Wikileaks Diplomatic Cable Dump - News and Discussion

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2010 00:17

brihaspati wrote:I really dont know where elite Americans study their history and sociology!

Generally, they don't. They are only interested in creating one (new).

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 22 Dec 2010 00:19

The last few pages I only see c!@#$% RG vs nationalism discussion. wikileaks has been pushed aside. shouldnt there be a separate thread for this?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2010 00:32

SwamyG wrote:
munna wrote: They did create sustainable networks but they all slipped out of control.
Then they really did not create a sustainable entity. One can admit they have made attempts that is all.

First of all that idea is a conjecture to conect the dots so to speak. And the problem with connecting dots is one can see a lion or a lamb in the dots.

So please lets all stick to the wikpees here for the momnet.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Dec 2010 00:38

>>JLN had view of Hinduism that can best be described as mixed.

Raja Ram, I'm not disputing the above.

I'm asking for a source for the Rahul is parroting Nehru notion, obviously on the terrorism issue. I am quite certain Nehru has not said anything of the sort. Nehru's interpretation of Hinduism is obviously a matter for our own interpretation but that is not the issue. This fellow has simply claimed that Hindu terrorism is a bigger threat than Lashkar, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is apparently not clever enough to read the daily newspapers!!!

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 22 Dec 2010 00:59

Link to Post by Arjun
Link to Ashok Malik's article

In this reading of the war on terror, the Islamist militia are a manifestation of the New Left, with Zionism and American imperialism as provocations and Palestine and Afghanistan and the inequality between the West and the West Asia as just causes.

There have been attempts to impose this “Islamism as the New Left” template upon India, with the Hindu Right as the provocation and the socio-economic inequality between Hindus and Muslims as the just cause. Occasionally, Kashmir, Ayodhya and Gujarat are thrown into the mix. Has Mr Gandhi bought into this argument? At some stage he needs to tell people — and not just the US ambassador.

brihaspati wrote:This implies that US is keen to cultivate him and encourage him to "reach out to the US" for US strategic interests. How does it then pan out for the impression of Indian Muslims, and the Muslim Ummah itself? Will the Indian Muslim then see RG as their hope in the future? I really dont know where elite Americans study their history and sociology!

I don't know if you remember the sequence of posts during the discussions around very early part of Nuke deal. The entire nuke deal with US is converted as something being done against Muslims and Islam. India did go against Iran too in those days. Seema Mustafa is the front running journalist in thought processing those days. She currently joined M.J.Akbar with Sunday Gaurdian.

The tactical way that Congress party manovered the whole things in going with a closer relationship with US is very apparent now. On the one plane MMS and his friends took a open friendship with US and west in general is important for India's growth story. US and west wanted India to be anti-global-Mullah stuff such as Al Quieda, Iraq and Iran while ignoring the Pakistan. Basically I don't give anything but you give us everything is the concept of US and MMS and his team is all for it in the interest of economic progress. Probably Sonia and Rahul are also bought into this scheme of things. May be if it was Indira or Rajiv, they may not have accepted toeing US line as deep as it was during UPA-1.

However, the ground reality of politics is exactly same for INC and they cannot look like toeing pro-US especially when the Left is taking over the Mullah space in India using Seema Mustafa type arguments to grassroots. The strategy for INC was to give a free hand to MMS for his endavors but at a political level using the newly created "Hindu Terror" bogey came into picture. Rahul is not either bachha or not someone who does not know. This is where Digvijay types were given birth.

Even the latest wikileaks could be used for the same strategy. See the sequence. Wikileaks mentions RG with "Hindu Terror", later INC plenery endorses with more force and then comes important thing and that is "Israel denounce Nazi statement". For the Seema Mustafa types (may not be this time from her) to spin this as something like Isreal the Muslim enemy denounces RG and hence RG is our friend.

Hindu Terror in summary is used very effectively to get the Nuke deal passed and also polarize the muslims to INC. In my theory it is also used to kill the nascent and evolving "C" system

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2010 01:02

JEM its OT for this thread but can be followed in the Indian leadership thread.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=320

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2010 01:04

Perhaps a "false allegation" suite be made on Rahul. Should ask him to either prove the facts or the leaks.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 22 Dec 2010 01:07

Sudip wrote:The last few pages I only see c!@#$% RG vs nationalism discussion. wikileaks has been pushed aside. shouldnt there be a separate thread for this?

I respectfully disagree. Wikileaks are coming slowly as Julian Assanage cannot leak more than fewtimes a week. Until he leaks again we are discussing the important issue related to couple of his earlier leaks.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Dec 2010 01:24

I agree with Muppalla here. It is the Wikileaks that shone light on what RG said and to whom. While some analysts have implied RG has been immature or has not understood the nation and its affairs well; while others have implied that RG's message has hurt India's national interests. This particular content or leak is germane to India and our discussions, until we get more leaks it is reasonable to discuss the issue. We really cannot create individual thread to discuss the several leaks - it will become administrative nightmare.

Like Dhume's opinion piece in WSJ says, RG apart from being wrong has clearly shoved India on the back-foot when it concerns bringing World attention to Pakistan's support to terrorism in India.

If we cannot discuss these why this thread? Discuss Julian's bowel movements here?

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 22 Dec 2010 01:25

munna wrote:Excellent retort but I feel Vivek K sir's argument is slightly more nuanced in that he is doing a reverse equalitis.

I have no issue with Vivek K and I like reading his posts. Though I retorted initially, I did not want to continue the discussion as it will become too much of classic BJP Vs. INC as opposed to BJP Vs. INC in the context of RG statement and Hindu Terror stuff.

Since you brought up here is my point to all those who bring up negatives of the alternatives to INC it is very simple. India has what it has and one cannot bring practically some new stuff. We have to choose from what we have. If we are convinced that INC has to go then blindly remove it with whatever the tools that are available. All the other arguments are either un-intended confusion creation or a deliberate ploy to confuse. Regarding Mayawati, she is doing an excellent job and the changes in UP are better than compared to the governance in Maha or AP.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2010 01:37

In my opinion, this thread should focus on the actual cable dumps, and the immediate commentary around Wikileaks, Assange, and the content of the leaks. A lot of the cable dumps will be purely informational, confirming or adding to what we already know or surmised.

Some cables will result in a major discussion, whose scope goes far beyond Wikileaks, that should be put in an appropriate existing or new thread. E.g., we may have to delve deep into information sources not covered in Wikileaks to discuss these. They do not belong here.

That way, this thread serves as a wikileaks lookup of filtered stuff that is of interest to BRF.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 22 Dec 2010 02:50

munna wrote:
SwamyG wrote:So it is like actually turning up to the Wimbeldon's finals to play one's match; but then retiring hurt half way because the going got tough. No excuse.
No, nien, nada, nyet.. it is like having your racket forcibly snatched from you and being denied a replacement. Let me make it clear once again its not that neo-establishment created was unsustainable or was destroyed. It jumped ships lock, stock and barrel. That is people switched sides, entirely.

SwamyG wrote:It is just not enough to create a handful of mediamen. It is essential to create a sustainable network that looks out for the country. I believe when I see a network similar to Fox News channel for say 5 years. Sad indeed when one has to provide Faux News as an example. What to do onlee.
They did create sustainable networks but they all slipped out of control. Even vanguards of hindutva like Dainik Jagran and Bhaskar turned p-secs. Initially that is between 2004-09 the idea was that media loss was due to loss of power and patronage at the centre. That is media was just yet another his master's voice. However the 2009 elections actually saw media brokering power and becoming a power player. Radia tapes and now wikileaks is exposing this nexus for all to see.

Munna-ji,

Your answer begs the question... if a media establishment allegedly groomed by the BJP that WAS sustainable and durable enough not to be destroyed, could then "jump ships lock stock and barrel"...

Whose fault is that?

Where is the question of a "racket being taken away by force?" What force, applied by whom? And most importantly, why was the Wimbledon champ's grip on the racket so weak as to allow it to be taken away by force? Bhajapa is not some mom-and-pop organization of naive truthseekers. They are a national party, the largest party in the opposition, and have presided over a coalition government that ran the nation for six strong years. They are not helpless kittens (for the sake of my sanity I hope they are not.)

It seems highly obvious to me that Bhajapa did not do a good enough job of cultivating this establishment you speak of, or of protecting its investment. If Rajat Sharma and Prabhu Chawla could be forced/bribed/manipulated into giving up their ideological convictions in 2005-6 simply by virtue of a regime change in Delhi, then this "media establishment" was obviously a terribly flimsy house of cards that Bhajapa had shoddily assembled in the first place, no?

Just for the sake of contrast: In the US, the Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch machine did not "switch sides" during Democratic administrations. FOX and its fellow travelers grew vastly strong in terms of mass viewership/listenership during the Clinton regime, and their prediction of Bush's victory in the 2000 played no small part in the cardinal act of getting Bush, rather than Gore, into the White House. Even despite the drubbing that McCain/Palin received at Obama's hands in 2008, this machine did not even blink... it kept hammering home its message with even more fervour, rallying the forces for the Republican comeback in the 2010 Congressional elections.

Whether you admire FOX News' methods or despise them, whether you agree with their ideology or reject it, there is no arguing with the level of commitment, dedication and professional efficiency they have brought to their task.

Now that's a strong ideological edifice. The Bhajapa has clearly failed to build one. If they built an edifice that WAS sustainable and economically durable but YET so ideologically weak that its stalwarts would "jump ship to the other side" at the first damned opportunity.... boss, that makes the Bhajapa's central leadership look even more pathetically inept than I thought they were. So it seems to me that SwamyG's point stands.

I vote BJP myself, but there has to be some end to the excuses.

********************************************************************************

CosmoR: You mentioned Erdogan and Turkey as a model, citing their good governance at neighbourhood level as a basis for their popularity.

Well, the BJP has that and more, at state level. Narendra Modi of Gujarat, Raman Singh of Chhatisgarh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan of Madhya Pradesh, ally Nitish Kumar of Bihar have track records in development that no present Congress regime can match at the state level. Even Yediyurappa of Karnataka, before he was tainted by association with the Reddy brothers, was recognized as having done a competent and professional job of development... compare the mass looting and misgovernance that went on under the Evanjehadi YSR in KN's eastern neighbour. Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan was also an excellent administrator, and made great strides particularly in empowering the women of her state, until she was scuttled by worthless parasites with connections to the Bhajapa's brain-dead central institutions... Bhairon Singh Shekhawat amd Manavendra Singh (son of "I Love Jinnah" Jaswant.)

Some posts on this thread, including yours, have raised the idea of developing a third, "grass-roots nationalistic front" from the ground up to replace the BJP.

To understand why it won't work, I would study the 1992 US Presidential Campaign. Disillusioned Republicans switched sides to what seemed a fresh new grass-roots third party, the Reform Party under Ross Perot, whom they saw as a preferable alternative to the Washington establishmentarian George HW Bush.

On the other hand, look at what Tony Blair was able to do for Labour in Britain. It was a tired old brand that had long disenchanted voters by its association with foggy-headed has-beens who had no vision apart from clutching feebly to the remnants of their own fiefdom. Blair was able to refurbish it completely in 1996, right down to platform priorities, and turn around its electoal fortunes. But make no mistake, he was able to WIN because the Labour Party was a brand Britain knew.

Honestly, I understand (and share) your frustration with the corpses at the BJP's central echelons, but I am impressed with the younger-generation leaders of that party and what they have been able to achieve at the State level. If Labour could be turned around in '96, BJP can be refurbished for '14. It can be done while maintaining the integrity of the brand, and while reinforcing and even augmenting the ideology. It just needs power to be concentrated in the hands of the right people to do it.

Meanwhile, I simply don't see building a "grass-roots alternative" as being in any way realistic. The Mainos will have converted us all, and sold out everything we own as a nation, long before the time that happens.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 22 Dec 2010 02:56

Sudip wrote:The last few pages I only see c!@#$% RG vs nationalism discussion. wikileaks has been pushed aside. shouldnt there be a separate thread for this?

As the biggest threat that India faces, I imagine there should be a dedicated thread for this on Bharat-Rakshak.

If after the Rahul Gandhi revelation we still fail to realize the full import of what his statement to the US Ambassador means... if we still do not comprehend the lethality of the attack our nation, our identity and our entire way of life is currently under... then we deserve what's coming to us, boss. Another 1,000 years of it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2010 02:59

rudradev, believe it or not, those who have realized or may realize it are only handful(perhaps in 100s) in the billion. what is your plan?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Dec 2010 03:10

Why is it his job to make a plan? What will you and others do?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2010 03:17

perhaps support him?

or at the best get to read it and may be pop a light bulb, that leads to a good discussion.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Dec 2010 03:19

WikiLeaks cables: Bangladeshi 'death squad' trained by UK government

munna · Post by **munna** » 22 Dec 2010 03:27

This is not OT and may help explain the workings of our system

Rudradev wrote: Munna-ji,
Your answer begs the question... if a media establishment allegedly groomed by the BJP that WAS sustainable and durable enough not to be destroyed, could then "jump ships lock stock and barrel"...
Whose fault is that?

The point I made was that they "did" create an establishment and were brave enough to allow liberalization of press and other sectors. The unsustainability could only be checked out in times of adversity and behold it did not survive! Influx of foreign capital, central government patronage and jholawalah gang managed to capture entire media. Prabhu Chawla, Rajat Sharma, Jain TV and Zee TV were all silenced, bought or destroyed. None survived, not because bhajapa was a fool to let them go but todays media's revenue sources and operating costs are different from the ones in 1990s. The real source of revenue generation for media today is infact radia type stuff that I won't go into. You guys are smart enough for that...

Aside: A lot of today's fat cats (especially IT-walah czars) who bad mouth bhajapa as "revanchist", "regressive" and "morons" used to line up outside Vajpayee RCR for tax breaks and land deals. The then government dispensed favour to one and all only to be backstabbed by these folks! This is the scale of desertion, I can understand not supporting them but calling them names? Especially when they went out of their way to help these guys! Despicable.

Rudradev wrote: Where is the question of a "racket being taken away by force?" What force, applied by whom? And most importantly, why was the Wimbledon champ's grip on the racket so weak as to allow it to be taken away by force? Bhajapa is not some mom-and-pop organization of naive truthseekers. They are a national party, the largest party in the opposition, and have presided over a coalition government that ran the nation for six strong years. They are not helpless kittens (for the sake of my sanity I hope they are not.)

Force? It was brutal force! Media was given a choice to be a power broker/player or perish. And people chose what gained them money. Bhajapa had never thought of subverting national institutions to let the journos decide portfolios for ministers! Imagine the kind of money that can exchange hands in such transactions, I am sorry but UPA was like a China in manufacturing. It crowded out NDA from the market by adopting such under hand tactics that may yield good returns but will end up hurting nation in the long run.

It seems highly obvious to me that Bhajapa did not do a good enough job of cultivating this establishment you speak of, or of protecting its investment. If Rajat Sharma and Prabhu Chawla could be forced/bribed/manipulated into giving up their ideological convictions in 2005-6 simply by virtue of a regime change in Delhi, then this "media establishment" was obviously a terribly flimsy house of cards that Bhajapa had shoddily assembled in the first place, no?

No they were not, these were the people who were the vanguard of the RJB movement. The Vajpaye establishment crumbled in 2004 and with a less than able sarsanghchalak in place and no clear plan of succession in BJP, the entire establishment withered away. The 2nd and 3rd rung leader/workers just stood by and watched to their dismay the entire map being changed in the flick of a second. I am not saying it was not bhajapa's fault but you also have to realize that this organization is an infant when it comes to power play and relative age of the nation. They made mistakes but every mistake was maginified as unforgivable and they were persecuted for it.

Just for the sake of contrast: In the US, the Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch machine did not "switch sides" during Democratic administrations

Why do you think bhajap managed to win in so many states? They do have folks who never jumped ship and are not doing so under grave threat to life and liberty. What was sad was that media and new economy back stabbed the party. The party took unsavory decisions to protect ity-vity after the parliament attack yet the honchos of these firms utter pure bilge. Wish if someone recorded their chats with then ministers and PM, all of them would be running for cover today.

Now that's a strong ideological edifice. The Bhajapa has clearly failed to build one. If they built an edifice that WAS sustainable and economically durable but YET so ideologically weak that its stalwarts would "jump ship to the other side" at the first damned opportunity.... boss, that makes the Bhajapa's central leadership look even more pathetically inept than I thought they were. So it seems to me that SwamyG's point stands.
I vote BJP myself, but there has to be some end to the excuses.

Like I said they jumped the ship and that is the sad truth. My relation to this party predates its existence and even its precursor. None can be sadder than the people I know. But one word of advice, India is not US and BJP is not republican. Contrary to popular image bhajapa is not the party of big industrialists and big money, that is congress. This is the party of petty people in non-urban settings and hence it has some structural weaknesses. They will overcome it sooner or later but till then I would say judge them with respect to their past ie 2 seats in 1980s to 181 in 1999 and not republican party of USA. There are things they are capable of and certains things are beyond them as of now, they will be back. They have seen blacker days.....

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 22 Dec 2010 04:28

Rudradev ji. Here is my take.

Rudradev wrote: Munna-ji,

Your answer begs the question... if a media establishment allegedly groomed by the BJP that WAS sustainable and durable enough not to be destroyed, could then "jump ships lock stock and barrel"...

Whose fault is that?

Where is the question of a "racket being taken away by force?" What force, applied by whom? And most importantly, why was the Wimbledon champ's grip on the racket so weak as to allow it to be taken away by force? Bhajapa is not some mom-and-pop organization of naive truthseekers. They are a national party, the largest party in the opposition, and have presided over a coalition government that ran the nation for six strong years. They are not helpless kittens (for the sake of my sanity I hope they are not.)

Just six year via a coalition which has elements that can run easily to the otherside like Afghan warriors. DMK, Paswan ran to the otherside. I hate to say this but they are helpless kittens infront of a cartel. I repeat again - when they are ruling Iraq oil scandal happened. They are also the first serious non-congress government ever and did not adjust the babudom to their needs. They were determined in giving a good governance story and assumed that itself will bring them to power. They did not go after the opposition like the manacing INC which went after BJP with "Hindu Terror".

I am not trying to say that they were option less. Being in the rule for the first time they did not realize that it is important to decimate the opposition with extreme cruelty. That is the serious blunder which they are going pay for a decade or more.

Rudradev wrote: It seems highly obvious to me that Bhajapa did not do a good enough job of cultivating this establishment you speak of, or of protecting its investment. If Rajat Sharma and Prabhu Chawla could be forced/bribed/manipulated into giving up their ideological convictions in 2005-6 simply by virtue of a regime change in Delhi, then this "media establishment" was obviously a terribly flimsy house of cards that Bhajapa had shoddily assembled in the first place, no?

Just for the sake of contrast: In the US, the Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch machine did not "switch sides" during Democratic administrations. FOX and its fellow travelers grew vastly strong in terms of mass viewership/listenership during the Clinton regime, and their prediction of Bush's victory in the 2000 played no small part in the cardinal act of getting Bush, rather than Gore, into the White House. Even despite the drubbing that McCain/Palin received at Obama's hands in 2008, this machine did not even blink... it kept hammering home its message with even more fervour, rallying the forces for the Republican comeback in the 2010 Congressional elections.

Whether you admire FOX News' methods or despise them, whether you agree with their ideology or reject it, there is no arguing with the level of commitment, dedication and professional efficiency they have brought to their task.

This is too much of an un-realistic comparision. You are comparing a poor first timers to that of a strongly established Republican party. Even if Dems rule, they cannot remove the neo-con inside the system. They can only manuover a portion but nothing more than that. Assassinations occured for those when they tried to alter the establishment. Suddenly you wanted a BJP that is 2 seater and ABV types used to book non-AC hotels when they used to visit the country will have to do all that in the six years that they got. Takeout the first year prior to Kargil as they were still trying to maintain their coalition. Only after Mahajan started collecting some coffers they looked little decent and fightable.

See they have Daily Pioneer and they are financially backwards to create a dedicated Pioneer electronic media. Any new channel costs about 500 crore. It should also get a lot of ad revenue to run it.

Rudradev wrote:
CosmoR: You mentioned Erdogan and Turkey as a model, citing their good governance at neighbourhood level as a basis for their popularity.

Well, the BJP has that and more, at state level. Narendra Modi of Gujarat, Raman Singh of Chhatisgarh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan of Madhya Pradesh, ally Nitish Kumar of Bihar have track records in development that no present Congress regime can match at the state level. Even Yediyurappa of Karnataka, before he was tainted by association with the Reddy brothers, was recognized as having done a competent and professional job of development... compare the mass looting and misgovernance that went on under the Evanjehadi YSR in KN's eastern neighbour. Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan was also an excellent administrator, and made great strides particularly in empowering the women of her state, until she was scuttled by worthless parasites with connections to the Bhajapa's brain-dead central institutions... Bhairon Singh Shekhawat amd Manavendra Singh (son of "I Love Jinnah" Jaswant.)

Some posts on this thread, including yours, have raised the idea of developing a third, "grass-roots nationalistic front" from the ground up to replace the BJP.

To understand why it won't work, I would study the 1992 US Presidential Campaign. Disillusioned Republicans switched sides to what seemed a fresh new grass-roots third party, the Reform Party under Ross Perot, whom they saw as a preferable alternative to the Washington establishmentarian George HW Bush.

On the other hand, look at what Tony Blair was able to do for Labour in Britain. It was a tired old brand that had long disenchanted voters by its association with foggy-headed has-beens who had no vision apart from clutching feebly to the remnants of their own fiefdom. Blair was able to refurbish it completely in 1996, right down to platform priorities, and turn around its electoal fortunes. But make no mistake, he was able to WIN because the Labour Party was a brand Britain knew.

Honestly, I understand (and share) your frustration with the corpses at the BJP's central echelons, but I am impressed with the younger-generation leaders of that party and what they have been able to achieve at the State level. If Labour could be turned around in '96, BJP can be refurbished for '14. It can be done while maintaining the integrity of the brand, and while reinforcing and even augmenting the ideology. It just needs power to be concentrated in the hands of the right people to do it.

Meanwhile, I simply don't see building a "grass-roots alternative" as being in any way realistic. The Mainos will have converted us all, and sold out everything we own as a nation, long before the time that happens.

You are absolutely on dot. There is huge drivel that runs in every discourse or discussion that let us build a new grass-root party or system as BJP is also bad. What it makes is until then let us not make any change using exisiting setup. I see this as a technique used in the current media and also other places. This "new thingy" will only come for discussion especially when the news around is too bad for the Gandhi family and in general for the congress party. Had it been news about INC winning couple of states or some great growth news, which may include some corruption. The "new thingy" will not even be discussed and INC does a good realpolitic will be terms in usage.

For BJP, Maya or any serious competetor to non-INC dispensations, they have to be gold and anything less than that will get calls to "bloddy what's the difference", "equal-equal" or far worse.

To me BJP is doing fine and their central leaders who are not in touch with the reality are going away due to age.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Dec 2010 05:14

The Republicans or the Dems do not operate in a vacuum and as sole monarchs. They do so in the matrix of a network of financial, business and ideological interests. These groups have their own separate agenda and pressure points, to achieve which they come together in the politics of the respective parties.

The policies and targets of these two parties have not remained consistent over time, and neither of them differ over the essentials as perceived by the driving interests. They share certain common religious, racial perceptions - and they differ only in tactics.

Thus the influence of these parties are not solely party dependent, but also on several different interest groups who maintain the pressure for the parties to keep in line.

What we are discussing here as relevant for this thread is that for various domestic and international reasons, US interests and INC interests appear to overlap on certain specific issues or domains - one of them being "nurturing" of young talents. Other parties have young talent too, including the BJP, but Roemer's eyes were only for a certain young man and others like in him in a specific party.

The party that USA chooses to back in foreign lands almost always ends up in the dustbin of history. Unfortunately for both USA and the party. It is this aspect of Roemer's being charmed and "charming" that should have caught BJP's nets. Apart from that discussing the future of BJP is too premature. In all likelihood it is following in the footsteps of the early Congress. Remember that Congress also underwent at least three fundamental changes in composition/core/direction before Indepndence. The Congress of 1905 was not the same as that in 1914, or in 1920, or in 1928, etc. In many respects they were not even the same party!

Wikipee at least indicates that USA has made choices consistent with its illustrious career of picking out the losers of history [even though winners of a couple of elections and coups and genocides].

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 22 Dec 2010 08:24

archan wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:^ Panchjanya Editorial here

http://www.panchjanya.com/dynamic/modul ... 409&page=4

"Rahul Gandhi's statement to Timothy Roemer that "Hindu extremism is the biggest challenge before India" has surprised people. It is clear from his statements that he is not only completely uninformed about India's background and history (which stands ) on Hindutva, he has no understanding of nationalism either.
I am afraid this is an incorrect assessment of the man. Like Rudradev said, this analysis is false and can do much damage. The statement, the occasion/environment in which they were made, and the intentions, are pretty clear to anyone who wants to see things for what they are.

True. The "think tanks" at Panchajanya are either not thinking clearly or they want to make excuses for the 2Gs.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 22 Dec 2010 10:48

JE Menon wrote:>>JLN had view of Hinduism that can best be described as mixed.

Raja Ram, I'm not disputing the above.

I'm asking for a source for the Rahul is parroting Nehru notion, obviously on the terrorism issue. I am quite certain Nehru has not said anything of the sort. Nehru's interpretation of Hinduism is obviously a matter for our own interpretation but that is not the issue. This fellow has simply claimed that Hindu terrorism is a bigger threat than Lashkar, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He is apparently not clever enough to read the daily newspapers!!!

This is OT I'm sure but JEM's request for a cite is a reasonable one, I hope mods will indulge me.

It's a bit ironic but while saying Rahul was simply parrotting Nehru, I too simply parrotted what is a widespread statement attributed to Nehru. Here is one place where this quote is referred to. I did a quick google to see if I can find the original quote; the nearest I came to it was a google books excerpt of Frank Moraes's book on Nehru. The excerpt alludes to a speech by Nehru to Parliament in 1950 or so on the topic of communalism, but unfortunately google cut out the page that might have contained the actual quote.

Nehru didn't actually say that majority terrorism was a bigger threat than minority terrorism; he actually said (as per all the widespread second-hand quotes I had heard) that majority communalism was more dangerous than minority communalism--the former could lead to fascism, while the latter (presumably) could be contained. I think he was correct but only in a very broad theoretical sense detached from the realities of India and Hindu cultural context. But for a lot of self-styled progressives, this utterance of Nehru's has become something of a gospel.

My sense with the statement by Rahul was that he (and lots of left-fed people) have so internalized this statement of Nehru's, taking it as axiomatic, and furthermore, due to inadequate mental capacity, conflated communalism with terrorism, thus compounding an already erroneous theory.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 22 Dec 2010 11:26

CRamS wrote: Now, even the most sekoooolar of sekooolar cannot help but be furious at TSP (although they may not show it). I am of course not refering to traitors like A.G. Noorani, ARoy, Pakaj Mishra, Bakara etc who have no conscience for India. But for the rest of the secular elite, especially the Hindu elite, the impotence in not being able to do anything results in a sort of reverse machismo. The impulse is to turn against your own. It gives these cowards a sense that they are doing something after being hit profusely by TSP. By blaming your own, there is this self satisfaction that you don't have to fight back, i.e., the malaise is within.

Also, hitting out at your own gives you enormous brownie points with the whites. How many op-ed in the NYT or WP or Economist have we seen from the elqouent nationalist counterparts to Pankaj Mishra & Arundathi Roy? So even if there is a Hindu elite who wants to talk about the real problem with whites like Ambassador Roemer, he/she is not likely to get much attention because TSP is their lover boy, but pummel your own, wallah, you are music to their ears, it justifies the white distinction between bad terrorists (so called Al Queda) and good terrorists (TSPA/ISI/LeT). So you get the drift. This is intellectual cowardice. When someone like me has the guts to challenge white elites, either they ignore me, or dismiss me as a radical.

The correct way is to question the secular credentials of those who pretend to be secular.
For example, question asked from Digvijay Singh should be
(a) Why did he not raise issue of M persecution in Xinjiang when Chinese PM visited? That proves he cares more for Communists than M's.
(b) Why he is not against Haj subsidy when its expressly prohibited by the religion?
(c) Why shouldn't all M and only M criminals have their hands cut. After all Muslim personal law should apply to marriages as well as punishment.

Regarding RG, its well known that Indian elite who have led secluded lives don't know the ground realities.
Leave alone RG, people who have stayed and lived always in Public Sector colonies like BHEL etc. are similarly clueless as to real India since they came across minuscle Moderate M's. These moderate M's are usually themselves clueless of the actual book philosophy so public sector secluded people believe all M's are like the ones they met. Same with people who have studied only in elite schools like Modern(Barkha) or Doon or St. Stephens, St. Xaviers.
Due to this, given a choice, for ruling India, it would be better to chose the first 500 people in Delhi/Mumbai Phone Directory than 500 Professors/Students of St. Stephens or St. Xaviers.

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 22 Dec 2010 11:57

ramana wrote:Why is it his job to make a plan? What will you and others do?

There is one thing you can do even without bringing radical changes in your life. Join the Church if you have not done it already. Trust me, it will teach you so many things that will truly open your eyes. I am not asking you to convert but join the Church with the express purpose of "understanding" what they stand for. This is something very easy to do and does not require you to make any big sacrifices. Just be sure about your conviction though. If you like what you see and hear then it is going to be entirely your responsibility.

I cannot spend as much time as you guys to share my experiences but hopefully you will share yours with others and everybody will learn. The kind of sneakiness that goes on in there is truly mind boggling. You will be amazed to see how the business is carried on and what they teach people there. A lot of pieces will start putting together for you to see the bigger picture and help take on EJs.

Trust me.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 22 Dec 2010 12:30

There is too much analysis of Rahul's statement on a stand-alone basis....which does not serve to get to the correct picture. What one needs is to see is the pattern emerging from the history of various statements he has made, causes he has been involved in, and activities he has backed. The final conclusion is not pretty- At best, he comes out to be a moron, at worst he is clearly on an anti-Indian state agenda....

Not sure if this article has been posted before, which captures some of what I have in mind. One incident left out even by this article is Rahul's insistence that David Miliband (the infamous foot-in-mouth joker who linked 26/11 to Kashmir while in Mumbai) spend the night with him in a Dalit hut - an outrageous 'poverty as photoop' attitude, and coming from the supposed ruling family heir of the country ! I wouldn't be surprised if Miliband's statement on Kashmir had something to do with his palliness with Rahul.

Rahul as PM
On his present record, the Gandhi scion gives the jitters were he ever to get the running of India, says N.V.Subramanian.

London, 27 October 2010: If you wish to have a glimpse of the kind of government Rahul Gandhi will give to the country, if he ever unfortunately becomes India's prime minister, then you have to check the direction the Congress party is taking under him. The Congress party technically is still headed by his mother, Sonia Gandhi. But in key decisions taken, for example, on continuing with Omar Abdullah as Jammu and Kashmir's chief minister, with all its disastrous fallouts so far, or on canceling the bauxite mining leases of Vedanta in Niyamgiri Hills, or in decisions related to selecting Congress candidates for elections (where, of course, success is all that counts), it appears that Sonia has allowed Rahul to have the final call. It would, therefore, be logical and proper to place current decisions and steps taken by the Congress party at the door of Rahul Gandhi, and it would not be entirely out of sorts to extrapolate from there about the kind of primeministership he will give. This piece will not deal with the actual primeministership he is likely to dispense, because that will be at a future point in time, and it may happen as likely as that it may not, but rather the manner of a Rahul Gandhi primeministership, for which his present decisions, some of them at any rate, taken as the most powerful of the Congress general secretaries, will be analyzed for what they are worth.

The earlier view shared by this writer was that the Congress party was playing the "good cop" to the "bad cop" of government to usurp the opposition space of the BJP and to some extent the Left represented in the main by the CPI-M. This "good cop/ bad cop" theory cannot be entirely banished because it has come to occupy respectable space in India's party-political sciences, and was practiced unsuccessfully, of course, by the BJP-Sangha Parivar previously. But it appears more the case that the brand of politics or politicking Rahul Gandhi is pushing is becoming, if not in its conception, then certainly in its execution, anti-government, anti-state, with its obvious negative implications for Indian nationhood, and this syndrome appears to have infected the likes of the Union home minister, P.Chidambaram. (Chidambaram, as has been written in this magazine earlier, feels hugely threatened by the rise of Digvijay Singh, the political tutor of Rahul Gandhi, and who is ambitious for the home job.)

Take the case of J and K, for example. Nearly all the present troubles of the state can be traced to two young, super-ambitious politicians, Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. Mehbooba Mufti and the PDP made it impossible for the Congress when the J and K chiefministership came to it by rotation, aligning ideologically with the separatist forces and taking a sectarian line on the Amarnath Yatra temporary land-lease issue. For all that, the PDP did badly in the polls and Farooq Abdullah and Omar's National Conference in alliance with the Congress conversely did well. Rather than learn his lessons from the PDP's debacle, which was not to act the spoiler, concentrate on governance, and make it worthwhile for Kashmiris to remain wedded to democracy, Omar retreated to behind the high walls of office, broke his links with the people, and afforded a second life to the Syed Ali Shah Geelani sort of redundant separatists who want J and K's merger with Pakistan, even though it is a failed state with a terrible record of persecuting non-Punjabis and minorities.

To cover for his own inadequacies, Omar has gone into campaign mode, whilst being chief minister, targeting critical instruments of the Indian state like the Indian Army, which he now wants prosecuted for mostly false cases of extra-judicial killings, while seeking operationally to tie its hands through killer amendments in the Armed Forces' Special Powers Act. Rather than see through Omar's game, which is ultimately self-defeating, and capable potentially of destroying the Abdullah legacy in J and K, Rahul Gandhi has backed his continuance as chief minister, on the grounds that he is young and needs time. Being young is no justification to make blunders, but it almost appears that Rahul Gandhi does not care, even when it is clearly apparent that Omar Abdullah is straining J and K's ties with the remaining Indian mainstream. By setting up a panel of non-political resolvers for J and K, forgetting that the best solution for the state is to leave things alone, Chidambaram seems to have bought into the substance of Rahul Gandhi's apparent anti-government, anti-state politics, if it can be called that. And the new panel's leader, a former editor, rather than adhering to his brief objectively to transmit the expressed views of Kashmiris to the Centre, has weighed in on J and K's Pakistan angle, provoking another controversy.

In matter after matter, the Rahul Gandhi Congress is chasing headlines, following media chatter, and submerging in the NGO chorus.The decision to cancel the Vedanta mining lease is getting increasingly mired in allegations of exceeded briefs, with its huge impact on India's growth prospects and strategies. The anti-government, anti state reflexes of Rahul Gandhi have infected key segments of the Central government. In a different sort of way from Chidambaram, Jairam Ramesh is attempting to remain in the good books of Rahul Gandhi, putting a block on infrastructural development even in the strategically sensitive North East. The thrust seems more and more to conform to the Rahul Gandhi thinking, whatever that is, and wise Pranab Mukherjee's observation that he has "overstayed" at the wicket and is too old for a future Rahul Gandhi cabinet tells which way the wind is blowing.

If indeed, unfairly to Pranab, his decision to seek early retirementis interpreted philosophically at a deeper level, it would suggest that wisdom is in precipitately declining demand. After all, why would Rahul Gandhi & Co want to encourage an anti-government, anti-statestream of action and thought while giving at the same time the essential motor drive to the Manmohan Singh government? It defies explanation (it bears similarity to Kalidasa sawing or chopping the branch of the tree he was straddling), even accounting for the good-bad cop theory. With things being in a bad way and chaotic as they are now, imagine the state of affairs when Rahul Gandhi reaches the top. You would all come to rue it.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 22 Dec 2010 12:57

Maybe folks here can answer this question - Why is it that Rahul and Doggy Raja have not yet become the staple fare of the stand-up comedians in India? Bush Jr, Sarah Palin were regularly taken apart and the media was awash with Bushisms and Palinisms in the US when their propensity for putting their foots in their mouth was discovered. The editorials in Indian papers have not been kind to RG and DS either -but why the coyness when it comes to translating to one-liners? If one can have Rajnikanth jokes, surely Doggy Raja and his master / disciple can be a bigger hit? How about the Twitterati - the new trend-setters of society, how have they taken up to this?

AjayKK · Post by **AjayKK** » 22 Dec 2010 13:01

munna wrote: Till now we could only despair or concoct chankian spin stories regarding our surrender at SES or denial of justice after 26/11. The recent expose has bared the hand of the assassin and now it is a much fairer game.

Good one Munna. I always believed that so-called Chankian analysis of Sharm El Sheikh and inaction after 26/11 is inspired either by a need to protect the government of the day or the political party. On reading newspapers, it is so very clear that many of the stories are either paid news showing one group/organisation/party as good or another as bad for the country/economy. Why, a certain business empire launched its own newspaper in the 1990s, which was later shut down.

Earlier it was easier for Niira Radia types to control information by giving out paid articles in news outlets which stand exposed now, such as HT or NDTV. With the advent of Web 2.0 it is becoming difficult to control such information. Hence the need for internet paid Chankian articles.

Reminds us of the thread "When BJ Cutie drove from Xining, Qinghai Province, to Lhasa on her two wheeler along the Tibet rail talking to the Tibetans who wore "Happy China, Good China, Love u China" headbands ...

Hence, all such analysis of Sharm El Sheikh and inaction after 26/11 is merely a paid news type post, such as the articles of certain columnists in the exposed papers.

As Shiv's modified quote goes " Jo HT/NDTV mein *, wo internet par aur bhi jyada ** "

--------------------------

Meanwhile, something interesting from Wikileaks.

The Vatican supports GM food.

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/11/09VATICAN119.html

The Vatican's own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global
food security.

Oh, the burden of feeding the unfed unbelievers

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2010 13:02

the congress is quite particular about sending legal notices to anyone who remotely insult The Family. and for that they utilize the services of their spokesman and legal counsel - the superstar lawyer abhisek manu singhvi who you often see on TV. perhaps thats why media is not keen to lampoon the yuvaraj.
even if they dont intend to pursue everyone, making a example of a couple of people always creates doubts in the rest...

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 22 Dec 2010 14:18

CIA launches task force on WikiLeaks http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 144247.cms

WASHINGTON: The CIA has launched a task force to assess the impact of unauthorised publication of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables by the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks on the agency's foreign relationships and operations.

Called WikiLeaks task Force or WTF,

it is focused on the immediate impact of the most recently released files, Washington Post reported.

What The F*ck?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Dec 2010 15:54

Thanks KLNM for that effort. As you can see, they are all paraphrasing what Nehru apparently said. The guy has written so much, and I've read quite a bit of it, and have not come across (or came across and forgot) where he said this exactly. Hence my request. It was a genuine interest in knowing if he actually said anything like this about terrorism, which he may well have given the climate in the mid-1940s. So far, though, I haven't seen any such quote. If he has said it though, it would add another facet to our common understanding of Nehru.

So far though, in my understanding of what he said, he was basically saying we don't want to turn into a Hindu version of Pakistan when referring to communalism. I don't think anyone disagrees with this - not even the most extreme of the so-called "Hindutva" groups.

What Rahul said is something rather different. Linking that with Nehru, as some in the media seem to be doing, is a great service to Rahul and a tremendous disservice to Nehru.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2010 17:10

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0497/0079.html

He also tried to explain that the majority communalism wore the cloak of nationalism while the minority communalism appeared to be separatist. "The Hindu Mahasabha" he wrote. "is always laying stress on its own irreproachable nationalism when it criticises Muslim communalism. That the Muslim organisations have shown themselves to be quite extraordinarily communal has been patent to everybody. The Mahasabha's communalism has not been so obvious, as it masquerades under a nationalist cloak. The test comes when a national and democratic solution happens to injure upper class Hindu interests, and in this test the Mahasabha has repeatedly failed."

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2010 17:28

Wandering far off topic, but then this thread no longer has a topic:

Nehru @ Aligarh Muslim University, January 24, 1948:

For my part I wish to say that in spite of everything, I have a firm faith in India's future. Indeed, if I did not have it, it would not have been possible for me to work effectively. Although many of my old dreams have been shattered by recent events, yet the basic objective still holds and I see no reason to change it. That objective is to build up a free India of high ideals, and noble endeavours where there is equality of opportunity for all and where many variegated streams of thought and culture meet together to form a mighty river of progress and advancement of her people.

....

You are Muslims and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none, but that does not take away from that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine. The past holds us together; why should the present or the future divide us in spirit?

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 22 Dec 2010 17:39

Stale news, slate wiped off.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Dec 2010 20:22

ashokpachori wrote:Here's an India Times report on Wikileaks about the incompetence of Indian security forces:

NEW DELHI: India is "very keen" to get information and technology from the US for counter-terrorism efforts but provides "little in return", says a US embassy cable made public by WikiLeaks .
The cable, dated Feb 23, 2007 and reproduced by The Guardian, also came down heavily on Indian security forces, calling them corrupt and poorly trained and said they did not "conduct solid forensic investigations"

This is the problem with letting this thread get into involved discussions that should really be conducted elsewhere. This was covered back on page 21. No harm in repetition, but...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2010 00:30

Topic could be changed to read links and leaks reference thread rather than discussion thread. Now that is the moderator call or the originator who created the thread with certain objectives.

I am sure no thread is without any agenda.

arjunm · Post by **arjunm** » 23 Dec 2010 04:48

Julian Assange commends The Hindu

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief, has commended The Hindu in an interview to Business Standard published on Tuesday.

In the interview given at Suffolk, the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange spoke of his impression of the Indian media. “Well, there are some very great little journalistic groups in India. [ The] Hindu, [ The] Times [ of India] have been quite good... some of their material. In my dealings with Indians, there is such an incredible potential in the Indian media, because there is still a lot of corruption. On the other hand, journalism is quite vibrant in the medium and lower level. You have a rising middle class. You have more people getting access to the Internet. So, I am quite hopeful of about what is going to develop in India,” he was quoted as saying.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/23/stories ... 431000.htm

Amitava · Post by **Amitava** » 23 Dec 2010 05:06

SaiK wrote:I am sure no thread is without any agenda.

Just that we mortals have no idea what that agenda is

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2010 05:13

arjunm wrote:Julian Assange commends The Hindu

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief, has commended The Hindu in an interview to Business Standard published on Tuesday.

In the interview given at Suffolk, the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange spoke of his impression of the Indian media. “Well, there are some very great little journalistic groups in India. [ The] Hindu, [ The] Times [ of India] have been quite good... some of their material. In my dealings with Indians, there is such an incredible potential in the Indian media, because there is still a lot of corruption. On the other hand, journalism is quite vibrant in the medium and lower level. You have a rising middle class. You have more people getting access to the Internet. So, I am quite hopeful of about what is going to develop in India,” he was quoted as saying.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/23/stories ... 431000.htm

Hindu and the TOI - what does that speak of the filters being used by Assange and his team in deciding which cable goes out and which doesn't?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Dec 2010 05:16

^^^
The Hindu, prior to N.Ram was indeed good. In fact some of the non-editorial items on Science, Archeology and sundry are still great.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2010 05:33

But Assange is not talking about Science, Archaeology and sundry - he is talking in the context of current socio-political issues.