Car Blind spot solution -

I found this info quite useful for me. It might be use for you (just in-case).

---------------------------------------
August 18, 2009, 8:33 am
Are Blind Spots a Myth?
By Christopher Jensen

In an effort to reduce lane-change accidents, some automakers are trying radar to eliminate blind spots that could conceal an adjacent vehicle.

For example: Ford’s Blind Spot Information System, or BLIS, which uses radar located in each rear-quarter panel to scan for objects between the rear bumper and the outside mirror. If an object is detected, a small warning light in the side-view mirror illuminates. Recently, I tried BLIS on the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, on which it is a $1,595 option, and it worked well, picking up a vehicle in the blind spot. But there is the cheaper way to eliminate blind spots.

Long ago I found the idea in a 1995 paper done for S.A.E. International by George Platzer, an engineer from Rochester Hills, Mich. In that paper, “The Geometry of Automotive Rearview Mirrors — Why Blind Zones Exist and Strategies to Overcome Them,” he described the problem and a far cheaper method to eliminate the blind spot.

Here’s the short and less technical version of what it says: The driver leans his head against the driver’s window and sets the mirror so that the side of the vehicle is just visible. Then, the driver leans to the middle of the vehicle (between the front seats) and does the same thing with the passenger-side mirror.

It is necessary to check that the mirrors are properly set, of course. Here’s how that is done: Watch a vehicle approach in the rear-view mirror. It should appear in the side-view mirror before it leaves the rear-view mirror. And then it should appear in the driver’s peripheral vision before it leaves the side-view mirror. When I Platzer-ized the Fusion Hybrid, I could see the nose of a vehicle appear just as the BLIS warning light illuminated.

So, what is the point of a system like BLIS.? In an interview, Steve Kozak, Ford’s chief safety engineer, acknowledged that side mirrors can be set to eliminate the blind zone. But most drivers don’t adjust their mirrors that way so BLIS is a valuable safety aid, he said.

“If we could train everyone in the United States to do it that way, then I think we would probably be a lot better and we wouldn’t need a system like this,” he said.

One other component of BLIS is what Ford calls Cross Traffic Alert. It scans about 65 feet on either side of the vehicle’s rear. The idea is to make it easier to back out of a parking spot.

Mr. Platzer has yet another alternative. He patented a mirror system called BlindZoneMirror that uses a smaller mirror that is integrated into part of the side-view mirror. Each mirror is engineered for a specific vehicle, he said.

Mr. Platzer licensed BlindZoneMirror to Magna International, and it was introduced on the Ford Edge, on which it is standard on all models, and Chevrolet Traverse, on which it is standard on all but the base model. The BlindZoneMirror was a winner in the 2009 Automotive News’ PACE Awards, which honor “superior innovation and technological advancement.” The PACE judges described the mirror as “an elegant and inexpensive solution” to a recognized safety problem

An Increasingly Affluent Middle India Is Harder to Ignore

C.K. Prahalad, professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business, is looking for the fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. In his book by that name, he says that huge markets exist among the poor in countries such as India, and that multinationals should tailor their plans and products to these consumers. At the other end of the spectrum, luxury goods manufacturers are pouring into India. The International Herald Tribune will hold its annual global conference on luxury in New Delhi in December. It joins a crowded calendar of luxury events.

Somewhere between these extremes is the real Indian market. It does not lie in the metros or the villages. "The Indian urban growth story until now has been driven largely by metros," says Ashok Rajgopal, a partner in the media and entertainment practice at Ernst & Young, a global assurance, tax, transaction and advisory-services firm. "This is now moving beyond metros into smaller towns."

Several recent studies bolster the case for the rise of Middle India. According to the 2008 edition of the RK Swamy BBDO Guide to Market Planning, 51 districts in India have at least one town with a population of more than 500,000. Together, they have twice the market potential of the four metros (Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata) combined.

According to a study this year by the Future Group, an Indian retailer, and the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), the ratio of spending to earning is higher in Tier II towns such as Nagpur, Jaipur, Surat and Coimbatore than it is in the metros. An earlier NCAER study, in 2004, had shown a higher percentage of the rich in Middle India than in some metros. For instance, the North Indian state of Haryana had a small-town crorepati density of 280. (Crorepati density is defined as the number of families who annually earn more than Rs1 crore -- about $250,000 -- per 1 million people.) The relative numbers for Kolkata, Hyderabad and Chennai were 180, 191 and 291, respectively. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the growth of the small-town rich continues.

Amid this data come two studies that attempt to look beyond the numbers: "The Bunty Syndrome," by advertising agency Euro RSCG India in October 2007, and "The Dhoni Effect: Rise of Small Town India," by Ernst & Young in March 2008.

The titles require some explanation. "Bunty and Babli are popular names for boys and girls in small-town India," says Suman Srivastava, CEO of Euro RSCG India. "Contrary to popular belief, it is not the urban Indian who drives trends, but the long-ignored Buntys and Bablis. They are on the move. There is a sense of urgency, excitement and confidence as they race ahead. Marketers and their agencies cannot afford to ignore them. They are the future market, not just of India, but the world." (The names Bunty and Babli draw their inspiration from the success of a 2005 Bollywood film titled Bunty Aur Babli. The movie follows the wild road trip of its two ambitious title characters, whose origins lie in small Indian towns.)

Coming of Age

"The Dhoni Effect" draws its name from India's cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Cricket is a religion in India, and Dhoni, from the small town of Ranchi in Eastern India, is one of its flashier successes in recent times. His very name conjures up the coming of age of Middle India.

"The Dhoni Effect identifies a phenomenon where rapidly growing small towns of India are taking center stage," says Rajgopal of Ernst & Young. "This research highlights the growing affluence levels, increased awareness due to media penetration, improved physical connectivity, and significant changes in consumption patterns with high aspiration levels of small-town India that are compelling marketers to take notice."

All this is giving rise to new markets and products. Spending power moved from downtown Mumbai's Marine Lines to the distant suburb of Malad many years ago. Now it is going further, to Madurai and Moradabad. And demands are different. One example: In the last few years, the male skin whitening category, which didn't even exist a decade ago, has grown 150% annually to $100 million. Most of this growth has come from Middle India.

While the studies have similar broad conclusions, their methodologies are different. Consider, first, the Dhoni Effect. "We are focusing on the Tier I, II and III towns, which are the key urban towns, and the rest of urban India besides the metros," Rajgopal explains. "These towns are very critical, as the next round of growth will come from them."

The study divided India into four sections: the top six metros (Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai and Kolkata), the key urban towns (22 chosen cities), the rest of urban India (urban cities not part of the key urban towns), and rural India. Big advertisers, media planning experts and marketing consultancies provided qualitative inputs. Published data provided quantitative inputs.

The key findings:

* Increasing affluence has led to increased consumption growth in key urban towns and rural markets, which have been relatively untapped until now. A separate study of 100 cities' consumption spending by research agency Indicus Analytics shows that metros constitute about 30% of the total consumption market. This implies that the key urban towns, the rest of urban India and rural India together garner almost 70%. Given the larger consumer base of these markets, an increase in share of relevant consumers would imply larger numbers being added in these markets than in the metros. This is evident in product categories such as telecom, where subscriber growth in the four metros is a scorching 58% but in the rest of India it is even higher, at 93%.

* The relevant consumer base is large and growing, as are affluence levels. Towns such as Chandigarh, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Lucknow, Indore and Pune have three-quarters or more of the affluence levels of Mumbai. On growth potential they do even better. That small-town urban India is attractive in terms of purchasing power, time spent on media, and product consumption comes across clearly.

* Physical reach has increased to less-developed sections of the key urban towns. Logistics has traditionally been the big challenge for marketing beyond metros, especially in Tier III and Tier IV towns and rural India. Recent investments and developments in infrastructure and connectivity have brought marketers into closer contact with key urban towns, the rest of urban India and rural areas. The movement of organized retail into smaller towns has made things easier and more cost-effective for marketers.

* Media reach has increased significantly. Rising disposable incomes, easier access to credit and improved retail reach have helped push television, satellite and radio in the key urban towns in absolute terms.

The study points out some problem areas. Limited measurement tools for judging media effectiveness beyond metros reduce marketers' inclination to invest in media in the key urban towns. Second, as key urban towns have traditionally been price-sensitive and volume-driven, marketers have relied on price promotions over advertising spending. And third, there is a skew toward decision-makers' markets, which leads to a disproportionate focus on metros by media planners and marketers.

The Dhoni Effect suggests that advertising money may not be going to the right places. "Clearly, a realignment of media spends toward small-town urban India is the need of the day," Rajgopal says. "Investment in these future growth areas would definitely reap benefits in the years to come."

Sanjeev Kotnala, associate vice president and national head of communication at DB Corp., publishers of Hindi daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, says the media must wake up to this new reality. It is a mistake to assume that Middle India is made up of the poorer cousins of the people in the metros, Kotnala says, because the people there think very differently.

If they were not different, Kotnala says, Dainik Bhaskar would have it easy. "We could edit the paper in one place and print all over," he says. Instead, the newspaper has more than 30 editions. Or take Dhoni. "We did a fast check over the phone to get the reaction of people to his name," Kotnala says. "In the metros, he is perceived as a star and an icon. In the small towns the associations are with 'captain,' 'rich' and 'long hair.'" (Dhoni was appointed Dainik Bhaskar's brand ambassador in June.)

India's Many Small Millions

Exploring the differences between Metro India and Middle India is what the second study -- the Bunty Syndrome -- is all about. This is part of an ongoing study on what the agency calls "prosumers." Prosumers are the 20% to 30% of all consumers who can be thought of as being opinion spreaders. (This is different from opinion leaders, a tiny minority.)

"India's rapid economic growth has set the tone for a fundamental change in the country's consumer set," says Srivastava. "The same energy that lifted hundreds of millions of people out of desperate poverty has created a 300 million-plus middle class, a middle class that's not prudent about spending any more. We've quickly moved from being a savings-oriented nation to a nation that's willing to indulge. Sample this: The share of wallet for personal grooming in urban India is a whopping 9%." Entertainment, Srivastava says, accounts for close to 5% of wallet share across all socio-economic categories.

But it is easy to go wrong in this market. "The Indian billion is made up of many small millions, and each million is a different million," Srivastava says. "Marketers must [acknowledge] these differences and myths lest they miss the great opportunity that is India."

What are some of these myths?

Myth: The Indian middle class lives in the metros.

Reality: Of the 80 million households that constitute the Indian middle class, only 25 million are in Tier I cities. Close to 55 million belong to the smaller towns. Mercedes sells more cars in small-town Ludhiana than it does in Mumbai.

Myth: India is a "price sensitive" market.

Reality: For products such as Vim Bar dishwashing detergent and Head & Shoulders shampoo, the Indian market easily absorbed price hikes of 13% and 18%, respectively, in 2007. Yet for years, candy manufacturers have been trying in vain to increase prices from 50p to Re 1. Value sensitivity, not price sensitivity, is the buzzword.

Myth: Imported is always premium.

Reality: Euro RSCG's brand momentum study in 2004 showed that eight of the top 10 brands in the country were of Indian origin. The days of "imported equals premium" are long past.

"The Indian middle class does not follow the norms that most mature markets do," Srivastava says. "The probable reason is that the core of the market has shifted from being middle aged and urban to young and Tier II. Many rules of the game are being challenged, the primary one being the quintessential 'trickle-down theory.' Attitudes and behavioral trends that got formed in the Tier I markets would trickle down into the small towns and rural markets. What sold in Tier I would also percolate down and sell in Tier II cities."

The Bunty Syndrome draws on quantitative studies performed by Euro RSCG in 2005 and 2007. It attempts to understand the attitude and behavior of youth in Tier I and II cities. "It studies their attitude toward and interaction with various categories, as well as creates a psychographic picture of their attitude toward life," Srivastava says. "Marketers need this lens to view the market, as it will allow them to communicate better with what we believe is the new future market for India."

What defines a Bunty consumer? Here are some characteristics:

* High confidence in their abilities, much higher than that of their counterparts in Tier I cities.

* Reemergence of Gandhian values. Social conscience is at an all-time high.

* Pride of being Indian. Youth in Tier II cities have always been proud of being Indian, and that belief has become even stronger.

* Walking on the wild side. The desire to experience the unknown -- a constant need for adventure -- is much more prevalent among youth in Tier II cities.

* Family as the cornerstone of existence. With rapid nuclearization of families and the advent of social networking, one might expect to see increased importance of friends over family. But the opposite is true. Even in the selection of role models, parents seem to trump the more prolific cricketers and Bollywood stars.

A Middle India All Its Own

The Dhonis, Buntys and Bablis -- and the efforts to track them -- have brought a newfound realization that there is indeed a growing Middle India, and one that is different. "I believe that the overall evidence does indicate the presence of a Middle India which has its own characteristics," says Sridhar Samu, assistant professor of marketing at the Hyderabad-based Indian School of Business (ISB). "It is not a smaller version of metro India. It is different in the values and the relationships between people."

"I believe that the difference in attitudes comes from the aspirations of the people living in these types of regions," Samu says. "People in Middle India are more willing to make the trade-off between the better quality of life available there versus the opportunities available in the metros. Of course, some of them are forced to live there because of their jobs, and these people may be waiting to get the opportunity to move to a metro. But large numbers of people living in Middle India live there by choice, and they seem to value the quality of life more than the conveniences in a metro."

Roopa Purushothaman, chief economist at Future Capital Holdings (and co-author of the 2003 BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- report by Goldman Sachs) makes a further distinction. She cuts Middle India down the middle. "There are certain differences between the Tier II and Tier III cities," she says. "For instance, penetration of financial services is quite high in Tier II cities. In the smaller Tier III cities, however, penetration of financial services is not high at all. Here, it is penetration of consumer durables that is very high. The Tier III cities may be a good place to test-market or launch new higher-end products and consumer durables. Typically these places are not even on the radar screens of marketers because the population numbers are not high enough."

Is the growth of Middle India a sort of natural progression that has happened in other countries? Are there lessons Indian marketers can draw from elsewhere? Opinion is divided.

"This is quite like how other countries too have evolved," Purushothaman says. "In terms of income distribution, the middle class in the smaller cities looks like the middle class in the mega cities at the turn of the century. There is a growing aspirant class in these locations, and this is what is bringing about faster changes in the consumer pattern."

Others differ in the details. "This middle segment is similar to certain other developing countries in Africa, or Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia," says Harish Bijoor, CEO of Harish Bijoor Consults, a brand and business strategy consulting firm. Bijoor is also a visiting faculty member at ISB. "Over time, there is a creeping globalization that gobbles up the middle segment and everything becomes urban. Today, India is 26% urban and 74% rural. My prognosis is that by 2046, India will be 2% rural and 98% urban." Adds Samu, of ISB: "This pattern seems to follow to some extent what happened in the U.S., though not completely. In the U.S. market, people migrated to the suburbs in order to get away from the metros. In India, this does not seem to have happened; rather, the smaller cities became bigger and became Middle India."

Srivastava calls the Bunty Syndrome unique because of factors peculiar to India: the change from an agrarian to a service economy, the growth of backward castes, nuclearization of families, greater world travel, a media boom, and the speed of change being fastest in the smaller cities. "All emerging markets are facing some degree of remixing as global culture clashes with local cultures," Srivastava says. "The Bunty Syndrome is our own take on this remixing."

Bijoor's company did a typecasting exercise recently across nine countries to assess how many "types" of people exist in different cities. (Types were classified by their similar marketing behavior.) In New York, they found 14 different types of people. In Boston, they found 9 and in Tokyo 11. In Middle India, the diversity was awesome. In Bhopal, they found 213 types and in Vijayawada 171 types.

This may be one of the reasons why marketing in India is regarded as much more difficult than fighting for pieces of market share in the West. "Marketing companies have a big responsibility toward these people and need to tailor their products and services," says Samu of ISB. "Companies need to devise innovative strategies. Advertising could also be different and may need to use local references." While having a celebrity such as film star Shah Rukh Khan, for example, may attract people's attention, it is more than likely that they would treat such ads as merely entertainment. "Local ads may have more of an impact," Samu says, "especially given the language differences."

The Bunty Syndrome study provides examples of how companies are adapting to the needs and demands of Middle India. Consider how some of the Bunty traits defined earlier are being tapped:

* Confidence: Grasim, a brand of suits, through the message of "be self-made," has saluted the "We'll get there no matter what" spirit of the youth. The message is enhanced by the use of a celebrity (the actor Akshay Kumar) who has made a name for himself on his own in a field where relatives already in the profession are seen as a prerequisite for creating equity in the industry.

* Gandhian values: Idea, a mobile-services brand, has propagated caste equality, while Tata Tea has tried to appeal to the young in Tier II cities with a call to "wake up to the issues."

* Pride: Durables brand Voltas has challenged the monopoly of Korean brands in the air-conditioner space by projecting itself as "India's own AC."

* Family values: The concept of being able to give back to parents has been used to good effect by MasterCard and HDFC Bank.

One Marketer's Experience

Suparna Mitra, head of marketing for the watches division of Titan Industries, sheds light on her company's Middle India experience: "Titan has been aware of and has been addressing this market for some time now. It was one of the first companies to set up exclusive stores in these towns and has an early-mover advantage. For Titan, 50% of watch sales come from the top 10 towns [including metros] and the 11th to 100th towns account for another 35%.

"At this point there are some differences in the products being sold in the metros and in the smaller towns. For instance, the average price in the top 10 towns is 10% higher than the products sold in Middle India. There are also different levels of acceptability in terms of styles and modernity, etc. But, given the exposure, increasing disposal incomes, and similar levels of aspirations, it is just a matter of time before this changes.

"We are already seeing it happen. For instance, last year Titan had a high-priced collection called Raga Crystals as part of its sub-brand Raga, which is aimed at women. This collection, which was studded with Swarovski crystals, was priced at around $200 at the top end of the range. We estimated a certain amount of sales, most of it from the metros. But when we actually introduced the product, we found that it was selling right down to smaller towns.

"While the realities of the Middle India consumer may be different from the urban or metro consumer, his expectations and aspirations are the same," Mitra says. "A marketer has to aim at the aspirations and not at the realities."

What is Happiness

Happiness!

We all search for - we all long for, yet we do not recognize when it arrives.

Happiness is not a metaphor - it is a science - it is an interaction of neurons and biochemical produced by a response to a specific event/thought/situation.

Thus, if one can produce such biochemical with say $1 would have same happiness if one require to spend $1000 to produce the same chemical.

It is not the external agent which interacts with the nerve - it is the biochemical that interacts with the nerve.

Following video of Dr. Ricardo might give you further insight of the HAPPINESS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peA6vy0D5Bg

Happy!!
Ryan Baidya

Could India Become a Solar Leader?

Green Inc. - Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line
June 5, 2009
Could India Become a Solar Leader?
By James Kanter


India may be gearing to turn itself into the global leader in solar power generation, a sign that major developing nations could become renewable energy hubs to rival Germany and the United States.

Called the National Solar Mission, the Indian plan outlines a target for 20,000 megawatts of solar capacity by 2020, according to a draft copy obtained by Greenpeace and posted to the Web.

“This would be the most ambitious solar plan that any country has laid out so far,” said Siddharth Pathak, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace India.

India would generate 100,000 megawatts of solar power by 2030 and 200,000 megawatts by mid-century under the plan.

The plan acknowledges the high cost of solar compared with other sources of energy, and coal in particular. But it says costs could be driven down to between 4 and 5 rupees per kilowatt hour by the period 2017-2020, making solar cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

There would be one million rooftop systems with an average capacity of 3 kilowatts by 2020 to cut the use of diesel for daytime power while generation parks could be built in the “exclusion” zones around nuclear plants, where people are not allowed to live but solar facilities could be safely installed.

Crucial to the project would be building up local manufacturing capacity. The plan envisages training 100,000 specialists by 2020. It also foresees the need for processing facilities for raw materials, factories and technology parks for making components and equipment and generation parks to produce electricity.

India can now make 700 megawatts of photovoltaic modules each year, according to the plan. The aim would be to make 20,000 megawatts of solar cells annually by 2017 and to establish expertise in solar thermal technologies.

Total costs would be 85,000 and 105,000 crores ($18.5 billion to $22.8 billion) over a 30-year period. To help finance the project, the plan foresees a significant tax on gasoline and diesel — fuels the government currently subsidizes.

The plan also foresees a feed-in tariff, solar power purchase obligations for Indian authorities, tax breaks for manufacturers, and exemptions on tariffs for imported equipment. A so-called Solar Energy Authority of India would be set up to manage the system.

But Greenpeace emphasized that help from rich countries would be essential for India to meet its goals.

“India needs international support,” Mr. Pathak said. “The industrialized world needs to come up with solid proposals on technology and finance to help developing countries deliver on ambitious plans like this one,” he said.

Obama's speech in Egypt -June 4, 2009

Obama's speech in Cairo
Thursday June 4th, 2009
An Historic Event.
-------------------------

Text of President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University( Transcribed)

Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.

I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.

(APPLAUSE)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.

More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.

All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.

As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.

As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...

(APPLAUSE)

It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

(APPLAUSE)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,

The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.

They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.

(APPLAUSE)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

(APPLAUSE)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...

(APPLAUSE)

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.

We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.

We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.

(APPLAUSE)

But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt...

(APPLAUSE)

... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.

When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

(APPLAUSE)

That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.

Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.

(APPLAUSE)

We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.

The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.

These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.

We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.

The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

(APPLAUSE)

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.

That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

(APPLAUSE)

Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...

(APPLAUSE)

I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.

(APPLAUSE)

We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.

We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

(APPLAUSE)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.

Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.

It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

(APPLAUSE)

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.

Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.

But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

(APPLAUSE)

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.

This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.

The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.

That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

(APPLAUSE)

I know...

(APPLAUSE)

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

(APPLAUSE)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.

Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.

In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.

Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...

(APPLAUSE)

And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.

(APPLAUSE)

At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.

Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.

Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

(APPLAUSE)

This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.

The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.

The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

(APPLAUSE)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

RESUME Must-FIVE points

by Joe Turner, for Yahoo! HotJobs


As the economy has worsened and millions of job seekers are chasing after fewer and fewer jobs, what you put on your resume has become more important than ever. Before you send your resume anywhere, run it through this quick five-point checklist to determine if it needs a tune-up or a complete overhaul.

1. Clear Objective

There has been a lot of debate lately among the resume-writing "chattering classes" about whether today's resumes even need an objective. After 15 years of reading resumes for my clients, my answer is definitely, "Yes." However, I should clarify. By "objective," I'm not referring to the fluff that most job seekers concoct. The objective should be your targeted job title and nothing more. This focuses the resume and necessitates that you use the rest of the resume to support why you're the best candidate to fill this particular job title. It also leaves no doubt in your reader's mind about who you are.

2. Opening Statement

Does your resume open with a long paragraph titled, "Summary of Qualifications"? Problem: Of the thousands that I've read over the years, most are nothing more than fiction. Long laundry lists of skills and assorted keywords. Two of the biggest offending phrases are "results-driven" and that ever popular "proven track record."

If your resume looks like this, you might want to rethink your approach. Don't bore your reader by emphasizing keywords and hackneyed clichs. Employers want to know how you can solve their problem right now. Don't annoy them by failing to answer this urgent question.

Instead, include a simple, concise opening statement. This one sentence is usually called a Unique Selling Proposition. It should define who you are, your single biggest strength and end with a benefit that you offer. Ideally it should be something measurable, since everything boils down to dollars. This strips away the fluff and quickly answers that critical question in their mind. Do this, and you make it easy for them to call you.

3. Measurable Results

OK, now you have a great opening statement. For Act Two, you must back that up with added proof. Don't rely on tired clichs. Tantalize them with a bulleted list of specific achievements. By achievements, I mean an end result that reaped some benefit for either your employer or the client you've worked for.

This may require that you think outside your box or cubicle. Regardless of your role, you have a bottom-line impact on your employer. Your job is to communicate your true value clearly and specifically to your next employer. It may take a bit of effort to develop these bullets. And that's all they should be. No more than a one-sentence brief description of the benefit or result and how you accomplished it.

If you can put together a concise list of five to seven good achievements that are Return-on-Investment (ROI)-oriented, you'll score a lot quicker than relying on those unexciting clichs.

4. One Job Title, One Resume

Resume readers are very focused and they're looking for specific items. They have very short attention spans and can be easily distracted. When they get distracted, they start getting confused, and when that happens, they screen you out and reach for the next resume.

So, if you are looking for a position as a project manager, tell them why you're a great project manager. That's all they want to know. Don't tell them about how you used to work as a carpenter or how you managed and ran your own consulting business. They don't want or need to know about your other unrelated careers or positions. Even if you were great at them.

Use one resume to sell one job title. If the resume doesn't clearly explain why you're the best project manager in your city, then either drop the information or minimize it because it doesn't belong there.

Stick with one career on one resume and you'll have less chance of getting screened out.

5. "Above the Fold"

Place all of your most important selling information at the very top half of page one. Most resume readers spend about 20 seconds of actual eyeball time before they decide to move to the next resume. They are not going to waste their time looking through your resume to find critical information, such as how you "increased revenues $350K" or "decreased labor costs by 12%." This information should be polished like gemstones and presented on a silver platter at the very top of the first page. Do this, and they'll be spending a lot longer than 20 seconds on your resume.

As a recruiter, Joe Turner spent 15 years finding and placing top candidates in some of the best jobs of their careers. The author of "Job Search Secrets Unlocked" and "Paycheck 911," Joe also hosts his weekly "Job Search Guy Radio Show" on JobRadio.fm as well as other locations. You'll find free tips and advice here.

PAGES FROM HISTORY: INDIAN INFLUENCE ON TIBET

PAGES FROM HISTORY: INDIAN INFLUENCE ON TIBET

By Prof. A.V. Narasimha Murthy, former Head, Department of Ancient History & Archaeology, University of Mysore.

Exactly fifty years ago, His Holiness Dalai Lama came to India in exile after the Chinese aggression of Tibet. From then on, the fourteenth religious leader of Tibet has been living in India hoping to get back to his motherland when the congenial atmosphere sets in there.

Actually, Dalai Lama is not a personal name but it denotes the exalted position like Shan-karacharya, Jeeyar, Jagadguru etc. In about 1550 AD, a Tibetan guru of Lama faith visited the court of Mongol Chief Altan Khan. The Khan was pleased by the scholarship and compassionate attitude of this Tibetan monk (Blod-nams-rgya-mto) and gave him the title 'Tale' meaning ocean of knowledge and compassion.

In course of time 'Tale' became Dalai. As he was following Lama religion, he came to be called Dalai Lama, and all the succee-ding chiefs assumed that title. It is believed that Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Bodhisatva Avalokitesvar, like the avataras of the Hindu religion, to help the people to attain salvation. Except the one Dalai Lama (Yantan) who was the great grandson of Altan Khan, all others are of Tibetan origin. The present Dalai Lama was born in 1935 and next year he will enter into 75th year and that will be a great occasion for the Tibetans.

Gampo of Ancient Tibet

Though India welcomed Dalai Lama and extended a hand of friendship fifty years ago, actually India's contact with Tibet goes back to more than 1500 years. Tibet was a group of small States and Gampo united all of them in about 620 AD and the Chinese king gave his daughter in marriage to him. Gampo defeated the Hindu king of Nepal and Nepal became a part of Tibet for sometime. Gampo introduced Buddhism to Tibet and hence he is considered as the Father of ancient Tibet. Tibet defeats China

During 6th-7th centuries AD Tibet became so powerful as to attack China and occupy parts of that country. Unable to drive the Tibetans out of their country, the Chinese king agreed to give fifty thousand rolls of silk cloth as tribute to Tibet. After sometime, the Chinese stopped this tribute and immediately Tibet waged a war on China and defeated it. The Chinese king made a treaty with Tibet by surrendering huge amounts of gold and silk and this is recorded on a stone dated 821 AD which is still available in Lhasa.

Padmasambhava

Then came another important Chief Trison Dexen who took great interest in the development of Buddhism. After visiting India many times, he was greatly impressed by the famous Nalanda University. There was a famous scholar by name Padmasam-bhava at Nalanda and Dexen invited him to visit Tibet and teach Buddhism. Padmasambhava accepted the offer and went to Tibet. It was he who started the Lama School of Buddism. Actually Lamaism is a harmoious combination of Saivism, Tantric cult and Mahayan Buddhism.

There was a competition in Tibet between the religious teachers who came from China and the scholars from India headed by Padmasambhava in 792 AD. The Chinese scholars were unable to explain Tao philosophy whereas Indian scholars could explain the tenets of Buddhism in attractive language and people voted for Indian Buddhism. Chinese scholars left Tibet. Indian scholars began translating Sanskrit and Pali texts into Tibetan.

Dipankara

Then came another scholar Dipankara, also called Atisha, who was the Vice-Chancellor of the Vikramashila University in India. He built many Buddhist monasteries and educational institutions and became a patron of Buddhism. Actually he stands next only to Buddha and Padmasambhava in religious hierarchy.

The Indian Buddhist scholars gave equal opportunity for women also in religious matters. Worship of Buddha, Bodhisatva and other deities also became popular. These concepts looked attractive to common people and by this Indian Buddhist scholars gained an upper hand in Tibet.

Mongol attack

When things were moving in this congenial way, the notorious Changez Khan attacked Tibet. He looted Lhasa, killed hundreds of people and carried all Tibetan wealth to Mongolia. The Tibetans were happy that Khan did not carry Buddhist manuscripts. Tibetan Sakya King Godan explained to his subjects thus: 'Money and wealth which we have lost at the hands of the Mongols can easily be earned but the Buddhist works if lost could not have been replaced or earned again'. However, the Mongolian influence on Tibet continued.

Panchen Lama

But Indian influence continued in Tibetan religious and social life as revealed by the stories of Naropa and Tilopa.

An Indian scholar started a monastery at a place called Samye which had rarest of Buddhist manuscripts. The Mongolian Gusri Khan died in 1655 AD and his successors did not show much interest in ruling over Tibet. In the meantime, Chinese began to interfere in Tibetan political affairs. Dalai Lama practically became the head of Tibet. Just to undermine the influence of Dalai Lama over Tibet, the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama as the head of Tibet. This inaugurated the tradition of Panchen Lama in Tibetan history.

The Chinese expected that there would be quarrel between Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama so that they could intervene. But they were disappointed as Panchen Lama accepted the superiority of Dalai Lama. Even now Dalai Lama enjoys a superior status. Without any other course, the Chinese made an aggression against Tibet which resulted in Dalai Lama coming to India fifty years ago.

I had the good fortune of presenting a research paper on Indian influence on Tibet at a conference held in Buddha Gaya which was inaugurated by Dalai Lama. After listening to my paper, His Holiness remarked that Indians know more about Tibetan history than the Tibetans themselves. He was further happy to know that I was from Mysore city close to Bylukuppe, the Tibetan colony.

Thus Tibetans are friends of India for the past 1500 years. A long standing friendship indeed !

INDO-US relationship -

Transcript: Senior ex-US diplomat on India-US relations

Published: May 6 2009 09:04 | Last updated: May 6 2009 09:04

This is an edited version of a speech on “The Future of US-India Relations” delivered by Robert D. Blackwill, former US envoy to India, in New Delhi on 5 May 2009

Let me begin by very briefly putting US-India relations in its geopolitical context. We are, of course, in the worst global recession since the 1930’s. There is dangerous instability in many parts of the globe. And we are also facing the most perilous international security situation since before the 1973 Middle East war. Developments in the Greater Middle East are uniformly awful. Instability and violence is rising in Iraq as the United States begins to undertake its military withdrawal beginning with the major cities. Iran defiantly pursues its nuclear weapons program. Prospects for progress between Israel and the Palestinians are the grimmest in 25 years. The basic trends in Afghanistan are negative. Pakistan pulsates, perhaps fracturing at its core. Russia’s relations with the West are bad and unlikely to get much better very soon if at all. The effects of the rise of Chinese power on Asia writ large are, as Don Rumsfeld would put it, “a known unknown.” Much of the developing world is reeling from world economic downturn.

This is the treacherous context in which US-India relations in the near-term – the next several years – will develop. Before addressing this more immediate period, let me emphasize that in my view, the United States and India have a very bright future together in the decades ahead. I stressed that in an initial speech as American Ambassador in India on September 7, 2001. I believed it then and I believe it now. As my mentor, the incomparable Henry Kissinger, has put it – “The world faces four major problems — terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the movement of the centre of gravity from the Atlantic region to Asia and the impact of a globalised economy on the world order. The US and India have compatible, indeed overlapping, vital national interests in all four areas.”

If Henry Kissinger’s strategic framework reflected in this quotation is the best way to view US-India bilateral ties over the very long run, the subject of my speech today is shorter term in approach. I will look today at prospects for the Indo-American relationship in the next few years. Here is my headline in that regard. It will take very hard work and skillful diplomacy from both governments to keep the US-India relationship on its current plateau and to avoid a steady decline in our bilateral ties. I try to explain why in the rest of this presentation.

Let me stress that the Obama Administration in my view has an affirmative view of India. It admires India’s remarkable democracy. It is positively influenced by the Indian-American community whose political voice is growing in the United States. It hopes that India will become a partner on climate change and non-proliferation issues. It wishes to increase markedly the volume of US-India trade.

Thus, I take entirely at face value my old friend and Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg’s March 26 speech in which he said that “In the twenty-first century, the emergence of India as strong, stable, democratic and outwardly looking global player with global interests has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of the international system and the security and well-being of all, in a positive sum game,” and, “The real test of the relationship between the US and India will be how we work together on the great common challenges of our era – strengthening the global trade and investment system, addressing transnational threats like nuclear weapons proliferation, terrorism and pandemic disease, and meeting the urgent danger that is posed by climate change.” In short, I believe the Obama Administration genuinely wants good relations with India and will work hard toward that end.

Having said that, I am concerned that there may be a substantial change underway in the quality and the intensity of US-India relations which goes counter to the good intentions of the two sides. Let me explain what I have in mind and what worries me.

President George W. Bush based his transformation of US-India Relations on the core strategic principle of democratic India as a key factor in balancing the rise of Chinese power. To be clear, this was not based on the concept of containing China. As you know, there is no better way to clear a room of Indian strategists than to advocate containing China. Rather, it centered on the idea that the United States and India in the decades ahead both had enormous equities in promoting responsible international policies on the part of China and that deep US-India bilateral cooperation in that respect was in the vital national interests of both countries. It was with this strategic paradigm in mind that the Bush Administration treated Indian with at least as much importance as China. For my analytical purposes here today, I am not saying whether this strategic approach regarding India and China on the part of the Bush Administration was right or wrong. There were critics of this approach, including my good friend Brent Scowcroft, who believes that such an Asian balance of power paradigm is both antique and dangerous in the current era. In any case, without this China factor at the fore in Washington, in my view the Bush Administration would not have negotiated the Civil Nuclear Agreement and the Congress would not have approved it.

At the same time, the long US-India negotiation on the civil-nuclear deal concentrated Washington minds on the bilateral relation and created over time strong relationships between the principal policy makers on the two sides. More important, it led to the de-hyphenization of US-India relations, separating India as a rising great power from India-Pakistan history and singularity, especially during George W. Bush’s second term.

Although it is certainly early days, there are preliminary indications that the Obama Administration has a different policy orientation towards India. First, it is not clear that the Obama Administration has the same preoccupation with the rise of Chinese power and India’s balancing role in it. Rather, Washington is now naturally focused on US-China economic relations, the G-2 as some analysts have named it, not least because of PRC holdings of US Treasury bonds and its major place in the world economy. So China today appears, at least to me, to be on a substantially higher plane in US diplomacy than India which seems to have been downgraded in Administration strategic calculations. Thank goodness the US-India 123 Agreement was completed because I am skeptical that it would have been successfully concluded under current conditions by this American Administration and Congress. In any case, there is no positive issue that I can see on the horizon that would have the same positive function and effects on US-India relations in the next several years as did the Civil Nuclear Agreement.

Moreover, I believe that it is fair to say that there is no one at the top of the Obama Administration who knows much about India. Let me stress this was also true in 2001 when the Bush team took office but they learned about India over the years for the reasons that I have suggested. By the same token, unsurprisingly there are now no close relationships between the policy makers in Washington and in New Delhi. This is nobody’s fault but just the way it is and as we know in life, unfamiliarity often breeds suspicion. Unfortunately, I do not see the evolution of events that would produce such policy intimacy between the two nations. At the same time, there are numerous issues that could cause a variety of problems in the US-India relationship in the next months and years.

This list obviously must begin with Pakistan. This is clearly the most serious issue between the United States and India. For every good reason, the Obama Administration is devoting enormous thought to Pakistan, since it is the most dangerous foreign policy problem that Washington presently faces. Indeed, in my judgment, the evolving situation in Pakistan is potentially the most dangerous international situation since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. As Vice President Biden has warned: “It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalists’ hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.” And President Obama deserves great credit for his April 29 statement that, “on the military side, you are starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally.” It has been many, many years since an American President has spoke so publicly, truthfully and bluntly to the leadership and people of Pakistan.

In my view, the United States has four vital national interests concerning what the Obama Administration calls AfPak, a holistic concept that unfortunately has been dear to the hearts of the Pakistan army for decades: 1) to prevent Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the possession of Islamic extremists; 2) to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for terrorists to launch attacks against the United States and its Allies and friends; 3) to avoid war between India and Pakistan; and 4) to prevent the Taliban and its radical collaborators from gaining control of Pakistan. Under the dynamic leadership of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke—relentless, experienced, charismatic as the New York Times accurately describes him, Obama policymakers are attempting to positively influence Pakistan where every single important trend that I can identify is negative and getting worse. Hats off to Ambassador Holbrooke and the Administration for their strategic thinking in seeing Pakistan as America’s most pressing important international problem and the one that currently poses the greatest threats to US vital national interests.

The Administration clearly has its work cut out for it. The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen recent confirmed that elements of the ISI maintain links with extremists on Pakistan’s borders with both Afghanistan and India. General David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, speaks of cases “in the fairly recent past” where the ISI appeared to have warned Jihadis that their positions had been discovered. And the New York Times recently pointed out that ISI support to Taliban commanders extends to “money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance”.

In addition, we all know of the spreading Wahabi-based fanaticism and violence inside Pakistan, away from the Taliban’s Pashtun mountain strongholds and into Punjab. The possible effect of such an enveloping US preoccupation with Pakistan seems on its way in practical terms to re-hyphenating the US-India relationship, leading the Administration to see India largely through the lens of deeply disturbing developments in Pakistan, at the expense of a focus on strategic cooperation writ large between Washington and New Delhi. This will produce an understandable and growing US interest in trying to reduce tensions in the India-Pakistan relationship, not least because Islamabad will speciously argue that tensions with India and the Kashmir dispute are preventing it from moving robustly against the Islamic terrorists within their midst. So India may well encounter eventual US pressure from on the subject of Kashmir. This would be ironic since the Indian Government reached through secret negotiations with General Musharraf a momentous breakthrough on Kashmir which alas did not survive Musharraf’s downward spiral and ultimate fall from power.

I strongly support the Administration’s efforts to internationalize the Pakistan problem and to bring to bear as many external resources and capabilities as possible to try to begin to improve the situation in Pakistan. However, it would be a mistake for Washington to treat India as mostly at the margin of US consideration of policy toward Pakistan, as a lesser player on issues related to the future of Pakistan. After all, it is India that is the object of Pakistan obsession, as President Obama pointed out. It is India that is continually attacked by terrorists based in Pakistan with the support of elements of the Pakistan military and today infiltration across the Line of Control is increasing. It is India that Pakistan claims is illegally occupying Kashmir. And it is only India that could again find itself at war with Pakistan, triggered by another Mumbai-like attack. So India is profoundly connected to the future of Pakistan, not on the periphery of it.

Let me make another point concerning Pakistan. Some Administration officials opine that the United States, India and Pakistan are now together in facing “a common threat, a common challenge, a common task”, in seeking to defeat Islamic terrorists based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Oh, if that were only so. But it is not. If you doubt me, please ask any member of the Pakistan army which has for three decades regarded Islamic terrorists as an abiding policy instrument against India and a crucial element in Pakistan’s enduring concept of strategic depth. These objectives are deep in ISI’s DNA and there is no magic wand available in Washington that will make that hard fact disappear. In short, there is no sign that the Government of Pakistan has made a fundamental national choice to seek to rid itself of Jihadism. Indeed, Secretary of State Clinton stated it well in April 23 testimony before the Congress, when she said that the Pakistan government “is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists.”

I conclude my remarks centered directly on Pakistan by observing that no one in Washington on either side of the political aisle has a set of penetrating prescriptions that promise to end the internal slide of Pakistan. (If I may say so, the same is true in India.) Conditioning military assistance on the Pakistan army acting vigorously against the Taliban and its allies should be a US requirement. Training the Pakistan army in counter-insurgency techniques makes sense. Working out joint management of Predator attacks would reduce the public outcry in Pakistan. Diversifying NATO supply routes into Afghanistan to avoid over-dependence on Pakistan would help. Staying out of Pakistan’s domestic politics is a must. Reducing the American public footprint in Pakistan would certainly be wise to try to deprive the Taliban of nationalist anti-foreign space. Attempting over the very long term to strengthen Pakistan civil society is a good Western investment.

But none of this gets in the next year or two at the fundamental problem. Islamic extremism is systemically on the rise in Pakistan and elites there—both civilian and military—do not appear to have the will or the means to resist. One, of course, urgently hopes that will change, but it is important to understand that US policy instruments are too weak to affect importantly these evolving and disturbing societal trends in Pakistan. Put another way, in my judgment, American policies cannot improve the current deteriorating internal situation in Pakistan. That is a preeminent task for Pakistanis. But maladroit US actions can make the situation in Pakistan worse.

This brings me to Afghanistan, which presents another set of potential differences between Washington and New Delhi. First, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is now commonly said in the US that NATO cannot win in Afghanistan as long as Taliban sanctuaries exist in Pakistan. But as George Friedman concludes, “While U.S. and NATO forces must rely on increasingly unreliable Pakistani supply routes to fight the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan — fearful that the United States and India will establish a long-term strategic partnership — has the incentive to keep the jihadist insurgency boiling (preferably in Afghanistan) in order to keep the Americans committed to an alliance with Islamabad, however complex that alliance might be.” One must then ask how likely is it that Islamabad and the Pakistan military will change its long-time policy approach to Afghanistan?

As you know, the Obama Administration has announced in detail its policies regarding the war in Afghanistan, a conflict that the United States and its Allies are not winning and may be losing. As Henry Kissinger has noted, “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.” Perhaps with this in mind, President Obama has ordered the deployment of 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan, over and above the 40,000 already there. But he has made clear that in order to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban, America will have to embark on a long and expensive campaign of nation building in Afghanistan and solicit assistance and support from Afghanistan’s neighbors.

I applaud the emphasis that the Administration is now putting on preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a sanctuary from which terrorists can plan and carry out attacks against the United States and its friends and Allies. Consistent with the German philosopher Nietzsche’s admonition that, “Man’s most enduring stupidity is forgetting what he is trying to do,” what we should be trying to do in Afghanistan is not, as Secretary of Defense Bob Gates stresses, attempting to make that country a modern democratic “Valhalla.” That goal is far beyond America’s and indeed the world’s capabilities.

The preeminent Australian expert David Kilcullen has an entirely different emphasis, “Counterinsurgency demands the continuous presence of security forces”; “local alliances and partnerships with community leaders; creation of self-defending populations”; and “operation of small-unit ground forces in tandem with local security forces.” In short, counterinsurgency does not require improved governance, not to say democratic practices, from the capital, a fundamental transformation that is highly unlikely in Afghanistan. Long distance American admonitions, no matter how well intentioned, will not change that Afghan reality. I will go even further. Any US strategy toward the Taliban that depends on substantially improved performance from the government in Kabul will fail.

Rather, the fate of Afghanistan one way or the other will be decided at the local and village level in the longer run by the competence and fighting spirit of the Afghan army and by economic development which ordinary Afghans can see and feel. Both these crucial projects will take several years at a minimum to accomplish and, therefore, Washington should stop talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. The only exit strategy available to the United States in the next year or two is defeat. I am convinced that the Obama Administration knows this to be true and for many reasons the US will not cut and run from Afghanistan as some in New Delhi’s salons seem to believe.

At the same time, it appears to me that India does not figure in an important way in US calculations regarding Afghanistan. Washington does not object to India’s economic development activities in Afghanistan, but is apparently sensitive to Islamabad’s complaints that India’s real objective in Afghanistan is to deprive Pakistan of the strategic depth that as I said a moment ago has preoccupied Pakistan military planners for decades. So the Administration may not give sufficient weight to India’s views regarding Afghanistan as say compared to those of Pakistan, the NATO Allies, Iran, China and Russia and seeks to limit the degree of Indian involvement in Afghanistan. This is especially odd given that according to polls, 74 per cent of Afghans see India favorably while 91 per cent of Afghans believe that Pakistan is playing a negative role in their country. For Washington to believe that India will not be a major player in the long-term future of Afghanistan is to ignore centuries of history, culture and mutual interaction between the two.

Finally, there is the notion emanating from Washington of so-called “reconciliation” with so-called “moderate” Taliban. This is a terrible idea, one of the very worst floating around Washington. Apart from the problem of defining the nature of an oxymoronic “moderate Taliban.” would such a “reconcilable” Taliban be against terrorism against India? Not likely. Moreover, under current conditions in Afghanistan in which NATO may be losing the war, such a move on Washington’s part could only be regarded by the resurgent Taliban as a serious sign of weakness and consequently fortify its will to win. As the great post-war Secretary of State Dean Acheson once trenchantly observed, “Negotiating … assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.” Who believes that concept currently applies to the Taliban? A moment may come in this long war when it will make sense for the United States to try to fracture the Taliban in Afghanistan by offering incentives to those willing to stop fighting. But that time, if it ever comes, would surely only be in the context of NATO succeeding militarily on the ground in Afghanistan, not before.

That brings us to Iran which is another knotty issue in US-India relations and a potential source of considerable bilateral tension. The Obama Administration is embarking on a diplomatic effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its nuclear weapons activities, a US initiative that all of us should applaud. However, this effort in my judgment has no chance of succeeding without a parallel strengthening of economic sanctions against Tehran. So it is just a matter of time before the US seeks to enlist India in applying a much more stringent sanctions regime concerning Iran, likely because of Russian opposition outside the legal authority of the UN Security Council. For many reasons with which you are all familiar, India is unlikely go along with such an American proposition.

China – It is not clear how Washington’s dominant preoccupation with economic cooperation with China will affect Indian Government calculations related to the US-India bilateral relationship and regional and Asian security. But if the US treats China in a privileged fashion and downgrades the quality of its substantive interaction with New Delhi, this is unlikely to produce spontaneous concessions from the Indian side on other matters of importance to Washington.

Nuclear Reprocessing and Civil-Nuclear Cooperation—Although it will undoubtedly be a tough negotiation, it seems likely that Washington and New Delhi will begin a reprocessing agreement this calendar year which would promote the sale of US nuclear reactors to India. Were that negotiation to break down, recriminations would surely fly from both capitals.

India’s Nuclear Weapons – There are a cluster of issues related to India’s nuclear weapons. The Obama team endorses both the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a freeze on the production of fissile material. Neither of these appears to be acceptable to the Indian Government today. President Obama is planning to put Vice President Biden in charge of what is expected to be the difficult job of getting the Senate to ratify the CTBT. Speaking recently, a senior Indian official said that India would not accept the CTBT because it “was not explicitly linked to the goal of nuclear disarmament.” Finally, it is not clear at least to me how the Obama team basically regards India’s nuclear weapons – as a destabilizing factor in South Asia; as a fact of life to grudgingly tolerate; or as a natural development from a close democratic collaborator and rising great power?

Climate Change – Secretary of State Clinton told delegates from 16 countries at a recent State Department conference on energy and climate that “The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad.” The Washington Post reports that “Days after the Obama administration unveiled a push to combat climate change, Indian officials said it was unlikely to prompt them to agree to binding emission cuts, a position among emerging economies that many say derails effective action.

“If the question is whether India will take on binding emission reduction commitments, the answer is no. It is morally wrong for us to agree to reduce when 40 percent of Indians do not have access to electricity,” said a member of the Indian delegation to the recently concluded U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany, which is a prelude to a Copenhagen summit in December on climate change. Given how seriously the Obama Administration takes global warming, this issue risks being an increasing irritant in the US-India relationship.

WTO/Protectionism/H 1-B Visas—Despite appeals against trade protectionism, India imposed fresh tariffs on iron, steel and soybean oil in the early days of the financial crisis. Such a severe economic environment leads each country to fend for itself first — and India is no exception and neither is the most protectionist US Congress in many decades. In the same vein, President Obama’s stimulus package stops US companies, largely in banking and financial services, that take federal bailout money from hiring H-1B visa holders for two years if they have laid off American workers in the previous six months. The Administration has vowed to tighten restrictions and step up oversight of all work visa applications. These protectionist pressures are unlike to subside any time soon.

I have enumerated a whole host of potential and even likely problems in the US-India relationship in the next few years. In concluding, I would like to suggest what the United States and India should do in the period ahead to avoid systemic deterioration in our bilateral ties. Here are my personal policy prescriptions.

Pakistan –There should be intimate, intensive and utterly private US-India talks on how to deal with a turbulent and increasingly chaotic Pakistan in the period ahead, including examining the policy implications of various specific scenarios regarding deteriorating events in Pakistan. What seemed worst case a year ago in Pakistan may be on our mutual doorstep in the months ahead. I recognize that this is an exceptionally sensitive suggestion but it is absolutely necessary for a host of reasons, not least because it would be the United States and India that would be most affected by a Talibanisation of Pakistan. With that in mind, how can it be that we are not comprehensively and candidly talking together about it? Indeed, there may come a time if Pakistan continues its gradual descent into anarchy when the United States and India may be forced to adopt together, along with Iran and other nations, a strategy of attempting to quarantine the Wahabi infection as much as possible within Pakistan and to try to minimize its export.

Afghanistan – NATO is not currently winning the long war in Afghanistan. And the US, because of concerns in Islamabad, continues to find India more a liability than an asset regarding the future of Afghanistan. As an Indian friend said to me in 2002. “You Americans seem to think that Afghanistan is a scone, it is a baklava”. How prophetic he was. India will be a major player in Afghanistan whether the US likes it or not. That should be regarded in Washington as a positive factor as it seeks to reverse the problematical trends in Afghanistan and Washington should encourage India to enlarge its role in that country.

International Terrorism - This cluster of issues I have just mentioned is, of course, closely connected to the rise of Islamic extremism and the War on Terror. It is difficult to think of two countries outside of the Middle East that will be more strategically affected by this phenomenon than India and the United States. We talk far too little about this together, including what to say and do about it. In any case, Washington must not differentiate between “Bad Taliban” which kill American and “Good Taliban” which do not, but do mount attacks against India. Such a misguided US distinction would be poison for the US-India relationship.

Iran – In both countries there is considerable domestic political resonance and controversy surrounding this issue. It will not be diminished under the public spotlight. Washington needs to decisively accept India’s civilizational ties to Iran and act on that fact in American policies; and New Delhi needs to decisively accept and act in its policies on the fact that if Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal, it will dangerously disrupt regional and global equilibrium and be very bad for India over the long-term. I believe that the Obama Administration has it right in its approach to Iran. It is attempting to avoid a situation in 2010 or so in which the President faces essentially a binary choice regarding how to deal with Iran’s nuclear weapons program – either to launch a US military attack on those facilities with disastrous long term consequences, or to acquiesce to an Iranian nuclear weapons capability with disastrous long term consequences. So I believe that India should be far more forthcoming regarding much stronger international economic sanctions against Iran. That is the best hope for avoiding a catastrophe in the Middle East.

China – Again a delicate subject. But managing the rise of Chinese power is likely to be the most important strategic challenge for both countries in the next two decades. Containment is not an option but attempting together to shape Chinese policies in positive directions is. In particular, Washington should abandon any thoughts of a G-2. As former NSC Senior Director for Asia Dennis Wilder has written, “The G-2 moniker worries Asians… From Japan to India, there are concerns that America’s search for a solution to its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression may lead the Obama administration into not only expanded strategic economic and political dialogues with China but a full-blown strategic partnership. As the center of gravity of U.S. economic interests moves from Europe to Asia, they worry, the United States could become enamored of a “China first” approach.” This mistake must be avoided.

Civil Nuclear Cooperation – The two sides should initiate the US-India reprocessing agreement in the next six months. India should put aside any thought of renegotiating the 123 Agreement. If that Agreement is reopened, it will never be concluded.

Nuclear weapons – India should continue to cooperate closely with the US on non-proliferation and Washington should accept that India will mount a slow and modest upgrade of its nuclear arsenal in the years ahead. The United States should treat India as a nuclear weapons state. Any American backsliding in that regard would produce a very strong negative reaction from New Delhi.

Defense Cooperation – We need intensified interaction between the two militaries on military doctrine, force planning, weapons acquisition, interoperability, joint exercises, intelligence exchange, and threat assessments. In the next five years perhaps nothing would have such a positive long term impact on the bilateral relationship as India’s purchase of its next generation multi-role combat aircraft from the United States.

East Asia Security – Relations between India and Japan are improving. This is good for both countries and for the United States. These contacts should develop into governmental trilateral strategic discussions.

The Middle East – India has pervasive and growing vital national interests in the region but the two capitals mostly do not talk about it in a serious way. That should change.

Climate Change – The two sides should agree to disagree and not allow this issue to infect other dimensions of the bilateral relationship.

WTO – This may be in the too hard category given the differences between Washington and New Delhi but at a minimum both sides should drain the theatrics out of their exchanges on the subject.

US-India bilateral trade – Given the many challenges to bilateral relationship ties that I have discussed today, US-India trade and investment in the next few years is more important than ever. Indeed, it can have a salutary effect on the other aspects of the relationship. So I strongly encourage CII and the Indian business to intensify their engagement with American counterparts.

I would like to end my presentation as I began it, by expressing optimism with regard to the long-term prospects for the US-India relationship. The combination of our largely overlapping vital national interests and shared democratic values should produce a bright future for strategic collaboration between New Delhi and Washington in future decades. But in the immediate period before us, our bilateral ties are likely to be more problematical than we have seen in recent years. I want to stress that there is nothing inevitable about this. The two governments through their respective policies can avoid a downturn in our bilateral interaction and I, of course, hope that is what they will do. Ralph Waldo Emerson may have been overdoing it a bit when he asserted that, “There is properly no history, only biography.” But he is right that the individual leaders at the top of our two governments, beginning with the American President and Indian Prime Minister, will have a determining impact on the near-term outlook for US-India relations. We wish them well.

Ambassador Blackwill is former US Ambassador to India, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning and Presidential Envoy to Iraq. He is currently Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation. His speech reflects his personal views.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009