Prime Minister's San Jose speech to malign India and project himself

SAN JOSE — In a veiled attack on the corruption during UPA regime and a barb at the Congress President's son-in-law Robert Vadra, Prime Minister Narendra Modi today deprecated the culture of graft in the country and said he has provided graft-free governance.
He said corruption during the previous government's time had triggered anger among people.
"In our country it doesn't take much for allegations to come up against politicians... Someone made 50 crores, someone's son made 250 crores, (someone's) daughter made 500 crores, (someone's) damaad (son-in-law) made 1000 crores..." he said addressing the Indian community at the packed SAP Centre in San Jose, California.
Switching on to a question answer mode, he asked the audience "Is the country not disappointed?"
The people replied "yes".
"Is there not anger against corruption," he asked.
"Yes," people shouted.
Mod then asked, "I am standing before you. Tell me if there is any allegation against me."
"No," people shouted. He then told the crowd that he is giving every minute of his life in the service of the nation and he would live and die for the country.
While Modi's reference to sons and daughters of politicians being corrupt is seen as a reference to culture of corruption in the country, the reference to son-in-law is seen as a barb at alleged land deals entered into by Vadra with the some state governments.
Modi also said that the 21st century is India's century and attributed the sudden change in India's fortune to the commitment, strength and pledge of the 125 crore people of the country.
"For some time now, people are saying that the 21st century is India's century," Modi thundered in an address to a strong crowd of 18,500 Indian-Americans.
 Modi said that in the past 16 months, world's perception about India has changed dramatically. The world is looking at India with a new vision and aspiration. He attributed this change to the commitment, strength and pledge of the 125 crore people of the country. Modi said he is confident of India's success because 65 per cent of the population of the country are of less than 35 years 800 million.

MEA clarification on nuclear deal draws flak---- The Hindu

The government had made it clear that there would be no changes to the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010).

There has been sharp criticism of the government’s contention that United States-based suppliers of nuclear reactors and parts will not be directly liable in case of a nuclear accident, nor can they be sued by Indian nuclear operators unless the contract they sign clearly states it. The clarification of the government’s position was released by the Ministry of External Affairs on Sunday, after it had been shared in a memorandum with U.S. officials.

In it the government had made it clear that there would be no changes to the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010), but that liability for suppliers would apply only if it was written into the contract. The government also stated that Section 46, which relates to victims of an accident being able to sue under ‘tort laws’ does not relate to suppliers at all, and the Parliament debate over the CLND law in 2010 had seen amendments on the issue rejected.

However, Left-party members, who had tried to push for those amendments counter this. “I think that it is illegal for the MEA to contend that the suppliers are not included in ‘tort’ liability, and we will take up all these issues in parliament.” CPI leader D. Raja told The Hindu. Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari also questioned why Indian insurance companies had to bear the brunt of the liability. “The explanation given seems to be in derogation of the law and the will of the people,” he said. Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan also criticised the government’s position saying it “violates the intent and spirit of the CLND,” and accused the Modi government of trying to “facilitate the business interests of the foreign and domestic companies, in utter disregard of the devastating human suffering which is sure to follow a potential severe nuclear accident.”

Interestingly, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who had attended the early negotiations of the nuclear contact group that hammered out the recent agreement, had argued just the opposite when he was Leader of the Opposition in September 2013. In an article available on the BJP website, he had argued that the supplier must be made liable mandatorily and not as an option. “Any attempt to permit NPCIL to abdicate the right given to an operator, would be compromising… and contrary to the provisions of Ssection 17(b) of the Act,” he had argued at the time. When contacted about the agreement on Sunday conflicting with the BJP’s previous stand, Mr. Jaitley made no comment.

On the issue of tracking nuclear material by the U.S., the MEA spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said that “there would only be IAEA safeguards”, not U.S. safeguards. However, he didn’t reply to the specific question on whether India has agreed for the first to time to share data with the U.S., as The Hindu had reported last week.

India foreign policy current affair and Discussion

Lesson on diplomacy, from an Iranian  -Chinmaya R. Gharekhan write to The hindu

A recent Track II discussion on New Delhi-Tehran ties was an eye-opener on the need for a foreign policy that is not based on the appeasment of any country

Track II meetings can be useful when participants express their views candidly, without worrying about offending the sensitivities of others. When the event is held in India, visiting think tankers take pain not to upset their hosts. Since most foreigners have rightly concluded that Indians are not only flattery prone but credulous as well, they are usually complimentary about India’s role in various situations such as in Afghanistan, Syria, Middle East, etc.

It is therefore refreshing when a visiting participant in a Track II meeting gives free rein to his views about India’s foreign policy as was the case when an Iranian expert, familiar with the official thinking of his government, spoke his mind at an event in Delhi some time ago. Other Iranian participants at the same meeting spoke in a similar vein.

‘Inclined towards U.S.’

India, he said, was anxious not to make the United States unhappy. “Your ‘qibla’,” he said, “is Washington.” India was much inclined towards the U.S. and should reconsider striking a balance in its foreign policy; India had some shortcomings and should reconsider its relations with Iran; India was not being pragmatic but opportunistic. Traditionally, India enjoyed huge social capital in Iran; it was hugely popular with the Iranian people. All that had been destroyed for generations in one stroke because of India’s anti-Iran vote in the International Atomic Energy Agency. India could not vote against Iran and claim, at the same time, that Iran was important for India; it just did not make sense. A little later in the interactive session, he reiterated his view that India could not vote against Iran and, at the same time, say it wanted to work with Iran. “I repeat this because it was a very harmful act and it is very hard for any friend of India in Iran to accept this.”

Some Indian participants, evidently upset and taking advantage of this candour, reminded the Iranian gentleman that Iran had always sided with Pakistan and asked him what it was that Iran had done for India, that Iran was buying wheat from the U.S. but was not willing to buy it from India, that Iran was spreading radicalisation among the Shia community in India, that India says Iran is important for India but Iran never says India is important for Iran, etc. Someone pointed out that Shiite Iran supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was a diehard Sunni movement.

The Iranian friend — we have to describe him as a friend since friends are supposed to talk frankly without worrying about offending anyone — was not nonplussed. It was not Iran which placed obstacles for Indian wheat sales in Iran; this was a matter of business considerations. He added that India could not have an unfriendly attitude towards Iran and, at the same time, expect special consideration. Iran was a land of moderation, not a land of extremism; it never exported Shia extremism to India. If there is Shia extremism in India, there is also Hindu extremism, he added for good measure. As for supporting Pakistan, he said Iran had to, since Pakistan was a neighbour and a friendly country, but Iran had never done anything against India and wanted to be helpful to both. He rubbished the reports about supporting the Taliban and added that India had been in touch with the Taliban.

On the nuclear issue, the Iranian expert said Iran was not asking for anything more or less than the rights and obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran had always been in full compliance with its treaty obligations. No section of Iranian society saw nuclear weapons as a matter of privilege or security. Islamic jurisprudence specifically forbade intentionally polluting the atmosphere. Nuclear weapons did not provide security to nuclear weapon states; the U.S. and Nato had nukes but of what use had they been in Afghanistan? Had India been able to use them against Pakistan? As for some ‘evidence’ contained in a laptop revealed in Vienna, it was fabricated and a cheap argument.

The ‘friend’ used the very point raised by the Saudis and others; India, he pointed out, could easily get oil from other sources, Iran was not really important for India as an energy source.

Instead of taking offence at his remarks, we ought to draw some lessons from them.

Unlike Iran, which never says India is important for it, Indian strategic community never tires of repeating how crucial Iran is to us for its energy resources, for alternative access to Afghanistan and for the northern corridor to Central Asia. For good measure, we often remind ourselves of the fact that there is a large Shia community in India, the assumption being that the Shias in India expect the government to be mindful of their religious sentiments while deciding on the policy towards Iran. Such talk only strengthens Iran’s attitude of being somewhat contemptuous or dismissive of India. It further makes people in Iran and India conclude that India needs Iran much more than Iran needs India, if at all.

As of today — and this must be emphasised — Iran certainly needs India’s friendship. It is true that our anti-Iran vote in IAEA has harmed our relations with Tehran, but international relations cannot forever be held hostage to past actions. We ourselves have long forgotten even the fact that many countries had voted against us in the United Nations at the time of Bangladesh’s war for independence in 1971.

The Iranian friend was right; there are other sources from where India can buy oil. Saudi Arabia would be delighted if we were to turn to it to make up the shortfall, since it would clearly be interpreted as India siding with it in the undeclared politico-sectarian war against Iran. (This is one reason why India would not want to do so.) But the number of buyers of Iranian oil is dwindling fast and Iran is hard put to find alternative buyers, even at discounted prices. Contrary to what our friend said, his Oil Minister has publicly acknowledged that Iran’s oil exports fell by 40 per cent last year.

Iran needs India’s friendship

The Prime Minister paid an official visit to Iran last year for the non-aligned summit, no doubt upsetting the Americans. The fact that he was ‘granted an audience’ by the supreme leader should not flatter us. Iran certainly needs friends like India. Would the supreme leader have ‘received’ the Prime Minister if his country did not face sanctions? Iran surely knows that India has not joined in the unilateral sanctions imposed by the West. If Iran, in the face of these facts, has convinced itself that India’s ‘qibla’ is in the direction of Washington, there is nothing we can do to disabuse it of its thinking.

The above analysis is not an argument for downgrading Iran’s importance for us and for the region of which it is a part. Rather, it is meant to keep in mind what Harish Khare, the respected columnist, recently observed: Appeasement policy does not serve national interest, in domestic politics or in international relations. His advice is aimed at the government but is equally true at the non-governmental level. International relations must be conducted on the basis of reciprocity and mutuality of interests. We also have to keep in mind that countries which at present have strained, even hostile relations with Iran, can and will change their policy at a time of their choosing; we should not be left surprised.

(Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, was until recently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy for West Asia) 

 

A sea of broken dreams, For Indian women in America

When Pavitra’s Delta Air Lines flight flew into Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on a crisp blue July morning back in 2008, her heart pounded with excitement. Though it was a dangerous time economically and few companies were hiring, her husband landed a good job with a major IT firm and was assigned to projects across the U.S.

Pavitra, who had a bachelor’s degree from India and some work experience, had made a careful plan to embark on a course of higher studies — permitted under her current H-4 visa — and then seek employment. It was all coming together for her, it seemed. But she was in for a rude shock.

As expected UAE official says that U.S. firing was a mistake

“The primary investigation confirms that the boat was in its right course and did not pose any danger. The shooting was clearly a mistake,” Dahi Khalfan Tamim, Dubai’s influential police chief, was quoted as saying by the UAE daily The National.

The U.S. Navy has said that it was forced to open fire as a last resort, after the fishing boat failed to heed an entire protocol of warnings.

The Indian embassy in Abu Dhabi is working with local authorities to carry out a full investigation into the incident. “We have made the request and the UAE authorities have already begun the investigation on their own,” said M.K. Lokesh, Indian ambassador to the UAE. 

Ensure implementation of nuclear deal: U.S.

A senior Obama administartion official has said that Indian should ensure the full implementation of the India-U.S. civil nuclear deal and that New Delhi is aware about this, but have not done it yet.

“The Indians know very well, how we feel about the necessity to get these things done and they assure us that they are but they are still not done,” the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, Ellen Tauscher, told Washington—based Defense Writers Group at a breakfast meeting.

“We are working closely with the Indian allies and partners. There are a number of things, legislatively, that they (India) have got to do including some of the indemnity issues,” said Tauscher, in response to a question.

Notably, Tauscher during the Bush Administration, as a member of the Congress, was a key opponent of the deal but now is in favor of its full implementation.

The issue also came up for discussion when the Deputy Secretary, William Burns, visited India recently.
The Hindu