It all started with the following tweet:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 3:20 PM on Sun, May 28, 2017:
This @TheEconomist report shows how thoughtless cheering of human shield incident hurt India’s position in #Kashmir. https://t.co/cae84m0wcA
And then he got trolled – mostly by the Right Wing, but also by some in the Centre of Right. Some he responded, and got himself into a tangle, and had to resort to changing the goal posts, and ad-hominem comments. Instead he could have said: “Yes, I can see your points of view, and there seems to be some merit in them. I need to dwell on them.” But then he would have to admit that the trolls are better informed and also better at analysing the situation than he is – an uncomfortable position for one who is paid to collect the necessary data, think the issues out clearly and logically, and not to allow personal biases to cloud his judgement.
Dhume as a generic person
In the recent past, I have written two articles on why I think Dhume is not really clued about what is happening in Bharat. They are available at:
I said in these two articles, for me, Dhume represents perhaps about fifty people in the world who project Bharat in the way he does. Like these two articles, in this article too, I am treating Dhume as a generic person, and not an individual.
Dhume’s patronising attitude
So, let us look at some of the tweets of the trolls, and how Dhume responded to some of them. When one sees these tweets in a single read, instead of the different places at different times, one gets to better appreciate the thinking of Dhume. I have embedded my comments on some of them.
Shefali Vaidya (@ShefVaidya) tweeted at 8:14 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
.@dhume’s faith in a publicatn that tried 2 tell Indian voters @OfficeOfRG is a better bet than @narendramodi is touching! @TheEconomist https://t.co/t4DGXsjGIA
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 8:57 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Maybe one day global opinion will be shaped exclusively by the Hindu Right troll army. But until then I’m afraid @TheEconomist does matter. https://t.co/DlwHLN9syF
Vaidya was trying to point out that the track record of ‘The Economist’ to make informed comments is not so great, to put it mildly. Dhume responds in a patronising way. Similarly, the response by Dhume to Madhu Kishwar, a commentator on the socio-political issues in Bharat, is also patronising and dismissive.
MadhuPurnima Kishwar (@madhukishwar) tweeted at 1:52 PM on Tue, May 30, 2017:
The arrogance with which @dhume dismisses all those who differ with him as RW trolls, is really annoying. Clear influence of his buddy Barkha https://t.co/3B6a5CNGZY
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 6:00 AM on Tue, May 30, 2017:
That’s fine, Madhu ji. Who needs @TheEconomist to help gauge how world opinion is shifting. Feel free to stick to WhatsApp. 🙂
In contrast, read the following conversation with Malini Parthasarathy, who belongs to the Kasturi family that owns and publishes ‘The Hindu’ from Chennai, and for a brief period was its editor. (Though called ‘The Hindu’, according to the Internet Hindus this newspaper makes serious attempts to be blatantly anti-Hindu.) The conversation, on a different issue, namely, the latest Islamist terrorist attack on Britain, goes as follows:
Malini Parthasarathy (@MaliniP) tweeted at 7:55 PM on Sun, Jun 04, 2017:
The UK is an unfair target of Islamist terrorism given its strong commitment to multiculturalism & harmonious coexistence. https://t.co/pOgGrNnCTe
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 8:01 PM on Sun, Jun 04, 2017:
I hope you aren’t implying that some countries are fair targets for terrorism. (That’s what it sounds like.)
Malini Parthasarathy (@MaliniP) tweeted at 8:05 PM on Sun, Jun 04, 2017:
Saying an attack on a country committed to pluralism is unfair doesn’t mean the converse for others
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 8:08 PM on Sun, Jun 04, 2017:
Thanks for clarifying. In my view terrorist attacks are never fair, no matter where they take place.
Malini Parthasarathy (@MaliniP) tweeted at 8:09 PM on Sun, Jun 04, 2017:
Here is politeness personified, as it should be. Patronising, and even arrogance, is reserved for those Dhume determines trolls, Right Wing or otherwise. Parthasarathy, for Dhume, is a person that is to be cultivated at a personal level and in societal events, while Vaidya is one whom he will not show any interest in meeting, except on the social media. Kishwar is not liked by those whose company Dhume seeks, and so being rude to her is quite alright.
Disputing Dhume on The Economist
In any case, many trolls disputed Dhume’s assertion that the views expressed by ‘The Economist’ matter. The basis of the assertion is available in the public domain, and Dhume should have known about them. Three of them said:
#FindingGaurav © (@confess2gaurav) tweeted at 10:21 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Same @TheEconomist in 2014 declared Modi can’t be PM of India, yes it mattered a lot, amongst all lutyens cocktails but not for India !!
Ajay Sharma (@Ajaysharmafsl) tweeted at 9:00 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
It didn’t matter to indian voter, british voter or to the american voter. Were they guided by “Hindu Right Trolls” too??
Raghav Awasthi (@raghav355) tweeted at 9:05 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Pray tell me how they recommended rahul hilary and not brexiting to voters and the voters did not accept recommendations!
I would also like Dhume to say whether the shaping of global opinion exclusively by the Hindu Right troll army is good for Bharat or not. If it is, then perhaps they should do so right now, instead of allowing wrong narratives to be propagated by the opponents! It will certainly save a lot of tension and aggravation in the society. Making a polemical point, of course.
To continue the main conversation with Dhume:
Shefali Vaidya (@ShefVaidya) tweeted at 9:02 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
‘Global opinion’ does nt impact Indian politics, as 2014 showed, N regardless of wht @TheEconomist thinks, India is doing fine globally! https://t.co/7tlW8KinUh
(@KanchanGupta) tweeted at 1:13 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Indeed. @TheEconomist matters so much that India responded to its impassioned call to crown Rahul Gandhi by giving Congress 44 seats. https://t.co/q8avzBH5MO
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 1:16 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Domestic politics isn’t everything. India benefits globally from holding moral high ground in Kashmir. Foolish to squander it.
Moral high ground
Changing the goal post? But the trolls would not let go.
Nandini (@_NAN_DINI) tweeted at 2:23 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Fcuk (sic) moral high ground.
Do what you got to do is right for your own & do it unapologetically. https://t.co/0ZXZWwG374
Vikram Sood (@Vikram_Sood) tweeted at 3:16 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Exactly. That is what realpolitik practised by the West has taught us. Why high moral ground only for us. https://t.co/xcIohvZ8yi
R Jagannathan (@TheJaggi) tweeted at 3:44 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
World works differently. The prodigal gets a feted not the good son. Time to do what is in our interest and not seek conduct certificates
Smita Barooah (@smitabarooah) tweeted at 3:57 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Moral high ground for India in a world where Saudi in women’s right commission/UNHCR? Rather have safety of my land/people @_NAN_DINI @dhume
Smita Prakash, a journalist in Bharat, intervened and referred to an article with the title: “The CIA Waterboarded the Wrong Man 83 Times in 1 Month”, and tweeted sarcastically:
Smita Prakash (@smitaprakash) tweeted at 5:02 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
moral high ground : https://t.co/xPkmFCTekx
Dhume rose to the bait, and tweeted:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 5:05 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
US history full of appalling acts. But also full of criticism of those acts. @Vikram_Sood @smitabarooah @_NAN_DINI @thenation
To which Prakash agreed, and informed him about the situation in India with the following tweet:
Smita Prakash (@smitaprakash) tweeted at 5:07 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
yup! here too! Many articles criticising and many tweets/FB posts/tweets criticising those criticisms. Both healthy in a democracy.
The word ‘touché’ came to my mind.
It needs to be mentioned that until September 2016, Dhume thought very poorly of moral high ground:
Ajai Shukla (@ajaishukla) tweeted at 7:51 PM on Sat, Sep 24, 2016:
Indian PM, @narendramodi, easing crisis by reaching out to Pak (to public directly). Every Pakistani shud hear this. https://t.co/zDHNv1nvP5
Rohit Pradhan (@Retributions) tweeted at 9:27 PM on Sat, Sep 24, 2016:
This must be the world’s strangest phenomenon where the victim has to reach out to calm tensions…. https://t.co/AEJ3XaHhSx
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 11:14 PM on Sat, Sep 24, 2016:
India’s Pakistan policy: 1. Get slapped. 2. Whine to world. 3. Claim great moral victory. 4. Get slapped again.
The troll army is really cruel – it holds a mirror to the opponents, and demands that they be consistent in their thinking, and not work out positions on the run. Not very long ago, Dhume thought that taking the moral high ground gets Bharat slapped again and again, so why will it not happen today?
The behaviour of the Indian army
To Barooah’s tweet above, Dhume replied:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 4:13 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
False choice. Unless you believe that the Indian army can only secure Kashmir by using human shields. @Vikram_Sood @_NAN_DINI
The Indian Army has never lobbed grenades on a crowd attacking them in the Kashmir Valley, nor has it asked for air support to hurl bombs at the terrorists. In the combing operations to weed out the terrorists, the Indian army exposes its personnel to high risks to minimize the civilian collateral damage. Very often, the personnel of the various security forces face extreme verbal and physical abuse. The Indian Army has to deal with the terrorists as well as those who have arrogated the title of ‘civil society’ to themselves. These members of the ‘civil society’ scream and shout of human rights abuses by the army, mostly on the basis of falsehoods. However, when the terrorists indulge in blatant abuses of the civilians and the Army, they are conspicuously silent.
The Indian Army chief has recently said that Bharat is fighting a dirty war in the Kashmir Valley, a war which is not only actively supported by Pakistan but also using the terrorists as an extended wing of the army. The Americans have provided arms to Pakistan in the name of fighting Islamic terrorists operating in its territories and in Afghanistan, fully knowing that these arms are suitable only to be used against Bharat. So, if Dhume wants to give any lectures, it should be to others, including the Americans, and not the Indian Army.
Vikram Sood (@Vikram_Sood) tweeted at 4:56 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
India will ultimately profit more by standing firmly for its interests & not just on moral high ground. Human shields are not policy nor SOP
SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. It is also the SOP of the Indian Army to help the citizens in Kashmir Valley, including those who support the terrorists, whenever there is a natural calamity. And run coaching classes for the students who wish to study beyond high school. Etc.
Generalisation and not evidence
Dhume tried to change the subject, or divert attention from the credibility of ‘The Economist’, when he tweeted:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 1:57 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
As anyone who followed Kashmir in 1990s can tell you, international pressure on India eased considerably after 2001. @KanchanGupta
Dhume needs to establish his contention by giving concrete evidence, and not just a say-so; and whether ‘The Economist’ stopped its earlier relentless propaganda against Bharat. Its editorial position that Rahul Gandhi would be its preferred choice, over Narendra Modi, as Bharat’s prime minister right up till the general elections of 2014 shows that it really did not have Bharat’s interest at heart. Also, let me bring to his attention what the American Ambassador said after the serial terrorist bombings in local trains in Mumbai in July 2006:
On the statement made by the Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri at the Carnegie Endowment on Tuesday linking extremism to the settlement of ‘real issues’ meaning Jammu and Kashmir, the American Ambassador to India David Mulford said: “Obviously there are linkages there. We all know that and at this point it is a little early to be precise as to who did what in the attacks. I think that is also an issue for the Indian government to explore and come to its own determination. But I think in principle we all understand that Kashmir is a key issue.”
Assist India in fighting terror, UNSC tells nations
July 13, 2006 11:59 IST
One of the trolls, tried to pin Dhume down in the following tweet:
Anil Arora (@anilarora45) tweeted at 4:16 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Give one example of where India benefitted globally for its moral high ground!
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 4:19 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
For the past 20 years, Pakistan’s position on Kashmir undercut in part because India seen as morally superior. @KanchanGupta
Again, there is generalisation, and not evidence. Bharat’s position on Jammu & Kashmir was always morally and legally superior, right from 1947. The Western world pretended it to be otherwise because Pakistan pretended to be their ally. This suited the West in terms of the politics of the Cold War, and provided vast amounts of money as aid to Pakistan. Even though the West knew that the aid was being diverted as personal gain by the civilian and military leadership, Pakistan had sufficient means to keep on blackmailing the West.
In the meantime, the snakes (ie terrorists) that Pakistan kept in its backyard to attack Bharat started to turn against the West, and later on against Pakistan itself. While the snakes did damage Bharat, the West and Pakistan began to bear the real fury through the various acts of terrorism that the Islamists undertook.
Although Dhume will say that it is whataboutery, the comparison with China is valid. Some trolls pointed out:
Anil Arora (@anilarora45) tweeted at 4:25 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
China’s stature has risen during the same period not due to its moral superiority. Where is any evidence that morality perceptions matter
DynastyCrooks (@DynastyCrooks) tweeted at 1:21 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Yes like .China benefited globally from holding moral high ground in Xinjiang, South China Sea, Tibet ??
(Note: This tweet was in another context, but relevant here.)
Anjali Manohar (@anjalimanohar) tweeted at 4:20 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
how long does India hold high moral ground? Our soldiers are getting butchered everyday. globally no one cares abt Indo-Pak!
China’s political system has always bull-dozed domestic opinion when it did not suit the interests of the leaders of the Communist party, even though it was in the interest of the nation and its people. At the same time, it is desperately seeking favourable global opinion so that the world at large thinks well of its leaders, and will willingly invite the individuals concerned to the high table in international forums. ‘The Economist’ rarely holds the Chinese leadership to task, and articles in the publication often appear to be hagiographic rather than an impartial analysis. It is such double standards of the publication that galls many in Bharat, even though the so-called analysts would like the many to think in a diametrically opposite way. It is time that the analysts change the way they think, rather than expect the people to accept manipulation as a legitimate tool in governance and international relations.
But Dhume kept on insisting in his line that things had changed with respect to the world opinion, and that results were showing.
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 4:22 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
You are wrong. Casualties in Kashmir were much higher in the 1990s when the world was not behind India. @KanchanGupta
Dhume on ‘The Economist’ in 2013
The cruel trolls have a habit of digging up Dhume’s old tweets. One of them found out what he had to say to a ‘perfectly vile piece’ as per one @Bhopal House:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 7:23 PM on Sat, Jul 06, 2013:
@BhopalHouse Cut them some slack. Like most things in the Economist, it’s probably written by a 25-year-old in London. @utsavmitra
And there is an earlier one to the above, replying to @Bower CSIS, dated 15 Jun 2013, where he said the same thing: “Wouldn’t be the first time something in The Economist was banged out by an all-knowing 25-year-old in London.”
I am not able to locate the June tweet on Dhume’s time line. With reference to the July tweet, he did say he was joking. Perhaps he wants people of Bharat to take the publication seriously today because, as a troll said, the all-knowing person in ‘The Economist’ is now 29-year-old, and hence older and wiser!
It is this type of inconsistency that the trolls find very annoying. In any case, in 2013 Dhume said that he agrees with the trolls that the track record of ‘The Economist’ as being a publication that would offer informed analysis is not so great. So, what caused the change in opinion today?
‘The Economist’ of the very early times
These two tweets show how the Right Wing Trolls in Bharat are good at research, and when they set out the narrative they will be better than ‘The Economist’ and Dhume who thinks so well of it.
Ashutosh Malik (@MalikAshutosh) tweeted at 0:35 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Excellent. @TheEconomist recommended, during the 1876-79 famine, that “indolent Indians” needn’t be saved by the Government. @ShefVaidya https://t.co/l0MrdNk2Gj
True Indology (@TrueIndology) tweeted at 11:59 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
In its very first edition, Economist defended trans-Atlantic slave trade of blacks by whites
Economist asked Britain to never give up India https://t.co/pkXlZSwy4P
Then there was a conversation about alleged self-goals by Bharat:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 3:47 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
It’s in India’s interest to not score self-goals that diminish its global stature and alienate ordinary Kashmiris. @KanchanGupta
R Jagannathan (@TheJaggi) tweeted at 4:26 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Disagree. Fact is we have been scoring self goals for the last 70 years and not fighting for our interests. We got nothing for it.
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 4:30 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Disagree. Many self-goals in Kashmir in earlier years, but for a while now trajectory moving in India’s direction. @KanchanGupta
Bharat scoring self-goals has been a frequent refrain by many analysts, and not just Dhume and Jagannathan. I have not kept score, but I am sure the number of self-goals scored by Bharat would be in excess of a hundred – and still Bharat is playing. Bharat must be a glutton for punishment!
On the other hand, when it comes to Bharat’s opponents deliberately scoring self-goals (as opposed to Bharat’s unintentional), these opponents would walk into the goal, pick up the ball, place it within the playground and declare goal-kick! And the same analysts will accept the declaration. Take the example of the water-boarding by the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) of USA.
Global opinion moving in favour of Bharat?
Jagannathan took the discussion on the issue of the trajectory moving in India’s direction.
R Jagannathan (@TheJaggi) tweeted at 4:33 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Trajectory moving in our direction has nothing to do with what we did. Pure luck.. It correlates to global worries over Islamist violence.
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 4:36 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Global concerns about jihad certainly helped. But so did elections and wider faith in fairness of Indian conduct. @KanchanGupta
Hrishikesh Sandilya (@HSrains) tweeted at 2:05 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Agreed, but is it bcoz of our high moral ground or bcoz of the post 9/11 realization in the west?
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 2:15 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Both. Democratic India viewed with a great deal of goodwill. @KanchanGupta
Here too Dhume talks in vague terms, without giving evidence. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence available that the goodwill towards Bharat is only a post-2014 situation. More on this below.
Dhume’s earlier views on internet
While Dhume seems to think poorly of the social media today, a few years ago Dhume had written four articles in mainstream publications about the utility of the social media, and the need to hear the voices therein. They are:
Bharat vs. the Internet – Social media can help solve the country’s divisions, not aggravate them.
Aug. 23, 2012
India’s Clumsy Twitter Gamble
August 25, 2012
Twitter Quietly Changes India
July 4, 2013
Despite their flaws internet trolls represent the democratisation of discourse in India
December 18, 2015
Essentially, Dhume had said that a larger number of people are able to express their voices through social media, and that this is good for democracy. The situation earlier, according to my opinion, is that there was a censorship that the mainstream media had applied to these voices. And there was pretence in the mainstream that their own voices were what was accepted by the society.
One wonders if Dhume remembers these articles today. Yes, the internet can appear to be an anarchy, where anyone can use the foulest of language and threaten the hell out of anyone. At the same time, when one realises that such anarchy is a small percentage of the whole corpus of what is posted, it is easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, and use it intelligently. Being a democratic medium, as accepted by Dhume, it is the task of those who claim to be analysts to use it to understand the mood of the people.
Dhume ended the conversation about ‘The Economist’ with the following tweet:
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 10:45 AM on Wed, May 31, 2017:
Tired of answering this but here goes: The Economist has no impact on Indian politics. But it does influence global opinion.
As many have pointed out, ‘The Economist’ had no impact on British politics or American politics. So, which part of the globe does it have an influence? And, should Bharat’s politicians listen to ‘The Economist’ to tune their politics and lose elections, merely to get applause from the so-called global opinion? The present dispensation in power at the centre definitely did not come to where it is by taking such a moronic position in their election campaign.
There is, of course, a larger point whether the global opinion is favouring Bharat, particularly in terms of the serious problem that it faces with respect to Islamic terrorism. I think that the Right Wing troll army accepts the change. The issue where they would be on a very different page, with respect to Dhume, is the cause for the change. The trolls (and I am a biased person here, given my position in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) would say that this is the product of the last three years, with the advent of a government which has forcefully projected the issues from the perspective of Bharat, the nation and its people. The world has realised that their previous machinations will not work, and if they wish to engage with Bharat (and not just in economic terms) they will have to accept the new reality. ‘The Economist’ has never helped the process of change – in fact, it can be said that the change has happened despite the publication.
The trolls know that Bharat is not out of the woods, as far as Islamic terrorism is concerned. They accept the words of the present chief of the Indian Army that a dirty war is being inflicted on Bharat. They strongly feel that the steps the army, and the other security forces, have taken to deal with all sorts of terrorism is because the present government will not tolerate the efforts of the urban supporters of terrorism any more. These views, of those occupying the space of the Right Wing trolls, are not new. What is new is that these voices are today becoming mainstream through social media.
‘The Economist’ and Dhume have every right to comment on the policies of any country in the world. However, these comments should be based on a proper analysis, and also consider the views of the people of the country. When this does not happen, the value of the comments gets greatly reduced. And, arguing on the basis of labels actually does serious discredit to the ones using them.
(Note: Many of the tweets quoted above, and below, came to my attention from the members of the Hindu Right troll army. I am thankful to them.)
Here are some tweets that reflect the views of the majority of the Right Wing trolls.
Vishakha (@VishakhaJ18) tweeted at 10:37 AM on Wed, May 31, 2017:
. @dhume ‘s tweet on the economist has 500+ replies. If I was him, I would never check my mentions!
Sadanand Dhume (@dhume) tweeted at 10:39 AM on Wed, May 31, 2017:
Hint: There’s a reason why god invented the mute button. 🙂
Shefali Vaidya (@ShefVaidya) tweeted at 6:42 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
The trouble with ‘moral high ground’ is that sooner or later, it descends into a slippery slope of self-aggrandisement! https://t.co/JvXfkBqGMa
mohit bajpai (@mohitbajpai) tweeted at 9:57 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
@dhume can question anyone but whoever questions him is RW troll. STOP CALLING NAMES!
Shamil (@shamil_shah) tweeted at 9:07 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Sir , your reply is also of a troll level only
Raghu Nair (@raghunair29) tweeted at 10:15 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Start labeling everyone who disagrees with you a Bhakt or RW troll. The new normal for you?
Unpalatabletruths (@Sunnysweet16) tweeted at 5:50 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
The question draws a blank from the moral high ground defenders.Inconvinient truths are best brushed under the carpet.
Question was: Any US president (Obama/Bush) lectured Chinese presidents on WMD proliferation like they “advise” India on Kashmir?
Shourie (@_Shourie) tweeted at 5:49 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
There is a major difference between the criticism. In US the criticism is to trigger debate. In India it is extort shame,regret out of govt.
Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) tweeted at 2:46 PM on Sun, May 28, 2017:
When people are throwing stones & petrol bombs at us, I cannot tell my men ‘just wait and die’: Army chief #BipinRawat.
Lata Varma (@Lata_MV) tweeted at 10:14 AM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
In the meantime, the opinion of slanted Indian journalists is slowly being made redundant by the clever and witty right wing ‘trolls’.
Hrishikesh Sandilya (@HSrains) tweeted at 1:54 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
What have we gained 4m that moral high ground? Some sympathy after every attack? Where is the end to it?
Mohandas Pai (@TVMohandasPai) tweeted at 1:58 PM on Wed, May 31, 2017:
What have we got from holding high moral stance, going to security council on K in 1948?high pain till now;only Real Politiks works! https://t.co/yvbsGrnefb
Jiggs (@Sootradhar) tweeted at 6:20 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Moral High Ground at the expense of Indian lives? Sadanand we refuse to be expendable for so call first world countries.
Jiggs (@Sootradhar) tweeted at 2:52 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
Economist does not create narrative in India. The world will do business with India based on its market size, PP
GK Swamy (@swamygkswamy) tweeted at 5:00 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
@_NAN_DINI as though great western powers follow moral high ground theory? They care two hoots for that. But our boys sermonise
Anil kumar Acharya (@AniilkumarAnil) tweeted at 6:06 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
That fool Nehru in order to garner world applause took a high (im) moral ground on Kashmir and J&K is still burried in the trench he dug. https://t.co/EvjekG8Zeo
Vina Leekha (@vinaleekha1) tweeted at 6:08 PM on Mon, May 29, 2017:
We r not going to protect Indians by sophistcation, nor high moral ground. When the fight is bet(ween) right and wrong, right must fight. Yudh kar https://t.co/fQteoV3awC
(Comment: Did Krishna take the high moral ground all the imte?)
Pankaj Kaushal (@pkaushal_99) tweeted at 7:01 AM on Tue, May 30, 2017:
Means Whosoever hadn’t read and followed The Economist is first class duffer that’s why this Dhume chap wants to tell all? https://t.co/Vu0Dr2cRkr
Did you like this article? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.