2,20,000 illegal Indian settlers in US

.

Washington: An estimated 2,20,000 Indians have made the United States their home illegally with a whopping 81 percent increase in their number in last seven years, according to latest official figures.

The dramatic growth in the number of Indians has come about even as immigration from Mexico continues to dominate the unauthorised population growth, according to the Department of Homeland Security's latest statistics on 'illegal immigrants'.

The estimated population of Indians living illegally in the United States was 220,000 in 2007 compared to 120,000 in the year 2000, thus recording one of the highest percentage increases. An estimated 11.8 million unauthorised immigrants were living in America in January 2007 compared to 8.5 million in 2000. The unauthorised population increased by 3.3 million between 2000 and 2007 while the annual average increase during this period was 470,000.

Nearly 4.2 million (35 percent) of the total 11.8 million unauthorised residents in 2007 had entered in 2000 or later. An estimated 7.0 million (59 percent) were from Mexico.

California remained the leading state of residence for the illegal population in 2007 with 2.8 million, followed by Texas with 1.7 million and then Florida with nearly one million. California's share of the national total declined from 30 percent in 2000 to 24 percent in 2007 as the greatest percentage increases of unauthorised resident population occurred in Georgia (120 percent), Arizona (62 percent) and Texas (57 percent). (IANS)

Dealing with the Deal

The Congress does not feel it necessary to explain the nuclear cooperation agreement with the US to the masses because it feels there is no need for it as the deal is self-explanatory, while the Left and the BJP have branded the deal ‘‘notorious’’ and ‘deceit’’ on the people. The BJP, a party known for pro-US positioning on other occasions, has been a bit more careful. It has punctuated its opposition to the deal with concern about India being ultimately relegated to the status of a non-nuclear weapon state and about forfeiture of its right to conduct nuclear test. But for the Left, the right to conduct nuclear test is a non-issue because, after all, the comrades have never hailed the Pokhran tests, nor have they appreciated research in indigenous nuclear science that has led to India being recognized as a nuclear power. For the Left, it is cooperation with the US — of any kind — that forms the substance of anti-deal diatribe; the argument being that India, as a sovereign nation, cannot be seen reducing itself to yet another US stooge, and the nuclear deal is a means by which the ‘imperialist’ US wants to bind India for ever. Therefore, the Left has opposed nuclear cooperation with the US not because it is opposed to the deal as such but because the other party is an ‘imperialist’ power that is out to make India subservient to its global hegemonic interests. And by taking this stand the Left has also tried to prove how tenaciously it has clung on to its core ideology despite temptations to dilute it. The Left has also been at pains to explain its ‘principled’ opposition to the growing US sphere of influence even as it has no problem with China’s belligerent overtures in South Asia — because in the Communist theory China cannot harm India! That said, as one of the CPM politburo members indeed attempted, the Left would also have the deal interpreted as anti-Muslim because the US has killed Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is with this marauder that the Congress is determined to forge a nuclear alliance. It is another matter that the people of the country, including sensible Muslims, have seen through such politics of opportunism. As for the BJP, its opposition to the deal — especially after the unveiling of the text of the draft safeguards agreement with the IAEA — stems mainly from its status as the principal opposition party in Parliament; that is, from its compulsion to oppose the deal for the sake of the party’s status as the most virulent Congress adversary. Its own brand of anti-deal politics has made the saffron party cleverly refrain from commenting on certain paragraphs of the draft safeguards agreement with the IAEA that address India’s strategic concerns, such as Para 5 that says that the safeguards agreement will be implemented in a manner ‘‘designed to avoid hampering India’s economic or technological development’’ and ‘‘not to hinder or otherwise interfere with any activities involving the use by India (of) nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment, components, information or technology produced, acquired or developed by India independent of this agreement for its own purposes’’. In other words, the BJP’s opposition to the nuclear deal is dictated primarily by the disadvantage of not being the ruling party of the time that can take credit for making India a part of the international nuclear regime. Therefore, the politics of opposition remains the best option even for the BJP that during its term did its best to bring India closer to the US in every manner possible. Not to invoke that past is a great expedient then. The Congress surely knows this only too well, hence its defence of the deal. source: sentinel assam

US keen on grabbing defence market

— Radhakrishna Rao

Defence Minister AK Antony, while inaugurating the new building complex of the Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE), stressed the need for self reliance in the design, development and manufacture of high precision avionics systems for the Indian Air Force, which is workifig out a strategy for modernisation and augmentation on a massive scale.Antony has repeatedly expressed his vehement opposition to the blind and wholesale import of defence hardware and advanced technological systems. In fact, he has made it clear that India will clinch a deal for defence hardware and associated technology only as an equal partner. His thesis is that India has technological expertise and an industrial base, resurgent enough to not only absorb and adopt advanced imported technologies, but also to indigenously design and develop state-of-the-art weapons and armaments.‘High technology products need to be futuristic. Our over-dependence on foreign suppliers must reduce. We must develop our own systems indigenously. A tendency to depend on foreign suppliers may land the country and the armed forces in deep trouble in crucial times in the form of import restrictions, technology transfer denials or even undue and unjustifiable delay in the delivery of already contracted systems or components of critical nature” observed Antony. He did not leave anyone in doubt that he was referring to the US.In fact, the American sanctions and technology embargo that came in the wake of India’s 1998 nuclear blasts had affected the developmental schedules of a number of projects of national importance including the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), developed by the Aeronautical Development Laboratory (ADA) and the Saras multi-role light transport aircraft, developed by the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), Bangalore.Notwithstanding the growing bonhomie in Indo-US relations, many Indian industrial outfits, research institutions and scientific organisations continue to be under the US Entity List. Not surprisingly then, both in the civilian and defence sectors here, the US is not favoured as a dependable and reliable partner for projects of critical nature.As it is, way back in early 90s the US had coerced an economically emaciated and political unstable Russia into going back on its commitment of transferring the critical cryogenic engine technology to India. Their argument was that the transfer of technology, which is of dual use, constituted a clear-cut violation of the so-called Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Overcoming all the impediments, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has now successfully developed an indigenous cryogenic engine constitution the upper stage of the three-stage GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle).Similarly, DRDO has not forgotten how the US tried to coerce the Union Government into dropping the development programme of Agni range of surface-to-surface, nuclear capable missiles. Antony notes that “despite technology denials and restrictive export regimes, DRDO has been able to develop strategic systems and advanced missiles”.Against such a backdrop, India’s defence establishment is fully aware of the implications of getting defence hardware and advanced armament systems from the US. For the denial of spares and refusal to service the hardware in the event of an embargo would mean a serious setback to the country’s defence preparedness. But then, Russia which has supplied India with a vast array of military equipment including combat aircraft and utility helicopters is fast eroding its Indian base. Indeed, the Indian military planners are losing patience with Russia for its failure to stick to the deadline and make available spares on time.Peeved by the inordinate delay and a hefty price hike in respect of retrofitting the decommissioned aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, naval chief Admiral Suresh Mehta had sometime back questioned the logic of looking at Russia as a reliable and trusted military partner. Similarly, the Russian insistence on a massive increase in the price tag of Su-30 MKI multi-role combat aircraft, which currently constitutes the very backbone of the IAF, has not gone down well with the Indian defence establishment. It is here that the US is trying to step into the Indian defence scenario with robust optimism.In this context the statement made by the US defence secretary Robert Gates that military-to-military ties between the two countries would continue to be independent of the controversial Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement, assumes significance. Of course, Indian Government’s lack of political will to go ahead with the deal has pushed it into a “slow and certain death.” Gates was forthright in his assertion, “We ask for no special treatment. We are pleased to have a place on the table. And we believe that in a fair competition, we have a good case to make”.On its part, US defence and aerospace major Boeing estimates a US $10-15 billion defence market in India over the next one decade. “According to industry projections, there will be a need for around 1000’defence aircraft by 2020, while 70 per cent of the requirement will be filled by the existing orders for aircraft like Su-30s” says Deba Mohanty, a defence analyst with the New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation.Perhaps the biggest trump card of the American defence hardware and systems is their perceived superiority in terms of performance, efficiency, technology and state-of-the-art electronics and avionics systems in comparison to the Russian defence equipment. The latter’s biggest disadvantage lies in avionics and electronics, which form a major component of an aircraft.Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin, keen on grabbing the mega Indian order for the supply of 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft to IAF have offered their most advanced fighter machines to India. The argument of Boeing is that F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that it has offered to India is already in service with the Australian Air Force. Not to be outdone, Lockheed Martin has sweetened its offer of making available F-16 IN Fighter Falcon by hinting at a possible future sale of F-35 JSF of perhaps F-22 combat aircraft if India goes in for F-16.Meanwhile, US aerospace and defence contractors are awaiting Indian request for proposal for the supply of around 200 light utility helicopters. These helicopters will replace the aging fleet of Cheeta and Chetaks in service with the IAF and the Indian army. source: assam tribune

Seek confidence vote in Lok Sabha, Advani tells government

Seek confidence vote in Lok Sabha, Advani tells government

June 29, 2008 20:12 IST
Asking the United Progressive Alliance government to seek a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha if it wanted to go ahead with the Indo-US nuclear deal, Bharatiya Janata Party stalwart L K Advani on Sunday said the Centre should focus on burning issues and development instead of fighting with the Left over the proposed pact.

"We will ask the government to face a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on the nuclear issue following the present political situation," Advani said while addressing a rally in Rourkela.
The UPA government, Advani said, was wasting time in fighting the Left parties on the nuclear deal instead of concentrating on development and solving burning problems.

"We cannot sacrifice our atomic energy and future tests in Pokhran by signing the agreement with the USA," Advani said pointing out that it was during BJP-led National Democratic Alliance rule that the second Pokhran test was conducted.

Advani lashed out at the UPA government for increasing Naxal activities in the country and said during the NDA regime insurgency was under control due to inter-state coordination meetings of naxal affected states which was abolished by the present government.

The BJP leader said the NDA government had given priority on national security and to control cross border terrorism which had been totally neglected now. Earlier, Advani addressing the concluding session of the two-day state executive body meeting of the BJP in Rourkela, asked the rank and cadre to be prepared for elections any time. source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/29advani.htm

N-gurus Speak up

N-gurus Speak up

Three eminent nuclear scientists of the country have raised serious questions over the need to sign the much-debated civilian nuclear agreement with the US. They are Dr PK Iyengar, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, and Dr AN Prasad, former director of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre. In a press release, the scientists have questioned the argument that the deal will ensure energy security for the country and gone to the extent of saying that the independence of India’s foreign policy will be jeopardized by the stipulations of the Hyde Act. They are ‘‘of the opinion that the government should not proceed to seek IAEA Board approval for the current draft safeguards agreement until its implications are debated fully within the country or at least within the UPA-Left Committee as well as with a group of experts who are not party to the IAEA negotiations’’. The three scientists have cautioned the government against ‘‘the mythical extra energy security’’ that the deal will supposedly bring. Given the concern of the country’s three top nuclear scientists, it is imperative that the government sit for a thorough discussion with country’s nuclear scientific community as well as energy experts and make the whole process transparent. The people must know the benefits that would really come in after the deal is finalized, and at what cost. It will not do for the Congress to publicize the deal just because it has to keep its commitments and save its face. Let the debate be more meaningful. source: sentinel assam

Civilian Nuclear Deal: A Victim of Oversell

Civilian Nuclear Deal:

A Victim of Oversell Sreeram Sundar Chaulia With scant light at the end of the tunnel for the India-US civilian nuclear deal, it is evident that the agreement is a victim of oversell as a ‘‘historic’’ accord to emancipate India’s economy and international status. The Manmohan Singh government’s claims in favour of the 123 Agreement were so bombastic as to project it as an elixir that could transform India’s destiny. After inflating the benefits of the deal, the Prime Minister is now facing the music.The centrepiece argument made by the Indian government on behalf of the nuclear deal is that it would usher in a bright new era of nuclear power generation and motor India’s economic growth. The factual basis of this assertion is dubious. Nuclear power currently contributes to barely three per cent of India’s overall energy production and is expected to reach nine per cent only by 2016, provided deals with Washington and the rest of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) go through.The accretion to India’s energy security from importing nuclear fuel and technology, taking costs of procurement into consideration, will thus be only marginal. By painting a much rosier picture, the Indian government raised the antlers of its detractors who did everything to prevent the ruling party from getting plaudits for revolutionizing India’s economic development.In competitive electoral politics, no ruling party will obtain cooperation from the opposition for a deal that the former wants to advertise as its unique achievement. This is, in essence, the reason why the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposes the civil nuclear agreement — to obstruct its rival from taking credit. Such thinking is revealed through comments of BJP leaders that they are interested in renegotiating the deal if they come to power.On the question of the deal being an impediment to nuclear weapons testing by India, a concern the BJP shares with some national security elites, the Manmohan Singh government is again guilty of exaggerating the leverage India enjoys. Strategic experts who have pored over the contents of the 123 Agreement and the Hyde Act have drawn valid conclusions that the US is most likely to terminate the agreement if India breaks its moratorium on bomb tests.The Congress party responded with non-transparent assurances that there is no link between capping India’s quest for a credible minimum deterrent and the deal. A more sensible strategy should have been to argue, in private, in a ‘‘so what’’ vein. So what if the US and the NSG turn off their taps for nuclear fuel and technology when India is strategically compelled to conduct more bomb tests?Supposing Chinese and Pakistani nuclear brinkmanship forced India to test more weapons in 2010 or 2013, the ensuing probable loss of civilian nuclear fuel from the US and the NSG would not dent the Indian economy. To reiterate, the addition to India’s energy security from the deal is marginal, not substantial. India’s citizens and industrial entrepreneurs have made enormous sacrifices for the security of the country in the past, and they would certainly not gainsay future nuclear tests by harping on forfeiture of a few thousand megawatts of electricity.Moreover, India’s current nuclear power plants are running at approximately half capacity due to acute shortage of uranium. Whatever fuel and technology India would have received in the short to medium term from the US and the NSG would be utilized to first make the existing nuclear power plants fully operational. There should be no fear of sunk costs in expensive overheads for new nuclear power plants that would have gone down the drain if the US and the NSG withdrew their supplies.A corollary case could have been made that opportunistically receiving nuclear fuel and technology from the US and the NSG for a few years would bring marginal advantages to the country’s indigenous fast breeder reactor programme based on domestically available thorium. Stalwarts of the atomic science establishment, MR Srinivasan and APJ Abdul Kalam, declare that ‘‘an adequate programme of first generation nuclear reactors using natural or enriched uranium is an inescapable technological necessity to launch a substantial programme of thorium utilisation’’.Even a temporary agreement with the US and the NSG could have propelled India’s thorium-based nuclear research forward to a point that withdrawal of nuclear fuel in the future would have minimal impact on the scientific community’s research. Unfortunately, by elevating the economic upside of the deal to sky high proportions, the Manmohan Singh government could not resort to this simple scenario planning.(The writer is a researcher on international affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship in Syracuse, New York) (IANS) Source: sentinel assam editorial

N-deal: UPA, Left buy time, differences persist

New Delhi, June 25: Unable to reconcile sharp differences over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Congress and the Left parties today bought more time to find a way out, deciding to finalize the findings of their committee on the issue “in due course”.After a 90-minute meeting, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee came out with a terse statement that discussions on all aspects of the deal have been completed and the next meeting of the committee to be convened in due course will finalize the findings.The meeting, which was postponed last week, took place amidst deepening stand-off between the two sides with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh keen on pushing forward the deal and the Left parties strongly objecting to it. The outside allies put forward their views in a three-page note.The two sides stuck to their positions at the meeting when the Government explained the nuances of the process in IAEA for finalising an India-specific safeguards agreement.The Left parties have warned that should the Government take the next step in the deal, they will have no alternative but to withdraw support.CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury said the Government would take further steps on the deal only on the basis of findings of the committee. Sources said the next meeting of the committee, is expected to be held next month after the G-8 summit in Tokyo where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will meet US President George W Bush. However, some Left sources expressed doubts whether there will be another meeting at all in the light of Government’s keenness to go ahead with the deal.They felt the time for discussions with Left parties was now over and the ball was in the Government's court. It has to take a political call on whether they want to break with the Left and go ahead with the deal, they said. Sources said the Congress will have to decide when they are ready to face elections. The breakdown between the two sides has been staved off for now, they said adding they did not know for how long. Sources said the Congress is wooing 39 members of the Samajwadi Party along with a few small groups, some independents which will help it retain majority in the Lok Sabha in which case early polls are not required. The Left parties have 59 members in Lok Sabha.In the Lok Sabha, which has an effective strength of 543, the UPA has 220 members-- more than 50 short of simple majority.In the note, the Left parties have understood to have given reasons why the Government should not take the next steps to finalise the safeguards agreement. It also says that such a move would be a violation of the understanding between the two sides arrived at in November 16 last year.If the agreement is finalised at the IAEA, then the nuclear deal will be on auto pilot as the US would take it to the NSG and then further to the US Congress for adoption, the note said.The Government side also referred to a proposal by NCP that the UPA leaders would give an assurance that Government would not go to NSG and should be allowed to approach the IAEA. This was rejected by the Left.The Left parties also did not favour dragging on the meetings of the committee in the light of the known positions of the two sides.Hectic consultations during the day preceded the UPA-Left meeting with Mukherjee and Antony meeting Karat in the morning after which they apprised Gandhi and the Prime Minister. The two also met PM after the Left-UPA meeting.The CPI(M) General Secretary met Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav amidst reports that the SP may tilt towards Congress in a trial of strength in Lok Sabha. (PTI) Source: sentinel assam

Lord Jagannath's Rath Yatra in New York

Lord Jagannath's Rath Yatra in New York

India’s export ban rattles food market

In a severe criticism of India’s handling of global food crisis, the US has said the export bans by New Delhi will harm its south Asian neighbours and drive up prices rattling the international markets, reports PTI. “Indian government’s decision to impose certain export bans on non-Basmati rice and edible oils has rattled international market. “We can only adequately address this crisis if we discourage continued use of export controls that will harm India’s neighbours and drive up world food prices,” US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Christopher A Padilla said here yesterday. He said while export bans are designed to increase short-term food security, (by) imposing the restrictions these policies make the situation worse. He said export restrictions take food off the global market, drive prices higher, and discourage farmers from responding to market forces and investing in future production. As two of the world’s largest producer of agricultural goods, the US and India should refrain from the use of export quotas, “which will only exacerbate food shortages and inflate prices,” Padilla said, adding “export quotas don’t work. In fact, they make things worse.” He said India can shoulder international responsibilities in dealing with the global food crisis. Source: Assam Tribune