Will India Be A New Ally?

[ex_banana-eater]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG07Df02.html

With the positive opinion of the US in India, it looks like India and the US may grow closer. India seems to be becoming similar to the other "Anglosphere" countries that were ruled by Britain, from the looks of this article.

[Al Kufr]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG07Df02.html

With the positive opinion of the US in India, it looks like India and the US may grow closer. India seems to be becoming similar to the other "Anglosphere" countries that were ruled by Britain, from the looks of this article.

I hope so, even though there was a report a while ago of India conductuing military operations with China. So we should watch our for that realationship developing even further.

[The Wrath]

I can see us growing closer with India if, for no other reason, its problem with Islamic terrorism is the Kashmir region. All of the other countries with Islamic terror problems are, themselves, Islamic.

[the_plant_doctor]

The link only examines one side of the issue. Equally important is - do American people have a tolerably positive view of India? I doubt it. Many are misguided and have unjustifiably negative view of India based on prejudiced news reporting, outdated notions of India/Hinduism and a generally xenophobic attitude that has built up after Sep 11 even though India has always been a target of the same terrorists.

The American people need to wake up and look at India, its culture and dominant religion with an open mind. India is one of the world's oldest civilizations. Dig beneath the outer crust of corruption, poverty & ignorance, and you find a heritage of gold.

[TomL]

How exactly does a "heritage" further man's life? How does being and old civilization make the ideas of its culture more correct than a newer one? How does the objective truth about a topic have two sides? Everything I've read in the press has suggested to me that India IS our ally, or at the very least, the enemy of our enemies.

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff -- it boggles the mind.

[the_plant_doctor]

Tom,

I agree totally that India is (should be) our ally. But going beyond a mere political/military standpoint, no alliance is going to work unless the PEOPLE of both nations favor it. For example, look at Britain & Australia. We share a common culture with them. Although we DO NOT share a common culture with India, we are both pluralistic & tolerant; therefore we can agree to disagree and move on instead of miffing them with our irrelevant questions of bride-burning or caste systems. It's as offensive to them as someone interrogating us about race relations in the 1950's. With all their positive attitudes about us, the least we could do is reciprocate it. I'm sure you and I do, but the average Joe doesn't. The average Joe represents much of our voter strength.

My suggestions? I think we should present a more balanced (neutral, not negative) view of India to our countrymen in our schools, media and general life.

[TomL]

But going beyond a mere political/military standpoint, no alliance is going to work unless the PEOPLE of both nations favor it.

Why not? An alliance is formed only in a particular context. We may be military allies with a country where we have no need of economic trade, for example. A military alliance does not necessarily require an economic alliance... or vice versa (although there are definitely reasons to defend an econmic ally militarily, it isn't necessarily in our best interest).

For example, look at Britain & Australia. We share a common culture with them.

No, we don't. Our cultures are closer than India, but they are not the same.

Although we DO NOT share a common culture with India, we are both pluralistic & tolerant; therefore we can agree to disagree and move on instead of miffing them with our irrelevant questions of bride-burning or caste systems.

I don't know about you, but I'm not very tolerant of people who want to blow me up, take my property by force, or want to me accept that wrong ideas are not wrong, "different". While there are plenty of Americans who are, they are wrong to be tolerant. Tolerance is a vice, not a virtue. But, I agree that their culture is largely irrelevant to a potential military alliance. The phrase "agree to disagree" means "let's just evade our moral differences and be buddies anyway". How about NO? If we make some sort of alliance with India beyond the context of the military, the context dropped will come back around and stab us in the ass. Just ask McDonald's about that.

My suggestions? I think we should present a more balanced (neutral, not negative) view of India to our countrymen in our schools, media and general life.

"Balance" and "neutral" are the terms used by those who do not acknowledge objective truth. The truth does not require that it be balanced with non-truth, or "neutraled" by offering a lie.

[unskinned]

The link only examines one side of the issue. Equally important is - do American people have a tolerably positive view of India? I doubt it. Many are misguided and have unjustifiably negative view of India based on prejudiced news reporting, outdated notions of India/Hinduism and a generally xenophobic attitude that has built up after Sep 11 even though India has always been a target of the same terrorists.

The American people need to wake up and look at India, its culture and dominant religion with an open mind. India is one of the world's oldest civilizations. Dig beneath the outer crust of corruption, poverty & ignorance, and you find a heritage of gold.

Sounds interesting. There is such a thing as radical Hinduism. Actually I think Americans need to learn more about radical Hinduism. That sort of goes along with what you're saying and it sort of doesn't too. I think most americans are not as informed about the negatives of right wing Hinduism and also, as you point out, many things about India in general. There were very interesting articles in time and Newsweek from around the time of the nuclear tests if anyone is interested in a breif introduction.

[Rearden_Steel]

I hope stronger ties between India and the US do develop. There needs to be a balance of power with the Chinese in the Pacific. India is the only country capable of doing this. Also, India is and will be a valuable trade partner.

[The Guru Kid]

I don't know about you, but I'm not very tolerant of people who want to blow me up, take my property by force, or want to me accept that wrong ideas are not wrong, "different".  While there are plenty of Americans who are, they are wrong to be tolerant.  Tolerance is a vice, not a virtue.  But, I agree that their culture is largely irrelevant to a potential military alliance.  The phrase "agree to disagree" means "let's just evade our moral differences and be buddies anyway".  How about NO?  If we make some sort of alliance with India beyond the context of the military, the context dropped will come back around and stab us in the ass.  Just ask McDonald's about that.

Tolerance is a vice? I hope you mean that we should try to change others' non rational views of the world without initiating force.

As for the US-Indian alliance, it should be built at least on the premise of the war on terror. I still don't understand how we could ally with Pakistan, a non democratic country that breeds terrorists, rather than India.

[softwareNerd]

I still don't understand how we could ally with Pakistan, a non democratic country that breeds terrorists, rather than India.

The current cooperation with Pakistan is for a specific purpose: in the hope that the "strong man" will help -- at least somewhat -- along the border with Afghanistan. Imagine a situation where the Pakistani people throw out Mussharaf and bring in an anti-Islamist secular government that respects individual rights. The U.S. would cheer. However, in the meanwhile, the U.S. is forced to go with the lesser evil.

Today, U.S. cooperation with Pakistan should not be any impediment to its relationship with India, unless India wants to make it so.

As for past decades, it is India that chose to go socialist and seek military help from the Russians rather than from the U.S. In that era, the U.S. aid to Pakistan was done as an anti-Russian counter balance.

[DavidOdden]

Tolerance is a vice? I hope you mean that we should try to change others' non rational views of the world without initiating force.

That's true, but tolerance is still a vice. Tolerance is the rejection of moral evaluation of other people's vices, an unwillingness to call evil by its proper name. The reason for being tolerant is that the tolerant person fails to recognise that moral evaluation has a basis in reality, so that the condemnation of murder would be purely personal and subjective, and not objective. Tolerance means holding that it is culturally acceptable to murder, or steal, and that is is not important or even possible to distinguish proper actions by others from improper actions.

[The Guru Kid]

The current cooperation with Pakistan is for a specific purpose: in the hope that the "strong man" will help -- at least somewhat -- along the border with Afghanistan. Imagine a situation where the Pakistani people throw out Mussharaf and bring in an anti-Islamist secular government that respects individual rights. The U.S. would cheer. However, in the meanwhile, the U.S. is forced to go with the lesser evil.

Today, U.S. cooperation with Pakistan should not be any impediment to its relationship with India, unless India wants to make it so.

As for past decades, it is India that chose to go socialist and seek military help from the Russians rather than from the U.S. In that era, the U.S. aid to Pakistan was done as an anti-Russian counter balance.

That was a big mistake on India's part. Although, like you pointed out, India probably will make a deal out of US cooperation--especially if it's a military cooperation--with both India and Pakistan.

That's true, but tolerance is still a vice. Tolerance is the rejection of moral evaluation of other people's vices, an unwillingness to call evil by its proper name. The reason for being tolerant is that the tolerant person fails to recognise that moral evaluation has a basis in reality, so that the condemnation of murder would be purely personal and subjective, and not objective. Tolerance means holding that it is culturally acceptable to murder, or steal, and that is is not important or even possible to distinguish proper actions by others from improper actions.

DavidOdden

I had the notion that tolerance meant, clench your fist and grind your teeth while irrational people preached their false and sometimes utterly evil ideas. Then go up and preach rationality.

Edited July 16, 2005 by The Guru Kid

[DavidOdden]

I had the notion that tolerance meant, clench your fist and grind your teeth while irrational people preached their false and sometimes utterly evil ideas. Then go up and preach rationality.

I see -- the right word eludes me at the moment. Something like "patience" or "stoicism".

[the_plant_doctor]

How are we to judge what is rational and what is not? The missionary spirit needs to be abandoned because it only fosters anger in those who are quite content in their beliefs and have no need for interference. The missionary spirit is also flawed because we set out with preconcieved notions which may be totally flawed to begin with.

[DavidOdden]

How are we to judge what is rational and what is not?

What? Are you serious?

[ex_banana-eater]

How are we to judge what is rational and what is not?

Using the correct philosophy and knowledge of the facts.

[manavmehta]

I agree totally that India is (should be) our ally. But going beyond a mere political/military standpoint, no alliance is going to work unless the PEOPLE of both nations favor it. For example, look at Britain & Australia. We share a common culture with them. Although we DO NOT share a common culture with India, we are both pluralistic & tolerant; therefore we can agree to disagree and move on instead of miffing them with our irrelevant questions of bride-burning or caste systems. It's as offensive to them as someone interrogating us about race relations in the 1950's.

Sometimes it is better to offend people than to tolerate their evil practices. Bride burning, the caste system, child marriages, female infanticide - these were all evils of the old India which no one should ever have tolerated. Today, if they still exist, they are not tolerated and are probably relegated to the most primitive villages of the country where the people refuse to integrate themselves with modern times. They were continued only because they were tolerated by society. They were objectively evil practices - they were evil regardless of whether people tolerated them or not.

In the same vein, America's race prejudices were evil regardless of whether society tolerated it or not, and regardless of whether white supremacists are offended when someone pronounces moral judgement on them.

You seem to belong to the primacy of consciousness school of metaphysics - you seem to think that good and evil are not objectively determined by reality but by whether people consider them to be good or evil.

[manavmehta]

How are we to judge what is rational and what is not? The missionary spirit needs to be abandoned because it only fosters anger in those who are quite content in their beliefs and have no need for interference. The missionary spirit is also flawed because we set out with preconcieved notions which may be totally flawed to begin with.

Nobody is advocating that America should interfere with other cultures and try to change them. But minding your own business is different from tolerating the objectively evil practices of other cultures. We cannot convert those who do not want to be converted, but that does not obligate us to tolerate them.

[scottkursk]

Nobody is advocating that America should interfere with other cultures and try to change them. But minding your own business is different from tolerating the objectively evil practices of other cultures. We cannot convert those who do not want to be converted, but that does not obligate us to tolerate them.

I work in the brokerage industry and am the only non-Desi in the office. Jokingly, my nick name is Ferenghi, and yes I know what it means outside of the context of Star Trek. But I'm a pasty faced bad toothed Englishman that can't connect a cricket bat with anything resembling a ball so I've got thick skin and a stiff upper lip by genetic inheritance even if we did emigrate 6oo years ago.

I've lamented on other threads about the lack of Objectivist thought in the financial markets industry much less business in general. But I've traded copies of the Gita with coworkers for Atlas Shrugged with the explicit agreement that we both read with intent of understanding where each of us come from so to speak. So far, I think I've won. Ha ha.

[the tortured one]

I think that the new guys might still be unaware of the extents of Objectivist tolerance. Allow me to extrapolate.

when people hear there is no tolerance, they assume there is intolerance. In other words, images of Neo-Nazis and KKK members pop up in the mind. Such blind hatred is certainly not what Objectivism is about. In fact going by common definitions, Objectivists would be considered the most tolerant people on the planet, since they judge a person by their productive worth, not their religion, race, or other insignigicancies.

but toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, it is the counterfeit of it. One espouses evil, the other allows it. Toleration calls for the abandonment of Objective ethics, since it preaches that one must respect another, regardless of how evil they are. Toleration is sending Adolf Hitler a Valentine's card, sending cookies to Osama Bin Laden, and fan mail to Charlie Manson.

so when an Objectivist says he will not be tolerant, he is not saying that he hates anyone that is not like him (this is not xenophobia) he is saying that he refuses to violate his own code of ethics for the actions of others, particularly when those actions are in violation of his own moral code.

As for India, it is a perfect example of how a democracy alone does not create prosperity. John Stossel's "greed" tv show demonstrated this. However, in recent years the grip of socialism on India has lessened, and the slight move towards Capitalism shows.

as for Pakistan, while I have no love for Mussharaf, but he is more accepting of America than most, because Al Queida has attempted to take his life on three separate occasions, and is willing to work with America, and we oblige. I mean, a slightly amicable dicator can be stalled, we know that tommorow Mussharaf will not sell nukes to Al Queida, we can deal with him as we see fit. I shudder to think what would happen if Pakistan, a Nuklear nation, falls under Al Queida jurisdiction while our military is still spread out over Iraq and Afganistan.

[The Wrath]

I shudder to think what would happen if Pakistan, a Nuklear nation, falls under Al Queida jurisdiction while our military is still spread out over Iraq and Afganistan.

Why did you have to say that?

[softwareNerd]

ABC News had this story about India online, if anyone wants some visuals.