People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 07 Feb 2010 15:21

jaladipc wrote:hehehe me being a pessimist in this case is wishing to see US impose trade sanctions on china with EU following the suit and India taking a chance.
May be ,me being an ultra pessimist is speculating a next economic shut down in China?
whatever my wishes and speculations may be,its time for India to act smart and pressure china to open its markets for Indian goods as per the trade agreements,else shut down the markets for chinese goods.

Been visiting many China economic conferences now. Very interesting

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 07 Feb 2010 21:05

Suppiah wrote:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100206/t ... b2fc3.html

I know folks here and everyone in general is skeptical about the so-called China bubble which has been floated around for years now but here is the Japanese FM adding fuel to the recent fire...if anyone should know bubbles, it should be the Japs.

Should I better sell all my energy shar

es?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Feb 2010 09:14

Dealing with a More Assertive China

http://blog.gmfus.org/2010/02/08/dealin ... ive-china/

The mood on China in Western capitals is beginning to darken. From cyber-attacks to obstinacy in Copenhagen, Beijing’s assertiveness and the hardening tone of its diplomacy are prompting a rethink.

...

It has been the primary blocking force against tougher sanctions on Iran and the lead obstructionist at the climate talks. It delivered a harsh sentence on pro-democracy activist Liu Xiaobo and executed the mentally-ill Briton Akmal Shaikh. And then there was Google’s announcement that the scale and nature of recent attacks may result in its pulling out of China, which illustrated both the growing anxieties about Chinese cyber-intrusions and the worsening climate in China for Western businesses.

Disagreements between the West and China on these and other issues are not new; what has startled China’s interlocutors is the brashness with which Beijing now asserts its interests — and its willingness to prevail, even at the expense of appearing the villain. President Obama’s borderline-humiliating visit to China in November was repeated in Copenhagen, where Beijing repeatedly snubbed meetings of heads of government by sending junior officials — one of whom nonetheless felt sufficiently empowered to shout and wag his finger at the U.S. president. European officials have recounted private Chinese demands that the EU’s next China strategy paper should be written “together” and Chinese statements that a failure to lift the EU arms embargo would mean that in the future Europe “will not be able to buy its arms from China.”

These incidents, although minor in their own right, reveal a China far less worried about cooperating or preserving smooth relations with the West than it once was.

...

Many Western officials believe, however, that China has miscalculated — and is shooting itself in the foot. Talk of giving Beijing more space on sensitive issues has evaporated. Support from business lobbies has weakened. Heads of government who would happily push China into the “important but not urgent” file have begun to review their strategies.

Already, Beijing is feeling the effects of this pushback. Recent weeks have seen the announcement of arms sales to Taiwan, confirmation of a U.S. presidential meeting with the Dalai Lama, and public criticism from President Obama and Secretary Clinton of China’s currency policies and its stance on the Iranian nuclear issue. The West hopes China will realize it has overplayed its hand and will make some conciliatory moves — such as a modest revaluation of the yuan and acquiescence to tougher sanctions on Iran — to reverse the political dynamic. For all the noise in the last week, Washington has made only a modest tactical shift. But the United States and Europe may yet see this as a wake-up call and make a more serious set of changes to their China policies.

What could that actually amount to? Here are some options being discussed:

Threats of targeted measures that limit Chinese free-riding, such as stricter sanctions against Chinese companies dealing with Iran. Punishment for currency manipulation, and carbon tariffs.

A move from comprehensive to selective engagement and integration. Parts of the vast architecture of dialogues and summits may be dismantled. Right now, China is the one to cancel and postpone dialogues, and Western powers are the perpetual demandeurs. This can be stopped. The headlong rush to give a new seat to China at every table in every international process can also be slowed.

A move to a less Sino-centric engagement and integration policy. Rather than making a bilateral beeline for Beijing, more effort could be employed in coordinating China policy with other like-minded countries. The United States has plenty of room to deepen its cooperation with its treaty allies in Europe and Asia has considerable scope. But more diplomatic energy could be focused on other potential members of a progressive coalition — India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa. Expanded economic, technological, security, and trade advantages can be offered to those countries that are willing to act as system-strengtheners rather than spoilers.

...

Beijing still has the opportunity to demonstrate that these steps are unnecessary. But it needs to appreciate that the concerns are genuine: a free-rider on China’s scale is just too great for the global security, economic, political, and environmental order to bear. And unwillingness to assume responsibility may come at a price.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Feb 2010 09:21

China's Evolving Role in Global Knowledge Economy

http://www.nbr.org/publications/special ... f/SR15.pdf

Executive Summary

In information and communications technologies (ICT), China is making a long-term
commitment to the development of standards as part of an effort to promote domestic
technological innovation and make China an “innovative society.”

China’s aspirations to become a standards setter in ICT should be seen against a
background of institutional uncertainty in an international economy struggling to
devise mechanisms of governance to accommodate rapid technological change and the
emergence of large economies, and amidst a pluralism of views on techno-nationalist
versus techno-globalist approaches.

China’s efforts to set and commercialize ICT standards domestically have met with
only limited success due to inappropriate government intervention, failures to forge
winning coalitions in standards-setting forums, and an inability to displace established
international standards. Nevertheless, China is learning from experience, will push
forward with standards development, and is likely to have greater success in the future.

China has achieved some success in having its domestic standards adopted internationally
and has made some contributions to jointly developed standards but has proven less
capable of blocking standards initiatives that it opposes. Those elements of the Chinese
government, research community, and industry that are most deeply integrated into the
global economy have had the greatest chance for success because they have more quickly
adapted to the global standards system.

Policy Implications

The techno-nationalist sentiments sometimes associated with China’s standards
initiatives should be tempered with a techno-globalist vision, both to promote the
technological progress of the Chinese economy and to contribute to the provision of
international public goods.

The international community will want to monitor the implementation of China’s
innovation and standardization strategies and work with China in developing its
capabilities for standards development.

The international community can accommodate the emergence of a technologically
dynamic, standards-setting China by facilitating Chinese participation in international
standards bodies and consistently engaging Chinese experts, industry, and officials.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 09 Feb 2010 09:22

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2010-02 ... 387164.htm

India building a security barrier against China

In a quest for military advantage along its border with China, India is intensifying its military cooperation with the United States and Russia and stepping up its military penetration of small border states adjoining China and India.

In the past decade India has bought arms worth US$50 billion from the United States, Russia, Britain, Israel and France, making it the biggest arms importer in the developing world. India has also held joint military exercises with the United States, and is developing close military ties with Moscow. In talks at the Kremlin last December, President Medvedev and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed a blueprint for military cooperation to 2020, as well as a number of arms deals.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2010 10:37

Another Chinese spy caught.

The hard truth is not to employ ANY Chinese national whatsoever .The latest media report about our PM wanting some after instalation local service capability for powerplants where Chinese eqpt. has been used,eenablign China to turn off the tap so to speak later for spares,etc.,shows how lax Indian security is and the poor strategic thinking of the GOI.

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

Former Boeing engineer sentenced to 15 years for spying

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 09 Feb 2010 11:44

Cross Posting Tibet's Star Activist Warns Obama from the Dailybeast

How does Tsundue feel about the rise—so disconcerting to many—of China as a superpower? "I believe China can be prosperous and developed, but not in the way it is now, where 200 million elite and educated people rule over one billion workers and farmers.
"While China’s villages are still stuck with the Communist Manifesto, tech savvy businessmen in Guangdong, Shanghai, and Beijing are running slave labor, making young Chinese slog for 14 to 15 hours a day. And it is this cheap 'slave' labor that most multinational companies from the West are making money from. This is unfair from any angle, and there is no future for this. This will inevitably come crumbling down, which would be bad for future business. The U.S., and for that matter European countries, Canada, Japan, and Australia, could be dealing with the people of China, not with the dictatorial regime being run by Hu Jintao."

"China does not need to feel glorious and powerful by bullying small countries like east Turkestan and Tibet. If China truly wants the international community to love it, and to recognize it as a dignified and developed country, it should behave like one"

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 09 Feb 2010 14:12

Battle for Shanghai takes centre stage in Hu's strategy

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Feb 2010 08:24

Nanjing by the Numbers

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... he_numbers

The debate was recently reopened by a joint report issued by the governments of China and Japan. But while most newspaper accounts have focused on the remaining points of disagreement -- including the still-disputed death toll -- they've tended to miss the larger significance of the report: that historians appointed by both countries did, for the first time, agree that the Japanese army committed atrocities during the war and that Japan's illegal acts of aggression were the main cause of hostilities.

...

There will probably never be full agreement on the Nanjing numbers. But precise death tolls are not, ultimately, the real issue at hand. The real issue is China's desire that Japan accept responsibility for a tragedy of such great scale and violence. The new report, then, gets to the heart of what has angered victims and their descendents -- Japan's past refusal to acknowledge unequivocally the extent of its historical violence and aggression. In an East Asia increasingly interconnected by economics, politics, and culture, Japan's subtle shift may well ease tensions enough that, in the end, the numbers will become a matter of scholarly discussion rather than the political and cultural flashpoint they have been for decades.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Feb 2010 09:06

Xinjiang opens up Internet access ... to 30 websites

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... y_websites

China's Xinjiang province has been without Internet access since anti-government riots last summer. At the end of 2009, the government began allowing access to a handful of government-run sites. This week the bans were lifted on a whopping 27 websites.

...

Right now the difference between internet in Xinjiang and the rest of China is determined by the way we describe the censorship. Throughout most of China people explain the Great Firewall by the number of sites which have been blocked; in Xinjiang we count how many sites have been unblocked. That's a huge difference.

arun · Post by **arun** » 12 Feb 2010 10:36

P.R. China’s Global Times which has been described by the UK’s Financial Times as “a nationalist tabloid owned by People's Daily, the Communist party mouthpiece” on India's Agni and BMD programme.

PR Chinese Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong, a professor at the Chinese National Defense University:

"It's still unknown when the Agni-III will be deployed by the Indian army, though they claim the missile is ready for use. And it might take at least another five years to ready the Agni-V,"

"In developing its military technology, China has never taken India as a strategic rival, and none of its weapons were specifically designed to contain India."

"India's technology for its measurement and control system, which is used to trace launched missiles, remains at a very low level, and they are unable to constitute a complete and reliable missile defense system,"

PR Chinese Rear Admiral Yang Yi, at the University of National Defense:

"Some Indian politicians, however, always depict China as an imaginary enemy in order to develop nuclear missiles and submarines, which only reflects their lack of confidence and dwelling on historical problems,"

CLICKY

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 12 Feb 2010 13:35

"In developing its military technology, China has never taken India as a strategic rival, and none of its weapons were specifically designed to contain India."

Actually this is true to a large extent. Even when China's GDP was 50 billion USD and per cap was less than India's it had big ticket nukes and missiles, plus a seat with veto at the UN. So basically they did have a swollen head for a long time and never considered India in their league, even though tens of millions resorted to eating lizards, insects and fellow corpses due to mass starvation in the GLF. While India faced none of that in her 60 plus years of independence, vested media groups always portrayed India as a backward land of snake charmers and the exception to the rule was portrayed as the rule.

That's why China felt it could box India to a regional role, arming Pakistan with missiles and nukes and builly India and it's neighborhood to regional submissiveness. But reforms in India proved otherwise and India rose and rose. Today India's GDP at 1.4 trillion USD is around what China's was around late 2003. Now a certain strategic circle (thanks to PVR and ABV) forced policy makers to rightfully target the very source of the regional threat to us. China.

Today we have evolved to doctrinally tackle a 2 pronged thrust from the Northern and Western borders. Inevitably our military requirements and capabilities will increase over the years as China tries it's very best to spread totalitarian regimes around in our neighborhood. My guess is India is too big to get boxed in the way China thinks it can.

China's totalitarian cookie will start to crumble fast at some point of time. That time is coming fast.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Feb 2010 21:49

harbans wrote:"In developing its military technology, China has never taken India as a strategic rival, and none of its weapons were specifically designed to contain India."

Actually this is true to a large extent. Even when China's GDP was 50 billion USD and per cap was less than India's it had big ticket nukes and missiles, plus a seat with veto at the UN.

The correct answer is like this.
China showed its insecurity of confronting India by arming Pakistan with nuclear and missiles technology. China showed its insecurity by supporting Pakistan during India-Pakistan war when it was none of their business. By hiding its insecurity it was pretending that it was big power in Asia.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Feb 2010 09:09

China Alarmed by Security Threat From Internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world ... china.html

Deep inside a Chinese military engineering institute in September 2008, a researcher took a break from his duties and decided — against official policy — to check his private e-mail messages. Among the new arrivals was an electronic holiday greeting card that purported to be from a state defense office.

The researcher clicked on the card to open it. Within minutes, secretly implanted computer code enabled an unnamed foreign intelligence agency to tap into the databases of the institute in the city of Luoyang in central China and spirit away top-secret information on Chinese submarines.

So reported Global Times, a Communist Party-backed newspaper with a nationalist bent, in a little-noticed December article. The paper described the episode as “a major security breach” and quoted one government official who complained that such attacks were “ubiquitous” in China.

The information could not be independently confirmed, and such leaks in the Chinese news media often serve the propaganda or lobbying goals of government officials.

Nonetheless, the story is one sign that while much of the rest of the world frets about Chinese cyberspying abroad, China is increasingly alarmed about the threat that the Internet poses to its security and political stability.

...

Despite China’s robust technological abilities, its cyberdefenses are almost certainly more porous than those of the United States, American experts say. To cite one glaring example, even Chinese government computers are frequently equipped with pirated software from Microsoft, they say. That means many users miss out on security upgrades, available to paying users, that fix security breaches exploited by hackers.

...

“How did the unrest after the Iranian elections come about?” People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, asked in a Jan. 24 editorial. “It was because online warfare launched by America, via YouTube video and Twitter micro-blogging, spread rumors, created splits, stirred up and sowed discord.”

...

The risks of dependence on foreign-made software became clear in 2008 after Microsoft deployed a new antipiracy program aimed at detecting and discouraging unauthorized users of its Windows operating system. In China, where an estimated four-fifths of computer software is pirated, the program caused millions of computer screens to go dark every hour and led to a public outcry.

...

But China is pushing hard to catch up. Mr. Mulvenon describes China as “absolutely the world leader” in development of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) — the successor to the current Internet.

...

China’s leaders “have always had the ambition to develop the capability of one big domestic Intranet that they could manage more easily, if need be,” one Communist Party newspaper editor said.

...

The clearest evidence of China’s determination to wield greater control was the virtual communications blackout imposed over Xinjiang for six months after the July riots.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Feb 2010 20:26

china is i think deeply insecure in many respects. having been invaded by 'barbarians' for centuries and being humiliated by colonial powers and a rapacious japan in the recent past, they are deeply riven by fear and insecurity. what better way to deal with that than overt hostility towards others, particularly more passive people?

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Feb 2010 21:33

Conn Hallinan in Foreign Policy In Focus:

China and India Battle Over Thin Air

By Conn Hallinan, January 27, 2010

Of all the world’s potential hotspots, one of the most unlikely is tucked into the folds of the Himalayas. This slice of ground is little more than frozen rock fields and soaring peaks that is decidedly short on people, resources, and oxygen. But for the past year this border area has been a worrisome source of friction between India and China, including incursions by Chinese troops, the wounding of several Indian border police, and a buildup of military forces on both sides. …………………

Concludes by saying:

If the Obama administration wants to avoid making a dangerous situation worse, it should revisit the “1-2-3 Agreement” and put the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir problem back on the table. ……………..

Read it all:

FPIF

shynee · Post by **shynee** » 16 Feb 2010 01:48

Children of the revolution - The princelings

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 16 Feb 2010 01:59

DRDO's Saraswat stings China

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... tings.html

Revealing the truly brittle nature of its much-hyped near super power status, the Chinese establishment has rushed to refute the contention of a top Indian defence scientist that aspects of India's missile development programme were superior to that of China.

Adm Zhaozhong's assertion is in keeping with past displays of what may be characterised as a deep seated inferiority complex that China exhibits towards most Indian achievements. It may be recalled that at the time India launched its Chandrayaan-1 moon mission, the Chinese media went berserk with the 'news' that the lunar orbiter had failed to reach the required orbit for eventual transit into moon orbit. The 'news' was put down to some 'analysis' carried out by private Chinese space 'experts.'

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 18 Feb 2010 18:22

China Intensifies Tug of War With India on Nepal

India seems to be consistently ignoring opportunities to reciprocate via Taiwan and Thailand/Vietnam/Laos (our interest seems to run only upto Myanmar).

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 18 Feb 2010 23:35

The US is obsessed with J&K. Amazing that the US analyst would mention that in context of Indo China differences

Next they will say that to resolve conflict in Darfur we have to put Kashmir on the table

Beginning to beliece that Kashmir is the queen to checkmate the king

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Feb 2010 00:15

Jarita wrote:The US is obsessed with J&K. Amazing that the US analyst would mention that in context of Indo China differences

This is a clear indication that China is a proxy of US on Tibet border issue and Nepal issue.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 19 Feb 2010 01:13

^^^ Are u saying that they perceive of India as a bigger threat than China

More from US

China too has a role to play in Nepal: US

Press Trust Of India
Washington, February 04, 2010

Though Nepal has traditionally looked towards India but China too has some role to play in this Himalayan nation, Ambassador-nominated to Nepal has told US lawmakers.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 19 Feb 2010 02:42

^^ more likely that India is unimportant as it does not throw its weight around.
slowly the dragon is boxing the elephant within its political boundaries. dragon also has presence inside (maoists).
I think one of the BRFites/gurus ??Ramanagaru mentioned that India is like a !Hanuman not knowing its own strength.(or something similar in meaning)

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Feb 2010 04:11

Jarita wrote:^^^ Are u saying that they perceive of India as a bigger threat than China

Unless you understand the geopolitical region and how India is in a crucial region of the world geography you cannot understand this.
Read this document
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4812906/India-and-Geopolitics

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Feb 2010 05:13

Jarita wrote:The US is obsessed with J&K. Amazing that the US analyst would mention that in context of Indo China differences

Jagmohan (former Governor of J+K) writes:
link

On May 3, 1953, Adlai Stevenson came to Srinagar and had a long meeting with Sheikh Abdullah. The New York Times, on July 5, published a map hinting at independent status for the Valley. On July 10, speaking at Mujahid Manzil, Abdullah said, "A time will, therefore, come when I will bid goodbye to India". All these events and pronouncements, taken together, should leave nobody in doubt that Sheikh Abdullah was dreaming of becoming an independent ruler of Kashmir and the Anglo-US bloc was encouraging him. Clement Attlee even openly said: "Kashmir should belong to neither India nor Pakistan but should be independent".

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 19 Feb 2010 08:29

Whether they like it or not, China has been very good for Tibetans.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/233726

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Feb 2010 16:26

More on the sinister Chinese "Schools for scandal"!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... se-schools

According to the New York Times, security experts investigating a string of hacking attacks on American companies have linked them to origins in mainland China.

The story, which quoted anonymous sources close to the investigation, said that the so-called Project Aurora attacks appeared to originate from Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Lanxiang Vocational School in Shandong province.

Jiaotong is well regarded as a centre for computer studies, and has an extensive information security programme that boasts its "high-level talent" and has links to military research projects.

Lanxiang, around 250 miles south of Beijing, is a prominent school that has developed some reputation for developing computer skills.

The report suggested that intelligence agents working on the case had linked the strikes to a specific class taught at Lanxiang.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Feb 2010 02:08

India Worries as China Builds Ports in South Asia
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/busin ... 6port.html

Gemunu Amarasinghe/Associated Press
A Chinese construction crew at work in Hambantota, Sri Lanka, in 2008. China has invested millions to develop the port.
By VIKAS BAJAJ
Published: February 15, 2010
HAMBANTOTA, Sri Lanka — For years, ships from other countries, laden with oil, machinery, clothes and cargo, sped past this small town near India as part of the world’s brisk trade with China.

Ships will dock along this long wall and other similar structures nearby once the port in Hambantota is complete.
Enlarge This Image

Nadeem Khawer/European Pressphoto Agency
As trade in South Asia grows, China has been developing port facilities like this one in Gwadar in the southwest of Pakistan.
Now, China is investing millions to turn this fishing hamlet into a booming new port, furthering an ambitious trading strategy in South Asia that is reshaping the region and forcing India to rethink relations with its neighbors.

As trade in the region grows more lucrative, China has been developing port facilities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and it is planning to build railroad lines in Nepal. These projects, analysts say, are part of a concerted effort by Chinese leaders and companies to open and expand markets for their goods and services in a part of Asia that has lagged behind the rest of the continent in trade and economic development.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Feb 2010 03:14

Acharya wrote:Unless you understand the geopolitical region and how India is in a crucial region of the world geography you cannot understand this.
Read this document
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4812906/India-and-Geopolitics

Acharya-ji,

Thanks for that reference. Couldn't hold myself from posting these excerpts

In his book `The Place of India in the Empire', published in 1909, Lord Curzon talks of India's geopolitical significance. ``On the West, India must exercise a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan; on the north, it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the north-east and last it can exert great pressure upon China, and it is one of the guardians of the autonomous
existence of Siam,'' he wrote.

However, much one might dream about India's strategic future, this is not the kind of role India can play now. Nor is the world going to parcel out the Indian Ocean littoral to India. New Delhi can, however, significantly contribute towards the advancement of the region through political cooperation with other great powers. That precisely is what Mr. Kissinger was talking about when he
referred to the ``parallel interests'' of India and the United States from Aden to Singapore. These shared interests include energy security, safeguarding the sea lanes, political stability, economic modernization and religious moderation.

Almost 90 years before Samuel Huntington wrote his famous essay on the impending clash of civilizations and later developed it into a book with the same title, and decades before even the Hindu nationalism and organizations were formally organized in 1925 in India, Bipin Chandra Pal, a Hindu nationalist leader of India's freedom movement, had foreseen this clash among various civilizations and predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations.

Pal's essays and articles written almost a century ago make fascinating reading. A genuine thinker and visionary, Pal propounded his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity and was a great admirer of Islam's spiritual values. He thought that Islam was going to conquer large parts of the world, through its power of propaganda and not through war. He considered this inevitable. He was, however, scared of Islam's political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration. For, in his view, Islam is not only "extra-territorial" in its ideology, but also "extra-political".

Then describing where the danger for India will come from, Pal writes under the title "Our Real Danger". "And it is just here that our safety from this possible Pan-European combination also lies. Because of the British connection, India will have nothing to fear from any possible combination of the European powers. The same is also true of Egypt, though perhaps in a lesser degree. Our real menace will come not from Europe but from Asia, not from Pan-Europeanism but from Pan-Islamism and Pan-Mongolianism. These dangers are, however, common, both to India and Egypt and Great Britain. To provide against it, Great Britain will have to find and work out a satisfactory and permanent settlement of the Indian and the Egyptian problem, and we, on our part, will have also to come to some rational compromise with her. British statesmanship must recognize the urgent and absolute need of fully satisfying the demands of Indian and Egyptian nationalism, and India and Egypt will have to frankly accept the British connection - which is different from British subjection - as a necessary condition of their national life and freedom. To wantonly seek to break up this connection, while it will only hurt Great Britain, may positively kill every chance and possibility of either Indian or Egyptian nationalism ever realizing itself."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Feb 2010 03:23

RamaY wrote:
Acharya-ji,

Thanks for that reference. Couldn't hold myself from posting these excerpts

I was quoting the same article. But connect it with the NYtimes article and see what is happening.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Feb 2010 03:43

I am reading the full document and see your point. Indian needs three things to survive the eventual onslaught from its western and eastern neighbors.
- Strong Military
- Strong Leadership
- Strong Economy
In that order. Unfortunately the priorities are mixed up.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 21 Feb 2010 06:52

RamaY wrote:I am reading the full document and see your point. Indian needs three things to survive the eventual onslaught from its western and eastern neighbors.
- Strong Military
- Strong Leadership
- Strong Economy
In that order. Unfortunately the priorities are mixed up.

You cant have the first without the last and you cant have the last without the second

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Feb 2010 09:53

^^^

My apologies, but you are wrong on both counts.

While Russia is economically weak, it is the only nation in the world that can destroy the sole super power, USA.

Strong Leadership is a product of a civilization's culture, history, and assertiveness. it has nothing to do with Economics or Military.

Strong economy is a bi-product of strong military and leadership, not the other way around. For example, Babur was a visionary leader first, who built a strong economy, and only then he became the Mugha emporer. So please open your eyes and be logical.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Feb 2010 11:29

^^^ You have the wrong analogy of quoting Babur. He just abducted/used the wealth of poor Indians to built his empire...If i'm allowed, i will call all those Islamic hordes that came to India for wealth are dacoits. Babur is forced to settle in India. He just usurped the economy built by the poor ordinary mango Indians. The correct analogy is Germany and Japan. You cannot have big military without big economy. If they cant have the capability to create economy only other option is to loot as done by those Islamic invaders. Mughal empire declined during Aurangzeb becoz of economic collapse. Thats why you see the remanants of those Islamic invaders, the current Pakistanis exhibit similar characteristics in blackmailing and living on the wealth from others. Wiith Punjab & Sindh with them, did they created Singapore out of Pakistan, No. All they did where making the land into Somalia. Thats what they are - leeches. But what you say on strong leadership is mostly right, i can agree with you. But there are exceptions.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Feb 2010 11:38

RamaY wrote:
Strong economy is a bi-product of strong military and leadership, not the other way around. For example, Babur was a visionary leader first, who built a strong economy, and only then he became the Mugha emporer. So please open your eyes and be logical.

Remove Babus and quote another example.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Feb 2010 12:00

Acharya wrote:
RamaY wrote:
Strong economy is a bi-product of strong military and leadership, not the other way around. For example, Babur was a visionary leader first, who built a strong economy, and only then he became the Mugha emporer. So please open your eyes and be logical.
Remove Babus and quote another example.

Would Chandra Gupta Maurya or Vijaya Nagara Empire fit the bill? More recently the United States fit the bill?

United States was built on a vision first, it became world super power only after demonstrating its military proves in WWII.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Feb 2010 12:10

RamaY wrote:
Would Chandra Gupta Maurya or Vijaya Nagara Empire fit the bill? More recently the United States fit the bill?

United States was built on a vision first, it became world super power only after demonstrating its military proves in WWII.

You bring it out and explain and let the others decide.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Feb 2010 12:36

Acharya-ji,

will try to do my best. Pls give me some time to put together my thoughts.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Feb 2010 12:44

Actually Vijayanagara empire is a prime example, Compared to Sri Krishna Devaraya time (35 years previous to its fall), it was good economically and culturally. Where it lost out was in the military strategic culture. It allowed the 5 bahmani kingdoms to get united and in one swoop at tallikota lost all the development it made economically and culturally for the previous 2 centuries.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 21 Feb 2010 13:43

RamaY wrote:^^^

My apologies, but you are wrong on both counts.

While Russia is economically weak, it is the only nation in the world that can destroy the sole super power, USA.
.

Really? And how did the Russians come about to have the capacity to "destroy" the sole superpower i.e. the USA? Every thing that the Russians have today militarily(conventional and non conventional) they have inherited from the soviet union. All the thousands of tanks, nukes,jets and dozens of warships, subs etc wouldn't have been possible if the SU wasn't the most industrialized country in the world.The Russians are now spending most their defense budget just to maintain their strategic forces with the equipment of the conventional forces falling apart.

Modern armies need a huge amount of expensive equipment to be able to fight wars and some one to pay for it.In the modern era most of the money goes to research, manufacture and maintenance of equipment and into training of and pay of soldiers.The days of barbarians with a sword and a horse conquering all are long gone.
just to emphasize the point ,compare two highly militarized countries Israel and North Korea whose respective economic conditions am sure your well aware of . Now in an imaginary military match up of the two countries who do you think will win?