dsouza@waltz (10/28/85)
The Washington Post annually publishes a list of "ins" and "outs" for the year. For 1985, India was in and China was out. Suddenly, it had become fashionable to talk about India, be aware -- even feebly -- of India, and to have seen "Gandhi", "A Passage to India" and "Jewel in The Crown" (yuck). I think after all this and after the spate of stories (gruesome and otherwise) from India in 1984, it has become fashionable in the media to do stories on India. Particularly since the year ended with the election of a young leader with a photogenic wife and family. Shades of the torch being passed to a new generation of Indians? I don't think the analogy is at all far fetched. Mrs Gandhi was certainly perceived as a visionary world leader (with no basis in fact, but we'll let that pass). But she had been around for ages and had less and less newsworthiness as far as the Western media was concerned. Except, of course, when she died. Rajiv, on the other hand, is doing his best to represent youth and dynamism; his hi-tech leanings seem to indicate possibilities of Western leanings...why shouldn't he get a lot of attention from the media? He is having a very easy time of it, though. Closer attention to what he does and says will show that he is not so very different from his mother -- the same pro-Soviet, anti-US pronouncements, the same evasiveness when faced by tough questions (did you see him on Nightline or Meet the Press some months ago?), and the same intolerance of opposition criticism (witness the banning of the CFD report on Punjab and the arrest of its authors). I think his honeymoon with the press should (and will) end soon and then we will begin to see tougher reports about him and less of these "Oh he's such a great guy" kind of articles. And it will be about time, Dilip D'Souza. TI/Austin. dsouza@ti-csl.
viggy@hpda.UUCP (Viggy Mokkarala) (11/13/85)
This message is empty.
viggy@hpda.UUCP (Viggy Mokkarala) (11/13/85)
Dilip, aren't you being a bit too rash to start heaping accusations on Rajiv? >concerned. Except, of course, when she died. Rajiv, on the other hand, >is doing his best to represent youth and dynamism; his hi-tech leanings >seem to indicate possibilities of Western leanings...why shouldn't he get >a lot of attention from the media? He is having a very easy time of it, >though. Closer attention to what he does and says will show that >he is not so very different from his mother -- the same pro-Soviet, anti-US >pronouncements, the same evasiveness when faced by tough questions (did >you see him on Nightline or Meet the Press some months ago?), and the >same intolerance of opposition criticism (witness the banning of the CFD >report on Punjab and the arrest of its authors). I think his honeymoon >with the press should (and will) end soon and then we will begin to see >tougher reports about him and less of these "Oh he's such a great guy" kind >of articles. And it will be about time, >Dilip D'Souza. Why is it that you have to belittle our leaders even before they have a fair chance to prove themselves? Why can't you, for a change, be an idealist and look to greater and better things from them? What reason would the new leader of India have to abandon the relationship that has been built with the Russians? In what way has the country suffered as a result of this relationship? What do you expect Rajiv to do? Turn about from the very go, tell the Soviets off, and look to the USA? Your cynicism is, without reason and appalling. Before you get me wrong, I am no great fan of Rajiv Gandhi myself, but I am encouraged by reports of the good things that are going on in the country now. I just hope that he does not go the way his mother did - encourage sycophancy and get lost in power politics. I am all for change when the prevailing situation stinks to high heavens. I was elated when the Janata Party won the national elections in 1977 and was totally disenchanted by the way they squabbled and disintegrated. I hope that a similar thing does not happen in Rajiv's case. I could probably go on and on, but I won't. It just depresses me to see someone spotting a dark cloud when shown a silver lining. It seems that many of us Indians have lost the ability to take pride in ourselves and our leaders. We only remember the Nehrus and Gandhis and their idealism, and moan about the absence of such personalities in present day India. Regards. Viggy (Vighneswara Row Mokkarala, hplabs!hpda!viggy)
rama@ut-ngp.UUCP (rama) (11/14/85)
Dilip, like you I am not gung ho for Rajiv; but then a lot of us on this net are not; one ofthe reasons why we tend to praise Rajiv is that we are all hoping for a better India. Irrespective of whether we decide to stay here in this country or return to India, we all have an attachment that is difficult to define. That is why, when we see small changes for the better, no matter how small, we take joy in it, because given the way things have progressed since independence, and particularly given the way Mrs. G behaved, Rajiv's style has enough differences in it to give us some hope. That is all that we are doing, clutching at straws and hoping that something will change. There is no doubt that Rajiv has shown on several ocassions similarities to his mother's style of functioning. On the other hand, things have been moving forward; In contrast, I can think of very little positive that happened during Mrs.G's regime. Our resentment of the dynastic rule must not necessarily cloud our judgement; the same person is quite capable of good as well as bad deeds, and the good thing about Rajiv is that he has several positive accomplishments to his credit apart from the not so pleasant ones. To consider the U.S.S.R. issue, there are two reasons why he is likely to continue the old stance. Russian foreign policy towards India has been much more pragmatic than that of the U.S. The Russians, in my opinion, realised that they could not find a surrogate in India, soon went about doing their best to woo India, and have attempted to convey the impression that India and the Soviet Union are two friends, with equal stature. They have their words with action in the sense that they have backed India on almost every ocassion in international bodies. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are in love with India and that they indeed believe in us as an equal power. What it does mean is that they realise the strategic importance of an ally like India, openly behave as if we were equal and close friends, and back up their action with words. The U.S., on the other hand, did not find much of a role for India, once the possibility of opening U.S. bases in India fizzled out. Their approach to the third world has typically been on of nurturing relationships only to set bases up. Was Shah Reza Pehlavi very democratic? Is Marcos a great human rights champion? Aquino was killed on the steps of the plane and was there a huge outcry? Are the repeated calls and warnings to Marcos to cal for general elections purely in the interest of letting the Phillipinos decide their own future? Or could it be that Iran is only too close in peoples memories? Thus, it is no surprise that India has typically been more pro-Soviet. Mrs. G was both pro-soviet and generally anti-U.S. Rajiv is still keeping with a large part of the pro-soviet stance, but I am not so sure that he is anti-American. In closing, I'd like to point out that : a) My comments about the Soviets and the Americans referred to political attitudes in the top decision making bodies of those two nations, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the common man. b) American domestic and foreign policies, in terms of what they will tolerate in their own nation and what they will abet or allow in other nations are often very far apart. Because of the nature of the media and its focus, Americans are by and far insulated from what goes on outside the borders, and hence see very little of actual functioning of foreign policy of their own and of other countries. c) It is possible that Rajiv may end doing more good than bad. We have to give him some time; we can't just give a dog a bad name and hang him. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (11/15/85)
> Your cynicism is without reason and appalling.
C'mon guys, half the fun in life is in being cynical once in a while! :-)
What is appalling is cynicism WITH a reason. (Oscar Wilde would have been
proud of that epigram, huh?)mvramakrishn@watdaisy.UUCP (Rama) (11/16/85)
> > Dilip, like you I am not gung ho for Rajiv; but then a lot of us on > this net are not; one ofthe reasons why we tend to praise Rajiv is that > we are all hoping for a better India. ......... > To consider the U.S.S.R. issue, there are two reasons why he is > likely to continue the old stance. Russian foreign policy towards > India has been much more pragmatic than that of the U.S. > The Russians, in my opinion, realised that they could not find > a surrogate in India, soon went about doing their best to woo > India, and have attempted to convey the impression that India and > the Soviet Union are two friends, with equal stature. They have > their words with action in the sense that they have backed India > on almost every ocassion in international bodies. This doesn't > ........ I agree with almost all the contents of the above posting. I wish to add that Mrs.G was forced to tilt towards Russia during the crisis of refugees from Bangla Desh (The then East Pakistan). War with Pakistan was emminent at that time with Mukthi Vahini fighting against W.Pak forces and over 10 Million refugees in india. (over 100 countries who were against India in UN had populations less than the number of refugees, all being fed by India). Mrs. G travelled to various countries including USSR and USA ; there was no suggested solution. Then India signed 20 year co-operation pact with USSR. When the war started the president of USSR "warned all other powers to keep away from indo-pak conflict" - basically shielding India from China, a friend of Pakistan. Ultimately The W.Pak forces surrendered to Eastern command of India at around 4:00 p.m. and at 6:05 p.m. or so Mrs. G announced in the Parliament that "Dacca is the free capital of a free nation"; essentially India established a free democratic country freeing it from oppressive military rule. And the role of USA in this? Nixon sent 7th fleet to Bay of Bengal to threaten India - in Mrs. G's words "Gun boat diplomacy". Going back to 1962 - Chinese aggression. At that time India regarded USA as a great friend (I remember a holiday was declared when Kennedy was assassinated ). What help did India get when thousands of its soldiers were being wiped out? Ofcourse nobody can forget the Food aid USA gave (PL-480 etc) during the most difficult food crisis in sixties). So the conclusion is that, there are a lot of practical and strategic reasons for tilting towards Russia and its not that Mrs. G liked Communists or some such simple explanation. Finally I have a question in my mind for a long time, which I remember every time I hear a US leader like Reagan say "We stand for freedom, human rights, justice, equality, democracy etc." WHAT HELP DID USA GIVE TO INDIA DURING ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF INDIA'S INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE? DID THEY SEND ARMS, AMMUNITIONS ETC, LIKE IT SENDS FOR AFGHANS, SOUTH AMERICANS ETC? DID IT PUT SOME PRESSURE ON BRITAIN? I don't know the answers. ............... Ramakrishna M.V., University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.