|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | AT HOME ABROAD | |||
|
November 30, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
'US policy is still mired in the medieval Western mindset of Napoleons and Hitlers'
Date sent: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:28:44 -0800
Well written, Rajeev. But I'm quite surprised that you had left many other important examples. The US government machinery had been used cruelly, much to the dismay of the public. Many members of the National Association of Advancement of Colored People and Black Panthers party were brutally tortured or were made to just "disappear" during the civil rights movement. Other significant instances of human rights abuse, include, but are not limited to: 1) The death of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King were direct consequences of their anti-war and pro-black opinions. Their killing constitutes human rights abuses. 2) The failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. 3) Pentagon Papers. 4) Watergate. (There cannot be a better example). 5) The Rosewell incident (New Mexico) in 1947/48 regarding the observation of UFOs. If you are a Buddhist or a Communist, you are most probably on FBI's watch list. Blank phone calls, anonymous letters demanding your abdication of such ideas are quite common. Ramsundar Lakshminarayanan Date sent: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:55:52 -0600
Rajeev Srinivasan seems to be making his livelihood by criticising America. Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:52:56 +1000
Rajeev, keep it up. Americans suffer from amnesia about their country. Amnesty International has to cure this. Rama Date sent: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:03:35 -0500
Great job. Haven't read a better article on this topic yet. Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:54:13 -0600
Yet another excellent piece from Rajeev. I too believe there is a lack of total objectivity in US policies and practices. Look at the totalitarian simplistic pictures they paint -- socialism vs capitalism; vs communism etc. And you know it is another propaganda machine at work, and not a real philosophy. At the core, I guess, US policy is still mired in the medieval Western mindset of Napoleons and Hitlers who thought one absolute good must overpower all else. C S R Jawahar Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:19:06 -0500
I agree totally with your article and would like to see some of India's surplus of brains used to the country's advantage. The key problem I have with Indians is that they put themselves down and don't work together when it is in their best interest to do so. I often wonder what is the root cause of this, economic weakness, colonialism, or thousands of years of Hinduism that focused on non-violence and passivity? Whatever the reasons are, they need to be understood and used to bring about a more successful future. I think some of these points need to be addressed: 1) People should think of their country first. 2) No country can be underdeveloped and be a superpower. To develop, India must first clean up its act. I visited it recently, and found it one of the filthiest countries in the world. Cleanliness is a prerequisite for development. Next, it should continue to build clean housing and organise safe water for the poor until everyone has this bare minimum. Next, it should continue to increase literacy from its current 55 per cent to close to 100 per cent as fast as possible. When I visited Vietnam I was surprised to see how clean it was and that it has 95 per cent literacy though its per capita GNP is half that of India. 3) India has to build a positive image of itself. This is easy. Just spend money every year on marketing to let the world know how ancient, beautiful, democratic, capitalist, and powerful India is. Repeat the message in all major economies until the younger generations there are brainwashed, and then continue this PR campaign. 4) Continue exporting IT know-how! It's a great wealth-producer, and India is going to be better at it than any country on the planet in the next 10 years. Date sent: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:12:14 -0500
This was a breathtaking article. It makes very good reading. Expect to see more of this! Saurabh Date sent: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:20:23 +0530
Once again, this is well written. One thing I like about the USA -- perhaps it is the only country in the world where you can talk so freely about (read conspire against) their own people and get away with it. This is perhaps a fallout of being a very open society. But there is one advantage there. Your SWOT analysis is good. But you said about India that "large, vociferous, opposition groups that are more concerned about bringing down the government than about the national interest", describing that as a weakness. But such a move can also bring any serious effort to a nought. The media can play a big role in highlighting this factor. I only hope that some of our current leaders are reading your articles to get educated on how and when to promote "national interest" and not "self-interest". I quote from one of your earlier articles, "India should do whatever is necessary to protect her own interests; expediency is better than misplaced morals." Gone are the days of "Simple living and high thinking", especially as a country. Such countries (and their people) are perceived to be weak and hence their voices are not heard. Extremely "selfish" national interest is the need of the hour. It is high time we follow the "Mooh pe Ram Ram, bagal me choori (Chant Ram Ram but carry a knife too) policy when dealing with countries like the US, Pakistan and China. Date sent: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:32:16 EST
Congratulations, Mr Rajeev Srinivasan! Keep it up. Babu Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 11:44:58 EST
I usually like Rajeev Srinivasan's articles and do not find too much wrong with them. But this time I'm appalled by the severely distorted article he has written. He has written an article on a topic very much in vogue nowadays: Blame it on Nehru. This shows very little originality and many of his conclusions are wrong. He slanders Nehru and other policymakers of his generation without even attempting to provide explanations for their actions. Calling them Stalinists is criminal. I would refer him to Nehru's speech at the first convocation of IIT, Kharagpur, where he clearly mentions that India will devise its own third way (so popular nowadays) even though there are some sections that wanted otherwise (indirect reference to Communists and the USSR). Srinivasan is totally wrong in likening Nehru to Stalin. Srinivasan then mentions that India should have concentrated on "agriculture, infrastructure, education and health". It's precisely this that the Indian government attempted. The First Five-Year Plan focused on agriculture. This was necessary because of the famine of 1943 and a more general food shortage. Surprisingly, no one in India blames the British for the famine that claimed three million and left innumerable others starving. There have been plenty of food and famine control mechanisms in place since the late nineteenth century following one great famine then. That in itself was perhaps the first in India, since it is unusual for a country with 15 per cent of the world's arable land to be unable to feed 15 per cent of the world's population. My own theory for the 1943 famine is that the British punished India for the Quit India Movement and the refusal of the Indian National Congress to endorse the war effort. I would rather have some journalist write an article about such white-washing of history than see an article like Srinivasan's. Coming back to agriculture, the First Five-Year Plan was a success. Agricultural production increased quite significantly, so much in fact that prices collapsed and small farmers suffered a great deal. It was only at this point that the government -- after ensuring food reserves and building some irrigation facilities -- concentrated on infrastructure in the Second Five-Year Plan. Now for the issue of companies investing in transport. There is no company that was going to build roads and railways for India. I don't know any country that has a well-developed, privately-funded road or rail network. Recently, Chandrababu Naidu couldn't find any company to build a highway from Hyderabad to Madras. Even Western economists recommend that the government take up this kind of work. That post-colonial giant, the Indian Railways, is very much a creation of the post-Independence generation. If it is inefficient today, we need to address that. But it still doesn't mean that those who expanded it are to be blamed. Srinivasan also says the government hasn't concentrated on infrastructure. If transportation is not infrastructure, what is? How can we create railways without steel? Who was going to pump so much money to set up steel plants in India at that time? The British? Or the Americans? After the East India Company experience, would this have made sense? Would we have pardoned the post-Independence generation if they had invited foreign investment? How could they have reconciled their struggle for freedom with such an invitation even if they considered such a preposterous idea? Were there any such investors? Were they willing to accept an invitation? Has Srinivasan considered the political cost of such a "throwing open" of the economy by Nehru. What is most intolerable is the pursuit of inefficiency in the name of swadeshi principles by the current generation of politicians. Moreover, nationalisation of inefficient industries was conducted during the Indira Gandhi government, and not the Nehru government. Srinivasan accuses Nehru's government of promoting "crony capitalism". How could Nehru have been a socialist and in league with the capitalists at the same time? Is Srinivasan accusing our first prime minister of corruption? The initial planners did design a policy to suit Indian industrialists. Should we blame them for that? If there were mistakes in their policy, which, after being vandalised by subsequent politicians, does not encourage entrepreneurs, we need to correct that. If at all anyone is to be blamed for not creating an environment that promotes entrepreneurs, it is the politicians of the 1970s and later, Indira Gandhi's power politics being a most important factor. Entrepreneurs do not succeed in India because of an inadequate police force (which protects you only if you have the money or political influence), and the present brand of "half-baked" swadeshi jingoism-liberalisation philosophy. It is this generation of politicians who need to be blamed for a lack of direction in policy. A common complaint about the "Nehruvian" economic policy is the tax structure that taxed large incomes heavily, thereby promoting evasion and impeding investment. It must be noted that there were many countries that had similar tax structures. Most notably, Britain itself had 83 per cent tax on the highest income slab and 98 per cent tax for return on investment till 1979. We were not unique to have such policies. As in Britain, these were found to be incorrect and therefore replaced at a later date. In fact, this goes on to prove that one correct decision Rajiv Gandhi took while in power was also not his own decision but a result of planners continuing to copy Western systems, in this case the changes brought by Margaret Thatcher. This shows how bad a choice Rajiv was, and reflects poorly on the urban educated elite from which our decision-makers spring. Nehru cannot be blamed for the actions of Indira, Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi. Nehru did not appoint Indira Gandhi as his successor. If we are to believe former US ambassador to India Daniel Patrick Moynihan, she won on two occasions because of the CIA. Obviously, both of these incidents were before 1971. For education, we actually need to thank Nehru. Our maharajahs, the British, churches, devasthanams, majlis, or even the political system itself, hasn't helped create as many institutions in so short a time. We need to improve this system so that everyone who wants to can receive an education. We should not be blaming the Nehru generation or even the other factors mentioned here. It's fashionable nowadays for people to talk about privatisation of education and research. While such arguments can be considered, public funding of education must be maintained and substantially increased. The US spends $400 billion on its schools (nearly equal to our entire GDP). At the university level, most research is funded through the National Science Foundation, department of energy, and other such government organisations, the armed forces, are heavily subsidised and protected by large industries like Boeing. Compare this to our government's action of going to UNESCO with plans to privatise higher education. I blame all political parties, the press and opinion-makers who know nothing about science for this -- I would expect people like Srinivasan to take up such policy issues since, I believe, he is an engineer. While we shout about the WTO, why aren't we similarly cautious about UNESCO. After all, its experts are also all pro-West. What we don't need in the field of education is the kind of useless debate that took place in the past few weeks after the education ministers conference. Health care is again an issue where we need to cherish the few "shibboleths" that we have and build more. We can learn from the example of Canada that has top quality health care, funded with public money. We need not copy them though. What we need is transparency in government, better collection of taxes (from all sections that can pay and not just the underpaid 0.7 per cent of the salaried classes now coughing up), an economic policy that promotes Indian entrepreneurs just as the West promotes its own, an effective police and an accessible, efficient judiciary. Srinivasan asks us to compare ourselves with South Korea. He does not mention the correlation between American military bases and the relative prosperity of the locals in such nations. Most NATO and other countries that are doing well are with the US on most issues. Let us not blame Nehru for trying to change the world and trying to formulate an independent foreign policy. We should be proud of that and build and correct that. The small extent to which there is multi-polarity in the world is because of such efforts. Let us at least try to give our first prime minister the respect the Americans give their racist, slave-owning presidents of yore. Nehru cannot be compared to them and it is unjust to compare him and the post-Independent generation to Stalinists. Ashish Krupadanam Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:39:37 -0500
Rajeev is absolutely marvellous in his writings. And he has noted what insight on the part of the British white supremacists, what cunning thinking? With small trading outposts in Surat and Calcutta they took control of the whole Indian subcontinent in relatively a short period of time. I might add that they improved on the tactics of the Portuguese, Spaniards and invading Muslims from central Asia. I have become Rajeev's new fan. I love to read his commentaries. His are, by far, the most informative, truthful and intellectual analyses -- on any subject. Please keep up the good work. I wish there was a whole squadron of new commentators and writers in the same mould as Rajeev. Hiren |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|
