|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM | |||
|
September 16, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers reacted to Dilip D'Souza's last column
Date sent: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 18:50:31
Mr Mandela's mention of Kashmir in his inaugural address at NAM clearly illustrates the fallacy of factoring emotions into foreign policy. Ultimately, any country makes foreign policy choices based on its selfish national interests; more so in today's unipolar oligarchic world order. Mr Mandela, for his own reasons, chose to parrot the pro-West view, ignoring the festering problems of terrorism and low-intensity war in Kashmir. Maybe it was because South Africa is eyeing a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. However, the notion of "residual gratefulness" is an antiquated one; and should not be a basis for India's foreign policy equations. Ironically, an excellent and successful example of this school of foreign policy is China, India's prime strategic security concern. Its foreign policy actions have always displayed an independent tone, based solely on its national interests. When China speaks today, the world listens (whether they agree with the Chinese viewpoint or not). India's principled stand on universal nuclear disarmament did not prevent its complete isolation during the CTBT talks in 1996. What happened to NAM and developing countries which were supposedly "grateful" for India's principled stand during the CTBT talks? Why was India isolated? Let India speak for only one country in the future: India. Let us not arrogate a role for ourselves as a "leader" of the developing world. Today, economic and military strength matter more than "moral" strength in interactions between countries. One need not go further than sshow the economically and militarily powerful West has marginalised nuclear disarmament and focused the spotlight on nuclear proliferation. Srinivas Peeta
Date sent: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 23:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Dilip D'Souza is right... again! Why shouldn't NAM be used as a forum to solve disputes among its members, now that the Cold War is over and the focus of NAM has to necessarily change? What is so wrong with that? It is indeed pathetic to see the BJP government in India invoke meaningless excuses such as `NAM has a "long tradition" of not raising any "bilateral issue of contention"'. Organisations such as NAM have to necessarily evolve and change with time. If they don't, they turn into moribund outfits useful only for providing vacation opportunities to a few bigwigs. It is fitting that it was Nelson Mandela that snubbed the Indian government. The freedom struggle in South Africa, and Mandela in particular, drew enormous inspiration from the life, the ideals and thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi. In contrast, in today's India, it is the allies of the ruling BJP that are not only merely downplaying the role that Gandhi played in the shaping of India, but also casting him as a villain whose "slaughter" (in their words) is justified because he "betrayed" India!
Date sent: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:01:26 EDT
Here is another who thinks diplomacy does not play any part. Emotions are all fine, but there is something called diplomacy. Dilip -- thank God!! - a person like you is just a small columnist!!!! Nothing more !!!!!
Date sent: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:26:50 +0200
I was very happy to read Mr D'Souza's column on Dr Mandela's speech. Sitting far away from India, my wife and I were very surprised by the readiness with which leaders after leaders in the government thought it fit to go into hysterical rage. As Mr D'Souza points out, there is nothing wrong in a well-meaning friend offering help in settling a dispute between two neighbours. In any case, what progress has India shown in handling this matter bilaterally? India has very rarely displayed maturity and statesmanship in international affairs. Diffidence, low self-esteem and insecurity mark our economic and foreign policies. Small wonder, then, that a nation of 940 million people commands so little attention in the world stage. If she does, it is mostly for all wrong reasons. Anantha-Nageswaran
Date sent: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:22:25 +0200
I have gone through both the columns by Dilip Dsouza & Kanchan Gupta. Kanchan Gupta's column moved me, to say the least, and Dilip D'Souza's column left a bad taste in the mouth. D'Souza sounds hollow... the effort to support Mandela by dissecting a sentence into words to check the 'objectionable' content is nothing but an insult to the educated reader. What is important and has been missed out (even forgetting the official tack of bilateral issues not to be raised) is that Mandela sought it fit to raise the issue in a manner suggesting that we as a nation could do nothing. Instead, if his reference had been on fighting international terrorism, stopping cross border terrorism and supporting any efforts to that extent, it would have got the desired result. Quoting Mr Gujral is meaningless. If it had been Mr Gujral in power, his reaction would have been quite different, I am pretty sure about that. While I appreciate the concern about loss of lives etc, there are forums where the issues have to be raised. I am pretty sure that Dilip D'Souza would not have published this column in a comic magazine! Kanchan Gupta's article can be faulted only on one note -- there was a lot of emotion in it. But that's not a sin. Mr D'Souza's article speaks of unabashed Western philosophies. Remember, Mr D'Souza, that India is still a sovereign nation and no country or person can interfere in her internal affairs. Srinivasan
Date sent: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:21:40 -0500
This guy just writes absolute junk. I don't know why you publish such articles. "Driven by that worry, Mandela urged us to resolve our quarrel. Again as any human being might, he said he was even ready to help us do so if needed." The above observation is absolutely illogical. If Mandela wanted to do so, he could express it to India at a private (diplomatic) level. There is absolutely no necessity to make such an offer in a multilateral meet like the NAM. Valli G
Date sent: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:13:50 -0600
Your Web site has received the Best Web site award. But if you keep on publishing such articles, readers will try to keep away from it. I don't know what's there in D'Souza's mind. But he is a very negative man who likes to spoil everything. Please spare your readers from such things. Arun
Date sent: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 14:13:28 -0400
Don't publish such bullshit article on your site. Not a single Indian (who feels proud of India) wants to read this. Dilip, be wise and write good stuff. If you can't, don't write at all. Shri
Date sent: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 02:36:07 -0400 (EDT)
After having read Dilip D'Souza's article I am kinda get the feeling that anyone can get anything published in Rediff. It is high time that Rediff stopped publishing such articles. No use being sorry later. Venkatesh
Date sent: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 20:53:17 -0400
I read Dilip D'Souza's columns. I enjoy them. I am pleased that there are still some Indians who can think for themselves. However, I am not sure that I agree with this piece. I think Mandela has been swayed by the world opinion that there is no harm in having third party mediation in Indo-Pak talks on Kashmir. The Indian government in all its stupidity has succeeded in making people feel sorry for Pakistan. It's a bit like Ken Starr's actions, which make decent people feel sorry for people like Susan McDougal. But be as it may, the Kashmir issue should not be internationalised. This will only result in losing Kashmir to Pakistan. An aside: I am surprised by the umbrage generated by Dilip's columns among the so-called Indian intellectuals here. The vitriol in some of their letters is comic -- yet very sad if it is a portrayal of Indian thought.
K.S Gopinath
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:56:07 -0400
The Kashmir issue has now crossed all boundaries of logic. We can no longer look at it from any perspective -- historical, cultural or religious. It has become a pimple on our collective face that just seems to get worse and scars any little beauty we might still possess. Does anyone really care or talk about meaningful issues anymore? Kashmir is a minefield for politicos on both sides of the border. It is highly obvious that any sort of conclusion to this sordid affair would end up screwing at least one section of our highly estimable leadership -- Indian or Pakistani. Would you like somebody to walk up and say, "That's a huge pimple on your face, want me to take a look at it?" I'm sure none of our leaders would. Ram Kumar
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:25:21 -0400
India might have overreacted in NAM. But there is one basic thing Dilip has to understand. With regards to Kashmir, Pak is the aggressor. They train terrorists and they cause havoc. It is not India that supports terrorists. So it is very wrong to put India and Pak on the same pedestal. Why don't Mandela or whoever concerned condemn Pak's activities in Kashmir? Let Mandela ask Pak to stop terrorist activites in Kashmir. Then there can be talks. Nehru first placed the Kashmir issue in the UN. He sincerely thought the UN would be able to resolve this issue. But that was not to be. Then came the Simla Agreement. Now a faraway country, which does not understand or does not care to understand what the real problem is, brings up the issue just to please some others. That is not acceptable! Let them acknowledge Pak's terrorists activities in Kashmir. Then there could be some improvement in the situation. Ashok
Date sent: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:08:59 -0400
I am surprised that folks these days just write for the sake of writing. No vision whatsoever. Everyone wants to be a revolutionary. Everyone wants to be an Arun Shourie. Every writer thirsts for acclaim. It is all right to go after fame. But along with this should come some background research work before writing the article. It is wrong to spread the wrong message. This is not the first time. I have observed Dilip's articles time and again. They carry the same message -- the will to run against the general belief of the common man. Why? Just to illustrate that he is a rebel. Again, I repeat, this is all right as long as there is some depth in the article. This man does not look into the future. His sole ambition seems to be to attack the BJP ideology and gain some mileage in the process. It is shocking that these are the people who are influencing hundreds of other Indians through their erroneous interpretations, which are not substantiated with enough facts!
Date sent: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 03:17:52 -0700
Very well written. Thoughtful article. People don't matter in India. Only selfish motives. Baski
Date sent: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:28:23 -0600 (CST)
At the outset I can say that it is one of the worst articles I have ever read. If at all the author is good, it is in one thing: painting facts with well-formed sentences. According to him, Mandela is concerned about the precious human lives that are being thrown away and his words at NAM are just showing his sorrow. No, it's not true. Everyone knows that -- I suspect even Mr D'Souza knows it. Mr Mandela is just trying to please the western countries. He is not offering to help us, he is trying to internationalise the issue and let the superpowers decide what India should do. The author's argument is meaningless and outrageous. He used one analogy -- about that fight between him and his neighbour. I want to ask him a question: what if his neighbour encroaches part of his compound? Well, as a civilised man he might try to convince his neighbour about the misdeed. He even might keep quiet and guard the rest of his place just as India did. But what if his neighbour tries to encroach even further? Mr D'Souza is suggesting that he would go to one Mr Mandela, who is peeping thorough his window, and take his help. Or he is ready to go to the bloody superpower that is obviously sympathetic to the neighbour. I want to tell Mr D'Souza that most Indians are really shocked by Mr Mandela's comments. Kashmir is an integral part of India and would remain so. There is no need for the intervention of Mr Mandela or any superpower. Mr D'Souza must understand that the hurt and shock is due to the constant support India gave to the ANC and Mandela when they needed it most. Well, everyone knows that diplomacy is determined by national interests and not by sentiment. On this count we can understand Mr Mandela's compulsions. But I cannot understand Mr D'Souza's sympathies for that statement. He might fall into that category of Indians who feel that ridiculing the Indian pride is the sign of "intellectuality". I remember someone calling this kind of people as RNI (Resident Non Indian). It seems he has some serious problems with his Indian roots. In that case consult some good doctor ... don't preach to others. We are common people who are proud to be Indians. Rediff, I really wonder how you can publish such rubbish. Maybe you want some publicity or you just want to fill up the day's edition? You can find much better writers. Please don't publish too much rubbish and spoil our confidence. I have been visiting your page regularly from the day you started it. Nanda Kishore |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH
SHOPPING & RESERVATIONS | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|