Even African Third-Worlders get it

While pillorying a fellow liberal from Newsweek for accurately portraying priggish (secular)Indians, dynasty's eminent historian let out a dirty secret. No matter what the secularists tell themselves everyday through their newspapers, the image of these people outside India remains that of obstructionist petty third-worlders. To quote:

“Until very recently, India seemed to pride itself on poking a finger in the eyes of rich superpowers, particularly the United States. Beginning in the mid-1950s, India was the leader of the group of poor, postcolonial nations that banded together in what they called the nonaligned movement, but which routinely tilted to the Soviet Union and bashed American imperialism. To Washington’s consternation, New Delhi voted against the US at the United Nations time and again.... Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when India began to abandon Soviet-inspired economic planning, New Delhi retained a reputation for obstructing America at 
every opportunity.”

Any sincere Indian can vouchsafe that this tendency is prevalent even today among those who rule India. Consternated at this widespread caricature, Guha indignantly terms it 'misleading.' Misleading to whom, one might ask. Guha's article is replete with secular donuts about India's supposed righteous moral position. Take for example Guha's assertion that the "main point of contention" between West and India during 60s was Vietnam and Palestine and India wanted Israel to grant equal rights to Palestinians. But India never asked for reciprocity from the Palestinians or their Arab benefactors to recognize Israel in return, which they don't till date. Or that India took away equal rights of its own citizens when it came to its own Jammu & Kashmir. Not to mention we got nothing from the Arab/Islamic bloc in terms of reciprocal support in United Nations. One need not repeat the real motive of such one-sided pandering, rooted as it was in the perennial quest to appease the formidable Muslim votebank at home.

Guha flings another risible nugget while suggesting that India did its utmost and "sought hard not to take sides during the cold war." A shameful fact of Nehruvian India was its consistent failure to call upon the Soviet Union for the barbaric actions of communist dictators during Hungarian Uprising and Prague Spring. The Soviets rolled tanks and murdered protesters by the thousands to suppress nascent democratic revolts in Hungary and, what then was, Czechoslovakia.

Nehruvian system has remarkably succeeded in covering up its dark acts. Mr Guha has furthered this fabrication. While he vaguely alludes to this charade, Mr Guha fails to pinpoint the faults of Nehruvian consensus.

In continuation, the ritual panegyrics about Obama follows. This, just a week after Obama throwing India under the bus through the joint statement with China in which India was deprived of even the South Asian tinpot power status. Read it for yourself:

The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.

Despite suffering such abuse, the one-sided love affair with Obama administration prevails. We 'like' him no matter what. Of course Mr Obama cannot be faulted for looking after his country's interests.

Secular histrionics however are not restricted to history or foreign affairs alone. Mr Jairam Ramesh, Sonia Gandhi appointed minister, in keeping with Nehruvian tendencies, pushed his weight for India to acquiesce on the emission control talks. India was again getting sold out on the cheap had it not been for the watchful opposition.

Contrast this with the shrewd position taken by the Sudanese chairman of G-77, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, as described in this WSJ editorial-

"...[S]omething on the order of a trillion dollars, or more, would be appropriate."

"The world's scientists and policy decision makers have publicly stated that this is the greatest risk humanity has ever faced," says Mr. Di-Aping. "Now if that's the case, it's very strange that $10 billion is considered adequate financing." Mr. Di-Aping deserves credit for taking the climate alarmists on their own terms and drawing consistent conclusions.

Even African Third-Worlders get it.