Monday, June 16, 2014
MODI AND AMERICAN VISA:DOES HE NEED IT?
( A VISA HE NEVER ASKED FOR ON HIS OWN)
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the 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, howsoever 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 that 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 the US consisting of evangelicals and Marxist liberals, strange bedfellows who act jointly against any group that subscribes to Hindu Nationalism. This group has been specifically identified by Murali Balaji in his article “India’s elections and the Doniger affair”(Religious Dispatches/May 18, 2014.)
Evangelicals are aided by the council of religious freedom (USCIRF), 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 the world, 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. It does not take a genius to see that Christianity and Islam are inherently "anti-religious freedom" though espousing the slogan of "religious freedom" to serve their own political proselytizing ends. They are able to wield influence on the gullible followers who swallow their mythology lock stock and barrel.
Liberals (leaning to the political left)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 the American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether Modi should accept the (A-1)visa if and when granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him the visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of the previous Prime ministers of India who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration their visits stimulated 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, DC, as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with the U.S President. Nehru made four visits to the U.S., the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and it was the Soviets who came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus making it obvious he was secretly cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of John F. 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 the 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 U.S. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the U.S. 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 the 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 Bangla 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.
The U.S. 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, the 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. The 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 the U.S.!! With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of Indian Prime Ministers visiting the U.S., 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.” Truthfully and sarcastically referring to the authoritarian leaders of the 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 the press which was smoothened and downplayed by Morarji in public.
In the famous kitchen debate, while Nixon was trying to impress Khrushchev of American superiority in technology, he was shouted out and Nixon had to leave Soviet Union snubbed.
Could Morarji have done that? He could have, if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. Modi realizes this more than Morarji Desai and probably more than Khrushchev. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and the U.S relations, the 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 it had to be repatriated with humiliation 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 the 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 the U.S. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on its 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 the US press. None of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit the U.S or the White House.
When India developed nuclear weapon during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that the U.S. diplomats 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 the 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 if it were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists on 9/11 in New York the U.S. 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 another sovereign 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!! Ordinary civilized and friendly manners of the Indian prime ministers are perceived as signs of weakness, as none of them is as cocky as Khrushchev who did not hesitate to take off his shoe and hammer on the table at the comments of British Prime-Minister at U.N General assembly to show his profound displeasure and resentment without any fear. There are times when diplomacy is served by blunt message than obfuscation and walking on eggs. Modi is civilized and soft spoken but must not be perceived as a weakling by the western powers.
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 the 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 the White House in September 2014 with the lame duck President who may or may not be able to implement any long term Indo-US relationship policies. 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 strict vegetarian and was known to have smoked cigars and drinking wine in private!
MODI AND AMERICAN VISA:DOES HE NEED IT?
(A VISA HE NEVER ASKED FOR?)
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the 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, howsoever 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 that 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 the 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 (USCIRF), 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 the world, 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. It does not take a genius to see that Christianity and Islam are inherently "anti-religious freedom" though espousing the slogan of "religious
freedom" to serve their own political proselytizing ends. They are able to wield influence on the gullible followers who swallow their mythology lock stock and barrel.
Liberals (leaning to the political left)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 the American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether Modi should accept the
(A-1)visa if and when granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him the visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of the previous Prime ministers of India who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration their visits stimulated 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, DC, as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with the U.S President. Nehru made four visits to the U.S., the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and it was the Soviets who came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus making it obvious he was secretly cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of John F. 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 the 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 U.S. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the U.S. 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 Bangla 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.
The U.S. 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, the 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. The 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 the U.S.!! With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of Indian Prime Ministers visiting the U.S., 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.” Truthfully and sarcastically eferring to the authoritarian leaders of the 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 the 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 have,if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. Modi realizes this more than Morarji Desai and probably more than Khrushchev. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and the U.S relations, the 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 it had to be repatriated with humiliation 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 the 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 the U.S. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on its 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 the US press. None of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit the U.S or the White House.
When India developed nuclear weapon during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that the U.S. diplomats 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 the 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 if it were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists on 9/11 in New York the U.S. 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 another sovereign 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!! Ordinary civilized and friendly manners of the Indian prime ministers are perceived as signs of weakness, as none of them is as cocky as Khrushchev who did not hesitate to take off his shoe and show his profound displeasure
and resentment without any fear. Modi is civilized and soft spoken but must not be perceived as a weakling by the western powers.
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 the 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 the White House in September 2014 with the lame duck President who may or may not be able to implement any long term Indo-US relationship policies. 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 strict vegetarian and was known to have smoked cigars and drinking wine in private!
MODI AND AMERICAN VISA:DOES HE NEED IT?
( A VISA HE NEVER ASKED FOR ON HIS OWN)
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the 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, howsoever 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 that 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 the US consisting of evangelicals and Marxist liberals, strange bedfellows who act jointly against any group that subscribes to Hindu Nationalism. This group has been specifically identified by Murali Balaji in his article “India’s elections and the Doniger affair”(Religious Dispatches/May 18, 2014.)
Evangelicals are aided by the council of religious freedom (USCIRF), 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 the world, 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. It does not take a genius to see that Christianity and Islam are inherently "anti-religious freedom" though espousing the slogan of "religious freedom" to serve their own political proselytizing ends. They are able to wield influence on the gullible followers who swallow their mythology lock stock and barrel.
Liberals (leaning to the political left)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 the American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether Modi should accept the (A-1)visa if and when granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him the visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of the previous Prime ministers of India who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration their visits stimulated 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, DC, as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with the U.S President. Nehru made four visits to the U.S., the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and it was the Soviets who came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus making it obvious he was secretly cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of John F. 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 the 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 U.S. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the U.S. 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 the 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 Bangla 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.
The U.S. 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, the 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. The 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 the U.S.!! With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of Indian Prime Ministers visiting the U.S., 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.” Truthfully and sarcastically referring to the authoritarian leaders of the 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 the press which was smoothened and downplayed by Morarji in public.
In the famous kitchen debate, while Nixon was trying to impress Khrushchev of American superiority in technology, he was shouted out and Nixon had to leave Soviet Union snubbed.
Could Morarji have done that? He could have, if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. Modi realizes this more than Morarji Desai and probably more than Khrushchev. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and the U.S relations, the 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 it had to be repatriated with humiliation 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 the 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 the U.S. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on its 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 the US press. None of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit the U.S or the White House.
When India developed nuclear weapon during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that the U.S. diplomats 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 the 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 if it were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists on 9/11 in New York the U.S. 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 another sovereign 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!! Ordinary civilized and friendly manners of the Indian prime ministers are perceived as signs of weakness, as none of them is as cocky as Khrushchev who did not hesitate to take off his shoe and hammer on the table at the comments of British Prime-Minister at U.N General assembly to show his profound displeasure and resentment without any fear. There are times when diplomacy is served by blunt message than obfuscation and walking on eggs. Modi is civilized and soft spoken but must not be perceived as a weakling by the western powers.
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 the 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 the White House in September 2014 with the lame duck President who may or may not be able to implement any long term Indo-US relationship policies. 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 strict vegetarian and was known to have smoked cigars and drinking wine in private!
MODI AND AMERICAN VISA:DOES HE NEED IT?
(A VISA HE NEVER ASKED FOR?)
by
DR. Seshachalam Dutta
Much was said about denial of visa for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the 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, howsoever 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 that 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 the 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 (USCIRF), 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 the world, 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. It does not take a genius to see that Christianity and Islam are inherently "anti-religious freedom" though espousing the slogan of "religious
freedom" to serve their own political proselytizing ends. They are able to wield influence on the gullible followers who swallow their mythology lock stock and barrel.
Liberals (leaning to the political left)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 the American interest groups as they influenced the US politicians succeeding in the denial of visa to Modi.
The question is not whether Modi should accept the
(A-1)visa if and when granted to him, but should he visit these countries which denied him the visa and for what purpose? Our view is that he should not.
We will review the visits of the previous Prime ministers of India who visited the USA in the past and what little they accomplished leave alone some of the adverse reactions of the press and administration their visits stimulated 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, DC, as if it is a pilgrimage to get the audience with the U.S President. Nehru made four visits to the U.S., the first one in 1949, asking for help for food aid to avert famine, which was categorically denied and it was the Soviets who came to his rescue. He viewed himself as World Leader advocating non-alignment without realizing that to be non-aligned needs internal strength, thus making it obvious he was secretly cherishing delusions of grandeur.
He later visited the U.S in 1959 during the Presidency of John F. 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 the 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 U.S. Indira Gandhi had a taste of the freedom of the press in the U.S. 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 Bangla 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.
The U.S. 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, the 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. The 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 the U.S.!! With all the publicity in Indian press of photo ops of Indian Prime Ministers visiting the U.S., 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.” Truthfully and sarcastically eferring to the authoritarian leaders of the 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 the 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 have,if only he had the sense that prestige of the Nation rested on his shoulders. Modi realizes this more than Morarji Desai and probably more than Khrushchev. In another instance, with reference to Chinese and the U.S relations, the 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 it had to be repatriated with humiliation 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 the 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 the U.S. Kissinger’s China diplomacy is touted as historical achievement. It was Nixon who went to China and recognized China on its 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 the US press. None of the Chinese leaders felt a need to visit the U.S or the White House.
When India developed nuclear weapon during the administration of Vajpayee, Secretary Madeline Albright bemoaned that the U.S. diplomats 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 the 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 if it were to be initiated was quite justifiable. After all, for the attack by terrorists on 9/11 in New York the U.S. 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 another sovereign 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!! Ordinary civilized and friendly manners of the Indian prime ministers are perceived as signs of weakness, as none of them is as cocky as Khrushchev who did not hesitate to take off his shoe and show his profound displeasure
and resentment without any fear. Modi is civilized and soft spoken but must not be perceived as a weakling by the western powers.
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 the 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 the White House in September 2014 with the lame duck President who may or may not be able to implement any long term Indo-US relationship policies. 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 strict vegetarian and was known to have smoked cigars and drinking wine in private!
No comments:
Post a Comment