October 31, 2007

Dressed-up, or not

One card on the table first: I have plenty of respect for the US and believe it is a country that has done a lot of things right. Yet even so, I have to wonder: how must a given confident, self-respecting Indian react to these lines from Nicholas Burns, US Under-Secretary of State? (Quoted in the Times of India, October 30, referring to the nuclear deal).
    Now India is seeking a global leadership role so it has to make a choice. We, and many other governments believe that India should grab this opportunity and enter a new era of relations with the United States.
Which seems to me dressed-up language for this: "Here's a pat on the back for you, that's a nice chap, you're OK, here's your one chance to join my club, OK?"

Or should that be dressed-down language? Somehow my version looks better, in the sense that at least it cuts to the point.

Not for the first time, I'm reminded of (that great American) Groucho Marx: "Please cancel my membership. I refuse to belong to a club that would admit me as a member." And I wonder why more of us Indians are not similarly reminded.

15 comments:

Vivek Kumar said...

We continue to support the deal. We have encouraged India to move forward with it. But they are working through an intense domestic political debate. That is going to play out on the terms defined by the Indian people and their elected representatives.
[source>]

That's State department spokesman Sean McCormack.

Offered without comment.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Vivek, thanks. And McCormack got it precisely right -- that "intense domestic political debate" is precisely the way this deal has and must play out. A much better way of putting it than either Burns or the guys who use "anti-national" and "traitorous" have found.

Anonymous said...

Like Abi and possibly many others, I havent been keeping close tabs on this deal.

There isnt much of a pat on the back or nice-guy in the statement by Burns.

I thank Vivek for his inputs and request him to continue to create opportunities for Dilip to thank him on this issue.

Some possibly selective quoting gets balanced by what is perhaps different selective quoting.

Thanks,
Jai

Santanu Chari said...

Hi Dilip,

Took of on a tangent of clubs: and i believe belonging to a club is a primary reason for a breakdown of democracy and greater good. I am trying ot do research on these below. Here ar emy thoughts.

BCCI - BCCI doesn't care what the fan (the true owner) thinks. Their customer is the broadcaster (so make players play more matches, and let broadcasters make money) and player (give them more money and opportunities for endorsements)

Basketball Federation of India -
Don't get anything done, but don't allow anyone else to do it.
Kill upcoming stars who can influence the game since we can't manage their egos.

Badminton Association fo India co-opting Prakash Padukone's Badminton Federation (circa 2000), agreeing to place PP as a Vice-President. PP then resigns after couple of years and his organisation dies a natural death.

Vlad Putin's "lets steal together" club of quasi-dictators - democracy is useless as you can see for the last 15 years. (or 8 years of Yelstin). You need a benevolent dictator - me.

BJP/RSS/Congress - as a club member, you can't open up against anyone else.

Instances of disbanding of celeb clubs for the betterment of society -
1. J Krishnamurti ending the "Order of the Star" club
2. Dravid volunteering to step away from captaincy (moving away from the selectoirs club). Very courageous inspite knowing how the system works.

Santanu Chari

Vivek Kumar said...

Dilip, my point was slightly different. You started the post with broad terms like "US" and "Indian" etc and expected the "Indian" to react to (or understand) what the "US" was saying.

I wanted to give you another quotation to ponder over. One that came from the spokesperson of the very same department whose official you quoted. Is the "Indian" okay with the "US" after this new quotation?

That's a rhetorical question, of course.

My point was that you were probably reading too much into scripted and timed quotations, which have certain intentions behind them. Understanding those intentions is pretty difficult even without the waters getting muddled by references to Groucho Marx etc.

Off-topic: Most of the Indians have never heard of Groucho Marx. No wonder they are not reminded of him in any situation ;-)

Dilip D'Souza said...

Vivek, what is "broad" about the terms "US" and "Indian"? I don't follow. I think these two quotes from the same department only reinforces the point: you as a citizen have to be just a little sceptical about these deals, about the motivations of either party to them.

Maybe I read too much. I'd rather read too much than read too little.

And I suspect Groucho's quote is understandable, and thought-provoking enough, without needing to have heard of him.

Vivek Kumar said...

Vivek, what is "broad" about the terms "US" and "Indian"? I don't follow. I think these two quotes from the same department only reinforces the point: you as a citizen have to be just a little sceptical about these deals, about the motivations of either party to them.

You quoted exactly one official, and proceeded to draw conclusions about US (with your interpretations of the quote) and Indians (your doubt about their reactions).

The quote I provided, if seen in isolation (like you were doing with the other quote), would lead to dramatically different interpretations and musings.

That is why I asked, rhetorically, "Is the "Indian" okay with the "US" after this new quotation?"

I hope that clears the air somewhat.

Moving on..

And I suspect Groucho's quote is understandable, and thought-provoking enough, without needing to have heard of him.

I suspect the same. But I never doubted that in the first place.

I was replying, light-heartedly (see the smiley), to your own words.. which took the form.. "I am reminded of X, and I wonder why others are not similarly reminded". Well, others are not reminded of X because they have never heard of X in first place.

Yes, if you feed it to them.. they may understand the quote, they may get their thoughts provoked etc.. but they will never be "reminded" of him (or his quote).

RIP, my little joke.

Vivek Kumar said...

[Off topic]

Is there some special kind of word verification in place here?

Whenever I post a comment, no matter how carefully I type the captcha, it makes me type yet another one before letting the comment through.

Why don't you migrate to Wordpress? Much better platform.

Anonymous said...

I would note firstly that from an American perspective, we Indians have a reputation for being prickly and taking offense even when none is meant. Your comment, I think, only reinforces that belief. Since we are on the subject of American comedians, it is not inappropriate to mention that Clinton compared us to Rodney Dangerfield, who was known for his persistent complaint, "I get no respect."

I would also observe that even if Burns was being patronising, it would still make sense for us to go ahead with the nuclear deal or, for that matter, to join the US "club" providing that it is in our national interest to do so. We have to be hard-headed and realistic - in my opinion, of course - to overlook trivial offences in pursuit of a greater good for ourselves.

Now, if you want to make the argument that the nuclear deal or pursuing closer ties with the US in general is not in our national interest, then fine, do so, and provide relevant arguments. But it has to be more substantial than Burns's statement - about which, incidentally, he might well disagree with your interpretation.

Incidentally, we have endured far worse humiliation. I remember reading that when our army was retreating furiously against the Chinese in 1962, a shocked Nehru sent an appeal for help to the - who else? - Americans in terms so abject, that apparently our ambassador (I think B. K. Nehru) wept on seeing the contents of the letter that he had to deliver. So much for self-respect.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Vivek: You quoted exactly one official, and proceeded to draw conclusions about US...

Hmm. OK, here's Henry Kissinger: Soon the US will get into election mode. There will be new people in Congress who will have no commitment to push the deal through.

On the same page, here's Frank Wisner: he explained that if the new occupant of the Oval Office was a Democrat, as is most likely, it would be very difficult to re-open nuclear negotiations and get a deal through that will not only allow nuclear cooperation but lift the technology sanctions that India still faces.

So our "seeking a global leadership role" is dependent on who is the occupant of the Oval office, and on who is in the US Congress? What kind of leadership role is that, then?

Anonymous above: we Indians have a reputation for being prickly and taking offense even when none is meant.

True, and that's a good point. I have little patience for such prickliness which I often think is misplaced. So why do I exhibit it here?

I thought about it, and I think it goes back to the automatic branding of those who are sceptical of this deal as "anti-national" and "traitorous". So now let me get this right: we get to be patriotic based on whether we move fast enough to see something through before the next US election?

Vivek, sorry about the word verification stuff, I dont' know what's going on. One of these days I will move to wordpress; for now I have too much other stuff on my plate for that major a change.

Vivek Kumar said...

Dilip,

In my understanding, the deal is about civilian nuclear cooperation. The rest is all speculation. But this is besides the point.

I wasn't debating your conclusions, merely disagreeing with the way your reached them. Quoting a few individuals - unless they are official policy pronouncements - is not enough to draw conclusions about attitudes of countries.

Also, given the way media works, lack of media reports on how Indians feel about a particular quotation says absolutely nothing about them.

Anonymous said...

I think it goes back to the automatic branding of those who are sceptical of this deal as "anti-national" and "traitorous".

May I have some reference? The people opposing the deal seem to be far more vocal than the ones supporting it, for sure.

Anyway, it would be helpful if you could say why you oppose the deal other than to point to Burns's statement.

Anonymous said...

I've read and reread the original comment that was quoted, and don't see anything that should bother "a confident, self-respecting India".

In my view, this feels more like(justified) resentment over accumulated (over decades) of slights from Uncle Sam. But the best way to deal with that history is to move on, and evaluate today's comments from the US assuming a clean slate.

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Couple of points on the deal from recent reading:

1. China apparently got a better deal, one that explicitly states its provisions cannot be overridden by domestic laws.

If so this would be a major problem with arguments that the Left opposes this deal only to please China.

2. Here is a post by Ritwik Priya (Zen babu) on the subject:
http://ritwikpriya.blogspot.com/2007/11/nuclear-deal-with-us-has-disrupted.html

with 2 major thrusts, one on the economic and the second on the political/strategic. Best highlighted IMHO as:

a. No power is costlier than no power (quoting Homi Bhabha)

b. Please find me another instance where India has been able to negotiate a deal with a superior power with such major concessions.

regards,
Jai

Jai_Choorakkot said...

Forgot to add, on the quote war:

vivek & Dilip, its been fun reading deep meanings into a few quotable quotes and I hope my comment at #3 didnt have anything much to do with it, but you are doing this for some intellectual satisfaction or something right... not seriously.

If we are seriously into quote interpretations, there is some weird stuff out abt what Mr.Karat said at the 90th anniversary of some revolution, like:

"a developed India is useful to counterbalance China. This US game has to be foiled"

(not 100% exact but very close, story at)
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/235080.html

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/235686.html

I hope he is being way misquoted or out of context, and maybe IE politics is not exactly centrist.

But the essence of Mr.Karat's thinking on the deal (let alone the Left) would not IMHO be contained in those choice lines.

Thanks,
Jai