The NYT, the Economist and several U.S. congressmen have been on a sanctimonious, anti-India tear after the India-U.S. deal for nuclear power generation.
 |
|
The NYT op/ed committee for Dubya’s South Asia trip |
It’s just baffling why Mr. Bush traveled halfway around the world to stand right next to one of his most important allies against terrorists — and embarrass him… when Mr. Bush agreed to carve out an exception to global nonproliferation rules for India, it should have been obvious that Pakistani opinion would demand the same privileged treatment… [Link]
Fast-forward to Thursday’s nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty… This would be a bad idea at any time… Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran. [Link]
President Bush wants to carve out an exception for India. That’s the worst possible message to send to other countries — Iran comes to mind — that America and its nuclear allies in Europe are trying to keep off the nuclear weapons bandwagon. Already, Pakistani officials are requesting the same deal for their country, although it is a request that is unlikely to be granted. Congress would have to approve this nuclear deal, and it should kill it. [Link]
What has emerged on Capitol Hill is an alliance of conservative Republicans, who are concerned that the deal will encourage Iranian intransigence, and liberal Democrats, who charge that the Bush administration has effectively scrapped the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty… “People are worried about the precedent of establishing a full-fledged cooperation with India while we’re wagging our finger at North Korea and Iran”…
“This deal not only lets India amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants, it looks like we made no effort to try to curtail them,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This is Santa Claus negotiating. The goal seems to have been to give away as much as possible.” [Link]
The Economist even quotes A Passage to India, a landmark of colonialist literature, and puns on a fakir’s rope trick. Stylistically, it’s a retrograde embarrassment:
George Bush could do a lot worse than to put aside his briefing books and curl up instead with E.M. Forster’s best-known novel… In July, when India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, visited Washington, he came home with a remarkable present: a promise from Mr Bush that he would aim to share American civilian nuclear technology with India. That was too generous… Mr. Bush, in effect, was driving a coach and horses through the treaty in order to suit his own strategic ends… [Link]
<
p>Unilateral nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. Can you imagine any scenario in which the U.S. would scrap its nukes with two nuclear-armed neighbors parked on its borders? It ain’t gonna happen. Nobody’s going to eliminate their nukes any time soon — not India, which has been processing plutonium since 1964; not Pakistan; and not Israel. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, now almost 40 years old, is outdated and in need of severe amendment to recognize de facto nuclear states and distinguish between responsible actors and bad ones.
<
p>If preventing future prolif is the goal, you have to focus on the nuclear merchants: Pakistan, China and North Korea. Analysts say India has never sold nukes to other countries. And the NYT’s concern for Musharraf’s feelings is truly precious. Successive Pakistani military dictatorships have created the very problems they want to be rewarded for solving. Bin Laden most likely sits in Pakistan this very day. The Pakistani military has been one of the most irresponsible nuke proliferators for 20 years — that’s blackmail, not alliance.
<
p>Comparing India and Iran is laughable. Iran is hardly as important to the U.S.’ future as India. With 68M people, it has only 6% of India’s population and 14% its PPP-adjusted GDP, largely from state-owned oil rather than a healthy, organic economy. Iran has attacked U.S. troops and sponsored acts of terrorism against the U.S.; India has never done so. Iran is an Islamist mullahcracy; India is a secular democracy. Iran signed and then broke the NPT; India has never said it would sign. Discussing India in the same breath as Iran makes about as much sense as demanding that America disarm to spare Libya’s feelings. It’s about as silly as defining ‘East’ Indians in terms of the West Indies (4% of India’s population).
<
p>
You don’t go to the U.N. and say ‘the India deal tarnishes the Iran argument,’ or ‘India is a special exemption,’ or ‘we’re doing India a favor.’ You go to the U.N. and tell them that trying to compare the world’s sixth-largest GDP (PPP-adjusted), a country with more purchasing power than Germany, the UK, Russia, Canada, South Korea and Taiwan, a country which is the second-largest arms importer in the world, with Iran is simply asinine:
“The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said… “India is a highly democratic, peaceful, stable state that has not proliferated nuclear weapons. Iran is an autocratic state mistrusted by nearly all countries and that has violated its international commitments.” [Link]<
p>… we are somehow supposed to believe that by favoring India, Bush has made it much harder to put pressure on Iran… This overlooks the fact that Iran is governed by a zealot who has pledged to eradicate Israel and who firmly believes in the inherent evil of the United States of America… No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. [Link – thanks, WGIIA]
<
p>And India and North Korea? Please. If you want to talk double standards, let’s talk coddling authoritarian states (China), proliferators (China and Pakistan) and supporters of terrorism (Pakistan) while jawboning the world’s largest democratic republic.
<
p>It’s all big steaming piles of shitpocrisy.
Dubya’s motive in pushing this deal is to shore up the country which runs the Fortune 500’s back room and has the world’s second-largest consumer market. And he’s trying to eliminate a competitor for oil field rights by helping India switch over to clean nuclear technology.
These rags are suffering post-ColdWar-onial hangover. It is against American interests to oppose this deal.
Why India and not Pakistan, Iran, etc? Because India is a democracy? Because it has not traded nuclear arms in the past? These are all good reasons. But the US should come out and give its reasons.
i thought these were exactly the reasons that Bush and Nicholas Burns gave?
also, the NYT should then also condemn all the help the u.s. has given Israel in developing its nuke program outside the NPT. i don’t recall any nyt editorial doing so.
i’m not a big fan of republicans but the democrats (frankly i don’t see any real difference between the two when it comes to maintaining u.s. hegemony around the world) are just as guilty of doing things outside the legal parameters. Scott —– (can’t remember his last name), that u.n weapons inspector who has just written a book criticising the bush administration, also says clinton purposely undermined the inspectors in iraq and made it difficult for them to do their job, forcing them out of iraq so that he could bomb Iraq. and if all these americans were so worried about double standards, they wouldn’t even be importing and using oil from undemocratic countries with close ties to international terror. but they do because they need the oil and so they do business with the very people they criticize and condemn. expediency makes strange bedfellows. conventional weapons kill more people than nuclear weapons today and that doesn’t stop the u.s. and other western countries, including all the declared nuclear powers, from selling weapons to governments, including saddam hussein and iran in the past.
also, the NYT should then also condemn all the help the u.s. has given Israel in developing its nuke program outside the NPT. i don’t recall any nyt editorial doing so.
don’t recall any major democrat doing so either.
IÂ’m an American, and IÂ’m not going to support the administrationÂ’s flawed decision-making (and lack of respect for international law, institutions, and process) just because it happens in this instance to support the country I lived in for a third of my life.
DTK – valid points until you got to the bit above. Could we stop already with this odious accusation? If some people of Indian descent are in favor of the deal, that DOES NOT mean they’re doing it “just because” it happens to support India. There are non-Indian Americans who like this deal (Bush, Nicholas Burns and Condi Rice, to name three). And lets not forget opposition to the deal from Indian Muslims and the Indian left. The “Indian” opinion on this is varied – so it’s rubbish to imply that only those opposed to the deal are un-biased.
“but IÂ’m an American, and IÂ’m not going to support the administrationÂ’s flawed decision-making (and lack of respect for international law, institutions, and process) just because it happens in this instance to support the country I lived in for a third of my life.”
DTK,
Fine, we all understand. International laws should be obeyed but they comes a time when they need to be revisited and re-evaluated.
Have you have heard any Israeli-American saying such a thing? Never ever.
They might be critical about Likud Party, Israel-Palestine relations, intifada but will never comprimise on the greater good of Israel. Since, you lived in for 1/3 of your life, you might want to think about what is good for India too. If you are convinced that such a deal hurts India, then oppose it. Sunny from UK opposes it on that ground, that is fine.
Just think about it, please.
the following article makes some interesting claims about the NYT that is so anti the India-U.S. deal and about the so-called anti-nuclear proliferation democrats:
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon05052005.html
some choice tidbits:
“One-third of a century later, the New York Times was in the midst of a protracted crusade on behalf of the Shoreham nuclear power project on Long Island. In July 1986, Jack Newfield wrote in the Village Voice that he had counted 22 different times when the New York Times had editorialized in favor of the Shoreham nuclear plants during the previous 40 months. As it happened, members of the Times board of directors also sat on the boards of nuclear-invested utilities and banks.”
When I visited the State Department early in the fourth year of the Carter presidency, an arms-control specialist asked me to turn off my tape recorder before he talked about ways that top officials at the government’s nuclear weapons labs were successfully sinking the test-ban efforts. Several months later, in October 1980, I summed up the situation in a Nation magazine article: “While proclaiming a desire to halt the nuclear arms race, the U.S. government has been quietly undermining chances for the most far-reaching disarmament treaty on the horizon — a comprehensive international ban on atomic bomb tests. The latest round of talks in Geneva ended in failure — with the United States’ tactics of delay drawing criticism from other delegations. And no wonder: The Carter administration has caved in to the nuclear-weapons laboratories, which want to continue to test bombs and are opposed to a meaningful agreement that will stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”
The person who has done more than anyone else to inform the world about (the Israeli) nuclear weapons program, Mordechai Vanunu, left his job as a technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility before spilling the beans to the Sunday Times of London in 1986. The Israeli government promptly sent agents to kidnap Vanunu from Rome and take him back to Israel. As a result, Vanunu spent 18 years behind bars, mostly in solitary confinement. Since his release in April 2004, the Israeli authorities have imposed a travel ban along with other restrictions on Vanunu — and they’re threatening to put him back in prison if he keeps talking to journalists.
If Vanunu were Iranian instead of Israeli, the U.S. press would be hailing him as a hero instead of giving him short shrift.
Like almost every other mainstream U.S. media outlet, the New York Times has provided little coverage of Vanunu, so the American public has scant knowledge of his real-life experience with truth and consequences. Likewise, the Times has little to say about Washington’s extreme hypocrisies while the newspaper and the government denounce certain other countries for their nuclear programs.
But the New York Times has not skimped on coverage that adds to momentum for a military attack on Iran. And evidently the newspaper of record is just getting started.
Is NPT a law?
No, it is a treaty only for accessing/ sharing nuclear technology amongst a set of countries.
Where are the people getting this idea that NPT is a law?
Will Indo-US nuclear bring nuclear weapons in South Asia for the first time?
Nooooooooooooooooooooo. India and Pakistan already have them.
SMR – Fair enough, I might have been needlessly provocative there, sorry. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that anyone who supported the deal was thinking solely about India’s interests, or vice versa. I recognize the diversity of opinions about the deal within India and the Indian community. I myself support the substance of the decision because I think it benefits both the US and India – the world’s two most significant democracies – to have closer ties.
But much of what people have said above fits within my criticism, I think. The reason I brought that up is because most people above seem to be saying that anyone – the Times, or Sen. Kennedy, or Rep. Markey, or Tom Friedman – who opposes the deal does so because they are anti-India, and that we should call our representatives and let our voice be heard, etc. (And look! The Times just published an article about sectarian violence in India! They must hate India!) So, I’ll turn this around and say that while I agree that people in favor of the deal are not necessarily in favor of it “just because” it benefits India, I’d like it if everyone else agreed that people who oppose the deal aren’t necessarily anti-India.
I havent read NYT editorials in the past few months … but in general in US media, the “demonize Iran” game has started. I read a NewsWeek title at my Gym, “How dangerous in this Man ?” (The photo shows Iran’s leader Ahmedenijad). Its the US that has ILLEGALLY attacked another nation and continues to occupy it, and they have the nerve to say, XYZ is dangerous?? …. … but this is how this “game” is played. First “build” the public opinion about how EVIL XYZ state or XYZ foreign leader is, and then … boom !!! you have more than 60 % public in your favor for the military action.
BTW, Mordekhai Vanunu’s life should be made into a movie. It has everything, espionage, sex, power games … Wow
Pakistan too is making overtures to India. They sent us a Diwali gift in Delhi last year. This year they’ve sent us a Holi gift in Varanasi. Who wouldn’t want to be on good terms with such a peaceful neighbour?
Not to hijack the post, but I do believe Moornam is making a relevant point. We hear about terrorist attacks in India every 6 months or so. If this attack is linked to Pakistan, India should get tough with Pakistan. This article seems to suggest that no government is involved. I guess we wont know for a while about the perpetrators behind this attack.
Whoever is launching these attacks, the purpose is to create sectarian strife. I also think the good people in Varanasi should be commended for not taking the bait. There have been no riots in Varanasi and thats good news.
when i say the NYT is anti, I mean anti the U.S.-India deal. but I’ve just been going through their archives to try to determine their editorial record on nuclear non-proliferation. it’s hard to find any editorial that is against Israel’s nuclear program (perhaps before 1981 but web archives only go back to 1981). will keep looking. couldn’t find any editorial (as opposed to op-ed) criticizing Israel for kidnapping Vanunu or praising Vanunu for bringing to light an “illegal” nuclear weapons program. will keep looking.
That is the thing. It isn’t a law. NPT and other treaties are enforced by a club that is essentially a nuclear cartel. The cartel decides on something, most follow suit. Compared to a drug or crime cartel, if one of the members ‘breaks’ the rules, they tend to have a war or the other families come down hard on them. If an upstart comes around trying to threaten the big boys, they will smack the guy down.
The Nuclear cartel has failed miserably in reigning in the agreement breakers (China, Iran, NK,). INDIA and PAK never signed up to shit. They are the upstarts outside the system. IF guys from outside the network want in, they have to offer up something good. India’s position as an responsible nuclear power that won’t threaten the big boys, but help secure their interest as long as India’s own needs are met makes pure business sense. Everyone is happy and India is welcomed into the cartel. Pak, NK, Iran, all have threatening postures, and as long as they continue to have an offensive posture, they simply won’t be recongized by the guys that matter.
Everything evolves and politics/business is dynamic. Those who fail to recongize it, are simply way behind the curve. India has been brought into the fold without signing the NPT. Big deal. All evidence and agreements suggest that India will be following the same guidlines without signing the deal. NOT NPT certified, but definitely compliant. My personal viewpoint is driven by the fact that THIS IS in the United State’s best interest. We are showing flexibility in our actions. If you don’t point shit at us, we won’t point shit at you. And we’ll make a ton of money together. It sends a good signal that the US will reconsider old relationships based on changing times and needs.
Exactly, Gujudude
All these are cartel arrangements for the benefit of the said groups, be it drug, OPEC. Now, US wants a side arrangment with India – a new cartel is being formed. France wants a piece too. That shows times are changing.
Look, I still like NYT. As everyone will point out, for NYT, the greater good of Israel is a holy ground. Also, for lot of politicians who get elected by the Israeli/ Jewish PAC money.
Therefore, people on this board asking for lobby for the deal are the smart ones.
Kush – Re: # 104:
“Israeli American”?? I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean Jewish? If so, I know Jewish people who have all sorts of differing opinions about the Israel/Palestinian situation or other issues affecting Israel. Besides, I don’t really see the two situations as analogous because India is perfectly capable of getting by without support from the US or anyone else, while Israel, for better or worse, would have been wiped out by now if it wasn’t for US and other external support.
Regardless, I don’t really care what “Israeli Americans” say or do. That sounds like the argument of “well, other countries torture people too!” I don’t care what other people say or do, I’m not going to support a policy solely because it might benefit India, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I thought I recognized that treaties need to be revisited and re-evaluated. My whole point was that I think the administration should have done that explicitly, not on an ad hoc basis as applied to India only.
If this attack is linked to Pakistan, India should get tough with Pakistan.
How? Pakistan denies any involvement and it’s difficult to “prove” its involvement. Any steps India takes to “get tough” are interpreted by the world community as though nuclear war were imminent. No, India should continue to be friendly even though it appears to be of little use. The only way to reduce tensions with Pakistan is to press for real and lasting democracy in Pakistan (not the fake sort, where the Pakistani PM is always looking over their shoulder to see if the Army’s coming to whup their ass). Period. There is NO way Pakistan will stop sponsoring terror in India with the army at its helm. Hell, I wouldn’t, if I were a Pakistani army general.
P.S. Nicely said, Gujjudude.
DTK
Israeli American = I mean both (Jewish-American and Israeli-American). There is a significant percentage of Jewish-Americans that hold dual citizenship.
It is fine. I have no problem with your thinking. I support Israel too. But if Israel’s national interest is frevently protected by Jewish Americans – why not Indian-Americans?
But I wanted to show that a lot of groups will take a bigger picture in mind, the same goes for Irish-Americans.
Treaties are ever-evolving arrangements.
Did you oppose when US made an exception to Pressler amendment for Pakistan (both Democrat and Republican administration was a party to it).
Or when China had a special nuclear arrangment with US (again both Democrat and Republican administration were involved). China has bypassed NPT guidelines many times. Just want some consistency.
Regardless, I don’t really care what “Israeli Americans” say or do. That sounds like the argument of “well, other countries torture people too!” I don’t care what other people say or do, I’m not going to support a policy solely because it might benefit India, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I agree. I dont believe Indian Americans should emulate everything the Jewish Americans do. With the exception of a notable few, a lot of even otherwise very liberal Jewish Americans like Dershowitz have extreme and destructive views on Israel/Palestine. Of course Indian Americans dont have the masada complex, but then its not like our prophet cursed us for worshipping a golden calf 😉
in reference to the journalistic angle of this deal and not whether this deal is good or bad:
Ignoring the U.S.’s “Bad Atoms” For the New York Times, Washington is NPT’s enforcer, not a violator
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619
But if Israel’s national interest is frevently protected by Jewish Americans – why not Indian-Americans?
I dont believe the Indian Americans should emulate the maniacal support of Israel by some Jewish Americans at the cost of American interests. The Indian Americans should be primarily loyal to America and should not hold Indian interest above the American interest. India does not allow dual citizenship anyway so all Indian Americans have an American passport exclusively. I am not suggesting that all Jewish Americans support Israel more than they support the US. A lot dont and still care deeply about Israel and they should be the example for the Indian American community to follow.
India does not allow dual citizenship anyway so all Indian Americans have an American passport exclusively.
i think they have changed this policy to allow dual citizenship for a select group of countries, including the united states.
ALM,
With due respect, the current Indo-US deal made by Bush administration with primarily US interest in mind – huge nuclear contracts (General Electric et al.), trade $$$$$$, an ally in South-Central Asia for next 50 years. It happens that it helps India too?
Do you ever think Senator Kennedy (one of the elitist Brahmin family of US) will support something that essentially hurts Ireland? Never. He will not even be apologetic about it.
No! you can be an overseas citizen of india if you are a US citizen.
the nyc consulate site for that is http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=384
It is fine. I have no problem with your thinking. I support Israel too. But if Israel’s national interest is frevently protected by Jewish Americans – why not Indian-Americans?
Thats why you’re the man Kush 🙂 Well said. Now what can we do? Write to our Congressmen?
off topic question for SMR (please don’t shut down this thread!)
who is that guy in that white guy does bollywood clip? do you know? funny.
Well said. It wont resonate well with a certain crowd in the desi community, but there is a larger crowd which is eager to do actual work at the grass root level on this and have been doing so.
The NPT doesnt work that way. It was done on adhoc basis to let china and france in. The same will happen with india(though more slowly).
Whose God is it anyways – I don’t know who he is. A friend thought he’s Canadian but didn’t know his name/
A good Summary of US-China Civilian Nuclear Cooperation. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/58442.pdf Related and must read especialy if you want to talk facts 🙂
pravasi: The 1 billion of our brothers & sisters, however, could very easily be trodden down upon if we refuse to take our rightful place under the sun. Please! spare me the rubbish. You don’t get it, do you. If India is to be “recognised”, or start flexing its muscles, it should do it under its own terms, not scraps thrown at it by western powers after lots of begging.
It’s the kind of “we demand respect” mentality that makes hordes in Saudi Arabia run around and burn down Danish embassies, or make the Muslim Council of Britain get agitated when they they get cussed. Respect should be earned… but more than ahything you should earn it on your own terms and on your own way. I’m not a fan of India being subservient to measures laid out by the USA on when they should be “allowed respect”. As if some magic GSP figure will give them a Security Council seat, or a number of nukes will. India is a great country in its own right, with a rich heritage and view of the world that should be explored on its own, not chucked away just to be measured by US standards. This is what I refer to as the colonial mentality. Those Indians desperate to appease the white sahibs and gain recognition.
Manish: First, this is not an Indian blog, it’s a desi American blog. I’m not doubting your liberal credentials here Manish, but how many non-American Indians do you have writing for this blog? Just caring enough for Muslims is not the same as actually giving them a voice to be quite honest. Your blanket characterisation of Pakistan as supporter of terrorism is an example. By those standards – so is the USA. It’s helped grow Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussain, armed dictatorships in Indonesia and is best friends with the richest theocratic dictatorship on the planet – Saudi Arabia.
Of course if you mean just mean a government and the intelligence, rather than an entire country, then apply the same rules to everyone, not just the USA.
Guru Gulab – I’ve read India Unbound, thought it was a great book. Your point is? B/c the bulk of them were just stealing for a light bulb. The governments response is essentialy well this is the least we can do. Increasing electricity generation will aleivate this problem.
As I said above, investment into current methods of generating, storing and distributing electricity would also alleviate this problem.
Moornam: Would you rather have 500 million people living on less than a dollar a day? Been there – done that. It’s so 90’s.
I would rather have a more equitable distribution of income, I would like to have growth focused on agriculture and basic needs of people too, not just the science and manufacturing sectors. Indian farmers are not exactly in the greatest of situations.
I would characterise you as part of the India is Shining brigade, and it would be hilarious if the Congress tried this next time and also lost abysmally. The world, foreign based Indians, urban Indians, Fareed bloody Zakaria – they all want to see the shining India… they would rather forget the vast majority of India that isn’t being affected much by this whizzbang technology.
But they don’t have to worry right? That 8% growth will trickle down to them eventually…. or so you hope. Or maybe you’re just saying it to make yourself feel better.
I meant to say “GDP” figure, not GSP. I’m sure there are other typos too, apologies for that…
read the post it was to adress your point on numbers.
And what the hell was this deal about? you are still ranting sunny ji please give facts
You are full of nothing but bile against the deal. your level of ignorance of current affairs is on par w/ your knowledge of economy. As i pointed out already an agreement between US and India regarding raising agricultural productivity is in place. (the call for 2nd Green Revolution). US is pledging $100million on that part, and it does not require any amendments from congress.
To never blunt truth by wrapping it in legalism.
and
It is a blog written largely by Indian-Americans about desi issues. The composition of the bloggers is de facto, not de jure.
At the same time, this is a private blog. It is not a public space, it is not a community newspaper, it is not a representative government, nor have we claimed any such thing. There is no duty to represent, only to be interesting.
When your blog adds regularly rotating guest bloggers and a news page where anyone can post, let me know.
Policy blogs trade in op/ed, and point of view is their currency. This is mine.
You’ve been missing a lot of posts.
Fun with semantics. ‘India,’ ‘China,’ ‘Pakistan’ and ‘North Korea’ here are synecdoches for their foreign policy agents, as is usual in foreign policy writing. Nowhere does it say ‘the majority of Pakistanis.’ They live under a dictatorship and they currently don’t even have a foreign policy vote.
I’ll ask you one final time to please stop mischaracterizing my views.
We’ve never publicly laid out a vision. I described what is.
The U.S. government has and does support those who kill noncombatants, a national shame. Sadly, this blog focuses on South Asian issues rather than Shia Iraqi death squads. American politics unrelated to desi Americans and South Asia are much better fisked on other blogs.
If you buy that Iran hasn’t started a nuclear weapons program, violating the NPT, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
False equivalence as detailed in the post.
The bridge offer stands.
Only in the short run.
The post argues U.S. realpolitik interests, not some ideal international moral standard. The economic importance of India to the U.S. vastly outweighs the security and economic importance of Iran to the U.S. As the post says, It is against American interests to oppose this deal.
They’re low on fissile material and behind on civilian nuke tech.
This is actually a highly pragmatic deal by a highly pragmatic prime minister.
Actually, non-petrolic power is critical to escaping the oil bidding war trap vs. the U.S. and China.
Veto over coalitions for pointless foreign expeditions.
Poll those who live on the China and Pakistan borders.
Yes, down with false comparisons. Let’s start with India vs. Iran in the NYT and the Economist.
what happened to we are “south asian” we are the world? Is my prediction of “south asian” becoming a label outside some ethnic stores already coming true? 🙂
It’s about desi issues, it happens to be comprised of Indian-American bloggers at the moment, and you really need to look up de facto vs. de jure.
Manish – you seem to be mixing my views with those of others, as I haven’t written half of what is apparently addressed to me. However, let me retort.
When your blog adds regularly rotating guest bloggers and a news page where anyone can post, let me know. The first is already the case – the second may happen. Either way, that’s not answering my question. You seem to be taking this as a personal dig at SM, which it’s not. This is a largely an American Indian blog going by the writers, the posters and the content. But there isn’t anything to be ashamed off, but it’s like me saying PP is a Middle Eastern blog, when it’s clearly not even if we cover ME politics.
Fun with semantics. You see it as semantics – others may see it as tarring everyone with the same brush. My opinion is that while actions of the Indian govt (and Bush govt) and views of Indians (and Americans, newspaper columnists) are clearly separated, the same does not apply to Pakistan. Or maybe you’re not too fussed on what the people there are saying that is different to Musharraf.
Sadly, this blog focuses on South Asian issues rather than Shia Iraqi death squads. Makes no difference. I ask what makes you characterise a country as a supporter of terrorism, and then let’s see who we can apply that label to.
If you buy that Iran hasn’t started a nuclear weapons program, violating the NPT, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I don’t get the ‘bridge’ reference, but seeing as Iran hasn’t even properly built a nuclear energy programme, and is about two years away from building a nuke weapon, I’d like to see what makes you believe it has already started that programme.
Only in the short run. That’s right – and we are talking about the current situation. I’m not speculating about 5-10 years from now.
The economic importance of India to the U.S. vastly outweighs the security and economic importance of Iran to the U.S. As the post says, It is against American interests to oppose this deal.
Considering US proximity to Israel and the Iranian president’s views on wiping Israel off the map, I don’t buy that India is higher on the agenda than India. the Indian deal is the start of a change in policy shift, maybe. Right now however the USA cares much more about Iran and will continue to do so for a while.
And I’ve never argued the deal is for American interests, only questioned whether the deal is in India’s interests.
They’re low on fissile material and behind on civilian nuke tech Which I’ve accepted above.
This is actually a highly pragmatic deal by a highly pragmatic prime minister. That remains to be seen. Forgive me if I can’t muster the enthusiasm for America’s interests.
Veto over coalitions for pointless foreign expeditions. That means what, exactly? India can ignore UN resolutions if and when necessary, as Israel has repeatedly done.
Poll those who live on the China and Pakistan borders. That’s right, I’m sure they love the idea of being caught in a nuclear winter. How naive of me to even think that those who live on the border would prefer peaceful relations over continuous weapons building and upmanship.
Yes, down with false comparisons. Two words – priorities and realpolitik.
Gulab – And what the hell was this deal about? Are you illiterate or something? This deal is about generating power. I’m talking about storage and distribution too. You are full of nothing but bile against the deal. Wow – I question the deal, and have a sensible discussion above with Kush, and you characterise it as bile. Is worthless rhetoric your only option?
US and India regarding raising agricultural productivity is in place You really do have problems reading. I can’t be asked to debate with you.
wow so many comments, I saw this interesting video on abc, it does talk about a little about pilfering electricity in Delhi. All in all a very strong positive picture of India, me like.
Precisely, it’s issue-centric. It’s ordered by point rather than by person. That’s why it’s not addressed by name.
The analogy is faulty for two reasons:
The topic (desis) is what makes it a desi blog. Analogy: a black magazine is about black people. It could have white, Jewish or Latino writers if it so wished.
We have not specified that we’d have only Indian-American bloggers (or even desi). It is de facto. It is an artifact of whose writing Abhi enjoyed when the blog was formed and who was available. We may even have non-desi writers. Most readers don’t care as long as it’s well-written.
Not true at all. I suspect you’re conflating it on your own as you’ve consistently done in this thread. Please back it up with links– this is the third time you’ve made this point but you still haven’t provided concrete examples.
Common sense should tell you that a country two years away from weaponizing nukes must have been reprocessing fissile material for years. But the IAEA says:
The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility… “in 1987…” the investigators reported that [A.Q.] Khan… had provided unauthorised technical assistance – allegedly in exchange for tens of millions of dollars – to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program in the late 1980s and early 1990s. [Link]
A nuke deal like this is not made with a 12 month decision horizon! It’ll take that long just to get a yea or nay from Congress.
Believe it. Look at who’s running American back offices now, look at the volume of trade. Dubya’s is an administration whch caters to big business. Iran is just Dubya burnishing his legacy, and with the weakened state of the U.S. army after Iraq it’s unlikely to happen via the military, it’s going to happen via diplomacy.
Weakness attracts predators. Peace requires strength. You don’t even have the consensus of the UK behind you (Brits won’t disarm), so it’s a little odd to hear you preaching that to a country with actual land borders with two nuclear-armed neighbors it’s already gone to war with.
If your interest is peace, you should be cheering for a deal which weans India from petroleum dependence on the Middle East.
Here is historian Ramachandra Guha’s(whom the New York Times described as “perhaps the best non-fiction Indian writer”) opinion on Indo-US relations
For most of its career as an independent nation, India has not had the happiest of relations with the United States of America. In the words of the historian Denis Kux, these have been two ‘estranged democracies’. The causes of the estrangement were various — America’s enchantment with India’s enemy, Pakistan; India’s affection for America’s enemy, the Soviet Union; the self-righteousness and moral hauteur of opinion-makers in both countries.[Link]
When, in the Sixties, New Delhi and Washington began cosying up to each other, those most displeased by this were American reactionaries. Forty years later, when there is talk once more of the two countries being ‘natural allies’, the most vocal dissenters are Indian leftists.[Link]
No you did not talk about power generation or distribution other then mention power generation and storage. It is you who is an illiterate. B/c otherwise you would have mentioned facts!
Give facts Sunny Boy. What mechanism do you propose on agriculture?, Power generation ?, Storage? You did not give a single fact yet. Who is engaging in rhetoric?
Manish wrote:
I’ll ask you one final time to please stop mischaracterizing my views.
Is this to me or to Sunny?
Anyway. I’ll agree that you intend (de jure) to be South Asian, even though you are de facto mostly Indian-American. I just don’t quite get how you (plural) inted to achieve your intentions.
At the same time, this is a private blog. It is not a public space, it is not a community newspaper, it is not a representative government, nor have we claimed any such thing.
True enough. But you do claim to be South Asian/. Abhi was quoted as saying If Sepia Mutiny ever lives up to its ambitions the people that read us will spread something they have learned on our blog to others … Soon there will be a lot of South Asians aware about issues that affect all of us.
South Asian means more than just Indian. I see 2 ways to have a South Asian blog. One is to have every writer post from a South Asian perspective. That tough to do, and you’ve noted above that you write from an Indian-American perspective.
So the other way to be South Asian instead of Indian is to have authors writing from a variety of perspectives. Each with their own particular voice, the sum of which is a South Asian blog.
(Note: Having a bunch of Indian-Americans write about Nepal and Sri Lanka does not make it South Asian, anymore than L’Actualite becomes a global magazine instead of of a Quebec mag just because it writes about world affairs. Perspective is what counts, not topicality.)
Don’t get me wrong. I like SM. I’m just trying to understand what you mean when you use the term ‘South Asian’ to describe your site’s goals, rather than ‘Indian-American’. If you decide in the end you’d rather be Indian American, I’ll still read and comment (unless you’d rather I didn’t).
Ikram, SM was recently nominated for a Brass Crecent.
Strange huh? They felt that we blogged with enough perspective to be considerd part of the “Islamic Blogosphere” even though none of us are Muslim. If they can cut us some slack then why not you?
If you haven’t noticed we do things on our own timetable and by our rules. Quality writing and having something good to say trumps “variety of perspectives.” If we didn’t stick to our vision then we wouldn’t have the type of blog that we currently have and want to keep. We’d have a mess without focus. It has never been our policy to “explain our intentions.” Mutinies don’t work by keeping everyone well-informed of the larger plans.
We are sick to death of defending the term “South Asian.” Why does the definition matter? You either enjoy what you read on this site or you don’t, and start your own site with your own perspective. Why does every post degenerate into a battle of semantics? I wrote about a Green Party candidate in California and we have now spent the majority of the comment thread arguing the difference between “first and second generation,” instead of discussing the importance of his candidacy.
my dear fellows – allow this lupinous perspective – the southasian-perspective is different from a southasian perspective. Most of the blog wars seem to occur around the need to enforce the personal point of view on to the masses, a need to assimilate, proselytize or cauterize. If however, one were to regard oneself as having a southasian perspective, then anything goes. Of course, there will come a time when Slate will interview Abhi and it will likely go like this.
And that dear lads is the end of the world as we know it.
my point of course – i do not speak for another, nor do i wish to have anyone else speak for me – but i shall speak my perspective on my sense of right and wrong – and since i am brown and hairy and have a prononuced proboscis, it shall be a SouthAsianPerspective – and that is a southasian perspective.
Precisely, it’s issue-centric. It’s ordered by point rather than by person. That’s why it’s not addressed by name.
you may also notice then that me and others make a wide variety of points – some of which may not tally, and others that are irrelevant. So in order to mis-characterising my views, I would appreciate you address us separately.
a black magazine is about black people. I’ve already explained – just because we write about Middle Eastern politics doesn’t make us Arabs. If I launch a magazine tomorrow that talks about black people, but has no black people writing for it, I think people would be right to ask questions about how credible the views are.
Talking about desi entertainment issues is very different to talking about South Asian politics in the sense that everyone brings with them their own inherent biases. That is not reflected here.
Most readers don’t care as long as it’s well-written. Which is fine when you’re talking non-politics and non-religious stuff. When you cover touchy topics however, people will ask for your credentials…. as stated in the black analogy above.
this is the third time you’ve made this point but you still haven’t provided concrete examples.
ok, if you really want it: 1) They continue to define a nation of 1.1 billion in terms of the much smaller states of Iran and Pakistan; – You seem to imply that having a bigger population means you should be more important. I suspect a Pakistani wouldn’t really follow that logic… they might follow the logic that Pakistan is more important as they’ve been a US ally for decades, have helped on the war on terror, and… per capita are richer than India. And it’s geographically very strategic.
2) The Economist even quotes A Passage to India, a landmark of colonialist literature, and puns on a fakirÂ’s rope trick. Stylistically, itÂ’s a retrograde embarrassment:
You’re annoyed at the throwback exoticisation of India, yet Pakistan is reduced to: reward governments which proliferate nuclear weapons
3) distinguish between responsible actors and bad ones. Do I need to guess who is responsible and who is “bad”?
4) With 68M people, it has only 6% of IndiaÂ’s population and 14% its PPP-adjusted GDP, largely from state-owned oil rather than a healthy, organic economy If you really want to base most of your superior tone on economic comparisons – then India is pretty low down on that list. We hope growth will be above 8% next years ad infinitum – but the infrastructure is so abysmal the brakes could come on really fast. Japan and China, by this comparison, are much more important. and I love the “healthy, organic economy” line – more like a highly inefficient economy full of trade unions who strike at anything, corporations who reward corruption and bad practice, and a law of the land which favours only the rich and powerful. Take the blinkers off.
In fact the only mentions of Pakistan in the above article is either as a supporter of terrorism, or as a dictatorship – which are not untrue statements but to then think this article contains no bias – sorry but I don’t buy it at all.
Look at who’s running American back offices now, look at the volume of trade. It’s still a drop in the ocean despite all the hype.
so it’s a little odd to hear you preaching that to a country with actual land borders with two nuclear-armed neighbors it’s already gone to war with. Again – I don’t buy the neo-con hawk posturing. I’m not saying India disarm – I’m saying there is no need to indulge in endless weapon building in the lame hope that it will buy you peace. It’s a fools game, trying to arm yourself to the teeth with weapons, watching your neighbours do the same, and then carry on doing it like a mug while your people are dying because of poverty.
It’s this stupidity that has kept India and Pakistan poor for decades.
If your interest is peace, you should be cheering for a deal which weans India from petroleum dependence on the Middle East.
It’s called trade… petroleum dependence is only a problem when, to maintain that supply, you feel the need to make up intelligence about WMD and invade a country.
Dhaavak, try this one:
Furthermore Dhaavak your question has nothing to do with America or Canada so even if Slate had asked me I wouldn’t have answered. If it hasn’t been abundantly clear, 95% of the time I will only post on an AMERICAN issue. I therefore use the term South Asian in an American context. When the BBC interviewed me about the London bombings they asked me about the American perspective as represented in the comments left by Sepia Mutiny readers/community.
Do you have the link to your interview.
Sure.
Abhi,
I think you will have to go to archives to get your interview. GGK will have to do some homework on the site.
They also interviewed me for Kashmir earthquake but within a week, that BBC podcast was buried in the archives.
I recorded the audio-stream and saved it to my personal server. 🙂