General Discussion

Just another site

Archive for June 2010

‘Chindia’ or IndiaChina/ChinaIndia?

leave a comment »

I have deliberately made the two names ‘India’, and ‘China’ into one word, instead of using the term coined by Mr Jairam Ramesh, called ‘Chindia’ , which though witty, scarcely does any service to either ‘India’ or ‘China’. This post is in response to the book produced by the India International Center, and published by Harper Collins.

 I was for long a person, who looked at the diplomat/statesman Krishna Menon, with circumspection, before I spoke about him. This is due to the image in my mind, of a mercurial statesman, similar to the Japanese politician Matsuoka, who was very prominent in the public perception of  the people of Japan, at one point of time, in their history. I must admit, that my perception was probably wrong. Mr Krishna Menon is also the first statesman in India, whom I have understood to have stated in terms very easy to understand, that those who govern India, do so, not secure in the conviction, that they are completely right. This is a very endearing admission. The powers that be, who govern India, should communicate this line of belief of theirs, to the population. Instead, they act in a manner, which is not favorable to their own interests, by intimating to the public of India, that all the perceived mis-management that we see in India, is a cause of their deliberate, confident will. Perhaps, the politician does not know, whether he/she is right, at all, in the decisions that he/she takes. The perception that one has of the Indian politician, and those who belong to the Indian Civil Services, is that these people are secure in the conviction, that they have no job to do. Perhaps, I have over-stated the case.

The People’s Republic of China, by what was exhibited in Mr Menon’s writing, in the book, take themselves extremely seriously, and do not require to entertain thoughts about whether they are right or wrong. I am perhaps, again overstating the case. The Chinese today, do not seem like that at all. The Chinese, during the war with India, were not concerned with public perception in the United States, USSR, and other nations. Perhaps, they saw themselves, as simply a nation, who did not need to explain to themselves, or to others, their opinions and actions, in the realm of domestic affairs, or foreign affairs. This is the reason, why they antagonised world opinion during the Cold War. I believe, that they made themselves truly a non-aligned nation, during the cold war. By engaging the world community, because the nation of the People’s Republic of China wants to perceive herself as being a nation which is engaging a part of the world community, actively, on one hand, and engaging another part of the world community passively, on the other, she is loosing, perhaps, the ease of conscience, which she exhibited before.

 Perhaps, this is the result, of consciously striving for an identity of ones choice, among many others, after the end of a period. Under Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist Party, strove to be a world power, without engaging other powers. Mao Tse-Tung was preoccupied with the internal affairs of China, and did not try to engage the international community of nations, vigorously. He tried to make China take the path to greatness, in comparison to other leading nations, but without the need to engage these other nations, unless there was a motive, in his interests to do so, so as to influence the internal workings of China. Perhaps, his antagonism towards the U S S R, and India, was for the benefit of the  perception of the Chinese citizen, who influenced the internal state of the Chinese nation. I believe, that the Cultural Revolution, was totally a result of this outlook.

 What was the cause of the antagonism between the nations of India, and China, when in ancient times, the two nations were one, in a shared culture? Perhaps, Mao Tse-Tung, equated the diplomatic dealings of India, along with those of all the nations who found him unfriendly, to be opportunistic, and in the long term, pernicious to the affairs of China. Perhaps, he remembered the colonial past of China, and the corresponding exploitation of China, and found India’s good relations with her former colonial ruler unsual, and to be wary of. 

 I believe, that India, and China, have figured out, that there is no danger to the soveriegnty of either nation, on the part of either nation, or on the part of military action by any other nation. Also, India and China have a policy of interaction, today, which shows consideration towards, each other.  Both are equally considerate, while interacting with each other. This can only foster peace, between the two nations.

Written by discussionofviews

June 4, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Posted in Uncategorized


leave a comment »

 Liberalism is indeed a significant ideal, but are we, as human beings, equipped to follow any ideal, let alone liberalism? The history of liberalism, has seen the ideals of liberalism, changed many times. At one time, liberalism was followed in one manner. When people took the principles, then, of liberalism in a literal manner, and manipulated the meaning of liberalism, as if the meaning of liberalism was etched in stone, and could be open to interpretation, then conflict arose, between different interests in society. What are the basic tenets of liberalism? What exactly does liberalism mean? This question, cannot be answered, because people have charted the path of liberalism differently, at different times, because those who followed liberalism, differed with others who followed liberalism. Is a person a liberal, by practice, or by inclination, or by any other means? Liberalism never did justice to itself, because people defined liberalism, and hence were un-liberal to themselves, and to their ideal. Liberalism, if I may make the same error of judgment, is to be considerate to others, and to yourself, equally.

 Adam Smith, the great philosopher/economist, made some great and significant contributions to liberal thought, but it was found later, that his thought pertained to the times in which he lived. He mentions that democracy is significant, because it measures the views of the many, to the views of the few, but, today, the few, are not so few in number, and not heeding their voice, is a practice which is injurious to the state of the majority. One cannot heed the voices of many, and not heed the voices of the not so many, because the tables may be turned in a short time in a democracy, and the voices of many, may be misconstrued as the voices of the few. Also, what we see as the voices of the few, may be the voice of the majority, in the future.

 Can we say, that the relative worth of the citizen, to his society, is to be measured by how goods are distributed to him? Will any person agree to this measure of his worth, especially, if he has no, or very few goods and services accruing to him? He may feel, that he should increase his worth to society, in a way, which does justice to him. What is the concept of value, to the individual, and to society? Our government in India, sees the prosperity of our nation, by the number of goods and services produced by our manufacturing units. So, we in India, celebrate in the numbers of our growth rate. I believe, that the numbers are both accurate, and inaccurate. Is the level of poverty really being eradicated at the rate of 8% per annum? Can the poor, who live below the poverty line, be elevated to the level of the middle class? The people who are being elevated to the middle class, are as fortunate as those who belonged to the middle class earlier. Is Indian society really liberal, except to the individual self? There is a disconnect, as to how the individual sees himself, and how he sees others in society. Is the government helpless, in helping those, who cannot help themselves? Perhaps, a meeting of minds has to be brought about. in society. One section of society cannot say that it is liberal, and others are not. The argument sounds like a pious religious man being branded a fundamentalist, because he sees others as irreligious. Surely, the liberal, and the fundamentalist, have the same end as goal, because they act in a similar manner.

Written by discussionofviews

June 1, 2010 at 6:14 am

Posted in Uncategorized