Bharat Rakshak

pentaiah wrote:what is the difference between a Fanatic and Patriotic I am still to understand.

eklavya wrote:

pentaiah wrote:what is the difference between a Fanatic and Patriotic I am still to understand.

pentaiah, hopefully this should clear things up:

Fanatic:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse

Patriot:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas ... and_Gandhi

pentaiah wrote:I think both are patriotic like the way you and I are? No

ramana wrote:I didn't like the WP article on MMS. What I didnt like even more is Pioneer etc gloating I told you.
Worse is Hindu types parroting the WP article.
The silliest thing was PMO complaining to WP as it gives that rag respectability

RamaY wrote:- that Dharma is excuted thru someone or something when the state fails to investigate and prosecute the responsible when nearly million Indians are butchered within few days and the saint of the nation doesn't demand any national introspection just because he himself could be guilty of that inhumane crimes?

ramana wrote:I dont understand the Dharmic compulsion to treat ADharmics per Dharmic rules even in war. I think the rules apply before war for one hopes that by some remote chance the Adharmic will turn the corner. The misplaced adherence to Dharmic rules falls under Apatra Dhanam or undeserving charity.

Krishna was very clear on many times in the War when the Adharmics should be subject to their own medicine: Bhisma with Sikhandi, Drona with the slogan Aswattama is dead, Karna when his chariot wheel sunk in the mud, Duryodhana and breaking his thighs.

RamaY wrote:MKG's rights cannot undo his wrongs. They both bring separate results.

eklavya wrote:

RamaY wrote:- that Dharma is excuted thru someone or something when the state fails to investigate and prosecute the responsible when nearly million Indians are butchered within few days and the saint of the nation doesn't demand any national introspection just because he himself could be guilty of that inhumane crimes?

Only a follower of an evil ideology would consider Godse's act of killing Mahatma Gandhi a Dharmic act, and consider Mahatma Gandhi guilty of inhumane crimes.

Acharya wrote:Is it Gandhi or Ghandi

Obama ran on "change" in 2008, but Mitt Romney represents a far more real and seismic shift in the American landscape. Romney is the frontman and apostle of an economic revolution, in which transactions are manufactured instead of products, wealth is generated without accompanying prosperity, and Cayman Islands partnerships are lovingly erected and nurtured while American communities fall apart. The entire purpose of the business model that Romney helped pioneer is to move money into the archipelago from the places outside it, using massive amounts of taxpayer-subsidized debt to enrich a handful of billionaires. It's a vision of society that's crazy, vicious and almost unbelievably selfish, yet it's running for president, and it has a chance of winning. Perhaps that change is coming whether we like it or not. Perhaps Mitt Romney is the best man to manage the transition. But it seems a little early to vote for that kind of wholesale surrender.

Karan Dixit wrote:

Acharya wrote:Is it Gandhi or Ghandi

Pakistanis usually spell Gandhi as Ghandi. I have never seen anyone else spell that way.

Disclaimer: I am not implying that he is a Pakistani.

Karan Dixit wrote:It is bizarre that an Indian would not know how to spell the name of Mahatma Gandhi.

Aditya_V wrote:Indianess has been reduced to Spelling the Father of the nation?

Aditya_V wrote:

Karan Dixit wrote:It is bizarre that an Indian would not know how to spell the name of Mahatma Gandhi.

Well then I am bizzare. How many Indians name all Indian states and capitals, fighter aircraft in the IAF fleet, what is the Kashmir Valley etc.....

Many think F-16's are in the IAF?

Indianess has been reduced to Spelling the Father of the nation?

Aditya_V wrote:But Ramana, a Typo like that I can correct, But question ones Indianess based on that. Thats the reason I have not corrected it.

Behind the attack
Frenemies in the West have now seized upon Manmohan Singh, analyzes N.V.Subramanian.

10 September 2012: The Manmohan Singh PMO's fracas with The Washington Post and its India correspondent, Simon Denyer, is a case of friendly enmity or frenmity if you like. But if A.B.Vajpayee is introduced into the shindig on account of the criticism of his prime-ministerial style by Time magazine, then it becomes a story of clashing world views that is nearly civilizational in character.
{I didnt knwo ABV was being brought into the picture! If so who and where?}

The more remarkable Indian prime ministers have also been complex, and Vajpayee has never been an easy man to understand, an outsider in BJP, an island unto himself in politics, keeping his own personal laws, someone with poetic sensibilities, and a nationalist at heart. When he became prime minister, there was expectation and excitement that his political maturation in right-wing, conservative ideology would impel India into natural alliance with the United States.

That's what at any rate Vajpayee articulated in his New York Asia Society address in September 2000. But it had been preceded two years previously with the Pokhran II tests that had angered the Clinton administration into sanctioning India. Not only was the United States the sole superpower, it hadn't begun to show the decline of later years, and it had a strong and charismatic president in Bill Clinton. Vajpayee, the politician and strategist, knew he had to get India out of the Pokhran II hole, and had to sweeten relations with the US even if he had other ideas.

He had other ideas, to be sure, and they principally concerned securing India's interests in an unstable post-Cold War world. He was under pressure, for example, to sign CTBT after Pokhran II, and there is an interesting insider account of how closely he played his cards to his chest and got out of doing so in Washington. Apparently, Vajpayee and a senior cabinet minister travelled together to the US one time, and the minister convinced him (or so he thought) to okay CTBT. The minister went to another city whilst the prime minister arrived in Washington.

The minister told a US presidential aide to expect the CTBT announcement from Vajpayee. The aide had been updated differently but kept his silence. At the designated hour, Vajpayee spoke, but not about signing CTBT. He fudged the issue. The minister was stunned but the presidential aide had been warned beforehand. He had been authoritatively told Vajpayee would not sign CTBT.

There is another instance of how Vajpayee ran rings around the United States. Some years ago, Left politicians made an interesting disclosure. They said Vajpayee had told them to oppose within and outside Parliament any Indian military involvement in Iraq as a means to resist US pressure. Even Congress was primed to do so. In other words, Vajpayee was his own prime minister, and whilst he may have appeared friendly to the United States on the surface, he didn't make real concessions.

This background is necessary to understand Time magazine's criticism of Vajpayee's prime-ministership, saying he was sleeping on the job. That criticism is factually incorrect. Vajpayee may have appeared slow and not all there, but he had a first-rate mind and he was a wonderful delegator. He knew what he wanted and who would deliver it. He was not a file pusher. He was a big ideas man. In six years, he proved himself one of India's outstanding prime ministers. Because he didn't serve US interests conditioned by his nationalist upbringing and conservative ideology, the US did not like him very much, which partly explains Time magazine's criticism.

The case with Manmohan Singh is completely different, perhaps even the opposite. Unlike Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh had a Western higher education, in Cambridge and Oxford. He never got over his fascination with the West, becoming in due course its slave. Whilst receiving an honorary degree from Oxford University in July 2005, he had the gall to say "...it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences...." He told the (former) US president, George W.Bush, that Indians "loved" him. Only because of the precedent set by Vajpayee, Indian troops could not deploy in Iraq under Manmohan Singh.

Subsequently, Manmohan Singh was prevented by coalition compulsions and opposition pressure from tying India too closely to the United States. He pushed his defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, to sign the Indo-US defence framework agreement, but the Left allies of Manmohan Singh's UPA-1 government ensured that it did not benefit the United States with "interoperability", joint operations, provision of India bases for American foreign interventions, and so forth.

The Indo-US nuclear deal was obtained by Manmohan Singh after blackmailing the Congress leadership with a resignation threat and a corrupt confidence vote victory in Parliament. In its final form, the deal was less pro-US, thanks to the spirited battle put up by the opposition and strategic writers, including the late nuclear physicist, P.K.Iyengar. And against Manmohan Singh's wishes, Parliament passed a tough nuclear liability law, which has upset US reactor manufacturers.

Finally, there has been economic paralysis under a star economist PM. Manmohan Singh was made finance minister in 1991 partly to win over IMF. When he became PM, the West expected India to open its markets. The expectation turned to desperation after the November 2008 bankruptcies in the United States. Left to him, Manmohan Singh would have obliged the West. But by then, coalition compulsions were enormous, he had lost control of government, and inflation had begun to rear its head to kill the growth story before long. Manmohan Singh was helpless. As a prime minister, he was powerless to assist the West. His own ambitions, however, dissuaded him from leaving.

It is these factors that have prompted Western media and ratings' agency attacks on Manmohan Singh and his government. The attacks do not lack substance. Every word written in The Washington Post story is true, and the rating agencies' downbeat analysis of the Indian political economy is entirely accurate, but their intentions may not be always honourable. Without questioning the journalistic credentials of Simon Denyer who wrote the Post story, it can be said that the West's hopes from Manmohan Singh have been dashed, and that largely explains the venom unleashed against him.

But that doesn't put Manmohan Singh and A.B.Vajpayee in the same bracket. Vajpayee had conceived and put clear limits to a friendship/ partnership with the United States and the rest of the West, with an alliance never being considered despite his statement to that effect. On the other hand, Manmohan Singh was prevented by Indian polity and public opinion from embracing the West to India's certain disadvantage. So frenemies have now seized upon him, trashing him with words, and seeking a better and more efficient deliverer. Through all this, one prime minister emerges a nationalist, whilst another is, despite his exertions and protestations, condemned as an apostate.

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, http://www.newsinsight.net and writes on politics and strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: [email protected].

Aditya_V wrote:But Ramana, a Typo like that I can correct, But question ones Indianess based on that. Thats the reason I have not corrected it.

Indian authorities have requested the US State Department to address the concerns of an Indian couple, who have been given limited access to their one-year- old son after he underwent surgery for brain injury and are facing criminal probe for failing to take proper care of him....

Saha conveyed to the Consulate General his concerns as well as those of his family "that the child has not yet been handed over to them," a Consulate statement said. "The Consulate General has requested the US Department of State (Office of Foreign Missions) in New York to have the concerns of the parents addressed. The embassy of India in Washington has also taken up the matter with the US Department of State," it added.

A new Pew research poll has revealed that a solid 58% majority in urban India is favorably disposed toward the United States, seeing America in a more favorable light than they view other major world powers, including India's long time supporter Russia (48%) or the EU (38%). About seven-in-ten city dwellers (71%) who say they are following the US election closely want President Barack Obama to be re-elected.

Sixty per cent of respondents say they have confidence in Obama to deliver the goods. The numbers are so good for the US President that he might want to move to India, where his predecessor also had high ratings at a time he was deeply unpopular across rest of the world.

The poll does not go into why American Presidents are so popular in India but the results broadly segue into the perception that US and India have by and large overcome the Cold War baggage in the last two decades. Huge number of Indian emigrants who have bumped up Indian population in the US from less than a million in 1990 to more than 3 million in 2010, consequently creating a large pro-American sentiment in urban India, could also be a factor...

Pakistani appraisal of India is up eight percentage points since 2011, but down 11 points since 2006, at the height of Musharraf's rapprochement with New Delhi.

South Asia contains one of America's most important long-term partners in sustaining a global order safe for the interests and values of free societies -- India -- as well as a fragile, nuclear-armed state in Pakistan whose weakening and radicalization could be more consequential for American security interests than nearly any other single contingency. The region also contains a country, Afghanistan, that may not be the center of Asia but is a center of strategic competition among key Asian powers and has cost the West a decade of war to defeat extremism and build lasting stability. Over the coming four years, U.S. leadership to shape this region will be essential, for both positive and negative reasons. Positively, the consolidation of a wide-ranging strategic partnership with India could change the history of the 21st century by allying the United States with the world's largest democracy and budding economic powerhouse. Negatively, U.S. leadership is essential to prevent Pakistan's many pathologies -- state complicity in terrorism, weak institutions, a foreign policy that exports insecurity -- from spilling over in ways that undermine fundamental U.S. interests in the future of Afghanistan, non-proliferation, defeating terrorism, and dampening extremismIndia is still casting off its legacy of non-alignment and statist economic management. But its leaders have identified the United States as a vital partner for India for the long-term, just as American leaders pursued a revolutionary strategic partnership with India with an eye on shaping the longer-term balance of power and values in the international system. The United States and India share a convergence of interests across the spectrum. Both seek to balance Chinese power in Asia to encourage China's peaceful rise. Both want to defeat terrorism, moderate extremism, and promote democratic state-building in South Asia, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to ensure that responsible governments rule there with a focus on internal development rather than fomenting external insecurity. Both want to ensure freedom of the maritime commons in the Indian Ocean, across which most world trade in energy flows. Both want to strengthen an open and liberal international economy in ways that will fuel their knowledge, technology, and manufacturing sectors. The next U.S. administration can reverse the drift in Indo-U.S. relations that has occurred since 2009, including by deepening the underdeveloped economic relationship between the two countries through a robust free trade agreement and supporting India's entry into APEC. Washington and New Delhi can also cooperate more intimately on Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, missile defense, maritime security in the Indian Ocean, East Asian security with partners like Japan, and in multilateral institutions like the U.N. The overall objective would be the construction of a preponderance of democratic power in Asia and the international system, with U.S.-India partnership at its core.
As the United States draws down forces from Afghanistan, Pakistan will lose the leverage it has held on U.S. policy by virtue of its control of the primary supply routes into Afghanistan. This creates the prospect for a more mature and balanced U.S.-Pakistan relationship in which U.S. policy concentrates not on buying off the Pakistani military but on strengthening the development of Pakistani civilian institutions. U.S. policy will need to focus more on strengthening Pakistan's economy and, in particular, its energy sector, as a way to offset the rise of radicalism associated with the country's chronic economic crises and to build goodwill among a population that is fervently anti-American. Liberalization of trade, including duty-free treatment of Pakistani textiles into the United States, will be as important (if not more important) than official assistance in this regard. U.S. policy must not re-hyphenate India and Pakistan, but rather pursue independent policies towards both countries that do not allow one country to hold U.S. policy towards the other hostage. Prospects for Pakistan to benefit from India's economic growth and measured Indian steps to lift trade and visa restrictions on Pakistan could, in tandem with U.S. policy, help reconstruct Pakistan's moderate majority who opposes the militarization and radicalization of the state and its foreign policies.

RamaY wrote:^ Key points that describe our current PM of India.

- his fascination with the West, becoming in due course its slave.
- he had the gall to say "...it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences...." He told the (former) US president, George W.Bush, that Indians "loved" him.
- Who blackmailed the Congress leadership with a resignation threat and a corrupt confidence vote victory in Parliament

Nakulji, yet people think calling out MMS == insulting PMship of India.