Love Ya, Dubya

Re: # 333:

You owe me an apology for making a statement like, ``Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal.``

My article was written before Bush even went to Pakistan and I had clearly reiterated that this piece was not about that country. You and others may differ from my views, but I am waiting for an article that gives the other point of view. Why is the active Chowk community not sending something in?

I think it is shameful that you cannot accept an opinion different from the one prevailing here by someone only because she happens to be from a certain community.

Asking people to ``be kicked out`` when you yourself have chosen not to be here is disgusting.

#332 FarzanaVersey

I highly respect Mr. Akbar. But I do not share his doubts to the same extent. (I am not disputing the historical precedents that he is referring to - but times DO change.)

The reality is -political posturing aside - nobody in the USA is wed to the NPT. It is a means to an end. The reality is that nobody views India like North Korea or (the old) Libya, for example - and certainly nobody compares it to Pakistan.

The reality is that the US congress makes deals all the time. And the most important reality is that GWB has a pretty stellar record of getting his ideas through the Congress - some of them were initially considered very hard sell, also.

The bottomline is the US Congress is a lot more malleable and easier to persuade - with the right approaches - not necessarily just Mr. Bush`s charm and wit (believe me, he has plenty) - much more malleable than the executive branch can ever be by itself.

Mr. Akbar seems to have some problems in the ``mother-in-law`` department - he should perhaps reconsider!

I agree that ANY agreement puts SOME limitations on ability to make independent decisions - Nehru had his reasons for following the ``non-aligned`` path. But times do change. Countries follow the path which suits their national interests at the time and (as they see it) down the road. The ``cost`` of the current deal are far less than its ``benefits``.

The reality also is that most nuke weapons will go to waste anyway - so if the deal ``limits`` India in some ways from producing more - why is that so bad? (Sometimes, countries (like people) can be their own worst enemies.)

Remember, China did not become a global player based on the NUMBER of its nukes.

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
What a stupid article.
And i used to think MJ Akbar is a smart guy. He is, when he choses to be. In this case, he is prejudiced.
Already, people in US are saying US sold cheap! One commetator accused Bush of being a Santa Clause, giving away gifts to Indians! Many Congressmen are opposed to the deal, so Bush will have to sell hard and explain why India should be made an exception. This fact has totally escaped Akbar. To have the treat take effect, Congress has to pass bills modifying existing laws. There is going to be a lot of debate on this. I think India got the best deal she could have hoped, considering she was a ``nuclear pariah`` for decades and nobody, not even Russia, could do anything about it.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Even M.J.Akbar talks from a Cold War mentality. India, at this stage, does not need any help from anyone. Its strategic strength, its economic clout has been recognized by US. That is all. This was something waiting to happen.
MJ Akbar does not quote experts like Stephen Cohen who have been arguing for many years about India`s eventual rise to high power status. May be Akbar is seeing all this thr` an islamic prism.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal. MJAkbar is also a muslim, so it is not surprising he is sceptical. But what about those loonies with headcap on who are demonstrating in Lucknow and Bombay. I wish those guys could somehow be kicked out of India.
Sridhar

re:#332 by FarzanaVersey
Farzana bibi must be lamenting the fact that her country Pakistan did not get a good deal. MJAkbar is also a muslim, so it is not surprising he is sceptical. But what about those loonies with headcap on who are demonstrating in Lucknow and Bombay. I wish those guys could somehow be kicked out of India.
Sridhar

Go ahead, celebrate...without looking at the beslls and whistles. Here si soem food for thought:

The Asian Age, March 5, 2006

Separate Deal
- By M.J. Akbar


Trouble is, ma-in-law ain’t approved of history yet. Arms-wide-open George Bush and simple-but-hardly-simplistic Manmohan Singh summoned history to witness their alliance. ``We have made history today, and I thank you,`` Dr Singh told his guest in Delhi. Very coy, very nice. But it isn’t legal yet. Marriage awaits mother-in-law’s approval.

Mother-in-law is the Congress of the United States. She is particularly watchful about errant sons who declare victory before she has checked the fine print.

Once upon a time, long long ago, a President of the United States of America offered the President of Pakistan a whole bunch of F-16s, and even collected cash on the deal. Pakistan is still waiting to put those fighters to some historic use.

I don’t want to be a party-pooper at a particularly cosy love-fest, but here are a couple of quotes printed in the March 3 edition of ma-in-law’s favourite newspaper, the Washington Post. Republican Ed Royce, chair of the International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Proliferation, thought the Delhi deal had ``implications beyond US-India relations`` and that the ``goal of curbing nuclear proliferation should be paramount.`` Democrat Edward Markey, co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, called the agreement ``a historic failure of this President to tackle the real nuclear threats we face``.

When ma-in-law talks from the side of her face she can be a tough old bird.

If history is made, then it will be certainly made in one respect: it will be the first time that India will sign an international protocol that has implications for its nuclear programme and nuclear military assets. A series of Prime Ministers, cutting across party lines, has resisted the most serious pressure to sign on any dotted line. The potential to build a nuclear weapon was created by Jawaharlal Nehru; the ability to build it was confirmed by Indira Gandhi; the decision to go public was made by Atal Behari Vajpayee. The one thing they, and others in between, knew was that any signature became a commitment that might fetch flexibility in the present but could become a prison in the future.

Since this is the first agreement that India might have to sign, unless the American legislatures sabotage it or the present government in Delhi makes way for a more sceptical successor, I hope those who have drafted it have read every line, checked the top line, bottom line, underline and then checked the little comma hidden in the fine print that discusses the separation of 14 civilian nuclear plants from eight military ones.

This is a marriage built on separation, in more senses than one.

The two constituencies, Delhi and Washington, are offering distinctively separate narratives.

Here, in sum, is what the spokesmen of Dr Manmohan Singh will be telling us as they take their message to the country:

l This agreement will permit India to produce fissile materials for its nuclear military needs, despite the fact that the recognised nuclear powers have halted, voluntarily, such production.

l The fast-breeder reactors, which can make super-grade plutonium when fully operational, will not be under international inspection or safeguards.

l India can now hope to make up to 50 nuclear weapons a year, for the availability of imported uranium frees local supplies for use in military reactors.

l India gets the latest technology long denied to its scientists.

Listen to the narrative on the American side, some of which has already begun to be articulated, even by the extremely sophisticated and persuasive American negotiator, Nicholas Burns.

l India enters the inspection regime, a far better situation than the zero-influence that existed so far. (It needs to be pointed out, of course, that India rose from drawing board to major nuclear power, without indulging in theft, only because of this zero-influence, a status that the Manmohan Singh government is in the process of bartering away.)

l The fast-breeder reactors that India possesses will be isolated, and unable to get new technology, thanks to the inspections regime, ensuring, over time, stagnation or decline. Implication: India has been sold a lemon thanks to a gullible government.

l The deal brings India into the American zone of influence, and turns it into a virtual ally with a potential for assistance in American strategic interests (that is code word for American intervention). India’s conventional arms programme now shifts dramatically into the supply chain of the American industrial-military complex. If the Indo-Soviet treaty kept India within the Soviet camp till the Soviet Union collapsed, then this agreement will keep India in the American parlour for the foreseeable future.

l There is a great bonanza to American industry of arms sales (this will be the most persuasive argument in the Senate, because the one thing a legislator does not want to be accused of is preventing jobs). The starting figure, according to Pentagon officials who admittedly have not dealt with Indian bureaucrats so far, is nine billion dollars. That is a lot of dollars. Keep counting, Senator!

l There is no political quid pro quo. The Soviet Union intervened when necessary to protect India’s position on issues like Jammu and Kashmir with a veto in the Security Council. America has given no such commitment. Indeed, Delhi’s leverage with Moscow is reduced with the shift in arms purchases. China will never support India over Pakistan in the Security Council and the West will have the pleasure of balancing Pakistan’s interests with India’s on issues like Kashmir.

With time, the narrative in Washington will doubtless take on other hues, since emerging questions will demand creative answers if the agreement is to be pushed through the Congress. Senator John Kerry publicly worried about fissile material during a visit to Delhi. Others are wondering whether such a reward for a nation that has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not a signal for others to risk going nuclear. And then of course there is the weight of Pakistan’s pressure to which there may not be any immediate give, but which will make its play in the coming months. Pakistan remains a frontline state in Bush’s war on terror.

Such voices may not be consistent, or even necessarily logical, but they will demand to be heard. Some will pick up claims made in Delhi and ask the Bush administration for clarifications, as for instance on the delicate matter of how many nuclear weapons India is capable of making.

If Pakistan is truly lucky, it will have the extraordinary good fortune of escaping the Bush embrace. The indications are that Bush will not offer the terms of the deal with India to Pakistan. What does this mean?

It means, first, that while India will sign a limiting commitment on its nuclear programme, Pakistan will sign nothing. Pakistan can, therefore, be held down to nothing. Bush is going to be in power for only another two years, and that as a terribly lame duck.His approval ratings are below freezing point, and his own party is distancing itself from him, raising the question as to whether he has the political capital to push anything through Congress.

What are Pakistan’s options? Pakistan’s nuclear programme has been created with China’s help. China may not have technology as good as America’s, but it isn’t a junkyard either. As a friend, China will be much more reliable than America. This is not because of any character defect. America is a democracy, and therefore always vulnerable to democratic discourse. China is a dictatorship.

China, most crucially, will not be propelled by mere goodwill or friendship; its policy will hinge on self-interest. Since a critical rationale for the Bush shift is to help India become a counterweight to China, Beijing will respond by playing the Pakistan card against India. China has already assured Pakistan three more nuclear reactors, and you never hear of any fuel shortage problems in Islamabad. President Pervez Musharraf has gone on record to say that Pakistan has its options. Is this what he meant?

We may never know what the complete truth is. But keep your ears open when the mother-in-law starts asking questions on Capitol Hill in Washington.

When a large number of illiterate Indian Musims come out of their mosques pelting stones, burning temples, identify Bush with the Danish cartoon episode, when they put their Islamic faith above national interests, when educated Indian muslim writers do not see a problem with this and whine on Pakistani and Muslims websites, we got to admit we got a problem in our backyard. It`s funny our politicians don`t see it yet.

Commies join hands with Islamists because they have lost faith in their Materialism and the liberating power of sciences........they have become opportunists and think that by aligning theselves with the mullahs they are practicing some sort of a taqiya..............most of the top politbureau members do not have adequate understanding of their prophet Marx ............even worse, their knowledge of the European Critical Theory is absymal and their manifestoes read like Trade Union pamphlets.........................no wonder we find them joining hands with the mullahs..........

Bush and the bushmen

Tavleen Singh , Indian Express.

Even as someone who has difficulties with many aspects of President Bush’s policies I found myself on his side last week when the streets of Delhi and Mumbai filled up with the sort of people who oppose him. They were a motley crew. A melange of Marxists, Islamists and well-meaning loonies of activist genre and if they should ever be in a position to create the world of their dreams it would be a totalitarian, Marxist, Islamist theocracy. How scary is that? Give me the US of A any old time. It is a free society as is our own, and we would like to keep it that way.

While President Bush and our Prime Minister were signing the ‘‘historic’’ nuclear agreement, anti-American protesters used television to enunciate their worldview. It is a simple one. Everything American is bad and George Bush is the ‘‘biggest terrorist’’ and mass murderer. Pretty rich coming from Marxists and Islamists. On the mass murder front how does Bush compare with Chairman Mao and Comrade Stalin? Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein?

Advertisement
[offer]
Arundhati Roy, who has the unique ability to approach politics through fiction instead of reality, made the amazing claim that she and the Marxists she marched with represented popular Indian sentiment while Bush was speaking only ‘‘to a few caged rich people in the Delhi zoo’’. She uses words so imaginatively she must go back to writing fiction. Politics and economics are not her forte or she would not have blamed the American President for India’s ‘‘new economic order’’, which in her view is ‘‘garroting’’ the poor. It has escaped her notice that in the days before India opted for a new economic order there were twice as many garroted poor people than there are today.

At least she was not carrying a placard supporting Ayotollah Khomeini. This was left to more Islamist protesters who appeared to have confused the American President with the Danish cartoonist. The largely Muslim rally in Mumbai came together mainly to express rage against the cartoons apparently without noticing that they have nothing to do with Bush. TV anchors had a hard time explaining the situation to their viewers.

The protesters had a cartoon quality and a serious one. The serious aspect is that Indian Muslims who have so far stayed away from the Islamist war against the West now seem to be joining in. When was the last time Muslims came out in such large numbers to protest against anything? In doing so they showed that they were at odds with the general sentiment of the country. Recent polls indicate that most Indians feel no resentment against the United States and many think of it as the promised land. The largest number of foreign students in American universities come from India and in the global war against terrorism most Indians think we are on the same side as America.

As for Dr Manmohan Singh’s Marxist supporters, it is time that he asked them whether they seriously believe that Iran going nuclear is good for India but India coming to an agreement with the United States on nuclear energy is bad. What kind of twisted logic is that? Not only was last week’s nuclear agreement very much in India’s interest but, as the Prime Minister said, ‘‘we made history’’. More is the shame that he could not persuade his commie friends to be more dignified in their protests. It is extremely bad behaviour to call a visiting head of state a ‘‘mass murderer’’ and considering how well our Prime Minister was received in Washington last July it is unfortunate that leftist bullying tactics prevented President Bush from addressing Parliament.

How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was invited to a foreign capital city and called a ‘‘mass murderer’’ on account of the situation in the Kashmir Valley? How would we have reacted if our Prime Minister was prevented from addressing the American Congress because a small group of badly behaved congressmen shouted and screamed? If the protests in the streets were bad, the behaviour of Marxist MPs on the doorstep of Parliament was disgusting and should not have been permitted. ‘‘He is the biggest killer of humanity,’’ shrieked one CPI(M) MP, ‘‘and we will not let him spread his tentacles on our soil.’’

Let us not pretend either that this is acceptable, democratic protest, because it is not. In all the years I have covered politics in Delhi I have never seen a foreign head of state called a ‘‘mass murderer’’, and in the bad old days when Moscow dictated India’s ‘non-aligned’ foreign policy there were many visiting dictators for whom that term could have been appropriately used.

Thank you Mr.Bush

Karan Thapar , Hindustan Times

---

Have you noticed how the world doesn’t like America? Few countries have anything good to say. The irony is that those for whom it has done the most tend to be least grateful. And this applies regardless of whether the recipient state is Asian, Latin American or European.

In the 1950s, when the Marshall Plan was reviving Europe’s crushed fortunes, it was commonplace in England to joke about Yankee unpopularity. The one that became best known went like this: “We hate them for three reasons, because they are over-paid, over-sexed and over-here.” This snide if successful strand of humour has roots that stretch far back into Europe’s relations with the ‘New World’. Oscar Wilde was a past master: “It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful still to have missed it”, or “America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up.”

Even the French had their little digs. Clemenceau, who was Prime Minister during World War I, is best known for the following witticism: “America is the only country to have progressed from barbarism to decadence without experiencing the intervening stage of civilisation.” Freud: “America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen but, I’m afraid, it’s not going to succeed.”

What lies behind such humour is rank jealousy. Success, no doubt, breeds envy but when your own impoverishment or incapacity adds the curse of dependence envy turns rapidly into dislike. The more the world needs America the more it hates itself for it. And since one cannot swear at oneself, America becomes the next best victim.

Of course, Yankee crassness, at times their innocence and often their idiocy have added to this. Americans are hardly their own best ambassadors. I recall a US Senator at the Cambridge Union who single handedly helped his side lose the motion “This House reaffirms its faith in America.” It happened when, carried away by his eloquence, he warmed to the subject and promised to lift the poor cities of the world “up, up, up — all the way till they look like Kansas City.” That shattered all prospects of a vote in favour.

And yet if America feels let down, stung by ingratitude, even lacerated, I can understand its feelings. Because those who need America the most are often the ones to kick hardest. This week India came very close to joining the list of the ungrateful.

Consider the facts. After nearly forty years of undisputed existence, the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, one of the world’s most sacred holy cows, has been dismantled to admit one single country. Of itself this is epoch-making. It’s revolutionary. But when you add the fact that this will give India, a country that was sometimes called a nuclear rogue state, the capacity to enlarge its civilian nuclear industry, which otherwise simply couldn’t have happened, the magnitude becomes enormous.

But are we grateful? Not if you look at the Left or the Samajwadi Party. Nor if you judge by the so-called popular protest on the streets. Not even if you go by the polls published by newspapers like this one. Instead, we’re more concerned about Bush’s Iraq policy or his threats to Iran, by his duplicity in the war on terrorism or even his simplistic, moralistic, little-Christian attitudes. We prefer to see reasons to dislike him. We ignore all cause for gratitude.

My point is simple. If Bush is so terrible why did we seek him out for help? If his Iraq policy is so unforgivable and if he is, as Arundhati Roy insists, a killer, why did we ask for his assistance? The choice to not do so was always there. But we consciously acted otherwise. Now, having got what we wanted, and possibly in far greater measure than expected, does it become us to carp and criticise?

The truth is we have in George W. Bush a president more pro-Indian than any before him. In fact the same nuclear deal would not have been possible under Clinton or Kerry or Gore. Bush alone made it happen. And he did so despite our Parliament’s well-known stand on Iraq and the ill-disguised contempt our elite have for him. If he could rise above all that then, surely, in return we could have expressed our gratitude more clearly and with good cheer. The protests should have been postponed or muted. They were hardly a suitable way of saying thank you.

Veer Sanghvi , Editor of Hindustan Times writes >>

It is a truism within Big Media to say that the people of India want peace with Pakistan. My sense, however, was that while nobody wants another war, outside of Delhi and parts of the Punjab perhaps there was no great warmth towards Pakistan. Most of India is young, does not care about Partition and sees Pakistan as just another foreign country — and a hostile one at that.

When peace with Pakistan came up, every single person I met was clear: there could only be peace on our terms. And this meant not giving up an inch of Kashmir. Nor was there any support for the idea of more autonomy for Kashmir.

So, let us treat all this liberal rhetoric about how Indians long for peace with scepticism. Our idea of peace is: Pakistan should shut up and behave itself or we will retaliate.

It is not a public mood that will lead to any lasting settlement of this long-running conflict. And I think that the challenge before politicians is to shift the consensus. Big Media has tried. And I think it has failed.

• The general view in Delhi is that the BJP is floundering, that it is a party without an issue. Judging by my travels, this view could be seriously mistaken.

There is a massive Hindu backlash building up. The public mood reminded me of the late 1980s, when such issues as Shah Bano and The Satanic Verses so upset moderate Hindus that they turned against Congress-style secularism.

The provocation, this time around, is the attitude of the Muslim political leadership to foreign Islamic issues. No Hindu I met thought it was right for a Danish paper to carry cartoons of the Prophet. But why, they all asked, did Indians Muslims have to get so agitated? What did it have to do with us? Why should a minister in the UP government announce a bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist? Why should Indian Muslims demand the recall of the Danish ambassador?

I have written about the shameful cop-out by liberal Muslims over these issues before so I will not labour the point. But the Hindu backlash is a perfect issue waiting for a BJP initiative. This time around, the BJP need not focus on how Indian secularism makes Hindus second-class citizens in their own country.

(Nobody buys that line any longer.) All it needs to do is to portray Indian Muslims as unreasonable fanatics obsessed with global Muslim issues and argue that they subscribe to some international pan-Islamic identity that could easily conflict with Indian nationalism.

My feeling is that if liberal Muslims continue to react as pathetically as they have over the last few months and if liberal Hindus do not make it clear that genuine secularism means that we fight all kinds of fanaticism — both Hindu and Muslim — a new generation of BJP leaders will ride this backlash to return to power. By ignoring the Hindu sentiment, Big Media is making a big mistake.

• So, finally, how powerful is the influence of Big Media? If you treat the national media as a force for homogenisation, then there is no doubt that they have enormous influence. I found fewer regional variations in sentiment than a decade or so ago. Even the reach of the media is astonishing: who would have heard about the Amar Singh tapes fifteen years ago?

But the old divide between the Delhi-Bombay mindset and the rest of India remains. Much of what Big Media believes (on the Budget, on relations with Pakistan, on the future of the BJP etc) seems to me to be out of step with the public mood that I encountered on my travels.

Veer Sanghvi , Editor of Hindustan Times writes >>

It is a truism within Big Media to say that the people of India want peace with Pakistan. My sense, however, was that while nobody wants another war, outside of Delhi and parts of the Punjab perhaps there was no great warmth towards Pakistan. Most of India is young, does not care about Partition and sees Pakistan as just another foreign country — and a hostile one at that.

When peace with Pakistan came up, every single person I met was clear: there could only be peace on our terms. And this meant not giving up an inch of Kashmir. Nor was there any support for the idea of more autonomy for Kashmir.

So, let us treat all this liberal rhetoric about how Indians long for peace with scepticism. Our idea of peace is: Pakistan should shut up and behave itself or we will retaliate.

It is not a public mood that will lead to any lasting settlement of this long-running conflict. And I think that the challenge before politicians is to shift the consensus. Big Media has tried. And I think it has failed.

• The general view in Delhi is that the BJP is floundering, that it is a party without an issue. Judging by my travels, this view could be seriously mistaken.

There is a massive Hindu backlash building up. The public mood reminded me of the late 1980s, when such issues as Shah Bano and The Satanic Verses so upset moderate Hindus that they turned against Congress-style secularism.

The provocation, this time around, is the attitude of the Muslim political leadership to foreign Islamic issues. No Hindu I met thought it was right for a Danish paper to carry cartoons of the Prophet. But why, they all asked, did Indians Muslims have to get so agitated? What did it have to do with us? Why should a minister in the UP government announce a bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist? Why should Indian Muslims demand the recall of the Danish ambassador?

I have written about the shameful cop-out by liberal Muslims over these issues before so I will not labour the point. But the Hindu backlash is a perfect issue waiting for a BJP initiative. This time around, the BJP need not focus on how Indian secularism makes Hindus second-class citizens in their own country.

(Nobody buys that line any longer.) All it needs to do is to portray Indian Muslims as unreasonable fanatics obsessed with global Muslim issues and argue that they subscribe to some international pan-Islamic identity that could easily conflict with Indian nationalism.

My feeling is that if liberal Muslims continue to react as pathetically as they have over the last few months and if liberal Hindus do not make it clear that genuine secularism means that we fight all kinds of fanaticism — both Hindu and Muslim — a new generation of BJP leaders will ride this backlash to return to power. By ignoring the Hindu sentiment, Big Media is making a big mistake.

• So, finally, how powerful is the influence of Big Media? If you treat the national media as a force for homogenisation, then there is no doubt that they have enormous influence. I found fewer regional variations in sentiment than a decade or so ago. Even the reach of the media is astonishing: who would have heard about the Amar Singh tapes fifteen years ago?

But the old divide between the Delhi-Bombay mindset and the rest of India remains. Much of what Big Media believes (on the Budget, on relations with Pakistan, on the future of the BJP etc) seems to me to be out of step with the public mood that I encountered on my travels.

Secular Indians protest Bush visit >



Pictures from a typical `Indian` anti-Bush rally. This one was held in Hyderabad , supposedly a part of India.

``Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.``

an inherently true statement in its entirety -- Islamism is indeed a retrogressive regressive backward reactionary fascist ideology -- that has no place in the modern society -- and it must be fought against by the all forward-looking deccent, tolerant secular Muslims themselves --

but its wild protestations against a reactionary fascist Invader and Murderer of innocent people Bush -- do not make George Bush essentially a `good man.....either.....

Thanks Bullukhan for posting the signed statement.....

From Vir Sanghvi:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1642308,00300001.htm

The general view in Delhi is that the BJP is floundering, that it is a party without an issue. Judging by my travels, this view could be seriously mistaken.

There is a massive Hindu backlash building up. The public mood reminded me of the late 1980s, when such issues as Shah Bano and The Satanic Verses so upset moderate Hindus that they turned against Congress-style secularism.

The provocation, this time around, is the attitude of the Muslim political leadership to foreign Islamic issues. No Hindu I met thought it was right for a Danish paper to carry cartoons of the Prophet. But why, they all asked, did Indians Muslims have to get so agitated? What did it have to do with us? Why should a minister in the UP government announce a bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist? Why should Indian Muslims demand the recall of the Danish ambassador?