Indo-US Relations

How is obama in regards to indian policies?

  • good

    Votes: 15 11.6%
  • bad

    Votes: 60 46.5%
  • need more time

    Votes: 54 41.9%

  • Total voters
Not open for further replies.


Regular Member
Mar 29, 2011
Voting on whether or not Obama's relations with India is a hard one. On one hand you can clearly see that the message from Washington has been conflicting, and on the other side of the equation; we have a rogue state (Pakistan) that has nuclear weapons, an army and intelligence agency that is in bed with Al Qaeda/Taliban, and the possibility that if said state collapsed, that those nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of some nihilistic religious extremist. The latter scenario is unthinkable, and would put India, the US, Israel, and many other democratic countries in immediate danger.

In some ways, I can see why America has drones and agents operating there. Unfortunately it's a sick relationship that doesn't appear to be getting better, and leaves India out of the picture diplomatically. In the end I voted that Obama has had more of a negative influence.


New Member
May 10, 2010
Indian book of jobs in US: 60,000 and adding

WASHINGTON: Representatives of 25 Indian blue-chip companies, industry mavens, and diplomats gathered in the guts of the US Congress on Thursday to tell an economically-stricken America that they are "part of the solution, not part of the problem," and that they are creating jobs in the US, not taking them away.

In an extraordinary event that saw more than a dozen US lawmakers embrace Indian businesses in a room deep in the recesses of the US Senate, India Inc presented a checklist of what it was doing for America in troubled times: employing 60,000 people across 40 states, more than four-fifths hired locally; acquisitions worth nearly $6 billion since 2005; hiring thousands of fresh US college graduates; all with the cumulative effect of saving thousands of American jobs.

"Indian businesses remain committed to the US economy in terms of generating direct and indirect jobs to help in the ongoing recovery," said Kiran Pasricha, whose 16-year run as the face of Indian industry's lobbying effort in Washington DC, ending in June on her return to India, was topped off with a 100-page study titled "Indian Roots, American Soil," that examines the remarkable story of the rise of Indian companies in the US economy.

The study chronicles the value Indian companies such as Infosys, Wipro, Larsen and Toubro, Ranbaxy, State Bank of India, Essar, Bharat Forge, HCL, Mindtree, Polaris, and the ever-present House of Tatas and House of Mahindra have brought to the US at a time of much American angst about free trade and flight of jobs. Reps of several of these companies stepped up to the plate to tell lawmakers of the jobs they were creating in their Congressional districts and states in an effort backed by the Indian ambassador Meera Shankar, whose understanding of US-India business dynamics goes back to her stint in Washington as the chief commercial official in the mid-90s.

The Indian claims were immediately endorsed by individual lawmakers, some of whom (like New Jersey's Frank Pallone and Washington state's Jim McDermott) are familiar India hands. But even legislators relatively new to India Inc's baby steps (but growing footprint) in America subscribed to the idea of recovery through Indian investment. Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Congresswoman, was among those who spoke of how a Tata investment in her constituency generated 450 jobs, saved a building from being gutted, and improved the tax base in her district.

It was the kind of positive sentiment that resulted in Congressman Ed Royce ( California) kicking off his remarks with a hearty "Jai Hind" at the meeting organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) over the unusual fragrance in the Senate building of kababs and samosas. America is hurting economically, and US politicians are happy only too happy to embrace help from any quarters, especially a country with democratic credentials and rule of law.

From Essar, whose $ 2.5 billion investment in America, including a $1.3 billion iron ore pellet plant in Minnesota, employs 7000 Americans, to software firms such as L&T Infotech and Polaris (500 and 800 jobs respectively in Edison, New Jersey), Indian companies pitched their wares to US lawmakers all too receptive to Indian investment.

Royce, a co-chair of the India Caucus, spoke feelingly about the kind of "one-way relationship" US business were having with China, a country that he said offered a poorer rate of returns on investment when compared to India, as he pushed for investment also in the other direction – US businesses going into India. The general sentiment of the evening was that, many minor wrinkles aside, the United States and India were onto a win-win situation in terms of two-way trade and commerce, and there is need to keep the doors open rather than closing them.


Regular Member
Apr 30, 2011
Tuesday May 3, 2011
Brookings Institution Press

U.S.-Pakistan: Bad Union, No Divorce

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of Research and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, 21st Century Defense Initiative .

Washington clearly could never have accomplished this combat raid without intelligence gleaned over the years, in part with Pakistan's help.

Yet bin Laden appears to have been living for an extended period in a compound in a town with many Pakistani military officers and retirees who, at a minimum, should have known enough to be suspicious. And U.S. combat helicopters flew over at least dozens of miles of Pakistani territory without telling Islamabad about it beforehand.

It even seems possible that Pakistan had no interest in helping us find bin Laden in recent years.

We knew Islamabad had mixed views about groups like the Haqqani network and Afghan Taliban, who take sanctuary on Pakistani territory. It tolerated them even as those groups killed Americans and others in Afghanistan.

Washington officials always tried to rationalize these actions away because of Pakistan's worries that it would need friends in Afghanistan should the North Atlantic Treaty Organization leave the region before the job there was done.

But tolerating bin Laden—or even looking the other way when he was likely close by—has no defense.

We must, however, resist the impulse to denounce Pakistan and distance ourselves further from its military, intelligence services and civilian government. It has been a rough last few weeks—and, in fact, a rough last few decades—in U.S.-Pakistan relations.

Yet we have no choice but to work together. We are stuck in the geostrategic equivalent of a bad marriage—in a land with no allowance for divorce. The relationship must be worked on, and, to the extent possible, repaired.

Success in Afghanistan and Pakistan does not require perfect harmony between Washington and Islamabad. But it does require as much respect and teamwork as possible.

We have faced far more challenging situations with less savory allies before, and managed to cooperate in past wars.

The extreme example is, of course, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union in World War II. At the time, we tried to believe the best about the country that was fighting Adolf Hitler hard on the east front as the U.S. and Britain gradually prepared their attack from the west. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt called him "Uncle Joe."

We were more than happy to close our eyes when evidence arose about his true character. To work with Stalin was our only choice and it had to be done, even if we perhaps didn't need to fool ourselves quite as much as we did about the man we were dealing with.

Pakistan today is a very difficult partner—and is a far more humane and serious place than was Stalin's Soviet Union. Its leaders are also far more creditable than many of our Cold War allies in places like Zaire, South Africa and even the Philippines.

It is clear, however, that Pakistani officials have collective phobias about India that verge on paranoid at times; a cynicism and mistrust in dealing with Washington; a penchant for conspiracy theory, and, in some cases, blood on their hands from terrorist attacks instigated by Lashkar-e-Taiba or the Afghan insurgent groups mentioned above.

Yet their degree of butchery is far less than of many past U.S. allies. Their internal security challenges are enormous as a result of the insurgency they face on their own soil; and their economic and demographic challenges are monumental. Meanwhile, at least a few of their complaints about India are valid.

All this leads to an ineluctable conclusion: It is time for Washington to rethink and restart the relationship rather than walk away from it.

Indeed, Pakistan's help is needed for any big breakthrough we might hope for in Afghanistan peace talks. Islamabad has been telling Afghan officials to depend on them more, and Washington less, in creating their future security partnerships. This is a blatant effort at bullying—and wrongheaded. But it does not repudiate the fact that Pakistan does have legitimate interests in Afghanistan, and that it can and must be a part of any solution there.

Among the various steps we might consider—even as we also place demands on Pakistan:

U.S. aid projects must be accelerated. Pakistan is wrong to be so unappreciative of the Kerry-Lugar aid bill passed a couple years ago. But we are not doing a good enough job helping Islamabad approve and implement projects that aid is designed to make possible.
Consider a one-time lump-sum aid payment to Islamabad to help it with debt restructuring and relief, recognizing that the financial crisis—which we did more than any other state to cause—had huge repercussions for Pakistan. This offer would, of course, require Islamabad to do something big for us—like move against the Haqqanis or Afghan Taliban sanctuaries on their soil.
Consider a free-trade accord with Pakistan, and bigger energy cooperation. These measures should again be contingent on the Pakistani efforts to rein in Afghan insurgents, plus some constraints on Pakistan's nuclear buildup. This accord should also focus on expanding Pakistan's trade relations with Afghanistan and India. We can help here as well, initiating a sort of "EZ pass" for technologies for the Afghan-Pakistan border, if the two countries want the help.
We might also encourage Kabul to ask India to shut down its consulates in eastern Afghanistan as part of a peace process. These are innocuous, but Pakistan does not think so. This is a situation where Afghanistan can, at low cost, assuage some Pakistani concerns.
We should reduce (though not eliminate) the drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas. President Barack Obama was courageous and correct in deciding to go after bin Laden with a raid rather than bombs—partly to reduce the risk of civilian casualties—and we need to build on that smart move. We can also redress the problems we created by recent drone attacks that were less than surgical—with a reduction in the tempo of these strikes.
Today may be a strange time to call for more cooperation with Pakistan. But, as the old saying goes, when you have a problem you can't solve, sometimes the best answer is to enlarge it. And when you are in a marriage you can't get out of, the right approach is to try even harder to make it work.

The Brookings Institution
Brookings 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036



Regular Member
Jul 2, 2011
I think Obama has good intentions at heart but we have to remember Obama is almost powerless as he has to get approval and is often dictated around by Congress members. With that said I have voted - Need more time.


Regular Member
May 26, 2010
I think Obama has good intentions at heart but we have to remember Obama is almost powerless as he has to get approval and is often dictated around by Congress members. With that said I have voted - Need more time.

Obama is not likely to be in Office in after 2012..........THANK GOD


Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Aug 20, 2010
Country flag
Obama has been a real disappointment when you see how receptive Bush was. Infact, though Bush regime was a problem for the Thekedaars, his regime was wonderful for us. Had a more capable government been there in Delhi, we'd have got a better deal mutually.


Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
India's leadership offers hope of a peaceful world : Burns .

Posted: Wed Sep 28 2011, 09:52 hrs

The United States has appealed to India to work with it in other parts of the world, not just only in South Asia.

"We are counting on India's rise not just as an economic partner but as a global power – one that engages everywhere from Latin America to the Middle East to East Asia," Deputy Secretary of State William J Burns said in his remarks on 'Is there a future for the US-India partnership?', organised jointly by the FICCI and Brookings Institute, a Washington-based eminent American think tank.

India's leadership in promoting a more stable South Asia – its multi-billion dollar assistance commitment to Afghanistan, its determination to re-engage and normalise trade with Pakistan, and its joint projects to boost infrastructure and capacity in Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives – offer the hope of a more peaceful future for the region and the world, he said.

India's leadership offers hope of a peaceful world: Burns - Indian Express


Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Sep 28, 2011
I question the closing of the thread
This current thread has to do with President Obama, who does not represent much of a future for India-US relationships or anything after 2012 or 2016.

I respectfully ask Daredevil to unlock that thread.


Super Mod
Mar 24, 2009
Country flag
I think we can discuss the whole gamut of rations between india and US. Present and future. Too many threads means the discussion is split all over.
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Indx TechStyle Indo-German Relations Foreign Relations 29
aarav Indo-Ukraine Relations Foreign Relations 3
Indx TechStyle Indo-Arabian relations Foreign Relations 55
O Indo Serb relations Foreign Relations 3
Similar threads

Latest Replies