In politics, how would you characterize people who desperately try to preserve an old order and protect the privileges of the lucky few at the top of the order? And what would call you them if they wish to preserve the old order not just in their own country but also in the neighbourhood? Revolutionaries?! Harini thinks that the CPI(M), ‘with every passing day sounds more like a fully owned subsidiary of the Chinese Government’:
This is the same CPI(M) that didn’t feel embarrassed when:
- The Indian Ambassador to Beijing was summoned at 2 hours past midnight … as far as I know the Chinese are still a ‘friendly’ nation, and calling the ambassador at 2 a.m. … if nothing else … should be embarrassing. It is serious bad behavior. But, Mr. Karat is not embarassed by it… he thinks that it is par for the course…. I wonder how he would react if the Indian Government called in the Chinese Ambassador at 2 in the morning to be told about their behavior in Arunachal Pradesh.
Sumant expresses similar sentiments, without bothering to mince his words:
First the CPI and its idiots do their best to justify China’s brutal treatment of Tibetan protesters, and then they try to dodge the subject. And just like a cherry atop the sundae, you have the government displaying its castration scars to the world. Not that one should expect anything better from this bunch anymore. Everything they have done, from tormenting Taslima Nasreen into running away from India, to chronic disregard of consistent abuse of eminent domain law, shameless pandering to electorates through large-scale loan waivers, has indicated that the UPA government lacks any form of conviction whatsoever.
I’d like to quote another, very relevant in this context, observation from Harini’s post:
If the price of ‘National Integration’ or ‘ideological superiority’ is human rights violations or the suppression of the rights of ethnic minorities — then the nation is on its way to a breakup..
My own view is that if our ‘national’ politics can only throw up such limited choice that you’ve to choose between one kind of extremists or the other, then a break-up is perhaps the only sane way out.
Linked by kuffir. Join Blogbharti facebook group.
i have another point of view here :
the option is conversation… the whole point of a republic is a form of Nation where citizens have a buy in….. make sure that they have….If there isn’t conversation and consensus and only force.. then there will be break up….
if you take the people who have a different view, figure out why their views are different and accommodate these diverse views within the Republic you will survive… else you will break up…..
My own view is that if our ‘national’ politics can only throw up such limited choice that you’ve to choose between one kind of extremists or the other, then a break-up is perhaps the only sane way out.
Would that matters were so simple. It would be simple if the “extremists” were only at the national level, and at the “sub-national” level, people were sane. As the Raj Thackeray and now, the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu imbroglio tells us, the idiots at the sub-national level can be much worse.
Who was it - Ram Guha, perhaps? - that pointed out that one of the “advantages” of a unified Indian state was that it enabled the lunacies at the sub-national level from going too far. As of now, for instance, both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu at least in theory defer to the Supreme Court.
It’s not as strong a case for retaining the unified structure as the loony nationalists would like, but it’s not to be dismissed either. I don’t want to bring in 1947 again and I am not suggesting like the loony nationalists that “India” be preserved come what may, just that we be very, very careful.