Assuming that Indian freedom was a good cause why did the cause fail thrice in 1921, 1930 and 1942, but succeeded only in 1947. The failures and the success reveal the complex nature of social causation and the crucial role of unintended consequences of human actions. The evils committed by Hitler shamed and provoked Britain to overcome its inertia and come out bravely to defend the right. This was very much intended by Britain and France, but it was certainly not their intention to cripple their own economies and become almost totally dependent upon American aid. Yet, this is, precisely, what happened. Assuming that this was not a good thing to happen, this consequence radically altered the imperial attitude and capability of the British lion. In short the economic dependence of imperial Britain (inarguably evil) paved the way for Indian independence (inarguably good). And Indian independence soon afterwards paved the way for the, by and large, peaceful and negotiated liberation of several Asian and African peoples. It is very reasonable to maintain that even without the Hitler phenomenon freedom would have come to the subjugated peoples due to the inbuilt cultural push or value elan of the movement of history. But, I submit, the 'liberation phenomenon' of Asian and African countries would not have come in the 1940s and 1960s if the 'Hitler phenomenon' had not come in the 1930s.

The second example I have in mind is the course and result of the Vietnam war in the mid seventies of the 20th century. The US government perceived it as a just war against the evil of Communism. As the war dragged on and on and the ground realities on the American side (many of which were ethically indefensible and evil) surfaced to the consciousness of the American people, despite an official conspiracy of silence or of distortion, the American youth and also the common man rebelled against the hypocrisy and double standards of their leaders. The power of American public opinion gradually paved the way for the retreat of the American Goliath from the land of the (Communist) David, as it were. This turn of events opened a new chapter in the history of the Black peoples in America and the rest of the world through giving a terrific boost to the movement for Human Rights in America and in the rest of the world. Another quarter of a century was needed for ending the Apartheid in South Africa and the final emergence of a humanist democratic setup in the land where almost a century ago Gandhiji had launched his experiments in truth and social justice. Through initiating the Africa Fund and creating international pressure that the UN should enforce sanctions against racist regimes India played a notable role in the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

We, thus, see how different evils in different contexts and times in the fullness of time and after prolonged struggle and suffering, advances and retreats, smiles of fortune and avalanches of misfortune create conditions that favour the emergence of good. Likewise, good cannot avoid creating elements of evil in the continuous flow of the stream of history just as impurities or harmful elements contained in the soil pollute the pure contents of pristine glaciers as they enter the flat surface below. However, brave and noble hearts and minds take up anew the fresh challenges in a never-ending quest for value. And the struggle goes on. Each one of us can choose his or her side.

Having clarified or having tried to clarify my basic approach to the human situation today I would like to make some concrete comments on what has gone wrong with the basic US approach to foreign policy. Their policy has been guided by the belief, first, that fear and greed are the most powerful motivators of human action, and second, that leadership means dominance over others. This, perhaps, unconscious model of leadership has created the anomaly that the super-rich super power gives aid to other nations so liberally, but hardly wins any sincere appreciation or respect in return. This was certainly not the case in the 19th century when 'a nation of shop keepers' had emerged as the world custodian of political morality and the mentor of democracy. In short, Pax Britannica inspired the world; Pax Americana frightens it.

The entire world feels over-awed by the economic and military power of the solitary giant. Its style of foreign policy is based on the idea that leadership means dominance, and world dominance means the power to hire and fire the 'managers' of the different countries of the world. Western countries often remind India and Pakistan of the very high price they have been paying on account of their unresolved tensions and conflicts. Will the American giant examine its own political conscience over the issue of its style of leadership and its recourse to double standards in international relations, specially Israel's defiance of the UN over the past years and now the US government's tragic scuttling of the UN ship under its own captaincy?

Foreign policy apart, US remains the land of freedom and opportunity in an open society. Individuals and organizations vigorously promote the good, as they see it-separation of church and state, inter-faith understanding, ultra-right orthodoxies, ban on abortion, gender equality, plural sexual orientations, social justice, environmental protection, heritage preservation, free enterprise and what not.