The most amusing are the guys who fling about "anti-national" and "traitorous" without a second thought. And then I read all the commentary, and the prime objections seem to be that India has "lost" a chance to be seen as one of the "major players" in the world, that we are "reduced" to some apparent "second-class" status, that "other countries" will now look at us as a not-particularly serious contender for our rightful place in the sun.
And why all this? Because some Indians are wary about a nuclear deal that few seem to know the intricacies of anyway.
I don't know. Used to be that we thought that our place in the sun was what we made of it, not what others condescended to confer on us, not how others chose to look at us. Used to be that we thought that becoming a "major player" in the world was something that would happen on our terms, not to be couched in terms read and pronounced somewhere else. Used to be that we thought self-confidence was something innate, not founded on what we think others might say about us.
And just maybe ... used to be that we thought that the opinions and interests of Indians -- all Indians -- counted towards the supposed "national interest". That therefore, considering the interests of Indians was the simplest definition of patriotism there is.
I don't really care what your opinion on the nuclear deal is. But I think the day we begin to imagine that some others are "anti-national" solely because their opinions differ is a poor day for democracy. For freedom. Further, I think that guys who fling about such labels don't understand the first thing about freedom.