Burma protests
I've always felt bad about the Indian government's pusillanimity on Burma. A dictatorship in our backyard and we don't have the decency to call it like it is and stand up for their people. Personally it pricks even more since I have huge problems with the US for doing things like this, so felt good to leave, from that perspective, but hey, here too !
I wish I was doing more, but right now, all I can say is that my thoughts and prayers (so to say) are with those amazing monks and civilians protesting.
PS: Well, I can also mention this Facebook group that was set up in solidarity with the protestors and is organising a worldwide day of protest against the Burmese government. You guys rock.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24957770200
I wish I was doing more, but right now, all I can say is that my thoughts and prayers (so to say) are with those amazing monks and civilians protesting.
PS: Well, I can also mention this Facebook group that was set up in solidarity with the protestors and is organising a worldwide day of protest against the Burmese government. You guys rock.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24957770200
posted by VK at 9:53 AM
11 Comments:
Vijay
For some reason, we tend to forget that India has national interests too... which to me are more paramount than being the torchbearer...
Burma is strongly in China's grip... and if India needs to safeguard its interests in the region, it has to play differently than playing to the galleries. China is infesting insurgencies in the NE through the jungles in Burma. China has gained a much larger foothold in the gas/oil reserves around Burmese coast... all so far because India was too concerned about its image of upholding democracy. India has been at the forefront of supporting Ang San Su Kyii... for years...remember the first international awards she got were Nehru or Gandhi peace prizes etc... But then... I strongly believe that India needs to get into a more realistic "India first" foreign policy...whether its censuring Iran's nuclear designs inspite of what the Leftists may think because we dont want another nuclear-armed neighbour...or be it the staying neutral to the mess in Burma...
Come to think of it - the subcontinent of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma - we are the only country which has a smooth sailing (though miles from what we would call great) democracy... every other country around us has been in doldrums all the time...either with civil strife or with military regimes ruling them...
Should India really go about believing that its India's job to set the world straight outside its home first... or should it be worried more about getting some basic security - be it the NE borders or the energy security...for its 1 billion population...
Back to work now...
-Sidharth
fascist
I dont think one can stay neutral (as Sidharth recommends) in Burma. Such a choice does not exist. We can either be complicit or take a stance against what is happening. Neutrality in this context is complete BS and a bit like Swiss neutrality during the WW.
I can see why we might want to be complicit - the cost of taking action may out way the benefits of intervention. That choice, reflects something about us which is much more sinister than merely being practical and "India first."
Also it is logically ridiculous to reduce the question of "should India do something about Burma" to "should India believe its job is to set the world straight"? It is foolish to avoid dealing with a specific question ny use of an irrelevant generalization.
So, should "India believe its job is to set the world straight"? Not really. India has limited resources and where it chooses to expend them says something about its values. It cannot do something serious about AIDS for example (not withstanding the pharma contributions.) But it can do something meaningful about Burma and India can easily expend resources to do so. By not choosing to expend resources in this regard, our choice does not reflect a sound principle of each-one-stand-up-and-learn-to-fight but rather reflects a pathetic self obsession and cowardice that does not help those who have fallen.
Most countries in the world act along the line Sidharth mentions and the only countries which do not do so only because they have something materially significant to gain in their alternative choice. Its alright to make the self interest choice, but its down right hypocritical and delusory to not be aware that we are making a poor moral choice. If we make the choice of an asshole we must be aware that we are acting like one. Deluding ourselves by arguments such as "India has national interests too" makes us worse at some level.
As for me, aside from recommending from an armchair what India must do, I dont really care enough to do enough on my own. But I dont have any illusions about the nature of my choice and the implications of my indifference.
Arvind
Arvind
I agree more or less with Arvind, if not with his graceless language ..
There is an old thing being resurrected here -- whether we care more about our national interest (usually economic or some security-related thing) or we do some version of the right or moral thing, and doing it because its the right thing to do, not because we want to be seen as cool or moral. The usage of words like 'torchbearer' or 'playing to the galleries' is distorting the question. I don't know much about the security question, but beating China to Burma's oil reserves sucks. We can certainly look elsewhere for our energy and oil security.
I didn't know that we gave her her first international awards, if we did, we really rock. And in doing some more reading following my post I read that in 1988, we were the first ones to put pressure on Burma and we even helped the protesting students who took refuge in the embassy.
--Vijay
arvind,
i agree with you, though you could be more careful when you claim that india cannot do something about aids. its a huge problem right in our house and if we "cannot" deal then who in the world "can".
on another issue - its irritating how people oppose morality and self-interest. surely they DO trade off over certain horizons. but in the long run it is in our self-interest to be moral (or, if you prefer, the other way around). good (moral) choices have had long term benefits for national interests, bad ones have not - it would seem that history generally supports this hypothesis.
A minor clarification and some general points. When I say India cannot do anything substantive about AIDS I meant we cannot assume any responsibility at the global level or even regional level - we can expect at most that we take care of our own victims.
I partially agree with you about self interest and morality. Like you, I dont think they are negativily correlated as people commonly assume. I disagree that they are positively correlated. I think they are orthogonal - some times they align and at other times they dont. As a strong counter example to your claim, the native Indian population in America was essentially wiped out by inferior moral choices. And look who won - those with inferior moral choices. I can think of other such cases.
let's assume that it's hard to contradict that example. and i don't disagree there are similar one's in every history. as i am sure, and you will agree, that there are examples where narrowly defined self-interest has led to poor "moral" choices and loss as well. i guess i would like to believe that the weight of the evidence points to a positive correlation (which btw one cannot disprove by exception).
going back to the example, you say the white's are better off, to the detriment of the indian peoples. but it would be hard to argue that the whites necessarily did better than they would have, had they co-existed with the indians. in reading history, to not think of what could have been is to fall into the trap of an atavistic mindset - where history instead of teaching us to correct errors becomes a basis for further errors.
and please agree with me that things with the indians would turn our different if we were presented with the same choices today.
The inevitable petitionsonline.com petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/burma123/petition.html
Do sign it !
--Vijay
To lighten the post, here's a funny email that was forwarded to me. Apparently a real posting on Craigs list. The response to the posting is the punch line but the posting itself is pretty funny.
Arvind
Check this out - Craig's list posting and reponse
Subject
What am I doing wrong? [interesting craigslist post]
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married
to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as
I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I
get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my
feelings
-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial
interests
Craig's List PostingID:
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.
pals,
this post is so darned consistent with your observations about NYC women. and the guy's response seems to consist of words stolen from your mouth.
News reports of the demonstrations weekend of October 6th:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071007/wl_afp/myanmarunrestdemos_071007072439;_ylt=Ao7umQrP6vCVB65Qt0gvf9dg.3QA
I didn't do nuthin :-(
Post a Comment
<< Home