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


Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!

The only balance that we need now is that we are going to stand up
India/Indians first and then think about the world later!  We are NOT going to
be pushed around when brave young Indians give their lives in defense of the
country and we, living under their shadows, do not have the courage to stand
behind them all the way!  This is very cowardly!

Ritu Ko wrote:

> Vamsi wrote:
> >Yes much like today's NATO vs. the Free World....except no one would
> >dare to think different today!!
> Dare to think differently from whom? The US led West? If that is what
> you
> think then you need to take another look at world politics. Look beyond
> the
> US media and you would find that the patterns are more complex than the
> vs. Free World divide. Of course, it is erronous to assume that the NATO
> is
> a monolithic structure.
> >India's defense policy MUST follow this same dogma or else we are at
> the
> >mercy of
> >others.  Today, only one country (India) must have the best weaponry so
> >that everyone
> >will believe our propoganda completely in the hopes of feeling secure
> >under our
> >military apparatus and no one will ever question us - I like
> >that....don't you?!
> No, I don't. I would hate to see India turn into another US in the realm
> of
> international politics. Bullying is never an effective way of building a
> lasting peace or enduring goodwill. And no matter how big our arsenal,
> we
> are not secure if many hate us all over the world. Surely, that is a
> point
> that doesn't need to be belaboured any further.
> Also, to me that would be the ultimate servility - removing America's
> power
> structure but retaining their ideology [or lack of it]. I refuse to
> emulate
> the mistakes of America.
> Apart from a deep seated aversion to imitating their mistakes [as
> opposed to
> their many good points], I am also suspicious of any individual,
> organisation or country that prefers not to be questioned. Smacks too
> much
> of totalitarianism, methinks.
> >Yes, the rogue hegemonic nations also have access to nukes and they
> >didn't want a
> >democratic India to have such weapons.  Don't you see?  We are the good
> >guys here!!
> 'Rogue hegemonic nation'? And who might these be? And what is the big
> deal
> anyway? We have nuclear weapons - we have CBMs and bombs and the
> technology
> to deliver them. To what extent should we divert our resources to build
> a
> bigger arsenal and why?
> As for us being the good guys, that is too sweeping a generalisation to
> retain any meaning. Real life doesn't work that way. And besides, any
> such
> broad division is based on not on the divide between good and bad; but
> rather on the divide between 'us' and 'them'. Consider the present
> fiasco
> for the moment - US firmly believes that they are the good guys
> [domestically and internationally] while the 'others' are the devil
> incarnates. I find it inconsistent to bemoan the suspicion Americans
> have
> for all that is un-american while advocating the same path for India.
> >For the last time, low-yield nukes are not nuclear weapons in the
> >traditional sense.
> >India MUST build the strongest military in the world to protect its
> >integrity or risk
> >being raped!!
> Risk being raped? By whom? When? Where? How? Why? I do not mean to be
> offensive Vamsi, but this is just silly. What on earth are you talking
> about? Surely, there must be a point beneath all this rhetoric.
> >Good point but why did you forget such an important date....here it is
> >again: May 11th,
> >1998 is the day when India stood against the powerful nations to
> protect
> >its freedoms
> >and heritage!!
> I forgot the date because I do not consider it to be important. We have
> had
> the potential since 1974. And when I heard that we had acted on it, my
> sole
> reaction was, "Well, so what?" For some reason, I do not consider the
> acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to be a laudatory or
> important
> event. Sure, the political climate of today make it a bit necessary, but
> that is just because we have not seriously looked for an alternative.
> And, once again, I fail to see any huge threat to Indian culture,
> freedoms
> and heritage that doesn't originate within our borders.
> >Yes, we have dirt in India too and in my mind the dirtiest beggars are
> >those that look
> >upon foreign powers as the good guys and don't see the light and
> realize
> >that India is
> >being threatened every day of every year and we are becoming complacent
> >in both domestic and foreign policies!!
> See, anybody who considers any nation as 'good' or 'bad' is just being
> juvenile. I know of no nation, at any point in history, that could be
> consistently defined by either of these two terms.
> I do agree that our country is under threat, but I am of the opinion
> that
> this threat stems from within us.
> >In other words, the worst of
> >the beggars blame other beggars in the country for beating them in
> their
> >trade!!
> I am afraid I completely lost you there.
> >Precisely my point, China has a much stronger military and a greater
> >nuclear arsenal -
> >no one will push them around!!  Thank you so much for bringing this up!
> >I can't
> >understand why some Indians play "chicken" when it comes to national
> >defense, weapons,
> >etc.
> Um, you might not wish to thank me when I am through with this point.
> China
> is not pushed around because it refuses to be pushed around. It also has
> a
> strong military and a huge nuclear arsenal. However, the only area in
> which
> I consider it worth emulating is its consistently nationalistic foreign
> policy. I find nothing else in China to be worthy of emulating - not
> their
> society, not their lack of freedoms, not their attitude towards others,
> certainly not their arsenal. I just like the fact that they do not make
> stupid foreign policy concessions to try and appease others. That is
> all.
> I can't understand why some Indians play chicken [and if my knowledge of
> the
> term is right, you fit this bill] or why some others act chicken [this,
> I
> think, is what you *actually* meant] where national defence is
> concerned. I
> find both reactions to be based in an incomplete appreciation of
> reality.
> And what do I mean by that? These lines [by S.N. Pant, I think] say this
> much better -
> "Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko jiske paas garal ho,
> Use kya jo dantheen, vishrahit, vineet saral ho"
> To put it in English, we need a balance between belligerence and
> appeasement.
> Ritu
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vamsi M.

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