Indian can take the leadsership role across the world in eradicating the poverty in house as well as outside the country.
Britain can work in "conjucntion" with India along with many other countries in how effectively implement this program.India has the expertise and is short of rupees. Britain and all the developed countries can help in contributing to the effort.
Indo-UK: News & Discussion
-
ranganathan
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
Read this well,"Institutional racism" at British Airways going unheeded according to a pilot,directed especially at Asians and Africans.
'A world of casual racism' exposed at BA
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 15842.html
Senior BA pilot exposes shocking cockpit culture of Britain's flag carrier
Robert Fisk: It's easy to be snotty with an airline so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience
By Andy McSmith
Saturday, 26 April 2008
A senior British Airways pilot reveals today the startling levels of casual racism in the flagship UK company, which once famously claimed to be "the world's favourite airline".
Captain Doug Maughan, who has 28 years' flying experience, including 15 years with BA, says that derogatory remarks about race by his colleagues are so common they are treated as normal.
Mr Maughan, a serving pilot who captains BA aircraft to all parts of the world, has decided to go public with his complaints after struggling to persuade BA's management to take racism among its senior staff seriously. He has complained by email to BA's chief executive, Willie Walsh, but says no action was taken.
His allegations are an acute embarrassment for the airline which carries 36 million passengers a year; operates out of airports in every continent; and could plausibly claim to be one of Britain's most high-profile companies. The airline is already threatened with a boycott by Nigerians flying to and from the UK.
Mr Maughan alleges that racism is a "generational" problem – common among middle-aged pilots, but rare among younger pilots.
He lodged his first complaint after hearing a senior training captain use the word "coon" during a training session on a flight simulator – but says that no action was taken.
"There was the time when we set off for Los Angeles with a large party of Saudis on board, who had joined us at Heathrow direct from the VIP lounge," he added. "In the cruise, my captain suddenly embarked on an extraordinary rant about 'rag-heads'. He got the word out twice before I stopped him by explaining he was going to be short of a first officer for the return sector if he carried on."
Mr Maughan, who lives in Dunblane, Perthshire, was on another flight when a fellow flight officer complained that there were too many Asians in Britain. "The captain turned to me and said: 'I don't suppose there are many of them up your way.' I replied: 'Well, there's my wife.' After that, they had the decency to fall silent," he said.
He has also complained about abusive emails sent to him by a fellow pilot, who is English. One of the emails said: "Come separation, will all Jocks F. off to that Welfare State (paid for by English middle classes)??? Please say yes."
Mr Maughan, 53, is so exasperated by what he sees as BA management's refusal to tackle the problem that he is planning a protest at this year's annual shareholders' meeting. "It's what I'd call a canteen culture," he said. "It seems to be accepted that people are going to make racist remarks and get away with it. The phrase 'institutional racism' has been so over-used as to be almost worthless, but I have to say that racism is as prevalent now in BA as it was in the RAF 25 years ago.
"What is common among white flying crew in BA is the use of mildly derogatory, sometimes jokey, language about other races, mainly aimed at black and Asian groups. Because it's so common, it's hard to tackle: it's ... the norm and rarely even noticed."
BA said: "All British Airways employees must adhere to our policies concerning dignity at work. Under these policies we encourage employees to report incidences of racism, sexism or any other behaviour that they deem offensive or inappropriate. Any reports of such behaviour are taken extremely seriously and investigated as a matter of priority. Captain Maughan has a duty as an employee to provide details of any alleged inappropriate behaviour direct to the airline."
Mr Maughan's revelations come as BA's treatment of Nigerian passengers threatens to have diplomatic repercussions. Robert Dewar, the British high commissioner to Nigeria, has been summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be warned that Nigeria expects its citizens to be treated with "dignity". And a meeting between BA representatives and the director general of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority, Harold Demuren, broke up when Dr Demuren objected that BA had slighted him by sending junior managers.
Nigeria's President, Umaru Yar'Adua, has ordered an investigation into an incident at Heathrow in which 136 passengers were turned off a BA flight to Lagos. It developed as immigration officers and BA staff were trying to force a man who was being deported to stay on board against his will. The deportee, Augustine Eme, is a member of Massob, a banned organisation in Nigeria campaigning for independence for the region of Biafra.
A fellow passenger, Ayodeji Omotade, from Chatham, objected to Mr Eme's treatment and was arrested. Mr Omotade's arrest triggered more protests, until the BA captain ordered every passenger in economy class off the plane. BA has defended the decision to empty the aircraft saying that it was legally obliged to carry passengers such as Mr Eme. It said a large number of passengers on flight BA75 on 27 March became disruptive; that it was not possible to pinpoint which ones were involved; and that the police and crew agreed it could pose a safety risk to allow them to stay on board.
BA's other troubles
*TERMINAL 5
BA's biggest disaster in recent years was the botched opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 on 27 March. More than 500 flights were cancelled after a hi-tech baggage handlinge system malfunctioned. The fiasco cost the airline £16m, and, combined with rising oil prices, caused its share price to fall to its lowest level in four years. Chief executive Willie Walsh resisted calls for his resignation.
*Gate Gourmet
In August 2005, the catering firm Gate Gourmet, which wanted redundancies among its full-time staff, brought in 130 temporary staff to handle the holiday workload. The firm's 600 staff went out on unofficial strike, and were sacked. About 1,000 BA staff walked out in sympathy.As a result, 900 flights were grounded and BA lost £45m.
*The crucifix
BA was threatened with a boycott by protesting Christians, after Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker, was suspended for refusing to remove her crucifix at work.
'A world of casual racism' exposed at BA
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 15842.html
Senior BA pilot exposes shocking cockpit culture of Britain's flag carrier
Robert Fisk: It's easy to be snotty with an airline so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience
By Andy McSmith
Saturday, 26 April 2008
A senior British Airways pilot reveals today the startling levels of casual racism in the flagship UK company, which once famously claimed to be "the world's favourite airline".
Captain Doug Maughan, who has 28 years' flying experience, including 15 years with BA, says that derogatory remarks about race by his colleagues are so common they are treated as normal.
Mr Maughan, a serving pilot who captains BA aircraft to all parts of the world, has decided to go public with his complaints after struggling to persuade BA's management to take racism among its senior staff seriously. He has complained by email to BA's chief executive, Willie Walsh, but says no action was taken.
His allegations are an acute embarrassment for the airline which carries 36 million passengers a year; operates out of airports in every continent; and could plausibly claim to be one of Britain's most high-profile companies. The airline is already threatened with a boycott by Nigerians flying to and from the UK.
Mr Maughan alleges that racism is a "generational" problem – common among middle-aged pilots, but rare among younger pilots.
He lodged his first complaint after hearing a senior training captain use the word "coon" during a training session on a flight simulator – but says that no action was taken.
"There was the time when we set off for Los Angeles with a large party of Saudis on board, who had joined us at Heathrow direct from the VIP lounge," he added. "In the cruise, my captain suddenly embarked on an extraordinary rant about 'rag-heads'. He got the word out twice before I stopped him by explaining he was going to be short of a first officer for the return sector if he carried on."
Mr Maughan, who lives in Dunblane, Perthshire, was on another flight when a fellow flight officer complained that there were too many Asians in Britain. "The captain turned to me and said: 'I don't suppose there are many of them up your way.' I replied: 'Well, there's my wife.' After that, they had the decency to fall silent," he said.
He has also complained about abusive emails sent to him by a fellow pilot, who is English. One of the emails said: "Come separation, will all Jocks F. off to that Welfare State (paid for by English middle classes)??? Please say yes."
Mr Maughan, 53, is so exasperated by what he sees as BA management's refusal to tackle the problem that he is planning a protest at this year's annual shareholders' meeting. "It's what I'd call a canteen culture," he said. "It seems to be accepted that people are going to make racist remarks and get away with it. The phrase 'institutional racism' has been so over-used as to be almost worthless, but I have to say that racism is as prevalent now in BA as it was in the RAF 25 years ago.
"What is common among white flying crew in BA is the use of mildly derogatory, sometimes jokey, language about other races, mainly aimed at black and Asian groups. Because it's so common, it's hard to tackle: it's ... the norm and rarely even noticed."
BA said: "All British Airways employees must adhere to our policies concerning dignity at work. Under these policies we encourage employees to report incidences of racism, sexism or any other behaviour that they deem offensive or inappropriate. Any reports of such behaviour are taken extremely seriously and investigated as a matter of priority. Captain Maughan has a duty as an employee to provide details of any alleged inappropriate behaviour direct to the airline."
Mr Maughan's revelations come as BA's treatment of Nigerian passengers threatens to have diplomatic repercussions. Robert Dewar, the British high commissioner to Nigeria, has been summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be warned that Nigeria expects its citizens to be treated with "dignity". And a meeting between BA representatives and the director general of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority, Harold Demuren, broke up when Dr Demuren objected that BA had slighted him by sending junior managers.
Nigeria's President, Umaru Yar'Adua, has ordered an investigation into an incident at Heathrow in which 136 passengers were turned off a BA flight to Lagos. It developed as immigration officers and BA staff were trying to force a man who was being deported to stay on board against his will. The deportee, Augustine Eme, is a member of Massob, a banned organisation in Nigeria campaigning for independence for the region of Biafra.
A fellow passenger, Ayodeji Omotade, from Chatham, objected to Mr Eme's treatment and was arrested. Mr Omotade's arrest triggered more protests, until the BA captain ordered every passenger in economy class off the plane. BA has defended the decision to empty the aircraft saying that it was legally obliged to carry passengers such as Mr Eme. It said a large number of passengers on flight BA75 on 27 March became disruptive; that it was not possible to pinpoint which ones were involved; and that the police and crew agreed it could pose a safety risk to allow them to stay on board.
BA's other troubles
*TERMINAL 5
BA's biggest disaster in recent years was the botched opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 on 27 March. More than 500 flights were cancelled after a hi-tech baggage handlinge system malfunctioned. The fiasco cost the airline £16m, and, combined with rising oil prices, caused its share price to fall to its lowest level in four years. Chief executive Willie Walsh resisted calls for his resignation.
*Gate Gourmet
In August 2005, the catering firm Gate Gourmet, which wanted redundancies among its full-time staff, brought in 130 temporary staff to handle the holiday workload. The firm's 600 staff went out on unofficial strike, and were sacked. About 1,000 BA staff walked out in sympathy.As a result, 900 flights were grounded and BA lost £45m.
*The crucifix
BA was threatened with a boycott by protesting Christians, after Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker, was suspended for refusing to remove her crucifix at work.
http://www.independent.co.uk/
Robert Fisk: It's easy to be snotty with an airline so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience
BA should be broken up and left with a core institution. Deportation or Rendition Airlines
Oh, those wretched "disruptive" passengers! Poor British Airways. They can't even ship off a crying man to Nigeria with the boys in blue to keep him quiet without passengers objecting and disrupting and disturbing their lovely aeroplanes. No wonder all the economy-class passengers were chucked off flight BA075 to Lagos on 27 March rather than have them object to the deportation of a crying man. Quite right, too.
Indeed, having long ago abandoned British Airways – arrogant check-in staff and Roxy usherette stewards and stewardesses – I've always thought the airline should be broken up and left with a core institution. Deportation Airlines, for example, or – if that sounds a trifle downmarket – Guantanamo Airlines, or even Rendition Airlines.
Of course, it's easy to be snotty with an airline that can be so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience. I won't recount the episode some years ago when I was asked at Heathrow if I had any sharp implements in my hand baggage. I do not have any sharp implements in my hand baggage, I replied. That was not good enough. "Answer 'yes' or 'no', Sir," I was admonished. My God, what had I done wrong? Was I in danger of suffering something worse than capital punishment: for instance, the British Airways "life ban" which has apparently been imposed on Ayodeji Omotade, who was arrested, stripped of his cash and abandoned at Heathrow because he objected to the deportation of the young man – anonymous, of course – on BA075.
What quite took my breath away was the outrageous letter that Jim Forster wrote to The Independent this week. Rejoicing in the title of "Manager, Government [sic] and Industry Affairs, British Airways," Jim Forster wrote with apparent indifference to passengers' feelings, which I consider symbolise his awful airline. For it seems that quite a lot of the other 136 passengers in economy class were also distressed at the way in which the deportee was being treated. Indeed, Jim admits in his letter that the deportee's presence "led to a large number of passengers causing such a serious disturbance that it required the intervention of 20 uniformed police officers to regain control of the situation. Given the level of disruption it was not possible to pinpoint which passengers were the most involved ..."
Now hold on a minute, Jim. Do you mean that 20 coppers – in addition to the four or five already keeping your deportee quiet, though crying – all marched into economy class to repress those "disruptive" passengers? Or did they hang around at the gate, thereby exaggerating the extent of the "disruptiveness"? And I don't mean to be rude, but – after the catastrophe of Terminal Five – don't you realise that the most disruptive institution at Heathrow is called British Airways? But I get the point. It's okay to ship thousands of your passengers' checked baggage items off to Milan – but they've got to shut up when you allow a weeping man to be dragged aboard for deportation.
Then there's the killer line at the beginning of your letter. "British Airways, like all other UK airlines, is required by law to carry deportees at the Government's request." Not so, Jim. A pilot has full discretion not to fly if a passenger – even a mere deportee – boards in a state of distress. You did, of course, choose not to mention in your letter that passengers (no doubt highly "disruptive") objected to the treatment of a female detainee forced aboard a Sabena flight at Brussels airport some years ago.
The pilot refused to fly her, the police restraining her were ordered off the plane and the passengers commended the crew. I can see why this wouldn't factor into your own letter because – and again, I am sure you are aware of this – the woman deportee subsequently died from her treatment at the hands of the Belgian police.
Then there's your unpleasant reminder that "we also have a zero-tolerance approach to any type of disturbance an aircraft ..." Well yes, I would hope so. But then explain to me, please, what kind of "disturbance" Salman Rushdie was causing on your planes when you banned him from British Airways after Ayatollah Khomeini uttered a death threat against him? Remember, Jim? British Airways was so frightened of carrying Rushdie that they simply refused to fly him. Now I'm no Rushdie fan,but does that mean that if one of my books gets up the nose of an Iranian ayatollah you're going to slap a ban on me, too? Does that make me a "disruptive" passenger, Jim?
Now I don't believe that airlines are all bad. I fly Air France – everywhere – and say this in all innocence. Other than a frequent-flyer card I have no financial interest in this excellent airline, and I urge British Airways passengers to transfer their affections to Air France next time they have to travel long distance. But I calculate that my lecture trips probably net Air France up to £60,000 a year and I guess it was inevitable that, some time ago, British Airways encouraged me to fly with them from Beirut to the American continent.
Just one trip, they told me, and I'll see how British Airways treats its passengers. And of course, sucker Bob bought a business class return across the Atlantic, found the crew polite and friendly, but then – on returning to Heathrow for my onward connection to Beirut – was downgraded to economy class. Flourishing a fistful of dollars in compensation, the Heathrow staff told me that the flight was overbooked.
No, it wasn't their fault, Jim. I know that. But it was the same old BA story. Too many of us animals had turned up for your flight and the last donkeys in transit got sent to the stalls at the back. I suppose I should have been grateful that I didn't have the pilot of BA075 at the controls. But I never returned to British Airways. So there's not much point in giving me the only honour I would like from you – a life-ban in case I am ever tempted to fly on your wretched aeroplanes again.
Robert Fisk: It's easy to be snotty with an airline so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience
BA should be broken up and left with a core institution. Deportation or Rendition Airlines
Oh, those wretched "disruptive" passengers! Poor British Airways. They can't even ship off a crying man to Nigeria with the boys in blue to keep him quiet without passengers objecting and disrupting and disturbing their lovely aeroplanes. No wonder all the economy-class passengers were chucked off flight BA075 to Lagos on 27 March rather than have them object to the deportation of a crying man. Quite right, too.
Indeed, having long ago abandoned British Airways – arrogant check-in staff and Roxy usherette stewards and stewardesses – I've always thought the airline should be broken up and left with a core institution. Deportation Airlines, for example, or – if that sounds a trifle downmarket – Guantanamo Airlines, or even Rendition Airlines.
Of course, it's easy to be snotty with an airline that can be so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience. I won't recount the episode some years ago when I was asked at Heathrow if I had any sharp implements in my hand baggage. I do not have any sharp implements in my hand baggage, I replied. That was not good enough. "Answer 'yes' or 'no', Sir," I was admonished. My God, what had I done wrong? Was I in danger of suffering something worse than capital punishment: for instance, the British Airways "life ban" which has apparently been imposed on Ayodeji Omotade, who was arrested, stripped of his cash and abandoned at Heathrow because he objected to the deportation of the young man – anonymous, of course – on BA075.
What quite took my breath away was the outrageous letter that Jim Forster wrote to The Independent this week. Rejoicing in the title of "Manager, Government [sic] and Industry Affairs, British Airways," Jim Forster wrote with apparent indifference to passengers' feelings, which I consider symbolise his awful airline. For it seems that quite a lot of the other 136 passengers in economy class were also distressed at the way in which the deportee was being treated. Indeed, Jim admits in his letter that the deportee's presence "led to a large number of passengers causing such a serious disturbance that it required the intervention of 20 uniformed police officers to regain control of the situation. Given the level of disruption it was not possible to pinpoint which passengers were the most involved ..."
Now hold on a minute, Jim. Do you mean that 20 coppers – in addition to the four or five already keeping your deportee quiet, though crying – all marched into economy class to repress those "disruptive" passengers? Or did they hang around at the gate, thereby exaggerating the extent of the "disruptiveness"? And I don't mean to be rude, but – after the catastrophe of Terminal Five – don't you realise that the most disruptive institution at Heathrow is called British Airways? But I get the point. It's okay to ship thousands of your passengers' checked baggage items off to Milan – but they've got to shut up when you allow a weeping man to be dragged aboard for deportation.
Then there's the killer line at the beginning of your letter. "British Airways, like all other UK airlines, is required by law to carry deportees at the Government's request." Not so, Jim. A pilot has full discretion not to fly if a passenger – even a mere deportee – boards in a state of distress. You did, of course, choose not to mention in your letter that passengers (no doubt highly "disruptive") objected to the treatment of a female detainee forced aboard a Sabena flight at Brussels airport some years ago.
The pilot refused to fly her, the police restraining her were ordered off the plane and the passengers commended the crew. I can see why this wouldn't factor into your own letter because – and again, I am sure you are aware of this – the woman deportee subsequently died from her treatment at the hands of the Belgian police.
Then there's your unpleasant reminder that "we also have a zero-tolerance approach to any type of disturbance an aircraft ..." Well yes, I would hope so. But then explain to me, please, what kind of "disturbance" Salman Rushdie was causing on your planes when you banned him from British Airways after Ayatollah Khomeini uttered a death threat against him? Remember, Jim? British Airways was so frightened of carrying Rushdie that they simply refused to fly him. Now I'm no Rushdie fan,but does that mean that if one of my books gets up the nose of an Iranian ayatollah you're going to slap a ban on me, too? Does that make me a "disruptive" passenger, Jim?
Now I don't believe that airlines are all bad. I fly Air France – everywhere – and say this in all innocence. Other than a frequent-flyer card I have no financial interest in this excellent airline, and I urge British Airways passengers to transfer their affections to Air France next time they have to travel long distance. But I calculate that my lecture trips probably net Air France up to £60,000 a year and I guess it was inevitable that, some time ago, British Airways encouraged me to fly with them from Beirut to the American continent.
Just one trip, they told me, and I'll see how British Airways treats its passengers. And of course, sucker Bob bought a business class return across the Atlantic, found the crew polite and friendly, but then – on returning to Heathrow for my onward connection to Beirut – was downgraded to economy class. Flourishing a fistful of dollars in compensation, the Heathrow staff told me that the flight was overbooked.
No, it wasn't their fault, Jim. I know that. But it was the same old BA story. Too many of us animals had turned up for your flight and the last donkeys in transit got sent to the stalls at the back. I suppose I should have been grateful that I didn't have the pilot of BA075 at the controls. But I never returned to British Airways. So there's not much point in giving me the only honour I would like from you – a life-ban in case I am ever tempted to fly on your wretched aeroplanes again.
Wow, that was really pathetic treatment of the African passengers and deportee but hardly surprising.
Here is more on the Belgian incident Robert Fisk talks about:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec ... -adamu.htm
Here is more on the Belgian incident Robert Fisk talks about:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/dec ... -adamu.htm
Finally, on September 20, two days before her death, Semira appeared on television as part of a documentary about rejected asylum seekers. In it she gave a graphic description of the fourth attempt to deport her:
"I was woken at 6.30 a.m. and given twenty minutes to prepare for departure... When we arrived at the airport my hands and feet were bound and I was thrown into an isolation cell for over three hours. At 11.15 they forced me onto the plane. I began to scream and cry as I was surrounded by six gendarmes and two men from Sabena. The airline men pushed me around and one held a cushion to my face. He almost suffocated me. These men were supposed to accompany me all the way to Lome. Passengers intervened at this point, saying that they would get off the plane if the men did not let me go."
The events leading up to Semira's death were captured on video. This time she was surrounded by 11 gendarmes as well as the standard two airline company men. As ordinary passengers were boarding the plane she was forced to bend down, put her face on a cushion on the knee of one of the gendarmes and was held in that position for about twenty minutes. At the end she lost consciousness. She was immediately taken to St Luc Hospital in Brussels. Doctors were unable to revive her and she died at 9.32pm.
The announcement of Semira's death led to spontaneous demonstrations across Belgium. In Steenokkerzeel inmates went on immediate hunger strike while hundreds of people surrounded the transit camp. This led to Tobback closing the centre down and freeing the remaining inmates. It was effectively his last decision as deputy prime minister and home office minister. The day after Semira died Tobback appeared at a press conference;
according to reporters he appeared shaken by the incident. He defended the gendarmes involved, stating that they had handled everything "by the book". He took full responsibility for Semira's death, and stated even then that "... if it were up to me then I would have already resigned. This has been the worst day of my political life". Yet he appeared to try to focus blame on campaigners who according to him "encouraged deportees to resist". By Friday he decided that he would have to go, following two revelations. First, it emerged that one of the gendarmes responsible for Semira's deportation had been suspended for a month in January 1997 following allegations in the Het Volk newspaper that he had mistreated a deportee. Second, the video of the incident was shown to a shocked nation, revealing that the gendarmes had been cracking jokes whilst holding the cushion over Semira's face.
The next European who talks about human rights deserves a punch in the face.Semira was 20 years old at the time of her death and resisted deportation because she was returning to a forced marriage to a 65 year old man who already had four wives.
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europ ... index.html
Did India play any role in Mittal's personal fortune?
If so, did India benefit a little bit from his success?
Did India play any role in Mittal's personal fortune?
If so, did India benefit a little bit from his success?
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
NoneKaran Dixit wrote: Did India play any role in Mittal's personal fortune?
Not to any extent one can write about. He is just starting to invest in steel plants in India.If so, did India benefit a little bit from his success?
In NIMHANS in Bangalore, there is a "Lakshmi Mittal" block. dont know if it is the same guy. Maybe there are other philanthropic things in India. dont know.
I think he missed the boat by snubbing the Indian govt which was holding out an olive branch to him back in the early 2000s. Even after India went out of its way diplomatically to back his takeover of Arcelor (something his own host country of Britian did not do), he gave India no acknowledgement.
I think the final straw was when India was vrying to have him setup a steel plant and he instead set it up in China citing a 'slightly better offer'.
I believe the Indian govt got fed up with his aloofness and decided it would instead be better off backing a true 'son of the soil'. Enter Ratan Tata and his entry into the steel industry.
Ratan Tata now has the full backing and barganing power of 1.2 billion Indians at his disposal. How many people in the world have that priveledge. There is probably no limit to what the Indian govt would do for him. The Indian govt will certainly give him a preference over Mittal when it comes to the domestic industry, financing, using its diplomatic muscle to break into foreign markets.. etc. His loyalty will be rewarded many times over.
Personally I think its a loss to Mittal for having not closed ranks with the Indian govt. and playing it cool. It would be great however if India's prodigal son returned but if he does not, its his loss.
This is just my opinion of events. Perhaps I'm reading things the wrong way.
I think the final straw was when India was vrying to have him setup a steel plant and he instead set it up in China citing a 'slightly better offer'.
I believe the Indian govt got fed up with his aloofness and decided it would instead be better off backing a true 'son of the soil'. Enter Ratan Tata and his entry into the steel industry.
Ratan Tata now has the full backing and barganing power of 1.2 billion Indians at his disposal. How many people in the world have that priveledge. There is probably no limit to what the Indian govt would do for him. The Indian govt will certainly give him a preference over Mittal when it comes to the domestic industry, financing, using its diplomatic muscle to break into foreign markets.. etc. His loyalty will be rewarded many times over.
Personally I think its a loss to Mittal for having not closed ranks with the Indian govt. and playing it cool. It would be great however if India's prodigal son returned but if he does not, its his loss.
This is just my opinion of events. Perhaps I'm reading things the wrong way.
LN Mittal is trying to build two steel plants of 12 million tonnes capacity each, entailing an investment of $20 billion+ . However, like every major greenfield steel project, it is facing a host of concerns, from land acquisition to most critically, assured ore supplies. This also affects other projects, including the Tatas' proposed steel plants, and the POSCO project. Our mining sector is direly in need of reform, as is the policy framework needed to support such largescale projects.
20 years ago on a visit to London,the opinion of the Jewish community was that we Indians ,like them earlier,were climbing up the ladder the right way,quietly and without much fuss,unlike some other communities.I then half-jokingly said that one day perhaps,Britain would be the "jewel in the crown" of India!With Mr.Mittal now the richest man in Britain,Lord Paul #4,the Hinduja's in the list of billionaires and the Ambani brothers being adjudged the world's richest family,the 500 year era that saw Vasco-Da-Gama'sarrival in India and the subsequent colonisation and subjugation of India and Asia,exploited,stripped of its wealth and turned into servile states,can now be said to have truly ended.India is now striding into the future,shoulder-to-shoulder with its former masters.
One significant factor that has reduced Britain's stature as a major power is the downsizing of the British armed forces especially its navy.While sadly the Royal navy is being grossly neglected,the rise of the Indian Navy is very welcome,for as I've often repeated over the years,historically,when nations neglected their navies,their fortunes on land suffered.great turning points in history have been the epic sea battles that saved nations from conquest or held the fate of the attacked.The battles of Salamis,the Nile,Trafalgar,Tsushima,Atlantic,Midway and in our own history,'71 and the naval actions on both fronts in the Bangladesh war,cemented the future dominance of events on land for the victors.After the epic ocean voyages of Adm. Zheng He,China withdrew into seclusion and suffered a later humiliation with the opium wars and clonnisation.
The further decline of the British armed forces,thanks to cardboard leaders without a sense of history,ready however to send their forces into harm's way to qualify for hanging onto the coat tails of the US,is impacting upon the ability of it to impose its diktat uopn world events.Iraq and Afghanistan see perhaps the dying gasps of the British as a true post-imperialist ,international military force.
We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class
Public distaste for Blair's unpopular wars, coupled with the unfitness of our teenagers, has left Britain woefully short of soldiers
Max Hastings The Guardian, Monday April 28 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e.military
The Ministry of Defence is plunged into a grim process described as a "mini defence review". Teams of service officers and civil servants are exploring every aspect of spending and procurement plans in a desperate effort to save money. Current year sums have been made to add up only by creative accountancy, pushing back some big bills to 2010. Whoever becomes defence secretary after an election that year will face a pile of yellowing, unpaid invoices.
Everybody knows that a major defence programme must be cancelled. The navy's cherished aircraft carriers? These would be the first choices of most soldiers, but because the ships mean jobs in Labour constituencies, they are almost certainly safe. Some frigates and destroyers? At least two planned escorts are likely to be axed. The army is fearful about its next-generation armoured vehicle. Several headquarters will have to go. General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has failed in his attempt to persuade ministers to increase the army's numbers.
Dannatt's case is founded on the fact that his soldiers are attempting to fight one major war, in Afghanistan, with inadequate resources, while 4,000 troops are in another theatre, Iraq, to appease American sensitivities. The army also maintains a significant peacekeeping presence in the Balkans. It was announced last week that another infantry battalion is to be sent to Kosovo.
Yet the deep instinct of the government, and even more so of the parliamentary Labour party, is that Tony Blair's wars have brought Britain only embarrassment and grief. The last thing they want is to throw good money after bad by recruiting more soldiers, never mind deploying them in combat.
The scepticism is understandable, but the conclusion is mistaken. Many people, myself included, are dismayed by the huge mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it remains essential for Britain to possess a credible army. A strength of 100,000 is insufficient. Whether we like it or not, the 21st century will produce new conflicts in which we are obliged to participate or at least provide peacekeepers.
Britain cannot alone fill the yawning gap in Afghanistan left by other Nato countries that refuse to do their share of fighting and supporting humanitarian reconstruction. But we can never hope to win this conflict, or any other, without more boots on the ground. Mass matters. It is not enough for western powers to announce in a given crisis: "We are committing troops," then to dispatch three men and a dog. No strategic purpose is attainable unless soldiers are deployed in sufficient strength, with convincing humanitarian backup.
I argued on these pages two years ago that the force that Tony Blair and the then defence secretary John Reid were sending to Afghanistan's Helmand province was entirely inadequate for its role, and represented gesture strategy. So it has proved. Western defence policy will remain rooted in tokenism until all the European nations, and indeed the US, can field sufficient foot soldiers - who are far more relevant to "wars among the people" than tanks and stealth bombers - to fulfil policy objectives.
The shortfall is not exclusively the fault of governments. Part of the problem stems from our changing culture. It is becoming progressively more difficult for western societies to recruit infantry. Most British infantry regiments are under establishment, and Scottish units especially so, not only because of Treasury parsimony, but also because recruiting languishes and retention is difficult.
For centuries, armies have largely consisted of young working-class men, often with poor qualifications. They opted for a life of adventure and comradeship, accepting both the duty to kill and the risk of their own deaths. The army was seldom their career of choice, but many prospered in uniform.
Today, however, a lot of parents and schools recoil from seeing young men embrace the warrior ethos. They find repugnant the notion of arming teenagers and dispatching them to fight, whatever the cause. Thanks to the internet, a radio exchange between a female interviewer and an Australian general named Peter Cosgrove has passed into contemporary legend. Cosgrove, as head of the Australian army, described on air a scheme to introduce Australian boy scouts to the exciting life on offer to a soldier by inviting them to bases where they could try climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting. "Shooting!" exclaimed the appalled interviewer. "That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it ?"
"I don't see why," said the general. "They'll be properly supervised on the range." The interviewer was unconvinced: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers." Cosgrove remained unabashed: "Well, ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"
A lot of people share the interviewer's instinctive revulsion towards guns, as well as other aspects of soldiering. Some British schools are unwilling to welcome army recruiting teams. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust recently caricatured itself by publishing a report arguing that the army has a duty more frankly to warn recruits in its advertising about the prospect that they may have to kill or be killed.
Overlaid upon such fastidiousness is the problem of many teenagers' lack of fitness for service life. The British army is striving to reduce the high dropout rate in basic training among new entrants who either find discipline unacceptable or cannot contend with the physical demands. Teenagers who have never walked if they could ride, and define enthusiasm for sport by watching it on telly, find assault courses tough going.
The result is that all western nations are struggling to identify enough young men able and willing to carry rifles on battlefields. It is hard to foresee social trends that will make it less so. The armed forces as an institution still command public respect. But this is of limited worth unless it translates into a willingness by the young to sign up and do the business.
It is paradoxical that Tony Blair, who sought to use Britain's armed forces more ambitiously than any modern prime minister, inflicted deep damage by associating them with some unpopular and perhaps unwinnable causes.
Britain's three services are now so small that, if current policies and difficulties continue, it will be almost impossible to reverse the process of decline. Relations between senior officers at the MoD have become rancorous, amid fears and recriminations about budget cuts, real and threatened.
Unless one is an outright pacifist, rejecting military commitment anywhere, in any cause, it is necessary to recognise that the national interest must suffer if the services become tarnished and are penalised for a prime minister's political misjudgments. The old cliche is often trotted out that our armed forces are still world class. In truth, it is no longer valid. However high their quality, they are now too few to fulfil many of the tasks they are assigned. Even if ministers try to delude us otherwise, the public should not be fooled.
One significant factor that has reduced Britain's stature as a major power is the downsizing of the British armed forces especially its navy.While sadly the Royal navy is being grossly neglected,the rise of the Indian Navy is very welcome,for as I've often repeated over the years,historically,when nations neglected their navies,their fortunes on land suffered.great turning points in history have been the epic sea battles that saved nations from conquest or held the fate of the attacked.The battles of Salamis,the Nile,Trafalgar,Tsushima,Atlantic,Midway and in our own history,'71 and the naval actions on both fronts in the Bangladesh war,cemented the future dominance of events on land for the victors.After the epic ocean voyages of Adm. Zheng He,China withdrew into seclusion and suffered a later humiliation with the opium wars and clonnisation.
The further decline of the British armed forces,thanks to cardboard leaders without a sense of history,ready however to send their forces into harm's way to qualify for hanging onto the coat tails of the US,is impacting upon the ability of it to impose its diktat uopn world events.Iraq and Afghanistan see perhaps the dying gasps of the British as a true post-imperialist ,international military force.
We should stop fooling ourselves. Our armed forces are no longer world class
Public distaste for Blair's unpopular wars, coupled with the unfitness of our teenagers, has left Britain woefully short of soldiers
Max Hastings The Guardian, Monday April 28 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e.military
The Ministry of Defence is plunged into a grim process described as a "mini defence review". Teams of service officers and civil servants are exploring every aspect of spending and procurement plans in a desperate effort to save money. Current year sums have been made to add up only by creative accountancy, pushing back some big bills to 2010. Whoever becomes defence secretary after an election that year will face a pile of yellowing, unpaid invoices.
Everybody knows that a major defence programme must be cancelled. The navy's cherished aircraft carriers? These would be the first choices of most soldiers, but because the ships mean jobs in Labour constituencies, they are almost certainly safe. Some frigates and destroyers? At least two planned escorts are likely to be axed. The army is fearful about its next-generation armoured vehicle. Several headquarters will have to go. General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has failed in his attempt to persuade ministers to increase the army's numbers.
Dannatt's case is founded on the fact that his soldiers are attempting to fight one major war, in Afghanistan, with inadequate resources, while 4,000 troops are in another theatre, Iraq, to appease American sensitivities. The army also maintains a significant peacekeeping presence in the Balkans. It was announced last week that another infantry battalion is to be sent to Kosovo.
Yet the deep instinct of the government, and even more so of the parliamentary Labour party, is that Tony Blair's wars have brought Britain only embarrassment and grief. The last thing they want is to throw good money after bad by recruiting more soldiers, never mind deploying them in combat.
The scepticism is understandable, but the conclusion is mistaken. Many people, myself included, are dismayed by the huge mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it remains essential for Britain to possess a credible army. A strength of 100,000 is insufficient. Whether we like it or not, the 21st century will produce new conflicts in which we are obliged to participate or at least provide peacekeepers.
Britain cannot alone fill the yawning gap in Afghanistan left by other Nato countries that refuse to do their share of fighting and supporting humanitarian reconstruction. But we can never hope to win this conflict, or any other, without more boots on the ground. Mass matters. It is not enough for western powers to announce in a given crisis: "We are committing troops," then to dispatch three men and a dog. No strategic purpose is attainable unless soldiers are deployed in sufficient strength, with convincing humanitarian backup.
I argued on these pages two years ago that the force that Tony Blair and the then defence secretary John Reid were sending to Afghanistan's Helmand province was entirely inadequate for its role, and represented gesture strategy. So it has proved. Western defence policy will remain rooted in tokenism until all the European nations, and indeed the US, can field sufficient foot soldiers - who are far more relevant to "wars among the people" than tanks and stealth bombers - to fulfil policy objectives.
The shortfall is not exclusively the fault of governments. Part of the problem stems from our changing culture. It is becoming progressively more difficult for western societies to recruit infantry. Most British infantry regiments are under establishment, and Scottish units especially so, not only because of Treasury parsimony, but also because recruiting languishes and retention is difficult.
For centuries, armies have largely consisted of young working-class men, often with poor qualifications. They opted for a life of adventure and comradeship, accepting both the duty to kill and the risk of their own deaths. The army was seldom their career of choice, but many prospered in uniform.
Today, however, a lot of parents and schools recoil from seeing young men embrace the warrior ethos. They find repugnant the notion of arming teenagers and dispatching them to fight, whatever the cause. Thanks to the internet, a radio exchange between a female interviewer and an Australian general named Peter Cosgrove has passed into contemporary legend. Cosgrove, as head of the Australian army, described on air a scheme to introduce Australian boy scouts to the exciting life on offer to a soldier by inviting them to bases where they could try climbing, canoeing, archery and rifle-shooting. "Shooting!" exclaimed the appalled interviewer. "That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it ?"
"I don't see why," said the general. "They'll be properly supervised on the range." The interviewer was unconvinced: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? You're equipping them to become violent killers." Cosgrove remained unabashed: "Well, ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"
A lot of people share the interviewer's instinctive revulsion towards guns, as well as other aspects of soldiering. Some British schools are unwilling to welcome army recruiting teams. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust recently caricatured itself by publishing a report arguing that the army has a duty more frankly to warn recruits in its advertising about the prospect that they may have to kill or be killed.
Overlaid upon such fastidiousness is the problem of many teenagers' lack of fitness for service life. The British army is striving to reduce the high dropout rate in basic training among new entrants who either find discipline unacceptable or cannot contend with the physical demands. Teenagers who have never walked if they could ride, and define enthusiasm for sport by watching it on telly, find assault courses tough going.
The result is that all western nations are struggling to identify enough young men able and willing to carry rifles on battlefields. It is hard to foresee social trends that will make it less so. The armed forces as an institution still command public respect. But this is of limited worth unless it translates into a willingness by the young to sign up and do the business.
It is paradoxical that Tony Blair, who sought to use Britain's armed forces more ambitiously than any modern prime minister, inflicted deep damage by associating them with some unpopular and perhaps unwinnable causes.
Britain's three services are now so small that, if current policies and difficulties continue, it will be almost impossible to reverse the process of decline. Relations between senior officers at the MoD have become rancorous, amid fears and recriminations about budget cuts, real and threatened.
Unless one is an outright pacifist, rejecting military commitment anywhere, in any cause, it is necessary to recognise that the national interest must suffer if the services become tarnished and are penalised for a prime minister's political misjudgments. The old cliche is often trotted out that our armed forces are still world class. In truth, it is no longer valid. However high their quality, they are now too few to fulfil many of the tasks they are assigned. Even if ministers try to delude us otherwise, the public should not be fooled.
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Funny.. It was the Tatas who "created" the steel industry in India, starting with TISCO in Jamshedpur in 1915 or so.! .. So what is this about Ratan Tata's "entry" into the steel industry?Neshant wrote:I believe the Indian govt got fed up with his aloofness and decided it would instead be better off backing a true 'son of the soil'. Enter Ratan Tata and his entry into the steel industry. .
The same goes for "Tata Motors" which was earlier "TELCO". So they aren't new to the automobile world either.
Tata Locomotive and Engineering Company:Founded in 1945
Renamed to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company in 1960.
They were founded before independence. Thats 63 years. How many companies are that old?
Tata Locomotive and Engineering Company:Founded in 1945
Renamed to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company in 1960.
They were founded before independence. Thats 63 years. How many companies are that old?
Last edited by Drevin on 28 Apr 2008 15:31, edited 1 time in total.
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
link"This article being a fairly clear example of why no-one seems to take British people seriously anywhere in the world anymore."
I personally think, we should ban these savages (brit tourists) from visiting India. They hardly have any money to spend. Most of them work for months to save few bucks to buy air ticket. All they do is lay around in the sun because they have no money to go shopping. Then they visit dangerous areas looking for trouble and then complain if something goes wrong. Indians have gotten killed in UK. What has UK government done to protect Indians in UK? Few days ago an Indian was stabbed in Australia. What has Australian government done to protect Indians in Australia?
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
As I said earlier, we do not mind helping UK but UK has to be nice to us in return.
By being nice I mean, they have to support India on international issues. They have to show respect for Indian culture and Dharma. They have to show appreciation that we just saved two british brands (jaguar and land rover) from vultures of the world. Now they need our help in real estate investment. That is fine but be nice to India and Indians.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/hindustantimes ... 580_1.html
By being nice I mean, they have to support India on international issues. They have to show respect for Indian culture and Dharma. They have to show appreciation that we just saved two british brands (jaguar and land rover) from vultures of the world. Now they need our help in real estate investment. That is fine but be nice to India and Indians.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/hindustantimes ... 580_1.html
I dislike nations that need indian to take visa and ask questions on a
"presumed guilty until proven innocent" basis of visa interviewees. had
planned a trip to visit SIL there this year but the sheer hassle and pain of
going to chennai in summer, queueing up like a beggar outside the embassy
just to be 'allowed' the priviledge of a simple tourist visit put me off.
and they came up with the "airside transit visa" concept just to harass us
third world types.
so screw the brits and may that land soon become New Pakistan - the
beacon of hope and promise for huddled masses in the Old Country.
"presumed guilty until proven innocent" basis of visa interviewees. had
planned a trip to visit SIL there this year but the sheer hassle and pain of
going to chennai in summer, queueing up like a beggar outside the embassy
just to be 'allowed' the priviledge of a simple tourist visit put me off.
and they came up with the "airside transit visa" concept just to harass us
third world types.
so screw the brits and may that land soon become New Pakistan - the
beacon of hope and promise for huddled masses in the Old Country.
-
ashish raval
- BRFite
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
- Location: London
- Contact:
Each and every person in the world apart from Indian media and largely the people of India (thanking britain for its development) know what BBC and British Tabloid media is about. You can imagine the amount of hate it spills when someone from "south asia" yes esp. Indian(which is highly unlikely-none) or porki is caught for doing something wrong esp killing/rape etc despite the fact that there may be hundred of rape's everyday on the streets after nightouts. The problem is bad for India because british media seems to be in state of denial or refusing to differentiate between India and porkistan even if a british journalist is hanged to death in Islamabad, they will write a british superman died in Indian subcontinent rather than writing Islumabad, pakistan (probably they are fearful of muslims). All these over several years have contaminated the minds of general british public (who are already undereducated and lack any independent thought process now a days and does not even know who Winston Churchill was. what would you expect from them knowing about India and its culture lol), to sum up the attitude of general british people towards any non-white population can be seen in the typical character of Enoch powell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_PowellNeshant wrote:Why all the hate towards the UK.
From a first hand account, how are Indians treated over there?
I would comfortably say that regional local language media reporters in India knows the attitude of western journalists more than so called "enlightened stupid journalists" who could not see that their clothes could be taken away right under their nose . Journalism in India have never done critical or strategic thinking and for sure have never given the thought on the nation or national interests ever on publishing anything, one would say why would they do that being funded by their western masters who are conspiring 24X7X365 in dividing India in as many ways as they could possibly do so that they can rule again Economically.
A simple example of british racist media can be shown in the recent "Metro" Newspaper published everyday and distributed freely to people in trains, buses etc etc. It had an article about "Richest persons in Britain" and how they got richer. The funniest part is that the article carried the photograph of second richest man, while Laxmi Mittal who is richer more than 2.5 times the second ranked Russian Abramovich just found a small place that laxmi mittal have continued to be the richest person 4th year in a row. They just dont want to show the Brown skinned person to be the richest person in Britain !! can journalism go any lower than this ? it is blatently racist Media.
Having said this, the rest of Europe is way ahead in understanding Indian subcontinent precisely and its people and their differences, religion and their culture largely. Indians are not doing great in terms of business in Europe is precisely because of language barrier. I have lots of European friends and have discussed at long many issues with them. What i have found is people from several countries have very high regard for India and its culture (esp. 1) Germany 2) Finland 3) Baltic nations 4) Poland 5) Netherlands 6) Swiss and 7) Greece
Ireland , while other Europeans esp. British, portugese and french(they might have changed a bit now) live in grand delusions of being rulers. Lets see how things go as time changes.
UK has a significant Paki population (relative to Indians), hence the official policies, behavior etc are all heavily equal-equal. Visas are just a PITA. Indians don't get business visitor visa on arrival unlike some other countries. This hampers business visits. Although they can easily relax this for India, they will have to do equal-equal to Pak and Paki hordes will slip in.
I was not in the main cities so I cannot judge British attitudes as a whole, but where I was (SE), I was treated nicely. Didn't get any 'looks' or snide comments etc. They were like normal business-like and the people on the streets were normal too. Didn't notice anything in particular.
Everywhere there are 'Indian' restaurants run by B'Deshis...can't avoid going to one because English food is terrible (fry a fish and serve with boiled vegetables on the side and french fries/chips) and no authentic Indian restaurants around.
I was not in the main cities so I cannot judge British attitudes as a whole, but where I was (SE), I was treated nicely. Didn't get any 'looks' or snide comments etc. They were like normal business-like and the people on the streets were normal too. Didn't notice anything in particular.
Everywhere there are 'Indian' restaurants run by B'Deshis...can't avoid going to one because English food is terrible (fry a fish and serve with boiled vegetables on the side and french fries/chips) and no authentic Indian restaurants around.
That what I near or about what I had to do to get a visa to travel to India 3 weeks ago in London at the Indian High Commission!!Singha wrote:I dislike nations that need indian to take visa and ask questions on a
"presumed guilty until proven innocent" basis of visa interviewees. had
planned a trip to visit SIL there this year but the sheer hassle and pain of
going to chennai in summer, queueing up like a beggar outside the embassy
just to be 'allowed' the priviledge of a simple tourist visit put me off.
and they came up with the "airside transit visa" concept just to harass us
third world types.
so screw the brits and may that land soon become New Pakistan - the
beacon of hope and promise for huddled masses in the Old Country.
-
Raju
we can't repay the favors ... your govt has showered on us for so long ?
If I look at any Indian beach or tourist destination, we can see every manner of penniless backpacker from Britain and elsewhere strolling around. But for visitors from India we have to provide proof of our bank balance..sic.income-tax returns, list of assets duly certified by a chartered accountant. I wonder why none of our media highlights such discrepencies.
If I look at any Indian beach or tourist destination, we can see every manner of penniless backpacker from Britain and elsewhere strolling around. But for visitors from India we have to provide proof of our bank balance..sic.income-tax returns, list of assets duly certified by a chartered accountant. I wonder why none of our media highlights such discrepencies.
I am an NRI and currently neither a backpacker nor pennilessRaju wrote:we can't repay the favors ... your govt has showered on us for so long ?
If I look at any Indian beach or tourist destination, we can see every manner of penniless backpacker from Britain and elsewhere strolling around. But for visitors from India we have to provide proof of our bank balance..sic.income-tax returns, list of assets duly certified by a chartered accountant. I wonder why none of our media highlights such discrepencies.
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Yup . I know that all non Indian citizens need a visa. Legally, you are British and not an Indian citizen and are not an NRI (Non Resident Indian) , who are Indian passport holders living abroad.Lisa wrote:All British citizens require a visa, Indians includedvina wrote: Why would you need a visa to visit India ?
These things work on reciprocity. UK makes it tough for Indians, India makes it tough for Brits. That is all.
Frankly , many of us don't give a damn about the UK and couldn't care less if it falls off the map into the sea. As of now it is simply not even remotely relevant to us and will get more irrelevant going forward. So the UK better get it's act on such things with India together very quickly indeed.
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
The lady is a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) and not a non-resident Indian. NRIs are Indian citizens who are temporarily residing abroad for a job, etc. All NRIs have Indian passport.
Lisa, why don't you apply for a PIO card?
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/pio ... n_pio.html
As Indian economy booms, it will iincreasingly become difficult for foriegners (the underclass types such as labourers, grave-diggers, cabbies, waiters) to enter India. Only people with money or businessmen will be welcome. The rest can forget it. It is payback time.
Lisa, why don't you apply for a PIO card?
The Government has announced the launching of a People of Indian Origin Card, which will allow visa free entry to Indian origin people living abroad and give them all the rights enjoyed by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) including purchase of non-agricultural land. 15 million people of Indian origin living abroad will benefit from the Card. Fee for PIO Card is US $ 365.00 for adult and for children below the age of 18 years is US $ 185.00 (effective from September 17, 2007). Validity of new PIO card will be 15 years from the date of issue.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/pio ... n_pio.html
As Indian economy booms, it will iincreasingly become difficult for foriegners (the underclass types such as labourers, grave-diggers, cabbies, waiters) to enter India. Only people with money or businessmen will be welcome. The rest can forget it. It is payback time.
I am certain that the 2 million odd Indians who live here with their families share you sentiments and look forward to falling into the sea.vina wrote:Yup . I know that all non Indian citizens need a visa. Legally, you are British and not an Indian citizen and are not an NRI (Non Resident Indian) , who are Indian passport holders living abroad.Lisa wrote: All British citizens require a visa, Indians included
These things work on reciprocity. UK makes it tough for Indians, India makes it tough for Brits. That is all.
Frankly , many of us don't give a damn about the UK and couldn't care less if it falls off the map into the sea. As of now it is simply not even remotely relevant to us and will get more irrelevant going forward. So the UK better get it's act on such things with India together very quickly indeed.
I have considered it, but elected against the idea. If I was an American I could legally be a dual national with complete privileges in both countries (UK & US). PIO does not do that, in that I am not an Indian Citizen in all current rights and privileges.sanjaychoudhry wrote:The lady is a PIO (Person of Indian Origin) and not a non-resident Indian. NRIs are Indian citizens who are temporarily residing abroad for a job, etc. All NRIs have Indian passport.
Lisa, why don't you apply for a PIO card?
The Government has announced the launching of a People of Indian Origin Card, which will allow visa free entry to Indian origin people living abroad and give them all the rights enjoyed by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) including purchase of non-agricultural land. 15 million people of Indian origin living abroad will benefit from the Card. Fee for PIO Card is US $ 365.00 for adult and for children below the age of 18 years is US $ 185.00 (effective from September 17, 2007). Validity of new PIO card will be 15 years from the date of issue.
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/pio ... n_pio.html
As Indian economy booms, it will iincreasingly become difficult for foriegners (the underclass types such as labourers, grave-diggers, cabbies, waiters) to enter India. Only people with money or businessmen will be welcome. The rest can forget it. It is payback time.
Personal prefrence, I want my cake and........
-
ranganathan
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
Dual citizenship is a bad idea. And people who reject the option of PIO card which gives visa-free access to India should afterwards stop whining about how long it takes to get an Indian visa.ranganathan wrote:Personally I am against dual citizenship for Indians (citizens). Those who want to be british or americans should be that period.
I did not start the whining!sanjaychoudhry wrote:Dual citizenship is a bad idea. And people who reject the option of PIO card which gives visa-free access to India should afterwards stop whining about how long it takes to get an Indian visa.ranganathan wrote:Personally I am against dual citizenship for Indians (citizens). Those who want to be british or americans should be that period.
-
ranganathan
- BRFite
- Posts: 277
- Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14
-
sanjaychoudhry
- BRFite
- Posts: 756
- Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
- Location: La La Land
It is not hate. It is just that UK has only paid back 0.000000001% debt it owes India. See as you know Indians have long memories whether they act on them or not is diff question.Neshant wrote:Why all the hate towards the UK.
From a first hand account, how are Indians treated over there?
Well NRI's don't need visa. I keep telling my family members who has Brit passports you guys don't know what it is in store for you in next 100 years.
I have to say Brtis are acting smart and are managing the paki/BD problem very well. They have put in very good measures to reduce if not dicourage paki population to have Brit passports. Once abdul does not have Brit passport they can eaily be deported back to pure land.
They have started the OCI (overseas citizen of India) scheme which give foreign passport holders equal rights as NRI's and lifelong Visa(it is a green card or PR type visa), in terms of purchasing property and so on. They can't however stand for election or buy agricultural/plantation property. If you have held the OCI card for 5 years, if you live in India for 1 year, you can revert back to the Indian passport.
The general gist I get from Indians taking Brit passports is mainly for visa free travel to other countries, instead of waiting outside in an embassy for hours.
I hear that you can get Business visa if you invest above £100k (exc property).
The general gist I get from Indians taking Brit passports is mainly for visa free travel to other countries, instead of waiting outside in an embassy for hours.
I hear that you can get Business visa if you invest above £100k (exc property).
Exactly my point. Figure now is much in excess of £100K, people I knowshyamd wrote:They have started the OCI (overseas citizen of India) scheme which give foreign passport holders equal rights as NRI's and lifelong Visa(it is a green card or PR type visa), in terms of purchasing property and so on. They can't however stand for election or buy agricultural/plantation property.
The general gist I get from Indians taking Brit passports is mainly for visa free travel to other countries, instead of waiting outside in an embassy for hours.
I hear that you can get Business visa if you invest above £100k (exc property).
has to deposit some £500k and that was some 7-10 years ago.
-
vina
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
I assume you are talking about investing money in India for getting a business visa. If that is so, I would think that £100k is chicken feed these days over here A limit of at least £1m is more in tune with current realities.Lisa wrote:Exactly my point. Figure now is much in excess of £100K, people I know has to deposit some £500k and that was some 7-10 years ago.
The PIO stuff itself is a massive concession to people of Indian origin living abroad. If you don't like it, well , go to the embassy and get a visa just like everyone else.