Indian Interests

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Views from the Right
QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

Seeking to bring Congress president Sonia Gandhi directly into the line of fire on the Bofors case, the RSS says in its latest editorial in the Organiser that the recent debate on it, after Swedish police chief Sten Lindstrom’s interview, avoids any reference to her.

“An intriguing aspect of the Bofors discussion today is that the name of Sonia Gandhi, who brought (Ottavio) Quattrocchi into the Gandhi family, is not being mentioned at all. Like the character in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, it appears she is the one who must not be named. Rajiv Gandhi is discussed, Arun Nehru gets dragged in. But not her,” it says.

The editorial is critical of past non-Congress governments, suggesting that they didn’t seriously pursue the case. “Successive governments... knew who the culprits were and yet chose to look the other way... curiously, the government agency supplied a list of names to be ‘planted’ as suspects in the Bofors kickback scandal”.

The Panchjanya too does not spare the ruling establishment over Bofors, saying that Lindstrom’s revelations put the Congress in the dock. It took note of Lindstrom’s contention that, while Rajiv may have not taken a bribe, he allegedly tried to slow down the CBI probe so that a cover-up could be conducted. It alleges that Lindstrom’s comments indicate that after Rajiv, it is Sonia that shielded Quattrocchi. “Why does the Congress not want to take the Bofors case to its logical conclusion? Why does it not want all the facts relating to the case come out? On whose directions did the CBI seek closure of the case citing lack of evidence?” it asks.

SUPREME MISTAKE

The senior RSS ideologue M.G. Vaidya, in an article in the Organiser, has questioned the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Right to Education Act, which upheld the government’s decision to make it obligatory for private educational institutions to reserve 25 per cent seats for economically backward students, but exempted minority-run institutions from this requirement.

Vaidya says: “It is difficult to understand why the SC is obsessed with the duality of educational institutions. Private educational institutions... do not receive any government aid. One can understand the votebank compulsions of political parties. But should (the) SC be constrained to stoop to that level? I would like to congratulate the dissenting judge (who)... has pointed out this discrepancy in his minority judgement,” he says.

He maintains that such a move is not in the spirit of Article 30 of the Constitution. “I am a Marathi speaking person. In Delhi, I belong to a linguistic minority. I, as of my right conferred on me by Article 30, start a Marathi school in Delhi... But, suppose, in my school, I admit even those students whose mother tongue is not Marathi, and their number is tremendously larger than that of the Marathi-speaking students, should it be called a minority educational institution? And if so, on what basis?”

He gave another example of his own experience of working at the Hislop College in Nappur. “I served in that college for 17 long years. It is founded by... a missionary outfit. But, 90 per cent of the students admitted in the college were and even now are non-Christians. It also receives government grant. Should it be called a minority educational institution and free from obligatory provisions of the government regulations?”
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Harivansh Rai Bachhan (Amitabh Bachhan's father) writes in his autobiography that Kayasthas faced discrimination from other segments of the society. He says that Kayasthas were called "aadha Musalman" (50% Muslim) because of their closeness to Muslim rulers and their role in running the administration (like loan wasooli). He claims that Swami Vivekananda faced similar problems from people in Bengal.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Indian Interests

Post by svenkat »

D Roy wrote:....
DRoyji,
What you say is very true.I have a question though.Shyam,Teri Yamuna Maili.The Yamuna which leaves Okhla is sewer.Any thoughts on that.Also Delhi is sucking water from the Ganga.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

Got this in email from a friend .
Hari OM!
sarvebhyo namskaraH !
The forwarded message makes a sad reading - piercing the heart of every samskrita lover and abhimaanee.
What a sad state of affairs reflecting the pathetic metamorphosis caused by neglect and indifference of the powers that be - to Kuppuswamy Sastri Research Institute, Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai, reportedly in dolldrums due to financial constraints! A jolt to honest aspirations of every samskrita lover in the nook and corner of this small world, the reported ordeal of this institution of international repute and standing is bound to test the nerves of every Samskrita Abhimaanee. An honest introspection from every individul who is proud of our language and culture will certainly open the gates of moral and financial support that the great institution needs at this juncture.

Need the help of Jingoes, please forward this to any one who can contribute.
Subject: Re: A Sanskrit Centre Struggles to stay Alive
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your nice gesture to help the Institute.
1. Bank particulars for local donors
Our Name:THE KUPPUSWAMI SASTRI RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
Bank: Union Bank of India, Mylapore Branch
Account No. 395702010007408
NEFT NO: UBIN0539571
IFSC CODE NO.600026009
2. Life subscription application is attached. It is only Rs.2000/-. You will get the publications of the Institute free of cost from the year 2010.
Those who resides outside India can also become members. But they can collect the books only in person. whenever they come to Chennai. We cannot send them by post.
3. For donors who are in USA, UK Canaa etc. the bank details are
Our telephone number is 044-24985320 working hours 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Name of the Account Holder: THE KUPPUSWAMI SASTRI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
PLEASE REMIT PROCEEDS TO
WACHOVIA BANK N.A., NEW YORK
SWIFT Address : PNBPUS3NNYC
CHIPS ABA : 0509 FED ROUTING No. : 026005092
FOR CREDIT TO A/C 2000193008506 OF
UNION BANK OF INDIA
UNION BANK OF INDIA OVERSEAS BRANCH CHENNAI
UBININBBAOMD
Our a/c. No. at the Mylapore branch : 39570201007619
With regards
V.Seethalakshmi
Accountant
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Singha »

I suppose the repeated invasions of north india by a procession of marauders making a beeline for the rich loot-worthy markets of purani dilli must have over course of time caused the highly skilled artisans to move out to safer places in SW rajasthan, deccan and so on. or else they were captured and marched off to samarkhand / bukhara / persia to serve the raiding sultan's corps of engineers & craftsmen.
in a unsettled environment economy is not stable and people will migrate to safer shores if they can. plus at various points restrictions were imposed harshly on any construction of non-islamic structures under the sultanate territories. no passports or visas in those days - if a kingdom could not assure safety, people would vote with their feet and move out.

that would explain why so many hindu/jain structures exist in rajasthan and gujarat and MP belt but very few in NCR, haryana, punjab dating to same era. the high himalaya places like badrinath escaped the notice of the faithful and hence soldiered on. nepal was a refuge. so was tibet for buddhism once the attacks started in earnest on afghanistan and north pakistan which were mostly buddhist.

akbar downward, the emperors were the product of rajput mothers, so the faithfulness got 'diluted' for a while, until aurangzeb (was his mother a true blue central asian woman?) and his 27 yrs of campaigns in the deccan....the marathas managed to survive by not having a center of gravity for the sultanate to siege and crush, being mobile and adaptable and imposing heavy taxes to pay for the constant struggle...but again such an env is not conducive to high architectural or cultural activity. probably when the mughals declined, the maratha chieftains split the territory among themselves, settled down in places like baroda, gwalior etc and started building up what we see today?

the mughal practice of keeping harems and siring children from multiple wives and concubines assured a degree of brother vs brother killing culminating in aurangzeb who is said to have left behind about 50 claimants to the throne among sons, grandsons and great grandsons. in contrast humayun had only 1 or 2 brothers, and he 'merely' blinded one and packed him off to Mecca.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Atri »

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhischekcc »

abhishek_sharma wrote:Harivansh Rai Bachhan (Amitabh Bachhan's father) writes in his autobiography that Kayasthas faced discrimination from other segments of the society. He says that Kayasthas were called "aadha Musalman" (50% Muslim) because of their closeness to Muslim rulers and their role in running the administration (like loan wasooli). He claims that Swami Vivekananda faced similar problems from people in Bengal.
Ironic thing is that Kayashtas were/are not trusted by Muslims either.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhischekcc »

Singha,

There is one statement by Nehru that said that the poverty of a region is directly related to the amount of time that region has been under the British. Bengal came first under the British and look at its state now.

Similarly, we can trace the anti-muslim sentiment of a region (provided it is still Hindu) to the amount of time muslims have ruled or invaded it. Gujarat was the first state where muslim invasions started, hence it has the tendency to erupt from time to time in anti-muslim riots. This is something secularists are conciously unconcious of.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indian Interests

Post by brihaspati »

abhischekcc wrote:Singha,

There is one statement by Nehru that said that the poverty of a region is directly related to the amount of time that region has been under the British. Bengal came first under the British and look at its state now.

Similarly, we can trace the anti-muslim sentiment of a region (provided it is still Hindu) to the amount of time muslims have ruled or invaded it. Gujarat was the first state where muslim invasions started, hence it has the tendency to erupt from time to time in anti-muslim riots. This is something secularists are conciously unconcious of.
What about God's own country then?
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by devesh »

Hindus "erupting" happens only in regions which underwent a "cleansing" of the entrenched Islamic roots. you can have a region invaded 2000 years ago, but if the Islamic networks never suffered a major setback, the non-muslim does not have the power to "erupt".

Gujarat erupts b/c the Islamic networks around Guj were bankrupted by the Marathas. In the period from 1710 to 1760: the Marathas ruthlessly plundered and looted the Islamic traders/merchants, and Mughal representatives, and eventually ended Islamic rule altogether. This plundering paved the way for the Hindus to reassert themselves. specifically, the Hindu "banias" and merchant/trader class was able to reassert (to a large extent) control over the trade/profit flows.

if a region doesn't undergo this "cleansing", it doesn't matter how long Islam has been occupying that territory.


added later: abhishekcc ji, no offense to your observations. i realized my tone was bordering on a "rebuttal", which wasn't my intention. peace.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Philip »

The latest issue of India Today has a cover feature on the alleged proposed sell-out of the nation on Siachen,betraying the precious blood of our soldiers who have fought for decades keeping Siachen Indian territory.Allegedly,MMS,mendicant of snake-oil is beign promised by the US,which is the puppet master of the subcontinent,the Nobel Peace Prize for such an act of treachery!
Here is an old SAG paper on the issue.

Xcpts:
[quote] NDIA : GOVERNMENT SET TO REPEAT STRATEGIC BLUNDER OF AKSAICHIN IN SIACHIN – (SAAG PAPER NO. 1778 DATED 26.04.2006) – FEED BACK FROM READERS

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Directors Note: The paper on Siachin by Dr. Subhash Kapila has drawn an overwhelming response from readers. Readers have strongly opposed any moves by the Indian Government to re-deploy/ de-militarise from the Saltoro Ridge, saying that Pakistan cannot be trusted. Think tanks, besides analyzing national issues should also reflect what Indians outside the policy establishment feel on such issues. It is with this aim that the feed backs are reproduced verbatim. - Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Introductory Observations

The above referred paper on Siachen presented a strong case on the proposed re-deployment/ de-militarisation of the Siachen Sector, which is a misnomer, as it rightly should be termed as the Saltoro Sector. That is where the Indian Army firmly sits, keeping the Indian flag fluttering high. And, that is what Pakistan wants to undo, namely to hustle India into vacating the Saltoro Ridge, under the quise of Indo-Pak confidence – building measures and also employing subtle pressures from the United States on India to advance its aim.

Noting with concern, the Indian Government’s likely course of action and its advocacy by a chosen few columnists of the establishment and another think tank arguing for demilitarization of Saltoro Ridge, the above referred paper was written by this author.

As a brief re-cap, the case that was made against the redeployment/ demilitarization from Saltoro Ridge and the Sector strongly rested on the following observations of the author:

Saltoro Ridge and Siachin Sector are of paramount strategic importance for India in relation to Pakistan and China .
India has no strategic imperatives that prompt or warrant vacation of strategic real estate won with the blood of the Indian Army.
Siachin’s strategic significance cannot be de-emphasised on a financial cost-benefit-ratio.
Indian Army had not requested to be relieved from defence of this vital sector. On the contrary, it strongly was opposed to any such moves.
Siachin, like Aksaichin, is not India ’s “loose geo-strategic change” which any Prime Minister can put in a political juke box for political gains or mileage.
Finally, Pakistan cannot be trusted to honour such strategic sellouts by India .

In a follow-up, this paper of the author was reproduced on Rediffusion Web-site in two parts in May, 2006 under the heading “The Siachin Sellout” and “Can Pakistan be Trusted”.

The feedback received on both these publications in April and May, 2006 has been overwhelming. A fair sampling of the e-mails received from all over India and Indians abroad are reproduced below, and they strongly oppose any sell-out by India on Siachin and also strongly maintain that Pakistan should not be trusted by the Indian Government.

India at large is getting increasingly involved in India ’s strategic and foreign policy issues and challenges.
India ’s policy establishment can no longer consider strategic and foreign policy decision-making as an exclusive preserve of the Establishment.
Indian media’s role as an “opinion moulder” stands greatly diluted by the power of the Internet. It can no longer “sell” opinions: It will need to “reflect” opinions of India at large.

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

Rahul Mehta Uvacha
Bharat Swabhiman Trust will face a problem.
The Ford Foundation agent The Anna has managed to penetrate BST. Thru The Anna, Ford Foundation will influence BST workers. At the same time, p-sec activists have allergy against Swami Ramdevji because of his nationalism. So The Chhote Anne will maintain anti-Ramdevji posture and attract p-sec activists.This is truly a master-stroke by Ford Foundation.So via The Anna, Ford Foundation will influence BST nationalist activists and via The Chhote Anne, Ford Foundation will control p-sec activists.
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"There is a network and coalition which builds news about India and mostly this is bad news. This coalition has people from China, Pakistan and several countries."

That would explain the news about India under yahoo.com. It is always something negative, demeaning, strange, quirky or big i.e calamitous. And it's often culled from Associated Press. There's never a good news story like "the 8 year old Indian Mozart" or "India joins select group with new radar satellite" or "Social worker is big advocate of Dalit/Worker/Poor rights" Is there any way of identifying this specific "coalition", if it is that. Or is it a very specific group of powerful or hostile individuals who are behind the mischief. What's up with yahoo.com?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests

Post by ramana »

Varoon, Did you ever wonder about PTI which also prints the most dorkiest news about India? Well it was called Associated Press before it became nationalized. PTI is owned by the Indian newspapers owners group. First fix that and then think of fixing others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Trust_of_India
Press Trust of India (Devanagari: प्रेस ट्रस्ट ऑफ़् इंडिया Prēs ţrasţ ŏph iṃḍiyā) (often abbreviated as PTI) is the largest news agency in India.[1] It is headquartered in Delhi and is a nonprofit cooperative among more than 450 Indian newspapers and has a staff of about 2,000 writers spread across 150 offices nationwide.[2] It took over the Indian operations of the Associated Press and Reuters soon after India's independence on August 15, 1947. It provides news coverage and information of the region in both English and Hindi.

It exchanges information with several other news agencies including 100 news agencies based outside India, such as Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, The New York Times and Bloomberg L.P.. Major Indian subscribers of PTI include Times of India, the Indian Express, the Hindustan Times, the All India Radio and Doordarshan. PTI has offices in Bangkok, Beijing, Colombo, Dubai, Islamabad, Kuala Lumpur, Moscow, New York and Washington D.C..[3]

Press Trust of India is the only news agency in South Asia which operates its own communication satellite, an INSAT, to broadcast news and information. Its current chairman is Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Interests

Post by svinayak »

Varoon Shekhar wrote:"There is a network and coalition which builds news about India and mostly this is bad news. This coalition has people from China, Pakistan and several countries."

That would explain the news about India under yahoo.com. It is always something negative, demeaning, strange, quirky or big i.e calamitous. And it's often culled from Associated Press. There's never a good news story like "the 8 year old Indian Mozart" or "India joins select group with new radar satellite" or "Social worker is big advocate of Dalit/Worker/Poor rights" Is there any way of identifying this specific "coalition", if it is that. Or is it a very specific group of powerful or hostile individuals who are behind the mischief. What's up with yahoo.com?
I met somebody from this group and few years he was candid to blurt that there will be news about child labor in India. This was the china lobby inside US which was doing a hit job. In a few days this was global news.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Sandesh Vs Organiser
RSS mouthpiece Organiser is screaming political vendetta and discrimination after an application for a PIB card for its editor was turned down by the Press Information Bureau. The PIB, which is under the I&B Ministry, has contended that the Organiser, a weekly magazine, did not fulfil the criteria of being published continuously for 10 years and did not have a print order of 50,000 copies each time. Organiser, however, has said it was among the oldest weeklies, publishing for the last 65 years and that the denial was on political grounds. It has pointed out that Sandesh, the Congress mouthpiece, has been given accreditation by the PIB.
Views from the Right
Siachen Deal

In its latest issue, the RSS weekly Organiser alleges that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is moving to withdraw Indian troops from Siachen, in return for a similar gesture from Pakistan.

Basing its allegations on recent reports suggesting that the next army chief, Bikram Singh, favoured a deal on Siachen, the Organiser claims that Singh is putting in place people who will go along with such a plan. It also alleges that the refusal to extend outgoing army chief V.K. Singh’s tenure by a year should be seen in this context.

The Organiser also tries to link rumours that General Bikram Singh’s daughter-in-law is a Pakistani with Siachen. “The PM... insisted that V.K. Singh should go. The government took an adamant stand on it... V.K. Singh is being replaced with Bikram Singh. A fine soldier he is [sic]. But he has a Pakistani daughter-in-law. Hence, it is believed that he would be more amenable to a give-and-take deal with Pakistan. Only, it is India giving and Pakistan taking. Army chiefs till now have been unwilling to even discuss the possibility of troop withdrawal from Siachen. India’s foreign secretary, Ranjan Mathai, and Sonia (Gandhi)’s handpicked Pulok Chatterjee (principal secretary to the PM) are all eager on the plan,” it claims.

“If reports in the media are to be believed, the Indian side is already working out the details of the proposed deal,’’it says.

Persecuted Hindus

The latest issue of the Panchjanya claims that Hindus are being persecuted in Pakistan. According to an editorial, from 15 per cent in 1947, the number of Hindus in Pakistan has come down to a mere 2 per cent. The editorial argues that by raising the issue in Parliament recently, the BJP has compelled the country to ponder as to why the Congress has chosen to remain silent when Hindus are repeatedly being targeted in Pakistan.

“Hindus are not only being looted, murdered and accused of heresy, but their temples are being destroyed,” the Panchjanya alleges. The article also says that Hindu girls are compelled to undergo conversion by forcibly marrying them to Muslim youth. “Almost 90 per cent of Pakistan’s Hindu population resides in Sindh province, and statistics show that every month, 25 Hindu girls are abducted, raped or forcibly undergo conversion,” it adds.

Next President

Signalling its endorsement for former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam for that office once again, an article in the Panchjanya alleges that the UPA has an aversion to Kalam, who it says was an apolitical president. Claiming that the Congress is stuck with votebank calculations vis-a-vis presidential elections, the article maintains that only if the party rises above votebank politics will a unanimous choice for the president emerge. The article says that although this is difficult in today’s divisive politics, it is not impossible.

The article also claims that the NDA had, in 2007, extended a hand of cooperation to the UPA when it put up Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as candidate for the vice presidential post.

Compiled by Swaraj Thapa
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJ6mqsa ... re=related
[youtube]uRJ6mqsaf1M&feature=related[/youtube]
Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Varoon Shekhar »

"Fighting against such overwhelming odds, Indian armies fought for nearly two years. Lakhs of soldiers died. Millions of civilians were killed by the British to cut-off Indian armies from their s"

Can this be authenticated? Was it a fact that millions( not tens of thousands) were killed by the British to decimate the 'support base'? What is the actual figure of casualties on both sides in that uprising?

It is pretty well known that the British deaths were in the order of about 10,000. Not counting Indian soldiers fighting for the British. What were the officially accepted figures from the Indian side? It is interesting that we almost never hear of stats in that war. Or, if we do, we have to really search. Which almost certainly means that the British are trying to hide Indian death tolls.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Interests

Post by vishvak »

Varoon Shekhar wrote: It is pretty well known that the British deaths were in the order of about 10,000. Not counting Indian soldiers fighting for the British. What were the officially accepted figures from the Indian side? It is interesting that we almost never hear of stats in that war. Or, if we do, we have to really search. Which almost certainly means that the British are trying to hide Indian death tolls.
Aren't British supposed to good at record keeping? Notwithstanding systematic purge of secret documents, and blocking access to whatever remained within archives that is supposed to make it available? link
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhishek_sharma »

From the Urdu Press
Modi’s chits

RASHTRIYA SAHARA, quoting from the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) report on the 2002 Gujarat riots, in its May 9 editorial, writes that following the leakage of the report about the “clean chit” for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, “he whispered into the ears of some chosen journalists that the amicus curiae too has said in his report that there is no case for prosecution against him and that he had done no wrong by getting the burnt corpses of the (Godhra) victims to Ahmedabad in a procession... But now it has been known that the amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, had not said anything like that. This rumour was floated from the CM’s office for lessening the sense of guilt of Modi and for misleading people. The amicus curiae has, according to reports, highlighted two aspects. First, that Modi is responsible for generating hatred and ill will between the Hindu and Muslim communities of Gujarat and second, that not only (does) Modi’s role not come up to the parameters of (the) law, his utterings and actions had resulted in a serious danger to national integration.”

The daily Inquilab, in its report on May 9, writes: “Regarding the statements of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, the amicus curiae has said that he does not think the police officer would make such a grave allegation against the CM without any basis”. Hamara Samaj, headlining its lead report on May 9 as “Modi ka paap abhi dhula naheen” (Modi’s sin has not yet been washed away) has, like many other papers, dwelt on the amicus curiae’s report to the effect that Modi can be prosecuted.

New president

BETTING on a Muslim president, Samajwadi Party leader Shahid Siddiqui’s Nai Duniya, in its April 30-May 6 issue, lists Vice-President Hamid Ansari, Farooq Abdullah, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi, former minister C.K. Jaffer Sharief, Rajya Sabha MP K. Rehman Khan, law minister Salman Khurshid, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and former Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson Najma Heptullah, as possible contenders. Siddiqui writes: “Mulayam Singh has made such a move (“shatranj ki chaal”) on the chessboard of the presidential election that can even make him the next prime minister.” He elaborates: “Mulayam Singh Yadav knows that no party will get a majority in 2014. If the SP succeeds in winning 50 Lok Sabha seats from UP, it would hold the key to power. If this happens, the crown of prime ministership can be put on the head of Mulayam Singh Yadav. But for this, he would need a president who is sympathetic to him...”

Ruling out most from his list of probables, Siddiqui says: “The name of C.K. Jaffer Sharief from the south is also very important... If Mulayam Singh Yadav pushes his name, it would get much popularity amongst Muslims. Jaffer Sharief sahib can, on one hand, represent the south and Muslims on the other. But it is difficult to get for him the support of the BJP and Sonia Gandhi because Jaffer Sharief is one of those Muslim leaders who does not hesitate to speak the truth.” The Delhi-based Jadeed Khabar concludes that “in the race for president... only two names are being considered and these are of Pranab Mukherjee and Hamid Ansari.” The paper points out that the role of Mulayam Singh Yadav will be very important in this election as he has the largest number of MLAs (206) among the regional parties.”

Housing Sachin

THE nomination of Sachin Tendulkar to the Rajya Sabha has invited a variety of reactions. Hyderabad’s Siasat, in its April 30 editorial, writes: “The personality of Sachin has been spotless and he has performed something for the country that has not been done by any other cricketer in the history of the game. Perhaps, the Congress is trying to take political advantage of this very spotless record.” Another Hyderabad-based daily, Munsif, in its editorial on April 28 comments: “Sachin is also an idol for Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and the demand for a Bharat Ratna for him too was first raised by him. Very often he praises Sachin and Sachin too, has great regard for him. Political observers opine that Shiv Sena had a plan of making political use of the proposal to award the Bharat Ratna to Sachin because of his popularity. But the plan has been foiled by the Congress”.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

Borneo Tribe Practices Its Own Kind of Hinduism
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/world ... .html?_r=1
TUMBANG SAAN, INDONESIA — In this village near the heart of Borneo’s great, dissolving rainforest, Udatn is regarded as a man of deep spiritual knowledge. Of all the people in this tiny settlement, he speaks better than any other the esoteric language of the Sangiyang, the spirits and ancestors of the upper world, known simply as “Above.” His is a key role in the rituals of Kaharingan, one of a number of names for the ancestor-worshipping religion of Borneo’s indigenous forest people, the Dayak. “In the beginning, when God separated the darkness and the light, there was Kaharingan,” said Mr. Udatn, as he sat smoking a wooden pipe on the floor of his stilt home. (Like many Indonesians Mr. Udatn uses only one name.) The Indonesian government thinks otherwise. The world’s most populous Muslim-majority country is no Islamic state, but it is a religious one. Every citizen must subscribe to one of six official creeds: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Confucianism or Hinduism. Kaharingan, like dozens of other native faiths, does not officially exist.

Even in this village, a frontier where land clearing and mining is fast erasing ancient forest, people have long seen their faith under threat from officialdom. “When I was in school I was a Catholic,” said Mr. Udatn. “For us, if someone wanted to keep going to school then they had to convert to another religion.” Now, however, things are changing, and the missionaries are being held at bay. That is because villagers have seized on a strategy being used by many Dayak: They are re-branding. On paper at least, most of the people of Tumbang Saan are now followers of Hinduism, the dominant religion on the distant island of Bali. Few here could name a Hindu god or even recognize concepts, like karma, that have taken on popular meanings even in the West. But that is not the point. In a corner of the world once famed for headhunters and impenetrable remoteness, a new religion is being developed to face up to an encroaching modern world and an intrusive Indonesian state. The point, in short, is cultural survival. “The Hindus have helped us,” said Mr. Udatn. “They’re like our umbrella.”
What exists in Tumbang Saan is a strange compromise, born of the Indonesian religious system, where government functionaries play a key role in allocating funding and guiding religious doctrine. Called Hindu Kaharingan, it is a religion for the Dayak of Central Kalimantan, one of the four provinces that make up the Indonesian part of Borneo. Just 30 years old, it is administered by Indonesia’s official Hindu bureaucracy. It exists in no other province. Hindu Kaharingan polarizes opinions. Some see it as a fake faith, invented for appearances; others hail it as a rediscovery of long-lost beliefs. But in both government offices and remote villages, Hindu Kaharingan leads a precarious existence. At the complex that houses Hindu Kaharingan’s Grand Council in Palangkaraya, the capital of Central Kalimantan, the head of the advisory board of the religion, Lewis Koebek Dandan Ranying, bristled with suspicion at questions. “Christians are the ones who are pushing hardest into Central Kalimantan, and we’re still in a fight to the death with them now,” Mr. Lewis said. Government officials in Jakarta, he alleged, routinely ignore Hindu Kaharingan’s existence in the province, while Christian and Muslim bureaucrats at all levels deliberately undercount the religion’s adherents so as to limit its funding and political influence. In Mr. Lewis’s view, the Dayak people have been Hindus for centuries; they just did not know it. The beliefs of the various Dayak tribes, he says, descend from the Kutai kingdom, an eastern Borneo state dating from the fourth century whose religion was imported from India. Over time this was lost amid colonization by the Dutch, and the Christian missionaries who came with them.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Interests

Post by RoyG »

^^Incredible story. Good luck to them. We need to get rid of this secular garbage and utilize our dharmic traditions to build bridges to the Southeast.
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Supratik »

Jhujar wrote:Borneo Tribe Practices Its Own Kind of Hinduism
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/world ... .html?_r=1
Apparently, there were studies done a few years back of large number of people reconverting back to Hinduism in Indonesia. However,
the official census data of 2010 does not show that. It shows only about 4 million Hindus in Indonesia and the percentage has
actually gone down. However, the Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia claims about 10 million adherents. Wonder why the discrepancy
in numbers.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indian Interests

Post by brihaspati »

Was reviewing the writings of this scholar after a very long time [first read him while studying imperialism and colonial economies as a teenager] and found an interesting piece on the Khilafat movement. People may not like some of his positions, but the resources are impeccable and worth thinking about.

I was delighted to find a conclusion that I have held for a long time before reading him.
http://hamzaalavi.com/?p=86#more-86
The Khilafat Movement has been idealised as an anti-colonial movement. But the main ‘achievement’ of the Movement was the turning away of Indian Muslims from a secular understanding of politics, towards a religious and communalist one. It has left a legacy of political activism of the Muslim clergy that bedevils Indian and Pakistani politics to this day. One final irony of it is that the Movement betrayed both Turkish Nationalism and also Arab Nationalism.Unfortunately Mr Gandhi’s leadership of the Movement has led Indian Nationalist scholars to acclaim the Movement and Gandhi’s role in it, uncritically. On the other hand, Jinnah (who in the present writer’s view, has been accused, quite inaccurately of being a ‘communalist leader’ rather than one with a secular outlook) got physically beaten up by ‘Maulana’ Shaukat Ali for opposing that atavistic religious movement, which has had such a major negative impact on Indian (and Pakistani) Muslim political thought. Finally, the Khilafat Movement laid the foundations of political leadership of the Muslim clergy, for which it was to be acclaimed by Islamic ideologists!
What he puts in as b ackground is more interesting:

British Relations with Ottoman Caliphs
The British, far from being enemies of the Ottomans, as the Khilafat Movement propaganda suggested, had remained their steadfast allies over many centuries. Their enduring alliance with the Ottomans was motivated, as far as the British were concerned, by a threat to British imperial interests that came from expansionist ambitions of Czarist Russia. The Ottomans were equally worried about the Russian threat, the more so with their increasing weakness. They needed a strong and dependable ally which they found in Britain. The Ottoman decision to ally (but belatedly) with Germany in World War I was a tempo­rary break in a centuries old British-Ottoman alliance. Turkey’s aberrant Wartime alliance with Germany arose due to a peculiar combination of circumstances within Turkey itself and despite every effort made by the British to prevent Turkey from joining with the Central Powers in the War.
The Ottoman Empire stood in the Russia’s way to the warm waters that lay to the South. It would have to break Ottoman power to be able to mount a successful south­ward move. Russian policy was therefore consistently hostile to the Ottomans. Given that equation, the Russian threat to move south was an immovable foundation on which an enduring alliance between the British and the Ottomans was built. It was to last for centuries. They fought wars together as allies, most famously in the long and expensive war, in money and in blood, the Crimean War of 1854-56. That war ended, as the British desired, in a Treaty that banned passage through the Bosphorous and Dardanelles of all naval units, which for all practical purposes meant Russian naval units.
Greek Independence

The Indian Khilafatists have made much of the idea that the British were Pro-Greek and anti-Turk. That charge can be made of Lloyd George who was temporarily the Prime Minister of Britain in the War-time coalition government — the man who dictated the humiliating Treaty of Séveres, which even his Conservative cabinet colleagues such as Bonar Law did not like. That was one reason why the Treaty was never ratified and implemented. After the end of the War-time coalition government, when Lloyd George was thrown out, and a conservative government returned, under Bonar Law, Britain returned to her traditional pro-Turkish or, rather, pro-Ottoman policy (that distinction is not without significance).

As for the long term strategy of the British in the Eastern Mediterranean, the idea that British Governments were pro-Greek is patently false. Here again the threat from Czarist Russia entered into British calculations. In the Greek struggle for independence from Turkish colonial rule, despite strong popular support in Britain for the Greeks, the British Government itself was not at all in favour of Greek independence. They feared that it would give Russia an ally and a foothold in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, following an enormous upsurge of public opinion in Britain, after the death in 1826 of the popular poet Lord Byron, who had fought and died for the Greeks at Missolonghi, a reluctant British Government was finally pushed to join the alliance that had been initiated by the Russians in support of the Greeks. The outcome of that war was the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829. But the British Government was quite as unhappy about that Treaty as were the Turks. As Gewehr notes:

Due to British fears of Russian preponderance in the Balkans, it was not until 1832 that the final agreement regarding the territorial extent and the form of government in Greece was made. The new born Greek state was restricted to an area … (which) excluded from its boundaries many important centres … A numerical majority of the Greek race was actually left under Turkish sovereignty. … That is explained by the fear of the English Prime Minister, The Duke of Wellington, that Greece would become a satellite of Russia and hence it must be restricted to a small area. [27]
Britain’s commit­ments to the Ottomans remained unshaken.
Given their alliance with the Ottomans, the British realised the value of the ideology of the religious authority of the Ottoman Caliph over Muslims every­where that could be brought into play to control Indian Muslims. The British welcomed that and encouraged propaganda on behalf of the Caliph. In return the Caliph served the British well.

The first major example of this was in 1789 when Tipu Sultan, as a gesture of defiance against the Moghuls, paid formal allegiance to the Ottoman Caliph who, in return sent Tipu a sanad (charter of office) and Khil’at (robes of investiture) as ruler of Mysore. Tipu is a legendary figure in Indian history as a fighter against expanding British colonial rule. In 1798, therefore, at British request, the Ottoman Caliph sent a letter to Tipu, telling him that the British were his friends and asking him to refrain from hostile action against them. The letter was sent to Tipu not directly but through Lord Wellesly who was leading the British forces against Tipu! Tipu replied to the Caliph, professing devotion but also telling him that the Caliph was too far away to know the situation in India. He cheekily invited the Caliph to join hands with him so that, together, they may throw out the infidels! Another major occasion when the Ottoman Caliph came out in support of the British at a very difficult moment was at the time of India’s War of National Indepen­dence in 1857 (downgraded by historians as ‘The Indian Mutiny’). True to form, the Ottoman Caliph Abdul Majid condemned the ‘mutineers’ and called upon Indian Muslims to remain loyal to the British. The British, he said, were ‘Defenders of Islam’.

The idea that the Ottoman Caliph would be of value in controlling Muslims of India was at the fore­front of British calculations in their relationship with the Ottoman Caliphs. That is illustrated by the reception that they gave to the tyrant Sultan Abdul Aziz when he visited London in 1867. The British went overboard with their lavish enter­tainment for the Caliph. Significantly though the huge expenses incurred were charged by the British Govern­ment to Indian revenues ‘on the ground that cordial relations with the Sultan contributed towards the good govern­­ment of India … The Sultan as head of the Muslim religion, would propitiate Indian Muslims. [28]
Do follow up on rest of the article! There is a wealth of information. I was looking for a context of understanding MKG's thought process at the time and found this one. But it does force a need to have a second look at MKG's tactical mind.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

Hakim Shateem Greem Breem
Ask NRIs to increase remittances: Assocham
New Delhi: Increasing internal demand and motivating expatriates to send home more remittances may solve the Indian economy's problems due to a depreciating rupee, an industry lobby said Sunday."At present, NRI deposits are between USD 52 and USD 55 billion, which needs to be pushed up to an ambitious level of USD 75-80 billion," said Assocham (Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India) President Rajkumar Dhoot. "We will strongly recommend that high-level teams comprising of senior RBI officials, executive directors of banks and chairpersons and senior officials of the finance ministry do roadshows in areas such as the Middle East, South-East Asia and Europe where there is a concentration of Indian expatriates," he said.According to a survey conducted by economists and bankers, he said, remittances from NRIs had to be mobilised like never before. While a handful of banks have increased interest rates on NRI deposits, these seem to be piecemeal efforts, which need to be intensified, the survey said. The rupee has touched an all-time low of moving closer to Rs.54 per dollar and the pressure on the Indian currency increases each time there is a percentage point drop in the BSE Sensex. Dhoot said the NRIs must be given assurances that given the global uncertainties investing back home makes better business sense."NRIs should invest in India not only because of the motherland connection but also because India has a market of 1.20 billion people which will continue to grow," he said. NRI deposits in the country can be raised by at least USD 10-15 billion in the short term by taking confidence-building measures and offering attractive interest rates, the survey said. "The outflows by the foreign institutional investors (FIIs) are not the result of only the so-called policy paralysis, but mostly because of risk aversion by the global investors into the equity markets," it added. Dhoot also said once the internal demand was generated, the FIIs would return to the Indian markets which would soon have attractive valuations again.On reviving internal demand, the survey said moderating interest rates would send a strong signal and boost consumer confidence. Also, the investment climate should be improved soon.
member_23438
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by member_23438 »

A Nice read ...

The all-American way is not India’s way (Nice to see something not written by JNU and "modern India" wallahs )
When nation states have the potential of breaking into the elite league of great powers, the paths they tread become topics of universal discussion. We have just come out of intense deliberation about one such transition, as China rose over the last decade to take its place as a genuine superpower. With India now attempting its own push for global recognition, international strategic commentaries on its strengths, and bets on whether it can really “make it” or not, are proliferating.

Former American diplomat William Avery’s new book, China’s Nightmare, America’s Dream. India as the Next Global Power, joins this crowding genre of India-watching. It contends that India can be a world power like China and the US, but for the “timidity of its political leadership”. It is a call to action for India to convert its increasing wealth into more power through “the right policies and leadership”, which have been scarce commodities.



Avery argues that Indian leaders have shown “courage and speed of action” only twice in the last two decades, viz. in 1991, via the economic reforms which spurred remarkable growth, and in 1998, when they tested the atomic bomb and ended a long spell of strategic irrelevance. On the converse side, India’s leadership has been found wanting in acting forcefully against foreign enemies perpetrating acts of terrorism on Indian soil.

The author’s recipes for overcoming this “timidity” are, however, quite jejune. His wish that India should have militarily re-intervened in Sri Lanka right after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi reveals a stunning lack of basic cost-benefit analysis or means-end matching. His prescription for India to “strong-arm resource-rich countries of Africa” is another over-the-top idea with complete disregard for the backlash that would generate (a heat which the Chinese are already feeling in Africa now). Avery keeps paying lip service to the ideal of India engineering its ascent through its unique ways, but his policy recommendations are imitative of what other great powers, past and present, have done.

The author sounds more credible in the portions of the book that address the challenge of taking India’s economic growth to higher levels. For achieving “great power growth”, India’s private-sector enterprises will have to globalise their footprints. In the game of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), Avery advises them to “look at tomorrow’s markets (China, Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America), not yesterday’s (the US, Europe and Japan)”, since the former promise more cost savings and sales growth.


Avery stresses that Indian corporations must urgently move up the value chain, shedding low-margin services like business process outsourcing (BPO) in favour of innovation-based technology products and brands.

It is time, he says, to “stop selling India’s talent short” and to convert our cyber-coolies into patent-bagging nerds. A world-class non-profit university system is essential to nurture this transformation into a high-tech economy. Avery aptly pinpoints to the imperative of Indian corporations and the state investing heavily in university infrastructure and professorial pay packets to “draw some of its academic diaspora back from Western institutions”, the way China has done successfully.

China is already a university powerhouse and India has to close this “minds race gap” as much as the arms race gap and the intelligence agency funding gap with its giant northern neighbour. Avery identifies a core flaw in India’s military investment for being “strong on people, weak on equipment and technology”, and pleads for rectifying this imbalance. He also contrasts China — which has a long-term strategy for turning the renminbi into a global currency — with India, which lacks “an activist government with the vision and confidence to promote the rupee as one of the leading currencies in the world.”

The most problematic aspect of Avery’s book lies in his foreign policy blueprint for India to gallop to great-power status. Recapping the views of Robert Kaplan of Stratfor, Avery believes that India must agree to act as an offshore counter-balancer of China to serve American interests. He does not pause to consider whether American interests and Indian interests are not always identical. India’s geography and geopolitical setting demand that it decide its own strategy, which may coincide with the needs of the great powers at particular historic junctures. But Avery goes for overkill, where India is expected to become a useful pawn for the US grand strategy.

The author’s conviction that India must enter into an alliance with the US “to stop the spread of tyranny” and to uphold shared “values of the British crown” is quaint. His exhortation to India to resurrect a “new British empire” in partnership with the US is literally a form of linguistic violence. The less slavish India remains — be it to the US or to China — the better its chances of evolving as a great power. Avery’s odious analogy of the “Indo-American alliance” with the US-Britain special relationship sidesteps the total asymmetry of the latter dyad. He should know better that India will never agree to become anyone’s poodle or junior partner.

The author’s convoluted point that the US “successfully persuaded” India not to avenge Pakistan-sponsored terrorist acts, and his satisfaction that “India complied” for its own good, exposes his American big brotherly intentions. His admonition of India for maintaining relations with “pariah states Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela” again imposes American choices on a sovereign India, allegedly for India’s welfare. His vision of India “committing to a common foreign policy framework” with the US and its allies, wherein New Delhi no longer “cultivates relationships with regimes such as Iran”, is barely disguised neo-imperialism to restrict India’s choices.

Should Washington decide for Delhi who it should consort with? Avery’s unabashed suggestion that India “act as America’s eyes and ears in a region far from Washington” is an insult to Indian self-esteem. Other glaring examples of misguided policy counsel in the book include assertions that India’s “restraint” vis-à-vis terrorism unleashed by Pakistan is admirable, and that this passivity is turning Delhi into a closer ally of Washington. India’s failure to force a change in Pakistan’s behaviour is actually a telling indicator of why the former cannot be rated as a great power.

Is it preferable for India to become a great power with a distinct quality or to win brownie points from the US? Avery never poses such a question, since his core assumption is that India has no option but to concede a trajectory of dependent rise, where it becomes a loyal member of the American global alliance system.

This book is agreeably impatient about short-sightedness in India’s political class and corporations, but it falls pitifully short on how Indian foreign policy should proceed towards the goal of great power stature. If Avery were to decide, India would be yoked to one superpower and offered some wages in return for being pliable. While we can rubbish this fanciful scenario from ever materialising, it is important to read books like these (and works by Robert Kaplan) to stay alert against strategic entrapment and to chart our own destiny.

Sreeram Chaulia is dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs and the author of International Organizations and Civilian Protection: Power, Ideas and Humanitarian Aid in Conflict Zones
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... 9s-way-986
member_23438
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by member_23438 »

How India Sees the U.S. Presidential Race
Though U.S.-Indian relations have dipped from the high point they reached during the George W. Bush administration, when the countries signed an important civil nuclear agreement (TIME), they are still "in reasonably good shape," says C. Raja Mohan, an expert on U.S.-India relations. President Obama's November 2010 trip to India bolstered trade and economic ties and helped ease fears that Obama administration policies toward Pakistan and China would run counter to India's interests, says Mohan. The two countries have differences on issues such as Iran and the Middle East, and some in Washington are frustrated "that the strategic partnership with India has not yielded the expected benefits," says Mohan. Mohan says Indians watching how the U.S. presidential race shapes up show a growing appreciation of "how political developments within the United States can affect Indian interests."

How are U.S.-Indian relations these days?

India-U.S. relations are in a reasonably good shape. But the kind of excitement that dominated the bilateral relations in the Bush era is certainly absent. This is due in part to the reluctance of the Obama administration to put a big, transformative issue like the civil nuclear initiative on the bilateral agenda. The focus instead is on deepening bilateral engagement and making steady progress on a broad range of issues. In Delhi, the Manmohan Singh government, which had invested much domestic political capital in reordering the relations with the United States during the Bush years, no longer has the political energy to pursue a bold agenda with Washington.

What are the main issues between our countries?

In some quarters of the United States there is palpable frustration that the strategic partnership with India has not yielded the expected benefits. Whether it is the purchase of the U.S. nuclear reactors or American fighter aircraft, Indian decisions have left some stakeholders in Washington disappointed. The idea that the relationship has been "oversold" has gained some traction in Washington.

On the multilateral front, especially on the Middle East, India follows an independent policy that is not always in alignment with the American approach.

On Iran, India supports the objective of preventing proliferation and fully implements the UN sanctions. But Delhi is reluctant to abandon its engagement with Tehran, which is critical for India's regional policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan following the feared U.S. retreat from Afghanistan. India is also having some difficulty in coping with the unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran.

The United States is also concerned about the absence of second-generation economic reforms in India and Delhi's inability to move rapidly on bilateral defense cooperation.

Some of these [issues] are linked to the broader political and administrative paralysis that has gripped Delhi.

From the Indian side, there is recognition that Obama has advanced the bilateral relationship, but Delhi misses the special attention it got from the Bush White House.

[Still,] there is no denying the substantive advances in the bilateral relations in recent years and the current unprecedented breadth and depth of the economic, political and security engagement between the two countries.

Do Indians pay much attention to U.S. presidential campaigns? Do they feel that it matters to India who is in the White House?

The Indian chattering classes have always shown a keen but general interest in the U.S. presidential campaigns. With expanding Indian stakes in the United States, there is growing awareness of how political developments within the United States can affect Indian interests.


"The kind of excitement that dominated the bilateral relations in the Bush era is certainly absent. This, in part, is due to the reluctance of the Obama administration to put a big, transformative issue like the civil nuclear initiative on the bilateral agenda."

President Obama had a highly-publicized visit to India (WorldPress) in November 2010, stressing trade between the two largest democracies. Did this visit enhance Obama's standing in India? How is he regarded now?

Within the Indian elite there has been a great admiration for Obama as a historical figure in the evolution of the United States. But within the strategic establishment there was much concern that Obama might return to the old policies of meddling in Kashmir, going soft on Pakistan, and adopting a China-first strategy in Asia. Obama's visit helped defuse most of these concerns. And the evolution of Obama's policies toward Pakistan and China have raised hopes for greater convergence of U.S. and Indian interests in the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, bilateral trade and economic cooperation has grown substantially.

Is Mitt Romney known in India?

Very little. Some of Romney's foreign policy advisers are familiar in Delhi, and India is bound to invest in getting to know Romney better in the coming months.

There is regular speculation in India's press about two Indian-American governors, Bobby Jindal [of Louisiana] and Nikki Haley [of South Carolina], as possible GOP vice presidential candidates. Both Jindal and Haley deny any interest.

There is always great interest in the political advances made by the leaders of the Indian-American community in the United States. But the policy establishment in Delhi knows that neither Jindal nor Haley would want to wear the "India badge" on their sleeves. Delhi is acutely aware of the contributions of the Indian-American community to the improvement of bilateral relations with Washington, but it is conscious of the importance of solidifying India's outreach to the American political mainstream.

Is there any particular bias in India toward the Democratic or Republican parties?

During the Cold War, there was greater empathy in the Indian political class toward the Democratic Party. Arguably, the political bias in Delhi now favors the Republican Party, which is seen as less protectionist than the Democratic Party. India is more comfortable with the Republican geopolitical appreciation of India's value in the international system.

Delhi remains wary of the Democratic Party's foreign policy establishment, given its interventionist impulses, especially the itch to mediate on the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan and its focus on human rights issues. Obama, to be sure, has walked away from the initial temptation to focus on Kashmir and has overruled the non-proliferation community in the United States in his effort to implement the Bush deal on integrating India into the global nuclear order.

Delhi is concerned about muscular Republican policies in the Middle East, which complicate India's domestic politics.

Has the strain in U.S.-Pakistan relations over Afghanistan helped to improve U.S.-India relations?

Yes. When Obama came to power, Delhi was deeply concerned that the Democrats would return to re-hyphenating India with Pakistan, meddle in Kashmir, and appease the Pakistan army in order to achieve U.S. objectives in Afghanistan. Those concerns have eased amidst the downslide in U.S.-Pakistan relations during 2011. Conservatives in Delhi, however, highlight the continuing American need for Pakistan army's support for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the sharpening U.S.-Pakistan contradictions have paradoxically coincided with a measure of improvement in India-Pakistan relations in recent months. With its western frontier in trouble, the Pakistani army appears to have cut some slack for the civilian leaders in Islamabad to open up trade with India and expand bilateral interaction. Prime Minister Singh, who has invested much in improving ties with Pakistan, is likely to make something of the emerging opportunity. India has also welcomed the U.S. "silk road strategy" of promoting regional integration between South Asia and Central Asia and stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan as "bridge states" between India and Central Asia.
http://www.cfr.org/india/india-sees-us- ... ace/p28182
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Jarita »

Same guys who orchestrated partition of India

India may face caste heat at UNHRC meet

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 141854.cms


And then this is also happening - confluence of activities

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 141877.cms
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Rony »

Dalit Muslim leaders urge Baba Ramdev to lead their fight
Claiming that political Ulema and upper caste Muslims never supported their movement, Dalit Muslim leaders metaphorically with folded hands recently urged Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev to take up their case and lead the fight for Dalit Muslim reservation.

“We are not free, we are not getting justice. We want you to bring us in mainstream, we want you to fight for our right,” said Dr Ejaz Ali, National President, All India United Muslim Morcha, pointing to Baba Ramdev who was sitting on the stage at a conference organized by the morcha at India Islamic Cultural Centre on Saturday.

Praising the leadership quality of Baba Ramdev, Dr. Ejaz, former Rajya Sabha MP said: “We have followed and supported everyone in Bihar, UP and at the Centre for last 50 years, but they all have betrayed us. We see a leadership quality in you. We think the way you have honestly utilized god-gifted quality to solve a problem of the people, we hope you will take up our case.”

Pleading Baba for help, Anis Mansoori, a Dalit Muslim leader from UP, said: “Political Ulema and upper caste Muslims are responsible for the situation common Muslims find themselves in today. These Muslims have not supported our demand for SC status to Dalit Muslims. Baba we have great hope from you, you will help us.”

From 1936 to 1950 Dalit Muslims got reservation like Dalit Hindus but in 1950 amendment through a presidential order was made in Article 341 excluding Muslims from the reservation, he said.

Former Lok Sabha MP Ilyas Azmi asked Muslims to support the movement of Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare. He recalled how he convinced Muslim Majlis in 1975 to support the movement of Jai Prakash Narayan. He said whoever does good work Muslims should support them, whether they are RSS or BJP. He even said Muslims had wholeheartedly supported Janata Party (which later became Bharatiya Janata Party) in the elections held soon after the emergency was lifted in 1977.

Baba Ramdev did not disappoint the Dalit Muslim leaders, nor the audience overwhelmingly comprising Muslims. First he began his speech by offering Salam to the audience, and in response receiving clapping. He said recently he had addressed a Muslim audience in Lucknow and had started his speech with Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem. This time the clapping was louder.

While clearly supporting the Dalit Muslim reservation issue, he categorically denied he has any political ambition.

“Our religious books whether it is Ved, Geeta, Puran or Quran all talk about justice. They term injustice as against religion. Injustice has no religion, whether it is done with Hindus, Muslims, Sikh or Christians. All who believe in justice should oppose discrimination in Article 341. Dalit is dalit whether he is Hindu or Muslim,” said Yoga Guru who for last one year has been leading campaign against corruption and to bring back black money.

He said he had no idea until recently that there is discrimination in quota for Dalits. “We had no idea there would be discrimination, we thought dalit is dalit and everyone will be getting quota, we came to know from Dr Ejaz Ali that Muslim Dalit and Christian Dalit are not getting quota like Hindu and Sikh Dalits.”

Then he clearly said he is ready to take up the fight for Dalit Muslim reservation. He said if maulanas have not helped Dalit Muslim leaders, he will help them.

“If maualanas and ulema have not fought your battle, we Babas are ready to fight for you now. If maulanas have bent before politicians, then this baba will face all odds and fight for you,” said Baba Ramdev.

He, however, said the main fight is against corruption and black money.

“Our fight may start from here, but our main target is corruption and the black money,” he said.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32279
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Interests

Post by chetak »

Why do we have so many uncle toms around?
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Jarita »

Same guys who orchestrated partition of India

India may face caste heat at UNHRC meet

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 141854.cms


And then this is also happening - confluence of activities

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 141877.cms
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indian Interests

Post by brihaspati »

Well my caution about "gurus" pays off. Even RM realized it too late. One who fails to grasp the significance of recognizing artificially created identities will muddle the nation more, and in the process confuse the real needs. We need to eliminate and de-emphasize created identities, and make opportunities equally available to everyone. Tying them to identities is fatal.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by devesh »

deleted
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Indian Interests

Post by svenkat »

Even RM realized it too late
RM=?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indian Interests

Post by brihaspati »

svenkat wrote:
Even RM realized it too late
RM=?
Rahul Mehta.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Interests

Post by darshhan »

chetak wrote:
Why do we have so many uncle toms around?
IMO , Baba Ramdev is smarter than to be an uncle Tom. Here it is the islamists who should fear him.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indian Interests

Post by brihaspati »

darshhan wrote:
IMO , Baba Ramdev is smarter than to be an uncle Tom. Here it is the islamists who should fear him.
You mean he is as smart as Gandhiji, who tucked into the khilafat movement and thereby started the long slippery road down politically legitimizing separate Muslim identity?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests

Post by ramana »

A good post by Bji in GDF:
brihaspati wrote:gakakkad garu,
I spent a lot of time with junior doctors. Many start out with a lot of idealism, and once I had persuaded a group to really take up rural postings which they did from ideological commitment. In almost every case they were hounded out - because the same idealism prevented them from toeing the local goonda [who in turn happens almost always to be also the richest, the best connected, the most landed, or businessed, and most importantly in turn chelas of larger goondas at super-regional levels right up to the political party in power at the state capital].

One of my nastiest aftertaste is however about the so-called "class IV" staff and the nurses. Almost inevitably they turn out to be near sadistic, negligent to the point of cruelty, and maakhichoos - and corrupt to boot.


A hope I have is that one day we might be able to clean out that section of the service. More direct state intervention in a single national health care system, with adequate working conditions for medical staff both doctors as well as non-doctors - but equally adequate admin not subject to the tyranny of unions. Don't know whether we can institute mechanisms that create and support more people like Dr. Sethi into a single state supported public-private partnership.
Not only health care, but in every sphere of social activity where there is heirarchial system supported by force of law, this type of parasites gravitate into it.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests

Post by ramana »

brihaspati wrote:
darshhan wrote:
IMO , Baba Ramdev is smarter than to be an uncle Tom. Here it is the islamists who should fear him.
You mean he is as smart as Gandhiji, who tucked into the khilafat movement and thereby started the long slippery road down politically legitimizing separate Muslim identity?

Bji, Didn't this in effect empower the jihadi/salafist movement inside the Indian Muslim mileu and we see the death spiral in TSP in approximately a century after the Khilafat movement was started? Maybe this was not MKG's objective but the end consequences are it spearated the wheat from the chaff in the IM community and more importantly separated the DIE/WKK/WMI (Well Oaf Modern Indians) form the rest of the Indians.


So MKG's support of the Khilafat movement precipated the hard core elements out of the Indian freedom movement where they were lurking in the society and going/rising with the tide.
nawabs
BRFite
Posts: 1637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by nawabs »

The swinging pendulum of federalism

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... /#comments
The historical context for evolution of federalism in independent India

In the wake of the controversy over the proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), the issue of federalism has atracted a lot of attention. Most of the chief ministers, who have opposed the NCTC, have opposed it on the grounds that the Centre is trying to encroach upon the powers of the states. This goes against the principle of federalism, a principle although not enshrined explicitly in the Indian constitution, but upheld by the Supreme Court. In the Bommai judgement, the Supreme Court stated that ‘federalism envisaged in the Constitution is a basic structure’.

The problem of federalism in India is directly related to the rule of the Congress party since independence. Congress party, once Gandhi became its tallest leader in the 1920s, was about running a national movement of common effort to overthrow the British rule. Gandhi did advocate a decentralised government based on village panchayats, but his own charisma and rarely challenged leadership in the party produced a highly centralised campaign. Leaders like Nehru, Patel and Azad were national leaders but even those leaders who drew their power from regional bases — GB Pant, BC Roy, Morarji Desai or C Rajagopalachari — had a national outlook. When Congress ruled eight provinces from 1937 to 1939 after winning the limited elections held under the 1935 Government of India Act, it actually evolved unitary mechanisms such as the Central Parliamentary Board to direct the functioning of the provincial ministries.

Post-independence, Congress party continued to rule most of the states, besides being in power at Delhi. Because its own command structure in the party functioned between the state governments and the union government, the constitutional provisions and mechanisms of centre-state relations were not used. As everything seemed to function smoothly, no one paid much attention to this disuse. The processes and systems of dealings between the states and the Centre, outside Congress party’s internal mechanism, never evolved. This means that while other democratic processes and systems in the Indian Republic have matured over the last 62 years, the centre-state relations have really evolved only during the last 30 years. With the decline in the quality of leadership across the political spectrum, even this evolution has often been hampered by fractious and parochial interests.

Notwithstanding the lag in evolution of centre-state relations in independent India, the problem has been further worsened by a Congress party that is fast losing its dominance in the states. As the Congress party’s dominance in the states has faded, its governments in the Centre have excessively used the centralising features of the constitution to compensate for its waning powers. The constant friction, not only with the states ruled by the opposition but by the Congress party’s own allies, is a direct outcome of that over-compensation.


This, however, doesn’t mean that the states are right in their views. It is always easy to dispute the efficacy of federalism because distribution of resources and power is inherently contentious. If federalism is about decentralisation and devolution of powers to lower levels, most of these states have failed that test. Almost all these state governments are ruled by leaders — from Jayalalitha to Naveen Patnaik to Mamata Banerjee to Narendra Modi — who act like regional satraps and concentrate all power in their own hands. It is easy to point out their hypocrisy but the low credibility of the Congress party has allowed these chief ministers to use federalism as a bumper sticker to bolster their political case.

In the system of bargained federalism that we have in India, there is unlikely to be a perfect state of federalism between the Centre and the states. It will continue to swing like a pendulum between the two extremes: of centralisation better serving national unity, and of federalism better serving the individual citizen. The arc of swing of the pendulum has reduced over a period of time, and while the pendulum will never attain a stationary position, we can hope that the arc of swing gets progressively smaller with each passing year. That is how constitutional republics evolve over time. And India should be no different.

For those who doubt the theory of the reducing arc of swing, the arc has already reduced dramatically over the last 60 years. Here is what the Bharatiya Jana Sangh’s election manifesto for the 1957 Lok Sabha elections had promised at Page 7: The party would declare ‘Bharat to be a unitary state’ because the federal structure had created rivalries between the central and state governments that are an obstacle to national solidarity. On 17 August 1964, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya presented ‘Principles and Polices’ at the Jana Sangh General Council Meeting in Gwalior, where his party offered a plan to abolish the states and legislatures and to replace them with large administrative districts having no legislative functions, which would be reserved for Parliament. (Both references from Granville Austin’s Working a Democratic Constitution). No mainstream party can afford to have a similar position today.

When a former Chief Justice of India, Mehr Chand Mahajan wrote an article in 1956 suggesting “doing away with the federal constitution and making it a unitary system of government with abolition of state legislatures and state ministries, the states to be merely administrative units to be governed by Governors with the help of advisory bodies”, C Rajagopalachari wrote back to him approvingly. The then President Rajendra Prasad however responded in a letter to Justice Mahajan that it was necessary to safeguard the Constitution as it exists.

Rajendra Prasad’s advice was as valid in 1956 as it is today. Let us safeguard the Constitution as it exists. The political jousting over federalism is a routine process of evolution of a constitutional republic. The pendulum of this debate may be swinging, but the arc of swing is reducing. We should be happy that is the way it is.
Locked