Raja Ram wrote:
By the same "simplified logic" sub routine we can also have:
The PM and GOI administration of day knows best
All those who critique this are frustrated hindutva fundamentalists who are angry that their favorite party is not in power
People who critique GOI's subserving national interests to larger geo political goals of a superpower are not realists and/or not smart enough as distinguished PM and UPA supremo
Absolutely true. I am glad you decided to post one counter argument to the usual line that I tend to see here. Like I said the usual line has its supporters and your alternative take does not have too many supporters on the forum although they do abound in other circles.
That the "PM and GoI know best" is the feeling that is held (in my estimate) at least 75% of India's population. The figure is a guess and the very elite who are roundly thrashed in these fora are lone group who are exceptional among Indians in having people who hold the view that "Perhaps the GoI and India do not know best". But that elite really should also understand the meaning of "differences of opinion" and "civility in discourse"
I will not comment on the "hindutva fundamentalst" part because I am just enjoying a private joke and bet with myself on hearing mention of that. It is OT.
But could the actions of the GoI actually be realpolitik? Words like "realist", "realpolitik"and "Chankian" are loaded with innuendo as is the famous line from Mario Puzo's "The Godfather" - "
Make him an offer he can't refuse" The "offer" in question of course is "either cooperate or die". It appears to me that the US has made a lot of offers that are difficult to refuse.
One of the psychological traps that is used here (I am not accusing people - I use them freely myself) is to throw words like "patriotism" and "nationalism". No Indian in his right senses is supposed to argue with a nationalist or a patriot - like the devil of Hollywood runs away on seeing a cross. The real world as you rightly recognised in your post is a lot more complicated than the simple "In your face" ideals of nationalism and patriotism. Those are great political buzzwords but are blown away by a power who is able to threaten your country with consequences that would make "nationalism" look like a sorry joke if it is pushed too far. And when one set of national interests are set aside for a different set of national interests do you define that as "treason" or "realpolitik"? That depends on which side of the political spectrum you choose to take. To go back to an earlier example, when PVNR postponed India's nuclear tests under US pressure was it treason or realpolitik? When Indira Gandhi checkmated the US, created Bangladesh, but then sent back 90,000 prisoners of war was it treason or realpolitik?
If we are interested in discourse it would be a good idea to accept that there will always be people opposed to your views and if you are attempting discourse in a forum where other views exist try not to make statements that cause anger or hurt to a person with the opposing viewpoint. Using pejorative descriptions causes needless friction.