What Bush wants in India
By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Tue Feb 28, 3:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON -
President Bush and his policymakers like to stress how much 9/11 has changed America's foreign-policy objectives, but one goal the terror attacks did not alter is to build a stronger partnership with the world's largest democracy, India.
ADVERTISEMENT
When Mr. Bush arrives in India Wednesday, he will emphasize that same theme - one he has sounded since he was a governor running for president in 2000. At the top of the agenda are a controversial US-India nuclear-power agreement, proposed last summer when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington; security and economic ties; and India's relations with Pakistan, a country Bush will visit briefly on Saturday.
But the specific discussion points, while important, fail to convey the broad geopolitical significance of both the trip and of the administration's intent to forge a strategic relationship.
Closer US-India ties are "one of the most significant developments of the early part of the 21st century," says Kurt Campbell, an international security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) here.
Others close to the administration's thinking say India exemplifies what the Bush team sees as the future of a peaceful and prosperous world. Thus, they add, India should be encouraged as a partner.
India is "a compelling example of what [the president] thinks can happen elsewhere," says Michael Green, recent national security director for Asian affairs, pointing to India's established democracy, its "150 million Muslims with no Al Qaeda," and its growing middle class.
US-India relations have seemed to bud before and have suffered "false starts." Now, conditions favor a full bloom, in part because both countries appear to want it, experts say. "What used to be 'estranged democracies' are now 'engaged democracies,' " says Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of State for South Asian affairs who has accompanied two former presidents - Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton - to India.
"New Delhi has joined the list of capitals to which a US presidential visit is now imperative," says Mr. Inderfurth, now at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.
Bush seeks to cement relations with a huge and fast-growing economy, while at the same time building ties with India as a way to influence the other - but communist - giant in the neighborhood, China.
India sees a mature relationship with the US as a way to further its status as a world power - including, it hopes, a permanent seat on an expanded
United Nations Security Council. India has worked to ease tensions with neighboring Pakistan - a dangerous nuclear rivalry that escalated to the brink of war in 2002, requiring intense diplomacy from the Bush administration and delaying the grand opening to India the president had hoped for in his first term.
Stronger US-India ties would have a geopolitical impact akin to that of the Nixon administration's opening up to China, former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill, a member of Bush's original foreign-policy advisory team, said recently.
But like that transformation, US relations with India are not likely to become suddenly conflict-free.
India will continue to develop relations with nearby
Iran independent of American priorities, experts say, and its need for energy and raw materials will encourage relations with developing countries, which could place it at odds with the US.
Yet a set of common interests should help the US and India move a relationship long characterized by mutual skepticism into a period of greater cooperation, says Teresita Schaffer, former ambassador to Sri Lanka and now director of CSIS's South Asia program. On her list of common concerns for the two powers: security in the Indian Ocean region; broader Asian security factors, including China's rise; Iran; and "global governance" aspirations.
Though India hopes for Security Council membership, the US is "tremendously not interested in moving that forward," she says. But there are other ways to address India's goals, such as providing a closer link with the G-8 group of advanced economies, she adds.
Inderfurth, however, says Bush "is missing an opportunity to solidify his vision of a global future by not endorsing India for a permanent seat." Noting that the National Intelligence Council, the
CIA's think tank, recently concluded that the emergence of India and China "will transform the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century," Inderfurth says that if the Security Council is to "reflect the realities of the 21st century versus those of 1945, how could India not be included?"
Still, the proposed US-India civilian nuclear deal - under which the US would share nuclear technology and fuel with India in exchange for India opening its civilian nuclear plants to international inspection - suggests the kind of tension that is likely to roil the relationship in the future. The Bush administration sees the agreement as a way to reward India for "good nuclear behavior." The deal would also steer a booming economy away from fossil fuels, the White House says.
In both countries, opposition to the deal is centered in the legislature. Some in India's Parliament insist the deal would compromise India's security. In the US, Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record) (D) of Massachusetts has filed legislation to halt it, saying the deal would reward a nuclear power that refuses to join the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty and risks causing a nuclear arms race in South Asia.
Despite the controversy, US Ambassador to India David Mulford said Monday he hoped the agreement would be sealed before Bush's visit.
But others say the trajectory of closer relations should trump enabling a Bush-Singh handshake this week on the nuclear deal. "The relationship is too important - and indeed this deal is too important for future energy development and nonproliferation - to rush it," says Inderfurth.
What Bush wants in India
Moderators: hitesh, The Moderator Team
27 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
NEW DELHI — With India and the United States struggling to work out a nuclear pact before President Bush arrives this week, India's prime minister pledged Monday not to compromise the country's security to seal the deal.
During his visit beginning Wednesday, Bush is likely to find excitement over Indian-U.S. ties mixed with ambivalence about sidling up to a nation many see as the world's bully.
The landmark nuclear pact has, for many here, come to illustrate what India stands to gain from America — and what it has to lose.
Talks on the nuclear deal "are currently at a delicate stage," held up by disagreements over which of India's nuclear facilities are to be designated as civilian and which are to be considered military, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told lawmakers Monday.
Separating India's tightly entwined civilian and military nuclear programs is key to the deal, because the United States has only agreed to recognize India as having a civilian nuclear program — not as a legitimate nuclear weapons state.
"We have judged every proposal" from the U.S., Singh said. "The decision of what facilities may be identified as civilian will be made by India alone and not by anyone else."
The pact would allow the United States to provide nuclear technology and fuel desperately needed by India to fuel its booming but energy-starved economy. In return, India has pledged to separate its programs and open the civilian ones to international inspection.
The deal has faced opposition from some members of U.S. Congress, which must approve the pact. They argue it could undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India has refused to sign the treaty and defied the world by openly conducting nuclear weapons tests in 1998. India and Pakistan have often staged tit-for-tat missile tests that raise regional tensions.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president's approach with the pact will not only address energy needs for India, but will also address important proliferation issues.
"We've made some progress. The negotiations are ongoing," he said. "Whether it gets done during the trip or not, we will see. But we believe it will get done."
Indian opponents worry the United States is pushing to classify far too many of India's facilities as civilian, and thus subject to international safeguards. Some see it as an attempt to undermine the country's nuclear weapons program.
Among Indians, there is also "a sense of America being arrogant in its dealings surrounding the nuclear pact," said Nandan Unnikrishnan of New Delhi's Observer Research Foundation.
"India does not like to be perceived as someone who is doing something according to an external diktat," he said. "And the U.S. has been a little ham-handed in terms of trying to get India to see the world its way."
He cited U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford's remark in January that if India did not support referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program that the India-U.S. nuclear pact could "die" in Congress. The U.S. and other Western countries suspect Iran's program is geared toward making weapons.
Parties crucial to the survival of Singh's government seethed at the comment, claiming it as evidence that New Delhi was selling out to Washington for the sake of the nuclear deal.
The deal is also seen by some as Washington's attempt to balance to China's growing economic and political clout — something New Delhi wants no part of.
India and China "will cooperate, they will compete, they will try to balance each other," said analyst C. Raja Mohan. "But we certainly don't want to be seen as acting as a task horse for the Americans."
A poll in India's Outlook magazine illustrates the mixed feelings of many here.
Asked if India could trust the United States in times of need, 55 percent of the 1,634 people interviewed by pollster AC Nielsen said yes. But asked whether they thought America was a bully, 72 percent said yes. No margin of error was given.
"It's a situation of a rich man and a poor man who's getting richer," said Vijay Bhagat, a shop owner in New Delhi. "We need to work with the United States, we need the money — but we Indian people have to keep our self-respect."
There's little doubt that India has reaped tremendous economic benefits from its American ties.
India's outsourcing industry, for example, is expected to bring in $22 billion in revenues this fiscal year, much of that generated by business from America.
The boom has created millions of jobs, and has even given rise to luxury goods market with brands like Louis Vuitton and Rolls Royce setting up shop.
But the luxuries are for a tiny few, and the economic liberalization that has stoked the boom has also raised fears among Indians — some 80 percent of whom live on less than $2 a day — that the government will soon have to remove subsidies on essentials such as cooking oil.
During his visit beginning Wednesday, Bush is likely to find excitement over Indian-U.S. ties mixed with ambivalence about sidling up to a nation many see as the world's bully.
The landmark nuclear pact has, for many here, come to illustrate what India stands to gain from America — and what it has to lose.
Talks on the nuclear deal "are currently at a delicate stage," held up by disagreements over which of India's nuclear facilities are to be designated as civilian and which are to be considered military, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told lawmakers Monday.
Separating India's tightly entwined civilian and military nuclear programs is key to the deal, because the United States has only agreed to recognize India as having a civilian nuclear program — not as a legitimate nuclear weapons state.
"We have judged every proposal" from the U.S., Singh said. "The decision of what facilities may be identified as civilian will be made by India alone and not by anyone else."
The pact would allow the United States to provide nuclear technology and fuel desperately needed by India to fuel its booming but energy-starved economy. In return, India has pledged to separate its programs and open the civilian ones to international inspection.
The deal has faced opposition from some members of U.S. Congress, which must approve the pact. They argue it could undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India has refused to sign the treaty and defied the world by openly conducting nuclear weapons tests in 1998. India and Pakistan have often staged tit-for-tat missile tests that raise regional tensions.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president's approach with the pact will not only address energy needs for India, but will also address important proliferation issues.
"We've made some progress. The negotiations are ongoing," he said. "Whether it gets done during the trip or not, we will see. But we believe it will get done."
Indian opponents worry the United States is pushing to classify far too many of India's facilities as civilian, and thus subject to international safeguards. Some see it as an attempt to undermine the country's nuclear weapons program.
Among Indians, there is also "a sense of America being arrogant in its dealings surrounding the nuclear pact," said Nandan Unnikrishnan of New Delhi's Observer Research Foundation.
"India does not like to be perceived as someone who is doing something according to an external diktat," he said. "And the U.S. has been a little ham-handed in terms of trying to get India to see the world its way."
He cited U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford's remark in January that if India did not support referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program that the India-U.S. nuclear pact could "die" in Congress. The U.S. and other Western countries suspect Iran's program is geared toward making weapons.
Parties crucial to the survival of Singh's government seethed at the comment, claiming it as evidence that New Delhi was selling out to Washington for the sake of the nuclear deal.
The deal is also seen by some as Washington's attempt to balance to China's growing economic and political clout — something New Delhi wants no part of.
India and China "will cooperate, they will compete, they will try to balance each other," said analyst C. Raja Mohan. "But we certainly don't want to be seen as acting as a task horse for the Americans."
A poll in India's Outlook magazine illustrates the mixed feelings of many here.
Asked if India could trust the United States in times of need, 55 percent of the 1,634 people interviewed by pollster AC Nielsen said yes. But asked whether they thought America was a bully, 72 percent said yes. No margin of error was given.
"It's a situation of a rich man and a poor man who's getting richer," said Vijay Bhagat, a shop owner in New Delhi. "We need to work with the United States, we need the money — but we Indian people have to keep our self-respect."
There's little doubt that India has reaped tremendous economic benefits from its American ties.
India's outsourcing industry, for example, is expected to bring in $22 billion in revenues this fiscal year, much of that generated by business from America.
The boom has created millions of jobs, and has even given rise to luxury goods market with brands like Louis Vuitton and Rolls Royce setting up shop.
But the luxuries are for a tiny few, and the economic liberalization that has stoked the boom has also raised fears among Indians — some 80 percent of whom live on less than $2 a day — that the government will soon have to remove subsidies on essentials such as cooking oil.
- FYI
- Registered User
Bush's visit more significant than Clinton: NYT
Washington, February 28: Observing that President George W Bush’s visit to India is ‘far more significant’ for strategic and economic reasons than the trip six years ago of then American leader Bill Clinton, a leading US daily on Tuesday said the ties between the two countries have never been so important in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
However, the New York Times in its lead editorial also said that it is a ‘pity’ that Bush’s trip beginning on Wednesday should focus so much on the civilian nuclear arrangement between the two countries.
“When President Bill Clinton went to India six years ago, he danced to folk music with women in a rural Rajasthani village, ate bowls of black lentil stew at a posh restaurant in New Delhi, and spotted a rare Bengal tiger at a wildlife reserve South of Jaipur. He was cheered wildly in India’s Parliament,” the paper said.
Bush’s visit to the world’s second most populous nation ‘will likely be less entertaining visually; Mr Bush, after all, isn’t even planning to visit the Taj Mahal, let alone address India’s legislature, which both nations have decided is too raucous to risk an appearance by this President. But Mr Bush’s visit is a far more significant presidential trip, for both strategic and economic reasons,” the Times said.
The paper makes the case that relations between the two countries have never been so important in the aftermath of 9/11 as it pertains to the war on terror and also such issues.
“Against that backdrop, Mr Bush would be well employed simply building bridges between the world’s two largest democracies and focusing on economic issues of common concern,” it said.
“The President is planning the obligatory trip to a centre of high technology, although White House strategists, mindful of election-year fears in the united states about call centres and outsourcing, chose the more diversified city of Hyderabad instead of the call-center capital, Bangalore. Hyderabad has a big Muslim population, so it is also a chance for Mr Bush to try to counter some of the damage done lately to relations between Muslims and the West,” the paper said, apparently referring to the controversy over publication of Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons in European newspapers.
“But there’s not enough substance to these parts of Mr Bush’s schedule to disguise the fact that this trip is built around a bad nuclear deal,” the Times said, making the point that Bush administration’s policy to ‘contain China’ by ‘building up’ India went too far and that the basic bargain of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of rewarding countries that renounced sensitive nuclear technology has been ‘jeopardised’ by making an exception to India.
“That’s the worst possible message to send to other countries-Iran comes to mind-that America and its nuclear allies in Europe are trying to keep off the nuclear weapons bandwagon. Already, Pakistani officials are requesting the same deal for their country, although it is a request that is unlikely to be granted. Congress would have to approve this nuclear deal, and it should kill it. If lawmakers approved the arrangement with India, other countries that signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be tempted to reconsider the cost-benefit bargain that kept them from developing nuclear weapons,” the Times concluded.
Washington, February 28: Observing that President George W Bush’s visit to India is ‘far more significant’ for strategic and economic reasons than the trip six years ago of then American leader Bill Clinton, a leading US daily on Tuesday said the ties between the two countries have never been so important in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
However, the New York Times in its lead editorial also said that it is a ‘pity’ that Bush’s trip beginning on Wednesday should focus so much on the civilian nuclear arrangement between the two countries.
“When President Bill Clinton went to India six years ago, he danced to folk music with women in a rural Rajasthani village, ate bowls of black lentil stew at a posh restaurant in New Delhi, and spotted a rare Bengal tiger at a wildlife reserve South of Jaipur. He was cheered wildly in India’s Parliament,” the paper said.
Bush’s visit to the world’s second most populous nation ‘will likely be less entertaining visually; Mr Bush, after all, isn’t even planning to visit the Taj Mahal, let alone address India’s legislature, which both nations have decided is too raucous to risk an appearance by this President. But Mr Bush’s visit is a far more significant presidential trip, for both strategic and economic reasons,” the Times said.
The paper makes the case that relations between the two countries have never been so important in the aftermath of 9/11 as it pertains to the war on terror and also such issues.
“Against that backdrop, Mr Bush would be well employed simply building bridges between the world’s two largest democracies and focusing on economic issues of common concern,” it said.
“The President is planning the obligatory trip to a centre of high technology, although White House strategists, mindful of election-year fears in the united states about call centres and outsourcing, chose the more diversified city of Hyderabad instead of the call-center capital, Bangalore. Hyderabad has a big Muslim population, so it is also a chance for Mr Bush to try to counter some of the damage done lately to relations between Muslims and the West,” the paper said, apparently referring to the controversy over publication of Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons in European newspapers.
“But there’s not enough substance to these parts of Mr Bush’s schedule to disguise the fact that this trip is built around a bad nuclear deal,” the Times said, making the point that Bush administration’s policy to ‘contain China’ by ‘building up’ India went too far and that the basic bargain of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of rewarding countries that renounced sensitive nuclear technology has been ‘jeopardised’ by making an exception to India.
“That’s the worst possible message to send to other countries-Iran comes to mind-that America and its nuclear allies in Europe are trying to keep off the nuclear weapons bandwagon. Already, Pakistani officials are requesting the same deal for their country, although it is a request that is unlikely to be granted. Congress would have to approve this nuclear deal, and it should kill it. If lawmakers approved the arrangement with India, other countries that signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be tempted to reconsider the cost-benefit bargain that kept them from developing nuclear weapons,” the Times concluded.
- *****
- Registered User
i am too lazy to read the looong posts...
somebody gimme a summary - is he for or against Bush's visit?
i am totally for Bush's visit. if we can welcome the #1 Terrorist Sponsor - the Saudi king - to india, whats wrong with Bush?
somebody gimme a summary - is he for or against Bush's visit?
i am totally for Bush's visit. if we can welcome the #1 Terrorist Sponsor - the Saudi king - to india, whats wrong with Bush?
wtf? i no longer care if my posts hurt yr feelings 
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
-
CtrlAltDel - God!
- Posts: 14824
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:02 pm
- Location: by the Workshop
Bush visit will put Hyderabad on global radar
[ Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:29:33 amIANS ]
HYDERABAD: US President George W Bush's visit in Hyderabad is expected to give a further push to Hyderabad's image as an emerging global city and an ideal investment destination, say industry leaders.
A trip to the city on Friday by the world's most powerful man will help Hyderabad get recognition at the international level and open the door to new investment in this Andhra Pradesh capital, famous for its pearls, palaces and mouth-watering cuisine as also for IT, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, they say.
"Bush's visit will help the city to emerge on the international map. It will provide tremendous trade spin-off benefits and open the doors for foreign direct investment," said Shakti Sagar, managing director of ADP Private Limited.
Sagar, former president of the Hyderabad Software Exporters Association (HYSEA), hopes that all sectors including IT would benefit from this visit. "The visit will help the city grow faster," he said.
With Bush's four-and-a-half hour visit, Hyderabad will earn the distinction of being the only city besides New Delhi to be visited by two US presidents.
Though Bush will visit HITEC City, the IT hub, and will only interact with farmers and scientists at an agriculture university and entrepreneurs at the Indian School of Business, business leaders expect that the visit will turn the spotlight on the city as was the case during his predecessor Bill Clinton's visit
During his visit in March 2000, Clinton had addressed IT leaders at HITEC City. The IT hub, which then had only a few major companies, have attracted many multinational companies during the last six years.
IT exports, which were a mere Rs 200,000 in 1991-92 and Rs 20 billion in 2000-01, are now expected to cross $2.5 billion during the current financial year.
Industry lobby Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) also hailed Bush's visit.
"The visit is coming at the right time as the city has just bagged the prestigious $3 million FAB City project. The visit by Bush will definitely help in attracting semiconductor majors to the proposed facility," said G Vivekanand, Vice Chairman of CII, Andhra Pradesh, and managing director of Visakha Industries.
"It is already a boom time for the city with a new international airport, FAB City and several infrastructure projects coming up and the US president's visit is expected to give further momentum to the pace of development," said DV Manohar, chairman, Shakti Group of companies and past chairman of CII.
"Few people in the US know about Hyderabad but the visit by their president will help the city get recognition. We hope that this visit would help Hyderabad attract investment as seen after Clinton's visit," Manohar said.
They pointed out that Hyderabad was the only Indian city apart from New Delhi that Bush was visiting and this underlined the importance the city had gained during the last few years in various sectors.
[ Wednesday, March 01, 2006 11:29:33 amIANS ]
HYDERABAD: US President George W Bush's visit in Hyderabad is expected to give a further push to Hyderabad's image as an emerging global city and an ideal investment destination, say industry leaders.
A trip to the city on Friday by the world's most powerful man will help Hyderabad get recognition at the international level and open the door to new investment in this Andhra Pradesh capital, famous for its pearls, palaces and mouth-watering cuisine as also for IT, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, they say.
"Bush's visit will help the city to emerge on the international map. It will provide tremendous trade spin-off benefits and open the doors for foreign direct investment," said Shakti Sagar, managing director of ADP Private Limited.
Sagar, former president of the Hyderabad Software Exporters Association (HYSEA), hopes that all sectors including IT would benefit from this visit. "The visit will help the city grow faster," he said.
With Bush's four-and-a-half hour visit, Hyderabad will earn the distinction of being the only city besides New Delhi to be visited by two US presidents.
Though Bush will visit HITEC City, the IT hub, and will only interact with farmers and scientists at an agriculture university and entrepreneurs at the Indian School of Business, business leaders expect that the visit will turn the spotlight on the city as was the case during his predecessor Bill Clinton's visit
During his visit in March 2000, Clinton had addressed IT leaders at HITEC City. The IT hub, which then had only a few major companies, have attracted many multinational companies during the last six years.
IT exports, which were a mere Rs 200,000 in 1991-92 and Rs 20 billion in 2000-01, are now expected to cross $2.5 billion during the current financial year.
Industry lobby Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) also hailed Bush's visit.
"The visit is coming at the right time as the city has just bagged the prestigious $3 million FAB City project. The visit by Bush will definitely help in attracting semiconductor majors to the proposed facility," said G Vivekanand, Vice Chairman of CII, Andhra Pradesh, and managing director of Visakha Industries.
"It is already a boom time for the city with a new international airport, FAB City and several infrastructure projects coming up and the US president's visit is expected to give further momentum to the pace of development," said DV Manohar, chairman, Shakti Group of companies and past chairman of CII.
"Few people in the US know about Hyderabad but the visit by their president will help the city get recognition. We hope that this visit would help Hyderabad attract investment as seen after Clinton's visit," Manohar said.
They pointed out that Hyderabad was the only Indian city apart from New Delhi that Bush was visiting and this underlined the importance the city had gained during the last few years in various sectors.
- *****
- Registered User
Georgia Tech eyes Hyderabad
Atlanta is home to one of the most prestigious universities in the States -- The Georgia Institute of Technology.
What's better? India may be this academic giant's alternate chapter.
As news about the university exploring the possibility of expanding its operational base to Hyderabad, spreads; the local Indian community's...
read on, if interested
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7752 ... 180001.htm[/b]
What's better? India may be this academic giant's alternate chapter.
As news about the university exploring the possibility of expanding its operational base to Hyderabad, spreads; the local Indian community's...
read on, if interested
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7752 ... 180001.htm[/b]
- *****
- Registered User
Hyderabad to run behind the Bush
After years of playing second fiddle to Bangalore in attracting IT investments, industrypeople in Hyderabad are hoping that US President George Bush's visit to the city will finally mark its coming-of-age as a hotspot for new and emerging sectors.
After New Delhi, Hyderabad is the only city that figures in the itinerary of the first citizen of the US - and that has given enough reason for the industry to cheer and hope that it would trigger a fresh round of development.
"Bush’s visit is happening at a crucial time when the state is being promoted as a hot destination for investments in software and hardware and this will send strong signals to US investors," Shakti Sagar, managing director, global financial outsourcing services provider ADP Private Ltd, told the media
The eyes and wallets of US investors will naturally follow the trajectory of their President's visit and Hyderabad’s IT industry will bask in the global limelight, he added. Already, the city is home to names such as Microsoft, Satyam Computer Services, pharma major Dr Reddy's and other giants.
According to industry pundits, the visit of the former US President Bill Clinton to the city six years ago did trigger a wave of development and also had a long-term impact in improving the ratings of the State.
According to MLN Acharyulu, managing director, Qualcore Logic, the infrastructure of the city, which had been given a facelift recently thanks to the Congress plenary, is sure to bowl over the visiting dignitary. The visit might be beneficial not only for the IT sector but also for pharma and biotech sector, feel analysts.
In the recent past, the progress in the biotech sector and the talent pool readily available here has attracted US companies like Nektar Pharma and US Pharmacopoeia to set up their R&D centres here.
"There is lot of scope for business growth between the US and India. The visit will definitely augur well for the pharma sector," said a source in a city-based pharma company, which has a considerabale stake in the US market. While the industry is upbeat, the state government too is hoping for some concrete results.
Besides, the rumour mill has it that the US may set up a Consulate in the city and the government is gearing up to promote the visit as a testimonial to its commitment to development. "We see the visit as the most influencing factor that can bring further US investment into the state," said a senior official.
After New Delhi, Hyderabad is the only city that figures in the itinerary of the first citizen of the US - and that has given enough reason for the industry to cheer and hope that it would trigger a fresh round of development.
"Bush’s visit is happening at a crucial time when the state is being promoted as a hot destination for investments in software and hardware and this will send strong signals to US investors," Shakti Sagar, managing director, global financial outsourcing services provider ADP Private Ltd, told the media
The eyes and wallets of US investors will naturally follow the trajectory of their President's visit and Hyderabad’s IT industry will bask in the global limelight, he added. Already, the city is home to names such as Microsoft, Satyam Computer Services, pharma major Dr Reddy's and other giants.
According to industry pundits, the visit of the former US President Bill Clinton to the city six years ago did trigger a wave of development and also had a long-term impact in improving the ratings of the State.
According to MLN Acharyulu, managing director, Qualcore Logic, the infrastructure of the city, which had been given a facelift recently thanks to the Congress plenary, is sure to bowl over the visiting dignitary. The visit might be beneficial not only for the IT sector but also for pharma and biotech sector, feel analysts.
In the recent past, the progress in the biotech sector and the talent pool readily available here has attracted US companies like Nektar Pharma and US Pharmacopoeia to set up their R&D centres here.
"There is lot of scope for business growth between the US and India. The visit will definitely augur well for the pharma sector," said a source in a city-based pharma company, which has a considerabale stake in the US market. While the industry is upbeat, the state government too is hoping for some concrete results.
Besides, the rumour mill has it that the US may set up a Consulate in the city and the government is gearing up to promote the visit as a testimonial to its commitment to development. "We see the visit as the most influencing factor that can bring further US investment into the state," said a senior official.
- samai
- Registered User
Mock funeral for Bush in Hyderabad
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 434296.cms
Communist parties and Muslim groups in Andhra Pradesh on Wednesday intensified their protest against US President George W. Bush's visit to India, holding his mock funeral and an expo on "US terrorism".
Hundreds of workers of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) took out a mock funeral procession. Shouting slogans like "Down with Bush" and "Bush warmonger go back", the activists carried an 'aarti' on their shoulders and later set it afire.
The women participants were seen beating the 'aarti' with slippers.
The CPI-M and the Communist Party of India, along with other Left parties and their affiliated trade unions and bodies for youths, students and women also held a rally and set afire Bush's effigy.
Bush is scheduled to visit the Andhra Pradesh capital on Friday as part of his three-day visit to India.
Communist parties and Muslim groups in Andhra Pradesh on Wednesday intensified their protest against US President George W. Bush's visit to India, holding his mock funeral and an expo on "US terrorism".
Hundreds of workers of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) took out a mock funeral procession. Shouting slogans like "Down with Bush" and "Bush warmonger go back", the activists carried an 'aarti' on their shoulders and later set it afire.
The women participants were seen beating the 'aarti' with slippers.
The CPI-M and the Communist Party of India, along with other Left parties and their affiliated trade unions and bodies for youths, students and women also held a rally and set afire Bush's effigy.
Bush is scheduled to visit the Andhra Pradesh capital on Friday as part of his three-day visit to India.
- *****
- Registered User
Howdy, George
Most Indians like what the US president thinks: India can become a great power.
George W. Bush, who arrived in the capital last night, wouldn’t have encountered those protesting against his visit. Even if he did, Bush, who sees protestors every day outside White House, should be delighted at the vigorous freedom of expression practised in the world’s largest democracy. More so because the major message from vox populi seems a welcome, not a protest: opinion polls in India have consistently shown strong popular support to both the US and the president in the last few years. Bush’s personal standing in this country seems higher than in many other countries, including perhaps, at this point, in his own!
That 71 per cent in India have a favourable view of the US and 54 per cent support Bush’s handling of world affairs, as reported by the latest Pew poll, underlines globalising India’s new attitudes. The post-colonial chip is no longer an issue to a confident new generation of Indians which has grown up in the era of economic reforms. Unlike the inward-looking India of the ’60s and ’70s that blamed the US and the West for its own ills, the new India is self-assured about its ability to deal with the West as well as the rest. We hope some of this confidence rubs off on the DAE, which has complicated the last minute negotiations on the nuclear separation plan by reflecting all the fears of the past. The positive Indian sentiment towards Bush also instinctively captures the changing strategic dynamics now shaping a new Indo-US partnership. For all the demonisation of Bush, it is his personal beliefs that have forced a paradigm shift in America’s approach to India.
[b]No previous American president has been more favourable to India than Bush on the three big political issues that matter to Delhi — terrorism, J&K and nuclear cooperation. No wonder New Delhi has done more political business with Washington in the five years of the Bush administration than in the previous 50. While liberals in America continue to denounce the nuclear deal, and worry about Indian threat to US jobs, Bush has stood by three basic convictions — a prosperous India would also let America maintain economic growth, a rising India will stabilise global balance of power, and Indian democracy is part of the long-term antidote to terrorism. All three are music to India, which aspires to become a great power. While the world would have eventually accommodated a rising India’s aspirations, Bush has chosen, through his own personal interest, to accelerate India’s emergence. No wonder, then, mainstream India is ready to say “howdy[/b]
Most Indians like what the US president thinks: India can become a great power.
George W. Bush, who arrived in the capital last night, wouldn’t have encountered those protesting against his visit. Even if he did, Bush, who sees protestors every day outside White House, should be delighted at the vigorous freedom of expression practised in the world’s largest democracy. More so because the major message from vox populi seems a welcome, not a protest: opinion polls in India have consistently shown strong popular support to both the US and the president in the last few years. Bush’s personal standing in this country seems higher than in many other countries, including perhaps, at this point, in his own!
That 71 per cent in India have a favourable view of the US and 54 per cent support Bush’s handling of world affairs, as reported by the latest Pew poll, underlines globalising India’s new attitudes. The post-colonial chip is no longer an issue to a confident new generation of Indians which has grown up in the era of economic reforms. Unlike the inward-looking India of the ’60s and ’70s that blamed the US and the West for its own ills, the new India is self-assured about its ability to deal with the West as well as the rest. We hope some of this confidence rubs off on the DAE, which has complicated the last minute negotiations on the nuclear separation plan by reflecting all the fears of the past. The positive Indian sentiment towards Bush also instinctively captures the changing strategic dynamics now shaping a new Indo-US partnership. For all the demonisation of Bush, it is his personal beliefs that have forced a paradigm shift in America’s approach to India.
[b]No previous American president has been more favourable to India than Bush on the three big political issues that matter to Delhi — terrorism, J&K and nuclear cooperation. No wonder New Delhi has done more political business with Washington in the five years of the Bush administration than in the previous 50. While liberals in America continue to denounce the nuclear deal, and worry about Indian threat to US jobs, Bush has stood by three basic convictions — a prosperous India would also let America maintain economic growth, a rising India will stabilise global balance of power, and Indian democracy is part of the long-term antidote to terrorism. All three are music to India, which aspires to become a great power. While the world would have eventually accommodated a rising India’s aspirations, Bush has chosen, through his own personal interest, to accelerate India’s emergence. No wonder, then, mainstream India is ready to say “howdy[/b]
- *****
- Registered User
Afghanistan and Iraq happened only after 9/11
Hyderabad: Muslim group organises anti-Bush exhibition
A Muslim group on Wednesday organised a two-day photo and cartoon exhibition named 'Silent Screams' to protest against the forthcoming visit of US President George W Bush to Hyderabad on March 3.
The Students Islamic Organisation, the students wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, has put up the exhibition depicting the bloodbath let loose by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world and the terror unleashed by Israel in Palestine.
The exhibition has a mix of pictures and cartoons. Killings of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, inhuman treatment meted out to inmates of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, wailings of Afghan women and children and the brutal murder of Palestinians in Israeli attacks are vividly depicted in media pictures displayed at the two-day event.
A number of cartoons and caricatures portray Bush as an international terrorist, an oppressor, a mass killer and guzzler of petrol and gas.
A non-stop multimedia presentation on the "war crimes" committed by the US is another highlight of the exhibition.
Explaining the purpose behind the exhibition, a functionary said that the SIO wanted to protest against the Bush visit in a democratic way by creating awareness among the people through pictures, literature and cartoons.
The SIO is also distributing pamphlets on the damage caused to the Muslim world through the hegemonic policies and actions of Bush.
To be fair to all sides, how about showing the pictures of the 9/11 victims jumping out of the burning windows to their deaths, how about showing the videos of the beheadings and the screams of Nick Berg http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/bergvideo.html and the rest in the same exhibition, in the name of your so called democracy. How about showing the burnt bodies of the 80,000 Kurds in Iraq, how about the videos of cutting off of limbs of those who had the courage to say no to saddam, huh?
and then finally, afghanistan and iraq happened after 9/11, not the other way around !
I do not absolutely say its ok that the comon man should die, either in afghanistan or in iraq or in usa , or for that matter in the whole wide world !!
- *****
- Registered User
Post deleted! 
but why?
but why?
People are crazy, at times are strange. I am locked-in tight, I am out of range.
I used to care, but things have changed.
I used to care, but things have changed.
-
akhilis2cool - God!
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:43 pm
- Location: Camp Swampy
what n whose post got deleted?
wtf? i no longer care if my posts hurt yr feelings
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
-
CtrlAltDel - God!
- Posts: 14824
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:02 pm
- Location: by the Workshop
two of my posts and one by '*****'CtrlAltDel wrote:what n whose post got deleted?
People are crazy, at times are strange. I am locked-in tight, I am out of range.
I used to care, but things have changed.
I used to care, but things have changed.
-
akhilis2cool - God!
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:43 pm
- Location: Camp Swampy
i can understnd the deletion of parinda's post...but wat did u do?
wtf? i no longer care if my posts hurt yr feelings
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me
-
CtrlAltDel - God!
- Posts: 14824
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:02 pm
- Location: by the Workshop
CtrlAltDel wrote:i am too lazy to read the looong posts...
somebody gimme a summary - is he for or against Bush's visit?
i am totally for Bush's visit. if we can welcome the #1 Terrorist Sponsor - the Saudi king - to india, whats wrong with Bush?
I just have to say it...he is NOT a terrorist sponsor...he is the leader of the country that is an exemplar for Islam.
and yes, long article indeed!!!!
- xprincessx
- Registered User
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:48 am
xprincessx wrote:I just have to say it...he is NOT a terrorist sponsor...he is the leader of the country that is an exemplar for Islam.
and yes, long article indeed!!!!
So is bush my dear. Both men kill innocents people indirectly, one by giving money and protection, the other by framing laws and misusing government power.
May the Fries be with you!
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
I asked him "kuch aur kaam naiyye kya?" his reply wasn't abusive at all...fairly ambiguos one actually...phir uske baad mein ek reply kiya...CtrlAltDel wrote:i can understnd the deletion of parinda's post...but wat did u do?
aur next day the whole convo was gone
People are crazy, at times are strange. I am locked-in tight, I am out of range.
I used to care, but things have changed.
I used to care, but things have changed.
-
akhilis2cool - God!
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 1:43 pm
- Location: Camp Swampy
Mayavi Morpheus wrote:xprincessx wrote:I just have to say it...he is NOT a terrorist sponsor...he is the leader of the country that is an exemplar for Islam.
and yes, long article indeed!!!!
So is bush my dear. Both men kill innocents people indirectly, one by giving money and protection, the other by framing laws and misusing government power.
How is bush an exemplar for Islam?
Nope, I see Saudi and I see a well established country. People don't have to pay taxes and all their needs are being met [healthcare, clean roads, clean water, etc].
- xprincessx
- Registered User
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:48 am
Same in the sense that both sponsor Terrorrism in various forms.
Well, why not. They get all the money without doing any hardwork. Imagine what is going to happen when in 20 years time world starts becoming less dependant on oil? Btw, saudi percapita has gone down in the last 20 years or so and there is unrest among its population.
Nope, I see Saudi and I see a well established country. People don't have to pay taxes and all their needs are being met [healthcare, clean roads, clean water, etc].
Well, why not. They get all the money without doing any hardwork. Imagine what is going to happen when in 20 years time world starts becoming less dependant on oil? Btw, saudi percapita has gone down in the last 20 years or so and there is unrest among its population.
May the Fries be with you!
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
xprincessx come out of your perceived anamolous state.
Saudi a well established country . The biggest joke on these boards for some time.
What does well established mean ?
Ah you look at the "So called protector of Haramain" and his life style and say established country.
- Dissent is dealt with Death
- Poverty is rampant in very many areas, there are 100s to 1000s of tribes who still live without basic ammenities in your affluent Saudi. (Still live in tents.)
- Those who rule are the elite few.
- Ask the expats who have lived there, they have lived in housing commissions, done what ever work came to them led a robotic life.
Ah why is the world mum!!! Petro $$$ do what you want and the world does not want the people to rule as that would mean fair trade.
Fair trade would mean pain in the Ass, better support the "Affluent terrorist aka the crown prince, let him do what he wants with the masses"
Did you know there are n go zones even for Saudi nationals in Saudi, Controlled by US.....
On topic, Bush and Abdul Aziz same side of the same coin.
The ideology of the rulers of Saudi is similar to the ideology of those who spread terror.
Saudi a well established country . The biggest joke on these boards for some time.
What does well established mean ?
Ah you look at the "So called protector of Haramain" and his life style and say established country.
- Dissent is dealt with Death
- Poverty is rampant in very many areas, there are 100s to 1000s of tribes who still live without basic ammenities in your affluent Saudi. (Still live in tents.)
- Those who rule are the elite few.
- Ask the expats who have lived there, they have lived in housing commissions, done what ever work came to them led a robotic life.
Ah why is the world mum!!! Petro $$$ do what you want and the world does not want the people to rule as that would mean fair trade.
Fair trade would mean pain in the Ass, better support the "Affluent terrorist aka the crown prince, let him do what he wants with the masses"
Did you know there are n go zones even for Saudi nationals in Saudi, Controlled by US.....
On topic, Bush and Abdul Aziz same side of the same coin.
The ideology of the rulers of Saudi is similar to the ideology of those who spread terror.
Tu jo sachchi hai larazti kyun hai aye zaban bol de darti kyun hai
qalb men khowfe khuda hai tere phir zuban sach se jhijhakti kyun hai
http://kaamwali.fullhydblogs.com
qalb men khowfe khuda hai tere phir zuban sach se jhijhakti kyun hai
http://kaamwali.fullhydblogs.com
-
DQ - Level 2 Star User
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:59 am
Just a sidenote. With the protests all over the country against Dubya....and even the commies joining in, the only question that sprung forth was...
Why didn't these people protest against Musharraf when he was here? Are the afghans and iraqis dearer to these protestmongers compared to our very own Kashmiris?
Why didn't these people protest against Musharraf when he was here? Are the afghans and iraqis dearer to these protestmongers compared to our very own Kashmiris?
In un foro nella terra, viva un hobbit
-
Surprised HP - Level 1 Lord
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:28 am
- Location: Omnipresent
Mayavi Morpheus wrote:
So is bush my dear. Both men kill innocents people indirectly, one by giving money and protection, the other by framing laws and misusing government power.
But war is such where men kill men, my dear MM, any killings of innocents are a collateral damage. How much of importance does one give to these innocents' lives is the question.
If it just so happens, that innocent happens to be a sonia or a rahul or a mush or a bush or an osama or a blair.. or (pun intended) a cartoon against Islam
, how do you think the world will react?
and when it happens to an innocent like me or you?
- *****
- Registered User
***** wrote:But war is such where men kill men, my dear MM, any killings of innocents are a collateral damage. How much of importance does one give to these innocents' lives is the question.
If it just so happens, that innocent happens to be a sonia or a rahul or a mush or a bush or an osama or a blair.. or (pun intended) a cartoon against Islam
how do you think the world will react?
and when it happens to an innocent like me or you?
I don't know whether you are being sarcastic or serious, it is not clear from your posts and the fact that a dozen people use this nick, it is very difficult to assess where you stand w.r.t the 'fence'.
Now for collateral damage, how much collateral damage is acceptable damage? Should we kill a million people so that 2 million can live happily? That doesn't make sense to me. This is not a full blow out war... 2003 occupation of Iraq was a war and casualities due to aerial bombing, heavy handed methods are accepted. But now the war has ended and there is a civilian govt. installed. . This is an insurgency and you do not bomb the shit out of insurgents because they are not an organized army.... they hide among people and when you bomb them, you are will kill innocents. IOW, for every one insurgent killed, 100's of civilians will be killed. This is no way to win the hearts and minds of people.
This is a war of attrition and may take decades to bring under control. Insurgencies like this can never be completely won with military fire power. The main reason being military is trained for fighting wars/organized enemy and not for counter insurgency operations. It needs multi-pronged approach and the first step is to reduce casualities/collateral damage.
May the Fries be with you!
-
Mayavi Morpheus - Level 2 Lord
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
- Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West
27 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
ADVERTISEMENT
SHOUTBOX!
{{ todo.summary }}... expand »
{{ todo.text }}
« collapse
First | Prev |
1 2 3
{{current_page-1}} {{current_page}} {{current_page+1}}
{{last_page-2}} {{last_page-1}} {{last_page}}
| Next | Last
{{todos[0].name}}
{{todos[0].text}}
ADVERTISEMENT
About Hyderabad
The Hyderabad Community
Improve fullhyd.com
More
Copyright © 2023 LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. fullhyd and fullhyderabad are registered trademarks of LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. The textual, graphic, audio and audiovisual material in this site is protected by copyright law. You may not copy, distribute or use this material except as necessary for your personal, non-commercial use. Any trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.