India’s Narendra Modi May Address Joint Session of U.S. Congress http://on.wsj.com/1pSOqp4
This report is a clever ruse to entice Narendra Modi to visit White House and Capitol Hill.
NaMo should refuse the invitation. People of Bharat, 1.25 billion people have been insulted by Uncle Sam and they demand an unconditional apology for the humiliating way his visa was bandied about as a foreign policy ploy. Shame on you, Uncle Sam!
At the outset, Uncle Sam, express and demonstrate unconditional remorse for the high & mighty grandstanding as self-assumed global cop.
People of India have heard and conversed with NaMo and know him to be a true patriot, a true son of Bharata maataa. Does Uncle Sam understand the import of these terms: Bharata, maataa MOTHER?
Kalyanaraman
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.
This report is a clever ruse to entice Narendra Modi to visit White House and Capitol Hill.
NaMo should refuse the invitation. People of Bharat, 1.25 billion people have been insulted by Uncle Sam and they demand an unconditional apology for the humiliating way his visa was bandied about as a foreign policy ploy. Shame on you, Uncle Sam!
At the outset, Uncle Sam, express and demonstrate unconditional remorse for the high & mighty grandstanding as self-assumed global cop.
People of India have heard and conversed with NaMo and know him to be a true patriot, a true son of Bharata maataa. Does Uncle Sam understand the import of these terms: Bharata, maataa MOTHER?
Kalyanaraman
Monday, June 16, 2014
DOES VISA MEAN ANYTHING TO MODI, SHOULD IT MEAN ANYTHING MORE TO HIM NOW THAT HE IS THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, DOES HE NEED IT?
MODI AND AMERICAN VISA:DOES HE NEED IT?
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by USA . We examine whether it really matters.
Modi’s adversaries relish the visa denial as an endorsement of their hatred of Modi. Some in Indian parliament of late petitioned the U.S president to continue to deny him a visa, realizing little that it is an undignified and a shameless act of the leaders of a free and sovereign country to punish and symbolically humiliate their own leader by turning to a foreign power, for they were impotent to act in bringing him down in the national elections, much like a eunuch begging his neighbor to control his wayward wife.
However much they hate him, how could they invest moral authority in foreign Government, however powerful, to render judgment on one of their own leaders elected by the majority of five hundred and forty four million voting people? The petition itself was so faked that, at least, one of the supposed signatories, Comrade Yechuri denied having signed it. Now, Modi has achieved a historic victory and decimated the sycophantic and oligarchic establishment hiding behind the symbols of a dynasty.
There is, of course, a group in US consisting of evangelicals and Marxist liberals, strange bedfellows who act jointly against any group that subscribes to Hindu Nationalism.
Evangelicals are aided by the council of religious freedom, a governmental organization, which categorizes India as one of the countries lacking religious freedom, regardless of the fact that Hindus themselves enjoy the greatest freedom of religion in their practice of worshipping various images including Muslim peers and fakirs. What the evangelicals really distortedly mean by religious freedom is the unfettered license for them to convert Hindus by extricating Hindus from their ancient culture and advocating that Hindus accept that every religion is false other than Christianity and every concept of God is false other than the personhood of Jesus.
Liberals don’t have locus standii to take issue with conversion but they become partners with the evangelicals when hating Hindu Nationalists of whom Modi is one. This is the same combination of the elements which was successful in removing Subramanian Swamy from Harvard. Pratap Bhanu Mehta in his column in "The Hindu" warned that this very group will act against India, if Modi were to be elected. Here again the mindset is that we have to hearken to American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether he should accept the visa granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of previous Prime ministers who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration as such visits are purely ceremonial with nothing to be accomplished in reality.
It is a routine event that many elected heads of a state including those of India run to Washington as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with U.S President. Nehru made four visits to U.S, the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and the Soviets came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of Kennedy. The president received him and in his welcoming address praised him saying how he and Gandhi were known beyond the borders of India. Historical reports indicate that Kennedy wanted to nurture enduring relations with India which were obstructed by the bureaucracy of the State department and by British(especially Mountbatten) and Pakistani Governments. Kennedy has been reported to have remarked that Nehru’s was the worst State visit that he had experienced. Nehru was so preachy that Kennedy reportedly remarked that to him “Nehru sounded like a town preacher caught in a whore house.” Jacqueline Kennedy noted that Indira Gandhi, who incidentally always accompanied Nehru on his foreign visits as “great prune, pushy and always looking as if sucking a lemon.”
Without going into the details of other Indian Prime ministers' visits to U.S we may remain content by examining the other one with a long tenure, Indira Gandhi.
Indian press and public media are totally inadequate and cannot ask tough questions when they confront their leaders. It is different in the US. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the US and faced embarrassment in her interview by Ted Koppel on NBC "Nightline". Discussing the mission of her visit to U.S., Koppel asked her about her purpose to which she replied that hers was a “goodwill mission”. After questioning her on her differences with US on foreign policy, at the end he asked her about her views on US policy on Nicaragua for which she expressed her disagreement with US. Koppel ended interview with the remark ‘what is it that you do not like about US Madam Gandhi?’ Before she answered, the broadcast ended, for it was so edited. That was precisely the reason why Gorbachev insisted to NBC that his broadcast be live and remain unedited!
Indira Gandhi’s visit to President Nixon to justify her impending military intervention in East Pakistan (now Bangle Desh) is also an example of failure of personal diplomacy. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes that, intentionally she was kept waiting in the receiving room in the White House while discussing with Kissinger the US tilt towards Pakistan. For one thing she was tough enough to order invasion of East Pakistan en route to India. Here again, she did not realize that personal diplomacy has no role in decision making.
US ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith, in an article, outlined how the presidential decisions are made. Very often the policies are formulated mainly by the state department bureaucracy and expert advisors at each level leaving very little choice for the president, as is evident in overruling Kennedy’s desire to have greater tie up with India. When China attacked India, U.S. instantly realized the importance of support for India, not because of Nehru’s charm. Recently unclassified CIA report recounts, how China which was in league with Nehru, dumped him on the issue of Tibet and on the Border issue. U.S government knew that the so called non-alignment leader was called two faced by Chinese press when he was privately critical of Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally the bond with Chou En-lai snapped. Chinese press called him not only two faced but one who never understood Marxism properly. They wanted to humiliate him and he had no place to go, not Soviets, not even the so-called non-aligned friends, and it was ultimately the U.S Government through the influence of Galbraith that provided instant assistance.
Time Magazine in contempt remarked “we gave everything to Indians but the courage to fight”. That was the extent of personal diplomacy of Indian Prime Ministers. With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of visiting Indian Prime Ministers, at the critical moments India had no place to go other than to turn to the U.S.A. That was the collapse of the non-alignment. Nehru died of broken heart; he had a stroke. Sadly he hankered to his position of P.M dragging his foot and Time magazine reported the unkind remark of Ram Manohar Lohia “whether we still have to have a cripple as P.M.” Referring to the authoritarian leaders of Catholic Church, Bertrand Russell remarked that people who have sacrificed all the pleasures of life could not overcome the lust for power. It is more so with politics. Nehru was one of those who spent years in jail like Tilak, Gandhi and Savarkar, but he could not give up his desire for power. That is what makes Nelson Mandela an ideal patriotic leader of all post-colonial countries.
Policy decisions of advanced countries have nothing to do with public charm. When President Jimmy Carter visited India in 1978 he paid glowing tributes to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai as leaders who were dedicated to the country and endured long jail sentences; and at the end in a private conversation with his aids, he was caught on tape saying “we should deliver cold and blunt message to Desai." This was widely reported in press which was smoothened and downplayed by Morarji in public.
This is in contrast with the action of Khrushchev when Nixon visited the Soviet Union. While Nixon was visiting Khrushchev, U2 spy plane was in the air and was shot down capturing the pilot. Khrushchev called off the meeting and Nixon had to abruptly fly home. Could Morarji have done that? He could,if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and U.S relations, U.S spy plane was forced landed in China during early days of Bush administration. The Chinese stripped the plane of spy equipment and did not allow it to fly back, but has to be transported on ground dismantled part by part. India has a long way to go to learn to act like a big power. It has to be remembered in this context, that US, through the efforts of Secretary Baker has moved economically closer to China in a bargain for Chinese vote in U.N. during the first Gulf war. Baker recounts this in his book on Gulf War.
Neither Chairman Mao nor Chou En-lai visited US. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on their terms, de-recognizing Taiwan as an independent country. Mao did not receive Nixon until the last day of his tour to China, creating a buzz in US press. Neither of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit U.S or White House.
When India developed nuclear bomb during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that they would not know these BJP people and how to deal with them as they knew all about Congress Government! That mystique disappeared with the visit of Vajpayee to U.S. As a result when Indian parliament was attacked by Pakistani terrorists, there was wide spread speculation as to how India would retaliate, as retaliation were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists in 9/11 in New York US fought two decade long wars. But Bush speaking to the press about the Pakistani terrorist attack on India’s parliament announced that he had asked “Vajpayee to stand down.” Asking the leader of a Nation to "stand down?” He would dare not say that to an Israeli P.M. That is what happens when the weakness of a leader is perceived and when a leader of a sovereign nation is expected to convince his people of the wisdom of following the super power.
Probably, all there is to be known about Modi is already known through CIA and other investigative reporters from US. Robert Kaplan, an advisor to U.S armed forces visited Chief Minister Modi and wrote in his book “Monsoon” fairly accurate assessment of Modi’s priorities. Modi’s visit would not change Obama’s stand on Kashmir or nuclear issues, both of which Modi declared as his priorities in the past. After all, Obama is going to be a lame duck president in a year. Modi would achieve nothing to have a ‘vegetarian dinner’ in White House. This was what was said of Nehru’s visit as described by Kennedy, "the vegetarian dinner""a disappointing event." After all CIA did not know that Nehru was not at all a vegetarian who smoked cigars and drank wine in private!
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by USA . We examine whether it really matters.
Modi’s adversaries relish the visa denial as an endorsement of their hatred of Modi. Some in Indian parliament of late petitioned the U.S president to continue to deny him a visa, realizing little that it is an undignified and a shameless act of the leaders of a free and sovereign country to punish and symbolically humiliate their own leader by turning to a foreign power, for they were impotent to act in bringing him down in the national elections, much like a eunuch begging his neighbor to control his wayward wife.
However much they hate him, how could they invest moral authority in foreign Government, however powerful, to render judgment on one of their own leaders elected by the majority of five hundred and forty four million voting people? The petition itself was so faked that, at least, one of the supposed signatories, Comrade Yechuri denied having signed it. Now, Modi has achieved a historic victory and decimated the sycophantic and oligarchic establishment hiding behind the symbols of a dynasty.
There is, of course, a group in US consisting of evangelicals and Marxist liberals, strange bedfellows who act jointly against any group that subscribes to Hindu Nationalism.
Evangelicals are aided by the council of religious freedom, a governmental organization, which categorizes India as one of the countries lacking religious freedom, regardless of the fact that Hindus themselves enjoy the greatest freedom of religion in their practice of worshipping various images including Muslim peers and fakirs. What the evangelicals really distortedly mean by religious freedom is the unfettered license for them to convert Hindus by extricating Hindus from their ancient culture and advocating that Hindus accept that every religion is false other than Christianity and every concept of God is false other than the personhood of Jesus.
Liberals don’t have locus standii to take issue with conversion but they become partners with the evangelicals when hating Hindu Nationalists of whom Modi is one. This is the same combination of the elements which was successful in removing Subramanian Swamy from Harvard. Pratap Bhanu Mehta in his column in "The Hindu" warned that this very group will act against India, if Modi were to be elected. Here again the mindset is that we have to hearken to American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether he should accept the visa granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of previous Prime ministers who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration as such visits are purely ceremonial with nothing to be accomplished in reality.
It is a routine event that many elected heads of a state including those of India run to Washington as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with U.S President. Nehru made four visits to U.S, the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and the Soviets came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of Kennedy. The president received him and in his welcoming address praised him saying how he and Gandhi were known beyond the borders of India. Historical reports indicate that Kennedy wanted to nurture enduring relations with India which were obstructed by the bureaucracy of the State department and by British(especially Mountbatten) and Pakistani Governments. Kennedy has been reported to have remarked that Nehru’s was the worst State visit that he had experienced. Nehru was so preachy that Kennedy reportedly remarked that to him “Nehru sounded like a town preacher caught in a whore house.” Jacqueline Kennedy noted that Indira Gandhi, who incidentally always accompanied Nehru on his foreign visits as “great prune, pushy and always looking as if sucking a lemon.”
Without going into the details of other Indian Prime ministers' visits to U.S we may remain content by examining the other one with a long tenure, Indira Gandhi.
Indian press and public media are totally inadequate and cannot ask tough questions when they confront their leaders. It is different in the US. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the US and faced embarrassment in her interview by Ted Koppel on NBC "Nightline". Discussing the mission of her visit to U.S., Koppel asked her about her purpose to which she replied that hers was a “goodwill mission”. After questioning her on her differences with US on foreign policy, at the end he asked her about her views on US policy on Nicaragua for which she expressed her disagreement with US. Koppel ended interview with the remark ‘what is it that you do not like about US Madam Gandhi?’ Before she answered, the broadcast ended, for it was so edited. That was precisely the reason why Gorbachev insisted to NBC that his broadcast be live and remain unedited!
Indira Gandhi’s visit to President Nixon to justify her impending military intervention in East Pakistan (now Bangle Desh) is also an example of failure of personal diplomacy. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes that, intentionally she was kept waiting in the receiving room in the White House while discussing with Kissinger the US tilt towards Pakistan. For one thing she was tough enough to order invasion of East Pakistan en route to India. Here again, she did not realize that personal diplomacy has no role in decision making.
US ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith, in an article, outlined how the presidential decisions are made. Very often the policies are formulated mainly by the state department bureaucracy and expert advisors at each level leaving very little choice for the president, as is evident in overruling Kennedy’s desire to have greater tie up with India. When China attacked India, U.S. instantly realized the importance of support for India, not because of Nehru’s charm. Recently unclassified CIA report recounts, how China which was in league with Nehru, dumped him on the issue of Tibet and on the Border issue. U.S government knew that the so called non-alignment leader was called two faced by Chinese press when he was privately critical of Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally the bond with Chou En-lai snapped. Chinese press called him not only two faced but one who never understood Marxism properly. They wanted to humiliate him and he had no place to go, not Soviets, not even the so-called non-aligned friends, and it was ultimately the U.S Government through the influence of Galbraith that provided instant assistance.
Time Magazine in contempt remarked “we gave everything to Indians but the courage to fight”. That was the extent of personal diplomacy of Indian Prime Ministers. With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of visiting Indian Prime Ministers, at the critical moments India had no place to go other than to turn to the U.S.A. That was the collapse of the non-alignment. Nehru died of broken heart; he had a stroke. Sadly he hankered to his position of P.M dragging his foot and Time magazine reported the unkind remark of Ram Manohar Lohia “whether we still have to have a cripple as P.M.” Referring to the authoritarian leaders of Catholic Church, Bertrand Russell remarked that people who have sacrificed all the pleasures of life could not overcome the lust for power. It is more so with politics. Nehru was one of those who spent years in jail like Tilak, Gandhi and Savarkar, but he could not give up his desire for power. That is what makes Nelson Mandela an ideal patriotic leader of all post-colonial countries.
Policy decisions of advanced countries have nothing to do with public charm. When President Jimmy Carter visited India in 1978 he paid glowing tributes to Gandhi, Nehru and Morarji Desai as leaders who were dedicated to the country and endured long jail sentences; and at the end in a private conversation with his aids, he was caught on tape saying “we should deliver cold and blunt message to Desai." This was widely reported in press which was smoothened and downplayed by Morarji in public.
This is in contrast with the action of Khrushchev when Nixon visited the Soviet Union. While Nixon was visiting Khrushchev, U2 spy plane was in the air and was shot down capturing the pilot. Khrushchev called off the meeting and Nixon had to abruptly fly home. Could Morarji have done that? He could,if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and U.S relations, U.S spy plane was forced landed in China during early days of Bush administration. The Chinese stripped the plane of spy equipment and did not allow it to fly back, but has to be transported on ground dismantled part by part. India has a long way to go to learn to act like a big power. It has to be remembered in this context, that US, through the efforts of Secretary Baker has moved economically closer to China in a bargain for Chinese vote in U.N. during the first Gulf war. Baker recounts this in his book on Gulf War.
Neither Chairman Mao nor Chou En-lai visited US. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on their terms, de-recognizing Taiwan as an independent country. Mao did not receive Nixon until the last day of his tour to China, creating a buzz in US press. Neither of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit U.S or White House.
When India developed nuclear bomb during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that they would not know these BJP people and how to deal with them as they knew all about Congress Government! That mystique disappeared with the visit of Vajpayee to U.S. As a result when Indian parliament was attacked by Pakistani terrorists, there was wide spread speculation as to how India would retaliate, as retaliation were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists in 9/11 in New York US fought two decade long wars. But Bush speaking to the press about the Pakistani terrorist attack on India’s parliament announced that he had asked “Vajpayee to stand down.” Asking the leader of a Nation to "stand down?” He would dare not say that to an Israeli P.M. That is what happens when the weakness of a leader is perceived and when a leader of a sovereign nation is expected to convince his people of the wisdom of following the super power.
Probably, all there is to be known about Modi is already known through CIA and other investigative reporters from US. Robert Kaplan, an advisor to U.S armed forces visited Chief Minister Modi and wrote in his book “Monsoon” fairly accurate assessment of Modi’s priorities. Modi’s visit would not change Obama’s stand on Kashmir or nuclear issues, both of which Modi declared as his priorities in the past. After all, Obama is going to be a lame duck president in a year. Modi would achieve nothing to have a ‘vegetarian dinner’ in White House. This was what was said of Nehru’s visit as described by Kennedy, "the vegetarian dinner""a disappointing event." After all CIA did not know that Nehru was not at all a vegetarian who smoked cigars and drank wine in private!
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.