So, China says that
…China and India do not not pose a threat to each other, in comments that assume significance in the backdrop of speculation that Beijing is unhappy with the growing Indo-US strategic relationship.
![xin_19090114102500773818[1]](http://signal.nationalinterest.in/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/xin_19090114102500773818[1].jpg)
And we are supposed to accept that at its par value. At least, according to the Indian Express, which subtly betrays its leanings in a news report.
In a rare gesture, the Chinese leader received PTI correspondent Anil Joseph to bid him farewell on his posting back to India after a 11-year stint in Beijing.
The same newspaper shows a sorry record–if any record exists–when a certain Chinese ambassador made an outrageous statement less than a year ago.
The Indian Express news report squanders undeserved praise on Wen Jiabao’s utterances. And neither is the illness of crawling before proven backstabbers new: alien invaders were able to conquer large territories because local rulers betrayed each other, and in the end, were themselves conquered.
Forget 1962. Recent events including the ambassador’s disgraceful remarks, and the now-buried incident of China’s refusal to grant Visa(!) to an IAS officer shows with what silent ferocity China is working towards its goal. Unless questions of territorial integrity are not settled, all talk of peaceful and amicable relationships is vacuous. More importantly, with a country like China, which has almost perfected the game of deception. It maintains the serene countenance of the Laughing Buddha, the Serene Buddha, the Enlightened Buddha, or the Fire-spewing Dragon depending on what the situation demands of it. However, nothing deters our tribe of liberals, secularists, and bleeding hearts from arguing for the backstabber.
Is this China’s way of showing it is alarmed–as the Indian Express report says–by the India-US nuclear deal? Is Wen’s statement also an indirect admonishment of our Red Comrades’ ineptitude?
Whatever, but I see none pondering about a fundamental question. It’d actually be funny if it were not this grave: it is in the interests of the US to get the nuclear deal sealed, and it is in China’s interests to stop that deal-sealing, if possible.
Where, or what is India’s own interest?
The amazing folks at the Indian National Interest might have an answer….
Cross-posted at INI Signal.
Tags: Commentary, History, Indian Politics, International Politics, Media Watch, War on Communism, Weblogs
On 08.28.07 Palahalli says:
Sandeep….I feel we must discuss dispassionately.
Blind jingoism is for the mob. At least at this forum, can we be more cold and logical?
To expect sentimental attachment from any nation is childish, I feel.
China is pursuing, what it feels is in its interests. We should be doing likewise.
The Chinese leadership also pursues its goals with quite determination. A nation once more backward than India is now in a position to bend the US to its will…and not only through military means. There was a reason Nixon scrambled to China and met Mao…while around the period, he sent the seventh fleet into the bay.
Have we forgotten the US on its knees when they bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?
Is there not a lesson we can learn from this adversary?
We belittle ourselves by yelling and screaming incoherently. I do not know who has the most appropriate word on India’s China policy. Is it the BJP? What has been its policy toward China? What is the Hindutva view on China? These are valid questions because this board often assumes…by its silence..that Hindutva parties have the right answers. If yes, let’s allow folks to hear it and debate. If no, maybe we can discuss some formulation.
But instead of finding that out…in our own limited way, we join the mob.
Please let me know if I am wrong…or will I hear inanities of the likes of “Comrade Palahalli”?
On 08.28.07 Dwaiti says:
Perhaps Rajamohan’s article in Indian Express (Ha!) cab give some new insights into Sino-Indian relations. Link: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/213073.html
On 08.28.07 Shuvro Aikath says:
I don’t see anything wrong with taking the view that India and China pose no threat to each other. How else will we live together and beside each other?
On 08.28.07 Shailendra Mathur says:
India poses no threat to China, but to say that China poses no threat to India, is displaying the ostrich syndrome. I wish things were as simple as “I mean no one any harm, so no one will harm me either”.
@Palahalli: Sir, it doesnt make any difference what BJP or the Hindutva brigade think on the China issue. It would be folly to blindly support any ideology, because that makes us blind to the faults of that ideology. Why cant we take the best parts from each ideology, instead of calling ourselves communists, capitalists, socialists and what not?
On 08.28.07 Sandeep says:
Palahalli,
I know I should be participating more in the comments but work beckons
>>Sandeep….I feel we must discuss dispassionately.
>>Blind jingoism is for the mob. At least at this forum, can we be more cold and logical?
Absolutely!
>>China is pursuing, what it feels is in its interests. We should be doing likewise.
Which is what I advocate in this post. Read the last line–who talks about India’s own national interest?
>>Is there not a lesson we can learn from this adversary?
Exactly my point! But are we learning any? On the contrary, our amazing comrades are doing just the opposite.
>>I do not know who has the most appropriate word on India’s China policy. Is it the BJP? What has been its policy toward China? What is the Hindutva view on China?
I ask you sincerely: Why do you find it compelling to bring in the BJP/Hindutva on every single issue?
>>These are valid questions because this board often assumes…by its silence..that Hindutva parties have the right answers.
I’m not sure I understood what you want to say. By “this board,” do you mean me, the author of this blog? Please answer this question and I promise you, I’ll take this discussion forward.
Cheers!
On 08.29.07 Anonymous says:
Just a small piece of info. It was during the *Hindutva brigade’s* rule that China for the first time acknowledged Sikkim as being part of India, publicly and officially.
Unlike the clumsy handling of Nuclear deal by Sardar Singh and his wise-and-not-moron-like-hindutvawadi-govt, Vajpayee,Singh,Mishra deftly handled India’s foreign policy vis-a-vis China.
It’s a different thing that they were discredited more than given their dues by the English media which almost always stood opposed to any of their moves.
On 08.29.07 Palahalli says:
@Palahalli: Sir, it doesnt make any difference what BJP or the Hindutva brigade think on the China issue. It would be folly to blindly support any ideology, because that makes us blind to the faults of that ideology. Why cant we take the best parts from each ideology, instead of calling ourselves communists, capitalists, socialists and what not?
- Mathurji, I’m with you. But…I would like to ask you a question. When we berate the Congress and the Left for their “negligence” to “treachery”, respectively, on the China issue, does it not become incumbent on “me” to ask what the position of Hindutva and BJP is, on the same issue? I for one, would surely be curious about the only other major parties left out of the critique. Here I am assuming that these latter parties have, maybe, the correct approach. Even otherwise it would be good for members not well versed, to know their stance.
Would you agree?
******
Sandeepji, I will try and respond to each of your points satisfactorily.
>>Sandeep….I feel we must discuss dispassionately.
>>Blind jingoism is for the mob. At least at this forum, can we be more cold and logical?
Absolutely!
- With your promise to comment more…I will assume we will see intelligent direction of such debates
>>China is pursuing, what it feels is in its interests. We should be doing likewise.
Which is what I advocate in this post. Read the last line–who talks about India’s own national interest?
- Acknowledged Sir.
>>Is there not a lesson we can learn from this adversary?
Exactly my point! But are we learning any? On the contrary, our amazing comrades are doing just the opposite.
- Yes. They are. I agree with you. But now my point is…what are our non-Kameraden doing? Are they formulating a better and more robust policy on China? We all know that they did not do this before. Vajpayee’s China visit was as “lackluster” as any. In fact, he reaffirmed the “Chinese” status of Tibet. Indian policy experts have Tibet and Taiwan in mind…as India’s trump cards in dealing with assertive/irredentist China. So, what gives?
>>I do not know who has the most appropriate word on India’s China policy. Is it the BJP? What has been its policy toward China? What is the Hindutva view on China?
I ask you sincerely: Why do you find it compelling to bring in the BJP/Hindutva on every single issue?
- Good question. But from all the silence about Hindutva/BJP positions on China and related policies where you observe “leftist” treachery, I am curious about what you feel is the “Right’s” policy on China? Does their stand fit your/anybody’s bill? If not, can we discuss them too? If yes, can we extrapolate their stance? Of course I bring in BJP/Hindutva because they command some presence in our polity. I would like to see where “they” stand on each issue too. Nothing wrong with that. (?)
>>These are valid questions because this board often assumes…by its silence..that Hindutva parties have the right answers.
I’m not sure I understood what you want to say. By “this board,” do you mean me, the author of this blog? Please answer this question and I promise you, I’ll take this discussion forward.
- Less from you and mostly from contributors. Each of us is free to take our stand on every issue. I am only asking kind folks if they feel Hindutva parties hold the key, since these parties are never “questioned” as to their stance. There is implicit acceptance.
I do hope I have responded fully.
Regards,
On 08.29.07 Palahalli says:
#6. Anon - Maybe the “Tibetans” are missing something;
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2004/5/7_3.html
Please read fully. There was an “implicit” recognition of Sikkim’s status during Vajpayee’s visit. This in return for an “explicit” acknowledgment of “Tibet’s” China status. The Tibetans of course, do not react too strongly to this “back-stabbing/thumping” by their former(?) “cultural” allies. They remain…actually, confused.
http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2005/4/13_3.html
“NEW DELHI, Tuesday, April 12, 2005 (AFP) - India, which has a large
population of Tibetan exiles, said on Monday it recognised that
Tibet is part of China and pledged not to allow its territory to be used for
anti-China political activities. In return, China formally accepted that
Sikkim state is part of “the Republic of India”. The pledges were contained
in a joint statement issued after talks between visiting Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh in New Delhi.
“Both sides reviewed with satisfaction the implementation of the memorandum
on the border trade through the Nathula Pass between the Tibet Autonomous
Region of the Peoples Republic of China and the Sikkim State of the Republic
of India,” a joint statement said.”
http://www.indianembassy.org/i_digest/2004/may/sikkim_china.htm
“In an implied acknowledgement of Sikkim’s status as Indian territory, China has quietly stopped listing the Himalayan border state as a separate entity.”
Finally, from the Dragon’s mouth -
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/yzs/gjlb/2772/t16190.htm - Dateline - 2003/08/25 *Vajpayee visited in June of 2003.*
More - http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t112578.htm (This in 2004/post Indian elections)
“Q: Which is the largest democracy, China or India? Secondly, does China regard Sikkim as a part of India?
A: China’s political system is democratic and China is the largest developing country in the world. India is also one of the largest developing nations. It’s totally up to the Indian people to choose their own social and political system and to adopt the kind of democracy in accordance with their own national conditions. We respect the choice of the Indian people. I don’t want to make a comparison of the two democracies.
The question of Sikkim is left over from history. We have to respect history and take reality into consideration. I believe that the question will be solved gradually with the improvement and development of Sino-Indian relations.”
****It was during the *Hindutva brigade’s* rule that China for the first time acknowledged Sikkim as being part of India, publicly and officially.*****INDEED
Regards,
On 08.29.07 Niketan says:
Some humor for the day
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/27praful.htm
I guessed the content of the article even before reading. I was dead accurate. Earlier I used to get angry over his rantings, but now dismiss them as the typical rear end emmission. One seems indistinguishable from the other
On 08.29.07 Anonymous says:
Dude Palahalli, first of all get a life. Second of all, your blind hate for anything remotely “Hindu” just comes out in every post of yours.
You made my point by telling us that China “implicitly” recognized Sikkim.
As far as Tibet is concerned, what was Vajpayee expected to do when the great Rajiv (Humein dekhna hai ) Gandhi declared famously that Tibet is China’s part already?
On 08.29.07 Palahalli says:
Anonymous - I had expected that you would own up to your own assertions. All this is in “black and white”.
But thanks anyways.
On 08.29.07 Anonymous says:
Here you go my friend eat this “black and white” link as well
“Prime Minister Gandhi reiterated that Tibet is an autonomous region of China and that India does not allow these Tibetans to engage in political activities against China in India.”
http://ee.chineseembassy.org/eng/zggk/xzgwjjs/t110293.htm
Again, i am not sure what Vajpayee was expected to do after such grand declarations by Nehru’s grandson?
On 08.29.07 Anonymous says:
Ok. Stop eating whatever you are, folks, coz you gona laugh so hard at this, it will spill all over.
Check what Bidwai has to say about the Leftists of India - “Whatever one’s opinion of the Left, it’s undeniable that it represents the most important current driven by ideology and principle in Indian politics, which perhaps concentrates more brainpower per capita than any other party.”
ROTFL. Don’t say i did not warn you :))) More brain power??? from JNU?? ha ha ha ha..
Check this for further tickle - http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/27praful.htm
On 08.29.07 Palahalli says:
Anon- “Again, i am not sure what Vajpayee was expected to do after such grand declarations by Nehru’s grandson?”
- Well…the Bharatvani group/Elst, argues against this point forcefully enough. Again, you are wrong with your chronology. Please review;
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/bjp/section13.html#_edn1
“As A.B. Vajpayee told the Chinese when he was Janata Party Foreign Minister, and as Brijesh Mishra, head of the BJP’s Foreign Policy Cell, reconfirmed to me (February 1996): India, including the BJP, considers Tibet and other ethnic territories in the People’s Republic as inalienable parts of China.[1]”
I rest my case in so far as the BJP’s perfidy is concerned.
But to continue a good discussion, can we or can we not, change our stance on Tibet? Mercifully, we have said little on Taiwan that can cause us harm.
Your turn….
On 08.30.07 Anonymous says:
Palahalli,
Tibet was an issue even at times of British so don’t throw this chronology thing at me.
The link on Rajiv Gandhi’s statement was to match your googling skills.
Point is Vajpayee was in no position to do anything about Tibet when Nehru had bungled up so much on it already.. “back-stabbing/thumping” was done 2 decades before Vajpayee even became a minister.
I don’t think i can argue with someone who in his/her mind has convicted Vajpayee of betraying tibetans !!
Who betrayed them? There’s a ton of material available and this forum would be too small to even start talking of that.
And since when did Koenraad Elst become an authority on this subject?
On 08.30.07 socal says:
“A: China’s political system is democratic and China is the largest developing country in the world.”
ROTFL that! Our comrade commisar is quite unabashed in his adulation. Boy…some prevarication.
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Anon - Your “backtracking” skills are hilarious. Poor Vajpayee…poor BJP! But they all want create a resurgent Bharat! Somehow they will succeed, I am sure
You, I am sure, did not expect anything better from Nehru…but from Vajpayee and his party?….tragedy..
It’s not about Elst…or about any other commentator…it’s about facts.
Thank you!
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Socal - “ROTFL that! Our comrade commisar is quite unabashed in his adulation. Boy…some prevarication.”
- Did you expect Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Jianchao to say something else?
On 08.30.07 socal says:
Of course not…but still. I must say Chinese have an occassional sense of humor.
On 08.30.07 Alka says:
China has good relations with one country, Pakistan, a failed state.
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Alka - “China has good relations with one country, Pakistan, a failed state.”
- China has good relations with the US too. The worst we can do, is to disrespect and/or underestimate our adversaries.
On 08.30.07 Alka says:
Sandeep, what best can sum up for our politicians? Few borrowed lines: “BARBAAD GULISTAAN KARNE KO , BUS EK HI ULLU KAAFI HAI , HAR SHAAKH PE ULLU BAITHA HAI , ANJAAMEIN GULISTAAN KYA HOGA ?”
BJP and The major ruling party in the center seems to have some tacit pact like you scratch my back, I will scratch yours. We have done nothing on Boforse, Urea Scam, Sugar sacm, Sibu Sornji with others in bribery… You keep us out for demolition of “disputed structure” in Ayodhya. We will use these weapons only for checks and balances, if anyone crosses the line.
On 08.30.07 Anonymous says:
Ok Palahalli let’s agree. Yeah we lost Tibet because of Vajpayee/BJP/Hindutav-wadis.
Else Tibet would have been part of India by now. (That’s what u meant in ur first comment i believe - Vajpayee won us Sikkim but lost Tibet. Ya right, Tibet was with us till then!!)
Of course Nehru,Rajiv,Indira all were fighting great battles.. Vajpayee’s 2 years in Janata and 6 years in NDA did the trick.
Look it up urself. You’d surprise yourself how hilarious your stuff has been so far…
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Anonymous - Please try again. I am sure you can do much better.
I have not defended the Congress…but you have tried to defend the BJP and failed. Can we move forward please?
On 08.30.07 Anonymous says:
>> Anonymous - Please try again
Like i have nothing else to do.
Last attempt to drill something into what looks like a dead brain.
Time to regroup.
Anon- says China acknowledge Sikkim for first time under Vajpayee
Pal - says.. well.. it did “implicitly” but than Vajpayee compromised on Tibet. Googles and throws tons of links (good Data operator)
Anon - Throws back a simple link of Rajiv Gandhi’s statement right from Chinese link
Pal - baffled. Talks of chronology. (Classic Leftist style of argument)
Anon- says Tibet was issue long before Vajpayee even became a minister. Anon asks who betrayed Tibet in first place?
Pal - Sticks to same “Vajpayee did nothing on tibet front”
Bottom line - Vajpayee could not have done anything for tibet. He could have done something about Sikkim. And he did.
I have not defended BJP. On China front BJP needs no defense. You did not defend Congress, quite simply coz u can’t.
And now if your last salary has not been received from Sonia Manio, please email her don’t bore me.
On 08.30.07 socal says:
Haha Anon, good one!
“There was a reason Nixon scrambled to China and met Mao…while around the period, he sent the seventh fleet into the bay.”
There was a reason that China sent signals wanting US to “scramble.” Mao’s volte-face had much to do with the Sino-Soviet split, the severe thrashing that China received in Vietnam, and its conflict with Russia over Damansky islands. Russia had threatened China with nuclear attacks.
US was so scared of China that when the Chinese made a show over Taiwanese president’s Cornell visit, sending of US aircraft carriers in the Taiwanese straits forced China to back down.
Same happened during the embassy bombings. Chinese fanatics (with tacit approval of the Chinese administration) had violent demonstrations in front of US embassy. Eventually the fear of those demonstrations getting out of hand and negative publicity forced them to back down.
Michael O’Hanlon’s new book has some nice details about these issues in his new book.
On 08.30.07 Dwaiti says:
China has a firm grip on US’s b***s as it holds close to a trillion dollar forex reserve bulk of it in US Dollars (in the form of US treasury bills and govt. bonds). This way it is financing the credit binge of US which is suffering from negative savings and huge deficits.A few days ago the US bond market, one of the largest in the world, cracked as rumours spread that cthe hinese might not buy further US securities. All this gyan is to make point that the newage weapons are interest rates and exchange rates and not necessarily conventional or nuclear weapons.
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Anonymous - I honestly think you have not comprehended our discussion properly;
Please allow me to try again -
Part 1
Your Assertion:
***Anon- says China acknowledge Sikkim for first time under Vajpayee
Pal - says.. well.. it did “implicitly” but than Vajpayee compromised on Tibet. Googles and throws tons of links (good Data operator)****
- It would have indeed been fine if you had merely said the Chinese “acknowledged” Sikkim’s Indian status. But for some reason, you thought it fit to also assert..”It was during the *Hindutva brigade’s* rule that China for the first time acknowledged Sikkim as being part of India, publicly and officially.” Perhaps, you thought it a foreign policy coup for the Vajpayee government. Anywhichways, you seemed, *in fact you did (”gloss” over)*, even at that time, to have glossed over the fact that the same Govt also clearly and explicitly reconfirmed Tibet’s status as Chinese province, IN EXCHANGE. The Hindustan Times of around the same time as the visit, reports that the Chinese were very particular that Vajpayee and his Govt recognize this status clearly and publicly. They knew of the BJP’s domestic hard-line on Tibet and grabbed the opportunity to commit this party to a stance otherwise.
Well, this is what one of my links from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC states on the 25th of Aug, 2003 - “The Chinese Government does not recognize India’s illegal annexation of Sikkim.”
Please let me remind you that Vajpayee’s Beijing visit was in June of the same year.
There is nothing “implicit” about that Chinese statement. It’s all very explicit.
Part 2
Your Assertion:
*****Anon - Throws back a simple link of Rajiv Gandhi’s statement right from Chinese link
Pal - baffled. Talks of chronology. (Classic Leftist style of argument)****
- Let me simplify for your benefit.
The reason you “threw” back that RG link was to disprove an assumed charge that Vajpayee was the first to compromise of Tibet. I had made no such assertion/charge.
In return, I merely showed that since Vajpayee had crumbled during the Janata phase, your chronology vis a vis RG was bad/inaccurate.
A perusal of BJP Manifestoes is evidence of this fact.
The following comment from the same Bharatvani article is telling -
“To be fair, we should mention that the party considers its own compromising position on Tibet as very clever and statesmanlike: now that it is preparing itself for Government, it is now already removing any obstacles in the way of its acceptance by China and the USA (who would both be irritated with the “destabilizing” impact of a Government in Delhi which is serious about challenging Beijing’s annexation of Tibet). In reality, a clever statesman would reason the other way around: possibly there is no realistic scope for support to Tibetan independence, but then that can be conceded at the negotiation table, in exchange for real Chinese concessions, quid pro quo.[3] If you swallow your own hard positions beforehand, you will have nothing left to bargain with when you want to extract concessions on the other party’s hard positions, i.e., China’s territorial claims on Ladakh, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, and its support to Burmese claims on the Andaman and Nicobar islands. International diplomacy should teach the BJP what it refuses to learn from its Indian experiences, viz. that being eager to please your enemies doesn’t pay.”
All this from a publication house that supports/articulates a “Hindu” hard-line.
Part 3 *Interesting Part*
*****Anon- says Tibet was issue long before Vajpayee even became a minister. Anon asks who betrayed Tibet in first place?
Pal - Sticks to same “Vajpayee did nothing on tibet front”*****
- Here, you quite unnecessarily admit that Vajpayee and the BJP’s foreign policy goals are driven by their predecessors. This admission is not required actually. Everybody knows Vajpayee holds Nehru in high esteem. My point is this; Why the posturing? Who is the BJP trying to fool? Quite obviously, it has succeeded in your case. You are now content with the fact that Vajpayee/BJP has “merely” carried forward that initial betrayal.
I stick to my “Vajpayee did nothing on tibet front” stance because I want to expose or make known the BJP’s perfidy on this issue. It poses as a great champion of “Hindu” Nationalism while it quietly goes about in the reverse direction.
Why blame the “Left” when they receive so much support from the “Right”?
Part 4 Finale’
Bottom line - Vajpayee could not have done anything for tibet. He could have done something about Sikkim. And he did.
- Yes, this party will also do something for Arunachal Pradesh…it will “do” Aksai Chin. Taiwan is ready to serve this party’s “cause”,…China has only to make the appropriate demand. Oh….so different from the treacherous Left!!
I have not defended BJP. On China front BJP needs no defense. You did not defend Congress, quite simply coz u can’t.
- Of course…your double standards are quite evident by now. You actually maintain…after all of the above, that your DO NOT DEFEND the BJP’s position??
And now if your last salary has not been received from Sonia Manio, please email her don’t bore me.
- Count on me boring you for a long time. The antidote to your “nationalist” assumptions/arrogance!
******
Socal - True to form, you close your eyes ever so tightly. Does O’Hanlon mention Kissinger’s secret China visit?
Typical of “Hindu” nationalists to adopt useless macho postures. You forget that in the game of International Diplomacy, results matter. Stances matter.
Nixon WENT to China and met/negotiated with Mao. A man the Americans always held as worse than Stalin. What compromises did the Chinese succumb to?
You miss the point that China gained…but did the US gain? They gained a market. Nixon gained his entry into history books for something other than Watergate. Gained a bulwark against the USSR…on China’s terms.
The Chinese used the US over the USSR and now even the US does not murmur about Taiwan. Their (US) Taiwan posturing is only a shade better than our utter Tibet collapse.
******
Dwaiti - Bang on target!
Back to my main question- So, what can we learn from our adversary? Quietitude for one.
On 08.30.07 Ot says:
Comrade Halli,
How are you and your “father” doing?
You advised Sandeep that we should not let jingoism and sentimental attachments come in the way of disussing India-China relationships. You averred also that we should be “cold and logical” in our approach.
Well said, bro. You got rwe should set aside Ceason on your side for once. Definite signs of improvement.
I’d just like to add one more point: we should not let our judgemnt be clouded by leftwing bigotry either. Why do I say this?
Let us look back at history. Indian Communists have a track record of siding with other communist countries, even at the expense of Indian interests. Their Marxist fanaticism apart, which makes them see themselves foolishly as “internationalists” (the jokers, if only they realized how jingoist the other commie countries are) Indian communists are intellectual midgets, unsure of themselves, and so they feel the need for a leader from outside to guide them and give them direction. Right from the days of Comintern, they slavishly looked at other countries to provide them leadership.
During WW II, they ditched Indian freedom struggle, because the colonial power’s war objectives aligned with those of the Soviet Union. I encourage you to read “The Only Fatherland” by Arun Shourie, a meticulously documented record of Communist treachery.
In 1962, the China-supporting faction became CPIM.
Mitrokhin Archives reveal that the CPI regularly received funds from the KGB. Many of our media luminaries were also under the pay of the Russians.
China has replaced USSR as the unofficial leader of our commies. To understand why, you need to understand a lot of things.
First, our commies think of China as a communist country because it is ruled by a party that calls itself the communist party. As we all know, the Chinese kissed goodbye to their failing socialist economics long before we parted with ours. China is no longer a communist country in the most important, viz, economic, aspect. It has a statist form of government with a neither-socialist-nor-capitalist form of economics, roughly comparable to fascist Italy. But like I said, our commies need non-Indian leaders, and they are all eager to sell China as a communist “successs story” to us natives. Why?
Because some of them have been ophaned , and all of them have been badly hit, by the demise of Soviet Union. They were badly hit, because their propaganda that the “scientific” *theory* of Marxism was proved in *practice* in USSR and Eastern Bloc was put paid to. Did you ever read commie-written opeds of 70s and early 80s, Comrade Halli? Some joker would visit Bucharest or Budapest, and publish glowing accounts of the pathbreaking achievements made by communist countries, and contrast them with that great capitalist evil, the US. I believe it was Comrade Yechury who visited Romania barely a few weeks before Ceaucescu was to fall, and as usual published a eulogy to (Romanian) Communism in the commie newspaper The Hindu. That silly, these chaps. So the point is, they need to prove that Karl Marx was right, even after 200 years after the dude has been dead. They told us that USSR made great strides because it was communist, and that line went for a sixer. So now they want to tell us that China is progressing because it is communist. Which brings to the next topic: their hatred of US.
Commies hate US. The US-USSR cold war for them was actually an ideological war, between capitalism and communism. US won it, ergo capitalism won it. They can’t digest this fact. So they hate US, and they will side with ANY scumbag who is opposed to the US, even if the said scumbag be terrorists. Who in the world today is near big enough to take on the US, in the military sense, and is not exactly a friend of the US? Voila, by a happy coicidence, “communist” China happens to be it. Osama bin Laden and gang are a distinct possibility, and our commies also hope that the entire “Muslim” bloc will rise up against the US, but right now the best bet is China.
To cut a long story short, Comrade Halli, our commies are patriots and jingoists too: just that they are China patriots and China jingoists.
Ergo, when discussing India China relations, you should be careful not to bring in commie China jingoism too, and be able REALLY to argue logically and coldly, without being sentimentally attached to “communist” China.
On 08.30.07 Palahalli says:
Ot: After so much effort…you should have been able to make sense. Unfortunately, you don’t.
Let me see if I can help; are you saying that Indian Communist treachery must be condemned…but not BJP/Hindutva perfidy…on the China issue?