March 28, 2003
THANKS FOR NOTHING (via Rantburg):
I refused to help Bush: PM (Hindustan Times, 3/27/2003)Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Thursday told the media how George Bush thrice sought his help in the war on Iraq, and how he refused the American President."The US President George Bush has spoken to me three times saying that India must help the USA as Sadaam Hussein had left him with no option but to go for the attack," he told journalists after a dedication programme of the Chakara Nala Patni Watershed Management Plan prepared by the Deendayal Research Institute run by Nanaji Deshmukh here.
Vajpayee told Bush that India believed war was not a solution to any problem and so could not help. India is also trying to consolidate the support of many countries to prevent escalation of the battle between US and Iraq, Vajpayee said.
India's hostility to the U.S. has always puzzled me. Our common language, shared democratic values, and commercial ties, I would have thought, would unite us with India more than with other countries of the region. But it hasn't worked out that way.
Just as India's socialist ideology is in retreat, its Hindu nationalism is rising and may deepen the ideological gap that divides us.
I hope that the U.S. and India can grow closer, but this may prove to be one of those friendships that just never develops.
Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 28, 2003 11:21 AMJust as Russia will come crawling when they want to deal with Chechnya, so will India need our support when they settle Pakistan's hash.
Posted by: oj at March 28, 2003 12:08 PMAnd Pakistani ears prick up as India renounces war as a solution "for any problem."
Is there a word for a political announcement that's made only because it will be understood by all listeners to be untrue?
To follow up on OJ's point -- Kashmir, Chechnya, both of them kind of hang in the balance, don't they?
Posted by: Kevin Whited at March 28, 2003 12:12 PMDavid: "Campaign Promise"
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at March 28, 2003 12:26 PMI had a friend years ago who did his master's on US-India perceptions of each other, as seen in the press. I, too, thought at the time that the Indian turnaway toward the USSR was puzzling, but later I
decided it had to do with socialism and a distaste for
our consumerist mentality. Not that Indians aren't
consumerists when they get the chance.
Just as Gandhism was never anything but extreme Hindu nationalism in sheep's clothing, India's westernism seems nothing but a veneer over chthonic
attitudes of great staying power.
To add to what Mr. Eagar said, the US hasn't exactly been sterling in supporting democratic India more than autocratic Pakistan, and from what little I've learned about this from Indian sources, India isn't very happy about it.
Of course, the US has its own more or less compelling reasons for buddying up with Pakistan after 9/11, but that doesn't mean that India can't be in a tiff about it.
The "tilt" toward Pakistan was one of the legacies of
Kissinger, just another reason for him to burn in hell someday.
I'm not sure what "support" for democratic India the US could have or should have given. As far as I can tell, the only policy of the US has been to keep Pakistan and India from fighting each other. The US has acquiesced in Indian imperialism and walked gingerly as between India and China.
Well, given how Pakistan was a pretty solid US ally during the Cold War while India dithered around with the Non-Aligned Movement and kept its'population in beggary via its' half-witted socialism I'd say that was reason enough for Kissinger's "tilt".
Back on topic, Indian nationalists are jealous of the US' (and thus the West's) continued dominance when by all rights in light of India's traditional cultural excellence, they should be top dogs instead.
Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is Hindu nationalists' deep antipathy to Christianity as well as Islam what with their increased regulation of religious conversions.
What do we really want from India when it comes down to it? They serve as a pretty good check on Pakistan and China just by existing.
Posted by: Matt at March 28, 2003 6:15 PMAli:
Definitely they were a big help, especially in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Zia al-Haq (sp), who was a great ally, let the fundamentalist genie out of the bottle, right?
Matt:
Bingo! Plus they check both with nukes.
They serve as a pretty good check on Pakistan and China just by existing.