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.