India-US News and Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Mar 2010 21:45

1st Sikh in decades graduates Army officer school

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2010 21:47

This nuke deal with TSP is a non-starter. An identical deal like India for TSP is not possible and Unkil knows that very well. It probably just wants to say the right things to feign concern for TSP and satisfy it's needs for == knowing fully well that an agreement within IAEA is not possible leave alone the NSG.

US also plays a lot of games with TSP and this is just one of them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Mar 2010 21:56

Nihat, One might not want to rush to pronuncements. It was the very same US committed to NPT etc that looked away while PRC transferred nukes to TSP with their consent. And did not have them removed after the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, or end of Cold War. It was always to leverage against India.

Its not India's problem what they want to do with TSP. Indian delusions have to be removed.

munna · Post by **munna** » 23 Mar 2010 22:00

ramana wrote:Indian delusions have to be removed.

Specifically a certain class of Indians which has "delusions" needs to be disabused of this "benign hegemony" bunkum!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Mar 2010 22:23

Shiv ji there is some help for you (in context of multiple choices)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

-----------------------------

On your views about shaking things to up find new view there is one more angle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic ... quilibrium

I believe we have had enough noise now, any noise is not only not helpful, but down right counterproductive.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Mar 2010 22:32

munna wrote:
ramana wrote:Indian delusions have to be removed.
Specifically a certain class of Indians which has "delusions" needs to be disabused of this "benign hegemony" bunkum!

Good news is Desi log learn lesson onlee when they are let down in Public but bad news is they can be bought up or buttered up. The pre 47 generation will remain delusional, the post 70 one will do the "uddhar" of India.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 23 Mar 2010 22:37

ramana wrote:Nihat, One might not want to rush to pronuncements. It was the very same US committed to NPT etc that looked away while PRC transferred nukes to TSP with their consent. And did not have them removed after the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, or end of Cold War. It was always to leverage against India.

Its not India's problem what they want to do with TSP. Indian delusions have to be removed.

As someones said earlier in the discussion. Our sense of anxiety and delusion especially with the US will end when we stop expecting them to do things for us and learn to stand up for ourselves. It's now a well repeated statement that Unkil always acts in it's own Intrests and that should work both ways, in the sense that if we stop asking asking them to do things for us an dcontinue to be the emerging force that we are then we'll see Unkil come more than half way for us.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Mar 2010 22:48

Nihat wrote:This nuke deal with TSP is a non-starter. An identical deal like India for TSP is not possible and Unkil knows that very well. It probably just wants to say the right things to feign concern for TSP and satisfy it's needs for == knowing fully well that an agreement within IAEA is not possible leave alone the NSG.

US also plays a lot of games with TSP and this is just one of them.

No Sir,

The pakis are using the nuke deal to finesse India in afghanistan and kashmir. That the pakis are not getting one is a given because the ramifications of such a profoundly foolish action by the US are much beyond pakiland and has the game changing ability in the politics of the middle east.

munna · Post by **munna** » 23 Mar 2010 22:55

Prem wrote: Good news is Desi log learn lesson onlee when they are let down in Public but bad news is they can be bought up or buttered up. The pre 47 generation will remain delusional, the post 70 one will do the "uddhar" of India.

Well the younger lot in urban areas is not something I will count on. Real hope is from rural masses.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Mar 2010 23:02

munna wrote:
Prem wrote: Good news is Desi log learn lesson onlee when they are let down in Public but bad news is they can be bought up or buttered up. The pre 47 generation will remain delusional, the post 70 one will do the "uddhar" of India.
Well the younger lot in urban areas is not something I will count on. Real hope is from rural masses.

India, Indian civilization have always been saved by rural folks as these peope are rooted in the land , with feet on the ground and right thoughts in the head. They live India while "Eeel-ites' busy imagining India . (Eeel= Indian vulture)

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Mar 2010 23:35

^^^
Elites, through out the World have put forth ideas and drawn others towards causes that they thought were important. It behooves us to remember that. The Indian Civilization that you talk about is as much as a result of the elites as non-elites. Discounting any either would push us into the biased camp.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Mar 2010 23:51

Nihat wrote:
As someones said earlier in the discussion. Our sense of anxiety and delusion especially with the US will end when we stop expecting them to do things for us and learn to stand up for ourselves.

It was said before - Indians are like babies...

munna · Post by **munna** » 23 Mar 2010 23:51

SwamyG wrote:Elites, through out the World have put forth ideas and drawn others towards causes that they thought were important.

The highlighted part is self explanatory! For this very elite an anti-India US prez with liberal immigration in place is a much better guy than a pro-India but anti-immigration US prez. Elites think for themselves world over, rest is all megalomania. Galbraith's secession of the rich hypothesis holds pretty well in India's case. We need people who know things ground up and not those who sermonize from the top. Maoist violence is a very strong symptom of it all.

To sum it

Important stuff for elites /= important stuff for masses

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 24 Mar 2010 03:14

Important stuff for elites /= important stuff for masses

It is on a case-to-case basis. The world does not move just because Elites or non-elites. It requires both. Among the rank of freedom fighters there were several elites, wouldn't you say?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 24 Mar 2010 05:39

SwamyG wrote:
It is on a case-to-case basis. The world does not move just because Elites or non-elites. It requires both. Among the rank of freedom fighters there were several elites, wouldn't you say?

Those elites took care of the non elites. That is the difference. India needs such people.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 24 Mar 2010 05:50

^^^ Been reading concerns among current US middle-elite (Newsweek was the latest rag to carry it) about the rise of a middle class in emerging mkts that does not share the liberal proclivities of the western middle-class.

Thus, middle class folk in Russia and China were found to be far more willing to tolerate loss of freedom in return for better secured prosperity. India is conspicuous by its absence from their list of 'concern countries' partly because we've already been defanged, maybe.

The econ rags call it the 'Beijing consensus' from a different POV. Success begets success and its no secret that the top-heavy economic-nationalism model has delivered the goods in spades for the likes of Russia and Cheena. Simultaneously, the great fin crisis has dented the shiny western image of soup-e-rearity and exposed their hollow claims to universalist nirvana.

Interesting to see where this goes.

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Mar 2010 06:02

Hari Seldon wrote:^^^ Been reading concerns among current US middle-elite (Newsweek was the latest rag to carry it) about the rise of a middle class in emerging mkts that does not share the liberal proclivities of the western middle-class.

Thus, middle class folk in Russia and China were found to be far more willing to tolerate loss of freedom in return for better secured prosperity. India is conspicuous by its absence from their list of 'concern countries' partly because we've already been defanged, maybe.

The econ rags call it the 'Beijing consensus' from a different POV. Success begets success and its no secret that the top-heavy economic-nationalism model has delivered the goods in spades for the likes of Russia and Cheena. Simultaneously, the great fin crisis has dented the shiny western image of soup-e-rearity and exposed their hollow claims to universalist nirvana.

Interesting to see where this goes.

Yes, the middle class stands defanged and hitched to US bandwagon. Why do you think certain people feel queasy playing national anthem in presence of their clients? That is why I said I have absolutely no hope from urban middle class because they are already under a bear hug. The hope lies in the country side, heck even Maoist cretins had good faith to mark Mumbai 26/11 attacks on India and here we have people from cities promoting "chaman ka tamasha". 2000-2010 US decade in Delhi-let's see what future brings. Dekhi Jayegi

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 24 Mar 2010 06:15

Hari Seldon wrote:^^^ .

Thus, middle class folk in Russia and China were found to be far more willing to tolerate loss of freedom in return for better secured prosperity. India is conspicuous by its absence from their list of 'concern countries' partly because we've already been defanged, maybe.

Is this a recent thing? Didn't Lee Kuan Yew mock Indians in the 1960s saying - 'Indians have rights but we have rice'?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Mar 2010 06:15

Acharya wrote:
SwamyG wrote:
It is on a case-to-case basis. The world does not move just because Elites or non-elites. It requires both. Among the rank of freedom fighters there were several elites, wouldn't you say?
Those elites took care of the non elites. That is the difference. India needs such people.

Need Indocentric Hawkish elites rooted in soil not Vulture Eeelites rooting for all that is non Indian and penchant for fake morality.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 06:30

Gilles wrote:
Yes these leaders are those that provide the ideology. These people always come from the higher educated classes. Gandhi, Che, Castro, Ho Chi Min, Marks, all were educated and well off.

What I was talking about are the common foot soldiers, the illiterate farmers who join the Taliban for lack of anything better. They are poor, they have no hope, they are at the bottom of the totem pole, and someone comes along and offers them a job that involved carrying an AK-47 and having authority, becoming someone. Ideology is fed to that person. He falls for it.

If that same person had a successful farm which which he was able to sustain his family with dignity, there are less chances he would give the Taliban a second look.....

This is the theory, but there is some meta-information that makes this a little more complex in Af-Pak

While the educated ideologue can instigate the "poor masses' the solution that you have mentioned ("If the same person had a successful farm.. etc") addresses only the "poor masses" and not the scheming ideologue who instigated them. This has a bearing on the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For example Nazi Germany was built up on the grievances that the Germans could relate to after WW1 and the entire nation took up arms to redress those grievances. In the case of Nazi Germany a permanent solution was not to hand to the fighting Germans everything they wanted, but first to defeat the ideologue and then do justice to the Germans.

Similarly, Saddam's regime required a removal of Saddam (the ideologue) before trying to sort the Iraqis out

In Afghanistan, it's not the "poor masses" who are taking up arms on their own, The "poor masses" are being led by Islamic ideologues. Those Islamic ideologues are given sanctuary by the Pakistan army, because their survival is based on claiming adherence to the same ideology. "Jihad in the name of Allah" is the motto of the Pakistan army.

Just like Hitler(Nazis) and Saddam were taken out, a long term solution in Afghanistan needs defanging of the Pakistani army. The US is unwilling to do that because of a close alliance between the US and the Pakistani army. So the fairy-tale that is peddled is that it's the poor masses without food and farms who are talking up arms. Not a chirp about the Pakistani army, whose advisors, officers and men were evacuated from Afghanistan with US help before the bombing of Afghanistan started in 2001. I am referring to the "Kunduz Airlift". And the fact that Mullah Omar has been sheltered and kept alive all these years in Pakistan. Clearly there is chicanery here that has little to do with poverty in Afghanistan.

If you shelter the ideologues, you will never get rid of the ideology.

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 24 Mar 2010 06:52

shiv wrote:If you shelter the ideologues, you will never get rid of the ideology.

But there are a few hundred ideologues and tens of thousands of poor foot soldiers. Lets give the foot soldiers work and set an efficient police, not US smart bombs, on the ideologues. That was my drift.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 24 Mar 2010 07:04

The USG since 9-11 has described Osama Bin Laden and those inspired by him to attack Americans as enemy no.1 in Af-Pak.

To the American politicians who make the final call on strategy the Taliban while dangerous and unpleasant are enablers of enemy no.1

That makes the PA enablers of enablers.

While refusing to face the PA's role in inviting Al-Qaeda to the region makes it impossible to fully triumph, American politicians reason it is cheaper to focus on a smaller target like Al-Qaeda than a big, nuclear-flecked target like the PA.

Although it is popular to say otherwise, the Americans seldom go *looking* for new, serious long term enemies.
-Roosevelt went great lengths to buddy with Stalin.
-The US withdrew its troops entirely from the Korean Peninsula shortly before North Korea invaded their ally in the South.
-The Americans had no problem with the Cuban revolution until it started expropriating American businesses.
-The Shah was supposed to be a friend and ally, and the Americans did their best to befriend the Iranian revolutionary government.
-America paid no real hostile attention to Saddam's Iraq until it invaded their long-term ally Kuwait.
-America paid little attention to the Salafi Jihadis until they started bombing them.

America will not treat Pakistan or the PA like an enemy until the PA invades a close ally, or openly and directly declares hostility, or starts seizing American businesses and citizens, or directly and deliberately attacks US citizens.

Of course once a country declares itself an enemy of America and/or all it stands for, then that changes things. Confrontation and conflict can drag on for decades, with the Americans unwilling to be seen to back down. But until then...

Pakistan's ruling classes arent that suicidal yet. But events in Pakistan are not going to be in their hands indefinitely. The Taliban isnt afraid of America. Neither are the Ziaists.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Mar 2010 07:32

When it comes to terrorism targeting India, the US can get amnesiac about all prior talk of being natural allies with shared values fighting the global scourge of terrorism, pretty damn quick

.

This article besides talking about the US adoption of dilatory tactics in blocking India’s access to Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley, also talks about similar dilatory tactics adopted by the US with regard to granting access to the Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil for questioning by India in the 1999 hijacking of IC 814:

India won't budge on Headley access, though US says 'no'

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 07:39

Gilles wrote:
shiv wrote:If you shelter the ideologues, you will never get rid of the ideology.
But there are a few hundred ideologues and tens of thousands of poor foot soldiers. Lets give the foot soldiers work and set an efficient police, not US smart bombs, on the ideologues. That was my drift.

Absolutely correct. But giving ideologues 2.5 billion a year, F-16s and AMRAAMs and begging them to eschew relations with the Taliban and hoping that some money gets passed on to the poor is a strategy bound to fail.

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Mar 2010 08:05

Wall Street Journal on the challenges faced by US Ambassador to India, Timothy J. Roemer complete with a snake oil salesman’s pitch that India must accept the implied notion that everything that US does for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not bad for India

:

America's India Envoy Needs to Run a Permanent Campaign

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 08:16

munna wrote:
shiv wrote:Please permit me another rude analogy. The pleasures of a new and untried whore cannot be experienced until one gives her a chance. That means putting money down. India has virtually no US hardware and virtually no influence on the US. We don;t help them. They don't help us. We can't harm them. They can harm us.
Shivji a couple of queries, USA has tried harming us since independence, so what is new in that? By handing over the keys to a significant portion of our conventional capabilities to US won't we be setting ourselves up for shafting of the century?

Munnaji the summarization of 63 years of India US relations in the sentence "The US has tried to harm us" is too simplistic to reflect reality. The relationship is vastly more complex with both countries seeing common interests and conflicting interests. As a huge democracy, the US allows both anti India and pro India interests to survive side by side, and that is exactly true of India too which allows pro-US and anti US sentiment to survive side by side. No democracy can suppress one over the other in the way the Pak Army or the Chicoms can do. But given the relative strengths of the US and India, the former can do a lot more tangible harm to India than India can do to the US.

None of this means that the US is uniformly "anti-India" any more than India is "anti-US". What is required is to find the common interests of the US and India an promote them and keep the conflicts down. The US will always play ball when something is in the interests of the US. For India, as the weaker and less influential power it is necessary to avoid conflicts of interest and see where US and Indian interests coincide. This is a process, not a one off act.

The difference between a process and a one off act is not often recognized in forum discussions. Even a huge arms deal can be a process that will progress or not progress depending on how each player behaves. There are many consequences of an uncertain "process" whose exact outcome is not written in stone beforehand but none that cannot be handled, and not something that India has not handled in the past, even with respect to military acquisitions.

Malayappan · Post by **Malayappan** » 24 Mar 2010 09:07

Old article ( about three months old) by Ashley Tellis. Am confident it has been posted before, but definitely worth a re-read - in the context of the vigorous discussions in this and the last few pages -
New Delhi, Washington: Who gets what?
Poses Bob Blackwill's question -

" Tell me what will India give in return?"

and tries to find some answers....

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 Mar 2010 10:17

X-post

The US to engage India & Pak on water issues

The US said on Monday it will engage Pakistan and India to help resolve tensions over the distribution of water between the two countries, as Washington wants the two South Asian neighbours to avoid any conflict over the lingering dispute.

“I think we need to work on this some and find ways to make sure that especially in the Pakistan-India case, we can help move things forward to an improved situation,” Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero said at a US State Department briefing on the occasion of the World Water Day. “What we want to make sure that we can do is help countries avoid conflicts over water,” said the US diplomat.

“So the effort is to elevate the water issue in our diplomatic engagement with countries, to help states increase their own capacity to address these issues... [and] also find ways to increase the supply of water. So the issue is the recognition of water as a potential source of conflict in our elevated effort to address it with greater priority than we have in the past,” she added.

Asked if the Obama administration was specifically talking with India and Pakistan on issues related to the distribution of water, Otero said, “I think we’re beginning to do that. The role that the US will play in any kind of existing relationship between the two countries is one that has to be carefully focussed.”

When her attention was drawn to the fact that India is building dams on rivers flowing into Pakistan and that Pakistan is facing a severe water shortage, Otero said, “We’re clearly aware of the enormous importance of this fact... I think the message that we’re sending today is that the US is elevating the role that it seeks to play in issues related to water. Whether it will become the mediator in any particular conflict is not something that we’re prepared to say right now.”

rajum · Post by **rajum** » 24 Mar 2010 11:33

Why don't we hurt US where it would hurt the most ie MMRCA deal & Access to setting up Nuclear plants in India . A stern warning to US stating that any deal with Pakistan will jeopardise this lucrative oppurtunity is much better than giving sermons which is being done by GOI now

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 24 Mar 2010 11:57

US rejects Pak plea to mediate in Indo-Pak talks on Kashmir
March 24, 2010 11:13 IST
Ahead of the key strategic dialogue with Pakistan, the Obama administration on Wednesday shot down Islamabad's plea to help it resume peace talks with India and mediate on key disputes with New Delhi on issues including Kashmir.

It is for India and Pakistan to resolve all their disputes bilaterally and the Obama Administration does not sees a role for itself in it unless both the countries want it, Special US Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] told journalists at a joint press conference with the Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir in Washington.

Responding to questions from the Pakistani media on this issue, Holbrooke, however, said the US encouraged both India and Pakistan to talk to each other on all the issues.

He said talking on Kashmir is not in his mandate.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/ ... ashmir.htm

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 12:15

rajum wrote:Why don't we hurt US where it would hurt the most ie MMRCA deal & Access to setting up Nuclear plants in India . A stern warning to US stating that any deal with Pakistan will jeopardise this lucrative oppurtunity is much better than giving sermons which is being done by GOI now

This IMO is exactly the wrong thing to do. The US has hardly suffered from lack of business from India in the last 60 years and is hardly likely to suffer from lack of contracts from India. India OTOH can still be punished by the US.

We need to build up a relationship with the US where we matter to them. Stern warnings from us will only make the US ROTFL

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 15:53

shiv wrote: This IMO is exactly the wrong thing to do. The US has hardly suffered from lack of business from India in the last 60 years and is hardly likely to suffer from lack of contracts from India. India OTOH can still be punished by the US.

There is absolutely no basis for extrapolating the last 60 years to next 60 years. The world has fundamentally changed. There is absolutely no basis for that statement. Further in general insisting on trade at our terms is something we have always done, including in WTO under Kamal Nath (its a different matter that he got punished for it) -- but this is not even trade. This is military and strategic exchange -- to lump it with "trade" in general is simply disingenuous.

To live the India of 1950s with all its weakness in 2010 is not a valid strategy.

US will suffer a lot if India does not play ball, yes it will, in fact even in last 60 years it already has. To a great extent (whether that is recognized or not)

We need to build up a relationship with the US where we matter to them. Stern warnings from us will only make the US ROTFL

We have mattered to US of A since 1940s, since our soldiers and resources were needed to fight their wars, the minute US came out from its shell of fortress America we have mattered.

And our stern warning did not make the ROTFL in 60s and 70s when were more of a basket case, but gnash their teeth (all documented)

This India is weak and US is strong, is being taken to absurd levels of psy-ops. India is not that weak, US is not that strong.

Lots lots and lots of flaws there in those three simple statement, basic and total flaws.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 16:18

Sanku wrote: US will suffer a lot if India does not play ball, yes it will, in fact even in last 60 years it already has. To a great extent (whether that is recognized or not)

yeah I'm sure - pains in the sides from too much

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 16:22

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote: US will suffer a lot if India does not play ball, yes it will, in fact even in last 60 years it already has. To a great extent (whether that is recognized or not)
yeah I'm sure - pains in the sides from too much

Indeed I can hear Nixon laugh right now, Kennedys laugh on India is also clearly heard.

Sorry boss, US is no hyper power like you will have us believe.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 24 Mar 2010 16:23

shiv wrote:We need to build up a relationship with the US where we matter to them. Stern warnings from us will only make the US ROTFL

Kindly explain how to go about building...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 16:26

merlin wrote:
shiv wrote:We need to build up a relationship with the US where we matter to them. Stern warnings from us will only make the US ROTFL
Kindly explain how to go about building...

Kindly reflect on what India has done so far to merit the deep respect that the US gives us and tell me if anything occurs to you about what India could do differently?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 16:55

pandyan wrote: On the defense/self sufficiency in defense: this is an area of huge weakness....in some sense it clearly shows that there is a huge disconnect between indian businesses/netas/babus on the overally strategy.

Currently, some Indian private enterprises view defense with $$$$$/RsRsRs. Instead of viewing from purely producer-consumer angle, if they view India's military weakness/dependency on foreign vendors as a strategic threat for their own survival, then more effective policies would emerge resulting in stronger mil-ind complex in india.

Essentially, private enterprises somehow need to view Indian security as one of the pillars of their company (and hence tied to their prospects) and pool money/lobby for better policies for self-reliance in defense. The question is what would it take to get the companies go into this mode?

Defence is THE key question.

A small investment made by the US in Pakistan results in the need for India to make a large investment to counter that - and still we are only countering Pakistan, and not the US.

Actually India US relations in terms of defence were once much better. The US after all did come to India's defence during the Indo China conflict. In an earlier and more innocent era the US helped the spread of nuclear tech to India although tat was civilian tech. But it was in the early 60s after 1962 that Pakistan checkmated India by allying with the US. The US has its fears. The USSR was a huge fear.

The US would ally with anyone who could help and Pakis recognized that. The closeness that the Pakis developed needs to be read about to be believed and I have a book by Air Cmdre Nosey Haider who led the Paki attack on Pathankot in 1965 that tells of the relationship. After that India-US defence relations only went downhill.

Defence is emotional stuff. It is as emotional for the American as it is for us jingos. Allies are seen clearly and adversaries have to be marked out for defeat. What do you think the US would have thought of India?

Russia, our long term friend does not arm Pakistan. But it certainly supplies China. The US supplies Pakistan. Not India. France sells to Pakistan and India. The UK sells to India and has not barred Pakistan as a buyer. Sweden sells to Pakistan and India. Italy sells to Pakistan and India. Israel sells to India, not Pakistan. But it has helped China.

Just analyse the above data. You find that every arms selling nation supplies either Pakistan or China. Of all these suppliers, the most technologically advanced is the US. Even China and the USSR have from tie to time got US stuff via some sources for reverse engineering. We are the only country that is actually in a position to buy US arms and tech but refuse to do so on grounds of what has happened in the past.

I am certain we can allow some opening for the US. Access to even 5% of the Indian arms market is a huge pie and we need not sell out to the US. But we need to have some sort of "strategic relationship" with the US where we can agree to consult each other for use of arms against common adversaries of nations considered as allies. We have to behave like a friend. Not a paranoid. This cannot happen suddenly. It has to be a process

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Mar 2010 17:31

Last few days the NYT has been putting out articles about India:

Today's is on education
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/world ... 4test.html

Of the 186 million students in India, only 12.4 percent are enrolled in higher education, one of the lowest ratios in the world.

“If you have 150 million or 160 million children who don’t go to college, what is going to happen to them 10 or 15 years from now?” asked Kapil Sibal, the government minister overseeing education. “The demographic dividend will become a demographic disaster.”

There was one on the power situation
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/busin ... enron.html

For all the progress India has made in information technology and service-sector jobs, the country is still unable to provide reliable power, water, roads and other basic infrastructure to most of its 1.2 billion people. For instance, about 40 percent of the country’s population is not connected to the electricity grid.

This energy deficit is also an impediment to development. Here in Maharashtra, India’s most industrialized state and the home of its commercial capital, Mumbai, formerly Bombay, the demand for electricity will exceed supply by about 30 percent this year, up from 4.5 percent in 1992.

And if industrial companies that set up here can get electricity, they will pay more for it than elsewhere in the world, according to the Prayas Energy Group, a research organization.

And before that
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world ... india.html

Bhisham Singh Yadav, father of the groom, is stressed. His rented Lexus got stuck behind a bullock cart. He has hired a truck to blast Hindi pop, but it is too big to maneuver through his village. At least his grandest gesture, evidence of his upward mobility, is circling overhead. The helicopter has arrived.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 24 Mar 2010 18:57

shiv wrote:We have to mollify the US in some way. We have to bow to the master. What is wrong in bowing to the master and accepting his suzerainty like everyone else? What sort of echandee can a turd world nation like India have working against a US that acts in its own interests? Every sensible Indian will give an arm and a leg to go to the US and stay there. Why should the beggars in the mother country aspire for less? Unless we suck up to the US we can hardly expect favors. No? We have not even started a proper suck, and people are already worried about Indian echandee. What echandee?

Jeez

First, the elites that were hand-picked by the departing colonialists looted their poverty-stricken countrymen, in the manner of Mugabe, Mobutu, Papa Doc and Baby Doc.

Now, they will tell us that we don't need democracy and independence, we need to be a colony again, and that they can be the Viceroys.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2010 19:56

Pranav wrote: First, the elites that were hand-picked by the departing colonialists looted their poverty-stricken countrymen, in the manner of Mugabe, Mobutu, Papa Doc and Baby Doc.

Saar you and I are no different from Haitians. Poor. Black. Underdeveloped. Impoverished. No clout. Only fractal recursivity (Slave takes on master's characteristics in front of fellow slave) can make one "Look down" on Haitians as if we are at same level as massa. Unless of course you have made it good and made your packet - in India or abroad. Then you are elite no? Half-massa. Haiti is brother country onlee.

"Good heavens! Haiti?

" is an expression that gora saab can make. Not kaalu.