More rubbish from Augustus, the Indian with the cold war obsession. Yes, lots of people in the third world, while not endorsing communism, felt no need to join military-strategic defense pacts like NATO, CENTO, JENTO, RENTO or PENTO. And they did not appreciate the US-UK foisting dictators on them, in the name of defending democracy from totalitarianism.
Yes, the cold war was a fraud and sham. What better proof, if proof were needed, that China was roped in to counter Russia, in the name of defeating totalitarianism. My, what great humanistic, moralistic principles.

I meant,

Ability to construct English sentences that make sematic sense is apparently not required to be employable in Canada.

>>Not just Indians, a lot of people around the world feel that the "cold war" was a sham and a scam.

first sign of moral and intellectual cowardice is claiming the backing of a generically anonymous "a lot of people."

>>Don't go by this or that pro-US leader in x-third world country.

Ability to construct English sentences that make no semantic sense are apparently not required to be employable in Canada.

>>Even if those leaders were on the US bandwagon( without necessarily believing in freedom, democracy and liberty) the people were not. Case in point- the Philippines under Marcos. Zaire under Mobuto, Chile under Pinochet and many others.

and that means (in English please).....

>>The issue is not the right of the US or any country to defend itself from outside attack; that's beyond question.

What is the issue then?

>>The "cold war" had much more to do with keeping the military industrial complex running, grabbing third world resources and propping up dictators in order to obtain those resources- all in the name of countering totalitarianism.

As someone with a tenuous grasp on history and English sentences, you should stay out of the sun...or else delirium sets in quickly.

>>India was wise and right to stay away from it, while perhaps having to play a balancing act, given its weaker political and economic position back then.

That has nothing to do with Indian left cheering for something they don't understand, namely American Liberals, and then being "disappointed" by their "paradoxical" behaviour.

Not just Indians, a lot of people around the world feel that the "cold war" was a sham and a scam. Don't go by this or that pro-US leader in x-third world country. Even if those leaders were on the US bandwagon( without necessarily believing in freedom, democracy and liberty) the people were not. Case in point- the Philippines under Marcos. Zaire under Mobuto, Chile under Pinochet and many others.
The issue is not the right of the US or any country to defend itself from outside attack; that's beyond question. The "cold war" had much more to do with keeping the military industrial complex running, grabbing third world resources and propping up dictators in order to obtain those resources- all in the name of countering totalitarianism. India was wise and right to stay away from it, while perhaps having to play a balancing act, given its weaker political and economic position back then.

It looks like a few Indians(?) are trying to sulk about the outcome of the cold war. This is essentially the position that "good" countries are those that insist Indians can do no wrong, make no errors and that Indian shit smells like roses. Everything else is ignored, vilified, trivialised or denigrated.

The whole cold war was a fraud and a sham, anyway.....since it was unreal, made up and the nuclear weapons were only cardboard cutouts painted with shiny metallic paint....

There is an economic side to showing favor to China. The very first thing Obama did regarding depression was to go to China with a begging bowl in hand requesting them to continue buying US Treasury Bill. China has currently 2 Trillion USD in its coffers. China exports most of the stuff to US and on the other hand provide cheap credit to buy those very stuff.

Its called

Knowing which side of your bread is buttered.

It looks like a few Indians(?) are trying to out-crude the crudest American cold war ideologues like Helms, Dulles, Kissinger, Charlie Wilson and the like.This is essentially the position that "good" countries are those that are pro-American and anti-Soviet. Everything else is ignored, vilified, trivialised or denigrated. Intelligent, thoughtful Americans didn't view India in those crude, vulgar terms.
The whole cold war was a fraud and a sham, anyway. No one seriously believes that the Russians and the Chinese were supporting the rights and freedoms of workers and peasants around the world. At the same time, no one really believes that the US-UK led alliance was promoting democracy, freedom and liberty all over the world.

>>India made it pretty clear when it became independent, that it did not want to get involved in the cold war, but at the same time, it would follow a free, democratic path.

It wanted to be a player but didn't know how to play the game. Everything else is fluff.

>>As for the Kashmir issue, it's likely that India relied on Russia for diplomatic support,

likely? you take tablets for that condition?

>>but then why didn't the US, UK and Western Europe endorse the Indian stance?

ever thought of the possibility they think Indian stance is unjust.....even if you don't?

>>Sympathy for Kashmiris, or power politics again, in the region.

Why can't it be both? why should it be one or the other?

>>It's their stupidity( or perfidy) that they didn't accept the Indian position.

I'm sure they haven't lost a wink of sleep because of their "stupidity (or perfidy")....

>>Many Americans have long ditched the crude, vulgar cold war outlook,

they won the damn war! can't you get that through your thickhead?

>>and even denounced it, while it appears that some other people are determined to uphold it!

I think you are pissed they won the cold war...your problems are your own.

India has a tradition of free speech, which has developed to the extent, that Indian's regularly berate most of her political leaders, on issues of non-governance. The question is not about American's asking India to tow the ethical and appropriate line. It is about India emulating what is best from all the political systems in the world. I must say, that I admire the Chinese Communist Party, and it's present functioning. If there is an organization that can be of some constructive use to it's people, then that is the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government eeds to listen to the voice of the people, and be perceived to be with more empathy, by it's people. The United States' government is truely representative of her people, because non politicians from the population, become advisors to the United States' President. Let me site the example of Condoleeza Rice, and Henry Kissinger who are not, and were not representatives of the Senate or in active politics, perhaps, before they occupied high positions in the United States' administration. The Member's of Parliament of The United Kingdom, are not leaders, but they try to give a voice to the aspirations of the majority, and to benefit a large section of their society. Indeed, India can learn a lot from the various political systems present in the world, and perhaps, India can imbibe what she learns from others.

India made it pretty clear when it became independent, that it did not want to get involved in the cold war, but at the same time, it would follow a free, democratic path. As for the Kashmir issue, it's likely that India relied on Russia for diplomatic support, but then why didn't the US, UK and Western Europe endorse the Indian stance? Sympathy for Kashmiris, or power politics again, in the region. It's their stupidity( or perfidy) that they didn't accept the Indian position.

Many Americans have long ditched the crude, vulgar cold war outlook, and even denounced it, while it appears that some other people are determined to uphold it!

>>No, it wasn't,

subsequent facts say otherwise...

>>India's refusal to align militarily with the US

every decision has a cost...currently being paid in the whining of not being treated equally with the Chinese and being equally treated with Pakistanis.

>>The way some people swallow the most crude cold war propaganda is simply repulsive.

slightly less sophisticated than sticking fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalala, i am not hearing you," eh?

>What are you talking about?

to keep the Kashmir issue out of the UN Security Council, we became the lapdog of USSR for the veto bone they'd occasionally throw us in the Council deliberations.

"Is that why we became enthusiastic vassals of the USSR?"

What are you talking about?

"proxy", "cold war..to the subcontinent" . The way some people swallow the most crude cold war propaganda is simply repulsive.

"Because the writing was on the wall about the eventual drift of India into USSR orbit.."

No, it wasn't, and throughout those years India maintained strong ties with just about every democracy on earth, including the US, UK, Japan, Germany, Sweden etc.
The US in 1954 was upset, not with India's ties with the USSR( which were small), but with India's refusal to align militarily with the US, and India's general denunciations of military pacts and military-obsessed alliances.

>>I thought Americans assumed that the world revolves around them, that the world is their oyster etc.

your thoughts and their assumptions along with your thoughts on their assumptions aren't providing any insights are they?

>>Never heard such an idea with regard to India, at least not to anywhere the same degree of brashness and arrogance.

Its for the lack of power...not lack of disposition; considering the imperiousness of low-level government clerks, can you imagine what the senior level type's brashness and arrogance is even with no effective power?

>>John Foster Dulles was a crude nincumpoop( and incidentally much reviled now in the US) who couldn't see the intrinsic value of India;

"intrinsic" value has no diplomatic utility...and his instinct proved right from an American point of view.....reviled by whom?

>>India's new found independence, and its stated goal of lifting itself up through freedom and democracy. Americans have problems with empathy. A little bit of insight and empathy would have made them realise that India, having just obtained its independence, would be far more sensitive to any hints, let alone demonstrations, of colonialism and militarism particularly in this part of the world.

Is that why we became enthusiastic vassals of the USSR?

>>And less aware or interested in the dangers presented by communism, notwithstanding its own recently defeated communist insurgency that took place within a year of India's freedom.

Its our lack of awareness and interest that is a symptom of being totally self-absorbed.

>>In any event, how would giving Pakistan Patton Tanks and Sabre Jets in 1954( years before India bought a single bullet from the Warsaw Pact) help the cause of defeating totalitarianism represented by Russia?

Because the writing was on the wall about the eventual drift of India into USSR orbit...and developing a relationship with Pakistan in the 50s paid dividends handsomely when Soviets invaded Afghanistan as well as a potential proxy in waging the cold war should it come to the subcontinent.

>>Was the idea that Pakistan would take those weapons right up to Moscow square, overthrow the politbureau, and declare Russia a free state? No, something else was at work there.

Yes, what was at work was slow, patient diplomacy that opened up military and diplomatic options down the road....which eventually led to the implosion of USSR.

I thought Americans assumed that the world revolves around them, that the world is their oyster etc. Never heard such an idea with regard to India, at least not to anywhere the same degree of brashness and arrogance. John Foster Dulles was a crude nincumpoop( and incidentally much reviled now in the US) who couldn't see the intrinsic value of India; India's new found independence, and its stated goal of lifting itself up through freedom and democracy. Americans have problems with empathy. A little bit of insight and empathy would have made them realise that India, having just obtained its independence, would be far more sensitive to any hints, let alone demonstrations, of colonialism and militarism particularly in this part of the world. And less aware or interested in the dangers presented by communism, notwithstanding its own recently defeated communist insurgency that took place within a year of India's freedom.
In any event, how would giving Pakistan Patton Tanks and Sabre Jets in 1954( years before India bought a single bullet from the Warsaw Pact) help the cause of defeating totalitarianism represented by Russia? Was the idea that Pakistan would take those weapons right up to Moscow square, overthrow the politbureau, and declare Russia a free state? No, something else was at work there.

As far as Indian psychology is concerned, Indian children grow up thinking the whole world revolves around THEM

>>India might be happy with even handed treatment,at least as far as China goes.

What India might be happy with or what it might have to settle for is a different issue than explaining the sources of American liberal behavior towards India to Indian elites who shouldn't be puzzled by an apparent "paradox"....if their understanding extended beyond thumbnail caricatures.

As far as Indian psychology is concerned, Indian children grow up thinking the whole world revolves around because of the hyper doting and hyper adulation from parents and grandparents. When these children grow up to be politicians and diplomats, they believe the whole world revolves around their country. So pleading for equal treatment with the Chinese while pleading for more than equal treatment with the Pakistanis is perfectly insynch with such underdeveloped psyches.

>>The US policy in the subcontinent had much more to do with selling arms, obtaining regular clients, and with needing an arms conduit to help get the Russians out of Afghanistan.

They make more money selling thong underwear to fat girls than they make by selling arms on the subcontinent. Pakistan was very instrumental in its rapprochement with China throughout late 60s and early 70s. Booting the Soviets out of Afghanistan didn't come into picture until early 80s. The tilt towards Pakistan happened in early 50s by John Foster Dulles who saw Indian equivocation in supporting the "good guys" in the cold war.

"So, the moral equivalence strain in American liberal thought leads to actions that infuriate Indian elites who believe they are entitled to favorable treatment because of their "democracy" vis-a-vis China or Pakistan."

India might be happy with even handed treatment,at least as far as China goes. India rightly sees that the US glosses or fawns over China, despite its shocking record of proliferation, propping up of North Korea, close ties with Iran( closer than India's) and human rights abuses, which are not criticised within the country.
So praise/criticise India for equal behaviour; don't equate India's relatively slight ties with the Myanmar junta, with China's massive assistance to that regime, starting back in the 80's.

"Foreign policy inertia from our betting on the wrong horse....like USSR."

India wasn't even trying to be at the races.As for Pakistan, it wasn't 'betting' against Russian totalitarianism, and positively not totalitarianism as such. Throughout those long years, did any Pakistani leader express any articulate, eloquent espousal of the idea freedom, liberty and democracy as against the concept of totalitarianism? In fact, Indian leaders and certainly Indian intellectuals were more likely to express such a sentiment, while not being formally part of the 'cold war'. The US policy in the subcontinent had much more to do with selling arms, obtaining regular clients, and with needing an arms conduit to help get the Russians out of Afghanistan.

>>Mehta is the latest model of a long and undistinguished line of personalities stretching back to the beginnings of civilization.

Saying the man is wrong is different from saying he is useless...why not extend the simple courtesy of assuming he writes what he believes? and then critique his ideas on their merits (or lack thereof)?

as for my previous post:

"Because liberals were operating from the mindset of moral equivalency between democracies and totalitarianism (making excuses for the latter's excesses)."

This is true only after 1970s; not before. Throughout the 50s Eisenhower/Dulles ran the show. In the 60s, Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon ran the show. They are all thought Indians were opportunistic weasels for "non-aligning" with USSR.

It was only after Vietnam and post-Nixon, the American liberals turned away from a nearly unanimous idea of "American Exceptionalism" to moral equivalence between western liberal democracies and non-democracies that kept them out of power for many years; Carter/Clinton being "conservative" Democrat exception.

Obama is the first time unabashed and unreconstructed liberals held power after 70s. So, the moral equivalence strain in American liberal thought leads to actions that infuriate Indian elites who believe they are entitled to favorable treatment because of their "democracy" vis-a-vis China or Pakistan.

Indian elites (along with the rest of the world) like the temporary occupation of the White House by someone who rhetorically abandons "American Exceptionalism." (e.g. nobel peace prize). And yet they are perplexed at the inexorable attitude that flows from it towards China or Pakistan as economic and foreign policy interests dictate.

As the Chinese proverb states, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

"It is a good article but it makes sweeping generalizations and speaks of American liberals as if they are a monolith."

As far as India is concerned, they are a monolith, not to mention extremely dishonest intellectually. The common traits of this group are a constant moral and physical equation of India and Pakistan, a nagging and hypocritical criticism of India's nuclear programme; an unwillingness to make favourable comparisons of India with China in terms of those values liberals generally hold dear; a shameless, repellent insensitivity to India's real problem of terrorism, while prodding India to criticise countries like Iran and North Korea: a lack of acknowledgement of the magnitude of what India has to grapple with in terms of poverty, diversity, instability and the reality of a turbulent neighbourhood; very sketchy, sporadic recognition of India's real achievements in science, industry, the arts and social reform.
One happy exception to this rule, is the recent pronouncement by former presidential candidate John Kerry, that India is the single biggest victim of terrorism in the world, and hence needs no lectures. That was refreshing, but too isolated.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has worked quite hard on his career. He pretends like a wise man advising the benighted people and also their leaders. He sometimes even makes a show of criticizing the leaders.

Actually what he says is exactly what the rulers want to hear. The rulers really like such people. Witness Henry Kissinger.
Mehta is the latest model of a long and undistinguished line of personalities stretching back to the beginnings of civilization. The tribal bard, the court historian, the harvard professor.

Such people always have a great career.

>>Even as thoughtful and influential a document as the “Princeton Project on National Security”, that aimed at “Forging a World of Liberty Under Law”, could barely disguise the undercurrent that its commitment to a global rule of law was not for intrinsic reasons, but because it could enhance American power.

Because no ideas that clearly diminish American power in exchange for vague ideals are sellable in American politics.

>>Certainly there is something quite bizarre about the extraordinary construction of India as an “obstructionist” state that still permeates discourse in the American liberal establishment on almost every issue.

Maybe they actually sat across tables in trying to cut a deal while Indians are more interested in pontificating?

>>But there is still something odd about the repeated calls in the liberal establishment that India should take more responsibility, while China is let off lightly.

take more responsibility in what? ever heard the adage keep your friends close and keep your enemies (current and potential) closer?

>>All the liberal non-proliferationists still bear a grudge against India,

Because India thumbed their nose at one of their core non-negotiable axioms....war can be prevented by merely limiting weapons...non-proliferation in foreign affairs, gun control in domestic affairs

>>China still serves the function of an exoticism in a way in which India does not. India, by virtue of its political system, is all too familiar.

both are inscrutable to them...just the chinese are ready to do business while we are ready to bloviate

>>he Pakistani ruling establishment still has an odd allure.

I wouldn't underestimate the loyalty factor through out the cold war era...American liberals were muscularly anti-communistic into early 70s including their labor unions. Ronald Reagan was the president of screen actors guild, a union.

>>This reinforces the two dynamics mentioned above: a culturally protective instinct on Pakistan (the Hindu-Muslim question is still centrally conflated with the Pakistan question),

they don't care about either...from their point of view, they don't want these two damn fools from starting something that will fuck up the world

>>ndeed, India should hold itself to higher standards than other powers.

Even as its elites whine about double standards?

>>but it makes sweeping generalizations and speaks of American liberals as if they are a monolith.

He didn't want you to be alone in your sweeping generalization of their Right!

>>Raman was more explicit in comparing the policies of the Obama administration with those of the Bush administration.

In that push come to shove, neither will subordinate their national interests as they perceive them to India's interests as it perceives them?

>>The proof that we Indians seem to demand from foreigners of their being friendly with us is whether they support us on the India-China border dispute and in the Kashmir dispute.

we never stop at friendly or unfriendly. we can't help jump to good or evil.

>>Both liberals and conservatives in the U.S.A. have similar attitudes and similar lack of interest on those two issues.

Because their interests do not change even if the party in power changes...

>>On the question of huge aid packages for Pakistan, both Bush and Obama have the same policy.

Foreign policy inertia from our betting on the wrong horse....like USSR.

>>Both administrations share their keenness to increase trade with China while looking the other way on China's atrocious human rights policies.

somehow our sovereign internal matter clap trap gets shoved to the wayside when chinese human rights policy is concerned....

>>Both applaud India's democracy.

words that fill Indian elite heads with helium....

>>Instead of seeking favoritism from American liberals or conservatives, we should make sure that our causes are just and our defense forces are strong.

our intellectual and cultural outlook prevents that. In the domestic arena, a problem is fixed by going to a powerful fixer. That habit, attitude and reflex get subconsciously projected into foreign arena: Godfather Khrushchev first and then Godfather Brezhnev were supposed to be our fixer.

Good article from Mr.Mehta, but it makes sweeping generalizations and speaks of American liberals as if they are a monolith. Raman was more explicit in comparing the policies of the Obama administration with those of the Bush administration. The proof that we Indians seem to demand from foreigners of their being friendly with us is whether they support us on the India-China border dispute and in the Kashmir dispute. Both liberals and conservatives in the U.S.A. have similar attitudes and similar lack of interest on those two issues. On the question of huge aid packages for Pakistan, both Bush and Obama have the same policy. Both administrations share their keenness to increase trade with China while looking the other way on China's atrocious human rights policies. Both applaud India's democracy. There were some right-wing neocons in the Bush administration who wanted to use India as a counter-balance to China, but even they did not articulate any support for us in our international disputes. Instead of seeking favoritism from American liberals or conservatives, we should make sure that our causes are just and our defense forces are strong.

American Politicians come in two flavors:

Ultra-Nationalist - Democrat

Rabid Fascist - Republican

American Liberal is an Oxymoron.

>>From India’s point of view, those whom we think of as liberals within the American spectrum seem much more difficult to deal with than conservatives.

Their conservatives are always more "trustworthy" in the sense they say what they mean and mean what they say...even if it is not to our liking. Not the case with liberals...who tend to be insultingly patronizing.

>>During the fifties the conservatives were miffed at India’s reluctance to be at the frontline of anti-communism, while liberals were trying to garner support for India.

Because liberals were operating from the mindset of moral equivalency between democracies and totalitarianism (making excuses for the latter's excesses). And anyone who was against their country was their friends.....until they hold the reigns of power....then the calculus changes.

>>Now liberals are less enthusiastic about India.

enthusiastic about carrying water for India? That seems more like delusions in India that someone else will do the country's bidding...very naive.

Moreover, I'd argue that their liberals are more calculating of self-interest despite their gauzy rhetoric. At least their conservatives can be appealed to through the ideals of their country's founding....liberals are immune to such appeals.

>>At one level, this is easy to explain. Contemporary conservatives believe in a straightforward calculus of power, shorn of any moralistic pretension; you can engage with them straightforwardly on that terrain.

That's an overstatement but generally true.

>>American liberals pretend to greater idealism. They therefore have higher moral demands: they want countries to be the perfect environmentalists, fair traders, human rights activists, and renounce nuclear weapons.

we are free to be imperfect environmentalists, unfair traders, human rights violators and nuclear weapons proliferators....problem is we get beguiled by their rhetoric and disappointed in their actions.

>>India is a problematic case for them because India’s position has been simple. India will go along with this version of internationalism only if it applies to all powers, including the major powers.

fine. but what do we bring to the table to bargain with? our moral suasion? that account has been overdrawn for a while....