What's the fuss about President Bush's visit to India?

I have been reading reports about the protests in India with regard to President Bush's visit there. The protests have been mainly lead by the communist party. Its been really widespread and what I have seen on TV, its been outright ugly sometimes. Burning of effigies, portraying Bush as some evil vampire with blood in his mouth is all disgusting and it doesn’t end here. I heard red's have called for a strike. Strike for what? Strike which will have the economy suffer. People with daily wages don’t get food to eat for the day, is this not evil. Why are we not protesting against this?

This quote from a JNU (where else?) student - "Mr. Bush is responsible for the terrorism and deaths that’s being observed around the world". Well just reading this little statement, seems like someone just plucked this out of thin air and said it out loud. It's based on no facts. Would love to sit down with this gentlemen and go behind the facts of this statement. Their thoughts are clearly being fed by people who are walking the stage.

Bush is definitely not the most sane leader. I, for one, will not give him a clean chit. Some of his policies have been more controversial. But that doesn’t make him evil. He had to make some tough calls after 9/11, he could have chosen to remain less controversial and take some easy decision, but he choose the tougher side of things. Have all his decision been based on facts and a truthful judgment call, not at all. We all know the oil lobby. But let there be no doubt that he has more munition to defend his decision morally. Was Taliban good for Afghanistan? Was Saddam good for the people of Iraq? The sane answer is clearly a emphatic "no" in both cases.

Going back to the fuss in India. The communists would rather have the Taliban ruling the Afghanistan which far from being in Afghanistan's own interests, was a regime that did not do any good to India. The communists have probably erased the Kandahar hijacking out of their minds. Thousands of terrorist that have shed Indian blood in India and the Kargil war, were trained in Afghanistan(by Pakistan) using the terrorist infrastructure created by both Taliban and Pakistan regime. Yes, America did not go to Afghanistan because of that, they went there because of 9/11. Some might call this self-interest. I will say it was self realization. They went there because they realized the kind of radical regime Taliban was. Its sad it took 9/11 and thousands of their own lives to realize that. But the important fact is that they took the evil regime out. Let the red's have a open debate in trying to defend the Taliban and Saddam regime, I can bet they don’t have the back to do that. I don’t blame them, which sane human being can defend such regime's. Wait a minute, may be they after all can?

I never saw the red's (and the neo-liberals) protesting against the beheading of a woman by the Taliban, who dared to step out showing her face or who dared to talk to a man, other than her own husband, brother etc. I never saw them painting Bin Laden's face in blood or Mullah Omar’s face in blood.

If they call Bush's policy as extremists, I will say the kind of rhetoric that’s out there in the protests is extremism too. Bush as a evil vampire, the worlds number one terrorist, if this is not stretching the limit, I don’t know what is? What exactly has he done, to be shown in such poor light? Well lets see, he kicked out Taliban out of Afghanistan and Saddam out of Iraq. Were innocent lives lost in the effort, yes. Would I have been peeved if the life lost was of someone close to me, yes. But why forget the lives that were being taken by these rogue regimes. Why forget the kind of inhuman treatment that was being given out the people living under these regime’s.

Yes, America aggressively looks for its own interest. Well the question is which country doesn’t. Are we not looking for own interests as a nation. Does the communist party not look for its own interests, pockets. And by the way, they do that at the cost of this nation, its own people, the people they claim to represent. I will say this is evil. The fact is millions of Indian are still below the poverty line, under these very politicians. American’s are not running the state of West Bengal. West Bengal has been under the red rule for years, that’s what people should be talking against.

Coming to Iraq. Yes Bush's decision to go into Iraq wasn’t the most prudent move. In retrospect it was bad decision, bad planning and bad execution. But who can argue that Iraq with Saddam was better. Saddam was a tyrant, who killed his own people. The pictures of Saddam’s torture chambers are as shameful as the Abu Ghraib Prison photos. He used chemical weapons against his own people. Thousands died as a result in a matter of hours. If you look at the pictures after the chemical attack, you would wonder why people are not on the streets protesting that. When the insurgents killed local Iraqi kids, for accepting candies from US soldiers, where were the protests. If killing innocent children for accepting candies is not inhuman and evil, I don’t know what is. The terrorist there want to create a Taliban like state in Iraq, which is unstable, has no government and which then can be used as a staging ground for terrorist operations, planning. So the terrorists will again have a country of their own, just like Afghanistan was until 9/11.

So why the red's not protesting against all this? Well because, that’s not the red's agenda.

It appears they did not even like the PM breaking the protocol and receiving Bush at the airport. How shallow can someone get? If this is not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is. Just a month back, PM received Saudi Arabia King Abdullah at the airport. What were the red's doing sitting cozy in their home. Why were they not in the streets, protesting that. If Saudi Arabia does not have a imperialistic agenda, it definitely has a terrorist agenda. Thousands of camps and madrasas in Pakistan are indirectly funded by the country. It is in these madrasas that students are preached hatred against Indians and the west and made to walk on the Indian and other western flags. It doesn’t end here. Talk to the Indian intelligence agencies experts and they will tell you the utter lack of support from the Saudi establishment on nailing the Mumbai mafia, that continues to hide in that country. There might be incidents of support here and there, but by and large its been no support at all. I never heard the communists party walking up to King Abdullah and letting him know politely on what’s going on, forget the protests.

As far I remember sometime back, the Indian PM received a Chinese leader at the airport. No word from the red's on their human rights record or their intention with Taiwan. Now I am definitely not advocating that the red's and neo-liberals should have done anything to other leaders mentioned, that they are doing to Bush. The respective leaders were on business, we did and should welcome them and if there are any difference, they should be brought in a "fair" and dignified manner. I am just trying to bring out the hypocrisy that exists among the communist party. These double standards don’t end here, but stretch as far as in their policies and agenda.

President Musharaf conversation was on tape, played out to the entire world in which he was heard calling the shots in the Kargil war. Here's a head of state who attacked India and the communists forget to utter a single word on his visit.

That brings to my point, what is the red's agenda? Its definitely not “India” agenda. Its their own petty "party" agenda. There agenda is hypocrisy. That’s what they stand for. Their own political interests. Being critical of the Saudi King on valid issues is not in their political interest. That may not create enough news and more importantly votes, for them. They continue to support investment in West Bengal, while oppose the same policies in the centre. If they have differences, well they are most welcome to voice it. Our freedom and democracy allows them to do so, I guess very different from the countries the red's would like to support and emulate. The differences need to be voiced in a sane and dignified manner and not the ugly venom that's being spit out by them.

But then dignity is not a word that can be associated with the India political system.