Friday, September 23, 2005

business standard: how the indian media buried the kgb funds story

sept 23

not surprisingly, the media does not want to talk about it.

reason: most of them were in the payroll of the russians. most of them are in the payroll of the chinese, the vatican, the baptists, or the saudis today.

the media is the most venal institution in the country, even more so than politicians. at least the latter do not put on airs about their alleged integrity: they admit they are dirty, rotten scoundrels.

http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?leftnm=lmnu2&leftindx=2&lselect=3&chklogin=N&autono=200928

17 comments:

Niketan said...

Good article by Arvind Lavkare on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/23arvind.htm

pennathur said...

We can of course expect that tinpot commissar/Doormat Siddharth Varadarajan to keep his trap shut thru the turmoil. Looks like the South Indian China Post aka "The Hindu" has decided to ignore the report completely.

indianpatriot said...

Hi Rajeev,
I feel vindicated that authors like Bharat Karnad and Brahma Chellany both feel that US attempts to armtwist India regarding Iran are for allowing free turn for Wahabi Jihadists from Pakistan. Evangelist mindset is as long as Jihadists turn towards India or Shias they can have free run in middle east. I wonder why some Indian politician does not shout like Iran is India's Britain (lackey of US) while fighting Wahabi Terrorists from Pakistan and Soudi Arabia or Why is US sending F16s to Pakistan a terrorist state to Capture a junior terrorist like OSAMA when terrorist commander in cheif(Mush) is working perfectly with our commander in cheif to direct his terrorist energies towards Bharat.
1) Opposing India, left, right and centre. By Bharat Karnad

http://www.asianage.com?layout=2&cat1=6&cat2=42&newsid=182418

2)http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/23/news/india.php

Hi San for your information Iran was a flourishing democray in 1951 and Britain overthrew that democracy in a coup because democratically elected PM nationalized oil industry denying western powers share in oil. Should we give US and Britain another free run at Central Asian oil reserves apart from Iran.

Regarding technolgy transfer US's great role.
1) After Pokhran 1 tried to block fuel sale to Tarapur reactor. Enacted a specific draconian law again India.

2) Tried to prevent sale of cryogenic engine from russia.

I can list so many other things.

Anonymous said...

I guess Indian polity is at crossroads in terms of deciding between Iran and US. But given that we haven't gotten enough from Iran (gas pipeline is still in the works and I don't know what their voting record on OIC resolutions abt Kashmir), it can be still used to pressurize Pakistan through another front - namely Balochistan. We should arm the Balochis via Iran and help them secede and deny China the port of Gwadar. At least that way, Pakistan will be diverted from Kashmir.
And we should not be held hostage to loyalty tests proposed by the pro-Pak bureaucrats evertime there is something to gain for India from the US.

san said...

Indianpatriot, there is no point in comparing the mullah-led theocracy in Tehran with any past democratic govt, even including that of President Banisadr, who was quickly shunted aside by the revolutionaries, Trotsky-style.

I can agree however, that India should hold the Americans to account for their light treatment of Pak/Wahabbi terrorists, as well as the AQ Khan network. But still, I feel that it's pointless to think one can get the Americans to completely abandon their interests in Central Asia, and it would be more productive of us to assist them in securing a less problematic route into CentralAsia than Pakistan, such as a post-mullah Iran.

Dric said...

Hi Rajeev,

I always felt that you were bashing the Marxists more than necessary.But now i think u r vindicated.

I would like to know how many readers of this blog think that Indians and Pakistanis are similar(w.r.t debate on CNN).BTW Shabana Azmi finds it unfortunate that some 15% of indians think that there is no similarity whatsoever between Pak and India.Rani Mukherji wouldnt like to act in a Pak bashing film like Gadar.

The only sane voice in the whole eye on india show was of Bal Thackeray's: he said it is pointless to face an AK 47 with an olive branch.

AlwaysIndian said...

First of all we must boycott the Indian media. They are the bigger enemies of India than anyone else. Let us just read newspapers and watch TV news channels for the news and advertizements/classifieds. Ignore the Hindu-bashing. Really, just ignore it. Earlier I used to feel depressed reading about "Hindu militants", and "*supposed* Islamic terrorists in Kashmir". Now I do not even bother about their pseudo-secular, post-modernist rants (I suppose they use the link once posted by Rajeev, where in on a click, you can generate as many as post-modernist articles as you want LOL). The more they write/show hate-Hindu stuff, the more I am proud to be Hindu, because we know the truth. We can see through the JNU types lies and hypocrisy.

Once I saw a talk show on NDTV by Barkha Dud, regarding peace process on Kashmir. Amidst all that rant of azadi and jehad, a lady asked :"The Indian media who favour the Muslim point of view. We have people like Barkha who champion the cause of Muslims. Nobody takes up the cause of Hindus. Are there any journalists in Pakistan who take up the cause of thousands of Hindus killed. ". The Dudd gave a really stupid smile, and the topic was dropped.

Anonymous said...

The business standard article proves that even the Indian language media does not do a good job reporting critical issues. So much for that fib. Wonder how many Indian language newspapers were part of the money grab. And the Mitrokhin archives prove another point - the CIA operated with equal impunity too. How many Indian - American sympathisers are in their payroll?

san said...

Here's the latest Reuters news report on Iran being referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program:

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-24T175700Z_01_EIC443859_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-COL.XML

If you go to the second page of the article, you'll see mention of how India supported the resolution. Heh, for once we pulled off a good flipflop and deep-sixed the Iranians to benefit ourselves. Nice feinting maneuver! :)

This is good news for India, believe it or not. Because if the US ends up invading Iran and ousting its recalcitrant leadership, then the US will once again have access to CentralAsia without having to go through Pakistan.

I wasn't a fan of the US invasion of Iraq, because it was done on the flimsiest of pretexts, and it brought no benefit to anyone, except maybe Musharraf, who became one of the few Islamic leaders in the US camp.

Once a more open govt is installed in Tehran, then Pakistan's coveted transit monopoly into CentralAsia will be gone, along with Pak's leverage and clout.

Once this happens, then India needs to press the US to shift its stance on Kashmir, to favour India's claim to POK. This will cut China's land corridor to the Persian Gulf, and give India a valuable land link to Afghanistan. Then Afghanistan can become a proxy of India and the West, to harass China and keep Pak down, and thus keep the Sino-Islamic axis on the back foot.

san said...

Heh, another headline, this time more blunt:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1241669.cms

India Dumps Iran

Sure, the Iranians won't be pleased with it. After all, it wasn't that long ago that they were planning a pipeline with us. But hey, that's their tough luck, and why should we lose sleep over their predicament?

Oh, I'm sure that our own Indian leftists will be even more livid than the Iranians. For once, we've advanced our national interest by pulling someone else's legs from under them, instead of losing our own footing. Our left-wing rent-a-pols will be fuming at the govt for this, but I don't care how red their faces and necks get.

From here, we go to that familiar cat-and-mouse game of UN inspectors running around Iran to find things, while the Iranians shamelessly try to throw up blockades or spirit away incriminating material in the middle of the night. We all remember those old scenes from Baghdad.

But this time, unlike Saddam, the Iranians are absolutely guilty. After all, what were they buying Pak centrifuges for, if not to make nukes with?

Pak will have to keep its head down in the unfolding drama. After all, their clandestine proliferative N-trade has helped to make the Iranian nuclear program what it is today.

As the storm clouds gather for war, we should hope that things come to pass quickly. Because the longer things are drawn out, the more discomfort we'll have to endure. But hey-- no pain, no gain.

indianpatriot said...

Hi San,
Why you deserve so much pleasure from Indian govt. following dictates of US govt. If it had little back bone it should have abstained. Let the evangelists and if there are mullas in Iran (I find few of them and it is much danger to wahabi soudi Arabia and its patron in cheif uncle sam and his cocktain mullah military our next door neighbour.). I feel saddenned by it. Do you think it stops here. Now somebody in congress starts shouting. India should withdraw troops from Kashmir for peace process to proceed. They need pakistan landing area for invading iran. Congress mortgaged nations future with KGB 30 years back but they are doing it at CIA and vatican money. When Bush is down in the dumps with unwinnable iraq war and aftermath hurricane Catrina , India should have played hardball. Time for some chanakya to emerge from Indian political class.

san said...

Indianpatriot, I doubt that Pakistan would give the US permission to be used as a staging area to invade Iran. Even under such an implausible scenario, the invasion of Iran would take weeks and not years, so Pakistan's strategic utility for that would be very short-lived. In my opinion, the US could pull off an invasion from Iraqi and Afghan soil, where there are no natural land barriers.

In my opinion, the mullah regime would collapse very quickly, and the long-oppressed Iranian population would welcome the Americans as liberators and also aggressively help to root out the remnants of the regime.

I am not deriving pleasure from India toeing the US line, I am glad that India is acting to further its own interests at an opportune time. With the fall of Iran, then Pakistan and N.Korea are the last 2 rogues left -- the twin fists of China.

India should take a leading role in rehabilitating a post-mullah Iran, and use the Iranian border to heavily increase assistance to Afghanistan.

I am not a fan of evangelicals/mullahs/fanatics/radicals from any religion (even Hinduism), and so I don't feel that we should act as a bodyguard for regressive mullahs who are an obstacle to our strategic progress. It is Iran that is going down in the dumps with their confrontationist attitude on their nuclear program, and we have just now played some excellent hardball with them to make gains for ourselves.

The fall of the Tehran mullahs will radically affect the Indo-Pakistan strategic equation.

Anonymous said...

where have we heard this before?

the mullah regime would collapse very quickly, and the long-oppressed Iranian population would welcome the Americans as liberators

San, I do believe that the neo-cons have changed their talking points.

The neocon view is that India is supposed to sit idly by while the US attempts to take control of the oil of both Iraq and Iran as this will hurt Pakistan.

Also,according to the "anti-Antlanticsts", the re-introduction of colonialism to West Asia (under the control of a staunchly evangelical fundies) is somehow supposed to advance India's strategic interests.

The neo con agenda is both morally repugnant (stealing the resources of another nation under the guise of establishing democracy) and would sound haunting familiar to anyone with a modicum of understandig of 19th century and early 20th century Indian history.

Moreover, establishing a government in Iran run by the likes Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and others whose view of Hindus and Hinduism is well known hardly serves Indian interests.

To those drinking San's neo-con Kool Aid, I would only say that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

san said...

Anonymous, Indian Maoists give their unreserved support to Beijing over their own country India on the grounds that Beijing is the true defender of the oppressed of the earth, and if Indian interests have to take a backseat to that, then it's justifiable in their eyes.

Likewise, I'm hearing the same thing from you on Iran -- that the fundamentalist mullahs in Tehran are the defenders of the oppressed of the earth, and that India must sacrifice its own interests in order to keep their decaying 'Islamic Revolution' afloat, and so that the mullahs can nuclearize with nuclear centrifuges purchased from Pakistan at a handsome price.

I am not a US neocon, but if I see that a particular objective of theirs is compatible with our goals, then I see nothing wrong in taking advantage of it. Likewise, I see no wrong in aligning with the Israelis to boost our own strategic interests. Left-wingers like you will of course tell us to shun the Israelis, neocons, etc so that we can keep licking the boots of the Middle Eastern Islamic regimes whom you feel are our 'true brothers'. Your misplaced loyalties give nothing to India. Where have our 'loyal Islamic anti-colonial brothers' been for the past 25 years while Pak jihadis were slaughtering Indians?

As for neocons being morally repugnant, I suggest you first consider the moral repugnance of Indians who put the interests of other nations ahead of their own. As for colonialism, the Islamics have been the biggest practitioners of colonialism without taking any flak for it, largely because they've converted their subjects by the sword and so there are no survivors left to tell the tale.

Tell me, Anonymous, where was Iran's Peacock Throne originally taken from? What happened to the Parsi community outside of India? I'm laughing at your fears of the Islamists suffering under the rule of "Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell" -- is this the spectre you invoke when you're cheerleading AlQaeda or Taliban? You keep on fretting over your mullah and maoist friends, meanwhile the rest of us will worry about India. The more alarm you leftists raise at going in a particular direction, the more I am inclined to peer down that road, to see what's really there.

As for learning from history, the Islamists only wish to return to the past, which is why they have no future.

Anonymous said...

I take it that reading is not one of your biggest skills.

Where did I write about Islamists suffering under Falwell and Robertson. I specifically wrote,

Moreover, establishing a government in Iran run by the likes Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and others whose view of Hindus and Hinduism is well known hardly serves Indian interests.

The Jewish Lobby in this country apparently gave a standing ovation to the ISI operative Mushraaf.

As for cheerleading for the Taliban, IIRC, the Wall Stret Urinal editiorially endorsed that group back in 1995!

Yeah, we should rely on the U.S and Israel for our safety!

san said...

Anonymouth, I find your scenario of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell & Co running the govt in Iran to be cartoonishly paranoid. Please give me a scenario where ouster of the mullahs will result in adverse effect upon India. Please stop clinging to the robes of the Ayatollahs, it doesn't do wonders for your credibility.

Nextly, you're claiming to me that because the World Jewish Congress met with Musharraf, that they are now his lapdogs. They may jump at the chance to make more inroads into the Muslim world, but they probably understand that Pak can't offer them more than we can. Anyhow, I don't mind watching Musharraf trying to replay the role of Sadat, since we all know what befell that man. Maybe the assassin will be from an ISI madrassa.

Yes, I do remember that right-wing Nancy DeWolf of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board (formerly of Radio Free Europe, the govt-funded Atlanticist twin to VOA) got WSJ to endorse Taliban, and also wrote a praiseful article on them in Time. I also remember immediately spreading her articles over to every women's organization available, to see she got skewered for it. These things happened during the Clinton admin, as you may recall.

I'm not suggesting that we naively repose blind faith in the US or Israel for our security. But I don't understand how your alliance with the mullahs will help us. I am pointing out that removal of the Tehran Islamists will deprive Pakistan of its strategic worth, and this will pave the way to its marginalization and in certain respects even its isolation. If the river of American interests can flow into CentralAsia through an open and modernized regime in Iran, why would it bother to flow through the muddied channel of the N-proliferating, madrassa-cultivating, jihadi-loving, military dictatorship of Pakistan?

May I hear your plan for neutralizing the Pakistani threat to India? Will you run to the Ayatollahs for help? Perhaps you'll ask China to help us? Your solution please? It's nice to sit criticizing others, but I'd like to hear your solution and path forward.

You may not feel that the 1979 revolution was connected to the resurgent Pakistani threat to India, but I see a very clear linkage. The loss of Iran as an American lynchpin in the region meant the US suddenly had to fall back on General Zia as their local man. And the rest is history. I rather prefer the way that Pakistan was much weaker than us before 1979, and wish to see things return to those days. If resurrecting Iran as the American proxy in the Gulf is what's necessary to remove Pakistan's value as a strategic proxy, then I'm all for it. Then Afghanistan can be properly stabilized and firmed up as a bulwark against Pakistan. Then we won't need to waste our time being harassed by Pak every 5 minutes.

Anonymous said...

San -- are you sure that you are not some closet JNU acolyte whose main interest in advancing the cause of the Evangelicals?

BTW, what does Bill Clinton have to do with the fact that the your fellow necons who now rail against the 'mullahs' were salivating at the thought of Taliban taking over Afghanistan.

Here is Politics 101 in the U.S. for you:

1) The GOP relies entirely on the Christian vote bank in the U.S.

2) Falwell and Robertson are the brokers of that vote bank

3) Falwell and Robertson despise Hindus and Hinduism

4) Robertson has said that Hindus are unfit to serve in the U. S. govt.

5) The GOP including your favorite W grovels before these two idiots and will do nothing that they don't approve

6) Any U. S. puppet govt in Iran will have the approval of Falwell and Robertson

7) The GOP has had a love affair with Pakistan since the 1950s

8) The GOP realizes that they made a mistake in trusting the Shia to help control Iraq

9) Your boy Mushy goes to the GOP and says look, 'my boys know how to take down the Shia. Let my guys loose and we will do the heavy lifting and you guys get the oil in both Iran and Iraq. You lose no blood. In return, just give me the weapons to take Kashmir and I'll also bleed the heathen Hindus for you as bonus'

BTW, (9) is merely a variant of the deal that Gen Zia struck with Reagan back in 1981.