Re:Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program – The Beginning (2002)
by flangloria on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @04:09PM
(#9887682)
This is so poorly researched, and so opinionated and so ignorant of the chain of events, it's hilarious. Moreover, it has a blatant anti Hindu bias, that is characteristic of almost all western academic works pertaining to the politics of India and the region. There is something so alien about the Hindu religion that is frankly unpalatable to a certain type of westerner. Either that, or they just get bamboozled by the local boondogglery, and all critical reasoning just goes out the window. Thanks to the works of "scholars" such as these, it's really no wonder why western understanding of politics and political motivations in the independent south Asia (especially pre 90s) is basically BS. And no wonder why they feel, they get taken for a ride by the governments in the region.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program – The Beginning (2002)
by tptacek on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @04:55PM
(#9888003)
If by "the west" you mean the USA, I doubt you could find 1 American in 10 who could establish in a simple 10-question quiz that they knew the difference between Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. More than half might not know whether Hindus are a religion or an ethnicity. Hindus are definitely not singled out for special derision, beyond the garden-variety xenophobia that characterizes --- well, most of the whole world.
Perhaps this might be surprising, but I learned to appreciate Hinduism in Jesuit Catholic high school, in a mandatory comparative religion course. It wasn't especially thorough, but they did make us read the Bhagavad Gita.
(I have no idea whether this narrative about the Pakistani nuclear program is credible; I just wanted to call out the anti-Hindu bias thing from your comment.)
Re:Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program – The Beginning (2002)
by flangloria on Tuesday July 14, 2015 @10:56PM
(#9889463)
I'm not talking about the average American or the average westerner. Most of them are cheerfully ignorant and also mostly welcoming and curious, just like the rest of the planet, and that is just fine. It is the academics who carry a pronounced bias, which is mostly the result of not bothering to visit the places concerned, or not talking to enough people. Which is what I said in the first place.
As far as the narrative is concerned, the main problems are the parts which deal with the motivations of the actors involved. The writer just basically goes about it as if writing a novel divorced from the facts and is just irresponsible.