Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[feverpitch]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/29/margaret-thatcher-soviet-aid-miners

...

Margaret Thatcher blocked Soviet aid for striking miners, files reveal

Margaret Thatcher exerted intense diplomatic pressure on Mikhail Gorbachev over funds for miners during strike

Rob Evans and David Hencke guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 August 2010 21.00

...
 
She was the prime minister at the height of her powers, using every arm of the state to crush the striking miners. He was the Soviet heir apparent who had authorised a large donation to help striking comrades in the UK.

Now newly released Downing Street documents have shed fresh light on the relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev, exposing how Thatcher exerted intense diplomatic pressure on the future leader to successfully block a Soviet donation of much-needed cash to the strikers.

The documents, released to the Guardian after a five-year freedom of information battle, show how the pair clashed during the titanic miners' strike that convulsed Britain in 1984-85.

In October 1984, six months into the dispute, the National Union of Mineworkers was desperate for cash to fund the strike, because a judge had ordered the confiscation of the union's entire assets. The NUM leader, Arthur Scargill, had stepped up efforts to raise cash from the USSR; Soviet miners had responded by donating more than $1m from their wages.

To avoid the cash being seized by the court-appointed official who had been put in charge of the NUM's finances, it had to be transferred clandestinely to the union. The Soviets attempted to transfer the cash to an NUM bank account in Zurich, but it, like other accounts, was frozen.

The money bounced back, but Thatcher soon learnt of the manoeuvre and became worried. The proposed donation threatened to derail a planned visit by Gorbachev to Britain to foster better relations between east and west.

Gorbachev was at that time second-in-command of the Soviet Union and tipped to take over when the ailing leader, Konstantin Chernenko, died. The relationship between Thatcher and Gorbachev was beginning to blossom; she would later famously declare him someone with whom she could "do business".

Thatcher wanted to know whether Gorbachev had approved the donation, since the Soviet miners would have needed government permission to convert roubles into foreign currency. Colin Budd, an aide to the then foreign secretary, Geoffrey Howe, also warned in a confidential letter to Charles Powell, the prime minister's foreign affairs adviser, that there would be a "serious political row" if a Soviet coalmine foreman, due to accompany Gorbachev in the official delegation, addressed a rally of striking miners in the UK.

Norman Lamont, then an industry minister and later chancellor under John Major, was instructed by Thatcher to lodge a protest "with some force" over lunch with the Soviet ambassador. According to Budd, Lamont "stressed that the government viewed with great concern the transfer of money from the Soviet Union to the NUM. He said that the Soviet Union must understand that the UK government considered this a very serious matter … He hoped that the Soviet Union would not risk souring the atmosphere" of Gorbachev's forthcoming visit.

The British found the encounter "somewhat unsatisfactory", as the ambassador, Viktor Popov, appeared unmoved. "The ambassador simply maintained that Soviet trade unions were independent and democratic and that the Soviet government was not answerable for their exercise of their rights" to donate to their British comrades.

The Thatcher government intensified the diplomatic pressure. Three days before Gorbachev's visit in December, Thatcher ordered that the Soviet ambassador be summoned to the Foreign Office. There, David Goodall, a senior diplomat, told him that if the Soviet government had authorised the donation, the British government "would take a very serious view and regard it as an unfriendly and unwarrantable interference in British domestic affairs".

The following day, a senior Soviet official returned to the Foreign Office with a message stating that "any form of aid that might be given to the British miners would be undertaken independently by the Soviet miners without the slightest participation of the Soviet government or its departments".

At Chequers, Thatcher personally confronted Gorbachev and protested that the Soviet Union was meddling in British matters and would help to prolong the strike by giving the cash. Gorbachev stonewalled, claiming that he was not aware of any such donation. It later transpired that a month before the Chequers meeting, Gorbachev had himself signed the papers authorising the donation.

But Thatcher's diplomatic offensive worked: no donation reached the British miners during their year-long strike. Gorbachev had embarked on his effort to reform the sclerotic Soviet state and concluded that the wiser option was to continue cultivating the British prime minister for the sake of relations between the two countries. Sacrificing the interests of the British miners was the price to be paid for not upsetting the so-called Iron Lady.


LETS SEE... IF USA/UK MAKE DONATIONS (WHICH NORMALLY THEY DON'T), THEN IT WOULD BE THEIR MAGNANIMITY. IF THEY ALLOWED AID USING  IMF/WORLD BANK, WITH CRUSHING STRINGS ATTACHED THAT WOULD DESTROY THE FABRIC OF THE SOCIETY IN THE COUNTRY WHICH RECEIEVED THE AID, THAT WOULD BE COMPASSIONATE CAPITALISM. BUT IF SOVIET MINERS DONATED FROM THEIR POCKETS TO HELP THEIR BRITISH BROTHERS STRIKE (NOT THAT ANYONE HAS EVER HEARD OF THE BRIT/MERKINS RETURNING THE FAVOUR TO ANYONE), THEN THAT WOULD BE 'INTERFERENCE INTO INTERNAL AFFAIRS' OF UK.

PRAY, WHAT THEN SHOULD 'SENDING ANOTHER COUNTRY TO THE STONE AGE' TO RECOVER NON EXISTENT 'WMDS' QUALIFY AS? FEMINISM? AS IN 'DELIVERING THE EYERAQI WOMEN THE FREEDOM TO WEAR THONGS AND EAT MCDEES?

[Dayal Baba]

interesting spin, as if there were no strings attached in the communist aid! for a nation, an iron lady is better than a softy man(mohan). the fault is ours that we buy into the baloney of compassionate capitalism and let the western capitalists plant their agents and subvert our country. speaking of russians, what is your opinion of the ex-kgb man putin, who is proudly driving a crappy lada on the chita-khabarovsk highway?

[feverpitch]

interesting spin, as if there were no strings attached in the communist aid!

Don't think I ever said that, neither does the news report, nor do the documents on which this is based. It does however say that Gorbachev only came to know about the miner's plan a month before he was supposed to go to London. The miners had by then already collected and started trying to send the money.

Could that then mean that the 'poor lambs', ie the soviet miners, weren't so sympathy-worthy and helpless, but were, like ordinary germans in hitler's reich, active participants in the black conspiracy to spread their virus across the globe?

I hope you realise this is Catch 22:

If the ordinary folk were lambs, then their act of sending aid was a genuine act of international brotherhood, rejected by the Fascists in the UK.

If they were not so helpless and innocent, then they were willing collaborators in the soviet system, so the myth of the oppression by the iron curtain system falls flat on it's face.

Personally, I tend to believe in the first version. What about you?

for a nation, an iron lady is better than a softy man(mohan). the fault is ours that we buy into the baloney of compassionate capitalism and let the western capitalists plant their agents and subvert our country.

where does McMohan come into the pix? and why do we repeatedly buy into the baloney of the CC — think Vedanta, think Rahul Gandhi as the tribal saviour... etc...

speaking of russians, what is your opinion of the ex-kgb man putin, who is proudly driving a crappy lada on the chita-khabarovsk highway?

putin is the face of yeretz russia... excuse the mixed metaphor...

in any case, he is a chip off the old block, so will never have my sympathies... except when he is facing off the merkins and NATO. enemy's enemy = ?? you know the drill...

[Dayal Baba]

interesting spin, as if there were no strings attached in the communist aid!

Don't think I ever said that, neither does the news report, nor do the documents on which this is based.

while you talk, rightly, of the crushing strings attached with the imf aid, you have assumed, perhaps a little naively, that the soviet aid came solely from the pockets of russian miners.

It does however say that Gorbachev only came to know about the miner's plan a month before he was supposed to go to London. The miners had by then already collected and started trying to send the money.

or maybe the communist party themselves funded it? why have you ruled out that possibility?

Could that then mean that the 'poor lambs', ie the soviet miners, weren't so sympathy-worthy and helpless, but were, like ordinary germans in hitler's reich, active participants in the black conspiracy to spread their virus across the globe?

I hope you realise this is Catch 22:

If the ordinary folk were lambs, then their act of sending aid was a genuine act of international brotherhood, rejected by the Fascists in the UK.

why would regulating money flowing into the country be an act of fascism? would rejecting nri dollars for wanton hindu temple building in india also be considered an act of fascism by you?

If they were not so helpless and innocent, then they were willing collaborators in the soviet system, so the myth of the oppression by the iron curtain system falls flat on it's face.

Personally, I tend to believe in the first version. What about you?

i personally believe that the communist party funded it, and there may have been some donation by well meaning workers.

for a nation, an iron lady is better than a softy man(mohan). the fault is ours that we buy into the baloney of compassionate capitalism and let the western capitalists plant their agents and subvert our country.

where does McMohan come into the pix? and why do we repeatedly buy into the baloney of the CC — think Vedanta, think Rahul Gandhi as the tribal saviour... etc...

what i meant was, uk has the right to act on it's self interest, just as the ussr had the right. only we are the chu*ias, who for most of our 63 years, danced at super power tune.

speaking of russians, what is your opinion of the ex-kgb man putin, who is proudly driving a crappy lada on the chita-khabarovsk highway?

putin is the face of yeretz russia... excuse the mixed metaphor...

so you are saying putin is a zionist plant?

in any case, he is a chip off the old block, so will never have my sympathies... except when he is facing off the merkins and NATO. enemy's enemy = ?? you know the drill...

or the chechens?

[feverpitch]

interesting spin, as if there were no strings attached in the communist aid!

Don't think I ever said that, neither does the news report, nor do the documents on which this is based.

while you talk, rightly, of the crushing strings attached with the imf aid, you have assumed, perhaps a little naively, that the soviet aid came solely from the pockets of russian miners.

It does however say that Gorbachev only came to know about the miner's plan a month before he was supposed to go to London. The miners had by then already collected and started trying to send the money.

or maybe the communist party themselves funded it? why have you ruled out that possibility?

You have problems with the Guardian report, or the documents it's based on?

Could that then mean that the 'poor lambs', ie the soviet miners, weren't so sympathy-worthy and helpless, but were, like ordinary germans in hitler's reich, active participants in the black conspiracy to spread their virus across the globe?

I hope you realise this is Catch 22:

If the ordinary folk were lambs, then their act of sending aid was a genuine act of international brotherhood, rejected by the Fascists in the UK.

why would regulating money flowing into the country be an act of fascism? would rejecting nri dollars for wanton hindu temple building in india also be considered an act of fascism by you?

Since when did working class fraternity become the same as religious fanaticism?

If they were not so helpless and innocent, then they were willing collaborators in the soviet system, so the myth of the oppression by the iron curtain system falls flat on it's face.

Personally, I tend to believe in the first version. What about you?

i personally believe that the communist party funded it, and there may have been some donation by well meaning workers.

Again, you have trouble believing what you see with your own eyes in the Guardian report (based on documents)... It clearly states that the fund was organised by the workers, doesn't it?

for a nation, an iron lady is better than a softy man(mohan). the fault is ours that we buy into the baloney of compassionate capitalism and let the western capitalists plant their agents and subvert our country.

where does McMohan come into the pix? and why do we repeatedly buy into the baloney of the CC — think Vedanta, think Rahul Gandhi as the tribal saviour... etc...

what i meant was, uk has the right to act on it's self interest, just as the ussr had the right. only we are the chu*ias, who for most of our 63 years, danced at super power tune.

Whose self interest? Maggie 2-minute's? or the interest of the people?

speaking of russians, what is your opinion of the ex-kgb man putin, who is proudly driving a crappy lada on the chita-khabarovsk highway?

putin is the face of yeretz russia... excuse the mixed metaphor...

so you are saying putin is a zionist plant?

No, but the patriot is always thinking of Greater Russia

or the chechens?

Chechens, Tamils, Kashmiris... they are all the same, aren't they?

[feverpitch]

BTW, Dayal, where does Putin come into the picture? I thought this was about Soviet Russia. Or have you forgotten to take off your Cold War blinkers?

[Dayal Baba]

interesting spin, as if there were no strings attached in the communist aid!

Don't think I ever said that, neither does the news report, nor do the documents on which this is based.

while you talk, rightly, of the crushing strings attached with the imf aid, you have assumed, perhaps a little naively, that the soviet aid came solely from the pockets of russian miners.

It does however say that Gorbachev only came to know about the miner's plan a month before he was supposed to go to London. The miners had by then already collected and started trying to send the money.

or maybe the communist party themselves funded it? why have you ruled out that possibility?

You have problems with the Guardian report, or the documents it's based on?

so now it has become a crime to question the conclusions drawn by a newspaper?
i have good reasons to believe the communists were behind this,
1. the payment authorisation was signed by gorbachev himself!
2. the miners were funded by communists in east germany, there is evidence of this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7874300/Miners-strike-funded-by-East-German-communists.html
 

Could that then mean that the 'poor lambs', ie the soviet miners, weren't so sympathy-worthy and helpless, but were, like ordinary germans in hitler's reich, active participants in the black conspiracy to spread their virus across the globe?

I hope you realise this is Catch 22:

If the ordinary folk were lambs, then their act of sending aid was a genuine act of international brotherhood, rejected by the Fascists in the UK.

why would regulating money flowing into the country be an act of fascism? would rejecting nri dollars for wanton hindu temple building in india also be considered an act of fascism by you?

Since when did working class fraternity become the same as religious fanaticism?

it is the principle of regulation of foreign in-flow which is being discussed. you can replace my example with other ones.

but i can see which way this headed. if the funding fits the theology of "international working class fraternity" (reminiscent of the myth of "universal brotherhood" preached by proponents of another religion), it is kosher. if nri's send dollars for another purpose (and we can agree that it's coming from their pockets and not the us govt's!), it is fanaticism and communalism. mind you, i am fine if you have this dual standard, only let us be clear that you have a dual standard.

If they were not so helpless and innocent, then they were willing collaborators in the soviet system, so the myth of the oppression by the iron curtain system falls flat on it's face.

Personally, I tend to believe in the first version. What about you?

i personally believe that the communist party funded it, and there may have been some donation by well meaning workers.

Again, you have trouble believing what you see with your own eyes in the Guardian report (based on documents)... It clearly states that the fund was organised by the workers, doesn't it?

1. i do not have to take every article at it's face value, i have a mind of my own and have to see if it's consistent with the overall picture.
2. the article itself states that gorbachev authorised it. the workers could have routed the money through other means.

for a nation, an iron lady is better than a softy man(mohan). the fault is ours that we buy into the baloney of compassionate capitalism and let the western capitalists plant their agents and subvert our country.

where does McMohan come into the pix? and why do we repeatedly buy into the baloney of the CC — think Vedanta, think Rahul Gandhi as the tribal saviour... etc...

what i meant was, uk has the right to act on it's self interest, just as the ussr had the right. only we are the chu*ias, who for most of our 63 years, danced at super power tune.

Whose self interest? Maggie 2-minute's? or the interest of the people?

maggie did not keep her ideology a secret. the uk re-elected her knowing that she would swoop on trade unions. right or wrong, we cannot deny this. ironical that we are now talking about the people: did the communist government of ussr in 1984 represent the will of the russian people ?

[feverpitch]

so now it has become a crime to question the conclusions drawn by a newspaper?
i have good reasons to believe the communists were behind this,
1. the payment authorisation was signed by gorbachev himself!
2. the miners were funded by communists in east germany, there is evidence of this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7874300/Miners-strike-funded-by-East-German-communists.html

1. As the report says, Gorbachev signed the authorisation much later.
2. Since when is East Germany = USSR???

it is the principle of regulation of foreign in-flow which is being discussed. you can replace my example with other ones.

but i can see which way this headed. if the funding fits the theology of "international working class fraternity" (reminiscent of the myth of "universal brotherhood" preached by proponents of another religion), it is kosher. if nri's send dollars for another purpose (and we can agree that it's coming from their pockets and not the us govt's!), it is fanaticism and communalism. mind you, i am fine if you have this dual standard, only let us be clear that you have a dual standard.

the international working class is not driven by religion. Russians supporting British, at a time when their countries are officially in a state of 'hostile-peace', is not the same as desis funding desi temples in their des...

Oh, btw, did you say double standards?

1. i do not have to take every article at it's face value, i have a mind of my own and have to see if it's consistent with the overall picture.
2. the article itself states that gorbachev authorised it. the workers could have routed the money through other means.

You might have added at the end of ur 1st stmnt ... "that fits my worldview"
2. see above

maggie did not keep her ideology a secret. the uk re-elected her knowing that she would swoop on trade unions. right or wrong, we cannot deny this.

So the Soviets hid their ideology you mean?

ironical that we are now talking about the people: did the communist government of ussr in 1984 represent the will of the russian people ?

to answer your q, revert to my Catch22 problem above. you didn't answer that, instead tried diversionary tactics as always.

BTW, you do have a habit of avoiding uncomfy questions by trying to divert attention or simply staying mum. Isn't that why you conveniently avoided my last few comments? And still keep trying to use all kinds of examples from east germany to putin? Is it that difficult for you to stay the course?

[Dayal Baba]

1. As the report says, Gorbachev signed the authorisation much later.

gorbu supposedly signed the authorisation a month before he feigned ignorance about it. why did gorbu have to pretend to maggie he didn't know anything? does that not tell you something?

2. Since when is East Germany = USSR???

east germany = ussr satellite. while it's now established that the east german communists kept the uk miners on their payroll, you are expecting me to believe that their mai baap, the soviets, would not play the same game? why live in denial mode?

the international working class is not driven by religion. Russians supporting British, at a time when their countries are officially in a state of 'hostile-peace', is not the same as desis funding desi temples in their des...

an imaginary difference, based upon the false premise that the russian aid came from the good hearts of the good folks, and therefore morally legitimate. just because religious activities are anathema in your worldview does not justify blocking the nri donations, while crying "fascism!" when the shoe is on the other foot. either agree to all foreign donations, or disagree, or set a common yardstick.

Oh, btw, did you say double standards?

yes, i did.

So the Soviets hid their ideology you mean?

the soviets hid the fact that they knew about the money transfer. see above.

to answer your q "did the communist government of ussr in 1984 represent the will of the russian people ?", revert to my Catch22 problem above. you didn't answer that, instead tried diversionary tactics as always

i answered your question about maggie t i.e., her actions, which you call fascism, reflected the mandate she was given by uk, and not her personal whimsy. now here's another chance for you to explain how the communist govt, which was to collapse in a few years, reflected russia's will.

as for the "catch 22", when you rule out the answer which is uncomfortable (i.e. it was the soviets who were clandestinely doing it), then it's easy to come up with all kinds of catch 22's with convenient solutions.

BTW, you do have a habit of avoiding uncomfy questions by trying to divert attention or simply staying mum. Isn't that why you conveniently avoided my last few comments?

what's so uncomfy about putin? i was just checking whether he struck a chord with you, as he was popularising a soviet era car and is an ex-kgb man.

[feverpitch]

1. As the report says, Gorbachev signed the authorisation much later.

gorbu supposedly signed the authorisation a month before he feigned ignorance about it. why did gorbu have to pretend to maggie he didn't know anything? does that not tell you something?

Yes it does. It tells me that he was more interested in the welfare of the British people than Maggie herself!

2. Since when is East Germany = USSR???

east germany = ussr satellite. while it's now established that the east german communists kept the uk miners on their payroll, you are expecting me to believe that their mai baap, the soviets, would not play the same game? why live in denial mode?

By that logic, India = US satellite now. So why be unduly worried by Indian political class selling off their country (it IS after all THEIR country to sell, not yours) to the highest bidder in the best capitalist tradition?

the international working class is not driven by religion. Russians supporting British, at a time when their countries are officially in a state of 'hostile-peace', is not the same as desis funding desi temples in their des...

an imaginary difference, based upon the false premise that the russian aid came from the good hearts of the good folks, and therefore morally legitimate. just because religious activities are anathema in your worldview does not justify blocking the nri donations, while crying "fascism!" when the shoe is on the other foot. either agree to all foreign donations, or disagree, or set a common yardstick.

Where did I say "religious activities are anathema in my worldview"? I am against all kinds of fanaticism, including religious. You on the other hand, seem to have a particular fondness for Golwarkar and his virulence. I have actually noticed this in many NRIs. Maladjusted and impotent in their new environment, they take refuge in a romantic view of their country's 'glorious past' and then feel they can defer 'judgment day'/'chitragupt's list' by extrapolating this glory to the VHP-RSS-Bajrang Dal-Shiv Sena types, and supporting them as netactivists and donors. You don't fall under this category, do you?

Oh, btw, did you say double standards?

yes, i did.

I thought so. It fits your description perfectly!

So the Soviets hid their ideology you mean?

the soviets hid the fact that they knew about the money transfer. see above.

Again, try to stick to the point. You had said 'maggie never hid her ideology'. My question was a response to that. What is your point?

to answer your q "did the communist government of ussr in 1984 represent the will of the russian people ?", revert to my Catch22 problem above. you didn't answer that, instead tried diversionary tactics as always

i answered your question about maggie t i.e., her actions, which you call fascism, reflected the mandate she was given by uk, and not her personal whimsy. now here's another chance for you to explain how the communist govt, which was to collapse in a few years, reflected russia's will.
as for the "catch 22", when you rule out the answer which is uncomfortable (i.e. it was the soviets who were clandestinely doing it), then it's easy to come up with all kinds of catch 22's with convenient solutions.

Nowhere in Maggie's election campaign was there any mention of coming down hard on miners and other working class. She did project a hardline IRA and foreign policy and vague talks about fiscal prudence. It was only after she came to power that she bared her fangs in true fascist style.

As for USSR — if you are suggesting that the govt didn't express the people's will, then why did it push through the miner's agenda of aid to UK miners, at a time when Gorabachev was trying to mend fences with the West?

Besides, I am not trying to extrapolate my personal beliefs on recorded facts, am I. But someone here is insisting on doing so.

BTW, you do have a habit of avoiding uncomfy questions by trying to divert attention or simply staying mum. Isn't that why you conveniently avoided my last few comments?

what's so uncomfy about putin? i was just checking whether he struck a chord with you, as he was popularising a soviet era car and is an ex-kgb man.

... and when you were found out, you decided to avoid... right... I mean, what about your love for Chechens (and Tamils and Kashmiris)? Did it die a sudden death?

[Dayal Baba]

he soviets hid the fact that they knew about the money transfer. see above.

Again, try to stick to the point. You had said 'maggie never hid her ideology'. My question was a response to that. What is your point?

Nowhere in Maggie's election campaign was there any mention of coming down hard on miners and other working class. She did project a hardline IRA and foreign policy and vague talks about fiscal prudence. It was only after she came to power that she bared her fangs in true fascist style.

As for USSR — if you are suggesting that the govt didn't express the people's will, then why did it push through the miner's agenda of aid to UK miners, at a time when Gorabachev was trying to mend fences with the West?

sticking to the point is something you need to work upon, mate. if you didn't get it, here it is again: the uk acted in it's self-interest to block foreign money which would have artificially destabilised it, and india should appreciate and learn to do that for herself, if it believes in self-preservation.

now you counter that by claiming that maggie acted at her own behest, by quoting her manifesto, a laughable argument given that the trade unions' best friends were labour, yet uk voted thatcher thrice in succession, including once after the so-called fascist swoop.. but what is more laughable is that you place the "blame" on maggie's doorstep, when even the british courts themselves declared the transaction illegal! now are you saying maggie owned the british judiciary?

do you realise how serious a lie it is, that a state administers a hawala transaction to another country and then pretends to the head of that country about not knowing anything about it? and let's see their track record: russia, a one party dictatorship, with the ordinary russian having no political rights!! and in that context you have the cheek to call the uk's actions "fascist"?

there is a limit to which one can put up with your slumber. boss, there were many things about the ussr which i too like, but it's time for you to snap out of it. i cannot keep putting my rationality on the altar by having this debate with you.

why did gorbu have to pretend to maggie he didn't know anything? does that not tell you something?

Yes it does. It tells me that he was more interested in the welfare of the British people than Maggie herself!

the way bush was more interested in the welfare of the iraqi people than saddam! and now that you have justified deception from a head of state, you should also forgive georgie boy for that little wmd lie, after all it was for the good cause of spreading "freedom", wasn't it?
(insert long explanation how the two are not the same..)

east germany = ussr satellite. while it's now established that the east german communists kept the uk miners on their payroll, you are expecting me to believe that their mai baap, the soviets, would not play the same game? why live in denial mode?

By that logic, India = US satellite now. So why be unduly worried by Indian political class selling off their country (it IS after all THEIR country to sell, not yours) to the highest bidder in the best capitalist tradition?

 it is acknowledged in all quarters that gdr was a satellite of the ussr, it had russian troops stationed there, and was fashioned in the ussr image from top to bottom post-war. india is being insidiously colonised by the usa, true, but it's no gdr at the moment. anyway, diversionary tactics won't work. the uk miners were on the take from foreign communists, and that's the bottomline.

... and when you were found out, you decided to avoid... right...

what was there to be found out? rather, it's your opportunism which was found out: you support putin when he's the enemy's enemy, but not otherwise. i left it at that for others to see. i do not crave the last word on everything, otherwise this thread will go on forever.

Where did I say "religious activities are anathema in my worldview"? I am against all kinds of fanaticism, including religious. You on the other hand, seem to have a particular fondness for Golwarkar and his virulence.

pricked a nerve, didn't i? i was asking for a level playing field for all foreign money influx (be it religious, capitalist, communist, whatever), but true to form, you couldn't resist your strawman-building exercise. what has been exposed here is that is you do not believe in a level playing field, and the "all kinds of fanaticism" does not include the communist agenda of totalitarianism and repression, which the soviets were trying to export to the uk by exploiting their local miner unrest using deceptive means.

I have actually noticed this in many NRIs. Maladjusted and impotent in their new environment, they take refuge in a romantic view of their country's 'glorious past' and then feel they can defer 'judgment day'/'chitragupt's list' by extrapolating this glory to the VHP-RSS-Bajrang Dal-Shiv Sena types, and supporting them as netactivists and donors. You don't fall under this category, do you?

similar to those taking refuge in the romantic view that "workers of the world are united" and that other daydream of "proletarian dictatorship", decades after the iron facade fell apart? or those, owing to their inability to adjust with their fellow countrymen, got sidelined from the mainstream and started deifying foreign mass-murderers like stalin and mao to demonstrate their intellectual superiority and "potence" to heathen cow-belters, cabbage-heads and curd rice-eaters? yes, i have noticed this in some nri's and some ri's as well. and no, i do not fall under that category, be assured. i may be impotent and maladjusted, but beyond tummy dances i do nothing more!

I am not trying to extrapolate my personal beliefs on recorded facts, am I. But someone here is insisting on doing so.

there is no one there, i can assure you. the gulag has been dismantled. you can speak the truth now.

I mean, what about your love for Chechens (and Tamils and Kashmiris)? Did it die a sudden death?

it's lying next to the casket where your love for tibetans and uyghurs is resting in peace.

[Dayal Baba]

"the good people of china have more interest in the welfare of the nepalis than the nepali govt. themselves!"

nepali politburo member on the payroll of china:


http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/nepal-maoists-sought-chinese-cash-to-buy-mps_100423085.html

Nepal Maoists sought Chinese cash to ‘buy’ MPs?


Kathmandu, Sep 4 (IANS) Nepal’s opposition Maoist party has been dragged into a snowballing scandal with a leaked audio tape indicating the former guerrillas sought NRS.500 million from Chinese “friends” to buy MPs’ votes ahead of Sunday’s election to choose a new prime minister.

The allegations have been denied by both the Maoists, who called the tape a fake, and the Chinese embassy in Kathmandu. The furore was triggered by an audio tape aired by the Indian television channel in Nepali, Nepal 1, Friday night.

The nearly 20-minute tape has two conversations, allegedly between Krishna Bahadur Mahara, former Maoist information and communications minister, who’s currently the MP in charge of the party’s foreign affairs, and an unidentified male caller who, from the conversation, seems to be a Chinese middleman.

The caller begins the conversation asking, “Mr. Mahara, how is the (election) `trend’ in Nepal?”. The man addressed as Mahara says though his party has managed to woo an additional 10-15 votes for Sunday’s prime ministerial election, it still needs around 50 more votes to pull off a win.

“You need additional 50?” the caller asks. “And Mr. Mahara, what kind of help could help you to get the extra seats?”

The man addressed as Mahara then says it is a difficult task because a section of MPs, referred to as the “south centre”, is guided by others and needs to be neutralised.

Apparently, it is a reference to the Terai MPs, who sat neutral in the earlier five rounds of the election, causing the poll to end in a fiasco with neither Maoist chairman and former prime minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda nor his challenger, Nepali Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel, winning.

The Maoists have been alleging that the Terai parties are controlled by the Indian government. During the fourth round of elections, a renegade MP from the Terai kicked up a row by alleging an Indian official had threatened him for joining the Maoists.

The caller on tape then says he has a “friend” who wants to “help”. However, he can’t come to Nepal and so a meeting should be set up somewhere else between him, Mahara and “the chairman”.

The caller suggests Hong Kong, saying his “friend” will not need a visa there, indicating he is a Chinese and probably a diplomat or a government official. He says, “For other countries, he will need the special visa and that will (draw) people’s attention… But for Hong Kong, he can go there and nobody will know.”

He doesn’t mention the “friend’s” name, saying it is for his “own protection”.

The man called Mahara is uneasy about Hong Kong, saying there are too many Nepalis living there and a visit would not remain secret.

“When he goes to Hong Kong, everybody propagates (sic),” he answers. “Because he was prime minister and he is the candidate of the prime minister (election) also.” This appeared to refer to Prachanda.

Instead, he suggests Chengdu in China, calling it “the best place… nobody (will) know”.

But the caller rejects it, saying: “This is very sensitive and we don’t want to have anything to do between (you) and the government of China”.

The man called Mahara then suggests Singapore as another rendezvous destination.

He then goes on to say that another Chinese has been discussing the upcoming election with the Maoist chief. Then he dispenses with the niceties and mentions an actual sum of money.

“For 50 members, if we cost (sic) them, then the minimum (is) NRS. 10 million per person,” he says.

The second conversation indicates it was held probably Wednesday morning.

Since the Maoist leadership did not make any visits abroad after that, doubts remain as to whether the deal fell through, or was struck in Nepal itself or whether it was a sting operation without any real Chinese involvement to expose the wheeling and dealing going on in the Maoist party.

The tape follows accusations by a fringe communist party leader, Chandra Prakash Mainali, Tuesday that he was offered NRS.50 million if he voted for them in Sunday’s election.

Both Mainali’s allegation and the tape have produced denials from the Maoists, who called the first baseless and the latter a fake.

The Chinese embassy in Kathmandu also called the tape baseless.

Despite the denials, the allegations cast fresh doubts about the Maoists, being the second such expose in two years.

In May 2009, a leaked video tape showed Prachanda boasting in a Maoist guerrilla camp that he had deliberately lied about the strength of his combatants during a UN verification, inflating their number five-fold so that they could be inducted into the Nepal national army and control it.

Since the leaked tape, the Maoists’ attempt to find berths in the army for their over 19,600 fighters has fallen flat and caused the peace process to grind to a halt.

[feverpitch]

Hu Jintao's China = Gorbachev's USSR? Try harder!

[Dayal Baba]

Hu Jintao's China = Gorbachev's USSR? Try harder!

potato potato?

[feverpitch]

Inzimam ul Haq?