it has reached that stage. everyone named gandhi should be automatically considered a fraud (eg kobad ghandy, red terrorist, rajmohan, mealy-mouthed weasel, gopal, a politician).
the original gandhi was also, to some extent, a fraud: he was a genius of a marketeer, but dubious in some other ways.
we have to stop treated mohandas gandhi as some infallible idol. after all, he foisted jawaharlal on the country. if he knew what he was doing, then he did irreparable damage to the country. if he didn't know what he was doing, then he was incompetent and had no business appointing anybody to positions of power.
strange: that last sentence is equally applicable to manmohan singh.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arise Arjun
FOR long, parts of what is now Pakistan and India faced dangers and invasions from northwest. Today the subcontinent again faces a threat from the northwest, with Pakistan facing even more of it than India, with some elements in Pakistan, as we know all too well, contributing fresh force to it. That threat is from an ideology that worships hate, celebrates death and destruction, and dismisses the value of life. This ideology of violent extremism or violent radicalism uses phrases from Islam but it is actually anti-Islam.
Afghanistan and the tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to contain many of this ideology's dedicated believers, but it would be absurd and risky to think that the northwest of the subcontinent is the only place where the banner of violent extremism or violent radicalism is being raised today. Historical, economic and psychological reasons have always existed for the appeal of violent extremism. But all of us in India and Pakistan must daily ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to defeat, around us, the ideology of extremist violence. While it is the state's task to defeat militancy, it is the citizen's task, and the thinker's task, to explore avenues more intelligent than violence.
Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, Badshah Khan and Dr Zakir Husain were in a minority among the subcontinent's Muslims when they expressed scepticism about Partition. Opinions have now changed. While some Hindu extremists openly say that nothing as good as Partition ever happened to the Hindus, some in Pakistan voice disappointment at its results. After decades of rejection, Dr Kitchlew stands vindicated, but his soul desires nothing less than friendship between India and Pakistan. Given the widely-held Indian view that Pakistan is India's actual or potential enemy, a view for which history seems to offer some justification, we should ask whether India's security is enhanced or endangered by a rise in violent extremism in Pakistan, by a growth in Pakistan's enmity towards India, and by a weakening of Pakistan's economy, polity and society.
It is natural, perhaps, for Indians injured and angered by Pak-sponsored violence to wish murderous attacks in Pakistan on Pakistani targets. This wish has been granted. Yet, it is not clear that the rise in extremist militancy in Pakistan has helped India, except perhaps by reminding the Pakistani people that violent extremism is South Asia's common danger and foe. If the situation in Pakistan worsens, if the country begins to disintegrate, if a vacuum is created in our neighbourhood and lawlessness takes over, then, by the inescapable logic of geography, a troubled and endangered India will be forced to examine the risks of intervening or not intervening in its neighbour's agonising affairs.
May Pakistan and India never reach such a scenario. If Pakistan can find ways to move towards a healthier economy, a more stable and stronger polity, and a freer society, that would be very much in India's interest. Meanwhile, we in India must remind ourselves that Pakistan's governing agencies and its people are two very different entities, and we must ask whether as a people and a government we have done what we can to reach both entities, especially the more important one, the people of Pakistan.
India's enemies in Pakistan need to know that if attacked India will fight back hard. It is probable that they know this. But India's friends there, who greatly outnumber our foes, need to know that they have a place in our thoughts, including the thoughts of our Prime Minister. Unfortunately, they do not know this. And the people of India do not know that Pakistan today witnesses a courageous, untiring and growing effort for tolerance and pluralism, and for strong, unwavering and uncompromising opposition to violent extremism.
AT PRESENT,India seems by and large to be liked by the Afghans, Pakistan by and large disliked. But such inclinations are unlikely to cancel the realities of geography — the physical joining together of Pakistan and Afghanistan; or the realities of religion; or the reality of family ties. Not that active hostility between Pakistan and Afghanistan is impossible. If Pakistan is India's enemy, such hostility may seem desirable in a short-sighted view. But India's true and long-term interest in Afghanistan is in the well-being of the Afghan people. That interest is also linked to Central Asia's oil and gas, and to Afghanistan's own untapped mineral riches. Any active hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan would cripple India's trade route to Afghanistan and beyond. That cannot be what we wish to promote.
We should of course continue with our effort, India's effort, to assist with Afghanistan's roads, electricity, and hospitals. But picking tribes or ethnicities to back in Afghanistan is a thankless exercise and a hazardous one as well. This is a truth for India and Pakistan both, and for the US too. Like his fellow-Kashmiri, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr Kitchlew was a staunch believer in India's non-alignment. And nonalignment remains a sound policy for our region, for India and for Pakistan.
We do not know when will come the day on which India becomes a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Amending the UN Charter in order to achieve a reformed UNSC, in which India would be included, will be a complicated exercise. Yet it is not a given that India's elevation will diminish Pakistan, or injure China, or upset regional equilibrium. Our leaders, diplomats and commentators should do all they can to indicate that India would want to represent not just itself but the region as a whole.
As we did during the final phase of our freedom struggle, as we did year after year following independence, but as we have regrettably not done for several years now, we must now speak up again for the rights of the Palestinians. And we should do so also for the ears of President Obama, for he too has failed to speak up for the freedom of the Palestinians. Speaking up for Palestinian rights will indirectly help with India's and South Asia's security. In fact, it will also win us wider support in the United Nations for our permanent seat bid. But we should do also it for moral reasons. For, our history, from Asoka to Akbar and down to our freedom struggle, challenges us to bring to the international table not gold, or oil, or missiles with nuclear warheads, but the human conscience.
(Edited excerpts from the Second Annual Saifuddin Kitchlew Lecture at Jamia Millia Islamia Jamia, New Delhi, on January 10)
From: Arise Arjun
Namaskaar Rajeev,
rajmohan, gandhi's grandson once again expresses his love for pakistan (and palestine). As a neem hakim (quack), he prescribes some strange remedies for Bharat's welfare.
>> "India should help Pakistan and Afghanistan find ways to move towards a healthier economy, a more stable and stronger polity and a freer society, because it would be in our own interest."
>> "We should speak up for the rights of the Palestinians. And we should do so also for the ears of President Obama, for he too has failed to speak up for the freedom of the Palestinians. Speaking up for Palestinian rights will indirectly help with India's and South Asia's security. In fact, it will also win us wider support in the United Nations for our permanent seat bid. But we should do also it for moral reasons."
And in true congress stlye he dosn't fail to defend pak; "Today the subcontinent again faces a threat from the northwest, with pakistan facing even more of it than India". Rather than preaching to the gullible domestic crowd, he should practise his family's monopoly strategy; satyagrah to militancy infested pak.
Then he goes on to shamelessly blame the partition on Hindu extremist. Look like he forgot dada's line that Partition would take place only on his dead body.
Just like gandhi, rajmohan is also angootha chaap (illetrate) as far as history is concerned. For him Bharat's history starts from Ashok and ends at our freedom struggle (and a mention of akbar, so that the mullahs don't feel left out). He is not aware that the magnificient temple complex dedicated to Bhagwan Vishnu at Angkor Wat (Cambodia) and Hindu symbols and symbologies in Indonesia, Thailand and other SE Asian countries were not created by missiles and nuclear warhead. Strange that this creature who doesn't have any value in congress still gets so much attention from academia. Certainly the effects of kalyug and the law of karma only applies to Hindus, all others like rajmohan are having a field day.
Hari Om,
Mahabaho
=============================================
| Publication: The Economic Times Mumbai; | Date: Jan 11, 2011; | Section: Editorial; | Page: 10 |
Security lessons from history & geography
India should help Pakistan and Afghanistan find ways to move towards a healthier economy, a more stable and stronger polity and a freer society, because it would be in our own interest, says Rajmohan Gandhi
FOR long, parts of what is now Pakistan and India faced dangers and invasions from northwest. Today the subcontinent again faces a threat from the northwest, with Pakistan facing even more of it than India, with some elements in Pakistan, as we know all too well, contributing fresh force to it. That threat is from an ideology that worships hate, celebrates death and destruction, and dismisses the value of life. This ideology of violent extremism or violent radicalism uses phrases from Islam but it is actually anti-Islam.
Afghanistan and the tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to contain many of this ideology's dedicated believers, but it would be absurd and risky to think that the northwest of the subcontinent is the only place where the banner of violent extremism or violent radicalism is being raised today. Historical, economic and psychological reasons have always existed for the appeal of violent extremism. But all of us in India and Pakistan must daily ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to defeat, around us, the ideology of extremist violence. While it is the state's task to defeat militancy, it is the citizen's task, and the thinker's task, to explore avenues more intelligent than violence.
Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, Badshah Khan and Dr Zakir Husain were in a minority among the subcontinent's Muslims when they expressed scepticism about Partition. Opinions have now changed. While some Hindu extremists openly say that nothing as good as Partition ever happened to the Hindus, some in Pakistan voice disappointment at its results. After decades of rejection, Dr Kitchlew stands vindicated, but his soul desires nothing less than friendship between India and Pakistan. Given the widely-held Indian view that Pakistan is India's actual or potential enemy, a view for which history seems to offer some justification, we should ask whether India's security is enhanced or endangered by a rise in violent extremism in Pakistan, by a growth in Pakistan's enmity towards India, and by a weakening of Pakistan's economy, polity and society.
It is natural, perhaps, for Indians injured and angered by Pak-sponsored violence to wish murderous attacks in Pakistan on Pakistani targets. This wish has been granted. Yet, it is not clear that the rise in extremist militancy in Pakistan has helped India, except perhaps by reminding the Pakistani people that violent extremism is South Asia's common danger and foe. If the situation in Pakistan worsens, if the country begins to disintegrate, if a vacuum is created in our neighbourhood and lawlessness takes over, then, by the inescapable logic of geography, a troubled and endangered India will be forced to examine the risks of intervening or not intervening in its neighbour's agonising affairs.
May Pakistan and India never reach such a scenario. If Pakistan can find ways to move towards a healthier economy, a more stable and stronger polity, and a freer society, that would be very much in India's interest. Meanwhile, we in India must remind ourselves that Pakistan's governing agencies and its people are two very different entities, and we must ask whether as a people and a government we have done what we can to reach both entities, especially the more important one, the people of Pakistan.
India's enemies in Pakistan need to know that if attacked India will fight back hard. It is probable that they know this. But India's friends there, who greatly outnumber our foes, need to know that they have a place in our thoughts, including the thoughts of our Prime Minister. Unfortunately, they do not know this. And the people of India do not know that Pakistan today witnesses a courageous, untiring and growing effort for tolerance and pluralism, and for strong, unwavering and uncompromising opposition to violent extremism.
AT PRESENT,India seems by and large to be liked by the Afghans, Pakistan by and large disliked. But such inclinations are unlikely to cancel the realities of geography — the physical joining together of Pakistan and Afghanistan; or the realities of religion; or the reality of family ties. Not that active hostility between Pakistan and Afghanistan is impossible. If Pakistan is India's enemy, such hostility may seem desirable in a short-sighted view. But India's true and long-term interest in Afghanistan is in the well-being of the Afghan people. That interest is also linked to Central Asia's oil and gas, and to Afghanistan's own untapped mineral riches. Any active hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan would cripple India's trade route to Afghanistan and beyond. That cannot be what we wish to promote.
We should of course continue with our effort, India's effort, to assist with Afghanistan's roads, electricity, and hospitals. But picking tribes or ethnicities to back in Afghanistan is a thankless exercise and a hazardous one as well. This is a truth for India and Pakistan both, and for the US too. Like his fellow-Kashmiri, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr Kitchlew was a staunch believer in India's non-alignment. And nonalignment remains a sound policy for our region, for India and for Pakistan.
We do not know when will come the day on which India becomes a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Amending the UN Charter in order to achieve a reformed UNSC, in which India would be included, will be a complicated exercise. Yet it is not a given that India's elevation will diminish Pakistan, or injure China, or upset regional equilibrium. Our leaders, diplomats and commentators should do all they can to indicate that India would want to represent not just itself but the region as a whole.
As we did during the final phase of our freedom struggle, as we did year after year following independence, but as we have regrettably not done for several years now, we must now speak up again for the rights of the Palestinians. And we should do so also for the ears of President Obama, for he too has failed to speak up for the freedom of the Palestinians. Speaking up for Palestinian rights will indirectly help with India's and South Asia's security. In fact, it will also win us wider support in the United Nations for our permanent seat bid. But we should do also it for moral reasons. For, our history, from Asoka to Akbar and down to our freedom struggle, challenges us to bring to the international table not gold, or oil, or missiles with nuclear warheads, but the human conscience.
(Edited excerpts from the Second Annual Saifuddin Kitchlew Lecture at Jamia Millia Islamia Jamia, New Delhi, on January 10)
============================================================================================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment