KrishnaK wrote:arshyam wrote: Since you are asking us to broaden our rather narrow horizons and share factoids, here's a source for you:
http://indiafacts.co.in/religious-crusades-cia/. Here the same SD you sort of held above blame is shown to be playing dirty games along with the US intel agencies. So SD and CIA are the rogue guys here then, not the political executive.
This is precisely what one would call a conspiracy theory.
After the creation of the CIA , Christian missionaries played a very important role in destabilizing various countries and in carrying out espionage activities on behalf of the CIA. The most recent high profile example of the US using religious missionaries as Trojan horses to cause disturbances in India was in the case of the agitation against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. This agitation came after a cable to the CIA from the US Consulate in Mumbai (Wikileaks cable 06MUMBAI1803_a) informed the agency that “we feel that the USG must move forward to enable our companies to compete in the next stage of India’s nuclear future. Otherwise we may have to watch bitterly as third countries become the first to benefit commercially from the environment that our diplomacy has created.”
That the CIA might have used christian missionaries could well be true. Where is the connection from that to
The most recent high profile example of the US using religious missionaries as Trojan horses to cause disturbances in India was in the case of the agitation against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant.
Incidentally the wikileaks cable has nothing to do with the Christian missionaries being used as Trojan horses. That article's claim to connection between the CIA using christian missionaries are spies to the agitation against the Kudankulam power plant is the timing of the cable.
Do all the rolling you want, but the Wikileaks cable is clear enough. Coincidentally the protests happened at both Kudankulam (Russian origin) and Jaitapur (French origin). The rest of the article talks about CIA's connections with church orgs, quoting US sources like Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone, and other public records from the US only. As for Wikileaks, the Obama admin gave it a lot of credibility trying to go after Assange/Snowden for leaking the cables, so one cannot dismiss that easily. Finally, all the sources quoted by this article and Wikileaks are too widely dispersed to be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory'. Believe what you want.
And, the connection to Kudankulam:
PMANE to sue PMO over comments linking stir to foreign funding - Hindustan Times
The People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, leading the protest against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, today threatened to sue the Prime Minister's Office for linking the stir to foreign funding.
<snip>
The Prime Minister in an interview to the 'Science' journal had criticised NGOs that received support from abroad for leading protests against the Plant.
Manmohan criticises NGOs for protests in Kudankulam - The Hindu
But controversies had arisen. “There are NGOs, often funded from the United States and the Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces.”
Then, referring to the protests at Kudankulam, he said: “the atomic energy programme has got into difficulties because these NGOs, mostly I think based in the United States, don't appreciate need for our country to increase the energy supply.”
The suing never really happened. And you are free to dismiss the Indian PM's public statement as another conspiracy theory.
KrishnaK wrote:What exactly is your point ? The page claims that there is a lot of social conflict in India and that is is caused by
a myriad of issues including cultural and communal identity, religionization and minoritization, self-determination, and economic empowerment .
and that it detracts from a pluralistic democracy. What's rogue in this ?
You seemed to make a case saying Nixon and Kissinger were rogue in '71, against the Congress and SD. That's a standard template when defending any US action, 'that someone went rogue, the US is not to blame'. I am merely pointing out how this approach can be used by different 'rogue' elements in the US establishment, which curiously, are toeing a single line of furthering US interests and in India's case, putting roadblocks/opposition/interference.
KrishnaK wrote: Again, so? Russia isn't interested in changing boundaries as well, yet see the sanctions against them over the Ukraine issue.
This must take the cake as the stupidest argument i've ever heard. Russia did change the borders w.r.t. Ukraine. You might be supportive of that, but to claim it did not -
Thank you for making my day.
Of course, if you want to assign the US a role in policing boundaries around the world, even when they are not related to the US' immediate security, you would call it what you did, and make your day (whatever that means, only Eastwood would know). This is OT, but let me state one line for the record: Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine, which is a border state for her, and may be involved there. Pray tell me, what interests does the US have here? Last I checked, Ukraine is quite far from the US, and Russia is doing nothing in Canada/Mexico borders.
The reason I brought up Russia/Ukraine in the first place is that it is an example of the US interfering in places far away from itself for one reason or the other. The parallels between the US intervention in Ukraine now and the intervention in Pakistan in '71 are striking - no legitimate threat to itself, yet send arms shipments and threaten to attack India, etc. US policy hasn't changed a whit, in spite of whatever spin you may want to give.
But defending the right of the US to interfere where border changes happen shows your assignation of some globocop role to the US. Sorry, but many others around the world don't agree with that. And before you question me on how I assumed that, let me quote your previous post again (below) that seems to suggest the US doesn't interfere in India because India is not interested in changing boundaries, which implies that
the US can legitimately interfere where boundaries are sought to be changed.
KrishnaK wrote:Wanting to contain a country with a per capita of 1600 today, which incidentally gets most of the 50+% of it's GDP from the same country is only slightly less absurd. Especially so, when India has evinced no interest in changing boundaries, claiming parts of the world because it was vaguely indian a 1000 years ago or even picking up fights anywhere based on past grievances.
@@Cosmo_R ji, thanks for clarifying about the ground situation in the US in '71, and how the task force commander was unhappy, etc. As you correctly said, it is history for most of us, including me. But as you yourself say in your subsequent post - the military commander would have had to follow orders if/when given, and Nixon did contemplate striking us. And as someone pointed out, this was much after the concert for B'desh you mentioned. Clearly shows that the USG will take military actions even if they are unpopular on the ground, like in Vietnam. So all that matters to India regarding the history of '71 is - the Enterprise task force was ordered to sail into BoB, and be ready for whatever orders come later. That it did. The rest about US ground opinion back then, etc. does not matter. And going by KrishnaK's posts, the US will do so again if we seek to change any borders.