WEB Magazine Sections Interactive Features Regulars Resources RSS
obama visit COMMENTS
Ours is a love-hate relationship with America: its democracy, culture, universities hold us in thrall; its bullying repels us


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Published
Daily Mail
Digression
1
Nov 29, 2010
The States of Being

Historically, what America has said and what America has done world-wide are two different things (Thank God Columbus Lost his Way, Nov 15). For all the middle-class hype and hero worship of the US, we cannot ignore the fact that India is being courted and coerced at the same time. The question is, will India of the future be able to chart its course with an independent mind? Obama is erudite and charming, someone who is admired as an individual, but that doesn’t mean we lose sight of everything else.

Mallikarjuna, Bangalore

India never figured in the to-do list of powerful foreign dignitaries till a few years ago. So it’s only natural that we Indians are still a bit awed and curious about the contents of Uncle Sam’s goodies/takeaway bag.


Jayanthy Subramaniam, Mumbai

For a change, our PM could have put his hand on Obama’s shoulder rather than the photo-op of the US president holding our PM in an ‘arm lock’.


Madhu R.D. Singh, Ambala

We are fascinated with America because it has got all that we yearn to see in India—discipline, national pride, systems, cleanliness, order, respect for merit and so many other values that create a civilised society. Thanks to our politicians, we still remain in that ‘chalega’ cesspool after 60 years of self-rule! I am eagerly looking forward to that one great leader who has the guts to tell us, ‘Folks, we have screwed up’!


Dr B. Sudhakar, Changanasserry, Kerala

We Indians are citizens of the world today because of American inventions and innovations. It is to their credit that they have shared their knowledge with the world. Has any other country done that kind of service to humanity?

S. Gopal Valluri, Bangalore

Obama’s only interest was pushing American kirana shops (with fancy names) and diluting the recently passed nuclear liability bill so that US mncs can have a free run like Union Carbide. I hope the upa will not fall into the trap.

N. Ramamurthy, Chennai

When Bill Gates visited India and threw cash everywhere, people thought he was donating so much to Indians. Later, the government, which had earlier issued a circular to all offices to have free software Linux installed in PCs, revised it and issued a circular for installing MS Office. The cost of MS Office software was about Rs 10,000 and more for every system. So how much did Gates spend and how much did he earn in India? What Obama is offering is also peanuts. Indians are going to be looted, and our rulers are going to aid him in that loot.


S. Gandhi, Chennai

Your last line, “a world bully tying up with a regional bully...” doesn’t stand up to facts on the ground. Has India bullied Bhutan, Nepal (despite its perception), Bangladesh, Myanmar? Paranoid Pakistan is another matter, its army and the isi cannot survive without these misconceptions.

Ravinder Sethi, Dallas

You can’t deny that Obama connected with India’s Gen-next extremely well. Our leadership can take a few lessons here, for Obama gave them a gameplan for the next 20 years.

George Olivera, Mysore

William Bissell of Fab India is happy about this marriage where the US would be the pitcher and India the catcher, similar to what US relations are with the rest of the world except for Israel where it is happy to be the catcher.

Kishore Dasmunshi, Calcutta

The US has a long history of exploiting countries to its advantage. We should remember that in US the S is in capitals and in ‘Us’ the ‘s’ is in lower case. The US will always thinks of itself first, then about ‘Us’.


Rajat Mehta, Chandigarh

Your piece will only lead to more misconceptions. Leaders are not always loved, and they do not care for what everyone thinks of them. They go and do what is right—this is true of America. Even Gandhi was hated and that is why someone shot him.

R. Srinivasan, Los Altos, US

We should have forced America to extradite Warren Anderson before signing any deals. That would have showed those brash US corporates that they can’t cross the law in India.


Padmabushan R., Hyderabad

I fail to understand your fixation with Arundhati Roy. Even on the Obama visit, you have to take her comment. How is she an expert, is she a social scientist, an authority on international relations, an economist? Give us a break.


Debjit, on e-mail

We are all Americans now.


Dinesh Kumar, Chandigarh
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
1/D-55
Nov 06, 2010
01:31 PM
Barack Obama's op-ed in NYT:

http://www.nytimes.c...ama.html?ref=opinion
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
2/D-62
Nov 06, 2010
02:13 PM
Says MP Asaduddin Owaisi, “The kind of hatred Indian Muslims had for George Bush following the war against Iraq is not there against Obama. But the issue of Palestine continues to haunt our minds.”

For once, a politician speaks absolute sense. That said, Owaisi could have been more forthright. The Obama of hope and change, the Obama of promises ("America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own"; " The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Cairo, June 2009)and the Obama in reality are two different entities.

His tame acceptance of Israel's resumption of settlement construction in the West Bank and Palestinian East Jerusalem, the continued blockade of Gaza and the attack on vessels carrying humanitarian supplies to besieged Gaza belie his promises. Obama continues to be tied to AIPAC (the American Zionist lobby)'s coat tails.

Owaisi could have said this.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
3/D-63
Nov 06, 2010
02:38 PM
The Obama administration has tried its best to shield Israel from scrutiny in the UN of its war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during her attack on Gaza when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Goldstone UNHCR's Goldstone damming report came up for discussion.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
4/D-64
Nov 06, 2010
02:44 PM
You can’t have one set of rules for yourself and another set for the others, and then get away with it because you are so powerful,”

Is he talking about Saudi Arabia and the middle east?
sudharshan
madras, india
5/D-66
Nov 06, 2010
03:24 PM
Sudarshan, film lyricist Javed Akhtar is right when he says of America "you can’t have one set of rules for yourself and another set for the others, and then get away with it because you are so powerful.”

America has declared a war on terrorism while militarily, financially and diplomatically supporting the state terrorism and crimes against humanity conducted by its allies.

Then again, America sanctimoniously rants about the nuclear ambitions of others while holding (and twice using) the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
6/D-77
Nov 06, 2010
04:41 PM
One would have to work hard to locate issues where the long-term interests of India and the United States are in conflict. The US has provided a hospitable home for the largest, most talented slice of the Indian diaspora. As a market for Indian exports, especially of software and IT services, a source of capital and technology, as a nation which shares our disquiet over the not entirely peaceful rise of China, the U. S. will remain the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy for decades to come, irrespective of which political formation is in power in South Block.
On Pakistan, only the timelines of the two nations are different. If India cannot resolve its issues with Pakistan without U. S. support, it will have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and its global ambitions.
The embarrassment of PL 480 and the anger over the tilt are now history. Although India and the U. S. are not in the same league - the U. S. federal deficit is the size of India's economy -, there is a fundamental symmetry in the relationship as it can be visualised over the next twenty years. This Presidential visit is a reaffirmation of a great relationship as it develops for the future.
ashok lal
mumbai, India
7/D-81
Nov 06, 2010
04:53 PM
America is an enigma. Twenty different Indians from twenty different walks of life has seen America from their own deffering relationship with that country. Like tewenty blind men who touched the elephant at tewnty different parts of it's body.

Like it or hate it, you cannot ignore that woderful country. If you do not go to America, America will come knocking at your door.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
8/D-83
Nov 06, 2010
05:00 PM
ALL the pictures are of WOMEN!

Are there no more MEN on earth?

WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
9/D-89
Nov 06, 2010
05:38 PM
>One would have to work hard to locate issues where the long-term interests of India and the United States are in conflict.

There are many issues where interest of America & that of India are in conflict. Right at this moment the raging debate about outsourcing of American jobs. This I believe is an irreconciliable conundrum.

>The US has provided a hospitable home for the largest, most talented slice of the Indian diaspora

That is the glass half-ful view. The glass half empty glass is that a poor country like India has educated & trained the largest part of this diaspora at considerable cost itself.

>As a market for Indian exports, especially of software and IT services, a source of capital and technology

The direction of flow showing reverse tendencies . Obama is coming over as he says solely to sell American hardware to Indian market. Not to buy anything. And India is one of the the largest investor in US.

>as a nation which shares our disquiet over the not entirely peaceful rise of China,

No. Not at all. Today US cannot afford to share this dsiquet. China today being what it is, only in that cocoon called MEA that such antiquated cold war days ideas are sheltered. In the unlikely event of this China complex turning real, it does not take rocket science to surmise that India will be left fend for itself. Even on Pakistan US did not stand by India. History read over last sixtytwo years is atestimony to that.

>the U. S. will remain the cornerstone of Indian foreign policy for decades to come, irrespective of which political formation is in power in South Block.

US is a huge factoral in formulating Indian foreign policy; but need not be 'cornerstone' which, I presume, means see things through US prism.

>there is a fundamental symmetry in the relationship as it can be visualised over the next twenty years.

Even in todays'dog house US economy is by far the largest in the world. The harrased dollar remains the prime currency of world trade. So whatever be the symmetry that calls for fine calibration instead going the whole hog. Do not get involved in an unequal bargain.

Barack Obama is coming. Don't buy anything unless the price is not right.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
10/D-90
Nov 06, 2010
06:00 PM
David - My point is our interaction with America should be based on pros and cons on a bilateral basis and not be dictated by opinions of people like Akbaruddin Owasi or Arundhathi Roy.

In a unipolar world do we really have a alternative. Also,how has India benefitted from her consistent support to the palestine cause? The Arab countries continue to harbour everybody from Jihadis to Dawood Ibrahim.
sudharshan
madras, india
11/D-93
Nov 06, 2010
06:13 PM
The last sentence 'India is trying to be the regional superpower, it’s a struggling bully that has this fantastic cultural export called Bollywood.” In other words, a world bully tying up with a regional bully...Is this what we want India to be?' does not live up to the facts on ground. Has India bullied Bhutan, Nepal (despite its perception), Bangladesh, Myanmar or Sri Lanka? Paranoid Pakistan is another matter, it will always say so as its army and ISI cannot survive without these misconceptions.
Ravinder Sethi
Dallas, United States
12/D-96
Nov 06, 2010
06:37 PM
India will subsidise Pakistan through USA. How??

Obama is hoping for a 10 billion deal with India, mainly weapons. Assuming a 30% profit that would be 3 billion profit for US companies for which they will pay 90million as tax which USA will pay Pakistan!!!!!! All this while indians are starving in India.
Akil
Bangalore, India
16/D-103
Nov 06, 2010
07:16 PM
"In a unipolar world do we really have a alternative."

Sudarshan, we make it a unipolar world by our obeisance to Yankee Doodle.

To your second question: "Also,how has India benefitted from her consistent support to the palestine cause?" -
By our morality. Commitment to Truth, Justice, and human rights never did anyone harm but, on the contrary, it raises your moral standards. Following the corrupt and the unprincipled will lead us nowhere.

America is headed down a moral abyss. Why must we follow her on that course?
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
18/D-107
Nov 06, 2010
07:25 PM
"No. Not at all. Today US cannot afford to share this dsiquet. China today being what it is, only in that cocoon called MEA that such antiquated cold war days ideas are sheltered. In the unlikely event of this China complex turning real,"

India's best long term hope with China is the presence of as many as 200 million Buddhists. They have none of the arrogance, exclusivity or expansionism of the CCP, Politbureau or Red Army. They are an obvious and direct link with the Indic culture and civilisation, though of course possessing a character of their own. Spiritually, there is not even a conceivable area of conflict or disagreement. The same of course cannot be said for large numbers( not all) of Moslems and Christians. India should encourage people-to-people contact with this large community of Buddhists, including pilgrimages to each other's sites.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
19/D-111
Nov 06, 2010
07:33 PM
when Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, visited India and threw cash everywhere, people thought he was donating so much to Indians.
But, the Government which had earlier issued circular to all the Government offices to have Linux installed in their computers, revised it after his visit and issued circular for installing MS Office.
The cost of one MS Office software was about Rs. 10000 and more for every System in every office.
Now calculate how much Bill Gates spent in India and how much he earned straight from out of Government Treasury.
What Obama is offering to India is also just peanuts.
Indians are going to be looted by them.
Indian rulers are going to aid him in that loot.
S.Gandhi
Chennai, India
20/D-112
Nov 06, 2010
07:37 PM
I'm actually left-liberal, but one who refuses to equate Hindu groups with Islamic or who maintains that fundamentalism of one is exactly the same as the fundamentalism of the other. Or that the Hindu groups are as much a threat globally as the Islamic. If I am going to accept this position, I want to see proof. Not be forced fed out of some vague commitment to 'secularism'.

The problem with secularism in India, is that it is almost obligatory to attack something or someone, Hindu, as a way of counter-balancing any denunciation of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. To show off "Look at me, I'm criticising the Hindus, therefore I'm a great secularist" Many people, including myself, refuse to play this game.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
21/D-115
Nov 06, 2010
07:55 PM
>> ALL the pictures are of WOMEN!
Are there no more MEN on earth?
WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!


Male unblocked -
Either you have a serious problem are you are extremely funny . But you always manage to extract a smile for your post .. this one counts among your best .
great one :)
pradeep
chennai, India
22/D-117
Nov 06, 2010
08:39 PM
"But the issue of Palestine continues to haunt our minds.” Owasi

Ummah Phobia !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
23/D-119
Nov 06, 2010
09:02 PM
A genocidal mentality is indubitably at the very heart of American psyche.Just read the past and recent history of America,you find out American are revengeful people. Japan was ready to surrender but take the revenge of Purl Hob our attacked America murdered many million innocent Japanese.If killed one American they will revenge to killing 7 your people.Just read the story of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan How many innocent people America murdered?Obama came to India for his selfish purpose.Indians are most credulous people in whole world, Indian government is soft easily bend before mighty power. Iam 100 p.c. sure Obama will make successful deal with India and make India slave.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
Pune, India
25/D-121
Nov 06, 2010
09:12 PM
"To your second question: "Also,how has India benefitted from her consistent support to the palestine cause?" -
By our morality. Commitment to Truth, Justice, and human rights"

While support for these principles is laudatory, it would be nice to see some confirmation that the people India is supporting have more or less the same principles. Do Palestinians themselves have a healthy respect and awareness of Hinduism? Or is "India" to them just Islam? As in the Iranian I recently had a conversation with. The Palestinians should be able to say "Yes, revering Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva and Ganesha is every bit as legitimate as revering Allah and Christ".
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
28/D-133
Nov 06, 2010
11:16 PM
During Bush era India USA relations have been put on sound pedestal.Obama can strengthen them or can end his visit without making any substantial increase in the existing relationships.

Obama is hardly in a position to make radical changes due to USA's Pak-Af Policy. Obama is committed to withdraw USA Forces by next July.After that the Islamic terror Tsunami will burst open all over. India will be one of the first target of Terror.USA will not rather will not be willing to help us except issuing a few statements condemning Terror .

Not much of help to India.

On Northern Front China is committed to break India in 36 States.On this front too USA can help us .

So India has to stand on its own legs and should not expect any help.Tragedy is Congress is completely out of touch with the reality .

Allah Malik ho is Mulak ka !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
29/D-134
Nov 06, 2010
11:19 PM
On this front too USA CAN'T help us

( corrected. )
a k ghai
mumbai, India
30/D-2
Nov 07, 2010
12:51 AM
While Obama is the recepient of a lot more international goodwill than Bush ever was, he is also over-laded with a lot more domestic burdens than Bush. His maneuverability in the foreign policy area is a lot less than many of us think.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
32/D-21
Nov 07, 2010
04:38 AM
I think there is a misunderstanding of the US reflected in this article. America is a leader and a bold leader. It has the courage to stand up for what is right. Leaders are not always loved, they are not loved by everyone but they do not care for what everyone thinks of them. They go and do what is right. Even Mahatma Gandhi was hated and that is why someone shot him. America is also a very tolerant country and a welcoming country. Think of this. How many in India would be welcoming of a bunch of Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, Iranians, Canadians, Britishers etc., and live harmoniously with them even though some of those groups may do better than the Indians?
Ram Srinivasan
Los Altos, United States
34/D-24
Nov 07, 2010
05:21 AM
Most of the commentators here as well as in the blogs are hypocrites.Everyone loves to use US products ,hollywood movies to Iphones. Everyone wants their kids to settle in US.It is foolish to comment on each others culture .If US is imperialistic , India is not too far from it. Though 60% of Indians live under $1 a day it spends several thousand crores on defence. It could easily spend that money on universal education and better oppurtunity for everyone. Instead of feeding them/doling out SOPS directly through NGREGA ,they could focus on long term job creation by training them into more skilled labour . It maintians uncomforatble position with all its neghbours due to its ambigous stances and spends thousands of crores in maintaininf law and order due to this.
shankar
Hyderabad, India
35/D-32
Nov 07, 2010
08:25 AM
Shankar, must you be so shallow and parochial? The article itself says that India is influenced by America's 'soft culture' of movies, music, clothes etc. It's the 'hard' culture of the US, that India would rather keep at bay, or reject altogether, as much as possible. Even on this visit by Obama, the US sounds like a crude saleman out to make sales, and boasting of the amount. India-US relations, if they are to be really good, have to rest on common values and spirit.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
36/D-33
Nov 07, 2010
08:32 AM
Albuquerque, that's disengenuous. Though it's possible that the most distraught, deprived Palestinians haven't had much time to learn about Hinduism, let alone acknowledge it as a valid path to understading and contemplating the divine.
It then stands to reason that those Palestinians who have such opportunity, do in fact respect Hinduism and Buddhism as legitimate religions and spiritual paths. It would be nice to see confirmation of this, though I'm sure the odd individual might say something to that effect.
If you go by well to do Arabs and Moslems in that part of the world( i.e Saudis etc) we know for a fact that that acknowledging Hinduism as a legitimate path is the absolute last thing on their minds. And their behaviour has absolutely nothing to do with dodging Israeli checkpoints, raids or bullets.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
37/D-36
Nov 07, 2010
09:45 AM
US Economy is about to nosedive. Its fiscal deficit is bound to bring the US to its knees, sooner than later. Now, what can Obama do? He cannot displease China though he may not really want to, because the Chinese are helping the US treasury with the required billions that China has in surplus. In return, US is allowing China to flex its muscles including in POK. Second, Obama wants millions of jobs for Americans; he wants business for US arms manufacturers, and therefore, wants countries like India who could be persuaded to buy US arms worth billions. How can, then, Obama help India? May be, by selling more arms and costly technology, including dual purpose. Obama cannot offer anything that we really want. Because, US is becoming a paper tiger. Their economy is in deep crisis. To make it worse, Af-Pak policy is draining them further. Obama is in a catch 22 situation.
Shyamal Barua
kolkata, India
38/D-48
Nov 07, 2010
11:22 AM
The large mass of Indians have always been pro-America because America, more than any other nation, certainly more than the racist has been nations of Europe epitomises the dream of an immigrant to improve his / her lot through self effort. America is the least racist white nation on the earth and the freedoms, respect for dissent and the egalitarianism of that nation are worth aspiring to. It's interesting to see that the bulk of anti-American sentiment comes from the dyed in the wool lefties of JNU whose sole aim in life is to have a lecture tour of the US or get tenure at an American university. Pathetic as ever. A hollow cry - Yankee go home (but take me with you).
Shubhang
New Delhi, India
40/D-62
Nov 07, 2010
12:46 PM
# 21

I wish more men were not pretending to be funny, and see the unfairness that the media is willing to visit upon them.


WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
41/D-75
Nov 07, 2010
02:29 PM
A very important book to understand the United States is The Secret History of the American Empire by John Perkins. I quote from this book: " This (ie the US) empire is ruled by a group of people who collectively act very much like a king. They run our largest corporations and, through them, our government. They cycle through a revolving door back and forth between business and government. Beacause they fund political campaigns and the media, they control elected officials and the information we receive. These men and women (the corporatocracy) are in charge regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats control the White House or Congress. They are not subject to the people's will and their terms are not limited by law".
V.N.Venugopal
New Delhi, India
43/D-79
Nov 07, 2010
02:36 PM
"Equating Saudis, Palestinians and all Muslims into one single entity as you always do is not just disingenuous but hypocritical, false and comical."

I doubt,if anyone has ever summed up Shekar as accurately and succinctly as CATA MARAN has.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
44/D-82
Nov 07, 2010
03:46 PM
If, apart from business interests, I do not see, why India and the United States could be allies, then, on the same basis, I cannot see why the United States and India should be enemies either. I find the United States President, typical of the United States citizen. I see him as a man, eager to win friends, and influence people. And this seems to come naturally to him, he is very easygoing in his demeanor. On second thoughts, like some Indians, not all United States citizens are eager to win friends, and influence people.
Making friends is not difficult with the United States. However in a friendship, we give to our friends, and they, as a result, try to do their bit in return. How can we help the United States, as they want us to, and how can they help us, on our terms? I would say, that American 'innovation', is just good for making functioning more efficient. If the United States functions efficiently, it also has the ability to function as a devastatingly efficient war machine. In what way, has the United States made the world move efficiently towards a sense of peace? The United States administration seems to want to improve the atmosphere, so that the United States corporations can work efficiently. This is not being broad minded, this is being narrow minded. This is not smart,(I believe Barak Obama to be smart), this is being dumb. How has the United States administration helped the cause of peace in Afghanistan, and Pakistan? It seems that they are hiding things under the carpet, perhaps for themselves, as well as for others. I admit, that they need to prop up the administration in Pakistan, but why are they acting as if Pakistan is already a basket case? Should Pakistan not take external help, to put things right internally? How long will the current state of affairs go on for? If Pakistan can stop being inimical to India's interests, I would not see anything amiss, if China and The United States both talk to Pakistan. The only reason why China is uncomfortable with India, is because of the presence of the Dalai Llama in India. India and China must find a way out of this situation, because now, the Dalai Llama is more Indian, perhaps, than Tibetan. Perhaps, Indian citizenship may be offered to the Dalai Llama.
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
45/D-89
Nov 07, 2010
06:07 PM
Rightly said!

Indians and Americans when compared highlight the dependence of Indian culture on their American counterparts. Indians trying to look urbane have shed of their culture and traditions. We have taken cue from the festivals celebrated by the Americans, that we owe them to ourselves. Be it eating joints like McD or KFC or Subway etc, we have a fiesta on many such kiosks without being concerned about the ill effects of the eating habits which the US people follow.

I would just like to end by saying that we should follow the US till the point it is beneficial for us, be it in any sphere, political or cultural. US is a country which has a long history of exploiting countries to its vantage. India should be wary of US's furtive means. US has offered many instances of debauchery with its neighbours.

We should remember that in US the S is capital and in 'Us' the 's' is in lower case. US always thinks first of itself then about 'Us'
Rajat Mehta
Chandigarh, India
46/D-91
Nov 07, 2010
06:29 PM
" Equating Saudis, Palestinians and all Muslims into one single entity as you always do is not just disingenuous but hypocritical, false and comical."

I'm going by my own experiences with people from that part of the world, including a very recent one with a pretty intelligent Iranian fellow. While these people tend to be friendly toward India and Indians, none of them ever say anything like "Yes, revering the various images of the supreme being that exist in Hinduism, is every bit as legitimate as revering Allah or Christ."

Until I personally hear that, my comments are valid. In the meantime, Albuquerque and Catamaran should feel free to quote some pluralistic comment from anyone in that region. And I don't mean just regarding the so called "Abrahamic" religions.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
47/D-93
Nov 07, 2010
06:44 PM
“India is like an ‘Oil Painting Of POVERTY’ for US - only to enhance the aesthetic ambience of the living room – without attaching any emotional strings to it.”
Rajneesh Batra
New Delhi, India
48/D-103
Nov 07, 2010
07:43 PM
"American MBA is a flag-bearer.” - Gautam Adani

The only MBA to have run America left the country in tatters.
THE MBA - CEOs of American financial institutions hedged money in sub-prime mortgages, which no PSU bank officer in India would issue & we have the result ... faulted payments, collapsed "FORTUNE 500" institutions & a penniless public .....
hari
chennai, India
49/D-109
Nov 07, 2010
08:15 PM
David,

" Palestinian perhaps knows very little knowledge about Hinduism, Buddhism, ipods, ipads, intel Core 7 and Mercedes Benz or BMWs" I am not sure of their knowledge on Hinduism
and Buddhism but where ipods, ipads, intel Core 7 and Mercedes Benz or BMWs are concerned than you are far away fromthe reality. If you get a chance to visit Gaza and West bank you will be surprised. Dont believe only what biased media shows you.
Gautam Mohan Gulati
Adipur, India
50/D-110
Nov 07, 2010
08:15 PM
@ Rajat Mehta: Why not help the united States in her endeavours, as a friend, (Iran, too is a friend.), by not taking sides between friends, but at least by letting them come to a settlement? Also, we can help the United States economically(!), but we must also ask our friends to help us out. It is completely tragic, that a nation, known from ancient times for her liberalism towards her neighbours, (I refer to Iran), finds it so difficult to at least be reasonable with the United States. Cannot issues be solved amicably? I ask this especially of the United States. It is now true, that the United States was wrong to support the Shah of Iran. Why should a nation suffer, because of her erstwhile ruler? India can only help this far, down a particular road, but perhaps, India can help endearingly, and with unlimited endurance, as only she can, on her own journey. What is the journey? We reach our destination, by following our own bearings, but we may find many new places, which are alien to us, along the way. We can only depend on our own bearings, not on what we encounter on the journey. I find, that today, we forget our journey, but we are enticed by what we see along the road, and sometimes repelled, too. The journey is important, and we must keep that in mind.
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
51/D-119
Nov 07, 2010
10:25 PM
--"In what way, has the United States made the world move efficiently towards a sense of peace?"

It hasnt. The single over-riding factor in the American engagement with the world is self-interest.

It rules the world with an iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove (the recidivist Friedman couldnt have stated it better), either cajoling larger countries to part with their resources or crushing dissent with its military might in case of dissent (Iraq).

The American State doesn't care about its own people either. The American Government is representative of its Corporations.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
52/D-120
Nov 07, 2010
10:27 PM
As far as high technology and investment goes, the US is and will continue to be significant. But India has options on that count. Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, France, Sweden, Canada and the Netherlands all have the ability to invest in India, and provide required technology. Large sections of the Indian media and general public give inordinate attention to the American role, as if other countries are puny or insignificant contributors. Any one of those countries by themselves are considerable, and put together, they represent a very formidable source.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
53/D-121
Nov 07, 2010
10:32 PM
--"I'm going by my own experiences with people from that part of the world, including a very recent one with a pretty intelligent Iranian fellow."

You repeatedly pull out this poor Iranian fellow from your pocket and attempt to display your ignorance. As far as you and your fellow RSS members are concerned, unless the entire world lies prostrate in front of Hindu deities, they will never be considered legitimate. The insanity and sheer hubris in your post belies the benign image you are attempting to cultivate.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
54/D-123
Nov 07, 2010
10:38 PM
It wasn't a poor Iranian. It was someone quite articulate who found it remarkable that in India, you can go into a bookstore and find a book critical of Islam right next to one praising it. Quite unlike the situation in Iran, Saudi and Pakistan. It's not a question of lying prostrate before Hindu deities. But of acknowledging Hinduism as a legitimate path. Moslems have a big problem with that. It's got little to do with dodging Israeli checkpoints on the West Bank. India has a legitimate concern that the Palestinians it is supporting won't be just another bunch of Saudis, Iranians or Pakistanis.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
55/D-124
Nov 07, 2010
10:41 PM
Here is the relevant line from my previous post. Nothing about prostrating in front of Hindu deities, but acknowledging them as representations of the divine.

"Yes, revering the various images of the supreme being that exist in Hinduism, is every bit as legitimate as revering Allah or Christ."
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
56/D-2
Nov 08, 2010
12:10 AM
Varun you are not much familiar with international affairs.You are looking the whole thing from a very prejudiced way .
shankar
Hyderabad, India
57/D-19
Nov 08, 2010
03:53 AM
Upto 1918 Great Britain was the only super power in the world, Pound Sterling, the only international currency and there were highly developed industries in GB. Today GB is fighting to survive economically, with Pound disappearing from the world finance markets. The US are following the same path. The decline in their econmic strength, their technical know-how and rising costs of foreign military interventions is very likely to make them the ´GB´of the 21st century. One should not be surprised if this happens much faster as was the case with GB. The countries of the European Union are already going down economically. They don´t have the new computer and electronic technologies and have to import these mainly from Japan, South Korea. If one gets into a german express train, the electronic in the engine, the signals, the automatic ticket-machines etc. are being controlled by a super fast computer from Japan. The main exports from France, Italy and Spain are wines, cheese and the most important economic factor is tourism. The era of the old industrial countries is surely coming to an end and that too fater than any one had expected. It is surely not wise now for India to run after the USA. The real dynamic is in the Far East, based on very high technical know-how. It will be far-looking for India to join this group.
What the religions is concernd, the people are understanding more and more that these are nothing more than man-made outdated mechanisms to control the groups. Buddha was one of the firsts who said this openly and refused to accept the constructions of gods, holy scriptures and priests. He is coming back not only in India, but also in Europe in the educated circles. Talking about the qualities of one religion or the other is actually wasting time, since their existence is based upon suppositions. The modern educated persons, who read Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm and Buddha etc. want facts and not suppositions.
Dali
Stuttgart, Germany
58/D-20
Nov 08, 2010
04:55 AM
Varun Shekhar

" But of acknowledging Hinduism as a legitimate path. "

That's not going to happen with Abrahamic religions. Because one of the primary pillars of those religions is that there is only one God and that God is one of theirs.

However, that is neither here nor there. They have the right to pursue their religion as they see fit, as long as they don't push it down our (as in atheists etc.,) throats. I have absolutely no issues with their exclusivity. Whatever rocks their boats.

But I have difficulty in understanding your need for others to acknowledge Hinduism or other eastern religions. Why should they? As long as other religions (and atheists!!) aren't persecuted or discriminated against in liberal democracies, it does not bother me personally.

As far as I know, both Israelis and Palestinians have a great deal of respect for Indian culture. Religion does not enter into it explicitly - just the culture. And I say this knowing that Hinduism and various strands of spiritual thought permeates our culture - but for them it's only the culture that matters.

By the way, some people who practice Buddhism can be just as intolerant as the next person. Sri Lanka will throw up countless examples.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
59/D-21
Nov 08, 2010
05:10 AM
I find it odd - very odd - that a lot of people hold ANY nation up as a paragon of virtue and then are deeply disappointed that these nations fail to deliver.

I differentiate between nations and individuals that comprise a nation.

One of the most important agendas of a nation is self-interest. It's the same with India as it is with the US.

As for Aparna Sen, I think she should realise that ALL nations are run by elites. In some countries, people are fortunate to vote and maybe have some influence - but not by much. The elites create the narrative and use the media to sell it to us. That does not mean that there is something inherently wrong with the narrative - we might even agree with all of it.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
60/D-23
Nov 08, 2010
06:24 AM
Well said Aris. That's a more accurate remark than saying that dodging Israeli checkpoints is the main roadblock( oops, is that a tautology?).

I would say that if we were in the 16th century, the dogmatic approach "You know, we are an Abrahamic religion, and hence we believe in exclusivity" would be understandable, though not laudable. But this is the 21st century, and it's high time to go beyond the rigid, dogmatic declaration of being Abrahamic.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
61/D-56
Nov 08, 2010
02:16 PM
We can learn a lot from the Americans. Their sense of national pride, cleanliness, respect for the environment, punctuality, organization, free speech etc are all things worthy of emulation. Unfortunately, we seem to be copying only their bad qualities like their outward boorishness, arrogance and disrespect towards other cultures.
G.Natrajan
Hyderabad, India
63/D-71
Nov 08, 2010
03:34 PM
Stripped of all the diplomatic jargon, the score at the end of day 2 of Obama's visit reads - 0-0
The role of the media, in going gaga over the visit, is really pathetic. Rajiv Pratap Rudy's comment may have be undiplomatic, but is still euphemistic.
K.Suresh
Bangalore, India
64/D-76
Nov 08, 2010
04:57 PM
We are all Americans now.
Dinesh Kumar
Chandigarh, India
65/D-80
Nov 08, 2010
05:33 PM
Aparna Sen is bang on the target. As is Arundhati Roy.
kishoredasmunshi
Kolkatta, India
66/D-81
Nov 08, 2010
05:35 PM
William Bissell, FabIndia is happy about this marriage where US would be the pitcher and India would be the catcher similar to what US relation is the rest of the world except israel where it is happy to be the catcher.
kishoredasmunshi
Kolkatta, India
67/D-82
Nov 08, 2010
05:38 PM
Like India, US is a very large, varied and diverse country. Just as the saying goes for India, everything said about US, is also both true and false - dualities are commonplace. It finally comes down to the individuals perspective, and their individual experience.

Net-net there much to admire and emulate. Specific to India given the distance, our size and now "growing weight", American power would be the least corrosive choice. Decline of American power is likely inevitable but we should help avoid it, if not slow it a lot - because the Chinese alternative isn't going to be fun given a shared (and disputed) border not to mention our own aspirations of power and place in the world (nothwithstanding the PMs contention that there is space for both in the emerging future).

Aparna Sen comes across as a classical "elite" in the colonial European tradition. For her benefit, Americans too have the least patience with such "elites". So the feeling of contempt for each other might be quite mutual.
Arun Maheshwari
Bangalore, India
68/D-87
Nov 08, 2010
07:14 PM
" The elites create the narrative and use the media to sell it to us. That does not mean that there is something inherently wrong with the narrative - we might even agree with all of it."

India is a more people and public oriented democracy than the US, particularly where foreign policy is concerned. It's just that India being what it is, a poor country with great economic disparities, the impression could be created that India is purposefully also an 'elite' dominated country. But India is also a progressive and dynamic entity, which seeks to empower, enfranchise and enlighten more and more people, including the underclass. In India's own slow, bumbling and democratic way.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
69/D-92
Nov 08, 2010
07:58 PM
Prez Obama changed his stand on Pakistani Terror in Delhi than what he announced in Mumbai subject to re-change subsequently in Islamabad .
a k ghai
mumbai, India
70/D-93
Nov 08, 2010
08:02 PM
For 10 years USA fought Taliban and Queda.Became bankrupt in the process.Sacrificed many Soldiers.

Now USA is talking to same Talibans and Queda to extract itself from the Pak-Af.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
71/D-95
Nov 08, 2010
08:04 PM
Now USA is talking to same Talibans and Queda to extricate itself from the Pak-Af.

corrected
a k ghai
mumbai, India
72/D-107
Nov 08, 2010
09:23 PM
The only benefit to India with it's relationship with the US, is the outsourcing industry.
Other than that, there is no reason to ally with Anglo saxon countries.
Narendra
Hyderabad, India
73/D-110
Nov 08, 2010
09:37 PM
Crumbling Public Education coupled with corporate comedy channels like Fox, is enabling a country of Morons.
kishoredasmunshi
Kolkatta, India
78/D-8
Nov 09, 2010
01:30 AM
"“We need to have cordial relations with the US but without playing a junior partner or the role of a supplicant.” N. Ram, Editor-in-chief, Hindu"

He will be perfectly fine with India playing a junior partner to China.

THe simple fact is India needs the US to counter China. Till the time the commie regime in CHina collapses and China sheds its aggressive approach, India should be very close to US and even if it means playing junior partner, so be it.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
79/D-15
Nov 09, 2010
02:25 AM
>> The Sangh has this concern. Not India. India has always supported the legitimate aspirations to Palestinian Statehood.

Usual BS from the succu crowd. Most Indians neither know, nor care about the Palestinian problem.

The succu support for Palestinians is not based on any morals, but a desire to pursue the Muslim vote bank. It's the same mentality, that drove Congress to support Khilafat.

Had this support been based on morals, we would have supported the people of Tibet too.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
80/D-17
Nov 09, 2010
02:50 AM
"The succu support for Palestinians is not based on any morals, but a desire to pursue the Muslim vote bank"

That is part of it. The other part was the pro Soviet policy. Toeing the Soviet line and opposing the US automatically made one a progressive and enlightened.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
83/D-26
Nov 09, 2010
03:55 AM
Varun Shekhar,

"India is a more people and public oriented democracy than the US, particularly where foreign policy is concerned."

That isn't completely true. I am disputing your use of the word "more." As in all democracies, there are some things that are done better in one country and others not as good.

With regard to foreign policy, Indian citizens do not have much influence. Look at our adventures in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan et al. Some are deemed to be necessary and some are, well, adventures.

Have we been consulted on any of this? Indeed, I would argue, that especially in foreign policy, we do not have much say. Our system is opaque. You would have a point if our system was more transparent. But it is definitely not.


"... which seeks to empower, enfranchise and enlighten more and more people, including the underclass"

You can say that of a lot of countries - and they don't have to be democracies. I would say that this has no bearing on being ruled by elites. Just because one has attained a certain level of education and wealth, does not mean that one is part of the elite.

I am attempting to say, in my clumsy way, that there is nothing necessarily wrong about being ruled by elites. As in all things, it works sometimes and it has a better chance of working in a democracy - simply because there is a system of feedback (however small,) either through elections or/and through pressure groups/thinktanks/NGOs etc.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
84/D-27
Nov 09, 2010
03:55 AM
cata Maran,

" India has always supported the legitimate aspirations to Palestinian Statehood."

And we still do.

" But then they dangled a few choice armaments in front of our eyes and we sold our soul once again."

Out dealings with Israel is not only with armaments but also in the fields of science and technology.

Allow me to put it this way. Israel is a democracy. There is no discrimination in their constitution (not yet) with regards to citizens who are not Jews.

There is no doubt (at least to me) that Israel hasn't done the right thing with Palestinians, but should that be a reason for us to have no relationship with Israel?

If that is the case, then India will have to put China/Russia/a lot of African countries/some European countries etc., in the same category.

What India has managed to do over there is show great statemanship. We have good relations with all Arab countries (and Iran,) inspite of our relationship with Israel. I must add, it's also because of our large Muslim population who have contributed positively in building this relationship with Arab, and other Muslim, countries.

I find it extremely odd - and sad - that some of us ask posters with Muslim names to proclaim their patriotism. If they tick the right boxes, then they are one of ours. If not, oh well.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
85/D-28
Nov 09, 2010
04:02 AM
Whats inaname,

"The succu support for Palestinians is not based on any morals, but a desire to pursue the Muslim vote bank"

Maybe. Maybe not. Allow me to put it this way, if the Palestinians were Hindus, would we have have supported their rights?

As I mentioned earlier, there was an element of morality involved - but mainly, according to me, its because we do have a large number of Muslim leaders who perhaps influenced our decision to support Palestinian rights - at least in the early stages.

Is there something wrong with that? I would argue - no.

It has paid dividends to India in terms of our relationship with other Muslim countries - so we have a net benefit.

How individual politicians use it (as in vote banks) is despicable - but that does not reflect, necessarily, Indian government thinking about it.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
86/D-29
Nov 09, 2010
04:16 AM
>> Is there something wrong with that? I would argue - no.

One can support the struggle for Palestine people because they have been wronged. I have said so on these pages in the past. But if the support is due to their religious identity, it is wrong.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
87/D-30
Nov 09, 2010
04:23 AM
Whats inaname,

" But if the support is due to their religious identity, it is wrong."

And I don't think it is - from the Indian government point of view. Please bear in mind, I differentiate between individual politicians/leaders and the Indian government.

I think our foreign policy establishment has taken a hard-headed look at the situation and found out a way to have the cake and eat it too. So we have good relations with Israel and the Arab countries.

So why not continue on that path when it has paid us dividends? Or, at the very least, not harmed us in a substantial way.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
93/D-36
Nov 09, 2010
04:46 AM
>> Please bear in mind, I differentiate between individual politicians/leaders and the Indian government.

So what is your position regarding individual politicians. Is it right or wrong of them to view and formulate policy based on a religious angle?

>> I think our foreign policy establishment has taken a hard-headed look at the situation and found out a way to have the cake and eat it too.

The discussion was not about the policy, but the motivations behind it.

>> So we have good relations with Israel and the Arab countries.

Well, we didn't have good relation with Israel till recently. In fact, we didn't have any relations with them, till the BJP govt started them (or was it some previous govt? Don't remember, and not too interested in checking). Again, that was not the discussion.

>> So why not continue on that path when it has paid us dividends? Or, at the very least, not harmed us in a substantial way.

See above.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
97/D-40
Nov 09, 2010
05:08 AM
Whats inaname,

"Is it right or wrong of them to view and formulate policy based on a religious angle? "

As a much despised secular, I would say it's wrong. But individual politicians do not formulate policy - they have opinions. Some of their opinions can contribute to policy making, of course.

"The discussion was not about the policy, but the motivations behind it."

And how are we to guess that, until and unless our system gets transparent? From my point of view, it is in our self-interest to have good relations with both Arab/Muslim countries. On the whole, we have succeeded.

"See above."

When I look at a decision implemented by our institutions, I mainly focus on its effects. As it is, we do not have much (or any) say in the foreign policy decision making process. So I do not have a clear idea of their motivations - important as they are.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
99/D-45
Nov 09, 2010
06:30 AM
Aris,

>> There is no discrimination in their (Israel's) constitution (not yet) with regards to citizens who are not Jews.

Not true!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
100/D-46
Nov 09, 2010
06:31 AM
Al Bundy,

"But if the support is due to their religious identity, it is wrong."

I donot think India's support for Palestine movement was religious. I agree with Ganesan. It is primarily due to alignment with USSR and opposition to US policies during cold war. Palestine movement from pre-Hamas days was a secular movement. Their leader Yaseer Arafat was actually a christian.
Maha
NJ, United States
101/D-47
Nov 09, 2010
06:36 AM
Anwaar,

"Not true!"

Please, can you point out those details?
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
102/D-48
Nov 09, 2010
06:39 AM
Though I may add, that I don't think they have a written constitution
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
103/D-51
Nov 09, 2010
06:54 AM
Maha,

>> Their leader Yaseer Arafat was actually a christian.


His wife was a Christian. He was Muslim. There were and are Christians in Palestinian leadership. Dr George Habash was the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
104/D-52
Nov 09, 2010
07:10 AM
Aris,

>> Please, can you point out those details?

They do not have an officially approved constitution.
According to the Wikipedia, their laws severely restrict immigration so Arabs find it impossible to return to their ancestral homes. Arab citizens of Israel experience discrimination in many aspects of life. An Israeli Commission on the events of 2000 found, "The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and has also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Although the Jewish majority’s awareness of this discrimination is often quite low, it plays a central role in the sensibilities and attitudes of Arab citizens. This discrimination is widely accepted, both within the Arab sector and outside it, and by official assessments, as a chief cause of agitation."

The US State Department reported in 2007, "According to a 2005 study at Hebrew University, three times more money was invested in education of Jewish children as in Arab children."

Human Rights Watch has charged that cuts in veteran benefits and child allowances based on parents' military service discriminate against Arab children: "The cuts will also affect the children of Jewish ultra-orthodox parents who do not serve in the military, but they are eligible for extra subsidies, including educational supplements, not available to Palestinian Arab children."

According to The Guardian, in 2006 just 5% of civil servants were Arabs, many of them hired to deal with other Arabs, despite the fact that Arab citizens of Israel comprise 20% of the population.

The Israel Land Administration, which administers 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
105/D-53
Nov 09, 2010
07:16 AM
Anwaar,

I do not doubt that there is discrimination but their basic laws do not discriminate. I would say it's similar, in a sense, to India and other countries. Officially, to a large extent, there is no discrimination, but unofficially it exists.

Still, I wouldn't use those numbers as a reason to reduce or have no relationship with Israel.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
106/D-54
Nov 09, 2010
07:31 AM
Maha,

" It is primarily due to alignment with USSR and opposition to US policies during cold war."

I am not so sure. From memory (and I read the book a long time ago,) according to (one of) Nehru's biographers, India recognised Israel fairly early - I think in the early 1950s. This was done knowing that Arab countries wouldn't be happy about it. I think it was also in retaliation of some Arab countries making a brouhaha in the UN regarding Hyderabad. I think he wanted to have diplomatic relations with Israel, but was deterred by adverse reactions of some Muslim leaders. And then later on because he was fearful of negative Arab reaction.

But this is all from memory and it's quite hazy at the moment!
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
108/D-56
Nov 09, 2010
08:56 AM
--"There were and are Christians in Palestinian leadership. "

Edward Said, one of the most respected Palestinian academic/leader was a Christian. The Palestinian issue was always about dispossession. Hamas and Hezbollah filled the vacuum created by decades of Israeli intransigence and oppression.
Cata Maran
Soccer City, South Africa
109/D-57
Nov 09, 2010
09:08 AM
Aris,

>> I wouldn't use those numbers as a reason to reduce or have no relationship with Israel.

We should of course have a mutually beneficial relationship with Israel, continue to advocate justice for the Palestinians, and look forward to a good relationship with a future Palestinian state.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
117/D-72
Nov 09, 2010
11:41 AM
>> I donot think India's support for Palestine movement was religious. I agree with Ganesan. It is primarily due to alignment with USSR and opposition to US policies during cold war.

I don't think so. Per Wikipedia, Soviet Union voted in favor of the UN resolution which paved the way for creation of Israel. It was also the second country, after USA, to recognize Israel.

By contrast, we established full diplomatic ties with them only in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia...._relations_of_Israel

>> Palestine movement from pre-Hamas days was a secular movement.

About this, I don't know much. In any case, the Palestenian struggle is justified.

I do believe however, that the main reason of our strong support was that the majority of the impacted population, was Muslim. It's not an isolated view, and some other analysts share this view

http://www.southasia...apers2/paper131.html

"The stubborn opposition to establish diplomatic relations with Israel arose from the Nehru - Gandhi regimes of the Congress Party being captives to domestic compulsions of appeasement of Muslim minorities (support for Arab causes) and a greed for Muslim votes."

Even in this article, when Owaisi speaks, he speaks as a Muslim MP, and on behalf of the Muslims. One can argue that he is not representative of Indian Muslims. However, his party's entire support base consists almost exclusively of the city Muslims, so his words have at least some import in that regard.
Whats InAName
San Francisco, United States
118/D-87
Nov 09, 2010
04:11 PM
“I do not doubt that there is discrimination but their basic laws do not discriminate. I would say it's similar, in a sense, to India and other countries. Officially, to a large extent, there is no discrimination, but unofficially it exists.”

Aris, I like the calm gentility, reasonableness and good manners you bring to this debate but, on the above, I beg to differ.

Discrimination exists officially against the indigenous Palestinians who remained behind in Israel after the ethnic cleansing which killed off or drove away their compatriots to refugee camps across the region. Arabs or others who are not Jews cannot be "nationals" of Israel. Only Jews can be "nationals." Their nationality rights are granted by the Law of Return. No Israeli nationality applies to all citizens, as does an Indian nationality in India or French nationality in France, for example. In Israel, there is only a Jewish nationality.

That non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1972 in a statement that “there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.” (This provides the ability for foreign-born Jews to move into homes, not just in Israel, but in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem as well – as more than half a million settlers have done – whereas Palestinians are denied building permits and their homes are demolished)

Ninety-three percent of Israel's land is "national" land, which is developed, leased and administered by "national" institutions for Israel's "national" constituency, "the Jewish people."

The government, serving a "citizen" constituency, can at any time give the Jewish Agency authority to deliver services to its "national" constituency. In this way, services can be legally withheld from non-Jewish citizens.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
120/D-92
Nov 09, 2010
05:50 PM
Moderator's note: Please note this thread is not about Israel. While asides, references, comparisons and allusions and so on are fine, please do not let this feedback thread to an article about how the US is perceived by Indians into a thread about Israel per se. For that, we would recommend choosing a relevant area. Perhaps one of the many articles by Mr Uri Avnery: http://www.outlookindia.com/peoplehome3.aspx?pid=3957&author=Uri+Avnery
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
121/D-101
Nov 09, 2010
07:45 PM
"With regard to foreign policy, Indian citizens do not have much influence. Look at our adventures in Sri Lanka,

Have we been consulted on any of this?"

Not sure about Sri Lanka, although the initial peace accord between Rajeev and Jayawardene was generally lauded. It was the Tamil Tigers who wrecked it. Most sensible Indians support an Indian presence in Afghanistan for economic. cultural and ideological reasons, and strategic if need be. The public is encouraged to debate and discuss these issues.

True about empowerment of more sections of the population. One could argue that North Korea is empowering its people, just as India is. But what kind of empowerment is that. India is doing it within the context of a free, pluralistic democracy.

The point about the US is that it is more or less a fixed oligarchy/plutocracy, for the forseeable future. It's big government, big business( particularly oil) and a few military-security elememts that set the policy and make the decisions regarding foreign issues. And the public either goes along or doesn't care. This has been the case for over 100 years.

You cannot say that the same situation prevails in India. For one thing, India doesn't base its behaviour in the world with oil, control of mineral resources and geo-strategy foremost on its mind. At the very least, it doesn't want to in any given situation. There are times when it simply has to respond to the behaviour of China and Pakistan.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
122/D-125
Nov 09, 2010
11:03 PM
Its foolishness to say that the two countries are like perfact marrige,rather then perfact marriage he can say that time comes that India deserved to become a Asian super power.Thanks to mr Obama President of United States of America
for his great comments and wonderful apperciation about India,and his personal support for permenent member in UNOS securaty councial.We Indians work very hard for last of 63 years for education to science and technology to space and super computers technology.Its great to accept that India is becoming a Worlds super power from Obama president of United States of America.
We Indians belive in democracy freedom,and personal liberty,and we belive in God.United States of America is also belive in democracy,freedom personal liberty and trest in God.United States og America and India both the countries are great.And both the countries are having a great power nature.both the countries will try to solve many Worlds problams like hunder in poor countries,terririsam,reserch in space and to explore mistries in deep seas and Oceans,and to creats more jobs in United States of America and India.As well as to stop more chinies power in Asia

Long Live friedship between

United States of America

and

India.
dilipkumar.chitnis
mumbai, India
123/D-127
Nov 09, 2010
11:23 PM
This is serious , please check the link that how Obama has gone back on promise of cheap medical treatment

http://www.pharmabiz...eid=58228§ionid=

“For years, the US government has acted on behalf of its pharmaceutical industry in pushing aggressive intellectual property protection across the world regardless of its impact on access to medicines for millions of patients. As a candidate Obama had promised to break the stranglehold of drug companies on life saving medicines. It seems this promise is long forgotten,”
Identity lost
vanuatu, Vanuatu
124/D-22
Nov 10, 2010
02:14 AM
David Albuquerque,

Thank you for your kind comments.

I just try and follow James Fallows of The Atlantic's advise - treat other commentators as you would treat an acquaintance you meet face to face. Sometimes it works!!

You made some extremely interesting points. I would like to respond, but we should try and stick to the rules of the forum. Maybe we will have a place (and time) to discuss these issues soon.

By the way, I definitely recommend James Fallows to everybody (if you haven't come across his blog.)
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
125/D-27
Nov 10, 2010
02:48 AM
Whats Inaname, Maha and Ganesan,

While I was going through your comments, I remembered reading about letters exchanged between Nehru and Einstein. It was a few years ago and I don't remember exactly where I read them. (I know, I know, my memory is failing me again!!)

But they are an interesting read. Einstein was trying to convince Nehru to recognise Israel and Nehru was struggling with the issue, at a very personal level.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
126/D-30
Nov 10, 2010
03:51 AM
Varun Shekhar,

You have raised some interesting points too. I'll try and respond within the framework of the moderators use of this post.

"The public is encouraged to debate and discuss these issues."

Generally after the event. I would be astounded and puzzled if Indian foreign policy mandarins used ideology as a reason to involve India directly in another country. It's one thing to say it publicly ...

Regarding Sri Lanka, we dispatched our army there. Countless Indian lives were lost and there wasn't much angst in our public space about it. For me, that was an adventure.

"For one thing, India doesn't base its behaviour in the world with oil, control of mineral resources and geo-strategy foremost on its mind. At the very least, it doesn't want to in any given situation. "

Why do you think we are in Afghanistan? Is it only because of Pakistan and/or China? Then we are falling into the mindset of those people (mainly Pakistanis) that follow the theory India-Pakistan are always coupled together. We (as in citizens) need to rid ourselves of that line of thinking. We aren't hostage to Pakistan as much as Pakistan is to us - that, of course, is our mantra, as you are undoubtedly aware of. But it's surprising how often we fall back to that way of thinking, especially when pushed into defensive positions.

Why do you think we (the government AND Indian private companies) are investing in Africa? Don't you think that the Indian government isn't helping our private companies in investing in other countries with some back-door diplomacy?

Why do you think we sent our navy to protect ships from Somali pirates? Can we afford it, when a large section of our population is destitute? But we need to project our power and make sure that the rest of the world knows that we will protect sea lanes that are crucial to us.

Before I go on, I would like to say that we need to do some of these things. Just because quite a large sub-section of our population is poor, does not mean we shouldn't project our influence outside India. It isn't an Either/Or scenario for me.

So for me, we aren't much different from the US, and even China, when it comes to foreign policy.

I suspect that you won't be convinced by all of this - :-)
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
127/D-32
Nov 10, 2010
03:57 AM
Dilipkumar Chitnis,

"We Indians belive (sic) in ....and we belive in God."

Oi!!

Some of us don't.

:-)
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
128/D-33
Nov 10, 2010
05:11 AM
Isn't this "concept of contradiction" mentioned in this article applicable to how we feel about most countries?

At least to countries that has (or had or will have) influence on India?

Isn't it perfectly normal?
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
129/D-37
Nov 10, 2010
06:58 AM
Ooops! China has called Pakistan as "our Israel". The prdudent Indian foreign policy requires its relationship with the neighbours. How can we become UN Security Council member! China will block. China will never go against its Israel. America is playing the commercial card with India. It will support our UN Security Council Bid. That support is meaningless and Obama knows very well. We are closing our ranks with America when it is rapidly overtaking by China. China is completely surrounded by India, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, American Foces in Central Asia and Afghanistan, Australia, New Zealand. What options does China has! Pakistan, Pakistan and Pakistan. And further west, Iran. If our policymakers perpetually refuses to resolve the issues with Pakistan, then, our foreign policy will be disaster in the new century. In order to become a major power, we must neutralize our borders and establish a free tade with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and other gulf countries. India will be the winner. We need to outclass China in this area. China has already outsized us by 4 times, it will be 5 or 6 or even 10 within next two decades. It has remakrable relationship with the rich resourceful Central Asia, Gulf, Iran and Eastern Europe. South America already in its back pocket. Africa is long gone. What next for us!
Shuja
New Delhi, India
130/D-40
Nov 10, 2010
08:48 AM
This Security Council membership business is a red herring. Aided & abetted by semiliterate India media Obama has sold India dead cat, that too with lots of ifs & buts.

Before & during his visit the media here has raised a big kerfuffle as if being a member of the SC is such a big ticket. Look, India had in the past been the a member of the SC & right at the momment is a member. That did not change India's status a wee bit. Not that as permanent member India will enjoy veto powers.

UN is the a parking lot for dud diplomats & the SC is it's toothless talk shop. It's here dozen of resolutions were passed asking Israel to restrain it's thuggery in the land of the Palestinins. Israel gave hoot.It's here at the SC Colin Powell sold the story of Iraq's WMD. The story was false hook,line ,sinker. Willy nilly the members swallowed the story.

Net, net , India as permanent member of the SC will create a few more New York postings for Indian foerign office which is to mean go have good life , will pay for it.

As usual, we are happy with the sound & instead of the sustance.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
131/D-42
Nov 10, 2010
11:17 AM
Aris, good comments, but there is something missing. The US,UK, France and now increasingly China, have based their foreign policy in the developing world on controlling resources. The US has even destabilised and overturned democratic, progressive governments, when it felt that its control or share of those resources was being diminished. And installed and supported awful dictators who would grant them the priority they desired.
India merely tries to defend its existing interests( by countering pirates, for example) ethically. It doesn't base its whole relationship with a country on that country's resources.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
132/D-4
Nov 11, 2010
01:57 AM
Varun Shekhar,

I do not share your, if I may say so, rose-tinted view of Indian foreign policy.

I think we will have to just agree to disagree about it.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
133/D-7
Nov 11, 2010
03:34 AM
Aris, that's fine, but will you at least agree( well, there's nothing to really 'disagree' since it is a hard fact) that India is not in the business of destabilising and toppling existing democratic, progressive movements, governments and countries, with the goal of gaining control over, or preeminence over, the concerned country's resources? The US has certainly done this in the Congo, Iran and Chile, and supported repressive regimes elsewhere with the idea of keeping control of resources. You certainly cannot accuse India of the same perfidy. India just wants to defend its existing economic interests using ethical self-interest. When India topples a truly progressive, secular, pluralistic country and installs a repressive and regressive regime, we can then speak of some sort of Indian 'imperialism'. Without trying to sound smug, don't hold your breath. India would happily welcome a progressive, democratic, pluralistic and independent minded entity. The US, UK, France and Belgium have an awful history of doing the opposite.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
134/D-8
Nov 11, 2010
03:50 AM
Varun Shekhar,

At this point in time, yes I would agree that we haven't toppled democratic governments - as far as I know.

But we have played a role in Nepal/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh - whatever the reason.

In the future, we may have to make a choice and play any one of those roles - especially in a resource rich country - as our competition for those resources hots up with China et al. If we need to maintain our present momentum and provide for our population, I don't think we can avoid making that choice.
Aris
Melbourne, Australia
135/D-56
Nov 11, 2010
07:00 PM
"In the future, we may have to make a choice and play any one of those roles - especially in a resource rich country - as our competition for those resources hots up with China et al."

By the way its not in the near future....
Indian democracy wont give us chance to look into soo.. many other international issues as our politicians will concentrate only on getting votes(via internal issues like poverty,infra...etc). The MEA will be alone(without any political support!! and with plenty of obstacles) in all these issues..
I think India wont poke others(leaving our neighbors) in their internal issues..
examples... we dont have any stand on Myanmar and afghan(officially at least) :0
Padmabushan Reddy
hyderabad, India
136/D-59
Nov 11, 2010
07:12 PM
http://www.southasia...ers42/paper4158.html

This is article written by B.Raman (i think u guys have already read his prev. articles in outlook) on US, India& China.

Hav fun !! bcoz thats the best thing to do when we cannot do anything else!!

It should make u think how much complex the foreign policies of China and US are (compare it with the Indian :))

http://www.southasia...ers42/paper4156.html
Padmabushan Reddy
hyderabad, India
137/D-83
Nov 11, 2010
08:53 PM
Why americans get cold feet talking about China? American economy and industry is hit below the belt largely by the greed of corporates to pawn all family jewels to China? why low tech and high tech manufcaturing was shifted to China? Most of the unemployment in USA is affecting middle and lower middle class manufacturing sector workers, who lost their jobs to chinese workers. My advice - Don't act stupid and act smart - think like Germans and get back your manufacturing sector roaring again. It is fashionable to hit back on India as an election speech euphoria, but explore yourself and I am sure that a dig in data would show that indian IT is only filling the gap where US has not sufficient human resources! I would suggest to think more about people who worked in steel mills before mills were dismantled and shifted to China. Are huge reserves of US dollars in Chinese treasury not an eye opener - a huge threat to respect and ? Talk to leaders who provdied leadership and who transited USA' enterprenurial expertise (gained over many centuries) to China. Before answering, please use a keyboard and a mouse manufactured with American toil and on american soil. It will help US people, if they can stop thinking in short term now and think long term and wide base.
Shyamal Barua
kolkata, India
138/D-89
Nov 11, 2010
09:21 PM
I think that our people should have forced Americans to extradite "warren Anderson" before signing any business deals. because that will show the filthy rich american corporates that they cant cross the law in India.....

I hope those deals are in our public interest...because all we can do is just to hope or criticize!!!!(laugh/smile if u can!!)
Padmabushan Reddy
hyderabad, India
139/D-44
Nov 12, 2010
10:11 AM
One would have to be blind not to see that historically, what America said and what America did world-wide are two different things. For all the middle-class hype and hero worship of America, we cannot ignore the fact that India is being courted and coerced at the same time. The question is - will India of the future be able to chart its course with an independent mind.

Obama is both erudite and charming, someone who is admired as an individual - that does not mean we lose sight of everything else.

M
Mallikarjuna
Bangalore, India
140/D-94
Nov 12, 2010
08:25 PM
The Obama speech was very good, with many lines that touched a chord with Indians. The references to Indian names, expressions,( Jai Hind, Vivekananda,Dhanyavad) even a literary work like the Panchatantra, was impressive, teleprompter or not. The naming of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan was crucial.

But as with all Western leaders, something was still missing. And Obama being Black, this was more puzzling.

It's the omission of India's just, progressive and successful struggle with colonial rule and oppression under the British. Western leaders become paralyzed on this topic. It's fine to mention Gandhi, but it wasn't just Gandhi, but millions of Indians who struggled against colonial rule. The name "Gandhi" has become a catch-all for Western leaders and commentators. What's more important is the overall context in which Gandhi worked. And that context was the racist, colonial system that India, not just one man, fought. And they fought it in order to become more free and democratic. Western leaders run into a massive psychological roadblock on this matter, because it strikes them as an incongruous and inconvenient truth, that India's struggle was undertaken against one of the so called upholders of democracy and freedom.

And this omission is vital, because it speaks to the heart of what the West's real problem is with India. And that is the lack of empathy. They are too wrapped up in their financial or power games, and blinded by smugness, to possess this sentiment.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
141/D-99
Nov 12, 2010
09:06 PM
I am pretty sure Indian Muslims will take to arms because that is what large Muslim populations in non-Muslim lands do, generally. Just try reading newspapers.

Hindus like to hide from the harsh realities. They bleat miserably when their dreamlands are shattered by reality.

The middle class thinks India will be a superpower. Much more likely, it won't even exist, in 20 years.
Ali Murtali
AURANGABAD, India
142/D-105
Nov 12, 2010
10:10 PM
What India must admire about America is the latter's dogged focus on strategic interests. If America appears hypocritical to outsiders, it is because others do not appreciate that America's priorities are often conflicting, but eventually it has tried to pursue its best strategic interests.
I think only in the recent years India has started pursuing foreign policies that are far more nuanced and aligned with India's strategic interests.
With all my due respect for Nehru , I never appreciated all his grandiose schemes in the international areana for hogging media limelight - the Non-aligned movement/panchsheel/lecturing the globe about peace and harmony derived from Indian culture etc. etc. that never benefitted India's poor.A country with begging bowls teaching the globe about what is right or wrong appears absolutely ridiculous.
Now that India has seen better times in the domestic economy thanks to its successful industries and businesses, India's foreign policy's focus should be entirely on protecting India's interests in trade and investments - because that is the only interest worth pursuing if we believe more wealth creation for poverty alleviation is India's uttermost priority. Moreover in an increasingly globalized world countries engage with one another a lot more, and the political ideologies as a precondition for engagement only gives strategic advantage to any rival nation seeking similar strategic interests with no such ideological baggage.
If anyone wonders why America or the west pursues a policy of intervention and containment in the Middle East, one must understand the significant dependence of American economy on foreign oil for preserving prosperity of citizens living in even the remotest parts of the country. Long before the Americans the British and the Romans could ensure prosperity of their citizens by pursuing policies- both diplomatic and military- to protect their trade and business interests.
If morality is the only yardstick then it is pretty easy to choose sides while dealing with places like Tibet, China, Burma, Palestine, Sudan etc. But if the sense of morality contradicts with strategic interests, one needs to be more nuanced and careful for choosing sides.
I personally believe that India's best interest lies in better wealth creation for tackling poverty. Any compromise with the moral stance on this ground should be acceptable. Call me selfish if you wish. If morality prevents you from taking a blunt stance then there is always a choice - abstain from voting any contentious issues at the UN.
India can align better with America and othernations as long as India cares for its economic interests alone and is not carried away by any lofty Nehruvian dream of achieving a global super power status.
DC
NEW YORK, United States
  Order by BACK TO ARTICLE 
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: