Mani Shankar Aiyer - India has Hegemonic Aspirations

[Spectre]

1. pacifist?? remember the indian army supply of insas rifles to royal nepal army to counter the maoists?? that would be just one of the involvements.

2. what do you mean by "maoists were ravaging their country"?? the maoists are nepali and seek a different political system.

3. the idea of monarchy is against democracy... the people must rule themselves and not some elite family.

would you apply the same yardstick to Libya and Syria

 

[jamahir]

let us not use "we" to describe india as the indian establishment view is not shared by all people living in india nor they do wish to become party to any such nato-involved conspiracy.

We sold them the rifles , that`s all, we could have send in gunships in there , nobody would have said anything , but we didn`t and kept on looking other way as if nothing was happening over there.

incorrect.

from ( The Nepali Revolution and International Relations )...

In the ensuing winter and spring of 2002 the Gyanendra regime was able to mobilize external support from all international forces. Then BJP Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, on a visit to Nepal, was the first to term the Maoists “terrorist,” a lead that the Nepal Congress government soon followed. Thereafter, India provided substantial military assistance.

A new U.S. policy of active military intervention in Nepal commenced with the April 2001 nomination of Christina Rocca as the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. According to authoritative sources, Mrs. Rocca, a career officer of the CIA from 1982 to 1997, was closely involved in the CIA operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. She then supervised the buy-back by the CIA of the unused Stinger missiles they had themselves introduced. Rocca later served as legislative assistant to right-wing Senator Brownback of Kansas, known for his zealous advocacy of Tibetan independence and of a hard line towards China. With this outlook, the Rocca period (2001-4) was to see the close co-ordination of U.S. intervention in Nepal with the then BJP Indian government.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage then announced the finding that the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) “poses a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten . . . the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States” and their formal designation on the highest category U.S. “terrorist” list.

The resumption of civil war in the fall of 2003 saw the highpoint of U.S. military involvement in Nepal. Elaborate permanent quarters for U.S. “advisers” were constructed adjacent to RNA headquarters in the centre of Kathmandu. Through its International Military Education and Training Program (IMET), the U.S. trained the security forces in “special operations.” There ensued “a policy to allow mass disappearances accompanied by tacit approval at the highest levels of state to use mass torture, extra-judicial killings and other gross abuses.”ii The government announced a plan for “Village Defence Volunteers,” based on Latin American paramilitary “death squad” models.

The April-May 2004 Indian elections unexpectedly turned out the BJP government and brought to power a Congress-led government that depended for its majority on the left parliamentary parties. The new government at first followed the existing policy of co-ordination with U.S. policy, and military assistance to the RNA continued. Ambassador Saran, personification of that policy, in June 2004 was promoted to Foreign Secretary, the top Foreign Service position in the Ministry of External Affairs.

Nepalese revere their king,

obviously not everyone.

who of course was pro Indian

pro indian establishment and pro sangh.

Maoist revolution was not at all required only if monarch were persuaded to give a little more power to elected representatives like Bhutan did.

why a "little more power"?? there should be no monarchy at all... socialism should be what governs nepal... if the communist party there has been distracted, they should get back to basic principles.

would you apply the same yardstick to Libya and Syria

1. in 2011, libya was invaded by 40+ militaries of nato ( capitalist-imperialists and reactionaries ) preceeded for months before by nato's terrorist affiliates.

2. similar case is of syria, with nato's technical invasion supposed to have taken place in mid-2013 but not done so because of russia's deal arrangement ( dismantling of syria's chemical weapons ).

3. until end of august 1969, libya was a monarcy, ruled by the king idris, a nato puppet... on september the 1st, libya saw a socialist revolution ( the "al fatah revolution" ) and in time became a true democracy, governed by the jamahiriya system... jamahiriya is rule by the people, a unique system ( Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy to US-NATO Terror Haven ).

4. syria is a socialist system.

 

[zootinali]

nah bro ,still doesnot prove that India provided anything beyond the rifles and ammunitions. The excerpt you provided only proves that the US had some interest in Nepal at that time.
If we were a hegemonic state , Nepal would have been an Indian state long ago.

let us not use "we" to describe india as the indian establishment view is not shared by all people living in india nor they do wish to become party to any such nato-involved conspiracy.



incorrect.

from ( The Nepali Revolution and International Relations )...








obviously not everyone.



pro indian establishment and pro sangh.



why a "little more power"?? there should be no monarchy at all... socialism should be what governs nepal... if the communist party there has been distracted, they should get back to basic principles.



1. in 2011, libya was invaded by 40+ militaries of nato ( capitalist-imperialists and reactionaries ) preceeded for months before by nato's terrorist affiliates.

2. similar case is of syria, with nato's technical invasion supposed to have taken place in mid-2013 but not done so because of russia's deal arrangement ( dismantling of syria's chemical weapons ).

3. until end of august 1969, libya was a monarcy, ruled by the king idris, a nato puppet... on september the 1st, libya saw a socialist revolution ( the "al fatah revolution" ) and in time became a true democracy, governed by the jamahiriya system... jamahiriya is rule by the people, a unique system ( Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy to US-NATO Terror Haven ).

4. syria is a socialist system.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Hi

I was watching To the point talk show of Karan Thapar where I came across several statements from the captioned gentleman which would in less liberal countries result in sedition charges being slapped against him.

Few of the Gems are:

1. Indian actions vis-a-vis Nepal, Pakistan, Srilanka and Mynmar show that India under Modi has been conducting itself as hegemon.

2. Pakistan had stopped encouraging infiltration and terrorism in India under UPA Govt - 26/11 anyone?

3. Allusions that Gurdaspur attack was staged.

4. Justifying current levels of infiltration on disengagement by Modi.

5. Justifying Pakistan's narrative on Ufa debacle. Talks were meant on all issues. Modi made a mistake by not including Kashmir which was unfair to Pakistan

6. Pakistan had been diligent in prosecuting Lakhvi and company under UPA - why was the trial not finished then?

I stopped watching after that.

@Joe Shearer @Abingdonboy @Bang Galore @Aminroop

share the program video anyone?

 

[rubyjackass]

No sir , I disagree . Since independence Nepal has been fully dependent on India for all their needs . We have been a gracious neighbor and provided them with everything. Common Nepalis doesn't understand a thing about politics and have no knowledge about the economic and political inadequacies of their own nation.
They are not even suppose to exists as an independent nation , yet they are, only because of India.
We were so pacifist that we didn't interfere when maoist were ravaging their country ,when their royal family got massacred. We are still not doing anything ,yet they blame us for their own mess.
Infact it is Nepal who is pushing us , trying to blackmail us by playing the China card.
If they bring in China , it will become an existential threat for us , we cannot let those stupid Nepalis do that to us.
We are not doing anything, but it is definitely time to do something.

You are expecting gratitude, which is not how things work. All countries have self-respect and pride and you should not push too much on them. Sovereign countries should not be expected to show any gratitude. Where is your logic of realpolitik now? That nations have only permanent interests? Nepal is countering India's influence with Chinese, that is their realpolitik. It is very easy to get Nepal into India's fold. Just give some respect to their institutions. Then Realpolitik or historical bonding, Nepal will stand by India. All the politicians who are anti-India feed on India's interference in their country.

 

[zootinali]

You are expecting gratitude, which is not how things work. All countries have self-respect and pride and you should not push too much on them. Sovereign countries should not be expected to show any gratitude. Where is your logic of realpolitik now? That nations have only permanent interests? Nepal is countering India's influence with Chinese, that is their realpolitik. It is very easy to get Nepal into India's fold. Just give some respect to their institutions. Then Realpolitik or historical bonding, Nepal will stand by India. All the politicians who are anti-India feed on India's interference in their country.

No, this is not what I meant, not expecting gratitude ,but an acknowledgment that we are friendly and have no ill intentions for them. We have been soft on Nepal ever since we came into being. We cant possibly be any softer than this ,and yet they blame us ,take us for granted, like a spoiled child. We need to show them some tough love , and not only them, but all other smaller neighboring countries to let them know what actual hegemony really means, if they are going to blame us anyway.

 

[Mamsalaphala]

You are expecting gratitude, which is not how things work. All countries have self-respect and pride and you should not push too much on them. Sovereign countries should not be expected to show any gratitude. Where is your logic of realpolitik now? That nations have only permanent interests? Nepal is countering India's influence with Chinese, that is their realpolitik. It is very easy to get Nepal into India's fold. Just give some respect to their institutions. Then Realpolitik or historical bonding, Nepal will stand by India. All the politicians who are anti-India feed on India's interference in their country.

If Blackmail is to be used as a means of realpolitik, then political assassination and other unsavoury means too can be used to reply back.

China lies beyond the Mighty Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau, there is no real way china can help Nepal.

This is what lies beyond Nepal,

Do you really thin China can help Nepal ? Nepal literally sits at the edge of the world. The other side is India.