Does Helping Hamid Karzai Conquer Afghanistan Stabilize Pakistan?
There’s a lot going on in David Brooks’ brief for an ambitious campaign in Afghanistan but there’s one piece that I think really needs to be taken apart, namely his contention that “A Taliban conquest in Afghanistan would endanger the Pakistani regime at best, create a regional crisis for certain and lead to a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda at worst.” Justin Logan retorts:
This is really cranking it up to 11 on the hyperbole meter. We may recall that in the 1990s when the Taliban was running Afghanistan, Pakistan was arguably more stable than it is today.
I think this deserves a more detailed treatment. It seems to me that one of our big issues in Afghanistan is that it’s not clear that the Pakistan government wants our side—i.e., Hamid Karzai—to win the war at all. Back before 9/11, they wanted the Taliban to run Afghanistan and saw the Northern Alliance as too tied in with Russia and India to serve Pakistani interests. Robert Kaplan wrote about a year ago:
The Karzai government has openly and brazenly strengthened its ties with India, and allowed Indian consulates in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Herat, and Mazar-e-Sharif. It has kept alive the possibility of inviting India to help train the new Afghan army, and to help in dam construction in the northeastern Afghan province of Kunar, abutting Pakistan. All this has driven the ISI wild with fear and anger.
[…] In the mind of the ISI, India uses its new consulates in Afghanistan to back rebels in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan, whose capital, Quetta, is only a few hours’ drive from Kandahar. When India talks of building dams in Kunar, the ISI thinks that India wants to help Afghanistan steal Pakistan’s water. Karzai’s open alliance with India is nearly a casus belli for the ISI. So elements of the ISI have responded in kind; they likely helped in the recent assassination attempt against the Afghan president.
A lot of this reaction seems like ISI paranoia. But the main point is just about the alignment of forces. If Brooks wants us to believe that ensuring a Karzai victory is necessary for the stability of the Pakistan government, he needs to offer some explanation of why the government of Pakistan doesn’t see it that way. Ehsan Ahrari wrote a good primer on this problem in 2006. For a more up-to-date look at this, I highly recommend the Wall Street Journal’s “India Befriends Afghanistan, Irking Pakistan.” Just note that by “Afghanistan” they mean “Hamid Karzai’s government.” Pakistan, “irked,” doesn’t want to see a pro-Indian regime secure control of southern Afghanistan.
The “Af-Pak” linkage is real, but that’s the direction it runs—Pakistan’s regional concerns about India and Russia undermine our efforts to create a united “pro-American” front against Islamist radicalism in the area. That’s a real issue, but it’s totally different from the alleged theory that Taliban wins against northern-based warlords undermine Pakistan’s stability.
48 Responses to “Does Helping Hamid Karzai Conquer Afghanistan Stabilize Pakistan?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
And, indeed, even if it is ISI paranoia, if they are convince of it, it’s a matter of real politik.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Is there any chance we can just say, “Yo, screw Pakistan,” and become openly pro-Indian?
Biggest democracy in the world, and they’ve sustained it in the face of economic and cultural problems we can barely understand – versus what? A brief interregnum between military dictators?
September 26th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
1) What the Fuck does David Brooks KNOW about Military Operations OR the people of Aghanistan?
I’m really getting sick of the fucking News Media putting up ignorant shitheads like David Brooks spinning us some line of crap to serve some rich asshole’s agenda.
2) Especially when those ignorant shitheads don’t DARE talk Honestly about the subject.
Brooks belongs to the faction which told us that Sept 11 occurred “because they hate our freedoms”. Even though the News Archives have Bin Laden’s fucking interviews from 1997 in which he clearly laid out Al Qaeda’s grievances. With a lot more honesty than David Brooks has ever shown.
3) A soldier who served in Afghanistan has an overview of the area and its culture that he worked up for fellow soldiers slated for a tour there. See
http://afghanlessons.blogspot.com/2009/04/things-you-know.html
http://afghanlessons.blogspot.com/2009/05/chapter-3-culture-lesson-3a-chai-and.html
September 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The above soldier also suggested that his fellow soldiers brush up on the history of Afghanistan and how it has shaped its people:
http://afghanlessons.blogspot.com/2009/04/chapter-2-history-lesson.html
Of course, David Brooks can’t be bothered to do that before shooting his mouth off because David Brook’s fat ass will never get within a 1000 miles of the battlefields he’s advocating.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Very few people want to talk about the destabilizing effects of India – Afghan – Russia axis. India is a mature country and will be able to understand the need of restraining her efforts if the argument is presented in correct context with appropriate carrots and sticks. One of the simple but effective ways for getting India on board will be America to pressurize Pakistan to handover perpetrators of 26/11Mumbai attack. In absence of that India has no incentive to improve relations with Pakistan nor to attend the American concerns in Afghan region. On top of that India has substantial constituency and infrastructure to actively promote in essence ‘anti-Americanism’ by publishing all sorts of rubbish. The case in point is this blog entry:
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2009/09/22/ilyas-kashmiri-stanley-mcchrystal-and-the-obama-wobble/
I mean claims, tones there are astounding. That is the beast – the level of thinking in some quarters of India. They are the John H. Hinderaker of India and their blog is equivalent of National Review of India. Fortunately, ruling Congress Government in New Delhi is much wiser and wants to play by the global rules. With all what has happened in this week in UN and Pittsburgh, Dr. Singh’s government has every incentive to co-operate with America and ignore ‘foolish’ policy prescriptions which will take her on collision course with American in Afghanistan.
But these ‘bad’ voices in India won’t let go. You can say the way they respond to my comments on their blog.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“Is there any chance we can just say, “Yo, screw Pakistan,” and become openly pro-Indian?”
Most Pakistanis, and I, know that is historically the case and remains true now.
I don’t think this war is really about al-Qaeda and the Taliban, or much about Afghanistan. It’s much more ambitious and dangerous than that.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
And it’s only dangerous because those fuckers in Pakistan have nukes. God dammit!
September 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Is there any chance we can just say, “Yo, screw Pakistan,” and become openly pro-Indian?
I’d much prefer to stay out of that snake pit altogether.
“Biggest Democracy in the World” bullshit, not withstanding, India has problems that I don’t want to be involved with. We already have to carry water for the Israelis at the Security Council, now we have to be the veto point on Kashmir? They get a new bulletproof guarantee to cover government involved pograms against various, internal, minority populations? To hell with that.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Is there any chance we can just say, “Yo, screw Pakistan,” and become openly pro-Indian?”
India is a democracy. We prefer to ally ourselves with dictators. Because dictators expand the cause of democracy. Democracies are just a bunch of communists who undermine the cause of democracy. Something like that. In forty years, I still haven’t figured out our criteria for supporting countries. I only know that we routinely oppose democratically elected governments. So we won’t be supporting India anytime soon.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@7 bob mcmanus: “I don’t think this war is really about al-Qaeda and the Taliban, or much about Afghanistan. It’s much more ambitious and dangerous than that.”
The war certainly wasn’t about al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the Bush People, who hardly paid it any attention at all.
And I guarantee you that there are plenty of “strategic thinkers” in the Pentagon who see Afghanistan as a perfect place to build up missile defense. Put a couple thousand SM-3s in Afghanistan and you can attack both China AND Russia’s ICBM force from very close range.
Hell, the two invasions could viewed as nothing but a geographical flanking maneuver. We have Iran virtually surrounded, we can physically watch over out little buddy Israel, we have the Saudi’s northern flank, we have Pakistan’s northern flank, we have China’s eastern flank and we have two spots from which to view the underbelly of Russia and the Stans.
The boys in Pentagon love playing RISK on the real board. I’m surprised they didn’t advocate attacking Australia, which, once conquered, seems to be sure fire RISK strategy for beating the computer.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
““Biggest Democracy in the World” bullshit”
How is it bullshit, Ed? Are you saying China is a democracy, or that there’s another democracy larger than India? Or are you saying India is somehow not a democracy? If you want to make the argument that the US isn’t really a democracy, I might entertain that. But India? No way. They actually count the ballots there.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Two words:
Nuclear proliferation.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The only problem with the Hamid Karzai loves India aspect to the argument is that it misses the point. Afghanistan and India have had warm ties for decades except during the period of Taliban rule. Dr. Abdullah, Karzai’s main opponent in the election has a home in Delhi where his family stays most of the year. Afghans live off of Bollywood movies and the elite fly to India for vacation. It is a very deep relationship and I would just say that outsiders are making a big mistake to think that Afghans are merely snubbing their noses at Pakistan. I don’t think that’s the case.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Pakistan’s concerns about India would be a lot easier to take seriously if they stopped funding brutal terrorist attacks against its civilian centers.
Is it REALLY so unreasonable for India to want a bulwark against the nuclear armed, terrorist-sponsoring state on its border that’s teetered on the edge of failure since independence? America’s alliance with Pakistan was an expedient way to keep a toehold in the region to counter the Soviets and push back on the pro-communist strands of Indian politics. But it’s not — and shouldn’t be — a suicide pact.
And this leaves aside the fact that proposals for reducing Indo-Pak tensions are completely fanciful. Any idea that starts with India loosening up on Kashmir is a non-starter given the violent, civilian-targeted acts of the last decade.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
China is Pakistan’s sponsor in many ways – it would be interesting to know what they think about Afghanistan, and (given their efforts elsewhere) why they aren’t outspending India in Afghanistan.
The induction of a greater level of (conventional, non-nuclear) technology on the subcontinent has always been courtesy of the US of A, so it would be a pretence that the US has little to do with India-Pakistan tensions.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The cons on Indian democracy are that the place is riddled with over thirty separatist movements and turnout in these provinces is low because of 1) massive violence 2) low enthusiasm for participation in an Indian state 3) sometimes government endorsed violence to suppress turnout in certain provinces.
If you reduced these problems to just Jammu and Kashmir, it would still be problematic. If these problems disappeared there would be no need for any sort of alliance with India at all.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias, my favorite blogger, deftly points out that David Brooks contention that a Taliban victory in Afganistan would not necessarily be bad for Pakistan. While a Taliban victory would be bad for countless Afganis and humanity in general, Pakistan has not looked happily upon Hamid Karzai’s outreach to India. [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“The cons on Indian democracy are that the place is riddled with over thirty separatist movements and turnout in these provinces is low”
Get real, Ed, if election turnout reached the low levels of American turnout, maybe I’d be concerned. Oh, and thirty sepraratist movements? We have more than that in this country, and we’re a lot smaller. And we have real governors advocating secession. Granted, they tend to be more violent in India, but Indians are much less afraid of violence. Indian democracy works as well as ours, except that they can count the ballots and produce results. This ain’t Florida. I watched the Gujarat elections last time I was in India. And the people involved were speaking Gujarati, the corespondents were speaking Tamil, and the subtitles were in Hindi. And I still could figure out who won. They have this weird system where the guy who has the most votes wins. And that’s that. Maybe we should try that concept.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Re: Indian democracy works as well as ours, except that they can count the ballots and produce results.
To be fair, there’s certainly some cheating that goes on. My cousin couldn’t vote a few years ago because some yahoo had already voted under his name, Mayor Daley style. That said, I don’t think the fraud is usually of a magnitude that actually affects the outcome.
Re: I only know that we routinely oppose democratically elected governments. So we won’t be supporting India anytime soon.
More specifically, we like to ally with countries that are ready to jump when we say jump. The failed state of Pakistan needs our money and military aid, so they pretty much do what we tell them (with some exceptions). India, on the other hand, has no intention of being an American lapdog, so it wouldn’t make a particularly good ‘ally’.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
And don’t interpret my comments to mean that democracy in India is some glorious reality. It isn’t. Democracies can be very corrupt, and India is the shining example of that. Last time I was in India, we were driving on the road between Hubli and Mundgod. And I commented on how the road was much better this time. And the driver said: “that’s because the governor is coming.” And he was right. I checked into it, and the road should have been paved before my previous trip. But the money went into the pockets of the local mafia and the roads weren’t paved. And it was all cool because the governor certainly wouldn’t go to a backwater Tibetan refugee camp like Mundgod. But then the Dalai Lama came to dedicate a new temple, and the governor really did want to show up. So they suddenly had to actually pave the road. And they pulled it off just in time. Welcome to India.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Re: Democracies can be very corrupt, and India is the shining example of that.
Indeed. There was a poll in 1996 or so that found that about two-thirds of Indians would prefer rule by the army to their democratic government. I suspect the figure would be lower today, but who knows.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“To be fair, there’s certainly some cheating that goes on.”
Oh yeah, but like you say, probably not enough to affect the outcome. But let’s face it, I was denied the right to vote in the 2000 election. I lived in a black neighborhood and my last name is considered a black name in Texas. So, I couldn’t vote. The irony is that I’m whiter than the white people who denied me the right to vote because they thought I was black. I’ve faced discrimination because people thought I was gay (I’m not), but at least that can be questioned. But discriminating against against a white guy for being black is just too weird. But then again, everything is weird in Texas.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
We may recall that in the 1990s when the Taliban was running Afghanistan …
Another point along those lines: our invasion of Afghanistan pushed the Taliban into “safe havens” in Pakistan, destabilizing the tribal regions.
There are really only a few options: give the Taliban control of a piece of territory (wholly unacceptable as “losing” in American politics); reduce their desire for self-determination (give them a stake in Afghan or Pakistani politics, also wholly unacceptable in American politics as well as in the two countries); or obliterate them (which is wholly unacceptable as genocide).
Therefore, quagmire. QED.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“To be fair, there’s certainly some cheating that goes on.”
I wouldn’t put too much into that poll. It’s hard to figure out what Indians think. They are so jaded by their reality that they mostly don’t even care anymore. Not that they ever did. It’s the Indian way. Don’t worry about reality, just find a way to survive in it. And the Indians are the best in the world at that. I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating. Drop an Indian anywhere in the world with a dollar in his hand, and he’ll put his daughter through medical school.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Hmm, wrong quote.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Wow, Gujarat? I don’t mean to be the one who tortures baby Jesus by saying there are things more important than sufferage, but if you were a Muslim living in that province would you rather have a government that you got to vote against burn you alive or have an unelected one that didn’t scheme to murder you as a group?
September 26th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“but if you were a Muslim living in that province would you rather have a government that you got to vote against burn you alive or have an unelected one that didn’t scheme to murder you as a group?”
Good question. The constitution of India protects the rights of everyone, Muslims included. But that obviously doesn’t mean shit when people are setting fires to Mosques and rampantly killing people. And it is somewhat problematic when the governor of the state is the guy who caused those riots. But he hasn’t done too much damage yet as governor. That said, he does stand out as an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Re: And it is somewhat problematic when the governor of the state is the guy who caused those riots.
“Somewhat” problematic??
Re: But he hasn’t done too much damage yet as governor.
He’s done plenty of damage as chief minister, and he’s on track to become the next BJP
Re: That said, he does stand out as an example of what can go wrong with democracy. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative.
Well, the alternative would be some type of authoritarian rule which would prevent yahoos like Modi from being elected. India actually does have a constitutional provision for dismissing the state government (in case of gross malfeasance) and having the national government run the state directly. I don’t know if that would solve the problem but it would be a start, in states like Gujarat, UP and Bihar.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
““Somewhat” problematic??”
I have a habit of understating things sometimes. I have a strange sense of humor.
“He’s done plenty of damage as chief minister, and he’s on track to become the next BJP”
Well the BJP is the Hindu nationalist party, so he’d be the perfect leader of it. But he scares the hell out of everyone else, so I’m guessing he’ll hurt the party, and that’s a good thing.
“I don’t know if that would solve the problem but it would be a start, in states like Gujarat, UP and Bihar”
I’d prefer not to see that, but in UP, I’m kind of fascinated by Mayawati. I’d let her rule just to see what happens. Anyone who can pull together a coalition of Brahmins, Dalits, and Muslims has to have something going for her.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
There was a Frontline episode a while back that provides good context for this discussion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/view/
Within it, an assertion is made that the ISI and the Taliban became buddies during the Soviet invasion (undisputed), and the ISI thinks an Afghanistan under its influence is very important to their cause (which is anti-Indian or pro-survival depending on who you ask). Unfortunately for everyone, Pakistan also found out its army is ineffective against the mujahideen in the famed Tora Bora, and so there you have a big mess. It, like every episode of Frontline, is a very good watch!
September 26th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It’s much more that letting the Taliban retake Afghanistan would get a lot of Afghans killed, give al Qaeda a new home, and destabilize Pakistan.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Pakistan’s problems with India run deep. You should have seen the glee on dawn.com when India’s lunar orbiter prematurely shut down.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
What is frightening is this is one of the more articulate Pakistanis. Sigh, Muslims are no longer a master race.
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=199842
“For 800 years — from 1192 AD. when Muhammad Ghori defeated Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain (in present-day Haryana) to the establishment of British rule in Bengal in the 18th century — every ruler of Hindustan of any note or merit was of Caucasian origin. In all this vast expanse of history, the lands which now constitute Pakistan could produce only one ruler of indigenous origin who could lay claim to any ability: Ranjit Singh, Maharajah of Punjab.”
{As a matter of historical fact, that is utter bullshit.}
….
”
And even if we pride ourselves on our Muslim past, let us not forget that by the time the British arrived in India and set about establishing their empire, the Muslims of the sub-continent had declined to an inferior position. They were no longer a master race”
September 26th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Maybe, but a lot of the Pakistani people stand behind them on this one. In their minds, there’s a “good” (i.e., useful) Taliban in Afghanistan, and a “bad” one in Pakistan. The bad Taliban apparently don’t know that they exist to serve the aims of the people in the Sindh and Punjab.
The big difference between the ISI and these “moderate” Pakistanis is that moderates want schools and roads in addition to India’s defeat. The ISI on the other hand, couldn’t care less about schools and roads.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Brooks’s other point should be addressed. It’s sort of appalling that Americans are sitting here debating whether a Taliban takeover would really be that bad. Yes, it would really be that bad, speaking only of the Afghan people. Sure, there are Taliban-like regimes in other parts of the world, and we’re not committing ourselves to smashing them. But we *have* committed ourselves to smashing this one! I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but what some liberals are starting to advocate in Afghanistan is like the U.S. fighting and dying for 8 years in Mesopotamia, with a good reason for starting the war, and then leaving while Saddam Hussein takes power again. There is no way Obama is going to do that, nor should he.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Indias-growing-clout-in-Kabul-may-impact-stability-US-Gen/articleshow/5044691.cms
Indians getting confused:
“India’s growing clout in Kabul may impact stability: US Gen
Chidanand Rajghatta , TNN 23 September 2009, 01:33am IST ………………………..
The mixed signals emanating from Washington is best illustrated by one paragraph, the only one relating to India, in the report by US General Stanley McChrystal about the dire situation in the Af-Pak theatre. It reads: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.’’
Dubbed the “McChrystal Unclear’’ report, the observation has left Indian officials scratching their heads. So what exactly does the remark imply? That India should scale down its influence in Afghanistan, even though its activities “largely benefit the Afghan people”? That the Obama administration needs to ask New Delhi to dilute its presence in Afghanistan in order not to “exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India’’ a thinly-disguised euphemism for Pakistani terrorism? ………………………….
Times of India”
September 26th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Boy, I would love to see us win it, too. However, stabilizing Afghanistan is like mopping up one half of a basement — with a broken pipe in the other half. The broken pipe is not just the northwestern frontier provinces in Pakistan. It’s the central government itself.
Until they decide that they’re more interested in stabilizing their domestic situation than they are in destabilizing their neighbors, they will always be that broken pipe. And until we confront them on that fact, we will always be that guy on the other side of the basement.
Of course, easier said than done. They have nukes, they have friends in Beijing, etc. The cheapest thing we can do is wish them well and otherwise monitor the region for trouble that can blow back in our face. Not an ideal situation, but that’s the price we pay for getting into bed with the Pakistanis in the 1980’s.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
What is frightening is this is one of the more articulate Pakistanis. Sigh, Muslims are no longer a master race
I think you do Ayaz Amir a disservice here. I doubt that he’s pining for the days when Muslims were a master race. He essentially seems to be saying that Pakistanis are NOT superior to their South Asian brethren and probably face a more daunting task.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:52 am
@ Umesh Patil
It can be an important confidence building measure if all parties are already on board but it is not the way to get india on board. All the problems mentioned have a much longer history than Mumbai Attacks. The paradigm shifting thing for India will be to realise that as it is on the way to become a global power, it will be in its interest to change its approach towards its neighbours and with all of home it has poor relations.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:45 am
By doing what, exactly?
September 27th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Brooks is applying the good ol’ contagion theory of international relations, so useful when you don’t understand the situation.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:02 am
“A lot of this reaction seems like ISI paranoia. ”
Pacific, democratic India hardly is a threat to Pakistan, but the military and ISI need a large threat to justify their size and position and the resources they consume in an impoverished nation. And so they play their self-destructive games with these jihadis.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:12 am
DJ,
That he thinks in terms of inferiority/superiority itself is dismaying. That he considers people who built towers of skulls of their enemies as able and suitable for the modern age is also dismaying.
-Arun
September 27th, 2009 at 11:23 am
That he thinks in terms of inferiority/superiority itself is dismaying. That he considers people who built towers of skulls of their enemies as able and suitable for the modern age is also dismaying.
Ayaz Amir is generally scornful of Pakistani pretensions to Islamic superiority. The entire article is rubbing Pakistani noses in the fact that the only native ruler of note to have arisen in the territories that is Pakistan is a non-Muslim. Its about as far from chest-thumping as you can get.
Anyway, your quote was to illustrate Pakistani attitudes toward India and you may well be right. IMO, Ayaz Amir himself, however, is mocking those attitudes.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Ed Marshall:
The turnout in the 2009 Indian General (nationwide) Elections was 59.7%. Even in Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslim terrorists threatened to kill anyone voting in the elections, the turnout was 39.66%. See http://www.indian-elections.com/ for more data. The closest thing the US has to a nationwide election is the US Presidential Election, and the turnout for that hovers around 50% usually. Hector’s cousin notwithstanding, it seems reasonable to conclude that Indians participate in the “Indian state” about as enthusiastically as Americans participate in the “American state”.
Fostert
I don’t get this at all. Most Indians love political discussions and we have a huge number of newspapers, magazines, TV channels and the like that are filled with people spouting off on various issues. Yes, politics in India is corrupt and people express their frustration with the “system” constantly, but that seems par for the course in most democracies. Worst system of government known to mankind except for all others etc.
Are we jaded by our reality? We have a long way to go (this next superpower thing is just a wet-dream) but we’ve come further in the past 50 years than most people thought we would, and if we could only manage these failed states that litter our borders, we may just pull it off.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Re:That he thinks in terms of inferiority/superiority itself is dismaying. That he considers people who built towers of skulls of their enemies as able and suitable for the modern age is also dismaying.
This is a good point. When a major journalist celebrates people like Mahmoud of Ghazni, Tamerlane, Aurangzeb and considers them fine fellows, India has reason to be on her guard. Wouldn’t you?
September 27th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hector:
Yes, and there’s a related point that is worth making. We hear constantly from the Muslim world about the brutality of the Crusades, and how the crusaders slaughtered lots of innocent Muslims during their rampages through the holy land. What they don’t mention is that at that very time, their co-religionists like Mahmud of Ghazni were busy on the Eastern front of the Muslim world slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians, and destroying and looting their temples.
Moreover, while you find many Christians expressing regret for the excesses of the crusades, I have yet to find one Muslim writing an article expressing regret for their slaughter of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. On the contrary, most of them seem to be very proud of these “accomplishments” – one of Pakistan’s missiles is even named Ghaznavi, after Mahmud of Ghazni.