Indian Interests

[Pranav]

I think MKN roots are IB and the take of IB is to protect INC. The cover-up could be to prevent any knowledge of how Dhanu's visit was facilitated by INC themselves. It could have been a INC sacrifice/bali to get re-elected.

Hmmmmm? The common sentiment is INC == Nehru-Gandhi family; and Nehru-Gandhi family == INC. So why would INC sacrifice the only member at that time? His mother and brother - IG and SG were no more. Kids were too little.

So what is INC? The second level leaders, who thrive on a Nehru-Gandhi family member at the helm?

If we assume that the Rajiv elimination was done with collaboration of foreign elements (after all, LTTE was getting backing from EU nations), then it is clear. Western bloc tends to support leaders, use them and dispose them, and the cycle repeats until the nation is completely colonized. Saddam, Gaddafi, Shah of Iran, Noriega are examples, along with the Nehru-Gandhis. Generally a leader who remains in office too long starts becoming independent and yields diminishing returns. Once Sonia entered Nehru-Gandhi household, it was only a matter of time before Sanjay, Indira and Rajeev were eliminated. Granted that Nehru himself was a treasonous fellow.

Nowadays EVMs make things easier to manage. Only person saying anything about EVMs is S. Swamy, who seems to be making a very weak argument. Once his effort fails, the Res Judicata principle will block all legal recourse. Khair, most Indians, even on BRF, have no problem with that so what can one say?

[kmkraoind]

I think MKN roots are IB and the take of IB is to protect INC. The cover-up could be to prevent any knowledge of how Dhanu's visit was facilitated by INC themselves. It could have been a INC sacrifice/bali to get re-elected.

Then time is ripe again for another sacrifice/bali, will it be old-vulture or seasonal visitor pelican.

[SwamyG]

Pranav: I agree with bulk of your sentiments, however I do not have any evidence to say Nehru himself was 'treasonous'. You are making a damning allegation there, while policies and thoughts of leader are eligible for insults and criticisms, alleging that somebody, especially a former PM, acted against the interests of the country should come with enough supporting evidence.

Again, history shows that West will use and dispose leaders, like you describe, to its benefit. Probably the Swamys, Hazares, Kejriwals itiyadi are hand picked too.

[JE Menon]

>>As an aside,tamizh nationalists accuse Narayanan and Shiv Shankar Menon and Nirupama Rao and Congress of being anti-tamil

Which is of course complete bull... I wonder why they only accuse MKN and SSM of being Kerala cabal. Perhaps they don't know it is Nirupama Menon Rao. And what was MGR then? Tamizh "nationalists" is the wrong word in that case... Many Menons and others in the Nair community have strong connections to Tamil Nadu, and can have family members who speak no Malayalam or speak better Tamil... Ignorance.

And regardless of whether they are Keralites or Haryanvis or whatever, these are ultimately bureaucrats and they try to serve the state, often having to deal with the whims (and associated power) of politicians, incidental circumstances, and their own personal career interests. And often that means "adjusting" to the party in power. It is highly unlikely that any one of these three will come out and retire as a multi-millionaire.

[ramana]

And EVK is Telugu!

That is why I say linguistic identity was a short term response to develop a national identity.
Leads to Chavanistic* claims!!!

In the sixites some politicians with bad accnt used to pronounce "chauvinistic" as "chavanistic" and YBChavan made a joke in Lok Sabha that he had nothing to do with that. BJi might have heard about that.

[member_23629]

somebody, especially a former PM, acted against the interests of the country should come with enough supporting evidence.

Does stopping the army dead in its tracks in kashmir in 1948 qualify, or was leaving half of Kashmir in Pakistan's hands in national interest?

I presume refusing the UN security council membership offered to India until China was also offered the same was also in India's interest. What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?

[Sanku]

^^^ Also w.r.t Hyderabad, 62 etc.

Nehru's sense of Indian interests were not that of any Indians, more like Britishers idea of Indian interests.

Wonder what that makes him.

[brihaspati]

And EVK is Telugu!

That is why I say linguistic identity was a short term response to develop a national identity.
Leads to Chavanistic* claims!!!

In the sixites some politicians with bad accnt used to pronounce "chauvinistic" as "chavanistic" and YBChavan made a joke in Lok Sabha that he had nothing to do with that. BJi might have heard about that.

Yes, heard it one night from sunglasses. Happened before my time though. YB was a friend of his.

[brihaspati]

Hmmmmm? The common sentiment is INC == Nehru-Gandhi family; and Nehru-Gandhi family == INC. So why would INC sacrifice the only member at that time? His mother and brother - IG and SG were no more. Kids were too little.

So what is INC? The second level leaders, who thrive on a Nehru-Gandhi family member at the helm?

If we assume that the Rajiv elimination was done with collaboration of foreign elements (after all, LTTE was getting backing from EU nations), then it is clear. Western bloc tends to support leaders, use them and dispose them, and the cycle repeats until the nation is completely colonized. Saddam, Gaddafi, Shah of Iran, Noriega are examples, along with the Nehru-Gandhis. Generally a leader who remains in office too long starts becoming independent and yields diminishing returns. Once Sonia entered Nehru-Gandhi household, it was only a matter of time before Sanjay, Indira and Rajeev were eliminated. Granted that Nehru himself was a treasonous fellow.

Nowadays EVMs make things easier to manage. Only person saying anything about EVMs is S. Swamy, who seems to be making a very weak argument. Once his effort fails, the Res Judicata principle will block all legal recourse. Khair, most Indians, even on BRF, have no problem with that so what can one say?

Why would INC sacrifice the only member at that time? His mother and brother - IG and SG were no more -Kids were too little, etc. We need to look at Rajiv's profile as shown by that time. He appeared to be vulnerable to advice [whether from within or from outside of India], that pushed India to project military power outside of its borders. INC structure survived through a Brit managed transition - with details of transition often managed and carried out by a mixed company of Indian and UK origin admin staff. By standard colonial postmortem data, the Brits would not have agreed to this without placing firm and deep links in the successor setup. This is why the dynastic model was chosen, and make the apparatus of state power dependent on the apparatus of personal power.

This makes the INC non-dynasty rung - a chosen/selected courtier "peerage", some of it even hereditary. They are chosen in ways that do not endanger the essential mechanism of control and manipulation in place from 1945. If they obstruct any desired pullings of strings from a distance - they themselves might vanish. Hard values in public life, and the uncannily British tactic of arranging for compromising situations for potential leaders and keeping the stuff on file - ensures that coterie/courtiers remain firmly under the thumb.

With Rajiv living, the danger remained of Indian military expansion. But more importantly getting Rajiv killed helps to provide a lesson to the "family" as to what will happen to them if they step out of line. Making all public power concentrated in teh hands of dynasties - charismatic individuals - and subjecting them to personal fear and blackmail - simplifies the controlling procedure.

[abhishek_sharma]

Views from the Right

Parivar probity

Unlike the alleged irregularities in the business dealings of Robert Vadra, the alleged wrongdoings in the business enterprises of BJP president Nitin Gadkari get a muted response from the Sangh Parivar journals. While Panchjanya has given no coverage to the controversy, the Organiser has carried a column on its inside pages that seeks to highlight the “sharp contrast” between the BJP president’s offer to face probe and the defence of the “indefensible members of dynasty” (that is, Vadra) and Virbhadra Singh. “BJP stands by probity in public life; is Congress ready for agnipariksha?” asks the front page pointer to the column. The column seeks to present the defence extended by Gadkari and the party on the “trial by media” and asserts that “wild allegations san evidence should not be taken seriously” and suggests that an inquiry was the only way to “deal with the mud-slinging”.

Both Sangh Parivar weeklies, however, prominently carry the Dussehra speech of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, highlighting his message to not tolerate corruption at any level.

Price of vote

THE editorial in Panchjanya takes a serious view of fresh incidents of communal violence in Samajwadi Party-ruled Uttar Pradesh. Highlighting that the recent incident in Faizabad was the eighth in the seven months so far of Akhilesh Yadav, the editorial claims “anti-Hindu” sentiments were expected given the fact that the SP rode to power on the back of “pro-Muslim politics”.

The editorial laments that there was some hope that the “young” Akhilesh would keep a check on the “Muslim appeasement of Mulayam Singh Yadav” and an expectation that “social harmony” would be given priority. However, the editorial concludes that the Akhilesh government has lost control in the face of “fanatic Muslim forces” seeking to “extract its pound of flesh for their votes” to the SP during the assembly elections.

Weakened argument

Always ready to take a potshot at the prime minister, Organiser has trained its guns on Manmohan Singh for Rahul Gandhi’s meeting with him ahead of the cabinet reshuffle. Suggesting that Gandhi was pitching to accommodate his “buddies” in the cabinet, the editorial claims that the “weak Prime Minister (is) weakened further” because he has “surrendered” his prerogative to choose the council of ministers to “not just Sonia Gandhi... but also to her son”.

Although the editorial appears to have been written before the event of the reshuffle, it concludes that the PM has “once again let down his position and lowered further in the estimate of the people” during the process of consultation ahead of the reshuffle.

Compiled by Ravish Tiwari

[RamaY]

Have India’s poor become human guinea pigs?

Of (sic) untouchable Dalits, for the (sic) Western Drug Companies, by the (sic) secular (sic) dhimmi (sic) Indian NGOs.

In all, 53 people were test subjects in that trial, which was sponsored by British and German drug companies, and eight died. There is no hard evidence that the drug was the cause of death, but nor were there any autopsies to enable a full investigation.

Over the past seven years, some 73 clinical trials on 3,300 patients - 1,833 of whom were children - have taken place at Indore's Maharaja Yeshwantrao Hospital. Dozens of patients have died during the trials, however no compensation has been paid to the families left behind.

Dr Bharani has since been charged by the state government for receiving illegal payments and foreign trips from drug companies, and for carrying out drugs trials without patients' consent.

"They choose only poor people," he says, even though drug trial protocols demand that they should be carried out on all sections of society. "They chose poor, illiterate people who do not understand the meaning of clinical drug trials."

[member_23629]

Why would INC sacrifice the only member at that time? His mother and brother - IG and SG were no more -Kids were too little, etc.

He was bumped off to clear the path of SG to power.

[ramana]

Bji,
Some thing to ponder. In one of his interviews to the BBC, just before the polls RG had said he would re-eaxamine the nuke weaponization question. Recall by then TSP had threatened to nuke India in 1990 Kashmir crisis and the general public thought India did not have any weapons. The story after the 998 tests was that RG had authorised the weaponization just before he got thrown out due to Bofors scandal.

VP Singh was the first to figure out how to rid the dynasty under corruption charges. But he didnt know how to govern.

PVNR kept the INC stable till he got dfeated in the 1996 elections which brought the NDA and UF third front to power.

The killing of RG delayed the nuke decsion to 1998.

[shyamd]

^^ Wasn't there a failed attempt to test towards the end of PVNR rule per Raj Chengappa book? Washington found out and pressured them to stop, no? Which is why they were meticulous in 98 about Satellites and all the camouflage and night time stuff..

[ramana]

They did find out but the decision to not go through might be their own interests. Recall S1 wasnt ready yet per WOP saga.

[brihaspati]

err, Ramana ji, why do you think Madam Chitra at all could get a sneak peek near the Alpine Lake? There were four casualties of attempting weaponization - on the subcontinent, and two outside. IG, Bhutto, Zia, RG. Release of information - is a tactical weapon - used by the common Brit-intel interface to Euroland, USA, Rus, India, and China. That Lake settlement is a hotbed of Russian, British, US intel.

[ramana]

Did you add Shastri and Bhabha for even thinking of it.

Come to think of it the fifties were agog with India a threshold nuke power and matter of only when and not if (ref numeorus books and articles in Intl Affairs journals).
And then boom came 1962 and ended that talk for while.

[member_19686]

Plan for religion-based headcount in all companies

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI
New Delhi, Oct. 31: The government is proposing to make it mandatory for all companies, in the private as well as public sector, to do a religion-based headcount of their workforce in an effort to check discrimination.

The minority affairs ministry is planning to bring a law that will require companies to reveal employee details, including religion and caste, under the proposed Equal Opportunity Commission.

“This will ensure equal opportunity for all and the government will also get a database about the religious diversity among the workforce. It will help us to tackle cases of discrimination against people from minority communities,” a senior official of the ministry told The Telegraph.

But sections of ministry officials fear that the move could run into controversy like in 2006, when the UPA government had ordered a survey in all government institutions, including the army, to ascertain the socio-economic conditions of Muslims.

The issue had caused an uproar in Parliament with the Opposition alleging that the government was trying to divide the army along communal lines.

“This is a sensitive issue and we need to proceed with caution. We have also spoken to a few corporate houses and they don’t have any problems with it. They seem to be more concerned about the controversies it may attract. We have convinced them that it is a very positive thing in the interest of minorities and is aimed at ending discrimination,” the official said.

Setting up the Equal Opportunity Commission tops the agenda of K. Rahman Khan, who has succeeded Salman Khurshid as minority affairs minister.

“The proposed commission will help us prevent discrimination along religious lines and examine diversity in institutions and ensure that all communities get equal opportunities,” Khan said.

In 2008, an expert group set up by the ministry had recommended such a commission to tackle discrimination through a system of incentives and disincentives.

But it could not be set up following disagreements over its powers because several existing commissions feared that they would become redundant.

For example, the National Commission for Minorities, which investigates cases of discrimination and violation of rights, felt it would rendered meaningless.

“Setting up of the proposed commission was first suggested by the government-appointed Sachar committee, which highlighted the poor socio-economic condition of minorities in the country and also the extreme backwardness and under-representation of Muslims in governance,” said another official of the ministry.

The commission is aimed at promoting diversity in education and employment by exercising the powers of a civil court and at curbing discrimination based on sex, religion, caste, race, birthplace and language.

“We will soon hold talks with officials from state governments on the setting up of the proposed EOC. We have to take everybody on board,” Khan said.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121101/j ... JL5dm8mcZA

[ramana]

Again unnamed senior officials!
This is another precursor to 2014 elections.

[RamaY]

Is it secular to have a minority affairs ministry? Does it mean all other ministries are majority affairs only? Why do we see only Muslims as minority affairs minister and not some Buddhist or Jain or Sikh or Brahmakumari or Jew or ....?

[brihaspati]

Is it secular to have a minority affairs ministry? Does it mean all other ministries are majority affairs only? Why do we see only Muslims as minority affairs minister and not some Buddhist or Jain or Sikh or Brahmakumari or Jew or ....?

In fact, if the logic behind having a Muslim onlee as the minority affairs minister, because a non-muslim will not do justice to a Muslim minority, why is that logic not extendable to the Sikhs or buddhists or Jews? How can justice be ensured to the Sikhs without having a Sikh as a minority affairs minister? [This is a bit murky - as JLN clubbed all non-Muslim or non-Christians into the Hindu code bill].

BUt should not that same logic lead to a Christian as minority affairs minister to guarantee justice to Christians? By onlee appointing Muslims, are we not saying that only Muslims can be trusted to do justice to all - no other community can be trusted. If that is not the case, then the only alternative left is that - Muslims dont trust anyone else to do justice to them, and they want to ensure that only their own dominates all resources for minorities.

[RamaY]

India is still carrying the burden of 1947 to prove that Muslims can live with Hindus albeit with their own personal law, wakf, and minority affairs ministry, Haj subsidies and so on.

What the idiots of Indian policy do not understand is that no matter what they do
1. They cannot undo Pakistan with their secular nonsense, because secularism is not compatible with islam
2. No matter what they do internally will make Muslims safe, because unless they are majority and are ruling a nation per sharia, a Muslim minority do not feel safe (from non-Muslims)

And we have the liberal dhimmi Hindus who think this is all strategy and get their daily orgasms from their own Aman-Ki-ashas.

[abhishek_sharma]

Broken BRICs: Why the Rest Stopped Rising

[svenkat]

Menonji,
Sri Raghottaman is making a serious charge against Sri Narayanan of suppressing evidence even from him.He imputes that Shri Narayanan was seen with Dhanu.Thats a serious accusation and he says dhanu might have been speaking with other Congress leaders.

ramanaji intervened to say that Shri Narayananan is a Congress=Gandhi family loyalist.(SwamyGji also made a thoughtful intervention saying if Cong wanted Rajiv to be killed then Congress=Gandhi family which is the grain of our forum is false)

But Sonia did destroy LTTE in 2009 and MKN was a key player in 2009.

In that context,I said Narayanan was seen as an anti-tamil by tamizh nationalists.From our view,Sri Narayanan placed the interests of India paramount.He parlayed with Karunanidhi to effectively silence any problems from TN given Prabhakaran is a hero in tamizh nationalist circles which are influential in mass media,cinema etc and Karunanidhi could have created problems given the mad streak in him.Tamizh nationalists see malayalis as turncoat dravidian('pakis')who sabatoged tamizh aspirations in Eezham.Narayananan is an IAS officer from TN cadre and very much aware of the many strands in tamizh society.I was not making a value judgment,just presenting the perceptions in vogue(BTW,MGR is also severrely criticised in this view).

Why did Narayanan suppress evidence then,if at all he did so in 1991,when he was a key player in 2009 for decimation of LTTE?

Why should he be loyal to Sonia but 'try to kill Rajiv',as has been insinuated(by ramanaji) at the behest of the Congress?Anyway,this rumour has been floating for long in TN that TN Congress was very much in the loop at the highest level.

MKN is a practicing Hindu.He goes to Sabarimala(i in tamizh) every year which brings hindus(mostly 'proletarian') from all over south india.

Sri GK Vaasan,PChidambaram,Jayanti Natarajan have never supported LTTE in their political careers.

The whole plot is intriguing to say the least.

My intervention was not to cast aspersions on MKN but to show he has taken a lot of muck/calumny.

When ramanaji says something its not without import.Infact,I belive ramanaji is holding something back in his wisdom.

[JE Menon]

Boss, I was pointing out that the so-called Tamil "nationalist" view does not hold water as far as MKN, SSM is concerned. I was not alleging that you were taking a position.

What is evident is that MKN, SSM and others in the past have all done what they do best - i.e. pursue the state interest as best they can, given the other issues of political leadership, etc... which I mentioned in my previous post. This will certainly leave many of their actions, sometimes undoubtedly taken in circumstances where the national interest value can be questioned, open to multiple interpretations. It is in this part of the spectrum that "nationalists" and various others stir the pot by stirring up doubts, etc... and often they too do it at the behest of their financiers, protectors, etc... (who these are I leave to your judgement).

Do not assume for a second that the entire Indian federal set up is susceptible to outside influence but our little nationalist heroes in TN are not. If that is the assumption, they should kindly let us have a rationale for that.

MKN has been in this business for donkey's years. I'm sure that he himself smiles at the irony sometimes, when he has to crush a group which he or his kind once kicked into touch. BOTH in the national interest. Nothing is static.

[D Roy]

JEM, how dare you!

You have a malayalee brain!

[svenkat]

Do not assume for a second that the entire Indian federal set up is susceptible to outside influence but our little nationalist heroes in TN are not. If that is the assumption

Thats not my assumption at all and everyone in BRF knows who the instigators are- the western christist powers who have played a huge role in social engineering in TN and eezham.But the fact remains that tamizh people have a distinct linguistic identity predating British rule by atleast 2000 years and the British have played a very important role in the way tamizh people look at themselves.This is commonly accepted by everyone including Indian nationalists who hate the British for their distortions and malice.

It is in such a mileu tht MGR operated and MKN as well.And thats my point.

malayalee brain

I find nothing amusing here.

[brihaspati]

Is there a single, detached, national interest - or it varies from person to person, party to party, religion to religion, org to org? We often seem to forget that national interest too is dependent on definition and agitprop of the person or the group concerned. If we stopped just at this and said we are completely neutral in raising doubts about every group concerned - not much of a probem.

Problem is that we tend to think - that just because someone has managed to be in state power for a long long time, his/hers/party's claimed "national interests" are an universally recognized, universally applied "national interest" for the nation.

The Brits were in state power over India, for a long long time. Does it imply that whatever they did was in "national interest" of India? Surely they could rule because the overall balance of power of effective support and opposition worked out in their favour. If we say that just because a regime is long lasting implies that the "majority" of a population supports it - then Indian society overhwlemingly supported the long lasting British rule - and hence the society must have been a party to working against its own "national interest" by supporting the Brit regime!

On the other hand just because two completely contradictory moves have been passed off as "national interests" by a functionary of the state, at two different time points for whatever convenient justifications given at those time points - does not necessarily imply that either of those moves had anything to do with any "national interest". It could simply be the functionary's way of carrying out his then master's whims, which in turn could be the result of a complicated set of international as well as national calculations - that has more to do with personal power than any "national interests".

[member_23629]

But the fact remains that tamizh people have a distinct linguistic identity predating British rule by atleast 2000 years and the British have played a very important role in the way tamizh people look at themselves.

How did the Tamizh people use to look at themselves before the British came?

It was an accident of history that the Brits set up their "factory" at Chennai and then started their social engineering on the surrounding society (sowing seeds of separatism by detaching them from the larger Indian identity and sofetning them up for eventual conversion ). If they had set up a factory at Indore or Jhumri Talaiya, the Indore or Jhumri Talaiya people then would have been thanking the Brits for teaching them to look at themselves in a new way ("We are separate from the rest of Indians because we have been wearing our chaddis in a different way for the last 2000 years, as revealed to us by the Goras. We are proud of our chaddis and we carry them on our sleeves").

[ramana]

Is there a single, detached, national interest - or it varies from person to person, party to party, religion to religion, org to org? We often seem to forget that national interest too is dependent on definition and agitprop of the person or the group concerned. If we stopped just at this and said we are completely neutral in raising doubts about every group concerned - not much of a probem.

Problem is that we tend to think - that just because someone has managed to be in state power for a long long time, his/hers/party's claimed "national interests" are an universally recognized, universally applied "national interest" for the nation.

On the other hand just because two completely contradictory moves have been passed off as "national interests" by a functionary of the state, at two different time points for whatever convenient justifications given at those time points - does not necessarily imply that either of those moves had anything to do with any "national interest". It could simply be the functionary's way of carrying out his then master's whims, which in turn could be the result of a complicated set of international as well as national calculations - that has more to do with personal power than any "national interests".

Good question. We had many versions of this thread which would get distracted into the weeds by such arguments.

So I long ago came with this definition:

Any issue that has the potential to affect(positive or negative) India :politically, economically, socially, culturally is a national interest.

Those that have positive outcomes should be promoted and those with negative outcomes should be countered, remedied and eliminated.

Above definition avoids the arguments that get bogged down into slanging matches.

[brihaspati]

^^^Agreed. Just wanted to draw people's attention to the more "nuanced" exploration of the term "national interest". At the end of the day, we are each of us - evaluating "national interest" from a set of conscious or subconscious set of values. Need to be sure that we can distinguish between what is personal or subgroup - and what is "national". Cannot avoid setting up a core set of values against which "national interests" will be evaluated - and I readily accept that different subgroups will have slightly different "core values". Whose core prervails is a matter of ideological and political struggle.

[ramana]

The thread went through many iterrations because of the early focus on describing the core values on which there was no consensus.
And led to many trolling raids here.

Any way question for you in the epics thread.

[RamaY]

Isn't it important to define what the "Nation" is in the "National Interests"?

If Hindustan were to be defined as a Sharia-compliant Islamic nation, our "National Interests" would have been completely different from say if we define it as a Hindu Bharat or a Christian India.

Would it be in Indian interests if India were to join hands with Christan west in rearranging West Asia or India joining hands with Islamic nations in erasing Israel from the map of the earth?

Isn't this confusion that put the current secular-socialist dispensation in the policy paralysis that it is in for the past few decades?

Oops - Saw your post late. Will stop with this.

[JE Menon]

This report takes a crack at what "National Interest" means...

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA525036

Not that it will be of much help to anyone seeking to define their own "national interest" though...

[brihaspati]

He concludes interestingly :

The point is that for thoroughly practical reasons—specifically, the mobilization and maintenance of resources and commitment for projects that require protracted effort—it would be wise to engage the public and Congress in a meaningful dialogue about the national interests that may be involved. Such a dialogue is simply not possible when national interests are so generally defined that they mean all things to all people.

In most of his article however, he lays out the "practicalities" which leads to the Delphic ambiguity. What he does not say :

(1) statesmen might not have any specific "national interest" in mind, they might simply be acting first for their own personal interests, and forced to pay "platitudes" as he puts it - under pressure from the various pressure groups who have their own ideas of "national interests".

(2) statesmen might actually be very dim witted in their concerns or concepts of national interest, and that political power does not necessarily mean a person with the appropriate mental faculties to have a grip on anything near "national interests". Thus the ambiguity could be a direct result of incapacity of the ruler in specific directions.

(3) statesmen might choose deliberately to be ambiguous because they are very much aware of what is in "national interest" but which are things, he or she is personally against. However expressing such antagonsim openly might jeopardize his/her enjoyment of power and hence ambiguity is a cover for safe navigation.

Many of the examples he cites as to apparent ambiguity : such as the Bosnia/Kosovo crisis - in reality is no ambiguity at all. The definition of the Kosovan "liberation army" changed overnight from "terrorist" to "freedom fighters". What was ambivalent for over 11 years, could not have become crystal clear in a single night of presidential enlightenment. It appears ambiguous to the author because he either chooses to ignore, or is unaware of - the reality of Saudi banking support deciding to channel money to the predominantly Muslim led insurgency through its Sudanese financial operations.

Statesmen have their personal and group obligations, and almost every action they take can be predicted and aligned based on reduction of their motivations to a set of hypotheses - that can be deduced from their previous conduct and wider associations.

[RamaY]

^ that brings us to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita model in predicting the behavior of various national leaders.

[svenkat]

...

I used the word distinct linguistic identity.Not a different cultural identity or social system or religion.

Last I knew,the language spoken in Jhumri Talaiya was not accorded the status of classical language by GOI(nor does it have literature like Tholkappiam,thirukural,silapathikaraam,tirumandiram,thiruppavai extending to hoary past)

Tamizh having an ancient tradition does not make Kannada or malayalam or Odiya or the language of jhumri talaiya less important or valuable for the nation nor it does not make the people speaking these languages lesser beings nor does it mean these languages are incapable of expressing the genius of the people speaking these languages.The GOI status for ancient tradition should have been cause for celebration not cocking a snook at 'others' or playing divisive politics.

Unfortunately, DMKs shenanigans bring disrepute to the glory of tamizh traditions which are part of the fabric of Bharathiya culture.Its another thing that DMK has also empowered the tamizh masses by championing the cause of tamizh,albeit the propogandu has many unsavoury aspects.Its also a fact that many tamil activists have scapegoated quite a few wrong entities for the demise of tamizh political power in the 14th century.The British wanted to use this ancient tradition as a faultline and promoted hatred and division.In lanka,given the buddhist majority there and christist infiltration,the foundations of that nation were/are shaky.

The tamizh chauvinists and their white christist masters wanted to use eezham as a springboard for their nefarious designs in India.

We are seriously going OT.But Pranav,Sankuji,ramanaji made some remarks on Congress.I will not put anything beyond indvidual Congress leaders who might go to any extent for their personal ambitions."Ambition,they say is made of 'sterner' stuff'.Politics is about ideas,ambitions,hopes and people.

I am not reflxively anti-Congress unlike many others.In Punjab and TN,Cong had to ward off a very capable and vile power -the Anglo-American barbarians who are incredibly well informed about India and also have brought progress to the human race(including India) and many many Indians have high admiration for many aspects of their society which we seek to emulate.Yet they combine the most benign things in their society with cold-blooded hatred and terror for others who do not toe their line.

We hindus OTOH believe in anaadi karma would be sceptical with simplistic grand narratives and universal panaceas.And acknowledging that people of one state have an ancient literary tradition no way weakens Indian nationalism,rather thats the strength of India to accept diversity and to seek a 'deeper unity' beyond uniformity of language to one based on values and ideals.

[chaanakya]

But the fact remains that tamizh people have a distinct linguistic identity predating British rule by atleast 2000 years and the British have played a very important role in the way tamizh people look at themselves.

How did the Tamizh people use to look at themselves before the British came?

It was an accident of history that the Brits set up their "factory" at Chennai and then started their social engineering on the surrounding society (sowing seeds of separatism by detaching them from the larger Indian identity and sofetning them up for eventual conversion ). If they had set up a factory at Indore or Jhumri Talaiya, the Indore or Jhumri Talaiya people then would have been thanking the Brits for teaching them to look at themselves in a new way ("We are separate from the rest of Indians because we have been wearing our chaddis in a different way for the last 2000 years, as revealed to us by the Goras. We are proud of our chaddis and we carry them on our sleeves").

Are you rewriting British history in India? Factories were set up in many places, first of it was in Surat. Madras , Mumbai and Calcutta came after that.
As for Jhumari Tillaiya , it was a Mica mining center and a Major one at that. Major language is Hindi just as Tamizh was major language in Chennai and Marathi and Bangla in Mumbai and Kolkata respectively. British did not tell us that. Let us not mix up the issues.

[ramana]

svenkat, Raghottaman does not impute what you infer.

[SwamyG]

somebody, especially a former PM, acted against the interests of the country should come with enough supporting evidence.

Does stopping the army dead in its tracks in kashmir in 1948 qualify, or was leaving half of Kashmir in Pakistan's hands in national interest?

I presume refusing the UN security council membership offered to India until China was also offered the same was also in India's interest. What kind of "evidence" are you looking for?

The burden of proof is on the individuals asserting a claim. Those decisions, how much ever unsavory for us, are not treason.