Subscribe to Desicritics
Stooges, Machismo-Driven Nationalism and Self-Reliance
Shantanu Dutta
One of the views that has been bandied about over the last months as we swing this way and that about the nuclear deal is that signing it will mean that the government would have sold itself as an American stooge and vassal. That is what the leftists are saying. Since then I have been ruminating on the words stooge and vassal – I mean is it such a bad thing after all, apart from the derogatory sounds of the words themselves. Now after listening to a Skype webcast, I am convinced that the nuances are far more complex and that provocative words hide much more than they reveal.
There are two kinds of stooges if we insist on using the word. The Skype webcast that I listened to was dominated by a man from Iraq - a very angry man indeed who is upset that his country is run by brown Americans masking as Iraqis. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has the advantage of producing individuals of every ethnicities and in an occupation situation as prevails in Iraq and Afghanistan, they come handy. They are their master’s voice and because they speak the language and some what understand the culture are useful viceroys. These are the real stooges that every one should be talking about.
Then there are those who believe that their national interests are best served by aligning to a particular power and therefore do so. After all the primary purpose of the government of any nation is to ensure peace and prosperity for their people and achieve it through globally acceptable legitimate means. In the Soviet era, the original Mrs. Gandhi, felt that India’s national interests at that time was best served by aligning with the Soviet block. Many sneered at her and called her a client state or pretty close to being one. But of course she didn’t give a damn and did what she considered right.
Come to think of it, India has its small share of stooges in the neighborhood though having not much to offer, it is losing them pretty rapidly. One of our concerns in Nepal is that the incoming government is likely to be more ambivalent in its relationship with India unlike the monarchy which was beholden to India. Arguably, it was a stooge Sikkim Assembly that passed the resolution to accede to India. Bhutan has no independent foreign policy independent of India and being a land locked country finds it to be in its national interest to remain so.
So what is the problem with being a stooge or a client state of the United States? Looking around, I see that they have done pretty well for some themselves, unless they are plagued by chronic bad governance like the Philippines. But that is an exception. For the prototype, look at Singapore. Look at Thailand. Look at South Korea—and just to compare, look too at North Korea. To look at an even bigger contrast, look at Japan, vanquished and brought to its knees by American nuclear bombs but today one of its strongest allies in Asia.
We need to get rid of a culture of machismo-driven nationalism that talks of self reliance, global domination and ideological neutrality; best exemplified by the so called non aligned movement in which every one right down to the last member was fully aligned. The government’s jobs is to ensure peace, prosperity and security for its people; that is why people it there. At one point of history ensuring peace for India meant being a Soviet stooge; today it might mean being an American stooge. And of course let us get words like stooge which sound so uncouth out of our vocabulary. Then we our self esteem and self respect would not be so badly wounded.
Ayan Roy
July 2, 2008
01:35 AM
Interesting post - Shantanu. Peace and prosperity of a nation should not be sacrificed at the altar of ideology. When you are weak, you need a strong person to help lift you up to stand proudly.
Nations have to think in terms of co-operation and have to think "WIN-WIN" as they name it in management parlance. Choose a partner from which you can extract maximum gain/profit. U.S. fits the bill perfectly in the current global scenario, for India.
And why should we not try to learn from and extract benefits from a more powerful, rich source? It's common sense!
Japan managed to put WW-II behind and surge forward with co-operation with the U.S. Why can't India do so?
Love and peace to all,
Ayan
Chandra
July 2, 2008
01:57 AM
The examples you quote donot owe their success to being a US stooge. I would request further research before coming to such generalised conclusions.
We in India have a myriad of problems (that you know well off) that no other country can help us solve. We will have to do it ourselves.
I see many of our elite feeling orgamsic about the nuclear deal. Apparently we will somehow find land and money to set up nuclear plants while we still cannot find land to build thermal power plants and when our hydel plants run at 50% efficiency. Good luck to all of you!!
Shantanu Dutta
July 2, 2008
02:32 AM
As for research, here are some books. Unfortunately, the amazon ads no longer appear at the bottom.
Client State: Japan in the American Embrace by Gavan McCormack
Crisis and Commitment: United States Policy Toward Taiwan, 1950-1955
by Robert Accinelli
Korea: The Hard Way, Battling Invisible Trade Barriers - A story from the Front Lines of America's Trade War by Frank J. Kiska
Chandra
July 2, 2008
05:05 AM
Well, if an American embrace was enough, Latam would have been very rich. We indians miss the fact that the japs began an education revolution in the 1800s and the koreans had a dictator for many years.
Ayan Roy
July 2, 2008
05:53 AM
Chandra - "Well, if an American embrace was enough, Latam would have been very rich" - agreed! That was more of a WIN-LOSE relationship w.r.t. U.S. and Latam respectively. U.S. extracted a lot out of Latam, and Latam gained very little back. It was more of exploitation.
It's important that we Indians carefully weigh out the long term gains and losses, or more thoroughly a LONG-TERM SWOT analysis w.r.t. out relationship with ANY country for that matter, let alone U.S.
However, I think that India stands more to GAIN than to LOSE with this nuclear deal with the U.S. The 'SO' are high and the 'WT' are quite low for this deal for India. Why do I think so? That will require a massive explanation, which I find difficult to post in few words in this comment.
Love and peace to all,
Ayan
Shantanu Dutta
July 2, 2008
06:21 AM
Chandra,
Actually I have never said that American influence alone is enough. To make the most of any opportunity, you also obviously need good governance internally which Latam has not had ; same is the case with Philippines. But the ones who had that have certainly done well for themselves.
Chandra
July 2, 2008
07:22 AM
SD
I think Governance is the most important point. You can open up your economy as much as you wish but if you donot provide reasonable governance nothing is going to be achieved. The current power crisis is largely a function of poor investment climate for any kind for power plants, failed or absence of electricity reforms and poor management of power generation assets.
(Please visit the power ministry web-site to know what I am talking about)
Further, even the best estimate of nuclear power generation shows that it will not exceed 8% of total power generation in 10-15 years time. However, instead of spending time on figuring out ways to generate the rest 40-50%, the Govt is stuck on the 5%. Can anyone explain the logic behind this?
At the end of the day inspite of all the arguments that are pushed by our Pro-US lobby, the reality is this deal is about Manmohan's legacy. If he were really that bothered about the nation, RTI would not have been the only significant achievement of this Govt during the last 4 years.
Why, can anyone explain to me are we treated differently from the Chinese when it comes to a nuclear deal? Are we 'inferior' to them?
They can swap their reactors from civilian to military and so on. They can test without getting sanctioned etc....
Can anyone explain why we cannot negotiate a better deal in a years time? Will we not be important to the US anymore?
In the mid-90s we were afraid of testing a bomb because of fear of sanctions. Yet, we did the same in 1999 and rode that out very well. How come we donot have the confidence to ask for a deal similar to the Chinese?
Ledzius
July 2, 2008
08:03 AM
Chandra, I think so too. The nuclear deal is a bit over-rated. Wouldn't solve our chronic power shortage.
Man Singh
URL
July 2, 2008
08:10 PM
Along with peace and prosperity the most important human instinct is Freedom.
Shwan Vritti (becoming dog of a rich man for peace and prosperity)traditionnaly has been considered the worst type of living. Indians before East India Company ere always gave `self respect' as top priority only because self respect ensures you freedom even if less peace or prosperity.
Aligning with US may bring prosperity(which is also doubtful) to few people in India but at the cost of freedom.
Coal based plants cost 4.5 crore/MW
naptha/gas based plants cost 3 Crore/MW
Inhouse built reactors 7-8 Cr/MW
Imported Reactors 10 Cr/MW
Price or Uranium in 2007 increased by 70% ie from $21/lb to $ 36/lb. Today it is $76/lb and reached touched a max value of 135$/lb.
USA is expected to get around a Trillion Dollor bussiness is India becomes US ally.
Nuclear deal is noway beneficial to India. Other areas of bussiness along with Military ties may be.
Moreover for a nation with aspirations of becoming a world power will never be able to fulfil its dreams by follwing swan vritti (dog like mentality). It has to focus on self reliance even if it is associating with any power on the earth. take benefit whereever you get it but keep focus on your goal of becoming super power.
India aspired not only to become economic power but also military power and the for a nation of 1 billion intelligent people its pretty genuine
aspiration.
By following a swan vritti, India may get some peaces of bread (which we call prosperity) but it will never be able to become a military power along with it.
japan Thailand or Phillippine or Pakistan none has become so till date.
So far as bad rulership in the mentioned countries is concerned, our rulers are also noway less corrupt and surrendering nation interests to personal gains and it is quite likely we may end up another phillippoine type of situation.
Out of 105 Crore people of India, most of us here in DC focus on 5 crore well to do Indians, belive me rest of 100 crores are not able to manage a dollor a day and living a life of utmost poverty.
Costly energy will further block the prospects of these reamaining 100 crore non english speaking villagers. Think over it my freidns.
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 3, 2008
05:24 PM
I have tried to find out the facts about the nuclear deal and come to the conclusion that it is bad for India. You can read about it here - http://desicritics.org/2008/07/03/113915.php
commonsense
July 4, 2008
12:44 AM
Chandra:
""We indians miss the fact that the japs began an education revolution in the 1800s""
excellent point chandra. in our obsession with coming out with get-rich-quick formula, we tend to kick history's ass....
Venkatesh Sridhar
URL
July 4, 2008
04:41 AM
I feel that sometimes we believe that the US is somehow 'superior' to us. This attitude that being the US's ally is beneficial is being very naive. Look at what George Bush did to his closest ally Tony Blair, Blair lost his legacy and popularity and now no one gives a damn about him.
The thing that the Koreans, the Japanese, etc have benefited from the US solely on the basis of their closeness is wrong. Japan and Korea invested massively into R&D, the companies then had the opportunity to go into the US market and sell it where they beat the American companies ass so bad that the US devalued the Japanese Yen and since then Japan has suffered economically. Do not forget this lesson.
Also, there is nothing wrong in being self reliant, where you can be self reliant. Everyone, now acknowledges that the world is now probably more connected than ever.
Also, I would not read too much into the politicians claims that India will be a superpower in 2020. Its pure rhetoric as that seems to be a sexy and a populist mantra just as Garibi Hatao was once. You ask these politicians making these claims on their road map to achieve this so called superpower status, they would be found wanting for answer to the question. The western media was the one that started the hype,the Indian media followed suit and so the politicians followed suit. Its like management buzzwords, the more it gets thrown around, the less people know what it truly means.
Add your comment