Oh! Mukul da, I think Tony Blair had a law background, plus am not sure if the UK has institutions similar to IITs.:)
But, I agree, the UK ought to run by technocrats. They tried attorneys, but that didn't work out too well. :) --Ram On 7/29/07, mc mahant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's what I meant when I said : > Only IIT graduates should be allowed to run the place!! > mm > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:36:25 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: assam@assamnet.org > Subject: Re: [Assam] From ToI > > Ram: > > > I wasn't even paying attention to that part of the story. It is a spook vs > spook intrigue that I don't pay much heed to. But now that you bring that > up, why do you think that the hotel room could NOT have been bugged, even > though it was chosen by the Brits themselves? Its not like that they had the > place cordoned off by the British security apparatus before Blair came a > calling? And it wasn't like some third party who supposedly found the bugs > -- it said the Brits found them during their sweep. > > > At any event, what would be Campbell's motive to throw that in, while the > entire book merited about ten references to an India with super-power > pretensions? A calculated resurrection of the benign-neglect doctrine :-)? > Racism? Die-hard colonial condescension? Fear of an emerging India? What? > > > Be that as it may, what I found ironic and held my nose at was ABV's > supplication ( I had to look that up -means * prayer to a higher power*,*a > humble request for help from someone in authority > * ) for Blair not to pass India by on his Pakistan visit, the grovelling > for equal notice, that much despised 'parity' problem that continues to > haunt India :-), never mind all the bravado declaring it as past. > > > Not that I was surprised. I had a pretty good idea how much Britain or > even the USA respects India. All one needs to do is look at the Indian press > head-lines or NRI proclamations here in the USA or in Europe to know how > much Indians need that notice of whom they suck-up to. What I was surprised > by was ToI's ability to print the piece, warts and all, obviously written > by an 'anti-Indian' , probably an ex-pat , if not a 'pseudo-secularist' who > hates ABV or the BJP :-). > > > c-da > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 6:40 PM -0600 7/29/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote: > > Hi C'da > > > > This news was reported also sometime ago (both in the British and Indian > press). > > The Indian Govt. asserts that there was no way they could have planted > bugs, as the hotel was chosen by the British Govt. And the M16 or was it M15 > had gone thru the suites with a tooth comb. > > > > Now, how did all that get past British Intel. > > > > The story seems too convenient as a story for Cambell. > > > > --Ram > > > > > > On 7/29/07,* Chan Mahanta* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** Tsk, tsk! > > cm > > _____________________________________________________________________ > __________ > > > > Blair's spin doctor spills beans on Indian waiters, PMs > 30 Jul 2007, 0038 hrs IST,Rashmee Roshan Lal,TNN > > Did you know there are more Indian waiters in Britain than there are > coal miners?" Tony Blair was asked in September 1994 by one of his > high-flying researchers Peter Hyman. > > It was two months since Blair had become the youngest Labour Party > > leader since World War II. Hyman's question presumably reflected the > > profound changes in late 20th-century Britain. Blair was desperate to > change his moribund party and drag it out of 18 years in the > political wilderness. Hyman, who became one of Blair's favourite > advisors, presumably asked his question to point to Blair the > geography of the change he must embrace. > > Thirteen years from the day Hyman asked the question, the past is a > different country. As is Britain. Blair has departed Downing Street > after a decade as Labour's longest-serving PM. A new PM is in office. > Blair's former aides have scattered like leaves in the wind. One of > the most prominent of these, former spin doctor Alastair Campbell, > has published extracts from his diaries. The volume, titled The Blair > Years, finally hit stands in India. > > And so we finally learn what PM Blair and his golden guys and girls > really, really thought about India in the 10 years they colonised the > PM's office and the British political landscape. Going by Campbell's > diaries, the answer is very little, if at all. Despite all the recent > rhetoric about a new special relationship between India and its > former imperial master, Campbell's diaries make clear that Blair's > > office, if not all of Blair's Britain, hardly thought about India, > except by default. > > According to Campbell's account, Blair and Britain were forced, > post-9/11 to acknowledge India's needs vis-a-vis Pakistan for > face-saving Western tokens and gestures signalling New Delhi's > importance and influence. > > In October 2001, says Campbell, Blair was on his way to Islamabad to > firm up plans with the West's new best friend, Pervez Musharraf, for > invading Afghanistan. New Delhi was not on the prime ministerial > itinerary. "We had a real problem with the Indians over the planned > visit to Pakistan," writes Blair's spin doctor, "Vajpayee was on the > phone, totally adamant that if TB (Blair) went to Pakistan without > also visiting India, it would be a real disaster for him. He > (Vajpayee) was normally so quiet and soft-spoken but there was both > panic and a bit of anger in his voice". > > Later, Campbell describes the "two bugs" found in the British PM's > Delhi hotel room and notes, "we decided against making a fuss". > Campbell fulminates at some length about the "valet, Sunil" he is > assigned for the Delhi stopover, complaining that "he just would not > leave me alone...I was beginning to wonder whether he had been put > there either by the (Indian) spooks or a paper". > > Soon in January 2002, and Campbell is once again recounting the > low-key theatricality of the UK-Indian relationship. Campbell's > memories of this passage to India appear to be dominated by Blair's > decision to wear a Nehru jacket. > > "Hopefully it would be seen as showing respect (to the Indians)", he > writes. And then he damns PM Vajpayee with faint praise, describing > how Blair "pushed hard but got very little change out of Vajpayee. He > was holding out for a lot more from the Pakistanis. He was pretty > shrewd and his total lack of embarrassment at long silences was a > real strength". > > As a miniature portrait of Indo-British relations six years ago, > Campbell's sketchy recollections of the stop-start bilateral rhythm > offer an unedifying picture. There is British suspicion and Indian > supplication; "mystical" Indian silences and wordy British lectures; > there are unmemorable banquets in the Hyderabad palace, prying > natives and clumsy Indian intelligence moves. All of this larded with > streaky bits of Indian tub-thumping and British mantras on South > Asia's need for stability. > > In the end, of course, it is significant that Campbell mentions India > barely half-a-dozen times in this account of the 10-year period in > which India's relations with its former master visibly and > conclusively changed. The significance may lie more in what he does > not say than what he does. > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Want to look great? Get expert opinion on beauty and skin care. Ask the > expert! <http://content.msn.co.in/Lifestyle/AskExpert/Default01.htm> > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > >
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org