aug 31st, 2007
amidst a bunch of stuff about how great musharraf and pakistanis and in particular pathans are (now this is an old limey syndrome: they are absolutely impressed by the pathans, possibly because they are also into buggering little boys?) the economist correspondent lets the cat out of the bag: why he doesn't like indians:
By and large, however, Pakistanis are first-rate company. In particular, they rarely exhibit the prickly nationalism of their Indian cousins, which can be a turn-off for foreign guests. In its place, I often find, is a rather beautiful kindred sense, transcending frontiers of race and nationality, of wondering what the hell is going on.
i see, it's because indians like india. whereas pakistanis, like limeys, have a self-image as conquerors of india. so they can get along really well. gee, thanks for explaining this to us.
the fact of the matter is that indian obsequiousness is disgusting -- and all those morons who repeat that idiotic phrase 'adithi devo bhava' get on my nerves. that phrase really means treat the guest as god if he deserves it, and not if he's some damn-fool white guy or barbarian communist or mohammedan. but somewhere we lost the 'if' condition. most visitors do not deserve to be treated well. (interestingly, this is one of the few good things about kerala -- nobody is obsequious to the white guy, and nobody treats him as superior. the local try to hit on white females, instead.)
by the way, has old simon long moved on? is it somebody else who's the economist honcho in delhi? i have noticed a steady deterioration in the economist's views about india, which i imagine is because a new person has shown up. does anyone know?