A Hindu Nationalist Perspective
Sonia nominated for Nobel!http://newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEL20051003053731&Page=L&Title=B+R+E+A+K+I+N+G++++N+E+W+S&Topic=0&"In a letter to the Nobel institute director Geir Lundestad, the organisation called Gandhi a symbol of world peace and said just like Mother Teresa, she has contributed to peace and social welfare."Anyone with an Italian mafia(rome/vatican) connection can get a Nobel prize nowadays?!!.
Rajeev, here is another perspective from M K Bhadrakumar. Isnt this betrayal in a way? I know India has to be practical in its approach and do what is in our best interests. But if Iran went out of our way to do this, then they deserve our abstinence at least. http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03rajeev.htm
I mean abstinence from voting.
More danger looming ahead from sonia dynasty for India:http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Speaking of keeping a low profile, India's overseas acquisitions are generating less flak than China's bull-in-china-shop approach:http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_41/b3954076.htm?chan=gbBut let's see how big Indian acquisitions will shape up to be over the coming year.
Rajeev,I have onew question:You mentioned that Iran let us downin Kashmir vote. But in the other article in rediff, Mr. Bhadrakumar has pointed out that Iran helped us duringthat time by not allowing it to continue. Can you please clarify this?As you said, there is no need toinclude Pakistan in the deal, butthere are not much options with thegovt. trying to prove that it ismoving ahead in its peace process!
Arguably, your most poorly written column"remember the infamous vote on the Bangladesh war, when the UN General Assembly voted to censure India. It was overwhelming: something like 110 to 10"actually, I don't and the U.N. website has no mention of such a resolution in either 1971 or 1972I am pretty sure Iran did, too, even if Iran voted back in 1971 against India, that would have been the government of the Shah not the present. Surely you know the difference?Given the increasingly tight near-embargo imposed by the US on Iran, more and more potential buyers are finding it prudent to stay away from Iran.I'm sure that statement would be news to the EUA famous newspaper ran a story that declared, without identifying its sources, that Iran would cancel the contractthe famous newspaper that you didn't identify was the Hindu out of Chennai -- a paper not typically associated with advancing the cause of Maoists.AFIK, Iran has always used the diplomatic language that 'Kashmir should be resolved through bilateral talks between India and Pakistan in accordance with U. N. resolutions' -- the statement desired by the MoEAAlso, reasonable people can distinguish between siding against Iran on the nuclear issue and having a pipeline transport natural gas to India.By voting against Iran (where the facts regarding any violation are in dispute), India allied itself with the U.S. Let's see the dividends this brings.TallIndian
Arguably, your most poorly written column - I thought that conclusion was over since last and last articles. Apparently the previous articles were not judged well.the famous newspaper that you didn't identify was the Hindu out of Chennai -- a paper not typically associated with advancing the cause of Maoists.TallIndian, your information on the NAM vote is definitely questionable, if this is your standard. Tell N Ram that he is a right wing sympathizer, Mr Ram may throw his pencil at you and call the security personnel of ant-hindu news paper.
Thanks to the pioneer link in a commment, Besides spindian express, we can watch if the anti-hindu news paper takes an intrest in lunching baba. The mama ofcourse is expected to mum , for betterment of the subjects of the familly and inner voice and sacrifice of the italian mafia.
TallIndian,You have lost whatever credibility you may had with your post above. You are not very well-informed, are you? Or you are pretending to be somebody you aren't.1. The vote in the General Assembly was 104 against India, 10 for India, 11 abstentions. It was on December 3, 1971. See the Pakistani paper Dawn at http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/28/top5.htmYou may have been born after 1971, but you can surely search the net a little better. 2. The "Hindu" newspaper is China's voice in India. For you to claim it doesn't support Maoists is insane. You saying this suggests you are a Pakistani, who assumes that just like the "Muslim" paper there, the "Hindu" is a right-wing paper. Or you have never read the "Hindu" paper. 3. There has been a period of close Indo-Iran ties because both wanted to get rid of the Taliban. But the only Muslim country that regularly supported India on Kashmir was Iraq. Muslim solidarity has been important for Iranians after their revolution. Sunnis are better than Hindus.4. The EU isn't supporting Iran because it likes it. It's trying to sell it weapons, and trying to tell the US to go take a hike.Now your anger towards the US neo-cons makes sense. You're either an AID/ASHA type or a Pakistani.
I would, of course, suggest that anyone interested int he truth consult the official website of the UN to seek evidence of any resolution offering censure against IndiaUNOAlso, please explain how this 'resolution' cited by a Pakistani newspaper amounts to a censure of India.Where did I say that the EU 'liked' Iran?As for the "Hindu", as a Iyer born in the erstwhile Madras, I am quite familiar with the publication, know on a personal basis the distingished Iyengar family that publishes and its editorial policies over the years. That the Hindu would take money from the Chinese to publish a article vis a vis Iran/India is, of course, ludicrous. BTW, have you seen what the neo-cons have done to Iraq -- India's 'sole ally' in the Muslim world?TallIndia
distingished Iyengar family Since you know a dinstinguished familly, could you please tell us why that freaking news paper publishes all the rougue materialistic analysis from the marxists and doesn't defend hinduism from their rogue and conctoted attacks ? Why this distinguished familly has gone to hell to interpret N Ram's materialism or chomsky from hindu perspective ? Kindly explain us, otherise we would not change the assumption . I had a bad experience with hindu, when I had quotation from 2 knowledgable persons like Sri Arurobindo to prove my point, from all my references so far I think I am correct, but hindu wouln't publish my letter or any letter simillar to that. Instead it behaved like a slave of the materialists, an agent to thurst their views. Ask the distinguished familly and let us know the answer, you would have done a good favour to us.
to interpret correction - in not interprating. There are these distinguished famillies who are so because they were exposed to the english. It is a huge confusion, I think they will die their death. Their offsprings will become thieves in generations to come because of this slavery[ not a good wish from me, but who knows ?]. Let us worship Sri Ram, he will save from the confusion.
I am posting what I read about that infamous anti Hindu editor (last year):"It is no secret that N. Ram of The Hindu has beenactively involved in the campaign against the KanchiMutt, joining hands with Congress and Karunanidhi--just as he had during the recent election. he isacting more like a participant than a journalist.I hear from my Singapore and Hong Kong sources that hehas a major financial stake in the issue.About a year ago, rumors were rife that N. Ram of TheHindu had secured Rs 125 crore from parties close tothe Sultan of Brunei to gain control of The Hindu bybuying out parties opposed to him and also tide overthe more than 30 crore loss because of Jayalalithaawithholding all advertisements in the paper.Apparently the parties who gave him the money -- itwas not a gift -- are now putting the squeeze on himto return the money. This accounts for his showing asmuch interest in the Kanchi Mutt affair as any of theparties".
I have to say this about the hindu: it is a left wing marxist paper.There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, everyone is entitiled to their point of view. But, lets be honest. The Hindu is a completely marxist/communist mouthpiece.Look at the editorial board, they have articles from the Guardian, George Monbiot, Chompsky etc. These people are as far to the left as you can possibly be.Anyone who disputs this has no common sense.The newspaper constantly and relentlessly villifies the middle class, and the rich. Constantly points out how the poor are being exploited by all. No one who makes a decent living through education and hardwork is spared. All are held personally responsible for the plight of the poor.
And the fact that this left-wing marxist newspaper calls itself 'The Hindu' of all things, seems like a blatant attempt to further thumb its nose in the faces of those it targets criticism upon.TallIndian, the Ayatollahs were not responsible for the vote against India in 1971, neither were they responsible for the 1962 War, neither were they responsible for the Jallianwallah bagh shooting, neither were they responsible for the Bombay blasts. So what of it?I am not suggesting that we should be seeking some 'revenge' upon Iran. I agree that they have not wittingly been some primary aggressor against India. I'm saying that the continuation of this mullah regime in Tehran has been forcing the major Western powers to divert their strategic interests through Pakistan, which is then a beneficiary at India's great expense. So we are suffering some collateral damage from the US-Iran standoff. Frankly, I don't care so much who wins that standoff, other than that we need that standoff to end so that the collateral damage to India can end.I admit though, the possibility of the unpredictable mullahs getting their hands on a long-/medium-range ballistic missile capable of delivering nukes to India should worry us. After all, you cannot have meaningful nuclear deterrance against those who are looking forward to meeting their 99 naked virgins in heaven. Such people may harbour a deathwish and a desire to leave this world asap.But mainly I'm saying that the US-Iran standoff has given Pakistan a great windfall for the past quarter-century, and this has time and again proven itself invaluable to shoring up Pakistan's irresponsibly nutty lifestyle. We need to pull the persian rug out from under Pakistan, and the way to do this is by getting on the bandwagon for regime-change in Iran.Yes, the leap-before-they-look neocons are not the ideal partners for achieving our aims -- but beggars like us can't be choosers. Do you see any White Knights on the horizon galloping up to save us? If you do, then please let us know. Perhaps being a TallIndian gives you a farther perspective than the rest of us have?
San I agree with all that you say, except for one thing. The US is not about to give up its favorite whore Pakistan anytime soon, Iran or any other country notwithstanding. I frankly don't care what happens to Iran or any other country around India. We must ruthlessly pursue our national interests, come what may. I think the US is just scared of a "Gaullist" India and wants to pin us down with pakistan. Even if they have a direct route to Central Asia over the North Pole, I'd be very surprised if the US gives up pukistan.
Iran and Nukes by strategist Guru, K. SubrahmanyamLink
Rajeev's article on the Iran vote was good. India simply lacks the balls to behave like a major power.We have nothing in common with the banana republics of the third world we should more and more identify oursleves with the United States and West Europe. Also, wesould teach puny Bangladesh a lesson.
san,I agree with the other poster, the U.S. favorite whore has been Pakistan since 1948 and that is not about to change anytime soon.We have to remember that just prior to 9/11, India was on the verge of a major strategic victory in Afghanistan. The Indian backed Northern Alliance was about to topple the Taliban.The U.S. then came in, used the Northern Alliance themselves to topple the Taliban and then proceeded to hand most of Afghanistan back to the ISI.Shiite Iran is a natural ally against Pakistan. I know it is playing with fire, but Iran now controlling the Shiite areas around Basra would certainly want to the control the Shiite areas of Pakistan.TallIndian
Britain used to be the world power unmatched at the beginning of 20th century and a net creditor nation. By the end of first world war it became a net debtor nation and remained world power only by name. It remains a power by clinging onto America's backcoat. US was a net creditor nation and now has become a net debtor nation. It needs 800 billion dollars(almost India's GDP) to finance it current account. I read an article by a famous Japaneese economist that US instigated Saddam to attack Kuwait and then attacked Iraq to control middle east oil resources. The main gist of the article (when Japan was rising fast in late 80's) that US as a nation does not have any competitive advantage and only way it can retain its superpower status was by controlling oil and other energy resources by hook or crook. Fast forward to 2003. Another Iraq war. Oil prices running. One invasion failed. So San sorry for calling you a christian fundamentalist. Bottomline is US wants oil. Even if Iran disappears US is not going to give up on pakistan. Reason is simple. Name few countries or groups of countries which can challenge US in 21st century.1)China (Cosy relationship. Banks are in bad shape. US buys cheap goods from China. China invests back treasuries in US at lowest interest rate). You scratch my back and I scratch yours. Also China is far off from middle east oil.2)Europe ( Eventhough it can be a significant power most of the population is ageing. US has got a foot in the door with client state Britain to do its bidding)That leaves out India (I donot deny there are lots of problems). Despite regime change in Iran or access to Central Asia oil US will not give up on Pakistan period. It is a way of keeping down a rising power like India at no cost to US. Also as long as Jehadi terrorists from Pakistan attack Indians west including US is safe.(What a strategy).I also have enclosed article by Dr. A Gopalakrishnan regarding Don't ditch Iran.www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/04agopal.htm
TallIndian, quite the contrary, Taliban and its AlQaeda supporters were on the verge of victory in Afghanistan just before 9/11. That is the whole reason why Taliban agreed to Osama's 9/11 stunt to begin with. The quid pro quo was that AlQaeda would use its worldwide resources to help Taliban clinch the last step to total victory over its local rivals (AlQaeda brought in a couple of Algerian youths who pretended to do an interview with Ahmad Shah Masood, who promptly assassinated the Northern Alliance leader). In exchange for this great gift from their guest Osama, the Taliban would give him unshakeable sanctuary while he dropped the other shoe -- despatching some other youth to crash US airliners into their cities. So on the contary, the Taliban were very much on the verge of total victory just before 9/11, and it was their cocksureness on this fact which actually led to 9/11.Iran will not align with Hindus against other Muslims. You must remember the famous Islamic credo: "Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against the infidel."The heathen, pagan, idol-worshipping Hindus are on the bottom of the pecking order when it comes Islamic sensibilities. There is no reason for them to side with the infidels against their own cousins. And besides, there has never historically been any conflict between the Persian and Moghul empires, so why would they suddenly choose to start one now? Just to suit our liking? Nah, I don't think they live to make our day.Indianpatriot, the US has heavily mortgaged its future with deficit-spending and its foreign debt exposure, particularly to China, is a dangerous liability. I agree that the current neocon leadership are a little too clumsy and headstrong in their foreign policy approach, which is getting them tied up in too many brawls. But US is still the largest power by a wide margin. Do you see any other big brother coming on the horizon, the way US took over from UK after WW2? If you're suggesting China as their replacement, I'd tell you that's not a coronation we should be eager to applaud. China is not far from MiddleEastern oil -- they're only a Gwadar away. EU is suffering from imperial overreach -- they're trying to subdue too many opponents at once, like Aurangzeb. I worry that will make them reach out to China as the most convenient trading partner to fill their coffers. If the restraining influence of the NATO military alliance between the US and Europe ever breaks down, EU will become China's prime source of military hardware and technology. Then we'll really be in trouble.As far as Saddam's spontaneous invasion of Kuwait, it was an unintended consequence of the over-the-top US support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Just like 9/11 was the unintended consequence of support for Taliban during the Afghan civil war. There was no intentional conspiracy -- just criminal negligence.
Post a Comment