Is America hostile toward India?
25 Oct 1998
Ram Narayanan @worldnet.att.net
>From: "V. Prahalad"
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:51:45 +0500
>Unsympathetic editorials (regarding wsj
>on Amartya Sen) reflect the American attitude towards India and the >rest
of
>the non-white world........... Lets face it.
>America is a hostile nation.
>
I do not think America is hostile toward India. America, like India, is a
nation of diverse ethnic groups trying to live together in harmony. You
cannot meet a more large hearted person than an American.
And - yes - Americans hold many different viewpoints as Indians do. This is
exactly what one would expect in any genuine democracy.
As regards the WSJ article on Amartya Sen, it does not reflect any
prejudice against Indians or other non-Whites. I am sure if Jagdish Bhagvati
had been awarded the Nobet Prize in Economics (as he might well be some time
in the future), WSJ would have welcomed the decision. Tha's only because WSJ
is not well disposed toward any viewpoint that it considers not in
accordance with its free market principles. It has nothing to do with any
prejudice based on ethnic origin of the prize winner..
Ram Narayanan
[email protected] or [email protected]
http://www.indiaintl.com
25 Oct 1998
Kerry R Kinchen @stic.net
>More importantly, it is not a pleasure to have an American interested
>in Indian culture and its people. Unsympathetic editorials (regarding wsj
>on Amartya Sen) reflect the American attitude towards India and the rest of
>the non-white world. I wonder if the author would have extended a similar
>invitation if a query had been made by a Bangladeshi or Pakistani. We must
>not flatter ourselves with everything that is American. Lets face it.
>America is a hostile nation.
I agree that America is a hostile nation. Yet, I also believe that statement
should be addressed catagorically and should not be considered a blanket
statement. The same would apply in saying that India is not a hostile
nation. Not hostile to whom? If a Hindu and a Muslim clash on an Indian
street then you have hostility. If there is the slightest act of caste
snobbery, then you have hostility. If there is police corruption in the form
of pay-offs, (or simply ignoring the crime) then you have hostility. If
India has many of it's educated and brilliant leaving it's soil for another
country, then it can be argued that you have definitive hostility. Not to
mention unsympathetic editorials (or thoughts) from other Indians regarding
wsj on Amartya Sen.
I am an American, which puts me in the ten percentile that is assumed by V.
Prahalad to be of the "Inn's" membership. That figure would mean that at
least ten percent of Interact India Inn's subscribers including myself are
hostile toward India. An absurd proposition to say the least.
I don't consider myself to be bigoted toward Indians. Yet, my thoughts do
not represent all the thoughts of all people in America or the so-called ten
percent figure, and my thoughts do not represent those of Pakistan and
Bangladesh, which is exactly the point. It is unfair to group everyone in
America as representing some sort of esoteric "American Attitude" ie.
anti-Indian. It seems to me that one who groups a whole type of ethnos (a
contrived ethnos at that) into a category such as "non-white world" in an
attempt to set up a straw-man style of argumentation against the remaining
group (white world) is the one who is the bigot, thus exposing that ones
identity as the true hostile. By the way, not all Americans are white, and
not all Indians are non-white.
Lastly, I hope that America haters are not spokespeople for the rest of the
Interact India Inn Community, as well as all Indians everywhere. It is sad
that one persons anger and resentment has been aroused just because of a
simple tourist's enquiry and the polite and enthusistic response given by
another Indian.
Thanks,
Kerry
[email protected]
26 Oct 1998
vivek_narasimhan @maaln.satyam.net.in
Hi,
Hostile would not be the right word.It would we better to call America an
"opportunist nation".It , today finds itselt in a position ,that when it
speaks , the entire world listens.It is precisely this power it seeks to
make use of . I see nothing wrong in what America is doing ( not
specifically on the Amartya Sen issue, but even generally). It is doing all
this to mantain its position as world power, that it today, undoubtably
is.It would be foolish to be powerful and not exert one's
influence.Otherwise how would the world listen to you. If America behaves
any differently, than what it is doing at present , then theories such as
Darwin's"survival of the fittest" would become mere banalities rather than
well accepted works of science.
rgds
26 Oct 1998
RohanGupta @aol.com
I hope to offer a different perspective to the discussion because I am an
American, a philiac of Indian Culture, but a patriot. This is the
distinction: I am an American; my parents came from India, but my heredity is
Indian. I acknowledge that, but America is my home, no other. America is a
hostile nation. Hostile to most nations, particularly those made up of
nonwhite people. But America has to be. It is no doubt that America is the
leader of the Free World, and as a leader, it must intervene in the decisions
of other nations if they affect our own. For example, India's rise to Nuclear
Power. How idiotic is that? America cannot allow India to handle nuclear
weapons. That is analogical to handing a child a gun. I have faith in the
American system. There is such an intricate system of checks and balances
that America's power has to authorized by the people. No Indian, Pakistani,
or such person authorizes their nation to do anything. India has the promise
of becoming a great nation, but instead of entering a pissing match with
Pakistan, it should try to solve its own problems. One of those problems can
be solved by halting the ludicrous parliamentary system of government. Start
voting for leaders instead of a Party. When I went to India, I was disgusted
by the 2-sided nation. Some of the nation was headed towards innovation and
promise, the other half was dirt poor. When I went to Nasik to handle my
grandfather's last rites, my father three 1 rupee into the river. I saw a
child jump into a filthy, unsanitary river to get it. Is this how a nation is
supposed to be. 40% of the people are below the INDIAN poverty line.
According to the Indian Cost of living estimates, I am a millionaire even
though I am middle class here. Cops are all corrupt, officials are corrupt,
India has made a mess it can't correct. America has to intervene. It is the
only nation with stability. No one messes with us. I know most of you will
dislike what I said, but start really walking through the poor sections of
Mumbai and then walk through Bandra and the shore (ju beach). The brightest
Indians come to America because the success in America greatly exceeds it in
India. Indians comprise of the top students in America for reasons that our
parents taught the value of hard work and In America, anyone can be
successful. John D. Rockefeller was poor, industry worker. Through
education, he rose to become on of the richest men in American history.
Peace
Rohan Gupta
26 Oct 1998
B.G. Mahesh @hotmail.com
Dear Rohan
You email, needless to say, was too disturbing.
>
>I hope to offer a different perspective to the discussion because I am
an
>American, a philiac of Indian Culture, but a patriot. This is the
>distinction: I am an American; my parents came from India, but my
heredity is
>Indian. I acknowledge that, but America is my home, no other. America
is a
>hostile nation. Hostile to most nations, particularly those made up of
>nonwhite people. But America has to be.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not sure how many Americans will agree with you. Who
says a country has to be hostile. You seem to be telling America SHOULD
be hostile against non-whites? Could you enlighten this list what
according to you, should US do to be hostile towards India (to keep the
MINORITY like you HAPPY and PROUD) e.g.
1. bomb Indian cities? if you have a list of FAVORITE cities that
should be destroyed, tell us.
2. bomb our satellites?
3. ask all Indians (non US-citizens) to return to India?
4. *fund* the dot-busters which existed in 1980s to kill Indians?
5. or to keep it simple and *clean* just drop an atomic/nuclear bomb
on India and CLOSE the chapter once and for all (applause please)
>It is no doubt that America is the leader of the Free World, and
>as a leader, it must intervene in the decisions
>of other nations if they affect our own. For example, India's rise >to
Nuclear Power. How idiotic is that?
Yes, if protecting our borders is wrong, then yes India is idiotic.
Which country is MOST likely to sell the nuclear bomb (which the western
media calls a "DUD BOMB") to other countries - India or Pakistan?
>America cannot allow India to handle nuclear
>weapons. That is analogical to handing a child a gun.
You are right again, US cannot allow India to have nuclear weapons. But
it can allow China to have nuclear weapons, it can export the technology
(nuclear and satellite) to China. China is a sincere country and we
Indians are not. China will act in a responsible way and India will not.
I guess history will support my statement ;-)
But US is allowed to have as many nuclear bombs as it wants. Sound very
fair to me.
>I have faith in the American system. There is such an intricate
>system of checks and balances that America's power has to authorized
>by the people.
Do you realiase that India AND Pakistan is a YOUNG country? We got
independence in 1947. Both countries had to build from scratch. What you
need to ask is "will India change the form of government in the coming
years". Do you think changing the form of govt can be done over night?
Be patient, it will happen. Remember there *are* people in India who
will take part in the government in the coming years who will make a
difference.
>No Indian, Pakistani,
>or such person authorizes their nation to do anything.
There is a country called "China" next to India. You seem to TOTALLY
IGNORE the fact that US has ARMED China and Pakistan and you want
Indians to be just SUCKING THEIR THUMBS? Please note that slavery has
ended long ago, India REFUSES to be ruled by others and India has NO
DESIRE to rule others.
>India has the promise of becoming a great nation, but instead of >
entering a pissing match with
>Pakistan, it should try to solve its own problems.
So according to you eventhough India had the proof about Pakistan
getting the technology from China, we had no DAMN right to protect
ourselves. Right?
So which country supports terrorism - India or Pakistan? Heard of India
training terrorists and sending them all over the world to kill people?
NO.
>One of those problems can
>be solved by halting the ludicrous parliamentary system of >government.
Start voting for leaders instead of a Party.
It is easy to point fingers Rohan. Don't be a stereotype by just talking
about problems, be part of the solution. Do something if you think it
will help India. It is easy for you to sit where you are and SPIT on
India and Indians.
>When I went to India, I was disgusted by the 2-sided nation.
You will do yourself and Indians a lot of good by not visiting India
again.
>Some of >the nation was headed towards innovation and
>promise, the other half was dirt poor. When I went to Nasik to >handle
my
>grandfather's last rites, my father three 1 rupee into the river. I
>saw a
>child jump into a filthy, unsanitary river to get it. Is this how a
nation is
>supposed to be. 40% of the people are below the INDIAN poverty line.
>According to the Indian Cost of living estimates, I am a millionaire
even
>though I am middle class here. Cops are all corrupt, officials are
^^^^
again, a stereotype statement.
>corrupt,India has made a mess it can't correct.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
well if you say it cannot correct then why are you suggesting
people need to vote for leaders and not parties. Because even if we vote
for leaders we cannot correct the mess according to you.
>America has to intervene. It is the only nation with stability.
I am glad India has said clearly it doesn't want a 3rd party to solve
the Kashmir problem. What happened few days ago ? President Clinton
wants CIA to mediate the Israel-Palestine problem and Congress/Senate
may NOT approve it (rightly so). Don't you think there are enuf problems
in US? What about the homeless? Are you even aware that an Indian
Organization "Bal Vikas" in Virginia cooks and delivers food to the
homeless in Washington DC many times a year? Shouldn't the US govt be
first solving the problems here instead of arming China and Pakistan?
have you EVER been to interior of Alabama state? I have been there, it
is no different from villages in India at times - education sucks, food
and water problem, no hospitals etc etc.
US has its own problems but yes India has bigger problems. That is NO
excuse to INSULT *India* and *Indians*
>No one messes with us.
But I guess others are allowed to MESS with India. Why? Because we are
not rich, we are a third world country and our skin color is not..???
>I know most of you will dislike what I said, but start really walking
>through the poor sections of
Just to give you some info..10 days ago two Indians were shot dead in
Maryland. This was nothing but a hate crime. The crime scene was really
not that far from the white house. While the President and the press was
QUICK in reacting to the killing of the gay student recently and terming
it as HATE CRIME (which indeed was the case) there was ABSOULTELY NO
response from the President about this cold blodded murder.
>Peace
Peace to you my friend...I wonder if you ever work for FBI or CIA what
will happen to India..I guess India "will be HISTORY"
I pray to god my child will NEVER think like you - I don't want my child
to be anti-India, anti-America, anti-anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
B.G. Mahesh | http://www.mahesh.com/
Internet Consultant | http://www.visual-interactive.com/
Email: [email protected] | http://www.careerindia.com/
26 Oct 1998
RohanGupta @aol.com
Dear K. K. Arun K.:
First, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a last minute executive
decision to save thousands of American lives. W.W.II was droning needlessly
onto it's fifth year, the allies had to do something to end the War in the
Pacific because the resolute Japanese wouldn't easily give up. If the
American public didn't like the dropping of the bomb, and a lot didn't, they
would criticize Truman and they did heavily.
Why would I want to be a part of the New York Yacht Club? All I want is to
live peacefully knowing that everything I have, I worked hard and earned it.
27 Oct 1998
ANKIT GAUR @giasmda.vsnl.net.in
When I started reading your e-mail I was like ok your views are pretty
correct but I was shocked when I read that you thought that letting
India build a Nuclear bomb was like a child handling a gun.Isnt is that
literally what happens in America? 7 year olds killing their schoolmates!
I think Americans treat the nuclear issue as a child's play.What about
Hiroshima?? Yes 40% of India's population lives below the poverty line but
thats only one side of the coin.We are bad PRs we are not good in showing
the great side of the country.I can go on listing issues that trouble
America but I guess the whole world knows.We are basically fed up with
America acting as an international policeman always poking their nose into
'internal' affairs of other countries.First let America clean up its act.
Ankit
27 Oct 1998
Subhabrata Saha @cornell.edu
Dear Rohan,
I am very disappointed by your letter. As an Indian student studying at
Cornell with friends at MIT, Stanford and quite a few of the Ivy League
schools one of the things i most appreciate about America is the fact that
people here are friendly and always sympathetic and actively curious about
India. I won't even get into facts you have ignored e.g. Noam Chomsky from
MIT deplores American foreign policy. Those are points i would bring up
against a rational and well organized argument. Yours is anything but that.
I appreciate you bringing up an alternative viewpoint. The viewpoint is
fine but your defense of it is illogical and vague. I've talked about some
of the things you said below, but next time you take a controversial
stance, please do make sure you justify what you are saying. Otherwise, you
infuriate and enrage people who take time to consider your arguments out of
respect for you as a person.
>America is a hostile nation. Hostile to most nations, particularly those
made up of
>nonwhite people. But America has to be.
You seem to confuse racism with universal military issues. Every country -
regardless of international status - is hostile towards factors that
threaten it's security. Today security is synonymous with economic power.
Most Americans are open minded enough that they try not to be hostile
towards nations because of racial content. If America imposed sanctions on
India it was because of a perceived threat to it in the form of instability
in the region, not because they decided they didn't like our skin color.
>It is no doubt that America is the leader of the Free World, and as a
leader, it must >intervene in the decisions of other nations if they affect
our own.
No, you're wrong again. A leader does not intervene in decisions if they
affect only itself. That is a BAD leader. A good leader is one who merely
suggests and defends his suggestions for the good of the group and not of
himself alone. Perhaps you're confusing dictatorship with leadership ?
> America cannot allow India to handle nuclear weapons. That is analogical
to handing a > child a gun.
I take it you have not heard about the NRA which supports children having
guns ? Or about all the incidents where children in America took up guns
and shot school mates ? I don't think America has taken children away from
guns because of those incidents. You should really check your facts and
find out your country's position on children and weapons.
>No Indian, Pakistani, or such person authorizes their nation to do
anything.
Just like Bill Clinton did not want to authorize his country going to
Vietnam and so dodged the draft ?
>India has the promise of becoming a great nation, but instead of
>entering a pissing match with Pakistan, it should try to solve its own
problems.
Just like America did during the Cold War era when it participated in an
arms race, raised the national deficit by spending millions on weapons
research and created the poverty of American schools and minorities ?
>One of those problems can be solved by halting the ludicrous parliamentary
system of >government. Start voting for leaders instead of a Party.
You're right. We need people who lie under oath and have sex in the Oval
Office while Secret Service personnel keep the place under constant video
surveillance.Appealing to some, no doubt, but controversial as a leadership
gesture...
>According to the Indian Cost of living estimates, I am a millionaire
>even though I am middle class here.
That's a measure of the purchasing power of the currency. You would find
the same thing if you went to Japan as far as necessities are concerned.
Similarly people from the Arab nations or England are richer in America
than in their own country because their currencies are stronger. I don't
understand what you want this argument to mean.
>America has to intervene. It is the only nation with stability.
What about Switzerland ? That's definitely more stable if you count the
number of wars in the last century or so. Or Belgium or Australia.
Stability does not transfer from one country to another because of
intervention.
> When I went to
> Nasik to handle my grandfather's last rites, my father three 1 rupee into
the river. I
> saw a child jump into a filthy, unsanitary river to get it. Is this how a
> nation is supposed to be ?
How was this child different from the homeless in America who root in the
garbage to find half rotting food to eat ? Is the situation different
because the child didn't have a gun or didn't mug anyone for food ?
Again, check your arguments. I don't know how old you are, but i have to
say that with a defense like this, very few colleges are likely to
appreciate your entrance essay, not to mention that your professors will
tear you apart. Also, no offense, but as an American you should be more
careful of using words like "analogical" because unlike us, you really have
no excuse for a poor vocabulary.
Sincerely,
Subhabrata
27 Oct 1998
sri @usa.net
Mr Rohan,
Firstly I sincerely hope to God that you do not occupy a place of policy
makers either in the US or in India. God help us all if what you say is
really what the Americans believe in.
Dropping a nuclear bomb to save a few Americans and stop a war that was
just dragging along! I shudder to even think how anyone could have
thought in such a way!
Perhaps your mails reflect the exact attitude that causes the most
resentment among members of the list. Why do you say that India cannot
handle nuclear technology and America can? Like I tried to make my point
in my previous mail about welfare, most champions of the free world
believe that their philosophy works everywhere and everytime. They
simply do not understand India (or perhaps anything else other than
their own small "free" world).
Let me narrate a small incident that happened here (in Germany). One day
one of my friends was telling me that after visiting India he has become
more resolute to educate the masses in India and lead them towards
"development" (a la the west). The same night when I was travelling in a
local train some punks threw a cigarette butt and me and made some
racial remarks. When I told that to my friend the next day, he replied
saying that there was lot of unemployment and hence the resentment is
"understandable", as it is quite difficult to live on welfare alone. I
replied that unemployment in India means starvation; yet bashing
outsiders is not considered an "understandable" behavior. In fact, more
often than not, outsiders are fussed over rather than being resented.
Forgive me, for me, the "free" world looks more like materialism--
wanting more and more-- and equating having more with progress. I have
seen people in India much more happy with much less.
Sorry the mail is getting very long, but I cannot resist quoting a small
anecdote (a story by Leo Tolstoy?) which was telecasted on DD. The
story was about a beggar girl and two movie barons. The
movie barons are looking for someone to play the role of a
child destitute and seeking "originality" visit some of the
Bombay slums. They spot this child (it was played by Guddi)
who is very lively and rather bossy over others. They see that
she manages to coerce money from wayward strangers by
some means or the other. They decide to approach this child
and during conversation ask her whether she would like to
visit a movie studio. She becomes excited to actually see
movie stars and is even more excited when she learns that
she is being taken there by car!! On the way she greets many
of her destitute friends from the car who look at her with
unsupressed awe. When they finally reach the studio and she
has been shown all the glitter of moviedom, they
"get down to business". They ask her whether she would like
to act in a movie. She gets thrilled and says "yes! certainly!
but I want a Rajkumari's (princess') role". They explain to her that
theirs is a "modern" movie and there are no Rajkumaris here. She
has to play the role of a destitute. She has to sing a sad song,
she has to beg money from people. The girl is unconvinced.
She doesn't want the role. But they keep persuading her and
finally one of them says "See you are so suited for this role".
This was too much for her. She leaves the room in tears. Later
contemplating on what happened, and regretting that they
had hurt the child, one of them (it was well played by Radha
Seth) says "In her eyes she was a Rajkumari. It was we who
made her a destitute. Bhikari wo thi ya hum? (Was she the destitute, or
was it us?)".
I am sure it would be best if India were left to find out its own
solutions to its problems, rather than somebody else "educating" it and
making it "developed".
Warm Regards
Srinath
27 Oct 1998
Kamal Singh @hotmail.com
hello to all .i had just read the comments given by a mr. gupta and his
views about india and the u .s.a.Well before i begin my ramblings ,i
would like to explain myself.i have lived in the u.s.a.,for 23yrs.my
family moved to the states when i was 2yrs old.i still believe that i
am a indian rather then a american.i took on the rituals of basic
american life, little league baseball,highschool football etc. all my
close friends are anglo-american.however it seems mr.gupta lacks
knowlegde in the area of culture idenity and social norms of a society.
i went to india for the very first time this past summer.i simply fell
in love with the place.india is the gem of asia.so many different
cultures
and religions under one common flag.amercia is not a melting pot.people
come to the u.s.a. and take on the social norms of the anglo elites.they
change their names and hence lose the idenity of who they are.america is
a good place, $$$$$$ and thats about the
only good that its about money.i attened a private university in los
angels.home less women and childern i came across on a daily basis
when i would go to the university.now for a major power in the world
how can the u.s.a explain for its homeless?gupta really forgets to
answer what the premise of being american is.look at the l.a.riots
and how african americans are still treated in america today.i can go
on about the nature of this region,however its understanding that is
lacking.india is the motherland and it is a brotherhood for all.
27 Oct 1998
V. Prahalad @giasmda.vsnl.net.in
>First, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a last minute executive
>decision to save thousands of American lives.
Mr. Rohan Gupta,
If anybody wanted an example of American double standards, here it is.
The first priority of any respectable government (whether American or
Ugandan) under the sun is to protect its citizens. This is exactly what
promted Israel to strike against Palestine extremists who held Israelis
hostage at Entebbe. During this episode America said nothing.
The problem is, America is pissed when India attempts the same. It is okay
when America suspects Osama Bin Laden is conspiring with Taliban or Sudan
government and hence bombs the countries. But when the world knows
Pakistan is abetting terrorism in Kashmir and Indian citizens are
needlessly killed America says we shouldnt react. A senior us government
spokesman has gone on record saying America has the right to strike
anywhere on earth where it suspects Americans are tortured or killed but
India hasnt the right to protect the life of its citizens even in India!
The reasons for this are not far to seek. Jews hold few of the most
important positions in American industry and government. Eg. Lee Iococca
-chairman of Chrysler. Hence America can ill afford to antagonize Israel.
It cannot be overtly hostile towards Pakistan. Because Pakistan has close
links with the opec Gulf countries who have the power to make America
grovel, the power which they did exercise once in the past. America can be
overtly hostile towards India because Indians offer cheap labour-something
which suits capitalist America. This perception, to an extent is
contributed by Indians like you (oops, should I say an American like you?)
Mr. Rohan Gupta, who are middle class in America, but are millionaires by
their motherland's standards.
Make no mistake about it. I am not against Indians working in America.
But once in America to act like you-as if your brethren back home in India
are lesser mortals smacks of the highest depravity to which to a human
being can stoop--hatred of his own countrymen. If the situation arose, I
have no doubts that you would commit the greatest betrayal ever-betrayal of
ones homeland.
May God forgive you, for you know not what you say.
*************************************
V. Prahalad *
mailto:[email protected] *
IIIyr Electronics & Comm. Engg., *
College of Engineering, Guindy, *
Anna University. *
*************************************
27 Oct 1998
Vivek Murarka @manaskriti.com
> First, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a last minute executive
> decision to save thousands of American lives. W.W.II was droning
> needlessly onto it's fifth year, the allies had to do something to end the
I'm sure they teach more real history even in USA than Mr Gupta
displays any inkling of. Else Mr Gupta seems to be perspective
challenged. Or memory challenged.
To present a larger picture, than Mr Gupta has, :
1. USA remained "Neutral" through at least the first two years
of the war. This despite a call to arms from USA's "Allies"
which was refused on "Pacifist" grounds.
2. During this time the two sides fighting both spent
themselves out in every way - men, money, materials, munitions,
machines, manufacturing, medicines, food, shelter, clothing ....
3. "Neutral" in the American dictionaries of that time (as
applicable to them) meant : One who sell arms to both sides in
huge quantities (directly and/or indirectly) at huge profits -
to enable the then still ailing (in the aftermath of 1929 Stock
Market crash and the consequent world wide depression) domestic
economy to revive.
BTW : "Neutral" in American dictionaries of the Cold War times
(as applicable to others) meant : Those who quietly worked for
their cause and kept quietly quiet in public.
4. When the carcass of Europe (fattened throughout its length
and breadth from colonial coffers) was ready, the erstwhile
Neutral Pacifists stepped in - "To save the world". The real
impetus : Sinking of an American ship carrying munitions for the
other side. The given excuse : Bombing of Pearls Harbour (a
naval base). The Axis, mind you, had declared war against USA.
5. American men, with American machines, munitions, movies and
movie stars etc now *invaded* Europe and other lands to liberate
them all. Of course, there were monetary payments to be received
for the services (as in the case of the recent "war" in Kuwait) -
look into the history of "Eurodollars" - but more of that later.
6. So, God save America. For, America believes in God, rest
strictly Cash. And America saved the World. As it did later in
Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Palestine
....
7. The liberators then became looters - and only USSR
understood and foiled the global designs. How :-
i. America (North and South, more particularly North) was the
only continent which did not see the war take place on its own
soil. And hence was cash-rich - from preservation and from
profit - both privately and publicly. And the social and
demographic structure was also largely unaffected.
ii. Private capital now bought out (at carpetbagger prices) the
moveable treasures of Europe and other places, but particularly
Europe. Public capital was advanced to war-torn nations (of both
sides) as war-loans (non interest-free, mind you). The
consideration for such grants, and the security for re-payment,
was submission to treaties (and internal measures) which took
away the sovereignty of the borrowing countries. These loan
funds got transformed later into "Eurodollars" circa 1972-1985.
iii. So, while they took the lion's share, USSR managed to
take enough to give them headaches for the next 30 years.
8. America now controlled - directly - most of the "Free
World". Except since 1947, India. What it did not control
directly, it controlled indirectly. By constantly holding out
the unstated threat of exercising the "Nuclear Alternative" -
Once (or as many times as may be necessary) again. For they were
the only ones with the demonstrated gumption required.
[Oh ! Yes ! While the WWII was drawing to an end, USA became
public (though it was still low-key) supporters of the cause for
Indian Independence. For obvious selfish reasons - viz. while
India remained part of the British crown jewels, Englishmen (and
the British Empire) would never really need Daylight Saving Time
- Churchill, too, knew this well. And hence the former colony -
west of the Isles - would never be able to rest in peace.]
Pardon me, those who know all this already, for the lecture.
Without the benefit of the research materials available in
"American" libraries - public, academic and Congressional - I'm
sure I am a bit rusty on the details. But this I can offer -
Upton Sinclair's World's End series of books (also known as the
Lanny Budd Series) give an excellent (and only slightly
fictionalised) account of the era spanning the two world wars
and the American role in world affairs during that time. Upton
Sinclair was from USA and began writing the series just about
the time WWII started. And if memory serves me right, he was
looked upon as a "Commie" in his own country. Towards the end of
the series the protagonist or "sutradhar" rather, was also
forced to think that he was pink.
> First, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a last minute
executive > decision to save thousands of American lives.
W.W.II was droning > needlessly onto it's fifth year, the allies
had to do something to end the
Dealing specifically with the terms, used in very thinly veiled
(though unwitting, but that's how its probably explained to
them) apology, in the mail under reference :
"Last minute executive decision". Last minute my foot - it was a
completely pre-meditated (planned out two years ahead) research-
military project from the word go - ask anybody who was
involved, there are some of them still around. "Executive
Decision" does not absolve anyone of the responsibility - or the
guilt. "save thousands of American lives" - Yeah, that's all
that matters - my country right or wrong. "Droning Needlessly" -
like B-52 bombers - read Catch 22. "its fifth year" - would not
have been necessary but for points 1, 2 and 3 above. "The allies
had to do something" because the Japs were not willing to go the
American way, lots of American lads (and only American Lads, no
Brits, French ...) were suffering (worse than their sons ever
would in 'Nam) in certain Pacific Archipelagos and Islands which
shall remain nameless lest old wounds are reopened, those lads'
mums at home were growing increasingly restive and the
administration and the war-machinery itself was in any event
near break-down point.
> War in the Pacific because the resolute Japanese wouldn't
easily give up.
They were/are resolute. So ? Nuke/napalm/gas/spy/Super301/pirate-
patent them.
> If the American public didn't like the dropping of the bomb, and a lot
> didn't, they would criticize Truman and they did heavily. Why would I
So ? Sectional critisism received is the end of the matter, the
end of responsibility, the end of guilt. It is absolution. ????
And again, only the American public opinion matters ? For an
inhuman act committed upon another nation ? Only because it
"wouldn't easily give up" and the war was "droning" ???
> want to be a part of the New York Yacht Club? All I want is to live
> peacefully knowing that everything I have, I worked hard and earned it.
Ah ! The Cat is finally out of the Bag !
Comments and Corrections (of fact) more than welcome.
Regards.
Vivek Murarka.
27 Oct 1998
Vivek Murarka @manaskriti.com
Dear Rohan and others of his ilk.
B G Mahesh, K K Arun Krishnan, Vivek Narasihman et al have, I
think, adequately responded to you gentlemen. However, I am
unable to resist putting in my two bits. Just to show that India
is also a *hostile* nation. Because it too has a position to
protect. The sad part is that it had, all theses years, been
doing so without hostility but with firmness.
I remember, Mrs I Gandhi - then PM - was in Washington once when
the Cold War was still on and USSR was still Uncle S's major
headache. At a press conference. Mrs. G was asked - Which way do
you lean ? The Answer - India does not lean. India stands erect.
The hostility has increased because now India stands (as erect
as ever) in the meele of nations and demands adequate body-space
with slightly less meekness. And This is perceived as either
aggressive design or Childishness or (and this last due the
inherent weaknesses of the concerned countries) threat to the
(self-assumed) First/Second/Third... Nation status of the
countries that so feel threatened.
> America is a hostile nation. Hostile to most nations,
particularly those
> made up of nonwhite people. But America has to be. It is no doubt that
> America is the leader of the Free World, and as a leader, it must
> intervene in the decisions of other nations if they affect our own.
No one complains about your physical hostility, dearies - though
you complain about it in case of all others. What gets
everyone's goat is the intellectual, moral, mental and
metaphysical hostility and tenacious resistance displayed
towards any fact, thought, data, suggestion, theory etc which
militates against or impinges upon the the fixed ideas and
notions and the larger-than-life self-image that are apparent in
the above statement. Its not a race hostility, nor nation-
specific or anything of that kind.
> example, India's rise to Nuclear Power. How idiotic is that?
America
> cannot allow India to handle nuclear weapons. That is analogical to
> handing a child a gun.
Dear Friend, resolve the pros and cons of the demands of the
National Rifle-owners's Association first. No school-kid ever
staged a shootout anywhere else in the world. Only IN America.
India's rise to Nuclear Power is much less *idiotic* ( ? ) than
USA's rise thereto. And that of Libya. And that of Pakistan. The
Nuke haves (pre May 1998) have many more nukes to mishandle. And
have already mishandled many of them, many a times and in many a
ways. If daddy shaves today; son, too, will someday. And will do
so with a Gillette Sensor Excel II or better: whereas daddy used
to with a "safety razor" - so not to worry, dahling. Else,
daddy, grow a beard.
FIY, dahlings, and for the 'n'th time (and if you don't believe
me go to www.ctbto.org - the website of the CTBT Organization,
which is the international body formed to oversee the
implementation of that "document") India originated, nurtured
and spearheaded the world nuclear-disarmament movement. Its only
because none of you little children would listen to reason, that
the thing must be done properly or not at all, that in May 1998
India had to make a little noise. If you do have a little real
*faith* AND *patience*, only good can come out of May 1998,
India. For, Either all of us in the world will have to commit
ourselves, together and equally, to give up the nuke option
(INCLUDING USA) - OR - be happy with an intricate system of
checks and balances in the world arena as you are with one
allegedly available in your domestic polity.
BTW : Will you guys ratify the CTBT. Whether or not India signs
it. Remember, it does not come into force (ie., does not become
a binding legal document) unless All the pre May 1998 NUKES
ratify - and less than half have till date.
> I have faith in the American system.
Go ahead. Have whatever you want. Have faith. Have doubt. Have
Kentucky Fried Chicken. Have Coke. Or Pepsi. Have 'em plain. Or
Salted. Or Sugared. But don't have Rice-Tech "basmati". Its not
The Real Thing.
> such an intricate system of checks and balances that America's power has
> to authorized by the people. No Indian, Pakistani, or such
person
> authorizes their nation to do anything. India has the promise of becoming
> a great nation, but instead of entering a pissing match with Pakistan, it
> should try to solve its own problems. One of those problems can be solved
> by halting the ludicrous parliamentary system of government. Start voting
> for leaders instead of a Party.
1. Such an intricate system that no one in the system knows the
system. That's why you had to have Deep Throat (I'm referring
primarily to Watergate and not Linda). That's why buildings in
Washington have the largest ratio of "Lobbies" anywhere in the
world. Thai's why a certain building has more "Rooms" than
"Offices" (take a letter, give two). That's why another certain
building is a regular Polygon (and therein lies the clue) not
conventional to Architecture.
2. We Indians; who are Indians by heredity, birth, citizenship
and persuation; have more confidence in our "Executives" as you
call yours and "Leaders" or "Statesmen" as we call ours.
Your Executives have to be authorised by all of you (and here I
am relying only on your own statements - not my meagre knowledge
or understanding - regarding your "system") for all their
decisions; but it would take you years, literally, to impeach
any of them. The US Supreme Court Justices have life tenure, I
believe. What if J Grisahm's "Pelican Brief" type scenario ever
came true ? But then, the Founding Fathers never had the benefit
of Pentagon's "What If" exercises. Or, nobody ever thought of
applying them to the Judicial Branch. And, come to think of it,
nowhere but in a Presidential System is the Theory of Separation
of Powers so weakly applied.
We let our leaders go ahead and do the job. And if required, our
Parliamentary No Confidence Motion procedure is much more
simple, fast, efficient and fair than your Impeachment procedure.
3. Correction. India is A Great Nation. Always was too. Despite
the ravaging by itinerant tradespeople. And therein lies the
reason for the world's fears. No question of "promise of
becoming".
4. Brother India woke up and yawned, only yawned mind you. And
everybody else pissed in their pants. So do not delude
yourselves about pissing matches.
5. Indian problems. What do you know of them ? And which one of
them would be solved by the vague political course that you
suggest, pray ? ... halting the .... system of government ? The
only people who ever tried it were the USA when they failed to
pass the Federal Budget. Ask Congress how it felt. And if people
weeping in public for having lied to the public in public - and
still continuing in public office - is not ludicrous, I don't
know what is.
6. Please rest assured that we vote for our leaders. And our
leaders, whatever they do, do not throw parties (@ $200+ a
plate) to gather votes.
> When I went to India, I was disgusted by the 2-sided nation.
So, don't come again. :-). We are as we are.
> Some of the nation was headed towards innovation and promise,
> the other half was dirt poor.
That's true. Almost anywhere. Including the USA. It the Present
Tense as in the Past Tense.
> When I went to Nasik to handle my grandfather's last rites,
We Indians, born and brought up in India, attend funerals. We do
not *handle* them.
> child jump into a filthy, unsanitary river to get it. Is this how a
> nation is supposed to be.
No. Its certainly not the ideal situation. But are you venturing
to suggest that we follow the examples of the nation that gave
the world the Exxon Valdez Oil Disaster.
> 40% of the people are below the INDIAN poverty
> line. According to the Indian Cost of living estimates, I am a millionaire
> even though I am middle class here.
If global poverty lines and standards of living were to be
calculated (by Indians with Indian biases; instead of by
westerners with western biases) according to Indian values of
life and the domestic Indian Rupee Purchasing Power Parity,
nearly every one in the world, outside India, would be a pauper.
Just ask one of your economics whiz-kids to try it for a lark -
or as a research project cum reality check.
> Cops are all corrupt, officials are corrupt,
True again. To the extent generalisations are true. And again,
universally applicable. I have a book titled "Campaign Money",
published in the USA. It chronicles the corruption and
malpractice in the US political elections in the post-war era.
Like to read it ?
> India has made a mess it can't correct.
USA started the nuclear mess. And now, it can't correct it.
Again, substitute India with almost any other country; and
you'll still be correct.
> America has to intervene.
That much, certainly, is true. It's a compulsive habit - if you
ask me. Whether it makes a mess messier - or poops it up - is a
matter of opinion.
> It is the only nation with stability.
A statement of mere opinion.
> No one messes with us.
That's what you'd like to believe. If only wishes were horses.
> I know most of you will dislike what I said, but start really walking
> through the poor sections of Mumbai and then walk through Bandra and the
> shore (ju beach).
No, really, I liked what you said. At least you spoke your MIND.
But have you yourself walked through Dharavi. Or would you ever
have the guts to walk through Bronx or Hell's Kitchen. Really.
Or even in your dream/nightmare.
> The brightest Indians come to America because the
> success in America greatly exceeds it in India.
The brightest Indians are still in India. You ain't seen nuttin'
yet, buster. And they still want to remain in India. That's an
open secret. That's why the brightest Americans now want to come
to India. Ask some bright Americans. But remember, It takes a
Bright American to spot Another.
> In America, anyone can be successful.
That, without qualifications, is TRUE !!!
> Peace Rohan Gupta
War.
Vivek Murarka
27 Oct 1998
Chief Access Facilitator @webindia.com
Hi All u fighting Indians
Had to reply to this one point....
> > The brightest Indians come to America because the
> > success in America greatly exceeds it in India.
>
> The brightest Indians are still in India. You ain't seen nuttin'
> yet, buster. And they still want to remain in India. That's an
> open secret. That's why the brightest Americans now want to come
> to India. Ask some bright Americans. But remember, It takes a
> Bright American to spot Another.
At least until 1975 only the system rejects went abroad. Going abroad was
so esy all u had to do was fail in some subject, not get any of the plum
jobs in HAL, NAL and other govet agencies, apply for a scholarship to
some univ and go abroad and become a sucess there. Strange. After Pokran 1
many wnated to return, They were surprised by the acheivements of Indians
in India. Only advise given to them was please dont come back and spoil
the equilibrium. Even today u can find the brightest indiaqns still
struggling to give back soemthing to our nation. It is not becoz they are
not qualified to go abroad but they have choosen to stay here and do their
2 bit worth.
regds
R Krishnan
CAF - Chief Access Facilitator
WebIndia - Welcome to Business in India
http://www.webindia.com/
27 Oct 1998
RohanGupta @aol.com
It seems that lots of people are angry over what I said. So I an effort to
calm you down and clarify my position, I will offer a general statement.
America has done wrong things now and in the past, anyone who saw "Birth of
Nation" can tell you America is a violent nation. I would be a fool to tell
you otherwise. However, when America does something wrong. Let's say
something technical like the Iran-Contra affair. The American public always
finds out and is never hesitant to voice their opinion. The opinion of the
American public has clout. The opinions of the Indian public has little
clout. What I saw in India is a nation divided. Call it "crabs in a bucket"
or "divide and conquer" or "lack of unity," but the nation has too many
interests. But who is in charge, the rich. The rich have absolute power.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Does the rich in America have absolute
power? Hell no! The recent Monica Lewinsky fiasco or the Justice Department
Hearing on Bill Gates qualify that statement. The rich/elites can be easily
brought down from their luxury with one swift move of the press or one ardent
activist. The cigarette companies. For years they controlled all that was
said on tobacco. Until the public, outraged over the years of lies, starting
filing law suits, Congress took action and broke off former ties with tobacco
companies.
I don't hate Indians. Just because I don't acknowledge the fact that I am a
native of India, doesn't make me anti-Indian. I got to mandir, I pray with
intent, I speak out against Anti-Indian hatred in America. One of the head
Democratic chairpersons in NJ is an Indian. She wears a Sari everyday and I
applaud her. She serves as a model for people who want to do what they want
to do.
All I say is that Indian officials aren't doing their job. I am coming to
India this summer mainly for religious reasons but also for vacation. I
challenge anyone to prove me wrong when I say that America SHOULD watch over
Indian/pakisitani officials. They haven't done the job they are supposed to
do. And India won't vote them out because the public isn't offered a
plausible alternative. I will go to New Delhi and I want to speak with the
Indian officials and UN representatives. Americans can meet their senators
and representatives.
I don't intend everyone to like what I say. In fact, as Indian patriots, I
hope you don't. But instead of yelling at me, take a stand when you see
corruption in India. Try to get rid of the Indian parliamentary system
because it hasn't worked. If you have too many parties standing for too many
things, nothing will get done and nothing will be compromised.
Peace
Rohan
28 Oct 1998
B.G. Mahesh @hotmail.com
Dear Roshan
>Let's say
>something technical like the Iran-Contra affair. The American public
always
>finds out and is never hesitant to voice their opinion. The opinion of
the
>American public has clout.
Very true. People VOICE their opinion in US mainly because they have a
good (or bad) channel called the "media".
>The opinions of the Indian public has little
>clout.
It has improved over the years and in the coming years it will be a lot
better.
>But who is in charge, the rich. The rich have absolute power.
>Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Does the rich in America have
absolute
>power? Hell no!
But who has power in US my friend? LOBBYISTS (lawyers). Who killed
President Clinton's health care during his first term?
> I don't hate Indians. Just because I don't acknowledge the fact that
I am a
>native of India, doesn't make me anti-Indian.
There is nothing wrong in you not acking that you are not a native of
India, you were born and brought up in US.
But for you to tell India should not have nuclear weapons is somewhat
not correct. A better statement to make is "NOBODY should have a nuclear
weapon". After all WHO gave the right to US to have a weapon? Nobody,
hence noone should dictate on India what India can own and not own.
>I challenge anyone to prove me wrong when I say that America SHOULD
watch over
>Indian/pakisitani officials.
This idea of yours doesn't fly and it will NOT take you anywhere in life
:-(
This clearly shows how important UN is. US is not the police of the
world. They can "assume" that is the case if they want, people are free
to "assume" anything but others need not agree with it.
> I don't intend everyone to like what I say. In fact, as Indian
patriots, I
>hope you don't. But instead of yelling at me, take a stand when you
see
>corruption in India. Try to get rid of the Indian parliamentary system
>because it hasn't worked. If you have too many parties standing for
too many
>things, nothing will get done and nothing will be compromised.
>
Just yesterday the govt said they need to start a debate about moving to
Presidential form of govt. As I said before, change will happen but it
will not happen overnight. Changing the constitution is not a speedy
process.
regards,
bg mahesh
28 Oct 1998
Vani Murarka @manaskriti.com
> First, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a last minute executive
> decision to save thousands of American lives. W.W.II was droning
> needlessly onto it's fifth year, the allies had to do something to end the
> War in the Pacific because the resolute Japanese wouldn't easily give up.
Far from the horrifying truth. The American US and Navy intelligence
were firmly aware of Japan having started making attempts at peace and
that without the bomb the war could be brought to an end in weeks. But
they used the bomb nevertheless. Why?
Here are some excerpts from the fantastic book "Brighter Than A
Thousand Suns" - A Personal History History of the Atomic Scientists -
by Robert Jungk. As the back cover says, truly - "'Should be compulsory
reading' - Spectator".
Read each and every bit of the excerpts - READ THE BOOK.
Months before the bomb was dropped - in 1994-5
-- quote --
Shortly after Goudsmit had discovered Weizsacker's papers dealing
with the German atomic project he went for a walk with a major who had
been attached to the Alsos group in the capacity of liason officer with
the War Department.
'Isn't it wonderful', Goudsmit remarked ,'that the Germans have no
atom bomb? Now we won't have to use ours.'
The professional soldier's retort shocked Goudsmit, for out of his
many years' experience of the military mind he prophesied: 'Of course
you understand, Sam, that if we have such a weapon we are going to use
it.'
-- end quote --
July 1945
-- quote --
When the four professional experts of the scientific panel set
themselves once more to study the crucial problem of employment of the
atomic bomb, the following question, Compton recalls, was submitted to
them: 'Can we think of any other means of ending the war quickly?'
But the dillemma represented by the alternatives of dropping the
bomb or allowing the war to go on indefinitely did not, as we know
today, correspond with the true nature of the situation. It was based,
in exactly the same way as the earlier alternatives - 'Either we build
an atom bomb or Hitler will do it first' (*** refer to a later
excerpt) - on a false estimation of the plans and resources of the
enemy.
The intelligence services of both the Army and the Navy of the
United States were in fact at this date already convinced that the
final downfall of Japan could only be a question of a few more
weeks.Alfred McCormack, Military Intelligence Director for the Pacific
Theatre of War, recollects that 'we had such complete control of the
air over Japan that we knew when and from what port every ship would
put to sea. The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock and their
fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process
of mining all their harbours, which was steadily isolating them from
the rest of world. If we had brought this operation to its logical
conclusion the destruction of Japan's cities with incendiary and other
bombs would have been quite unnecessary."
-- end quote --
-- quote --
But another attempt made by Japan for the earnest possible
restoration of peace might have been taken more seriously. At the
suggestion of the Japanese Emperor a movement was initiated to end the
war with the United States through the Soviet Union. The first steps
towards that goal were taken 12th July - the very day on which the
first consignment of components for the Alamogordo test of the atom
bomb left Los Alamos.
-- end quote --
(** note: the first steps towards peace were taken by Japan on 12th
JULY and the bomb was dropped in Japan in AUGUST)
-- quote --
Washington, however, had long know of these manoeuvres, for the
Americans had deciphered the Japanese secret code. They had been
reading, ever since the middle of July the urgent instructions sent by
radio to Sato in Moscow by Prime Minister Tojo, as well as the replies
of the Ambassador. Among other messages they had read the words: 'Japan
is defeated. We must face that fact and act accordingly.'
-- end quote --
-- quote --
The American historian Robert J. C. Butow writes: 'Had the Allies
given the Prince a week of grace in which to obtain his Government's
support for acceptance of the proposals, the war might have ended
towards the latter part of July or the very beginning of the month of
August, without the atomic bomb and without Soviet participation in the
conflict.'
-- end quote --
** See Robert J. Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender
-- quote --
General Groves states that he, too, had not been told of the
Japanese peace feelers. The State Department, on the other hand, though
it knew every detail of the action taken by Tokyo in this connexion,
had been given not the slightest warning of the imminent use of the new
weapon.
-- end quote --
AMERICAN SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND RECHECKS?
and lastly -
-- quote --
It seems paradoxical that the German nuclear physicists, living
under a sabre-rattling dictatorship obeyed the voice of conscience and
attempted to prevent the construction of atom bombs, while their
professional colleagues in democracies, who had no coercion to fear
with very few exceptions concentrated their whole energies on
production of the new weapon.
-- end quote --
The book is really an eyeopener and if one is genuinely, even slightly,
interested in the world outside ones own circle - it a MUST READ.
Regards
Vani
* Vani Murarka * Manaskriti Software Solutions
* http://www.manaskriti.com * Ph: 4746625 / 4754838 * Calcutta, India
*
* Customised Software Development
* Website Development
* Mailing List Services
28 Oct 1998
Kerry R Kinchen @stic.net
>Americans hold many different viewpoints as Indians do. This is
>exactly what one would expect in any genuine democracy.--Ram Narayanan
Just wanted to let everyone know (American or Indian) that America is a
Republic. It is not a Democracy. unfortunately, the mistaken identity is
made often. The four main delineations are that a republic is 1.) "A
government of law" and is not a provider of rights, but is a guarantor of
rights. (Central rights in the American system are: Life, liberty and
property. Later, "property" became defined as "the pursuit of happiness."
2.) Rights are further defined within the law. 3.) That same law makes
provision for representation of the people through elected servants, and 4.)
Incorporated into the law is the outline of a checks and balance system to
be followed.
A democracy is a system whereby the majority of voters determine the outcome
of government. A democracy, unlike a republic does not have to recognize any
said rights. It is simply the right of the majority vote that is valid. in
fact the majority vote can take away any implied rights of the minority.
This is why the framers of the American form of government rejected a
democracy as their choice. Just for fun, let me mention that during the
brief period of choosing our government, America was an oligarchy, at least
in practice.
With that said, it is true that within the Republic of America, there is a
process of democratic vote, but this should not be considered the form of
government but rather an act of implementing the representation aspect--only
one aspect of a republic.
"...one republic for which it stands..."--excerpt from the American pledge
of allegiance.
Thanks,
Kerry
[email protected]
P.S. If someone knows of a good book describing the Indian form of
parliamentary government, please e-mail me the book name and author or a web
site will do just fine. I can not read Hindi, so it must be in English and
must be available in the U.S..--Thanks again.
29 Oct 1998
Tejinder Singh Rawal @nagpur.vsnl.net.in
A friend Gianendra Agrawal just wrote me this piece. It might provoke some
more thoughts, specially when we just had a very heated discussion on the
topic. I am sending it to the list without editing.
Tejinder
- Those who say "I will go back to India" are not doing India a favor.
- Getting hold of a green card is not an "achievement".
- Just because you have lived in US for a zillion years, the thought of
living in India need not send shivers down your spine- ("Ohh... I can't
imagine how they live there with those cows on the streets!"). It did
not, when you were riding a bicycle to college, and perhaps your
parents, brothers and sisters are still leading a happy and content life
in India.
- Timberland shoes can get dirty in rain, mud and snow. Shabby looking
shoes are not necessarily made in India.
- If you think India is in a mess, you are also responsible for it - the
mess (because you were there) as well as the slow pace of improvement
(because you shied away from the problem).
- It is easy to talk about the state of the affairs in India. But India
does send state of the art satellites into space, in spite of the brain
drain.
- If you think you were born to spend your life "in a place where people
obey laws", please do not encourage "cash business". It is a good idea
to pay the Indian restaurant using your credit card, which makes the
merchant include your transaction in his balance sheet!
- In case you did not know, software professionals in India are using
the latest versions of Oracle, Java and other "hot stuff".
- Just as it is unfair to compare the might of a 5 year old kid with
that of a 22 year old youth, it is also unfair to compare the condition
of a 50 year old nation with that of a 220 year old one.
- True, in US you can get an opportunity to work on something path
breaking (if you are lucky); but the quality of work in an average
decent software job in India is much better than in US. Talk to someone
who has worked in India for five years rather than someone who only
shrugs and says, "Baap re, working in India... ufff!" - and has never
worked there!
- How about this conversation: "Who, Joshis? They're not here
anymore, they went back to India." "Went BACK to India? Tch, tch,
bechare!" Doesn't the thought even brush your mind that perhaps they
went back to India out of their own choice?
- You can get a good shirt for $25, but you can get a shirt of the same
quality *tailored to your fitting* for half the price in India. And now
try getting a matching trouser of that right shade of gray in Sears.
- If you found something wrong with a bottle of medicine you bought in
US, you would immediately think of sueing somebody. And if the same
thing happened in India, the most that you would do is return or
exchange the bottle, without failing to say, "India mein aisa hi chalta
hai". We conveniently forget that it is up to the consumer to *demand*
quality. We like to turn a Nelson's eye towards incidences in India
where companies recall faulty products from the market and replace them
for free.
- "My kids just don't want to learn about India!" Why would they, if
you keep on bashing India and give them a multimedia CD on Lord Ganesha
and ask them to just "point and click"?
- It is perfectly OK to say, "I liked US, I am not going back to
India." You don't have to give any justification like "What does India
give you, when you work hard for the country!" Hey, you work for your
own self, and wouldn't you migrate from Zumritalaiya to Bangalore if you
got a good job there?
- Yes, traffic in India is a mess. But you don't have this fear
lurking in your mind that the other guy will shoot you because he
dangerously cut in front of you and you honked.
- In US, you get emergency help in minutes when you dial 911. They need
this system because the neighbours won't show up.
- If Englishmen in US can stick to their accent, why do Indians in US
say "pyath" and "commyand"?
- Schools in India do not have to proudly display a sign that says "Drug
Free School".
- Quality of education in India? Look at the software scene in US!
Indians from some Abracadabra College at some remote village are doing
well, competing against the Orientals and Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tejinder Singh Rawal
T.S.Rawal & Co., Chartered Accountants,Nagpur,India
Voice:(+91 712) 525423/527376/548941/548850
Fax : (+91 712) 539122
mailto: [email protected] , [email protected]
Indian Taxation Site http://www.BhaaratEkKhoj.com/india/tax
India Tax List: http://www.BhaaratEkKhoj.com/lists/
ICQ : 13892998
30 Oct 1998
sri @usa.net
Well the discussion about America *is* getting rather heated with so
many issues rising to the top. Like many have suggested, it needs a bit
of backing up and looking at the issues in a more objective fashion.
In this mail I have tried to bring out some more inconsistencies that
are prevalent in most of the belief traits about the notion of
development and the means towards it.
Firstly, even though there are a lot of debates about many issues, I
think most, if not all, of the debators implicitly believe that America
is a "developed" country and India is a "developing" country. Now before
you charge on me as being anti-America or anti-development or a
socialist or a communist or a capitalist or some xyz-ist, let me explain
myself more clearly.
America is a great nation and I admire it a lot. It has indeed achieved
a lot and has made remarkable strides. But then, by branding America as
"developed" and India as "developing" we seem to implicitly believe that
the final goal of the "developing" nations is to reach the stage of the
"developed" nations.
Sure, there is nothing wrong about it, but why am I concerned about it?
Let me put forth a few statistics--
a. Presently the disparity between per-capita energy usage between an
average Indian and an average American is something of the order of
1:200!!
b. Yesterday I read another statistic that America uses 60% of the
world's raw material resources while it has about 6% of the world's
population. BTW, India "boasts" of about a sixth -- close to 16% -- of
the world's population.
Now just imagine that India did achieve its goal and became as developed
as America is. Or maybe even half as developed as America is. What would
be the situation when the energy requirements of about a billion people
go up 1000% in demand!?! The world itself would not have enough
resources to supply that kind of a demand. Not to mention that the state
of our natural resources are already in a crisis.
What I am stating here are not mere ramblings or theories. We are too
seeing effects of the above in our cities. Let me illustrate it with a
small example of the issue of unleaded petrol-- Over the last eight
years, there have been a sudden spurt in the salaries of a large number
of middle class professionals (mostly software engineers). Young
professionals suddenly found themselves being able to afford new cars.
Presently most of the cars require leaded petrol in their engines. And
while the professionals are getting to be rich, they are not so rich
that they can throw a car and buy a new one whenever required (like it
is done in America). Now consider the issue of making unleaded petrol
mandatory as many world organizations have been urging us to do. This
would make a lot of people being unable ot use their cars, while at the
same time not being able to buy new ones! So the government delays the
mandate of unleaded petrol, while the number of cars on our roads
increase, the number of traffic jams increase, the number of accidents
increase and the air gets more and more polluted with lead exhausts.
We are already seeing the pressure thrust on the system resulting from
more buying power of individual consumers. Our roads are full, the air
is unhealthy, electricity is in short supply... And the government is
simply not rich enough (and flexible enough) to forsee and cater to the
increasing demands.
One of the first impulsive solutions to such a problem (as I have seen
most people provide) is to yearn for "full" privatization-- of
infrastructure industries and all. But over the last eight years, I have
myself witnessed the cutting down of two entire hills for their granite,
the felling of so many trees, the clogging of lakes... Full
privatization makes it even harder for the government (or whoever is in
charge) to protect the natural resources around us.
When I came to Germany I saw some sparrows around me. It struck me like
lightning that in Bangalore we once had a lot of sparrows-- the same
kind as I see here-- and come to think of it, I have rarely seen a
sparrow in Bangalore in recent times!! I just gave this example because
I wanted to bring home the point that the pressure on nature is *real*.
Recently there was a mail circulating around which contained an
interview with A P J Abdul Kalam. (It was a bit different from the one
posted in IINN-L. I'll try to see if I can get hold of it again). In
that Dr Kalam had a vision that the per capita income in India would
increase to some $3000 from the present $360 by the year 2020 (with 1997
as the standard for the value of the $). My concern is that whether the
increased pressure on the resources and the system would not bring a
saturation much earlier.
Another example to illustrate that saturation is indeed occurring. When
I came to Germany I met some students from India and I was surprised
(rather shocked) to note that the students were paying they way through
college life in Indian rupees!! (The disparity is about 1:25 between
Indian Rupee and Deutsche Mark). This was the first time that I saw
anyone from India living abroad in a costlier country and paying from
India! Later I met a number of students who are in exactly the same
boat.
So, as noted earlier a lot of money is flowing into India (due to the
entry of multi nationals and the spurt in salaries), and the money that
is entering India is flowing right back out, leaving the millions below
the poverty line sitting tight in their places!! And oh yes, also
creating a lot of pressure on the resources on its way..
If I have shocked you by sounding like as though I am arguing for
socialism or communism or simply anti development, let me reiterate that
I am not any xyz-ist and I am not in favor of any xyz-ism. I am trying
to analyze the situation from a "systemic" point of view rather than an
economic point of view. I believe a country is more than its (monetary)
economics. For me, what is more important is how stable and consistent
the system is? What are the pressures it exters on the natural system
and how will that affect it back? How stable is the system and what are
the forces that are just under the surface which have the potential of
bringing the whole system down? I am not particularly interested in
measuring the "goodness" of the system in monetary terms which I think
is misleading.
While America is a strong system with high monetary value attached, it
also relies on a lot of recources from all over the world to maintain
its high monetary levels. And there is only one world-- it has nothing
to do with free markets, capitalism or whatever-- there simply is no
room for everyone in the world to become America!
Comments Welcome
Srinath
PS: What I have provided here are my concerns, and I see no simple
solution to it all. If anyone is interested in a deeper technical
discussion, please contact me separately at [email protected]
PPS: Also I would be very interested to know whether there are any
research centers in India carrying out interdisciplinary research like
system dynamics, social networks, etc., and how to get in touch with
them. I would be very interested to know whether any private industries
(in India) sponsor research (or are interested to sponsor research) in
these areas.
30 Oct 1998
P srini @hotmail.com
Re: Double Standards of USA
Hi All
I have been following closely the recent debate on America
vs India. I would view it as a free and energetic exchange of opinions
rather than as a flame war.
I would like to throw in my two cents regarding the double standards
of USA as already elucidated by Rohan..
During the height of Nuclear tensions between US and India, around mAy
there was a small report in a new zealand based newspaper which really
exposed the double standards of USA vis-a-vis nuclear stand, forget all
the zillion other areas ..
For the full report visit
http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9805/S00068.htm
For a summary of the report it states that US may betesting
nulcear devices in the South Pacific. This issue was raised by
the New Zealand Labour party.
"I have also received numerous reports from well-informed and reliable
sources in the Marshall Islands on US
nuclear activity in the Wake Island group. Missiles may have been
tested along with below-ground testing of small
nuclear devicies," Labour's Pacific Island Affairs spokesperson, Taito
Phillip Field said.
---------
-srinivas p
Web Architect
http://www.samilan.com - Home of SAIR, biggest search engine for India.
30 Oct 1998
Vivek Murarka @manaskriti.com
Dear Mr Kinchen,
> Just wanted to let everyone know (American or Indian) that America is a
> Republic. It is not a Democracy. unfortunately, the mistaken identity is
> made often.
You are right. The mistake is made often. Including by Gramercy
Books, a division of Random House Value Publishing, Inc. of 40
Engelhard Avenue, Avenel, NEw Jersey 07001, USA - being the
publishers of the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of the English Language. I'm quoting their definition of
"democracy" at the bottom of this mail.
> A democracy is a system whereby the majority of voters determine the
> outcome of government. A democracy, unlike a republic does not have to
> recognize any said rights. It is simply the right of the majority vote
> that is valid. in fact the majority vote can take away any implied rights
> of the minority. This is why the framers of the American form of
> government rejected a democracy as their choice.
And that is why the Constituent Assembly of India (which framed
the Constitution of India) chose that India shall be a
Democratic Republic.
Just for fun, let me
> mention that during the brief period of choosing our government, America
> was an oligarchy, at least in practice.
America, as also Inda, were both fortunate that the persons who
made up the respective oligarchies at the respective relevant
times were responsible people.
> P.S. If someone knows of a good book describing the Indian form of
> parliamentary government, please e-mail me the book name and author or a
> web site will do just fine. I can not read Hindi, so it must be in English
> and must be available in the U.S..--Thanks again.
Amazon.com carries some of the books. The standard text that I
know of is commentary on "The Constitution of India" by Dr Durga
Das Basu, published by Prentice-Hall of India PVt Ltd.
http://alfa.nic.in/debates/ca.htm
The above is the URL of the site which carries the entire text
of the deliberations of the aforesaid Constituent Assembly.
http://alfa.nic.in.welcome2.htm
This URL will lead you to a text of the Constitution of India,
the text of the proceedings (equivalent of the British Hansard)
of The Indian Parliament and other related India Government
sites.
Regards,
Vivek
PS : I send this to Interact Inn because a lot us us may not
know what Indian wealth is available on the 'Net.
PPS : Extract from Webster's follows :
de.moc.ra.cy ... n. ...
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by
them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a gorm of government: *The United States
and Canada are democracies.* [emphasis supplied by Webster's]
3. a state of society characteriezed by *formal* [emphasis
mine] equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
.....
Extract ends.
What I'm trying to say is that a Republic and a Democracy must
exist together, in the same place and in the same system, to
make the government meaningful. The one imples and necesscitates
the other.
30 Oct 1998
Aditya Mishra @bc.seflin.org
> - If you think India is in a mess, you are also responsible for it - the
> mess (because you were there) as well as the slow pace of improvement
Do you really think that a common man is as responsible as the
leaders and manipulators?
> - If you think you were born to spend your life "in a place where people
> obey laws", please do not encourage "cash business". It is a good idea
> to pay the Indian restaurant using your credit card, which makes the
> merchant include your transaction in his balance sheet!
How many restaurants in India do accept the credit cards and how
many people have the cards? This suggestion how far removed you
are removed from the reality.
> - In case you did not know, software professionals in India are using
> the latest versions of Oracle, Java and other "hot stuff".
SO? What about those who are not professionals?
> - Just as it is unfair to compare the might of a 5 year old kid with
> that of a 22 year old youth, it is also unfair to compare the condition
> of a 50 year old nation with that of a 220 year old one.
First of all India was not born 50 years ago secondly why dont you
compare with countries like Israel and China who got freedom
almost the same time that India did.
Similarly why dont you compare USA with countries older than 220
yrs such as UK, France etc?
31 Oct 1998
Sunil Sane @worldnet.att.net
Dear All,
I read quite a few responses about Re:America and know for sure that many
things can be said about each other. Why is India today in position? or
what Indians should do rather what India should do? etc etc. We who have
left the country for better life may be right in thinking about our
country, but it's just in-effective and does not carry any value. America
was not built that way. People suffered to make it happen on this land not
from foreign land.
We have had great leaders too. We should not just preach, but be part of it
and do every little you can do. In spite all the odds of colonial rule
India has scored well. The damage to this country was done during the
freedom fight. Majority of the problems we face, is the by product of years
of neglect to the society. Absence of welfare activities, education,
population growth etc has attributed to the degradation of the society.
Even after 50 years later World WarII victims are awarded with damages,
appologies. India must be awarded huge welfare sum by Britain every year,
for next 150 Years, the period it ruled India. Instead they are conspiring
with USA and other developed nations to pull it's feet down.
Isn't todays corruption is due to financial problems our society having?
Too much population led to too much un-employment which in turn led to
every possible problem from corruption, crime, shortage of food, of houses,
of jobs, of transporation almost every problem we face today is linked to
enormous population growth, which was caused by ill-literacy, which was
caused by neglect during freedom fight, because our masses were fighting
for independence and education was secondary. Almost no development took
place during this period.
Now we have very big challenge ahead of us. This can be fulfilled only by
fighting for it. I feel sorry for Mr. Rohan Gupta that he feels that way,
that India has not done anything, my question to him Who is India? As an
indian it's you who must come forward and do the needful. without any
committment our society will be useless and will become selfish. In fact
the recent incident in Mumbai local train, where a girl was mugged and
pushed from train, but her fellow passengers did not even bother to help
her or even inform at the next station about the incident.
I have too much to say, but it's not enough.. I must act
Sunil
2 Nov 1998
K.Varatharajan @igcar.ernet.in
Dear Mr. R. Krishnan,
I fully agree with you. Bright Americans want to come to India nowadays.
Also, bright Indians remaining in India today are developing the tendency
to remain in India. We do not want American gone Indians to come back
because of the fear of causing imbalance at this stage. However, one day
India will definitely prove Her mettle because She is spiritually rich.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
(K.Varatharajan)
6 Nov 1998
rc @ix.netcom.com
It is amusing to hear about the spiritual wealth of India. Please, everybody
place a hand over your heart and write down 2 things that you DO in your
daily living that show spiritual richness. How many of you even know what
spirituality is?
Please express yourself clearly and do not use the terms which just sound
good.//RCS
8 Nov 1998
Ravi Talwar @blr.vsnl.net.in
rc wrote:
>
>
> It is amusing to hear about the spiritual wealth of India. Please, everybody
> place a hand over your heart and write down 2 things that you DO in your
> daily living that show spiritual richness. How many of you even know what
> spirituality is?
> Please express yourself clearly and do not use the terms which just sound
> good.//RCS
I am of the opinion that India does possess a great deal of "spiritual wealth"
accumulated over thousands of years. But most Indians just take it for granted,
and rarely trouble to peep into their treasure. They are like people everywhere
who never get around to visit the "tourist spots" in their own locality.
Particularly this generation of Indians appear to be rather down-to-earth,
intent on pursuing the materialistic goals in their life. As an example,
consider the subject matter of most of the messages posted to this list.
Ravi Talwar
Bangalore
9 Nov 1998
K.Varatharajan @igcar.ernet.in
Dear friend,
I am happy to see such communications. First of all, let me answer you by
telling only 2 things that not only I do but every successful person does
daily: (1) Have the spirit of meeting your responsiblities to your
family members who are really dependent on you. (2) By meeting (1) you
should not loose yourself completely or even partially.
Now, let me explain these two spiritual doings through a famous story of a
carpenter who used to earn just to meet his family's needs. For this he
has to toil everyday from sun-dawn to sun-set without having even a single
second to think of God. Only by the time he goes to bed in night he used
to utter the name of God (popularly people name of God as `Oh Narayana').
One day his end in this worldly life came. Then the ambassodors of both
Lord Narayana and Yama, God for death came and argued their rights to take
his soul to their respective regions. Finally, Yama himself accepted that
that carpenter must go to the region of Lord Narayana because his spirit
of looking after his family was maintained throughout his life and he left
his life to the hands of Lord Narayana. This story is symbolic that
spiritualism is arising from spirit of thoughts but not by false actions
exposing that people are true and faithful to God. `Do your duty first' is
the first spirit that everybody has to develop. If one has to be harsh,
then the same statement-cum-command can be made in the following style:
`Mind your business' meaning that unnecessary interference affects
spiritualism.
I thank you very much for sharing my thoughts over spiritualism in these 3
minutes of my day to day working time. Regards.
K.Varatharajan
