Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Strategic Alliance between India and the US Begins to Materialize

Strategic Alliance between India and the US Begins to Materialize

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

India is preparing a gift pack to welcome  US President Barack Obama, who is visiting India in November of this year. The strategic alliance agreement reached between India and the US, back in 2005, will begin to be solidified during president’s visit to India. The Indian government is working to finalize the defense deal worth $5.8 billion (approximately Rs. 2.75 lakh crore) that was signed in July 2009. Another deal to buy 126 fighter jets will also be signed during the visit, defense officials revealed.

Obama visits India in NovemberFor the prosperity of the US

Mr. Obama’s visit to India was announced in the first week of June, when Indian External Affairs minister S M Krishna met the President in the US. “When it comes to the sphere of our work, building a future of greater prosperity, opportunity and security for our people, there is no doubt; I have to go India,” Obama said in June in a joint press conference with S M Krishna. The US officials said Mr Obama’s visit to India would be from November 7 to 10.

Therefore, for the prosperity of the US people (read, for helping the US to come out of the financial crisis) President Obama is touring the world to sell their defense goods. They visit India on one side and Pakistan on the other side and sell their arms enabling India and Pakistan to protect themselves from their neighbors. Sometimes, they settle defense contracts with both countries in the same tour and of course on deferent legs.

Big Visit

According to rediff.com news, President Obama did not want his visit to remain merely a symbolic, and wanted to imprint his own signature through the visit. As the nuclear agreement was signed in the era of his Republican predecessor, President Obama wanted at least two big deals that could remain as his personal landmark in the history of the US-India ties. The Indian national newspaper “The Hindu” wrote some 5 days back that the visit would be discussed between Ms. Hillary Clinton and Mr. S M Krishna during the 65th United Nations General Assembly sessions beginning this week.

The officials from both sides will be struggling with how to deal with the recent irritants that have cropped up like the fee hike for H-1B and L-1 visas, the outsourcing ban in the state of Ohio and the recently approved nuclear liability bill. American strategic affairs analyst Ashley Tellis was quoted by ‘The Hindu’ as saying “if the bill undermines the program of preventing private suppliers — both Indian and foreign — from entering the Indian nuclear market, it would eviscerate all the gains that the prime minister secured by signing the deal.”

Ashley glossed over some of the details while warning India about nuclear liability bill. Indian Prime Minister achieved a ‘good boy’ image from the US state machinery (start from CIA and you can find how lot they are) and their sponsors by signing civil nuclear agreement with the US against the interests of the Indian people. At the same time, he had already undermined the value of the lives of millions of Indian people by limiting the liability of the damage caused by nuclear accidents to a mere few million dollars.

Rogue Regime

The American regime (not the American people) is the greatest rogue regime on the planet. The CIA is its worst weapon and caries the rogue activities of the rogue regime throughout the world. The USSR’s regime used to be the second most rogue regime but it collapsed, thanks to its inability to carry on with a war economy like the US. The US has bombed nations; it has killedheads of state; it has jailed  other heads of state land based on fake trials and convictions; it has overthrown democratic regimes; it has supported dictatorships for decades as useful puppets.

The US does not sign international agreements that are aimed for the welfare of future generations, but  forces nations to sign its pet agreements like NPT or CTBT. It forces Iraq not to pursue nuclear technology but allows Israel to pile up hundreds of warheads. It forces  companies like BP to pay for the oil spill in its seawaters but orders countries like India not to prosecute cold-blooded killers like Anderson, who killed thousands of Indians in Bhopal gas leak disaster.

Good News or Bad News?

The news that the head of such a state is visiting India may be a good one for slvish Indian  rulers. However, it is a bad news for the Indian people on many counts, as explained above. The money that would be spent on acquiring 10 Boeing Co.’s C-17 Globemaster III planes is equal to three years’ budget for the wealthier provinces (Andhra Pradesh) in India. Here in Andhra Pradesh, the farmers are committing suicidesfor not getting fertilizers, for not getting electricity and for not getting the minimum support price (MSP) for their harvest.

C-17s maybe of latest and greatest technology, but they are going to be used against India’s neighbor and important US ally Pakistan. TBoeing and the US are fooling the Indian and Pakistani people by selling their war tools to both the rivals. At the most, what the Indians are going to benefit from is a percentage commission from the big arms deal, which will go to the Indian rulers and their patrons. Mr. Obama, do not come to India.  TheIndian people are suffering from many misdeeds of their rulers. Should you come and multiply them?

Powered by

About Sekhar

  • JJJackson

    I cannot say that I disagree 100% with the author re US actions in furtherance of its own “national interest” as it sees it. However, with China breathing down India’s neck, essentially making POK the newest province of China, choking India off at every point, India needs friends, even if it has to buy them off. US is a useful friend, as China demonstrated by luring US companies to create wealth for itself. Without a doubt, India and US need each other to face off the new ugly China. Morality has no place in international power relations. Only the US can help India rise to its proper place.

  • Ruvy

    Sekhar,

    I find this article informative. The irony here is that for all of its supposed power, the US is trying to slide out from under the grip of China by selling India arms – even as the Chinese slowly digest bits and pieces of Jammu-Kashmir. Hiding behind an Indian sari will do the American regime no good at all.

    But any port in a storm!

    Nice touch, by the way, differentiating between the the rogue regime of the United States – and the American people – who are a top shelf bunch. There is a huge difference between the two that most Americans cannot see at all, so wrapped are they in the bullshit propaganda that they are still a democracy.

  • Mark

    American workers produce the weapons and eat well for doing so. They and their fellows worldwide are the problem and the solution. This distinction between the people and the government here misses the point. Putting policy up as the problem for focus gives the individual involved in the deadly process an out — “I’m just a wage slave. Not my pistol; not my problem.”

    Just say no, boys and girls.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Hi Mark,
    You’ve mis-taken me. Here I’m not singling out Obama from the American people. I’m differentiating the US regime (US state) from the American people. Obama is a working tool in the hands of the US State (not United States).

    Every country is ruled by the state. It’s character is determined by which side it stands.

    The parliament (Senate and Congress in the US’ case), executive bodies (bureaucracy), the army of all sorts, the justice system and the similar wings at provincial levels form the ‘state’ of particular country.

    The state is more powerful than the government of any country. That’s why whenever a head of the government initiates steps to be truly democratic he will be dethroned promptly by the anti-democratic forces present in that government.

    The other wings of the state stand beside them to preserve the anti-democratic character of the state, because they are partners of the state through the power of which they accumulate wealth. So, they are also of capitalist section.

    As said above the nature of a state is determined by which side it stands. If it stands with the people it can be truly democratic which is a rarest of the rare case. There may be states trying to be truly democratic but as far as I know, there is no truly democratic state in the world now.

    The bottom line is that Obama is not an individual but the head of the government which is a constituent of the US state. To day it is Obama, tomorrow another person but the duty is same, i.e. to carry on the interests of the sections of the people, who control the state.

    This is not my thesis. It is the evolution of the state. Individuals are part of it. This doesn’t mean they cannot be blamed individually. They should be, because, the very individuals form such section of the society that leads the state.

    The states are now controlled by a few sections of the people who are wealthiest of that country.

    When the situation arises that their wealth or capital can no more be re-utilized as capital they go for other resources in the other part of the world. And that’s how the imperialism evolved.

    Once it was the British imperialism that controlled the world. Few more wealthy sections of the other countries wanted to to extend their capitalist influence. So WW-1 erupted for redistribution of the resources of the world. The British survived but the others (Germany, Italy and Japan) pursued their case and hence WW-2 erupted for re-re-distribution of the world economic resources. This time the British neither defeated nor survived. But the three states (GIJ) that aspired for redistribution were defeated.

    So, there was a vacuum promptly filled in by the US that came out with lesser casualties than any other participant in the WW-2. The US has learned lessons from the 2 wars and accommodated the interests of the other capitalist countries in secondary role placing itself in primary role. The other states obliged because there was a threat of Socialist Russia.

    I’m stopping here. I’ve written this far to show how states evolved and made other weaker states subservient to them.

    Thanks for provoking me.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Sekhar,

    The state is more powerful than the government of any country. That’s why whenever a head of the government initiates steps to be truly democratic he will be dethroned promptly by the anti-democratic forces present in that government.

    The other wings of the state stand beside them to preserve the anti-democratic character of the state, because they are partners of the state through the power of which they accumulate wealth. So, they are also of capitalist section.

    Your conceptualization is very interesting to me. You see something and you are trying to explain it. But, I think you make one mistake. That is, I think you don’t take what you see quite far enough.

    As said above the nature of a state is determined by which side it stands. If it stands with the people it can be truly democratic which is a rarest of the rare case. There may be states trying to be truly democratic but as far as I know, there is no truly democratic state in the world now.

    That construction seems to be sort of clunky. Think about it. If there is no truly democratic state (and I wonder if you could come up with one that ever existed?), then why make this distinction between state and government.

    I think you are making an assumption about the necessity of government and that why you have created this distinction in your explanation. You may wish to reconsider the idea of this necessity. You may wish to consider why government is necessary at all and what/who does it protect?

    There is already plenty of information available by people exploring stateless society if you have not looked before and wish to look at this. It seems to me that you see something important. I think you can take it farther. Just my humble opinion for what it’s worth.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Well, Madam Cindy! I got your point.

    It seems we both are playing hide and seek.

    As you said “there is already plenty of information available by people exploring stateless society.” I’m aware of it.

    The only philosophy that envisaged about stateless society is Dialectical Materialism proposed by Karl Marx. (I want to mention here one extra point that Ms Arundhati Rai has come a long way from “another world is possible.” She is now actively supporting Maoists’ cause against the government of India. This is just information. Also to ask you, have you noticed it? If you noticed it would you still be with Ms. Roy?)

    My mention of certain things may look clunky but consider that I’m trying to make a point of fact without going for isms. If I say Socialism or Marxism is there to solve problems of people, state and government, nobody is going to listen to me.

    But I want to mention facts, where facts are branded with some ism and where that ism is so frightening that most of the people are preconditioned not to even consider it for facts.

    There is also a problem of dogma with isms. Even if an ism is scientifically proven and since it deals with the societal dynamics, most are inclined to treat it as dogma because it is branded as dogma by vested interests.

    So if I start with the mention of ism itself, even if I talk about facts, the facts are automatically being thrown into ism which is considered dogma. So the facts are not finding their deserved place on political and economic arena.

    I’ve visited your blog and seen “about be” as “Anarchist, Libertarian Socialist, Feminist, Pacifist, Anti-Capitalist.”

    OK. It’s good that you’ve said what you are. Suppose you want to talk some facts about anything (you believe that they are facts) people generally tend to see that you are talking about those facts in the way you talk, because you are anarchist, feminist, anti-capitalist and so on.

    But will they tend to see whether things that you talk about, are facts? In my experience, may be shorter than you, I’ve learned that people are more inclined to see them as part of an ism or -ist, than considering the facts in it.

    I’m not so good at English. You may have to work hard to see what I mean.

    And, thanks.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Cindy madam! One more thing. I’ve said brief enough about differentiating between the government and the state. If I start write about it more, it may test your patience. So I’m retiring on that particular issue.

    If you are interested to discuss more on the issue, let us start mailing. My e-mail is nvscritics@live.com.

  • kurt brigliadora

    Gee…I thought Obama was “Persona Non Grata” When it comes to India…R peeps judgement clouded? due to their loss of jobs and possibly their house?

  • kurt brigliadora

    LOL, is jimmy carter an anti-semite..bigot..You say what?

  • kurt brigliadora

    how about some satire or hyperbole…and semantics..we need some kinda humor with this dreadful news.

  • kurt brigliadora

    Is he… Obama a sanctamonious man? Whats your take?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Interestingly only Cindy and indirectly Mark had caught on to the significance of Sekhar’s distinction. Good show, Cindy. Also kudos to Mr. Sekhar. But you shouldn’t be apologetic, Shekhar, for thinking by relegating the discussion of this subject matter to private email correspondence. Bring it on in the public forum and don’t you worry about estranging your BC colleagues. You’ve stumbled upon an important idea and you should pursue it.

    I’ll post a BC article on the subject, exploring the ramifications, and will let you know when done.

  • http://financialpolitics.com/ Sekhar

    Hi Roger, definitely I’d pursue. My idea is to pursue facts in a definite form in which I believe. At the same time, I’d also like to know other forms of ideas, from which I can learn a lot in the process of my way of pursuit. That’s what I said in my reply to Cindi.

    My point is whether to bring the brand names first and latter produce the facts, or to pursue facts first and then bring out an inference that automatically and acceptably leads to a wonderful thought that is mistakenly brand-named.

    I chose the latter method in order to avoid branding and to win over more audience to the facts. What I mean by “facts”? They mean any thing that is a fact. Be it a political, economical, sociological or philosophical, but facts. Facts are nothing but science. The facts put in an ordered form, make a science as you know.

    Slow and steadiness may win more races.