A Hindu Nationalist Perspective
Great idea !!! We should do it !
Hi ,You r the best .AK
i think the veto power is over rated and really not worth it in the present world order. Instead of taking a confrontational attitude i think we should probably just let things be the way they are and make sure we reduce our commitments to the UN i see no point in us sending peace keepers or contributing more money to UN coffers. Rather the wise approach would be a member and enjoy the benefits the come with it at little cost to us.
I absolutely agree with this ... utter disrespect for India inspite of India doing so much.. UN doesn't deserve India's contribution. Its a useless place and there is no need to waste our precious resources. These Tofi Annans or Kofi Banians are puppets in the hands of US.
You have a point here, but then also we need to take into the amount of loans we get from the UN. Good article.. keep posting.
It is time someone brought up this very good point you make. If we cannot get enough benefit out of UN, I do not think it is useful for us.
Since when does India get loans from the UN? The UN isn't a lending agency, that's the IMF. The IMF is not part of the UN.What India needs is alliances. How come Indian leftists are too self-centred to go for alliances? Even the USA as the world's most powerful country has alliances. India needs to find other countries with which it can become fast friends and closely coordinate strategic ties. I think Japan is a good candidate nation. Polytheistic Shintoism, strong work ethic, kept at arms-length by a disdainful West. They need allies too.
Share the sentiment...but get some please get some facts right to be taken seriously: -- Not white soldiers, but all Americans probably make more money than Indians doing the same work whether or not they are deployed overseas. Sorry, nothing to do with the U.N. -- U.S. Army can only report to U.S. commanders. Nothing to do with the fact that U.N. commander was Indian.-- Indians received more Victoria Crosses than Britons...this factoid has to be ridiculous...simply unbelievable.-- India did not just join, but along with Egypt and Yugoslavia, founded the Non-Aligned Movement.-- Groucho Marx first said "I will not join a club that would have me as a member"...not Woody Allen.
This is exactly are my thoughts and sentiments too. India should have done this long time ago. I don't know when does our leaders wake up to the reality. I encourage all who agree with this thought should respond this and make a statement.
Yo Rajiv, always a fan.I wish there were some email access to Kofi Annan, I would have asked him to take a flying f$@k. The dude and his son have profitted from the food-for-oil program and weapon trade and poses to be the ultimately enlightened one.
Of the P-5 members with veto powers only 2 (USA and USSR) have actually used it. Why? Because their veto wouldn't really have any value. Let's say India gets a veto power. Do you think we can realistically exercise it. Imagine that someday China pushes for a security council resolution for intervention in Nepal because the King has launched some anti-people terror. If all other members either second it or abstain and India vetoes, does that veto have any teeth? If China leads a "multi-national" force into Nepal, can or will India stop it?Remember that even at the face of 104-11 (I think it was even more lopsided) majority against India in 1971, the Soviet veto blocked any action against us. That is because everyone actually respected USSR's military might. A de jure title of veto power doesn't mean much unless you have the de facto military or economic might behind it!If USA didn't have any veto power, it still would do pretty much what it does with a veto power.
Your exploration into the history of world organisations and their fate is super and educative.The history shows how weak Indian hearts are.They cannot do anything alone.They sacrifice everything to be associated with something or somebody.That is the reason why India is in such a pityful situation.I hope new generation in India would realise it and bring change in the sociopolitical attitude and value for human life and their feelings.
so who, in the Indian governmental establishment, is listening?
apt suggestion but it is useless because you need courage to go your own way and we have a minus score on that
Uday, I don't understand the relevance of the nitpickery. -UN peacekeeping personnel are paid by the UN itself. Developed countries have demanded that the UN pay their troops more than the troops of undeveloped countries. I remember them putting forth this complaint at the UN.-non-cooperation by the major powes with UNPROFOR under General Nambiar led to the deterioration of the Yugoslavia situation into full-blown warfare and mass killings- considering that Indians weren't even fighting as free men, they did more than their share to please Her Majesty on the battlefield- regardless of who joined and who founded, the fact is that India's single-minded reliance on an NAM that doesn't even assist its interests means that India is getting nothing from the NAM. They get a lot from an India which as you acknowledge founded their very organization, but not vice-versa- Doesn't matter whether Woody Allen was quoting Groucho, that wasn't the point of the quote
Mitun, in which case, how is the UN relevant, much less beneficial to India? Your arguments only say that the UN doesn't matter, which doesn't make a case for staying in the UN. I would say that if the veto is not important, then why defend the right of the current P5 to have the veto? That makes no sense.Looks like P5 are set up to hegemonically preserve their old boys club. If the US is afraid that expansion of the P5 would lead to its paralysis, then the US should support the removal of some existing P5 members like Britain or France, and their replacement with India. Anything less simply amounts to preserving an exclusive gentlemen's club. Its credibility and value to the rest of the world is then put in doubt.India doesn't rely upon a UN veto to stop China from attacking. That's what the Indian N-program is for. But India can certainly benefit from the soft multilateralism that enhanced veto-wielding power would give it.
India is a very stupid country, not smart... so it is a BAKRA in World Politics!!!!!
India should become economically noticeable before demanding a UN seat. or Maybe India does not even need to demand, it will be invited to join. And somebody pointed out, how does it matter, veto or no veto, seat or no seat ? Look at US occupation of Iraq, I dont think the rest four had the b...s to stop them, who cared for a UN vote, veto or no veto !
Getting out of UN by India and other G4 members will create lot of financial problems for UN given the fact that Japan and Germany are major donors. What India needs to do is, approach the UN with a resolution as a member of the G4 and not individually.
Great idea.It will make UN more vulnerable with the loss of Indian cheap soldiers to die in Somalia etc.I think we have not got anything out of that useless bureacracy.rvaidya
Indeed...I still remember the lessons taught in the primary school...Panchasheela and stuff of Nehru. But look at the extent of this loss because of some stupid idea of Nehru. I somehow tend to think that veto power in itself is a weapon that is important to India considering the "peaceful" rise of China. Americans though are rattling at high frequencies today, are likely to lose their place in the years to come. As Rajeev suggests, we must stay in the UN only if we have a say in UNSC with a veto else should think of new instruments to deal with the world order. I somehow still question the inclusion of either Japan or Germany into the UNSC. It is true that they contribute more hoping to getting into UNSC...but the question is how long can they continue and why? Both have an aging population with dismal population growth rates. Both of them have poor economic outlook. Japan given its close proximity and business interests should mend its fences with China and accept the reality. Germany has allies in UK and France who can take up its cause in the UNSC. The only other members who do not enjoy similar benefit or should I say have no like minded allies in the UNSC is India and Brazil. They deserve the UNSC seat WITH VETO POWERS.
Lot of comments urging india to walk out of the UN. I for one feel thats hasty. See, India wants to be counted as among the biggies. If you want to be BIG, you have to act big and tough. Nobody in the world is going to invite india into any organization with a red carpet. They have their own turfs to take care of and so does india.Its like men trying to join clubs and social organizations as status symbol. We could argue whatever we want but todays world is that way.Organizations like the UN, Worldbank, IMF, WTO etc are all big power dominated. And sure sign of being noticed is to fight your way into them. Did india wait to be invited into the nuclear club ?? NO. India blasted her way in. Thats exactly what she needs to do now. Perseverence. You should not ask for your right. You should grab it by force. The mighty understand only one language and that is force.
I agree with you. But nobody hears your or my words.It should reach realy high profile people(Vajpayee,Manmohan Singh)who can do it.
Lately is is working very hard on establishing its credentials at UN. There are more than 150 memners at UN. How can India expect to get returns from UN unless it has support from large number of nations. For which India has to looby its case. India has started investing time and money at UN, we should wait for sometime time before expecting UN to bear fruits for us. With the kind of Economy prjected for India, I am sure these ground work that India is doing will have its effects later.Give our Un representatives more time.RegardsBiswaroop
Its the best approach in current situation.Its not worth fighting for UN seat if its second class.Instead go our own way.
The soft-touch approach we have been taking (Eg. Nehru's magnanimity...or is it fear?) has resulted in our non-existent clout in world affairs today. We have taken the advice "show the other cheek" too seriously. The scant disregard that US has for the UN, and its propensity to use the UN to push its own agenda, are blatant demonstrations of its attitude towards the rest of the world. If we exercise any more "patience" or "perseverence" we will only get more of what we have been getting so far. I fully support the idea that we must set a deadline to get what we want from the UN, or tell them to get lost.
Doesnt seem a bad idea...atleast threatening to walk out!! The way India has always been treated on an international level and India's reaction to the same, strengthens the notion that maybe India IS a weak nation....as long as the UN orders, we will just nod our head and follow suit. Its disgusting.
Hi Rajeev!A good one!fyi - Swiss has joined the UN from last year, after years of voting, voting and voting "NO" by their people- last year they got an "yes" vote from their referendum and so are in UN now!!
The problem is that India lacks the political will to assert itself - with the 4th largest GDP in PPP terms, India can and should throw its weight around - so in light of the P5's resistance to admit the G-4 to the UNSC, India should start acting tough! In this connection - did you note what the US Charges d'Affairs - Mr. Blake - interview on Rediff? "So far the only country whose candidature we endorse is Japan. As you know, it has been a high standing issue for many years" - So says Mr. Blake. What is riling is that over a billion people on this planet have no right/ ability whatsoever to be able to materially influence the goings-on of this world - though if one looks at our own MEA, one can sometimes be thankful of that!
hi rajeev...just read ur article abt India withdrawing from UN...very well written...and i find there's a lot to learn from ur blog!
hey rajivwhat usay sounds true on the first strike but on the next one it breaks the vessel, to do what you say is to do a political wrong, to do a political wrong u need to have economic strength and a good capable leaders to steer the nation through the ensuing inferno..we have neither...there are a lot of wrongs in the world..why not start with what affects us most rather than what gets us most publicity
So true, so true... the UN is merely one big brothel where the US and its cabal go around raping everyone else. But what can we do about it Rajiv?? At least pandora was left with hope,,, what hope do we have? doddering old vajpayee? or advani who roars like a lion when outside office and acts like a mouse when in office (remember the famous "its not a question of if we're gong to war but when" episode after the parliament attack)? jaswant singh maybe? after all his "sanctions" on pakistan made me wonder if anybody in south block had brains OR ar we to turn to te blood traitors in the congress? mir jaffars to the last man really where are we heading?
Interesting reading some of your perspectives. As an American, I could not possibly be more in favor of India dropping out of the UN. It might finally give us the courage to do the same.Regarding the hyperbole about the UN allowing the USA and its "cabal" to "go around raping everyone" - perhaps an example might help (other than some tripe about Kyoto, that is).
Caveat : Not related to this topic.But funny,nevertheless------------------------------This is a fwded mail:I have changed the version to make it IndianizedHere's a dilemma for you....Answer on your honour and dignity - what would you do?This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving anhonest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally. The testfeatures an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will haveto make a decision one way or the other.Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.Please scroll down slowly and consider each line - this is important forthe test to work accurately.You're in Bihar near a ganges town ... There is great chaos going onaround you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge massesof water all over you. You are a TOI photographer and you are in themiddle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and peoplefloating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all itsdestroying power and is ripping everything away with it.Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, tryingnot to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer.Somehow the man looks familiar.Suddenly you know who it is - it's Lalu Prasad Yadav.At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take himaway, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take thebest photo of your life. So you can save the life of Lalu or you canshoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the deathof the Bihar's most powerful man.So, here's the question (please give an honest answer):..............................................Would you select colour film, or would you rather go with classic black andwhite?My Spontaneous Ans : classic black & white!
do they still use film cameras?
I would take a pic one before and several after ...to make sure he is definitely no more :-)
The UN has always had this "some are more equal" policy. But what is the use if India walks out of the UN? Will it shake the foundation of the UN? Unlikely. Will it correct the attitude of UN? Unlikely. May be there is some impact if India can talk some other nations into following them, but thats unlikely too.Will it hurt India? Very likely.Stay put and fight for your privileges and power. If you run away, you'll eventually be forgotten. Whereas if you stay on and fight for making things better, then you'll be respected.
Here's a good article by Paul Sperry of Hoover Institutionhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17968It's about how Pakistan is the #1 terror threat to America.
Also check out Paul Sperry's own website: http://www.sperryfiles.com/An excellent source of info on the terrorist infiltration activities of Pakistani Islamists.
Forget about saving the irredeemably evil laloo,why would I sully a film by trying to capture it?I would feel immensely grateful to God for such a gossamery mercy!
I want to agree with you, but wonder what purpose will it serve. Is it really possible to change a system by being outside the system? or are we saying that institutions like the UN have no relevance to countries like India? Should we wait to be strong enough to ask the UN to get lost and get out of it, or pretend to be strong, make a "show of strength" and watch what happens? The point i am trying to make is, whether we are part of an institution or outside it, we still try to get the "high moral ground", and try to get satisfaction from it. "Sar kata sakte hain lekin Sar jhuka sakte nahi" type. And when that happens, i mean when the "Sar" gets "kataoed", we cry about it, walk around the world with our head in our hands and show the world what was done to us. I love my country Rajeev, love it more than anything else, but when I read things like this, I think of of an analogy and this is a question I want to pose: "As a country, isnt India like the man who drops hints to his friends of how he satisfies his wife in bed each night, when behind his back, his friends are having a good time with his wife because he can't satisfy her". My point being: Lets stop showing our dick off. Our attitudes, our high-moral-ground-holding-self-righteousness will diminish our ability to be strong just when we need to leverage our strengths. Sad, but true, and I don't see why this will change. Keeping my fingers crossed though, hoping that something gives.
After going through your article it seems quite clear that the cost-to-benefit ratio for India is greatly skewed toward the cost factor rather than benefits. Though I don't question any of your research there is a slight hint of bias toward highlighting the costs as opposed to the benefits. :-)If part of India's growing forex reserves were to be utilized to provide for the benefits that we would lose by walking out of the UN and we're able to carry on those in an honest manner, I whole heartedly agree to leave the United Nations.We can then watch and see what the world has to say when they lose out on an important "resource" (in a derogatory first-world sense) from the organization.
I really don't think that leaving the United Nations would be beneficial for India. As previously stated by many others, India has to exert her right and show that she deserves to be on the Security Council and one of the "biggies". I think it's a huge achievement for India to be offered a position again; I didn't know about Nehru's mistake and I, for one, was floored when I read it. In any case, I don't think that if countries like Japan, India and Brazil join the SC as permanent members, the current P-5 would consider using their veto becuase of the immensity of globalization and the political consequences of this action. It would be stupid for India to leave the UN...she should join the SC, ecxert her power and assert her strength and recover her losses.
China is known for vote-buying tactics, in order to influence resolutions affecting its own sovereign interests. India needs to go down the China path. India should play more power politics, including obstructionism until the existing power club gives it more concessions.
Post a Comment