Replies

You can take personal asides-even seemingly indefensible ones-and distort them beyond recognition, in order to suit any sort of preexisting political agenda one might have.

There were comments made by Nixon-while he was still in office-that many would construe as being grotesquely antisemitic.

Yet, this man-a devout Quaker-had some of his closest personal and political relationships-throughout his career in public service, and beyond-with Jews, and was one of the staunchest defenders of the state of Israel ever to occupy the Oval Office.

America's longstanding-if turbulent-relationship with Pakistan is something that predates Nixon, and which has existed, in one form or another, since the Eisenhower administration.

To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.

Yep the same "communist dictator" you talk about would have been forced to tilt towards the West if the Johnson administration had acted with common sense w.r.t the subcontinent.FYI,the UK,France & US were India's largest arms suppliers till Johnson came into the picture.Things went further downhill with Indira & Nixon.

If Indira didn't show a bit of respect to the rights of India's minorities,India would have ceased to exist over 20 years back.That's not been the case.

About Israel,let's face the fact-If the US didn't resupply the Israeli military with conventional arms,they would have unleashed their 13 nukes on the Arab hordes-including ones like Saudi Arabia(American ally since 1945) for good measure.

Well put. It's not so sad that online spokesmen for India would be frustrated about our decisions with respect to Pakistan and the split. What's really sad (and revealing) is that they'll continue to justify India's love affair with Stalinists instead of pledging "never again." I wonder how closely this matches official Indian attitudes?

If I were Nepalese, I'd be very worried about Indian communists supplying the Maoist guerillas today. Maybe the problem isn't so "historic" after all?

To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.

Uh, are you living in Bizarro world? You calling Nehru a dictator? Or his daughter? both were elected democratically. Yes, Indira G did try to impose an emergency and usurp powers, but the Indian republic was too strong for her and she had to relent -- and she was voted out of power in the next election. Dictator? By no standard was either of them a dictator.

Did not respect the rights of religious minorities? Huh again? Do you have any proof of this or are you just mouthing off? As a matter of fact, many Hindu fundamentalists accuse Indira of the opposite -- that she favored the Muslims over the Hindus for votes.

Nixon was cozying up to dictators like Khan and commie lords like Mao.