India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[ramana]

When govt men issue denials there is some truth being suppressed.

[abhishek_sharma]

Border security bill discriminatory: India to US

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 367131.cms

Indian Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar had lodged an official protest to the US Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk in a letter dated August 9, about five days before Obama signed the border security bill into law ignoring India's concerns.

"We feel that the 'pay for' provisions of the Bill are not in keeping with the substantive cooperative agenda which the two governments are pursuing. We would ask that those provisions of the Bill that discriminate against companies of Indian origin may be suitably amended to create a level playing field for all companies," Shankar said.

"Even though the Bill doesn't mention Indian companies specifically, the manner in which it is currently worded appears to be aimed at Information Technology companies from India, creating an unequal playing field," Shankar said.

"The impact on Indian companies of the higher fee increases would be substantial. While we appreciate and understand the US desire to strengthen Border Security, we have concerns about the proposed funding mechanism," the Indian Ambassador said days ahead of the bill being signed.

However, the Obama Administration decided to ignore the concerns of India on this issue.

[sum]

Is this OT? X-post:
Obama is a Christian, clarifies White House

The White House on Thursday insisted that United States President Barack Obama [ Images ] is a Christian and his faith is not a topic of conversation, a day after a poll showed that nearly 18 per cent of Americans think he is a Muslim.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said most Americans care more about the economy and the country's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 'they are not reading a lot of news about what religion the president is.'

"The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day. He communicates with his religious adviser every single day. There is a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis," Burton said.

"And his faith is very important to him, but it's not something that is a topic of conversation every single day," he added.

Burton was responding to questions on the Pew Research Center poll which showed one-third of Americans or 18 per cent think Obama is Muslim.

That current rating was up from 11 per cent in March who said Obama was a Muslim. The survey also showed that just 34 per cent said Obama is Christian, down from 48 per cent who said so last year.

The largest share of people, 43 per cent, said they don't know his religion. "I just think people are focused on other issues and not paying all that much attention to exactly what the president does with his spirituality. But as you all know and have covered extensively, he is Christian and his faith is very important to him," Burton said.

The spokesman said Obama has spoken about his faith extensively in the past. "You can bet that he'll talk about his faith again. You could always play the "would-of, could-of, should-of," he said.

"But the president's top priority here is not making sure that Americans know what a devout Christian he is, it is making sure that we are getting the economy on track and we are creating jobs in this country," he said.

[abhishek_sharma]

As everyone leaves their jobs, Hillary should stay put

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... d_stay_put

[CRamS]

Man, the so called ground-zero mosque hoopla has me laughing. I mean, everybody knows what mainstream whites think of Muslims, and this hair-splitting between the Muslims having the legal right, but the whites feel its not a good idea or insensitive is s$it loads of bull crap. Fact is whites are telling the Muslims to f$%6ck off. Now here is the amazing thing. US can have the cake and eat it too. Any loss of face to the mosque attitude can more than be recovered by castigating us SDREs over "human rights" violation of the KM stone-pelting secsession demanding perverts.

[chaanakya]

Is this OT? X-post:
Obama is a Christian, clarifies White House

They mean Barak Hussain Ombaba. Sleeping moorga

[RamaT]

Hmm.. this is not good on many levels. First, as mentioned already.. US trying to exert pressure on Bhopal is foolhardy and will generate Indian pique(appropriately).

However there is a deeper issue of broader dialogue and engagement, this has been sought by India and is considered a strategic goal.. that is hurt by leaks to media of dialogue between a US DNSA and Indian DCPC. If US is to be told to take a hike it should be done behind closed doors and with tact to show that there are limits to their soft power so they don't make future foolish requests.

By putting this out in the media it embarrasses this guy, Froman, and puts him in a position he has no desire to be in, making him look bad in front of his bosses. All this means that when India needs some accommodation guess who should not be approached? The words 'private correspondence' are there not only to try and save face but also to warn others in his organization whose desk this communique traverses that they should watch their steps.

Additionally, it makes this guys boss and by extension the whole US state apparatus question the degree of frank discussion possible between the two bureaucracies. With the upcoming visit by the US President these sorts of issues take a higher degree of importance and things are being monitored even more. So, basically.. whoever leaked the email, needs to consider whether their short term benefit is causing a longer term detriment for India.

I hope someone in our bureaucracy is paying attention to this aspect and keeping line of communications clear, a pre-requisite of building strategic trust is building personal trust which is why we do Red Flag and other joint military exercises.

From US Embassy In New Delhi

http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr081910-2.html

PRESS RELEASES 2010

Statement by Mike Froman, Deputy National Security Advisor

August 19, 2010

With regard to recent reports about my private correspondence with Mr. Ahluwalia, I want to make clear that I was not making any link between what are two separate and distinct issues nor issuing a ‘threat’ of any sort – any assertion to the contrary is absolutely wrong, both in intent and in fact.

I am dismayed to think that anything I wrote could be interpreted as minimizing the toll of the Bhopal disaster. The human suffering as a result of Bhopal is a terrible tragedy. Resolving the Bhopal issue is for the Indian people to decide. The U.S. does not seek to interfere in this process.

I value the opportunity I have to work with Mr. Ahluwalia and others in India to strengthen and deepen the ties between our two countries, both bilaterally and through the G20. Such efforts are key to building our strategic partnership and facing our common challenges together for the benefit of both our peoples.

[chola]

Border security bill discriminatory: India to US

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 367131.cms

Indian Ambassador to the US Meera Shankar had lodged an official protest to the US Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk in a letter dated August 9, about five days before Obama signed the border security bill into law ignoring India's concerns.

"We feel that the 'pay for' provisions of the Bill are not in keeping with the substantive cooperative agenda which the two governments are pursuing. We would ask that those provisions of the Bill that discriminate against companies of Indian origin may be suitably amended to create a level playing field for all companies," Shankar said.

"Even though the Bill doesn't mention Indian companies specifically, the manner in which it is currently worded appears to be aimed at Information Technology companies from India, creating an unequal playing field," Shankar said.

"The impact on Indian companies of the higher fee increases would be substantial. While we appreciate and understand the US desire to strengthen Border Security, we have concerns about the proposed funding mechanism," the Indian Ambassador said days ahead of the bill being signed.

However, the Obama Administration decided to ignore the concerns of India on this issue.

The truth is the more India makes a fuss of this, the more attention it draws to H1Bs in the US and that is last thing we need now with the America unemployment rate running at over 10%. There is enough hostility here to any hint of US jobs going overseas. Work though the back channels if it need be.

The fact is these jobs requiring entry into the US are a very small proportion of the work the US economy provides to Indian IT. Don't risk upsetting the whole apple cart trying to pick up a single apple.

[ShivaS]

There can not be stratigic alliance between un equal partners.
Its a myth to think US considers India as strategic partner.

India is to be used as a tool for US strategic goals.

A near strategic alliance was Indo USSR pact which Indira signed in 1971.
Attack on either party was attack on the allaince as such it invoked immidiate retalliation byeither or both.

[chola]

There can not be stratigic alliance between un equal partners.
Its a myth to think US considers India as strategic partner.

India is to be used as a tool for US strategic goals.

A near strategic alliance was Indo USSR pact which Indira signed in 1971.
Attack on either party was attack on the allaince as such it invoked immidiate retalliation byeither or both.

The so-called "alliance" with the USSR gained India absolutely nothing. It didn't lend us any political weight and it gave us no economic windfall. We were on the wrong side of history on that one and it would be foolish to state otherwise.

Every ally to the US is in an "unequal" relationship simply because the US is the sole superpower. And every nation pursues its strategic goals. But it is incorrect to think that the US doesn't think India (or Japan or the UK) are strategic partners simply because it is so much more powerful.

[AnimeshP]

The so-called "alliance" with the USSR gained India absolutely nothing. It didn't lend us any political weight and it gave us no economic windfall. We were on the wrong side of history on that one and it would be foolish to state otherwise.

You might want to read up on the events of 1971, creation of Bangladesh, role of US/China and countering of that by USSR before making this sweeping statement ..

[Tamang]

Sweden seeks Wikileaks founder arrest in rape case

Interesting "timing"

[JE Menon]

Swedish govt has clarified... He is not a suspect apparently.
Nevertheless, timing is interesting.

[RamaT]

US may or may not consider India a partner at the moment.. but that is not the point. The point is that the relationship between the two countries has increased over the past decade. This is of interest to the US and India for their own reasons, as it should be.

The US can be a tool for Indian strategic goals, our leaders just have to engage intelligently and further those goals. For example, currently there is focus in getting Indian DPSU's off dual-use lists so that industry can grow faster. This equates to us wanting something and the US being able to provide it.. and thus to enhance the chances of getting it, we shouldn't antagonize functionaries by using personal communications between bureaucrats as cudgels.

There are better, less publicly visible and humiliating ways to tell them that they are crossing lines and should not push in certain areas which are off limits. Like any relationship, there must be communication.. if not, then it is India whose goals will suffer.. whether US goals suffer or not is of secondary importance.

The next 10 years are critical in Indian development and have to be managed more intelligently than the past. If in the cold war era India had managed good economic relations with both USSR and USA(a difficult but not impossible goal) we would be a nation that is much farther along.

There can not be stratigic alliance between un equal partners.
Its a myth to think US considers India as strategic partner.

India is to be used as a tool for US strategic goals.

A near strategic alliance was Indo USSR pact which Indira signed in 1971.
Attack on either party was attack on the allaince as such it invoked immidiate retalliation byeither or both.

[chola]

The so-called "alliance" with the USSR gained India absolutely nothing. It didn't lend us any political weight and it gave us no economic windfall. We were on the wrong side of history on that one and it would be foolish to state otherwise.

You might want to read up on the events of 1971, creation of Bangladesh, role of US/China and countering of that by USSR before making this sweeping statement ..

You're making assumptions that the US/China were somehow stayed by the USSR. What exactly did you expect the US to do in 1971? Invade in support of the Pakis? That was never going to happen.

As for China, the Russians did nothing to stop the Chinese attack in 1962 and I can't see any difference in 1971. The reason China attacked in 62 but not in 71 is because the Indian armed forces was a much more formidable force in 71. That alone stayed China's hand. Russia had nothing to do with it.

Splitting Bangladesh from the Pakis was India's achievement alone. India owes Russia nothing for 1971.

Whatever perceived advantage India gained from alliance with that inhuman communist empire was outweighed a thousand-fold by decades of estrangement from the west which crippled our economy. Look at South Korea, Japan or Taiwan or even Thailand. We were wealthier than South Korea in 1950. Today's SK per capita income is 25 times greater.

India is shining today because the Soviets collapsed and the GOI was forced to open up the West. .

[chola]

The US can be a tool for Indian strategic goals, our leaders just have to engage intelligently and further those goals.

Exactly. If you look at nations underneath the US umbrella, each one of them had used its relationship US to its own advantage. Japan ran trillions of dollars of surplus with the US over the lifetime of its relationship. It became the second greatest economy on earth for five decades based almost solely on unfettered access to the US market.

[AnimeshP]

You're making assumptions that the US/China were somehow stayed by the USSR. What exactly did you expect the US to do in 1971? Invade in support of the Pakis? That was never going to happen.

As for China, the Russians did nothing to stop the Chinese attack in 1962 and I can't see any difference in 1971. The reason China attacked in 62 but not in 71 is because the Indian armed forces was a much more formidable force in 71. That alone stayed China's hand. Russia had nothing to do with it.

Splitting Bangladesh from the Pakis was India's achievement alone. India owes Russia nothing for 1971.

Whatever perceived advantage India gained from alliance with that inhuman communist empire was outweighed a thousand-fold by decades of estrangement from the west which crippled our economy. Look at South Korea, Japan or Taiwan or even Thailand. We were wealthier than South Korea in 1950. Today's SK per capita income is 25 times greater.

India is shining today because the Soviets collapsed and the GOI was forced to open up the West. .

Well .. I'm not in a habit of passing my assumptions as a definitive fact through sweeping statements ...
True .. India owes no-one (be it USSR or US) anything for where it stands today ... It has had different relations with countries at different points in time based on its own interests in the existing geo-political situation.

However, to make an absurd claim that India gained nothing from its relationship with USSR ever betrays rank ignorance of history ...
Now ... you may want to read this link ... which quite succinctly sums up history of India's relation with US and USSR/Russia
http://www.nios.ac.in/srsec317newE/317EL27.pdf

some excerpts:

In the Security Council the Soviet Union supported India’s position on Kashmir and vetoed unacceptable resolution moved by the Western countries.

The terms of Soviet aid were favourable to India: when the western countries were charging 6 per cent as rate of interest, the Soviet Union charged only 2.5 per cent. In December 1953, India and the Soviet Union signed a long–term trade agreement. An attractive feature of this agreement was the fact that payment for Indian imports could be made in rupees and not in hard currency like dollar. Trade with the Western countries, by contrast, was in hard currency. For this purpose, accounts of the Soviet Union were opened and maintained in several Indian banks.

In 1962, just before the India-China war, the MiG (the fighter aircraft) deal was signed despite Chinese protest

In August 1971, the Soviet and the Indian leaders signed the historic Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, the first of its kind that India had signed. The Treaty provided for immediate mutual consultations in case either country was attacked from outside. This clearly signalled Moscow’s commitment to stand by India on the Bangladesh question.

The paper also lists the ups and downs of India-US relations from independence-to-date ... The reason I have posted only excerpts which highlight how erstwhile Soviet Union was beneficial to India is to repudiate your assertion that nothing came of this relationship.

As for 1971 war and how the US, China and USSR were involved, please read up on the US State Department archives ... in case you have trouble locating or sifting through them (they are indeed huge and voluminous) I suggest you read through this link

The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971 - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 79
These are just some excerpts but will give you an idea as to what was happening during that time

Kissinger in a memorandum to Nixon describes his talks with the Chinese Ambassador in Paris. Kissinger explains to the Chinese that the U.S. is prevented from giving any military assistance to Pakistan because of Congress, but supports Chinese assistance by stating that the U.S. would "understand it if other friends of Pakistan will give them the equipment they need." He also declares that the U.S. "will do nothing to embarrass the government of Pakistan by any public statements."

The U.S. disguising the movement of the nuclear aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal for evacuation purposes, gladly lets the ship movement represent possible American involvement in the conflict, especially if it expanded to a superpower confrontation. Admiral Welander from the NSC Staff indicates that the JCS has approved, for planning purposes only, the CINCPAC concept to ready a USS attack carrier to dissuade "third party" involvement in the South Asia crisis.

These telcons show Nixon and Kissinger's knowledge of third party transfers of military supplies to Pakistan. Haig summarizes the Telcons to Kissinger by writing that the telcons, "confirm the President's knowledge of, approval for and, if you will, directive to provide aircraft to Iran and Jordan," in exchange for providing aircraft to Pakistan. The telcons also show that Kissinger and Nixon, following the advice of Barbara Walters, decide to put out a White House version of the facts involved with the South Asian crisis through John Scali. Nixon express his desire to, "get some PR out on the- - put the blame on India. It will also take some blame off us."

UN Ambassador Bush describes the December 10 meeting between Kissinger and the Chinese delegation to the United Nations. While discussing the India-Pakistan crisis, Kissinger reveals that the American position on the issue was parallel to that of the Chinese. Kissinger disclosed that the U.S. would be moving some ships into the area, and also that military aid was being sent from Jordan, Turkey, and Iran. Some of this aid was illegally transferred because it was American in origin. Bush also reports that Kissinger gives his tacit approval for China to provide militarily support for Pakistani operations against India. Bush expresses his personal doubts in the administration's "Two State Departments thing," and takes issue with Kissinger's style, in one instance calling him paranoid and arrogant.

Now coming to your assertion that India should have emulated Japan, Soko etal in order to get economic benefits ... you forget that these countries have been nothing but poodles for US and going by the number of times we see about MMS selling off India to the US I don't think anyone on this board would (maybe except you) would advocate that India too becomes one of them.

Hope I have answered all your questions ...

[svinayak]

Now coming to your assertion that India should have emulated Japan, Soko etal in order to get economic benefits ... you forget that these countries have been nothing but poodles for US and going by the number of times we see

India is a too big a country to act similar to SoKo and Japan

[Hari Seldon]

^^^Sometimes I wish we'd emulated soko and japan only.

If only our per capita would have gotten to a decent fraction of where there's is today. Only.

But sadly, it wouldn't have worked out even if sri MMS were PM in 1947.

Soko -japan status necessarily implied stationing US military bases and troops on Yindian soil. The resulting political tremors could very have made true many of the britards' fondest predictions in the 50s and 60s - that Yindia was an unnatural country and would soon fragment from under the weight of its insurmountable contradictions etc etc.

Anyway, 'what if' is a cheap (as in, costless, not tasteless) game that everyone can play. Carry on playing, I guess.

Jai Ho.

[svinayak]

Soko -japan status necessarily implied stationing US military bases and troops on Yindian soil.

Those societies were traumatized due to war and partition that they accepted the foreign military.
India was a target of a larger plan for fragmentation since independence was only the first step and they had planned for more self determination.

[ShivaS]

Chola Saar is very senior member but needs to revist history.
In 1962 India was much closer to USA than USSR (in spite of NAM). The placing of Nuke device,
the massive PL 480 funds to keep India falling away into Communists like South East Asia, and else where in Africa Cuba etc.

Also in 1962 the rift between USSR and PRC was not yet ripe for UUSR to lean in Indias favor.
The 1969 splitting of Congress and USA going the Cong (o) way and USSR backing Indira, the CPIbeing nudged by UUSR to come to Indira's rescue, The CPM faction being courted by pRC then just like now. Pumping of Money by USA and USSR into Indian election. All these were nothing but proxy wars of USA and USSR played out in India.

Mean while the straining of relation between USSR and PRC was showing when PRC (like todays TSP) was double dipping to Vietnamn aid being pushed through Mangolia PRC. Half the material would vanish. The secret parleys between USA and PRC against USSR, the open rift in 1967 between PRC and USSR all these changed.

Mrs IG was not a idiot like the third rate politicians of India. She was hard core real politician who practised in to to Chanikyas Beda upaya. read the trans lation s posted by ramana.

As far as S. Korea Japan model, they are tiny homogenous countries compared to India. Indain real estate is not easy to govern but easy to fragment. Ther is more utility in destroying India ( as one piece) than taking it one piece and rule.

again take it for whatever it is worth. Capitalism with out regulation and moderator is as bad as communism.
In pure form capitalim and Communism both take you to Nirvana but only if played by rules.

But Human tendency is always to seek monopoly if not oligopoly, hence the isms are utopian and not utilitarian in pure form.
(no spell check done befroe the spell was cast, forgiveness sought)

[bart]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/a ... 1EVUT2.DTL

[svinayak]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/a ... 1EVUT2.DTL

Good response

rajeevnair32 8:30 PM on August 21, 2010
The author in the article needs to be rational in his approach:
1) India is compared to Pakistan? Since India had nuclear tests, Pakistan has to follow it?? Does the author remember about US-Cuba episode? Since US has nuclear bombs, Cuba should have it too? Does it work only one way?
2) India should get energy (aka oil) from Saudi Arabia - a country that had 15 of 19 9/11 attackers, but not from Iran which never had terrorists infestation? Last time I heard US did not consider any actions against Saudi Arabia?
3)US can have good relations with Columbia - a banana republic which fights against its giant neighbors, or even Pakistan, that sends shoe-bombers, underwear-bombers or even car-bombers? But ofcourse, how come India has relations with Burma?
4) India should commit not improving its economy by enforcing tough environmental since barely 1100$/GDP per capita in India should be good enough. World beauty is better than food in stomach.
Liberal views are good for dreams!

[Manny]

Apparently OBama was born a Muslim since his Father was a Mulsim...But later on OBama Hussain has rejected Islam and Mohammad and has accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and Savior! So his Rejection of Mohammad and acceptance of Jesus is being trumpeted for establishing his credibility and display of his wonderful nature.

[chaanakya]

^^^

U.N. sanctions are not law, and all of the states openly doing business with Iran are developing oil fields or buying oil, natural gas and other petroleum derivatives, which do not necessarily violate the new sanctions.
<snip>

In truth, the United States seldom has enforced its Iran sanctions on other, friendly states. An earlier law, enacted in 1996, imposed sanctions on any company that invested more than $20 million in Iran's energy business in any given year. Dozens of companies violate that, but the United States has not sanctioned anyone for the last 12 years.

India is certainly not the only nation flouting U.S. sanction laws. The point is that its performance here fits into a long-standing pattern of behavior that seems to say: The world's rules don't apply to us.

Joel Brinkley is complaining about what? US Laws==World Rules and UN Sanctions !=Laws
And that US acts in self interest , that's ok but India acting in self interest is not ok.

How do you find nuggets of such moronic journalism from Pulitzer prize winners, Bart?

[CRamS]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/a ... 1EVUT2.DTL

Liberal or conservative, this s@it heads are so full of themselves, inundated with self absorption, that any leaf in the world if it turns, it must be because US deemed it so, and if it turned without US having US said so, it must be against pro-ordianed natural laws.

[JE Menon]

Re Manny's post...

More importantly, shouldn't Obama be declared an apostate by the terror-mongers. Last I remember, Osama was virtually kissing Obama's butt and asking him to change US policy for the better.

[Carl_T]

Rima Fakih: Move the Mosque


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24 ... iel-foster

[chetak]

Apparently OBama was born a Muslim since his Father was a Mulsim...But later on OBama Hussain has rejected Islam and Mohammad and has accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and Savior! So his Rejection of Mohammad and acceptance of Jesus is being trumpeted for establishing his credibility and display of his wonderful nature.

Once the tip has been snipped, it's a difficult path to backtrack.

That's why you see flashes every now and again before the cassock in the closet covers it up again.

Obama's recent cordoba mosque statement and retraction was one such occasion.

[chetak]

Rima Fakih: Move the Mosque


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24 ... iel-foster

Smart bimbo?

[CRamS]

Rima Fakih: Move the Mosque


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24 ... iel-foster

Smart bimbo?

I would say more of an Uncle Tommish street smart bimbo; she sure has scored quite a few brownie points from the white elites. Expect her to make the talk show circuits with condescending hosts showering her with all kinds of verbal confeti.

[chola]

However, to make an absurd claim that India gained nothing from its relationship with USSR ever betrays rank ignorance of history

Again, my opinion -- you can take it as a sweeping statement and call it absurd if you like -- is that India gained nothing from its so-called alliance with the USSR except three decades of irrelevance while the rest of Asia raced ahead on the US-led economic system that we finally entered in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

The terms of Soviet aid were favourable to India: when the western countries were charging 6 per cent as rate of interest, the Soviet Union charged only 2.5 per cent. In December 1953, India and the Soviet Union signed a long–term trade agreement. An attractive feature of this agreement was the fact that payment for Indian imports could be made in rupees and not in hard currency like dollar. Trade with the Western countries, by contrast, was in hard currency. For this purpose, accounts of the Soviet Union were opened and maintained in several Indian banks.

Sir, 2.5% of a small amount is an even smaller insignificant amount. The USSR traded little and it gave little advantage to economies attached to it unlike the US-led system. That was why the Soviet bloc collapsed and why every nation in that bloc was much, much poorer than neighboring states in the West.

Kissinger in a memorandum to Nixon describes his talks with the Chinese Ambassador in Paris. Kissinger explains to the Chinese that the U.S. is prevented from giving any military assistance to Pakistan because of Congress, but supports Chinese assistance by stating that the U.S. would "understand it if other friends of Pakistan will give them the equipment they need." He also declares that the U.S. "will do nothing to embarrass the government of Pakistan by any public statements."

That quote shows the US would not have intervened. The only reason China didn't intervene was because the cost analysis of a much more powerful Indian army in 1971 made intervention a losing proposition. The USSR did nothing to stay either hand.

[chola]

India is a too big a country to act similar to SoKo and Japan

As I wrote in another thread. What is the cutoff point? Japan is actually a huge country. It ranks 10th in the world population. It was the second most powerful economy in the world for four decades. It gained that position because it was in the US-led economic system.

Again, it's not just the US economy but the Western Europe and Japan itself. Together they represented 80% of the world's wealth during the period India was tied into the Soviet alliance.

The only reason China had lapped us four times over since the 1970s was because it had tapped into the same system that we spurned in favor of the USSR.

[krisna]

^^^^ not sure if it is OT
USA - a "benevolent" superpower who allowed nations unfettered economic activity of their client states in return for surrendering independence!!
yes some countries like Japan/Soko/Germany etc developed economically. All of the countries which had US troops stationed did rather well in comparison to soviet led blocs.
1) How come some of the other states in US camp did not do well-- esp who had no troops stationed there.-ex- middle east, pakistan etc.
2) I dont know much about economic recession in many parts of USA led bloc(oirope and massa itself)-- Any relation to US type policies. Maybe unbridled capitalism is also not good just like the communist type activity.
3) Independent France has done quite well.
4) Independent china has done quite well.(with time they have loosened their tight control economically only)
5) wrt India-- We would not have surrendered our policies to USA/USSR come what may. It may do it on a case by case approach. Soviets had enormous influence only in helping us stave off pressure in certain issues.

My take is the people(and its leaders) of the nation have also a major role to play-- not just being in one camp or other.
majority(not all) of them had democracies.

overall because of the prevailing circumstances earlier India took a conscious decision not to be in any camp-- hence the NAM movement .(consequences of it may be secondary), taking the help of Soviets.........

JMT.

[abhischekcc]

The reason India has lagged in this race is because we are not security concious. Our leaders drop like flies because we cannot punish those countries for killing them. Have you thought of why India joined the Soviet camp - because they murdered Lal Bahadur Shastri. What we need is a cunning plan to break free of the violence imposed by these so called civilised countries against us.

[Hari Seldon]

^^^ Good point. In general, we're screwed thoroughly.

While its great spraying examples like Japan SoKo Germany etc who attained per capita nirvana riding unkil's coat-tails, the fact also is that these are very ethnically (and religiously and climactically and and work-ethically) homogeneous countries where standardization, fiat, tough love, regimentation and all those nicey things countries need in a particular stage of development (between $1k and $15k per capita) was possible, plausible, feasible, desirable and seen as desirable to implement.

Not to make excuses for our pathetic past, present and future, but we're simply too diverse a country with neither the strength nor the stomach to do whatever it takes (e.g. ethnic cleansing of aborigine populations) to get at and happily exploit the resources beneath their lands.

So yes, we're screwed. The 'race' with cheena is long lost (circa 1980) and the one with soko et al was lost back in 1960 itself. Right now, the only race we're in (and are inherently capable of being effortlessly competitive in) is the race to the bottom. We'll get there, after all, nothing lasts forever. Jai Ho.

[derkonig]

^^^
IMHO, India's biggest strength in the near future will be what it has often been derided for: inertia. We will stay still while the RoW, unkil, eurostan & cheena included, race to the bottom. Then when the dust settles, Bharatvarsh will be on the top of the league while the horde of TFTA, tiger & dlagon economies would be wallowing in the mud.

[Hari Seldon]

^^^^ errr, no. A guy can dream sure, but reality has a way of asserting itself. And the reality is Yinida is not self sufficient in either food or energy security. Havoc can ensue when global mkts tank bigtime for great depression II.

[CRamS]

derkonig:

I made this observation aeons ago, and it still remains. All this 10% growth, or the proliferation of Lakme fashion shows, and gucci suit show rooms, and IT prowess mean nothing, unless India has fool proof security. And fool proof security won't materialize until there is a firm concept of Indian nationhood and unity. Its not enough to revel in Tendulkar's 10,000 or semi-nude bimbo Padma Lakshmi showing whites how to make cardmum payasam. Mumbai has exposed India's weakness as a nation, and that needs to be rectified, and rectified fast.

[Carl_T]

The reason India has lagged in this race is because we are not security concious. Our leaders drop like flies because we cannot punish those countries for killing them. Have you thought of why India joined the Soviet camp - because they murdered Lal Bahadur Shastri. What we need is a cunning plan to break free of the violence imposed by these so called civilised countries against us.

I don't think security/paki terror is our biggest problem.

Considering the issues India has faced since before independence dating to British rule, I think we have turned out quite well. We've made steady gains in all economic indicators over the past 30 years, and I don't think that tide is going to turn backwards. We have a culture of entrepreneurship (some of us at least) and future generations of Indian businesses will surely take a substantial role on the world stage.

In the future I'm confident the US will remain the only superpower, I don't think China will be that powerful or dominant due to its own systemic problems and I think we will be ahead of them.