Obama india visit

[yoda]

You have both told me that he has done nothing for India or Indians in particular.

Yes, but he hasn't done anything for you to hate him. We need to solve our own problems. He has his hands full with problems in his own country, whether you care about it or not. As a country we are on the rise and the US is on the decline and we owe a good part of our rise to the opportunities the US has provide to our companies. I am not sure what is there to hate.

[bharathh]

I don't hate anyone. Why should I hate him? I am just saying that he is anti-india and should be treated like so. We are currently bending over backwards acting like he is doing us a favor by visiting us when it is obvious that he is just there to sell.

[bharathh]

They want the crackdowns to end so they can be in US illegally, work at 50% the current rate, sit on 'bench' for months and carry on the fraud like the good old days ? :hysterical: Is that what you want Obama to solve ?

How are they in the US illegally? Did they jump ship or cross the border unlike some others? Also which employer (or bodyshopper) is crazy enough to keep people on bench for months and pay them for not doing work? Do these people not pay taxes and social security? Why are companies offering them such low prices for doing work? Why are people continuing to do their jobs if their resumes are faked? How can they keep their jobs then? Are there no interviews? If so, are the people that take interviews dumb not to know that the person getting interviewed is not qualified for the job? I have taken plenty of interviews to know when a person is worth doing his/her job. Perhaps the problem is with the employers then? Also, I am not sure where this discussion is stemming from? What Obama does to solve his countries' problems is not India's concern. What matters is how India is affected by his policies.

[punjabi_khota]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/obama.india.address/index.html?hpt=T2

[bharathh]

Awesome. I assume he has mentioned that US guarantees that they will back India to get one and that it will be done when he is still president?

[Patriot_Nikhil]

Awesome. I assume he has mentioned that US guarantees that they will back India to get one and that it will be done when he is still president?

Highly doubtful... Its going to take a good few years (if at all) for India to be a permanent member, by which time UN might as well become irrelevant to the rest of the world as it is to US now... But still, to "blame" Obama for the H1B issue is over reactionary, like our Indian media...

[punjabi_khota]

^He's being sarcastic, dude.

[Patriot_Nikhil]

^He's being sarcastic' date=' dude.[/quote'] Ah my bad, too many cups of coffee at work doesnt help!!! Well, I doubt any US president will toe away from this line as far as India is concerned...

[yoda]

I don't hate anyone. Why should I hate him? I am just saying that he is anti-india and should be treated like so.

You haven't shown anything even close to indicate he is anti-India. Talking about outsourcing and denying US companies who export jobs overseas tax breaks is not anti-India. Continuing a post 9/11 policy of funding Pakistan to help fight AQ/Taliban is not anti-India. Just because we have issues with Pak, doesn't mean US foreign policy has to work around it. What else you got?

[bharathh]

I see. So funding your enemy that is at war by proxy and becoming protectionist towards your country's businesses and basing your election campaign on dismantling one of India's revenue generator's is not anti-India. What is anti-India according to you?

[bihutoli]

I guess some of his policies are indirectly anti India. Not necessarily unjustified... but India should try and get some concessions around some of our concerns, especially around the US support to Pakistan and their long term plans in AfPak. Though policies are subject to change and its foolish to miss any oppurtunity to create a better relationship with a major global economic and military power like the US. However this fawning over the US pres is cringeworthy.

[yoda]

I see. So funding your enemy that is at war by proxy and becoming protectionist towards your country's businesses and basing your election campaign on dismantling one of India's revenue generator's is not anti-India. What is anti-India according to you?

So, we have problems with Pak, which means US cannot use them as an ally in their own war on terror even though that is the only country which can help them deal with the Taliban and AQ in the tribal regions of Pak/Afg border? His election campaign was to help create US jobs and he is doing that by providing tax incentives to companies which want to do R&D in the US to create US jobs. How is that taking away one of India's revenue generator? Are you saying that to be considered pro-India, he must encourage US jobs getting exported to India even more? I know, I know you will parrot your answer saying that you only care about India and don't care about US and it's problems. That's like burying your head in the sand without accepting the reality of the situation and reason for some of these policies. It sometimes helps to look at the problems the other side faces also instead of just repeating your side of the issue. I am not justifying the US stance reg Pakistan, but it doesn't qualify as anti-India in my opinion. Yes we would like the US to cut off all funding to Pak, raid the country, rid of the nukes there, get rid of Taliban, AQ and all other Jihadi outfits there, and make it a safe place for all of us, but reality is however different.

[Sir john]

Sidelights ‘Bahut, bahut, dhanyavad’ Barack Obama interspersed his 20-minute address to Parliament on Monday by frequent allusion to India’s greatness, its rich cultural diversity and its great leaders who influenced the course of world civilisations and history. He began his speech by declaring in Hindi, “Bahut, bahut, dhanyavad (Many, many thanks), followed by quoting Rabindranath Tagore: “With poets who imagined a future, where the mind is without fear and the head is held high.” He drew the maximum applause when he frankly admitted, “I might not be standing before you today, as President of the US, had it not been for Gandhi.” He ended his speech with the call “Jai Hind.” Sonia in red saree Sonia Gandhi looked resplendent in a red saree as she occupied a seat next to former PM HD Deve Gowda. When everyone rose to welcome Obama, Gowda seemed to have some difficulty. Immediately Sonia signalled Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal and he came to Gowda’s aid. Industry presence The Joint Press conference by Barack Obama and Manmohan Singh was attended by a virtual who’s who of the industry. Among those present were Ratan Tata, Deepak Parekh, Chanda Kochhar, Kiran Majumdar Shaw, Mukesh Ambani and Sunil Mittal from the Indian side. :icflove:

[Sir john]

[Sir john]

Barack Obama delivers by promising to back India’s bid for a UNSC permanent seat, lifts hi-tech curbs on ISRO and DRDO and signs a slew of bilateral pacts US president Barack Obama today disarmed his hosts and silenced critics with his dramatic declaration backing India’s ambitions for permanent seat on the UN Security Council and his unequivocal message to Pakistan that terrorists behind the Mumbai massacre be brought to justice. “The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective,credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member,” Obama told Indian lawmakers, who received his support with a thunderous applause. His declaration was not totally unexpected as he had hinted at this during his media interaction at the Hyderabad House earlier during the day when he refused to take a question on this issue, stating that he would be speaking on the subject during his speech to MPs. His declaration was not totally unexpected as he had hinted at this during his media interaction at the Hyderabad House earlier during the day when he refused to take a question on this issue, stating that he would be speaking on the subject during his speech to MPs. These and other lucid observations were part of President Obama’s speech to members of both houses of Parliament in the high-domed Central Hall. Obama’s support today, however, does not mean that India will soon be joining the charmed circle of the present five permanent members of UN Security Council. On the contrary, this could take years as the US president qualified his statement by backing India claims in a reformed Security Council, which could take several years to accomplish. Nevertheless, India has reason to be pleased with this announcement as the US has, so far, been chary of backing its quest for a seat alongside the P-5. India has been pushing hard for such a place for several years now on the plea that it has emerged as an important political and economic force in the changed world order. The US president’s speech, which was interspersed with several India-specific references and continuously underlined the fast-improving partnership between New Delhi and Washington, was attended by a packed House, which included Vice-President Hamid Ansari, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Cabinet ministers and members of the two Houses of Parliament. If Obama’s support to India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council was aimed to please the hosts, the visiting President was equally forthright when he reminded India that this membership also comes with greater responsibilities which require it to spell out its position on issues like human rights violations. All those who aspire to the membership of the Security Council, he emphasised, have to ensure the effective implementation of its resolutions and enforcement of sanctions. Obama, who was given a standing ovation at the end of his mesmerising speech, also pleased his hosts with a specific mention to the terrorist organisations being harboured by Pakistan. He was probably taking heed of criticism that he had remained silent on Pakistan’s role in fomenting terrorism,espeically its role in the 26/11 attacks. Obama did a course correction this evening. “We will continue to insist to Pakistan’s leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks must be brought to justice,” Obama said refering to America’s ongoing strategy to defeat and dismantle Al-Qaida networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While speaking on Iran's nuclear programme, he said the US and India "can pursue" the goal of securing the world's vulnerable nuclear material. "We can make it clear that even as every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, every nation must also meet its international obligation, and that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

[bharathh]

I guess some of his policies are indirectly anti India. Not necessarily unjustified... but India should try and get some concessions around some of our concerns, especially around the US support to Pakistan and their long term plans in AfPak. Though policies are subject to change and its foolish to miss any oppurtunity to create a better relationship with a major global economic and military power like the US. However this fawning over the US pres is cringeworthy.

Agreed

[bharathh]

So, we have problems with Pak, which means US cannot use them as an ally in their own war on terror even though that is the only country which can help them deal with the Taliban and AQ in the tribal regions of Pak/Afg border? His election campaign was to help create US jobs and he is doing that by providing tax incentives to companies which want to do R&D in the US to create US jobs. How is that taking away one of India's revenue generator? Are you saying that to be considered pro-India, he must encourage US jobs getting exported to India even more? I know, I know you will parrot your answer saying that you only care about India and don't care about US and it's problems. That's like burying your head in the sand without accepting the reality of the situation and reason for some of these policies. It sometimes helps to look at the problems the other side faces also instead of just repeating your side of the issue. I am not justifying the US stance reg Pakistan, but it doesn't qualify as anti-India in my opinion. Yes we would like the US to cut off all funding to Pak, raid the country, rid of the nukes there, get rid of Taliban, AQ and all other Jihadi outfits there, and make it a safe place for all of us, but reality is however different.

See the problem is that you are seeing everything with a US mindset. From a American's point of view, it is obvious that this is correct. Now let me flip the coin. Say India decides that Iran/Burma is of special interest to it for its energy needs and starts funding them pumping billions of dollars to maintain security of Indian sponsored oil fields? India has desperate energy needs and is more than justified to woo energy-rich countries like these to get access to cheaper sources of energy for the short term. Would you support India's actions in this case? What do you think the US will do while this is going on? And say, in order to protect its hi-tech sector, India decides to impose tariffs against industries that are dominated by US industries to fund its own industries, you think the US will remain quiet about the protectionism involved in this despite India having a very good reason to do so? Also, China and Pak are way more important to the US than India can ever be. China literally holds the US' purse strings at the moment and the US cannot push China on many issues (e.g the currency devaluation issue among many others) even though the US is suffering due to it. Pak is like US' doberman. One never knows how Pak will react to the US. One day it is obedient, on others it bites its owner's hand. Obama is an awesome orator. Possibly one of the best I have ever seen or heard. He has done his thing in India by mouthing out many false platitudes that our government and press have eagerly lapped up. What has his visit really meant for India other than false feeling of grandeur that we always seem eager to sense without actually doing anything to deserve it? Please answer that. Obviously from an American perspective, what he has done is justified. Why do you feel Indians should be so understanding towards this? How does it help them out? Although Obama has said that he hasn't made outsourcing a bogeyman issue, you are welcome to read his speeches and press statements - esp related to jobs and education to make up your own mind on that.

[bharathh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/11/obamas_grand_finale.html

[Nova]

We have been discussing this in the other thread in this sub-forum. Btw... what exactly has he promised that can be delivered by the US? All he has done is say what we want to hear. "India has emerged." -> Even the most optimistic person in India would not be fooled by this statement. One has to just look outside the window to know how false this statement is. "US backs India to get a UNSC seat" -> Backing does not imply that it is a permanent condition. Other blah blahs about India being great. Read ahead in that article to know why this is so important for the US. Removing restriction esp in the retail sector is what they want most.

Diplomacy for UNSC seat is going to take time anyway and Obama has made a stand favoring India for a permanent seat for UNSC and that is good enough right now. He his not even sure about extending his term for another four years, so how can one expect his administration to aggressively pursue this? Further, any visit by a foreign dignitary is a two way street. There is nothing wrong when US demands certain things for its own interest. India started exporting Alphonso mangoes to US, in turn the US wanted to export Harley motorcycles to India...so that's just one small example of bilateral negotiations. Take from one hand and give from the other is the golden rule of politics. It does not matter if a certain Obama has visited India to sign some treaties. The POTUS is the highest office and that matters the most, not the individual person. The point being that maintaining good relations between the two nations is important - Obama's visit was another step ahead in the right direction.

[Ram]

I think we can safely that finally, we have emerged out of the shadow of Pakistan that seems to be constantly looming over us. There used to be days when anything that happened to or in India, had some consequence/reaction from Pakistan. If some country offered India some deal, they had to reciprocate with some conciliatory gesture with Pakistan. If a Head-of-state came to India, he invariably went to Pakistan as well. And any Western leader who came to India would at least mention the word Kashmir a few times.. That era is finally over. It started when Bush offered India the nuclear deal back in 2006. With Obama now essentially ignoring Pakistan in a trip to South Asia, not even bringing up the Kashmir issue once and even going to the extent of supporting India’s candidacy for a permanent seat in the security council, this is probably the biggest proverbial middle finger ever shown to Pakistan. We have our own place in the world and finally ,that doesn’t involve what Pakistan thinks about what we do. Finally..!