may 4th
in case you've been wondering why you have become dumber than you were in the past, here's a good reason why :-)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/text.iq/
at least, smoking grass is more interesting than reading email. (note: personally, i wouldn't know, i didn't inhale, as bill clinton would say.)
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Sandeep Pandey goes to Islamabad
May 2nd
yeah, why would the pak prime minister want to talk to him? the sheer naivete exhibited by this fellow boggles the mind. why is shaukat aziz nice to him? it's because he's being used by shaukat aziz! was there also a small check in the mail to sandeep pandey at the end of the session?
and pray, who paid for sandeep pandey's, as they say in india, "airdash" to islamabad? was it the funds from AID, as usual?
and why, after this fulsome embrace by shaukat aziz, are the "peace marchers" languishing on the india-pak border (as last heard)?
and why isn't sandeep pandey asking china to unilaterally denuclearize as well so that we can all be one big happy family?
the more i read of sandeep pandey's own stuff, the more i am convinced that he is either brainwashed or very well compensated or a complete ass. i am inclined to think it is the second.
as in the case of other famous 'human rights activists' a scrutiny of his finances and of his associates' finances may be most instructive.
and yes, i directly accuse sandeep pandey of being anti-national.
--------------
The News International
March 21, 2005
Moving towards a durable peace
by Sandeep Pandey
Why should the Prime Minister of Pakistan be interested in talking to
an Indian activist about a proposed peace march?
My friend Karamat Ali, a peace activist and co-organizer from
Pakistan of the proposed Delhi to Multan India-Pakistan Peace March
(March 23 to May 11, 2005), was trying to include me in a delegation
of Pakistan Peace Coalition, which had got an appointment to meet
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on March 12, to discuss the organization
of the march and specifically request visas for the marchers from
India, who would cross over into Pakistan at Wagah on April 18. I was
amazed when got the invitation, just 48 hours before the appointment.
I had to literally rush to Islamabad after getting my visa and ticket.
That the office of Prime Minister decided to invite me to discuss the
peace march along with Pakistani activists clearly indicated that the
Government of Pakistan was viewing this march positively. The peace
activists of India and Pakistan, independently and jointly, have been
opposing the nuclearisation of the sub-continent and advocating for
peace even when the relationship between the two countries was very
hostile.
Peaceniks on both sides of the border are often dismissed as a bunch
of idealists and accused of playing into the hands of elements
working against the interests of our respective countries, and
sometimes directly accused of being anti-national. The governments
aren't very supportive either. Hence it was a welcome surprise that
the Pakistani Prime Minister was full of praise for initiatives taken
by peace activists and hoped that more such initiatives would bring
about a lasting change in the situation in South Asia. He
acknowledged the role of peace movements in having a decisive
influence over the two governments.
Shaukat Aziz expressed the commitment of the Government of Pakistan
towards building an atmosphere of peace in the sub-continent and the
willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve this objective.
He said that President Musharraf shared this vision. He was quite
candid about the contentious issues and hoped that through dialogue
they would be resolved. He claimed that no past Government of
Pakistan had been so open about this objective and for the first time
there was no fear about discussing the issues.
He was happy with the way the peace process was moving forward but
disappointed over the lack of progress on resolving the Kashmir
dispute, resolving which in his view is key to establishing permanent
peace between India and Pakistan. He was also disappointed at the
postponement of the SAARC meeting and said that Pakistan was 'hurt'
on the Baglihar Dam issue; water is emerging as a contentious issue
between the two countries.
I was impressed by Shaukat Aziz's forthrightness. He said that unlike
the past this government is not interested in merely containing
problems, but is actually committed to resolving the outstanding
issues. And this is obvious in his approach when addressing some of
them. He spelt out the position of the Government of Pakistan on each
issue and hoped that on bilateral matters India would respond
positively. He was full of praise for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
for his positive attitude towards settling differences.
Security, however, is one issue that makes the leadership of the two
countries nervous. During the exchange Shaukat Aziz pointed out the
necessity for Pakistan to keep arms for its security, and admitted
the compulsion of Pakistan to match India's capability whenever it
decides to procure any new category of arms, leading to an arms race.
There exists tremendous confusion regarding more dangerous arms
giving a sense of security.
If you think about the issue with a cool head, you realise the
relationship between security and more dangerous arms is inverse. We
become more insecure as we possess more dangerous arms.
Peace activists from Pakistan and India have been advocating the
unilateral, or with bilateral agreement, renunciation of nuclear
weapons and downgrading armed forces at the border. Only a border
free of army and arms can provide us with a sense of true security on
both sides. I hope our heads of State will eventually understand this
clear logic and move towards getting rid of weapons.
That is when the common people on both sides will be the winners, as
resources being diverted in the name of security today, will be freed
up for real development. In times of globalisation as economic
progress becomes more important than military security, the leaders
of the two countries appear to have realized the futility of the arms
race and pursue the road to peace. Times are changing. The concept of
jingoistic nationalism is going out of date and this is a welcome
development. The economic development of the people who comprise a
nation is becoming centre-stage on the political agenda, as it should
be.
I still find it difficult to believe that I was allowed into the
office of the Prime Minister of a country that until not long ago was
considered an enemy country, and got to listen to his frank opinion
on pressing issues. His approach clearly reflects the commitment of
the Government of Pakistan to bring about peace and normalcy in the
region.
Thank you, Mr. Shaukat Aziz, for making it possible for me to meet
you. If your government allows the India-Pakistan Peace March to take
place, your initiative will go a long way towards opening the doors
for normalising the relationship between citizens of the two
countries. This will help establish a durable peace, something that
appears elusive but which the people most definitely desire on both
sides of the border.
yeah, why would the pak prime minister want to talk to him? the sheer naivete exhibited by this fellow boggles the mind. why is shaukat aziz nice to him? it's because he's being used by shaukat aziz! was there also a small check in the mail to sandeep pandey at the end of the session?
and pray, who paid for sandeep pandey's, as they say in india, "airdash" to islamabad? was it the funds from AID, as usual?
and why, after this fulsome embrace by shaukat aziz, are the "peace marchers" languishing on the india-pak border (as last heard)?
and why isn't sandeep pandey asking china to unilaterally denuclearize as well so that we can all be one big happy family?
the more i read of sandeep pandey's own stuff, the more i am convinced that he is either brainwashed or very well compensated or a complete ass. i am inclined to think it is the second.
as in the case of other famous 'human rights activists' a scrutiny of his finances and of his associates' finances may be most instructive.
and yes, i directly accuse sandeep pandey of being anti-national.
--------------
The News International
March 21, 2005
Moving towards a durable peace
by Sandeep Pandey
Why should the Prime Minister of Pakistan be interested in talking to
an Indian activist about a proposed peace march?
My friend Karamat Ali, a peace activist and co-organizer from
Pakistan of the proposed Delhi to Multan India-Pakistan Peace March
(March 23 to May 11, 2005), was trying to include me in a delegation
of Pakistan Peace Coalition, which had got an appointment to meet
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on March 12, to discuss the organization
of the march and specifically request visas for the marchers from
India, who would cross over into Pakistan at Wagah on April 18. I was
amazed when got the invitation, just 48 hours before the appointment.
I had to literally rush to Islamabad after getting my visa and ticket.
That the office of Prime Minister decided to invite me to discuss the
peace march along with Pakistani activists clearly indicated that the
Government of Pakistan was viewing this march positively. The peace
activists of India and Pakistan, independently and jointly, have been
opposing the nuclearisation of the sub-continent and advocating for
peace even when the relationship between the two countries was very
hostile.
Peaceniks on both sides of the border are often dismissed as a bunch
of idealists and accused of playing into the hands of elements
working against the interests of our respective countries, and
sometimes directly accused of being anti-national. The governments
aren't very supportive either. Hence it was a welcome surprise that
the Pakistani Prime Minister was full of praise for initiatives taken
by peace activists and hoped that more such initiatives would bring
about a lasting change in the situation in South Asia. He
acknowledged the role of peace movements in having a decisive
influence over the two governments.
Shaukat Aziz expressed the commitment of the Government of Pakistan
towards building an atmosphere of peace in the sub-continent and the
willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve this objective.
He said that President Musharraf shared this vision. He was quite
candid about the contentious issues and hoped that through dialogue
they would be resolved. He claimed that no past Government of
Pakistan had been so open about this objective and for the first time
there was no fear about discussing the issues.
He was happy with the way the peace process was moving forward but
disappointed over the lack of progress on resolving the Kashmir
dispute, resolving which in his view is key to establishing permanent
peace between India and Pakistan. He was also disappointed at the
postponement of the SAARC meeting and said that Pakistan was 'hurt'
on the Baglihar Dam issue; water is emerging as a contentious issue
between the two countries.
I was impressed by Shaukat Aziz's forthrightness. He said that unlike
the past this government is not interested in merely containing
problems, but is actually committed to resolving the outstanding
issues. And this is obvious in his approach when addressing some of
them. He spelt out the position of the Government of Pakistan on each
issue and hoped that on bilateral matters India would respond
positively. He was full of praise for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
for his positive attitude towards settling differences.
Security, however, is one issue that makes the leadership of the two
countries nervous. During the exchange Shaukat Aziz pointed out the
necessity for Pakistan to keep arms for its security, and admitted
the compulsion of Pakistan to match India's capability whenever it
decides to procure any new category of arms, leading to an arms race.
There exists tremendous confusion regarding more dangerous arms
giving a sense of security.
If you think about the issue with a cool head, you realise the
relationship between security and more dangerous arms is inverse. We
become more insecure as we possess more dangerous arms.
Peace activists from Pakistan and India have been advocating the
unilateral, or with bilateral agreement, renunciation of nuclear
weapons and downgrading armed forces at the border. Only a border
free of army and arms can provide us with a sense of true security on
both sides. I hope our heads of State will eventually understand this
clear logic and move towards getting rid of weapons.
That is when the common people on both sides will be the winners, as
resources being diverted in the name of security today, will be freed
up for real development. In times of globalisation as economic
progress becomes more important than military security, the leaders
of the two countries appear to have realized the futility of the arms
race and pursue the road to peace. Times are changing. The concept of
jingoistic nationalism is going out of date and this is a welcome
development. The economic development of the people who comprise a
nation is becoming centre-stage on the political agenda, as it should
be.
I still find it difficult to believe that I was allowed into the
office of the Prime Minister of a country that until not long ago was
considered an enemy country, and got to listen to his frank opinion
on pressing issues. His approach clearly reflects the commitment of
the Government of Pakistan to bring about peace and normalcy in the
region.
Thank you, Mr. Shaukat Aziz, for making it possible for me to meet
you. If your government allows the India-Pakistan Peace March to take
place, your initiative will go a long way towards opening the doors
for normalising the relationship between citizens of the two
countries. This will help establish a durable peace, something that
appears elusive but which the people most definitely desire on both
sides of the border.
wired: top 40 masters of technology and innovation
may 2nd
interesting collection of leading technology companies.
interesting collection of leading technology companies.
islamic fundamentalism and sex slave trade in iran
may 2
forwarded by a friend. the status of women in iran sounds pretty bad. it might be a good idea to send some of india's muslim-apologist feminists (shabana azmi, teesta setalvad) there to get an idea of how much better off they are in india.
forwarded by a friend. the status of women in iran sounds pretty bad. it might be a good idea to send some of india's muslim-apologist feminists (shabana azmi, teesta setalvad) there to get an idea of how much better off they are in india.
Monday, May 02, 2005
a tribute to hinduism: on the hindu arts of war
may 1
really, hindus were never particularly pacifist, gandhi opinion notwithstanding. chivalrous, with a code of conduct in war, yes, but not pacifists.
someone forwarded me this reference to one of the sections from sushama londhe's labor love, the encyclopaedic 'a tribute to hinduism' site. the site is highly recommended by me.
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/War_in_Ancient_India.htm#The%20Laws%20of%20War
really, hindus were never particularly pacifist, gandhi opinion notwithstanding. chivalrous, with a code of conduct in war, yes, but not pacifists.
someone forwarded me this reference to one of the sections from sushama londhe's labor love, the encyclopaedic 'a tribute to hinduism' site. the site is highly recommended by me.
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/War_in_Ancient_India.htm#The%20Laws%20of%20War
'economist' still bullish on china
may 1
since i tend to be a china-sceptic, i find it useful to periodically look at the conventional wisdom that china is going to take over the world. here is the 'voice of NATO' remaining a bull (in the china shop -- pun intended)
http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=display_article&doc_id=1958219795
since i tend to be a china-sceptic, i find it useful to periodically look at the conventional wisdom that china is going to take over the world. here is the 'voice of NATO' remaining a bull (in the china shop -- pun intended)
http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=display_article&doc_id=1958219795
Sunday, May 01, 2005
wsj: letter on j. ramesh's chindia idea
apr 30th
red salute to all on the upcoming may day. quite interesting how the marxists have taken over this age-old spring festival of the pagans and made it their own. exactly like christians took over the winter solstice festival of the druids and made it the alleged birthday of the alleged jesus.
jairam ramesh has written a book, a compilation of his essays on china and india, pushing this 'chindia' concept. i think it's hindi-chini bhai bhai, old wine in new bottles, and more self-delusional, because china is far more dangerous today than when they had a starving, rag-tag army.
i am all for inventing new terms. in fact i rather like the neologism 'chrislam'. meaning the unvarnished form of christianity that is exactly like islam: exclusive and warlike, the kind that ratzinger/benedict is likely to push. (heard the italian media is calling him 'papa razzi'. nice pun.)
but 'chindia' is something i instinctively distrust. it appears to me to the epitome of the sinophile's fantasy of cooperation, whereas from the point of view of the imperialist chinese, it would mean india as a colony of the chinese. chinese have a clear view of the world (dinned into them via ultra-jingoist textbooks from childhood) that they are Masters of the Universe, and had unfortunately been colonized by the brits (via opium) and the japanese (via force) in the 19th century, and therefore they have been horribly wronged.
once or twice i have written about the analogy between this and the german world-view during the nazi era: one of past glory (prussia as strongman of europe) and humiliation (after ww1). this led the germans to a heady cocktail of virtuous victim-hood plus imperialism. china is exactly like this: visions of splendor (when they were imperialists) plus visions of utter humiliation. china is the new nazi germany, and they are far more dangerous, as they are a continent-sized country, not one of several strong states in continental europe.
china clearly wishes to dominate asia, as though it is their birthright. but the reality of their past is that apart from the two river deltas (pearl and yangtze) their country, because of poor soil and water problems, has always had a hand-to-mouth, precarious existence for the majority of its citizens, which is they have always been so eager to migrate out: there has been wave after wave of chinese out-migration to greener pastures mostly in southeast asia.
the situation is not so different today. despite all the fuss about the booming coastal cities, the bulk of the rural population is living in crushing poverty. i'd recommend the recent book (banned of course in china) named survey of chinese peasants by chen guidi and wu chuntao. i haven't read it, but i have read several reviews. it appears the chinese rural poor are roughly as badly off as the worst-off indian rural poor. it is eye-opening.
here's a letter in the wsj contradicting what jairam ramesh had to say. ramesh's article in the wsj is here http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/wall-street-journal-jairam-ramesh-on.html. it is interesting now that economists in the us are standing up for india. this was forwarded by a friend.
------
jairam ramesh, congress MP in rajyasabha, wrote a piece in the WSJ,
extolling the virtues of "chindia" i.e. an updated hindi-chini bhai
bhai paradigm, the embrace sealed by a free trade agreement, never
mind lingering security, geography and water issues. the following
letter is a response to ramesh's article.
--- from the wsj ----
India Should Be Wary of the Chinese Dragon
How disappointing to read an Indian parliamentarian's views on the
recent overtures made by China toward India ("Sour Turns Sweet" by
Jairam Ramesh, editorial page, April 18). Mr. Ramesh states that a
Washington-Delhi partnership aimed at containing China would not be
in India's national interest. This is naïve at best, and quite
possibly dangerous. While China's economy has progressed rapidly over
the past quarter century, the same cannot be said of its progress
toward democratization. China's adoption of a new anti-secession law
that authorizes the use of force against Taiwan and Beijing's
encouragement of anti-Japanese riots illustrate just how little the
Chinese Dragon has changed.
As America leads the global war on terror, China's investment in
defense has been guided by a new strategic objective to create the
means to project a credible military force beyond its borders. It has
been developing a new class of attack submarine that came as a
"technical surprise" to American defense analysts. They have also
improved the expeditionary capabilities of the People's Liberation
Army. At upward of $65 billion, China's annual defense budget is now
the second largest in the world and is expected to expand fourfold in
the next two decades.
With China's rise as a military power looming over the Asia-Pacific
region and Beijing suffocating the voices of dissent anywhere under
its immediate control, the window of opportunity for democracy in
East Asia is shrinking fast. The United States' offer for significant
military aid to India is essential for eventually balancing power in
the region. Since India already has a large military, a technology
infusion would help modernize India's armed forces and make it a
formidable presence in Asia.
This is not to say India should not continue pursuing improvements in
bilateral relations with China by encouraging free trade and
resolving outstanding border disputes. However, India must realize
that a militarily powerful but non-democratic China looms as a threat
to peace and stability throughout the region.
After independence India chose non-alignment during the Cold War
instead of defending freedom and democracy. It must not make the same
mistake this time. A marriage of the world's largest democracy and
the world's largest power would go a long way in keeping Chinese
ambitions in check.
William T. Wilson
Managing Partner & Chief Economist
KeystoneIndia
Chicago
red salute to all on the upcoming may day. quite interesting how the marxists have taken over this age-old spring festival of the pagans and made it their own. exactly like christians took over the winter solstice festival of the druids and made it the alleged birthday of the alleged jesus.
jairam ramesh has written a book, a compilation of his essays on china and india, pushing this 'chindia' concept. i think it's hindi-chini bhai bhai, old wine in new bottles, and more self-delusional, because china is far more dangerous today than when they had a starving, rag-tag army.
i am all for inventing new terms. in fact i rather like the neologism 'chrislam'. meaning the unvarnished form of christianity that is exactly like islam: exclusive and warlike, the kind that ratzinger/benedict is likely to push. (heard the italian media is calling him 'papa razzi'. nice pun.)
but 'chindia' is something i instinctively distrust. it appears to me to the epitome of the sinophile's fantasy of cooperation, whereas from the point of view of the imperialist chinese, it would mean india as a colony of the chinese. chinese have a clear view of the world (dinned into them via ultra-jingoist textbooks from childhood) that they are Masters of the Universe, and had unfortunately been colonized by the brits (via opium) and the japanese (via force) in the 19th century, and therefore they have been horribly wronged.
once or twice i have written about the analogy between this and the german world-view during the nazi era: one of past glory (prussia as strongman of europe) and humiliation (after ww1). this led the germans to a heady cocktail of virtuous victim-hood plus imperialism. china is exactly like this: visions of splendor (when they were imperialists) plus visions of utter humiliation. china is the new nazi germany, and they are far more dangerous, as they are a continent-sized country, not one of several strong states in continental europe.
china clearly wishes to dominate asia, as though it is their birthright. but the reality of their past is that apart from the two river deltas (pearl and yangtze) their country, because of poor soil and water problems, has always had a hand-to-mouth, precarious existence for the majority of its citizens, which is they have always been so eager to migrate out: there has been wave after wave of chinese out-migration to greener pastures mostly in southeast asia.
the situation is not so different today. despite all the fuss about the booming coastal cities, the bulk of the rural population is living in crushing poverty. i'd recommend the recent book (banned of course in china) named survey of chinese peasants by chen guidi and wu chuntao. i haven't read it, but i have read several reviews. it appears the chinese rural poor are roughly as badly off as the worst-off indian rural poor. it is eye-opening.
here's a letter in the wsj contradicting what jairam ramesh had to say. ramesh's article in the wsj is here http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/04/wall-street-journal-jairam-ramesh-on.html. it is interesting now that economists in the us are standing up for india. this was forwarded by a friend.
------
jairam ramesh, congress MP in rajyasabha, wrote a piece in the WSJ,
extolling the virtues of "chindia" i.e. an updated hindi-chini bhai
bhai paradigm, the embrace sealed by a free trade agreement, never
mind lingering security, geography and water issues. the following
letter is a response to ramesh's article.
--- from the wsj ----
India Should Be Wary of the Chinese Dragon
How disappointing to read an Indian parliamentarian's views on the
recent overtures made by China toward India ("Sour Turns Sweet" by
Jairam Ramesh, editorial page, April 18). Mr. Ramesh states that a
Washington-Delhi partnership aimed at containing China would not be
in India's national interest. This is naïve at best, and quite
possibly dangerous. While China's economy has progressed rapidly over
the past quarter century, the same cannot be said of its progress
toward democratization. China's adoption of a new anti-secession law
that authorizes the use of force against Taiwan and Beijing's
encouragement of anti-Japanese riots illustrate just how little the
Chinese Dragon has changed.
As America leads the global war on terror, China's investment in
defense has been guided by a new strategic objective to create the
means to project a credible military force beyond its borders. It has
been developing a new class of attack submarine that came as a
"technical surprise" to American defense analysts. They have also
improved the expeditionary capabilities of the People's Liberation
Army. At upward of $65 billion, China's annual defense budget is now
the second largest in the world and is expected to expand fourfold in
the next two decades.
With China's rise as a military power looming over the Asia-Pacific
region and Beijing suffocating the voices of dissent anywhere under
its immediate control, the window of opportunity for democracy in
East Asia is shrinking fast. The United States' offer for significant
military aid to India is essential for eventually balancing power in
the region. Since India already has a large military, a technology
infusion would help modernize India's armed forces and make it a
formidable presence in Asia.
This is not to say India should not continue pursuing improvements in
bilateral relations with China by encouraging free trade and
resolving outstanding border disputes. However, India must realize
that a militarily powerful but non-democratic China looms as a threat
to peace and stability throughout the region.
After independence India chose non-alignment during the Cold War
instead of defending freedom and democracy. It must not make the same
mistake this time. A marriage of the world's largest democracy and
the world's largest power would go a long way in keeping Chinese
ambitions in check.
William T. Wilson
Managing Partner & Chief Economist
KeystoneIndia
Chicago
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)