Monday, September 19, 2005

guardian: why end of colonialism is key event of 20th century

sept 19th

this man is interesting. he's a china booster, but his indian wife died in a chinese hospital because of chinese racism. they didn't pay attention to her because of her race. (martin jacques told me this himself, and you can google for more details).

the idea that the end of colonialism and the end of the colonial plunder was very key is useful to reiterate ad nauseam.

we should also be asking for massive reparations a la chinese blackmail of japan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1572204,00.html

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I will say this -- as bad as the British were, India would have been a hell of a lot worse off under Portugese or French rule.

Also, I'm convinced that collaboration with both the French and British in the 18th and 19th centuries probably saved India from being completely oblitrated by the Mohammedans.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

Thats not true. Just before the british came to India, the maratha empire was stronger and was expanding. Even the Sikhs were gaining in strength. The mughal dynasty were finished. More likely, we would have seen more Hindu rulers ruling India had it not been for the british coming to India.

Deshpande

Anonymous said...

Stupid Natwar says to appease 150 million shias in India we need to support Iran (who bought illegal nuclear stuff from Pakis) and be unfriendly to all of the West. Is he nuts ?

Anonymous said...

Our dear Nitwit Singh is a combination of Nehru and Krishna Menon. What can you expect? Even the Pakis dont wear the trademark muslim fur cap, while this secular nut continues to do so, even though he is Hindu.

Anonymous said...

Check out the author's earlier article on racism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1046035,00.html
The way he defines it, I think our secularists and Xians are guilty of "reverse racism" while the hardcore hindutva ppl are guilty of racism.

indianpatriot said...

If you ask me which is lesser evil. Very Evangelical USA (which depicits Hinduism worse than Islam), Wahabi Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Shiaite Iran, I would prefer Iran. I donot want Iran to become a nuclear power. The reason Kargil war prooved such a disaster for Pakistan apart from heavy beating they took from Indian soliders in very difficult cirumstances was because shiaites in Kargil and generally in Kashmir Valley remain staunchly pro indian. Also US and UK have a policy that says whatever Wahabi Jihadi terrorists from Pakistan is doing OK in India, India needs a very reliable second front against Paki Jihadism thru bases in Iran.(Afghanistan could have been a choice but US has made it nearly out of bounds and handed it over to its favorite ally dictator). I know Israel has some problems with Iran but probably they can resolve these problems thru India.

surya said...

Sometime back, China demnded Japan to say "sorry" for the WWII atrocities.....and I think the Japaned "did" say sorry.

I always wonder why cant India ask British Queen to say "sorry" for all the 200yrs of atrocities??

Anonymous said...

The point about what Evangelical 'Christians' think of Hindus is often forgotten by those who rail against 'Atlanticists' or grovel before the Goopers.

Pat Robertson's views about Hindus are well known and has never recanted them.

While no one should forget nor forgive Her Majesty's Government role in the death of scores of millions since the 1850s alone, we would be especially naive if we inored the role played by GOP governments in both arming Pakistan and turning a blind eye while that government began a camapaign of genocide against India (starting in Punjab in 1983 and then Kashmir in 1989)

Kalyani said...

Surya, Whose India are we talking about? For the few "unconquered" Bharathvasis like us apology from the wizened witch is of no consequence; in fact insincerity and duplicity are hardwired into the brits. The rest you know comprise the "useful idiots".Sample these:-

The incorrigibly pretentious actor from the South while launching a movie about the freedom fighter 'Marudhanayakam',crawled on all fours, begging the old hat to clap the inaugural shot! The very same actor, who announced in a TV interview with a smug smirk of having "renounced" his "religion" (no marks for guessing...Hinduism!) had the temerity to twirl his now-you-see-now-you-don't-moustache and lead a delegation with shabana azmi and co to the then PM Narasimha Rao claiming,"the babri mosque is Indian history's treasure(sic)and so be restored".The tamil weekly 'Kumudam'(run by secular idiots) had him elected "the man of the year"(sic)for this
effrontery!

The dabbawalas of Mumbai pooled their money and gifted an expensive silk sari(or whatever)to charles' camilla!

Mr.Know All--'cho',the political analyst, pontificates that it is churlish of Indians to demand an apology from them.

Our browns are more white than the whites.

surya said...

Kalyani,

I agree with whatever you said.
But, my point was...if India as a nation can make the Brits say sorry....that helps us in changing the mindset of other countries.

You look at any country...they think that India is a meek, docile country which cant even contain a small neighbouring state like "bangladesh".

This is more of a diplomatic battle than muscle strength.
Though I dont expect this to happen with "nitwit" singh being the External Affairs minister...

remember when that Pope John Paul said "mea culpa" to middle east and east europe for all the "crusades"....

san said...

Anonymous, I'm not ignoring the problem posed by the conversion-hungry Evangelical Christians, but clearly not every US conservative or Republican is a flunky of Pat Robertson. How would you categorize a George Will, or the late Barry Goldwater, for example? By the same token, I don't feel that Atlanticist Democrats should be ignored as a threat because they see radical Islam and China as their allies in keeping Moscow at bay.

We're going to have to carve out our own niche alliance with non-Evangelical Republicans and non-Atlanticist Democrats. I would even argue to you that US policies of the 1980s during the Reagan Administration characterized a convergence between Atlanticists and the Christian Right which proved deadly to India. With the arrival of the Reagan admin, you had the hawkish Brzinski-types from the Carter admin handing off the baton to the hawkish Christian Right for which the 1980s was their golden age.

But clearly, it was the falling of Iran into radical Shiite hands which suddenly gave a quantum leap to Pakistan's strategic worth. Only the ouster of the recalcitrant mullahs from Iran will cut Pakistan back down to size. Otherwise, Pakistan's post-1979 indispensibility to the West as the last gateway to CentralAsia will keep the Westerners fawning over it forever.

We have to find a way to undo the Iranian Revolution. We can't unrealistically expect the West to stop securing its strategic interests. Instead of butting other powers head-on in our typically headstrong way, we need to look for a weak point -- in this case, Iran. Somehow a way must be found to achieve regime-change in Iran, so that it once again opens up access to CentralAsia to the outside world. This will eliminate Pakistan's strategic worth to the West. Then we are only left with a Pakistan that is backed by China.

The Western fear of Tehran's imminent nuclearization is the main hot-button issue which can drive a push for regime-change. Mere "containment" or isolation of Iran isn't good enough, because that only heightens Pakistan's strategic worth as the sole alternative to Iran in the region. Unfortunately, the dim-witted half-hearted Indian govt isn't likely to have the spine to support regime change, and instead will only support the limited measures of containment that will continue to feed Pakistan's critical status as the West's alternative to Iran. Once again, spineless Indians shooting themselves in the foot with their cowardice.

Anonymous said...

Anti-GOP anonymous, it is not only the Republican Party that has been mean to India. Democrats have been equally obnoxious. Just because you may have some domestic reasons to support the Democrats, it doesn't mean that they are better for India. For instance, the most awful nuclear ayatollahs are Atlanticists. The worst bitches like Robin Raphel who simply hated India and loved Pakistan (it is rumored that she was getting rammed by a Muslim at the time, and he probably despised her a white whore) was a Democrat. There's nothing to choose between them. Pat Robertson-like assholes on one side, and Robin Raphel-like assholes on the other. No point looking to the US to come to the rescue of India. India has to assert itself. But that's not possible when all the politicians are in the pay of various other countries, as in the Mitrokhin story. By the way, what's a 'swallow'? A honey-trap is a pretty woman seducing a guy and then blackmailing him.

Sameer said...

Hi Rajeev,

Interesting comments.... well, let me add few of mine...

But before, have you read the news of a 'Hindu personal law board' being formed in Lucknow?
Wow, this is some step (However small) in speaking out against lopsides 'secular' antics.

And also I came across this article in Deccan chronicle (A third rated page-3 masala paper) where in the author wrote of Hindutva as Hindu 'theocracy'.
Anyway, such idiots will never understand the meaning of Ram Rajya.

Well, as mentioned in one of the opinions, Shia Iran is better off than a hostile Pak or a wahabbi Saudi.
Well, Iran has no good relations with Pak and thus, we might use enemy's-enemy relation. Yes, Iran has its own short-falls of a ruling class of mullahs who can over-rule the elected President. but do the Iranians cause any harm to us? NO. They do fund Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, but they are limited to Israel-Palestine conflicts and Osama is not in favour of Iran, and It would be Bush-ian talk of any relation of Iran-Alqaeda. So, Our priority should be destruction of Pakistan and Saudi, the bases of Terror rather than Iran, which I feel can be dealt without having to resort to millitary means.
As for some talk about US not attacking Pakistan because of Iran, I feel, US will support Pak so long as it exists, because it needs Pak not for anything else but to cut India to size.... Yes, Its US which has either ignored or encouraged all misdeeds of Pak, and the basic reason for British and US to carve Pakistan was for limiting India, which they foresaw as a future competitor. (anybody who is not their ally like West Europe or Japan)
Think why, inspite of knowing the Paki hands behind 9/11 and AQ Khan fiasco, why Us doesnt attack it, inspite of having improved relations with India? Because there is a very sinister thing going on between the Two.
India need not look for any outside help/allies, we need to take care of our own, Democrats or Republicans are same people with different hues, dont expect any support for India from them..... expect for a few India-lovers.
And NRIs fight.... especially Hindus dont get bundled as 'South Asians' or Asians, show ur distinct identity, say you are Indian and not the idiotic classification done by Pakis and India haters.

Was reading a news piece of Indian Lions getting killed on rediff where The author mentioned Asiatic Lion.... come on..other than Africa Its only in gujrat that we have Lions...then why make it Asiatic and not Indian?????
I left a comment, but I doubt whether they will publish or not...

-Sameer

Anonymous said...

is rediff.com controlled by communists and KGB(with Italian hands)? I thought it was different

Anonymous said...

FWIW, Robin Raphael's husband was Arnold Raphael(then U.S. ambassador to Pak) -- who died in 1988 along with Gen. Zia in that plane crash.

indianpatriot said...

Good Post Sameer. It is time for India to stand by Iran. If all of you recall right in 1993 when India was not that strong as today(There is now atleast a perception worldwide that India is emerging world power) and was under increasing pressure to cap, roll back its nuclear weapons and evangelists or Atlantists like Robin Raphael were in favor of India handing over to Kashmir to Pakistan. There was a resolution moved by Pakistan against India in UN for human rights violations what did US do. Abstain from voting. Soudi was for it. But due to intervention of Iran, Pakistan withdrew the resolution. Narasimha Rao repaid the compliment by welcoming Iranian president next year by waiving protocol and welcoming Rafsanjani same day Robert Rubin was coming to India. Nice chanakyan strategy.

2) When US never talked about Taliban's brutal rule in Afghanistan as long as their pipelines to Central Asia to Pakistan would be fully funded. But somehow 9/11 happenned due to Osama.(Anyway snake fed milk by CIA and ISI).

3) Somehow I feel US is getting heavily struck in Iraq and is no way to win. Imagine a strong Shiaite state (Iran plus majority of Iraqui population and being hostile to Soudis(Ally of Evangelical America) at door step of Soudis. Local insurgency will sap US opening opportunities for India to attack Pak terrorist camps unfortunately nationalist govt at that time should have done at the time of operation Parakram.

4) Northern areas (under Paki Control) is majority Shia and I believe will be India's link to Central Asia since they donot like Wahabi Sunni Punjabi army.(Unfortunately our Punjabi Peacenicks are in favour of fellow punjabi's instead of looking after India's national interests).

4) Still I worry Arjun Singh or Natwar singh may sell themselves for CIA money or Mani Shankar Aiyer for chineese money since India is stronger than russia now.

san said...

I strongly disagree with the comments of Sameer and Indianpatriot. It is in India's interests that the current mullah regime in Iran be replaced with a secular one -- not merely to satisfy the USA, but specifically to deprive Pakistan of its strategic worth to the West. Again, I would pinpoint the fundamentalist Iranian revolution of 1979 as the start of Pakistan's rise to its current de facto parity with India. Once Iran was no longer available to the West as an avenue into CentralAsia, then Pakistan became the immediate successor/inheritor of Iran's great strategic importance which earned it the close support of major Western powers. That inheritance/succession must be undone, in order for Pakstan to lose its clout.

Nextly, the 1979 revolution also spilled over nextdoor as a Shia uprising in Afghanistan that brought down the existing govt and triggered the superpower intervention (Soviet invasion, American jihad) that further catapulted Pakistan to even greater strategic heights. The loss of a stable, assertive govt in Afghanistan has meant the loss to India of a powerful ally to checkmate Pakistan.
Just as China uses Pakistan as a weapon to keep India distracted away from facing off against China, likewise Afghanistan with its territorial claims against Pakistan is a natural way to keep Pak out of our hair.

The 1979 Iranian revolution has brought no good things to India, but has rather since resulted in the strategic rise of Pakistan. The Iranian mullahs are no better than India's Maoists -- they don't serve the people but rather only themselves, they don't create any benefits for their country but rather only for themselves, they are crude, emotionally volatile, primitive, trigger-happy and ultra-violent.

Iran's mullahs will never serve as an effective counterweight to Pakistan, because they don't want "divisions between the Muslims". After 9/11 Tehran quickly lost its animosity towards the Shia-baiting AlQaeda which was the legacy of the bitter sectarian fighting in Afghanistan. There is no sect of Islam -- whether Shia, Sufi or even Ahmadi -- which will side with infidel India against Islamic Pakistan.

I agree that an American withdrawal from Iraq could result in a Shia-majority rump state of Iraq which would naturally align with Iran to create a de facto Shia superstate/coalition in the Persian Gulf. But as we can see from the numerous daily anti-Shia bombings in Iraq, they would face stiff resistance from Sunni and Baathist hardliners. With such a conflict preoccupying Iran on its western flank, I don't see how they'll be helping India much. Pakistan meanwhile, would have even more opportunity to present themselves as a safe port for US/Western interests.

Pakistan has never had the intrinsic strength to challenge India all by itself -- it has always required external support from China, US, and Islamic countries. And likewise, I don't think India is strong enough to take on China without external support from the US, Japan, and maybe even Russia. Goodness knows the insulated Europeans would rather sell to the Chinese than fight them.

The only way to thwart Chinese support of Pakistan is to support Islamist militancy along China's borders with CentralAsia, to poison the Sino-Islamic ties. The only way to remove US support of Pakistan is to provide it with a new inlet to CentralAsia which is more reliable than AlQaeda-contaminated Pakistan -- and that would be a post-mullah Iran. Allow the Americans a suitable alternative, and they will drop Pakistan, with all its controversies and complications, like a hot potato. But if you can't provide another route into CentralAsia, then the West will hang onto Pakistan tenaciously.

Allowing the West an alternative to the Pakistani transit-monopoly might even give them the maneuvering room to tilt towards India's territorial claim on POK. This would permit an alternative transit route into CentralAsia, and thus free the West from its dangerous dependencies on treacherous Sunni states (petro-Sheikhs, nuke-peddling dictators, terrorist-harboring warlords, etc)

Indian conservatives need to come up with a way to offer the US a New Deal that will marginalize the backstabbing Islamists.

Anonymous said...

What defacto parity with India? Pakistan has alway been nothing more than a client state -- first for the U.S. back in the fifites and then China joined the mix sometime in the sixties.

It is a classic kleptocracy with no industrial infrastructure to manufacture planes, nuclear power or anything of substance. Either the Chinese or the Americans have to hand the Pakis everything on silver platter -- and they will stll bungle it as they did with American tanks in 1965.

China used the Pakis to bleed India - while the Americans looked the other way. India has still risen despite this.

I've heard that there was a massive slaughter of Shias in Pakistan (you won't read about in the Western press) soon after Mushraff came to power. But the Iranians and Iraqis haven't forgotten that.

Also, form what I've heard that there is a strong link between the Shia in Iran and Iraq and the muslims in Hyderabad (Deccan) becasue the Nizam was Shia.

A comptetent, capable, secure Indian goverment would use those Shia links to envelop Pakistan in their own Jihad.

No instead we seem to worry about perceived insults by the widow of a former U. S. ambassador to Pakistan .

Anonymous said...

Musharraf massacred Baluchi Shias.

If India has risen, imagine how much more it would have risen had there been no China to bleed India.

You are probably not aware that the woman you dismiss as the 'widow of a former US ambassador to Pakistan' was Clinton's chief of operations for the subcontinent. Robin Raphel was Asst Secy of State for South Asia. She had plenty of power and she used it against India.

A sensible Indian government would be fomenting intra-Muslim conflict, and Muslim-Chinese conflict left and right. But then if the UPA is on the payroll of the Muslims and Chinese, of course they wont do this.

Anonymous said...

this is the massacre to which I made reference (it apparently happened way before Mushraaf):

b raman

I've been in the U.S. since before most of you were probably born, but I recall reading that the Nizam of Hyderabad was the last Shia Caliph anywhere in the world.

Again, I know this sounds bloodthirsty, but shouldn't India be urging the Shia of Pakistan to turn on Mushraaf? Surely, the could find some agents in A.P.?

san said...

Anonymous, from the point of view of strategic containment, the Chinese and Western support of Pakistan (including their support of Pak's N-program by their action and inaction) from 1970s onward has effectively locked India in an unending rivalry. We certainly have not triumphed over Pakistan, that's for sure. Not only have we not done so military, we haven't even done so politically. If you ask the average person which other country's name pops into their head when they hear the word 'India', they won't say China but will instead say Pakistan. We haven't even broken the hyphenation yet.

In regards to Pakistan's lacklustre economy compared to ours, I'm reminded of the Indian Air Marshal's reaction when he was told about Pak's announcement of the Ghauri Missile. He replied, "don't worry, they have only copied it using Chinese technology".

What kind of farcical answer was this from someone charged with overseeing national defense?? If a nuclear-tipped Pak missile vaporizes an Indian city, what kind of solace will we take in the fact that it was a "pirated copy"???

And some Indians like to pretentiously describe ourselves with the word "superpower"? Stuporpower is a more apt title. We seem more expert at spin-doctoring our failures into claims of success.

Considering that most of India's muslims are Shia, I'm not sure how far we can stoke Shia militancy in SouthAsia without feeling some blowback.

The most potent intra-Islamic conflict to stoke against Pakistan would be Pathan and Baluchi separatism, along with Sindhi/MQM conflict.

Israel has in the past backed the fundamentalist Hamas against the comparatively secular Arafat, in order to weaken the latter. I don't see why it wouldn't be in India's interest to help some Pak fundie knock off Musharraf. At least it would remove the praetorian general from our hair.

It's not like a fundamentalist assassination of Musharraf would enable Islamists to suddenly seize control over the country. There's a helluva difference between a Sadat-style assassination versus 1979-style mass protests that allowed Khomeini to replace the Shah. But our own Congress Party would rather divide-and-rule Indians than put the Pakistanis on the back foot, so that's a non-starter.

SR said...

Good comments by San.
FYI, Shias do not constitute the majority of the India Muslim population. They are about 20% of muslims.
India ought to break this hypenation with Pakistan by itself by offically declaring China our 'strategic competetor', and educate Indian's on the threat they pose to us.
Once we Indian's get fixated on this notion, we will collectively try to out shine the Chinese in every field possible; human development,economics,science,technology,military,sports etc. Sending (and bringing back safely!) an Indian astranaut to space indigenously could be one example.
This is very much possible.
We should compare ourselves to the Chinese and compete with them fiercely, and in a few years time(of work),Pakistan will just fade away from our minds.