Comments on: WorldView: We Are All Indians Now

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:11:59 +0000

It is black and white, Jan. That’s the point, my friend.

Good day.

By: Jan Karlsbjerg

Jan Karlsbjerg — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:57:01 +0000

This is “back on point”, saying that I fart at funerals, and then making the very complex situation in the subcontinent into an utterly black and white thing?

In that case I’m taking my keyboard and going home from this game.

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:47:21 +0000

Well said, Earnest Canuck. Thanks for bringing the discussion back on point.

By: Earnest Canuck

Earnest Canuck — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:08:17 +0000

I just wanted to note, Mr Kjarleyburger, that it is commonly-accepted practice to express sympathy and solidarity, in the wake of death, to its survivors. This should be as true on a national scale as on a personal one; to quibble with “we are all Indians now” seems like farting at a funeral, you ask me.

Narvey is right to laugh at the Non-Aligned Movement analysis you suggest. This ain’t Naxalites vs. Congress (I), Jan; this is jihadi barbarism’s direct assault on democratic pluralism. It is a very Hot War; we Canadians have the honour of being on its front in Kandahar; free India’s free Moslems and Hindus are our allies, being aligned towards sectarian and individual liberty as they are, and disinclined to apologise for bloody-handed zealots who’ll fight you even if you don’t want to fight them.

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:39:59 +0000

Hey Jan. Well, I wouldn’t boil down what the West is about to capitalism, although encouraging protections for private property and free markets are certainly seen (rightly or wrongly) to be behaviors adopted more in Western countries than, say, Russia, or China. But my comment was more about India earnestly engaging in globalization (economic, cultural, political). Look at the target in this case: Mumbai’s financial district. The terrorists understand symbolism.

Considering that we agree with the last point — really the main point — I’m having difficulty understanding why you think the expresion “We are all Americans now” or “We are all Indians now” so strange.

By: Jan Karlsbjerg

Jan Karlsbjerg — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:55:49 +0000

Of course I knew about the “We are all Americans now”, but I think that too, was an odd thing to say.

And I don’t know about calling events 15 years ago “long ago” and “ancient history”, nor what a country’s own internal economic policies have to do with much. Unless you equate “the West” with “capitalism”?

And I agree with what I’m guessing you’re loudly implying with the last paragraph: Militant hateful people are bad news, whether their hate is fueled by politics, ethnicity, religion or other cultural phenomena.

By: jnarvey

jnarvey — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:17:54 +0000

Hey Jan. You’ll recall that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, France’s leading newspaper Le Monde used the headline, “We are all Americans Now”. My post title is a reference to that.

I’d also point out that the Non-Aligned movement is ancient history. Realizing that its flirtation with communist and state-control policies had brought the Indian economy to its knees, India has integrated Western-style economic policies and political freedoms into its own unique culture. Hundreds of millions of Indians have benefited from this fundamental rejection of the policies of the past, which were partially rooted in a stubborn ethnic nationalism. By embracing globalization, India has done very well.

So yes, we are standing against somebody else. Given the events of the past 48 hours in Mumbai, do I really need to spell it out for you?

By: Jan Karlsbjerg

Jan Karlsbjerg — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:07:59 +0000

By the way, if the world “stands with India”, will we be standing against somebody else in your opinion?

By: Jan Karlsbjerg

Jan Karlsbjerg — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:02:32 +0000

What an odd thing to say. I ain’t no Indian.

And India’s alignment is not a matter of either-or (“the West” or “the other”). Do you mean political or military or economic or some other form of alignment? Indeed alignment is an ironic choice of words seeing as India was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Nonalignment had its origins in India’s colonial experience and the nonviolent Indian independence struggle led by the Congress, which left India determined to be the master of its fate in an international system dominated politically by Cold War alliances and economically by Western capitalism. The principles of nonalignment, as articulated by Nehru and his successors, were preservation of India’s freedom of action internationally through refusal to align India with any bloc or alliance, particularly those led by the United States or the Soviet Union; nonviolence and international cooperation as a means of settling international disputes.

[Wikipedia: India and the Non-Aligned Movement]