“I don’t want him to come in with that kind of jackass thing with me… Keating, like every ambassador who goes over there, goes over there and gets sucked in.”

WOW!! This statement is as shocking as the *itch ones.

Nixon called Indira Gandhi something that she never had to confess. "I am not a crook!"

To put this into context though Nixon talked like that about EVERYONE. He even made repeated derogatory statements about Jews, even though his best buddy Kissinger was a Jew. Even after finding out through tapes Kissinger didn't mind and didn't feel offended. Both exhibited Machiavellian genius and extreme hubris.

This SOB Kissinger has a Nobel peace prize ... WTF???

Nixon was pretty damn paranoid (um, watergate?) and his paranoid delusions flowed into decisions of the administration.

Pre-1971, India was testing the waters with what the Soviets could offer. After that, India went very Pro-CCCP. This not only hurt India economically, but also has rippling effects on South Asian geo-politics today. Undestandably, everything was seen through a cold war myopic view, since Pakistan and China were anti-soviet that made the US happy. Sending the Enterprise battle group to the Bay of Bengal was seen as a grave insult and security threat. Hence, almost all military equipment post 1971 procured by India has been soviet. Prior to that Great Britain was still the largest arms supplier to India.

I'm really not going to side with Indira Gandhi either, she was an Iron fisted maniac who brought India to the collapse of its young democracy.

Nixon's paranoia was on full display on these tapes, both in reference to India and to anyone who opposed him. And while Indira Gandhi should be lauded for her decisive action vis a vis Bangladesh, keep in mind that she and all her predecessors tried to play off the Americans and the Soviets to get the best deal for themselves. And by themselves, I mean only Indian leadership - very little aid reached the average Indian.

If there was ever a time that “Unity in Diversity” was on full display, it was during this time. Here you had Indira Gandhi, a Hindu woman as Prime Minister, Sam Manekshaw (a Parsi) as Chief of the Indian Army, Lt. Gen. Jagjit Arora (Sikh) who was regional commander of Indian forces in Bengal, and his Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. J.F.R. Jacob (a Calcutta-born Jew) who led Indian troops into Dhaka.

Also, moves by Nixon have only put the United States in a weaker position in the area. I am not ablsoving Indira Gandhi for her misplaced foresight either, but still, Nixon screwed up royally. Strategically, courting India would have been the logical step. This cold war episode set both countries back by 30 years in terms of developing their relationship as the the largest and most powerful democracies on the planet. What a shame.

I agree - Nixon was a paranoid bastard, spoke in this tone of everyone. And Kissinger...what is left to be said?

Let's NOT get misty-eyed over Indira though. The Nehru/Gandhi dynasty's corruption and insular thinking/policies did little to help the average Indian and stunted progress in the country for several decades. Points of light are only now starting to emerge if the current politicians can stay away from old bad behaviors.

I wonder what kissinger will comment on this? As I understand it, he still makes public appearances.

In anycase, Indira Gandhi had 'balls' second to none !

Chicks with balls get me all hot and bothered...

It's pretty much agreed that Nixon and Kissinger were bastards, and they pretty much screwed whoever they wanted to; they messed with South America, South East Asia (i.e. allowing Indoenisa to invade East Timor), India, and Pakistan. Not to mention Nixon plans to prolong the Vietnam war.

it's friggin Nixon, a crook, a liar, a fraud and a racist, paranoid bastard. What else would you expect? I want to see the transcripts where Indira Gandhi goes back to Delhi and refers to Nixon as a "bhanchod"

I take it as a compliment.
Only good friends are loved.
Only good enemies are hated.

To put this into context again, this disdain wasn't just some personal disrespect hidden in the White House. It had a very strong impact on the elections of East Pakistan and subsequent massacre of millions of not-yet-Bangladeshis. It's one of the best reported aspects of Hitchen's book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

Sure, she was kind of not a very good leader. But at the time she was the democratically elected leader of the world's biggest democracy, one one of the few others that was trying hard to encourage freedom of religion at the time. America's disdain for India and preference for penny dictators may haunt us well into the future. It's one of many of Nixon's crimes, but it's not one to be dismissed or forgotten, and definitely not by patriotic Americans.

A recent interview of Kissinger in Indian Express.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=58921

Indira was a great leader. I am astonished I am sharing this view with the RSS leadership but she was one of the best prime-ministers India had had. A lil decisiveness and abrasiveness can be excused,

Saheli,

don't you know? We Americans love us some dictators when it serves our needs but then we quickly repaint history to label them as menaces when their usefulness runs out...aka Saddam, Taliban, Ayub Khan, Saudi Arabia (coming soon), Iran..the list goes on and always will

There is this belief in a lot of Americans that a President is very busy "working". I think a President is a 4 year King. Kings rule. Ruling is not the same as "working". Working is what we do. Same way Kings are irrevarant to the subjects and other Rulers.
Democracy or no-Democracy a ruler is a ruler. Its more so in case of "Presidential Democracy". George Bush's transcripts are not available so we dont know whats going on there....

1) Indira Gandhi was a bitch. She's at fault for most of India today.
2) Nixon was a bastard.
3) Indians are slippery, treacherous bastards, as are any other big country when it comes to diplomacy.
4) I would hardly call Indians aggressive...well ok maybe on the streets of New Delhi, when they drive....
5) Hopefully those of y'all of Indian-American origin (because nobody else-in America-cares about what Nixon had to say about India) can receive an answer to the post-9/11 question:
"Why do they hate us so much?

6)Most of what I write is correct, except when it's wrong.

A lil decisiveness and abrasiveness can be excused

Indira Gandhi was not the best Prime Minster India had. She was the most heavy handed and powerful India had.

Her unconstitutional attempt at consolidating power by calling an emergency, forced sterilization of the poor and minorities, over aggressive tactics at repressing dissenting opinion, etc. have harmed India in the long run.

keep in mind that she and all her predecessors tried to play off the Americans and the Soviets to get the best deal for themselves. And by themselves, I mean only Indian leadership - very little aid reached the average Indian.

By the way, I met Sam Manekshaw as a part of a school field trip almost 17 years ago. A very gracious, brave, well spoken, and impressive man. In WWII he was awarded a military cross on the battlefield, if I remember correctly, while seriously wounded. He also has a spectacular home in Ooty where he is retired to where he gave us schook kids a personal tour. Great guy.

Wonder what choice desi gaalis Indira and
Swaran Singh had for the Americans.

Scene 1:

... students had been "shot down in rooms or mowed down when they came out of building in groups." In one instance, the MLA [Pakistani Martial Law Administrators] set a girls dormitory on fire and then the girls were "machine-gunned as they fled the building..."

"Congen officer heard steady firing of approximately 1 shot per ten seconds for 30 minutes." Cable also reports that naked female bodies found "with bits of rope hanging from ceiling fans," after apparently being "raped, shot, and hung by heels" from the fans.

Scene 2:

"We have not openly condemned Yahya. He appreciates this..." [Kissinger] also declares that the U.S. "will do nothing to embarrass the government of Pakistan by any public statements."

Scene 3:

... much of Global Politics basically boils down to one big high school with America being the richest kid on the block. And we all know how everyone in High School felt about that kid... That's not to say we don't occasionally screw things up in a "careless" Daisy Buchanan sort of way...

Gawd, I just can't, like, understand why our foreign policy is so unpopular with the haters. Freedom is on the march!

Kissinger sounds like such a jerk. I heard that he hated Indians as well.

But then why should it bother us? We arent living in India anyways. In 1971, our papas were on their way to the US, and we were born here or bringing us in diapers over here. We shouldnt be shocked. Thats how it was so deal with it.

Indira Gandhi's great contributions to India include

i) The emergency: suspension of free speech, elections.

ii) Forced sterilization.

iii) Centralization: State governments dismissed at will.

iv) Open and institutional corruption.

v) The inclusion of "socialism" into the constitution. Nationalization of banks, Airlines etc.

vi) The complete emasculation of the Congress party into one of chamchagiri.

It is only after her death that the great darkness that clouded India began to be lifted.

If as a leader, the only way to inspire people to get behind your vision is to intimidate, threaten and terrify them... well it's not really good leadership is it. Indira Gandhi was a horrid delusional megalomaniac, and I'm being nice about it. Bas.

The only good thing IG ever did was take India to war against Pakistan and break it up. But the Govt. of India did nothing publicly to highlight the anti-Hindu aspect of the genocide. Today, people think it was primarily Punjabis against Bengalis. But it really was primarily West Pakistani Muslims against Hindus, and at a secondary level, Punjabis against Bengalis.

- See Document 16 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB16.pdf) point #8
- See Document 22 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/BEBB22.pdf) page 1, where Indira Gandhi, in a letter to Nixon dated July 1971, says that there were now 7 million refugees, of which Muslims are just over a million, i.e. 85% of refugees are Hindus.

I hate to put it like this, but it would have been better for India if IG had been assassinated in Jan 1972 rather than 1984. India's development would not have been retarded by 15 disastrous years.

The less said about the crook Nixon and his crony Kissinger, the better. I find it hard to believe that Nixon was willing to allow such atrocities just because Yahya was his intermediary to Mao. Couldn't Nixon/Kissinger have picked up a phone themselves, or found a different intermediary?

as I am a total ABCD, can someone please give me a brief synopsis on this whole sterilization of the poor and minorities (ie examples?) I find this practice absolutely horrid? Why would she do this?

Here's another photo of Nixon with Gandhi.

Lovin-
check here or for fiction accurately set against a terrible time in history, here.

By the way, this isn't really new news, except for the exact quotes being declassified. It's been known all along that Kissinger and Nixon disliked Indira (some old Richard Reeves columns like this one (from 2001) detail the antipathy. See the Nixon quote 4 paragrapsh from the bottom).

And I don't think Kissinger and Nixon were best buds either. Nixon knew Kissinger was covering his rear with leaks to newspapers that made Nixon look bad, but Kissinger look goode.

And for those students of history, I finally found this page that has the Keating cable. It's document 3, and very interesting - if I remember correctly from a history class, I think it was the first time "genocide" was used to describe the situation in Bangladesh/East Pakistan.

Now that three people have cited this page, has anyone noticed who the author is?

The Mutiny has agents in high places ;)

Interestingly my pops loves Indra. He said she was able to control a country that was spiraling out of control, and keep people in check as they should be. She restored a sence of power for the government, albeit being a despot. Its really the local governments, and police that need to be rid of corruption, beacause to him corruption is almost guaranteed at levels as high as a central government. However if you were able to keep bribery to a low, and keep the police and small time leaders in line then the grander corruption can be ignored as the price of centralizing. However it was not his balls that she decided to render useless. And I for one am glad of that.

And here is an excerpt from Kissinger's memoirs. Straight from the horse's mouth, including commentary on him and Nixon's personal views of Indira. Btw, I didn't see the link posted already in this thread :-)

Lovin,

The sterilisation of poor was primarily carried out by Sanjay Gandhi ( IG's younger son ). Mr. SG had a vision so to speak of a clean delhi. With tons of power at hand he went about new delhi essentially forcing family planning on the poor and sometimes whoever came on the way. Now dont mix him up with some sword carrying villain. He forced people into sterilisation.

the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971

Can we at least include a mention of
"Bangladeshis" in their own genocide and war for independence? Otherwise, I'm just going to start referring to 1947 as "that time the British decided to leave this place." Also, here's some background from Wikipedia.

Look, as everyone has pointed out, we all knew (or should havce known, if we had read any history) that Nixon and Kissinger were bastards, and for more than just Watergate and Vietnam. And we also knew (or should have known) that Indira Gandhi was inclined towards heavy-handed, top-down, dynasty-promoting moves.

So at what point are we going to say that the question of which ones were worse is not as important as the point that state power is all bad in some ways (Nixon and Kissinger being grotesque examples and Indira Gandhi being not much to write home about either). The people of Bangladesh, Chile, India, Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, South Africa, and many, many other places have suffered (meaning they were tortured, raped, killed, and systematically disempowered) because there are a few people with a lot of power and lot of people with tiny amounts of power.

Saurav,

Any reason you left out Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Lithuainia, Estonia, Latvis, Ukraine, North Korea?

Forced sterlizations might be considered vile. But I think the idea just went sour? The worst problem of India is it's overpopulation. Nothing else contributes more to India's downfall. There should have been a better way to educate the people into the "We one--our's one" thinking.

How many siblings do your parent's have? My mom has 7 other and dad has 7 others too. Imagine that. Wish my grandparents were taught some self restraint. Calm down Daadima.

All said and done, we must be one of the most hated races on earth. There's no denying it folks, I was checking these travel/flight attendants forums...overwhelmingly the least favorite passenger was of Indian descent. Common complaints include lack of hygeine/bad smell/demanding personalities. Its kinda sad really.

Sonal,

I can't comment about the hygiene part. But I have seen some obnoxious behavior from Indian passengers. The last time I had the misfortune to fly Air India (1998), I had this annoying little boy running across my legs, cause his half-wit mother could not get him to sit still.

It seems Indians only are on good behavior when white people are around. Then, it becomes a matter of making a good impression. Having good manners when white folks are not around seems to be of little concern.

This is rather applicable -

...for many many years, the United States, along with the rest of the free world, believed somehow that people in this region didn't care about freedom. We cared about stability, and what we got was neither freedom nor stability. We got a malignancy that was growing...

With the Soviets out of the way, it's about time for a bit more idealism.

The rest of that quote is:

... We got a malignancy that was growing, that came to haunt us on that fine September day.

So Condi's saying that:

• Iraq was about spreading liberty, not realpolitik
• Iraq was tied to 9/11

Both of which are false.

Sigh. Just as a cold virus creates headaches, she was saying that terrorism is one of the symptoms of not supporting freedom.

Iraq was one place w/ a cold virus. 9/11 was a (major) headache.

Cruel, calculating, cold-war policy towards Bangladesh is another example of life amongst the virus.

It's time we started going after the virus itself - even if it means less aspirin for the headache symptoms.... (ok.. this analogy has probably gone as far as it will go ;-)

patrick,

thanks for the info, it is really sad that this happened, and I can't imagine how someone could enact something like this w/o any remorse or feeling.

overwhelmingly the least favorite passenger was of Indian descent. Common complaints include lack of hygeine/bad smell/demanding personalities. Its kinda sad really.

unfortunately this is too true, i cannot stand flying w/ indians in a plane....The attendant calls row 9-20 for seating and every indian is in a rush to get on the plane, even though they're sitting in row 30. Then there's the requisite coke-hoarding, walking against the flow of traffic in boarding the plane, frequent requests for trading seats, kicking, opening of tiffins full of sabji and achaar, annihilating the bathroom, getting up and removing luggage anytime the plane slightly descends, and of course, the requisite farting.

... i cannot stand flying w/ indians in a plane...

A lot of what you ascribe to culture is actually due to overpopulation and competition for resources. I've seen some insane scenes during flight delays at U.S. airports where (non-desi) people skirmish for free potato chips. The savagery makes tiger vs. crocodile fights look like gentle noogies.

Lovin / Manish Vij,

The film Empire of the Sun teaches the story well about how limited-resources could turn even the British elite into depraved, ravaging thugs in the PoW camps of Japan-occupied China. The desperation of erstwhile Lords and Ladies to tackle each other just to be served maggot-infested rice soup before the cauldron ran dry was a vivid example. Human beings are animals, no matter which race you talk about. A satisfied stomach and a serene environment are all that separate us from the beast within.

But then why should it bother us? We arent living in India anyways. In 1971, our papas were on their way to the US, and we were born here or bringing us in diapers over here. We shouldnt be shocked. Thats how it was so deal with it.

Sonal, do you exist in a vacuum? Has not your own personal past affected your present, or do you forget everything that has happened to you? The policies that Nixon and/or Gandhi implemented or espoused have affected the lives, and/or futures of millions, not hundreds not thousands.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana.

Considering the policies (or lack thereof) of the current administration, you can see how they have ignored the history of Iraq and the middle east, and are essentially creating something worse than Vietnam.

Forced sterlizations might be considered vile. But I think the idea just went sour? The worst problem of India is it's overpopulation. Nothing else contributes more to India's downfall. There should have been a better way to educate the people into the "We one--our's one" thinking. How many siblings do your parent's have? My mom has 7 other and dad has 7 others too. Imagine that. Wish my grandparents were taught some self restraint. Calm down Daadima. All said and done, we must be one of the most hated races on earth. There's no denying it folks, I was checking these travel/flight attendants forums...overwhelmingly the least favorite passenger was of Indian descent. Common complaints include lack of hygeine/bad smell/demanding personalities. Its kinda sad really.

Wow, do you hate yourself? How old are (or were) your grandparents? Did they live during a time when prenatal care was available? Do you realize the amount of children that died either during childbirth or after? There was no gurantee, and often people had much larger families to make sure their children survived during those times. My grandparents lost three of their son's due to illness or other causes, after childbirth. And I doubt that we are most hated race on the planet. I don't appreciate the way many Indians behave also, but it's due to the fact that if you didn't move to get what you wanted someone else would. Not everyone is a philanthropist. Makes me wonder if your simpleton or not.

she was saying that terrorism is one of the symptoms of not supporting freedom.

Vinod, considering the way in which this administration takes actions against those that disagree with it? No dissent is tolerated, and Patriot Act essentially giving license to fascist like tactics: Would you consider this a lack of freedom, and if so will this lead to people becoming terrorist in the US? Sure the administration constantly talks about freedom and all the rhetoric, but their actions sure bely it...

... [Condi] was saying that terrorism is one of the symptoms of not supporting freedom.

So why are we propping up dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Precisely because we're prioritizing stability over cure.

Any reason you left out Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Lithuainia, Estonia, Latvis, Ukraine, North Korea?

Thanks for the correction, KXB. Contrary to what you might think (for whatever reason), I have no fondness for the USSR or for any form of abusive state power. You might also throw in there Greece, Spain, Portugal, Zimbabwe, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Armenia, Albania, and countless other countries. For surely we can all agree that building a grassroots movement of people, whether in "communist" China or "capitalist" India, is the most important thing.

And yet, I find that we often don't. Why is that, do you think?

Overpopulation is indeed a huge problem--Here's the cure:

"'Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Jomtien marked the emergence
of an international consensus that education is the single most vital element in combating
poverty, empowering women, promoting human rights and democracy, protecting the environment and controlling population growth' (UNICEF, 1999, p. 13).

In the years since [the Jomtien conference in 1990], a number of international conferences have been held
that strengthen the consensus regarding women's education as the primary solution to complex development problems, such as overpopulation, HIV/AIDS, and environmental degradation."

source (pdf)

So, Vinod, I agree with you that "freedom" and "democracy" are really important....because the words are catchalls that allow anyone to justify almost anything at this point (sort of like "anti-terrorist measure."

So let's start talking about what "freedom", "democracy", and "liberty" really mean, how they are established and sustained, and where it is most appropriate to use what tactics.

From my vantage point, whehter one supported the invasion of Iraq primarily for human rights reasons or for realpolitik, it was a horrendous geopolitical choice to make (where else could the hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to promote democracy in more effective ways?), relies on a terrible model of social change and actors who have demonstrated themselves to be far less committed to democracy and transparency in their actions than their rhetoric, and was poorly planned.

Just as a thought exercise, consider the following options, which possibly would have served both democracy and U.S. interests more than the money and lives spent on the invasion of Iraq:

1) alternative fuel research and energy conservation to wean the United States off of OPEC oil;
2) promoting indigenous groups around the world that are triyng to build democracy (like the NLD in Burma);
3) cultivating opposition in Iran;
4) finding alternative ways of increasing leverage against the Saudi government (which is probably, if you want to find one actor, the primary source of financial support for the culture of Islamism in the world);
5) the establishment of primary schools in the developing world.
6) finishing the rebuilding of Afghanistan, which has essentially been left in the dustbin of American foreign policy failures, and will undoubtedly come back to bite someone in the a$$ someday--if only the people who live in Afghanistan.
7) Subsidizing the production and provision of medication to produce curest to common diseases and reducing the prices of things like HIV meds
8) Debt forgiveness for countries that engage in reforms that promote increased education, health provision, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or other reforms
9) Increasing the size the of the security council to include representatives of poor(er) countries on a permanent basis
10) investing greater resources in international criminal investigation, including, but not limited to Al Qaeda activities.

The point is not that any one of these ideas would be a solution or are even a good idea, but that if you creatively survey all the optinos available (of which there are almost infinitely many), it seems to me that a poorly planned invasion of Iraq probably doesn't rank very high on the list by any standard of logic and decency. I came up with thie in about 10 mintues, so I imagine the policy resources of the entire U.S. government (and if it wasn't so thickheaded as to ignore them, those of its allies and people with similar interests in broader society) would probably have been able to come up with something better.

"Forced sterlizations might be considered vile. But I think the idea just went sour? .... Wish my grandparents were taught some self restraint ... we must be one of the most hated races on earth "

I dont know about being the most hated race on earth, but its pretty clear we're the most self-hating. Sheesh. Just pathetic.

I dont know about being the most hated race on earth, but its pretty clear we're the most self-hating. Sheesh. Just pathetic.

Apparently the only "correct" response to coerced sterilization is total horror; when someone tries to discuss any other aspect, they're labelled self-hating or racist or worse. I'm against any kind of coercion, but I've never understood how sterilization gets lumped into more evil categories like murder.

This thread, and the one about HIV+ couples, prompt me to ask a risky question. Namely, is any kind of childfree movement developing in India?

... is any kind of childfree movement developing in India?

I'd be surprised because of the family-centric culture. Everybody loves their children, but the lives of Indians especially revolve around their kids. They pamper their kids like there's no tomorrow.

It's just like Italians-- check out how many parent proudly tote their kids around Piazza Navona in Rome, stuffing them with cotton candy and spoiling them silly.

Somebody I know that has lived throughout India once told me that South Indians are a lot more courteous, polite, and civil than people from other parts of India.

[1] Gawleee! So many of you are so obsessed with freedom, human rights ..blah..blah. Your passion/madness about it is just as intense as that of the muslim fundamentalists of our times, the communists of the last century and the crusaders of the past. The idea you fixate upon as the basis upon which society ought to be built is different (in your case human rights etc. as oppossed to god's word or the society of equality), but the obsession and the slavish dedication to the idea is same.

[2] People have to make compromises and judgement calls - if I am ever offered the choice that "killing 1000 people from some other country" could reduce the chances of americans getting killed by 2% ... should I make the call? How much is a american life worth? - another non-american life, a 100 non-american lives, may be? The talk of all beings are equal is bullshit... when your mom is going to raped infront of you, how many people would you kill to prevent it - 10, 100, 1000... why should you kill anybody, may be the rapist will change his mind at the last moment... what percantage of certainity is enough to make a call that could potentially devastate the lifes of million's of people.

The answer depends on you own risk aversion levels. For me its ok to blow up a million people in some other county to save a 100 american lives; if in the end the cost/benefit ratio works in out favour. Your ratio's might be different. Nixon's & Kissinger's ratios are different.

So, stop all the bitching and moaning and pansy talk of a world where every body exchanges flowers, and eats euphoria for breakfast - People get fucked. bad. It better not be you.

[3] Stop talking quotes out of context.

>> “The Indians are bastards anyway,” Mr Kissinger replied. “They are the most aggressive goddamn people around.”

Your over worked sensibilties screeam racism the moment you soup is late by 20 seconds! If I say New Yorkers are bastards, or that the yankess are bastards, you are not going to take out the R card, hun? Kissinger called Indians bastards the same way (yes, he told me). Yes, they were agressive; Indians did not exactly talk about a non-violent protest to diffuse the tensions during the Bangladesh war.

All in all, Nixon & Kissinger were the greatest genuises of the last century - ofcourse, their priorities were not the freedom/human rights bullshit, but they did a damn good job realizing, their priorities whatever the expenses were - U.S. is still one of the decent nations to live in, is it not?

Indira Gandhi had the balls to her things. She paid a price, but it was her game - her cost/benefit analysis. You can pontificate as much as you want, but maintaining freedom, human rights etc. are not cost free oprations, and you will create groups who will benefit at the expense of others.

whoa...satish...have some ice cream or cotton candy or something. There are situations that are not zero-sum games (in fact, probably most...well, unti Bush gets through with the world economy).

when your mom is going to raped infront of you, how many people would you kill to prevent it - 10, 100, 1000

That's why people make use of the symmetry that the Nash equilibrium teaches us. Your argument, by symmetry, can be stated as: "what chance does your mom,dad,siblings,etc have of being killed, .01%, .1%, 1% when someone else's mom is going to be raped in front of him and he decides?"

Since the unfortunate child is one player in the Nash equation, each other rational player when presented with the possible dilemma beforehand will minimize the increased risk to his/her own family members by imposing stiff penalities on whichever player is given the deleterious choice.

What you get is the equilibrium - of the one trying to damage the others to save his mother - and the many trying to make it harder for that one to do so.

For me its ok to blow up a million people in some other county to save a 100 american lives; if in the end the cost/benefit ratio works in out favour

Foreign leaders know you will, that's why they'll make sure the cost of killing 1million non-americans is severe enough it isn't to your benefit. This is the foundation of MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction), where they'll kill all 300million if you kill 1million, and even though you'll detect their response and destroy them completely as well, the cost to you is high enough to make sure you won't kill their 1million to begin with. In fact, it's because of adventuresome people like you why many nations embrace MAD or are gaining capabilities to embrace it. It's unfortunate, but your ilk gives credence to the rhetoric of "might makes right", "power respects power", and other antiquated expansionist sentiments.

So, stop all the bitching and moaning and pansy talk of a world where every body exchanges flowers, and eats euphoria for breakfast - People get fucked. bad.
...
All in all, Nixon & Kissinger were the greatest genuises of the last century

Are you trying to get on the Hannity & dead-sock-puppet Colmes talk show? The only thing worse than being jaded is being a Nixon apologist.

>> Since the unfortunate child is one player in the Nash equation, each other rational player when presented with the possible dilemma beforehand will minimize the increased risk to his/her own family members by imposing stiff penalities on whichever player is given the deleterious choice.

Yes, when we live in a world where the laws adjust dynamically and in real time with the sentiments and expecations of the agents (us) in the model. Untill, then the player who can exploit the system will reap the most benefits.

Right now people are getting fucked in Darfur & DR Congo. There aint no equilibrium coming to save their ass.

>> Foreign leaders know you will, that's why they'll make sure the cost of killing 1million non-americans is severe enough it isn't to your benefit.

No, they will TRY to make sure. But, still I (America) can get away with things they never can, because I have power & might. Can you imagine Iraq invading us on ensure our compliance to the Non-prolifeartion treaty.

>> It's unfortunate, but your ilk gives credence to the rhetoric of "might makes right", "power respects power", and other antiquated expansionist sentiments.

Unfortunate - perhaps in your expecation of how the world ought to be.

Antiquated - not as long as man is alive. The rhetoric of justice and human rights is another set of tools to appease the masses, and those who do the double-talk will invariably reap more out of the systems than who are become foolishly compliant with these principles for moral reasons. And ofcourse, not everybody can get away with the double-talk... we can.. Iraq got it's ass whooped for being inhuman (Kurdish pansies etc.), but we got away with torcher in Abu Gharib..haven't we? Who dares to prosectue us for war crimes? Radovan Karadzic does not have the same luxury.

>> "might makes right", "power respects power"

You bet you bottom dollar, that it does. It does not matter how close you are to the equilibrium, when I put a gun to your head, you will do what I say. And the equilbrium can be a chaotic system, a miniscule percentage of people with with a different agenda can upset you little make believe world.. that why we have walgreens!

So, baby you can hate me, but sure as hell, this is how it will stay - I prosper at the expense of others; And, I am down with dat.

There are situations that are not zero-sum games

Yes, and there are games where I want to get the entire sum and want to give you zero. Gandhi say, " we have enough for every man's need, but not everyman's greed"... but alas, one man's greed is another man's need...so, the fact that there are zero-sum games aint helping me much in getting all I want.

Not that this is a definitive commentary on Indira's tenure, but looking at all the posts i feel compelled to add my thoughts:) vis.a.vis emergency and her stint as PM.

The good points of her tenure:
1. Very decisive judgements when it came to national security (although some might term it as over-reaching). Eg: Creation of Bangladesh, Operation Bluestar
2. Played a major role in controlling the law and order in India in those days. (more on this later)
3. Heralding the Green revolution
4. Making India a nuclear power ( at a heavy price albeit)

The bad points:
1. She was hardly democratic in the way she functioned. This was one of the reasons lot of good principled leaders left Congress to begin with. A lot is made out of the letters Nehru wrote to her while he was in prison on the virtues of democracy, but there is no proof she read and understood them.
2. Interfering with the judiciary and using her absolute majority in Parliament with utter disregard for well established precedences before her.

On the imposition of emergency, here is the point. Read on!!!! Mr. JP Narayan was fighting for all the right causes, with all the wrong means. (encouraging students to boycott colleges and indulge in arson, literally everyday govt. property was burnt and looted, this was very common in Bihar and later in the north Indian states). There is no evidence he encouraged arson, but he actively encouraged the youth to come down to the road leaving their colleges and careers. These students eventually ended up indulging in arson - daily!!. The causes he was fighting for were - corruption, social justice & equality etc. To him IG was the person to be blamed and hence he never reached a compromise with IG. IG on her part looking at the way things were going really feared there was an internal emergency and imposed one. So this is the background of emergency. It is important to know these facts behind the emergency. In case you are wondering, consider this.

If Mr.JP had a Gandhian effect on Indians, How come the non-Congress govt. crumble so quickly after IG was out of power?
Essentialy the point is problems of those days, which still exist today had more to do with scarce resources and poor moral standards in the administration. The issue wasn't if IG was behind these problems. Wisdom will tell you these problems arise when there is poverty, high illiteracy and competition for scarce resources. This ofcourse wasn't understood by one and all, not even Mr. JP. And ofcourse there were tons of idiots who saw an opportunity in this problem, which they gladly exploited. Eg. Mr Laloo who is widely credited with running a very corrupt and inefficient administration in Bihar for almost 15 years ( with his wife being the CM for 5 yrs ) was one of the prominent student leaders that talked to Mr. JP and asked him to lead the movement. It is at this stage that the movement got violent and IG had not an option but to impose emergency.

However there are things IG could have done to handle this situation better. It is here that her lack of working in a democratic manner hurt her the most and the rest is history. One of the crooks that exploited the situation to hilt was her son Mr Sanjay Gandhi!!!!. He had noble ideas, but hardly noble means to achieve them.

That is the best damn comment. It shows that Nixon was shit scared of Indira. I mean common I have not seen a single prime minister with such guts in the past twenty years. It is a compliment.

That is the best damn comment. It shows that Nixon was shit scared of Indira.

Seriously, when Tricky Dick starts dogging on someone, I say sign me up! Too bad it's the Iron Maiden.

Sonal:

Kissinger sounds like such a jerk. I heard that he hated Indians as well.

But then why should it bother us? We arent living in India anyways. In 1971, our papas were on their way to the US, and we were born here or bringing us in diapers over here. We shouldnt be shocked. Thats how it was so deal with it.

Hay Sonal, do you know that there is a say in Hindi - "Dobhi ke kuta, na ghar ka na ghat ka."

What can I say? That fits you and your kind perfectly right. You live in an information and technologically rich country, but yet know a damn thing about your motherland - India's greatness.

God, I wish I had the power to stamp on your forehead, requesting people to NOT to recognize you as an Indian.

Now, I wish there would be racism in USA. Then you and your kind would know what goddamn freaking things does NIXON and KISSINGER types mean, to you especially.

And hey, just that no one is speaking about you on your face, doesnt mean they are giving the same status that of native Americans. God knows what they speak behind you.

So, baby you can hate me, but sure as hell, this is how it will stay - I prosper at the expense of others; And, I am down with dat...there are games where I want to get the entire sum and want to give you zero.

Did you just finish reading Beyond Good and Evil or was it Atlas Shrugged>?

Isnt it sad to see that we would never know what Indira Gandhi thought of Nixon or how she bad-mouthed him!!

Putting Nixon and Kissinger on hold for a moment, has anyone seen this?

If true I think its only appropriate to say, "All your bitches are belong to us !!".

:)

cssw, cute link. (It took me a minute to figure out it's purely a humor piece though.)

Manish Vij says:

cssw

Pithy as your comment is, this boob does not get it.

I googled and I froogled and I bought the house down! But I still don't get it. Pray rid me of my misery!

I think the comments on Indira is an understatement.

However, they commenting on Indians generally is American dumbness.

Nixon himself practising Yoga to control his stress and also doing "Omkar" 100 times (Meditating and chating "Om"). He lived few more days due to the sheer power of Yoga else he would not have had lived to even curse Indians. He himself is such a mean being and how can he comment on somebody else like that.

Nina P asked "...is any kind of childfree movement developing in India? "

I haven't heard of a movement yet. But came across this article recently

http://www.desijournal.com/article.asp?articleid=249

I am a 38 year old Childfree male from New Delhi. I am a member of some childfree e groups in the US, but am not really aware of any childfree movement in India. Anyways, its a matter of time before the childfree concept hits India. You can read my childfree essay, in which I have tried to use logic and spirituality to stress the need for being childfree. Breeding concerns all of us, so I guess it should be of interest to everyone. You can read my essay "Conceiving a Child is a Sin" at:
http://dontconceive.blogspot.com
You are welcome to drop me a line at dontconceive@hotmail.com

Its all karma, people. Remember, in the 80s America was countering the Soviet "empire". At the time, America intervened and then the mujhadheen was able to defeat the "Red Army". That prestige costed them though in '71 when all those billions of dollars worth of tanks and jets couldn't beat India. All of a sudden, America had nothing to do with it. Fast forward years later, and look whats going on in Afghanistan. Another empire is closing in on it and this time like the Red Army nearly 20 years ago, they are still there, only there is no welcome mat for weapons.