March 31, 2008
The nuclear deal: reconsidering it from first principles – Part I
Rajeev Srinivasan on the deal that refuses to die
The discussions about the proposed nuclear deal between India and the United States are much in the news because of several reasons:
- the apparent preparations being made by the UPA to sign the treaty
- the continuing ritualistic mating dance between the UPA and the Communists about “will they pull support, won’t they?”, and noises being made by the UPA about general elections
- the increasing urgency on the American side, which went so far as to declare that it would be satisfied by an endorsement by a minority/caretaker government in India!
The deal has been analyzed to death in India over the last three or four years, and so you, gentle reader, may legitimately wonder why I write about it yet again. The reason is that the situation is so complex, with the impenetrable Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement, and the inflexible positions taken by so many experts, that I felt it was appropriate to step back and look at the thing from first principles.
In my humble opinion, there are three aspects to the deal:
- Energy security. High interest for India, moderate interest for the US
- Non-proliferation and weaponization. Non-proliferation of high interest to the US; weaponization of high interest to India
- Strategic partnership. Moderate to high interest for both countries
After considering these three in turn, I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that India does not gain an advantage in any of them individually if it proceeds with the so-called deal. Therefore it is beyond comprehension how, mysteriously, when you put all three negatives together, you get a wonderfully positive overall deal.
March 27, 2008
This was published recently on Rediff
March 20, 2008
This is an old article I just found while searching for something else. I guess I wrote it for Rediff, which for some reason didn’t run it. Well, perhaps it’s a little rude towards a sub-section of Indian women. But let me hasten to add that I am a *huge* fan of Indian women. Really. I have said so many times before, including on Rediff. I personally find Indian women on average much more straightforward than American women, and not into game-playing and self-aggrandizement. They are also, in my personal opinion, far more attractive and sexy as well. So it’s not *all* Indian women whom I aim this broadside at, but a tiny minority of harpies amongst them.
Well, perhaps it’s a little relevant considering the ‘historic’ battle between a woman and black man in the US, as well.
Rajeev Srinivasan on the ill-effects of thoughtless ‘feminist’ legislation
That was the name of a dance-drama choreographed by Mallika Sarabhai: the title, and the performance, were meant to tell modern Indian women to no longer look to the traditional Hindu role-models, such as the pancha-kanyas: Ahalya, Draupadi, Kunti, Tara and Mandodari (see the illuminating monograph by Pradip Bhattacharya http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/panchkanya/pk01.htm ). No, these are passé, retrogressive figures, and today’s with-it Indian woman should rather emulate a lust-crazed Titan/Asura woman who relentlessly pursued a married man who showed no interest whatsoever in her! A very fine exemplar indeed!