They just about call him Nutwar too

Does the editor of the Indian Express read The Acorn?

It is the Express’ turn to take Natwar Singh to task.

The foreign minister’s remarks are fraught with fairly dangerous implications. Is he suggesting foreign policy is no more than an extension of domestic politics? Should, then, the Government of India immediately junk its hard position on Nepal, embrace the king and welcome his autocracy, keeping in mind the “sensitivities” of India’s 800 million Hindus? Or bring its Catholics into Indo-Italian ties? Where will this end: with relations with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being held hostage to a surmise of emotions among India’s Sunnis? India’s engagement with the world — as, indeed, any nation’s foreign policy — must flow from a cold assessment of its strategic interests, its gains and losses. To reduce it to presumed anguish among individual communities, as Natwar Singh has done in the case of Iran, is to upturn diplomacy, disregard India and, most of all, insult Indian Muslims.

A nuclear-armed Iran, one country removed from a nuclear-armed Pakistan, is, after all, not a recipe for stability in India’s near neighbourhood. It won’t do any particular good to Shias, in India or elsewhere, to bring them into the picture. [IE]

9 thoughts on “They just about call him Nutwar too”

  1. Hey, what are you complaining about? Nutwar is a democratically elected leader of the largest democracy in the world. Since he is a democratically elected leader of the largest democracy in the world, he cannot be wrong. And the Shias of the largest secular democracy of the world have the right to have their religious sentiments and their supra-national religious affiliations not trifled with. After all, in the largest secular democracy of the world, we have separate laws based on the religion of the citizen. So also the Roman Catholics have a duty to pledge their allegiance to the Vatican and the Italian Government. The Shias owe their allegiance to some Shia Islamic country, the Sunnis owe their allegiance to some Sunni Islamic country, the Jews (very few I guess) owe it to Israel, the Protestants to the US (I guess), and so on. That leaves the home-grown religion varieties such as Jains, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs (and I am not sure about the Sikhs because some of them do want a separate state to owe their allegiance to.) The Jains, Buddhists, and Hindus are stuck with no extra-national allegiances.

    F— Nutwar and the horse he rode in on.

    Here endth the rant.

  2. Its the same argument of the twits – and clouded vision. The non-indigenous religious people dont “belong” to India or hold allegiance to it.
    And even after repeated gaffes Nutwar gets to keep his seat.
    May2004 brought the worst out of everyone – the commies, the BJP, the Congress. X-(

    PS: nitin, am unable to comment from the mobile, is it not possible to do that?

  3. You almost never see an editorial like this in a major Indian newspaper, although people talk about it. Hats off to IE, atleast this one time!

  4. [Hard News] [June 2005]

    Indian heart, Muslim soul
    Syed Shahabuddin

    http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/june05/cstory8.php

    (excerpt’s; 3’rd-last and 2nd-last para’s)
    [India’s Muslim community, which forms the second largest Muslim community in the world, naturally expects the national leadership and the government to take due cognisance of their sentiments when another Muslim community is in distress as in Palestine, Iraq or Chechnya.

    But it is wise enough to realize that India’s attitude towards and relationship with other countries cannot be determined solely in terms of the sensitivities and inclinations of one community but of national interests. On the whole, so long as the government sees national interest in maintaining good relations with the Muslim world, there is no conflict at all.]

  5. Prasanna,

    Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I tried fixing it, but it still does not seem to work (I’m using Windows PocketPC 2003, using a GPRS connection). I’ll see if the developers can help.

  6. This is so great !! The dumbest man on the planet is in charge of our foreign policy !! Just wonderful.

  7. Being fair to Natwar, I think he might have been referring to the tendency of some minority (read muslim) fanaticals to exploit the large numbers of uneducated followers to go towards fanaticism. Since age old enemosities are kept alive, they may not forget this gamble on majority (read hindus) government’s part. It must be taken that given Pakistan’s help (of AQK network and after India ditches them) they would ‘eventually’ get the bomb anyway, whether US invades Iran or not. It will certainly be better to keep a nuclear friend bordering another nuclear foe. But looking at it from the other point of view, for example Pakistan follows Saudis religiously (for love and money), and all can see where that has got them. It would be unwise to support Iran at this point just so that we can have their oil and keep muslim fanaticism at bay. As far as muslim fanaticism is concerned, we have been able to keep Indian muslims away from al-Quaida because of the equal freedom and equal rights we all enjoy. Even wars and tension with Pakistan has not been able to pursuade a lot of them as they themselves see the folly. Natwar is either underestimating his own countrymen or he might know other things that no one seems to be aware of.

Comments are closed.