We just read a Dilip D'Souza blogpost, Rashomon on the border, where he makes the following offensive argument:
So I know Indians, outraged by this incident, who are calling for a strong military response against Bangladesh. They rail against the pusillanimity of a country that would be pushed around by a minnow like Bangladesh. Even if there was provocation, they say, Bangladesh cannot do this to an Indian soldier. That country seems to think it is India's equal, and our response should be so overwhelming as to rid them of such grandiose pretensions.
And I'm left to wonder, why is it that the way we consider incidents like this must be coloured by our national loyalties? Why must we believe our own country's version of events, even if it has holes, over the other's? (Then again, the other country's version also has holes).
Is it so hard to accept that when you have a tense border, you're going to have incidents like this one, and that's really why it happened? That if we want no more futile deaths like these, the real answer is for both countries to learn to live like neighbours, which they never have managed?
As our readers know, this blog has taken precisely the position Mr. D'Souza condemns. The following is our response to his argument.
The reason for Indians to stand with our soldiers -- and their version of what happened -- is that they stand vigil on the border, placing their lives at stake, so that we can live the free lives (a rarity in our hemisphere) that we lead.
Liberals seemingly revel in taking potshots at our boys -- just to make abstract points. It's all well & good to talk about the nature of truth, ala Rashomon, in smoke-filled parties and consequence-less blogs, but we're talking here about real Indians who've been tortured and killed -- so we can have these parties and blogs.
Mr. D'Souza is free to make an equivalence between the soldier who died protecting us, and the foreigners who care little about our interests; he should go right ahead. Afterall, he lives in a free country where such obscenity too is protected speech.
As for this blog, that takes the unabashedly hardline Indian view but, like others with similar views, mourns even the Bangladeshi dead -- a point Mr. D'Souza conveniently omitted in his post, the life of an Indian soldier matters a heck of a lot more than the lives of those who he has died protecting our freedoms from. If we do not stand with our boys when they're under fire, in the trenches, who will? Arundhati Roy? Noam Chomsky? Khaleda Zia?
Any other attitude insults the memory of our amar jawans. That we cannot let happen.
- ► 2011 (14)
- ► 2006 (194)
- Rumors About Bin Laden's Death
- Indian Golfer Bests Vijay Singh
- Finally, Some Good News From Bangladesh
- Theme Park OK, Fashion Show Not?
- Squabble Among White Hats
- Would Be Comic If It Weren't So Tragic
- The Global War On Offensive Odor!
- Good News in the War on Terror
- Nuclear Fusion on the Desktop?
- Shiv Sena Shoots Off Its Loony Mouth
- My Country, Always Wrong?
- Standing With Our Soldiers
- Christian Science Monitor: Exquisite Timing, NOT
- Christian Science Monitor: Lazy Writing, Bigoted T...
- Mahesh Bhatt: Terrible Writing, Foolish Thought
- Dictatorship of Relativism
- Put The UN Out Of Its Misery, Please
- HIV in India
- The Demise of Brokerage Parties?
- Murder on the Bangladesh Border
- Soul Train To Pakistan
- Musharraf, Stay Home
- Corruption in Canada
- What Is Asia?
- Lynching of Books
- Dhiren Bharot Indicted
- Stratfor on India-China Accords
- Nixing Security Council Expansion
- iPOD Has Finally Jumped The Shark
- Because Kashmir Is Not Khan El Khalili
- The Problem With Engaging Musharraf
- Ghost Wars Wins Pulitzer Prize
- How Indian Cricket Crowds Out All Else
- Chaos in Bangladesh
- Ivan Cardinal Dias
- Gyanendra, Almost Ready To Blink
- Wen in Delhi
- Strobe Talbott's "Engaging India"
- Friday Musings
- ▼ April (39)