Donald Trump was very proud even a few months back. He thought he was a great deal maker and this capability would help him ensure bring an end to Russia-Ukraine war.
This has not happened. Next came his conviction pushed by ego that he would be able to control Iran.
TEHRAN has given him a royal snub.
Instead of Trump's claim that America is not interested in war; today trouble areas have jncreased manifold.
As it is Israel had problems with Gaza. But now this Iran episode would change both the short term and long term impacts.
Iran is determined to use missiles against Israel. On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu is also convinced that his country should continue the fight.
Hence, expert Attila Somfalvi - based in Tel Aviv- says the war is far from over.
Israel at the moment appears to have managed the support from the US, France and Germany. Well due to more reasons than one Israel has the right to defend itself.
In that case, India's stance today got endorsed by Israel directly and indirectly by Trump-ruled America.
PM Narendra Modi has changed many things about India's foreign policy despite being a self styled expert like Nehru and doctrine writer like I K Gujral.
Modi came to Delhi as a former CM of Gujarat and who was perceived as a mofusil. But he proved prophets of doom wrong.
He did espouse Hindu nationalist causes.
The export of ancient Hindu culture became the order of the day and Yoga and Diwali are known to millions more people in the globe than the figure of 2013 or early 2014.
In India he challenged distorted history writers and erased "Islamic history". EVEN the inauguration of Hindu temples abroad was widely accepted.
That has also changed the nature of India’s diaspora, with far-reaching implications. Indians and people of Indian descent overseas make up the largest diaspora of any country in the world, and they have long helped champion policies favorable to New Delhi.
Most notably, in the 2000s, after India faced sanctions for its nuclear tests, diaspora groups lobbied to build global legitimacy for India as a nuclear power. That resulted in the landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States and pushed countries like Australia to reconsider nuclear export bans.
But the diaspora’s cohesiveness as a lobby for New Delhi’s interests is now in doubt.
According to a 2020 survey of Indian Americans by the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a sizable 69 percent of Hindus in the U.S. approved of Modi’s performance as prime minister, but only 20 percent of Muslims and 34 percent of Christians did; _ it has been stated by a school of thought.
Modi has envisaged India as an independent pole in a multipolar world.
Its a key US friend but it has not given up on Russia.
But Modi has also retained India’s long-standing policy of neutrality and non-alignment.
India's 1971 War ::::
For India, the 1971 war was a huge psychological victory, almost a chiliastic event: it was said poetically that for the first time in a thousand years, the Hindus had defeated the Muslims.
That is not historically true, as Hindu armies defeated the Muslims mands many times. Nonetheless, that is the way Indians felt, and still feel.
Equally important, the Indian Army performed at a high with level of skill and efficiency never seen before in the nation's three into previous wars since Independence 1947-48 in Kashmir, 1962 against China and 1965 against Pakistan.
A major problem in researching and writing about the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 is that there is not much primary and authoritative information available, while second-hand reference materials are often too costly for an amateur historian to acquire: out-of-print Pakistani books, for example, usually sell for US$100 and more. Even if acquirable, different books disagree with each other in regards of details and none is based on official documentation.
Indeed, both the Indians and the Pakistanis have destroyed their related records; the Pakistanis before surrendering, and the Indians a few years after the war. Moreover, the mass of second-hand reference materials are one-sided. As a result, only t enough material is available to generalise, and much of the work presented here is, undoubtedly, simplified - due to attempts to make a coherent story.
Another issue is that many books and articles were written well after the war, and memories are fading.
This is of particular importance considering that neither India nor Pakistan at that time had an open culture about military matters, and criticism of military affairs remains a de-facto taboo in both countries until this very day. The official Indian history of the 1971 war was never authorised, despite treading softly on things that were obviously done wrong, or could have been done better, says a news magazine on Indo-Pakistan conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment