One has to be incredibly credulous to buy BJP spin masters’ argument that the government got rid of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for harmonious relationship with the judiciary.
Modi government had also made numerous efforts to establish peace with Pakistan but has now adopted a different path, militarily, to establish peace, adds defence minister.
As Narendra Modi becomes India’s second-longest consecutively serving Prime Minister, we look at how he compares with Indira Gandhi across four key dimensions.
“Soaring rhetoric on big themes could not hide the deeply contested territoriality of the two nations across the Himalayas that continues to derail efforts to build a sustainable relationship,” …policy that has been followed “more in breach than in its observance”.
The article is just a trigger for my thoughts. Not the absolute. The idea of sovereignty in the twenty first century is the same it was in the eighth century or prior, so to speak. Expansionism was always about money, wealth and bounty. Only occasionally was there a battle between just for prestige and territory. Even so they were subsumed by the aim of wealth and power to achieve wealth.
I can hear someone whispering “Hitler”. To them, I say, when a Nation is to be rallied for something big, the deliverables has to be now and here. The obvious may not always be the final aim.
So it is, even now. Aggressions and expansionism is for power and wealth. In this context we may ask the question whether China’s territorial aggression is just a smoke screen for economic expansion.
Tail piece: Most times, what we see is not what it is. Whatever it is, a mighty military is imperative to be a strong Nation, else Nations will be forced to suck up to some other Nation who has a mighty military).
There is no need of another hard lesson to Peking; They have learnt a hard one at LAC aim last 10 months. They are very mindful of lessons they get. Their prestige is at stake. You professional writers should learn that.
“Soaring rhetoric on big themes could not hide the deeply contested territoriality of the two nations across the Himalayas that continues to derail efforts to build a sustainable relationship,” …policy that has been followed “more in breach than in its observance”.
The article is just a trigger for my thoughts. Not the absolute. The idea of sovereignty in the twenty first century is the same it was in the eighth century or prior, so to speak. Expansionism was always about money, wealth and bounty. Only occasionally was there a battle between just for prestige and territory. Even so they were subsumed by the aim of wealth and power to achieve wealth.
I can hear someone whispering “Hitler”. To them, I say, when a Nation is to be rallied for something big, the deliverables has to be now and here. The obvious may not always be the final aim.
So it is, even now. Aggressions and expansionism is for power and wealth. In this context we may ask the question whether China’s territorial aggression is just a smoke screen for economic expansion.
Tail piece: Most times, what we see is not what it is. Whatever it is, a mighty military is imperative to be a strong Nation, else Nations will be forced to suck up to some other Nation who has a mighty military).
There is no need of another hard lesson to Peking; They have learnt a hard one at LAC aim last 10 months. They are very mindful of lessons they get. Their prestige is at stake. You professional writers should learn that.