Tuesday, October 04, 2005

re. m k bhadrakumar's opinion, anti-india vote in 1971 etc.

oct 4

regarding the iran-us-nuke-iaea vote issue

some clarifications regarding questions posed by various people:

1. amb. bhadrakumar's views on iran and the debt india owes them for past favors. i happen to know amb. bhadrakumar as he is also from trivandrum, and his father used to be a highly respected CPI MP and author. the ambassador who spent time in iran is obviously knowledgeable and entitled to his opinion, and i respect that.

but i am coming from a point of view of realpolitik, where the question always is, "what have you done for me lately?" alliances shift constantly. major powers are ruthless in purusing their own selfish interests, and gratitude etc. are way down in the priority list. as the ambassador himself hinted, the current dog-eat-dog world is not one for old-fashioned courtesy.

personally i think having a friendly iran is mutually beneficial, as iran is india's gateway to central asia, and for iran, india is a friendly to-be-great power. so, if it wasn't for natwar singh's idiocy in shouting loudly about india's love for iran, we could have quietly abstained. but natwar singh on the one hand, and the suspiciously hasty acceptance by india of terrible conditions from america on the other hand, had conspired to force india to generally screw up. the ideal situation would have been for india to quietly abstain.

i am extremely suspicious of the indo-us agreement. i am a big fan of the us, but the unseemly haste with which the deal was signed -- with no debate about the downsides -- makes me think there's stuff behind the scenes (a la mitrokhin). or the indian negotiators got totally bamboozled by the americans. it is a bad, a terrible, an outrageous deal; and the americans are insisting on more conditions now. they want to basically totally eliminate india's military nuclear and missile technology.

2. tallindian seems very unconvinced about the 1971 censure motion against india. it is in the un page he posted, it is resolution 2790, which calls on india to withdraw its forces and allow pakistan to continue its genocide. this is the resolution that was passed 110 to 10 or something along those lines. the for and against votes are not mentioned in the register. this was obviously an anti-indian resolution. of course, it is couched in flowery diplomatic language.

the point is that, when india needed them, the rag-tag armies of the NAM voted overwhelmingly against it. of the 10 who voted for india, most were the soviet union and its friends like belarus, cuba etc.

going back to amb. bhadrakumar's logic, this vote would suggest india should forever be in debt to the soviet union, belarus, cuba and so forth. i think that's not true, we have to look at what's advantageous today. expedient tactical behavior in the pursuit of long-term strategy, which should be indian pre-dominance, first in the indian ocean, then in the world.

12 comments:

S said...

this vote would suggest india should forever be in debt to the soviet union, belarus, cuba and so forth

Absolutely, the comrades have right to do that, they look themselves as mind, mouth and heart of the yet to be liberated people when it comes to represanting them in outer world, in addition they burrowed marx, macaulay to discuss and analyze the heart and mouth of their subjects.

It is an error that so many people understood marx, europe, computers ... these things were unexpected. The ambassador talks in terms- betrayal- a good point, but that is no more sacrosanct to even family or ones own nation, culture in marxist and many other ideas. Does the ambassodor think it is okay to betray in the matter of 'nationality' ?

darkStorm said...

The current government is really taking us back to the pre 1990s era, when marxists and socialists dominated the policies which killed industry. Is it really so difficult for the Cold war era relic called Natwar to keep his stupid mouth shut. The best we could have done was to have abstained, and kept our interests as well as our diplomatic relations good. The US nuclear deal is a raw deal. I thought Manmohan was a smart man, but he is a no-brainer. He was hyped up during his term as fin Min, but I think it was PVN Rao who was the real brains and Manmohan was just a front. The whole government seems to have this inferiority complex vis-a-vis US and even its whore Pakistan. They are allowing themselves to be arm-twisted on almost all matters, including Siachen, Kashmir, Nuclear deal, energy deals.
The BJP wasnt really good , but atleast it had Indian interests in mind and knew how to deal with the Western powers. It was not bound by this marxist,secular inferiority complex.

dark Storm said...

Just another thing crossed my mind. The socialists dubbed the low growth rate as "Hindu" rate of growth. Did they know who was responsible for it. Nehru and themselves. Why they called it the Hindu rate of growth, is that Hindu population growth rate is low. :) . So should we call the current rate of growth the Muslim rate of growth, since Muslim population growth rate is high. ;)

Anonymous said...

Rajeev's column said that the vote was a censure against India. The resolution that passed the UN hardly qualifies as a 'censure'

I suspect many of the 'rag tag' NAM members such as Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq and Lebanon most likely helped water down that resolution to render it meaningless.

Egypt, in 1971, had steadfastly refused Pakistan's request for military assistance and documentation on Russian supplied equipment -- documentation that would have been used against India. (though Jordan, with the permission of the US transferred parts including ammunition to Pakistan)

Like it or not, the USSR played a crucial role in the 1971 war by delaying action in the Security Council until India reached a military victory and also by warning the Chinese.

The Chinese never forgot this and their revenge was arming Pakistan with nuclear weapons -- something that could only have happened with tacit US approval.

The West has paid a price that can only be measured in the trillions of dollars for this strategic blunder -- and the West will continue to pay a heavy price for appeasing Pakistan.

If Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, I'm sure the BJP would have rolled into Lahore after Kargil and took out most of Karachi.

There would be no Taliban, no Osama bin Laden to attack the US in 2001.

Niketan said...

Darkstorm
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Regards Manmohan Singh and his tenure as Finance minister, he did not have to worry about the left parties or a superPM. It seems even his own ministers do not consider him as a PM- Witness Tytlers resignation drama or Salman Kurshid's pontification on how Sonia had the mandate to run the govt. PVN was his own man shrewd PM. I feel it was during PVN's time that India began to pursue national interests-He initiated many things that the BJP followed.
I think in this govt the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Anonymous said...

Just in case you didn't know, Belarus was part of Soviet Union. So, no chance of a separate vote. Yes, I am an Indian Xian. So, feel free to attack me for pointing out an error in Rajeev's blog.

JII

Anonymous said...

Sorry, JII, Belarus was part of the Soviet Union, but for some reason it had a separate General Assembly vote. It was called Byelorussia. Look this up in UN documents.

Indian Christians can make mistakes, but not steal Hindu culture. Onam is not your festival.

Anonymous said...

Ukraine also had a separate vote.

Anonymous said...

I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies. But, I'll still celebrate Onam:-)

JII

satish said...

JII,

No, nobody is going to attack you just because you are Xian, unless you indulge in bribery and coercion to convert Hindus, badmouth India and Hindus, spread anti-Hindu propaganda.
When attacking Hindus for worshipping elephant God, remember that there are lot of inconsistencies in the Bible too. How did the human race evolve from only Adam and Eve. Likewise, Islamic ideology is filled with innumerable contradictions. How can a man turn into a goat.

These are matters of faith, and it is best to accept them or reject them at personal level. Faith is blind. No one can argue on matters of faith. Accept that the other person believes in something, let him do so, as long as it does not harm you. If a person converts from one religion to another, he does not get the promised salvation, he just exchanges his set of beliefs.

s said...

I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies.
JII, one appreciates you that you can stand corrected , if a good explanation is given. This time you have to feel good for your appreciation.

Anonymous said...

JII,
Celebrate Onam and your tolerant ancestors would pardon you for the sins and mistakes committed by converting.Love India first and stand for it. Advise and try to reform your anti-national + paedophile priests too. Amen, God bless
Nanda