Saturday, March 04, 2006

Simon Jenkins

mar 3rd

interesting comment and responses from arch-conservative mouthpiece. worth checking out.

a limey supporting india? odd. maybe he's seeing the writing on the wall about londonistan, and getting scared witless about the religion of peace.

of course he remembers to give credit to the limey christists for having 'introduced democracy to india'. wrong. india had democracy when the limeys were swinging from trees.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rajan

"Bush in India is instead a quiet acknowledgement of Gandhi's ironic
reflection, that western civilisation might indeed be a good idea."

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around


siva said...

I am posting my comments in response to the actual article.

>>> India's democracy was a British import

No, ancient Indian republics were the ones to practice democracy first. Go to the following link for more information.

siva said...

>>> Bush in India is instead a quiet acknowledgement of Gandhi's ironic reflection, that western civilisation might indeed be a good idea…

Gandhi was asked once what he thought about western civilization? He answered, sarcastically, it would be a good idea. I am surprised that the author wears an insult as a badge of honor.

sukracharya said...

Hi Rajeev, please visit my blog to read the article on the latest muslims protests over Bush's visit to India..

it is


san said...

Will wonders never cease -- hell must be freezing over, pigs must be flying -- and the New York Times has for the first time in decades printed an article that doesn't totally bash India:

Haha, if the Atlanticists are seeing the handwriting on the wall, then they may be preparing for a changing of the guard, and possibly considering realigning themselves to the new realities, in order to keep their position viable.

The tone of the article is cautious, but not the usual outright skewering of India. We have to promote the idea of independent Baluchistan to the Atlanticists, and convince the Atlantic lobby that Pakistan is a lost cause. Besides, they've recently been reminded how fickle the Islamics are because of these cartoon protests. The Euro/Atlantic lobby should have good reason to fear staying in bed with these nutcases.

KapiDhwaja said...

An interesting article from Pioneer, although I dont agree with the author that we need to be magnanimous with our 'friendly' neighbours, Terroristan & China.

India is out of South Asia box

Hard bargaining by the Indian leadership with the US has proved to be a recipe for success, says Ajoy Bose

This was Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible..." The bitter sarcasm by a top American strategic expert in his description of the nuclear deal offered by United States President George Bush to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh underlines the diplomatic windfall that has come India's way. Whichever side you may have belonged in the nuclear debate that has raged over the past several months, it is difficult not to acknowledge the spectacular bargain that the Prime Minister and his negotiating team has won for the country.

Indeed, there is no small irony in the overnight transformation of the much-derided Prime Minister's office, External Affairs Ministry and the scientific establishment from wimps and villains to heroes and saviours of the nation. Just a few days ago, Leftist radicals and saffron Right-wingers were unified in a shrill chorus predicting that the PMO was about the sell the country's strategic interests for a few dollars more. Devoted apologists of the deal, on the other hand, were equally suspicious of the perfidious role played by our atomic scientists and Cold Warriors in the MEA.

In the end, the diverse agendas of various wings of the Government as well as those of the Congress turned out to be an asset in negotiations with the Americans, as both sides twisted and turned to get the maximum advantage. As a matter of fact, the fierce debate across the country on the nuclear deal preceding the visit by President Bush, culminating in the Prime Minister's forthright statement in Parliament laying down the India's bottom line on the deal, played a crucial role in forcing the point home to the United States. It is also now an open secret that quite a few of the controversies, particularly those raised by the scientific establishment, may well have been cleverly orchestrated to drive a hard bargain with the Bush negotiating team as well as convince detractors of the deal at home.

Yet, even as the Prime Minister and his team deserves a pat on their backs, it would be naïve to ignore the fact that they were in the right place at the right time. It had become clear for some time now that the Bush Administration, particularly after the appointment of Ms Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, heavily tilted towards India as a special favourite to be pitch forked up the pecking order of global players. This tilt became further accentuated during the Bush visit because of the President's personal urge to clinch a big ticket deal out of his trip as some kind of counter to his slipping popularity at home.

The immediate compulsions and long-term reasons for Mr Bush and Ms Rice to favour India in such a marked fashion are far too many to list here. Yet, for India, it would be silly to ignore this amazing diplomatic advantage that has come the way of this country. Whatever one may think of Mr Bush and his monumental misadventures like Iraq, no country can afford to fritter away such a golden opportunity that has stupendous implications on the economic and technological front.

It is true that the nuclear deal still has to be passed by the US Congress and there are those who feel crestfallen at the sharp reaction by the non-proliferation lobby as well as many Western commentators criticising the Bush offer. What, however, is significant is that the very nature of the debate puts India at a never before high ranking in the world order, which itself is a huge gain for the country's image across the international community. Indeed, the huge gamble taken by the Bush Administration in staking its international reputation on behalf of India and the prompt support this has received from the other great powers - Russia, France and Britain - and the absence of open hostility from China is by itself hugely significant.

Already, India has moved out of the South Asia box and the limiting age-old rivalry with Pakistan. The Bush visit has underlined emphatically that Washington considers India as a historic opportunity, while Pakistan still remains a problem to be handled with the help of an obliging military dictator. The clinching statement on this has come from the US President himself, as he pointed out in his press conference on the different histories and needs of the two nations. After six decades of being bracketed with a neighbour whose size and shape had no bearing with India's emerging potential, this indeed is sweet liberation from what has been always a humiliating competition.

Similarly, the triumph of the democratic process in India along with the amazing strides by private industry and the social empowerment of its people over the past many decades is finally coming to play in determining this country's international status. This is not to ignore the many areas of darkness that remain in India. But even a cursory comparison with other countries with whom we used to share Third World status would prove that the stature of this country, of course underlined by its sheer physical size and population, does put in a leadership role in the comity of nations.

Now that the United States and other great powers have acknowledged India's true potential, it is for the leadership in this country, cutting across the political spectrum, to maximise this opportunity. For instance, it would cussed on the part of the BJP, whose Government to a large extent initiated the promotion of India, to try and score petty debating points just because it is no longer in power. Similarly, the Left should be a bit more mature in its interventions on foreign policy, distinguishing between statecraft (the kind which Beijing practices) and street demonstrations. Most importantly, the justified public concern about interventionist policies by the United States across the world should not be exploited by the Left or regional parties on communal lines which would render a terrible disservice to the Indian Muslims and once again allow the beast of Hindu majority fanaticism to revive.

As for the Government, it is important not to allow India's newfound international stature to go to its head. It should not gloat over Pakistan and, in fact, be more magnanimous than ever before. Similarly, concerted efforts should be made to have close economic and strategic ties with China even as the two Asian giants agree to compete with each other for economic and political space. It is also vital that New Delhi reaches out to connect with a large number of developing nations across the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America, to prove that India has its own independent agenda.

Finally and most importantly, the Prime Minister would do well to ignore those who had advised him to crawl to the United States when he needed to be just a bit more flexible. It is by constant hard bargaining with the Americans that nations earn their respect. If nothing else, the recent nuclear deal has proved this beyond dispute.

san said...

Well, it looks like I spoke too soon -- here is the latest dire alarmist verdict from the New York Slimes:

How typical of the Atlanticist mouthpiece.