepted. I also have the same arguements. But as Ajay points out, yes I do ask for US troops in POK. Pakistan itself has asked for UN force there. Give them what they want. Please note if US wants Indian troops in Iraq why cant we demand US troops in POK? How could an Indian invasion in POK lead to war? India will not be invading Pakistan but POK an independent state according to Pakistan. Simple fact is all the PMs come out with brave words on 26,15 etc. Well the enemy is behind the fence, what are we waiting for? Wasnt it the PM who asked for massive deployment, talk of "aar ya paar"? Is there any accountablitiy for PM? If we are not going to take any covert or overt action against terrorism, then why are we allowing politicians to sacrifice our brother and sisters [Jawans] in Kashmir? Whats going on here? Indian Jawan is in miserable state in Kashmir. Foremost what are the top brass doing? Why dont they tell the GOI that enough is enough, either settle the problem or do a cut back in forces. Let Mufti and his police do something for a change. If we are not ready to go at it alone or we cant, then admitt that a puny nation of illiterate Jihadis have weakend the big elephant. Gill Jai Hind sad.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 14 2003, 04:17 AM
Doubts about an ally: Bernard-Henri Levy Friday, September 12, 2003; Page A31 Washington Post PARIS -- There have been reports recently in the American press concerning the probability that the government of Pakistan has traded nuclear secrets and maybe even technology with Iran. Such disclosures were welcomed by those of us here in France who consider ourselves part of the "anti-anti-American society" and who have long wondered why the United States doesn't seem more concerned with the character of its major ally in the war against terrorism. As an observer of Pakistan for more than 30 years -- I first went to the region in 1971 as a war correspondent covering the conflict between India and Pakistan over Bangladesh -- I have seen the government become ever more degraded as it fell from the hands of the Bhuttos to military leaders such as Pervez Musharraf and then to the point where now -- as the Daniel Pearl affair showed -- it is doubtful that the executive branch of the country's government is fully in charge. Is it known in the West that President Musharraf himself had to cancel several trips to Karachi, the economic capital of his own country, for safety reasons? My last few visits, including one on a diplomatic mission for France following the Afghan war and several more as part of my investigation into the death of journalist Daniel Pearl, brought this point home and gave me a full sense of who really runs things there. What has become obvious is the tremendous power of the ISI, Pakistan's secret service -- so dreaded by average citizens that they rarely speak its name but refer to it instead as the "three letters" -- and the deep infiltration of this powerful organization by militant fundamentalists and jihadists. The most dominant factions in the ISI, in fact, have come to constitute a virtual jihadist group itself. And this is why Pakistan has become the subject of numerous other urgent questions: Did it shelter Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks? Has it provided bin Laden with medical attention since the Afghan war, in the Binori Town Mosque in Karachi, which I happened to visit? Was it involved, and to what extent, in the murder of Pearl? It is in this context that it's advisable to consider the problem of the Pakistani nuclear program and the dangers of proliferation that it presents -- with Iran certainly, but also with al Qaeda and the still-at-large elements of the Taliban. In my book I bring up the case of the so-called "father of the Islamist bomb," the man after whom Pakistan's leading nuclear laboratory is named, Abdul Qader Khan. He is a revered figure in his country. He is cheered in the streets. His birthday is sanctified in the mosques. I witnessed an Islamist demonstration in which gigantic portraits of him led the march. But this man has long been not only a government official but a fanatical Islamist. This public figure, this great scientist, this man who knows better than anyone (since it is he who developed them) the most sensitive secrets of Pakistan's nuclear program, is both close to the ISI and a member of Lashkar e-Toiba, a group closely allied with al Qaeda. My story concerned Khan's "vacations" to North Korea and his links with bin Laden's men; one of my hypotheses is that Pearl may have been killed to prevent him from reporting on such trafficking of nuclear know-how. It is clear that the United States accepted the moral imperative when it came to the Afghan war. It is also obvious that, after Sept. 11, the war against terrorism had to be declared, and that it has to be carried on, with all the necessary alliances. But what is the real necessity, in this framework, of the U.S.-Pakistan alliance? Was it necessary, after the most recent visit of Musharraf to Washington, to continue the massive funding of his regime? Is it not possible at least to tie this aid to certain simple political conditions -- for example, that the Pakistanis must give proof of a genuine effort to reform the ISI; or that they impose the most severe sanctions on their high-ranking nuclear scientists and officials who take "vacations" in Iran, North Korea or Taliban-held areas of Afghanistan? This story, unfortunately, I'm unable to cover further, because I have become part of a growing club of reporters who cannot return to Pakistan, simply because they don't want to end up like one of the best journalists to have covered the nuclear trading story, Daniel Pearl. But I am convinced that a harsher tone, a reformulation of the terms of alliance, is called for, so that our relationship with Musharraf will be more than a gullible, naive embrace -- and will conform to moral as well as political imperatives. And I would add that waiting for us is the other Pakistan -- that which is liberal, democratic, secular, which fights, back against the wall, against mounting Islamism, and which does not understand why, in this combat, we are not at its side. Bernard-Henri Levy is the author of "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?" Bernard-Henri Levy is a philosopher ("La Barbarie a visage humain," "Le Testament de Dieu," "L'ldeologie francaise") and a writer ("Le Diable en tete." "Les Derniers Jours de Charles Baudelaire," "Les Aventures de la liberte") He has written about painting ("Mondrian" amd "Piero della Francesca") and for theater ("Le Jugement dernier"). He is a member of the Selection Committee of the Editions Grasset, and he runs the "La Regle du Jeu" magazine. He writes weekly a column in the magazine "Point" and chairs the Counseil de Surveillance of La Sept-Arte.
Posted by: Viren Sep 14 2003, 12:55 PM
Paul Johnson in (free subscription required to access)
Even more important is involving Asia's two major free states, India and Japan. India's parliamentarians have been reluctant to send troops to Iraq, but the Bombay (now officially known as Mumbai) outrages in August--likely the first in a series--should sway opinion in favor of a united global front against international terror. The Indian army has a long tradition of dealing with militant religious and tribal leaders, as well as with fundamentalists of all kinds, along its enormous Himalayan frontier. Some of its special forces units are as good as or better than any troops the Americans and British can provide; the army also speaks English and utilizes similar drills, tactics and psychology. India is, after all, the world's most populous democracy and ought to be actively involved in what is a global campaign to bring democracy to countries that have never known it.
Paul Johnson has been friendly to India in past; remember him making a case for India in the P5 at UN.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 17 2003, 03:46 AM
An insight into how things work in Washington;
I bumped into Bob Livingstone at a Republican Jewish coalition event last week held at the Turkish Embassy where the Turkish Ambassador was ga ga over Turkish-Israeli strategic alliance. I was very surprised by Livingston's presence and inquired with a RJC member a backgrounder on this. He sent me the following article. Thought you might find it very interesting. THE OFT REPEATED PHRASE - "IT'S WHOM YOU KNOW IN WASHINGTON AND HOW MUCH YOU PAY" - PROVES TRUE AGAIN. Access and connections help explain how Bob Livingston (R-La.), the former House Appropriations Committee chairman, helped beat back a GOP-drafted amendment that would have deprived Turkey of $1 billion in U.S. aid this spring. Many Republicans were angry over Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq from Turkish soil, and wanted to penalize the country through an emergency spending bill up for a vote on April 3. Livingston provided the Turkish Embassy with strategic advice and personally appealed to his former colleagues to back Turkey. He arranged for a delegation of Turkish officials to stand outside the House floor just before the vote. While other lobbyists could have stood on the same spot, few could count on friendly chats with members such as Wamp, whom Livingston had helped put on the Appropriations Committee, in 1995. Wamp said that he was uneasy about rewarding the Turks in light of their recalcitrance, but that seeing Livingston with the country's delegation made a difference. "There's no question that why I slowed down to talk to them and greet them is because they're with Bob Livingston," Wamp said. "I'm more willing to hear them out because he took them on, and that gives them credibility." Wamp voted against the amendment to punish Turkey, which failed, 315 to 110. Livingston has managed to build Washington's 10th-largest lobbying firm in four years. He and his three top aides set up shop a day after he stepped down from Congress. The four men worked to collect clients "among people we had served in Congress," Livingston said, and quickly developed a reputation for getting language inserted into appropriations bills. "Nobody understands the appropriations process better than me," Livingston said. "If we understand the process and can get through the front door, that's primarily the reason why clients hire me." UNQUOTE. A Turkish press review has the following to say about Bob Livingston's lobbying firm: >> The lobby group, Livingston-Solomon-Solarz, with which Turkey has signed an agreement, in order to protect Turkey's benefits from the U.S., starts its officially duties today. This lobby group, with which an agreement was reached for 1.8 million dollars, at the end of January, by Turkey's Embassy in Washington, will work particularly in Congress in the interest of Ankara. This lobby group consists of the companies of the U.S. Allocations Committee's former Chairman, Bob Livingston, former Chairman of the House of Representatives' Administrative Law Committee, Gerald Solomon and its former member from New York, Stephen Solars. It was stated that is was a positive step for Turkey to start lobby activities in a way to cover both of the two parties in the U.S. /Aksam/ << Ram Narayanan
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Sep 19 2003, 03:44 PM Now the US is turning to its dear friend TSP to send troops for Eye-rack. I guess our neighbors will do what their best at and to add to the explosive mix over there. I wonder if TSP will decide to send its best Ghazis there to fight in the heart of Islam's territory or reserve them for their pet Kaffirs. After all it does not take much to repackage a beard and send him as a sepoy for Uncle. chupa devilsmiley.gif
Posted by: Viren Sep 19 2003, 09:28 PM
Hauma: TSP troops in Iraq will be comedy central. For example: terrorists taking shots at the TSP soldiers will be called 'friendly fire'. TSPs record on nuke proliferation will ensure that WMD in Iraq is "found" ergo legitimize the 'liberation'. Who better to teach those Kurds or two a lesson if they decide to step out of line but jihadi TSP beards who have practiced this for past couple decades within their own borders. Also we all know that there's no love lost between the Shias and Sunnis; so would be very interesting to see how Iraqi Shias react against the TSP Sunnis. I for one say TSP should be in Iraq ASAP. Besides WTF is my tax $ buying me if we can't get a two bit dictator to comply with our (US) wishes wink.gif Time to put these coolies to work chop chop laugh.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 22 2003, 08:49 PM DAILY BREEZE.COM, Monday, September 22, 2003 DAN RATHER: NUCLEAR-TIPPED PAKISTAN REMAINS A POWDER KEG Is Pakistan (a) Americas ally in the war on terrorism; (cool.gif Americas enemy in the war on terrorism; © a powder keg that could explode at any moment; or (d) all of the above? On the question of ally or enemy, the answer might well depend on what aspect of the United States-Pakistani relationship one chooses to look at, on specific events and time frames, and on just what part of the Pakistani power structure one focuses on. As to whether Pakistan is a powder keg, those who know intelligence, terrorism and the region can come up with any number of reasons to answer with an emphatic yes. For those who have followed only the surface narrative, the fast and fancy footwork necessitated by the immediate U.S. response to 9-11 obscured an important and inescapable fact: Afghanistans Taliban were in no small part a creation of Pakistani intelligence and military operatives who wanted a way to keep Afghanistan under Pakistani influence. Their competitors in this were neighboring states: Iran, Russia, India and some of the Islamic former Soviet republics. Pakistans machinations in the early and mid-1990s have been reported to have had the tacit support of the United States, which was involved in Afghanistan for years after the 1979 Soviet invasion. When the Soviets left in 1989, the United States, too, largely abandoned Afghanistan. Then, in 1996, the Pakistani-backed Taliban were initially welcomed by the suffering Afghan population. And somewhere along the line, under Presidents Bush I and Clinton, the United States failed to recognize the danger when Osama bin Laden first bought, then flat-out hijacked, the Taliban regime. America, under Republican and Democratic administrations, slept. The gradual awakening to the threat, in the late 1990s, came too late. Bin Laden, with Mullah Mohammed Omar as his front man, had become the kingpin. And among his allies were some very highly placed Pakistani military and intelligence officers, along with segments of Pakistans police force, scientists, teachers and clergy. And they still are. Thats the problem. It is most acute in the border territories of Pakistans northwest, where tribal leaders are known to sympathize with al-Qaida. But the problem reaches throughout Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf must balance aiding the United States in its war on al-Qaida with avoiding completely alienating Taliban- and al-Qaida-sympathizing elements of the military and intelligence services that brought him to power. And because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it is a balancing act without a net. If Musharraf were to be overthrown, Americas most bitter enemies in the war on terrorism could find themselves in possession of the bomb. The United States has pledged billions of dollars to Pakistan to keep the government propped up. On the surface, its leaders appear friendly and allied with U.S. interests. But deeper down  in the military, intelligence and police ranks and in the mosques  danger lurks. This complex, frightening situation is a factor behind the U.S. inability to find bin Laden or Mohammed Omar, and, because of Pakistani exports of nuclear and missile technology to North Korea, it is complicating U.S. foreign policy far beyond Central Asia. So, the answer to the question at the start of this piece might very well be d  all of the above. There are, however, no easy answers for what to do about it. But pretending it doesnt exist is to ensure that it will get worse. And perhaps explode. Is America sleeping again? Dan Rather anchors the CBS Evening News and is a syndicated columnist. His column appears every Sunday. Publish Date:September 21, 2003
Posted by: Spinster Sep 22 2003, 10:19 PM
Did any one listen to the program Connection on NPR ( produced by Boston public radio WBH) There was a discussion about TSP and there seems to be unanimity emerging about TSP being the Terrorist central of the world. There was talk of de nuking TSP
Posted by: Viren Sep 23 2003, 07:55 AM
QUOTE (Spinster @ Sep 23 2003, 01:19 AM)
There was talk of de nuking TSP
N^3 should get Pulitzer his contribution wink.gif BTW, you can get connections online at
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 25 2003, 10:01 AM's~winning~PR~battle~at~UN By Smita Prakash in New York Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is not picking up the gauntlet thrown by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. In true battle colours, the General had begun his offensive well before coming to the largest battleground in the world - the UN, but little did he know that his opponent's war planners had a different strategy this time. They just will not clash swords. They will not pit India's statesman whose years in politics and the UN go back to the fifties, when General Musharraf was probably still in kindergarden. Vajpayee has the maturity of years of watching debates and participating in them. The General has shown that he has little patience to listen. The Pakistan CEO's appearance at the UN was in a pink shirt and a saville row suit. He strode at a fast pace, chest out, ready to say his stuff to all and sundry. Contrast this to the staid bandgala jacket, slow measured pace and halting speech of the Indian Prime Minister. Comparisons are odious, but the Pakistani delegation rubs its hands in glee that they have a media savvy president who knows what clicks in this television-obsessed nation. Speaking in clipped sound bites, Musharraf is all charm speaking to veteran correspondent Peter Jennings. Every question is answered in two or three sentences. He has been briefed that long rambling answers and long pauses will mean chopping at the edit table. Result no coverage. Nobody knows what the country wishes to say. Contrast this with..with what? The Indian Prime minister hasn't spoken to any American television channel as yet. He hasn't even spoken to the Indian media. His speeches are only at NRI-related functions hosted by the Ambassador, Ambassador at large, at the American Physicians of Indian Origin, the Asia Society, the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and at the Columbia University. And one would think that the public relations exercise has been won by Pakistan, as India is not even trying to fight it. Well that's where lies the error. Even before the Pakistani president and Indian premier address the UN, the perception is that General Musharraf has not delivered on his promise to halt cross-border terrorism, that he isn't really in control of the ISI, that Bin Laden might be in his territory and he isn't doing much to find him, that he is never content with what is given to him as a party favour, billions or millions, F-16s or radars....he keeps wanting more. Contrast this with India. They want nothing. The Prime Minister talked of nano-technology and biometrics with George Pataki, the Governor of New York. He isn't even asking the US to pressurise Pakistan to do its bit. But India will not commit troops to Iraq. Not because of Pakistan, but because they need a UN mandate. But CNN commentators say of Pakistan: "If India sends troops, then so will Pakistan". An identity, as a nation dismissed with one caustic comment. This is exactly what India's media management team planned and have executed so far perfectly -- A non-Pakistani agenda. The Prime Minister is not expected to mention the country in his address on Thursday. But General Musharraf will mention it time and time again. But he has cried wolf once to often. ANI
Posted by: O Vijay Sep 25 2003, 11:47 AM
I think Indian diplomacy with the US has been so effective boxing in Mushy, is that he is reduced to being a one trick jackass show, ie complaining at the UN. Mushy has no other place to cry. Sob.
Posted by: Mudy Sep 25 2003, 03:05 PM
US was using India and Pakistan to extract maximum out of them. But now India became more mature, economically confident started realising its strength and trying not to be used by US or UK or European union. For Mushy, his behaviour is more or less like spoiled baby. But his agenda is to keep Pakistani Army floating with excellent funds. Which he is doing very well.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 25 2003, 05:16 PM
David van Praagh is on my preferred mailing list of 'people of influence' who are not anti Indian. I regularly send him articles and data on the terrorist state and its role in world wide terrorism. Pervez Musharraf leads a terrorist state, says DAVID VAN PRAAGH. We forget that at our soldiers' peril By DAVID VAN PRAAGH Thursday, September 25, 2003 - Page A29 Today, Canada has the distinction of welcoming the leader of what, by any fair reading of mounting evidence, is a state supporting terrorism. That is disturbing to say the least. But Canadians may soon be among the victims of this terrorism. Canada is not alone in playing host to President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. General Musharraf also will visit the United Nations, where Pakistan is a member of the Security Council, and he will address the UN General Assembly. He has been an honoured guest of President George W. Bush in the United States. This is a critical time in which the civilized world, if it is to win the war or terrorism, needs to be honest and realistic in identifying and confronting the enemy. Pakistan presents a major peril, not only because it supports terrorism on two fronts. It is also a nuclear-weapons state that has illegally exported nuclear technology to North Korea and neighbouring Iran. Astonishingly, it nevertheless poses, and is accepted, as an ally of the forces fighting terrorism. Despite Gen. Musharraf's promises to President Bush to cease backing terrorism in India's share of the disputed state of Kashmir and in India itself, Pakistan's army, through its Inter-Services Intelligence branch, has never stopped during the past 15 years. In recent weeks it has become clear that the ISI has revived a second terrorist front in a way that almost certainly will lead to casualties among Canadian troops in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of the 1980s, the Pakistani military created, armed and commanded the benighted Islamic extremists called the Taliban, who took over most of Afghanistan by 1996. Under the Taliban, the country became the headquarters of al-Qaeda, the international terrorist movement headed by Osama bin Laden. With the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Pakistan had little choice but to declare itself an ally of Washington, especially because India had immediately made clear that New Delhi was Washington's strategic ally. But ISI support of the Taliban continued. Taliban and al-Qaeda gunmen continued to cross the rugged Pakistan-Afghanistan border both ways. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden lives under ISI protection on one side or the other of the border. A new phase of the struggle for Afghanistan has started, however, with attacks by well-armed, organized Taliban units of as many as several hundred men. Just as the Taliban's original victory would not have been possible without direct Pakistani assistance, it's highly unlikely the recent assaults could have been launched without a direct ISI role. So far, U.S. troops and a limited number of new Afghan troops have taken on the new Taliban invaders. But the UN-mandated, NATO-commanded international stabilization force, with its large Canadian contingent, is beginning to move out of the Kabul area in order to secure remote provinces. It's inevitable that Pakistan-backed Taliban invaders will engage Canadian troops. Apart from terrorist campaigns designed to persuade India to give up the Vale of Kashmir and to put Taliban fanatics back in control in Afghanistan, Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, has the potential of contributing to much wider destabilization. Its nuclear bomb is a Chinese bomb, and it has an estimated one dozen to two dozen of them. But Pakistan also acquired nuclear components illegally, and this led the United States to refuse to deliver to it some 28 F-16 fighter planes. Moreover, Western officials have confirmed that Islamabad transferred Chinese nuclear-weapons technology to both Iran and North Korea -- in the latter case, in exchange for missiles with which Pakistan's generals targeted Indian cities. Gen. Musharraf threatened to use these nuclear-tipped missiles in 2002. Western reticence to confront Pakistan grows out of fear that Islamic extremists, either clerics or generals who already control its nukes, will deploy or even use them if they oust Gen. Musharraf. But the Pakistani leader is clearly playing a double game. Mr. Bush's refusal to mediate on the Kashmir issue or provide the F-16s as payment for Pakistan's limited co-operation after 9/11, or even guarantee increased economic aid without an end to terrorism, may well have caused him to step up terrorism instead in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The best thing that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien can do is inform Gen. Musharraf that Canada has an important stake in what happens in Afghanistan and in the war against terrorism in general. Considering the imminent dangers, it would be better if he did this publicly as well as privately. The worst thing Mr. Chrétien can do is accept an expected Musharraf lecture about Western mistreatment of Muslims, and leave the impression that Pakistan does not present a big problem. That is probably more likely, and it would make a bad situation worse. David Van Praagh, a former South Asia correspondent for The Globe and Mail, is a professor of journalism at Carleton University. His book, The Greater Game: India's Race with Destiny and China, will be published next month.
Posted by: O Vijay Sep 26 2003, 06:07 AM
More information regarding Mushy's Canada visit
Posted by: O Vijay Sep 26 2003, 10:07 AM
K, the French version of the famous deck of cards featuring Rumsfeld as the Ace of spades and Cheney as the Ace of diamonds. Perusing thru the deck may give a better idea of the power structures in the US administration:
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 28 2003, 08:02 PM
Nothing new in the french deck . I am familiar with 99% of the names (names not the persons). We must also remember that France is now 10% (or more) Islamic. The French muslims just as the IM and other Muslims are playing the game just as they are doing in the rest of the world. Use the secularism stick to beat up the opposition (in Europe it is known as liberalism)while they themselves advocate murder and terrorism against innocents women and children. All this while accepting subsidies for Hajj, madrassahs from money intended for temple improvements. I have yet to hear a thank you from a single muslim for being the recipient of all this largesse.
Posted by: O Vijay Sep 29 2003, 10:02 AM
More than the muslim factor, I believe that EU factor is more important in the French moves against the US policy in Iraq. Latest about possible Indian troops in Iraq.
US accepts Indian stand on troops Our Political Bureau in New Delhi Published : September 30, 2003 US Secretary of State Colin Powell virtually reconciled himself to the fact that Indian soldiers would not help coalition forces secure Iraq. What was significant was a new caveat - that a new UN resolution or even a request from the Iraqi governing council alone would not be enough to send Indian troops to the war-torn country. The US recognised that domestic security responsibilities would not permit Indian troops to serve in Iraq. “India has indicated it would not be in a position to provide troops. And I do not expect that position to change,” Powell said in an interview on the television news channel CNN. Powell said he was disappointed with New Delhi's decision but “it’s become clear in recent months that, for a variety of reasons, internal political domestic politics, the Indians would not be in a position to provide troops.”
See link for rest of the article.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 29 2003, 11:07 AM TIMES OF INDIA, SEPTEMBER 28, 2003 US MEDIA AND INDIAN MASSAGE INDIASPORA/CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA [ SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2003 10:42:02 PM ] The Indian PMs annual visit to the United States produces ritual bellyaching among Indians both in India and the US about how little coverage he is getting in the American media vis-a-vis Pakistan and its leader. This year, once again, Gen Musharraf was all over the western media, speaking to ABC, BBC, CBC and every other BC, including three chats with CNN (for its domestic, international, and business programmes). In contrast, there was no Vajpayee at all in the US media. Indian officials provide their own spin to what some see as a media drubbing, ascribing lofty meanings to Vajpayees reticence. He is a philosopher-poet, a man of few words, above such mundane concerns, etc. The Pakistanis need to talk, they say, because they stand condemned before the bar of world opinion and have to explain themselves constantly. Vajpayee doesnt need to indulge in a gabfest. Fortunately though, India itself speaks louder and clearer than Vajpayee, whose days as a great communicator, alas, are long past. There was a time when we complained endlessly about the negative coverage and portrayal of India and Indians in the west. But try this sample of the coverage in the US media during the week Vajpayee was in the US. From a Washington Post story on Indias growing middle class to a Wall Street Journal report headlined Indias elephantine economy may be poised to run, the countrys growth was an everyday event. The New York Times reported on whether Indias new frontier is electronics while several news outlets ran stories on India becoming the most preferred destination for the American automobile manufacturing business. There was the usual clutch of stories on Indias IT sector and on outsourcing. There was also a good deal of coverage in the mainstream media about Indian arts, culture, literature, cinema. The NYT may not have even mentioned Vajpayees name in the time he was here, but it reviewed Vidya Murthys Pushpanjali dance and Deepa Mehtas Bollywood-Hollywood. The Washington Post had a story on an Indian womans effort to promote alternative therapies such as ayurveda and reiki, and Indias first community radio effort. The Indian flavour is not restricted to the big media. India and Indians now feature regularly in Middle America. In the last week alone, the Daily Pennsylvanian had a story on Pepsi President Indra Nooyi, the Oregonian wrote about a Kuchipudi performance by Swapnasundari, the Houston Chronicle featured John McLaughlin on his collaboration with Zakir Hussain, the Arizona Republic wrote about the path to Miss India USA, the Milwaukee Sentinel had a story on the opening of an Indian restaurant, and the Albany Times Union and the Daily Texan wrote about local Indian festivals. In contrast, the NYT welcomed Musharraf with an editorial headlined Pakistan, a Troubled Ally? Time magazine asked Pakistan a Friend or Foe?, a question echoed by an ABC Special also titled Friend or Foe? CBS Dan Rather ran a special on Pakistan as a renegade nation that is suspected of both terrorism and proliferation. Stories from Pakistan too centred around its slide into fundamentalism and anarchy, while stories in the US about the Pakistani diaspora almost always dealt with the problems they are facing post 9/11. Much of Musharrafs media exertion was devoted to countering all this negative coverage. So should India be worried about Pakistan or Musharraf getting more coverage in the US media? Sympathy might be a better sentiment. Its too much of a bad thing.
Posted by: Kaushal Sep 29 2003, 09:18 PM
crossposted from BharatNirbhaya from an original post by RamNarayanan Dear Friends: Was GOI's response to GOP's provocative and aggressive stance too tepid? You be the judge? Text of Musharraf's address to UNGA Text of Prime Minister's address to UNGA Need real player or windows media player for below: Munir Akram responds to PM's speech: India responds back: Pakistan responds again: And please read fully the following absorbing article by Prem Panicker in REDIFF.COM. Ram Narayanan US India Friendship PINOCCHIO PERVEZ September 26, 2003 I must confess to being continually amazed by Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf -- and it does not stem from the ease with which he, with the straightest of straight faces, manages to tell such whoppers. The real reason for my amazement is that his nose has remained the same size throughout -- you mean Pinocchio was a fable, after all? Ever since he landed in the US for the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Musharraf has been singing an old, familiar tune: The violence in Kashmir is due to India's forceful occupation of that region; the bunch of brave fighting men who have at last count killed over 80,000 people, at least half of them defenceless women and children, in a little over a decade are not 'terrorists' but 'indigenous freedom fighters'. I won't bring up the fact that the Pakistan president has, in his time, helped manufacture these 'indigenous' freedom fighters -- as in Kargil, when he dressed up units of the Pakistan Army in civilian attire and sent them across the border on a 'freedom struggle' that precipitated a war. I won't bring up the fact that the Pakistan president, in that earlier avatar as head of that country's army, allowed the bodies of his own soldiers to go unclaimed for a long time -- because to claim them would have been to acknowledge his role in that 'indigenous freedom struggle'. I won't mention these things; I won't even mention that Musharraf -- as per the evidence of a 'treasonous' interview former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto gave India Abroad, the Indian-American newspaper owned by -- has spent most of his military life dreaming of a military victory -- by means more foul than fair -- over India and doing his damnedest to make that happen. I won't mention these things, because such mentions make the president testy; they cause him to lose that famed smile, that bonhomie he is so well known for. The last time the subject was brought up in a public interview was last year this time, again while he was in New York for the UNGA. 'Forget the past!' he exhorted then. 'We cannot move forward if we keep looking back!' He has a good turn of phrase, does the general. So, in deference to the general, leave the past alone, and look to the present. 'So long as India persists in its violent suppression of the Kashmiri people, they have a legitimate right to resist Indian occupation. Equating their freedom struggle with terrorism is a travesty.' That is what Musharraf said -- on Monday, September 22. (He then said the same thing on Tuesday, September 23, Wednesday, September 24, and Thursday, September 25, at the UNGA plenary and various other forums. Some of his acolytes, in words that bore as much resemblance to diplomacy as I do to Jennifer Lopez, said the same thing at other forums.) The statement was headlined in the online editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major newspapers here. On that same day, something else happened -- a fourth man pleaded guilty, in what is known in these parts as the Virginia jihad network. Mohammad Aatique, it was reported, pleaded guilty to 'aiding and abetting several other defendants in preparing to fight India'. For those who came in late -- and more especially, for Pakistan President General Musharraf, who evidently never came in at all on this one -- a quick recap: On June 27, US Attorney Paul J McNulty unsealed in court an indictment against 11 men who were charged with violating the Neutrality Act, which bars US citizens and residents from attacking countries with which the United States is at peace -- in this case, India. On that day, eight men were arrested for being part of a 'Virginia jihad network' with ties to the Pakistan-based -- note, not Kashmir-based -- terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayiba. McNulty, while reading out the indictment on that day, said the eight men who were produced in court that day, and three others who were in hiding in Saudi Arabia and were since arrested -- had plotted to engage in a jihad in Kashmir, Chechnya, the Philippines, and other countries. McNulty spoke of connections between the Lashkar and Al Qaeda. He pointed out that the Lashkar had claimed responsibility for the December 2001 attack on India's Parliament, and had since been designated a terrorist outfit -- note, not 'freedom fighters' -- by the US, and banned. While describing how the 11 indicted men purchased weapons and trained at firing ranges in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and also trained in military tactics at a paintball range in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, McNulty told the court that day that the Lashkar has been linked to the deaths of hundreds in Kashmir. Earlier, in August, Donald Thomas Surratt, Yong Ki Kwon and Khwaja Mahmood Hasan pleaded guilty. Aatique -- a Pakistani native, do note, not a Kashmiri -- became the fourth to enter a guilty plea to charges of helping alleged co-conspirators 'in preparing for and beginning a military expedition to be carried out from the United States against India'. Aatique had been charged with, among other things, being a member of the banned Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Tayiba that carries out terrorist operations in Kashmir. Lashkar had been declared a terrorist organisation, by the US state department, in 2001. Prosecutors charged that Aatique hosted several alleged co-conspirators in his Pennsylvania house in the aftermath of 9/11, and that shortly thereafter, he travelled to Pakistan to attend a Lashkar training camp. The official indictment, returned by the grand jury, states: 'The purposes of the conspiracy were to prepare for and engage in violent jihad on behalf of Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, the Philippines and other countries and territories...' The 37 page indictment, which lists in detail various movements of the 11 accused, says inter alia: 'In or about July 2001, Mohammad Aatique told (fellow accused) Randall Todd Royer that Mohammad Aatique wanted to serve with the Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Pakistan.' 'In or about July 2001, Mohammad Aatique travelled from Pennsylvania to Virginia, so that Randall Todd Royer could provide him assistance in gaining admission to the Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Pakistan.' 'In or about July 2001, Randall Todd Royer telephoned Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Pakistan regarding Mohammad Aatique's desire to serve with Lashkar-e-Tayiba in Pakistan.' 'In or about late September 2001, Mohammad Aatique travelled to a Lashkar-e-Tayiba camp near Muzaffarabad, Pakistan.' The indictment goes on -- and on -- to detail the training the men received -- in a Lashkar camp in Pakistan, in October 2001. Does anything strike you as significant about that date? The 11 conspirators were training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan in October of 2001 -- fully a month after the terrorist strikes in the US of 9/11 and the declaration of the war on terror. The indictment talks of how the adviser to this group informed the 11 that the US was not a good place to be in, post-9/11, and advised them to travel to Pakistan. Which they did. Pakistan and its president Pervez Musharraf, you have to remember, were -- and still are -- frontline allies of the US in the war on terror; that, of course, explains why terrorists believe it is a safe haven. The entire indictment -- which details the links the 11 indicted conspirators had with terrorist agencies and camps in Pakistan, is worth a read. India, says Musharraf, has created the 'fiction' of cross-border terrorism; presumably, the 80+ thousand graves dotting the Kashmir valley, and the bodies contained therein, are studio props to dress up that fiction. But this is not an Indian 'fiction' -- this comes from the official indictment in a US court of law; four of those indicted have actually pleaded guilty to the acts they have been accused of. It is actually India, a Musharraf acolyte said, that is sponsoring terrorism; India that has training camps in Kashmir and Rajasthan and is responsible for terrorism in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and, hold your breath, Pakistan. Worth a read, in this context, is an article in Time magazine's online edition titled Is Pakistan a friend or foe? It is dated September 21 -- that is, just around the time Musharraf was doing his Pinocchio number. One extended quote: 'These same countervailing forces are at play in Islamabad's relations with militants fighting to expel India from the part of Muslim-majority Kashmir that it occupies. The militants' cause is popular within the Pakistani security forces and among Pakistanis in general. After India and Pakistan, both nuclear armed, nearly went to war over the conflict in May 2002, Musharraf assured Bush that there were no militant training camps in Pakistani territory. 'Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage reminded Musharraf of that guarantee when the two met in the northern city of Rawalpindi before Musharraf's last meeting with Bush in June. Armitage then produced a dossier of satellite photos showing camps of that nature. "Musharraf acted outraged and upset," a State Department official tells TIME, but it wasn't clear to the Americans whether he was angry that the camps were functioning or that the US had uncovered them.' Uh oh. Here's more, from the same article (emphasis ours): 'Musharraf has failed to sustain his promise to crack down on extremist groups that in the past fed fighters to the Kashmir cause, carried out sectarian killings and attacked Westerners. In January 2002, at the insistence of the US, Musharraf banned five such groups. Yet the government has allowed them to resurface under new names. Abdul Rauf Azhar, formerly of Jaish-e-Muhammad, says, "We are still doing our work." 'Azhar is not just any militant. Indian police suspect him of organizing the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to secure the release of his brother Maulana Masood Azhar, among other prisoners, from an Indian jail. The two Azhar brothers top India's wanted-terrorist list, but Pakistan brought no charges against Abdul Rauf. Musharraf did vow to keep Masood under house arrest, but staff members at his ornate mansion in Bahawalpur say he is free to travel, give incendiary sermons against the US and collect donations for the Kashmiri insurgency.' So, how did that line go? 'Indigenous freedom fighters'? 'To equate them with terrorists is a travesty'? The dictionary defines 'indigenous' as: Native; produced, growing, or living, naturally in a country or climate; not exotic; not imported. In context, those 'freedom fighters' who kill new-born babies are -- or so claims Pakistan's president -- sons of the Kashmir soil. Not Pakistanis trained in terrorist camps on Pakistan soil. Which is why I said at the outset that I was surprised his nose hadn't grown. I keep thinking of President General Pervez Musharraf in terms of fictional characters. Remember Humpty Dumpty, in Alice Through the Looking Glass? 'When I say a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean.' Keep Humpty Dumpty in mind, the next time you hear Musharraf speak. The words he says don't mean what the dictionary says it means, or what you think it means; they mean merely what Musharraf wants them to mean. As in: 'Indigenous' -- 'produced at home by me.' PS: You know what pisses me off, though -- and in fact prompted me to write this? Next to the New York offices of India Abroad where I work is a deli. Sometimes, when the weather is good, people sit in the chairs outside it, drinking coffee, sharing a smoke, and shooting the breeze. The weather was good this Wednesday. So we were sitting there and chatting -- me, and one black and one white guy, both of whom work in an office a few floors above mine. The assembly of world leaders at the UN was the obvious subject of the day, not least because US President George W Bush was addressing that body the same morning. So what, asks one of my friends, inter alia, is with this whole Kashmir thing? I explain to him, very briefly, what the problem there is. And then he goes, 'But whose land is it anyway?' I tell him it is ours. India's. But that Pakistan president says India has occupied it by force, he says, and your guys don't deny it. That is when it occurred to me. Last Saturday, an Indian delegation landed here -- Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra, Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal and a host of others. Musharraf landed two days later -- and managed, between then and now, to give interviews to every major television station and newspaper that would have him; simultaneously, others in his group fanned out to spread the message elsewhere. But not a yip out of the Indian delegation, by way of substantive refutation based on facts and figures. Not even a rebuttal of that absurd charge that India has 'forcefully occupied' Kashmir. And how does one explain that, to people here like my two friends? Managing Editor Prem Panicker now works out of New York.
Posted by: O Vijay Oct 1 2003, 06:25 PM
Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark's views in an interview with Josh Marshall of "" regarding the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
TPM: So, the Great Game? A sort of a new version of the Great Game? CLARK: It was the Great Game with modern equipment, and hypermodern risks. And, in reality, the problems with Osama bin Laden were not problems of states. They were problems of a supranational organization which alighted in states, used states, manipulated elements of states, but wasn't going to be contained and destroyed by attacking and replacing governments. TPM: I noticed that Doug Feith, who's obviously the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, had a statement a while back saying that the connection between terrorist organizations and state sponsors was, I think he said, the principal strategic thought behind the administration's policy. CLARK: It's the principal strategic mistake behind the administration's policy. If you look at all the states that were named as the principal adversaries, they're on the periphery of international terrorism today. Syria -- OK, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas -- yeah, they're terrorist organizations. They're focused on Israel. They're getting support from Iran. It's wrong. Shouldn't be there. But they're there. What about Saudi Arabia? There's a source of the funding, the source of the ideology, the source of the recruits. What about Pakistan? With thousands of madrassas churning out ideologically-driven foot soldiers for the war on terror. Neither of those are at the front of the military operations. TPM: Well, those are our allies, our supposed-- CLARK: Mentioning those two countries upsets the kind of nineteenth century geostrategy and the idea--this administration is not only playing that game, but they're more or less settling scores against the Soviet surrogates in the Cold War in the Middle East. TPM: That being Syria, Lebanon CLARK: The proxy states, Syria, Lebanon, whatever. These states are not -- they need to transform. But, why is it impossible to take an authoritarian regime in the Middle East and see it gradually transform into something democratic, as opposed to going in, knocking it off, ending up with hundreds of billions of dollars of expenses. And killing people. And in the meantime, leaving this real source of the problems -- the states that were our putative allies during the Cold War -- leaving them there. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Pakistan.
Posted by: muddur Oct 5 2003, 12:57 AM
India alone on this one: COUNTERPOINT/Vir Sanghvi October 4,00300001.htm Until 9/11, relations between Delhi and Washington had improved to the extent that Pakistan had become peripheral to American interests. Osama bin Laden changed all that. And until that problem is sorted out, America is going to have to treat Musharraf as an important ally. If you’ve been following accounts of the Prime Minister’s trip to the US, then you’ll know that things went well. A.B. Vajpayee was the only head of government invited to lunch by George W Bush; the Prime Minister’s own speech to the UN was well-received; and his bilateral meetings with world leaders were successful. The Indian side, however, takes particular pleasure in one development. When Vajpayee raised the subject of terrorism in Kashmir with Bush, the President responded with sympathy. Yes, he said, he had, on his own, raised the subject of cross-border terrorism with Pervez Musharraf. Further, he added, US officials (I think he meant Richard Armitage) had actually shown Musharraf satellite photos of the camps where terrorists were trained and asked him to shut them down. National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra then told Bush that even if India was to take Musharraf at his word — that he is unable to prevent every crow from flying across the border — there was still no excuse for running terrorist camps and up to 42 command centers from which terrorists operating in Kashmir received direction. The US side took all this on board and at a subsequent briefing the American National Security Advisor told the US press that the subject of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir had featured in the Bush-Musharraf talks. All this, say Indian officials, gives us reason to be pleased. They are happy too about the flurry of articles in the US press (Time, The New York Times, The Washington Post etc.) in which Pakistan’s commitment to the so-called ‘war against terror’ has been questioned. In recent months, there have been several other developments. Al Qaeda leaders have been shown to have found refuge in Pakistan under the aegis of the army. Serving Pakistani officers have been among those arrested as ‘Taliban fighters’. And even General Musharraf now concedes that Osama bin Laden is spending much of his time in Pakistan. The official Indian position on all this is that America is finally coming around to our view that, far from being an ally in the ‘war against terror’, Pakistan is itself a terrorist state and therefore, not be trusted. General Musharraf, himself, is being shown up as a smooth-talking hypocrite. This premise leads some optimistic Indian policy planners to conclude that things are finally going our way. Having recognised the true nature of the Pakistani state, they say the US will now put pressure on Islamabad to cut back on terrorism in Kashmir and will recognise that India is the wronged party. As much as I want to believe this positive assessment, I don’t think we’ve got it right. And I find it hard to be optimistic about the prospects of India being able to enlist America’s aid in our own war against terror. American policy in this region flows from certain assumptions. ** George W Bush’s number one political priority (now, even more important after the fiasco of his Iraqi adventure) is to be able to stamp out Al Qaeda before another terrorist strike takes place (and rest assured, it will.) ** There is no doubt now that what remains of Al Qaeda is still headquartered around Pakistan and Afghanistan. To be able to wipe out bin Laden’s gang, America needs the help of both Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf. ** The situation is more complicated by the resurgence of the Taliban in parts of Afghanistan and the steadily diminishing nature of Karzai’s authority — he is, at best, the mayor of Kabul. ** The Taliban was the creation of the ISI. To be able to fight it, America needs the support of the ISI and the Pakistan regime. ** There is increasing evidence that both the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still receiving support from elements in the ISI and the Pakistani army. There is even some evidence of the existence of training camps on Pakistani soil, for Taliban fighters. India’s view is that this proves that the Pakistanis are liars and that Musharraf is a fraud. Alas, this is not the American position. The American establishment has bought Musharraf’s line that the situation is complex. Look, he says, the ISI created the Taliban. You can’t expect every single ISI officer (or ex-officer) to suddenly disown his child. There are bound to be Taliban-supporters within the ISI’s ranks. Further, he says, the Pakistani army is now heavily Islamicised. And like it or not, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are anti-American. It is inevitable then, that at least some army officers will assist Al-Qaeda’s jehad. But, says Musharraf, these are rogue elements. The majority of the army (and the ISI) is under his control. In fact, he says, he has managed the super-human feat of taking a pro-Taliban military establishment and turning it into a pro-American force. Therefore, far from being a fraud, he is an American friend struggling to fulfill Washington’s will. ** Not all Americans believe this. Many policy-planners think that Musharraf is playing a double game and keeping both sides happy. But even they can think of no alternative except to go along with Musharraf. Push him too far, they say, and he will totally alienate the (largely anti-American) Pakistani people. No President — not even a military dictator — can survive for too long in a country like Pakistan, with its history of coups, if he loses the support of the whole country. Besides, even within the army, where a successor would have to come from, there is no obvious pro-American replacement for Musharraf. Better, therefore, to stick with Musharraf. At best, Washington can pressure him. ** But pressure him on what exactly? America has made it clear again and again that the ‘war against terror’ is a war against those who threaten American interests. It is not a war against the people who kill women and children in Kashmir. So, if there are terrorist-training camps where the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters are being trained. Washington will do everything possible to shut them down. But camps in POK from which terrorists are infiltrated into J&K? Well, that’s quite another matter. ** In fact, the more the US pushes Musharraf on the Taliban or on Al Qaeda, the worse it could get in Kashmir. Musharraf has told Washington that his position is precarious — Al Qaeda has already called him an anti-Muslim American stooge who will hand Pakistan over to Hindus. Should he now not only disown the Taliban but also abandon support for what he calls “Kashmiri freedom-fighters”, then this would substantiate the Al Qaeda claim that he is not only anti-Muslim but is letting the Hindus win. So, Musharraf has told Washington, let me concentrate on fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban — we’ll worry about the Kashmiri militancy later. ** The US has another problem. No matter what George Bush says, there is no doubt that the world’s Muslims see America as being determined to persecute and oppress them. From Indonesia to the West Bank, the sentiment is exactly the same. Given its historical ties to Israel, America cannot afford to abandon such an old and trusted ally. Nor can it go easy on the Taliban or on the hunt for Al Qaeda. It would be too cynical to suppose that Kashmir is the perfect area for America to demonstrate that it is not anti-Muslim. But it is certainly true that were America to aggressively back India in the Kashmir dispute, it would confirm the view of the US as anti-Muslim. And nobody in Washington wants that. So, the US position on Kashmir remains, at best, even-handed — it is a disputed area whose future India and Pakistan must decide through dialogue. Where does all this leave Indo-US relations? Until 9/11, relations between Delhi and Washington had improved to the extent that Pakistan had become peripheral to American interests. Osama bin Laden changed all that. And until that problem is sorted out, America is going to have to treat Musharraf as an important ally. Bush’s lunch invitation to Vajpayee was meant to demonstrate that while Washington has strategic compulsions, it is still interested in taking the India-US relationship forward. Certainly, the two countries are, as the world’s two leading democracies, ‘natural allies’, to use Vajpayee’s phrase. But let’s forget about any support from Washington on Kashmir. On this one, we are on our own. And the way ahead is not to look to Bush or Collin Powell or Condoleezza Rice but to develop our own security strategy. America needs to court the General. But we need to teach him a lesson he won’t forget.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Oct 5 2003, 09:15 AM
I noticed that Jindal has been receiving a lot of press in Indian news outlets. Should he really be given that much positive importance. IMHO he becoming more powerful could be potentially harmful to India. The point of importance is that he has converted to Christianity basically to gain acceptance in the American society and climb the ladders of political appointments. This is a clear and loud message that he has rejected everything fundamental about Indian culture for the Western way of life. [#as an aisde it also shows the importance Christianity holds in secular USA; while anything remotely similar regarding Hinduism in secular India is derided; eg Sonia!]. I am of the strong opinion Indians need not waste time on such fellows other in the matter of cold political bargains. thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 6 2003, 08:46 AM
apropos of America's fairly faithful adherence to Christutva, see my post Posted: Oct 5 2003, 09:06 PM in the 'Great Indian Political debate' thread in Indian Politics. My remarks were directed against Europe's much vaunted but nonexistent secularism, where they are very conscious of their Christutva while maintaining their lip service to Secularism. Unfortunately India and Indians lack the sophistication to match the double speak of the Europeans and the Americans.
Posted by: Viren Oct 7 2003, 07:05 AM
QUOTE (Hauma Hamiddha @ Oct 5 2003, 12:15 PM)
I noticed that Jindal has been receiving a lot of press in Indian news outlets. Should he really be given that much positive importance. IMHO he becoming more powerful could be potentially harmful to India. The point of importance is that he has converted to Christianity basically to gain acceptance in the American society and climb the ladders of political appointments. This is a clear and loud message that he has rejected everything fundamental about Indian culture for the Western way of life. [#as an aisde it also shows the importance Christianity holds in secular USA; while anything remotely similar regarding Hinduism in secular India is derided; eg Sonia!]. I am of the strong opinion Indians need not waste time on such fellows other in the matter of cold political bargains. thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
Hauma: I personally don't know much about Jindal's opinion about India or Hindusim and I don't think I've read anything to the effect that he would be potentially harmful to India. Nor am I resident of LO or nor do I have any stake in Jindal's campaign. With that disclaimer, let me state that as we Indian NRIs in US are trying our best to build coalition with US policy makers and media to promote Indian point of view, I'd take a Christian Jindal anyday over the likes of Hindu Jaichands like Pankaj Mishra or Angana Chattergee or Akhila Raman.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 7 2003, 09:56 AM
Problem with new converts are, they push their agenda more forcefully and Bible belt known agenda is always "bring poor 1billion indians to Jesus".
Posted by: Spinster Oct 8 2003, 06:03 AM
One of the greatest aspect of Hinduism is that it is like a open system, with a central 'kernel' core value of acceptance of plurality of religions, co existance of religions, tolerance and scope for evolution. (Just like the Kernal can expand to accomodate any new utilities, programs) Taking into view these great attributes, the best way to blunt the conversions (forcible thru threats, incentives etc) is to co opt the very spiritual 'Prophet" of such religions into the constellation of the other dietiees. The ownership of The Hindu religion should be given back to the masses. That is the simplest way to blunt the conversions. ( I am often approached by folks with missionary zeal asking me to convert, I often reply them 'I am a christain by faith and practice the good precepts not by conversion or coercion). For instance in Bhagvad Gita Lord Krishna in an answer to Arjuna's question, 'How do I identify realised souls(person, Mahatma, Sadhu, Stritha pragnya etc) who you (Lord Krishna) say dwells among us, lives in the midst of us?' says anybody who has achieved equipoise, and follows with out any deviations the 31 aspects of austere living is dear to me, and I identify with such souls. Based on these I can easily say Christ is Mahatma and therefore one need not convert to christianity ( corrected the not was missing). Besides Hindius proudly sing Ishwar Allah tera nam sabo ko sanmathi de bhagwan'. JMHT. (Also Kaushal garu, what I was trying to imply was this strategic move by Xtinas can be effectively countered. But I feel the The Hindu faith has to be made "share ware", to all of Indians in this regard I am proud to say that Chinmaya mission is doing great service to the community. The community should also provide economic muscle to such efforts otherwise India (of) Today will be Korea (of tomorrow). (the above added later)
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 8 2003, 07:19 AM
I am often approached by folks with missionary zeal asking me to convert, I often reply them 'I am a christain by faith and practice the good precepts not by conversion or coercion
Spinster, you are missing the whole point of the conversion. The point of the conversion is not your salvation, for which they may profess much concern but in reality have none. The motivation is purely materialistic and has very little to do with spiritual matters and what you really believe. It is a numbers game to increase the Xtian count and thereby accrue all the consequences (donations, voluntary work, extra territorial loyalty, further proselytization). As a consequence the fact that you may already have a murti of Christ in your home or whether you believe in the sermon of the mount, is really not of great interest to them. BTW i am not singling out Christutva for their excessive zeal in conversion, but the fact remains that they are the most active in conversion activity. My point is generally true of any conversion activity. Not a month passes before complete strangers show up at my door professing great interest in saving my soul. This despite the fact that I live in fairly isolated surroundings. I tell them their interest in the welfare of my soul is touching but it was and is doing quite well thank you long before they showed up at my door Having said that , i agree whether Bobby Jindal is a Xtian or not should only be of peripheral interest to Indians. I believe that was not HH's original point. He was primarily commenting on the excessive interest shown by Indian media in his election considering that his links to india are very tenuous.
Posted by: rajesh_g Oct 8 2003, 12:33 PM
Regarding how xtianity and the number game, please read this - not sure this is the right place, if not please remove. I cant cut and paste as there are mathematical equations (with non-ASCII chars) so please read directly. I had stored a document on the business enterprise called church - its turnover , number of people employed and so forth but cant find it. Will post later when I find it.
Posted by: rajesh_g Oct 11 2003, 12:43 PM
I dont know where to post this - but as promised in the above post here is the link. Google for "church planting movement". Browse through the website - some interesting things there.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 12 2003, 12:23 AM
The wily old rascal has outfoxed the Americans (and the Indians in the bargain).This is not good news for India. It is clearly an attempt to minimize Indian influence in Kabul (and iranian and Russian influence). This is utterly shortsighted on the part of the US and is a repeat of 1980 where they allied themselves with the likes of AQ just so that they could drive the Russians out. This time they want to drive the Iranians out of the bargain. Which is silly. iranians share a common language with half of Afghanistan. May God save America from its venal officials like Khalilzad. BHARAT BHUSHAN New Delhi, Oct. 10: The US is once again preparing to sub-contract its Afghanistan policy to Pakistan, many in the Indian establishment believe. Reports that the most senior Taliban leader in the custody of the US forces in Afghanistan, Mulla Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, may either have been released or is in the process of being freed has upset the Indian establishment. Sources in the government claimed that this means that America is once again committing a mistake in Afghanistan by being guided by its short-term interests. Muttawakil was the foreign minister of the ousted Taliban regime and was being held by the US forces in Afghanistan at their headquarters at Bagram outside Kabul. Over the last two days, reports from Afghanistan have claimed that Muttawakil has been released by the Americans after he arranged talks between the US forces and some Taliban leaders — notably former interior minister Mulla Abdul Razzak — at Kandahar. There have been suggestions that Muttawakil was no longer in American custody and has been handed over to the Afghan authorities. Sources in the government said: “If this is true, then it would indicate that the Americans are once again trying to accommodate the so-called moderate Taliban in the power structure. It shows American desperation. After the obvious failure of their policy in Iraq, they desperately need to show some success as they go into their Presidential election of November 2004.” These sources see in this US approach a success of the policy followed by General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. They argue that by giving limited and selective cooperation to the Americans on al Qaida, Musharraf was not only able to buy time and space for himself, he also managed to allow the Taliban to regroup. There have been reports in the international media about more attacks by the Taliban across the border than in the past few months and in larger numbers — showing a great degree of preparation. About 2,500 Taliban fighters have been reported to be waiting in Baluchistan, preparing to cross the border on motorcycles. The increased frequency and intensity of Taliban attacks, according to one Indian strategic analyst, “convey a perception of failure of the efforts of the past two years in Afghanistan, and the Americans, therefore, are once again desperate to wean away a section of the Taliban”. Such a strategy would appease Pakistan by including some Taliban in the power structure. At the same time, it would serve the US goal of weakening the Northern Alliance and the United Front consisting of several independent parties with pockets of regional influence led, most notably, by Islamel Khan, Ahmad Rasheed Dostum, and Burhanuddin Rabbani.this amounts to cutting your nose to spite your face The Americans know that President Hamid Karzai and other Pashtun leaders who have come back from the Afghan diaspora in the West do not have any strength on the ground in Afghanistan and are totally dependent on them. However, elements of the Northern Alliance and the United Front are not dependent on the US, and the Americans know this. They not only enjoy ground-level support in their respective areas of influence but have also had traditional links with neighbouring countries like Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In desperation, the US, Indian government sources believe, is buying the Pakistani argument that there is a need to bring more Pashtuns into the government as Karzai does not represent the Pashtuns. And they are seeking to do this by preparing to bring in the so-called “moderate Taliban”. Indian sources, however, claimed that there was no such entity as “moderate Taliban”. They said: “Pakistan will once again get an instrument to interfere in Afghan affairs directly. The situation may begin to look a little bit better in the short run but eventually it would lead to the unraveling of the entire arrangement put together by the international community in Afghanistan.”
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 16 2003, 11:36 AM
The US is reverting to a so called even handed policy towards the subcontinent. Of course for all practical purposes this, equating of a terrorist nation with the worlds largest democracy means a pro-Pakistani policy. As President George Bush begins his visit to Asia for the Asia-Pacific Economic summit next week he's finding one partner, India, forging its own course. Fed up with being cast as America's regional balancer to the growing power of China, when the U.S. ducks serious talks on a NATO-style security system for Asia, India is making its own deals. India has just hosted Singapore's defense minister Teo Chee Hean to sign a new defense accord that will help them jointly secure the crucial Malabar Straits. India has also finally agreed that it will sign the deal to acquire the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorchkov when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visits Moscow November 11. At the same time, India has signaled a readiness for friendly military relations with China. India's candid defense minister, George Fernandes, best known for his public statement that India's nuclear weapons were aimed at China rather than at puny Pakistan, has said "the time has come" for Sino-Indian joint military exercises. "Such exercises are held with friends when possible and where suitable," Fernandes said, evidently feeling more secure now that the deal is complete for India to get advanced AWACS aircraft. (They are buying the Israeli Phalcon system, with U.S. approval, aboard a Russian-made Ilyushin airframe.) The immediate response from a nervous Pakistan was a statement from Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Shahid Karimullah that he expects to sign a memorandum of understanding in Beijing next month to purchase Chinese frigates. Another instance of India's growing irritation with Washington and its glaring hyphenation with the terrorist state.
Posted by: acharya Oct 16 2003, 04:55 PM
Noam Chomsky: Dominance and its Dilemmas: The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently: any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. =============================== Dominance and its Dilemmas by Noam Chomsky October 10, 2003: (Z NET) The past year has been a momentous one in world affairs. In the normal rhythm, the pattern was set in September, a month marked by several important and closely related events. The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently: any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilize the population for an invasion of Iraq, which would be "the first test [of the doctrine], not the last," the New York Times observed after the invasion, "the petri dish in which this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew." And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda. The new "imperial grand strategy," as it was aptly termed at once by John Ikenberry, presents the US as "a revisionist state seeking to parlay its momentary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show," a "unipolar world" in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge" it as "global leader, protector, and enforcer. These policies are fraught with danger even for the US itself, he warned, joining many others in the foreign policy elite. What is to be "protected" is US power and the interests it represents, not the world, which vigorously opposed the conception. Within a few months, polls revealed that fear of the United States had reached remarkable heights, along with distrust of the political leadership, or worse. As for the test case, an international Gallup poll in December, barely noted in the US, found virtually no support for Washington's announced plans for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies": in effect, the US-UK "coalition." The basic principles of the imperial grand strategy trace back to the early days of World War II, and have been reiterated frequently since. Even before the US entered the war, planners and analysts concluded that in the postwar world the US would seek "to hold unquestioned power," acting to ensure the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. They outlined "an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States" in a "Grand Area," to include at a minimum the Western Hemisphere, the former British empire, and the Far East, later extended to as much of Eurasia as possible when it became clear that Germany would be defeated. Twenty years later, elder statesman Dean Acheson instructed the American Society of International Law that no "legal issue" arises when the US responds to a challenge to its "power, position, and prestige." He was referring specifically to Washington's post-Bay of Pigs economic warfare against Cuba, but was surely aware of Kennedy's terrorist campaign aimed at "regime change," a significant factor in bringing the world close to nuclear war only a few months earlier, and resumed immediately after the Cuban missile crisis was resolved. A similar doctrine was invoked by the Reagan administration when it rejected World Court jurisdiction over its attack against Nicaragua. State Department Legal Adviser Abraham Sofaer explained that most of the world cannot "be counted on to share our view" and "often opposes the United States on important international questions." Accordingly, we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States" -- in this case, the actions that the Court condemned as the "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua; in lay terms, international terrorism. Their successors continued to make it clear that the US reserved the right to act "unilaterally when necessary," including "unilateral use of military power" to defend such vital interests as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources." Even this small sample illustrates the narrowness of the planning spectrum. Nevertheless, the alarm bells sounded in September 2002 were justified. Acheson and Sofaer were describing policy guidelines, and within elite circles. Other cases may be regarded as worldly-wise reiterations of the maxim of Thucydides that "large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must." In contrast, Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell and their associates are officially declaring an even more extreme policy. They intend to be heard, and took action at once to put the world on notice that they mean what they say. That is a significant difference. The imperial grand strategy is based on the assumption that the US can gain "full spectrum dominance" by military programs that dwarf those of any potential coalition, and have useful side effects. One is to socialize the costs and risks of the private economy of the future, a traditional contribution of military spending and the basis of much of the "new economy." Another is to contribute to a fiscal train wreck that will, it is presumed, "create powerful pressures to cut federal spending, and thus, perhaps, enable the Administration to accomplish its goal of rolling back the New Deal," a description of the Reagan program that is now being extended to far more ambitious plans. As the grand strategy was announced on September 17, the administration "abandoned an international effort to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare," advising allies that further discussions would have to be delayed for four years. A month later, the UN Committee on Disarmament adopted a resolution that called for stronger measures to prevent militarization of space, recognizing this to be "a grave danger for international peace and security," and another that reaffirmed "the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare." Both passed unanimously, with two abstentions: the US and Israel. US abstention amounts to a veto: typically, a double veto, banning the events from reporting and history. A few weeks later, the Space Command released plans to go beyond US "control" of space for military purposes to "ownership," which is to be permanent, in accord with the Security Strategy. Ownership of space is "key to our nation's military effectiveness," permitting "instant engagement anywhere in the world… A viable prompt global strike capability, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, will allow the US to rapidly strike high-payoff, difficult-to-defeat targets from stand-off ranges and produce the desired effect… [and] to provide warfighting commanders the ability to rapidly deny, delay, deceive, disrupt, destroy, exploit and neutralize targets in hours/minutes rather than weeks/days even when US and allied forces have a limited forward presence," thus reducing the need for overseas bases that regularly arouse local antagonism. Similar plans had been outlined in a May 2002 Pentagon planning document, partially leaked, which called for a strategy of "forward deterrence" in which missiles launched from space platforms would be able to carry out almost instant "unwarned attacks." Military analyst William Arkin comments that "no target on the planet or in space would be immune to American attack. The US could strike without warning whenever and wherever a threat was perceived, and it would be protected by missile defenses." Hypersonic drones would monitor and disrupt targets. Surveillance systems are to provide the ability "to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a foreign city." The world is to be left at mercy of US attack at will, without warning or credible pretext. The plans have no remote historical parallel. Even more fanciful ones are under development. These moves reflect the disdain of the administration for international law and institutions, or arms control measures, dismissed with barely a word in the National Security Strategy; and its commitment to an extremist version of long-standing doctrine. In accord with these principles, Washington informed the UN that it can be "relevant" by endorsing Washington's plans for invading Iraq, or it can be a debating society. The US has the "sovereign right to take military action," Colin Powell informed the January 2003 Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, which also strenuously opposed Washington's war plans. "When we feel strongly about something we will lead," Powell informed them, even if no one is following us. Bush and Blair underscored their contempt for international law and institutions at their Azores Summit on the eve of the invasion. They issued an ultimatum - not to Iraq, but to the Security Council: capitulate, or we will invade without your meaningless seal of approval. And we will do so whether or not Saddam Hussein and his family leave the country. The crucial principle is that the US must effectively rule Iraq. Since the mid-1940s, Washington has regarded the Gulf as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history" - in Eisenhower's words, the "most strategically important area of the world" because of its "strategic position and resources." Control over the region and its resources remains a policy imperative. After taking over a core oil producer, and presumably acquiring its first reliable military bases at the heart of the world's major energy-producing system, Washington will doubtless be happy to establish an "Arab façade," to borrow the term of the British during their day in the sun. Formal democracy will be fine, but only if it is of the submissive kind tolerated in Washington's "backyard," at least if history and current practice are any guide. To fail in this endeavor would take real talent. Even under far less propitious circumstances, military occupations have commonly been successful. It would be hard not to improve on a decade of murderous sanctions that virtually destroyed a society that was, furthermore, in the hands of a vicious tyrant who ranked with others supported by the current incumbents in Washington: Romania's Ceausescu, to mention only one of an impressive rogues gallery. Resistance in Iraq would have no meaningful outside support, unlike Nazi-occupied Europe or Eastern Europe under the Russian yoke, to take recent examples of unusually brutal states that nevertheless assembled an ample array of collaborators and achieved substantial success within their domains. The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out "preventive war": Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war may sometimes be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the "supreme crime" condemned at Nuremberg. That is widely understood. As the US invaded Iraq, Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush's grand strategy is "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy." FDR was right, he added, "but today it is we Americans who live in infamy." It is no surprise that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism," and the belief that Bush is "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein." For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary sectors of the Reagan-Bush I administrations, "the global wave of hatred" is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not loved. They understand as well as their establishment critics that their actions increase the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terror. But that too is not a major problem. Higher in the scale of priorities are the goals of establishing global hegemony and implementing their domestic agenda: dismantling the progressive achievements that have been won by popular struggle over the past century, and institutionalizing these radical changes so that recovering them will be no easy task. It is not enough for a hegemonic power to declare an official policy. It must establish it as a "new norm of international law" by exemplary action. Distinguished commentators may then explain that law is a flexible living instrument, so that the new norm is now available as a guide to action. It is understood that only those with the guns can establish "norms" and modify international law. The selected target must meet several conditions. It must be defenseless, important enough to be worth the trouble, and an imminent threat to our survival and ultimate evil. Iraq qualified on all counts. The first two conditions are obvious. For the third, it suffices to repeat the orations of Bush, Blair, and their colleagues: the dictator "is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons [in order to] dominate, intimidate or attack"; and he "has already used them on whole villages leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or transfigured….If this is not evil then evil has no meaning." President Bush's eloquent denunciation surely rings true. And those who contributed to enhancing evil should certainly not enjoy impunity: among them, the speaker of these lofty words and his current associates, and those who joined them in the years when they were supporting the man of ultimate evil long after he had committed these terrible crimes and won the war with Iran, with decisive US help. We must continue to support him because of our duty to help US exporters, the Bush I administration explained. It is impressive to see how easy it is for political leaders, while recounting the monster's worst crimes, to suppress the crucial words: "with our help, because we don't care about such matters." Support shifted to denunciation as soon as their friend committed his first authentic crime: disobeying (or perhaps misunderstanding) orders by invading Kuwait. Punishment was severe -- for his subjects. The tyrant escaped unscathed, and his grip on the tortured population was further strengthened by the sanctions regime then imposed by his former allies. Also easy to suppress are the reasons why Washington returned to support for Saddam immediately after the Gulf war as he crushed rebellions that might have overthrown him. The chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times explained that "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," but since that goal seems unattainable, we must be satisfied with second best. The rebels failed because Washington and its allies held that "whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression." All of this is suppressed in the commentary on the mass graves of the victims of Saddam's US-authorized paroxysm of terror, crimes that are now offered as justification for the war on "moral grounds." It was all known in 1991, but ignored for reasons of state: successful rebellion would have left Iraq in the hands of Iraqis. Within the US, a reluctant domestic population had to be whipped to a proper mood of war fever, another traditional problem.. From early September 2002, grim warnings were issued about the threat Saddam posed to the United States and his links to al-Qaeda, with broad hints that he was involved in the 9-11 attacks. Many of the charges "dangled in front of [the media] failed the laugh test," the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists commented, "but the more ridiculous [they were,] the more the media strove to make whole-hearted swallowing of them a test of patriotism." As often in the past, the propaganda assault had at least short-term effects. Within weeks, a majority of Americans came to regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the US. Soon almost half believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terror. Support for the war correlated with these beliefs. The propaganda campaign proved just enough to give the administration a bare majority in the mid-term elections, as voters put aside their immediate concerns and huddled under the umbrella of power in fear of the demonic enemy. The brilliant success of "public diplomacy" was revealed when the President "provided a powerful Reaganesque finale to a six-week war" on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1. The reference, presumably, is to Reagan's proud declaration that America was "standing tall" after conquering the nutmeg capital of the world in 1983, preventing the Russians from using it to bomb the US. Reagan's mimic was free to declare -- without concern for skeptical comment at home - that he had won a "victory in a war on terror [by having] removed an ally of Al Qaeda." It is immaterial that no credible evidence was provided for the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and his bitter enemy Osama bin Laden and that the charge was dismissed by competent observers. Also immaterial is the only known connection between the victory and terror: the invasion appears to have been a "huge setback in the `war on terror'," by sharply increasing al-Qaeda recruitment, as US official concede. More astute observers recognized that Bush's carefully-staged Abraham Lincoln extravaganza "marks the beginning of his 2004 re-election campaign," which the White House hopes "will be built as much as possible around national-security themes." The electoral campaign will focus on "the battle of Iraq, not the war," chief Republican political strategist Karl Rove explained" : the "war" must continue, if only to control the population at home. Before the 2002 elections, he had instructed Party activists to stress security issues, diverting attention from unpopular Republican domestic policies. All of this is second-nature to the recycled Reaganites now in office. That is how they held on to political power during their first tenure in office, regularly pushing the panic button to evade public opposition to the policies that left Reagan the most unpopular living President by 1992, ranking alongside Nixon. Despite its narrow successes, the intensive propaganda campaign left the public unswayed in more fundamental respects. Most continue to prefer UN rather than US leadership in international crises, and by 2-1, prefer that the UN, rather than the United States, should direct reconstruction in Iraq. When the occupying army failed to discover WMD, the administration's stance shifted from "absolute certainty" that Iraq possessed WMD to the position that the accusations were "justified by the discovery of equipment that potentially could be used to produce weapons." Senior officials suggested a "refinement" in the concept of preventive war that entitles the US to attack "a country that has deadly weapons in mass quantities." The revision "suggests instead that the administration will act against a hostile regime that has nothing more than the intent and ability to develop [WMD]." The bars for resort to force are significantly lowered. This modification of the doctrine of "preventive war" may prove to be the most significant consequence of the collapse of the declared argument for the invasion. Perhaps the most spectacular propaganda achievement was the lauding of the president's "vision" to bring democracy to the Middle East in the midst of a display of hatred and contempt for democracy for which no precedent comes to mind. One illustration was the distinction between Old and New Europe, the former reviled, the latter hailed for its courage. The criterion was sharp: Old Europe consists of governments that took the same position as the vast majority of their populations; the heroes of New Europe followed orders from Crawford Texas, disregarding an even larger majority, in most cases. Political commentators ranted about disobedient Old Europe and its psychic maladies, while Congress descended to low comedy. At the liberal end of the spectrum, Richard Holbrooke stressed "the very important point" that the population of the eight original members of New Europe is larger than that of Old Europe, which proves that France and Germany are "isolated." So it does, if we reject the radical left heresy that the public might have some role in a democracy. Thomas Friedman urged that France be removed from the permanent members of the Security Council, because it is "in kindergarten," and "does not play well with others." It follows that the population of New Europe must still be in nursery school, judging by polls. Turkey was a particularly instructive case. The government resisted heavy US pressure to prove its "democratic credentials" by overruling 95% of its population and following orders. Commentators were infuriated by this lesson in democracy, so much so that some even reported Turkey's crimes against the Kurds in the 1990s, previously a taboo topic because of the crucial US role -- though that was still carefully concealed in the lamentations. The crucial point was expressed by Paul Wolfowitz, who condemned the Turkish military because they "did not play the strong leadership role that we would have expected" and did not intervene to prevent the government from respecting near-unanimous public opinion. Turkey must therefore step up and say "We made a mistake…Let's figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans." Wolfowitz's stand is particularly instructive because he is portrayed as the leading figure in the crusade to democratize the Middle East. Anger at Old Europe has much deeper roots than contempt for democracy. The US has always regarded European unification with some ambivalence, because Europe might become an independent force in world affairs. Thus senior diplomat David Bruce was a leading advocate for European unification in the Kennedy years, urging Washington to "treat a uniting Europe as an equal partner," -- but following America's lead. He saw "dangers" if Europe "struck off on its own, seeking to play a role independent of the United States." In his "Year of Europe" address 30 years ago, Henry Kissinger advised Europeans to keep to their "regional responsibilities" within the "overall framework of order" managed by the United States. Europe must not pursue its own independent course, based on its Franco-German industrial and financial heartland. In the tripolar world that was taking shape at that time, these concerns extend to Asia as well. Northeast Asia is now the world's most dynamic economic region, accounting for almost 30% of global GDP, far more than the US, and holding about half of global foreign exchange reserves. It is a potentially integrated region, with advanced industrial economies and ample resources. All of this raises the threat that it too might flirt with challenging the overall framework of order, which the US is to manage permanently, by force if necessary, Washington has declared. Violence is a powerful instrument of control, as history demonstrates. But the dilemmas of dominance are not slight.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 17 2003, 10:39 PM
Among the 4 people taking part in this forum, it is interesting(but not surprising) that the person who comes across as an apologist to an absurd degree, for Pakistan and Musharaff is Tim Hoyt . It is almost as if Musharaff can do no wrong. Unfortunately there are many such gullible and naive folks in the american political establishment who are taken in by the fact that Musharaff has two dogs and likes his chota (or bada) peg every day. Tim as most of you know has been posting at BR almost as long as i had been. He no longer posts there after he has been exposed in certain contradictions in his own position and for advocating a strong US reaction to POKHRAN II, something which he was less than candid about in his posts at BR. Quite a few americans have remarked that they feel more at ease with Pakis than they do with Indians and Tim Hoyt is no exception. The gentleman(among the 4 in this forum) whose views are closest to that of India is Alex Alexiev, now with the Rand Corp. By Jamie Glazov | October 17, 2003 Pakistan is supposedly our ally in the War on Terror, but there continues to be a heavy Al Qaeda/Taliban presence in the Northwest Frontier Province/Baluchistan/Tribal areas. Why? And if the Pakistanis are our allies, why are they engaged in nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea? Is it because the Musharraf government simply isn’t in full control? Or is it because we are being double crossed, like we have been by the Saudis? What should the U.S. do about Pakistan? To discuss these and other questions on Frontpage Symposium today, we have the pleasure and privilege of being joined by Timothy D. Hoyt, an Associate Professor of Strategy and Policy at the US Naval War College, and the author of "Pakistani Nuclear Doctrine and the Dangers of Strategic Myopia," "Politics, Proximity, and Paranoia: The Evolution of Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint," and "The War on Terrorism in South Asia." He has also written extensively on nuclear issues and regional security in South Asia. The views he expresses are his own, and not those of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, or the US Navy; Walid Phares, Professor of Middle East Studies and Religious Conflict at Florida Atlantic University and a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He serves as an Analyst on Terrorism and Conflicts with MSNBC; Alex Alexiev, a former senior analyst at the RAND Corporation who is currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Wash. D.C.; and Esam Sohail, a columnist for the daily New Age, a Bangladeshi newspaper. His writings are regularly featured in newspapers in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Israel....
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 19 2003, 08:00 AM
More on the shallow nature of Tim Hoyt's analysis. Recall that I made the observation that they think Musharaff is secular because he drinks. Here is a passage from one of Tim Hoyts presentations. Note the constant refrain to exonerate Musharaff, More importantly note the attempt to equate the LTTE acts (and the Nepal Maoists) with those of Kashmir, forgetting one of the essential features of the terrorists taking part in the carnage in Kashmir, namely that there are a very large element of international terrorists involved in kashmir and in other parts of India (Omar Saeed Sheikh)
They sometimes make a point of emphasizing at least to Americans the fact that the president drinks which, therefore, suggests that he is not a true follower of Islam. The fact that they make a point of it indicates that there is an effort to emphasize that whatever the fears of Islamic political parties, Islamic educational facilities, Islamic paramilitary groups and Islamic influence overall in Pakistan, the army still is attempting to remain aloof from it. There is an effort on the part of the Pakistani bureaucracy and on the part of the Army to stress that this has not infiltrated into the highest levels of the Pakistani elite at this time. President Musharraf has made some very bold statements. He has not always followed up on them as much as we in the United States might prefer. He has promised to crack down on the Madrassa school system, something that Jessica Stern has written about. There is a wide debate on the impact of the Madrassa system within Pakistan. Many Pakistanis argue that the figures that she cites are simply wrong and that the influence that she attributes to the Madrassa system is magnified out of proportion. I am in no position to make that judgment. That said, we should be very concerned about it.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 19 2003, 04:35 PM Uncertain times demand a mature and realistic Indo-US engagement G. PARTHASARATHY The usual humdrum analysis with few insights. But then again there is a propensity to assume that the secularist tag will absolve a party or an organization of all sins;
The secular Baathists are now making common cause with jihadis from the Arab world and Pakistan.
In fact whether one is secular or not has little to do with nationalistic impulses. For example the so called secular Hamid karzai, has admitted that Afghanistan must remain an Islamic republic. There is not a whimper from anybody in the world at this pronouncement. Imagine the furor it would cause if india were to say tomorrow that she is renaming herself the Hindu Republic of India or if the Prime Minister of india were to make similar disparaging remarks about the world wide Muslim ummah, as mahathir made about the world wide Jewish population.
Even influential friends of India in the Bush administration now aver that India’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq will be “marginal”. Others close to the administration express their disappointment at the lame excuses we resort to like referring to our own security needs to avoid sending troops to Iraq. It is absurd for a country like India that claims to be a major regional power to assert that it cannot spare one mechanised division for peacekeeping because of its obsession with a possible Pakistani threat. We erode our credibility by such assertions. We could candidly acknowledge that with elections around the corner, no government can send troops to Iraq without a national consensus.
This is very shallow analysis, perhaps influenced by the fact that as a staunch Congresswallah (father was Gopalaswami Aiyengar who drafted the infamous Article 370 at the behest of Sheikh Abdullah) he cannot bring himself to say anything nice about the BJP/NDA. GP should remind his readers that if India's role in Afghanistan is minimal it is not for want of India trying her damnedest to carve out a bigger role there. I have always advocated a bigger role for India in Iraq but only if the US (quid pro quo) grants India a bigger role in A'stan. In any event his beef is not so much with the decision to stay out of Iraq, which i infer he supports, but the reasons given for non participation. As a diplomat he should be the first to know that ambiguity reigns supreme in diplospeak and rarely is one government totally frank with the other. I am sure the GOTUS understands India's compulsions and if they tend to put such a decision in abad light it is because they can get away with 'see , we gave you an opportunity to flex your muscle and you did not take it. Finally Rome or Delhi was not built in a day and neither will Indo-US relations sweep way 5 decades of misunderstanding and gratuitous pronouncements in one 5 year period.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 21 2003, 10:24 PM Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | October 22, 2003 10:07 IST Former Indian journalist Gautam Adhikari is the first South Asian policy analyst to be inducted into the influential neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute. Adhikari, 53, joins former US ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, Danielle Pletka, ex-chief foreign policy aide to Senator Jesse Helms --all senior fellows in this think tank. Kolkata-born Adhikari, who will be a visiting fellow at AEI, will launch the Institute's project on the United States and India. Besides this project he will develop the think tank's research on US relations with other countries in South Asia. Adhikari said he had no problems working with the neo-cons who constitute the nucleus of AEI and have been in the forefront of promoting US might in the Middle East and imposing US-style democracy elsewhere in the world. "I find the terms such as conservative and liberal or left and right somewhat dated and inadequate for judging widely varying global circumstances," he said. He said "a series of half-a-dozen roundtables, both in Washington and New Delhi, are being planned, and FICCI (the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) will partner AEI for the India-based events." Adhikari said those who have agreed to join all or some of the discussions include former US ambassadors to India Frank Wisner and Thomas Pickering, economist Jagdish Bhagwati, former Indian finance secretary Montek Singh Ahluwalia, now with the International Monetary Fund "as well as academic experts, diplomats, a number of leading members of the Indian-American community, in addition to AEI scholars like Richard Perle, (former US House Speaker) Newt Gingrich, Danielle Pletka, Thomas Donnelly, and Desmond Lachman." Adhikari came to the US in 1987, on a sabbatical from The Times of India as a Resident Fellow at the Shorenstein Center for Press/Politics and Public Policy, John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. From 1988 to late 1992, he was the Washington-based correspondent and associate editor of The Times of India. He then joined the World Bank as a consultant from 1992 to 1994. He returned to India for three years as executive editor of The Times of India but was back in the US in 1997 as a JB and Maurice C Shapiro Fellow in the School for Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. In 1998 he joined the National Endowment for Democracy as a consultant. Adhikari is an alumna of the University of Kolkata from where he received his BA in economics and international relations. Before joining The Times of India, he worked with The Hindu and the Ananda Bazar Patrika group in the late 1970s and 1980s. He is the editor and author of India: The First Fifty Years (1997); Press Councils: The Indian Experience (1971) and the conference report of the National Endowment for Democracy on International Relations and Democracy (1998). Adhikari's wife is a teacher of world studies at Washington International School. His older daughter Priya is married and lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, doing graduated.gif studies at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, while his younger daughter Brinda works with the investigative unit of ABC News in New York.
Posted by: rajesh_g Oct 22 2003, 11:14 AM
Kaushal, His record doesnt look neo-con to me. Any more personal info on Mr Adhikari ? TOI, Hindu and Anand Bazaar Patrika ? I dont know about this .. sad.gif
Posted by: vishal Oct 22 2003, 11:25 AM
Main problem with India's foreign policy is she thinks "USA is solution to every problem in the world" The day India left behind this thinking indians will be liberated from all of their problems and India will become as independant as China and maybe powerfull too.
Posted by: acharya Oct 22 2003, 11:54 AM
My guess is that, Adhikari being above 50 year old is from the old school of Nehru or close to it. He will be looking at India and its problems from that era. He may have started looking at new problems facing India but his education in US may make him vulnerable to eurocentric thought process and solutions from a US centric world view. This is the biggest handicap of Indians from that era and education. We have not seen any strategic thought from experts in that age group who have a Bharat centric world view. But since it is a collaboration between AEI and Indian institution this view is good for exchanges. But what is the purpose of AEI joing indian groups NOW. The main reason could be that India elite and Indian middle class has changed from the Nehru class. The US was most familiar with the Nehru class from independence which was class breed by the English. Many more institutions will start collaborating with India think tanks since there is a demographic change going on in India. We in India-forum represent this group. We are India centric in thought process even though we work, live and visit in the west. We can move between the western thought and Indian thought and this group is puzzuling for the strategic comminty of the west. The policies of BJP and other nationalist parties are unknown to US and other powers. The new govt inn India is creating credibility and this will take some 10 years. The west also wants to know if BJP can win another elections and the polcies will still remain.
Posted by: vishal Oct 22 2003, 02:09 PM
I won't give much importance to what USA or G-6 thinks, because they will respect us till we are powerfull.I still remember how western countries treated us when india was non-nuclear.So keep ourself powerfull,everything else will be fine too
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 23 2003, 07:49 AM
Vishal, not giving importance to the US is not a very fruitful approach. Lot of india's problems today are caused by the support that US continues to give Pakistan. Furthermore the US as of now is a superpower and the only one at that. No other country has the capability to send troops to different parts of the globe at short notice and win battles. So to say we dont give importance to what the US does , is not very meaningful. The US has to be engaged by India regardless of the many billions it throws at Musharaff. That does not mean being subservient to the US. It merely means keeping the channels of communication open so that an Indian PM can call the POTUS any time on the phone without hesitation should the need arise and the same holds true down the chain of command. It is precisely because the US takes a position that is hostile to the territorial integrity of India that India should pay attention to the US.
Posted by: rhytha Oct 23 2003, 11:43 AM
Dubya and Diwali smile.gif White House to celebrate Diwali October 23, 2003 22:01 IST More than a hundred American Indians will join US President George W Bush in celebrating Diwali, the festival of lights, in the White House. Giving in to a longstanding demand of the Indian community in the US, which pointed out that the White House celebrates festivals of all religions, but not Diwali, Bush has agreed to the festivities, which would be held at the Indian Treaty Room. Abel Guerra, Public Liaison Officer at the White House, will host the Americans Indians, who will come from different parts of the country. However, the event is closed to the press, even to those with regular White House press credentials, but the attendees are free to publicise the event afterwards, White House sources told PTI.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 23 2003, 01:42 PM
rhytha - I recommend copying this into the library section. This site has several articles by personalities some of whom we are familiar with This particular one by Kittu Reddy is quite fascinating as it provides many vignettes into the post independence history of India. Incidentally i need to bring to the attention of the forum, that Sri Kittu Reddy Garu has just joined our forum. Pl. join me in extending a warm welcome to Reddy Garu. by Kittu Reddy When the British conquered India, there were two Indias - one was the British India and the other was Princely India. British India was directly under the rule of the British government, i.e., queen Victoria after 1857. Princely India was made up of 600 odd princely states, some of them no bigger than 20 sq. kms. The biggest of these Princely States were Kashmir, Baroda,Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin, etc. Now, these States were under the British, but they had a certain amount of freedom. They could administer their own states. They were not allowed to keep a standing army, they were not allowed to have foreign trade except with the permission of the British. This overrule of the British was called Paramountcy. Now, in 1947, when the British decided to withdraw, the Political Adviser to the Princely States - a gentleman called Sir Conrad Corfield - decided to make it as difficult as possible for the Princely States to be absorbed by India. For this he used the instrument of 'Paramountcy'. He saw to it that Paramountcy would lapse as a result of which every princely state could remain independent, join India or join Pakistan. This decision was left entirely in the hands of the Heads of the State, be he a Maharaja, a Nawab ora Nizam. So, please note that once paramountcy was withdrawn, it was the responsibility of each State, that means, the Head of the State to decide where he would go; the decision was not taken by the democratic process of self-determination, The Head of the State would decide where he wanted to go. Most of the States were surrounded by India. So all of them more or less quite naturally, except Hyderabad and Junagadh, joined India. But in Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, father of Dr Karan Singh, wanted to remain independent. But on the other side, the Pakistanis, exactly as they are doing now, sent army regulars in the dress of tribals who marched into Kashmir; it was a rather indisciplined army for they indulged in loot on the way and lost some valuable time. The Kashmir Maharaja had a very small army w which was over run and by October they reached Baramulla, Uri and were going right down to Srinagar and the Maharaja was naturally quite scared. So, sometime in the middle of October, he approached India for help and India said very clearly that we cannot help you unless you join India which legally he had a right because of the lapse of paramountcy. He came to Delhi, he signed the instrument of accession and Kashmir became an integral part of India. So, I want you to understand this very clearly. There is no question of self-determination. Some kind of self-determination was worked out in the creation of Hindustan and Pakistan. But, legally and constitutionally Kashmir became an integral part ofIndia. Inevitably, the Indian army plunged into action. By end of December, 1947, we were in a very strong position and in the beginning of 1948, we had almost pushed the invaders out. In fact, I was reading an article by one Brigadier, who is dead now, but he wrote it then, "If they had given me 3 days more, the whole of Kashmir would have been under our control.". But for whatever reason, partly under the pressure of Lord Mountbatten, partly under pressure of the Americans,- it is reported that Adlai Stevenson came to Kashmir, Pandit Nehru decided to take the problem to United Nations which means that a third party was brought into the problem. .. 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 then 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 in1950. 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 up to the people of India'. ..
Army divisions were sent from Pakistan, from the West to the East via Sri Lanka and on the 3rd of April, just 7 days after the crackdown, Mother sent a message to Indira Gandhi, "The urgent recognition of Bangladesh is imperative." Now, let me tell you something, because there were all kinds of stories afloat at that time that Mrs. Gandhi did not follow the Mother's wish, and was not receptive to The Mother. I will just read out a portion of an interview by General Maneckshaw. Now this was received by Mrs Gandhi on the 4th of April, Mother even notes the date, she sent the message on 3rd but Mrs. Gandhi received the message on 4th, "The urgent recognition of Bangladesh is imperative." So, sometime in April, she called a cabinet meeting in which General Maneckshaw was invited. I will just read out certain portions from an interview which General Maneckshaw gave a few years later. You will get an idea of the actual situation at that time.. Mrs Indira Gandhi telling Maneckshaw, "Look at this, - so many are coming in -there is a telegram from the Chief Minister of Assam, a telegram from. what are you doing about it? she said to me. I said nothing. What has it got to do with me, She said, "Can't you do something? "Can't you do something? Why don't you do something?" "What do you want me to do?" "I want you to march in". I said, "that means war". And she said, "I don't mind if it is war". So I sat down and said, "Have you read the Bible?" Sardar Swaran Singh said. "What has the Bible got to do with it?" "In the First Book, The First Chapter, the First Paragraph of the Bible, God said, 'Let there be Light' and there was light. So you feel, Let there be war and there shall be war. Are you ready? I certainly am not ready". Then I said, "I will tell you what is happening? It is now the end of April. In a few days' time the monsoon will break and in East Pakistan, when it rains, the rivers become like oceans. If you stand on one side, you can't see the other. I would be confined to the roads. The Air Force would not be able to support me and the Pakistanis would thrash me - that's one. Secondly my armoured divisions, is in the Babina area, another one in Secunderabad. We are now harvesting. I will require every vehicle, every truck, all the road space, all the railway space to move my soldiers and you will not be able to move our crops" and I turned to Fakruddin Ali Ahmed, the Agriculture Minister and said, " If there is famine in India, they will blame you. I would not be there to take the blame". Then I turned around and said, "My armoured division which is supposed to be my strike force has got 12 tanks which are operational out of the whole lot". Chavan asked, 'Sam, why only 12?' I said, "Sir, because you are the Finance Minister. I have been asking, pleading for months and you said that you have got no money. That's why". Then I said, "Prime Minister, if in 1962 if your father had asked me as Army Chief and not General Thapar and your father had said,'Throw the Chinese out', I would have turned around and told him. 'Look, there are problems'. Now I am telling you what the problems are. If you still want me to go ahead, Prime Minister, I will guarantee you 100% defeat. Now, give me your orders". Then Jagjeevan Ram said, "Sam, Maan Jao Na". I said, "I have given my professional view now. Now the Government must take a decision" . The Prime Minister did not say anything, she was red in the face and said, 'Achcha, char baje milenge'. Everybody walked out, I, being the junior most, was the last to leave and I smiled at her. "Chief, sit down". So, I said, " Prime Minister, before you open your mouth, do you want me to send in my resignation on the grounds of mental health or physical?'" She said, "Oh, sit down Sam. Everything you told me is true". "Yes. Look it is my job to fight. It is my job to fight to win. Are you ready? I certainly am not ready. Have you internally got everything ready? Internationally have you got everything ready? I don't think so. I know what you want, but I must do it in my own time and I guarantee you 100 percent success. But I want to make it quite clear. There must be one commander. I don't mind, I will work under the BSF, under the CRPF, under anybody you like. But I will not have a Soviet telling me what to do and I must have one political master who will give me instructions. I do not want the refugee ministry, home ministry, defence ministry all telling me. Now make up your mind." She said, 'All right Sam, nobody will interfere, you will be in command.'..
But a few things happened after that. Once Bangladesh became separate from Pakistan, Pakistan's humiliation was total. And within a few months after that a new trend was started in the Pakistani Army. Let me explain. Every army unit, when it closes in the evening shouts a slogan ; we in India shout "BharatMata ki Jai", which was started in the last few years. Before that it was the regimental cries that were uttered. In Pakistan it was decided after this Bangladesh war that the army units would take a vow of taking revenge on India. And so from that time every day, day after day, month after month, year after ear, they swore revenge against India in the form of Jihad. I do not know the words, but these words were meant to inculcate hatred, hatred towards India right from that first day till today. It reached such a point that when I was in Delhi working on the motivation for the army, one of the senior officers asked me: "why don't we create the same hatred in India also for the Pakistanis". I said, "It will be suicidal. Not only will you hate the Pakistanis, after some time you will hate yourself. It is a dangerous emotion. I don't expect that all of you are going to be karmayogis like Arjuna. It is natural that there is a temporary hatred in the heat of the battle and it can be a terrific motivating force but don't make that the fundamental basis of your motivation". Thus they inculcated a spirit of hatred and revenge in the Pakistani Army. By 1983-1984, a clear blue print on the strategy towards India was drawn. The strategy was to be different. There are to be no more wars with India. No more conventional wars. The nuclear question was not in sight at that time. Although we had the atomic explosion in 1974, but at that time it was not a worrying factor for Pakistan as Mrs Gandhi has assured that it would not be repeated nor used against anyone, and so they didn't worry too much. But they were clear that there would be no more conventional wars with India. They realised that they had no chance since the Indian Army was too big. So they worked out a new strategy. It was to be the LIC or theLow Intensity Conflict. This Low Intensity Conflict would mean that they would infiltrate into India. There was an organisation which was given this job very specifically which was known as the ISI. They were told to go every where in India, create as much trouble as possible, go to Nepal, go to Bangladesh, go to the neighbouring countries, sneak inside and create as much trouble as possible. In 1988-1989 another plan was developed by the Pakistani establishment. This was known as Operation Topac, created by Zia ul Haque. The idea was to infiltrate into India and create dissension and start militancy. As a result the first thing they did was not in Kashmir but in Punjab. In 1984 Blue Star Operation was a very painful thing. Indira had to pay with her life as a result of that operation for that created such a feeling of dissatisfaction, hatred towards the Congress and the Central Government that every Sikh, however gentle and soft he was, became a potential threat. The army had to be called again and with the help of the army, with the help of the police, spread over 5 or 6 years this whole thing was brought under some control. But Kashmir was very difficult. First of all, the Kashmir area is almost impossible to block. It has huge ravines, valleys, hills, mountains. Secondly, there were a very large number of local sympathisers. They were taken across into Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Everyone who was taken across was photographed. The moment you are photographed , you could not hide, you could not pretend. Once you are photographed, you become a Pakistani. Then they would train you, they would arm you for 15 days or 20 days. They would give you money,Rs.10000/-, Rs.15000/-, sometimes even in dollars. After the training, they were sent back to Kashmir for militant activity and it became an extremely difficult situation for India. That was the Low Intensity Conflict at its height, and this went on for some time. Then another very important event took place. That was the dissolution of Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, as you know was, the natural rival and enemy of the United States; and the Soviet Union had entered into Afghanistan with their military forces. America decided that they would do everything to see that the Soviet Union was defeated. The result was that they poured in arms into Afghanistan by the thousands. There were so many arms that just as you go out and buy mangoes, you could buy an AK47, it was as easy as that and mercenaries were brought in and encouraged. So, thousands of mercenaries came into Afghanistan and fought Russia and ultimately the Soviet Union disintegrated. These mercenaries who fought for the sake of fighting, many of them were absolute fundamentalists under the supervision of Osama Bin Laden. Once the fighting against the Soviet Union ceased, they were all jobless. It was then decided that these people should be given a job and that job was to be in Kashmir. If you are following the media, you will see that the Afghanistan Government is stating categorically that there are 10000 Taliban Muslims, who are ready to march into Kashmir. It is not 800 or 900, it is 10000. Very fortunately for us, the geo-political situation has changed. Osama Bin Laden's enemy number one is America on the other side and the Hindus on this side. So, this Osama Bin Laden has now become the enemy not only of India but also of America. Now, about the Kargil situation. This plan was hatched many years back but it was kept in cold storage. It was given to Mrs. Benazir Bhutto when she was Prime Minister. She refused point blank to accept it. But Nawaz Sharif categorically said,"You can go ahead. Don't inform me the details, you just go ahead". So, in November, 1998, these people who are habituated to live at 16000 feet, they don't need conditioning and training, dressed in salwar kameez, -photographs are available-, they sneaked slowly without guns and when people realised that nothing much is happening, then the guns began to come. They did not have to create too many bunkers. They used the bunkers which the Indians had built. They brought in tents, they brought in the finest equipment needed to withstand that cold. The rest, of course, all of you know. The media is there to tell you all has happened.
Posted by: acharya Oct 23 2003, 05:02 PM
/In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful/ *Challenges facing Muslims in India* *A series of discussions and Q&A on:* *Muslim Personal Law Threat to places of worship Threat of Hindutva-Fascism Literacy among Muslims How Muslim NRI's can help?* *Guest Speaker:* *Syed Shahabuddin ** *Date:* Friday, Sep 26th 2003 *Time:* 5:30 PM - 8:30 PM *Place: * *Muslim Community Association (MCA) * 2003 Scott Boulevard Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 219 1433 *Dinner will be served at 6:30 PM. Tickets are $10.00 per person and will be available at the door. * * Syed Shahabuddin, a former career diplomat and member of parliament, is currently the convener of the Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee (BMMCC) and president of the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM). Mr. Shahabuddin is also a political analyst and writes regularly on community, national and international issues. He is a regular columnist for Nation & the World, Milli Gazette, Meantime and Radiance. Indian Muslim Council - USA, strives to provide a platform for increasing education and awareness about issues of interest to the Indian community in the United States. IMC-USA is a tax-exempt 501©3 non-profit organization. All donations to IMC-USA are tax-deductible.
Posted by: O Vijay Oct 24 2003, 09:21 AM
Acharya, check out this article on the IMC by N^3.
Posted by: vishal Oct 24 2003, 01:28 PM
Why USA hesitate to say openly that "there is no revolt in indian kashmir and Kashmir is part of india...its not disputed...and pakistan should close down camps in their part of kashmir immediately" ??? Even when india and pakistan came close to war and world showed concerned, why USA didn't understand the situation that if pakistan didn't stopped and closed camps then nuclear WAR in near in south ASIA IF USA was really serious about that. In my opinion maybe nobody cares including USA if it happens or not but ONE POINT WE MISSED IS THAT , that WAR situation provided the world a apportunity to peek their noses and gain strategic importance in south ASIA , ohmy.gif I am silly that i understood this thing so late huh.gif so in my opinion ABV has got this thing in his mind clear now that nobody will come to india's rescue .....and i hope he has activated his great political brain wink.gif ....i guess so looking at steps just taken by GoI.....very wise .... wink.gif .... god bless us... As far as honesty of US govt. is concerned i think they will act 100%.....they need a second 9/11 to understand this thing.....that they are sitting on nuclear bomb.... blink.gif
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Oct 27 2003, 07:51 AM
These are the points from Stephen Cohen's lecture organized by Univ. of Madras -- Defence and Strategic Studies and Centre for Security Analysis [Lt. Gen. V. Raghavan, Ret. DG, Operations, Prof. Gopal Malaviya (Univ. Madras) and Dr. Lawrence Prabhakar (Christian College) on the dais] . Some asides: the outfit is started (Indian Army) with Ford Foundation grant of Rs. 50 lakhs. The US consulate representatives were present in the meeting attended by about 50 people. Held between 5:30 and 7 PM at Image Auditorium (where the auditorium rental costs Rs. 18,000 per hour). So, you can get the flavour for the organization which hosted Cohen and where it comes from. Points made (as I understood them) by Stephen: 1. Strategic Vs. ideological (democracy stuff); US considered a fickle ally by Nehru India. US considered to be obsesse with nuclear proliferation. 2. Economic (American companies present in India now). 3. People (2 million Indians in USA -- an emerging lobby). 4. Nuclear Proliferation the main focus between 1991-98; concern of USA that nuclear proliferation will occur from South Asia to other nations (a clear equation of Pakistan and India as prospective proliferators). Cohen repeatedly referred to proportionality in nuclear power between India and Pakistan. 5. Terrorism as a new issue; USA recognizes terrorism against USA. Considers cross-border terrorism as part of religious terrorism -- Islamic, Christian, Hindu terrorism. Presence of 27 Americans (Pakistanis with American citizenship and Greencard) as members of Pakistan assembly. Bollywood imitating Hollywood. India always tries to seek strategic autonomy even while engaging in joint military exercises. But, USA and India have learnt to agree to disagree. There is power disparity between USA and India. There are differences in strategic perceptions within USA and within India in relation to issues such as: China (is it a threat? Are there changing interests?), terrorism, Pakistan. Republicans claim that Bush has introduced a revolution in foreign policy but in effect it is only a continuation of Clinton policy. This was the general tenor of the bla-bla. There was a question-answer session in which Stephen did not effectively answer the charge of American double-standards in dealing with terror. He said he has written a book on Future of Pakistan. There was no question on this book. Nor did Cohen say what he thinks of Pak's future. He underscored that he has signed off on the US official report released on South Asia (October 2003)-- I didn't clearly hear the name of the agency releasing it. The guy was eager to get well-reported by The Week correspondent who was present. She will interview him tomorrow after NDTV show. His next stop is Kolkata tomorrow evening. I will let the India-Forum members know after tomorrow's meet (ORF). Kalyanaraman
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 27 2003, 08:29 AM
Cohen repeatedly referred to proportionality in nuclear power between India and Pakistan.
The Cohenistas ( a sizable and loyal following among his former chelas, esp. the Indian Americans amongst them)would dearly love to tie down India south of the Himalayas both militarily as well as from a regional power standpoint or from a 'weltanschuung' perspective. One technique for doing this is the notion of Proportionality. This is a very odd concept which of course the US does not follow when it comes to comparing itself with Canada and Mexico. Even if we accept the cockamamie notion of proportionality, he should be aware that India is seven times the size of Pakistan bith in GDP and population. So, is he saying that India should be seven times the size of Pakistan in its military capabilities versus the current 1.2:1 (on an apples to apples basis on the western front). The Cohenista message is very simple. Do not get delusions of superpowerdom, we the Americans consider you as an equal of Pakistan. Implied is the assumption that an India that is bigger (in her view of herself)starts appearing on the radar screen as a potential adversary for Uncle Sam.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 12:34 PM
Cross post - 13. An American academic, known to be close to the State Department, recently said in an interview on an Indian TV channel that while the US continued to back Musharraf strongly, he would not rule out the possibility of the US and Pakistan coming to a parting of the ways one day, if Pakistan's nexus with the jihadi terrorists continued.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Oct 27 2003, 08:40 PM
I was surprise by Stephen's eagerness to get to the Press lady (She happened to be Farwa Imama Ali of Malayala Manorama and The Week). I suppose the success of his trip to India and Pakistan will be measured (by US Council of Foreign Relations) by the press coverage he gets. Aside: There are chamcha-s in the pseudo-secular press in India who are only ready to oblige. The Hindu paper is getting to be disgusting, with full coverage to CPI-M meets. The paper has unabashedly become a CPI-M politburo tabloid singing marxist and chinese tunes. Back to Stephen. Yes, Kaushal. This proportionality stuff really gets to be boring, if it were not for the fact that US seems to believe that the strategy in Fergana valley and in relation to Afghanistan is closely linked to Paki bhai-bhai. India does not play her role effectively, either. Look at the way LK Advani is repeating that US shoot put pressure on Paki to release Dawood Ibrahim. What a pathetic public stance to take! India should stay on high moral ground while showing the public face. Ibrahim stuff can be sorted out at the level of US under secretary or asst. secretary and not get bandied about in the Press. I forgot to mention another comment Stephen made; he said that India was keen to get into the Security Council and that France and China would be opposed to it. Should India really care about the SC? A good joke from Stephen: India was moving from self-reliance to reliance (Reliance!) Kalyan India's offer to Pak. may not go far, says Cohen By R.K. Radhakrishnan CHENNAI OCT. 27. India's offer to hold talks with Pakistan, though welcome, is unlikely to go very far, the U.S.-based South Asia expert, Stephen P. Cohen, has said. "It [the peace initiative] won't go very far because sooner or later something will disrupt the relationship," he told The Hindu here, when asked for his assessment on the latest Indian offer. "It is still fragile. It could be a terrorist attack. It could be some insult that somebody issues to the other side and I think that the dialogue is at a very tenuous phase. So I would assume that the dialogue will collapse as the previous dialogues have," Prof. Cohen, who has written extensively between India and Pakistan. The silver lining was India's offer to take steps towards the movement of people. "That is not superficial. That would change attitudes and opinions both here and in Pakistan. That is a requirement for a serious dialogue on Kashmir," he said. The timing of the offer of talks — just as elections are due in five States — left room for many theories. "I have been trying to think through why the [Indian] Government made this announcement now," Prof. Cohen, who is here to reacquaint himself with India, said. "But it could be that the administration here decided that this was the time to put Pakistan on the defensive. I think they could have made these proposals a couple of months ago. Or it could have been connected to the Chinese policy [since Sino-Indian ties are looking up]. Maybe they thought they would be able to put more pressure on Pakistan. There are lots of such theories. But no matter which theory you use, it is welcome. The Pakistanis want a dialogue on Kashmir, but I do not think India is ready. It is part of a containment strategy." He said the improvement in Sino-Indian ties would have a direct bearing on the regional equations as China was a party to the Kashmir dispute. The threat held out by a few Ministers — that this would be the last time India took the initiative to hold talks with Pakistan — was mere rhetoric, Prof. Cohen said. "I am used to hearing from Indian officials that this is the last offer. Then give them the really last offer and still again give them the really last offer. This is largely rhetoric. But I hope that Pakistan reciprocates significantly. But it is going to be difficult for the Pakistanis to do that because they are so wrapped up around Kashmir." `Role for outside world' Prof. Cohen, senior fellow, foreign policy studies programme at the Brookings Institution, a Washington DC-based think-tank, said it was necessary for the outside world to intervene in the Indo-Pak. problem. "In the long-run, the outside world has to play a role to help facilitate the normalisation process," he said and added that this was because there was "great international concern about the spectre of two nuclear weapon states with basically an undeclared state of war between them." At a lecture organised by the Centre for Security Analysis on the `United States and India: Divergent and Convergent Interests,' later in the day, Prof. Cohen said Indians welcomed the U.S. intervention as long as it was aimed at pressuring Pakistan. "I have talked to many Indians, including some officials, and they are perfectly willing to see the U.S. pressure on Pakistan. In fact, the whole 2002 crisis was about India putting pressure on the U.S. to [in turn] put pressure on Pakistan. And we have done that, to some degree." In his view, the U.S. should use its position to address some of the long-term problems of the region.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 09:18 PM
>>>But I hope that Pakistan reciprocates significantly. But it is going to be difficult for the Pakistanis to do that because they are so wrapped up around Kashmir." mad.gif Another excuse
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 27 2003, 09:38 PM
The Pakistanis want a dialogue on Kashmir, but I do not think India is ready. It is part of a containment strategy."
It is all very simple really, dear Steve. You see in case you havent noticed , Pakistan wants Kashmir (to be gifted on a silver plate) and india for some highly obscure reasons does not want to do so. Rest assured the vast majority of Indians consider these talks an absolute waste of time and energy and for reasons quite different from the ones you have given do not see the slightest chance of success. The constitution of India forbids negotiating on territorial matters, and we all know shorn of all rhetoric this is a dispute about real estate.
"I have talked to many Indians, including some officials, and they are perfectly willing to see the U.S. pressure on Pakistan. In fact, the whole 2002 crisis was about India putting pressure on the U.S. to [in turn] put pressure on Pakistan. And we have done that, to some degree." In his view, the U.S. should use its position to address some of the long-term problems of the region.
Clearly modesty is not one of your virtues dear Stephen. If the US pressured Pakistan to do anything , you and your dog must be the only 2 critturs to have noticed this. Furthermore Indian experience with US interference in subcontinental affairs has a long history going back to 1962, when the US pressured India to gift Kashmir to Pakistan . Thank you but no thank you. BTW, which 3 Indians did you talk to(who supported US involvement in kashmir) ?
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 11:26 PM
Indian American leaves Bush administration Indo-Asian News Service Washington, October 28 Ashley Tellis, one of the highest ranking Indian Americans in the Bush administration, has abruptly left his post and joined a US think tank. He is now senior associate with the Global Policy Programme of the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mumbai-born Tellis, considered one of America's foremost strategic experts, left the National Security Council (NSC) where he worked for just two months as special assistant to the president and director of strategic planning and Southwest Asia. He cited health reasons for leaving the NSC, where he was inducted on the recommendation of former ambassador to India Robert Blackwill. "I had health problems and nothing else when I quit NSC. I actually enjoyed working with the NSC people, but then I had to take care of my health," Tellis told IANS. He agreed that the NSC job was a "taxing one" with long hours, "almost a 24-hour job, you may call it", and he could not have done justice to what he had been doing at NSC if he had to devote more attention to his health problem, which he said includes a strict exercise regimen and regular medication over the next couple of years. He also denied that there was any ill feeling at the NSC or any parting of ways with Blackwill. "I have excellent relations with the ambassador and if I get over my immediate problems concerning my health, and do get another chance to work with Blackwill, I would be more than happy to serve the ambassador in any way I can," Tellis said. He also denied that there was any policy disagreement or personality clash at the NSC. Tellis was appointed to the NSC position on August 18, three days after the White House announced that Blackwill would serve at the NSC as coordinator for strategic planning under National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Blackwill had handpicked Tellis to serve as his senior adviser when he was posted in New Delhi. At Carnegie, Tellis said, he would be primarily into research. "Carnegie has left it fairly open for doing my own research. Now after two years in Delhi, I am going to devote time and energy to start work on India and its missile defence system." Before joining government service Tellis was a senior policy analyst at the Rand Corporation and professor of policy analysis at the Rand graduated.gif School. Tellis, 40, took his masters and doctorate degrees in political science from the University of Chicago. Prior to that he studied in Mumbai where he received his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics. He has authored two books: India's Emerging Nuclear Posture (RAND, 2001) and Interpreting China's Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future (with Michael Swaine, RAND, 2000). At Carnegie he joins Michael Swaine, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, and George Perkovich to "further build our understanding of global security issues, with particular emphasis on China and South Asia", according to Carnegie sources.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 27 2003, 11:31 PM
BTW, which 3 Indians did you talk to(who supported US involvement in kashmir) ?
One so called Indian is Subramaniyam Swamy, A.Roy and may be Prafool Bidwai.
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 28 2003, 07:15 AM
It is true that Ashley Tellis has American citizenship now but he does his research in depth and will not maliciously represent India.
Posted by: Mudy Oct 28 2003, 11:25 AM
Kaushal, Yes, Ashley Tellis 's "India's Emerging Nuclear Posture (RAND, 2001)" is a good read. It well researched. I consider him pro-India, atleast love for India.
Posted by: vishal Oct 28 2003, 11:48 AM
Clearly modesty is not one of your virtues dear Stephen. If the US pressured Pakistan to do anything , you and your dog must be the only 2 critturs to have noticed this. Furthermore Indian experience with US interference in subcontinental affairs has a long history going back to 1962, when the US pressured India to gift Kashmir to Pakistan . Thank you but no thank you. BTW, which 3 Indians did you talk to(who supported US involvement in kashmir) ?
and don't u think USA is still doing same thing? huh.gif maybe such things r not placed in open what bush-ABV discusses. But definately, america can go to any extent if they want to save their land from nuclear osama Laden.donating kashmir will be good and cheapest deal for USA to get support of all mullah in south asia. huh.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 28 2003, 09:29 PM
donating kashmir will be good and cheapest deal for USA to get support of all mullah in south asia.
And you think India will remain a bystander while this is happening. Give your leaders a little more credit. They may not be the equivalent of Subash Bose or Sardar patel but they are doing a pretty decent job. India has never had it so good in the international arena
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 29 2003, 05:40 AM
Pl. consider sending to CNN Newsletter at: ---------------------------- CNN Mischief Again: India Map, Without J&K Back at its old mischief - CNN has published India Map without J&K One more time - 'Train accident in India kills 7' Old habits die Hard at CNN. In the past CNN had withdrawn this map after protest. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. We discourage every effort to show distorted version of India Map anywhere. Please send your strong protest to CNN. Address and sample letter are provided here. We hope CNN will receive hundreds of emails. Please also circulate this mail to your family and friends. Important Email ids at CNN:,,,, Dear CNN, RE: Please stop justifying terrorism in J&K! I strongly protest the Map of India without J&K published in your story "Train accident in India kills 7" on Thursday, October 23. Please note: Jammu and Kashmir is integral part of India by the Instrumentation of Accession signed by the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and accepted by the Governor-General of India in 1947. The copy is available at: This is the only legal document available on J&K and no one has ever challenged this agreement. Showing India without J&K is nothing but supporting and justifying “Terrorism in J&K”. Unfortunately this is not the first time CNN is doing this mischief. I request you to review the associations of your Editors/Map providers and make sure that they are not supporters of terrorism in J&K. Hoping CNN will stop repeating this mischief. Thanks Sincerely, Your Name
Posted by: Mudy Oct 29 2003, 01:07 PM
Committee on International Relations U.S. House of Representatives Testimony by :::
Posted by: Viren Oct 30 2003, 09:22 AM
Mudy (or anyone): is there a transcript of the question/answers put to B Raman yesterday?
Posted by: vishal Oct 30 2003, 10:44 AM WASHINGTON : US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca ( a frustrated neo-conservative?) on Thursday blamed both India and Pakistan for the impasse over Kashmir while asserting that the United States was asking Pakistan to “redouble” its efforts to stop infiltration. “The US looks to Pakistan to do everything in its power to prevent extremist groups operating on its soil from crossing the Line of Control. The government of Pakistan has taken many steps to curb infiltration, but we are asking it to redouble its efforts,’’ she said. ( anything else than just bluffing like tape-recorder the same thing from last 4 years? ) Rocca described India as a victim of terrorism( realized this so early huh? ) , while at the same time praising Pakistan ’s role in the war on terrorism. blink.gif Her remarks were evidently aimed at not antagonising both countries, but they caused indignation all around, including among law-makers who had convened the hearing with a clearly sympathetic view of India ’s plight. Democrat Congressman Eni F H Faleomavega, who has initiated a legislation to make aid to Pakistan conditional on its cooperation on terrorism and non-proliferation, pointed out that the Indians were not crossing the LoC to carry out terror attacks in Pakistan as Pak-based terrorists were doing in India . Indian community activists, who had pressed the Congress to hold the hearing, were also angered. ‘‘This is disappointing to say the least,” one activist e-mailed a lobbying group list. “Was this hearing convened in order to provide a platform for this new incarnation of Robin Raphael to insult India and place the terrorist and the victim of terrorism on par?” But Rocca’s testimony contained important acknowledgement of terrorists groups operating within Pakistan , something Islamabad has repeatedly denied
Posted by: vishal Oct 30 2003, 10:57 AM
America has stepped up its effort to gather intelligance in India. Carnegie is an intelligence gathering institute in the name of Education..with their exchange programs..they collect human intelligence.... So know we have Influential Indian on their pay roll ..wondering what details they want to collect about India...may be nuclear program.... (picked from BRF) They are opening institue in Uttar-pradesh.( opening a world class institute in a economically backward state? , and why not banglore or hyd?[b]) Also, cohen is travelling new region in [b] North EAST India . Maybe India kept his nukes in North east? Or they want to disrupt North east socially,politically to make rift in Indo-sino relations ? blink.gif ( its true that Washington neo-conservatives feels hitch about good or becoming better indo-china relations) Our RAW has eyes on these happenings or they are feeling happy-moonlight below washington+MOSAD umbrella? i hope indian agencies are not influenced by indian relations with foreign countries(all contries except india). god bless india. biggrin.gif
Posted by: AJay Oct 30 2003, 02:17 PM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Oct 29 2003, 09:59 AM)
They may not be the equivalent of Subash Bose or Sardar patel but they are doing a pretty decent job. India has never had it so good in the international arena
While the first sentence is believable, the second is debatable. Indira Gandhi was not a slouch either. The tremendous increase in the emigration of Indians to US and other parts parts of the world coupled with the improving economic clout oif India would strengthen the hand of GOI. It is akin to a positive feedback loop in which the leaders with vision and the economic growth are feeding off of each other. Even if in some election cycle, a set of bad leaders are elected, they would be retrenched soon enough due to the strong democratic system in place.
Posted by: vishal Oct 31 2003, 12:11 PM
QUOTE (AJay @ Oct 31 2003, 02:47 AM)
The tremendous increase in the emigration of Indians to US and other parts parts of the world coupled with the improving economic clout oif India would strengthen the hand of GOI. It is akin to a positive feedback loop in which the leaders with vision and the economic growth are feeding off of each other. Even if in some election cycle, a set of bad leaders are elected, they would be retrenched soon enough due to the strong democratic system in place.
yes, so democracy is better than presidential system. Because there are 500 checks(parliament) in it behind every decision that can ruin our nation. problem with presidential system is if president and vice. somehow sold his heart to foreign agents or went under wrong people then its mess(for example, in my opinion American presidential system has became a mess today not from security point of view but from overall decision making point of view e.g.iraq war though many americans protested aginst it( how much in real?)). and thanks to parliament again that prevented GOI from sending forces to iraq to die there. yes, full points to ABV but i have serious doubts about L.k. advani. He is on my no-no list for being indian PM (ok..he can become PM bcoz i don't want an italian to take PM seat at any cost). reason is look at his behaviour when US defence minister requested forces and also see his public statements in india , he always connects US with pakistan and cross-border terrorism.I am annoyed with this man's US-dependant views(anyone counted how many 100s of times he requested US to pressurise PAK to stop infiltrations?) and i really have doubts about him. he seems very soft to me about US. maybe he don't know about oil-politics and neo-conservatives.???
Posted by: Gill Oct 31 2003, 12:25 PM
Mr. Tovishal writes: "but i have serious doubts about L.k. advani. He is on my no-no list for being indian PM (ok..he can become PM bcoz i don't want an italian to take PM seat at any cost). reason is look at his behaviour when US defence minister requested forces and also see his public statements in india , he always connects US with pakistan and cross-border terrorism.I am annoyed with this man's US-dependant views(anyone counted how many 100s of times he requested US to pressurise PAK to stop infiltrations?) and i really have doubts about him. he seems very soft to me about US. maybe he don't know about oil-politics and neo-conservatives.??? " Mr. T atleast Advani speaks the truth. We do require US support to deal with our main problem, economy and pakistan. We all are claiming that US is the sole remaining Super Power, then Chanakya Niti says to be-friend the sole super power. Before BJP and post Congress I, leaders did give friendly signals to US. They understood that world is no longer divided, that there is a victor in the Cold War, the US. i myself dont like to hobnob and suck ass with US or any other nation, but reality is reality. Unlike past PMs and leaders, Advani has guts to claim that yes US is a power and we respect that power, also it doesnt hurt to sometimes glaze a big guy and his muscles. What you should be concerned with is, how Advani's ass kissing of US is hurting Indian interests, so far i cant find any. Gill guitar.gif
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Oct 31 2003, 05:31 PM The Independent Task Force (Council on Foreign Relations -- CFR Report talks of new initiatives in South Asia. This is what Stephen Cohen claims he was part of the drafting process. Now, I have to report on the deliberations of 27 and 28 October 2003 in Chennai. I will not quote anyone, since these were meant to be off-the-record. US has a short-term time-frame for its policy in relation to South Asia. US is a fickle ally. Pak is a treacherous ally. Nigel of Brookings will soon be in Delhi for interactions with ORF. It is good to have liberal views and express differing opinions. It ain't no war on terrorism despite Pres. Bush's rhetoric and Pakistan is NOT an ally in this non-war. If at all, Pak is only a partner. The book may be called Idea of Pakistan. Three excerpts from the book are on the Brookings website. Pak is disappointed with USA since the intervention on Kashmir has been lukewarm. See Denis Cook's 'Disenchanted Allies.' Now, with CFR report, it is clear that US will lean on India a lot more to pressurise India to start settling the issues with Pakistan. There is no chance for the Indo-Pak talks to succeed. (Looks as though, USA does not want the talks to succeed; in my view, the measure of success is when there is an agreement to create a Confederation of Pakistan and India, called Hindustan). Paki are effective in convincing US that Pak is a strategic piece. It is likely that Bin Laden will be nabbed just before US elections. Reviving Pakistan as a state which cannot challenge India and which should not be allowed to collapse. Pakhtoons are the Taliban and not because of Paki support. The looming danger is the possible radicalization of the middle class in Pak. It has not been easy for Paki to go to USA since gulf economic activity is closing down. Pak has the second highest birthrate in the Islamic world and has a high rate of illiteracy. Terror is only a political tactic. A war cannot be waged on a tactic. It is a great strategic error to declar a total war on terror. Pak is India's problem even as there will continue to be a mismatch in perceptions about Pak between USA and India. Shaping a new Pakistan is USA's long-term goal; short-term, some pressures may be applied to keep talking. The image of a future Pak is to see a woman on a scooter with a cell-phone. India should use the secret weapon, allow Paki to visit India. (Read, this is my interpretation: create taliban cells in India). Pak cannot be forced to change since it is a nuclear state; no one can invade that country. Nuclearization is a bullet-proof security for that country, apart from Saudi-China axis through Pak. US foreign policy is neo-conservative realism. Powell-Rumsfeld differences are only a spectator sport. US will formulate a 4-year timeframe foreign policy since history ends after 8 years (two terms of Pres.); so don't look for long-term strategies from USA. Re:Musharraf. Theere are many potential Musharrafs; the imagery is that of a thousand turtles stacked up all the way down. Pak army provides continuity; it is driven by revenge as the motive. Army is central to Pak future. Islamist view does not dominate. Equating India and Pakistan; spread of fundamentalism in both countries. USA is little concerned about China in relation to Kashmir. USA has been a great friend of India, helped India achieve green revolution and set up IITs (My comment: what a joke!). Beware! Paki nukes can hit Bombay. To a question if the Islamic nuke is not a threat to USA, the answer was: NO. So, who controls the Paki nuke?What are the possibilities of a radicalized Pak getting out of control with tacit support from Saudi? USA will intervene only when there is a crisis. The report to be released on Oct. 30 (now done, see the URL cited earlier) is a forward-leaning policy. Read Paul Bracken 'Fire in the East' and Humphrey Huxley 'Dragon Fire'. Paul Kennedy Rise and Fall of Empires'. And Sandeep Worlekar 'Peace Initiatives'. US has no permanent interest in relation to India. Non-alignment is ideal for Afghanistan. USA will stay for the long haul in Afghanistan and settle for a less-than democratic Iraq. Didn't USA contribute to the terror problem in India intensifying after 1989, after USSR walked out of Afghanistan and didn't USA lend respectability to Jihad after the breakup of USSR? Pak army has a country while other countries have armies. Kashmir problem has been manufactured by India. USA is the transformer of the world; US is the world with immigrant communities from all over the world and it is natural to have a crusading vision of the world though perceived as egotistical and over-bearing. Pak is not becoming a jihad state. Nuclear weapon makes the country bullet-proof. My observations and comments for consideration by India-Forum members: So, guys, ponder over these pearls of wisdom and formulate an appropriate framework for Indo-US relations. One lead. Don't expect USA to deliver; be self-reliant, assert your strength. What did Jambavaan tell Hanumaan in Valmiki Ramayana? Hey, Hanuman, you do not know your own strength, go fly. Hanuman did, praying to Sri Rama and brought the sanjivini herbs. So, friends, chalks out a dynamic perspective strategic plan for Bharat as the power to reckon with in the Asian theatre. USA will continue to be a meddler.
Posted by: Krishna Oct 31 2003, 10:42 PM
A.Roy and may be Prafool Bidwai.
Are the bhai logs of Mumbai taking suparis on this 2?
Posted by: Kaushal Oct 31 2003, 10:46 PM
Equating India and Pakistan; spread of fundamentalism in both countries. USA is little concerned about China in relation to Kashmir. USA has been a great friend of India, helped India achieve green revolution and set up IITs (My comment: what a joke!).
One (and Only one) IIT was set up with American assistance, namely Kanpur, the rest (of the first five IITs)were set up with the help of various countries including Russia, Germany, UK, the UNESCO. As for the Green revolution , it was primarily the work of Indians. of course Dr. Norman Borlaug who initiated the work on dwarf varieties happened to be an american, and I believe was working at the International maize and wheat center in Mexico and was also associated with the Rice institute in Manila, Phillipines, where many Indians also worked. While it is true that Norman Borlaug's work was of immense significance to India, the American government (or the vast majority of the people of america) had very little to do with India's green revolution.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 2 2003, 03:56 AM
The Green revolution is an achievement between 1951 and 2001, despite an increase in population from 33 crores to 100 crores during the same period. The contribution was made by the indian farmer and the irrigation engineers. This was achieved mainly because of the following: Food production increased from 60 m. tonnes to 200 m. tonnes because of the increase in command area of irrigation from 22.5 m. ha. (million hectares, one hectare = 2.5 acres) to 90 m. ha. There is potential to increase this area further to 170 m. ha. and double agri. production to 400 m. tonnes by establishing a National Water Grid. Americans did not contribute to this revolution. Bharat should feel proud that we overcame the PL-480 food aid syndrome.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 2 2003, 09:24 AM
Americans did not contribute to this revolution. Bharat should feel proud that we overcame the PL-480 food aid syndrome
One should not forget Roaches were introduce to India, during PL-480 process.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 2 2003, 11:31 AM As Indian state election will be over by end of Nov. Do you think India will get involved in Iraq to support US? Now I hope India should not.
Posted by: vishal Nov 2 2003, 12:49 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Nov 3 2003, 12:01 AM) As Indian state election will be over by end of Nov. Do you think India will get involved in Iraq to support US? Now I hope India should not.
never. Not because there are too many violance and casualties in iraq but because we should not help evil power of US.well, most people won't agree with what i said here "evil power US" but i hoonestly think so. just look at there what is happening is iraq: US army is murdering iraqis which are mostly civillians. there were some iraqi kids who were dancing when US army convoy was attcked.You know why?..because he hates them,US army. now ask why he hates them? US army liberated tham from saddam...isn't it? iraqis hate US army because they understood that intentions of america was not liberate them but was to liberate oraqi people's property, OIL. In my opinion, is today iraqis are poor,hungry then they are because they suffered from 20 years of sanctions which US put them on.20 years ago, iraqis were denied to sell their oil outside. WHAT kind of fu*ked up justice this is??? there were always other ways too of removing dictator saddam from power but nobody(so called peace-keeper US) thought of that.Because it was never intention.There are ample proofs that proposals were ready for recontruction of iraq in january,2003! (United States Agency for International Development is a US self-proclaimed 'humanitarian' organization. But it isn't just that with the milk of human kindness dripping for the under-privileged and the deprived. It is a shrewd business enterprise. As early as januray this year, it has begun planning for the reconstruction of a 'war-torn' Iraq. Compassion, US compassion it would seem is only a facade for trade. ) when iraq war was won, in america all business community was busy and fighting with each other over who will rule iraq?! But its worse to see nobody cares for these most unfortunate species on earth(iraqis) in the world(at least in corporate world). Just look at how indian business communities started building pressure over indian Govt. to send troops.because then they will get profit, billions of $$$..... and i have seen almost 50% people on all indian forums(including BRF too!) were in agreement with that. IS this the way we indians want to get developed or build own economy?then what is the difference between those war-mongrers colonial british,american and india? want to make money over blood of iraqis?...shame on those people who supported sedning troops and helping evil,imperialist powers. Many of people still thinks today that US is superpower and we have to support her to get solve our problems or get benefit.some people call it chakiyan policy!! But i think chankyan policy also says that "when you see apportunity to bash the big powers in corner by dividing them then do it". By saying "we should help superpower, its in our interest"....but for how many years???...10,..?...20?....50?... when ABV didn't supported troops many people(our own people) on net forums critisized him,said him that he lost apportunity.But i think he played same game over big powers that they played over us 300..years ago. "divide and conquerer"!! US was ofcourse divided in world that time and ABV used apportunity without becoming coward. Chankyan policy ofcourse says support power when in our interest but also remember we have to think beyond US... do not limit your sphere of thinking to US. If they are super-power then its because world respect them as super-pwer,not because of their illusonary supreme power.the day world neglected US....remember they won't be anymore superpwer. by the way, one more thing i want to say here, almost many NRIs pushed GoI for sending troops because they had their business interests. Nobody denies that americans are good but that doesnot mean support america because this is not good americans who are ruling it. one thing is proved from iraq war : America is indeed a nation of traders!!! thanks.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 2 2003, 02:45 PM
Although the conclusion and the headline appear reasonable, there are some questionable statements ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 1, 2003 Cuddle up to India, US urged by Jim Lobe WASHINGTON - Despite its current preoccupation with Iraq, the US administration should step up its engagement in the Indian sub- continent, which can no longer be considered peripheral to US interests, says a major new report by two key think tanks. Washington must devote "sustained and high-level attention" to India and Pakistan and be "more active" in helping the two nuclear-armed neighbors manage their conflicts, argues the "Chairmen's Report" of a joint task force on India and South Asia co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society. At the same time, the administration of US President George W Bush must devote more resources and broaden the popular base and authority of the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai by supporting the deployment of international peacekeeping forces beyond Kabul, particularly in Pashtun areas where the Taliban and its allies appear to be making a comeback. "We are at a pivotal point in Afghanistan," warned task force co- chairman and former US ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, at the report's launch on Thursday. "We've got to get the security issue right." Added Dennis Kux, who directed the task force, "There would be an enormous impact on Pakistan if the Taliban were to come back to power." The 93-page report, "New Priorities in South Asia", offers a general framework for how Washington should treat the region in coming years. In addition to Wisner, other co-chairs included Asia Society president and former US ambassador to Pakistan Nicholas Platt, and Marshall Bouton, president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Their 50-person task force consists mainly of regional specialists, prominent expatriates from all three countries, arms-control experts and retired senior US diplomats like Wisner and Platt. Traditionally such groups exercise a strong influence on US policy, particularly if, as in this case, their proposals represent a consensus view of participants. The group's "core conclusion", according to Wisner, was that South Asia has achieved an unprecedented importance to the US on a range of issues and that Washington needs to treat it accordingly. Of the three countries covered by the report, the task force was most upbeat about India which, "with its political stability and a decade of steady economic advance, has the potential for long-term political and security partnership and substantially expanded trade and economic relations with the United States". The group found that, after a long estrangement during the Cold War, US and Indian interests on all fronts "broadly coincide", to such an extent that Washington should treat India as a "friendly country", a status that would, for example, further ease restrictions on exports of sensitive "dual-use" technology that has military as well as civilian applications. The report also called for a more sustained trade policy dialogue that could, among other things, result in a free trade accord on services, which could provide more hi-tech jobs for Indians in exchange for permitting US business to compete in finance, law, accounting and related professional services. Potential obstacles to the consolidation of a "genuine partnership" with Washington over the coming years, the report says, include India's failure to further liberalize its economy; possible conflict with Pakistan; and the maintenance of India's social and communal peace, which, could be challenged by the rise of Hindu extremists in the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Prospects for continued close ties with Pakistan, described as "one of the most complex and difficult challenges facing US diplomacy anywhere in the world today", are seen as considerably more problematic. While Islamabad has become a valued partner in the war on terrorism, the two countries' policies "only partially coincide", says the report. Pakistan's continued support for "Islamist terrorists" waging jihad in Kashmir; its continued failure to prevent pro-Taliban elements from using Pashtun tribal areas as a base to attack Afghanistan; and its alleged nuclear commerce with North Korea must be major concerns for Washington, which should adopt a "much more nuanced approach than that followed by the Bush administration". While the task force recommended congressional approval for a five- year, US$3 billion aid package for Pakistan, it called for reshaping its contents. Instead of a 50-50 split in the money between social and economic aid on the one hand and security and military assistance on the other, the first category should get two-thirds of the funding. Much of that assistance should be targeted at education, projects in Pashtun areas adjoining Afghanistan and institutional reforms to improve governance. In particular, US aid should nurture non-governmental organizations and civil society, while pressing the government to reduce military interference - particularly that of the Inter-Services Intelligence - which has covertly backed Islamist parties, in political affairs. In addition, Washington should commit to providing only one-half of the $3 billion. The rest should be conditioned on the government implementing political, social and economic reforms, its cooperation on terrorism, and its non-proliferation of sensitive technologies. Finally, Washington should ease restrictions on Pakistani textile imports, the report adds. As for relations between India and Pakistan, the document calls on Washington to be "more active" in helping the two countries manage their rivalry. Although some task force members suggested the US offer to mediate the conflict over Kashmir, the majority opted for a somewhat more restrained role in which Washington could offer suggestions to the parties about how to move forward. "Only India and Pakistan can settle these matters," Wisner said. In the short term, Washington should help start a bilateral negotiation, possibly by working out a "comprehensive ceasefire" along the Kashmir Line of Control (LoC), the most likely flashpoint for wider conflict, argues the document. While Pakistan should be pressed more vigorously to make good on President General Pervez Musharraf's pledge to stop infiltration across the LoC, India should step up economic development in Kashmir and reach an accord with the state government that would ease the burden caused by its security forces. This is the equal equal treatment that is particualrly obnoxious to most Indians, especially when India has poured scarce funds into Kashmir at an ever increasing rate for the last 5 decades making it one of the most prosperous states in India today. It is another matter that very little trickles down to the poorest strata On the nuclear front, the task force called for Washington to review ways to incorporate India and Pakistan into the global non- proliferation framework. In the meantime, the US should work with both to ensure tighter controls against either country leaking sensitive technology or material to third parties, and to implement confidence-building measures to reduce misunderstandings about missile deployments and flight tests. As for Afghanistan, the report stressed that the US is "still a long way from [its] goal of a stable self-governing state" 19 months after the defeat of the Taliban. "Apart from Afghanistan itself, perhaps no nation has a greater stake than the United States has in Afghanistan's achieving [its] goals and not reverting to civil war and anarchy," the report concluded. (Inter Press Service)
Posted by: Mudy Nov 2 2003, 03:41 PM
I don't want Islamic jihadi element defeat US or any non Islamic country. In long run they are going to haunt India. India is a victim of Islamic jihad for last 1200 years. Initially they occupied our land and now their leftovers Pakis are attacking India on daily basis. Yes, US policy is very short sighted. Even now they trust dictator and pin pot rulers than elected representative. And still don't understand what went wrong.
Posted by: jrjrao Nov 3 2003, 12:25 AM
Cuddle up to India, US urged
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 3 2003, 11:47 AM
This one is a keeper. It not only includes the content of the hearing, or at least an important part of the hearing, but also the procedural mechanisms by which such testimony is given. Such a description will prove to be useful for future testimonies. I will request that this be bookmarked (i am not certain i have the authority to do so). by B. Raman
Posted by: acharya Nov 4 2003, 07:48 PM
Progress and Promise in India by George K. Tanham For decades, India was widely seen as a nation with enough potential to become one of the world's great powers if it could only get its act together. The task of developing a modern economy following independence from Britain in 1947 was enormous. Poverty, explosive population growth, primitive ways and the absence of financial resources were all-too-apparent impediments. But India possessed great assets as well: democracy -- the largest on earth -- ample leadership talent and a powerful national will to be independent economically as well as politically. Jawaharlal Nehru sought to make India a prosperous, self-reliant nation based on socialism, one which would play a major role in world affairs. Yet India so far has failed to live up to its promise or to its own aspirations. With few interruptions, democratic power in India since independence became a family affair. The prime ministership and leadership of the dominant Congress Party passed from the founding fathers, Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru, to Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, then to Indira's son, Rajiv. The murder of Rajiv during the political campaign of 1991 ended more than four decades of domination by the Nehru dynasty. By then, India had started to shake free of its lingering, debilitating love affair with socialism and its partnership in global affairs with the declining Soviet Union. The struggle for political and economic reformation, which began in the 1980s, has marked the 1990s. There is as yet no economic miracle to report, but in the last few years India has made some real progress, and the future once again is starting to show some promise. Several major events made 1990-91 a pivotal time for India. Each had its origin in rigidities afflicting the Indian body politic and economy, and each interacted with the others to produce an historic moment. The elite steering India for nearly half a century could no longer ignore the warning signs of systemic crisis. The Signs of Systemic Crisis The first event came in the form of fiscal crises resulting from rising deficits in the balance of payments and in the public accounts. India's robust growth during the late 1980s had, if anything, overshadowed and exacerbated rapid import growth and public overspending. The size of internal public debt triggered a rapid rise in inflation. Meanwhile, the centralized, regulated economy -- chronically bled by public enterprise losses -- staggered into more debt with no improvement in efficiency. By the spring of 1991, foreign exchange reserves had dropped to $1.1 billion, or approximately three weeks' supply. By April, the margin had narrowed further and India faced the real possibility of defaulting on its sovereign obligations. Would-be guarantors of new credit, such as the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan, demanded assurances that India would ship gold to secure new loans -- a major humiliation for the Indian elite. Quick assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) averted insolvency but served only as a stop-gap measure. A basic review of the country's entire economic direction became imperative. Another crucial event occurred abroad. The Soviet Union -- India's friend, treaty partner for two decades, defense supplier, diplomatic supporter and major trading partner as well -- tottered and, in the summer of 1991, collapsed. The impact on India was felt in trade and foreign affairs but had profound domestic implications as well. Nehru, the country's first prime minister, regarded the Soviet Union as the world's best economic model for India and other developing countries. His view became predominant among the country's senior administrators and carried over through them into his daughter Indira's tenure. But by the late 1980s, the Soviet "model" lost its following and, in August 1991, it disappeared altogether. So, too, had the Soviet Union's important residual function as a market for India's commodities and cheap consumer durables. The unwieldy ruble-rupee trading account -- in which Soviet imports bought defense equipment, oil and some nuclear expertise -- was no more. After 1971, the Soviet Union supplied about 75 percent of India's military equipment at bargain prices. The absence of this important source of supply and support was a major blow to the country's sense of security. In 1990-91, India also experienced a crunch in its foreign relations. The Gulf crisis, and the UN-sanctioned war against Iraq, which resulted from Baghdad's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, put India in an impossible position. Iraq's Soviet mentor was distracted and disintegrating. India's realpolitik stance favored Iraq and it's lack of influence had never seemed more glaring. Meanwhile, the domestic situation in India was becoming unsettled by 1990. In August, the minority government of Prime Minister V.P. Singh provoked caste tensions when it proposed to set aside quotas of government jobs for various so-called "backward castes" -- a proposal shelved in the early 1980s. At the same time, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) renewed its campaign to demolish the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh and to build in its place a temple honoring the birthplace of the Lord Rama, the mythological hero of Hindu gods. The BJP during 1990 conducted a highly charged procession toward Ayodhya through several north Indian states. More Violence and Tensions As if this were not enough, violence erupted in Kashmir the day V.P. Singh's government took office in December 1989. An insurrection, aided covertly by Pakistan, took hold, prompting Singh to send hundreds of thousands of regular and paramilitary troops into the Kashmir valley, where they still are. Soon after, the Singh government ran afoul of Sikh separatists in the Punjab, where violence escalated throughout 1990. New challenges to Delhi's authority in Assam also emerged that same year. Singh's minority government fell in mid-1990 and was followed by one with an even smaller minority -- only 52 of parliament's 525 seats. Led by an able opportunist, Chandra Shekhar, the new government held office only because the Congress Party, still India's largest political force, permitted it to do so. Shekhar resigned in February 1991 and elections followed. It was during the campaign that Congress Party leader Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated -- further weakening the political condition of the country. The elections, delayed by Rajiv's death, gave the Congress Party the largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha -- but not a majority. Once more, either a coalition or minority government -- another weak government -- had become a necessity at a time when India urgently needed strong leadership. Yet the rush of events had a profound and lasting effect on the country, freeing India of domestic socialism and a foreign policy based on friendship with the Soviet Union. The financial and economic crisis pushed India to reform and liberalize the poorly functioning economy. The collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Gulf crisis, which cut off important foreign exchange remittances from Indian labor working in the region, added urgency to the need for economic liberalization. Also, they compelled India to realize that it required a truly nonaligned foreign policy which included expanded relations with the West and the U.S. India now would need capital and aid from the West. The situation in the summer of 1991 called for decisive leadership. In June 1991 after the elections, Narasimha Rao, an old, seemingly placid Congress Party veteran who had served as Indira Gandhi's foreign minister, was selected as Prime Minister. Rao was seen by most observers as something of a caretaker while the Congress Party searched for a more decisive leader. To the great surprise of most Indians, however, Rao immediately took charge. One of his first acts was to appoint Manmohan Singh, an economist with experience in the international arena as well as on the domestic scene, as his Finance Minister. Rao instructed Singh to free the economy from the shackles of centralized regulation and bureaucratic control. Singh seemed to be waiting for the job. He launched a comprehensive drive to balance the budget and to reform the entire economy. Rao presided over a minority government and had to proceed cautiously, but decisively, to deal with the crisis. The IMF and the World Bank were insisting that the debt and inflation had to be controlled, and that a fundamental restructuring of the economy must be undertaken with particular emphasis on removing regulations and bureaucratic controls. The Rao administration tackled the fiscal problem. It devalued the rupee some 20 percent, then took steps to reduce the deficit by reducing expenditures and increasing revenues. It eliminated all export subsidies and most subsidies for fertilizer and sugar; it also cut some subsidies for public sector enterprises (PSEs). Cutting defense was difficult, given the security situation in India and Kashmir. Even so, Rao's government modestly reduced defense spending. The government reduced capital expenditures and money transfers from Delhi to the states. On the revenue side, the government revised the tax law and made tax collection more efficient. As a result, tax receipts are up about 25 percent. Indians were induced to put their financial holdings in banks which could use the funds for productive purposes. (Indians traditionally save by hoarding huge quantities of gold, estimated to be as much as $200 billion in bullion and jewelry.) Import duties were reduced. The sale of limited portions of stock of the PSEs also produced one-time gains. All of these measures have contributed to progress in reducing the debt and reducing inflation. But greater fiscal discipline is needed. This became very clear at a meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in September 1994 in Madrid. The bankers complimented India on its reforms but also expressed serious concern that inflation, debt and deficit reduction had not met their goals. Inflation hovered around 9 percent in early 1994, but was 11.5 percent in early 1995, and the deficit was climbing back to 7.3 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). Structural reform is also required to produce the growth desired. The purpose of such a huge undertaking -- a thorough overhaul of much of the public and private sectors of an economy with a GDP of about $300 billion -- would be a complete turnabout from 45 years of central economic control. The states have important power and some have been slow to reform, which accounts for some, though by no means all, of the delays in implementation. Inadequate Infrastructure Reform in industry regulation has been important. With only minor exceptions, barriers to private firms entering markets have been removed. Industrial licensing has been abolished except for a few designated areas, and the number is being reduced. Imports of capital goods for de-licensed companies with foreign equity invested in them receive automatic approval. Automatic approval for foreign investment up to 51 percent of an enterprise is allowed in all but 34 industries, and the number of exemptions is being reduced. Even so, approval can take time and, as one nonresident Indian (NRI) noted, a "fixer" is still very helpful. Foreign trading companies primarily engaged in exporting are eligible for automatic approval of up to 51 percent equity. There are special incentives for investment in the oil, power and electronic sectors. Some tax relief and subsidies are also provided by state governments to investors. The securities markets have been liberalized for institutional investors. Special privileges were provided for NRIs to invest in India. The government has moved slowly on the Indian infrastructure, which is in poor shape. Foreign companies are being encouraged to build toll roads and to invest in the power sector. The telecommunications sector also has serious problems which the government may finally have sorted out. A new policy announced in September 1994 provided that private foreign companies registered in India would be allowed to bid on contracts but only in local telephone markets. While some companies say they can live with it, many feel there is too much confusion over the policy and the implementation. Trade reform is as important as deregulation of industry. Indian tariffs, among the highest in the world, are nearly twice as high as those of the country's neighbors. But in his budget message of 1994 the finance minister promised to reduce tariffs to 25 percent, a goal that has not yet been reached. The rupee is now convertible for trade and relatively stable. The trade imbalance, however, worsened in 1994; imports grew 24 percent while exports grew only 17 percent, though for the time being, the government is not too concerned about this imbalance. The agricultural sector, which has been doing well, has largely been ignored though some efforts have been made to improve performance. Cuts in agricultural subsidies have been bitterly opposed. India, now self-sufficient in grains, has become an exporter and after seven good monsoon seasons has a reserve of 30 million tons of grain; the reserves and reduced exports would see the country through a bad monsoon season. Cotton, sugar, plant oils and food production are up. New seed varieties with a 25-percent increase in potential grain yields have been announced recently. India's Green Revolution is spreading. The main problem in agriculture is that large and middle-size landowners have profited most and the poor remain poor. The government has been slow to reform the financial sector, largely because of very powerful unions in the banking system and the effect reform would have on the poor. The government has relaxed restrictions on nationalized banks, prodded them to become more competitive and encouraged the use of modern technology. But until now most nationalized banks have seen their mission as one of helping the poor, not of operating profitably. Losses do not seem important as the government always covers them. However, these banks are under pressure to become profitable while still serving the poor. The unions are opposed to the introduction of new technology and methods in banking. The nationalized banks, because of detailed government oversight, inflated staffs and lack of competition, do not function efficiently and provide poor service. They have been a drain on the government exchequer. However, there are some encouraging signs. The unions and the Indian Bank Association, representing bank management, appear to have worked out an agreement to increase wages and benefits and to improve pensions. In return, the unions are discussing increased productivity and better service. Competition is increasing pressure on the national banks to improve their performance. Privatization of several hundred PSEs or closing down the most unprofitable remains the most difficult problems for the government. It has privatized only a few public-service enterprises and sold some shares in the more profitable ones. But privatization is bound to create massive layoffs. The government must, but has not so far, provided for some employees to retire and others to be retrained or redirected to industries in need of workers. There will be enormous economic strains involved in raising the funds needed for an "exit policy" and political problems for the government if it creates extensive unemployment. It is likely that privatization will be slow until after the national elections required by 1996. From the beginning, the government's major goal has been to improve the welfare of the people. There are millions of acutely poor Indians with inadequate resources to improve their lives. Through education, health services, infrastructure, land and credit, the government wants to help them. Realizing such ambitious objectives on a massive scale would require funds in amounts that are not available in today's stringent budget situation. Yet the government is convinced that a healthy private sector in the long run will provide additional funds for social welfare and more and better jobs for the poor. In India -- a functioning federal parliamentary system with a free press, free speech and an independent judiciary -- democracy has proven to be both a strength and a weakness. Democratic agreement and consensus are strengths that provide a solid base for government and reform. But the democratic process is slow, often indecisive and can be cumbersome when important decisions must be taken. Population Grows The population, now at 911,000,000, remains one of India's greatest problems and the government is aware that it must be dealt with. Birth control failed and has had a bad name ever since a terribly unpopular government program to force sterilization was abandoned in 1976. Population growth varies from state to state, with the poorest states -- Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh -- having the highest growth rates, and the more progressive and prosperous -- Kerala and Tamil Nadu -- having the lowest. In Kerala and Tamil Nadu, in fact, affluence seems to have brought birth control with it; the population growth there is zero. With that powerful example, there's hope that the spread of affluence will eventually solve the problem. Even so, pressures for more immediate and direct control measures continue to be brought to bear on the hard-pressed Rao government. Nevertheless, India has made economic progress in the last three-and-a-half years. Most private industry has been freed of restrictions. Industrial production increased about 14 percent last year. The rupee has become more fully convertible and indeed has become stronger. If it gets too strong, Indian products could lose their low-cost advantage in foreign markets. In any event, the fiscal condition today is striking in contrast with the almost unmanageable situation a few years ago. Private Indian companies and the Indian treasury have no trouble now raising money in the world capital markets. Exports rose a handsome 20 percent in 1993. Private investment, including funds in the stock market, rose to $4.7 billion in 1993. U.S. firms, in fact, invested more in India in 1993 than in all 47 years since independence. The GDP grew slowly in 1993, about 3.8 percent, but the Finance Minister hoped to report 5 percent in 1994. Solid progress is beginning to show in other ways. India paid off $1 billion to the IMF in April 1994, well ahead of schedule. The deficit has been reduced to approximately 7.3 percent of GDP though it is more than the IMF and World Bank targets. India has approved the GATT with its provisions for free trade and protection for patents and copyrights. Other indicators of progress towards reform are seen in the number of new financial journals that have appeared recently in the major cities. Airlines that avoided India or had discontinued flights there are again operating to India. The country has the largest number in Asia of investors in the stock market. In early 1995, the Rao government appeared weak, divided and indecisive. The loss of several state elections hurt. Critics say the elections were a repudiation of the government's liberalization efforts and Congress corruption, but local issues and populist promises seem to have been the causes. Five state elections in early 1995 hung heavily over the government. Many Indians saw the Rao government's days as numbered though others felt that Rao, a great survivor, might not be brought down. In any case, the current political situation threatens Rao's liberalization policies and provides critics with the opportunity to attack them. Many businessmen, large numbers in the young middle class and others have taken the position that the reforms are now a national policy, not just the policy of one party. Most parties now support the general thrust of the reforms, though they may differ in certain aspects of it. The recent visits to India of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore, his second in a year, and of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown from the U.S. have indirectly supported the notion that reform is a national policy. Both urged India to undertake more reform, reduce negotiating time, increase transparency in negotiations for contracts and move more quickly. Prime Minister Rao says that his country will proceed at its own pace but that the reform movement will definitely continue. The country seems to favor it. India, from all appearances, is beginning to take off, and the liberalization underway may well be irreversible. Over the next few years, India should become a powerful, growing economy with an increasingly strong voice in the world economy and, indeed, in world affairs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- George K. Tanham ('73), a retired executive and trustee of Rand Corp. and a current Rand consultant, is an Asia specialist who has served in AID and diplomatic posts in the region. The author of several books, he has written a study of India, where he spent several months during the winter.
Posted by: acharya Nov 4 2003, 08:01 PM
EIC & MNC Media, Mind and National Control Satyameva jayate-truth alone triumphs Satyam vada – speak only truth dharmam chara – adapt dharma which is embodiment of truth "Today the film makers (motion picture and television-added by author as an explanation) are the people who control the most powerful medium in the world, and art that can create ideals, change language or topple governments." John Baxter in the Daily Mail (28th December 1995) Introduction Having understood that today MNCs are none other than EICs we ended the section-2 with the question as to why the largest ‘English speaking Indians’ never able to get hold of most of the public information available in many western capitals printed in ‘ENGLISH.’ In this part we try to answer the question. We try to trace the absolute control over available print media (news papers, wire services) exercised by EICs during the beginning of 20th century. In addition to this we also trace the MNCs control over media today-news papers, wire services, television, film industry. ‘The internet revolution’ is still developing from 1995 and still is exploding with no one in real control over it except within USA few corporations and governments in blocking undesirable information flow. This will be followed by the summary of scientific studies made by many researchers on the utility of all media out lets. We especially focus on the destructive effects of television, video games and internet on individuals children in particular and society as a whole. This is the most potential medium that can destroy any society, community and nation and being used in the destructive way by MNCs, their local partners effectively for last 30 years in more than 20 countries. These western researchers who hail from various disciplines like sociology, physics, applied psychology and host of other medical disciplines were never against technology. They only wanted to implement technology and its applications with a perspective of social progress, not as a tool in the hands of profit oriented corporations. A best example of such mindless technological adaptation is introducing internet in a village where the farmers’ needs bullock carts or bicycles. Media growth started in an explosive way with the advent of 19th century. In the western nations International wire services started and spread beginning 1900. Motion pictures evolved in to full blown business from 1920. Radio became popular from 1935 and television from 1950. Personal computers took center stage from 1990 and the internet form 1995. In India television never took off until 1980 and from 1985 with huge investments by central government in transmission towers it reached every village. Its initial purpose was of educational value. Since 1995 the internet revolution is taken the center stage in India also. Media is an information sharing device. From going to library to read news we get to a stage where papers can be delivered to our house. From going to theatre to watch a movie we get movies at our house via television or internet. Apart from that in the west especially in America and Europe since past 30 years the medium of television was used and abused for political domination, information suppression, swaying public opinion, religious manipulation, spiritual fraud, behavior conditioning and mind control of populations. According to researchers the very nature of human physiological scientific principles involved in viewing the presentation of information via television or video games/computer will lead to behavior conditioning and mind control. A very systematic and through study was made in the west regarding such abusive behavior conditioning, mind controlling aspects of television and efforts are made to create proper checks and balances. These abuses were resisted by public forums, private citizens and a systematic body of knowledge was developed to study the impact of such abuses, reasons for such abuses, and the required checks and balances needed to prevent such abuses. By studying this literature we in India, who are in the middle stages of this so called media revolution, can prevent the disasters of behavior conditioning, mind control and the resultant break up of family and social structure that occurred in America, Britain and other developed countries. The main reason for media to become abusive from being an information sharing device comes from the very nature of huge investments involved in the process of establishing ‘technically superior’ media set up. Only governments or huge private corporations or organized religious systems like Christianity/Islam can invest such monies. Media then becomes a tool in the hands of government to retain political control or in the hands of corporations a tool to retain economic control thus to manipulate political control or in the hands of religious leaders to retain faithful, evangelize and convert heathens. Corporations, religious bodies and governments will suppress negative information, project positive information, discourage debate, hide research regarding adverse effects of products, and evade public scrutiny. All of which are the only known ways of understanding genuine facts of a given situation. Media as a tool in the hands of ruthless profit seeking corporations with little respect to morals and ethics, such as EICs and MNCs, is much more dangerous to the human kind as they suppress most of the known research from being published which hurt their bottom lines. EIC sold opium as pain killers knowingly that it is one of the greatest addictive drugs. MNCs want to liberalize and sell 24 hour television and unrestricted internet usage as prerequisite for becoming a first world country knowingly that such measures will breaks up families, destroy societies, break down social order, erode ethical and moral values and destroys civilizations. They still do it because with television and internet it is proved that they would ‘effectively sell’ their good or bad products to billions to make a huge profits. Though the details of such scientific research is presented later in the article I just quote one such example of MNC suppression of facts using media. An example of MNC control During boom years of computer manufacturing in California (1980-1995) USA, all manufacturers used and still use millions of gallons of acids and solvents that are eventually disposed in toxic dumps or left to mix with water systems of the country, or released in to rivers. One such computer industry solvent trichloroethylene which was adjudged as a Cancer causing agent by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) seeped in to the water systems of California. None of the computer manufacturers admitted the guilt but ‘supplied bottled water to millions of residents’ till the toxicity was cleaned up. No where in the American media controlled by hand full of corporations-news papers, television, radio-the report of such disaster came to light or even mentioned. Members of the communities affected organized themselves. But workers who work in the computer industry who are mostly from foreign countries and cannot speak English were most affected as they work daily with these chemical solvents. Women get miscarriages, infant deaths, abortions, hair loss and eventually cancer. Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition, Dr. Joseph La Don Chief of the division of occupational and Environmental medicine at the University of California concluded that the “workers and the general population are being exposed to the most deadly chemicals that have ever been synthesized”. A vast body of medical literature exists today in United States, Europe, and Japan documenting the severe effects of computer usage on even occasional users. Fatigue, eye strains, margarines are common with medium range usage of computers. Women are most affected who stay prolonged time before VDT (video display terminals). Miscarriages, premature births, birth defects infant deaths are becoming common parlance. Recent research now concentrating on Computer based radiation concluding that human body is far sensitive to vary minute disturbances in radiation levels. VDTs generate a range of radiation- X-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, low frequency (LF), very low frequency (VLF), and extra low frequency (ELF). I cannot justify presenting the research on this subject but interested people can go through the excellent research by Paul Brodeur’s three part series presented in June 1989, New Yorker magazine or his book “Currents of Death”. Based on the growing research San Francisco recognized the harm caused by computers and passed minimum radiation levels for VDTs and computer display terminals during 1990. Fearing mass legal action from affected groups almost all computer manufacturers shifted their manufacturing to Asia, Taiwan, China or Korea where there is little regulation or no regulation and almost any exiting laws are ineffective as they can be flaunted by corrupt politicians (remember Bhopal tragedy-nothing or too little was done if any). The computer industry and their controlled media while suppressing any information regarding the legal action by affected groups and workers, promoted this shift of computer industry to Asia ‘as globalization of Trade’ hailing it as an era of global village, growth of Asia etc. But the continuous research in this field is driving more westerners away from owning computers and even using them except for limited time. The excess inventory capacity of the computers produced will bankrupt the manufacturers. Thus these manufacturers are forcing United Nations Aid agencies to use computers as part of their aid packages in the third world. In October 1984 issue of Developmental Forum reported the monumental research done by authors Ken Darrow and Michael Saxenian in bringing the small scale technology to the poorest nations and communities in the world. They reported the dangerous trend the UN aid agencies staffers are adapting in third world rural economies-computer link up with satellites- to get ‘technical information needs’ about agrarian practices and ‘unprecedented low cost instantaneous communications’ for village development. The authors dismissed the above position of aid agencies as ‘dangerous nonsense’ and reported the following facts regarding the reality:- 1. In a poor country using a micro computer linked with satellite half way around the globe to an information system developed in a western country is absurd and technological over kill. Most of the poor nations need type writers, books, manuals, hand tools, bikes, tape recorders at the most telephones. 2. As finding skilled repairers of computers in these poor third world countries is near impossible in many cases for computer parts additional computers were purchased. (many state governments in India bought thousands of computers but are now remaining in ware houses with out knowing what to do with them) 3. Telephone link up proved more advantageous than computer satellite link up which is extremely expensive and drains national resources. The other option is under liberalization and privatization these computer manufacturers are now dumping their excess stock on unsuspected Indians with cut throat prices even by extending credit to consumers by corrupting politicians and selling the idea that computer will solve the third world problems of India. Many western sociologists are pointing out that the high divorce rate, immoral unethical behavior in west is mainly due to watching the television serials more than 4 hours per day that encourage such behavior. Every program, drama, story will always highlight the divorce and immoral behavior as a freedom gained by women to be on par with men or as hallmarks of free society. But the reality behind these slogans, as pointed out by economists, is the greed of MNCs that is the main reason for such propagation. Many researchers believe that when consumers are limited as in western societies, the only way to increase the durable goods (cars, electronic items, etc) consumption is to break families. People living collectively and sharing hard goods washing machines, cars, appliances or at worse getting with out them are not good for MNCs that produce them in huge quantities beyond the market requirements. At worst the sharing behavior of family is outrageous to the corporate directed commodity society. So first nuclear families are encouraged as hall mark of progress and then the divorced singles phenomenon was systematically encouraged as here each person becomes a family unit and duplicates the consumption patterns of other family units thus increasing sales and profits for MNCs. For example, If there are 1,00,000 families in a state/province and if all have a car and television and VCR and if each of the products can last for say 10 years, then the Car, television and VCR companies cannot sell their products for these 1,00,000 families because these families have all the products. The only way to increase or retain their sales and profitability is to some how sell. Population growth is negligent in many western countries. To sell products they need new families. This can be done either by importing people from other countries in fixed quantities or quotas like Canada, Australia and New Zealand do. But this leads to racial tensions and social struggles. The other way is let us assume if 50 % of the families break up due to divorce then wife and husband separates. But television, car and video cassette players cannot be split in to two and one of the partners thus divorced has to buy new set of TV VCR and CAR forcing the demand for Car VCR and TV to increase in direct proportion to the divorce rates. The ability of television as behavior conditioning tool as documented by researchers prove the point that if only divorce oriented serials are aired the viewers behavior will be conditioned towards such behavior. Now as most of the program content is decided by big corporations it is true that they tacitly approve such serials for maintaining their bottom line. As we see later in the article, that by repeatedly watching what is shown on television people become part of television reality because it conditions the mind and prompts one to act according to altered state of mind. The Indian qualities of collective living, sharing, and non material relationship to life are viewed as opposite poles to the EIC or MNC ideology of growth, profit and expansionism. That is why like in India where these MNCs are arriving, the ‘ideological retraining process of masses’ will immediately start. Remember in all the current Indian television programming after liberalization and privatization this greed, divorce and immoral behavior is highlighted and encouraged both in advertisements or serial programs. Satellite communication technology which brings western television and advertising is combined with technical infrastructure to speed up homogenization with MNC ideologies. Most of this activity is funded by these MNCs via World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development bank as well as US agencies like U.S. Aid, the Inter American Bank, Asian American Bank. All these aid agencies serve only the MNC corporate agenda[1]. Then in the end of this article a summary is presented regarding the trends in the Indian Media for our understanding to show at what controlling level we do exist. This provides an answer to many questions as why we do not know much about happenings all around, and provides probably a course of action in future to correct historical mistakes that lead us on sure path of destruction. EICs and Control over Print Media and Wire Services By the beginning of 20th century international bankers under the leadership of house of Rothschild acquired leading interest in the three leading European news gathering agencies, Reuters (England), Havas (France) and Wolff (German). Havas, the allied French Agency was a subsidiary of French Government. Most French Governments from 1840-1940 (except when Hitler disposed them and installed Catholic Vichy government for brief period of 7 years) have been subsidiaries of French house of Rothschilds in all their practices if not in theory. (pp 106) Reuters which is main agency among the three is situated in the heart of old city of London-bastion of British Jewry ADAE-very close to the Bank of England. This agency believes that the news of the world was its own private property, to be withheld, to be discolored to achieve its own purposes, or to be sold to whom and where they directed. Between 1900-1920 when Rongo News service of Japan was obliged to pay a territorial “Franchise Fee” plus a service fees for news furnished. When Rengo attempted to buy news from Associated Press, Reuters assessed a “service fees” on the Associated Press for the right to sell news to Rengo. Kent Cooper, general manager of Associated Press discloses that “a twenty year battle was fought by AP to give American people the truth about the news of Europe and the world. The greatest and the most powerful international media monopoly of 19th century in developing international attitudes and prejudices has been an undisclosed cause of wars for past 100 years. That the mischief planted had become too great for the new relationship of Associated Press to overcome[2]”. During this time there was no television or radio that popular. But after World War – 2 these two mediums became very popular and thus the MNCs (EICs were transformed by this time) took gradual control over all major news channels and television broadcasting corporations in United States of America and Britain the centers of ADAE. We confine only to these countries as for Indians-Anglophiles- only these two English speaking countries are primary source of inspiration, and India exist only to imitate them to the spirit and we behave as if still we were still a colony of Britain or a protectorate province of America. The Media Power World wide media is a huge thing. Here we study briefly the ownership of the media and its power exercised by EICs turned MNCs in USA and Britain to give an out look for Indian readers who believed that these two countries are bastions of ‘free speech.’ For most Indians who still amuse why still they do not know most of these happenings around them this article will point a direction to think otherwise. We select only two countries of reference United States of America and Britain both part of ADAE. Indians are concerned with these two countries for most of MNCs are coming from here. As we are again subjected to the subjugation by EICs turned MNCs we need to study the media workings there to understand the media workings in India which is going to become petty soon a satellite of these MNC controlled publishing, completely masquerading the truth paving for another 200 year colonization. 1. United States of America Television Networks in America As we have seen in the last part the houses we discussed acquired massive wealth which is impossible for by a single corporation controlled by one family to achieve in free economies or free markets where it was said that every thing is controlled by demand and supply of commodities. It is also repeatedly stated that such free market conditions exist because in these free markets there exists a free press, free media and free publishing houses ‘striving only for truth but whole truth as god say so-omen’. United States is always quoted as an epitome of free economy. We have seen above as how one corporate house controls a major section of economic activity. No we see how the same thing is true with the media. It is the heroic efforts of those US congressmen and senators who were and are uncorrupted by any means in United States, Britain that resulted in exhaustive studies about the power over by media by few corporations. Such process is almost absent in the Indian context which has to be rejuvenated to protect democracy and secularism. The main Television networks in United States are as follows. CBS Columbia Broadcasting System-200 TV affiliates, 255 Radio Affiliates, and Publication Division.News, Views, and Documentary propaganda and spin with viewer ship around 35 million house holds. NBC National Broadcasting Corporation-viewer ship of round 30 million house holds –same as CBS ABC American Broadcasting Corporation-Mainly entertainment channel-leaves the propaganda the big three networks (NBC CBS and CNN) and concentrates on exclusively on entertainment. 153 TV affiliates and 7 million viewer ship. CNN Cable News Networks Owned by Time Warner Group about which we learn in section on Britain FOX Fox news network owned by Australian born Rupert Murdoch we learn in the section about Britain. MSNBC Micro Soft News Broadcasting Corporation, started by partial owner ship with Bill gates, will learn more about in the Free Press Section. According to July 1968 House Banking Sub committee report, Chase Manhattan Bank alone controlled 5.9 percent stock in CBS[3]. Latter in 1974 a congressional report titled “Disclosure of Corporate Ownership” (which was published after two year intensive investigation by the Senate sub committee on inter governmental relations[4] ) indicated that Chase’s stake in CBS rose to 14.1 %, Chase also purchased 4.5 % of the RCA (Radio Corporation of America), parent company of NBC. The same report stated that Chase held stocks in another 28 major broadcasting companies. After this study another study[5] reported that Chase has gained 6.7 % of the ABC stock too. This is not to include the holdings of other Rockefeller associate banks, innumerous trusts, and foundations stake in major networks, and mention of them will only make this document a ten volume work. b. Wire Services and News Papers (Print Media) It is surprising to note that there are only two sources of international News collection, Reuters from England and Associated Press (AP) from France. Every other news agency including PTI (Press Trust India) and UNI buys news from these two news sources. We have seen above these two news services were finally in the tight control of Rothschilds and their associates. Domestic news is gathered by ABC, CNN or NBC television networks or their affiliate stations. It has now been learned during the 2000 senate hearings on bias in news media over last presidential election, in subsequent senate hearings, that these three networks also share (buy) domestic news from American News Corporation which is owned by a single owner and a wealthy New York banker of Jewish descent. It is interesting in this regard to note the observations of the 1983 Congressional Research Services Report which stated that by 1983 out of 1700 dailies only 531 are still independently owned. Also majority of these news papers were small town news papers which have only limited impact on shaping nation’s views. The report also observed that this independent owned news papers in 1945 were around 1381. Majority of these corporate controlled news papers (1179 dailies) are owned by New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angles Times syndicate, Boston globe, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Sun Times, Houston Post, and the Minneapolis Star/Tribune. Financing of these press operations are done by Chase and Citi group and their affiliate banks. Also the other major papers in the orbit are Arkansas Gazette, Des Monies Register and Tribune, Denver Post and Louisville Courier. Gannett & Co (Publisher of USA today and more than other 40 news papers from Hawaii to New York[6]. Apart form the corporate holdings in these news papers and their affiliates by Chase, Cit group, the major source of Advertising revenue for these papers comes from 100 major corporations in 5 or 6 industry segments owned by the same international banking interests headed by Rockefeller brothers. Besides these news papers the major book publishing houses Mac Milan, Random House, IBM publishing and printing, Xerox Corp., McGraw Jill, Harper Brothers, Yale University press, Little Brown and Company, Viking Press, Cowels Publishing, and finally Harper and Row are also in the orbit of these major banking corporations. Most of these above mentioned presses publish various textbooks for major schools colleges and universities in US and are viewed as important sources of impartial and non biased sources of information. c. American Public Education (Primary and Secondary till High School) As we have seen above the mass communications media is firmly in the hands of few families that control economics of US economy. Now the other source of free information in a free market economy is the Public Education that is given in the schools and colleges of US. The other form of education in United States is the biblical colleges and theological seminaries, catholic or protestant school boards who teach still to the letter what the bible taught blending it with modernity. Yet another form of education is provided by private schools and colleges where the super rich of America will study and train to rule the huge corporations and government. Many scholars point out that, in 1902 John D Rockefeller realizing and understanding the importance of public education both as a way and means to secularize the education from the hands of Christian missionaries and as a platform to prepare future generations of students who believe that US is a free market and there is an economic freedom to be defended, created National General Education Board (GEB)[7]. The in charge for this non profit trust was the personal assistant of John D., Frederick T. Gates, who stated in the board’s “Occasional Letter, No 1”, “In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions fade away from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own goodwill upon a grateful and responsive rural folk”[8] In between 1902 – 1907 John donated a total of 43 Million to GEB. 1917-1919 John Jr. gave a total of $ 200 million to GEB (valued at the present currency value of around $ 2 billion) through the Rockefeller Foundation and Laura Spellman Rockefeller Memorial foundation. Some scholars observed that “the foundations (Carnegie and Rockefeller) stimulated two thirds of the total endowment funding of all institutions of higher learning of America during first third of this century. During this period Carnegie Rockefeller complex supplied twenty percent of the total income of colleges and universities and became in fact, if not in name, a sort of US ministry of Education.[9] Historians and scholars point to another thread, the creation of Progressive Education Association by John Dewey. From this time onwards the scholars point out that the battle for the nation’s youth’s minds started. They point to a series of statements attributed Dewey and others as to what is in for US youth. For example Dewey stated “There is no god no soul. Hence there are no needs for props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable (unchangeable) truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed natural law or permanent moral absolutes”[10] Another such example was the statement of Dr. Harold Ruggs, associate of Dewey, “a new public mind has to be created. How? Only by creating tens and millions of individual minds and welding them in to a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up and ‘new climates of opinion’ formed in the neighborhoods of America”[11] The US Government sponsored National Education Association which is to provide a stable base for education finally became a major recipient of Rockefeller and Carnegie donations and in 1934 adapted John Dewey philosophy on socialism, globalism and incorporated in to class room. Many scholars point out that while major changes were administered in U.S. education through these foundations and their controlled news papers, and media Mr. Dewey slipped silently to USSR to reorganize Marxist educational system there.[12] Many scholars point out that “Rockefellers not only used their money to seize control of America’s centers of teacher training, they also spent millions of dollars on rewriting history books and creating text books that undermined patriotism and free enterprise” [13]. Scholars point out the text book series published under the title “Building America” brings Marxist propaganda and that California Legislature refused to appropriate money for them[14]. Also it is pointed that major foundations of Rockefellers and associates working through hundreds of secondary research foundations created think tanks of various categories (close to 1500 think tanks exist in America) on various social, political, economic, religious and national issues and financed the production of thousands of reports, studies which were stated as facts, realities. Often these findings are quoted as facts in the text books printed by the same establishment. Experts point to the Reece Committee (congressional committee on education in United States America) investigation and findings about its investigation in to foundations and their control over teacher training in schools “Research and experimental stations were established at selected universities, notably, Columbia, Stanford, and Chicago. Here some of the worst mischief in recent education was born. The Rockefeller and Carnegie established vineyards worked many of the principal characters in the story of suborning of American education. Here foundations nurtured some of the most ardent academic advocates of upsetting the American System and supplanting it with a socialist state.”[15] The results of such tampering with education and its consequences were glaring after 55 years by 1970. “American Family structure produces mentally ill children” Ashley Montagu stated while giving a lecture on education in Anaheim, California on November 9, 1970. Other scholars point out to various statements given by experts “Any child who believes in God is mentally ill” (Paul Brandwein, “The Social Sciences”, Harcourt Brace, 1970, pp10). “Every child in America who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill, because he comes to school with allegiance toward the elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, towards the preservation of this form of government, patriotism, nationalism, sovereignty. All these prove the child is sick, because the truly well individual is one who has rejected all things and is what I call the true international child of the future.” (Dr. Pierce, Harvard University, 1973.) “America is reaping the consequences of the destruction of traditional education by the Dewey-Kilpatrick experimental philosophy. Dewey’s ideas have led to the elimination of many academic subjects on the grounds that they will not be useful in life. The student thus receives neither intelligence nor the factual knowledge which will help him understand the world he lives in, or to make well-rounded decisions in his private life or as a responsible citizen.” (Admiral Hyman, “The Tablet” August 11, 1959). Though higher education in American universities, doctoral or post doctoral research facilities in the universities are top class in the world, conspicuously in these centers of higher learning there are many foreigners than Native Americans, in some departments like computer science or space technology at times hundred percent enrollment is foreign students. Even the few Americans who study in the centers of higher learning seldom came from regular public schools. They came from prestigious Ivy League private schools which are beyond the reach of ordinary Americans. d. Radio Networks and Alternate Media or American Free Press Though there is an absolute control over the electronic and print media the radio networks remained relatively free within America. Only fifty percent of the radio stations were owned by main stream media networks. Rest is held by the fundamentalist Christian groups, small town business men, or rightwing militias. It is in these radios the battle to regain the control of the United States from the monopoly of banking interests is waged every day even today. Talk show after talk show, program after program on these radio waves will try to inform listeners about the actual characters behind the events and try to inform people to take the battle to streets. They also include Christian Broadcasting Network, which wants to take back the US to its original constitutional roots as envisioned by the founding fathers. It is this organized radio network in the hands of people and the independently published dailies that we can call as Alternate Media or American Free Press. The other fifty percent of the Radio networks owned by the main stream media will be dedicated only to the traffic and weather or to the cheap entertainment, songs. The most important of these alternate Radio shows is Rush Limbaugh show and Dr. Laura Slushinger’s show. These two shows are barred/jammed from airing in to the New York City which is the bastion of international bankers. e. National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Corporation (PBS) Frustrated by the monopoly over the mainstream media the American citizens and private press core created a series of radio stations interconnected and provides the same news and analysis called National Public Radio (NPR). In the same way an elite intellectual television station was created called Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) with the intent of running the show only on Public Money. But this PBS network became so popular, authentic among intellectuals and scholars the creators were forced to expand them beyond home town shows soon to become so vast that it needed gigantic funds to run it. In the inception years NPR provided the needed factual analysis for the Americans and others. As US government cannot fund for any private enterprise, the organizers requested funding from friendly patriotic Americans to donate. The NPR and PBS network became so factual that in mid seventies it wanted to air a program on Karl Marx (Karl Mordecai Levy) titled “Last Jewish Prophet-Facts and Lies”. As soon as the program began main stream affiliate stations cut the broadcasting of that. Within one year gigantic donations flown in to NPR and PBS and virtually all the original staffers were removed and were appointed by members of main stream media networks. Now the major funding for NPR and PBS comes from Carnegie Mellon Foundation, Rockefellers Foundation, Rockefellers Brothers Foundation, Sarah Lee foundation, Ford Foundation, AMD (Archer Midland and Daniels-a giant agribusiness firm in the orbit of Rockefellers). The ability to create spin in intellectual circles of this NPR and PBS is cleverly used in latter times to promote the agenda of International bankers since 1985. 2. Britain Television BBC ITV (independent television) bosses Michael Grade, Michael Green and BBC Director of programs Alan Yentob and Charles Saatchi are known to the insiders as ‘St. John wood mafia’. All four are power full members of Jewish community in Britain. Governors of BBC came from Warburg S.G. bank. Warburg family are closely associated with Rothschilds in banking, merchant banking and investment brokerage. It shares news with NBC of America, thus effectively regulating news flow to North America. Channel - 4 Channel 4 CEO is Michael Grade who previously controlled BBC 1 & 2. His Media Group MAI owns two franchises of Anglia and Meridian. It has 5 % stake in ITN (Independent Television Network) and 29% stake in Channel – 5. It also has close links with Time Warner of America and its subsidiary HBO. Major role in this ITN is played by Lord Hollick one of the main directors of Holland based Hambros Bank which is in the orbit of Rothschild’s cousins, Lombard. Carlton Communications & London News Network Carlton communications owns Carlton TV, Central TV, 20% stake in ITN, Meridian TV, and GMTV. It also owns 50% stake in London News Network. Its turnover is close to $ 2.25 billion US dollars. It has significant assets in Asian subcontinent. Michael Green is the director of this corporation. He was related to Mr. Wolfson and Mr. Young who are closely related to Rothschild Empire. Granada Group The next media empire which owns the other 50% of London News network is Granada Group. It is worth $ 10 billion dollars, holds 20% stake in ITN, Yorkshire Tynes Tees TV along with Lazards Merchant bank. Lazards are Belgium cousins of Rothschilds. Granada groupholds 11% stake in BskyB and owns its British counter part GskyB. BskyB has stakes in the pornography adult cable Playboy Channel. Pearson TV The next important TV is the Pearson TV which is owned partly by Lazards Bank (Belgium cousins of Rothschild) and has long term production relationship with third largest American mega media group Viacom. Pearson TV owns Thames TV which had interlocking directorships with N.M Rothschild Merchant bank. Cable TVs UK TV which is one of the main cable companies which goes by UK gold and UK living (women) are partly owned by David Asper family via their Can West Global communications. This family along with Bronfman is a major force in the World Jewish Congress circles and thus associated with Rothschilds. Can west has major interests in Canada, Chile, Australia, New Zealand. Radio 46% of the Talk Radio of U.K. is controlled by the owners of Media Ventures international. The other owners of the talk radios are H (A) mbros Merchant Bank of Netherlands, Dutch cousins of Rothschild, Luxembourg based CLT media group, and Can West Globals’s David Asper. Advertising WPP of England runs Worlds largest Advertising and marketing establishment. The main share holders of this group are a company known as RIT capital partners owned by Jacob Rothschild. The Press Associated News Papers. This group owns Daily Mail, London Evening Standard, has 20% stake in ITN Television, and 20% share in ITV Company. The main financiers again for these massive media operations are merchant bankers N.M. Rothschilds and associates. News Group International. This group is headed by none other than Rupert Murdoch. His father Keith was a low paid reporter and described himself as ‘mamzer Jew’. Murdoch came in to contact with Harry Openheimer, head of De Beers and Anglo American Gold cartel, and impressed him so much that between 1968-1985 billions of dollars flew in to Murdoch’s buying spree of Media houses all across the world. Along with Harry Openheimer, Bronfman of Seagram empire, and Rothschild banking and financial interests funded this media take over of Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand and other Asian countries. Today this group holds lion stake in television networks BskyB, Twentieth Century Fox. It also holds major stake in the following news papers, The Sun, News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times and the Times literary and Educational Supplements. The Telegraph Group. The prominent papers in this group are The Sunday Telegraph and the Young Telegraph. The Chairman of this group is Conrad Black. Prominent Jewish business men of Canadian Origin. He owns National Post and other publication interests in Canada. The other directors of this group are Rupert Hambro-of Hambro Investment Management, and Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, director if Anglo American Corporation-South African Gold giant. But 82% of this Telegraph group was owned by Hollinger Group whose Chairman was none other than former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This Hollinger group apart from Spectator magazine owns close to 220 major magazines and News papers in United States. Pearson Group of Publishers. This group owns Financial Times group and The Economist Magazine. Major financier and co owner of this group is the N.M Rothschild merchant bank. Pearson also owns the publishing houses of Longman and Penguin. I just want to stop here. The purpose of this article is not to list all owners and directors of the publishing houses individually. It is to give an idea as to how much control the EICs turned MNCs exercise in the publishing division, media and press core. 3. Behavior Conditioning to Mind Control According to Advertising Age magazine 75% of the commercial network time is paid by 100 large corporations in United States of America. Out of $ 100 billion annual advertising industry expenditure (which is more than the money spend by US government on the secondary education, and more than 150 different countries total annual GDP) $ 75 billions are paid by 100 corporations. These 100 corporations can be divided in to 10 product segments like automotive, banking, oil industry, aviation, communications etc and each of these segment is controlled by a hand full of families not exceeding ten. All these hundred are interlinked as discussed in the part -2 of this article. There are 4, 50,000 corporations in United States of America. Only 100 corporations belonging to 10 industrial houses will decide as to what appears on television. If one produces a television program to broadcast one has to get the financial backing from the television stations. This means his program has to be approved by the corporations that provide funding for production and broadcasting of these television stations. This approval procedure in turn results in effective censorship of any negative image programming about corporations. Another reason why only huge corporations dominate the television is the affordability. In US half minute prime time advertising costs any where between $ 200,000-$ 300,000. If a small company wants to add 4 advertising slots of its product per month it need to spend $ 1.2 million dollars on advertising per month. Annual advertising budget on television alone will cost close to $14.4 million dollars. If television advertising budget is around 5% of the total sales forecasted then the sales for such company should be around $ 280 million U.S. dollars. This means vary few companies can afford such budgets effectively eliminating all medium and small players from the field. That is why even in India, only few companies are forefront in the field of television advertising. Like in America in India too these are oil companies, information technology companies, fast food companies, cloth makers’ car manufacturers and soft drink companies. When they are spending so much money on advertising they expect some return. Any person if on average watches 5 hours television then he will be bombarded with 21,000 commercials per year each prompting him to buy something from sponsors. This message for buying was forcibly placed in to his mind where it retained and was then brought in to action, which translates in to money to MNCs. If the same person in the 5 hours television watching, views family break up, divorce, immoral unethical behavior, violence for whole year, his behavior is altered towards the message projected by television. It is this behavioral altering effect of television that was carefully studied by researchers who concluded that more than two hour television watching is similar to drug addiction like alcohol or cigarette smoking or mild opium. Scientific Basis for mind control by television This addictive television viewing experience or internet viewing experience is the most beneficial to the large corporations, governments and organized religions who spend billions on television message as it changes the human decision making process passively. According to scientists it induces hypnosis and passive learning. Australian neurological researchers who studied the brain-wave activity found that the longer one watches the television or play computer games or hooked to internet the more likely the brain will slip into alpha level of activity, a slow and steady pattern in which the brain in its most receptive form. In this non cognitive mode the information is placed directly in to the mind/brain with out viewer participation. People receive information with out thinking about them[16]. The first reason for human brain slipping in to this mode of reception was lack of eye movement when watching television, or computer terminals/game terminals together called video display terminals (VDTs). If one sits at a normal distance from television or VDTs eye can gather most of its information with out scanning the television or VDT screen. Smaller the television set or VDT more will be lack of eye movement. If the television screen is more than 40 inches then eye movements are stimulated to grasp the complete picture. The lack of eye movement disrupts, according to scientists, the relationship between seeking images and stimulation to think. This relation between stimulation of thought and eye movement is the genetic safety valve provided to species in their evolution. While watching television the lack of eye movement effectively disrupts the association between eye movement and stimulation of thought, as eyes do not seek the image while watching television or VDTs. Second reason for brain slipping in to alpha mode results also follows from lack of eye movement. The television screen flickering on and off sixty times per second, and people staring at it with out moving eye balls effectively induces hypnosis. This experience is similar to watching the hypnotist’s candle. The third reason for brain slipping in to alpha mode is the images from television or VDTs, come at their own speed. They never give chance for the viewer to analyze them. If viewer analyzes them then he will fall back in comprehension of the next sequence of images. So he has to either stop watching the television to analyze or surrender himself for the television or VDT images believing everything with out analyzing. So the very nature of television experience makes body and mind passive receptors to information. In watching film, after film is over we have to get out of film viewing experience in 3 hours and will come back to normal senses after which we discuss and analyze and comment on what we saw in films. By this externalization of images we tend to examine them with other facts before believing them. This process of examination is absent with television viewing experience. Also the film screen is bigger than life size which induces eye movement. In that sense films are better than television (especially if television screens are diagonally in the range of 13 inch to 32 inch). Television viewing is compared to drug experience similar to tranquilizers if prolonged more than 2 hours continuously per day. The famous research done by Australian researchers regarding the effects of television on Children concluded that children become hyperactive while watching television. While children watch television, like adults, the association between eye movement and learning is disrupted. Children wanted to participate in the learning experience but under go hypnosis while watching the television. When children view television they continuously watch violence via cartoon networks or world boxing events or any other stimuli with out any chance to analyze them because of the speed of the stimuli presented to them. These stimuli will be implanted in their minds and brains passively. During these stimuli implantation the energy of the child which other wise will be spent in participatory learning experience will also suppressed. Once the television is shut off the suppressed energy will burst forth which results in disruptive behavior and hyperactivity. The only way to stop this hyperactivity is to engage child in another participatory learning experience which needs parental time and effort or put them back before television set when the above mentioned learning and energy suppression is repeated and finally expresses it self in school and other social settings. If children does not express this energy it manifests it self within the body as higher acidity, thus affecting the metabolic cycles of children and associated diseases. For youngsters when they feel bored usually they need to go out and play with others or go to library to read or engage in activity that stimulates their learning. Sitting before television for long hours not only creates hyper activity but it also reduces the ability to react with any other person of similar age. When ever they get bored, youngsters and children will turn to television. As alcoholics, when ever they get bored, turn to alcohol, so too children will turn to television when ever they get bored. In this regard the researchers claim that this television as a first step to mild drug addiction. For last thirty years the epidemic of disruptive children is growing out of proportions in western countries some of which now are serious about curtailing the children television watching hours. Other reason researchers believe that television is very disruptive if viewed for longer duration is defined as perpetual speed up and confusion. Unlike real life, in television, reality of different time frames were cut and pasted called ‘technical events’ and shown in sequence which is faster than happenings in real life. During prime time commercials in a 30 second period the images or technical events change more than ten to fifteen times. This is the reason why people pay more attention to advertising than the regular program as advertising demands more attention to catch up with the many images or technical events. If viewer is watching the television for even mere two hours he is bombarded with the fractured reality cut and pasted. This requires accelerated growth in attention which demands much more concentration than regular viewing of a film. So when the set goes off first he has to come from this hyper activate state to the normal real life state which is slow and normal. Normal life, regular surroundings, same house, same neighborhood with out changes, this difference will kick in the anxiety in the viewer. Comparing to television ordinary life is dull. To avoid anxiety like taking alcohol or smoking a cigarette one has to set the television on once again. Second, watching television in high state of attention and coming out of such hyper state to normal state will suddenly make one feel tired, exhausted and worn out. For children such change is disastrous. Educators in many western countries are alarmingly observing that such sudden changes result in total loss of attention in normal life. This results in total loss of interest in surroundings they live and grow. They become bored only within few minutes of studying any subject in schools. Children demand constant change as in television. They want the teachers to perform rather than teach. Their behavior becomes disruptive and precisely at the time they need parental support, more strict discipline to bring them back on regular track. But at this juncture in the name of ‘rights of children’ MNCs will force local governments to ban all disciplinary procedures against children. Essentially the children will be free to grow disruptive and television addicts. This aids the MNCs sponsored advertisement messages to sink in children at the most vulnerable ages so that their behavior can be modeled and mind controlled according to the MNC defined life style. The life style that is replaced by television is the natural slow progressive cultural life style of any given nation. This socially progressive cultural life is replaced by an artificial living environment defined by television of speed, space travel, fast cars, free life styles all geared towards MNC product selling by transforming and speeding up the internal learning of brain and nervous system in the most disruptive manner.. Brain is slowed down in to alpha mode and nervous system is activated to hyper speed of reaction at the same time-too fast to read, write understand or to relate to another human beings while generating anxiety and stress. From this alienation a new human emerges like in USA or Europe a person who can never slow down or cannot tolerate slow progress. For such persons the television imagery takes a real form. They believe the images of television as true and try to model their behavior according to the images they see on the television. Many researchers most notably from University of Pennsylvania, Gerber and Gross, found that television has the ability to make viewers believe that what is shown on it is reality. Politically this has disastrous consequences. Like in America where primary information source is television, and where there is no other way to verify the facts presented in television, many tend to take what ever said on television on its face value. Governments, organized religions and corporations can manipulate this to turn public opinion in their favor. This was evident from the Regan election campaign era usage of television. Even ordinary citizens in their social day to day life think that the television stories are real and identify with them, pray for them cry for them and try to live like them. Many researchers believe that the very nature of television viewing experience causes such break down in the human beings. This can be very well exploited by governments, religious leaders or MNCs for their best advantage. We have seen in two previous articles, that for the last 50 years we did not know much as to what was happening any where in the world or around us. Information control is total and effective over India. We did not know for example that liberalization and privatization were implemented in more than 20 countries since last thirty years and in each of the cases all these countries in ten years went bankrupt descending in to slavery to MNCs. Also in all these countries and other hundreds of third world communities where ever the western television entered as part of package of liberalized development along with MNCs, it destroyed families, societies and communities resulting in total break down of moral ethical social values resulting in total chaos. By preventing these two important proven facts that happened in more than thirty countries, and selling liberalization and privatization as a panacea for the Indian Development clearly shows the hidden agendas of these EICs turned MNCs for they knew what were the results of these practices for last 30 years. Given many unknowns it is wise for us, Indians, to devise a strategy to deal with this new explosive technology or economic systems which passively conquers the minds of people. Some policy, regulation is needed that should aim at preventing the mad opening of ten of so channels of 24 hour news, or 24 hour programming, or dumping western style on Indian masses only to destroy their family, society of national cultural values. In India, we have 4 major television networks. Government controlled Door Darshan which can be sold any time to Reliance network or its associates. Z TV network operating in north. Enadu TV and Sun (teja etc), Jaya TV network operating in south. In addition to them we have NDTV-an affiliate of MSNBC, CNN, Star, etc. All foreign programming is a rerun of American Life style which destroyed American life it self socially, morally and ethically. Domestic programming exactly imitates the foreign programming by indianizing the same. As liberalization and privatization dictates there should be no control over this television or internet medium by the central government. That means every one is free to show what ever they feel fit to show irrespective of the consequences either on adults or on children. The argument goes they watch so we produce. Most of the advanced countries like Germany, Japan are limiting the 24 hour program channels to a minimum completely eliminating 24 hour news channels. They are banning all children cartoon networks while limiting the time children watches the television. With out learning from their experience if we continue the pace of liberalization and privatization then in next 20 years we will be another destroyed colony of America and Europe. 4. Conclusion The question that we need to ask is not whether Indians-individuals or groups will benefit from any technological revolution or not. The question should be who benefits most? Whether India can benefit in long run or just for the next 5 years and then will be destroyed for ever will be known only after the fact happens. Diamond mining companies like De Beers, Dwyka are mining in South Africa since last 200 years. Trillions of dollars worth of diamonds were extracted from South Africa. Did South Africa became a first world nation? No. On the contrary South Africa contains highest crime rate and law and order problems in the African continent. Who benefited most from the diamond trade? Definitely De Beers? Did South African labor benefited. Yes in the short run. They got employed in the De Beers mines. Their income blown on liquor and immoral behavior, their active work life reduced only to 40 years, most of the diamond mining workers contacting aids, finally paid by De Beers close to 7 cents a mile to go back to their home villages to die. The AIDS epidemic is too high in South Africa that government revenue is not sufficient to tackle the vastly affected populations. With virtual control of South African mineral wealth under the iron clutches of De Beers, political governments are helpless. Any attempts to nationalize mineral wealth will call the wrath of Britain that will be ready to colonize S. Africa in 24 hours at the behest of De Beers. There is no shortage of labor pool for De Beers in South Africa with millions of Africans displaced in years of ethnic conflicts willing to work in these mines. The same story is repeated in the gold mines. This is not the thing of the past; it is even today repeated in South Africa. Why and how it should be different in Indian diamond mines? What are the checks and balances that we have? Did we try to understand why America banned De beers from doing business even today? For all who ask why should Britain re conquer S. Africa at the behest of De Beers, the answer is simple. The British economy runs and maintains the standards of living of British people with the revenues generated and taxes paid by hundreds of companies like De Beers and their trading partners. We have seen the economic control these MNCs exercise over Britain and USA in the previous section and media control in this section. For American British economies to survive, maintain their living standards they have no choice to side with these EICs turned MNCs. The story is same. In this context the Iraq war is of much significance and proves the point the extent to which Britain and USA go to protect the interests of these EICs turned MNCs under the slogan of ‘freedom for Iraqi people’. Also it is worth remembering in a glaring defiance of international law US, British after toppling Taliban government in Afghanistan virtually replanted the entire agrarian lands with opium crop, as the revenue from this crop in the international markets which amounts close to $ 500 billions is very much needed for the US economy to survive on yearly basis. Per day US needs $ 1.75 billion dollars investment inflow to sustain its standards of living. Apart from the Sep 11 bombing of WTC and Pentagon, which was never conclusively proved, the other silent crime of Mr. bin Laden or of Taliban was they destroyed the entire opium crops for three years chocking the supply of needed billions of dollars of cash for the survival of US and British economies. We know the official British policy was to protect EIC commerce which is mainly opium trade. It is these two countries, USA and Britain, the bastions of EICs turned MNCs today want to India to open up, not for charity. But they knew that India still has some unknown wealth even not known to Indians which is needed to secure their economic well being. So they benefit most from Liberalization and Privatization not us the innocent Indians. What we can pray is to save India from becoming another S. Africa, the poorest, disease ridden country despite the fact that she was number one producer of gold and diamonds for last 150 years. In the last part of this series we see liberalization and privatization in action in few countries. How these concepts paved for a total economic slavery of the nations, destruction of national values, disruption of family structure and finally break down of ethical and moral structure of the countries where these concepts were implemented. Exercise:-1. If you really want to know whether there is an unknown unexplained self imposed media control over Indian private news services, please does this exercise every day for a month and you can understand a pattern. This needs a computer and internet. a. Step-1. Go to b. Step-2. Take an international topic and print the same. c. Step-3. Take few English/Hindi language dailies and scan through the International News. It first amazes the reader to note that Reuters Story was reported in all Indian news papers as Reuters-England is the only provider of international news along with AP-France since 1900 to all interested countries. But what amazes more is if Reuters news reports about a particular international topic contains ten principal points no single Indian news paper will print all the ten points of that particular topic. As if an unwritten solidarity each Indian news paper prints one or two points of the ten principal points reported by Reuters. Also no two newspapers in most cases will repeat the same principal points. Such coincidence amazes the reader if he follows the news reporting in Indian media for a month. As an individual if I need international news perspective I can read directly Reuters where I get a summary of one side perspective of news. To get the same summary I have to ‘democratically read a dozen’ Indian news papers. [1] See Corporations as Machines-from pp 131-135, in “In the Absence of the Sacred-The failure of technology & the survival of Indian nations,” Jerry Mander, Sierra Club books, San Francisco, 1992. [2] “Barriers Down,” Kent Cooper, 1942. [3] William Hoffman, David, New York, Lyle-Stuart, 1971, pp 164-165 [4] United Press International, “Big Bank Dominance of firms described”, Arizona Republic, 7 January 1974. [5] Garry Allen, the Rockefeller File, Seal Bach, California, ‘76 Press, 1976, pp 386. [6] “Behind the demise of Family News Papers”, Alvin P. Sanoff , US News and World Report, 11 February, 1985, pp 59. [7] Hoffman, David, pp 50 [8] “Occasional Letter No. 1”, GEB, 1904. [9] Allen Gary, Rockefeller File pp 45. [10] Epperson, “The Unseen Hand” pp298. [11] The Great Technology, Harold Ruggs, pp 32. [12] Adam Ulman, “A History of Soviet Russia”, New York, Draeger Publishers, 1976, pp102. [13] Gary Allen, “Rockefeller-Campaigning for the new world order”, Belmont-MA-American Opinion, 1974, pp9 [14] Gary Allen, “Rockefeller-New world order” pp9
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 4 2003, 08:54 PM
Another one from BRaman .... Defence and the Treasury Department seems to understand Indian concerns, as do sections of the media and the House of Representatives but the same cannot be said for the Senate and the NSCS or the State Department, particularly its SA division. B. RAMAN
A joint hearing "to review US counter-terrorism policy toward Asia and the Pacific" was held at Washington DC from 1-30 to 5 PM on October 29, 2003, under the joint auspices of the sub-committees on Asia and the Pacific and on International Terrorism, Non-Proliferation and Human Rights of the House Committee on International Relations. The hearing was open to the public and the media. I received on October 10, 2003, a formal invitation to testify at the hearing from Mr.Henry J.Hyde, the Chairman of the House Committee. Before the formal invitation, his staff had informally sounded me as to whether I would be available for the hearing and would be willing to testify as a non-governmental expert. They also wanted to know what would be the theme of my testimony. I accepted the invitation and stated that my theme could be "Cross-border Terrorism in India and Afghanistan." In the formal invitation received subsequently, it was stated that during my testimony I should give my "assessment on cross-border terrorist challenges facing India and their implications for the counter-terrorism policies of the United States." The rules for witnesses communicated to me along with the invitation stated that I should submit well in advance a written testimony by e-mail so that it could be made available for those interested on the web site of the Committee before the hearing and that I should bring along with me 50 copies of it and hand them over to the staff so that they could have them circulated to those concerned. This was done by me. The full text of the advance written testimony along with its Executive Summary as prepared by me is available at the web site of the Committee, which also carries the testimonies of other witnesses, governmental as well as non-governmental. The text, without the Executive Summary, has also been available on this website: Enduring Terrorism I was also informed before I left for Washington DC that each witness would be allowed to make a personal testimony for 10 minutes at the joint hearing, which could be followed by questions by the members and discussions. The Joint Hearing The joint hearing, which was chaired by Mr. James Leach, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific, consisted of three parts. In the first part, the Chairman and each of the other seven members, who attended, made opening remarks for five minutes. In the second part, Mr.Cofer Black, Counter-terrorism Co-Ordinator in the State Department, Mrs. Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and Mr.Matthew P. Daley, Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of South-East Asia who used to be in charge of South Asia under the Clinton Administration, testified for 10 minutes each. Mr. Black used to head the Counter-Terroriosm Division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before he was posted as the Counter-Terrorism Co-Ordinator. Mr.Daley had served as the Deputy Head of Mission in the US Embassy in New Delhi during the 1990s and was closely involved in co-ordinating with the Indian authorities when the Pakistani Wahabi organisation Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), under the name Al Faran, kidnapped some Western tourists in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in 1995. While Mr.Black testified on the Administration's counter-terrorism policies in South as well as South-East Asia, Mrs. Rocca and Mr.Daley confined their testimonies to the region of which they are in charge. Their testimonies were followed by questions and discussions. In the third part, four non-Governmental experts -- three from the US and one from India -- had been invited to give their assessments. The three US experts were Dr.Timothy D.Hoyt, Associate Professor of Strategy and Policy at the US Naval War College, Prof. Zachary Abuza of the Simmons College, and Mr. Robert Oakley, former US Ambassador to Islamabad in the 1980s. While Prof.Abuza testified on terrorism in South-East Asia, the other two testified on that in South Asia. The joint hearing was not confined to only the terrorist situation in South Asia. There was also a discussion on other subjects such as the situation in South-East Asia, the violation of human rights in Myanmar by the military junta, narcotics production in Myanmar, Pakistan and Afghanistan and the US policy towards the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka. The Tilt The opening remarks of the Chairman and all the other members except Mr.Dan Burton and Mr.Dana Rohrabacher showed understanding and sympathy for the Indian position and indicated continuing concerns over the policies of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. However, Mr.Burton totally and Mr.Rohrabacher to some extent made no secret of their sympathies for Pakistan. Mr.Burton started his remarks by expressing his apprehensions over the possibility of the joint hearing turning into a Pakistan-bashing exercise. He then criticised the Government of India for avoiding the implementation of the UN Resolution calling for a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir and accused the Indian Army of serious human rights violations, including gang rape of Kashmiri women. Mr.Rohrabacher also spoke of alleged human rights violations and of the Kashmiris' right to self-determination. Countering Allegations Their attacks on India in their opening remarks created a dilemma for me as to whether I should, in my testimony, ignore them and use the 10 minutes allotted to me only for giving my assessment on the terrorist challenges facing India or whether I should utilise part of the time to rebut their allegations even at the cost of having less time for giving my assessment for which I had been invited. I decided that their allegations should not be allowed to go into the Congressional records without being rebutted. Therefore, with the permission of the Chairman, I utilised five minutes for rebutting them and five minutes for highlighting certain aspects of the terrorist situation. My testimony was followed by questions and discussions. A transcript of my oral testimony as recorded by the Congressional staff is appended to this. I have not corrected the spelling and grammatical mistakes in it. The Divide In The US Administration In the US Administration, the intelligence professionals, experts associated with the Defence Department and the Treasury Department, which co-ordinates the drive against terrorist funding, show more understanding of the Indian concerns relating to Pakistan's continued sponsorship of jihadi terrorism and the insincerity of its professed actions against terrorism. But, the State Department officials continue to show a reticence on this subject, equate India with Pakistan and praise Pakistan's contribution as an ally of the US in the war against terrorism. This has come out clearly in the recent report (May) of the US State Department on the Patterns of Global Terrorism during 2002, which has been drafted by the Counter-Terrorism Division of the State Department headed by Mr. Black and not by the South Asia Division headed by Mrs. Rocca, the recent orders of the Treasury Department freezing the bank accounts of Dawood Ibrahim and the Al Akhtar Trust of Pakistan, which has been accused of funding jihad in Iraq, and the recent Memo of Mr.Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, as reported in the US media, expressing his exasperation over the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After rebutting the anti-India allegations of Mr.Burton and Mr.Rohrabacher, I kept the focus of my remaining testimony on these documents of the US Government in order to make the sub-committees aware of the fact that what has been stated in these documents is at variance with the certificate of good performance given to Musharraf by Mrs. Rocca. Mr.Black also gave a certificate of good performance to Pakistan , but his was not as unqualified as hers. He did bring on record the role of Pakistani terrorists in J&K. The testimony of Dr. Hoyt was not unfavourable to India's position. Even though he is a non-governmental academic, he has been associated with the Pentagon and is hence likely to have been exposed to their internal debates and analyses. Mrs. Rocca had a difficult time answering pointed questions from the members on the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist, the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in it, the failure of the Musharraf Government to effectively enforce the ban on the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, the insincerity of his action against the jihadi madrassas and terrorist funding, the alienation of the Sindhis, the increase in narcotics production etc. She was mostly evasive in replying to these questions. One noted with interest during the testimony by the officials of the Bush Administration as well as during my discussions with other interlocutors after the hearing as to how the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) in Rawalpindi in March last is being projected by them as the greatest triumph in their war against terrorism. KSM's name is being dropped by them at every conceivable opportunity. The Bush Administration has been facing one disaster after another in Iraq and the situation in Afghanistan has been deteriorating since August. The only success stories worth bragging about so far have been the arrest of four senior Al Qaeda operatives (Abu Zubaida, Ramzi Binalshibh, KSM and Waleed Bin Attash) in Pakistan and of Hambali of the Jemaah Islamiya in Thailand. As the Presidential elections approach, they will keep focussing on these perceived success stories in order to divert attention away from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Musharraf will continue to be a beneficiary of this policy as they look upon him as having facilitated these successes. In the US, there is increasing understanding of the Indian position in sections of the media and in the House of Representatives. Many share our doubts about the sincerity of Musharraf, but the same cannot be said of the State Department and the National Security Council Secretariat and the support for our views is still to be felt strongly in the Senate. On October 30, I participated in a discussion on the situation in J&K in the office of Congressman Jack Pallone. I made the same points as I had at the joint hearing and handed over to his staff a copy of my advance written testimony. B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Convenor, Advisory Committee, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 5 2003, 02:39 PM GAUTAM ADHIKARI [ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2003 12:01:12 AM ]
At a gathering in a Washington suburban home on the eve of Diwali, Vijay Kelkar, special advisor to the finance minister, painted an upbeat picture of India's prospects over the next decade, the dawning of its golden age, as he called it. While possibly sounding over-optimistic to the uninitiated, he made a reasonable forecast of India's economic performance based on trends as well as evidence of actual growth in the last decade averaging 6 per cent. This year the rate is likely to jump to 7.5 and stay up for years. A US congressman who was present wondered why India shouldn't prepare itself to play a larger role in global affairs. In 2001, the size of India's economy ranked fourth in the world in purchasing power terms. With good growth since then, it may have improved on that by beating out Japan for third place, after the US and China, even as it integrates with the global economy. Ah, if only. I suggested to the congressman later that one way of improving India's voice and capacity to play a global role would be to make it a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Like China, it too would then feel compelled to take consequential positions on global matters. Yes, but that ain't going to happen until you work out your problem with Pakistan. The Pakistanis wouldn't let it happen, he replied. That's the problem of the hyphen. For too many Americans even in this post-post-Cold War era, India and Pakistan are still two sides of the same subcontinental coin. It is almost always India-Pakistan in one breath for them. And, regrettably, too many Indians continue to behave in a manner that tends to reinforce the hyphen and confirm an erroneous belief that attempts to separate the US-India and US-Pakistan relationships are useless because of the zero-sum nature of the India-Pakistan equation. Although there are recent signs of change in this attitude, Indians have a long way to go before they can convince Americans at large that today there is simply no moral or strategic equivalence between India and Pakistan, if there ever was any. Treating the two on par or tilting towards Pakistan during the Cold War may have made strategic sense for the US; it may even have had some value in the post-Cold War era from 1989 to September 2001, when for much of the period Pakistan was at least trying hard, against heavy odds, to be a democracy. But in this post-post-Cold War era of global war on terrorism, kicked off by 9/11, such balancing between the two makes little strategic sense. Perceptions have to change, in India and in the US. At home, Indians, especially those of the nationalist right, have to stop catching the fever of anti-Pakistanism — with its side-effect of delirious anger at America — every time Pervez Musharraf, or whichever general may be in power in Islamabad, sneezes or the Americans say something polite to the Pakistanis. We have to convince our extremists before we persuade others that a disintegrated, chaotic, nuclear-armed Pakistan is against India's vital interests while a stable, democratic and prosperous Pakistan is what we want and would actively urge the world to help promote. Thinking Indians are aware of the extreme danger of a Pakistan falling apart. this is an opinion as opposed to being news and as usual Indian journalists do not even make a cursory attempt to separate the two. It is another matter that such a proposition fails the falsifiiability criterion. There is no criterion or method by which it can be proven false, and hence cannot be accepted as a valid proposition or hypothesis Altering perceptions in the US will take time. India should perhaps develop a well-crafted strategy of public diplomacy to speed up the process, in slow motion today, of educating Americans about its extraordinary economic, social and political evolution in recent years and its almost inevitable economic and strategic centrality in the world of the near future. This can't be done by promoting exotic India or spiritual India. It is today's India and the India of the future that Americans need to know more about. Such a strategy will start from the premise that the average American learns little about India. The his-tory of Indian civilisation is not a part of most public school curricula, while those that do teach something tend to breeze through a few thousand years in a couple of days. Modern India, with its one billion people living in a free market democracy, is barely taught anywhere. Very few universities have India or South Asia studies programmes and those that have are usually not well-funded. That's not the case with China or Japan studies. In the mass media, India rarely figures unless there is a disaster or an Indo- Pakistan crisis or an exotic story on a nature channel. A few quality newspapers, such as the Washington Post and The New York Times, cover India fairly well but most US newspapers and radio, apart from public radio occasionally, rarely have anything to offer on India. And although some think tanks in Washington have started India or South Asia programmes, all of them face uncertainty over funding. starting a south asia program is a retrograde step. it does very little for India The wealth and brain-power of Indian-Americans have lately drawn attention and their growing, but still tiny, influence in politics and business has begun to produce greater awareness of Indians and the India of today. But a lot needs to happen before the image of India in the US alters sufficiently to render obsolete the India-Pakistan hyphen and put in its place an economically and strategically enmeshed US relationship with an emerging, powerful India that supersedes the tactical imperatives of US-Pakistan ties.
Posted by: vishal Nov 6 2003, 01:56 PM
Kaushal, Mr. gautam adhikari's interests are in hormonic with some rich americans' interests. He forgot to say one thing that "america always works looking at self-interest.America don't make friendship,they make joint interests" when these people will learn these things? unsure.gif
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 7 2003, 01:52 AM
I think it is wrong on the part of the Govt. of India to ask USA to deliver Dawood from Pakistan. It only encourages guys like Cohen interfering in India's internal affairs. Bharat should USA to mind her problems with terror, Bharat will take care of her terror problems from Pakistan. So the message should be: thanks, but no thanks. Don't interfere. Pakistan if it emerges as a major strategic problem facing India, it will as well emerge as a major strategic problem facing USA. The Islamic nuke will first fall on USA soil and not on any city in Bharat because many Muslims in Bharat. I hope guys running outfits like ORF inviting guys like Cohen tell him about this possible scenario caused by an Islamic bomb in the hands of a failed state run by mullahs. Kalyanaraman NEW DELHI: The United States is deliberating a "forward leaning positive role" in Kashmir to avoid a "nuclear accident" between India and Pakistan, according to a leading expert on South Asia. "It will not be mediation, not even facilitation. (If I were) an Indian I will welcome it," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow in the foreign policy studies programme of the Brookings Institute in Washington. One of the things being discussed in the US was the setting up of a "high-level White House group to look at India and Pakistan and indirectly at Kashmir", he said, speaking on US-India relations late Thursday at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank here. "You can't have two nuclear weapon states come to the brink of war. SUS mulling proactive role: Cohen IANS[ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2003 11:21:38 AM ]ooner or later there is going to be a mistake. Both Pakistan and India have made mistakes. Even a single nuclear detonation can lead to catastrophe," asserted Cohen. "Repeated major crises can slip into accidents." India, which is strongly opposed to any third-party role in resolving the Kashmir dispute, would not be averse to the US playing such a role, Cohen felt. "India sees an American role in Pakistan as useful," according to him. Much of the war-like preparations by India last year were a deliberate ploy to put pressure on Pakistan. According to Cohen, Pakistan needed an "international rescue operation, but it has to change some of its policies". "I think Pakistan will survive," he said in response to a question. "I don't think the state will fail because the army will stay together. But the systems, like education, are failing and Pakistan could emerge as a major strategic problem facing India. "Pakistan is a paranoid state but it is a paranoid state with enemies. Pakistan has genuine concerns about India." Asked by former Indian Army chief, General (retd) V P Malik, whether a resolution of the Kashmir issue would end Islamabad's adversarial attitude towards India, Cohen said: "If Kashmir is solved, a lot of other issues will also be solved. "I don't think Kashmir can be resolved. It can be managed better," he said. To a question about the US reaction to India's turning down a request for troops for Iraq, Cohen said while the general American public did not bother, "India baiters" would hold it against the country. There was also "deep anger and disappointment" among senior American officials who had thought India would send troops. "They feel 'India let us down'," he said.
Posted by: Ram Nov 7 2003, 07:02 AM
Gentlemen, my 2 cents. While USA's Cohenista type hypocrisy is there for all to see, lets also acknowledge some positive developments. Recall, when Kammandu Musa came to Agra, he was all pumped up, even refusing to acknowledge that there is any such thing as terrorism in Paki land and J&K. He thought he will just walk over India. Today, Musa's bluff is exposed, thanks in part to USA. If not for USA publicly ackowledging that Pakis are the principle source of terror (of couse, they say 'violence', but I'll take it anyway), Musa would still be clinging to his 'freedom fighting' tune. Even this so called bogus 'peace process' underway has a US hand in my opinion. We don't see too many suicide attacks do we? Looks like some quid pro quo is underway. Pakis go slow on terror, and India gradually resumes dialogue. I don't like this approach because it rewards Pakis, but the hidden US hand is there for all to see. Cheers Ram
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 7 2003, 08:07 AM
>this approach because it rewards Pakis, but the hidden US hand is there for all to see. Absolutely, after my recent visit to the desh it became amply clear that the unseen hand of the US is working the puppets. Also note the strong push by the US to culturally move the Indian elite towards themselves and there by facilitate the control process. The creation of a new Indian elite drawing income from the US based industries is another step in this process. My only question is whether we are going to again play ourselves into the hands of the anglosphere- i.e a replay of the British hegemony in a form befitting this day and age. user posted image
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 7 2003, 08:59 AM
The key to avoid such outcomes is to think independently. It is not worthwhile taking positions simply because they are de rigeur or the fashion of the day. Rest assured that powerful nation states always try to influence those that are less powerful by any and all means. That is the way it has been through antiquity and that is the way it will continue to be. It is up to India to decipher the code. While eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, it behooves a nation to be proactive and to give as good as she gets
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 7 2003, 11:38 AM IANS[ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2003 11:21:38 AM ] Stephen Cohen NEW DELHI: The United States is deliberating a "forward leaning positive role" in Kashmir to avoid a "nuclear accident" between India and Pakistan, according to a leading expert on South Asia. K - so what else is new. The US had a forward leaning policy in 1962 when it asked India to gift Kashmir over to Pakistan. "It will not be mediation, not even facilitation. (If I were) an Indian I will welcome it," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow in the foreign policy studies programme of the Brookings Institute in Washington. K - we are all dying of curiosity as to the word they will use to describe this non-mediation. Kissinger where are you when you are needed One of the things being discussed in the US was the setting up of a "high-level White House group to look at India and Pakistan and indirectly at Kashmir", he said, speaking on US-India relations late Thursday at the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank here. "You can't have two nuclear weapon states come to the brink of war. Sooner or later there is going to be a mistake. Both Pakistan and India have made mistakes. Even a single nuclear detonation can lead to catastrophe," asserted Cohen. "Repeated major crises can slip into accidents." K - Really ? Stop this equal equal crock of fertilizer. Welcome to the rest of the world dear Stephen, where we have lived under the shadow of hair trigger alerts for a half a century. Incidentally these hair trigger alerts are still in place. If the US is really sincere about avoiding a nuclear conflcit in the Indian subcontinent, it should defang and denuke Pakistan . That would take care of the problem India, which is strongly opposed to any third-party role in resolving the Kashmir dispute, would not be averse to the US playing such a role, Cohen felt. "India sees an American role in Pakistan as useful," according to him. K - Oh yeah, this is news to most of us. Much of the war-like preparations by India last year were a deliberate ploy to put pressure on Pakistan. K - Tell us something new According to Cohen, Pakistan needed an "international rescue operation, but it has to change some of its policies". "I think Pakistan will survive," he said in response to a question. K - this will ensure dear Stephen will be invited onemore time to the terrorist state. "I don't think the state will fail because the army will stay together. But the systems, like education, are failing and Pakistan could emerge as a major strategic problem facing India. K - so what else is new. Pakistan has been a strategic problem for India for 5 decades, in no small measure because of the actions of the US, but India has managed quite well thank you. "Pakistan is a paranoid state but it is a paranoid state with enemies. Pakistan has genuine concerns about India." K - this is classic. First ignore the fact that Pakistan has invaded India 4 times, 5 if you are paying close attention, and then say Pakistan has genuine concerns about India. Unless Pakistan is led by blithering idiots, it better have a genuine concern about India Asked by former Indian Army chief, General (retd) V P Malik, whether a resolution of the Kashmir issue would end Islamabad's adversarial attitude towards India, Cohen said: "If Kashmir is solved, a lot of other issues will also be solved. K - This indicates the gulf between the Indian position and that of the US "I don't think Kashmir can be resolved. It can be managed better," he said. To a question about the US reaction to India's turning down a request for troops for Iraq, Cohen said while the general American public did not bother, "India baiters" would hold it against the country. There was also "deep anger and disappointment" among senior American officials who had thought India would send troops. "They feel 'India let us down'," he said. K - since we are on the subject of equal equal, what about the umpteen times the US has let India down by mollycoddling the terrorist state. Let us start with the Patton tanks that Eisenhower gifted to the terrorist state , clearly intended to be used against India
Posted by: vishal Nov 7 2003, 12:23 PM
Kaushal, China's ICBM and nuclear capability has eliminated USA as the power dictating terms to China in Asia. US anti-missile defence system assumes correctly that all pro -western countries in Asia would be China's " hostages". China's concern is India becoming China's regional rival with or without a partnership with the West.. India's non-political- scientist-President is absolutely right in suggesting the development of home-grown dual purpose technology for India's survival in centuries to come. So, right now USA has two priorities in long future as well as short future in ASIA.You can say its their permanent interest to, 1)do anything,offer india technology to develope LCA or offer Arrow missile system(but without know-how) but prevent INDIA to start making ICBM.THIS will eliminate INDIA as a threat in ANY CASE(worst or semi-worst). NOW remains CHINA the only power in ASIA and in WORLD standing at shoulder's height of USA.So USA have two ways to eliminate CHINA. IT is, 1)Lure india towards USA and make rift between India and CHINA by making their relations weak and weaker(Challenge for USA :: do anything,offer nuclear submarines to india but avoid joint relations of INDIA and CHINA IN MILITARY EXCERCISES or say joint navy patrolling of ASIA region in future.BECAUSE this will eliminate "USA" from ASIA) 2)Take healp of india and make him to help break china. (Chances are very rare that india will do suicide by accepting such coalition with USA) so, i am greatly suspicious about no.1 i.e. make india good friend without connecting it to china issue.But this friendship with USA will be CONDITIONAL in FUTURE for INDIA and condition will be "AVOID CHINA military relations". so prepare for some more gifts from unkil in near future like MCA help or coalition in technology.!!! rolleyes.gif cool.gif (remember my point no.1) so my strategy for INDIA for next 4 decades is or say permanent Indian stragey for ASIA is, 1)step up economic relations with CHINA. 2)In next decade propose CHINA a joint ARMY excercise and joint Airforce Training excercise. 3)MAke relations with PLA senior commanders and then see unkil's as* burning. cool.gif 4)at same time keep every1 balanced like it is today e.g. muslim states,sindh,baluchistan(TSP will disintegrate by that time) and other usual RUssia etc.
Posted by: vishal Nov 7 2003, 12:28 PM
Believe it or not but its always better to have friend like expansionist CHINA(call it whatever u like) compared to UN-Reliable WEST. cool.gif Some reasons behind prefering CHINA OVER USA :: 1) CHINA is our neighbour.We share border with her.(okay...its disputed i know i know... rolleyes.gif )It adds more reliability and strength and security to have your close friend. 2)USA is thousands miles away and un-reliable(no???....okay go and check whole american history and their pshychology) so who will care if they left india alone tobe eaten by china.(Principle is Divide and rule.....i think you got who two here are : india and china rolleyes.gif ) so guys instead of talking about ARMS RACE with china, lets talk about ARMS-RACE + good relations === win win situation for INDIA.(silly BR-ITES will never understand this thing....bcoz they are most wise people on earth laugh.gif _ thanks.
Posted by: vishal Nov 7 2003, 12:41 PM
so if you have read above two paragraphs then its clear now that USA has began implementing strategy no.1 with india.i.e. 1)current close ARMY-NAVY-Air-force relations with INDIA. 2)At same time forced india to delay(or should i explain delay-delay-delay loop.....and in mean time kill talented man-power rolleyes.gif ) AGNI-III(semi-ICBM???) program. 3)Now lets see if india is successfull in engaging CHINA in next year's(when??) NAVY joint operations.I am sure india will be feeling HOT from USA on this. 4) also note one more thing USA has started social reverse engineering of indian leaders and maybe indians(?) by showing indians(NRI) in limelight (read recent news...appointing indians at senior positions in bush govt. and various awards) so that to turn USA's only obstacle our great parliament power(our Netas) to their side vis-a-vis china directly or indirectly. laugh.gif thanks.
Posted by: vishal Nov 7 2003, 12:57 PM
QUOTE (Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 7 2003, 08:37 PM)
>this approach because it rewards Pakis, but the hidden US hand is there for all to see. Absolutely, after my recent visit to the desh it became amply clear that the unseen hand of the US is working the puppets. Also note the strong push by the US to culturally move the Indian elite towards themselves and there by facilitate the control process. The creation of a new Indian elite drawing income from the US based industries is another step in this process. My only question is whether we are going to again play ourselves into the hands of the anglosphere- i.e a replay of the British hegemony in a form befitting this day and age. user posted image
yessss! the same thing i was trying to say....thanks smile.gif it is called Social Reverse Engineering of indians. cool.gif (by the way BR-ites are their first victim...since they are singing western tunes....isn't it? ROTFL.gif )
Posted by: vishal Nov 7 2003, 02:15 PM
I agree 100% with kalyanji smile.gif (are you of my uncle's age?? huh.gif )
Posted by: acharya Nov 7 2003, 03:50 PM
QUOTE (Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 7 2003, 03:07 AM)
Absolutely, after my recent visit to the desh it became amply clear that the unseen hand of the US is working the puppets. Also note the strong push by the US to culturally move the Indian elite towards themselves and there by facilitate the control process. The creation of a new Indian elite drawing income from the US based industries is another step in this process. My only question is whether we are going to again play ourselves into the hands of the anglosphere- i.e a replay of the British hegemony in a form befitting this day and age. user posted image
This is a good comment. The US has many leverages with India. The overall shift of India towards the US camp after 1991 with Isreal in the beginning is a trend to be watched. The western camp has always thought of India has a historic anglo region fromt he colonial days. The elite in India have been captured from the last 30 years. US is working on the new generation. The only way to break it is to break the control over the media inside India. Internet is helping to do it . But India needs a Bharat centric force of history which will keep a bharat vision inside the minds of the youngsters It is happening but is small. A new intellectual revolution is needed and my beleif is that by 2007 India will have a major intellectual revolution with many authors and public bringing up the bharat vision. This bhrat vision should be from the heart of the bharatiyas and will show a vision for India's place in the world. THis bharat vision is in Kalams vision 2020 which is a subset of the bharat vision.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 7 2003, 05:08 PM
I agree we need a Bharat-centric vision for India. But i do not believe that there is a long term secular (not the meaning we are used to , here it means noncyclical) trend drawing India into the US orbit. There are far too many differences for that. As long as Pakistan is pointing her guns at India,and as long as the US is showering affection and $ on the Paki military, there can be no closeness between India and the US. It is this fundamental message that US has not grasped. It tries to win over the elite through the back door. But India is a vast country with a million mutinies going on at any one time. It is impossible even for a country with the vast resources of the US to get her arms around all that is happening in India. All they can do is scratch the surface. We should not evaluate the US relationship from the point of view of the US (although that can form a useful exercise)but from a Bharatiya centric view. IOW what is in it for India. If we are getting substantial economic benefit from the US connexion, then we have to weigh that against the adverse impact on Indian security caused by the mollycoddling of Musharaff. There is no question that the US will not let the Paki milito-mullacracy fail. The question is why and what impact that has on the long term security of India. I am trying to find the article arindam wrote for where he makes a persuasive case that despite mighty efforts by the US to prop up TSP as a rival to India , India dwarfs Pakistan both economically and militarily. Right now i believe it is advantageous for india to humor the Americans. I think we should have been more sympathetic to the US request for troops in iraq, knowing very well that they wanted to set up India in a untenable situation. We need a couple of these instances where India is in a position to save the bacon for the US. Lets not worry about how it benefits the US (that is useful for quid pro quo negotiations) but ask ourselves what is best for India. If on the other hand we determine that the mollycoddling of the Pakis is too injurious to India's security then we should relegate good relations with the US to to a lesser status. But under no circumstances should India be influenced by potential feelings of dislike for the Americans or a visceral anti-americanism. India should improve relations with China. But China does not have an adequate stake in India to give up 'our israel', the sole purpose o fthe Paki relationship being to neutralize India above the himalayas. It will take decades to build up a relationship with China. At the very least the trade numbers should be in the hundreds of billions of $, it is only then that China will look upon India as a country with a stake. Till then we have to rely on the sole Russian connexion and try not to antagonize the sole superpower.
Posted by: acharya Nov 7 2003, 05:27 PM
I don not agree with you kaushal regarding US interest in India. check this out East India Company's (EICs) Noble Motives and Glorified Commodities In the year 1600 East India Company was formed and given exclusive right to trade with India and south east Asia by British Monarchy under the concept of Free Trade and Globalization. It was also given the right to civilize India. In the year 1965 club of Rome (top industrial houses-real owners of EICs or MNCs) divided the world in 10 economic segments and gave unbridled authority to ruthlessly exploit Segment 9 (India belongs to this segment 9) a group of mineral (diamond, gold, uranium, life saving medicinal plants, organic food and drinking water) oil natural gas rich south east Asian nations consisting one third of population of world- under liberalization (liberalize domestic economy to globalize its owners) and privatization (privatize so that Free Trade can further control domestic economy via global owners) to a group of MNCs. This article examines the group of MNCs involved, and tries to trace back the current ownership of these MNCs to the same owners, controllers of East India Companies 400 years earlier. Also we wish to present that the ideologies of trade are same as far as EICs or MNCs are concerned, what changed was just a flip of words. It is the same grand children of the original owners of East India Company which subjugated us ruthlessly, exploited miserably, slaughtered close to millions of innocents for sheer economic gain and to dislodge whom India took almost 100 years of intense struggle. We never recovered from the economic, social land geographical loss of that oppressive British EIC rule. It is the reemergence of this colonial monster EICs as MNCs in the modern time again to help modernize and civilize India may lead to another round of 400 year spiritual disaster-the only strength that we retained from being commercialized, if we do not watch the real intentions and motivations of these EICs turned MNCs and their Indian collaborators-domestic Indian Partners. Introduction East India Companies (EICs) What we Know East India Company, a group of British Merchants joined together and formed a company and British Dutch French Belgium Kings Gave unbridled charter rights to Trade over vast India China, Far East Asia and Africa. This company had 40 owners. They elected a governor, a deputy governor and a board consisting of 24 directors. The same structure identically followed when Bank of England was Chartered. Who are these 40 share holders/owners of this company. Also East India Company is not one but 4 companies chartered in 4 different countries and all are owned by the same owners ruled by same governor, deputy governor and elected directors. They are British East India Company, French East India Company, Belgium East India Company and Dutch East India Company. We also know that in 1858 one of these four, British East India Company was relieved from managing India and India became part of British Empire. While other East India companies functioned until late 20th Century. This series is written in Four Parts. Part -1 examines the Origin of these EICs, their motives and the motives of MNCs along with the commodities EICs dealt with and MNCs going to deal with or dealing with. This East India Company’s commodities of trade were praised by both Adam Smith-Father of Modern Economics- and Karl Marx-Father of Democratic Socialism or Communism-as necessary for civilizing mankind and making it noble. The Part-2 examines the elusive owners of these MNCs and trace back their roots to East India Company. But in reality East India Companies-British East India Company, French East India Company and Dutch East India Company-in their noble cause of civilizing mankind looted close to $ 1.6 trillion worth of wealth from the countries they traded with. Ruthlessly exploited more than dozen countries by selling their subjects as slaves. Killed more than 100 million people in order to maximize their profit and minimize their cost, encouraged wholesale addiction of opium among 30 million people, created more than 30 famines all across the nations. These gigantic behemoth East India Companies were the true Multinationals of their time. They disappeared from the face of earth-we should believe so-and reappeared as Multi National Corporations controlled by the same owners their heirs successors. This part examines the origin of these industrial houses that owned EICs and the other industrial houses that were involved with these East India Companies. In the Part-3 we examine why the above facts never come to light. This section examines the media (print, electronic-television, movies) control exercised by the same EICs in those days and MNCs today. In Part-4 we see the behemoth MNCs economic, media power in action-Liberalization and Privatization. How these two noble concepts since 1935-1995 bankrupted 20 countries in South America, Russia, robbed them from their trillions of dollars mineral, oil and natural gas wealth and plunged these countries in perpetual debt, governments in total chaos, leadership in perennial disarray, people in damning despotism, all the while killing millions in unwanted unnecessary conflicts just to sell their arms to fight and medicines to cure injuries. Then we depict the Indian scenario, and advise the reader to draw his own conclusion as to the progress of (thrusting through neck of Indians by manipulating state central governments) Liberalization and Privatization in India in the above light-as EICs projected that Free Trade will help Indians-, and to reexamine the need to change our course of action surely to save millions of Indians from sure path of destruction. The Beginning The East India Company (the "Company") was one of the institutions created as a product of the Venetian Merchants takeover of England’s commerce. In England it was called British East India Company. The Levant Company, set up to trade with the East, had been formed in 1592 as a fusion of the Turkey Company (with predominant partnership by house of Sassoon, fathers- in-law of Rothschild) and the Venice Company (probably the House of Rothschild). In 1600. The East India Company was formed as a spin-off (subsidiary of) of the Levant Company. It received a perpetual charter from the British Monarchy for a monopoly on trade with the East Indies. This east india company had many partners under various names belonging to various nations, Dutch, British, Belgium and French East India Companies and Dutch, British and French East African Companies and received same perpetual charters from all these countries. Most importantly The Levant Company or Turkey Company or The Venice Company and East India Companies are all partnerships. Meaning they need not declare their profits, nor assets nor the partner names or addresses. An appointed representative of the company will file returns and act as liaison of the principal owners. Worst with East India Company was, it was a subsidiary of The Levant Company. As we see with many Multi National Companies (MNCs) that are forming partnership in India are also Subsidiaries of some other holding companies, and these holding companies in turn are subsidiaries of another set of numbered companies and these numbered companies in turn are held in trusts and these trusts are held in partnership, and the partnership address is a P.O. Box number some where in Central London or in New York. We see only the officers and lawyers of these MNCs not the real owners. It is the identification of the ownership of these MNCs and EICs will solve the puzzle of disappeared EICs, a puzzle probably except Japan none in Asia ever understood, Indians never thought of it so never worried about it and do not care about it. Who are these 40 persons who owned this company? Why did British government pledged its soldiers for this company for next 400 years conquering every land this company touched? Where did the money they made in the company go? To British government or to the owners? How much money they made? What are the commodities these traders traded? Why after 275 years after its inception when this British East India Company was dissolved, all properties were absorbed by Lloyds-a behemoth of Shipping Insurance under writing and investment Bank- which is a subsidiary of N.M. Rothschild & Co. Though after Mrs. Victoria proclaimed India as part of British Empire why the Indian affairs were run by Privy Council, and Chancellor Exchequer of British Treasury who happened to be all the time the Chairman of Bank of England, another Family bank of House of Rothschild. And finally why Sir Stafford Cripps, another Chancellor Exchequer and Bank of England Chairman, and a representative of EICs in 1946 decides that India has to be given independence because one of the reasons put forwarded by him for the cause of independence was "the revenue from India was not enough to cover the expenses of running India." This gave plenipotentiary powers to Mr. Mountbatten to decide on the spot with out any consultation with British parliament, the fate of India. The same Cripps never recommended independence to South Africa till 1970s as there are still diamonds and gold to extract from S. African mines and finally the need for giving independence was realized when the "revenue from S. Africa was less than expenditures." For the great job of brutal oppression in S. Africa the last white president of S. Africa Mr. Pik Botha was given a general amnesty. But to believe, assume, think, analyze, ponder and understand that the heirs of these EICs of Mr. Cripps and others who run these immense MNCs suddenly in 1997 realized that "let us go and spend billions of dollars in India, civilize it, modernize it for the benefit of billion Indians whose culture is very old and whose food (spicy) every body likes" just shows the wild fantasies of Bollywood, Tollywood, Mollywood cultures that imbibed in our mental thinking process. Neither their grand fathers came with a charity motto nor these MNCs came with a real intention of developing India. It is obvious that, with the given most latest technology in underground mineral discoveries, the heirs of EICs and current owners of MNCs have definite information about definite material or human resources which should be worth trillions of dollars that Mr.Cripps did not had a chance to have in 1946. If Mr. Cripps had such information then EICs/British Raj would have continued till the last worthy piece is extracted and would have saved lot of time for grand sons/heirs to form MNCs and come with novel idea of liberalization and privatization. To believe that ruthless business men for 400 years who toppled kingdoms, redrawn geographies, killed more than 200 million people in umpteen wars in last 100 years, suddenly transformed in to mendicants because they love India is also great wishful thinking of Hollywood style. We have to find first, if possible from our central and state governments as to whether they knew what these huge EICs/MNCs found in terms of material and human resources. If our governments (local, state, central) did not know what is there in India, then probably it is better, as liberalization privatization advocates plead, to let these MNCs do their modern EIC job perfectly, as it assures "civilizing and modernizing India." If our governments did not know then it is the job of every responsible citizen to know as like Dr. Ambedkar said we have to educate first and become informed citizens then only we can defend our country or republic or sovereignty. It took 100 years to get rid of EICs but it will take less than 20 years to get the MNCs in if we are not vigilant, as "Eternal Vigilance is the pride of Liberty" as this liberty we earned for the Republic of India was on the sacrifices of many millions of souls who opposed the oppression, economic exploitation, moral ethical bankruptcy of colonizers, highly racist hate based intolerance of the white British Merchants and Rulers. By reversing this independence swaraj in 50 years, which was achieved by Mahatma’s Swadeshi Satyagraha, or Tilak’s heroic struggle for birth right to be free and self governed, or of Bose’s gallant battle to dislodge British to have a united India, shows callous attitudes of subjects and rulers and blatant refusal to understand the historical facts and truths that will haunt not only us but our coming generations. Satyameva Jayate should not only be on the logo of constitution or confined to Mahatma’s biographies, it has to transform our lives as this satya or truth alone is worth defending and beholding as it is "dharma-truth in action in real life". Objectives of EICs and MNCs Names EICs 1600 - 1900 MNCs 1995 - Current 1985 - 1995 1935 - 1985 Concentration Whole World India Russia S.America (20 Countries) Objectives 1.FreeTrade 2.Globalization 1.Privatization 2.Liberalization 1 Peristroika 2.Glasmonausdt 1 Privatize 2.Liberalize The main objective of the EICs were two fold. 1. Globalization of Trade. Excessive production of commodities within the European Nations needed a continuous markets for them to sell. Europe with its limited population cannot absorb this onslaught of commodities which are mostly of durable in nature like clothes. So they needed new consumers for their commodities which was provided by the Asian Markets who accounted more than 1 billion (China and India alone) during that time around 1800. Free Trade. They wanted unrestricted authority to trade (sell or buy) the goods they manufactured or desired from all colonies. Who ever opposed their view were occupied conquered destroyed. For this free trade to flourish first nobody should manufacture the commodities that Europeans manufactured as then the competition will exist. So first they destroyed the domestic production of the goods that Europeans manufactured. In India for example British destroyed the cloth manufacturers to sell their cloth. But there are many European kingdoms who are at the same wanted the same markets to sell their goods. These kingdoms formed in to three camps. Spain Portugal Italy fall in one camp led by Italy (European Catholics). Germany, Hungary and Austria in other camp led by Germany (European Protestants). Britain, France, Holland and Belgium in another camp EICs led by British (Anglo Venetian Merchants later called Anglo Dutch Aristocratic Elite or ADAE). They nobly and benevolently divided the world in 1875 under concert of Nations (fore runner of League of nations and United Nations) in to colonies and each traded with a group of colonies. If these colonies were not producing enough for each of these groups then they fought with each other to get the markets and resources. At the beginning of 20th century Japan and USA joined the ADAE lobby. By mid of 20th century Japan broke of with ADAE and joined the German lobby. Same way Russia first joined German lobby then came to ADAE lobby. Since 1995 Russia with its Balkan republics is on its own lobby. Since 1975 Japan has its own lobby internationally. When all these groups engaged in mutual fighting then it became World Wars. When individual members are fought over few colonies then depending on who controlled media these wars are called "saving Civilization" to "saving mankind" to "protecting Freedom" to "protecting democracies" or "pirate wars", to "aggression" to "robbery" to "destruction of civilization." In the 20th century when almost all EICs colonies became independent countries and got rid of all European colonialists. The above groups lost most valuable markets. Most of these colonies became either Socialist Nations, Communist nations, or Monarchies. They wanted to do their own things, produce their own commodities and live their own lives. But then what happens to the European nations who now produce more weapons, clothes, electronic equipment, and possess vast oil reserves. Who will buy all these. How to make these colonies buy the stuff they make. First is blocking the technology of production. With out technology no one can produce anything. The second step re own these colonies once again not physically or politically but economically. So in 20th century EICs all are scrapped and they were given rebirth as MNCs. These MNCs have mostly belong to all the above group of nations and want like EICs uninterrupted trading rights to sell their products, exploit resources and manufacture goods including food and water in all these former colonies. But these colonies are now ruled by different forms of political governments. But MNCs need only economic resources to manufacture and human resources (people) to sell. Thus for all socialist and communist forms of governments a new concept of Liberalization and Privatization was evolved. For Monarchies and Dictatorial forms of government the concept of "freedom" and "democracy" was coined. (see this current war with Iraq is for Freedom and Democracy of Iraqi people). The concept of preaching these socialist communist nations to privatize and liberalize can be defined as Privatization. Asking the governments not to control resource bases of their own countries, encourage native governments to sell government industries to private people. Then the private people in the small countries may not be that rich to buy these huge corporations which run in to billions of dollars. Then come the Liberalization. The above group of nations that used to trade under various EICs will come to these colonies as MNCs and invest there via domestic partners to buy privatized public industry and thus develop these countries to become modern and civilized. MNCs want no government or people control on resource utilization or commodity selling. MNCs want to decide as what people should consume (perishable non perishable goods), what people should enjoy (music, cinema and Television), and how people should live (where to live and how to travel travel-whether to use diesel or natural gas for their cars etc) what people should know (what to read, learn, analyze and how to teach). MNCs just want the local national governments to protect their economic interests in all the above fields. Same thing happened with EICs. They allowed local national governments like monarchs etc to rule as long as they allow them to do what ever they wanted to do. Once local, national leaders say no to EICs they occupied them and ruled directly. MNCs, as they control what people should know (media) will immediately launch a media attack to mould public opinion on any local, national government that goes against their interests as regressive, racist, rightwing and will replace them with another government of their choice if these governments are democratic in form. These governments (state and central), after MNCs enter do not control anything within their countries including their own operating budgets except their political right to rule. Even to fight a political battle and enforce their rule these parties need vast amounts of money that is liberally provided by private corporate funding channeled via MNCs donations anyway. Once MNCs fully take over any nation nations and leaders are as helpless as kings and princes under EICs. In those days when EICs bought their noble commodities to China under Free Trade and Globalization, and wanted unrestricted authority to sell the commodities Chinese emperor said they do not need these commodities as these commodities do not advance human civilization and values. EICs were enraged. All the above groups declared war on China stating that they have to civilize the Chinese people. England, Germany, France, Hungary, Russia, United States of America, Spain, Portugal Italy all at once engaged China and divided the country for next 25 years to sell their valuable products they thought will advance Chinese civilization. This war occurred in the year 1900 and is called Boxer War. Europeans won and what they did after that is history. Chinese said it is aggression. Europeans said it is for the Freedom and Democracy of China and to modernize them from oppressive rule. See the same statements with Iraq. Now these MNCs in India also want to sell noble commodities, ideas and concepts to back ward, retrograde Indians so that we can further civilize ourselves. These commodities apart from cars, computers, motorcycles, cell phones and roads are western Television with western values-immoral unethical family and social values driven solely by greed, break up of family, disrespect of one’s own culture, open attacks on ethical moral values in the society, personal aggrandizement, discarding spiritual values all in the name of progress. Anticipating resistance there are hundreds of groups conducting thousands of seminars, meetings, sessions to convince poor Indians to accept this mode of MNCs progress- liberalization and privatization- is the best for the nation and its thousands of years old culture. Everything is ok as long as we have cell phones, diesel cars, and western medicine to treat diseases. If we oppose all these countries will attack or not attack us depending on the military strength of a given nation. The y can simply stop MNCs aid that is needed for the economy to survive, and they demand the payments on the loans MNCs governments liberally advanced to us when we got independence and were rebuilding our nation in formative stages. Let us study the commodities of EICs first, during the first wave of Civilizing China and India. Commodities of EICs EICs bought tea, spices from South East Asia. But what did they sell. What ever they sold gave them incredible profits and with this they maintained huge private army, traveled thousands of miles to do business conquering all nations in South East Asia. We know that they sold cotton and clothes to India. The other magical commodity which they sold is to Chinese was grown in India, after EICs forced poor Indian farmers at point to abandon all other agricultural production, the name of which if Indians hear probably they first laugh and then faint, it is the most addictive drug Opium. Using Jesuit priests, who were in China since 13th Century to accelerate conversions, as their point men between Manchu Rulers of China and Mogul Empire in India, first Portuguese Jesuit priests and then British and latter Dutch merchants (under Dutch East India Company, a sister concern of British East India company) took over centuries old opium trading routs including cultivation of opium in Portuguese controlled Macao island. Latter Dutch negotiated monopoly over opium production and trade and was granted in 1659 by the then Indian Mogul Emperor. 1715 the East India Company started trading posts in Canton region (Hong Kong and vicinity) and started trading in Opium. But the actual beginning of this opium trade came from Portuguese Jesuit mission that was established in 1601 in Peking, which held the key to the Far East trade. In 1740, the Company's role in India was limited to trade through its centers at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. By 1815, it had an army of 150,000 men, and governed most of India, either directly or indirectly. The Company utilized the vast superiority of European weapons to take over India in stages, through a series of wars. Its takeover was assisted by the collapse of power of the Indian Mogul Emperors, which left India broken up into sections, controlled by local rulers. Bengal was the first ma jor area conquered by the Company. Its army defeated the native ruler in 1757 (Plasey War I), and proclaimed itself the official ruler of Bengal in 1765. It imposed incredibly harsh taxes. The province deteriorated rapidly. In 1770, the failure of monsoon rains, led to a famine in which an estimated one-third of the population of Bengal perished. With the dried lands, dead farmers, the stage is set for the large scale production of opium and Bengal then became the center of the East India Company's opium monopoly. However, giving the lie to the radical "privatizers," the ultimate muscle behind the company was the British military, as Lord Palmerston (Prime Minister of Britain 1830-1865) demonstrated by deploying it in the Opium Wars, to back up the British demand for "free trade." Using this private army East India Company slowly but steadily started commercially cultivating large-scale production of opium in India, under the then Mogul Empire by the end of 16 the century. Under the land tax deals with mogul kings, for paying taxes, Dutch and British forced Indian farmers to cultivate opium. Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, and up to Varanasi became centers of this opium farming. Opium became number 2 commodity in exports in volume, next to spices. East India companies were shipping 100 tons of opium per year during that time to Indonesia. The Dutch found in Dutch East Indies (current Indonesia) " opium a useful means for breaking the moral resistance of Indonesians who opposed the introduction of semi servile but increasingly profitable rubber plantation system. They deliberately spread the drug habits form ports, where Arab traders used opium, to countryside." In the aftermath of the disastrous Bengal famine, the British Crown took control over the East India Company's operations, and, under the India Act of William Pitt the Younger, in 1785, the Governor-General of India was made a Crown appointment1. A six-member ``Board of Control'' was established in London to "superintend, direct and control" the Company's possessions. On the Board were the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (also happened to be Bank of England’s Chairman), and a Secretary of State, both ministers of the British Crown. From this period, the "free-trade of East India Company was", effectively, a semi-official branch of the British government, until it was finally formally dissolved in 1858. Prior to the takeover of India by the East India Company, the Indian economy was characterized by the existence of native manufacture of cloth and other goods, which made possible a division of labor, and a higher level of productivity for the economy as a whole. British Empire's system of "globalization" had devastating effects on India. The British demanded one-half of the gross products of the land, as tribute from the areas that they controlled, and imposed a tax collection system, which severely disrupted the economy. Even more deadly, the British imposed a policy of technological apartheid, banning the export of machinery, from England to India, and refusing to develop India's rich iron and coal deposits. Taxes were imposed. To deliberately suppress native manufacturing. The introduction of steam driven machinery, was used by the British to devastate India's native cloth manufacturers. The British applied it to their slave labor system, filling the factories, farms with workers, including children, who worked 15 to 17 hours a day. Free Trade Destroys Indian Cloth Manufacturing British "free trade" removed tariffs on cloth imported into India, within twenty years, Indian cloth manufacturing was completely wiped out. The result was not merely mass unemployment and starvation of cloth manufacturers, but the impoverishment of cotton cultivators, since cotton now had to be shipped all the way to England, and the British now had a monopoly control of cotton consumption. This British looting had the effect of reducing the ability of India to support its population. The destructive nature of the British system contained an inherent tendency toward bankruptcy, requiring it to constantly find new sources of loot. The conquest of Bengal led to an initial surge in tax revenues. However, by 1815, the Company was 40 million pounds sterling in debt. The Company's 150,000-strong army was consuming three-quarters of its annual budget. The looting of India had so severely damaged the Indian economy that taxes and revenues were declining. "This difficulty it was that drove the representatives of British power and civilization into become traders in that pernicious drug, opium." The Company's major source of revenue was now its China trade: Chinese tea sold in England and paid for by opium produced by Indian farmers. The British East India Company's Opium Monopoly The East India Company established a monopoly over the production of opium, shortly after taking over Bengal. Before each growing season, Company officers went through the villages contracting with the peasants on how much acreage to plant, and making loans to cover costs. Indian peasants sold the opium juice to the Company, whence it was taken to the factory. The opium juice was processed into a form suitable for smoking, and formed into three pound cakes, which were then wrapped in poppy pedals. Forty of these cakes were loaded into chests, each stamped with the symbol of the East India Company. Civilizing China with Free Trade and Globalization In a completely transparent fraud of "free trade," the Company then auctioned off these chests to "country traders," (whom it pretended were independent), at roughly four times the cost of production. These traders were licensed by the Company, and in some cases financed by it. The Company would even give the "country traders" opium on consignment, and collect payment in Canton (Guangzhou) after the opium had been sold. East India Company also set up their own country traders. The largest of the "country traders" was Jardine, Matheson & Co. William Jardine and James Matheson formed a partnership in 1828. Matheson was the first to see the potential of smuggling along the entire Chinese coast. Both returned to England, and became members of Parliament. Matheson used his opium fortune to become the second largest landholder in Great Britain, and was made a Baron by Queen Victoria. In 1729, the Chinese Emperor banned the import of opium, except for a small amount, licensed as medicine. In 1799 a stronger Imperial decree was issued prohibiting both the smoking of opium and its importation. This imperial decree, based on thousands of years old Confucian ideals morals "that a man had a duty and debt to his ancestors. His body was given to him by his ancestors as their link to his descendants. Therefore, for a man to destroy his own body was a great offense against filial piety" prohibited the usage of opium and stated: "Foreigners obviously derive the most solid profits and advantages ... but that our countrymen should pursue this destructive and ensnaring vice ... is indeed odious and deplorable." The British were well aware of the destructive nature of opium, but argued that opium sales were necessary because it was the only item which they could sell to the Chinese. The destructive nature of opium was well known at the time of the Opium Wars. Opium is highly addictive, and induces passivity into the smoker. Addicts seldom lived past age fifty; heavy smokers had a life expectancy of only five years. Payment for tea, which the British imported, had created a drain of silver from England to China and created adverse balance of payments to EICs. By 1800, the main source of revenues, from Company operations in India, was land taxes, imposed on conquered lands and opium trade. The opium trade increased from 4,244 chests in the 1820-21 season to 18,956 by 1830-31. By 1831, the opium trade into China was two-and-a-half times greater than the tea trade. It was probably the largest trade in a single commodity anywhere in the world. By the late 1830's, there was no doubt that opium was leading to the destruction of China. By 1836, opium shipments were more than 30,000 chests, enough to supply 12.5 million smokers. The Chinese imperial army lost a battle against local rebels (triad gangs) because the army was addicted to opium. The financial drain on China in treating opium addicts was disrupting the entire economy. From 1829 to 1840, Chinese exports had brought in 7 million silver dollars, but imports, mainly opium had drained 56 million. The loss of silver was disrupting the internal economy leading to increased unrest. Father of Modern Economics on Free Trade and Globalization of EICs. Adam Smith, a leading economist of his time who proposed first "Free Trade" concept which now is renamed as "liberalization and privatization," was a paid official of the East India Company. He was instrumental in advocating the trade of opium to maintain the revenues of the company and as foundation of Free Trade. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, followed this belief, that human behavior was best ordered by each man following his hedonistic desires to their lawful conclusion. He argued that opium was a legitimate product, the same as any other commodity, that the objective laws of the "invisible hand" must be allowed to determine all economic activity, and anything which stood in the way, such as national governments, were an obstacle which must be removed. Smith, a propagandist for British colonialism, argued that human progress was advanced with the spread of this "free market" globally, through the expansion of the British Empire. (see the similarities between this argument and the current liberalization campaign, it advocates free trade, destruction of all national government barriers, advancement of US British models of greed and profit maximization under globalization). Karl Marx Defends Globalization and Free Trade of EICs A similar defense of British colonialism was also advanced by Karl Marx. Marx has an undeserved reputation as an opponent of British imperialism, because his writings were designed to appeal to, and manipulate people, based on their grievances. Marx emigrated from Germany to England at age 30, where he became a dupe of British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston. Palmerston dominated the British government from 1830 to 1865, and, was the central figure in efforts to make the British Empire into a new Roman Empire. He directed British strategy in the Opium Wars. He also kept a stable of radicals and terrorists for purposes of destabilizing other nations. (Eleven countries have recently denounced the British government for harboring terrorists, demonstrating that the British have continued this practice to this day.) Marx called the great capitalist treatise Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "an immense step forward" because it reduced the value of all economic activity to the value placed on it, by the universal free market. Marx's role as an apologist for the British Empire's "globalization" is explicit in his defense of the British Empire's rape of India. Marx advanced a Mandevillian argument, that, because "capitalism" is superior to "oriental despotism", even though the intent and actions of British colonialism were evil, British colonialism benefited India. Even more explicit is Marx's defense of Britain's first Opium War. Amidst much bravado about the potential for world revolution, Marx praised the Opium War for throwing China into chaos. He claimed that Britain was advancing civilization in China, by destroying China's old culture, and opening up China to the international economy. He even reported, approvingly, that British policies were causing such unemployment in China, that displaced Chinese workers were being used as slave labor throughout the world. Karl Marx wrote in a July 22, 1853 article in the New York Daily Tribune: "Whatever be the social causes, and whatever religious, dynastic, or national shape they may assume, that have brought about the chronic rebellions subsisting in China for about ten years past, and now gathered together in one formidable revolution, the occasion of this outbreak has unquestionably been afforded by the English cannon forcing upon China that soporific drug called opium. Before the British arms the authority of the Manchu dynasty fell to pieces; the superstitious faith in the Eternity of the Celestial Empire broke down; the barbarous and hermetic isolation from the civilized world was infringed; and an opening was made for that intercourse which has since proceeded so rapidly under the golden attractions of California and Australia. At the same time the silver coin of the Empire, its life-blood, began to be drained away to the British East Indies.'' Reflecting the racism which dominated England, where the majority of the population enthusiastically supported the first Opium War (there were popular demonstrations against the second Opium War), Marx defends the British-forced addiction of China: "It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity." Between 1836 till 1900 as Chinese Emperor resisted this abhorring practice of doping China, Europeans fought what now known as "Opium Wars" to further civilize China and advance the human civilization. Finally all European nations including USA joined hands to finally defeat Chinese Army in the boxer war in 1900, thus legalizing opium sale to millions of Chinese, with this free trade they secured their source of revenue. The Company lost control of India with the Indian Revolt of 1857-58, when British troops poured in to crush the uprising. The British government, under Lord Palmerton (1830- 1865), took direct control of India. Queen Victoria, who noted that most Englishmen felt "that India should belong to me," was made Empress of India in 1877. Finally Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (father of India, The Mahatma) realized the deadly potential of this opium menace on domestic agriculture and on destruction of China. He started agitating against the production of Opium in 1921 and1922. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and all his followers were arrested under the clause of hampering and undermining revenues. India Commission headed by Mr. Inchape Jr who chaired the commission to look in to complaints of Gandhi, endorsed the continued opium production in India in the year 1921. Finally in 1924 the opium production was completely shifted in to China, Iran and Afghanistan due to continuous pressure from US congress, Japan and Opium committee of League of Nations. Another exciting product that was dealt on large scale by EICs (all) was selling slaves from all places to South America to work in sugar, tea plantations and ranches. From India they called them coolies, from china they are called pigs and from Africa proper they are called slaves. British EIC sold close to million slaves (these products are terrific as the cost production is zero and what ever the sale price is it is pure profit) till the beginning of 20th century. Products of Current MNCs and how former colonies responding (Indonesia to India) Currently these MNCs are first entering in to manufacturing and procuring surprisingly mining diamonds and gold. Every economic attaché is encouraging Indians to mine more and more diamonds which currently stands at US 450 million dollars according to one economic attaché. The next field they are entering is the oil natural gas sectors. (Indians have to remember that this Oil sector was in private Indian businessmen hands who refused to supply oil during the war with Pakistan in 1971 as these private owners figured out that war was not good, an the then Prime Minister natio nalized the oil and natural gas sector. Now we want to sell to MNCs who never want to have a war as it is not good for their business). Third field they are entering is biotechnology (understanding medicinal plant diversity and organic food production with out pesticides and insecticides they have patented turmeric, tamarind, basmati rice and it took couple of years to de list these items from patent, but they will patent every medicinal plant and we have to pay royalty even if we cook and use these plants). Fourth field is Banking and insurance sector (if all our savings are with MNCs along with life insurance then they can use this money in those segments that can make more money for MNCs like investing in stock market speculation which is surprisingly encouraged by many Indian economists too. In stock market in one day crash one can wipe out entire wealth of life time to zero leading to massive social unrest as happened in stock market crashes of 1911, 1939 in U.S.A). Fifth field is capturing the media television, internet, print media news papers and book publishing. On supply side every MNC want to sell hi-tech defense gadgets worth billions of dollars to us. Cosmetics and beauty products, genetically modified foods, processed foods, health destroying soft drinks, spirits and liquor, agriculture chemicals and seeds business. Like EICs the current MNCs want to control what we ear, wear, where we live and how we think. Indian products are going to create adverse balance of payments with MNCs and their nations soon as all these items are high value items. So the adverse balance of payments with MNCs is a dire situation (as with EICs) and may lead to the discovery of a new "opium" for India, even if not now, it will be petty soon. What MNCs are selling to us is of no use to us as opium was no use to Chinese hundred years ago. What they are extracting is the national wealth which we ourselves would have done. There are inefficiencies in the socialist economy but the first remedy is to try to remove the inefficiencies which is the result of corruption, politicization of unions, nepotism, politicization of corporate officials. If father as a role model in the house is not up to the mark we do not replace the father by second one, we try to change him first. But these resources have to be controlled by either EIC or MNC as these are needed to technologically dominate, economically intimidate nations. How other former EIC countries are responding for MNCs Except India none of the former colonies are interested in this new wave of liberalization and privatization. Starting from China till Japan they still maintain that west can only share technology. Even in technology issues in many segments Japanese caught up and beat the west. Japan-(never occupied by any EICs, except withdrew from WW-II after nuclear explosions, brief interim rule by USA 1945-1952) None of the above sectors are opened for MNCs as Japanese still believe that west has nothing of value to offer them. Japanese do not even release their latest versions of electronic products in any of the Western Countries until they were first sold in Japan for at least 3-5 years, as they feel in the usage of these technological gizmos west is inferior to them. They said categorically no to all MNCs in banking, insurance, media - print and television, bio-technology. In Japan stock markets are not open to multinationals. Even the domestic industry too can issue only up to 20 % of its common stock to general public. Rest has to be issued to government banks. This will remove the factor of playing with stock exchange, even one buys the entire stock of a particular company, still he owns only one fifth of the company. As foreigners are not allowed to trade in the local Japanese stock market the fear of EICs MNCs taking over the stock markets thus the industrial back bone of any country are virtually non existent. China-(Part of British, French Dutch Belgium East India Companies, USA Germany Russia had territorial rights) None of the above sectors are opened. They wanted only investment in manufacturing sectors along with the technology transfer. They never allowed even CNN to broadcast its news on the grounds that it is biased towards the western perspective. No to insurance banking, media oil and natural gas exploration. China even never allowed Amway Corporation on grounds that it is propelling greed among the populations, and blaming Amway’s donation to universities to produce reports and mould public opinion in western favor. China do not has a developed stock market. They follow their thousands of year old "Single Entry Accounting System of Book Keeping" which prevents western corporations to really play with any accounting numbers. This system is still followed in India too by native business men. But as usual our drive to modernize and civilize is driving us faster towards "double entry mode of book keeping" though being simple and with all advantages, fraught with corporate fraud, public cheating, swindling of public money by unscrupulous accountants. Indonesia- (Part of Dutch East India Company) They said no to most of the above to all former colonial powers. When oil was found in East Timor and A(I)ryan Jaya, Holland/Dutch negotiated for exploration rights in 1975. Indonesian government denied. For past two decades massive social funding was pumped through various NGOs in to East Timor and most of this money went in to converting locals by missionaries. Once the converted Christian population reached the critical 50% they started agitating for independent state hood, Christian Republic. This demand was denied by Indonesian government. Then these rebels were armed. In 15 years armed struggle started. Every body in west knew there is no chance for these rag tag rebels to face the mighty Indonesian army. So in 1995 whole former European colonial powers raised hue and cry that religious freedom, human rights are abused in Indonesia. To free the people of East Timor from oppressive Indonesian government the matter was referred to United Nations. United Nations too want to guard the freedom and human rights of East Timorians. Thus a multinational force under Australia entered East Timor and liberated it in 1998/99. Republic of East Timor was born. The newly "democratically elected president" of East Timor gave oil exploration contracts to Dutch Oil Corporations. Malaysia- (Part of Dutch and French East India Companies) Categorically said no to any MNCs as they follow the Japanese model of economic development. Malaysia was subjected to economic blockades, international loans were withheld, so much unrest is created to replace current presidents, but they are still resisting and holding off the entry of MNCs. India- (Part of British East India Company) We are the first country colonized by EICs. But MNCs though want to do business with us never were interested till 1995. Between 1990-1995 they found some thing within India, some thing of extreme value which prompted them to move with full speed and vigor to re colonize us. As we were the naïve first and foremost colony, filled with more anglophiles (we love to speak and imitate English more than our mother and motherland) than Britain and USA combined populations posses. Many in India think that we have the largest English speaking people and that is why MNCs are coming to us to modernize India. This is a myth. For instance Japan contains more English speaking people than India. Japanese speak exceptionally excellent English. Like Europeans though Japanese speak English they do not communicate in English but in Japanese. But no MNCs are there in Japan. Any one who want to go or to do business with Japan first have to learn Japanese and must communicate in Japanese. Conclusion We have seen in the case of EICs the victim of their free trade and globalization was the agriculture sector and agrarian labor. This followed by the destruction of domestic labor intensive economy leading to massive unemployment and social unrest. Mahatma Gandhi started his movement aptly calling it satyagraha literally meaning angry for truth. The only solution he saw for the menace was Grama Swaraj-self sufficiency of Villages thus agriculture sector. After 50 years of independence we are first time seeing the destruction of agriculture both by state governments and central government. Agrarian labor are shifting towards cities, farmers are killing themselves, state governments are fighting over true national resource water and forcing millions of acres of agrarian land to dry up. Prices of seeds, electricity, manure are going up forcing many to abandon agriculture and move as labor to cities. The so called highly profitable Aqua Culture (prawn export) though initially profitable (like land taxes for EIC) now destroyed most agrarian lands permanently in coastal Indian towns. Incidentally all this is coinciding the dazzling and dynamic liberalization and privatization drive by all governments under EICs turned MNCs entry in to the country since past 5 years. Are we going to shift to our "Traditional Magic Crop under EIC-opium" or is there more sinister to this round of anti agricultural practices- a permanent destruction of food diversity of India and make it depend for food itself on all MNCs as now they are producing in way excess quantities of certain food items which now they can supply for next 500 years at dirt throw prices. Are we repeating Bengal Famine again? Is gram swaraj, for that matter swaraj in real danger? Well the answer to this question depends on how much information any one has about what is happening in India and anywhere in the world.
Posted by: acharya Nov 7 2003, 05:28 PM Controllers and operatives of East India Company and various Multinationals 1. Jardine Mathesons Noble Opium Knights 2. Inchapes-Lords of Seas. 3. House of Sassoons-Masters of India and China 4. Rhodes & Openheimers – African Elite-Monopolists of Gold and Diamonds 5. House of Rockefellers-Princes of North America 6. House of Rothschilds-Uncrowned kings of Europe 1. Jardine & Matheson. These two names belong to two families who were given full control of smuggling of Indian grown opium in to China during 1800. They were the country traders in opium for EICs. First they used to smuggle opium in to China. After Hongkong was occupied by EIC after first opium war in 1836, J & M set up their trading firm on Hong Kong. With the huge profits generated from Opium trade they diversified in to Insurance, Banking, Gold Trading, international finance. Today they own most of the Hongkong, have offices in USA. The original founders for their noble service, were given knighthood by Queen Victoria (see Rhodes for their industrial ownership). Liberal funding for their operations were given by house of Rothschilds via Bank of England and EIC. 2. House of Inchapes Inchape Sr who a 125 years before founded Oriental Steam Company in Hongkong which helped to carry tea, spices opium and Chinese Indian coolies/pigs to USA, Caribbean Islands another important commodity of EICs. Inchape Sr also co founded the Hong Shang Clearing House along with Jardine and Matheson which now holds dozen banks and investment houses which became subsequent clearing house for foreign money as investment in to Asian markets, and Inchape Jr sat as board of director (BOD) on both P & O and Hong Shang. Liberal funding for their operations were given by house of Rothschilds via Bank of England and EIC. 3. House of Sassoon The Sassoon dynasty was rooted in the Turkey Company and to the Venice Company; where we trace the origins of the house of Rothschilds. The house of Sassoons through 30 different corporations and subsidiaries exercised control over trade with India and China. Before they became Barons and Knights they were popularly known as the "opium traders from Baghdad". David Sassoon was born in Baghdad, in 1792, son of Saleh Sassoon, a wealthy banker and the treasurer to Ahmet Pasha, governor of Baghdad (making him the "court Jew" -- a highly influential position). When Ahmet was overthrown for corruption in 1829, the Sassoons fled to Bombay, India, the strategic trade route to India and gateway to the Far Eastern trade. Soon the British government granted Sassoon "monopoly rights" to manufacture cotton goods, silk and most importantly, Opium -- at that time the most addictive drug in the world! The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the major opium exchanges in China. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: "He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews . . . and put them to work." The House of Sassoon was in Mumbai area, but subsequently moved back to England early 1900; Sassoon docks in Mumbai are named after them. They became affiliated by intermarriage with both French and English houses of Rothschilds. The first such marriage occurred in 1881. Since 1832, the family broadened its sphere from Baghdad to Mumbai there after to China, Japan and the entire Orient. A few of the companies they owned were the British Burma Petroleum, (and probably Burma Shell which was nationalized in 1971 for refusing to supply oil to Indian Army) Bank of China, Eastern Bank, Imperial Bank of Persia and probably Imperial bank of India. The Sassoons controlled the Banking and trading part of the East India Company. The control of the production of opium was in the hands of the British East India Company itself. The British East India Company was the military enforcer of this production. The distribution of Opium per-se was taken care of by various traders, the most important being Jardine-Matheson and company. They were reporting to the Rothschilds, and were also related to the Rothschilds. (We ask more Indians to research this issue.) During the beginning of 20th century the House of Sassoons moved to London. How many companies this house still controls in India after independence under various holdings and proxies is a topic of research in itself. 4. Houses of Rhodes & Openheimers – African Elite-Monopolists of Gold and Diamonds Historians, common people, leaders and opponents shudder with fear when they hear these two names in African continent. 250 years of virtual and ruthless exploitation of the continent, division and subversion of every government that stood against the diamond and gold conglomerates, human toil, sorrow, sweat and tears continuing even to this day, all started in 1853 the year when Cecil Rhodes was born. He studied at oxford and when he graduated.gifd, his talent was spotted and hand picked by house of Rothschild. He started his business ventures in South Africa with unlimited financial support of House of Rothschilds, and was the founder of Anglo American gold fields and consolidated gold fields. He also was the founder of De Beers Consolidated mines which is the single largest producer of Diamonds. [India was the largest diamond exporter till 1875. After the last piece of valuable diamond was robbed out of India by British merchants from the Rajas and Maharajas and sultans there were no diamond exports from India]. Africa for 200 years starting from 1800 was the leading diamond producing continent and De Beers was and is the number one diamond procuring and supplying corporation. With unlimited resources from Rothschilds, De beers slowly swallowed all small diamond mining companies using the same strategies as John D Rockefeller (see part 5) used to gobble up oil companies. Various trusts and subsidiaries were formed to conceal true identity of De Beers (Indian diamond mines are given to an Australian company which is a subsidiary of De Beers in collaboration with Reliance Corporation). Hundreds of offshore banking and trading posts were opened in the names of numbered companies. The same suit was followed by the Anglo American Gold fields and Consolidated gold fields. Every gold and diamond mine in the world was either by force or military might of British Empire was taken by these two companies across all continents and nations [except Russia, India]. During this process especially in Africa and Latin America, De Beers financed the governments and rebels alike. No matter who is in power the Diamonds mines are for ever belong to De Beers. Identifying these ruthless strategies and the monopoly that De Beers enjoyed in Diamond Trading the United States government banned it from doing business in United States. Even today this ban is there on De Beers. But the De Beers’ shops are set up in Canada and still virtually every diamond sold in US comes from De Beers and its traders and in the United States these traders are by rule Hassidic (orthodox) Jewish merchants. From destroying Natal Province to mass destruction of democracies in Katanga and other countries in Africa to the Recent millions of refuge slaughter in Rwanda, Angola, Congo, to the Sierra Leon carnage it is De Beers that is behind every event. Though the characters and corporations looked multinational and looked different they are either linked to or proxies of De Beers. After the death of Rhodes the De Beers was taken directly by Rothschilds via their N.M. Rothschild & Co and official supervision was done by Openheimer Family. It was this vast concentration of diamond and gold production by this company came under intensive investigation by various European authorities since 1900 and now it is believed that gold and diamonds are used as a means to launder the vast fortunes and sums earned in opium drug and narcotic smuggling, which is controlled as previously described by various associates of Jardine Matheson, Sassoons and associates linked to Rothschilds. As EICs controlled the silver mines of South America by destroying Native Indian civilizations to pay for opium of India and Tea of China, so too these MNCs now control gold and diamonds needed for the payment of opium grown in Asia and Far East. Investigative authorities believe that the Asian (Golden Crescent -Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan) and far eastern (golden Triangle-Burma, China, Thailand) opium its derivatives and marijuana trade worth $ 500 billions, is entirely financed by the gold and diamond smuggling rings connected to De Beers. They reported that 400-600 tons of smuggled gold is absorbed in Asian Markets and the conduits were the associates of Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank that operates in various countries. As the farmers in golden Triangle and Crescent accept payment for opium only in gold and diamonds it is imperative to secure this mode of payment so that there exists a monopoly on this trade. Next important thing is, the payments and bank transfers in the form of any currency can be traced but the gold and diamonds cannot be traced. Today’s Honk Kong’s gold market is wholly run by Sharps Pixel and Ward a 51% owned subsidiary of Hang Shang the parent company of Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, and is owned by Jardine & Matheson. The second conduit for illegal gold operations is Sheikdom of Dubai. The operations of the Dubai gold market are controlled by British Bank of Middle East-a 100% subsidiary of Hong Kong and Shanghai bank. The far eastern legal and illegal trade is controlled from Macao Islands (officially belong to Portuguese, but leased to Chinese on a two year term contracts), and is supervised by directly Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. According to official intelligence reports the PRC (People Republic of China) entered this legal and illegal tradeoff Gold Smuggling in 1950, after Mao took over power as per the agreements between the PRC and the international bankers-precisely Jardine & Matheson, so that in case of fear of caught up by any government they can summarily blame Hong Kong Smugglers, who in turn blame Macao island brokers who in turn blame Chinese government. But Chinese government involvement in this trade via Pao San & Co and Kan Kuam Tsing Company and other thirteen communist banks which are permitted to trade directly with Hong Kong Banks. This continuation of the gold diamond and drug trade un interruptedly is the basis and reason for British government or ADAE supporting Mao Tse Tung and his communist brothers[2]. In to this tightly controlled market the gold flows (official channels) from Philippines and Australia and New Zealand. But the un official 400 tons of Gold comes from what officials describe as London Gold Pool. This pool is controlled by the same families which were involved in drug running operations since 175 years from now. Cecil Rhodes Anglo American and Consolidated Gold Fields, and De Beers along with the five following biggest London gold trading firms control the gold market. The first of which is the Sharps Pixley which owns the remaining 49 % (Hong Kong Shanghai bank owns 51 % of the Sharp Pixley and Ward) of the Sharp Pixley and Ward, the Hong Kong Gold Trading firm. But Sharp Pixley it self is a fully owned subsidiary of London Merchant Bank Kleinwort Benson, which has interlocking Directorships with Rio Tinto Zinc. RioTinto Zinc is another metal trading firm belonging to Matheson Family. The Second gold trading firm is Mocatta Metals (this Mocatta family was one of the owners of Bank of England and East India Company) which is owned by Hong Kongs’s Standard Chartered Bank. In its original form Standard Bank was found by Cecil Rhodes. These two banks Standard Chartered and Hong Kong Shanghai Bank have tightly interlocked directorships from the days of British opium trade. The Mocatta Metals has its American Operation under the name of Mocatta and Goldsmid. According to European intelligence agencies the then Chairman of Mocatta Metals (1974) Dr. Henry Jarecki has been under investigation for many years for illegal activities. According to European intelligence Jarecki dirty laundered money goes to fund Mossad’s (Israel’s intelligence agency that protect the interests of Israelis all over the world) foreign intelligence operations mainly in New York. According to intelligence half of the gold traders of this firm started from the same Psychological Department of Harvard University. The third largest gold pool firm is Samuel Montague (this family also one of the owners of Bank of England and East India Company) whole subsidiary of Midland Bank which owns 20 % owner ship of Standard and Chartered Bank. And interestingly Sir Mark Turner who was a Deputy Chairman of Kleinwort Benson Merchant Bank and director of Midland Bank and Samuel Montagu is also the Chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc. Montagu Family is heavily married (blood relatives) with Rothschilds dynasty. The fourth player is the Johnson Matthey owners have interlocked directorships with the south African gold producers Consolidated Gold Fields, and Anglo American Gold fields which control 90 % of the out put of gold in Africa. The fifth biggest gold pool firm is none other than N.M. Rothschilds & co. As we know they own the remaining of the four above and financed many of the ventures of Jardine Matheson and Cecil Rhodes. Every day even today all these 5 London gold Pool firms meet in London at the trading Room of N.M. Rothschilds & Co, on St. Swithin St, New Court London, to set that day’s price for gold for the world. The second empire that Cecil Rhodes created is the Diamond business. Which is also according to European intelligence agencies heavily involved in drug money laundering? The world diamond market and its operations were and are controlled by single firm De Beers. Though it was created by Cecil Rhodes it is now controlled by Rothschild’s associate family Oppenheimer’s family (recently there was a reshuffle in the board). Harry Oppenheimer was the chairman of De Beers. He is also the chairman of the Anglo American gold Fields, the larger South African Gold producer. 85% of the Diamond whole sale market is run by De Beers, 10% of this run by trading houses in Hong Kong. Rest of the 5 % of the diamond market is from Russia and they sell most of their diamonds through Bank of England, family bank of Rothschilds. Hong Kong Diamond operation is handled by De Beers through its Israeli and Jewish connections. According intelligence sources the diamonds whose small size and great value makes the perfect vehicle for payment for international trafficking in heroin cocaine and opium. For this trafficking, intelligence reports that De Beers uses the expatriate services of Jewish merchant net works. There is little information of both diamond and heroine trade and value of trade to intelligence agencies. As far as diamonds are concerned the Central Selling Organization (CSO) which wholesales 85% of the Diamonds is wholly owned by De Beers. Every year at ten “sights” only 300 clients’ purchase diamonds form De Beers. The list of the clients and the locations of the auction is the best kept secret. After the purchase the diamonds were sent to two main cutting locations one in Antwerp, Belgium, and one in Ashqelon, Israel. Antwerp’s Diamond cutting and other related trades were financed by Banque Bruxelles-Lambert, controlled by Lambert family, the Belgium cosines of Rothschilds. Israel’s and New York’s trade is financed by Bank Leumi of Israel. Within these individual centers (sights) traders trade among themselves. Then these trades move to Diamond exchanges like New York diamond Dealers Club (remember De Beers is not allowed to trade or operate business in United States, so it has to use clandestine Jewish merchant networks) or Ramat Glan in Tel Aviv, and the Antwerp Diamond Bourse. No written records are kept of any transactions on these exchanges. None of the deals were allowed any scrutiny under any law enforcement agencies even under American Law until the diamonds reach retail Jewelry Stores. Hong Kong diamond market is virtual monopoly of the Union Bank of Israel. This bank is wholly owned subsidiary of biggest finance house Bank Leumi. Bank Leumi is a subsidiary of Barclays Bank on whose board Sir Oppenheimer and his family sits. Bank Leumi’s own chairman is Earnest Japhet, whose fortunes were derived from the official EICs opium trade with USA in 19th century. Barclays bank according to intelligence reports not only is the parent company of Bank of Leumi, but also owns the family bank of Japhets, The Charterhouse Japhet and controls the second largest commercial bank of Israel, Isreal Discount house, which is in the orbit of House of Rothschilds. These families Inchapes, Japhets, Arlies, Rothschilds, Jardine and Matheson firmly locked up with intermarriages and it appears that the merchant banking and drug narcotic trade is done by single close knit joint family. For example Schroeder Bank’s chairman the tenth Earl (belonging to Inchape family) is brother-in-law of the chairman of ADF Lloyd, of Lloyd’s bank and the giant insurance corporation. Lloyd’s grand fathers are leading partners of Kuhn and Loeb an American investment firm associated with Rockefeller, Morgan and Rothschild. Interestingly the Mother In law of Sir Winston Churchill comes from the Arlie family. The vast fortunes of this diamond markets are shared not only by few families but at retail level it is shared by Anglo-Jewish networks world wide except in India where this market is controlled by traditional communities of Swanker and Janis). For example in New York this market is controlled mainly by members of Hasidic Jewish sects resident in this area. It is this power and virtual monopoly of ADAE on gold and diamond that created much trouble in Africa. Where ever diamond mines spotted it has to be mined by De Beers. This un satiable thrust for supply and distribution monopoly which was resisted by the tiny African Republics as they want to use these national assets for their development. As Rothschilds and Rockefeller’s Oil trading companies in Middle East owns 100 % oil wells and pays these corrupt Arab states pennies over a dollar as royalty which becomes billions for these sheiks who spend lavishly these fortunes. Depending on the tastes of Arab countries these oil companies belong to may nations (Canadian, Dutch, British, American but in the end they are all one). Any Arab state that do not wants to sell oil to this consortium and want to sell independently was and is a terrorist state, (Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia etc) and UN[3] will be bank rolled to enforce no sell zones in these countries. So too De Beers (under different countries diamond corporations) controls every diamond mine in Africa. If a small country does not want to fall in the game then, rebellions within the country are supported (Sierra Leone Nigeria, Congo), if that does not work, ethnic strife is supported within and from neighboring countries (Rwanda, Congo, Zaire), if still that does not work the UN will be bank rolled and under the charter of the UN the colonial European Governments (Britain, Belgium, Australia and USA) will send their troops (Rwanda-Belgium), (Katanga in 1962, Belgium USA and British). Belgium and Netherlands is a special case here. Belgium and Netherlands kings were interrelated through marriage. Netherlands (called Dutch) queen Juliana Beatrix is 49% owner of royal Dutch Shell, and the remaining 51% owner of Royal Dutch Shell is none other than the Rothschilds and their Dutch Cousins. Cecil Rhodes funded political parties across nations, had the following of parliamentarians both in England and South Africa and finally became the prime minister of Cape colony. His personal spending around 1890 was around Million pounds sterling per month. Part of his vast fortune billions of pounds that were exploited from South Africa was invested in creating Rhodes scholarship in Oxford University. Rhodes created and funded many other social science departments in Cambridge and Oxford. But the Rhodes scholarships were specifically designed to recruit individuals from all around the world to transform them in to the respective national leaders by grooming them as anglophiles. Most of Indian leaders were studied in Oxford or Cambridge. Rhodes believed in Anglo Saxon Superiority (ADAE superiority) and believed that United States must be subjugated to the superior Anglo Saxon race. His objective was only this Anglo Saxon (ADAE) can rule the world as they are the chosen people by god. This is to be achieved through powerful economic domination of all sovereign nations and their economies. But the different national political leadership has to be conducive for this purpose. So an enormous Anglophile propaganda is created which strip the world from its cultural diversity and national integrity via education, research and creating ideas especially in the national leaders and leading academicians via scholarships, grants, education assistance programs which tend to be pro Anglophile. 5. House of Rockefellers Everything about Rockefellers seems to be mythical. One story states that they came from a family of French Protestants (thus they can easily tie up with the southern Baptists-American protestants, President Bush is a southern Baptist. In fact these two interests joined hands in the economic exploitation of Latin America). But a distinguished biographer Dr. Malcolm Stern established that the claim of many Jews that Rockefeller is one of their own is a true fact.[4] John D. Rockefeller who always believed that competition was a sin was sent in 1859 to Titusville Pennsylvania to check whether there is any use in the gushing black liquid in the wells of the town. At that time John decided to take control of production transportation and refining of the oil industry in to his hands. He started the first oil company of his empire Standard Oil (ESSO). It was one among the 27 refineries at those times. Within one year all 25 other competitors became bankrupt and the entire oil refining in Pennsylvania came under the control of Rockefeller. This is achieved with the discriminatory rail and road transport pricing that was granted for John D by the Harriman rail road company (who controlled the entire Rail Industry of USA. Harriman and Rockefeller both were financed in their ventures by the house of Rothschild to cooperate with each other to take control of US industrial infrastructure under Free Trade.) In the words of Mathew Josephson’s classic text The Robber Barons, he states “…where the standard oil could not carry on its expansion by peaceful means, it was ready with violence”. In his study The rich and the Super Rich, Ferdinand Lundberg observed “ as the history of Standard Oil by any author, pro or con, clearly shows, Rockefeller was of a deeply conspiratorial, scheming nature, always planning years ahead with a clarity of vision that went far beyond anything any of his associates had to offer.” One Cleveland Oil refiner went to Peru in Latin America in 1880 to buy oil from there, only to find the entire Peru oil interests were bought by a company which was a subsidiary of Anglo-American company of England, which is a subsidiary of Standard oil. By 1890 Standard oil was refining almost 90 % of all crude oil of United States. Trusts and Trustees The expanding growth in oil industry and the subsequent monopolistic practices by John D are bound to be examined by the U.S. Tax authorities. So By 1900 with a missionary zeal Paul Warburg in charge of Rothschild’s interests in Germany and the engine behind the creation of French and German central banks, came to United States to push with missionary zeal the promotion of Central bank and creation of Trusts. Though the idea of Central bank did not took off until late 1920s trust act was formed in the beginning of 1900. Under trust act, one can incorporate as many trusts, family, public, charitable trusts and can transfer owner ship of any company to the trust. As trusts are for philanthropic purposes they are exempt from taxes. Trusts own the properties and the administrators of trusts are trustees who are none other than owners of the corporations that were transferred to the trusts. Trusts are managed by managers for the trustees. Thus for all practical purposes we see only managers but may never know who are the real owners. Things get further complicated when trusts start owning trusts. In this case the owner is a trust also. As trusts also have perpetual entity as corporations mere giving a trust name is enough than the real owner’s name. It is this multiple trust ownership that hides the real corporate owners, as holding companies hide the real owners of subsidiaries. Once trust act was passed Standard Oil became Standard oil Trust. Along with the trust act came anti trust laws limiting the trust control that lead to monopoly over certain segments of economy. This hurdle was however overcome by creating multiple trusts and layers of trust ownerships. By 1911 under intense public pressure Judge Kebesaw Mountain Landis ordered Standard Oil be broken in to smaller units to encourage competition. John D created new foundations and trusts and gave away his stock to them. The net effect was the same. It is like taking money from the personal account keeping in a family trust. You do not own money but the trust owns it and you are the trustee. Names of Standard Oil (Monopoly) before 1911 Ater U.S. Judge Broken Monopoly (after 1911) Standard Oil Trust (Canadian Oil) Esso Standard Oil Co (New Jersey) Exxon Standard Oil of Indiana Mobil Standard Oil of California Chevron Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) Phillips 66 It is the beginning of the tip of the iceberg of Rockefeller control over oil industry. For example Exxon which is the 9 largest of the American corporations shares only 16 % of oil production and 32 % sales revenue from United States. Its Transportation fleet includes 155 own oil tankers (this was broken in to a commercial fleet Corporation recently to reduce costs). According to a recent study [5] “Exxon alone controlled 321 other oil corporations, including Humble Oil and Venezuela’s (fourth largest oil producing country) Creole Petroleum, themselves among the largest corporations in the world”. But surprisingly oil business is not at all the biggest business of Rockefellers. That great honor is always reserved to banking Establishment. The family banks of Rockefeller’s are the First National City Bank, and Chase Manhattan Bank. Chase Manhattan is created by the union of Rockefeller owned Chase Bank with Kuhn, Loeb controlled Manhattan bank. In 1971 Chase Manhattan Claimed $ 31 billion dollars in assets. But this does not include the banking business carried by the affiliated banks of Chase overseas which it need not consolidated on their US balance sheets. According to Time Magazine “the Chase has 28 branches of its own, but more important, it has a globe encircling string of 50,000 correspondent banking offices”. If each of these correspondent banks is worth $ 10 million dollars in business assets linked with Chase then this gives whopping $ 500 billion dollars assets to Chase worldwide[6]. It is the only bank that has a special envoy to the United Nations[7]. It is these banks that provide capital for IMF, ADB, and WB. During Senate confirmation hearings for vice Presidency, Nelson Rockefeller Stated that “I do not own any shares in the Chase Manhattan bank” However he neglected to mention his family owns 623,000 shares or 2.54% of the Chase Stock. He also overlooked that Rockefeller brothers Fund owns another 148,000 Chase shares, and Rockefeller University owns another 81,296 shares. But this meager 4 % controlling ownership means nothing. “Even when banks in United States were required by law to disclose largest stock holders, as was the case in the 1962 Patman investigation of chain banking, they have used what is called street names in referring the stockholdings in trust. These street names are solely fictitious and bear no resemblance to the actual beneficiary or trustees. In the case of Chase Manhattan it is reported twenty largest stockholders in 1962 included fifteen street names like Dudd & Co, Don & co, Atwell & Co, etc.”[8] In these trusts “...most of the owners are part of the Rockefeller Empire”.[9] The next most important bank in the empire of Rockefeller Empire is their family bank, National City bank of New York which later became Citi bank and now Called Citi Group. Now City bank surpasses mighty Chase in total assets. The third bank in their orbit is Chemical bank owned by Harkness family, who is also the largest stock holder of Standard oil trust. These gigantic banks are the source of short and medium term financing for the uncrowned kings and their men. But the long term financing comes from Insurance companies. Rockefeller banks have heavily interlocked ownership with three of the four biggest life insurance corporations, Metropolitan Life, Equitable Life, and New York Life. According to Professor Knowles Rockefeller group controlled 25% of all the assets of the fifty largest commercial banks and 30 % of all the assts of the fifty largest insurance companies. 1974 Senate Banking Committee stated that in a public corporation more than 5% control tantamount to control. If you want to consider those firms where Rockefellers have more than 10 % stock through family trusts, and unknown percentage of stock via their own banks and insurance companies and at least two or three top management positions in each belonging to their chosen people then the following is the list of the corporations that they own. Right next to the corporation the asset size ranking in 1975 by Fortune magazine is also given. Corporation Name Ranking by Fortune magazine About the size of Asset Holding Corporation Name Ranking by Fortune magazine About the size of Asset Holding Exxon 1 Standard oil of California 6 Mobil 5 Standard oil of Indiana 13 International Harvester 26 Inland Steel 78 Marathon Oil 60 Quaker Oats 163 IBM 9 Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel 194 Texaco 4 AT & T * 10 Westinghouse 19 Boeing 39 International Paper 56 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 59 Sperry Rand 70 Xerox 41 National Cash Register 97 National Steel 64 American Home Products 92 Pfizer 130 Avon 159 Merck 152 Penn Central T-3 ** TWA T-1 Eastern Airlines T-8 National Airlines T-26 United Airlines T-2 Delta T-13 Baniff T-19 Consolidated Freight Ways T-17 (* AT & T which is a subsidiary of British Telecom owned by Rothschilds, owns Sprint, and MCI) ( ** Ranking in Transportation Industry) Freeport Sulphur International basic Economy Corporation Bank trusts holdings are a unique feature. Banks hold commercial corporations stock in trust accounts for their clients. Most of the times these clients are not disclosed and they give proxy voting rights to the banks regarding their stock holdings. Chase trust department along with its companion Investment Management Corporation controls single largest block of stock in the following corporations. United Airlines (One of the planes used in Bombing on Sep 11) Northwest Airlines Long Island Lighting Atlantic Richfield Oil (Enron is one of its subsidiary) National Airlines. The following are the companies that have ties with Rockefeller group as they have interlocking directorships with them. Most of these following mentioned belong to other families. Carnegies Empire of rail roads, or Harriman’s empire of Steel. Corporation Name Ranking by Fortune magazine About the size of Asset Holding Corporation Name Ranking by Fortune magazine About the size of Asset Holding Allied Chemical 85 Anaconda Copper 118 Dupont 17 Monsanto 43 Olin Mathison 161 Borden 47 National Distilleries 185 Shell 14 Gulf 7 Union Oil 34 Dow 27 Celanese 101 Pittsburgh Plate Glass 113 Cities Service 61 Stauffer Chemical 233 Continental Oil 16 Union Carbide 22 American Cyanamid 107 American Motors 93 Bendix 77 Chrysler 11 CIT Financial F-9 S.S. Kresge F-9 R.H.Macy R-27 6. Rothschilds-Lords of Everything (Gold, Diamonds, Oil, Banking, Rail Roads, Insurance, Shipping) In all the above houses we came across the name Rothschilds. Who are they? They are the uncrowned rulers of the ADAE, the English world, one of the main former owners of EIC and bank of England and umpteen corporations. Who are they? According to historians it is an enigma wrapped in mythological proportions, a history untold in historical books but which is passed on generation after generation in every part of Islamic and Christian countries starting from Portugal to Russia, Morocco to Philippines (probably with exception of India). Every European noble and commoner, with awe and reverence take their name. According to economists most of the African, Arabic, Australian and Asian countries wealth, and natural resources are owned by them. According to biographers they are the uncrowned masters and lords of Europe and most of the World we live in. Virtually they own every thing in Europe except some wealth in France and Germany. Every oil field, every bank, every insurance company, every educational institute, every thing said written shown (entire media-TV, Radio, Newspapers, Publishing house) in Europe, Africa, Australia, United States of America including Reuters, AP, are either owned by them or by their associates. According to critics, catholic, protestant clerics and church organizations they are the ruthless exploiters and international merchant bankers. According to various nations’ patriotic leaders they are behind every coup, every change of every government and leader in every part of the world. But who are they? A family unheard (or deliberately not publicized for fear of persecution by Church) until beginnings of 17th century, came from where? How it rose to such a gigantic proportions? How they achieved the glory of becoming the leaders and lords of the world in short span of 200 years? What history as told by history books (mostly owned by them) tell and do not tell? And what historical facts exist in the untold history that was omitted from the historical books and found by researchers. According to observers of history Rothschild is neither their first name nor their family name, nor it is the title they have taken, but it became the story of ever evolving knighthood of many myths, they are the protagonist of the first worlds (post renaissance Europe) Jewish family. It is this family that out mastered Napoleon, outlived Hitler, built railroads in Europe, factories in South America, developed oilfields in Africa and Arabia, water and power generation in Canada, financed many uranium mines in world and pumped money to built tunnel under the English Channel, supported enormous philanthropies, helped to create countries, toppled dynasties, owned art collections, castles and great vineyards-and have triumphantly over come the dangers of decadence that are said to be inevitable after eight generation.[10] They were behind destruction of every European monarchy, creation of both free trade and communism, subjugation of India and China under East India companies, exploitation of Africa via their associates, and finally believed to be the master minds behind the creation of state of Israel. They protected Jews from definite annihilation, finally brought the dream of 1000 years, the homeland for Jews with Jerusalem as its capital in 1948. The family never allowed any biographer to write about them, yet thousands of books exist about them. Some are tacitly approved by them some are protested by them in courts and yet the books come till Rothschilds write about themselves. Till then the same tales about them will be told and retold as were done in Jewish Chronicles. All the tales start in the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt either in 1743 or 1774, where Mayer Amschel Rothschild was born and began his life as a merchant of cloth and old coin. He became a money changer then moved from his house on whose door Red shield (in German Rot Schild later Rothschild thus their name) was painted to a larger five stories Green Shield and send his four sons to the then citadels (read kingdoms) of finance and politics in Europe. Jacob (latter became James) went to Paris-France, Salomon to Vienna-Austria, Kalmann to Naples-Italy, and finally Nathan to London-Great Britain. Amschel stayed at home with the father in Frankfurt-Germany. The internal squabble of the European principalities and kingdoms led to frequent wars among nations in those days. When Prince William of Hesse Cassel forced to flee for the fear of Napoleon he asked M.A. Rothschild to safe guard his possessions (gold and other valuables). Rothschild accepted and sent the same to Nathan in London who invested the same in speculation and stock market and multiplied the fortune. When Prince William returned then the father gave back the fortune and interest. In the same way the British government asked Nathan to ship gold to Duke of Wellington who was trapped in Spain through enemy lines. Nathan accepted and shipped the gold to his brother James in Paris and James smuggled the same through the enemy lines bribing local police officials and ministers to Duke of Wellington Admiral Nelson. When smuggling takes heroic proportions then it becomes main stream history. So too the financial coup of Nathan in London was told and retold many a times to become greater than history. Nathan got the advance information from his couriers in France that Napoleon was in fact defeated. Then he used a technique on the London stock exchange which other Rothschilds and their associates used on various stock markets to make a killing. Instead of buying the British shares which an average investor does, Nathan, upon the receipt of the Napoleon defeat straight went to London stock exchange and leaned against a pillar (which is now called Nathan Pillar) and asked his agents to sell the British stock. Panic spread in the market and people thought that British were defeated and every body started to sell. Within hours the London stock market crashed. Just before the close hours of market Nathan ordered his agents to buy. With out any emotion the agents obeyed and bought the entire British stock at a cut throat prices. Finally the next day the news reached about Wellington’s victory. The stock market rose sharply. The French markets collapsed. James Rothschild bought the entire French stock markets. Over night the fortunes of Rothschilds rose and the bankrupt British and French governments and other small kingdoms after Napoleonic war came kneeling for money or gold or for both to Rothschilds. From here there was no turning back. The Jewish Chronicles (encyclopedia of Jewish people) always dedicated special references to Nathan and claim that it was Nathan Rothschild who in fact defeated Emperor Napoleon not Duke of Wellington-Nelson. All brothers well established themselves in all capitals of Europe. One of the brothers James (Jacob) Rothschild in Paris was called “King of Jews” and Napoleon III even paid a state visit to him. The Rothschild houses in Vienna-Austria and Hamburg-Germany were latter destroyed and closed by Hitler during Nazi upspring during 1935-39. How rich are they? No one knows. The English Rothschilds still own and operate via N & M Rothschild & Co, a partnership firm. According to English law partnership firms need not disclose their profits. Through a series of trusts holding companies hundreds and thousands or other major corporations were held by them. Major European banks Bank of England (now handed over to British Parliament), Barclays bank, and Standard Chartered are the ones owned by them directly or indirectly. Shell, British Petroleum, British telecom is in their orbit. All major news papers published in London and world wide the Times group, Daily Telegraph, and host of other tabloids in England, France are within their either direct or indirect control. The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) which is one of their main instruments of news and views propagation is within their control. The Time-Warner Group of motion picture production companies are within their orbit. Time Warner group-with all its affiliated periodicals-Time, Money, Fortune, Life, People and Sports Illustrated-is within their control. The mighty Holly Wood Film industry under Warner Brothers is under their control. The Cable News Network which is part of Time Warner Empire is under their control. The main news suppliers Reuters of England and Associated Press of France are within their control. During first half of 18 century Rothschilds bought out various European Government loans amounting to 1,600,000,000 (1.6 Trillion) British pounds. This is only an estimate but how much interest these loans carry and how much the British government and other European governments have to pay anybody’s guess. Also they entered in to lucrative and speculative markets of foreign bond buying issued by various foreign governments as part of financing other nation’s infrastructure expansion plans. The derivative security markets trade (dealing with the options, futures etc) by the banks associate with Rothschild and Rockefellers alone worth more than $ 360 Trillion U.S. dollars against the assets of paltry $ 300 billion dollars. It is this unknown power to most of Indians that controls the world against which independent minded nations like France Germany Russia are struggling to contain in uphill battle. Most of the stock investing operations were done through their associates in United States of America-the house of Morgan. Morgan Stanley, Morgan-Dewitt-Stanley is the prime banking brokers in derivative market. Apart from it Kuhn & Leob, Goldman Sachs, American Express, Lehman bank are the brokerage houses that deal with personal and corporate portfolios. Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs are the mutual fund giants that control investment portfolios in the world. Rupert Murdoch and his meteoric rise owes to the unlimited billions of dollars of financing offered to him by Sir Openheimer and Rothschild. With this unlimited money he bought the Star TV to control the minds of Asians, started FOX news network to control the minds of Americans, and ready to buy any thing that prints broadcasts and airs any where in the world. Also they financed a vast majority of freedom movements within many foreign governments. Once the governments fail to repay they have two methods of recovering their debt. Either getting the unhindered authority over the natural resources of foreign governments-via loans from IMF, WB or ADB (all these banks get funding from Rockefeller and Rothschild banks), or over throwing the governments by helping ‘freedom fighters’ who in turn will open the way for the unhindered authority for developing (exploiting) natural resources of the particular country. If there is no freedom movement then their job is done by the British government it self as a matter of courtesy towards Rothschilds who financed the British government for many centuries in good and bad times (like Iraqi war). More than 200 terrorist movements world wide were linked to the philanthropies funded by Rothschilds. The League of Nations, the united nations owe their existence and constitution to the generosity of Rothschilds and their associates. The United Nations offices today stand over the land donated by Rockefellers.
Posted by: acharya Nov 7 2003, 05:42 PM
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 7 2003, 06:29 PM
acharya,I did not say they will fail for want of trying. But they will fail (in bringing India into their orbit). Of course if India insists on bargaining away her 'chips' then it is a different matter. But i do not believe the Indian leadership is that obtuse. The US does not as yet fathom the civilizational strength and depth of India. They see only the drab landscape of a corrupted land strewn with undernourished bedraggled children. Being a young nation and being rather contemptuous of older civlizations (older than 200 years that is), they do not comprehend the deep yearning Indians have for retaining the uniqueness of their culture and civilization. And to the limited extent they do it only arouses a vague feeling of fear (of the unknown) of what they cannot comprehend. Better the devil they know than the snotty Hindu nationalists with intellectuaal pretensions. But realpolitik will eventually lead them to an entente with the Indic civilization as the alternatives are even less palatable.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 8 2003, 11:48 AM At least these days the US does a little something positive wrt to their dear friends from TSP
Posted by: vishal Nov 8 2003, 12:16 PM
well, in my opinion NRIs are bigger threat to INDIA nad indian culture than China. Most of NRIs are blindly supporting so called "secularists" in india. [Actually they fear if hindus got united in INDIA then its impossible to stop them and congress is helping these kinda people divide them.] ONE MORE STRIKING THING IS AFTER THIS BJP CAME TO POWER POWER AND INTENSITY OF NGO (mostly operated/funded by these NRIs) HAS INCREASED SO MUCH. look at this : [its ridiculous. What NRIs has to do with what is happening inside india?? the way this is legal matter. Sarabhai can goto court.why so much NRIs whining?!) One more thing is its NRIs in britain and america who has humiliated pro-hindu govt. in india most. Its clearly an example how much socially reverse engineered NRIs has been by colonialists ]
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 8 2003, 07:08 PM
US training Indian pilots to fly F-16s * IAF chief rejects arms race in South Asia, says India is not `Pakistan centric' By Iftikhar Gilani NEW DELHI: Americans are training Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots to fly F-16 Fighting Falcons, the mainstay of the Pakistan Air Force. Indian Air Force Chief S Krishnaswamy disclosed here that several IAF pilots were attending training courses in the United States and they had already logged a number of hours in flying the F-16 Falcons of the US Air Force. However, he said the Americans had decided to confront IAF Mirages, MiG-21 and Jaguars with only F-15s and not the advanced Fighting Falcons for the first ever fighter-to-fighter exercises between the US Air Force and the Indian Air Force to be held in central Indian city of Gwalior in February. He also maintained that there were no immediate plans for air-to-air exercises with China. He said the IAF was planning to expand to keep pace with India's move to become an economic super power. Krishnaswamy told a press conference in New Delhi that the IAF would go from 39 squadrons to 60 squadrons over the next 10 years. If India has a vision to become a major world power by the year 2020, "the forces must be capable of taking care of those interests," he said. But he said the expansion of the IAF was not aimed at any country, including traditional rival Pakistan. "We are not Pakistan-centric... Pakistan is meaningless to us," he said. Krishnaswamy said recent statements by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that the acquisition of new arms by India including the Phalcon system would fuel an arms race in South Asia, were "propaganda of sorts." The air chief said there would be a series of exercises with the US and British air forces next year to sharpen the skills of its personnel. In July, IAF personnel will go to Alaska and four to six of the IAF's Jaguar aircraft will take part in the exercises for the first time.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 8 2003, 07:25 PM
From the above link,
We are not Pakistan-centric... Pakistan is meaningless to us," he said.
At least in this forum we are living up to these words and are not obsessing unduly over each and every move of pakistan. Pakistan is a pimple on the ass of india. Let us not therefore populate the forum with 55 different threads on Pakistan. Everytime India fahrts , there is an earthquake in the terrorist land, but let us not pay them inordinate attention by doing likewise. Here is one more reason why;
The eight poorest countries on the only planet in the solar system having a human population are Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia, Nigeria, Mozambique and Pakistan. Majority of the population in six of the eight countries is Muslim. Six of the world’s poorest countries, thus belong to the ‘world of Islam’ that from seventh to fourteenth century led the way in chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, and medicine and for six centuries since has been promoting anti-science and anti-enlightenment attitudes. Today, this ‘world of Islam’ consists of fifty-six countries in ten regions. It has a population of 1.3 billion — a fifth of the entire humanity. This ‘world of Islam’ has been endowed with two thirds or three fourths of the world’s mineral wealth and oil but twenty-two of the 56 countries, that is forty per cent, refuse to have anything to do with democracy and human rights. Fifteen per cent of the countries have hereditary monarchies. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have 700 billion barrels of oil but the gross domestic product of the entire ‘world of Islam’ is $1.05 trillion compared to United States’ GDP of $14 trillion, France’s $1.5 trillion, Germany’s $2 trillion, England’s $1.5 trillion and Europe’s sickest economy, Italy’s $1.05 trillion. Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Brunei have a per capita income in excess of $10,000 but in fifty of the fifty-six countries the per capita income is less than $5,000. In fact, forty-five of the countries have a per capita income of less than $1,000. It is hard to deny that ignorance is the biggest and most basic reason for poverty. Replacing ignorance with enlightenment, however, is not a priority with our financial experts and economic reformers. As a result, more than 800 million of the 1.3 billion people in the ‘world of Islam’ are illiterate. There are no more than 600 universities in the ‘world of Islam’ and none of them comes up to international standards. In a single developed country, Japan, by comparison, there are 1,000 universities engaged in research and teaching at international standards. A single city, Tokyo, has 113 top universities. The United States has 5,758 and our neighbour India 8,407 universities. The entire ‘world of Islam’ has no more than 300,000 scientists — nearly 230 per million. The United States alone has 1.1 million scientists and Japan 700,000. The United States, a country of 290 million, boasts of 227 Nobel laureates.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 8 2003, 08:29 PM
The post made by acharya regarding the Rotschilds and other Jewish multinational empires immediately brings to mind the assertions made previously in history. Most recently Mahathir said the same thing. Before him Osama said the same thing. Even before that at the heart of the Jewish-German conflict surrounding WWII was a similar clash between the multinational Jewish business and the German nationalism which saw considerable potential for financial gain by simply looting the Jewish MN enterprises. The fact that the Germans succeeded and the Jews lost heavily circum-WWII suggests that the Jewish MNCs really did not command much muscle power at that point to protect themselves against a direct attack. However, they learned their lesson during WWII and have steadily built themselves fire power, by bringing many Western governments to their side, for any future emergency, especially in the event of a clash with Islam. As far as Indians go, this clash will need to be monitored carefully as it may impact India's own millenial struggle against Islamic violence. There are many things to learn and correct from these historical lessons. One point to ponder upon: Indians had immense trading networks that ran through Central Asia and Eastern Europe until as late as the 1700s. Why did this trading network collapse completely and what were its consequences? Why do we not hear about these trading networks in our history books.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 8 2003, 11:41 PM
The Rothschilds are the most famous among the legendary financial empires in History. The story goes that during the Battle of waterloo, they spread the rumor that the Prussians under Blucher were delayed arriving at the scene of the Battle raising the specter of defeat of Wellington at the hands of the corsican bandit. After unloading huge amounts of the right currency they bought it all back at a pittance before the conclusion of the battle. such is the stuff of which fortunes are made. a very brief story of the Rothschilds;
Some remarks on the Rothschild family: Moses Amschel (born in Hannover, Germany, in 1734) had opened a shop in Frankfurt/Main, Germany, under the logo of a red shield (German: Das Rot(h)e Schild(t)), where the name is supposed to originate from, at least according to ref. (18b), under a green shield according to ref (18c). His son Mayer Amschel (1743-1812) founded a bank at Kassel, Germany and all his five sons, in their turn, founded new banks in different European countries. One of them, James (Jakob) Mayer Amschel (1792-1868), founded a bank at Paris, always working closely together with his brothers, especially with the one at London. Partly due to this, his bank could make a huge financial success at the Paris stock exchange by the clever use of a slight time advantage in the first few hours following the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. His son Edmond James de Rothschild (1845-1934) was an important contributor towards cultural societies in France as well as to the zionistic movement. He was also the founder of the Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique. One of his sons was Maurice Edmond Charles de Rothschild (1881-1957), followed by his son Edmond James de Rothschild (1926-1997), who was quoted here. See also ref. 18b-c.
IOW, the Rothschilds never forgot who they were, first and foremost. I agree Indians should study the House of Rothschilds and similar Houses closer to home such as the Sassoons of Bombay.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 11 2003, 05:51 PM The problem with Indo - US relationships especially this latest round, is that India is held up to a higher standard. If TSP refuses to send troops to Iraq, any number of excuses are given by the US justifying the rationality of the decision, but when India does the same, suddenly , it is case of deep disappointment. The problem with the Iraq deployment, is that the US made it crystal clear that India would be doing the US a favor, if they did send troops to Iraq. But now they say they are disappointed. If India was not doing them a favor, then where is the question of disappointment and in fact why should India send any troops at all. How can you be disappointed about something that you had said was no favor to the US. The US cannot have it both ways. The US cannot ask India to send troops to Iraq without at the same time indicating that it was a matter of grave importance to the US and laying out the reasons why. In my opinion India should have been more agressive in asking for quid pro quos. One possible quid pro quo would have been a greater military role in Afghanistan. They should have made it clear to the US that a substantial role in Afghanistan would result in an Iraqi troop deployment by India. Of course the best quid pro quo would have been a direct ultimatum by the americans to Mush to stop all jehadi activities in Kashmir but India could have hinted that a military role in A'stan would serve as next best. Americans are a direct people and the best way to tackle them is to be direct. But in the absence of a single substantive gesture towards India by the US, the proposed Indian troop deployment was doomed from the start. The issue of bringing democracy to iraq is an important reason for india to send troops, but then the US has to explain why absence of democracy is acceptable in Pakistan and why the US supports the idea that Kashmir is a disputed territory.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 12 2003, 05:32 AM
Bush the radical by Daniel Pipes Jerusalem Post November 12, 2003 "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe." This sentence, spoken last week by George W. Bush, is about the most jaw-dropping repudiation of an established bipartisan policy ever made by a US president. Not only does it break with a policy the US government has pursued since first becoming a major player in the Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition, grounded in history, and programmatically specific. It's the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar – not from the leader of a great power. Bush spoke in a candid manner, as heads of state almost never do: "In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export." This is not the first time Bush has dispatched decades' worth of policy toward a Middle East problem and declared a radically new approach. He also did so concerning Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict: Iraq: He brushed aside the long-standing policy of deterrence, replacing it in June 2002 with an approach of hitting before getting hit. US security, he said, "will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." This new approach provided justification for the war against Saddam Hussein, removing the Iraqi dictator from power before he could attack. Arab-Israeli conflict: I called Bush's overhaul of the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict in June 2003 perhaps "the most surprising and daring step of his presidency." He changed presumptions by presenting a Palestinian state as the solution, imposing this vision on the parties, tying results to a specific timetable, and replacing leaders of whom he disapproved. And this time: Democracy: The president renounced a long-accepted policy of "Middle East exceptionalism" – getting along with dictators – and stated US policy would henceforth fit with its global emphasis of making democracy the goal. He brought this issue home by tying it to American security: "With the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo." Then, on the premise that "the advance of freedom leads to peace," Bush announced "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." Drawing explicit comparisons with the US success in sponsoring democracy in Europe and Asia, he called on Americans once again for "persistence and energy and idealism" to do the same in the Middle East. Understanding the rationale behind the old dictator-coddling policy makes clear the radicalism of this new approach. The old way noticed that the populations are usually more anti-American than are the emirs, kings, and presidents. Washington was rightly apprehensive that democracy would bring in more radicalized governments; this is what did happen in Iran in 1979 and nearly happened in Algeria in 1992. It also worried that once the radicals reached power, they would close down the democratic process (what was dubbed "one man, one vote, one time"). Bush's confidence in democracy – that despite the street's history of extremism and conspiracy-mindedness, it can mature and become a force of moderation and stability – is about to be tested. This process did in fact occur in Iran; will it recur elsewhere? The answer will take decades to find out. However matters develop, this gamble is typical of a president exceptionally willing to take risks to shake up the status quo. And while one speech does not constitute a new foreign policy – which will require programmatic details, financial support, and consistent execution – the shift has to start somewhere. Presidential oratory is the appropriate place to start. And if the past record of this president in the Middle East is anything by which to judge – toppling regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, promoting a new solution to Arab-Israeli conflict – he will be true to his word here too. Get ready for an interesting ride. To comment on this article, please go to To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 12 2003, 06:10 AM
This was a good speech by the POTUS. But at the same time he has to explain why he does business with the country which has had 35 years of dictatorship in 55 years of independence. This is also the speech where he made a laudatory reference to democracy in India. Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy United States Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C.
Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.
Now Mr. President, let us replace Middle east with Pakistan and see how the sentence reads; Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in Pakistan did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as Pakistan remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Makes sense to me Mr. president. Now what are we going to do about it ?
Posted by: vishal Nov 12 2003, 11:51 AM
we should concentrate more on making good people in pak powerfull and getting bad peeps out in today's time and chopping more and more on border. thats the only way out. smile.gif west will remove bloody army of paki if its in their interest.Today's time its usefull for west to keep paki blood in power and make india accept US's military friendship when actually its not favourable in long term.
Posted by: parshuram Nov 12 2003, 01:34 PM
QUOTE (tovishal2003 @ Nov 13 2003, 12:21 AM)
we should concentrate more on making good people in pak powerfull and getting bad peeps out in today's time and chopping more and more on border. thats the only way out. smile.gif west will remove bloody army of paki if its in their interest.Today's time its usefull for west to keep paki blood in power and make india accept US's military friendship when actually its not favourable in long term.
I would offer a slightly different course of action: Let the "good people" in Pakistan go about killing and eliminating "bad people" in Pakistan. Secure the borders until one of them destroys the other. Then, it would be a lot easier to deal with who ever is left. Besides, once the pakis go at each other's throats, the "west' will be back where it belongs - in the setting sun.
Posted by: Krishna Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM
Old is still gold. Use the age old british poilcy of Divide & Rule! First create two groups in Pakistan. Since they already exist we need to identify them and then support BOTH of 'em to kill each other out! smile.gif That too, in a very professional fashion, like the Israelis. In the 80s Israelis not only provided arms to the Sri Lankan Army but also to the LTTE, at the same time. And no one in hell knew about it, till now! tongue.gif We cunning yindoos should apply this lesson from the cunning yihoodis! cool.gif
Posted by: Viren Nov 13 2003, 11:47 AM OUTLOOK INDIA.COM, NOVEMBER 17, 2003 INDO-US TIES I DO, I DON'T: CANCUN, IRAQ DISPEL AMERICA'S COMPLACENCE ABOUT INDIA SEEMA SIROHI Is India a "won't do" country? An important slice of Washington seems to think so. Key US agencies are filled with disappointment and even anger at India's stand on two important issues that have wide implications—its refusal to send troops to Iraq despite indications from senior politicians, and its strong alignment with developing countries against the US at the Cancun trade talks. Old complaints about how India never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity are being revived even as Indo-US relations are headed for better times on other fronts. The two issues have created an eddy of discontent, which could trap progress on other paths in an otherwise expanding relationship. A third complication in the political cauldron is the impending purchase of 35 aircraft by Air India for which Boeing has made an aggressive pitch. A letter signed by 45 US Congressmen, including the co-chairs of the India Caucus, was sent to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee last month, strongly urging him to choose Boeing as a "great demonstration of strengthened commercial relations". The letter was a loud appeal and a pressure tactic. It went on to link US unemployment to the Boeing issue, adding an uncomfortable "friend-in-need" element. If Airbus wins over Boeing when the decision is finally made, American feathers will be further ruffled. Sources say the Boeing bid is "much higher", making the long-pending decision even more difficult. The anger over Cancun and Iraq came spilling out at a recent round of Indo-US Track II talks. The Indian delegation got more than "an earful" from the US side, prompting questions about the two completely different versions of events. It is no secret that senior Pentagon officials felt let down by India's refusal to send troops after what they thought were assurances to do so during high-level meetings. Hope built steadily in Washington as teams went to New Delhi to work out the details of the command and control to accommodate Indian concerns. "Then it was dashed," says a knowledgeable source. Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz reportedly is so incensed that he recently referred to India's reasoning as "devious" and "ingenious" (coming from Wolfowitz - it's a compliment )biggrin.gif "There is dissatisfaction over the miscommunication. The US side was led to believe that a UN resolution would help and that India was prepared to send troops under a UN mandate but now they know that under no circumstance would India send troops," says James Steinberg, vice president at the Brookings Institute think-tank. Between the summer visits and the UN resolution, brutal reality intervened as suicide bombings rose in frequency and lethality. The painfully crafted UN resolution fell short of expectations and many countries, including India, balked at the idea of sending troops to an increasingly volatile theatre of war. A US diplomat offered a more reasonable explanation when he said that some people in the Indian government wanted to send troops and were honestly exploring ways to make it happen. "Vajpayee was never comfortable with the idea and probably had an instinctive sense that this wasn't the right move. (got to hand it to the old poet - looks like his gut instincts were right) The Pentagon is upset because they were looking desperately to share the burden (wonder if Pentagon is upset with Pukes - atleast they are sending Pukes $$ by bus-loads and should have every reason to be upset if the two bit puki despot dosen't fall in fatafat when asked to) ." Those who do not consider New Delhi ally material find their position strengthened. A significant body of opinion in Washington, fed by both history and Pakistani opportunism, can't get past bitterness about India stemming from years of Cold War politics and strident rhetoric at the UN This club is propagating a "go slow" approach with India. A senior member of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank close to this administration, became passionately vocal when asked about India's decision not to send troops to Iraq. "India can't seem to think big.If it had sent troops, there is little it could not have asked for in return." The US diplomat, too, believes India's decision not to send troops would "reinforce those who feel India is not a reliable partner". (yep - the good old carrots and sticks - too bad neither worked) While the Pentagon is across the river from the White House, the office of the US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick is barely a block away and the feedback on Cancun has been flowing since September. Zoellick, who famously wrote that the Cancun talks fell apart because of the "won't do" countries, counts India among the spoilers. Did India kill Cancun? (there's a good article in latest Forbes by Mexico's Foreign minister who's currently economic advisor/prof of Yale stating as to who really killed Cancun and all the hush-hush dealings the 'white' guys were trying to push.) Says a senior Indian official, "It's a mystery. There was a corpse at Cancun but no one knows who committed the murder." A US trade official too compares it to an Agatha Christie whodunit where 15 or 16 members could be guilty of the crime. Some said it was miscommunication, some said it was denial while others claimed it was the American tendency to first ignore the hard reality, then get miffed. US senators and senior members of the US Chamber of Commerce have given their assessments and India does not have a halo. Reasons cited for the disappointment are many. A senior US trade official says the US shared its "cards" with India while New Delhi "didn't reveal" anything. "This, despite the immediate background of us devising a close relationship and building a certain rapport with commerce minister Arun Jaitley." The US side is also deeply upset at what it says is the total disregard for the concessions on aids drugs it made ahead of the round. "We were bewildered and disappointed," the official added. "We got acrimony and speeches which treated the WTO as a venue for a North-South trade war." (it's hilarious to see US officials go complaining when things don't go their way. Anyone keeping track of latest acrimonious debate on steel tariff with EU where US completely changed thr rules of the game ) biggrin.gif Former ambassador Teresita Schaffer says of the US reaction: "The word is bitterness. India and the US have great difficulty working together in multilateral settings and India still has people who see the US as an enemy. Every commerce minister wants to come home with a scalp." Indian officials strongly dispute the characterisation which they say stems from "old" thinking. Besides, the complexities of Cancun can't be reduced so. As for allegations of "Third World trade unionism", they say it was the US which first embraced the protectionist EU. "We'd gone to negotiate seriously but the meetings took another turn. Yes, we believe in multilateral negotiations but the interests of developing countries can't be ignored in a development round," says an Indian official. Even the western press talked of US-EU concessions as being too small to keep everyone on board. Meanwhile, US businessmen tried to break India away from the G-21 group by urging India to negotiate alone as it was now a heavyweight cool.gif . The ego-boosting bore no fruit. The EU also tried to drive a wedge between the private sector and the Indian government. Cancun and Iraq are two road blocks but if India and the US drive through, they'd have moved closer to a mature relationship.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 13 2003, 12:03 PM
People should all read Anaath Das's brilliant work before commenting on US-IND relationships. He has captured the essence of the matter.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 13 2003, 12:06 PM
Do any of you all get the feel that the US is doing something major behind the scenes in TSP? It looks as though they are penetrating all the terrorist outfits and trying to neutralize their potential to damage the US. I wonder if any of this may impact our own battle against Islamic terrorists. Those people who believe in the theory that most terrorism is emanating from Pakistan might conclude that these covert actions could be helpful for the world in general.
Posted by: Mudy Nov 13 2003, 12:24 PM
HH, I don't think so, because till well funded Madarasas are running and Azar and Saaed are free to give sermon anywhere in Pakistan, it is not remotely possible. I think this sudden lull in Paki media points towards something else. is it Paki Army is preparing for other day. No demonstration - Paki Army is in full control. Paki media is silent - Suppression. Mohajir is Dictator - Hurting H&D of Punjabi, Sindhi and Baloch. US had put lot of pressure on Mushy plus it seems all senior Paki Army officers are very well bribed by US. Wait till PA generals get retire. Lot are retiring end of this year and rest next in March.
Posted by: vishal Nov 13 2003, 01:21 PM
Viren, thats a good article.I have some points to make from this: 1)this article is useless. 2)this article is pointless. 3)this article is an artwork to mend brains of soft heart indians. ..... .... .... 9990)this outlook india EDITOR is a bas**** working as foreign agent. thanks. biggrin.gif
Posted by: Viren Nov 13 2003, 01:34 PM
QUOTE (tovishal2003 @ Nov 13 2003, 04:21 PM)
Viren, thats a good article.I have some points to make from this: 1)this article is useless. 2)this article is pointless. 3)this article is an artwork to mend brains of soft heart indians. ..... .... .... 9990)this outlook india EDITOR is a bas**** working as foreign agent. thanks. biggrin.gif
Vishal: That's why my comments are in small blue fonts within the text of the article wink.gif
Posted by: acharya Nov 13 2003, 01:52 PM
QUOTE (Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 13 2003, 07:03 AM)
People should all read Anaath Das's brilliant work before commenting on US-IND relationships. He has captured the essence of the matter.
WHich one. Can you post the link
Posted by: Sudhir Nov 13 2003, 03:01 PM
QUOTE (Viren @ Nov 14 2003, 12:17 AM)
The Pentagon is upset because they were looking desperately to share the burden (wonder if Pentagon is upset with Pukes - atleast they are sending Pukes $$ by bus-loads and should have every reason to be upset if the two bit puki despot dosen't fall in fatafat when asked to) ."
"Japan has said it wants to think about the timing" of its deployment, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said in Washington. "We understand that."
Wonder as to how this is reported in Japan. I mean, do they too have their own DDM types? blink.gif
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 14 2003, 12:46 AM
acharya, will do. have brought my laptop along and your essays too. Hopefully i will have some time to think and formulate ideas, without the normal distractions such as the internet. Washington: US President George W Bush has picked Credit Suisse international chairman David Mulford to be ambassador to India, the White House has announced. Mulford previously served as chairman and chief executive officer for Credit Suisse in Europe, and before that, as undersecretary for international affairs for the US Treasury Department. His nomination was announced on Thursday. All ambassadorial nominations require US Senate approval. Mulford, from Illinois, will succeed former ambassador Robert Blackwill. If his appointment is confirmed by the Senate, Mulford's arrival in India may be seen as a sign that Washington wants to prioritise the booming ties between the world's top economic power and its largest democracy. Among Mulford's academic qualifications is a doctrate from Oxford University. PTI
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 14 2003, 06:48 AM
After 9-11 which has been a traumatic experience for most Americans watching the twin towers tumble down (I was in SF area that day and it was an awesome spectacle played out on the TV), American policy could not be 'business as usual'. The Attorney General has been going hammer and tongs to control immigration policies and increased surveillance. There has been a definite turn-about on F-1 visas for students from selected countries. America has always been a police state and more so, after 9-11. The situation should not be judged with reference to Iraq alone (which is to be seen in the context of the need to control most of the oil-fields for uninterrupted supplies to gas-guzzling Americans), but in the context of Israeli's success in ensuring direct American involvement in the Middle-East. The expansion of NATO's reach into Afghanistan is a clear success for America (whatever the US involvement in the creation of Taliban and failed attempt during Bill Clinton's presidency in eliminating the core cadres despite scores of tomahawks fired into Afghanistan, when not a dog barked). The situation should be judged in the clearest statement which came out impulsively: that it was a crusade, the war of the 21st century. We should encourage America to continut to think on these lines of the crusade and ensure their continued engagement with the islamists who dream of a caliphate. A nexus has already evolved between the baptists (and other proselytizers) and the US state policy as evidenced by the interventions in the Fergana valley to counter the adventures of UBL (Usama Bin Laden) in this central asian zone to expand the caliphate. A success story was the conversion of 50% of muslims in Kyrgystan and the release of the german missionaries prior to the Afghan campaign. The reason why USA is reaching out to Bharat with increased joint military exercises is a clear realization that the centre of gravity in geopolitics has shifted beyond the Middle East and with extensions to Sabah (not far from the Straits of Malacca). We should pause and reflect why US-Indian joint exercises include air-drops on Alaskan and Leh glaciers and why Dalai Lama came out with a statement in Washington DC that Tibet should be a zone of peace. (This is an euphemism for the demand for the removal of nuclear missiles, with a reach of 13,000 miles, from the roof of the world). We should also encourage USA to start realizing that an islamic nuke is ticking in Pakistan. If the failed state gets radicalised (read: fundamentalised), there is a danger that 9-11 will look like a walk in the park if any misadventure from islamists succeeds. How can Stephen Cohen be so sure that the nukes will strike Mumbai, even in the changed circumstances? What should be Bharat's response to the fundamental changes in strategic thinking that have clearly taken place in USA after 9-11? This should be our principal concern in evolving our own responses to the demands which will be incresingly made to safeguard (i.e. increasing EU-US military presence) the Himalayan heights and the Indian Ocean sea-lanes. The creation of a Trans-Himalayan Development Authority is a good step which should be followed by defining what it is supposed to do, and do it. This will call for clear, strategic, counter-demands from Bharat: pull out the proselytizers from the north-east and de-nuke Paki. The goal for 2020? Asian Economic Community with Bharat in a lead role. Kalyan
Posted by: vishal Nov 14 2003, 11:16 AM
QUOTE (Dr. S. Kalyan @ Nov 14 2003, 07:18 PM)
America has always been a police state and more so, after 9-11.
and not definately a democracy too. Even today americans don't know about purpose of iraq war. They are in weet dreams that they liberated iraqis from saddam or maybe its OIL.See media in america and in Europe, you will get clear difference. Unilateralism is harmful to india as well as to world.Instead we should keep neutral and concentrate on our economy and reforms,technology.
Posted by: vishal Nov 14 2003, 11:53 AM
QUOTE (Dr. S. Kalyan @ Nov 14 2003, 07:18 PM)
The situation should not be judged with reference to Iraq alone (which is to be seen in the context of the need to control most of the oil-fields for uninterrupted supplies to gas-guzzling Americans), ............ The situation should be judged in the clearest statement which came out impulsively: that it was a crusade, the war of the 21st century.
which is to be seen in the context of the need to control most of the oil-fields for uninterrupted supplies to gas-guzzling Americans blink.gif oh come on, you are telling me americans need help??? you mean they did right thing by killing 55,000 iraqis? They did it bcoz , Real threat to U.S. economic hegemony is from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. 1)OPEC's plan of accepting EURO as currency for trading OIL from next year and which means End of Dollar hegemony from world trade.(and in consequence from world reserves too). 2)Saddam decided to trade oil in EURO in july 2000.That was main reason of angering USA. 3)Invasion of iraq is signal to OPEC that don't make EURO petro-currency. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China." This information about Iraq's oil currency is being censored by the U.S. media and the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off Middle-Eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards a war with Iraq.(...this document was out before invasion of iraq.) "The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)." (Its clear from this....USA do not want any other power in world playground,play alone...not even europe) "Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Moreover, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran's central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency. "He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in global trade." [4] Now some in the administration -- and allies at D.C. think tanks -- are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: `Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. [b] Real men want to go to Tehran.'" [5] Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. NORTH KOREA---> Incidentally, the final `Axis of Evil' country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002. [7] Unlike the OPEC-producers, North Korea's switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of Bush's harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's bellicosity has changed the worldview, and `anti-Americanism' is proliferating even among our closest allies. [8] The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world's other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band -- removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a "win-win" for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro. The U.S. economy has acquired significant structural imbalances, including our record-high trade account deficit (now almost 5% of GDP), a $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (60% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These factors would devalue the currency of any nation under the `old rules.' Why is the dollar still predominant despite these structural imbalances? While many Americans assume the strength of the U.S. dollar merely rests on our economic output (i.e. GDP), the ruling elites understand that the dollar's strength is based on two fundamentally unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies. [b] The reality is that the strength of the U.S. dollar since 1945 rests on its being the international reserve currency. Thus it assumes the role of fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. `petro-dollar'). The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc. In essence, global oil consumption provides a subsidy to the U.S. economy. Hence, the Europeans created the euro to compete with the dollar as an alternative international reserve currency. Obviously the E.U. would like oil priced in euros as well. full article can be read at, or ...........(by Acharya) We shouldn't prefer sending troops to any country for US in future. Only under one-condition as you said in your last para, "denuke-paki and divide them in 4 regions". In that case it will be good deal.
Posted by: vishal Nov 14 2003, 12:12 PM
Right now i am reading this which claims 9/11 was did by bush and CIA.They knew it.!! ohmy.gif One more parallel to Pearl Harbor, where Roosevelt knew ahead the attack was coming and let it happen so the US could enter the World War. At least we knew the Japanese were the authors of that event. Right now, we know nothing about who is really behind this one. can someone answer me that, 1)how pentagon was invaded? most secure building in the world has no security/RADAR system??? 2)why investigation was not made public? 3)why investigation was stopped by order of donald rumsfeld(?) mid-way saying "its enough....its over"..?? 4)there is a claim on one internet site that jews who worked in WTC were absent on 9/11 from their job.They knew it?
Posted by: vishal Nov 14 2003, 12:26 PM
kalyan, this is best apportunity for india to stay away and see how osama finishes US if he has such reach. Our aim should be let america goto hell bcoz this power is useless,unilateral and most importantly very dangerous to world peace.Let them fight their own war and own games. IMHO, world will be more safer and balanced if there is no USA. smile.gif (and peacefull too)
Posted by: Krishna Nov 14 2003, 02:57 PM
QUOTE (vishal @ Nov 14 2003, 01:26 PM)
IMHO, world will be more safer and balanced if there is no USA. smile.gif (and peacefull too)
IMO, the biggest threat world has is from islam, whether we have the balls to say it the way it is is of course a different matter. In the coming years USA's power, policing capability, would only go down, as globalization progresses, but that's a big question mark ????
Posted by: Ram Nov 14 2003, 04:51 PM
Friends, Truly enraged by Stephen Uneven Cohen's nuclear blackmail to India on behalf of Pakis in an interview he gave to Indian express, I sent the following feedback to lots of influential think tank and university personalities. Any comments? Subject: Stephen Cohen's nuclear blackmail Gentlemen, This is Dr. ******, a private citizen from *******. Some of you have heard from me before. As you can probably surmise from the subject of this e-mail, I am truly shocked and perturbed after coming across the following interview that Prof. Stephen Cohen of Brookings institution, an often quoted ‘South Asia expert’ gave to Indian express, where he quite brazenly issues a nuclear blackmail to India on behalf of the Pakistani terrorist dictatorship: In almost all of Stephen Cohen's publicly expressed viewpoints, he maintains a strict balance/neutrality between India and Pak which is nevertheless an immoral, pro-Pak position because he places the perpetrators of terror (Pak) and the victims (India) at the same moral equivalence. "Both sides are guilty" is his usual refrain. But in this particular interview, he is quite brazen in speaking on behalf of the Pakistani dictatorship by issuing the following nuclear blackmail: <> The risks of breaking up a Pakistan with nuclear weapons are enormous. You could see the loss of a couple of major cities instantaneously. That is a risk no sane Indian leader will run, and so India is forced into seeking a kind of detente with Pakistan ... India can’t have a status quo policy, they’ve got to make some concessions to Pakistan ... <> I think, the interviewer Ms. Jyothi Malhotra, like many Indian journalists, is too incompetent to challenge the likes Stephen Cohen and make him defend this vile statement of his. She was too overawed and this perhaphs prevented her from challenging a world-recognized 'South Asia expert’ from the mighty USA. But to any objective observer, these kinds of views bring out the vile hypocrisy of so called 'South Asia experts" like Stephen Cohen. Thus, Pakistan is allowed to use Islamic terrorism as an instrument of state policy by hiding behind a nuclear shield, and it is India that has to bend down on its knees and make concessions to Pakistan. Will Stephen Cohen advocate such a reprehensible suggestion to Israel or USA? Should Israel make concessions to Iran because if not, Tel Aviv will be drowned under a mushroom cloud? Should USA make concessions to Osama Bin Ladin because otherwise his hench men will hijack passenger aircrafts and use them as missiles? I have a simple suggestion to deal with a state such as Pakistan, a failing state with nuclear weapons and large number of terrorists. USA, the leader of the free world and superpower should join hands along with India and other like-minded democratic countries to make Pakistan behave. And the tools that should be used are economic sanctions, political/diplomatic isolation, and as a last resort military action with UN approval. If such tools can be used to bring about change in behavior in Afghanistan and Iraq, why not Pakistan? If Iran is being pressured and isolated because of its desire to manufacture nuclear weapons, why not the same standard apply to Pakistan? After all, Pakistan is threatening to use nuclear weapons unlike say Iran. But no, none of these suggestions enter Prof. Stephen Cohen's mind; but hyphenating India with Pak, and conferring a parity of sorts, and then speciously suggesting that India has no choice but to make concessions to Pak is what the 'erudite scohlar' recommends. What a cruel insult to the world's largest democracy, one of the most responsible states in the comity of nations, and a state that has borne the brunt of Islamic terrorism well before 9/11/01. And that this is the price India has to pay after 9/11/01 when Pakistan's role in fomenting Islamic terrorism is there for all to see is all the more cruel. Who would have forseen that the biggest beneficiary of 9/11/101 would be Pakistan and the same event would turn out to be a strategic disaster for India? Also, I wonder what the non proliferation ayatollahs in Washington think of such appeasement as a means to deal with proliferation of nuclear weapons? One last point gentlemen. On Kashmir, once again Stephen Cohen reverts back to this tried and tested pompous liberal rhetoric of India violating the 'human rights' of Kashmiris. Given the experience of USA in Iraq in fighting a suicidal insurgency, I hope people will understand what India is up against on a daily basis in J&K. Also, Stephen Cohen gives no credit whatsoever to the last elections in J&K which were held at greats cost by India, were certified as free and fair by the international community including the US state dept, and an election that brought to power a popular chief minister who is leaving no stone unturned to address human rights concerns through his ‘healing touch’ policy. Tourism has picked up in recent months, Kashmiris are rushing in droves to avail cell phone opportunities recently introduced by Indian govt despite concerns that mobile communications could be used by Pakistani terrorists, etc. In fact, many observers feel that if Pakistan refrains from fometing terror, India can easily bring normalcy to the state. Once again, such truth, honesty, and hard facts escape Stephen Cohen's mind. In a nutshell, I feel Stephen Cohen fears the worst. He does not want Pakistan to become a failed state, perhaps disintegrating into smaller pieces that can easily be managed by India. Also, he does not even want to see the terrorists leadership of Pakistan disarmed. Why? Because without a Pakistan albatross around India's neck, India's influence and power only grows. Like many cold warriors in Washington, Stephen Cohen does not find this an attractive proposition. He does not buy into PM Vajpayee's and many other notable Indian/American intelligentsia’s views that indeed USA and India are natural allies. Hence the containment policy of India using Pakistan as a proxy. Cheers Ram
Posted by: vishal Nov 15 2003, 12:53 PM
krishna, you are worried about islam??? don't worry...its my guarantee...islam in world will go down this decade and who will do it....u know it. rolleyes.gif but i am not sure about islam around india...pak and bangla... bcoz, my mind is giving signals(sixth sense) that congress is working on plan to re-unifiy india and pak!! (In IFTAR party given by congress PAK's ambassador was present!!!) this even't can't be neglected! because it send clear signals to muslims in india that congress has sympathy with PAK (all muslims) mad.gif and i have clear doubts now that congress meaningfully didn't solved kashmir problem by attacking WEAK PAK (when both nations had no nukes).
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 17 2003, 09:13 AM HINDUSTAN TIMES, NOVEMBER 16, 2003 RINGSIDE VIEW| Briefing the USA B Raman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- On October 29, on invitation from Henry J Hyde, Chairman of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, I testified at a joint hearing which two sub-committees of the Committee were holding on on terrorism in South and South-East Asia and its implications for US counter-terrorism policy. The hearing had a background. Dedicated young men and women of Indian origin have worked to see that India’s case against Pakistan for using terrorism as a weapon to achieve its strategic objective against India is heard in the Administration and the Congress. A little more than a year ago, such persons decided to devote their spare time and energy for briefing policy and law makers in the US on Pakistan’s unreliability as the so-called stalwart ally in the war against terrorism. They formed the US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Seeking a review of the USA’s counter-terrorism policy was not their sole preoccupation. They also decided to contribute to bringing about a strategic convergence between India and the USA by working for a close networking in the political, economic, military, scientific and technological fields. Their most visible success so far has been in the field of counter-terrorism. They have not brought about a change of policy. But, they have induced second thoughts in sections of policy and law makers. There is a not-yet-adequately-articulated disquiet in growing circles in the USA that the war against jihadi terrorism has not been going well. This disquiet is presently confined to sections of the media and the Congress, the Pentagon and the intelligence community, but is not yet shared by the State Department and the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). “Is Pakistan a friend or foe?” is the theme of many articles which have been appearing with increasing frequency in the US media. Many think-tanks and academics have started focussing on Pakistan’s role. The tireless efforts of the volunteers of the USINPAC played an important role in the passage of a resolution by the House on July 16 requesting the President for a periodical report on the action taken by Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, to dismantle terrorist infrastructure in its territory and to stop its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact that this important resolution has not so far found adequate support in the Senate or from the State Department should not detract from its value as the first indicator of second thoughts about the viability and wisdom of the present counter-terrorism policy. The decision to hold the joint hearing and to invite government officials as well as four non-governmental experts — three from the US and one from India — was the second indicator. If one were to go only by the testimonies of Christina Rocca, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asia, and Cofer Black, the former head of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) one would have reasons to be disappointed. Hopes that the induction of Robert Blackwell, former US Ambassador to India, and his assistant, Ashley Tellis, into the NSCS would bring about a new counter-terrorism policy devoid of such illusions about Musharraf have been belied so far. Blackwell, known in India as an articulate and outspoken critic of Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism, has been rendered silent in the NSCS. Tellis has resigned ostensibly on health grounds. India and organisations such as the USINPAC should not let themselves be discouraged by the entrenched “Musharraf can do no wrong” attitudes in the State Department and the NSCS. That attitudes still persist is all the more reason for redoubling their efforts. Dan Burton and Dana Rohrabacher, known for their pro-Pakistan attitude, managed to inject into the counter-terrorism policy hearing questions relating to a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir. While their efforts did not succeed, the discussions on their interventions did highlight India’s failure to emphasise to the international community that the future of PoK is the most important component of what Pakistan projects as the Kashmir dispute. This needs urgent attention. (The writer is Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai.)
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 17 2003, 07:36 PM
Forwarded by someone in New York. Ain't it good to be living in interesting times? Should we keep the life activities uninteresting? Ask Mushy and the Chinese capitalists. K. Firstly, interesting that Pakistan knew which groups were operating where -- considering the crackdown comes 2 days after Ambassador Nancy Powell's bell-ringing talk to the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations. You would have thought that had Pak been as innocent as it claims, it would have been startled by the speech; you would have expected it to at least officially protest such an extremely undiplomatic action; you would have expected it to investigate the complaint. But no -- Powell says terrorist groups are active; 24 hours later, over a dozen of them are banned and their offices sealed -- arguing pre-knowledge of who they are and where they operate from, at the very least. Even more interesting, because the specific instance Powell cited was of Jamaatul Dawa, the openly acknowledged avtaar of the Lashkar e Tayeba. And lo, that group has been found fit only to be placed under a 'watch list' -- stand by for Hafiz Saeed and others to open new offices, under a new organizational name, before Pakistan 'cracks down' on Jamaatul Dawa. At a larger level, though, notice how the squeeze seems to be increasing, on Pak? After the calculated leak of the Pak embassy bugging story, came Powell's startling act of openly raking up such issues while being the official US Ambassador to Pakistan. Meanwhile, Dawn cites an "unnamed US State Dept official" as saying that infiltration continues: And finally, confirmation of something mentioned a long while ago, re the total infiltration of Pak intelligence agencies by the FBI and the CIA: As the famous Chinese curse goes, we live in interesting times
Posted by: Gill Nov 17 2003, 10:10 PM
... Pakistan is meaningless to us," he said. hahahahahah laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Dr. Kalyan, US is the sole super power in the world. Lets just accept this in principle. Any ifs but etc. will not change this simple fact that today Uncle Sam carries the biggest and meanest stick. Lets look at a scenerio, Pakistan general CEO Musharraf packs few nuclear warheads, packs them in bag and delievers it to Osama. Pizza delivery!!! Condition is that one nuke will be detonated in India. What is the Indian response? Do not worry about whether this can happen or not. What will be Indian response. And for all leftist and pinkoos who say nooono Osam or Mushy are not crazy, yeah tell that to my wife who was in Sept 11 rubble!!! So doctor by now you have come up with three different scenerios as to how India can handle this situation. Wrong. None of them will work till Uncle Sam is involved. Same questions were asked in US about Iraq. Though his ttransfer of nukes was not the sole reason, it was among one of them and rightly so. US enacted its "Pro-Active" Policy post Sept 11. Now I dont know what "Pro Active" means in India, just like Hinglish, secularism etc have been twisted so has this word. Simply put US is only looking for its interests, its security. What exactly is stopping India? US? Hell NO! Its goddamn 200 million Indian Muslims who foolishly think of their family links in Pakistan. But these Indians forget that when India gets nuked they are gone too. I completely disagree with you when you say US as a Policeman etc. What the heck is US suppose to do when war is declared? Sit in PMs office and eat chicken and watch hindi films? Come on now. Gill
Posted by: Gill Nov 17 2003, 10:17 PM
Vishal writes, "In IFTAR party given by congress PAK's ambassador was present!!!) this even't can't be neglected! because it send clear signals to muslims in india that congress has sympathy with PAK (all muslims) and i have clear doubts now that congress meaningfully didn't solved kashmir problem by attacking WEAK PAK (when both nations had no nukes)." See! Now why cant we simply label a political party as a anti-national party? Well why not? Indian soldiers, our brothers, sisters etc. are dying and protecting our freedom but what kind of f$%ing freedom? So these goddamn evil people who see Bharat Mata in a firengie aurat and have perverted fantasis about domonatixs etc. are having kababs and chai with the enemy. What is central govt doing here? There is no morality or protocol left in India? Can you imagine democrats having a Sunday barbaque with Taliban Foregin Minister or Ambassador? aaskull.gif
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 20 2003, 05:38 PM INDIA TODAY ON THE NET, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 DIPLOMACY: INDO-US RELATIONS HIGH ON TECH India and the US are poised to sign a breakthrough agreement which will elevate ties and open the latest technology to Indian industry. By Indrani Bagchi Imagine a commercial satellite blasting off from the Sriharikota Space Centre with NASA-ISRO painted on the launch vehicle. Or building modern weapons using Indian software and US technology. It is the kind of vision Indian and US strategists dine on. Thing is, it may no longer be a post-prandial indulgence. As India and the US get ready to sign a high technology pact, India, aiming to move up the quality chain in it, defence, space, life sciences and nanotechnology, may get US know-how that has hitherto been denied. It has taken almost two years of steady whittling down of US objections to get the bilateral hi-tech train going. Since the Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott talks started in 1998, India has held out for access to "dual-use" technology as a "litmus test" of its improving ties with the US. Over the next couple of years, India took significant steps to tighten export controls, simultaneously assuring the US of its non-proliferation credentials, and pushing "strategic trade" in hi-tech sectors. Things moved slowly and even after the establishment of the High Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG) in 2002, the prospects were not bright. It wasn't until September 12 that US Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Undersecretary of Commerce Kenneth Juster walked into the office of National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra. Their brief: to finalise negotiations on an agreement covering the high-value sectors of civilian nuclear energy, space, missile defence and high-technology commerce. For the next two hours and without even stopping for breakfast, the US and Indian teams battled with lingering differences, but by the time Hadley and Juster stepped back into their aircraft that afternoon, the contours of a "trinity" agreement were clearer and it seemed entirely possible that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee would seal a new strategic deal during their September meeting in New York. Over the next couple of weeks, India's Deputy National Security Adviser Satish Kumar and senior officials from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Jayant Prasad and Sheel Kant Sharma conferred with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Juster and Hadley to sew up the deal. Nevertheless, it was a Pakistan-shy US Government that postponed the signing almost at the eleventh hour. India agreed, reluctantly, wondering if the Pakistan veto would apply to Indo-US relations forever. But the US officials were quick to assure otherwise, which prompted External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha to announce in New York that negotiations were on their "last lap". Speaking to India Today, Juster said, "There have been important discussions on the issues and, with regard to high-technology trade in particular, there has been significant progress." His visit to Delhi this week for the HTCG meeting "will focus on trade relating to dual-use goods, technologies, export controls and trade facilitation". The seal of approval was given by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to Washington Post where he detailed the "glide path", the label given to the US-India agreement. According to senior officials, it is a three-phase structure under which the US will allow India access to technology in the "trinity" areas while India would "remove systemic barriers" to US exports and control movement of "sensitive goods and technologies". "The glide path was a way of bringing to closure this debate," Powell said. He added that it has "gotten a good reception in India." The pact seeks to arrive at a balance between "security" and "trade". And this applies as much to the US' fears of proliferation and leakage as to Indian fears of US' sanctions-happy tendencies. "We are on the brink of a new era," says Tarun Das of the CII. "It is a liberalisation of US policy, not dramatic as a one-time announcement, but more substantive. It is a question of building safeguards and trust," Michael Clarke of the US-India Business Council concurs. "The agreement would mean further reduction in impediments on technology trade ... a vast difference from five years ago," he adds. It isn't that the deal will open the floodgates of US technology next year, but certainly a greater degree of commercial traffic is expected to overcome the hurdles of US export controls, which, India says hampers the growth of the US-India commercial ties as well as the trade balance. Juster hotly denies this. "The US maintains a more restrictive dual-use export control policy towards China than it does with India. Nonetheless, US-China trade, including trade in high technology, has thrived. US exports to China in 2002 was five times greater than US exports to India," he said recently. The debate between the two sides has narrowed to the "level" at which the agreement would be signed-by Powell and Sinha or Bush and Vajpayee. Meanwhile, Juster arrives in India on November 17 to conduct "outreach" programmes with Indian industry in Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore- acquainting Indian industry with US export control laws, sensitising them to the importance of controls on products and technologies. "For instance, in it, US and Indian firms would now be concerned not about outsourcing but data exclusivity," says N. Srinivasan of CII. US officials are eager to point out the symbolism of the pact to the larger India-US strategic equation. This notwithstanding the hiccups of Pakistan, troops to Iraq, even Cancun, indicating perhaps that at some foreseeable date, the two countries might lift themselves off the "hyphenation" mould. The fact that the US Administration is making these moves in an election year, is an "indication that the US wants to chart a course" with India on these issues. "India is not a proliferation problem," certify senior US officials. Indian officials are crossing their fingersForeign Secretary Kanwal Sibal is quick to temper the enthusiasm on the proposed deal. "The impression should not be that we say the last lap meaning after that the doors will be open. No. After that, the process will begin." Officials agree. "The devil is in the detail," they say, indicating the distinction between co-production rather than technology transfer. They also have to overcome an institutional mistrust between Indian and US bureaucracies that goes back to when US denials of technology to India were routine. For the US, India is just not the world's most trusted system with its overlapping civilian and military research systems. India wonders whether a pro- sanctions US could kill access again, besides "interfering" in its missile programme. It also fears non-proliferation theologists in Washington might be a barrier while cold warriors in the State Department remain a similar problem. Nevertheless, the effort is to work beyond these obstacles. As a senior US official said, the question is not of the light bulb going on or off, but "working the dimmer switch". Former Indian ambassador, Naresh Chandra says, "It is important to work with the Administration, and the first steps should target laws and certifications it controls." The obstacles to this agreement seemed intractable. On civilian nuclear energy, the US says it has to abide by the constraints of its laws, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the non- proliferation treaty (NPT). But Indian analysts say that France and Russia have shown the way, approving civil nuclear assistance to India. This is crucial for an energy-hungry nation, and nuclear power is high on its list of priorities. It is in the area of non- military space cooperation that both countries find the going tough. India's space programme is now sufficiently advanced to be able to offer commercial satellite launches. But US-made satellites have to be kept away due to what the US calls the "contamination" of the Indian Space Research Agency (ISRO) by the DRDO, making civilian research "accessible" to the military. Indian space scientists scoff at the demand for sanitisation. It is not enforceable, they say. "The challenge is to achieve transparency," say US officials. India is keen to move in this sector, because it is now uniquely placed to offer to launch US-made satellites-on account of US sanctions on China, China won't be able to launch such satellites for the next few years. Following the tacit endorsement of India's missile defence programme by the US, this has been added to the "trinity" making it a quartet. "We are aware that India's missile defence ambition is part of its no-first-use policy," said US officials, which is a signal admission. India is eyeing the Israeli Arrow II missile defence system or the slightly inferior US Patriot-3. However, the hi-tech agreement promises something much better-Indo-US joint development of a missile defence system. THE LITMUS TEST NOVEMBER 2002: US, India announce formation of High Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG). FEBRUARY 2003: Statement of principles on hi-tech trade. JULY 2003: Public-private forum focusing on defence technology, life sciences and nanotechnology. SEPTEMBER 12: Hadley and Juster meet Brajesh Mishra to reach a pact, plan to sign it in New York in September end; put off because of Pakistani sensitivities. NOVEMBER 17-19: Juster to hold market outreach meetings with Indian Inc in Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore on US laws. NOVEMBER 20: The next HTCG meeting to finalise the agreement. NEW PHASE IN INDO-US TIES CIVILIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY: India wants access to technology for reactors to feed an energy-hungry nation; US is constrained by NSG commitments. NON-MILITARY SPACE LAUNCHES: India wants to launch commercial satellites but the US wants ISRO to be sanitised from DRDO. HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMMERCE: US will lift export controls for India while India will prevent leakage of "sensitive" technologies. MISSILE DEFENCE: India wants access to the Arrow missile defense system or joint development of new systems with US technology.
Posted by: Dr. S. Kalyan Nov 20 2003, 08:10 PM
If this ain't a revolution in US foreign policy, I don't know what is. Stephen Cohen is wrong. He is trying to use Paki Islamic nuke to blackmail Bharat into talking with Pakistan before cross-border terror is eliminated. He doesn't realise the dangers posed the Islamic nuke in Pakistan. Mercifully, some in Dept. of Defense seem to understand the situation a lot better than Stephen or Dept. of State old cobwebs. Kalyan Bush targets Middle East 'elites' By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES LONDON — President Bush yesterday vowed the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to repression by Middle East "elites" to ensure stability, although he avoided mentioning Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. "We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East," Mr. Bush told a British think tank devoted to foreign policy. "Your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. "Long-standing ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites," he said. "Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold." Although the president specifically cited Saddam Hussein and the Palestinian leadership, his comments clearly encompassed the larger Middle East, which is dominated by dictatorships and strict monarchies that have long been tolerated by the United States and Britain. "We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region," said Mr. Bush, whose speech was warmly received by the Royal United Services Institute and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found," he said. "Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror." Mr. Bush was unapologetic about the war in Iraq but urged European leaders who opposed the liberation to help ensure democracy flourishes there. "[W]e did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins," said Mr. Bush, whose speech used a theme of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's: pursuing peace in the Middle East as part of the broader war on terrorism. The speech was delivered at Whitehall Palace just hours after Mr. Bush was formally welcomed by Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh in an elaborate ceremony at Buckingham Palace. A hundred black stallions bearing soldiers in polished brass breastplates paraded in front of the palace as cannons boomed a 41-gun salute. Mr. Bush also called on European nations, which have seen a rise in violence against Jews in recent years, to oppose anti-Semitism, saying it "poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East," and warned Israel not to undermine peace efforts. "Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences," said Mr. Bush. Israel has said it is building a security wall around a West Bank settlement to keep suicide bombers out. Palestinians say it is an effort to hold on to the land occupied since the 1967 Middle East war. As for Palestinians, he called on European leaders to "withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian leader who fails his people and betrays their cause," an apparent reference to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Despite predictions of enormous protests, only a handful of anti-Bush demonstrators showed up at the ceremony, including one man who used a bullhorn to deride both the president and prime minister. "If you think Blair's a poodle, shout, 'Woof, woof,' " the man sang to the tune of "Comin' Round the Mountain." "If you think the war's for oil, shout, 'No war.' " The man's singing was drowned out by a British ceremonial guard playing the American national anthem. A few hours later, protesters numbered in the hundreds near Whitehall Palace, prompting the president to joke about British liberals. "It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames," he said, referring to performance artist David Blaine. "A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me. "I thank her majesty, the queen, for interceding," he said. "We're honored to be staying at her house." Instead of criticizing the protesters, Mr. Bush celebrated their right to free speech, noting: "They now have that right in Baghdad as well." Recalling that the last American president to stay at Buckingham Palace was Woodrow Wilson in 1918, Mr. Bush took a jab at France for not supporting the U.S.-led war against Iraq. "President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 points for peace — many complimenting him on this vision," the president said. "Yet some were dubious. "Take, for example, the prime minister of France," he said. "He complained that God himself had only Ten Commandments. Sounds familiar." Mindful that a minority of Britons criticize America for its moral stances, the president pointed out that the trait was essentially imported from Britain. "Americans have on occasion been called moralists, who often speak in terms of right and wrong," he said. "That zeal has been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the trade in slaves. "It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's in part because of the 'Good News' that was translated by Tyndale, preached by Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth. "At times, Americans are even said to have a puritan streak," he said. "And where might that have come from? Well, we can start with the Puritans." As the day wore on, protesters gathered in larger numbers at locations throughout London. Security remained extraordinarily tight as Mr. Bush returned to Buckingham Palace for a state dinner with the queen and her husband.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 20 2003, 10:26 PM
I agree that skepticism is in order when it come to believing in US assurances to the contrary. Nevertheless i do detect a slow but steady progress towards improvement in relations. TSP will always remain as a brake on more rapid improvement, but may cease to be a veto on all and every question bedevilling Indo-US relations. I continue to maintain India has more to gain from further improvement in relations.
Posted by: acharya Nov 21 2003, 03:14 PM
To: CNN, a Time Warner company We, the undersigned, believe the image of the Indian-American community in the US, and the expanded viewing audience of CNN in India, has been tarnished by the programs run on your network - particularly the “Exporting America” series run on Lou Dobbs MoneyLine. The program continuously and deliberately generates hatred towards the Indian-American community and India by falsely portraying Indians as job-stealers and holds the Indian-American community directly responsible for the unemployment in the US. The program insults the Indian-American community by generalizing that Indians get jobs in America only because they are paid less, ignoring the fact that most Indian-Americans even those on H1 visa are hard-working, dedicated, have excellent skills and are hired purely on merit – getting an equal pay as their “American-American” counterparts. The contributions of Indian-Americans which is exemplified by the late Kalpana Chawla and other hard-working Indian-American NASA engineers (who incidentally were not hired due to lower wages), the entrepreneurial skills of Vinod Khosla who co-founded Sun Microsystems and Sabeer Bhatia who founded hotmail go completely unmentioned. For the many millions of Indians and Indian-Americans, CNN indeed is “The Most trusted Name in News”. Every day tens of millions of Indians (both in India and in America) tune automatically to CNN to get an “unbiased opinion” and know the “real deal” of current events. CNN in turn has an obligation to provide responsible journalistic coverage and has an obligation not to create an atmosphere of harassment, intimidation and hostility towards the Indian-American community and hatred towards India among its viewing public. CNN through Lou Dobbs Moneyline has failed to provide balance in reporting to enable the viewing public to discern the advantages of outsourcing on the US economy and the contributions of Indian-Americans to the US economy. Many of the skillful Indian-American entrepreneurs have set up shop in America “Creating American jobs” – a point which is completely glossed over by Mr. Dobbs as well as other CNN programs. By all accounts America wouldn’t have become the centre of the Internet revolution and unemployment in US wouldn’t have dropped to historic lows in the first place, but for the Indian-American contribution. The host Mr. Dobbs seems to have a personal contempt against the Indian-American community and “H1/L1 visa holders” and is propagating the same through his hour-long program everyday on CNN. He intends to scare the American public and in-turn hate Indian-Americans by broadcasting false reports like “H1 visa is initially valid for 5 years and can be extended” –giving an impression that this visa can be extended indefinitely – whereas the truth is that H1 visa are initially issued for 3 years and can be extended to a maximum of 6 years. This report on H1 visa was also repeatedly carried on CNN Headlines. Mr. Dobbs's coverage on such crucial topics is certainly biased because it doesn't report on the other side of the story. And due to a covert, implied bias on topics such as "Exporting America," "Borderless America," a strong anti-immigrant tenor is very much evident. If it is "Money-Line," then Mr. Dobbs doesn't even represent the economics involved behind such topics of interest, rather, he merely trumpets the issue with a seething anti-immigrant rhetoric. We must admit that Mr. Dobbs's coverage on Money-line is devoid of micro/macro economics and seems to be more like a diluted version of Mr. O'Reilly's show at FNC. If Mr. Dobbs cannot add gravitas to his program by delving deeper into the economics realm, either CNN should change its host or the name of the program itself. Failure to carry an in-depth analysis of the business and economics in his program is one of the reason why he takes recourse to much inflammatory topics. It would behoove well for Mr. Dobbs and CNN if the rhetoric can be toned down and an honest attempt be made to present the program with some real economic number$, instead of resorting to soporific litany of verbose prose on immigrants and Indians in general. It is sad to see “The Most Trusted Name In News” propagating such hate-propaganda and intending to create mass-hysteria in America against the Indian-Americans just to be up in the “ratings-game”. We the undersigned protest the continuing derogatory, degrading, inflammatory and absolutely false portrayal of India and Indian-American in the program Lou Dobbs Moneyline. We pray for relief and rectification and request the following: 1.An official apology broadcast in a future Lou Dobbs Moneyline program by CNN anchorman Mr. Dobbs, mentioning the contributions of Indian-Americans to the American economy, and correcting the perception that Indian-Americans are “low-paid job-stealers”. 2.This petition in its entirety be put on CNNs Moneyline web-page. 3.A concerted and conscientious effort by CNN to include the voices of Indian-Americans and Indians to offer a more broad-based perspective on all programs particularly those programs about “US job losses” which point finger on the Indian-American/Indian community. 4.A concerted and conscientious effort on behalf of CNN to control radical, offensive, and hate-generating remarks made by CNN anchormen, staff, and speakers. 5.If Mr. Dobbs refuses to tone down the rhetoric we request a change of anchor be made for the "MoneyLine" program. We will be constrained to create awareness on this issue and may move the offices of the Indian media to seek for a boycott of CNN within India as well as within the Indian community in the United States, if CNN does not redress this grievance of ours, especially with regards to Mr. Dobbs's partisan coverage. Sincerely,
Posted by: acharya Nov 21 2003, 05:18 PM PROTOCOLS of the LEARNED ELDERS of ZION PREFACE (Translated by Victor E. Marsden) The author of this translation of the famous Protocols was himself a victim of the Revolution. He had lived for many years in Russia and was married to a Russian lady. Among his other activities in Russia he had been for a number of years a Russian Correspondent of the MORNING POST, a position which he occupied when the Revolution broke out, and his vivid descriptions of events in Russia will still be in the recollection of many of the readers of that Journal. Naturally he was singled out for the anger of the Soviet. On the day that Captain Cromie was murdered by Jews, Victor Marsden was arrested and thrown into the Peter-Paul Prison, expecting every day to have his name called out for execution. This, however, he escaped, and eventually he was allowed to return to England very much of a wreck in bodily health. However, he recovered under treatment and the devoted care of his wife and friends. One of the first things he undertook, as soon as he was able, was this translation of the Protocols. Mr. Marsden was eminently well qualified for the work. His intimate acquaintance with Russia, Russian life and the Russian language on the one hand, and his mastery of a terse literary English style on the other, placed him in a position of advantage which few others could claim. The consequence is that we have in his version an eminently readable work, and though the subject-matter is somewhat formless, Mr. Marsden's literary touch reveals the thread running through the twenty-four Protocols. It may be said with truth that this work was carried out at the cost of Mr. Marsden's own life's blood. He told the writer of this Preface that he could not stand more than an hour at a time of his work on it in the British Museum, as the diabolical spirit of the matter which he was obliged to turn into English made him positively ill. Mr. Marsden's connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness. May this work be his crowning monument! In it he has performed an immense service to the English-speaking world, and there can be little doubt that it will take its place in the first rank of the English versions of "THE PROTOCOLS of the Meetings of the LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION."
Posted by: acharya Nov 21 2003, 05:42 PM THE INTERNATIONAL JEW The World's Foremost Problem Appearing originally in the periodical published by the Ford Motor Co. "The Dearborn Independent TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Jewish History in the United States Chapter 2. Angles of Jewish Influence Chapter 3. Victims, or Persecutors? Chapter 4. Are the Jews a Nation? Chapter 5. The Jewish Political Program Chapter 6. An Introduction to the "Jewish Protocols" Chapter 7. How the Jews Use Power Chapter 8. Jewish Influence in American Politics Chapter 9. Bolshevism and Zionism Chapter 10. Jewish Supremacy in the Theatre and Cinema Chapter 11. Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music Chapter 12. Liquor, Gambling, Vice and Corruption Chapter 13. The World's Foremost Problem Chapter 14. The High and Low of Jewish Money Power Chapter 15. The Battle for Press Control Chapter 16. The State of All-Judaan Abridged from the original as published by the world renowned industrial leader HENRY FORD, SR.
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Nov 21 2003, 11:43 PM
The Protocols, Ford document etc are politically very incorrect documents. I believe we must be careful about placing them on the IF without some kind of a disclaimer or explanation. I am told that they are particularly popular amongst the american extremist or supermacists and of course the Islamists.
Posted by: vishal Nov 22 2003, 11:48 AM
QUOTE (acharya @ Nov 22 2003, 03:44 AM)
........................ The contributions of Indian-Americans which is exemplified by the late Kalpana Chawla and other hard-working Indian-American NASA engineers (who incidentally were not hired due to lower wages), the entrepreneurial skills of Vinod Khosla who co-founded Sun Microsystems and Sabeer Bhatia who founded hotmail go completely unmentioned.
americans don't protested when these indians took their job in NASA???? blink.gif why?
For the many millions of Indians and Indian-Americans, CNN indeed is “The Most trusted Name in News”. Every day tens of millions of Indians (both in India and in America) tune automatically to CNN to get an “unbiased opinion” and know the “real deal” of current events. ......................
is that true????? blink.gif indians in US believe in that CRAP SHI* ??? oh plz....thats the worst bit*h kinda channel i have ever seen in my life.... plz save indians-american from this illusion.... mad.gif
Posted by: acharya Nov 22 2003, 12:59 PM
QUOTE (Hauma Hamiddha @ Nov 21 2003, 06:43 PM)
The Protocols, Ford document etc are politically very incorrect documents. I believe we must be careful about placing them on the IF without some kind of a disclaimer or explanation. I am told that they are particularly popular amongst the american extremist or supermacists and of course the Islamists.
Those documents are for reference only. It is for Indians to understand what the world is fighting for and with what arguments. Indians are neutral and this generation of Indians found in IF are the first to understand these documents which were being discussed for several centuries.
Posted by: vishal Nov 23 2003, 06:51 AM
Headline: '...Thou shalt do war' -- Detail Story HUMAYUN GAUHAR A defense mechanism of westerners is that Pakistanis thrive on conspiracy theories. We love them precisely because there have been so many conspiracies against us. Increasingly, Americans and westerners are asking whether Al Qaeda was indeed behind September 11, and if it was, have we been told all? Michael Moore concludes that it was the Saudis or disgruntled princes using their air force pilots. How could a man on dialysis hiding in an Afghan cave have orchestrated attacks of such precision? I suggested that by the same logic one could as validly conclude that it was Israel. ('Guy in a cave? Or Israel?' The Nation, October 12, 2003). I also showed in 'Was Mahathir all that wrong?' on November 9 that Israel does have inordinate control over US policy, to the point of blackmail, as demonstrated in the American cover up of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty. My contention that Israel through its intelligence agency Mossad could have been behind the September 11 attacks, or have something to do with them, is slowly gathering steam with startling revelations in the western press. Let not a 'conspiracy-theory loving Pakistani' but Neil Mackay writing in Scotland's 'The Sunday Herald' of November 2, tell it. "There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Center burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes. Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis - and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad. Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause." Might one wonder whether they had not been tailing Al Qaeda knowing what they were up to but were actually observing and filming the handiwork of Mossad itself? We only have America's word that the hijackers were Arab, mostly Saudi, on such flimsy evidence as a blurry black and white security video from Boston's airport, flight training manuals in glove compartments and a Saudi passport that miraculously survived the inferno of the Twin Towers in which the planes and everything in them were vaporized. Strains credulity somewhat, does it not? Or could it be that Mossad recruited Arabs and fooled them into believing that they were working for Al Qaeda? I keep asking: who did September 11 benefit? The only ones are Israel, for it got America to fight their war by proxy, and for a time the US for it gave them the excuse to seize energy sources and routes. While the latter is going horribly wrong, things are working out beautifully for Israel, thank you. Here's what Mackay adds to support this point. "After the attacks...former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: 'It's very good.' Then he corrected himself, adding: 'Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].' If Israel's closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world's only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second intifada dragged on throughout 2001." Maria, a New Jersey housewife, spotted the five Israelis kneeling on the roof of a van in her parking lot and joyfully filming the burning Twin Towers. She alerted the police who called the FBI. The van, which belonged to Urban Moving, was found and the five Israelis arrested. Incriminatingly, apart from 4700 dollars in cash, also found were "a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters - the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who'd flown jetliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background... The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: 'We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.' His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg's brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBI's Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section - the Bureau's anti-espionage squad. A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey... The FBI questioned the firm's Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone...The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and returned to Israel. "Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis' names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been 'set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists'. "Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months. Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country." Even though the Israelis' lawyer, Ram Horvitz, dismissed the allegations, "US government sources still maintained that the Israelis were collecting information on the fundraising activities of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. "The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a US official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: 'The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it'. Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: 'The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.' But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen? Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were 'tie-ins' between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they'd gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves. The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: 'Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.' Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it's a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush's main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never know the truth, saying: 'If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations that would be classified material.' Yet, Israel has long been known, according to US administration sources, for 'conducting the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any US ally'." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note : ccross posted. biggrin.gif can indian(we) should neglect this? blink.gif huh.gif
Posted by: Viren Nov 24 2003, 02:24 PM

<< Home

November 2003 / December 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 /

Powered by Blogger