Thursday, April 05, 2007

More - Brahma on the nuclear deal,00120001.htm
More by Brahma on how the Indian Head-in-their-ass Establishment is screwing the country over the nuclear deal. I really cannot understand why we need the deal given the energy figures Brahma points out - this one is so bad even the Indian Commies will not touch it.
Yet our non-PM continues to invest in dealing with the perfidious Yanks


TallIndian said...

This blog make my head spin! Usually there are all these posts about some 'US-India-Japan' alliance to fight the Red Chinese.

Then there are all these posts about the perfidity of the United States.

Ghost Writer said...

You are correct about the seeming inconsistencies on this blog - perhaps that is the dog-eat-dog nature of geopolitics.
On my part - speaking only for myself, let me say that US policy in the 'South Asian' region has been baneful and indifferent to India's genuine national interest. it looked on as China proliferated to Pakistan and it keeps building up Pakistan in the naming of using it for it's larger objectives. I am all for being with the US where are interests meet, but I do not subscribe to this 'natural ally' nonsense. The US is no one's natural ally but its own

TallIndian said...

The Republican Party, in particular, has been an enemy to India since Independence.

Their support for Pakistan in 1971 (look at the recently declassified State Department docs) is an affront to humanity.

The U. S. enabled the nuclearizatiion of Islambabad.

Even after 9/11, the U. S. allowed key ISI operatives running Taliban to escape at Kunduz.

The notion that increased trade between India and the U. S. will lead to better relations is silly.

Not to be overly pessimistic, but the U. S. had extensive trade relations with Germany and Japan prior to 1941.

The only hope is that Democrats gain control of the WH in 2008.

I have pointed out here, the role the Democrtic Party has played in helping India and Indians. The 1967 Immigration Act played a major role in bring Indians to the US.

In 1966, LBJ forced the hand of Madame by making personally request every single shipment of wehat. That humiliation forced her to end Nehruvian ag policy and go full bore with what became the Green Revolution.

nizhal yoddha said...

your head spins because you don't understand that famous dictum: "there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests".

this blog pays attention to india's permanent interests including a nuclear deterrent, control of the seas, energy, etc.

where india's interests coincide with america's, we urge cooperation with america. eg. in containing china.

where those differ from america's, this blog urges opposing america. eg. in the nuclear deal.

i hope this makes it clear. it simply means that those posting on this blog are neither america-bashers or america-lovers. america is incidental. the posters are india-lovers and focus strictly on india's interests. capiche?

a lot of people especially indians have a tendency to take a black-and-white approach to things. thus they accept a particular ideology and accept it 150%, without picking and choosing those bits that are good and discarding the rest. as it happens even the most vile ideologies such as communism which should be opposed tooth and nail, do have an occasional nugget that one should appropriate and use, eg. i have sometimes used EMS's ideas about the evolution of caste in kerala, because it suits my thesis. similarly i dislike the economist's atlanticism and imperialism, but their data is mighty useful.

incidentally i must say that there are permanent enemies (although not permanent friends). china is one because it is an imperialist nation and has now become india's neighbor by swallowing the ancient buffer state of tibet. there are other permanent enemies i could name. the person who understood this business of permanent enemies most lucidly was chanakya, an utterly brilliant soul who has been maligned unfairly and with malice aforethought. he said your neighbors are by definition your enemies, among other penetrating insights.

nizhal yoddha said...

that is an excellent example of the indian tendency to accept some ideology 150%. no, the democrats are not india's friends. no, the republicans are not india's friends either. your repeated propaganda on behalf of democrats merely shows that your perspective is not based on india's interests, but more on your personal interests as a US resident. which is fine, but then don't go around expecting others to buy into your personal idiosyncracies.

democratic and republican policies change over time. for instance, it was the democrats who were into slavery, not republicans. similarly, republicans focused on the china angle and so they wanted pakistan and thus were pretty bad to india in 1971 and indeed for long periods. now republicans are scared of china and want to build up others to nullify china, thus they are rethinking india. that does not mean india should unthinkingly -- as manmohan singh is doing -- kowtow to the republican line either. the question should be, "what's in it for india?"

on the other hand, the democrats are totally into this non-proliferation ayatollah-hood and into protectionism, which is not good for india's permanent interests, either.

TallIndian said...

Yes, please cozy up to the party of Dan Burton , Dana Rohrbacher and the late Jesse Helms because the Democratic Party supported slavery in 1852.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Ghost Writer said...

What about the non-proliferation lobby in the US - which is mostly Brownie-got-a-Nuke Fearing Democrats by the way.
Most of the extraneous clauses in the recent 123 agreement were Democrat introduced
and as I recall Tom Lantos was one of the biggest hurdle makers. Remember Bill Clinton's angry posturing when we did the nuclear explosions - he said publicly that "We are going to come down on these guys like a ton of bricks" - well I guess a 'ton of bricks' really does not mean much to a nation of a billion

In any case, it does not matter - the truth is that the US Congress and President are committed to US interests - we should be committed to ours. Look at Pakistan - how cleverly it keeps a gun on its own head an pushes America into doing what it wants.

Sometime - just sometimes - I feel we should have a Jinnah running our foreign policy!!!!

nizhal yoddha said...

clearly tallindian has never heard of strom thurmond or george wallace in terms of segregation and apartheid.

guess which party they belonged to and when?

also thurmond switched parties. which goes to show party lines dont make any difference in being jerks.

this slavery business has nothing to do with india, but only with domestic politics.

on the other hand dan burton hates india because he has a lot of mohammedan/pakistani constituents who give him money. he'd do this regardless of whether he was a democrat.

i'd really like to know exactly what clinton did for india. answer: nothing other than make a ballyhooed trip to india.

TallIndian said...

Great thinking -- because George Wallace and Storm Thurmond opposed civil rights, we should forget about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1967 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Dan Burton has Mohammedan constituents? Yeah, whatever you say.

At the risk of sounding like Derrida/Bhabba, President Clinton didn't send the 7th Fleet to the Arabian Sea during Kargil.

He did nothing to save that cricket playing Paki PM (can't think of his name now).

None of that matters because George Wallace was beastly to the Negros in 1963.

KapiDhwaja said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KapiDhwaja said...

where india's interests coincide with america's, we urge cooperation with america. eg. in containing china.

where those differ from america's, this blog urges opposing america. eg. in the nuclear deal.

i hope this makes it clear. it simply means that those posting on this blog are neither america-bashers or america-lovers. america is incidental. the posters are india-lovers and focus strictly on india's interests.

Very well said, Rajeev. Couldn't have put it better myself. I see that a majority of NRIs blindly support the Democrats, even though the Democrats regularly spit on India, Indians and Indian interests. Neither are the Republicans the best of India's friends either.

Yes, as opposed to personal relationships, when it comes to relations between nations,
---"there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests".

nizhal yoddha said...

just check the list of donors to dan burton.

and yes, notions of white supremacy have persisted in southern democrats for a long time. this has something to do with relations with non-white nations.

there are several hoary chestnuts FOB (fresh off the boat) indians in the US recycle until a few years later they kind of shamefacedly recant:

1. democrats are good, republicans are bad
2. indians are the next jews, in particular tamil brahmins are
3. the nytimes is a great paper, the wsj is bad

i will pre-empt #3 right now to save everybody the trouble. the nytimes is an atlanticist, and the wsj is a business paper. they play to their respective audiences, and neither is particularly positive towards india. the nytimes is positively hostile.

i should also say that tamil brahmins may well be better equipped than other indians to take on intellectual challenges, because of a) rigorous intellectual discipline from childhood, b) expectations by friends, teachers and family that they will do well, and therefore they do. but it has been demonstrated by the crude 'dravidians' that they are also easily intimidated physically.

plus it has been demonstrated by the chinese national paper in chennai that tamil brahmins can be coopted into doing destructive things. similarly namboodiri brahmins in kerala were instrumental in the destruction of their own community through somehow being brainwashed into accepting totalitarian communism. similarly bengali brahmins are in the forefront of communism. is there a pattern here? of collective suicide?

nizhal yoddha said...

oh yes, the democrats signed the 1967 immigration act and the 1964 civil rights act thinking, "yes, we must sign these because it will help indians." yes, that's the ticket.

so obviously indians must help the democrats. QED.

and now democratic hopefuls continually lie awake nights (obama and hillary in particular) thinking how they can help india when they get to the white house in 2008. ah, yes.

sarcasm aside, the only thing democrats and republicans worry about is AMERICAN interests. this is as it should be. indians are collateral damage which they don't care about.

Harish said...

Wow I have never seen Rajeev respond with such passion and vigor to any comment in a long time as he has responded to TallIndian..

seems u cudnt let go of some tambrahm bashing in the side while u articulated u r views on US Democrats and Republicans...!!!

iamfordemocracy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nizhal yoddha said...

harish, tallindian, others, my apologies: i was having a bad hair day. i see a red flag when people say 'south indian' when they mean 'tamil', as a dear friend of mine used to do constantly, and which makes me cringe because it to me feels like it is devaluing the rest of us south indians: the old 'madrasi' syndrome.

i don't and didn't mean any disrespect to tamil brahmins, being rather fond of them. my apologies to them collectively if i offended them.

Sameer said...

What about when the idiot Clinton said that it was Hindus who killed Sikhs during his visit to India?
When his wife 'joked' that Gandhi worked at a Gas Station?
Well, Yanks are yanks.
Dont they send missionaried to India and lecture us on human rights? How abt their support of Pakis, inspite of knowing that it was Pakis who were responsible for 9/11.
We need to have a safe distance from them and be with them when only our interests are served.

DarkStorm said...

>>>> I have pointed out here, the role the Democrtic Party has played in helping India and Indians. The 1967 Immigration Act played a major role in bring Indians to the US.


Tall Indian,

Is allowing immigration, helping India ?? I am not talking about brain drain.