|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
ASSEMBLY POLL '98
|
|
|
'India has its own black marks in history, but that is no reason for it to support the NATO action'
E-mail from readers the world over
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 03:26:19 -0700 For a moment I thought to be reading cnn.com! The brain-washing unleashed by the Western media in the United States knows no bounds. Gaurav Kampani looks one of the same zealots propagating the right of the US-led NATO forces to strike at will anywhere in the world. For God's sake the Yugoslavs have had their internal problems for more than 600 years now. It is far more complicated than even what the tens of Albrights and Clintons could fathom in their lifetime. There are enough so-called 'humanitarian international law' problems existing right here in the United States. Could not the author look into that as well instead of being just another trigger-happy writer with Western half-baked information! Girish Tubake
Sun, 25 Apr 1999 04:02:38 -0500 Kampani fails to recognise that Clinton has a credibility of Goebbels among his own people. He is a proven liar, and tons of political commentary show him as an extremely selfish man who wouldn't bat an eye if he had to inflict severe injuries on others if can save his littlest personal interest. Serbian leader Milosevic is not nearly a demon as US media, always faithful to the US national interest in sharp contrast to their Indian counterpart, are painting him to be. The Americans finally saw Milosevic one hour long interview by a noted professor and a military analyst Mr Robert Hatchett on CSPAN (a television channel in the USA dedicated to politics), and the opinions within the USA are changing against Clinton's misadventure in Kosovo. Clinton is over-ambitious about his legacy, and one with lot of skeletons in his closet. Indian policy is moral, ethical, reasonable and practical all at once for a change. Pradip Parekh
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:04:41 +0530 I feel that Gaurav has written a west inspired piece trying to defend the indefensible that is the US and its NATO allies, subjecting a sovereign nation to a ferocious attack and actually worsening the Kosovor crisis. It is the typical Rambo culture of the US which is on display. Kewal Kohli
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 12:03:58 +0100 At last a voice of moral integrity amongst Indians. I am appalled that the large majority of Indians seem prepared to ignore the sufferings of the Kosovars, merely because it may in some twisted way be to India's political advantage. When will we get our priorities right?
Vivek Chitre
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 10:49:44 EDT At best this article is bunch of baloney. Gaurav Kampani is just like the other misinformed American. India's stance is just. People like Kampani are the adjustable turncoats who cannot withstand pressure.
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:28:16 EDT Kampani has made good analysis. This Balkan crisis is an opportunity to tell the world about 300,000 Hindu Kashmiris cleansed from Kashmir by Pakistan trained Mujahideens. India has tried to solve the Kashmir problem by the same framework which was offered for Kosovo, a limited autonomy with self government. India has nothing to hide and should not be internalising Balkan crisis. The Indian foreign office should tackle this problem with a twin strategy. On one hand, provide material support to refugees even if symbolic, support a concept of limited autonomy at the same time oppose NATO military intervention which violates international and UN charter. In no manner should India be seen supporting expulsion of ethnic Albanians. I hope South Block mandarins are listening. John Lee
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:14:27 -0500 Please quit allowing such articles from our citizens who have sold their morals to the West and have become their boot lickers. You have already received umpteen number of mails telling you that the Kosovo's problem is not NATO's. We don't need anymore discussions or articles on this matter. Bharath
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 12:55:45 -0700 The author has presented the article excellently. The writer has analysed the subject well and exposed the double standards of India. The only comment I have about Indian intervention in Pakistan in the formation of Bangladesh is that it was clearly the Indira Gandhi style of the politics of survival. I think India should apologise to Pakistan for its intervention in its internal affairs for that before talking any further about Kashmir. Coming to the Sri Lanka and Tamilian issue, what I feel it is Jayewardane's intelligence and lack of proper guidance to Rajiv Gandhi that caused the IPKF tragedy. Finally to the topic of Kosovo, as the author pointed out, it might be the issue of blatant human rights violations. But still in this world with a dangerous neighbour like Pakistan and as well Taliban controlled Afghanistan it is difficult to avoid drawing of parallels to Kosovo intervention and Kashmir. At least, the Organization of Islamic Countries may bring up a strong resolution for intervention in Kashmir. So there's nothing wrong in India criticising the NATO action. Hareesh
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:45:32 +0530 Mr Kampani's opinions lack the backing of historical facts. To compare India's intervention in Bangladesh with the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia is to display total ignorance of events that happened in 1971 in South Asia. It was India that took in the refugees (10 million of them not a few thousand like in Albania, before the NATO attacks that snowballed the influx). As a matter of fact, the impact of these refugees was felt across the nation and is still visible. Pakistan's total disregard for all international democratic norms cannot be overlooked. The US or its NATO lackeys did not have any such justification. Please publish articles written by people who know their history at least. Omaramar
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:42:25 -0400 Well, some facts are missing in this article:
1. Serbs were made to flee from Kosovo, just like Kashmiris Pandits from Kashmir.
Indian interference in its neighbouring countries cannot be justified. I am not so sure about Bangladesh intervention. It might have been right, as Pakistani Muslims think they are converted Hindus. Vijay
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:39:50 -0400 Wow! This guy is confused. Killing innocent people to save innocent people! Preventing ethnic cleansing by invading a sovereign country. Only nuts can approve of the NATO action in Kosovo.
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:38:47 -0400 The world is generally moving towards open borders, peace and economic strength -- however, there are individuals like Milosevic, who have other agendas. The gruesome atrocities being committed by the Serbs in Kosovo needs a rational look. National sovereignty is a matter that must be respected, however that doesn't mean that you can justify "ethnic cleansing" as an internal matter of a nation. It is only natural when we see opposition to these acts -- after all, how long should anybody with means to stop such a thing wait? By not speaking for the Kosovar Albanians and by turning a close ears and a blind eye to the majority world opinion, India is only relegating its influence on the world opinion. With aspirations of joining the UN Security Council, India must weigh each situation by its merits and not by the policies that has drawn her to this insignificance on the world map. There is no need to support the West on whatever it does -- however, India by simply opposing anything and everything US and the West does has isolated herself more than ever before. India can make a start by officially condemning Milosevic, with a stance that he should take back all the Kosovar Albanians and rehabilitate them in Kosovo. Further, India can make a big impact by offering to mediate in this crisis and help NATO solving this crisis. This way we can salvage some of the significance, much of which we have lost over the past few years by choosing to ignore this crisis.
Rama Krishnan
Date: 25 Apr 1999 20:33:55 EDT The author supports NATO attacks based on "humanitarian" grounds. If at all this is considered as reason to attack a sovereign country, I believe the decision has to be taken by UN and not by NATO. If NATO is really so worried about protecting the minority population, it should send the ground troops immediately to stop the atrocities which has increased after the start of bombing. Why are they not doing it? Is it because of the Russian threat? The air attack is continuing for more than one month now and still there is no solution to the problem. As far as "threat" to India is concerned, as the PM of India said, India is neither Kosovo nor Iraq. That should put all kinds of doubts to rest. Tiannamen Square witnessed one of the worst violation of human rights in history. NATO had valid reasons to attack China at that time. The humanitarian rule should have been implemented at that time. Is it because China is too strong to attack and Kososvo is too weak to reply to the attack? We should not forget the fact that the very people who are talking about human rights are the ones responsible for Jallianwalla Bagh.
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:25:55 +0530 Where were human rights and all that when 500,000 Tutsis got massacred in Rwanda, or is it that only the white man is precious?? Or when 500,000 Serbs got ejected from Krajina? Or is that American arms companies haven't had good buy orders since the Iraq war? It is a pity that more than 10 billion dollars have been spent on this war. Would the Americans dare if the Chinese conducted such ethnic cleansing? They wouldn't because they have vital interests in China. The bottomline is that intervention is decided by the strength of the said country and not any moral issues. Look at the joke the Americans are making out of themselves. They claim their media is unbiased. That is a joke, when your country is busy bombing another, surely you cannot expect your media to be objective. The freedom of the press is another big joke, not debating the merits of Serb television media, I cannot understand who gave them the moral right to bomb. India's intervention in Sri Lanka was wrong, no doubt about it. But about Bangladesh, the circumstances were different. Finally, as far India is concerned ...sooner or later we are going to be a failed state too. Nothing surprising about that. Subhash
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:11:51 +0530 I think he has earned his bonus. Absolutely conveniently he forgets 1995 when 250,000 Serbs were pushed out of Croatia by Croats and US actively supplied Croat forces with military assistance.
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:32:23 +0530 For once I agree with Indian officials and am totally against what Gaurav Kamapani has said. The attack by NATO is not some morally responsible attack but rather an attack of showing superiority in Europe. The same NATO had nothing to say or do when 'black' people were killed in Rwanda. Moreover, the refugee crisis in Kosovo increased only after the attack. There is sympathy for refugees but none for those people who are lying under those lethal bombs NATO is dropping. Why? Finally let's not forget NATO was made to start or fight World WAR III whereas UN was made to stop the same. So both cannot co-exist together. So my question to Gaurav is which one of them should exist.
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:47:15 +0200 It looks like as though the research associate didn't do the research properly. It has overwhelming US bias fed by news from CNN and other propaganda machines. Had he studied a bit more, visited Serbia and gave their opinion a thought, he would have came to a better conclusion. The root cause behind this conflict (and many other worldwide) is the high birth rate of Muslims. Believe it or not, all Albanian leader refused to comment on it. How come "Ethnic Albanians" live in Kosovo which has never been a part of Albania? Being "ethnic Albanians" they belong to Albania and not Kosovo. So let them go wherever they came from. They didn't belong to Kosovo. Kosova was invaded. People kept on coming and settling down on Serbian Land and started throwing Serbians from their own land. When Serbia tried to control the atrocities by "Kosovars," they formed a KLA, funded by Germans and supported by NATO. The result is for the world to see. I fear the same might happen in India and not in Kashmir, but in UP Muslims have started outnumbering Hindus. Later they will demand independence from India to join the "Islamic world." Hope this might help Gaurav do his 're'search better.
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:31:08 +0100 Kampani's views on Kosovo are obviously based on Western propaganda. India has every right to have an independent stand, and it is going by international law. The NATO action is based less on humanitarian reasons than on the politics of race and religion. As has been pointed out by so many people, if humanitarian reasons were the only justification, why not bomb Turkey (for its treatment of Kurdish rebels), and indeed the UK (for the State-sponsored murder of republicans in Northern Ireland)? I suspect that this action is partly prompted by the need to prove to the Muslim world that Western powers are not fighting wars against Muslims alone. The recent terrorist violence against the US has created a situation where the Western countries are confused about how to deal with the Islamic nations/groups. Apart from that, there is the issue of NATO's credibility, which is another way of saying that it is an ego problem. Albright's hidden agenda of pushing her policy down everyone's throat is also evident. The way the negotiations were handled at Rambouillet was a complete farce. As for the human rights angle, the writer has chosen to totally ignore the terrorist action by the KLA. I do believe that the Serb paramilitaries have responded with excessive force, but who started the problem in the first place? It is important to keep in mind the genesis of the problem. From what I have read, it seems that there was a concerted effort by the KLA (or UCK) to cleanse the area of Serbs, which may have been a reason why autonomy was revoked. I am not making a case for Serbian dictatorship, but we have to remember that a state cannot stand helplessly by if its citizens are being killed by terrorists. The US state department characterised the KLA as a terrorist organisation till recently. It has been funded by drug trafficking and supported by Albanian gangsters. Any support for such a group is tantamount to support for terrorists like the LTTE, the Hizbollah, or the IRA, or indeed the Harkat ul Ansar. It is time that NATO realised that the cost in terms of human lives has been greatly increased by its bombing of Yugoslavia. On the one hand they keep insisting that the war is not against the Serbs, and on the other, they bomb civilian targets like television stations. Apart from that, the stream of refugees has increased since the bombing began. These ethnic Albanians are now threatening the delicate demographic balance in FYR of Macedonia. Maybe we will see a secessionist movement there next. A former British defence minister recently described Albania as a lawless country run by gangsters. It is these very gangsters that NATO now proposes to support. India is right in being concerned about the designs of the Western powers over its territory. A fragmented India will be much easier to manage from the NATO point of view. False propaganda can easily be used to make a case against India. No matter that in Kashmir it is the Hindus who are suffering and being chased from their homes, no matter that it is the Christian missionaries who have helped create the problem in Nagaland, ably supported by Chinese arms supplies, it is always the Centre which is to blame. The West is unlikely to attack China over Tibet, because of the Chinese missiles that can roast several US cities in a matter of minutes. India still does not have that capability, which is why erring on the side of paranoia makes eminent sense. It does pay to remember that countries like the US and UK are basically imperialist in nature, and just as "the white man's burden" was the excuse for looting our country dry, "human rights" may be used as an excuse to establish hegemony over the subcontinent. The West must realise that its view of human rights and democracy is not the universal view. After all, by that standard, even Singapore falls far short of the Western ideal of free speech, etc. Each society has the right to work out its own governance systems. The best way of supporting dissent would be to allow free movement of people across borders. Depopulation may be an effective way of changing domestic policy. I could argue that the immigration laws of the Western countries are basically racist, and therefore these governments must be bombed. However, it would be difficult to do that, since the international bodies are still dominated by the whites. Where there is a situation of international law being flouted, the UN is in place to deal with it. Let us not hide behind the Russian /Chinese veto as an excuse for ignoring the UN. Remember the US has also used its veto in exactly the same way. Mr Kampani's statements reveal his pro-West stance in the matter. He claims "Outside the arc of Western Europe and North America, India perhaps has one of the most successful records of managing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-lingual society democratically." I am interested in his definition of "multi-ethnic..." applied to the basically homogenous societies of Western Europe. The UK (and that in the south and centre only) is perhaps the only multi-ethnic society. And he should recall the treatment of Jews, Gypsies, Arabs and others in Europe. For that matter, the US has such a terrible history of slavery and racism, that till the 1960s it would not be described as a civil society by its own standards. As for the Bangladesh story, it was Pakistan which attacked India. In the case of Sri Lanka, India acted shamefully by supporting a terrorist organisation and imperiling the lives of its soldiers in someone else's war. India has its own black marks in history, but that is no reason for it to support the NATO action. Ruchira Raghav
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:59:08 -0400 Gaurav, I think misses some very relevant facts in this article. India participated in the Bangladesh war and the Srilankan peace keeping effort at the behest of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and Premadasa respectively. Whereas did any of the representative of the Kosovo population make a plea to help them out! The answer is 'no'. Hence the action of NATO deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Also drawing parallels between the Kosovo crisis and Kashmir or for that matter North-East is nothing but absurd. Krishna
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 18:39:12 -0700 Sameer Jalnapurkar's rebuttal is flawed logically and weak on evidence. Not only are Jalnapurkar's arguments unpersuasive, but he takes off on a tangent completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Sure, the United States committed terrible human rights violations during the Cold War years. The US approach to humanitarian intervention is also racist. Nonetheless, wrongs committed in the past, or selective intervention is no argument to decry intervention in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds. Past mistakes call for redemption and not inaction or repetition. There is no evidence to support Jalnapurkar's contention that the purpose of NATO's "new strategic concept" is to wield a stick against "rogue states and make the world safe for Western multinationals." The alliance's strategic concept as agreed upon during the April 1999 Washington Summit purports to safeguard the "common values of democracy, human-rights, and the rule of law" in the Euro-Atlantic region. It states that the alliance will address security concerns arising from religious and ethnic rivalries, territorial disputes, human rights abuses, and instability resulting from the dissolution of states around its periphery. Jalnapurkar's other statement that "[NATO's] goal is to make irrelevant the UN and the system of international law" also borders on the ridiculous. NATO's April 1999 Alliance Strategic Concept clearly recognizes the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security including the Euro-Atlantic region. The point to note, however, is that NATO intervened in the Yugoslav civil war only after UN efforts to maintain peace failed. Consensus in the UN, given great power rivalry, is difficult to achieve and sustain. In the absence of consensus, the choice before states and regional organisations is either inaction or unilateral intervention. The balance of evidence in the Yugoslav civil war points to intervention as the better of the two choices. The Rambouillet accord guaranteed Yugoslav sovereignty; it also offered autonomy to the Kosovar Albanians. Given Milosevic's past record of ethnic cleansing and history of nibbling away at agreements to present interlocutors with a fait accompli, the allied nations deemed it necessary to deploy a NATO-led international peacekeeping force to police the accord. The Kosovar Albanians' demands for independence were resisted. Instead, NATO offered to disarm the Kosovar Liberation Army. Jalnapurkar's attempt to draw a parallel between Kosovo and Kashmir is even more intriguing. Is there any plausibility of the United States using the Kashmir pretext to try to strip India of its nuclear capability? Let us examine the evidence. First, after eight rounds of negotiations, the United States has tacitly accepted India's nuclear status. Differences in the Indo-US nuclear dialogue do not center on India's nuclear status, but rather on the nature and architecture of its nuclear force. Second, the United States has refused to be drawn into the Kashmir imbroglio. Pakistan has been told plainly that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved bilaterally. Third party intervention would only be practical in the event that both India and Pakistan invite the United States to mediate. The emerging unofficial view in Washington is that Kashmir should be formally divided and settled along the existing line of control. Similarly, Chomsky's essay, Rogue States is marginal to the current debate. Studies or policy recommendations made by a branch of the military do not automatically entail the adoption of that policy at a national level. In fact, in the post-Cold War era, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the United States has exploited its nuclear arsenal "to portray itself as irrational or vindictive" when its national interests are attacked. To the contrary, all US military engagements in this period highlight the irrelevance of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. The exception to this trend was the 1991 Gulf War where implied threats of nuclear use were made to deter possible chemical and biological weapons use by Iraq. Finally, Jalnapurkar draws the wrong strategic lessons from the Yugoslav war. He argues that India should build ICBMs to deter external intervention. To the contrary, India should invest in a state-of-the-art conventional war machine, which is usable. The Indian military should exploit current information, precision-strike, and surveillance technologies and take advantage of the revolution in military affairs. Instead, the Indian government has decided to invest in unusable and strategically decrepit nuclear dinosaurs. Jalnapurkar's concerns are valid and merit attention. Unfortunately however, the arguments deployed to support those concerns are more the product of his fertile imagination. Had he taken the trouble to base those arguments on fact and buttressed them with the necessary evidence, the debate would have been tighter and of greater benefit to all concerned. Gaurav Kampani
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
||