[Gengis Khan]

To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.

 

I would agree with Do not dub me shapka broham's assessment of  Indira Gandhi being a Communist-affiliated dictator who trampled over human rights of ordinary citizens (and not just Sikhs alone) and made use of brute force to take on her opposition. Dictator or not the fact remains that it was Indians who voted her into power and it was Indians who voted her out despite her attempt to clamp an unconstitutional "emergency" in 1974. One can have an endless debates on merits and demerits of her policies now that she is dead and times have changed. Its easy to be judgmental about the actions of a leader when they are long gone and you have nothing to do with his/her country. People have not spared Mahatma Gandhi I doubt they will spare Indira Gandhi, but even then people in India remember Indira Gandhi as a leader who stood up to American and Chinese hegemony and boldly went ahead against world opinion to give the Bengalis what was rightfully theirs. Those were no doubt difficult times for India when we were grappling an economic crisis spawned by drought, crop failures and starvation even as waves of refugees were pouring into India from neighboring East Pakistan. That was the time when "self-appointed crusaders of freedom and Democracy" chose to look the other way even as millions of people were slaughtered in East Pakistan. Ask me who would I want as the leader should similar situation arrive again. My answer would definitely be Indra Gandhi despite her numerous faults and inadequacies. Millions of Bengalies (myself included) would thank her for having the courage for doing the right thing at a time when ordinary Bengali lives were less important than world politics and cold war chess moves .

 

Somehow, the goon squads of Moqtader al-Sadr were able to be successfully neutralized without American marines-or Iraqi Defense Forces-physically storming the Imam Ali Shrine.

The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.

Comparing one situation with another is outright idiocy. Please dont get me started on American human rights abuse in Iraq or that of Isreali army in Palestine. One or two incidents that ended well means nothing.

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

Definitely not. I have to disagree with you there. It is because of her strong-willed leadership that Bangladesh exists and Kashmir is still with us. It was because of her that India today is able to protect herself with military might and do not have to rely on "passive resistance". And it was she who gave India her first nuclear test notwithstanding world opinion going against her. And it she who chose not to negotiate with terrorists and paid the price for that with her life but she stands vindicated in sofar as her stand against terrorism is concerned. India has learned a hard lesson that you cannot have dialog or negotiation with terrorists. Her "socialist" policies may not always be the correct choice for India but nevertheless in difficult times SHE is the leader that I would like to have for India.

Somehow, the goon squads of Moqtader al-Sadr were able to be successfully neutralized without American marines-or Iraqi Defense Forces-physically storming the Imam Ali Shrine.

The IDF were able to force the surrender of Palestinian terrorists who had taken the Church of the Nativity hostage, without adding to the destruction already inflicted by the Fatah gangsters who had seized control of it.

Comparing one situation with another is outright idiocy. Please dont get me started on American human rights abuse in Iraq or that of Isreali army in Palestine. One or two incidents that ended well means nothing.

The seminal event of Indira Gandhi's domestic agenda was not a display of strong-willed leadership, so much as it was a confirmation of the fact that her primary method of negotiation was the application of brute force.

Definitely not. I have to disagree with you there. It is because of her strong-willed leadership that Bangladesh exists and Kashmir is still with us. It was because of her that India today is able to protect herself with military might and do not have to rely on "passive resistance". And it was she who gave India her first nuclear test notwithstanding world opinion going against her. And it she who chose not to negotiate with terrorists and paid the price for that with her life but she stands vindicated in sofar as her stand against terrorism is concerned. India has learned a hard lesson that you cannot have dialog or negotiation with terrorists. Her "socialist" policies may not always be the correct choice for India but nevertheless in difficult times SHE is the leader that I would like to have for India.

[risk]

So you think what America is doing in Iraq is abusive? You think what Israel does on the strategic West Bank, in Gaza where the Egyptians have rolled through to grasp at their throats, and Jerusalem - which is their own traditional capital city, is inhumane?

Do tell us more. We'd love to hear all about it.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I still can't accept the libel thrown at the Nixon administration, especially considering the source, which is, more often than not, Hitchens/Chomsky devotees intent on slandering American policies, no matter how well-intentioned, crafted during this turbulent historical epoch.

It's the same type of dogma that is invoked in the cases of Chile, E. Timor and a hundred other instances, whenever the left wants to denigrate the foreign policy of the Nixon administration.

From my perspective, accusing the United States and Israel, respectively, of "human rights abuse", without placing their military actions within their proper context, is idiocy.

It is the equivalent of harping on every single case of excessive force used in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without elaborating upon the historical and political forces, both pre and post-1989, which occasioned those actions.

I still stand by my earlier statement, with regard to Indira's popularity.

Namely, that a certain percentage of Indians supported her administration-because of their favorable position within the political construct created by the Congress Party-while a huge plurality, which encompassed everyone from Muslims, to persecuted Christians and Sikhs, to nationalist Hindus, despised her.

Again, if she enjoyed such widespread, populist support, why did two of her family's closest, most trusted confidants-and putative bodyguards-murder her in cold blood?

-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)