Jaishankar hits out at critics of India’s import of Russian crude oil

Good for Mr. Jaishankar. Playing defensive is fine, responding with rhetoric questions is fine. But I wish Mr. Jaishankar would start offensive. Such as: 'I suspect you are unclear that as a representative of a democratic republic, the citizens of India owe no explanation to you about our relations and trade with Russia. Any more than your government owes Indian citizens answers about why you buy gas and minerals from Russia, why you sell arms to the most unstable of forces around the world, why you support military dictatorships. Or why your politicians, businesses, and bankers are in bed with the worst elements of Russia. Any concerns about that? Or are you here to defend the double standards. Get real, ask me a real question. What India buys from whom is our business, not yours.' 'Ask me about India's foreign policy interests, I just don't respond that well to 'gotcha' questions.' 'Thanks for the question about communal, religious-affairs issues in India. Your question seems untethered to an understanding of Indian politics, or our history in which a foreign religion was largely imposed on the point of a sword. No, you have no awareness of that, do you? You are trying to stir up a controversy. Are Indians concerned about communal violence? Yes. We are concerned, we want communal harmony. Our constitution guarantees religious freedom. As does yours. Now, is there a culture clash in Western Europe despite your best intents? Did we all imagine Charlie Hebdo and other unforgivable acts of violence against European citizens? What side of Charlie Hebdo are you on? We are on the side of innocent victims. Where do you get off asking India to explain a culture clash, and communal violence in India - when despite your intents and resources, you have problems here. Or are you so naïve, that you cannot extrapolate from problems you are facing as a result of recent immigration from your former colonies, to complex issues of religion when we have had a thousand years of domination by religions not indigenous to India. Are you expecting communal harmony at a snap of a finger? If so, I am calling out your naivety. Get real and ask me a question of consequence.' 'Your questions about India's problem between Hindus and Muslims, seems too tethered to a reality that has passed us, and is now irrelevant and outdated. Your reference is to the actions of Indian intellectuals (who were mostly socialists, if not communists), and to the Indian congress party that sought unrelenting validation for its actions from Pakistan and Islamic nations. It never occurred to them that appeasement was unnoticed by others, that it triggered a wrong sense of entitlement in India, and it worsened our democratic processes. They were slowly sliding toward making Sharia - if not the law of the land, then the law for select Indian citizens. Previous governments may have pandered to select voters in order to maintain power. Things change. They have in India. Today's Indian citizen is engaged and alive. We are a democracy, where each person (despite religious affiliations) is equal. I should not have to remind you how democracy works. As such we will not tolerate undemocratic privileges for people based on religious affiliations, or affiliations to books and mores that are foreign to us, and were essentially brought in and imposed by invaders. We won't do it any more than countries in Europe are willing to change themselves to accommodate Nazis who invaded them at a time, or change your sociopolitical processes and culture to accommodate the ideas being imposed on you by your immigrants. Are you questioning the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, why they do not treat Nazis as an equivalent philosophy and grant those pursuing it as a faith, equal rights to do as they wish? Are you demanding that all European women wear the hijab, to ensure no Islamic cleric is unoffended? If not, why are you asking me whether India intends to coddle faiths and pursuits foreign to India's ancient cultures? Your questions about India's communal harmony are hypocritical and provocative; ask me that when you have achieved such harmony in your democracies. To your point, we don't condone violence. When violent crimes are committed, by anyone, we investigate them within the framework our laws. I suspect you do as well. Next question.' This is what offense sounds like. You go Jaishankar, you are the best thing that happened to India's foreign policy since Chanakya, Shivaji and other greats. Thank you for your service. We support you. Go on offense. Defense is for weak people. We are not weak people.