A Hindu Nationalist Perspective
Brilliant!You are firmly anchored in your roots and we all share your hope of a resurgent India.However,India's enemies are as much within as without.The government with its islamic and christist agendas has purposely made it a pliant one ever ready for sale.India's future ought to be in the hands of a no nonsense benevolent dictator.
<<A declining America and a China which will in future face serious internal problems -- this leaves the door open for India to be, yes, astonishing as it may be to some, the world's greatest power.>>Hmmmm.. so thats what your article is about. Everything else is a sham.
Amazing! A person who is unhappy about the idea that India could be the world's number one power!AID/ASHA member alert!!! Chinese money alert!!!!India must be the only country where some people get very upset about the possibility of greatness. Even thinking about this is bad, communal, divisive, fundamentalist, Nazi, etc. Thought police alert!But China as the world's number one, that of course is perfect. It is what Marx has said in his book, so it must come true. What a bunch of pathetic brainwashed losers!My advice to you, boy: Leave India. Go to the promised land, China.
Rajeev, Your views are o.k., but still is it just to dump a close-ally for the sake of non-committed US? Agreed that it is Mr. Natwar's goof-up as like his previous other goof-up's, but should that cost us this? Also, today in rediff, Mr. Gopalakrishnan has written about this:http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/04agopal.htmWhat is your view on this?Regards,Viswanathan.
I hope we just maintain a good nuclear deterrence, inspite of our invisible , bumbling Manmohan and mafiosi Sonia opening up our nuclear facilities for US to rollback. As for Iran, or US or whoever, let us just single-mindedly work to make ourselves economically and militarily stronger, because we cannot trust anyone. It is good to have friends on the global map, but still let us not go into deals which end us being losers. See how the 'Nut'war and 'Mad'mohan have lost the advantage we had over Pakistan in the name of peace, with nothing substantial in return, reservations for Muslims where on one hand Muslims say that we do not have any caste hierarchy, and also handling of Nepal(we could have been close allies, instead of supporting Maoist terrorists), Iran loss of face, buckling to US arm-twisting. I think we should not follow our part of the deal, until we really get what the Americans say they will deliver, on a step by step basis.
Surprise, Surprise.. Rajeev speaks in commi tone! A change of heart or had some bad experience in capitalistic world! I assume it is genuine worry and appreciate ur optimism
Great piece, Rajeev. Quite logical and convincing. Please get in with some more.
Rajeev,A good insight on our Iran vote. I totally agree with the buying power analogy. It would be worthwhile to also list the number of votes Iran has cast against us on Kashmir and other issues over the years. I tend to think we do not need to justify this to our Marxists.Something else that you alluded to in passing but needs further exploration in the future is the Marxist tendency to look out for their promised land's(AKA China) interest ahead of India. With the recent revelations of the Mitrokhin Archives, a lot of the events in our statis laden past in the 70's bears closer scrutiny. I recall in those days how the newspapers were full of CIA plots to destablize the nation. Actually in Kerala- Marx's own Country- there are still a few brainwashed, fading comrades who believe this, along with a few who have not bothered to read much in these intervening years. In hindsight those snippets smell to high heaven. In addition, Marx Inc is now a highly profitable Company in India with a strong balance sheet. How much of that was funded by China and the Soviet Union? Today the Marxists are at it again. Just when we are within striking distance of China, they seek to hobble, obstruct and make India play second fiddle to China. A greater set of traitors will not be seen!
Hello Rajeev,As usual it was great to read a perspective that does not spout the usual leftist bilge. However, I would like to differ a bit. Although Indians have not been able to negotiate hard enough, the civilian nuclear energy supply is a great move ahead. The Indian intent should always be to move ahead with small little steps towards attaining a kind of power and position which commands the natural respect of the world. With this civilian nuclear supply, one small roadblock got out of the way. Great power status is never demanded as the Indians have done in the past. Under Nehru, we aspired to become a moral force to the world. Thankfully, the Chinese debacle ended that Nehruvian nonsense. This status would only be ours when with our Science and Technology, we develop the TOOLS that mean hard power. I would rate world class nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, missile defense, ICBM’s, and the most cutting edge missile and fighter aircraft, and above all, the dominance of Space Research, to be true sources of hard power. This is what we have to work at ceaselessly. Unfortunately Rajeev, Marx Inc., a word which Sunil has used, are the dominating forces today. These communist traitors have always tried to make into a lackey and satellite of the Soviet Union or China. They would scuttle all attempts towards making India a true power. I hope you continue writing with all your passion and give us the Hindu nationalist perspective. Regards.
Parthasarathy in today's Pioneer has given so many instances in which Iran has not exactly been friendly towards India. He is right. If at all Iran was friendly with India, it was for it's own benefit. India has no reason to be emotional about it's relationship with Iran. But I totally agree with Rajeev. We should have taken advantage of our seemingly friendly relations with Iran to extract better bargain with US. It certainly seems we are short-changed in Nuclear agreement with US. On the other hand, since the commies are screaming so much, it can't be all that bad. :)
Mr. Rajeev,Thank you for your most inspiring commentary. It is truly refreshing to see someone stand up against the pro world bully politics and say things as they are. From my own observations, countries that blindly dance to the music that the US plays usually end up on the loosing end of the deal. This is regrettably the case with my native Poland. In a nutshell: our government does pretty much anything that Uncle Sam wants and we get iron fist politics in return (the most painful one for the people are new visa related restrictions and the exclusion of Poland's citizens in this year's visa lottery). My personal belief is that India is perfectly capable of becoming a superpower without the meddling of the US. Thank you again and keep up the great work!Cheers,Margo
Rajeev,One thing no one ever mentions is having primary elections within parties. Many if not most advanced nations have them - I am sure of US, Canada, and Israel. Having primaries and intra-party elections MIGHT ensure some turnover in party leadership and help elect represenatives who have some interest in communicating with and doing something for the common voter. At present, their loyalty is only to the party top-brass who allocate tickets during elections. The public be damned. This will hopefully reduce the duration for which a person remains in top position and reduce the possibility of selling her / his soul to a foreign power. In my opnion, rather than benevolent dictatorship, more and genuine democracy is a better solution to our problems. Thanks,Abhih Marathe
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=79468Nice Article by Raja Menon in IE. Echoes pretty much what Rajeev hassuggested in the past - with a little more detail about arming Vietnam. Lets see if the UPA govt has the foresight to initiate this policy and hopefully the commies won't make noise about arming a communist country.
more judicial activism - following on San's post abt AMU rulinghttp://us.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/06talaq.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
here is an insight into how indian diplomats like M K Bhadrakumar are taken for a ride and think oppertunistic moves as a genuine friendship.++++++++++++++++++++++++++http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3Iran's nuclear proliferation G Parthasarathy PV Narasimha Rao and Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee displayed statesmanship, transcending political differences, to defeat a Pakistani move to get India condemned for alleged human rights violations in J&K at the United Nations Human Rights Commission, in 1994. Our then Ambassador to UN Offices in Geneva, Mr Satish Chandra, recalls the role played by Iran in that debate in the UN. His Iranian counterpart told him explicitly that if the Pakistan Resolution condemning India was put to vote, Iran would back Pakistan. When it became clear, however, that the Pakistan Resolution lacked requisite support, Iran made a virtue of necessity and advised Pakistan not to call for a vote. India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They share a common interest that landlocked Afghanistan is not subject to Pakistani economic blackmail. Iran benefits by transit of Indian goods to Russia and Central Asia. But Indian and Iranian interests do not always coincide. Iran, unlike Indonesia and Algeria, repeatedly backs resolutions in the Organisation of Islamic Conference that condemn alleged human rights abuses by us in Jammu and Kashmir and echo Pakistani views on J&K. This happens despite the consistent backing that India gives Iran, by opposing Western sponsored resolutions that condemn human rights violations by the Iranian Government. Iran voiced serious concern and was critical of our May 1998 nuclear tests. When Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, Iran found reasons of national security to justify the Pakistani action. Iran also moved a resolution in the UN earlier this year seeking universal compliance with the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) despite objections by us. Voicing support for greater Islamic representation, Iran declined to support India's candidature for Permanent Membership of the Security Council. Should India automatically support nonaligned countries disregarding its own national interests on every issue? Every nonaligned country except Bhutan and Mauritius voted against us during the Bangladesh crisis in 1971. The position was no different when it came to voting on American backed Pakistani proposals to declare South Asia a nuclear weapons free zone. South Africa led the chorus of condemnation against us after our nuclear tests and became the first nonaligned movement Chairman to raise the Kashmir issue at a nonaligned Summit. Even today the 'New Agenda Coalition' spearheaded by South Africa and Egypt demands that India should sign the NPT. India, Pakistan and Israel did not accede to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968. They were, therefore, not required to place their nuclear facilities under international safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All three countries possess nuclear weapons, without violating any international commitment or obligation. Iran signed the NPT and was required to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. In 2003, the IAEA received substantive and irrefutable evidence that Iran had violated its commitments under the NPT. From 1987 onwards, Iran secretly undertook the construction of facilities to enrich uranium. Pakistan provided the centrifuges and designs for the enrichment facilities to Iran by its disgraced nuclear scientist, Dr AQ Khan. The clandestine development of these nuclear enrichment facilities was a violation of Iran's obligations under the NPT. Under Article XII.C of the Statute of the IAEA, this 'non-compliance' with NPT safeguards provisions has to be reported by the Board of the IAEA to the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. This report was not filed by the IAEA because Iran agreed in November 2004 to suspend "all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation" pending the conclusion of an agreement with three European Union powers (EU3) - Britain, France and Germany. Just one day before the EU3 was scheduled to present its proposals to Iran, the Iranian Government announced that it would resume uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan plant. The IAEA Board thereafter decided by a vote of 22 to one with 11 abstentions (including Russia and China) to refer Iran to the UN Security Council as required by the Statute of the IAEA, after further discussions, now scheduled for November 2005. India voted in favour of this resolution. After making some noises that it would consider reviewing its energy ties with India, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said: "I believe friends should not be judged by a single action. Iran enjoys friendly relations with India." While India has signed a long-term contract with Iran for the supply of LNG, it also has similar arrangements with countries like Qatar. Iranian threats of curtailing energy cooperation with India are thus a double-edged weapon. Further, given the frequent bomb blasts in Baluchistan that disrupt Pakistan's own gas supplies and the propensity of both Iran and Pakistan to link economic ties to political developments, is it prudent to rush into constructing an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline? Despite denials by New Delhi, an important factor underlying the position that India took on Iranian nuclear proliferation was its natural desire to see international sanctions that it has endured for nearly three decades on the supply of nuclear power reactors by members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) end as soon as possible. Following the agreement that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed with President Bush during his visit to Washington in July, important nuclear suppliers like Russia, France, Britain and Canada have indicated their readiness to work together with the United States to end NSG sanctions on India. It would, therefore, not have been in our national interests to abstain on a EU3 sponsored resolution that sought compliance with the Statute of the IAEA and reported Iranian violations of IAEA safeguards obligations to the Security Council. It would not have been credible to claim that India is opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and then condone clandestine Iranian actions violating the Statute of the IAEA. Mr Manmohan Singh has stated that India would support the EU3 initiative on securing Iranian compliance with the provisions of the NPT. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz indicated that his country would take a similar position on the issue while visiting South Korea and Malaysia. New Delhi should assist in trying to bridge differences between the EU3 and Iran, but not budge on its support for reporting IAEA Statute violations to the Security Council and General Assembly. India should also make it clear at the IAEA that it is inconsistent for an international organisation to focus only on Iran for receiving P1 and P2 uranium enrichment centrifuges from Pakistan. (The P2 centrifuges are reportedly of Chinese origin.) Dr AQ Khan supplied not only centrifuge data to Libya but also the design of a nuclear weapon that Pakistan had received from China. The IAEA and the Security Council will have to carry out a comprehensive investigation on whether the 'Khan Network' provided Iran also with nuclear weapons designs. India should propose a comprehensive investigation into the role of Dr AQ Khan and General Mirza Aslam Beg in nuclear transfers to Iran and a similar investigation into the role of General Jehangir Karamat in nuclear transfers to Pyongyang. The IAEA undermines its credibility when it adopts double standards and avoids investigation of those who are 'non-NATO allies' of the US, or are permanent members of the Security Council. But can we accuse the IAEA alone of double standards? We have yet to hear forthright condemnation by CPI(M) functionaries like Mr Prakash Karat, of nuclear and missile proliferation by China and Pakistan - proliferation that undermines and endangers India's national security.
Abhih Marathe,For the kind of party that adheres to internal, bottom up, participatory democracy, no current party fits the bill. And because of the vested interests and the power concentrated in the High Command, no current major party will bring about the change that you are suggesting. As they say, it is easier sometimes to start a new organization with a better culture than to change the culture of a current organization. There is a new political party in the making, which will be launched on March 22, 2007. For more info, please visit, http://www.samudai.org.
Post a Comment