A few hours ago, a mutineer who covers the Executive Branch sent me this:
For Immediate Release
January 25, 2009
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Message on the occasion of India Republic Day
As the people of India and people of Indian origin in America and around the world celebrate Republic Day on January 26, I send the warmest greetings of the American people to the people of India. Together, we celebrate our shared belief in democracy, liberty, pluralism, and religious tolerance.
Our nations have built broad and vibrant partnerships in every field of human endeavor. Our rapidly growing and deepening friendship with India offers benefits to all the world’s citizens as our scientists solve environmental challenges together, our doctors discover new medicines, our engineers advance our societies, our entrepreneurs generate prosperity, our educators lay the foundation for our future generations, and our governments work together to advance peace, prosperity, and stability around the globe.
It is our shared values that form the bedrock of a robust relationship across peoples and governments. Those values and ideals provide the strength that enables us to meet any challenge, particularly from those who use violence to try to undermine our free and open societies. As the Indian people celebrate Republic Day all across India, they should know that they have no better friend and partner than the people of the United States. It is in that spirit, that I also wish Prime Minister Singh a quick recovery.
Incidentally, if you were unaware of the latest regarding the health of Prime Minister Singh, here you go (thanks, Manoje):
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday successfully underwent a coronary bypass surgery at the All India Institute of Medical Science in New Delhi as doctors removed 10 blockages in his heart…
Dr Ramakanth Panda, the chief of the Asian Heart Institute in Mumbai, headed the surgical team comprising doctors that performed the beating heart surgery. The prime minister had undergone his first heart surgery in 1990 and then had an angioplasty in 2004. This week, he complained of chest plain and the angiography revealed 10 blockages, which prompted the doctors to opt for a surgery. [rediff]
I am ridiculously delighted to learn that the surgical team was headed by a panda. I love pandas.
For those who crave some learnin’ about the reason for the thoughtful press release:
The Republic Day of India is a national holiday of India to mark the adoption of the Constitution of India and the transition of India from a British Dominion to a republic on January 26, 1950. It is one of the three national holidays in India…
To mark the importance of this occasion, every year a grand parade is held in the capital, New Delhi, from the Raisina Hill near the Rashtrapati Bhavan (President’s Palace), along the Rajpath, past India Gate and on to the historic Red Fort. The different regiments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force march past in all their finery and official decorations. The President of India who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Armed Forces, takes the salute. Floats exhibiting the cultures of the various states and regions of India are in the grand parade, which is broadcast nationwide on television and radio. Also part of the parade are children who win the National Bravery Award for the year. The parade also includes other vibrant displays and floats and traditionally ends with a flypast by Indian Air Force jets. [wiki]
Unfortunately, the “National Bravery Award” is not given out to those who have the intestinal fortitude to admit to their parents that they’re not going to med school. Totally sounds like that’s what it could be though, right? Yeah, not so much. I looked it up for us and discovered that its back-story is a lot more interesting than anything as prosaic as disappointing one’s parental units:
The origin of the award dates back to October 2, 1957, when India’s first Prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was watching a performance at Delhi’s Ramlila grounds, at the Red Fort, and a fire broke out in a shamiana (decorated tent) through a short circuit. Subsequently, a 14-year-old boy , a part of the student’s scout team, promptly took out his knife, and ripped open the burning shamiana, saving saved lives of hundreds of trapped people; this incident inspired Pt. Nehru initiate the awards, he asked the authorities to constitute an award to honour brave children from all over the country, and the tradition has continued hence. [wiki]
But, uh, back to the lecture at hand. Perfection is perfected, so I’m ‘a let ’em understand. From a young G’s perspective, maybe in 2010, President #44 can be in India for Republic Day. You see, a different head of state is honored as “chief guest”, each year. Last year, it was Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President of Kazakhstan, and in 2007, it was Mr. Carla Bruni. A girl can dream…
50 · rob said
who are “my peeps” and who is getting lots of high-tech stuff? you still haven’t answered my question about vocal Hindutvavaadis in prominent positions in US society.
and if you are talking about high-tech stuff, the us has sunk far more billions into pakistan than it has to india. that has nothing to do with the acceptability of islamism and inspite of pakistan being a supporter of terrorist forces, not only against india, but also against u.s. army forces in afghanistan.
LOL–who is telling you this? “Unkill” is giving far better “stuff” to India than to Pakistan. What, you think “Unkill” is that dumb? If your victory strategy is based on that, be very, very afraid. . . .
53 · rob said
ok, whatever floats your boat. soon, you can quote whole sentences so your statements can be unfalsifiable. all while avoiding answering any of the questions… and of course, i have no idea who “we” are and what “victory” for us constitutes in your head.
The craziness is just you–who are insisting on labelling any Hindu who is not toeing the party-line as a Hindutvadis. But if you want people who disagree with you, take, say, any Hindu-American with net worth greater than US$10M, to start?
55 · rob said
No, a Hindu who supports the VHP Hindutva ideology is a Hindutva-vaadi. I really don’t see what is wrong with that description. What is the Hindu party line, btw? And I see that answers still seem hard to come by.
55 · rob said
well, good. so, maybe we can stop pretending that hindus are in mortal peril and acting with extreme prejudice against people who oppose this viewpoint, since, apparently, it’s just me.
What is the Hindu party line, btw?
Easily specified–it’s Yankees, Yindoos, and Yehudi–FTW! And the “specific” reasons for you disliking Americans, Hindus, and Jews are exactly the reasons why I loathe you. B/c you hate all three groups. But me, I like modernity, and the Yankees, Yindoos and Yehudis are at the forefront of it, unlike your friends (though I’d include the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese on our YYY side). But groove on my “hatred” if you want to.
58 · rob said
don’t look now, but you just contradicted yourself because you just said that you are the ones not toeing the hindu party line.
you got all that from my contempt for your hindutva ideology? awesome job!
34 · rob said
no these guys don’t pass the smell test anywhere. you can decry nussbaim all you want for yher political views, but can you dispute the actual sadistic rapes that took place?
it’s not — stop being delusional rob.
58 · rob said
i don’t see anything in right’s comments that provides even a modicum of proof of his/her alleged hatred of “yankees, yindoos, and yehudi.”
Scoff all you want, but what % of rich, influential white people in the US dislike Hindutva? Maybe 2% at best? What % of rich, influential, white Americans dislike Islamism? Maybe 98%? If you think I’m not seizing that ground for all it’s worth, well, you’re not as jealous of me as you appear to be. 😉 I’m sorry, I’m Hindu and I’m not taking being put down any more, the way Hindus are supposed to be submissive (like in modern-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, etc.), but–sorry–no to Euros (who, these days, in fact, seem to accept me, or crazies who want to kill me–I have stayed at the Oberoi in Mumbai–now I am extremist to object to the people who showed up and would have killed me there??)
50 · rob said
you know what, i don’t think of the US state department as a moral authority; but like noogie upthread, i will be protesting when modi petitions to be allowed into the US, just out of spite (#37). and the JNU papers act is getting old. you need to argue about the merits of a stance. it is silly to say that since commies hold the same opinion as you, you must be wrong. well, marxist scholars hold that the sun sets in the west. just because marxists endorse/agree with a particular view doesn’t make it wrong or suspect.
several non-marxist scholars and ordinary individuals have decried religious violence in india (including that perpetrated by hindus), please google and educate yourself.
62 · rob said
no, it’s ok to object to extremism. not ok to conclude that all muslims are extremists or that hindus should embrace extremism or embrace extremists belonging to other religions to fight islamic extremism.
62 · rob said
yes, people oppose hindutva because of their bold and controversial stance against terrorists.
55 · rob said
since when is net-worth an indicator of moral competence? why does the opinion of a hindu with high net-worth matter more than a hindu cab driver? and btw, i personally know hindus with net worth >USD 10 m and they’re against hindutva. but what’s that got to do with anything? if an act is shown to be unlawful, it doesn’t matter who endorses it or who opposes it; it remains unlawful. likewise, if wealthy people endorse or are indifferent to immoral acts, the act doesn’t become any less immoral.
Port, The point is not that on deontological grounds violence (simpliciter) is justified against Muslims–it’s not. The point is that we live in the “rough” world where justice is not served (see, e.g., slaughter at VT in Mumbai). So, what to do when justice is far removed–I think you would find Rawls and me quite bloodthirsty on this point. . . .
67 · rob said
whoopsie, somebody wasn’t paying attention in class the day the law of peoples was taught…
I agree – the solution is to make a lesson of unrelated innocent Muslims. That’ll learn ’em. Then, maybe some Muslim can come and say: “The point is not that on deontological grounds violence (simpliciter) is justified against Hindus–it’s not. The point is that we live in the “rough” world where justice is not served (see, e.g., slaughter in Gujarat). The point is not that on deontological grounds violence (simpliciter) is justified against Muslims–it’s not. The point is that we live in the “rough” world where justice is not served “
And then everybody can live happily ever after.
No, somebody whose mind is sufficiently open realizes that the “Law of Peoples” is BS, even though a “Theory of Justice” has an enormous amount to offer–at least to us Yindoos, plus the Yankees and the Yehudis–FTW!!
69 · rob said
oh good, Rawls didn’t know what Rawls would do. it’s a truly open mind that can come up with the opposite conclusion to Rawls and justify it as Rawls’ bloodthirst. this is some pretty solid intellectual stuff here.
69 · rob said
you do know that “the difference principle” is not that people should be treated differently, right? there’s that itty bitty thing about min-max fairness. yep, sounds pretty bloodthirsty to me in an “open minded” reading.
unless we are talking about rawls the hun, the lesser known brother of attica…
LOL–yes, I know that–what I am talking about is that, for Rawls, the priority of the 1st principle of justice (which includes, inter alia., freedom of religion) does not apply if we are outside of the “circumstances of justice” (which is arguably the case back in the Desh)–this does not license the law of the jungle, of course, but it does suggest that your jokes and self-confident pronouncements are, per Rawls-soi-meme, faux!j So the joke is on you, mon ami!
72 · rob said
ah, never fail to deliver, exactly what i expected – a self adjudicated liberty exception in the lawless wilds of hindustan that allows abrogation of any of the basic rights because, hey, why not?
Not b/c “hey, why not” but b/c I don’t want to take the liberalism pill the point of suicide. Yes, I enjoy living in, and profit from, the Western liberal ideal–hey, me likes it a lo!! But that doesn’t translate into signing my peeps up for the same “deal” when they’re not going to get it and are instead going to get killed by the hard, tough, men of the, err–let us say, “western asiatic” mindset. . . .
several non-marxist scholars and ordinary individuals have decried religious violence in india (including that perpetrated by hindus), please google and educate yourself.
So did you finally read up something about Qutb complex in Delhi?. 🙂
Then, maybe some Muslim can come and say: “The point is not that on deontological grounds violence (simpliciter) is justified against Hindus–it’s not. The point is that we live in the “rough” world where justice is not served (see, e.g., slaughter in Gujarat)
I think they are already doing that. Every terrorist attack on unrelated Indians all over India is blamed on the Gujarat riots. Indeed, this is a “rough” world.
76 · Ponniyin Selvan said
yes, that is so true. everyone blamed the gujarat riots for bombay. nobody has pointed fingers at the ISI and non-state factors in pakistan, or JuD+LeT. why do you have such an aversion from facts? who are these people that blame every attack on indians on gujarat? certainly, i haven’t heard much from these people, or i would know better. and no, i’ll read what you ask me to read after you read the CBSE history books and acknowledge that south indian history was taught to students and when you get rid of your hindu and tamil persecution complex. get beyond the blame game; why is it so hard to accept that hardliners and extremists on either end are ultimately destructive?
rob, its true that public reason and unreasonable people are problematic for rawls. that said, i see none of rawls supporting your stance wrt hindu extremists. rawls likes constitutions and liberal democracies (there is little controversy in that regard), so how could he be in favor of thugs who like to beat up women in pubs for reasons that have no moral bearing on public life? his concept of ‘overlapping consenus’ leaves little room for any religious extremists who want to impose ideology and codes of conduct through violence.
not that rawls should be invoked as the ultimate moral arbiter (no real reublican would :)); his word is not divine revelation. besides his most significant work is an ideal theory. nonetheless, he is not on your side on this one 🙂 right has already outlined reasons as to why that is the case.
btw, these might help to convince you:
[religious extremists do not pass this test]
[extremists don’t pass here either.]
somehow, i have hard time imagining rawls to be bloodthirsty 🙂
73 · right said
nicely said 🙂 dear right, wanna meet me at center left?
75 · Ponniyin Selvan said
i’m tickled pink that you ask. but as you have established in the past — romila thapar is the only historian that people like me read 😉
76 · Ponniyin Selvan said
so i assume you think those people are misguided, crazy, bigoted, or just plain evil. good thing commenters for “your peeps” don’t say anything remotely as wacko!
wow, rob, i missed that! so you’re saying people in the desh are not smart enough to get constitutional democracy? we were doing fine until thuggish elements gained power in the 1990s. and now you insist on bankrolling them. what despotic paternalism — indians don’t get democracy anyway, and because they will be slaughtered by jehadi terrorists, it’s best to let macho goons and thugs run the country? exactly the justification mill et al used to defend the british empire.
80 · portmanteau said
<
blockquote>75 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Romila Thapar is an historian just as Bernie Madoff is a fund manager.
Are you saying that thuggish elements were not in power prior to 1990s? And more surprisingly that we were doing fine till the 1990s?
Assuming that you are not being sarcastic, I am puzzled why you think so.
Let me be as precise as possible. How would Rawls deal with Islamists? The existence of same is sufficient to being operating outside of ideal theory, right? And if they’re killing people then we’re not in the “circumstances of justice,” right? And, if so, we can drop the lexical priority of the first principle for all-considered good reasons, right (e.g., for sufficient benefits in terms of overall outcomes–he’s sliding towards some crude form of utilitarianism here, when things get bad, right)? So, one gets some blood even in by following the premier liberal thinker, right?
just like the existence of the rapacious financial system in the u.s leading to widespread “destruction of property” puts us outside the “circumstances of justice” and hence makes looting, mugging and thuggery over any guy wearing a suit justifiable, or 9/11 allows lynching of sikhs and muslims and any body else who dares to walk around with a tan. i don’t see why it shouldn’t. rawls wouldn’t have it any other way.
you know, a closed minded person might say that the real absence of the “circumstances of justice” in india are the rampant poverty and the lack of access to education and primary health, and somebody who cared about the issue might actually work towards fixing that situation. and that an agenda that justifies atrocities against minorities because
“hey, why not”of a self-adjudicated exception might say something about, let’s say, the selective sympathies of the observer.Let me be as precise as possible. How would Rawls deal with Hindu extremists? The existence of same is sufficient to being operating outside of ideal theory, right? And if they’re killing people then we’re not in the “circumstances of justice,” right? And, if so, we can drop the lexical priority of the first principle for all-considered good reasons, right (e.g., for sufficient benefits in terms of overall outcomes–he’s sliding towards some crude form of utilitarianism here, when things get bad, right)? So, one gets some blood even in by following the premier liberal thinker, right?
What I don’t understand is why we talk to Hindutvadis at all rather than each other. i suppose it’s the constant trap of liberals (lower case l) dealing with illiberal idiologies, but hoenstly, there’s really just no defense of hindu majoritarianism as a serious priority. None of their historical claims make sense, none of their tactics are really sanctionable, and none of the self-serving defenses they offer are really at all convincing. The only thing they have to hold on to is the violence that they keep propagating, and it might be worht just ignoring them.
i suppose the other (more helpful) alternative is NVC, but I don’t have the patience to do non-violent communication and extend my empathy to people who abuse logic, ideology, words in order to defend other people who abuse people. It’s f@#king disgusting. I suppose it’s my limitation, but honestly, I can’t deal anymore.
[insert snarky comment here from next Hindutvadi commenter]
ROFL. I read RT many many years ago but was put off by her disdain for alternative explanations.
88 · dr amonymous said
No need for the snark, it’s fun watching you talk to the mirror, you are comedy enough
This article iss about the Indian Republic Day and Obama’s letter sent to India on that occasion as all heads of states usually do as a courtesy. And yet starting from comment #22 and then #31 all the way to #90, the thread is hijacked into this shadow boxing between the Congress and BJP brand of politics. What is wrong with you people?!!! Can you people stop being righteous than though on threads that have nothing to do with ideological battles? SM Intern, can you give a little sandbox for the internet warriors of the ideological Indian left and right to battle it out, so regular threads won’t be hijacked. It gets tiresome, having to read the same old arguments trotted out in different garb in every thread that remotely relates to anything to do with the Indian nation and politics!!!
83 · jyotsana said
lighten up, j. it’s a running joke b/w me and ps. anytime i write anything about history, he claims i am talking about romila thapar. i’m hardly familiar with her work, except on the epics. she’s not anywhere as kooky as elst though, who seems to have a cult following here.
85 · rob said
rawls would deal with islamist extremists and hindu extremists the same way. right has responded to you; i’m going to stop talking about this, and not annoy good people like cotangent. happy republic day to india! may our democracy withstand the idiocy and corruption of our politicians, and the hatred and bigotry of our extremists, and the apathy of our citizens. i’m sad they’ve canceled beating the retreat — the one parade i was dying to see.
84 · DizzyDesi said
i feel like politicians had to maintain some semblance of allegiance to law and order and the constitition before the 1990s. just anecdotally, at least politicians would offer to resign if something egregious happened on their watch. say, for instance, an engineer was killed by in UP by mayawati’s goons/fundraisers or stalin was caught distributing money to voters ahead of by-elections in Tirumangalam or yesterday MNS workers ransacked mumbai university property and detained the registrar — all of these things might have resulted in an apology or offer of resignation in the past; maybe i’m wrong. nonetheless, i feel that the standards of civility in indian politics have deteriorated across all parties and states. open casteism decides who gets plum positions after elections; these things used to be more internal in the past, but now leaders unapologetically make off-color demands on record.
94 · portmanteau said
indira gandhi’s goon squads ran roughshod through the 70s and 80s. i think there is more transparency now which might just lead to more visibility of this thuggishness.
india has variants of all the standard divisiveness – casteism, religion, and regionalism. that said, while caste has always been a local lightning rod, caste became a national political issue in the 80s – with vp singh at the forefront, and religion in the late 80s through the 90s thanks to the bjp which had been escalating issues to try and gain prominence starting in the late 80s. these are both extremely poisonous factors which are flushing india down the toilet, and while casteist politics has made discrimination and separation a virtue, but i hope increasing economic opportunities will make this less of an issue as years go by. religious extremism has increasingly made intolerance a virtue, and has been demonstrated in many other countries, is something that will really destroy the fabric of indian civil society. between this nationwide cancer, and regional separatist movements, it can really shatter the very idea of india as a nation.
Modi as PM is gaining traction considering HT is an avowedly Congress mouthpiece.
So, may be in 2010, US President #44 will be the Chief Guest at India’s Republic Day Parade, and the PM could be NaMo/LKA.(“In dreams do begin our responsibilities.”)
Before some people rise in arms about the above statement, please note that the BJP (as part of NDA) did govern India for five years, and there was not much to distinguish that Govt from the current UPA one.Both governments have been corrupt and inefficient, and did nothing to solve the perennial problems facing the country.
I was checking some statistics related to J&K this morning and saw that there has been a 40% decline in terror/army related deaths in 2008.And the new CM actually traveled in an open top jeep after his swearing in.
Inspite of 26/11, and several other terror incidents during 2008 in many cities, there have been no major communal clashes. The exceptions are Orissa and Assam, and it is clear that the political class is to blame here and not the much maligned religious fundamentalists (of any hue).
The red corridor is a myth cultivated by some sections of the media.Andhra Pradesh, considered the hot bed of Naxalism down South, has not seen any signficant Naxalite action in 2008.Strangely, the Congress Govt in AP is not claiming this ‘peace’ as a success.May be they don’t want to jinx the situation 🙂
All in all, despite the situation across the border, and increasing Chinese incursions into Arunachal Pradesh, the Indian Republic doesn’t seem to be in any existential danger from external forces.Let us hope the voters tackle the internal issues by a judicious use of the ballot in 2009.
Indeed, if the current POTUS visits India during his tenure, he will be delighted with the love and affection of Indian citizens towards the US in general, and towards BO in particular.Ask the Clintons.
Doy! I wake up early for a change, and I find that a post about a surgeon panda has degenerated into a fight over Hindutva. Seriously, some perspective please! Hindutva is not worth fighting over. Chocolate is. Therefore, Hindutva is not chocolate. Or something. Maybe.
As to the whole Mangalore party thing: in liberated India you can always find a party; in conservative India, the Party finds YOU!
Yeah, I don’t think this is true. You’ve left out the Emergency completely, Telangana, the frequent imposition of Presidents rule, the extremely paternalistic and socially conservative (on caste and class grounds) economic nature of Congress (and really every other major political party), etc. This is actually one of the most offensive things about Hindutva – that they claim they are under attack when 80% of Indian post-independence history has been about defending their intersts.
I would agree that the style of politics is probably different like some have written (Sudipta Kaviraj, Partha Chatterjee) based on the style differences of the modernist elite(s) that partly led the nationalist movement and the democratization/social movements that has happened since, but i don’t know if “civility” is the right work. Maybe “some decency from lack of feeling threatened enough.”
You give a laundry list of things done by Congress, and then blame Hindutva 🙂
Gawd..for your sake, I hope NDA comes to power..you will have an assured career then.
So, ok, I get it–Hindus with views = “cult.” Nice.
Haha, you walked into that one! 😉