Following the Congress party’s election victory in India, the New York Times of May 18 carried a condescending editorial titled "India’s Challenges: it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power" (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue1.html?_r=1 ).
This editorial has evoked many excellent -- interesting and thoughtful -- comments (vide
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue1.html?s=3)
Following are the editors' own selections that are worth reading.
Ram Narayanan
EDITORS’ SELECTIONS
1.
May 19, 2009 7:03 am
Several comments regarding your editorial on what India should do in regards to Pakistan. You are right, India showed remarkable restraint in not attacking Pakistan after the Mumbai attack. Especially since the Indian government believes that elements of the Pakistani army/intelligence were involved. In addition, your paper reported sources in the US intelligence organization that Pakistan’s ISI was involved in the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed two senior Indian officials.
Even if US aid is not used directly to build Pakistani nukes, money is fungible, and the resources freed up by the aid will be used by the Pakistani’s to build nukes.
So to ask India to unilaterally stop developing additional nuclear material and to go into arms control talks with Pakistan and China is unrealistic. Do you really think that China wants to have arms control discussions? China is a major security concern for India and the US. India’s military calculus is more centered on China than Pakistan. Your proposal is a non-starter.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, India would have agreed to converting the current Line of Control as the International border. That is the only pragmatic solution. There are several precedents to this. Bengal was divided between India and East Pakistan. Punjab was divided between India and West Pakistan and Pashtunistan was divided by the Durand line. Pakistani leaders have come close to accepting such a deal in the past but unfortunately have been overtaken by events in their own country before consummating the deal.
The reason that there is a strong presence of the Indian army near the Pakistani border is to prevent infiltration by terrorists from Pakistan. Often under cover fire from the Pakistani army. Every week there are reports in the Indian press of pitched battles as the Indian forces try and stop the terrorists from entering India. Do you really think that any Indian government can order its military to withdraw from the border while terrorists are entering on a regular basis.
The only way the US Af-Pak strategy will work is if the ruling elite in Pakistan (i.e. the Army ) finally realize that it is not in their best interests to keep India as the bogeyman. Until now, the demonizing of India has allowed the Pakistani army to control Pakistan. Like some one correctly said, Most countries have an army while in Pakistan the army has a country. That calculus will have to change for the Pakistani elite. India getting stronger v.vs. Pakistan will help that cause not the other way around as your editorial suggests.
— Sanjiv, San Jose, CA
Recommended by 156 Readers
3.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
You are not making any practical sense when you come up with these kinds of editorials. India has two main challenges..reducing poverty and keeping itself safe from the insanity around it. Arms control talks with Pakistan and China? Where’s the US in all of this? India has to make Pakistan happy over Kashmir so Pakistan can do the US bidding? Stop unilaterally refining nuclear fuel when its surrounded by China and Pakistan, two of the worlds biggest proliferators?
Come one guys. Get a modicum of common sense before you come up with this kind of stuff. Its laughable.
— gr, Glenview, Il
Recommended by 119 Readers
12.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Yeah. Right. You keep pumping billions of dollars, and selling fighter jets to a crazed Muslim country with no history of democracy or even stability; that has nukes it cannot or barely control; cannot effectively control its own regions; whose army intelligence apparatus is autonomous of the government -- and then not just advocate India to show restraint -- which by the way it shows in ample measure, but to complain that it has not done enough?!!
What hutzpah!
— krish, SF Bay Area, CA
Recommended by 117 Readers
2.
May 19, 2009 7:09 am
It is commendable to exhort India to show regional leadership because of the stable mandate. However - Pakistan’s nuclear activities have little correlation to whether India shows leadership or not. Just because its a next door neighbor does not make India a big brother to Pakistan. Pakistan’s big brother has always been the United States - and her nuclear activities and stability are directly correlated to US policies and funding. In fact, many of the suggestions made in this editorial have already been pursued ad nauseum by India with different Pakistani regimes - yielding very limited results. Kashmir has had democratically elected government for quite a while now. Asking India to "resolve" the Kashmir issue without specifying what the resolution is expected in this editorial makes it a very weak argument. India has lots of other challenges besides Pakistan that could have been addressed in this editorial. Trust me - Pakistan’s nuclear activities were hardly in the Indian voter’s mind when they were selecting one party over another.
Both the title and contents of this editorial are misleading. But I agree that the concern is genuine.
If there’s a key to changing things in Pakistan one way or the other, it lies with the United States - and that mandate was given not last week - but on November 4th, 2008. I hope we see a game changer there.
— Susmit, PA
Recommended by 96 Readers
5.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Does India really need advice from the editors at the New York Times ? For that matter, do they need advice from anyone in the west?
From what I read, Indians still believe in hard work, free markets and capitalism. Maybe we should be taking advice from them.
m. jones, nm
Recommended by 82 Readers
32.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
The tone of the editorial is rather condescending. As the saying goes, for a person with a hammer the whole world seems like a nail. Not a single line in this editorial is really about India but more about protecting American’s interests and ambitions - for example "...use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights". Can you please add preparing a venti tazo chai-latte with soy milk for President Obama to the list?
I am not here to suggest that none of this is important but please we have enough problems on our own. We are not sure how the recession would play out in India, what to do with farmer suicides, how to have an inclusive growth, what to do with the Maoist problem and growing terrorist strikes and ways to protect the secular fabric of our nation. The people of India voted on these issues more than anything and I am really glad that the people of India gave an almost decisive mandate for a sincere and hardworking man in Dr. Manmohan Singh. India should engage with the world on its terms and conditions and when it chooses and not at the bidding of anyone.
— KM, India
Recommend Recommended by 76 Readers
20.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
There is nothing India can do in Pakistan. They are a lot that grew up on poison fed daily that "Hindu" India is going to get them eventhough is Pakistan that started three wars. Pakistan can only validate its existence by proving that a multicultural multireligious India is not feasible. And there are its partners..us and China pumping billions and arming them to the teeth despite knowing that they help Al Qaeda and Taliban will be nourished.
Funny reading this editorial-- our government is contemplating billions more aid, and at the same time asking that India refrain! Why? So that the "freedom fighters" won’t send another plane to New York? Are Indian lives cheap?
Throughout history, we seem to have sided with despots and dictators. When will we change? If you believe democracy is a good thing, then there are over a billion people that voted peacefully just now. How about a security council seat for India that is a 6th of humanity?
How about partnering with India in fixing up Pakistan and Afghanistan? America had always dared to take bold steps throughout history when compelled with moral problems. Let us get it done!
— Veetri, Phoenix, AZ
Recommended by 76 Readers
10.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
Asking India to negotiate with Pakistan is like asking Israel to negotiate with Iran - we don’t hear that from you a lot, do we? Did United States negotiate with Iraq or Al Queda? Pakistan’s nukes have only one purpose - to destroy Hindu civilization when it goes down.
— TruthPrevails, Mumbai, India
Recommended by 74 Readers
22.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
It is past time the US understood its predicament in Pakistan. You can neither stop nor continue feeding the beast that controls Pakistan - its army. The former risks implosion of the country and the latter explosions worldwide. Sorry, India cannot help you out of this mess. You cannot lay the blame for Pakistan buying nukes out of US aid for development or fighting terrorism on India. Pakistan does not need more nukes to avoid the threat of India. Pakistani army needs them to scare the US into parting with its money, which will be used to perpetuate the feudal stranglehold over ordinary Pakistanis. Honestly, does anyone still believe that India seeks any of the extremist-ridden Pakistani territory?
Please learn not to mollycoddle dictatorships for short term gains next time you are revisiting policy. Tutorial one: Start with Saudi Arabia which I heard builds most Madrassas in Pakistan.
— SK, NY
Recommended by 72 Readers
4.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
History is testament to the fact that the United States has been on the wrong, short-sighted, self-serving path when it comes to the subcontinent. As a result, Pakistan is now a pathethic caricature of a client state. Its leaders have been reduced to barricading themselves from the extremists in their palaces whilst at home and shamelessly begging for unaccounted aid when abroad. India has taken a different path and must continue on it. Relationship with the United States is important but comes at a great cost. India must do what is in its own best interests, develop its own foreign relationships and defend its own self interests. It can not, and must not, reduce itself to being a pawn on a global chessboard as its neighbor has.
— Nuz2Me, Utah
Recommended by 69 Readers
62.
May 19, 2009 12:55 pm
This is a strange article. India did enough to exercise restraint and not attack Pakistan when 26/11 happened. If India is so important to the equation, why does the US policy towards Pakistan not take into account any Indian sensibilities. The US has been coddling dictators in Pakistan from time immemorial. India has been telling US that the US military aid is used by Pakistan against India, but the US has always ignored it. Why should only India do the sensible things, why not the US for a change?
— Ravi, Bangalore, India
Recommended by 58 Readers
34.
May 19, 2009 9:00 am
Well, I suppose Manmohan Singh and the South Block mandarins in New Delhi should profusely thank the NYT editorial for their generous sermon. What better way could one celebrate the successful conclusion of the largest democratic exercise in human history that led to significant upsets (e.g., the routing of the Communists in Bengal).
Note the number of times "should" and "must" are used. Such patronizing editorials, unfortunately, confirm that the reputation of the arrogant American is often well-earned.
Such a patronizing laundry list of action items would be laughable but is instead disturbing coming from a prestigious newspaper. Do we Americans have a better grasp of what’s good for India than the Indians themselves?
It’s interesting that NYT now considers Pakistani to be "arguably the most dangerous country on earth". India had made this point over a decade ago. Unfortunately, it took another 8 years after 9/11 for this thought to dawn to our mainstream media.
Let me offer an alternative view. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a stable Pakistan is in India’s interest. A stable Pakistan is one ruled by the Army, with arms purchases funded by our taxpayer money, and planning and executing mischief against India.
The dismantling of the Pakistani nation state into smaller states is in the best interest of India in particular and for the stability of South Asia in general. I would assume that India would do her best to exercise influence in Afghanistan to ensure that Pakistani nuclear weapons would not be stationed there out of range of Indian Air Force (the "strategic depth" sought by the Pakistani Army). If the Indian administration has any strategy, it would be to assiduously work towards breaking up Pakistan.
I suppose it would take another decade for NYT to come to a similar conclusion that a feudal state devoid of a national identity cannot be propped up by foreign handouts and a common dislike of India.
Till then we will listen to the sermons over morning coffee :)
— Ajit, Sunnyvale, CA
Recommended by 56 Readers
16.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
This is Washington’s prescription for India for Washington’s own good. This is the line which Obama administration would expect India to toe. Whether these policy reccomendations are in India’s interests needs to be debated. Washington has been seen as a Pakistani crony in India and the perception there is that Washington has ignored all of Pakistan’s past sins, co-habited with China and spawned regional terrorism. The very fact that Washington has been unable to curb Pakistan’s nuclear programme is reason enough to believe that the Obama administration is failing to use its leverage in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America cannot afford an indifferent India which is also assidously being courted by the Chinese too. Ignoring India may just mean that the powershift to China may happen a lot sooner.
— James Baker, Toronto, Canada
Recommended by 50 Readers
19.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
While the spirit of the article is acceptable, the tone leaves a lot desired. Pakistan gets billions of dollars in military aid while India gets sermons. What kind of logic is this?
Yes Pakistani citizens and civil society is suffering and that has to change. Also India and Pakistan can live together with harmony as there are many concerns that are common to both countries. Pakistan has a huge responsibility in making this happen. How come the economy of Pakistan is in doldrums yet they find resources to expand their nuclear arsenal and for what purpose? In the name of assisting Pakistan in fighting Taliban, looks like US creating another Frankenstein’s monster in South Asia. US should not absolve itself of its moral responsibility in the damage it is causing by continuously pouring money into Pakistan without demanding and ensuring accountability.
Looks like even Obama is also gradually subscribing to the myopic approach that US embraced for the last four decades vis-a-vis India and Pakistan. India needs no sympathy from US. It needs US to be fair and firm in its dealings with Pakistan and India. Looks like this is not going to happen
— Vish, UK
Recommended by 48 Readers
8.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
How can you deal with a state based on religion which preaches hatred of other religions? Until Pakistan gives up it’s religious bigotry, accepts both pluralism and democracy, there is no hope for Pakistan. India might as well ask "Am I brother’s keeper?"
— V.R.Anil Kumar, Mysore, India
Recommended by 48 Readers
36.
May 19, 2009 11:43 am
For a fan of the USA and most things American, its been frustrating, bordering on tragic, to watch the handling of Pakistan by the State Department, the Pentagon, the Presidency(ies) and Main Stream Media. NYT could not bring itself, for almost a week, to call the November Mumbai attackers "terrorists"; it preferred "miltants" !!!!
So, now that the Indian election in which 700 million people have freely chosen a stable Govt. is over, the NYT’s editorial Board would have India:
" show restraint";
" start an arms reduction process";
"reduce its build up of nuclear fuel";
and so on and so forth.
Not a word about what Pakistan should do and how Pakistan should behave, to the world and towards India.
The last time that Pakistan had an elected civilian govt., before the current semi elected one,India’s PM Vajpaye,took a bus trip to Pakistan and the two civilian Govt.s came up with the Lahore Declaration.
What happened after that?
Your great pal Musharraf, the then army chief,without informing the civilian Govt. sent in his soldiers, without uniforms, as ’non state actors", into Kargil and it took more than 700 deaths of indian soldiers and officers to throw them out. Musharaff, shamefully and cowardly, refused to even accept the bodies of his soldiers.Musharaff, in effect, tore up the Lahore declaration and aborted the peace process.
Two months later, when the civilian Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Shariff, removed Musharaff before launching an investigation into how the war had been started,Musharaff staged a miltary coup, had him removed and slammed into prison.
This is the record of the Pakistani Army and its establishment.
And you want India to keep bending backward and keep appeasing this tantrum throwing child, whom the USA has nurtured into an extortionist?
No thanks, but no thanks.
India should certainly not reduce its nuclear capability. Its nuclear deterance is against China and not against Pakistan. Pakistan knows this. There is a "no first use" proposal from India before Pakistan.
India should also not reduce its army’s presence on its borders with Pakistan.The moment India does that the trickle of terrorist infiltration will become a flood.
We have learnt, through 60 years of having to live next to this country, not to trust it even an inch. We will lower our gaurd at our peril; we turn our back only to be stabbed.
Ask yourself, NYT, just how many times has Pakistan broken its promises and torn up its written and spoken commitments.
You seem fine playing with a country who has shamelessly lied down on its back,skirts up and legs spread wide open,whenever you have asked; selling its people and its country’s sovereignity down the river, time after time; for a few tanks and planes millions in numbered Swiss accounts.
You say, India must take up its regional responsibilities. Sure. Get me a legitimate Pakistani Govt., freely elected, and give me 2 years, without your siren calls with more money and more tanks and more planes and now more nuclear weapons.
And lastly, yes, Kashmir cannot be ignored.
In case you did not notice it, here’s some news for you.
In December 2008, the India State of Jammu and Kashmir,held its provincial elctions, under the Constitution of India. In the midst of the bitter winter cold,under the teeth of the terrorist guns(who had orderd a boycott), just after the Mumbai attacks, 67% of the people of Jamuu and Kashmir, voted without fear and voted for a change of the provincial Govt. That change happened, as per due process of law.
I am proud to say that the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, today has a new govt. under a charismatic new Chief Minister called Omar Abdullah, who is young, educated,articulate, married to a Hindu, and every inch an Indian.
5 months later, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, voted, like all Indians, in the elections to the central Federal Parliament of India.Its freely elected MPs( Members or Parliament) will take their seats, along with 543 MPs from all over India, all freely elected,when the 16th Parliament under the Indian Constitution is convened in one week’s time.
Let Pakistan reach the same level of freedom for the people trapped in that part of Kashmir that Pakistan controls, before it, and the NYT, dares to raise the issue of Kashmir.
Until that time, let Pakistan get its house in order and show to the world that it can exist as a civilised country among the Commonwealth of Nations and that it can and will honour its treaties and agreements with the rest of the world.
— Sen, India
Recommended by 46 Readers
33.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
’India’s challenges’ reads a lot like ’What the US would like India to do’. How about the real challenges: economic reform and lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, the environment and securing natural resources for future growth? Yes, Pakistan is important, but India seems to have limited ability to affect outcomes in its disintegrating neighbour.
— shaloub, Toronto
Recommended by 41 Readers
25.
May 19, 2009 8:54 am
Oh dear. This editorial needs a translator well-versed in imperialese. I’ll give some of it a go.
"rguably the most dangerous country on earth" means "Oops, we gave billions to a country to help it oppress its own people, and now this seems to no longer work it turns out they also spent much of it on nukes instead of bombing villages. Whatever shall we do? Note: get out of other peoples’ business is not a valid answer."
"Resolving issues over Kashmir" means "India and Pakistan should get their act together - but whatever you do, don’t take the wishes of the people of Kashmir into account. That would set a bad precedent."
"India must assume its responsibilities" means "We need a local policeman for the Empire. India has just been volunteered."
— Christian Haesemeyer, Los Angeles
Recommended by 38 Readers
91.
May 19, 2009 1:51 pm
Pakistan is welcome to accept the line of control as the international boundary anytime it chooses to do so.
Nothing else will ever be offered!
— S S Kapur, Smyrna, GA
Recommended by 36 Readers
21.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
India’s reelection of the government of Manmohan Singh, one of the world’s most capable and prudent heads of government, is heartening. The fact that he is only the second Indian leader since independence to be reelected after serving a full term suggests that India may indeed be entering a phase of stable growth. That should appeal to those investing in the subcontinent’s future, and comfort those, like the United States, who are increasingly reliant on it as an ally. Additionally, the success of this exercise in democracy at such a large scale also resonates in countries like China, who have resolutely contended that such a system cannot work in nations of such complexity and scope.
To continue the discussion, please visit www.twitter.com/halwoods
— Hal Woods, Chicago, IL
Recommended by 33 Readers
13.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
You are right - it is high time India solve the Kashmir issue by forcing Pakistan to vacate part of Kashmir it illegally grabbed in 1948. Pakistan can’t control its own territory, how can it govern the land it illegally grabbed? India should take back its own country and do a better job than Pakistan.
Also to solve problem of terrorism, India should pull another Bangladesh on Pakistan. US has pampered and spoilt Pakistan for a long time and India had to bear the brunt of terrorism eminating from Pakistan. Even now US is following the same misguided policies. So let US wollow in its own ignorance and wishful thinking. By breaking Pakistan in four countries and spliting the army, the problem of terrorism will be solved once and for all.
— umok, WA
Recommended by 33 Readers
116.
May 19, 2009 2:35 pm
I am sorry to tell you what the majority of your letters in here are complaining about is absolutely true. You need to stop this nonsensical drivel about what India ’must’ and ’should’ do. Enough with the patronizing tone - it does not befit your paper, even though I have been seeing this ever since I started reading NYT almost daily over ten years ago. Every article for some reason is slanted to Pakistan’s side with one dig or another towards India.
Pakistan is where it is now only because of itself and the USA. USA is the crack dealer that the Pakistanis been dealing with, supplying it with tons of addictive cash and even more mind blowing weapons. Not long after - we started the usual yo-yo relationship that we seem to develop with almost all addicted countries. And now you claim it as the most dangerous nation in the world, and some how India ’must’ and ’should’ do things? And you talk about Kashmir solution like it’s fixing your basement up or something.
And a final point - if you do not have the subject matter expertise or a willingness to portray the real picture, just do not editorialize. You are doing tremendous harm here by trivializing the subject, as well as this pulpit.
— Anil Pillai, Saint Louis, MO
Recommended by 31 Readers
6.
May 19, 2009 7:12 am
You guys mess up with every one and others have to take responsibility. You should probably stop being selfish and develop a human heart.
— Suresh, India
Recommended by 31 Readers
59.
May 19, 2009 12:55 pm
India should do what is best for India and the rest will follow. It should spend huge amounts of money on educating its poor and on helping the poor to improve their lot. It should spend only as much is needed on defense and should not try to rebuild other nations. Look what happened to the USA when it tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan: it has gone bankrupt. India cannot afford that state of being. When Pakistanis see that India is leapfrogging ahead of them economically they will force their government to spend on education and economic development than on arms. Currently over 80% of tax and aid money in Pakistan is spent on defense.
— Jailkkhosla, new york
Recommended by 30 Readers
38.
May 19, 2009 11:43 am
India should not be expected to do more just because it is not a failed state.
Giving Kashmir to Pakistan to placate its mullahs and ISI is feeding the snake that will simply start asking for another Indian state. Pakistan’s longer term goal is the disintegration of India (payback for the 1971 war that led to the creation of Bangladesh from what was earlier East Pakistan), Kashmir is only the first battle ground in the greater war to destroy India.
USA’s view of Pakistan as a victim is what Pakistan has been taking advantage of since forever. Pakistan is a victim of itself if anything.
The very basis of creation of Pakistan was hatred. Hatred of India and Hindus. Now that hatred includes Christians and ’infidels’ in general. Those who think that there is a class of ’liberal’ Pakistanis need to study the history of Pakistan’s birth.
Pakistani government knows very well that India is not least interested in attacking Pakistan. Why would India want to acquire land that is infested with Taliban? What does Pakistan have to offer that should make India interested in anything?
The only reason Pakistan wants N bombs is to deter India from launching a conventional war in retaliation of the cold war that Pakistan has been waging using Taliban and other terrorist groups.
The more money channeled into Pakistan the more bombs that country will build and given its proliferation record its only a matter of time before a dirty one sneaks into new delhi or new york or tel aviv.
The only solution to the Pakistan problem is dispossessing that country of its nuclear program.
US should have figured out by now that Pakistan has been taking it for a ride for a very long time now. It is time to stop drinking Pakistani kool aid and hold the country accountable.
The expectation from India to do anything at all is totally misplaced and amounts to turning away from the real problem. The real problem is not Kashmir (thats just a symptom), the real problem is Pakistan itself.
— Rambo, Jon J, Berkeley
Recommended by 27 Readers
______________________________________________
This is online journal of my regular interaction with HR regarding racism incidents and remained confidential. This has been made public after my termination. It stays unlisted. I have been adding other relevant posts in this blog too. Please go to the bottom of the page for Summary and archives.
HOPE
"I am doing what I can, What about YOU?"