Indian Interests

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Dec 2009 03:46

ldev wrote:Brihaspati and Acharya,
Firstly I dont think India has any plans for imperialist expansion. Maybe those are your ambitions.

As per Dictionary.com {source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperialism}

noun
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

As per Answers.com {Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/imperialism}

n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

As per MSN Encarata {Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616 ... alism.html}

noun
Definition:

1. belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
2. domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
3. takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination
cultural imperialism

In my opinion, for any large country such as India with a huge population to govern it becomes imperative that it exhibit shades of Imperialism. I personally resonate with MSN Encarta's #1 definition. Our values and ways of life have changed from what they were centuries ago, so the word "rule" sounds harsh and plain trouble; but definitely big countries have to influence other countries. India has to work to keep certain countries friendly all the time.

So based on that definition, I think India should be Imperialistic (or ambitious) to influence other State and non-State actors in the World. It is in "Indian Interest" that is should develop regions that exist in its sphere of influence. It is not easy and needs exhibition of both soft and hard power. In order to do this India has to dig into its own history and use the lessons and shared culture to influence selected countries on a case to case basis.

India has to continually look towards expanding its sphere of influence and friends; in that aspect it has to display streaks of Imperialism. By this I don't mean India should capture any country or ill-treat any other nation. It has to aggressively develop healthy relations with select countries. I say select countries, because it would be nice if the whole world was friendly but that is not going to happen. There are other global players in the arena and they are not going to sit quietly while we engage in expanding our influence.

Added: Panda and Unkil do this in their own way. If a large country wants to be counted in the World affairs, it has to show some shades of Imperialism.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 03:51

ldev ji,
you still have not shown me where in my three brief posts, I have expressed anything about "Indian imperialist expansion". You are keeping on tagging Acharya as having "agreed" with my post and then go on to accuse him of proposing "Indian imeperialist" expansion" and trying to wriggle out of his "agreement" with me! In one logical sequence that makes me the proposer of "Indian imperialist expansion"!

By the way, let me ask you a question in return - why do you think "Indian imperialist expansion" (whatever you mean by it) is against Indian "interests"? This will ultimately require you to spell out what you think "Indian interests" are or "should be", and then you will have to show why a policy of "imperialist exapnsion" will jeopardize that "interest".

It faintly smells to me of becoming OT for this thread. So if you feel the same, you could carry it on in the "future strategic scenario" thread.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 03:53

brihaspati wrote:ldev ji,
you still have not shown me where in my three brief posts, I have expressed anything about "Indian imperialist expansion". You are keeping on tagging Acharya as having "agreed" with my post and then go on to accuse him of proposing "Indian imeperialist" expansion" and trying to wriggle out of his "agreement" with me! In one logical sequence that makes me the proposer of "Indian imperialist expansion"!

Thanks Bji. We have not even come to this yet and Mr.Imperial Expansion here wants to jump ahead.

archan · Post by **archan** » 30 Dec 2009 03:55

Allright guys, let us end it here. Idev, please don't pursue the question. Thanks.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Dec 2009 04:11

Off topic post deleted, user warned for contributing towards thread disruption and discussing religion.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 04:20

off topic post. Enough NRI vs resident Indian discussion. This is Indian Interests thread.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 04:34

A_Gupta wrote
Both "Hindu/Hindu" ("caste") and "Hindu/Muslim" ("religious") problems may be dissolved though the new element that has entered the picture, which is an unprecedented pace (faster than any time in India's past, even if still wholly inadequate) of socio-economic and technological development.

Accurate. Now would you agree that education, primary, secondary and higher is an integral pre-condition for that "unprecendented pace"? So any time or effort spent in giving any religious/faith "education" is a waste of time and resources - right? So why should taxpayers money or even private funding be allowed to go to waste as far as education for economic productivity is concerned?

So is it not better to have one single framework for education and training for higher skills that has no place for any faith-based components? Therefore, derecognition of faith based institutions? Substitution of only rashtra maintained system, where every citizen enrols compulsorily - and is given full exposure to necessary education and training that helps him/her to become increasingly productive as consistent with the then current technology - but no faith education please?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Dec 2009 04:49

A_Gupta wrote:Both "Hindu/Hindu" ("caste") and "Hindu/Muslim" ("religious") problems may be dissolved though the new element that has entered the picture, which is an unprecedented pace (faster than any time in India's past, even if still wholly inadequate) of socio-economic and technological development.

I have to disagree with you and Brihaspati on this one. Through out history powerful and influential elites have spearheaded changes for the better and worse of human kind. And they have done this from personal situations in which they enjoyed more socio-economic conditions than others. We humans are intricate creatures; once one set of our needs are met we then just convert some of our wants into needs. Case in example: NRIs. NRIs (a.k.a Elites) and citizens of other countries (having Indian origins) right in this forum continue to engage in conversations here and perform activities (like Charity etc) connected to India. It is reasonable to expect most of the NRIs are reasonably comfortable (if not well off) and enjoy vast material benefits, yet why do they indulge in whatever they do? Is it simple time-pass?

Bji: Plato there?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 04:52

SwamyG wrote:
I have to disagree with you, Acharya and Brihaspati on this one.

Now what is my post on this. Can you point out.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 30 Dec 2009 05:29

A_Gupta wrote:problems may be dissolved though the new element that has entered the picture, which is an unprecedented pace (faster than any time in India's past, even if still wholly inadequate) of socio-economic and technological development.

Certainly a hopeful idea, but reality is more complex. Two of the states where secessionist tendencies were/are the strongest are also amongst the richest within the country. Unprecedented economic progress will also sharpen fault lines as is happening in AP due to disparity of growth, if for various reasons (religious or otherwise) a group of the society doesn't/cannot participate in the forward march.

If one is 24/7 occupied with basic existential issues then there is little time to pursue 'higher' needs and explore causes for historic (real or imagined) grievances. Once the basic needs are met these issues come to foreground as the community can support 'leaders' with inclinations for pursuing divisive agendas purely in the politico-religious space. Not to mention antagonistic external elements who would like to support these elements to get their sadistic satisfaction of ensuring the persistence of filth and poverty.

Certainly growth will cure problems which are primarily caused by bad economic environment and related societal reactions to deprivation/poverty/economic insecurity. But unfortunately quite a few of the problems afflicting the country don't fall in that framework.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Dec 2009 05:33

Acharya wrote:
SwamyG wrote:
I have to disagree with you, Acharya and Brihaspati on this one.
Now what is my post on this. Can you point out.

I read you wrongly. I apologize. I will edit out the post. Sorry again, it was my mistake and I attributed something to you on a subject you did not comment upon.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 05:49

SwamyG,
I was innocently trying to "explore"! I was developing an angle that came up about this supposed inexorable force of "development" that appears in so much of discussions now-a-days - that is going sweep away all "obstacles" before it. Please read where I have logically extended that argument. You will see, what my own conclusions are - if you think of from whom and where the greatest opposition will come to the proposal I have outlined.

Many of us, in the goodness of our heart, project our hopes on the real world as reality. I am a sceptic. I think of the negative, because that prepares for both negative and positive. In fact any positive is sweeter because it was not anticipiated.

I do not personally subscribe to the idea that "development" is the panacea for everything, and will be so for India too. It will solve some, but not all, and will generate new ones and complicate older ones - if we are not careful.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Dec 2009 05:53

brihaspati wrote: Accurate. Now would you agree that education, primary, secondary and higher is an integral pre-condition for that "unprecedented pace"?

Yes.

So any time or effort spent in giving any religious/faith "education" is a waste of time and resources - right? So why should taxpayers money or even private funding be allowed to go to waste as far as education for economic productivity is concerned?

Man does not live for bread alone. Taxpayers' money should not go into religious education in any case. Private funding is legitimate.

So is it not better to have one single framework for education and training for higher skills that has no place for any faith-based components? Therefore, derecognition of faith based institutions? Substitution of only rashtra maintained system, where every citizen enrols compulsorily - and is given full exposure to necessary education and training that helps him/her to become increasingly productive as consistent with the then current technology - but no faith education please?

The way this question is framed makes me uncomfortable. I'd say that the standards for science, technology/engineering, medicine, accounting, finance, etc., and vocational training should have a unified framework that sets high uniform standards across the country, and that has nothing to do with religion/faith. I would spend a higher percentage of the nation's budget making sure all children complete KG-12th. "Compulsory" is a nice word - but hard to implement. I would increase the carrots - e.g., by two school meals a day, book subsidy, healthcare for kids in school, etc. - rather than have the sticks that go with "compulsory".

Faith education would be upto the parents and community-based organizations.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Dec 2009 06:00

brihaspati wrote:SwamyG,
I was innocently trying to "explore"! I was developing an angle that came up about this supposed inexorable force of "development" that appears in so much of discussions now-a-days - that is going sweep away all "obstacles" before it. Please read where I have logically extended that argument. You will see, what my own conclusions are - if you think of from whom and where the greatest opposition will come to the proposal I have outlined.

Development is not a magical broom that will sweep all problems away.

It is merely the new element in the game that did not exist as a significant force prior to 1947 and even prior to the 1990s. It is what makes extrapolation of trends from past history likely to be mistaken. Someone in 1900 in India could pretty much expect 1875-1900 would be a decent guide to 1901-1925, and not go far wrong.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 06:05

Science, technology, medicine fuels development and growth in "prosperity" terms. Logically, this means more time spent on learning science, tech, medicine equals more development and growth. So why should "non-productive" inputs like faith/belief education be allowed to waste the valuable time and resources needed to train a citizen towards "prosperity"? Yes, parents, social-networks can provide those ideological inputs - it should not come in the way of "training for development" in the formal educational system.

Even if it is based on private funding, if that money does not go into "productive" education - then that money is going against the principle of development. Because it is supporting waste of time and resource that could have been spent on "productive" education.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Dec 2009 06:31

brihaspati wrote:Science, technology, medicine fuels development and growth in "prosperity" terms. Logically, this means more time spent on learning science, tech, medicine equals more development and growth. So why should "non-productive" inputs like faith/belief education be allowed to waste the valuable time and resources needed to train a citizen towards "prosperity"? Yes, parents, social-networks can provide those ideological inputs - it should not come in the way of "training for development" in the formal educational system.

Even if it is based on private funding, if that money does not go into "productive" education - then that money is going against the principle of development. Because it is supporting waste of time and resource that could have been spent on "productive" education.

So, would you therefore ban the use of private funds or private volunteer efforts for teaching religion to private individuals in their personal time? If so, how would you go about achieving this in a practical way?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 06:44

If I went Rahul Mehta -way - I would say, make a law that makes all religious dissemination entirely honorary and voluntary - strcitly no money. [RM you did not really suggest any such thing - this is using the "if" mode which I have learnt recently from perusing the forum : "if X kills Y then we will hang X"

X really need not kill anyone to earn such expressions]

Without going to that extreme, a simple loading up of the syllabus and performance commitments on students will ensure that they will have no time for any "undesirable extra-curricular" activity either. If the parents are made conscious of the importance of spending every last squeezed bit of time on "productive" education - that brings in prosperity - that in itself will ensure that parent will ensure "non-productive" education is not tasted by their children.

Parents and children will choose "prosperity" over "faith"! After all, prosperity has stronger pull than any religion/faith - is'nt it? Without that assumption, the entire gamut of arguments for enhancing material prosperity as the cure-all for religious conflict/distrust/extremism becomes invalid.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 30 Dec 2009 06:49

^^^

But the godperson industry is a potent and large employer. Students may as well study and do this right because prosperity and religion are not incompatible with each other.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 06:56

May I seek permission from kind postors to drop myself out of this line of discussion?

Its difficult for me to pretend for long to play devil's advocate or argue for arguments sake on something I do not believe in personally. Mafi maange!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2009 07:10

brihaspati wrote:May I seek permission from kind postors to drop myself out of this line of discussion? Its difficult for me to pretend for long to play devil's advocate or argue for arguments sake on something I do not believe in personally. Mafi maange!

Thanks. When a person takes part in a "discussion" with no specific aim other than "argue for arguments sake" it is trolling. Dropping out with a voluntary confession such as this is perfectly honorable and praiseworthy and helps increase the signal noise ratio.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 09:11

Shiv ji,
The merit of an argument is not judged by how strongly the arguer believes or not in his argument. If it was so, no argument made by professional lawyers/barristers/solicitors would have been acceptable in any court of law. Neither is the arguer's morals/ethics questioned because he or she does not necessarily believe in his arguments which he has simply constructed from a given set of axioms - by a simple process of logic.

You have questioned my morals before. But how could such a morally conscious person as yourself avoid challenging the arguments I put forward and concentrate all your efforts on trying to make me appear as a troll! (It is the second time - in not so many pages that you have tried to do so). Or do you apply a different set of morals for yourself?

I have given quite a few arguments connected to "education". Their merit of the given arguments should not be judged based on whether I believe in them or not. Belief is a matter of "faith" and not of logic. Why not attack and trash the arguments rather than go after me!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Dec 2009 09:22

What was the reaction when NRIs bought up all those Resurgent India bonds after the 1998 tests?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 09:49

ramana wrote:What was the reaction when NRIs bought up all those Resurgent India bonds after the 1998 tests?

NRIs are required when the money is required and balance of payment is needed.
When it comes to view NRIs are living in a different world and are not needed for their views and discussion.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Dec 2009 10:13

Enough of OT NRI/resident discussion.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 Dec 2009 10:38

deleted

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 30 Dec 2009 11:18

OT deleted

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Dec 2009 11:53

OT deleted

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 30 Dec 2009 11:59

And no amount of brainwashing in Hindu supremacist idealogy can wish away the 150-180 million Indians who are nominally non hindu. The only possible answer is deep seated insecurity among them.

I also wonder whether this insecurity is communicated via genes.

Wow.

Genetically communicated insecurities explain an NRI desire to wish away non-Hindu Indians?

Wow again.

I can understand that the NRI Hindootvawadis are the target here. Again, thank you for taking such a fine and bold line of argument, sir.

/
For the record, I am no NRI. NRIs seem to have become 'Not Required Indians' of late on BRF or what? I simply don't get the level of angst and venom here. What gives?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 12:00

somnath wrote:
But any pretension of NRI "magnaniimity" or patriotism on anything - normal remittance into India or IMD/RIB is a load of rubbish...Its just prudent, actually attractive investing..

The question is why was it not done in 1991 when there was a balance of payment problem

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 12:09

A_Gupta wrote:To echo Shiv: The symptoms displayed on BRF are manifestations of insecurity, looking for the cloud behind every silver lining. Most of the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India is caused by the behavior caused by fear and distrust of the other. An enormous amount of effort goes into justifying why this fear and distrust must necessarily be there. Each debate is just another brick in the wall.

Do not look at BRF as only NRI. That would be false and it is still a small representative. It only attracts only the security conscious folks.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Dec 2009 12:12

Acharya wrote:
somnath wrote:
But any pretension of NRI "magnaniimity" or patriotism on anything - normal remittance into India or IMD/RIB is a load of rubbish...Its just prudent, actually attractive investing..
The question is why was it not done in 1991 when there was a balance of payment problem

Exactly, in 1991, India was fairly close to default on forex obligations.therefore it wasnt an "aceptable credit story" even to NRIs..Therefore the govt had to go in for IMF funding..The situation had changed drastically in 1998 post 6-7 years of reforms..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 12:16

somnath wrote: Exactly, in 1991, India was fairly close to default on forex obligations.therefore it wasnt an "aceptable credit story" even to NRIs..Therefore the govt had to go in for IMF funding..The situation had changed drastically in 1998 post 6-7 years of reforms..

That is not what I am talking here.
Why did the govt have to go to Bank of England when it could have raised the return on the bonds above the market norm and got non Indians to buy it.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Dec 2009 12:24

^^^ I sanswered that..Because in 1991, India was not an acceptable credit in the international credit markets, so no one, NRIs included, would be willing to buy "India paper"..therefore, we had to look to multilateral funding options..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 12:28

somnath wrote:^^^ I sanswered that..Because in 1991, India was not an acceptable credit in the international credit markets, so no one, NRIs included, would be willing to buy "India paper"..therefore, we had to look to multilateral funding options..

Sanctions and lowering of the rating was higher in 1998 and should have given the same effect.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Dec 2009 12:42

^^^ Not true..India's sovereign ratings post dowgrades in both 1991 and 1998 were the same Ba2 (Moody's, S&P started sovereign ratings of India only in 1992)..More than the ratings, its the sentiment around the credit that is important when one is looking at raising money..(Example - UAE is rated AA, and despite that Dubai spreads went up to BB/B level recently afgter the Dubai Wrold fiasco) In 1991, India's macro picture in terms of growth, forex reserves etc were pretty bad..1998 was very different, when the macro story was that of a country coming out fairly well out of the Asian crisis..

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 Dec 2009 12:51

somnath wrote: 1998 was very different, when the macro story was that of a country coming out fairly well out of the Asian crisis..

Not really. India was not part of any asian crisis but the sanctions and ratings had been down very badly.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Dec 2009 13:00

ldev wrote:
But the disconnect that Shiv speaks off with the present generation of NRIs is inexplicable. Communication is no longer an issue. The India that they have left behind is changing faster than imaginable. And no amount of brainwashing in Hindu supremacist idealogy can wish away the 150-180 million Indians who are nominally non hindu. The only possible answer is deep seated insecurity among them.

I also wonder whether this insecurity is communicated via genes. More on this later, but the history of Marathas thread in the GDF thread gave me some ideas I will talk about in a later post.

Hold on a second there. I accept that there are varying degrees of disconnect between what NRI's think of the situation in India and the ground reality here. But how did you arrive at the conclusion that NRI's are being brainwashed in "Hindu Supremacist Ideology"? And brainwashed by whom? What is Hindu supremacist ideology anyway?
You can't make any wild claims on this forum without backing them up with evidence and get away with it.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Dec 2009 13:04

Acharya wrote:
somnath wrote: 1998 was very different, when the macro story was that of a country coming out fairly well out of the Asian crisis..
Not really. India was not part of any asian crisis but the sanctions and ratings had been down very badly.

Acharya ji,
I don't get your line of reasoning in the past few posts. How does the fact that NRI's did not heavily invest in India during the 1991 crisis prove that they did that in 1998 out of some great sense of patriotism rather than because it was a good and sound investment option. In fact it seems to prove otherwise. I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say so please correct me if that is the case.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 30 Dec 2009 13:04

Acharya wrote:Not really. India was not part of any asian crisis but the sanctions and ratings had been down very badly.

Everyone was part of the Asian crisis (and the Russian default) of 1997-98..Just check the GDP numbers for 1998 and 1999 - it was 6% and 3.8% resp if I am not mistaken - shows how much the impact was...Foreign flows into emerging Asia dried up considerably..But as I said, even then India was managing pretty well, one of the few to post positive growth..

On ratings in 1998, my bloomberg tells me that the ratings were down only a notch - BB+ to BB (S&P), so not a big deal at all..Compared to that, in 1991 the downgrades were drastic (from A2 to Baa1 to Baa3 to Ba2, all in a matter of a few months)....

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 30 Dec 2009 13:21

^^^

This article says that India had regained an investment grade credit rating from Moody's post 1991 but lost it in 1998. The downgrade was not based on the economic situation at hand, but was initiated because they disapproved of the nuclear tests.