Indian Interests

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby RamaY » 03 Sep 2008 04:51

A free translation of a great article from one of the Telugu news papers. Any/all mistakes are mine...

As per the History written by Bharatiyaas (Indians) Lord Krishna lived during the end days of Dwapara eon. He passed away 5109 years before present day. Before that Krishna lived for 120 years. The Mahabharata war happened in 3138BC. In this background the historical facts about Sri Krishna and Balarama become more meaningful.

Krishna is India’s first statesman. He inspired entire India with his nationalistic vigor. But neither became a king or monarch nor he ruled the populace.

Before Krishna’s birth, the ‘Bruhadradha’ clan has been ruling the Bharata varsha for almost 1000 years with ‘Girivraja’ as the capital. Girivraja was todays Magadha area. ‘Jarasandha’m, ruler of Girivraja, was that days monarch for India.

Naraka from ‘Pragjyotisha’ (present day North East) has been plundering eastern India. Attacking Indian culture and border states.

South-indian kingdoms didn’t recognize Jarasandha’s hegomany. Kamsa was ruling the Mathura kingdom, which is located west of Magadha. Gonanda clan of Kashmir were followers of Jarasandha. Between Mathura and Kashmir was Kuru kingdom. Eventhough Bhishma was a great leader, he denounced the kingdom and was busy with family affairs, thus becoming ineffective in addressing national issues. Videha and Vidharbha kings were totally useless. The Kiraata clan kings of Nepal stayed as mere spectators to Narakaa’s south-western moves. To west of Kashmir was Gandhara and further south was Madra. Both these kingdoms started drifting away from hindu national culture and being influenced by external tribal cultures.

Magadha, irrespective of being the centre of the Bharata-varsha and cultural leader, became ineffective in fulfilling its role as protector of the culture and Bharata varsha. More over Magadha’s social order became a mess with so many unnatural tendencies. Cannibalism became a fashion among few cults. New interpretations of Vedas and Upanishads have come up.

In such a background Krishna and Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa entered Indian social and political scene. Due to their enmity with Kamsa, Krishna and Balarama spent most of their childhood away from Mathura. Krishna killed Kamsa when he was 12 years old. Kamsa’s father Ugrasena became king to Mathura. Jarasandtha was Kamsa’s father-in-law. Thus Jarasamtha, the emperor , has become lifelong enemy of Krishna and tried to get back at him. In the process Jarasamtha gave up his responsibility towards Bharata Varsha.

Krishna felt the necessity of removing Jarasantha as he is going away from Bharatiyata or sanatana-dharma. But to protect the cultural and national integrity, removal of Magatha king requires another able power center.

Per Krishna’s strategy, Jarasantha’s death is the first step in achieving Indian cultural and national integrity. Setting up the alternate power center is second step. Establishing the literary foundation for thus re-united national culture is third step. Krishna is the only leader who achieve all these three objectives of his strategy.

The decision about who should be the new emperors had been made after Draupadi swayamvaram. He propped-up the Pandavas after this incident. Killing of Hidimba and Bakasura by Bhima and Destroying the Matsya Yantra during the swayamvara became symbols of Pandavas’ capabilities. Thus Krishna showed his statesmanship in electing the righteous and sanatana-dharma-worshipping Pandavas as future emperors of India.

The household issue of Kuru and Pandavas is a small issue. If resolving this issue is the objective, Krishna would have killed Duryodhana after Subadhra and Arjuna’s marriage and made Pandava’s new kings of Hastinapura.

But Krishna’s enemity is with Jarasantha and his inability in protecting the national and cultural integrity of Bharata varsha. That is why he encouraged Yudhistara (Dharmaraja) to conduct ‘Rajasuya yaga’ so he can introduce all the kings and kingdoms in Bharata varsha to Pandavaas.

Conducting rajasuya while there is an emperor (Jarasandha) in the land means questioning the authority of Jarasandha. That is why Bhima killed Jarasantha. This is all part of Krishna’s strategy. Entire Bharata varsha believed in the capabilities of Pandavas with the killing of Jarasantha.

In addition to building an alternate power center, rejuvenating the veda based national-cultural identity is also highly important. Vedas are the foundation of our national culture. With the help of Krishna Dwaipayana (Veda Vyasa) he revived the sanatana dharma. Vyasa organized the Vedas as per contemporary needs. Naimisaranya and Badarikaranya became the new scientific and literary centers.

Even after achieving these epic tasks, Krishna didn’t became the ruler or king. A true statesman is not limited just to the political aspect of nation building. In the national-cultural leadership, politics is just one part. This is the outlook of Indians. This is India’s culture. And Krishna is the epitome of this culture. If this Son-of-India’s creation lived and survived for 5000 years in spite of numerous military, cultural and religious onslaughts, what is wrong in calling Krishna god’s avataar?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 03 Sep 2008 09:02

RamaY,
Very good commentary on Mahabharat. Can you give source or link to the orginal version? try to pdf it for future use.

Parasuram, You might find the above translation interesting for it aligns with some of your dad's works.

ramana

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Arun_S » 03 Sep 2008 22:15

THE HINDU-CHRISTIAN DIVIDE - B.RAMAN
B.RAMAN

Every Indian, who wishes to see India grow in unity, strength and prosperity, will be concerned over the implications of the emergence of a growing Hindu-Christian divide in the Indian civil society.

2. The recent shocking incidents of violence in some parts of the State of Orissa have brought home to us the extent to which the poison inthe relations between the two communities has spread. What one saw in Orissa was nothing less than a mini version of what one saw in Gujarat in 2002.

3. In Gujarat, the massacre of a group of Hindu pilgrims travelling in a railway compartment by a group of Muslim fanatics when the train had stopped at a railway station called Godhra, led to widespread retaliatory attacks on members of the Muslim community in different partsof the State. The brutal violence witnessed during these incidents committed initially by the Muslims and subsequently by the Hindus should be a matter of shame to us as a nation.

4. In Orissa, the brutal murder of a highly-respected leader of the Hindu community belonging to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by a groupof suspected Christian elements led to widespread attacks by members of the Hindu community----most of them allegedly belonging to the VHP--- on the Christan community. The casualties in Orissa were thankfully small as compared to those in Gujarat in 2002, but the brutality witnessed on both sides----initially by alleged Christian elements and subsequently by alleged VHP members--- was no less disturbing than what one had seen in Gujarat in 2002.

5. The seeds of the Hindu-Muslim divide were initially sown by the British during the pre-1947 colonial days. It resulted in the creation ofPakistan and the subsequent violent incidents between the Hindu and Muslim communities in different parts of India. The jihadi terrorism witnessed in different parts of India since the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a group of Hindus in December,1992,marked a new phase in the continuing divide between some sections of the Hindus and the Muslims. Forunately, this mental divide remained confined to small sections of the two communities. The two communities as a whole have till now not allowed the attempts of these small sections to spread this poison further to succeed. One of the objectives of the repeated jihadi terrorist strikes is to aggravate this divide.

6. The seeds of the Hindu-Christian divide were sown much later---long after India became independent. Even in the 1950s and the 1960s,there were concerns over the objectionable activities of foreign Christian missionaries in Indian territory. These activities perceived as objectionable not only by large sections of the Hindu community, but also by the intelligence and security agencies and by highly-respected leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi consisted of attempts to indulge in large -scale conversion of underprivileged Hindus and animist tribals in Central India into Christianity with the help of large, unrestricted flow of funds from the Vatican and from Catholic and Baptist organisations in the US and the role played by foreign missionaries such as the late Rev.Michael Scot in instigating the insurgency in the North-East where many of the inhabitants in Nagaland and Mizoram are Baptists.

7. Just as the flow of money from so-called Muslim charity organisations in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries sought to sustain and aggravate the divide between the Muslims and the Hindus, projected as infidels, and to promote jihadi terrorism in Indian territory, the flow of money from the Vatican and Christian missionary and fundamentalist organisations in the West tended to create a mental divide between the Hindus and the Christians and promote and sustain the insurgency in our North-East.

8. But the leaders of India in the post-independence years sought to see that the concerns over the role of the foreign Christian missionaries and the massive funds at their disposal did not create unwarranted suspicions in the minds of the Hindu community against their Christian fellow-citizens. They realised that if they allowed such suspicions to appear in the relations between the two communities, they would only be playing into the hands of foreign missionary organisations, which wanted to create a mental divide. They refrained from viewing our Christian fellow-citizens as surrogates of the foreign missionary organisations.

9. This conscious attempt not to allow suspicions about foreign Christian missionary organisations create prejudices in our mind about our Christian fellow-citizens started disappearing after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led coalition came to power in Delhi in 1998. For thefirst time, there was a greater aggressiveness and less sensitivity in the interactions between the Christian organisations----foreign as well as indigenous-- and Hindu organisations such as the VHP. It would be incorrect to blame the Government of A.B.Vajpayee for this development. No Government policy directly encouraged this development. But the silence of the Government in the face of an aggressive campaign against certain aspects of the activities of Christian organisations and against certain elements of the Christian community by the VHP indirectly led to the emergence of the first signs of a mental divide between the two communities. I was myself a witness to this post-1998 aggressive anti-Christian campaign by the VHP on some occasions.

10. This aggressive campaign by the VHP led to an equally aggressive counter-campaign by some of the indigenous Christian organisations against the VHP and those associated with it, directly or indirectly. Some members of the community of Indian origin in the US---Hindus as well as Christians--- joined this campaign, with the Hindus in the US supporting the VHP and the Christians of Indian origin in the US supporting anti-VHP organisations.

11. From an anti-conversion campaign, which in my view is justified if peaceful and in accordance with law, it took on additional dimensions of a disturbing nature. One such dimension was anti-Vatican. Sonia Gandhi, who before 1998 was projected as of Italian origin and hence unsuitable to be the Prime Minister of India, was post-1998 sought to be projected as a Roman Catholic with suspected ties to the Vatican.She was projected as the source of the greater aggressiveness exhibited by the Christian organisations. There was a discernible attempt to merge the anti-Christian and the anti-Sonia campaigns.

12. This aggression and counter-aggression, rhetoric and counter-rhetoric totally lacking in a sense of balance between the VHP on the one side and some Christian organisations on the other threaten to create fresh pockets of social and religious disharmony in the already fragile Indian society. If India is to take its place as an important power in the world and as the equal, if not the better, of China, it is important for all right-thinking people----whatever be their religion or language or political background--- to come together to strongly oppose these new divisive trends in our society and nation.

13. The Hindus constitute the preponderant majority of this nation with 80 per cent of the population. India is their homeland and they have every right to protect their interests and to safeguard the essentially Hindu nature of this country. They have a right to have organisations such as the VHP to help them in doing so. At the same time, they have an important responsibility to carry out their activities in a peaceful manner in such a way as not to add to the divisions in our society. We have to find ways of making the interests of different religious groups and communities compatible with each other and not antagonistic to each other.

14. The way the VHP and the Christian organisations determined to oppose it are carrying on their activities is threatening to create more pockets of mutual antagonism than pockets of unity and harmony. This is not good for India.(3-9-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby RamaY » 04 Sep 2008 00:07

Ramana ji,

The site doesn't archive. It was an article in Andhrabhoomi news paper. I have the image files on winkflash. Please send me a PM and i will send you access details.

thanks


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 05 Sep 2008 05:03

Book Review in Telegraph, Kolkota, 5 Sept 2008

HIGHS AND LOWS OF THE INDIAN ECONOMY AFTER INDEPENDENCE

HIGHS AND LOWS OF THE INDIAN ECONOMY AFTER INDEPENDENCE

Under liberal regimes
Arvind Panagariya’s latest work is arguably the most comprehensive and incisive book written on the economic history of post-independence India. A distinguished professor of economics at Columbia University, the author is familiar to the lay readers in India through his columns in a leading financial daily that tackle complex economic and social issues.

The book divides the period between 1951 to 2006 into four phases based on mean growth rates: 1951-65, at 4.1 per cent, is titled “Takeoff under a liberal regime”, 1965-81, at 3.2 per cent, is “Socialism strikes with a vengeance”, 1981-88, at 4.8 per cent, is “Liberalisation by stealth”, and finally 1988 to 2006, at 6.3 per cent, is labelled “Triumph of liberalisation”.

The first phase witnessed massive public investment in industry, infrastructure, agriculture and social sectors. This was made possible by running down the huge sterling balances inherited from World War II and through liberal foreign aid. But as Jawaharlal Nehru found to his dismay, the prosperity could not be sustained and two droughts, war with Pakistan and the consequent suspension of foreign aid resulted in economic ruin in 1965. The second phase, with garibi hatao as Indira Gandhi’s clarion call, was a nightmare so far as the economy was concerned, with the growth rate of gross domestic product shrinking to 2.6 per cent and per capita growth becoming almost nil as a consequence. Moreover, poverty was not reduced. In an interesting exercise, Panagariya demonstrates how apparent growth during the Rajiv Gandhi years had only weakened the macro economic condition and it is the growth since 1992 that is genuinely sustainable.

The chapter on the economic and social evolution of India and Korea makes interesting reading. Both countries were in a post-colonial phase in the 1950s with a growth rate of around 4 per cent and similar per capita GDP rates. Thereafter, Korea switched to export orientation while India remained devoted to import substitution. Korea became a miracle economy with a GDP per capita of $198,624 in 2007 — which is 20 times India’s $965. The delay, till 1991, in the opening up the Indian economy resulted in myriad problems that India today finds difficult to cope with. The recent reforms make it evident that the number of people living below the poverty line or without basic education is strongly related to the GDP per capita. So the cost of the delay in the opening up of India till 1991 has to be measured in terms of the hundreds of millions of people left below the poverty line, an equal number left without access to healthcare and around half a billion deprived of primary education.

No book on the Indian economy can be complete without the author having a crack at poverty and inequality. Panagariya is no exception. The topic is highly contentious since official sample surveys, which form the empirical basis of the debate, changed definitions of poverty a number of times. As such, there is no continuous series of study on which everyone can agree. Panagariya has done a commendable job in painstakingly describing the subtle changes in the definitions of poverty, thus bringing about some order in this field.

He argues convincingly that policy focus on equality often weakens the fight against poverty. This is what has happened in the case of India. The current debate of using foreign exchange reserves to fund infrastructure investments is discussed and policy directions suggested. Not surprisingly, Panagariya relates poor industrial progress to restrictive labour laws dissuading the organized sector from entering labour-intensive industries. The ways of providing basic health facilities, education, water and sanitation to the people living in remote areas are dealt with in detail and pragmatic solutions offered. The subject of tax reforms, with necessary subsidies to the poor, and the methods of their implementation are also addressed. Panagariya laments the mistake committed by a poor country like India in ignoring the importance of international trade.

Although the book deals with a period ending in 2006, one wonders whether Panagariya could have introduced another phase with a growth rate of 8 per cent. He could have suggested the ways of using the additional revenue. And what would have been his prescription for tackling the present situation of high growth coupled with high inflation? A follow-up is eagerly awaited.

SATRUJIT BANERJEE

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 05 Sep 2008 07:41

Dont know if this belongs here. The credentials of CRM has not been great here afaik and heard, but any case. Some of you may be aware of this.
Pragati
PS: Mods, pls edit if not fitting here.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Sanjay M » 06 Sep 2008 11:29

I have long wished that India would establish better relations with countries like Venezuela and Bolivia. If Iran can do this, why can't we do even better?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBxR ... wD930MIA81

Bolivia moving Mideast embassy to Iran from Egypt

13 hours ago

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — Bolivia's leftist president says he's moving the country's lone Middle Eastern embassy to Iran as he builds increasingly warm ties with one of Washington's least-favorite countries.

Until now, Bolivia had the embassy in Egypt.

President Evo Morales announced the change at a news conference on Friday following his return from Iran and Libya.

Morales and fellow socialist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela have irked U.S. officials by signing a series of deals with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many involve petrochemicals, but Morales says Iran will help Bolivia in cement and agriculture as well. Iran is building tractors and automobiles in Venezuela.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06falk.html

A THREAT IN VENEZUELA Hezbollah, the radical Shiite militia sponsored by Iran, has a new base of operations in the Americas: Venezuela. Western intelligence officials told The Los Angeles Times that President Hugo Chávez has formed “a strategic partnership” with Iran, and that Hezbollah is exploiting the new ties. The group intends to create a special terrorist cell to kidnap Jewish businessmen in Latin America and take them back to Lebanon, the intelligence officials said. Another danger, they say, is that Hezbollah could use Venezuela as a base from which to insert terrorists into the United States.


Iran seeks deeper ties with Latin America(The Hindu)

Atul Aneja

DUBAI: Iran has pledged to deepen its commercial and energy ties with Bolivia as part of an effort to acquire a higher profile in Latin America.

Welcoming the visiting Bolivian President Evo Morales in Tehran, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: The two revolutionary nations and the governments of Iran and Bolivia are natural allies and will boost their relations in the fields of commerce, industry, agriculture, gas, oil and politics.

Mr. Morales is the first indigenous origin President of Bolivia, which has the largest gas reserves in Latin America. Iran has already pledged a $1.1-billion aid package to Bolivia, which is trying to develop its gas industry.

Iran views Left-leaning Bolivia as part of an anti-American revolutionary bloc in Latin America, which also includes Cuba, Nicaragua, Paraguay and energy-rich Venezuela. Mr. Ahmadinejad has paid four visits to Latin America in the last three years, while Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has been visited Tehran six times.

Mr. Morales said he supported Mr. Ahmadinejad's stance against imperialism and defending the rights of the Iranian people.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said during his meeting with Mr. Morales that assertion of rights by the people of Latin America has displeased the West. The awakening of the South American nations who are seeking their rights is an auspicious event which certainly will not make [big] powers happy, he said. Mr. Morales arrived in Tehran after completing a brief visit to Libya.


Reuters
Iran, Venezuela help Bolivia build cement company

08.09.08, 1:32 PM ET

Bolivia - LA PAZ (Reuters) - Bolivia's leftist government announced plans Saturday to establish a state cement company, with Iran and Venezuela pledging to help fund the construction of its first two factories set to cost $230 million.

Bolivian President Evo Morales has formed close ties with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez since he took office in early 2006 and has signed various cooperation deals with Iran. Iran and Venezuela are leading U.S. foes.

Morales has steadily increased state control over the economy of his impoverished country, nationalizing the key natural gas industry and the country's leading telecommunications company, Entel.

During a visit to Bolivia last year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged at least $1 billion in assistance to the South American nation.

The two cement factories to be built in the Andean highlands would produce 700,000 tons per year, about 40 percent of the country's current needs. Bolivia's cement industry is currently dominated by Samuel Doria Medina, a prominent center-right politician.

"Some mayors have told me they haven't been able to finish building projects because of a lack of cement (and) that prices have risen," Morales said at an event to launch the cement company.

It has not yet been decided how much each of the three countries will invest in the construction of the factories. (Reporting by Ana Maria Fabbri; Writing by Helen Popper; Editing by Xavier Briand)


Since Bolivia isn't as high on the controversy radar as Venezuela is, why can't we Indians seek to boost our ties there first? I've always admired the Bolivarian principles, and feel they are a good counter to our corrupt Leftists in India.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Sanjay M » 06 Sep 2008 12:27

Bolivia's Morales, Iran's Ahmadinejad Embrace

Image

Yes, that was Bolivian President Evo Morales greeting his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Tehran. Morales is seeking investment during a two-day trip to the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad visited Bolivia last year, pledging a $1-billion aid package.

The Iranian president praised "the resistance of the Bolivian people'' against the United States, wire services reported. Morales hailed Iran's "anti-imperialist'' stance.Ap_version_together

Tehran has reached out to leftist governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua in a jab at archenemy Washington in its own backyard. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez jump-started the new alliance, which is worrying the Bush administration.

Back in Morales' divided homeland, Bolivia's national electoral court suspended the president's planned Dec. 7 referendum on a new constitution. Critics call the vote an illegal ploy to consolidate Morales' power. La Razon reports that pro-Morales forces still vowed to stage the December vote, which would be the fourth national election in two years.

Meantime, La Razon reports that Venezuela plans to provide Bolivia with a presidential helicopter to replace the Super Puma that crashed July 20, killing 4 Venezuelan crew members and 1 Bolivian. Morales was not on board at the time, but the crash occurred a few hours after the president had been ferried on the very same helicopter. Afterward, Morales questioned whether sabotage may have been involved. But Bolivian authorities on Tuesday blamed "operational faults'' and bad weather for the fatal crash.

-- Patrick J. McDonnell in Buenos Aires.

Photo: Iran's Ahmadinejad (right) shakes hands with Bolivia's Morales in Tehran on Monday. (AP/ISNA/Amir Khulusi.)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 09 Sep 2008 21:46

X-posted..
Congratulations everyone! What a long journey from 1974! Reminds one of the Ikshvaku quest to bring the holy Ganga to Mother Earth over many generations. Similarly this quest for dejure recogniton as an NWS has happened during the tenure of many Prime Minsters. Its to the credit of Sri Manmohan Singh that this achievement has happened on his watch. Once again a well deserved kudos!

The prinicpal accomplishment of the NSG waiver is that Indian nukes are legitimate and recognised in the world power structure. This is what has brought out all that angst among the 45 NSG members. The NSG was called the London Suppliers Group and became the NSG and was formed mainly in response to India's 1974 test which created an anamolous situation vis a vis the NPT that only recognised those countries that tested nukes before 1968.

If one sees the statements of the NSG holdouts there are two groups- a non proliferation group which voted for India once thy realized the error of the situation to punish India which has an excellent track record and a proliferation group who are the holdouts. Once the NSG was created in 1978 the members were merrily transferring stuff across the board and preserving options by getting their stuff proofed in TSP and PRC.

From the narrative one can see that there is no lobby for India in any of these nuke related bodies or paltforms. The end of Cold War created the climate to create such a lobby and it was France that first saw the need to hedge the global power structure. But France is not big enough to push the system. It has to be the US. And we see that the US only reacts when presented with a fait accompli as the Israelis note. And this was completed by the NDA govt with the tests. The US stalled for they needed to move from their rigid high horse. A number of geo-politcal events since 9/11 helped them get off their high horse and see the issues from a global prespective.

To alter the NPT structure was uncharted territory and it was the Indian bureaucracy (current and former) which had the foresight to engage the US in this journey. The US was made to move from the NNPA of Carter to the Hyde Act. Yes Hyde has all the bile of the NPAs and is like a sponge to collect the ill will and negativity against India for rocking the NPT structure. Recall the NPT structure was a US initiative of the Johnson Admnistration based on the Gilpatric Commission. India pulled no stops and lobbied to let the Congress mainly Democrats and Paki-supporter Republicans put all the Hiranyakashyap conditions in the Hyde Act. This was reviled widely in India but the main point of Hyde Act is it moved the cheese from no trade with India to trade with India subject to some conditions. The charade/drama after that was to marginalize the adversarial components of Hyde act. To do this the 123 agreement with US was negotiated, the IAEA safeguards and now the NSG waiver.

The US admin at best hopes for a couple of plants as the leaked letter indicates. It cant hope for more due to the Damocles sword components of the Hyde Act. And Hyde gets to hide once the 123 is signed by the Indian govt after its passed by the US Congress.

The torture at Vienna had to be endured to allow the pipsqueak countries which have been brought up over last thirty years (NSG came into effect around 1978), because the need to preserve the NSG structure to prevent further proliferation which is also in Indian interest. It doesnt matter that others countries also benefit. Its a win-win. So long as India gets out of the cloud it doesnt matter who also gets some sunshine.

To get here a natyam had to be enacted. As there is no lobby for India the internal opposition in India had to be used as a pressure group. All the parties especially Karat had their roles to play and they did. I had earlier said the deal would not have been offered to anyone but MMS. Not even if Rahul Gandhi were the head of the state. This is because MMS comes across as sincere West loving person unlike the others who might revert and let their nationalism assert itself. Once it was offered and the cheese moved, it was necessary to keep the fear of a replacement to ensure that the goalposts dont get moved beyond what is tolerable to India. Yes the goal posts were moved since J18 but not so far as they are out of Indian sight and reach. Many of the steps required were what India was going to do as legitimate nuke power. India doesn't need any foreign imports for the weapons program and all those not this not that dont matter to the originators of Vedanta.

PRC did what it had to do for what was at stake was the leadership of Asia. So no hard feelings. Will take care when needed. The holdouts need to be taught their place. A special care should be taken to not place any orders for equipment or imports from those holdouts for starters.

However I dont want NZ to be puished as they were misled into beleiving the NSG BS would end the nuclear arms race. A genuine peacenik should be respected. But the Austrian neutered Nazis who were hedging the non-Norman option, should be made to pay.

The first step is to get the fuel for those plants that need it.

More later.

Lets savor the moment and celebrate!

Its August 15th, 1947 all over again.

and

Arun_S wrote:
JE Menon wrote:The BJP's position is finely tuned and well calibrated. It is an opposition position, not a government position. It must be seen in that light, because that is what it had to do. They have gone to remarkable lengths to reiterate that their position is not anti-American but rather that it is anti-erosion of strategic autonomy.

As such, their emphasis in recent months has been less and less on technological issues (the inadequacy of the Shakti series, for instance) than on the potential losses to be incurred if we test after years of investment in the sector. This is not a particularly strong argument, and we can be quite certain they know that. But it is one that is convenient because, should they come to power, it is a position they can comfortably retreat from as developments show that the investments will not come under serious threat as the sanctioneers, for lack of a better word, will effectively have to strike at their own companies to some considerable degree.

Please note that, as was repeatedly stated on this forum, the BJP did not put anything more than rhetorical spokes in the wheel - all the while offering reassuring noises, through Mishra in particular. We can predict with a fair degree of confidence that the BJP's aversion to the deal will decline to the point of enthusiasm in the coming years. I hope that the process begins soon... Some recent appearances by their point men on TV have hardly been edifying.

On the other hand, the BJP is not exactly long experienced at being the primary opposition party... So rough edges may be expected. But we should refrain from looking too closely. The Congress does not exactly come through with shining colours either. They could have managed the whole thing with a little more finesse, if they looked at a little more of the horizon than their petrifying ideological blinkers allowed... But then again, they too cannot be viewed monolithically.

On the whole, all's well that ends well - at least the way I personally see it.

Now to watch the commies deal with the joker in their pack: Karat.

N, absolutely... The Americans are certainly getting itchy fingers on the other side as well... The timing could not have been more exquisite... NSG Waiver for India, Mr. 10% for Pakisatan. Each gets what it deserves.

JEM: Nicely summed up.

It is a major milestone for India.

We should now focus our energy on steps needed to skirt Hyde and 'seek' {sic} a path to peg the strategic weapons hole. It will do well for Prime Minister MM Singh and DAE/Anil Kakodkar to complete the nuclear circle, and in the next 2 months announce funds for new facilities for Indian nuclear weapons stewardship starting with Laser Ignition Facility (LIF) and three "Weapons Computing Facilities". That $2-5 Billion investment will balance the $100 Billion investment in 40GWe LWR civil nuclear power (over next 6 years) plus $300 Billion fuel investment over many years. Separation of nuclear facilities between civil and weapons research will IMHO entail cost of ~10-15 Billion in duplication of facilities and skilled people.

---------
Raja Ram wrote:Gentle Readers,

It is a historic day for India, a turning point and mile stone in the march to the tryst with destiny. There are many layers to this watershed event. One must wait patiently for it to unravel. I have, on multiple occassions, talked about some of the key ones, here in this forum. Sometimes to the derision of others. Sometimes appreciated. What one must realise that there were some positives and some negaitives that will come out of this deal.

The most important, gentle readers, is that a prime geo strategic shift has been achieved by India. India is well and truly on its way to become a great power. It is important thought to remain the journey left still is long, hard and comes with risks and more momentous decisions that need to be taken. We can all however, take heart from the fact that with this turning, the Indian polity will have learnt great lessons on how to build consenus and take decisions when such opportunities come.

If one looks at it from a purely Indian perspective, it is not the ideal deal. But it is not about getting the ideal deal, it is more about siezing the opportunity to dismantle a discriminatory world order that was designed to keep India out. Has the GOI played it correctly? The answer is still NO. There has been several things that UPA administration led by Manmohan Singh has done that were wrong, but the objective of the GOI was never wrong. They could have done much better. Only small mindedness and lack of an ability to put national interests above partisan politicking were responsible for it. Equally, the principal opposition could have played a better part. The BJP was not against the objective of the deal, it should have come forward the extra mile to forge a consensus and strengthened the GOI hand. It did not. This is one the most important lessons that we have learnt as a nation. Or have we really learnt it? Only time will tell.

Coming specifically to the NSG waiver, it cannot be termed as either clean or unconditional. 2g or paragaph 16 is a clear violation of the J18 terms and the redlines. So was the Hyde Act. The GOI could have been better off resisting these poison pills that has come with this deal, if they had got better strength of consensus when they negotiated. The UPA administration chose not to build a genuine consensus and weakened India's barganing position. A self imposed restraint.

Does this mean, a capitulation? Most certainly not. Much to the potential irritation of my friends here who are opposed to the deal, this is not a capitulation. India has gained. It is not a surrender of the right to test. For if we are able to play our cards right from this point on in the bilateral deals with partners, and have a long term energy security plan, this will not inhibit in any way our ability to test. Yes, the cost to us from testing can and will be decided by the other decisions and actions that we take.

We have sounded a death knell to NPT, or at least the discrimanatory part of it, it is not dead yet. We have sounded a death knell to the CTBT, yet we can forsee some added pressure coming our way on this in years to come, as we get more and more imported fuel and reactors. This gang of NSG will try and put some pressure on us. The answer to that is in the ability of GOI to play its realpolitik games right to split the NSG. We will also face pressure in the future on the FMCT part. So the battles will continue. But we will be facing them hopefully with more assuredness and better consensus.

What India can do will still be considerably dependent on what India does and not what others cand do to India. We have the ability to complete the three stage programme, we need the political will to see it through. We have the ability to build more precise weapons as needed by a DND. Again we need the political will to be committed to it. Is it there? The answer to that is unclear. For if we do not follow up this deal with an accelerated and dedicated implementation of a strategic and an indegenous Nuclear programme, all the gains of the deal will come to naught and evey negative possibile implication of the deal will manifest itself.

How does one ensure that we gain from this deal? This depends on the vision for India. I have alluded to the vision for India that MMS has is that of the Japan model. It is not commensurate with the vision of India that many here have. The Manmohan or rather the congress vision for India appears to be that of a global player when it comes to economic strength and clout. No other dimension of great power appeals to them. It stems from a warped thinking that is alien to India. It is here that the second independence has to occur amongst Indians. It is a larger point and not appropriate for me to elaborate here. Let it be suffice to say that this kind of distorted thinking made us miss some of the key opportunities that came our way in the fifties. Example when we let go of the opportunity of a permanent membership of the Security Council and argued the case for China.

One of the many positives, is the clear and unambigous unmasking of China and its intentions vis-a-vis us. It will become increasingly difficult for GOI to be always circumspect and careful of chinese sensitivities as they have been. Please observe that the NDA was no better when it came to being circumspect with regard to China, notwithstanding George kaka's occassional grandstanding. It will also force the GOI to plan and take actions instead of wolly headed detente symbolism with regard to China. That can continue but on the ground, it should be backed by practical strengthining of our ability to hurt china in every sphere globally. That is the only thing that will keep them honest. China understand power only if the other party knows how to use and is prepared to do so. India must learn how to use and be prepared to do so.

I had taken a voluntary moratorium on posting here on this forum due to the excessive and unwarranted thought policing. I never wanted to post here again because of that. However, the significance of this event, made me realise that I should not be egotistical. I wanted to share my sentiments on this watershed event and a major breakthrough our country has achieved with people who care genuinely for this country. No better bunch than my fellow gentle BR forumites. There are some here who have been in touch with me off the forum, I will always be available for sharing some of my views with them offline.

Maybe when things change and this phase of thought policing and over moderation is over on the forum, I will resume my occassional rambling commentary and matters silly and strategic.

Till then, just another ramble, take it for what it is worth.

----------
Raja Ram wrote:Gentle readers
The closing lines of that Siddharth Vardarajan column is an indicator of what India needs to do from now on. It says and I quote

"Even without the textual changes introduced, NSG members were free to push for termination. Making sure such a push never succeeds will have to be a major goal of Indian diplomacy."

I would even venture to say that is the goal of India as a whole and not just its diplomacy. What needs to be done next is captured well in the post by Arun_S. It calls for an enormous amount of political will and long term sustained planning. In addition, there are some things that we have to be careful about and these have been said effectively by Dr. Prasad. Are we upto it? I think there should not be any doubt on this count. If the past is anything to go by, the challenges India has resolutely faced in terms of keeping its options open and making sure that such national challenges have been accepted and met, one can be optimistic about the future.

It calls for vigilance and committed political and scientific statesmanship buttressed by a strong articulation of enlightened self interest based foreign policy.

I had observed much to the irritation of the moderator then monitoring this thread that the US was using the NSG to backtrack on its commitment to deliver a "clean and unconditional" waiver. I was asked to define what was clean and unconditional. At that time I had posted what the NSG will attempt to do and it is exactly what happened. They have put in place wordings to ensure that all members will collaborate if a single member wants to retract waiver. To our diplomat's credit, this poison blunted has been blunted by making sure that the national interests of members can prevail and there should be a consultation before such a retraction happens.

The second prediction that I had made was on the fact if there is any changes to national laws of a member that can be used to change the guidelines and future such guideline changes have to be complied with by India. Again this has been blunted by the fact that India has to be consulted prior to such changes and only if it does not impact India's national interests will this be implemented.

As predicted, the waiver is more "clean and conditional" rather than "clean and unconditional" that India would have preferred. The saving grace is that the conditions have been blunted and can be even nullified if India plays the bilateral agreements with other NSG countries right. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I can say this now, sometime it pays to take the rambles of this commentator seriously :wink: for I may have the luck like thupariyum shambu (sort of Inspector Cleasau of Pink Panther fame)

What is important is that India has managed to get the world to change substantially its line of thinking. For over 50 years, India has stubbornly refused to accept a discriminatory set up on nuclear non proliferation. We have not budged on the basic principles of that. Every multinational arrangement made to keep us out have been brought down substantially. Not wholly but substantially. Remember the NSG was created as a group against India. It has been dealt a body blow now.

The other important change that is difficult to appreciate but a big one is that India has learnt to sieze opportunities. It has not been a prisoner of ideology or posturing. It has learnt to fashion out a realistic position and ensure that it takes the opportunity as it presents itself. This is the liberation of the mind that is beginning to happen. India is now confident enough to know what it wants, accept the reality of the day, negotiate and get what it can now and also knows that how to get what it wants when the opportunity presents itself later.

On the minus side, what we still need to learn is the ability to build an effective consensus. This calls for insititutional changes that allows for greater transparency, better education about key national goals amongst political leadership and people at large and a clear articulation and adherence of red lines. In this whole deal negotiation, we scruplously adhered to every sequence, every agreed rules of negotiation and acted in good faith. Naively or otherwise, we expected the other side to do the same. They (the USG) did not. The sequence was changed, the commitments made were diluted (some may say completely negated, but I do not ascribe to this view) and every rule of engagement (not using the media to subvert dialogue and put pressure on Indian position was something that was violated by the US).

What is also true was that India got the deal because of the US ability to deliver as well. It goes to show that not only Pakistan, but a whole lot of so called first rate allies like the G6 are susciptible to friendly calls in the midnight from Uncle Sam. I am sure not many will agree here, but the US did that round of calling because they knew that the Indians were perfectly capable and ready to walk away doing a "Kamal Nath". It was in a way high stakes poker and India has played a near perfect hand.

Just a ramble again, take it seriously if you will.

--
RajeshA wrote:Tink-Tank Support to Deal

U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal: A Sprint to the Finish by Lisa Curtis: The Heritage Foundation

Though time is tight—with only three weeks left until the 110th Congress recesses for elections—lawmakers should do everything possible to finalize the deal before the end of the year, since it will solidify ties with a key Asian nation that shares our democratic values and geopolitical concerns.

The Chinese—buoyed by the unexpected opposition from the smaller NSG nations—threatened the agreement with last-minute concerns first signaled last Monday through an article in the Chinese Communist Party's English language daily. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is in India this week, where he is facing tough questions from his Indian interlocutors on its role in Vienna and the unexpected public rebuke of the nuclear deal, despite several earlier assurances from Chinese leaders that Beijing would not block consensus.

Indian strategic affairs analyst Uday Bhaskar attributed the maneuvering to longstanding competition between the two Asian rivals. Bhaskar said, "Clearly, until now China has been the major power in Asia. … With India entering the NSG, a new strategic equation has been introduced into Asia and this clearly has caused disquiet to China."

Additionally, if the deal lapses into the next U.S. Administration, it could take several months before it is considered in the new Congress, which is about the time India heads into its own national elections, casting more uncertainty over the final fate of the deal.

New Delhi cannot, however, legally bind itself on this sensitive matter, since it does not have control over the actions of other nuclear-armed states in its strategic environment, namely Pakistan and China. 8)

If this historic nuclear deal is finalized, it will contribute to strengthening global nonproliferation by making New Delhi a stakeholder in a system seeking to adapt itself to the most serious proliferation threats of the 21st century. There is no good reason to delay this landmark initiative any longer.

---------------------
ramana wrote:Much as PRC has been perfidious, its important for India to ensure that Asia doesnt become a zero-sum game. We need to help PRC realise its in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game and learn to cooperate for the world is big enough to accomodate the rise of two Asian powers. For this to happen the Jiang Zemin accolytes have to be diminished.

RajsehA, I think your post should be in the PRC thread as its more about bilateral ties.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2008 00:51

X-Posted..
Suraj wrote:In the early pages of the PRC political news and discussions thread (which was created after a brief discussion on the subject involving Johann, myself and a few others) there are several posts covering the CPC (moderates) vs PLA (extremists) faction. Hu isn't necessarily entirely within the CPC faction, but is somewhat a 'dovish hardliner', while Zemin was a hardliner (recall the anecdote of him telling Chirac how he'll 'crush India', with handsqueezing gesture included.

The extremists faction lost out their primacy after Mao's demise, and particularly over the course of Deng's reign. However, the two factions had some kind of an agreement going, where the PLA faction gets its say on contentious matters and play the 'bad cop', though there are times when differences between them come to the fore. However, the opaque nature of Chinese political intrigue makes it hard to see how the dynamics are.

While the moderates see the benefit of growing trade ties with India, the extremists are out and out anti India. There are several fissures in their polity that are worth exploring in the PRC political thread:
* Who are the moderates in the US-India deal subject, and who are the extremists, both the current and older generation ones.
* Understanding Zemin's insecurity and thirst for a legacy, and how it motivates his actions. A lot of credit for the Chinese economic boom in his days goes to Deng and to Zhu Rongji, his Premier, instead of to him.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 12 Sep 2008 00:54

Op-Ed in Pioneer, 11 Sept 2008


Dhaka smiles but deceives

Hiranmay Karlekar

In his interesting and informative book, The Jamdani Revolution: Politics, Personality and Civil Society in Bangladesh 1989-1992, Krishnan Srinivasan writes, "According to this (Rajiv Gandhi Government's) assessment, Ershad finds it a convenient policy to act in an anti-Indian manner while assuring us privately that he is not doing so, and he needs to do what he does because of his domestic compulsions. The Ministry (of External Affairs) does not have an answer on how to cope with Ershad. He has been clever enough to misguide the Indian leaders with promises of friendship and sincerity and they do not know how to fashion a policy to convince him that a favourable policy towards India is in his own best interest".

Mr Srinivasan should know. He was High Commissioner to Bangladesh from 1989 to 1992 and, thereafter, first a secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and then the Foreign Secretary. That, however, is not the only reason for quoting him. The conduct of the present caretaker Government in Bangladesh vis-à-vis India is hardly different from Gen HM Ershad's. In fact, it has been the same story with successive Governments in Bangladesh, except perhaps to some extent the one under Sheikh Hasina.

This will become clear on considering some striking facts. At the ninth meeting of the Home Secretaries of India and Bangladesh which ended on August 31, both countries agreed to act against their respective militant and insurgent outfits and leaders on the basis of the exchange of real time and actionable information, and reaffirmed their commitment not to allow their territories to be used for activity inimical to each other's interests. It also agreed to take steps against smuggling of arms, ammunitions, explosives and fake currency.

The Indian delegation, led by Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta, and the Bangladeshi delegation, led by Home Secretary Abdul Karim, agreed to work out the modalities for expediting the verification process for the release of prisoners of one country held in the prisons of the other. Both sides agreed that there was a strong need to identify and bring to book racketeers engaged in human trafficking. The meeting agreed to enhance cooperation between the Narcotics Control Departments of the two countries. India's proposal for constructing a border fence made little progress. Nor was there any progress on the demarcation of 6.5 km of un-demarcated border between the two countries.

One can hardly be blamed if all this fills one with a weary feeling of déjà vu. A joint statement issued on August 4, 2007 at the end of the eighth meeting between the Home Secretaries of India and Bangladesh, again Mr Gupta and Mr Karim respectively, underlined the need for strengthening the existing bilateral arrangements by instituting new mechanisms for enhanced cooperation and regular exchange of information to combat terrorism. Also, both sides agreed to expedite bilateral attempts to combat international terrorism, organised crime and illegal drug trafficking.

Both delegations reiterated that the territory of either country would not be allowed to be used for terrorist and criminal activities against the other and agreed on the necessity for exchange of actionable information between security agencies of the two countries, in addition to existing mechanisms of information sharing between the Border Security Force and Bangladesh Rifles.

The Indian delegation repeated its request to Bangladesh to take deterrent action against Indian insurgent groups and their members operating from its soil, to act expeditiously on red corner notices through enhanced interaction between the Interpol designated points. The Bangladesh delegation noted the request. India wanted an early response on its request to permit construction of fences within 150 yards of the border with Bangladesh, which would help in effective border management and checking movement of criminal elements and illegal migrants.

The difference in the case of the seventh round of talks between the Home Secretaries of the two countries related to the incumbents-Mr VK Duggal and Mr Safar Raj Hossain in the case of India and Bangladesh respectively -- and the duration of the talks, which lasted four days (ending on August 28, 2006) instead of two as in the eighth and ninth rounds. India and Bangladesh agreed to examine the possibility of quickly instituting a mechanism to combat terrorism and organised crime, emphasised the need for greater mutual vigilance and cooperation to prevent illegal movement of goods and people, flow of illicit drugs, narcotics, arms and explosives across the border and smuggling of fake currencies.

The reiteration of the same resolves in successive meetings between the Home Secretaries of the two countries shows how little Bangladesh has done to address India's pressing security concerns. A striking example is the lack of progress on New Delhi's request that Dhaka act against Indian rebel outfits operating from Bangladesh with the latter's active support. During the four-day talks between the BSF and BDR chiefs, which ended in Dhaka on August 31, 2006, the former gave the latter a list of 172 Indian insurgent camps or hideouts inside Bangladesh and a list of 103 militants, including the chairman and the 'chief of staff' of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom, Arabinda Rajkhowa and Paresh Baruah respectively. The BDR reiterated Bangladesh's familiar official line that no Indian insurgent camps existed in, and no Indian militant operated from, Bangladesh.

The caretaker Government has removed some of the pathologically anti-Indian elements from Bangladesh's Directorate-General of Force's Intelligence, which is a clone of Pakistan's ISI. Some of the other developments, however, are disconcerting. The notorious terrorist leader, Asadullah Al Galib, chief of the Ahle Hadith Andolan Bangladesh, which is umbilically linked with the Jamaat-ul Mujaheedin Bangladesh, was released from jail on August 29, 2008, following the grant of bail by the Bangladesh High Court. According to many, all case against him were deliberately diluted to ensure release. Nor has the financial empire of the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, the fountainhead of terrorism in that country, been touched.

There is, besides, a growing feeling that election will not he held and the present Government will continue under one pretext or the other, or that the election will be manipulated to install a Government with a strong fundamentalist orientation. With Pakistan irrevocably set for Talibanisation and Nepal unsettled, India needs a carefully calibrated policy to deal with Bangladesh's increasing emergence as a staging ground of terrorist attacks against it.



The problem is that both TSP and Bangla deshwere founded onthe idea that Islam needs its own country in South Asia. And the syncertic image of India allows them to disregard the matter. Nepal is now Maoist. It is the syncretic Modernist idea of India that enabled the emergence of Maoist leadership in Nepal.

and

The idea of India

Rekha Chakravarthi

We need vision to emerge as a powerful nation

On September 6, 2008, sixteen years after the 1992 decision to adopt full-scope safeguards, the Nuclear Suppliers Group decided to lift the embargo it had placed on India by granting a waiver to conduct nuclear trade with a country that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The waiver is described as significant because India can now engage in high-tech nuclear commerce while its nuclear weapons programme remains unaffected -- a right that is enjoyed only by the P-5.

The decision by the NSG is being hailed as the end of the 'nuclear isolation' faced by India since Pokhran I. It is historic because India chose to climb its way up the world ladder as a player that objected to the nuclear framework it considered discriminatory, but objected honourably and strove to succeed without breaking the rules of the game. While there is celebration all around, the real work starts now.

In an anarchic international system, nothing succeeds like staying successful. The NSG waiver is a diplomatic success; it is, however, the time to evaluate how India has performed on this deal domestically. One cannot refute that no other foreign policy issue has been debated more vociferously, at all levels, as this one; yet it leaves our decision-making skills on foreign policy exposed. A good player is one that not only aims to be a global power or believes in its ability to lead, but also knows what kind of power it seeks in the emerging world order and what it wants to do with that power. More than anything else, the nuclear deal offers important lessons in this direction.

It is in India's interest to calculate its gains beyond immediate benefits. Yes, the nuclear deal will enable us to access fuel for our reactors, and thereby contribute to the energy mix that India is crucially short of. But, is that it? Why did the United States offer this deal to India? Is it because of India's impeccable non-proliferation record, American commercial interests, or to contain China? The answer lies in all of these, but above all, it reflects a long-term foreign policy about how America sees itself and its national interests in the coming decades. What we need is a vision, an idea of what India is and what India will be.

One of the many steps in that direction is to make a fresh beginning on how we are going to conduct ourselves vis-à-vis foreign policy matters. We begin with China. If India considers China's rise as anything but peaceful, then why should anyone see India's rise as benign? We realise that we are cooperating and competing with China; we understand that we are an emerging power, so can we start interacting with China like two powers ought to? India should look beyond the boundary dispute with China and its apathy to support India's bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The world has come around to acknowledge our position as the emerging power. In time, the world will endorse our bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC and get us into the G-8, too.

However, more power means more responsibility and India will definitely not be given a free ride to the global power club. India will be expected to take positions on international issues such as Iran, for example. India has to know what it wants with respect to Iran -- a nuclear Iran is definitely not in India's interest and it cannot afford to camouflage its position on Iran. Here is where diplomacy comes in. Voting against Iran does not mean the end of ties with Iran just as China's voting against India would not have meant the end of the India-China relationship. India has to build on its diplomatic expertise to successfully play both sides.

On the domestic front, the Government should take foreign policy matters to the common man. The Government played the energy security card to explain the importance of the nuclear deal, but in the end it placed greater reliance on the numbers game in Parliament. It is the Government's business to explain to its people the importance of every domestic and foreign policy issue and how these policies contribute to the 'idea of India'. The claimed success at Vienna by securing the NSG waiver is only the first step in realising this idea.



Poor lady she doesnt know what is happening. She needs to read Pranab Mukherjee's statement and interview. This govt does not have the same goals as she has.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Philip » 13 Sep 2008 13:14

(Ramanna,she is totally clueless as to the meanderings of the MEA under the current dispensation and the need as Karlekar has said,for hard relapolitik in the current encirclement of India by mainly Islamist terrorism,sponsored,funded and directed by a Sino-Saudi-Pak axis.)

"Russian realpolitik"

The Russian response in Georgia to the surprise attack and invasion of S.Ossetia by Georgian troops,swiftly came within 36 hours,despite the absence of both Putin-in Beijing and Medvedev-on holiday.This was a terrific shock to both Saakashvili and his backers ,the US and NATO.The timing of the attack couldn't have been more perfect as they expected Russia to respond in the manner of an ex-superpower still wedded to Cold War doctrine.While Russia's arms were of Cold War vintage,their usage was in the speed and style of the 21st century.US/Israeli trained and supplied Georgian forces were routed before you could swat a fly! More astonishing was the inter-service coordination and joint-ops tactics used.The Russian Navy was found not to be flag-flying rust-buckets,but possessed a lethal sting!True,there were several commentators,mostly Russian,who grumbled at the Cold War quality of equipment and loss of some aircraft,etc.,but the goal and objective was achieved in record time,the decimation and routing of Georgian forces and the establishment within Georgian trerritory of a buffer zone.
The Indian Army's new doctrine of "Cold Start" could in many ways have similarities to those used by Russia in this conflict.It is worth comparing ,especially as the IA's plan to adopt the Russian "100 gun" strategy for its ground forces would indicate a close affinity for Russian strategy and tactics adapted for the sub-continental theatre.


Equally worth studying is the Russian diplomatic-military counter-moves on the global chess board in respone to the US/NATOs Post conflict reactions in the Caucasus, involving a combination of hectic diplomatic and military moves in the region.Visits galore from US/NATO heavweights like Foreign Secs.Rice and Milliband,US VP Dick Cheney and even Pres.Sarko of France,were meant to first prop up a hysteric and scared-out-of-his-wits defeated Saakashvili,whose future is in grave doubt.Fast-track NATO membership is being worked out for Georgia and also Ukraine,where an equally fading Yuschenko embarked upon boorish bufoonery emulating that of Saakashvili!To stiffen the spines of these two rulers,9 US/NATO naval vessels were sent to the Black Sea to intimidate Russian naval forces there,to the provocative extent of a US vessel entering Sevastopol,the main Russian naval base in the region,under long lease from Ukraine.Poland was also made to sign with indecent haste the agreement which allowed the US to station missiles on its soil,clearly aimed at Russia,but given the fictitious lie that they are meant to deter Iran! Dick Cheney ran to Azerbaijan,where he was snubbed and rebuffed by its leader,while British F.Sec.Milliband received a mouthful for his undiplomatic anti-Russian rantings from his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.


Russia has reacted equally swiftly to the West's blinkered support for the agressor Georgia and its frenetic roping in as many ex-Warsaw Pact nations into a grand strategy of EU/NATO membesrhip,that would involve turning these nations into military outposts of the US and NATO encircling it.It has with equal speed and greater panache,established high level talks with Iran,Syria,Venezuela and other nations,for military base facilties and arms sales,expanding its theatres of response,the Caribbean,the Black Sea ,the Gulf and the Middle East,even frightening off Israel from resupplying Georgia militarily. There is a signal lesson for India too in this,that as much as we have established a military "Cold Start" doctrine,we must also mirror it with a diplomatic "Cold Start" strategy,which in fact the first preliminary moves could be made discreetly right now,making it easier in a crisis to fully blossom,where our "enemy's enemy is our friend" and he or they are supplied with adequate military assistance that mirrors what China has given to our mortal enemy Pak. and to defeat its similar strategy of encirclement (of India),that the US/NATO
is using against Russia.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affa ... n&id=91337

Russia's "Trigger Strategy".

In the wake of the Georgian crisis, Moscow warns the West against fueling tensions in the Caucasus region while simultaneously appearing to favor a risky tit-for-tat response, Sergei Blagov writes for ISN Security Watch.

By Sergei Blagov in Moscow for ISN Security Watch

In the wake of the Georgian crisis and NATO naval deployment in the Black Sea, Russia has moved to demonstrate its presence in the US' backyard for the first time since the Cold War.

On 11 September Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced that he had dispatched two Russian strategic bombers to Venezuela, pledging to hold maneuvers with those nations willing to expand military cooperation with Russia. Medvedev also stated that the Russian forces should be re-equipped.

According to Russian officials the two bombers dispatched to the Liberator military airfield in Venezuela were only equipped with dummy missiles for training flights. However, their high-profile mission to the Western Hemisphere, as well as planned naval maneuvers in the region, inevitably served to further increase tensions between Moscow and the West.

Earlier this month, Russian officials stated that Moscow would also send a "Peter the Great" nuclear-powered cruiser, one of the world's largest, to the Caribbean for joint naval maneuvers with Venezuela. The Russian naval force in Venezuelan waters would also include an anti-submarine vessel, aircraft and some 1,000 Russian military personnel.

Russian officials claim the drill is not directed toward any third side and not intended as a response to NATO naval deployment in the Black Sea. Moscow also denied plans of increasing military presence in the Caribbean.

Yet despite official denials, Russia's inroads into the Caribbean were still seen as an apparent response to a NATO naval build-up near its shores, and air force and naval missions to Venezuela a signal that Moscow did not intend to leave security challenges unanswered.

As Russian strategic bombers flew through Caribbean skies, in a move apparently designed set off alarm bells in Washington, ominous reminders of Cold War-era brinkmanship - especially the Cuban Missile Crisis - surfaced.

Even before the Georgian conflict and the latest tensions between Moscow and the West, Russian media outlets speculated that Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95M strategic bombers could be placed, or refueled, in Cuba in response to US plans for an anti-missile shield system in Poland and the Czech Republic. However, the Russian Defense Ministry has denied the reports.

In a bid to dismiss comparisons to the Cuban Missile Crisis, on 9 September Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to re-launch its radar base in Cuba. However, two days later Strategic Air Force Commander Pavel Androsov said that Russian military experts had studied Cuban airfields and concluded that Russian strategic bombers could land there also.

In what could be seen as another warning signal for the West, on 10 September, the day Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela, Russia's top defense official announced that his country would prioritize its nuclear deterrent capabilities. According to General Nikolai Solovtsov, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces commander, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) will be able to respond to a nuclear aggressor's strike.

According to Solovtsov, nuclear missiles remain a deterrent of crucial importance and a major factor of strategic stability, adding that nuclear countries have never been vulnerable to military pressure from the US and NATO allies.

The commander also stated that Russia may direct some of its ICBMs at the planned US missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. Under the current circumstances, Russia's talk about its nuclear deterrent capabilities is hardly intended to defuse tensions in relations with the West.

It was not a coincidence that Moscow opted to remind all about its nuclear ties with Iran, a major irritant in Russia's relations with the US. On 9 September, The Russian state-run company building Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant said it was nearing completion and the start-up of the first reactor would be "irreversible" by February 2008.

On the economic front, Russia has suddenly indicated interest in stronger ties with OPEC, although Moscow has refrained from any meaningful cooperation with the oil cartel for years. During last week's OPEC session, Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin urged greater cooperation between the cartel and Russia.

By undertaking a series of high-profile gestures, apparently designed to intimidate, Moscow was probably seeking to demonstrate the West's inability to offer a serious response. Russian leaders could have calculated that the US and its allies, stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan, had limited options in pressuring Russia. However, it remains to be seen whether the Kremlin's strategy will work.

Sergei Blagov is a Moscow-based correspondent for ISN Security Watch.



-

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby putnanja » 20 Sep 2008 00:24

No govt nod to Navy for 'hot pursuit' of pirates

No govt nod to Navy for 'hot pursuit' of pirates
20 Sep 2008, 0000 hrs IST, Rajat Pandit,TNN


NEW DELHI: The Union government has virtually ruled out granting any "blanket permission" to the Navy to undertake "hot pursuit" of pirates on the high seas.

Instead, the government feels the permission can be given "on a case-to-case basis" after "wider consultations" among the Ministries of Defence, External Affairs, Law and Shipping on the international legal and diplomatic ramifications, said sources. Moreover, there is no move to dispatch warships to the Gulf of Aden to take "direct action" against pirates hijacking hapless merchant ships off Somalia's coast since it would contravene UN Security Council resolutions.


All this comes even as there are no signs of an immediate resolution to the September 15 hijacking of MT Stolt Valor , which has 18 Indians among the 22-member crew, by pirates off Somalia's coast.

Brazen acts of piracy, abduction and armed robbery against ships, their cargo and passengers by pirates based in Somalia has become quite the norm in the Gulf of Aden. With pirates currently holding over 10 merchant ships hostage in the region, international shipping associations have appealed to UN to take urgent steps to battle piracy in Somalian waters.

Considering that the Gulf of Aden represents "a major strategic choke point" in the Indian Ocean region (IOR), the Navy had recently asked the defence ministry to vest its chief with the decision to promptly dispatch warships after pirates. "We are working with the government to find a way to respond to such situations," said Navy Vice-Chief Vice-Admiral R P Suthan on Friday.

But the government view, after consultations in wake of the MT Stolt Valor hijack, is that Indian warships cannot intervene in Somalian waters because of UNSC resolution 1816, adopted on June 2.

The resolution authorises only "states cooperating" with Somalia's "transitional government", for a period of six months, to enter its territorial waters to "repress acts of piracy and armed robbery" by "all necessary means".

"There is no agreement between the Indian and Somalian governments, as of now, to be cooperating states. Moreover, we are also not a coastal state as per Article 111 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994," said a source.

As per UNCLOS, the hot pursuit of a foreign ship is a right available to a coastal state when it has "good reason to believe" that the ship has violated its laws and regulations.


"hot pursuit" will be granted on a case-by-case basis!! By the time the babus and ministers decide it, the pirate ship would have long since escaped ! I wonder which govt would have objected if IN did whip some of the pirates. What is wrong in asserting our interests?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby putnanja » 21 Sep 2008 01:20

Indian vessels plying international waters fear pirate attacks

New Delhi, Sept. 20 In the backdrop of the recent increase in pirate attacks on ships, Indian National Shipowners Association (INSA) has decided to approach the Government seeking appropriate action to ensure safety of Indian flag vessels.

“We have already received a letter from GE Shipping to take up the issue seeking immediate action,” Mr S.S. Kulkarni, Secretary, INSA, said.

There are about 200 Indian ships plying in international waters at any given time, and with hijackings happening at the mouth of the Suez Canal, it important to ensure safety of crew members, Mr Kulkarni said, adding that the insurance firms are sceptical now to provide war-risk insurance.
Appeal to UN

Internationally, shipping associations have approached the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United Nations requesting real and immediate action against brazen acts of piracy, kidnapping and armed robbery, carried out with increasing frequency against ships in the Gulf of Aden, by pirates based in Somalia.

The Round Table of international shipping associations — BIMCO, Intercargo, International Chamber of Shipping/International Shipping Federation and INTERTANKO — have requested the IMO Secretary-General, Mr Efthimios Mitropoulos, to use his organisation’s influence to ensure UN backing for increased naval force in order to protect the lives of seafarers and passengers as well as ships and cargoes.

In a release, the international shipping associations said that a crisis point has now been reached, with nearly 40 hijackings taking place in the Gulf of Aden so far this year, with 133 kidnapped seafarers still being held hostage and with pirate attacks on ships happening sometimes up to three times within hours.
Right to life

The International Maritime Bureau, the lead recording body for piracy, estimates that over 1,200 Somalis and at least six major groups are involved. At this moment, ten ships are being held and the industry fears for the seafarers on board. Seafarers are civilians and are entitled to protection as they go about their lawful profession. The current situation is threatening their right to life.

A UN Security Council Resolution 1816 permits States co-operating with Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, for a period of six months, to enter the country’s territorial waters and use “all necessary means” to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of international law.


Haven't they heard the news that GoI isn't bothered?

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby gandharva » 21 Sep 2008 03:28

Edited as its poltical news irrelvant to the thread.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ShauryaT » 22 Sep 2008 07:22

Gandharva: A request not to post, daily political events on this thread. I am not even sure, if there is a place for these events on the forum. Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 23 Sep 2008 21:30

R. Vaidya's article posted in full

India should re-joice at the Decline of US institutions


http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1192432


Failure of American financial institutions is a reason to rejoice
R Vaidyanathan
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 03:16 IST

The decline of the West is a pre-requisite for the emergence of India as a global power.

I have been closely watching the reaction of our press, particularly the business papers and TV channels, to the implosion that has taken place in the Western financial markets and institutions.

Lehman Brothers, the original cotton trading company of the mid-nineteenth century fame from Alabama, is no more.

US government is acting like the erstwhile Soviet Union in nationalising institutions and bailing out market mayhem.

Our experts and analysts are pathetic in responding to this. Some of them are whining and the rest ad nauseam repeating about globalisation and impact on India, etc. It proves once again that the colonial gene is embedded in all of us and it refuses to recognise opportunities and turns advantageous as disasters.

First thing first. The decline of these institutions — many more to come — is the best thing that has happened to countries such as India, which are poised to play a larger role in global financial affairs.

Let us have some facts. India had 25% of global income in 1500 through 1700; by 1820, this was down to 17% and by 1951 to 5%; in 1998, the country’s share stood at 5.5% (according to Angus Maddison in The World Economy: A millennial Perspective, OECD Development Centre Studies -2007; Table-B-20 Appendix B; pp263).

We need to reclaim our position in the world — it is just returning to where we were. By 2025, we should have at least 25% of global GDP
.

This requires strategic thinking and a new mindset. We are not going to be easily accepted as a global power. There is going to be a tussle between existing powers, declining powers and emerging powers.

Nobody is going to offer the seat in the top table to us by request or by supplication. We need to earn it and be in a position to demand it. We need national purpose and a single minded devotion to achieve it.

The decline of the global financial institutions provides great opportunities since our growth is primarily due to our domestic savings.

Foreign direct investment and foreign institutional investment put together is not more than 8% in relation to our gross savings in any one of the past several years.

Also, nearly 80% of our domestic savings of 35% comes from household savings. In comparison, the USA has meagre or negative household savings.

It has been running a consumption economy for too long, sustained by the savings of other countries, particularly Asian. It has also taken financial convergence to the extreme — anybody can do anything.

Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain a good old traditional insurance company such as AIG having such significant exposures in derivative products.

It is important to recognise that Europe is past, USA is the present and countries like India are the future. USA is slowly getting into a situation of the UK, which started declining after the Second World War.

What should India have done?

Immediately after the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the crisis in many investment banks, our finance ministry should have called a meeting of major banks, industrialists and some — shall I say obscenely rich — NRIs and announced the readiness of some Indian groups to acquire some of these institutions after due diligence.

This is just to put the cat among pigeons and announce to the world that we have arrived. It is not required that we should acquire these sick entities.

It is just to express our readiness and also to tell the world that we want orderly transition as a responsible global power. It is not late even now, since many more commercial banks of US origin are in the queue.

However, India was silent and generally mumbling that we are not affected, etc. It was behaving like a small sidekick country.

The country should call for an alternative global financial architecture, which is built on the real economy and not on the paper economy.

The disconnect between stock markets and the real economy was accentuated by the derivative markets where the tail had begun to wag the dog.

This fact has been told many a time by many from countries such as India.
India and China should play an important role in evolving the alternative global financial architecture and for which we should start working.

The existing institutions have failed and the existing market mantra has been exposed in the most compromising position wherein the market and government are caught in the act.

Unless we internalise the fundamental truth that the decline of the West is a pre-requisite for the emergence of India as a global power, we are not going anywhere.

To do that, we need to be pro-active and not supplicant. After all these acts of thievery, thuggery and market manipulations and mis-sales, it is interesting that no one categorically and unambiguously and unequivocally proclaims that the US financial system is a big sham and the regulations are totally ineffective and the marauders and vandals have been running major institutions from smoke-filled pubs .

That is the fact.

To build a new architecture, India should take the lead. Unfortunately, we have the US lobby, Chinese lobby, Pakistan lobby and all sorts of lobbies in the Capital, but no India lobby yet.

Until we do, we cannot but be mouthing inanities and discussing inconsequential things.

The author is professor of finance, Indian Institute of Management — Bangalore, and can be reached at vaidya@iimb.ernet.in.

The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.



I fully agree. I was shocked that no move was made to acquire the distressed properties. And no one understood the opportunity that was baing presented. The impact of this meltdown is that, the India related milestones forecast in RAND reports/Goldman Sachs reports were all being advanced in India's favor and yet there is no understanding.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16148
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby SwamyG » 23 Sep 2008 21:38

Do we know R.Vaidya's ideological leanings? Is Center, Left or Right?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 23 Sep 2008 21:41

He is BR member since a very long time. So go figure it out. :)

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3248
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby vera_k » 23 Sep 2008 22:04

ramana wrote:I fully agree. I was shocked that no move was made to acquire the distressed properties. And no one understood the opportunity that was baing presented. The impact of this meltdown is that, the India related milestones forecast in RAND reports/Goldman Sachs reports were all being advanced in India's favor and yet there is no understanding.


Not so sure about this one. Bailing out the failing institutions will only help slow the decline. India has enough opportunities to invest capital in domestic infrastructure to bulk up its ability to trade.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4654
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby sanjaykumar » 23 Sep 2008 22:24

After all these acts of thievery, thuggery and market manipulations and mis-sales, it is interesting that no one categorically and unambiguously and unequivocally proclaims that the US financial system is a big sham and the regulations are totally ineffective and the marauders and vandals have been running major institutions from smoke-filled pubs .


A wiseman said that corruption is rife in the US, they call it big business.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby vsudhir » 23 Sep 2008 22:31

Not so sure about this one. Bailing out the failing institutions will only help slow the decline. India has enough opportunities to invest capital in domestic infrastructure to bulk up its ability to trade.


Fully agree. Acquiring damaged goods won't do India any good. Even PRC and soko quailed and bailed when they saw the real picture.

OTOH, I doubt R Vaidya was really calling on us to acquire the assets. Rather, India should've made a show of acquiring and gone through the motions.

The Chicago mafia that egregiously spewed gratuitious contempt at the Asian contagion 10 yr ago remains shamelessly straight-faced when faced with the results of their greed-is-good policy prescriptions on the US and thereby the global financial system. :evil:

RBI has done a stellar job in keeping the syatem in India afloat so far and our path so far amply shows that the middle path of cautious glasnost is the right way forward for us, perhaps.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2008 03:32


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ShauryaT » 25 Sep 2008 07:56

ramana wrote:Bhisma uvacha on J&K

http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/wp-c ... nityed.pdf

Pragati pdf
I wanted to post this earlier, when the issue came out. I was glad to read KS' view.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby shiv » 01 Oct 2008 20:37

up

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16875
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby NRao » 02 Oct 2008 02:41

India should re-joice at the Decline of US institutions


Interesting take.

That is pretty much what India went through in the "civilian" nuclear arena.

Agressiveness based on solid foundation has yet to hit Indian shores. Starting form the top. Strategic vision? What is that?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Philip » 03 Oct 2008 14:21

I don't know how I earlier missd B.Raman's insightful view on the current attempt to create a Hindu-Christian divide.He is right on many scores.I have been for several years,long before any sign of the current tensions, a lone prophetic voice warning about the insidous attempt to use so-called "missionaries/evangelists",primarily from the US/CIA,to inflitrate the hinterland of India especially in tribal areas,well funded and to create a "fifth column" within the country.Many of these poor unfortunates do not realise that they are being manipulated as part of a grand masterplan that has global dimensions.He is right that various govts. at the centre have soft-pedalled this issue not to upset relations with primarily the US,whose pro-active fundamentalists are taking full advantage.The rise of "televangelism" in India is a recent phenomenon,that has mirrored US televangelism.
Money and land are also great incentives to stir the socio-religious pot.By and large the vast majority of Christians in India are true peaceful,patriots, who put the country's interests first and who have been living in peace with their Hindu brethren since 40BC!

In the book "Double Cross",by the brother and nephew of he Chicago Mafia boss,Sam Giancana,revealing the conspiracies that led the CIA/Mafia to murder the Kennedy brothers,Marilyn Monroe and others,Giancana it is written used the services of a Catholic (CIA) priest nicknamed "Father Cash", as a bagman in the Mafia's international "hits" carried out on behalf of the CIA.In Italy,the late Bishop Marcinkus,the then head of the Vatican Bank,was for years hiding in the Vatican as the Italian government had a warrant out for him for his involvement in financial fraud and the "P-2" scandal that involved the mafia,right wing neo-fascist Italian politicos and the CIA,also involved in terror bombings (Glaudio scandal),falsely blamed upon the Leftists to capture power.

Go India Go! Trust that this is true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2957578 ... plies.html

India targeting China's oil supplies
Military planners in India are eyeing a crucial junction of the world which serves as the conduit for 80 per cent of China's imported oil.

By David Blair in New Delhi
Last Updated: 7:23PM BST 22 Sep 2008

Chinese army officers at Nathula Pass, a section of the border between India and China

The Strait of Malacca, where the Indian Ocean joins the Pacific, is seen as China's Achilles' heel. These shipping lanes, vital for Beijing's energy supplies, could be the setting for any future confrontation between India and China.

Analysis: India moves closer to US to balance China's rise
Analysis: US to court India to balance China
Analysis: European military budgets still far surpass China and India

India 'must not show weakness to China'

The two giant powers are long-standing rivals who share a disputed 2,100-mile border and are waging a diplomatic struggle for influence in Asia. They fought a border war in 1962, which ended in victory for China and left Beijing in control of 16,500 square miles of territory claimed by India.

Both countries are increasing their defence budgets, with India's military spending rising by an average of 18 per cent in each of the past three years and now exceeding £15 billion.

If these tensions were ever to boil over into war, India would probably exploit a crucial advantage. Its navy, which eventually plans to deploy three aircraft carriers and two nuclear-powered attack submarines, would probably seek to close the Strait of Malacca to Chinese shipping through an increased presence. By cutting off the supply of oil, this could cripple China and prove the decisive move in any conflict.

"The most likely flashpoint would be along the border, but ultimately the decision in any war would be on the ocean," said Sheru Thapliyal, a retired Indian general in New Delhi who once commanded a division on the frontier with China.

"The Indian Ocean is where we could use our advantage to the maximum. If you want to choke China, the only way you can choke China is by using naval power."

With China's key vulnerability in mind, India has constructed a naval base within striking distance of the Strait of Malacca at Port Blair on the Andaman Islands. China has countered by installing military facilities of its own, complete with electronic monitoring and eavesdropping devices, on the nearby Coco Islands. These specks of land belong to Burma, a long-standing ally of China.

Beijing is now taking other steps to address what President Hu Jintao has called the country's "Malacca dilemma". With hugely ambitious infrastructure projects, China hopes to bypass the Strait of Malacca and eventually end its dependence on this vulnerable waterway for energy supplies.

On India's western flank, China is helping to build a new port in the Pakistani town of Gwadar. Thrust together by their shared rivalry with India, Pakistan and China are old allies.

Gwadar could eventually provide a base for Chinese warships. Or it may be used as the starting point for a pipeline travelling through Pakistan and carrying oil and gas into China itself. If so, Beijing could import energy from the Middle East using this route, bypassing the Strait of Malacca.

The same rationale may explain China's actions on India's eastern flank. A new port and pipeline terminal are being constructed at Kyauk Phyu on Burma's island of Ramree. This will be the starting point for a 900-mile pipeline, able to carry oil directly to Kunming, the capital of Yunnan province in southern China.

"They know that we could attempt to choke them completely and that's why they want these ports," said Vijay Kapoor, a retired general in New Delhi and former commandant of the Indian Army War College. "Their aim in all of this is to prevent us from being able to choke them."

China's moves are being closely watched in India, where the military establishment fears that Beijing's plans in Pakistan and Burma amount to a deliberate strategy of "encirclement". If China's navy acquires permanent bases in the Indian Ocean, tension will grow.

But Indian diplomats tend to believe these fears are exaggerated. They believe that China is motivated by nothing more than securing its economic boom and taking normal precautions against unforeseeable events.

PS:"Indian diplomats",have lost out in Lanka and elsewhere in the IOR,especially in Africa,as China relentlessly moves on like a vast vacuum cleaner ,devouring whatever mineral and petro wealth that it can find.

SK Mody
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby SK Mody » 03 Oct 2008 22:43

SAAG Forum.
Doesn't seem to be very active - with a lone soldier carrying it on.

TERRORISM :It's a hydra-headed monster -- Narendra Modi.
Quoting from a long article.
Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuits of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological. International terrorism involves citizens or territory of more than one country.

.....

During the arms race after the World War II, the Western economies thrived on production of ever more lethal and sophisticated weapons, and their counter-measures. The conventional weapons and equipment produced by the Western nations found their way to the Third World countries, particularly in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The armaments and defence-related industries of the West continued to flood the markets of the Third World with their sophisticated wares. The availability of weapons procured illegally made the society more and more insecure, which in turn led to more procurement of weapons and this in turn added fill-up to factories producing these arms. Unscrupulous strategists created imagined scenarios of danger resulting in more and more supply of arms. It was thus almost a commercial activity to generate fear, procure arms, use arms, again generate fear and so on so forth.
.....

Now how do we define terrorism?
Terrorism is the calculated use of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuits of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological. International terrorism involves citizens or territory of more than one country.

There are several causes advanced for the act of terrorism including ideology. However, the naked truth is that behind acts of terrorism there are vested interests of those who are hungry for political power. It is convenient to camouflage their real intention behind the mask of ideology.

The essence of terrorism is its capacity as a force multiplier through exploitation of fear. The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu said: “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not the supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” This is the essence of terrorism, the breaking of an enemy’s will through exploitation of fear. In the past, it was said that terrorists were very much interested in publicity and propaganda. But looking to the increasing number of attacks world over, which have neither been claimed nor been announced, a time has come to conclude that the objective of perpetrators of terrorism has changed. Now they want people dead and spread fear. The strategy is to have minimum loss while achieving maximum gain and to create an impact greater than what could have normally been created.

Sometimes, the Western world and people, who cannot look beyond the realm of economics and day-to-day survival, attribute terrorism to poverty. This logic could perhaps apply in some countries, but when terrorism hit Punjab, it was the most prosperous state in the country. There was no poverty in Punjab; there was no hunger, still for 12 long years terrorism had claimed over 14,000 lives. What was the reason? Some say illiteracy brings in terrorism, but in the north-east there are highly educated and qualified people. Why has terrorism hit the wbestern countries, economically developed? If someone says that bread and butter are the root-cause of terrorism, it would be a very myopic view while turning away from the facts.

.....

Here I would like to dwell upon yet another aspect of the terror network. There lives in every community a group of individuals who harbour dangerous and malignant intentions internally. Such people live an orderly and law-abiding life following their chosen occupation like any good citizen. But, quietly almost insidiously, they prepare the ground for terrorism to take root. This is done in a subtle manner by planting certain ideas that they know to be palpably false but because of the stature of these individuals, they gain currency. Their imaginations, under the cloak of social work, weakens the very fabric of society and denudes the authority of law. The resultant loss of prestige in governance and low esteem of the people prepares a ready launching-pad for terrorism.

Reverting to ISI, strategic objectives of Pak ISI against India could be listed as follows:

* To continue with the low intensity conflicts (Operation Destabilisation, Operation K2 and Operation Garland).

* Political destabilisation by aiding, abetting and sponsoring terrorism, by narco-terrorism, smuggling of weapons and explosives and by creating communal conflicts.

* Economic and financial manipulation through circulation of fake Indian currency and promotion of hawala channels.

* Social destabilisation by promotion of religious fundamentalism and anti-India campaign.

* Utilisation of other countries’ soil as springboard for terrorist strikes against India by helping Kashmiri and Sikh terrorists through criminal syndicates and smuggling networks.

.....

The law-enforcement agencies of this country will have no other alternative but stand up to this challenge. But mere words will not suffice. One of the weakest aspects of our security is collection of hard intelligence. Law and order is a state subject under the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the state police force firstly to anticipate the happening and then to act to prevent it. Unfortunately, the intelligence apparatus in most states leave much to be desired. I strongly feel that matters pertaining to intelligence should be given priority and the shroud of fanatical secrecy should be lifted so as to analyse true worth of any intelligence agency. In order to create a cadre of dedicated officers, I would recommend setting-up of an all-India service, which could be called the Indian Intelligence Service. Members of this service should be in the same manner as IAS, IPS and IFS. Be born on the cadre of a particular state and then are available for service with the Central Government on deputation basis. The advantage of such a system would be to have at hand the committed and professional intelligence officers who could then be trusted to collect hard intelligence competently.

.....

Another aspect that needs serious consideration is to provide legal support to law-enforcing agencies. We have replaced 303 rifles and given our crack units AK-56 rifles, and other sophisticated weaponry to deal with terrorists. This is an equipment that kills or destroys the terrorists. It is ironical that while we have given such power to our police forces, we have fought shy of equipping our law-enforcement agencies with adequate laws. Police in India are encumbered with illegal disabilities and are required to deal with the menace of terrorism using antiquated laws. When a proper law is put in place, such as POTA, it is summarily withdrawn for reasons, which no one can understand but can only speculate. Post-September 11, even United States of America came out with stringent laws against terrorism. They went two steps ahead and not only have made immigration procedures rather harsh but have also created an entire new department of Homeland Security so as to ensure its territory’s integrity against terrorist-related aggression. Unless the same is done in India, there is little hope for effective action against militancy.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3616
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Paul » 03 Oct 2008 23:49

Philip: The first sea lord of the royal navy during WWI, Lord Fischer used to refer to these choke points as the “Keys”. Along with the Malacca straits, the cape of good hope, suez, malvinas islands, Gibralter etc. were the choke points. To ensure the security of the British Empire, it was considered absolutely essential that these strategic locations be under the unrivalled domination of the royal navy.

If India wants to regain control over the Indian Ocean region, it needs to gain control over the approaches to the IOR. Mauritius and other islands in the IOR are of secondary importance.

I also notice that the secondary powers in the IOR – namely Indonesia and South Africa harbor animosities towards India at one time or the other. It is also dangerous that they control the “keys” as well. Indonesia insisted on calling Indian Ocean as the “Indonesian Ocean” and wanted to take over A&N in 1965. Thado Mbeki had anti India leanings as Ramana’s indication.

What is historical background for this? references would be appreciated. TIA

Amitava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 87
Joined: 03 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: New Jersey, USA.

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Amitava » 04 Oct 2008 09:29

The decline of the West is a pre-requisite for the emergence of India as a global power.

Yes, the decline of the West is a necessary condition, but far from being sufficient.

India lacks political will, the single most important pre-requisite. Until we acquire that, it will remain premature to talk about emerging as a global power.

Meanwhile, since nature abhors vacuum, she will not wait patiently for us to grow up.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4654
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby sanjaykumar » 04 Oct 2008 09:51

That is not true, the US superceded Britain on the seas not because the Admirality went into a decline but because they were eclipsed by a vastly richer, more innovative power. A power that 50 years earlier was nowhere on Europe's power heirachies.

Likewise China's rise is not predicated on the west's decline. It seems to be only India that needs everyone else to get the plague before it can shine :roll:

joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby joshvajohn » 04 Oct 2008 12:39

Often there are many mistakes are done in comparing a few fundamentalists Christians with US or West. What we do not know is in the West (not US) majority is not Christian. Majority do not sympathise with a few Christian fundamendalist perspectives that are projected in TV or elsewhere. Most of the government officials including in the US are agnostics and possibly atheists. Many may be anti-any religion but not certainly Christian apologists and sympathisers. It is the convenient of a few to make such generalisations. Of course even the regular church goers do not subscribe to the teleevangelism. You may ask some colleagues from the West about one of these channels or one of these preachers then you would be surprised to know that they never heard of such things.

IT is mainly the Blacks and Asians Christians along with some (may be considerable numbers in US) follow such type of Christianity. They promote their version of Christianity very vigorously yes. They do get a lot of funding too. We too are critique of such Christianity as a prosperiety oriented and fixed doctrines to raise funds. We argue that these are against the gospel values themselves. In a sense within Christianity there are considerable people who are against such popular Christianity. While

Having said that there is also a great respect for Hinduism among many people here. When many churches are converted into a Hindu temple and Jain temple local people were happy to give it up as it becomes somehow a worshipping place. Also many Church going Christians believe that we must respect all religious experiences. Hindu philosophy is revered as the oldest and one of the best philosophies that the world ever had.

But nowadays I think these attacks on Christianity has brought difficulties in promoting such a positive image anymore here in the West about Hindus. I think building the best image for Hindus for so many centuries among the people in the West (atleast in many places) is just damaged in few days by a few people.

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

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby svinayak » 04 Oct 2008 12:53

joshvajohn wrote:
IT is mainly the Blacks and Asians Christians along with some (may be considerable numbers in US) follow such type of Christianity. They promote their version of Christianity very vigorously yes. They do get a lot of funding too. We too are critique of such Christianity as a prosperiety oriented and fixed doctrines to raise funds. We argue that these are against the gospel values themselves. In a sense within Christianity there are considerable people who are against such popular Christianity. While

Because of these Televangelism the image of Christianity has been damaged in India. It is difficult for regular christians to seperate themselves from the American evangelists in India and this has caused social tension for the Christians in India. The use of derogatory language against the majority population is increasing social problem.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4850
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby Neshant » 04 Oct 2008 13:36

The worst thing India could have done is aquire these failing financial companies.

These companies don't produce any high-tech items, they don't grow anything that can be consumed, they don't make any scientific breakthroughs. In fact they do nothing other than gamble with investor's money on the markets pretending to know which way its going and generating tons of useless papers.

Its important that India stay clear of fluffing up the economy with bogus financial companies. It only leads to more fakery and con-artistry in every aspect of accounting from their value in the economy to the overall GDP.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2008 21:15

A key factor of TSP instability is the Mohajir group wose ethnicity is only due to language. Language cannot be a basis for longterm stability. The Mohajirs are TSP muslims of various Indian sub-continent origin whose only glue is the language of Urdu. They need to be addressed to let the TSP kabila settle down. There are various options but all are unstable exceopt for one.

The only way that can happen is if these Mohajirs are allowed to comeback into Indian society in the areas of their origin and readjust. How acceptable is that for India?

harik
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 14 Sep 2008 19:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby harik » 06 Oct 2008 21:45

ramana wrote:A key factor of TSP instability is the Mohajir group wose ethnicity is only due to language. Language cannot be a basis for longterm stability. The Mohajirs are TSP muslims of various Indian sub-continent origin whose only glue is the language of Urdu. They need to be addressed to let the TSP kabila settle down. There are various options but all are unstable exceopt for one.

The only way that can happen is if these Mohajirs are allowed to comeback into Indian society in the areas of their origin and readjust. How acceptable is that for India?


> The only way that can happen is if these Mohajirs are allowed to comeback into Indian society in the areas of their origin and readjust. How acceptable is that for India?

Very very revolutionary.

Current islamist ( approved term ) from UP, Bihar & AP belong to this category only.
Correct me if you feel like.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3248
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby vera_k » 06 Oct 2008 21:46

ramana wrote: Language cannot be a basis for longterm stability.


Why then has India been successful having states organized on the basis of language? I think the answer is that language can be the basis for longterm stability, but it takes a long time to build that stability. The Mohajirs need more time to assimilate into Pakistan.

harik
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 14 Sep 2008 19:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby harik » 06 Oct 2008 21:53

vera_k wrote:
ramana wrote: Language cannot be a basis for longterm stability.


Why then has India been successful having states organized on the basis of language? I think the answer is that language can be the basis for longterm stability, but it takes a long time to build that stability. The Mohajirs need more time to assimilate into Pakistan.


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

Potti Bhai


The Mohajirs need more time to assimilate into Pakistan

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.

harik
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 14 Sep 2008 19:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby harik » 06 Oct 2008 22:06

joshvajohn wrote:Often there are many mistakes are done in comparing a few fundamentalists Christians with US or West. What we do not know is in the West (not US) majority is not Christian. Majority do not sympathise with a few Christian fundamendalist perspectives that are projected in TV or elsewhere. Most of the government officials including in the US are agnostics and possibly atheists. Many may be anti-any religion but not certainly Christian apologists and sympathisers. It is the convenient of a few to make such generalisations. Of course even the regular church goers do not subscribe to the teleevangelism. You may ask some colleagues from the West about one of these channels or one of these preachers then you would be surprised to know that they never heard of such things.

IT is mainly the Blacks and Asians Christians along with some (may be considerable numbers in US) follow such type of Christianity. They promote their version of Christianity very vigorously yes. They do get a lot of funding too. We too are critique of such Christianity as a prosperiety oriented and fixed doctrines to raise funds. We argue that these are against the gospel values themselves. In a sense within Christianity there are considerable people who are against such popular Christianity. While

Having said that there is also a great respect for Hinduism among many people here. When many churches are converted into a Hindu temple and Jain temple local people were happy to give it up as it becomes somehow a worshipping place. Also many Church going Christians believe that we must respect all religious experiences. Hindu philosophy is revered as the oldest and one of the best philosophies that the world ever had.

But nowadays I think these attacks on Christianity has brought difficulties in promoting such a positive image anymore here in the West about Hindus. I think building the best image for Hindus for so many centuries among the people in the West (atleast in many places) is just damaged in few days by a few people.


Sir,
You were the most kind one I could ever come across.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3248
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Interests - 7

Postby vera_k » 06 Oct 2008 22:20

harik wrote:Potti Bhai


Please translate.


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?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests