Indian Interests

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 06 Oct 2008 22:21

India has never had a positive image in the west until recently -- the usual perception is that of a backward idol-worshippers riding elephants and feeding snakes. This is only slowly changing due to today's Indians. Surely if the west had a positive image of Hinduism during the days of the Raj, they would not have mistreated Gandhi and other Indian leaders. So any claims of "hinduism's image being destroyed in the west" seems to equate "hindu behaviour" and "Gandhi behaviour", which is not true, for better or worse -- granted that the extreme right yahoos with a tendency to get violent are not doing hinduism any favours (I am not talking about that).

harik · Post by **harik** » 06 Oct 2008 22:32

vera_k wrote:
harik wrote: Potti Bhai
Please translate.

Why then has India been successful having states organized on the basis of language?

Potti Sreeramulu

harik wrote: We need to give all the time that we can give to these *Mohajirs*, they need to learn a lot more. They
are not even in KG after all those years.
From what is seen in India (and also America), it takes 3 generations at the minimum to fully assimilate on the basis of language. In the case of the Mohajirs, the first generation born to those that migrated after 47 hopefully speaks Urdu and the local language, and the second generation will speak the local language natively. Have there been 3 Mohajir generations living in Pakistan yet?

Mohajirs are Muslim from the earlier *IAS* era. They have a strong sense of entitelment.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Oct 2008 23:35

Rye wrote:India has never had a positive image in the west until recently -- the usual perception is that of a backward idol-worshippers riding elephants and feeding snakes. This is only slowly changing due to today's Indians. Surely if the west had a positive image of Hinduism during the days of the Raj, they would not have mistreated Gandhi and other Indian leaders. So any claims of "hinduism's image being destroyed in the west" seems to equate "hindu behaviour" and "Gandhi behaviour", which is not true, for better or worse -- granted that the extreme right yahoos with a tendency to get violent are not doing hinduism any favours (I am not talking about that).

The colonial powers have built a artificial image of Hindus in the west in the last 200 years. Orientalism and concept of 'White man's Burden' came from this image about Hindus and Indian civilization.
Lot of Gandhi image has been used to give the Image for Indians recently but very poor image of Hindus and Hindu religion in the west for the last 100 years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2008 03:43

Couple of books reviewed in Pioneer, 6 Oct., 2008

The Phoenix Phenomenon: The Rise and Rise of India

India Express: The Future of a New Superpower
Author: Daniel Lak
Publisher: Penguin Viking
Price: Rs 499

The Indian Renaissance: India's Rise After a Thousand Years of Decline
Author: Sanjeev Sanyal
Publisher: Penguin Viking
Price: Rs 499

Debraj Mookerjee journeys through two recent books on the great Indian story and discovers fresh approaches to a truism that is almost becoming self evident these days. The deeper contexts, the hidden narratives and the leaps of faith that underline the miracle this country is witnessing come alive in Daniel Lak's India Express and Sanjeev Sanyal's The Indian Renaissance --

What is the one defining feature of India today? All manner of people are asking, and more importantly seeking to find answers to, this question. For the reviewer the answer is rather obvious. Fifteen years back, every bloke on the road meekly bleated out the same lament: "There's nothing that can be done to save this country" ("Is desh ka kuch nahin ho sakta"). Today everyone, from the guy on the street, to the retired BBC correspondent, to a top international bank's chief economist, has great hope for this country's future. Along with that hope there is the desire to understand the process by which this new reality has come to be; more significantly, questions are now being asked about how close to the top of the heap this once great nation will be thirty years on. Will this century be the one India has been waiting for since the erasure of the Harappan civilisation?

One story; two narratives. One hope; two different explorations. India Express: The Future of a New Superpower by Daniel Lak, and The Indian Renaissance: India's Rise after a Thousand Years of Decline by Sanjeev Sanyal, are two recent works that are best read together.

Daniel Lak, a Canadian, covered India for over 20 years for the BBC. His tribute to India follows perhaps in the trajectory of his predecessor Sir Mark Tully, whose No Full Stops in India (1991) was an immensely insightful read. Sir Mark followed the 1991 work with the more flattering India in Slow Motion (2004). Even the latter text, while praising the achievements of post-liberalisation India, was still trying to make sense of "a country at odds with itself" (blurb). Daniel Lak sheds some of Sir Mark's diffidence to actually call the dice. Witness Chapter 11 of Lak's book is titled 'Becoming Asia's America - The Next Liberal Superpower?'

Sanjeev Sanyal took the Delhi University, Rhodes Scholar route to corporate success as the Singapore based Chief Economist for the region with Deutsche Bank, but accumulated strong views on what made the Indian economy: India crawled up to 1991 and galloped thereafter. And yet he explores ideas beyond economics and from a time much before modernity overtook the world. Whereas Lak's work is marked by the impressionistic brush of a pair of western eyes meandering though the crazy kaleidoscope of the Indian tamasha, politically engaged yet neutral, Sanyal's journey is more textbook like, studded with figures, propped up through close analyses, and driven by a systemic dislike for Nehruvian socialism. Read together however, they offer a rounded introduction to the India of the future.

Lak clears the pitch early on in his introduction when he writes, "In this book I argue that India has arrived at the world's top table, and is awaiting due recognition." Whether the recently signed Nuclear Deal is a sign of the times is debatable, but the churning has begun. To see India's awakening merely in terms of the economy is to narrow the focus a little too much.

The economy is the more visible face of India's march into the future. It is not however the only barometer for judging India's transformation. Indian writers are fattening the purses of the top publishers, Indian activists have hit the big league with the likes of Arundhati Roy having gained cult status among placard holders, and Indians are joining the league of global leaders in diverse fields.

Lak begins by taking stock of the new economy, beginning with the Y2K debugging boom and moving on to suggest how the work Indians are doing is slowly moving up the value chain. But he also stops to register the anxiety of the other side of the software boom in the chapter 'Silicon and Slums - new economy, old problems'. He garners the views of a certain JP Natraj in Bangalore, "An unapologetic leftist and trade unionist," who chides the author for being "another one of those IT worshippers." That slums exist cheek by jowl with the steel and glass towers of the new economy is a problem that will not go away in a hurry. However, there is also the dhobi from Chennai Lak writes about, who laboured to successfully put his two kids through IT education, indicating the sort of social mobility now possible in India.

Lak records other voices as well, like Professor Ashish Bose's, India's leading demographer, the man who first theorised the BIMARU concept, and who makes a great case for empowering women to improve social demography. Prof Bose also introduces him to Nathi Devi, a Rajasthani activist headed (then) for Honk Kong to participate in a WTO meeting to, in the words of Bose, "give them a piece of her mind" about how "agricultural subsidies in rich countries kept small poor farmers like her trapped in rural poverty."

After profiling British rule in India as one that was totally deleterious to the economy, he also makes a short presentation on the transition from foreign yoke to freedom, before again profiling those smaller voices that have brought about social change, like Dr Bindeshwar Pathak's (who started Sulabh International). Lak's final hypothesis is encapsulated in the chapter where he sees India becoming a great liberal powerhouse of a nation in the years ahead. "The world's largest democracy is thinking big," Lak seems to conclude, underscoring his assertion with the conviction that not only does India have every right to do so, but that indeed the world needs it to.

Sanjeev Sanyal is an economist, and it shows. For him, posterity will view the year 1991 in the same light as 1947. It is the year when a new India was born, when Indians gained freedom "from a cultural attitude embodied in the old inward-looking regime." Three things stand out in Sanyal's book for going beyond received opinion" a) that India has been backward looking for a thousand years, and to blame its woes on either the Mughals or the British is to take a limited view, b) that most economists miss the exponential opportunities India will enjoy due to the 'second demographic' shift that will peak by about 2020, and, c) that urbanisation is inevitable, and will ultimately offer the solution out of the labour surpluses and underemployment the rural economy faces.

India's inward looking mentality stifled culture, language and the spirit of enterprise. Nehruvian socialism merely helped cement this lethargy by institutionalising a client-patron relationship in politics and rent seeking by the apparatchiks of the state.

Sanyal's views are extreme but worth pondering. They run against the grain of nationalist histories; which is exactly why they force us to examine our civilisation decline though the prism of the present, the extant reality that is witnessing the shaping of a different India by the young and the talented.

These young people, more numerous than in any other country of the world, are the new workforce. India's skilled labour force, and the contribution of a parallel school education system, will throw up opportunities unthought-of, like very high savings that will provide capital for indigenous investment. The new workforce will scavenge the by then labour-deficit manufacturing base of China, just as that country scavenged Taiwan, and Taiwan scavenged Japan. India's demographic shift will be the next big story, the manufacturing story we are unable to see, bedazzled as we are by the services sector boom. The services sector has created pockets of affluence, especially for the children of the elite. The manufacturing boom with mark the next phase of urbanisation that will create an entirely new middle class; the existing middle class numbers at present, accordingly to Sanyal, merely 50 million and not the inflated figure of 200 million people rave about.

Both Lak and Sanyal essentially believe India has a great future ahead, and they both give credit to the Liberalisation Policy of 1991 for the great burst of energy that is pulsating through the nation of the future. Perhaps they could have dedicated their efforts to the incumbent Prime Minister of India.

Bharati · Post by **Bharati** » 09 Oct 2008 04:45

I have a question on whom do we vote for

a) A candidate who is doing relatively better work in the constituency but belongs to a political party that adopts policies not in line with national interests.
b) A candidate who does nothing for the constituency(could be a local goon) but belongs to a party whose policies are generally pro-India

This is the dilemma many citizens face. Unfortunately, none of the political parties issues tickets only to worthy candidates.
The mess we see at the centre is mostly because of the above.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Oct 2008 08:23

Both Lak and Sanyal essentially believe India has a great future ahead, and they both give credit to the Liberalisation Policy of 1991 for the great burst of energy that is pulsating through the nation of the future. Perhaps they could have dedicated their efforts to the incumbent Prime Minister of India.`

I don't think MMS has received due recognition from India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Oct 2008 10:57

X-posted...

ManuJ wrote:If you look at current India with the perspective of the last 1000 years, you will be highly satisfied with where we are today and where we are headed.

I am currently re-reading a book on Indian history, and even though it's an exercise in refreshing my memory, it still makes my blood boil to read what India has suffered through in the last 1000 years. Any other nation would have long back buckled, disintegrated, lost its identity, converted...So for starters, be glad that India still stands strong as one nation with its customs, traditions and philosophies and its multi-cultural, multi-ethnic identity intact and thriving.

BTW, the much-touted statistic that India accounted for 20-25% of the world's GDP in 1700 hides the fact that it did so under Mughal occupation, in back-breaking (and I literally mean back-breaking) conditions for the farmers, laborers and artisans. All of the profits were swallowed by the occupiers, local nobility or the European traders, with Indians getting zilch. In fact, India's vast army of farmers and artisans was the primary attraction for Mughals and Europeans alike. The real treasure they were after was the common Indian man who lived a life not much better than that of a slave. That's not the kind of economic glory we want to go back to.

India in 1947 was basically a nation of farmers eking out a subsistence living. It had hostile neighbours eager to eat it up because of which it had to devote a large part of the revenues to defense. It was committed to not becoming a poodle of any major power, so did not qualify for generous aid packages. Still, it had to suffer the humiliations again and again of accepting foreign food aid because of recurring famines. Most people bet against it surviving as a democratic nation for too long. It had so many challenges that the mind boggles to think about them.

For a country as large and diverse as India, there was really no other choice than democracy. Even though it has its flaws, strong democratic institutions and customs have kept India united and helped everyone have a sense of entitlement and belonging. Democracy has also helped India tide over critical crisis like the Emergency and the Punjab insurgency. About true democracy at the grass roots level - it takes time for it to percolate down. We are just seeing democracy take roots at the state level, what with people demanding good governance and jobs through industrialization. The laggard states will soon fall in line, just as Bihar did.

Post-independence, India's progress has not been perfect. India got mired in socialistic ideas for too long and it took a crisis to shake things off. It could also have been served with better leaders, especially at local and state levels. But overall, considering the dire state of affairs, it has done pretty well. India is today positioned as a major economic and military power. It's one of the world's most respected democracies. Its private sector is thriving, even with restrictive labor laws. Infrastructure and industry is being built, one court-case at a time. After Tata Nano, I wonder if any political leader will be ready to perform hara-kiri as Mamta did and oppose industry. There is renewed investment in agriculture, and it's only a matter of time before companies like Reliance and Bharati introduce far-reaching efficiencies and profits in farming. The National Urban Renewal mission has started to yield results - I wager that the next 10-15 years will see a huge investment in urban infrastructure. The metros in major cities are just a start.

Most of the challenges before India are pretty obvious and so are the solutions. Among major reforms needed, it needs to reform its judicial system and its labor laws. There is scope for better targeted subsidies - I would love to see more govt. investment in health and education and basic infrastructure. Tax reforms are already well under-way and the results are very encouraging. None of the reforms, except reforming subsidies, seem far off the horizon. The labour unions are a minor percentage of total work-force, and it's a matter of time before their bluff is called.

The biggest challenge, imho, is internal security. Internal security apparatus and political attitudes both need to be overhauled. The rule of law needs to be enforced in all cases and everywhere. The justice system needs to act as a deterrent, not an incentive. Terrorism, whatever its form, needs to be decisively dealt with. It was heartening to see that at last IB is getting extra personnel and a new division. Good start but lot more needs to be done. If internal security issues can be dealt with, and I think they can be but need a strong PM, there is nothing stopping India.

Today, the world knows India for its techies and call centers, and not for its emaciated hungry people. Tomorrow, it will know India as a genuine world economic and military power and a keeper and restorer of peace and democracy throughout the world. India's population, becoming more educated and skilled every day, will again become its biggest treasure once again for which the Mughals and Britishers flocked to India. It's no surprise that MNCs have discovered that even unskilled laborers have the 'basic smarts' and can be trained very quickly to be productive.

Oh, and it was funny to read cities like Dubai and Singapore being compared with India. Dubai is doomed, as is the rest of the gulf. Over the next 50 years, their impressive buildings will crumble as suddenly as they have risen as these states lose their economic power and strategic significance, along with the hard-working expatriate population that have made them what they are today. And do we really want India to emulate the police-state of Singapore? Think not.

A common man in India walks with a strut because he knows he is free. This freedom is precious, and believe me, it makes up for a lot of shortcomings. It is worth preserving and sacrificing for, especially after hundreds of years of foreign rule. And worth preserving is the idea of India, all those things that India stands for. The rest is only a matter of time.

Sorry, had time to write today and got carried away...too long...

GuruNandan · Post by **GuruNandan** » 10 Oct 2008 08:38

Global Imbalance - An imminent Dollar Crisis

This is a must watch video presentation by an Indian Economist who predicts
a collapse of the Dollar.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1323537541

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Oct 2008 01:01

Uty of Denver has been the home for Dr. Barry Hughes who developed the International Futures forecasting tool. The link is here:

IFS scenarios

I would like a few people to run the software and work out scenarios in a new thread. Thanks, ramana

Web version of the software:

Web version of IFS

Textbook on IFS scenarios

Note second author's qualifications and work experience.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Oct 2008 20:59

ramana wrote:X-posted...
ManuJ wrote:If you look at current India with the perspective of the last 1000 years, you will be highly satisfied with where we are today and where we are headed.

I don't agree that India is better off now than it has been in the last 1000 years. I think in many apects our security and geographical identity and footprint is more truncated and more limited. We are probably worse off.

BTW, the much-touted statistic that India accounted for 20-25% of the world's GDP in 1700

By the way, what was India's share prior to that? What about 1000 years ago or so? There is that standard book from which everyone quotes the above figure, what does it say about periods before that. This book (whose name I forget) says that China was more than us ... ~ 30-35%. I am not sure I beleive that really.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Oct 2008 22:28

http://www.africahistory.net/braudel.htm

The Author is Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism 15th - 18th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernand_Braudel

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 16 Oct 2008 19:47

Who's guiding India's destiny?
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=144420

The 1998 tests did take India in the right direction by not dwelling in the might of the bomb just as Pakistani dictators have used to dominate the Islamic world. Is India on autopilot or is there another force that is controlling its destiny?.
CJ: viren naik

THERE IS an opinion being fermented amongst a group of strategic analysts who specialise in forecasting future trends in the political climate of the Middle East /South Asia region that certain events in the near history were although pre-meditated by fanaticism of the religious kind were indeed check mated by forces heather to unknown by human conceptions.

Let us look at the history of the region from May 11, 1998 onwards.

India tested nuclear devices on May 11 and Pakistan followed soon on May 28, 1998.

Both the countries were declared as outcasts unanimously by the nuclear regime, which included Russia (Indian supporter) and China (Pakistan supporter).

The tests on Indian side were supported by all concerned in the political arena barring the Communists led Left parties, which wanted to start agitation and protests against the then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led government for not taking the nation into confidence.

However, they were soon stopped in their tracks by Pakistan opting to declare its capability by setting off devices on May 28, 1998.

The Left did leave their mark on the issue by raising concern about the imminent nuclear
Holocaust now that both the nations had made their capabilities public.

After May 11, certain right wing factions of the governing parties and their supporters in the media started swimming in the euphoria of superiority over Pakistan in military matters.

One should read the tabloid editorial and TV presentations from the Pakistan side after May 28, the venom that was spat against India in reciprocation.

For a while, it appeared that both the nations would go to war then and then. Even the then PM of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif saw a huge political gain in slamming Indian positioning on the nuclear tests.

Regarding the immediate aftermath, it is still being speculated in certain knowledgeable
quarters in the West that the Pakistani scientists were allowed to be provided with help from China with the approval of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of America because of the attitude of certain sections of the right wing elements in India belligerent on taking on Pakistan straight away.

The then American president Clinton was kept in the dark about what the CIA knew as no one was certain which way the whole world was going to move. The big five were equally worried about the right wing in India especially those who saw no reason in slaying the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and who openly displayed their admiration of Nazism.

After May 28, both the nations were declared guilty and were slapped with sanctions equally and collectively.

But what was to happen in the aftermath of May 28, no one had ever imagined…
While the euphoria in India died down completely, in Pakistan it took a different turn altogether.

The army generals saw their chance in both grabbing the power at home and equally propagating the campaign for Islamic renaissance. The whole of Islamic world (from Mecca to Jakarta) sat up and were fixated in awe and admiration of what Pakistan had achieved.

Symbolically, Pakistan had overnight become the strongest Islamic country in the world capable of defying the might of the most powerful enemies namely America and Israel. (America has always been tagged as the enemy’s friend for supporting Israel).

Al Qaeda and Taliban were already getting ready under the wing of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the overseeing wing of the Pakistani army.

Support of Saudi Arabia and Iran was drafted in to strengthen the diplomatic onslaught on India and Israel by creating peaceful Islamic fronts (in all unsuspecting but influential Western nations) designed to enter the political set up by forming pressure lobbies in local governmental bodies, universities and media. This work is still continuing even today with a gathering velocity.

India as always was the sleeping elephant not noticing what was happening under the surface in its neighbourhood. Premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee extended a hand of friendship to Pakistani PM Sharif and crossed Wagah in anticipation of normalising relations.

Little did he know that the Pakistani army had followed him back to India via Kargil uninvited and with a deadly aim to cut Indian Kashmir in two.

Things were not quiet on the other side of the Pakistani frontier either, as Taliban had taken a firm hold in Afghanistan.

The world and India were caught flat-footed and another Ladakh 1962 appeared to be in the making, but some farsighted shepherds came to the rescue and reported what they saw by accident the slaying of Indian soldiers by unknown persons.

It was with great relief that the Indian army saw in time what was happening that they rushed a battalion to confront the intruders.

It is a great irony that no one heard of the shepherds again. Was it an act of a godly intervention through them?

Pakistani army was exposed and it took great efforts and considerable loss of lives before the whole territory was retrieved.

Although, India had won the battle, Pakistan claimed a moral victory by exposing the plight of the Kashmiri muslims wanting independence from India.

Their political aggression started affecting all Western countries, which were already infiltrated by a well organised lobbying mechanism set up by the ISI earlier. One leader after the other started voicing dissatisfaction against India on Kashmir. It was appearing to be an uphill task as Saudi money was pouring in to influence the Western governments and United Nations summit was coming near.

But then another godly intervention came to the rescue of India. The year 1999 was closing faster and the whole world needed us once again. The date January 1, 2000, was looming large and only India had the manpower and techniques to change the set up for the computers of the world. The date January 1, 2000, will always be remembered as the turning point in the economic history of India and the world at large too.

The tide turned and the Indian information technology (IT) companies came to the rescue of the world and India. We were beginning to become the back office of the whole world. Suddenly we stopped existing as a third world country in the eyes of the wealthy nations. We had the potential to be rich if not richer by flexing our muscles in the new technologies.

Pakistan was being left behind again and was now firmly ruled by a dictator General Musharraf who was riding on the euphoria of creating Pakistan as the mightiest Islamic country earning accolade from all sides, including moderates and fanatics...the lobbyists and terrorists were all now under his control. But American Generals were not concerned, may be they did not have any clue of what was coming for them and George Bush became what he is today, a misguided president betrayed by his own CIA, army Generals, and greedy so called neo -Nazis administrators collectively.

Musharraf and his Generals could not stomach the Indian march on the world’s economic stage and to get even Al Qaeda was unleashed against the unsuspecting citizens of the capital of the capitalism itself, the Big apple New York. For a moment the sleeping American army Generals must have thought it was Russians. But Osama Bin Laden came to their rescue and appeared large on the horizon and claimed victory against the Satan’s allies...the world did indeed turn upside down again but the result was that the West attacked Afghanistan, but should not one wonder why Afghanistan and not Pakistan? Afghanistan only had the army of Talibanistic fanatics and indeed it was discovered by accident that three battalions of Pakistani soldiers were moving freely in Afghanistan controlling all the important army installations.

What were they doing in another sovereign country one may ask? Did the American Generals ask any questions? One wonders why not?

Pakistan became a country under the siege both within and externally, the fanatics were also beginning to raise their ugly heads and at the same time, a gentleman with the name of AQ Khan (some call him Al Qaeda Khan) was caught building a nuclear plant in Niger well not quite but definitely in Iran, North Korea and a self confessing Libya and many more still awaited exposures.

Iraq came along and India started marching on the economic front albeit like Israel suffering several terrorist hits all fermented in Pakistan on the way. Americans got bogged down in Iraq despite several advanced warnings that only the Iraqi dictator was required to be dispossessed and not the whole population. Musharraf saw another advantage in enticing the Americans into Afghanistan by convincing that Bin Laden was infiltrated in Iraq from Afghanistan. Americans still think that Pakistani army as the vital proxy in containing Taliban, which amounts to fighting a proxy of a proxy.

Well, where is this going to end. By another godly intervention, America is being saved by creating a forced change in Pakistan. The grassroots are now waking up via media and now wide-eyed judiciary. The Pakistani army will be sent to the barracks soon and the Saudi finances will dry up just the way it had come up and Afghan militia will be culled eventually by denial of resources. I shall not say any further but 1998 tests did take India in the right direction by not dwelling in the might of the bomb just as Pakistani dictators have used the bomb to dominate the Islamic world.

The judgement is still to come but the world citizens are now tired of the duality of the American policies on Pakistan and I would not be surprised that the ultimate intervention of the Allah would be reserved for them for playing a part in this premeditated game. Perhaps, we are already witnessing this via the financial crisis but that is another story waiting to be told to the future generations.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Oct 2008 19:54

renukb wrote:Who's guiding India's destiny?
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=144420

Regarding the immediate aftermath, it is still being speculated in certain knowledgeable
quarters in the West that the Pakistani scientists were allowed to be provided with help from China with the approval of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of America because of the attitude of certain sections of the right wing elements in India belligerent on taking on Pakistan straight away.

The then American president Clinton was kept in the dark about what the CIA knew as no one was certain which way the whole world was going to move. The big five were equally worried about the right wing in India especially those who saw no reason in slaying the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and who openly displayed their admiration of Nazism.

.

The propaganda is betting bigger

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 16 Oct 2008 20:12

Article is mostly right except for the one paragraph which seems dubious.

There is a cover of plausible deniability is being established to allow pakistan to become resurgent and be a pain in India's armpits. The myth of "good taliban" and "bad taliban" is being perpetrated too, in order to replace the mythical "Al Qaeda"/ISI/Pak. Army -- it is more likely saudis will be pumping more money into pakistan, not less -- why would they disempower the only brothers in Arms in the global fight for a Ummah under the control of KSA and Pakistan?

For its part, India should help Sindh and Balochistan gain Independence, run these pakjabis back into Punjab with the help of the locals in these states, and then assist the economies of Sindh and Balochistan by allowing them to be part of various energy projects in the long term -- maybe they will see development there after all these years of being deprived of it by the RAPE/Pakjabis.

Well, where is this going to end. By another godly intervention, America is being saved by creating a forced change in Pakistan. The grassroots are now waking up via media and now wide-eyed judiciary. The Pakistani army will be sent to the barracks soon and the Saudi finances will dry up just the way it had come up and Afghan militia will be culled eventually by denial of resources. ( sure, the armed Talibs will just roll over and play dead and justice, love and peace will again rule the lands.)

mayurav · Post by **mayurav** » 16 Oct 2008 20:38

renukb wrote:Who's guiding India's destiny?
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=144420

The 1998 tests did take India in the right direction by not dwelling in the might of the bomb just as Pakistani dictators have used to dominate the Islamic world. Is India on autopilot or is there another force that is controlling its destiny?.
CJ: viren naik

THERE IS an opinion being fermented amongst a group of strategic analysts who specialise in forecasting future trends in the political climate of the Middle East /South Asia region that certain events in the near history were although pre-meditated by fanaticism of the religious kind were indeed check mated by forces heather to unknown by human conceptions.

Let us look at the history of the region from May 11, 1998 onwards.
...

The judgement is still to come but the world citizens are now tired of the duality of the American policies on Pakistan and I would not be surprised that the ultimate intervention of the Allah would be reserved for them for playing a part in this premeditated game. Perhaps, we are already witnessing this via the financial crisis but that is another story waiting to be told to the future generations.

What Viren Naik invokes Allah to intervene on behalf of Pakistan? Article is indigestion of a Paki.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 16 Oct 2008 20:56

So the summary of mayurav's analysis is "Paki"? interesting that he has ignored large parts of the article to come to this conclusion.

However, I agree that the article should go in the Pakistan Interests thread -- it is definitely not arguing for Indian interests.

SandeepA · Post by **SandeepA** » 16 Oct 2008 21:11

What are we reading folks?! Read the comments below the article and the Author's response to one of them...

Imtiaz Shah
16 October 2008
India's destiny is guided by her illustrous sages and rishis including modern ones like vivekananda, aurobindo, gandhi, and ambedkar. The question is does Allah really care about Pakistan? If so, it wouldn't be in such a pitiful state, where it is literally begging for money from China, Saudia for survival.

Reply to Comment | New Comment | Report Abuse

Comments

Ramesh Manghirmalan i
14 October 2008
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is only leader looking out for India. Mrs Sonia Gandhi possess the cancer ascendant. Cancer ascendant is considered as the royal ascendant. As many top politicians, leaders have this ascendant example, George Bush, Indra Gandhi etc. In the chart of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, Lord of lagan is placed in twelfth house from Lagan, this makes lagan weak. Mars who is placed in sixth house is looking at the lagan, this further weakens the lagan. Weakening of lagan is also one of the reasons that she was not able to become the Prime minister of India. Lord of 4 house and lord of eleventh house is sitting in fourth house. This is one of the rajyog.

Reply to Comment | New Comment | Report Abuse

you missed the big one..the 'Parijat' yog.. under this yoga one separates from the life partner but on the same token after the age of say 60 a whole new world of enchantment appears ..i think the next election will mark a new era for her ..can we say the real Sonia will come to the fore then? but that does not mean she will be the PM but someone who will be renouned in History for looking after the interests of the poor and the weaker sections of our society.. regards and god bless viren naik

viren naik, 14 October 2008

...need I say more?

mayurav · Post by **mayurav** » 16 Oct 2008 21:13

Isn't Imtiaz Shah a good response to a Paki named Viren Naik?

satya · Post by **satya** » 16 Oct 2008 23:17

Three Furies Of Indian Politics

By making the problem seem like the solution, Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee and Medha Patkar have executed a neat political trick that will take a lot of effort to be undone.
Do Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee and Medha Patkar represent the future of Indian politics? Only yesterday, the three appeared to be no more than a blip on the political radar. Today, they have a template for political success, one that is destructive, of course.
On the surface, the politics of the trio seems to be very different. Mayawati is challenging Congress chief Sonia Gandhi for greater space in national politics. Banerjee wants to occupy the Writers Building in Kolkata in double quick time. Patkar has dreams of a rural idyll where industrial policy is the domain of village elders.
But these are small differences, for their politics is broadly similar. It’s also detrimental to India’s success and prosperity. To begin with, it’s geared to rural India at a time when the country is urbanizing at breakneck speed. That’s where the problem lies: How can political ideas that are no longer relevant meet the needs of India’s future? At the recent Pravasi Bharatiya Divas in Singapore, a former prime minister of that country, Lee Kwan Yew, pointed out that India could not achieve its full potential until it took the path of urbanization and commercialization of agriculture seriously. The politics espoused by the three militates against any notion of urbanization and modernization.
This, however, is just the surface of the problem. More ominous is the foundation of their politics: the ignorance of a large swathe of citizens. By making the problem seem like the solution, the three have executed a neat political trick that will take a lot of effort to be undone. In Mayawati’s case, she’s made caste mobilization look like a solution to the problem of backwardness, when in fact it was the root problem. In Patkar’s case, by saying that farmers’ land should not be taken for industrial development, she wants them to continue living in villages, the fount of rural misery. Banerjee’s tactics are similar in spirit.
More than 50 years ago, the economist Tibor Scitovsky pointed out that consumer ignorance was a major source of oligopoly power. In India, citizens’ ignorance is the fountainhead of political power. There appears to be no way to break this mould, something that will prove to be very costly in the times to come. In politics, as in other aspects of life, it’s ideas that matter even if the personalities behind them fade away. Like the three Furies—the vengeful deities of Greek mythology—the influence of the three is pervasive, but pernicious.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Oct 2008 09:23

Can someone who can read French go thru this and write synopsis 5-10 pages/

http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/themes/a ... rtino2.pdf

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Oct 2008 09:34

Maharani Jind Kaur

Vikramaditya · Post by **Vikramaditya** » 24 Oct 2008 01:25

ramana wrote:Can someone who can read French go thru this and write synopsis 5-10 pages/

http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/themes/a ... rtino2.pdf

Ramana ji , I dont understand French but there is a way around ... Google translate
Use this : http://translate.google.com/translate_t#

I translated the intro part and heres what came out :

In the early nineteenth century, Napoleon would have predicted that when China awakes, the
world would start to shake. Two hundred years later, according to the magazines and newspapers
Western prophecy seems to realize. China, in the meantime followed in its wake by
India, would be the next great power of the twenty-first century. In response to the use
abuse of power semantics applied indiscriminately to China and India that
the idea of this memory is built

What power?
This is the first question to ask. The power refers to an
within the international system that states can be classified according to a
hierarchy according to their capacity for action. The concept has been significant work and
debates in science politique3. Political scientists have launched in controversy
incessant on the choice of words, and how power should be distinguished
Other terms such as force, influence, persuasion or authority. Proponents of a
narrow view that there is power only when those on whom the power is
exerted no other choice but to surrender, in other words, "in the words of the Mafia, they
proposes an offer they can not refuse This approach is not that which is set for
This memory, because it would lead us into semantic debates and endless great
sterile hand. In very large on the contrary, the power is here defined as the ability of a
State to achieve its objectives, to do what he wants, how and when it wishes.
It can be understood in a positive direction or, in the words of Raymond Aron offensive in
capacity as a political unit to impose its will on others, to make another
State that would not otherwise do, or contrary to prevent what he would do
do. It also has a negative dimension, or defensive capacity as not to
let impose the will of autres1. As the right to modify the behavior of
different actors, this approach involves the power to be valid, it is possible
for a State to know the initial preferences of others, in other words to know in advance
how they act in the absence of his speech. This agreement implies that the
capacity of the State to achieve its objectives is at an acceptable cost to him.
What is an emerging power?

Reflections on power, most of which were developed in the United States during
the Cold War have largely focused on hegemons. This term derived from the Greek hegemonia
which means rule refers to "a variety of situations in which a state appears
have considerably more power than other "3. It is therefore especially large
Powers already established that have been studied so far.
An emerging power is by definition become a power. The two traits that
the best feature is its relativity and its instability. It is usually first
regional power, ie "a middle power playing on the regional role
superpower "4, moved gradually toward a global power status, and thus hegemon.
But his march to power is not inevitable, and it may collapse under the influence of factors
internal and / or external before reaching its target. It is perceived differently by
many actors in the international arena, as they are in front or behind
in the global hierarchy.

Why compare the emerging powers China and India in the post-cold war?
The first comparison is relevant. China and India are two great Asian States
developing. The size, demographics, the scope of reforms. current economic and possession of nuclear weapons are all characteristics
shared that make comparative analysis credible.
The comparison is then instructive1. In general, the virtues approaches
comparative politics are obvious. In a reflection on the concept of
Emerging Power, the comparison encouraged to seek that, despite the impressive
differing historical and political trajectoire of China and India, is common in the field
representations and practices of power. To be fully satisfactory, this
approach must exclude the pitfall would be to simply juxtapose the views and practices
Chinese and Indian without compare. For this reason, the plan will avoid as much as
possible to deal with China and India in separate parts, but entremêle
constantly.

The comparison is also essential. In the field of Asian Studies, on
a trend towards over-specialization of analysts and Western researchers on a
geographical area (South Asia, East Asia or Central Asia), and more on
a unique country in the case of China and India, which limits cross-analysis. Of
how bad this was what Gerald Segal known in Chinese as the "Panda
complex ", defined as" the tendency to go native. "Because the regional language is required
for extremely difficult to learn and that culture is so rich, specialists in the
China or India are particularly inclined to believe that the country they study is unique
all respects. According to Segal, "it is vital to broaden the horizons of specialists." Reintroduce
comparative approach can limit the danger of culturalist interpretations streamlining,
and thus trivializing the behavior of the two players approaching in a
much broader. This facilitates the "elevated" to theorizing avoiding
Focusing too much on national peculiarities

The end of the Cold War (1989-1991) was chosen as the starting point of this study.
This choice does not frequent allusions to the period preceding the purpose of setting
historical perspective, but it is justified by the impact that the collapse of the Soviet Union
had on the configuration of the international scene, especially on perceptions of
power. In an article founder, Charles has the first Krauthammer4 mentioned the advent of a "unipolar moment" 1. If the reality of American omnipotence is now debate the
sudden disappearance of one of the two poles of the Cold War has undoubtedly aroused among
various state actors need to reposition themselves strategically and reviewing
traditional alliances. For India in particular, the end of the Cold War meant the loss of
its main ally, the Soviet Union. In the "new international order" announced by the
President George Bush in 1991, the field is open for possibly one or more
new powers.
Furthermore, the years 1989-1991 marked a break and are a period
significant internal upheaval as for China, following the repression of demonstrations
of Tiananmen Square in 1989, that for India, with the devaluation of the rupee and the beginning of a
ambitious economic reform program in 1991

This study could not rely on a ground survey, but this did not
ultimately not proved a handicap. The approach here is primarily theoretical and
methodology. It proposes a reflection on the existing theories of power and seeks to
reconceptualization of the notion of emerging power to make the concept more
operating in political science. Since a large proportion of research is devoted to the study of
mutual perceptions, special attention was paid to the analysis of official speeches
étrangère2 policy. The websites of the Times of India newspaper, The Hindu, The Daily
People have been regularly consulted. The analysis includes of course
differential treatment of Indian and Chinese sources, given that the Times of
India and the Hindu have editorial independence, while Renmin Ribao and the Agency
New China are under the thumb of the Chinese Communist Party

The main hypothesis advanced and tested in this paper is that the analysis
emerging powers can not be done in terms identical to that of established powers.
In particular, the applicability to emerging powers of the many existing theories
the identification of a great power, that means theories of
Power is not guaranteed. An emerging power is not just a quasi-large
Power must fill some gaps to reach the height of the established powers.
In the case of a power in the making, the subjective dimension is crucial, more important
Perhaps the real capabilities. It must first themselves believe in and convince others of the reality of its potential and its emergence. For a real understanding,
emerging powers require developing a theory that is specific.
Three underlying issues accompany continually thinking. First,
how to "seize" the power, by nature multidimensional and complex? Then, holding
power, how and for what purpose? Finally, to what extent it knows (criteria
objectives) or recognizes it (belief) the emerging power

Thinking revolves around a distinction between real power and power lived.
The first part is face to face China and India by offering a comparison most
possible1 objective of their respective potentials. It therefore akin to a search
classic criteria of power, in terms of resources and capabilities to enable
obtaining the desired results. The second part focuses on power as
speech made by emerging countries and received by the other actors in the international arena.
It aims to understand and representations of power, or given despite
potential resources mentioned in the first part. The distinction resources
Actual / Word may at first seem artificial, while any speech thrives on reality
existing and vice versa. The idea here is rather to approach the same phenomenon, the emergence of
Powers, from two different angles but not necessarily exclusive of one another.
The "spirit" of the two parts of memory is radically different. If the first part is
on extensive statistical data "raw" and particularly appeal to science
Economically, the second, more subjective, does not hesitate to resort to lengthy quotes from players
, in order to better understand the perceptions of self and others

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2008 20:38

X-posted...

SSridhar wrote:There was some discussion on Sardar Patel. I quote what J.N.Dixit had to say about him in his book:

Even more significant, however, were Patel's profoundly prescient views and assessment on India's relations with Pakistan and China. Much before Pakistani tribes invaded Jammu & Kashmir, Patel had anticipated Pakistan's intentions. As the Boundary Commission working out the partition of India met and negotiations proceeded with Lord Mountbatten between March 1946 and July 1947, Sardar Patel pointed out in discussions within the Congress Party that Pakistan would not accept the territorial arrangements being discussed and about to be finalized.

He stated that Pakistan would not be happy about the division of Punjab and Bengal and would lay claims to the larger Muslim Princely states like Hyderabad and Jammu & Kashmir. He advised Pandit Nehru and his senior colleagues to be prepared not only for political opposition, but military confrontation with Pakistan in the aftermath of Partition. He was a strong advocate of building up India's defence technology capacities. When Pakistani tribes invaded Jammu & Kashmir in 1947 and followed it up by sending regular Pakistani troops, Sardar Patel's advice was a full-scale, firm and extensive military retaliation.

He was not in favour of India going to the UN with a complaint on the Kashmir issue.He also opposed India stopping its military operations halfway through the campaign, which resulted in Pakistan remaining in control of one-third of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He saw clearly that the UN would not take a decision on India's complaint on the merits of the issue, and that its decisions would be subject to strategic interests and political inclinations primarily of Britain and then the US and other Western powers.

Patel perceived that Britain would side with Pakistan. This assessment was based on the understanding that Britain had partitioned India in the expectation that while the dominion of India would be fragmented and subject to various centrifugal pressures, Pakistan would emerge as the most cohesive, political, ethnoreligious and military entity in the subcontinent; and that Pakistan would naturally ally itself with Britain for having accepted the two-nation theory and having granted a Muslim homeland to them in the subcontinent.

He also felt that Indian military operations in Jammu & Kashmir in 1947-48 should be terminated only after all of Jammu & Kashmir was liberated from Pakistani invaders. He wa sof the view that decisive political and military action against Pakistan was the only way to ensure that it did not destabilize India's unity and endanger its security. Patel firmly believed that peace with Pakistan could be ensured on the basis of decisive strength instead of agreeing to irrational compromises.

Simply fantastic. What a calrity of thought and what prescience ! Patel's letter to JLN on China is even more accurate. May be I will post it in the China thread.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 30 Oct 2008 21:43

Not to go off topic, but could anyone steer me in the direction of a solid biography of Sardar Vallabhai Patel?

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 30 Oct 2008 21:46

Keshav wrote:Not to go off topic, but could anyone steer me in the direction of a solid biography of Sardar Vallabhai Patel?

"Sardar" by B. Krishna.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Oct 2008 03:36

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:Yes he was the brother of Suleiman the magnificient according to Ferishta, the son of Murad II. He was to be massacred per Ottomon tradition except his mother had him spirited away and he was sold in slavery. He showed up at the Bahmani kngdom and went on to found the Bijapur sultanate. His title was Yusuf Adil Shah. Many of the founders of the split kingdoms of Bahmani sultantate were migrants from Middle East . One of them Qasim Barid was supposed to be a Hungarian.
India was center for muslim immigration between 1200-1700 AD from all over the Muslim world. India was considered freindly and wealthy and Muslims with arab and Turkish heritage could get favours from the Muslim rulers of the sub continent during that period. The class system among the muslims got created with pure Arab, Irani and Turkish heritage considered Ashraf and ruling class.

So when psecs wax eloquent about the open door policy which 'enriched' India they forget to mention how it all was facilitated. BTW, Bijapur has the graves of over a 1000 pirs and sufis of many Islamic orders per wiki page.

The British colonial rule cut-off this emigration from the Muslim world and replaced it with European world but at a lesser scale. Creation of TSP also cut off the land route for this migration.

And the WKKs now want to re-open the tap with open borders with TSP.
-----------------------
If you look at Indian History in the Hindu period and subsequent Muslim period, the Indian psyche is governed by immense material opulence coupled with politicial impotence and arrogance. The periods of greatness are those where individual rulers were able to overcome the enuui that afflicts the Indian mind and exercise authority. They forged bonds of self-worth among their subjects and were ablet ostrive for greatness. For every such ruler there exist a band of crabs who try to pull them under and have to be negated.

The current spate of news reporting is to negate the self-worth of Indians and the English media is an active participant in the crusade. Their mission is to ensure that poltical impotence is continued. So need to breaak the cycle.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Oct 2008 04:13

Baras, Punjab: Where Prophets rest in peace ( must be some of those pious Muslims coming to India)

There is evidence to indicate that prophets have walked throughout its length and breadth. Hence, we find graves which are reportedly the final resting places of prophets, known and unknown, from Ayodhya in the north to Rameswaram in south. One such place not commonly known is located right in the heart of Punjab .

Baras is a small village of two thousand in Fatehgarh Saheb district. It is situated at a distance of seventeen kilometers from the famous town of Sirhind . On the edge of the village is a large hillock which appears to have been witness to several human settlements down the ages. At an elevation of about fifty feet at its centre are thirteen graves, each one at least nine to twelve feet in length, which reportedly belong to prophets. This claim would have been rejected but for its confirmation by many stalwarts of Islamic orthodoxy like Shaikh Ahmed Sirhindi and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi
At first it was decided that it be utilized for its water but the plan was abandoned after elderly local residents narrated tragic events of 1947. Several Muslim women had reportedly jumped in the well to save their honor after their men were massacred. A beautiful water foundation now stands at its site. At the summit of the hillock a Masjid was constructed where five times daily prayers are held. A Madrasa with qualified teachers also functions from the mosque.

An unusual peacefulness and calm pervades throughout Baras. Contemplating here tells you the silent story of fortunes and losses of long forgotten communities and the men who came to guide them. For the discerning observer it delivers another lesson: that Islam is not a foreign religion in India . Despite the claims of the fanatics Islam is as Indian a religion as any other
http://indianmuslims.in/baras-punjab-wh ... -in-peace/

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 31 Oct 2008 08:52

Some notes on Sardar Patel. It's important to remember that Patel had followed Gandhiji's policy until 1946, when he gained control of the home ministry, and emerged as the most pragmatic and successful statesman in India.

Brigadier NPA Smith, the head of the IB which had spent its energy on tracking INC members rather than tackling the Muslim League's communal terrorism, now came under Sardar Patel who became the Home Minister in the Interim government of 1946. After his first few meetings with Patel where he tried to make the Sardar follow a policy of Muslim-appeasement, Smith wrote about the result to the Viceroy Lord Wavell:

"I told him (Sardar Patel)....that any attempt to force the Muslim would result, through the disintegration of the police and army, in the loss of NW India. His reply was that, if I thought that generosity would placate the Muslim Oliver Twist, I did not understand either the Muslim mind or the situation. With which statement I am tempted to agree."

On Nehru's plan for a socialist economy Patel said, "the government would not be able to produce a sufficient number of trained and educated administrators to run the nationalized industry. The government without the credit to raise loans would not be able to finance all these great schemes."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Nov 2008 02:25

Deccan Chronicle, 10 Nov 2008

Undo linguistic states to strengthen democracy
By Vasanthi Srinivasan

Speaking against the violence in Maharashtra, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reminded that "tribal animosities are an act of disservice to the country." Long ago, Chakaravarti Rajagopalachari (fondly referred to as Rajaji), had referred to the very idea of linguistic states as a "tribal idea." Of course, it may be argued that the use of the term tribal reeks of prejudice and that tribal worldviews are neither narrow nor parochial. But to get to the spirit of the criticism voiced here, it is useful to revisit Rajaji’s strident opposition to linguistic states and the remedies he suggested.

It is well known that Rajaji was against Andhra statehood and deployed all his cunning to delay the inevitable. In fact, his reputation as a Machiavellian politician stems from the use of unpopular and unfair tactics in this regard. At the height of the agitation in 1952, when Potti Sriramulu’s fast was already past 50 days, Rajaji stated that an adjournment motion in the Madras Assembly will not save the situation of the Andhra province or the fast. When Potti Sriramulu died after 58 days of fasting on 15 December 1952, Rajaji is said to have left Madras without a forwarding address during the resulting chaos. While conceding the separation of Telugu districts from Madras Presidency, he did not abandon his opposition to the idea of linguistic states.

Prejudices apart, Rajaji had been consistently opposed to linguistic reorganisation. It may be recalled that Nehru himself was reluctant for a long time and employed delaying tactics in many instances. Rajaji was clear that language cannot be the only basis for a division of states and that prosperity and economic interdependence must be taken into account.

B.R. Ambedkar revealed that Rajaji prophesised the break up of India into "North" and "South" when he was the Governor-General. He feared that linguistic reorganisation would reduce the political significance of the South by splitting that part into smaller states. If it could not be shelved, the alternative is to create a unitary state so that national energy is not frittered away in disputes over boundaries. Another alternative was to provide for two federations of the North and South with a confederation of both to legislate upon some common subjects.

But Ambedkar thought otherwise. He argued that "there is equal danger in not having linguistic states. The former danger a wise statesman can avert. But the dangers of a mixed state are greater and beyond the control of a statesman, however eminent."

He felt that "in a heterogeneous population divided into groups which are hostile towards one another, the working of democracy is bound to give rise to cases of discrimination, neglect, partiality and suppression of the interests of one group at the hands of another which happens to capture political power". Linguistic reorganisation would produce social homogeneity and remove communal and cultural tension. This would make the working of democracy easier and smoother.

Underlying Rajaji’s passionate opposition was the fear that a principled linguistic reorganisation would inhibit the synthesis that was going on everywhere thanks to the economic necessity of migration. To quote him:

I am against regional autonomy based on majority language. Linguistic demarcation is contrary to the whole trend of modern India where a widespread synthesis is in operation. It is anti-progressive, as was clearly seen by Jawaharlal Nehru in the unfortunate case of the break up of Hyderabad which he helplessly allowed to be done against his conviction

.

Instead of inhibiting it, prudent statesmen must enhance and shape the nature of such synthesis. They must work toward "mixed states" so that the democratic process is not thwarted into majority domination. Rajaji drew attention to the threat of majoritarianism when he judged conflicting options, be it the question of an official language or linguistic states. On the Hindi question, he articulated the rationale best; the so-called Hindi majority, he argued, was only a political majority forged by a unitary party machine and had no reality. He argued that majority rule can be genuinely democratic only when majorities and minorities are "evenly mixed up".

In reality, there are uneven mixtures of people everywhere; Rajaji also knew that ordinary politicians often stoke the passions of different sections and create spurious political majorities. It was for statesmen to strive toward "even" mixtures through judicious policies and procedures. For instance, he saw no reason for keeping Goa or Pondicherry as Union territories as if they were "imperial pendants" of the conqueror in Delhi. Instead, if acquisition or merger were necessary, the immediate neighbourhood was the natural habitat, he urged. Assimilationist tendencies are not harmful per se; for instance, when some MLAs complained that many Tamils in Tirupati were being officially described as Telugu-speaking, he quipped that it was a "good thing".

But homogeneity was not to be the main aim of policy. Rajaji always held that the main aim of policy must be to avoid the great evil of majoritarian tyranny. As competition mounts for scarce resources and jobs, his emphasis on undoing linguistic states along with ensuring good government everywhere gain salience. To quote him:

We cannot, we are told, undo the reorganised linguistic States. We can and must. The process may now be awkward and round-about; such as zonal clubbing and re-organised autonomy based on a new footing, but it must be done.

It will help to put justice and good government on more stable foundations than on the will of the majority in one so-called linguistic area. It is the only way to restore peace and contentment; the only way to strengthen Indian democracy.

His idea of zonal clubbing is as compelling as the competing idea of smaller states.

Also, as our linguistic states become more and more "mixed up", we may also have to think of procedures that can sustain and balance the dynamics of majorities and minorities within such mixtures. Above all, we must think through how such mixtures evolve and mature in some places (as in say Andhra Pradesh where a sizeable Tamil population has flourished) and break down in some contexts.

Dr Vasanthi Srinivasan teaches political theory at the University of Hyderabad and is the author of Gandhi’s Conscience Keeper: C. Rajagopalachari and Indian Politics, to be published by Permanent Black

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 11 Nov 2008 05:53

Who's guiding India's destiny?

Anybody who invokes the word Nazism to describe anyone on the right cannot honestly hope to be taken seriously. The fact that he does believe that only furthers the case to ignore this particular "CJ".

I fail to understand how nuclear testing slays Gandhi and parades Nazism. It's deterrance against future attacks - no one said anyone was actually going to launch it. It makes you want to pound your head against the wall.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Nov 2008 07:04

I think we give shady news outlets some much needed publicity by quoting these articles.
would be better to avoid these.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 11 Nov 2008 08:16

Centre tight-lipped on Qatar deal

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 11 Nov 2008 22:27

India, Qatar Discuss Defense Cooperation

NEW DELHI - India has struck a defense agreement with Qatar which includes the possibilities of stationing Indian troops in the Arab country, sources in the Indian Defence Ministry said. The cooperation agreement was inked during the ongoing visit to the Arab world by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The two countries also have joined in a maritime security arrangement, which will be extended to other countries, a senior Indian Defence Ministry official said.

India and Qatar had agreed in June 2007 to jointly produce weapons and equipment. An agreement to this effect was reached during the visit of then-Indian Defence Secretary Shekhar Dutt and senior Qatari defense officials.

The defense cooperation pact signed during Singh's visit also will pave the way for joint production of weaponry at Indian facilities.

Indian Defence Ministry sources said Qatar is keen to collaborate with Indian private and state-owned defense companies, which in turn have entered into some sort of a tie-up with American companies for weapon and equipment production

Before his arrival in Qatar, Singh discussed areas of defense cooperation with Oman. Currently, India and Oman's defense cooperation is limited to training of Oman personnel at Indian facilities and joint naval exercises.

What purpose do troops in the country serve apart from projection of power?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 11 Nov 2008 22:30

Perhaps Rapid response to crisis in securing trade routes? India does have commercial shipping lanes it would need to protect (or outsource this protection of sea lanes to someone else).

dattch · Post by **dattch** » 12 Nov 2008 04:39

Have been a visitor to the BRF site for some time now. Great posts and a great source of the real news when one wants to look behind the propaganda of some of the Indian media.
Just became aware of an interesting blog site - www.dikgaj.wordpress.com. Don't know who the blogger is but appears to have invested a lot in researching Indian history. Thought this is the most appropriate topic thread in which to post this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2008 03:06

Pran Chopra anguishes in Deccan Chronicle, 18 Nov., 2008

India’s economic rise and political decline
By Pran Chopra

India is not a stranger to political uncertainties. But there is a sense in which in its present political phase the country faces an exceptional load of political uncertainty, and with less confidence in itself than it did before, and with less assurance about what its political future may hold.

To say this is not to contradict the many good things the world is saying about India’s economic performance in recent years. In fact, it is not often that the Indian economy gets the kind of praise it has been receiving in the past few months, when many assessments have described it as second only to the Chinese economy and second to none in stability and spread of its performance.

Two questions arise. First, can a country’s economic and political circumstances diverge as much from each other as they seem to have done in the case of India — the state of politics and India’s economic well being? And, second, for how long can they go on diverging so much without the divergence harming both?

But these questions are not the subject here. The present subject is only the fact of the divergence, its possible causes and the remedies which the causes may suggest if and when we begin to heed the causes.

One principal cause — which is as easy to cure as it is to see — is that of late the world, and India itself, has focused more on what they think India can do to make the world more prosperous, and not on what India can do to make itself less poor. Even when the Indian economy is criticised, it is criticised more for doing less than it should for the world’s economy than it is for not doing enough for its own poor.

For example, the countries with which India has close economic relations show more concern over what India’s real or imagined deficiencies might be as a trading partner than they show over India’s track record of fairness towards its own people in its domestic economy. Up to a point this is understandable. These countries benefit more from or are hurt more by India’s performance in their trade with India, than they are by what India does or fails to do for making its internal economy more equitable for its own people.

Or take another example, which is even closer to home because it shows even better what interests Indians themselves about India. Quite early in the tenure of the present government, it was officially announced that the government had allotted an impressive amount (Rs 70,000 crores, as I recall) for the benefit of the poor. The public response was so enthusiastic that it improved the government’s chances in some impending elections.

But precious little has been heard since then about how much of this amount has been actually allotted, how it has been spent, with what benefit to those for whom it was meant. If little has been heard (and I suspect this is so) it shows what sells in the headlines market of the media: a grand announcement, not what happens thereafter.

But then who owns the media, or at least the more visible and effective parts of it? The same persons and institutions that own the media also control the vote market through the media they own. That is why so much coverage of India in the Indian media itself is a reflection of and a commentary on what interests a section of India, or may interest some foreign countries which deal mostly with that section, not with what can be appropriately called "India".

What one or another country says or does about India interests them more than what Indians themselves do or say about their own country. It is not their fault that they do so. "They" are justified in looking at India through their own eyes rather than India’s eyes as their consumers are more interested in what other countries are saying.

But there is a danger in this for themselves as well. If a country is as intense politically as India is, and calls itself democratic even if it be so mostly in name, then it cannot sustain its economy without giving it its due political underpinnings.

If the structure collapses because it has been denied its "due political underpinnings" then, sooner or later, the economy will also collapse. Someone may hold it up for a while by means which may seem "democratic" but are not really so. But a country which has been largely democratic for a period of time cannot wholly do without democracy for long.

That brings us to "what is the subject here", namely to what extent has India acquired "the due political underpinnings". The answer is "to a large extent", and the extent has been expanding year by year. It might have deviated occasionally, but the worry here is not these "deviations". They are a part of the learning process and the Indian people have shown they can deal with the deviants. The worry is that while the structure is ready it has yet to be inhabited sufficiently by the spirit of its "due political underpinnings".

How much of the structure is empty yet has been demonstrated on some occasions in the past, occasions when the spirit of the "due political underpinnings" has been displaced by thoughtless pretensions. The reference here is to the times when productive occupation of the structure has been upset by too many unworthy claimants to the space within it. They claim to honour the space and spirit of the structure but, in fact, violate its democratic purpose. Among the "they" are many who are or have been heads or spokespersons or leaders of governments in India, some at the Centre and some in the states of the Union.

Quite something to reflect on.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Nov 2008 03:49

This point is what we are discussing in the Indian economy thread.
For several decades this fooling has been going on.

One principal cause — which is as easy to cure as it is to see — is that of late the world, and India itself, has focused more on what they think India can do to make the world more prosperous, and not on what India can do to make itself less poor. Even when the Indian economy is criticised, it is criticised more for doing less than it should for the world’s economy than it is for not doing enough for its own poor.

For example, the countries with which India has close economic relations show more concern over what India’s real or imagined deficiencies might be as a trading partner than they show over India’s track record of fairness towards its own people in its domestic economy. Up to a point this is understandable. These countries benefit more from or are hurt more by India’s performance in their trade with India, than they are by what India does or fails to do for making its internal economy more equitable for its own people.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Nov 2008 04:39

Political instability and economic growth have very close links, and they are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Economic growth itself can cause political instability or political instability can lead to economic growth. The problem with the quoted article is because it probably comes from someone without much grasp of the domain of political economy and history of world economic growth. In the modern period (starting around 18th century from which we have more reliable and voluminous records) the major "revolutions" all took place after relative growths in the concerned economies or when the economies were on the upwards growth curve (see deTocquevilles's studies on the economic background to the French Revolution). Similar studies exist on the Russian, the Nazi, and the Chinese revolutions. The empirical observations of Eric Hoffer on the "The true Believer -Psychology of Mass Movements" can appear to be "non-rigorous" by modern social sciences standards (Hoffer was writing in 1948 as far as I remember) but interested readers should find very pertinent observations in that work relevant to the current discussion.

The key is the emergence of a social group, not necessarily the numerical majority, which has tasted socio-economic growth but sees obstacles in the existing state machinery or groups in power which control and exploit such obstacles. It is this mismatch between existing state apparatus and social relations of power that creates the dynamic of political instability.

India is moving towards a period where emerging economic forces and its human associates are increasingly coming into conflict with a state apparatus that is outmoded and outdated. Other factors rooted in the history of the subcontinent and how that history has been attempted to be reconstructed has combined with emerging economic forces to create political instability. Briefly, colonial strategy transferred power deliberately to a weak "non-military" political leader with regional power base, who would be forced to maintain reliance on the west, and follow western policy essentially. The western post-colonial control was maintained in continuity through education and affiliation of personnel in the state apparatus who had been nurtured under colonial "hands" - both in the civilian as well as the military sectors. We see many pointers of this - with well-known examples of people found later to have been exposed to western intelligence finding close trusted advisory roles to key political leadership. In the military this was done more efficiently but still obvious in the treatment of the INA soldiers, the naval revolt participants, and the returnees from WWII (the latter case could be used as proof for the "patriotism" of the politicians but in reality it probably has more to do with British political interests in not highlighting Indian contribution to the victory). It was a matter of time before natural death decreased the proportion of such "faithful" (if not in practice but at least in "ideology") "servants" and upcoming generations represented less and less influence of the "colonial educational affinity". Newer generations would reflect deep cultural identifications with the "majority" culture and reassert political perceptions maintained through strong intergenerational transfers of experience in spite of all possible propaganda by reconstructive "historians" of regime dependent schools of history. This social group is already having its impact on the economic front, and with it comes the conflict with the state apparatus built for "colonial dependence".

The future holds cultural consolidation, a more conscious shift towards the "Right" (because of the opposition by forces identified as "left/left of centre" and their perception as "obstacles"), simpilification of the state apparatus and democratically sponsored "authoritarianism", a much greater role for the "military" (for which it is not being prepared and rather being "starved"), strategic expansion and further economic growth. Authoritarian regimes are well-known to have been responsible for spectacular economic growth - and to borrow from Gramsci - dictatorial regimes appear to be necessary in revolutionary transitions of societies (dictators can overcome the problems of hegemony over the "twin floors" of social power relations).

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 19 Nov 2008 06:48

brihaspati garu,

Thank yo for that amazing write-up. Am totally bowled over onlee.

What you exposit in sociological jargon is precisely what I discerned in bits and pieces in the current sociopolitical milieu. But you bring these phenomena under a common framework. A unified treatment if you will, of what is happening now in yindia with insights into the direction we're heading to, and replete with policy implications and geopolitical possibilities. Amazing! hats off! Mazaa aa gaya!

P.S.
Pls to consider contributing to BRM/SRR.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Nov 2008 08:24

brihaspati wrote: Newer generations would reflect deep cultural identifications with the "majority" culture and reassert political perceptions maintained through strong intergenerational transfers of experience in spite of all possible propaganda by reconstructive "historians" of regime dependent schools of history. This social group is already having its impact on the economic front, and with it comes the conflict with the state apparatus built for "colonial dependence".

This is a masterpiece and needs further expansion. The only thing I will fault here is the use of the perception of "majority culture".
This reconstructive "historians" and regime "enforcers" are anomaly which is not present in any other country other than India.
The dichotomy of majority/minority in cultural terms is a manufactured dichotomy and unique to only India.

So this normal nationalism is a delayed one being suppressed by the regime "enforcers"