Hopefully next time we have an election related thread there will be less ad hominem tit for tat and more civil conversation…

much has been written about how obama is a secret muslim and not a natural-born american. such views only say things about the people who espouse them.

See Y. Samuel Rajasekhar Reddy, CM of Andhra Pradesh

niiicee… to proceed with the previous example, using “samuel” and (not on this thread, but in other cases) “khan” as pejoratives only says things about the people who do so. (yes, i know you intend “samuel” as a pejorative because the s in reddy’s name does not stand for samuel, but rather sandinti.)

wry-ji, still waiting for the promised education. have your gurus given you your cliff notes yet?

i am also glad to see that there is so much support for the taliban destruction at bamiyan etc. – demolish non-native structures to assert national/religious (what, there is a difference?) pride – among wry-ji, rob-ji et al.

Anyways, except a few nutcases like Aurangazeb, I think all the Mughal rulers are into power / fun / alcohol and debauchery.

I am in total agreement with you about the ridiculous bias in Indian history. Shivaji, the Guptas, the Rashtrakutas, Vijayanagar, and the Pratiharas all get short shrift. That’s what happens when Romila and Arjun Singh have their way with the history textbooks.

As for Akbar, cut me some slack, bhai. He was the best the of them, whatever his real record. Akbar was also declared a Ghazi when the Mughal Empire was almost snuffed out by Shah Hemu, aka Raja Vikramaditya, at the second battle of Panipat. He was only 13 at the time and Bairam Khan was calling the shots for the most part. I think it is safe to say there was some political expedience operating, since Babar did the same when he was in desperate straits at Khanua. To burnish some of my credentials here: Rana Sanga’s loss to Babar was the real tragedy. I think we all would’ve been better off had he won.

What exactly does that mean?

Here = Sepia Mutiny.And I do think there is support for Dr.Binayak Sen across the board even in India.Not because we all agree with his politics.He is a citizen who has been incarcerated in prison for a long time, without good reasons.

But as you said no political party has come forward actively to support him.It is not as if everyone is in cahoots with the MNCs and Salwa Judum.The reason no one is concerned about this issue is because Dr.Sen belongs to one extreme of the political scale.

IMO, Dr.Sen is unfortunate that he is not a Pakistani terrorist or a fraudulent IT tycoon.Kasab gets chicken biryani, perfumes in jail, and there was even an attempt to show that he is actually a juvenile, and so should be let go with 3 years sentence.And he gets charged under IPC like a common criminal.Varun Gandhi, for all his alleged divisive statements (which did not cause any communal riots any where, btw) is seen as a bigger criminal and gets charged under the National Security Act.

Dr.Sen and Varun Gandhi are polar opposites in terms of ideology.But they both are citizens of India.I might dislike both their politics, but their rights need to be defended, if we were to hold on to liberal values.

And if even such high profile people can’t get justice, what is the fate of the common people of India?

In my view I don’t subscribe to the ‘drain theory’ as the major cause behind arrested development; Mughal expenditure was also draining and there was a large outflow of the surplus accumulated spent on such things as horses, steel and weaponry. I the flow of specie was very much outward with regard to Central Asia and West Asia and there was a booming trade in several things mostly of a military nature but the effect was the same – to their credit I think, from what I remember it was under the Mughals that the export and trade in slaves was stopped. I think it was Jehangir who ended it formally but am not sure.

British policy was more damaging by effectively forcing the de-industrialisation of regions like Bengal and Tamilnad which had a flourishing textile industry and with which the fabled Lancashire industry could not compete with. Some of the means adopted to do this, such as the mutilation of weavers, was very bloody. The adverse trade restrictions, effectively undermined the base of much Indian manufacturing that existed at the time and set it back by generations.

It is telling that none of the political parties in India make such issues as part of the political debate.BJP does talk about review of the constitution, but has not really articulated the specifics.

As I said earlier this is because of the lack of the democratic and representative nature of the parties themselves – they won’t like real devolution because it will decentralise power within the party itself as political competition will heat up at the grassroots level. IMO though, this will happen anyway, there has been a slow but painful progress towards establishing PRI and eventually we will see effective taxation and spending powers being devolved on them as well. This should end the rule of the civil service in the districts; where the structure of adminsitration based on the IAS and subordinate officers is still bascially colonial.

Of course, IT guys have a right to hold opinions about Pakistan, but they shouldn’t claim that they are IR experts. Basically when Satyajit is faced with people who disagree with him, he claims that they know nothing about IR, while he does. Now, I’m no IR expert myself (I’m actually a literature student), from reading Mr. Wry’s views it is clear he is a BJP apologist, probably has never been to Pakistan and equates all Pakistanis/Muslims with “Taliban”. Problematic, no?

I think you give too much importance to IR experts. Most of the time even they have no clues. They probably get paid for their views whereas the IT guys don’t. That’s the difference.

Having said that we can do a safe guesswork based on the history of a country and its leaders and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. The history of Pakistan is such that it acts a good client state to the western bloc from day one.

When jihadis were freedom fighters for US in the fight against Soviet Union it supported the jihadis in full force. When the same folks became terrorists for US, the Pakistani state claims the same and puts on a show as if they are attacking the jihadis and collects the money. But now Pakistan is in a bind. In the previous war when jihadis were freedom fighters their political / financal goals aligned with the religious goals (it’s a win win) but that is not the case now.

This is true; it was Indira Gandhi who started the trend of picking up what were effectively technocrats and specialists and appointing them to political positions. Lack of a political base is obviously seen as desirable for service to the Family. For Manmohan Singh it doesn’t matter too much since the Congress will never really rely on secondary leaders for electability and policy is ultimately decided elsewhere; for Shourie it is more of a problem in the sense that as I outlined in an earlier comment I don’t think his ‘vision’ will appeal to large sections of the electorate and in so far as the BJP push this line, it won’t get them very far. For example, in UP politics revolves very much around caste equations and politics and how you manage these social divisions, everything else comes a distant second. Trying to paper over these divides with developmentalism, Hindutva etc. – won’t work imo.

And whether Brahma Chellaney is electable or not is not at all of any relevance.Chellaney is a security affairs analyst, unlike Shourie and Manmohan who belong to specific political parties.

100% agree with you, it wasn’t me that introduced Chellaney into this discussion; the simple point is that experts can say whatever they want; they aren’t the ones facing elections and so won’t be the ones making decisions. Which is why I think they are peripheral to any discussion on elections; some people for some reason seem to have difficulty accepting this idea – don’t mean you here obviously.

Btw, I am sure there is significant support here for Dr.Binayak Sen

What exactly does that mean?

:What do we make of Manmohan Singh’s statement that he is embarassed about the treatment we have meted out to Mr.Quattrocchi, by not closing the cases, and that the world is looking at us’?AFAIK, no one in the whole wide world have put pressure on Indian Govt to unfreeze Q’s Bofors millions and cancel Inerpol red alert.However, over 20 lobel laureates, among other intellectuals and political leaders have been requesting India to do justice to Dr.Sen.

Well, I think we know what this means really; not surprised that Manmohan Singh is moving to close the Q inquiry asap. If one is going to run afoul of the State in India, the kind of connections that Q has are far superior to the support of Nobel Laureates and public intellectuals as can be seen by the relative amounts of jail time the two have suffered and are undergoing. I didn’t know that many political leaders have made noises about Sen; I know the Left parties have expectedly kicked up a little fuss but though most others were either silent or hostile. The adivasi formations should really have said something, given how much effort Sen has expended on their behalf, but I guess their leaders are too busy minting money to worry about anything else.