What is the strategy of Indian nationalist intellectuals regarding American Churchilphilia?
It is a sad state of affairs when the most articulate and erudite Indian presence in the international media is Shashi Tharoor and he utters cringe worthy nonsense such as British owing India reparations and the wholescale airlift of British Museum artifacts to India. This simply exposes his limitations as a thinker and his utter ignorance of the Western populist zeitgeist since he used to traveling and schmoozing only among the media and academia elites in his bubble.
An affection for the British Empire and hence the idea that it civilized India has taken off since the 1950s thanks to American admiration for Churchill for his stalwart conduct in WWII and his prescient views on the Cold War. He coined the term "iron curtain" while touring U.S.
Before that Americans were very receptive and sympathetic to the Indian independence movement and had a loathing for the British empire and its treatment of natives across the world. Whether the party was Democrat like FDR or Truman who arm twisted the British into leaving India or Republican opponents who maintained that U.S wasn't entering the war to preserve Britains empire, there was bipartisan consensus that British presence in India was bad. Gandhi achieved international fame thanks to American media interest.
All of this was done without the ostensible support of Indian intellectuals, diplomats or other representatives, they just happen to stumble into such good fortune and promptly squandered it after independence not least of which is due to Nehru's bungling and reflexive anti Americanism and needless adventures into Goa which only turned the worlds opinion against India. Surely the broke, bankrupt and militarily inept Portuguese(K.P Candeth, the Indian army general who took Goa noted that Portuguese soldiers looked malnourished and physically stunted) could have reached an agreement and accommodation where all could be satisfied. The writing was on the wall. But weak pathetic Nehru after the Chinese humiliation had to find a source for his impotent rage. Its akin to getting beaten up by 6 foot rugby player in school and as revenge you kick a starving dog in the neighborhood.
Since then Churchill's influence has metastasized into books,movies, institutes, every day language and finds its reach via British advisers in State and Defense Department not to mention Presidents such as Reagan, Clinton,Bush and Trump who count themselves as admirers. Obama was chastised when he removed a bust of Churchill from the White House. For once I sympathize with Obama, his instincts were anti colonialist i.e against British. He is very comfortable with Islamic colonialism. "Churchillian" is a by word for courage, fortitude, resilience ,even wit and sophistication and not giving a damn as the smoke cigars,drank copious amounts of whiskey and spoke his mind whether regarding women, Muslims, blacks, Indians and so on.
He should be a by word for incompetence, fool hardiness and economic disaster. Under his watch as Secretary of the Navy ,the disaster of Gallipolli in WWI occurred. In WWII he left the border of UK thoroughly exposed to German aggression. It is amazing that a country with the resources which enabled to hold on to quarter of the earth's land mass couldn't defend its own borders. If that is not standard stupidity resulting from imperial over reach , I don;t know what is. In contemporary U.S there is a similar situation where American troops serve in such as disparate regions such as Japan, Korea, German, Iraq, Syria, Djibouti and many undisclosed operations in Africa and South America but the border with Mexico remains wide open. Though until recently that was by design than accident. Therein lies the difference with Churchill's folly.
At the end of the war even though victorious it was in tatters and economically ravaged. But Churchill didn't care, he wanted at any cost even as it squeezed the British taxpayer dry. He was booted out and returned in 1953 and participated in a neo colonial attempt to deny Egypt from nationalizes the Suez . To this end it partnered with Israel and France.
Speaking of Israel, Churchill did absolutely nothing for Jews when they were being slaughtered by Germans and refused to take them in any considerable number. Neither did he pressure Australia or New Zealand to do so. The latter two countries claimed that they needed only agricultural labor-knowing full well that most European Jews were urban academics, lawyers, doctors and artists.
Apart from Churchill expressed a desire to convert to Islam and was talked out of it by his sister thus continuing an odd tradition of British aristocracy's fondness for Islam from Benjamin Disraeli to T.E Lawrence to various diplomats, artists and nobles who went as far as to dress in Arab garb ,convert to Islam and advise Saudi and Iraqi kings.
The only people besides the sophisticated but dense Tharoor are shrill ,off putting hysteria prone individuals such as Arundhati Roy. And needless to say people just tune her out.
One main problem with Indians generally speaking is that they can present a coherent argument in debate neither do they have any manners on how to behave in a television format. Look at the utter shameful behavior of panelists of NDTV. These are supposed to intellectuals and leaders but they behave no matter quarreling fishmongers.
One thing is for sure- just as U.S has fixed India's problems on its borders (admittedly after helping foment some of them) such as Taliban ,Soviet Union, Al Qaeda etc, similarly it may well expunge its Churchillophilia when it realizes he is the intellectual godfather of deep state and military industrial complex. That is something I will discuss next.
But is America really reliable? See how they abandoned Kurds in the face of Turkey's invasion. Kurds have now openly allied with Assad. Meanwhile, Russia and Iran have gained tremendous traction in the region.
ReplyDeleteUS presence in Iraq is as good as not being there. Iran's militias and IRGC rule the roost. They also managed to suppress protests recently.
Last time I checked, China was building a military base at Djibouti. Are the USA and their NATO/Gulf allies still there?
The reintegration of Goa with India happened in 1961. The India-China war happened in late 1962. And they were mutually exclusive events.
/One thing is for sure- just as U.S has fixed India's problems on its borders (admittedly after helping foment some of them) such as Taliban ,Soviet Union, Al Qaeda etc, similarly it may well expunge its Churchillophobia when it realizes he is the intellectual godfather of deep state and military industrial complex. That is something I will discuss next./
2 questions:
1. When was the Soviet Union a threat to India?
2. Do you mean Churchillphobia or Churchillphilia?
What people dont realize that there are many types of Kurds , some are pro Assad, some are Maoists, others are stray militias.
DeleteU.S has helped Kurds enough by giving near autonomy after 2003 invasion of Iraq. And helped them out when ISIS was formed.
China had swallowed up Tibet prior to it which was Nehrus first humiliation and provocatiosn on the border. That was what I was alluding to . Nothing in regional geo politics is mutually exclusive.
I fixed the error re churchilphobia. Thanks
While Soviet Union was a supposed ally of INdia, having a nuclear superpower breathing down your is not a good thing.
I realize Kurds are of different types but I was referring to SDF which was a US ally not PKK which Turkey calls terrorists/insurgents.
DeleteBut I feel it was too hasty, the way the US exited Syria. Turkey is also firing at US soldiers remaining there.
Ok, I did not realize Tibet. But prior to Tibet, China also swallowed up the Uighurs in 1949.
Regarding geopolitics, yes, see how much bad press we are getting internationally over Kashmir.
I do not think the USSR would have been as big a threat to India, or even if it were, Pakistan lay/lies in between India and USSR so they would have been the first victims.
ISIS, al-Qaeda and Taliban are not as big a threat to India today as they are to say Middle Eastern countries or Pakistan. Credit must go to America kicking their asses regularly. And also India's security agencies who crackdown on them then and there.
Kurds are all the same to paranoid Turkey. PKK is not just anti Turk but also anti American as they are perhaps the sole remaining national marxists of which ETA, IRA, LTTE,PLO and a couple of other African and South American groups achieved their zenith in the 1970s and 80s.
DeleteKurdish babies in Eastern Turkey are given Turkish names and their language and culture being wiped out on an ongoing basis. This seems the Turkish MO since they captured Anatolia, just as most Turks are not genetically Turkish but Greek, Armenian, Persian and so on due to Turkification over the centuries, Turks plan the same for Kurds as Kurdish birth rate is far higher than that of the Turks.
Re USSR and India. Todays friend is tomorrows foe. There was a vast power differential between the two countries. Can a hawk and mouse remain friends forever?
People lambast U.S for interfering in other countries but when it leaves they criticize for it throwing this or that group to the wolves. Which is it? I prefer that U.S invades no country except when its national security or economic interests are directly threatened. Yes it is ok to attack countries which want to make you poor. This can be done non militarily -tariffs as well. Japan attacked America during WWII because they cut off Japanese access to rubber in south east Asia.
"See how they abandoned Kurds in the face of Turkey's invasion."
DeleteThose Kurds who were American allies, many of whom would be called terrorists if not friends of USA, were always fair weather friends of the US. The media is spinning this like they are innocent little lambs being slaughtered because of Donald Trump's lack of loyalty, but that's what the media's job is right now.
They were a tool to be used, and now that they're no longer useful, they'll make new arrangements and alliances within the region. It's not the end of the world like the friends of McCain would like us to believe.
Speaking of ISIS, I came across this two year old article. Funny but really awesome.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/wild-boars-maul-isil-fighters-death-iraq/
Boars. Amazing! Clearly Vishnu and Varaha avatar works in mysterious ways. The most effective resistance against Muslims in early medieval India was given by Kakatiyas and Hoysalas who had Varaha(boars) in their emblem. Later Vijayanagar too had boars on its flags. Chalukyas also had boars as their battle standard when they defeated Arabs in Northern maharashtra.
DeleteGood
ReplyDelete"Speaking of Israel, Churchill did absolutely nothing for Jews when they were being slaughtered by Germans and refused to take them in any considerable number. Neither did he pressure Australia or New Zealand to do so."
ReplyDeleteThank God. They're doing more than enough damage in Europe in their small numbers.
oh dear. Dont tell me you are one of those.
DeleteAn honest person who doesn't think it's my people's job to babysit foreign people? Yes. I'm one of those.
DeleteA lame strawman. No one asked you to babysit anyone. They are not foreign to U.S and have been part of the social fabric since the 1800s atleast. Benjamin Franklin preferred Jews to German settlers haha
DeleteJews are plagues. I have realizes this now after a long time. They are Baniya/jains of europe. These guys have no heart because they sell their soul to money. What makes them worse than indian baniyas is their Higher IQ and influence. Baniya brain is limited to his shop but Jews have spread their webs all over annd use their brain in other fields.
ReplyDeleteYou are a fool who is talking random nonsense. Jews did not select money lending because they had interest(no pun intended) in it but agriculture and military as well other related pursuits were considered holy and hence not suitable for Jews in Christian Europe. It was type of dhimmi status. IF a people are dhimmis for long, their personality and value system does get warped. It happend to a good chunk of Hindus under Muslim and later British rule and the Arabs under Turkish domination. Hence when Emancipation occurred, many were out to settle scores and make up for lost time. I see these Hollywood sex scandals which disproportionately feature Jewish men such as Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, C K Lewis, Woody Allen and others when men from repressed ,straight laced cultures which are suddenly thrown into a flesh pot. 19th century Europe was that on steroids. This happened also with Greeks and Armenians under more liberal Turkish rule(pre cursors of Young Turks).
DeleteApart from Rothschild which lost much of its power in the early 1900s , most banking establishment in Europe and America were dominated by the ruling class. The stereotype of a banker in America until the 1970s was not a Jew but a blonde WASP from a proper family. Same goes for much of Europe. Jews were mostly money lenders and tavern owners on a small scale and hence their targets were usually peasants even as peasants faced greater exploitation from their Christian overlords. This was the fate of middle man minorities whether Jewish, Greek , Armenian or Indians in Burma, East Africa etc.
"Jews did not select money lending because they had interest(no pun intended) in it but agriculture and military as well other related pursuits were considered holy and hence not suitable for Jews in Christian Europe."
DeleteMost Jews disagree with you about this. https://reformjudaismmag.org/past-issues/spring2013/jews-moneylenders
You do have to wonder, why is it in the bible and their talmud that they should lend money on interest to everyone except themselves? Was there a time machine that Europe used to magically plant these ideas in the bible and into their heads?
lol Jews don't need you protecting them, man. It's ok that people with much more history with them have negative feelings sometimes.
It is sort of fascinating how protective you are of them though. Anyone can talk about any Indian ethnicity and you say nothing. You feel very comfortable ascribing ills and maleficence to all and sundry, but anyone mentions the poor, innocent perpetual victims of one, and only one, Levantine tribe and your panties get all twisted.
LOL on the reformjudaism site. Those are the guys who run ADL and other Jewish organizations who concern themselves more with black and Muslim civil rights than their own. In short they are Democract partisans, nothing wrong with that per se as long as you are honest about it
Deletere banking I already explained that to you. If you didnt understand, then thats not my problem
LOL, I praise and trash Indian ethnic groups all the time. Including my own. And just right here I criticized Jews not from your crackpot stormfront perspective but simply that on basis on human experience which can be corrupt. But of course to those who believes that they are born with horns, pitchfork and a tail, that means I am simply doing their bidding.
Whether or not Jews need me "protecting" them is not the issue. I am certainly not deluded like a certain naval figure that thinks an entire people's fate depends on my blog posts.
I am just stating my opinions which dont seem to agree with crank views.
Jeez what is it with these posts involving Jews, they are like a roach motel attracting people stuck in 19th century mindsets.
Addressing a few points from the article-
DeleteThe author states that jews starting moneylending before the usury laws and hence that was not the cause of their penchant for moneylending. Yes Jews were money lenders and craftsmen since the Roman empire but it is a fact that usury laws and church's dictum on agriculture and military professions restricted their options even further. For those who claim- "Jews fighting? hahaha" , Jews were effective mercenaries who were often used by the Persian empire and later Greeks and Romans used them (along with Syrians) against other Jews.
And the claim that the Torah was to be taught by all fathers to their sons was actually later medieval development as most used still stuck to ritualistic aspects of Judaism with only a few basic prayers to guide them. So there was not a lot of hyper educated folk to go around destabilizing regimes as folks like to imagine. Oddly the diaspora period was actually an era where other peoples converted to Judaism such as the Yemeni Khidarites and the Khazarites.
As to "hey jews dont need your help dont defend them", "you dont care about people trashing Indians yet you go on full alert at criticism of Jews" or any sense such silly statements- Ill say only this much- it is not so much a love for Jews but that associating with those obsessed with ideas of Jewish control is not very appealing. Everywhere they go these people plague the comments board with their paranoia and hatred. Granted sometimes there is reason to paranoid and yes hatred of another people is normal and even desirable in small doses if justified. But it seems that a lot of European CHristians especially find it painful to believe their own fellow Christians torment them and stabbed them in the back in ridiculous social experiments and needless wars that only benefit the higher ups so they blame some group peripheral to the grander scheme of these proceedings- which is you know who.
If you wish to criticize Jewish theology which us Hindu revivalists have serious problem with then by all means. But fairness dicatates that Christian and Muslim belief systems should not be exempt from criticism either.