Murder on Helm Street

Harimau


Ref:698


This is more to acknowledge your post than anything else.

I have been travelling and still am away. Had not seen your post earlier. Even though I have not been able to follow the news but am aware of certain developments in a very broad manner. Meaning, situation has altered (congress having won elections alongwith its allies or NDA/BJP having lost elections), so there is hardly much to say on the subject as the dreaded scenario of some, has come close to reality.

Ref rajsingh1 #697

If you want greater clarity, please replace ``Indian`` with ``ethnic Indian`` in my post #696.

During the 1987 coup, the Prime MInsiter of Fiji was an ethnic Fijian though the Indian population was about 52% of Fiji`s total population. He died just a couple of weeks ago.

As to Sonia Gandhi, there would be no NEED for a law to prevent her from becoming the Prime Minsiter of India but for the pseudo-secularists and those bending over forwards to get their butts reamed. What exactly is the chance that an Indian would become the Prime Minister of England where, as these idiots are fond of pointing out, there is no law barring a foreigner from holding that office? The fact that an Indian is allowed to make tons of money in the private enterprise system in Western countries is confused by these idiots who think that there is no bar to political leadership as well. With the exception of a third-generation Indian becoming the Premier of British Columbia, Canada, there has been NO record of any Indian holding major public office in the West.

Again, if only Sonia had been black, none of us would be having this discussion. Since she is while (white trash), she is acceptable to Indians. I am not surprised in the least that Rahul has a white girlfriend -- if she is from Columbia, there are plenty of mixed-race persons in that country as a result of centuries of marriage between Spaniards and the native Amerindians. But obviously, such a person wouldn`t do for Rahul or for Indians in general.

The contempt Indians feel for themselves is palpable in their mad rush to support Sonia Gandhi. The Congress held the people in contempt during its 45 years of misrule no matter what anyone says about the regularity of elections and the pattern merely continues.

As to those of you who point out that India embraced Mother Theresa as one of its own, let Sonia Gandhi work in the slumd of New Delhi if she wants to be of service to India and Indians.

Harimau

Ref:696


While I do thank you for shedding some more light on the coup of 1987 but something in the following paras (bold part)is not that clear.

Quote:

`` The coup in 1987 wasn`t against an
Indian prime minister. That coup however served notice on the Indian community (which was in a majority) that their rights would be trampled over by the Fijians.

The 2000 coup was against the Indian prime minister elected under the revised constitution of 1987 vintage. The fact is that the Fijians are unwilling to let democratic forces shape their government.``

Indian Prime Minister?

Till it is fully understood and realised that it is a Fijian Prime Minister about whom discussion is taking place, and not an Indian one, it would be difficult to be on the same wave length, when it comes to discussing issues. Chances are, discussion would not be with each other but .......................

Quote:

`` If India is unconcerned because this coup was in a foreign country, then they should not go about expressing regrets over the coup. Nor should they invite Mahendra Chaudhry (ex-PM of Fiji) to the NRI day and make a big deal out of his presence. Either he is Fijian and has no connections to India or he has rights we want to protect.``

India can express, has expressed regrets over the coup in other countries too, where there have not people of Indian origin, in position. Expressing regrets does not necessarily has to have relation with that.

As to his being invited as NRI, that is as an individual and not as PM of Fiji. As a person of Indian origin, he may have certain privileges (spl?), and perhaps a right too, to the extent of applying for Indian citizenship but, as PM of Fiji, he has no right whatsoever, in India. And India, as a country, does not have to protect him or any other PM (of other country/ies) for that matter, until and unless India deems it to be in its interests (unless one brings in human angle here).

And as I said earlier, make a case on India`s interests (political/economical) in Fiji then it would be much better to go into other aspects.


Quote:

`` I would not in the least be surprised to find that it is precisely these people who are unconcerned about ethnic Indians around the world who would be willing to hand over India to Sonia Gandhi, an ethnic Italian and a reluctant first generation immigrant to India. ``

Guess what...IF Sonia Gandhi ever becomes PM of India, it would be because of current leadership of India, especially big guns of BJP than anybody else. It is they, who for the petty gains, greed for power, refused to bring law which can bar people of foreign origin to become PM of India. And this, even when they themselves constituted a committee to look into this very aspect specifically but it was same BJP (out of 5 or 6 members, 2 were from BJP) who did not let the committee to peresent its report (or perhaps, it was that those two did not sign on the report or something like that). IIRC, P A Sangma too was one of the members of the same committee and he very much wanted to come out with a recommendation which would have helped in barring Sonia, for starters, to become PM of India. But, current stalwarts of BJP knew very well that Sonia is the best opposition leader for them, to stay in power. And in their greed, they deprived India from having a law which could have barred her from becoming PM of India. So direct the guns, in the correct direction. And that is, towards those leaders of BJP.

Ref rajsinghi1 #695

The coup in 1987 wasn`t against an Indian prime minister. That coup however served notice on the Indian community (which was in a majority) that their rights would be trampled over by the Fijians.

The 2000 coup was against the Indian prime minister elected under the revised constitution of 1987 vintage. The fact is that the Fijians are unwilling to let democratic forces shape their government.

If India is unconcerned because this coup was in a foreign country, then they should not go about expressing regrets over the coup. Nor should they invite Mahendra Chaudhry (ex-PM of Fiji) to the NRI day and make a big deal out of his presence. Either he is Fijian and has no connections to India or he has rights we want to protect.

I would not in the least be surprised to find that it is precisely these people who are unconcerned about ethnic Indians around the world who would be willing to hand over India to Sonia Gandhi, an ethnic Italian and a reluctant first generation immigrant to India.

harish_hyd

Ref: 680


Your post reminded me of the fact that wars, power projection is a very expensive thing/business. With that in mind, I did a quick google search on army coup in Fiji.

If I have got the years/dates right then I wonder, what these people are/were thinking when the suggestion is, India should reflex its muscles in Fiji....For, first coup took place in 1987, and by 1989/90, India was almost on the brink of bankruptcy (India had mortgaged its gold to Bank of England). Surely in 1987 India would not have been floating in/on the gold. So with what India could have projected power in Fiji? Second, around that time Brasstacks too took place. Which means, India was not only so busy within India (and with Pakistan) but also had spent quite a lot on Brasstacks. In other word, at that time, India neither had money for power projection, nor it was practical for her to be anywhere else.

Second coup in Fiji took place in 2000. And in 2001, just one travel advisory by US, stopped the present govt in its tracks. And the expectation/desire is, India should project her power in the backyard of Australia (where US has a big say).

Quote:

Besides military power, another aspect that nations must carefully consider is the indirect impact military intervention can have on the economics of an aggressor nation. The reason why China dare not invade Taiwan is not because it doesn`t have the military power or the financial resources to overwhelm it, but the consequences the very act could have on the economy. Besides, investors would not want to invets in a country that is perceived as a warmonger or is at war.

Yes, it is more about cost benefit thing/ratio, which does come into this too. Cost to China, of having Taiwan forcibly, could be very high indeed, in the present circumstances. In the end, it may not be even worth her while.

AlephNull

Ref:679


Quote:

`` The case that Nehru was a hard realist who had no use for morality in foreign affairs, other than as a facade behind which to practice realpolitik; that he had no qualms about saying one thing and doing another, etc.; has been made most forcefully by Bharat Karnad (who is probably the most hawkish of the few Indians who’ve made thinking about strategic issues their full-time profession). It can of course be contested. More here:

India First ``

First of all, thanks a lot for an excellent link. Don`t know how I missed seeing it earlier. :)

Yes, he indeed has made a very good case on Pt Nehru being realist and not an idealist. On another forum, his book was reviewed quite exhaustively.

As to your saying that it can be contested (Bharat Karnad`s viewpoint on Pt Nehru), well, sure it can be but one would have very, very hard time in proving it otherwise. That is, when one talks on issues and not just on the basis of bias, belief. If it is mainly on the basis of emotions, bias, belief, then there hardly could be any reasonable, logical, healthy, discussion. And frankly, that is what one generally tends to see among those who already have made up their mind on Pt Nehru being only an idealist.

Maharana


Ref: 678

I do appreciate the kind words.

As to the sources, although there are many different sources who have said the same thing in different manner but the excerpts that I quoted are from: http://www.kashmirtelegraph.com/dasgupta.htm

also from..

www.esamskriti.com/html/warsfa/kashmir_mess.doc

Quote:

`` In my opinion, it did not make any difference to a commoner in india, whether he/she was ruled by zamindars, british or raja/nawabs. Their lot was pathetic with no hopes for any say in their lives. Not just their lands, but their lives were dependent upon the whims of their masters. Freedom struggle to replace one set of masters by another did not make any sense to them. I think Gandhi changed all that, by awakening the masses to take control of their own destinies, be it caste related discrimantion or nation`s subjugation. He was instrumental in ``informing`` the people that freedom does not just come by overthrowing the brits, but also all other shackles burdening their lives. That rings a bell with a commoner. People in india are mistaken that he was just a religious or idealistic nut. He was a lot more intelligent and pragmatic than many people can understand.``


Had the things moved further or in this direction, I would have come around to this part too. :) But, I am glad that it is you who has done it, and in a much better way.

Ref jang #683

[In past you have challanged posters going gaga over ``indian might in software``. I would suggest that indian might in military field should get the same treatment. You strategic thinking reminds me of something Ali1 said (i believe)

g@nd mein dum nahin, hum kisi se kum nahin.

chinese are not a nation that everyone must emulate.]

The simple question is: could Fiji be taken? Would Australia come to Fiji`s aid or would it just make appropriate noises?

Just like the US picks its fights carefully (with the exception of Korea and Viet Nam), India should also pick its fights carefully. The US picked Granada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of all these nations, you can call Iraq the only poor choice but still it is a war the US can fight.

After all, if Indonesia can occupy East Timor and Western New Guinea, there is no reason India cannot throw its weight around.

China said that if Taiwan attempted to acquire nuclear arms, it would invade Taiwan. Did India ever issue such a warning? Guess what happened? Pakistan has got the nukes.

Pakistan keeps claiming that India doesn`t want to recognize the existence of Pakistan. I think we should make Pakistanis happy and claim that all of Pakistan is a renegade area that would one day be re-united with the motherland... re-play the Chinese words replacing Taiwan with Pakistan and make the Chinese squirm. India should have said to the Chinese back in the 70s that the day we find Chinese complicity in the Pakistani nuclear program, we would be supplying fully assembled nuclear bombs to Taiwan.

Next time any frikking Pakistani says boo, I think India should kick their Butts. At some point, the Pakistanis have to learn that nuclear blackmail isn`t going to work and that they have to learn to live with India. Instead, Indians are being told that we have to learn to live with the Pakistanis and accept bomb-throwing in Srinagar as a way of life.

50 years of Gandhian crapola (Gaanduan crapola, if you want) had led to this situation.

The Jama Masjid Imam is the counter-part of the VHP sadhus- un-educated, un-civilized, always ready to sell others for their petty crumbs.
And willing to extend the same old jehadi logic where is suits them- this time it is used to justify their aligning with the BJP.

Ref nazarhayatkhan #682

[As a well wisher of India, I think India should have a low profile International policy for next 10-15 years - and concentrate on its ecinomic strength. All this would automatically follow. If any such open SHOW OF FORCE is done at the International level at this stage, that will be a needless distraction and disruption in its growth towatds becoming the third biggest economic power.

It is just a little early. Once again, a good example is of China.]

Actually, China took care of its territorial issues FIRST.

Cina invaded Tibet in 1952. It settled the Xinjiang issue and got Russia to withdraw from there by 1960.

It went to war with India in 1962. It went to war with Russia in the 1970s over the border in Siberia. It even went to war with Vietnam in 1979 over a border dispute.

It has occupied the Spratley Islands and the Paracels in South China Sea though Vietnam and the Philippines claim those islands.

It is pretty much saying South China Sea is Chinese territory though right now the Chinese Navy can`t do squat there.

The only thing that hasn`t gone the Chinese way is Taiwan but that is because the US wants a permanent thorn in the Chinese side.

So if India were to follow the Chinese example, it should throw its weight around a little bit.

I think declaring that Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Maldives are of special concern to India and India won`t tolerate interference in these countries by others would be a good first step. It is a bit too late to include Pakistan in the list.

Ref satyamvada #675

[Harimau,
India does not have military power yet to project all the way to Fiji !!
Heck...Even China cannot step close to Taiwan - a neigboring island !]

China can`t do squat to Taiwan because of the US. The last time the Chinese attempted to stage a naval exercise in Taiwan Straits, the US had an aircraft carrier in the Straits to draw a line which the Chinese dared not cross.

If Britain could take Fiji in the 1850s with sailing ships, India should be able to take Fiji with a couple of battleships. It probably takes 2 weeks to get there as opposed to a year by sail power. And today`s ships hold more soldiers and more firepower.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#683 by jang

I have better one: G@and mein nahin guda - Lanka mein kyun kuda :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: fv #681

[...He believes that issues like the Babri Masjid and the Gujarat carnage can be dealt with in three ways -- through a jihad, or migration of the Muslims or reconciliation. While the first will not help at all, he is only strengthening the general stereotype of the Muslims as jihadis...]

fv doesn`t really have an objection to jihad itself, i.e., if jihad COULD help, it should be waged.

harimou various

In past you have challanged posters going gaga over ``indian might in software``. I would suggest that indian might in military field should get the same treatment. You strategic thinking reminds me of something Ali1 said (i believe)

g@nd mein dum nahin, hum kisi se kum nahin.

chinese are not a nation that everyone must emulate.