[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reply to Ahmed and Shah

Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
Dr. Subroto Roy wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> I am delighted two of my fellow classical liberals have opposed my
> views,
> and am honoured to reply.
> >Loyal opposition sounds more like loyal subjects of the British Raj
> period
> Not so, though the British invented it.   The best example today is
> United States where, regardless of how much criticism a President may
> receive from the Opposition within the country, the same Opposition
> almost
> never takes foreign policy or defence controversies outside US
> shores.    It
> was a rarity even during the Vietnam War for an American anti-War
> politician
> to attack his country's policy from outside the United States.    That

> is
> sound constitutional government, which is what I would like to see in
> India
> too.

In my judgement, the US opposition can in no way be termed 'loyal'.
Their 'one
foreign policy' outside US shores or within the Congress sounds more
to dominate the world than being loyal to Washington.

> If there is such a reading, I think it will be proven erroneous.   I
> believe
> it to be urgent that India and Pakistan resolve problems permanently
> the
> basis of the formula: Common Defence, Common Market and Common
> and I believe there ought to be a major devolution of political and
> powers to the States in a genuine federalism.

Common Kashmir, common market and common defense or devolution of power
be a distant reality because the politicians of our countries are
commonly too
common and destructively self-seeking.

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/