First it was Hagel's 'Jewish Lobby' remark that almost cost him his job and now it is supposedly anti india remark that is bringing brickbrats. Hagel is still to learn the art of diplomacy to never state the obvious. 

When has India *not* laid emphasis on the people to people, humanistic, philosophical, and the mutually economic dimension, in its relations with other countries?  Is there a single instance where India placed the 'geopolitical and the geo-strategic' above all else?  You are mistaking India for China, the US, France, the UK and Russia. In Afghanistan specifically, India does not have a miltary mission. There are some paramilitary personnel, but they were rushed there after a series of attacks on Indians by the Taliban.

  India at the level of international relations, institutionally and philosophically, is the most people and civic oriented of all the major, large countries in the world. You would be correct in stating that this approach often does come to loggerheads with countries like China, the US and of course that terrorist rat hole next door Pakistan.

His remarks are not bizarre! It is only logical continuation of US policy in South-Asia. BS for India, Money, arms and support for pak. Indian media has a tendency to play down the actions of US in favor of pak and highlighting the BS(meant for India).

1. Chuck Hagels statement.

2. Immunity to ISI and pak army from cases filed in NY courts regarding 26/11

3. Aid(including arms and equipment) and released to pak army despite protest of India

4. India asked to show restraint after 26/11, with promise of full support in catching the culprits. You may see where it has gotten us. pak is playing truant and US is all about talks and co-operation between the two countries.

5. After parliament attack, alot of pressure was applied to prevent any kind of retaliation.

6. Kargil lasted that long because of US support.

These are just some of the example. US treachery will be fully evident post its full withdrawl from Af-pak. Anyway it would not help pak either.

Varun, i wish you had taken the trouble to answer specifically to my post. Instead, you’ve repeated what you’ve said earlier (15/D-90, paras 1 and 2), asked me a question based on an erroneous assumption that you’ve made on my behalf (15/D-90, sentence 1) and commented on India’s role in Myanmar (16/D-91; for which i would be required to reply in detail) and raised another question. I thought my previous posts sufficiently conveyed the point i was trying to make. Let’s leave it that.
p.s.
And noted your point about having a hold on skepticism: In complete agreement if you are talking about human relationships.

Also, Santosh, when you refer to geo-politics being a 'high stakes' game  with competing interests, are you aware that India took a very principled stance on Burma/Myanmar in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. When the country had a military coup and a repressive military regime took over, India boycotted the country diplomatically. But China entered the picture in a big way with weapons and money, and India found that its ethical, principled behaviour was just about useless. So it decided to engage the country.

Now, who was the unprincipled and crudely opportunistic country on this matter? Definitely not India. 

Sometimes, you have to call a spade a spade, and declare that your country or a specific country is indeed in the right, or doing the more principled thing.  Scepticism is fine, but it shouldn't degenerate into mindless cynicism or cussedness.  That doesn't help at all.