Indo -US nuclear agreement controversy

[Nakeeran]

How come noone has yet opened any topic on this burning issue ?

The recent Indo-US nuclear agreement has snowballed into a major crisis at the centre with left parties having taken a diametrically opposite stand . Consequence >>>> an imminent threat to the Congress UPA government & all opposition parties are keenly watching the moves of CPM .

On March 2, the United States and India reached agreement on their controversial nuclear deal. The deal still must be approved by the U.S. Congress. The deal provides India with American nuclear technology and fuel; India, however, does not have to become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.) and only has to open 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors to international inspections. [See: "Bush Visits South Asia and Offers a Nuclear Gift to India"]

The Bush administration's motivations behind this deal lie in Washington's strategy of convincing India to become a South Asian ally of the United States. The purpose of turning India into a U.S. ally in the region is primarily due to Washington's concerns over the growing power of China. There is recognition in Washington that China will pose a strategic threat to U.S. interests in the future. Nevertheless, Washington also sees India as a stable partner in a critical region. [See: "China's Geostrategy: Playing a Waiting Game"]

It is in India's interests to improve its relations with the United States. There are two primary strategic reasons behind this interest. For one, India faces an ongoing conflict with Pakistan. While weaker than India, Pakistan has received military equipment from China. In addition, Pakistan has become an ally of convenience to the United States. Relations with the United States are now important for Pakistan, especially for its current government of President Pervez Musharraf that keeps a tenuous grip on power. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan acts as a controlling factor in Pakistan's conflict with India. As long as Washington keeps control in Islamabad, the chances for conflict between India and Pakistan decrease. [See: "Pakistan: a Geopolitical Crux"]

India's second strategic interest for improving relations with the United States lies in New Delhi's relationship with Beijing. While there is much talk about the improving relationship between India and China, their relationship is still marked by rivalry. Both countries are competing in the energy field, with China seeming to have taken the edge. They have fought a border war in the past, and there is the possibility that the two countries will clash in the future. Therefore, by improving relations with the United States, India gains more leverage in its relations with China.

Additionally, improving relations with the United States does not mean that India has to limit its relationship with China. On the contrary, improving relations with the United States provides India the ability to balance more effectively between the simultaneous pressures placed on it by Washington and Beijing. There is, of course, the concern that by improving relations with the United States, India risks damaging its relations with China. Nevertheless, India has become a strong enough player to pursue its interests in the region, and its relationship with the United States will not prevent it from forging better relations with China if it pursues that foreign policy course.

One aspect of U.S.-India cooperation that has caused unrest in India is how the relationship will affect India's relationship with Iran. While India and Iran were on opposite sides during the Cold War, in the last decade they have improved relations dramatically. The two countries have engaged in joint military exercises, and they also have increased economic ties. However, as India and the United States improve relations, Washington has put pressure on New Delhi to weaken its relationship with Tehran. This has caused much domestic unrest in India, with lawmakers seeing the U.S.-India nuclear deal as placing too many restrictions on India's foreign policy. [See: "India's Interests Collide Over Iran"]

The Bush administration, however, apparently recognized India's interests in this matter and altered its position, stating that India can go ahead with a pipeline deal involving Iran and Pakistan. For instance, on March 4, Bush said in Islamabad, in a statement more directed at Pakistan, "Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline."

India's nuclear deal with the United States will prove valuable for New Delhi. In addition to the technical benefits of the deal, India also gains geopolitical leverage in the region. There are, however, some potential drawbacks to the deal. As India forges a closer relationship with the United States, it will cause China to become more concerned about its neighbor to the west and may cause Beijing to work toward better containment of India. [See: "China's Strategy of Containing India"]

Additionally, as India and the U.S. improve relations, it will also cause concern in Russia, a strong Indian partner. Currently, Russia is India's biggest arms supplier, and Moscow is keen on continuing this relationship for as long as possible. Their military relationship involves not just hardware, but expertise, training and spare parts. As the U.S. and India move closer together, Washington is interested in expanding its access to India's arms purchases. These conditions suggest that India will strike a balance in its defense needs between its steady partner and its new potential ally. This balance might not be easy to maintain, as various domestic factions will be competing with each other in order to gain dominance over U.S.-India and India-Russia security arrangements. As India and China seek energy access in Central Asia -- a region dominated by Russia -- India's close position to Washington may cause Russia to favor China or Japan in upcoming oil and gas exploration and pipeline deals.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=452&language_id=1

Anybody with a better knowledge on this topic , pl enlighten us . Looks like the union govt even may collapse wrf to this agreement !

[unhappyboy]

India should be happy with the deal for two reasons:

#1 India has no clout, yet she's managed to strike a deal with the world's sole superpower.

#2 India won't be able to test nukes.

That's it.:D

[Rohit]

[tscii:112247e499]It is not that strenuous to see that the Indo-US nuclear agreement would serve more US interests in the long run than it would serve India’s interests. On the contrary, it is more likely to produce far-reaching consequences against India, as India sends strong signals to China of its weaker position and of having no better options but to shift its position from a neutral neighbour to that of an influenced, biased and weaker opponent.

The fact is, the US can no longer ignore China’s phenomenally growing economic, military and political power at the world stage; and neither can India. Like the rest of the world, US sees China as an up coming superpower and impending threat to its supremacy. In the same vein, India is strained to see its safety in becoming a US pet, while nourishing itself from US nuclear fodder.[/tscii:112247e499]

[Rohit]

[tscii:c6b1ef72f5]*Would India be better of as a US pet ?
*There is no comparison between China and India !
*India – 163 years behind China !China’s Swelling Military, Economic and Political Power
Space Technology

China's escalating expertise in space is also enhancing its competence as a global military force. Along with lofting future radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites, China's rise as a space power also includes pursuit of an offensive anti-satellite system.

Those observations are included in a new report-Military Power of the People's Republic of China: A Report to Congress-issued by the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Furthermore, China's access to space will continue to improve as it develops newer boosters to replace the aging Long March system, the report stresses.

In the next decade, Beijing most likely will field radar, ocean surveillance, and high-resolution photoreconnaissance satellites. China will eventually deploy advanced imagery, reconnaissance, and Earth resource systems with military applications," the report states.

The Pentagon report explains that China launched its second manned space mission on October 12, 2005, nearly two years after its first piloted Earth orbiting mission. The two-person crew returned safely on October 17, 2005.

The success of China's human spaceflight program to date "required a substantial amount of systems integration and planning, and serves as an indicator of China's rapid and relatively smooth rise as an emerging space power," the report concludes.

In the marketplace

The newly issued report highlights the fact that not only is China expanding indigenous capabilities, it is also marketing its technological space knowledge-satellite building, manufacturing, and launch services-to the international market.

Anti-satellite weaponry

The Pentagon report warns that Beijing "continues to pursue an offensive anti-satellite system," saying that China can currently destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space-launch vehicle armed with a nuclear weapon.

China is also working on several types of "new concept" weapon systems, the report says, including a radio frequency (RF) weapon, citing Chinese writings that suggest it could be used against satellites in orbit.

http://www.space.com/news/060605_china_military.html

China & India October 10, 2005 -A visual essay

The Chinese economy is much more integrated with the world economy

China’s early steps to liberalise its economy and invest heavily to modernise its physical infrastructure gave it a substantial edge over India

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000192108.pdf

Chasing China: Like its rival, India has produced staggering growth, but it still lags on most fronts.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060619/graphic.html

India and China: a comparison

China has demonstrated again and again that when it focuses its resources, especially financial resources, there isn't much that can stand in its way.

Let's throw in some other metrics just for fun. China won 63 medals at the 2004 Olympics, 32 of them gold. India won a single silver medal. Beijing will host the 2008 Olympics. No Indian city has yet made a serious bid for the Games. China is on its way to becoming one of the world's most popular tourist destinations. India just isn't.

Stop comparing China and India. There is no comparison.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/07/06/HNcomparechinaindia_1.html

Science panic in India

Science in India is on its deathbed

Indian science will be finished in the next five years. Our universities have dried up.

There are only a handful of scientists left. Even the smaller countries like Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea have become global players and have overtaken us.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/08/science_panic_i.html#comments

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1784139.cms

A top science body in India, the Scientific Advisory Council, last week caused jitters among Indians after assessing a recent U.S. military report comparing the research output of scientists in China, India and other developing countries. Not only was India behind China in number of papers published, Jain notes, but far more Chinese research papers are landing in top Western journals. More worrisome still for the Indians – and encouraging for the Chinese – is the likelihood that the trend is going to continue: Jain writes that the World Bank’s “Knowledge Index,” a ranking that looks at a country’s scientific fundamentals including Internet and PC usage, patents, and IT adoption by local companies, also skews heavily toward China. In 1995 China scored 3.03 and now scores 4.21, he writes, but India has gone in the other direction, scoring 2.76 11 years ago and just 2.61 today.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/07/china_tops_indi.html#comments

India – 163 years behind China?

New Delhi, Feb. 10: A bit of school algebra may sometimes deliver a reality check. India is hoping that its economic growth will edge closer to China’s 10 per cent, but it still lags over a century and a half behind the northern neighbour in its science and technology workforce.

A scientist at the Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation in Bangalore has shown that India will take at least 163 years to match China’s research workforce of 850,000 even if Beijing were to freeze the number today.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070211/asp/frontpage/story_7377689.asp

China can build things. Why can't India?

India’s top science and technology official is in China, making excuses about why his country’s infrastructure is so shoddy.

India can't grow at China's pace

I have been to both countries, and there are just no comparisons. In India, beggars are everywhere and things are built haphazardly; there seems to be no city planning everywhere. In China, you could feel the prosperity, clean and orderly.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/09/china_can_build.html#comments

India struggles to catch China

The desire to make comparisons is understandable. Both have more than a billion people. Both are growing at 10% a year.

There are, I suspect, many who are hoping that India, with its freedom and democracy, will win this new race to become the next economic super power. I am not so sure.

China is not a free society, and it has immense problems. But its successes should not be underestimated.

They are ones that India, even with its open and democratic society, is still far from matching.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5181024.stm[/tscii:c6b1ef72f5]

[c4ramesh]

India should go ahead with the Nuclear Deal. The non alignment policy is no more relevant in today's world.

[c4ramesh]

H

Anybody with a better knowledge on this topic , pl enlighten us . Looks like the union govt even may collapse wrf to this agreement !

The left parties are just echoing the feelings of their masters in china... it is better we don't get cowed down by their threats.

[Rohit]

This is not about leftist and rightist policies, as they represent the two polar opposites. The former represent socialism, secularism and political liberalism, whereby law dictates culture; while the latter represent nationalism, dogmatism and political conservatism, whereby culture dictates law.

Since, all leftist [aligned] thoughts cannot be wrong; and in the same vein, all rightist [aligned] thoughts cannot be right and vice-verse, it all comes down to the ability of Indian political machine to apply critical thinking and assess the long-term implications of agreeing to such inducement deals.

However, non-alignment is a wishful thought and not a realisable reality, for it is essentially against human nature.

[Rohit]

[tscii:df4171c587]INDIA, THE UNITED STATES’ NEW ALLY IN ASIA

American ambivalence and Indian expectations at first glance, the pursuance of the Indian-United States rapprochement intrigues observers all the more since New Delhi does not seem able to obtain what it demands in exchange.

Up to now, the NSSP has not fulfilled its promises. This agreement pertains to four types of issues: closer collaboration in the civilian nuclear and space industries, more trade in high technologies, and an expanded dialogue on missile defence.

India is persuaded that the NSSP and other aspects of the cooperation between New Delhi and Washington are tantamount to recognition of India’s status as a nuclear power. In the eyes of many Indians, this is a remarkable evolution.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alliance/documents/Homepage/Paper-Jaffrelot.pdf

India: America's New Ally?

India is a democracy; while there was continuity between the conservative nationalist BJP-led coalition and the current left-liberal Congress-led coalition, the fact is that India is likely to remain governed for many years by ideologically diverse coalitions of uncertain durability. This means that US-Indian relations will remain hostage to Indian domestic politics. Further, there are important differences within the Indian strategic elite as to the wisdom of the growing American tie.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/cohens/20050718.htm[/tscii:df4171c587]

[c4ramesh]

This is not about leftist and rightist policies, as they represent the two polar opposites. The former represent socialism, secularism and political liberalism, whereby law dictates culture; while the latter represent nationalism, dogmatism and political conservatism, whereby culture dictates law.

Since, all leftist [aligned] thoughts cannot be wrong; and in the same vein, all rightist [aligned] thoughts cannot be right and vice-verse, it all comes down to the ability of Indian political machine to apply critical thinking and assess the long-term implications of agreeing to such inducement deals.

Its just a generalization to say that one can't be always right or wrong. It does nothing in the way of answering the question at hand. Are the communists right in opposing the deal so vehemently?




However, non-alignment is a wishful thought and not a realisable reality, for it is essentially against human nature.


India has always been caught in the vicious dilemma of whether to align or not. Their partnership with Russia is/was anything but full a fledged alignment.

At the current scenario where terrorism has taken Global dimensions, with India and US (in a sense even Russia) being on the receiving end it is not a surprise that India enters into a goal based partnership.

This is all the more necessary considering the Military and Economic threat that a country like China posses. Without help China is poised to widen the edge it already has over India with ease. Remember India has a border dispute with China, and if India is to have any chance of a good bargain, it should be in a position to get one.

[c4ramesh]

Just to remind hubbers as to how hypocritical the lefts opposition to the nuclear deal is. When India went nuclear the only major political force that opposed it was the left, it is suspiciously strange that they don't want the deal to go through because our nuclear capability would be in danger. But didn't they oppose this very capability in the first place?

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:3498ae1aaa]
It is not that strenuous to see that the Indo-US nuclear agreement would serve more US interests in the long run than it would serve India’s interests. On the contrary, it is more likely to produce far-reaching consequences against India, as India sends strong signals to China of its weaker position and of having no better options but to shift its position from a neutral neighbour to that of an influenced, biased and weaker opponent.

On what grounds do you make this claim?



The fact is, the US can no longer ignore China’s phenomenally growing economic, military and political power at the world stage; and neither can India. Like the rest of the world, US sees China as an up coming superpower and impending threat to its supremacy. In the same vein, India is strained to see its safety in becoming a US pet, while nourishing itself from US nuclear fodder.


As you rightly pointed out neither can India be mum to the growing power right next door. India's refusing to ally with US had led to to US opting for Pakistan, and China is obviously not in our side either.

Opportunity only knocks once they say, but in our case we have got an another chance. Even when opportunity knocks a man still has to get up off his seat and open the door. [/tscii:3498ae1aaa]

[Rohit]

[tscii:b7d1db8bd3]
Its just a generalization to say that one can't be always right or wrong. It does nothing in the way of answering the question at hand. Are the communists right in opposing the deal so vehemently?

When India went nuclear the only major political force that opposed it was the left, it is suspiciously strange that they don't want the deal to go through because our nuclear capability would be in danger. But didn't they oppose this very capability in the first place?
So did the US !!!

Anyway, one doesn’t have to be leftist or rightist to grasp the real motive behind such inducement offers. Here, I must assume that interested readers are capable of understanding what exactly that means. Therefore, the oppositions from the 'left' in any of the stated situations cannot be used as an excuse to overturn the valid views that may incidently correspond with the leftist-liberal argument. Doing so would amount to committing a serious fallacy.


On what grounds do you make this claim?
I make this claim on three main grounds:

Firstly, the issue of Kashmir is likely to drive how things in the future turn out and in whose better interests they turn out, in India's or Pakistan's, but one thing is absolutely certain that the US would ensure that its interests are served at all costs, regardless of whoever or whatever other than the US interests may have to be sacrificed.

Depending on how things develop on these fronts, the US may either maintain the status quo in the conflict, take an active role in resolving the dispute, disengage itself completely from the conflict, side with India or side with Pakistan.

Secondly, when time comes to face the challenge from China, as can be expected, the US would be more interested in securing its own interests and maintaining its supremacy and least concerned with India’s interests. Again, I must assume that interested readers are capable of envisaging what role India would be expected to play as an 'ally'.

Thirdly, India would miss the opportunity to bring the true balance in the already tipped balance of world power; and as a result, the balance of power may remain tipped in favour of the US, as it is now. Afterall, world power is the main theme of this political game. [/tscii:b7d1db8bd3]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:c4fa2bf599]
So did the US !!!

So what? There is world of difference between US opposing India going nuclear and people of our own nation opposing to such a move.

Every move by every Nation has a selfish aspect to it, there in nothing altruistic about the moves of any Nation. In that sense it is easy to understand why US and the rest of the world opposed India going nuclear. The same is not true in the case of the Left; their motives should have been centered on what is good for India.


Anyway, one doesn’t have to be leftist or rightist to grasp the real motive behind such inducement offers. Here, I must assume that interested readers are capable of understanding what exactly that means. Therefore, the oppositions from the 'left' in any of the stated situations cannot be used as an excuse to overturn the valid views that may incidently correspond with the leftist-liberal argument. Doing so would amount to committing a serious fallacy.


Firstly, there isn’t any fallacy over here; I think that you feel I am launching an ad hominem attack. That is not the case. Let me explicate.

No where did I say that the lefts opposition to the Nuclear Deal is wrong ONLY because it comes from the left, rather the reason for their opposition is quite wrong. The former would amount to committing Ad Hominem.

Another aspect of my post that could have tempted you into thinking that an ad hominem attack is being launched, is my singling out of the left when the NDA and UNPA too are against the deal, though I feel the oppositions stand must be viewed with cynicism given Strobe Talbott’s word that Jaswant Singh had actually agreed to sign the CTBT.

The opposition’s rejection of the deal would pose no danger to the government. I understand that it has nothing to do with credibility and soundness of their reason to oppose the deal. Having said that, their excuse for opposing the deal is no different from that of the Leftists, in that sense leftist’s opposition to the deal is more important.

Secondly, it is rather inconsistent to leave out the motives for Lefts/BJP & cos. Opposition to the deal and then come back to make a point on the United States motive behind the deal. It says nothing about whether there are any flaws in the deal, rather I find these as puerile excuses to avert a deal that would go a long way in fulfilling India’s energy needs. Anyways, the fears regarding United States motives are unnecessary and blown out of propositions.


I make this claim on three main grounds:

Firstly, the issue of Kashmir is likely to drive how things in the future turn out and in whose better interests they turn out, in India's or Pakistan's, but one thing is absolutely certain that the US would ensure that its interests are served at all costs, regardless of whoever or whatever other than the US interests may have to be sacrificed.

Depending on how things develop on these fronts, the US may either maintain the status quo in the conflict, take an active role in resolving the dispute, disengage itself completely from the conflict, side with India or side with Pakistan.

The US has no real interests on Kashmir. It is a matter that has to be sorted out by India and Pakistan. Of course, US, has taken sides during the course of this crisis but never beyond the desired limit.

The deal would only ensure US tilting in India’s favor as this isn’t an one of deal but a stepping stone to a full-fledged Indo-US partnership imminent from various other fields in which the co-operation is increasing [for example increased joint exercises by the defense forces of both the nations], added to that, there are obvious signs that US is trying to shed the image of being ally of Pakistan for example its refusal to grant a similar deal to Pakistan, its tacit admission that terrorists camps are still active in Pakistan and the recent reports that America is contemplating to send its forces into Pakistan to nab Osama.

Further more, this argument is a non sequitur. I don’t understand what aspect of the deal gives US the right to poke its nose in the Kashmir issue. If US decides to take an active role in resolving the dispute OR disengage itself completely from the conflict OR side with India or side with Pakistan it may do so with or without the deal. I see only US siding with India if this deal goes through.



Secondly, when time comes to face the challenge from China, as can be expected, the US would be more interested in securing its own interests and maintaining its supremacy and least concerned with India’s interests. Again, I must assume that interested readers are capable of envisaging what role India would be expected to play as an 'ally'.

Again, this is a non sequitur. What has the deal to with US’s support to India against China? It may choose to support or not support us in spite deal or no deal.

In fact, Indo-US nuclear deal has itself rung danger bells in China. China has been opposing the deal from its initial stages.

US needs to put a check to China’s dominance in the Asian region as an economic and a military power, the only option it has is to help India, and Pakistan is not an option for obvious reasons. If people think India will be pushed into an armed conflict with China, they are just day dreaming.

The nuke deal in itself would provide no means of pressurizing India to do so. Nor can the deal be terminated on those grounds.


Thirdly, India would miss the opportunity to bring the true balance in the already tipped balance of world power; and as a result, the balance of power may remain tipped in favour of the US, as it is now. Afterall, world power is the main theme of this political game.


Now this is really far stretching, an optimistic target for India would be China. Rohit himself pointed out how far off even this is in reality. Now trying to make a point stating that India will loose an opportunity to tilt the balance of power in the world is unimaginative. We better be selfish than altruistic. India needs to catch up with china which will help it win major gains in economy and give better bargains in its border disputes.

FYKI, China too has a 123 agreement with the US, has it sealed world power in US’s favor?

China’s 123 agreement with US, allows US inspectors to visit its nuclear sites while the agreement with India is limited to only IAEA safeguards and inspections.

China’s 123 agreement with US doesn’t guarantee reprocessing of fuel, while India has been guaranteed such a benefit.

In china’s case a nuclear deal can cease to exist immediately in case of problems in the deal. In India’s case provisions of one-year notice period and consolation on the issue is granted by the deal.

China has accepted a deal far less inferior to ours, yet it remains to act independently. But India accepting a far superior deal would make it a puppet of US (?), could the proponents of such ideas explain why and how?
[/tscii:c4fa2bf599]

[Rohit]

[tscii:f3853caed5]
Every move by every Nation has a selfish aspect to it, there in nothing altruistic about the moves of any Nation.
I agree with that. However, regardless of that, it remains extremely doubtful whether India’s long-term interests can be served through such inducement deals.


I feel the oppositions stand must be viewed with cynicism given Strobe Talbott’s word that Jaswant Singh had actually agreed to sign the CTBT.

Anyways, the fears regarding United States motives are unnecessary and blown out of propositions.

Further more, this argument is a non sequitur. I don’t understand what aspect of the deal gives US the right to poke its nose in the Kashmir issue.
Please read the following articles and let us know whether they too constitute the fallacies of non sequitur.

Featured Speaker: Navnita Chadha Behera
Author, Demystifying Kashmir

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20070125.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20070125.pdf


India and the United States: A New Era

America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades, both because of its complexities and because India opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This approach has not worked; the problem has gotten worse and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster.

Now that the nuclear deal is done, President Bush should make Kashmir a major part of his dialogue with India and Pakistan. Nudging them both toward a deal on Kashmir will not be easy, but the time may be ripe to try.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm
For more insight on when and how the US may face difficult choices on Kashmir issue, readers are requested to read the following articles. One of the articles covers the very speech given by Jaswant Singh on "A Consequential India-U.S. Engagement", along with the speech given by Strobe Talbott, both moderated by Walter Andersen, as mentioned by c4ramesh.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20050609.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20050609.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20061101india.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20061101india.pdf

Also have a read of the book

Under the highly controversial agreement that emerged, the United States would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and conventional weapons systems. In exchange, India would place its civilian nuclear program under international monitoring and continue the ban on nuclear testing.

Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb
Revised edition - Strobe Talbott - Brookings Institution Press 2006

http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/engagingindiarevised.htm

Again, this is a non sequitur. What has the deal to with US’s support to India against China? It may choose to support or not support us in spite deal or no deal.
No, that was a perfectly valid proposition. On the contrary, such loose-ended agreements would render the very deal, being projected as an important step towards the Indo-US strategic partnership in the region, the fallacy of non sequitur.[/tscii:f3853caed5]

[c4ramesh]

Rohit,

I will need a bit of time to read all the material, but how exactly will the deal enable US to pressurize India on Kashmir?

There is no clause in the deal that gives US the right to pressurize India on its internal problems.

[Rohit]

Rohit,

I will need a bit of time to read all the material, but how exactly will the deal enable US to pressurize India on Kashmir?

There is no clause in the deal that gives US the right to pressurize India on its internal problems.
Persuasion [influence/manipulation], inducement , punishment [penalty/force] and differentiation [isolation/seclusion] are the four psychological measures that have been proven to work on human psyche and they have been used successfully to contain the [b]'unyielding' but essentially 'vulnerable and/or defenceless'.

The deal, which is falsely perceived as so 'superior' and so 'exciting', itself is not the equation but only a small part of the bigger equation that has time as the controlling factor, working out the contributions made by each constituent parts, such that a desired outcome or desired outcomes can be obtained at the expected and right time.

In nutshell, it all boils down to how long a 'weaker and vulnerable' remains resolute and capable of saying 'No, thank you' and how far the 'stronger and invincible' can go to make the 'weaker and vulnerable' to yield and say, 'Yes Sir'.

Given the current situation of India and how things are developing at home and at the world stage; I strongly suspect that the 'targeted' latter than the 'untargeted' former is far more likely going to be the outcome.

Anyway, enjoy the reading. BTW, there are plenty of interesting materials relevant to a much broader issue of 'Global Politics'.

I think, I must stop here and leave it to the readers to think and make their own judgement on the whole issue of 'Gullible Politics'.

Anyway, it was a great pleasure to converse with you, c4ramesh. Thank you. :D :) :thumbsup:

[app_engine]

For those browsing from India:

Are the U.S. Government websites viewable in India (those with the .gov extension)? i.e. those other than the ones related exclusive to visa / immigration etc.

For example, can people browsing from outside U.S. (specifically in India) view the following link:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:a0dc657eba]

[color=darkblue]Persuasion [influence/manipulation], inducement , punishment [penalty/force] and differentiation [isolation/seclusion] are the four psychological measures that have been proven to work on human psyche and they have been used successfully to contain the [b]'unyielding' but essentially 'vulnerable and/or defenceless'.


Well, Well... so what? There have been cases that it hasn't worked.



The deal, which is falsely perceived as so 'superior' and so 'exciting', itself is not the equation but only a small part of the bigger equation that has time as the controlling factor, working out the contributions made by each constituent parts, such that a desired outcome or desired outcomes can be obtained at the expected and right time.


Enough of word games, I haven't seen a single convincing reason as to why the deal is not 'superior' or 'exciting' as you would put it.



In nutshell, it all boils down to how long a 'weaker and vulnerable' remains resolute and capable of saying 'No, thank you' and how far the 'stronger and invincible' can go to make the 'weaker and vulnerable' to yield and say, 'Yes Sir'.

Given the current situation of India and how things are developing at home and at the world stage; I strongly suspect that the 'targeted' latter than the 'untargeted' former is far more likely going to be the outcome.


On the contrary India has remained resolute enough. A part of the US congress is furious about how much India bargain India was able to get, partly due to it being resolute.

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy
Cooperation Act of 2006 places several restrictions on India
that were not only simply neglected but actually reversed in
the deal. For example, the sense of the Congress, set forth in
the Hyde Act, Section 102.13 reads, “the United States
should not seek to facilitate or encourage the continuation
of nuclear exports to India by any other party if such exports
are terminated under United States law.”

India got a great bargain in the revised deal:

Article 5.6(a) The United States has conveyed its commitment to the reliable supply of fuel to India. Consistent with the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement, the United States has also reaffirmed its assurance to create the necessary conditions for India to have assured and full access to fuel for its reactors. As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the U.S. Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm

[/tscii:a0dc657eba]

[c4ramesh]

http://renegadewritings.blogspot.com/2007/09/left-against-deal-or-against-us.html

[c4ramesh]

After 123 bump, China trying to mend fences

NEW DELHI: China has started to reach out to India countering mounting popular opinion against a perceived Beijing-inspired Communist opposition to the nuclear deal.

A prominent indication of the approach comes in the form of a commentary in China's official People's Daily which has, remarkably, avoided venting standard paranoia about the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Instead, it takes a much more realistic and mature position, saying the deal would go through because most Indians supported it.

"United States has explicitly proposed in the agreement that it would not hamper or intervene in the development of India's military nuclear plan, which will also help the country achieve its goals to be a nuclear power." It's a far cry from the Left parties' opposition to the deal.

The conciliatory approach appears to have been prompted by the support in India for the nuclear deal which has the potential of transforming the country's ties with the US.

In fact, People's Daily acknowledges the popular backing for the deal by mentioning the findings of a poll in The Times of India which indicated "that 93% of the Indian people support the agreement." The Chinese daily further says: "Therefore, analysts believe that although the Leftists worry that the agreement will deprive India of independence in its foreign policy and Singh's government will encounter some resistance in promoting nuclear cooperation between India and the United States, the two will continue to advance the agreement."

Also, despite China's reservations, People's Daily concedes two things - first, that the "the agreement does boost India's nuclear energy development," and second, that it "has strong symbolic significance for India in achieving its dream of a powerful nation."

But, importantly, while the Chinese daily says that "the purpose of the US to sign the civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India is to enclose India into its global partners' camp, so as to balance the forces of Asia," it also acknowledges that "This fits in exactly with India's wishes." It's clear that Beijing has reacted with concern to the view that Left's opposition to the deal might see China's image become a casualty.

Analysts say this is certainly not in China's interest, not at a time when both countries are preparing for a Manmohan Singh visit later this year.

In fact, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, in an interview to an Indian news agency, was clear that friendship was the "mainstream of China-India relations."

"We wish the Indian people happiness and India prosperity. We also wish continued progress in the friendly relations and cooperation between China and India," he said. "Both Prime Minister Singh and I repeated on many occasions that China's development and India's development are each other's opportunity rather than a threat."

China has also harped on the non-proliferation tune in its response to the nuclear deal. Talking to women journalists in Delhi, Chinese ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi, struck a conciliatory tone as he said, "Non-proliferation is important. If that is strengthened, that is good. Whether the deal does that needs to be seen."

This is a safe line - it's the same line which Japan, or the Scandinavian countries use. Of course, given China's own record on proliferation, Indians find it a trifle difficult to swallow Beijing's concerns on this score.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/After_123_bump_China_trying_to_mend_fences/articleshow/2330182.cms

[Rohit]

[tscii:70925db45c]Combined resolution for a multi-polar world


Russia, China and India – Coalition to Offset U.S. International Dominance?

The three representatives issued the following in a joint statement at the conclusion of the summit: “Trilateral cooperation was not directed against the interests of any single country and was, on the contrary, intended to promote international harmony and understanding.”

The three countries fervently insisted that this meeting was not the genesis of a new coalition seeking to remedy an imbalance of power due to U.S. international policy.

However, they stressed a “strong commitment” to utilizing “multilateral diplomacy”. Analysts seem to agree that this is a thinly veiled threat in response to real or perceived unilateral actions of the United States in recent years.

As India, China and Russia enjoy economic growth and development never seen before in their nations, they appear to be growing a louder voice on the world scene—especially when it comes to America’s international policies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been highly critical of America’s policy on international affairs. Will this group of nations unite to pressure the United States economically? Will other nations do the same, attempting to balance the scales of global influence with the formation of another superpower?

Time will tell.

http://www.realtruth.org/news/070223-001-geopolitics.html?cid=g1174&gclid=CIWBsfyuqo4CFRcGEgodi07IZw

Giants meet to counter US power

India, China and Russia account for 40 per cent of the world’s population, a fifth of its economy and more than half of its nuclear warheads. Now they appear to be forming a partnership to challenge the US-dominated world order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War.

Foreign ministers from the three emerging giants met in Delhi yesterday to discuss ways to build a more democratic “multipolar world”.

It was the second such meeting in the past two years and came after an unprecedented meeting between their respective leaders, Manmohan Singh, Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin, during the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.

It also came only four days after Mr Putin stunned Western officials by railing against American foreign policy at a security conference in Munich.

The foreign ministers, Pranab Mukherjee, Li Zhao Xing and Sergei Lavrov, emphasised that theirs was not an alliance against the United States. It was, “on the contrary, intended to promote international harmony and understanding”, a joint communiqué stated.

Their formal agenda covered issues ranging from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Korea to energy security, nuclear non-proliferation and trade. The subtext, however, was clear: how to use their growing economic and political muscle to prevent Washington from tackling such issues alone.

“In the long term, they feel that the whole structure of international relations has to shift in their direction,” said Vinod C. Khanna, of the Institute of Chinese Studies, Delhi. “What has happened is that quite independently they’ve reacted very similarly to recent international events.”

Diplomats say that it is premature to talk of a strategic axis between the world’s largest and two most populous nations because they still have more in common with the West than with each other.

Delhi was close to Moscow in Soviet times, but has forged a new friendship with Washington. Chinese relations were soured by its border wars with India in 1962 and the Soviet Union in 1969, and by its arms sales to Pakistan. Russia appears keener than China or India to challenge American hegemony. But there has been a convergence of interests as each struggles to make the transition from a command economy to free markets. Since 2003 they have found further common ground in opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq.

One area of agreement is opposition to outside interference in separatist conflicts in Chechnya, the northeast of India and the northwestern Chinese region of Xinjiang.

Another is energy. India and China are desperate for Russian oil and gas, and Moscow is worried about its dependence on Western markets. But their most significant common ground is opposition to US military intervention in Iran. The joint statement did not mention Iran, but the three countries have taken a common stance in calling for a negotiated solution through the International Atomic Energy Agency. None of them wants a nuclear-armed Iran, but Russia sells Tehran nuclear technology and India and China need Iranian gas.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1386812.ece

While it may be able to dance with both partners alternately for a while, India will eventually be forced to choose. Which way will this nation turn?

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/434-iasitm.html[/tscii:70925db45c]

[Rohit]

Well, I have nothing more to say than what I have already said. Only time, and not the indoctrinated cants, will validate or otherwise [either of] the two divergent assessments. :D :) :thumbsup:

[c4ramesh]

Russia, china and India can't be allies as of now. Russia has more than once stated that its policies will be China centric.

China clearly doesn't see India as its equal, more worse, it is covertly supporting Pakistan. How can India be a part of a soalition, whose members look down upon India and see one member more important than the other?

I wonder how the communists will react to such a coalition, remember they opposed the NAVAL exercise since it seemed tantamount to regional grouping.

[c4ramesh]

Well, I have nothing more to say than what I have already said. Only time, and not the indoctrinated cants, will validate or otherwise [either of] the two divergent assessments. :D :) :thumbsup:


:thumbsup: Lets wait & watch....

[Rohit]

China clearly doesn't see India as its equal....
Neither does the U.S.


By accident of history, France has nuclear weapons and thus is, like North Korea, Pakistan, and India, a power to be reckoned with, but as an equal to the US in a multipolar world? Surely you're joking, Mr. Chirac. Not even a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council makes it an equal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

[Rohit]

[tscii:d094e9d608]
Should there be a unipolar world order? If peace, security and a measure of prosperity are the aims of a world order, then a unipolar world order can work if the world ruler is just, impartial, and fair. But if the world ruler is concerned only with his own self-interest, then such a world order is inherently unstable and unjust.

Yes, the US continues to believe that it is head and shoulders above any possible competitor. Yes, China with its long tradition of modesty and contempt for insufferable braggarts proclaims that it is only a "developing" county. But if we look at the facts, we see a different picture. Yes, the US has a 10 trillion dollar economy and close to 300 million people, while China has a 7.199 trillion dollar economy (including Taiwan and the autonomous regions), with more than four times the population. But those 7 trillion dollars can buy 70 trillion dollars worth of goods in China – where one dollar can buy what 10 or more dollars can buy in the West – and many other places in the world outside of the so-called "developed" countries in the West. Yes, if we compare the economies in terms of US dollars, China seems weak. But if we compare them in terms of buying power and productivity, China has many times the economy, and power, of the US. China may even be superior to the US in other ways. Recently, it surpassed the US as the world's leading consumer nation. Even the US expects its navy to be equivalent to or larger than the US Navy in 10 years; and certainly its army is far larger already.

Think about it. A bipolar world with China and the US in head-to-head competition on the economic front – not in hot war, but in cold or cool wars. MAC (mutually assured competition) instead of MAD (mutually assured destruction). China against the US in software. China against the US in space. China against the US in sustainable agriculture. China against the US in renewable fuels. China against the US in Internet usage. China against the US in mobile phone ownership. China against the US in social justice, medical care, fast food, and joie de vivre. Let the US and Europe (and Japan) share one pole, and China and India and Brazil share another pole...and let them compete.

Or, is America afraid of competition? Is America afraid to pit its state-managed, excessively bureaucratic capitalism against the free, entrepreneurial capitalism of China? Does America prefer its narcissistic paranoia to a mutually beneficial and healthy competition on the world stage? Does America prefer to always be looking over its shoulder to see if anyone is sneaking up behind it, or does it prefer to run flat-out, eyes ahead, the way true champions do? If I were a betting man, I would say that today’s US, fat, bloated, boastful, paranoid, excessively overweight and massively indebted to the rest of the world, hasn’t a chance of a snow-flake in hell of winning this race…But if it returned to being the innovative, future-oriented, optimistic, supportive partner on the international stage, if it returned to its potential and promise? Ah, in that case, China would get a run for its money. And the whole world would be better off.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html[/tscii:d094e9d608]

[Rohit]

[tscii:06d5c7ad19]There are no two opinions that the US is currently the world’s sole superpower. The world runs according to its wishes, irrespective of who is with whom.

Nonetheless,

Question 1: Why would the US so desperately want India to buy the deal by presenting it as irresistible as it can, even by exposing itself to the world’s criticism, not only of following double standards, but also of closing the eyes to it altogether?

Question 2: What so badly do the US want to gain out of such deals?

Be that as it may,

China is coming up, and it is coming up very fast with tremendous might, resolute to change the world forever.

There is going to be a brief period when both the US and China would stand shoulder to shoulder and the world would run according to their wishes, irrespective of who is with whom.

Then, a time will come when China overtakes the US.

The world will see a new superpower, many times stronger than of today’s. The world would run according to the wishes of a new and unchallengeable superpower, irrespective of who is with whom.

Yes, let the world wait and watch the historic transition.

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:06d5c7ad19]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:0e638e1f0a]
There are no two opinions that the US is currently the world’s sole superpower. The world runs according to its wishes, irrespective of who is with whom.

Nonetheless,

Question 1: Why would the US so desperately want India to buy the deal by presenting it as irresistible as it can, even by exposing itself to the world’s criticism, not only of following double standards, but also of closing the eyes to it altogether?

Question 2: What so badly do the US want to gain out of such deals?


Simple, US wants to check China's dominance one way to do it is help India who are the nearest competitors and balance forces in Asia.

US gets nothing from the deal other than making China's task difficult.



Be that as it may,

China is coming up, and it is coming up very fast with tremendous might, resolute to change the world forever.

There is going to be a brief period when both the US and China would stand shoulder to shoulder and the world would run according to their wishes, irrespective of who is with whom.

Then, a time will come when China overtakes the US.

The world will see a new superpower, many times stronger than of today’s. The world would run according to the wishes of a new and unchallengeable superpower, irrespective of who is with whom.

Yes, let the world wait and watch the historic transition.[/color]

:D :) :thumbsup:

Thats exactly what India wouldn't want. Remember we have a border dispute with China. [/tscii:0e638e1f0a]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:c523aa6ba4]

China clearly doesn't see India as its equal....
Neither does the U.S.


By accident of history, France has nuclear weapons and thus is, like North Korea, Pakistan, and India, a power to be reckoned with, but as an equal to the US in a multipolar world? Surely you're joking, Mr. Chirac. Not even a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council makes it an equal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

I never said India should be a ally of US in the sense Britain is.

All India should be is selfish. The deal is good for India so lap the deal up. If US wants India to change its foreign affairs like India's relationship with Iran.... say them a big NAY!

US can't get out of the deal on that grounds. Even if they breach the deal, which they won't as they desperately need to counter China. Iran can wait...

It doesn't matter if the US doesn't see us as their equal we are in no race with them but with China it is a different story all together.

Let me brief why India can't be a part Russia – China – India Triangle

1. China or Russia aren't the superpowers. So it makes sense that we side with US on certain issues which will also benefit us.

2. Russia and China see US an foe, where as India doesn't.

3. USA is not a threat to India, but China poses a threat to India with an active border dispute and by covertly supporting Pakistan AGAINST India.

4. India has good relationship with many Asian nations some of which aren't in good terms with China, siding with China and Russia will be at the cost of these important relationships.

5. Russia has had a policy shift towards China, India can't afford to be treated as second to China with whom they are in a race for dominance of Asia. Such a move will be tantamount to withdraing from the race. [/tscii:c523aa6ba4]

[Rohit]

[tscii:6818d6765d]
Simple, US wants to check China's dominance one way to do it is help India who are the nearest competitors and balance forces in Asia.
Why would the US want to check China's dominance?

What assures you to believe that no one should be at liberty to question the US dominance?

In what way would India become capable of balancing forces in the region?


US gets nothing from the deal other than making China's task difficult.
Which task of China would the US want to make difficult?

Why would the US want to make China's task difficult and how?


Even if they breach the deal, which they won't as they desperately need to counter China.
Why would the US want to counter China?

What would the US gain from this and how?


It doesn't matter if the US doesn't see us as their equal we are in no race with them but with China it is a different story all together.
I thought equal status was/is an issue of principle and earned respect and not of situational bargain.

What race?

How does it [the issue of unequal treatment] become different?


1. China or Russia aren't the superpowers. So it makes sense that we side with US on certain issues which will also benefit us.
How does the status of superpower or the lack of it affect or modify India’s ability to make such judgments?

Wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


2. Russia and China see US an foe, where as India doesn't.
Are you trying to suggest that such position is assumed unilaterally? Apparently your post implies to the contrary. Please support your answer(s).


3. USA is not a threat to India, but China poses a threat to India with an active border dispute and by covertly supporting Pakistan AGAINST India.
What assures you to believe so [that USA is not a threat to India]? Are you considering only military threats? Please elaborate.

Anyway, the US is not against Pakistan; which begs the question, which threats to India would also translate into threats to the US and vice-versa?

In what way would the stated threats go away?

What if China changes its posture and no longer sees the US as foe, but without bothering about India, and the US also no longer finds a need to check China; and treats China as equal?


4. India has good relationship with many Asian nations some of which aren't in good terms with China, siding with China and Russia will be at the cost of these important relationships.
Again, wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


5. Russia has had a policy shift towards China, India can't afford to be treated as second to China with whom they are in a race for dominance of Asia. Such a move will be tantamount to withdraing from the race.
What if Russia amends its policy and do not treat India as second to China?

India, China and Russia are Asian nations and the US is not. The race for dominance of Asia essentially equates to the race for dominance of the world. How would India’s siding with the US change that equation?

If India is the key in shifting the balance of power for the dominance of Asia and therefore the world, does that equate to whoever administers [governs/controls] India, wheels Asia and therefore the world?

In what way would India win this race for the dominance of Asia anyway?

Finally, all quoted statements clearly seem to favour the current state of [unipolar] world order; and exactly that, what the US wants. :wink: :)


On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:6818d6765d]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:f77550a2f1]

Why would the US want to check China's dominance?

What assures you to believe that no one should be at liberty to question the US dominance?

In what way would India become capable of balancing forces in the region?


Why would the US want to make China's task difficult and how?


Why would the US want to counter China?

What would the US gain from this and how?




All these questions are almost one and the same, packaged differently.

US as a superpower needs to maintain its status. As a Superpower the US obviously needs to have world dominance. China is growing faster at an alarming rate threatening to Dominate Asia. China & US have grown up on different ideologies one based Communist Dictatorship & other a Democratic one.

So with basically different ideologies and with china growing faster , it isn't in the US's interest for China to dominate Asia which will leave a serious hole in its status a super power.

For US a good relationship with India is far easier than with China, due to conflicting interests and different political views.

As for the question of some one questioning US's dominance, it is a narrow view of thought to say, the US has dominated the world for long so let others dominate and then stop at it.

It says very little about what impact it will potentially have for us. China replacing US is a real concern for India. India has an active dispute with China and China has covertly supported Pakistan over India. China as a replacement for US first needs China to dominate Asian affairs which is not in India's interests.

So the question is not about anyone questioning US dominance, but it is a question of that being China.

With active US help India can close in on the gap between China and her. If India gains an equal status with china, there will be no clear dominator in the Asian region, which is in US’s interest to maintain its world dominance. Indecently, it is also in India’s interest to counter china’s plans for dominance of Asia, which possess a grave military and economic threat.


The “National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement” of US, published first in 1994:

Our national security strategy draws upon a range of political, military and economic instruments, and focuses on the primary objectives that President Clinton has stressed throughout his Administration:

Promoting Democracy. A framework of democratic enlargement that increases our security by protecting, consolidating and enlarging the community of free market democracies. Our efforts focus on strengthening democratic processes in key emerging democratic states including Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine and other new independent states of the former Soviet Union.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm


Dr. Robert H. Dorff, Visiting Professor of Foreign Policy at the US Army War College and Associate Professor of Political Science at the North Carolina State University had this to say on the policy:

The US post-Cold War strategy of engagement and enlargement began with public pronouncements in the last year of the Bush (the father of the present President) Administration and then was formally articulated under President Clinton. Fundamentally based on the premise of the "democratic peace" (democracies do not go to war with other democracies), this strategy entails the active promotion and expansion of the community of democratic, free-market countries as a way of applying national resources toward the pursuit of strategic objectives.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96summer/dorff.htm

US, finds it a part of National interest to protect democracies like India. Communist dictatorship is naturally against US national interest.





I thought equal status was/is an issue of principle and earned respect and not of situational bargain.


A clever straw man, I never sought to redefine "equal status" rather I was stating where an equal status is necessary.

US is a superpower expecting it to give us an equal footing is fanciful. Where as, India and China are vying for Asian dominance, accepting a denigrated position is tantamount to accepting defeat.

And BTW this is neither an official position of US nor close to an official position. A position of philosophy teacher who now teaches English in China is no good than yours or mine.

Talking about being treated as equals is not essentially being equal. You can’t be equal to a rich friend of yours; if you are not as rich but you do expect equality in treatment in friendship, otherwise a true sense of friendship doesn’t exist.

Joining forces with China against US serves very little of our purpose. Why should we be against the US in the first place? Why should we get dragged into an unnecessary tangle? Which purpose of ours is served by taking such a stand bearing a denigrated position?

Siding with the US in certain issues of common interest is safer than going against the US. India must strike a balance between non-alignment and alignment too much of either will not serve our purpose.

At the same time, I don’t claim India is being treated as an equal by US. This was never my claim. A classic straw man put in place. My argument was accepting a denigrated position to China is not acceptable.


What race?


Economic, military, energy etc... in short dominance of Asia.


How does it [the issue of unequal treatment] become different?


I have already explained why. India is in a race with China, though currently lagging on many fronts India does have some advantages. From now to 2050 China’s working age population would continue to decline, while that of India will increase. The quality of manpower between the two countries is not very different, though India is ahead in the area of basic technology-oriented workers. Shortage of energy is hurting both the countries but in per unit output efficiency India is ahead of China, according to the World Bank.

In contrast we aren't currently in any position to topple US and become its equal.


How does the status of superpower or the lack of it affect or modify India’s ability to make such judgments?

Siding with a superpower helps us to get through a lot of issues. Example, we are in course to end the nuclear apartheid without signing NPT or CTBT, this couldn’t have been possible with Russia or China.

But to join forces with china that too against US is a wanton problem. Remember we are talking about India siding with Russia and China against the US.


Wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


I said we should side with US when both [India and US] our interests are served. I hope it needs no further explanation.


Are you trying to suggest that such position is assumed unilaterally? Apparently your post implies to the contrary. Please support your answer(s).

I don't understand your question be more specific. If you are asking me what makes you think China and Russia are against US dominance or vice versa, look no further, you yourself had posted articles of China’s and Russia’s need to counter US. It would be ironical if this is what you had asked me.


What assures you to believe so [that USA is not a threat to India]? Are you considering only military threats? Please elaborate.

US have very little if not nil interest in India’s regional assets and if any are present, there also common interests in them for both of us. India has had very little military threats from the US so far on contrary to China.

Indian and US’s economy have become intertwined & have been complementing each other and has not been growing in spite of each other.

USA is the largest investing country in India in terms of FDI approvals, actual inflows, and portfolio investment.

US investments cover almost every sector in India, which is open for private participants. India’s investments in USA are picking up.

USA is also India’s largest trading partner. By 2003, India became the 24th largest export destination for the US. In terms of exports to the US, India now ranks eighteenth largest country.

The IT companies crafting India’s growth depend a lot on US.

So if you think US poses military and economic threat please substantiate.



Anyway, the US is not against Pakistan; which begs the question, which threats to India would also translate into threats to the US and vice-versa?


Again, a straw man, I never said US is against Pakistan. I only said China supports Pakistan against India.

US’s support to Pakistan has been with a different reason. First, It was to counter communist Soviet and then to counter the Taliban and al qeada. Pakistan’s misuse of the support is a different issue.

But China’s support to Pakistan is with aim of pressurizing India. What China wants from Pakistan is a similar to what US wants from India. China is both covertly & openly supporting Pakistan to compete with India by doing so it is trying diverting India’s resources against a quasi opponent and also complete a strategic encirclement of India.

Chinese interest in GWADAR, HAMBANTOTA & SITWE is a live example.



In what way would the stated threats go away?


It would be unrealistic to expect that the threats will vanish of just like some magic. India will get important help in energy and economic sectors to counter the threat from china.

There is a Chinese saying: “Respect the strong and blackmail the weak”, we need to get strong enough to gain respect if not overtake china. At the least we must protect ourselves from being blackmailed.



What if China changes its posture and no longer sees the US as foe, but without bothering about India, and the US also no longer finds a need to check China; and treats China as equal?


First, why should it? You yourself had posted many quotes to show that the US wants to dominate the world and wants unipolarity. In such a case how could US accept China as its friend?

The Chinese have always seen US as a threat and US has seen communist forces as a threat. Both nations long term goals are centered on this basis. Both countries have dumped in millions get an edge over the other, one should be hallucinating to think there will be sudden shift in their long term policies crafted so thoughtfully.

It is said there are no permanent friends and foes only permanent interests. China and US have conflicting interests.

There are no signs for one to believe such thing will happen tomorrow. If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy. If not your question has no relevance and is just another rhetoric



Again, wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


I had already said this, India should not be an ally in the sense Britain has been. We are not the satellite of Washington. We must not blindly follow them unless there is a genuine convergence of the interests of the US and India.



In what way would India win this race for the dominance of Asia anyway?


It is simple to ask such a question. If the answer was so obvious and easy India would already be in course towards victory. There needs to be serious revamps in our educational and infrastructure.

China already sees India as competitor even though India lags behind china is some key areas. China’s help to Pakistan in the nuclear sector and military sector breaking many international treaties & eager to vie for strategic positions targeting India is enough evidence.

It is not about winning the race. It is about what happens if we lose the race. It is not in the economic and military interests of India to loose the race. But we can’t worry about whether we can win the race and let ourselves down even before we complete the race.

If you think India can’t win the race don’t think everyone will share such a pessimistic opinion.

It is not about winning but rather giving a fight. As I pointed out India has some advantages in the race, while china holds the trumps. It is about winning the war not the battle.




Finally, all quoted statements clearly seem to favour the current state of [unipolar] world order; and exactly that, what the US wants. :wink: :)


On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, [color=red]the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:f77550a2f1]


So What? If that serves our purpose too so be it. What purpose will be served if we help others topple US?

And I need not make assumptions on causality of statements like you have done on mine to prove a point.

You had made it clear that you want china toppling US, why would you want that to happen? Since, for china to overtake US it needs dominance over Asia first, which will be at the cost of India. Why do you favor this?

A sole Chinese hegemony with its communist dictatorship is far worse for India than an US hegemony with a democratic government.

By the way, may I ask you what makes you to agree with a philosophy teacher who presently teaches English in china when she says:


On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, [color=red]the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

Have you read the report yourself? This is what the report says in page one of the introduction:

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

And in the page 1 of Overview of America’s International Strategy

The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.

Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity? I must admit at this point I haven’t gone beyond page 12 of the 35 page report. If anybody finds anything to support Dr. Kelly contradicting this initial line of approach, I would like to stand corrected.

At the same time, I don’t even believe for a second that United States would like to share its present unipolarity with a nation having conflicting interest like China. But it would be foolish for America to speak about it in a public document like this. And I suspect it doesn’t.

[Rohit]

[tscii:78f832904f]

Why would the US want to check China's dominance?

What assures you to believe that no one should be at liberty to question the US dominance?

In what way would India become capable of balancing forces in the region?


Why would the US want to make China's task difficult and how?


Why would the US want to counter China?

What would the US gain from this and how?




All these questions are almost one and the same, packaged differently.

US as a superpower needs to maintain its status. As a Superpower the US obviously needs to have world dominance. China is growing faster at an alarming rate threatening to Dominate Asia. China & US have grown up on different ideologies one based Communist Dictatorship & other a Democratic one.

So with basically different ideologies and with china growing faster , it isn't in the US's interest for China to dominate Asia which will leave a serious hole in its status a super power.

For US a good relationship with India is far easier than with China, due to conflicting interests and different political views.

As for the question of some one questioning US's dominance, it is a narrow view of thought to say, the US has dominated the world for long so let others dominate and then stop at it.

It says very little about what impact it will potentially have for us. China replacing US is a real concern for India. India has an active dispute with China and China has covertly supported Pakistan over India. China as a replacement for US first needs China to dominate Asian affairs which is not in India's interests.

So the question is not about anyone questioning US dominance, but it is a question of that being China.

With active US help India can close in on the gap between China and her. If India gains an equal status with china, there will be no clear dominator in the Asian region, which is in US’s interest to maintain its world dominance. Indecently, it is also in India’s interest to counter china’s plans for dominance of Asia, which possess a grave military and economic threat.


The “National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement” of US, published first in 1994:

Our national security strategy draws upon a range of political, military and economic instruments, and focuses on the primary objectives that President Clinton has stressed throughout his Administration:

Promoting Democracy. A framework of democratic enlargement that increases our security by protecting, consolidating and enlarging the community of free market democracies. Our efforts focus on strengthening democratic processes in key emerging democratic states including Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine and other new independent states of the former Soviet Union.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/1996stra.htm


Dr. Robert H. Dorff, Visiting Professor of Foreign Policy at the US Army War College and Associate Professor of Political Science at the North Carolina State University had this to say on the policy:

The US post-Cold War strategy of engagement and enlargement began with public pronouncements in the last year of the Bush (the father of the present President) Administration and then was formally articulated under President Clinton. Fundamentally based on the premise of the "democratic peace" (democracies do not go to war with other democracies), this strategy entails the active promotion and expansion of the community of democratic, free-market countries as a way of applying national resources toward the pursuit of strategic objectives.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96summer/dorff.htm

US, finds it a part of National interest to protect democracies like India. Communist dictatorship is naturally against US national interest.





I thought equal status was/is an issue of principle and earned respect and not of situational bargain.


A clever straw man, I never sought to redefine "equal status" rather I was stating where an equal status is necessary.

US is a superpower expecting it to give us an equal footing is fanciful. Where as, India and China are vying for Asian dominance, accepting a denigrated position is tantamount to accepting defeat.

And BTW this is neither an official position of US nor close to an official position. A position of philosophy teacher who now teaches English in China is no good than yours or mine.

Talking about being treated as equals is not essentially being equal. You can’t be equal to a rich friend of yours; if you are not as rich but you do expect equality in treatment in friendship, otherwise a true sense of friendship doesn’t exist.

Joining forces with China against US serves very little of our purpose. Why should we be against the US in the first place? Why should we get dragged into an unnecessary tangle? Which purpose of ours is served by taking such a stand bearing a denigrated position?

Siding with the US in certain issues of common interest is safer than going against the US. India must strike a balance between non-alignment and alignment too much of either will not serve our purpose.

At the same time, I don’t claim India is being treated as an equal by US. This was never my claim. A classic straw man put in place. My argument was accepting a denigrated position to China is not acceptable.


What race?


Economic, military, energy etc... in short dominance of Asia.


How does it [the issue of unequal treatment] become different?


I have already explained why. India is in a race with China, though currently lagging on many fronts India does have some advantages. From now to 2050 China’s working age population would continue to decline, while that of India will increase. The quality of manpower between the two countries is not very different, though India is ahead in the area of basic technology-oriented workers. Shortage of energy is hurting both the countries but in per unit output efficiency India is ahead of China, according to the World Bank.

In contrast we aren't currently in any position to topple US and become its equal.


How does the status of superpower or the lack of it affect or modify India’s ability to make such judgments?

Siding with a superpower helps us to get through a lot of issues. Example, we are in course to end the nuclear apartheid without signing NPT or CTBT, this couldn’t have been possible with Russia or China.

But to join forces with china that too against US is a wanton problem. Remember we are talking about India siding with Russia and China against the US.


Wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


I said we should side with US when both [India and US] our interests are served. I hope it needs no further explanation.


Are you trying to suggest that such position is assumed unilaterally? Apparently your post implies to the contrary. Please support your answer(s).

I don't understand your question be more specific. If you are asking me what makes you think China and Russia are against US dominance or vice versa, look no further, you yourself had posted articles of China’s and Russia’s need to counter US. It would be ironical if this is what you had asked me.


What assures you to believe so [that USA is not a threat to India]? Are you considering only military threats? Please elaborate.

US have very little if not nil interest in India’s regional assets and if any are present, there also common interests in them for both of us. India has had very little military threats from the US so far on contrary to China.

Indian and US’s economy have become intertwined & have been complementing each other and has not been growing in spite of each other.

USA is the largest investing country in India in terms of FDI approvals, actual inflows, and portfolio investment.

US investments cover almost every sector in India, which is open for private participants. India’s investments in USA are picking up.

USA is also India’s largest trading partner. By 2003, India became the 24th largest export destination for the US. In terms of exports to the US, India now ranks eighteenth largest country.

The IT companies crafting India’s growth depend a lot on US.

So if you think US poses military and economic threat please substantiate.



Anyway, the US is not against Pakistan; which begs the question, which threats to India would also translate into threats to the US and vice-versa?


Again, a straw man, I never said US is against Pakistan. I only said China supports Pakistan against India.

US’s support to Pakistan has been with a different reason. First, It was to counter communist Soviet and then to counter the Taliban and al qeada. Pakistan’s misuse of the support is a different issue.

But China’s support to Pakistan is with aim of pressurizing India. What China wants from Pakistan is a similar to what US wants from India. China is both covertly & openly supporting Pakistan to compete with India by doing so it is trying diverting India’s resources against a quasi opponent and also complete a strategic encirclement of India.

Chinese interest in GWADAR, HAMBANTOTA & SITWE is a live example.



In what way would the stated threats go away?


It would be unrealistic to expect that the threats will vanish of just like some magic. India will get important help in energy and economic sectors to counter the threat from china.

There is a Chinese saying: “Respect the strong and blackmail the weak”, we need to get strong enough to gain respect if not overtake china. At the least we must protect ourselves from being blackmailed.



What if China changes its posture and no longer sees the US as foe, but without bothering about India, and the US also no longer finds a need to check China; and treats China as equal?


First, why should it? You yourself had posted many quotes to show that the US wants to dominate the world and wants unipolarity. In such a case how could US accept China as its friend?

The Chinese have always seen US as a threat and US has seen communist forces as a threat. Both nations long term goals are centered on this basis. Both countries have dumped in millions get an edge over the other, one should be hallucinating to think there will be sudden shift in their long term policies crafted so thoughtfully.

It is said there are no permanent friends and foes only permanent interests. China and US have conflicting interests.

There are no signs for one to believe such thing will happen tomorrow. If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy. If not your question has no relevance and is just another rhetoric



Again, wouldn’t India run into even greater risk of heightening tensions in the region by taking sides?


I had already said this, India should not be an ally in the sense Britain has been. We are not the satellite of Washington. We must not blindly follow them unless there is a genuine convergence of the interests of the US and India.



In what way would India win this race for the dominance of Asia anyway?


It is simple to ask such a question. If the answer was so obvious and easy India would already be in course towards victory. There needs to be serious revamps in our educational and infrastructure.

China already sees India as competitor even though India lags behind china is some key areas. China’s help to Pakistan in the nuclear sector and military sector breaking many international treaties & eager to vie for strategic positions targeting India is enough evidence.

It is not about winning the race. It is about what happens if we lose the race. It is not in the economic and military interests of India to loose the race. But we can’t worry about whether we can win the race and let ourselves down even before we complete the race.

If you think India can’t win the race don’t think everyone will share such a pessimistic opinion.

It is not about winning but rather giving a fight. As I pointed out India has some advantages in the race, while china holds the trumps. It is about winning the war not the battle.




Finally, all quoted statements clearly seem to favour the current state of [unipolar] world order; and exactly that, what the US wants. :wink: :)


On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, [color=red]the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:78f832904f]


So What? If that serves our purpose too so be it. What purpose will be served if we help others topple US?

And I need not make assumptions on causality of statements like you have done on mine to prove a point.

You had made it clear that you want china toppling US, why would you want that to happen? Since, for china to overtake US it needs dominance over Asia first, which will be at the cost of India. Why do you favor this?

A sole Chinese hegemony with its communist dictatorship is far worse for India than an US hegemony with a democratic government.

By the way, may I ask you what makes you to agree with a philosophy teacher who presently teaches English in china when she says:


On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, [color=red]the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html

Have you read the report yourself? This is what the report says in page one of the introduction:

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

And in the page 1 of Overview of America’s International Strategy

The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.

Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity? I must admit at this point I haven’t gone beyond page 12 of the 35 page report. If anybody finds anything to support Dr. Kelly contradicting this initial line of approach, I would like to stand corrected.

At the same time, I don’t even believe for a second that United States would like to share its present unipolarity with a nation having conflicting interest like China. But it would be foolish for America to speak about it in a public document like this. And I suspect it doesn’t.
Thank you c4ramesh for using lots of strawman’s while answering questions and by portraying them entirely in the wrong perspective and context.

I am not against anything, as long as India doesn’t trap itself and run into even greater risk. I am just expressing possible scenarios whereby such things can happen.

Let us hope that things turn out in the best possible interest of India.

Like I said, let us wait and watch.

Thank you.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:c0ca4b2a8d]

Thank you c4ramesh for using lots of strawman’s while answering questions and by portraying them entirely in the wrong perspective and context.


You pointed out none, and neither did you prove them to be straw men. NOT GUILTY until proved.

on the other hand, you had used straw men, for Instance I never claimed US is against Pakistan and hence I can't be begging the question.



I am not against anything, as long as India doesn’t trap itself and run into even greater risk. I am just expressing possible scenarios whereby such things can happen.


India is resolute enough for instance it went nuclear when it was a far lesser power to reckon with and it successfully warded off pressure from western powers.




Let us hope that things turn out in the best possible interest of India.

Like I said, let us wait and watch.

Thank you.

:D :) :thumbsup:

:) [/tscii:c0ca4b2a8d]

[Rohit]

[tscii:82c46140cb]
Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity?
Require an interpretation?

Else, here is a direct reference to it.

“THE USES OF AMERICAN POWER IN A UNIPOLAR WORLD”

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051203.html

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:82c46140cb]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:e2fb265f59]
Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity?
Require an interpretation?

Else, here is a direct reference to it.

“THE USES OF AMERICAN POWER IN A UNIPOLAR WORLD”

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200305/051203.html

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:e2fb265f59]

Great! And what is this supposed to prove? Did I deny America wants unipolarity? NO, in fact my post clearly says America's help to India is to help it remain unipolar.

lets see what I had written:



By the way, may I ask you what makes you to agree with a philosophy teacher who presently teaches English in china when she says:



On the other hand, in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report" of September 17, 2002, [color=red]the US argues that unipolarity is a good thing and should be maintained for a long time, if not forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/kelly1.html


Have you read the report yourself? This is what the report says in page one of the introduction:

Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

And in the page 1 of Overview of America’s International Strategy

The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.

Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity? I must admit at this point I haven’t gone beyond page 12 of the 35 page report. If anybody finds anything to support Dr. Kelly contradicting this initial line of approach, I would like to stand corrected.

At the same time, I don’t even believe for a second that United States would like to share its present unipolarity with a nation having conflicting interest like China. But it would be foolish for America to speak about it in a public document like this. And I suspect it doesn’t.


I never claimed America doesn't want unipolarity [in its favor]. I only claimed I don't see any reference for it claiming so in its National Security Strategy as far as I have read, which contradicts what Dr. Kelly has written in the article you posted.

America holding such a view elsewhere, is of little concern to me. Talk about Strawman. :?

Secondly coming to your alternate article, If I understand properly the Senator Patrick Leahy is talking about America's role in as UNIPOLAR WORLD, unipolar? it is. America is the sole super power.
He neither argues for or against unipolarity. If you disagree please point out where I lack understanding.

[Rohit]

[tscii:f22ec5ba0b]
Does it sound like America is arguing for Unipolarity?

Did I deny America wants unipolarity? NO, in fact my post clearly says America's help to India is to help it remain unipolar.
And in return, India would be expected to play a certain "role" that would help the US in increasing its chances to accomplish that; and precisely that, what I have said. But you resorted to point fingures at personal level. What more evidences would anyone with some logical sense require to figure out both the ad hominems' and strawmans' imbedded in that?


America holding such a view elsewhere, is of little concern to me.
Well, I can’t help if one cannot grasp the meaning of discourse(s) composed in political terms, but instead looks for exact words for literal meaning. I am afraid, that is what your [fallacious] arguments are based on.

Well, if that is the only way one can understand things, so be it.

:D :) :thumbsup: [/tscii:f22ec5ba0b]

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:e414416538]

And in return, India would be expected to play a certain "role" that would help the US in increasing its chances to accomplish that; and precisely that, what I have said. But you resorted to point fingures at personal level. What more evidences would anyone with some logical sense would require to figure out both the ad hominem and strawman's imbedded in that?


:? Not really, though both agree that India is expected to help US in return, we disagree on whether that is good for India's National interests or not. My contention is that India can always say no when what US expects is going to harm our interests. US can't break the deal on that clause.

Secondly, I said what US expects from India is balancing act in Asia against China. I argued that this is also in India's interests. I don't think you agree on this too. in fact, you had posted article relating to INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle against US, which I thought was not feasible.

So we disagree on a lot of issues and agree on very little.

coming to the accusation leveled against me, I still fail to see any evidence. You said I used ad-hominems unfortunately you pointed no instances of it.

A strawman is a sham argument set up to be easily refuted. What was my sham argument that I asserted was your position? Again you failed to point out. Rather all you did was keep repeating I was attacking strawman even after asking specifically TO POINT OUT AND EXPLAIN WHY IT IS A STRAW MAN.

I fail to see any ad-hominems or strawmen. please point them out, so that I may stand corrected.



Well, I can’t help if one cannot grasp the meaning of discourse(s) composed in political terms, but instead looks for exact words for literal meaning. I am afraid, that is what your [fallacious] arguments are based on.

Well, if that is the only way one can understand things, so be it.

mere words don't account to proofs. I never said America is against unipolarity all I asked to is substantiate the person who you had quoted and prove that you aren't committing Appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). Dr. kelly claims The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report of 2002 argues for unpolarity but US denies it wants unipolarity in the very beginning.

I asked in which part of the report does anything contradictory to this point, proving your quote is present, rather than providing one you chose to decry over my lack of comprehension skills. Apparently, certain things aren't so obvious as it is to you. If it is so obvious why can't you quote a single line of the report that supports your claim?

I had already said I haven't read the report completely and hence I don't claim my analysis to be full proof. But since you quoted Dr. Kelly on this issue, why do you take Dr. Kelly's assertion at face value? Have you read the report yourself? If yes, please support your quote. Dr. kelly doesn't seem to be any better authority than you and me on this.

Secondly, the link you gave clearly talks about what is US's role in an Unipolar world. The senator didn't argue for an Unipolar world, but rather assumes it is so and what is US expected to do in such a world. This is reasonable given the fact that we live in an unipolar world.

My understanding is that rather it is you who have looked for specific words like "unipolar" and quoted it as if it makes sense. In fact the quote has very little to support your claims.

As usual you again failed to state how I failed to understand "the meaning of discourse(s) composed in political terms" but you rather assert it. Thats that.

To make myself clear again. I don't deny even for a second that US wants an Unipolar world. But my claim is that your quotes are erroneous as per my knowledge. And US isn't going to make it known as a policy that their aim is an Unipolar world in a public document like the one quoted by Dr. kelly.

[/tscii:e414416538]

[Rohit]

[tscii:6a46b51c20]

And in return, India would be expected to play a certain "role" that would help the US in increasing its chances to accomplish that; and precisely that, what I have said. But you resorted to point fingures at personal level. What more evidences would anyone with some logical sense would require to figure out both the ad hominem and strawman's imbedded in that?


:? Not really, though both agree that India is expected to help US in return, we disagree on whether that is good for India's National interests or not. My contention is that India can always say no when what US expects is going to harm our interests. US can't break the deal on that clause.

Secondly, I said what US expects from India is balancing act in Asia against China. I argued that this is also in India's interests. I don't think you agree on this too. in fact, you had posted article relating to INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle against US, which I thought was not feasible.

So we disagree on a lot of issues and agree on very little.

coming to the accusation leveled against me, I still fail to see any evidence. You said I used ad-hominems unfortunately you pointed no instances of it.

A strawman is a sham argument set up to be easily refuted. What was my sham argument that I asserted was your position? Again you failed to point out. Rather all you did was keep repeating I was attacking strawman even after asking specifically TO POINT OUT AND EXPLAIN WHY IT IS A STRAW MAN.

I fail to see any ad-hominems or strawmen. please point them out, so that I may stand corrected.



Well, I can’t help if one cannot grasp the meaning of discourse(s) composed in political terms, but instead looks for exact words for literal meaning. I am afraid, that is what your [fallacious] arguments are based on.

Well, if that is the only way one can understand things, so be it.

mere words don't account to proofs. I never said America is against unipolarity all I asked to is substantiate the person who you had quoted and prove that you aren't committing Appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). Dr. kelly claims The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report of 2002 argues for unpolarity but US denies it wants unipolarity in the very beginning.

I asked in which part of the report does anything contradictory to this point, proving your quote is present, rather than providing one you chose to decry over my lack of comprehension skills. Apparently, certain things aren't so obvious as it is to you. If it is so obvious why can't you quote a single line of the report that supports your claim?

I had already said I haven't read the report completely and hence I don't claim my analysis to be full proof. But since you quoted Dr. Kelly on this issue, why do you take Dr. Kelly's assertion at face value? Have you read the report yourself? If yes, please support your quote. Dr. kelly doesn't seem to be any better authority than you and me on this.

Secondly, the link you gave clearly talks about what is US's role in an Unipolar world. The senator didn't argue for an Unipolar world, but rather assumes it is so and what is US expected to do in such a world. This is reasonable given the fact that we live in an unipolar world.

My understanding is that rather it is you who have looked for specific words like "unipolar" and quoted it as if it makes sense. In fact the quote has very little to support your claims.

As usual you again failed to state how I failed to understand "the meaning of discourse(s) composed in political terms" but you rather assert it. Thats that.

To make myself clear again. I don't deny even for a second that US wants an Unipolar world. But my claim is that your quotes are erroneous as per my knowledge. And US isn't going to make it known as a policy that their aim is an Unipolar world in a public document like the one quoted by Dr. kelly.

[/tscii:6a46b51c20]

INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle
I simply quoted a few specific lines from the articles and their links about the meetings held between the three. I said absolutely nothing about the alliance as you say here and have said before, clearly constituting the straw man’s fallacy.

The place and person shouldn’t matter, as long as the core argument points to the same facts known or can be known from other, direct and/or indirect, valid sources as well as observations. Any such attacks clearly constitute both the ad hominem's as well as the fallacy of fallacy.


If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy.
Did I say such thing? No. On the contrary you yourself have lately asserted the same position that you have previously described as rhetoric aimed at painting the US as a bad boy. Again, showing a contradiction as well as the discharge of strawman's and ad hominem’s fallacies from you.

And there are earlier instances where you have done the same and I have pointed them out to you.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[c4ramesh]

[tscii:45d7eb044d]

I simply quoted a few specific lines from the articles and their links about the meetings held between the three. I said absolutely nothing about the alliance as you say here and have said before, clearly constituting the straw man’s fallacy.



In that case, you are the one who should be liable for red herrings. What was/is the relevance of posting INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle in a thread for discussing INDO-US nuclear deal?

Secondly, I never ever claimed it was your personal opinion that INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle should be forged rather I was just targeting the quotes you placed here [whatever their relevance to the current discussion is]. So where is the straw man?


The place and person shouldn’t matter, as long as the core argument points to the same facts known or can be known from other, direct and/or indirect, valid sources as well as observations. Any such attacks clearly constitute both the ad hominem's as well as the fallacy of fallacy.

Where did I say it mattered. If Dr. Kelly was teaching English in India, I would have said the same. What makes you think his claims must be taken at face value, without being challenged is my question?

please learn what an ad hominem attack is, for your convenience I will even take the pain of explaining it to you. There seems to be a wrong perception about ad hominem:



Many people assume that any personal attack is an ad hominem argument, but that isn't true. Some attacks aren't ad hominem fallacies, and some ad hominem fallacies aren't clear insults.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm

The general form this argument [Ad hominem] takes is:


There is something objectionable about person X. Therefore, person X's claim is false.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm


To prove that I committed an ad hominem, you will have to show
where I said Dr. kelly’s argument to be wrong because Dr. Kelly there is currently something objectionable about Dr. Kelly?

There are two instance of where is questioned Dr. kelly’s authority:

1. First, when Dr. Kelly claimed France, India can’t be America’s equal and you somehow used that to claim that India is not being seen by America as its equal. There is a subtle difference in this which I already stated.

I pointed out that this was neither US’s official stand nor close to the official stand [since it wasn’t a view of some x or y, who had been/is with the US govt.].

So this leaves us with the question of how much credibility can be associated with Dr. Kelly’s testimony rather than an actual fact. This can be asserted from validating this points:


1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.

2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.

3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority_3.htm



It should be noted questioning one’s authority is not Ad hominem:



But not everything about a person is irrelevant to every possible topic. Sometimes, it is quite legitimate to bring up a person's expertise in some subject as a reason to be skeptical, and perhaps even dismissive, of their opinions about it. For example:
2. George is not a biologist and has no training in biology. Therefore, his opinions about what is or is not possible with regards to evolutionary biology do not have a lot of credibility.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm


Dr. Kelly fits none of this. But before going to that, can Dr. Kelly’s claim be interpreted as you did?

Dr. Kelly’s claim was that he feels France, India & someother can’t be a equal to America and not that US doesn’t see them as an equal they both are two different things. Only observation that could turn out to be in favor of such an interpreatation is Kelly's Appeal to US's Nation security policy which argues for an unipolar world. But from what little I have read, it contradicts kelly's claim.

And again, their is that difference where being treated equal even though one isn't really equal to his counterpart like what happens between friends.

And the end of it you committed two different fallacies combined into one. They are Appeal to fallacious Authority and misinterpreting Dr. Kelly who never claimed this was the view of US. Rather, it was his observation of what the US thinks, his evidence that this is what the US openly proposes is not properly substantiated though it may be True that US does indeed want a unipolar world.. And hence I rightly pointed out his observation is as good as yours or mine.



A position of philosophy teacher who now teaches English in China is no good than yours or mine.


So did I say his observation is wrong because he is an English teacher in China? NO, I only said his observation has no more value than yours or mine. And can’t be considered as US’s official line.

The second instance is when I asked why do you take Dr. kelly’s claim that US has argued for unipolarity in their “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” at face value, without reading it yourself or have you?

Did I say her claim is wrong because he is English teacher in China? NO, I said his claim is wrong because the report blatantly contradicts his testimony.

My pointing out of his qualifications is again a crude reminder that his testimony can’t be taken as a definitive one as he doesn’t seem to be an expert in the field that he is commenting about.

So I never claimed Dr. Kelly was wrong because he is an English teacher in China, but the facts doesn’t support his assertion and since he his not an expert in the field his claims must be analyzed before being quoted as facts.




If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy.

Did I say such thing? No. On the contrary you yourself have lately asserted the same position that you have previously described as rhetoric aimed at painting the US as a bad boy. Again, showing a contradiction as well as the discharge of strawman's and ad hominem’s fallacies from you.


This is so blatantly out of context! I never claimed your aim is to paint US as a bad boy.

Let us put the quote in full:


First, why should it? You yourself had posted many quotes to show that the US wants to dominate the world and wants unipolarity. In such a case how could US accept China as its friend?

The Chinese have always seen US as a threat and US has seen communist forces as a threat. Both nations long term goals are centered on this basis. Both countries have dumped in millions get an edge over the other, one should be hallucinating to think there will be sudden shift in their long term policies crafted so thoughtfully.

It is said there are no permanent friends and foes only permanent interests. China and US have conflicting interests.

There are no signs for one to believe such thing will happen tomorrow. If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy. If not your question has no relevance and is just another rhetoric


I was answering to your query what If the US and china become friends who pose no threat to each others place in the world. I claimed that you yourself don’t believe in this notion IF YOU DID BELIEVE SO, your quotes that show US wants world dominance has no relevance. Hence they are just rhetoric. I never claimed your quotes itself are determined to paint US as a bad boy but rather they would if you believe US and China would start to see each other as friends any sooner. So where is the straw man?

It is just an inference drawn from your quotes and the question you posed and you own disbelief of the validity of the question in contrast to the quotes.

The only contradiction I see is between your questions that asks what India should do if the America changes its course of action and the plethora of quotes which doesn’t support your question.


And there are earlier instances where you have done the same and I have pointed them out to you.


But miserably failed to prove them as fallacies, unlike you saying that US isn’t against Pakistan and I beg the question in assuming so. And on another occasion where you tried to portray that I am redefining equality where as I was just trying to state where equality matters and where it doesn't.
[/tscii:45d7eb044d]

[Rohit]

[tscii:1dfc66c36d]

I simply quoted a few specific lines from the articles and their links about the meetings held between the three. I said absolutely nothing about the alliance as you say here and have said before, clearly constituting the straw man’s fallacy.



In that case, you are the one who should be liable for red herrings. What was/is the relevance of posting INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle in a thread for discussing INDO-US nuclear deal?

Secondly, I never ever claimed it was your personal opinion that INDO-RUSSIA-CHINA triangle should be forged rather I was just targeting the quotes you placed here [whatever their relevance to the current discussion is]. So where is the straw man?


The place and person shouldn’t matter, as long as the core argument points to the same facts known or can be known from other, direct and/or indirect, valid sources as well as observations. Any such attacks clearly constitute both the ad hominem's as well as the fallacy of fallacy.

Where did I say it mattered. If Dr. Kelly was teaching English in India, I would have said the same. What makes you think his claims must be taken at face value, without being challenged is my question?

please learn what an ad hominem attack is, for your convenience I will even take the pain of explaining it to you. There seems to be a wrong perception about ad hominem:



Many people assume that any personal attack is an ad hominem argument, but that isn't true. Some attacks aren't ad hominem fallacies, and some ad hominem fallacies aren't clear insults.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm

The general form this argument [Ad hominem] takes is:


There is something objectionable about person X. Therefore, person X's claim is false.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm


To prove that I committed an ad hominem, you will have to show
where I said Dr. kelly’s argument to be wrong because Dr. Kelly there is currently something objectionable about Dr. Kelly?

There are two instance of where is questioned Dr. kelly’s authority:

1. First, when Dr. Kelly claimed France, India can’t be America’s equal and you somehow used that to claim that India is not being seen by America as its equal. There is a subtle difference in this which I already stated.

I pointed out that this was neither US’s official stand nor close to the official stand [since it wasn’t a view of some x or y, who had been/is with the US govt.].

So this leaves us with the question of how much credibility can be associated with Dr. Kelly’s testimony rather than an actual fact. This can be asserted from validating this points:


1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.

2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.

3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority_3.htm



It should be noted questioning one’s authority is not Ad hominem:



But not everything about a person is irrelevant to every possible topic. Sometimes, it is quite legitimate to bring up a person's expertise in some subject as a reason to be skeptical, and perhaps even dismissive, of their opinions about it. For example:
2. George is not a biologist and has no training in biology. Therefore, his opinions about what is or is not possible with regards to evolutionary biology do not have a lot of credibility.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_adhominem_index.htm


Dr. Kelly fits none of this. But before going to that, can Dr. Kelly’s claim be interpreted as you did?

Dr. Kelly’s claim was that he feels France, India & someother can’t be a equal to America and not that US doesn’t see them as an equal they both are two different things. Only observation that could turn out to be in favor of such an interpreatation is Kelly's Appeal to US's Nation security policy which argues for an unipolar world. But from what little I have read, it contradicts kelly's claim.

And again, their is that difference where being treated equal even though one isn't really equal to his counterpart like what happens between friends.

And the end of it you committed two different fallacies combined into one. They are Appeal to fallacious Authority and misinterpreting Dr. Kelly who never claimed this was the view of US. Rather, it was his observation of what the US thinks, his evidence that this is what the US openly proposes is not properly substantiated though it may be True that US does indeed want a unipolar world.. And hence I rightly pointed out his observation is as good as yours or mine.



A position of philosophy teacher who now teaches English in China is no good than yours or mine.


So did I say his observation is wrong because he is an English teacher in China? NO, I only said his observation has no more value than yours or mine. And can’t be considered as US’s official line.

The second instance is when I asked why do you take Dr. kelly’s claim that US has argued for unipolarity in their “National Security Strategy of the United States of America” at face value, without reading it yourself or have you?

Did I say her claim is wrong because he is English teacher in China? NO, I said his claim is wrong because the report blatantly contradicts his testimony.

My pointing out of his qualifications is again a crude reminder that his testimony can’t be taken as a definitive one as he doesn’t seem to be an expert in the field that he is commenting about.

So I never claimed Dr. Kelly was wrong because he is an English teacher in China, but the facts doesn’t support his assertion and since he his not an expert in the field his claims must be analyzed before being quoted as facts.




If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy.

Did I say such thing? No. On the contrary you yourself have lately asserted the same position that you have previously described as rhetoric aimed at painting the US as a bad boy. Again, showing a contradiction as well as the discharge of strawman's and ad hominem’s fallacies from you.


This is so blatantly out of context! I never claimed your aim is to paint US as a bad boy.

Let us put the quote in full:


First, why should it? You yourself had posted many quotes to show that the US wants to dominate the world and wants unipolarity. In such a case how could US accept China as its friend?

The Chinese have always seen US as a threat and US has seen communist forces as a threat. Both nations long term goals are centered on this basis. Both countries have dumped in millions get an edge over the other, one should be hallucinating to think there will be sudden shift in their long term policies crafted so thoughtfully.

It is said there are no permanent friends and foes only permanent interests. China and US have conflicting interests.

There are no signs for one to believe such thing will happen tomorrow. If so, your quotes & other claims that show US wants world dominance is just a rhetoric aimed at painting US as a bad boy. If not your question has no relevance and is just another rhetoric


I was answering to your query what If the US and china become friends who pose no threat to each others place in the world. I claimed that you yourself don’t believe in this notion IF YOU DID BELIEVE SO, your quotes that show US wants world dominance has no relevance. Hence they are just rhetoric. I never claimed your quotes itself are determined to paint US as a bad boy but rather they would if you believe US and China would start to see each other as friends any sooner. So where is the straw man?

It is just an inference drawn from your quotes and the question you posed and you own disbelief of the validity of the question in contrast to the quotes.

The only contradiction I see is between your questions that asks what India should do if the America changes its course of action and the plethora of quotes which doesn’t support your question.


And there are earlier instances where you have done the same and I have pointed them out to you.


But miserably failed to prove them as fallacies, unlike you saying that US isn’t against Pakistan and I beg the question in assuming so. And on another occasion where you tried to portray that I am redefining equality where as I was just trying to state where equality matters and where it doesn't.
[/tscii:1dfc66c36d]
My dear c4ramesh, no matter how much effort you put-in in justifying your fallacies through even more fallacies [False Justification]; regrettably, it serves you zilch.

The Fact is:


You yourself had posted many quotes to show that the US wants to dominate the world and wants unipolarity.
Exactly this, what my premise was/is which you have categorically agreed to as quoted below.


As a Superpower the US obviously needs to have world dominance.

Did I deny America wants unipolarity? NO, in fact my post clearly says America's help to India is to help it remain unipolar.

I never claimed America doesn't want unipolarity [in its favor].

To make myself clear again. I don't deny even for a second that US wants an Unipolar world.
And based on this premise, I drew my conclusion; and you have agreed to that too.

Quoted below is what I said:


And in return, India would be expected to play a certain "role" that would help the US in increasing its chances to accomplish that; and precisely that, what I have said.
Quoted below is what you said:


Not really, though both agree that India is expected to help US in return, we disagree on whether that is good for India's National interests or not.
Yes, as you say, what we disagree on is whether that is in India's National interest or not.

Let us wait and watch.

Here ends the debate from my side.

:D :) :thumbsup:

[c4ramesh]

[color=darkblue]My dear c4ramesh, no matter how much effort you put-in in justifying your fallacies through even more fallacies [False Justification]; regrettably, it serves you zilch.


So much hot air.... :lol:

This is for those who think china is what it meets to eye:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=arMFhX-uG8E&mode=related&search=

godd day rohit....

[Rohit]

godd day rohit....
Thank you c4ramesh, and same to you.

If anything, surfing must really be a good idea to keep yourself cool when so much hot air is blowing around. :lol:

Enjoy your surfing c4ramesh. :wink: :thumbsup:

[Rohit]

There is a hope. Keep it alive.

A poll: When Can INDIA overtake CHINA?

By 2010 67%

By 2020 33%

By 2030 0%

http://polls.ibibo.com/pollresult.aspx?PollId=da65d184-46fd-467d-9b78-097e1b04bb94

:D :) :thumbsup:

[c4ramesh]

There is a hope. Keep it alive.

A poll: When Can INDIA overtake CHINA?

By 2010 67%

By 2020 33%

By 2030 0%

http://polls.ibibo.com/pollresult.aspx?PollId=da65d184-46fd-467d-9b78-097e1b04bb94

:D :) :thumbsup:

Well, I don't believe in these polls. India can't overtake china with its current breed of nasty politicians. Martin Luther once said "A man who wouldn't die for something isn't worth living" or something to that effect. I may extend that to this "A govt. which wouldn't risk itself for something isn't worth to rule"

Anyways, this is what the great CCP is doing to its people, After all China is not what it meets to the eye.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1357069DKZqmaty

At least we are a little better on that count.

[Rohit]

Hi c4ramesh

Good post!

How are you my friend?

Looks like you are trying to recover from the terrible shock!

[app_engine]

This is possibly an one-of-a-kind occasion when the central Govt. has to face confidence motion on a foreign policy issue. Are there any similar incidents in the past (where the govt. had to prove majority based on some policy issue, not necessarily a foreign-policy issue)?

[podalangai]

Policy issues are usually raised in confidence / no-confidence debates. The debate in the confidence vote that ousted the VP Singh government, for example, centred principally on Mandal and Ayodhya, and most others followed a similar pattern.

Incidentally, while skimming a list of no-confidence votes for the purpose of this post, I find that in 2003, amusingly enough, the Congress brought a no-confidence motion against the Vajpayee government, on the basis that the government had mortgaged India's national interest and put our national security in grave jeopardy by following a pro-US foreign policy.

[app_engine]

Digression -
http://dinamalar.com/fpnnews.asp?News_id=1251&cls=row4

Interesting analysis of PM's who could not complete their terms and why.

End-digression

[app_engine]

http://www.kumudam.com/magazine/Kumudam/2008-07-16/pg18.php

Gnani's arguements. Does anyone know whether the statistics (especially the one about the projected % of nuclear power after 30 years) is correct?

[app_engine]

Some googling showed that Michigan has silghtly over 25% of nuclear power (compared to ~60% of coal). Depending upon who becomes the president, currently there's a 50% probability that this can go up (McCain strongly favors nuclear power it seems).

One of the reasons for less thrust on nuclear power by a developed country like U.S. could be the difficulties related to waste disposal. (However, there are also reports that the air pollution nuke saves is phenomenal). What is India's position / plan in this waste disposal?

[app_engine]

Gnani continues to lash:
http://www.kumudam.com/magazine/Kumudam/2008-07-23/pg14.php

[app_engine]

The union govt. will either stand or fall tomorrow, based on the nuke controversy. It'll be interesting to look at the statistics after the voting is completed...

[MADDY]

The union govt. will either stand or fall tomorrow, based on the nuke controversy. It'll be interesting to look at the statistics after the voting is completed...

govt is going to win easily tomm. :)

[app_engine]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/19/stories/2008071954661000.htm

Interesting article, first time I read something pro-nuke deal.

[P_R]

The union govt. will either stand or fall tomorrow, based on the nuke controversy. It'll be interesting to look at the statistics after the voting is completed...

govt is going to win easily tomm. :)

There is a sense of calm apathy. People are following it at best like a cricket match score :-) Reminded of a certain song from Mullum Malarum :P

Anyway even if the government falls and the opposition comes to power they will ensure the deal goes through.

[joe]

Anyway even if the government falls and the opposition comes to power they will ensure the deal goes through.

:exactly: Moreover ,apart from political parties and few intellectuals common people give a damn about this nuclear deal ..They will vote for price hike , electricity cut etc.

BJP wanted to harvest the negative mindset before it start to decline whereas Congress wanted to delay the election to reduce the damage. Communists enna ninaikkuRangannu china kitta thaan kekkaNum :roll:

[mgb]

BJP heart to heart doesnt want the government to fall for this reason and Mayawati taking all the credit.. so i guess the congress will come up truimpant for the 17th time

[MADDY]

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/22upavote22.htm

Indian politics hits a new low :oops: .......though it was happening all these years, expose leaves us breathless :)

[MADDY]

BJP heart to heart doesnt want the government to fall for this reason and Mayawati taking all the credit

:exactly: ...even i want nuke deal to go thru.......but if govt falls now, it will have one of the biggest anti-incumbency waves against it in history of indian politics.....idhayum miss panna manasu illa :(

[P_R]

The poor ruling party MPs must be cursing their misfortune. They have to cast their votes for nothing in return. So unfair !

[joe]

The poor ruling party MPs must be cursing their misfortune. They have to cast their votes for nothing in return. So unfair !

sirippatha azhuvatha theriyalla :lol: :oops:

[mgb]

The poor ruling party MPs must be cursing their misfortune. They have to cast their votes for nothing in return. So unfair !correct.. adha miss panna virumbadhavangala mayawati vaangittaanga :P

[P_R]

ok iththOda niruththikkuvOm.
ingu arasiyal pEsakkOdAdhu :shhh:

[crajkumar_be]

<Dig>
Wonder how Suriyan Kounder or Anjaasingam Marudhupaandi would have handled this situation...
"Sathiya Sodhanai!" :lol:
</Dig>

[MADDY]

<Dig>
Wonder how Suriyan Kounder or Anjaasingam Marudhupaandi would have handled this situation...
"Sathiya Sodhanai!" :lol:
</Dig>

makkalakku "delikat possisan" :lol:

[mgb]

after the motion is defeated "arasiyalla idhellaam saadharanamappaa"

[Nerd]

UPA :victory: :yes: :yessir:

[app_engine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7518797.stm

Nice commentary.

[MADDY]

UPA :victory: :yes: :yessir:

adhu eppadi, nokkum nekkum endha vishayam-um othhe poradhu illa :x :P

(bear with the "orumai" :lol: )

[Nerd]

But maddy the point here is the nuke deal will progress *smoothly* now which I think is more important :P

[crajkumar_be]

BJP, Cong, Left, BSP, SP - all evils of varying degrees... aanaa ivangala ellam vida U.S-a nenachaa thaan :shaking:

[joe]

ஆதரவு = 275 எதிர்ப்பு = 256

கதம்..கதம்! :)

[app_engine]

Interesting remarks by PM :

""They wanted a veto over every single step of negotiations which is not acceptable, They wanted me to behave as their bonded slave," the Prime Minister said. "

http://www.timesnow.tv/NewsDtls.aspx?NewsID=11875

[MADDY]

But maddy the point here is the nuke deal will progress *smoothly* now which I think is more important :P

:exactly: - though i hate congress as much, this deal was vital :)

[selvakumar]

BJP, Cong, Left, BSP, SP - all evils of varying degrees... aanaa ivangala ellam vida U.S-a nenachaa thaan :shaking:

'We shouldn't be afraid of US for everything'
- Statement from the current West Bengal CM sometime ago :P

[app_engine]

Question -

Does this vote mean "policy support" for the nuke deal or simply a number game based on other political compulsions?

[MADDY]

Question -

Does this vote mean "policy support" for the nuke deal or simply a number game based on other political compulsions?

SP is supporting the nuke deal......others who have voted for UPA, now cant back out saying, we wont support the deal :P ....it shuld be taken as a vote "for the deal" :D

[ajithfederer]

Ennayum unga listla sethukonga :lol2:. Sollavae vendamnnu solreengala :oops: :yessir:


UPA :victory: :yes: :yessir:

adhu eppadi, nokkum nekkum endha vishayam-um othhe poradhu illa :x :P

(bear with the "orumai" :lol: )

[P_R]

ஆதரவு = 275 எதிர்ப்பு = 256
Planning sariyillai. They overachieved the target. thanda selavu.
vikkira vilaivAsikku sikkanamA irukka vEndAmO !

[MADDY]

Ennayum unga listla sethukonga :lol2:. Sollavae vendamnnu solreengala :oops: :yessir:


UPA :victory: :yes: :yessir:

adhu eppadi, nokkum nekkum endha vishayam-um othhe poradhu illa :x :P

(bear with the "orumai" :lol: )

aamaa aaama :)

[ajithfederer]

:twisted: :evil:
We will meeeet...meet...meeet in sports seksan today :)


Ennayum unga listla sethukonga :lol2:. Sollavae vendamnnu solreengala :oops: :yessir:


UPA :victory: :yes: :yessir:

adhu eppadi, nokkum nekkum endha vishayam-um othhe poradhu illa :x :P

(bear with the "orumai" :lol: )

aamaa aaama :)

[app_engine]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121672514943973317.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Wall street journal says that even now there is only "slender" chance that the nuke deal can go through. :?

[app_engine]

ஆதரவு = 275 எதிர்ப்பு = 256
Planning sariyillai. They overachieved the target. thanda selavu.
vikkira vilaivAsikku sikkanamA irukka vEndAmO !

:lol:

[ajithfederer]

The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9663/

[joe]

Rahul's speach
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/69350/rahul-praises-vajpayee-in-lok-sabha-speech.html

[mgb]

Question -

Does this vote mean "policy support" for the nuke deal or simply a number game based on other political compulsions?
nothing do with the policy.. it is just for and against the government

[app_engine]

http://dailythanthi.com/article.asp?NewsID=427468&disdate=7/24/2008

Those who "supported" nuke deal despite party whip(s) :wink:

[mgb]

[tscii:cf0624da87]From Times of India:

NEW DELHI: Nothing much happened in Parliament on Tuesday. Except that a bunch of BJP MPs held up bundles of 1,000 rupee notes before the House and claimed they had been offered the amount to vote against their own party.

Except that a BSP MP claimed that a CBI officer had met him at his residence in the morning, urged him to vote in favour of the motion and threatened him and his party members with dire consequences if they didn't. Except that an RJD MP claimed that a senior BJP leader had met him in jail and offered him a deal.

It was indeed a day of the bizarre. But thank god, there was Lalu Prasad. And there was his rustic humour. Lalu's preference for using Bollywood to illustrate a point is well known. Long ago, the RJD boss is said to have remarked that he intended to make Bihar's roads as smooth as the cheeks of Hema Malini. It is another matter they became far worse than Om Puri's cheeks during his reign as Bihar chief minister.

On Tuesday, Lalu used Bollywood songs to describe his relationship with the Left. He said, Sau saal pehle mujhe tumse pyaar thha, aaj bhi hai aur kal bhi rahega from the old Dev Anand hit, ‘ Jab Pyaar Kisi Se Hota Hai’ (1961) much to the merriment of fellow MPs.

Lalu also described the Left's attitude towards UPA with the following song: Tum agar mujhko na chaho to koi baat nahin , tum kisi aur ko chahogi to mushqil hogi from the old Raj Kapoor hit, Dil Hi To Hai (1963).

The RJD leader also dipped into the world of Bhojpuri proverbs to declare his dilemma and split loyalties between the UPA and the Left. Roughly speaking, the proverb went, "I love my son, I love my husband, who do I swear by?" Lalu also recounted the story of the ancient Sanskrit literateur, Kalidas, who is known to have been sitting on a branch and chopping it.

Lalu brought the house down by admitting that he “nursed a desire to become Prime Minister just like some of other fellow Lok Sabha members such as Mulayam Singh and Mayawati”. And he was extremely sarcastic with George Fernandes, the veteran JD (U) MP from Muzaffarpur. "George Fernandes saheb, aap tukur tukur kya dekh rahein hain. Aapne Mulayam, Lalu ko Samajwad ka patth pahdaya (Mr George Fernandes, why are staring like that on the other side. After all, you taught us about socialism)." :rotfl:

Many speakers got interrupted, shouted down or simply ignored. But when Union railway minister Lalu Prasad warmed up in his speech during the confidence vote debate, Lok Sabha either heard in rapt attention or stopped themselves from rolling on the aisles with laughter. :thumbsup:

Lalu took digs by the dozen at the Opposition that included, for a change, both the BJP and the Left. As a matter of form, he began with lavishing praise on the Prime Minister and UPA chief Sonia Gandhi, saying, "They have taken a very courageous step. It's very bold of the PM to seek a trust vote on one's own choice."

But soon, he was taking jibes at the Left parties whom he compared with the legendary poet Kalidas. "By withdrawing support to the UPA, they've cut the very branch they were sitting on," :rotfl: :thumbsup: Lalu said, as the House broke into laughter. "Leftists' ideology isn't Indian," he said, "It's from a foreign country. Our ideology is the ideology of Gandhi Baba."

Lalu continued in same fashion, "The Left wanted to go its way; it was their choice. In marriages these days, there's always a possibility of divorce," he said. Then, recalling an old Hindi film ditty, he trilled, "Tum (Left) agar humko na chaho toh koi baat nahi, tum agar kisi aur ko chahogi toh mushkil hogi ."

That had even the Comrades in splits. In between, he turned his attention towards the BJP and the leader of the Opposition L K Advani, saying everybody wants to be PM. "Advaniji is trying.. but he lacks the stature of Vajpayee," he said.

When interrupted from the BJP benches, Lalu hastened to add, "Everybody wants to be PM. Mayawati, Mulayam Singhji want to be PM. Even I, Lalu Prasad, wants to be PM, but I am in no hurry." :rotfl: Those on treasury benches cracked up on that one.

A master of oratorical cadences, Lalu then said, "In this country, no one wants a backward or a minority to be Prime Minister; Manmohan Singhji is of course an exception."

Criticising the BJP's stand on the nuclear deal, Lalu said, "L K Advani did not speak a word in criticism of the nuclear deal or even America. He only spoke about Hindutva. Now we have to take the fight into the camp of the communalists," he thundered. Some immodest self-praise followed: "We have 24 MPs, but we've never pressured the prime minister or Sonia Gandhi to get the CBI cases against me and my wife withdrawn," he said. Rabri Devi, watching a vintage Lalu perform from home, would have approved.

His final words were in shape of an exhortation to the Speaker to not cross the six o clock deadline he had set for the vote.

" Rakshashas (demons) are always vanquished at gau bela (dusk, when the cows return to their sheds). I request the Speaker not to delay the trust vote beyond 6pm. Today the enemies will be defeated at dusk," he said.

An hour of perhaps unparalleled demagoguery in the Lok Sabha in this session got over to tumultuous applause. [/tscii:cf0624da87]

[sriranga]

Ideally, BJP, who started the negotiations for the deal with the US, shud have supported the deal or at best shud have abstained citing the poor performance of the government in the last 4 years.

The only reason they voted against the government may be was to find their own MPs who were favoured by the deal ( i didn't mean the nuclear deal).

It is clear that the BJP now has the high moral ground and the cross voting proves that money has indeed played its part.

Dr. Manmohan singh can't be called Mr. clean anymore.
He cud've resigned and went for the people's mandate once he lost the left's support.

[mgb]

sriranga.. you are pushing for a political debate here.. i am not sure we can discuss that in this forum

[sriranga]

sriranga.. you are pushing for a political debate here.. i am not sure we can discuss that in this forum

parliament -la pannavendiyavangale seriya pannala...
naan vandhu.. inga poi...

i have just given my humble opinion.

[joe]

It is clear that the BJP now has the high moral ground
:roll:

[Roshan]

It is clear that the BJP now has the high moral ground
:roll:

adhaan sollittArE avar opinion'nu ;)

[selvakumar]

Looks like the left had expelled the lok sabha speaker.

[joe]

Looks like the left had expelled the lok sabha speaker.

Yes..from the party. But he can continue as speaker ,as congress said.

[selvakumar]

A FWD mail that I read had a perfect chronology of the events right from our 1974 tests and exquisite information on the nuclear deal, our strengths, limitations and why this deal is necessary at least for the *time being* :clap:
If I get sometime, I will post it.

[selvakumar]

http://www.savefile.com/files/1690312

[app_engine]

The nuke deal has been approved by U.S. senate and Rice is going to India to sign...

http://voanews.com/english/2008-10-02-voa35.cfm

[app_engine]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/10/stories/2008101060940100.htm

Bush signs the Indo nuke bill into a law.