Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jan 2011 23:37

There is also the alleged disappearance of substantial INA assets from Singapore, supposedly delivered up to a high ranking Congressman and Mountbatten at "Singapore".

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jan 2011 23:46

ramana ji,
you have provided an angle to be explored. The nature and disposal of the debts and financial obligation of pre-Independence period, and tracking down the INA assets could be important clues. In fact it is quite difficult to obtain accounts of the public gathering donations of ornaments etc by women in "nationalist" rallies. I have tried but failed mostly. If anyone has data on the "fund-raising" and expenditure accounts please post.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Jan 2011 00:47

Sugata Bose wrote a book on India and Indian ocean and it has some details of the funds donated by the expatriate Indians in Singapore etc.

Let me see if I can find anything there.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jan 2011 00:58

Also looking for the Congress collections if possible. Transfer of debts/compromises or negotiations pre-post independence with the Brits is rather murky. Not clearly traceable or obtainable in great details. I am not saying hidden, but simply not easily available.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jan 2011 02:04

http://sites.google.com/site/bandhan69w ... ngal-unite
An interesting page that more or less summarizes all the arguments for or against any hypothetical "greater Bengal union". I know that RajeshA ji and Akalam bhai have proceeded on a certain direction about this. What is however, thrown up again about the issue comes out in the above linked discussion:
(1) is any support from BD for greater fusion with India aimed at enlarging an "Islamic Bangladesh" rather than any merger into a subcontinental union?
(2) Is the new international hue and cry about "Dalits" and Yoginder Sikand type voices claiming a Dalit-Muslim alliance, about really giving respectability to an Islamist expansion design through the subcontinent?

Fauzul Akbar's last entry at the end of the page highlights a pattern that is not highlighted for the previous posts. He tries to show that Muslims can successfully pressurize the Indian state to yield political and economic concessions. If not centrally, things can be taken along piece by piece - regionally. Any concession given to minority religions which also have consistently shown expansive, and genocidic tendencies under their religious leadership at opportune moments, basically helps that identity to grow in coercive strength.

We can also see that the increasing pressure to club as large a population as possible into a general undifferentiated "repressed class" [the debate on the page goes around claims of 75% or 80%] while constructing a "minority" highly distinguished "elite" repressing class as targets for reprisals for supposed past atrocities - follows a well known imperialist pattern.

By this logic the minority Muslims could be targeted and forced to pay for their past atrocities on non-Muslims. Hence the need to whitewash history and change and reconstruct it. So that this line can only be applied on "Brahminical" class [as referred to in the page] and not on Muslims as inheritors of past crimes.

The thing is, to note who exactly is being targeted. It is the same old intellectual class that were seen by the Muslim or Christian imperialists as being an obstacle on their way to colonize and convert India.

Question : does Fauzul indicate a potential real line of development, by which regional governments become the mechanism to expand Islamic or Christian imperialism within India? WB, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra seem then to be showing the way.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 07 Jan 2011 19:45

brihaspati garu,

there were a few policies I feel could somewhat lessen the threat you point to.

Bring up the Indic-Muslim conflict potential to the top level of nation-building and policy making - even the Constitution, if need be, where each side presents what its apprehensions are, and a framework for monitoring, preemptive trust building, fast responsiveness to crisis, conflict resolution, security provision, justice, etc. is set up. Basically it is a mechanism to neutralize the threat from Islam's more aggressive memes. This framework should oversee, that there is a strong legislative and administrative cage for Islam's aggressive memes.
Diversion of Muslim "Energy" to external projects outside India, which happen to be in India's national interests.
Getting the Muslims themselves to push back extremism in Muslim society if a case can be made that it is against their interests.
Shutting off external funding and coaching for Muslim aggressiveness in the Indian Subcontinent at the source.
Aggressively neutralize Jihadist Networks in the Indian Subcontinent by bringing Pakistan under control.
...

With regard to Dalit-Muslim tie up, I would say that it is a political alliance of convenience. There isn't much ideological overlap, except perhaps some residual anti-Brahmin sentiment amongst the Dalits. Basically India today is providing both social mobility and growth to the Dalits and other OBCs. This process will only speed up with the coming years, if India's growth story stays the course. If one could pull in more Dalits into entrepreneurship and higher education, then even the residual venom of caste would be gone. High population density combined with the need for urbanization would put in the last nails in that coffin.

Only if poverty, caste-based income difference and Naxalbandi remains endemic as a permanent feature of India, are there any chances of a Dalit/Tribal-Muslim axis which can hurt Indian national interests.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 08 Jan 2011 18:37

Dalit-Muslim axis has been tried for many years but of not much result, offcourse it is the most cherised dream of the Islamists, but unfortunately the situation on the ground is radically different,
Once it was tried in Azamgarh, the reply was, "Its right that Islam does not any caste(?)but caste system exists among IM so conversion won't solve the basic problem of caste" and this was tries in 80's,what makes us think that it is going to succeed in the future,when the Dalit queen is looking for compromise.
However the Dalit-EJ seems to be more potent,but a little bit assertive action can offset this, personally seen many second/third generation Christus to gain back the light to see the things in the proper perspective.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Jan 2011 20:07

How could the Chinese army enter a Ladakhi village and threaten a contractor to stop work? I thought the claim was that nothing-gave on our borders/LOC with China?

The IA is there actually sealing the borders to formal foreign military presence [a poster with genuine army service track record dismissed my "porosity" claim in the northern sector by saying that it was only porous to smugglers] while it is only the majority community civilian who twist their traditionally attributed dress [ even if they do not mostly wear it now] in calling for war hysteria without having to do the frontline facing off and sealing off!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jan 2011 23:32

Politics Over Flag In Indian Kashmir
http://www.countercurrents.org/shah100111.htm

By Fahad Shah

10 January, 2011
Countercurrents.org

Expressing his resentment against a political party’s decision of hoisting Indian flag in Kashmir on Republic day, the Jammu and Kashmir state chief minister, Omar Abdullah introduce us towards something which has been often avoided. Why hoisting Tri-colour at Lal Chowk creates such a polemical and indignant atmosphere while every year same flag is waved twice in different parts of the region?

When the region was up in arms during the massive civilian uprising in 2010 summer green colour flags were dispatching the message to world. Covering the famous clock tower of Valley, Ghanta Ghar at Lal Chowk, young boys on the Muslim festival of Eid (which marks the end of one month fasting) hoisted different colour flags. Message was lucid, “Go India Go”. One hundred thirteen civilians were killed, hundreds injured, and property worth millions stormed to ashes in the five month long uprising, of which wounds are yet to heal. Turning pages of valley’s history, Lal Chowk (main city centre) has been politically most important place, apart from being commercially also.
[...]
The flag controversy started after the decision of hoisting Indian flag at Lal Chowk by one of major mainstream political parties of India, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). This year it will be the repetition of the nineteen-year-old party history. In 1991, the senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi took out a rally, “Ekta Yatra from Kanyakumari, Kerala (December, 11, 1991) to Srinagar, Kashmir (January, 26, 1992)” and hoisted the Indian flag at Lal Chowk along with other party workers.

No matter it can be vividly observed what BJP intends to prove by hoisting flag but the controversy in itself speaks volumes that Kashmir is a dispute. From separatist alliances to mainstream political parties the move has been widely opposed. It can disturb the tranquil situation of Valley which both central and state government want to avoid. People in general and political leaders in particular have vowed BJP party to make it to Lal Chowk on coming January 26.

Hoisting of flag by BJP is aimed at nothing but only to gain more publicity and strengthening their vote bank. It wants to continue its ultra-nationalism coupled with Hindu extremism in Valley also. However, this may come as an opportunity for separatist parties of Valley to streamline their agendas and assemble under one umbrella to resist the flag hoisting. As the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Party is concerned, its Chairman, Muhmmad Yasin Malik challenged BJP to show up at Lal Chowk. He termed it as the party’s intellectual bankruptcy.

So far BJP has been somewhat successful with these manoeuvres. When BJP came on roads in Jammu region during 2008 Amarnath Land Row the party could win ten more state assembly seats from the region. Playing political cards on Kashmir, BJP has been always against the Kashmiri’s protest for independence from Indian rule. It supports the complete integration of state with India which valley opposes.

This year the national plan of BJP is to take out a rally, “Rashtriya Ekta Yatra” which will start from Shyambazar in North Kolkata and BJP National President Nitin Gadkari will flag it off. The youth wing of party, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) will begin rally on January 12, commemorating the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, will conclude at Lal Chowk in Srinagar on Republic Day, January 26, and as decided hoist the national flag.

If BJP will be successful in its plan then it may affect the calm of Valley. However, peaceful protests in the region are on halt due to chilly winters but still it can create some political imbalance. It’s clear that the party is only performing its best role in politics to gain more support back home in other states of India. Moreover, this is also the radical fundamentalism of BJP party to do politics. Though, it will be curfew in the Kashmir region as it has been the customary government action on Indian Republic Day and Independence Day.

I quote what the Indian booker-prize winner author, Arundhati Roy says: “Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use to first, shrink wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.” Though, here in valley it seems flags represent the party agendas to garnish public support.

Fahad Shah is a freelance journalist in Srinagar, Kashmir. He has worked in leading English daily, Greater Kashmir and monthly magazines of the Valley. He also contributes in openDemocracy, Viewpoint and writes for his own website www.thekashmirwalla.com.

Quoted in full to show that the Valley voices are seeing the only serious political opposition to the "green flag/Paki flag" as coming from BJP. There is no mention or even hint of the Congress or NC as being in the way.

The piece is interesting for a lot of other points also - as to how perhaps inane comments by individuals like ARoy do get picked up and used to send a very political message across the communication networks.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Jan 2011 21:04

While we wait to see Kashmiri Jihad, three things again happens imultaneously in the east : the NE flares again into supposed ethnic violence [with possibilities of religious and tribal affiliation roles not entirely dismissable] along the Assam border, and in BD local body elections appear to return the BNP-Jamaat combine with greater strength than evident in the last general elections.

Recently Khaleda Zia, the chairperson of BNP was invited to China by the CCP, and I had speculated that China was showing that it too was in the game of foreign control over BD. Recently the PLA went into Ladakh into Indian territory and threatened a contractor. It is time again to watch the east and Kashmir valley simulatneously. Which also means that soon the southern peninsula will also be activated.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Jan 2011 23:19

^^^
Something we on BRF have been saying for a long time. PRC has the resources to support all forms of insurgencies in India, and they are doing exactly that. The potential for mischief is huge, and with the kind of solutions that the Indian Government looks for, it can mean even a bigger disaster.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Jan 2011 23:41

RajeshA wrote:^^^
Something we on BRF have been saying for a long time. PRC has the resources to support all forms of insurgencies in India, and they are doing exactly that. The potential for mischief is huge, and with the kind of solutions that the Indian Government looks for, it can mean even a bigger disaster.

Count on UPA and other bengans providing all the oppertunities and facilitataions to PRC. This government have done nothing to enhance economy or internal or external security. Then why expect when voters have given a foreigner the right to rule. Few months ago when one of my old relative told me Sonia is the most honest and greatest leader in India , i almost spat on him.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Jan 2011 21:31

X-posting and adding:

One of the subtle but fallacious logic that is developed from the supposed implosion of PaK - even in those willing to recognize it as having to do with the theocratic foundations of the Paki state- is that

(1) the religion behind the theocracy is not to blame for its social degeneration
(2) or, that any state that founds itself on some belief system/theology/religion will ultimately disintegrate or socially degenerate like Pak

It could be self-deception or comfort clauses to fit the reality fo disintegration with the ideological commitment or hope that the state did not fail to start with.

On the other hand, then it is defense of the theology by separating it from apparent failure.

But the more dangerous and subverting idea lies in the second point that if the particularity of "Islam" itself could somehow be detached from the association of a failing Pak theocratic state, then the Paki degeneration could be used as a tool to prevent or attack ideological foundations of other states - current or the future. This means it will then become a tool to use against any other future claims of a state being founded on cultural primacies. It then applies to [after such a reconstruction and representation] Israel, or any hoped for SD based staet in India in the future.

The Pakiphily is headed towards the logic that if Pak goes down it must also take down with it, what Pak sees as the only apparently consistent ideological opponents- Judaism and SD, its predominant obsessions - Judaic Israel and Hindu India.

In a way, those in India or outside - who want to preserve Pak for their own local political interests, have come to the point where the fear of their protege going bust is real if not immediate. Probably the very reasons that make them look at preservation of Pak as necessary - also make them see SD-India and Judaic Israel as enemies and threats. So it is important for them to tie up dissolution or destruction of these two as a kind of hedge in case Pak really goes down the drain. They see Pak as the one possible element that can be used as a bulwark against both - relatively out of control Pak being a good excuse in not intervening in Paki affairs and allowing it to be used as a base for further aggression on "both enemies" on the sly.

This means as and when Pak appears closer to collapse - there will be greater aggression on what will be seen by them as sources of SD and Judaic resistance - individuals, orgs, both.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Jan 2011 00:46

Very interesting trends for BD. As expected the BNP+Jamaat has done better in the local body elections. Col Taher's secret trial under Zia coming out formally in the open. This will be definitely a chapter where the then Jihadis of Islamic world, including Pak and therefore the then US+UK secret services and west in general - would be involved. So it cannot proceed fully.

It is now in western interest to gradually slow down or soften the pressures being mounted from within sections of the AL, to avenge what Zia and his backers did for Pak. Ultimately it was a Cold War (or perhaps not so cold and an ever present religious perspective of the west) move to counter what was represented for convenience as gain of influence by the USSR in the region.

Can BD withstand the pressures from within? The US can think along the same lines and give the logic applied to Pak - to propitiate "Islamic" sentiments all over the subcontinent. It seems that AL may not be able to keep its current overwhelming majority in the next round of parliamentary elections.

Spillover effects on WB and Assam Valley can be serious.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 20 Jan 2011 19:42

ramana wrote:Well there is the idea that India bought its freedom using the sterling reserves* commandeered by the British during World War II. It was this loss of wealth that caused the Hindu rate of growth in the early decades after 1947. It led to foreign exchange curbs on travellers.

True they got some armaments and unneeded stuff which could bolster the Commonwealth navies in case of any potential hostilties.

The revelation that INC was not really the freedom movement it claimed to be could reduce their sheen.

---
* Dean Rusk or Acheson in a radio show excerpt posted in BRF said that GB owed India ~ $10B -$15B and hence needed the Marshall plan to get out of the economic mess.

Maybe others who posted it might recall. The sum is quite significant in those days.

GB used it to pay US for its support!

This is completely wrong..India's accumulated steling balances were very much at India's "service" post independence. while a cash-strapped Britain wanted India to simply repudiate the claim, the Congress leadership (esp the Sardar) was firm on it...During independence, the total balances with India+Pak was about 1500 crores (GBP 1.13 billion) - of which Pak got paid (the famous) 400 odd crores...The balance was with the independent govt of India...

About "hindu rate of growth" - well, that wasnt a '50s phenomenon in any case..To be fair to Nehru, Mohalanobis et al, the economic strategy of the '50s was pretty much unexceptionable - the rot set in during the '60s and worsened under Indira G in the '70s..which is when KN Raj coined that immortal term...But non-availability of sterling balances had nothing to do with it...And the amounts were nowhere close to 10-15 bill

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jan 2011 21:55

I am talking baout the funds that were transferred by the Viceroy of India during the WWII to provide funds for US arms purchases before Lend Lease not the pittance (Rs.1500 crores) at Independence.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 20 Jan 2011 22:48

somnath wrote:
This is completely wrong..India's accumulated steling balances were very much at India's "service" post independence. while a cash-strapped Britain wanted India to simply repudiate the claim, the Congress leadership (esp the Sardar) was firm on it...During independence, the total balances with India+Pak was about 1500 crores (GBP 1.13 billion) - of which Pak got paid (the famous) 400 odd crores...The balance was with the independent govt of India...

About "hindu rate of growth" - well, that wasnt a '50s phenomenon in any case..To be fair to Nehru, Mohalanobis et al, the economic strategy of the '50s was pretty much unexceptionable - the rot set in during the '60s and worsened under Indira G in the '70s..which is when KN Raj coined that immortal term...But non-availability of sterling balances had nothing to do with it...And the amounts were nowhere close to 10-15 bill

correction--

Hindu rate of growth popularised by Mcnamara.

The Hindu rate of growth is a controversial and derogatory expression[1] used to refer to the low annual growth rate of the socialist economy of India before 1991, which stagnated around 3.5% from 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income averaged 1.3%.[2]

The slow Indian growth rate is better attributable to the Government of India's protectionist and interventionist policies (see Licence Raj) rather than to a specific religion or to the attitude of the adherents of a particular religion.

was easy for the leftists to blame bad things onto Hindu religion.
Raj krishna

Raj Krishna was an Indian economist who taught at the Delhi School of Economics. He is most famous for the phrase "Hindu rate of growth" which he coined for India's low rate of GDP growth between the 50s and 80s.

K N Raj

He is popularly known as K. N. Raj, an Indian economist who played an important role in India's planned development, drafting sections of India's first Five Year Plan, specifically the introductory chapter when he was only 26 years old. He was a veteran economist in the Planning Commission. He worked out a plan to raise India's rate of savings in the post-Second World War period when the country was in need of foreign aid. He computed India's Balance of Payments for the first time for the Reserve Bank of India. [1] Raj was an advisor to several prime ministers from Jawaharlal Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao.[2]Dr. Raj was a Keynesian economist. He studied the application of Keynesian monetary theory in Indian context.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jan 2011 23:56

ramana wrote:I am talking baout the funds that were transferred by the Viceroy of India during the WWII to provide funds for US arms purchases before Lend Lease not the pittance (Rs.1500 crores) at Independence.

How can the leftists be economists in a free market economy

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Jan 2011 02:44

somnath wrote
This is completely wrong..India's accumulated steling balances were very much at India's "service" post independence. while a cash-strapped Britain wanted India to simply repudiate the claim, the Congress leadership (esp the Sardar) was firm on it...During independence, the total balances with India+Pak was about 1500 crores (GBP 1.13 billion) - of which Pak got paid (the famous) 400 odd crores...The balance was with the independent govt of India...

Can you be precise in stating the form in which this so-called accumulated Sterling balances existed? Since you mention the "1.13 billion" GBP which is an often quoted number, then do you imply that this was in hard cash existing either in Brit or Indian accounts or in "owed" amount and not in hard cash?

About "hindu rate of growth" - well, that wasnt a '50s phenomenon in any case..To be fair to Nehru, Mohalanobis et al, the economic strategy of the '50s was pretty much unexceptionable - the rot set in during the '60s and worsened under Indira G in the '70s..which is when KN Raj coined that immortal term...But non-availability of sterling balances had nothing to do with it...And the amounts were nowhere close to 10-15 bill

Specific questions:

(1) The "50;'s strategy was" "unexceptionable" - do you mean that you find no fault with it/or given the situations nothing better was possible/no weaknesses in the strategy/and most importantly it achieved what it set out to do - as that means it was the best possible achievable given that was the only best method available - etc?

(2) What exactly are the methods employed to detect the "change point" of "rot" that was not there in the "50's" but suddenly set in "60's" [so this also requires setting clearly what are the criteria for "rot"]? Further, Nehru was living until 1964, and Mahalanobis survived him. Assuming that the rot set in only after Nehru died, this leaves just 6 years for the "rot" to set in.

(3) What exactly "worsened" under IG economically that was also a continuation from "60's rot"?

(4) Apart from the initial inaccuracy of the man to whom the term was attributed, why is "hindu rate of growth" "immortal"? It is hardly ever used with relish unless used by people from a certain ideological position. So why is it "immortal"?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Jan 2011 02:46

Acharya wrote:
ramana wrote:I am talking baout the funds that were transferred by the Viceroy of India during the WWII to provide funds for US arms purchases before Lend Lease not the pittance (Rs.1500 crores) at Independence.
How can the leftists be economists in a free market economy

Because that is the only place they can still pretend to be economists.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 07:04

ramana wrote: am talking baout the funds that were transferred by the Viceroy of India during the WWII to provide funds for US arms purchases before Lend Lease not the pittance (Rs.1500 crores) at Independence

Any source for this? India had a net sterling "debt" in 1939, before the war started. As th government of India insisted on getting "paid" for all British purchases and Indian troop deployments for the war (unlike other commonwealth countries), that debt got wiped out and got converted into "assets", or balances during the war...

krisna wrote:correction--

Hindu rate of growth popularised by Mcnamara.

Apologies, it was Raj Krishna, not KN Raj (these damned economists with similar names!

)..But the populrisation was hardly Mcnamara's doing, Indian economists over the year have done a fair job of it..

brihaspati wrote:Can you be precise in stating the form in which this so-called accumulated Sterling balances existed? Since you mention the "1.13 billion" GBP which is an often quoted number, then do you imply that this was in hard cash existing either in Brit or Indian accounts or in "owed" amount and not in hard cash?

Brihaspatiji, seems you are completely oblivious of real world finance..What do you mean by "hard cash"? Money under teh pillow? Even small businesses dont operate in "cash" anymore - financial transactions are all through some or the other form of "owed" monies..that is why you have such esoteric instruments as BOE, LC, BG, Govies, SBLCs etc etc...As for the sterling balances, these were India's assets, and in fact the largets component of our forex reserves during independence..the govt of India made "good" use of the balances after independence (or as CD Deshmukh put it - "spent as if there was no tomorrow"!)...No conspiracy here...If you want to know more about the story on sterling reserves - tons of sources - just go to any good bookstore or library!

brihaspati wrote:(1) The "50;'s strategy was" "unexceptionable" - do you mean that you find no fault with it/or given the situations nothing better was possible/no weaknesses in the strategy/and most importantly it achieved what it set out to do - as that means it was the best possible achievable given that was the only best method available - etc?

(2) What exactly are the methods employed to detect the "change point" of "rot" that was not there in the "50's" but suddenly set in "60's" [so this also requires setting clearly what are the criteria for "rot"]? Further, Nehru was living until 1964, and Mahalanobis survived him. Assuming that the rot set in only after Nehru died, this leaves just 6 years for the "rot" to set in.

(3) What exactly "worsened" under IG economically that was also a continuation from "60's rot"?

A comprehensive answer would derail the topic of this thread...Mybe we can continue somehwere else..As a brief trailer - my opinion is based on broader comparative macro numbers in the '50s to those in the '60s, the situation that exited during independence - capacity of private sector (Bombay Plan), the structure fo the economy (agrarian), immediate imperatives (foodgrains ), the external scenario et al...To me, the inflection point was 1962, when the China war precipitated a series of developments (some inevitable, some not) that had industrial growth in India bewteen 1965 and 1990 go lower than not just China and South Korea, but also Pakistan!

brihaspati wrote:(4) Apart from the initial inaccuracy of the man to whom the term was attributed, why is "hindu rate of growth" "immortal"? It is hardly ever used with relish unless used by people from a certain ideological position. So why is it "immortal"?

Brihaspatiji, the real world is a lot more relaxed about these things - everything is not a civilisational hindu/non-hindu matrix..The reason the term is "immortal" is that people are still using it! And as practioners and academic professionals say - the "new hindu growth rate" is 7%! nothing derogatory about that...finally, performance matters, semantics dont...(Remember Napolean's description of Britain as a nation of shopkeepers? That was "derogatroy" as well - but the shopkeeping instincts made the country an mpire that France never became!)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jan 2011 07:32

Churchill in his six volume "Second World War" talks about how the financial situation was so bad that upon being cabled the Viceroy offered and sent by ship the money. Dean Rusk talking on a radio program to make the case why Great Britain needed Marshall Plan funds mentioned that amount owed to India.

Will look for this one.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 07:42

ramana wrote:the Viceroy offered and sent by ship the money

??? Churchill HAD to be smoking something strong if/when he wrote that...And what did the Viceory send? Rupees - cant be surely? Dollars - unlikely, INR had a sterling peg then and bulk of the reserves therefore had to be in GBP? GBP - need not have "sent" anything on ships, UK could simply have added it on to India's sterling balances (reserves)...

Dean Rusk could have been right..UK was in dire straits to honour the 1.13 billion obliation to India in 1947, it was effectively bankrupt..So it is possible that part of the Marshal Plan rationale was the suport to the sterling balances...

Interesting anecote..the US similarly created "rupee balances" in India in the '50s and '60s...Basically as India could not afford to pay in hard ccy for all PL480 shipments, the US agreed to accept payments in rupees, in a special a/c setup with the RBI..Over the years, the amount acumulated became very large, and became a part of the "US trying to destabilise India" folklore...then they (US) decided to use the balances for deveopment progrmmes in India - the first couple of IITs and the first two IIMs were setup partially funded out of these balances! As a prof told me, the Americans are shrewd investors

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Jan 2011 08:22

The Hindu rate of growth is a controversial and derogatory expression...

OT, but BRF is the last place one would expect any further mention of this highly sloppy term that needs to be consigned to the dustbins of history. Either one stops using this any further, OR update it to reflect current realities.

Hindu rate of growth = 8 - 10%.

Christian rate of growth = 3 - 4%.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 08:53

Arjun wrote:Christian rate of growth = 3 - 4%.

If you mean the "West" by Christian, you should say 0-2%! (most West European countries would jump @ 3%!)..

And you can add "Communist-Confucian" rate of growth - 10-12%!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Jan 2011 09:03

somnath wrote
Brihaspatiji, seems you are completely oblivious of real world finance..What do you mean by "hard cash"? Money under teh pillow? Even small businesses dont operate in "cash" anymore - financial transactions are all through some or the other form of "owed" monies..that is why you have such esoteric instruments as BOE, LC, BG, Govies, SBLCs etc etc...As for the sterling balances, these were India's assets, and in fact the largets component of our forex reserves during independence..the govt of India made "good" use of the balances after independence (or as CD Deshmukh put it - "spent as if there was no tomorrow"!)...No conspiracy here...If you want to know more about the story on sterling reserves - tons of sources - just go to any good bookstore or library!

It seems that you cannot write anything in reply to any query without expressing some denigratory negative judgment about the person querying! Do you deal in "finance" or in insults and aspersions on a daily basis? I merely asked a question. You could have simply replied as to how much was really backed up by bullion reserves/hard cash/securities-annuities, isnt it? In all of your sarcasm over a whole paragraph you still do not give the numbers breakup - and you direct us to "books"! You personally know, don't you? Or you don't? You are so knowledgeable about all this why don't you reel off some of the answers directly - like the year by which GOI spent it all off "like there was no tmrw". Did I express any CT theory in my query to you? So why pontificate to me about CT's? There was areason behind asking you to specify the nature of the holdings. As usual you avoided the details.

brihaspati wrote:
(1) The "50;'s strategy was" "unexceptionable" - do you mean that you find no fault with it/or given the situations nothing better was possible/no weaknesses in the strategy/and most importantly it achieved what it set out to do - as that means it was the best possible achievable given that was the only best method available - etc?

(2) What exactly are the methods employed to detect the "change point" of "rot" that was not there in the "50's" but suddenly set in "60's" [so this also requires setting clearly what are the criteria for "rot"]? Further, Nehru was living until 1964, and Mahalanobis survived him. Assuming that the rot set in only after Nehru died, this leaves just 6 years for the "rot" to set in.

(3) What exactly "worsened" under IG economically that was also a continuation from "60's rot"?

A comprehensive answer would derail the topic of this thread...Mybe we can continue somehwere else..As a brief trailer - my opinion is based on broader comparative macro numbers in the '50s to those in the '60s, the situation that exited during independence - capacity of private sector (Bombay Plan), the structure fo the economy (agrarian), immediate imperatives (foodgrains ), the external scenario et al...To me, the inflection point was 1962, when the China war precipitated a series of developments (some inevitable, some not) that had industrial growth in India bewteen 1965 and 1990 go lower than not just China and South Korea, but also Pakistan!

When you make such a general statement as to "rot" - you need to characterize excatly what are in the indicators that you defines for you the "rot". If you cannot answer or clarify in this thread why express such issues on this thread? Aren't there more technical terms to express "rot" as I hope I understand you are implying? It will be a remarkable achievement to prove that what went wrong in 1962 with the China war upsetting all the unexceptionable economic policies and their long term foundational trends from 1949-1962, in such a drastic manner that it lasted until 1990's. Roughly 12 years of unexceptionablity upset in one year from which things never recover in 28 years!

brihaspati wrote:
(4) Apart from the initial inaccuracy of the man to whom the term was attributed, why is "hindu rate of growth" "immortal"? It is hardly ever used with relish unless used by people from a certain ideological position. So why is it "immortal"?

Brihaspatiji, the real world is a lot more relaxed about these things - everything is not a civilisational hindu/non-hindu matrix..The reason the term is "immortal" is that people are still using it! And as practioners and academic professionals say - the "new hindu growth rate" is 7%! nothing derogatory about that...finally, performance matters, semantics dont...(Remember Napolean's description of Britain as a nation of shopkeepers? That was "derogatroy" as well - but the shopkeeping instincts made the country an mpire that France never became!)

Again I simply asked why is that term "immortal"? You seem to use words and language with all the subtle grace of a rhino in a bone-china antique shop! If mere continued use of any adjective is proof of immortality we have to declare thousands of words to be immortal every time we use them. The real world does not bandy that term around either. Hardly anyone even jokes about it. The term is mischievous because it is part of the trend in a certain subgroup of Indians to associate anything that appears negative in India with the word "Hindu" - and the only time point when the apparent "real world" and the "majority of mainstream" Indians appear to drop their "secular" language! What happened to your extraordinarily secular tongue that forgot to refer to the "Indian growth rate"!

Can you please give me an estimate of the proportion of "practitioners and academic professionals" who use the expression "hindu growth rate" that justifies your claim that it is an "immortal" expression?

I raise this question because you have a consistent habit of highlighting and repeating any expression/concept that somehow associates a negative connotation with the word "Hindu", and you never ever use such expressions in the context of any other community/faith/religion - "loony" was a constant you reserved for "Hindus" only until cornered recently you used it only once associated with Muslims. If I assume that you were born into a Hindu family, but have immense self-hatred or birth-faith hatred issues - then there are threads where you can bring it up, and it can be debated! But casually continuously trying to denigrate or bust or bash by indirectly always connecting a negative image with the community/belief system in most threads you post, without giving reasons for singling out the "Hindus" makes it all rather slimy!

I was actually searching for a similar mocking expression like "Muslim growth rate" for periods of Pakistani economic phases too from "practioners and academic professionals" aligned to your category of those who apparently "popularized" the one for the "Hindu" - found none! Is this how you people [you claimed to be a practioner too!] maintain your secularism?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 09:45

^^^ Brihaspatiji,

Calm down - there is no "denigration" intended, only surprise expressed..

I am even more surprised at your continued expression of such terms (given your assertion that you are ana cademic in the area):

brihaspati wrote:how much was really backed up by bullion reserves/hard cash/securities-annuities, isnt it? In all of your sarcasm over a whole paragraph you still do not give the numbers breakup .......

There was areason behind asking you to specify the nature of the holdings.

The Indian government owes various agencies/countries ~75 billion dollars today..In what "form" are those debt held? You owe on your credit card X dollars to the Bank - in what "form" do you have your obligations to the bank? the US government owes about 14 trillion dollars to various people (largely the Chinese) - what "nature of holdings" does it represent for its creditors? UK owed India on account of sterling balances 1.13 billion GBP - so when the Indian govt wanted, it could go to Bank of England and encash a cheque of 1.13 billion, or ask BoE to pay a third party for that amount...In case BoE did not pay, it would trigger an event of default on the sovereign, and bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated...For a credit card holder, it might involve getting his name in the defulter database, or a visit by some interesting people from "Collections"! For a sovereign, the impact is obvioulsy much bigger than a wrestling/boxing lesson!!This is finance 100..Your alusions therefroe to "hard cash" as opposed to "owed money" is quite funny, hence I was just a bit surprised! BTW, As you dont seem to be interested in exploring yourslef for easily available information, among thousands of other places, I can refer you to CAmbridge Economic History of India (Dharma Kumar, Tapan Raychoudhury, Meghnad Desai) for the story on India' sterling reserves...For the political side to the story, you can refer to Patrick French's Liberty or Death..About CD Deshmukh's comment, he made it in 1949, by which time the balances had whittled down to ~500 crores...

If you want to serioulsy discuss India's economic strategies over the '50s and '60s, we can do that, my allusion was simply to someone who said that Britain's perfidy on sterling resreves due to India was responsible for the hindu growth rate...

Ditto on the term - you obviously have a HUGE bee in the bonnet about these things, but in this case someone else brought the issue (hindu rate of growth) up..I was merely clarfiying that the reasons are different from what was being attributed..

About the larger economic community, I have heard people as diverse as Profs Deepak Nayyar to Nirmal Chandra, Bibek Debroy to Badal Mukherjee, Amitava Bagchi to Shubhashish Gangopadhyay use th term without any malice...I havent heard anyone using it with malice, in my circles we are constantly talking about India's new hindu growth rate being 7%..the media uses it often, it was most often used when India clocked a 6.7% growth in the midst of the crisis ...The allusions are not derogatory, but extremely laudatory...
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fe ... h/516943/0

So relax!

Finally,

If I assume that you were born into a Hindu family, but have immense self-hatred or birth-faith hatred issues

you are right on the first, but obviously wrong on the second...I just belong to the generation of Indians comfortable with being Indian/hindu/bengali together, without too many chips on historical grievances/myths..A person/generation confidnet about its destiny and achievements will not look for slights all the time...The earlier generation did - at the risk of going OT, the '60s/'70s/'80s generation of Indians had few achievements to boast of, few opportunities to look forward to, and generally had low self esteem...Real and imagined histories therefore were anchors - both in terms of looking for "glory" as well as to identify the "villain"...PVNR/MMS changed all that in 1991 - and the millenial generation has a lot more to look up to and aspire for - from cricket to industry....Maybe the "self hatred" shoes are in different feet!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jan 2011 10:18

In BRF we dont want to use any term such as "Hindu" to describe any thing about India. Especially -ve sentiments.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 10:51

OT - not required...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Jan 2011 11:01

So. Is he BRF here. What does it matter. Just dont use it.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jan 2011 11:04

brihaspati guru another question in book review thread. Thanks again.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Jan 2011 14:18

somnath wrote:
About the larger economic community, I have heard people as diverse as Profs Deepak Nayyar to Nirmal Chandra, Bibek Debroy to Badal Mukherjee, Amitava Bagchi to Shubhashish Gangopadhyay use th term without any malice...I havent heard anyone using it with malice, in my circles we are constantly talking about India's new hindu growth rate being 7%..the media uses it often, it was most often used when India clocked a 6.7% growth in the midst of the crisis ...The allusions are not derogatory, but extremely laudatory...
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fe ... h/516943/0

So relax!

From "The End of Poverty" written by Jeff Sachs (page 315-316)

One recent study attributed African poverty to a dislike of work, suppression of individualism, and irrationality; another study identified the main obstacles to Mexican American upward mobility to be "resignation of the poor [to poverty]", "low priority of education," "fatalism", and "mistrust of those outside the family". The idea that whole societies are condemned to poverty because of their values has a long history, but one that is seldom useful.

...

Japan is a case in point, a society that was viewed as doomed to poverty when foreigners first arrived in the 1870s. The foreign press in Japan, such as the Japan Gazette, cautioned that Japan would never be rich because of the indolence of the society: "Wealthy do not think it [that is, Japan] will ever become: the advantages conferred by Nature, with the exception of the climate, and the love of indolence and pleasure of the people themselves forbid it." Indeed the same newspaper opined that economic reforms were bound to fail because of the deep corruption found in the Japanese society: "The national banking system of Japan is but another example of the futility of trying to transfer Western growth to an Oriental habitat. In this part of the world principles, established and recognized in the West, appear to lose whatever virtue and vitality they originally possessed and to tend fatally towards weediness and corruption."

Early in the twentieth century, sociological theories in the tradition of Max Weber tried to explain the lower incomes of Southern Europe and Ireland relative to Northern Europe on the basis of supposedly static values of Catholicism versus entrepreneurial values of the Protestantism.

...

Similarly, Weber and his followers hypothesized that East Asian societies with Confucian values, notably China, would be unable to achieve economic progress. Later, when China and other countries of East Asia began to grow rapidly, "Asian values" were invoked as the explanation for success, turning the argument on its head. When Asia had a temporary economic crisis n 1997, Asian values were once again attacked as the culprit, but this interpretation quickly faded when economic recovery came a couple of years later. India's poverty was explained on the basis of Hindu social rigidities and mysticism, until of course, India became one of the fastest growing economies in the world in the 1990s.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jan 2011 17:37

^^^

Similarly, Weber and his followers hypothesized that East Asian societies with Confucian values, notably China, would be unable to achieve economic progress. Later, when China and other countries of East Asia began to grow rapidly, "Asian values" were invoked as the explanation for success, turning the argument on its head. When Asia had a temporary economic crisis n 1997, Asian values were once again attacked as the culprit, but this interpretation quickly faded when economic recovery came a couple of years later. India's poverty was explained on the basis of Hindu social rigidities and mysticism, until of course, India became one of the fastest growing economies in the world in the 1990s.

And you find this malicious? Jeffrey Sachs is simply pointing out the fallacy of confusing economic performance with ethno-religious philosophies..Thats a PoV, Raj Krishna had his own logic of saying what he did..

BTW, I dont know how many people on this forum has read that thesis where he coined the term...He was one of the few people deeply sceptical of the leftist orthodoxy in economics in India then..His other memorable quote: "socialist allocation in the first round followed by market allocation in the second round"...

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Jan 2011 18:04

somnath wrote:^^^
Similarly, Weber and his followers hypothesized that East Asian societies with Confucian values, notably China, would be unable to achieve economic progress. Later, when China and other countries of East Asia began to grow rapidly, "Asian values" were invoked as the explanation for success, turning the argument on its head. When Asia had a temporary economic crisis n 1997, Asian values were once again attacked as the culprit, but this interpretation quickly faded when economic recovery came a couple of years later. India's poverty was explained on the basis of Hindu social rigidities and mysticism, until of course, India became one of the fastest growing economies in the world in the 1990s.

And you find this malicious? Jeffrey Sachs is simply pointing out the fallacy of confusing economic performance with ethno-religious philosophies..Thats a PoV, Raj Krishna had his own logic of saying what he did..

Comprehension problem again, Somnath?

Sachs is not the person being blamed for being malicious. What seems to be malicious in addition to being nonsensical (if the bolded part is true) - is the original basis for coining the term 'Hindu rate of growth'.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Jan 2011 18:21

somnath wrote
UK owed India on account of sterling balances 1.13 billion GBP - so when the Indian govt wanted, it could go to Bank of England and encash a cheque of 1.13 billion, or ask BoE to pay a third party for that amount...In case BoE did not pay, it would trigger an event of default on the sovereign, and bankruptcy proceedings would be initiated...

So "it" could go to BOE and encash a cheque of 1.13 billion if it wanted? Are you positive about this? You have studied so many books, so you must be knowing about the details of the agreements between the then GOBI and the Home gov? The reason for my asking clarification was exactly on the details : I wanted you to openly acknowledge that the balance was not really built through the type of "current" financial practices you allude to, and that it was the result of artificial controls, fixing prices, and determining by administrative measures how and where the financial flows went. As usual you put up a vague generalization and refused to go into the details. Again you do not care to consider the episode of devaluation, the reason GOI went into it - and yes how "experts" may jump in joy about how it supposedly helped the exports, but there is a huge silence on the effects on the domestic market where the industrial sectors contribution was negligible.

So how did it get whittled down to 500 crores only in 3 years? Do you have a copy of the interim agreements about the "sterling balances" reached in 1948 and supposed to be valid for the next 3 years? Can you post it please? Was it all beacuse GOI spent the 1.3 billion like there was no "tmrw"?

If you post an article and give your brief reasons as to why you think the "sterling balances" and their manipulation had no real effect on the "Indian rate of growth" in the 50's or 60's or 70's, and exactly at what point you think the "rot" set in - in some appropriate thread - we can take it up there. Seriously! Moreover your points could be raised with the likes of Aditya Mukherjee - I hope you find his credentials acceptable, he is from the same secular brigade as yourself - and with impeccable credentials, because he is similar to DN Jha types. For you, I think who says is more important than what he is saying.

The reason for thinking about your possible birth-faith hatred is because you consistently use negative connotations with the word "Hindu" and you obstinately refuse to use the same adjectives/expressions if negative - to other communities, even when it is explicitly pointed out that other communities provide exactly similar characteristics based on which you are applying your adjectives. If your language constantly only targets the Hindu and never, ever any other community or ideology - in fact twists and turns away from using the same language for "others" - we have to draw the conclusion that you have a huge bee in the bonnet about being born a "Hindu".

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jan 2011 10:02

brihaspati wrote:The reason for my asking clarification was exactly on the details : I wanted you to openly acknowledge that the balance was not really built through the type of "current" financial practices you allude to, and that it was the result of artificial controls, fixing prices, and determining by administrative measures how and where the financial flows went.

Now now, sir, from using terms like "hard cash" et al to describe the "nature" of the sterling balances (very surprising you know, "hard cash" v/s "owed money"!!!), you are now questioning HOW the balances were created..Thats a fairly well known story..I have already pointed you to two widely available references..The way these balances were "built up" is a different long story of "unBritish rule"...But the way they were made available to India for use was fairly similar to how financial transactions happen between instittuions and sovereigns today - the fundamental concepts are fairly similar...If you have some other "story" pls quote your sources (unless it is one of those "self-written, self-referenced" ones that can "blow your cover"

)...We are not discussing the realtive merits of British economic policy, only whether they "cheated" us out of the sterling balances available during independence...

brihaspati wrote:Again you do not care to consider the episode of devaluation, the reason GOI went into it - and yes how "experts" may jump in joy about how it supposedly helped the exports, but there is a huge silence on the effects on the domestic market where the industrial sectors contribution was negligible.

Devaluation!!??which one? 1966? Are you suggesting that it was due to some "manipulation" of sterling balances?

brihaspati wrote:If you post an article and give your brief reasons as to why you think the "sterling balances" and their manipulation had no real effect on the "Indian rate of growth" in the 50's or 60's or 70's

First up, your "ceterus paribus" condition - "manipulation of sterling balances" has not been proven yet...I havent read anything that alludes to that, and you havent referenced anything either (btw, werent you saying you didnt have any conspiracy theory around the sterling balance?)...From available evidence, the balances were available to us, and the GOI spent it as it thought best...

Aditya Mukherjee co-authored the India's Struggle for Independence - didnt find any mention of "manipulation" in the honouring of sterling balances there...He, and other Indian chroniclers starting from Dadabhai Naoroji, have strong (justifiable) opinions on the economic exploitation (captured pithily these days as "drain") of India - that included the entire process of creation of the sterling balances (creation of a GBP balance rather than tangible goods and services back to India)...But once the Brits left, I havent seen any literature alluding to how India was "manipulated" out of its use..

anyways, as I said I have given my references, if you have any reference proving the following:

1. Sterling balances were manipulated out of use by the govt of free India
2. That manipulation of balances were the reason for rupee devaluation (in 1966?)

let us have them, and then continue...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jan 2011 20:44

somnath ji,
(1) are you or are you not aware of any devaluation before 1966 from the post-war period?
(2) do you have any write-up or proof of your own about your claim that the economic policies of Nehru were unexceptionable and that the "rot" started only in "60's"?
(3) do you have any details on how 1.3 billion sterling post war was reduced to only "500 crores" by "1949"? You claimed that the balances were all freely available to the GOI for spending and they spent it like there was no tomorrow. You should be able to prove your claim therefore that the 1500 crores - lets say minus 400 given to Pak - 1100 crores was less than halved in less than 3 years by the GOI [? from 1947? that will make just 2 years] spending liek there was no tomorrow.
(4) Do you have the details of the interim agreements arrived at in 1948 - over the management of the sterling balances? Can you please post them?

[edited out queries and clarifications that will take this further OT. Will think of a better way to do this.]

I have asked you to provide specific documents or proofs before. Please do, and then I will respond. As for Mukherjee, of course we can wait even more - because you have not studied all his claims it seems.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jan 2011 22:45

Started a new thread on the Economy subforum under "Disputes in the Economic History of India", and put up two docs on the degree of freedom allowed to India to draw on the balances. Other refs will follow in due course. Will wait for counter claims and counter-docs first.

Henceforth all inclined please carry this debate over there.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Jan 2011 12:17

x posting

Time for India to declare its CORE interests.That would mean it is non negotiable.How about Kashmir and Arunachal for starters ?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jan 2011 14:19

kit wrote:x posting

Time for India to declare its CORE interests.That would mean it is non negotiable.How about Kashmir and Arunachal for starters ?

J&K is part of India. Arunachal Pradesh is part of India. Why declare them core interests? Do we declare Bihar and Maharashtra as our core interests?

If we want to declare core interests, then it should be more like:
1) Reintegration of PoK, CoK into India.
2) Cultural and Political Autonomy for Tibet - either Tibetan Independence and Tibet acts like a Buffer region between India and China, or Joint-Management of Tibet by India and China
3) Demilitarization of Tibet Plateau
4) No non-IOR powers in the Indian Ocean
5) Political reconciliation between Myanmarese Junta and Democratic forces, and allowing a transition of power from Junta to Democratic Forces.
6) Regime Change in Pakistan from anti-Indian Regime to pro-Indian Regime.
7) Political consolidation of pro-Indian forces in Bangladesh.

Peaceful federalization of Sri-Lanka
9) Defeat of Maoism in Nepal
10) Defeat of Jihadist forces in the Indian Subcontinent