India and Japan: News and Discussion

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby svinayak » 04 Sep 2014 20:36



Lot of issues are bilateral between India and Japan.
US has no business to comment on the bilateral relations of India. It appears patronizing.

India and Japan are Asian countries. Just the bilateral relations have the ability to change the future of Asia and geopolitics

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53482
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2014 23:42

svinayak wrote:


Lot of issues are bilateral between India and Japan.
US has no business to comment on the bilateral relations of India. It appears patronizing.

India and Japan are Asian countries. Just the bilateral relations have the ability to change the future of Asia and geopolitics



its like the rat gloating when the female elephant was announced to be pregnant.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 05 Sep 2014 03:16

ramana wrote:its like the rat gloating when the female elephant was announced to be pregnant.

:rotfl:

Svinayak, Of course on bilateral issues, the US cannot patronize us, but they want to do so to appear to be in control of the situation and developments. The tit-for-tat fo this kind of attitude must come diplomatically. With a more resolute government in charge in India now, we should expect that to happen in due course.

That apart, in view of that fact that we already have a trilateral dialogue (2+2 between India, US & Japan which is about to be elevated to a ministerial level dialogue in the near future), the US is also ingrained in the India-Japan relationship, whether we like it or not.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby svinayak » 05 Sep 2014 03:25

SSridhar wrote:

That apart, in view of that fact that we already have a trilateral dialogue (2+2 between India, US & Japan which is about to be elevated to a ministerial level dialogue in the near future), the US is also ingrained in the India-Japan relationship, whether we like it or not.

This is different
This is a security architecture of outside power in which India is invested for its own interest

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 05 Sep 2014 17:05

A nice summary of Modi's visit to Japan.

A century after Japan's rise awakened Indian nationalism, a modern day nationalist Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, began his visit to Japan in Kyoto, where he explored a common spiritual heritage to inspire and transform present-day relations. He was received with gracious warmth and extraordinary courtesies by his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, a kindred leader committed to post-industrial Japan's reprise.

Modi and Abe have risen from distinctly different backgrounds but share a remarkably similar nationalist impulse and world view. They can claim ample satisfaction from their summit meeting in terms of long-term benefits to both nations and Asia at large.

Undertaking his first bilateral visit outside the Indian subcontinent with characteristic vigour and aplomb, Modi lived up to his growing stature as a mass leader and great communicator, reaching out to a wide cross section of the Japanese society: from students to academic institutions, business leaders to media, friendship associations to parliamentarians. By touching the hearts and minds of the Japanese public as an enthusiastic friend and admirer of Japan, he reaffirmed the distinctive nature of India-Japan relations.

There is no other major power equation in Asia like the one between India and Japan, founded on shared universal values, with both according pre-eminent importance to each other in their outlook for an Asian century. Recognising the potential of bilateral relations and the regional challenges they face, Modi and Abe raised the threshold of ties to a "special strategic and global partnership", which, for Japan, implies the highest level short of an alliance, and for India an entente. The impact of this convergence will be felt across the Indo-Pacific since only India and Japan together can muster sufficient comprehensive national power to redress the geo-strategic disequilibrium triggered by China's inexorable rise.

Modi went further, boldly declaring that "the contours of the 21st century will be determined by the nature of India-Japan relations" and redefining India's approach towards regional stability. He cautioned that an 18th century mindset of "expansionism", of encroachments and incursions into the territory or seas of others, will not contribute to Asia's welfare. Instead, India and Japan as democracies must take the lead by pursuing the path of "development" and upholding democratic values. This signals a dynamic change in India's foreign policy.

In raising these concerns publicly in Japan, which has been at the receiving end of China's claims in the East China Sea, Modi sent out an unmistakable signal to China to moderate its unilateral territorial assertions, accommodate multi-polarity and contribute to Asia's continued progress.

Among significant summit outcomes, Modi supported Abe's recent initiatives to scale up Japan's contributions to regional peace and stability. Modi and Abe underscored the importance of closer co-ordination between India and Japan in regional forums, including the East Asia Summit, and decided to "explore" holding the India-Japan-US Trilateral Dialogue at the level of foreign ministers.

In terms of defence co-operation, there were modest gains, perhaps because the defence ministries on both sides have still to overcome their inertia towards new prospects for defence equipment and technology exchanges, which have opened up after Japan eased export restrictions in April this year. However, working-level consultations are set to begin, while the joint working group on the US-2 amphibian aircraft has been asked to accelerate progress. Japan will henceforth be a regular participant in the India-US Malabar naval exercises.

In the area of strategic technologies, the summit produced mixed results. The finalisation of a commercial agreement to supply rare earths to Japan remained elusive. While there was progress on removing six of India's space- and defence-related entities from Japan's end-user list restrictions, there is now a virtual impasse over civil nuclear co-operation. Unless this is fixed in the coming months, this long-pending issue will begin to erode mutual confidence in the India-Japan strategic partnership. India has given ample recognition to the high sensitivity of the nuclear non-proliferation issue in Japan, and Modi personally reached out in public to underscore India's societal commitment to peace. Japan will need to understand that India cannot accept conditionalities beyond the framework of the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver it secured in 2008, with Japan's support, and the parameters set in the India-US civil nuclear accord.

If Modi utilised the summit to highlight his vision of India and Japan as special democratic partners in the 21st century, Abe more than delivered on Japan's commitment to India's emergence as an economic powerhouse.

By promising to double Japanese foreign direct investment (FDI) and mobilise 3.5 trillion Yen of public and private investment and financing, including official development assistance, to India over the next five years, Abe held out the assurance of massive Japanese support for building India's economic infrastructure, physical connectivity and manufacturing base. Japan's pledge will give a boost to several programmes high on Modi's list of priorities, while also securing Japan's help in developing India's north-east and its connectivity to Asean.

Modi made a powerful pitch to Japan's business leaders to "make in India", promising them a "red carpet" business-friendly environment and single-window clearances through a special management cell in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) itself.

The challenge will now lie in the implementation of these commitments on the Indian side. The PMO's ability to effectively ensure timely and co-ordinated action by concerned line ministries will be tested. This is an area where we have lagged in the past, but there is every reason to expect that Modi's direction and resolve will generate the required momentum to facilitate greater Japanese FDI inflows and absorb the promised financial investment and assistance in an effective manner.

Modi shares with his Japanese counterpart a vision of national economic revival and vitality, of democratic nations working together for regional peace and prosperity. Unsurprisingly, these two leaders of Asia's most developed and largest democracies have "decided to create a relationship that will shape the course of their countries and the character of this region and the world in this century".

A new entente has been born in Asia. Having secured India's fundamental economic and strategic interests by establishing a "paramount" partnership with Japan, Modi can look forward with confidence to promoting India's interests further at summit meetings with the leaders of China and the US due later this month.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 315_1.html

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 06 Sep 2014 04:18

The Nuclear Thorn in India-Japan Ties - Bhaskar Balakrishnan, Business Line
The recent visit to Japan by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has brought into focus the ongoing India-Japan negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement. This remains an item of unfinished business, though both sides have declared that it would be pursued with greater vigour. Exactly how important is this agreement in the context of India’s nuclear programme? What factors underlie the Japanese position?

India has embarked upon an ambitious programme to step up nuclear power generation. This is to be achieved through (a) indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWR), (b) fast breeder reactors (FBRs), and (c) imported pressurised light water reactors (PWRs) of advanced design sourced from suppliers such as Russia, France, the US and Japan.

India has developed its PHWRs and scaled them up to 700 megawatt electrical (MWe) capacity. These reactors require natural uranium fuel which is scarce in India and needs to be imported.

In all other aspects such as reactor design, construction, operation, including heavy water production, India is fully self-sufficient. India has been able to adapt these reactors to use various types of fuel, and has accumulated considerable years of technical and operational experience. The PHWR can also be used to produce fissile plutonium-239 for civil or military use after reprocessing the spent fuel. This programme remains the bedrock of India’s nuclear programme.

India’s fast breeder reactor programme is advancing rapidly. The first commercial FBR will come on stream in Kalpakkam with 500 MWe capacity. It would be capable of transforming fertile thorium-232 (which India has in ample quantity), into fissile uranium-233, enabling India to produce this nuclear fuel for its reactors. Uranium-233, which has to be produced through fuel reprocessing, can also be used for nuclear weapons though there are some technical difficulties.

Short on enriched uranium

In the PWR sector, India has had some experience with imported reactors at Tarapore (supplied by the US ) and Koodankulam (supplied by Russia). The post-1974 and post-1998 nuclear embargo on India made it clear that imported low enriched uranium fuel supply could be withheld, effectively shutting down these reactors.

At present, India does not have enough commercial uranium enrichment capacity to produce its own low enriched fuel in sufficient quantities for its PWRs. So it is dependent on imported fuel for its PWRs. India is therefore planning to increase its uranium enrichment capability.

India has planned to set up PWRs imported from Russia (Koodankulam), France (Jaitapur), the US and Japan under its state-run company the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL).

Of these, Koodankulam-1 went on line recently, adding 1000 MW to the energy-starved southern grid. Koodankulam-2 is to become operational in the near future. Areva of France and NPCIL are working on setting up an advanced PWR, the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), of 1650 MWe capacity at Jaitapur, though the project is facing many hurdles.

Component dependency

The PWR sector is dependent on Japan for supply of some components, notably very large sized special steel forgings as part of the reactor pressure vessel. These are made of special steel, capable of withstanding the high pressures and temperatures and the intense neutron bombardment from the reactor core, without failure for over 40 years.

Typically, the pressure vessel would weigh some 300 tonnes and is made from special steel over 20 cm thick. Without this component it would not be possible to construct a PWR. There are very few companies that can manufacture these components, and the most experienced and largest supplier is from Japan. Their order books are full up to 5-6 years in the future.

A few other companies in South Korea, US, France, Russia and China are also capable of building such components. India is encouraging companies such as L&T, BHEL, and Bharat Forge to develop the capability, which would also be needed for its nuclear propulsion PWRs. Areva and other companies would be severely handicapped if Japanese components were not available for their PWR projects.

The importance of an Indo-Japanese nuclear deal stems from these considerations. The hurdles to this deal emanate from Japan’s insistence that no reprocessing of spent fuel would be done in India, and that in the event of a nuclear test by India, the components supplied would be immediately returned to Japan. On the other hand, India considers it should get the same regime applicable to nuclear weapons states (NWS) under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has not signed but has unilaterally undertaken to respect. The conditions imposed on India are more stringent than those on countries China, the US and other NWS under the NPT.

Japan was one of the countries that reacted strongly to India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998. It was pressured by the Bush administration to agree to the waiver given to India by the nuclear suppliers group (NSG). It has refrained from developing nuclear weapons though it certainly has the technical and financial capacity to do so.

Unfair stipulation

The condition that spent fuel be returned for reprocessing is unacceptable to India as it goes beyond what was agreed with the US and other countries. It would also be difficult and unsafe to transport highly radioactive spent fuel across thousands of kilometres to the fuel supplying country. The other condition that components should be returned in the event of a nuclear test is also impossible to implement for the reason that it involves shutting down a reactor, and dismantling and shipping back massive reactor vessel components which would be highly radioactive.

What would be the consequences of Japan continuing to insist on these conditions? It would result in India facing delays in implementing the PWR programme using imported reactors and fuel. India would then be compelled to step up its PHWR and FBR programmes, and also its enrichment and reprocessing capability to compensate for the shortfall in nuclear power generation. These are programmes where India is fully self-sufficient, and is not obliged to declare them as civilian and subject to IAEA inspections.

The question that Japanese negotiators must face is this: Do they wish India to enlarge its indigenous unsafeguarded PHWR and FBR programmes (and possibly its strategic programmes), or do they wish India to enlarge its IAEA-safeguarded PWR programmes that are dependent on fuel imports? Should they give China more favourable treatment than India in matters of civil nuclear cooperation?

If the answer is no to both questions, then they need to show more flexibility in reaching a reasonable agreement with India, along the lines of civil nuclear agreements India has signed with the US, France, the UK, South Korea, Canada and other countries. India has other options that it will and must follow in case the PWR programme is delayed due to the lack of a civil agreement with Japan.

The writer is a former Indian ambassador who specialises in nuclear technology and related affairs

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby arun » 06 Sep 2014 08:18

Just as Pakistan seeks to cover its complicity in Mohammadden Terrorism by hiding behind the burqua of claiming to be victims of terrorism, Japan seeks to hide atrocities committed by her in the 1930’s and 1940’s by using the entirely justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings to claim that she is a victim of the second world war. India should cease wasting time on seeking to correct Japanese nuclear hypocrisy which for all talk of saying that Japan is the sole victim of nuclear weapons thinks nothing of sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella.

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 822
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Haresh » 07 Sep 2014 00:12

arun,

totally agree.
The only reason I am here on earth, and I am sure a lot of other Indians, is because of the atomic bombs on Japan.
My older uncle was fighting in Burma, and my father joined the army in 1949/50 if the war had gone on and Japan had been invaded, you can rest assured that Indian and other non white commonwealth troops would have been used as cannon fodder, expendable assets.

I met some of my fathers distant relations and friends from that generation. Some of them were captured and tortured in the most barbaric manner possible.

Like it or not the Japanese were brutal colonialists. If they had taken Indian they would have committed carnage.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2014 01:47

^^ And all of the above wasn't true of the Brits? Off and on, of course.

Anyhow, I'm not defending the Japs as some paragons of Dharma or bhai-bhai warm and fuzzy. But there is a common undercurrent we share with the Japanese culture, and we need to tap into that and build on it. Once Dharma regains its firm axis in India, Japan and other countries can regain their stable and beneficent role as satellites, for the good of everyone.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 02:23

Agnimitra wrote:^^ And all of the above wasn't true of the Brits? Off and on, of course.



In my opinion, the British were much better colonialists than Germany, Belgium and especially Japan.
If you want evidence - check the decline of population of Belgian Congo [from 20 million to 8 million - that is a 60% decline] under King Leopold. Lytton pales and shrinks before this guy.
Also check how many times Germany had to massacre the population in those parts of Africa that were in its control [In a rebellion in South-West Africa, German forces massacred more than 1/2 the population].
As regards to Japan, the rape of nanjing and Bataan march speak for themselves.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 07 Sep 2014 02:34

The reason we survived was because of two things
1) Civilizational depth of Indic culture (limited the number deserters) Take a look at the writings about the hungry people in Bengal famine. They did not loot, they did not riot. They held on to their way of life till their deaths.
2) Sheer population size.

The brishits were as shitty as were any other colonialists. Mass murder is mass murder, there is no "better" or "worse" in it.

I would wonder if any victim of rape would consider themselves lucky because they were raped by a "benevolent rapist". That is patent bullsh*t.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2014 02:41

KrisP wrote:In my opinion, the British were much better colonialists than Germany, Belgium and especially Japan.
If you want evidence - check the decline of population of Belgian Congo [from 20 million to 8 million - that is a 60% decline] under King Leopold. Lytton pales and shrinks before this guy.
Also check how many times Germany had to massacre the population in those parts of Africa that were in its control [In a rebellion in South-West Africa, German forces massacred more than 1/2 the population].
As regards to Japan, the rape of nanjing and Bataan march speak for themselves.

My friend, the Brits were not lacking in massive brutality whenever they encountered obstacles to their main goals of loot and of the great game.

Further, with famines every other year, they were always engaged in a slow and steady attrition of India's population. As also their policy of drenching the starving counryside with liquour.

By this policy and other factors, the Indians were mostly "docile" and didn't make as much trouble as the Chinese might have done to the Japanese invasion, or what those "crazy barbaric" Africans might have been upto. After all, the Indians already had centuries of experience in GUBO under Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and the Brits found a mansabdari system in place at their disposal. And yet, the continuous and systematic terrorism of India was a fixed part of Brit colonial policy.

You also forget Brit colonialism in America, and the policy of genocide against the native Americans there, who might have also been far more free and troublesome than the "docile" Indians. Over there, the Brits outdid the competing French, Dutch and German settlers in their brutality and ability to bully even their fellow Euros.

So I would advise you to look at things in perspective. Anyway, this is OT here. I just find it surreal to watch Indians discussing which colonial master might have been less terrifying for us...

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 07 Sep 2014 02:41

KrisP: read the massacres during and after 1857 that went on for multiple years. It compares with anything the Japanese or Spanish did. Also, 3-5 million dead of famine in 1945, a famine that could have been averted.

Read the famines of Bengal - the loot and rape of Bengal - post 1750s. It had started before 1757.
The opium war - it destroyed both the Chinese as well as the Indian populace that was forced to grow poppy instead of food crops.
What of imposing the zamindari system with all the ills it brought with it, what of the destruction of Indian education system that by the time of independence the literacy in India was 8%. There is a lot more.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 02:51

LokeshC wrote:The brishits were as shitty as were any other colonialists. Mass murder is mass murder, there is no "better" or "worse" in it.

I would wonder if any victim of rape would consider themselves lucky because they were raped by a "benevolent rapist". That is patent bullsh*t.


So are you saying that Lytton was just as bad as Bentick? Or Dyer was just as bad as Ripon? When a Lytton or a Dyer can be far more heartless than other British officials; why can't one imperialist nation be worse than another?

There are no benevolent rapists. There are rapists and brutal rapists. There is an average rape out there; and then you have a Nirbhaya. India had several nirbhaya moments - be it bengal famine, doji bara famine, or Jallianwala.

Anyway, this thread is not about which imperialist is the best. I just did not want people to get carried away due to this recent Modi trip, that's all.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 02:55

Agnimitra wrote:
You also forget Brit colonialism in America, and the policy of genocide against the native Americans there, who might have also been far more free and troublesome than the "docile" Indians. Over there, the Brits outdid the competing French, Dutch and German settlers in their brutality and ability to bully even their fellow Euros..


Yes.. the small pox blankets. Indeed, these imperialist besterds make any defence very hard.

At junta, I understand what you guys are saying. I was just trying to play the devil's advocate. :D I am familiar with the malthusian approach to our population - wherein famines and other disasters were seen as benevolent forces that kept our population in check. That approach got so deeply engrained in our psyche that we started looking at population as an advantage only 50+ years after independence.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 07 Sep 2014 02:56

KrisP: you wrote "British were better colonialists than others..."

Based on your last comment to Lokesh then you should say there is no 'better' colonialist as well.. no? btw, many actually believe that the British were the worst kind; they did the most harm. Anyway OT as you noted.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2014 02:57

KrisP wrote:Yes.. the small pox blankets. Indeed, these imperialist besterds make any defence very hard.

:roll:

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 02:58

yayavar wrote:KrisP: you wrote "British were better colonialists than others..."

Based on your last comment to Lokesh then you should say there is no 'better' colonialist as well.. no? btw, many actually believe that the British were the worst kind; they did the most harm. Anyway OT as you noted.


I still believe that India would have been more royally screwed under a Japan or a Germany. But that's my personal opinion that I am not going to thrust on anyone.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 03:01

Agnimitra wrote:
KrisP wrote:Yes.. the small pox blankets. Indeed, these imperialist besterds make any defence very hard.

:roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

On June 29, 1763, a week after the siege began, Bouquet was preparing to lead an expedition to relieve Fort Pitt when he received a letter from Amherst making the following proposal: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them."

Bouquet agreed, writing back to Amherst on July 13, 1763: "I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself." Amherst responded favorably on July 16, 1763: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race."

As it turned out, however, officers at the besieged Fort Pitt had already exposed the Indians in just the manner Amherst and Bouquet were discussing. During a parley at Fort Pitt on June 24, 1763, Captain Simeon Ecuyer gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox ward "out of regard to them" after the Delawares pledged to renew their friendship. While the exact meaning of his phrase was unclear, a later invoice appears to clearly establish the purpose was transmittal of smallpox.

Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. Some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident; the disease was already in the area and had reached the Indians through other vectors. Indeed, even before the blankets had been handed over, the disease may have been spread to the Indians by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements. The smallpox epidemic that had occurred during Pontiac's War spread to areas/groups such as the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) and Shawnee villages, killing as many as 400,000-500,000 Native Americans during and years after Pontiac's Rebellion.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2014 03:01

KrisP wrote:I still believe that India would have been more royally screwed under a Japan or a Germany. But that's my personal opinion that I am not going to thrust on anyone.

Yes, that's a very sensible line of thought to pursue in one's spare time. The "What if I had been screwed by Hans or Hiroto instead of Tommy" theory. Shows how well you can take in the various factors at play.

Of all people, the Brit elites started their colonial mission by being cruel to their own mass underclass.

KrisP wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

I know the history. I thought you were belittling the brutality.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 07 Sep 2014 03:05

KrisP wrote:So are you saying that Lytton was just as bad as Bentick? Or Dyer was just as bad as Ripon? When a Lytton or a Dyer can be far more heartless than other British officials; why can't one imperialist nation be worse than another?

There are no benevolent rapists. There are rapists and brutal rapists. There is an average rape out there; and then you have a Nirbhaya. India had several nirbhaya moments - be it bengal famine, doji bara famine, or Jallianwala.

Anyway, this thread is not about which imperialist is the best. I just did not want people to get carried away due to this recent Modi trip, that's all.


I understand your compulsions on India-Japan friendship hullaballoo.

My point was different, when you are a victim of a crime no matter how small or large a crime is, its impact is the same on the victim.

If you ask anyone who survived Jallianwalla Bagh on whether that mofo Dyer was the same as Hitler, the answer would be a resounding yes. Rapists are rapists, and they need to be treated that way. Japan was a brutal colonial power, it also killed equal number of Indians as it helped.

Right now, what matters is overlapping interests and that is all what we should care about. That is how we should deal with any former colonial power. Relentless pursuit of our interests, and one of them would be making sure that no one ever dreams of trying any kind of colonialism on us again.

Now if we have "common interests" with Brishitstain, that is a different story. We must actively and relentlessly work towards redemption, and extract every bit of what was taken from us. It may take us 500 years, but that is a journey we must undertake to be truly free.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 07 Sep 2014 03:14

KrisP: nor are the other colonialists you put forward as better doodh ka dhula. In other words that caution would apply to all nations - and certainly to all colonialists.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 03:16

LokeshC wrote:
KrisP wrote:So are you saying that Lytton was just as bad as Bentick? Or Dyer was just as bad as Ripon? When a Lytton or a Dyer can be far more heartless than other British officials; why can't one imperialist nation be worse than another?

There are no benevolent rapists. There are rapists and brutal rapists. There is an average rape out there; and then you have a Nirbhaya. India had several nirbhaya moments - be it bengal famine, doji bara famine, or Jallianwala.

Anyway, this thread is not about which imperialist is the best. I just did not want people to get carried away due to this recent Modi trip, that's all.


I understand your compulsions on India-Japan friendship hullaballoo.

My point was different, when you are a victim of a crime no matter how small or large a crime is, its impact is the same on the victim.

If you ask anyone who survived Jallianwalla Bagh on whether that mofo Dyer was the same as Hitler, the answer would be a resounding yes. Rapists are rapists, and they need to be treated that way. Japan was a brutal colonial power, it also killed equal number of Indians as it helped.

Right now, what matters is overlapping interests and that is all what we should care about. That is how we should deal with any former colonial power. Relentless pursuit of our interests, and one of them would be making sure that no one ever dreams of trying any kind of colonialism on us again.

Now if we have "common interests" with Brishitstain, that is a different story. We must actively and relentlessly work towards redemption, and extract every bit of what was taken from us. It may take us 500 years, but that is a journey we must undertake to be truly free.


I totally agree with you here. We can get along with the Japanese because it is strategically good for us. Our interests align. But I am loathe to hear 'Modi-Abe bhai bhai'. Incidentally, the last time I've heard of that was in context of 'India-China bhai bhai'.

Agnimitra wrote:
KrisP wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt

I know the history. I thought you were belittling the brutality.


Well, I was not. Was just trying to show that I have not given my opinion being unaware of all the British brutalities ranging from 'Fort Pitt' to 'Skull Famine, Bengal Famines' to 'Good Natural Disaster' to 'Plague Rape'. End of the day, we cannot objectively agree on who was the most brutal.

However, we must not forget the fact that Japan isn't a 'doodh ka dula' state.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 07 Sep 2014 03:21

KrisP,

The moment you call someone less brutal than the others, you are saying that you as a person experienced both the Brishit invasion and the Jap invasion. And you as a person can objectively compare it. Piskology Psychological evidence proves that you cannot (there are enough and more studies to prove it).

When you call someone less brutal, you are also making it easy for whoever you consider the less brutal one to escape with a sheepish smile, saying this "we were less brutal onleee, look we gave you Yingleesh and Railways, and taught you science and math. Is that not good enough".

The problem is the Brishits will whitewash themselves of their heinous crimes by using your own statements of them being less brutal than the rest of the colonialists.

You are playing right into the hands of the colonial apologists.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 03:24

Some thorns in India-Japan relationship that we need to talk about:

1) While we have a FTA with japan since 2011 - Japan doesn't recognize our doctors, or our pharma products. They are not willing to sign a MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) with us. This was because US forbids it from doing so. Do you still think US blessing and praising India-Japan's recent agreements as condescending? Due to this position adopted by the Japs, we have a huge trade deficit with respect to them.

2) Japanese Foreign Minister wants India to NOT impose Minimum Alternate Tax on Japanese manufacturers. That is about 20% of profits for all companies, right now.

member_28705
BRFite
Posts: 189
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_28705 » 07 Sep 2014 03:28

LokeshC wrote:When you call someone less brutal, you are also making it easy for whoever you consider the less brutal one to escape with a sheepish smile, saying this "we were less brutal onleee, look we gave you Yingleesh and Railways, and taught you science and math. Is that not good enough".

The problem is the Brishits will whitewash themselves of their heinous crimes by using your own statements of them being less brutal than the rest of the colonialists.

You are playing right into the hands of the colonial apologists.


I am inclined to agree with you here. In my anxiety to point out the brutality of the Japs, I may have defended the colonial apologist - without meaning to do so. I think I should've stated that the Japanese were 'no-less brutal' or 'one of the most brutal' to state my argument.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 07 Sep 2014 03:41

Lets look at Objective measures: The Brishits murdered over 30 - 80 million Indians over the course of their loot of India (Kenyans, Native American genocide etc not counted). The Japs murdered about 10 - 20 million people. Hitler about the same number of people.

You can draw conclusions based on it. Sure, the Japs beheaded people and briturds hung people, or starved them (which maybe considered "less brutal" than beheading by some people). The end result is the same, people are dead in ugly ways.

Objectively speaking, every one of them has committed a heinous crime against humanity. And by numbers the Brishits are by far the leader of the pack.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby krisna » 07 Sep 2014 04:21

Amongst all colonialists briturds were more successful because they were more brutal to the local population and other colonialists competitors than the rest of the pack.
They defeated very other colonialists whoever they were in that local areas with decimation of local population.
India survived due to huge numbers with fierce resistance. We also became smart in engaging briturds with time.
This should answer all questions about who is better or worse colonialists.

Briturds at their peak had 25% of the them world population/size.
Hence the term sun never sets in their empire as it was so vast some part of the empire always had sunlight.

The atrocities of briturds in all forms exceeds rest of the colonialists put together.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Agnimitra » 07 Sep 2014 05:10

KrisP wrote:In my anxiety to point out the brutality of the Japs, I may have defended the colonial apologist - without meaning to do so. I think I should've stated that the Japanese were 'no-less brutal' or 'one of the most brutal' to state my argument.

One's got to understand that imperial colonial enterprise was essentially a competition in who could best weaponize everything including religion and economics, to beat down the conquered and then also lure a section of them to work for you and hold a stake. The Brits distinguished themselves to such an extent that they were the only ones whom Hitler admires in his Mein Kampf.

The Spaniards emulated the Moors and Ottomans.
The Brits outdid the Spaniards, starting off as buccaneers.
Other Euro powers competed in this brutal game.
No surprise that the Japanese also joined in and tried to be as good at it.

Colonial philosophy in Europe extolled the ability to commit violence without compassion on those "weaklings" who are incapable of resisting conquest. Nietzsche says "civilization" is built on great violence. He even links violent contempt and mockery of others to a kind of qualification for acquiring "wisdom". [Of course, all this was before he had a nervous breakdown, supposedly after he couldn't bear the sight of a man mercilessly flogging a horse.]

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 08 Sep 2014 09:30

Generic Drug Makers like Lupin, DRL & Sun Pharma eye Japanese market
Indian generic drug makers are exploring all options to get a foot in the door to Japan's lucrative but difficult-to-crack $111-billion drug industry.

The penetration of generic drugs in Japan, the world's largest drug market after the US and Europe is a little more than 30 per cent compared with more 80 per cent in the US drug market. The Japanese government now wants to raise this share to 60 per cent by 2017 as it looks to make healthcare affordable.

According to analysts and experts, companies including Lupin, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Sun Pharma, Glenmark, Shasun Pharma, Sami Labs and Aurobindo Pharma are making efforts to increase their business with Japan.

In April, Lupin formed a joint venture with Japan's Yoshindo for biosimilars. It is also in talks with other local drug makers for alliances. "The current JV with Yoshindo is focused on the clinical development of biosimilars in Japan," Vinod Dhawan, group president, AAMLA (Asia pacific, Africa, Middle East and Latin America) and business development at Lupin. "The JV opens the Japanese biosimilars market for Lupin. We are in constant discussion with several companies on various cooperation models."

Dr Reddy's is once again focusing on Japan after its joint venture with Fuji Film Corp ended last year. "We still continue to be interested in Japan. We are exploring all options. The priority is to get into the right plan to enter into the Japanese market. So the options for us are to seek a partner, acquire a company or do it organically," Dr Reddy's said in an email reply to ET's query on the company's plans. Of the $15 billion worth of drugs that India exported in 2013-14, shipment to Japan totalled about $120 million.

Also, most of it was in the form of APIs (Active pharmaceutical ingredients) and herbals. PV Appaji, director general of Pharmaceuticals Export Promotion Council said, "Ageing population, increasing healthcare cost have led the Japanese government to take a decision to encourage more generics, which can keep the government's expenditure low on public healthcare. There is a lot of interest for our APIs and herbals in Japan. We believe most of the Indian drug companies are looking at either partnering with the Japanese players or forging joint ventures to tap the foreign market."

According to the European Pharma Market Research Association, the over-65 population in Japan is expected to touch 29.1 per cent by 2020 and 38.8 per cent by 2050. Alok Dalal, vice-president research-healthcare at Motilal Oswal Securities said while Japan provides huge opportunity for Indian drug makers, the success rate of joint ventures with Japanese firms has been low.

"Japan has always been a high-opportunity market. But generic penetration is less than 30 per cent versus over 80 per cent for US and UK. The government is encouraging generic penetration but it is happening at a slow pace. Challenges include high cost of operations and higher lead times," Dalal said. "Acceptance of generics has also been a hurdle for the Japanese.

Indian companies have huge potential in Japan. However, they will have to find the right model to enter and establish themselves. They will also need to be patient as returns from this market will take time to come."

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 09 Sep 2014 09:29


Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2794
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Rony » 10 Sep 2014 01:58

Surprisingly sane article from Sagarika Ghose

Mera joota hai Japani

KJo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9706
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 02:54

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby KJo » 10 Sep 2014 16:23

Japan Inc cautious on India despite premiers' love-in

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/japan-inc ... nance.html

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8120
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 12 Sep 2014 13:49

Soulmates of the East

by Tunku Varadarajan

Bharath.Subramanyam
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 00:17

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Bharath.Subramanyam » 03 Oct 2014 07:43

Japan firms near crisis as labor shortage deepens
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101828016


Japan’s Population Shrinks for Third Year as Aging Increases
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-15/japan-s-population-shrinks-for-third-year-as-ranks-of-aged-grow.html

Japan’s population slid for a third year with the proportion of people over the age of 65 at a global record, 25% of the total population. That’s the highest of any country in the world, according to World Bank.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc

Median Age: South Korea and Japan Projected to be the Oldest by 2050
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/01/30/chapter-2-aging-in-the-u-s-and-other-countries-2010-to-2050/

Bharath.Subramanyam
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 00:17

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Bharath.Subramanyam » 03 Oct 2014 07:44

Japan Opens Door Wider for Foreign Workers; Tokyo Looks to Address Construction Labor Gap
The Wall Street Journal Online
Toko Sekiguchi
4 April 2014 05:15,

TOKYO—Concerned about a shortage of construction workers for an expected building boom ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, Japan is looking to tap into a source of labor it has long regarded as off-limits—foreign workers.

But in a nation where noncitizens make up just 1.6% of the population, any moves are likely to be incremental, as the government looks to make baby steps to improve a labor shortage without opening the lid on the wider issue of immigration policy.

The government decided Friday to loosen Japan's practical training visa rules to allow foreign nationals who have acquired construction skills under the scheme to work in Japan for a maximum of three years after their training period.

The move will effectively allow unskilled foreign laborers to work in Japan's construction industry for six years in a bid to fulfill the labor shortage expected between now and the Olympics.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Friday that the government will consider how to make clear that the measure isn't a change in immigration policy.

Japan's construction industry, like its agriculture and forestry sectors, is aging at a rapid pace. After reaching a peak of 4.6 million workers in 1997, the number had decreased to about 3.4 million last year, a drop of 26%.

The government expects a shortage of 150,000 workers in total over the next five years. The shortfall also stems from two decades of the government keeping a tighter rein on public projects, thereby discouraging new entrants into the industry, as well as younger workers opting out of what is known as the dangerous, difficult, dirty sector—or "3K" sector, using the first letter of the corresponding words in Japanese.

The massive rebuilding effort in northeast Japan following the 2011 tsunami disaster is also adding to the construction labor shortfall.

The new visa rules, likely to be implemented around spring 2015, are expected to boost the sector's labor force by a total of about 70,000 foreign workers over the following five years. That figure overstates the number of actual workers, though, as it counts each year worked by a foreign construction worker, meaning the eventual number of foreign workers over the period would likely be far lower.

Government officials were eager to stress that the program is strictly a guest-worker scheme that in no way reflects a change in Japan's foreign labor policy.

"The program is designed to prevent the setting down of roots by guaranteeing that they return to their countries by keeping their stays short," an immigration official said.

The official added that under the program the families of workers will still not be allowed to accompany them throughout their time in Japan.

Construction labor union officials said the measures missed the point underlying the shortfall of workers.

"This addresses none of the structural problems in the industry that is led to the rapid decline in workers," said Masatoshi Taguchi, an official at the National Federation of Construction Workers' Unions.

Critics of the program say that expanding the practical training scheme, already fraught with labor and human rights violations over alleged exploitation of foreign laborers, is enabling the government to avoid engaging in a tough debate over how to incorporate foreigners into its aging population.

According to the Japan Center for Economic Research, there are about 136,000 technical interns engaged in on-the-job training in Japan, and over 100,000 foreign students allowed to work short hours. In reality, they have come to form the backbone of the service industry in urban areas, and agriculture, fisheries, and other labor-intensive sectors.

Use of the scheme has led to some abuse, ranging from wage withholding to inhumane working conditions. A handful of cases have ended in workers who felt they were exploited turning violent and even murderous against their employers, prompting the Japanese government to modify laws to better protect the workers' rights under the program.

"The practical training visa was created as part of Japan's technical aid to developing countries," said Naohiro Yashiro, a labor economist on the government's expert advisory panel for increasing Japan's industrial competitiveness. "Continuing this ad hoc way of scrambling together cheap labor and sending them back isn't only inefficient in the long run, but also offers no incentive for foreign workers to choose Japan over all the other industrial nations with labor shortages."

Japan was highly criticized when it introduced in 2009 a "returning home assistance" program offering one-way tickets for special status permanent residents from overseas-—mostly Brazilians—-when the global financial crisis left many of them out of work. Nearly 22,000 took up the offer.

The Japanese government began granting special resident status to descendants of Japanese overseas immigrants in 1990 to help fill the labor shortage in Japan's manufacturing sector at the height of its economic bubble. Many of them were descendants of Japanese immigrants to Brazil and their families.

Last October, the Ministry of Justice quietly lifted an unspecified re-entry prohibition on people it paid to send back, citing "recent economic and employment conditions."

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 10 Oct 2014 08:49

India sets up Japan Plus investment team to speed up proposals - Economic Times
India has set up a Japan Plus management team to facilitate and speed up investment proposals in a bid to augment economic ties between the two countries. The team set up by the Department Of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is made up of officials from both governments.

During the recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Japan, the latter had offered to invest $35 billion over the next five years by way of public-private partnerships and overseas development assistance. Japan also offered to provide financial, technical and operational support to India for the introduction of bullet trains. "Japan Plus has been operationalised with effect from October 8, 2014. Japan Plus will be coordinated by Kenichiro Toyofuku from METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) and will comprise four Indians and two Japanese officials," the government said on Thursday. The team will support the Indian government in initiating, attracting, facilitating, fast tracking and handholding Japanese investments across sectors.

Japan is the fourth-biggest foreign investor in India, contributing about 8% to total foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows.


Japan accounted for $1.7 billion of FDI in the 2013-14 fiscal, and $16.2 billion between 2000 and 2014. It has invested $4.5 billion in the first stage of the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor with 26% equity. It is also working closely with the government for the development of other industrial corridors.

In June, Tokyo sought government intervention to clear policy related hurdles to the operations of Japanese companies in the country, besides fast-tracking of some projects. The mandate of the Japan Plus team runs through the entire spectrum of investment promotion, research, outreach, promotion, facilitation and aftercare. The team will also be responsible for providing updated information on investment opportunities across sectors, in specific projects and in industrial corridors in particular.

"In addition, the Japan Plus team will identify prospective Japanese companies, including, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and facilitate their investments in India," the government said. India has also constituted a India-Japan Investment Promotion Partnership core group chaired by the cabinet secretary.


This group will comprise the chairman, Railway Board, foreign secretary and secretaries of DIPP, revenue, economic affairs, financial services, urban development, information technology and others. This group will coordinate and closely monitor the process to ensure that investments from Japan as envisaged in India-Japan Investment Promotion Partnership are facilitated in various sectors and opportunities of investment and technology transfer are fully exploited, the government said.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby arun » 15 Oct 2014 10:57

Japanese journalist asks a question about India’s position on the jailing of a Japanese journalist by South Korea for defaming the South Korean President and gets a sarcastic response by MEA official spokesperson:

Transcript of Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson (October 14, 2014)

October 15, 2014

Official Spokesperson (Shri Syed Akbaruddin): Good evening friends and thank you very much for being here for our usual interaction. ………………………….

Question: Excuse me but I have a specific question on South Korea. I am (Inaudible) from Japan. Our correspondent was indicted recently by South Korean prosecutors on church. He (Inaudible) South Korean President by his article on website. Moreover, he wrote (Inaudible) South Korea and this order has been extended several times and some journalist associations as well as United States expressed a concern on that. India is biggest democracy and I believe it is a leading country to guarantee the freedom of speech. So if possible, I would like to seek your comment on this issue.

Official Spokesperson: Thank you very much and I appreciate your effort to think that I am a sage who will pronounce everything from this stage. That said, I think each country's approach to foreign policy is different. There are those who use the megaphone to announce things. There are others who work differently. As far as India is concerned, we do not use megaphones neither in the case that you are referring to or in other cases. Our credentials need not be bolstered or embellished by what we pronounce or do not pronounce outside India. Our credentials of a democracy stand on their own. We do not need any certification from others on what is a vibrant, robust and living democracy.


From here:

Transcript of Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson (October 14, 2014)

The case which the Japanese journalist was alluding to:

Japan protests South Korea's indictment of Japanese reporter

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23761
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 15 Oct 2014 11:36

I do not understand the reply given by the MEA Spokesperson. It looks rude and unnecessary to me to give this harangue on a simple straightforward question, unless there is something else to the story or the journalist who asked the question.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3620
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Postby Kashi » 15 Oct 2014 12:00

SSridhar wrote:I do not understand the reply given by the MEA Spokesperson. It looks rude and unnecessary to me to give this harangue on a simple straightforward question, unless there is something else to the story or the journalist who asked the question.


I believe GoI does not wish to get in between the latest scrap between Japan and RoK, considering that we share friendly relations with both countries.

I am surprised as to why the Japanese journalist raised a bilateral matter in a press-briefing by a third country. Granted that both the countries (especially the Koreans) have been trying to seek overseas support for their positions in their bilateral matters- Koreans have been particularly active in pillorying the Japanese on the issues of comfort women, Dokdo/Takeshima, Sea of Japan/East Sea, Yasukuni etc.

The present Korean president is the daughter of the former president Park Chung Lee, who had once served in the Imperial Japanese army (as Takagi Masao) and had signed a landmark agreement with Japan in the 1965 (Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea) where Japan provided monetary and technical assistance as reparations for their colonisation of the Korean peninsula- Pohang Steel Company (POSCO) was one of the outcomes.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anandsgh, Lekhraj, MSN [Bot], Sagrawal and 68 guests