Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

[somnath]

Please note that I have expanded on the concept of SAARC Union and given it a global Islamic dimension to cover the Asian and African continents, in part because I believe that regional solutions are key to collective security, at the same time, I want to see that Muslims channelize their group spirit for bringing continents and a large mass of humanity together in a spirit of equitable partnership, which will be a shared achievement for this large part of humanity and perhaps make Muslims once again proud of their Islamic civilization, that makes some positive contribution for humanity

AKalam-ji, the global Islamic ummah is in parts reality, and inparts an overhyped sociology...Each of the so-called "root causes" bear that out..Are the Saudis that concerned about the Palestinians? Or are they more concerned about the Iranians? Global Islamism has been used quite effectively by the jehadi groups around the world, but arguably the impact is diminishing...IMO it will continue diminishing as the political issues (like Palestine) are "owned up" by stable, secure powers like Turkey, thereby giving the ummah the impression that it is being "negotaited" at a level of "equals"..And interlocutors like Turkey have more incentive of facilitating a rational deal than engender further violent intifadas...In the long run in any case...

For India, our large (and diverse) muslim population makes it imperative for us to maintain a non-hostile relationship with the larger muslim world..The good news is that we have no real axe to grind...Barring Pakistan, our relationship with the broader Muslim world has been pretty good overall...As Pak slips more and more into its own morass, our importane as the second largest "democracy for muslims", and the largest "market economy for muslims" will only grow...

[Arjun]

The point about indigenous capital is a valid one. One of the goals as India liberalizes each of its industries is that over the medium to long-term firms backed by indigenous capital need to emerge among the leaders in each industry...This gells perfectly with what I have been arguing in the economy threads - that liberalization cannot be looked at purely from a consumer-centric POV (ie the consumer obtains access to world-class service / product not currently available in India) - but equally important is the motive that at the end of the day Indian management and Indian capital should be the ones to gain in emerging as leaders and trend-setters in the specific industry.

Now, obviously this can never be assured 100% - foreign capital needs to have good returns and there will be industry leaders with foreign origins - but nevertheless, promotion of indigenous capital should remain a key goal. Before someone brings this up - there will be challenges in clearly defining what constitutes indigenous capital - but in most cases it is easy to determine what does NOT come under this bucket.

Having said this - at a macro level one of the easiest ways to monitor the effect on indigenous capital is whether the 'total wealth' and asset base at the disposal of Indian citizens has gone up, by what %, and how the growth compares to global standards. In all these metrics it is fairly easy to see that liberalization has hugely benefited wealth creation in the country. But one needs to apply the indigenous leadership yardsticks to every single industry - in order to truly move to leadership in all aspects.

[abhischekcc]

Somnath,

Could you explain what prompted the RBI to stop payment facilities for Indian energy companies dealing with Iran? So much so that we had to go to a German bank to facilitate those payments? Or do you have a 'hunch/belief', just like the governor, that making things difficult for Indian companies would actually be good for their character?

Abhishek-ji, its the result of the US turning its screws on Iran...One of them is to redice Iran's acecss to the global financial system..Iran has been trying to move away from invoicing its trade in USD to other ccies...Fail to understand how this is related to "US attempts at destroying Indian financial systems, bankrupting PSBs and facilitating take-overs by western robber banks"??

BTW, uber-nationalist pseudo-academics have aproclivity of using Google and Wiki a bit too much, hence come out with ever greater exmples of non-contextual terms, which gets passed on as jargons...But in this case, the facts are reasonably transparent..US is trying to block Iran off the international financial system, and we are therefore trying to see if there are alterantive routes available..To be honest, its only making lives hard for a bunch of bankers and central bankers..In this daya and age, there are far too many alterante avenues of financing if one were to really look for them...Which is precisely what India is trying to do..

I know that was done under pressure from the US. But the real question to be asked is this - why did the RBI succumb to US pressure (and not work for Indian interests), while other wings of the government did not?

[somnath]

why did the RBI succumb to US pressure (and not work for Indian interests), while other wings of the government did not?

Abhishek-ji, not everything is about "succumbing"..It almost always about "give and take"..In this sepific case, US has an over-arching objective of squeezing Iran out...We dont necessarily share that objective in toto, though we do share some parts of it (for example, its not in our interests to let Iran have nukes AND formalise its status)...We have an expansive agenda with the US, and we have an agenda with Iran...Now if we can find out alterante ways to settling Indo-Iran trade, its a win-win from a policy perspective...the US insistence is taken care of, while Indo-Iran trade continues...In the process, the US also gets to know how its own sanctions regime is only partially effective in achieving its objectives..If anything, the outcome is COMPLETELY congruent with Indian objectives...

The point about indigenous capital is a valid one

From the perspective of a "US conspiracy to destroy India's economy/financial system"?

Stand-alone, the definition of "indigeneous capital" itself is passe...Does an investment by Anil Agarwal constitute to be indigenous or foreign? If one really has to measure, one can measure "investments" - domestic investments to foreign ...And there, anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Indian economy will know the numbers (obviously pseudo-academics have less-than-passing familiarity with most things, practical or academic - beyond Google and Wiki that is)...

More pertinently, what is critical is not investment source, but regulations (industry specific) and capital controls...(barring maybe some areas at the extreme strategic end - like nuke weapons, strategic missiles etc)...On both elements, India's done pretty well over the years by and large..

The job of the govt is to define enabling regulations that creates a viable industry...Whether its domestic capital that takes advantage of it, or foreign capital is a matter of detail for an economy like India...IMO, and of course there are other POVs to this..

In any case, most of which is a diferent discussion - what is completely useless is a strawman of "indiegenous capital" (along with other brilliant strawmen like "mixed up in few cycles", "net transfer of values" - which have no reference to any context) to prove "US conspiracy to destroy India's finanical system/economy"....And as is to be expected, with no accompanying logic/data/theory....

[Arjun]

From the perspective of a "US conspiracy to destroy India's economy/financial system"?

No, wouldn't agree with that perspective.

But indigenous capital, indigenous industry leadership is very much a valid parameter to be considering when looking at the effect of liberalization. As a matter of fact, indigenous capital and management at an overall macro-level is doing great - which is only natural considering the competitive Indian genes...and further liberalization would only benefit the base of Indian capital. But at a micro level, more thought is required in certain sectors as to how to promote indigenous leadership and capital.

[somnath]

But indigenous capital, indigenous industry leadership is very much a valid parameter to be considering when looking at the effect of liberalization. As a matter of fact, indigenous capital and management at an overall macro-level is doing great - which is only natural considering the competitive Indian genes...and further liberalization would only benefit the base of Indian capital. But at a micro level, more thought is required in certain sectors as to how to promote indigenous leadership and capital.

Not sure if this is the right thread to discuss, but micro-level impact, or industry-specific impact are not relevant at all (unless the industry is a very "strategic" one)...For example, among the (few) sectors now dominated by "foreign capital", is coloured water (otherwise called cola )...Does it impact India too much? Yes, it does actually, enormously benefecial impact - of logistics, marketing and management...No one really notices, but the automobile industry, far more critical than cola, is dominated by "foreign capital"...But is Maruti foreign? Is Hyundai foreign? If anything, it has made India the focus of auto ancilliaries manufaturing, and now contributed to the rise of India as a small car design centre...

the more important variable, therefore is industy regs...At a macro level, what is critical is capital account regs, in order to prevent large gyrations in capital movements distorting the economy...

[Arjun]

Not sure if this is the right thread to discuss, but micro-level impact, or industry-specific impact are not relevant at all (unless the industry is a very "strategic" one)...For example, among the (few) sectors now dominated by "foreign capital", is coloured water (otherwise called cola )...Does it impact India too much? Yes, it does actually, enormously benefecial impact - of logistics, marketing and management...No one really notices, but the automobile industry, far more critical than cola, is dominated by "foreign capital"...But is Maruti foreign? Is Hyundai foreign? If anything, it has made India the focus of auto ancilliaries manufaturing, and now contributed to the rise of India as a small car design centre...

Policy decisions need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But my point is simple - is the question "What is the effect on indigenous capital and management in this industry?" a valid or invalid question to be considering while the GOI goes about its job of formulating industry-specific regulations ? If your POV is it is not a valid question to be considering - we'll just need to agree to disagree. This is very much a fundamental question in order for the GOI to be framing regulations. It may be one among a few other important factors - but it most definitely is a consideration that cannot be dispensed with.

Now, while considering this question one may give priority to several variables. In the case of colas - the decision might be that 100% foreign ownership is OK. In the case of automobiles - the decision might be to allow foreign manufacturers as long as they source components locally - all of that is part of the GOI decision making process. Why was Suzuki not brought in as 100% FDI in the eighties, but a JV forced on them? - obviously to boost Indian capital and management in the sector !

Why did the GOI decide on minimum 26% local capital when liberalizing insurance? - obviously to bring in initial benefits of indigenous capital and management that can learn from the overseas partner. After a period of time, the decision may be to withdraw the support - & I am fine with that as long as it is a thought out move.

If you take the US as an example - the US would be the first country to impose non-tariff barriers if it saw overseas firms making inroads into what it considers 'high value' industries that it dominates. India should behave likewise.

[somnath]

^^^Not much to disagree there..Industry specific regs would include level of foreign investment allowed..the "big" macro decision is really on the extent of foreign investment that the political economy is comfortable with..that decision was largely taken in 1991, when FIIs was allowed in, foreign investment caps lifted across the board (btw, maruti was a case of crony capitalism pre-1991, not a conscious foreign investment policy) and so on...

After that, it is really a case of industry-specific rules being laid down..And that has got nothing to do with a macro grand strategy either in india or in the US to subvert econmies...

[RajeshA]

But their role is not assured, since true spark of leadership came from a more globalized, secularized and democracy and freedom loving youth, which might be the best case scenario for Muslim future IMHO. So the following forces will be on the rise:

- Turkey for the time being
- till they are eclipsed by a new generation of Arab youth in a post Tinpot era
- new generation of Iranians in a post Mullahcracy era

The remaining masses of Muslims in:

- Subsaharan Africa
- Central Asia
- Subcontinent
- South East Asia

will be followers in this trend.

This attempt at an analysis is based on relative size of well fed and well informed populations that will emerge in different Muslim societies, in the next few decades, as opposed to the absolute size of population.

It is my sincere hope and wish that there is more and more of Muslim population in the well fed and well informed category, so they can eventually form a working Islamic or Muslim bloc, tying together other regional blocs, such as ASEAN, SAARC, CAU (Central Asian Union), Arab League and African Union.

Those who will not feel threatened from such an eventuality within these regions, should gain unquestioned loyalty of the Islamic bloc, but those who would try to sabotage this effort, may develop a rocky relationship with this future bloc. The way things are shaping up, IMHO it is not a matter of if, but when this loose bloc takes shape. The side shows for now are just the initial birth pangs.

The dual identity syndrome of Muslims is not just for Bengalis, but other Muslim ethnicities as well (Buddhists in ASEAN, black Africans in African Union, Mongolians in CAU etc.), who in my opinion should embrace and utilize both identities to create a world where people can co-exist and cooperate and keep outsiders, who have no relation or commonality, out of the supra regional affairs, except for purely trade, scientific and other material exchanges. These outsiders include:

- Sinic
- West+Orthodox+Japanese+Korean
- Latin American

AKalam ji,
Perhaps there is still a need for a case to be made:

In the large Islamic bloc, you have included SAARC. I presume that includes other non-Muslim countries like India. The question is why would the Indics feel at ease in this new bloc! From the Islamic invaders from Muslim Master Races - Turks, Arabs and Iranians; the Indics have mostly seen brutality. Islam in itself considers Indics beliefs as Shirk-e-Akbar. So while the Indics may feel at ease with Subcontinental Muslims with whom they share space, as long as the peace is held, and Indics may feel at ease dealing with other Muslim countries on the basis of one country to another, the establishment of an Islamic bloc may not go down well, because it makes non-Subcontinental Muslims, who do not share the dual-identity with the Indics such as Subcontinental Muslims may do, as "bloc-citizens", free to come and go as they please in "Indic lands"! Based on history, the Indics would not be willing to adopt such a level of comfort in that.

One reason this comfort level will not be there would be because the Indics do not consider Subcontinental Muslims as assertive enough with respect to the Muslim Master Races, and the fear is that instead of safeguarding their Indic part of identity as well as the interests of the Indics in this Islamic bloc, the Subcontinental Muslims would simply submit to the will and politics of the Muslim Master Races, and either not understand, or not agree with either the need of preserving their Indic part of identity or safeguarding Subcontinental interests, including civilizational heritage.

Should the Indics resist the creation of this Islamic bloc, the obvious reason would be angst, but IMHO, the actual reason would be the submissiveness of the Subcontinental Muslim to the ideological and political leadership of West Asians.
Indic angst is a product of this assessment of the Subcontinental Muslim.

Secondly, a case needs to be made to the Indics, what is then so attractive about an Islamic bloc devoid of Oil. Indics are open to cooperation with all and sundry, including the ones deemed "outsiders", namely

- Sinic
- West+Orthodox+Japanese+Korean
- Latin American

So why should Indics as part of India as part of SAARC want to belong to an Islamic bloc? What is in it for the Indics?

May be some day, Indics and India may be willing to be part of an Islamic bloc, but that would be only after their angst of Subcontinental Muslims selling out on Subcontinental interests has been addressed and mitigated through a respectable span of contrary Subcontinental Muslim behavior. Without that comfort level, any talk of Islamic bloc would only vitiate that angst.

Just giving some food for thought!

I'm sorry in case I've misread your post!

[brihaspati]

Akalam Bhai and RajeshA ji,

There are some fundamental issues that I can see in the formation of a supposed "Islamic bloc".

It never happened even historically for any sustainable period of time. It simply does not appear to be self-sustaining. We should note that the so-called "golden period" did not really last more than about 70 years. The peninsular Islamics took up the space left by the exhausted Mediterranean - gasping from both geologic and climatic disasters (earthquake swarms in eastern Med, and a severe century long drought) as well as the war of attrition between the Byzantines and Parthians.

But power centre soon shifted from the peninsula to the Gulf. Iran was only partially conquered, [even 9th and 10th century records speak of substantial number of Zoroastrians] and they hit back with their own reconstruction of Islam. Soon Turks and Afghans and Kurds and Fatimid Egypt and Moorish Spain became the multiple centres of power. Islamic world was a multipolar hotbed of rival claimants to power who tore any sense of Ummah apart. Then came the Mongol attack under Hulaku that wiped off even the symbolic Gulf centre, and the Uthmanites moved it to Anatolia.

Ummah was as ephemeral a concept as Marxian class - constructed fro political purposes and mobilization but difficult to pin down and define right from the beginning. The fundamental problem here is the lack of truly universal principles within Islam, and a lack of philosophical structure that is not dependent on specific practice and claimed history. Thus Islam comes into conflict with local pre-existing practices and culture which developed in sync with local geographies - and always has to go the ethnic cleansing way - either literally or ethno-culturally, so that its essential 7th century Arab inland framework can be sought to be implemented.

Because Islamism provides a framework for legitimization of the more criminal elements of the previous society and its elite who seek a framework of social engineering towards maintenance of feudal power - it appears to have initially succeeded in many societies - but was able to sustain itself unchallenged only where it could manage physical "cleansing". Wherever this physical cleansing remained incomplete - it has had to adjust, compromise, and even roll-back.

What has really happened within the Islamic heartland of ME was that the ground was prepared by exhausting and society debilitating imperialist pushing of monotheism as a means of social control, in which the then neo-imperialists - Islamics - expanded. This showed the advantages of being able to claim the cultural centre of a framework of military, legislative and theocratic powers all fused together - as a means of imperialist extraction of profits from a wider region. So the Arabs, the persians/parthians, Kurds, Turks, Afghans, Moors, all began to try to raise the slogan of the Ummah to serve their own regional dominance ambitions.

This is the fundamental problem as I see it - any such bloc formation can only be sustained for a short while under a scheme of mobilization based on the slogan of conquest of the non-Muslim world. But once that project has succeeded or met with reversals, or even failure, the various regional bases within the imperialist project will turn on one another. In the latter eventuality, India joining up means backing up this or that region against another - so no bloc really stabilizes.

[somnath]

The Indo-Japan equation is the least-talked of, but perhaps the most crucial one in Asia in the coming decades...India offers Japan almost everything that it lacks - a large and growing market, a young population to market the newest gizmos, a hungry infrastruture, a fabulously attractive market to invest in (for financial investors), and a military that is capable of expanding its horizons right up to the China sea - a true counterweight to China...Japan, on the other hand, offers India a similar bouquet of complementarities - a large savings pool hungry for investment, an ultra sophisiticated engg and R&D base and above all, no historical baggage........

For a Japan that is both weary and wary of China, and an India that is increasingly wary of the dragon, a strategic alliance makes perfect sense...We have seen bits of that durign the Tsunami relief ops - when India, Japan, Oz and US navies worked in tandem, and pointedly refused China's entry in the group...

China has a large trade with Japan, so its going to remain complicated..But the hstorical/civilisational baggage and current geopolitics will dictate a gradual hardening of an alliance...

No wonder, the Japanese are keen to host Nirupama Rao for the next steps in dialogue despite the Fukushima and tsunami aftermath..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 900080.cms

[ramana]

In early 90s there was a Japanese book on the new three kingdoms: PRC, India and Japan by a retired bureaucrat (Japanese).

However the Japanese were misled by the APEC and delusionsed by the lost economic decade. The 1998 Indian tests made them furious as they thought they were excluded out of the power eqns for being self-restrained and sign up to US umbrella.
The 2000 decade was lost trying to get to terms with that.
And now we have Fukushima and eqk disaster which will make them introspective like Germany after unification.

[AKalam]

Japanese are an interesting civilization, someone compared them to bee hives, but all civilizations could be compared to bee hives or ant hills to some limited extent. I do not know the Japanese intimately, but from heresay, I gather bits and pieces:

- extreme racism and believing in racial hierarchy (because their own society is very heirarchical as well), prior to 1947 they put themselves at the top of the heap and tried to create a Japanese empire in Asia
- their fall in 1947 at the hand of the West particularly the US convinced them that the gora is above them
- a rising PRC is their first and foremost existential threat as they dont know when a PRC would take revenge for the Japanese occupation of China
- the Koreans also want to take revenge for colonization as well and will probably support in this Chinese effort
- so becoming a poodle of the West and staying under their security umbrella is their best possible option for the time being

So any Indo-Japan alliance must be under a Western order, if the West is not in the equation, then Japan will stay out and follow US/West meekly and submissively, because of the above. But then I have a tendency to over simplify things, so I welcome coverage of this from various other angles.

Interesting factoid: Prior to 1947 they tried to ally with some Muslims, specially Central Asians using some kind of Turanic solidarity and delving into Islam, but it came to naught as with all such power projection efforts with their defeat. They are also a big admirer of Chingis Khan, quite a few Mongols are top Sumo wrestlers, but some not so popular because of their usual arrogance and racial superiority complex, according to which farming communities like Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are way beneath them, the nomads. I guess they still dream themselves to be like the lord of the Universe, pitiful from the point of view of the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, that such a small and impoverished group of people of so little consequence could have such mindsets in this day and age.

[somnath]

Former editor of the Economist, Bill Emmott, wrote a perceptive book titled "Rivals" - it was about the struggle between India, China and Japan shaping Asia in this century..The biggest geppoliticalk issue for Japan going forward will be twofold - one, ageing population and two, the challenge from china...

AKalam-ji, not sure about the racial superiority bits, but when japan looks around in Asia, it cannot find anyone but India as a viable ally in its posture against China...Unlike Korea, India has no historical baggage with Japan, and potentially offers as big an investment opportunity as China...

If Japan can come out of its hiroshima funk, and it is already doing so, it will get into an even tighter embrace with India...Its not just incidental that Japan's overseas economic assistanec to India outstripped that to China for the first time last year....

[devesh]

the issue with US led internationalist organizations is that these institutions represent the interests of those countries. for now, i will join you in the opinion that US is not hostile to India. in fact, forget hostility, US is outright friendly and attached to the hip with India.

now, let us move on and think about IMF/WTO/UN...

these institutions, especially IMF and WTO, are flagbearers of Western interests. by Western, I mean specifically, US and Atlantic Europe. when the IMF deals with a country and tries to bestow its generosity on said country, the team of "representatives" which deal with the bailout are appointed by Western governments. these representatives are working for Western governments and are chosen by respective Western leaders to go and do their deeds. the bailout team, therefore, consists of people who care for their countries' interests. and the countries whose interests are upheld, are not the native countries, but obviously the leading countries which constitute the IMF, wrt the power they hold in the IMF. under these circumstances, it is logical and obvious that IMF is working for the interests of Western governments and not out of the general goodness of their hearts.

another aspect of IMF "generosity" is asset stripping. there is a wholesale transfer of productive assets from local countries to foreign corporations, which in turn increase the GNP of said foreign countries. most recently, this process has already begun in Greece.

there are entire books written on IMF's harakiri. Joseph Stiglitz provides several examples in his book, "Globalization and its Discontents." IMF's role in Russia economic collapse is well documented, and for further research, i recommend Stiglitz's work to one and all. asset stripping, abnormally high interest rates to the point where primitive barter system became prevalent (even trading socks and shoes for a day's work), etc are all very well documented. and of course, the overnight Mafia-ization of the Russian economy by selling entire swaths of productive assets and resources to criminal oligarchs is known worldwide.

the entire scam involving the IMF and forced privatization of Russian natural resources went so far that eventually the Oligarchs started asset stripping the country themselves and took all the cash out of the country into Western banks. mostly London. and from there, GOD only knows where else. but London was the first exit point from Russia, for all that capital. i am still doing more research on this, but, this is just one episode where vast sums of capital of local countries were simply transferred to Western nations.

there is much documented evidence of IMF's harakiri, even after excluding Marxists and commies. Stiglitz himself is a mainstream economist and a well respected one, although, he is all too enamored with Bernanke and the Fed's money printing. US led international institutions work for US/Western interests. to allow them into Asia is a blunder. the mid 90's crisis in Asia was milked for all its worth and ramifications are still felt today. it is extremely important that we keep the Anglo-American bankers/financiers/institutions away from India. at any and all costs. even accepting 6% growth rate instead of 8-9% is fine. it is a much better option and in the long run we will prosper. short term attractions will implant the Western disease of booms and busts into the Indian economy.

[Arjun]

these institutions, especially IMF and WTO, are flagbearers of Western interests. by Western, I mean specifically, US and Atlantic Europe. when the IMF deals with a country and tries to bestow its generosity on said country, the team of "representatives" which deal with the bailout are appointed by Western governments. these representatives are working for Western governments and are chosen by respective Western leaders to go and do their deeds. the bailout team, therefore, consists of people who care for their countries' interests. and the countries whose interests are upheld, are not the native countries, but obviously the leading countries which constitute the IMF, wrt the power they hold in the IMF. under these circumstances, it is logical and obvious that IMF is working for the interests of Western governments and not out of the general goodness of their hearts.

Devesh, don't know why you are mixing WTO with IMF. But all of what you describe about the IMF is fairly standard material that would be obvious to anyone who has a passing understanding of finance. How do you think corporate loans function ? Lenders, whether private or public, are primarily concerned about the ability of the borrower to repay and all lenders impose conditions / covenants on their borrowers. The IMF is a lender of last resort - which is typically approached by countries in trouble - and any institution with any amount of fiduciary responsibility would be duty-bound to impose tough conditions on a borrower who has a troubled history !! It is also in the correct scheme of things for the primary funders of any lending institution to be controlling the fund, in order to ensure safety of their capital.

it is extremely important that we keep the Anglo-American bankers/financiers/institutions away from India. at any and all costs. even accepting 6% growth rate instead of 8-9% is fine. it is a much better option and in the long run we will prosper. short term attractions will implant the Western disease of booms and busts into the Indian economy.

The only reason countries go for IMF borrowings is because they have been irresponsible with their public finances, and have gotten into a situation where they have no other alternative source for obtaining funds. Obviously, the key learning is to never get into such a situation in the first place!! And what is all this about accepting lower growth instead of higher ?? A high-growth country would never be in a situation where it is required to borrow from the IMF. Therefore the focus should be in maintaining 9 - 10% growth rate and never allow the growth to slip to 6% or below.

[somnath]

for now, i will join you in the opinion that US is not hostile to India. in fact, forget hostility, US is outright friendly and attached to the hip with India.

now, let us move on and think about IMF/WTO/UN...

these institutions, especially IMF and WTO, are flagbearers of Western interests. by Western, I mean specifically, US and Atlantic Europe. when the IMF deals with a country and tries to bestow its generosity on said country, the team of "representatives" which deal with the bailout are appointed by Western governments

Devesh-ji, now you are getting into a very different realm..Anyways, a clarification first - I dont think the US is "friendly" to India, I dont expect it to be...But there isnt aything to suggest they are hostile either...

1. As Arjun said, WTO and IMF are different animals..If your gripe is the fact that IMF is dominated by the WWII winners, thats a fact...But that is also changing, India and China (and Brazil) are all either in the process of, or already have greater voting rights in the IMF...The basic issue with IMF is actually its relevance - before the financial crisis, people were in fact speculating whether it retains any relevance at all as an institution...

Now, does IMF pander to a larger "Washington consensus" worldview? Of course it does - it panders to the wishes of its largest "shareholders", if I may...But then, what is IMF's mandate? It is to provide strucutral financial support to sovereigns - midn you IMF does not fund companies/projects, unlike World Bank, but sovereigns - in times of crisis...If a country is so broke that it has to approach IMF, it needs to be clear under what conditionalities it is getting that support...Which includes a heavy dose of Western thought processes..If it doesnt like it, dont go to IMF!

there are entire books written on IMF's harakiri. Joseph Stiglitz provides several examples in his book, "Globalization and its Discontents." IMF's role in Russia economic collapse is well documented, and for further research, i recommend Stiglitz's work to one and all

Stigtiz's work i interesting, and just to complete the readings, also read his follow-on "Making globalisation work"...In his book, Stiglitz's gripe isnt against globalisation per se, it is primarily against IMF! And he sings hosannas about the other Bretton Woods institution, the World Bank...He is right in many respects..IMF has tended to take a very technical financial view of situations, forgeting the political economy...But then, why get into a mess in the first place? And if you did, why plan such hare-brained "reforms" as Russia did with its privatisation plans? Mind you, the privatisation programme was the brainshild of Yegor Gaidar and a small group of his cohorts - IMF gave them intellectual support, but the plan was quite indigeneous...And almost ALL the asset stripping was done by Russians themselves...While IMF needs to take a part of the blame, the outcome was hardly a designed western conspiracy...If anything, the ensuing chaos meant that no one slept peacefully in Washington for a few years worrying about missing nukes and nuke scientists

US led international institutions work for US/Western interests. to allow them into Asia is a blunder. the mid 90's crisis in Asia was milked for all its worth and ramifications are still felt today. it is extremely important that we keep the Anglo-American bankers/financiers/institutions away from India. at any and all costs. even accepting 6% growth rate instead of 8-9% is fine.

In case you didnt notice, all western financial institutions are already in Asia, and in India! Further, the largest shareholders of British/American banks are Asian individuals/sovereign funds...so the boot is actually in the other foot...A very chunk of these banks' business now comes out of Asia...These banks allow Asian countries, Idnia included, an opportunity to dip into the large savings pools in America/Europe/Japan - key to fund growth...And also provide access to domestic companies looking to exapnd outside...So why should they be "kept out"? How have they circumvented any "system" in India?

BTW, didnt understadn the point on 6% v/s 9% growth...Are you saying that foreign banks contribute an incremental 3% of India's growth?

[devesh]

^^^
wrt growth rate, i was referring to possible carrot and stick strategy being used, when 10% growth rate figure becomes an attraction and media respectfully follows by saying that would only be possible by "opening up" indian financial market to full bank ownership by foreign interests, etc. we should firmly be of the opinion that we will take 6% growth if we must, but will not bend to international banking interests to gain short term 10% growth rates.

[devesh]

who are these Asian individuals which own Anglo American banks??? i am interested to know. other than Saudi sheikhs, do any other Asians have any stake in Anglo banks?

[somnath]

wrt growth rate, i was referring to possible carrot and stick strategy being used, when 10% growth rate figure becomes an attraction and media respectfully follows by saying that would only be possible by "opening up" indian financial market to full bank ownership by foreign interests, etc. we should firmly be of the opinion that we will take 6% growth if we must, but will not bend to international banking interests to gain short term 10% growth rate

Well, India hasnt opened up fully to foreign banks, we have 9% growth..china hasnt either, it has 10% growth..so dont know where the fear is...Even in "fully open" markets, like Singapore and Honk Kong, local banks dominate the landscape...

who are these Asian individuals which own Anglo American banks??? i am interested to know. other than Saudi sheikhs, do any other Asians have any stake in Anglo banks?

Morgan Stanley - >9% held by China Investment
Standard Chartered - 15% held by Temasek
Merrill Lynch - (till recently) ~10% held by Temasek
Lehman Bros - acquired by Nomura (in Asia)
Citi - 4% held by GIC (singapore SWF)
Barclays - 7% held by Qatar Investment Authority

There are many more with smaller stakes, these are only the ones where an Asian entity is the largest shareholder

[devesh]

Stigtiz's work i interesting, and just to complete the readings, also read his follow-on "Making globalisation work"...In his book, Stiglitz's gripe isnt against globalisation per se, it is primarily against IMF! And he sings hosannas about the other Bretton Woods institution, the World Bank...He is right in many respects..IMF has tended to take a very technical financial view of situations, forgeting the political economy...But then, why get into a mess in the first place? And if you did, why plan such hare-brained "reforms" as Russia did with its privatisation plans? Mind you, the privatisation programme was the brainshild of Yegor Gaidar and a small group of his cohorts - IMF gave them intellectual support, but the plan was quite indigeneous...And almost ALL the asset stripping was done by Russians themselves...While IMF needs to take a part of the blame, the outcome was hardly a designed western conspiracy...If anything, the ensuing chaos meant that no one slept peacefully in Washington for a few years worrying about missing nukes and nuke scientists

it is amazing how you take Western propaganda at face value. seriously, you actually believe the whole "Russia is missing nukes" argument. there were real nukes and nuke materials going "missing" right under US's nose which eventually made their way to a certain country. but of course, US wouldn't allow that! I think you are taking the Bond movies way too seriously. all the Bond movies post 1991 and until Daniel Craig came on the scene, were obsessed with missing nukes from Russia. same story, different twists, with different women for Bond

IMF/West gave more than intellectual support. when 100's of billions of money conveniently finds its way into London and other offshore destinations from Russia, there is no coincidence with that.....such high value coincidences don't occur. if they do, it's once in a lifetime occurrence. but oligarch after oligarch doing the same thing: now, that's an established pattern with good encouragement or a good deal of wink-wink nudge-nudge, we turn our eyes away when you're looking, kind of stuff.

[devesh]

the examples you cite are all Sovereign Wealth Funds. as such, India has no chance of doing something like that anywhere in the next few decades. it requires a sustained generation of surpluses, which we don't have now and most likely won't, even far into the future. under these circumstances, i don't know how India can exploit the model.

also, the holdings held by China are mainly a carrot to persuade them not to mess with the USD. as such, these SWF's don't exert any influence on direct business strategies of the companies they invest in. if they try to do it, they'll be facing genuine anger from Uncle. Dubai Ports, remember anyone??? in fact, this time, GoUS will get a very convenient excuse to blame it all on foreign "interests."

so, what is the benefit for India for privatizing the banking sector? let's say SBI. yes, temporarily, GoI will get lots of money. public banks should remain the way they are right now. we've avoided the financial mess, only b/c prudence and conservative thinking have been the pillars of Indian banks. privatize them, and these institutions will come under the Anglo American sphere. make no mistake about it. India is too big a fish for foreigners to ignore a development like that. they will gobble it all up, turn it into a gambling house, and transfer all loses to Indian public and people.

[devesh]

just watched a Charlie Rose interview of Barclays' CEO Bob Diamond. he said something interesting and revealing: "finance is globalized, economy is globalized, banks are globalized, but elections are local."

the general tone of his voice was bordering on contempt. he went into an example by talking about Blanch Lincoln (congress woman) of Arkansas, and how she tried to bring a bill against derivatives. he derisively goes on to say that such moves are about local issues which don't deserve much of our attention. we simply ignore and it goes away eventually. listen to the interview, some interesting insights. nothing new, but hearing their voices and detecting those psychological hints is useful.

there comes a certain point, in terms of wealth accumulation and power where you stop identifying with your country and become a globalized monster. your thinking has no place for you country in it. you become immersed in a global mentality. Bob Diamond fits into that model very well. are we watching our business elite?

[svinayak]

there comes a certain point, in terms of wealth accumulation and power where you stop identifying with your country and become a globalized monster. your thinking has no place for you country in it. you become immersed in a global mentality. Bob Diamond fits into that model very well. are we watching our business elite?

THis is what the global bankers are. They were like this more than 200 years back even before the French revolution. Globalization brought in colonization and revolutions.

[svinayak]

also, the holdings held by China are mainly a carrot to persuade them not to mess with the USD. as such, these SWF's don't exert any influence on direct business strategies of the companies they invest in. if they try to do it, they'll be facing genuine anger from Uncle. Dubai Ports, remember anyone??? in fact, this time, GoUS will get a very convenient excuse to blame it all on foreign "interests."

China gets more visa and more leverage in global trading. India does not get this even after opening more than the chinese

[somnath]

Devesh-ji,

Dont know what you are really getting at...You started off with a sure (no debates and all) view of a "US conspiracy to destroy Indian economy"..Then you turn to the role of IMF in Russia's bankruptcy - a different topic altogether..Then you claim that India's 9% growth has an incremental 3% on account of international finance...The you go on to James Bond

BTW, its not just physical nukes, the yanks got hit by a financial mini-nuke as well thanks to the Russian chaos - remember LTCM? But anyway, not relevant for an "India" discussion..

And now..

the examples you cite are all Sovereign Wealth Funds. as such, India has no chance of doing something like that anywhere in the next few decades.it requires a sustained generation of surpluses, which we don't have now and most likely won't, even far into the future. under these circumstances, i don't know how India can exploit the model

???Are you saying that an Indian bank, say ICICI or SBI, cannot acquire a foreign bank in the future? So if a Sinbgapore SWF owns equity in Citibank, it means an Indian bank cannot? Why? And what "model" are you referring to?And "surpluses"?!!! Many Indian banks run larger "surpluses", whatever that means, than many anglo american banks - I mean market valuations, or the value of thier equity...But whats the point?

also, the holdings held by China are mainly a carrot to persuade them not to mess with the USD

??A few billion dollars of equity holdings is a carrot, when China holds more than a 1 trillion dollars in treasuries?!!! What loigc, and what is the context again?

so, what is the benefit for India for privatizing the banking sector? let's say SBI. yes, temporarily, GoI will get lots of money. public banks should remain the way they are right now. we've avoided the financial mess, only b/c prudence and conservative thinking have been the pillars of Indian banks. privatize them, and these institutions will come under the Anglo American sphere. make no mistake about it. India is too big a fish for foreigners to ignore a development like that. they will gobble it all up, turn it into a gambling house, and transfer all loses to Indian public and people

You are just hand waiving...Who is privatising the banking sector?What legislations do you see in the horizon that indicates that SBI is going to be privatised? And how does "privatisation" automatically mean coming in the "anglo american" sphere? Is Axis Bank "controlled" by Anglo Americans?

I dont think there is any coherent logic here Devesh-ji...Picking up random news bits in the media, some slogans on TV, paying too much attention to pseudo-academic jargoneering on "net transfer of values" and "indigeneous capital", and some sanskrit words - put all of it together and you really dont get a logical spagetti...Maybe you should reconcile your thoughts and put them down..

1. Is the US hostile to India?
2. How is it being hostile?
3. What are the various measures it is taking to destroy India's economy?
4. What are the measures it is taking to subvert India's political system?

[somnath]

Wow..And now we have proclamations of how China has opened up "less" than India's and still gets more "visa and leverage" (whatever they mean)- obviosuly none of these will ever be backed up by data and reference, nor explained in less-eliptical terms!!!!

[AKalam]

Somnath ji, the interplay between Japan, India and China is important for Asia and global economy and definitely India presents a unique opportunity for Japan to balance the threat coming from a rising PRC, so it is natural that they will take more interest in India as PRC gets more assertive in recent years. The problem I feel is that since the defeat in WW II, Japan has outsourced its strategic decisions to the US, in effect it has kind of become like a larger version of Hawaii. So under an US umbrella they are safe, but can India provide Japan that kind of protection against a PRC threat, not now, not in 10 years, perhaps 20 or 30 years? So Japan can take some measured bets to see how this India thing turns out, but until and unless it sees some good progress on the ground, it will not rock the boat with its arrangement and relationship with the US, specially when PRC is rising so ominously.

And while it stays safe under the US umbrella, can it ignore advices and gentle directives from the US? Is it possible that the US will prevent a tight embrace between Japan and India, for its strategy of divide and rule in East Asia as well as its strategy of chaos and division in the Eurasian landmass?

Racism is a human condition, good or bad it is with all of us gora or non-gora, just a matter of degree. East Asians while they have their own claim for supremacy, have a tendency to put the gora on a pedestal and the rest of humanity far beneath them, that has been my observation from years of dealing with them. More than any other ethnic groups, East Asians, it seems, idolize money and power and worship who have these two, hence their weakness for the gora. Hollywood also helps to reinforce this image. So when India tries to woo a potential ally like Japan, both of whom can have a win-win relationship, all of these intangibles work against India and for the US.

So it is good that Japan is hedging their bet and trying to prepare India as a future security partner, perhaps for the very long term and India really should try its best going this route, despite all obstacles.

Korea also presents a similar, though smaller opportunity, specially if India can somehow help with the unification. Sending food aid to North Korea is an excellent move in that regard. Every little bit helps, brick by brick and drop by drop, as they say.

[svinayak]

So when India tries to woo a potential ally like Japan, both of whom can have a win-win relationship, all of these intangibles work against India and for the US.

So it is good that Japan is hedging their bet and trying to prepare India as a future security partner, perhaps for the very long term and India really should try its best going this route, despite all obstacles.

For the last 5 years a Japanese vendor who is elderly has been saying to me that he is betting on India. He was 6 when Hiroshima was bombed.

[AKalam]

US may not have been hostile to India, but from reading various posters here, one would get the impression that the US have hurt Indian interest in many of its dealings in the neighborhood. Many here probably think that the US has deliberate neo-colonial design against India, but they border on conspiracy theory IMVHO, as US is not a person or a monolith, the democracy in the US has an army of competing groups vying for their own dominance in policy matters, including foreign policy, while EJ's blaze their own path following their more extreme religious views. A more plausible explanation is that the US has not been mindful of Indian sensibilities and interest, while pursuing its own interest in India's neighborhood.

I would argue that there have been many miscalculations and lost opportunities since early part of 20th century before partition and of course after partition on the part of Indian leadership to pursue a more pragmatic course, but in recent decades, India is on the right track, as is shown in the high growth rate. Like many pointed out, India has to make its own destiny, in spite of the many obstacles, perhaps obstacles and challenges are opportunities for honing the skills of problem solving and innovation.

But there is justifiable concern about financial sector deregulation in India and opening up this sector fully to foreign banks. The US financial sector together with the MNC's has hollowed out the US economy in a series of steps:

- repeal of glass steagall
- rewarding dangerous financial innovations like Credit Default Swaps
- role of federal reserve under greenspan in the dot com and the housing bubble
- teaming up with PRC authoritarian regime to make money from offshore manufacturing
- getting into two costly wars that could be avoided

In this process, the US has managed to weaken its middle/working class, the bed rock of any democracy, while enriching the top 1-2% beyond the wildest imaginations - so much so that now top 1% earns almost 25% of national income:

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/featu ... ntPage=all

The US at the end of world war II had a fairly egalitarian society with a far more equitable distribution of wealth. War torn Europe, helped by the Marshall plan rebuilt in the image of the US, with strong labor unions. Many European countries, specially in Nordic areas, today have stronger middle class, better labor union participation in management, higher tax bracket for the rich, govt. run health care, almost free education etc. while the US has declined in all these areas, in the name of privatization and small govt. Thankfully with the recent attacks on the govt. workers collective bargaining rights, there is a rising tide of general public mood that the Republicans and their corporate masters have over reached. How well it turns into a movement to remove this unhealthy influence of corporate and financial sectors in both political parties, is still too early to tell, but by 2012 election, we may have some good idea.

Briefly, the US does not need to have a plan to destroy India, but if the players that destroyed US middle class and in turn its future prospect as a great power, are given a free run in the Indian space, where the check and balances and civil society is much weaker than in the US, then it is not impossible that they will wreak havoc.

[Sanku]

Akalam-ji, brilliant set of posts!!!

[AKalam]

RajeshA ji

The Islamic bloc only includes Muslim countries of course, lets say it is another name for OIC.

What this Islamic bloc may do, because of its large geographic expanse, is that it may have the ability to tie together various regional groups (as well as countries) such as:

- SAARC
- Arab League (completely within OIC, so it is kind of moot)
- Central Asian Union (including Mongolia)
- African Union
- ASEAN
- Iran
- Turkey

just as a string would tie together flowers in a garland or pearls in a necklace. Some among the above groups are already formed and are in various levels of integration while others are in the proposed phase or in talk-shop phase, most of course are there or will form depending on local regional needs, which may have nothing to do with Islam, but more to do with mundane and worldly matters like economics, trade, currency and water resource management.

Free movement of people may happen between neighboring or far-off groups in the far future, but they will depend on individual countries or regional groups popular choice, it cannot or should not be imposed from outside.

About the identity of subcontinental Muslims, I believe it will depend on the prevailing scenario at a particular point in time. The 2011 Arab Spring/Renaissance may bring some fundamental change of collective consciousness among global Muslim populations, including the Muslims of the subcontinent. The biggest achievement would be the elimination of reactionary forces such as the Tin Pots and regimes such as the Mullahcracy in Iran or Army in the driving seat position as in Pakistan, and as a result, the empowerment of masses, where they will have more representative and more accountable rule and governance. I am hoping this will open up opportunities for free expressions and thus political spaces for many different voices, deviant, ultra-orthodox as well as moderate, secular, youthful and futuristic, so that instead of going off to a Jihad in some far-away land, they would get busy trying to improve their own lot under a legitimate political structure in their locality or country, as a ruling coalition or as a part of the opposition. It is only when we give opportunity for people with strange ideas to rule, quickly the ruler and the ruled both find the limits of the extreme utopian ideas.

What I presented in my earlier posts is just one possible scenario, which I admit is a long shot, it may or may not happen. Even if it happens it is still probably decades away. So your statement below would be perfectly valid:

May be some day, Indics and India may be willing to be part of an Islamic bloc, but that would be only after their angst of Subcontinental Muslims selling out on Subcontinental interests has been addressed and mitigated through a respectable span of contrary Subcontinental Muslim behavior. Without that comfort level, any talk of Islamic bloc would only vitiate that angst.

If it was up to me, I would try to steer Muslim countries towards nice welfare societies with high Human Development Index like those in Scandinavia, so tolerance and understanding and keeping religion as much a private matter as possible comes naturally to them, despite the negative tendencies (according to many established authorities on the subject on and off this forum) built-in within the religion of Islam.

About the master races in Islam and submissiveness of subcontinental Muslims, I believe it has to do it relative size of well fed and well informed population with a particular race or ethnic group of Muslims. So by that logic, when in a few decades our subcontinental Muslims have a sufficiently large well fed and well informed population, compared with the Turks, Iranians or Arabs, then automatically the leadership and assertiveness will return to subcontinental Muslims and it will only increase with time from that point on, considering the large population size of subcontinental Muslims. Relative size of Muslim ethnic groups:

Subcontinental: 550 million
Arab: 360 million
Turkey: 75 million
Iran: 75 million

So, I think Turkey and Iran can be easily eclipsed, but it will take a long time, probably many decades, to surpass the Arabs as a group.

While I presented a possible future scenario from our Bangladeshi camp, the Pakjabis on the other hand may propose a different scenario (despite the fact that it may be self defeating for them in the long run), where everything pretty much remains the same except that India will be replaced with Sinic. I think you can see now where I am getting at, Sinic already has some head start in this area, as everyone is aware, but I think in the long run they have limited prospects, but of course much depends on India's willingness and interest to participate or facilitate or at the minimum the maintenance of a neutral stance, in this sphere, where NAM can be used as a useful past point of reference.

[AKalam]

Akalam-ji, brilliant set of posts!!!

Thanks, Sanku ji.

[somnath]

The US at the end of world war II had a fairly egalitarian society with a far more equitable distribution of wealth. War torn Europe, helped by the Marshall plan rebuilt in the image of the US, with strong labor unions. Many European countries, specially in Nordic areas, today have stronger middle class, better labor union participation in management, higher tax bracket for the rich, govt. run health care, almost free education etc. while the US has declined in all these areas, in the name of privatization and small govt. Thankfully with the recent attacks on the govt. workers collective bargaining rights, there is a rising tide of general public mood that the Republicans and their corporate masters have over reached. How well it turns into a movement to remove this unhealthy influence of corporate and financial sectors in both political parties, is still too early to tell, but by 2012 election, we may have some good idea.

Briefly, the US does not need to have a plan to destroy India, but if the players that destroyed US middle class and in turn its future prospect as a great power, are given a free run in the Indian space, where the check and balances and civil society is much weaker than in the US, then it is not impossible that they will wreak havoc

Akalam-ji, not sure whether globalisation of international finance is the right topic on this thread, but quite frankly some of the axioms regarding the US are overstated..Why? Because it is the US, the totem pole for most things in life...

One, the kind of high tax, cradle-to-grave welfare states that Europe has engendered has actually made most European countries sclerotic and incapable to pulling themselves up for the new millennium...Barrign Germany, every single Western European state is in trouble..

Two, the whole pitch of US "inequality" is grossly overstated..US has a Gini of ~45, China's is 41...Not much different, right? Now compare US percapita income (45000 dollars) and Chinese PCI (4000 dollars) - the avg John Doe is better off where? Even in terms of median income, the avg John Doe in the US is better off compared to his counterpart in most West European countries...

Anyhow, not sure how the whole narrative is relavant for a grand American plan to destroy India - in case financial globalisation was part of the scheme, well, if anything it has backfired on the US more than anyone else!

[Maram]

A Kalamji,

The 3 posts(prior to thanking Sanku ji) on this thread sre concise and have a purposeful and plausible narrative.

Japan & Korea are extremely densely populated, small nations(penisula/islands) which are HOMOGENOUS(probably the 2 industrialised nations which have very little migration until recently, if any. Since the Second World ward they were miostly inward looking,as they had to rebuild their countries from the devastating effects of the second world war. This dedicated rebuilding led to rapid industrialisation and with it the rising economic prosperity of the people.

The role of US in Japan/Korea is interesting. They are friends with Japan and South Korea( who don't like each other !shades of India and Pakistan and their relationship with the US currently!). They have American troops stationed in both Korea and Japan. In return after the second world ward, they granted nuclear umbrella to Korea/Japan (even Australia and New Zealand. but I digress!)

By the mid 1980s companies like Daewoo/Hyundai/Toshiba/Suzuki/Mitsubushi/Toyota/Honda were booming & this coincided with Reagan American prosperity years leading to consumer boom and Korea and Japan had an increasing stake in the American Boom. This led to some of the Japanese/Koreans dream of being able to have significant stake in the American Way of life. There are loads of hollywood films highlighting American fears of Japan takeover.

The East Asian crisis in the early 90s, coinciding with Rising China and India have ended this wet dream. How will Japan/Korea be in their dealings with us in 20-30 years is open to question. When Maruti wanted new models,Suzuki harassed Maruti Suzuki's Indian executives. Look at their dealings of Indo-Japan Nuke deal... Japana and Korea's population is aging and they have a impending demographic crises and that may bring them closer to India.

This is for a country who supported Japan post world war -2, we always had good relations with them & we have tried our best to make it easier for them to engage with us constructively. It is time they took their heads out of their a**es and see the real world for what it is!

[Advait]

A Kalam, you seem like a nice guy but your vision of South Asian Muslims working with Hindus in overthrowing the West are totally unrealistic, not to mention unnecessary. You are basically repacking the same old leftists cries of West vs (deracinated) Hindus + Muslims(who do not have to give up anything.)
Ain't gonna work.
Infact you want to include the rest of the OIC too so that Hindus will lose whatever numbers advantage they have right now. And for what? Why should we trust you and your useful idiots i.e. leftists
Do you not agree that the reason that Pakistan is more popular in Bangladesh than India is because Pakistan is a Muslim country. This inspite of the 71 genocide.Whatever India has done or not done to Bangladesh pales in comparison to that. But I guess Muslims don't complain as long as they are killed in the name of Islam.


http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5884

[brihaspati]

Japan's primary insecurities are two-fold - first the physical military one, and second constraints on primary resources for modern industrialized economy. The sheer geographical distance and the considerable natural barriers to proximity with speed - between India and Japan limits any dreams on our side of having Japan quickly embracing us.

India has no Pacific fleet, no island or land base from which it can quickly intervene if needed in favour of the Japanese home islands. In spite of some prevalent view in some quarters that you do not need land bases where you have military presence - you just need "refueling rights", such refueling rights are of no practical use in conflict situations, since you could be denied such rights out of circumstantial or political reasons when you need them most.

India has not shown willingness to flex its muscle far from its own home base either, so there is no clear cut message from the Indian side as to how serious it is about taking up a counterbalancing role around the Yellow sea and off-shore from China.

India's growls and meouws about China - hot and cold - sometimes aggressive and chest-thumping, sometimes feet-kissing and blanket dismissals of any perceptions of negativity about China, does not show any consistent policy or plan or approach about China. Japan can do its own diplomatic growls and meouws as and when necessary - why does it need another of its same kind which may prove unreliable in real crisis. Moreover, India does not take "sides"!

There can also be considerations of retaliations from US side in a working relationship which is a bird in hand for Japan - if Japan wants to go for strategic partnerships with India that become significant economically, and more crucially in a geo-strategic sense.

Until and unless India has a naval base in the western Pacific, controls the sea-lanes through the Indonesian islands and the Malay gap, and has shown its ability to militarily control its own neighbourhood - it could be a long way off to expect realistically that Japan risks its existing protective alliances by going for more tie-ups with India.

[RajeshA]

Advait ji,

in order to better appreciate what AKalam ji is saying it would perhaps be useful to have a look at his history of posts.

[brihaspati]

A Kalam, you seem like a nice guy but your vision of South Asian Muslims working with Hindus in overthrowing the West are totally unrealistic, not to mention unnecessary. You are basically repacking the same old leftists cries of West vs (deracinated) Hindus + Muslims(who do not have to give up anything.)
Ain't gonna work.
Infact you want to include the rest of the OIC too so that Hindus will lose whatever numbers advantage they have right now. And for what? Why should we trust you and your useful idiots i.e. leftists
Do you not agree that the reason that Pakistan is more popular in Bangladesh than India is because Pakistan is a Muslim country. This inspite of the 71 genocide.Whatever India has done or not done to Bangladesh pales in comparison to that. But I guess Muslims don't complain as long as they are killed in the name of Islam.

Thats perhaps a bit too harsh on BD citizens! Its roughly fifty-fifty split. You should remember that most of the radical and anti-Pak movements were born there at the hands of leftist-liberal sections - including the language issue - but were hijacked by the "elite" who basically derived from the landed elite and upper-middle class [with a few exceptions] and had been behind the Partition move to ensure land-grab and continued feudal relations.

The AL derived from a breakaway faction of ML, and its iconic idol Suhrawardy was rose to political pre-eminence through the Kihlafat movement and was instrumental in perpetuating the riot violence in Kolkata in 1947. The leadership used the general student discontent and middle class discontent but never really was completely free of 'Islamist" influences - as shown by the dancing by Khondokar Mustaq. The BD army remained staunchly "Islamist" as shown by Zia or later Ershad. The liberal/radical/ part of army and society were systematically wiped out - under both Mujib and Zia.

Its a divided society, and with no counter-balancing force of non-Muslims, the Saudi handshake has worked wonders to maintain and revive Islamist networks since 80's.

Still, it is not entirely a correct appraisal to paint the whole of the soicety with the same brush. We need even "neutral" or "hesitant" Islamists, and should not say things which drives them all to become active or decisive.

[Maram]

B ji,

If You are interested in meeting up for a drink, I would dearly love to be able to meet up and have a drink and chat about History! A real pleasure to read your posts! After finishing to read your posts, I am always nodding in vigorous agreement!

In the next 30- 40 years, India may find bases in the middle east, but India's achilles heel will always be the non availability of bases in the pacific. To be a real power you need to control 2 oceans, Indian and Pacific.