Better yet, put Amrit Singh and Henry Kissinger at the same table, and have them duke it out over antipasto.

Also add in Alberto Gonzales (before he was the AG he was Mr. Torture Memo, as you'll recall) and Arun Gandhi (grandson of Bapuji) for some extra masala.

Hope she sits next to Rumsfeld and kicks his old ass.

Or better between Rummie Boy and Cheney Chikna !!

Both the lowest of the low in a democracy !!

I too hope that she someday follows in her father's footsteps.

"I too hope that she someday follows in her father's footsteps."

Does this mean being the PM of India, despite never having won elected office?

Let's not get carried away - that last thing India needs is more dynatic politics. And while Singh may be a nice enough fellow, the fact that the Kashmir situation is steadily moving away from India's advantage does not speak too highly. Nor the fact that economic reform at the national level has come to a halt.

the fact that the Kashmir situation is steadily moving away from India's advantage does not speak too highly.

I'm not sure it has ever been in anyone's advantage. Except the crazies on both sides, I guess.

the fact that the Kashmir situation is steadily moving away from India's advantage does not speak too highly.

Actually, India is in a much stronger position on Kashmir today and the situation is NOT moving away. India wouldn't care if the status quo with the borders is maintained. Pakistan does. Border infiltrations have lowered as a result of American pressure and activity on Pakistan's western front. India has quitely reaped the benefits (Uptake in Kashmir tourism, a fence along the LOC)

Obviously, I'm speaking from a position of hypocrisy here. But is it me or does it bother anybody else that the daughter of the leader of India has decided to leave the country and immigrate to the US?

Simply the fact that her deep involvement in domestic US issues should disqualify her from being at any function involving US/India relations. The fact that so many south asian leaders and politicians send their children to the US who subsequently settle here just demonstrates the bankruptcy of leadership in India.

I don't care if she's nice and down-to-earth, she's no business being there and the conflict of interest is to o great...

Just my 2 cents....

Fun dynastic politics fact of the day: King Abdullah of Jordan, then Crown Prince, appeared as an extra on Star Trek voyager.

Gujudude,

I'm not suggesting that Kashmir is going to break away immediately. But, within the past two months, you've had the Hurriyat Conference violate the terms of thei agreement with New Delhi. They had permission to visit POK, but instead with the official Islamabad seal of approval, they went onto to Pakistan proper. They were often introduced as the voice of the Kashmiri people, despite the fact that there is an elected assembly in Srinigar, that is increasingly being ignore by New Delhi as well.

While Musharaff is running around trying to track down anyone related to the London bombing, Lashkar e Toiba is still doing business as usual in its HQ outside Lahore, since Musharaff knows any pressure from India is an empty threat.

Bear in mind, Pakistan know it cannot wrest Kashmir by force. But, keeping a steady amount of violence going in Kashmir will make India's aspiration to be a global power ring rollow. And the Paksitani military will settle for that.

"Fun dynastic politics fact of the day: King Abdullah of Jordan, then Crown Prince, appeared as an extra on Star Trek voyager."

Oh man, why did he appear on the weakest of the Star Trek shows?

I highly doubt Amrit Singh is ever going to get into Indian politics. Maybe American politics... anyone know if she is a U.S. Citizen?

Why dedicate your career to human rights in the U.S. legal system only to go over to an entirely different system? You don't achieve her level of success without a great deal of dedication.

Whilst Sisko narrowly misses out on the top 5 coolest Trek characters and despite the fact I will be reincarnated as Dr Bashir generations from now, Deep Space Nine was weaker than Voyager.

Ah what are either of us talking about KXB? Enterprise sucks harder than any of them.

I'm pretty sure Amrit Singh is a US citizen.

saurav:

About J&K, before the terrorists were let loose on us, it was to my family's advantage in J&K--you see, we actually lived there in relative peace with our Muslim neighbors, just as our ancestors have done, for oh about a 1000 or so years!

But do enlighten me about the 'crazies' on our side who were taking advantage of the absence of the Devotees of Peace from Pakistan. (hint: our side is India; yeah, my extended family is chock-full of Indian citizens, in case you were wondering). I wait with bated breath.

Kumar

it is amusing to note that for a change the current Indian prime minister is an example of meritocracy, whereas the US president is part of a dynasty!

CuniLinuxxx
..you bring up some good points here. I'll have to agree with you that their family members sould bear a certain amount of loyalty.

Living and working overseas on a temporary , semi-permament basis is one thing, but obtaining overseas citizenship is another, and totally not cool ! The Indian top establishment is replete with such cases -- including our ex- PMs, and foreign ministers.

to contrast - i knew this one journalist from a South East Asian (note the east) country who was born in the US, and wanted to work here but couldn't do so cause they wouldn't give her a Green Card. They could only offer her Citizenship. Guess what, she turned them down and went through a four year ardous process (all while absent from the US) to get a green card. When I asked her why, she said her father was a retired diplomat - and it was just not the thing to do !!!

One of the people who joined Bush and Manmohan Singh for dinner was Brandon Chillar, the first desi to ever play in the NFL. His dad Ram Chillar joined him at the event.

But do enlighten me about the 'crazies' on our side who were taking advantage of the absence of the Devotees of Peace from Pakistan. (hint: our side is India; yeah, my extended family is chock-full of Indian citizens, in case you were wondering). I wait with bated breath.

I don't pretend to understand all the specifics of Kashmir beyond what one would pick up in a half-attended seminar your senior of college, but my point was that, like Israel-Palestine, it's a good issue for fundamentalists on both sides of the border to latch on to and stoke religious tensions--which they have done. So my point was broader than just about Kashmir, and I'm sorry if I erased your family's local history in the process of making a glib comment (although some sourcing, in addition to your personal history, would help us all understand better what you're talking about, since you're makign claims about "1000 years", restricting it to a very specific place (instead of including, say, Ladakh),etc).

Simply the fact that her deep involvement in domestic US issues should disqualify her from being at any function involving US/India relations. The fact that so many south asian leaders and politicians send their children to the US who subsequently settle here just demonstrates the bankruptcy of leadership in India.

Dude, what the hell is up with all the hating on emigres?! Every freakin' transglobal move isn't an expression of moral sentiment. Maybe she came to study law or something here and just liked the place. That doesnt' mean she doesn't like India. Stop comparing the two countries in just terms of their systems and peoples and politics. *They are different parts of the earth.* Some people like the milder climate, or the very fact that they can get away from their beloved but meddlesome family! Some people fall in love, and maye it doesn't work out but then they've set themselvs on a trajectory! Sometimes people have a job they really really like. It might not even pay better--I know of cases where it doesn't! Stop being so damn judgemental. Maybe she will go back. People do. Ever read about Gandhi? And even if she doesn't, I'm kind of offended that you think the very act of moving here is somehow necessarily insulting India.

This story already got made into a movie-- the NRI who moves to the US for education and works, forgets his roots and sells out for the man, but realizes his evil ways and his obligation to bring his brains and dollars back home to help better India.

From the box office reports, none of the 1Gs and peeps in India liked it much. It was 2Gs in US and UK that drove the box office. -Seems ironic, that.

Anyone here read Humphrey Hawksley's book - The Third World War?

Saurav:

"....some sourcing, in addition to your personal history, would help us all understand better what you're talking about, since you're makign claims about "1000 years"..."

Well I'm a Kashmiri Pandit, and Kashmiri Pandits are native Kashmiris, not migrants, i.e., our community has resided in the Valley for millenia. Note, btw, that this doesn't mean we're the only native-Kashmiri community. I think those are fairly commonly known facts, and if you need citations for such things...Well, look Saurav, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, but perhaps you should read more about J&K before posting. I fear that sounds insulting, although I don't mean it to be so.

"...restricting it to a very specific place (instead of including, say, Ladakh),etc.."

The reason for not mentioning Ladakh is really pretty simple. The attention of the Devotees of Peace from Pakistan has been mostly concentrated on the Srinagar and Jammu districts. Ladakh, and Kargil (with the major exception of the Kargil war) thankfully, have been mostly spared (at least so far).

"...a good issue for fundamentalists on both sides of the border to latch on to and stoke religious tensions..."

I'm afraid this is simply not true. There really is not a symmetry of motivation on the two sides. India, with all of its many deviations from secularism, is still not a Hindu polity--secularism has managed to survive as both the official and marketplace ideology in India. Even the Hindu 'fundies' couch their attempt to gut secularism in secularist terms (e.g., 'pseudo-secular' is their epithet of choice).

Pakistan, though, is a Muslim polity--certainly, officially (read its constitution). And Muslim fundamentalism has a far, far greater purchase on the Pakistani marketplace compared to India. The 'mullah-military' complex is flourishing in Pakistan. Is there a comparable phenomenon in India ? The Pakistani jihad in J&K is just that: a religious jihad, justified by reference to Islam. (however wrongly; but Islamic hermeneutics is not my concern/responsibility since I'm not a Muslim)

Even those supposedly 'secular' Kashmiri Muslims who ardently support secession (here, I mean urban Sunni Muslims living in the Valley) tap this vein of justification when the need arises: It was the cadres of the allegedly 'secular' JKLF who abetted our ethnic cleansing.

Read the reportage of Praveen Swami on their role, and J&K issues generally. He used to report (and now has been promoted, I believe) for The Hindu, available online, a very left-wing paper. His work is also 'syndicated' in Outlook Magazine online as well as the the South Asian Portal on Terrorism (SAPTA) online.

Certainly, I don't deny the use of rhetoric citing the treatment meted out to Kashmiri Pandits in an attempt to justify an atrocity against Muslims, usually after-the-fact (Gujarat comes to mind, but I don't have the specific quote at hand, sorry). However, rhetoric citing our community's plight is a minor chord in the 'hymn of hate' issuing from 'fundie' Hindu types. So I don't think such rhetoric plays a major part even in Indian communal violence. It goes without saying, of course, that I (along with other KP's) think such rhetoric quite despicable. As the saying goes, 'Not in my name'.

Look, the debate in India around Kashmir is rather complex and does not revolve around a hatred for all things muslim. No doubt there are Muslim-haters on the scene but the debate centers far more on good old-fashioned Indian patriotism--not so much on Hindu vs. Muslim. In other words, even if Hindu 'fundies' were removed from the scene, India would not all of a sudden decide to dismember itself over Kashmir. While patriotism may be an equally repugnant idea to you, I beg to differ. But that's a debate for another day.

Kumar

Saheli:

I shouldn't start an argument with yet another person, I suppose. But here goes...First, for the record, I'm a 1.5 generation Indian-American--Kashmiri Pandit, to be even more specific ;)

I quite agree with your response in general. People stay here for a variety of reasons. And, yes, of course one ought not to conclude that people who choose to live here necessarily despise/dislike India.

But I think the focus on the motives of those children of the Indian elite who choose to stay here is misplaced. Rather, one ought to focus on their elders in India.

The aspect of this phenomenon which I find disquieting is that so many of the offspring of even the Indian elite find life better in the U.S. or other Western countries. It belies the notion of 'India-shining' (to use a discredited phrase), doesn't it?

And, I should think, even more worrsiome for the common Indian citizen is that the elite may not work as hard to better India, to make life better for the children of India, given that the children of the elite have such an easy 'out'. I do sometimes wonder if as many members of the Indian elite would peddle ruinous economic policies, if their families' futures depended on securing a vibrant Indian economy.

Kumar

Kumar, I grant you all that as a general trend analysis, but it sticks in my craw as nasty and arrogant to apply it so judgementally and sneeringly to a specific person, as CuniLinuxxx did. To be an utter geek about this: When I write down the Ideal gas law for an ensemble of atoms, I am making some generalizatins about the trends most of the atoms are following. I wouldn't dare describe a particular atom with that. See? So if atoms, fairly simple constructions, require so much specific complexity, how much more for people? I guess I wouldn't care so much except here's a cool woman she hasn't done anything wrong, so why should she get trashed on the web for her good work? And I'm kind of put off by the assumption that her parents "sent" her here. If her parents are anything like half the Indian grandparents I know, they'd really like her back home. She's an adult. I don't know, I just tend to respect the choices of adults when they aren't doing anything bad. That seems to be an increasingly unpopular attitude.

Anyway, it sounds like she's a gadfly hell raising question authority type. Maybe she decided her life would be better if she took that impulse to a country that wasn't run by her dad. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Everyone's gotta do what they gotta do.

Saheli:

"...I grant you all that as a general trend analysis, but it sticks in my craw as nasty and arrogant to apply it so judgementally and sneeringly to a specific person, as CuniLinuxxx did."

Yeah, as I wrote earlier, I agree. In any case, the obverse side of this phenomenon is what really interests me.

To be slightly more geekier than you, an orthogonal point: Even if you dared to "....describe a particular atom...." using the Ideal Gas Law, there wouldn't be much point to it. After all, by assumption, in the derivation of the Ideal Gas Law all atoms are alike in some fundamental ways.

Kumar

Over the great reaches of the internet, I sensed that I was needed. Where there is disagreement over the ideal gas law, this is where I appear. Muuhaha

An ideal gas is a noble gas.

A non-ideal gas is one passed.

Everything else is compressible.

Sorry, I was being distracted by a friend over my shoulder who was calling me a geek. Yes, what I meant--if you have a cloud of atoms and the Ideal gas law you have a temperature, and you can say, ah, all these atoms are moving this fast. But of course some might be moving much slower and some much faster. You have no idea, really, you just know the average.

Namaste, Maxwell.

saheli et al.,

nice to see my fellow geeks out in force. and saheli, finally, you're on point, chela (? hmm, i don't think that's the right grammatical gender but it's late, so who cares....certainly, not you, i'm sure)
;)

kumar

Saheli/Kumar

You missed my point. I don't make a judgment about the prime minister's daughter, I make the judgment about the prime minister. If his kid has settled in the US rather than in India, why should the average Indian be confident that he will be able to represent their interests fairly and competently with an American president? After all, his own daughter is an antogonistic force against the Bush administration which could conceivably make it a little more difficult for the primer minister to exercise some personal diplomacy.

What personal investment does he have in India's future and its youth?

Thanks for your reply, Kumar.

Well I'm a Kashmiri Pandit, and Kashmiri Pandits are native Kashmiris, not migrants, i.e., our community has resided in the Valley for millenia. Note, btw, that this doesn't mean we're the only native-Kashmiri community. I think those are fairly commonly known facts, and if you need citations for such things.

No, I'm aware of all that. What I was looking for citations for was your claim that "we actually lived there in relative peace with our Muslim neighbors, just as our ancestors have done, for oh about a 1000 or so years". I'm not denying your personal experiences, but you're using them to make claims about 1000 years of history. It's a little bit like me making vast generalizations about three hundred years of Long Island's history on the basis of having been raised in one town there for 20-odd years.

"...a good issue for fundamentalists on both sides of the border to latch on to and stoke religious tensions..."

I'm afraid this is simply not true. There really is not a symmetry of motivation on the two sides.

You're right about this and my emphasis on religious fundamentalism on the Indian side was kneejerk. I agree the narrow issue of Kashmir should probably be put, on the Indian side, more in the context of nationalism (i would say chauvinism) than religious fundamentalism than I did.

The most important dynamic in my mind is that India/Pakistan tensions illustrate historical British divide and rule consequences with nation-state conflict, which leads to increasing religious and nationalist (and other) tensions throughout the region and stratification. And then you add to that Pakistan's instability, the Indian ruling elite's stubbornness and traditional propensity for being totally disconnected from reality, the Cold War, and some other factors, and you get a great big mess for which Kashmir is merely a symbol to be used, a tinderbox. If anyone with power in the situation were actually invested in the welfare of Kashmiris, I think the whole thing would have been more easily resolved--which, I guess, was my point all along.

Saurav:

"...I was looking for citations for was your claim ... I'm not denying your personal experiences, but you're using them to make claims about 1000 years of history..."

I'm not sure what you take to be controversial: The '1000 yr history' of our community in Kashmir or the claim that, relative to the rest of India, communal relations since Partition in the Valley have been okay until the late 1980's. Or perhaps you're skeptical of both. These points, at least, are not really contested by anybody.

While my personal experience and that of my extended family is broadly consistent with the latter point, I certainly did not generalize from my experience. Rather, like any other schoolboy here (or in India, for that matter), I base my contentions on the history (books) of the region.

In any case, if you're interested in further reading take a look at Prem Shankar Jha's book on Kashmir. Additionally, for an American perspective read Rober Wirsing or Sumit Ganguly's books.

"...I agree the narrow issue of Kashmir ... on the Indian side,...[is]... more in the context of nationalism (i would say chauvinism) than religious fundamentalism than I did..."

Your antipathy towards Indian, indeed any, nationalism is one I don't share. I happen to think that, on the whole, the nation-state is a fairly useful entity that can be leveraged to do all sorts of good things, not just bad ones.

"...If anyone with power in the situation were actually invested in the welfare of Kashmiris, I think the whole thing would have been more easily resolved..."

I'm afraid that's overly simplistic. In J&K there are genuinely irreconciliable viewpoints, and they cut across ethno-religious lines. That's what makes it so hard to 'solve'. Not ill-will, but a genuinely difficult knot to untangle.

Kumar

So, anyone know who Amrit Singh's married to? Some American lawyer, called Barton or Wharton, I think. He also teaches at an American university and is involved in civil liberties. I'm doing a story on them and we have his pictures but need his full name. Help?