2019 Strategic and Political Analysis-1

[chetak]

Ishkaran Singh Bhandari @Ish_Bhandari 4h4 hours ago

Have sent legal Notice to McDonald’s today on their public statement that ONLY HALAL MEAT is being served in India.

Either they clarify & change or court case.

120 replies 1,338 retweets 3,813 likes
Reply 120 Retweet 1.3K Like 3.8K

[chetak]

just in case anyone still has doubts or is may be still wondering as to where their tax rupees actually go and in which specific gutter they land up in while nurturing anti national and anti social elements as well.



JNU, the Headquarters of the Breaking India Enterprise

JNU, the Headquarters of the Breaking India Enterprise

There is a bundle of bile and toxicity, namely, a book, available in the market. It is somewhat pompously titled as What the Nation Really Needs to Know – The JNU Nationalism Lectures. This book contains, between two covers, nearly all the opinions and propaganda used by the breaking India protagonists on the JNU campus.

Saumya Dey
26-08-2019

Understanding the Breaking India Enterprise

We owe the phrase ‘breaking India’ to that wonderfully insightful book co-authored by Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan (Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines). I am rounding it off by adding the word ‘enterprise’ to it, for it is an activity, pursued by a nexus of church groups, private think tanks, academics and NGOs, that employs and provides a livelihood to a lot of people within and outside India (as we see in the book). What is this enterprise’s objective? Well, as Messrs. Malhotra and Neelakandan have demonstrated, it primarily seeks to promote and exploit faultlines in Indian society in order to breed various kinds of separatist identities (Dravidian or Dalit), presumably to further the disintegration of India. There is, however, another aspect to the breaking India enterprise. Many of its votaries seek to alienate Indians from the Indian state through persistent conversations about its oppressiveness. They also harp on the artificiality of the Indian nation that serves as its basis. Their intention perhaps is to ensure that the average Indian ceases to be emotionally invested in the Indian nation-state so that it can be easily undone. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is rife with breaking India protagonists of both sorts – those who promote and exploit Indian faultlines and those who seek to alienate Indians from the Indian nation-state.

JNU and the Breaking India Enterprise

May the reader nurture no illusions; within India, JNU is the intellectual headquarters of the breaking India enterprise. I say this despite owing a massive intellectual debt to that institution. I have done an M.A., M.Phil and a PhD there and if I can read and write a little today, it is on account of JNU. However, besides reading and writing a bit, JNU also taught me to critically reflect on the world. And since the world includes JNU, I must critically reflect on my alma mater too and acknowledge that a substantial minority of the people inhabiting its campus are fairly well invested in the breaking India enterprise. That is why, three and a half years ago, some of them had raised the slogan ‘Bharat tere tukde honge!’ (‘India, you will break into pieces!’). I had described the incident in some detail in an article of mine published by IndiaFacts in March 2018 (The Uneasy Relationship of JNU and the Indian Nation-State). In the same article I had also said that the odious sloganeering had occurred at JNU since a lot of its faculty and students have been prejudiced against the Indian nation-state by Marxist and ‘cultural Marxist’ discourses – they see it as a bourgeois fraud or a regressive ‘Brahmanical’ and ‘patriarchal’ entity. But these discourses are not all there is to JNU’s dislike of the Indian nation-state. There are many other shades of opinions which cause the average master and pupil at JNU to see it in poor light. I wish to bring some of them to the reader’s attention in this article. I was unable to do that in the aforementioned one since it would have then turned out to be far too long.

That Bundle of Bile and Toxicity

There is a bundle of bile and toxicity, namely, a book, available in the market. It is somewhat pompously titled as What the Nation Really Needs to Know. The JNU Nationalism Lectures. I have wanted to read and comment on this book for a long time now, but was hesitating since I knew that it will be an unpleasant exercise. Read it finally I have and, trust me, the experience turned out be every bit as unpleasant as I had expected it to be. Why so? Well, this book contains, between two covers, nearly all the opinions and propaganda used by the breaking India protagonists on the JNU campus. Flip through it, and you will know why I term JNU the headquarters of the breaking India enterprise.

What the Nation Really Needs to Know originated in the aftermath of 9 February 2016. That day a group of JNU students had organized a ‘cultural evening’ to commemorate the ‘judicial killing’ of two terrorists, viz., Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru. They had been hanged in 1984 and 2013 respectively. As the ‘cultural evening’ progressed, the ‘genteel’, ‘cultured’ folks attending it took to raising slogans. They raised slogans such as ‘Bharat tere tukde honge! Insha Allah! Insha Allah!’ (‘India, you will break into pieces! Allah Willing!’) and ‘Kashmir mange Azadi, Kerala mange Azadi!’ (‘Kashmir demands freedom, Kerala demands freedom!’). As the reader might remember, the entire country was outraged. Whoever took the name ‘JNU’ in the days to follow, did so with revulsion and anger. However, the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teacher’s Association (JNUTA) seemingly concluded that the country is outraging over some mere sloganeering since it is so ignorant and could do with some tutoring (JNU’s capacity for vanity is immense). So, the JNUTA organized a ‘teach-in’, or a series of open air lectures, in the forecourt of the administrative block of the university, ostensibly on the complexities that characterize nationalism. However, the actual idea appears to have been, as they say at JNU, to ‘problematize’ the nation so that the benighted Indians realize that they are unnecessarily getting worked up on something ‘problematic’ (the integrity of the Indian nation-state) and stop outraging. As I see it, this ‘teach-in’ turned out to be an unwitting exhibition of JNU as the headquarters of the breaking India enterprise. Most of the twenty-four lectures that were delivered in it contained breaking India ideas in some form. Later, after the ‘teach-in’ concluded, these lectures were compiled and released as this volume, What the Nation Really Needs to Know. If the reader wishes to know with what persuasions the average JNU student is recruited to the breaking India enterprise on a daily basis, he or she may look no farther than this bundle of bile and toxicity. Let me concisely present and, wherever required, paraphrase, the most obvious breaking India ideas that it is replete with.

The introduction to What the Nation Really Needs to Know is authored by Janaki Nair, a professor at the Center for Historical Studies, JNU. She is also one of the editors of the book. This introduction very effectively sets the register for the material that follows. To my eyes, Prof. Nair comes across as a breaking India protagonist enamored by faultlines. As she writes, “India…is the not the space of benign diversity…but hierarchized, multiple differences, which are of various kinds and intensities.”[ii] On account of this, we are also very incoherent as a country. India, she argues, “has one of the most fragmented social bodies in the world”[iii], in fact, ours is a land “marked by foundational differences.”[iv] The utility of the constitution in such a country is that, she contends, “it alone upholds and defends the idea of difference, while creating a community of equals….”[v] Dear reader, in case you have not realized the full import of her words, let me translate them for you – to properly understand a JNU savant one has to read a lot between and beyond the lines. Prof. Nair does not view our country as a national community, a nation-state, whose members speak different languages and consume varieties of food. We are not one nation exhibiting diversity, but a congeries of “hierarchized differences” (the reference is to caste). We are just so many thousands of castes riven by primordial faultlines (“foundational differences”). She, very likely, does not see us inhabiting a shared space of values and meanings, since the average JNU professor does not acknowledge the existence of something like an Indian culture, or sanskriti. This is all the more reason why we are not a nation-state, just a faultline ridden mass of castes (a “fragmented social body”). Our constitution too, in her eyes, does not create a national, civic community out of us. It merely preserves our differences in a state of equilibrium (so that the strong among us do not set upon the weak) while granting us legal and political equality. Do not assume that these are extreme views by JNU standards. ‘India is a mere congeries of castes criss-crossed by ancient faultilines’ is a pretty commonplace idea at JNU. A lot of people subscribe to it there.

Prof. Nair’s introduction is followed by the transcripts of the lectures that were delivered at the ‘teach-in’. The first is by Prof. Gopal Guru, a political scientist (‘Taking Indian Nationalism Seriously’)[vi]. Prof. Guru’s lecture too perceives a faultiline, between the citizenry and the state. He seemed to think that all the outrage being directed at JNU was somehow manufactured by the state; it was not naturally emerging from the Indian nation. “In the present context of JNU,” he said, “it was very clear that the state was overriding the essence of nation. It tried to become more important that the nation.” He thought it important that the state “does not subordinate the nation to its narrow interest”[vii] (of self-preservation?). He also seemingly disapproved of the fact that “right-wing forces use extraterritorial loyalty as the negative criterion to define who is a nationalist” making “ontological association with ‘Bhumi’ or land (motherland)…an absolute criterion to define the nation.”[viii] In plain language, according to Professor Guru, the branding of any Indians with extraterritorial loyalties (nurturing love for a country other than India) as being not nationalist is a right-wing thing (hence bad). Also, the condition that no Indian may have extraterritorial loyalties binds the Indian nation’s being (spirit, essence, or ‘ontology’) with the land that it occupies (the Indian geo-space) making it the sole basis of Indianness. Professor Guru finds this too a bad idea. Seemingly, he wouldn’t mind if Indians professed loyalty for other countries while living in India, nor does he attach any special sentiments to the land that is India. During the course of his lecture, he also stressed that the state “in order to realize the normative content of the nation, has to make some actual space for the principle of equality.”[ix] Again, it is a remark loaded with an insinuation. Apparently, Prof. Guru thinks that true, genuine nations are made up of equals (equality is/should be the norm that makes a nation) and India is not quite a nation since it has not realized true equality (his lecture contained a reference to the Bahishkrut India, or Dalits)[x], nor is the Indian state making a real attempt in that direction (Dalits are not being given their proper due as members of the national community).

Lectures by Prof. G. Arunima[xi] and A. Mangai[xii] excavated faultlines between parts of South India and the North. Early in her lecture Prof. Arunima revealed the cold ‘anywhere mindset’[xiii] in which no emotions are evoked by the membership of a national community. “I put myself down as someone who is nation agnostic”, she said. Underlining further her ‘nation agnosticism’, she declared, “I’m an Indian because my parents are Indians and I have a passport that tells me that is what I am…I have never felt the need to wake up every morning and start swearing my allegiance to the country.”[xiv] Thereafter, ironically, she went on to rue the fact that her home-state, Kerala, does not find a place in the national narrative. Prof. Arunima thought that “Kerala…is an exceedingly marginal region within the story of the [Indian] nation.”[xv] If you, the reader, are wondering why does she, being a ‘nation agnostic’, care, know that she does because she is keen on imagining or creating a faultline between Kerala and the rest of India. Prof. Arunima also recollected that when she studied the history of ‘modern India’ as a student (at the Center for Historical Studies in JNU, of all places) there were no references to Kerala, it was all about U.P., Bengal and Punjab. Here she cleverly held back information, very likely to produce resentment in the hearts of the Malayalis in the audience. Having studied modern Indian history at CHS, she of course knew that it is largely about the Congress’ role in the Indian freedom movement (this history has been predominantly written by Congress loyalist historians). Since Kerala was two prince states, Cochin and Travancore, in the colonial period, the Congress had little presence there (its organization was largely restricted to the British ruled territories) and hence the state is scarcely mentioned in the histories of ‘modern India’. But she did not say this, instead, Prof. Arunima pretended as though the elision of Kerala from modern Indian history is some grand conspiracy on the part of the North (Punjab, U.P. and Bengal). She also disapprovingly observed that due to the state’s gradual “‘mainstreaming’” its matrilineal tradition has weakened.[xvi] In other words, greater integration with the Indian nation-state, as she saw, has had a socially regressive effect on Kerala.

Ms. Mangai began by telling her young audience, with apparent pride, that her home state, Tamil Nadu, is “historically by default ‘anti-national’”, and she “grew up hearing anti-Sanskrit, anti-Hindi, or anti-north India, or anti-Central government slogans.”[xvii] This was, her lecture implied, on account of a long history of ‘Tamil nationalism’. She traced its origins to the composition of the Comparative Grammar of Dravidian Languages by the missionary Robert Caldwell in 1856[xviii] – the work classified Tamil as belonging to a distinct, Dravidian group of languages. A second stage in the evolution of ‘Tamil nationalism’, according to her, was the rediscovery of the Sangam era epics Cilapatikaram and Manimekalai. Containing Jain and Buddhist teachings, Ms. Mangai claimed, these epics showed the Tamils that they “have nothing to do with…Hinduism….”[xix] Soon after, Periyar came by. He tried to purge Tamil Nadu of Hinduism, hated the Ramayana, and struck a militant anti-Hindi posture.[xx] In brief, Ms. Mangai indentified two premises of ‘Tamil nationalism’, linguistic pride and antipathy for Hinduism. But she, of course, did not reveal to the assembled crowd that even in the nineteen sixties and seventies, when Tamil politicians frequently made separatist noises, this so called ‘Tamil nationalism’ enjoyed rather feeble traction (may the reader not confuse it with Tamil cultural pride). Nor did she tell them that 87.58% of the population of Tamil Nadu returned its religion as Hinduism in the 2011 census. Breaking India protagonists are capable of both lying brazenly and inhabiting a parallel reality.

And then there were those who sought to emotionally disinvest Indians (in this case, the students they were addressing) from the Indian nation-state by holding forth on its artificiality and oppressiveness. Prof. Jairus Banaji wondered aloud if “nations exist the way that classes exist?”[xxi] He concluded that they don’t. Classes, Prof. Banaji said, “are real communities…real existing entities….”[xxii] Nations, on the other hand, he contended, do not have the same “ontology” as a class, they do not exist the same way that classes do.[xxiii] Though Prof. Banaji did not state it in so many words, it seems that he believed that the Indian nation too does not quite exist, since, in his apparently Marxist eyes, only classes are objectively real, not nations. Prof. Nivedita Menon[xxiv] proclaimed the nation-state in general, and the Indian nation-state in particular, to be a horrible thing. Though not a native speaker of Hindi, she (admirably) delivered her lecture in the language (to reach out to the Indian public at large?) and observed that there is a grave contradiction between democracy and the nation-state (“rashtra-rajya or jantantra main ek gehra antarvirodh hai”) because the nation-state, in the name of national interest, tries to trample upon democratic voices (“jaise-jaise log janwadi awazen uthate hain, unko rashtra-rajya rashtra hith ke naam par kuchalne ki koshish karta hai”).[xxv] I get a feeling that she was obliquely referring to the sloganeering on 9 February (her likely idea of democratic voices) and the subsequent crack-down on JNU (which perhaps she saw as the Indian nation-state’s trampling of democratic voices). She also thought that the Indian nation state is intrinsically violent and militaristic, its real face are the stock of weapons that it exhibits during the annual Republic Day parade on Raj Path (“26 January ko Raj Path par hum jo hathiyaron ki parade dekhte hain, wohi hai sakshat rashtra-rajya”).[xxvi] We all know that soldiers and military hardware alone do not make the 26 January parade, they are followed by the mobile tableaus of various states and cultural performances, but Prof. Menon, being a busy academic, does not seem to. Further, Prof. Menon thought that the only face of India that people in Kashmir, north-east and a tribal in Chhattisgarh are familiar with is the Indian army (“Bharat ka jo chehra Kashmir dekhta hai, north-east dekhta hai ya Chhattisgarh ka adiwasi dekhta hai woh hai Indian Army”),[xxvii] since, apparently, they inhabit a militaristic, oppressive country. She also told her audience that the entire world saw India as an illegal occupier of Kashmir (“duniya bhar mein ye mana jata hai ki Bharat ne Kashmir ko awaidh tarike se adhikrat iya hai”)[xxviii] and an imperialist country (“duniya mein India ko…bilkul ek samrajyawadi desh ki tarah hi mana jata hai”).[xxix] Some speakers seemingly thought that Indians should stop holding the territorial limits of India and the Indian nation-state sacrosanct. Prof. Achin Vanaik[xxx] observed that there is “a lot of talk about the unity and integrity of India” and underlined that it is only about a “territorial space” which “a religious nationalism tries to sacralize….”[xxxi] One gets the feeling that he did not want his audience to get awfully sentimental about the Indian “territorial space.” Prof. Vanaik went on to state that, as a result of this attempted sacralization, questioning “existing borders or territorial acquisitions (of India) becomes blasphemous….”[xxxii] In simple language, it seems, Prof. Vanaik was disapproving of the sanctity the adherents of the Indic religions attach to the Indian earth and wished that anyone wanting to discuss changes in the external, political boundaries of India (it is a given that it will involve secession of, or giving up, territory) should be allowed to do so. Prof. Prabhat Patnaik[xxxiii] first asked his audience how a nationalism based on a social contract ought to be preserved and then told them that the answer is already given by Lenin. He had, Prof. Patnaik claimed, wanted the ethnic, linguistic groups of heterogeneous countries to have the right to secession[xxxiv] if they did not honor the social contract. (In political theory a ‘social contract’ is an arrangement in which citizens surrender some freedom to the state in lieu of the protection and welfare that it provides them.) Since our own country is quite heterogeneous too, I am tempted to guess if Prof. Patnaik would like this right to prevail in it. Further, I find it a pity that he failed to recall that the same Lenin whom he so approvingly quoted had put an end to the independence of a tiny ethnicity, that of the Georgians, by ordering an invasion of their country by the Russian Red Army in 1921. He had curiously failed to grant the right to secession to Georgia (formerly a part of Tsarist Russia) which had proclaimed its independence after electing a Menshevik government. Prof. Harbans Mukhia[xxxv] informed his audience that “nationalism is not a settled question in any country.”[xxxvi] To substantiate this assertion he gave the examples of France where (as he said) the inhabitants of the Brittany region still do not regard themselves French and the erstwhile Soviet Union which “never became a nation.”[xxxvii] May be, he was delicately urging his audience not to see the Indian nation-state too as something final.

References

JNU has multiple schools, such as the School of Social Sciences, School of Languages, etc. Each of these Schools, in turn, is divided into various disciplinary centers – Center for Historical Studies, or Center for English Studies.

[ii] Rohit Azad, Janaki Nair, Mohinder Singh, Mallarika Sinha Roy (eds.), on behalf of Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association, What the Nation Really Needs to Know. The JNU Nationalism Lectures (Harper Collins Publishers India, 2016). Introduction, p.xix.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid., p.xxii.

[vi] Delivered on 17 February 2016. Professor Guru teaches at the Center for Political Studies, JNU.

[vii] What the Nation Really Needs to Know., p.10.

[viii] Ibid., p.6.

[ix] Ibid., p.9.

[x] Ibid., p.6.

[xi] She teaches at the Center for Women’s Studies, JNU. Her lecture titled ‘The Nation and its Regions: How does it all Add Up’ was delivered on 20 February 2016.

[xii] A. Mangai is the pseudonym of Dr. V. Padma. She teaches English at Stella Maris College, Chennai. At the time of the ‘teach-in’, she was a visiting fellow at the Center for Law and Governance, JNU. Her lecture titled ‘One Hundred Years of Tamil Nationalism’ was delivered on 1 March 2016.

[xiii] I have borrowed the phrase from the British journalist and commentator David Goodhart.

[xiv] What the Nation Really Needs to Know, p.26.

[xv] Ibid., p.28.

[xvi] Ibid., p.34.

[xvii] Ibid., p.135.

[xviii] Ibid., p.137.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid., pp.139-140.

[xxi] Ibid., p.259. Prof. Banaji is associated with the School of African and Oriental Studies at the University of London. His lecture titled ‘The political Culture of Fascism’ was delivered on 11 March 2016.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid., p.260.

[xxiv] She teaches at the Center for Comparative Politics and Political Theory, JNU. He lecture titled ‘Rashtrawad Banam Janwad’ was delivered on 22 February 2016.

[xxv] What the Nation Really Needs to Know, p.53.

[xxvi] Ibid.

[xxvii] Ibid., p.59.

[xxviii] Ibid., p.57.

[xxix] Ibid., p.58.

[xxx] Currently retired, he used to be a professor of International Relations and Global Politics at the University of Delhi. His lecture titled ‘Nationalism: Its Power and Limits’ was delivered on 26 February 2016.

[xxxi] What the Nation Really Needs to Know, p.102. Emphasis in the original transcript.

[xxxii] Ibid.

[xxxiii] He is professor emeritus at the Center for Economic Studies and Planning, JNU. His lecture titled ‘Two Concepts of Nationalism’ was delivered on 9 March 2016.

[xxxiv] What the Nation Really Needs to Know, p.237.

[xxxv] Currently retired, he was a professor at the Center for Historical Studies, JNU. His lecture titled ‘Reinstituting the Colonial History of Medieval India’ was delivered on 6 March 2016.

[xxxvi] What the Nation Really Needs to Know, p.195.

[xxxvii] Ibid.

[pankajs]

https://twitter.com/raghavohri0/status/ ... 8909039616

Raghav Ohri @raghavohri0

And former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda charge sheeted by ED in AJL case. Senior Congress leader Moti Lal Vohra also charge sheeted

[chetak]

unbelievable voiceover by an unknown reporter during the state funeral of ex bihar CM jagganath mishra.

BTW, all cartridges simply cannot misfire unless there is a deliberate attempt to make sure that they do not fire and there are very senior politicians in bihar to make very sure that such a thing actually happens and the ceremonials are deliberately sabotaged.


twitter

This is hilarious. Can someone find this reporter please. I have never laughed so much.

https://twitter.com/pankaj_mishra23/sta ... 5781746688

[pankajs]

https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/ ... 7952493569

Bar & Bench @barandbench

CBI Court extends P Chidambaram's CBI custody till August 30.

#INXMediaCase #PChidamabaram

[pankajs]

Huge if this is true. The BIF forces have been hellbent on creating Dalit-Muslim unity to challenge BJP politically.

https://twitter.com/5Forty3/status/1165952162863538177

Dr Praveen Patil @5Forty3

No doubt all sections of Indian society are backing Modi govt on its Kashmir moves, but the loudest & highest support for abrogation of article 370 is surprisingly coming from SC/Dalit subsets!

One more signal that the entire Socialist dream of SC-Muslim alignment has collapsed

[KLNMurthy]

Mayawati too got the memo but some did not .. Yesterdin PG Vadra made some insane comment on Kashmir situation. She should at least have learned from the reception that mangos gave to Adhir Ranjan of her own party. I think the party has been captured by the BIF and NGO types such that it is making their own MLAs and MPs uncomfortable. Theek hai.

https://twitter.com/EconomicTimes/statu ... 4542937088

EconomicTimes @EconomicTimes

#Mayawati slams #Opposition leaders for scheduling visit to J&K without permission | Download the ET App here: http://bit.ly/ETMainApp

Added Later: Here I am not talking about the memo from Mudi but the memo from the beepul of Bharat.

Mayawati is many things including corrupt but at her core she carries the collective memory of people subjected to systemic inequality for centuries.

The core of the "rebels" in JnK is their commitment to inequality--ashraf peacefuls are more equal, and to even question this is to oppress them.

Ambedkar understood this aspect of ashraf sipremacism, and I think maybe Behenji also does. So, her support of the changes in JnK is not just tactical or bending to the popular winds, it may also be ideological.

[KLNMurthy]

@KaranM

I hope we also start working on deterrence, whilst smiling at everyone and shaking hands. That will really cement our relationship, not just trade, we have muslims etc. Everyone will want us within the tent, p*ssing outside as versus outside the tent...

This is a virtual restatement of what I wrote in giving my understanding of Akbar's statement, which is the PR aspect of foreign policy.

Of course we need to discuss in a hard-nosed way here. But we should maintain some clarity. What we were discussing was Akbar's speech about the policy, not the policy itself, or the actual capabilities that underlie the policy.

You have repeatedly used the expression "waltzing in" in connection with India's Israel-Palestine policy. Clearly you believe the policy is thoughtless and trivial. I question whether you should be so dismissive of a bipartisan, consensus policy of "friends with both" which is, what, around 20 years old, which, for the most part, either served us well (weapons trade) or at least didn't cause any significant disasters like Israeli commando raids on Delhi or, even widespread angst among Indian Muslims.

I share the general belief that that we are woefully underprepared, and under-capable if it comes to a showdown in the shadow wars of spookdom or open warfare. For the spookdom part, I have no real data, and it's a safe bet that neither do you. But let's stipulate that, for today, we won't beat the US in open war, or Israel in a covert war.

The exact crux of Akbar's speech was that, under Nehru, the capability- and force-development element was given no shrift at all, whereas Modi knows that we have a way to go and is committed to making the journey. Akbar is acting as influencer and salesman here, nothing more. And a salesman putting his product's best foot forward with maximum clarity and eloquence is a completely different animal than complacency or self-congratulation that you are seeing. That too, when the exact sales pitch is that, unlike under Nehru, we are no longer complacent or self-congratulatory.

You said I don't get it all. It will help me then, to see what your speech would have looked like in place of Akbar's. How about it? What would be the points you would be making to that same audience?

[ArjunPandit]

JNU land should either be given to IIT D enterpreneurship incubation centre or to some hospital as they speak for ram mandir. they can be conveniently shifted to ghazipur or by-pass dumpyards or at best in dantewada for better placements

[chetak]

what India and Modi achieved at the G7 in paris

Narendra Modi at G7 Summit In France: An Opportunity For India To Lead

Narendra Modi at G7 Summit In France: An Opportunity For India To Lead


Chitra Subramaniam |
Mumbai |
August 23, 2019

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is attending the G7 summit this weekend in Biarritz, France as a ‘Biarritz Partner’. Representing 1.3 billion Indians and the world’s 6th largest economy, he will be about India’s development agenda and aspirations.

The tone and pace of his visit were set minutes after Modi landed in France Thursday night. India and France jointly called out global terrorism. French President Emmanuel Macron and Modi asked countries to work together to root out terrorist safe havens and infrastructure “disrupting terrorist networks and their financing channels, and halting cross border movement of terrorists belonging to Al Qaeda, Daesh/ISIS, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahedeen, Lashkar-e-Tayabba and their affiliates as well as terrorist groups threatening peace and security in South Asia and the Sahel region.”

New Delhi and Paris said, “terrorism cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever and it should not be associated with any religion, creed, nationality and ethnicity.” Both countries will work closely on climate change, cybersecurity and defence procurement among other issues. Read here.

A few hours later on Friday morning the Asia Pacific Group (APG) of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), set up by the G8 in 1989, blacklisted Pakistan for failing to comply with its parameters on money laundering and terrorism financing, the two main tenets of the organisation. In June 2018, the FATF had placed Pakistan on a grey list for slipping on its commitments. With today’s announcement, Pakistan is between the devil and the deep sea, its India-blaming bluff now exposed to the whole world.

I am not a fan of G7 and G20 gatherings that have long run out of steam. The weekend meeting in France is however different, probably the first complete recognition by world leaders that they need India firmly on their side. This is not flowing from any wisdom. It comes from a sense of survival against China (mainly trade) and to a lesser extent, against Russia (history). Facing crises ranging from unemployment to immigration as well as terrorism in their cities and villages, the European Union (EU) is in a state of turmoil. It is often said that convergence of political and historical time lead people, movements and governments to an inflection point. Is this India’s moment? Is India finally running with the ball that says the only interest in foreign policy is self -interest?

India is the world’s 6th largest economy, a market none can ignore. A peaceful nuclear weapons state, it is wedged between two hostile nuclear powers China and Pakistan. Democracy is New Delhi’s biggest ally and its processes are recognisable and transparent. The warmongering givers of lessons and condescending talkers of peace that include members of G7 know this. As noted defence analyst and strategic thinker Brahma Chellany tweeted recently, “…India is the first developing country that, from the beginning, has strived to prosper through a democratic system.”

The world is changing. Old alliances are falling but new ones are yet to emerge. Good diplomacy moves in peaks and troughs and present times are waves. The meeting between Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin this week is also a major gesture signalling that obduracy and diplomacy is an eye-to-eye match when it comes to economic interests. The first one to blink loses. Russia is part of Europe and does flourishing business with countries, but currently not part of it for the G7 high table. It was thrown out after it annexed Crimea. Macron said Russia could if the Ukraine issue is sorted out. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have said no to the idea and Trump has tweeted that getting Russia back on board is not a bad idea. The EU fears geopolitical alliances between the two major military powers in Russia and China.

Let us look at what’s happening within the G7. Brexit is driving Johnson and Macron to a war of words on a daily basis. Merkel’s words have lost their power and Italy where the government collapsed this week has broken ranks with the G7 and walked into the Chinese embrace in Europe. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is nice and kind, but plays a secondary role when it comes to geopolitical negotiations. That leaves Trump who will tweet his way in and out of the summit grandstanding about Iceland and Kashmir one minute and garlic the next which the travelling US press corps will zealously report.

Seen in this frame, there’s a sail in India’s winds as it navigates the high seas. The world saw some sterling diplomacy last week when Syed Akbaruddin, India’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in New York gently told reporters about Pakistan’s failed attempts to hoodwink the world on Kashmir. That was just a glimpse – a lot of diplomacy is underground, a process which some garrulous and talkative media don’t comprehend. When I tell people west of Tokyo and east of Turkey, we have always been a continuously unbroken democratic country, now 1.3 billion strong, I get blank looks.

The middle-east card has also been done and dusted. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has given its highest award to Modi (the Saudis did so earlier) signalling that religion and national interests can no longer be weighed in the same balance. Three out of ten of India’s largest trading partners are in the Gulf and some two-thirds of our oil and energy imports come from these countries not to mention half of our remittances. India is not a dangerous neighbour or for that matter a dangerous country. That penny has dropped internationally.

Pragmatism is second nature for survival. Common interests are bringing countries together. India is entering conversations at a crucial moment in geopolitical timing. “The idea of India-first has trickled down and become a national conversation…Modi is as much a product of the time as he is the character-defining it,” writes Gautam Chikermane, Vice President Observer Research Foundation. In a lucid essay, he argues that from indolence the country has gone to an assertive role and tone. Read here.

Make no mistake. The tremors of an India emerging within are felt around the world. Policy and media experts used to old ways will have to keep pace to remain relevant. Speed and diplomacy have an intriguing relationship – you feel the wind in your face only when it hits you, not when people have been paddling underwater to achieve cruising altitude and speed.

Post this G7, there won’t be any difference between terrorism in India and elsewhere in the world. Hundreds of hours of work must have been devoted to getting the joint declaration with France sorted out. The FATF listing completes the picture. Well done, India. We keep the faith

[chetak]

MASSIVE: PM Modi Gets NSG Membership Support Assurance From UNSG

"There was a brief meeting between PM Modi and UN Secretary-General. Mr António Guterres was enthusiastic about PM Modi's initiatives on climate change. PM Modi spoke about his initiatives for single-use plastic. One of the ideas PM Modi spoke of with regards to climate change was whether or note the world could come together to create a pool of trained volunteers which would have the countries to recover after a disaster. The Secretary-General also expressed concern over India's thermal power plants in the context of climate change and in response PM Modi explained to him that India is moving towards renewable forms of energy, cleaner forms of energy. In this regard. PM referred to nuclear power and said that this is an investment intensive energy that therefore membership of the Nuclear Supplier's Group is crucial to building investors' confidence and the UNSG said that he understood India's position in this regard and that he was willing to help out in this matter," Vijay Gokhale said addressing the media at the G7 Summit".

What is the Nuclear Suppliers Group?

The NSG is a group of nuclear supplier countries seeking to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. The NSG was founded in May 1974 and first met in November 1975. Currently, there are 48 members in this group. Out of the 48 countries, 44 are supporting India's entry in the NSG, including USA, UK, Russia, France and Japan. During a state visit to India in November 2010, former US President Barack Obama has assured US' support for India's membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

[KLNMurthy]

Huge if this is true. The BIF forces have been hellbent on creating Dalit-Muslim unity to challenge BJP politically.

https://twitter.com/5Forty3/status/1165952162863538177

Dr Praveen Patil @5Forty3

No doubt all sections of Indian society are backing Modi govt on its Kashmir moves, but the loudest & highest support for abrogation of article 370 is surprisingly coming from SC/Dalit subsets!

One more signal that the entire Socialist dream of SC-Muslim alignment has collapsed

It would be a perfectly logical thing to happen since Dalits are vested in remedying inequality and perpetuating existing inequality such as 370/35a would be against their interests.

Mudi sarkar's innovation is to bridge the Indian gap between rationality/logic and reality. We have come to accept the gap as normal thanks to congress.

[ramana]

Once BREXIT happens then Irish Re-Unification will be on the table as they need economic integration with EU via open border with Irish Republic.
BTW Northern Ireland was partitioned in 1921 as part of declaring Irish Republic

The English practiced every trick of colonialism on the Irish first.

Scotland exit will be longer process as the Scot leave vote was not too high.
And they voted to continue the Union.

[disha]

Once BREXIT happens then Irish Re-Unification will be on the table as they need economic integration with EU via open border with Irish Republic.
BTW Northern Ireland was partitioned in 1921 as part of declaring Irish Republic

The English practiced every trick of colonialism on the Irish first.

Scotland exit will be longer process as the Scot leave vote was not too high.
And they voted to continue the Union.

Getting Irish out and as an independent nation will be a major major major step. Scotland & England can continue for a while together, but after a brief sojourn they will want to chart their own destiny and separate.

It will be back to the case where England was at times ruled from France.

[A_Gupta]

Has Rajiv Malhotra's Muslims & the Indian Grand Narrative been discussed on BRF?

[Primus]

what India and Modi achieved at the G7 in paris

Make no mistake. The tremors of an India emerging within are felt around the world. ....................

Post this G7, there won’t be any difference between terrorism in India and elsewhere in the world. Hundreds of hours of work must have been devoted to getting the joint declaration with France sorted out. The FATF listing completes the picture. Well done, India. We keep the faith

There is no doubt about it. The world is now in the post-370 mode and just like 9/11, it has changed things beyond belief - the genie cannot be put back in the bottle ever again. Jihad is not acceptable any more and smart people around the world are realizing this already, except of course the Dim and his gang.

[ArjunPandit]

Is g7 a white boys club, China India not there.. But Italy and Canada

[pankajs]

https://twitter.com/raghavohri0/status/ ... 3475439617

Raghav Ohri @raghavohri0

Bank fraud: Trouble mounts for Ratul Puri- nephew of MP CM Kamal Nath. ED tells Court that Puri & his "associates" generated proceeds of crime for over Rs 2,000 crores !

All assets set to be attached. 25 individuals summoned for questioning

https://bit.ly/2ZrOynE

[pankajs]

https://m.economictimes.com/news/politi ... 851361.cms
Karti Chidambaram owner of shell company accused of getting kickbacks: Firm directors

The company, Advantage Strategic Consultancy Private Ltd. (ASCPL), is also under the scanner for allegedly paying certain expenses and travel bills of Karti Chidambaram’s father, P Chidambaram, a charge that he has denied. ET exclusively accessed the statements of ASCPL directors Ravi Visvanathan and Padma Bhaskararaman, who told the ED they held “namesake” positions and their role was limited to signing invoices and documents on the instructions of Karti Chidambaram and S Bhaskararaman, his chartered accountant and co-accused in the INX Media case.

[pankajs]

https://twitter.com/AanchalB_ET/status/ ... 4511988741

Aanchal Bansal @AanchalB_ET

After #TripleTalaqBill muslim-women’s rights body wants Modi government to bring in a muslim family law on the lines of Hindu Marriage act; ensure effective implementation of triple talaq law. Reporting

[chetak]

Preparing military action for the last 20 days, Pakistan quietly gathers supplies in PoK and near LoC: Reports

Preparing military action for the last 20 days, Pakistan quietly gathers supplies in PoK and near LoC: Reports

According to reports, another high-level source from the Pakistan Army has said that 6 brigades of the Pakistan army have been deployed in every area of the LoC.

OPINDIA STAFF
AUGUST 26, 2019


Pakistan has been strategizing a military response to India’s decision to revoke Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. Since the last 20 days Pakistan Army has been collecting heavy artillery and ammunition on LOC, reports Dainik Bhaskar.

A commanding officer of Pakistan military who is posted in the PoK Dana sector said that the current situation is no less than preparing for war. The way ammunition and equipment are being collected close to the LoC is not common. From the given situation, it seems that war can break out at any time.

According to reports, another high-level source from the Pakistan Army has said that 6 brigades of the Pakistan army have been deployed in every area of the LoC. The main focus of the Pakistan army is the Dana and Bagh sectors, as these areas are very important logistically and strategically, claimed the source.

Moreover, according to a News 18 reports that along with these brigades, heavy artillery is also being moved to these areas. The maximum heavy artillery is being mobilized in the Tiger, Lipa and Chamb sectors.

There are further reports that Pakistan is plotting a big conspiracy against India. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) recently sent some pictures from the satellite which depict that Pakistan has been planning major operations against India. The pictures show that Pakistan’s three major naval ports – Karachi, Oramara and Gwadar – have been completely evacuated. Moreover, the picture captured through satellites also shows three ships anchored on the naval dock of Karachi.


Image courtesy @detresfa_, used with his permission. The image was first used by Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in his The Print article.

Pakistan has been completely rattled since India’s went ahead with its historic move of repealing Article 370. Venting his frustration Imran Khan on Sunday issued a nuclear war threat to India and said that Islamabad will go to any extent on Kashmir. In an address to his country, Imran Khan said that like India, Pakistan too has nuclear weapons and if the Kashmir issues go to war, it will have global ramification.

Reacting to India’s internal matter, terrified, Imran Khan had earlier also said the abolition of Article 370 will lead to terror attacks, which in turn will lead to India-Pakistan war. He had threatened India saying that “incidents like Pulwama are bound to happen again”.

[Sachin]

I have thrown out The Hindu from my home two years back, but do check it online once in a blue moon. See the below head line.
INX Media case: SC extends protection from arrest by ED to Chidambaram till Aug. 27
The head line gives an impression that Chidu has won his legal battle and ED (under yeevil Mudi) has lost it. Only as a single liner in the report does The Hindu say that Chidambaram is actually sitting inside the lock up at CBI office, and he would remain there till August 30th. And thinking about how this partisan rag is called the National News paper of India; I just cannot believe it.

Huge if this is true. The BIF forces have been hellbent on creating Dalit-Muslim unity to challenge BJP politically.

From what I have observed in the limited sample of people I see around. More than the Hindus, what I see it is the Muslims (or Muslim groups) who are putting in a lot of efforts to popularise a theory that Dalits are actually not Hindus, and that Dalits & Muslims are one bloc. I also don't see the X'ian groups adopting the same strategy. So when the new theory of "Specturm of United Hindu votes" comes up, the Muslim groups try to down play by saying Dalits are closely connected with Muslims.

BTW, all cartridges simply cannot misfire unless there is a deliberate attempt to make sure that they do not fire

Looks like the Armourer ASI of Bihar Police actually handed the "D.P" (Drill practise) rifles for the firing squad .

[Karthik S]

Guys, TN BJP really need to take care of Maridhas. He is taking on big powers.

[Karan M]

This is a virtual restatement of what I wrote in giving my understanding of Akbar's statement, which is the PR aspect of foreign policy.

Of course we need to discuss in a hard-nosed way here. But we should maintain some clarity. What we were discussing was Akbar's speech about the policy, not the policy itself, or the actual capabilities that underlie the policy.

That doesn't come across in your post at all. What you repeatedly imply is that India is doing great in terms of navigating difficult shores by maintaining equitable friendships etc etc. Where exactly have you mentioned that India is actually pursuing a hard nosed policy and is merely messaging it as mentioned by Akbar.

Remember what the OP said "please to discuss India's FP as articulated by Akbar". Nowhere did he say, limit yourself to the messaging vis a vis the audience, or what the keynote address could address or not in a PC or non PC manner.

It is you who has taken some kind of umbrage at my pointing out that this "address" as suitable as it may have been for messaging, misses - either deliberately or by choice - the kind of points we should also keep in mind while engaging in FP initiatives in conflict zones with states who tend to be bloody with each other and also meddle in our affairs.

You have repeatedly used the expression "waltzing in" in connection with India's Israel-Palestine policy. Clearly you believe the policy is thoughtless and trivial. I question whether you should be so dismissive of a bipartisan, consensus policy of "friends with both" which is, what, around 20 years old, which, for the most part, either served us well (weapons trade) or at least didn't cause any significant disasters like Israeli commando raids on Delhi or, even widespread angst among Indian Muslims.

I am afraid you are tilting at windmills here. There is no bipartisan consensus policy of "friends with both regimes" because the UPA was riven with internal fissures and being taken over by the loony left and Islamist elements. Most Indian analysts choose to gloss over the UPA's behavior because they are too afraid of taking a political stand.

Arms sales apart, there was a clear risk of the policy with Israel being broken or being put under significant strain under the UPA. Even Modi term 1 saw sabotage with folks voting against Israel, despite GOI wishing to steer neutral and a significant bureaucrat being chaperoned out of service and coming on NDTV to protest.

The issue is not of "significant disasters" but the fact that Iran has undertaken hostile acts against India, and we have not publicly responded and we continue to have very few levers in the ME beyond trade/diplomatic missions. Its not merely Iran. Has a single serving official for instance made a public comment about Turkeys increasingly hostile actions against India or pointed out what we could do?
About Israel itself, there are many grey areas in how they navigated arms sales in India and what we got in return.

The point is to have a natsec policy, beyond what Modi says or Modi doesn't say, we need to have some capability to deter and actually take a significant stance. And yes, there is widespread radicalization in Indian muslims based around Israel. Modi (to his credit) is keeping India's interests first & foremost, but there is a problem we need to be aware of, from a radical south Indian muslim politico's visits to Hamas and Hezbollah, to the widespread Leftist support for the pro-Pal quasi terror agenda in Indian academia. Again, this effort continues unhindered. What the GOI's plan for all this is, I don't know because so far they have shown no inclination to take it on. In fact, the attack on Indian interests within and outside India continues unhindered, and the recent action on J&K, the anti-corruption measures against the financier ecosystem have been long overdue.

I share the general belief that that we are woefully underprepared, and under-capable if it comes to a showdown in the shadow wars of spookdom or open warfare. For the spookdom part, I have no real data, and it's a safe bet that neither do you. But let's stipulate that, for today, we won't beat the US in open war, or Israel in a covert war.

Why are you bringing in the US in? I didn't even mention them. They are not the issue. The states around India's periphery are and how India is prepared (or not) to handle them. Again, kindly go back and see how the states in the ME navigate their relationships. They often tend to do what is in their interest first & foremost, and seeing their capability (or nuisance value) or lobbying/wealth, the US intercedes. We are yet to play that game well (reason why a piddling has been like TSP continues to be a nuisance factor) but are proceeding on that path, many things for us to pick up from other states & how they work as well. Our diffidence has merely encouraged our opponents.

The exact crux of Akbar's speech was that, under Nehru, the capability- and force-development element was given no shrift at all, whereas Modi knows that we have a way to go and is committed to making the journey. Akbar is acting as influencer and salesman here, nothing more. And a salesman putting his product's best foot forward with maximum clarity and eloquence is a completely different animal than complacency or self-congratulation that you are seeing. That too, when the exact sales pitch is that, unlike under Nehru, we are no longer complacent or self-congratulatory.

You said I don't get it all. It will help me then, to see what your speech would have looked like in place of Akbar's. How about it?
What would be the points you would be making to that same audience?

I am not going to do this, because as you admit the speech is around optics - which is ok, but not what I am interested in. I was merely pointing out what such an address misses. Whether by intent or inadvertently. You are also inserting your own insistence that I rewrite a speech for a keynote address here wherein the OP merely mentioned discuss the FP aspect - i.e. take a look at what the speech says (and doesn't) say.

Like I said, I am pointing out the need to do a singular analysis of where we are OK and where we lag. The current reliance on funds from the ME brings both opportunities and challenges. But the bigger question is where are we in terms of (say) being a state with dissuasive capabilities.

I would have preferred if Akbar with all his vast set of contacts had focused on that or if there is a paper which covers that, as versus a panegyric like this address which continues to paint only half the picture, but then different folks, different strokes.

[Karthik S]

Has a single serving official for instance made a public comment about Turkeys increasingly hostile actions against India or pointed out what we could do?

Indeed we have made a public comment, by ordering support vessels from Turkey.

[pankajs]

This is a strange one ... Watch the embedded video and try guessing the nationality of the reported who asked the last question. You guess is as good as mine.

https://twitter.com/airassault71/status ... 8279929856

Wolfpack @airassault71

Who is the female journalist who asked Trump whether he will allow Modi to have nuclear weapons!!

[Karan M]

Has a single serving official for instance made a public comment about Turkeys increasingly hostile actions against India or pointed out what we could do?

Indeed we have made a public comment, by ordering support vessels from Turkey.

There you put a finger on it. Whether it be SAAB or Turkey - firms to countries feel it is perfectly within their capabilities to cock a snook at Indian interests, without us taking any sort of stand. Take a look at current 5G and Ericcson - have we linked that in any way to Swedens huge support to SAAB? All this panchsheel, Modis policies stuff is great. But what of the details.. where are we in establishing a process that doesn't depend on one man, one leader or the PMOs intervention.

[Karan M]

This is a strange one ... Watch the embedded video and try guessing the nationality of the reported who asked the last question. You guess is as good as mine.

https://twitter.com/airassault71/status ... 8279929856

Wolfpack @airassault71

Who is the female journalist who asked Trump whether he will allow Modi to have nuclear weapons!!

NRP for sure. Non resident Paxstani.

[EswarPrakash]

This is a strange one ... Watch the embedded video and try guessing the nationality of the reported who asked the last question. You guess is as good as mine.

https://twitter.com/airassault71/status ... 8279929856

Wolfpack @airassault71

Who is the female journalist who asked Trump whether he will allow Modi to have nuclear weapons!!

Interesting choice of words "allowed to have". If it is indeed an NRP, does it mean Pakis are actually "nook-nude" (© n³) and they are desperate to do equal-equal in their own tactically brilliant way?

[ArjunPandit]

There you put a finger on it. Whether it be SAAB or Turkey - firms to countries feel it is perfectly within their capabilities to cock a snook at Indian interests, without us taking any sort of stand. Take a look at current 5G and Ericcson - have we linked that in any way to Swedens huge support to SAAB? All this panchsheel, Modis policies stuff is great. But what of the details.. where are we in establishing a process that doesn't depend on one man, one leader or the PMOs intervention.

karan sir, if not anything else, there are so many fronts that few people can't be expected to take up all the fronts...we as a forum can do our bit by asking these questions ..

[chetak]

Indeed we have made a public comment, by ordering support vessels from Turkey.

There you put a finger on it. Whether it be SAAB or Turkey - firms to countries feel it is perfectly within their capabilities to cock a snook at Indian interests, without us taking any sort of stand. Take a look at current 5G and Ericcson - have we linked that in any way to Swedens huge support to SAAB? All this panchsheel, Modis policies stuff is great. But what of the details.. where are we in establishing a process that doesn't depend on one man, one leader or the PMOs intervention.

no need for us to react to every ant pissing on an elephant's back.

if such were the case, the amerikis would never do business anywhere in the world

[Karan M]

There you put a finger on it. Whether it be SAAB or Turkey - firms to countries feel it is perfectly within their capabilities to cock a snook at Indian interests, without us taking any sort of stand. Take a look at current 5G and Ericcson - have we linked that in any way to Swedens huge support to SAAB? All this panchsheel, Modis policies stuff is great. But what of the details.. where are we in establishing a process that doesn't depend on one man, one leader or the PMOs intervention.

no need for us to react to every ant pissing on an elephant's back.

if such were the case, the amerikis would never do business anywhere in the world

That "ant" pissing on an elephants back, as you call it .. allowed PAF to field a 24 aircraft strike package on Feb 27th and also led to the shootdown of an IAF MiG-21, and that ant's foreign minister recently decided to give gyaan to India on Kashmir.

The American's have CAATSA and ITAR in case you haven't noticed. Irrespective of whom they do business with, they sure as heck make sure those who do business with their opponents don't rest easy OR meet their needs.

[chetak]

This is a strange one ... Watch the embedded video and try guessing the nationality of the reported who asked the last question. You guess is as good as mine.

https://twitter.com/airassault71/status ... 8279929856

Interesting choice of words "allowed to have". If it is indeed an NRP, does it mean Pakis are actually "nook-nude" (© n³) and they are desperate to do equal-equal in their own tactically brilliant way?

she may have meant "allowed to use" in her deluded way of speaking.

[chetak]

no need for us to react to every ant pissing on an elephant's back.

if such were the case, the amerikis would never do business anywhere in the world

That "ant" pissing on an elephants back, as you call it .. allowed PAF to field a 24 aircraft strike package on Feb 27th and also led to the shootdown of an IAF MiG-21, and that ant's foreign minister recently decided to give gyaan to India on Kashmir.

The American's have CAATSA and ITAR in case you haven't noticed. Irrespective of whom they do business with, they sure as heck make sure those who do business with their opponents don't rest easy OR meet their needs.

not to get into a flame war Karaj ji, CAATSA and ITAR have no bearing here but I still see what you wanted to convey.

not everyone can control their feral dogs all the time, no

[ArjunPandit]

Interesting choice of words "allowed to have". If it is indeed an NRP, does it mean Pakis are actually "nook-nude" (© n³) and they are desperate to do equal-equal in their own tactically brilliant way?

well the craziness of the nation is coming out there ...thanks to the SM, even priyanka chopra's jai hind is a call of a nuclear war on pakis who supported her by watching her movies on pirated dvds and streaming sites..and then went on to claim their chics are prettier

[chetak]

the venomous mafia and the obituary for Jaitley ji in the national herald

obviously, some low IQ little moron has not forgotten the number of times that he got his ass kicked in parliament by Jaitley ji

[KLNMurthy]

@KaranM
To be accurate the OP invited a discussion of "MJ Akbar's take on India's foreign policy " and I do distinguish that from the foreign policy as such.

There is no question of taking umbrage, but I do have a concern that, often, we want India to hit back instantly at every hostile word or act, when that is not the nature of the Indian FP establishment at all. Even here on this forum, there is recognition that, before we shoot our mouths off, we should ensure stability, prosperity, and the capability to do great good or harm to others in the world. Your own statements in this discussion could be read as a reminder of that realistic position ("don't yap as if you have some grand policy, when you are in fact weak and helpless against tough and scary adversaries who won't hesitate to drink your blood", is that a fair if melodramatic summation?).

I think we can agree that Indian policy has erred strongly on the side of "speak nicely to the barking dog till you find a good stick or stone." Also that it is annoying when the dog may be a mere yappy Pomeranian which could use a good swift kick to teach it its place (apologies for the infelicitious analogy--I wouldn't dream of hurting dogs of any kind). MJ Akbar's point is that, unlike under Nehru, we are now actively accumulating sticks and stones.

Assuming Akbar is portraying the foreign policy (I would add "vision" to it as the descriptor of the speech) more or less accurately, it takes time and effort to work out this kind of balancing act, and a lot of power is a prerequisite for success. Accepting the vision, then, it seems to me that all the incidents with Iran, Turkey and the constant pinpricks from China, etc. all fall under "working out the details."

As to bipartisanship, yes UPA was obviously a mess, but it still did maintain constructive relationship with Israel. And it is a matter of speculation whether the ghazwa guys of south India would have stayed away from hezbollah or isis because they were pleased with India boycotting Israel. So, I don't think their activities could be counted as a negative fallout among Indian Muslims arising from India being friends with Israel.

[chetak]

@KaranM
To be accurate the OP invited a discussion of "MJ Akbar's take on India's foreign policy " and I do distinguish that from the foreign policy as such.

There is no question of taking umbrage, but I do have a concern that, often, we want India to hit back instantly at every hostile word or act, when that is not the nature of the Indian FP establishment at all. Even here on this forum, there is recognition that, before we shoot our mouths off, we should ensure stability, prosperity, and the capability to do great good or harm to others in the world. Your own statements in this discussion could be read as a reminder of that realistic position ("don't yap as if you have some grand policy, when you are in fact weak and helpless against tough and scary adversaries who won't hesitate to drink your blood", is that a fair if melodramatic summation?).

I think we can agree that Indian policy has erred strongly on the side of "speak nicely to the barking dog till you find a good stick or stone." Also that it is annoying when the dog may be a mere yappy Pomeranian which could use a good swift kick to teach it its place (apologies for the infelicitious analogy--I wouldn't dream of hurting dogs of any kind). MJ Akbar's point is that, unlike under Nehru, we are now actively accumulating sticks and stones.

Assuming Akbar is portraying the foreign policy (I would add "vision" to it as the descriptor of the speech) more or less accurately, it takes time and effort to work out this kind of balancing act, and a lot of power is a prerequisite for success. Accepting the vision, then, it seems to me that all the incidents with Iran, Turkey and the constant pinpricks from China, etc. all fall under "working out the details."

As to bipartisanship, yes UPA was obviously a mess, but it still did maintain constructive relationship with Israel. And it is a matter of speculation whether the ghazwa guys of south India would have stayed away from hezbollah or isis because they were pleased with India boycotting Israel. So, I don't think their activities could be counted as a negative fallout among Indian Muslims arising from India being friends with Israel.

the ghazwa guys of south India

this is geographically limited to very few places and their masters are not all the same.

It is a bit surprising, however, to note that they are not really averse to showing their hand, limited as it is, and are slowly starting to come out of the shadows.

they all started this game during the congi dispensation and political alignments have emboldened some to continue and some others to retreat back into the shadows.

the UPA did maintain a reluctant relationship with Israel and stabbed them in the back a few times at the UN.

[SRajesh]

Just wanted to check
Nidhi Razdan not seen on NDTV since abrogations
370
Parted company with sikular TV?
Or on holiday all alone now that pyare Jaan is in custody?

[Lisa]

No actually with pyare jaan in custody (like all trouble makers!)