Obama's India Visit

[ajtr]

India-U.S. to build strong, strategic defence ties: report​

As U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to visit India, a prominent think tank has said that the two countries would build their strong bilateral defence ties based on the new strategic realities of Asia.

The defence relationship is one of the many bright spots in the overall bilateral relationship, said the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR), a Washington-based think tank.

"It is expected that the United States and India will continue to develop a strong bilateral defence relationship, albeit one that looks less like an alliance than a partnership based on shared goals. U.S. and Indian armed forces will operate together more frequently, and U.S. equipment will be purchased in larger quantities by India, in part reflecting the new strategic realities of Asia and a strengthened U.S.-Indian relationship," NBR said in its report on India.

As the United States and India continue to build their newly strengthened relationship, both partners face challenges in the process, it said adding that in the realm of operational cooperation, greater steps toward embracing integration that would help check maritime adventurism by any other power inevitably will breed concerns about whether Indian foreign policy remains independent.

"Similarly, agreements to provide advanced U.S. military equipment also require agreement to US rules and practices on the use of such equipment that test Indian proprieties and will complicate India's ties with other suppliers of military equipment, including Russian and European companies," the NBR said.

Looming over these bilateral security issues are the differentiated security challenges each country faces in managing complex security relationships with Pakistan and China, it noted.

"Certainly, however, bilateral cooperation on the internal challenges the Indian Armed Forces face-structural reform, domestic counterinsurgency, personnel acquisition and management reform, among others-provides opportunities that might mitigate some of the other challenges as well as help to build longer-term collaborations that will be in both countries' interests," it said.

NBR said India faces a complex strategic environment of both extant and emerging challenges in the region as well as at home.

Indian strategy has emphasised responding by pursuing maximum flexibility in terms of security partners but without diminishing the priority of domestic development.

Further, China looms large in Indian strategic thinking and defence planning. Indian concerns about Chinese infrastructure development in southern Tibet have been matched by force developments in the northeastern provinces that increase the possibility of tension.

Also Pakistan continues to represent the greatest near-term military challenge to India, both in conventional ways and in its use of proxy insurgents.

Moreover, in high-risk scenarios, Indian defence planners see potential Chinese military involvement in an Indo-Pak conflict, which would present a two-front challenge for India, it said.

The think-tank said the US and India continue to make enormous strides toward the type of strategic relationship that befits the status of each as a leading democracy but without pursuing a de facto alliance-like relationship.

Obstacles to closer ties remain, and in developing a productive relationship, these difficulties must be managed in order to fulfill the promise of the relationship, it noted.

Observing that in the developing Indian-U.S. strategic relationship, defense relations are a major component, it said much of this aspect of the relationship centers around increased Indian willingness to buy and integrate U.S. defence systems, a calculation which is affected by both a set of assumptions at the top-level about new political realities and an Indian system that is ill-structured to absorb massive amounts of U.S.-produced systems.

"While arms sales are important, neither side is well-served by a transactional relationship that measures progress toward a strategic relationship by the volume of arms sales," the NBR said.

 

[ajtr]

Obama's India visit should affirm New Delhi's global role​

WASHINGTON: As President Barack Obama prepares for his India trip , a pro-Republican party think tank has asked him to affirm New Delhi's global role and emphasise the significance of the US-India strategic partnership in balancing China's rise in East Asia.

In view of his electoral setbacks, Obama may be tempted to limit his message to one that focuses on India as a destination for US exports and highlights US-India business collaboration.

"While these are indeed important issues, President Obama must also emphasize the broader significance of the US-India strategic partnership in strengthening democratic forces and balancing China's rise in East Asia," said Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation.

Curtis said Obama has often adopted an overly simplistic approach toward US-India trade and economic ties, focusing on India as an economic competitor to the US.

"While clamping down on outsourcing, President Obama has missed the larger story on the benefits to the US economy from increased investment and trade ties between the two countries," she said, refereeing to the investments being done by Indian companies in the US.

"The President's historic visit to India offers an opportunity to set a new course for the direction of the US-India partnership--one that acknowledges India's growing global role and the changing Asian strategic landscape that makes strong US-Indian partnership imperative for stability and prosperity in the region," she said.

Curtis said Obama Administration's South Asia policy has focused a tremendous amount of attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

India, being the stable and prosperous country in the region, has posed much less of a headache for the White House and thus tended to receive less attention.

"The Obama Administration also squandered some goodwill with the Indians early in its tenure by raising the specter of the appointment of a Kashmir envoy to placate Pakistan.

President Obama has since demonstrated a keener understanding of Indian sensitivities on the issue and is more realistic about the limits of any US role in the decades-old dispute," Curtis noted.

Once in India, Curtis said Obama will face tough questions on counter-terrorism front, especially on American handling of the Mumbai terror suspect David Headley case.

 

[ajtr]

Obama may make a big impact or disappoint Indians on UNSC'​

WASHINGTON: Given the sensitivity of Indians on UN Security Council aspirations, US President Barack Obama during his forthcoming visit to India will either make a big positive impact or disappoint it, a former top American diplomat to New Delhi has said.

"Will the President, while he is in India and probably while he is speaking to the Parliament, utter the words, 'The United States supports India's permanent membership in a reformed UN Security Council' or not?

"If he does, it'll have a very, very positive effect on both the people of India, and on the national security elite of India. If he does not, they'll be disappointed," Robert Blackwill, former US Ambassador to India, told reporters in a briefing on Obama's India visit.

"I'm not now going to do the merits of the case on that, but he'll either make a big positive impact or disappoint them," Blackwill said, who currently is Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations - a prestigious US-based think tank.

As Obama arrives in Mumbai later this week on a three-day India visit - his longest overseas trip as the US President - Blackwill said Indians will be watching most carefully for the president's position on the Security Council and on the entities list.

"I think that my prescription would be that he say to the Indian Parliament, which would get them on their feet with rapturous applause, that the US supports India's permanent membership in the Security Council in the context of a reformed Security Council.

"That's a very direct way of saying it. And if he uses more equivocal language, of course, the Indian scribes will take the more equivocal language apart a sentence and a -- or, sorry, a phrase and a word at a time," he said.

"Just to put one more fact forward: Now the US and China are the only two countries that are permanent members of the Security Council that have not endorsed India's membership -- permanent membership in the Security Council.

So, I don't think that's very good company for the US to be keeping on this issue. So I very much hope he'll say that to the Parliament," Blackwill said.

 

[Parthy]

Americas Top official confirms: US to lift hi-tech N-sanctions

The discussions are over, and India and the US are ready with the biggest announcement of President Barack Obama's visit: decontrol of the sale of sensitive equipment to India, and the completion of India's nuclear rehabilitation. "We will be able to make a significant announcement about the
related stories

* Obama takes a hard right from US voters
* Obama and the Right Way
* Delhi, Mumbai gear up for security drills
* Obama backs 'India's rise', but promises little

modernisation of export controls systems between the US and India," secretary of commerce Gary Locke told HT.

He refused to share details, saying: "I am not going to take away from the announcement ... everyone will be pleased by the announcement to be made next week."

HT was first to report (Hi-tech N-sanctions against India may go, October 21) that the removal of sanctions on the sale of dual use technology to India by the US would be announced during Obama's visit. Locke's statement has confirmed this.

The system referred to by Locke is made up of three elements, all related to the fallout of the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998. The US had then reacted swiftly with sanctions.

The first was a blanket ban on sale of dual use tech — equipment with civilian and military use – to India. This was eased subsequently but remained subject to permission.

Second, a number of Indian companies/departments were blacklisted for trade with US firms. Indian space agency ISRO and defence research body DRDO are on that list.

Third, India was excluded from multilateral export control regimes such as the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and Missile Tehcnology Control Regime. The controls refer to a system of licensing required for any US exporter selling dual use equipment to India.

"We know this was of great importance to India," Locke said. "We worked hard on it and have made good progress. I look forward to the announcement."

Outsourcing
Locke also addressed other questions of interest, outsourcing being the most vital. Wasn't Obama's opposition to outsourcing an odd position to take for the president of the US, the leading champion of globalisation and free trade?

"The President understands we live in a global economy," Locke said, "but he has been concerned about not giving US companies tax incentives to ship jobs overseas."

Obama has withdrawn tax concessions to companies with substantial operations overseas. Explaining this, Locke said: "All he wants is a level playing field."

Curbs on FDI
The US has also been pressing India to open up it multi-brand retail market. But there are fears in India that this might put the millions of street-corner grocers out of market. Making reassurances on this front, Locke said: "If US companies are allowed to open up such facilities, they are going to hire people from India.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Top-o...t-hi-tech-N-sanctions/H1-Article1-621896.aspx

 

[Parthy]

hope this will allow India to get some advance technologies from NATO countries.....

 

[ajtr]

Welcome Obama! India Inc is here to help​

MUMBAI: India's outsourcing companies, often blamed for stealing Main Street jobs, want Americans to know: We're hiring in the US

They along with President Barack Obama , who arrives in India's financial capital Mumbai on Saturday, are at pains to reassure the American public that India is here to help the US

On paper, the relationship looks great: Two big markets, two democracies, growing trade. In practice, there's a creeping sense that it may not live up to the hype. India, emboldened by its growing economic importance, is not playing by US rules. And the US, which has lashed out at India's key outsourcing industry even as it funnels billions to its ally in the war on terror _ India's archrival Pakistan _ looks like less of a friend than New Delhi might like.

Many believe business can lead bilateral ties. Obama, weakened by Republican gains in Congressional midterm elections, is bringing 250 US executives including GE chief Jeffrey Immelt and Honeywell's David Cote, which the US India Business Council says is the largest such delegation to ever accompany a president on a foreign visit. The presidents of six universities, including Georgetown and Duke, are also set to come.

Together, they are seeking more than $10 billion in deals. Bilateral trade, on track to hit $50 billion this fiscal year ending March, has more than doubled since 2004. Last fiscal year, India's $11 billion worth of investments in the US matched US investments in India for the first time ever, according to the US India Business Council.

But sentiment has frayed since the two countries signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008. Then-President George W. Bush pushed through that deal, which allowed nuclear trade with India despite its weapons program and seemed to herald a new era of cross-continential commerce.

It hasn't been that simple. The job creating power of India's big, fast-growing market is hampered by its restrictions on foreign access to key sectors like retail, finance, education and insurance. Multinationals are wary of the shape-shifting rules that seem to govern things like taxes and environmental permits in India. And the large defense contracts that headline the wish list of deals for Obama's visit come burdened with offsets and foreign investment caps.

The Americans who accepted outsourcing of IT and back office functions in boom times as a way to free up capital for job creation at home seem less certain of the strategy's benefits during a bust.

With US unemployment at 9.6 percent, India's putative role as a driver of job insecurity has leaked into campaign rhetoric _ Barbara Boxer's attacks on Carly Fiorina for sending Hewlett-Packard jobs to India and China helped her win the California Senate race _ and popular culture alike. NBC's new sitcom, ``Outsourced,'' tells the story of a Kansas City company that sends most of its jobs to India.

Indian companies keep insisting, quietly, that they're not really the problem: If you don't like jobs getting sent overseas, better to direct your anger at major US corporations whose race for low cost competitiveness drives India's $50 billion software services sector.

``We strongly believe the global delivery model is beneficial to customers,'' said Infosys chief executive S. Gopalakrishnan. ``It increases their competitiveness. It reduces costs. It gives them access to a scalable high quality talent pool and to emerging markets. That's why it's growing.''

The US Congress seemed to disagree, hiking visa fees for Indian outsourcing companies by about $2000 per worker in August, provoking howls of discontent here.

``It's tens of millions of dollars,'' said Tata Consultancy Services chief executive N. Chandrasekaran.

The law pinches Indian outsourcers where it hurts, at the heart of the industry's hopes for future growth in its most important global market.

The companies have been trying to diversify into health care and government work and move up the delivery chain to higher value areas like consulting. All require workers, with visas or US passports, in the United States.

Many here fear the backlash will get worse by the 2012 elections, barring a turnaround in the US labor market.

Indian outsourcers _ and their clients in corporate America _ are happy to move jobs to the US as long as it doesn't disrupt their low-cost business model.

That translates into very few jobs. Lobby group Nasscom says India's software services exporters have created 35,000 high-paying US jobs in the last five years.

Industry leader Tata Consultancy Services is looking to hire 1,000 Americans this fiscal year. Less than one percent of its global work force are American, according to company data.

Infosys is also looking to hire 1,000 Americans. Its 1,600 permanent US employees _ not counting an additional 600 or so who work for two US subsidiaries _ make up 1.3 percent of the company's global work force.

``We can't replace all the people from here with people from the United States and have the same value proposition,'' said Chandrasekaran.

From the US side, perhaps most disillusioning is a law passed by India's parliament that extends liability to the suppliers of nuclear plants, making it difficult for private companies to compete against their state owned French and Russian peers in India's multibillion dollar nuclear reactor build-out.

``There has been a reality check,'' said Stephen Cohen, a South Asia security expert at the Brookings Institution.

Backers of the civil nuclear deal in Washington, he said, ``made believe India was a true ally and would never let us down.''

US India Business Council president Ron Somers said India's signing last week of an International Atomic Energy Agency convention on liability is a step forward and will require Indian laws to conform to international norms, which do not make private companies liable unless there is malfeasance.

Even India's purchase of 10 Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, expected to be finalized during Obama's visit, will probably be worth less than the anticipated $5.8 billion because of fewer add-ons, said Guy Anderson, lead analyst at Jane's Defence Industry.

India is second only to China in ramping up military procurement, making it an attractive market for US defense companies. But the bureaucracy is so inefficient the government doesn't manage to spend the money earmarked for military procurement each year, and Russia still dominates sales in a country where some, especially in the older generation, continue to regard US intentions with skepticism.

Somers says naysayers are too impatient and points out that from 2007 to 2009, the US sold India $4.3 billion worth of defense equipment _ a huge jump from the $342 million sold from 2001 to 2006.

``We've come a long way,'' he said.

 

[rcscwc]

Obama

If Indians are in right senses, they would refuse to be bowled over by Obama. They should make an objective assessment of what Obama has done for or against India. List of pros is nearly empty, that of cons is quite long.



1. During his campaign, he had projected himself against outsourcing.



2. After taking over, he is trying to impose additional taxes on the cos which outsource their business.



3. He tried to appoint himself as a broker on Kasmir issue.



4. He has offered support for a UNSC seat, minus Veto right. But the price is high, Kashmir. Today Kashmir, tommorrow NE.



5. He has been arming Pakistan and pouring funds into it.



6. His govt did not share vital intelligence with India.

 

[vikramrana_1812]

34 US warships to guard Obama in India



Read more: 34 US warships to guard Obama in India - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...n-India/articleshow/6871415.cms#ixzz14JL5Z1Pl​

NEW DELHI: The White House will, of course, stay in Washington but the heart of the famous building will move to India when President Barack Obama lands in Mumbai on Saturday.

Communications set-up, nuclear button, a fleet of limousines and majority of the White House staff will be in India accompanying the President on this three-day visit that will cover Mumbai and Delhi.

He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.

Arrangements have been put in place for emergency evacuation, if needed.

Obama is expected to fly by a helicopter -- Marine One -- from the city airport to the Indian Navy's helibase INS Shikra at Colaba in south Mumbai.

From there, he will drive down in Lincoln Continental -- the Presidential limousine -- to the nearby the Taj Hotel.

Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obama's convoy.

Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.

The President will have a security ring of American elite Secret Service, which are tasked to guard the President, along with National Security Guards (NSG) and personnel from central paramilitary forces and local police in Mumbai and Delhi.

Similar arrangements will be in place in Delhi, with the Air Force One to be kept in all readiness throughout Obama's stay here from Sunday afternoon to Tuesday morning.

Maurya Hotel, where the President will stay, has already been swarmed by American security personnel and protective measures have been put in place.

Security drills are already been carried out at the hotel as well as Rajghat which he will visit.


Read more: 34 US warships to guard Obama in India - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...n-India/articleshow/6871415.cms#ixzz14JL8hqtP
​

 

[Agantrope]

Poor coconut farmers
Coconuts removed in India ahead of Obama visit

Officials in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay) have taken extraordinary measures to protect US President Barack Obama ahead of his visit.

In their effort to provide maximum security in the run-up to his visit on Friday, they have removed coconuts which may fall on his head from trees.

All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum have now been cut down, an official told the BBC.

Every year in India people are injured or even killed by falling coconuts.
'Why take a chance?'

Mani Bhavan, where Mahatma Gandhi stayed during his freedom struggle against the British, is among five places the US president is visiting apart from a school, college and hotels attacked by Islamic militants in 2008.

"We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Mani Bhavan's executive secretary, Meghshyam Ajgaonkar, told the BBC.

Mahatma Gandhi has been cited by the president as an inspiration to him - he has a portrait of the independence leader in his senate office.

President Obama once famously said that he would like to have had dinner with Mr Gandhi.
President Barack Obama No stone has been left unturned by the authorities to guarantee Mr Obama's safety

Heavy security arrangements and preparations are going on in the city which also celebrates the religious festival of lights, Diwali, during the president's visit.

Mani Bhavan is a two-storey building in south Mumbai, housing a museum, a research centre and a room where Mahatma Gandhi stayed. Today it is a tourist attraction.

Mr Ajgaonkar said the building was ready to receive the president and had been recently painted and renovated.

It will be closed on 5 and 6 November for security reasons.

Last week American security officers inspected Mani Bhavan and its surroundings along with other places the president is likely to visit.

This is seriously too much. Then whats next, ask all the crows not to eat and sh*t around???

 

[ajtr]

This is seriously too much. Then whats next, ask all the crows not to eat and sh*t around???

empty Mumbai of mumbaikars.

 

[vikramrana_1812]

US bomber aircrafts to escort Obama's plane in Mumbai



Read more: US bomber aircrafts to escort Obama's plane in Mumbai - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Mumbai/articleshow/6871962.cms#ixzz14KgrPxm5​

MUMBAI: Movement of aircraft will not be allowed at the Mumbai airport six minutes before and after the flight carrying US President Barack Obama lands.

"Normally during a VVIP visit, no flight movement is allowed three minutes prior to landing and three minutes post landing. But during Obama's visit, this period may be extended to six minutes before and six minutes after the aircraft lands," airport sources said.

They said that as per the plan so far, no clearances would be granted to any flight either to land or take-off during that period.

Even taxiing of aircraft will not be allowed till the US President's plane has been fully evacuated, they said.

Two US Airforce Jumbos and four helicopters, which have surveillance and bombing capabilities, have already landed at the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport ahead of the VVIP visit.

However, the sources said civil aviation authorities here were yet to receive a formal communication about the American President's flight schedule.

"So far we have not received any formal communication about Obama's flight schedule. We hope to receive it by tomorrow," the sources said.

In the case of such a high level visit, the air traffic control and other related agencies are informed of the flight schedule at least 24 to 48 hours in advance, they added.

Read more: US bomber aircrafts to escort Obama's plane in Mumbai - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Mumbai/articleshow/6871962.cms#ixzz14Kgu5YMf

​

 

[ajtr]

Opening Up India's Higher Ed Market – Another Action Item for Obama​

November 3, 2010, 10:31 am

By Ben Wildavsky
When President Obama arrives in India in a few days, he'll have plenty of pressing issues to discuss — the Afghan war and the future of Pakistan notable among them. I was pleased, though, to see that his official schedule includes a town hall meeting with university students. Here's hoping the president says at least a few words about the urgency of opening up India's higher ed market to the foreign providers who are clamoring to get in.

As an article in Time explained recently, India's "famously exasperating mix of politics and regulations" has made it very hard for U.S. institutions to gain entry. While other sectors of the country's economy have opened up to foreign trade and investment in recent decades, helping spur India's remarkable boom, protectionism is alive and well when it comes to higher education. Foreign universities can't operate independently, despite the huge appetite that exists for their offerings in a nation short on university places — and sorely in need of higher-caliber postsecondary institutions.

Unable to establish full-blown branch campuses, many Western institutions have entered into partnerships with Indian universities. They often join forces with fast-expanding private colleges, some of dubious quality, in an effort to sidestep the regulatory hassles that come when working with public universities. Even then, unpredictability is the rule. When I was working on The Great Brain Race, I visited the S.P. Jain Institute of Management and Research in Mumbia, a well-regarded institution that was running a joint degree program with Virginia Tech. By the time I was fact-checking the manuscript a year and a half later, I discovered that the program had closed down, the victim of overzealous government regulators.

Now, as Time reports, Virginia Tech is hoping to build a full-blown campus in Southern India. But the going will likely be tough. A bill heralded as throwing open the nation's doors to foreign universities was passed by India's cabinet earlier this year. Since being introduced in Parliament in May, however, it has hit numerous roadblocks. Among other challenges, the Indian Council of Universities, which has 60 members, has come out in opposition to the legislation, saying that it is unconsitutional.

New partnerships between Western and Indian universities will certainly continue to be launched. Just last week Yale announced that it would work with two elite institutions, the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur and the Indian Institute of Management in Kozhikode, to train university leaders. But much more can be done. The Yale initiative is part of a five-year collaboration between the United States and India known as the Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative. President Obama should take the opportunity of his visit to press India to open its higher ed market more broadly and quickly. Meeting the demand for better access and quality in Indian higher education is a problem that foreign providers can help solve. Yes, an appropriate regulatory framework must be created. But political controversy notwithstanding, removing protectionist barriers isn't just good for Western universities – it's good for the Indian people.

 

[ajtr]

Why Afghanistan could dominate talks with Obama​

Rediff news - Dr Shanthie Mariet D'Souza is a visiting research fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore, and associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses, New Delhi

this visit coincides with a critical stage of America's longest war in Afghanistan. This will occupy much of the behind-the-scenes activity, which essentially is the core of each other's national security concern. President Obama's announcement of an Af-Pak strategy caused a lot of initial concern in New Delhi [ Images ]. Analysts in New Delhi viewed it as a 'reductionist' strategy of containing the conflict at four levels -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan-Pakistan and the unstated goal of improving Indo-Pakistan relations, especially with regard to the conflict over Kashmir [ Images ].

Likewise, Western analysts were not far behind in pointing out to the India-Pakistan competition as detrimental to Afghanistan's stability. There have been increased calls for the US to play a 'mediating role' in the New Delhi-Kabul-Islamabad axis, while remaining oblivious to the fact that the US strategy in Afghanistan, thus far, has been far from successful in its own difficult relationship with Iran and Russia [ Images ].

Of particular consequence has been the increased Iranian role in the Afghan souffle, as a factor to raise the ante for the American presence in its neighborhood. It is becoming increasingly clear that the US will not be able to abandon its role in Afghanistan in a hurry, certainly not by the facile deadline of July 2011. India, which has painstakingly built its image through a network of development aid projects in Afghanistan, many times incurring enormous costs, too remains committed to stay put in that country. Some commonality on the end game in Afghanistan is, thus, bound to emerge.

As the Afghan military stalemate continues, there seems to be some convergence on Indian and American thinking on seeking a political solution. Whereas the US now seems open to negotiations with the Taliban [ Images ], India too has shed its initial reservations and remains supportive of the Hamid Karzai [ Images ] government's peace processes. The main point of divergence, however, remains with Pakistan playing a predominant role in the negotiations.

other point of commonality between India and the US is the need to continue military operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda [ Images ] combine. Even while not being a part of the military campaign, India backs the US and NATO efforts. Given the linkages of the Taliban-Al Qaeda combine with groups like Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ], there has been greater concern of the shifting base of these groups inside Afghanistan. The recognition of this shared threat and means to address these transnational linkages of these groups would figure prominently in the discussions.

What, however, sets India and the US apart is the means employed to seek a final solution to the Afghan conundrum. One crucial area of difference is US 'over' dependence on Pakistan and the almost inexplicable military assistance provided to the Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Capability Fund, without much accountability. A sizeable portion of this aid has augmented the conventional fighting capacity of the Pakistani army vis-a-vis India, even while the aid is primarily directed at the making the latter more counter-insurgent capable.

A new five-year package military aid funding by the US to Pakistan has been increased from $1.5 billion (about Rs 6,750 crore or Rs 67.5 billion) to over $2 billion (about 9,000 crores or Rs 90 billion). The military hardware includes F-16 fighter jets, missiles, laser-guided bomb kits and surveillance drones. These would less serve any counter-insurgency purpose and are more likely to be used in future conventional wars.

Pakistan's geographical proximity with Afghanistan and the location of the much of the Taliban-Al Qaeda's fighting force in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas has turned it into an invaluable asset and a key ally of the US. However, the Pakistan army's [ Images ] tactical avoidance of targeting the Pakistan Taliban, from whom India perceives greater threat, leaves much of Indian concerns unaddressed.

Pakistan continues to remain a puzzle for American and Indian policy-makers. Given the futility of dealing with a belligerent Pakistan army and a weak civilian government, both could engage various constituencies in Pakistan in the non-military sphere which includes trade, transit, business and commerce, thereby building on the constituencies of peace. A fallout of the US Af-Pak policy has been attempts by India revive its ties with Iran and Russia. Both countries, traditional allies of India before the latter treaded on the US-led strategy, remain crucial to the long-term stability of Afghanistan.

Although much of India's efforts at regional diplomacy are at an early stage and will find it difficult to make much headway, it can play a role of a 'bridging power' in bringing together the great powers. A regional solution to the Afghan problem still is a viable option and it is here that India becomes relevant. India, positioned in a difficult neighbourhood, has the potential of playing an important role in the regional diplomacy.
Even though the Obama administration keeps talking about this possibility, it appears clueless how to go about it. This American difficulty can be eased by active Indian diplomacy and projection of its ability. While in India, Obama can certainly explore such possibilities.

In the eyes of the Afghans, India is a friend. Even while not sharing a direct border and having no ethnic affiliation with the Afghans, India is still seen as impartial. India's aid and developmental activity is well received. One hears chorus of the need of greater Indian aid even in Jalalabad, bordering Pakistan. This author's recent discussions with the Governor of Nangahar, Gul Agha Sherzai, during an Indo-Afghan musical concert hosted at his palace brought to light the greater need for India's reconstruction activities ranging from restoration of cultural ties to greater economic development. This finds resonance among the locals who ask for unveiling of big projects like roads, dams, cold storage to access to health services.

Expectations on India are, thus, big. This feel good factor which India generates in Afghanistan can emerge as an inalienable part of the 'build and transfer' component of present counter-insurgency strategy of the US and the NATO. In addition to the guns and the smoke, such soft power must be factored into the present counter-insurgency strategy. Hopefully, Obama will have the vision and determination to make a new beginning.

 

[ajtr]

India-U.S. to build strong, strategic defence ties: report​

The Hindu

"It is expected that the United States and India will continue to develop a strong bilateral defence relationship, albeit one that looks less like an alliance than a partnership based on shared goals. U.S. and Indian armed forces will operate together more frequently, and U.S. equipment will be purchased in larger quantities by India, in part reflecting the new strategic realities of Asia and a strengthened U.S.-Indian relationship," NBR said in its report on India.

"Similarly, agreements to provide advanced U.S. military equipment also require agreement to US rules and practices on the use of such equipment that test Indian proprieties and will complicate India's ties with other suppliers of military equipment, including Russian and European companies," the NBR said.

"Certainly, however, bilateral cooperation on the internal challenges the Indian Armed Forces face-structural reform, domestic counterinsurgency, personnel acquisition and management reform, among others-provides opportunities that might mitigate some of the other challenges as well as help to build longer-term collaborations that will be in both countries' interests," it said. NBR said India faces a complex strategic environment of both extant and emerging challenges in the region as well as at home.

Obstacles to closer ties remain, and in developing a productive relationship, these difficulties must be managed in order to fulfill the promise of the relationship, it noted. Observing that in the developing Indian-U.S. strategic relationship, defense relations are a major component, it said much of this aspect of the relationship centers around increased Indian willingness to buy and integrate U.S. defence systems, a calculation which is affected by both a set of assumptions at the top-level about new political realities and an Indian system that is ill-structured to absorb massive amounts of U.S.-produced systems.

"While arms sales are important, neither side is well-served by a transactional relationship that measures progress toward a strategic relationship by the volume of arms sales," the NBR said.

 

[ajtr]

President Obama's passage to India​

The US and India are natural allies, but realism must shape this summit against a backdrop of American overreach in the region

Some years ago, I was queried by then US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who was helping to prepare President Bill Clinton's visit. As India's foreign minister at the time, I told him: "Why make the visit destinational? Be content with the directional," or some such words. That response retains its flavour today: as new directions in India-US relations are set, new destinations will follow.

All state visits are overloaded with lofty, superfluous rhetoric. US-India summits are particularly prone to this hubris: the Great Republic meets the world's Largest Democracy. It would be better for both countries to shed some of these marigold garlands of cloying adjectives.

Another feature of such summits – the trading of lists of "must do" and "can do" items – also should be retired. It is both demeaning and tedious to treat an arriving US president as a stars-and-stripes Santa Claus, to be presented with lengthy wishlists. Likewise, despite America's pinched economic circumstances, Obama would do well not to use his visit to peddle US wares. Although trade is an effective lubricant of good relations, these sorts of talks are for the "sherpas", not President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to handle.

India must make clear – and the US must recognise – that a subcontinental country of a billion-plus people cannot be kept within the categorical confines of "South Asia". The US must accept and candidly discuss the damaging consequences of its military, diplomatic and political overreach – of a "war too far" that has brought the region to its current ugly impasse.

Likewise, it would be unwise for the US gratuitously to offer China a role in the affairs of a region that includes India itself – something that Obama appeared to do during his visit to China earlier this year, when he mentioned China as having a role to play in Kashmir. The US should also stop questioning India's relationship with Iran, a neighbour with which India is linked by many centuries of economic, cultural and even civilisational ties.

 

[ajtr]

A To-Do List for Obama in India
The Wall Street Journal - By RICHARD L. ARMITAGE AND R. NICHOLAS BURNS for (Mr. Armitage is president of Armitage International and former Deputy Secretary of State. Mr. Burns is professor of diplomacy and international politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Both serve on the Center for a New American Security's board of directors.)

The transformation of the United States' previously poor relationship with New Delhi over the past decades, led by Presidents Clinton and Bush, stands as one of the most significant triumphs of recent American foreign policy. It has also been a bipartisan success. Today, however, many prominent Indians and Americans fear this rapid expansion of ties has stalled. Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward momentum that characterized recent cooperation—on issues ranging from civil nuclear cooperation, bilateral trade and investment, and expanded military ties—has slowed considerably.

President Obama has a chance to rejuvenate America's relationship this weekend when he travels to the world's largest democracy. He has already taken a few initial steps toward that goal. He hosted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the first state visit of his presidency in 2009. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has launched a new strategic dialogue with India and the Obama administration has signaled it intends to make India a priority in the years ahead on climate change, trade and a host of other issues. But in this summit, the Obama administration now has an opportunity to do much more.

Over the past eight months we have co-chaired a major study at the Center for a New American Security that brought together a nonpartisan group of experts to examine the future of America's partnership with India. Our deliberations were guided by the understanding that the emergence of India as a new major global power will have profound implications for the future trajectory of this century and for America's global interests. In this light, a strengthened U.S.-India strategic partnership is imperative, we believe, for America's own future leadership role

There is a clear opportunity to expand our military relationship, especially with the Indian Air Force and Navy, and to boost defense trade by convincing India to acquire sophisticated U.S. defense technology. The U.S. should also support Indian membership in key export control organizations, which would constitute a step toward integrating India further into global nonproliferation efforts. Finally, the administration and Congress should liberalize U.S. export controls that have an impact on India, including by removing the Indian Space Research Organization (the Indian equivalent to NASA) from the U.S. "Entity List."

The reason for a rejuvenated effort with India is clear: The U.S. has a vital interest in forging a closer strategic partnership with India, ranging from ensuring a stable Asian and global balance of power, strengthening the global trading system, protecting the global commons, countering terrorism, bolstering the international nonproliferation regime, and promoting democracy and human rights. In addition, a strong U.S.-India strategic partnership will prove indispensable to Asia's continued peace and prosperity.

Expanding U.S.-India military and political ties will make it easier for both Washington and New Delhi to have productive relations with Beijing. In addition, a strengthened relationship with India, a natural democratic partner, will help to signal that the U.S. remains committed to remaining the dominant military and political power in Asia in the century ahead.

To achieve these aims, the U.S. should not only seek a closer relationship with India, but actively assist its further emergence as a great power. A strong India working closely with the U.S. on pressing issues such as HIV/AIDS, human trafficking and poverty alleviation has the potential to transform the global landscape in the 21st century in a positive direction. Building this kind of relationship requires, however, a bold leap forward.

This will require India to make a number of commitments and policy changes itself, including taking rapid action to fully implement the Civil Nuclear Agreement, which was agreed by both countries in July 2007 but is not yet operational; raising its caps on foreign investment; reducing barriers to defense and other forms of trade; enhancing its rules for protecting patents and other intellectual property; further harmonizing its export control lists with those of multilateral regimes; and seeking closer cooperation with the U.S. and likeminded partners in international organizations, including the U.N.

Taking action along these lines would go a long way to strengthen the U.S.-India partnership and further India's increasingly vital role in helping the U.S. to address the major global challenges—climate change, terrorism, drug cartels and pandemics—that compose the heart of the 21st century international agenda. President Obama's upcoming visit provides a unique opportunity to make progress on all of these fronts and more. In so doing, the U.S. can demonstrate that it views India as a key American partner at a critical time in this young century. We should not let this opportunity slip by.

 

[ajtr]

Obama's India visit may be more style than substance​

NEW DELHI: A weakened US President Barack Obama visits India this week to counter perceptions he has relegated the Asian power behind rivals China and Pakistan, but he may struggle to seal deals to help usher in billions of dollars of business.

Economic ties are booming but Obama's visit from Saturday to Monday may fail to live up to President Bill Clinton's 2000 trip that helped break the diplomatic ice, or President George W. Bush's visit in 2006 when a civil nuclear deal was hailed as a landmark in ties.

Obama's drubbing in the mid-term elections may also tie his political hands when it comes to bold policy moves on India as growing worries emerge that outsourcing in cities such as IT hub Bangalore is worsening mass unemployment in the United States.

It was a sign of the times that Obama told the Press Trust of India that India should open up its markets to U.S. companies, a stance that may dominate a 10-day trip of Asia aimed at boosting U.S. exports and jobs, crucial for his presidency's fate.

"Obama is going to be too preoccupied domestically, and you won't see a more aggressive foreign policy going forward," said Amitabh Mattoo, professor of international politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

"On his upcoming trip, I think that the best India can hope for is a consolidation of the relationship established under President Bush."

An increasingly confident India wants recognition of its global weight. It wants a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and for the United States to allow exports of dual-use technology, banned after India's nuclear tests in 1998.

India's booming trillion-dollar economy is one of the few a stars in a struggling world economy, offering U.S. investors massive opportunities. There are reportedly more than 200 executives accompanying Obama on his visit to Mumbai and Delhi.

On the agenda will be lucrative defence ties. The United States has held more military exercises with India in the past year than any other country, and U.S. firms Boeing and Lockheed Martin Corp are bidding for a $11 billion deal for 126 fighter jets.

NO BIG BREAKTHROUGHS

A bilateral trade boom has seen total flows treble to $36.5 billion in goods in the decade to 2009-10, but the United States slipped from number one to three in India's trade partners. India lags China, the United States' third-biggest trading partner.

Washington faces a host of hurdles, including Indian worries that signing defence pacts -- which are necessary for the U.S. arms sales to go through -- may land New Delhi in a wider entanglement with the U.S. military.

The civil nuclear deal with the United States was signed to great fanfare, but it struggled through parliament and now the accord has sparked criticism that U.S. companies in the sector will be discouraged to invest due to high liabilities.
Obama has already played down ending a ban on U.S. exports of dual-use technology, telling the Press Trust of India it was "very difficult and complicated" to meet Indian expectations.

Obama may offer some support for India's place for a permanent seat on the U.N Security Council, but he will likely step short of a full endorsement.

"It will be the opportunity to consolidate all that we have built in the past decade," Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was quoted as saying in the Indian Express. "We are not in a stage in our relationship for dramatic breakthroughs and big-bang."

For its part, India will be wary of perceptions it is putting its eggs into one U.S. basket despite Obama's personal ties with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Any sign of India's sovereignty being undermined can rally political opposition against Singh.

Singh leads a coalition of fickle regional allies and his Congress Party has had its roots in statist and non-alignment policies since independence in 1947, policy vestiges that still remain among some of its most powerful politicians.

Singh toured east Asia in October before Obama and announced he would be meeting the Chinese premier in India in December.

In the absence of a Doha trade deal, India spread its wing to negotiating trade deals with the likes of the European Union and, in a mark of economic power moving from west to east, the ASEAN bloc of Southeast Asian nations, Japan and Malaysia.

"India will never put all its eggs in one basket, although the U.S may be the biggest basket of all," said Naresh Chandra, a former Indian envoy to Washington.

India's reluctance to embrace Washington further was perhaps hindered by Obama's first year, when there was a perception his administration was focused more on shoring up a chaotic Pakistan or dealing with China's rise than getting close to the world's largest democracy.

Early campaign talk from Obama that disputed Kashmir should be discussed as part of a wider thrust to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan sparked a storm of criticism in India. He later backed down on the idea.

"Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward momentum that characterised recent cooperation has subsided," the Center for a New American Security said in a report.

"There remains a sense among observers in both countries that this critical relationship is falling short of its promise.

 

[ajtr]

Summit & after ​

Indo-US relations are taking a life of their own, with no help from the Indian and American political leaderships, argues N.V.Subramanian.

London, 3 November 2010: Barring the unseemly haste with which India has signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) with the IAEA, because it contradicts the new Indian law on nuclear liability, and could pose future problems, Delhi has acted with generic sobriety in regard to the upcoming Barack Obama state visit. There is no evidence of the breathless excitement, even though this writer is sitting thousands of miles away, that accompanied the visit of the previous US president, George W.Bush, even if largely in official circles. This is to the good, and it will shortly be explained why.

America is in decline. The decline very likely began, as some would like to argue, when the US lost a strategic rival in the Soviet Union. In terms of Soviet power relative to that of the US during the Cold War, China is still not there, although it is fast trying to catch up. It could be argued with some justification that George W.Bush speeded up the inevitable decline of the US, with one justified war in Afghanistan and a grossly unjustified conflict in Iraq, against a background of American economic ruin brought about by decades of profligate living. It has been Obama's unfortunate fate to inherit this disastrous legacy, and for personal reasons or otherwise, he has not been able to cope with the situation. The situation is by no means easy. But in politics, you cannot fail.

So, basically, it is an unsuccessful US president who is coming to India as opposed to George Bush who never confronted issues of American decline squarely and could, therefore, appear braver than he probably felt. Politics is a cruel game where success means all. The fact that Obama is losing traction with the American people, including with those who voted for him, has coloured perceptions about him before his visit to India and would dog him as well during his longish stay in the country.

This is despite the fact that he has a very understanding and compassionate opposite number in the person of Manmohan Singh. It is an open secret that the Indian prime minister got along brilliantly with George Bush. Part of the reason for their successful chemistry was that in their own way both were naive about issues of foreign and strategic affairs and it helped that Bush was a bold, big-picture president. Obama, on the other hand, although having perhaps tremendous intellectual compatibility with Manmohan Singh, who he looks upon as a sort of economic guru, nevertheless is a cautious plodder, his persevering but basically unattractive caution worsened by the speed, momentum and growing irreversibility of the American decline.

So with Obama short of big ideas to engage India, and obsessed with policy action to return America to growth, prosperity and greatness, and with Manmohan Singh being unable to produce deliverables of his own to propel Indo-US relations further, it is a given that the Diwali visit of the American president will be a tame affair. This writer was nearly the first to analyze so and no developments have intervened to change his mind. But the sobriety of the Indian response to the Obama visit so far does deserve closer scrutiny, because it may conceal a quiet but transformative change in the manner India deals with the big powers. At any rate, this is what this writer hopes this shows.

Call it a legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru's strategic autonomy thinking or the great power mindset incubated with wilful military action by Indira Gandhi, but India reflexively is independent in its dealings with the world. Besides Nehru and Indira Gandhi, and for that matter P.V.Narasimha Rao and A.B.Vajpayee, there are surely non-primeministerial causes and reasons for this autonomy or independence of strategic thought, located in India's culture, society, predominant religion, and so forth. But the fact of the matter remains that this independence (the very soul of Indian democracy, in another part of it) is too deeply ingrained to be altered by momentary changes in political leadership thinking.

For example, there cannot be a more pro-US prime minister in recent times than Manmohan Singh. (Although Vajpayee called the US a "natural ally" of India, he did not believe in his own phrase very much!) But the Indo-US nuclear deal he signed with George Bush was more pro-India than it was originally conceived to be, precisely because of the opposition put up by the BJP, the Left, the nuclear scientific community and strategic analysts, not excluding this writer. There was also resistance in the Indian bureaucracy to giving too much leeway to the Americans, again as a result of the deeply-thought philosophic notion of strategic autonomy/ independence. All of this combined with renewed vigour (besides the dramatically resurrected ghost of Bhopal) to make any concession to foreign nuclear suppliers, chiefly American ones, nearly impossible in the recently-approved nuclear-liability law.

Which is why this writer is sceptical about the rush to sign the CSC. It can only provide cosmetic satisfaction to the visiting president Obama, because when the details are worked out, it would be difficult to reconcile the CSC with the liability law. Manmohan Singh was never a powerful prime minister, but he had some space for strategic action (because of the need to divide the political/ administrative responsibilities with Sonia Gandhi) in his first term. In his second term, as events of the past few months have shown, he is even less capable of having his way than before, because of several confusing developments (which have been sought to be explained by this writer in earlier pieces), but the single-biggest change has been forced by the anticipated accession of Rahul Gandhi to the Indian throne, so to speak. In others words (and this has been said before by this writer), both Manmohan Singh and Barack Obama are proceeding to a summit as spent political leaders, and, therefore, not much should be expected.

But the current characteristics of the two countries they represent cannot be more different, and they trigger their own dynamics. A spent US president is leading a spent United States, or at least an America which is nearly there. On the other hand, there is a weak Indian prime minister leading a rising, resurgent India. So there are forces that are bound to be unleashed during the Manmohan Singh-Obama summit that reflect the differing and perhaps altered positions of the two countries, much as they have been demanding attention for weeks before the American president's arrival. For example, the bold stand of India on the David Coleman Headley scandal, the refusal to get Indo-US defence relations closer than they presently are, which prevent interoperability, joint deployment in the US's foreign wars, etc, the mounting pressure to remove some Indian strategic establishments from the entities' list, the growing clamour to enable India to be a permanent UN Security Council member, and so on. To be sure, successes on specific Indian demands from the US are still far and presently look unreachable. But they have taken on the tenor and sweep of national sovereign expectations, with a life of their own, which no Indian government can overlook or ignore. Surely, these expectations will channelize into national energies to propel India's rise faster, more assuredly, and with greater risks taken.

Indeed, the upcoming Barack Obama-Manmohan Singh meeting and subsequent India-US engagements will be less about a dialogue of respective leaderships and more about a jousting of the two countries. And with a US in decline and India rising, the play will be both unequal and interesting. The advice from this faraway writer is, go, grab the front seat. This is a new beginning for India if we have the sense to realize and appreciate it.

 

[ajtr]

Press 'gaggle' gives US game away​

B.S.RAGHAVAN

The 'gaggle' was apparently meant to brief the US media on the US President, Mr Barack Obama's India visit.

Anyone who submerges himself in all the Niagara of words emanating from the US Administration officials and the think-tanks (again mostly peopled by former Administration officials!) on the visit of the US President, Mr Barack Obama, to India is bound to be left with the definitive conclusion that it is historic, in a class of its own, meant to lift the strategic partnership to stratospheric heights and reflective of the US regarding India as an 'indispensable' ally in shaping the world's destiny. No hyperbole has been left wanting in describing its cosmic significance.

Most sections of the Indian commentariat too have been warming up to this build-up, raising enormous hopes of the relations between the two countries getting on to a soaring trajectory. The picture emerging is one of the US President taking all the trouble to come to pay his tribute to the pivotal role India is playing, and can play, on the world stage.

But what is it that the Americans are saying amongst themselves?

If you go through the transcript of the press "gaggle" that was held on October 27 in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White house ( LINK), you will be startled to know that the purpose of the visit is down-to-earth, earthy. In fact, it is confined to one single objective which is underplayed, if not unstated, in public.

(Incidentally, the word 'gaggle', meaning, among other things, 'a group, aggregation, or cluster lacking organisation, such as a gaggle of reporters and photographers' (according to the dictionary), is not mine but one used in the White House Web site to describe the occasion).

Basically economic

First, the setting. The 'gaggle' was apparently to brief the US media on the President's India visit, bearing in mind the general ignorance about the country that used to prevail till recently, and perhaps still prevails among the hinterland media there. It was attended by the Press Secretary, Mr Robert Gibbs; the Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Mr William Burns; the Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, Mr Mike Froman; and the Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication, Mr Ben Rhodes.

The sum and substance of what they repeatedly gave out as the main, if not sole, purpose of the visit is to promote exports "to ensure that there's a level playing field there, there's open markets (sic) there, and that our exports have an opportunity to penetrate that market and support jobs back here"¦.the President will make clear the importance of removing barriers to US exports and US participation in their market".

The officials were categorical that "the trip is basically economic in focus". As Mr Froman put it, ""¦.with 1.2 billion people and an economy growing — expected to grow at 8 per cent a year for the next several years, we really see India as a potentially very important market for US exports. Exports of American goods have already quadrupled over the last seven years to about $17 billion. And service exports have tripled to about $10 billion a year. So it's a fast-growing economic relationship. And it's a two-way street as well. Indian companies are the second-fastest-growing investors in the US (the first being United Arab Emirates). And they now support about 57,000 jobs here in the US. So it's a great market for US exports. It's a good place — source of investment for the US. There are a lot of jobs in the US tied to both of those things. And that's the reason why the President will be there "¦I would simply say that a key part of the message is going to be that we want to make sure there's opportunities for US jobs, US exports. And that's a big part of his mission there "¦"

Of course, the 'gaggle' referred to issues such as nuclear deal, cooperation on counter-terrorism, climate management, defence matters and the like, but only in passing.

On India's long-desired permanent seat on the Security Council, Mr Burns told the 'gaggle' ""¦the US recognises the significance of looking at ways to adapt international architecture, including the UN Security Council, to reflect the realities of the 21st century. We want to approach that challenge in a way that ensures the effectiveness — and hopefully strengthens the effectiveness — of the Security Council. Given India's rise and its significance, we believe that India will be a central part of any consideration of a reformed Security Council."

Missile defence shield

This was so obfuscatory that the media person was prompted to ask whether there was a 'downside' which he was seeking to hide. Mr Rhodes stepped in to make the response, if anything, more obfuscatory. See what you make of it. Here it is: "It's a very complicated issue that involves international architecture in many countries. But we'll continue to work — to talk this through as we move forward on the trip."
:mrgreen:

The 'gaggle' threw up an intriguing revelation about the signing of an agreement between the US and India on missile defence when a questioner, more inquisitive than the rest, asked about it. It was made more intriguing by the evasive reply of Mr Burns who simply contented himself with saying: ""¦we have a pretty wide-ranging discussion with India about a whole range of issues, and "¦ our defence relationship has expanded quite dramatically in recent years — but (I can say) nothing in particular on missile defence"¦."

Unlike in the case of nuclear deal, the Government has not taken the people into confidence about the implications of the deal between India and the US to jointly build a ballistic missile defence (BMD) shield, incorporating radar and anti-missile missiles, or interceptors, which are able to destroy incoming and possibly nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles possessed by Pakistan and China. Whether the arrangement entered into with the US subjects India's national security to the command, control and operational jurisdiction of a foreign power is a question to which the people are entitled to an answer.

 

[ajtr]

India-US Defence ties — firing on all barrels

Will Indian banks get more counters in US now?

Pharma concerns may not be on Obama's prescription

Limited headway in agriculture

Why healthcare sector is wary of the Obama visit