Hillary Clinton and India

[sher_khan]

Indians on this forum have been claiming that Pakistani anchors were being over negative and aggressive with Hillary.

It is only natural for the Pakistani media to bridge the communication gap and ask tough questions about what US has said to/about and done with Pakisan.

Pakistan is not a nation of appeasers, unlike India. Clintons are informed by the indian media that there is something about india that draws their family to it.

I, for one, am not aware of any non-business trips the clinton family made to India. However, I do know about how much of a respect Hillary Clinton has for India and Indians.

Please, see the following clip:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9LP0ATVJc[/video]

 

[jimpack]

Indians on this forum have been claiming that Pakistani anchors were being over negative and aggressive with Hillary.

It is only natural for the Pakistani media to bridge the communication gap and ask tough questions about what US has said to/about and done with Pakisan.

Pakistan is not a nation of appeasers, unlike India. Clintons are informed by the indian media that there is something about india that draws their family to it.

I, for one, am not aware of any non-business trips the clinton family made to India. However, I do know about how much of a respect Hillary Clinton has for India and Indians.

Please, see the following clip:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9LP0ATVJc[/video]

What ?????? What is in your Mind. What is that you are trying to prove.

Why are you getting so petrified about her relationship with India.

Do you understand the meaning of DEMOCRACY

 

[sher_khan]

What ?????? What is in your Mind. What is that you are trying to prove.

Why are you getting so petrified about her relationship with India.

Do you understand the meaning of DEMOCRACY

Sorry to hurt your feelings.
There is a gas station nearby my place. It says help wanted.
Do you want to apply there?
Because that's what she is saying.
A comment that was not even embraced by the Americans.

 

[jimpack]

What ?????? What is in your Mind. What is that you are trying to prove.

Why are you getting so petrified about her relationship with India.

Do you understand the meaning of DEMOCRACY

Sorry to hurt your feelings.
There is a gas station nearby my place. It says help wanted.
Do you want to apply there?
Because that's what she is saying.
A comment that was not even embraced by the Americans.

i DON'T get you ???????? What the heck is that you want to prove ??????

 

[shaheedchoudry]

HELL WITH HILLARY, SHE IS STUPID FOR INSULTING GANDHI LIKE THAT. GANDHI IS THE ROLE MODEL OF BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH INCLUDING ME. WHO IS HER ROLE MODEL, MAY BE BILL?? :roll:

 

[Guest]

indian national anthem:
SARAY JAHAN SE ACHA.....GANDHI KE PET MAY BACHA
SARAY JAHAN SE ACHA.....GANDHI KE PET MAY BACHA :D :D :D :D

 

[digitalzygot]

Lol This is so humiliating, such a biatch :lol: :lol:

 

[desicad]

I didn't understand the purpose of this video as to what the original poster is trying to say.

 

[desicad]

HELL WITH HILLARY, SHE IS STUPID FOR INSULTING GANDHI LIKE THAT. GANDHI IS THE ROLE MODEL OF BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH INCLUDING ME. WHO IS HER ROLE MODEL, MAY BE BILL?? :roll:

Are you serious? I was under the impression that Pakistanis despise Mahatma Gandhi, but then I could be wrong.

 

[shaheedchoudry]

HELL WITH HILLARY, SHE IS STUPID FOR INSULTING GANDHI LIKE THAT. GANDHI IS THE ROLE MODEL OF BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH INCLUDING ME. WHO IS HER ROLE MODEL, MAY BE BILL?? :roll:

Are you serious? I was under the impression that Pakistanis despise Mahatma Gandhi, but then I could be wrong.

NO, YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS. I AM BIG FAN OF MAHATMA GI.

 

[daradaniyal]

I read that after the 1947 war, India denied the payment of 550 million rupees to Pakistan. Gandhi went on hunger strike till death asking his Government to end communal violence and pay Pakistan the money so that there wont be any anger produced in muslims because of that.

I think he was a great man. Despite the fact he was against the partition but he always had true intentions for bringing people together so that Muslims, Hindus could coexist peacefully.

Maybe you people know that Gandhi was against Zionism and he opposed Palestinian occupation.

Not to mention that he always admired Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W) and for that I have deepest respect for him.



Salam!!!

 

[shaheedchoudry]

I read that after the 1947 war, India denied the payment of 550 million rupees to Pakistan. Gandhi went on hunger strike till death asking his Government to end communal violence and pay Pakistan the money so that there wont be any anger produced in muslims because of that.(THIS IS NEVER TAUGHT IN PAKISTAN)

I think he was a great man. Despite the fact he was against the partition but he always had true intentions for bringing people together so that Muslims, Hindus could coexist peacefully.

Maybe you people know that Gandhi was against Zionism and he opposed Palestinian occupation.(I WISH ALL PAKISTANIS KNEW THAT)

Not to mention that he always admired Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W) and for that I have deepest respect for him.(I BET NO ONE IN PAKISTAN KNOWS )



Salam!!!

GOD BLESS MAHATMA GANDHI. I WISH WE STUDIED GANDHI WITH OUT KNOWING HIS RELIGION.

 

[sher_khan]

I didn't understand the purpose of this video as to what the original poster is trying to say.

i DON'T get you ???????? What the heck is that you want to prove ??????

Prologue to my post: See my comment on the link listed below:
http://www.siasat.pk/forum/dunya-today-october-28,-2009-hillary-clinton--p45373.html#p45373


Purpose of the post: To prove that Indians are appeasers and would not confront people who have made disrespectful remarks about hem and their leaders. Instead, they try to create a superficial environment of these people's appreciation of and admiration for india when these same people, who have disrespected them in the recent past, pay a visit to their country. For example, on her recent visit to india, an anchor name Arnab told Hillary that there is some thing about india that draws her and her husband to it. Is anyone aware of any personal visits made by the Clinton family to India? Is this even a relevant thing to say by a journalist during an interview? Why didn't the Indian media confront Hillary on her comment about Mahatma Gandhi and stereotyping Indians?

On the other hand, Pakistani journalists are upfront with the Amercians and ask tough questions. There is a trust deficit b/w Pakistan and US. Both the parties are working on it. Not asking appeasing questions and taking a tough stance is not being "negative" on the part of Pakistani journalists. Some Indians stated that Pakistani journalists were being over negative. Pakistani journalists simply talk at face value. No BS.

 

[sher_khan]

HELL WITH HILLARY, SHE IS STUPID FOR INSULTING GANDHI LIKE THAT. GANDHI IS THE ROLE MODEL OF BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH INCLUDING ME. WHO IS HER ROLE MODEL, MAY BE BILL?? :roll:

Are you serious? I was under the impression that Pakistanis despise Mahatma Gandhi, but then I could be wrong.

Indeed Indian media and its government do a great job in creating gulf between Pakistani and Indian people. They show Pakistanis as demons and dislikers of historic indian leaders. This helps the politicians to control the emotions of indian people when they (politicians) take stances against Pakistan to gather their votes.

Majority of the Pakistanis that I know respect Gandhi. I for one, admire Gandhi but do believe that he had his limitations and was severely misused by other Indian leaders.

 

[desicad]

Purpose of the post: To prove that Indians are appeasers and would not confront people who have made disrespectful remarks about hem and their leaders. Instead, they try to create a superficial environment of these people's appreciation of and admiration for india when these same people, who have disrespected them in the recent past, pay a visit to their country. For example, on her recent visit to india, an anchor name Arnab told Hillary that there is some thing about india that draws her and her husband to it. Is anyone aware of any personal visits made by the Clinton family to India? Is this even a relevant thing to say by a journalist during an interview? Why didn't the Indian media confront Hillary on her comment about Mahatma Gandhi and stereotyping Indians?

On the other hand, Pakistani journalists are upfront with the Amercians and ask tough questions. There is a lack of trust deficit b/w Pakistan and US. Both the parties are working on it. Not asking appeasing questions and taking a tough stance is not being "negative" on the part of Pakistani journalists. Some Indians stated that Pakistani journalists were being over negative. Pakistani journalists simply talk at face value. No BS.

Sorry to say your observations and comments are unfounded and baseless. There is tremendous anti American sentiments among Pakistani people due to the reasons known to you i.e., war on terror, drone attacks and Kerry-Lugar bill, etc. Now these journalist mainly the electronic media anchors had no choice, but to ask these so called tough questions because they are the ones who were responsible to some extent for shaping the anti American sentiments in their talk shows. Such is not the case in India and so no question of asking rude or tough questions to the state guest. There are some differences between India and US like nuclear deal, climate change, etc and may be Kashmir and the questions were asked, but just because the emotions don't run high between the two countries and no apparent trust deficit those don't make major news and you call that appeasment.
BTW you wrote lack of trust deficit, I think you meant trust deficit or lack of trust.

 

[desicad]

Majority of the Pakistanis that I know respect Indra Gandhi. I for one, admire Gandhi but do believe that he had his limitations and was severely misused by other Indian leaders.

I can understand your comment about limitations after all he was a human, but can you share your knowledge about the misused part. Thanks.

 

[sher_khan]

Sorry to say your observations and comments are unfounded and baseless. There is tremendous anti American sentiments among Pakistani people due to the reasons known to you i.e., war on terror, drone attacks and Kerry-Lugar bill, etc. Now these journalist mainly the electronic media anchors had no choice, but to ask these so called tough questions because they are the ones who were responsible to some extent for shaping the anti American sentiments in their talk shows. Such is not the case in India and so no question of asking rude or tough questions to the state guest. There are some differences between India and US like nuclear deal, climate change, etc and may be Kashmir and the questions were asked, but just because the emotions don't run high between the two countries and no apparent trust deficit those don't make major news and you call that appeasment.
BTW you wrote lack of trust deficit, I think you meant trust deficit or lack of trust.

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I have fixed it.

The anchors are doing their jobs. They are not contributing to anti-american sentiments. They are simply reporting the facts. Their responsibility is to the viewers not he US government. Their reports were correct as US has already established that it has made mistakes in the past and present and wants to turn a new page on US and Pakistan relationship. Hence your previous statement that they were being over negative is unjustified. Hillary has appreciated the bluntness of the journalists in Pakistan. On the other hand Pakistani journalists and anchors have criticized Hillary for avoiding some questions but at the same time have admired her for being truthful and having a very intensive and engaging visit to Pakistan. Almost all the anchors have embarrassed the Pakistani leaders by comparing Hillary to them. It was appreciated that Hillary has paid more visits to dangerous and violence affected locations of Pakistan than the political government officials. Hence the anchors have no bias agenda against the US. They call spade a spade.

Furthermore, Clinton's comments re Gandhi were not even embraced well in North America. I don't know where you reside but in Canada you don't make such jokes. She was criticised very heavily in USA. I bet you that she can't even make such a joke regarding an african american or a latino political leader. For example no one makes stereotyping jokes on Malcom X or Martin Luthar King. In fact I don't understand why you are defending Hillary's joke. May be it's a cultural difference. Did you even know that Hillary ever made such a remark about Gandhi? Did Indian media even cover it? (Don't get me wrong. She seems to be an ok person but that joke was in a very poor taste.)

I remember recently when the US and India air forces performed flying exercises together. A US trainer made fun of the indian pilots behind their backs and was caught on tape. The indian media was pretty quick to grab on that and questions were asked off the US officials. How come no one in the Indian media asked anything off Hillary about stereotyping the Indians? Instead they tell her that she is drawn to India :roll: Why not ask her explanation? Why? Because India does not want o confront this issue and wants her to be happy with india. And that's what I call appeasement.

 

[desicad]

The video clip in question is only few seconds and I could not make out the context in which that comment was made. So there is no question of defending her or the comment. Don't know how you got the impression that I am defending anything? One cannot go by the individuals making some negative comments ( the airforce trainer example) here and there because that do not count in the bigger picture. Also if some journalist is asking a flattering question does not mean appeasment policy.

 

[sher_khan]

Majority of the Pakistanis that I know respect Gandhi. I for one, admire Gandhi but do believe that he had his limitations and was severely misused by other Indian leaders.

I can understand your comment about limitations after all he was a human, but can you share your knowledge about the misused part. Thanks.

Limitations: I don't think that Gandhi had the foresight to recognize the fact that his excessive use of Hindu culture related terminologies and references would draw a line between the Hindus and Muslims. His referral to Jinnah as a member of a minority made sure that there will be communal divisions in india. Jinnah was the leader of the congress when gandhi arrived in india and did not see india as hindu india or muslim india, but india for all. I am sure that Gandhi did not mean any harm but probably he did not read the fabric of the Indian culture and the sensitivity of communal issues as quickly as it was required. He came from south africa where muslims and hindus were enslaved together and there was no possible animosity between them. India was a different scenario. Although both the communities were subjects of the British simultaneously but because of the prior muslim (minority) rule over india, India had the potential of controversial future. In my opinion, I could be totally wrong, Jinnah observed this issue getting raised in future way earlier than Gandhi. May be because Jinnah had spent more time in India prior to the arrival of Gandhi.

Misuse: Misuse is the only conclusion I can draw. Sardar and Nehru used Gandhi as a marketing tool to further their causes, prior to the partition. Masses were drawn to Gandhi. Not to Nehru and Sardar. Gandhi helped Nehru and other Congress leaders to build the base. Every word of Gandhi was followed upon prior to partition. However, once it was decided that the British are going to leave for sure then all of the sudden Gandhi's words were not as relevant or powerful. For example, Gandhi's recommendation to make Jinnah the PM of undivided India, Gandhi's recommendation to forward the Pakistan's share of Sub-continent's treasury to it, etc. were not followed upon.

How come Gandhi's words became less valuable overnight? Because the goal of the other Indian political leaders was already achieved. They didn't need Gandhi anymore, politically speaking.

 

[sher_khan]

The video clip in question is only few seconds and I could not make out the context in which that comment was made. So there is no question of defending her or the comment. Don't know how you got the impression that I am defending anything? One cannot go by the individuals making some negative comments ( the airforce trainer example) here and there because that do not count in the bigger picture. Also if some journalist is asking a flattering question does not mean appeasment policy.

I am not trying to claim that she is a racist. She actually apologized and regretted subsequently for making a joke in a poor taste. She did not realize that she was stereotyping. She was sorry about it after the matter was brought to her by the Americans not Indians. We all are human and make mistakes. However, people with great responsibilities get scrutinized more. If no issues were raised by the Americans then it would have been a bad precedence for a political leader to make such stereotyping jokes. The bigger issue is an indian at a gas station not Gandhi. In North America the spotlight people are always asked what they have learned from their mistakes after their acknowledgement, specially if their behavior targeted a community. May be not so in India.

It is not when journalists ask flattering questions that implies appeasement policy. It's when they don't ask tough questions and try to avoid them that imply appeasement policy.