Indian Interests

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 24 Sep 2010 06:12

History has taught us that India runs in cycles. It creates wealth, gets looted, rises again and again creates wealth and gets looted again and so on.....

I have NO problem with this. If Indians need a boot to learn all over again then they eminently deserve it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Sep 2010 10:08

Published on Sep 23, 2010
Race to the Top: What Sets China and India Apart?: Wharton Network (University of Pennsylvania)

Despite their challenges, China and India are winning more important roles on the global stage. However, according to management professors Nandani Lynton of CEIBS in Shanghai and Jitendra V. Singh of the Wharton School, India is outperforming China in the number of senior executives at leading multinational corporations. In this opinion piece, they identify five possible explanations for this disparity. China is already addressing some of them, such as gaps in the use of English. Others, like China's inability to work with outsiders, are less susceptible to change. Depending on which factors prove most important, India may have the advantage for some time to come, but it may not take long for China to catch up

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Sep 2010 03:36

Can any one with exprtise do the calculation that how many artillery pieces or Smerch/ Pinakas or 4++G fighter planes we could have gotton with the stolen money in CWG?
Could not they spend same amount to take Skardu out of Poak-control or give to brave Baluchis or good Afghans to do intricate carving on Pakjabi terrorists? The same money would have made possible raising exra Mountain divisions to make PRC pay price for pricking India.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 27 Sep 2010 05:02

Prem garu, Not to completely belittle the CWG tamasha but the real sin in terms of waste is the gargantuan sum of assets tied up in India's central PSU's. This is ~ $400 billion by the GOI's estimate. If these were sold off not only would the GOI have enough money to provide sanitation/clean drinking water to the entire country but the ROI on that capital in private hands should be at least 2-3 X greater. Result- more revenue, more jobs, more innovative products and more taxes for the GOI. Its a win-win situation for everyone.

Everyone except the parasites in the PSU unions as well as the GOI ministers-Babu nexus which can bleed money out of these companies.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Sep 2010 13:16

(Crossposted in the Indo-US strategic thread.)

http://frontlineonnet.com/fl2717/storie ... 708300.htm

Douglas Hurd's excellent book "Choose your Weapons",
refelects upon US-UK foreign policy and the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the US,actually being "Not so special".

Indian foreign policy experts would do well to rad this superb book and take lessons drawn from it.There are some inrtiguing references to India too in this book review.

As Edmund Burke put it in his celebrated Reflections on the Revolution in France, “In history a great volume is unrolled for our instruction, drawing the materials of future wisdom from the past errors and infirmities of mankind.”

Drawing from history

To most Indian writers all this is irrelevant. As one Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs wrote: “A Foreign Office is essentially a custodian of precedents. We had no precedents to fall back upon, because India had no foreign policy of her own until she became independent. We did not even have a section for historical research until I created one.… Our policy therefore necessarily rested on the intuition of one man, who was Foreign Minister – Jawaharlal Nehru. Fortunately his intuition was based on knowledge.…” Indian “experts” on foreign policy are either Nehru-baiters in the name of realpolitik or his self-appointed defenders. The rich record of diplomacy they disdain to consult. This book will go a long way to instruct them.

Lost opportunities

By far the most relevant passages in the book are those which discuss three lost opportunities for establishing a stable and legitimate world order – in 1919, 1945 and 1989. The United Nations and its affiliated institutions were based on the power structure of the day. The authors' views on this important theme bear quotation in extenso: “That was the settlement and these are the institutions under which we live today. There they stand, like palaces on a hill, more than half a century old, still impressive when seen from afar, and in the constant bustle of their activity measured in innumerable meetings. But as one gets closer one sees the crumbling pillars, cracked steps and gaping holes in the roof through which the water pours. The weather of sixty years has done its work; none of the institutions is fit for its present purpose. In 2008 and 2009 the financial institutions were most clearly defective. But the same is true of the institutions designed to ensure peace or justice and the protection of human rights. For one modern need, the mastering of climate change, no international institution yet exists; the only worry about the future of the planet in 1945 was the atom bomb.

“Looking back, we can see the missed opportunity for a fourth [ sic] settlement. When the Cold War ended in 1989 there was a sense of optimism and a period of wise American leadership under the first President Bush. This could have been the moment to replace or renew the palaces on the hill, strengthening sector by sector the rules by which even the powerful agree to be governed. But there seemed no need. The world was not in ruins, as before the first three settlements. To borrow a phrase from recent domestic British controversy; when the sun is shining it is tempting to forget about fixing the roof.

“So the opportunity of 1989-90 was missed, and we are drifting. For the task of international renewal American leadership is essential, but the relative power of the United States has slipped away. The dangers besetting the world have multiplied; the world's response has become more feeble and incoherent. This inadequacy is concealed to some extent by suffocating clouds of rhetoric. In a media-driven world, speech is increasingly regarded by our leaders as a substitute for thought.”

They hold: “We need a new concert of nations, enshrined in a fourth settlement.” They ask the U.S. to lead this process but overlook the fact that that country is too inebriated with hubris to reckon with the realities of today. Witness Barack Obama's refusal to negotiate with Iran. They overlook also the fact that George H.W. Bush cheated Mikhail Gorbachev. A great moment found a small man in the White House and a great one in the Kremlin.

Completely overlooked is the Russian factor. As Paul Johnson remarked, the Europeans “committed collective suicide in the two world wars of the 20th century, just as the ancient Greeks destroyed themselves in the Pelopovesian disaster”.

In 1919, the U.S. withdrew after helping the Allies with the war. In 1945, it stayed on to expand into a global empire. Stalin's Russia provided both an excuse and a justification. In 1944 in Moscow, Churchill concluded the Percentages Agreement with Stalin. The U.S. sabotaged it. Churchill testified that Stalin kept his word and kept his hands off Greece. Having lost 27 million lives in the war, Stalin was in no mood to trust anybody. He sought territorial gains from Hitler in 1940, from Churchill in 1941, and won them in 1944. Opposed by the U.S., he used brutal methods in Eastern Europe. Three decades later, when Kissinger was Secretary of State, State Department Counselor Helmut Sonnenfeldt propounded a doctrine which bore his name. It came close to the 1944 accord. NATO was built on a false fear that Stalin wanted to conquer Western Europe. The archives opened in recent years expose the falsehood. Stalin had no such design. NATO was built on a myth. The authors share it even now. After the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. expanded NATO's sway eastward.

Gorbachev's gestures of conciliation in 1989-1990 and Vladimir Putin's in 2001 were spurned.

The U.S. is not one to build a fair and just world order. Its power must be checked. Churchill sought to forge an accord with Stalin in 1950 but was opposed by Eden. De Gaulle relied on U.S. power but played an independent role in relations with the Soviet Union. Britain, alas, abdicated that role.

Now a new order must be built with the consent of Russia, China, India, Iran, Brazil and the European Union, that is, if it is able to speak with one voice to reclaim its self-respect and self-confidence. It will be a long haul. But the American century must end.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Sep 2010 00:20

Ayodhya issue

Originally 1st number supreme court bench consists of CJ Kapadia and Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Swatantra Kumar.

In accordance with Indian Justice ethos of "Justice must not only be done, but also should appear so"; supreme court chief justice replaced Swatantra Kumar with Justice Aftab Alam.

"deeni bhaavamemi tirumalesa?"

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2010 16:51

US duplicity exposed by Stratfor's lust for Pak,to "contain India"!

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100927 ... d2bef9ea01

Pakistan and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan
September 28, 2010

Read more: Pakistan and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan | STRATFOR

Xcpts:

The American Solution

The American solution, one that we suspect is already under way, is the Pakistanization of the war. By this, we do not mean extending the war into Pakistan but rather extending Pakistan into Afghanistan. The Taliban phenomenon has extended into Pakistan in ways that seriously complicate Pakistani efforts to regain their bearing in Afghanistan. It has created a major security problem for Islamabad, which, coupled with the severe deterioration of the country’s economy and now the floods, has weakened the Pakistanis’ ability to manage Afghanistan. In other words, the moment that the Pakistanis have been waiting for — American agreement and support for the Pakistanization of the war — has come at a time when the Pakistanis are not in an ideal position to capitalize on it.

In the past, the United States has endeavored to keep the Taliban in Afghanistan and the regime in Pakistan separate. (The Taliban movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not one and the same.) Washington has not succeeded in this regard, with the Pakistanis continuing to hedge their bets and maintain a relationship across the border. Still, U.S. opposition has been the single greatest impediment to Pakistan’s consolidation of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and abandoning this opposition leaves important avenues open for Islamabad.

The Pakistani relationship to the Taliban, which was a liability for the United States in the past, now becomes an advantage for Washington because it creates a trusted channel for meaningful communication with the Taliban. Logic suggests this channel is quite active now.

The Vietnam War ended with the Paris peace talks. Those formal talks were not where the real bargaining took place but rather where the results were ultimately confirmed. If talks are under way, a similar venue for the formal manifestation of the talks is needed — and Islamabad is as good a place as any.

Pakistan is an American ally which the United States needs, both to balance growing Chinese influence in and partnership with Pakistan, and to contain India. Pakistan needs the United States for the same reason. Meanwhile, the Taliban wants to run Afghanistan. The United States has no strong national interest in how Afghanistan is run so long as it does not support and espouse transnational jihadism. But it needs its withdrawal to take place in a manner that strengthens its influence rather than weakens it, and Pakistan can provide the cover for turning a retreat into a negotiated settlement.

Pakistan has every reason to play this role. It needs the United States over the long term to balance against India. It must have a stable or relatively stable Afghanistan to secure its western frontier. It needs an end to U.S. forays into Pakistan that are destabilizing the regime. And playing this role would enhance Pakistan’s status in the Islamic world, something the United States could benefit from, too. We suspect that all sides are moving toward this end.

The United States isn’t going to defeat the Taliban. The original goal of the war is irrelevant, and the current goal is rather difficult to take seriously. Even a victory, whatever that would look like, would make little difference in the fight against transnational jihad, but a defeat could harm U.S. interests. Therefore, the United States needs a withdrawal that is not a defeat. Such a strategic shift is not without profound political complexity and difficulties. But the disparity between — and increasingly, the incompatibility of — the struggle with transnational terrorism and the war effort geographically rooted in Afghanistan is only becoming more apparent — even to the American public.

Read more: Pakistan and the U.S. Exit From Afghanistan | STRATFOR

PS:So what is Dr.Singh's BS about the great Indo-US strategic relationship about if this is true? Why do we need the Messiah paying us a visit if this is ultimately what the US is going to do,betray India yet again after '65,'71,Clinton's blind eye to Cimo-Pak N-proliferation during his term,his saving of Pak during Kargil and Obama's plan now to hand over Pak Afghanistan as a prize for rent-boy services.No wonder Obama uses the term "back passage" for his covert diplomacy,being used in the Middle-east peace talks too!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Sep 2010 17:22

The US is well and truly lost in Afghanistan, if they are thinking that an act of this foolishness will get them the results they are seeking.

truly Vinash Kaale Vipirit Buddhi

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Sep 2010 17:49

Pratyush wrote: truly Vinash Kaale Vipirit Buddhi

They are trying to hold on to the whore who is making the switch...

After this denial comes depression followed by realization... just a couple more decades gentlemen. Be patient!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2010 16:35

"India's relationship with the Anglosphere will define the twenty-first century"

Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the EU is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free. He is the winner of the Bastiat Award for online journalism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danie ... t-century/

The Anglosphere, for anyone who still doesn’t know, is the community of free, English-speaking nations linked, not by governmental decree, but by shared values. Which nations, exactly? Good question. The UK and Ireland, obviously, the US and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, plus what’s left of the Britain’s extended archipelago (the Falkland Islands, Bermuda and so on). Who else? I’d say Malta, Singapore and perhaps Hong Kong. I hope these territories won’t take it amiss, though, if I point out that, relatively speaking, they’re tiddlers. The elephant – for once the metaphor seems apposite – is India.

The Indian Question dominated a fascinating conference on the Anglosphere in Winchester yesterday, co-hosted by two of the greatest conservative editors on the planet: Daniel Johnson of Standpoint, and Roger Kimball of The New Criterion, and organised by the excellent Social Affairs Unit. Some of the cleverest and most contrarian men in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were present.

Mark Steyn – the Anglosphere’s one-man news-service – made the depressing observation that some Caribbean states, with their Hansards and maces, their horsehair wigs and stiff blue passports, seemed more British than the EU-oppressed mother country. West Indians, like Indians, appeared to value parliamentary democracy more than the country which had developed and exported the concept.

James Bennett, who more or less invented the Anglosphere, saw India as the key. While it might be awkward to talk of a nation of 1.3 billion people “joining” a club of 400 million, the orientation of India would determine the relative power of the English-speaking democracies for the rest of the century.

When passing through Delhi recently, I pointed out that the city feels more familiar, less foreign, than it did a decade ago – partly because the Indian middle class is ballooning, partly because the English language is more widespread and partly because of migration.

Communities of Indian descent remain in almost every corner of the Commonwealth, including those which British settlers evacuated long ago: Fiji, South Africa, Malaysia, East Africa, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada – and increasingly, of course, the US. In Madras, once, I asked directions of a young woman in an exotic sari. “Sorry, love, I dunno,” she replied in broad Cockney. Like me, she was a tourist – a small reminder of how affordable air travel has led to a convergence of nations separated by oceans and deserts, but bound by language and law. What Jet Airways has done for millions, the Internet has done for hundreds of millions, drawing the English-speaking peoples into a common conversation.

I don’t want to overstate my case. There are lakhs of Indian villages where Jet Airways and the Internet are as remote as the Moon. But the trend is encouraging. India’s institutions – its courts, its parliament, its armed forces – are Anglosphere-compatible. When the US, Australian and Indian navies co-ordinated the tsunami relief efforts six years ago, they found they had a functional interoperability that is not always present even among Nato allies.

Almost all post-colonial governments begin by emphasising their distance from the former occupiers, and India was no exception. But technological change and rapid embourgeoisement are realigning India with the other Anglophone democracies. David Cameron, to his credit, grasps that power is shifting eastward, and sees the opportunity for Britain. Barack Obama, by contrast, seems to scorn the vast ally which Bush had secured. Fortunately, Indians seem content to wait for a different attitude from Washington. They are a patient and courteous people.

PS:Hannan is a man who truly understands India and its potential!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2010 16:59

^^^ The man is overstating his case, but, this is an example of + psy ops.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Sep 2010 22:00

Ad from Rahul Mehta ji, to appear in Indian Express - on Sep 30 and Oct 1:

http://rahulmehta.com/ie.jpg

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2010 00:08

^^^ Fellow admins, didn't we receive an email which sounded just like that the other day?

After reading above, I'm convinced that if I take an exam in political mathematics I'll probably score a zero.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 30 Sep 2010 02:33

I don't understand what people have against Rahul Mehta. The guy is atleast doing something constructive and the right to recall could be pivotal for India.
Why the hatred?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 30 Sep 2010 04:36

Jarita wrote:I don't understand what people have against Rahul Mehta. The guy is atleast doing something constructive and the right to recall could be pivotal for India.
Why the hatred?

Nothing against Rahul Mehta, the person. Good guy; with heart in the right place. He called many of corruption etc., correctly.
Purely my opinion. But I understand it is unfair, without him having on the board to defend anything that I might write about his ideas. His ideas were iffy to put it mildly. The implementation aspect and practicality were not demonstrable even theoretically. Lots of hand waving when pointed questions were asked, but that's part and nature of the debate. Claims were very tall, short on substance.
He claimed that without expenditure to the government, prime minister and other ministers could be replaced/recalled without recourse to elections or election like process. His proposal promised electoral yields without the help of the machinery that conducts elections. People of India would like to fire the humongous electoral machinery and replace that with the cheaper alternative that he proposed. It was not even demonstrable that could happen.
His process of right to recall, has no enforcement associated with it. It would just provide more fodder to the bickerings and horsetrading among the politicos. But these questions were asked and no convincing response was coming forth from him. His method border on one trick pony for every problem. Will stop here in the interest of fairness, as Rahul Mehta is not here to defend again.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Sep 2010 04:50

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi

This will be story of Rahul Mehta

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2010 22:26

Jarita, are you referring to my post when you asked "why the hatred"? If so, please note I have no hatred for RM at all, hell I like the guy. Seems like a harmless enough chap, if slightly eccentric.

In Acharya's quote by Gandhi, I'd stop at step two, cause no one is going to fight RM. That seems to be the problem.

Consider: "Once activists manage to convince/force Cabinet ministers to sign this 3-line RTI2 the events that will follow will reduce poverty in only 120 days"...

Anybody notice the sleight of hand? Poverty is reducing every day even without the RTI2 law, so at least you can't accuse him of falsehood in advertising. Now if he said "eliminate"

, then someone might actually stop laughing and start fighting, cause 120 days is like four effing months. Then, of course, RM would win - just like Gandhi did. Because, you know, AWMTA

Not to mention: "Rajavarg must be prajaa-aaadheen; a Rajavarg that is not prajaa-aadheen will rob citizens and destroy nation". Does anyone expect to publish an ad with that in Indian Express in English and get any mileage... You got to love the guy for his dogged persistence and relentlessness. True Indian qualities.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 01 Oct 2010 09:43

Salute to his spirit. There's no stopping this brave man!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Oct 2010 05:30

JE Menon wrote:^^^ Fellow admins, didn't we receive an email which sounded just like that the other day?

After reading above, I'm convinced that if I take an exam in political mathematics I'll probably score a zero.

The purpose of the media is propaganda, and the purpose of the propaganda is to convince individuals that there is a consensus about something or the other. Consent may not actually be manufactured ... however, an illusion of consent is created. RM ji's proposal subverts this system, so it is indeed quite revolutionary.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 03 Oct 2010 22:37

Maybe so, and one must give space for all opinions. My opinion is outlined above. I mean, I like the guy, and it's a pity that he stopped posting (as far as I know he wasn't banned) - although his habit of bringing in the same topic on every thread in a one-size-fits-all manner - was disruptive and frankly, tiresome for admins, so we had to cuff him upside the virtual head on occasion. From what I can tell much of what he is saying is incomprehensible (to me at least), but he did it very pleasantly, kind of like the uncle who insists on thayr-saadam on a long-haul flight because it's good for health. Someone, sooner or later, has to gently break it to him that there isn't a cook on the aircraft. Sounds cute nevertheless.

I could, for instance, insist that nothing will work well in India unless everyone has excellent bowel movement in the morning, and we should do all that is possible to ensure that. No matter what argument is brought out, we could insist that no judge or nbjprie (?) or whatever could make the right decisions on a poor constitution. Sooner or later, we'll have some followers...

I really do wish RM all the best of luck in his endeavours though. And I think that's his best quality, being relentless and persistent without somehow getting people totally on the wrong side. Didn't he stand for elections somewhere recently? Did he win? I didn't follow. Hope he did. Maybe he can start in a small way. Like Gandhi did. If he did not succeed, I hope he persists. Sooner or later he will win, and then he can take the usual path to fulfill his vision.

Like I said, I really do think he embodies some hardcore Indian qualities (at least as I perceive them), in particular a dogged persistence utterly unmindful of the odds.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Oct 2010 23:31

JE Menon wrote:Didn't he stand for elections somewhere recently? Did he win? I didn't follow. Hope he did. Maybe he can start in a small way. Like Gandhi did. If he did not succeed, I hope he persists. Sooner or later he will win, and then he can take the usual path to fulfill his vision.

Like I said, I really do think he embodies some hardcore Indian qualities (at least as I perceive them), in particular a dogged persistence utterly unmindful of the odds.

With EVM elections, one cannot count on people with the most public support winning.

Yet, the rulers have to maintain a facade of democracy - for now. Therefore, there is still some amount of freedom of speech. Thus the hope for people like RM ji is to use non-mainstream media to reach people and work towards the delegitimization of current system.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 05 Oct 2010 03:45

The note and the ban

It was in early 1964 that the Communist Party of India split into two (‘The Great Communist Split, IE, September 20), the more radical part of it renaming itself the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Then Union home minister, G. L. Nanda, took barely a few months to slap a ban on the CPM and carry out mass arrests of its leaders and active workers. His decision was rather dubious, because it was based on nothing more than reports from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to the effect that, despite the Chinese invasion of India two years earlier, the Marxists were “aggressively” propagating the Chinese point of view and arguing that India should enter into negotiations on the boundary question with China in a “cooperative atmosphere.” In the IB’s view, these men and women, no fewer than 1,200 in number, were a “danger to
Indian security.” It therefore wanted them arrested and detained without charge or trial.

L. P. Singh was a highly respected and very competent, if a tad too fastidious, home secretary — who, incidentally, thought highly of Raghavan. On getting the deputy secretary’s note virtually asking for a reconsideration of a decision taken after due deliberation at the appropriate level, LP did not angrily send the note back to his subordinate. Instead, he forwarded the file to Nanda, with his own remarks — that praised Raghavan for expressing his reservations, but countered every single argument of the deputy secretary and recommended that the decision taken should stand. For his part, the home minister chose to send the file to the Prime Minister who wrote on it, in his enviably neat handwriting: “I appreciate Raghavan’s efforts to put down his views. However, for reasons mentioned by HS (home secretary) we may go ahead with implementing the decision.”

Even this wasn’t the end of the matter as far as Raghavan was concerned. He could do nothing to disobey the prime minister’s directive. But as he went over the list of those whose arrest warrants he was to sign, he was horrified to find that it included leaders like Jyoti Basu, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, Harkishen Singh Surjeet, A. K. Gopalan and Susheela Gopalan. Whatever the ideology of these leaders, their patriotism was never in doubt. They must not be locked up, he firmly believed.

Once again he put down his dissenting views on the file and sent it to his boss, the home secretary. This time around LP endorsed his deputy secretary’s stand, as did home minister Nanda. It later transpired that Nanda’s reasoning was different. Not arresting some CPM leaders and imprisoning all others, he thought, would sow seeds of mutual suspicion among the comrades!

Regardless of this, the decision was wise and sagacious, especially considering the services some of the Marxist leaders not sent to jail were to render the country later. Namboodiripad was CM of Kerala several times. Jyoti Basu was the longest serving chief minister of West Bengal, holding that office for a record period of 26 years. But for the obduracy of some of the mule-headed hardliners in his party he would almost certainly have been prime minister as well. Surjeet was an extremely useful and constructive link between the Left in this country and the governments of H. D. Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral in very difficult times.

Imagine if the Police had shot those worthies, India would have been much better. Thanks to Raghavan WB sufered for over 3 decades and is yet to comeout of Marxist yoke.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Oct 2010 05:38

Was listening to NPR today and there is a program on rare-earth materials and how PRC dominates this space...

Facts - PRC controls 95% of world rare-earth material resources/supply chains. It is believed that PRC used this threat to subvert Japan on recent issue. This past year PRC reduced its exports of REMs by 72% causing a SIX-Fold increase in their prices.

The so-called "liberal" media - NPR was (loudly) pondering if USA has to rethink its strategy on free trade. Should National Interests veto economic/trade interests? Should national interests veto even the environmental interests??

And here on our "nationalistic" forum we have people arguing that if national interests can be subverted to achieve economic progress.. to the extent that they claim a (I am paraphrasing) "blade of grass doesn't grow" in POK.

Can ever a $15T India can buy a piece of TSP land for say $500B? Why didn't USA think of buying entire Afghanistan for say a $500B instead of wasting all that money in war???

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Oct 2010 06:59

Rahul Mehta was actually banned permanently. If the mods un-ban him and let him know ([email protected]), he would probably be willing to post again.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 05 Oct 2010 07:25

Pranav wrote:Rahul Mehta was actually banned permanently. If the mods un-ban him and let him know ([email protected]), he would probably be willing to post again.

Yes. Let us unban him if possible. We need all shades of nationalistic opinions and his opinion was nationalistic even if it put off some people.
If we can have TonyMontana why not RM

Thanks

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Oct 2010 08:06

RM actually had a 3 month ban which is long up. I checked now and unfortunately some mod (could have been me as well, don't remember) mistakenly put in perm ban. he is now unbanned.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Oct 2010 09:15

Glad he can be back.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Oct 2010 12:23

JE Menon wrote: I could, for instance, insist that nothing will work well in India unless everyone has excellent bowel movement in the morning, and we should do all that is possible to ensure that.

And also toilets, dont forget the toilets. Nothing must be done by India for xyz years till we have good bowel movement and toilets to take care of it.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Oct 2010 12:54

Sanku wrote:And also toilets, dont forget the toilets. Nothing must be done by India for xyz years till we have good bowel movement and toilets to take care of it.

Toilets are important because of their meditative benefits on the Indian mind.

Great thoughts
come only on Toilet Pots.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Oct 2010 13:25

Just connect the Toilets to a digester which in turn generates Biogas.

Add that as my do paisa to the the dhaga

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Oct 2010 01:55

If you guys have facebook accts, go post a message on his page.

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 07 Oct 2010 09:11

Request Admins to move to the correct thread, if this is not the one..

Neighbours building military capabilities at feverish pace: Antony

NEW DELHI: India has expressed concern at the way both Pakistan and China are rapidly bolstering their military capabilities, in the backdrop of the armed forces warning that the possibility ``a two-front war'' breaking out cannot be ruled out altogether even though it may be a remote scenario.

``Our neighbours are building their military capabilities at a feverish pace. Thus, to successfully meet such challenges, the need for us is to be vigilant and prepared at all times,'' said defence minister A K Antony on Wednesday.

India's ``strategic, geopolitical situation'' and the compulsions of history pose unique challenges. ``Some nations are keen to incite threats to our unity and integrity,'' he said, speaking after the Field Marshal Cariappa annual memorial lecture by former President APJ Abdul Kalam.

Kalam, on his part, said India has to be prepared for ``fast-paced, technology-driven warfare'', stretching from nuclear to cyber-warfare. ``Future warfare, that is powered by cyber war, can create destruction effortlessly at the speed of light. ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and other nuclear weapons will become insignificant in the cyber-warfare environment,'' he said.

Before 2020, said Kalam, the armed forces should have space-based surveillance and reconnaissance networks, anti-ballistic missile systems, ICBMs with a range beyond 5,000 km, nuclear submarines armed with strategic missiles and the like.

Antony, in a bid to ward off criticism that the UPA government is not doing enough to swiftly equip the armed forces with the latest weapon systems, said the Centre was ``alive'' to the pressing need to quicken the pace of modernisation.

A number of measures, he declared, have been initiated to provide impetus to defence procurements to ensure the armed forces can effectively guard against threats to the country's land borders, airspace and maritime energy supply routes.

``The defence ministry is in the process of implementing a new procurement policy, which would be even more effective and quicker than the current Defence Procurement Procedure-2008,'' said Antony.

Holding that the private and public sector ``can and must co-exist'' in the defence sector, he said the government had undertaken several steps to promote public-private partnerships to fast-track military modernisation.

``All the agencies in the public and private sector must cooperate to share efforts and resources to address design, manufacturing and maintenance concerns of our defence forces. On their own, defence PSUs are unlikely to be able to meet all the requirements of armed forces at the desired pace and within the required timeframes,'' he said.

Antony, however, admitted efforts to reduce the import content of India's defence requirements were ``not yielding the desired results'', given that the country still gets 70% of its military hardware and software from abroad.

``We are still far off from establishing ourselves as a major defence equipment manufacturing nation... Given our economic status, this is not a very desirable state of affairs. If modernisation is to be more meaningful, it must go hand-in-hand with indigenisation,'' he said.

I don't know if this is Mr Clean's attempt at Irony? Is he so in love with his honesty that he doesn't care if the Indian armed Forces are a obsolete rust bucket equipped force or not?

Oh, THOU Blind Fool! Love - What dost thou to mine eyes, that they behold, yet see not what they see?

{William Shakespeare Sonnet 137}

Or, is this a secret CBM with Unkil - in fact, what has UPA procured since it came to power in 2004? Anyone?

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 08 Oct 2010 20:51

Chineese agent in GOI scr****g up projects in NE and Bhutan

In unprecedented distancing from the government by a key minister and questioning its development works in the strategic North-East and Bhutan, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has taken up with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demands for a review of all hydel projects in the region and a “moratorium on any further clearances for hydel projects in Arunachal Pradesh” since “these are bound to be the subject of agitation” in Assam.

In a letter to the Prime Minister on September 16 after attending a meeting in Guwahati of “civil society organizations” opposed to big dams, Ramesh has highlighted the views of “some NGOs” that “we should not make Arunachal Pradesh a pawn in the race between India and China”.

This, Ramesh states, was the response to his explanation on the “strategic significance” of projects in Arunachal Pradesh. But in his letter, he only names one NGO called Adi Students Union which made a representation to him on this issue.

His visit has upset several senior Cabinet members. A senior minister told The Indian Express: “This is suo motu activism that only serves to incite passions. How can a minister discuss strategic aspects of projects with activists in such a sensitive region?”

At least ten times in the three-page letter to the Prime Minister, Ramesh refers to “sentiments”, “dominant view”, “great concern”, “concerns of the people”, “opposition building up”. ( All jholawala words )

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 09 Oct 2010 09:58

Recall what others were thinking of India at the turn of the twentieth century

Mrs. Annie Besant writes in the Central Hindu College Magazine for October:

Two views of India's future have been put forward: One, that India is effete and is passing into decay, to vanish as Babylonia and Egypt have vanished; the other, that she has a future greater than her past, and is destined to rise to a peak of dazzling glory, the Heart of the greatest Empire that the world has yet seen.

It is the second of these two views that I have been doing my best to popularise . . . .

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 12 Oct 2010 06:40

For anybody who doubts that our politicians are guilty of treason -

Congress took U.S. money: Daniel Patrick Moynihan http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/12/stories ... 050700.htm

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 12 Oct 2010 07:05

^^^ See also: Brijesh Mishra a CIA agent? http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/ ... agent.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Oct 2010 09:06

X posting form Pak-Af thread.

Rajesh,

If the political will is astute then there is no reason why India should not go into Afghanistan. If TSP has been pacified. In that I agree with the "western experts". That the road to peace in Afgannistan runs through Islamabad. India must take down TSP and alter the political boundries of the Subcontinent once more. This was done in 71, it has to be done again. India simply has no choice any more.

If it allows the TSP to continue to exist then, it deserves what it gets from the TSP and the west / PRC. The currency of soft power is credible if it is backed up by hard power. There can be no better demonstration of hard power other then the demolition of the TSP.

How that can be accomplished can be debated. But the end result must be accepted. If India is to take a prominant position in the International relations.

Once the TSP is under controll. Controlling Afghanistan become easy.

More over, it also gives us unristricted access to the resource rich CAR. Along with the opportunity of re-establishing the Silk route.

JMT

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 19:46

X-Posting from PRC Thread

Published on Oct 11, 2010
Press Release
New survey reveals stark differences between Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs

Indians do it for freedom – Chinese for money

Ground-breaking new survey of Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs finds big differences in their reasons for starting a business. Indians are driven by the desire to be their own boss; Chinese by the lure of making money.

Published on Oct 11, 2010
Legatum Institute: Survey of Entrepreneurs: China & India (pdf)

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 12 Oct 2010 20:53

India "awarded" Non-permanent UN security council seat.
Read:"You can bark all you want but you cant bite"

Mods:Do we need a seperate thread for this fetish orgy?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Oct 2010 21:01

Altair wrote:India "awarded" Non-permanent UN security council seat.
Read:"You can bark all you want but you cant bite"

Mods:Do we need a seperate thread for this fetish orgy?

At the moment the thread "Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UNSC?" has mutated into the India-UN Thread. One can use that, or create another one depending on how Mods see it.