must act responsibly
Here is my piece that appeared in San Mateo County
Times. I thought you might be interested as it touches upon
's relationship with
. The Nehru family of course reduced
to a Dhimmi state.
Edited page of San Mateo County Times on 22 Sep 2005
Congressman Tom Lantos of
's relationship with
, calling the statements of Natwar Singh, the Indian external affairs minister,
Expectedly, this led to an acrimonious response from the
While Congressman Lantos' complaint is certainly genuine,
what is of concern is his statement that they "really don't care about what
we think" assumes that Indians always ought to behave in a manner
beneficial to Americans, while Americans can do what they please.
American support for avowed Islamic states such as
is in the same league as
's support for
. Such support hurts innocent people and American self-interest is no excuse for
allying with those who indulge in gross violation of human rights and show scant
regard for individual liberty. Thus, while Lantos' complaint is valid, it is a
case of the pot calling the kettle black.
It is true that Congress I, the political party to which
's Foreign Minister belongs, swears by Nehruvian-Stalinism and once shared a
close relationship with Josef Stalin. Therefore, "Stalinist rhetoric"
is expected behavior from the Foreign Minister. Indians in
realize that they are economic refugees who escaped the harsh conditions
imposed by the Stalinist economic system in
, and appreciate that they got the opportunity to unleash their entrepreneurial
Yet, most Indians do not approve of American foreign
policy, especially its aggressive nature and its support for various dictators
and Islamic theocracies, as these go against the principles of non-violence. It
has pained Indians in the bay area and elsewhere whenever Americans have
displayed one standard for themselves while holding others to another standard.
Americans have routinely rationalized, often with a
straight face, their support for violent regimes and occasionally even
terrorists, and explained it away as a necessary situation to further their
objectives. This assumes that others exist in order to further American
interests, even if it means that they die in the process of enriching Americans.
Americans also have been guilty of supporting Indian Marxists and recently
appointed a prominent Marxist from
to one of the chairs in the Library of Congress. Thus, the complaint about
"Stalinist rhetoric" by Congressman Lantos sounds a bit insincere.
For its part,
's vote-bank politics has meant that it has extended support to Islamist states
, and framed its domestic policies to appease its Muslim population even if it
meant trampling on women's rights and hurting people of other religions
including the religion of the majority of its people. During the cold war,
's politicians also reduced it to a satellite state of the Communist bloc. Thus,
the complaint against
is not completely out of place.
must cease to support Islamists and move away from Stalinism,
too should stop profiting by supporting violent regimes. Until then, criticism
by American policy makers cannot be taken seriously. If American politicians
acted in a manner consistent with their rhetoric, stopped being aggressive, and
withdrew support to violent regimes, Congressman Lantos and his colleagues would
find that they would have many admirers and earn the respect of everyone around
Arvind Kumar is an immigrant from
who lives in the