A few links:
1. The foreign affairs bloggers of the Takshashila Institution (formerly “the Indian National Interest”) decided “grade” President Obama’s recent trip to India. This was the result:
2. This seems to reflect the general opinion of the broader Indian public. I infer this from the shifting statements of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India’s main opposition party. Shortly after President Obama delivered his speech at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel, Rajav Pratap Rudy, the spokesman of the BJP, roundly criticized Mr. Obama for failing to mention Lashkar-e-Toiba (the terrorist group that perpetuated the 26/11 attack) or Pakistan in the address. This judgment was widely shared in Indian policy circles. However, the less ambiguous language used by the President during the final days of the President’s trip (including the U.S.-India joint statement signed by Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and the latter’s stellar speech to a joint session of the Indian parliament) seems to have satisfied most of these critics and public opinion was quick to rally on the side of the President. By Monday the BJP was apologizing for its past statements.
3. Siddarth Vadarajan, deputy editor and columnist for The Hindu, is one of the sharpest minds covering India’s foreign policy. He took a less sanguine view of the trip than did the folks at Takshashila. His critique of the blossoming U.S.-Indian relationship should be taken seriously by all who envision India as the keystone of the United State’s Asia strategy.
Siddarth Varadarjan. The Hindu. 10 November 2010.
Siddarth Varadarjan. The Hindu. 6 November 2010.
4. Earlier this month I had some fun comparing the headlines of various Asian newspapers to spotlight the manner in which national narratives change the way the same event is perceived by different groups of people. Keeping that line of thought in mind, readers may find this Xinhua piece worth reading:
Mu Xuequn. Xinhua English News. 9 November 2010.