Jai Hind... Jai Maharashtra...

Its been couple of days now after the so called 'Marathi' men resorted to street violence against North Indians in particular.

I've always felt that workplace is not a good place to discuss social/political issues. It is hence necessary to maintain restraint in exhibition of one's views, especially in respect of social matters. This is important in India more than anywhere else because our society is highly stratified with thousands of discreet social groups. And there exists every possibility that even a spark can blow up into a full fledged fire buring down close relationships that have probably been nurtured for a lifetime. Hence, ignoring social issues as if they don't exist is perhaps a good way of working around the social differences and co-existing in harmony. By not talking about burning issues in our busy routine, we find a middle path towards temporary peace.

It is this soothing silence however, which gets uncomfortable when some things go wrong somewhere. This silence which at most times suppresses our differences also shouts out louder than loudest of words at times of communal flare-ups. At such times, silence breeds suspicion and mistrust. I hence choose to speak.

I first wish to distance myself from the violent brigade of hypocrites who in the name of bringing justice to the Marathi man have committed injustice to the solidarity of our entire nation.

One cannot make somebody do things they do not wish to do. I would be most glad if my friends learn to speak Marathi. But not at this cost. I read a news article which contained comments by Ahilyatai Rangnekar, a woman who fought for the Sanjukta Maharashtra Andolan in 1950s. I would like to quote her own words, "We fought for a separate state for the Marathi manoos. We didn't say non-Maharashtrians are not welcome" ... "Maharashtrians in Mumbai are not as unfortunate and poor as Raj and other politicians were portraying them to be." ... " Raj is not saving them from hell. He is only spoiling the unity and cohesion among the people of the city."

This is exactly what I personally feel and I'm sure most Marathi people are in agreement. Politicians who are in a perpetual frenzy to garner votebanks resort to such gimmicks. With so many North Indian people whom I call friends, I am not alone. Millions of Marathi young men and women have a cosmopolitan upbringing and DO NOT subscribe to narrow minded regionalistic views. I am proud of my Marathi heritage and I understand that my non-Marathi friends are equally proud of their respective regional cultures too. It is this diversity which makes India unique. I frequently draw analogy to Europe, which in many respects is like India, particularly with regards to diversity in this case. But inspite of their efforts, they have not been able to build a consolidated Europe. It is only a great country like India that such diversity can co-exist in harmony. Many a great civilizations have risen and collapsed. There remain only traces of the mighty ancient Roman empire, while Greeks are left with only a vestige of their spectacular past achievements and the once enlightened and flourishing Muslim Sultanates which at one time ruled the seven seas have plunged into obscurity. It is only India which has flourished inspite of devastating foreign invasions, famines and every other conceivable difficulty.

People like these who try to agitate the peaceful national integrity are measly flies in this wonderful garden of diversity called India. Such flies can try their miserable best and create their loudest humming, but will ultimately die out unable to cause not even a leaf to fall in this garden.

As for the Marathi manoos, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is the ultimate ideal for me and every other true Marathi man. It is he who had the hands of his Maratha soldier cut because he dared to violate the daughter of one of his Muslim enemies. If Shivaji Maharaj can respect even his enemies, the question of a Marathi man hating fellow Indians does not arise at all. Maharashtrian soil has given birth to some of the noblest men and ideologies. The benchmark for honour has been set so high that as high as they jump and as shrill as they cry out, no Raj Thackeray even come near what we call Marathi asmita. Because Marathi pride is no different from National pride.

Now that I have vented my anger and disgust in the most civilized manner possible for me, I wish to proclaim that Mumbai is open to all, irrespective of caste, creed, region or religion. In case the image has been tarnished I wish to further proclaim that Marathi man is most warm hearted, brave and impulsive who will embrace every Indian (and non-Indian too) with open hands without prejudice and will not hesitate to protect those whom he calls friends even against some of his own people. Raj Thackeray DOES NOT represent the collective Marathi opinion. His actions DO NOT have the approval or backing of the Marathi people. Raj Thackeray DOES NOT speak for all Marathi people.

I disagree with him. And I wanna make it fucking known...

Slipping into the groove...

hmmmm. nothing new in life going on. read some part of a favourite book of mine. currently listening to Metallica's "My Friend of Misery". The mood is smthing very confusing today. ...Misery loves company... just stood there screaming... my friend of misery...

this song is driving me crazy... im in a thoughtful mood tonight...

An Atheist's Perspective...

I was discussing my atheist inclinations with a friend and i wrote this as a reply to her. I thot it'd make good material for my blog too. My friend had once seen me entering a temple and bowing before the idol. So wen i told her that im an Atheist, she asked me abt it. She also tuched upon why God is important to her. I will only write my reply to her.
so here it goes....

[...my friend's reply here...]

dats the reply i received. lemme first say that wat im gonna say further is a personal view. india is a democratic nation and every1 is entitled to free thinking. this statement is not just a prelude. its important because it differentiates me from a fundamentalist or an extremist. so take my views as just views and not as smthing im trying to ram down ur throat. thats the last thing i'd do. Also, once i engage in a debate or a conversation like this, it can get really long, extending over long time periods and sometimes covering a diverse range of subjects. I can only ask you to bear with this. I hope you get interested...

My views:

Religion cannot be discussed in isolation from God. Not only here in India but anywhere else. In order to justify this statement, I'd like to first delve into the historical origins of religion.

Man has always been fascinated by his surroundings. He always sought to find answers to a number of things. For example, the origin of earth, origin of mankind, why men are different from women. Why man is different from animals. 5000 years ago, man was confronted with an assortment of mysteries. He always was on a quest to find answers.

Man is an intelligent creature. Since time immemorial, the basic approach to problem solving has been this:

1) Identifying the problem
2) Collating a list of possible ALTERNATIVE solutions (called theories)
3) Identify the BEST solution (theory or proposition) to the problem
4) Test the theory to see if it conforms to the constraints of logical reasoning and observed facts.
5) If the theory passes the tests of rational logic and answers the observed facts, it then becomes a Law.

We once had the Newton's Theories. They were experimentally tested and then they became Newton's Law. Because they have been PROVEN EXPERIMENTALLY, LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY. All the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Newton's Law cannot be disobeyed.

The above process of problem solving is not something written in books. Its the natural process that human brain adopts subconsciously.

So when man was confronted with the problem of say for example, 'Origin of Mankind', he used the same process of problem solving as follows:

1) Identifying the Problem: How did man, animals, life come in to existence. The life on earth was so complex, with so many species of plants, animals, races of men, that the problem seemed INFINITELY COMPLEX.

2) Finding the possible solutions to the problem:
a) A divine omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, entity could only have created such an INFINITELY COMPLEX universe
b) An alien life from another planet gave birth to mankind
c) Life on earth and mankind EVOLVED over a period of millions of years (Charles Darwin published his 'theory' of natural selection. its still a theory. but it has been proving itself constantly without significant rational criticism. And whatever criticism it is receiving is in my opinion, irrational and illogical
d) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a dream, an illusion
e) Life as we see does not exist at all. Life on earth is actually an entertainment play, watched by Gods
f) Life as we see does not exist at all. Its just a computer game/program running on somebody's (God's?) computer. (Unbelievable? search the internet or spend some time on chat networks and you'll find people who actually believe this crap)
g) Think of 'n' number of more alternative solutions yourself

3) The best and the most plausible theory 5000 years back, when we didn't have theory of evolution or alien birth. The possibility of existence of a Divine God who created mankind was itself so romantic that most people fell for it. As for the others who found it hard to digest even then, they were asked if they'd a better answer? Obviously, The God theory came to be accepted worldwide. Mind you, It was accepted. but NOT TESTED.

4) Testing the theory:

The God theory was supposedly tested. Lot of events, who's cause could not be found, were attributed to God. Many so called miracles were testified and wrongfully taken as an evidence for existence of God.

5) Proclaiming the theory as a Law:

With the so called evidence and with no other better theory at hand, mankind unanimously accepted the God theory and proclaimed it a Law. This law was called Religion.

Every country has had some form of a codified religion. Indians had the Vedas, Christians had Bible, Jews had Bible and the Torah, Muslims had Koran. Others who didn't have a written culture had some form of oral laws forming the basis of religion.

Problem with Religion and hence God theory:

All theories have to be tested and verified. evidence gathered and subjected to rational examination. Religion passed this test 5000 years ago. But todays it fails.

All theories evolve. Newton proposed say theory 'X'. It was tested, passed, proclaimed a law. But it was re-tested. Einstein did it too and he found that Newton's Laws could be disobeyed in some cases. Based on these discrepancies in earlier theories, Einstein formulated a new theory, 'Theory of relativity'

In the same vein, religion and God theory had to be tested, re-tested and re-re-tested in light of newer knowledge been discovered. We now have a much more likely theory of evolution of mankind. It is much more logical and acceptable to rational mind. Then why not re-test the God theory and subject it to criticism? Why not dare and discard it if it fails miserably in comparison to alternative explanations for origin of mankind?

The reason is, religion has been here for far too long a time. Religion and the God theory is not a theory anymore. Its a way of life. It defines the way people live their lives. It differentiates cultures and guides the society in its day to day affairs.

What does it mean to an Atheist like me?

As an atheist, i am a rational man. And I feel that mankind is a weak race. Man as an individual needs support. He needs guidance and comfort. Some people find it in their mothers, some in their wives, some in spiritual gurus and some like me, in own self.

I as an individual find the grounds for existence of God, very shaky and hard to believe. But there are people who differ. As a rational SOCIAL animal, I would follow the ways of the society to a reasonable extent. I as an Atheist do not find it hard to enter a temple and even bow before an idol because its an object of worship for my parents, my friends and my loved ones.

I respect my loved ones. This is what differentiates me from fundamentalists and makes me a civilized man. I know a lot many Atheist bigots who hunt down their religious counterparts and engage in fruitless ranting and stupid blabbering.

As a teenager, I did have extremist views once. I severely resented any religious activity and rituals. I used to make fun of 'Artis' and 'Shlokas'.

I am however now satisfied that I as an individual have evolved over time. I realize that God as a support system is very important for many people. It gives comfort and strength to many people (like yourself perhaps). As a support system, it keeps many humans going.

Would I enter a temple and pray to an entity that I think does not exist?

Yes. I would enter a temple. I would also not mind bowing and joining my hands before an idol. But I would not pray. Joining hands to me is a ritual. As much I find religious rituals blasphemous I dont think they are irrational. They are a means to bring the society together. Although they purport the existence of a God (which i disagree), they also perform a much more important function: they gel the society together (which is more important for me)

There is an important difference between logic and rationalism. Idea that God exists is Illogical. But I wouldn't call it Irrational simply because it makes sense to have a God like entity (even if its imaginary) in a society to keep it from plunging into chaos.

Taking a broader view of life, I would definitely make known my Atheist views and argue as to its logicality. But I know life is seldom logical. I hence wouldn't even mind bowing before an imaginary God. I know God doesn't exist. So what harm does it cause if my head bows before something that my parents call God, but i consider a stone idol?

What will the society loose out?

In case we continue with the God theory, the only aspect that society would loose out on would be failure to explore possibilities other than God. Ok, so if God didn't create the universe then who did? If everyone on earth believed in existence of God, who would pursue the cause of scientific exploration? who would find an alternative theory?

An important criticism to the above statement is that most scientists in history were religious. Yes, sure, they were religious. They did accept the God theory. But they knew that it was a theory. They tested and re-tested it. This is what is more important. Mankind must test religion for its utility. Religion Should EVOLVE. My complaint lies in the fact that today's religions have all remained stagnant for too long.

Also, in case of a religion, some Social benefits are derived, while some social benefits (like say scientific accomplishments) are lost causing cost to the society (eg. superstition). A cost to benefit analysis would demonstrate if religion is of utility or not. If the Costs in the form of Social evils and loss of scientific accomplishments is high while, the social benefits of religion are low, a religion becomes a liability.

As an Indian and a born and brought up Hindu, I would say that for Hinduism the cost incurred is slightly lower than the benefits derived. As a result my thinking would allow benefit of doubt to Hinduism as far as its utility is concerned.

So whats the conclusion?

The conclusion is, one must remains rational. Not logical. If an imaginary God benefits somebody, go for it. If one can do away with external divine support and learn to support oneself, nothing better than that. As an indivdual, I have learnt to stand up on my feet and not look for support from an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent but imaginary entity.

From my observation, I find that religious persons find it much easier to commit 'sins' because they know (or they believe) that there's a God sitting in the heavens who'd forgive them if they pray or follow a few rituals like bathing in waters of a holy river.

In my case, the very belief that there is no God to support me, to forgive my sins, to grant me wishes, to help me in times of trouble, to console me when I am sad, makes me work that much extra hard to support myself, to live an ethical life. My only solace is my conscience. My conscience prevents me from committing a Sin. My conscience gives me strength when I feel weak. My conscience makes me a better human being. My conscience is my support system. And it works better for me than an imaginary God...

I hope you think about it...

And thanx my friend. coz you just inspired me to write another article for my blog. find the above discussion on my blog at Naklistan.com

tata, tc
--
Raka Naklistani :-)

About Me - An Introspection...

m Boring. i like 2 make friends. but im choosy. im finicky. im a recluse. but i cant stop talking if i find some1 my type. my emotions are extreme. im moody. i get highs and lows very easily. i like 2 see lotsa money. but im not a spendthrift. i can be rude. i can destroy friendships easily. and i regret it later. i dont listen to anyone. so i usually learn things the hard way. im a workaholic. im a writer. im a dreamer. i take pride in saying im systematic. but i invariably dont know my next move. irony is a major part of my life.

im a thinker. i think a lot. i hold strong views on many issues. i respect women. i've strong views on women's rights. i hate inequality. im democratic. i love art. but i've failed in creating much myself. i dont like a lot of things about me. i do a lot of introspection. i frequently find myself confused. i find myself lonely sometimes. i think of my childhood and past. i used 2 keep a diary once. but failed to sustain.

im a bundle of walking contradictions. my life is deeply marked by instability. i loose interest very easily. once i find things done, i loose interest and look for newer pastures. i lack a long-term perspective. if im not happy with things, i let em fall like a pack of cards. makes things difficult for others. im a team player. i like 2 interact. im not a leader. i consider myself a weak decision maker. but i analyze well. im not a strong willed person. in a team, i hold the members together. im the one who unites. im ambitious. im honest. i dont talk much. wen i do, ppl listen to me. people respect me. ppl take my opinion seriously.

i tend not 2get along with most ppl.but i compromise. i hate ppl who shirk work. dishonesty is a turnoff. i find myself more comfy in female company. im not romantic. but im soft hearted. i find myself pretending to be hard on the outside. i find it silly. but i cant help it. i guess dats my nature. i always claim in not emotional. but i know im ultra sensitive. dats one of the reasons for my reclusiveness perhaps. im verbose. i tuch a lot of things in a short span of time. im vulnerable. women, ideologies, religion; i get attracted to them easily. im a kid on my inside. im playful. i say i dont care. but i do care. i react differently to different people. even in same situations.

i haven't been a very good student. but i was and am always curious. i dont have enemies. i always make friends. very few ppl resent me. i find myself struggling with my ego. i know i hv a huge ego. but since i know it, i dont let it cause harm. i like to share. i always share. im compassionate. but im not weak minded. i believe in hard work. i'd rather die than beg. im a proud man. but im humble too. im not ashamed of work. i get bouts of ideas. i suddenly work frantically on an idea and then drop it without clue.

i dont like a lot of things about myself. but im happy about myself. im a good guy. i have evil thoughts in my mind sometimes. im very argumentative. i sometimes wish i had superhuman powers. i dont like ppl who have an indifferent attitude. i like intelligent company. i find myself uncomfortable amidst crude and nasty men who talk dirty. i like polished speakers. i admire many people. i like charmers. i want to be like them. i dont believe in God. i think the logic for his existence is weak. im a rational person. im non-violent in actions. but i do have violent thoughts frequently. i get angry easily. but im good at masking my emotions. i've never been very good at expressing love. although i've been attracted to quite a few women in life, i've never been able 2 say it. im stupid at it i guess. im content easily. money is not an incentive. work is. keeps me going. i enjoy my life to the fullest. im happy. and im luking for more. im insatiable...
:-)

whos at fault

first lemme respond to your comment and then try and explain what i am really tryin to say, maybe this this it will be clear.


at no point of time has there been conclusive proof that any of these nations had WMDs. on the contrary, facts hv come to light that american claims of WMD possession against Iraq were war propaganda.

Dude, I would strongly suggest that you ensure that you read whatever I have written before rushing off your replies. It could also help if you read the post directly over the computer. It’s the least you could do for your blogger buddy. I had never said that the threat of Iraq possessing WMDs was a genuine one. I know and the whole world knows that it was just an excuse to start a fight. In my comments earlier, I have made this point very clear. I had called it a joke. Then why do you reply as above, as if I am oblivious of this fact and that it is gonna appear in tomorrow morning’s headlines?


if its not americas responsibility to fix others state of sorry affairs, then why is it meddling in afghan, irani, iraqi and korean affairs?

I am perplexed after reading this. It is true that America has meddled in the affairs of and used military might against most of them. So? But this time US is not using its military against pak, it is not invading it. You surely don’t mean that, since US has meddled in the affairs of so and so states, as a thumb rule, it is not fair that it is not meddling with the affairs of Pakistan directly? No one should think that there is a general rule of stupidity that governs US’s actions.


In contrast, Indian foreign policy has been most beautiful with the necessary restraint and maturity, which many people mistake for cowardism.

Do you really think that Indian foreign policy is good? Now don’t even get me started on this. I am not writing anything on this now, as it would override the point that we are trying to make. Talking about too may things would make the entire discussion vague. If you wanna discuss this, then do write enumerating the merits of the so called Indian foreign policy, I would surely respond.


Dude, the people who visit this blog or have read anything I have written in the past would know what I feel about US foreign policy. This is what I had written at the start of the article.

i can understand why you are upset with the us, their foreign policy sucks. from my earlier posts it would be apparent what i think about us and its policies.

Does it sound like I am a big fan of the US? You of all people should know what I think about it and its policies.


Well, let me come to the point that I am trying to make. Maybe it would become clearer now.

I would like to ask one thing. Do you at all feel that the old man named by his mama as parvez is anywhere responsible for this whole messy mess? If you do, then why aren’t you talking about it? Now we both know that he is just a pawn in the whole game between the pak army, the isi and the west. So lets not waste our time with that. But sumwhere, don’t you think the man’s hunger to hold on to power needs to be condemned in the strongest sense. He certainly has some vested interests and will not rest till he has achieved them. Since this is the same man who directed the kargil action sequences, it should certainly give Indians sumthing to think about. This man cannot be trusted. Why give him the clean chit? All I am saying is that US is indeed responsible for all the mess it is in now. But the point that I am trying to make is, (PLEASE DO PAY ATTENTION HERE) for USA, PAKISTAN IS A FOREIGN NATION, IT REALLY CARES LITTLE IF IT GOES TO HELL OR BOUNCES OFF ITS CRUST. BUT AS FAR AS THIS LITTLE MAN IS CONCERNED, ISNT THIS HIS ADOPTED NATION? DOESN’T ITS AND ITS PEOPLE’S WELFARE FIGURE ANYWHERE IN HIS TO-DO LIST? WHY IS HE DETERMINED TO LICK FOREIGN ASSES JUST TO STAY IN POWER? ISNT IT HIS GREED? HE IS READY TO PUT ITS FUTURE AT STAKE JUST TO CLING ON TO POWER? HOW DOES THIS MAKE HIM ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE TWO PAK PMs?

This is the point that I am trying to make. I think more than US, inspite of all its dirty tricks, the internal elements of Pakistan like the army, the isi and ofcourse the general are more guilty for the situation that the country is in now.

One last thing, you made your point very clear only in my reply, while in the first post that you made, you had just briefed that US is at fault, without explaining the reasons for your thought. Don’t wait for my reply to elaborate on your views. Do it at the first instance, it would make more interesting reading.

US is protecting its interests

this is my response to an earlier article.

i can understand why you are upset with the us, their foreign policy sucks. from my earlier posts it would be apparent what i think about us and its policies.

but i personally do not think that it is us's resposibility to affix the head of state of each and every country in the world. We should refrain from indiscriminate and blind us bashing. to be fair to the us, it has the right to maneuver the international scenario to suit itself. Every country does that, including our’s. then why point one’s finger at the us this time? At least it is not bombing another nation, however this time I really wish they had done that.

It is indeed implied that mushy would have taken dubyas permission before imposing emergency. But is it the responsibility of the us to see to it that every radical fundamentalist country sticks to democratic ways? Certainly not. Is mushy committed to democracy? Not really, though its his own country. Is he manipulating the system to suit himself, you are damn right he is. Then the question is, then why blame the us? Dubya must not have proactively asked mushy to impose emergency, it has simply not objected to his decision to do so. Hence, I feel mushy is the bigger culprit not the us.

If we talk about a country’s commitment to democracy then lemme ask you this. Is India commited to the spread and preservation of democracy all over the world? Certainly not. If it were, then would it remain a silent spectator in the Myanmar prodemocracy moments? Even afer the people of that country sought india’s help? What is happening in Myanmar is totally wrong. An elected leader has been in house arrest for numerous years now. But India being a strong democratic neighbouring country is not interferening in the country. And rightly so. The military govt in that country has good relations with India, it doesn’t allow its soil to be used for anti Indian activities, which is very important for India considering the troubled north-eastern regions. India doesn’t want an additional ememy in the neighbourhood. It already has its hands full with Pakistan, Bangladesh , the very country we liberated and sri lanka, considering sri lanka is not oblivious of the fact that the ltte do get a lot of help from the southern Indian states, both monetarily and otherwise. Hence why meddle in Myanmar and create more trouble for yourself as if you don’t have enough already.

The situation that us is in at the moment is not very different from our own. It already has its hands full in Afghanistan, considering the Taliban is regrouping and spreading to the northern parts too, and of course iraq, which could well be another Vietnam for them. Besides these two frontiers, it is also worried about iran’s neculear muscle flexing, north Korean military might and terrorism against both mainland us and us interests in various nations. Now it deparately needs mushy’s help as Taliban and al qaida is becoming very active in Pakistan and using that land to mount anti-us activities. Hence, if mushy needs the emergency to make his position strong, then so be it, as far as the us is concerned. Afterall the country has been under the military rule for most part of its post colonial era, so it is not as if they have no taste of the bitter pill. And anyways, why should the us care so much about the people of Pakistan if they themselves are so damn ignorant?

Hence I think the people of phukistan are more at fault as mushy has active support from some sections of the Pakistan politics including the mqm, muhajir qoumi movement, the political party to represent the decedents of those people who left India to make the newly formed Pakistan their new home during the independence of India. Mushy is a muhajir, hence they feel that he represents their community, and support him, oblivious of his thinking and policies. After lal musjid fiasco mushy needs to fight the radicals and hence he has no option but to impose emergency. The us is just making use of him. Once he becomes redundant to them, they will pull their support to him. This is just an adjustment for the us to suit itself. I do not think us is stupid enough to meddle in Pakistan affairs pro actively, though I wish they would and blast the country into outer space.

The us is just protecting its interests.

Nice pics Y!Rocks...

yeah. we cant stop talking abt politics. as hard as we try. but we gotta try harder. LOL. so here's my bit...

though our contributer Y!Rocks is not very active about writing, this guy is a good photographer. i saw his pics in his album on orkut here. do take a look guys...

FUCK YOU AMERICA...

The inevitable has happened. Pakistan is once again under a Martial Law regime under dictatorial rule of General Musharraf with puppets installed on top of the judicial machinery. It was only a matter of time that a dictator at the helm of Pakistan's politics would walk in the footsteps of his predecessors. Taliban which once was a Pakistani and more importantly American pet has been let loose. Pakistan and America are once more haunted by their own demonic offsprings.

America is jeopardizing the world peace by meddling in world affairs for its greed. It should stop invading sovereign nations and look after its own affairs. By confronting Iran, meddling in Iraqi and Afghan affairs, USA is destabilizing the region and creating more problems than its solving.

Musharraf's imposing Martial Law is definitely not possible without America knowledge and permission. American hypocrisy is once more demonstrated when it says that it is 'deeply disturbed' by the current turn of events in Pakistan.

Arm twisting by Left handers

This is my response to the earlier article.

thats right dude.

i myself wanted to write sumthin on this, but realised my previous posts were also related to politics, so didnt write immediately.

i certainly agree with you. the UPA is not america's slave, it is the left that is china's slave. the indian left parties have always been chinese manchurian ass lickers. i shudder to think what would happen if china makes aggressive military moves on the border, these rotten eggs would welcome it and say that india would be better off under communist china. they are the ones who have sold off the nation.

lemme ask you guys one thing, what kind of ideology do you think china follows? communism? sorry, wrong answer. china is communist only in name. all aspects of china, which really matter to the business are more in tune with capitalist policies. in other words, china is a very liberal communist nation. it chose to be so in the early 90s, because it understood then that unless it changed its manners, it will collapse just like the iron curtain collapsed in the early 90s.

well, what can i say, the masters of the indian left parties (read china) has understood that unless its adopts a more liberal policy, it is sure to enter into a depression and break into ten thousand pieces just like its big brothers the former USSR and former (again) Yugoslavia.

the name of the game in international politics is adapting to changes. isnt it a well known fact that india was a staunch ally of the communist nations and a dear friend of USSR? india itself is influenced by socialist ideals. from the time of independence to the mid 90s, india was largely led by the congress, a party which strongly believed that india's best interests were in being a close ally of the USSR. Since the 90s, communism has all but fallen, with the exception of china and a few other countries. observing this change, india has sensed that it is better off with building strong relations with uncle sam (US). The same congress party has now taken this relationship further in many ways. One of the steps it has attempted to take is this nuclear deal. Have you noticed the congress making any moves towards the Russian union, which has all but replaced the former USSR in the international scenario. The congress has learned that what is in the past is best left there (in the past), the present policies should always be made with one eye on the future. I am not a fan of the congress party (though I may sound so in this space, but believe me, I am anything but that)

Alas, the deal is in rough waters simply because the left has no common sense to see that the global scenario has changed and that it has been over 60 years that the second world war has ended and that now nobody really cares about the communist ideals. Capitalism, with all its inherent flaws has won the cold war hands down. There is only one international boss and a runaway success story and that the US, make no mistake about it.

Its time the left read its news papers and took off the old and crumbled stalin and lennin portraits off its office walls. They were leaders of a different time. The time now is of business expansion, we are talking about a single global village these days.

The Indian left parties had little national presence until the beginning of this century. The fifty years of modern India, the little red man were largely ignored by the Indian masses. It is only in the last two general elections that unfortunately, the masses have given substantial power to these guys who have done nothing but slow down India’s progress. Maybe the masses saw that India is speeding ahead at a rapid pace since 1998 and that the gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening with the passage of every single day. We are talking about huge foreign investments these days. My reading is that the improvised of the country panicked that if this pace keeps up then they will be in a lot of trouble economically speaking. It is a well known fact that the left has branded itself as the champion of the poor, and when the poor are driven to a corner, who do they have to turn to, the left of course. I hope the people who voted them into power will realize that left is no poor man’s friend, how can a party be against the establishment retail outlets in India and be friends of the poor at the same time. The very mantra of the retail outlets is cutting down prices, and when the prices of commodities are cut, wont the poor benefit, simple logic aint it. NO, if you are left, the way they look at it is, the investment is coming from the west, and our grand fathers had asked us to blindly oppose anything that comes from the west (except pretty girls). Hence, investment in the form of retail, even if it benefits the poor is evil. if you don’t believe us, read the books written by our grandpas, they are a little worn out, but sure still readable. The armed rise of the naxalites and Maoists in India has also influenced the ordinary man to believe that the left will protect the poor.

What I have to say to the left parties is that, guys, adapt or perish. The Indian voter is a lot smarter than he is given credit for. If you keep up with your monkey tricks, you will be very soon thrown out and replaced by substitute Saviour of the poor (read BSP). The people do realize that you cannot compromise with the security of the nation. Guys grow up, do you want me to translate that in Bengali and malayalam.

Hypocrites.....

as much as it disgusts me, im not at all surprised at the manner in which the Left wing in India has sabotaged Indo-US Nuclear deal.

im not an expert in international affairs or affairs pertaining to defense or energy. im just another guy who lives in a democratic country and expects that rules that apply to one also apply to another. and i dont think its much to expect.

Most leading Indian scientists have supported the nuke deal and dont see it as a threat to India's sovereign independence.

the Left block in India accuses the UPA leadership of been slave to the US policies. does it make us slave to USA when we try to reach to an agreement which would mutually benefit the two nations, (more so India)? the scientific community has been what if China had gone in for the deal with USA? im sure the hypocritical Left wing would have not only supported such a move but also would've blamed India for not following China's footsteps.

its not the Manmohan Singh and party who are slaves to USA. Its the Leftists who'r slaves to a philosophy long discarded by most - Communism. and they are doing a tremendous job of keeping India in rags and darkness.