Comments on: With Libya, is India confused or just too clever by half? Perspectives on South Asian politics Thu, 02 Jun 2016 08:03:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: eduscan Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:26:37 +0000 Knowingly or unknowingly the West is stoking the fires of a what is essentially a Shia uprising.

By: Maloof Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:58:18 +0000 India will want the same package as the Chinese.

By: Tkdcorp Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:35:48 +0000 @@Straight-Talk, They know what their doing in India, as the world economy was going under, Indian economy was stable or going up….So do your research…

By: eduscan Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:47:54 +0000 Where angels fear to tread, fools rush in.
US should stop striking at windmills.It is as usual helping Islamic fundamentalists to gain the upper hand.India should desist from aiding such naive misadventures.

By: DaraIndia Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:07:26 +0000 “China did not want to be seen blocking what is perceived by many as being a humanitarian mission. India would have just been a noted protest at the United Nations.”

It seems to me the author is saying that India should actually have voted against the proposal. Unlike China’s it would have been noted as a protest. If so, this is indeed rich stuff. If merely abstaining is causing so much heart burn just imagine how apoplectic the same people would have been had it actually voted against.Maybe then they would be saying, “but why didnt it just abstain instead of coming in direct conflict with Western whims and fancies?” – good copy – good journalism!

“India for years has gone against U.S. interests in a string of geo-political issues, including Myanmar. But it has counted on the fact that it is now economically too important to be sidelined by any Western power due to any criticism of the West.”

Would the same writer try to recount how often the US has gone against Indian interests?

US thinkers, analysts and foreign policy mandarins rightly insist that US foreign policy must and should be based on US interests and US interests alone – no quarrel with that. However, they also feel that it is owed to them and go on to demand, that their friends and partners and everyone else also frame their own foreign policies to suit US interests. Good bye partnerships.

If India now presumes that its economic clout gives it some voice, why should that be considered against anyone else’s interests? Would the Western powers have dared to use force in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan etc if they did not think that their own military and economic power gave them that right? Sauce for the goose…………

By: Appus Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:29:53 +0000 India has been a reluctant player in the international issues, especially in international interventions, due to Kashmir problem which I think is a weak stand. Kashmir issue is different from other conflicts as there is a strong judiciary and media to raise voices, unlike many autocratic and monarchs of Arab countries.

Libya is of a typical problem in Middle Eastern countries. Arab problem is they are submissive to white race and can be manipulated by fair skin.

Libya – UK is determined to protect its interests (oil companies) and a personally enmity to Gadaffi for Al Magahi case. They want to eliminate him. Also French and UK are looking for a breakaway from US control and domination in the world. They may use soft and useful targets like Libya to show case what they can do. Why can’t they intervene in Ivory Coast, Bahrain? B’cos nothing to gain and no way to refund the expenses!

India is fearful of many things. It lacks a robust foreign policy response mechanism and shy of talking and acting. As a FOLLOWER of global developments I don’t understand why this country can take up a principled and bold stand. A growing might come from showing some strength and ability to follow the taken stand.

Thinking that its immigrant worker will suffer the country always stay back, which I feel is cowardly. This makes its people look feable, weak and vulnerable to other races. As a billions country with so much to offer to the world, a few can resist our potential – at least in the Asian neighbourhood. It would be worth keeping a strong navy stand by for the Middle Eastern waters to flex some charm. It gives confidence to the people and project our image – an image of can do attitude than a follower. Time has come to out of the shell India.

By: Saini23 Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:45:25 +0000 Almost all Indian leaders are not leaders in real sense. They have either got these plum seats by purchasing votes or inherited by family influences. They mostly play into bureaucratic hands for decisions or actions but claim all the credits for it if that goes well. Hence they are not original personalities with leadership qualities. They fail to take right stand, right action, at right time, in a right manner as they are spineless to carry along the masses with them or face the consequences even for very petty matters not to speak of such an important international issue like air attacks on Libya by western coalition forces. Neither confusion nor cleverness but lack of such talent is the basis!

By: NobleKin Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:49:43 +0000 People demonstrate in streets against current regime in keeping with sweeping cries for reform across democratically repressed region. Regime has a violent reaction. Violent reaction incites people to return violence and attempt overthrow. Attempt is thwarted and military goes on a vengeful shooting spree.

UN and world leaders said: Don’t fly military missions against civilians/populated areas and stop shelling & shooting everybody.

At the 11th hour Gaddafi’s spokesman said: we have a cease fire.

Except the Gaddafi army did not keep this word even as they were spoken, they kept killing…and kept pressing into the remaining pockets of resistance.

The UN voted for a no-fly zone.

The world said stop, Gaddafi said he would hunt down and kill every last rebel supporter, and the military kept shooting. The world said stop, and Gaddafi said if you shoot at me, I will bring terror to your streets.

So, in spite of being told what would happen if the shooting didn’t stop, the Libyan army pressed, and their leader continued to defy.

Why? Was it simple ego? Could he not have demonstrated some measure of restraint and halted for a diplomatic solution?


Any surprise the militaries that would enforce a no-fly edict would shoot every threat in sight to enforce and secure the edict?

By this blog string I know there are egos out there that sympathize with any form of sovereignty, be it despotic or theocratic totalitarianism, or otherwise, but there was an alternative and an actual cease fire would have saved lives and military hardware.

Had Gaddafi stopped shooting when he had the rebels running before him as was ordered by the UN, what then? Peace negotiations, exodus of rebel supporters from the country and a renewed stronghold for Gaddafi, no?

By: IAF101 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:32 +0000 I think India has been clever here by being non-comittal but not going against the tide with the West. And now they are trying to score points with the Arab League as being “fair” minded compared to the Western powers. Further, the audacity of France to intervene in its former colony militarily is outrageous considering they left Libya without any semblance of democratic institutions or a culture of openness to fall back upon and thus gave the world Gaddafi.
Why is it that for all the lofty ideals the Europeans preach against America in Iraq, their first instinct here is to drop bombs in the “defense” of democracy ? It is quite hypocritical on their part and quite arrogant as well to act like Zeus on Mt.Olympus swatting the troublesome little heathen who doesn’t lay down and die because some rebels want him to.

By: jaycdp Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:07:12 +0000 i am an anti congress pro hindu. i dont like congress most of the time. but this time i say good for you congress party. dont be a das dasi of america. do not support killing good muslim or bad muslim. we dont want war in middle east. we respect middle eastern people for giving us job so we can prove we are not islam haters . when islam has problem we are with islam to help islam. when west has probelm we are with west for help. but now it seems west is killing islam no matter good or bad. we dont like such killings. we like to talk. if west dont like to follow us today . we hope west will follow us tommorow. jay bharath matha , jai ram