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

Re: Beautiful article by former director of CIA



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

IPI_Marker

Hi Yogesh,

> AGREED. AND INDIA IS CLOSE TO US AND ISRAEL TODAY. MERELY FOR 
> EITHER STRATEGIC AND/OR ECONOMIC REASONS. NOT BECAUSE OF COMMON 
> IDEOLOGY. I THINK THIS OBSESSION WITH IDEOLOGY HURTS. 
> PEACE IS IN 
> RECOGNIZING OTHER VIEWS OF GOVERNANCE TOO.

So the Ideology doesn't matter? Huh! As I have repeated so many times
let me call the bluff of the your last statement "PEACE IS IN
RECOGNIZING OTHERS VIEW OF GOVERNANCE TOO!". Do you think recognizing
Hitler's style of Governance brought world the peace? Do you think
recognizing China's style of Governance as legitimate brought India
Peace? Do you think recognizing Pakistan's style of Governance brought
us peace? Appeasement of dictators can never buy you peace only
temporary lul when prepare for their final assault. 

See what happens when Rajiv Gandhi bought peace with Muslims during
Shah Bano case! The same thing happened when Narsimha Rao brought peace
with VHP and Ayodhya movement by keeping quiet. Advani went so far as
to travel to Bombay in order to appease Bal Thackeray in order to
pursuade him not to dig Cricket Pitches. What happened? Instead telling
VHP to stop the nonsense of Ayodhya Vajpayee allowed the situation to
go out of hand. See the wages of peace? It was Sardar Patel's firm
resolve that brought real peace to India by integrating all the states
into permanently. The Nehru's continuous dilly-dallying cost us Kashmir
and Assam. There is no appease dictators. By appeasing them we bolster
their position among their subjects. It increases their standing in
their countries or jurisdiction. People go to them instead of coming to
us. That makes more arrogant and they want more power. They are not
goint to come to peace. Try how hard you may.

Regards,
Ashish


--- Yogesh Upadhyay <u_yogesh@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ashish,
> My comments are in capitalized font below:
> 
> On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 Ashish Hanwadikar wrote :
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and 
> >propagate it!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >IPI_Marker
> >
> >Hi Yogesh,
> >
> > > The author of the article has cited a "cool" example to bring 
> >out
> > > the analogy. However, while most western audience may be
> > > illusioned into believing that America is one such marshal on 
> >the
> > > world stage, we Indians, with over 900 movies releasing in 
> >India
> > > every year, almost all of them driving the same point, I 
> >believe,
> > > are better judge than anybody to know that although it makes 
> >an
> > > entertaining (or otherwise) movie, it hardly makes practical
> > > sense.
> >
> >What do you mean by it hardly makes practical sense? Don't we 
> >need
> >people who strive to bring "bad" people to justice fearlessly? Or 
> >is it
> >impractical to do so?
> 
> I THINK THERE IS CONFUSION BETWEEN MORALITY AND DIPLOMACY HERE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > In international arena, ultimately what matters is national
> > > interest. All nations pursue their own interest and all 
> >diplomatic
> > > statements are toward that end. Just as we dont see 
> >real-life
> > > "marshals", we could not think of America as crusader for 
> >eternal
> > > worldly peace.
> >
> >You are under a big illusion. There are real-life "marshals". 
> >Haven't
> >you heard of Gandhi? Haven't you heard of heros of India's 
> >freedom
> >struggle? Come on! There are lots of people who can sacrifice 
> >their
> >immediate security in order to look at long term consequences.
> 
> GANDHI WORKED FOR HIS NATION'S (INDIA'S) INTEREST. THAT'S 
> PRECISELY MY POINT. A NATIONAL INTEREST IS PURSUED WITH PEOPLE 
> SUCH AS DIPLOMATS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS ETC. AS ENABLERS AND MEDIATORS 
> OF THE SAME.
> 
> 
> > > No nation does anything for other. As far as peace
> > > is concerned, it comes by balance of power, whichever way it 
> >is;
> > > one of which is desirable, other is not.
> > >
> >
> >"No nation does anything for other". I think it is blatantly 
> >false
> >statement. It is almost saying nobody does anything for somebody 
> >else.
> 
> NO, THE ANALOGY HARDLY HOLDS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >It is very difficult to judge people or countries's each and 
> >every
> >action. That's why instead we follow certain systems like Law 
> >and
> >Order. That's reason why we have democracies. That also means we 
> >cannot
> >switch our support between different Nations based on their 
> >action.
> >Instead we form long term commitments between Nations based on
> >idealogy. And that's why India should be close to US and 
> >Israel.
> 
> AGREED. AND INDIA IS CLOSE TO US AND ISRAEL TODAY. MERELY FOR 
> EITHER STRATEGIC AND/OR ECONOMIC REASONS. NOT BECAUSE OF COMMON 
> IDEOLOGY. I THINK THIS OBSESSION WITH IDEOLOGY HURTS. PEACE IS IN 
> RECOGNIZING OTHER VIEWS OF GOVERNANCE TOO.
> 
> >Regards,
> >Ashish



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