The Economist: How Dumb, How Hypocritical
One of my friends pointed me to this article in The Economist that criticized India’s attitude towards its neighbours. It correctly pointed out that India has good relations with almost none of its neighbours (except the tiny and inconsequential ones like Maldives and Bhutan).
But some of the criticisms and reasons given in that article are just, well, what you’d expect of any holier-than-thou European publication. Like when it condemns India on its Myanmar policy because it “snuggles up to the country’s thuggish dictators”. I’m curious how we are any different from the Brits who snuggle up to Libya (until recently)? Or the West that mollycoddles the Saudis? As Kissinger said, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". That’s realpolitik. And that’s the way all nations work. But apparently when India does the same, it’s time to be sanctimonious! Methinks The Economist is just being hypocritical.
Remember our dear neighbour, Pakistan, that even the Brit Prime Minister called the “global epicenter of terrorism”? It’s the great Western ally in the war on terror where bin Laden was living right in the middle of an army town...for years! The Economist wants us to talk to the same country and praises Manmohan Singh “who has heroically persisted in dialogue with Pakistan in the face of provocations and domestic resistance”. So the next time somebody bombs London, will The Economist urge the Brits to go kiss those murderers? Yeah, right.
The most surprising condemnation in that article was about how India doesn’t trade much with its neighbours (“Just 5% of South Asia’s trade is within the region”). But are India’s neighbours (other than China) rich? Can India, with an economy size close to $2 trillion, really do much trade with its poorer neighbours who have tiny GDP’s? Didn’t Japan become rich by trading with the US, not its Asian neighbours? We are just doing what works. Maybe The Economist should take lessons in Capitalism 101, Globalization 101 and Trade 101. And to think, they are considered one of the best economic/finance magazines. Really? I think one of Murdoch’s tabloids could write more sensibly about economics than these guys!
But some of the criticisms and reasons given in that article are just, well, what you’d expect of any holier-than-thou European publication. Like when it condemns India on its Myanmar policy because it “snuggles up to the country’s thuggish dictators”. I’m curious how we are any different from the Brits who snuggle up to Libya (until recently)? Or the West that mollycoddles the Saudis? As Kissinger said, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". That’s realpolitik. And that’s the way all nations work. But apparently when India does the same, it’s time to be sanctimonious! Methinks The Economist is just being hypocritical.
Remember our dear neighbour, Pakistan, that even the Brit Prime Minister called the “global epicenter of terrorism”? It’s the great Western ally in the war on terror where bin Laden was living right in the middle of an army town...for years! The Economist wants us to talk to the same country and praises Manmohan Singh “who has heroically persisted in dialogue with Pakistan in the face of provocations and domestic resistance”. So the next time somebody bombs London, will The Economist urge the Brits to go kiss those murderers? Yeah, right.
The most surprising condemnation in that article was about how India doesn’t trade much with its neighbours (“Just 5% of South Asia’s trade is within the region”). But are India’s neighbours (other than China) rich? Can India, with an economy size close to $2 trillion, really do much trade with its poorer neighbours who have tiny GDP’s? Didn’t Japan become rich by trading with the US, not its Asian neighbours? We are just doing what works. Maybe The Economist should take lessons in Capitalism 101, Globalization 101 and Trade 101. And to think, they are considered one of the best economic/finance magazines. Really? I think one of Murdoch’s tabloids could write more sensibly about economics than these guys!
You have pointed out the way it generally goes. The advanced West (I mean the Europeans and USA principally) for some centuries have believed they are a superior lot. And, they wouldn't hesitate to arrogate themselves by expressing how lowly others are. If not actually arrogating, they always had a condescending attitude - even when they admitted to any progress (in what they think) 'in the lowly societies'. It is a lot more difficult for a non-white to get the Nobel prize for an equally outstanding contribution in a field - this is all well known.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, even after the third world started emerging from the clutches of colonialism and even after some of the 'lower' nations started making commendable progress, the Western attitude is, in general,one of poor grace and poor sportsmanship. How can there be any doubt that negative feelings such as jealousy or feeling-threatened etc. are making them behave that way? Can they stop others just through their negativity?
The Economist is no exception in this. It is not easy to be "mighty of heart, mighty of mind, magnanimous". It is easy to be ordinary and lack in objectivity.
Mark my words: not far away in future, the rise of some of the third world nations is going to be glorious. The West has started slipping in its rank steadily. One of the reasons for it is the attitude. One can buy a lot of things with money - but never attitude and character.