Weeping for Pakistan

TB wrote back to comment on the Imperial tears post
But he [Richard Reeves] is not asking for less US intervention, he is asking for more…..

Yes frightening isnt it ? I used the word stunning previously. Florence Nightingale wrote a series of pamphlets and addressed many gatherings at that time. I dont have the documents at hand right now, but her main argument was against the claim that farmers were opposing irrigation projects for a variety of reasons. She says, that is no reason for us to stop doing it. They are ignorant and we must just go ahead and push it for their own good. Sir Arthur Cotton, one of the two British military engineers who changed the face of agriculture in India — says the famine deaths in India are a punishment for British sins. William Digby says the british should leave the natives to run their own business, and restrict their own activities to mainly keeping the natives from fighting each other and protecting its own interests. The problem with this position –one that Digby would not be aware of is that to keep them from fighting each other and to protect the British interests does not negate intervention. In fact it can lead to much worse forms of intervention. Reeves weeps for Pakistan and does not want the US to meddle with its politics. Yet he wants the US interests in the region protected. Collaborate with India? We have already offered our bases to the US in 2001 remember? And now that Kahuta has been mentioned lets us wait and see where this goes. By the way Tariq Ali wrote a lengthy piece in
London Review of Books on the deal in Pakistan- Daughter of the West.