07 March 2011

Our latest fashion - interference!

Very predictably, India has backed the UN Security Council sanctions on Libya.

So, we're the good guys here, and Gaddafi, is a despot and dictator, holding on to the reins of power since 1969?  We want to see the anarchy end, and peace on the streets of Libyan cities, towns and villages.

The Council on Saturday last week, voted 15 for and 0 against, to adopt Resolution 1970 - imposing a comprehensive arms embargo and a travel ban to the country of Libya, and to freeze the assets of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya since 1969.

This is the first time a country has been unanimously referred to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council.  We backed that resolution!

And yet, according to SM Krishna, we don't want to interfere in the affairs of another sovereign nation!

What is wrong with this picture?

Since when have we become so delusional as to think our actions and our inactions don't have any consequences?  Since when did we officially decide to back the UN, when even years after the genocide in Iraq by Bush and his military, no action has been brought against that idiot?  Bush deserves to be tried in the International Criminal Court for his enormous wrongs that have left no less than 600,000 Iraqis dead.  But somehow, that wrong goes unquestioned?

India has a diplomatic mission in Libya, a fully functional one, does it not?  So, if we were completely at ease with everything that has been going on in that country for so many years, what is suddenly irking us now?  All the Indians who have been there for years have been able to do that precisely - make a living - under Gaddafi.  Now what?  All of a sudden, we realized he is the devil?

What harm has Libya done to India, now that we have decided to back sanctions against a sovereign nation that our External Affairs minister says we don't want to interfere with?  We're not interfering with them you idiot!  We're totally fucking with them.

Truth is, we, the people of India, don't know the truth on the ground in Libya.  There hasn't been terrorism and bloodshed since 1969 to fuel any nonsensical claim that Gaddafi has been clinging to power that long through brutal repression.  Libya has been a fairly free country and has been quietly going about its normal life and business.  All of a sudden, there has been a wave of anti-government protests, which the world media has been quick to pounce on and declare as the winds of change sweeping through the Middle East and Northern Africa.

In the wake of Bush's illegal and nakedly belligerent attack and invasion of Iraq, there were many, many protests in the USA.  Did we back sanctions against Bush then?  Those protests were also quashed by the US government, and Bush has also famously stolen two elections, with rigged voting machines and untold amount of corruption like no-bid contracts to Haliburton, the company in which the vice president that Dick Cheney had stakes in.  Did India openly state even once that the USA's invasion of Iraq was totally illegal?  Or that democracy was being raped in the name of fighting terror?  We ignored Dubya but are obsessed with Libya?  Why?

What is our bloody official stance in world affairs?  We haven't done a rat's ass about using our "blue water" Navy to rescue our citizens from paltry Somali pirates.  We have not done anything about one of our IIT graduates being in jail in the USA for showering his anger on Bush, and we sure as hell did not do anything about our students getting beaten regularly in Australia, except of course Krishna making this stupid statement about how he did not know our students were going there to study fashion and catering!  Like they would not have been beaten up in rough neighbourhoods if the attackers knew they were all studying to be rocket scientists!

We are indeed happy to supply soldiers to the UN, to serve in other countries on peacekeeping missions, and our soldiers do lose their lives on those jobs.  What the heck do we do this for?  Why should Kartar Singh from a village in Madhya Pradesh lose his life in a mortar attack by rebel forces in Rwanda?  How come we are happy to interfere as long as the UN is the one telling us where to interfere?

Whose line are we toeing here?  And to what end?  It is all very nice of us to pull Indian citizens out, sending planes and ships for this, and it is all very nice to see some of them expressing gratitude and pride in being Indian.  But what exactly are we accomplishing by backing sanctions against a country that has not interfered with us in any way?  On what grounds are we accepting the standpoint of the rest of the UN Security Council that Libya under Gaddafi is in some way considerably larger as a threat to world peace than the USA was under Bush?  Don't we have any objective thought processes here?  What the hell are our diplomats there for?

We as a nation do not have a standpoint.  We do not have a collective position on anything any more.  We are without a moral compass, without an objective, without a stated position on who we are and what we stand for as a people.  What can be more dangerous to the second most populous collective in the world?

We have a legitimate interest in Afghanistan's well being and we are big donors to that country.  Nothing wrong with that, whatever our strategic objectives may be, considering Pakistan lies between us and Afghanistan.  We do not send our soldiers into Afghanistan, even though the USA would love that.  The reason is more political than principle.  Our opposition would never allow this weak kneed government at the centre to send our soldiers into battles that have nothing to do with us.

More and more, under Sonia Gandhi, India is leaning towards a blind pro-West stance that is morally well below unquestionable, and clearly driven more by perception than by reality.  There is this "perception" that the UN is actually right on all issues.  This is simply not true.  Just because Barkha Dutt takes her mug and plants it in Libya, cuddling rebel forces who want "change" does not mean we should sympathize with the anti-government rebels who have no idea what that change really might mean.

What exactly do we know about Libyan people?  What do we know about how hard it must be to bring about change in that country, whether it is the form of government or the type of leader?  It is just freaking fashionable to support the West's notion that all change is good change?  Why can't we leave it to the Libyans to decide what they want?  Who are we to cuddle up to the opposition and take this notional stance that Gaddafi must go?

Our Maoists want the same kind of change in our country.  Do we tolerate them?  Imagine if China supported a travel ban and sanctions against India, and sent its reporters to cover our Maoists demanding that our government be sent home and a new India be born with Kishenji as the leader of our nation.  How preposterous it already sounds to us.  So, why can't we extend a serious ear to what Gaddafi is saying?  Why are we so presumptuously in agreement with Libya's condition as stated by the USA and the rest of the UN coterie?

Libyan opposition forces captured British secret agents who came to "help" them!  http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1514543.ece  This is hilarious, because it clearly sends out the signal - "Don't show up, outsiders!".  In fact, it screams a Libyan will to block all interference from outside.  The opposition is furious, for this kind of intervention will make it look like this revolution is fuelled from the outside!  Brilliant!  So, why are we showing up there?  And why the heck are our news channels so proud about trumpeting who got there first?  The first to be super stupid?  Heck, that's something I'd try to hide!  India, clueless and directionless as always.

Many Indians who lived in Iraq swear to this day that Saddam Hussein's rule was the best in its history.  Iraq was a progressive country, flourishing in education, commerce, and even the arts.  Indians were treated well, and the country was doing fine.  Then came its darkest period - becoming the USA's enemy.  Many of us Indians do not even know what sparked Iraq's attack on Kuwait.

Kuwait was illegally pumping more oil than it was allowed to, thereby unfairly pushing Iraq's oil price down.  Kuwait had been allowed a 5 year period when it could pump above its quota of oil output in order to build its economy after a collapse.  Well beyond this time, Kuwait continued to pump in excess of its quota.  American and British companies were the beneficiaries and despite Saddam Hussein's several warnings, and pleas, the "world" ignored him.  He even said he would attack Kuwait's oil installations if this continued, and it did.  That is how the first Gulf War came about.

The world's largest media outlets are either owned by or controlled by people and organizations that are vested in the Western point of view.  Rupert Murdoch cannot be beaten as the most blatant symbol of media backing vital political interests.  Suffice to say, the biggest noise in the Indian media today, certainly in TV, is being made by interests that lean well towards the USA and its embarrassingly simplistic view of the world.  Barkha Dutt is the shrill parrot that exemplifies this attitude.  Sheer incompetence shamelessly cloaked in self righteousness.  Both should be unacceptable to any country aiming for true progress.

We Indians have become far too convenience trained.  We do not have a culture of critical thinking anymore.  We would rather put our minds on something enjoyable rather than being curious about what is going on in the world around us.  Libya is also standing up in our attention because we have been told to pay attention to it.  There is nothing more "happening" right now, apart from the thousands of crores of our wealth being stashed by crooks supported by the government without any prosecutions so far.  Libya is replacing our attention that should also be on a major slip involving the selection of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.  Libya is playing the role of a classical decoy, but this role has been assigned by our media.

Nobody in the Indian media is even questioning the absence of the counterpoint on this Libya issue.  Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, is a shining example of standing by principle.  He has come out in support of Gaddafi, called him a friend, and condemned the design to invade Libya as "madness".  He has also called for international mediation.  "Mediation" not "sanctions".  Who is being dictatorial here?  The UN or Chavez?  Where is this counterpoint in this so called FREE DEMOCRACY called India?  Are we so blinded by our perceived loyalty to the USA and its allies that we don't even feel the necessity to balance our viewpoint?

Most of all, why are we buying into this crap that democracy is the solution to the future of the world?  Taking our own country as an example, democracy is not working.  Our country is being looted, and social programs to not reach the needy.  Our kings, ALL of them dictators, did a much better job of delivering justice and maintaining peace and fostering prosperity.  A benevolent dictatorship is a much better, more proven and reliable form of government.  Why does democracy deserve such a vulgar level of promotion when its record is dismal?

If the USA were to have its way, we'd have another war soon.  The USA is talking about striking and taking out Libya's air capabilities.  Who the fuck is the USA to talk about a "no fly zone" over Libya?  And why are we not vehemently opposing it?  If we want to play a "global" role of some sort, we should start by defining what we stand for.  We can't be showing up fully decked in our pomp at parties we are not invited to.  We look silly enough already.

India, please wake up!  Let's mind our own business, please.  There is plenty of it.

- BSK.

No comments: