Very interesting article. Thanks for forwarding Anthony. A couple of observations.
1) Kissinger greatly angered Indian leaders in the 1970's by calling India a "soft state". Today he seems to have tempered his tone considerably from his previous "power-worshipping" stance. Indeed now he refers approvingly to India's lack of global imperial ambitions. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/14/stories/05142523.htm 2) There are a couple of statements (quoted below) that most Indians would find extrememely objectionable. Referring to Muslims staying on in India "under Hindu rule" after partition is roughly the equivalent of referring to blacks staying on in the American South "under white rule" after the Civil rights movement. > > Relations with Pakistan are a special case. At independence, British India > was partitioned between Pakistan and India. But since partition could not > separate the Muslim and Hindu populations entirely, 150 million Muslims live > in India today. > > For Indian nationalists the Pakistan state appears not only as carved out of > what they consider their historic patrimony; it is also a standing challenge > to the Indian state by implying that Muslims cannot maintain their identity > under Hindu rule. > --raghu.
