• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India And The World
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Goodbye, Mr Chips: On leaving the United Nations
Rajeev Srinivasan
May 17, 2005
What made the League of Nations fail? Because it ceased to provide value to its members. It was based on the utopian idea that nations would prefer to cooperate and work with each other rather than to compete ruthlessly. Jaw-jaw, as arch-imperialist Winston Churchill once said pithily, being better than war-war. On the face of it, this is rational, but I suspect game theory alters the perceptions of individual States.

Many people are familiar with the paradigm of the Prisoner's Dilemma, wherein the best outcome is for the two participants to cooperate with each other, but since neither has any idea if the other party will betray them, the temptation is to betray the other party. The result is that both parties end up losing big. In a way, the League of Nations, and its more recent incarnation, the United Nations, were both based on the idea that level-ish playing field would increase the incentives for cooperation.

This turned out to be a fiction in the case of the League of Nations; alas, I believe it is turning to be a fiction in the case of the United Nations as well. I hate to say this, especially considering that I am acquainted with Shashi Tharoor, Under Secretary General for the organisation. However, I believe that the UN has shown itself to be wanting.

For years I have watched, with some bemusement, the spectacle of conservative American politicians thundering that the UN was useless. They meant it was not a willing vehicle for pushing their agendas, but on the other hand, the UN has had a hand in preventing many wars and generally propagating the principle of multilateralism, or so I used to think.

Now I am not so sure. Maybe the thundering Americans are right. The UN has been powerless to stop various conflicts: the long-running wars in southern Africa, the holocausts in Cambodia and Rwanda, the genocides in Tibet and in the Sudan, the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Pakistan/Bangladesh, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What exactly is the UN's raison d'etre? Shouldn't it be out there doing something?

Somebody once suggested that the UN should have its own armed forces, perhaps Gurkhas demobbed by the British in Hong Kong. The UN has hired peacekeepers from sundry nations. India has provided far more than its fair share, and has put its soldiers in the line of fire in many tense spots. Incidentally, let us note that the UN has compensated them differentially: white soldiers make more money than Indians for the same peacekeeping duties; and sometimes white contingents refused to serve under Indian commanders, for example under General Satish Nambiar in Yugoslavia.

What's in it for India?

This is an example of a subtle, and perhaps not so subtle, systemic discrimination. A more egregious instance, and something that really rocked my faith in the UN, was Secretary General Kofi Annan's statement in late April about India's candidacy for the Security Council. Here are reports from the Financial Timesand the Times of

'It is a fact and a reality that it is not going to be possible to remove the veto from the five. It is utopian to think that we can do it. Many member states would want to do that but it is not possible,' said Annan.

'I believe enlargement without veto is a major step forward,' Annan said on Thursday. 'Let us not get so focused on the veto. What is important is to have effective representation to make the council more democratic and ensure voices of all the regions are heard,'Annan said.

Annan is suggesting a clear apartheid. India, Japan, Germany and Brazil (the G-4 aspirants) will forever be second-class permanent members without a veto in the UN Security Council, while the existing Security Council permanent members, the US, the UK, France, Russia and China (the P-5) would be first-class, veto-holding members.

The G-4 in fact pay more money to the UN than the P-5 and also offer more personnel for peacekeeping and bureaucratic duties. Strictly speaking, the US is supposed to pay more than Japan (20% of the UN budget) and Germany (10%), but last I remember, the US owed a large amount that it showed no intention of paying. Incidentally, veto- wielding China pays just 1% of the budget!

Indians have been dying for the benefit of others (I call this Gunga-Din-ism, after Kipling) for some time now. In the wake of the 60th anniversary of Victory-Europe Day in World War II, there have been reports about the sacrifices of Indians in what were basically two imperial wars. Indians received more Victoria Crosses (the ultimate valour award for people dying for Britain, like the Param Vir Chakra) than Britons themselves. And given that it would have taken an Indian ten times more effort to be considered worthy of this as compared to a Briton, this is truly stupendous.

About a million and a half Indians participated in these long-running wars, and 300,000 died. Marne, Burma, Libya, Iraq… the roll call of Indian campaigns is long. And just as Australians realised after Gallipoli, Indian soldiers have been just so much cannon fodder for the British, and now for the UN. Enough already!

This row about some nations being more equal than others is replicated in the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There too the same usual suspects, the P-5, are the 'haves'; everyone else is a 'have-not'. The neutral observer wonders why on earth has-been powers such as the UK and France deserve to have the veto or nuclear weapons. Naturally, the NPT is unraveling, with nations like North Korea publicly withdrawing from it.

Not that North Korea is a role model: the US is, for unilateralism. Whenever it sees a treaty or an organisation that it doesn't like, the US stays away and tries to sabotage it. For instance, the Law of the Sea, the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court. It is undermining WTO with bilateral trade treaties. Similarly, when it doesn't want to honour a treaty obligation, the Americans simply ignore it: for instance, in the supply of nuclear fuel to the Tarapur reactor in India.

Following in America's footsteps, I think the G-4 should now unilaterally withdraw from the UN. Or at least threaten to do so. If the G-4 does not want to show a united front on it, India should on its own just walk out of the United Nations if it doesn't get what it wants, the Security Council seat with a full veto. American salespersons ask: 'What have you done for me lately?' Indeed, what exactly has the UN done for India lately?

It is true that India made a colossal blunder in turning down a Security Council seat when it was offered to it on a platter in the 1950s. The original P-5 were the US, the UK, France, the Soviet Union, and Taiwan. Given that Taiwan didn't control much of China, and 'Red China' was out of favour with everybody, there was a proposal to give an 'Asian' seat to India. Here is what transpired then, according to official records.

From the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Series II, Volume 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders, Moscow, 22 June 1955, page 231, here are the minutes of the conversation between Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin, as quoted in Claude Arpi's Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement (Mittal Publications, Delhi, 2004, ISBN 81-7099-974-X):

'Bulganin: While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.

Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in the USA have suggested that India should replace China in the Security Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject of controversy. If India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We feel that this should not be done till the question of China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.'

Those were the halcyon days of Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai. To paraphrase Jyoti Basu, in hindsight, this was a 'historic blunder'. India has wasted incredible amounts of energy trying to rectify this blunder and get itself into the Security Council. But it's quite apparent that if India ever gets a seat it will be a worthless seat. It reminds me of Woody Allen's observation that he'd never want to be a member of any club that would actually admit him.

Again, going back to the NPT as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it hasn't particularly hurt India that it has stayed outside these discriminatory treaties, despite much wagging of fingers by others. Similarly, certain neutral States have remained outside the UN: if I am not mistaken, Switzerland famously doesn't join anything, and is not a UN member. Just as Norway has refused to join the European Union.

India has been over-eager to join various motley crews, for instance the banana-republic kaffeeklatsch of the Non-Aligned Movement. Championing various causes for the 'Third World' may have given an ego-boost to certain Indians, but it won India no brownie points. For instance, a resolution condemning India for intervening in the genocide in the then-East Pakistan in 1971 won by a resounding 104 votes to 11. So much for NAM gratitude to India, a pious fiction believed only by South Block. Similarly ungrateful is the UN.

On top of all this is the enormous waste of the UN bureaucracy. By latching on to the generous mammaries of the UN welfare state, many consultants have become wealthy. Graham Hancock's damning 1989 expose, Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business, estimated that most of the $60 billion plus that comprised governmental, UN, and World Bank or IMF-type 'aid' was siphoned off. Mostly by elites in poor nations with their Swiss accounts, special interests (like agribusiness in donor countries, which dump their subsidised excess produce), but also, startlingly, the aid agencies' own personnel budgets, which waste as much as 80 per cent of the funds for lavish (first-class) travel, salaries, and perquisites. Similarly with the UN's extremely generous salaries and benefits.

Is there any good reason to keep on paying through the nose for a body that doesn't do India any good or give India any respect?

It's time for India to say, 'We're out of here!' if the UN continues to treat it shabbily. The return on investment to India of being in this failing body is not high; it is falling apart anyway under the weight of its own internal contradictions. Therefore, India should give the UN an ultimatum, and walk out if it is not satisfied.

Comments welcome at my blog http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com

<b>US rejects German bid for UNSC seat: report</b>
Germany will pay price for Iraq snub. European Union has done excellent damage to Germany. Growing economic power of India and China is showing some result.
<b>Europe in chaos as India, China 'stealing' jobs</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The future belongs, as Moïsi says, like victory, to those who desire it most, not to those who are doing their best to defeat themselves. A country like India, where the good life comes only if you work your fingers to the bone, is powering to eclipse Europe on the strength of its youthful exuberance, native talent, willingness to persevere in a very difficult job, and most of all continue to be creative in a remarkable way to generate a win-win situation. India fought its battle for unity when the British Empire was overthrown in 1947. After the pain of Partition, the genius of the people slowly, but with increasing pace, have put India on top of the world.<b> This was done not by looking backward at 5000 years of a great Indian culture. It was done by looking ahead to an even greater future with visionary zeal, and a pragmatic outlook</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This proves China is not worth trusting and is not worth a reliable partner. They have betrayed India. In fact, they have been allied to Pakistans for years so nothing is surprising. The Japanese say they are interested in the Indian market. Maybe the India-Russia-China trilateral relation should end cutting off relations with the double standard China and enhancing relationship with Japan and other south eastern countries as well.


New York, 3 June (AKI/DAWN) - China’s ambassador to the United Nations has expressed support for the formula submitted by the “Uniting for Consensus” group (UFC) over the proposed expansion of the UN Security Council, saying "it has many good points". Talking to reporters following a UFC meeting at the Italian mission to the UN, China’s ambassador Wang Guangya said clearly that China would ‘veto’ the G-4 proposal to expand the Security Council, giving them permanent seats, when it comes up for approval by the five permanent members.

China, along with the United States, Britain, France and Russia, has veto powers in the 15 member UN Security Council, and any resolution which calls for amendment to the UN Charter would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the member states and approval by five permanent members of the Council.

The charter also stipulates that the amendment be ratified by the respective constitutional process by two-thirds of the members of the UN. Wang said that the draft resolution proposed by the G-4 - Japan, Germany, India and Brazil - was dangerous and divisive for the UN reforms process, as “it puts the whole membership into two groups.”

He expressed the hope that “there is still time” to consult and “find a good formula that could help security council expansion” and have the broad support of all the members.

The “Uniting for Consensus” group led by Pakistan and Italy has consistently opposed more permanent seats in the expanded security council, instead they have proposed expanding the non-permanent slot of the council by 10 seats. As a compromise they have suggested that 12 of the 20 non-permanent seats could be made semi-permanent seats, with regional groups selecting their candidates for a period of three years instead of two.

<b><span style='color:red'>Please email me a real sounding username. Userhandle's such as 'whisper' is not permitted per forum guidelines.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Vetting the veto power </b>
Rai Singh
India's hopes of securing a permanent UN Security Council seat received a body blow on April 26. It was delivered by none other than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he said during his visit to New Delhi, "I believe enlargement without veto is a major step forward. Let us not get too focused on the veto." Meanwhile, India has declared that the membership of the UNSC without veto is "unacceptable".

There are two models of reforms currently under consideration. The first one is looking at six new permanent members in addition to the current five, without mentioning specific names. The other proposal talks of six new non-permanent seats but with a longer mandate than the 10 current rotating seats (two years). Twenty countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UAE, the Arab League, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ghana, South Korea, and Mauritius are opposed to the so-called "Tokyo-Berlin axis" posed by Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.

The G-4 plans to submit a "framework resolution" for expansion at the UN soon. For a resolution to be passed, the G-4 needs 128 votes of a total of 191. But it has to rule out the support of the countries mentioned above, which regard that the first model will negate their national interests in their respective regional, historical and political contexts-Pakistan with India, China with Japan, Italy with Germany, and Argentina and Mexico with Brazil.

Japan admits that the G-4's task has been compounded by "difficult neighbours". While the UN cannot afford to ignore Tokyo's voice-the second largest donor to the UN after the US-Japan faces with stiff resistance from China. Meanwhile, China's opposition to Japan has implications for India since it cannot hope to make it to the Council if a candidate like Japan does not. Japan, a key member of the G-4 that also includes Germany, India and Brazil, has already indicated its "flexibility" on the issue of veto power.

<b>While Japan has taken a pragmatic view of the expansion of the Security Council, India has been hasty in pronouncing its negative stand. </b>It would be advisable to examine all the aspects together with the pros and cons of the UN reform programme and arrive at a decision in the long-term interests of India.

In the editorial, "Unite to win" (April 30), The Pioneer has rightly stressed that the G-4 should "forge a common strategy and steer a coordinated course of action" to take full advantage of the opportunity presented by the UN reforms programme". This is all the more essential because of the different approaches adopted by the G-4, which "will not only be seized upon by those reluctant to open wide the doors of hallowed Security Council hall, but also those nations that want a slice of pie but do not deserve it".

Today there is no unanimity among the Afro-Asian countries on the UN reforms. It would, therefore, be wise not to act in haste but according to the requirements of national interests of India, irrespective of ideology or political beliefs. The G-5 that already enjoys the power of veto will not like to share this power with others, though they may seem to say so.

The UN, representing 191 countries, is a world organisation, but at the same time it is also divided and subdivided into factions and groups, and it functions less on UN principles and more on realpolitik. One should not forget that the pursuit of power is the name of the game in UN. 
This is the best time for India ...strategically, economically, culturally, politically, you name it....

Every major country understands the importance of allying with India and they can ignore it at their own loss only

USA : It needs to ally with India...a recent research says 70 % of Indians supports USA ......highest in the world...if USA still doesn't wake up to the reality of allying (not exploiting) with a natural ally...it will only blame itself in future.

Russia : With crumbling economy and international pressure it still has in India a time tested friend....it should not only strengthen its friendship but provide full cooperation in military, space , terrorism...

Japan : It has already ignored India a lot.... which has her given Buddhism....to its peril...the reaction from China is a case in point....it needs to have a secured access to the mediterranean sea and India can help it.....it must go all out for full economic cooperation in helping building of infrastructure and others......It should wake up now before it is too late for it....surrounded by N.Korea, China....

China: The reality will dawn on China that its aggressive postures against India will not help it in future......India has always given so much to China.... Buddhism & others....It is moving towards self annihilation by destroying Buddhism from an old society and deviating from the teachings of Buddha (non-violence).......religion provides succor to the people during hard times and faith is a big healer...its society is becoming very rich but devoid of any faith system which will be detrimental in future

South East Asia: They need India to counter balance China and also provide strategic defence support in the region from pirates and others...

Europe: Its myopic view of India as a source of cheap programmers will not help it too far. Europe is struggling to maintain its coalition/Union which is crumbling under national interests.....they still support China..........time will force them to change their view towards India.

Israel: Israel is in the same situation as India is. In many ways Indians and Israelites share same concerns, they also have same strategic interests. Nothing should stop India and Israel from forging strong bonds of diplomatic, financial, strategic, defense ties.

Pakistan: It must realize now that its anti India postures in taking it towards self destruction.......if it wants to survive it must change its posture towards India before it is too late..

As quoted by Mark Twain - India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.

Nobody can ignore India any more! It will gain its true place in the world.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No to India as UN veto power
Sunday 29th May,  2005
Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation (UK)


London, England (KP) - In September the Sikh Federation (UK) said  it would be a disaster for the UN if India was made a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the veto power. In a letter to the UK  Prime Minister the Federation set out why India should be denied  permanent membership.

The Federation argued that India had  little or no respect for the UN and its decisions. It has defied the UN on  Kashmir, been condemned by the Council for carrying out nuclear tests,  refused to become a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear  Weapons (NPT) and to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and  was not prepared to accept the right to self-determination, which is  enshrined in International Covenants on Economic, Social, Cultural,   Civil and Political Rights.

The Federation reminded Tony Blair of  the UN Security Council's resolutions and outrage following India and  Pakistan's nuclear tests and quoted Robert Fowler, the Canadian  representative on the UN Security Council at that time, who stated:  "Countries that deliberately undermined peace and security and flout the  will of the international community had voided their claim to Security  Council membership, let alone a permanent place in the management of the  post-cold war world."

The Federation stated in the letter to Tony  Blair that Sikhs would "always oppose India's permanent membership of the UN  Security Council until it accepts without any condition that Sikhs are  allowed to freely exercise their right to self determination, including the  ability to establish an independent sovereign Sikh state,  Khalistan."

Recent media reports suggest India is failing in its  lobby for permanent membership with the veto power. It has been reported,  Ms. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, the Special Adviser to the United States  Government on UN reform, was in Delhi last week, to discuss the question  of the Security Council expansion and India's status in the matter along  with that of Japan, Germany and Brazil, the so-called G-4. This followed the  US caution that the G-4 if granted permanent UN Security Council membership,  that this would be without the critical veto power. The privileged status of  the veto will remain the exclusive turf of the Permanent Five, P-5, who are  also the Nuclear Five, as recognised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation  Treaty.

Envoys of the rival groups pursuing different models for  expansion of the Security Council met last week under Secretary-General Kofi  Annan's chairmanship and agreed to continue their dialogue aimed at  reaching "broadest possible consensus" on UN reform. The next meeting of  the Group of Four - India, Brazil, Germany and Japan - seeking permanent  seats on the Council and the Italy/Pakistan-led 'Uniting for Consensus'  Group, which stands for its enlargement in the non-permanent category only,  will be convened by the General Assembly President, Jean Ping. The President  of the 191-member Assembly had initiated the process to reconcile the  differences between the two groups.

Japan and Germany, two Axis  powers defeated in World War II, have over the past half century joined the  nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and become major world players, and to  their credit, together contribute over 29 per cent of the UN budget. As  such, these two, now enjoy the higher moral ground and hope to be considered  for permanent membership of the UN Security Council with veto powers.  However, Germany and Japan undermined their quest for a permanent UN  Security Council membership with veto powers when they allowed India, with  an annual UN contribution of a mere 0.3 per cent, to join them in their  'hunt' for permanent veto status in the UN. A Sikh Federation (UK) spokesman  said: "India's UN Security Council permanent membership ambitions look  ridiculous when one looks at India's contribution of 0.3 per cent to the  annual UN budget.

In comparison, many UN member countries - Italy  being a very good example - contribute much more to the UN budget than  India, and are being ignored in the G-4 'Derby' for permanent UN Security  Council seats. 22 countries - Argentina; Australia; Belgium; Canada; Italy;  South Korea; Mexico; Netherlands; Spain; Sweden; Austria; Denmark;  Finland; Greece; Israel; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Saudi Arabia;  Singapore; South Africa; and Turkey each contribute more than India and  more than 25 per cent of the total budget.

The rest of the world (160  countries) contributes less than 5 per cent. Yet Indian officials in New  York have been trying to impress and convince the diplomats of these 160  countries - with generous use of 'Lifafa' diplomacy (bribes in simple words)  to vote for the G-4 resolution to be tabled in the UN General Assembly  sometime in June 2005.

Having committed itself to seeking  permanent membership of an expanded UN Security Council 'Only with veto  power', India has lately, it seems, seen the reality. A US writer in  Washington DC recently described it a "shameful spectacle" to see the Indian  leaders and officials "begging and crawling in front of every  visiting  foreign dignitary" to support India's candidature for permanent membership  of the UN Security Council. The Indian government coalition has finally  realised, despite over 150 Indian diplomatic missions abroad who are  supposed to be 'listening and lobbying' all over the world, that China and  the United States, the real big veto powers at the UN, will oppose India's  UN Security
Council ambitions.

Now a process of de-escalating  the Indian demand, for a permanent UN Security Council seat with veto  powers, has started in New Delhi in the guise of seeking wider  transformation in the UN - something which India had chosen to forget  earlier. Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said: "The  world will probably have no objection to Germany and Japan, becoming  permanent members of the expanded UN Security Council as they have joined  the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty before declaring their UN ambitions.  But, an irresponsible nuclear-armed country like India, who refuses to sign  the NPT, and whose hungry scientists/technicians roam the world, from  Iran to Brazil, proliferating nuclear technology for money, must never  be granted a permanent seat at the UN Security Council."

He  continued: "India should not be given permanent membership to the UN  Security Council with the veto power as it does not accept the UN's  decisions and principles. India does not respect basic human rights and  continues to deny Amnesty International access to Panjab and is still  unwilling to allow the UN Rapporteur on Torture to investigate in Panjab. We  believe India's poor record on human rights and disregard for the  international community combined with India's volatility, right wing  fanatics and old regional animosities with nuclear rivals makes it  impossible to accept India as a permanent member."

Gurjeet Singh,  Sikh Federation (UK)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
VIEW: Imperialism and India —V Krishna Ananth

If he found it proper to appreciate the British rule in India, it should warn anyone concerned about human rights. For those who appreciate the colonial regime today are also those who celebrate the system in the US and in the West that seeks to preserve itself through naked aggression

There is nothing unusual, even if it is undesirable, about the media attempting to create a controversy after picking up a remark by a senior political leader. One such storm is being built up around Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s remark in Oxford where he seemed to appreciate the sense of governance guiding those who administered India for several years before August 15, 1947. Let it be stated that Dr Singh did not say anything new. A whole generation of learned men, after all, believed that the British rule in India was going to do some good for the people.

Remember Raja Ram Mohun Roy. Unlike the sepoys who followed the local chieftains and fought a losing battle against the Raj in 1857, Ram Mohun Roy collaborated with Governor General William Bentinck to destroy an obnoxious custom that prevailed in those times. The result was legislation that rendered Sati a criminal offence and provided penal punishment to those who perpetrated it. Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar was also convinced that British rule in India would help liberate women from feudal clutches.

And sitting in London and based on some notes he had picked up from here and there, Karl Marx was of the view that the British in India were carrying out a war against the feudal order and that British rule in India was bound to transform the latter into a modern society. Marx was of the view that India was on the path to capitalism and that as had happened in England and other parts of Europe, the passage from feudalism to capitalism would have to be seen as progressive. He also stated that this transition, in its course would give birth to the inevitable: The making of the working class and in due course the revolution!

This is not to say that Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar and Ram Mohun Roy were Marxists. It will also be foolish to describe Dr Manmohan Singh as belonging to the Marxist tradition. And let me also stress that Marx himself did not apply his mind further on the Indian scene. From whatever he produced in the couple of decades before his death in 1883, it is clear that Karl Marx shifted from his 1857-58 position. In other words, Marx and Marxist thinkers after him matured significantly to treat the British rule in India or the French occupation in Africa or the Spanish and Portuguese rule in Latin America as colonialism and hence were in the forefront of the battles against such regimes.

In India, Dadabhai Naoroji, described by historians as the grand old man of Indian nationalism, and Romesh Chandra Dutt mustered evidence that the British rulers were preventing India’s transformation into a capitalist society. It was in order to prove a point that Dadabhai Naoroji went about submitting a charge-sheet against the colonial administration. His work, Poverty and the Un-British Rule of the British in India, was a verdict that India could build itself as a nation only after liberation. And, this grand old man of Indian nationalism was not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

Naoroji’s agenda was to see India emerge as a nation on the same lines as the European nations. His agenda was no different from that of Ram Mohun Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar. But unlike them, Naoroji was convinced that India’s transition to modernity was possible only after liberation. The intelligentsia in Naoroji’s time was no longer under the illusion that the British rulers in India stuck to the principles of rule of law and free enterprise as did the governments in England.

Now, Dr Manmohan Singh’s remark in London were no different from those of well meaning progressive men like Ram Mohun Roy and Vidya Sagar more than 100 years ago and exactly 100 years after the concept of swadeshi was expressed through a mass movement. In 1905 the masses were mobilised in such manner that the British rulers began to show their true colours and the mask of liberalism and fair play fell aside. If 1905 was the beginning of naked oppression, in the decade after that, the British promulgated the infamous Rowlatt Act. The rest is history.

Dr Manmohan Singh certainly knows all these. He is, after all, an economist of repute and a scholar in social sciences. He must have read Dadabhai Naroji and Romesh Chandra Dutt, not once but many times over. And he must have also read RC Dutt’s works as well as the various theorists who have argued that colonialism perpetrated poverty in India, Africa and Latin America. Manmohan Singh must also have read Andre Gunter Frank, the greatest of the scholars in this genre who passed away in April 2005.

And yet, if he found it proper to appreciate the British rule in India, it should warn anyone concerned about human rights and human freedom. For those who appreciate the colonial regime today are also those who celebrate the system in the US and in the West that seeks to preserve itself through naked aggression. In other words, those who find virtues in the US aggression of Iraq and the second fiddle that the Tony Blair establishment plays to this act of uncivilised behaviour.

The Indian middle classes, the size of which has been estimated to be anywhere between 100 and 150 million who live under the illusion that the US is a democratic society and do not hesitate to surrender all that they have, including their own human dignity, in exchange for a US visa will not be offended by Manmohan’s remarks. But India contains more than one billion people; and the 150 million cannot determine the course of its politics. Dr Manmohan Singh, the man who initiated the Structural Adjustment Programme in July 1991, thinks of India only from the standpoint of this 100 to 150 million people. The same set of people for whom India is Shining.

His remarks in Oxford reflect this. And the response will have to be from this perspective rather than whipping up another wave of synthetic nationalism and emotional outcry.

VK Ananth, a former affiliate of The Hindu, is now a freelance writer. His email is krishna_ananth@hotmail.com
<b>India contests Italy's G-4 remarks; summons envoy </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ew Delhi, July 28.(PTI): India today took serious exception to remarks by Italy's UN envoy accusing the G-4 countries, seeking permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council, of financially "blackmailing" some members for support saying it was a "baseless" allegation.

On the instructions of External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh, the Indian Ambassador in Rome has been asked to take up the issue with the Italian Government, External Affairs Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters here.
Bolton, China Agree to Stop Bid by U.S. Allies at UN
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wang said they agreed to lobby ``our different friends in different parts of the world'' to defeat the draft resolution introduced by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. The Group of Four, as they call themselves, want the Security Council to be expanded to 25 from 15 members as the first in a series of steps leading to their obtaining permanent seats on the panel. They would have no veto power for at least 15 years, according to their proposals.

The U.S. mission to the UN confirmed the Bolton meeting with the Chinese diplomat and wouldn't comment on the specifics of their discussion.

The U.S. on July 12 urged UN member governments to reject the Group of Four's measure, saying improvements in the world body's management and oversight were greater priorities that should be adopted first.

China opposes the resolution mainly because it wants to deny Japan a permanent seat. The Chinese government supports Security Council expansion to add developing countries.

<b>``Tell Mr. Bolton for me that we are unstoppable,'' Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen said in an interview today. ``We won't be defeated, certainly not by Mr. Wang and Mr. Bolton.'' </b>   <!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Military action alone cannot contain terrorism, says Alva

Solution lies in dialogue and undoing the injustices of the past

GREAT RECOGNITION: Senior Congress leader Margaret Alva receiving the "Nelson Mandela Award for Minority Empowerment" from John Lupoli, Managing Director of the International Foundation for Minority Empowerment, at a ceremony held at the United Nations Church Center in New York on Friday. — Photo: PTI

UNITED NATIONS: Asserting that military action alone cannot contain terrorism, senior Congress leader Margaret Alva has said the solution to the problem lies in dialogue and undoing the injustices of the past.

There is an explicit link between terrorism and violation of fundamental freedoms and rule of law and ``war, crime and brutality breed anger and generate sympathy and support to their cause,'' Ms. Alva told a gathering of intellectuals and academics here after receiving the prestigious ``Nelson Mandela Award for Minority Empowerment''.

Cautioning against linking terrorism to a particular religion or nationality, the former Union Minister stressed that injustice, poverty and alienation of large sections of the population result in violent reaction. Presenting the award on Friday, the Director of Foundation for Minority Empowerment John Lupoli praised Ms. Alva's work for empowerment of minorities and women.

``There could have been no better person to receive the award for she is a woman and belongs to a minority and has a life-long record of fighting discrimination,'' he said. In a message of greeting, American President George W. Bush congratulated her on receiving the award.

General Secretary of the Indian National Overseas Congress George Abraham said the recognition would be an inspiration to others to carry on the great tradition she has set. Referring to the U.S. coalition against terror formed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Ms. Alva said it showed that even the most powerful country cannot fight terrorism alone but warned that solidarity should not be limited to fighting one individual or one group.

She said the emergence of international solidarity is encouraging for India as it has lived with terrorism for years. Stressing the need for poverty alleviation, she said development can only take place when there is freedom from war and violence, when human rights and dignity are guaranteed and citizens have an opportunity to reach decent living standards. ``Science, technology, international commitments and overseas assistance has made this a reachable goal. And yet, as we look around us, freedom, justice and security seem farther away than ever before,'' she added.

Assailing multilateral lending agencies for ``rarely'' considering problems of the less developed countries when deciding priorities and programmes, she said globalisation was destroying agriculture and the food security of developing nations. ``Imported technologies are throwing thousands of workers out of their jobs in countries where unemployment is already a problem,'' she said. The tragedy of the globalised world is that while capital goods and services are being unshackled, the movement of labour from poor to rich countries is becoming more and more restricted, she said.

Ms. Alva noted that despite many ``onslaughts and threats,'' India has remained true to its secular and democratic values, adding that both the majority and minorities have to realise that confrontation led to destruction while dialogue promoted understanding.

Pointing out that minorities exceeded 16 per cent of the Indian population, she said communal flare-ups recur when political parties and organisations based on religion, caste and regional identities exploit the emotions and the ignorance of the people to create vote banks.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Britain to ease nuclear sanctions on India

H S Rao | August 11, 2005 20:34 IST

Symbolising the growing bilateral ties, Britain has decided to ease sanctions against India relating to civilian nuclear energy ahead of Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit to New Delhi.

"The government notified Parliament on Wednesday about the significant changes in its laws regarding the export of dual-use nuclear technologies to India," a foreign office spokesman said on Thursday.

The British decision comes close on the heels of the Indo-US nuclear deal paving the way for supply of nuclear fuel to Tarapore and other reactors, ending the three-decade-old freeze.

Under the relaxed rules, applications for items under the dual-use list of the nuclear suppliers group will now be allowed to India, and Pakistan, on a 'case-by-case basis' and only when their end-use will be in an IAEA-safeguarded civilian nuclear facility. Applications for other licensable items, even those under weapons of mass destruction end-use controls, will also be opened on a case-by-case basis.

"We will again open the doors to Indian nuclear scientists and research organisations, academics and nuclear industry officials to come to the United Kingdom," the spokesman added.

This is a ranking of failed states in the world and it is amazing to see how many of India's neighbours fall in this ranking.



<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Russian experts give Pakistani missile test mixed reaction

MOSCOW. Aug 12 (Interfax) - The adoption into service of a nuclear capable cruise missile by Pakistan can be regarded as its application for membership of the nuclear club, member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Konstantin Nikolsky thinks.

"The successful test of a cruise missile is undoubtedly a breakthrough for Pakistan and its transition from a threshold state to the level of fully-fledged member of the nuclear club," he told Interfax on Friday.

"The existence of a nuclear warhead delivery vehicle in the form of a cruise missile in Pakistan significantly increases the threat to India, aggravates tension in the region and to a certain extent builds up the threat to Russia," Nikolsky said.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->August 03, 2005

Old enemies' wargames send a powerful message to the US
By Jane Macartney

Russia and China hope to sign a massive arms deal after staging joint exercises for the first time

RUSSIA will show off its most modern bombers to its best military customer and China will have a chance to demonstrate that it is a force to be reckoned with when the giant neighbours hold their first joint military exercises this month.
The decision to hold the drills off the east China coast in the Yellow Sea came after a disagreement over Beijing’s initial desire for the games to take place further south, opposite the island of Taiwan — which it hopes one day to recover, by force if necessary.

Yesterday’s announcement that 100,000 troops would mass from August 18 to 25 marked the culmination of years of rapprochement between countries that were once bitter enemies, which went to war in a minor territorial dispute in the 1970s, but now see themselves as strategic partners.

Their common interests include the sale of Russian oil to help to meet the energy needs of China’s fast-growing economy as well as the strategic goal of showing the United States that other powers were rising in the East.

History has enabled them to leave behind old enmities. Shi Yinhong, Professor of the School of International Studies at Renmin University, Beijing, said: “China needs to buy Russian military equipment and resources. For Russia, China is an important market and a source of hard currency.”

Peace Mission 2005, involving army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units, will begin on August 18 near the Russian Pacific Fleet headquarters in Vladivostok, moving to the Yellow Sea and then to an area off the Jiaodong peninsula in the coastal Chinese province of Shandong. “The exercises neither aim at any third party nor concern the interests of any third country,” the Chinese Defence Ministry said.

Russian paratroops will jump on to the peninsula, while Russian ships will engage in amphibious landing exercises.

Air force exercises involving Sukhoi Su27 fighter aircraft and Tupolev TU95MSs and TU22M-3s will round out the drills, with long-distance bombing runs and cruise missile attacks. The exercises could also involve China’s nuclear submarine fleet and antisubmarine warfare capability.

Analysts say there is little doubt that China is keen to send a message to the US. Not only is it gradually expanding its influence in Asia, eroding decades of dominance by Washington, but it also has the cash to go on a spending spree to update its military.

Russia’s TU160, TU95MS and TU22M3 strategic bombers and the improved Su27SM fighters will scream through the skies. It is not only their high-tech cockpits that Russia wants to show off. China may want to update its fleet of old, lumbering bombers with TU22M3s and TU95s capable of carrying long-haul nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Russian nerves tingled when the European Union considered lifting its arms embargo on China earlier this year and since then Moscow has shown an interest in offering higher-technology arms to its top buyer.

The war games will involve a Russian airlift of an airborne unit to the training location by Il76 transport aircraft, launching a cruise missile to an imaginary target with TU22M3 medium-range bombers and bombing ground units with Su27SM fighters.

The two governments have invited observers from other governments in the six-nation Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a security group led by Beijing and Moscow. The group, meant to combat separatism and Islamic extremism in Central Asia, includes Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

The show of strength is enough to shake China’s neighbours, but may not go too far in tipping the balance of power in the Pacific. So China is relying on diplomacy as well to boost its influence, quietly eroding the pre-eminence of the United States in the process. Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese Foreign Minister, has had a helping hand recently from Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. She stayed away last week from an annual strategic forum involving the US, Japan and China in a meeting of South-East Asian nations. That left the stage to Mr Li, who dropped in to show Asia that China cared. The unspoken message was that Washington had seen fit to send only less-senior officials.

Vadim Solovyov, the Chief Editor of the Independent Military Survey, said: “These exercises are a challenge to the US and its allies — a new military alliance is forming. Now there is a unipolar world. Russia and China can make a second pole.”

<b>Why the India Deal Is Good</b>-By Selig S. Harrison
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India already has an impeccable record of safeguarding its nuclear secrets, in marked contrast to neighboring Pakistan. But the July 18 accord was linked to the enactment of strengthened export control legislation. Equally important, India has agreed to place all of its existing and future civilian nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For India, U.S. readiness to help meet its number one national challenge is the litmus test of the sincerity of U.S. rhetoric about a new "strategic partnership" designed to strengthen India as a counterweight to China. The alternative to such a partnership could be the emergence over time of a Gaullist India that would play an unpredictable, freewheeling role in Asia.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
PM on thank you trip to Paris
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Aug. 14: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will travel to France on a three-day visit next month to try and bring on board “strategic ally” Paris on the recent Indo-US nuclear deal.

France has been one of India’s closest allies and was the only Western nation not to criticise Delhi after the May 1998 nuclear tests. The French helped block many sanctions on India following Pokhran II.

Singh’s chief aim is to reassure France that India has not forgotten the role it played after the nuclear test. The growing closeness between India and the US has worried many, including the French.

Paris believes that though it has consistently backed India’s UN security Council bid, as well as its emergence as a recognised nuclear power, its contribution is fast fading from the memory of the Indian leadership.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Getting UNSC seat no cakewalk: Natwar

August 18, 2005 14:23 IST

The United Progressive Alliance on Thursday said it will not be a cakewalk for India to get a permanent seat in an expanded United Nations Security Council.

This prompted ally Communist Party of India- Marxist and the Bharatiya Janata Party to enquire whether it was due to lack of support from developing nations as a result of New Delhi's tilt towards US.

Responding to supplementary questions during Question Hour in Rajya Sabha, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh asserted that India shared good relations with all countries and had sent special envoys to mobilise support in this regard.

He said G-4, the group comprising Germany, Japan, Brazil and India, should be credited with putting forward the UNSC reforms, including expansion of the security council, on agenda of the UN and it could not be reversed.

He said India had agreed to a membership in UNSC without veto power for 15 years as a beginning had to be made in this direction.

Earlier, Minister of State for External Affairs, Rao Inderjit Singh, in response to a query on the issue, said, "Despite our best effort, it is possible that nothing will happen."

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->G-4 cosies up to African Union

<b>India rejects Arab conditions for UNSC seat</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->25 August 2005: At a meeting in Amman, Jordan, two weeks ago, Arab envoys told the Indian special envoy, C.R.Gharekhan, that Arab states would support India’s permanent representation in the UN Security Council <b>if it broke off relations with Israel</b>, but this was flatly turned down. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arab are still in stone age.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)