A New Arms Race?

The US is planning to sell surveillance drones to Pakistan. India wants an assurance that these will not be used against India. Are you kidding me? Does the Indian governemtn seriously believe the Pakistanis stick to their word? When Vajpayee rode the bus to Lahore the Pakistani Army was busy with Kargil operations.

Another interesting item that can be noted is the statement of the American Defence Secretary, Robert Gates. He says that India and Pakistan will be provided arms on an "equitable basis". Does this not seem suspiciously close to actively inducing an arms race between the two nations?

Looking at Pakistan I am reminded of the erstwhile Soviet Union. A very important reason was the financial ruin that the Soviet Union had found itself in. Way back when Dr. Strangelove was made, the Soviet ambassador in the movie says that Russia was finding it difficult to match all the races it had entered with the US and hence finally developed the Doomsday Device. Pakistan has been trying to match India in various aspects, at least wrt defence. I wonder if one day Pakistan will collapse one day because of this. This picture is all the more worrying for India as while a Pakistan in turmoil might be good for our domestic peace (it will be too busy dealing with internal conflict to bother about India), this is only okay as long as the disturbance and the involved elements do not spill over to the India.

Human Rights and Hypocrisy

A 13-year old girl in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to get 90 lashes and two months in prison for getting a camera phone to her class. This is America's friend and ally Saudi Arabia. One wonders if there will be even a murmur of protest from the Americans for this flagrant violation of human rights. China is said to have quite a notorious human rights record, yet the US is perfectly willing to do business with it and is in fact dependent on China for quite a few things, not the least being purchasing its treasury bills.

American hypocrisy is not something that is new to the world but still when reports like this come up one can only wonder. India is frequently commented upon about religious freedom issues by US reports. Has the US been able to fully secure human rights to its citizens, especially the minorities? There is a saying, when you point one finger at somebody remember that there are four fingers pointing back at you. Will the US ever learn this, and more importantly implement the learning?

Sympathy and Apathy

I am watching Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 right now. In spite of this damning documentary Bush got reelected for a second time. One can only wonder if this probably shows the apathy of the American public to their own condition. It would be interesting to find out what Americans that the rest of the world should think about them. Many of them probably can't even point out 'the rest of the world' on a map. Their national sporting events are titled 'world series' if I am not mistaken. I am sadly reminded of the term koopastha mandookah - a frog in a well from that famous parable.

September 11 was undoubtedly a tragedy for the US and a lot of other countries who lost their citizens as well. But one reaction outside the US would definitely have been 'serves them right'. This would have been the case especially in India which has long been a victim of terrorism so conveniently ignored by the US in aid of its friend, Pakistan (probably not VERY different even now).

Another point shown in the documentary is how people from the undeveloped parts of the US were being recruited into the US armed forces. This is on the lines of a thought that I had myself when I was an NCC cadet. When I was at BIT Mesra we had to take a non-academic activity as part of the educational requirements. I had chosen the NCC as I was told it was an option that did not involve a whole lot of work. Well, it was true. I attended a camp once in Ranchi that was organized by the Air Force NCC company (I think that is the right word, I was in the Army wing). Many of the cadets I saw seemed to be from the lower strata of the society (economically or otherwise). When I wrote my B certificate exam (the details of which I do not want to reveal for reasons of my own) I had to attend an interview also. I was asked a question as to why there are not many south Indians in the armed forces. I gave them an answer I could think of at that point of time. When I later told this to a senior of mine he gave me a reason which seems the most logical. In south India there are a lot of job opportunities. Hence people need not look at the armed forces as career options. This is not true in the case of places like Bihar (at least erstwhile Bihar) where there were not many job options. The same can probably be said to be the reason for the proliferation of Biharis in the civil services.

So, is this the right thing to happen? Somehow this does not seem right. I talked about this some time back also. Even after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai people in south Mumbai did not come out to vote (I myself have not voted till now to be honest, I can try and justify, though I probably should not). Does the upper class of the country (and to an extent the middle class) really care about it? The Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary showcases how the Bush family's business interests seem to take precedence over their responsibility towards US citizens. Even in case of the lower classes I am sure they vote because they WANT something, not because out a feeling of patriotic duty. In this light, probably making voting compulsory does not seem such a bad thing after all.

A Crisis of Names

The Congress has been notorious for sycophancy - there was a Congress 'leader' who once delared "Indira is India" or the other way round. Now what is up with everything being named after Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi? Agreed, these were important political figures. What did Rajiv Gandhi do to confer upon him a Bharat Ratna? It was undoubtedly a tragedy for his family and a slap against India that he, a Prime Minister was assassinated. But that is it.

Whether a housing scheme, an employment scheme, a road, an airport or any thing on God's green earth, it is being named after these three erstwhile leaders. Does the Congress itself have no other leaders to speak of? Was it successful in producing only these three in the over 100 years of its existence? When will this sycophancy end?

Freedom of Speech

Shashi Tharoor is in the eye of a storm again, this time for criticizing the foreign policy of Nehru. He seems to have backed down and in the time-honoured way of politicians has taken refuge behind the excuse of having been 'misquoted'.

In the first place, I agree that Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi etc are pivotal figures in India's history. This does not mean that they were perfect, they were after all human. So why are we so intolerant about any criticism against these people? The Congress keeps harping about being a 'secular' party and about the tolerance of India. Why is it so intolerant about comments against its top leadership (erstwhile or current)? Gautama Buddha is supposed to have told his disciples not to accept his teachings blindly but to question and find out the truth for themselves. Are today's politicians so great that they are beyond reproach?

The Constitution gives every Indian the right to freedom of speech. What is the use of this if it is not implemented in spirit? Remember Voltaire's saying to an adversary - "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend till my death your right to say it." Where is such spirit in 'the world's largest democracy'?

I was surprised when Tharoor joined the Congress. He does not seem to be a very big fan of Nehru and Indira Gandhi as such. Read his The Great Indian Novel (spoiler warning). It is a modern take on the Mahabharata with political figures taking on the roles of the Mahabharata characters. It is quite an interesting read. Indira Gandhi is in Duryodhana's role and Nehru is the blind king Dhritarashtra. So I was surprised when he joined the Congress. Being in the Congress and in the government he might be expected to show some restraint but no one can curtail his right to free speech.