India nuclear news and discussion

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby John Snow » 10 Sep 2008 21:57

Jaspreet wrote:I have a tiny question.
Don't all these waivers and treaties hold good only for Earth?
I am thinking that despite being aware of China's nuke capabilities, it took India ("if not today then tomorrow") more than 10 years to conduct her first test and then more than twenty for the second round. When the time for a 3rd one comes about, many countries, including India, will have space colonies and will lay claim to small asteroids for various purposes. Perhaps India will conduct a test on one of these asteroids. This will preserve the letter of NPT, CTBT, FMCT and the NSG-waiver. Won't it?




Ans: No
Since Earth based treaty on Nuclearization of Space has come into being in Cosmos, there is no possibilty of detonating a Nucelar explosion.


The only exepmtion at this time is underground expressions of Nuclear explosions.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Katare » 10 Sep 2008 22:10

The question that no one in anti-deal camp answer's is what have we lost on stretegic front by signing the deal?

The argument are from a imaginary reference line which assumes that india should have gotton a P5 status and than they go on to show what we have lost/didn't get. We never had P5 status we didn't have any status for that matter.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2008 22:18

Er, The misperception was from early statements form GOI reps after J18 agreement which gave the impression/understanding that the status was NWS like. And nothing was done to dispell the mis-perception.


As the Chinese saying goes "When you point a finger, three are pointed at yourself"

However I feel GOI was to learning on the fly as can be seen from the post NSG waiver comments on the leaked SD letter and the aftermath.

awagaman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 16:27

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby awagaman » 10 Sep 2008 23:44

Detailed story by Varadarajan on China at the NSG:

China 'overestimated' the strength of the 'seven dwarfs' at NSG
'Procedural procrastination' was Chinese strategy to delay India waiver, NSG diplomats say ...
http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2008/09/china-overestimated-strength-of-seven.html

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 10 Sep 2008 23:45

http://news.google.com/news?tab=wn&ned= ... 1242265721

.
A waiver that shakes NPT to its core

The Daily Yomiuri, Japan - 23 hours ago
The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, including Japan, has unanimously adopted a waiver of a ban on exports of nuclear fuel and technology to India. ...
China state paper lashes India-US nuclear deal

Hindustan Times, India - Sep 9, 2008
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee indicates that he had conveyed unhappiness to China over its attempts to create problems in the grant of NSG ...
Editorial: Deal damages N-free stance

New Zealand Herald, New Zealand - Sep 9, 2008
Alert readers will have raised an eyebrow at an announcement this week that the Government has agreed to a waiver of the terms of the nuclear ...
Nonproliferation rules to be followed in N-ties with Pak: China

Press Trust of India, India - Sep 9, 2008
Beijing, Sep 9 (PTI) Amid reports that Pakistan was seeking an atomic deal with it on the lines of the Indo-US nuclear pact, China today said will not ...
Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India

Deutsche Welle, Germany - Sep 9, 2008
Germany has grudgingly accepted a landmark civilian nuclear trade deal with India which gives the Asian giant the green light to buy nuclear fuel and ...
'Canada to focus on free trade pact with India'

Economic Times, India - Sep 8, 2008
TORONTO: Calling his country's backing for India in getting the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) last week a "turning point" in bilateral ties ...


Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Katare » 10 Sep 2008 23:47

ramana wrote:Er, The misperception was from early statements form GOI reps after J18 agreement which gave the impression/understanding that the status was NWS like. And nothing was done to dispell the mis-perception.


As the Chinese saying goes "When you point a finger, three are pointed at yourself"

However I feel GOI was to learning on the fly as can be seen from the post NSG waiver comments on the leaked SD letter and the aftermath.


Ramana,
Do you, or anyone else, have that statement?

We were and are NWS, the deal doesn't change anything, if any it only adds more value to our status.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 11 Sep 2008 00:03

This is getting to be rather funny. India can actually test at this point int ime and no one would take it seriously. :)

THIS one takes the cake:

Nuclear India must end its China-bashing

But the media celebrations had an ugly side – China-bashing. Perceptions that Beijing had tried to block the deal from behind the scenes sparked outrage among commentators, who suspected China was championing the interests of its ally and India’s nuclear-armed rival, Pakistan


Redefines "perception" for sure. And, perhaps he was really asleep when the late night discussions were going on.

Author: joseph.leahy@ftbombay.com

Interesting!!!!!!!


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 11 Sep 2008 00:18


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 00:21

NRAo, It wasnt only the PRC that misread the clout of the six holdouts but a number of NPAs and main stream editors like NYT and FT.

That article has many old myths that went by wayside. And future hopes that wont come about.

For example the policy of India towards PRC will be based on PRC's behavior and not any expectations or pro quid quo as is being implied in the FT article. It is for PRC to define how it wants to advance its realtions with India.

Just as India has a track record of non-proliferation while PRC doesnt, India has a track record of benign behavior towards PRC while PRC has the opposite with regard to India.

Google cache on the Chinese denial

In the court of world opinion, which is no doubt masked by realism, its clear who is doing what and why.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 01:18

op-Ed in sify about the Chinese role.

N-deal, China and the Assassin’s Mace

N-deal, China and the Assassin’s Mace

Bhaskar Roy, who retired recently as a senior government official with decades of national and international experience, is an expert on international relations and Indian strategic interests.

The merits and demerits of the conditions under which India was cleared by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna on September 6 will continue to be debated for some time both at home and abroad.

The non-proliferation lobby will continue to snap at India’s heels whenever the opportunity arises. There will be interest groups and countries who will also try and avenge their defeat at the NSG. In regional and global politics, India will have to be on guard. Yet, India came out of the tense two-day negotiations winning its rightful place in the nuclear community, despite opposition from powerful interest groups.

Of the Gang of Four and a Half (GOFH), there were three in the forefront – Austria, New Zealand and Ireland. They were allegedly compelled by domestic political pressure to take a hard line.

The Austrian government is allied with the Greens Party, which strongly opposes proliferation, and there is an election coming up there in six months. New Zealand was in a similar predicament. The biggest nuclear no-body, Ireland held its ground till the last moment for no explicable reason.

All the three countries, as was revealed on September 4 in Vienna, were being strongly backed by China to either vote outright against India, or delay the negotiations to such an extent that the issue would die down at least for the near future.

In fact, there Chinese delegation at Vienna adopted the “silent mode” for itself and was quietly urging the other three to walk out and kill the negotiations. Had US President George W. Bush not called the Chinese President Hu Jintao on September 6, the Chinese delegation would have sabotaged the NSG waiver process.

The Indian government had also summoned the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi on September 5 to explain China’s position. This is, perhaps, the rarest of rare occasion when an Indian government has taken such a strong diplomatic step with China, and indicates New Delhi’s increasing unhappiness with Beijing.

The Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) M K Narayan finally made clear India’s “disappointment” with China’s role at the NSG meeting. He officially revealed for the first time that China at the highest levels i.e. President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao, and Foreign Ministers Yang Jiachi, had assured India that China would not obstruct India at the NSG. It was, therefore, assumed by New Delhi that while Beijing would not actively support India, it would go along with the flow of opinion in the 45-member NSG.

Because of the opposition to the Indian draft at the NSG orchestrated by China from the background, certain adjustments were agreed to by India at the last moment. The NSG document does not include the text of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statement of September 4 on India’s unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing, and its proven position on non-proliferation.

But the document refers to it in one sentence. The statement is a reiteration of the NDA government’s position, but China was not satisfied that Mr Mukherjee’s statement really bound India within a nuclear ball park.

India’s nuclear programme forms a very important part of China’s India strategy: to turn it into a bonsai nation. Beijing may tolerate India with the attributes of a great nation, but clipped into a drawing room size. This strategy appears to have collapsed to a significant extent with the NSG waiver in China’s perception, and one should expect a variety of Chinese thrusts to counter India aggressively from now on.

It is well established and beyond any debate that the Chinese government has been the biggest proliferator officially, helping Pakistan to become a stand alone nuclear power with a missile delivery system. Chinese language nuclear weapons documents were given by Libya to the US when Tripoli decided to completely surrender its nuclear establishment and plans and come clean. Even after China signed the NPT, it continued proliferation to Pakistan to complete the latter’s technology and equipment agreement to the full.

India-Chinese relations have gone through the “Bhai Bhai” days in the 1950s, to swords drawn in the 1960s, the US-China alliance in the 1970s and parts of 1980s, to the post Cold War and 21st century, when each country is trying to find its own place under the sun.

While India has been slow, hesitant and cautiously reactive most of the time, China followed a consistent policy to undermine India at every stage – bilaterally, regionally and globally.

China saw one window of opportunity to force the roll-back of India’s nuclear programme following the 1998 Pokhran-II tests, when US President Bill Clinton almost handed over the anti-India nuclear initiative to China’s leadership. Beijing demanded India roll back its programme, adding that then only would Pakistan follow suit, since India was the first to test. This official position of China does not appear to have been withdrawn.

The point to note in China’s position is that it spoke on behalf of Pakistan. This is highly significant, suggesting diplomatically that Pakistan had become not only a client state of China, but a front line ally and forward nuclear weapons base of China.

The import of China’s strategy and its threat to India’s security is undeniable. Since Beijing had political difficulties in setting up nuclear missile bases on India’s shoulder in Tibet, bases in Pakistan more than served the purpose. A nuclear Pakistan could only target India as China’s surrogate. It was an astute strategy. Beijing could use Pakistan to threaten India, and yet restrain it at the right time to show to the world that it was a responsible power. A highly dishonest and deceitful strategy served on a plate of deniability.

On the nuclear deal, the Chinese leaders starting from President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao and Foreign Minister Yang Jiachi deceived their Indian counterparts and politically disarmed them. Then they tried to pull the rug from under the feet of the Indians at Vienna in the last 72 hours of the negotiations, when the other opponents to India began to give in. There must have been a very strong reason for China to make such a turn which could tarnish their credibility in the world. It was also a very big risk.

From recent Chinese statements and writings in their official military and security connected journals which allow a glimpse into their internal thinking, China’s rise to straddle Asia with impunity is being challenged by India and the growing India-US strategic and military relationship.

There is also a perception that the US is weakening Pakistan to enable India in South Asia, and is making India a “firewall” against China. There appears to be a fear that Beijing’s gateway to the Gulf and Middle East through Pakistan could be lost. Hence, it appears, that China has pulled out all stops where India is concerned.

An old Chinese warfare strategy states – when confronting a strong enemy, appease its head but sever its weakest link. Here, the US is seen as the head and India the weakest link.

There were also many opponents of the nuclear deal with the US within India. One is the largest opposition party, the BJP. The BJP’s arguments range from national sovereignty and pride, and their own strategic calculations. Their objections for most of the period from 2005 were based on information available. Statements from senior US officials from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice downwards suggested the deal would bind India hand, foot and mouth permanently. Besides, it was the BJP led NDA government which had laid the foundation stone of the India-US strategic relationship.

There are domestic political issues, but the BJP’s concerns must be clarified in due course in national interest. The BJP cannot be faulted one inch on their nationalist credentials irrespective of differences in perception. Of the GOFH, four have been clearly identified. The remaining “half” cries for some discussion. It is the left front led by the CPM.

Mr. D. Raja of the CPM described September 6, the day of the NSG waiver came India’s way as a “Black Day’ for India. A statement so steeped in deep dismay and frustration is not normally used by a senior politician on a subject of such strategic definition as the nuclear deal. Is it a catastrophe for India, or is it for some other country?

Throughout the period when the left front was with the Congress-led UPA government, they concentrated on two basic issues, both of which ran in parallel. One was anti-“American imperialism”. The other was to promote China in India’s sensitive security areas and arbitrate on behalf of China.

To the left front, especially the CPM, scuttling the Indo-US nuclear deal within the Indian government, Indian Parliament, and the political stage, became as important for them as it was for China. There was a desperation which ended in the left walking out of the UPA alliance, and a call for the trust vote in Parliament.

The CPM leaders claim that they are fighting to protect India’s sovereignty. Their frustration over failing to stop India appears as deep as that of China’s.

China all along opposed not only the nuclear deal, but also the enhanced India-US military relations and military exercises, India-US strategic partnership, and enhanced bilateral relations. This is exactly the line that the left front, led by the CPM, pushed hard in India.

From within the UPA, the CPM ensured that the government absorbed all Chinese transgressions along the borders and Beijing’s sharp rhetoric. Even Chinese official criticism of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh had to be given a go by. In the interest of keeping the government together, the Congress allowed the CPM to blackmail the country.

The Indian government has let out little in the public domain about the real state of India-China political relations, which has led to many analysts saying the so-called India-China strategic partnership can be damned.


To appreciate China, which has one of the oldest strategic cultures of governance and warfare, is important. The Confucian theory of a benevolent and equitable King, avoiding outward war as far as possible is very significant. War brings hurt and deprivation to all, including this victor.

Master strategist Sun Zi advocated winning a war without fighting a war. A later strategy developed was the “Assassin’s Mace”, something on the lines of the Trojan Horse, but also very different in that the activation of the Trojan Horse strategy was limited by time. The “Assassin’s Mace” is not.

The “Assassin’s Mace” strategy creates agents in the opponent King’s Court, agents who will strike when the master signals. In modern asymmetric warfare terms, the actionable strategy has been polished and developed by China’s political security establishments. This is a strategy being studied and turned into a highly potent weapon in China’s armory.

The Indian government and its strategic policy establishment appear to have realized only now that when dealing with any country, “trust” must be based on “verification” of the opponent’s intent. India has to deal with China, work with China and sit with China. With a 4,000 km border dispute yet to be resolved, there would have to be certain cooperation.

Having said that, China has demonstrated in global headlines that it cannot be trusted by any country. To deceive, deny, and kill with a smile, is the backbone of its strategy and foreign policy. It is a sad commentary.

The people of India had started trusting China. Attempting to murder India twice over is unpardonable.

But as the old proverb goes:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not of Sify.com.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 01:28

Wow and the PRC has the cheek/gall/nerve/chutzpah to deny and on the contrary suggest they were supportive at the NSG.

I wonder if we will see Indonesia redux. Before that I want the TSP weight reduced using the Sun Tzu axiom quoted.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13442
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suraj » 11 Sep 2008 01:44

One of the positives I see from the NSG proceedings is that India gains experience on how to deal at the big table, and in particular, how to deal with Chinese sock puppetry. This is just the first of many more such big power proceedings we will participate in, in future. What we've achieved will hopefully provide our corps with valuable lessons on how to manage delicate big power parleys, how to maintain relationships and how to counter opposition from PRC and outmaneuver them. The US of course, did a lot of heavy lifting, but we demonstrated remarkable maturity both at the NSG proceedings and earlier at IAEA.

I see no point in focussing on Chinese 'chicanery' or 'perfidiousness', or similar moral concerns. I hope India will be just as ruthless in playing ball, resorting to every trick needed to be played, when it negotiates. If we are outmaneuvered and back off, fine. But we have to play the game hard. The Chinese just gave us a gratuitous demonstration of what sort of activities happen at this level. I actually am thankful for them for the additional gyan.

On that regard, I find the French allusion to our lacking 'maturity' (posted by NRao) rather odd. What was the context of that ? Any references ?

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby John Snow » 11 Sep 2008 01:51

The thundering silence from Bejing on the deal (overtly) was one of the thing that made me suspecious of the deal. (in addition to my own perceptions about uncles intent).

Most decietful since the 1940s, Chini Hindi bhai Bhai days.

MCTC ( more chinese than chinese are our own CPM crooks)
or is it MPTP ( More Panda than Panda) :mrgreen:

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4473
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby sanjaykumar » 11 Sep 2008 01:53

All the P-5 have a record of murderousness which is equated in simpler minds with statecraft; India does not. France of course had a successful run at murdering 1 million Algerians, as a responsible nuclear power, 45 years ago. It is irrelevant to them whether the murders of the Algerians were of any utility in preserving 'indivisible France'. Naturally considerations of ethics are even less relevant.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13442
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suraj » 11 Sep 2008 02:02

John Snow wrote:The thundering silence from Bejing on the deal (overtly) was one of the thing that made me suspecious of the deal. (in addition to my own perceptions about uncles intent).

The so called 'thundering silence' is part of how they play their game. It is a mistake to judge them by the lack of a known initial position.

As someone mentioned before, if they say something at the outset, it telegraphs their intention right then, and makes the opposition's task of responding to them easier, because their position is known.

If they keep quiet and give conflicting signals, it keeps the other side guessing and makes them do the work of addressing any maneuver.

The Chinese have shown time and again in these parleys (as well as in their general UNSC record) that they do not take an open stand. The only demonstrable exception is shooting down any Taiwan/Tibet related resolutions. In all other cases, they instead play their own diplomatic version of Chinese whispers. Or alternately, put a price on their support, requiring a quid pro quo.

Our babus and netas have grown up in a system where such tactics are well evolved, and we've plenty of folks who are, as you put it, MCTC in this regard.

As I said, the best part about these negotiations is the invaluable experience in how the Chinese conduct diplomacy at this stage, and how to counter them. Siddharth Varadarajan's detailed description bears detailed study and analysis on BRM. We've analyzed the piskology of Cohen in the past. The Chinese are just as good a topic, if not significantly more pertinent today.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 02:06



The US needs heavy water for its Y12 plant. It cannot import this from NPT members because this heavy water will be used to make Lithium Deuteride for the secondaries of thermonuclear weapons.
Ironically it could import this from India since it isn't an NPT signatory.

The NSG non-suppliers would go ballistic though.... horizontal proliferation and all that.. or is it not proliferation when Massa is the recipient?
Last edited by Gerard on 11 Sep 2008 02:31, edited 2 times in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby RajeshA » 11 Sep 2008 02:19

I know no politics on this thread, but....

The Left's betrayal is stinking till the heavens. It is absolutely necessary, that the media, the political parties keep on pounding incessantly that these people are working for the Chinese, that these are Chinese agents. No quarters given. WB, Kerala and Tripura need to be taken back and the red menace banished from India. :evil:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 11 Sep 2008 02:25

I like that "Assassin’s Mace" op-ed (of sorts). India will have to shift gears from a chai-biscut country to someone that has to throw a few punches to make things happen.

What I would have liked this person to add was the partition of TSP - which I think is inevitable.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rahul M » 11 Sep 2008 02:30

NRao, do you have a link for the france comments ?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby NRao » 11 Sep 2008 02:37

RM,

I am lost. Sorry, do not know what you are referring to.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13442
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suraj » 11 Sep 2008 02:38

NRao: we are referring to the following:
NRao wrote:Forgot to add, RU during the Georgian fiasco, explicitly stated that RU will support the US on the nuclear front.

And, of course, FR has stated that they feel that India is not ready - mature enough - to join the club.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 03:13


Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1275
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Rishirishi » 11 Sep 2008 03:23

Suraj wrote:One of the positives I see from the NSG proceedings is that India gains experience on how to deal at the big table, and in particular, how to deal with Chinese sock puppetry. This is just the first of many more such big power proceedings we will participate in, in future. What we've achieved will hopefully provide our corps with valuable lessons on how to manage delicate big power parleys, how to maintain relationships and how to counter opposition from PRC and outmaneuver them. The US of course, did a lot of heavy lifting, but we demonstrated remarkable maturity both at the NSG proceedings and earlier at IAEA.

I see no point in focussing on Chinese 'chicanery' or 'perfidiousness', or similar moral concerns. I hope India will be just as ruthless in playing ball, resorting to every trick needed to be played, when it negotiates. If we are outmaneuvered and back off, fine. But we have to play the game hard. The Chinese just gave us a gratuitous demonstration of what sort of activities happen at this level. I actually am thankful for them for the additional gyan.

On that regard, I find the French allusion to our lacking 'maturity' (posted by NRao) rather odd. What was the context of that ? Any references ?


Not only should this apply to China, but also all other nations as well as dealing with sepratists issuels like Kashmir.
Eveyone plays by simmilar rules, but India has this self imposed Nehruvian hangover og "doing the right thing".

Having said this, I would like to add a few points from the chinease point of view. Firstly the Chinease have almost taken for granted their idea that "china has a great future". In other countires this refers to improvement for the individual, but for the Chinease it refers to global power. They see US as their greatest obsticle and are convinced that US is jaking up India to sabotage Chinas ambitions.
In effect the Chinease have started to see the US-India relations as how Indians view China-Pakistan relations.

Little do the Chinease realize that may acutally surpass China before it surpases US. I have argued for this in the China thread. The highlights are. Younger population (China is going to face a massive labour shortage), far better managed and much more profitable companies.

Expect Chinese to sabotage Indias growth ambitions. But their attempts will be subtle and non confrontational. They do not want any direct confrontation, as they fear for the political costs.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Sanjay M » 11 Sep 2008 03:29

India can proceed into high-end areas of economic competition faster than police-state China can.
As an open society, India doesn't have to maintain an army of internet censors, etc, like China has to, or constantly worry about what people are saying.

There is a certain amount of overhead, as well as certain limitations, that come from being a police state. That may not be relevant to the world of manufacturing, but it can certainly come into play in industries based more on innovation and free flow of thought.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 03:34


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 03:41

Op-Ed in Deccan Chronicle, 11 Spet 2008

Manmohan’s foreign policy coup almost rivals Indira’s
By S. Nihal Singh

The arguments will continue till the cows come home, but the American success in swinging the Indo-US nuclear deal, with considerable Indian diplomatic help, in the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will have two major consequences: It marks the beginning of a new phase of relations with the United States, and it is the one substantial legacy of the nearly five years of the Manmohan Singh government.

It is also significant that the deal approval comes at a particularly fractious time in domestic politics, reflected in the government’s inability to build a greater consensus around a landmark foreign policy initiative. The Communist parties had their ideological reasons for opposing the deal and finally withdrew support to the coalition government. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s opposition was purely opportunistic in hoping to pull down the government and, after failing in the attempt, burnishing its nationalist credentials.

The Manmohan Singh government decided that only the United States had the key to give India a seat at the world’s high table and US President George W. Bush’s calculation of his country’s interests propelled him to open a unique window of opportunity.

The July 2005 deal was the consequence, winding its way through American political and bureaucratic processes and then through the difficult political minefields in India leading to the Communist divorce and the Samajwadi Party’s help in rescuing the government.

Ironically, India’s exclusion from what Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has described as the "nuclear mainstream" was crafted and orchestrated by the US after the Pokhran-I test. This exclusion was hurting more and more as nuclear plants were working at 40 per cent capacity for lack of uranium and India’s successes in developing its indigenous nuclear programme were hindered by being denied new nuclear technology.

The US’ promise to take India out of its 34-year nuclear isolation, despite New Delhi’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and possessing nuclear weapons after Pokhran-II, came at a price.

The price is that India should form a strategic partnership with the US — a term debased by overuse — in a regional and international setting. India has convergences with the US on several issues, including balancing China’s future power trajectory, and a growing Indo-Japanese economic and political relationship.

There are, however, points of divergence in relation to Russia, for instance, on US’ unilateral and militarist impulses and on the role of the United Nations and on how the US views Iran and what is described as the broader Middle East.

If India’s nonalignment had a pro-Soviet tinge in the old days, its nonalignment tomorrow, for what it is worth, will have a pro-US tilt. How successfully India plays this balancing act remains to be seen, but the two anti-Iran votes at the International Atomic Energy Agency are a warning that New Delhi should retain a cool head even while making necessary concessions.

The policies the next US administration will pursue remains to be seen, but the worldviews of Washington and New Delhi will inevitably come into conflict on occasion. The US has world interests while India is an emerging power. The American impulse is to prevail, even through force if required, while Indian preferences are more consensual.

The essence of India’s nonalignment is to seek autonomy in policymaking, an exercise that is becoming increasingly difficult in the post-Cold War, and now post-Georgia, era.

In domestic political terms, the NSG approval has come as a further setback to the BJP. One can understand the Communist parties’ perspective of opposing India being drawn into an American orbit, but what is one to make of the party that initiated the process of Indo-US rapprochement — remember the marathon Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks in various world capitals — mounting a staunch opposition to the nuclear deal?

The sense of insecurity the BJP and its leader L.K. Advani are exhibiting is reflective of their frustration from unexpectedly losing the last general elections and then failing to unseat the Manmohan Singh government.

Merely declaring that the deal is tantamount to selling the country down the river or walking into a trap will convince few. Nor is the party’s decision to wear the badge of nationalism on its sleeve a productive exercise.

It must surely disconcert Mr Advani that the man he flamboyantly described as the "weakest Prime Minister" the country has had has succeeded in carrying out a foreign policy coup that has been compared with Indira Gandhi’s success in the Bangladesh War, in a conjunction of high-wire diplomacy and force that has few parallels in history. To manage a motley collection of parties that form the coalition and coaxing the Left parties to play along until the time of break arrived required a high degree of planning. And there was the Samajwadi Party willing to lend support at a crucial moment.

The government cannot rest on its laurels because a new, more intensive phase of diplomacy must now begin. India owes a debt to the US in pushing the deal through the NSG in terms of giving it an adequate share of commercial opportunities in the nuclear trade it has opened up. France and Russia are ahead in the queue in seeking orders for nuclear reactors. Partly, it is up to Washington to speed up its own legislative and bureaucratic processes to claim its share of the Indian cake.

Above all, the Manmohan Singh government has to prove the critics of the deal wrong by managing the contradictions that will surely arise in balancing the interests of the US with India’s core beliefs and multilateral bent of mind. For instance, India cannot be a party to demonising Russia and opposing policies a newly resurgent Russian leadership is following. Nor can India be a party to containment of Russia through Nato and otherwise.

Russia played a helpful role in getting India approval for the deal. On the other hand, China has much explaining to do on why it chose to act as it did.



He says a lot of things but confuses when he comes to domestic politics.

The big thing for me is he starts out with convergence with US over balancing China's future trajectory and ends with China has some explaining to do! These chatteratia re still not clear what the deal ment. It acknowledgest eh need to not inder India any longer in order to reach a balance in Asia and the world. To be honsts when India reaches its potential the elite in US might be transforemd to a minority.

Its like the Sci-Fi book Foundation. The flag is being passed. We dont nkow what was the initial civilization but the torch bearers of the flag wee vastly different except they had the same ideas.
Similarly , the Romans took the Greek ideas and hebrew religious ideas and create Western civilization. But they lost and were over run by the 'barbarians" who got converted Chrisitianity to achieve legitimacy. While this was happeening the Anglo Saxons were still barabaric and when they did form a group of people it was a thousand years later and spread around and fought two great wars were they lost and inflicted demographic catastrophes.

I see this event (passage of the wiaver) as the an interim triumph of the Macaulayization journey started in India over 150 years ago. Demographics shows that India by that time, will have the largest English speaking and knowing population and how it leverages that is up to her future generations. And if you use the IQ stats it will also be the largest population with IQ over 100 and speaking English. So it will be knowledge power to reckon with.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 03:47

http://www.truthout.org/article/how-ind ... er-was-won

How India's Nuclear "Waiver" Was Won

Tuesday 09 September 2008

by: J. Sri Raman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

According to India's National Security Adviser, M. K. Narayanan, the country won a waiver of the normal, non-proliferation conditions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) over the weekend - believe it or not - because of "divine support."

Evidence, however, points to a superpower and its outgoing president as the source of the extra-diplomatic support that enabled India to take this penultimate step toward "operationalizing" the US-India nuclear deal. The final step will be formal ratification by the US Congress of the bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation, which New Delhi and Washington concluded in July 2007.

Narayanan told a television channel that he was in his "puja (prayer) room" at 1 a.m.
when his colleague and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon phoned him to share his anxiety over the fate of the deal in the crucial session of the 45-member NSG in Vienna. The spiritual-minded security counselor stayed unruffled. He told Menon that he had received an assurance in the matter from "the highest quarters."

Those with a different idea of divinity might demur. The waiver has caused such wild jubilation in Indian circles, which consider a pro-peace stance as the opposite of patriotism, precisely because it has been won without the country renouncing its legal right to conduct a nuclear-weapon test again. And, if India tests again, it will do so only in order to make bigger and better bombs. To some of us, divine intervention to help a worshiper acquire more mass-destructive weapons might seem an improbable idea.

None of us, however, would consider as anything but natural pro-India intervention for the same purpose by Washington under George W. Bush - despite the war it launched on Iraq for finding weapons of mass destruction that have proven fictitious. Reports from Vienna confirm that the intervention has not been of a refined, traditionally diplomatic kind either.

Many analysts have already noted the irony of the fact that the NSG, set up in 1975 as a response to India's first and professedly "peaceful nuclear explosion" of the previous year, has lifted the ban on nuclear commerce for the country within a decade of its declaration as a nuclear-weapon state. The other irony of the US, which has given the NSG its clout all these years, taking the lead in weakening it with the waiver has also drawn attention.

To some, the more striking irony is of the privileged signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - the P5 comprising the US, Russia, the UK, France and China - themselves presiding over the liquidation of the treaty. All five are members of the NSG, which has extended the waiver to India, a non-signatory to the NPT. To some others, the supreme irony may seem to be the one about the discriminatory and hypocritical treaty being glorified as a global non-proliferation guide and depicting the P5 as harbingers of nuclear disarmament.

Opposition to the waiver, however, was expected only from other NSG members. The US had undertaken to assist India in this forum. Nicholas Burns, assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, had said on August 4, 2007, that Washington would act as "India's shepherd" at the NSG. It was as good as its word, going by the way it herded a handful of reluctant members into the pro-deal pen.

The official text of the waiver is not available at the moment this writing. It is, nevertheless, clear that the NSG has been persuaded to grant the waiver on the "basis" of a statement made by India's External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, in New Delhi, reiterating a "voluntary moratorium" on testing declared soon after the nuclear-weapon tests of 1998. Similarly, no details of the US diplomacy in the NSG have been divulged, but no doubt is left about its unusual character.

The US and India had to deal, finally, with six holdouts - Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. The first three fell in line after an initial show of resistance, but the others seemed to stand firm until the night of September 5. They demanded a linkage between the waiver and an Indian commitment not to test again, among other conditions. China, too, joined the dissenters toward the end. Midnight diplomacy of a muscular kind, however, made all the difference and manufactured the waiver of September 6, by all accounts.

Jayantha Dhanapala, the eminent Sri Lankan who served as the UN undersecretary general in 1998-2003, talked of this tough diplomacy in his last-minute appeal to the dissenters to stay firm. He said: "Brutal and unconscionable pressure has been exerted on the few countries who opposed the US-India draft...."

A report in a leading Indian newspaper said "dozens of phone calls" were made "at the highest levels Thursday and Friday (September 5) night to various principals across the world to get the deal through." At the receiving end were Chinese President Hu Jintao and leaders of Ireland, Austria and New Zealand. "At the highest levels," clarified the report, was "a euphemism for President Bush, whose single-minded pursuit of this deal was largely instrumental in getting it through in the waning days of his second term."

The account was not too ambiguous about the character of the calls and the campaign. It said: "Not that Uncle Sam was delicate in the pursuit of its objective. In fact, the word out of Vienna is that US strong-arm tactics left plenty of bruised feelings." Another Indian daily quoted a Western diplomat as complaining that his country and others had been "leaned on at the highest levels." According to the same paper, it needed a series of "fairly real-time demarches" by Washington to ensure withdrawal of objections to the draft waiver.

"For the first time in my experience of international diplomatic negotiations, a consensus decision was followed by complete silence in the room. No clapping, nothing," one European diplomat confided to a news agency. "It showed a lot of us felt pressured to some extent into a decision by the Americans and few were totally satisfied."

The dominant Indian media, representing a dreamy-eyed middle class as well as demented nuclear militarists, were delighted.
Sample this from a brazen editorial (captioned "Savor the change") in the Indian Express, which has always batted for Bush and the bomb: "India should have no illusions that it was sweet reason - for example, the argument that India has "impeccable" non-proliferation credentials - that ultimately silenced New Delhi's opponents in the NSG. It was Washington's brutal exercise of power that forced the recalcitrant members of the NSG, including China, to stand down."

The editorial added: "As it reflects on the NSG experience, Indian diplomacy should lose no more time in moving decisively from its traditional emphasis on the power of the argument to the more effective argument of power." The waiver, in other words, reinforced the argument for the US-India "strategic partnership" that promoted this country as a regional power, besides promising it at least a secondary place in the "nuclear club" and the UN Security Council.

The waiver did not come without earlier indications. As far back as August 13, 2007, we noted in these columns (Nuclear Suppliers Drop Opposition to US-India Deal) the readiness of two significant NPT signatories to renege on their avowed commitment. Germany's ambassador in India, Bernd Muetzelberg, then announced that his country would try to "forge a consensus" within the group on the deal and in favor of it. He said: "It's not an easy task (to forge a consensus) given India's consistent refusal to join the NPT regime. But we also understand India's security situation in which it has to operate." Around the same time, the Australian government, under Prime Minister John Howard, too, promised to consider "the potential sale of Australian uranium to India fairly soon."

Germany chaired the NSG session this time and, according to one critic, "sat on its thumbs," giving the US time and opportunity through repeated adjournments for its waiver-pushing diplomacy. After Kevin Rudd of the Labor Party replaced Howard as Australia's prime minister in November 2007, his government ruled out sale of uranium to India. Last month, however, Rudd surprised his supporters by announcing his backing for New Delhi in the NSG. It is not only the stick that has won India the waiver, but also the carrot, especially for the corporates. France and Russia have made no secret of the fact that they have been waiting in the wings for the waiver, which would open the doors to lucrative nuclear trade for them, regardless of what happens in the US Congress. Even before the finalization of the US-India bilateral agreement last year, a former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission said: "French and American nuclear businesses, holding talks with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), could go ahead with the selection of sites for power plants and other modalities."

As noted before, expert projections made in December 2006 envisage an increase in India's nuclear arsenal by 40 to 50 weapons a year as a result of the deal. The country is also expected to acquire 40 nuclear reactors over the next two decades or so. India has announced plans to expand its current installed nuclear-energy capacity from 3,500 megawatts to 60,000 megawatts by 2040. The expansion is valued at $150 billion. All this offers mouth-watering prospects for megaplayers in the world nuclear industry.

Indian corporate houses are no less excited. According to one report, the "end of India's nuclear isolation" will pave the way for a minimum investment of Indian rupees 840 billion ($18.9 billion) in nuclear power generation capacity in the near future. This, suggest other reports, may be an underestimate. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) did not wait long after the waiver to announce that about 40 Indian firms are in talks with companies abroad to set up power plants, envisaging an investment of about Indian rupees 2,000 billion ($165.5 billion) over 15 years. The US-India agreement cannot realistically be expected to encounter insuperable opposition in the Congress, though the anti-nuclear movement will certainly mount an offensive against the ratification. Bipartisan support for the agreement, once considered beyond the realm of possibility, did come through in time for the treaty's finalization. The welcome extended to the waiver by both John McCain and Barack Obama is more than a straw in the wind.

In India, the left has vowed to terminate the deal after the general election due in early 2009. The far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which initiated the US-India "strategic partnership," talks of renegotiating the deal once it returns to power. Neither of the threats is receiving wide and serious attention, even as nuclear militarists and their media call for a national celebration of the victory in Vienna.



ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 03:49

I am glad that journalist does not know BR!

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3567
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Paul » 11 Sep 2008 03:59

In the aftermath of the no-confidence motion I had said that India is going through a tectonic shift wherin it is correcting the leftward tilt which IG had engineering during the INC split in 1969.

I think the commie ideology is on it's way out. This needs to be gamed out in detail to see the after effects on the indian polity.

I think it will be +ve in the short run. In the long run it will be be good for India only and only if vacuum created by the left's withdrawal will be filled in by the nationalist forces.

You heard this first here.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54507
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby ramana » 11 Sep 2008 04:14

Yes thats is why Rajaram's comments about the idea of India being SOuth Asian Japan of MMS and his acolytes is important to keep in mind. Will follow that in the Indian interests thread.

India needs to find out what is Dublin's angst about India. The reasonis before independence Ireland was the destination for quite few Indian patriots who wnated to go aborad but not to England and there was a certain sympathy among Indians for Irish for being the first victims of English colonization. Ther is a large Irsish expatraite community inthe English speaking world and would be sueful to know what made Ireland be so reluctant at Vienna.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Gerard » 11 Sep 2008 04:19

ramana wrote:I am glad that journalist does not know BR!


The number of "demented nuclear militarists" here would probably put him into shock :mrgreen:

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 04:20

Paul wrote:In the aftermath of the no-confidence motion I had said that India is going through a tectonic shift wherin it is correcting the leftward tilt which IG had engineering during the INC split in 1969.

I think the commie ideology is on it's way out. This needs to be gamed out in detail to see the after effects on the indian polity.

I think it will be +ve in the short run. In the long run it will be be good for India only and only if vacuum created by the left's withdrawal will be filled in by the nationalist forces.

You heard this first here.

This is already discussed in BRF. It is old news. The was happening from the 90s. The new groups have to careful by not being the lackey of the west. Removing the socialism from an country where people have never been exposed to capitalism is going to be tectonic and may succumb to slave control and religious conversion.
The society is being exposed to sharks.
That is the big danger.

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 04:27


He quotes the author - J Sri Ram.
He is a extreme critique of the Indian bomb and BJP

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3567
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Paul » 11 Sep 2008 04:35

Not sure what you are talking about Acharya.

If you are saying that the possibility of congress (I) breaking with the left and the effect on it's ideology was discussed on this forum before the no-confidence motion, that is news to me.

Need to discuss this in a different thread as per Ramana's hukamnama.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13442
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suraj » 11 Sep 2008 04:36

Acharya wrote:Removing the socialism from an country where people have never been exposed to capitalism is going to be tectonic and may succumb to slave control and religious conversion.

Quite the opposite. It is socialism that is the misfit that was imposed on a country that knew nothing of the kind and had long chequered history of mercantilism and trade, from our historical economic standing. I don't for a moment accept the notion of Indians being 'never been exposed to capitalism', regardless of how you choose to minutely define capitalism - the general principles of generally unencumbered & undirected economic activity have always underscored internal and international economic policies, until Nehru's socialist policies took over.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4464
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby putnanja » 11 Sep 2008 04:41

Behind the stonewall

Behind the stonewall
Print Email Feedback Discuss
Rate Article
Rating:
Jabin T. Jacob Posted online: Thursday , September 11, 2008 at 0116 hrs
Jabin T Jacob
Jabin T Jacob

Jabin T Jacob
The Chinese foreign minister was in town. Many in India would, of course, like a better explanation of the perceived Chinese opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal at the NSG. While the National Security Advisor declared that India was “disappointed,” others less diplomatic have cried ‘betrayal,’ referring to earlier declarations by China that it “would not stand in the way.” In fact, very few in India seem to have actually trusted China or expected anything good of it in the deliberations, and there are many who feel vindicated now.

The key point here, however, is not the Chinese ‘betrayal’ but remembering what was achieved. The fact remains that the Chinese did not scuttle the deal themselves — something that was surely within their power to do. Yes, they appear to have encouraged others in the NSG to put paid to the deal, but that is also carrying the argument a bit too far. Surely, India also needed to address the views of smaller countries for their own merits, with or without Chinese support for them. India ’s leaders did realise this and stuck to their task without wringing their hands about any attempted Chinese sabotage. India also had a job to do and it did it, despite the obituaries already being written back home.

Meanwhile, it is perhaps incorrect to say that China has made a strategic miscalculation by opposing India . It is notable that India ’s external affairs minister sought to avoid comment by saying that “[this] is their internal matter.” The key word here is “internal.” Perhaps the minister is not unaware of the pulls within the Chinese establishment on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Like any country, China has its hawks and doves. One must understand that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) does not function like its counterparts in India or the US . Not only is the MOFA answerable to the Communist Party, the ministry can sometimes be in the dark, as to what the military establishment is up to and its views are in reality often also of secondary importance. It is likely there was a struggle within the highest levels of decision-making, and China’s powers-that-be probably decided that angering India a little was less of a problem than giving the view domestically that China had given the US and India (in that order) a walkover. Every action including China’s original declarations of support, Pakistan’s unhappiness, US pressure and India n expectations, formed part of this larger tableau. It is, therefore, surely no coincidence that the Chinese foreign minister is in India at precisely this time, when he will be most required to douse inflamed views of his country.

And if China did attempt wholeheartedly to oppose the deal, it was aware that there would have been a price to pay, to mollify New Delhi. Even if the deal had not gotten through the NSG, China would have had to make up for it with concessions to India in other areas. This in itself would have been an achievement of these negotiations. Indeed, one can be sure that Beijing will extract its pound of flesh from Washington, perhaps on Iran and North Korea.

The Chinese foreign minister’s visit must not be an occasion for recrimination — India has made its point with its demarche — but for greater sophistication on India ’s part. Having made their point domestically, the Chinese leadership will most likely be willing to make up for the events at the NSG and India must use this opportunity with grace. Asking for concessions on the boundary is perhaps asking for a bit too much but there are other demands that can be made. Opening up greater trade and tourist links across the disputed boundary can be easily done. In addition, both sides can agree to a better exchange of hydrological data on waters originating in Tibet, reducing visa restrictions, demarcating the Sikkim-Tibet boundary, and greater energy and civilian nuclear cooperation. These are just some of the possible items on a new bilateral agenda between India and China. The time now is to look forward, not back.

The writer is a research fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies ...

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

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby svinayak » 11 Sep 2008 04:44

Suraj wrote:
Acharya wrote:Removing the socialism from an country where people have never been exposed to capitalism is going to be tectonic and may succumb to slave control and religious conversion.

Quite the opposite. It is socialism that is the misfit that was imposed on a country that knew nothing of the kind and had long chequered history of mercantilism and trade, from our historical economic standing. I don't for a moment accept the notion of Indians being 'never been exposed to capitalism', regardless of how you choose to minutely define capitalism - the general principles of generally unencumbered & undirected economic activity have always underscored internal and international economic policies, until Nehru's socialist policies took over.

I agree with you. I was talking about the govt control. People have lost the thinking process over 50 years. New gen have to carry the heritage

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21161
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Prem » 11 Sep 2008 04:52

Acharya wrote:
Suraj wrote:
Acharya wrote:Removing the socialism from an country where people have never been exposed to capitalism is going to be tectonic and may succumb to slave control and religious conversion.

economic policies, until Nehru's socialist policies took over.

I agree with you. I was talking about the govt control. People have lost the thinking process over 50 years. New gen have to carry the heritage


The best economic lobbyist for India in the 90s was Singapore's PM Lee Kwan. I remember watching him on TV mentioning that he has full confidence In India producing world class businens houses and he was right on the money decade ahead of anyone could predict the current gold rush .

Suppiah
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2569
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: -
Contact:

Re: India nuclear news and discussion - 6 sep 2008

Postby Suppiah » 11 Sep 2008 05:53

LKY is one smart guy who can see far ahead. His criticism of Indian babus is also quite accurate and scathing. (he has openly talked about babus asking for whisky bottles etc).

The seeds of socialism were sown partly by leaders getting brainwashed during their years in UK when it was high fashion but also by the conduct and behaviour of money-bag lalas that would adulterate their own child's formula milk. Going by an old old article in Economic & Political weekly (a leftists publication, dont know if it still exists), this started during the wars. This ensured socialist (talking) politicians always got the votes.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest