India not joining line of west : Grave concern for the west

[tallboy123]

india don't have the balls to break from US and Europe.

TRoll alert...
The troll didn't even take a a time to read the main article...
Should check one own balls before talking about others.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

India may be Non-Aligned now, but that may change later. USA in its early history was also non-aligned, which George Washington wanted. Obviously that changed and now is the center of many blocks.

 

[hembo]

So, in a choice between dictators v/s democracy, India is "non aligned".

Good to know.

Hi Developer,

Perhaps you're not following the current news about India's position on Libya because there are so many things happening together around the world right now. In that case, I'll try to explain it in short. (Ejaz already tried it, I'll try it one more time). But if you already have your firm opinion on this, you may choose to ignore this post altogether.

This is what Indian PM said:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement follows India's abstention on a UN Security Council resolution approving the use of force to protect Libyan rebels.

The human desire for more freedom and for citizens to decide their own future is universal.

As a democracy, we are happy to see our brothers in West Asia and North Africa taking an increasing role in determining their own future ... but these are decisions for countries and their citizens to take for themselves, free of outside interference or coercion.

India did take a stance against a haste decision by three countries initially (In fact it was france only to begin with) and then reluctant participation of few more countries. Even now, NATO has not made up its mind to take command. US does not wish to continue to take command. What does it tells you? China & Russia condems it strongly. Hell, Germany condemns it. Italy says it will not lend its ait strips further if NATO does not take command. The UN resolution was a hasty and hypocritic. Libyan strugle was not entirely a peacefull demonnstration like Yemen or Bahrain (where recently scores of civilian protesters lost their lives). But Libyan is a full blown Civil war with both parties trying to kill each other. Even in Ivory-cost also, the same thing is happening. Why UN not taking action for Ivory-cost or better still against the countries, where peaceful demonstrators are getting killed en-mass. Think about it.

No body like Kaddafi. But then no body liked Saddam too. Look what has happened to Iraq after his regime was ousted with help of foreign troups. MMS sttement on the same reiterates it very well. India wants democracy to come in these countries, but not at the expense of few ill-thought out foreign invasion. Hell, there is no clear exit policy on Iraq till now and 1 million people have died there. Do you think so many would have died if the US led invasion would not have happened? The big question here is if France actually worried about the civilian deaths in Libya when they pre-maturedly announced that their jets have already started pounding Libyan targets?

As a human, we all condemn these dictators who can kill an rebeleous voice in a blink of an eyelid. But the motive of the attacking nation is not this nobble thought at all. Other-wise they would have been pounding few more countries by now.

 

[Developereo]

Supporting democracy and supporting the merciless bombardment of dictatorships by so called democracies are two entirely different things.

No, they are not. It is the difference between empty slogans and actually standing up for what you preach.

If India supports democracy, and wishes for China to be a democratic nation, does not mean that India support, encourage and participate in an agenda to forcefully install Democracy in the People's Republic of China no matter whatever are China's internal affairs. Whether they want democracy or not is entirely upto the people of that nation and none of India's personal business. The most we can do is educate or encourage them to go democratic, nobody should force their opinions onto others.

When the people are begging for outside help because they are vastly outgunned by the dictator's military machine, it's time for action, not words.

You gotta think straight and think beyond your illogical hatred for India.

I am equally critical of the Muslim countries' response on this. Guess it must mean I am motivated by 'hatred' for these countries.

As a human, we all condemn these dictators who can kill an rebeleous voice in a blink of an eyelid. But the motive of the attacking nation is not this nobble thought at all. Other-wise they would have been pounding few more countries by now.

I don't dispute that the West has ulterior motives in this. That is why I am critical of the Arab and Muslim countries that they didn't rein in Gaddafi and allowed the situation to get to this point.

As for India's official statement, that is just diplomatic weasel talk to excuse sitting on the fence and hedging your bets.

The fact that the Libyan rebels have weapons is simply because some segments of their army switched sides out of conscience. It doesn't lessen their legitimacy in any way, or change the fact that they are vastly outgunned and are asking the international community to support the Libyan people's fight for democracy.

If we let Gaddafi crush the rebels, it sends a very wrong signal to dictators and democracy activists around the world.

 

[angeldust]

What is happening in Arab countries in the middle east today is regime change. And the "spontaneous jasmine revolution" is being orchestrated down to the last "revolutionary" killed. It has less to do with Christianity dealing the final blow to Islam and more to do with the Christian block coming in to control spiraling out of control oil prices globally. When I say out of control, I imply out of their control. India would do well to stay out of these machinations as it deftly continues to walk the fine line between the two. There is no morality or otherwise here. Only hedging your bets. In the national interest.

We have enough on our own plate to even consider becoming strident moral police doling out brownie points or brick bats to nations and leaderships around the world every time self-inflicted violence breaks out. Nor can we afford the cost of doing so. As a nation we have taken a stand that is no different to many other more developed, richer, and more powerful nations. Christian nations. As well as many Muslim nations. Nations who at other times, in other circumstances, have been squarely on the other side. There is really no right or wrong here. Our elected leadership has taken a stand that they believe serves us best first. What other think or believe vis-a-vis that decision will always come second.

 

[EjazR]

Tyrannical regimes abrogate sovereignty when they start bombing their own civilians on a mass scale.

Clearly, there is a distinction between bombing terrorists or criminals, and bombing legitimate protestors. I don't think even the dissenting governments are denying the legitimacy of the pro-democracy movement in Libya.

Well sounds like a very liberal view, but tell me what should the International Community have done when China under Mao was responsible for the deaths of between 20-30 million of their citizens? Was the US right in invading Iraq then because afer all Saddam had comitted crimes against his own citizens.

So even as India supports democracy and is not happy with what Gaddafi is doing, it doesn't support foreign interference in Libya.

The Hindu : News / National : No external powers should interfere in Libya affairs: India
Members of the Lok Sabha on Tuesday made a strong pitch for a unanimous resolution in the House condemning air strikes on Libya by the allied forces while the government said it had already expressed unhappiness over the action.

Raising the issue, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav suggested that the House should pass a unanimous resolution against the air strike by the US-led forces. The Left parties and the Bharatiya Janata Party supported the proposition.

Supporting the Libyans striving for democracy in the oil-rich nation, Mr Yadav said: ``The Lok Sabha has to condemn the attack on Libya. Innocent civilians have been killed and Parliament cannot keep quiet.’’

Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M) said the House should condemn the brutal attack on Libya and recalled that the Lok Sabha had deplored the aggression of Iraq by the U.S. He, along with Gurudas Dasgupta (CPI), appreciated the stand taken by the Government on Libya, but said it was not enough.

``In the name of unseating Col Qadhafi, thousands of innocent Libyans are being killed in the NATO bombings. Another Iraq and another Afghanistan is being created,’’ Mr Dasgupta said. We are against Qadhafi but do not believe in NATO bombings. It is a war for oil, he said.

Responding to the concerns expressed by members, Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee said the government had already expressed its unhappiness over the intervention of allied countries against Libya.

"Nobody, no two or three countries can take a decision to change a particular regime in a third country," Mr. Mukherjee said. "Whether a regime will change or not will depend on the people of that particular country, not by any external forces," he said.

NDA Convenor Sharad Yadav termed the attacks on Libya as a serious matter and wanted India to take a strong position against it. Associating with the views expressed by the members, Mr. Yashwant Sinha (BJP) supported a unanimous resolution of the House condemning the aggression against Libya.

"We are extremely concerned about what is happening in Libya. We are completely with the democratic forces struggling against an authoritarian regime. We are against any military intervention to enforce regime change," Mr Sinha said calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Mehboob Beg (National Conference) appreciated the stand taken by the government and pitched for a middle path to provide relief to the Libyan people. ``America's coercive tactics have been increasing over the years," Sharifuddin Shariq (NC) said.

Ratan Singh Ajnala (SAD) and Dara Singh Chauhan (BSP) said their parties associated with the views expressed by the members, while Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (RJD) said Parliament should not be a mute spectator.

Bandopadhyay (Trinamool Congress), Bhratruhari Mahtab (BJD), Nama Nageshwara Rao (TDP) said a strong message should be sent by the Lok Sabha against the action of the allied forces.

 

[Developereo]

Well sounds like a very liberal view, but tell me what should the International Community have done when China under Mao was responsible for the deaths of between 20-30 million of their citizens? Was the US right in invading Iraq then because afer all Saddam had comitted crimes against his own citizens.

I don't know the full details about China, but NATO was absolutely right to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq.

Nobody's justifying invasion of a country, just as no one is advocating invasion and occupation of Libya. The only goal should be make it crystal clear to the regime that they will not be allowed to use force and must submit to dialog.