• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India And The World
<b>Valley victory at the UN</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New York, Sept. 27: <b>In a diplomatic windfall for India at the 61st UN General Assembly, Kashmir has been taken off the list of festering disputes in the secretary-generals’ latest annual report</b>.

This is the first time in 13 years Kashmir has been omitted.

Simultaneously, there are rumblings in the Security Council for ending the mandate of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), which has monitored the ceasefire between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir since 1949.

A few days ago, the General Assembly’s Committee on Programme and Coordination (CPC) decided not to mention UNMOGIP’s “deployment in field and headquarters” for the first time.

Pakistan was the only country to object to the change, but was forced to give in to near unanimity.

India had vehemently objected in private meetings with then secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the UN secretariat in 1993 when Kashmir was mentioned as a dispute in the annual report. Since then, the references have often got worse, with Kashmir being bracketed with such crisis spots as Palestine.
<b>India in lesser UNSC race now</b>
Its bid for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) not going anywhere, India has decided to bid for a non-permanent seat at the Council, for the period 2011-2012. Elections will be held in October 2010, but the lobbying process has informally begun for the seat, which will be from the Asian quota.
Hehehehe.... first Moron Singh and MEA was busy creating false hype, now they know real worth. Thats how so-called dreaming "super power" behave and think. <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There has been a EU proposal to ban the Swastika and Hindus are opposing it, link is:


There is an interesting discussion about it going on at ff:


I hope the same standards are applied to the cross, if swastika is banned it would be fair to say that the cross can be banned totally in both US and India because it was used in the Goan Inquisition and also by the KKK in the US to terrorise black people.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There has been a EU proposal to ban the Swastika and Hindus are opposing it, link is:


There is an interesting discussion about it going on at ff:


I hope the same standards are applied to the cross, if swastika is banned it would be fair to say that the cross can be banned totally in both US and India because it was used in the Goan Inquisition and also by the KKK in the US to terrorise black people.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Whatever happens, they should definitely ban the cross as suggested, as well as images of jesus and the name of Jesus (Christ) in all the world. Since "In the name of Jesus/Christ" was used to terrorise and genocide everyone from the Old Europeans to native Americans to Africans to people in Asia, in order to make them convert.

Difference between the Indian situation and the cross is as follows:
- nazis used a symbol, the hakenkreuz (which has nothing to do with the Hindu Swasthika), to genocide people
- christians used their own religious symbol (the cross) to genocide people

EU should punish the christos for using their symbol for evil purposes which has made their symbol evil. But Hindus did not use Hindu symbol for anything evil, so our symbol is still free from all taint and we should not be punished. Punish the neo nazis still using hakenkreuz - they live in America and Europe.
(The Dionysus-on-a-cross worshippers can return when christoislamism is finally dead.)
Interesting survey which illustrates how Indians view India.

71% say they are proud to be Indians - BBC survey

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LONDON: Nearly two-thirds of all Indians are fiercely proud of 'Mera Bharat Mahaan' but more than half of India believes the caste system is a "barrier to social harmony" and is holding the country back, according to a BBC poll to be published on Monday.

India-watchers expressed surprise at the poll's finding, the first for a nationwide 'attitudes' survey conducted by an international agency, that Indians still seem to have caste firmly on their minds in one way or the other, even though leading sociologists have long argued that urbanisation and industrialisation has helped break down caste-barriers.

The survey aims to itemise exactly how Indians view their own country, at a time when much of the world appears to have a view alternately on "emerging India" or "overheating India". The survey was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan.

<b>The survey found that 71% are proud to be an Indian; nearly as many (65%) think it is important that India is an economic superpower; 60% think it's important India should be a political power and the same number believe it should be a military superpower</b>. Just under half of all Indians said India's economic growth over the last 10 years had not benefited them and their families. The survey comes as part of BBC's ongoing 'India Rising' week of special programming that charts changes in different sectors of the Indian economy.

In a special message to the BBC's estimated 163 million listeners in 33 languages, President Kalam called for worldwide engagement with his vision of citizenship, notably a "three-dimensional approach involving education with value system; religion transformed to spirituality and economic development for societal transformation of all the nations." Kalam, who called upon BBC's global audiences to flood his website with suggestions and debate, was speaking on a special edition of the BBC's 'Discovery' programme, to be broadcast on Wednesday.

Monday's BBC survey concentrated on asking more than 1,500 Indians a series of questions focusing on social and political issues. It found that Indians overall, seven in 10 exhibited a positive sense of identity by agreeing to the statement, "I am proud to be an Indian." The survey found the view was uniform across all age, income groups, even though it differed among religious groups with Christians (73%) the proudest; Hindus (71%) close behind and Muslim pride in being Indian languishing at 60%.

The poll found that Indians' positive perceptions about their present also extended to the Indian marketplace. <b>A 55% majority said the justice system "treats poor people as fairly as rich people"; 52% said "being a woman is no barrier to success" and just under half of all Indians (48%) declared they would rather "work for a private company than for the government." Interestingly, six in 10, or 58% said they believed India's security is "more in danger from other Indians than from foreigners" and 55% said the "caste system is a barrier to social harmony." 47% said "corruption is a fact of life which we should accept as the price of doing business." But a cheering 45% of 18- to 24-year-old Indians said they were less tolerant of corruption than the older generation.</b>

On religious belief, 50% said "people don't take their religion seriously"; 40% lamented that "young Indians have lost touch with their heritage."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India-watchers expressed surprise at the poll's finding, the first for a nationwide 'attitudes' survey conducted by an international agency, that Indians still seem to have caste firmly on their minds in one way or the other, even though leading sociologists have long argued that urbanisation and industrialisation has helped break down caste-barriers.

<img src='http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4237/omgblinky3sm.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--emo&:f*(k--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/f*(k.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='f*(k.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Who are these India watcher, one wonders..... White elite commies wanting to civilize yindoos...
<b>An Indo-Arab blunder?</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Over the years, the Arab world has let India down even though the Asian  giant championed the Palestinian cause, writes Mustafa El-Feki</i>

When I compare how India used to view the Palestinian question, back when I 
was counsellor to the Egyptian Embassy in New Delhi 25 years ago, with how it 
does now, I cannot help but wonder how things change. I was posted in New
Delhi  in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when India was a major supporter of
the  Palestinian cause. The very idea of having diplomatic ties with Israel was 
offensive to most Indians. 

I once monitored a meeting of late Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi with a
group of Jewish Indians in Mumbai and then wrote an article about it for the
Cairo-based periodical Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya (Foreign Policy), speculating 
on the future of relations between India and Israel. In response, the Indian 
ambassador in Cairo filed an official protest with the Egyptian Foreign 
Ministry, expressing outrage that I brought up the possibility that India may 
one day move close to Israel. At present, relations between New Delhi and Israel 
are of strategic nature, with both countries in close touch, waging a common
war  against terror. Both have succeeded in damning the Palestinian resistance
and  the Kashmir insurgence as terrorist, not national liberation movements.

India  and Israel cooperate in many fields, including military and nuclear
technology.  So much we know for fact.

One question is in order, however. What made India change its mind and throw 
itself in the arms of a country that occupies Arab and Palestinian land, to
the  point where it has played host to Ariel Sharon? India and Israel have
their own  separate political agendas. India wishes to have access to US and
Israeli  technology, particularly in the development of weapons. Israel, for its
part,  wishes to have the political backing of a powerful nation. Besides, both 
countries have a common interest in monitoring the nuclear programmes of Iran
and Pakistan. Let's now examine some of the reasons that made India change
its  mind.

First, we have made the error of viewing the Indian- Pakistani conflict from 
an Islamic perspective. We have tried to "Islamise" the ongoing conflict in 
south Asia, posing as protectors of Islam and custodians of the international 
community. And we have overlooked the regional role of India, with Arab
leaders  showing up in New Delhi much less frequently than before.

Secondly, when India applied for membership of the Organisation of the 
Islamic Conference (OIC), the response was extraordinary. A country with 120 
million Muslim citizens applied to membership and what happened? Islamic 
countries, in typical naiveté, rejected the Indian application, imagining this  would
please Pakistan and teach India a lesson. The right thing to do, of  course,
would have been to co-opt this major country and give it OIC membership.  This
would have put the brakes on Indian rapprochement with Israel. An  Arab-Indian
rapprochement may have even alleviated, not increased, the pressure  on
Pakistan. Imparting a religious coating on a conflict between two  neighbouring
countries was a political misjudgement, and a sign of Arab  miscalculation.

Thirdly, India was close to the former Soviet Union and, as a major country 
of the Non-Aligned Movement, critical of US policies. That was during the Cold
War, but things have changed since then. India has forged close links with
the  US due to political as well as technological reasons. And its newly
acquired  superiority in ICT proves it knew what it was doing. India has also
succeeded in  replacing Pakistan as the US favourite country in the region. I
wouldn't be  surprised to see India assume the role of a policeman in the Indian
Ocean and  the outskirts of the Gulf, with US blessing and with the aim of
encircling  so-called Islamic violence. This would be in harmony with Israel's
agenda, and  it may pave the way to a scheme of joint control over the Greater
Middle East. 

Fourthly, Some Arab countries have pursued a balanced policy towards the 
conflict in south Asia. Under Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Egypt was so close to India 
that the latter had no motive to flirt with Israel. Back then, India was a 
staunch supporter of the Palestinian people, and I still remember that the 
Palestinian ambassador to New Delhi enjoyed the privilege of meeting the Indian 
prime minister at anytime he wished to do so. But as the Islamic phenomenon 
spread and some Arab policies acquired a religious tint, India grew visibly 
suspicious of the Arab and Islamic worlds. To make things worse, Arab diplomacy 
in India was lackadaisical over the past two decades.

Fifthly, the Indians are a practical and smart people, so are the Pakistanis.
It is advisable for us to maintain balanced relations with both. Both
countries  are nuclear powers and are highly regarded across the Arab world.

Having good  ties with both countries makes sense at these turbulent times.

We have lost India so far for no good reason, I should say. We have failed to
stay close to an industrially advanced state, one with nuclear and space 
capabilities. We have failed to do so although there is a clear ethnic 
resemblance between the Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, 
and the people in our Arab world. It is time we mend this error. It is time to 
bring Arab countries closer to both India and Pakistan, rather than take one 
side or keep our distance altogether. I believe the Arabs have only themselves 
to blame for India's change of heart on the Palestinian question. 

In early 2003, I was in New Delhi with a parliamentary delegation. It was my 
first to India in over 20 years. I met the Indian national security adviser,
who  is a veteran politician, and he told me his country, despite its close
links  with Israel, is committed to legitimate Palestinian rights. Such attitude
is  encouraging, and it makes me think that the Arab League, whose current 
secretary-general was once an ambassador to India, should start a coordinated 
effort to improve Arab links with India. We need to bring back the balance to 
our policy and revive the old friendship, while maintaining our close bonds
with  Pakistan.

Some people have taken issue with what I mentioned about the need to 
integrate the Arab mindset into the current global mindset. They called my 
assertion an assault on local identity and a sabotage of the pan-Arab character. 
I still believe that this is a responsible way of addressing our problems, that 
this is the way forward in the context of comprehensive reform -- the reform 
that countries in this region seek, the reform that emanates from their own 
fabric and expresses their own resolve. We must distinguish between two things. 

One is comprehensive revision, which makes transformation a part of reform.
The  other is uncalculated compromises that lead to a general sense of
capitulation  of other people's wishes. Only the latter I am against.

International isolation  is impossible. Let me say this loud and clear. This is what history tells us,  this is the spirit of the age, and this is how things are.

<i>* The writer is chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs  Committee.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The writer of the article has taken a very balanced view of the situation and has put forward the theory that religion should take a back seat for the Arab Nations in the conduct of their foreign policy in the South Asian region.He has also stated that if India was allowed to be a member of the OIC, perhaps it would not have developed close ties with Israel. It is difficult to predict what would have been the outcome in such a situation.
In any case, the cause of Palestine has lost its momentum in recent years and the main reason for the same has been the collective failure of the Arab countires in pressurising the USA to ensure that Israel speeds up the peace process.
What would have India gained by officially joining Ummah (OIC)? Whose idea was this? Indira Gandhi?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In any case, the cause of Palestine has lost its momentum in recent years and the main reason for the same has been the collective failure of the Arab countires in pressurising the USA to ensure that Israel speeds up the peace process. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh !! You have missed greatest coup. Anyway we had predicted this will happen before Iraq war.

Saddam and Iraq had gone, so is the funding for Palestine. Arafat, Saddam stooge died after embezzling over billion dollars, now his wife and daughter are enjoying life in Paris.
Now there are at least four groups in Palestine, fighting for money (not for peace or land). Now Shia group supported by Iran is trying to spread its tentacles, and Saudi, Jordan are supporting Fattah. Time had come USA and Israel should ask middle east, Please sit together and create peaceful environment in Middle east, otherwise these chicks will roast you.
Anyway, the great war is taking its shape in Middle East. Enjot till it last.
As our prediction, it will take 10-12 years for new borders, now 6-8 years are left for future entertainment.

My advice, India should get popcorns on table and watch. Stop even asking Israel to do anything. They are having fun and peace after Leabnon/Iran notorious act.
February 25, 2007

Page: 26/34

Home > 2007 Issues > February 25, 2007

The Moving Finger Writes

Charge of the global Indian
By M.V. Kamath

From 1857 at least until 1947—a period of ninety years—Britain did everything possible to downgrade India. When Jamshedji Tata wanted to start a steel mill in India, the British laughed at him. The Chief Commissioner for the Indian Railways, Sir Frederick Upcott told a British engineer Charles Page Perin: “Do you mean to say that Tatas propose to make steel rails to British specifications? Why, I will undertake to eat every pound of steel they succeed in making.”

On February 16, 1912, the first ingot of steel rolled on the lines of the Sakeha Plant amidst much rejoicing. During World War I, Tata exported 1,500 miles of steel rails to Mesopotamia. Dorab Tata commented dryly that if Sir Frederick had carried out his undertaking, he would have had “some slight indigestion”.

Now Tatas have bought over Corus. According to media reports Corus will give that added boost to the group that currently employs over 2.5 lakh people and has a market capitalisation of Rs 2.49 crore as on January 31.

With Corus under its wing, the Tata Group turnover, according to estimates will touch Rs 1.5 lakh crore. Poor Sir Frederick must be turning in his grave.

India is on the move. And nobody can stop it. The British tried their level best. Prior to 1857, according to Dialogue (July-September 2006) the British colonial emphasis was on the consolidation of the empire, the denigration of the Indians and running down of Indian culture. India was only a “geographic entity”, “an imaginary state”, Brahmins were “an ants’ nest of lies and impostures”, Hindus were ‘liars’ and Macaulay who introduced English as the administrative language of India (would now surely be regretting it) proposed to pay over one lakh rupees to a 32-year-old German scholar, Max Mueller for translating Rig Veda in such a manner that it would destroy the belief of the Hindus in the Vedic religion.

Monier Williams, another Sanskrit scholar, was to remark that “Brahmanism must die out and Christianity, in the end inevitably sap its foundations”. Indian science was laughed at.

According to Michel Danino, convenor of the International Forum for India’s Heritage, of a list of 3,473 science texts from 12,244 science manuscripts found in 400 repositories in Kerala, no more than seven per cent are in print even today. And yet there were times when Indian science was laughed at, Indian entrepreneurship berated. Tatas have shown that they too can fight—and fight effectively. The question is asked: “Why must a home-grown company like Tata Steel seek to acquire—at a fairly high price—concern like Corus which has four times its own capacity?” The answer is simple. India has to show its face to the world which is increasingly globalised. India should be able to control the world steel market. We must encourage and support Indians and NRIs to capture European companies and show the latter that Indians make better managers and technologists.

Look at China. It has now become the largest steel producer in the world, followed by Japan. It is time Asia takes over the world. We must capture the world just as Europe once did. According to a NASSCOM study, even if India aims at 20 per cent of the total size of the Engineering Services Outsourcing (known as ESO) market by 2020, the volume of the business can be in the range of $ 60 billion which is no small amount.

True, buying up Corus may not help produce more employment in India but capturing ESO will. What the Corus purchase will do is to arouse a healthy respect for India. And that should be a priority. We should develop our killer instinct. We command respect only when we show our fighting spirit, not when we go begging to countries as we once did for financial aid, inviting scorn and derision from even petty states like Belgium and Holland.

It is disgusting to see India pleading with countries big and small for their support to its claim to Permanent Membership of the Security Council. Permanent Membership brings us no glory. The United States behaves like a bully. In what way has Permanent Membership of France or China prevented the Americans to continue their criminal activity in Iraq? We must treat the Council with contempt. Only then will we gain respect. It is a matter of pride that we are not lagging behind in technology either.

The highly-successful launch of the PSLV-C7 on January 10, 2007 into a 635-km high polar Sun Synchronous Orbit is yet another feather in India’s cap, more especially because of the complex technology involved in the launch of multiple satellites, which included a recoverable space capsule. The launch was perfect, so was the recovery of an autonomous capsule on earth. Of course the whole project cost India millions. But it was worth it. Indeed, ISRO is thinking of sending a man to the moon. And no western power is belittling us any longer. Of course, in many ways India is way behind many western and even some Asian countries. Progress is not going to be attained overnight.

It may well be argued that what we will spend on our ISRO experiments can well be spent on improving our roads, developing our slums, upgrading our education system and a score of other needs. But remember China. Its test of a “satellite killer” weapon earlier in January this year has become an eye-opener. So far only the Americans and to a lesser extent the Russians had this capacity. India cannot afford to lag behind. So India has a job cut out for it. And Indian leadership, if one such exists, must tell its countrymen that it should unite for a larger purpose instead of wasting time on caste wars and political mud-slinging, at each other. We don’t have much time. And such time that we have should not be wasted.

In this the media has a heavy responsibility. In restoring India’s self-respect and prodding the young to rise to great heights is a role that only the media can play, whether it is the print or the electronic media. We have had enough of Page Three vulgarity. India is on the threshold of rising to great heights and it is the media’s responsibilities to tell the country’s youth that it has a major role to play in making India truly a great country.

India is more than a sum of its constituent communities of which there are over 4,653 at last count. We have to think of what binds us, not what separates us, and the lesson must be learnt as much by ULFA or the Maoists as by the NDA and UPA. Therein lies India’ great and mighty future.

India started using crusade sign in its coin but Indonesia proudly prints Ganesha in 20,000 RUpiah note
Has there been an inquiry into the cross symbol on Indian coins?

I have hard time believing that people will not care about replacing India's ancient seal (The Great Seal of Ashoka) with this new cross thing.

This is where BJP should come into play. Congress of today does not care about Indians and India.

India Once Ruled the Americas!
By Gene D. Matlock
Our price: $14.95
Format: Paperback
Size: 6 x 9
Pages: 200
ISBN: 0-595-13468-8
Published: Dec-2000
International orders:
Call 00-1-402-323-7800

Revealed at Last! The Old World orgins of our Native Americans
Book Description
The people of India have long known that their ancestors once sailed to and settled in the Americas. They called America Patala, “The Under World,” not because they believed it to be underground, but because the other side of the globe appeared to be straight down. Now, at last, many mysteries about Ancient America, such as the identity of the Mexican Quetzalcoatl, the true origins of our Native Americans, etc., will be cleared up, once and for all.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Unfair assessment </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
UNDP dances to West's tune
UNDP's report on Human Development Indices released yesterday, while being generally positive, is not so good for India. The evaluation of the various measures of the quality of life in different countries, which indicate progress or fall in living standards in each country, has shown a general improvement in most respects. India is not an exception to this growth, yet it has fallen two places in health, education, poverty and other indices to rank 128 among 177 countries. This fall in rank despite a rise in the HDI value -- indicators such as life expectancy and literacy -- and also in GDP is not inexplicable. It is merely suggestive of the fact that though India has made progress, others have done so at a faster rate. Yet the overall scenario is disappointing. Much more needs to be done by the Government in all the sluggish sectors. While the positive news is that India remains the fastest growing economy, the Index has highlighted the fact that the benefits of growth are unequally distributed. Sadly, at least 28 per cent of the population remains below the poverty line. The effects of climate change may further nullify the progress. The UNDP report has noted the various ways in which the country is finding it difficult to realise the Millennium Development Goals due to the climatic phenomenon. For example, droughts and floods have influenced the nutritional status, especially of women. Climate change may have affected up to 262 million people. The future may be worse. Happily, there are some positive aspects to this climate change story, for there are signs that people are adapting to these changes, which may lessen the adverse impact. The report has also made some positive recommendations: A series of measures could help deal with this threat by improving, for example, energy efficiency.

Expectedly, India has not reacted positively to the HDR's suggestion that developing countries should commit to reducing its carbon emissions by the year 2050 by 20 per cent. India is right in noting that the per capita emissions from developing countries are low. For example, our per capita emission of carbon is 17 times lower than that of the US. This wide discrepancy in such figures makes the applicability of the same standards to different countries grossly unfair. To avoid this inequity, the right basis for reducing the emission of greenhouse gases is per capita emissions. Especially in view of the historicity of the cause of this phenomenon -- the record of carbon use by the more developed countries over decades if not centuries -- it cannot be the amount of carbon released by them into the atmosphere. While, generally,<b> India has to work harder to improve the quality of life of its people, the immediate question is that of climate change</b>, which will come up at a conference to be held next month in Bali. As this will set the pattern of development for the future, hopefully India will argue its case well.
India is not spending money on human development; Government is spending more money on Sonia and family than anything else.

They should have increase oil price according to current increase in global market. Saved money could have used in improving education and health. What India had done, they had stopped investment in infrastructure especially Roads because it was started by NDA government.

Congress and Health minister Ramadoss is more interested to kick out Venugopal so that he can eat equipment alone and appoint his family members.

Defense sector is most ignored, investment on indigenous development is moving towards zero, buying stuff from abroad will bring bribe to ruling party so its better to buy it from abroad.

Education sector is most ignored, creating seats for few wealthy reserved pampered kids will solve education problem of India according to current foolish leaders of India.

Only private sector is doing well, but current government is trying very hard to kill that remain sector by reservation and forced Hafta by license and Babus on throat to control.

so no surprise by report whether both Singh scream from roof top that it is wrong.
Truth is private citizens are doing on its own and only few.
<b>India 's Peaceful Rise</b>
Lee Kuan Yew 12.24.07, 12:00 AM ET

Even though the economy's annual growth rate has been 8% to 9% for the last five years, India's peaceful rise hasn't led to unease over the country's future. Instead, Americans, Japanese and western Europeans are keen to invest in India, ride on its growth and help develop another heavyweight country.

I recently had the opportunity to visit New Delhi twice. In November JPMorgan Chase brought its international advisory board, its European board and its principal officers from many parts of the world to the city for a two-day meeting. And earlier this month Citigroup invited me to speak along with the bank's top leaders at an Asia-Pacific Business Leaders' Summit there. Two of the largest U.S. banks consider India to be a growth story and are eager to service American and Indian companies. <b>I did not detect any anxiety over India becoming a problem to the present world order.</b>

Why has China's peaceful rise, however, raised apprehensions? Is it because India is a democracy in which numerous political forces are constantly at work, making for an internal system of checks and balances? Most probably, yes--especially as India's governments have tended to be made up of large coalitions of 10 to 20 parties.

One example of India's "checks and balances" at work was the suspension of its talks on a U.S. nuclear power deal. Although this deal is manifestly in India's interests, 60 communist MPs--part of the Congress Party-led coalition government--opposed the deal. Subsequently, the Communists allowed negotiations to resume, reserving their position on the outcome. India's development will, from time to time, run into domestic obstruction.

Contrast this with the singleness of purpose in policy and its execution displayed by China's Communist government.

India's navy has an aircraft-carrier force; its air force has the latest Sukhoi and MiG aircraft; its army is among the best trained and equipped in Asia. <b>India can project power across its borders farther and better than China can, yet there is no fear that India has aggressive intentions. </b>

Could this be because India is surrounded by states in turmoil? Pakistan is in crisis; a bad outcome there will increase the terrorist threat to India. As Pervez Musharraf is now an elected civilian president, he won't have the same command over the army he has had as army chief. And any other elected president will have even less sway over the military. Nepal is a deeply divided and troubled country. Sri Lanka is embroiled in an unending civil war, with the Tamil Tigers carrying out endless suicide bombings. <b>India obviously has preoccupations enough to keep its focus fixed on its border regions. </b>

Different Impact

Suppose China were also a democracy with multiple parties and political power bases? Would a multiparty China with a yearly economic growth rate of 9% to 12% be viewed with the same equanimity as India is? Such a China would probably continue to make big strides on the economic, social and military fronts, with more sophisticated capabilities on the ground and sea and in the air and space, and would eventually become a peer competitor, if not an adversary, of the U.S.

The speed of China's change and the thoroughness, energy and drive with which the Chinese have built up their infrastructure and pursued their goals spring from their culture, one that is shared by the Koreans, Japanese and Vietnamese, who adopted the Chinese written script and absorbed Confucian culture. The Chinese are determined to catch up with the U.S., the EU and Japan. Fast-forward 20 to 30 years and the world will have to accommodate a more technologically advanced and economically more sophisticated China, whether under a single- or multiparty system.

India does not pose such a challenge--and won't until it gets its social infrastructure up to First World standards and further liberalizes its economy. Indeed, the U.S., the EU and Japan root for India <b>because they want a better-balanced world, in which India approximates China's weight.</b>

The Indian elite also speak, write and publish in English. They hold a wide range of diverse views--and to the degree that Amartya Sen, a Nobel winner in economics, entitled one of his books The Argumentative Indian. Few Chinese, on the other hand, speak--let alone write in--English, and what they publish in Chinese doesn't always disclose their innermost thoughts.

What if India were well ahead of China? Would Americans and Europeans be rooting for China? I doubt it. They still have a phobia of the "yellow peril," one reinforced by memories of the outrages of the Cultural Revolution and the massacres in Tiananmen Square, not to mention their strong feelings against Chinese government censorship. China will have to live with these hang-ups. To reinforce the idea that theirs will be a peaceful path going forward, the Chinese have rephrased the term "peaceful rise" to "peaceful development." Greater openness and transparency in Chinese society would also help.

Singapore and Southeast Asia (Asean), sandwiched between these two behemoths, need China and India to achieve a balanced relationship, one that allows both to grow and prosper, pulling up the rest of Asia--East, Southeast and South--with them.

<i>Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore; Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author; Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and former president of Mexico, rotate in writing this column. </i>
To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at www.forbes.com/currentevents.

Kolkata, Telegraph, Issue Date: Saturday, December 15, 2007


- Why the US responds differently to the rise of China and of India


Special interest

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew wonders why "India's peaceful rise hasn't led to unease over the country's future" whereas "China's peaceful rise (has) raised apprehensions". His comparison of the global (meaning American) response to the two nations in a recent article in Forbes magazine <b>should warn smart-alecky Indians to stop their silly gushing about "Chindia" and consider a coherent and consistent response to the challenge as Manmohan Singh prepares to visit China.</b>

Lee answers his own question by outlining the Confucian compulsions that drive China to forge ahead on the economic, social and military fronts so that it eventually becomes "a peer competitor, if not an adversary" of the United States of America. <b>A China that aspires to best the US is bound to see India as a puny neighbour, as was evident from Liu Shao-chi's claim that "China was a great power and had to punish India once". </b>So had Vietnam in 1979 because it, too, was becoming uppity. <b>India may again have to be "punished</b>" — though the instruments of chastisement may be different — if a booming economy and Western applause encourage what the Chinese consider too much assertiveness.

Of course, India's high annual growth is narrowing the gap. There are also many flaws in the Chinese miracle that admirers seldom acknowledge. But China's strident territorial claims, aggressive competition for gas, charm offensive in south-east Asia and determination to exclude India from east Asian diplomacy (Malaysia being its cat's-paw) <b>confirm the "singleness of purpose in policy and its execution" that prompt American, European and Japanese misgivings. </b>

Lee's surprise at the US actively promoting India's growth while actively trying to curb China's ignores the exigencies of swings in great power politics. Indians cannot forget the bleak years when the US would not sell the Kray computer India sought or components for a light combat aircraft. In contrast, politically acquiescent China received sophisticated dual use technology that laid the foundations of modernization as well as a flood of American investment for its economic revolution. It surprises Indians even more to learn that India is militarily more powerful than China. "India's navy has an aircraft-carrier force; its air force has the latest Sukhoi and MiG aircraft; its army is among the best trained and equipped in Asia. India can project power across its borders farther and better than China can," Lee says, "yet there is no fear that India has aggressive intentions."

Isn't there? Pakistan's "major non-NATO ally" status, carrying substantial military and economic privileges, meant the Americans were renewing their traditional insurance lest their new investment in India went awry. Nor does the nuclear treaty grant everything India wants. If American wariness of India hasn't quite gone, India is even more cautious, and with better reason too, about China. The spectre of 1962 haunts us still. India knows it cannot match China's nuclear arsenal, range of ballistic missiles, the numerical strength of the People's Liberation Army, "string of pearls" (reconnaissance posts) in the Indian Ocean and the strategic triangle of Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Sitwe (Akyab) in Myanmar.

Lee has an instinctive understanding of his ancestral land. He also has a special interest in the Sino-Indian equation because, as he says, Singapore and south-east Asia, sandwiched between the two behemoths, need China and India. His optimistic expectation is that in growing and prospering together, they will pull up the rest of Asia. The reasons he gives for the widespread assumption that the West prefers India to China deserve consideration.

First, India "is a democracy in which numerous political forces are constantly at work, making for an internal system of checks and balances". Coalition governments and communist recalcitrance mean that "India's development will, from time to time, run into domestic obstruction". In short, we dither when the need is for decisive action. Second, being "surrounded by states in turmoil, India obviously has preoccupations enough to keep its focus fixed on its border regions". In other words, unlike China, India has too much on its plate to threaten anyone.

That can be the accident of geopolitics; it can also owe something to political design. As Lee says, "Pakistan is in crisis; a bad outcome there will increase the terrorist threat to India." Pervez Musharraf in civilian attire won't have the same command over the army, and any other elected president would have even less. But it is also true that Pakistan's nuisance value, especially the missile and nuclear strength that go a long way in redressing the region's natural geopolitical balance, is largely the product of calculated and sustained American and Chinese patronage.

Third, India does not pose a challenge to Western global dominance — "and won't until it gets its social infrastructure up to First World standards and further liberalizes its economy". But the Chinese are so determined to catch up with the US, Europe and Japan that in 20 to 30 years the world will have to accommodate a more technologically advanced and economically sophisticated China, irrespective of whether it is still a dictatorship or has made some concession to multi-party politics.

Fourth, India's elite "speak, write and publish in English" and "hold a wide range of diverse views". Both make for easy communication with the Anglo-American elite but linguistic familiarity is not the only reason for the latter's sense of comfort. Lee's mention in this context of Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian suggests a character trait Westerners find appealing. It is not clear whether he thinks this is because argumentativeness indicates disunity or because it implies flexibility.

China's token gesture of rephrasing its "peaceful rise" to "peaceful development" has not helped. Lee feels that "greater openness and transparency in Chinese society" would make a difference. Now, even those few Chinese who speak or write in English use speech, like Talleyrand, to conceal their innermost thoughts. China's huge success makes it doubly unpopular with a West that already suffers from the "phobia of the yellow peril" reinforced by memories of the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square and government censorship. Even if a multi-party China lagged behind India economically, it would, Lee thinks, still invite Western hostility. What he leaves out but has elaborated before is the cultural difference between "intense" Chinese and "soft" or "spiritual" Indians that also explains why the West regards the former — and not the latter — as a menace.

<b>Social psychologists might say that a sense of persecution is essential for a nation to mobilize its moral and material resources to tackle the world.</b> But truth to tell, China's isolation ended with Henry Kissinger's 1971 mission. Apart from the technological and financial help already mentioned, America's Cold War patronage also provided the diplomatic respectability China did not enjoy when India was its only non-communist champion on the international stage. The Sino-US rapprochement forced Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines swiftly to change tack and establish diplomatic relations with China. Indonesia, the biggest regional power, was the last. Chinese-dominated Singapore with massive economic relations with China, and China's most eloquent interlocutor on the world stage, tactfully deferred the formality of diplomatic ties until then.

Having enabled China to reach this height, the Americans might feel their protégé has (to lapse into a vulgarism) become too big for its boots. That does not concern India. What does is China's view of itself and its place in Asia and the world. That does not mean China is out to put down India. But any equation Lee suggests must reconcile India's dignity and growing stature with what Jawaharlal Nehru called China's "Middle Kingdom complex". I suspect that knowing this, Southeast Asians feel obliged to propitiate China in the same way as the ancient Greeks called the Furies, the good-natured ladies in the hope of flattering them into being benign. <b>But there is no reason for India to follow suit. </b>


<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Q...678,curpg-1.cms
The government insists that the five have violated visa rules. "On tourist visa, you cannot take part in a religious activity. If we allow that, you will have people coming here to propagate their religion. It's only for travelling and sightseeing, etc. So, they have violated the visa rule by participation in the march," said Ashim Khurana, joint secretary (Foreigners) in the ministry of home affairs.

June 2008

India’s Central Asian Struggle

By Sreeram Chaulia

Central Asia is the most coveted area in the world for strategic influence. By virtue of its location at geopolitical crossroads and its vast mineral treasures, the region of the six ‘stans’ (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan) has been a prized object of contention for great powers of different eras. In the 13th century, Mongolia’s Changez Khan’s swept across the area, killing 15 million people and plundering its resources. Changez’s imperialism in the Caucasus and Russia was facilitated by his control of the Central Asian steppes.

India should demonstrate leadership on global challenges: US

Chennai (PTI): India can be a major player in the global community if it demonstrates the much-needed leadership on common challenges and opportunities, United States Consul General David T Hopper said on Tuesday.

India should focus on leadership on common challenges and opportunities such as climate change, energy security, non-proliferation, global trade and investment, he said at a function organised by Consultative Committee of City Chambers of Commerce, here.

Elaborating about important challenges and opportunities faced by the country, Hopper said, "areas like infrastructure investment, financial sector liberalisation, bilateral investment, clean technology and multilateral trade are particularly promising ones for the US and India to stand together as global leaders and provide the basis for the common agenda going forward".

Citing official estimates which suggest that India requires upwards of USD 500 billion in infrastructure investment over the next five years, he said, "India needs to support accelerated growth in providing the physical infrastructure - roads, ports and airports, power generation, water supply and sewage and communication links".

He said: "The US regards Doha as an opportunity to attack poverty by opening trade flows between all nations in agricultural goods, industrial products".

"We need to see progress on services and agreement on modalities for agriculture and non-agriculture market access if an agreement is to be completed by the year end," he said.

To achieve results, a Doha deal must include substantial reduction of applied agriculture and manufacturing tariffs and new liberalisation of services, he said.

Developing countries like India are major beneficiaries of the international trading system and must take a leadership role to move the Doha negotiations forward, he added.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)