Shadow Warrior by Rajeev Srinivasan

A version of this essay was published by deccanherald.com at https://www.deccanherald.com//opinion/border-closing-the-trumpian-shift-is-here-3279841

I am starting, by invitation, a new monthly column ‘Abroad at Home’ in print at the Deccan Herald newspaper.

The podcast above is AI-generated by Google NotebookLM.

Illegal immigration is now a core concern in many western countries, and was one of the factors that propelled Donald Trump to his thumping victory in the US Presidential election. True to form, Trump announced on Monday that he would appoint Tom Homan, a strong proponent of leak-proof borders, as his ‘border czar’. 

Then there’s Stephen Miller, designated deputy Chief of Staff, a known hawk about both legal and illegal immigration. The two of them defended things like family separation, including in a Congressional hearing. 

Trump has vowed to deport illegal aliens on an unprecedented scale, hire thousands of border agents, and even invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against drug cartels and criminal gangs to expel them without a court hearing. 

Especially after recurring episodes of rioting, arson and loot in European capitals, and pro-Palestine protests in the recent past, this may be popular among the US public considering that some 11 million illegal migrants simply walked into the US under Biden. 

There is another group, though: legal immigrants who have been in limbo for years, sometimes decades, in the bowels of the immigration system. As is well known, a lot of them are Indian-origin people, especially engineers, who went to the US on H1-B work visas. 

In earlier times (before the 1999 Y2k scare, that is), there were fewer Indians in the US: most of them, like me, had come on student visas, and opted to stay on to work. Within a year or two, we went through a process called Labor Certification which in effect said that we were not displacing a US citizen of equivalent qualifications, and then we got a Green Card. 

The catch is that there is a limit to the number of Green Cards (675,000 a year) of which 140,000 are for the employment-related category. In 1990, with a new Immigration Act, a per-country cap of 7% was imposed, which means that just 9,800 work-related Green Cards are available per year per country, including India. 

There are also sub-categories, such as ‘persons of extraordinary merit’, those with advanced degrees and abilities, ‘skilled workers’, ‘professional workers’, and religious workers, so it does get quite complicated.

The net result is that post-1990 Indian immigrants now face very long waits, some say as much as 100 years. Meanwhile, applicants from other countries with shorter waiting lists are able to become permanent residents much quicker. 

This leads to, I am sorry to say, a sort of indentured labor for Indians on H-1B visas. In a modern twist on the old system where the British took hundreds of thousands of Indians to places like the West Indies and East Africa, today they are in trisanku mode where they have no clarity when, and if, they will get permanent residency. The conditions on their visas sometimes prevent them from changing employers so that they are, in effect, stuck. 

A friend’s son in Silicon Valley exemplifies this problem. He has been awaiting his Green Card for thirteen years, and he is now wondering if he will have to go for Plan B: which is to have his 10 year-old US-born, and thus citizen, son sponsor him when he becomes an adult!

Alas, that avenue may close, because there is speculation that the Trump administration wants to do away with the ‘birthright-citizenship’ clause, because, among other things, it is leading to ‘birth-tourism’ with heavily pregnant foreigners coming to the US just to deliver their babies. 

The 14th Amendment, 1868, makes any child born in the US eligible for citizenship. There is the possibility that a rider will be attached to this: that only the children of citizens, or of Green Card holders, will be thus eligible.

On the other hand, Trump might make a distinction between two types of immigrants – let us call them ‘desirable' and ‘undesirable’ – and make exceptions for the former. They are net contributors to the US economy (an Economist study suggests that certain nationalities of immigrants are such); others are a net burden on the State. 

Indian-Americans, who are the best-educated and highest-earning of all ethnic communities in the US, could fairly claim to be in the former category. Indians are also founders of the largest number of unicorns in the US.

On the other hand, if life becomes difficult for them, they may start a ‘reverse brain-drain’ back to India. That would not be, all things considered, such a bad thing either. India should make them welcome, as Taiwan did with astonishing results, such as pre-eminence in chipmaking. 

775 words, 12 Nov 2024

A version of this essay has been published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/opinion-what-makes-trump-a-better-candidate-for-india-and-world-13831800.html

An AI-generated (courtesy notebookLM.google.com) podcast based on this essay is here:

In all humility, I accept that my endorsement of Donald Trump for the office of POTUS doesn’t make a difference, but I think it’s important for me to articulate why I think Trump is the better choice for all concerned. 

On the one hand, there are the purely objective factors: economic policies, foreign policy, immigration, and so on. On the other hand, there are the subjective factors: who I personally think is good for the US and for India, the only two countries, lets’ face it, that I care about. 

The subjective factors are the ones that matter, I suspect, and my views are shaped by my own personal history. I grew up in an India that looked up to America; many houses had framed photos on their walls that showed a young John Kennedy walking with Nehru in the Rose Garden of the White House; as a food-deficit country we awaited the PL-480 shipments of foodgrains, so much so that cornflour in Malayalam is called ‘American maavu’ or flour. 

I remember as a child when Marilyn Monroe died, and John Kennedy, and I listened to the Voice of America coming in on shortwave radio from, I think, Mauritius; I went to the nearby US Information Center to see an exhibit of moon rocks; my father’s PhD thesis was on John Steinbeck; I read SPAN magazine that showed a sanitized picture of life in the US that was aspirational.

In college, I devoured information about America, reading Time and Newsweek magazines. I went to the US consulate in Chennai to use the library; and my beloved professor Anthony Reddy, seeing our collective obsession with the US, referred to it as “God’s own country” (this was before Amitabh Kant as tourism secretary propagated that moniker for Kerala, and in any case I believed that my two homes – Kerala and California – were indeed God’s own countries, at least before systematic rot set in).

America permeated our consciousness. Those were the days before TV, and so American soap operas were not yet available in India, but American films were, and I still remember watching many of them. It was our Saturday ritual in the open-air theater. Do I remember many of them? No, but a few, like “Guns of Navarone”, “Death Wish”, still stand out. No, not exactly highbrow, but they left an impression. So did reading William Faulkner, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”, Tennessee Williams, and even “The Exorcist”. 

Nixon and Kissinger and their decision to send the 7th Fleet into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India in 1971, and the shenanigans of Watergate, plus their  coverup of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, gave me the impression that Republicans were not to be trusted and that they were the bad guys, as compared to the Democrats: I remembered the two Kennedy assassinations.

Taking the GRE and GMAT, and then going to grad school on scholarship was an achievement, especially because in those days relatively few from India were able to go to the US. Then working at Bell Labs, where I was active in the anti-apartheid movement there that asked AT&T to withdraw from any company doing business in South Africa. It was a just and proper position. 

My friends in that effort were all, I suspect, Democrats, and when I was moving to California, they advised me to go Berkeley rather than Stanford, as I had been admitted to both. I didn’t, which was probably a good thing, as I found later that the People’s Republic of Berkeley, as it is derisively called in the Bay Area, was not that much to my taste anyway. 

I was, however, left- and Democrat-leaning for years, and I used to even subscribe to the New York Times and Nation magazine. When I left for California, though, one of my friends at Bell Labs correctly predicted that I’d eventually prefer the Wall Street Journal. I became a member of Greenpeace, and I even joined the Green Party of California. In other words, I was pretty much like most of the other Indian-origin people in Silicon Valley. We thought immigrant rights were much more likely to be supported by Democrats; and also the rights of non-whites.

As for presidents, I sort of endured Reagan, whom I didn’t like because of what I thought was his over-rehearsed lines. I was sympathetic to Carter. I don’t remember much about Bush senior and junior, despite the post-9/11 exertions. Then I quite liked Clinton’s affable, avuncular charm, until, that is, I learned more about him. Obama, however, caused my political antennae to perk up: I thought he was sinister.

Somehow, along the way, I stopped being attracted to what I later realized was woke-dom. I began to see that the Republicans, despite their (what I had earlier dismissed as) somewhat primitive, troglodyte sentiments, were actually better for the US and in fact for the world. Clinton-era fossils like Madeleine Albright and Robin Raphel made me cringe. 

Robin Raphel’s infamous rejection of the Instrument of Accession of Jammu-Kashmir in 1993, and her memorable characterization of Pakistan as a “modern, model, moderate Islamic nation” were landmarks in tone-deaf behavior by a US official. She was later investigated by the FBI in a counterintelligence operation on suspicion of having mishandled classified information and if I remember right, even of having passed some of this to other countries that need not be named. 

Let us note that the US Council on International Religious Freedom, set up during the Clinton era, has been singularly focused on bashing and punishing India for imaginary offenses against religious freedom. It also never has a practicing Hindu as a Commissioner, only HINOs. 

The USCIRF is a front organization for pushing a US agenda, in this case, evangelism. In that, it reminds me of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, signed under Johnson (Democrat), entered into force under Nixon (Republican), and intended almost entirely to prevent India from becoming a nuclear weapons power. 

In the meantime, I had returned to India, and therefore the Indian perspective began to matter a lot more to me. Later, Clinton’s hyphenated 2000 visit to India and Pakistan (where he arrived in an unmarked plane immediately after Musharaff’s coup), and his lectures to India soured me even further on the intentions and objectives of Democrats. 

It was during the George W Bush era, in 2005, that Modi became the only person ever to be denied a visa on the grounds of conducting “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” under section 212(a)(2)(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Yes, literally the only person ever. Dubya was so embattled and so much in over his head that it is not clear if it was a policy decision or a bureaucratic decision. 

It is quite curious that this clause is not applied today to Mohammed Yunus who is not a head of state, but only ‘Chief Advisor to the Interim Government’ of Bangladesh. What it suggests, as many have noted, is that the Bangladesh regime-change operation was blessed by Biden and Harris and Deep State, and Yunus may be an “asset” they have long cultivated. Apparently a pogrom against Hindus does not constitute a “severe violation of religious freedom”.

Obama was notable in his dislike of India. Interestingly, at a young age when many American college students travel to India, Obama had instead gone to… Pakistan. He did make two visits to India as President, including as a Republic Day guest, but I could not shake the impression that this was done more as a marketing event than something with substance. 

It was quite evident that Hillary Clinton was a particularly unappealing candidate, and that was why I thought that Trump would win in 2016, despite having, well, several character flaws. With Biden in 2020, I thought Trump was again the better candidate, both for the US and for India. In the latter’s case it was the Biden Amendment that delayed India’s cryogenic engine by 20 years.

Arvind Kumar suggests that Biden has been implicated in supporting many questionable rulers such as Pol Pot and Idi Amin, and with his Democrat friends has created havoc all over the place. His and Harris’ policies have not been positive for India: for example the downgrading of the Quad, or the rhetoric to bully India into toeing the US line on Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. 

The completely unnecessary Ukraine war, based on an Atlanticist Cold War-era fantasy pushed by the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, has merely succeeded in pushing Russia into China’s arms. And Biden has handled other wars badly too: the headlong withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the schizophrenic reaction to the Gaza war. There is every chance that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan will be mishandled too. 

Biden’s proxy war on India, waged through Canada’s Justin Trudeau, using dangerous secessionist Khalistanis as a weapon, suggests that the Democrats do not believe in allies, only in vassals. The regime change in Bangladesh, the games played with Pakistan, and the evisceration of the Quad, only emphasize that the Deep State is capricious and unpredictable. 

In the meantime, the California that I knew and loved is no more. It is no longer possible to stroll through downtown San Francisco, or park your car in the city, because crime and drug usage have become universal and ubiquitous, mostly thanks to woke Democratic governance. One of the greatest and most beautiful cities in the world is now becoming unlivable. 

If this is what a Kamala Harris presidency would perpetuate, I believe it is bad for all concerned. Walter Russel Mead has invoked a crisis in leadership in America, and we have seen this aplenty during the Biden presidency, especially as the man himself exhibits signs of severe cognitive decline.

In the background, there is what appears to be the serious infiltration of Chinese agents into the echelons of US power (remember the advisor to the governor of New York?) and even of Iranian agents in high positions accused of passing Israeli plans to Iran. 

Furthermore, the open and extremely generous support for Harris by Alex Soros, son of George Soros, is a red flag. Soros the elder had promised to spend billions of dollars to tackle “the spread of nationalism” (translation: regime change operations against the likes of India’s duly elected government); Alex is now engaged to Huma Abedin, a Pakistani-born woman who was earlier Hillary Clinton’s conscience-keeper and probably her handler. 

Then there are the issues of the mishandled Covid crisis, with Anthony Fauci essentially toeing the Big Pharma line; the hard-to-believe invasion of the US by millions of immigrants, many of whom are criminals. Mark Zuckerberg recounted how Big Tech was weaponized to interfere in elections and to generally push a particular point of view to gaslight and manufacture consent.

And finally, Kamala Harris herself. I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area when she began her ascent, which was not necessarily because of merit, but because of friends in high places. I also do not remember her ever emphasizing her Indian roots: she always projected herself as a black person. This deliberate deracination may be clever electorally but it certainly does not endear her to me, nor does it sound particularly ethical on her part. (Note: Conversely, 2020 Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren claims to have Native American ancestry).

I was also pained by the fact that Kamala Harris did not attend the White House Diwali 2024 celebration, which I consider a slap on the faces of all the Hindu-Americans who have been supporting her because of her Hindu ancestry. Harris adds insult to injury by attempting, as leftists do in India, to detach Diwali from its Hindu roots, as Utpal Kumar notes. 

On the other hand, Trump said something very statesmanlike, and the contrast is telling. Not only is he standing up for the rights of minority Hindus, he’s also saying that he will handle Bangladesh very differently, and that what Indians perceive as all-around anti-India actions by the Deep State will be curtailed. Trump is acknowledging that Modi’s signal of patching up with Xi at BRICS has been heard. This is a statement of some significance, geopolitics-wise.

I am also afraid that Harris has not covered herself in glory as a woman of intellect or one who has a vision of any kind. To be honest, she has come across as the Dan Quayle of our time, in other words “impeachment insurance” for Biden. I remember how her entire 2020 Presidential campaign was destroyed in under two minutes by Tulsi Gabbard on a debate stage. Harris looked like a deer caught in the headlights, quite in the manner of Dan Quayle or Rahul Gandhi. 

Worse than Harris’ substance (such as it is) is her style. The incessant “unburdened by the past” slogan began to sound trite after about the fiftieth time. Can she hold a coherent argument without her teleprompter? How is she going to stand up to tough world leaders? Furthermore, her laugh no longer sounds funny. It actually sounds… creepy. 

Compared to this litany of everything that has gone wrong with the Biden/Harris regime (which I suspect constitutes a kakistocracy), Trump did a good job in keeping out of wars, knocking heads together to get West Asian powers to a semblance of cooperation with the Abraham Accords, and fending off China’s attempts to dominate the world economically/militarily. The fact that he did not go to war is possibly the biggest reason that the Deep State despises him.

Admittedly, Trump is crude, a loudmouth and a braggart. But beyond the surface, his political instincts and policies were not bad: for instance, demanding that rich European nations must pay their fair share of the expenses for the military protection offered by NATO. 

The interesting fact that the strongly Democratic Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have refused to endorse Harris (even though the usual suspects New York Times and The Economist have done so) suggests that despite the tsunami of disinformation and fake news via social media and a pliant Big Tech, the sentiment on the ground is that Trump has gained. 

And then I came across a substack from a young man, Rishi Jaitly, a life-long activist Democrat, who is now wondering if the party that he cherished (he is a particular fan of Obama) is now living up to its advertised trajectory. I’d say no, and I suspect he’ll come to the same conclusion. That party has been in terminal decline for some time. 

Now to move on to a purely objective perspective, choosing between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris involves evaluating their contrasting policies, leadership styles, and the implications of their potential presidencies. Here are key reasons some voters might prefer Trump over Harris:

Economic Policies

- Tax Cuts and Deregulation: Trump's promises include significant tax cuts, particularly benefiting corporations and wealthy individuals, which supporters argue stimulates economic growth. His approach emphasizes deregulation, which many believe fosters a more favorable business environment, although there is fear of rampant Big Business.

- Manufacturing Jobs: Trump has focused on reviving American manufacturing through tariffs on imports and incentives for domestic production. This strategy appeals to working-class voters who feel left behind by globalization. However, it remains to be seen if manufacturing jobs will in fact return, given supply chain constraints and loss of competency, especially in technician-level skills.

Immigration and Law Enforcement

- Strict Immigration Policies: One of the biggest concerns about Harris has been her mishandling, as border czar, of illegal immigration. While law-abiding and gainfully employed Indian immigrants wait for decades for green cards, illegal and even criminal aliens simply walk in and get everything, including the right to vote. Trump advocates for stringent immigration controls, appealing to voters concerned about border security and the perceived impact of immigration on jobs and public safety. His tough stance resonates with those who prioritize law enforcement and national security.

- Support for Law Enforcement: Trump's rhetoric often emphasizes strong support for police and law enforcement agencies, which can attract voters who prioritize safety and crime reduction. All the ‘Defund the Police’ rhetoric has boomeranged on the wokes.

Social Issues

- Conservative Values: Many Trump supporters appreciate his conservative stance on social issues, including opposition to abortion and support for traditional family values. This alignment with conservative ideologies can be a decisive factor for voters who prioritize these issues. However, some of this may veer into dangerous territory as racism.

- Populist Appeal: Trump's persona as an outsider challenging the political establishment resonates with many voters who feel disillusioned by traditional politicians. His direct communication style and willingness to confront political norms attract those seeking change.

Leadership Style

- Decisive Leadership: Supporters often view Trump as a decisive leader who takes bold actions. His approach to governance is seen as straightforward compared to Harris's more cautious style, which some may perceive as indecisive or dilly-dallying.

- Economic Performance: Some voters recall economic indicators during Trump's presidency—such as low unemployment rates before the pandemic—as evidence of effective leadership, contributing to their support despite controversies surrounding his administration.

- The Team: There are people such as J D Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F Kennedy Jr, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who are prominent in the campaign; there seems to be a well-thought-out program and plan that is waiting to be executed. 

Foreign Policy

- America First: While there are potential irritants to allies in a MAGA (Make America Great Again) approach that prioritizes US interests, it is a lot more sensible than what Democrats offer: something that was lampooned by Kissinger as: “It is dangerous to be America’s enemy, but fatal to be its friend”. An interest-based (“there are permanent interests, no permanent friends”) foreign policy is not capricious, unlike an ideology-based approach that Biden has apparently followed in relation to Russia. 

- Fortress America: There is the danger that Trump may turn his back on the rest of the world (America has done this navel-gazing periodically in the past). Given rapid globalization and the relative decline of the US, this may end up being counterproductive.

- Foreign Wars: Trump has promised to end the Ukraine war; he may be able to bring all parties to the table in Gaza and avoid an Iran-Israel all-out war; and he might put enough pressure on China through other means to avoid a disastrous war over Taiwan.

While both candidates present distinct visions for America's future, Trump's appeal lies in his economic policies, strong stance on immigration, conservative social values, clarity in foreign policy, and a leadership style that many find refreshing amidst political gridlock. Voters inclined toward these aspects may lean towards Trump over Harris in the upcoming election.

Finally, there is that intangible something: the courage Trump showed when he was shot in the ear by a would-be assassin.

Thus from both a subjective and personal perspective, and a more objective hands-off perspective looking at the benefits to the US, India and the world at large, I submit that Donald J Trump would be the right choice for the next President of the United States.

3100 words, 2 Nov 2024

The potential consequences of a Trump presidency for India span multiple dimensions, including military, economic, trade, cultural, financial, and social aspects. Here’s an overview of these impacts:

Military and Geopolitical Implications

- Defense Ties: Under Trump, India may continue to strengthen its defense partnerships with the U.S., particularly in countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

- Transactional Foreign Policy: Trump's approach is likely to be more transactional, focusing on bilateral deals without attaching conditions related to so-called human rights or internal policies.

Economic and Trade Consequences

- Tariffs and Trade Relations: Trump’s protectionist policies could lead to increased tariffs on Indian goods, challenging India's export competitiveness.

- Supply Chain Shifts: Despite potential trade frictions, India could benefit from the ongoing shift of supply chains away from China.

- Economic Growth: India's domestic demand-driven economy might mitigate the long-term impacts of any slowdown in U.S. growth. 

Immigration and Social Impact

- H-1B Visa Restrictions: Trump's administration is expected to maintain a hardline stance on immigration, which could complicate visa processes for Indian professionals. This may be a good thing for India, forcing H1B seekers to return to India, especially given worsening conditions in Canada.

- Indian Americans: The tightening of immigration policies may lead to increased backlogs for green card applications among Indian nationals in the U.S.. On the other hand, these are desirable productive, legal, immigrants. The US just sent a planeload of illegals back to India. 

Cultural and Financial Dimensions

- Cultural Exchange: Attacks on hinduism may or may not diminish, given the preponderance of religious christians in his republican party

- Financial Markets: Indian markets may experience volatility due to Trump's unpredictable trade policies.

Long-Term Impact on Indians in India

- Economic Resilience: India's robust economic structure may help it weather any adverse effects from U.S. policies.

- Geopolitical Positioning: As the U.S. seeks allies against China, India’s strategic importance is likely to grow, potentially leading to enhanced economic and military cooperation over time.

* Dedollarization. The impact of this on India is unpredictable, but the signals are unmistakable that India seeks to reduce the impact of a total dependence on the dollar and on US reserves so that it may undergird its financial sovereignty.

And here, as always, is an AI-generated podcast ABOUT this podcast. As usual, interesting and engaging, thanks to Google NotebookLM and its robot anchors. And twice as long as my actual podcast above!

* POTUS election: Trump has momentum, but this election looks increasingly like it’s going to be interfered with by the Democratic machine. Harris is likely to “win”; the DeepState will return with renewed vigor, and its embrace of thugs like Pannun, understandable only if you believe they have every intent to sabotage India, will resume.

* The BRICS+ shindig sends a signal to the US and the collective West that dedollarization may be upon us sooner than expected; but India should not jump into the BRICS currency without due deliberation because it exposes India to the economic and military might of China. However, it is a good signal to threaten the DeepState with.

* India’s neighbors, most recently the Maldives, are treating India as some easily-gaslighted uncle whom they can get free money from, while giving nothing in return. This has to stop. Extract a pound of flesh (like take an island or two, or maybe an airport as collateral for loans) especially from nasty people like the Maldivians who were just the other day shouting “India Out”.

Here’s the Google NotebookLM-generated podcast based on the transcript of the above podcast:

A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-the-implications-of-a-kamala-harris-presidency-for-india-13828576.html

Here’s an AI-generated podcast based on this essay (courtesy Google’s NotebookLM): always entertaining and appealing.

Full disclosure: Parts of this essay were written by AI, and edited.

The entire sorry spat with the Canadians, the tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats and a virtual breakdown of ties leads to a good question. Are the Americans behind it (and if so why?), because for all practical purposes, Canada takes the lead from its Five Eyes friends and mentors? Several commentators have suggested that this is so. 

Trudeau is not a serious politician, as he demonstrated in this photograph in blackface acting allegedly as an “Indian potentate”.

But the Deep State is deadly serious. They have meddled in country after country, leading to the utter misery of their populations. I can, off the top of my head, count several: Salvador Allende’s Chile, Patrice Lumumba’s Congo, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Muammar Ghaddafi’s Libya, Bashar Assad’s Syria, not to mention Sihanouk’s Cambodia. 

We have to make a distinction between the US public in general and the Deep State. The nation as a whole still believes in the noble ideals of the American Revolution, and American individuals are among the most engaging in the world; however, the Deep State is self-aggrandizing, and now poses a potent danger to the US itself as well as others. Alas, it is taking its eye off its real foe, China, with what probably will be disastrous consequences.  

The Khalistani threat is a significant concern for India because it appears that the Deep State is applying pressure through proxies. Since it likes to stick to simple playbooks, we have some recent and nerve-racking precedents: Ukraine https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/trudeau-is-us-deep-states-zelensky-2-0-why-india-should-fight-canadas-diplomatic-war-with-all-its-might-13827294.html) and Bangladesh https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/ep-134-the-geo-political-fallout.

So what exactly is in store for India after the new POTUS is chosen, which is just two weeks away? US betting markets are suggesting that Donald Trump will win, but it’s likely that Kamala Harris will emerge as POTUS. I was among the few in India who predicted a Trump win in 2016; admittedly I predicted a Trump win in 2020, and I do believe there were um… irregularities. I think in 2024 Trump would win if it were a fair fight, but it is not.

But I fear the vote will be rigged and lopsided, partly because of the vast numbers of illegal aliens who will be, or already have been, allowed to vote (by mail). Every day, I hear of strange practices in swing states, as in this tweet. There is room for a lot of irregularities.

On the other hand, the Indian-American voter (“desi”), apparently, will continue to vote for the Democratic Party, with some reason: there is racism in the Republican rank and file; but then let us remember that anti-black racism in the US South had Democratic roots: George Wallace and Bull Connor and “Jim Crow”. The Republicans had their “Southern Strategy” too, to inflame racial tensions. The racism Indian-Americans, particularly Hindus, face today is more subtle, but I doubt that the indentured labor and Green Card hell will get any better with Kamala Harris as President. I suspect 100+ year waits for a Green Card will continue. 

A Harris presidency could introduce several challenges for India across various domains, including economics, foreign policy, terrorism, and military affairs. It is appropriate to consider historical contexts, especially the stances of previous Democratic administrations and notable figures. In particular, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Robin Raphel come to mind: they were especially offensive to India and India’s interests.

The Biden Amendment, and Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton’s efforts delayed India’s cryogenic rocket engine and thus its space program by 19 years. https://www.rediff.com/news/column/who-killed-the-isros-cryogenic-engine/20131118.htm

One of the most vivid historical examples is that of Japan’s economy. After a dream run in the 1960s and 1970s, when they seriously threatened American supremacy in trade based on their high-quality and low-priced products, the Japanese were felled by the Plaza Accord of 1985, which forced the yen to appreciate significantly against the dollar.

The net result was that Japanese products lost their competitive pricing edge. Furthermore, it led to an interest rate cut by the Japanese central bank, which created an enormous asset bubble. The bursting of that bubble led to a Lost Decade in the 1990s, and the nation has not yet recovered from that shock. One could say that the reserve currency status of the dollar was used to bludgeon the Japanese economy to death.

Having observed this closely, China took special care to do two things: one, to infiltrate the US establishment, and two, to lull them into a false sense of security. Captains of industry were perfectly happy, with their short-term personal incentives, to move production to China for increased profits. Wall Street was quite willing to finance China, too. Politicians were willing to suspend disbelief, and to pursue the fantasy that a prosperous China would be somehow like America, only with East Asian features. Wrong. China is a threat now. 

But the Deep State learned from that mistake: they will not let another competitor thrive. 

The possible economic rise of India is something that will be opposed tooth and nail. In the background there is the possible collapse of the US dollar as the reserve currency (i.e. dedollarization), because of ballooning US debt and falling competitiveness, and the emergence of mechanisms other than Bretton Woods and the SWIFT network (e.g. the proposed blockchain-based, decentralized BRICS currency called UNIT).

Besides, the Deep State has a clear goal for India: be a supine supplier of raw materials, including people; and a market for American goods, in particular weapons. Ideally India will be ruled by the Congress party, which, through incompetence or intent, steadily impoverished India: see how nominal per capita income collapsed under that regime until the reforms of 1991 (data from tradingeconomics and macrotrends). The massive devaluations along the way also hurt the GDP statistics, with only modest gains in trade. 

Another future that the Deep State has in mind for India could well be balkanization: just like the Soviet Union was unraveled, it may assiduously pursue the unwinding of the Indian State through secession, “sub-national diplomacy” and so forth. The value of India as a hedge against a rampaging China does not seem to occur to Democrats; in this context Trump in his presidency was much more positive towards India.

Chances are that a Harris presidency will cost India dear,  in all sorts of ways:

Foreign Policy Challenges

1. Kashmir, Khalistan and Regional Dynamics: Harris has previously expressed support for Kashmiri separatism and criticized India's actions in the region. This stance could complicate U.S.-India relations, especially if she seeks to engage with groups advocating Kashmiri secession. The persistent support for Khalistan, including its poster boy Gurpatwant Singh Pannun who keeps warning of blowing up Indian planes, shows the Democrats have invested in this policy.

2. Alignment with Anti-India Elements: Her connections with leftist factions within the Democratic Party, which have historically taken a hard stance against India, may result in policies that are less favorable to Indian interests. The influence of figures like Pramila Jayapal could further strain relations.

3. Balancing Act with China: While the U.S. aims to counter Chinese influence in Asia, Harris's approach may involve a nuanced engagement with China that could leave India feeling sidelined in strategic discussions. Barack Obama, if you remember, unilaterally ceded to China the task of overseeing the so-called “South Asia”. Harris may well be content with a condominium arrangement with China: see https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-a-us-china-condominium-dividing-up-the-world-between-themselves-12464262.html 

4. Foreign Policy Independence: An India that acts in its own national interests is anathema to many in the US establishment. The clear Indian message that the Ukraine war and perhaps even the Gaza war are unfortunate events, but that they are peripheral to Indian interests, did not sit well with the Biden administration. In a sense, just as Biden pushed Russia into China’s arms, he may well be doing the same with India: the recently announced patrolling agreement between India and China may also be a signal to the Harris camp.

Terrorism and Security Concerns

1. Counterterrorism Cooperation: A shift towards prioritizing “human rights” may affect U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation, as can already be seen in the case of Khalistanis. If Harris's administration emphasizes civil liberties over security measures, it could limit joint operations aimed at combating terrorism emanating especially from Pakistan..

2. Support for Separatist Movements and Secession: Increased U.S. support for groups that advocate for self-determination in regions like Kashmir might embolden separatist movements within India (see Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh, and the alleged Christian Zo nation that Sheikh Hasina said the US wanted to carve out of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar), posing a significant internal security challenge.

Military Affairs

1. Defense Collaborations: Although military ties have strengthened under previous administrations, a Harris presidency might introduce hesitancy in defense collaborations due to her potential focus on alleged human rights issues within India's military operations. This is a double-edged sword because it could also induce more self-reliance, as well as defense exports, by India. 

2. Historical Precedents: The historical context of U.S. military interventions in South Asia, such as the deployment of the Seventh Fleet during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, raises concerns about how a Harris administration might respond to regional conflicts involving India. 

3. Strategic Partnerships: Any perceived shift in U.S. commitment to India as a strategic partner could embolden adversarial nations like China and Pakistan, thereby destabilizing the region further. This, at a time when China is vastly outspending all its neighbors in Asia in its military budget (data from CSIS).

Economic Implications

1. Increased Scrutiny on “Human Rights”: Harris's administration may adopt a more critical stance towards India's human rights record, particularly concerning alleged violations of minority rights and alleged mistreatment of dissent, although there is reason to believe this is mostly a convenient stick to beat India with rather than a real concern: we see how the real human rights violations of Hindus in Bangladesh raise no alarms. This scrutiny could have economic repercussions, such as reduced foreign investment from companies concerned about reputational risks associated with human rights violations, and possible sanctions based on the likes of the USCIRF’s (US Council on International Religious Freedom) report.

2. Shift in Trade Policies: Historical Democratic administrations have often prioritized labor rights and environmental standards in trade agreements. If Harris follows this trend, India might face stricter trade conditions that could hinder its export-driven sectors.

3. Focus on Domestic Issues: Harris's potential prioritization of domestic issues over international relations may lead to a diminished focus on strengthening economic ties with India, which could stall ongoing initiatives aimed at boosting bilateral trade and investment.

Social Issues

1.  Anti-Hindu feeling: There has been a demonstrable increase in antipathy shown towards Hindus in the US, with a number of incidents of desecration of Hindu temples, especially by Khalistanis, as well as economic crimes such as robberies of jewelry shops. The temperature online as well as in legacy media has also risen, with offensive memes being bandied about. A notable example was the New York Times’ cartoon when India did its Mars landing. And you don’t get more Democrat-leaning than the New York Times.

In summary, while Kamala Harris's presidency may not drastically alter the trajectory of U.S.-India relations established under previous administrations, given a convergence of major geo-political interests, it could introduce significant challenges stemming from her focus on so-called “human rights” and alignment with anti-India factions within her party. These factors could negatively influence economic ties, foreign policy dynamics, counterterrorism efforts, and military collaborations between the two nations. 

Four more years of tension: revival of terrorist attacks in Kashmir, the chances of CAA-like riots regarding the Waqf issue, economic warfare, a slow genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh. It’s enough to make one nostalgic for the Trump era: yes, he talked about tariffs and Harley-Davidson, but he didn’t go to war, and he identified China as enemy number one. 

2000 words, 23 October 2024

The podcast above was made by the Google Gemini AI via notebookLM.

A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/shadow-warrior-narrative-building-of-west-and-the-threat-of-regime-change-13827231.html

While we can all laugh at the absurdities mouthed by Justin Trudeau in his crusade against India and Hindus, there are meta-questions that really beg for an answer: what the heck is going on? Who is behind all this? Why now? What other precedents do we look at? What do we see as immediate fallout?

I am a student of narrative building. I wrote of information warfare a couple of months ago in https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/ep-131-information-warfare-narrative and pointed out that this particular method of creation of narratives, while it has long been popular, now functions at warp speed, and the targets of such narratives often get blind-sided, or worse.

I spoke of the sudden U-turns that ended up deposing erstwhile friends like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega; and I pointed out that something along those lines had happened with Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh in August. There are other examples: for instance, the Maidan Revolution courtesy Victoria Nuland that ended up in the overthrow in Ukraine of Viktor Yanukovych, the installation of Vladimir Zelensky, and… well, you know the rest. 

There is a pattern: you unilaterally label somebody a terrorist, and then you proceed to topple him/her. In the old American idiom, “give a dog a bad name, and hang him”. With our supine obeisance to Big Tech and Western media, and thus the gaslighting, we (that is, anybody other than the elites running the West) just believe this, and blame ourselves for not noticing this all along. Total mind-control, in other words.

That makes me quite nervous about what’s going on with the Canadians. It’s true that the Trudeaus, pere et fils, have simply ignored the Khalistani terror problem, both before and after the tragic downing of Air India Kanishka, Flight 182, almost 40 years ago, and the deaths of 329 people. Since those 329 were mostly brown people, it appeared to be not an issue. 

There was dissenting opinion: the Major Commission report from 2021 https://www.majorcomm.ca/en/reports/finalreport.html  excoriated the Canadian government for incompetence and complacency. Here is an excerpt.

But nobody has ever been brought to book for the bombing. And this has gotten worse over time: Khalistanis like US citizen Gurpatwant Singh Pannun regularly threaten to blow up Air India planes, and warn that this will happen on specific occasions where he suggests people should avoid flying on Air India. These are acts of transnational terror and intimidation, but he gets a pass.

Maybe it’s a coincidence, but after Trudeau’s outburst earlier this week, there have been at least a dozen incidents of bomb threats against Indian-owned aircraft. One circumpolar Air India Delhi-Chicago flight ended up landing in an obscure Canadian airport in Iqualuit in the Great White North because of an online bomb threat. It’s possible that Khalistanis are involved.

Furthermore, there is some kind of a summons issued against Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval in a lawsuit filed by Pannun (who is a lawyer himself) in the comical case of an alleged plot to bump him off, wherein an alleged Indian operative allegedly tried to pay an alleged hitman money to do the deed. 

The latest round of the hoo-haa has Canadians targeting Home Minister Amit Shah. Dutifully, the Washington Post with its old US State Department links has made a whole series of serious allegations, which would be funny if they weren’t noir. 

The fact that the Ministry of External Affairs reacted sharply to this circus, alas, does not mean there is some new-found spine, but simply that the bureaucrats were peeved that one of them, the senior IFS officer who was Ambassador to Canada, was humiliated. Normally, most bureaucrats have children in the US, or are eyeing lucrative Western sinecures. They tend not to do anything that might damage their personal interests. 

But this time it IS different. Things are coming to a head. The sum and substance is that, after the long-running attack on social media on Hindus as ‘pajeets’ and ‘street defecators’, now the stage is set to declare “the Modi regime” a “rogue government”, as though fascist, brutal, anti-minority, and other epithets they habitually use were not enough. 

The next step would be regime change, of course. Is India prepared to defend itself?

All this is strictly from the Deep State playbook, so a priori I would blame either Foggy Bottom or Langley, but right now, in the middle of a grueling Presidential election? Don’t they have bigger fish to fry? So I started to wonder if it was some other entity that had prodded Trudeau. 

It was interesting to see the closed ranks among the Five Eyes, which is to say English-speaking white countries or Anglosphere. Keir Starmer of the UK, again dutifully, supported Trudeau with alacrity, so much so that I began to wonder if this assault on India is actually a British plot, considering two things.

Brits must have been really annoyed that an Indian-origin PM, Rishi Sunak, ruled them for a while, and they think India is insufficiently respectful of the British King, who, oddly enough, is Canada’s Head of State, and probably Australian and New Zealand’s as well. Maybe they blame India for Chagossians finally getting out of brutal colonial control (which by the way means the end of the grandly named “British Indian Ocean Territories”) which has an impact on the US naval base at Diego Garcia, for which Chagos islanders had been displaced. 

The Five Eyes have exalted opinions of themselves. For instance, one of the Biden administration’s many unfathomable decisions was to downgrade the sensible Quad (the brainchild of Abe Shinzo) and instead plump for AUKUS (which is all, well, white) with the remarkable story of wanting British technology transfer to Australia re submarines. Let me repeat that: British. Technology. Transfer. 

And here I was, thinking the objective was to contain a rampaging China!

Then there are other little episodes that need to be remembered. Sheikh Hasina stated that the US wanted an island near Chittagong for a naval base, and more alarmingly, that there was a plan for a Christian Zo state that would include territories in India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. This is again a Deep State modus operandi, see East Timor and South Sudan. 

Furthemore, the US Ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti, has been hyperactive in “sub-national diplomacy” along with other US officials, meeting a Tamil supremacist M K Stalin one day, doling out funds paying special attention to the restive Northeast the next day.

Not content with that, here’s more from the energetic Garcetti:

Assuming these tweets are authentic, things do look a little bleak for India and the “Modi regime” at the moment. Balkanizing India has long been a goal of the Deep State, reflecting the wishes of its proxies in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. 

I hate to be a Cassandra, but a rising and strong India is not on the agenda of anybody but Indians, and that too only some Indians. Others, and you know who they are, are quite happy to revert to the status quo of the pre-1991 era, when India, the alleged socialist paradise, steadily lost ground and became poorer and poorer relative to other countries.

These are dangerous times. I have been nervous about Deep State intent since the days of Madeleine Albright and Robin Raphel, and I am concerned about the coming Kamala Harris Presidency (yes, she will be POTUS). I am worried about a faction of the US establishment that is congenitally anti-India. 

Given the looming threat of China, I would much prefer a good working relationship between the US and India, my two favorite countries, and I’d like to take the protestations of common interests (including a very large purchase of Predator drones by India) at face value, but as Ronald Reagan said memorably, “Trust, but verify”. 

1325 words, 17 Oct 2024

I wrote a note in January regarding BKS (which I will not post because of some sensitive information), and here I share a summary, created by Google Gemini NotebookLM.

Summary

Rajeev Srinivasan argues that India can use technology to advance its traditional knowledge systems (BKS). He proposes developing a "BharatLLM" – a large language model trained on Indian texts – to preserve Bharatiya concepts and create a "Splinternet" of domain-specific text repositories. This would allow for machine translation into Sanskrit, protect intellectual property, and foster research in BKS. Srinivasan acknowledges challenges like access to computational resources and copyright issues, but believes that building these systems could benefit India's cultural heritage and technological advancements.

=========

The podcast above is also created by the same LM and its Deep dive audio output, which is amazing, and the male and female hosts are uncannily human.

First, in 2003, exhorting India to be a hard state. i wrote this 20 years ago about why India needs to be #hardstate. coercion, carrots, covert action and containment: the principles remain relevant even though the dramatis personae are different. https://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/21rajeev.htm

Second, in 2008, the fear that India would be a failed state. I wrote this just after the invasion of Mumbai on 26/11/2008. https://rediff.com/news/2008/dec/08mumterror-are-we-heading-to-being-a-failed-state.htm…

2008 was antonia maino rule. no wonder India looked like a failing state then.

in 2022, I wrote of India, a serf state, as per the neo-feudal #deepstate:

https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/nupur-sharma-neo-feudalism-and-the-geopolitical-squeeze-on-india-10808101.html

Dr Puri is a Telegram enthusiast (and a tech maven in general, despite his day job as a radiation oncologist), so he is particularly concerned about the full-court press against the app recently: its founder was arrested in France, its antecedents were questioned, its business model (which includes its own cryptocurrency, and also a million paying subscribers) was mocked, and there was a suggestion that it was nurturing crooks, criminals, child pornographers, human traffickers, etc.

There are some fundamental questions about Freedom of Speech, as well as about the US First Amendment as well as their Section 230 of the Communications Code that provides immunity to common carriers. In the context of problems faced by X in Brazil and Mark Zuckerberg confessing that he had been forced to censor things during Covid, the issue of the control over social media does come to the fore. What is “all the news fit to print”? Who determines that?

This may also be very different from laws in other nations: India’s First Amendment actually imposes restrictions on free speech, for instance.

This podcast is available to all subscribers, both free and paid.

PS. The video is a little small, I think there was some conflict between Abhishek’s phone and my PC. The audio content should be fine.

PPS. As per Hari Mahadevan’s request, here are the slides that Abhishek put together that may not be so visible in the video.

Note: Free subscribers can preview this podcast by clicking above. It is truncated; the full podcast is for paid subscribers. Please upgrade to a paid subscription if you can because that will help pay my bills. A good bit of my writing/podcasts will continue to be free, but some podcasts especially with guests will be only for paid subscribers. This is…