February 20, 2006


Treat Pakistan, India equally: FO (Daily Times, 2/21/06)

The Foreign Office has called for the equal treatment of Pakistan and India as nuclear weapons states that are not signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty, after France joined the United States in signing nuclear cooperation deals with New Delhi, APP reports.

India is a stable, pro-Western, protestant, increasingly capitalistic, liberal democracy. It's entitled to be treated much better than a country where we depend on dictatorship to prevent a radical takeover.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 20, 2006 6:33 PM

"Protestant"? I agree with the rest oj, but arguing solidarity on religious grounds is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by: Mf [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 20, 2006 6:54 PM

No, protestant, not Protestant.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 6:59 PM

I must misunderstand the term- isn't India mostly Hindu and Muslim?

Posted by: Mf [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 20, 2006 7:11 PM

The argument of the End of History is that to be successful states must allow a variety of religious beliefs to function freely (protestantism) and, therefore, that is what they all will allow for eventually. India, which has an enormous variety functioning freely, is archetypally protestant.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 8:45 PM

One supposes that as long as we can make up the meaning of words as we go along the foregoing definition of protestantism is as good as any.

For those whose respect for accuracy is beset with scrupulosity, history calls us back to the original "protest" against the compromises of the Second Diet of Spires, resulting in the Thiry Years' War and the distraction of Europe from the struggle against the Turk.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 20, 2006 10:38 PM

Does the idea to treat Pakistan and India and every other country equally come for the Ed School geniuses who came up with social promotion in our schools,or the other way around? In any case, what is it about some people's inability to recognize inequality when it slaps them in the face?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 20, 2006 10:40 PM

the point being that there's no problem with an Established Church, so long as other religions (protestants) are allowed.

Posted by: oj at February 20, 2006 11:08 PM

There's a big difference between different religions with the same coretenets (protestants, or to expand it further, Christians) and different religions with different core tenets (christians, sikhs, muslims, hindus)oj.
Their still recent history of violent clashes between religions does not suggest a stable core of beliefs. It makes them sound like Europe.

Posted by: Mf [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 21, 2006 12:03 AM


No, there isn't. So long as you structure your society around the three basic principles of relative freedom in economics (capitalism, broadly speaking), politics (democracy, broadly speaking), and religion (protestantism, broadly speaking) you've arrived at the End of History. India has arrived.

Posted by: oj at February 21, 2006 7:14 AM