Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

[Vayutuvan]

Thatcher is dead. Friend of India of sorts. (should have put sarcasm tag on that).

[JE Menon]

Long live Thatcher. God shave the Queen.

[RajeshA]

no one is making excuses for anyone here, but sometimes i think you guys are over sensitive. as i have said before - the majority sentiment of westerners is negligence and lack of interest in india and indian concerns. whilst there may be people/institutions with nefarious plans - most people couldn't really care less. i wonder if it is that which hurts us more than the CT's?

Lalmohan ji,

I don't think in India many really care what the common people in Europe or USA think about India if the country itself did not have a habit of showing anti-Indian stance.

However Indians get angry that there are constituencies in the West who have substantial influence over the regimes there and have an anti-Indian agenda, use the Western media to create an image of India as an unstable irresponsible poverty-stricken country, so that their regimes face less opposition from their people when the regimes themselves choose to take an overtly anti-Indian stand.

It is not the fact that the people don't care about India that disturbs Indians but rather the observation that this brainwashing agenda by vested interests goes unchecked.

Perhaps what may disturb the Indians more is that the Indian diaspora too does not feel overly disturbed by all this and in fact is not able to see this continuing program of demeaning India.

In a democracy ideally the people are the first party which is supposed to question the government for an immoral action that the government may take with respect to another country, e.g. as we saw European people rise up against the invasion of Iraq.

However if the local populace in European countries is brainwashed by certain vested interests, they may not be averse to their governments undertaking something anti-Indian, perhaps not at the scale of Iraq for that is out of the question but something less destructive but still provocative or against Indian national interests, e.g. giving sanctuary to the many anti-Indian groups in UK, e.g. Khalistanis, or supporting Pakistan over India on the question of Kashmir.

If the British populace was not made dumb into thinking of India as a country with a bad human rights record, etc. etc. would the British populace have been just as quiet in allowing the British government to continue giving sanctuary to Khalistanis?

So freedom in a democracy to mold public opinion against another country is not harmless. It is a pity that Indian diaspora thinks so!

[Vayutuvan]

Rajesh ji hats-off what I wanted to say but could not put into words.

[Lalmohan]

rajesh-ji, don't disagree with you - but you still have to factor in the disinterest and couldn't care less attitude in senior strategic circles or opinion forming circles - never mind mango punters

[RajeshA]

but you still have to factor in the disinterest and couldn't care less attitude in senior strategic circles or opinion forming circles - never mind mango punters

Not convinced of this.

The opinion forming circles paint India in a particular light. The terms may have changed from the colonial times but the sense has not. It is a deliberate "not important", "irrelevant", etc. It does not fool us that that is simply the usual British turned up nose. It is manufactured. However the whole focus on India has been on demeaning it.

All that would be of zero interest to India. We would have seen it as the normal Western tick of trying to prove themselves superior to heathen brown people. Though idiotic we could have ignored it, were it not for UK's time-proven policies of giving sanctuary to anti-India elements.

As far as senior strategic circles are concerned, there India was always center-stage. Where else do the the Brits and the Pakis carry out their dialogue and converge on mutually helpful policies?

Just because UK makes an extra effort to show non-interest in a country or region, does not mean that that is the case. Sometimes it can simply mean that they do not wish people to too watchful in a group's interests in some region. Isn't this how magicians do their tricks - by deception?

Anyway, it is a matter of perspective! One can fall for the trick or one can fall for the "CT"! But usually Indian diaspora would rather call it CT and choose to think - ALL EEZ WELL!

[Lalmohan]

that is your opinion my friend

[RajeshA]

Lalmohan ji,

just as it is your opinion that it is simply CT.

British support for Khalistan is however a fact. And so is British relations to Pakistan.

I can't remember any media group in UK showing Baluchistan as not part of Pakistan, or even FATA or Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Does it have anything to do with the electoral might of the Pakis in UK? Or does it have to do with certain policies of the UK regime?

[Neela]

Where is the scope to give the Briturds so much leeway. ?
Once again.
This was what Miliband said.
Note what was said by his spokesperson later.
Miliband faces India media flak

In his article in the Guardian, Mr Miliband said resolving the Kashmir dispute would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.

Following that :

The foreign secretary was very open and honest about his views, which are those of the British government
Spokeswoman for David Miliband

That map, as I said earlier, is an extension of the British official position on Kashmir.
Clear as dead mud. Every other perspective cuts a sorry figure because ...lets be honest....its just plain wishful thinking . Sorry!

[Rudradev]

Margaret Thatcher is dead.

It was during her reign (1979-90) that the Khalistan terrorist movement in the UK received maximum and unstinting government support, and the Mirpuris were likewise facilitated to set up the political and financial back-offices for Islamist terrorism in J&K. This was also the period when the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (head offices in Karachi and London) became the primary funding and money-laundering node in the incipient networks behind Chinese nuclear proliferation, Pakistani drug-trafficking and pan-Islamist terrorist indoctrination.

The Thatcher-Reagan axis, with its tremendous eagerness to support the open Islamization and nuclearization of Pakistan, encourage Pure Faithfool "freedom-fighters" in Afghanistan, and keep India on the backfoot with Khalistani and Kashmiri separatism is ultimately responsible for the worst problems in India's neighbourhood today.

Let us have a moment of silence for collective #ackthhooo only.

[devesh]

whilst there may be people/institutions with nefarious plans - most people couldn't really care less. i wonder if it is that which hurts us more than the CT's?

"that which hurts" me is the presence of such institutions. period.

those institutions are funded and their agenda given govt support. period.

"People are innocent" doesn't cut it. Hindus don't get the same luxury, do they? every bad thing about India gets blamed on Hindus.

so why should the agenda of countries not be blamed on their people?!?!

[devesh]

if and when the UK starts behaving in something resembling "friendliness" with India, we have no problem in praising the British people and their positive attributes. until such a time, Indians are under no compulsion to be "careful" in how they describe the British peoples' psyche. the burden to prove friendship is on their shoulders.

[Lilo]

Upset over arms treaty, India may cancel its delegation to UK

The UN General Assembly on Tuesday adopted the first-ever treaty to regulate the $80-billion-a-year conventional arms trade. The assembly voted 154-3 for a resolution that will open the treaty for signature from June. India abstained from voting.

NEW DELHI: Stung by the UK's reluctance to accommodate its concerns in the negotiations for the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) approved by the UN general assembly last Tuesday, the government has decided to send a strong message of its displeasure to the UK.

A high level defence delegation's visit to the UK slated for April 9-11 could either be cancelled or significantly scaled down as a mark of protest, TOI has learnt. Defence secretary Shashi Kant Sharma was to lead the delegation comprising representatives of all three services.

The UK has been one of the champions of ATT and New Delhi holds it responsible for the fact that hardly any of India's concerns were accommodated in the agreement. India had abstained from voting on the treaty saying the draft was weak on terrorism and non-state actors and compromised security and defence interests of major arms importing countries.

Intense consultations are underway in the government on the future course of action since Tuesday's vote, in which the treaty was passed with 154 votes in favour, three against and 23 abstentions. India, China and Russia were among the countries that abstained.

In fact, TOI has learnt that the external affairs ministry has conveyed to the UK that its unhelpful attitude will have serious consequences for defence purchases by India from that country. Even during the negotiations for the treaty, India seems to have warned the UK that defence cooperation between the two countries was going to suffer.

Top sources confirmed to TOI that the MEA was not in favour of cancellation of the visit and had told the defence ministry in writing to communicate India's unhappiness but wanted the engagement to continue.

Sources said the defence ministry had sought the MEA's opinion before deciding on the trip. The foreign ministry, which had warned UK of adverse consequences, wanted the defence ministry to make a strong statement but not by cancelling the trip as this could lead to avoidable rancour in relations. While France too was among the 154 nations which voted in favour of ATT at the UNGA, it was very supportive of India's concerns during the negotiations.

Over the last week, consultations were underway between the PMO, MEA and the MoD over the steps to be taken to convey India's extreme displeasure over UK's lead role in pushing through the treaty. It is not yet clear if the government is contemplating any further steps to convey its disappointment.

British PM David Cameron welcomed the ATT saying Britain should be proud of its role in the negotiations {and this is the same bugger who shamelessly turns up on India's doorstep hat in hand, and proposes a "Strategic Partnership" in defence sector}. Britain was also the leading country behind the move to put the draft treaty to vote in the UNGA.

India's lead negotiator Sujata Mehta had argued that the treaty was weak on terrorism and non-state actors and those concerns found no mention in the specific provisions of the treaty. "India cannot accept that the treaty be used as an instrument in the hands of exporting states to take unilateral force majeure measures against importing states without consequences. The relevant provisions in the final text do not meet our requirements," she had said.

India believes that the treaty should make a real impact on illicit trafficking in conventional arms and their illegal use, especially by terrorists. While New Delhi's concern was about terrorists targeting the Indian state, the US and the UK ensured a flexible language in this context so that they could continue to arm rebels in states such as Syria.{Khalistanis, North East secessionist groups , LTTE ,Kashmiri Jihadi groups all are being offered refuge and their existence prolonged through life support - to use them on a rainy day}

India also feels strongly that the treaty is heavily weighed in favour of arms exporters, who can invoke unforeseen circumstances to cancel a contract.

It is these buggers who are behind all the clamour in our Paidmedia demanding full FDI in Defence. India must never allow this and FDI must only be allowed on a case by case basis with only those countries with which we have real strategic partnerships - Russia Israel and France .

[Karan Dixit]

I personally would not put France in the same category of Russia and Israel.

[Philip]

The Iron Lady can now .She was a strong leader who had no time for the poor.The Falklands was a small inconsequential war in global terms,nothing like the 71 Bangladesh War.Britain's claim to the Falklands is as ridiculous as any Argentinian claim to the Orkney or Shetland islands ! If Thacher was described as the Iron lady ,then Indira was the "Titanium Lady".Baroness Thatcher can now "RUST IN PEACE".

[JE Menon]

The treaty is good for our local industry.

[RajeshA]

The treaty is good for our local industry.

Indeed!

But the question is why did UK give India the short shrift, and not take into consideration India's objections! I also wonder why India is taken off-guard each time this happens?

[Lilo]

The treaty is good for our local industry.

That is a given - but what concerns India most is the lack of any justiciable provisions (Britturds personally made sure that none were included in the treaty) to prevent illegal arms supply to insurgent groups operating across the world.

Above viewed along with the fact that Londonistan hosts the A-Z of subversive secessionist insurgent organisations operating across the entire turd world, while its leaders keep on expounding on the benefits of nonviolence (as in against capital punishment), human rights etc , makes their latest charade all the more despicable.

Basically the treaty will mean that its still "business as usual" for the briturds.

Suppose a turd world government dares to execute a bloodthirsty traitor the briturd parliament in all its benevolent concern for the human rights of the "oppressed peoples" can pass resolutions damning those erring governments .
Yet the same Briturd Parliament acting through its intelligence agencies also makes sure that insurgent and terrorist organisations headed by the most vile and sadistic of the human specimens at its disposal, are supplied and armed with illegal weapons meant to be employed for specifically causing wanton death among innocents and bystanders in its target countries.

[JE Menon]

RajeshA

>>But the question is why did UK give India the short shrift, and not take into consideration India's objections!

Can't take a firm position on that, but I think it's because they are assholes and have been for a few centuries.

>>I also wonder why India is taken off-guard each time this happens?

Can't take a firm position on that either, and don't even know if we were taken off-guard (what indicates this?), but certainly we too have some assholes on our side who get a hardon everytime some Brit pats his back.

Either way, the reaction of damping down on defence linkages is a good one, if implemented.

BTW, it seems you were actually expecting the Brits to act honourably, or am I mistaken? If not, what's the discussion about?

Lilo,

>>That is a given - but what concerns India most is the lack of any justiciable provisions (Britturds personally made sure that none were included in the treaty) to prevent illegal arms supply to insurgent groups operating across the world.

If the treaty were there the Brits would honour it even if it was in their tactical interest, is what you are suggesting?

>>Suppose a turd world government dares to execute a bloodthirsty traitor the briturd parliament in all its benevolent concern for the human rights of the "oppressed peoples" can pass resolutions damning those erring governments . Yet the same Briturd Parliament acting through its intelligence agencies also makes sure that insurgent and terrorist organisations headed by the most vile and sadistic of the human specimens at its disposal, are supplied and armed with illegal weapons meant to be employed for specifically causing wanton death among innocents and bystanders in its target countries.

And this concerns us how? Maybe we ourselves can find some opportunities in there, not to mention learn some stuff for our own future applications.

[Lilo]

And this concerns us how? Maybe we ourselves can find some opportunities in there, not to mention learn some stuff for our own future applications.

Because we too were (and still are) a target of such skullduggery ?
and It makes sense to retain the moral force till the time we build up capability to wield a physical force sufficient enough to bring the britturds to heel ?

Basically India doesnt need a Larwood to bowl a body line and try to somehow force the Test. All that talk about britturdia punching above its weight is not applicable to India in the long term. Quoting Singha ji, Rahul Dravid can just as easily plant himself the first day and slowly grind the opposition to dust . It is more fun.

JEM ji,
basically I for one hate to see India to resort to briturd methods - Indian civilization can evolve its own methods of dealing with its enemies and wanton killing and sadism is not in our civilisational genes .

Frankly i dont understand why you want India to emulate the briturds in this field .

If the treaty were there the Brits would honour it even if it was in their tactical interest, is what you are suggesting?

It will place a heavy premium though, as violation will present more opportunities to publicly callout the briturds to shut their soliloquies on "their" "Rule of Law" and stuff it where it doesnt shine.

Afterall delegitemizing the Bretton woods babies and the attendant multilateral frameworks of IPR etc predicated on the sanctity of the Rule of law (of which the Brits the Americans etc, iam sure are still proud of as was Cameroon few days back on passing of his ATT ...) at every chance possible is the bounden duty of every turd world country worth its salt.

[svenkat]

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/embassy-gathering-facts-in-child-custody-case/article4596796.ece

The Indian High Commission here was trying to gather facts on Monday after an Indian couple complained that their child had been taken away by social services over allegations of abuse.

Rajat Puri and his wife Shruti, who live in Oxford, were reported as saying that their five-year-old son Achintya was taken away last month after he is believed to have said his father was doing “bad things.” The school called the police who alerted the social services, believing the boy was referring to sexual or physical abuse.

The couple denied the allegation and claimed that the child might have meant his father’s smoking habit. They claimed that there was a misunderstanding and child’s reference to “bad things” was misinterpreted by the council.

“Our child is in a bad state. He has been crying and begging to be sent back home because he is scared of being shut up in a dark room every night,” said the child’s mother Shruti

Mr. Puri, a software programmer originally from Punjab, believes it is a case of cultural misunderstanding. “They simply don’t understand the difference between the Indian and British cultures,” he said.


In New Delhi, the External Affairs Ministry said it was awaiting a report from the High Commission in London.

[JE Menon]

Lilo,

>>Because we too were (and still are) a target of such skullduggery ?

And our posture should be that we were, are and will continue to be, regardless of the treaty. Do you agree? Or do you think Britain will stop the skullduggery because of the treaty?

>>and It makes sense to retain the moral force till the time we build up capability to wield physical force to bring the britturds to heel ?

Definitely, which is why I said it's a good thing to raise the issue and damp down on defence linkages.

>>I for one hate to see India to resort to briturd methods -

Fair enough. I am leaving my options open however, we may need to use their methods in some circumstances.

>>Indian civilization can evolve its own methods of dealing with its enemies and

We must, and I'm quite sure we are doing so.

>>wanton killing and sadism is not in our civilisational genes .

This is probably open to question. But we have certainly developed methods to curtail our genocidal and sadistic impulses, again probably better than any other civilisation.

>>Anyway i dont understand why you want India to emulate the briturds in this field .

Is this your take away from my comment that we must learn from them for some future applications? Or is it some other comment I made. Please indicate. If the former, "learn from" and "emulate" are different things. Nowhere have I suggested that we must imitate the Brits. But we can certainly learn from their experience. Are you saying there is nothing to learn from the fact that they successfully ruled a significant chunk of the world for centuries? Pls clarify.

[RajeshA]

BTW, it seems you were actually expecting the Brits to act honourably, or am I mistaken? If not, what's the discussion about?

JE Menon saar,

it was the article which suggested this

NEW DELHI: Stung by the UK's reluctance to accommodate its concerns in the negotiations for the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) approved by the UN general assembly last Tuesday, the government has decided to send a strong message of its displeasure to the UK.

I expect every time that Brits would be a**holes. Why does GoI expect something different?!

[Lilo]

Is this your take away from my comment that we must learn from them for some future applications? Or is it some other comment I made. Please indicate. If the former, "learn from" and "emulate" are different things. Nowhere have I suggested that we must imitate the Brits. But we can certainly learn from their experience. Are you saying there is nothing to learn from the fact that they successfully ruled a significant chunk of the world for centuries? Pls clarify.

JEM ji its the former,
but then the story of their Imperial excursion out of their godforsaken land is not yet over,
The direct effects themselves are yet to reveal their full force, then there are the indirect effects which are inevitable on one's national psyche when one's familial accounts of sadism and atrocities on the natives are played out in the minds and bodies of their future generations.
There is still time... the turd is whirling in the flush trying to fight its fate but every one knows that its final destination is to reach the septic tank of civilized world and rot till it becomes good again.

The wheel of Karma is ever moving and i for one believe that the only lesson for the rest of the world to learn from the whole Briturd saga after say a 50 years from now would be a cautionary one.

[RajeshA]

an Indian couple complained that their child had been taken away by social services over allegations of abuse.

Rajat Puri and his wife Shruti, who live in Oxford, were reported as saying that their five-year-old son Achintya was taken away last month after he is believed to have said his father was doing “bad things.” The school called the police who alerted the social services, believing the boy was referring to sexual or physical abuse.

This is copycat terrorism!

They saw how the Norwegians were successfully able to portray Indian parents as "heartless barbarians" and so they have started to harass Indian parents in Britain as well!"

This is terrorism on Indian civilians. What better way to terrorize civilians than take away their children!

Bloody fcucking terrorists the Brits!

Best response is take away some British diplomat's kid in India and return the kid only when the British return the child and give it in writing they will never do it again!

Can the Honorable Indian Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi do that! No not with any diplomatic talk, but by sending a hard message! Don't screw with us!

[JE Menon]

RajeshA

>>Why does GoI expect something different?!

We don't know that they do. It is ToI which has described it as such. If anyone is more enamoured of UK in India it is the media, and those who own it and their kids and families - my opinion. Unless ToI is lying, all we know for a fact is that the PMO, MoD and MEA have been consulting over the issue, and that a delegation might be reduced in scope, and that the MEA has already expressed its displeasure to Britain. The stinging and all that is the interpretation of ToI, which is lovingly (and fairly accurately in my opinion) often referred to in BRF as ToIlet, as in the repository of a whole lot of shite.

But just because we don't know that the government expects that, it does not meant that they don't. We just don't know. Could be one way or another in this case.

Lilo

>>but then the story of their Imperial excursion out of their godforsaken land is not yet over,
The direct effects themselves are yet to reveal their full force, then there are the indirect effects which are inevitable on one's national psyche when one's familial accounts of sadism and atrocities on the natives are played out in the minds and bodies of their future generations. There is still time... the turd is whirling in the flush trying to fight its fate but every one knows that its final destination is to reach the septic tank of civilized world and rot till it becomes good again. The gears of Karma are still moving and i for one believe that the only lesson for the rest of the world to learn from the whole Briturd saga after say a 50 years from now would be a cautionary one.

Fair enough. As you say, that is your belief. Thanks for articulating that.

[RajeshA]

If anyone is more enamoured of UK in India it is the media, and those who own it and their kids and families - my opinion.

Let's not forget Honbl PM Dr. Manmohan Singh's touching speech in acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005.

Highlighted by brihaspati garu.

Mr Chancellor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must, at the outset, express my deep sense of shock and anger at the terrorist attacks in London yesterday. On behalf of the people of India, and on my own behalf, I convey sincere condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and the injured. I also extend the sympathy and solidarity of the people of India to the people of the United Kingdom, in particular the citizens of London.

I arrived here in the U.K. after dealing with the aftermath of yet another terrorist attack in India. It is clear once again that terrorism is a global threat. Terrorism anywhere is a threat to peace, freedom, human dignity and civilisation everywhere. Terrorism is cowardice aimed at the innocent. It is fed on hatred and cynicism. Every time terrorists strike anywhere, all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly.

I sincerely hope that all those who cherish and value open and free societies will join hands in the war against terrorism, wherever it is fought. I wish the people of London well. I pray that their lives will soon return to normalcy and they can resume their celebrations for having been chosen as the venue for the 2012 Olympics.

Mr Chancellor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is an emotional moment for me. Oxford brings back many fond memories that I cherish. For this reason, as much as for the intrinsic value of the honour you bestow upon me, I am truly overwhelmed. I am grateful to you, Mr Chancellor, and to your colleagues, for this honour. I have had the good fortune of receiving several honorary degrees. However, there can be nothing more valuable than receiving an honorary degree from one's own alma mater. To be so honoured by a university where one has burnt the proverbial midnight oil to earn a regular degree, is a most fulfilling experience. I thank you for it. This is a day I will truly cherish.

The world has changed beyond recognition since I was a student here. Yet, some age-old problems endure. Developing countries have found a new voice, a new status and have acquired a new sense of confidence over the last few decades. As an Indian, I see a new sense of hope and purpose. This new optimism gives us Indians a new sense of self-confidence and it shapes our world view today. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that the success of hundreds of young Indian students and professionals in Universities like Oxford, and elsewhere across the world, has contributed to this renewed self-confidence of a new India.

The economics we learnt at Oxford in the 1950s was also marked by optimism about the economic prospects for the post-War and post-colonial world. But in the 1960s and 1970s, much of the focus of development economics shifted to concerns about the limits to growth. There was considerable doubt about the benefits of international trade for developing countries. I must confess that when I returned home to India, I was struck by the deep distrust of the world displayed by many of my countrymen. We were overwhelmed by the legacy of our immediate past. Not just by the perceived negative consequences of British imperial rule, but also by the sense that we were left out in the cold by the Cold War.

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign. [yes - sure the countless maimed, killed, tortured, executed, deprived of land and means of livelihood all had excellent individual relationships like between JLN and Dickie Birdie]

This was best exemplified by the exchange that Mahatma Gandhi had here at Oxford in 1931 when he met members of the Raleigh Club and the Indian Majlis. The Mahatma was in England then for the Round Table Conference and during its recess, he spent two weekends at the home of A.D. Lindsay, the Master of Balliol. At this meeting, the Mahatma was asked: "How far would you cut India off from the Empire?" His reply was precise - "From the Empire, entirely; from the British nation not at all, if I want India to gain and not to grieve." He added, "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India. The Emperorship must go and I should love to be an equal partner with Britain, sharing her joys and sorrows. But it must be a partnership on equal terms." This remarkable statement by the Mahatma has defined the basis of our relationship with Britain.

Jawaharlal Nehru echoed this sentiment when he urged the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 to vote in favour of India's membership of the Commonwealth. Nehru set the tone for independent India's relations with its former master when he intervened in the Constituent Assembly's debate on India joining the Commonwealth and said:

"I wanted the world to see that India did not lack faith in herself, and that India was prepared to co-operate even with those with whom she had been fighting in the past provided the basis of the co-operation today was honourable, that it was a free basis, a basis which would lead to the good not only of ourselves, but of the world also. That is to say, we would not deny that co-operation simply because in the past we had fought and thus carry on the trail of our past karma along with us. We have to wash out the past with all its evil." [Yes and he also agreed to other things like on Union Jack hoisting but which were not generally publicized]

India and Britain set an example to the rest of the world in the way they sought to relate to each other, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. When I became the Finance Minister of India in 1991, our Government launched the Indo-British Partnership Initiative. Our relationship had by then evolved to a stage where we had come to regard each other as partners. Today, there is no doubt in my mind that Britain and India are indeed partners and have much in common in their approach to a wide range of global issues. [well obviously not in Afghanistan as shown by the London conference from which India was excluded, and obviously not on the death penalty issue or the Khalistani terror revival - but maybe agreements should be seen in the vague general wordings of statements issued about "cooperation" and should not be expected in concrete cases]

What impelled the Mahatma to take such a positive view of Britain and the British people even as he challenged the Empire and colonial rule? It was, undoubtedly, his recognition of the elements of fair play that characterized so much of the ways of the British in India. Consider the fact that an important slogan of India's struggle for freedom was that "Self Government is more precious than Good Government". That, of course, is the essence of democracy. But the slogan suggests that even at the height of our campaign for freedom from colonial rule, we did not entirely reject the British claim to good governance. We merely asserted our natural right to self-governance.

Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilization met the dominant Empire of the day. These are all elements which we still value and cherish. Our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy and our police are all great institutions, derived from British-Indian administration and they have served the country well.

Of all the legacies of the Raj, none is more important than the English language and the modern school system. That is, if you leave out cricket! Of course, people here may not recognise the language we speak, but let me assure you that it is English! In indigenising English, as so many people have done in so many nations across the world, we have made the language our own. Our choice of prepositions may not always be the Queen's English; we might occasionally split the infinitive; and we may drop an article here and add an extra one there. I am sure everyone will agree, however, that English has been enriched by Indian creativity as well and we have given you R.K. Narayan and Salman Rushdie. Today, English in India is seen as just another Indian language.

The idea of India as enshrined in our Constitution, with its emphasis on the principles of secularism, democracy, the rule of law and, above all, the equality of all human beings irrespective of caste, community, language or ethnicity, has deep roots in India's ancient civilization. However, it is undeniable that the founding fathers of our republic were also greatly influenced by the ideas associated with the age of enlightenment in Europe. Our Constitution remains a testimony to the enduring interplay between what is essentially Indian and what is very British in our intellectual heritage.

The idea of India as an inclusive and plural society, draws on both these traditions. The success of our experiment of building a democracy within the framework of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious society will encourage all societies to walk the path we have trodden. In this journey, both Britain and India have learnt from each other and have much to teach the world. This is perhaps the most enduring aspect of the Indo-British encounter.

It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Empire. I am afraid we were partly responsible for sending that adage out of fashion! But, if there is one phenomenon on which the sun cannot set, it is the world of the English speaking people, in which the people of Indian origin are the single largest component.

No Indian has paid a more poetic and generous tribute to Britain for this inheritance than Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. In the opening lines of his Gitanjali, Gurudev says:

"The West has today opened its door.
There are treasures for us to take.
We will take and we will also give,
From the open shores of India's immense humanity."

To see the India - British relationship as one of 'give and take', at the time when he first did so, was an act of courage and statesmanship. It was, however, also an act of great foresight. As we look back and also look ahead, it is clear that the Indo-British relationship is one of 'give and take'. The challenge before us today is to see how we can take this mutually beneficial relationship forward in an increasingly inter-dependent world.

I wish to end by returning to my alma mater. Oxford, since the 19th century, has been a centre for Sanskrit learning and the study of Indian culture. The Boden professorship in Sanskrit, and the Spalding professorship in Eastern Religions and Ethics, stand testimony to the university's commitment to India and Indian culture. I recall with pride the fact that the Spalding professorship was held by two very distinguished Indians: Dr S. Radhakrishnan, who later became the President of India, and by Dr. Bimal Krishna Matilal. In the context of the study and preservation of Indian culture, I also wish to recall the contribution of another Oxonian, Lord Curzon, about whose project to preserve and restore Indian monuments, Jawaharlal Nehru said, "After every other Viceroy has been forgotten, Curzon will be remembered because he restored all that was beautiful in India."

Oxford has sent out many men to rule India. Some stayed behind to become India's friends. Men like Edward Thompson, Verrier Elwin and many others are remembered in India for their contribution to our life and society.
[At one stroke Curzon's politically divisive role and the foundational contribution to the long chain of events leading to Partition and its violence and continued Islamism - waived out of representation - with a benign Curzon being reconstructed. This is the Brito-phile method.]

I always come back to the city of dreaming spires and of lost causes as a student. Mr Chancellor, I am here this time in all humility as the representative of a great nation and a great people. I am beholden to you, Mr Chancellor, and to my old university for the honour that I receive today. Thank you.

[Neela]

Whilst there may be people/institutions with nefarious plans - most people couldn't really care less. i wonder if it is that which hurts us more than the CT's?

[/quote]

I find this statement incredulous.
The issue at hand is a wrong map.
When government officials say something and maps from the press express it , do you not think that this is suspicious?
I think you are pretending and wishing it would go away.
Worse - you did not stop there.
You turned the thing on us.
Plain and simple.

[eklavya]

Will Eklavya ji, tell us what in his views should His Majesty;s govt do to newspaper which show a distorted maps of "friend" countries? Is it obliged to do something? Nothing? What are the laws?

I have absolutely no idea what the UK laws are on drawing and publishing wrong maps. But for a very significant fee, I am sure some lawyer can enlighten you. I remeber a very interesting discussion on the Siachen thread about how some United States Air Force map put Siachen into POK, and how that was the source of the problems / wrong perceptions, so these things are extremly important. The best way to deal with cartographic aggression, lies and crime is to put our troops on the ground and keep them there. Even if the UK newspapers (and Mirror is a 'newspaper' in a very loose interpretation of the word) and government draw an accurate map, it is no guarantee whatsoever that the Pakis and the PLA will not get up to their usual tricks. The Government of India tends to black-out maps in foreign publications sold in India (e.g. The Economist) that do not represent the GoI view of the international borders of India, but I cannot recall the GoI prosecuting anybody for it. Not sure if this issue is covered by civil or criminal law in India or the UK.

[RajeshA]

Well after 2014, India too would be able to show an independent Scotland and Northern Ireland as part of Republic of Ireland.

We should also try to upgrade our consulate at Cardiff set up last year to a full-fledged High Commission!

I also wonder when we can formally show London as a separate Emirate! Perhaps India should help Pakis in London set up their own border posts!

[Haresh]

The Iron Lady can now .She was a strong leader who had no time for the poor.The Falklands was a small inconsequential war in global terms,nothing like the 71 Bangladesh War.Britain's claim to the Falklands is as ridiculous as any Argentinian claim to the Orkney or Shetland islands ! If Thacher was described as the Iron lady ,then Indira was the "Titanium Lady".Baroness Thatcher can now "RUST IN PEACE".

Philip,

I am pretty much indifferent to Thatcher, however I think I need to clarify some of the things in your above statement.

"She was a strong leader who had no time for the poor"
I had just started High school when she was elected. The entire country was in the grip og the trade unions, rubbish was piled high, the dead unburied.
To say she did not care for the poor is not true. It was the lefty/socialists who didn't care for the poor. British industry was uncompetitive, the car industry was floundering.
She loosened the grip of the unions through legislation. Despite Labour opposing it at the time when they did get into power, and were in power for 12-13 years, they made no attempt to roll back her labour legislation.

With regards to the Falklands, she was at the time the most unpopular PM in history, the war gave her a chance to make herself popular. I remember the headlines in the papers "The empire strikes back" "Gotcha" (when the Belgrano was sunk.
It may have been a small war, but it did give the country a victory.

Now I am going to make a controversial statement (and then put on my helmet and body armour, to prepare for some serious flak/return fire)

I am absolutley no apologist for imperialism, however I do not believe Argentina has any right to the Falkland Islands, for the following reasons:

1/Argentina did not exisit as a nation when Britain claimed the Falklands, the islands were uninhabited.
2/ Argentina is a nation of Spanish imperialists, Portugese and German ( a hell of a lot of nazi ware criminals moved there).
3/ The native Indians of Argentina were basically murdered by these settlers.Modern Argentines are a nation of genocidal imperialists.

If however you are taking the Argentine side in order to be anti British, then that is a different matter.

With regards to the map of India being shown minus Kashmir and the NE. The media explains this by showing claiming (usually) that this is "disputed" territory.

Simple answer, the Indian media and government should remove Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and Cornwall from all maps when anything to do with the UK is being discussed.

Also maybe a letter writing campaign to the the various media outlet to correct them.

[Lalmohan]

neela - how do you add 1 to 1 and come up with 786? i am just telling you how goras behave - please dont extrapolate from there and ascribe meaning to me

[RajeshA]

Simple answer, the Indian media and government should remove Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and Cornwall from all maps when anything to do with the UK is being discussed.

Also maybe a letter writing campaign to the the various media outlet to correct them.

I think a more effective way would be to throw out all British journalists from India until the British media does not come up with mandatory guidelines on respecting India's unity and integrity.

As India becomes more and more economically relevant in the world, it would start hurting the British media that they don't have any of their people in India.

Furthermore I think, one can also expect a certain tone in the coverage of India in British media - the condescending, demeaning tone. If some publication still likes to keep it, their journalist or whichever source they use, can be thrown out of India quietly.

It is time we start take the British media by their balls and start squeezing them.

[Haresh]

Rajesh,

I think yours is a better idea.
However only after a letter writing campaign.

The UK media especially the tabloid trash Daily Mail and Express are on a hate India fest.
The recent story about the tourist being murdered was reported in sensationlist terms.
When it turns out the prime suspect was a gora it was toned down abit.
Infact on Sky the reporter kept on saying to the boat owner "he is a suspect, he has not been found guilty, we need to be careful etc"

The bottom line is "RESPECT" the Brits don't have any towards India.
They fear the Chinese, because they view them as enemies.

I think throwing a journolist or ten out of the country needs to be done.

I always like to remind anyone who talks about Aid/crime etc "It isn't India and Indian troops who are arming and training the taliban to kill British soldiers, it is your friends and allies the paks"

Also the Indian media should start refering to the UK as West pakistan

[RajeshA]

The bottom line is "RESPECT" the Brits don't have any towards India.
They fear the Chinese, because they view them as enemies.

Haresh ji,

I am not quite convinced of this view.

There is a position the British hold in public and there is a position they hold in private and their strategic wheel turns according to the later. The public position is simply a tool so that they can more easily look after the strategic needs.

The Brits have a simple model for foreign policy and global influence. Befriend the most vile regimes and groups and use them against one's strategic rivals. The Brits as I see from my observation see only Russia and India as rivals.

With Russia their rivalry is more public. With India it is more private.

Both rivalries are needed so that Brits can consider themselves as having a continuity with their imperial age, for it is the imperial age really that gives them any sense of upliftment, which nurtures their ego, which comforts them that they are still in the race.

The rivalry with India is very important. Their whole sense of civilizational worth comes from the fact that they ruled over Indians. This relational difference needs to be maintained. If the Indians were to overtake them, their psychology would collapse, for it would become too apparent that they have fallen. So regardless of how the reality may be about the power difference, psychologically they need to keep it that way - British superior, Indians poor lepers! In fact their obsession with this is so much that they are willing to use Pakistan and China to keep India down.

The other rivalry is with Russia. As long as they keep on pricking Russia, by giving sanctuary to Chechens and other Russian dissidents, Russia would look at UK as an enemy. If Russia looks at the little Britain as an enemy, it raises Britain's aukaat!

But on the international stage, UK still needs to trot about as if it matters, so it would also play the responsible partner, especially as it needs cooperation from others like India to keep their economy moving as well.

To keep the economy moving, its business model is to whitewash all the wealth dictators of the world have collected through dubious means - Chinese, Saudis, African dictators, etc. It is willing to offer its services as an "important leader of the international community" to all sorts of shady characters and regimes, Pakis, Saudis, Chinese, etc. and help raise their respectability as well. So they don't fear the Chinese at all. The Americans perhaps have some fear, but not the British. The British are happy when the Americans have any fears because then Britain can offer its services to America, as Britain has all the contacts with all these shady characters, groups and regimes.

However in public the Brits like to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and try to portray American worries as their own.

All these business and political models are soon going to come crashing down, and the idiocy of the Brits would be there for all to see!

[Prem]

Berry-tiny-A can be a useful Whore, Punching Bag,Ashna,agent, Servant as well paid escort for a day. Use or abuse them as per the occasion, mood and necessity.When we can deal will Baccha Pakis then we can also deal with Mama Paki who is getting frail by the day but keeping the appearance with plastic surgery to mainatin the clients.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Rajesh, you said in a more sophisticated and articulate way, what I was about to.

The British put on these airs of not really caring about, or being bothered about, India. It has to do with the image they wish to project, of being sophisticated and on the right side of history. India is on the periphery of that, in their supercilious world view.

But in actuality, they do see India as a competitor, if not a threat. And one example is all the heartburn about India's space programme. There are other obvious examples, like the nuclear and missile sectors. The "Economist" magazine even targeted virtually the entire Indian public sector, by brazenly suggesting, in 1997, that PSU's like BHEL and ONGC should be sold off to Western multinationals. Note, not necessarily privatised, partly or wholly, but simply sold to Western interests. So it's the independence of India that they are really after, at least going by such audacious advice. The PSU's represent, in their eyes, the possibility( if not the reality) of India generating economic growth and technology largely by its own steam, and under its own management, with purely Indian ownership. That's unacceptable to the British.

It would also be false to think that only the British are guilty of this kind of perfidy. You can see it in the French, the Germans and the Swedish, albeit to a lesser degree.

[Karan Dixit]

Not just defense sector, there should be total ban on purchasing anything from UK. I was strongly opposed to Tata's purchase of Land Rover / Jaguar. If they were itching to invest in an English speaking white country, I think US would have been a better option to invest in. I recall that Hummer was up for sale at that time and Chinese had not bought it yet.

[IndraD]

Thatcher death-many celebrating on road
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... reets.html

[brihaspati]

The treaty is good for our local industry.

True. Very true - if properly interpreted by "indigenists". But they are weaker in the power equations, and will they be at all allowed to interpret properly?