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.
Roadrunner on Amazon!
Buy Roadrunner, Indian sites
Travel: Our Judgement Free
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. (Listen)
It was January the thirtieth/And everybody was feelin' fine.
Yo!
Good times!
TwitTwotTwet
Some of my writing
Asirgarh, Narbona, towelsTsunami reports
Girls of his (my) dreams
Winner, Outlook/Picador 2004/5
'74 Bra Flinging Story
Not just about tennis
My books
Branded by Law | The Narmada Dammed | RoadrunnerSome of my photographs
Worth your time
Ramani's fieldnotesTom Pietrasik | Abi
Annie | Shivam V
Bombay Addict
Uma MD | Amitava Kumar | John Naughton
Amin for your travel needs
17 comments:
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.
There is a difference between considering everyone's opinion, and taking the average of everyone's opinion and turning it into policy. No?
Going by your post's second paragraph, if "few seem to know the inctricacies" of something, shouldn't informed opinion prevail (or atleast, be allowed to guide the discussion)?
Shouldn't such a debate be guided by a calculation of what we are getting and losing in any deal?
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.
What if the opinion is well-informed, and not solely because of a difference of opinions? Would you be okay with using the words "traitor" and "anti-national" then?
Lastly, please do not convert this into an issue about Freedom of Speech/Opinions. Nobody has censored anyone. This debate has got nothing to do with Freedom of Speech/Opinions, and everything to do with something entirely different.
Hint: Political survival - short-term for some, long-term for some others.
PS: This post makes you sound very old. Do something! :)
Dilip, I don't think the labels of traitor and anti-national are flung around just because a dissenting opinion was voiced. It was done so due to the motivations behind the action. All said and done, the arguments of those opposing the nuke deal are that it is bringing us too close to the U.S and that makes the Left queasy. The solution would have been to incorporate additional safeguards if the Left mistrusted the U.S so much and not scuttle the deal entirely. We wouldn't have heard a peep of protest if the deal was made with Russia or China.
Vivek: "taking the average of everyone's opinion" is a poor way to make policy. I elect my leaders to give them the responsibility to set policy and take decisions, and simultaneously explain adequately why such policy is in the best interests of me and my fellow citizens. Somewhere along the line, this nuclear deal affair has failed that test -- for enough people who are not convinced it is in their best interests.
I am rarely OK with using the words "traitor" and "anti-national". I believe the opinion is well-informed on both sides of this particular debate. (In fact I wish both sides would recognize that).
I said nothing about freedom of speech. I will only repeat: people who fling those labels around know nothing about freedom.
And as for sounding old, I can't really help it. I am old ...
Patrix: It was done so due to the motivations behind the action.
And how do you know the motivations, any better than I do?
We wouldn't have heard a peep of protest if the deal was made with Russia or China.
Maybe so, I have no idea. But what interests me more is, don't you see that this argument cuts both ways? And actually in the other direction there's no conditional "would" involved: from those who like the deal, we really haven't "heard a peep of protest" at the deal being made with the US. So should those same epithets apply to them?
Besides, why is it just the Left being blamed here? The BJP has been a strong opponent of the deal. As far as I'm concerned, they, and the Left, are doing what political parties in democracies must do: call the government to account. You can see that as a price of being a democracy; I prefer to see it as a virtue of being a democracy.
Somewhere along the line, this nuclear deal affair has failed that test -- for enough people who are not convinced it is in their best interests.
Convincing is a two-party process. If the opposition (to any deal in general) is based on ideological grounds, how would it ever get convinced by a debate on merits of the deal?
This is not to say that all the opposition to the nuclear deal is ideological. There are well-informed people who have asked serious questions about the merits of the deal. But they are not the ones threatening to bring the government down.
Somewhere along the line, this deal did fail the test of convincing enough *politicians* that it is in their best interests.
regards,
Jai
Vivek: Convincing is a two-party process
So, for that matter, is being convinced.
If the opposition (to any deal in general) is based on ideological grounds...
And how is that to be determined? Let's say I'm in partnership with a friend, running a company. He enters our company into a deal with another company. Turns out I've had dealings with that company before, they have been disasters, and therefore I have felt for years that I can no longer trust them. Therefore I tell my friend "no deal".
Is my opposition "based on ideological grounds"?
Alternatively, suppose I pore over the details of the deal my friend has signed. I find that he has promised to pay too high a price, with no proper guarantees of delivery, etc. There's plenty that's right too, but there are just a few too many things wrong. Therefore I tell my friend "no deal".
Is my opposition "based on merits of the deal"?
Which of these two is less acceptable than the other, and why?
(If it's not obvious -- to me both situations are perfectly acceptable reasons to back out of the deal my friend has signed).
Let's say I'm in partnership with a friend, running a company. He enters our company into a deal with another company. Turns out I've had dealings with that company before, they have been disasters, and therefore I have felt for years that I can no longer trust them. Therefore I tell my friend "no deal".
This would be a pretty valid ground, except that this is not the only deal you are making with that company. Turns out that all the other deals with the same company are going through without much trouble, but when it comes to this particular deal, you say that you don't trust them.
Also, the last time your company suffered at the hands of someone in that company was decades ago. Times have changed. Your company is no longer a tiny enterprise, but a corporate entity just like the other company (your turnover is still lesser, but your are growing much faster and everyone wants a piece of action that you are into).
Further, it just so happens that the company you favour to deal with was the one that bankrupted your company's operations, took over your company's assets and still - to this day - keeps threatening your company and sending legal notices. Therefore, other investors (who don't hold as many shares as you do) are not quite sure what to make your observations on "trust", especially when it came to light that you might have taken some kickbacks from that same company that bankrupted your company in the past.
Alternatively, suppose I pore over the details of the deal my friend has signed. I find that he has promised to pay too high a price, with no proper guarantees of delivery, etc. There's plenty that's right too, but there are just a few too many things wrong. Therefore I tell my friend "no deal".
I find this (cost-benefit analysis, risk evaluation etc) a much better way to assess deals, especially in international relations.
This way, if your calculations are right, you have an irrefutable argument to prevent the deal from going through.
But if you keep chanting "they are out to get us", then expect people like me to suspect your motivations.
Dilip, my arguments are based pretty much on Vivek's last comment. I'm not supporting BJP here and will be the first to believe that they are gnashing their teeth coz this deal didn't happen during their time. Their opposition is merely political theater.
I doubt the Left's motivations because they keep running back to the complain of "U.S imperialism" as their last resort when other policy-based arguments such as risk evaluation, cost-benefit analysis fail. We are not a banana republic that needs to fear U.S dominance. We have never been particular friendly to their brand of interventionist foreign policy yet we have this deal so I'm guessing they, as Vivek puts it, want a slice of the action as well. It means a lot for them as much as it might mean for us.
Vivek: This would be a pretty valid ground, except that this is not the only deal you are making with that company. Turns out that all the other deals with the same company are going through without much trouble, but when it comes to this particular deal, you say that you don't trust them. [etc]
Right. Which is why the company analogy only goes so far. I put it up here only to raise the question of what is an ideological ground. A coalition government -- or even parliamentary democracy -- has different compulsions; as I indicated earlier, parties have to call the government to account.
Incidentally, as I also asked earlier, why the ire only at the left (judging from your "Further ..." para above)? Hasn't the BJP also opposed the deal, and is that on ideological grounds or otherwise?
expect people like me to suspect your motivations.
Please do. Do also note that, again, such suspicion cuts both ways -- see comment above about Russia and China.
I think a healthy skepticism about everything my government does is the only way to ensure it works.
Patrix: Their opposition is merely political theater.
If it is, it seems to me much worse ground for opposition than ideological or the "merits of the deal". All the more surprising that the BJP gets not a fraction of the hatred that the Left is getting over this.
Makes me wonder about ideology.
Dilip, I don't think that any sensible commentator has objected to holding the government accountable. But a government has to be held accountable by making rational arguments. We have had those debates as well. But those are not the debates that led to the current crisis.
As to your comment about my ire.. allow me to assure you that it is politically-blind. I can't stand ideological opposition (or support) just as I can't stand opportunistic opposition (or support). My paragraph beginning with "Further.." was in response to your analogy, and not an expression of my ire with any particular political group.
The comment about Russia/China was made by Patrix, not me. I think he was responding to the bit about flinging of labels, but it is not for me to explain.
Since you pay my salary, I suppose you have a right to be suspicious of my motivations. But since I am not allowed to air my views on the deal in public, you have very little (if anything) to base your suspicions on.
I confess that I have not paid much attention to the now-scuttled Indo-US nuclear deal. So, as usual, I take the easy way out by pointing to something that I found online recently: Pratap Bhanu Mehta's review of Prakash Karat's book "Subordinat ally: The nuclear deal and Indo-US strategic relations."
Re. "Why the ire only at the left"
I havent found anybody to hold the patent on hurling these 'anti-national' accusations, at NI blogs these were used against deal supporters by those that opposed the deal.
I agree with Vivek's comment @ Oct 26 9.27pm, the nuanced difference between options A & B that Dilip presented.
I thank everybody here for pulling a meaningful discussion out of a post that pitched things so emotively with:
used to be... used to be... used to be... just maybe... etc.
and seems to have ignored similar invective used by those opposed to the deal.
regards,
Jai
Vivek: The comment about Russia/China was made by Patrix, not me.
Right, and sorry if I implied it was by you. I know it was him, and I pointed it out to say that people suspect motivations in every direction.
What's "rational" argument? Is it automatically irrational if you disagree? Would you really dismiss your opponents in a debate that easily? In other words, as I indicated earlier, I see rational argument on both sides of this debate, and I wish more people did.
It's not that I suspect your motivations, there's no need to take this in that way. But when the BJP and the Left both oppose this thing, and it's only the Left that gets heat from so many, I cannot help wonder: what is this business about ideology? What motivations, what suspicion?
Thanks Abi for that superb review. I must have missed it. Says pretty much what I would have liked to.
1. Forgot for a while, that the favored descriptor from the left is a little different. Reminded by a headline today (DH):
"UPA govt is anti-people:Basu"
which is ire directed not against the BJP but against the ruling alliance partner and not by some insignifcant bloggers either. Somehow this is OK.
2. Also read (in TOI) that the Left softening may have something to do with Sonia visiting China and assuring their leaders they didnt have any cause for concern.
The timing to Karat's praise for ManMohan is rather uncanny. Is there something to this Chinese influence theory.
regards,
Jai
Well this thread is dead but I wanted to post part of a comment from Indian Muslims that I found very relevant to this "anti-nationalism".
Applies to various other kind of majority-minority divisions including this one IMHO.
regards,
Jai
AsadMustafaRizvi:
"Even the most militant of minority communalist does not dream of taking over the nation. It is simply beyond his reach. Thus, sooner or later his radicalism takes shape of secessionist movement, which is easy to spot. OTOH, for majority communalist, taking over the nation seems within reach. Thus he is able to camouflage his radical ideology under the garb of militant nationalism. Combined with ideas of nationalism, it is very difficult to combat it ideologically, since its opposition carries the stigma of being anti-national."
http://indianmuslims.in/bjp-enters-portal-of-power-in-south/#comments
Post a Comment