Gideon Rachman on the India/China ‘clashes’. Political Observer comments

The reader of Mr. Rachman’s latest essay is first confronted by an editorial cartoon, depicting the American Eagle and an Indian Tiger, both noble and resolute, facing off with a demonic red  Chinese Dragon, with smoke coming from its nostrils. This cartoon, a readers guide as to the content of the essay. Call this the crudest kind of propaganda!


Mr. Rachman’s essay on the China/India ‘clashes’ is steeped in an ersatz political psychologism, attributing emotions to state entities and  its politicians, technocrats, anonymous and named, its  citizens, reduced to a carefully chosen few. Doesn’t just express lazy thinking, but demonstrates an absence of that more than valuable asset:

The mood in New Delhi, Indians feel assaulted and humiliated by China, Indians have watched nervously,has also gone down badly in New Delhi, India signalled its displeasure, in its efforts to woo India, Indians are wary,China should be worried.

Mr. Rachman provides a link to a Financial Times report:

Headline:India rethinks strategic ties following border clashes with China

Sub-headline: New Delhi likely to boost US relations and reduce reliance on commerce with neighbour

It takes three ‘reporters‘ to produce this one news story? 

Mr. Rachman role in this essay is focus on the Strategic, rather than any other consideration, if not to further the New Cold War, in its Asian iteration. In sum, Modi’s Hindu Fundamentalism, and its record of the murder of fellow Muslim Indian citizens, by Modi’s mobs of political acolytes, needs to be put in the background, of  a more pressing issues of a Strategy, steeped in a New Cold War Ethos: a moral/political obscenity.    

All four nations are intensely concerned by the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region. It is folly for China to drive India into America’s arms.

Political Observer


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.