Manmohan Singh: Indians Deeply Love Bush

[Summy]

That's George W. Bush, calm down vick.

In an effort to bring some substance to an off topic board that has been flooded by pointless threads, of which conversations range from 'yo son that would be dope' to "ohh man LOL, LMAO".... I recently made a post about Pakistan and their struggles, as a nation who is going through some very hard time.

India may be at a cross road as well. The struggles may not be as much, and india may be seeing added levels of prosperity (before harman comes out and says that he doesnt agree that i believe india is prospering... NO,thats not what i think. They have huge amounts of poverty, and social problems, im talking relatively since it gained its independence).

Read this article that speaks to indians and their supposed admiration for Bush.
http://www.truthout.org/092808C

They make this interesting contrast about how the foundation of the nation was Gandhi's non violent movement. Even if you didnt like the man and the politics (that includes me), you have admiration for the stance he made and how he made it. Well, they claim, no longer can this nation be proud of these ideals, espeically when they consider themselves a nuclear state. They noted Gandhi's reaction to the bombing of japan.

Never thought of it that way, it blew my mind.

The author states: "With the signing of the US-India nuclear deal just days away, it is time to demolish all those Gandhi statues disfiguring Indian streets and squares and to adopt a new idol"

It then moves on to the definition of the "people of india".

"Firmly to be kept in mind is the fact that, from the Mahatma to Manmohan, the meaning of "people," too, has undergone a major change. The old fogey, whom some still consider the foremost figure of India's freedom struggle, might have identified the "people" with the poorest of the poor. The prime minister, however, speaks for an India that identifies more with the pick of its people with a place in the lists of the world's leading billionaires and millionaires"

The article is one of the most interesting I read in a long time... What do people think... Are indians giving up their foundational morals by accpeting this new, powerful, nuclear india? Is this nuclear deal, and the capabilities we hold a deep contrast to the values we as indians owe our freedom to? Not just the nuke deal, but with corparate india being amongst the richest/ powerful in the world, with the amount of millionaries and billionaires growing, is there an identity struggle going on?

How do those in the diaspora feel india's shifting identity?

 

[Saleem]

The changing demographic (or the change that Indian leadership likes to portray) goes much deeper than this nuclear deal. As we are all aware, the 21st century has brought much change to India (from its cities to its villages and farms). The newer generations are experiencing cultural and societal pressures that their grandparents would never have imagined. On a national level, there is a push to expand business opportunities and international leverage, as they see good things in making India one of the 21st century's leaders. Certainly it will lead in population (perhaps behind China).

Specifically on the nuclear deal, as it's within my sphere of interest: The signing of the deal is not the important thing here. The important issue is that India strove (secretly) to develop nuclear weapons, ignoring international nonproliferation efforts, and developed a nuclear warhead, which not only secured them in a small group of nuclear powers, but also profoundly escalated the conflict with Pakistan, as it rushed to join the club, too. Now we have a nuclear-armed Pakistan, as well. The treaty is just the US saying "you were bad, but we're friends again". The need for India to go out and 'prove itself' by developing nuclear weapons is the disturbing thing which again points out the disconnect between the old and poor demographic in India, and the younger, middle-to-upper-class who are working on a Global Economy centered in part in India.

 

[Summy]

I think you went on a bit of a tangent there Saleem, although I appreciate the comment.

Saleem, I think you may be a little misinformed on what the deal is about. You said that the important thing is that India strove secretly to develop nuclear weapons, ignoring nonproliferation efforts... The deal that was just hammered out between the US and India is sharing information on techonology, research and advancements together. India possessed nuclear warheads for a long time. This is not a new developement, nor was it done secretly.

The nonproliferation treaty signed in 1968, only has four soverign states against it.. I know for sure it is India and Pakistan, and the other two I believe, are Israel and North Korea. Now, what people MUST understand is why these nations did NOT sign the treaties. Focusing in on Pakistan and India... Both countries, in my opinion, and world opinion, were justified in their arguments for not signing the NPT. Now Saleem, if we accept your insinuations, that India was secretive in their movements to `develop nuclear weapons`, this is simiply not the case. The NPT treaty allows a distinction between two sets of states. The NPT does NOT call for the abolishment of nuclear weapons, or restricting the developement, but they call for the stopping the `spread` of weapons. The treaty DOES ALLOW nations who have testes nuclear weapons PRIOR to the signing of the treaty (1967) to possess their weapons and continue to develope them. For two nations, who gained independence only 20 years before this treaty, there is NO validity for restricting both states in having weapons, while allowing the US, China`s and other nations to keep them.

If you have a border dispute like India had with China, a nuclear state, there is a reason why you need to possess these weapons NOT as an option, but as a deterent. Now, I am totally against nuclear weapons, but I am also not for the allegelled superpowers throwing their international weight around so that smaller more developing nations could not have a chance at the same weapons. What many people dont know, and Saleem made it seem like India and Pakistan had a race against each other (true to some extent) but BOTH NATIONS, helped each other out regarding the developement of weapons. In fact, that was one of the Bhutto`s biggest achievements. They both shared scientists and information, so both nations could become legit in the international stage. If the world chooses to be armed, restricting smaller nations and putting them at the mercy of nuclear nations is NOT something beneficial for Pakistanis or Indians.

Now Saleem brought up the put of ``India trying to prove themselves``. Well explained above why this is not the case. People always ask the question, well, why does america, and china have the right to produce nuclear weapons and possess them, while, the same cant go for the Indias and Pakistans of the world... Well, the simple answer is that nukes are detterents. Simply put, when a country possess a nuke, the option of using that is always real. If you are to protect your nation moving forward, having the ability to have the same measures as other nations is critical. Now, this is not condoning the use of these weapons. But this is arguing against the fact that Saleem said India needed to prove themselves, which basically means, pakistan wanted to prove themselves too. NO, both countries were merely adhereing to the culture of nuclear techonology the US, and China have created amongst others.


India did nothing wrong in possessing these weapons. Now morally, I believe they are just as wrong as the states are for possessing them, but to insinuate that somehow India has different motives, or different reasons for capturing the techonology than the US or China is simply false. Nuclear power is merely a way to legitimize prosperity in the world stage. Is it beneficial.. I dont think so... Should any nation possess them... nope... But the fact that the NPT was drafted to KEEP THE NUCLEAR POWERS IN CHARGE BOTH ECONOMICALLY, and MILITARILY, is completely against what is fair and balanced. India and pakistan did nothing wrong when they armed.

Now, the reason why India and the US have signed a deal, and the US and Pakistan have not, is how the programs have shifted. India signed the agreement with Russia and the US, because they are seen as a stable nuclear state, whereas in the world community opinion, and the US, pakistan is not. Now these are just the facts, not what I think. I personally think if the US wants to disarm unstable states like Pakistan, Iran and how they tired to in Iraq, having the NPT backing up their own proliferation is something that doesnt speak to this sentiment. Those nations have legitimate concerns of those who are dictating the power and where it lies.


I am not getting into the reasons of why it was signed, thats not the issue. The issue is that are the morals of a nation based in non violence, being abondoned in the world today, which pushes India forward to become nuclear not the other way around. The indian morals, in my opinion, which I wanted to keep out of this, have been forced to be changed.

We cannot think that India or Pakistan did anything secretly... Thats not the case at all, them possessing nukes is as justified as the US and China are. Whether they should possess them at all is a different story.