US and PRC relationship & India

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 09 Feb 2015 03:02

ramana wrote:So in just 6 years we are discussing Chindia and its impact on world economy!!!!


Its not only Economical, but the social Cultural effect of this Chindianmesh which will shut many Mushratoullies build for conversiondiet etc. This will be the time when ancient pagan assert themselves holding huge Mace to chase the intruding barking 'dbogs'.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby panduranghari » 04 Mar 2015 19:58

link

US president Barack Obama's criticism of the upcoming counterterrorism law of China is utterly groundless and another piece of evidence of arrogance and hypocrisy of the US foreign policy.

Although the enactment of a Chinese law is an entirely internal affair of China, Obama insisted that the measure, which would require technology firms to give Chinese authorities surveillance access in order to collect intelligence about terrorists, is "something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States."

To begin with, the provisions are written for and solely for acquiring more and better counterterrorism intelligence, as China is facing severe threats from various domestic terrorists, for instance, the East Turkestan Liberation Organization.

Terrorists nowadays use more and more modern technologies for communications and collaboration. And it has become a common practice in many Western countries, including the US itself, to keep a close watch on the internet and telecommunication networks for possible hints of terrorism and other criminal activities.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency both have access to the equipment of major US technology firms.

FBI director James Comey publicly warned companies like Apple and Google in 2014 against using encryption that the law enforcement authorities cannot break.

While defending the legitimacy and necessity of similar behaviors in his own country, Obama's criticism of Chinese counterterrorism law obviously shows selfishness and hypocrisy of the US foreign policy.

Secondly, the surveillance of terrorism actions on equipment of the internet and telecommunication companies in China will be carried out strictly in accordance with the law.

And with transparent procedures, China's anti-terrorism campaign will be different from what the United States has done: letting the surveillance authorities run amok and turn counterterrorism into paranoid espionage and peeping on its civilians and allies.

In fact, the same paranoid and narrow-mindedness, as demonstrated by the over-action of Obama and his cabinet members to the provisions in the Chinese anti-terrorism law, has also denied Chinese technology companies' access to the US market.

Contrary to the accusations of the United States, China's anti-terror law will put no unfair regulatory pressures on foreign companies, because the provisions will apply to both domestic and foreign firms.

Moreover, to win the global fight against terrorism, Obama and his government should treat China on equal terms and stop making foreign policies based on realpolitik and the short term pursuit of its own unilateral interests.

Less than three weeks after Obama held the "counterterrorism summit" in Washington and referred terrorism as one the greatest threats in this generation, the president has begun to slam the counter-terrorism efforts of another country, which makes people naturally question the real intentions of such accusations.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11603
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Apr 2015 20:45

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 788094.cms

BEIJING: China protested on Thursday after two American jet fighters landed at an air base in Taiwan, which Beijing regards as its own territory, reportedly for the first time in 30 years.

Two US F-18 fighter jets made an emergency landing at an air force base in the southern city of Tainan on Wednesday, with US authorities saying one of the planes had developed a mechanical failure.

"We have launched solemn representations with the US," Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, told a regular briefing in Beijing.

"We require the US to abide by the 'One-China Policy' and the three joint communiques between China and the US and to prudently deal with the relevant issue," she added, referring to agreements between the two that recognise Beijing as the sole government of China.

Taiwanese media described the landing as the first of its kind since the mid-1980s and speculated that it could have been a US reaction to an unprecedented People's Liberation Army Air Force exercise over the western Pacific Ocean east of Taiwan.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 21 May 2015 18:44

X-Post.....
SSridhar wrote:India still a pawn on the strategy board - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line


Ever since the Nixon-Mao honeymoon commenced in 1971, India has periodically faced an alliance of the US, an avowed champion of democratic freedoms, China, a one-party communist state, and Pakistan, a theocratic Sunni state more often than not ruled by its military. The visceral dislike that these three countries displayed in 1971 towards India is well documented.

The Clinton administration thereafter spent its first six years in office almost exclusively focused on an effort to “cap, roll back and eliminate” India’s nuclear programme while deliberately turning a blind eye to China’s transfer of nuclear weapons designs, uranium enrichment capabilities, plutonium production and reprocessing technology, and missile production facilities to Pakistan. This was coupled with pressures on India on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, including through the establishment of contacts with Hurriyat separatists. Even today, the US seldom raises its voice against the violation of NSG guidelines by China when it supplies nuclear reactors to Pakistan.


A viable balance

There were certainly welcome changes in the US approach to India during the George Bush Jr presidency, most notably symbolised by the India-US Nuclear Deal which cleared the way for the end of global nuclear sanctions that India had faced earlier. While India did not get overly concerned about Colin Powell declaring Pakistan a “major non-NATO ally”, there were early warning signs about the propensities of the incoming Obama administration to re-hyphenate relations with India and Pakistan. There were also concerns when Beijing was virtually given the role of jointly overseeing developments in South Asia with Washington. But the hard realities of Chinese assertiveness and global ambitions soon challenged American interests. India became an important partner for the US, primarily to preserve American global supremacy, by establishing a viable balance of power in Asia. :mrgreen:

India does find itself well positioned by its partnership with the US in its ‘Look East’ policies, especially in forums like the East Asia Summit and when working with countries such as Japan, Australia and Vietnam. One must, however, acknowledge that while we have tried to be on the same page with the Obama administration on developments in Afghanistan, things have changed substantially, ever since Osama bin Laden was killed by US navy seals in Abbottabad.

As far as President Obama was concerned, the killing really marked the beginning of “Mission Accomplished” in Afghanistan. It made no sense any longer for the US to expend Americans lives and resources in that country. A process of “reconciliation” with the Taliban, which was no longer described as a “terrorist organisation”, but as an “insurgent group”, commenced.

Best buddies

In these circumstances, US policy on Pakistan shifted from one of ‘carrot and stick’ to one of ‘carrots’ alone. The Kerry-Lugar legislation cleared the way for a resumption of military assistance to the tune of around $1 billion. What is, however, amazing, is the manner in which the process of “reconciliation” with the Taliban has been conducted.

While professing that this process is “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned”, the US has actually co-opted China and Pakistan as the lead players in virtually guiding the so-called “reconciliation” process. China, which has hardly provided any economic assistance to Afghanistan and only sought to exploit its natural resources after the ouster of the Taliban regime with which it had a cosy relationship, now hosts Taliban delegations in Beijing. Amidst all this, the Taliban attacks the Park Palace Guest House in Kabul where Indian expatriates reside, killing four Indian nationals. Washington, enamoured by the Taliban and reportedly prepared to accept Taliban nominees as governors of southern Afghan provinces, was too preoccupied to condemn this attack. :eek:

The recent controversy over alleged Pakistani army collusion in the killing of Osama bin Laden actually saw an influential former CIA official tell CNN that it was the CIA’s assessment that only low-level ISI officials may have known of bin Laden’s whereabouts. He added that the CIA was persuaded that neither army chief Gen Kayani nor ISI chief Shuja Pasha had any knowledge of bin Laden’s presence, barely 40 km away from the capital Islamabad. Yet, one of Pakistan’s most distinguished journalists, Najam Sethi, revealed that even President Musharraf knew that bin Laden was in Abbottabad!

Recognising the reality

New Delhi has to recognise that the support it has got from the Obama administration in nailing the 26/11 perpetrators has been lukewarm. While Denmark received preferred access to David Headley, we were made to cool our heels for months. Moreover, under US law, the mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and others can be tried in US courts as six US nationals were killed in Mumbai. The fact that the US is not prepared to do this indicates a lack of seriousness on its part to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice, evidently because such an action will expose the role of the ISI.

{And their own via David Headley. I still think DCH is agent provocateur for US with plausible deniability. His imprisonment in US is a national interest.}

A recent report of the US Congressional Research Service has revealed that in its desperation to get Pakistani support for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US is set to supply Pakistan a number of its surplus weapons in Afghanistan, under its ‘excess defence articles’ (EDA) provisions. Logically the US should be providing the weapons it is leaving behind under the EDA scheme to Afghanistan which lacks air power and logistical assets, apart from heavy equipment such as armoured personnel carriers. Washington is instead gifting Pakistan with 14 advanced F-16 A/B Fighting Falcon strike aircraft, 59 T-37 military trainer jets and 374 M-113 armoured personnel carriers. The Obama administration is working with Rawalpindi, not only to legitimise and empower the Taliban, but also to freely enhance its air power and armoured capabilities.

While the Obama administration wishes to use New Delhi to counter the rising power of China, it appears simultaneously set on undermining India’s security with its doublespeak on terrorism and its policies on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this what the “India-US strategic partnership” is all about?

The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan



Very well written article. Looks like a summation of this thread!!!!

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby panduranghari » 23 May 2015 11:17

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/video ... px?id=3061

The rivalry between China and the United States for influence in Asia will determine the geo-political landscape in this century. At the moment, most of the advantages are on the US side, especially since China after the last economic crisis seems to have been busy driving away potential allies in the region. But will this state of affairs last? What can China do to mobilise its undeniable resources in the exercise of a more effective foreign policy? And how will domestic developments in the two countries influence their long-term Asia policies?

In his final public lecture at LSE before taking up the ST Lee Chair in US-Asian Relations at Harvard University, Professor Westad will discuss these questions with the audience.


At 1 Hour 6min he talks about India. Its a good lecture.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby K Mehta » 23 May 2015 14:25

The combined connivance of panda munna and khan can be described using the term "chipkus". This term describes aptly how the three have stuck together in undermining our interests.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 23 May 2015 20:40

K Mehta wrote:The combined connivance of panda munna and khan can be described using the term "chipkus". This term describes aptly how the three have stuck together in undermining our interests.



also aren't chipkalis lizards?

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby K Mehta » 24 May 2015 15:03

Yes. The convergence has been persistent and more importantly has been acted upon by all the players irrespective of the regimes in any of the countries. Which means that the establishment of the countries are in on this.

Our establishment on the other hand has been either disjointed, disoriented or bipolar while reacting to this combined threat.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby pankajs » 25 May 2015 15:30

ET Defence ‏@ETDefence 2h2 hours ago

China state paper warns of war over #SouthChinaSea unless US backs down http://ecoti.ms/L4A_Na
The Global Times, an influential nationalist tabloid owned by the ruling Communist Party's official newspaper the People's Daily, said in an editorial that China was determined to finish its construction work, calling it the country's "most important bottom line".

The editorial comes amid rising tensions over China's land reclamation in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea. China last week said it was "strongly dissatisfied" after a US spy plane flew over areas near the reefs, with both sides accusing each other of stoking instability.

China should "carefully prepare" for the possibility of a conflict with the United States, the newspaper said.

"If the United States' bottomline is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea," the newspaper said. "The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as 'friction'."

Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Tuvaluan » 25 May 2015 19:39

Given the US's penchant to lose its wars these days, as in Afghanisthan and Iraq, it is will be some drama and US armed forced running back to their side of the world screaming "mission accomplished". On the other hand, Sun Tzu also said "appear strong when you are weak, weak when you are strong (and always use mouthwash)", so this must be the awesome chinese strategic thinking on display. The chinese navy cannot currently match the US navy by a long shot.

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby svinayak » 25 May 2015 20:07

ramana wrote:X-Post.....
India still a pawn on the strategy board - G.Parthasarathy, Business Line

Ever since the Nixon-Mao honeymoon commenced in 1971, India has periodically faced an alliance of the US, an avowed champion of democratic freedoms, China, a one-party communist state, and Pakistan, a theocratic Sunni state more often than not ruled by its military. The visceral dislike that these three countries displayed in 1971 towards India is well documented.

The Obama administration is working with Rawalpindi, not only to legitimise and empower the Taliban, but also to freely enhance its air power and armoured capabilities.

While the Obama administration wishes to use New Delhi to counter the rising power of China, it appears simultaneously set on undermining India’s security with its doublespeak on terrorism and its policies on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is this what the “India-US strategic partnership” is all about?

The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan


Very well written article. Looks like a summation of this thread!!!!


K Mehta wrote:Yes. The convergence has been persistent and more importantly has been acted upon by all the players irrespective of the regimes in any of the countries. Which means that the establishment of the countries are in on this.

Our establishment on the other hand has been either disjointed, disoriented or bipolar while reacting to this combined threat.


K Mehta wrote:The combined connivance of panda munna and khan can be described using the term "chipkus". This term describes aptly how the three have stuck together in undermining our interests.


The long term strategy was to undermine India as a civilization and as a nation state.
The period of Uncle and PRC coordination against India
1972 - 1984 - encouraged Internal subversion inside India - supported Anti-IG
1985 -1995 - Open support for Kashmir and Pak undermining Indian state. Indian elite did not create a pro India lobby to counter TSP.
1995 - 2005 - PRC given primacy and dominance over India. Af-Pak to be under PRC control.
2005 - 2010 - PRC is given G2 status. Western financial crisis puts PRC in focus.

The entire Indian secular media and Indian academic world was indirectly supporting this strategy and even now.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 26 May 2015 02:27

Bear with me...

The Proxy Pivot
Coverage of the Obama administration’s much-publicized strategic “pivot” to Asia has focused on the creation of yet more bases and new naval deployments to the region. The military (which has dropped the word pivot for “rebalancing”) is, however, also planning and carrying out numerous exercises and training missions with regional allies. In fact, the Navy and Marines alone already reportedly engage in more than 170 bilateral and multilateral exercises with Asia-Pacific nations each year.

One of the largest of these efforts took place in and around the Hawaiian Islands. Dubbed RIMPAC 2012, the exercise brought together more than 40 ships and submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel from 22 nations, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Tonga.

Almost 7,000 American troops also joined around 3,400 Thai forces, as well as military personnel from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea as part of Cobra Gold 2012. In addition, U.S. Marines took part in Hamel 2012, a multinational training exercise involving members of the Australian and New Zealand militaries, while other American troops joined the Armed Forces of the Philippines for Exercise Balikatan.

The effects of the “pivot” are also evident in the fact that once neutralist India now holds more than 50 military exercises with the United States each year — more than any other country in the world. “Our partnership with India is a key part of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and, we believe, to the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on a 2012 trip to the subcontinent. Just how broad is evident in the fact that India is taking part in America’s proxy effort in Somalia. In recent years, the Indian Navy has emerged as an “important contributor” to the international counter-piracy effort off that African country’s coast, according to Andrew Shapiro of the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

Peace by Proxy

India’s neighbor Bangladesh offers a further window into U.S. efforts to build proxy forces to serve American interests.

In 2012, U.S. and Bangladeshi forces took part in an exercise focused on logistics, planning, and tactical training, codenamed Shanti Doot-3. The mission was notable in that it was part of a State Department program, supported and executed by the Pentagon, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI).


First implemented under George W. Bush, GPOI provides cash-strapped nations funds, equipment, logistical assistance and training to enable their militaries to become “peacekeepers” around the world. Under Bush, from the time the program was established in 2004 through 2008, more than $374 million was spent to train and equip foreign troops. Under President Obama, Congress has funded the program to the tune of $393 million, :eek: according to figures provided to Tom Dispatch by the State Department.


In a 2012 speech, State’s Andrew Shapiro told a Washington, D.C., audience that “GPOI is particularly focusing a great deal of its efforts to support the training and equipping of peacekeepers deploying to... Somalia” and had provided “tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment for countries deploying [there].” In a blog post he went into more detail, lauding U.S. efforts to train Djiboutian troops to serve as peacekeepers in Somalia and noting that the U.S. had also provided impoverished Djibouti with radar equipment and patrol boats for offshore activities. “Djibouti is also central to our efforts to combat piracy,” he wrote, “as it is on the front line of maritime threats including piracy in the Gulf of Aden and surrounding waters.”


Djibouti and Bangladesh are hardly unique. Under the auspices of the Global Peace Operations Initiative, the U.S. has partnered with 62 nations around the globe, according to statistics provided by the State Department. These proxies-in-training are, not surprisingly, some of the poorest nations in their respective regions, if not the entire planet. They include Benin, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Togo in Africa, Nepal and Pakistan in Asia, and Guatemala and Nicaragua in the Americas.



US is implementing a strategy developed by Britain after the decline of using small units and covert ops to keep dominance. Failed with 1956 Anglo-French- Israeli invasion of Egypt.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Philip » 26 May 2015 10:57

Look how India is yet again being "shafted" in the bunghole by the US,obsessed with lust after its favourite rent-boy Pak,keeping us out of Afghanistan.Incidentally,this report must aslo be read, interpreted with the latest report today of the secret Paki-Sino-Taliban meet in China,organised by the ISI,to work out a strategy for the acquisition of Afghanistan to benefit China and Paki interests,keeping India firmly out of the picture. This meeting cannot have been arranged without the US nod.The Taliban is once again becoming "respectable" to the US and the convergence of Sino-US regional interests ,with Pak being appointed the regional "chieftain" is eminently acceptable to both countries.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150526/c ... afpak-game
India unwanted pawn in US AfPak game
DC | Neena Gopal | May 26, 2015,

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif

Pakistan’s ludicrous charge that India’s spy agency RAW is behind the Karachi attack on the Ismaili community maybe laughed out of court here, given that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the incident at the same time as authorities in Pakistan maintained they had confessions from Indian operatives.

The Pakistani charge has one other flaw — Shias, be they Ahmadis, Ismailis or Bohras are not eliminated for apostasy here. Far more common in Pakistan, where radical Sunni supremacists gun down innocents at the cold-blooded signal “sabko udaa do.” Pakistan’s sudden raising of the RAW bogey, together with the eruption of separatist violence in Jammu and Kashmir, underscores the new, undeclared state of war between Delhi and Islamabad in the extended AfPak theatre.

Since the Peshawar massacre and a critical May 4 Corps Commander’s meeting in Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, there is a calculated move to daub India’s RAW in Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence’s (ISI) rogue colours by blaming it for every attack on both sides of the Durand; be it Jalalabad, Peshawar, Balochistan, and now, Karachi, where the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), stand accused of being a RAW proxy.

It’s not clear how much longer Prime Minister Narendra Modi can put Pakistan on ice. As he clocks in his first year in office and prepares to visit Dhaka on the back of an historic Land Boundary Agreement, it’s time the far more challenging AfPak region gets attention. Act East, but don’t forget the enemy at this 106 km border that the national security adviser says, we share with Afghanistan.

The chilling attempt to pick off Indian guests at a Kabul hotel, with the possible prize being Amar Sinha, Indian envoy to Afghanistan, has the ISI written all over it;
Similar to the 2008 Lashkar-e-Tayyaba Indian embassy bomb attack which killed India’s military attache. But while attempts to engineer an Indian exodus, shut its embassy and consulates hasn’t succeeded, with Indians confident that as long as former Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in charge, they had his protection, this maybe changing. As Mr Sinha met to reassure the Indian community, a consortium of Steel Authority of India Ltd-led Indian steelmakers announced a proposed $10.8 billion steel, power and mining project in Afghanistan was scrapped, citing security concerns.

The new President, Ashraf Ghani — wary of being thrown to the wolves when US forces scale down, desperate to avoid a throwback to the ’90s when, wracked by civil war, the country was overrun by Pakistan-sponsored Taliban militia — is attempting to mend fences with a neighbour it remains deeply suspicious of. Well aware of the predator at the door, Mr Ghani has inked an intelligence deal with Pakistan, during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif’s May 18 visit to Kabul.

The deal between the ISI and its Afghan counterpart, the National Directorate of Security is part of Mr Ghani’s efforts to keep Islamabad on his side, nudged on by the US to negotiate a tricky and unrealistic peace with the Taliban, which terrorises “fellow” Afghans, while leading the US on to believe they are open to engagement. Recent talks in Qatar’s capital, Doha, ended in expected failure.

The US push explains Mr Ghani’s halt to the pro-India tilt of the previous Hamid Karzai presidency, the speed of his overtures to Pakistan, making common cause with the ISI without the full backing of NSD chief Rahmatullah Nabil — who refused to sign the agreement — or chief executive officer Abdullah Abdullah.

The deal leaves the door open for the Sharif-Shareef duo to point fingers at Afghanistan every time the Taliban attack Pakistani soldiers, laying the ground for an ISI takeover of all Afghan intelligence assets. Contrary to what the US is telling India ’s national security advisers, the payback for Pakistan if it brings home an Afghan-Taliban peace deal is running India out of Afghanistan. Is that the primary objective behind discrediting India, a mere pawn to be cast aside now that Pakistan promises to meet the US strategic objectives in the region?

Mr Modi’s government may have put Pakistan on the mat for it’s unwillingness to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice, highlighted its use of LeT and the Haqqani network as jihadi proxies, and warned against the $250 billion in military resources, that Washington has put at the military’s disposal, all of which will be used to derail India’s trajectory. Clearly, it’s not enough. Mr Modi needs to find a way to recast his AfPak policy by letting Mr Ghani and Mr Sharif — and US President Barack Obama — know that India, uncompromising on the security of its borders — infiltration by Pakistan ultras is relentless on the LoC — may not be completely averse to defence minister Manohar Parrikar’s “use a thorn to extract a thorn” strategy.

The decks are stacked against Mr Modi. Strengthening the hands of “civilian” Islamabad, to weaken the rabidly unchanging anti-Indian military in Rawalpindi hasn’t paid off. No civilian government will have a free hand. The military’s favourite Imran Khan, who now comes with an easy on the eye, ready-made Pakistani family, is readying for the top job. In Kabul, Rawalpindi will not rest until it has a preferred candidate ensconced in Arg, the presidential palace.

With PM Sharif playing along with the military, and the economic cards — the Tajikistan-Afghan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — no more than carrots dangled before the US, while keeping landlocked Afghanistan begging for transit rights to India, Mr Modi has his work cut out.

He must make “Barack” realise that in 1996 the Taliban were welcomed by ordinary Afghans, sickened by mujahideen blood-letting. The Afghanistan of 2015 — keen to take its place in the comity of nations as an equal partner — does not want to once again become the breeding ground for terror under a Taliban that shares the same ideology as ISIS. In this undeclared war, it’s time Mr Modi bottled the ISI genie, heeding former US secretary of state John Foster Dulles’ oft-quoted dictum: “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art… run away from it... scared to go to the brink, you are lost.”

The writer is Resident Editor, Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru

Pacific

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/world ... .html?_r=0
Taliban and Afghan Peace Officials Have Secret Talks in China
By EDWARD WONG and MUJIB MASHALMAY 25, 2015

BEIJING — A peace envoy from Afghanistan met in western China last week with former Taliban officials with close ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agency, in an attempt to keep open the possibility of formal Afghan peace talks, officials said Monday.

The meeting, hosted by China and, in part, organized by Pakistani officials, took place Wednesday and Thursday in Urumqi, capital of the western region of Xinjiang, which has mountainous borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan and is home to many Muslims.

Related Coverage
Militia members and police officers in Kunduz Province. The Afghan government has enlisted hundreds of militia fighters to battle Taliban militants near the city of Kunduz, officials said.
Afghans Form Militias and Call on Warlords to Battle TalibanMAY 24, 2015

President Xi Jinping of China, right, with Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, at a ceremony in October outside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Memo From China: Exploring a New Role: Peacemaker in AfghanistanJAN. 14, 2015

The main representative of the Afghan government was Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, who was, at the time, a crucial member of the country’s Peace Council, the group charged with exploring talks with the insurgency, and since then has been nominated by President Ashraf Ghani as defense minister. On the other side of the table were three figures from the old Taliban government in Afghanistan, according to current and former officials with knowledge of the discussions who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Mr. Stanekzai is awaiting confirmation as defense minister and has been the architect of efforts by the government to begin formal peace negotiations.

“The meeting resulted from cooperation of the Pakistan and Afghan governments with the support of China,” said Barnett Rubin, a veteran scholar of Afghanistan who has worked in the United States government on Afghanistan policy.

The fact that China agreed to host the talks was the latest sign that Beijing is encouraging peace efforts and an end to Afghanistan’s 13-year civil war. In late 2014, two Afghan Taliban officials came to Beijing with Pakistani officials to discuss peace moves.

The Taliban members came to Urumqi to reiterate familiar positions, and the representatives of the Afghan government said it was ready to make a strong effort to build trust if the Taliban agreed to peace negotiations, a senior Afghan official said.

At the moment, Mr. Ghani is more focused on trying to quell a deadly offensive by the Taliban than on organizing peace talks.

Mr. Ghani’s spokesman, Ajmal Obaid Abidy, said Monday that “the Afghan government has not conducted any negotiations yet.”

“We stand by our promise to the Afghan people that when the talks begin, they will be transparent and the people will be informed,” he said.

The Taliban issued a statement on Sunday saying that they never took part in a meeting with the Afghan government. But the three main Taliban attendees were not official representatives of the Afghan Taliban. They live in Pakistan, where they are said to have regular contact with the Pakistani spy agency.

The three were Mullah Jalil, a former foreign minister; Mullah Abdul Razaq, a former interior minister; and Mullah Hassan Rahmani, a former governor of Kandahar Province.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Monday that she had no specific information on the meeting in Urumqi, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

“I am not aware of the situation you mentioned,” the spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, said at a regularly scheduled news conference in Beijing. “As a friendly neighbor of Afghanistan, China highly values developing China-Afghanistan relations and hopes that Afghanistan will achieve enduring peace, stability and development at an early date.”

Li Xin, the head of the Center for Russia and Central Asian Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, said: “China simply provided them a place to talk, in a bid to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. It is normal, since both sides find it difficult to meet face to face in their own country. It is more convenient for them to negotiate on the territory of a third party that can mediate the disputes.”

Mr. Li added: “China still upholds its noninterference principle, but it intends to play a much bigger role in stabilizing its western border as the situation deteriorates. Military intervention is not an option for China, so it can only push for talks among all parties to realize regional peace

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 26 May 2015 19:42

Philip. I don't trust Ghani one bit. He came to power on ballot boxes stuffed by US/ISI/Taleban. He has to payback or else he will get Qadrified. His only saving grace is Abdualllah^2 is in the line of succession which prevents his being offed.
I think A^2 is in grave danger now.

One big idea is no matter how and who gets power in Kabul, they invariably turn to India as the threat of TSP is too great.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Philip » 26 May 2015 20:19

If the Talibs and Chinese shake on it- the Chinese who will rape Afghanistan of its resources,then they will effectively see to it that we are kept out on the fringes.

The Chinese will "rent" the Afghans with their largesse ,while the ISI will help control the heroin market with the CIA "rogues".That is unless the northern gentry resist in some measure,with our assistance in both planning and mil-support.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 26 May 2015 20:42

Vidhi karmanusaram.


If its Afghan fate then why burn mid night oil?


Afghans since before Ashoka time have shown they want to be burned like moths in a flame.

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RamaY » 26 May 2015 21:02

ramana wrote:Vidhi karmanusaram.


If its Afghan fate then why burn mid night oil?


Afghans since before Ashoka time have shown they want to be burned like moths in a flame.


Blus 1!

We have to get away from the thinking that all humans are same same. They aren't. If they were they wouldn't make the choices they make. How can Yindu-Fundamentalist RamaY be same same as erudite secular elite? Never!

Now that we established we aren't same same, we can decide (even if don't say publicly) what would we want to do to a specific set of population/civilization. Once that clarity is there, all we have to ensure is those things are done to that population directly or indirectly. Given the fact that we are humans and make mistakes, it's wise to leave it to specific gods. It is very very important at this point to remember that there are 33million+ gods and not all of them are love & peace peace. Key is in invoking the right gods at right time.

As and when the population turns Dharmic, of course they do, help them get out of the experiment area. Me think that's what the communal Govt is doing now by offering zitizenszip to all pagans.

Terrorists can be used to kill Terrorists. Our terrorists can be Chinese or American too.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby devesh » 27 May 2015 04:50

This is an apt time for me to bring up my previous warning about billions of investments in Chabahar and building rail links and developing iron ores....

Without actual military leverage on the Jihadis, Pakis, Iranians, all these investments will be "budidalo posina panneeru" (precious ghee poured into dirt and mud).

It's about time we stop deluding ourselves about "economy first" when it comes to foreign policy. we've already been left holding our d*** in our hand in Afghanistan. and all indications are that Iran is now free to negotiate with Taliban and Pakis to settle their Eastern Front while they expand in the West. Part of this settlement will be the consolidation of Jihadis in Af-Pak.

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RamaY » 27 May 2015 08:24

devesh wrote:This is an apt time for me to bring up my previous warning about billions of investments in Chabahar and building rail links and developing iron ores....

Without actual military leverage on the Jihadis, Pakis, Iranians, all these investments will be "budidalo posina panneeru" (precious ghee poured into dirt and mud).

It's about time we stop deluding ourselves about "economy first" when it comes to foreign policy. we've already been left holding our d*** in our hand in Afghanistan. and all indications are that Iran is now free to negotiate with Taliban and Pakis to settle their Eastern Front while they expand in the West. Part of this settlement will be the consolidation of Jihadis in Af-Pak.


Agree with you but all our investments in Iran-Afghan area aren't waste. For an economy of $2000B a year $1B is a fair investment to have some connections. It's like someone with RS 2000 giving 1R to a beggar. UPA donated the money but Modisarkar called in the favor. So good RoI.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby panduranghari » 27 May 2015 16:31

RamaY wrote:Terrorists can be used to kill Terrorists. Our terrorists can be Chinese or American too.


The E Visa or VOA facility is perhaps for this very reason? :?:

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby RamaY » 27 May 2015 20:07

panduranghari wrote:
RamaY wrote:Terrorists can be used to kill Terrorists. Our terrorists can be Chinese or American too.


The E Visa or VOA facility is perhaps for this very reason? :?:


I said this earlier.

The Islamic terrorism entered into an interesting phase. Now Muslims from otherwise friendly nations (can be) are being used to execute terror attacks to confuse the situation.

Imagine Muslims from Thailand, Russia, Israel do a terror attack on Indian soil or Muslims from China or America doing terror attack in Pakistan or Muslims from UK doing terror attacks in USA and so on...

This leads to interesting & complex developments!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 27 May 2015 23:48

Muslims form UK and US are already doing that as part of ISIS.
Pak has outsourced the attack methodology.
DCH was Muslim form US that attacked India for TSP!


All India can do is plead US for access to DCH who is under protective arrest.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 27 May 2015 23:50

Asia is incomplete: Ian Bremmer
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-s-f ... 30510.html

Yet Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the Eurasia Group political-risk consulting firm, says Obama’s efforts in Asia – and with a rising China specifically -- have been somewhat productive, at least in terms of economic relations.

“I would argue that Obama’s Asia policy has been probably one of his more effective policies – certainly more than Russia, the Middle East and Europe,” says Bremmer in the attached video.

As one major point of progress, he singles out the president’s firm backing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement against opposition both from some Republicans and prominent members of his own party. In the TPP, Bremmer says, “40% or world GDP joined in a massive trade deal that not only aligns those countries more tightly with the U.S., but would also show the Chinese that ‘If you don’t pick up more U.S.-led global standards, you’re going to be isolated from a trade bloc [and] that’s going to hurt your economy.’
Of course, Obama came to push hard for the TPP only relatively recently. And even his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – “who was the architect of the TPP,” Bremmer notes – has withheld vocal support for it now that she is a presidential candidate and must please Democratic voters who fear its potential effect on American workers. Yet on strategic military matters, Bremmer gives lower marks to Obama’s treatment of an increasingly assertive China, which has sought greater control over areas of the South China Sea and elsewhere. “While China doesn’t compete militarily with the U.S. outside of Asia, it does compete within Asia” and has been “unnerving as lot of [U.S.] allies,” he argues. “I think you’d want to see a more robust American military response” in support of Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia and other “countries we’re really engaged with -- allied with,” he says. Bremmer’s new book, “Superpower: Three Choices for America’s Role in the World,” is a call for the next U.S. president to define a clear strategic approach to geopolitical affairs. The three options he lays out in his book include Independent America, in which the U.S. pulls back from overseas adventures and rebuilds at home; Moneyball America, a pragmatic cost-benefit approach focused on vital national interests; or Indispensable America, in which Washington broadly and assertively promotes democratic values abroad. When it comes to relations with an ascendant China, it’s hard to see evidence of any of these options being affirmatively pursued right now, in Bremmer’s view.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1277
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby chanakyaa » 28 May 2015 02:54

ramana wrote:...DCH who is under protective arrest.

Rji, please pardon my ignore on this subject. Now that DCH and TR were officially charged and behind bars, I'm sure a concerned YooS citijen can meet this scum at their prestigious jail. Unless the scum is hiding under new identity generously offered to him by their protectors.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 09 Jan 2016 02:26

RAND paper demographics of China, US and India:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/ra ... -dawn.html

Dusk, Dawn and High Noon.

Uthishta Bharata!!!

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6703
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby habal » 28 Jan 2016 21:46

US-China agreement on 10 yr visitor visas of both countries
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/ ... visas.html

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Avarachan » 21 Apr 2016 05:48

This is a short summary of how the Chinese and American economies are complementary. The author is a columnist with china.org.cn.

October 1, 2015
http://www.bjreview.com/Opinion/201509/ ... 39105.html

Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the United States offers an opportunity to understand the potential for mutually beneficial economic relations between the two countries. This goes well beyond them being the world's two largest economies to revealing their respective fundamentally complementary economic characters.

Analyzing their most fundamental economic features illustrates this point and helps explain why China-U.S. economic relations can be stable and cooperative for decades to come. It also shows why the anti-China attitude of American neoconservatives damages not only China but also the United States.

In 2014, China-U.S. trade, standing at $650 billion, was the largest between any two countries in the world outside the North American Free Trade Area (Canada, Mexico and the United States). For the United States, it was second only to trade with Canada--the latter now being almost a domestic base for U.S. production.

In the period 2007-14, namely, since the beginning of the global financial crisis, U.S. trade with Canada increased by $121 billion, but that with China increased by $237 billion.

The driving force behind such rapid trade expansion goes beyond them being the world's two largest economies--to the point that China is by far the largest developing economy, while the United States is the world's most advanced economy. They complement each other rather than compete.

Measured at current exchange rates, preferred by Chinese scholars, China is the world's second largest economy. Measured in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), as many Western economists prefer, China is the world's largest economy. At any rate, the productivity gap between China and the United States remains huge.

At current exchange rates, China's per-capita GDP is 14 percent of the United States', while in terms of PPP, it is 24 percent. The fact that they are at very different productivity and wage levels means China provides a gigantic market for U.S. high value-added products, while China can supply mid-tech products at prices the United States cannot match due to its higher labor costs ....

It is, therefore, impossible for China to close the gap in capital inputs to reach U.S. levels in the short to medium term. Even if China adopts brilliantly flawless policies, it will not reach U.S. levels of productivity for decades. Equally, even a U.S. economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression, which will not occur, would not reduce U.S. investment per person and wages to the Chinese level.

As China is by far the world's largest developing economy, the United States will also not find any alternative comparable source of supply to China for price-competitive mid-tech products.

It can, therefore, be predicted with certainty that, in 10 years' time, when the presidents of China and the United States meet, these fundamental parameters will be unchanged--U.S. productivity will still be higher than China's, and the two economies will still be fundamentally complementary. The stability of such fundamentals offers a firm foundation for relations based on benefit and equality.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Avarachan » 21 Apr 2016 05:56

^^ I recommend reading the following article along with the previous one. Though this article was published in 2012, it's still relevant. The structure of the Chinese and American economies will not change for a generation, at least.

May 21, 2012
"How to Leave Afghanistan," from "The American Conservative"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ghanistan/

What of India? Here, we need to ask the ever useful question, “What would Bismarck do?” While India still pretends to gibber at the specter of Pakistan, it knows it is far more powerful than its old rival. India’s real competitor now is China. America’s interests are far more dependent on China than on India, which gives us strong reasons to tilt toward Beijing. Bismarck would have realized that puts us in the driver’s seat. India needs us more than we need India. We can treat New Delhi accordingly.

Avarachan
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 04 Jul 2006 21:06

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Avarachan » 21 Apr 2016 06:21

Personally, I don't think that China will succeed in becoming an advanced, top-tier economy for at least a generation ... The country that the U.S perceives as the real mid-term threat to its unipolar status is India. Just think: what is more of a threat to America's wealth-generating industries? The Chinese mid-tech assembly of consumer electronics (many of whose components come from the U.S./Japan/Germany/South Korea), or the Indian design of low-cost medicines?

I interpret the U.S. push for a "strategic partnership" with India through this understanding.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 22 Apr 2016 03:37

Avarachan wrote:^^ I recommend reading the following article along with the previous one. Though this article was published in 2012, it's still relevant. The structure of the Chinese and American economies will not change for a generation, at least.

May 21, 2012
"How to Leave Afghanistan," from "The American Conservative"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ghanistan/

What of India? Here, we need to ask the ever useful question, “What would Bismarck do?” While India still pretends to gibber at the specter of Pakistan, it knows it is far more powerful than its old rival. India’s real competitor now is China. America’s interests are far more dependent on China than on India, which gives us strong reasons to tilt toward Beijing. Bismarck would have realized that puts us in the driver’s seat. India needs us more than we need India. We can treat New Delhi accordingly.



Basically US did do what the writer wanted, which is to make Afghanistan a door mat for Pakistan by fixing the Ghani election instead of Abdullah^2.

What the writer didn't understand is logic strategy for any govt in power in Kabul is to seek India to survive.
This was the way since Ashoka was the governor of Peshawar.

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby svinayak » 22 Apr 2016 11:17

Avarachan wrote:Personally, I don't think that China will succeed in becoming an advanced, top-tier economy for at least a generation ... The country that the U.S perceives as the real mid-term threat to its unipolar status is India. Just think: what is more of a threat to America's wealth-generating industries? The Chinese mid-tech assembly of consumer electronics (many of whose components come from the U.S./Japan/Germany/South Korea), or the Indian design of low-cost medicines?

I interpret the U.S. push for a "strategic partnership" with India through this understanding.


Please continue. You are in the right direction,

The British had tapped into the Indian mind on sciences since 1890s until WWII. The west knows the power of creativity, visualization and knowledge created by the Indian mind. This is the greatest fear

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

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby svinayak » 22 Apr 2016 11:19

ramana wrote:
What the writer didn't understand is logic strategy for any govt in power in Kabul is to seek India to survive.
This was the way since Ashoka was the governor of Peshawar.


Kabul comes back to the mother civilization always when lost. It has the direction finder.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby devesh » 22 Apr 2016 14:08

svinayak wrote:
ramana wrote:
What the writer didn't understand is logic strategy for any govt in power in Kabul is to seek India to survive.
This was the way since Ashoka was the governor of Peshawar.


Kabul comes back to the mother civilization always when lost. It has the direction finder.



I'm sorry but when has Kabul "come back" to mother civilization in the last 300 years? KAGK is the only one who comes to mind. and his appeal was limited to the borderland between Pashtuns and Punjab. There is no evidence that he did or could have commanded the loyalty of Afghan tribes beyond the frontier.

And other than that, the only examples are of brutal Jihad when they are in power or resurgence. I just want to inject some reality into this discussion before we get too carried away by romantic notions. Afghanistan is a society that has been insulated from outside knowledge for centuries now. The Communists probably came the closest to fixing that, but they were crushed before they could bring lasting changes. It is a Jihadi society which lives on rent-seeking or through drugs/war/human trafficking. It's not "coming back" to anything until the theocracy is first crushed and the people are freed from the hold of Islam in their daily lives.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby panduranghari » 03 May 2016 12:19

Vivek K wrote:You sometimes doubt this?? Really and on other times you see industrial growth? Not sure of your take on this.

Industrial growth by Indians for Indians is the future. Because the future is localisation. Globalisation is passe.
.
Again, it is difficult to catch your perspective. Are you saying that India was a bigger economy growing at 2% than at the present day 7% or so?

It could have been. No one can be sure. GDP as its measured now is based on measuring set metrics. In the India of 70's (just as a snap shot)- the literacy, urbanisation, spread of banking was very limited. To measure the metrics was quite hard then and its no better today. Please read 'India UnInc.' by R Vaidyanathan for more on this.


Staying in denial about Chinese manufacturing capabilities does not do any good other than a dangerous "feel good" factor for Indians that could be its downfall.

Its not denial. Its how western watchers in China like Worth Wray, STeeve Keen etc. are reporting as they see it on the ground.

Failed? My friend, it is not wise to under-estimate your opponent to justify your own tardiness.

Chinese model has failed because industries are shutting down as western demand abates and internal demand cannot pick up the slack.

Perhaps if you would give examples of the NaMo administration's accomplishments in doing that better than other governments, that would help us understand you better. Namoji has said good things, but how has he improved the "basic living standards for common Indians better"? I think you need to provide solid information to back this up.


Too soon to judge his government IMO. Even I am waiting for my 3 year old to eventually go to school and learn reading-writing. Cannot expect too much from a very young government.

It is difficult to understand which side you're on. Are you for the bailouts of the US Banks? Are you for the British Talbot Steel Plant being bailed out or against it? But you will accept that the US Bailouts of 2008 of banks and large businesses (GM for example) worked and the companies are today running on their own steam providing employment and taxation and the government has received most of its bailout funds back. You will also find that the Chinese have similarly re-capitalized their banks in the early 2000s.

Yes. I am stating that the government should have kept Kingfisher running. If necessary, options to sell it to another operator or merging with someone should have been looked at. The US gave bigger bailouts to its airlines and they seem to be doing well.

You can either keep NPAs low or have manufacturing and employment. It is a tough choice to make. The Chinese seem to have gone after manufacturing and recapitalizing banks rather than run after industries and close them down. They have provided their industries with the right operational climate so that they can have a level playing field and today look at the reach of their industry. Each manufacturing unit provides 100s of jobs - direct impact and taxation, purchasing power, money circulation - indirect impact. You can keep NPAs low by tightening money supply and raising credit norms and where do they get you - to recession. Keeping Kingfisher flying would have been the better outcome than to imprison Mallya. What we saw in the US in 2008 was that barring Bernie Madoff, no one was arrested in spite of the loss of trillions of dollars.


I am in the side of free markets. And not just in name. Government has no place to do business. Its job is to create the right conditions for the businesses to grow grounds up. Jan Dhan yojana is one of those ways likewise MUdra bank. At the same time idiotic policies like gold monetisation schemes and HSR between Mumbai-A'bad at an incredulous price is a foolish policy.

US has not yet faced its demons. I am extremely bearish on the economy and have been since 2009. There will NEVER be any recovery from this. I would recommend you read - Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. It will open up new vistas in your understanding of human actions.

von Mises wrote:There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved”

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Austin » 03 May 2016 17:21

panduranghari wrote:At the same time idiotic policies like gold monetisation schemes and HSR between Mumbai-A'bad at an incredulous price is a foolish policy.


Panduranghari , Any reason why you thing HSR is a bad project to go with ?

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby panduranghari » 03 May 2016 18:41

Here is an article by the very erudite Vivek Kaul in support of HSR

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/12/14 ... 02734.html

While all he says is fine, he ends with-

Having said that, the government will have to ensure that it does not become a “white elephant” as and when it starts. In order to ensure that, the ticket prices of the bullet train will have to be lower than that charged by airlines.


And this is the problem. Economics of this project do not add up.

Of course, HS rail proponents argue that spending money now on high speed rail is a long-term investment that will pay off in higher economic productivity over the long haul. But these job creation and income estimates they use are based on spending for freight rail, not passenger rail. Increasing the speed of freight train increases income and productivity. Shri Suresh Prabhu is doing that well anyway.

So why still persist with HSR? Is Japan really giving the technology to India by building HSR? Unlike what Mr Kaul alludes to, I have not read this to be the case anywhere. And even if they are, do we really need this expensive technology now, when there is just as much chance that the HSR technology could get cheaper or could be developed internally?

IMO this 'pet project' of Modi is for the survival of GIFT http://giftgujarat.in/

GIFT city aspires to cater to India’s large financial services potential by offering global firms a world-class infrastructure and facilities. It aims to attract the top talent in the country by providing the finest quality of life all with integrated townships, IFSC and multi speciality special economic zone (SEZ). The site is 12 KM from the Ahmedabad International Airport and 8 KM from Gandhinagar.

Basically he wants to move the Mumbai financial centre to his favourite Gujarat. Perhaps the 1960's loss of Mumbai to MH, still rankles in his parochial mind.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby AbhiJ » 03 May 2016 20:26

I read few years back Mayawati was planning a 8 lane expressway connecting both ends of UP. Cost was $1 Billion for 100 km. This same project should be created from Amritsar to Kolkatta and one branch from Patna to Orrisa. Create the worlds largest port there. Conmect half of Indian population to the seas. BIMARU will stay BIMARU till they are connected to world mercantilism trade.

Regarding GIFT, one really think he can challenge Bombay? :rotfl:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Austin » 04 May 2016 07:16

panduranghari wrote:
Basically he wants to move the Mumbai financial centre to his favourite Gujarat. Perhaps the 1960's loss of Mumbai to MH, still rankles in his parochial mind.


That's correct , He managed to move entire diamond industry from Mumbai to Surat .

Mumbai is getting squeezed out of what ever is left, eventually we will just have banks here and stock market

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby ramana » 05 May 2016 03:58

And Bhaiwood.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: US and PRC relationship & India

Postby Prem » 06 May 2016 00:28

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 556158.ece
U.S. envoy’s ‘Arunachal is part of India’ remark irks China


Taking exception to a U.S. diplomat’s recent remarks that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India, China on Wednesday said it planned to seek a clarification from Washington as any “irresponsible” third party intervention in Sino-Indian border dispute “will complicate” the issue.
“The Chinese side has noted the report and will ask the U.S. side for verification and clarification,” Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a written response to a question from PTI here about U.S. Consul General in Kolkata Craig L. Hall’s comments that Washington regards Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as Southern Tibet, as part of India. “But clearly the statement by the U.S. side is completely inconsistent with the fact,” it said.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests