Rahul Gandhi's crisp and spirited response (outside parliament) to BJP attack on his London speeches

[Sukla Sen]

<https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/1637843075262234624>

For a backgrounder, may look up: <https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/nvso2EYyrHk>.

Sukla

[Sukla Sen]

Dear Sati ji,

Sorry, I don't have any.

Btw, I guess the controversy is mainly over his speech in the Chatlam House. Here he had claimed that Indian democracy is a sort of global good -- critical for the health of democracy all over the world -- and lamented the lack acknowledgement on the part of the established democracies of the Indian democracy being eclipsed. In response to a pointed query, he, however, clarified that it's India's internal problem -- to be tackled by Indians themselves -- and it's for the rest of the world to decide what it would do.

The ruling party, by now it has become crystal clear, is hell bent to block any discussion in the parliament of the Modani scam. It's using the speech as a manufactured alibi towards that end.

But, all at the same time, would try to milk it as much as possible to stir up some sort of "nationalist" hysteria as well.

Sukla

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023, 10:09 Satinath Choudhary <sati...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sukla jee & friends,

I have looked via google for a PDF transcript of Rahul Gandhi's speech at Cambridge, but could not find it. Even on the website of INC: https://www.inc.in/rahul-gandhi-speaks,

all I could find was a video link for his full speech, no transcript.

If any of you have a link for the transcript, I would appreciate receiving the same.

-Satinath

======= 

--
Socialist Party (India)
 
Website: spi.org.in.
Facebook: facebook.com/socialistpartyindia
Twitter: twitter.com/spiinfo
Email: socialist...@gmail.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Socialist Party (India)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialist-party-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/socialist-party-india/CACEsOZgRvKP%2BMcxcHtfif5SYNafHtBRchCnek3-v7R-etJi-zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satinath Choudhary]

Dear Sukla jee,

Thanks for your response. 

What I really wanted the full text of Rahul Gandhi’s speech was for his well considered speech with regard to China. He said (or acknowledged) that China wants harmony, or something to that effect. Rahul Gandhi did not delve into border problems with China. 

If I may give my two penny thinking about India-China border problem, it got formulated after I saw a number of videos of Mr. Bhasin on April 17, 2022, in [SP(I)] google group:

Watch "India's Stand on China Border Irrational but Nehru's Handling Was Irresponsible: Avtar Singh Bhasin" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/zaM0C9NunEg

========

I think one must read Avtar Singh Bhasin’s book, “Nehru, Tibet and China,” or at least view this video if one wants to have an objectivity with regard to India-China border situation, and resulting India-China relationship. 

Bhasin sahab has written several books, including “India and Pakistan,” “India in Sri Lanka,” and “India and it’s foreign interests.” I am sure all of them must be very interesting. 

To me, Bhasin sahab appears to be a very objective historian, not swayed by concepts like nationalism, patriotism, loyalty & allegiance to one’s nation. A person, particularly a historian, must be objective and call spade a spade. 

I wonder how he is not mentioned as a great historian. I think if one can rise above concepts like nationalism, patriotism, loyalty to one’s nation, in dealings with other countries, s/he is greatest. 

We need to understand that usually a nation’s government is headed by one individual from a party. That person or party can, and generally does, make decisions in dealings with other countries, particularly neiboring countries, in his or her own interest, then comes the interest of his or her party, and if the decision happens to be in the interest of her/his country, that’s just incidental. 

I think there is a place and time for loyalty to one’s nation. That time is if and when a country is invaded by another merely to get control over our country for the sake of exploitation of its people and other resources. 

At any other time invocation of the said concepts is done purely for the sake of make fool of the masses. Samuel Johnson was so right in his rarely quoted statement: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

I think we should make extra effort to popularize this statement.

-Satinath

========

Someone responded to me:

Comment on Nehru are based on what is known as "Monday morning quarterbacking."

My response:

All of history is Monday morning quarterbacking. Is it not? 

But in the quarterbacking, if the mistakes we made are not shown and highlighted, we will continue to make them. Besides, the game between India and China is not finished yet, nor will it ever be, as long as we are neighbors. It will be finished only if the Himalayan ranges touch the moon or plate tectonics makes India or China drift away from the Eurasian mass. 

I really don’t understand why you are so dismissive of the book Bhasin has written. 

Warmest regards,

-Satinath

=======

Oops! I forgot to give the link to Karan Thaper’s interview of Avatar Singh Bhasin. Here it is:

Watch "India's Stand on China Border Irrational but Nehru's Handling Was Irresponsible: Avtar Singh Bhasin" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/zaM0C9NunEg

============

My friend’s response:

Thanks for the video. My comment was based on reading of the article. The video shows in detail that Mr. Bhasin was personally involved in the foreign office and he had access to all historical documents affecting India China relationship. 

It is sad to feel Pandit Nehru obstinately failed to make correct decisions in this case.

==========

My response:

Here are a couple of more interviews of Mr. Avatar Singh Bhasin, one with regard to his same book: "Nehru, Tibet, and China", the other one with regard to "India and Pakistan".

Both are interesting. In the former, towards the end, Mr. Bhasin repeatedly makes the point of educating the public about various issues. He said that even if a government cannot change policies they inherit without telling the public about the truth and true history. 

I am in total agreement with Mr. Bhasin. Personally, I think there may be some justification in carrying on some kinds of discussions with neighboring countries' governments confidentially. But soon (perhaps 5 years or so) after the discussions are over, no matter whether an agreement was reached or not (truth should be laid bare - I missed typing out this part in my response). This would allow the public to become educated regarding issues, and future negotiations to take place with objectivity, logic, and rational position. But until 2014 most of the archival materials were classified, and not available to the public and researchers. I guess the BJP government for opening ( I meant: opened) the door to classified archival materials, hoping it will bring out skeletons from the Congress government. I wonder if it will open the doors to archival materials of their own ruling period. I have a feeling, they will destroy the same whenever they are driven out of the office. Anyway, here are the links to the said books:

Book talk between Avatar Singh Bhasin and Srinath Raghavan about the book: "Nehru, Tibet, and China" 

https://carnegieindia.org/2021/10/21/book-talk-nehru-tibet-and-china-by-avtar-singh-bhasin-event-7721

Book discussion | India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGlMVJiGK5o

==========

Here I would like to bring to your and other people’s attention my response to one of Dr. Sandeep Pandey Jee’s weekly talk (at that time:

Watch: latest episode of Sandeep Ke Sawal on The Public India 

हर घर तिरंगा अभियान : देश के प्रति प्रेम क्या सिर्फ झंडे से दिखता है? | Sandeep Ke Sawal 

हर घर तिरंगा अभियान : देश के प्रति प्रेम क्या सिर्फ झंडे से दिखता है? | Sandeep Ke Sawal By The Public India

=======

I responded to that video as follows:

Dear Sandeep jee,

I liked what I heard in this interview, except your remark concerning China. In your remark, you said something to the effect that the Modi government is buying the flags from China while China has usurped a part of our territory. It is as wrong as a statement that Pakistan is sitting in a part of our territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which we claim to be ours, (at least RSS/BJP do). 

One should hear what Avtar Singh Bhasin has to say in his book, for which Karan Thap interviewed him: 

Watch "India's Stand on China Border Irrational but Nehru's Handling Was Irresponsible: Avtar Singh Bhasin" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/zaM0C9NunEg

There exist several interviews with Dr. Bhasin on the internet. From any of these interviews, it seems to me that the Northern border of India with China is just about as unsettled as our border with Pakistan. So far, India has not sat down with China for a protracted time (with or without a mediator) and settled the border issue.  It sounds like you are committing yourself to a position of blaming China as an aggressor. 

There is an equal chance of either of the two countries being an aggressor across a border (dividing them) for domestic political reasons. In my humble opinion, if a dispute flares up, one should be able to study the issue more deeply before taking a responsible stand, rather than take the attitude of "my country, right or wrong."

With due regards,

-Satinath

=======

I don’t believe, Dr. Sandeep jee, who I greatly admire for his other rational endeavors, responded to my above observations. 

Personally, in my humble opinion, all peace & justice loving people need to take an objective, logical, rational and, just stand with regard to everything, including our relationships with regard to our neighbors or any other country, irrespective of whether it seems hurt our country’s, our icon’s, supposed interests, reputations, or whatever. 

I find that most of our supposed peace loving, and supposed “secular” intellectuals, not to talk of selfish governments, do not, or are afraid of taking, objective, logical, rational and, just stand with regard to Kashmir, China, and Pakistan. That’s a shame. 

With regard to Kashmir, Pakistan as well as China, when two neighbor’s have difficulty solving their mutual problems, what should they do? Solve it on the basis of who is stronger, like they do in jungle raj? 

We need to try to find a neutral party, possibly some kind of a court, who both sides can trust, and solve the problem with mediation, arbitration or adjudication. 

I am afraid, India would not like to solve our problem with regard to Kashmir and Pakistan with with mediation, arbitration or adjudication, because India’s stand has been wrong ever since they put Sheikh Abdullah behind the bar. 

And because Indian government cannot seek mediation, arbitration or adjudication, they would not like to propose the same to China. I do not if China would accept our proposal to solve the border problem rationally, but it something worth tying, rather than treat China as well as Pakistan, including Kashmiris as our perpetual enemies and keep on spending millions and millions of rupees on armaments and army, navy & air-force. The other day I saw a report that we are the biggest purchasers of armaments, and happen to have one of the most impoverished populations. 

Where are all our supposed peace loving, secular, rational intellectuals?

That’s about all that I have to say, at this time regarding India-China-Pakistan border dispute. 

Thanks for paying attention,

Regards,

-Satinath

========

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/socialist-party-india/CACEsOZjT0ne_DXiN0GbUHowtnLJ%2BEiYAv0QswkAXTMb_KK5t4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sukla Sen]

Dear Sati ji,

Thanks for your inputs.

Would try to look into.

As far as Rahul Gandhi is concerned, to my mind, "harmony" is just an exercise in diplomatese. As applied to the Chinese state, its actually intended to mean: enforced elimination of diversities in views and opinions in public spaces.

Moving away from Rahul Gandhi, in 2014, in the run-up to Modi's coronation, he was thus greeted by the Global Times -- an affiliate of the People's Daily meant for the global readership -- this:

"The opposition to the BJP hold this view [that "his political career has been stained with his authoritarian rule in Gujarat and actions during the 2002 riots" and, therefore, he "will alienate minorities and fuel confrontation as an "autocrat" after he assumes the office”] out of the need for partisan competition, while as for Western critics, their attack on Modi is out of ideological concerns, because Modi's governance style and philosophy are very close to Chinese practices."

(Ref.: <http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/861112.shtml>.)

Any comment is superfluous.

Sukla

[Satinath Choudhary]

"As applied to the Chinese state, its ("harmony") actually intended to mean: enforced elimination of diversities in views and opinions in public spaces." I do not understand how you extrapolate the use of the word "harmony" in Rahul Gandhi's speech to mean: "enforced elimination of diversities in views and opinions in public spaces." There was no indication of such a diatribe against China or its rulers to that effect. I think Rahul Gandhi's speech was well thought out, without antagonizing either the West or the Chinese. 

It's only after the Congress party's leaders in Delhi started putting words in his mouth, Rahul Gandhi started talking more belligerently castigating Modi Rajnath Singh for stating that Modi government can't do anything because China is a bigger economy. Rahul Gandhi and hordes of Congress were then accusing Modi Government of cowardice, I heard Rahul Gandhi claiming that just as Mahatma & Congress drove the British out without violence, we can drive the Chinese out nonviolently. How come his great-grandfather couldn't? Such absurd things are not going to win the support of a single person to his/Congress' side. On the other hand, BJP's frank admission of the fact that we can't do anything because the Chinese are much stronger (bigger economy) sounds much more sane and responsible. Sure, the saner thing would be to propose to solve the problem with mediation, arbitration and/or mutually agreed litigation in a court. If China does not agree to any such proposal, India could voice its concerns in various world institutions. 

When neighbors can't resolve a problem by talking to each other, how do you propose solving the problem? Not by insisting that they have to talk-tlk-talk (forever, like Israel vs Palestine; or India vs Pakistan), or by one of the parties going on "Satyagrah". It has to be resolved via mediation, arbitration, or litigation in a court. This is what should be the stand of saner people in all such conflicts. But it will not suit India in the case of Kashmir. So, they can't propose such a move for solving the India-China border issue. 

What is worse is that none of the supposed saner, peace-loving "intellectuals" propose saner ways of solving problems. In my mind, they have to start with solving the Kashmir problem amicably. Until we do that, the India-Pakistan problem would not be solved, until we do both of the above things, it will be hard to defeat communalism/Hindutwa in India. Until we defeat Hindutwa in India, we cannot spend enough money on education and welfare and extract Indians from perpetual poverty. 

I am sorry to say all these things against Congress's stance, while I would like it to be able to defeat BJP.

-Satinath

=======

[Satinath Choudhary]

Watch "#223 - Will the Putin and Xi summit in Beijing lead to peace in Ukraine?" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/AnrCkvNhDDw

From the above and other views regarding China, it seems to me, and to many others, that having become a manufacturing hub of the world, they are more interested in winning trade endeavors around the world rather than wars. 

On the other hand, the US is more interested in increasing the MNC (military-industrial complex's) profits, pharma-industrial complex's profits, agro-industrial complex's profits, all kinds of corporate profits by exploiting and pillaging the rest of the world. 

Xi and Putin may be dictators of their countries, but at least at the present time, they have not shown a proclivity towards subjugating other countries for the sake of profiteering for their arms manufacturers. 

As for Ukraine, Russians were forced to attack the former, lest they would have continued to kill and maim Russian-speaking residents of the Donbas region and joined NATO, threatening Russia with first-strike possibilities. Ukraine was willing to negotiate a settlement with the Russians soon after the Russian invasion, but the Americans torpedoed such a move. 

The Americans would much rather have a 20-year war (to the last Ukrainian standing and fighting) as long as the war keeps on shoveling American taxpayers' money into Lokheed-Martin Corp, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and all the rest. The US government is not a government of the people of the USA, it's the sales agent of its MNC, Pharma-Industrial Corp, Agro-Industrial Corp, and so forth. I do not believe the same is true of Xi at least, nor it seems to be true of Putin, though they may be dictators in their own way. When the Americans have to choose between one corporate sales agent or the other (as Republican or Democrat), bombarded by their own corporate media, they are not living in a democracy, but a corporate dictatorship, which has to compete (Republican vs Democrats) in the ruthlessness of dealing with immigrants, largely the result of their corporate plunderings in South America. 

-Satinath

=======

[Sukla Sen]

Dear Sati ji,

Your response has tw parts.

I. What Rahul Gandhi had said in his speech in London as regards China.

II. What India/Congress should do about China.

I. As far as Rahul Gandhi's speech is concerned, I had already said that "harmony" is an exercise in diplomatese.

That means this, to my estimate, is an euphemism. I had to "read between the lines" to locate the actual meaning.

Admittedly, there're more than one ways of doing it. And you have got all the rights, as much as I do, to do it in your own way.

However, I would like to point out two points which I consider salient. One, he had also talked of shift of manufacturing away from "democracies" and the dire need to reverse that in the interest of democracy on the global scale. The speech was essentially a campaign piece in favour of "democracy" globally and also in India, in particular.

He, however, tried to sound profound and scholarly -- in that milieu.

Hence: "harmony".

II. As regards how to deal with China, am quite sure that I don't have the requisite domain expertise to mouth some grand prescriptions.

If you feel that you are in a position to do so, please keep doing.

Rahul Gandhi, on this issue -- while in India -- would talk like a "politician", rather than a statesman or a "scholar" for that matter.

Under the obtaining circumstances, would argue, is quite excusable.

I, for one, would, however scrupulously keep my distance.

Sukla