UPA's ‘pro-U.S. shift’ shameful: Opposition

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by SHASH2K2, Mar 15, 2011.

?

Is opposition right with its charge on UPA ?

  1. yes

    4 vote(s)
    57.1%
  2. no

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. not sure

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    UPA's ‘pro-U.S. shift’ shameful: Opposition


    Publication of Wikileaks reports suggesting that a “U.S. tilt” was visible in the Indian Cabinet reshuffle of 2006, today prompted the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha to allege that the pro-American shift by the UPA government was a “shameful” act.
    CPI(M) members in the Rajya Sabha raised the issue and said the Wikileaks cable quoted the U.S. Ambassador in India David C. Mulford as saying that there was “undeniable pro-American tilt” in the then Cabinet reshuffle.
    The CPI-M members, led by P. Rajeeve and Brinda Karat, said Mr. Mulford had described change in the Petroleum portfolio as a “determination to ensure that U.S.-India relations continue to move ahead rapidly.”
    The matter was raised during Zero Hour by Rajeeve, who said that Mani Shankar Aiyar, seen by the U.S. as “contentious and outspoken Iran pipeline advocate”, was replaced by “pro-U.S.” Murli Deora.
    He said a chain of U.S. embassy cables reveal the pro-U.S. position of the Indian government on several issues.
    Amid shouts of “shame” Mr. Rajeeve said America felt the net effect of the cabinet reshuffle was “likely to be excellent for the U.S. goals in India (and Iran).”
    The CPI(M) member, supported by his party colleagues as well as the BJP and Shiv Sena, said there was also a reference in the cables to the inclusion of Saifuddin Soz, Anand Sharma, Ashwani Kumar and Kapil Sibal “with strong pro-U.S. credentials“.
    They revealed that India was not ready to share the details of investigations into 26/11 Mumbai attack with Pakistan initially. But after continuous pressure (from the U.S.), the Home Minister agreed to share the information, he said.
    The U.S. quotes about “Kerala Mafia” in PMO also provoked members to shout slogans “shame on the government”. They demanded a response from the government, but it was not acceded to by Deputy Chairman K. Rahman Khan.
    Citing rules, Mr. Khan did not allow members to seek response from the government.
    “Today members are breaking all rules. This is not the way,” Mr. Khan said adding the Chair cannot ask the government to respond to Zero Hour mentions.
     
  2.  
  3. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Check the PM

    Under Manmohan Singh, India risks becoming a US cheerleader in the UN Security Council, warns N.V.Subramanian.

    2 March 2011: While India's foreign policy mostly has been prime minister-driven, the dangers emanating from that are more now than perhaps anytime before.
    The opposition which has got the UPA government in the dock on corruption and rising prices has neglected the increasing pro-US tilt of prime minister Manmohan Singh. It must act before it is too late.
    Although Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, P.V.Narasimha Rao and A.B.Vajpayee, to name the country's most significant prime ministers, made seminal foreign-policy decisions, their successes/ setbacks were determined/ contained by two factors.
    Because all of them were consummate politicians, intimately aware of the needs of their country, and cognizant of their limits, their decisions came out of deep understanding. Their risks usually were well-considered.
    Also, India was barely rising in most of their collective tenures except perhaps in the last years of Vajpayee's term. The capacity of India to impact the world and to be impacted in turn was much less than it is now, when the stakes have grown, and when this country and China are admired/ dreaded in the same breath.
    The present trouble is that Manmohan Singh is the weakest prime minister at a time when India is strongest since Independence. This contradiction is well-known and has been explained before.
    For example, India's rise is strictly on account of its entrepreneurial genius, for which no government, least of all the UPA administration, can take credit. Indeed, corruption and uncontrolled inflation are denting this rise.

    The reasons for Manmohan Singh's weakness are also well-advertized. He has no political base of his own and it is principally for this reason that he was selected by Sonia Gandhi for prime-ministership.
    The disastrous fallouts of his weak prime-ministership are all too evident now to bear repetition.
    Because he has no say in domestic affairs, Manmohan Singh was given some compensatory liberty in foreign policy-making. Since the PM is uniformly mocked and scorned in domestic political circles (forget the opposition, even Congress heavyweights poke fun at him), he pines for adulation abroad.
    Some adulation genuinely comes for his international standing as an economist (although that has taken a knocking with absent solutions for India's rising inflation and peaking supply deficits). But a lot is flattery that Manmohan Singh is unable to discern and reject.
    The Punjabi baley-baley-let-us-bhangra act would not move Pranab Mukherjee, for instance. But the Pakistan prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, succeeded with that and landed Manmohan Singh in a major foreign-policy embarrassment with their Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement. To Manmohan Singh's ignominy, the Congress party dissociated from his statement.
    Alongwith the Pakistanis, the Americans have realized Manmohan Singh's weakness for flattery. Apparently, the PM cannot get over his "indebtedness" to president Barack Obama for addressing Parliament, where he lectured India against trucking with the Burmese dictatorship, forgetting the shameful US record in the Middle East, where the chickens are coming home to roost.

    A politician would be immune to flattery. Foreign flattery never worked with Indira Gandhi, Narasimha Rao or Vajpayee, who adroitly sidestepped American pressure to deploy troops in Iraq and to sign the CTBT after the 1998 test.
    On the other hand, Manmohan Singh bends to please the Americans.

    For instance, defence circles are shocked and outraged in the manner American companies, especially Boeing, are squeezing the government for fighter-jet, military helicopter, howitzer and other deals. In some cases, pressure directly is coming from the PMO.
    While the Union defence minister, A.K.Anthony, is personally clean, he is tolerating rampant corruption among his officers. Secret product files and trial reports are leaking from Anthony's ministry. For some reason, the opposition has turned a blind eye to all this.
    What specially worries this writer in the gamut of Indo-US relations are two areas: Pakistan and the UN Security Council. On Pakistan and particularly the Bombay-carnage investigations, the US is willing to sell Indian interests down the Indus.
    According to press reports, in return for Raymond Davis, the US will give sovereign immunity to the ISI chief, Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, in the New York trial initiated by relatives of victims of the Bombay carnage.
    This is of a piece with scandalous US actions related to David Coleman Headley, the Lashkar-e-Toiba scout for the Bombay carnage.
    And under US pressure, India reengages Pakistan which obstructs credible court trial of the Pakistani Bombay-carnage terrorists.

    The second issue relates to India's two-year UN Security Council stint which is presumably the launching pad for eventual permanent membership. This writer fears that India under Manmohan Singh will be unable to resist US pressure to support in the UNSC its reckless interventionist actions abroad.
    Despite its disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is gearing up for an invasion of Libya using its mad dictator's savagery as an excuse. Once foreign troops intervene, the Iraq story will repeat. Libyans will forget their immediate cause for a time, embrace ultra-nationalism, and turn against the occupiers. The Al-Qaeda will emerge strongly.
    It is not possible for India to stop an insane invasion such as this. But in the UN Security Council, it must actively and vehemently resist it. France is already speaking out against an invasion.
    The point of writing this is that the Indian opposition should wake up to the dangers of Manmohan Singh's unbridled pro-US policies and to restrain him in the UN Security Council.
    On India's two-year UN Security Council record, much will ride. India's future lies in rising peacefully, and this has to be advertized in the UN Security Council for the entire world to see.
    Manmohan Singh is not a politician. He does not have the sagacity of his prime-ministerial predecessors. On every foreign-policy step he seeks to take, Manmohan Singh should be examined, cautioned and checked, if necessary, by the opposition.
    Much is at stake. Much can go horribly wrong.

    N.V.Subramanian is Editor, www.NewsInsight.net, and writes internationally on strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: [email protected].
     
  4. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Cross-posting from another thread................

    In US footsteps

    India shockingly passed up an opportunity in the IAEA to confront the China-Pak nuclear deal, says N.V.Subramanian.

    11 March 2011: Looking for direction from the United States on the China-Pak nuclear deal, India dug its own grave in the IAEA days ago. The IAEA board of which India is member unanimously passed the safeguards agreement between China and Pakistan for the Chinese sale of two nuclear reactors to Pakistan.
    At least one Asian power historically opposed to nuclear weapons/ proliferation and which is threatened by China in East Asia was prepared to resist the China-Pakistan safeguards agreement provided India took the initiative at the IAEA. After some initial hesitation on the part of prime minister Manmohan Singh, India had taken to agitating against the Pak-China deal especially with the United States and other Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) countries.
    The US that refused a nuclear deal like that with India to Pakistan because of its scandalous proliferation record at first vetoed Chinese reactor exports to Pakistan. China says its present exports are grandfathered from its nuclear deal with Pakistan before it joined the NSG. But this is untrue and nobody believes it.
    After making preliminary objections, the US has gone soft to mum in NSG meetings/ public pronouncements about the China-Pak deal. Other NSG states have shown opposition. But it is the US that really counts. The US needs China to revive its economy, contain Iran and rein in North Korea. America is also dependent on Pakistan for waging the war in Afghanistan. Plus, China has used the Indo-US deal to demand similar concessions for its pact with Pakistan.
    The trouble is that Pakistan is an aggressive nuclear power and congenital proliferator. Its cache of weapons exceeds one hundred and is growing according to independent estimates. It has used its deterrent to prosecute a low-intensity terror war against India. Just one year after becoming a formal nuclear power, Pakistan launched a "limited war" in Kargil.
    And Pakistan singlehandedly has blocked progress on a verifiable FMCT.
    Certainly, several/ most of these postures/ developments/ denouements are outside the control of India. It is also true that the Indo-US nuclear deal is becoming an albatross around the neck that some strategists and this writer warned off and which is delivering less than it promised.
    But for that reason, the nuclear deal cannot be undone.
    Nations sometimes have to live with the blunders they make.
    And yet, nothing justifies India's silence during the IAEA meeting on the Pak-China safeguards agreement. It is nonsense to suggest, as it is beginning to be proposed, that the real opposition has to come in the NSG, which unanimously has to approve the Chinese reactor exports to Pakistan.
    As described in the earlier paragraphs, the real heavyweight in the NSG, the US, will not stand in the way of the Pak-China deal. European/ Scandinavian opposition, if at all, counts for less. Kicking China out of the NSG if it goes ahead with the deal does not enamour the US at all.
    So if the deal is a fait accompli of sorts, was it worth opposing it in the IAEA, to begin with?
    Yes.

    A country has to mark its position, whether or not it wins.
    The Pak-China nuclear deal is against India's interest. If India won't oppose it, why should others? Indeed, the outrage at India's silence was most felt by the Asian power mentioned earlier. It was entirely prepared to come to India's assistance in the IAEA. It wields extraordinary moral traction against nuclear weapons/ proliferation.
    But India's silence left it shocked and stunned.

    It now transpires that the foreign ministry alerted the prime minister's office about the IAEA meeting. The foreign ministry was fully prepared to oppose the deal in the IAEA. But it needed the PMO go-ahead.
    In PMO internal discussions, a view crystallized to support the foreign-ministry position. Insiders say even an order was issued to oppose the China-Pak deal in the IAEA.
    And then, inexplicably, the order never reached the Indian side at the IAEA, despite foreign-ministry reminders. India's calamitous silence on a matter central to its national security was noted all over the world.

    The angry view within a section of administration is that the Manmohan Singh government decided not to take a stand in the IAEA to remain on the right side of the US. Given the slavish pro-Americanism of the prime minister, who shoved the Indo-US nuclear deal down the throat of an unwilling county, that should come as no surprise.
    It appears we have lost the capacity to negotiate the world without American guidance.
    N.V.Subramanian is Editor, www.NewsInsight.net, and writes internationally on strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: [email protected].
     
  5. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    ^^ If this is true, it is a grave matter. I am sure the mainstream media outlets will carry this stuff soon, and people will set right the PMO and the top brass, if any of this is true.
     
  6. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    So, this is the reality of Indo-US friendship. Who is responsible for electing this corrupt government being led by a man who has never won an election? Guess who?
     
  7. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Jaswant: is Indian policy drafted in Washington?


    The Opposition on Tuesday took on the Manmohan Singh government in Parliament and sought a statement from it on the WikiLeaks cables, carried by The Hindu, showing the influence exerted by Washington in shaping New Delhi's foreign policies.

    The issue figured in both Houses of Parliament — with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and others raising it in the Rajya Sabha, and Jaswant Singh (BJP) in the Lok Sabha.

    In the Upper House, P. Rajeev (CPI-M) referred to the reports on U.S. observations on the Cabinet reshuffle undertaken by the government in 2006, India's vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Kerala ‘mafia' in the Prime Minister's Office.

    Citing a remark by the former U.S. Ambassador, David Mulford, who described the change in the petroleum portfolio as a “determination to ensure that U.S.-India relations continue to move ahead rapidly,” Mr. Rajeev said the Americans saw the then Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, as an outspoken advocate of the Iran gas pipeline.

    Amid shouts of “shame,” the MP said Washington felt that the net effect of the Cabinet reshuffle was “likely to be excellent for the U.S. goals in India [and Iran].” Mr. Rajeev was supported by his party colleagues, including Brinda Karat, while some other Opposition members referred to the names of other Ministers cited in the reports as having strong pro-U.S. credentials.

    In the Lok Sabha, participating in the debate on the demands for grants to the External Affairs Ministry, Mr. Jaswant Singh read out extensively from The Hindu on various issues, including the differences of opinion between Dr. Singh and the then National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, on taking action against Pakistan post-26/11 Mumbai attacks.

    Mr. Singh praised the newspaper for exposing the U.S. interest in the country's internal affairs, foreign policy, etc. Reading out the relevant news item, he mentioned about the dropping of the then Petroleum Minister at the behest of Washington.

    If the Prime Minister and the NSA did not see eye to eye, what could the Opposition do, Mr. Singh asked. He wondered whether India's foreign policy was drafted in the U.S. The government should not depend on Washington to resolve issues with Islamabad, he said, and also referred to the increased Chinese assistance to Pakistan in the nuclear field.

    Later, addressing a press conference here, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said the WikiLeaks reconfirmed his party's stand that the UPA government under Dr. Singh was promoting U.S. interests in the country and the region.

    Citing the Cabinet reshuffle to suit American interests and the IAEA voting against Iran, Mr. Yechury said these were matters of grave concern, compromising the country's national sovereignty.

    “We want the government to come clean and it merits a statement by the Prime Minister … we demand a reply from the government which should either say [these reports] are not correct or take action.”
     
  8. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  9. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Onus on PM to rebut pro-US charge



    NEW DELHI: The opposition took the Centre to task in Parliament on Tuesday for its "pro-US" tilt as "gleaned" from the latest tranche of WikiLeaks revelations.

    As more WikiLeaks cables are expected to be published, the government can expect fresh trouble on Wednesday as the Opposition could pick on references to PM's isolation over his Pakistan policy and other divulgences offered by former national security advisor M K Narayanan.

    In the Lok Sabha, senior BJP member Jaswant Singh attacked the government for its foreign policy alleging that it was being framed in Washington. He said, "in its reality is not Delhi . It seems Washington or elsewhere policy is being finalized." Demanding a debate on WikiLeaks, he said, "only then, discussion (on the affairs of MEA) will have some relevance".

    In RS, the CPM members were supported by BJP and Shiv Sena as they made a reference in the cables to the inclusion of Saifuddin Soz, Anand Sharma, Ashwani Kumar and Kapil Sibal "with pro-US credentials" in Cabinet.
     
  10. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,282
    Location:
    BANGalore
    So what's wrong and shameful about the pro US tilt? It's a two way street. India has a lot to gain for being pro US. It has been discussed many times here over a period of time.
    It's the CPM who are perennial whiners. BJP is opposing for the sake of it. It was Jaswant who started the process of tilting towards the US.
     
  11. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    Tilting was by JS fine.. but UPA is bending backwards literally. You can see it clearly in the actions. Being friendly to USA is one thing and bending backwards is another. Any guesses why MRCA is taking so long? Because SH has already been selected under US pressure and right now they are trying to bypass the CISMOA, LSA and other agreements. That's all.

    Super Hornet is the obvious winner with not-so-Singh ... I am sorry, I mean Madam Maino in the seat of power.
     
  12. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    That means another scam in making. I wonder why no news channel has raised or discussed this issue so far.
     
  13. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    We need the US more than they need us. As long as this is a 2 way street, we should be okay with it. The successful Civilian Nuclear Co-operation is one example. US has also shied away from talking about Kashmir even after Pakistan has raked the issue numerous times in International forums. If we go a decade back, we would see the US' pro-Pakistan stand, to US now openly calling Pakistan's bluffs.
     
  14. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    so for sake of this newly found mutually benificial friendship natinal pride and values should be compromised. No one is agsinst Indo USA friendship but friendship it should be based on equality and mutual respect . How many core issues USA has addressed? We got almost nothing when it comes to Pakistan. we are bending backwards to get USA weapons (that too after paying in cash). every second day someone will come out with a statement that MRCA is vital for INDO USA relations.They want to sell us Planes but with such strict conditions that its almost as if its USA Planes that we are allowed only with their permission. While Pakistan has no such restrictions . if its not double play then what it is?
     
  15. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    /\/\/\ I am not saying we should bend backwards. If GoI is doing that, then it's bad. Btw, I am not in favor of US machines in MRCA. Having said that, we still need the US on many fronts. And to be beneficial, it has to be a 2 way street. National Interests should not be compromised for anything.
     
  16. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    can u tell me how many times usa has favoured us as nation except in case of nuclear deal even in which they see a lot of financial benefits to them. us-pak has also started talks for pak-us nuclear deal and in case usa thinks that its has lot of financial benfits then i think usa would go ahead with it.

    even obama only said that he would like to see india as a member in reformed un secqurity council but he didn`t endrose our name for it
     
  17. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Yours is a valid concern Anoop. Having said that, just look 10 years back, and check US' priorities now. It's a matter of time when US abandons Pakistan. It's a matter of time, US recognizes their faulty foreign policy w.r.t Asia. Everything will happen in due course of time, we have to be patient.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2011

Share This Page