Bharat Rakshak

This is real funny..One prime example of random Google search to find some data without an iota of understanding of the concept behind the data...

First, "hard terms" was used to define "commercially priced" (presumably, as nothing else was there to define it!) credit to BD...Now its a funny term by itself - not used in financial literature - but if only the "acadmic" did enough due diligence to check the "source's" own defnitions, he would have found out this:

HARD-TERM BORROWING:- In the case of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, this relates to all
loans with an interest rate of five (5) percentage points and above and/or repayment period of less
than twelve (12) years.

Let me give the source in any case...http://www.erd.gov.bd/images/FlowBook/0809/fl-def.pdf

Its a definition given by the Bangladesh Ministry of Finance for a certain type of borrowing, thats all..A bit like "Invisibles" in the Indian context - its not a term used by most countries, in fact none AFAIK..In any cae, not a variable that is generic enough to be compared across different countries..5% and <=12 years standalone mean nothing as a benchmark for credit worthiness or credit pricing - either for BD or for any other country over time...My hunch is BD giovt would have taken it as a cut-off for ease of classification of a few relatively minor items in their creidt portfolio - which is the other interesting story, hereunder...

Here's the funnier stuff on the way....It was concluded in "statistcical genius" terms on the basis of this data that India "predominates" "hard terms" credit to BD..

Well, as it stands India today has only ~7 million of outstandings in that "hard terms" list, and ranks #3, the highest by far being China...Here is the reference...
http://www.erd.gov.bd/images/FlowBook/0910/tbl-8.2.pdf
Obvioulsly, even the table was not gone through properly..Or maybe nominal in INR (termed IRS here in the report - another non standard expression) could not be recalculated in USD terms by estmeed academic!

Even more...This data was supposedly an indicator of how BD economists view aid, investments and the implications of the same given India being the "highest outstanding"...Well, the total o/s under this category is 170 million dollars - an infintesmial fracction of BD's total credit/aid portfolio...And therefore economists would be using THIS as the determining variable on decision-making on aid/investments and "political economy", esp from India!!!

So basically,

1. A non-standard definition is an insight of universal comparison.
2. #1 = #3
3. 170 million dollars of loans is the basis on which BD economists ponder over strategic choices!


Now I know why Indian students typically scan through "foreign unis" so carefully - quality is a real issue!

Sure - a lot of laughter is needed to cover up for the fact that initially it was declared pompously that "hard term" credit/borrowing/loans/debt are not used in "international finance" or "economics". At least this forced the guru of "international finance" or to look up some data before dismissing statements by others!

Why is it so typical for uber pseudo-secularists to declare things/terms do not exist if they have never come across them!

Actually "hard term borrowings" was quoted by me as just one variable - indicating that India is already high in "giving". But more importantly how such borrowings/investments are looked at from the BD side, economists as well as political side - was a query from me to explore. Opinions are solidly divided on this on that side, and only supreme arrogance and lack of following up on policy side will laugh at questions about potential political impact.

The impact of China's higher dollar outstanding rarely appears in the political debates within BD whereas India's smallest presence is much more of an issue -because of obvious political implication or perceptions.


Reaction to investments from India can be studied through the reaction to the Tata's initiative - a move that has basically lent wind to the "save-oil-gas" committee and the opposition to AL/Sk Haseena. Same has gone with the Kaptai project and offers of sharing of benefits, and other issues. Even the much touted 1 billion -credit was seen as an issue of encroachment on "sovereignty" and economically/financially unfavourable to BD by a substantial section of economists. BNP has already declared that if it comes back to power it will repudiate all such "sovereignty damaging" "treaties".

Good try...International economics will now be defined by a random classification of non-variable by, of all, Bangladesh Ministry of Finance! And that non-variable used as a measure of "analysis"!

Well, I guess the above falls in the same category of analysis that says #1=#3, 170 million dollars is huge for BD, India is the "largest" creditor and so on....google search without even basic reading and arithmatic skills could result in such ponpous monstrosities...

Just to complete the information flow, here are the list of donors and creditors of BD..

http://www.erd.gov.bd/images/FlowBook/0910/chart-6.pdf
http://www.erd.gov.bd/images/FlowBook/0910/tbl-7.0.pdf

the "top 20 donor" chart is quite revealing - maybe it didnt come up in google searches - India isnt all that "high in giving" at all....I mean, unless by some other google search, #16 is considered "high"

The issue is different, which of course the purveyors of google search to unravel non-terms of finance fail to realise (btw, what is this fetish with "hard" in this community - there was "hard terms", earlier there was "hard cash"!)....And that is the fact that BD, along with a number of other LDCs, is trying hard (no pun intended!) to come out of the aid trap - the situation where aid is used largely simply to service existing debt...They are lokoing at enhanced trade and investments...Greater connectivity to India is the easiest way for BD to achieve that..And it is true for all SA countries as well...Presence of the world's second fastest growing major economy is the natural attraction..Politicians in these countries are getting the message, and are visibly, publicly articulatign the desire for greater cooperation...It opens up new windows for us - we need to capture these opportunities...

Well here is some more non-use of terminology : "hard term" "loans/credit/borrowings" - the BD ERD is a nut-case defining non-standard terms never used in "international finance/economics" out of its own sweet will - because one self-styled "international finance" guru never came across the terminology :

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others/Len ... cM7-09.pdf

LENDING RATE FOR HARD-TERM ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND LOANS APPROVED IN 2009

Hard-term ADF loans, similar to the hard-term window of the International Development Association, have terms that provide a higher degree of concessionality than loans funded from ordinary capital resources (OCR), i.e., a lower interest rate and a longer grace period.

The interest rate is 150 basis points below the weighted average of the 10-year fixed swap rates of the currencies comprising the special drawing rights as of 31 December 2008 plus the OCR effective contractual spread.

For hard-term loans approved in 2009, the interest rate is set at 1.60%. The rate will apply to all hard-term loans approved in 2009 and will be fixed for the life of the loan.

http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/s ... etail_news

The government is likely to take hard-term loan[...]The finance ministry has forwarded the issue to the national hard-term loan committee that will give final approval to the loan arrangement, said energy division secretary Mohammd Mohsin.
"The hard-term loan committee should settle the issue immediately as the BPC is in a dire need of fund to meet the fuel import," he added.[...]

[will have to query whether the writer is the economist I know, will be interesting to get his reactions to his use of an arbitrary and non-standard term never used in international finance and economics!]

Even the Bangladesh Bank uses a non-standard term never used in international finance or economics :
http://www.bangladesh-bank.org/feregime ... 1ch23.html

the AD of the borrower to the Hard Term Loans Cell, Foreign Exchange Policy Department, Bangladesh Bank, Head Office, Dhaka.

Journal of Economic Cooperation 24, 2 (2003) 113-136 publishes a paper that uses non-standard terms invented by BD government and never used in international finance and economics

RISK ANALYSIS ON EXTERNAL INDEBTEDNESS OF PAKISTAN
Abdul Waheed*
The share of soft loans has steadily declined and was substituted by hard term loans and credits repayable in foreign currency with higher interest rates and shorter grace periods. [p 137]

James Calvin Baker [Routledge, 1993] uses the term in his book : International business expansion into less-developed countries: the International Finance Corporation and its operations. Even Routledge publishes an author who uses a non-standard term invented by the BD government never used in international finance or economics.

Maybe Pakis and ADB and BD are in cahoots - conspiring to use a term/terminology that is never used in "international finance" or "economics" by properly trained "international finance/economics" gurus:

http://www.bis.org/review/r030220e.pdf

Ishrat Husain: Pakistan’s economic horizons, 2003 and beyond
Closing remarks by Dr Ishrat Husain, Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, at The Daily Times Seminar on Pakistan Economic Horizons, 2003 and beyond, held at Karachi, 31 January 2003. [p.2]
international financial institutions for hard term loans...]

But the report is hosted on The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) website which by their statement "is an international organisation which fosters international monetary and financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks". They must have had an oversight - or not read between the lines as TFTA financial managers look for once they finally are led by their nose to something they never found.

[Inter-American Development Bank Office of the Chief Economist]: International Initiatives to Bring Stability to Financial Integration, By Eduardo Fernandez-Arias Ricardo Hausmann
MARCH 1999 [series of research on Financial Crisis and contagion at the Office of the Chief Economist, Inter-American Development Bank] uses the term too, well by the statutory declaration - need not be the Bank's own "term" - but even they have allowed it to be published under their name.

www-wds.worldbank.org/.../488730BR0IDA1 ... 0Only1.pdf

FROM: The President
MEMORANDUM TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS IDA Commitment Charge for FY10:

For IDA’s annual commitment charge calculations, charge income on hard-term credits and associated investment income are excluded since these are applied for grant financing purposes.

The interest rate is set for each fiscal year and is derived from the fixed-rate equivalent of IBRD’s lending rate reduced by 200 basis points. For FY09, the interest rate on IDA’s hard-term loans is 3.1 percent.

Now, even a world bank doc uses the non-standard terms never used in "international finance" or "economics".

well, at least I forgot to divide by 46.59 [mid-year average], acknowledge that: What about showing the humility of acknowledging that arrogant dismissal of things one never saw or came across in his narrow professional focus as non-existent "never used" is a bad intellectual habit - and is never forgiven in peer reviewed academic world. My calculation error would be found on second reading or filtering by my colleagues in the department. But if I said a "term/terminology" never used and mocked whoever used it - and then peers found out that the terms existed and were used in the same context - I would be out on a double strike - for showing personal arrogance and aggression on an academic point, and covering ignorance with further ridicule and aggression.

Well thankfully, such arrogance is put in the safer box of financial management onlee - which calculates "political impact" and policy implications in linear proportion to actual amount of credit or loans advanced!

The real question was not about whether BD was trying to come out of "debt trap" etc. but how Indian investments, massive aid/grants/credits/loans would impact the political dynamics within BD. Hope we are not going hear that it was a failure of comprehension of Queen's English!

brihaspati wrote:The real question was not about whether BD was trying to come out of "debt trap" etc. but how Indian investments, massive aid/grants/credits/loans would impact the political dynamics within BD. Hope we are not going hear that it was a failure of comprehension of Queen's English!

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the political/strategic implications of Indian strategies - be it $B LOC or some other thing.

It is highly improbable for a land swap agreement between BD and India given the political implications. Anyone doing that will be considered unpatriotic on both sides of the border. Given the BD illegal immigrations in NE and potential participation of AUDF in Assam govt there is no need for BD to do overt encroachment of Bharatiya lands. BD immigrants can (successfully) repeat Assam experiment in WB, and other bordering Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. This is why I am always scared of BD problem. I wish IG did not liberate BD as the Assam experiment would have been a non-starter in the presence of East Pakistan.

I wonder what stops BD use the Indian loan as soon as possible to get most out of this (kind of) FDI.

India is going to lose around 10,000 acres of land to the Bangladeshis.

Loss of 10,000 acres is a loss. We must however remember that a clearly demarcated border would decrease the border acrimony, border shootouts, etc. Such conflict ultimately feeds into the anti-Indianism which allows BNP and JI to come to power in Bangladesh.

As far as Bangladesh is concerned they should welcome such a deal, because they are going to get a net benefit from such a deal.

Selling it in India can be a bit difficult.

However we need to get rid of the major irritants we have with Bangladesh, because if China makes inroads there, we would be losing strategic space. And that is simply an unpleasant fact.

We cannot allow China to create another Pakistan in Bangladesh.

Another Pakistan on eastern borders is not such a bad idea until Bharat consolidates.

It would address multiple issues for Bharat. Firstly it forces GoI to put a stop to illegal immigration (happens in millions). Secondly it releases $b LOC to more amenable neighbors. I would rather spend more money on Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar. As long as Myanmar is on India's side, BD is nothing. Thirdly it allows the muslim bloc to realize their potential just as GCC is going to find out the hard way soon (If the NATO itself is struggling to hold on to Libya without US; imaging what GCC can do w.r.t Iran).

JMHT

ManishH ji,
in passing - in the first general elections (May, 1952), the Congress secured 45.1% of the 60% of eligible votes actually cast, which is roughly 27% of the eligible electorate. Thus in a sense the Congress held on to the roughly 30% of total Indian constituency estimated before Independence that was qualified based on educationsl/property/income. With this 45% Congress secured roughly 77% of total seats because of the first past the post system. In the state assemblies Congress had less share - 42% and got roughly 67% of seats. A 3% vote share fall decreases roughly 10% seats.

I will bring up dual constituency impact and follow up as well as "election" process that led to such 45% vote share - later.

RajeshA wrote:As far as Bangladesh is concerned they should welcome such a deal, because they are going to get a net benefit from such a deal.

Selling it in India can be a bit difficult

RamaY wrote:It would address multiple issues for Bharat. Firstly it forces GoI to put a stop to illegal immigration (happens in millions). Secondly it releases $b LOC to more amenable neighbors. I would rather spend more money on Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar

The whole thing about "selling" it to India is not such a big deal..First, it is not a renegotiation of the border, only cleaning up of the existing state of the demarcations - so not too much political capital is required to push it through nationally (there is some capital to be used locally - but all major WB parties would be supportive of the deal, so should be easier)...Second, the amount of land is question is about equal to a couple of large power projects, maybe even one really large superthermal (or LWR!) park...So it is really about a proper compensation package for the affected citizens..Payoffs are disproportionate, so merits pushing through..

Illegal immigration is a different, more difficult question...Even countries separated by the natural barriers of oceans cannot fully prevent illegal immigrants in search of better economic oppoerunities...It is trickier in the case of Indo-BD, where populations live literally cheek-by-jowl..The way to tackle immigration would be to formalise a work pass system, something I alluded to earlier for BD workers..If the whole process is legalised and legitimised, there is less incentive for the principals to resort to the illegal means, and more pressure on both sides (BD govt, Indian govt) to set up pporpriate governance structures to curb the illegal part of the exercise...

Myanmar is important, but its not one v/s the other..Myanmar has huge Chinese influence, and is geogrpahically "freer" thn BD...BD has only one neighbour other than India (edited later: missed this out)...Further, BD is a much larger market, with nearly 150 million people..Most importantly, success of BD as a moderate, progressive muslim majority state will send out strong signal about India's own civilisational (!)influences in its neighbourhood....

Of course, esteemed academic cannot resist more google searches to make snide remarks..Again, missing out the obvious glaring contradictions...In the ADB document, "hard term loans" is used for defninig

Hard-term ADF loans, similar to the hard-term window of the International Development Association, have terms that provide a higher degree of concessionality than loans funded from ordinary capital resources (OCR), i.e., a lower interest rate and a longer grace period

which is a 180 degree from how the BD Finance Ministry defines it (loans with high interest rate, low tenor - or lower concessionality)...

Unfortunately, capabilities with Google doesnt bestow capabilities of even "reading comprehension", let alone "economic comprehension"...So 1=3, India is the "predominant", and so on and so forth...

BTW, on the real issue, BD's classification of commercial terms itself (12 years, 5%) is not on any pricing grounds..15 year USd swap rates themselvs are 4% - and no one's going to commercially lend to BD (a BB- country) @ a spread of 100 bps for that tenor..In any case, quite a peripheral point (given that BD doesnt even have any "commercil" borrowings today)...The fact is that BD's creditors/donors are a much larger universe than India's...We have atually not taken as much interest as we should in BD, time we rectified it..And that includes an aid/investment package...

Oh yes - good try! supreme arrogance still cannot stoop to acknowledge that he declared the term "non-standard" and never used in "international finance" or "economics". Now going into "definitions" and bringing up the bogey "comprehension" to try and show that ADB and BD use it for different meanings. Well when he only was led to BD ERD site [he did not know about it before] the term and terminology became "non standard". Now when ADB uses it, it becomes "opposite" in meaning to BD. But still his superficiality and ego will not allow him to acknowledge that he actually pompously lied - showing his own ignorance of a topic he claims to be a master of - by declaring that the term is never used in "international finance/economics". Well it means that he pretends but not knows much beyond the few pages of highlighted slides he comes across about the area.

It is a sign of basic character and integrity to accept error when shown. Perhaps uber-pseudo-secularism takes away even that character and integrity!

Yeah, it is the hallmark of (admittedly non-elite ) academics maybe to randomly quote terms sprung up on Google searches to attribute systemic definitions and analyses to them - all the while not understanding an iota of what is being spoekn of in the Google reference or what the esteemed academic is trying to convey (which usually is nothing much more than a 500 word treatise on nothing)...So the academic isnt even sure of what is meant by "hard terms loans" - given each google search by him brings up a different definition, or what he was himself trying to convey by usage of the term - so hilarioulsy wrong that arithmetic and english comprehension seem to be the issue...By the same vein, we will some day hear of IRS being the standard definition of the Indian Rupee (given that BD MOF has deined it as such!)..And maybe something else for Interest Rate Swaps!

Anyway, enough of this digression on "hard terms"..somewht similar to "hard cash" allusions made sometime back - there would be surely more Google search results on that term...No "hard feelings" though

Well now it seems 1=2, since BD has been declared to have only one neighbour. Maybe it is a fault of our comprehension, but perhaps Myanmar does not count as a "neighbour". Maybe there are different criteria than sharing borders as definition of "neighbour" in the standard terminology of international finance and economics!

A whole lot of efforts were expended by BD in trying to develop the transport link to China through Myanmar and into BD. Not being neighbours, BD still makes a lot of noise about territorial disputes in the Bay of Bengal. But perhaps all that does not count - because we cannot comprehend the special definition of "neighbours" reserved for international finance and economics!

Actually my references did contain material that cannot be quoted from simple google search. On the other hand, from high pontiff of comprehension, we never get anything beyond snatches from the same google.

So even world bank usage, or other sources usage all become "random", but still no basic intellectual honesty or integrity in acknowledging that it was actually a pompous lie based on ignorance -that the term was never "used" in international finance/economics - so world bank, BD gov and Bank, ADB, or even Pak Bank leader all use "random" term because otherwise the pride and ego of "international finance/economics" expert takes a fall! It does not bother me to acknowledge my error, but just because the exact interpretation of the term varies does not make it something that is never "used" - given that quite a few international bodies do use it - and in the context to finance and economics. What is the problem in acknowledging that one was in error?

The "hard cash" led to another sliminess on "thou dost not comprehend" twist - because initially it was claimed as usual loudly that "it meant India could take a cheque for xxx billions to Bank of England and encash it" which was later transformed into of course "encashing did not mean actual real whole amount given" ...."of course there would be restrictions".....which in sum total, after being shown the reality of the actual accounts holding procedure - turned out to be exactly opposite to the pompous claim of "encashing the cheque". No acknowledgment of error even then!

somnath wrote:

RajeshA wrote:As far as Bangladesh is concerned they should welcome such a deal, because they are going to get a net benefit from such a deal.

Selling it in India can be a bit difficult

RamaY wrote:It would address multiple issues for Bharat. Firstly it forces GoI to put a stop to illegal immigration (happens in millions). Secondly it releases $b LOC to more amenable neighbors. I would rather spend more money on Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar

The whole thing about "selling" it to India is not such a big deal..First, it is not a renegotiation of the border, only cleaning up of the existing state of the demarcations - so not too much political capital is required to push it through nationally (there is some capital to be used locally - but all major WB parties would be supportive of the deal, so should be easier)...Second, the amount of land is question is about equal to a couple of large power projects, maybe even one really large superthermal (or LWR!) park...So it is really about a proper compensation package for the affected citizens..Payoffs are disproportionate, so merits pushing through..

Illegal immigration is a different, more difficult question...Even countries separated by the natural barriers of oceans cannot fully prevent illegal immigrants in search of better economic oppoerunities...It is trickier in the case of Indo-BD, where populations live literally cheek-by-jowl..The way to tackle immigration would be to formalise a work pass system, something I alluded to earlier for BD workers..If the whole process is legalised and legitimised, there is less incentive for the principals to resort to the illegal means, and more pressure on both sides (BD govt, Indian govt) to set up pporpriate governance structures to curb the illegal part of the exercise...

Myanmar is important, but its not one v/s the other..Myanmar has huge Chinese influence, and is geogrpahically "freer" thn BD...BD has only one neighbour...Further, BD is a much larger market, with nearly 150 million people..Most importantly, success of BD as a moderate, progressive muslim majority state will send out strong signal about India's own civilisational (!)influences in its neighbourhood....Of course, esteemed academic cannot resist more google searches to make snide remarks..Again, missing out the obvious glaring contradictions...In the ADB document, "hard term loans" is used for defninig

Hard-term ADF loans, similar to the hard-term window of the International Development Association, have terms that provide a higher degree of concessionality than loans funded from ordinary capital resources (OCR), i.e., a lower interest rate and a longer grace period

which is a 180 degree from how the BD Finance Ministry defines it (loans with high interest rate, low tenor - or lower concessionality)...

Unfortunately, capabilities with Google doesnt bestow capabilities of even "reading comprehension", let alone "economic comprehension"...So 1=3, India is the "predominant", and so on and so forth...

BTW, on the real issue, BD's classification of commercial terms itself (12 years, 5%) is not on any pricing grounds..15 year USd swap rates themselvs are 4% - and no one's going to commercially lend to BD (a BB- country) @ a spread of 100 bps for that tenor..In any case, quite a peripheral point (given that BD doesnt even have any "commercil" borrowings today)...The fact is that BD's creditors/donors are a much larger universe than India's...We have atually not taken as much interest as we should in BD, time we rectified it..And that includes an aid/investment package...

Bangladesh is created in the name of Bengali Nationalism. don't know why every time they bring up the question of specific religion in the context....what is so special about the religion that any nation state which have a majority populace following a particular religion is not supposed to be a successfull!!! Why is this stereotype? And how come sucess or failure of Bangladesh affects Indian Civilizational ethos?

In this context let me ask this question what is the strategic objective of Bangladesh?

Samudragupta wrote:what is so special about the religion that any nation state which have a majority populace following a particular religion is not supposed to be a successfull!!! Why is this stereotype? And how come sucess or failure of Bangladesh affects Indian Civilizational ethos

Samudragupta-ji, the concept of "civilational ethos" etc is a favourite of some - hence I brought it up to summarise ..But seriously, BD is a muslim-majority country - its a fact..If we can arrive at a successful coopertive compact with them , economic and then political, it sends out a message of India's capability to influence its neighbourhood, including muslim countries that are globally purportedly in the midst of a "clash of civilisations"...It sends out a trong message of India's capabilities....

Actually the original question was about the political impact and fallout both within BD as well as India-BD future relations - of any massive investments/loans/credits/aids given by India to BD. The "hard term" loan was simply mentioned and the definition dispute started up because it was declared that such a term/terminology was/is never used in "international finance/economics". But that dispute itself is a side-show that diverts from the main question - what is the political impact of India giving massive credit to BD?

For this several critical issues were mentioned by me - for exploration, without any prejudgment from my side - but were dismissed as "good try". These were the fate of the Tata initiative and the resultant political mobilization, the reaction against the Kaptai project, the concerns about trade barriers and potential insignificant gain if a bilateral FTA is obtained, the BNP declaration about repudiation of "treaties" it feels go against the sovereignty of BD, and factors I did not mention then as the reaction about border disputes and alleged "BSF killings" of BD citizens like "birds", etc.

But the question remains unexplored. One more factor, it is always argued by a certain school of thought on BR that any restraint or caution shown by GOI in international initiatives or engagements with another country, and especially its neighbours - comes from GOI's much greater knowledge of the "ground realities" and that whatever they do they do in their infinite wisdom which we mere mortals can never hope to comprehend.

So if every action or inaction on GOI side is based on solid ground realities and reasons, why lament the lack of initiative on GOI side about financial investments and other "engagement" with BD? What could be the reasons that holds back GOI- even in non-sarcastic terms? Do they really have any reasons to fear?

The discussion is about political impact and consequences for India. Please confine discussion to that.

Talking of cooperative architectures, here's an interesting perspective on BRIC...

Sanjaya Baru - noun in search of an adjective!
http://business-standard.com/india/news ... nt/432558/

Fundamentally, he is right..some of these things are purely for optics...India joined SCO for example primarily because Russia was keen on expanding a forum "sponsored" by it, ditto for BRIC...this is interesting..

While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself said famously that all summitry is tourism at public expense, it helps India to be widely engaged both as an insurance and as a means of in fact building a ‘multi-polar’ or ‘polycentric’ world that it seeks

Creation of larger, more substantive structures in SA enlarges the Indian "pole", as no one can pretend that an SA framework has multiple poles, unlike artificial constructs like BRIC..

Talking of Indo-BD equations, belated poila boishakh greetings to all!

I was at a poila boishakh dinner for bengalis in my office here - was chatting up with this bangladeshi colleague..He said its huge celebrations back "home" (his home)...I remember some years ago, a few nutcases there started a canard that poila boishakh is "too hindu"...Nothing came of it - poila boishakh remains part of the BD "culture"...The congruence on the cultural front are far more than the angularities of communal rhetoric - overlay the structural basis of solid economic cooperation and the linkages become strong and self-reinforcing...

The vagueness starts again - now suddenly BRIC becomes an "artificial" construct! Nations form structures with other distinct nations if they think such structures are feasible and of advantage to them. Same goes for SCO. Before applying such adjectives carte blanche, perhaps the criteria for "artificiality" or "naturalness" needs to be spelled out.

No problem with the adjectives, but need to specify the criteria. Otherwise there will be the sliminess of "comprehension problems" and "I never said xxxx" etc., so that many posters efforts at some concrete discussion will go in vain!

By the way, just noted the huge laughter about IRS, but exchange rate was mentioned specifically based on their apparent use of the IRS value (they don't specify swap rate/discount factor etc - so assumed present value and plain vanilla) elsewhere apparently in INR terms as shown in using prevalent USD-INR exchange rates to calculate outstanding dollar value of ISR outstanding. Still, I should not have done this or overlooked this in the first place - its too quick and "dirty" and a gross error in the first place (without adjustment).


Now why is it that GOI who is declared to be far more wiser than all of us here, has been so reluctant [or is it unsuccessful?] to make this SA thing burst into brilliance? Either the GOI is stupid [if resident international finance/economics wisdom is correct] in not making this happen - or the GOI is clever [and the resident international finance economics wisdom is a fool] and fears some strong risks or has tried and failed. Either way, concrete conditions or criteria needs to be spelled out first.

Studying whether or not GOI has been stupid or clever itself could be enlightening!

somnath wrote:Talking of Indo-BD equations, belated poila boishakh greetings to all!

I was at a poila boishakh dinner for bengalis in my office here - was chatting up with this bangladeshi colleague..He said its huge celebrations back "home" (his home)...I remember some years ago, a few nutcases there started a canard that poila boishakh is "too hindu"...Nothing came of it - poila boishakh remains part of the BD "culture"...The congruence on the cultural front are far more than the angularities of communal rhetoric - overlay the structural basis of solid economic cooperation and the linkages become strong and self-reinforcing...

Bengalis in Bangladesh probably suffers from the same identity syndrome as the Sindhis(?)...in the case of the Bengalis it is more confusing, in the western case the identity crisis is actually subverted by powerful 3.5 friends but in the East they don't have the resources to finalize the identity crisis in the same way which they may like, now what is the sln they have in mind is debatable and certainly not a monotonic idea, but the basic idea of ani-Indianism(==anti Hindu??) remains, and hence it is very necessary to understand the basic objectives of the continuity of the existance the Bangladesh? Why Bangladesh actually needs to exists?

Samudragupta wrote:but the basic idea of ani-Indianism(==anti Hindu??) remains, and hence it is very necessary to understand the basic objectives of the continuity of the existance the Bangladesh? Why Bangladesh actually needs to exists

Well, quirks of history often gives rise to ostensibly incongruous geographical constructs...Why indeed, does New Zealand need to exist? Why should Austria exist as a distinct entity to Germany? For BD, for good or for bad, a distinct entity has been created - there is no denying the fact that there were underlying tensions between hindus and muslims in undivided bengal...Class interests (primarily hindu landlords and muslim tenants), differential "cultural" accomplishments (the muslim "elite" was conspicuous by its absence in Bengal, as compared to the widely storied bengali hindu elite) and a variety of other factors were relevant..Maybe these tensions could have been resolved better in absence of a Pak movement (or the more convenient stories of British perfidy)..It is also a fact that as late as 1946 Sharat Basu and Suhrawardy attempted an undivided independent bengal - so the undercurrent of "bengali nationalism" is also as much a fact perhaps...In fact one of the easy analysis of CPM's long success in WB is attributed to the fact that CPM tapped on and represented the undercurrent of bengali subnationalism - given some of CPM's key narratives, the analysis might have a grain of truth to it...

Bangladesh is a muslim majority country, but also one with an intense level of a shared bengali heritage with us..By itself, such cultural morring mean nothing - we see how the pappi/jhappis among Pak Punjab and Indian Punjab dont really lead to anything substantive..But in the case of BD, the opportunities to craft a framework is immense....BD doesnt have the "existential issues" that Pak seems to have vis a vis India, there is no "Kashmir", and increasingly BD realises the merits of greater engagement with India....

Why hasnt it been done before? Well, because India's own SA policy has been hostage to progress on Pak...Successive SA leaders have lamented the sheer lack of interest India shows to SA ex-Pak...Not entirely untrue, as people like JN Dixit have also testified...Part of the reason perhaps has also been that India has been busy trying to build bridges with the big league - US/West, ASEAN/Far East...As well as trying to spread influence far - Central Asia/Af, East Asia, Africa...SA, our own backyard, has never really been a "glamorous" place for policy initiatives (ex Pak)...

I see however, that we have some more of financial gibberish, on IRS now..As usual, what is meant is quite incomrehensible, but now BD Finance Ministry was apparently depicting the IRS value of a stock variable, ie loans o/s! Bless, for what tenor? And it is perhaps standard practice for o/s sovereign loans to be depicted in terms of their IRS values!! Hell, I ask for an IRS of all BD loans into CNH, given how USD is doomed as a ccy! And of course, somehow IRS is standard nomnclature for Indian Rupee, there will be some more google search for the standard nomenclature for Int rate swaps! All the while, no one is still wiser - after numerous google search and jibes - on what exactly was being sought to be concluded by taking an unmaterially small part of BD's loan/aid portfolio, describing it as substantial and also attributing India's "predominance" in that portfolio....

The fact that Bangladesh exists both proves and disproves two nation theory..

X-posting from the other thread...Seems action on the way, finally,

India seeks transit facility through BD..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... t/777642/0

Its comnprehensive - roads, railways and port...

somnath wrote:Samudragupta-ji, the concept of "civilational ethos" etc is a favourite of some - hence I brought it up to summarise ..But seriously, BD is a muslim-majority country - its a fact..If we can arrive at a successful coopertive compact with them , economic and then political, it sends out a message of India's capability to influence its neighbourhood, including muslim countries that are globally purportedly in the midst of a "clash of civilisations"...It sends out a trong message of India's capabilities....

Glad to note that the syntax of 'civilizational ethos' as a key determinant to India's international relations is gaining ground with posters ! But the semantics would need to be further refined, if this is to have any practical value.

The concept of 'Indic civilizational ethos' is important for two reasons- (1) it is the ultimate highwatermark to aim for in the context of maximising Indian 'soft power' globally and realizing all the attendant economic benefits of increased soft power. There are obviously huge economic benefits to be derived from the world acknowledging India as a 'preeminent force of good' in this world; and that can only come from India taking a stance on world issues based on value systems that are associated with and in some sense 'branded' with the country - based on her indigenous value systems. (2) what better way to prove that the world needs India to assume moral leadership than to demonstrate ability to impose / evangelize values that she believes in, in her OWN BACKYARD - in the subcontinent - where the issues are fundamentally due to a faulty 'imported' mindset that needs to be eliminated and the populace needs to revert to Indic civilizational strengths ?

It is very important to engage with BD as with the rest of the subcontinent, as also with the broader East Asian community identified by Harbans (Tibet, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, S Korea, Japan...)...but the fundamental basis for the engagement should be the constant refrain of a 'shared civilizational ethos'. As I have stressed earlier - this is as much about 'branding' as it is about morality !

Here's the way in which this would work-

- GOI engages with other subcontinental nations, including BD - stressing on shared 'civilizational ethos' as a reason for building linkages. This is accompanied by official communication and Indian media refrain that emphasizes the distinctiveness of the Indic civilization ( and specifically emphasizing the 'civilizational' stress on education / knowledge, societal wealth creation and belief in all paths leading to one God ) - and how Nepal / BD / SL share in this common 'Indic' heritage.

- The underlying subtext out here is that through constant and savvy PR, Indian 'soft power' & identification of India with the key value system of the future - is firmly established in the minds of the subcontinental populace. This will be key to establishing Indian 'soft power hegemony' and far more importantly - in communicating the importance that Indic civilization attaches to these values - to the rest of the subcontinent.

- The unstated subtext is also that India is not chary about allowing her neighbors to share in the 'glory' of this Indic heritage - but ONLY as long as the nations in turn truly reflect this heritage and spurn imported Talibanism and exclusivism that militate against Indic culture.

- Even wrt Pakistan, the official line needs to change- India wishes for Pakistan's stability not because it is a neighbour but because of the shared civilizational ethos that binds the two countries together....That provides India the excuse for justifying a balkanization of Pakistan at some stage on the grounds that the 'shared ethos' no longer remains valid based on Pakistan's descent into Talibanism.

In summary - my point is that economic cooperation with BD is a good idea - but the language that India adopts in her dealings with BD is equally key & needs to be consistent with the values and soft / hard power objectives of the country in the subcontinent.

What is the contextual relevance of the existence of Austria as a distinct entity to Germany to discuss Indo-BD dynamic? What sort of logical delusion compares the cases as comparable! Did Austria and Germany form out of a violent community based partition move!! I guess it is matter of failure of comprehension at a much deeper level than mere Queen's English - with lack of knowledge of either the Austro-German historical process as well as a personal fantasy about the India-East-paK-BD process.

Now we have vague statements about "undeniable facts" that there were "underlying tensions between hindus and muslims in undivided bengal" with "Class interests (primarily hindu landlords and muslim tenants)", and "differential "cultural" accomplishments (the muslim "elite" was conspicuous by its absence in Bengal, as compared to the widely storied bengali hindu elite)" and a variety of unspecified "other factors". Probably based on vague perusals of google searches or romantic pieces from the Leftist pen. None of these sweeping claims will be supportable by any hard evidence - because each of these statements have ample counter-examples. Only a supreme ignorance about the reality of pre-Partition BD would make such ridiculous claims of "hindu landlords and muslim tenant" stereotype" - since there were many Muslim landlords with Hindu tenants. "Muslim elite was conspicuous by its absence" - well as usual no clear ideas of what is meant by "Muslim elite" and what was the role of such "elite" at the subcontinental level! The muddled historical understanding obviously has not a single clue about which and how "Muslim" elite were involved in the push for separative tendencies leading to Partition! So lack of "Muslim elite" created "Hindu-muslim" tension! Fascinating as a fantasy about history! We cannot expect of course specification of the unnamed and enigmatic other factors!


Another gem of an imagined fantastic past is the claim that "Maybe these tensions could have been resolved better in absence of a Pak movement" which shows how ignorant certain people are about the role played in the Pak movement itself by the "nonexistent" Muslim elite from BD. The deep personal Anglophilia of course comes out in a Freudian slip where "British perfidy" is mocked as "the more convenient stories" since there has to be doubts cast on the possible British complicity!

Oh yes in 1946 "Sharat Basu and Suhrawardy [ ] attempted an undivided independent bengal" but as usual no real acquaintance of the details of what happened, who were actually involved, and why it all failed. Some frantic google searches will not yield much except some leftist and some BD propaganda pieces. More serious looking up needed!

Probably no knowledge at all about "Suhrawardy"! If the attempt was to be mentioned, should have brought in AKA Fazlul Haque.

Again since assumptions can be the only supporting argument for vague romantic notions "the undercurrent" of "bengali nationalism" has to be invented as an "easy analysis of CPM's long success in WB" to attributed to the supposed "fact" that "CPM tapped on and represented the undercurrent of bengali subnationalism". Of course we will not have any concrete analysis of "some of CPM's key narratives", but a safe and vague speculation that "the analysis might have a grain of truth to it..."!

So from 1947 to 1977, the Congress [The first Joint Front gov was formed with a faction of the Congress] succeeded without tapping into "bengali subnationalism". That a majority of the Hindus preferred Partition [in concrete electoral terms and not in the vague emotional fantasy of individuals at present] probably happened because "Bengali subnationalism" was too strong! Needed some more frantic Google searches to try to back up this romantic fantasy and attempted "nationalization" of the "communists" who supported Pak movement in the pre-Partition days!

Only the supreme superficiality of understanding can lead to claims that equate supposed "intense level of shared bengali heritage with us" and supposed nonexistence of "existential issues". The "Bengali heritage" is claimed as a consciously "Bangladeshi" and "Muslim" heritage. There is an equally intense perception and propaganda to distance this "Bengali identity" from the "Hindu" and from "India". Some preliminary forays into the origins of the Bengali calendar controversy in BD could have helped to clear the smoke emanating from such overheated imaginations especially since "poila Boisakh" is being highlighted. Such fantasy cuckooland in the heads of loud mouthed individuals is the danger - for such voices find their ways into the admin and the media if they can pretend to be left-centre leaning.

Of course the Indian admin "babu" has been declared to be "doddering" by such cuckooland residents and more so because of 50% reservations that supposedly dilute quality [perhaps the hierarchical looking down upon between "hindu landlord" and repressed "muslim tenant" comes from this individual or family memory?] - so maybe the admin will remain impervious to the virus posed by such individuals.

Now we have the crowning glory of vagueness that there has been no progress on SA "because India's own SA policy has been hostage to progress on Pak". So now for the first time we have a switch around from the earlier position that GOI actually restrained itself from "acting" on Pak, and did not "engage" pak, and concentrated on "economic growth and prosperity", to GOI concentrating all efforts based on Pak and being Pak-centric. A GOI which has been declared to be doing the "right thing" all along, which does not look at international relations based on "values/ideologies" but on concrete quantitative terms and "financial/economic" terms onlee - suddenly become a GOI that neglected "SA, our own backyard", because it "has never really been a "glamorous" place for policy initiatives (ex Pak)...". GOI is now into fashion and show-biz - it decides on actions based on "glamour".

Now we will have thousands of lines ending with ellipsis claiming failure of comprehension of Queen's English - with no concrete citation [at most some personal anecdotes] outside some snatches from Google - ultimately based on nothing and meaning nothing. At the end of it all we will still have no concrete data/case cited indicators of real potential scenarios of the political impact from within and from outside - of greater Indian financial muscle pushing into BD.

Here is a small titbit from a simple Google search about how the "cultural" sentiments are reciprocated :
http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/20 ... pinion.htm

The partition of the Indian subcontinent took place in 1947. The people of the Western part of Bengal behaved differently from the way in which they behaved in 1905. It is said, at that time that Sarat Bose and Suhrawardy conceived of a separate state of Bengal. But that did not receive wide support from the people of the western part of Bengal; because this time they were afraid of the Muslim majority in that conceived state of Bengal.

We must admit that people of West Bengal and for that matter, the people of India had unstinted sympathy and support for the people for this part of this country during the liberation freedom war; but yet they behaved somehow differently in 1947. At that time the establishment of a Bangalee state and the growth of the Bengali nation in the fullest sense of the term was lost. There is not much use in shouting “Bangalee Jati” “Bangalee Jati” at the moment.

Before we conclude, we may very well summarise and discuss the question of Bangladeshi or “Bangalee Jatiota”.

Firstly, how can there be Bangalee Jati, when there is no Bangalee Rastro (Bangalee word) or Bangalee state? In terms of political science, for every nation there should be a state.

Secondly, even when our constitution was first promulgated in 1972, it sought to call the citizens of this country “Bangalees” but called the state itself Bangladesh. Why should there be such anomaly? We should better call ourselves Bangladeshi.

Thirdly, the people of West Bengal call themselves Bangalees. If we call ourselves Bangalees there is an embarrassing situation. We should better call our citizens Bangladeshi also in order to avoid this anomaly or embarrassing situation.

The Bangla terms, “Bangalees”, “Bangalee Jati” are unfortunately equivocal and ambiguous. We should better guard against them and use them cautiously.

The writer is a former teacher of Political Science in Notre Dame College, Dhaka

somnath wrote:X-posting from the other thread...Seems action on the way, finally,

India seeks transit facility through BD..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... t/777642/0

Its comnprehensive - roads, railways and port...

Somnath,

There is no derth of Indian intentions/proposals to develop transit infrastructure thru BD to NE and Myanmar. But the political reality of BD is such that it is Islamic enough to hijack any economic and political partnership with India and develop super kinship with KSA or Pakistan in spite of those civilizational ethos that make BDs celebrate almost Hindu festivals or speak almost Hindu bengali, and the unforgettable events leading to creation of BD.

That is the reason why I asked AKalam when will reconquista becomes an acceptable (in fact welcoming) transformation. BD is ripe for such a reconquista either by Bharat or Islamism. BD better makes that choice fast and wise.

What Bji pointing at is that hesitation on BD part to make even the economic and political partnership. India cannot push BD to accept such projects even for the benefit of BD as it would create immediate and disproportional islamic response in BD.

Economic illegal immigration may appear harmless in the beginning. If you notice Assam elections the BD immigrants are making their presence felt. I am sure they will be successful sooner than later. Once INC sees political fortunes to make in BD illegal immigrants (did that once in Delhi elections) it will be a flood across all border states to BD.

Few wise like you may think that it would automatically paves the way for political integration of BD into India. I think that is like donkey's dream (posted it somewhere). Islamic identify of BDs will always keep their core intact; distinctly separate from Bharat. What we will see is a covert Marshal plan by India in India for BD.

That defies all economic logic. Why would/Should India bare the cost of developing say (at minimum) 30-40% of BD cutizens' living standards at the cost of $Bs (lost opportunities to true Indians) when there are no tangible social, political, military and geopolitical benefits?

"soft power", by definition, is "soft"...Its not imposed through harangues or diktats...It is especially true for India's subcontinental neighbours, who have been struggling in most parts to articulate an identity for themselves...A belaboured over-emphasis on "shared civilisational values" etc, especially in official political interactions only create more apprehensions in the minds of the interlocutors on the other side, and give the extremists more ammunition to talk of Indian "hegemonic designs"....

We need to understand that shared cultural ethos and all of that is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for greater engagement, its an enabling condition...Pak and China have no "shared civilisational ethos", India and Russia shared no such philosophical constructs...On the other hand, no amount of shared pappi-jhappi engagements (as JN Dixit used to derisively describe them) yielded anything material with Pak...

As far as Indian influence goes, it will anyway happen...The rich legacy of our heritage, backed by our superior economic surplus will ensure that...Harping on Tagore all the time without anyting substantive on political and economic fronts will only make BD nervous about our intentions....On the other hand, a substantive engagement will only open more doors for a lot more of "rabindra sangeet" and related stuff...

Its not coincidental that the creation of India as a mainstream cool culture (as opposed to the Beatles-Ravishankar iconoclasm) globally coincided with India's greater economic muscle...Indian classical music, and in some ways Indian English fiction at the "elite levels", and Bollywood at all levels have done FAR more than the myriad "Festivals of India" that GOI used to sponsor at various places earlier...To be fair, ICCR now does a much more professional job of marketing Indian culture - its caught on to the nw trends...

At the end, if we are to help BD towards a pragmatic future of engagement with India, the heavy lifting will need to be at the level of economics/politics...Our shared legacy will take over from that and make the journey easier...And that journey itself, towards a progressive vision, will be an advert for India's civilisational ethos...

It is especially true for India's subcontinental neighbours, who have been struggling in most parts to articulate an identity for themselves...A belaboured over-emphasis on "shared civilisational values" etc, especially in official political interactions only create more apprehensions in the minds of the interlocutors on the other side, and give the extremists more ammunition to talk of Indian "hegemonic designs"....

how can there be an identity when they want to be cut off from their identity? if this is your version of the diagnosis of the problem that afflicts Indian subcontinent, it is a misnomer. the problem is not that they are having problems making an "identity for themselves." the problem is that there are deeper forces which are hindering them from having their true identity back. that is the real issue but of course you will never talk about or acknowledge that. the vague statements are a very shrewd ploy. on one hand, the statement about identity is deceptively framed. it creates a sense of "understanding" as to the problems India faces wrt its neighbours, at the same time it frames the debate in a way that says India needs to help or be patient while they form their new identity (which will have severe Islamist tones and correspondingly increasing anti-Indian clamor).

Harping on Tagore all the time without anyting substantive on political and economic fronts will only make BD nervous about our intentions....On the other hand, a substantive engagement will only open more doors for a lot more of "rabindra sangeet" and related stuff...

wah...disdain for your own culture but such enthusiasm for "vox pop"!!! hold on a second: i though it was only economics for your and not political. isn't venturing into politics and security a big no-no? India has repeatedly offered and continues to offer a lot of venues of "economic cooperation" to BD. the question is what is hindering BD from taking advantage of the giant economic system that is India. what are the root causes?

Its not coincidental that the creation of India as a mainstream cool culture (as opposed to the Beatles-Ravishankar iconoclasm) globally coincided with India's greater economic muscle...Indian classical music, and in some ways Indian English fiction at the "elite levels", and Bollywood at all levels have done FAR more than the myriad "Festivals of India" that GOI used to sponsor at various places earlier...To be fair, ICCR now does a much more professional job of marketing Indian culture - its caught on to the nw trends...

it is not so much what Bollywood has done for India, as it is, what Bollywood has been allowed to do for India. there is a huge difference. in the former, Bollywood itself decided how to influence. this means that at some level, since Bollywood is "Indian," India decided how to use its influence. the later, means that selective screening was undertaken by the powers that be to market a certain aspect of India. to make sure that only a certain aspect would be marketed to local population in respective countries of the West.

Bollywood is not a symbol of Indian interests. it is merely entertainment with pseudo secular DIE control. to think of Bollywood as some great instrument of Indian influence is nonsense. the faces are Indian. these days even the language is not completely Indian. every time i try to watch a bollywood movie, all I hear is half English, half Hindi, "cool" language that is copied b/c supposedly that makes the copier "intellectually advanced."

RamaY wrote:What Bji pointing at is that hesitation on BD part to make even the economic and political partnership. India cannot push BD to accept such projects even for the benefit of BD as it would create immediate and disproportional islamic response in BD.

Economic illegal immigration may appear harmless in the beginning. If you notice Assam elections the BD immigrants are making their presence felt. I am sure they will be successful sooner than later. Once INC sees political fortunes to make in BD illegal immigrants (did that once in Delhi elections) it will be a flood across all border states to BD.

Few wise like you may think that it would automatically paves the way for political integration of BD into India. I think that is like donkey's dream (posted it somewhere). Islamic identify of BDs will always keep their core intact; distinctly separate from Bharat. What we will see is a covert Marshal plan by India in India for BD.

That defies all economic logic. Why would/Should India bare the cost of developing say (at minimum) 30-40% of BD cutizens' living standards at the cost of $Bs (lost opportunities to true Indians) when there are no tangible social, political, military and geopolitical benefits?

RamaY-ji, first, there is no "Marshall Plan" equivalent that is being talked about here...What is being tlaked about is a deeper engagement - by definition give-and-take...What India can offer BD are stuff like credit lines, investment, technology etc..What we need from BD are communication transit rights, access to ports etc..So its a quid pro quo affair...

Illegal immigration and connected electoral externalities is a fact of life all over the world - US with hispanics, Indians with BD muslims...there are no easy answers..therefore a legal framework to legitimise it in limited, manageable degrees with greater governance is the model to be followed..

BTW, BD isnt a basket case...Outside India, it has been the fastest growing major economy in SA over the last 8-9 years...Opening up of BD as a market for both goods&servces is going to benefit India disprportionately - refer to the reporrt on SAFTA I had referenced earlier...So it is India who is going to be the net gainer...

Illegal immigration and connected electoral externalities is a fact of life all over the world - US with hispanics, Indians with BD muslims

no thanks. India doesn't need to follow US model in letting Hispanics recolonize their Southwest. they can do whatever the hell they want, but India will respectfully decline any such invitations for following or emulating. what's happening in American Southwest is Reconquista. to even suggest that India should do something similar is sheer perfidy. but let's not get into American immigration on this thread. that's a huge digression.

somnath wrote: RamaY-ji, first, there is no "Marshall Plan" equivalent that is being talked about here...What is being tlaked about is a deeper engagement - by definition give-and-take...What India can offer BD are stuff like credit lines, investment, technology etc..What we need from BD are communication transit rights, access to ports etc..So its a quid pro quo affair...

Somnathji,

I think this is extreme trivialization of geopolitics.

If I understand correctly, you seems to think India can buy territorial transit rights in return for economic investments in BD. How many countries (small and big) transformed economic investments in to territorial gains; How many of them are P5 nations and how many outside that exclusive club?

God speed then. Perhaps MMS can buy PoK too one fine day.

somnath wrote:X-posting from the other thread...Seems action on the way, finally,

India seeks transit facility through BD..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... t/777642/0

Its comnprehensive - roads, railways and port...

Isn''t Kolkata is gradually loosing relevance?

RamaY wrote:I think this is extreme trivialization of geopolitics.

If I understand correctly, you seems to think India can buy territorial transit rights in return for economic investments in BD. How many countries (small and big) transformed economic investments in to territorial gains; How many of them are P5 nations and how many outside that exclusive club?

RamaY-ji, transit rights are not the same as "territorial gains"...As an example, Nepal today has full and free transit rights all over India - it does not mean that NEpal has made "territorial gains" over India..

Transit rights sit at the core of cooperative architectures...Some of the most successful ones are outside the P5 club...ASEAN in the East to EU in the West (well, EU does have France, but France is hardly the dominating force there)...That is precisely what China is also attempting through its variopus initiatves like the Karakoram Highway or the pan-Asian rail network..

BD gains access to Indian markets, India gains access to BD markets, and transit rights over BD..It helps us integrate NE better, and also gives us additional port facilities in Chittagong...If you go through the study I referenced earlier, the benefits accrue overwhelmingl to India...And in case you didnt se earlier, the news link referenced above - India is asking BD for precisely that...

BTW, I had referenced a G Parthasarthy op-ed in Hindu earlier...A nice one by C Raja Mohan as well, on BD - he has been advocating greater attention to SAARC for many years now..
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/on-a- ... t/752915/0

Samudragupta wrote:Isn''t Kolkata is gradually loosing relevance?

Samudragupta-ji, urggghhhh...Why? I hope not!

Somnathji you are mis-interpreting/quoating "territorial transit rights" in RamaYji's post for "territorial gains". This is to keep the discussion on track.

prahaar wrote:Somnathji you are mis-interpreting/quoating "territorial transit rights" in RamaYji's post for "territorial gains". This is to keep the discussion on track.

I thought as much, which is why I quoted the examples of EU and ASEAN , though RamaY menitioned both (transit rights and gains)...

devesh wrote:wah...disdain for your own culture but such enthusiasm for "vox pop"!!!

Devesh-ji, there is no "disdain" for Tagore, quite to the contrary..I think Tagore (and Nazrul Islam, and a few others) forms the basis of a huge link between us and BD...But that alone isnt a sufficient condition....

Any assessment so far of potential political reactions to Indian attempts at "investments" and "transit rights" and "soft power" from within BD and how such political reactions may shape up on Indo-BD dynamics?