Ramana,
It is like with recent "Hindu Taliban" allegation against Jammu. We cannot conclude from the allegation that seculars must be opposed to islamics since they refer to taliban disparingingly, especially since their pattern of involvement argues against such. Same is with the communist-china bogey always brought up by manmohan and fellows. Why is China letting deal pass at end stage, along with pakistan? because they have been taken into confidence regarding true nature of the deal, and their bad cop services are no longer required. Even colonial period can be characterized as an alliance between India and Britain but such would militate against general colonial experience of Indians. America was a party in imperialist plunder of China, in fact most missionaries in South china were of american baptist/methodist origin. Existence of British-American rivalry cannot be used to negate general experience of chinese and indians under western imperialism. This deal is not about China but about controlling India. during colonial period, what threat China posed to britain that they decided to intervene in India to balance chinese power? I am sure such arguments must have been brought up at the time. Some will take these confusionistic arguments at face value, some will even call them as the colonizer's self-rationalizations, but in fact these are parcel part of imperialist strategy. at least this is my unexpert reading.
It is like with recent "Hindu Taliban" allegation against Jammu. We cannot conclude from the allegation that seculars must be opposed to islamics since they refer to taliban disparingingly, especially since their pattern of involvement argues against such. Same is with the communist-china bogey always brought up by manmohan and fellows. Why is China letting deal pass at end stage, along with pakistan? because they have been taken into confidence regarding true nature of the deal, and their bad cop services are no longer required. Even colonial period can be characterized as an alliance between India and Britain but such would militate against general colonial experience of Indians. America was a party in imperialist plunder of China, in fact most missionaries in South china were of american baptist/methodist origin. Existence of British-American rivalry cannot be used to negate general experience of chinese and indians under western imperialism. This deal is not about China but about controlling India. during colonial period, what threat China posed to britain that they decided to intervene in India to balance chinese power? I am sure such arguments must have been brought up at the time. Some will take these confusionistic arguments at face value, some will even call them as the colonizer's self-rationalizations, but in fact these are parcel part of imperialist strategy. at least this is my unexpert reading.