posted March 05, 2006 02:51 AM              

as for the protest against his visit , yeah there were protests but they were mostly on the fringes .
the protests actually were organised by the LEFT POLITICAL PARTIES(you never get thier logic- they will use a nokia cell phone ,use parker pen but protest against globolisation) AND SOME THE OTHER PARTIES IN SOME OF THE PROVINCES THAT ARE TO GO FOR ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR AND THESE PARTIES SUDDENLY HAVE A GOLDEN ISSUE TO GARNER MUSLIM VOTES (that are the crucial swing votes ) so in essence its all politics . (one of the parties inticing the protest was hobbnobbing with the hindu fundamentalist party only a few years ago).

as far as the indian media's mood goes , BUSH'S visit has been greatly appreciated .
he might have been disastrous for the world but he is been quite good for us politiaclly.
thats what the strategic experts conclude.

and the security , thats a necessity ,afterall we have a neighbour thats the terrrist breeder . (thankfully we didn't have any blast (as in pak ) though we had protests in dedmocratic way .

posted March 05, 2006 03:11 AM              

I'm sorry you have to do business with him...

posted March 05, 2006 07:11 AM              

quote:

---

i am not sure if you have credible news .

---

Maybe, maybe not.

The information I got was from the BBC news website (as were the pictures I posted of the protesters on page 1 of this thread).
Here is the link to the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4761956.stm

In fact, I decided to post the particular report I found because I felt it gave a balanced view of the protests, as it didn't claim that all Indians were against Bush's visit.

quote:

---

The BBC's Sanjeev Srivastava in Delhi says that although many are protesting against the Bush visit, there are also many Indians who will welcome him.

---

and I said...

quote:

---

This was a fair account I thought, being as it mentions the fact that not all Indians protested against Bush's presence in their country. However some 100,000 people protested against him...

---

You have echoed that sentiment yourself in your post saying,

quote:

---

i haven't gone through what the world media has to say about BUSH's visit to india . but i seriously feel this enhanced relation is good for both the countries especially economically.

---

However, those protests certainly seem to have happened in India somewhere. I've subsequently seen other reports that say Hyderabad and Lucknow were the scenes of more violent protests.

"Anger on the streets : An Indian activist of a leftist party wearing a mask mocking US President George W. Bush gestures during an anti-Bush protest rally, in Hyderabad, central India."

In Lucknow... "Lucknow was shut down on Saturday after days of violent protests against U.S. President George W. Bush in which at least four people died..."

"Women in Bangalore protested carrying banners that said 'Bush Go Back'"

Of course you live there so you're no doubt the expert. Would you tell us what the Indian press/tv coverage has been of the visit please? It would be interesting to get that perspective.

posted March 05, 2006 02:08 PM              

quote:

---

I think the desperately sad thing is that in some cases, it's once again descended into an opportunity for Hindus and Muslims to fight each other. I really hope it's not set that relationship back even further.

---

posted March 05, 2006 03:06 PM              

hyderabad : its a predominantely muslim city . so , its a serious matter .

kolkata : thats a leftist bastion for the last 25 yrs. . do i need to give an excplantion for them.

banglore : i am not quite sure of the news .i'll check .

coming to your question , BUSH has been quite well received in INDIA . may be this is one initiative that , i think will be a defining moment in our relation .

infact , dubya is said to be more charming with his informailties and hugs than the master charmer bill clinton .

media reports also indicate that he is not as idiot as projected by the night comedy shows in US .

so , overall he has been well received here .

posted March 05, 2006 06:20 PM              

quote:

---

infact , dubya is said to be more charming with his informailties and hugs than the master charmer bill clinton

---

Crikey, it's extraordinary what people will latch onto as a reason to discredit someone isn't it? You can order your troops into an illegal conflict, costing your country billions of dollars not to mention the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and yet some people will greet with open arms and ridicule those who protest against you because you're offering them dangerous and possibly politically lethal technology. Or you can have an extra-marital affair in the White House and despite your sincere and extensive efforts to attain a real and lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, you will be forever written off as a letch and a womaniser.

posted March 05, 2006 07:06 PM              

quote:

---

We can all hug and kiss each other whilst holding the knife poised behind the back I wouldn't be too swayed by his informalities; it's his policies that count, and where India fits in to them. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see not too far in the future, a US base (or two)springing up somewhere in India, from which the present US government can further their dream of American global leadership.

---

quote:

---

where it says quite clearly "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership" Would India like to be part of that? One of the most ancient civilisations on the planet being led by one still in nappies?

---

posted March 05, 2006 07:18 PM              

By Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden

Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A19

Many of the people who are made uncomfortable by President Bush's ideologically driven foreign policy have been pleasantly surprised by his recent decision to supply India with nuclear energy technology. This diplomatic agreement, its admirers eagerly point out, is not rooted in "freedom" or "values" but in a strategic calculation: that providing India with such technology will help balance China's power in the region.

This does appear to be the case. But what they fail to note is that the administration's inexperience with such strategic, non-ideological calculations has caused it to mishandle the negotiations themselves and, in so doing, to damage one of our country's most strategic, effective and "realistic" agreements: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

First, the Bush administration made two amateurish mistakes in the way it brought this agreement to the world's attention. One was announcing the agreement just days before the resumption of six-party talks over the fate of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. For the past few years, the United States has struggle to convince China that North Korea, its ally, should be punished for violating the NPT. Yet just before the six-party talks began, the Bush administration declared that our ally India would not be punished for its refusal to join the NPT. This clearly undermines our ability to secure China's much-needed cooperation in denuclearizing North Korea.

The Bush administration's second error was announcing its agreement before having secured the necessary congressional approval. The initial reaction from Capitol Hill has not been encouraging: Members of the energy conference committee in the House have already approved a measure that would make it illegal for the United States to export nuclear technology to India, and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has cautiously remarked, "We're going to have a lot of conversations."

Such conversations ought to have taken place before the agreement was made public. The instant we announced our willingness to disregard the NPT, we forever undermined its coercive power. But we will not receive any of the strategic benefits of a strengthened India without congressional approval. Thus, we could end up paying the cost for the agreement without reaping any of its rewards.

Most significant, however, is this: The Bush administration is wrong to believe that the agreement with India will serve our strategic interests better than the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it threatens to render all but obsolete.

The Bush administration has demonstrated over the past five years that it does not believe the treaty to be worth preserving. In May it expressed its disdain by dispatching a low-level State Department official to the important NPT Review Conference. And last year the administration torpedoed a crucial verification provision of a treaty, one that would have reinforced the NPT by banning production of uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty -- which is founded on a simple but powerful agreement that nuclear states will provide access to peaceful nuclear technology to countries that forgo such weapons -- has served the U.S. national interest since it was signed in 1970. When it came into effect, there were five nuclear weapons states, and it was estimated that the number would grow to 25 by the end of the century. Thanks in large part to the NPT, the actual number of nuclear powers in the year 2005 is just nine.

According to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 40 countries have peaceful nuclear programs that could be retooled to produce weapons. That so many of them have not done so is testimony to the effectiveness of the carrots and sticks in the NPT.

If Congress accepts the logic of the Bush administration and allows our government to help build nuclear energy plants in India on the grounds that it is an ally, what is to stop China from offering the same support to its allies? It is only a matter of days before Pakistan -- another country with nuclear weapons that has refused to sign the NPT and thus has been denied certain types of nuclear technology -- demands to receive the same special treatment that India has.

The final weakness in these negotiations is that the Bush administration secured so little in return. While we were willing to void the most potent nuclear weapons control treaty of the past three decades, India was not even compelled to stop producing fissile material for further weapons. Apparently, in its concern to balance the power of China, the administration forgot to consider whether putting no limits on India's fissile material production might not prompt Pakistan to continue such production itself. Such a development would certainly increase the risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists.

Ultimately, the Bush administration should be commended for its foray into the realm of geopolitical strategy and diplomatic negotiations. But let us hope that next time it manages to strike an agreement more beneficial to the United States.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and Peter Ogden are with the Center for American Progress.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201940.html

posted March 05, 2006 07:33 PM              

quote:

---

cardinalgal: i am in delhi , i didn't see any protests . there were protests by leftists in parliament , none elsewere .

---

Interesting. I didn't know you were from Delhi, cancerrg. Can you tell us more? It would be nice to know what someone from India actually thinks.

India is the most ancient civilization on earth. The Americans aren't stupid but they are brash, short-term thinkers. The Indians are old enough to have learned the art of subtlety and to appreciate the value of the long term benefit. I don't think they'll allow themselves to be led "by one still in nappies" unless it's going to work in their favor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Co. walked out of there wondering what the hell hit them.

posted March 06, 2006 05:40 AM              

quote:

---

I dont think it's nutty. It's expected. I wish I could express half of what I believe and think will happen but for some reason there's a part of me that's afraid people will see it the wrong way and because Im Muslim view me as illogically siding with terrorists

---

Not at all Day Dreamer! Muslim faith doesn't automatically make you a card carrying member of a terrorist cell. It gives you a perspective on the situation that must be very awkward. It must be hard to believe in something and see that faith sidelined by a small number of it's followers who consistantly misinterpret and misuse it for their own ends, thus giving the rest of the world a false impression of what the religion stands for. I admire all Muslims who have stood up and denounced what terrorists do in their name. I totally understand that there are enormous injustices being done to those living in the Middle East and that Western foreign policy has contributed to that and inflamed the situation incredibly; but to take revenge for the actions of a few politicians on their people with indiscriminate acts of violence... well that furthers no one's cause in my opinion. We the ordinary people of each country may well have voted for our leaders, however there was no referendum on the war in Iraq. Those of us who went on the marches to protest against it were ignored.

V.Interesting article Petron!

quote:

---

If Congress accepts the logic of the Bush administration and allows our government to help build nuclear energy plants in India on the grounds that it is an ally, what is to stop China from offering the same support to its allies? It is only a matter of days before Pakistan -- another country with nuclear weapons that has refused to sign the NPT and thus has been denied certain types of nuclear technology -- demands to receive the same special treatment that India has.

---

Hi Tink

quote:

---

I don't think they'll allow themselves to be led "by one still in nappies" unless it's going to work in their favor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Co. walked out of there wondering what the hell hit them.

---

We can only hope

posted March 09, 2006 08:20 AM              

let me make it clear , i am not supportive of any POLITICIAN . i simply support anyone who i think , supports the needs and aspirations of my country . SIMPLE !

posted March 09, 2006 08:50 AM              

quote:

---

think the desperately sad thing is that in some cases, it's once again descended into an opportunity for Hindus and Muslims to fight each other. I really hope it's not set that relationship back even further.

---

what does this have to do with hindu-muslims ? i dont see it the way , you see it.
but i think, the following article summarises the situation in a much better way. you will get a better persepective of the situation created meainly by the vociferousness of hardliners and silence of modertaes . and the way , hindu fundamenatlist have indicated, trouble would be brewing . ( two bombs went off in the hloy city of varanasi ,yesterday kiliing fourty people , though things are normal but politicians might use the situation . elections are due next year and sadly its the same state that i earlier talked of .

::::::::Against the current

:Vir Sanghvi

There are unmistakable echoes of the pre-Diwali Delhi blasts in the bomb attacks in Varanasi. Though we cannot be sure who the Varanasi bombers were, it seems reasonable to surmise that they may have been Islamic extremists — just as those who set off the explosions in Delhi were. In Varanasi, as in Delhi, there was an obvious communal angle. Tuesday’s blasts came just before Holi and the bombs went off in a Hanuman temple. The Delhi blasts were timed to disrupt Diwali celebrations and the targets were innocent men and women who were out shopping for the festival.

And yet, the political and public response to the Varanasi incident has been completely different from the way in which the Delhi blasts were regarded. Then, nobody played up the Islamic angle. There was a stoic unity within the political establishment. And there was a quiet recognition that though Islamic terrorist groups would attack Indian civilians, Indian society would unite to fight the threat.

This time around, however, the response has been framed in Hindu-Muslim terms. The BJP (hindu fundamentalist party )has sought to link the Varanasi bombings to what it regards as the Muslim-appeasement policies of both the UPA government (present fed. govt. )at the Centre and the Samajwadi Party ministry in Lucknow(the state that i talked of ). On the night of the bombings, as the blood congealed on the floor of the Sankat Mochan temple, L.K. Advani( hindu leader ) went on TV to declare that these blasts could not be delinked from the protests against the Danish cartoons. His successor as BJP president, Rajnath Singh, blamed government policies towards Muslims.

It is easy to be cynical about the BJP’s attempts to extract political mileage from this tragedy. There was no shortage of terrorist incidents when Advani was home minister. But nobody suggested that this was because he was a Muslim-lover. Nor does it make any logical sense to say that Muslim appeasement leads to terrorism. People who are pampered or appeased do not need to resort to violence. Terrorism is the response of those who are angry, marginalised or denied a say in governance.

On the other hand, while the BJP’s motives are tragically predictable, it would be foolish to deny that many ordinary people — who have no political axe to grind — also saw the Varanasi blasts in Hindu-Muslim terms. This is in sharp contrast to the Delhi blasts where the man and woman in the street reacted with a never-say-die defiance and refused to focus on the communal angle.

So, what has made the difference? Why should two incidents that are broadly similar be regarded in two completely different ways?

Some easy explanations are available. The Varanasi blasts took place in a temple; this re-emphasised the religious nature of the attack. They took place in Uttar Pradesh where the SP has clung on to power by cynically playing on Muslim insecurities and encouraging Islamic extremism.

But is this the whole story? My fear is that the increased communalisation of the response to the Varanasi attacks — as compared to the more secular reaction to the Delhi bombs — tells us something about the manner in which many Hindus are beginning to perceive Muslim extremism.

It is too pat to say that Hindus feel that the UPA government is appeasing Muslims. Unlike the Hindu backlash of the Eighties, which was prompted by the feeling that the Congress favoured Muslims over Hindus to win votes, the public sentiment this time is more complicated.

The major difference in the two decades since the Babri masjid (mosque that was demolished in '91 )issue first emerged is that the global perception of Islam has changed. In the Eighties, nobody talked of a clash of civilisations. Osama bin Laden was an obscure figure. Al-Qaeda did not exist. Conflicts in West Asia were not seen in Islam versus The Rest terms — the long war between Iraq and Iran in the Eighties was not reported in a religious context. Whatever problems Hindus had with Indian Muslims were domestic, local and our own.

In this century, however, there is a growing feeling that Indian Muslims are focusing more on their global Muslim identity and less on their Indian nationality. The furore over the Danish cartoons is just one instance. Yes, all right, the cartoons were offensive. But what does it have to do with us? Why should Indian Muslims be ready to riot over cartoons they will never see in a paper they have never heard of in a country that most of them will never visit? Don’t Indian Muslims have enough problems at home that they should worry about European cartoons?

Similarly, to say that Hindus were shocked that a minister in the UP government got away with offering a reward of Rs 51 crore(
= 510 million)(thats something done for the first time in india ) for the head of the Danish cartoonist is to miss the point. By now, most people are reconciled to the sad reality that the extremist fringe of the Muslim leadership includes many loathsome thugs. Nor does anybody expect

Mulayam Singh Yadav to act against the goondas in his government. (This is the chief minister who had Raja Bhaiyya ( a charge sheeter )sworn in to his ministry, remember?)

The point is that the UP minister offered the reward only because he knew that he would be applauded by Indian Muslims for this murderous gesture. And, in fact, not only has his reward gone down well with his constituency but other extremist Muslim politicians have echoed his sentiments. The question that bewilders many Hindus is: why should the Muslim electorate respond so positively to a campaign to murder a man whose name they don’t even know?

Nor can many Hindus understand the Muslim reaction to George Bush. Few Indians (of all religious persuasions) approve of the invasion of Iraq or of American foreign policy in general. And yet, most of us are able to distinguish between Washington’s attitude to Iraq and its policy towards New Delhi. If India stands to gain from a US foreign policy initiative, then most Indians will welcome that initiative no matter what their views on US policy towards Iraq, Iran or Palestine are.

But many Muslim leaders seemed to take the line that no matter whether India gained or not, anything that Bush did was to be opposed because America had acted against Muslims in Iraq. As the BJP has not failed to point out, the sub-text is clear: Indian Muslims will place the interests of global Islam over those of the Indian State.

Once political leaders encourage Indian Muslims to see themselves as Muslims first and Indians second, then even Hindus begin to accept this caricature. Thus, the Delhi bombings were an attack on the Indian nation. But the Varanasi blasts are yet another instance of global Islamic terrorism.

Some commentators have advised the UPA government to go slow on addressing Muslim grievances for fear of provoking a Hindu backlash. In fact, the opposite is true. Muslims are at the mercy of extremist lunatic-fringe leaders only because they feel marginalised by government policies. The way to fight Muslim alienation from the Indian State is to do more for them, not less.

In the Eighties, you could argue that the hard secularism of the Congress — which saw Muslim grievances in terms of right to refuse maintenance to wives and the right to kill Salman Rushdie — contributed to the Hindu backlash.

But this time around, it is not government policies that are provoking the backlash. It is the Muslim community’s own inability to rein in its extremists and to dictate a moderate, indigenous response to political events.

I am reminded of the US invasion of Afghanistan which removed the odious Taliban regime and pushed bin Laden into hiding. While the rest of India applauded the initiative, the tiresome Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid declared that he was on the side of the Taliban and wanted to help them.

It was Shabana Azmi who fixed him. Fine, she said, if he cares so much about the Taliban, let’s put him in a plane and air-drop him into Afghanistan. That way he can help his beloved Taliban and we will be rid of him.

This time too, the strongest condemnation of the bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist has come from Muslims for Secular Democracy, an organisation that includes Azmi and her husband Javed Akhtar.

Why can’t more Muslims show such courage? Why can’t they speak out for reason and for Indian nationalism? How can they allow the thugs and the lunatics to hijack the leadership of their community?

My fear is that if they do not come forward now, we will be back to the great communal divide of the late Eighties and the early Nineties
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

posted March 09, 2006 09:08 AM              

quote:

---

Cancergg, I wonder why you think Bush's visit enhanced relations with India. For starters, the US will support and help technologically enhance and expand India's nuclear weapons arsenal, yet India never signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty!! And some of their nuclear reactors will be off limits to international inspection!! And of course Bush said no to supporting Pakistan's nuclear, which was expected. Actually Bush's visit to Pakistan if it did anything...it did more harm to the relations between the two nations.

---

yeah , we didn't sign the NPT bcoz we were clear with idea .
i think, it shows our honesty in our nuclear dealings . we never prolifertaed .

as for the harm between the relations of the two neighbours , i dont think these issues effect it .
we already share a relation that can be only amended for good only when pakistan wants it ,especially pakistani military . untill then nothing would help .

quote:

---

Or you can have an extra-marital affair in the White House and despite your sincere and extensive efforts to attain a real and lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, you will be forever written off as a letch and a womaniser.

---

Oh lady! did you see it as an insult to bill clinton .
i dont have anything to do with the domestic politics of your country . so i am out of it .

quote:

---

where it says quite clearly "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership" Would India like to be part of that? One of the most ancient civilisations on the planet being led by one still in nappies?

---

posted March 09, 2006 09:28 AM              

quote:

---

I dont think it's nutty. It's expected. I wish I could express half of what I believe and think will happen but for some reason there's a part of me that's afraid people will see it the wrong way and because Im Muslim view me as illogically siding with terrorists.

---

whom are you afraid of ? dont be !
i myself have supported hindu fundamentalist once , i am ashamed of them now . and i say it openly.
i hope you can do the same . infact LL is a great place to do that.

i remember , you once told , you were basically from kashmir. right?

btw, how is canadian way of life different from ours ? would like to know ?
where did your grandparents live in delhi . infact , i live very near to the old walled city.

quote:

---

Yet they don't have the same sentiments you do cancergg.

---

i am amused . what kind of impression do i make day ?
infact, i tried to keep my posts very staright . i think "BUSH's visit might help us strategically and i said only that.

for record , one of my closest friend is a muslim ( he is a childhood friend ) so my thoughts (what ever way they sound ) have nothing to do with my being a hindu.
religion for me is personal nothing to do with politics .
and i have already said , i view all this as politics , a game for supermacy . AMERICA is trying to use us , we are trying to use them,simple . thats business ,nothing personal

quote:

---

cardinalgal: i am in delhi , i didn't see any protests . there were protests by leftists in parliament , none elsewere .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. I didn't know you were from Delhi, cancerrg. Can you tell us more? It would be nice to know what someone from India actually thinks.

---

i have alraedy said it ( and i am sorry , i seem to have hurt dear DD ! , NO SUCH INTENTIONS this side DD )

posted March 09, 2006 11:35 AM              

quote:

---

what does this have to do with hindu-muslims ?

---

Thanks so much for posting the article - will read in depth now

quote:

---

Oh lady! did you see it as an insult to bill clinton .
i dont have anything to do with the domestic politics of your country . so i am out of it

---

Ooh hold on there cancerrg!! I'm British not American!! I'm from Lincoln UK No I was just saying that it's interesting that Clinton seems to be still referred to with a slight disdain because of his exploits in the White House. Just seems much less of a crime than some of the things that Mr Bush has been getting up to that's all.

posted March 10, 2006 05:29 AM              

quote:

---

what does this have to do with hindu-muslims ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was reported that there had been a lot of clashes during the protests between Hindus and Muslims and that several people had died as a result - and what with the recent difficult relations between India and Pakistan it just seemed a particularly delicate issue at the moment.

---

not many but yes , there was a clash in lucknow ,its the capital of the state that i have constantly reffered to .
infact, this is the first time that a clash has occured in there . this city is known as a city of etiquettes .
the clash actually occured bcos the mob was trying to forcefully close the shops on the protest day .
it has a lot to do with the religious and caste politics thats played here .
four people died in the clash .

if you read the article , you will understand why hindus might see it as antinational , bcos the nuclear deal is good for the country so if anyone protests against the same person not for the merit or demerit of the deal but mainly bcos he is seen as anti muslims .

muslims need to understand that whatever BUSH might have been , he has been good for us ,economically and otherwise .
so being indians first ,then of being any religious group , they should have understood his importance .

i'll give you a different example , take the case of " ban on turbans etc. in schools " in france . sikhs wear turbans and they are second biggest minority here .
jacques chirac was here just a day after bush , they protested but there was a difference . ( inafct ,the indian primeminister is a sikh as well and the president is a muslim , chief of the majority party is an italian by birth )

quote:

---

Ooh hold on there cancerrg!! I'm British not American!!

---

oops ! hahahahahahah.............

quote:

---

Anyway, thanks so much once again for giving the alternative perspective and I'll read that through now.

---

and thanks for being soooooooooo understanding .

and this is somEthing that i have been trying to make clear , i know its very good to talk of PEACE but you can't do that sitting in close proximity to two rogue states ( three if you add iran , even its record isn't that good ) who have proliferated even after signing the NPT , atleast we didn't lie .

posted March 10, 2006 05:37 AM              

quote:

---

and thanks for being soooooooooo understanding

---