February 23, 2006
Media Roundup: The Trip Part 1Politics
As many of you know, President Bush will be visiting India and Pakistan next week. Because of the plethora of stories that will be written in the next couple of weeks, and that have already been written, one of the better ways to alert you to these will be doing a periodic roundup of some of them. In this round:
- Newly anointed Yale Trustee Fareed Zakaria says in his latest Newsweek column (2/27/06) that President Bush’s upcoming trip to India is equivalent to President Nixon’s visit to China. I don’t know about that, MSingh isn’t exactly Chairman Mao.
-
The AP summarizes a roundtable President Bush gave to Indian journos in DC. Among other things, we find out that Bush is a fan of cricket (I wonder if his Texas people know that) and will not be visiting the Taj. (AP 2/23/06)
-
Matthew Cooper writes in Time (2/23) that India, amidst all the troubles the administration is currently facing, is a bright spot and that “it’s probably safe to say that a President who hasn’t always loved to travel abroad is very much looking forward to his latest getaway.” He must have never heard of Delhi Belly. “When the President jets off to India (as well as Pakistan) next week, it will be his first visit to the region and the first by a Republican president in 35 years, since Richard Nixon traveled there.”
-
The Economist, one of my favorite newsmagazines, has a great article with a great lede that summarizes the past India-US relationship the best. “On the 13-hour flight next week from Washington to Delhi, George Bush could do a lot worse than to put aside his briefing books and curl up instead with E.M. Forster’s best-known novel. “A Passage to India” is a tale, above all, of misunderstanding: of wrong signals, exaggerated expectations, offence unwittingly caused and taken, and inevitable disappointment. It is a parable of the complications that arise when eager Anglo-Saxons go travelling on the Indian subcontinent.”
-
The WSJ 2/21/06 (subscription only) writes about the potential tension that could occur between MSingh and President Bush because Singh’s daughter Amrit is an ACLU attorney. Thanks WSJ for finally writing about this, although we’ve previously covered it. From the WSJ:
“Ms. Singh’s dogged pursuit of U.S. government information has subjected the Bush administration to withering criticism of its treatment of suspected terrorists. But among the ironies of the post-Sept. 11 world is the fact that this particular critic of the Bush administration is also the relative of one of its newest friends. Amrit, 36 years old, is the youngest daughter of Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India. Mr. Singh, 73 years old, will host President Bush at a summit in New Delhi early next month. While the soft-spoken Indian prime minister and his daughter share views on many issues, according to acquaintances, their public personas stand on opposite sides of the debate over the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
Related Posts Brimful of Amrit; Indian PM’s daughter says Bush personally authorized torture; Indian PM’s daughter works for the ACLU; President Singh
fofatlal on February 23, 2006 09:48 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
¤ Vital Perspective said: Bush Preps for South Asia Visit with Pakistani Media
fofatlal bhai,
"since Richard Nixon traveled there.
I do not think Richard Nixon visited India.
Fared Zakaria is smoking ganja if he is comparing the upcoming visit to Great Wall/ Ping-Pong diplomacy.
This is all too laloo panjoo.
Someone please kick that moron-by-installation Bob Costas out and move the Torino crap to another channel. We have already missed an SNL skit of Cheney going tora-bora on a lawyer's ass. Are we gonna miss Bush's India visit too? I desperately need reports of Bush's India visit on Conan O'Brien's "moving lips" skit, Leno's monologues followed by a grand finale on SNL.
Kush bhai:
since Richard Nixon traveled there.I do not think Richard Nixon visited India.
What are you talking about? Zakaria never says that in his article, and I never say that in the post.
Yes, yes, but what about coverage of Will Smith's visit to India? (CTM? Ash? Bollywood? check check check)
Yes, yes, but what about coverage of Will Smith's visit to India?
Fofatlal ji,
I must be smoking ganja and therefore, lack of clarity. My apologies. They were two points:
1. Mathew Cooper said, "..first by a Republican president in 35 years, since Richard Nixon traveled there.". I thought Mathew Cooper ap ka bhai ha (he is your bro).
2. I was addressing Fared Saheb going hyperbole for the upcoming Bush's visit. You wouldn't do that, I know.
My bad. All this is laloo panjoo. I think we should be concerned how Delhi socialites will party with Bush's daughters. Will participate in Holi celebrations? Are they accompanying? Fofatlal ji, some research needed.
caption for lovely gold-toned Taj and Dubya photo: I wonder if I can put a rollercoaster around that big domey thing... get some guys to sell turkey legs and cotton candy... tshirts... god I'm a genius.
I'm getting increasingly worried about Fareed Zakaria's sanity. Did Dick Cheney shoot him too and convert him to the neo-con cause?
Well, at least Zakaria points out some valid points of concern:
But India has many more ideologues, who are fighting against its forward-looking prime minister, Manmohan Singh. First there is the Foreign Service bureaucracy, which seems stuck in the 1950susing stale concepts like nonalignment, colonialism and Third World solidarity. (No, this is not a joke, they really do think this way.)... Then there are India's communists, who are in some ways stuck in the 1850s, when Karl Marx was writing his tracts on class conflict, for whom reflexive anti-Americanism is still a guiding principle.
The Economist article is the usual sort of muddled blather I've come to expect from the Economist. The non-proliferation treaty is a holy grail that thou shan't mess with but (GASP!) Dubya "was driving a coach and horses through the treaty in order to suit his own strategic ends" (that would be those that have nothing to do with America's strategic ends). Meanwhile, relations with Pakistan, that paragon of nuclear non-proliferation, must not be damaged because it's of "greater strategic significance." Well, is this about real-politik or not?
I'm getting increasingly worried about Fareed Zakaria's sanity.
Why? What was problematic about Zakaria's piece?
caption for lovely gold-toned Taj and Dubya photo: I wonder if I can put a rollercoaster around that big domey thing... get some guys to sell turkey legs and cotton candy... tshirts... god I'm a genius.
alternative caption -- "Bush and Fofatlal to Manish: Drop Dead"
oops, left this out:
;)
Yes hammer sickel, glad to know your widening your area of interest. So Zakaria's mentioned commies being a nuisance. I think they're a nuisance. Bush thinks they're a nuisance in general. So did McCarthy. Is it really that commendable a point to bring up? It's like commending someone for saying Mugabe's a bit troublesome.
I'm with Sunny, Fareed's gone a bit crackers recently. I've been unimpressed with his international perspective as of late.
OK, heading to the land of the Mutiny now, then onward bound. Don't miss me too much campers and I'll catch you..whenever I catch you. Big love from the BB.
Nixon went to india when he was VP.
Indian relations with US were best under ike, contrary to what most indians think.
sounds strange but check out the facts on everything(includings Ikes attitude on if india decides to go nuclear, something very different
than even clinton.)
and Indian relations with US were worst under nixon india.
Ike is the only president who travelled in india in an caddillac convertible with an entrrouge of 3.
this feat no politico can ever repeat.
It is surprising that the relations making a U turn under Nixon.
"Peanut Butter Jelly time" would get a whole different meaning with this visit.
Peanut Butter Jelly.. Peanut Butter Jelly... Peanut Butter Jelly...
Is it really that commendable a point to bring upYes. Especially, when I see that Indian communists get good warmth from American ultra-left.
Fareed's gone a bit crackers recentlyI agree that Fareed may just be hyping up and PRing for Bush administration by describing the issue as "real deal", "good for all" etc. But in the end, thats what everyone wants.. progress!
Indian relations with US were best under ike, contrary to what most indians think.
I honestly have thought about this, anyone with better information or plausible ideas?
I honestly have thought about this, anyone with better information or plausible ideas?
Perhaps, a lot to do was prepping India as a counter to China. China was the red scare, and India was a young democracy in Asia even though with non-aligned ideas, and India-Chinni Bhai Bhai slogans. Over Tibet, India and China had started disagreeing. But US kept quite silent.
It was also the time grants like PL-480 were at their height - IIT (Kanpur) had lot of American aid and interaction (very 60s - just preceeding Eisenhower years), Norman Borlaug's new rice strain, and many new ideas were being experimented.
I once read parts of Senate Committee hearing minutes on India from 50s - In ways, sounded like Fareed's words.
Hey the left page boundary is hitting the browser window here
ie in this page on the bottom i can see Add a commen( 'A' and .5'd' has been snipped)
it makes it hard to type a comment
Hammer and sickle - The commies in India aren't the only ones trading in stale concepts. Having a dig in the USA at commies is like shooting fish in a barrel. Zakaria fails to mention that in a country where local politics is still dependent on who can offer free onions, or free water for irrigation, or is a film star, or is related to your caste - one might say at least the commies are in the 20th century if not the 21st.
Saying that, colonialism is as important to India as the holocaust was to Israel. It defines the country in subtle and overwhelming ways that is quite apprent I'd say. So am I surprised people still refer to it? No. The Indian communists are simply part of a larger malaise called Indian Politics.
Kush:
Thanks for the information. My thoughts were along similar lines, essentially Ike being more comfortable with a former British Colony with well(western) educated leadership, and a Democracy whose consitution draws from French, British, and American values. Mao represented the brutal communist movement and guys who we'd fought against (UN fighting Chinese and DPRK in Korea).
Hey the left page boundary is hitting the browser window here
Which browser?
Which browser?FF 1.5 win XP But i think that was more of windows screwing things. (i had changed my refresh rate on my vid card) I restarted another instance of browser and its working ok.
Perhaps, a lot to do was prepping India as a counter to China. China was the red scare, and India was a young democracy in Asia even though with non-aligned ideas, and India-Chinni Bhai Bhai slogans. Over Tibet, India and China had started disagreeing. But US kept quite silent.Not quite true!. India had initaly opposed chinese takeover of tibet, including raising the issue at UN but later they silenced themselves Nehru and Krishna Mennon would muffle any one who raised the tibet issue in india. Even when dalai lama came to india as a refugee Nehru told him not to raise this issue in UN. Hindi chini bhai bhai nonsense was only said in india(no equivalent chinese slogan even exists). This was the time Nehru was trying to get the UN to give a security council seat to china. US offered to give india a seat and pandit ji in his infinite wisdom gave that away Ayyub Khan had offered him an alliance against chinese after chinese had marched into tibet and xinkiang, and his reply was "against who?"
It was also the time grants like PL-480 were at their height - IIT (Kanpur) had lot of American aid and interaction (very 60s - just preceeding Eisenhower years), Norman Borlaug's new rice strain, and many new ideas were being experimented.Ikes term ended in 61.... But that was one of the reason. Also the personalities of people involved is a factor. Ike was a different kind of fella. and the nature of assistance he was giving not only to india but every one else was b/c he thought that creating a scientific base independent of politics is the right thing. (granted that never happens fully)
I once read parts of Senate Committee hearing minutes on India from 50s - In ways, sounded like Fareed's words.do u have the link....
GGK,
I agree.
PPS: Correction: preceeding, i meant succeeding. I wasn't fully awake when I wrote.
I think China jingoism, its involvement in Korea, Vietnam and its closeness to USSR (they did have a nasty breakup) was playing in India's favor with respect to Ike.
India's stance on tibet was complicated. They showed courage sometimes, but then they knew their limitations too. US stance was quite complicated too, pre-Richard Gere days.
I'll have to look it up on Senate hearing transcripts. I never saved the link. They had interesting take on India.
Do have access to TIme magazine archives, when India was cover story and it's realtionship vis-a-vis China was important. They give an interesting time window.
As I think about it, we seriously need an icon for crap. Crap is so standard and pedestrian that there is an urgent need to express this "crappy" feeling we feel when we discuss TOI figuratively. I love the hot and steamy pile of crap image out there. A picture is worth a thousand words. Nothing says it sucks better than a steaming pile of crap. The current set of responses would have reflected piles and piles of crap.
These would also be useful to rate movies. We need to introduce this steaming crap icon in addition to the stars. Beyond 1/2 star, the next lowest is half a pile of crap, one pile of crap, 2 piles of crap, 3 piles of crap etc., a scale in the negative if you know what I mean.
From Talk of the Nation a few days ago:
Once again, Stephen Cohen shows himself to be knowledgable on facts, but bereft of insight.
> US stance was quite complicated too, pre-Richard Gere days.
And it's about to get more complicated.. but in a good way. Richard Gere is on the trip with Bush this time. In support of Bush's Asia AIDS policies..
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Health/story?id=1664206
India is also the cover story for the current Newsweek
Padme Lakshmi is on the cover. You wonder if Zakaria had a say on the cover photo - "I'm telling you - no more Taj Mahal. I've got an idea to have this issue fly off the newsstands." Not that I disagree with this line of reasoning.
Isn't Bush visiting Pakistan too? So how come all the media articles seem to be focussed on his trip to India?
The next issue of The Economist includes responses to their cover story two weeks ago on Bush's trip to India.
That first letter seems particularly well-written, almost as if he had to hone his arguing skills in head to head forms like Sepiamutiny.
