This country may only be large enough for one Texan.

(A lot of links to wade through, but definitely read the last. Especially if you want more of my ranting anti-NYTimes' promotion of ethnocentric travel, begun yesterday.)

A fellow former resident of Austin has arrived in India- President Bush is currently in Delhi. Since news of his arrival hit India last month, scores of reporters have showed up at our doorstep eager to get filler stories about India to flood the evening news during the week of the President’s tumultuous tour through South Asia.

My roommate Winnie acquiesced, and one night we had a mini team of paparazzi trailing us. Not so exciting- in fact, slightly embarrassing when we arrived at dinner with friends last Sunday, with an inconspicuous camera crew in tow.

I liken it to a kindergartener departing for school, waiting at the bus stop with his fellow 6 year olds... trying to copy the cool kid persona, yet unable to shake the overly anxious mother still trailing him yelling reminders to wash his hands after using the bathroom and eat his fruit snacks. So embarrassing.

First, the CBS coverage on my IndianIT company and a few random expats: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/28/eveningnews/main1356810.shtml

In more interesting/relevant happenings, the speculation over President Bush's visit to India has sparked massive protests (visualize placards in Delhi parks proclaiming "Die Bush Die America") and suspicious authorities raising questions why the US wants to befriend India (Nuclear Energy, China).

A news blast on the prediction of the future in Indo-US Relations...

From the US point of view, an examination of the Indian Government (from Newsweek):

Built during the British Raj, massively expanded in India's socialist era, it is filled with bureaucrats who are in love with their petty powers and privileges. They are joined by politicians who enjoy the power of patronage. And then there are some journalists and intellectuals who still hold on to some romantic idea of Third World socialism. There are many in India's ruling class who remain deeply uncomfortable with the modern, open, commercial society that they see growing around them….

…But the real stumbling block to a deep Indo-U.S. relationship will come not from Washington but New Delhi. While Singh and some others at the top of the Indian government see the world clearly, and see the immense opportunities it opens up for India, many others are blinded by their prejudices. For many Indian elites, it has been comfortable and comforting to look at the world from the prism of a poor, Third World country, whose foreign policy was neutral, detached (and, one might add, unsuccessful). They understand how to operate in that world, whom to bargain with, whom to beg from and whom to be belligerent with.

But a world in which India is a great power, in which it moves confidently across the global stage, and in which it is a friend and partner of the most powerful country in history—that is an altogether new and unsettling proposition. "Why is the United States being nice to us?" several such doubters have asked me repeatedly. Even now, in 2003, they were searching for the hidden hand. China's Mandarin class has been able to rethink its country's new role as a world power with skill and effectiveness. So far, India's Brahmins have not shown themselves the equals of their neighbor.

The danger for India is that this moment might not last forever. The world turns and India will have its ups and downs. But today it is India's moment. It can grasp it and forge a new path for itself. Along that road lies a genuine and deep relationship between the planet's largest democracy and its wealthiest democracy. Until now, this has merely been a slogan. It could actually become a reality, and who knows what such a world might look like?

An Indian publication assessing the evolution of the US government's attitude toward India:

As a member of the Sixties' generation, India held a special place for President Clinton. At a time when the American campuses were in revolt against materialist
excesses, India offered the perfect antidote. As part of the mysterious Orient, it became the personification of exotica. To this hazy incense-ridden legacy, the Clintons added the friendship of successful Indian Americans. The association swelled the Democratic war chest and lent a cosmopolitan flavour to their social world. It also conferred on a clutch of desis what they always lacked—political connections. The Clintons and their Chhatwals, Kashyaps, Chopras and Guptas enjoy a mutually exploitative relationship.

Bush's deification of India is the 21st century equivalent of Lord Curzon's infatuation with the "sacredness of India." It is not born of mystical woolly-headedness; it stems from hard-nosed strategic calculations. Curzon never wanted India and Indians to be replicas of the "mother country". He doted on the robust, traditional values and the squirearchy of the "real India" and perceived the subcontinent as an autonomous power and the natural bulwark against an expansionist Russia. Replace yesterday's traditional values with today's democratic rumbustiousness and the Russian bear with the Chinese dragon and you have the importance of India to Bush.

From {http://dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1015243&catid=19}

And the current situation President Bush faces in India:

Overview of the Bush protests (after South America, are they becoming redundant?)

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/03/01/ap2560485.html

A synopsis from an Indian POV of the state of affairs in Hyderabad (40% Muslim), the closest he’s going to travel to Bangalore. As I mentioned to a family friend earlier who had helped me try to gain access the events surrounding the President’s visit (thanks Jeanetta!), curiosity could lead me onto a plane tomorrow to jump straight into the brouhaha.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1638730,001302100000.htm

One more link to suffer through (not political)...

Found in this week's NY Times travel section, an egotistical and misleading review of Bangalore. Does a city only get credit as a viable "exotic travel destination" when it produces enough expensive clothes to satisfy the most pampered Parisian clotheshorse and enough nightlife to assuage the most jaded LA clubber? If all the NY Times reader wanted was a polluted imitation of South Beach, then skip the painful 20 hour flight and jet to pleasurable Saint Tropez. Bangalore has enough non-western attractions to captivate any audience, as the NY Times sadly overlooked.

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/travel/26bangalore.html?ex=1141794000&en=67fe48f0f230f1f7&ei=5070&emc=eta1