India on The Huffington Post

Full Show: December 3, 2009

2009-12-03T21:45:04Z

Please view the original post to see the video.
Watch the full show from Thursday, December 3:
Watch the full show from Thursday, December 3: a top American scientist says he hopes the climate change summit in Copenhagen fails; Afghan women take desperate steps to address abusive marriages; and, we remember the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal tragedy in India.
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/12/th_091203_fullshow.jpg
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/12/th_091203_fullshow.jpg

Read more: Bhopal-India, India, Copenhagen, Home News

World Bank Loans India $1 Billion To Clean Ganges River Pollution

2009-12-03T03:20:22Z

NEW DELHI — The World Bank has agreed to loan India $1 billion to help clean the Ganges river, sacred to hundred of millions of Hindus and also one of the most polluted rivers in the world.

"The bank would be honored to help and support India's renewed endeavor to revitalize this uniquely important river," World Bank President Robert Zoellick said.

Phillip Martin: Skin Whitening in the Age of Barack Obama, Part One

2009-12-03T02:30:07Z

No one should be surprised that baseball's Sammy Sosa has changed from black to white, albeit his claim to an accidental transformation caused by cream and lights. Skin whitening is a world-wide phenomenon that is becoming ever more popular as people in developing nations become more flush with cash. The multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry aimed at making skin whiter and fairer, from Santa Domingo to Singapore, from Bogota to Bombay, from London to Lagos, is growing exponentially.

For the past two years, I have been exploring the role of skin color in international development, politics and society for the public radio program, The WORLD.

And just about everywhere, but especially in Asia (see my recent article on the Global Post.com) and increasingly in Latin America, skin whitening--using surgery, cryosurgery, lasers, whitening "needles" (administered in regimens), bleaches, and skin whitening creams and pills--is surging.

It would seem that just about everyone -even some who have grown up on steady diets of black, brown and tan pride--want to color their skin white; even in an age of non-white world leadership exemplified most conspicuously by Barack Obama, as well as by Evo Morales of Bolivia, that country's first fully indigenous head of state.

Their very election to high office would seem to alter long-standing and universal frameworks of assumption about the limitations of individuals with black and brown skin. But the legacy of colonialism and lingering perceptions of white Western primacy are hard nuts to crack. Even in South Africa, home to Nelson Mandela and the historic pushback against apartheid, skin bleaching products, though by-and-large prohibited, are widely sold on the black market and widely used.

But ground zero for skin whitening is Asia. Synovate, a market research company, found that nearly 40 percent of women in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines use some type of whitening product. And despite the world-wide economic downturn, the multi-billion dollar whitening cosmetics industries of Europe, Japan, India and elsewhere are robust, and show no sign of shrinking, according to an Asian-wide industry group, the ASEAN Cosmetics Association. The largest expanding market is for cosmetics targeted at men, especially the black and brown men of India.

Skin whitening is a world-wide phenomenon that is becoming ever more popular as people in developing nations become more flush with cash. The multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry aimed at making skin whiter and fairer, from Santa Domingo to Singapore, from Bogotá to Bombay, from London to Lagos, is growing exponentially. ">Shahrukh Khan in catchy TV advertisements-- that "fair and handsome" is the key to success, millions upon millions of men apparently believe it. Sales of a product by the same name are selling briskly in almost all parts of that vast nation, but especially in the mega-urban centers, where the comparisons between light-skinned Mercedes driving-Haves and dark skinned-bullock cart riding Have-nots are stark.

In India, financial success also often corresponds with the color of the person whom you marry, said Harvard Business school professor, Tarun Khanna, author of a book on capitalism in India and China titled "Billions of Entrepreneurs": In an interview he told me: "In the marriage market, fairness is a big, big deal. You can go to the websites that are marriage brokers and the very fact that most of the matrimonial ads will present people as being fair skinned or not indicates that it is an attribute that the market values in some sense."

Indeed, of more than 200 personal ads on Indian websites that I surveyed not along ago, 192 Indian men and women either described themselves as fair skinned or said they were looking for a partner who was. It is a common desire Asia-wide, reflecting a long class tradition. On the streets of Beijing with help from a translator, I asked a migrant worker from central China what he thought was the secret to happiness: "He wants a girlfriend with a pale skin," said the translator. Why? "He can't tell the reason, but he just wants a pale girlfriend."

A study by University of Cambridge anthropologist, Mikiko Ashikari, "Cultivating Japanese Whiteness: The 'Whitening' Cosmetics Boom and the Japanese" found that the steady popularity of skin whitening throughout Asia is also predicated on a common belief that the winners in society are those with the fairest skin. In the years after World War Two this perception was reinforced by the outcome. But Ashikari also found that many Japanese today believe their "white skin" to be superior to the white skin of Americans and Europeans.

So the issue is complex: It is not strictly an emulation of white western culture. Darker skin was the tell-tale sign of a lower class agricultural laborer who toiled in the sun, while the lighter, pale skinned privileged classes lived the life of leisure or scholarship indoors.

But aggressive advertising, the development of new ways to lighten skin, globalization, the legacy of colonialism and lingering perceptions of Western primacy have all had an undeniable impact in influencing self-perceptions about skin color.

The uber-popularity of skin whitening today is also predicated in large measure on the ability of growing middle-classes in the former Third World to pay for it. And if you can't pay for it, you do it on the cheap. Some of the world's poorest women, and increasingly men, particularly in India, have and continue to resort to various forms of diluted bleach and creams containing mercuric chloride to literally try to scrub the darkness from their faces. The results are often a patchwork of pink, red, and dark brown skin that for many is irreversible.

Tomorrow PART TWO: Skin Whitening in the Age of Barack Obama

Bhopal survivors demand action

2009-12-03T01:15:57Z

Hundreds join vigil in India marking 25 years since world's worst industrial disaster.

Read more: Bhopal-India, India, Home News

Family, neighbors mourn slain manager of Union Township deli

2009-12-01T18:46:15Z

UNION TOWNSHIP -- Mohinder Singh left his village in India nearly six years ago to find work and support his wife and three children. He spent more than 80 hours a week managing the Three Stooges Supermarket on Springfield Avenue...

Read more: Union Township, India, Home News

Calling the world's attention to the caste issue in India

2009-12-01T16:00:05Z

Activists say that India’s PM has been reluctant to address casteism head-on. Photo: Flickr user LondonSummit

For more on the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Washington D.C. last week, Worldfocus spoke with Ramaiah Avatthi, a professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai.

Currently a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, Ramaiah contends that Manmohan Singh has largely ignored the issue of caste-based discrimination and atrocities.

The caste system is the traditional South Asian hierarchy that consigns people, based on their birth, to ranked social classes.

Worldfocus: Do you think Prime Minister Singh avoided certain issues during his U.S. visit?

Ramaiah Avatthi: Before Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International urged Obama to persuade Singh to address the human rights concerns, particularly caste violence against Dalits (formerly known as Untouchables). This group, also known as Scheduled Castes, constitutes around 165 million in India — and up to 250 million in South Asia.

The two leaders focused on Afghanistan/Pakistan, the fight against terrorism, global warming, economic development and nuclear proliferation. Thus the scope for discussion of caste was very limited.

Worldfocus: How would you assess casteism in India today?

Ramaiah Avatthi: The Dalits are subjected to inhuman torture and humiliation when they try to live with dignity like other citizens of India. Their assertiveness is often met with dire consequences.

There have been incidents in the recent past in which some Dalits were forced to consume human excreta and urine. Some were blinded by pushing needle into their eyes. Dalits have been raped and murdered and sometimes paraded naked.

Some non-Dalit families, particularly in states like Haryana, choose to kill their daughters for their “crime” of falling in love with Dalit boys. They are denied the minimum wage and forced work for generations as bonded labor. Most child labor also belongs to Dalit communities. This is not a thing of the past but is very much a part of day-to-day reality in most parts of rural India.

Worldfocus: What concrete policy changes should PM Singh implement?

Ramaiah Avatthi: There are a number of Constitutional safeguards to protect Dalits from injustice and exploitation. But we need more welfare measures to improve their educational and economic condition and to ensure representation in decision-making bodies.

Worldfocus: Has the international community taken note of the Dalit situation?

Ramaiah Avatthi: With the relentless efforts of Dalit activists and civil society organizations in the last 50 years, the issue of caste has come to center stage at the UN. Yet, violence against Dalits continues.

According to our National Crime Records Bureau, the number of crimes against Dalits increased from 26,887 in 2004 to 27,070 in 2006. Even brutal crimes such as rape and murder are on the increase. For instance, the number of Dalits reported to have been murdered by non-Dalits was 654 in 2004 and 674 in 2007.

Similarly, the number of reported cases of Dalit women being raped by the non-Dalit men was 1157 in 2004 and 1349 in 2007. Why do crimes against Dalits continue unabated, despite powerful laws against atrocities? Is the law ineffective — or the government?

It is interesting to note what Martin Luther King said in 1955: "You have never had real peace in Montgomery. You have had a sort of negative peace in which the Negro too often accepted his state of subordination. But this is not true peace. True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice. The tension we see in Montgomery today is the necessary tension that comes when the oppressed rise up and start to move forward toward a permanent, positive peace."

It is also interesting to note what the Indian Prime Minister said in his speech at the White House on November 23: "India and the U.S. are bound by democracy, rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms." This was a response to President Obama’s declaration that the relationship “between the U.S. and India is one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century."

The crux of the matter is whether such statements will remain merely rhetoric — or will actually promote justice for oppressed communities in both countries.

Watch the Worldfocus signature video: One woman fights for members of India’s lowest caste

Watch the Worldfocus signature video: India’s “untouchables” trudge through the sewers

Read more in Worldfocus Perspectives: Indian nationalism begins to challenge caste destiny

- Ben Piven

For more on the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Washington D.C. last week, Worldfocus spoke with Ramaiah Avatthi, a professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. Currently a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, Ramaiah contends that Manmohan Singh has ignored the caste issue during his stewardship of India.
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/11/th_india_pm.jpg

Read more: India, Home News

Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi: Misreading Afghanistan

2009-12-01T10:19:39Z

Public opposition to the mounting death toll in Afghanistan, the unsupportable cost of the war, and the corrupt government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, has left US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown struggling to justify our presence there. Their military advisers insist that their counterinsurgency strategy to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan is working and that a military buildup, preferably 40,000 new troops, is needed to win the war -- a war that President Obama not long ago called a "war of necessity."

We disagree. Our policies are failing, and they are failing because they do not confront the hidden causes of the conflict. The crisis in Afghanistan is largely due to Pakistan's insecurity and its consequent support of the Afghan Taliban. Because of its fear of India, Pakistan is determined to dominate Afghanistan, and this is the problem we need to address.

We should never forget that the Soviets sent 50,000 troops into Afghanistan; they put an enormous amount of effort into training the Afghan army; and they failed, largely because of Pakistan's support of Afghan rebels whose battle against the Soviets was financed by our governments. The idea that our fate will be different is erroneous, because Afghans do not want foreigners in Afghanistan, no matter how "nice" they are.

Although every conflict is different, there are ominous similarities between the Russians in Afghanistan and our current escalation. The parallels between the US involvement in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan are also stark. Just as Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, unable to admit that America's strategy was failing, agreed the answer must be more troops, US Commander General Stanley McChrystal has called for an increase in US troops to 68,000 and Afghan forces from 134,000 to 240,000 by year's end. But no matter how hard they try, more troops will merely turn more Afghans against us.

Barack Obama is not the first to misread Afghanistan. Successive administrations have failed to understand that the United States and NATO are bit players in what is fundamentally a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This conflict, over the Pashtun lands, has been ongoing since 1948, when Afghanistan voted against the creation of Pakistan in the United Nations and sent tribal fighters into the Pashtun border areas of Pakistan. It is the reason why Pakistan accepted American support of the Mujahedeen in the 1980s, and why later it supported Afghanistan's brutal Mujahedeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyr, and then the Taliban in their efforts to take over Afghanistan, since both promised to be friendly regimes to Pakistan.

Ignoring this history, the US and British governments have missed the fact that the key to routing out the Taliban and other extremist elements lies not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. There are 25 million people in Afghanistan, while there are 200 million in Pakistan, and Pakistan is currently in meltdown -- the product of its insecurity over its borders with India, Kashmir, and Afghanistan and hence its chronic militarism and support of terrorism in India and Afghanistan.

Until the international community creates conditions that make Pakistan feel secure about its borders with India and Afghanistan, the country will remain dominated by its military and most of its monies spent on weaponry instead of on health and education. Lack of education has kept generations of Pakistanis locked in poverty, and has created a fertile ground for Islamists. Any solution to Afghanistan is impossible without solving Pakistan's problems.

Both the United States and Great Britain have failed to confront the role that Pakistan's fear of India plays in its conflict with Afghanistan. Today, despite numerous statements to the contrary, Pakistan is determined to remove from Kabul what it sees as the pro-Indian Durani regime (the Pashtun faction from which both Hamid Karzai and the old Kabul royal family originate) and replace it with a friendlier non-Durani Pashtun leadership. Pakistan thinks that its best bet is the Afghan Taliban, whose inept leadership will mean that Afghanistan is no longer a threat to them.

A regional settlement is essential, and India needs to be at the table. We have spent years ignoring and then lamenting Pakistan's unwillingness to stop the Taliban on its side of the border, when the key all along has been a durable peace between Pakistan and India. To get both sides to agree, the United States needs to tell them that the "line of control" through the middle of Kashmir will become an enduring international border, guaranteed by international agreement.

A comprehensive agreement with Afghanistan, enforced by the international community, should follow. The "Durand Line," the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, needs to become a recognized international border. Pakistan accepts the line, but Afghanistan never has. An open border regime should be created, because the line cuts across communities and to head off the very real political objections in Kabul. The United States needs to stipulate that if either Pakistan or Afghanistan breaks this agreement, it will embargo them, cut all funding, and use any force necessary against terrorist threats. At the same time, the United States and NATO should agree to withdraw to base and downsize.

Despite our governments' claims to be successfully fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, committing more troops to fight more Afghans is not the answer. It is not too late for both President Obama and Prime Minister Brown to stand up and say that "Our predecessors got it all wrong. Sending more troops to Afghanistan will backfire on us." In fact, our future depends on it.

Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi is a foreign policy analyst and the former publisher of Lawrence Hill Books, specializing in domestic and international politics. Robert A. Churcher is a post-conflict specialist who worked for the British Government in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2008.

Two Ways To Play: India's Economy Surges

2009-11-30T08:30:19Z

India's Economy Surges India’s economy grew 7.9% year-over-year in the quarter that ended in September shattering expectations of a 6.3% gain and increasing speculation that its central bank could raise rates before the end of the year.According to the Financial Times much of the data was due in part to strong performances in the manufacturing and services sector which rose 9.2% and 9.3% respectively.The performance now puts more pressure on the Reserve Bank of India which has already expressed its concerns about rising inflation. Just last month the RBI began to wind down some of the unconventional measures it ...

Read more: India, Home News

Mira Veda: White House State Dinner: Shared Responsibility The Key To Global Security And Economic Growth

2009-11-29T17:10:24Z

Amidst the ritual and protocol of President's Obama's first White House dinner, the theme could not have been more clear: cooperation and shared responsibility. The star studded gala affair did much more than just offer an unbelievable soiree; it tackled one central challenge of the 21st century: global cooperation. The four day visits to the US by Sikh Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted by the Obama administration was about 'strategic partnership' and strengthening alliances. The state dinner comes at an ideal time when both countries have common interests, to spread democracy, economic growth, free markets and fight terrorism.

The high profile dinner was a global acknowledgment to the mutual advantage of partnership. With both countries at the helm to bolster international principles, East and West are now safely covered. It's obvious the distribution of power is changing international behavior. The US cannot claim supremacy with China and India on its heels. India sees herself as a rising star; she has emerged as a responsible nuclear power as well as lucrative market for goods and services globally. She has successfully deterred the economic crisis facing the US and understands her position in the world today. Much of her behavior shift is from the rise of the 300 million strong middle class. It's questionable to call India a 3rd world country when it operates in 1st world mentality.

Judging from the attendees at the White House State dinner, the Obama administration has a clear understanding that the socio-economic background of South Asians in the US is also changing the landscape of relationship globally. Indians in India may have been watching the state dinner with renewed interest because PM Singh was honored but American Indians were also at the edge of their seats, glad to finally be represented and supported. The ties American Indians still have to India, either by culture or family can offer a resource by virtue of stronger bilateral agreements. With stronger bilateral diplomacy, exchange of technology, goods and money will be more exploitable, benefiting both countries. Perhaps the Obama administration will present more options and relax restrictions which they execute through the WTO so there can be stronger bilateral agreements. We have already seen these benefits as numerous US companies move their call centers and technology centers to India. It remains to be seen if Indian citizens can gain the same access the US has enjoyed for years now.

India holds high importance to US because of its position in Asia politics. India is uniquely positioned to act as an important ally in US-Asia relations. The emergence of China as a major power in the world stage has not been welcomed with open arms by the US. At the same time, the US needs the economic security China provides, creating an interesting unbalanced relationship. The US-India relationship allows both countries some protection from the potential rise of China to an unmanageable superpower status.

Shared responsibility could also meet the challenge of terrorism prevention and human security. With Pakistan standing as a major nuclear threat and Afghanistan shrouded in instability, stronger ties among the US and India could allow for collective advocacy of International laws (as small as they may be). Most countries seem to fear dissolutions in trade and economic sanctions more than international law. At the same time increased trade and economic vitality is also how a country builds its arsenal to boost domestic satisfaction.

The benefits of working together responsibly, sharing burdens and forging a peaceful path for all people is not a utopian ideal. It's exactly what can be achieved if there is common goal. The state dinner was a monument of change, held outside on the South lawn of the White House, a symbol of change in these times. Hosting Indian PM Singh and serving an Indian menu, was another symbol of change. It seems so many things have changed -- thankfully I say, a change for the better. Perhaps even more exciting is the mutual recognition of US and India to embrace a new era of cooperation for long term mutual gain. The record of success and contributions are often underappreciated. Here I offer my toast to a stronger alliance between India and the US and appreciate the collective goal to make both countries better.

Powering India: Feeding an insatiable need

2009-11-27T11:15:38Z

Like most countries, India's electricity is distributed to its population via a large, centralised grid system. Through the construction of thermal power plants and large hydroelectric dams, the Government has added 150MW of installed generating capacity to this grid in the 62 years since Independence, yet such priority is given to feeding the insatiable demands of the cities that 78 million people in India are still living without an electricity connection.

Read more: India, Home News

Deepak Chopra: India Comes To The White House, All At Once

2009-11-25T20:04:53Z

I never expected to see so many faces of modern India as I saw Tuesday night. The White House's state dinner, its first of the new administration, honored Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. It was every sequin and silk cravat a glittering and sumptuous affair, as the media has made it out to be, Yet in the midst of it all I sensed the first sprouts of a new level of understanding and partnership between India and the United States, something not achieved in all the ceremony of the President's China visit. There, the smiles of the Chinese were backed by ruthless self-interest. Here one felt a basis of true warmth.

NPR phoned me this morning to ask why someone as strange as me was invited. Actually, my wife Rita and I dined at one of the Clintons' formal dinners. But the Obama's raised the level of care, sensitivity and detail paid to their guests. Few of us in the Indian diaspora have been very visible until recently. We amount to an insignificant voting bloc at 2.6 million, but looking around the room, I saw much more than the stereotype of doctors, motel owners, and dubious accents answering the phone across the world with "Hello, my name is Shirley. How can I help you today?"

The Obama administration showed a sure touch, offering assurance to India that this country made a good decision last November. Every detail of the menu (green shrimp curry instead of chicken breast) , decor and entertainment (a rambunctious Bollywood-style reprise of the anthem "Jai Ho" from Slumdog Millionaire) conveyed cultural respect and generosity.

As we entered, the receiving line was cordial and comfortably cross-cultural. The Obamas chatted, offered knowing remarks ("Keep that advice coming, Deepak"), posed for photos. I was more self-conscious, surprisingly, in the presence of the Indian Prime Minister and his wife, who are more ceremonial and, in his case, formally eloquent, as we discovered during the dinner speeches. Being about fifteen years the President's senior, I felt a paternal wave come over me and in response to his kind words found myself saying how proud I was of him and all he was doing.

Meeting a President throws you off balance, no matter how prepared you are. I blurted out a mild Sarah Palin joke. He gave a noncommittal smile. I walked away from the First Couple impressed not by the effortless ease of professional celebrities but by a genuine courtesy of the heart.

Once we were seated President Obama spoke movingly about the future of India and the United States as partners. The relationship between the two countries is not only beneficial for each other, but together we become a powerful force of prosperity and peace for the entire world. He invoked Jawaharlal Nehru's speech at the birth of India's nationhood, where Nehru called upon midnight's children -- as everyone saw themselves, not just newborns like me -- to leave the past behind in order to shape a future of freedom, opportunity and peace. Prime Minister Singh continued this theme of mutual prosperity and enrichment between our two nations in his distinctive Punjabi accent. It seemed an epoch away that India was a closed society, aligned with Soviet socialist programs, crippled by bureaucracy, sold out to corruption. Not that a good deal of that legacy isn't alive still.

Celebrity chef Marcus Samuelson, brought in from New York and his sophisticated roost at Aquavit, offered a wonderful selection of vegetarian dishes like chick pea and okra dahl, another stroke of cultural empathy (perhaps the most powerful one of the evening, given the Indian nostalgia for the food we were raised on). There was room for regional American foods like collard greens and cornbread (found in India, too -- did they know?) It was all prepared in a way that Dr. Dean Ornish would approve of, and aligned to Michelle Obama's message of sustainability. The Obama administration actually understands that future prosperity must come through a green economy, not in spite of it.

Rita and I were seated with Steny Hoyer, Vernon Jordan and his wife Ann, Admiral Michael Mullen and his wife Deborah, Fareed Zakaria and his wife Paula. The table conversation rambled over many topics including Indian history, healthy lifestyles, politics, and stress management. One marveled at Deborah Mullen's in-depth knowledge of Gandhi, Lord Mountbatten and Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. On the topic of meditation, Paula Throckmorton Zakaria spoke at length of her personal experience and the journey through her meditation practice.

Has the White House ever witnessed folk dancing from Prime Minister Singh's native Punjab? Afterwards he remarked on the coming together of "ancient tradition and modernity." We stood up with everyone else after Jennifer Hudson's rendition of "Somewhere" from West Side Story.
When the President talked about Nehru's vision for the future, I looked around at the other Indians in attendance and realized that we are all the product of the dreams put in place those sixty years ago. The now-famous Indian Institutes of Technology and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences that I graduated from were begun all those years ago with a single intention to create a more progressive, prosperous and powerful future.

India and the United States have a shared opportunity now for a new level of growth and opportunity that can include everyone, not just the fortunate and privileged. I believe Pakistan has this opportunity available to it as well. With a primary dedication in each nation to economic progress over militarism, extending basic education and health services to all, and reaching a mediated solution to Kashmir, two enemies could create a peaceful coalition instead of the conflict-driven, fear-based, grab-it-while-you-can policies we see around us.
As Pakistan continues to divert massive military resources to Kashmir in fear of India, the Taliban is allowed to spread its violence and grow stronger. As Obama contemplates the hard decision over new troop levels in Afghanistan, I am convinced that the situation does not have a military solution. (Rita had a moment with Vice-President Joe Biden and impressed upon him her view that more troops are not the answer.)

On the other side of the Indo-American alliance, New Delhi needs to reorder its priorities. The country is facing an uncontrolled AIDS epidemic; 30% of its children go to sleep hungry every night; and 300 million live in radical poverty. All this while the government spends lavishly on defense and the rich get shockingly richer. There as here, a green, sustainable future is a historic imperative, and if this state dinner has moved us incrementally closer to that future, then it was a human success and not simply a splashy night on the town.

For more information go to deepakchopra.com

Assessing the legacy of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks

2009-11-25T16:45:04Z

PBS commemorates the first anniversary of the Mumbai terror attacks with this Wednesday’s broadcast of “Secrets of the Dead: Mumbai Massacre.”

The program is a unique look inside the attacks, featuring closed-circuit television footage and first-hand accounts with survivors, some of whom came face-to-face with the terrorists.

The film premieres nationally Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 8 p.m. (EST) on PBS (check local listings). Actor Liev Schreiber (Taking Woodstock and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) narrates. Secrets of the Dead is a production of THIRTEEN in association with WNET.ORG.

Here’s an excerpt:

(View full post to see video)

THIRTEEN Forum filmed a panel discussion about Secrets of the Dead: Mumbai Massacre and the events surrounding the November 2008 terror attacks with Director Victoria Pitt, Executive Producer Jared Lipworth, author Mira Kamdar and Al Jazeera correspondent Todd Baer.

The event was moderated by Columbia Journalism School's Sree Sreenivasan and presented in partnership with SAJAforum. Also, read Todd Baer's Forum blog post, Revisiting the Mumbai Massacre.

(View full post to see video)
PBS commemorates the first anniversary of the Mumbai attacks with this Wednesday’s broadcast of “Secrets of the Dead: Mumbai Massacre.” The program is a unique look inside the attacks, featuring closed-circuit television footage and first-hand accounts with survivors, some of whom came face-to-face with the terrorists. Watch an excerpt of the program and a discussion with the film’s director from THIRTEEN Forum.
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/11/th_india_mumbaiterrorists.jpg
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/11/th_india_mumbaiterrorists.jpg

Read more: Mumbai-India, India, Home News

One year later, taking Mumbai's pulse inside taxis

2009-11-25T14:00:03Z

Vandana Sood is studying journalism at the City University of New York. Her thesis project, The Taxi Takes on Terror, looks at public opinion around terrorism through a series of interviews shot in Mumbai taxicabs.

Worldfocus spoke with Sood about her experiences making the videos.

Worldfocus: Why did you select the taxi as the venue for your reporting?

Vandana Sood: Taxis are a space where interesting interactions take place. Where else can you have a conversation between a driver and a diamond merchant, an IT professional and a washer man? The public yet contained environment of the taxi acts as a meeting ground for people from a diverse cross-section of society.

Taxi drivers represent the working class — the Indian common man, aam aadmi. On the other hand, passengers usually belong to more educated higher socioeconomic groups.

In India, the fault lines based on caste, class, education and creed run deep. Hence it is important to find spaces where it is possible to have a dialogue that overcomes such divisions — especially when the discussion is about terrorism, which does not discriminate amongst its victims and affects humanity universally.

Worldfocus: What has changed in Mumbai in the year since the terrorists attacks?

Vandana Sood: Mumbai is as resilient a city as ever, having faced decades of communal violence and bomb blasts. In a sense, not much has changed in this urban space where people have no alternative but to enter the same train station where armed terrorists opened fire indiscriminately last year. For most people, the attacks (known as 26/11) is ingrained in their psyches. But Mumbai city is still in flux — as vibrant and chaotic as before.

In Mumbai, there was an initial burst of activism, which appears to have made way for a more cynical attitude, which is unfortunate. At the same time, there are fewer war cries heard after the initial calls for revenge against Pakistan.

The slow judicial proceedings for Ajmal Kasab, the lone captured terrorist, have led to complaints about the government's lethargy and corruption. Most people hope that the Indian government has amended its security lapses and will be more prepared next time. The question is: can another 26/11 really be avoided?

Worldfocus: What did you see in the future for the Mumbai megalopolis?

Vandana Sood: The hard truth is that we will be hit again. The subcontinent has become a hotbed for several players like the Taliban, creating serious instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Indian government cannot deal with this matter in isolation but requires the cooperation of world leaders in formulating policies that do not have vested interests. As the financial center of a rising Asian power, Mumbai will have a shaky future in the world economy if these problems are not confronted.

- Ben Piven

India’s largest city is commemorating the one-year anniversary of vicious terrorist attacks that killed over 170 people. Journalist Vandana Sood uses Mumbai taxicabs to report on how Indians from a wide cross-section of Indian society view the attack’s aftermath.
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/11/th_india_taxitakes.jpg
http://worldfocus.org/files/2009/11/th_india_taxitakes.jpg

Read more: Mumbai-India, India, Home News

Bob Franken: The State Dinner and Afghanistan: Stepping Up to the Plate

2009-11-25T11:10:00Z

Unlike the wide coverage given to the tedious sessions President Obama has held about Afghanistan, the planning for the White House State Dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was conducted in complete secrecy. No leaks whatsoever.

It's a pity. First of all, the President himself also convened these discussions and held meeting after meeting after meeting. Instead of a War Council, he assembled a Kitchen Cabinet.

Actually, Michelle Obama sat at the head of this table, but it's fair to say that Barack was the power behind her throne. As a result, the gatherings featured interminable debates between advocates of a full commitment of the social staff and those who argued for a much more limited option.

Particularly valuable, as one might imagine, was the input from Hillary Rodham Clinton. She brought a unique combination of experiences to the process. Not only could she share her perspectives as Secretary of State and former First Lady, she had also spent those many years as Governor's wife in Arkansas, so her knowledge of "Country Come to Town" society events was unmatched.

And that was the crux of this internal debate. Should this be the usual highfalutin' formal affair, which Secretary/Mrs. Clinton favored, or should it be closer to what Vice President Joe Biden was advocating, where the President would invite everyone "to the White House for a beer". Hey, it had worked once before.

Should they use paper plates or real ones, considering India's sensitivity about China? Should it be a strictly vegetarian menu, given Mr. Singh's diet or should the selections include red meat to satisfy the Republican guests? Should they invite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who might wonder aloud who should pay for this?

Should it be a sit down dinner or maybe a buffet? How about really breaking with formal tradition and instead of holding it in the ornate State Dining Room, how about throwing a tent up in the backyard?

Well we now know the result of all this dinner-dithering. The President finally decided on both tent and china. The consensus approach apparently worked and everyone was pleased everyone happy.

Don't be surprised, though, if the one coming up on Afghanistan next week, has the totally opposite reaction...the reaction more typical of a compromise, where no one is happy.

Michelle Obama Wears Naeem Khan and Desirée Rogers Wears Comme des Garçons to State Dinner

2009-11-25T10:00:54Z

Michelle's gown was handmade over three weeks by 40 people in India.

Read more: India, Home News

Passage to India: Obama Can't Ignore Subcontinent

2009-11-25T07:15:55Z

The overall tone of the opinions? "Mr. Obama, you better start paying attention to India."

Read more: India, Home News

Obamas Welcome Guests With Curry At State Dinner

2009-11-24T22:02:57Z

WASHINGTON — The first state dinner of the Obama White House had it all: Oscar-winning entertainers, Hollywood moguls, a knockout guest chef and even a wardrobe malfunction.

Traditional evening gowns vied with saris of vibrant colors Tuesday night at the high-glitz dinner in honor of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. There were turbans and bindis as well as diamonds and brocades.

Nancy Northup: An Open Letter To Secretary Clinton About The Gross Neglect Of Women's Reproductive Rights In India

2009-11-24T21:01:05Z

Dear Secretary Clinton,

As advocates for women's health and human rights, we write to request your support on a matter of utmost importance for Indian women. We hope that this week when you meet with the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, you underscore the dire state of women's reproductive health in India. As the nation with the highest number of maternal deaths annually, India alone accounts for nearly a quarter of the world's maternal deaths. Every year, more than 100,000 Indian women are dying from childbirth related causes. In addition, another 3,000,000 women will suffer long-lasting illness or injury. As such, maternal mortality in India is long-standing public health crisis, as well as a global human rights concern. The Indian government must be held accountable for its inaction in the face of this gross neglect of women's reproductive rights.

Maternal mortality in India is a multifactorial problem, stemming from medical, socioeconomic and health system-related factors. Despite the complexity of the problem, maternal mortality is understood to be a preventable epidemic, as it generally occurs due to the unavailability of care or substandard quality of care. The fact that these deaths are largely preventable is the very reason that such high rates of maternal mortality and morbidity are unacceptable. The virtual eradication of maternal mortality in many developed nations indicates that we possess the wherewithal to make pregnancy and childbirth extremely safe. Even in developing nations such as India, at least 75% of maternal deaths can be averted. Yet, an Indian woman dies in child birth every five minutes.

India's rate of maternal mortality exceeds that of other developing nations, including Pakistan and China. Despite its booming economy and evolution as a major political power, India lags far behind developed nations in terms of maternal health. The rate of maternal mortality in any given country is said to reveal more about the condition of its health care system than any other indicator. By this measure, reforming the health care system in India ought to be a national priority. Yet, the priorities of the Indian government lie elsewhere. Economic development in India has not only failed to adequately include women, but it is seemingly occurring at their expense. Despite the fact that India has the world's 12th largest economy, India's expenditure on health care, at 3.6% of the GDP, is significantly lower than the global average of 9.8%.

The high rate of maternal mortality among Indian women reflects continuing violations of their rights to life, liberty and security, health, and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Efforts to promote women's autonomy and empowerment, which are critical aspects of the human rights paradigm, have historically been absent from strategies to improve maternal health. There has also been inadequate attention paid to discriminatory practices against women based on gender and caste, both on a societal level and within the health care system, that frequently lead to maternal deaths.

The Indian government must be held accountable for its failure to provide the necessary conditions for safe motherhood. The government of India, like that of the U.S., has committed itself to upholding the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which recognizes "the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant."

The Indian government has failed to advance the agenda of the ICPD and meet other international policy commitments, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals. India is among the 189 nations that undertook an obligation to achieve a 75% reduction in levels of maternal mortality by 2015. Even if it were to achieve this goal, which recent data suggests it will not, India would continue to have a rate of maternal mortality that far surpasses that many developed and developing nations.

We were heartened by your recent statement that "maternal health is now part of the Obama administration's outreach." Given the magnitude of this largely preventable threat to women's lives, we hope that you will avail yourself of this opportunity to urge Prime Minister Singh to reevaluate the government's efforts to reduce maternal mortality and provide for safe motherhood in India.

For your reference, we are linking to a report by the Center for Reproductive Rights,
Maternal Mortality in India: Using International and Constitutional Law to Promote Accountability and Change.

Sincerely,
Nancy Northup
President, Center for Reproductive Rights

Steve Clemons: Who Is Hot And Who Was Blocked (Or Forgotten) At First White House State Dinner

2009-11-24T20:56:40Z

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourage Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are not there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have definitely been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House of Reps Republican internationalist Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Carl Pope: Slouching Towards Copenhagen

2009-11-24T20:03:33Z

What do we make of the prospects for global action on the climate crisis, given recent events both in the U.S. Congress and in the international conversations leading up to Copenhagen? Something very peculiar is going on. Most of the major players are moving in the right direction -- toward making their economies less dependent on carbon dioxide. China is making massive investments in clean-energy technology, India has recognized that a carbon dependent development trajectory is bad news for a country that has relatively poor fossil-fuel reserves, South Korea has committed to an ambitious goal, Indonesia is practically begging for help solving its deforestation and peat-emission problems, Brazil is at least offering decent numbers, Russia has put forward a modest goal, Japan has upped the ante even though it already has the world's most carbon-efficient economy, and Europe is hanging in there.

Even the United States, justifiably excoriated as an unwilling laggard, is actually decarbonizing its economy at a remarkable rate. Only three years ago, projections were that U.S. emissions of CO2 would increase from 6 billion tons to 7.5 billion tons by 2020. Instead of increasing, they flattened out and then fell. By year's end we will be 8.5 percent below 2005, down to 5.5 billion. And the government estimates that, even with an economic recovery, we'll only get back to 5.9 billion tons if we do nothing more at all. And getting the 20 percent in additional cuts that Congress is groaning about would in fact be almost trivially easy.

Yet, in spite of the fact that the major parties at Copenhagen are actually pretty much in synch, they are unlikely to make any significant breakthroughs. At the Singapore meeting of the world's leaders, it was formally recognized that the most that could come out of Copenhagen was a "political" agreement -- not a binding one -- and that a huge amount of work would be needed to reach a final deal.

Reactions varied. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, conceded that the announcement was a recognition of the realities, but lamented that it also signaled "an abandonment of moral responsibility that a position of leadership on the world stage clearly implies." Joe Romm, from the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, wrote that the announcement makes "the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely -- and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill..." The Wall Street Journal reported that "International efforts to combat climate change took a significant blow when the leaders of the APEC forum conceded a binding international treaty won't be reached when the UN convenes in Copenhagen..."

Why is this so hard?

Well, U.S. politics doesn't help. The Congressional resistance is driven by two factors -- one is hyper-partisanship and the unwillingness of the Republican congressional leadership to concede that climate change is a real problem, or to give the Obama administration a victory on jump-starting a clean-energy economy, a goal that remains wildly popular (largely for reasons unrelated to climate).

The second is the reality -- thus far successfully covered up by Big Carbon -- that the U.S., because its economy includes so much carbon waste, is beautifully positioned to cut its CO2 emissions very fast in a way that is very good for the overall economy -- but very bad for coal and oil. Senators and representatives from the coal belt and oil patch are afraid of passing a strong climate bill not because it will be hard to achieve ambitious goals, but because it will be easy. And once we kick our addiction to fossils, there will be no turning back from the future.

But the larger problem for Copenhagen is the lack of trust. Poor nations believe that the industrial nations are not prepared to clean up the mess that they created -- and they also fear that we intend to leave them with the bill for the damages that climate change does to their vulnerable economies and societies. Emerging economic powers like China and India suspect that we intend to monopolize clean-energy technology so that we can continue our dominant position in the world economy for another century. The U.S. fears that China will use cheap, high-carbon electricity and weak emission standards to increase its already dominant position in global manufacturing and exports. Brazil and Indonesia are convinced that rich nations want to deny them the right to convert their primary forests into drivers of economic development, so that we can continue to rely on those forests as carbon sinks for our carbon pollution.

So even though all these nations are largely moving in a compatible direction, they don't trust each other enough to commit in ways that would accelerate that progress. This is not uncommon in international negotiations -- and the solution is well known -- identify measures that are small enough that nations will commit even in the absence of deep trust but which, if everyone does what they promise, will be win-wins. After that, go on to the bigger steps. Diplomats understand this confidence-building process fully -- but it has no robust forum in global climate negotiations, and that's a shame.

How do we build that needed trust? Here are just a few opportunities the world could do together:

1. Jointly and collaboratively develop both clean-energy solutions and ecosystem restoration strategies to sequester more carbon in the world's biosphere.

We all know that we need new technologies and a better understanding of how to use the natural world to protect ourselves. Technology sharing is good -- but technology collaboration, where the resources of Brazilian biologists and Indian software pioneers and Korean metallurgists and American materials scientists are all combined, would go even further to solve the climate crisis.

2. Stop methane leaks and make money for natural gas drilling and pipeline companies. The most sophisticated pipeline and gas-drilling companies have reduced their fugitive emissions of natural gas (methane) by more than 80 percent in the past few years -- but other systems are still leaking like the proverbial sieve --wasting money and devastating the climate. Let's help everyone adopt the best practices. After all, it is profitable to do so.

3. Use solar power to light the world's un-electrified villages. About a quarter of humanity -- more than 1.5 billion people -- have no electricity. They light their homes with kerosene. But rooftop solar power is already cheaper than kerosene -- it just needs financing, infrastructure, and supply-chain improvement. Provide those, and the poorest quarter of humanity can go solar. Google talks about wanting "R < C" -- meaning renewable power cheaper than coal. Well, for a quarter of the world, solar is already cheaper than fossil fuel. If we simply deploy at scale, then they can buy it for themselves.

4. Clean up the world's shipping fleet, thereby solving the problem of coastal air pollution and helping to reduce the black carbon that is melting glaciers and the Arctic ice cap. Ships burn the dirtiest fuel on the planet -- bunker fuel. They would actually work much better with cleaner sources, and we ought to mandate an oceanic cleanup.

5. Modernize diesel engines of all kinds to get rid of their soot pollution, another major contributor to public health disasters as well as Arctic and glacial melting. This is conventional clean air technology that will save lives now (and water supplies and climactic stability later).

6. Finally, let's make sure that poor families can at least burn their wood or cow dung cleanly and efficiently in simple stoves, not filthily and wastefully on open fires. Substituting cook stoves, even ones made of mud, for open fires, can dramatically improve health conditions in poor villages all over the world, while also curbing the sooty black carbon that is melting the snows of both Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas.

This is just a partial list -- but if carried out it would have enormous climate benefits while also building trust for the remainder of our clean-energy challenge and making life better for billions of people at a price we can certainly afford.

Taylor Marsh: Obama-Singh Signal Deeper Ties

2009-11-24T17:21:52Z

Obama began with "Namaste," which came at the start of a remarkable press conference that revealed serious new growth in Indian - US relations. The chandelier pictured below gives you the ambiance infusing the state visit by Prime Minister Singh.

The backdrop to this is more speculation about troop increases in Afghanistan, with McClatchy having the latest, set at 34,000 troops. Obama will now have to convince the American people.

The view from inside the East Room of the White House foreshadowed the importance of what is taking place today. As I watched President Obama and PM Singh, it was clear that what was being signaled from the administration is a sincere effort to stress the "deepening cooperation" between our two countries that means something different than what has transpired in the past. Obama said the U.S. - India relationship would be a "defining partnership of the 21st century."

And if you're wondering where Obama is heading on Afghanistan, all you have to do is listen to his words today. "Our core goal is to achieve peace and security for all peoples of the region."

Regional security is clearly seen as a strategic goal of Obama, who also said today that "It is my intent to finish the job."

Mark Knoller of CBS got the first question, which played out rather humorously. "I suspect you don't want my colleagues and I to rely on leaks until next week." Obama smiled, then said, "Why stop now?" McClatchy blew that one out of the water.

Obama emphasized on Afghanistan that it's important "not just to the United States, but it's important to the world."

Prime Minister Singh nodded in agreement.

These two things taken together tell you all you need to know about what Obama was telegraphing today. Saying his words should be "sufficient preview until after Thanksgiving," also giving the impression that a formal address to the nation is coming next week. Everyone is betting Tuesday.

Seeing the solidarity between Obama and Singh today, I couldn't help but feel a sense of pride in how Obama interacts with leaders that had little connection to the previous administration or the rabble that is criticizing his every foreign policy move.

And all you had to do was listen to the two leaders today as they talked about their nuclear commitment to see Obama's goals extend toward the future.

"As nuclear powers, we can be full partners in preventing the spread of the world's most deadly weapons, securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and pursuing our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons." - Obama

Obama acknowledged the horrific Mumbai attacks of one year ago, joining "our Indian friends in remembering the horrific attacks in Mumbai year ago."

When the first state dinner of his term was announced, I was curious to see what message was being sent. It's clear that even as Obama talks about China, the importance of our relationship with India is clearer than ever.

Taylor Marsh, with podcasts available on iTunes.

US-India commit to nuclear deal

2009-11-24T15:01:09Z

Indian PM's state visit to Washington brings agreements on security and climate change.

Read more: India, Home News

Mira Kamdar: Outsourcing India: For Obama And Singh, Democracy Means Business

2009-11-24T14:12:11Z

When the administration rolls out the red carpet to welcome Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington next week, the real action won't be around the elegantly set tables at the Obama's first state dinner. It will be over at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That's right: The same folks who are spending millions to fight any government action to prevent climate change are about to be put in charge of the relationship between two of the countries most essential to finding solutions for that and other pressing global challenges.

As Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia put it at an "India Day" celebration at defense and communications giant Honeywell: "The most important part of our relationship is that increasingly governments matter less and less and it's more about empowering the private sector and our businesses, our scientists, educators so that they can all work together to achieve great things." Honeywell's CEO David Cote is the head of the newly expanded India-U.S. CEO Forum which will meet during the Indian prime minister's visit.

The India side is headed by Ratan Tata, one of seven Indian CEOs who will accompany the prime minister. While in Washington, Prime Minister Singh will address the United States India Business Council, part of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the biggest lobbyist for the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which saw final approval in the last weeks of the George W. Bush administration. In fact, to clear one of the last remaining hurdles of the deal, the Indian cabinet just green-lighted a provision to make immune from liability U.S. nuclear plant builders in the event of an accident. This is no small feat in a country that still hasn't gotten over the Union Carbide poisonous gas leak in Bhopal, the worst industrial accident in history. The bill must still pass India's parliament.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has identified five pillars of the U.S.-India relationship: strategy, agriculture, healthcare, science and technology and education. In all cases, the Obama administration is putting the private sector in the driver's seat. As Robert Blake put it at meeting in Washington last Wednesday: "[T]he Obama administration would really like to do much more to try to engage the private sector, both in private-public partnerships, but also in advising and working with both governments, to see how we can make the private sector portion bring the private sector to the fore in all of these dialogues."

In other words, the goal of the Obama administration is to hand over policy making on the issues most critical to the people of India and the United States -- climate change, agriculture, education -- to major corporations. I hope the right-wing ranters who've slammed Obama for socialism are paying attention here 'cause this democratic administration is bent on boldly going where no Republican government has gone before in ceding a relationship it says is one of our most important to big business. Blake again: "Traditionally, the private sector has been mostly engaged on the economic side of things as you might expect in trying to promote trade and investment. But we now have an opportunity to work in some of these new areas like energy, education and science and technology."

When I asked Ambassador Blake at a meeting hosted by the Asia Society in New York on November 10 specifically about any possibility of room for sustainable agriculture in the U.S.-India relationship, which has privileged biotechnology, genetic engineering and other elements of a corporate-driven "second" Green Revolution he conceded there might be but reiterated that, in any case, it would be business that would decide, perhaps with the USDA. This amounts to pretty much the same crew, given the revolving door between the USDA and American agribusiness.

On privileging U.S.-India Inc. in the relationship between our two democracies, the government of Manmohan Singh could not be more in agreement. On the India side, free-marketeer and long-time head of India's Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia is credited with playing a major role in putting the focus of the relationship squarely on business, emphasizing India's relative economic strength to a still fragile U.S. economy, while India's Confederation of Indian Industry has worked hand-in-glove with the USIBC to chart a "pro-growth" agenda for Prime Minister Singh's visit.

This "pro-growth" strategy has done wonders for India, or at least for some Indians. On the latest Forbe's billionaire's list, Indians doubled their number from 27 to 54 in 2009. These 54 extremely wealthy Indians account for 25% of India's total GDP. As for the rest of India's 1.2 billion people, India still ranks a shocking 134th on the UNDP's Human Development Index.

In fact, as India has liberalized its economy, raised its foreign direct investment caps and embraced the kind of private-public partnerships the Obama administration is so bullish about, the gap between its have-mores and its have-nothings has grown not shrunk. Where the private sector has been in charge of agriculture, especially hawking the genetically engineered seeds the Obama administration wants to promote, Indian farmers have committed suicide in record numbers -- more than 100,000 in the past decade of India's high-growth boom times. Where the private sector has been entrusted with education, elite and expensive private schools have flourished. Ditto with healthcare.

We know what putting big business in charge with too little government oversight has done for our own economy. To the Obama administration's credit, outsourcing American jobs to India during these difficult times of record unemployment will not be on the agenda. Not directly. Instead, the administration plans to outsource the entire India-U.S. relationship to the private sector, a sector, whether in India or in the United States, whose job it is to put profits over people. Outsourcing won't be far behind, in fact that's pretty much what the business-to-business relationship is all about. The temptation of India's low wages and high potential in engineering, science and technology including biotechnology and genetic engineering in pharmaceuticals and agriculture is simply too attractive for corporations that have too much sway over both governments.

So, after the Singh-Obama summit this November, say good-bye to the interests of small farmers in India and ordinary working people in America where the real solutions to sustainability and green technologies should be focused, and hello to U.S.-India Inc. President Obama, if you happen to read this, know one thing: Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. both would be appalled.

Bharati Chaturvedi: Dismantling India's E-Waste: Potential for Green Jobs?

2009-11-24T13:20:49Z

An abiding image of contemporary India is the high-tech call center. A less known one is the wire-strewn electronic waste recycling yard.

India's 300 million-strong middle class is buying more and more electronic goods; televisions are no longer a novelty and computers are de rigueur for children. Cell phones have broken the middle class barrier and are marching towards the incredible 500 million sales mark, penetrating the poorest regions and generating an entire sub-culture of zero cost 'missed calls.' But where does all of this electronic gadgetry end up when it's lived its life?

Typically, in one of India's many tiny recycling enterprises.

Most of these enterprises are unlicensed, run by the other of the middle classes-the poor, just above or just below the poverty line. Using their bare hands and the most basic equipment, these recyclers have trained themselves to take a desktop computer apart in less than 5 minutes. Where they work, motherboards lie in green heaps, and glassy monitors in precarious hillocks. Almost 80% of what is taken apart will be reused, become a part of some other piece of equipment. In India, such dismantling is the first step in electronics waste recycling.

At least 50,000 tons of this waste is from other countries, uncaringly dumped in India. Almost every time an e-waste dismantler has shown me around his premises, he has pointed out imported waste. Big global brand names sit like surreal ads among these heaps.

Surprisingly, dismantling workshops are not hard to see. Delhi-the Indian capital and home to 16 million, is one of the country's largest recycling centers, employing nearly 25000 persons. Mumbai and Bangalore have similar cottage industries. Instead of being housed in a slick building in an industrial zone like the call centers, e-waste factories are broken up into thousands of tiny establishments, in residential areas.

The scale is astounding. One estimate is that at Indians generated at least 383979 metric tons of e-waste in 2007. And by 2011, it will have climbed to over 400,000 tons.

If it all ended at dismantling, the operations would be no cause for real worry. But recycling precious metals from old printed circuit boards and motherboards is commonplace and highly toxic. When I first began learning about the issue 2 years ago, copper prices were still very high. On the outskirts of Delhi, me and my colleagues from Chintan, the non-profit I work with, would be led to crude copper extraction units. Young boys and poor women would dip the mother board into dilute acid, wash the strips, char the boards and extract the copper by hand. In the many units we visited, the process was identical, and horribly pungent. Scientists warn about dioxins and heavy metals in such factories. The owners we met would be active participants, cursing the acidic fumes even as they inhaled them. We met other recyclers-those that extracted minute quantities of gold by a polluting alchemic process that forced them to use cyanide. A single desktop contains no more than 250 parts per million of gold by weight, a calculator only 50 parts per million. This crude process yields no more than 20% of this tiny amount, and poisons the worker." I know this is really toxic," one of them chillingly told us on film." It might kill me, I know that. But what shall I do about feeding my children?"

What indeed, can we all do about this kind of mess? Exactly a year ago, with the help of GTZ-AZEM, the German Bilateral Agency for Sustainable Development in India, we helped set up an association of dismantlers. Their dream was to be able to be work legally, earn legitimately. As I write this, they are working furiously to set up a safe, legal dismantling factory in Delhi. If they succeed, it'll be the capital's first.

It's heartening, but it's not enough. Surprisingly, the Indian government is also doing something unusual -- it's making sound, new rules in a transparent manner. These rules make it mandatory for anyone whose products will end up as e-waste to be responsible for their end collection and recycling. When it comes into force, it will also apply to all the big manufacturers we know globally.

Such rules change the game considerably. Often, manufacturers shudder at such state-imposed obligations. But it's also a historic opportunity for them to clean up high-tech toxics.

The core of such change making lies in creating strategic partnerships. Collecting all the e-waste is the weakest link, but also the most important. If the informal systems continue, they will always be cheaper than any formal system and the rules will be hard to implement. The trick lies in working with today's informal workers -- the ones who currently take apart our old cell phones. They can be organized, registered and helped into safe workplaces. By working with existing collectors and dismantlers -- such as those who came together to create 4R- manufactures can innovatively reinvent in the developing world context, the idea of Extended Producer Responsibility. They can ensure they are part of the solution. Indeed, without their participation, the rules will be reduced to so much paper. Further on in the chain, the Indian government is already planning to extend fiscal help to recyclers, so they can stop their workplace from being thick with pungent acid fumes.

In India, where some 800 million people earn less than two dollars a day, the gold extractor's tragic dilemma rings true. That's why, cleaning up poisons from the middle classes' detritus is the daily task of thousands of urban poor. Happily, the proposed rules and the large manufacturers could change some of that. Their action and innovation could, at last, ensure that e-waste handlers are employed in truly green jobs.

Frances Beinecke: Obama's Meeting With India's Prime Minister: Another Chance To Advance Clean Energy

2009-11-24T12:09:26Z

With the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen just weeks away, Obama has a chance to push real, concrete action forward by making clean energy and climate solutions a central part of his meetings with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

As the world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India will be a critical player in Copenhagen. Its economy is rapidly expanding, and its emissions could skyrocket with the projected growth of its middle class from 50 million to 500 million in the next few decades.

Prime Minister Singh understands that climate change is already having an impact on his people, and his government has taken several steps to address it, including releasing its National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008. On Friday, I learned from a call with IPCC Chairman R.K. Pachauri that the Indian Cabinet just approved a bold plan for generating 20,000 megawatts from solar energy by 2022.

I also heard about many of India’s clean energy measures when I talked with India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and its Renewable Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah last month.

We met in Washington at the U.S.-India Energy Partnership Summit to talk about opportunities for our two nations to collaborate and promote innovation in efficiency and clean tech. We were joined by former Vice President Al Gore, Senator John Kerry, and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Dr. Pachauri, and other influential leaders.

Both Minister Ramesh and Minister Abdullah were impressive in their commitment to move ahead on clean energy solutions, particularly efficiency. It is estimated that 80 percent of the infrastructure that will exist in India in 2030 has not been built yet. This creates an extraordinary opportunity to build green now rather than retrofitting later.

Still, Minister Ramesh and Minister Abdullah made it clear that while India is taking steps to reduce its emissions, it is looking to the United States to make its own commitments as well. They reminded us that our per capita emissions of carbon pollution are about 20 times higher than India’s. At the same time, India must meet the needs of its poor majority, including more than 400 million people who do not have access to electricity.

Ideally, as those 400 million people gain electricity, they receive it in the cleanest, most efficient way possible. But there is an inescapable equity issue here. All nations must commit to confronting global warming, but the scale of the response has to fit the country. And because the United States has contributed the lion’s share of climate-disrupting pollution historically, we have a moral responsibility to take the lead in reducing our emissions now.

Yet even as America focuses on setting our own targets for reductions, we must collaborate with other nations in order to address this global crisis.

I hope that President Obama uses his meetings with Prime Minister Singh to develop clear and concrete plans for the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations. I also hope they will announce major bilateral agreements on advancing clean energy.

For instance, as I wrote in a letter to President Obama, NRDC and our India Initiative would like to see the U.S. and Indian governments provide $150 million for to launch an U.S.-India clean tech fund that would provide capital for joint innovation, technology transfers and licensing of patented breakthroughs. (See my colleague Anjali Jaiswal’s post for more details on possible bilateral agreements.)

These talks between President Obama and Prime Minister Singh present an opportunity to help set the stage for real action in Copenhagen. I hope these leaders seize that opportunity, because it will benefit not only our two nations, but the entire world.

This post originally appeared on NRDC’s Switchboard blog.