#Barack Obama India visit 2015
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
3 suspects convicted in 2015 terror plot during Barack Obama's India visit
A special NIA court in Bengaluru has convicted three suspected terrorists in connection with a conspiracy to carry out a terror attack during then US President Barack Obama’s visit to India in 2015. The court will pronounce the quantum of punishment on December 18. The court found that the three convicts – Syed Ismail Afak, Abdul Saboor and Saddam Hussein – were planning to carry out blasts on…
#Barack Obama#Barack Obama chief guest Republic Day#Barack Obama India visit 2015#Bengaluru#Bhatkal#convicts terror plot#Karnataka#NIA court#Special NIA court
0 notes
Text
Narendra Modi Story
Narendra Modi (born September 17, 1950, Vadnagar, India) Indian politician and government official who rose to become a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In 2014 he led his party to victory in elections to the Lok Sabha (lower chamber of the Indian parliament), after which he was sworn in as prime minister of India. Prior to that he had served (2001–14) as chief minister (head of government) of Gujarat state in western India.
After a vigorous campaign—in which Modi portrayed himself as a pragmatic candidate who could turn around India’s underperforming economy—he and the party were victorious, with the BJP winning a clear majority of seats in the chamber. Modi was sworn in as prime minister on May 26, 2014. Soon after he took office, his government embarked on several reforms, including campaigns to improve India’s transportation infrastructure and to liberalize rules on direct foreign investment in the country. Modi scored two significant diplomatic achievements early in his term. In mid-September he hosted a visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first time a Chinese leader had been to India in eight years. At the end of that month, having been granted a U.S. visa, Modi made a highly successful visit to New York City, which included a meeting with U.S. Pres. Barack Obama.
As prime minister, Modi oversaw a promotion of Hindu culture and the implementation of economic reforms. The government undertook measures that would broadly appeal to Hindus, such as its attempt to ban the sale of cows for slaughter. The economic reforms were sweeping, introducing structural changes—and temporary disruptions—that could be felt nationwide. Among the most far-reaching was the demonetization and replacement of 500- and 1,000-rupee banknotes with only a few hours’ notice. The purpose was to stop “black money”—cash used for illicit activities—by making it difficult to exchange large sums of cash. The following year the government centralized the consumption tax system by introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which superseded a confusing system of local consumption taxes and eliminated the problem of cascading tax. GDP growth slowed from these changes, though growth had already been high (8.2 percent in 2015), and the reforms succeeded in expanding the government’s tax base. Still, rising costs of living and increasing unemployment disappointed many as grandiose promises of economic growth remained unfulfilled.
This disappointment registered with voters during the elections in five states in late 2018. The BJP lost in all five states, including the BJP strongholds of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. The rival Indian National Congress (Congress Party) won more state assembly seats than the BJP in all five elections. Many observers believed that this portended bad news for Modi and the BJP in the national elections set for the spring of 2019, but others believed that Modi’s charisma would excite the voters. Moreover, a security crisis in Jammu and Kashmir in February 2019, which escalated tensions with Pakistan to the highest point in decades, boosted Modi’s image just months before the election. With the BJP dominating the airwaves during the campaign—in contrast to the lacklustre campaign of Rahul Gandhi and Congress—the BJP was returned to power, and Modi became India’s first prime minister outside of the Congress Party to be reelected after a full term.
In his second term Modi’s government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, stripping it of autonomy in October 2019 and bringing it under the direct control of the union government. The move came under intense criticism and faced challenges in court, not only for the questionable legality of depriving Jammu and Kashmir’s residents of self-determination but also because the government severely restricted communications and movement within the region.
In March 2020, meanwhile, Modi took decisive action to combat the outbreak of COVID-19 in India, swiftly implementing strict nationwide restrictions to mitigate the spread while the country’s biotechnology firms became key players in the race to develop and deliver vaccines worldwide. As part of the effort to counter the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Modi undertook executive action in June to liberalize the agricultural sector, a move that was codified into law in September. Many feared that the reforms would make farmers vulnerable to exploitation, however, and protesters took to the streets in opposition to the new laws. Beginning in November, massive protests were organized and became a regular disruption, particularly in Delhi.
Modi’s policies backfired in 2021. Protests escalated (culminating in the storming of the Red Fort in January), and extraordinary restrictions and crackdowns by the government failed to suppress them. Meanwhile, despite the remarkably low spread of COVID-19 in January and February, by late April a rapid surge of cases caused by the new Delta variant had overwhelmed the country’s health care system. Modi, who had held massive political rallies ahead of state elections in March and April, was criticized for neglecting the surge. The BJP ultimately lost the election in a key battleground state despite heavy campaigning. In November, as protests continued and another set of state elections approached, Modi announced that the government would repeal the agricultural reforms.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
America’s Myanmar Policy Is All Wrong
A recent joint statement by US President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “expressed deep concern about the deteriorating situation in Myanmar,” and called for a constructive dialogue to aid the country’s transition toward an inclusive federal democratic system. Unfortunately, the US-led sanctions policy has undercut this goal and made a bad situation worse. While inflicting misery on Myanmar’s ordinary citizens, Western sanctions have left the ruling military elites relatively unscathed, giving the junta little incentive to loosen its political grip. The primary beneficiary has been China, which has been allowed to expand its foothold in a country that it values as a strategic gateway to the Indian Ocean and an important source of natural resources. This development has amplified regional security challenges. For example, Chinese military personnel are now helping to build a listening post on Myanmar’s Great Coco Island, which lies just north of India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the home to the Indian military’s only tri-service command. Once operational, this new spy station will likely assist China’s maritime surveillance of India, including by monitoring nuclear submarine movements and tracking tests of missiles that often splash down in the Bay of Bengal. In a way, history is repeating itself. Starting in the late 1980s, previous US-led sanctions paved the way for China to become Myanmar’s dominant trading partner and investor. That sanctions regime lasted until 2012, when Barack Obama heralded a new US policy and became the first US president to visit Myanmar. In 2015, Myanmar elected its first civilian-led government, ending decades of military dictatorship.
0 notes
Text
Kamala Harris
Today, Kamala Harris became the first female vice president elect of the United States of America. But who is Kamala Harris?
Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. Her mother had immigrated from India to California in 1958 at 19-years-old to study and became a cancer researcher. Her father is a Jamaican-American economist and professor. Her parents met when they were studying at UC Berkeley.
Kamala grew up, alongside her sister Maya, in Berkeley and Oakland California. Her parents got divorced when she was 7, and she began visiting her father on weekends, being with her mother during the week. Her mother brought up her daughters with the words “You may be the first to do many things, but make sure you are not the last.”
After studying political science and economics at Howard University in Washington D.C., she returned to California to study law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, graduating with a Juris Doctor in 1989. She then worked as a deputy district attorney in Oakland, becoming known for her toughness as she prosecuted cases of violence, abuse, and drug trafficking. In 2002, Harris prepared to run for District Attorney of San Francisco. Harris was the least-known of the three candidates, but, with the support of many women mentors, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, she won the runoff by 56%, pledging never to seek the death penalty. She became the first person of color elected to that office. In 2010, she was elected Attorney General of California, again with support from Dianne Feinstein, as well as Nancy Pelosi. During her time in that office, she helped overturn Prop 8, which had banned same sex marriage.
In the early 2010s, she began gaining recognition for her support of immigration and criminal-justice reforms, increases to the minimum wage, and protection of women’s reproductive rights, partly thanks to her memorable address at the Democratic Convention. In 2015, she announced that she was running for a seat in the US Senate. She easily won the 2016 election, with support from President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, becoming the second black woman elected to the US Senate.
In January 2019, she announced her candidacy for the 2020 Presidential Election. She was considered a top contender for the presidency. During the first presidential debate in the primaries, Kamala scolded Joe Biden for remarks he had made, and her support rose. However, in the second presidential debate, Biden scolded Harris over her record as Attorney General, and her support dropped. On December 3 2019, she dropped out of the election, and began endorsing Joe Biden for president.
In May 2019, the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed the idea of a Biden-Harris ticket. In late February 2020, Biden won the Democratic primary in South Carolina by a landslide, and that victory would end up leading him to his victory in the nationwide primary as well. In March 2020, Biden committed to choosing a woman for his running mate.
On August 11, 2020, Joe Biden announced that he had picked Kamala Harris for VP pick. She is the first African American, the first Indian American, and the third woman to be picked as the vice-presidential nominee for a major party ticket.
On November 3, 2020, presidential election day, the Democrats were concerned that the incumbent president Donald Trump would win a second term. The counting of ballots went on for days, and is still going on in some states the day I am posting this. On Wednesday morning, Biden took the lead in electoral votes, and on Thursday it became clearer and clearer that Biden and Harris would win the election, though many were still uncertain. It came down to one state: Pennsylvania. If Biden won Pennsylvania, he would pass the 270 threshold, the amount of votes needed to win the election.
This morning, on November 7, 2020, Pennsylvania was called for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, making them the president and vice president elect for the 2020 Presidential Election. They are expected to assume office on January 20, 2021, and Kamala will become the first female vice president of the United States of America.
Her mother was right, Kamala was the first to do many things. And she will certainly not be the last.
#kamala harris#kamala#biden#joe biden#oakland#california#president#herstory#history#women's history#herstory in the making#vice president
8 notes
·
View notes
Photo
How can Russia, China, and the United States change the world?
The international order that emerged after the Second world war is undergoing major changes today. After Washington's outspoken desire over the past almost three decades to establish a unipolar world with clear US hegemony, the policies of Russia and China in various regions of the world have recently become increasingly influential internationally. Therefore, the distribution of forces in the triangle of today's main actors in international life of the United States-Russia-China has become objectively gaining more and more universal attention. "The unipolar world proposed after the cold war did not take place. I believe that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable for the modern world, but also impossible," Vladimir Putin said at the Munich security conference back in 2007.At that time, he criticized the existing world order, spoke about the failure of NATO to fulfill its obligations, and the United States ' disregard for international law, which was critically perceived by many Western political elites. However, ten years later, one of the Western leaders — German Chancellor Angela Merkel-has already spoken about a multipolar world in which"countries like Russia, China and India have their own geostrategic goals." At the same time, after the us withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, France's representative to the UN, Francois Delattre, declared "the birth of a multipolar world". Experts and politicians speak about the need for large countries to adapt to multipolarity and the emergence of new poles of power, regional powers, and large economies in think tanks and conferences around the world. And if the West's relations with Russia have never been simple, then China has moved into the category of opponents of the United States much more unexpectedly. Recall that the United States and China came to a rapprochement in the early 1970s, after the first visit to China by the American leader Richard Nixon, who, by the way, was an ardent opponent of communism. Therefore, his meeting with Mao Zedong can be called a real manifestation of American pragmatism in foreign policy. After Mao's death, when the Chinese leadership launched a policy of reform and openness in the early 1980s, the West was confident that China would move towards democratization and liberalization. Therefore, the national security strategy of Ronald Reagan referred to "promoting close relations with the PRC." Under George H. W. Bush, the middle Kingdom was considered a country that, along with the United States, "made a huge contribution to regional stability and the global balance of power." The need to cooperate with China was mentioned in the national security strategies of bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 1994 to 2010. In the Obama strategy of 2015, the rise of China was even described as " capable of influencing the future of relations between the strongest countries." However, in the us national strategy of 2017, Beijing is already called an enemy and recognizes that hopes of liberalizing the " partner "have collapsed:"China is expanding its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others and has begun to assert its regional and global influence." Like Russia, according to the White house, Beijing " disputes the geopolitical advantage of the United States and tries to change the world order in its favor." The trends observed today in relations between Russia, China and the United States indicate the upcoming growth of strategic rivalry between the world hegemon and the emerging Eurasian powers. In contrast to the United States, which, after the collapse of the socialist camp at the end of the previous century, seeks to maintain sole world domination, today Russia and China are building their own axis, pursuing the goal of becoming a multipolar world. Faced with a choice between the US and China, Russia has naturally become closer to Beijing – and for two reasons. From a political point of view, Moscow will not be able to reach a full understanding with the West as long as the North Atlantic Alliance persists. This transatlantic security Alliance is still fueled by the presence of the Russian threat, which is both the reason for its existence and the rationale for expansion when the opportunity presents itself. The inclusion of each new member in NATO is directed against Russia and is clearly interpreted by Moscow as a threat. Economic complementarity is also a reasonable argument in favor of Russia's partnership with China. China is a manufacturing giant, while Russia is rich in natural resources. China has huge reserves of labor, and Russia has serious problems with demographics. It is also possible that the future of Russia is connected with the East. Even from a purely geographical and strategic point of view, Moscow needs to actively develop its Eastern territories, which are characterized by extremely low population density and at the same time make up more than 75 percent of the country's area. Therefore, today no one is surprised that Moscow and Beijing successfully demonstrate similar positions on many controversial international issues, both of these leaders have repeatedly stressed the importance of bilateral relations in the light of external threats. They prefer to avoid open clashes on certain regional issues, such as Vietnam's territorial and energy policy, without bringing the existing differences to public discussion. Recall that the Soviet Union was the first state to recognize the People's Republic of China. It was Moscow that helped lay the foundations without which the development of Chinese industry, currently unparalleled, was not possible. By allowing the Chinese company Huawei to create Russia's first 5g wireless network, Moscow provided Beijing with the support it desperately needed in an escalating trade war with the United States. Moscow and Beijing are trying to strengthen and modernize their armed forces, while at the same time conducting joint exercises. The goal of these actions is to contain the American military machine, which both countries consider expansionist. As an indication of the strength of ties, we can cite the fact that China has purchased more weapons from Russia than from any other country. The figures speak for themselves – about 80 percent of all weapons purchased by China are Russian. At the same time, for Moscow, Beijing has become one of the main buyers in this area – China's share in Russian defense exports is about 25 percent. Moreover, the US itself contributes to the rapprochement of China and Russia, labeling them as "strategic rivals". Thus, Washington is trying to achieve the impossible – pushing Beijing and Moscow to each other, while at the same time it hopes to drive a wedge between them. Today, we are talking about building another alternative model of the world order instead of the world hegemony proposed by Washington, and fairer rules of the game, first on a bilateral level, then on an increasingly broad level that includes other countries. Perhaps this is what the world is waiting for from Russia and China. For almost the entire second half of the twentieth century, the socialist system existed in parallel with the capitalist system. And they stimulated each other. Competition of meanings, ideologies, and models of the world order is just as important as competition in business. It does not allow you to stop developing.
1 note
·
View note
Text
[ad_1] CNN �� Here is a take a look at the lifetime of Narendra Modi, prime minister of India. Birth date: September 17, 1950 Birth place: Vadnagar, Gujarat, India Birth identify: Narendra Damodardas Modi Father: Damodardas Modi Mother: Hiraba “Heeraben” Modi Marriage: Jashodaben (Chimanlal) Modi (1968-present, separated) Education: Delhi University, B.A., 1978; Gujarat University, M.A., 1983 Religion: Hindu Left dwelling in his late teenagers to journey India, keep in ashrams and wander the Himalayas. First prime minister born in unbiased India. October 3, 1972 - Joins the Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. June 1975 - Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposes a interval of emergency as she faces a political disaster. Civil liberties are restricted, media is censored, and protesters are arrested. Modi turns into concerned within the motion to revive these rights. 1987 - Enters mainstream politics and joins the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as group secretary of the Gujarat unit in western India. October 3, 1995 - Becomes the nationwide secretary of the BJP. January 5, 1998 - Is promoted to grow to be the nationwide basic secretary of BJP. October 2001 - Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee names Modi chief minister of Gujarat. February 2002 - At least 58 individuals die in a hearth on board a prepare carrying Hindu pilgrims. The prepare had stopped briefly at a station in Gujarat the place the native inhabitants was majority-Muslim. The Gujarat Government would later discover that the hearth was deliberately set, a part of a pre-planned assault, and that these accountable had been Muslim. Riots erupt within the days following the hearth and Modi is accused of condoning the violent protests that kill roughly 1,000 individuals, principally Muslims. 2005 - The United States declines to difficulty a diplomatic visa to Modi for his suspected position within the 2002 riots. June 2013 - Modi is chosen because the BJP chief and campaigns for the 2014 basic elections. May 20, 2014 - The BJP wins the overall election and Modi is appointed prime minister. May 26, 2014 - Takes the oath of workplace as prime minister. September 27-30, 2014 - Modi makes his first visit to the United States as prime minister and meets with President Barack Obama. December 8, 2014 - Modi wins a Time magazine reader’s poll individual of the yr. January 25-27, 2015 - Obama turns into the primary sitting US president to go to India twice. During the three-day go to, Obama and Modi negotiate a civil nuclear deal, a 10-year protection cooperation settlement between the 2 nations. December 25, 2015 - Modi visits Pakistan and meets with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It is the primary time an Indian prime minister has visited Pakistan in almost 12 years. June 8, 2016 - Addressing a joint session of the US Congress, Modi speaks concerning the persevering with progress of US-India relations. June 26, 2017 - Meets with US President Donald Trump for the primary time at the White House. July 4, 2017 - Becomes the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel, arriving in Tel Aviv as a part of a three-day go to to mark 25 years of diplomatic relations between India and Israel. August 15, 2018 - During his Independence Day speech to the nation, Modi announces India will launch its first manned mission to space by 2022. May 23, 2019 - In a landslide victory, the BJP wins 303 seats within the basic election. May 30, 2019 - Sworn in for a second term as India’s prime minister. August 5, 2019 - Tensions between India and Pakistan increase after Modi broadcasts that India will revoke a constitutional provision giving the state of Jammu and Kashmir autonomy to set its personal legal guidelines. In the wake of the announcement, widespread communications blackouts are reported within the Muslim-majority area. August 8, 2019 - Modi delivers a televised address wherein he claims that revoking Kashmir’s autonomous standing will promote stability, cut back corruption and increase the economic system.
Pakistan’s overseas minister says the nation will stay vigilant, however no army choices are being thought of. The United Nations points an announcement calling on each nations to resolve the difficulty peacefully while respecting human rights in the region. December 11, 2019 - Parliament passes a controversial bill that may fast-track citizenship for spiritual minorities together with Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Opposition events say the invoice is unconstitutional because it bases citizenship on an individual’s faith and would additional marginalize India’s Muslim group. Modi expresses his support for the measure via Twitter, saying, “This Bill will alleviate the suffering of many who faced persecution for years.” December 19, 2019 - Deadly protests erupt in at least 15 cities in opposition to the citizenship regulation, regardless of bans on public gatherings in a number of areas. At least three individuals have died amid the violence, as 1000's participated in demonstrations. December 22, 2019 - Modi delivers a speech railing against the protests. “You have seen how these people are pushing their own interests,” he says. “The statements given, the false videos, inciting, people sitting at a high level have committed the crime of spreading confusion and fire by putting it on social media.” September 3, 2020 - Modi’s Twitter account appears to have been hacked, prompting an investigation by the social media company. The account, which has 2.5 million followers, is certainly one of a handful of verified accounts linked to the prime minister. The obvious hack comes greater than a month after an enormous hack that resulted in among the most outstanding accounts on the platform — together with these tied to Obama, Joe Biden and Elon Musk — being compromised. July 7, 2021 - Modi fires 12 members of his cabinet, including the federal ministers for health and law, as he faces fierce criticism over the federal government’s alleged mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic. November 19, 2021 - Modi says he would repeal three contentious agricultural laws that sparked greater than a year of protests, in a uncommon obvious climb down forward of pivotal state elections. December 12, 2021 - Modi’s Twitter handle was “very briefly compromised,” his workplace says, when a tweet was despatched from the Indian Prime Minister’s account saying his nation had adopted Bitcoin and can be distributing the cryptocurrency. [ad_2]
0 notes
Text
Best Republic Day images 2019
70th Happy Republic Day Animated 3d GIFs Glitters for Whatsapp 26th January 2018:- Hello Reader. The main Republic Day celebration is held in the national capital, New Delhi , at the Rajpath before the President of India On this day, ceremonious parades take place at the Rajpath, which are performed as a tribute to India; its unity in diversity and rich cultural heritage.
A range of traditional and cultural programs are performed by the professionals from different states to focus on the history and culture of our country. During this grand celebration, prime minister's rally and Lok Tarang - National Folk Dance Festival is also held from 24th to 29th of January.
Happy Republic Day 2018 Status : Hii Friends Today I am going to share with you a Happy Republic day Images and Republic Day wishes Quotes in Hindi. Republic Day India is Celebrated on 26 Constitution was adopted in india by the India Constituent Assembly on 26 Nov 1949, and its came into effect on 26 January 1950 with a democratic government system. So You can pick the Best Republic day status for whatsapp and Republic Day Images in can also get Republic day Quotes & Republic day Wishes sms can also pick the Republic day Wallpapers and Status wishes in Hindi from given below.
On 26 January the governing document of India was replaced by a New Governing document and this is why the day is celebrated in India. The old Governing document was made by Britishers and the new document by Independent Indians. So, Every person of India should be aware of this day and what happened on this blog.
Indian performers walk alongside a float representing the state of Mahrashtra as they participate in the country's Republic Day parade in New Delhi on January 26, 2015. Rain failed to dampen spirits at India's Republic Day parade January 26 as US President Barack Obama became the first US president to attend the spectacular military and cultural display in a mark of the nations' growing closeness.
Republic Day in India is commended on 26 January yearly since, 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into constrain came into drive. Autonomy Day is seen on 15 August yearly in India. It is a National Holiday commending the country's autonomy from the British Empire on 15 August 1947.
The flag is unfurled at the India Gate followed by 21 gun salute and marching of regiments. Tableaus of each state representing the culture, are also demonstrated at the Republic Day celebrations. The President visits the Amar Jawan Jyoti in the beginning of the day and pay homage to the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the well-being of their country. The gallantry awards are also awarded to those who demonstrated immense bravely and courage and inspired us to into selfless acts.
If you can't make it to the main Republic Day Parade in Delhi, there are other big events in capital cities across India. Unfortunately, Mumbai's grand Republic Day Parade, which took place along Marine Drive in 2014, returned to Shivaji Park in central Mumbai in 2015 due to road resurfacing. The state government has decided that Republic Day celebrations will remain at Shivaji Park due to security concerns.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Shanthie Mariet D’Souza on how India was ‘ill-prepared’ for the dramatic Taliban takeover
Shanthie Mariet D’Souza on how India was ‘ill-prepared’ for the dramatic Taliban takeover
The Taliban are in charge in Afghanistan. The rapid overthrow of the Afghan government that many expected would take another few months ended last week, as the Taliban entered Kabul, prompting President Ashraf Ghani to flee the country. This sudden development has major ramifications for every nation in the South Asian region, not least India – which benefited greatly from the US presence in Afghanistan and may now have to see Pakistan once again playing a dominant role in the country.
What can New Delhi do? How is it to deal with the fallout? Shanthi Mariet D’Souza is the founder of research outfit Mantraya, founding professor at the Kautilya School of Public Policy and an Afghanistan expert who has worked on the country for years, including as adviser, Independent Directorate of Local Governance to the Afghanistan government in 2015-16. She has also edited Afghanistan in Transition: Beyond 2014?
I spoke to D’Souza over e-mail about what the Taliban takeover means for New Delhi, whether the question of engaging with the Taliban is any different from the last time they were in power in the 1990s, and what this means for India’s relations with other major powers.
For some background to the conversation, read our interview with Avinash Paliwal, back in May, when India was still debating the question of whether to engage with the Taliban.
For the reader, could you tell us a little bit about how you got into studying Afghanistan and your background with the country? I am a scholar, researcher and founding professor with specialisation in International Relations with more than a decade-long experience of working in think tanks, universities, governmental and non-governmental sectors, as a consultant, adviser and board director for think tanks, governments and international organisations in Afghanistan and South Asia, as an associate editor and editorial board member for international peer reviewed journals, and as a subject matter expert and trainer designing modules on regional and international security, governance, economic development, gender and non-traditional security challenges in Asia for diplomats and security personnel. I have also conducted field studies in Pakistan, China, Africa, Canada, United States, Australia, Jammu and Kashmir and India’s North East.
My interest in Afghanistan sparked in the 1990s, when I embarked on my M Phil program at the American Studies division of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. At that time, I found that there was scant academic and policy attention on Afghanistan, which was in India’s neighbourhood. It was a glaring gap in academia and policy research.
As I started my M Phil in the summer of 1999, the IC-814 hijacking brought attention to Afghanistan and the Taliban regime when the plane with Indian citizens was hijacked from Kathmandu and taken to Kandahar and the then Bharatiya Janata Party government was brought to its knees and had to swap passengers for terrorists. This was an important lesson for India not only in hostage negotiations, but also in lack of policy attention on Afghanistan since withdrawal from that country in the wake of the capture of power by the Taliban in the mid-1990s.
As I commenced my doctoral programme at SIS, JNU on the topic “United States and emergence and decline of the Taliban”, in the summer of 2001, the 9/11 terror attacks took place in the American homeland. That once again brought back the US and world attention to a country, which was largely forgotten and considered distant. While most analysts concluded that the US military intervention of October 2001 would result in the decimation of the Taliban, my hypothesis was to the contrary and proved correct in the years that followed.
The central argument of my PhD thesis and critique of the nature of the international intervention in 2001 was that the international community did not pay adequate attention and resources in institution building, shoring up the capabilities of the Afghan government (host nation) or addressing the issue of sanctuaries and external support that the Taliban received from their sponsors in Pakistan from where they regrouped, rearmed and carried out attacks in Afghanistan.
The reemergence of the Taliban was evident in 2005-06, when US President George W Bush diverted the limited resources and troops from the ���the limited and quick” war in Afghanistan to Iraq. The aversion to nation building did not help build institutions that Afghanistan required to rebuild its security, political and economic sectors. Most of the international aid created parallel structures of governance rather than strengthening the Afghan government’s institutions for governance and revenue.
President Barack Obama refocused attention on the “just war” in Afghanistan from Iraq through his Af-Pak strategy, but announced exit by 2014 along with the troop surge which strengthened the battlefield and negotiating potential of the Taliban. The repeated calls for exit were based on the American political calendar under President Donald Trump and now President Joe Biden’s administration, and not on the needs of the Afghans or conditions on the ground. The Taliban bided their time. In the villages of southern Afghanistan where I visited, the Taliban would in a jocular vein say, “the Americans have the watches, we have the time”.
The international community needed to focus attention and resources for the long term stabilisation of Afghanistan, building key institutions of service delivery and strengthening the security, political and economic sectors to build the credibility of the Afghan government. Most of the quick impact projects of the international community did little to build the credibility and/or extend the writ of the Afghan government. The security sector needed to be built, trained and equipped to fight insurgency and not a conventional army, as Afghanistan is fighting an asymmetrical war.
The western notions of democracy and state building had limited utility in the long term stabilisation of Afghanistan and preventing its slide into present levels of chaos and violence. Afghanistan needed assistance to build its own security, political and economic institutions based on its needs and specificities rather than replicating foreign models.
I have, since the completion of my doctoral studies and Fulbright Fellowship, studied Afghanistan through various prisms – the security sector, political and peace building, sub national governance, and regional cooperation, to understand the challenges and prospects of long term stabilisation of Afghanistan, which the rest of the international community has not paid much attention to.
From my specialisation in American Studies, I have tried to make myself useful to academia, policy-makers, security and diplomatic personnel, media and international non governmental organisations, by focusing my attention and work on the internal and external dynamics of the Afghan conflict, India-Afghanistan relations, and prospects of regional cooperation in Afghanistan through various field studies, assignments and consultancy projects in various provinces of Afghanistan, rather than confining myself to Kabul, to provide a better understanding of the urban-rural divide and help bridge the disconnects.
As Team leader the for Local Planning and Budgeting–IDLG-UNDP-LOGO project, Kabul, Afghanistan (2020); Adviser, Independent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG), Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2015-16); International Election Observer for the audit and recount of Afghanistan’s Presidential Runoff elections,( 2014); Senior Transition Consultant, United Nations Mine Action Service (2013), Kabul and External Reviewer for the country programme of Action Aid International, Afghanistan (2011), I have worked with governmental and non-governmental sectors for more than a decade in various provinces of Afghanistan.
US soldiers stand guard behind barbed wire at the airport in Kabul. Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP
Would you say that you take any particular approach, or fall into a specific school of thinking, when it comes to your analysis? I do not consider myself to be belonging strictly to any particular school of thought. However, broadly, I do see myself as aligned to the school of Constructivism, seeing the world as socially constructed and exploring the role of identities and interests. Constructivists believe agency and structure are mutually constituted, which implies that structures influence agency and vice versa.
Agency can be understood as the ability of someone to act, whereas structure refers to the international system that consists of material and ideational elements. I have increasingly witnessed that while studying Afghanistan and policy-making either in India or outside, there has been little understanding and application of the structure-agency debate and role of identities and interests. More importantly, there is very little anthropological study of the tribal dynamic and social networks, culture and religion in Afghanistan. Thus, Afghanistan remains a puzzle that many have not taken the time and effort to understand.
I charted my own path to tread into unknown terrain, taking many risks and moving out of my comfort zone with multiple field visits to Afghanistan from Singapore and India to get first-hand, primary, qualitative and ethnographic data, rather than relying on secondary sources and not contributing anything new or useful to the academic and policy debate.
I have muddied my hands to work on issues of governance (which is the key to stabilisation) and election observation, to understand Afghans and Afghanistan, and debunk many myths about the people and the country. I have used different approaches and prisms to understand the challenges and prospects of long-term stabilisation of Afghanistan. These include the social network approach, participant observation, ethnographic data, and first hand information collected through interviews and discussions with Afghans across a wide spectrum. I have travelled to various provinces in Afghanistan for collection of primary resource material for more than a decade. I have carried out interviews, discussions and “person on the street” narratives to gather qualitative data.
My field visits to Afghanistan and interactions with key policy-makers, interlocutors, scholars, security and media personnel, members of international organisations, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, women’s groups, youth groups, farmers’ associations, dairy associations, business groups and “person on the street” narratives have helped deepen my knowledge of the country and the need to adopt alternative approaches to bring in long term peace and stability.
I have conducted field-based research and consultancies with the governmental and non-governmental sectors in Afghanistan. As an Adviser on downward accountability with the Independent Directorate of Local Governance (DFID funded project), Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2015-2016), I have worked on issues of sub-national governance and strengthening downward accountability; developed guidelines and data collection instruments to enable provincial councillors improve service delivery in eight crucial sectors – education, agriculture, health, roads, electricity, water and sanitation, security and legal services.
I have contributed to the development and finalisation of the Provincial Council (PC) internal procedure and oversight regulatory authority; developed formal internal procedures for the channelling of PC reports to relevant line ministries at the Centre (through the IDLG) and provinces (through the governor); and revised the reporting template for the PCs informing councillors of their mandates, legal and policy frameworks, minimum service delivery standards and constraints to effective service delivery. I also provided organisational assistance in restructuring, strategic and annual plans, training materials and manuals for the conduct of consultative workshops and capacity building programmes for provincial councillors and awareness workshops for women provincial councillors.
As a Senior Transition Consultant, United Nations Mine Action Service, Afghanistan (September 2013), I conducted extensive field analysis, interviews and focused group discussions with Afghan government officials, key policy-makers, donors, non-governmental organisations, UN Mine Action personnel, de-miners, community elders and other key stakeholders to review the mine action programme in Afghanistan. Case studies considered for the project included Cambodia, Laos, Liberia, South Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Colombia, Lebanon, Western Sahara, Mali, Ivory Coast, DRC, and Yemen, which helped in learning from the best practices in actualising transition in the Afghan context.
At the end of the field study, I presented the findings at a workshop in Kabul and submitted a report identifying options to locate responsibility for the mine action mandate within the Afghan government and key stakeholders with a list of “pros and cons” for each option and the steps required for implementation in the transformation decade.
As an international Election Observer, Afghanistan with The Asia Foundation, for the audit of Afghanistan’s Presidential Runoff elections held in June 2014, I was involved in report writing, data entry and short-medium term observation of the audit and recount process.
I have been a Consultant and Reviewer for the country programme of Action Aid International Afghanistan, May-June 2011. I conducted programmes and organisational reviews of AAA’s programmes, project and functioning in Kabul and other provinces of Afghanistan using a Rights based approach and a participatory approach, like Participatory Rural Appraisal, to analyse, plan and monitor the development activities. I submitted a detailed report titled “Country Programme Review” with key learning gaps to inform the management on the state of the country programme as well as provided recommendations on future directions to guide the formulation of the next country strategy paper on developmental strategy and policy planning.
The speed of the Taliban takeover has taken everyone by surprise. You wrote recently that “there is an overwhelming sense of helplessness” in New Delhi “as its contributions and gains made in the last two decades wither away.” Why is that so? Do you think it will be some time before that sense is shaken off or is it likely to remain as long as the Taliban are in charge? India has pursued its soft-power approach in Afghanistan under a security umbrella provided by the US since 2001. It is the largest regional donor, having pledged more than $3 billion in various capacity building and infrastructure development projects. Its development assistance policy accrued a tremendous amount of goodwill for India. The challenge was to convert soft power gains into long term tangible outcomes when the tide turned. Even though there was a sense in India that the US would withdraw its forces in 2014 – the date of withdrawal announced by President Obama – India did not prepare for such a scenario and hoped for an outcome that would not put the Taliban in a dominant position.
However, all those calculations have changed quickly. The sense of shock and dismay from the fall of Kabul and the total capture of power by the Taliban is not unique to India. In the coming days, the entire world will be forced to internalise the dramatic changes that have taken place in Afghanistan and how those changes have made past policies redundant. India too will have to go through that phase of self-assessment and revisit its policies in the face of new realities.
Indian citizens aboard a military aircraft at the airport in Kabul on Tuesday. Photo: AFP
What are the immediate implications for India – both in terms of interests and policies – with the new Afghanistan situation, once the question of evacuating citizens and others is taken care of? India’s challenges are multiple and at various levels. These include:
Evacuation/safety of all Indians, friends of India in Afghanistan (Afghans who worked for India), and the willing members of the Hindu and Sikh communities;
Preservation of the gains made by India in the last two decades, i.e, the infrastructure projects and, also, the leverage within the political elite;
Dealing with the resurgence of Pakistani and Chinese influence;
Staying engaged in Afghanistan’s development sector to prevent a humanitarian crisis and continuing the existing level of trade and commerce; and
Developing working relations with the new political dispensation as stipulated in the Agreement of Strategic Partnership ( October 2011).
India has been ill-prepared for this scenario. Even evacuating its personnel was difficult. The Taliban set up roadblocks, making it difficult to reach the airport. More importantly, India could not evacuate Afghans who worked for its embassy and consulates, leaving them in great danger and discontent.
For India, which had pledged more than $3 billion dollars in development assistance since 2001 and accrued a huge amount of goodwill, Afghanistan is now a dramatically transformed terrain. New Delhi faces disruption to its intense engagement in the country’s development sector. Its gains of the past two decades, achieved through high-value and small-scale projects, face dangers of reversal.
India, a regional stakeholder and an unwavering supporter of an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled” peace and reconciliation process, has struggled to find a place in the numerous groupings that seek to decide the fate of the country. Its last-ditch efforts at opening a channel of communication with the Taliban, as part of its bid to engage with all stakeholders in the Afghan conflict, too has not yielded much result.
Is India likely to play a role in offering a home to Afghans – either refugees or, as it has in the past, some of the political elite? Yes. It will probably do so on a limited scale, given the declared prioritisation only for the Hindus and Sikhs. Some members of the political elite are already in India. A few others will be in India in the coming weeks. Similarly, the government will have to clarify its policies on the thousands of Afghans who are either on study or medical visa in the country. For obvious reasons, India can’t send them back to Afghanistan, where their lives will be at risk. India needs a coordination cell dealing with repatriation, refugee and IDP settlement and humanitarian assistance.
Does India’s presence as chair of the USNC alter the potential path in any significant way? Internationally, India needs to take a leadership role as the current UNSC chair in framing resolutions, providing relief, setting up humanitarian response teams and conflict mediation mechanisms. India cannot afford to abandon the people of Afghanistan once again without implications for its image as a reliable friend and a major power in the region. This is a unique opportunity to demonstrate its leadership role at the UNSC.
Given India’s history with them, would you expect questions about recognition of the Taliban government by New Delhi to go differently from the 1990s? New Delhi faces a stark choice of engaging the Taliban and recognising them, or opting to totally disengage from that country. The latter would imply a return to the 1990s, where a contact-vacuum facilitated events like the IC-814 hijacking and anti-India groups like LeT, JeM finding bases to operate from that country.
A realist’s approach would be to reach out to the Taliban in order to continue aid and development assistance, and a constructivist approach seeking to link aid with conditionalities that will help in mainstreaming and blunting the extremist worldviews particularly in dealing with women, minorities and children.
While the Taliban’s ascendancy is clearly a disruptor of India’s presence in Afghanistan, some opportunities for its continued engagement could also be available in the near-medium term. The Taliban leadership has made favourable statements asking India to continue with its developmental activities. The Taliban search for legitimacy may help India retain its foothold in the country, although it may not be as intense as it used to be. However, engagement should not be tantamount to granting recognition or legitimacy.
India needs to continue its aid policy for Afghanistan to prevent a humanitarian disaster and refugee crisis. It must establish some communication links in that country to moderate the extremist movements ideology and protect the rights of women and minorities.
Taliban fighters sit over a vehicle on a street in the Laghman province on Sunday. Photo: AFP
The Northern Alliance is nothing like what it was in the 1990s. Do you believe there is space for India to continue to court players in Afghanistan to counter the Taliban? Yes. The erstwhile Northern Alliance is a redundant force as most of the leaders have reached out to the Taliban, surrendered or fled the country. The call by the Vice President, Amrullah Saleh, to be a caretaker President to counter the Taliban and defend the territory could lead to a new resistance. To gather India’s support, Mr Saleh will have to establish his reach and unifying effort within the NA as a potent adversary to the Taliban.
You’ve written that India “missed the bus” on Afghanistan, and that “in strategic terms, India’s loss would be Pakistan and China’s gain”. Could you explain to the reader why you believe that is the case?The withdrawal of the US and resultant political change has created a huge strategic vacuum in Afghanistan. Pakistan, due to its locational and strategic advantages and links with the Taliban, and China, due to its proactive policy and links with Pakistan can hope to occupy much of this vacuum. India had twenty years to make up for its strategic and locational disadvantages.
However, it chose to rely on a policy, which looked impressive while at work, but had no long-term strategic thinking and planning built into it. One can understand the strategic competition with Pakistan which had nurtured the Taliban to regain strategic depth. But at one point of time, India was thinking of joint projects with China in Afghanistan as declared at the Wuhan informal summit. Did that fail because of China’s attitude or New Delhi’s own lackadaisical approach? This needs to be answered by policy-makers.
Do you think the current Indian administration has sufficient capacity and will to engage with all dimensions of the Afghanistan question? The MEA is understaffed and doesn’t have enough capability and skills to get feelers from the ground. As the situation was rapidly deteriorating, New Delhi continued with its “wait and watch” policy. This has led to systemic inertia, risk aversion, lack of long-term planning, and policy fuzziness. The MEA needs trained specialists who know the language, culture, ethnography and have contacts in the field for real time information flow and action.
Some fear that the Taliban’s return to Kabul will empower terrorists and militants, and that India may see fresh surges on the LoC. Others have said that the security implications for India may not be so direct or immediate. What do you make of these fears? The security threat is real if not immediate. Pakistan-based terror groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad have a presence in Afghanistan and are known to have built checkpoints in certain areas with the help of the Taliban. While the US-Taliban peace agreement obligates the Taliban to stop using Afghan territory for terror attacks by the al Qaeda and the Islamic State against the US and its allies, no such guarantee insulates countries like India from the activities of Kashmir-specific groups such as the LeT and JeM, and even the AQ and Islamic State’s Khorasan Province.
Its assurance to not operate in Kashmir notwithstanding, the Taliban’s capacity to prevent self-activation of these groups against India is questionable. It will boost terrorist morale and ability. However, whether it will actually result in a dramatic rise in terror attacks in J&K remains to be seen. India has pursued militancy with a multi-dimensional approach, which includes neutralisation of hundreds of cadres, targeting their over-ground networks and their financial resources. Yet, the infrastructure and the factors that breed terrorism and militancy remain.
Just a month ago you wrote a number of policy prescriptions for India in Afghanistan over the next decade, but most of them were predicated on at least a prolonged period of civil war, and not such a quick Taliban takeover. What would your list look like today? My list had also included suggestions in the wake of a rapid take over by Taliban. My writings and suggestions were based on scenario-building, which included the rapid takeover of power by the Taliban as the worst-case scenario which the policy makers in New Delhi needed to pay heed to.
A pragmatic and astute policy would explore ways and means of engaging the Taliban to ensure continuation of its present development assistance for the Afghans to prevent a humanitarian crisis and preservation of the gains of the last two decades. The Taliban have sent such feelers for engagement for some time now that need to be carefully explored for the near and medium-term.
Such engagement could work in moderating their extremist ideology. Aid can be provided with conditionalities of preserving women, minorities and human rights. The engagement with the Taliban could be based on the Agreement on Strategic Partnership which India had signed with Afghanistan in 2011. India, having a seat at the UNSC, can take a leadership role in building international consensus of preventing the subversion of the democratic experiment in Afghanistan, ensuring that the linkages between Taliban and global terror groups are severed through monitoring by counter-terrorism committees, linking any international aid to the Taliban to protecting women and human rights and reaching out to the Afghan by the deployment of quick response teams to avoid a catastrophic humanitarian disaster and refugee crisis.
Finally, the last three questions we like to put to everyone: Are there misconceptions about Afghanistan or the India-Afghanistan relationship that you find yourself having to correct all the time, whether coming from scholars, journalists or lay people? Yes. There are a lot of preconceived notions and stereotypes about Afghans and Afghanistan that get fed into policy and public information through the media. Most academics and journalists write on Afghanistan without even going to the country. Others write and report from Kabul, which does not depict the reality or diversity evident in the provinces. No one has made a serious effort to understand urban-rural differences or to use ethnographic data to understand the tribal and local dynamics of that country.
Are there areas of research on Afghanistan that you wish the Indian government or those in the policy space put more resources into?
India’s aid and development assistance policy review & impact studies
India’s security and strategic planning including hostage negotiation, evacuation and crisis management
Anthropological, ethnographic and linguistic studies
Institution building in fragile states
A special cell on Afghanistan with external experts
What three books (or podcasts/papers/videos) would you recommend to those interested in the subject?
There are several. However, a few that stand out are:
Louis Dupree, Afghanistan
Ali A Jalali, A Military History of Afghanistan: From the Great Game to the Global War on Terror
Thomas J Barfield’s Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History
Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars
Olivier Roy, Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan
Ahmed Rashid’s Descent into Chaos
. Source link
0 notes
Link
via Politics – FiveThirtyEight
Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll of the week
We at FiveThirtyEight hope you had a very patriotic Fourth of July — whatever that means to you. A YouGov poll, released this week, checked in on Americans’ feelings on patriotism and revealed some stark differences along — what else? — partisan lines.
Overall, the survey found that 76 percent of Americans consider themselves “very” or “somewhat” patriotic. But between Republicans and Democrats, there were pretty big differences: A whopping 97 percent of Republicans placed themselves in the “very” or “somewhat” categories, compared with 71 percent of Democrats. That’s a gap of 26 percentage points. Even more starkly, 72 percent of Republicans consider themselves to be “very” patriotic (the highest level of patriotism), compared with 29 percent of Democrats — a 43-point gap.
The poll also suggests that Democrats may define patriotism differently than their conservative counterparts. Specifically, YouGov found that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe that patriotism can include dissent:
52 percent of Democrats told YouGov that someone can criticize U.S. leaders to foreigners and still be considered patriotic, compared with 35 percent of Republicans.
51 percent of Democrats say disobeying a law they think is immoral doesn’t detract from their patriotism, compared with 33 percent of Republicans.
34 percent of Democrats think a person can still be a patriot even if he or she burns the American flag in protest, compared with 10 percent of Republicans.
And 55 percent of Democrats think an American can refuse to serve in a war he or she opposes and still maintain his or her patriotism, compared with 25 percent of Republicans.1
The “patriotism gap” is nothing new. Gallup has asked its respondents how proud they are to be Americans periodically since 2001. According to those polls, one year after the Sept. 11 attacks, 93 percent of Democrats and 99 percent of Republicans said they were either “extremely” or “very” proud to be Americans. The GOP number stayed comfortably in the 90s for the duration of George W. Bush’s presidency, but by January 2007, amid an unpopular war in Iraq that sparked no small amount of liberal dissent, the share of Democrats who were “extremely” or “very” proud to be Americans had shrunk to 74 percent — 21 points lower than the Republican share (and, to that point, the widest gap since Gallup started asking the question). The Democratic share increased during Barack Obama’s presidency (reaching a high of 85 percent in 2013) but was still consistently lower than the GOP’s: The share of Republicans who said they were “extremely” or “very” proudly American never dipped below 89 percent despite the extremely low opinion GOP voters had of Obama.
After the election of Donald Trump, the share of “extremely” or “very” proudly American Republicans ticked upward,2 but the share of Democrats saying the same thing plunged to 67 percent in 2017 and 60 percent just last month (the chart above has not been updated with the 2018 data). The current 33-point gap now holds the record for the widest gap between the two parties since 2001. (YouGov’s data also seems to suggest that Trump is contributing to the patriotism gap: The difference between the shares of Democrats and Republicans who said they were “very” patriotic rose from 29 points in 2013 to the current 43-point difference.)
So do Democrats’ feelings of patriotism rise and fall depending simply on who is in the White House? Data that Pew Research Center collected from 1987 to 2003 suggests that might not be the case. Throughout that time period, more Republicans than Democrats told pollsters that they “completely” agreed with the statement, “I am very patriotic.” In 1987, 51 percent of Republicans completely agreed, compared with 40 percent of Democrats. The two ticked up in tandem to Gulf War-era highs in 1991, but then, during the Bill Clinton administration, the gap widened: Democrats fell back into the 40s, while Republican agreement with that statement remained around 60 percent.
So what accounts for the persistent difference? It could just be that Republicans are more comfortable with the most obvious manifestations of patriotism these days. Public displays of patriotism often assume a pro-military dimension (sometimes purposefully and tactically so), which may be more likely to appeal to Republicans (other polls show they are generally more hawkish than Democrats). Singing “God Bless America” and military flyovers at sporting events also first came into fashion in the years immediately following 9/11, when rallying around the flag coincided with rallying around a Republican president. By contrast, funding AmeriCorps or paying taxes probably aren’t the first things many people think of when they think of patriotism, but lots of Democrats would argue they should be. Even apple pie and baseball aren’t the unifiers they once were: Pumpkin pie beat out apple as Americans’ Thanksgiving dessert of choice in 2015, and football blasphemously beats out baseball as Americans’ favorite sport to watch, 37 percent to 9 percent. In sum, we’re a big country, and there are just as many ways to enjoy America as there are Americans.
Other polling nuggets
A Quinnipiac University poll found that 63 percent of registered voters (84 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republicans) agree with the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion, while 31 percent disagree.
Quinnipiac also found that 91 percent of registered voters, including large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, think “the lack of civility in politics” is a serious problem. When asked who they blame more, “President Trump or the Democrats,” 85 percent of Democrats said Trump, and 76 percent of Republicans said the Democrats.
According to a SurveyMonkey poll, 62 percent of Americans believe the Senate should vote on President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court before the November elections. Sixty percent say the process of confirming nominees has become too partisan.
A YouGov poll found that 46 percent of Democrats support abolishing the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and replacing it with a different organization — a position that has been advocated by some Democratic lawmakers. Twenty-seven percent of Democrats said they opposed the move, and an additional 27 percent said they weren’t sure.
According to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 76 percent of Americans said they’re in favor of requiring TV ads for prescription drugs to include a statement about how much they cost, a proposal that is part of the Trump administration’s plan for reducing drug prices.
43 percent of women say they do more than their fair share of house work in their households, according to a YouGov poll. That’s compared with 26 percent of men.
A Pew Research Center poll found that 24 percent of Americans say legal immigration should be decreased. That’s a significant decline since 2001, when 53 percent said so.
A Florida International University poll of 1,000 Puerto Ricans in Florida found that the majority have either a “good” or “very good” opinion of Republican Gov. Rick Scott despite very high levels of disapproval of the president, whom Scott was an early supporter of. People who moved to Florida between 2017 and 2018 were more likely to have a “very good” opinion of Scott than those who arrived earlier. Scott has repeatedly visited Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017 and campaigned to welcome evacuees from the island.
A Gallup poll found that only 3 percent of India’s population was “thriving”[f00tnote]Gallup groups people into three categories: “thriving,” “struggling” and “suffering” based on their responses to two questions. The first asks people to rate their present life situation on a scale of 1 to 10, and the second asks them to use the same scale to assess their views on the next five years. Those who are categorized as “thriving” rate their present life situation as greater than or equal to 7 and their future as greater than or equal to 8. In 2017, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans were “thriving.”[/footnote] in 2017. That’s an 11-point decrease from 2014, when 14 percent of the population was “thriving,” despite a 24 percent increase in GDP during that time.
Are you obsessed with polls? Check out FiveThirtyEight’s new polls dashboard, where we’re displaying all in one place the polls we’re collecting for the 2018 U.S. Senate, U.S. House and gubernatorial elections!
Trump approval
Trump’s approval rating is currently 41.9 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker. His disapproval rating is 10.8 percentage points higher, at 52.7 percent. Trump’s job-approval numbers have generally held steady over the past month. One month ago today, his approval rating was 41.3 percent, and his disapproval rating was 52.6 percent (a net approval rating of -11.3 points). One week ago, his approval rating was 41.8 percent, and his disapproval rating was 52.3 percent (a net approval rating of -10.5 points).
Generic ballot
This week, Democrats are ahead in polls of the generic congressional ballot by an average of 47.3 percent to 39.6 percent — a 7.7-percentage-point lead, according to FiveThirtyEight’s model. One week ago, Democrats led 47.0 percent to 39.8 percent (a 7.2-point edge). One month ago, it was Democrats 46.3 percent and Republicans 39.9 percent (a 6.4-point edge).
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Obama mentions Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in his memoir
NEW YORK: Former US president Barack Obama says Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has a “nervous, unformed quality” about him like a student eager to impress the teacher but lacking aptitude and passion to “master the subject.” The New York Times reviewed Obama’s memoir ‘A Promised Land’, in which among other issues, the first Black American President has talked about political leaders from around the world. On Gandhi, Obama says he has “a nervous, unformed quality about him, as if he were a student who’d done the coursework and was eager to impress the teacher but deep down lacked either the aptitude or the passion to master the subject,” according to The New York Times review. Gandhi’s mother and Congress president Sonia Gandhi also appears to find mention in the memoir. The NYT review said in the memoir “we are told of the handsomeness of men like Charlie Crist and Rahm Emanuel, but not the beauty of women, except for one or two instances, as in the case of Sonia Gandhi.” Former US Secretary of Defence Bob Gates and former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh both come across as having a kind of impassive integrity, the review states. It added that Russian President Vladimir Putin reminds Obama of the tough, street-smart ward bosses who used to run the Chicago machine. “Physically, he was unremarkable,” Obama writes of Putin. The 768-page memoir, expected to hit the stands on November 17, chronicles Obama’s childhood and political rise, before diving deeply into his historic 2008 campaign and first four years in office. Obama was the first African-American president of the United States. He visited India twice as the US President – in 2010 and 2015.
The post Obama mentions Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in his memoir appeared first on BreakingNews.
source https://bbcbreakingnews.com/2020/11/12/obama-mentions-congress-leader-rahul-gandhi-in-his-memoir/
0 notes
Text
Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14
TO 3,620,240 acceptance applicants all over the apple who are at the capital of their immigrant adventure to the United States, the account Acceptance Bulletin is the cartage light.
September 2017 USCIS Visa Bulletin – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
This gives the absolute cardinal of immigrant acceptance applicants in the family-sponsored and employment-based alternative categories as of November 2019, the latest address on the affair by the State Department.
Before the alternation of proclamations akin the breeze of both immigrants and non-immigrants akin – and through the admiral of George Bush the first, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the Acceptance Office beneath the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State has been putting out the Acceptance Bulletin amid the ninth and 12th of anniversary month.
Without fail, the area “Procedure for free dates” explains how immigrant acceptance applicants may accept an clue of aback the cartage ablaze will about-face from red to orange, and from orange to green.
This area repeats the action in the latest Acceptance Bulletin for July 2020.
“Consular admiral are appropriate to address to the Department of State documentarily able applicants for numerically bound visas; USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) letters applicants for acclimation of status. Allocations in the archive beneath were made, to the admeasurement possible, in archival adjustment of arise antecedence dates, for appeal accustomed by June 9th.”
The July 2020 Acceptance Bulletin was arise on June 18.
A nine-day aberration may not assume much.
But to a adolescent axis 21 or a ancestor appellant with a medical condition, or an aged appellant who had to acknowledgment to the Philippines, for example, to adjournment for the son or daughter’s acceptance with the ambition of actualization afore the delegate in case it is bare and again biking together, the nine-day aberration could beggarly at the actual atomic addition four to 10 years of cat-and-mouse or, if the appellant passes away, abortion of a address that the ancestors had been cat-and-mouse anywhere from 10 to 20 years.
U.S | visa bulletin for april 2019
At the time of autograph this cavalcade (8 p.m., July 18) the accessible Acceptance Bulletin for August 2020 still sports the tag “Coming Soon.”
Petitioned
Dolores was petitioned by her US aborigine sister on June 2, 2001. Her alone son Francis is axis 21 on Dec. 10, 2020. She’s abashed that if she does not get an account date afore December this year, Francis would age out and be larboard behind. He was beneath than two months old aback Dolores’ address was accustomed and accustomed by the USCIS.
Aware that the State Department now publishes two charts, Dolores watches the “Dates for Filing Family-sponsored Acceptance Applications” blueprint with unblinking hawkeye eyes.
This “Dates for Filing” blueprint is the red-to-orange light.
For mother and son, cat-and-mouse for the antecedence date on the F4 class for Philippine applicants to be accepted has been a antecedent of account anxiety.
If the absolute date on the Date of Filing blueprint does not accommodate abundant time for her to complete the immigrant acceptance action with the National Acceptance Center (NVC) aback the August Acceptance Bulletin comes out, she cannot alpha the processing of her immigrant acceptance application.
Based on her own analysis and cases of accompany with petitions, Dolores knows that it would booty about bristles to six months to complete the acceptance processing from the time she receives a case conception letter from the NVC. The case conception letter includes not alone her case number, but an Invoice ID number, as well.
14 – Visa Bulletin April 14 Recap (Live Show 14/14/14) Part 14 – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
Dolores needs both numbers to log on to her NVC case book online and alpha the acceptance processing. She abstracts that if the August 2020 Acceptance Bulletin comes out and the absolute date for F4 Philippine applicants on the Dates for Filing does not move from “08JAN02,” she may not accept abundant time to complete the process.
The “final dates” (interview dates) for the F4 class moves an boilerplate of four to bristles months aback January this year. The July 2020 Acceptance Bulletin shows the F4 absolute date for the Philippines as “01JUN01.”
Dolores’ antecedence date is “02JUN01,” a day abbreviate of the absolute date on the July 2020 Acceptance Bulletin. Hence, she waits with aside animation for the August 2020 address from the State Department.
Her F4 antecedence date has confused advanced four to bristles months aback April this year. In May, it was “01OCT00.” It confused four months in June to “01FEB01,” again addition four-month move advanced to “01JUN01” in July.
Fast. But not fast enough.
Coming of age
Meanwhile, Francis’ advancing of age is abutting faster. He turns 21 on Dec. 10, 2020.
Dolores was acquisitive the July 2020 Acceptance Bulletin would move accomplished her antecedence date of June 2, 2001. Adding to the accent of the account cat-and-mouse is the actuality that she has not yet accustomed the case conception letter with the Invoice ID number. She needs this advice to alpha processing.
Visa Bulletin for January 2015 – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
The Dates for Filing blueprint of the aforementioned July 2020 Acceptance Bulletin shows the absolute date for Philippine F4 applicants at “08JAN02.” If alone she has the case conception letter with the Invoice ID number, she could alpha the action by logging on to her NVC case file, pay the $200-fee for the Affidavit of Support and $325-visa fee anniversary for her and Francis.
If the processing clip charcoal the aforementioned (at the four-to-five-months movement forward), Dolores would accept abundant time to complete the acceptance processing afore Francis turns 21.
But there is the immigrant acceptance arising ban issued by US President Donald Trump on June 23, 2020. Would this authority aback processing and accumulate the absolute date from affective forward?
Should she and Francis abort to complete the acceptance appliance process, become documentarily able and get an account date by Dec. 10, 2020, Francis will about-face 21 and could be advised disqualified for allocation as a acquired beneficiary.
She has heard of the Adolescent Cachet Protection Act, a 2002 law that could accumulate Francis from actuality banned his acquired almsman visa. She’d rather not – unless and until she has to.
Will the immigrant ban of Trump adjournment acceptance processing?
Theoretically, no.
The ban was for the arising of immigrant visas, not processing. The NVC continues accepting payments and uploading civilian abstracts as allotment of the acceptance processing stage. Aback completed, Dolores and Francis would be advised “documentarily qualified.” Aback Dolores’ antecedence date would accept been current, she and Francis could arise for an account afore the consul.
April Visa Bulletin: Final Action Date for Vietnam Born Applicants .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
Dolores expects to accept the account apprehension already she becomes documentarily qualified. But, first, she charge get the case conception letter and achievement that the August 2020 Acceptance Bulletin will appearance the absolute date of her F4 address move to or accomplished June 2, 2001.
Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14 – visa bulletin for april 2019 | Encouraged in order to my blog, with this occasion I’m going to show you in relation to keyword. And after this, this can be a very first image:
EB-5 Visa Bulletin for May 2020: India Advances 9 Months .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
How about impression previously mentioned? is actually in which incredible???. if you think so, I’l t provide you with several picture again down below:
So, if you would like acquire the magnificent shots about (Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14), click save button to store these pictures for your personal pc. There’re all set for down load, if you like and wish to own it, just click save badge on the web page, and it’ll be immediately saved in your desktop computer.} Finally if you need to obtain unique and recent image related to (Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14), please follow us on google plus or bookmark the site, we attempt our best to present you regular update with fresh and new graphics. We do hope you love staying here. For many updates and latest information about (Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14) pics, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark area, We try to give you update periodically with all new and fresh shots, enjoy your exploring, and find the right for you.
Thanks for visiting our website, contentabove (Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14) published . Today we are pleased to declare we have discovered a veryinteresting nicheto be pointed out, that is (Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14) Many people trying to find details about(Seven Things That You Never Expect On Visa Bulletin For April 14 | visa bulletin for april 14) and definitely one of these is you, is not it?
The Luxury Network Lebanon is Set To Launch This March .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
January 2020 Visa Bulletin: Possible Visa Retrogression .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
The March 14 priority dates | Philstar | visa bulletin for april 2019
April 2020 Visa Bulletin Analysis and Predictions .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
April Visa Bulletin Shows Jumps in China EB-14, Vietnam EB-14 .. | visa bulletin for april 2019
Demand Data For April 2013 Visa Bulletin – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
DOS Releases April 14 Visa Bulletin – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
July 2019 Visa Bulletin | Report, Prediction, and Analysis – visa bulletin for april 2019 | visa bulletin for april 2019
from WordPress https://www.visaword.com/seven-things-that-you-never-expect-on-visa-bulletin-for-april-14-visa-bulletin-for-april-14/ via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
Travel quiz: Take CNN’s challenge with these questions in May
(CNN) — We all know that travel broadens the mind. Thanks to that place on the seafront that sells delicious gelato, it has a tendency to broaden other body parts too.
We can’t deliver you two scoops of pistachio, but we can keep flexing those brain cells while your next trip across the world is on hold.
CNN Travel’s experts have been compiling some tricky questions to test your knowledge of the planet and to kindle your curiosity for more.
Think you can outsmart us? Try answering the following without resorting to Google. By all means hop on a video call to get family and friends in on the challenge.
There’s a link out to the answers at the end. We trust you not to do any peeking!
1. Which of these cities has not hosted the Summer Olympics?
a. Amsterdam; b. Madrid; c. Helsinki; d. Tokyo; e. Rome
2. Can you identify the city from its skyline?
Getty Images
3. The London Underground, or Tube, is the world’s oldest metro rail system. Which city has the second oldest electrified system?
4. Some nations have more than one capital city. Can you identify these countries by their perhaps lesser known capitals?
a. Brno; b. Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte; c. Putrajaya; d. Valparaíso
5. In which city is the world’s tallest building?
6. Can you name the city from these landmark places of worship?
Getty Images
7. Which city has the world’s oldest Chinatown?
a. San Francisco; b. London; c. Manila; d. Jakarta; e. Toronto
8. Can you identify the city from the name of its airport?
a. General Edward Lawrence Logan; b. Hamad International; c. O.R. Tambo International; d. Soekarno-Hatta International
9. Name the world’s highest capital city
10. Which three destinations are widely recognized as the world’s only three sovereign city states?
1. Which famous aircraft made its last flight on November 26, 2003?
2. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, what was the world’s busiest airport in terms of passengers?
a. Beijing Capital; b. London Heathrow; c. Amsterdam Schiphol; d. Los Angeles, e. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
3. Identify the airlines by their tailfin logos
4. What type of airplane is the US President’s Air Force One?
a. Gulfstream III; b. Boeing VC-25; c. Airbus A320; d. Boeing 777-300ER; e. Antonov An-148
5. Which two countries were connected by the Kangaroo Route?
6. Which direction — north, east, south or west — would you travel between these airports identified only by their codes? (Five bonus points if you can identify all the cities)
a. LAX to HNL; b. LGA to MCO; c. LHR to JNB; d. BKK to PVG; e. ARN to SVO
7. Match the massive airplane to its nickname
Getty Images
a. Whale; b. Queen; c. Dream. d. Superjumbo
8. Which airline had the most aircraft at the beginning of 2020?
a. Delta Airlines; b. American Airlines; c. Cathay Pacific; d. Virgin Atlantic; e. JetBlue
9. Why is three the magic number for the following aircraft?
Hawker Siddeley HS-12, the Tupolev Tu-154, the Lockheed L-1-1011, Boeing 727?
10. What aviation first did Amelia Earhart achieve in 1928?
1. Where in the world can you find these pyramids?
Getty Images
2. What is the world’s largest island?
3. Which country is home to Europe’s largest natural desert?
4. Match the image to the US national park?
Getty Images
a. Canyonlands; b. Yellowstone; c. Grand Canyon; d. Yosemite
5. Can you name the oceans that make up the so-called seven seas?
6. What links Java Trench, Challenger Deep, Molloy Deep, South Sandwich Trench, Puerto Rico Trench?
7. Match these desert oddities to the locations below
Getty Images/Plan South America/Barry Neild
a. Qatar; b. Chile; c. Texas; d. Namibia
8. Which is the only one of the world’s 10 longest rivers to flow northward?
9. Where can you no longer see the Azure Window?
10. Which place receives the most annual rainfall?
a. Manchester, England; b. Mawsynram, India; c. Seattle, Washington; d. Quibdó, Colombia
1. Which two Asian destinations separated by the sea were linked by 55 kilometers of bridge and tunnel in 2018?
2. Match the image to the New York bridge
Getty Images
a. Manhattan; b. Queensboro; c. Williamsburg; d. Brooklyn
3. Which towering French engineer designed the Bolivar Bridge in Peru, the Truong Tien Bridge in Vietnam and the Imbaba Bridge in Egypt?
4. Which country is home to the world’s longest bridge?
5. Match the image to the London bridge
Getty Images
a. Millennium; b. Hammersmith; c. Tower; d. Westminster
6. What would happen if you tried to cross France’s Rhône River on the Pont d’Avignon?
7. Can you identify the following famous bridges?
Getty Images
8. Which two continents are connected by the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge?
9. What caused part of the Pont Des Arts bridge in Paris to collapse in 2015?
10. Which country is home to this handy structure?
LINH PHAM/AFP/AFP via Getty Images
1. Which city has the most Michelin stars?
2. Mirazur was named top of the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list in 2019. In which country is it?
3. Can you identify the country from the classic dessert?
Shutterstock
4. What are the bubbles commonly made of in bubble tea?
5. The world’s “happiest country” also consumes the most coffee per capita. Name the country?
6. Which antipodean dessert is named for a ballerina?
7. Can you match these four British dishes to their names (without laughing)?
Suzanne Plunkett
a. Eton Mess; b. Toad in the hole; c. Scotch egg; d. Spotted dick
8. Kartoffelknoedel, xiaolongbao, manti and pierogi are all types of what?
9. What color or colors is Neapolitan ice-cream?
10. Chef Mary Mallon worked in kitchens in New York and Long Island in the early 20th century. By what unhygienic name is she better known?
1. What do Colombia, Sao Tome & Principe, Gabon, Uganda, Maldives and Kiribati all have in common?
2. Which three Asian countries topped the list in April 2020 for the most powerful passports for visa-free travel, according to the Henley Passport Index?
3. Which country has the most official languages?
4. Four red, white and blue flags, four different countries. Name them
Getty Images
5. What happened in Samoa and Tokelau on December 30, 2011?
6. Which country changed its name to eSwatini in 2018?
7. Identify these countries from their outlines
8. Which is the world’s newest country?
9. These frontiers divide areas claimed by which pairs of countries?
a. The Line of Control; b. The Demilitarized Zone; c. The 49th Parallel
10. Which country is surrounded to the north, east and south by Senegal?
1. Name the protagonist in Jules Verne’s 1872 novel “Around the World in 80 Days”
2. Which four destinations have Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon visited in four series of “The Trip?”
3. Who led this ill-fated Antarctic expedition?
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
4. Whose fictional crusade took him from Utah to Portugal, Venice, Austria, Berlin and then Petra?
5. What record did US journalist Nellie Bly break in 1890?
6. Where did Anthony Bourdain have lunch with former US President Barack Obama?
Zero Point Zero for CNN
7. Norwegian Thor Heyerdahl conquered what personal fear to cross the Pacific Ocean on his Kon-Tiki balsa wood raft in 1947?
8. What have John “Wedge” Wardlaw, Mark Rumer-Cleary, Dallas Burney, John Molony and John Dickson done every five years since 1982?
9. Why doesn’t Dora the Explorer wear Boots?
10. Here she is in India in 1983, but which country has Queen Elizabeth II visited more times than any other?
Fox Photos/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
1. Actor Stanley Tucci has proved his awesomeness by showing the Internet how to make the perfect Negroni. His recipe calls for double the usual quantity of which liquor?
2. In “The Devil Wears Prada,” Tucci’s character Nigel is overlooked for the job of Runway magazine’s creative director. Which city is he in when he finds out?
a. Paris; b. New York; c. Milan; d. Pittsburgh
3. Tucci has been involved in making a new travel series with CNN looking at the food of which country?
a. France; b. The United States; c. Italy; d. Croatia
4. In the 2004 movie “The Terminal,” Tucci plays Frank Dixon, the customs chief trying to prevent Tom Hanks’ character from living in his airport. Which airport is the movie set in?
5. Does Tucci prefer his Negroni straight up or on the rocks?
Instagram
That’s it. You made it to the end. Now fix yourself a drink and click the link below to see the answers and find out how you did.
The post Travel quiz: Take CNN’s challenge with these questions in May appeared first on Sansaar Times.
via Blogger https://ift.tt/2TDFYya
0 notes
Text
Agra admin to follow SC guidelines, e-vehicle to take Trumps to the Taj - india news
US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will enter the Taj Mahal in an eco-friendly vehicle after they reach the city on February 24, senior administrative officials said on Friday, minimising the chances of the Trumps driving up to the16th century white, marble monument in the Presidential car, known as The Beast.Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, which in 1998 barred the use of anything but electric vehicles in close proximity to the monument, will be followed during the Trumps’ Taj visit, the officials said. Preparations are underway for the visit of the American First Couple, who will fly to Agra from Ahmedabad, the first leg of the trip. Final rehearsals are likely to take place on Saturday or Sunday, but it is still not clear if ‘The Beast’ will be a part of them. The vehicle has arrived in Agra’s Kheria airport, and is waiting to ferry the couple to the Taj Mahal and back, HT reported on Thursday.“US President Donald Trump and wife Melania will enter Taj Mahal in an eco-friendly vehicle,” inspector general of police, A Satish Ganesh, said on Friday.Superintending archaeologist of the Archaeological Survey of India (Agra Circle), Vasant Swarnkar, said Supreme Court guidelines will be complied with. “The vehicle used by the guests will be decided by the administration, but we are here to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives,” he said.“The apex court restricted movement of petrol/diesel-run vehicles within a 500-metre radius of the Taj. Since then, most VVIPs visiting the monument opt for a battery-operated coach, while some take a golf cart,” said DK Burman, a retired tourism department official.The issue about entry of the VVIP guest came up in 2015 when the then US President Barack Obama was expected to visit the Taj. The visit was called off at the eleventh hour because Obama had to fly to Saudi Arabia to condole the death of King Abdullah. Chief minister Yogi Aditya nath on Tuesday inspect ed preparations for the visit and took a golf cart to the Taj Mahal. Another retired official recalled that in 2000, the then US President Bill Clinton travelled from the airport to Taj Mahal in his own car (‘the Beast’), which was allowed inside the premises along with his cavalcade.In 2002, on his second visit to Taj, Clinton, who was no longer the president, was driven in a special battery-operated coach provided by the Agra Development Authority.This battery-operated coach has been refurbished and in ‘ready to use’ mode.UP Chief Minister Yogi Aditya Nath, who was in Agra to assess the preparations for Trump’s visit on Tuesday, had travelled in a golf cart to the Taj Mahal. Read the full article
#Admin#Agra#announcement#bnewsbijapur#bnewschannel#bnewschannelwiki#bnewsdeoria#bnewsfacebook#bnewshindi#bnewskolhapur#bnewskolhapurlive#bnewslogo#bnewstvchannel#bulletins#cnewsbharat#cnewsbharatlogo#cnewsbharatup/uk#cnewschannel#cnewslivetv#cnewslogo#cnewsmarathi#cnewstv#cnewsup#cnewsvideo#cosmosnews#dnewsapp#dnewsappdownload#dnewschannel#dnewshindi#ddnews
0 notes
Link
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the U.S. last year, he was greeted by a massive crowd at a Texas rally, billed as one of the biggest-ever receptions for a foreign leader. India is now preparing to return the favor ahead of President Donald Trump’s first official visit to the country on Feb. 24 and 25.
About 100,000 people are expected to attend the “Namaste Trump” event planned in the Indian city of Ahmedabad in Modi’s home state of Gujarat. Modi and Trump will also lead a parade through the city on Trump’s two-day trip, which is expected to focus on trade relations between the two countries and their shared concern about China’s growing influence in the region.
This won’t be the first time massive crowds have turned out in India to receive a visiting U.S. leader. President Bill Clinton also received a large, cheering reception during his trip to India in 2000. But not every U.S. president has been received so warmly, and the history of official visits tracks the ups and downs in the relationship between the world’s two largest democracies over the last 70 years.
Trump’s state visit also comes at a difficult time for Modi. Anti-government protests against a controversial citizenship law have engulfed the country since December. India’s move to revoke Kashmir’s autonomy in August also drew sharp criticism from many in the international community, including members of the U.S. Congress. But experts believe Trump is not likely to raise these issues during his trip, much to the Indian government’s relief.
“There is a lot of pressure on India over its socially divisive policy moves,” Richard M. Rossow, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, tells TIME. “A presidential visit is a sign that the U.S. will continue developing the relationship despite these issues.”
Ahead of Trump’s trip to the South Asian nation, here is a look at previous U.S. presidential visits to India.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959
Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty ImagesUS President Dwight D. Eisenhower with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at the Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, during Eisenhower’s Goodwill Tour, Dec. 14, 1959.
The first state visit by a U.S. president to independent India came in the throes of the Cold War, in which India decided to remain neutral. India’s presence at the head of the Non-Aligned Movement, which committed the country not to take sides between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, had kept the two countries estranged until then.
During his trip, Eisenhower addressed both houses of the Indian Parliament and visited the Taj Mahal with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The trip marked a significant shift in the perspective of many in Washington, who had thought of India as being close to the communist Soviet Union.
Richard Nixon, 1969
Bettmann Archive/Getty ImagesU.S. President Richard Nixon waves to crowds as he rides in open car with the acting president of India, Mohammad Hidyatullah, in motorcade from airport on July 31, 1969.
Nixon’s one-day trip to India was primarily aimed at de-escalating tensions with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The two leaders had a frosty relationship because of India’s decision not to take sides in the Cold War and and the U.S. decision in the early 1960s to deepen its partnership with India’s archrival, Pakistan.
Two years later, the relationship soured further when Nixon supported Pakistan in the India-Pakistan War of 1971, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. In the run-up to the war, India had signed a treaty with the Soviet Union shifting from its original position of Cold War neutrality.
Jimmy Carter, 1978
Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty ImagesU.S. President Jimmy Carter is welcomed by Prime Minister Moraji Desai, standing with Rosalind Carter and future Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, during an arrival ceremony in New Delhi, India in January 1978.
When Carter visited India, the intention was to thaw tensions that remained after the 1971 war and India’s first nuclear test in 1974. He addressed the Indian Parliament and left a lasting impact on a small town near New Delhi, which was later renamed Carterpuri after him.
However the trip couldn’t convince Prime Minister Morarji Desai to give up India’s nuclear ambitions, a move that irritated the Americans.
Bill Clinton, 2000
Stephen Jaffe–AFP/Getty ImagesU.S. President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton visit the Taj Mahal on March 22, 2000.
Clinton’s India trip, the first by a U.S. President for more than 20 years, was a landmark one that came after a prolonged lull in the relations between the two countries. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, alliances had shifted. During the 1999 war between Pakistan and India, the U.S. under Clinton sided with India, the first time the country had supported India against Pakistan. In 1991, India initiated a policy of economic liberalization that opened doors to foreign investment. This was also a major boost to trade relations between the U.S. and India.
Clinton visited with his daughter, Chelsea Clinton. His speech in the Indian Parliament received rapturous applause and he toured several Indian cities, leaving many in the country star-struck. “President Clinton was wildly popular in India,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior adviser at Brookings Institute who helped organize Clinton’s trip to India. “It was like traveling with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones in the 1960s.”
George W. Bush, 2006
Emmanuel Dunand–AFP/Getty ImagesU.S. President George W. Bush shakes hands with Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh looks on during an official welcoming ceremony at the Presidential Palace in New Delhi on March 2, 2006.
The highlight of George W. Bush’s trip was the finalization of a landmark nuclear deal, which was agreed upon in 2005. Under the agreement, India separated its civil and military nuclear programs and opened its civilian facilities including nuclear power plants for international inspection. In return, the U.S. ended a ban on nuclear trade with India. The significant move was also accompanied by other measures that boosted economic and security ties.
In an administration defined by the post-9/11 war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq, experts think developing relations with India was one of Bush’s significant foreign affairs achievements. Ahead of his trip to India, TIME had described his relationship with the country as “something of a bright spot.”
“He definitely deserves credit for recognizing India as a security partner,” Riedel says. “He walked a fine line that allowed for the development of stronger relations with India as well as with Pakistan.”
Barack Obama, 2010 and 2015
Jim Watson–AFP/Getty ImagesU.S. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama spread rose petals as they participate in a wreath laying ceremony at Raj Ghat in New Delhi, India, Nov. 8, 2010.
Obama visited India twice. During his first trip in 2010 during the administration of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he backed India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. In addition to $10 billion in trade deals, the two leaders also agreed to boost defense and national security ties, which led to the easing of export regulations on high-technology goods to India.
Saul Loeb–AFP/Getty ImagesU.S. President Barack Obama; Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, right; Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, second from the left; and First Lady Michelle Obama attend a reception at Rashtrapati Bhawan, the Presidential Palace, in New Delhi on Jan. 26, 2015.
The second time around, Obama came to India on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to be the chief guest at the country’s Republic Day celebration, which marks India’s constitution going into effect. The trip went smoothly until Obama made comments on religious freedom in the country, saying “India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith.” On his return to Washington, he cited concern about “acts of intolerance” on religious lines in India. His comments didn’t go down so well with some members of Modi’s Hindu nationalist government and triggered backlash in the national media.
0 notes
Text
Donald Trump to make his first visit to India on Feb 24, 25: White House
Current Affairs
US President Donald Trump will embark on a two-day visit to India from February 24 during which he will travel to New Delhi and Ahmedabad to further strengthen the strategic bilateral partnership and highlight the strong and enduring bonds between the American and Indian people, the White House announced on Tuesday.
President Trump will be accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump and they will visit India on February 24–25, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said.
She said Trump and Modi talked on the telephone over the weekend.
"During a phone call over the weekend, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi agreed the trip would further strengthen the India-US strategic partnership and highlight the strong and enduring bonds between the American and Indian people," she said.
The President and the First Lady will travel to New Delhi and Ahmedabad, which is in Prime Minister Modi's home State of Gujarat and played an important role in Mahatma Gandhi's life and leadership of the Indian independence movement, the White House said.
Trump's predecessor Barack Obama had travelled to India in 2010 and 2015.
"President Trump's trip to India is timely in view of the bilateral trade issues that need to be resolved and in light of the collaborations between the US and India in various realms," M R Rangaswami, Indian-American philanthropist and head of Indiaspora, told PTI.Describing it as a significant visit, Mukesh Aghi, president of the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum, noted that the last three American presidents had made trips to India....Read More
0 notes
Text
Donald Trump: to make his first visit to India on Feb 24, 25
His forerunner, Barack Obama, had made a trip to India twice, in 2010 and 2015
CURRENT AFFAIRS NEWS: President Donald Trump will head out to India in the not so distant future on a two-day visit, the White House reported on Tuesday, in what might be his first excursion to the nation as the leader of the United States.
The president and First Lady Melania Trump will make a trip to New Delhi and Ahmedabad during the visit from February 24-25, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said. His ancestor, Barack Obama, had headed out to India twice, in 2010 and 2015.
During a call throughout the end of the week, Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi concurred the outing would additionally fortify the India-US key association and feature the solid and suffering bonds between the American and Indian individuals, she said.
"President Trump's excursion to India is auspicious in perspective on the two-sided exchange gives that should be settled and considering the joint efforts between the US and India in different domains," M R Rangaswami, Indian-American altruist and head of Indiaspora, told PTI.
Portraying this as a critical visit, Mukesh Aghi, leader of the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum, noticed that the last three American presidents had made excursions to India. "It's fundamental to make an impression on the district that India is a huge accomplice and the president esteems that," Aghi told PTI.
READ MORE: Donald Trump
0 notes