Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 16 Aug 2012 20:44

As Nakul pointed Saudi fearing Iran and Rahul Baba fearing Hindu right wing and Islamists are not a threat is not Serious Diplomatic leaks.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 16 Aug 2012 21:28

And this weeks anti India rabble rousing story............
India announces plans for Mars probe as ambitious space programme takes another step

Look out for the comments from a guy called "Harsukh" in Delhi, he definatley gives it back to the goras

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z23j4rAUHW

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 17 Aug 2012 14:46

India is heading for Mars: it doesn’t need British aid money to pay the bills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... bills.html

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 17 Aug 2012 19:24

Haresh wrote:India is heading for Mars: it doesn’t need British aid money to pay the bills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... bills.html

Haresh, thanks for all the articles you post from local papers. BRF needs more 'area experts' who can give us the area perspective of their respective regions.The comments from mango brit are a migraine to read.The same old nonsense combined with misplaced arrogance.But the few Indians who care to post there really give to back to the Brits !

The comments from the username 'porus' are pleasure to read

From the comment section,

So, here how it
stands :

1. Britain
stole BILLIONs and BILLIONs from India

2. Britain
murdered 100 million Indians in Britain engendered famine deaths

3. In 1942,
Chruchill 5 million Indians in a famine purposefully exacerbated by the
British. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews over 6 years.

4. Britain
deviously devised Pakistan, cruelly dismemebered India and laughed as millions
of Hindus were slaughtered by Britain's illict son Pakistan.

5. Against
this, Britans so called CONTRIBUTION to India is minimal.

(a) Britan did
not control the WHOLE of India. Just 60%. The rest of 40% was in the hands of
Indian princes. Horrific famine deaths did not occur here as they did in
British India lands.

(b) Of the 60%
Britan controlled, 90% of the population was completely unaffected, far less
visited. They only suffered the knock-on misery of failed British policies
(removing grain to starve the countryside in famines)

(c) So called
British efforts to eradicate mass evils are more rhetoric than reality. Sati, a
horrific social evil, was practised, yet very rare. Even then, it was the
tireless efforts of one RamMohan Roy and Indian intllectuals that led to the
stamping out of Sati. Even after RamMohan convinced British administration to
ban it, he had to rush to the UK to prevent the Privy Council revoking the ban
on Sati at the plea of orthodox Indians. The ban was upheld in a 3 to 5 vote. 3
to 5. 3 members in the British Privy Council voted FOR Sati !!!!

So Britan's
positive contribution in the whole Indian episode is minimal. It's crimes are
monumental. It has tried to reverse the picture through false propaganda. The
fact that good natured Indians do not doggedly attack this falsely projected
mirage is more down to Indian lethargy. Not historical veracity.

Recommended by 9 people
Recommend
Report

eighteen
Today 01:03 AM
Yo' i know in your mind pretending that britain is a conscious nation state justifies britain feeling guilty, but it isnt the nation has no memory the people alive today did not do those crimes, so have no reason to apologise for them.

Recommended by 20 people
Recommend
Report

porus
Today 05:07 AM
When you say CONSCIOUS nation, do you mean CONSCIENTIOUS nation by any chance? Otherwise your argument has no merit.

Why should present Britain feel guilty? They have given lakhs of Indians a free society to settle in, work & trade, buy property, pay tax, live harmoniously and prosper. Before the hordes and hordes of Islamists shredded Britain apart, Britain was a paradise.. I am deeply grateful to Britainn and her tolerant, honest, BROADminded citizens.

At the same time :

1. the prosperity of Britain has been substantially built on the mass misery of brutalized Indians. There is no question of quid pro quo reparations. Yet the fact needs to be known & acknowledged.

2. The fact should be understood from the viewpoint of historical veracity as well. Not only is it not acknowledged in UK, it is not even known. The irony is, it is not even discussed in POLITICALLY PLUS CORRECT India. The world needs to know what happened.

3. It will certainly help check the BP levels of many telegraph readers. Whenever any progress on India is reported, many newspapers automatically attribute it to British Aid. And this sends many readers in to paroxyms and pressurized the NHS. Once they realize :

a. The aid is a joke. It is 25PENCE per person per YEAR in India.

b. Even that is not AID. It is bribes (to Indian politicians to assist them in buying British products), and the rest is to fund the expensive lifestyle of the British AIDS swindlustry

c. The total amount could not buy a blooming BIRO for every Indian. Forget about make a ripple on India's highly expensive Space, Nuclear & Naval Programs

d. 100 times that amount is being lost by Britain every year in capitulating to the 'Yuman rites & Scshia Ousing' demands of its vast Islamist migrants

e. The piddly 25pence a person a year AID is not even a drop compared to the OCEAN of wealth Britain stole from India while generating mass famine deaths to keep India inplace

.................

well, when the highly educated Telegraph readers read this, perhaps they will calm down a bit more & give their arteries a break.

Or perhaps not

Recommended by 5 people
Recommend
Report

porus
Today 01:01 AM
Britain is whining about the paltry GBP 280m aid. Ye :

1. The AID works out to 25 PENCE per person PER YEAR in India. Each Indian should thank the UK for the Polo Mint Bar they can buy once a year thanks to the massive UK aid.

2. The PM of UK, the PM (you can't get higher) admitted that it was not aid, so India can buy (sub-standard) British products.

3. And now it appears from the article above that even the BRIBE position is small. A lot of the AID is spent on the salaries and jollies of British staff flocking to warmer climes from a miserably dull perpetual London winter. All under the AID cloak.

4. Yesterday, UK tax cheats were named by the UK. There were some people who had fled to Pakistan EACH stealing GBP 150 to 200 million. And this has been going on for years.

5. Asylum seekers are tearing Britain apart to the tune of BILLIONs and BILLIONs of pounds each year. They are not from India (we all know which swathes of the world they comprise). Britan should focus on saving these genuine BILLIONs than the modest sums of GBP 280 million a year it spends on :
- bribing India to buy its products PLUS
- financing the lifestyles of its British AID staff

Good luck. You will need it.

But some Indians who dont have complete sense of things seems to be "greatful" that the British came and helped Hindus against Muslims. But 'Porus' again corrects him.

FedUpIndian
Today 02:13 AM
By the time your ancestors showed up on our shores, we Hindus had been dhimmis in our own country for some 500 years. During that time, millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains (and towards the end, Sikhs) were killed by Muslim invaders, millions more were enslaved and taken to Central Asia (the Gypsies are believed to be descendants of those unfortunate people), and thousands of our temples were desecrated and destroyed. Millions more were forcibly converted.

Your ancestors thought themselves superior to us but they learned Sanskrit and Pali, translated our holy books into English, started the Archaeological Survey of India to preserve rather than destroy what was left of Hindu monuments, and ended the periodic butchery of us kaffirs by our Muslim overlords.

Had they not come when they did, I suspect Hinduism and Hindu culture would have gone the way of the great Zoroastrian culture of Persia.

Speaking for myself, I am glad your countrymen came when they did, and I am glad that when they left, they partitioned the country so the bulk of the Muslim population was removed from India. Had our leaders had any sense, we would have had an orderly population exchange with Pakistan and then sealed the border permanently, but as one of your countrymen once said "The Hindoo has a sense of the past but no sense of history." Hindus have been wiped out from Pakistan - 3 million in 1971 alone - and in India, we now have to deal with 175 million of these Religion of Peace types. And you think you have problems?!! We improvise and stumble along as we always do.

" The best and most beautiful spoken English in the world is now to be heard in India." Dalrymple

It is kind of you to flatter us, Dr. Dalrymple, but whether or not your statement is true, what is true is that one of the most readable and erudite essayists in the English language today is the author of this Telegraph article, and I look forward to reading his contributions whenever they appear. Keep writing, and namaste.

(Edited by author 10 hours ago)
Recommended by 41 people
Recommend
Report

porus
Today 04:51 AM
You are partly right and partly wrong. Britain conquered India by exploiting the deep faultline that lay within the country. There were 75m Muslims, & 225m Hindus & others (Sikhs, Buddhists etc). They virulently hated each other. Britain first sided with the Hindus to oust the Muslims. Then sided with the Muslims to silence the Hindus.

British rule was infinitely superior to the brutal genocide Islam had perpetrated in India for the last 1,300 years. Britain had certainly assisted Hinduism massively. As a byproduct, there were an infinite number of British scholars & social reformers genuinely concerned in bettering India.

However, where I disagree with you :

1. Though Britain did not perpetrate hard murders & blood revelries like the Islamists (mass decapitation, mass slaughter), their soft slaughter (deaths from engendered famines) killed over 100m people.

2. There were phases of British callousness as well. Church inspired FALSE demonization of Hindu customs, mass propaganda & lies against India and Hinduism. Further, go to Elephanta, & you will see clear marks of vandalization by not only the Portuguese, but the British as well (the East India company hired out Elephanta as a banquet hall, where many an inebriated orgy of iconoclasm took place).

3. Finally, when Britain realized the balance had turned & the Hindus wielded power, they shamelessly and callously engineered the systematic promotion & unbridled support of Islamic fanaticism. The Muslim League was as much a creation of Bamford Fuller as the Nawab of Dhaka. Pakistan was as much a creation of Churchill as much as Jinnah and Gandhi (the co-fathers of Pakistan).

This terrible act initially seemed to yield immense benefit to Britain. It caused the massacre of lakhs of Hindus and Sikhs, hobbled India, and made the ex-colony a bumbling laughing stock.

Yet alas karma. The ideal of Pakistan then averted its steely, lifeless gaze away from India and to the white shores of Shakespeare's fair island.

And the rest was ex-history !!

porus
Today 11:04 AM
Yeah. The One Polo Mint Bar per Indian per year aid from the UK has been instrumental in propelling India`s economy to where it is.

If you want to give proper aid, do what the Indians are doing in Afghanistan. Building schools, hospitals and roads. Don't just bribe politicians (as David Cameron embarrassingly admitted) or siphon off the money to pay for your mortgages (as the article above alludes to), and have the gall to come over and falsely claim you are helping me.

If you want to earn the kudos, you have to help me proper. If you want to help me proper, you must show me some real money. Not the chaaranna - aatanna (nickels and dimes) you are proudly parading.

Put your money where your mouth is. Not your mouth where your loose change is. Hai na?

porus
Today 10:38 AM
You can`t do anything about slum dwelling Indian kids. Most of them are Muslim, and the Indian Islamists, as policy, are exploding their population to take over India. Just go to Dharavi. 65-70% if the names are Muslim.

So unless India sorts out its Islamist problem, which has plagued Her for 1,300 years, India`s going no where. With or without your 25Pence per Indian per YEAR 'aid (sic).

kancha · Post by **kancha** » 18 Aug 2012 06:29

Haresh wrote:India is heading for Mars: it doesn’t need British aid money to pay the bills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... bills.html

The first line of this article says

As a beneficiary of British foreign aid – I bought my first house with money saved from the generous salary an aid project paid me when I worked in the South Seas – I am well placed to appreciate the absurdity of continued British aid to India.

Doesn't the 'gentleman' see the irony here!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Aug 2012 09:55

India is heading for Mars: it doesn’t need British aid money to pay the bills

Foreign aid doesn’t help any poor countries – it just corrupts their governments
It is outrageous that we condescend to India with our paltry aid, just to pay the mortgages of aid workers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... bills.html

India, which has just announced that it will do what Britain could not do – send a space probe to Mars – is now a country with more technological prowess than our own. Its economic progress has been remarkable. I have been going on and off to Calcutta, City of Dreadful Night, for 40 years, and the difference between my first and last visit is startling. There is still poverty, but they don’t any longer collect dead people from the pavements who have died in the night of starvation. The former Indian finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee (now the president), said that India didn’t need British aid which, he added, was “peanuts” anyway. He was right on both counts, but oddly enough his pronouncement – no more than the most obvious truth – was met by almost grovelling British requests to continue aid to India. Why? One hesitates to employ an explanation that a polytechnic lecturer in politics might favour, but there is surely in this urgent desire to send aid to our former possession the hangover of a colonial superiority complex, allied to the hope that the world has not changed as much as it seems to have done: that, in short, we are still top dog, or at any rate very nearly so. If we give them aid, it must be because they need it and therefore that we are superior to them in some way. It seems to have escaped the notice of our Government, at least, that it required an Indian takeover of Land Rover and Jaguar to make a go of them, the task being beyond our organisational powers.

To use a Chinese rather than an Indian expression, the Mandate of Heaven has moved eastwards. In the 1880s, a young army doctor, Ronald Ross, who went on to discover the mosquito transmission of malaria at Secunderabad and to win one of the first Nobel Prizes for Medicine, wrote a poem that began:

Here from my lonely watchtower of the East

An ancient race outworn I see –

With dread, my own dear distant Country, lest

The same fate fall on thee.

It would be an exaggeration to say, except perhaps metaphorically, that such a fate has actually befallen us; but our continued aid to India is nevertheless a manifestation of the national administrative, mental and ethical torpor, as well as incompetence and corruption, that is leading us inexorably to economic and social disaster. It is high time we stopped such aid, and not only to India.

Anindya · Post by **Anindya** » 22 Aug 2012 00:58

Indian I-Day Function Disrupted in UK Town

India's Independence Day celebrations in UK's east Midlands was cancelled after alleged pro-Khalistan elements disrupted the event by preventing people from attending it and removing the tricolour.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Aug 2012 15:42

COnsidering the reports of Masked men and no mention of Turbans- I think the above Independence day disruption in UKstan was done by Pakis.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 22 Aug 2012 20:23

^
There is not much difference between Khalistani Sikhs and Paki muslims in UK when it comes to India. The funny thing is this is happening even while one of the biggest victims of paki love jihad in UK are sikh girls (which also includes khalistani sikh girls).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2012 15:54

Prince Harry or "Flash Harry"? Harry lets the side down-the famuily and the army yet again wit his cavorting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... oming.html

Prince Harry: Conduct unbecoming
The Prince’s disgraceful behaviour in a Las Vegas hotel room ignored the duty he owes to two respected institutions – the Royal family and the Army. He should know better

By Peter Oborne
8:35PM BST 22 Aug 2012
1003 Comments
What was Prince Harry thinking of? He’s not a gormless 19-year-old boy any more. He’s a grown-up man, a 27-year-old Army officer who also happens to be third in line to the throne.

It was a stone-cold certainty that photographs would appear once the holidaying Prince concluded that it would be fun to take his clothes off in a Las Vegas hotel room, along with some like-minded young women he’d apparently met a few minutes earlier. Their game of “strip billiards”, clearly in the concluding stages, was caught on camera by someone in the room, passed to a celebrity website, and has since been viewed on millions of computers around the planet. Even if the photos hadn’t appeared, his conduct would still have been inappropriate.

He knows how to behave. He went to Sandhurst, and has been trained to command men in action. Furthermore, the Royal family has spent time and money providing him and his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, with very serious advisers, such as the former ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning.

Some people will argue that this latest episode is nothing to worry about. They will point out that the Royal family has scarcely been a stranger to a bit of slap and tickle over the centuries. They will say it’s just a silly season special, that the Prince is never going to be king anyway, that it’s his own business what he gets up to in the privacy of a hotel room, and that many of us would behave in just the same way if we got the chance.

And it is certainly true that this incident will not spark off a crisis. The Royal family will survive. The reputation of the Queen remains as high as ever. But Prince Harry’s conduct should still cause concern – and here’s why.

Related Articles
Palace tries to ban naked photos of Prince Harry
22 Aug 2012
Prince's reputation at stake
23 Aug 2012
Prince's life cannot be 'regulated'
23 Aug 2012
Prince faces Army 'interview without coffee' over photos
22 Aug 2012
Prince Harry: caught out by camera phones
23 Aug 2012
Prince Harry: security is a 'nightmare'
22 Aug 2012
Ultimately, the Royal family is about one word: duty. The nation accepts and admires the monarchy perhaps more today than at any time in its history. And that is because the Queen has understood the meaning of service and the personal sacrifices that involves. She has always put her country before her self-interest, never complained, always done the right thing. There has never been a breath of scandal or reproach. The values that she subscribes to are old-fashioned and easy to mock. But people respect and treasure them, perhaps far more than they understand. Without those values, the existence of a Royal family and the life of privilege its members appear to lead are without merit.

I guess that some of the voices speaking up for the Prince in his latest crisis will sense this, and urge him on. Not all of them will have his, or the monarchy’s, best interests in mind. And he is not a minor celebrity, a pop star or footballer, who has been given licence by society to behave disgracefully. He belongs to an institution that stands for certain forms of behaviour, and cannot survive if its members flout them.

Indeed, the Prince belongs to two such institutions: he is an officer in the British Army, and as such is expected to observe its own code of ethics. That this, too, was broken during this trip to Las Vegas is no coincidence. The Army is another institution that requires discipline, restraint, forbearance and sacrifice.

The Las Vegas incident is especially sad because real efforts have been made to give Prince Harry a meaningful role. In the past few months he has, quite deliberately, been placed in the front rank of the Royal family in the choreography of its greatest occasions. Earlier this month, for example, he represented the Queen at the closing ceremony of the Olympics, a responsibility he carried off with aplomb.

He has oodles of charm, is not pompous and has an obvious ability to get on very well with all kinds of people. The Prince showed this when he went on his first solo tour, of the Caribbean, at the start of the year. It seemed that he had grown up: the days when he would (as on one occasion) unthinkingly go to a party in Nazi uniform, or find other ways to make an idiot of himself and offend people, were behind him. He genuinely appeared to enjoy himself in the West Indies, while at the same time displaying a proper sense of diplomatic responsibility – both charming Jamaica’s republican prime minister and joshing with Usain Bolt.

Prince Harry seemed to have got it exactly right. On the one hand, he was free from the sense of anguished responsibility that very understandably hangs over his older brother, thanks to the knowledge that one day he will be king. On the other, he lacked arrogance or loucheness. This easy – though not thoughtless – charm came through when he turned down suggestions that he and Bolt should share the usual photo-call, and instead challenged the sprinter to a race – which he won after haring off early.

This hinted at a new model for the monarchy in the 21st century, and one that would be of incalculable value to Britain. How sad if Harry were to head down the same hedonistic path on to which some other members of his family – such as Princess Margaret – occasionally veered.

And not just sad, it would also be dangerous. There is a republican juggernaut out there that wants to destroy the Royal family if it can. It hates everything about the monarchy – its history, its tradition, its Britishness, its long association with the military, the idea of service, the sense of duty, the position of the monarch as the head of state. These republicans, brilliantly led by the newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch, came very close to success thanks to a series of scandals that dogged the family in the Nineties. During that dark time it was perhaps only the fact that the Queen maintained an unblemished reputation that saved Britain from a major constitutional crisis.

The monarchy has recovered wonderfully over the past decade, as this year’s Diamond Jubilee has proved. But the enemies of the Crown have not gone away, and are waiting for the arrival of the next generation in order to make their case again. As IRA commanders used to boast, they only have to succeed once.

We should keep a sense of proportion. Even if Prince Harry goes very badly wrong, he will not bring the Royal family to its knees on his own. But the kind of behaviour displayed in Las Vegas gives credence to the idea that the British monarchy is no longer about public service, as, thanks to the Queen, it has been for 60 years. He will make it easy for people to believe that our Royal family is a branch of the entertainment industry, and that its members are celebrities, with all that entails.

This world of celebrities is a shallow one, where nothing persists. And while the Royal family does indeed bear comparison in certain ways with the entertainment industry, as monarchists have always understood, ultimately it is based on an enduring moral, religious and social framework.

It is perhaps expecting a little too much of Prince Harry that he understand the intellectual and historical basis for the British monarchy in all its richness and wisdom. But there is nothing to stop him taking a sideways glance at his uncle. Prince Andrew, it should never be forgotten, is a war hero who risked his life flying helicopters during the Falklands War. Yet few would hold him up these days as an example of how a member of the Royal family should conduct themselves.

Prince Harry can make it easier for his father, the Prince of Wales, and his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, when they in due course become king. Or he can make their lives a great deal more difficult. He’s a grown man now, and only he can choose.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Aug 2012 22:28

Me thinks some upturned noses in UK still think that the British have any public morals! Welcome to the 21st century!

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 26 Aug 2012 14:13

Al-Qaeda terrorists launch human rights bid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-bid.html

The interesting words in the story are:
"challenging their convictions at Strasbourg on a point of law rather than of fact."

And more stupidity from the British establishment:

Security services 'failing' to stop British jihadis heading to Syria

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... Syria.html

The stupidity of the west in dealing with these people knows no bounds.
Have they learnt nothing from the "blowback" from the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2012 06:37

Hilarious! Flash-er Harry's naked antics has resulted in scores of his colleagues and their wives too in the British Army repeating his shameful behaviour and stripping themselves ,to the anger of the Army.Enjoy the pic in the link!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... Harry.html

Army anger as troops strip naked in support of Prince Harry
Scores of soldiers and their wives are risking Army anger by stripping off and saluting to show support for Prince Harry.
Prince Harry gets naked salutes from Facebook supporters

But although none of the troops are likely to be disciplined for the stunt, top brass are not amused.

A source told the Daily Mail: "Everyone sees the funny side but there are people at senior levels in the Army who do not consider this to be appropriate.

"They will be thinking 'Does this really shows us in the professional light we want to be seen in?'."

The pictures include army wife Lynne Hayward who waved a Union Jack wearing only black knickers and high heels and her husband's cap.

She revealed: "It took a lot for me to do it as I've had four kids and am a bit worried about my body.

"But I've done it to show my support to Prince Harry."

An army wife shows her support

Similarly, Terrie Ann-Summers Wright sported only an Army beret and open camouflage jacket with her white knickers.

She posted: "Army wife and proud. I salute you Prince Harry."

Beverley Budd performed her topless salute kneeling next to a pool table in a cheeky reference to Prince Harry's notorious game of 'strip billiards' in Las Vegas.

And a group of 16 Army wives paraded along a road in a long line in their underwear.

Lisa Bushell spoke for many with her comment about Harry next to her naked salute: "If you can fight in Afghanistan you can get naked wherever you choose in my book. We salute you Sir!!!!"

Our Boys in Afghanistan, meanwhile, have been posing nude with only strategically-placed guns protecting their modesty.

Military personnel salute Prince Harry

One of them, Nathan Harris, who is serving near Helmand, wrote: "Well done Harry! One of the lads."

A group of 21 lads from D Squadron The King's Royal Hussars posed naked in front of two tanks in Afghanistan.

Ex-hussar Jordan Wylie, who founded the Facebook group, said: "It was outrageous Harry was criticised for his antics in Las Vegas because he is just one of the lads.

"He might be a Royal but he is also a hardworking Apache helicopter pilot and he wants to have some fun."

Jordan, 29, of Blackpool, Lancashire, said of the response from Harry's comrades and their wives and girlfriends: "It honours Harry because he's one of the lads.

"I'm sure Harry will be quietly smiling about it."

Image 1 of 5

Military personnel have been showing their support for Prince Harry by posting pictures of themsleves performing nude salutes on the facebook site - 'Support Prince Harry with a naked salute!' Photo: Facebook

PS:I think that Harry should seriously think about quitting the Army and becoming the new star in a famous rehash of that great series of films,the "Carry On" series.He is a natural for that role and would keep millions around the world entertained with his hilarious sexploits!

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 30 Aug 2012 08:01

How British socialism created poverty and caste inequality

According to John Malcolm Ludlow in his 1858 book British India, its races and its history, the policies of the Indian government resembled “the most decried theories of French socialism.” The book highlights the abolition of individual property rights and describes the system in India as “bureaucratic socialism.” It attributes the destruction of agriculture to the state becoming the universal landlord that took everything and gave next to nothing to the cultivator.

In another book, The Sepoy Revolt: Its Causes and Consequences, which was published in 1857, the author Henry Mead blames socialism and the revenue system for destroying the aristocracy and reducing the Madras ryot to a “beggar and a slave.” According to Mead, tax was “imposed solely with reference to the amount that [could] be obtained from the people.” The book describes Lord Harris, the governor of Madras, as a socialist and quotes him as saying, “I consider that the land of a country belongs to the government, de facto, and should be held by it...” Mead’s book also points out that the British did not apply socialist policies to themselves.

Yet another nineteenth century book, Opinions of the Press in India on the Punjab Tenancy Act, published in 1869 states, “The last and dangerously violent effort to establish [socialistic] principles was made in 1859 when Act X applied to Bengal... Hardly had that measure come into operation when the famine of 1860-61 exploded the shortsighted doctrines on which it is based.” The book mentions that socialism had “done so much wrong in Punjab” and explains that transferring the rights of the landlord to the tenants “solely in the interest of revenue and a socialistic theory” had collapsed the system.

Socialists who were responsible for the inequality in society blamed everyone but themselves for the ills in the country. They scapegoated the Brahmins for making the best of things in a bad system. They blamed Hinduism for the economic stagnation and labeled the stagnation the ‘Hindu rate of growth’ implying that socialism would have somehow worked if White people had been in control. They blamed the existence of castes for the problems as the Communist Manifesto declared that guilds were feudal setups in which the expert craftsmen oppressed the less skilled workers.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Aug 2012 12:51

Cross Posted from Raffy thread:

arijitkm wrote:Oh ! again !

“WE PAY FOR INDIA’S NAVY ” : Another Bizarre claim by UK Media

After Indian prime minister announced Mars mission in his 15 August Independence day speech , British media went all out war on India , claiming that Mars mission was using British provided £280million a year funds , it first started when UK lost the MMRCA tender to the French company , UK which is facing Economic slowdown but still went a head with Olympics but recent attack of British media (express.co.uk ) on recent purchase of Russian Warship by Indian navy has new heights of Ridiculousness .
......

"Ohh isn't it so loverly" (my Fair Lady)

Love to see them squirm. When will the poodle reach some self awareness about their poodle status

Another quote from the same:

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Just a couple of weeks after learning how they are effectively subsidising India’s mission to Mars , British taxpayers will be dismayed to discover that the Indian government is splashing the cash on these new warships.

“India can afford to spend billions on ventures and equipment that the British Government goes without. This only goes to emphasise the absurdity of British aid going to India.”

Yorkshire MEP Godfrey Bloom, UK Independence Party defence spokesman, said: “India now has a far superior navy to ours – new frigates, aircraft carriers with aircraft . And what do we have?” Your poodle status, matey. Be happy.

member_23629 · Post by **member_23629** » 30 Aug 2012 12:54

Can't Indian government get rid of this so-called "aid" from the delusional Brits, and end this type of talk? Pranab Mukherjee as FM said this is "peanuts" and we don't want it, but the Brits grovelled before us to accept it. In Hindi, there is a saying: "Rassi jal gaye, per bal nahii gaye."

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Aug 2012 12:56

varunkumar wrote:Can't Indian government get rid of this so-called "aid" from the delusional Brits, and end this type of talk? Pranab Mukherjee as FM said this is "peanuts" and we don't want it, but the Brits grovelled before us to accept it. In Hindi, there is a saying: "Rassi jal gaye, per bal nahii gaye."

If I remember correctly they grovelled before us to take it because guess what?

They thought it would be counted as hafta for the MMRCA deal.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 30 Aug 2012 19:31

One of the comments from the Express story

PAYING FOR INDIA'S NAVY??
30.08.12, 9:17am

So what??? The Indians paid for the British Navy for 200 years. Go check the records in Admiralty House in London. Its called the India Account.

• Posted by: DesJ • Report Comment

Does anyone have any details on the "India Account"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Aug 2012 20:44

BBC reports:

Deadly saw scale viper found at Tillbury dock

How is this relevant to India-UK News and Discussion thread?

Well the container in which this snake was found was from India and the snake is a native species in India.

I think there will be calls to ensure better monitoring and storing of shipping containers.

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 30 Aug 2012 21:07

ramana,

That snake was the recipeint of UK aid, India "owes" the UK big time because of that snake.
If India had not spent all that UK "aid" on, Space, aircraft carriers, ships, French fighters, etc etc, then that snake would have not been so poor that it would have had to illegally smuggle itself into the UK.
Infact the snake is probably a fake student who is going to overstay it's student visa and work more than 20hrs a week, it has TB and I bet he is taking away IT jobs from british workers, hell I bet he works in a call centre.
I bet he paid his mortgage off with UK aid.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 30 Aug 2012 21:12

How far does 280 million get you these days?
So the thieving Bretards are paying for

1) Mars
2) Warships
3) Rafael deal
4) Alleviate poverty
5) Safe drinking water
6) Caring for donkeys
7) DonComs for AIDS prevention

...
Whew!
I think it would serve inbred-England well if they started taking care of child abuse in their country. They need the money.
---

For a country which runs on colonial loot , these peckers talk quite a bit!

How would you ask them to get lost........ah yes...the uptight "British" way - Shove it, matey!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Aug 2012 21:16

kancha wrote:
Haresh wrote:India is heading for Mars: it doesn’t need British aid money to pay the bills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... bills.html
The first line of this article says

As a beneficiary of British foreign aid – I bought my first house with money saved from the generous salary an aid project paid me when I worked in the South Seas – I am well placed to appreciate the absurdity of continued British aid to India.
Doesn't the 'gentleman' see the irony here!

there's no irony here. he isn't saying what you think he is.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Aug 2012 21:20

VikasRaina wrote:But Aditya_V, Like a bad dream Assange has acquired a cult status now and no one knows if whatever is being published is true or false.
What was American game plan in releasing this info in public domain which makes everyone look bad only and American diplomacy loses credibility with rest of the world.

One gameplan is that it creates talking points which is outside of the regular news from mainstream media. This fills all noise and underground talks which are going on.
It is way to distract and control the terms of discussion and debate about international relations. This is high quality media propaganda in a global scale.

These kinds of media control was used during the Cold war between Sovet Union and US/western powers.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 31 Aug 2012 02:03

You see, its not exactly an announcement by the Indian PM about Mars project. Its not exactly how Indians will design ships, with space-crafts, engines, machines, satellites, communications, the whole orbiter projects.

It is just 'We pay for India's rocket to Mars'. Rockets - the British have cracked the puzzle already for which Indians need planning (link). Rockets it is all about.

ANGER erupted last night after India unveiled plans .. Critics last night demanded .. why it is absolutely ridiculous for us .. It is utterly galling that .. Anger has been growing ..
people question the aid programme to India
..

But what does the report say more about the aid

A DFID spokesperson said:

"British aid is not used to fund India's space programme. Our development aid to India is earmarked for specific purposes like tackling child malnutrition, providing malaria bednets and secondary education for Dalit girls.

Our work is now focused in three of the poorest states and by 2015 about half of the programme will focus on private sector investment to help the people out of poverty.

education for Dalit.. right.

On a serious note, any idea how by 2015 the program will focus on private sector investments? Getting private sector to bankroll education of dalit girls - very secular is it?

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 31 Aug 2012 04:52

May be by 2015 private sector will fund the programs UK government is funding. Possible that they are working with private sector MNCs to continue the agenda.

vineetmehta · Post by **vineetmehta** » 31 Aug 2012 13:19

paramu wrote:May be by 2015 private sector will fund the programs UK government is funding. Possible that they are working with private sector MNCs to continue the agenda.

All Multilateral Development Banks (and also bilateral agencies) have realized that providing loans/grants to government (or its agencies) alone cannot achieve their objectives of achieving Millenium Development Goals (MDG). Since the private sector has grown significantly, therefore provides more opportunities for employment. In turn bringing people out of poverty with jobs.

MDB like ADB are currently majorly investing in private companies in the area of clean energy and employment generations areas. For example, one of the ADB investment in Sri Lanka is in leasing industry (leasing tractors to poor farmers), etc.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2012 04:45

A Roman triumph indeed,as Abramovitch gives arch-rival Berezovsky the "Blues" instead! The battle of the oligarchs has ended with the "Blues" (Chelsea FC) owner victor victorious in the world's largest ever private court case in history.

This is also great news for Pres.Putin,as Berezovsky has been ranting and raving against Putin in the safety of his luxurious life (ostensibly in political asylum) in Britain and allegedly aided by the British intel community,the Litvinenko murder allegedly orchestrated from his "corner" to smear Putin.Chelsea fans will be delighted with the verdict as Roman now has deeper pockets with which to further his club's success by retaining the Champion's League trophy he finally won last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... story.html

Abramovich wins biggest private court case in history
Roman Abramovich has won his $6.5bn legal battle with his former mentor and business partner, in the biggest private court case in British legal history.

By Duncan Gardham

2:16PM BST 31 Aug 2012

The Chelsea FC owner, one of the richest and most private men in the world, was accused of black-mailing Boris Berezovsky into selling his interests in the oil company and aluminium conglomerate they founded together at a knock-down price.

Mr Abramovich in turn, accused Mr Berezovsky of extorting money from him for political influence and claimed he had paid him $1.3bn to buy his freedom when Mr Berezovsky fell out of favour with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Mrs Justice Gloster said that because of the nature of the factual issues "the case was one where, in the ultimate analysis, the court had to decide whether to believe Mr Berezovsky or Mr Abramovich".

She said that because "both the Sibneft and the RusAl claims depended so very heavily on the oral evidence of Mr Berezovsky, the court needed to have a high degree of confidence in the quality of his evidence".
Related Articles

A tale of two oligarchs
31 Aug 2012

Berezovsky v Abramovich: timeline
31 Aug 2012

Document: Berezovsky v Abramovich judgment in full
31 Aug 2012

How Boris Berezovsky lost a fortune
31 Aug 2012

Berezovsky v Abramovich: How Roman Abramovich made his fortune
31 Aug 2012

The judge added: "That meant confidence not only in his ability to recollect things accurately, but also in his objectivity and truthfulness as a witness."

She announced in a lengthy summary of her judgment: "On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes.

"At times the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case; at other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events.

"On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements.

"He embroidered and supplemented statements in his witness statements, or directly contradicted them."

The judge said "the burden of proof was on Mr Berezovsky to establish his claims".

She referred to his "lack of credibility as a witness".

The judge said she had concluded that "in the absence of corroboration, Mr Berezovsky's evidence frequently could not be relied upon, where it differed from that of Mr Abramovich, or other witnesses".

She added: "I regret to say that the bottom line of my analysis of Mr Berezovsky's credibility is that he would have said almost anything to support his case."

Announcing that she found Mr Abramovich to be a truthful and reliable witness, the judge said she rejected the "serious allegations" that he was a thoroughly "dishonest and cynical witness" who deliberately called witnesses whom he knew would give "as they were intended to do, thoroughly untrue evidence designed only to mislead the court".

The judge added: "Neither the evidence, nor my analysis of it, supported that allegation.

"Likewise I reject the allegation that he manipulated the trial process or engaged in improper collusion with his witnesses, or was part of a 'smears and innuendo' campaign."

The judge also ruled that Mr Abramovich did not make either express or implied threats to Mr Berezovsky with the intention of intimidating him to dispose of his alleged interests in Sibneft.

Outside court Mr Berezovsky said he was “amazed” at what had happened and accused the judge, Lady Justice Gloster, of rewriting Russian history.

Berezovsky said he did not understand why he had lost but understood British courts better, adding: “life is life” but said he had not yet decided whether to appeal.

A spokesman for Mr Abramovich said in a statement that he had been “comprehensively vindicated by the court” and added: “We appreciate that to many people this case has been a uniquely Russian one and should therefore have been heard in the Russian court system. Nevertheless, Mr Abramovich has always had great faith in the fairness of the English legal system and is both pleased and grateful for today’s outcome.”

In a year-long case that became highly personal, one of Mr Abramovich’s associates even accused Mr Berezovsky of sending a threatening text message to a potential witness, signed “Dr Evil”, the pantomime villain from the James Bond spoof films, Austin Powers. The message was never produced.

Mr Abramovich’s lawyers also accused Mr Berezovsky of “truly prodigious powers of self-deception” and giving evidence coloured by his “vanity and his self-obsession.”

They claimed that Mr Berezovksy was an “angry and embittered man” of “remarkable vanity and self-importance” which was “aggravated by a highly personal resentment of Mr Abramovich.”

“Large parts of his evidence can only be described as mendacious and dishonest,” they said in submissions to the court.

“He believes that Mr Abramovich has supplanted him in a position which is rightfully his and that he has acquired a sort of political influence under President Putin which he once enjoyed under a very different regime of Boris Yeltsin.”

Mr Berezovsky was once a “classic power broker” and one of the most influential oligarchs in Russia but the relationship was founded on krysha - political protection – and “the activities of a krysha or protector are inherently corrupt,” Jonathan Sumption QC, for Mr Abramovich, said in a written statement.

Mr Berezovsky "thought he had personally created Mr Abramovich out of nothing and put him in a position where he had only to sit there for vast sums of money to flow into his lap,” he added.

Laurence Rabinowitz QC, for Mr Berezovsky, had told the court that the two men had worked together during the Russian privatisation sales in the mid-1990s that followed the fall of communism to acquire an asset that would make them “wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most people.”

In the process they “became and remained good friends” he said, but they fell out when Mr Berezovsky, who had adopted a high political profile in Russia through his control of a television station called ORT, fell foul of the Kremlin and was forced to leave the country and seek asylum in Britain.

The television channel had run a number of stories criticising Mr Putin for the failure to rescue 118 Russian sailors from the sunken nuclear submarine, the Kursk.

That, he said left Mr Abramovich in a position where he was “in effect required to make a choice - to remain loyal to Mr Berezovsky, his friend and mentor and the person to whom he owed his newly acquired great fortune, or instead, as we submit, to betray Mr Berezovsky and to seek to profit from his difficulties.”

“It is our case that Mr Abramovich at that point demonstrated that he was a man to whom wealth and influence mattered more than friendship and loyalty and this has led him, finally, to go so far as to even deny that he and Mr Berezovsky were actually ever friends,” he added.

The case rested on a number of key meetings at the end of 2000 in which the two men and a third partner, Badri Patarkatsishvili, a Georgian businessman who died at his Surrey mansion three years ago from a heart attack, discussed transferring their assets to the West.

Security men working for Mr Patarkatsishvili secretly recorded the first meeting at Le Bourget airport near Paris and Mr Berezovsky later bought the tape for $50m.

At the second meeting, at Mr Berezovsky’s chateau near Cap D’Antibes in France, Berezovsky claimed that Mr Abramovich told him the Kremlin would remove his TV station from him if he did not sell it and prevent the release from jail of a close friend of Mr Berezovsky.

Mr Abramovich claimed there was no such meeting and the pair actually met at the French ski resort of Megeve a few weeks later and agreed to a $1.3bn pay-off.

In a last snub to Mr Berezovsky, Mr Abramovich allegedly sold his 25 per cent share of the company Rusal, the Aluminium conglomerate, for £1bn, to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with ties to both George Osborne, the shadow chancellor and Peter Mandelson, the former Labour spin doctor.

The sale meant Mr Deripaska owned 75 per cent of the company and Mr Berezovsky and his partner were forced to accept just £289m for the remaining 25 per cent.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2012 04:59

Another entertaining report on the judgement of the "Battle of the oligarchs".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... -oligarchs

Boris Berezovsky outside the court in London after losing his lawsuit against Roman Abramovich. Link to this video

At 10.15am on Friday Boris Berezovsky strolled into London's high court. He was relaxed and smiling. Asked whether he was about to win his battle against his former friend and fellow oligarch Roman Abramovich, he replied: "I'm confident. I believe in the system."

Fifteen minutes later the same English justice system – in the formidable shape of Mrs Justice Gloster – gave Berezovsky an almighty and devastating kick up the backside. The judge dismissed his case and his claim that he was a partner with Abramovich in the Russian oil group Sibneft. But worse than this she also demolished Berezovsky's character, describing him in her judgment as "dishonest", "unreliable" and even "deluded".

Instead of emerging with $5bn (£3.15bn) in damages, as he had hoped, Berezovsky left with a huge legal bill and his reputation in tatters. He had told the court that Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea FC, had intimidated him to sell his share in the oil firm Sibneft at a massive discount. Abramovich vehemently denied this.

But who would the judge believe? At 10.30am Gloster walked into court. There was a dramatic hush. The first three rows were packed with lawyers – the true winners in this, the biggest private litigation battle in history. There were journalists and supporters. Berezovsky sat near the door. Two bodyguards with earpieces were behind him. Abramovich wasn't there, his whereabouts a mystery. "He's probably on his yacht in Corfu or Marbella," someone whispered.

First, Gloster threw out Berezovsky's case. Then she gave her reasons. They were withering, in the kind of remorseless language rarely heard in the high court. Berezovsky, we discovered, had destroyed himself early on in the witness box. "On my analysis of the entirety of the evidence, I found Mr Berezovsky an unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which could be moulded to suit his current purposes," the judge said.

Berezovsky clutched his face. She went on: "At times the evidence which he gave was deliberately dishonest; sometimes he was clearly making his evidence up as he went along in response to the perceived difficulty in answering the questions in a manner consistent with his case.

"At other times, I gained the impression that he was not necessarily being deliberately dishonest, but had deluded himself into believing his own version of events. On occasions he tried to avoid answering questions by making long and irrelevant speeches, or by professing to have forgotten facts which he had been happy to record in his pleadings or witness statements."

It was Berezovsky's most excruciating moment, and the worst since he fled to Britain in 2000. Berezovsky left Russia after falling out with the steely Vladimir Putin, and has been a bitter critic of the Kremlin ever since. President Putin has had a grudge against the British judicial system since it granted Berezovsky political asylum in 2003. Putin could have been forgiven for allowing himself a wry grin, as another court comprehensively trashed Berezovsky's reputation.

Abramovich, by contrast, has been a model of political loyalty. He is said to be on good terms with Putin. Many have wondered how the diffident and unassuming Abramovich became one of the richest people on the planet. The case provided the answer, with even Berezovsky admitting he was "very charming". In his witness statement Berezovsky said that Abramovich's secret was simple: he was "good at getting people to like him".

Certainly some of this appears to have worked on Gloster. The judge told the court she concluded Abramovich was a "truthful and on the whole reliable witness". He "gave careful and thoughtful answers, which were focused on the specific issues about which he was being questioned." She added: "At all times, he was concerned to ensure that he understood the precise question, and the precise premise underlying the question which he was being asked."

Forty minutes into the judgment, it was clear Abramovich had won game, set and match. The judge dismissed in "its entirety" Berezovsky's claim that he had been a partner in Sibneft, set up in the mid-1990s when Russia's then president, Boris Yeltsin, practically gifted state assets to a small group of well-connected businessmen: the oligarchs. (In return they helped him dubiously win Russia's 1996 election.) She also rejected a second Berezovsky claim for $564m, his alleged share of a joint interest with Abramovich in the aluminium group Rusal.

Instead, Gloster accepted Abramovich's version of history: that he had been compelled to hire Berezovsky for his political connections. Back in 1994 Berezovsky was Yeltsin's occasional tennis-partner and a powerful figure in the corridors of the Kremlin. Abramovich was a young and ambitious oil trader. Gloster accepted the relationship had been one of "krysha" – the Russian word for roof – with Berezovsky giving Abramovich physical and political protection, indispensable in the murky world of Russian business. (The judge prounounced "krysha" to rhyme with Trisha, rather than the Russian way, "kreesha".)

The judge even ruled that Putin hadn't tried to intimidate Berezovsky into selling his TV channel ORT, during an uncomfortable Kremlin showdown in 2000, shortly before Berezovsky fled. Her finding prompted seasoned Russian watchers to guffaw. Afterwards, a stunned Berezovsky emerged into the corridor. The judge had tried to rewrite Russian history, he said, adding that his faith in British justice had now been badly shaken. Had he expected to win? "Absolutely."

In the street outside, Berezovsky said he hadn't decided yet whether to appeal – a tricky step, one suspects, given the judge's devastating comments. "I'm absolutely amazed what happened today. I'm surprised completely," Berezovsky said. He added: "Sometimes I had the impression Putin himself wrote this judgment." The oligarch said he didn't regret bringing the case, and even attempted a phlegmatic note, observing: "Life is life," before speeding off in a black Mercedes.

Abramovich's lawyers said they were pleased their client had been "comprehensively vindicated". They added: "We appreciate that, to many people, this case has been a uniquely Russian one, and should therefore have been heard in the Russian court system. Nevertheless, Mr Abramovich has always had great faith in the fairness of the English legal system and is both pleased and grateful for today's outcome."

All that remains now is to tot up the legal bills. The court heard that Berezovsky had recently sold his luxury home in Wentworth, Surrey, and was busily "disposing of assets". This has fuelled rumours that the one-time billionaire is now down to his last few millions, a pauper by the standards of Russia's elite. Berezovsky said he would not discuss his assets.

As well as the elusive Abramovich, one other person was missing from the lop-sided drama: Abramovich's barrister Jonathan Sumption QC. Sumption realised early on that the key to the case was character, and convincing the judge Berezovsky was a wrong 'un. The strategy worked. He has more than earned his fee – rumoured to be in excess of £1m. And what's more he is now a supreme court judge and a lord, further proof perhaps that Britain is good at delivering justice

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2012 08:58

Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu
Anti-apartheid hero attacks former prime minister over 'double standards on war crimes'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... smond-tutu

Xcpt:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be hauled before the international criminal court in The Hague and delivered a damning critique of the physical and moral devastation caused by the Iraq war.

Tutu, a Nobel peace prizewinner and hero of the anti-apartheid movement, accuses the former British and US leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction and says the invasion left the world more destabilised and divided "than any other conflict in history".

Writing in the Observer, Tutu also suggests the controversial US and UK-led action to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 created the backdrop for the civil war in Syria and a possible wider Middle East conflict involving Iran.

"The then leaders of the United States and Great Britain," Tutu argues, "fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us."

But it is Tutu's call for Blair and Bush to face justice in The Hague that is most startling. Claiming that different standards appear to be set for prosecuting African leaders and western ones, he says the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict is sufficient on its own for Blair and Bush to be tried at the ICC.

"On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague," he says.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 02 Sep 2012 21:20

Poor Archbishop, does not even know that ICC has no jurisdiction the US. Pity he is so poorly advised.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Sep 2012 10:08

Letter From London
Will the Sun Set on British Education?
Sudeshna Sen

“The glutinous tide of happiness that swept the country during the Olympics,” as London’s Mayor Boris Johnson described it, hasn’t lasted even into the Paralympics. Sigh. Don’t blame the purple people or the organisers. Everyone loves the Paralympic Games, especially Londoners, who have adopted them as our own private party after the big tamasha. Dear Boris, as a journalist, I’d really prefer to keep wallowing in glutinous happiness —but just as I think the Brits are actually getting their act together, they go bang. Before I start the rant, here’s the update. At a time when the UK is desperately trying to woo overseas investment and tourism, and various government agencies are trying to cash in on the goodwill created by the Olympics in growth markets, the Home Office, in one of those baffling own-goal moves, seems all set to scupper the £9-billion marketing boost Brand Britain got. First, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt announced an £8-million marketing campaign to attract Chinese tourists. Apparently, the Chinese spend three times more than the global average on holiday: over £1,500 each. But the Chinese don’t want to come to the UK and, horror of horrors, they prefer going to France or Europe, because the UK visa system is painful, expensive and laborious. So, Mr Hunt called for streamlining the rules, at least for organised tour groups. Home secretary Theresa May promptly said no, insisting that this would create a threat to national security.

Then, late last week, the Home Office Visa Section, or the UKBA, as it is now called — they keep changing the names of their ministries and departments for some odd reason — cancelled the visa sponsorship status of London Metropolitan University, a sometimes mismanaged but otherwise venerable institution. Suddenly, over 2,000 foreign students, some halfway through their courses, who all dish out close to £10,000-plus a year, have been given 60 days to find either another placement, or be deported.
The entire higher education industry in the UK, various government departments responsible for selling Brand UK overseas and think tanks have gone into complete frothing rage. When British luminaries and dignitaries say “disproportionate action” or “not cogent”, they usually mean “utterly daft”.

The fact that this happened on a day when the ONS released immigration figures for last year, which shows that the Tories are nowhere near redeeming their primary election pledge of reducing immigration to “tens of thousands” by 2015, didn’t go unnoticed. The catch-22 here is that UK universities can’t survive without foreign student fees. London Met’s future, for instance, now that a solid chunk of its revenues are cut off, is in doubt. The Tories are committed to reducing immigration numbers and, at the same time, cutting state funding for higher education. They can’t really have their cake and eat it too, and everyone knows that, but that’s politics for you.

For those of you back home looking for that next degree, and trying to navigate the vast amounts of marketing bumf that the British, Australian and Canadian universities pour into attracting lucrative undergraduates, here’s what you need to know. A few years ago, the UK changed its immigration policies (on Labour’s watch, please note).

So, now if you are a foreign student, you need to be sponsored by an institution that has a Highly-Trusted Sponsor, or HTS, status. Institutions get this licence to issue visas by going through stringent checks for monitoring various parameters for students, including attendance, English levels and, preferably, fat bank balances. So much so, some universities are complaining they have to keep almost ‘real-time’ track of their foreign students’ whereabouts. The fact that policing isn’t really a university’s job is another issue. What you really need to know is that if you have that fat bank balance and Standard X-level of spoken English — don’t even ask what the English level among most EU students is, but you might want to work on the accent. It matters — most universities will admit you: so, stick to the best names you can afford. UK doesn’t have a proper American-style ranking system, but there are guides.

Back to the political furore — this one’s gone beyond the usual ‘row’. Top academics, business leaders, other government departments and media are all hopping mad because they feel this will deal a body blow to UK higher education industry in precisely the markets it wants to target. Who wants to be at the mercy of a mercurial Home Office, misbehaving fellow students or admin office goof-ups? Besides, students sitting around in front of Downing Street wearing T-shirts saying “foreign students not welcome” during the Paralympic Games, when Team GB is trying to broadcast glutinous waves of loving and welcoming messages to the world, wasn’t exactly in Danny Boyle’s script. Just this weekend, foreign secretary William Hague said that Britain should “get over” its colonial guilt, because it’s a different generation in Asia and Africa now, and UK can do business with them. Dear Mr Hague, that may have been true 10 years ago. It isn’t any longer.

The issue isn’t with history, it’s about flip-flop on foreign policy since the recession began. Is the UK open for business with emerging nations? Or are they going to be slamming doors as soon as anyone puts a toe in? The Chinese can read English papers. I don’t see them rushing to London for holidays when their tourists are called national security threats. Latin Americans don’t like threats to their embassy premises. Indians, Africans, Arabs or Chinese don’t like their children being treated like cash parcels to be passed around universities. The problem, Mr Hague, is that if you want the money, tourist spends and investments from emerging nations, you can’t have it only on your terms. That brings back colonial ghosts. If the UK really is open for business, this government needs to prove it.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/ ... wMode=HTML

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 03 Sep 2012 18:52

Army servicemen were 'attacked, verbally abused and harassed' during the Olympics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... mpics.html

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 03 Sep 2012 19:26

^^^ they are keeping this quiet due to the PC nature of the problem. its not difficult to figure out what community the four "asian" men may belong to...

personally i think its disgraceful that the biraders are getting away with this behaviour, every one of the soldiers i met on security duty during the games was friendly, polite and good humoured and went out of their way to be nice to visitors

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 04 Sep 2012 20:17

Warsi made Foreign Office minister
Oh God! How dumb and PC can the Brits get?

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi was made Foreign Office and Faith & Communities Minister by Prime Minister David Cameron as he carried out the coalition’s first major re-shuffle which saw many promotions and demotions.

she also now has a seat at the National Security Council meetings

In her role as the Faith and Communities minister, a role specifically created for her in the Communities and Local Government (CLG) where she will have two special advisors to assist her, she will work towards the enhancement of faith in the social and public life.

I am particularly proud of the launch of groups like Conservative Friends of Pakistan

At the same time I will continue to make the case for different faiths

It matters a lot when a Pakistani and Muslim woman breaks through the glass ceiling

arun · Post by **arun** » 05 Sep 2012 07:27

anupmisra wrote:Warsi made Foreign Office minister

Oh God! How dumb and PC can the Brits get? .............{Snipped} ...............

Let us hope that having appointed a politician originating in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a Minister of State for Faith and Communities in the UK Foreign Office making her akin to the Deputy Foreign Minister of the UK; the UK Government for the sake of Indo-UK relations will have the good sense to keep her tightly leashed and muzzled during her stint as a Minister of State in the Foreign Office.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 05 Sep 2012 12:02

^^ warsi has if anything been demoted, so this sounds more like pak propaganda than anything else

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 05 Sep 2012 17:45

Lalmohan wrote:^^ warsi has if anything been demoted, so this sounds more like pak propaganda than anything else

Yes. Demoted to a senior miniterial position in the Foreign Office with a seat in the powerful National Security Council. Lets all be prepared to watch her take decisions on issues related to the Gulf, Middle east and Bakistan. Her online record is clear enough.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 05 Sep 2012 18:05

Never beleive a pakistani rag, she is not a member of the Council. As a matter of fact neither are any of the Chief of the Defence Staff or Heads of Intelligence Agencies! They are called as necessary. Furthermore she apparently will attend cabinet but is not a member.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content ... l-whos-who

Haresh · Post by **Haresh** » 05 Sep 2012 19:03

More arrogance for the old colonialists

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... rd-do.html

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 05 Sep 2012 21:03

Haresh wrote:More arrogance for the old colonialists http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... rd-do.html

Look, nothing personal but why is it "arrogance"? Those colonialists left 65 years ago. Thats three generations ago. That's a paki mentality IMO. That's how pakis treat charity (as a sign of entitlement).

What the average beer swiggling brit is saying in the comments section requires a serious relook on India's part just to keep that duffer off its back and on the dole. Why not return the 280 Million pounds (with thanks) that amounts to peanuts for India anyway in the bigger scheme of things, stop taking any more charity/grants from them and then carry on with the grand projects that India wants to pursue? Get the own house in order, so to speak.