|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << March15, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Rebecca,Ram Narain,Sukla Sen,CR Bijoy posts |
March19, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Barkha's article,Pak news,Religious amity... >> |
|
[1] From: yogi sikand <ysikand@yahoo.com> Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 Subject: Taj Hashmi--Popular Islam and Misogyny: A Case Study of Popular Islam and Misogyny: A Case Study of Bangladesh* Taj Hashmi History Department Simon Fraser University, Canada Email: taj_hashmi@hotmail.com Since misogyny is as old as civilization and as common as flu or chicken pox everywhere in the East and West ??“ among rich and poor, rural and urban areas ??“ there is no reason to portray it as a pre-modern, pre-capitalist syndrome. Entire message at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/messages ------------------------ [2] From: rkurian@bgl.vsnl.net.in Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 Subject: NNuclear Power and the Mirage of Energy Security.. Date:16/03/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/03/16/stories/2006031601611000.htm Opinion - Leader Page Articles Nuclear power and the mirage of energy security Sudha Mahalingam ----------------------- [3] From: "Ram Narayanan" <ramn_one@adelphia.net> Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 Subject: Chairman AEC Anil Kakodkar: INTERVIEW http://www.hindu.com/2006/03/17/stories/2006031701821100.htm THE HINDU, MARCH 17, 2006 "Reactors put under safeguards should get fuel from the international market" T.S. Subramanian ---------------- [4] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 Subject: Cleaning Up Democracy of Its Soul! The Telegraph March 16, 2006 CLEANING UP DEMOCRACY - Bengal's zeal to sanitize its public political arena by Partha Chatterjee The author is director and professor of political science, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/messages ------------------ [5] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 Subject: Re: Fwd: Immanuel Wallerstein's Commentary No. 181 Dear Prof. Krishnayya, Thanks a lot. This is a rather brief but fairly comprehensive, insightful and accurate account of the changes in Indo-US relationship over the years. The relationship, to my mind, is no way tension-free. If the US Congress demands that India must cap its fissile material production as the precondition to the 'deal', this, even though highly desirable, the present UPA government will be unable to accept. At the same time if the US continues to oppose supply of nuclear fuel to India from Russia before the 'deal' is finalised in order to ensure that the Indian stake in the 'deal' remains high, the present bonhomie will surely be undermined even if it doesn't completely evaporate. This article also in a way effectively brings out the severe limitations of the opposition to the 'deal' from within India in terms of "national interest/sovereignty" paradigm. The deal has to be opposed because it is a frontal assault on the nuclear non-proliferation order and the quest for global nuclear disarmament - not because it undermines India's "nuclear sovereignty" i.e. its freedom to go merrily ahead with production of the weapons of deliberate mass murder. Thanks again. Warm regards, Sukla Jaswant Krishnayya <jkrishnayya@yahoo.com> wrote:This is a very realistic projection of the real-world likely results of the Indo-US nuclear "agreement". Unless, of course, the Russians back out. jgk === Becky Dunlop <dunlop@binghamton.edu> wrote: Date:Wed, 15 Mar 2006 From: Becky Dunlop <dunlop@binghamton.edu> Subject: Immanuel Wallerstein's Commentary No. 181 To: COMMENT@LISTSERV.BINGHAMTON.EDU Commentary No. 181, Mar. 15, 2006 The United States and India: New Best Friends? George W. Bush has gone to India and concluded an agreement which many analysts are hailing as historic and a turning-point in the geopolitics of the world-system. On the face of it, this trip (which some have even compared to Nixon's meeting with Mao in Beijing) does seem to mark a major shift in attitudes by both countries. But perhaps there is less there than appears to be on the surface. In the post-1945 world-system, India was in many ways a very disturbing element from the point of view of the United States. It was the original "non-aligned" power in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. And the United States did not appreciate the consistent, forthright way the Indians argued their case. The United States considered India's non-alignment a de facto favoring of the Soviet Union, and after 1948 began to favor Pakistan in order to create difficulties for India. The Indian National Congress was a national liberation movement, in many ways the model for movements throughout Asia and Africa. The policies of the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and of his immediate successors, combined non-alignment, active support for anticolonial movements everywhere, and a variant of social-democracy internally. India also was interested in strengthening its military capacity. Since the United Statees wouldn't help its military ambitions, India bought arms and airplanes from the Soviet Union, which was a further irritant to the United States. The Indian National Congress, however, underwent the same kind of disabling disillusionments that similar movements elsewhere suffered in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s, Congress had lost its sheen, and a rightwing, Hindu supremacist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), governed India from 1996 to 2004. Congress, in the post-Cold War era, no longer proclaimed nonalignment nor anticolonial solidarity nor much that resembled social-democracy. In the last five years, there have been important changes in both countries. On the one hand, India's economic development has made her a major locus of outsourcing for U.S. informatics. Indians in the United States who have made considerable money in informatics and other professions have maintained their ties with India, and being a conservative group politically, have urged upon the Indian government closer ties with the United States. On the other hand, the United States has become quite isolated politically because of the policies of the Bush regime. India is now one of the very few countries where polls report a majority having favorable views of the United States. This is not to say that there is no longer a very large group with unfavorable views, but India has been moving in the opposite direction from the United States's traditional allies like western Europe or South Korea. All this provides the background for the trip, the culmination of negotiations between India and the United States concerning U.S. assistance to India's nuclear program. India was one of only three countries that had refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty. The other two were Pakistan and Israel. All three countries have developed nuclear weapons. Up to now, the official U.S. position had been strong disapproval of India's nuclear program and, when India exploded bombs in 1998, the United States curbed the export of nuclear technology to India. The United States has now reversed its position. By this agreement, the United States agreed to sell both nuclear fuel and technology to India, despite the fact that India still will not sign the non-proliferation treaty. To be sure, the assistance will only be for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and provides for inspections, but only of plants engaged in developing peaceful uses. And India will decide which plants are for peaceful uses and which for military uses. Bush has hailed the agreement as the beginning of a "strategic partnership." What India gets out of this agreement is very obvious. They get needed technical assistance that allows them to speed up their nuclear program. And they get de facto recognition as being a legitimate nuclear power, more or less in the same category as the five permanent members of the Security Council. To get this, they have given up almost nothing. What the United States gets out of this agreement is less obvious. It is said that the United States wants to build up India as a counterweight to China's potential military and political strength in Asia. Perhaps. And the United States gets a friendly nod from a major power, something in very short supply these years. But the treaty has immediately drawn much fire. Within India, all those who are against the geopolitical tilt towards the United States are unhappy, and this includes coalition partners of Congress in the legislature. And within the United States it has drawn fire from the whole political spectrum on the grounds that it liquidates de facto the non-proliferation treaty. Furthermore, of course, it undoes the whole basis of the arguments concerning Iran, since Iran is really asking for the same thing India has gotten. And of course, Pakistan is very unhappy, since Bush made it clear right away that the United States was not thinking of a similar arrangement with Pakistan. The real question is what will be the result of all of this. Critics in the U.S. Congress are already poised to impose conditions for approval of the treaty. And it is quite likely that, if they prevail (which is probable), India will reject the conditions. If that happens, the warmer feelings of the Indian government for the United States will likely vanish, but at the same time the relations between the United States and Pakistan, already strained, will have deteriorated further. India will emerge ahead in any case. Russia has already offered to sell nuclear fuel to India, something that the United States has in the past sought to prevent. But the United States no longer has any good argument. Furthermore, its weak case against Iran is now considerably undermined. And the North Korean government is no doubt chortling. The bottom line of the historic breakthrough -- many pluses for India, and an additional setback for U.S. diplomacy. Far from a strategic partnership, the treaty distributes further grains abrading the U.S. geopolitical position. by Immanuel Wallerstein [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.] Prof J G Krishnayya, Director, Systems Research Institute, 17-A Gultekdi, Pune 411037, INDIA Phone +91-20-2426-0323 e-mail: geoconcept@vsnl.com (For an affectionate, but truthful, picture of India, log into: http://www.goodnewsindia.com) |
|
| << March15, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Rebecca,Ram Narain,Sukla Sen,CR Bijoy posts |
March19, 2006 - [India Thinkers Net]Barkha's article,Pak news,Religious amity... >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |