Where's the Love, Arundhati?

In the wake of the Maoists' killing of 75 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in India, so many thoughts come to mind. What makes the difference between the shrill desperate voices of rebels and the powerful redemptive works of people like Paul Farmer and organizations like the International Justice Mission?

Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.

A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.

A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.

I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.

Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.

Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?

Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.

One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?

The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.

Gay Penguins and Our Response

A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.

Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.

As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.

In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.

But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.

Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.

Alienating Our Own

A few months ago my cousin, a Catholic as most of my family is, let me in on a conversation she'd had with a guest at a common Baptist friend's wedding. She was asked which church she went to- as an ice breaker, to which she replied, "a Catholic church". The answer came back promptly: "I pity you." Clearly my cousin carried this in her mind for months and later shared the incident with me.

My wife's cousin was a medical student about 7 years ago. She was attracted to the praise and worship meetings that were organized by Evangelical students, and being a religious Catholic, she felt she'd found something closer to the ideal she imagined Christian worship to be... until she began interacting with her well-meaning Evangelical friends who went to the meetings with her. They were far more interested in "holy huddles" and beyond a cursory smile or friendly hello towards her no real relationships were built, and the ones who did talk to her talked ill about the Catholic faith and just a bit about the Gospel.

Thirteen years ago, in MCC, I came to the Lord, a rare Catholic student on campus and embraced whole-heartedly the fervour and the authenticity of the Evangelical faith I found there. My mom had shared horror stories with me of Protestants, especially Pentecostals; and it was the Lord's grace that overcame much prejudice about them for me to listen to these Christian students and accept the Lord. Mom had let me know of the Pentecostal believers who visited our home to share the Gospel, of their vehemence in ridiculing the Pope and Catholicism. Quasi-Hindu practices such as penance-for-favours practised at shrines like Vailankanni drew their ire and they did not conceal their distaste for these. Mom let me know even before I went to college that the Pentecostals had specifically targetted heavily Catholic countries such as Brazil and transformed it into a Pope-hating, fire-breathing radical Pentecostal community. Her explanation for all this then was that they hated Catholicism. For an impressionable young man, this was a pretty strong seed of prejudice.

On campus in MCC, after I became a Christian, I found great joy in my new faith. I also read with a friend a book about Francis of Assissi in a book called 'A New Kind of Fool' written by an Indian Franciscan monk whose talent in music, art, photography and poetry combined to make this book an intimate look at Francis. The monk traveled through Assissi and many other places of interest to Francis-researchers and captured his impressions in art, poems, snapshots and sheet music. The life of Francis took my breath away. I was amazed to find such depth of faith. A page in the book carried a black and white photograph of an unpaved road somewhere near Assissi. The author captions it this way (my paraphrasing): "These old roads carry a special signficance, because somewhere along these roads, Francis saw a leper, dismounted from his horse and ran to embrace him." This did not go down very well with most of my friends in college. We had long discussions about Catholicism, mostly criticisms from them and nuanced agreements from me. More than the fact that Catholicism had introduced many corruptions into Christianity, my displeasure in these disputes with brothers I loved dearly was that their dismissal of Catholics and their faith was simplistic and somewhat aggressive. True friends of the Reformation they were, as I myself turned out to be later (I still am- except that I would like be a kinder gentler friend).

I did realize of course that the word Catholicism means different things to different people. There have been people who turned to Catholicism like Chesterton and Muggeridge and others who were influenced strongly by it like CS Lewis. Francis lived in a time before the Reformation began, when there was only one mainstream church- and that was the Roman Catholic Church. Besides the practises of the church that drew Martin Luther's ire came to that extend of corruption much later than Francis' time. The later Catholic Reformation did much to clear these after the Protestant Reformation had done its work. But apart from a few believers I heard the oft-repeated criticisms of the Catholic church from my friends.

Three years later I was working in India and visiting at a believing friend's house. He and his wife talked of how a Hindu friend did not want to confess his new-found Christian faith to his orthodox Brahmin parents. He later married a Christian girl from a Brahmin background and they had a Hindu-style wedding with a former Hindu priest-turned-Christian officiating, somehow fooling the parents that he was chanting Hindu mantras! What was remarkable was that my friends believed that this was allright, while they simply could not think that a Catholic could remain in his church and be a believer.

When I listen to the retelling of Catholics' brushes with the Protestant crowd, I get the feeling that we are back in the times of the Reformation. Catholicism has greatly changed and is continually changing, and is differently practised in different parts of the world. For instance, the high theology of Pope Benedict XVI does not find any takers in syncretistic India where new age practices like Pranic Healing is practised by some in the clergy. Muggeridge and Chesterton remain names to be learned in Indian seminaries, with none of their thinking permeating the policies and practises of dioceses. Many heroes of the Christian faith could be found in Catholicism- Henri Nouwen and Josef Damien come to mind. We know that the average lay Catholic anywhere in the world pay no more than lip service to men like these. After all they are not 'canonized'.

Catholicism has a lot to settle in its cesspool of beliefs, in order that the core beliefs of Christianity may remain and all else may be weeded out. But we Evangelicals are guilty- in more instances than not- of ignoring one of basic tenets of our faith: charity. Jesus, as the prologue to John's gospel says, was full of grace and truth. We may have truth on our side (if as we say we are true to the Scriptures) but we have no grace to give in what we say or do to these Catholic brethren.

It is tough to witness to my relatives, not least because their few interactions with Evangelicals has scarred them. We have talked ad nauseam about the Gospel, the non-existent dichotomy between faith and works, the validity of the Catholic argument about the written tradition of the Word and the oral tradition that is supposedly enshrined within the Magisterium of the church and all other areas of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. The disconnect is so much that this has ramifications in the political level. Strong pro-lifers turn pro-choice, their faith in Christian teachings deteriorate and many turn to other religions such as Hinduism which claims to be a religion that "accepts all" in peace, although the logical and historical invalidity of this statement they do not necessarily delve into.

Why do we alienate those who are willing to listen? If salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Catholics are, arguably, those closest to us in terms of faith. They embrace mystery and paradox which many of our churches have lost as a result of the almost Deistic effect that our interpretations of Sola Scriptura have had on us. We may have good reason to question some of these mysteries, but the fact is we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In many churches this may not be true. Indeed many Evangelicals embrace the mysticism of A'Kempis and Bonhoeffer (who was Lutheran). But it simply isn't true of the majority.

Is it strange at all that churches that advocate mystic experiences that should give us pause- like the 'Latter Rain' movement- have sprung up in Protestantism? When we lose the mystery of communing with God, we feel the urgent need to replace it with something. After all, God is so mysterious and his judgments past finding out- we need to hear from Him badly. I think it will take years and years of right living and gentle corrections to win back Catholics, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others. Many were drawn to Jesus not because he kept contradicting them (which he did often), but because of his compassion- and the Bible says that they were like sheep without a shepherd.

An Orissa in Afghanistan

The Taliban in Afghanistan, as the saffron brigade in India, kills a British aid worker because she was "spreading Christianity". Here is the news from IHT. It is a sign of the times that the popular sentiment in the West, though critical of the killers, is still indifference or an attitude that Christians should simply not tell anyone else about their faith. As for Asia, it is losing grips with reality and logic in that they attempt to kill the messenger when they cannot kill the message- and seek to justify these killings under the same sentiment expressed by indifferent Westerners. How long will we tolerate intolerance like this? We are eager to root out perceived intolerance in the form of evangelization, but we justify the brutishness of these cultures by our confused logic.

It is no surprise for a Christian, but familiar ground through history, and one accurately foretold by Jesus:

Luke 21:12- 19
"... they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."

The Lost Art of Courteous Conversation

I was at dinner with relatives the day after Thanksgiving, and the topic of the 2008 Presidential elections came up. We discussed the pros and cons of the potential candidates on both sides, when out of the blue someone remarked, 'Even a chimp could do a better job than George Bush.' This statement was followed up by some similarly flippant remarks on his ability to articulate, his education and so on. Regardless of the fact that doing a better than George Bush cannot be a factor in the next elections (since Bush is not a possible candidate ayway), I didn't continue the discussion although a good critical look at many flawed Bush policies would have made good conversation at the dinner.

This brought me back to a column by Peggy Noonan about the courtesy to be observed in the give and take of political discourse, the gist being that we have lost the ability to dissect, disagree or criticize without being coarse. In it Noonan highlights Ann Coulter and Bill Maher in two separate incidents which made her wince- Coulter suggesting John Edwards was gay, and Maher mentioning a lot of lives could have been saved if Dick Cheney were dead.

Funny enough, when someone makes such a strong negative statement about a candidate, it makes me sympathize with the candidate a little. When Noonan herself sometimes goes overboard in her criticism of Mrs. Clinton it makes me want to understand her better, to believe that all this mud cannot be completely true of her.

Besides all this Ms. Noonan's column makes another interesting point. I quote it here:

Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't
think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the
heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.

Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms.
Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what
they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.

The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made
them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same
reason.

I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple
way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have
been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's
an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to
be repeated.

In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced.
Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing,
but it's better when something makes you smile.

Good point, I think. We always feel chagrined when someone who claims to share our point of view misrepreents it by making a remark that you would always distance yourself from. It's good to remember that if you want people to listen you had better have something to give them than verbal abuse.

The New Pragmatists- India's Leadership

This article by Gwynne Dyer on China's aggressive posture toward India was indicative of so many such articles in the past. They are still the staple of many Indian journalists even today- notably those of the Hindu which echoed the same sentiments in an editorial a few days ago. The gist of this article seems to be that India in its new found nuclear friendship with the US has been deferring considering the cost it would entail with China, what China would have to say about this. And now, the article says, India has been caught on the wrong foot because the Chinese have raised the issue of Arunachal Pradesh and claimed the state to be Chinese territory in its entirity. The article goes on to say that India had been claiming for the past couple of years or so that it could now engage China succcessfully, but the politicians were now all of a doo-dah.

Then there is this article by B. Raman, India's former head of the intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), which is titled 'Tawang: Some Indian plain-speaking at last!' This piece says that India's response to China's claim has been plain, calm and aggressive but not impractical or reactionary. In the past several politicians would decry such comments, using strong language to describe the Chinese claims as unwarranted, unjustifiable, etc; and would 'condemn' them, as newspapers would quote. Raman's article quotes the only two politicians who gave their comments on this issue. This is notable because: (1) the rest of the political machinery has been silent- an unprecedented occurence; and (2) the content of the comments has come across absolutely unexpected and utterly magnificent.

Which is this is true? Let's take a look. India's press has been as knee jerk as ever before, wagging their fingers and saying 'I told you so'. If this had been 1995, India may have politely refused the US the nuclear deal and appeased China by refusing to undertake any infrastructure, industrial or military initiatives in Arunachal as has happened since the 1962 Sino-Indian war, until recently. In the end we would have engaged neither the US nor China, getting no military or diplomatic partnership with the US and no engagement with China.

In 2007 however External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee commented 'he had made it clear to his new Chinese counterpart that any elected Government of India is not permitted by the provisions of the Constitution to part with any part of our land that sends representatives to the Indian Parliament.'

The minister added: 'The days of Hitler are over. After the Second World War, no country captures land of another country in the present global context. That is why there is a civilised mechanism of discussions and dialogue to sort out border disputes. We sit around the table and discuss disputes to resolve them.'

Mukherjee's first comment notes that the Chinese claim over Arunachal is impractical in that they cannot simply get the state just because they claim it. This is not 1962 where a conventional war could be fought and boundaries decided. But this is a known fact. I would venture that the Chinese, masterful negotiators that they are, do not want to let go of the Arunachal issue because it is a leverage they have in negotiations. After recognizing Sikkim's statehood within India, the Chinese lost a playing card. To get a concession from India they need to give back something. And that could be Arunachal. But it looks like the Indian leadership sees this for the smokescreen that it is. For India to give up something significant, say recognizing Tibet as Chinese territory (we did accept Tibet as an autonomous region within China in 2003, whatever that means!), and accept Chinese recognition of Arunachal would be silly- we would be getting nothing of value! Secondly, Mukherjee states that the discussions to resolve the issue are going on and any claim over past occupation does not hold good now. This is a mature, down to earth stating of facts.

Take a look at Defence Minster AK Anthony's comments:

'China has been building infrastructure (near the Line of Actual Control). We are also building infrastructure. Nobody can prevent both sides. There is nothing wrong in that. They have the right to build infrastructure on their territory. We have the right to do that on ours. We are also trying to hasten the development of our infrastructure. They have their perception (about Arunachal Pradesh). On our part, we are very categorical that Arunachal Pradesh is part of India.'

Anthony seems to be confident enough in talking about our infrastructure building in Arunachal which had been languishing since 1962, when we decided to leave it well alone for fear that the Chinese may eventually get the state. Indeed, India has begun a series of hectic road building in this state unparalleled since then. After this China went further and jammed the All India Radio and Doordarshan signals in Arunachal's border towns with more powerful signals from China. But the message is clear enough: the way to engage the dragon is through aggression. We know that from their interactions with the Americans and the Japanese. India's aggression (without unnecessary sensationalism) pays and we have since seen the dividends. India has been pragmatic and diplomatic enough to encourage trade with China (which hit $20 billion this year, well on its way to be $30 billion next year, significantly large for them as it is for us) and cooperation in a number of projects (including joint bidding for gas and oil fields abroad), but our foreign policy seems to be finally free of dogmatic appeasement.

After Chinese statements hit the press, we saw another historic event take place. Taiwanese presidential candidate Ma-Ying Jeou (Kuo Ming Tang) paid a visit to India, the first by any Taiwanese leader. This article, titled India Plays the Taiwan Card', talks eloquently about this. China did not protest this as the visit was billed as having economic motives. But this cannot have caused just mild flutters in Beijing- whatever the motives, ths visit was unprecedented in nearly seventy decades, and on a larger, strategic level, reflects India's commitments to engage Taiwan. It also reflects a reversal of the former Indian policy of leaving Chinese feathers unruffled as concerns Taiwan.

Gwynne Dyer's pronouncement that India has been given a rude awakening is far from reality. India has been awake for a while now, but I think our northern neighbour is taking longer to wake up. They got a wake up call when India tested the nuclear bomb and they've been slowly adjusting to the new attitude. India's priorities were made very clear when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited India last November. His welcome party was in no way colourful or warm as the fantastic reception India gave US President George Bush when he visited. President Bush was received maginificently both at Rashtrapati Bhavan, with a parade of cavalry, as well as at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's home, decorated with flowers. The press also noted the informality and warmth between the two leaders. Prime Minister Singh broke protocol and went himself to receive President Bush when he landed in New Delhi. None of that for President Jintao. Regulation red carpet, regulation formal welcome. He was welcomed by senior Indian bureaucrats, politicians and Chinese consular officers and later met with the Prime Minister and other senior lawmakers. The difference was more than symbolic. Our leadership's comments were clear enough that the visit was not expected to make any grand proclamations of friendship or giant strides in the Sino-Indian rapprochement, but was certainly expected to make progress in trade and economic ties- This contemporary article titled 'Hu Visit: It's Trade, Not Politics' captures the idea nicely.

Another facet of India's pragmatism was made known to me when I visited a US defense contractor yesterday for a possible sale of IT services. The security officer at the door engaged me in conversation as my contact was taking some time to come and receive me. He let me know with some apprehension in his voice that the company was moving some jobs to India. I thought back to one of our strategy sessions within our company when we talked about the $30 billion business in defense procurement that we are throwing open to global arms companies. Perhaps taking a leaf out of the United States' historical record of unreliability when it comes to arms delivery and perhaps from Pakistan's hapless experience of having paid money upfront to procure F-16s and waiting several years to get the goods (because of US sanctions after their nuclear tests), India made it manadatory for the US companies to subcontract 30 percent of the arms manufacture to Indian companies. In addition, qualitative factors such as doing business with Indian companies would feature in a decision to select a supplier. This would ensure: (1) timely delivery of arms; (2) an American stake in ensuring contract terms; (3) the development of a domestic military industrial complex in India. Besides, this relationship would closely marry American interests in improving US-India relations with doing business with the Indians. In the absence of historical, ethnic or such undefinable ties such as that the US shares with Britain, sound economics would be India's best bet to improve the relationship with America.

My answer to the security officer was that since the company was selling several products to India the outsourcing is part of the quid pro quo that is expected in the transaction. Interestingly, the officer warmed to me visibly after I mentioned this. The oft quoted phrase 'I owe you one' seems very appropriate here.

This shows pragmatism, decisiveness and maturity in the leadership. I just wish our press would understand these larger realities and begin some responsible reportage instead of regurgitating foreign journalists or worse still, quite often agencies like Xinhua. The other party in India that I would like to see responding honourably is the CPI(M). They have been behaving more or less like an informal Chinese trade office by actively pushing for Chinese investments in India's infrastructure and decrying any deals with the US. Remarkably they have been silent about Chinese claims over Arunachal. These gentlemen and ladies of the Left need to behave like Indians before they get any respect from the rest of India. The old joke in Kerala about the Left was that they would open up their umbrellas if it was raining in China. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the Fifth Estate and the Left have so many mutual admirers (no explanations necessary here, I think).