Rajeev Kumar: Thanks for sharing your views. You say: “Good relationships can be built without requiring ancient ties.” The examples you give are interesting esp because the common theme appears to be ‘my foe’s foe is my friend’. No?

The relationship with China requires some interesting political ‘adjustments’ from India such as acknowledging Tibet is Chinese, while sheltering the Dalai Lama. I would put my money on the fact that after 1962, there isn’t likely to be another ‘Hindi Cheeni Bhai Bhai’ phase. Thanks.

But China will continue to trade with India regardless. And if India-China trade suffers, then it is not a problem. In their trade with India they mostly import minerals and ores and export steel and textiles, even if it shows on paper as a surplus for India. They aren’t stupid, they want TCS and Infosys to continue to invest in their human capital, while we give them our mineral wealth and have it shipped back to us as finished products. Mercantilism at its best.

Japan is a benign country that is giving India a way to utilize and develop its human capital, not to be manipulated for its natural resources. So what if they want to use our labor force to satisfy our internal market and they profit from it? Isn’t that how economies grow. And yes they have many common interests from patrolling the oil shipping lanes against pirates to containing China.

And as for our historical ties, lets not forget Siddharta Gautama. And they don’t seem to have any animosity towards Subash Chandra Bose either. Previous relations are not a requirement for good relations in the present. Look at India and Israel, China and Pakistan. Good relationships can be built without requiring ancient ties.

It makes the Chinese feel quite uncomfortable, and they are undoubtedly preparing countermeasures. At this point in India’s development, it is simply not the most brilliant idea to piss off its largest northern neighbor.

“There is no eternal friend or foe, only eternal interests”. Great point. Thankfully it does not always apply between human beings, but it is always the case in international alliances (or should they be called ‘dalliances’?).

Even better I like your analogy of the popular girl! :-) For the girl, the trick is in knowing when to commit and to whom, and later, whether to move on and when.

Thanks again.

Good extension to analogy. Americans probably know all about being disliked by the rest of the world so now they are getting even I guess!

I am glad you liked the article though. :-)

I liked the metaphor and here is more to it …

Yes the elephant will continue its march regardless but if a silly ant tries to meddle with the nose, it is going to hold the trunk up in the air and let the whole world know that he dislikes it.

The point I am trying to make here is that it is not a trivial matter to disparage anyone and any country. Now whether we all do it some time or other. Probably yes. but when IHT article says, its bad and it should be told so.

Sorry for hijacking your comments section (and for digression) of your otherwise-well-written article.

Altman is a journalist; it is his job to come up with sensational, attention-grabbing stuff like this. To me, however, seeing a Harvard PhD Economist, a journalist at the IHT resort to emotive, poorly argued commentary of the needling/ fingering sort is amusing. I can however see why many others are not so amused. :-)

When I was growing up, I had heard a saying “When an elephant walks, the grass gets crushed and dust flies, but the elephant walks, regardless”. An apt metaphor, I think, for the changing situation in the world.

I foresee more commentaries of this sort, as the power balance in the world changes.

Thanks again.

I have a problem with this. I like your arguments sans this one. It is not fragile it is just very important and we are touchy about it. If you think about why the author came up with the “provocative” title…. it shows how a person is so uncomfortable with the changing dynamics happening in today’s world. It expresses his frustration on the fact that west and other developed countries are sort of losing grip. To me, this was totally unnecessary. The point he wanted to make could have been done in a better way by stating and analyzing more facts and with more general title. With such title and not much analysis the author failed to actually make his point as now part of the discussion is about banging the author and not the content.

On a more general front, I dislike the trend of serious authors taking the blogosphere route to test the sentiment before actually coming up with a story.