Re: Superpower Syndrome: Sid Harth
Sid Harth
How would history remember the first decade of the 21st century?
A K Bhattacharya / New Delhi December 2, 2009, 0:09 IST
The first decade of the 21st century is about to end in a few weeks
from now. How would history remember this decade? It is difficult to
encompass a decade’s major trends and developments in a short essay of
this nature. However, it would be instructive to recall at least a few
of them.
Globally, the decade began with the breakdown of trust in corporate
governance. Corporate scandals and acts of malfeasance that may have
been kept hidden from public gaze in all the previous decades came
tumbling out of the cupboard as the first decade of the 21st century
began. Enron, Worldcom and Arthur Andersen were globally respected
corporate institutions before they were all found guilty of violating
the basic governance rules.
Global confidence in companies lay badly shaken. The organisers of the
annual jamboree of the world’s top business and government leaders at
Davos decided in 2003 that its theme that year would focus on how the
corporate world should rebuild trust, which it had obviously lost. At
another level, regulators in the US and in many European countries put
in place stricter governance and disclosure norms for corporate
players. Life for corporate leaders was not the same any more.
That sombre mood, however, made no visible impact on the kind of
irrational exuberance that became the hallmark of the American
financial sector in the latter half of the decade. In an impossible
bid to keep the housing bubble going for as long as it could, the
financial sector, aided and abetted by the US regulators, not only
burnt their own fingers but also fell headlong to bring down along
with it the global economy. Mercifully, the decade is ending with the
hope that the world economy would not have to suffer the pangs similar
to those caused by the economic depression of the 1930s.
In India, the decade represented resilience, reforms, change and hope.
The economy showed its resilience not just once at the start of the
decade, when it came out triumphant from an economic slowdown induced
by the short-lived dotcom boom quickly followed by a bust. Similar
resilience was in evidence when the economy responded positively to
the government’s fiscal stimulus measures and bounced back to growth
after receiving major blows from a global downturn.
Annual economic growth, measured by the rise in the gross domestic
product (GDP) at factor cost, has averaged at over 7 per cent in the
current decade, a clear 1.5 percentage point increase over the annual
growth rate recorded in the previous two decades. The increase is not
dramatic. But the direction of the change has been unmistakably
towards a steady rise. What is also clear is that the Indian economy
has now marched far ahead of the 3 to 3.5 per cent annual growth rates
that marked the first three decades after India gained political
freedom.
On the fiscal discipline front, the Indian government has done
reasonably well during the decade. The decade saw four finance
ministers in this period. Yashwant Sinha kept the fiscal deficit at
around 5.6-6.2 per cent of GDP. Jaswant Singh brought it down to 4.5
per cent. At the end of his fourth Budget in 2007-08, Palaniappan
Chidambaram brought it down to 2.7 per cent. But then the global
downturn forced the government to introduce fiscal stimulus measures
and the fiscal deficit went up to 6 per cent in the following year.
Pranab Mukherjee has projected the deficit at 6.8 per cent for the
last year of the current decade, the second highest level in the last
two decades.
The decade also saw the country’s largest corporate entity engaged in
a long battle over division of assets between two brothers after their
father died in 2002. The Ambanis’ battle is not yet over and may go
beyond even the coming decade. At another level, Indian companies went
overseas to acquire major brands and firms. The Tatas acquired Corus,
Jaguar Cars and Land Rover. The Aditya Vikram Birla group took over
Novelis and several other large Indian companies, including a few in
the information technology sector, took charge of entities in
different parts of the globe.
India’s politics also saw some major turns and twists during the
decade. The BJP got defeated in the 2004 general elections, in spite
of its economic reforms and a credible growth story. The Congress, led
by Sonia Gandhi, has unleashed a new brand of politics that harps on
inclusive growth with economic and institutional reforms. The formula
has worked very well for the Congress so far. Manmohan Singh may well
be India’s Goh Chok Tong, providing a mature and stable leadership
even while keeping the prime ministerial seat ready and warm for Rahul
Gandhi to take charge one day. That certainly is one hope Congress
leaders cherish these days as they prepare to face the new decade.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/a-k-bhattacharya-sweetbitter-memoriesa-decade/378313/
...and I am Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI First Published : 02 Dec 2009 10:38:25 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Dec 2009 01:47:20 AM IST
NEW DELHI: Top Indian defence brass today met a Chinese delegation
which is here on a five-day visit to take forward bilateral relations
between the two countries and to plan for future joint military
exercises.
The Chinese delegation led by Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) deputy
chief General Gezen-feng had meeting with IAF chief Air Chief Marshal
P V Naik and Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma and the two sides
discussed possibilities of holding joint exercises in the future.
The delegation could not meet Army chief General Deepak Kapoor, as he
was away in Meerut, Defence Ministry sources said here.
The Chinese team is scheduled to meet Defence Minister A K Antony and
Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar to discuss on the scope for bolstering
the bilateral confidence building measures later during their visit
that will end on December 6.
The visit, which comes in the wake of reports of Chinese Army nibbling
in Indian territory all along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Soon after, another Chinese delegation led by Tibet Military Regional
Command commander-in-chief Lt Gen Shu Yutai will be in India from
December 11, officials said.
Meanwhile, commenting on the Chinese delegation visit and his
discussions with it, Verma told reporters that India and China shared
common concerns and whatever appeared in the respective media was not
to be misunderstood.
"I may be meeting them for the first time but there have been
occasions earlier when officers from both Navies have interacted. The
main thrust during the discussion is that whatever is coming in the
media should not be misunderstood," Verma said.
India, particularly the Navy, has for long been suspicious of China's
increased presence in the Indian Ocean region.
However, the Navy chief said Chinese were concerned over their energy
supplies that flowed through the Indian Ocean's sea-lanes of
communication and wanted to secure it, as much as India wanted to
secure its energy supplies.
"Both India and China are growing economies. China's energy flows
through the Indian Ocean. Their concerns are similar to ours," he
said.
Pointing out to the anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden off
Somalia, Verma said the Chinese Navy had deployed their warships in
great strength to ward off the sea brigands and on their way back
home, some of these ships had called on Indian ports recently.
Except for a structured joint Army exercise between the two nations
and one-off naval exercises, the armed forces of the two countries
have not have much of an interaction, but have had some defence
delegation exchanges.
The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding in May 2006
during a visit to Beijing by then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee
for joint military exercises and counter-terrorism training, apart
from greater defence cooperation.
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Top+defence+brass+meet+Chinese+delegation&artid=5IPRvFh|mm0=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=&SEO=india,
china, defence, border dispute
chhotemianinshallah
power
Punjab Newsline Network
Thursday, 03 December 2009
CHANDIGARH: Qila Raipur MLA Jassi Khangura urged the Prime Minister Dr
Manmohan Singh to seriously consider the plea for a nuclear power
plant for Punjab as the state was faced with severe power crisis.
Khangura also sought to clarify the stand of the Punjabis towards the
Indo-US Nuclear deal in view of the opposition to the deal by the
Akali and BJP MPs when it came for voting in July 2008.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, Khangura assured
him that most of the Punjabis, including some MPs of the Akali Dal
were also in favour of the deal and wanted to support it. “Let me
assure you that he (Badal) did not speak for all Punjabis when he
pressured his MPs, many of whom were inclined to support or abstain,
to stand against you during the trust vote last year”, he said, while
adding, “he (Baddal) simply spoke for himself and his son, Sukhbir
Badal, and against progress for the State”.
The Qila Raipur MLA said, vast number of people in Punjab recognise
the desperate power deficit status of the state and appreciate the
efforts to alleviate the power issues of the nation through the Indo-
US Nuclear Deal. “When the common man struggles daily to run his
business, the farmer to irrigate his fields, and the student to do her
homework, all due to a lack of power, it is time to seek action”, he
observed.
Khangura said, “it is high time to plead with the Prime Minister not
to ignore the otherwise unheard voices of Punjab which are drowned out
time and again by the despotic shouts of the father son duo who
profess to be leading us to a brighter future, but in fact are
consigning us, quite literally, to darkness”.
Making a passionate plea for a nuclear power plant for Punjab, he
urged the Prime Minister to re-consider the case (for nuclear power
plant) and also re-assess the situation and, if necessary on grounds
of border issues or population density, allow Punjab to place its
nuclear power station outside of state boundaries.
Khangura urged the Prime Minister to constitute an exploratory
committee that will research and recommend on providing nuclear power,
and, therefore, a future, to the people of Punjab.
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/21495/38/
chhotemianinshallah
Punjab Newsline Network
Thursday, 03 December 2009
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal on Thursday
urged the Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde to advice the
Nuclear Corporation of India to bear with the state government for the
delay in the site selection process.
In a letter to the Union Power Minister, Badal informed him that he
had already directed the Chairman of the Punjab State Electricity
Board to coordinate with the Chairman and Managing Director of the
Corporation to pursue the matter further.
Badal pointed out that Punjab was a densely populated State and most
of the area was under intensive cultivation, due to which the whole
exercise was taking some time. He however, reiterated that the state
was very serious in finding a suitable site for setting up of a
nuclear power plant in Punjab.
The Chief Minister further said that the Ministry of Power, Government
of India was vigoursly pursuing proposal to set up nuclear power
stations in the country.
“Even we are very keen to have a nuclear power station in Punjab and
in pursuance of a letter received from Nuclear Power Corporation of
India we had already initiated the process of selection of a suitable
site in the State”, wrote Badal.
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/21485/38/
chhotemianinshallah
Punjab Newsline Network
Wednesday, 02 December 2009
CHANDIGARH: The Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) Wednesday
initiated the process to set up 4X700 MW Nuclear Power Project in
Haryana, which would be a green project with zero emission thus having
no health hazard even from radiation.
A team of senior officers of NPCIL, led by its Chairman and Managing
Director, Dr. S.K. Jain held their first meeting with the senior
officers of Haryana Government to discuss various issues concerning
the ambitious project involving an investment of Rs.12,000 crore,
before visiting the site of the Nuclear Project between Kumharia and
Gorakhpur in district Fatehabad tomorrow. They would call on the Chief
Minister, Bhupinder Singh Hooda on Friday in New Delhi.
Today’s meeting was presided over by Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary, Finance, Ajit M.Sharan. Dr.S.K. Jain said that
the project would be based on indigenous technology of pressurised
heavy water and its design was already ready for construction. The
NPCIL has set up 17 Nuclear Power Projects and four more projects were
under construction. The Government of India had accorded inprincipal
approval for setting up of 4X700 MW in two phases in October 2009, he
added. He said that the pre-project activity would be completed by
2010-11or early 2012. The construction of first and second units would
be started by March 2012. Work on units 3 and 4 would commence after
about three and four years when work on Kumharia 1 and 2 units tapers
off.
It was revealed that the tariff for the Nuclear Power Projects was
coming to about Rs.2.70 per unit which is very competitive rate
considering the tariff prevailing in the coal fired generation units
in the country. He said that NPCIL has been establishing Nuclear Power
Generation Projects in a time frame of 50 to 60 months which is one of
the earliest project erection schedules anywhere in the world. Dr.Jain
assured that this would be a green project with zero emission and the
radiation level would also be within the prescribed limit. Therefore,
this would not pose any threat to the health of the people. He said
that the NPCIL would consider the proposal of Haryana Government to
set up vocational training centre to train the people of the area.
Also, a CBSE school would be set up by the Corporation in addition to
the medical facility and a township. He also offered assistance of the
NPCIL to the CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and Guru
Jambheshwar University, Hisar in undertaking projects in Nuclear
technology.
The Haryana Government assured uninterrupted supply of required
quantity of 320 cusecs of water for the plant. Other related issues of
the project were also discussed in detail. In his presentation, the
Executive Director of NPCIL, Dr.S. Thakur said that they would require
about 500 hectares of land to set up the project whereas the earlier
proposed area was 1000 hectares. He assured that the NPCIL would
follow the progressive relief and rehabilitation policy prescribed by
the Haryana Government. Mr Ajit M.Sharan conveyed the commitment of
the Haryana Government to provide them all facilities to set up
Nuclear Power Project at the earliest possible. Managing Director,
Haryana Power Generation Corporation, Mr Sanjeev Kaushal presented the
vote of thanks. Those present in the meeting included Financial
Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Power, Mr Madhusudan Prasad,
Managing Director, Power Utilities, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) O.S. Lohchab and
other senior officers of the State Government.
http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/21477/93/
chhotemianinshallah
India-US Relations: The Need to Move Beyond Symbolism
Shanthie Mariet D'Souza
December 3, 2009
Manmohan Singh’s visit to the United States, the first official state
visit of the Barack Obama administration, has been dubbed as merely
symbolic and lacking substance by several analysts. Their
disappointment appears to stem from lack of dramatics and “something
spectacular” in this rather quiet, but certainly not unproductive,
visit.
During Manmohan Singh’s previous state visit to the United States in
2005, the iconic India-US nuclear deal was seen as marking a watershed
in bilateral relations. In comparison, the issues that found mention
in the joint statement released during the latest visit are bound to
be viewed as ‘non-significant’. Moreover, in the backdrop of Obama’s
visit to China that preceded Singh’s US tour and the joint statement
with the Chinese that spoke of an important role for China in South
Asia, analysts perceive an unstated US tilt towards China.
However, what seems to have missed the eye is that in the shadow of
the grandiose ‘nuclear deal’, India and the United States have moved
significantly in strengthening traditional areas of co-operation like
agriculture, education, health, service sector and a forward movement
on global commons like space co-operation and enhanced cooperation on
clean energy, energy security, and climate change launching the Clean
Energy and Climate Change Initiative. The Obama-Singh 21st Century
Knowledge Initiative aims at building linkages between American and
Indian universities through increased exchanges and programmes to
strengthen educational opportunities for the disadvantaged. As the
Indian government focuses on making ‘inclusive growth’ a mantra for
surging India, these areas of co-operation will assume greater
importance in the coming years. During Secretary Clinton’s visit to
India earlier this year these were the focus areas of cooperation in
the five pillars of the Strategic Dialogue.
Analysts have harped on India’s supposed relegation to the background
in the Af-Pak strategy of the Obama administration. It needs mention
that while the Bush administration emphasized on the de-hyphenation of
India-Pakistan relations and provided India an elevated status through
the nuclear deal, it looked the other way when Pakistan under General
Musharraf did not do much to counter the Taliban threat, despite the
billions that were poured into that country. On the contrary, under
the Obama administration, military aid to Pakistan has come under
scrutiny and is being provided with strings attached. The Kerry-Lugar
Bill is also a case in point. Moreover, despite statements from the
top US military commander in Afghanistan, India’s role in Afghanistan
is seen as being in tandem with American interests of capacity
building and rebuilding of the war-torn nation. Manmohan Singh’s visit
which occurred on the eve of the first anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai
attacks as well as of the impending announcement of Obama’s new Afghan
policy provided the Indian prime minister an opportunity to deliver a
strong message to the United States – “Don’t go wobbly on
Afghanistan”.
Post-26/11, counter-terrorism co-operation between India and the
United States has increased substantially, particularly in the realm
of information sharing. The Headley- Rana saga is one such instance.
The Counterterrorism Co-operation Initiative is seen as enhancing the
joint counterterrorism working group’s mandate. Defence co-operation
and joint exercises, especially ‘Yudh Abhyas’ in Babina (October 12 to
29) which saw the largest number of strykers used outside Iraq and
Afghanistan are signs of growing military-to-military co-operation.
The subset of defence co-operation includes collaboration on
humanitarian, disaster relief, and maritime security efforts. Greater
co-operation in guarding the sea lanes and anti-piracy operations will
assume added significance in the days to come. More importantly,
India’s large defence market continues to be of tremendous interest to
American investors.
While it is easy to dismiss the growing economic co-operation as
outside the realm of the strategic partnership, they are force
multipliers in taking the India-US relationship ahead. The Indian-
American community in the United States has contributed significantly
to strengthening the relationship between the largest and oldest
democracies. In the years to come the ‘Knowledge initiative’ and
investment in human capital will help actualize the American and
Indian dreams of ‘Knowledge economies’.
According to a recent Confederation of Indian Industries (CII)
estimate, the India-US services trade is likely to grow from the
present $60 billion to an ambitious $150 billion in the next six
years. This fast growing services trade has remained relatively stable
despite financial melt down. Given the growing demand for services in
the United States and assuming that the demand for outsourcing will
continue to grow from American corporations, India can expect larger
market access in this sector.
While critics were obviously looking for path breaking outcomes during
the visit, it needs to be emphasized that during the first official
state visit focus on issues considered insignificant are actually
essential to strengthen the foundations of the partnership. With
continuing road blocks to operationalising the India-US nuclear
agreement, there seems to be little forward movement in finalizing a
mutually agreeable legal text.
Some earth shattering headlines, like American support for India’s
membership in the UN Security Council, would have been much welcomed
among Indian audiences. Apart from the fallacy of such heightened
expectations, what is clearly lacking in Indian commentaries is the
willingness to define India’s role as a major power in the region.
While there has been a reluctance to move beyond viewing the India-US
relationship through the prism of US-China or even US-Pakistan
relations, it is pertinent to note the absence of ability to define
India’s role in this growing partnership with the United States, both
by our political leadership and strategic community. Given such a
trend, India is certain to remain a fence sitter, alien to great power
politics and unable to influence the course of global power
reconfiguration in these times of ‘change’.
http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/India-USRelations_smdsouza_031209
chhotemianinshallah
Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi December 05, 2009, 0:03 IST
New defence pact likely as Manmohan visits Moscow on December 7.
India and Russia will take new steps to reinvent their strategic
partnership when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev in the Kremlin on December 7, with a civil nuclear
cooperation agreement and an extended defence cooperation pact,
expected to be the highlight of the meeting.
Last week as the PM travelled to the US, over-zealous bureaucrats in
the Obama administration, well-versed in the minutiae of non-
proliferation matters, prevented a signature on a nuclear fuel
processing agreement between India and the US.
But next week in Moscow, an umbrella agreement on civil nuclear
cooperation that envisages as many as 10-12 Russian nuclear reactors
being sold to India over the coming decade, could well transform the
stagnating relationship and take it into new realms, far beyond the
meagre $10 billion of annual bilateral trade today.
Another indicator of freshly warming ties is the visit of Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to Delhi in the first half of March
2010, when the deal over the ‘Admiral Gorshkov’/INS Vikramaditya
aircraft carrier and its accompanying Mig-29K fighter jets is likely
to be finally signed.
Besides these pacts, a joint declaration between the two sides
envisaging a political partnership, a $100-million credit line between
Russia’s Vneshekonombank and Exim Bank, as well as a small agreement
on procedures to be employed by defence personnel participating in
joint exercises between the two sides will be started.
On the evening of December 7, the prime minister will also formally
close the ‘Year of India in Russia’ at the world-famous Bolshoi
Ballet, where noted sarod player Amjad Ali Khan will perform with his
two sons. However, a culture agreement between the two sides is
unlikely to see the light of day.
Highly placed sources in both establishments confirmed that Delhi has
indicated to Moscow about being willing to look at expanding the
number of Russian nuclear plants going to be built on a second site at
Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, from four to six.
Russia is already building two civil nuclear plants of 1,000 Mw each
at Kudankulam — taking the proposed total there to eight — and these
are expected to go onstream very soon.
Similarly, at the Haripur site in West Bengal which has been allocated
to Russia to build two reactors (besides two each for the US in
Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh and two for France in Maharashtra), the
possibility of expanding this number to four is already being talked
about. It is believed Medvedev will make Singh an offer of building
10-12 reactors over the next decade in India.
Significantly, the impending civil nuclear cooperation agreement is
expected to talk about much more than nuclear reactor sales from
Russia to India. Besides incorporating schedules and sales of nuclear
fuel that will feed the Russian reactors and allow Indian reprocessing
of the fuel — the real crux of the problem in the case between India
and the US — the deal actually signifies a slow but definite shift in
India’s strategic vision of the world and the reinvented contours of
its relationship with Russia.
Indian officials steeped in nostalgia have often reminisced about the
halcyon days of the special relationship between India and the Soviet
Union. But in recent months, it has been none other than the
pragmatist prime minister — whose single-minded pursuit of the US over
the past five years in search of the nuclear deal meant that several
other relationships like Russia were abandoned by the Moskva riverside
— who has signalled his intent to re-look at the Indo-Russian
relationship in new ways.
Describing Russia as a “world power” in interviews with Delhi-based
Russian journalists two days ago, on the eve of his Russia visit — a
phrase he has not used in the past five years — the prime minister
also talked about the need for both Indian and Russian businessmen to
take advantage of India’s powerful growth indicators despite the
recession that has consumed Russia.
The PM’s reference to Russia as a “world power” was made in the
context of how Moscow should seek to influence Pakistan to abandon
terrorism as an instrument of strategic power.
In one swoop, the PM was indicating, again, that India was not only
ready and willing to talk to Islamabad if it took serious measures
against India-related terrorist attacks, but also allowed that Russia,
besides the US, had a stake in taking responsibility for the expanding
arc of terrorism that affected not only Afghanistan-Pakistan but also
the underbelly of Russia and all of Central Asia.
Both Russian and Indian officials strenuously deny that the newly
warming relationship between them has something to do with the newly-
acquired distance between Delhi and Washington under the Obama
administration. But, it is clear that Manmohan Singh put on a brave
face when the world saw India being jointly lectured by the US and
Chinese presidents in Beijing recently.
According to noted Russian political analyst Sergei Kurginyan, who in
Delhi recently met senior Indian officials, including National
Security Adviser M K Narayanan, “India is a very important partner for
Russia and promoting the bilateral relationship is in the strategic
interest of both countries”.
Besides the nuclear agreement, the other major pact to be initiated at
the Kremlin will revolve around the expanded long-term defence
cooperation between India and Russia, over the decade 2010-2020.
Meanwhile, sources confirmed that price differences still persisted
over the ‘Admiral Gorshkov’ deal, which is why it was not being
finalised during the PM’s coming visit to Moscow. India is still not
willing to pay more than $2.1-2.2 billion for the entire package,
while the Russian side is not comfortable with a price below $2.5-2.7
billion.
A third interesting aspect of the PM’s visit relates to the meeting of
the Indo-Russia CEOs council, co-chaired by Mukesh Ambani of Reliance
Industries, and Vladimir Yevtushenkov, the CEO of the Sistema group
(which promotes its telecom services in India under the MTS brand).
Both are expected to forge an economic bilateral agenda over the next
few years and break the abysmally low self-fulfilling prophecy of
minimal trade and even less investment, although it isn’t clear right
now how they intend to do so.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/india-to-get-more-nuke-reactorsrussia/378633/
chhotemianinshallah
TNN 6 December 2009, 01:58am IST
More than 77 years after India began playing Tests, M S Dhoni's men
have a real chance of going where no Indian team has before - the
summit of Test cricket.
With Sri Lanka still needing 59 runs to make India bat again, and just
four wickets to go, the ICC world No 1 Test ranking is tantalizingly
within reach.
If achieved, it would be a fitting slot for a team that hasn't lost a
Test series since August 2008 in Sri Lanka and has since proceeded to
sort out ‘mystery spinner' Ajantha Mendis in no uncertain terms.
Before that, they lost narrowly to Australia in Australia - and even
that was a bitter, scrappy affair in which they ran the then world
champions down to the wire and would probably have drawn the series,
but for the intervention of Steven Bucknor at Sydney.
India may have lost that series, but it was clearly on the right
track, with the batsmen no longer cowed by lively tracks or short-
pitched pace. Remember, during that series India beat Australia at
Perth, considered a fast bowler's dream pitch. Just as importantly,
the team finally had an attack that could match fire with fire, while
also boasting the traditional Indian strengths of guile and tweak.
Long described as tigers at home but lambs abroad, India had briefly
turned the tide under Sourav Ganguly. Even after he left the hot seat,
India notched up some important wins, like the series win in England.
But Rahul Dravid's abrupt resignation plunged Indian cricket into a
fresh round of confusion after the chaos of the Greg Chappell era.
Enter Anil Kumble, the first bowler to captain India since Ravi
Shastri led in a single Test in 1987-88. Kumble's vision document
conveyed the need for focus and dedication. His mantra: Play fearless
cricket and stop quibbling about factors you can't control, like the
toss or the wicket. During his stint, the team found its feet again.
Kumble's exit paved the way for M S Dhoni. Having led India to victory
at the first T20 world championship and the final Australian tri-
series, Dhoni had already established his leadership credentials. His
calm-but-ruthless style has worked equally well in Tests.
chhotemianinshallah
Shankar Raghuraman & Vikas Singh, TNN 5 December 2009, 02:06am IST
NEW DELHI: Robert Zoellick has seen a lot change over the course of a
long career, first in the US government, now as the World Bank
president. But perhaps the most startling change is in the way the
world views India.
‘‘The outside world’s image of India now is of cutting-edge
competitive companies that are going to take jobs away from the
developed world. I get more and more voices coming from Europe and
North America saying, ‘Why should we give money to India when they’re
going to be a threat to our businesses?’ I have to constantly explain
the huge income diversity of India and the fact that a lot of
development work still needs to be done,’’ he chuckles.
In an exclusive interview to TOI, Zoellick also dwelt on how the
growing strength of India-US ties has proved helpful to him. “I’m
eventually going to have to go to the US Congress to seek its support
for an increase in the World Bank’s capital. I spoke to the
Confederation of Indian Industry and said, ‘Maybe you can help me
because I know there’s a strong India Caucus in Washington. Together
we can make a case that an increase in the Bank’s capital would help
India’s development’.”
Wrapping up a four-day visit to the country, Zoellick praised India’s
“strong crisis management” and said it was playing an important role
in leading a global recovery. “We all look to India now as a rising
global economic power and in our interconnected world it has played a
helpful role over the tough moments of the past year,” he said.
But he brushed aside a suggestion that the strong showing of the
Indian and Chinese economies — at a time when the US and other
developed countries are still struggling — might decisively shift the
balance of power and make this the Asian Century.
‘‘Two centuries ago, India and China probably accounted for 20-25% of
the world’s GDP each. For a variety of reasons, their share dropped
dramatically thereafter. It’s natural that their share will increase
again. But I personally think that the US retains a huge amount of
dynamism and it’s not going away anywhere. When I visit India and
China, I find a lot of people wanting to deepen their ties with the
US. There has been a greater distribution of growth and opportunity in
recent times, which is great. But I don’t see it as the Asian Century
or the American Century or the European Century. I see it as the
challenge of how to get the globalization process to work more
effectively for everyone.”
Speaking specifically about the Bank’s role in India, Zoellick said he
favoured a shift in strategy to get “more bang for the buck”. “Our
current portfolio of commitments is $22 billion. That includes $3.4
billion a year from the International Finance Corporation (the Bank’s
private sector arm). India is the primary country for IFC, we have
more investments here than anywhere else. I’d like to do more. But if
you look at our investment profile here, it tends to be a series of
individual projects. We’re talking to the government to see whether it
would be interested in consolidating, maybe doing fewer projects but
trying to use the money to help support public policy and
institutional development.”
“In a country of India’s size, if you want to have an effect on public
policy, you probably need about a billion dollars to play in the
game,” he added. “We’re lending about a billion to help clean up the
Ganga — a fascinating project, because of the river’s cultural
importance. In agriculture, we’ll do some $5 billion in 2009-12. On
the national highways project, we’ll probably start with a billion and
move up. But even with the sums we’d like to do, it’s still modest
compared to India’s needs. So I was asking your government, ‘how can
we use our resources to have a greater effect in priority areas’? And
I want to make sure we’re aligned to the government’s priorities.”
Zoellick added that the Bank had a role to play in providing not just
financial resources but also leveraging its knowledge of global best
practices. “I had a meeting with Kamal Nath and some private
entrepreneurs. And we discussed how the Bank could apply its learnings
from around the world to help make India’s bidding process for road
projects more transparent and competitive, while ensuring quality and
engaging local communities.”
If the Bank were to focus on poorer states, we asked, wasn’t there a
chance that it would actually be lending money to the worst-governed
regions? And wouldn’t that negate its intent of maximising
effectiveness of lending? “We’d like to focus on states where there’s
interest in building capability and institutional capacity, even if
they’re poor for historical reasons. Also, if you look at China, we
don’t do many large projects there but lots of pilot projects which
serve as models,” he responded.
So, does he think disbursing intellectual capital is as important as
disbursing financial capital? “One of our problems is that we’re
called a bank,’’ he replied. “We don’t just put out money. We work
most effectively when we combine knowledge, experience and learnings
from around the world. We’re trying to use money in the most effective
way possible. But we also try to build markets and institutional
capacity. It could be a local currency bond market or carbon market or
microfinance development market. But we’re constantly asking
ourselves, ‘how can we have more effect’?”
“It’s not a one-way street, either,” he concluded. “Today, toll roads
are fairly common in India, but would be a revolutionary concept in
many US states. You have some of the world’s finest minds, impressive
companies and dynamic entrepreneurs. There are still huge challenges,
but India has made impressive progress in developing programs that
reach poor people. I believe the world has a lot to learn from
India.”
(Tomorrow: Zoellick on globalization, multilateralism and
democratization of the bank and the fund)
chhotemianinshallah
PTI 6 December 2009, 06:59pm IST
MOSCOW: India and Russia have reached a broad agreement to break the
logjam over the protracted price renegotiation over Admiral Gorshkov
aircraft carrier and the two sides are expected to sign a landmark
civil nuclear pact during summit talks between Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and President Dmitry Medvedev tomorrow.
Seeking to resolve the Gorshkov price issue, an irritant in bilateral
ties, the two countries have worked out a general agreement, sources
said. A pact in this regard, however, is unlikely to be signed during
Singh's visit here.
The Prime Minister arrived here on a three-day visit, his sixth trip
to Russia since 2004, that will also see the inking of three
agreements in the field of defence, including one for ending ad-hocism
in servicing Russian military equipment.
As a special gesture, the Russian President will host a private dinner
for Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur at his countryside residence in
Barvikha outside Moscow.
The path-breaking civil nuclear pact is significant as it will ensure
uninterrupted uranium fuel supplies from Russia in the event of
termination of bilateral ties in this field for any reason, the
sources said.
The agreement is considered by India as a "major improvement" over the
123 pact with the US which provides for not just termination of
ongoing cooperation but also for the return to the country of already
supplied components and fuel in the event of the accord being
scrapped.
bademiyansubhanallah
Vijay Tagore / DNA Monday, December 7, 2009 0:34 IST
Mumbai: I am very proud to be part of this Indian team today. We have
achieved what we were aiming to do for the last 18 months. The feeling
of being the best is great. There is also the satisfaction of having
contributed to the team's success in a small way.
What stands out for me in this side, compared to the ones I have
played in before, is togetherness. We back ourselves and each member
is fiercely motivated.
I know the difficult job starts now. We have to live up to
expectations and remain No 1. It is unfortunate that we will be
playing only two more Tests till November next year. We know some
other sides may play well in this period and may overtake us but we
will have to give our best in every Test from now on. We can't rest on
our laurels. The real hard work starts now.
I have been asked how I compare my 293 with the No 1 ranking. The
ranking is the biggest thing to have happened to the Indian team and
my 293 is no match in comparison. Individual performances do not
matter here. You may score 100, 200 or 293 and the team loses; that
knock has no value. The rank is a team achievement, supported well by
the coaching staff. Hopefully, we will keep playing good Test cricket
from now on.
The key to achieving is all-round contribution. We can't win Test
matches by scoring triple hundreds. A lot of credit is due to the
bowlers, particularly the pacers who have worked hard on not-so-
helpful wickets and kept taking five-wicket hauls. And the spinners
were always on the ball. We have also improved as a fielding side. We
work hard at the nets and that is another important factor.
Having said that, if any individual or a group of individuals who
deserve credit for this achievement, then it is Mahi (skipper MS
Dhoni) and Gary (coach Gary Kirsten). I think Mahi is a tremendous
captain and a leader. He has led the side brilliantly since he took
charge. As for Gary, I can say he is not just one of the best but the
best coach in the world. India is lucky to have him.
Then there is Gautam Gambhir. I missed him very badly in this Test.
His contribution to the team's success is immense. It is amazing the
way he has been performing for the last two years. Scoring seven
centuries in nine Tests is no mean achievement. He has been the pillar
of the Indian team.
The success, however, has not come overnight. We have been planning
this for the last few years. There have been discussions on this in
the team meetings. We talk strategy on how to do certain things to
achieve our goal.
Personally, I'm happy that I got 293. There are not many players who
have this kind of scores. Yes, 300 would have been great but I'm
equally proud of 293. The most satisfying thing was the team's win,
rather than my innings. Since that knock, I have been asked questions
about similarities in my style of batting with Vivian Richards. It is
a great honour to be compared with such a great player. I hope I will
live up to the expectations.
(As told to Vijay Tagore)
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_from-no-one-to-no-1-team-india-comes-of-age_1320912
bademiyansubhanallah
Vijay Tagore / DNA Sunday, December 6, 2009 10:30 IST
Last updated: Sunday, December 6, 2009 10:59 IST
Mumbai: It may have taken more than 75 years to become the best Test
team in the world but in the end, the moment came faster than
expected. A little over half an hour into the final day of the Test
and the mission was accomplished. At precisely 10.04am on Sunday, MS
Dhoni and his men anointed themselves as the No.1 in the world. For
the record, India beat Sri Lanka by an innings and 24 runs to clinch
the series 2-0.
The desire to become the No.1 team must have been pretty strong as
India needed only 7.4 overs on the last day of the final Test. Zaheer
Khan never looked better in the series and unleashed some unplayable
deliveries.
One of them was to Sri Lanka skipper Kumar Sangakkara. And the team
showed they can perhaps do without the new fielding consultant. They
were sharp and resilient.
Even as India looked pumped up, the Sri Lankans looked to be in hurry
as if they had to catch a return flight home. Skipper Sangakkara, who
batted bravely on the fourth day, departed nicking one off Zaheer to
Dhoni on the third ball of the day.
The Sri Lanka captain's wicket set the tone for India's victory.
Zaheer dismissed Ranganna Herath and Nuwan Kulasekara and Harbhajan
Singh had Muttiah Muralitharan caught by Dhoni.
India celebrated the win with a huddle and Sachin Tendulkar, the
champion batsman, admitted that he waited all through his 20-year
career for this moment. He declared that he is enjoying the moment and
is in no mood to think about retirement.
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_team-india-s-tryst-with-destiny_1320579
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 6, 2009 12:28 IST
Dubai: Indian cricket today touched an unprecedented high as Mahendra
Singh Dhoni's men became the number one Test side for the first time,
dislodging South Africa in the ICC Rankings issued here today.
The innings and 24-run win over Sri Lanka in the third Test in Mumbai
gave India a 2-0 series triumph and five rating points from the
rubber, taking their overall tally to 124.
India is only the third team after Australia and South Africa to go
atop the ladder since the Test Championship was introduced in May
2001, the ICC said in a statement.
India had started the series in third spot on 119 ratings points,
three less than South Africa.
The 2-0 series win also means India will finish 2009 as the number-one
ranked side after starting the year in third place behind Australia
and South Africa.
Although Australia's ongoing series against the West Indies will
conclude before the year ends, even a 3-0 clean sweep by Ricky
Ponting's men will not be enough for them to challenge India's top
spot.
South Africa, who had topped the Test rankings in August after
Australia lost the Ashes to England, will have an opportunity to
regain the position when they go head to head with England in a four-
Test series starting later this month.
A series win by 2-0 or better will give Graeme Smith's side back its
number-one spot but that scenario will arise only in January next
year.
While the 2-0 success has put India on top of the world, the defeat
has dropped Sri Lanka from second place to fourth spot in the Test
Championship table which is only updated at the end of a series.
ICC Test Championship table:
1. India (124), 2. South Africa (122), 3. Australia (116), 4. Sri
Lanka (115), 5. England (105), 6. Pakistan (84), 7. New Zealand (80),
8. West Indies (76), 9. Bangladesh (13).
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_india-third-team-to-be-world-no-1-test-team-since-2001_1320613
bademiyansubhanallah
Monday, December 7, 2009 0:30 IST
Are you aware that India has become the world No.1 Test team?
I got a call from The Independent in London. They asked me about
Sehwag being close to his third triple century. Journalists in New
Zealand too have been asking and writing about it. So I have been
following the series. I actually follow all the matches that India
play.
What's your take on India's achievement?
India deserves this -- not only the players and the Board but also the
fans. I'm very pleased for your country. They are the best in the
world and they truly understand and celebrate their cricketers'
success. I'm happy for them.
Did you ever think that India would go on top?
I always knew that India has the ability to become the best Test team
in the world. I'm so pleased for the players, Gary (Kirsten), Paddy
(Upton) and the BCCI. I know the Board is a tough task master but it
is fantastic. I'm very pleased.
There is a perception that some credit is due to you. You have
instilled in them the belief that they can be the No.1...
I think Sourav (Ganguly) and the senior players like Rahul (Dravid)
and Anil (Kumble) should deserve credit for that. I know Sourav and
Anil have retired but I was lucky to have some fantastic five-six
senior players -- Sourav, Anil, Rahul, Sachin, Srinath and then some
talented youngsters like Harbhajan Singh, Virender Sehwag and MS
Dhoni. I was lucky there.
I think Gary has been wonderful for the side. I don't know how he
coaches but I understand his style of coaching is similar to mine. For
me, to be the first foreign coach was a great privilege and honour.
And it was wonderful that it was carried on by Gary after an odd
hiccup.
You think they can maintain their position?
That is the challenge. They first have to enjoy it and then take up
the challenge. In India everything is there in the system -- they have
the structure and the academy. Now they have to keep producing the
players. So I think they can stay at the No.1 spot.
What was the biggest turnaround for India? Was it in Kolkata in 2001?
The ability to bring about a turnaround was always there. The theme
was to achieve team achievement as against individual achievements.
There are great individual achievements but in a funny way today's
achievement is greater than any of those. The key for India is to have
potent fast bowlers. That way Zaheer Khan and Sreesanth are very
important for the side. But the best thing about India is that they
are not reliant on any one player. A few individuals will soon go away
but every young Indian cricketer now knows that the team can be the No.
1. That is the turnaround.
What do they have to do to sustain this achievement?
Look, they have won the World Twenty20 title two years ago. They are
No.1 in Tests and they were also No.1 in ODIs. So they have the
ability. But the key is to stay together as long as possible and pass
on the baton to the right individuals. They have the talent and the
people of India back them. I think they can not only sustain this but
can get even better.
Should BCCI change its mindset and allow India to play more Tests?
I'm not sure. Scheduling is a very difficult thing. Test match cricket
is taking a backseat everywhere in the world. Besides, India can also
be the No.1 side in every format of the game. They have the skills to
excel in every format of the game so why concentrate only in one
format.
You coached Sehwag. He has just missed a major milestone. How has he
evolved over the years?
I'm very proud that I know him. He has the ability to do it again. I'm
very confident he will do it again. He just has to play the ball
straight.
How do you rate skipper MS Dhoni vis-a-vis other Indian captains you
worked with?
Sourav, Rahul and Anil were wonderful leaders in their own ways and
Mahendra was on a good learning curve. He is a smart cricketer and has
learnt a lot. He also has some great cricketers like Sachin in his
side. He sets great leadership standards. I have been telling the boys
that they have to be accountable to the biggest fan base in the world.
I'm happy that I could play a small part in this wonderful team's
great rise.
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/interview_india-deserves-this-says-john-wright_1320903
bademiyansubhanallah
DNA Monday, December 7, 2009 0:20 IST
Mumbai: Sachin Tendulkar has reached greater heights in batting but
his dream to see India at the top was achieved only on Sunday in his
two-decade-old career.
The Indian batting maestro showered praised on the MS Dhoni-led team,
calling it one of the best Indian teams ever. "Yes, I must say so. We
have got such a strong batting line-up right from the top to No.7
where Dhoni bats. It's a wonderful feeling to become the No.1 Test
side. We have been waiting to get to this position for a long time,"
Tendulkar said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_best-indian-team-sachin_1320905
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 6, 2009 22:14 IST
Mumbai: After receiving the best cricketer of the year award from BCCI
president Shashank Manohar, Gautam Gambhir said that he was very happy
and honoured to receive it in the year after his favourite player and
India team-mate Virender Sehwag got it.
"Last year Sehwag said that he was happy to receive it after his
favourite player (Sachin) had got it. Now I am happy to receive it
after my favourite player (Sehwag)," he said.
"It is great to be part of such a great team," Gambhir said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_gambhir-says-he-is-happy-to-receive-award-after-sehwag_1320851
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 6, 2009 19:41 IST
Last updated: Sunday, December 6, 2009 20:34 IST
Mumbai: Hero of the 1983 World Cup, Mohinder Amarnath and in-form
opener Gautam Gambhir hogged the limelight at the annual awards
function of the Cricket Board held in Mumbai tonight.
Amarnath who followed in the footsteps of his illustrious father Lala
was bestowed with the Col CK Nayudu Lifetime Achievement Award,
comprising a trophy and Rs15 lakh.
Former India captain Lala Amarnath was the first recipient of the
prestigious award in 1994. Left-handed batsman Gambhir, who missed the
third and final Test against Sri Lanka to attend his sister's wedding,
received the Polly Umrigar Award for being India's best cricketer
between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.
The Delhi batsman, who received a trophy and a cheque for Rs5 lakh,
scored 1269 runs from eight Tests at 84.6 (inclusive of five
hundreds), during this phase with memorable efforts of 206 against
Australia at Delhi, and a match-saving ten-hour marathon worth 137
against New Zealand at Napier.
He also scored 670 runs from twenty-one ODIs, and 177 runs from eight
T20 Internationals, during this period.
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_team-india-players-get-cash-award-of-rs25-lakh-each_1320798
chhotemianinshallah
6 Dec 2009, 1730 hrs IST, IANS
NEW DELHI: India and Russia will sign on Monday an umbrella agreement
for expanding civil nuclear cooperation that will give New Delhi the
right to reprocess spent fuel, taking the pact "far beyond the 123
agreement" inked with the US, a top official said here Sunday.
The official's comments came as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived
in Moscow on a three-day visit that is expected to take the time-
tested strategic partnership between the two countries to another
level in "an evolving international situation."
The inter-governmental umbrella agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear
energy will provide a comprehensive framework for expanding the
existing civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Last
year, the two sides signed a pact for Russia building four additional
reactors at Kudankulam in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.
The agreement will be an advance on the 123 civil nuclear cooperation
agreement signed between India and the US last year by granting India
the right to reprocess spent fuel and facilitating the transfer of the
sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies, official sources
said.
Recently, India announced the allocation of one more site at Haripur
in West Bengal for nuclear reactors supplied by Russia.
Russia, one of the earliest supporters for India re-joining the global
nuclear trade, had supported consensus for New Delhi in the Nuclear
Suppliers Group.
India and the US are in the final stages of concluding a reprocessing
pact. The pact was expected to be signed during Manmohan Singh's visit
to Washington last month, but could not materialise due to "minor
problems" relating to the language of the draft agreement.
...and I am Sid harth
chhotemianinshallah
7 Dec 2009, 0237 hrs IST, AGENCIES
MOSCOW: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh arrived in Moscow on
Sunday to ink billions of dollars of weapons deals and for talks on a
landmark nuclear deal that could significantly widen atomic fuel
imports from Russia.
India, along with China, is one of Russia's biggest clients for arms
sales but New Delhi has been upset in recent years by long delays in
the delivery of a refurbished Soviet-era aircraft carrier under a $1.6
billion contract.
The signing of arms deals and talks on a civilian nuclear deal to
widen uranium fuel deliveries are set to take centre stage in the
three-day visit, officials said. Singh met Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev for an informal dinner after arrival on Sunday and is also
set to meet Russia's powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin.
"Cooperation in the field of defense has been a very important aspect
of our cooperation with Russia," Singh told the Russia Today English-
language television channel. "We have been able to get equipment and
technologies from Russia which were not available to us from any other
countries."
Russia and India, which in October agreed the outlines of a 10-year
weapons deal that could be worth at least $10 billion, are building a
modern supersonic fighter aircraft invisible to radars like the US
F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.
Singh may sign weapons orders including a $1 billion deal for 80
Russian Mi-17 helicopters and contracts for fitting Brahmos missiles
onto Russian-made Sukhoi fighter planes, Indian officials have said.
Long delays to the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier have soured ties
with some of India's military top brass. In July Medvedev took the
rare step of publicly scolding the Russian shipbuilder for the
delays.
COLD WAR ALLY
Russia sees India, a Cold War ally, as an important partner whose
influence will expand in Asia, though trade lags far behind Moscow's
economic ties with the European Union and China. Trade rose to $5.1
billion in the first nine months of 2009, though that accounts for
just 1.6 percent of Russia's external trade, according to Russian
state figures.
Indian energy companies including state-run company ONGC have been
trying to boost their position in Russia, the world's biggest energy
producer, though it was unclear if any deals would be reached during
Singh's trip. Russia is seeking to strengthen its foothold on the
Indian nuclear market before a deal with Washington gives major US
companies access to the Indian market.
The 2005 civil nuclear deal that Singh signed with former US President
George W. Bush, ended the long nuclear isolation imposed on India
after it tested an atom bomb in 1974. But several issues need to be
cleared up before US businesses including General Electric Co and
Westinghouse Electric Co, a subsidiary of Japan's Toshiba Corp, can
compete for billions of dollars in new reactor agreements.
Press Trust of India said India and Russia were set to sign a new
civilian nuclear pact that could ensure uninterrupted uranium supplies
from Moscow, but gave no further details. Russia is building nuclear
reactors at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern Indian
state of Tamil Nadu and plans to build additional plants.
bademiyansubhanallah
Agencies
Posted: Monday , Dec 07, 2009 at 1226 hrs
Moscow:
The two sides are also expected to sign a landmark framework agreement
on civil nuclear cooperation.
As he prepared to meet President Dmitry Medvedev for the annual summit-
level talks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said defence
cooperation has been a "very important aspect" in Indo-Russian ties.
Singh arrived on Sunday on a three-day visit, his sixth trip to Russia
since 2004, that will see the inking of three agreements in the field
of defence, including one for ending ad-hocism in servicing Russian
military equipment.
The two sides are also expected to sign a landmark framework agreement
on civil nuclear cooperation.
"Cooperation in the field of defense has been a very important aspect
of our cooperation with Russia," Singh told the Russia Today
television channel.
"We have been able to get equipment and technologies from Russia which
were not available to us from any other countries," he noted.
Reflecting the warmth in the bilateral ties, the Russian President
hosted a private dinner last night for Singh and his wife Gursharan
Kaur at his countryside residence in Barvikha outside Moscow, an
honour so far accorded only to US President Barack Obama.
Over dinner, Medvedev and Singh held informal discussions on a wide
range of issues including nuclear cooperation and conventional
energy.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indorussian-defence-coop-key-to-bilateral-ties-pm/550984/
chhotemianinshallah
C. Raja Mohan
Mon, Dec 7 05:28 AM
As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh holds consultations with the Russian
leadership today, India should get a first-hand assessment of Moscow's
thinking on the rapidly changing great power relations and what they
mean for the balance of power in Eurasia.
A decade ago when annual summitry between India and Russia began,
Moscow was driven by the need to limit the dangers of perceived
American unilateralism. Russia, like everyone else in the world
including India, must now come to terms with the dramatic rise of
China and the new direction of Sino-American partnership.
A decade ago, disappointed by the meagre results from Boris Yeltsin's
attempts to integrate Russia with the West through the 1990s — the
immediate aftermath of the Cold War — a new generation of Russian
leaders led by Vladimir Putin sought to reaffirm Moscow's standing as
a great power.
This did not mean Putin wanted a renewed confrontation with the US.
Hardly. Putin offered unconditional cooperation to the US in the wake
of 9/11, and President George W. Bush declared that he could do
business with Putin.
Throughout this decade, Russia focused on the creation of a
"multipolar world" that would limit America's "hyperpower". This in
turn set the stage for Russia's major strategic initiative of the
current decade — the institutionalisation of the so-called strategic
triangle with China and India, and drawing in other emerging powers
such as Brazil.
Russia also extended support to China's initiative to build the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Both Moscow and Beijing had a
common interest in preventing the United States from meddling too much
in Central Asia, which abuts Russia's soft underbelly and China's
volatile western flank.
This framework, of course, is coming apart amidst the shifting balance
among Washington, Beijing and Moscow. As he copes with the challenges
of a rare financial crisis at home and the unfinished costly wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, Ameican President Barack Obama has chosen to
"reset" ties with Russia and reach out to China.
Delhi must expect that Putin and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
would want to take full advantage of Obama's offer. At the same time
Moscow has also reasons to be wary about the growing pressures on
Washington to accommodate Beijing.
Like India, Russia has no interest in seeing a Sino-American
condominium over Asia. Obama's visit to Beijing last month has
generated as much anxiety in Moscow as it has in Delhi. It has
revealed the new imperatives for India and Russia to draw together
amidst the new flux in great power relations.
It might be worth recalling that it was Sino-US rapprochement in 1971
that pushed India towards a de facto alliance with the Soviet Union.
Unlike in the 1970s, Delhi and Moscow should have no desire to direct
their partnership against either Washington or Beijing. After all,
Russia and America are recrafting their relationship; and Moscow's
ties with Beijing are becoming thicker than Indo-Russian relations.
Meanwhile, India's own fledgling strategic partnership with America
has been reaffirmed during Dr Singh's visit to Washington last month;
and for all the difficulties in Delhi's ties with Beijing, there is no
way of ignoring the importance of a peaceful Sino-Indian relationship.
What Dr Singh and his Russian interlocutors are looking at is a new
Eurasian equilibrium, in which Delhi's ties with Moscow do not remain
the weakest link. At the core of any attempt to restructure the Indo-
Russian relationship must be the recognition of the fact that a
multipolar world is already at hand — thanks to the rise of China and
the weakening of American power.
As Delhi and Moscow recognise that the creation of a multipolar Asia
is as important as the construction of a multipolar world, an agenda
of cooperative bilateral action presents itself. The following is an
illustrative list of what India and Russia can do together in the
coming years.
India's growing hunger for natural resources and Russia's need to
modernise its massive mineral sector provides a synergy that needs to
be fully developed. Indian capital, managerial talent and manpower
can, for example, help Russia develop its resource-rich far eastern
regions.
India and Russia could think big about developing bilateral industrial
collaboration between Russian defence firms and the Indian private
sector that has now ventured into arms manufacture.
Delhi and Moscow can both learn from Beijing which has become a major
exporter of arms in Asia, Middle East and Africa and is in a position
to tilt the military balance of power in many sub-regions of the
world.
On the nuclear front too India and Russia must focus on the objective
of jointly offering the full spectrum of nuclear products and services
to the rapidly expanding global market for atomic electricity
generation.
Even more important is the need for Indo-Russian collaboration in
advanced atomic science and technology — from nuclear fusion to high
energy lasers — that contributes to their own national security as
well increases their contribution to the promotion of global arms
control and non-proliferation.
Finally, India and Russia must consider very visible and bold high
technology ventures that will capture the spirit of new possibilities
between the two countries. The establishment of a joint centre for
advanced space research in India could be one way of going about it.
Such a facility could focus on a range of new opportunities in outer
space — from colonising the moon to the development of cheaper launch
technologies, from developing small nuclear reactors for space travel
to development of new legal principles to govern growing human
activity in the heavens, and from training Indian astronauts to
developing space-based solar power.
The writer is Henry A. Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and
International Relations at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC
http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20091207/1241/top-old-friends-different-times.html
chhotemianinshallah
Mani Shankar Aiyar
Thu, Dec 3 06:13 AM
Shilendra Kumar Singh (or SK, as he was universally known) was perhaps
the Indian Foreign Service's most adept practitioner of the interface
between politics and diplomacy. As a diplomat he was without peer, a
voracious reader, a clear and concise writer with an incredibly neat
hand, an excellent public speaker and an utterly charming
conversationalist. Behind the friendly exterior lay a razor-sharp
mind, a steely determination and a healthy scepticism which prevented
him from falling for all that he was told. He buzzed at all the
flowers in the garden but picked only the honey that he chose.
His experience ranged across most of the key dimensions of Indian
foreign policy. Beginning as a Persian-language student, his first
posting in Tehran took him as the consular officer on adventurous
voyages to Gulf ports which have since become magic names for untold
prosperity — but were then no more than havens for the dhows, where
young boys dived for pearls and camel caravans stretched into the
desert. He then had a stint at the United Nations in New York in the
heyday of India's involvement with the UN and the early years of the
Non-Aligned Movement. With India leading the decolonisation crusade
and drumming up adherents by the day to the Non-Aligned Movement,
Indian influence on world affairs was at its peak and our reputation
for knowing our own mind and speaking it was at its height. Later, he
was ambassador to a series of hotspots: Lebanon, as the PLO was being
pushed out; Afghanistan, as the Soviet Union allowed itself to be
pushed into a foolhardy invasion which eventually brought the
Communist house of cards tumbling down; Pakistan, as it made its
transition from Zia to Benazir Mark I; and then foreign secretary till
he was prematurely ousted in a shameful coup by the V.P. Singh
establishment and their IFS mercenaries.
But perhaps his highest point was as director, external publicity and
South Block spokesman during the first few years of Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi and her Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Singh. That
was when SK came into his own as a master player in the interface
between politics and diplomacy. His contacts ranged across the
political spectrum and he proved his mettle as an able communicator to
members of Parliament and the media. It made his influence in the
foreign office quite disproportionate to his relatively humble
position in the foreign service hierarchy, but because he knew how to
"walk among kings, nor lose the common touch" — whatever the
grumblings of MEA mandarins — it was he who managed what initially
appeared to be the public relations disaster of our ambassador to
Rabat turning up as the only ever non-Muslim representative to the
Islamic Conference and India then being rusticated from the Conference
largely because communal riots broke out in Bhiwandi just as the
conference was getting underway. There was a howl of public protest at
India getting itself into this pickle but SK played his full role in
restoring equilibrium.
After a long period in the shadows through most of the nineties, SK re-
emerged in public office as Governor of Arunachal Pradesh and later as
Governor of Rajasthan. For swinging the Arunachal administration
around from lining pockets to people-oriented governance, SK will one
day get appropriate credit. But as his role was constitutional, much
of his contribution was out of the public eye. As we secure that
sensitive border state, the people of the state and of India as a
whole will have much to thank him for.
Like all who hold public office, SK had his share of detractors,
especially as he handled matters of administration at headquarters. So
those who got from him what they wanted quickly forgot their gratitude
and those who did not carried their grievances to the grave. But that
is life.
SK leaves behind his gracious lady, Manju, and two bright sons of whom
we will hear much in the future, Shashank, an investment banker, and
Kanishka, aide to Rahul Gandhi. They, I am sure, will carry the SK
tradition of courtesy combined with competence very far forward.
Just a month ago, I lost another valued colleague, Gopi Arora. Now
SK:"Tis all a chequer board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with men for pieces plays
Hither and thither moves and mates and slays
Then one by one back in the Closet lays."
Goodbye, my friend.
The writer is a former Union minister,Congress MP and foreign service
officer
http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20091203/1241/top-a-diplomat-without-peer.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Steve Coll makes the case that Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India
and formerly minister of finance, is one of the great underrated
statesmen of our time. It’s a very convincing case. Singh brought
economic growth to India, has fought—and won—against destructive Hindu
nationalism, made efforts at peace with Pakistan, and done an
admirable job of urging restraint in the face of provocations from
terrorists. That last is, in particular, something I think American
political leaders could learn a lot from.
Among other things it reminds me that it’s always difficult to really
keep the sheer scale of India and China in mind. Thinking about the
global economic crisis, for example, it’s worth recalling that those
two mega-countries have kept on growing right through the developed
world’s downturn. So for over two billion people, 2009 is actually the
best of times, economically speaking. And that’s many more people than
live in the US/Europe/Japan depressed era.
28 Responses to “Manmohan Singh”
1.SteveK9 Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
He also want India to have 470 GW (kind of a specific number) of
nuclear energy by 2050, nearly all indigenous and largely using
India’s abundant thorium reserves—show us the way Manmohan!
2.James Gary Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
So for over two billion people, 2009 is actually the best of times,
economically speaking.
FYI: For the middle and upper classes in those two countries, things
are pretty good right now. However, a majority of the populations of
both China and India live in miserable, grinding poverty, and will
continue to do so for the forseeable future under even the most
optimistic growth scenarios.
3.charlie Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I am a big fan as well, but Singh does have major charisma challenges.
He’s been lucky in that regard but the real test on being a great
statesman is when we look back at him in history.
You also need to ask how much is Indian influence in Afghanistan
helping/not helping with AfPAK. Certainly it gives the Pakis the
willies. And it isn’t the most sophisticated strategy — be unfriendly
to your neighbor but be nice to the guy next to him.
4.Thorfinn Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
This is complete nonsense. While Singh in 1991 championed economic
reforms, Singh since 2004 is a political puppet. He has never won an
election in his life. His government did nothing to further economic
reforms, while infrastructure building ground to a halt. The
government debt grew enormously. Restraint in the face of terrorist
attacks nothing–even the Hindu nationalists didn’t retaliate after
terrorists bombed Parliament.
He’s been a very disappointing PM. Hopefully he’ll do better in his
second term.
5.mpowell Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
FYI: For the middle and upper classes in those two countries, things
are pretty good right now. However, a majority of the populations of
both China and India live in miserable, grinding poverty, and will
continue to do so for the forseeable future under even the most
optimistic growth scenarios.
While this may be true, I’m not sure what could be done about it by
anyone.
6.James Gary Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
While this may be true, I’m not sure what could be done about it by
anyone.
I don’t know either, but it’s beside my point—which was that it’s not
really fair to count those people among the beneficiaries of Indian/
Chinese economic growth.
7.Trevor Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The poverty in India is unutterably awful. To give anyone praise there
is just ungodly. Never been to China, but I’ll bet it’s pretty bad
there, too.
8.Gmorbgmibgnikgnok Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I landed in Bangalore a little over a week ago. There has certainly
been a lot of growth since I was last there in 2003. I have been
hearing the same sense of malaise that you get in the U.S. — everyone
is out of work, new grads are going hungry, etc. But I think that’s
relative. This place positively hums with activity. It managed a 7.9%
growth rate in 2009, and the bet is 8-9% next year. No one is holding
onto his wallet the way they do in the U.S.
The good news is you can buy anything you want. The bad news is that
you can’t find a trash can to throw the wrapper, so you throw it on
the ground. Infrastructure sucks. They loosened credit restrictions,
so every family has 2-3 vehicles. Traffic here looks like someone
yelled “Fire!” in a movie theater, and half the patrons are driving
for the exit.
The state government is not much use. The metro rail is years behind
schedule and way over budget. Private corporations take up some of the
slack. But they mainly want engineering schools and roads to take
people to and from their office parks. The stuff they build is pretty
sweet. Side rant: If the libertarians in the U.S. ever enact their
agenda, they’ll end up with Bangalore.
9.Dave Weigel Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
one of the great underrated statesmen of our time
He’s obviously never heard of John McCain.
10.fostert Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“Restraint in the face of terrorist attacks nothing–even the Hindu
nationalists didn’t retaliate after terrorists bombed Parliament.”
What are you talking about? You actually want Hindus to go on a
rampage? Are you fucking serous? Last time that happened, it was a
bloodbath on the scale of 9/11. And you want them to do that again? If
that’s the case, you are a terrorist that really needs to be picked up
and tried.
As for Singh’s economics, it’s really hard to say. India is so messed
up that it’s impossible to say what would work. Our economists can’t
even figure out America, and they’d just be roadkill in India. Nobody
in India has a clue about how India really works. Yet it somehow
does.
As for Singh being a puppet, well who’s the hand? I see none, but you
apparently see the hand. So who or what is the hand? If it’s Adam
Smith’s invisible hand, then India will stay the same. But maybe it’s
China, in which case India might prosper. But who knows? This
mysterious hand might be Russia or the US. That would surely suck.
Regardless, given your master abilities of detecting the invisible,
can you enlighten us as to who controls this puppet?
11.AswanDamn Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Singh is a “puppet” of the Gandhi dynasty. I think this is the one
area he has performed extremely well. He is inoffensive, and brings
Congress party a large and, often, outcast constituency, the Sikhs. As
soon as Sonia Gandhi decides her son, Rahul, is ready, Singh will be
cast aside.
12.Mayur Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@8:
Side rant: If the libertarians in the U.S. ever enact their agenda,
they’ll end up with Bangalore.
Actually, Bangalore will have a functioning metro system pretty soon
(and the specs look good to me) and the gov’t is funding a massive
electrical generation and transmission infrastructure boost, so I
don’t buy the fact that the libertarians would do nearly as well.
13.Thorfinn Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
fostert,
The point is that this bit about “Indian retaliation” is way
overplayed. India has never retaliated after a terrorist attack, and
likely never will. Of course I don’t think they should–I don’t care
for nuclear war. This isn’t exactly the stuff of underrated strategic
mastermind.
Perhaps you’ve heard of Sonia Gandhi? The chairperson of Congress; the
woman who appointed Singh (who is, again, unelected) and his cabinet?
The person with the last word on every political decision within
Congress? Her face is all over the country; I’m not sure how you’ve
missed her. Singh couldn’t even get the Finance Minister, let alone
Power Minister, of his choice over her objections.
It’s tough to say what works in India. But it’s pretty easy to see
that sheltering corrupt officials who loot $10 billion doesn’t work.
Allowing corporations to steal land under SEZ laws doesn’t work.
Running up debts to shovel out cash, of whom 20% gets to the intended
recipients, doesn’t work. This is neither leftist nor rightist
economics–it’s crony capitalism at its worst.
14.kid bitzer Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
you know, it’s really not that hard to see how this can be true:
“The poverty in India is unutterably awful.”
and this can be true, too!
“So for over two billion people, 2009 is actually the best of times,
economically speaking.”
it can be better now, because it was worse before!
yglesias is not denying that it is horrible for a lot of people, or
that the improvements are inequitably distributed. but it was worse
before!
as far as singh’s admirable restraint in not destroying his country in
response to trivial terrorist attacks–keep in mind that he had the
advantage of watching *america* destroy itself in response to trivial
terror attacks. the lesson was obvious.
terrorism was just a bee-sting. the panicky flailing on the part of
bush and cheney was the anaphylactic shock.
15.Gmorbgmibgnikgnok Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The poverty in India is unutterably awful. To give anyone praise there
is just ungodly.
I’ll praise anyone who builds a school or hospital or road there.
They’re trying. Anyone who condemns them should first acknowledge that
— just maybe — they were born lucky.
16.fostert Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Gmorbgmibgnikgnok, it sounds like your first time in India. Welcome to
Bangalore, the most sane city in India. Although Hyderabad is pretty
close to sanity. But there’s no question that Bangalore is the most
like America. Really, Brigade Road is just like the Vegas Strip. Click
your heels three times and….oh well, your still in Bangalore. On
Brigade Road, wondering why the hell it’s such a small cheesy place
with such a huge population. And if you haven’t been to the rest of
India, you really want to leave Bangalore. But when you go to the rest
of India, you really want to go back to Bangalore. Unless you’re in
Darjeeling, in which case you’ll stay for a few days and then fly to
Thailand.
17.Rich in PA Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I think Singh was always known as a good egg, and the concern was that
he wouldn’t be permitted to govern. I have a deep loathing for Indian
politics and for the Congress, but it’s really more to their credit
than to Singh’s personal credit (because smart and decent people
aren’t such a scarce commodity) that he’s held the highest office for
several years.
18.Gmorbgmibgnikgnok Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Gmorbgmibgnikgnok, it sounds like your first time in India.
Sorry if I gave that impression. It’s my tenth, since I started going
in 1973 at the age of 2. Perhaps the Wonderland description comes from
the fact that I’ve seen it before and after liberalization. It used to
be that time moved forward in America, while in India it stood still.
Nowadays the impression is reversed.
And I have been through non-Bangalore — traveled down the coast of
Kerala, where it’s all hammers and sickles and it’s still 1958, down
to Kanyakumari and back up through fields of power-generating
windmills in Tamil Nadu, only to break down in some village called
Thirumangalam. Then on to Madurai, Mysore, and back to Bangalore. All
the while driving on roads that could turn milk into butter if you
just kept it on your lap.
19.Rob Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
To me its amazing how poor China is. It has an economy the size of
Japan despite having 10 times the amount of people.
20.Hector Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Re: But there’s no question that Bangalore is the most like America
The climate is quite nice too, certainly a lot cooler then Madras.
The air quality, however, is worse than Houston, and that’s saying a
lot.
21.fostert Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Perhaps you’ve heard of Sonia Gandhi?”
So I’m guessing you’re saying Sonia is the puppet master? I’ve heard
of her for sure, but power in India is not held by her. A lot of
people pull her strings and she’s more the announcer of decisions
rather than the one who makes them. There’s a big contingent that just
wants to hear the Gandhi name, and they are truly idiots. But the
puppet masters will move her hands to make seeming progress. But
progress never happens in India and that’s just a show. And yes, India
is still a corrupt nightmare under Singh. It was a corrupt nightmare
all through the Raj, and has been ever since. But you talk about
things that don’t work, yet India still works. Think it sucks? It sure
does, but what else is going to happen in India? Got a better plan?
I’d really like to hear it. Perhaps you could explain it. And before
you do it, maybe you should actually go to India. You obviously
haven’t been there or you wouldn’t say Sonia’s face is all over India.
I’ve been all over India, and I don’t remember seeing Sonia’s face
anywhere. Not a single time. I did see Mayawati’s face in Uttar
Pradesh. And Mayawati is a real political force who probably will run
India someday. She’s like a Lyndon Johnson wrapped in Sarah Palin’s
clothes (except they are saris). I’m not sure if I like her, but I
respect a female Dalit who pulls together a Dalit-Muslim-Bhramin
coalition. That’s unheard of even in India. That would be like a
Mexican-Hippie-CEO coalition in America. Wall Street meets the Border
and the Forests. That can’t happen here, and it never should have
happened in India. Regardless, she’s the governor of Uttar Pradesh,
India’s largest state. It’s pretty big, too. Like 190 Million people
big. It’s like running Brazil. Gov Ahnold has nothing on her.
22.fostert Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“The air quality, however, is worse than Houston, and that’s saying a
lot.”
It is, but which way? Think Chennai has better air? How about Kolkata?
Houston is a bad measure of air quality, but it doesn’t work in India,
either. You’d be really hard pressed to find a major city in India
with better air than Houston. Hyderabad? Maybe? Okay, that’s a
stretch, but I’m trying Hector, I’m really trying. Actually, Delhi is
getting better. And for a huge Asian city (23 million), it’s actually
a lot better than you’d expect. And nice and cool, unlike Chennai.
And Gmorbgmibgnikgnok, you’ve barely even seen India. That’s the
South, which is really cool, but there’s a lot more. Go to Darjeeling
by train from Bangalore. Then you’ll really see India. Yeah, it’s like
140 hours by train, counting the inevitable delays, but you’ll really
see a lot of India. And the beauty of Darjeeling, is it’s really not
India anymore. After a 140 hours on the train, you’ll be glad your no
longer really in India. And when you’re in Darjeeling, if you really
want to get away, there’s always Sikkim.
23.NM Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Fostert I think is closest to reality in his description. I’ve met
Rahul and I think conservatively he’s a decade away from holding any
reasonably high office in India. He’s not at all an impressive
character. He’s good looking, but not charismatic.
Someone mentioned that infrastructure development has slowed under
Singh. This is either someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking
about or is lying for some unknowable reason. It’s patently false
inner city light rail and subways didn’t exist in India 10 years ago.
Now every “major” (by Indian standards) city has a metro project
either underway or in planning. National rail transportation is
carrying 5 billion passengers a year. Highway construction has boomed.
Electricity infrastructure is booming (though they’re still battling
the problem of theft of current).
Singh has fallen short on some issues such as corruption. But he’s
made a token effort at reform. And frankly battling corruption in
India is a pretty thankless task. I’m not sure how that’s ever going
to be resolved.
As for not being elected, that’s nonsense. He’s elected by the
coalition which he leads. Being the head of a coalition government
isn’t exactly an easy thing to do. To poo-poo the fact that someone
has managed to become Prime Minister of one of the largest populations
in the world is pretty f*cking ridiculous.
Singh has been great for India. I can only hope the next PM is half as
competent as he has been.
24.Thorfinn Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
fostert,
I don’t know how to respond to that mess, but at least one thing is
demonstrably false: Sonia Gandhi’s face is plastered all over India,
along with her son; and Manmohan Singh for that matter. If you don’t
agree than you don’t know what she looks like.
A Dalit-Muslim-Brahmin coalition is nothing special. It’s been
Congress’s traditional vote-bank since Independence. The difference is
who’s in charge.
25.fostert Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“Go to Darjeeling by train from Bangalore.”
When you get to Siliguri/NJP, don’t take the train, it’s like nine
hours. Hire a taxi and drive up, it’s only three hours. It’s a pretty
scary road though, so if you have any kind of height or diving fears,
dispell them at the first tea stop. If you have any concerns after
that first cup of tea, drive back and take the train. If you have a
problem with these three things combined, then don’t do the road:
hairpin turns, gravel roads with sketchy maintenance, thousand foot
cliffs with no guardrails. If these things are uncomfortable to you,
take the train.
26.Gmorbgmibgnikgnok Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
And Gmorbgmibgnikgnok, you’ve barely even seen India.
Actually, I’ve been around the north, too. But I was boring myself and
it’s time for bed.
27.gregor Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Unutterable poverty is a very good characterization.
That’s what the middle and the upper class Indians do not want you to
talk about. Because for them, the conditions have definitely improved
very substantially.
However, it must also be said that apart from the readily available
and affordable domestic help, the life of a middle class Indian, even
though he may be very happy and proud of his lot, is no better than
that of someone just getting by in this country, e.g. someone with a
high school education working in retail at 8 bucks an hour.
28.Charlemagne Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
the life of a middle class Indian, even though he may be very happy
and proud of his lot, is no better than that of someone just getting
by in this country, e.g. someone with a high school education working
in retail at 8 bucks an hour.
Ah, in this flattened world, I think you’ve just captured where the
American middle class is heading! Why the Indian is happy and the
American is not has everything to do with trajectory.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/manmohan-singh.php
bademiyansubhanallah
Rajeev Deshpande, TNN 8 December 2009, 12:57am IST
MOSCOW: On Monday, as Moscow experienced its first real snowfall this
winter, relations between India and Russia experienced more than a
thaw, on a range of interests encompassing nuclear trade, shared Af-
Pak perceptions and a plan to boost commerce to $20 billion by 2015.
The discussions between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Russian
President Dmitri Medvedev on Sunday evening and at their more formal
meeting on Monday gave what is seen to be a much-needed push to
bilateral ties. The process is expected to be consolidated during
Singh's meeting with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Medvedev and Putin
are slated to visit India next year, with the latter expected sometime
in March.
The Singh-Medvedev meeting yielded a rich cache of agreements which
included establishing a credit line of $100 million and a nuclear
agreement that is expected to provide momentum to India's nuclear
trade. Singh said there would an addition to the two reactors being
developed at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu while a site was being
considered at Haripur in West Bengal.
Medvedev stressed that Russia did not support any addition to the club
of N-weapon states, which has implications on the country's position
in Iran, and that N-weapons should not be ``held hostage to terror'',
in a fairly direct reference to Pakistan. Though Singh did not refer
to Pakistan, he echoed his host's views on a stable Afghanistan with a
stable sense of nationhood.
The easy use of phrases like "most rewarding", "a major step in our
ties" and "trust and confidence" indicated a genuine meeting of minds
as did the assertion that India-Russia trade would touch $20 billion
by 2015. Medvedev also made it clear that the G8 statement at La
Aquila did not impact on ENR (enrichment and nuclear reprocessing)
related agreements with India.
The nuclear agreement with Russia was stressed by both leaders and
Department of Atomic Energy chairman Srikumar Banerjee later told
mediapersons that fuel guarantees, upfront clearances and,
importantly, cooperation in research were important takeaways. Defence
and military agreements, supply of spare parts and active cooperation
in intelligence sharing augur well for the relationship.
Medvedev said his conversation with Singh was not merely an exchange
of impressions but a really "full and substantial" discussion that
embraced several interests. Singh said that apart from issues like
security and N-trade, he had a "very pleasant discussion" on India's
participation in Russia's pharma sector.
The continuing global slowdown and a decline in oil prices have made
Russia more open to reaching out to an old friend while the change of
guard in US has seen India reaffirm ties, with Singh describing Russia
as a "global world power" at a joint press conference on Monday. The
two nations also share concerns over the rise of China.
With the meeting with Medvedev having set the mood, Singh's
interaction with Putin, still very much the "real" power centre in
Moscow, is expected to see a detailed exchange of assessments. Putin
and Singh will also address a conference of CEOs to be attended by
Indian biz honchos. The easing of credit is seen to address a long-
pending irritant as banks have tended to rate Russia's risk status on
the higher side.
The two sides signed a total of six agreements but the Russians were
clearly pleased with the civil nuclear cooperation pact. The reactors,
which cost about $1.5 billion each, will certainly be welcome for a
Russian economy that is simply not doing too well. Banerjee told
mediapersons that the site would most probably be offered to the
Russians once land clearances were obtained from West Bengal
government.
Banerjee also spoke of India's plans for 10,000mw capacity which would
be a mix of reactors built by foreign suppliers and indigenous 700mw
pressurised heavy water reactors. "The current uranium reserves we
have allow us to support 10,000mw," Banerjee said. Eight 700mw PHW
reactors were being planned at present that would account for
5,600mw.
There was some good news on the uranium supplies front as potentially
minable deposits had been found in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The
site in Meghalaya was still affected by environmental issues that were
being sorted out. These could improve the uranium availability while
India could also consider using foreign sources fuel for safeguarded
reactors.
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI 7 December 2009, 07:13pm IST
NEW DELHI: An Indian Navy warship successfully repulsed a pirate
attack on a US-owned tanker in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia coast.
( Watch Video )
"A Navy ship in the Gulf of Aden prevented an attack of pirates on a
private tanker flying a Norway flag and owned by US company today," a
Navy spokesperson said here.
MT Nordik Spirit, the tanker owned by the Nordik Shipping Company, was
sailing in the Gulf of Aden around 1500 hours when the pirates made an
attempt to hijack it and fired small arms at the crew members.
"The crew immediately sent out a distress signal and the Indian navy
ship, which was in the vicinity, responded to the SOS call," he said.
The warship flew out its helicopters with Marine Commandos and on
seeing it, the pirates gave up their hijack attempt on the tanker, the
spokesperson said.
Later, the warship accompanied the tanker and escorted it to safety.
The Indian Navy has been taking part in global anti-piracy operations
in the Gulf of Aden against the Somali sea brigands since October last
year and one of its Frigates had "a kill" last November when a mother
ship of the pirates was destroyed.
The Naval ships, which have a 365-day presence there, have escorted
over a 100 merchant vessels in the last one year, most of them foreign-
owned.
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, December 08, 2009
First Published: 19:03 IST(8/12/2009)
Last Updated: 19:05 IST(8/12/2009)
The Congress on Tuesday hailed the Indo-Russian civil nuclear
agreement as "historic", saying that it will ensure uninterrupted
uranium fuel supply and transfer of technology to the country.
"We welcome it. It's a historic agreement. Besides ensuring the
transfer of nuclear technology, it will lead to uninterrupted nuclear
fuel supply. India's nuclear programme will progress after the
agreement," party spokesperson Shakeel Ahmad told reporters in New
Delhi.
The two countries signed the broad-based agreement in civil nuclear
field yesterday that will ensure transfer of technology and
uninterrupted uranium fuel supplies to its nuclear reactors and inked
three pacts in the defence sector.
The agreements were signed after talks between Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Kremlin, during
which they discussed a whole range of issues.
bademiyansubhanallah
Sumit Mitra
December 07, 2009
First Published: 23:34 IST(7/12/2009)
Last Updated: 23:59 IST(7/12/2009)
The convulsions that have gripped the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban
Renewal Mission (JNNURM) — India’s flagship city development programme
— with only three years to go for the termination of its assigned
lifespan of seven years, is symptomatic of the country’s predilection
to put politics above all other issues, including the vital ones. The
Mission, aimed at pulling India’s 63 cities out of their dilapidation,
which is somewhat reminiscent of Dickensian London, is conditional
upon a bunch of mandatory reforms. The stake is large — Rs 120,536
crore, of which 35 per cent would come from the central government,
provided the state governments and the municipal bodies shelled out
the rest, and the latter two cleaned up their act as far as reform is
concerned.
But reform to the Indian politician is a horrid word. It means not
only a possible run on the ‘vote bank’, but of losing the charm of
discretionary power for which they are in politics in the first place.
The CPI(M), which rules West Bengal, admittedly finds reform
detestable ideologically too. But so do many others, fearing it will
make them lose ‘votes’ as well as ‘notes’.
They have dragged their feet on almost every point in the Mission’s
reform agenda. Reform of property tax by making it fully online should
be welcome to everyone in normal circumstances. To the venal
politician, however, it means losing the opportunity to under-assess a
property for a consideration. Nor does it leave him with the option of
sending a demolition team with a bulldozer to visit the house of the
person he doesn’t like. Moreover, the Mission’s mandate demands full
accounting of budgets for basic services to the urban poor.
Considering how little is actually spent by municipalities for the
slum-dwellers, the idea of disclosing the sum actually spent on the
poor cannot but be dreadful to the party in power. To the politician,
even more distasteful is the idea of transferring to the municipal
body the power of shaping its own budgets, and of institutionalising
citizens’ participation. Much worse than Oliver asking for more, it is
like giving Oliver what he asked for.
JNNURM is a two-pronged programme, with one arm for improving the
urban infrastructure as a whole (the passenger-friendly Volvo buses
being a part of it) and another for gentrification of slums. The Union
government, far from being tight-fisted, has been generous in
transferring the early installments for the approved projects. But it
cannot give more as most states are unwilling to accept the reform
agenda. West Bengal has even refused to repeal the Urban Land Ceiling
Act, a relic of Indira Gandhi’s ‘Emergency’ era. Maharashtra did it at
the last moment.
Expectedly, the programme is running at a very slow pace, with not
even a quarter of the projects completed and less than a third having
got off the ground. It is in this context that one should judge the
pyrotechnics of an invitee at a recent national conference on the
fourth anniversary of JNNRUM, which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
addressed. He accused Mamata Banerjee, the railway minister, of not
releasing slum land in Kolkata owned by the railways for re-housing
the poor slum dwellers in new constructions to be built under the
Mission. Having spearheaded the land-losers’ agitation at Singur and
Nandigram in the recent past, Banerjee is expectedly wary of de-
stabilising lives of the urban poor. This is specially so after the
last Lok Sabha polls in which they seem to have voted for her en
masse. The incident shows that fear of electoral backlash to reform
cuts across party lines.
India is passing through a development dilemma in which even public-
spirited politicians (hoping it’s not an oxymoron) are fearful that
improvement measures initiated by them might be misunderstood by
voters. For instance, JNNURM is ready with funds to augment and
modernise urban drinking water supply schemes, provided the urban
local bodies receiving the grant agree on a user fee for operation and
maintenance of the new lines. But most states would not like their
cities to levy charges on drinking water, which, as they fallaciously
argue, is regarded as a public good in India. However, a nominal water
tax is in existence in most metros, but having water metres clamped on
taps, as demanded by JNNURM, is still out of the question. Pressure is
being mounted on the Mission to drop it from its reform agenda.
What then can save our cities? Carving them out of their states? It is
fanciful thinking, considering that 60 per cent of India’s GDP comes
from its urban areas. Lawmakers will not agree on parting with the
cities. A way out, perhaps, is in making the seven cities with over 4
million population in 2001 mega-cities as they are called, follow the
Greater London Authority (GLA) model. Following GLA’s inception in
1999, the Mayor of London is accountable only to an elected assembly
of 25 members in taking all strategic decisions regarding the city.
Such autonomy has brought about wide-ranging changes without any fuss
— like the hefty ‘congestion charge’, which every Londoner cribs about
but nobody questions the cause. There is still huge scope of
intervention by Whitehall (read Sheila Dikshit in Delhi or CPM
headquarters on Alimuddin Street in Kolkata), but nobody has the
authority to question the strategic vision of the man in City Hall.
Ironically, the jinxed JNNURM was indeed pushing Indian cities to a
similar situation. It demanded that the elected municipalities be
given “city planning functions”. But why should the Indian politician
surrender the opportunity to rule the cities from the background?
Sumit Mitra is a Kolkata-based writer. The views expressed by the
author are personal.
bademiyansubhanallah
Hindustan Times
December 07, 2009
First Published: 23:55 IST(7/12/2009)
Last Updated: 23:57 IST(7/12/2009)
It has taken 77 years, oodles of disappointment, a nation’s enduring
adulation and a high-adrenalin shift from the ‘nice guys’ of yore to
the charming aggression of Dhoni’s lads for Team India to clamber to
the top of a ranking that really matters in a country of over a
billion cricket crazy citizens. For those of you who don’t know what
we’re talking about and still call yourself Indian — no matter where
you might be — we’ve finally arrived at the top of the International
Cricket Council’s Test cricket rankings. Pity, though, that we might
be able to stay on for just a wee bit, but then beating bottom-of-the-
barrel Bangladesh in the sole Test series of 2010 won’t keep the
hyenas at bay. So, while the Board of Control for Cricket in India
lavishes Rs 25 lakh each on the men of the moment, a penny each for a
billion thoughts of those who gave the initial heave-ho.
Team India’s growth numbers would put the Chinese economy to shame. In
the last two years, we’ve pocketed series wins against Pakistan,
Australia, England and Sri Lanka, brought one back from faraway New
Zealand recently, and drawn at home against South Africa. Cynics might
not be satisfied till we pull off a Trojan surprise in Oz and grind
the Proteas to dust in Durban, but for all true-Blue Indians who have
spent eight years gazing wistfully at the Australians up there, it’s
time to celebrate. Period.
Cynics may also be pre-occupied with looking over their shoulders at
the South Africans and Aussies hot on our tails in the rankings chart,
but for the cracker-bursting, dhol-whipping, bhangra-boogying aam
aadmi, tomorrow’s definitely another day. The one-day table beckons
but we’re at the head of the five-day feast for now. Let’s enjoy the
high. At least till tests do us part.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/edits/Test-of-the-best/Article1-484074.aspx
bademiyansubhanallah
Hindustan Times
December 07, 2009
First Published: 23:49 IST(7/12/2009)
Last Updated: 23:53 IST(7/12/2009)
The significant risk to the India story at this juncture is inflation,
pushed along by food prices. Wholesale food inflation rose an alarming
2 percentage points a week to 17.47 per cent in November, triggering
comments from the Prime Minister’s economic advisory committee as well
as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that it
could raise non-food inflation — a benign 2.2 per cent at the moment —
unless the central bank begins tightening its monetary policy. The
Reserve Bank of India, too, has been flagging broader inflationary
expectations for quite a while. Although monetary policy is a blunt
instrument to tackle a supply shock with, the RBI’s hawkish stance on
prices can only stiffen as the knock-on effect works its way into core
inflation (minus food and energy). The central bank is most likely to
drain some of the excess liquidity in the system before it starts
raising interest rates.
The current orthodoxy does not countenance any threat to India’s
growth momentum. Depending on how you choose to measure it, food makes
up from 25 per cent to 65 per cent of the weight in the several price
indices the government puts out. Persistently high food inflation is
squeezing household budgets and, therefore, consumption. The supply-
side policy response is fairly well established. The Centre draws down
grain stocks to feed the poor, sells some of it in the open market to
keep a lid on prices, lowers taxes on food imports, pays more for farm
produce, and ensures availability of power for irrigation. All of
this, however, is predicated on states ensuring bottlenecks are
cleared in the public distribution of food. There appears to be
evidence that last-mile problems linger, playing into the hands of
speculators.
Drought management capabilities in India lack the ability to tackle
successive ones. The prospect of another low harvest next year poses a
bigger threat than the likelihood of a double-dip recession in the
West. Interest rates can do little to contain the demand for food and
inflation can only rise as the government replenishes its granaries at
higher prices. Mitigation, not management, is what should shape
India’s approach to drought. That would involve technology upgrades, a
shift towards drought-resistant seeds, and rehabilitation of water
delivery systems.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/edits/Keep-an-eye-on-the-table/Article1-484072.aspx
Sid Harth
Raina Assainar & Mihika Basu / DNA
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 9:41 IST
Last updated: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 0:57 IST
Mumbai: The Mumbai crime branch on Monday evening arrested three
people for illegally possessing 5kg of depleted uranium. The trio,
identified as Premsingh Tangayan Savitri, 40, Srinivasan Vyankat
Chalpati, 37, and Tulsidas Bhanushali, 39, were arrested from Sai
Nagar in Panvel.
"Mrinal Roy, regional director of Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research, central region, Nagpur, had lodged a
complaint with Panvel police about three people arriving in the suburb
with uranium. The crime branch officials laid a trap and arrested
them," DCP (crime) DT Shinde said on Tuesday. The Panvel court on
Tuesday remanded them in police custody till December 17.
A police official, who did not want to be quoted discussing issues
relating to national security, said the uranium is U-38 and U-35,
which is not dangerous. "Barc officials have confirmed that the seized
substance cannot be used to make explosives and there is no cause for
panic. The source, from where the substance was coming, and its
destination, will be revealed during the course of investigation,"
Shinde added. The accused have been booked under section 24 (1) (a) of
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, for illegal possession of a prescribed
substance.
Savitri is a resident of Sai Leela building at Sai Nagar in Panvel and
runs a business of precious stones, Chalpati is a resident of sector
19 in Vashi and is into the transport business, while Bhanushali is a
resident of Ghatkopar and deals in raw materials, the official added.
Uranium can't be reused: "Natural uranium is extracted from the earth
crest and contains mainly two isotopes of uranium - U-238 (99.3%) and
U-235 (0.7%). The third isotope, U-234, is present in very low
percentage in natural uranium. Depleted uranium has less U-235 (used
in nuclear reactors) as compared to natural uranium. In the seized
substance, this percentage is 0.2%," said DN Sharma, head, radiation
safety systems division, Barc. Depleted uranium, Sharma said, cannot
be used as an explosive.
He said though uranium is a chemically toxic element, it cannot be
inhaled or ingested in
the seized form and hence it is not harmful to human health or the
environment.
"Depleted uranium cannot be reprocessed or used in a nuclear reactor
and is used as shielding material which checks undue exposure to gamma
ray radiation," said RK Sharma, head of media relations and public
awareness section, Barc.
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_seized-uranium-is-of-low-grade-barc_1321348
Sid Harth
PTI Tuesday, December 8, 2009 10:11 IST
Moscow: India today voiced confidence that its agreement with Russia
on a 10-year military and technical cooperation from 2011 would help
enhance the operational capability of its defence forces in the next
decade.
The agreement which was among the three defence pacts signed between
India and Russia after the annual summit talks between prime minister
Manmohan Singh and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev provides for
acquisition, licensed production, upgrades and modernisation of
defence equipment as well as the development of new and advanced
weapon systems.
"The agreement would help enhance operational capability of Indian
Defence forces in the next decade by providing various Defence
equipment systems," foreign secretary
Nirupama Rao told newsmen wrapping up the prime minister's talks with
the Russian leadership that also included prime minister Vladimir
Putin, who as the earlier Russian president sowed the seeds for
Russia's strategic partnership with India.
"... (it) will also facilitate capacity development of the Indian
Defence Industry," she said.
Taking bilateral defence ties to a new high, the agreement on After
Sales Support for the Russian arms and military equipment supplied to
India is being seen by Indian officials as an excercise to facilitate
timely and adequate supply of spares and services for maintaining a
high level of readiness and integrated maintenance of Russian made
military equipment supplied to India.
Rao noted that Indian and Russian leaders have focussed on priority
areas of bilateral partnership and how the two countries intend to
take this forward through intensive efforts in the coming months
ahead.
At the India-Russia CEO's Council meeting last night, Rao said the
Russian co-chair of the council Vladimir Evtushenkov spoke of the
prospects for cooperation in the field of telecommunications. The
potential for collaboration in the pharmaceutical industry was also
stressed at the meeting, she said.
The prime minister at a news conference yesterday underscored how
India could help in supplying affordable drugs to Russia because of
the excellent knowhow it had in this field.
Both Singh and Medvedev spoke of the potential for India and Russia to
forge ties in the pharmaceutical industry. The Indian co-chair Mukesh
Ambani spoke of the opportunities for Russian participation in the
infrastructure development sector and cooperation in pharmaceuticals,
including joint development of new technologies in the Health sector,
as also telecommunications.
Sid Harth
Venkatesan Vembu / DNA Tuesday, December 8, 2009 2:52 IST
Hong Kong: The aftershocks of the global credit crisis may have been
felt most recently in Dubai, causing minor palpitations globally, but
experts believe that a far bigger rumbler may be waiting to explode in
faraway China, with far greater destructive force.
In particular, long-standing structural deficiencies in the Chinese
economy are being accentuated by Chinese policymakers' response to
last year's global economic crisis, and jeopardising economic recovery
in China and around the world, they fear. "Overcapacity is a blight on
China's industrial landscape, affecting dozens of industries and
wreaking far-reaching damage on the global economy in general, and
China's economic growth in particular," notes a recent report from the
European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in partnership with Roland
Berger Strategy Consultants.
And although there's nothing new about overcapacity in China, "its
pervasive influence has become ever more prominent -- and its effects
on both the Chinese and international economies have become ever more
destructive -- in light of the global economic crisis that still grips
world market," it added.
Much of that "overcapacity" has been driven by an orgy of capital
spending and the artificial peg of the Chinese renminbi to the US
dollar to protect the export-led manufacturing industry.
But analysts at Pivot Capital Management warn that when it runs out,
it heightens "the chances of a hard landing" in China.
"Given China's importance to the thesis that emerging markets will
lead the world economy out of its slump, we believe the coming
slowdown in China has the potential to be a similar watershed event
for world markets as the reversal of the US subprime and housing
boom," they warn.
The key to the Chinese miracle has been its very high investment
relative to its gross domestic product (GDP). All developing countries
tend to overinvest for certain periods during their economic progress,
but China's investment spend (gross fixed capital formation to GDP
ratio) has broken all record. Post-war Germany achieved a peak
investment to GDP ratio of 27% in 1964; Japan's peaked at 36% in 1973,
and South Korea's at 39% in 1991. But China's economy is reporting a
50%-plus investment to GDP ratio. For every renminbi yuan it produces,
half goes back as investment.
Not only that, the investment boom has lasted longer in China than
anywhere else: before China, the longest any country has sustained an
investment to GDP ratio of over 33% was nine years (Thailand and
Singapore). China is now in its 12th year of investment-led growth.
Few economists believe this is sustainable, but there are optimists,
too, who do not share this "sky-is-falling" outlook on China. "China
is not facing an imminent collapse from a big investment bubble or a
mountain of debt," says UBS economist Tao Wang. "The truth about
China's growth and risks is not as dramatic as some pundits make it to
be."
Wang argues that when analysing the issue of "overinvestment and
excess capacity" in some sectors, it's important to bear in mind that
China is going through "a phase of rapid industrialisation and capital
accumulation, which started from a relatively low base and is still at
a relatively early stage." The high investment-GDP and capital-output
ratios, she argues, "are specific to the current phase of China's
growth, which has been very manufacturing-intensive and, in
particular, biased toward heavy-industries."
But even she believes that unless "structural imbalances" in China's
economy are addressed through adjustments to macro policies, "we
expect... non-performing loans to increase down the road, and asset
bubbles and excess capacity problems to worsen."
BNP Paribas economist Guy Longueville points out that "production
overcapacity is less significant than had been feared in autumn 2008."
But, he reckons, "there is still a general latent problem of
overcapacity... which can re-emerge in the future."
"The triptych of latent corruption, excess credit and excess liquidity
favours dangerous or criminal investment," adds Longueville. "Waves of
'sheep-like' investment by Chinese companies as soon as a sector looks
promising can saturate demand a few years later."
Hong Ho-fung at the Indiana University has a more searing account of
what China's "mega-fiscal-stimulus" did. Many of the investments under
the stimulus programme, he reckons, "are inefficient and generally
unprofitable. If the turnaround of the export market does not come in
time, the fiscal deficit, non-performing loans and the exacerbation of
overcapacity will generate a deeper downturn in the medium term."
Citing a Chinese economist, Hong says that China's "mega-stimulus
programme is like 'drinking poison to quench a thirst'."
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_china-s-economy-on-steroids-may-be-a-global-risk_1321325
chhotemianinshallah
Take A Fresh Look
David P Fidler and Sumit Ganguly
10 December 2009, 12:00am IST
During Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the United States, he
appeared to reverse India's decades-long refusal to join the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). On Fareed Zakaria's GPS show on
November 29, Singh responded to a question by indicating that India
would be willing to join the NPT as a nuclear weapons state. No Indian
leader has ever publicly expressed willingness to accept the NPT.
The prime minister also suggested that India would welcome a US effort
to help it become a nuclear weapons state under the NPT. If India
intends to follow through on the prime minister's expression of NPT
interest, this transformation will have significant implications for
India as an emerging geopolitical actor and for nuclear diplomacy,
including President Barack Obama's vision for a world free of nuclear
weapons.
The NPT has been one of the most excoriated treaties in Indian foreign
policy. Even before it was finalised in 1968, India made its
opposition clear. India continued to criticise the NPT after its
completion, complaining that it discriminated against countries that
did not have nuclear weapons, heightened difficulties for countries
trying to develop nuclear energy and failed to force existing nuclear
weapons states to engage in serious disarmament.
India's NPT opposition has been presented as consistent with the
principles of non-discrimination and the need for nuclear powers with
massive arsenals to get serious about disarmament. But, India's
hostility also reflected its security interests in developing nuclear
weapons to deter threats from Chinese conventional and nuclear
capabilities. India's NPT stance was, thus, grounded in principles
important to the Indian polity and calculations about power-and the
combination of principle and power gave India's opposition deep roots
in its foreign and national security policies.
This background helps explain why Singh's interest in joining the NPT
represents a radical departure from prior Indian policy. The PM did
not elaborate on his desire to become part of the NPT, but such a
statement could not have been made without the Indian government
having concluded that the balance of principles and interests now
favour India being receptive to the NPT.
In terms of India's NPT opposition on principled grounds, Singh may
have concluded that continued opposition according to these principles
no longer serves the purposes it once did. China once opposed the NPT
for similar reasons before it joined as a nuclear weapons state in
1992, which reflects a Chinese realisation that opposition to the NPT
had diminished traction in the post-Cold War world. The emphasis on
non-discrimination and heightened disarmament obligations dovetailed
with India's and China's Cold War support for non-alignment and
equality of weak and strong states under international law. The Cold
War's end and India's and China's emergence as rising powers have made
non-alignment anachronistic and the principle of sovereign equality
less appealing.
From the perspective of India's interests, a willingness to join the
NPT could pay dividends for India, which will outweigh costs resulting
from its NPT "flip-flop". India's interest in the NPT will enhance the
treaty's status at a time when it is under attack because of North
Korea's behaviour and perceived Iranian nuclear designs. With the NPT
Review Conference approaching in May 2010, India's support will allow
it to argue that it is strengthening the fight against nuclear
proliferation. India's NPT acceptance would also act as a warning to
Iran without India risking good relations with Iran through a direct
challenge against Iran about its nuclear intentions.
India could, thus, leave behind criticism it has received in nuclear
diplomacy, including over the US-Indian civilian nuclear accord
concluded in 2008. Indian accession will bolster the NPT as the
central agreement in the fight against nuclear proliferation, but the
NPT's disarmament obligations do not threaten India's nuclear
arsenal.
An Indian change on the NPT would also put Pakistan in a difficult
position because this manoeuvre would increase scrutiny of Pakistan's
past and present nuclear activities. Any effort by Pakistan to try to
join the NPT would generate controversies because of Pakistan's
involvement in proliferation through the A Q Khan network and the
concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
India's interest in the NPT would also challenge existing NPT members
because they must amend the NPT's definition of a 'nuclear weapons
state' to permit India to join. NPT members will have to undertake
strategic calculations in light of India's growing significance in
world affairs. Can the existing nuclear weapons states oppose Indian
accession without appearing to sacrifice non-proliferation for selfish
interests? In this way, India puts itself at the centre of nuclear
diplomacy in ways that its opposition to the NPT never did.
In short, an Indian willingness to accept the NPT would represent a
shrewd policy shift because it inserts India's ideas, interests and
influence into nuclear diplomacy in a manner that could bring
substantial benefits to India and pose policy challenges that will
test the mettle of friends and foes alike.
Fidler is the director and Ganguly is the director of research of the
Centre on American and Global Security at Indiana University,
Bloomington.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Take-A-Fresh-Look/articleshow/5319392.cms
chhotemianinshallah
Moscow Moves
9 December 2009, 12:00am IST
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been a busy man. Coming on the heels
of his US visit, his trip to Russia has paid dividends with a raft of
initiatives aimed at revitalising ties between New Delhi and Moscow.
Foremost is the nuclear agreement signed between the two countries. In
going beyond the terms of India's deal with the US and guaranteeing
unrestricted nuclear cooperation and nuclear fuel supply regardless of
G8 resolutions and other considerations, Russia has essentially
enabled India to start positioning its civilian nuclear sector as a
buyer's market.
With France and Canada having inked nuclear agreements with India as
well, there is both incentive and now urgency for companies in those
countries and the US to lobby their governments for ensuring smooth
nuclear trade with India. This can only be to New Delhi's benefit.
Likewise, the agreement on joint nuclear research and development is a
significant step forward. Interestingly, US companies too are looking
at India as a cost-effective manufacturing base for several components
of nuclear power plants. Since such plants are zero-emission demand
for them is slated to go up by leaps and bounds globally. Multiple
benefits would flow to India if it could position itself as an
essential part of the global supply chain for nuclear power plant
manufacture, including the growing difficulty of isolating it
internationally on the nuclear issue.
An area in which the India-Russia relationship has so far been
severely lacking is trade. Russia features nowhere on the list of
India's top trade partners. The push to hit the $20 billion mark for
trade exchanges by 2015 is welcome in this regard. The potential for
expansion - via both direct trade as well as investment - is
substantial in a variety of spheres, from the traditional focus on
defence to others like energy, the IT sector and the pharmaceutical
industry.
There will be stumbling blocks, of course, as there are in relations
between any two sovereign states. The Gorshkov deal has been one such
for a long time. That issue has, hopefully, been resolved now,
although such assurances have been given in the past as well. New
Delhi must also take care to diversify and wean its armed forces from
over-reliance on Russian equipment. But there is sufficient
manoeuvrability in the New Delhi-Moscow relationship to allow for
dealing with any irritants, as synergies between them are great.
There's scope for intelligence-sharing on terror, and both have
similar concerns on Afghanistan. Above all, now that Washington and
Moscow are moving to repair their relationship, New Delhi is in the
happy position of not having to choose between them, but leveraging
ties with both to its advantage.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Moscow-Moves/articleshow/5315063.cms
chhotemianinshallah
English Endures
7 December 2009, 12:00am IST
The march of the Chinese in the global marketplace has led those with
long-term vision to start leaning Mandarin. After all, if one wants to
do business with the world's fastest growing economy, one better learn
to speak its tongue. Meanwhile, though, the Chinese are pumping in
massive amounts of resources to acquire English-speaking skills. For
it is quite clear - from several studies, trends and by logic - that
English will remain the language the world does business in for at
least a few decades to come.
From Hungary to Egypt, Russia to Korea, teaching English is getting
top billing in schools. Catch them young, and watch them succeed seems
to be the mantra at work here. Compared to most other countries which
do not speak English as a native tongue, India is well-placed in terms
of the number of its people who speak the language. According to the
2000-01 census, about 10.7 per cent of our population speaks some
English. In terms of absolute number of speakers, this pool is next
only to the United States. However, the proportion of those who speak
fluent English is lower.
A British Council report titled 'English Next India' suggests that
India is falling behind China where absolute number of English
speakers are concerned. Thanks to new educational policies being
adopted in China, it is adding about 20 million new English speakers
each year. This is as good a wake-up call as any. A skilled workforce
with English-speaking abilities is one of India's economic advantages.
This is the main reason why it ranks as the top BPO destination in the
world, despite competition from countries like China and the
Philippines, which offer similar services at lower costs. If India
were to maintain its edge in the knowledge economy stakes, English
holds the key.
There is a great demand for English education in India. And this is
not just a middle-class longing. Those from poor backgrounds also view
learning the language as a passport to better economic and social
prospects. They often go out on a limb to secure access to English-
medium schooling for their children. Fulfilling that demand could
unlock a floodgate of talent that will serve well our collective
aspirations to progress. Government must incentivise the teaching and
learning of English in both public and private schools right from the
primary school level. This could be by offering instruction in the
English medium or by promoting a substantial component of English
learning in the curriculum. At the same time, parochial politics -
which has led some states to shunning English teaching at the primary
level in government schools - must be slapped down hard.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/English-Endures/articleshow/5308591.cms
Sid Harth
eastern Russia
Sandeep Dikshit
Medvedev indicated enhanced partnerships in energy sector, says
Nirupama Rao
— Photo: PTI
OPENING NEW CHAPTER: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh being greeted by
his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Monday night.
ABOARD PRIME MINISTER’S SPECIAL FLIGHT: A day after securing a civil
nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow to meet its growing energy
needs, India on Tuesday secured promises for securing hydrocarbons
from several Russian oil fields.
In an unanticipated development, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s
intensive engagement in the Russian capital with President Dmitry
Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin led to understandings of
immediate and long-term nature to access the vast Russian resources in
eastern Siberia and far eastern Russia.
Mr. Medvedev gave an indication of enhanced partnerships in the energy
sector when he observed on Monday that with the civil nuclear deal 3.0
in the bag, “we can think of working in other areas.”
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said Russia agreed to allow India to
enter the Trebs and Titov oil fields in the Timan Pechora region.
ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL) and Russia’s Sistema signed a memorandum of
understanding to scout for oil and gas assets in Russia and other
Central Asian countries. The Russian political leadership also gave a
“very positive response” to India’s request to participate in the
bidding for the lucrative Sakhalin-3 oil field.
With OVL having entered into tie-ups to study investment opportunities
with Russian oil and gas giants Roseneft and Gazprom, Ms. Rao was
confident of India obtaining sourcing rights in at least some of the
projects.
In the case of Sakhalin-3, Russia told India that it was yet to take a
decision on allowing foreign participation. In case such a decision is
taken by the first quarter of next year (when Mr. Putin will visit
India), New Delhi could take a stake in the project.
OVL now has a slice of the Sakhalin-1 and swaps oil accruing to its
account with crude carriers operating in India’s vicinity.
Sistema also is no stranger to India. It is Russia’s biggest investor
in the Indian telecom sector.
Its chief co-chairs the Indo-Russia CEOs Council with Reliance
Industries head Mukesh Ambani.
Circumspect about the civil nuclear energy agreement 3.0 before it was
inked (although officials had told The Hindu that the pact was
through), Ms. Rao chose to downplay the gains from this agreement.
“This shows the growing engagement of the world community in the
development of India’s civil nuclear energy programme,” she said and
bracketed the pact with the ones signed with the U.S. and France.
Asked whether the spate of tie-ups with Russia in strategic sectors
could impact India’s ties with the U.S., Ms. Rao pointed out that in
today’s world, each relationship stood on its own.
India was reluctant to sign three military agreements with the U.S.
and its talks on securing enrichment and reprocessing rights for
uranium were making slower-than-anticipated progress. At the same time
the U.S. had obtained about $5-billion of arms exports orders and
promised contracts worth 10,000 MW in nuclear energy.
On the other hand, Russia and India agreed to further the military
partnership by agreeing to join hands in producing a transport
aircraft with multiple versions, buying more heavy class and naval
fighters, making progress on aligning to produce a next generation
fighter and closing differences over the price for the refit of
aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov.
“Our ties with the U.S. do not affect the stability and solidity of
our ties with Russia. They are as I said earlier rock solid,” Ms. Rao
said.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/09/stories/2009120960091000.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Hindustan Times
December 11, 2009
First Published: 22:37 IST(11/12/2009)
Last Updated: 22:41 IST(11/12/2009)
When Wen Jiabao calls Manmohan Singh has a definite view on the
weather in Copenhagen. The two rapidly developing economies are on the
same side of the negotiation table in climate change talks. There’s
one crucial difference though. China already has a large carbon
footprint, India is poised to enlarge its. The two countries will be
discharging nearly half the world’s greenhouse gasses 20 years from
now, but it is more expensive for China to do anything about it. So Mr
Wen needs Mr Singh more than the other way round next week. India’s
larger interests are served by aligning with China, yet it has the
flexibility to be more receptive to the West’s proposals on saving the
planet.
India’s energy use per $1,000 of GDP has declined by 42 per cent
between 1980 and 2006 and China’s use by 71 per cent. Still
manufacturing-intensive China needs 50 per cent more energy to produce
an extra dollar than India where services are growing faster than
industry. Both countries face the same scale effect of additional
emission as their economies expand. India’s energy use per capita has
risen by 70 per cent in a quarter of a century and China has posted an
eye-popping 136 per cent growth. However, the composition of
consumption in India is ahead in the transition to a less fuel-hungry
economy. And its relatively slower pace of growth allows India to gain
from technological advances that lower emissions per unit of output.
The more proximate divergence arises from the state of infrastructure
development in the two countries. China has already built significant
power generation capacity and the UN estimates that if all Chinese
power plants were to run on Japanese technology, they would emit 50
per cent less carbon dioxide. India has so far managed to put up a
fraction of its required power capacity. It is cheaper to build green
power plants than retrofit existing ones (a power plant typically has
a life-span of 50 years). Likewise, in transportation. The Chinese
road network is in place but the pace of highway development in India
allows it leeway to explore fuel-efficient rail networks. A clutch of
Indian cities is indeed in the process of acquiring rail-based mass
transport systems. Summits are not needed to convince energy-starved
China and India to seek efficiencies. The economics is compelling. It
is just that they should be free to choose their paths to God.
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 13, 2009 13:29 IST
Balasore (Orissa): India today successfully test fired its nuclear-
capable ballistic missile 'Dhanush', with a range of 350 km, from a
naval ship off the Orissa coast.
The single-stage ship-based missile was flight-tested at around 11.30
am and the trial was successful, defence sources said.
'Dhanush' has a payload capacity of 500 kg and is capable of carrying
both conventional and nuclear warheads. It can hit both sea and shore-
based targets.
The missile, which has liquid propellant, is the naval version of
India's indigenously developed surface-to-surface 'Prithvi' missile
system, the sources said.
"Dhanush, being developed by Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO), was put to trial jointly by a team of scientists
and officers from the Navy," they said.
"Today's test launch has been tracked from its take-off to impact
point through an integrated network of sophisticated radars and
electro-optic instruments for post-mission data analyses," the sources
said.
The missile had failed in its first test at the development stage on
April 11, 2000 due to certain technical problems relating to the take-
off stage but subsequent trials were successful.
The last trial of 'Dhanush' was successfully conducted from a naval
ship off Orissa coast on March 30, 2007, the sources said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dhanush-missile-successfully-test-fired_1323180
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:00 IST
New Delhi: Army should be fully confident as there is no doubt about
the nuclear arsenal at their command, former Atomic Energy Commission
chairman Anil Kakodkar has said seeking to put at rest questions
raised over the efficacy of the country's hydrogen bomb test.
"I think that is guaranteed. Army should be fully confident. There is
no doubt about the arsenal at their command," he told Karan Thapar on
Devil's Advocate programme on CNN-IBN.
Kakodkar, who retired from service on November 30, was asked about
former Army chief VP Malik's remarks that nuclear scientists should
assure the armed forces about the efficacy of the thermonuclear
device.
He ruled out the need for further thermonuclear tests and said the
country has several hydrogen bombs with a yield "much more" than 45
kilo tons.
"Of course. Why do you put singular, use plural?" he shot back when
asked whether India had a thermonuclear bomb.
"Much more than that. I said from up to low kilotons to 200 kilotons,"
Kakodkar said when asked whether the hydrogen bomb has a yield of 45
kilo tons.
Kakodkar dismissed former DRDO scientist K Santhanam's claims over the
success of the 1998 thermonuclear tests saying it would not be correct
to assume that he (the defence scientist) knew everything.
"We required logistic support which was provided by DRDO. ...things
were being done on a need-to-know basis. To assume that Santhanam knew
everything is not correct. Santhanam knew what was within his
responsibility," Kakodkar said.
He said it was "totally erroneous" to conclude that the hydrogen bomb
test was not a success.
"It is a totally erroneous conclusion. The yield of thermonuclear test
was verified, not by one method but by several methods and by
different groups and this has been reviewed in detail," he said.
"I had described the tests as perfect in 1998 and I stand by that,"
said Kakodkar, who played key roles in the nuclear tests of 1974 and
1998.
He also said the instruments used by DRDO to measure the yield of the
tests did not work. "I myself had reviewed this immediately after the
test and we concluded that these instruments did not work.
"If the instruments did not work where is the question of going by the
assertions based on them and what is the basis of those assertions,"
he said.
On former AEC chief PK Iyengar's support to Santhanam's claims,
Kakodkar said "Iyengar was not in the picture as far as 1998 tests
were concerned. He knows only as much as has been published. Nothing
more."
When pointed out that other countries had done more hydrogen bomb
tests than India, Kakodkar said "if you go by dil maange more that is
another story. The important point is all tests worked as designed."
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_army-should-be-confident-of-nuclear-arsenal-kakodkar_1323152
Sid Harth
PTI 13 December 2009, 05:11pm IST
NEW DELHI: Gender imbalances continue to prevail in corporate
boardrooms across the world, but the situation is much better in our
country if the number of women CEOs that India Inc has is any
indication--nearly four times more than that of the US--a survey
says.
According to a survey by international executive research firm, EMA
Partners International, around 11% of Indian companies have women
CEOs, while in the case of Fortune 500 list from the US, the women
CEOs just account for three% of the total consideration set.
"In the backdrop of the Fortune 500 numbers, the Indian results
certainly look a lot better, though on a standalone basis, it is clear
that barring financial services, other industries have a log way to
catch up," EMA Partners chairman James Douglas said in the survey.
In India, the survey was carried out among 240 mid and large domestic
as well as MNCs. The companies were selected on the basis of revenues
and market capitalization among others. The survey was conducted in
November.
Globally, on an average, about three% of top CEOs are women, which is
quite unrepresentative, given the fact that roughly half the
population are females and around 50% of the staff are also females in
most markets.
According to the EMA Partners estimates, over 25% of the executives
are women in Germany, more than 30% in Britain, while this is 35% in
France.
Sid Harth
TNN 19 June 2009, 11:08am IST
NEW DELHI: The greater engagement of US with India seems to have
benefited the former during the economic downturn as thousands of
Americans managed to save their jobs when Indian corporates went on a
major acquisition drive in the US. ( Watch )
During the last two years, Indian companies acquired 143 US firms
across various sectors. While 94 deals were concluded in 2007-08, in
the following year when the economy was on the downturn, Indians
bought as many as 50 US entities that were on the verge of closure,
saving thousands of jobs.
A study, jointly conducted by Indian industry association FICCI and
Ernst & Young, said Tata Chemicals, Wipro, Reliance Communications and
Firstsource Solutions were some of the top Indian entities that were
involved in bailing out US companies in the red.
The report released on Thursday said IT&ITeS, manufacturing and
pharmaceuticals were the prime sectors in which most of the deals were
formalised. Indian companies from the IT sector have over the years
been aggressively expanding in the US market.
The deals were predominantly debt financed with cash being a popular
mode of payment. "This trend probably extends from India Inc's
traditional preference for cash transactions in the domestic merger
and acquisition space," the report observed.
The Ernst & Young report says the boom in the Indian economy in the
last three to four years made the domestic companies cash-rich which
provided them with access to more capital than in the past.
Interestingly, one of the key factors, as the report cites, behind
more acquisitions has been the liberal policies introduced by the
government and RBI for overseas investments.
According to RBI data, in 2007-08 the total outbound investments of
Indian companies amounted to $18 billion. In the first half of
2008-09, at least 2,000 proposals valued at $9 billion were cleared
for overseas investments in joint ventures and wholly owned
subsidiaries.
Sid Harth
Breaking News:
Tatas, SBI, Infosys among world's top 50 reputed firms
IANS 9 May 2009, 10:53am IST
WASHINGTON: The Tata Group, State Bank of India (SBI) and Infosys
Technologies are among 17 Indian firms that figure among the top 50 in
a list of the world's 200 most reputable companies.
With a pulse score of 80.89 on a scale of 0-100, the US-based
Reputation Institute ranked the Tata Group 11th above global giants
like Google, Microsoft, General electric, Toyota, Coca-Cola, Intel and
Unilever.
Italy-based chocolate producer Ferrero was ranked as the most
reputable company on the planet right now. With its pulse score moving
from 83.52 last year up to 85.17, Ferrero came up from fourth place
last year to first, more than a full point ahead of second ranked
IKEA.
"However it is the people of India who love their companies the best,"
noted US business magazine Forbes. "Of India's 27 corporations ranked
by the institute, 24 (89 percent) placed above the average. Seventeen
of them landed in the top third of the list."
The Reputation Institute's global pulse of 600 companies is a measure
of corporate reputation calculated by averaging perceptions of four
indicators - trust, esteem, admiration and good feeling - obtained
from a representative sample of at least 100 respondents in the
companies' home countries.
SBI, India's largest bank, is ranked 29th with a score of 78.11.
India's second largest software exporter Infosys is at 39th, with a
pulse score of 77.45.
Larsen & Toubro comes next at 47th position with a pulse score of
76.58, while India's largest carmaker Maruti Suzki has been ranked
49th with a pulse score of of 76.26.
Other Indian firms in the top 200 are: Hindustan Unilever (69 -
74.99); ITC Ltd (95 - 73.50); Canara Bank (102- 73.34); Hindustan
Petroleum (111 - 73.08); Indian Oil (112 - 73.01); Wipro (116 -
72.77); Mahindra & Mahindra (137 - 71.61); Bharti Airtel (163 -
70.32); Bank of Baroda(174 -- 69.81); Bharat Petroleum(175 - 69.79)
and Punjab National Bank (177- 69.67.)
Johnson & Johnson, which placed first in the US for reputation, lands
third globally. Kraft Foods places eighth, making the US one of only
two countries with two businesses in the global top 10. Brazil is the
other. Its Petrobras and Sadia landed fourth and fifth respectively.
Brazil had the second highest percentage of its participating
companies ranked above the global average at 76 percent, while 62
percent of American companies received pulse scores above the
average.
Sid Harth
Bachi Karkaria16 January 2009, 12:10am IST
Despair not that our newfound software power is crashing all around
us. Behold, our age-old claim to fame has come hobbling up to lift us
back to global attention. Poverty has hit pay-dirt, earlier at the
Booker awards, and now at Beverley Hills. So what if Satyam has become
a pariah? 'Slumdog' banega crorepati, no? The film has been sweeping
up awards as though BMC brooms were going out of style.
This week's Golden Globe Awards will ring in millions of squalor-
dollars for Danny Boy. Last year, it was the 52,500-sterling-pounds
Man Booker Prize for Aravind Adiga's similarly malodorous novel. Yes,
slums are set to become the old-new India Story. The development comes
not a day too soon, for our much-vaunted 'economic power engine',
already crippled by load- shedding, now seems headed for a scandalous
black-out.
Maybe this backward leap is all about hubris. We had no business
trying to break free of our millennia-long karma. Third World was our
laid-down destiny, and we had no right to muscle into the First World
aka the Forbes List. Indians had begun multiplying in the
Billionaires' Club with the same fecundity with which Indians used to
multiply. Period. The global genuflecting to the separate Mittals, the
separated Ambanis, the undivided Ruias, the Brothers Ranbaxy and K P
Singh, the high-rising DLF don, had deluded us into believing that we
had escaped the cycle of life and debt, and become the new dollar
deities.
Now divine retribution has caught up with us, and put us back into our
pre-ordained squalor-celebrity slot. We have salvaged our garland of
global recognition, but this time it is made up of all the stereotypes
we thought we had put in the shredder of Corus, Arcelor, and 9 per
cent growth. The Golden Globes and the Booker have shown us our place
even as they have showered us with their prizes. 'Slumdog Millionaire'
is so feel-good because its context is so smell-bad. Just as Balram
'White Tiger' Halwai's rise was so piquant because he was such an
embodiment of filth.
This 360-degree turn in our global positioning proves yet again that
the hierarchies of fame are not easily defied. Abandon the designated
vehicles of glory, and you get punctured. In the marketplace of global
attention, urban slums and rural boondocks are the Indian franchisees
in perpetuity. Ambani-come-lately and the whole corporate wannabe were
doomed before they even stepped into their Bentleys. Poverty is our
commodity, and that's all that the world wants from us. Brand India
was nothing but virtual maya.
Mother Teresa knew the formula, and she became a saint. Buddhadeb
Bhattacharya messed about with Kolkata's image as the world's metaphor
of squalor, and he has been eternally damned. For all his intellectual
loftiness, Satyajit Ray also knew that Indian poverty was a better
export than wealth, and even zamindars had to be in an advanced stage
of decay to feature in his films. For all its recently flaunted
materialism, Kolkata is a business dimwit, or, by now, it would have
patented its infamous slums instead of letting street-smart Mumbai
steal them from under its nose, and run away with the worldwide
rights. Goodbye, 'City of Joy'. Hello, 'Shantaram'.
Of course, Mumbai being Mumbai, it did not need Danny Boyle to turn
slum dross into gold. The Kolkata bustee or the Delhi jhuggi-jhopri
may be symbols of unglimmered despair, but this city's zopadpattis
invoke more awe than shock. Why, even the penthouse parvenu takes a
sheet out of their tatty roofs to learn that sweet are the uses of
encroachment or that the line between the legal and the culpable is at
best blurred. Mumbai may love to hate its slums, but their tenacity,
their industry, their stink are integral to its distinctive DNA. Here,
you can never become a millionaire if you aren't a slumdog at the
core.
bademiyansubhanallah
STAFF WRITER 0:26 HRS IST
Kottayam, Dec 13 (PTI) Technical experts in the country were not
behind anybody in terms of ability and India has a predominant place
among the developing countries in space science and technology, former
ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair said today.
Most of the scientists who studied in the country were steering
scientific developments across the world, he said at a reception given
to him at a college in Pala near here.
He said ISRO would carry out the country's maiden manned moon mission
by 2020.
Challenges faced by people including poverty, crisis in agriculture
sector and shortage of electricity would be confronted through
scientific developments, he said.
http://www.ptinews.com/news/421986_India-has-a-predominant-place-in-space-tech--Nair
chhotemianinshallah
Sun, 12/13/2009 - 23:26
NetIndian News Network
New Delhi, December 13, 2009
Dr. Anil Kakodkar.Former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Anil
Kakodkar has asserted that India has credible thermo-nuclear bombs, in
the "plural", with a yield of "much more" than 45 kilotonnes each.
"Why are you using singular? Make that plural," he said when asked if
India had a credible thermo-nuclear bomb during an interview with
journalist Karan Thapar on the Devil's Advocate show on television
channel CNN-IBN.
When it was pointed out that former defence scientist K Santhanam had
said recently that the thermonuclear device had not been weaponised
even 11 years after the tests, Dr Kakodkar, who retired as AEC
Chairman at the end of last month, asked, "How does he know? He is not
involved."
About the yield, Dr Kakodkar said, "I told you we have the possibility
of a deterrence of low kilotonne to 200 kilotonnes."
Referring to statements made recently by former Army Chief Gen V P
Malik and others about doubts in the public arena and the neeed for an
assurance to the Army on the yield and the efficacy of India's thermo-
nuclear bomb, Dr Kakodkar said, "I think that is guaranteed. The Army
should be fully confident and defend the country. There is no issue
about the arsenal at their command."
Asked about the doubts raised by Dr Santhanam, former AEC Chairman P K
Iyengar and others about India's nuclear tests of 1998, Dr Kakodkar
said their was a totally erroneous conclusion.
"The yield of thermo-nuclear tests was verified, not by one method but
several redundant methods based on different principles, done by
different groups. These have been reviewed in detail and in fact I had
described the tests in 1998 as perfect and I stand by that," he said.
Asked about the AEC claim that the yield of the tests was 45
kilotonnes and Dr Santhanam's statement that the DRDO seismic
instruments had measured it as something between 20-25 kilotonnes, he
said that the DRDO did dploy some instruments for measurements but
they did not work.
"I myself had reviewed all the results immediately after the tests and
we concluded that the instruments did not work," he said.
He assured that the AEC had proof that the yield of the test was 45
kilotonnes. "Yes. In fact we have. Within limits of what can be said
and I must make it clear here that no country has given so much
scientific details on their tests as we have given and this we have
published with the maximum clarity which could be done," he said.
Dr Kakodkar said it was unfortunate that such doubts were stil being
raised but said he was not worried by them because "facts are facts".
To another question about Dr Santhanam pointing out that the thermo-
nuclear test did not create a crater when the fission device, which
had produced a yield of 25 kilotonnes, had created a crater of 25
metres in diameter, Dr Kakodkar said that, in the first instance, the
fission device yield was 15 kilotonnes.
He said that, although the two devices were about 1.5 km apart, the
geology within that distance changed quite a bit, partly because of
the layers that existed and their slopes but also because their depths
were different. He said fission device was, thus, placed in one kind
of medium and the thermo-nuclear device in another kind of medium.
"In fact, we have gone through detailed simulation. For example in
simulation you can locate the thermo-nuclear device where the fission
device was placed and you can locate the fission device where the
thermo-nuclear device was placed. And you get a much bigger crater now
because the yield is higher...And the fission device which is now
placed in the thermo-nuclear position produces much less ground
displacement," he said.
He offered similar explanations for the fact that the shaft and the a-
frame were not damaged during the test.
About Dr Iyengar's views, Dr Kakodkar said his predecessor was nowhere
involved in the 1998 tests, though he had been a key figure in the
1974 tests. He said information was given to many people on a "need to
know" basis, and to to assume that Dr Santhanam knew everything was
not true. "He knew everything within his realm of responsibility," he
said.
Dr Kakodkar said there was no hiding of information and India was,
perhaps, unique in that it had given out the maximum information and
that, too, immediately after the tests.
"There is no hiding. There are limits to what can be revealed. These
have been discussed in the Atomic Energy Commission in not one but
four meetings after the 1998 tests. And there are people who are
knowledgeable. Dr Ramanna was a member of the commission at that time.
So where is the hiding?" he said.
He did not agree with Dr Santhanam's suggestion that a peer group of
scientists should be formed to review the results of the 1998 thermo-
nuclear test.
"There are methods through which one has assessed the test results.
Each one of them is a specialisation in itself and there are different
groups - not just individuals but groups - which have looked at these.
The fact is that this is also on a need-to-know basis. Now, if all of
them come to conclusions which are by-and-large similar, what other
things can you do in terms of forming a peer group of scientists?" he
asked.
He said the AEC had gone through the records once more recently after
the controversy had cropped up again and later come out with an
authoritative statement on the issue.
He said the important point to note was that the thermo-nuclear test,
the fission test and the sub-kilottine test had all worked as
designed.
"They are diverse. In terms of detailed design, their content is quite
different. And so we think that the design which has been done is
validated and within this configuration which has been tested one can
build devices ranging from low kilotonne all the way to 200
kilotonnes. And that kind of fully assures the deterrence," he said.
Asked if India was right in maintaining that it did not need more
thermo-nuclear tests when all the established nuclear powers had
needed more than one test, he said, "Well if you go by 'Dil Maange
More', that's another story.
"But we are talking about a time where the knowledge base has
expanded, the capability has expanded and you carry out a design and
prove you are confident that on the basis of that design and that
test, one can build a range of systems right up to 200 kilotonnes," he
added.
NNN
chhotemianinshallah
Mon, 12/14/2009 - 13:58
NetIndian News Network
New Delhi, December 14, 2009
About ten offset contracts have been signed so far under the extant
Defence Procurement Procedure, Defence Minister A K Antony told the
Lok Sabha today.
In a written reply to a question in the House, Mr Antony said the
companies with which the contracts had been signed included
Rosoboronexport and RAC MiG of Russia, Fincantieri of Italy, Lockheed
Martin and Boeing of the United States, Elta, Israel Aerospace
Industries and Rafael of Israel.
The estimated value of the offsets involved in these contracts is over
Rs. 8909 crores, Mr Antony said.
According to him, the implementation of the offsets is expected to
result in expanding and enhancing the manufacturing infrastructure and
technical knowledge necessary for indigenous manufacture of weapon
systems required by the Armed Forces.
The benefits of offsets accrue to both defence public sector
undertakings as well as to private Indian industry engaged in the
manufacture of defence systems and equipments, he added.
NNN
chhotemianinshallah
Mon, 12/14/2009 - 13:43
NetIndian News Network
New Delhi, December 14, 2009
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will take up
the indigenous development of a medium altitude long endurance
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
Defence Minister A K Antony told the Lok Sabha in a written reply to a
question today that the development would be undertaken against
against confirmed Qualitative Requirements (QRs) to meet the
requirements of the three Services.
Mr Antony said the UAV had been named Rustom-H. The Indian industry
would be the development-cum-production partner for the project, which
is expected to be completed in 78 months after formal sanction.
NNN
http://netindian.in/news/2009/12/14/0004406/drdo-take-indigenous-development-uav
chhotemianinshallah
2009-12-14 17:30:00
Days after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Moscow, Russian
ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin Monday said the final price for
the refurbishment of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov has been
finalised.
'Talks were successful. Talks have concluded,' the Russian envoy said
when asked about the final price at which Russia has agreed to sell
Admiral Gorshkov to India.
The envoy, however, declined to disclose the final price of the
aircraft carrier that has been the subject of protracted negotiations
between the two sides.
'Please don't sensationalise Gorshkov's pricing. These are routine
price negotiations,' said Kadakin, an old India hand whose earlier
tenure as Russia's ambassador to India (1999-2004) saw the forging of
strategic partnership between the two countries.
The Gorshkov issue came up during the summit level talks between Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in
Moscow last week.
After the talks, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao had said the
negotiations over price and other technical issues relating to the re-
fitted aircraft carrier were brought 'to a successful conclusion'.
Rao, too, did not disclose the final price agreed to by both sides.
Kadakin admitted that there were 'mistakes' by both sides in
negotiating the price, but assured that these issues have now been
sorted out.
The carrier would be supplied to India in a very good shape with
cutting-edge technology, Kadakin said.
Kadakin said India-Russia defence ties remained as strong as ever and
Moscow was not worried about New Delhi diversifying its purchase of
military hardware from other countries.
He admitted that supplying spares and maintenance of Russian weaponry
sold to India remained an issue, but expressed confidence that these
would be sorted out soon.
Moscow had reportedly asked for $2.9 billion for the aircraft carrier,
nearly thrice the price that was originally agreed between the two
sides in 2004.
But New Delhi insisted on scaling back the price to $2.1 billion.
Delays in re-fitting the aircraft carrier and huge cost overruns had
turned out to be an irritant over the otherwise time-tested
relationship between the two countries.
http://sify.com/news/Gorshkov-39-s-final-price-decided-Russian-envoy-news-jmor4chccgj.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Jayanth Jacob , Hindustan Times
New Delhi, December 15, 2009
First Published: 00:45 IST(15/12/2009)
Last Updated: 00:46 IST(15/12/2009)
After months of frosty ties, Beijing warmed up to New Delhi on Monday
with its ambassador to India writing to External Affairs Minister S.M.
Krishna, seeking a meeting to discuss the celebration next year of 60
years of diplomatic ties between the two countries.
Zhang Yang said he would like to “benefit” from any “ideas” the
minister may have.
Ties have been strained between the countries in the recent past over
Beijing issuing stapled visas to Indian nationals from Jammu and
Kashmir and the Chinese protesting the Dalai Lama’s visit to
Arunanchal Pradesh in November.
As part of the celebrations, there will be an India festival in China
and a China festival here. President Pratibha Patil is expected to
visit the neighbouring country next year.
Though the anniversary plans were agreed upon in August — when the
13th meeting between the Chinese and Indian special representative on
the boundary issue was held in New Delhi — some suggestions from the
Chinese side hadn’t found favour with India.
These include Beijing’s proposal to teach Chinese language in India
and an exchange programme for school students.
chhotemianinshallah
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi December 15, 2009, 0:32 IST
Strategic circles are abuzz with rumours that the United Kingdom will
soon offer India one of the new-generation aircraft carriers that it
is constructing, since they are turning out too expensive for the
Royal Navy to afford. Interestingly, India will almost certainly turn
down the offer.
The Royal Navy had planned to build two Carrier Vessels Future (CVFs):
the 65,000 tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. With the
budgeted price of US $6.4 billion (Rs 30,000 crore) for the pair, now
apparently the cost of each, building a third and selling it abroad is
an option being considered to reduce the unit price. But, in contrast
to this exorbitant price, the cost of India’s 44,000 tonne Indigenous
Aircraft Carrier (IAC), under construction at Cochin Shipyard Limited
(CSL), is barely a third of the Queen Elizabeth. And the Indian Navy’s
next IAC, a 60,000 tonne behemoth like the Queen Elizabeth, will cost
less than half its British counterpart.
In the gloomy framework of Indian defence production, warship-building
has emerged as a silver lining. The Kolkata class destroyers, being
built at Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, will cost the navy Rs 3,800 crore
each, one-third the global price for comparative warships. The INS
Shivalik, now completing sea trials, is a world-class frigate built at
Indian prices. Earlier this year, addressing an industries body, the
Indian Navy’s chief designer, Rear Admiral MK Badhwar, called for
making India a global hub for building warships.
While his appeal might have been tinged with strategic motivation — a
larger warship industry would bring down unit prices, providing the
navy with even more bang for the buck — there is little doubt that
shipbuilders would profit more from crafting warships than from
slapping together merchant vessels. India has developed the
capabilities, including, crucially, the design expertise, to produce
world-class warships. But the defence shipyards do not have the
capacity to meet even the Indian Navy’s needs; playing the
international warship market needs clear-sighted government
intervention to synergise the working of public and private
shipbuilders.
Building a merchant ship is a relatively cheap and simple process,
from design to outfitting. Essentially, it involves welding together a
hull (often from imported steel) and then installing imported systems
such as engines, radars, the steering, navigation and communications
systems, and some specialist systems, e.g. for cargo handling.
Imported components form the bulk of the cost, with little value
addition within the shipyard. A commercial shipyard’s business plan
revolves around bulk manufacture, compensating for the small profit
margins by churning out as many ships as possible.
Creating a warship is infinitely more complex, and expensive. The
design process is critical, with complex software shaping the
“stealthiest” possible ship, virtually undetectable to an enemy. Next,
a host of sensors and weapons must be accommodated to deal with
different threats: enemy ships, submarines, aircraft and incoming
missiles. Harmonising their different frequencies, and canalising
information and weapons control into a single command centre, involves
weaving an elaborate electronic tapestry.
Actually building the warship is a labour-intensive task, which
involves painstakingly duplicating key systems so that the vessel can
sail and fight even with one side blown out by the enemy. More than
400 kilometres of wiring must be laid out inside, all of it marked and
accessible to permit repair and maintenance. A modern frigate has 25
kilometres of pipelines, built from 10,000 separate pieces of piping.
All this generates many jobs. An army of skilled craftsmen, many more
than in merchant shipbuilding, does most of this work manually,
through an elaborate eco-system of 100-200 private firms feeding into
each warship. And these numbers are growing as defence shipyards
increasingly outsource, using their own employees only for core
activities like hull fabrication; fitting propulsion equipment; and
installing weapon systems and sensors.
In this manpower-intensive field, India enjoys obvious advantages over
the European warship builders that rule the market. These advantages
are far less pronounced in merchant shipbuilding, where Korean and
Chinese shipyards are turbocharged by a combination of inexpensive
labour, indirect subsidies, and unflinching government support.
What makes India a potential powerhouse in warship-building is not so
much its labour-cost advantage as a strong design capability that the
navy has carefully nurtured since 1954, when the Directorate General
of Naval Design first took shape. The importance of design capability
has been amply illustrated in the bloated CVF programme. The UK,
having wound up its naval design bureau, has already paid over a
billion dollars to private companies to design the aircraft carrier.
And with every minor redesign, not unusual while building a new
warship, the design bill and the programme cost goes higher.
India has everything it takes to be a warship-building superpower: the
springboard of design expertise; cheap and skilled labour; and
mounting experience in building successful warships. What it lacks is
capacity, which the government can augment with the help of private
shipyards. This will significantly augment private shipyard revenue,
boost defence exports, and provide the government with another
strategic tool for furthering its interests in the Indian Ocean
region.
bademiyansubhanallah
Yes, China Has Fully Arrived As A Superpower
Shaun Rein, 12.15.09, 04:22 PM EST
Three trends for 2010 prove it.
More from Shaun Rein
A remarkable 44% of Americans believe China is the world's leading
economic power and only 27% think the U.S. is, according to a recent
survey by the Pew Center. James Fallows, the Atlantic Monthly
journalist, thinks that is proof that Americans have lost their minds.
He argues that China can't be the world's leading economic power. Too
many of its people live without indoor plumbing, no mainland science
researcher has won a Nobel Prize and the country has no global brands.
How can a place like that be an economic superpower?
The normally adroit Fallows surprisingly misses the real point. China
already is a superpower in many regards. Despite its poverty, no
matter what industry you're in or where in the world you operate, you
can no longer ignore China's economic might. That is power.
Here are three trends to look for in 2010 that demonstrate China's
superpower status:
First, China is wielding national influence in places it never
affected before. Over the last several decades it provided an
ideological counterpoint to the United States, doing business in its
push for oil with unsavory regimes like Iran and Sudan that
democracies traditionally wouldn't work with. Now China is gaining
influence with America's closest allies, too. During the financial
crisis it doled out billions in contracts in Great Britain and France.
This year it surpassed the U.S. to become the largest trading partner
of both Japan and Brazil. It conducts more than $100 billion a year in
trade with both the Middle East and Africa. In Africa it is laying
down highways and other infrastructure projects. Already 750,000
Chinese workers have moved there.
Premier Wen Jiabao and the World Bank are even discussing ways to move
textile factories from southern China to Africa. China's factories
just might lift up Africa as no Western aid money has ever been able
to do.
Look for Chinese companies to buy not just access to commodities but
also Western brands, like Volvo and Hummer. Building brands takes
decades. That's why so few Chinese brands have emerged globally.
Chinese firms have traditionally focused on competing on price, but
that's changing fast as they learn about marketing. Aggressive,
impatient Chinese businesses don't want to take decades to build
brands the way Toyota ( TM - news - people ) and Sony ( SNE - news -
people ) did, so they're looking to buy them from the West instead.
My firm, the China Market Research Group, interviewed 500 senior
executives at 100 Chinese companies in 10 industries. Seventy percent
of them told us they planned to use the downturn to speed up their
international expansion, using both acquisitions and organic growth.
They specifically aimed to tap into the U.S. and Western Europe with
their cash wealth.
The second trend that shows that China is an established superpower,
not just a rising one, is its emergence as a hotbed of innovation.
Many analysts believe that Chinese are good at copying but not at
innovating. That's just not true anymore.
The country has become the main recipient of venture capital money in
clean technology. The government is trying to address soaring health
care costs by reducing pollution and is actively encouraging foreign
investment to do so, as I wrote in "China Is Pulling Ahead On The
Environment." It is spending $9 billion a month on clean energy
research, and within five years it will become the world's largest
producer of solar and wind energy. Most rural homes already heat water
using solar panels on their roofs, and China is now exporting its wind
power technology to the U.S. Its technology is being used to build a
36,000-acre wind farm in Texas.
At the same time, Chinese in the U.S. have been increasingly moving
back to China, driven by the bad economy and visa hassles that arose
from Bush administration policies. More than 1.5 million Chinese have
studied abroad. Those who went to the U.S. in the 1980s and mid-1990s
tended to stay, and they helped drive Silicon Valley's growth. Now
most are moving back to China, and many are taking their companies
public on NASDAQ. Robin Li, the founder of Baidu, and James Jianzhang
Liang and Neil Shen, the co-founders of Ctrip, which is listed on
NASDAQ, all studied abroad before returning to China.
The third trend: Not only is China becoming ever more powerful
economically; it is also starting to exert its political power more
responsibly. Although it has been a bit combative on climate and
carbon emissions at the Copenhagen conference, it has taken a leading
role among the G-20 group of nations in helping push for effective
responses to the world financial crisis. Partly because China is
crucial to the world economy, G-20 is formally replacing G-8 as the
main economic meeting of wealthy nations. Also China has become the
key broker with North Korea in attempts to make that country less
belligerent, and it will bring greater influence to bear in political
discussions in the years ahead.
China is certainly not altogether as wealthy as the U.S. or Japan, as
Fallows correctly observes. But it is emerging confident and
relatively unscathed from the financial crisis. Some 80% of Chinese
told us they were optimistic about their futures. At the same time,
the unemployment rate in the U.S. is still far too high, and Japan has
not only one of the world's highest per capita gross domestic products
but also one of the highest suicide rates, with more than 30,000
citizens killing themselves in each of the past 10 years. The
traditional powers aren't the dominant forces they once were,
economically or otherwise.
People have been talking for years about China as an emerging global
power. The reality is that in many ways it is now fully emerged.
Growing economic strength begets power.
Shaun Rein is the founder and managing director of the China Market
Research Group, a strategic market intelligence firm. He writes for
Forbes on leadership, marketing and China.
Comments for Comments 1-9 of 9
Yes, China Has Fully Arrived As A Superpower
Shaun Rein
Three trends for 2010 prove it.
Posted by ssaigol | 12/16/09 03:05 AM EST
"doing business in its push for oil with unsavory regimes like Iran
and Sudan that democracies traditionally wouldn't work with"
The US and Western democracies are buying oil from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, none of which are democracies and can be
classified as tyrannical regimes. So Why are the Chinese criticized
for ding the same.
Posted by Julestin | 12/16/09 02:16 AM EST
At the end of the day, China is emerging as the Asian superpower and
that cannot be disputed. Naturally, this will receive protest from the
west, especially those who have never been outside of America and who
refuse to believe that the 21st century is the Asian century.
China is the phoenix rising from the ashes, while America is mopping
up its mess - economically, politically and socially. Sure, China has
a lot to of catching up to do, but hey, they have got 1.2 billion
people, is already #1 in the Olympics, has the advantage in the global
balance of trade and people who are not afraid to live and work in
harsh places.
The Chinese may be poor but they are not afraid of hard work. Compare
that to a group of people who judge civilisation by the availability
of hamburgers, beer and french fries.
America is always the first to point fingers at the rest of the world
for their seeming trangressions. Before pointing the fingers at China
for use of resources, look in the mirror. Who were the first
industrial farmers who mowed down the forests in the Amazon? Who
financed the militia in Afghanistan and Iran? Who is the world's
biggest consumer and has been dumping their non-recyclable trash in
international seas? Who is responsible for the oil mining in Alaska?
Which are the brands who built and ran the first sweat shops hiring
child workers in India and South America? Which drink company dumped
toxic into the waters and soils of the developing country they built
factories in? Which banks and bankers needed bailing out in the last
recession? Which country believed in firepower and war? Ask Vietnam,
Afghanistan and Iraq.
So America has been responsible globally and domestically? But why
talk about that, let's divert attention from their failings and point
fingers at China for their human rights failings and the rest of the
developing world for the use of their own natural resources instead.
Posted by FranklinWong | 12/16/09 12:11 AM EST
This is
Posted by FranklinWong | 12/15/09 11:18 PM EST
I hope this article is not typical of the quality of your analysis.
The article you are "rebutting" said that China was big and fast
developing but was not the number #1 economic power in the world. Are
you claiming that it is the number one power? If so you don't give any
evidence for that. So you actually are supporting the article you say
you are "refuting." This is not very impressive work.
Posted by RightontheMark | 12/15/09 10:38 PM EST
Not sure what the point of the author is. Yes, China is a very
important country. I think most of us can agree on that but what is
the author trying to say in this article???
Having worked in market research I know a bias when I see it - too bad
the author doesn't see it - can just imagine the market research they
do in his firm.
Posted by jjoyce6018 | 12/15/09 10:02 PM EST
@eyecoin
Once you leave the Downtown areas of Shanghai and Beijing those
numbers seem grossly exaggerated, however we may have a quite
different definition of the word "poverty" ?
Also statistics cannot define a people's life, dreams, and hopes for
their personal future, while most Chinese have high hopes and are
confident about their country's future,(nationalism) their personal
hopes are not so lofty, and are guarded at best.
If your numbers are correct ? I will bet that about 800 million of
them are just barely out of poverty.
Posted by eyecoin | 12/15/09 09:27 PM EST
How can you say "the little attention to the wuality of life of it's
citizens."? China has experienced the highest growth of the middle
class and more people lifted out of poverty in the last decade than
anywhere. That is market forces at work. This is the natural result of
market forces. This is not, and should not be something the government
does, but it actually happened.
- "the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 64% of the population. This
rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people
have climbed out of poverty during this period." - (Ravallion, Martin,
and Shaohua Chen, 2005. China's (Uneven) Progress Against Poverty.
Journal of Development Economics.)
Posted by jjoyce6018 | 12/15/09 07:05 PM EST
Should be interesting to see if a nation can become a respected
superpower purely on it's ability and desire to make money, with
little attention given to the quality of life of it's citizens.
China today is driven by a fierce sense of blind Nationalism to become
bigger and stronger than anyone else with little regard as to what
long term effects that will have on itself, the world, or other
countries, and is not making many friends in the process.
It has a long way to go, the perception of China now is largely shaded
by the decline of the American economy which is a huge consumer based
economy that has fueled not only itself, but the entire world
(especially China) and is far from down and out.
China at this point is but a HUGE SUCKING machine, sucking up money,
and natural resources at an alarming rate, and has shown no sign of
understanding or even caring about what global impact they are having
or what responsibility comes with being a superpower.
China will have to deal with some uncomfortable situations soon, it
will not be able to take over the world with cash alone, it will be
confronted soon, as long as it is seen as nationalist,and purely self
serving.
China's only long term goal at this point seems to be beat America
first, then the world.
Many other countries still see it as a threat, and supporting regimes
like Iran, Somalia, and N.Korea is not just irresponsible, it is
dangerous to the entire world population.
China is succeeding with Capitalism, but will China's politics
continue to be purely self-serving or will it truly become a trusted
global player, having a positive impact on it's trading partners and
the global community ?
The World still has many doubts, and the lack of any government system
with transparency is not helping, we still have a long way to go
before you can start beating your chest, a true international super
power should not be measured by how much money or guns it has, and if
that becomes the only yardsti
Posted by bduff600 | 12/15/09 05:39 PM EST
That would be a really impressive rebuttal, IF the Fallows argument
were "China is not a superpower." The question was, "Is it now THE
leading power in the world." That is what 44% of Americans said was
true, and it's what fallows said was false. It's not an issue that you
address at all.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/15/china-superpower-status-leadership-citizenship-trends.html
bademiyansubhanallah
12.14.09, 11:31 PM EST
Which of these 21 candidates is the standout?
Forbes India, the country's most influential business magazine, is set
to declare its choice for the "Person of the Year" in its upcoming
edition that will hit the stands on Friday, December 18. In the race
for the honor are 21 eminent Indians who have shown leadership,
courage and enterprise and in many ways, exemplify the unique "Indian
Way".
Forbes India invites its readers to take part in the process of
discovering the one person who will top that list. Until 11.00 p.m. on
Thursday, December 17, click here to vote for your choice of the
Person of the Year.
There are prizes to be won too. Among those who vote for the eventual
winner, to be chosen by the Forbes India editorial team, 25 people
will be picked by a lucky draw for a special prize.
Similarly, among those who vote for the popular choice in the online
poll (who may or may not be the eventual winner), 25 people will be
selected for a lucky prize.
The idea behind the Person of the Year package had its genesis in the
newsroom discussions at Forbes India, where senior editors debated
about what is gripping the minds of the readers as a very volatile and
action-packed year draws to a close. They figured it is the emergence
of India as an economic power and its arrival on the world stage.
But India has a long way to go before it realizes this potential. The
country must find ways to develop its economy while making sure the
growth is inclusive of the less privileged. It must make its
governance more efficient while safeguarding its democratic
institutions. Such a comprehensive economic solution for nearly 1.2
billion people has never been attempted in the world before.
This cannot be achieved by a cookie-cutter approach, by importing
models from the developed world and implementing them here. India must
find its own way, by blending the best from all corners of the world,
but also evolving local solutions from the hearts and minds of its
citizens.
The 21 personalities in Forbes India's People of the Year List are
those who are finding out this Indian Way. In 2009, they have
demonstrated a rare ability to bridge the country's traditional
strengths with modern thoughts on development. As 2010 unveils, they
will help us find answers for many of our development problems.
But there is one person among the 21 who stands out for an ability to
blend visionary ideas with surgical execution. Who is that Forbes
India Person of the Year?
The answer will be known on December 18, when Forbes India's last
issue of 2009 comes out.
The Nominees are:
1. A.R. Rahman, Music Composer
2. Shobhana Bhartia, Chairperson, Hindustan Times Group
3. Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, Unique Identification Authority of India
4. Chetan Bhagat, Author
5. Lalit Modi, Commissioner, Indian Premier League
6. Facebook, everybody's Man Friday to connect with humanity
7. Pranav Mistry, Student and Inventor
8. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Captain, Indian Cricket Team
9. Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Group
10. K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India
11. Rahul Gandhi, General Secretary, Congress Party
12. Karambir Kang, General Manager, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Mumbai
13. Anjali Gopalan, Founder, The Naz Foundation
14. Kiran Karnik, Interim Chairman, Sayam Computer Services
15. Mehmood Khan, Managing Trustee, Rasuli Kanwar Khan Trust
16. Rahul Dhir, CEO, Cairn India
17. Francisco D'Souza, CEO, Cognizant Technology Solutions
18. Rahul Bhatia, Chairman, IndiGo Airlines
19. Sunil Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Group
20. Vikram Akula, Founder, SKS Microfinance
21. Jean Dreze, Development Economist
bademiyansubhanallah
The Next Gorilla
Naazneen Karmali, 12.04.09, 08:40 AM EST
Forbes Asia Magazine dated December 14, 2009
Anand Mahindra explains why India's growth story is no mirage.
Under Anand Mahindra, 2009 has been a banner year for his $6.3 billion
(revenues) group. Seven months ago infotech arm Tech Mahindra outbid
Wilbur Ross and Larsen & Toubro to pick up scam-hit outsourcer Satyam
Computer Services ( SAY - news - people ) for $625 million. In July
the group led a revival of India's IPO market with the listing of time-
share unit Mahindra Holidays & Resorts. Auto flagship Mahindra &
Mahindra is on course to launch its pickup truck in the U.S. in early
2010. FORBES ASIA caught up with Mahindra, 54, in Mumbai in late
November:
FORBES ASIA: Does Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent visit to the
U.S. signal a shift in the arguably China-centric U.S. policy?
Mahindra: I don't think it does. The U.S. cannot afford to turn its
back on engaging with China, because it's the new Goliath out there.
President Obama is doing a good job of balancing with India, which is
the next gorilla in the making. The signal to China is very clear that
their [U.S.] relationship won't be at the cost of their strategic
relationship with India.
Are you convinced that the U.S. has fully recovered from the economic
tsunami?
The American recovery is clearly a jobless recovery. On my last trip
to the U.S., some businessmen were telling me that they were greatly
concerned about the shift in the attitude of entrepreneurs towards
employment-intensive businesses. This newfound reluctance to do
business the old-fashioned way is worrying and will affect the
country's recovery in the long term.
If India has been insulated from the global financial mess, what do
you credit?
India's been lucky, and I would put it down to three Ds. Firstly, the
developmental stage that we're at. We've reached a tipping point in
consumption-led growth, which is hard to stop in its tracks. The
second is our distance from world markets. Exports are a low
percentage of our GDP, and our financial markets are not as integrated
with world markets. The third D is India's demographics. The higher
percentage of young people in our population and their propensity to
consume is a powerful propeller of growth.
In the latest quarter, GDP grew almost 8%, well above estimates. Is
India's growth story as an emerging superpower, like China, a mirage
or reality?
It's for real but sometimes missed because India takes one step at a
time and doesn't do radical things. We don't raze our slums overnight
to build freeways; instead we build a Four Seasons hotel next to a
slum. Ours is a qualified story, full of caveats. But it may turn out
to be the case of the tortoise and the hare. Our vulnerability has to
do with our geopolitical fragility. We have to control internal
insurgency from the Maoists and our neighbors.
The launch of Mahindra's pickup trucks in the American market is
imminent. The timing seems a bit off, doesn't it?
Sometimes the best time is when everyone is advocating against it. The
reality is that we're going in with a compact diesel pickup that gives
30 miles per gallon. There's a space in the market for this new green
product. The erstwhile behemoths of the U.S. auto industry are in the
midst of restructuring, so there are good dealerships available. There
could be no better time for a challenger.
The Logan sedan hasn't done too well. Overall, has your partnership
with Renault ( RNSDY.PK - news - people )-Nissan ( NSANY - news -
people ) lived up to your expectations?
No, it hasn't, but that precisely is the problem: We had exaggeratedly
high expectations. We built capacity for 5,000 Logans per month and
were confident of selling that many. Initially, we sold 2,000 Logans
per month, which is now down to 500. This happened due to the
government slapping differential taxes on large cars, which gave
enormous benefit to smaller cars. We could have done some IIPOsuction
and adapted it in response to the new tax structure, but since the
Logan is not our product, we weren't able to.
You'd described the Satyam takeover as a "game changer." Eight months
on has it proved so, especially in light of the recent revelation that
the fraud is much bigger?
There's nothing we've seen so far in Satyam that makes me change my
mind. The scam has to do with the past. We bought it on an "as is,
where is" basis, taking into account the firm's clients, its employees
and future potential. The magnitude of the fraud is for all intents a
theoretical number.
Reader Comments
Mahindra Satyam represents a great buying opportunity at current
prices. The IT outsourcing movement is real. Satyam provides real
value. Patience will be needed but intrinsic value will be proven
[Read More]
Posted by apthatsme | 12/07/09 12:14 PM EST
I would rather buying real estate in California than invest in
companies from India yet. Reputation is very important in
international market. There were few scandals in the past. They came
from te [Read More]
Posted by Netteligent | 12/04/09 02:55 PM EST
http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/1214/companies-india-anand-mahindra-next-gorilla.html
chhotemianinshallah
By Jonathan Power, Published: Friday, 18 Dec 2009
What India wants India will get. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told
me a couple of years ago, India wants to overtake China whilst putting
its own runaway capitalism under tighter social control.
At the time he seemed downbeat about realising these goals. But as
India has emerged faster than China , from the great recession, and as
its huge anti poverty programmes begin to bite his pessimism seems
unwarranted. Maybe it was just caution about the revolution he has
wrought.
I first came to Kolkata 35 years ago. It was then literally a “black
hole.” I walked out of my hotel in the evening. Everywhere was dark.
The city could only afford minimal street lighting. The bodies of
families eating, defecating and sleeping were scattered along every
pavement.
The next morning I walked along the back lanes near the hotel. How
could I ever forget seeing one man in a yard with piles of used toilet
paper.
He was carefully tearing the unsoiled bits off the soiled bits,
presumably for some other use. The shanty towns sprawled everywhere
just as in Mumbai‘s ”Slumdog Millionaire” today.
I returned to Kolkata 30 years later. After nearly 30 years of
Communist rule it was a transformed city. The shanty towns had gone
and the poor had flats with sewerage and clean water. The families on
the pavement had all but disappeared although single men sleep here
and there.
The city is brightly lit, the streets cleaned everyday and the police
efficient with police boxes on every major intersection. The crime
rate remains slower than in any major city in the world.
Now undisturbed one can see clearly the heritage of Kolkata – its fine
18th and 19th century mansions, some nicely restored, on every street.
The Maidan, the world‘s largest city park, continues to be the great
lung of the city, where the rich and poor gather every Sunday to walk,
picnic and to play cricket.
No longer do poor peasants pour into the city. The great land reform
in the West Bengal countryside has given every peasant a living on the
own soil.
Of the states, West Bengal has the second most productive agriculture
in India . No wonder the Prime Minister told me that he wants the rest
of India to emulate West Bengal .
Investment, foreign and domestic, is pouring into the state. Already
its computer industry is beginning to snap at Bangalore’s heels.
Educational levels and health services have been dramatically
improved.
Amartya Sen graduated from the city‘s Presidency College, West Bengal
has produced seven Nobel prize winners and a disproportionate number
of the world‘s top economists.
This is India resurgent, now emulated, albeit on a lesser scale than
West Bengal , in many of its states.
India is well on its way to overtake China, but with a type of
development more coherent that China’s winner-take-all capitalism. As
one banker put it to me: “China was ahead because it had no rule of
law. But now India will go ahead because it has rule of law.” High
speed economic growth needs civic walls if society is not to crack
under the strain and its innards poured out onto the streets.
India has them – elections, human rights standards and courts. No one
goes to prison for their beliefs and contracts are enforced. China’s
civic walls barely exist.
On the world stage, India is showing its muscle. It persuaded
President George W. Bush to lift the prohibition on providing India
with enriched uranium and to drop its sanctions on supplying nuclear
materials.
Its nuclear armoury is now accepted as well protected and there has
been no proliferation of its technology. India is now pushing for the
charter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be revised next
year so that it is recognised as one of the six established nuclear
powers, which will give it added responsibilities. Its relationship
with China has improved beyond measure.
Its economic power puts it as one of the leading powers in the newly
constituted Group of 20 which now overshadows the G8.
India‘s future is written here in West Bengal, with its Communist
government which is in fact Social Democratic. Moreover, Congress will
likely win the next state election and at the centre, Congress and its
social democracy look like staying in power for a long time.
So India not only will continue with its Singh-devised economic
policies but with its burgeoning tax revenues will spend increasing
amounts on giving the poor incomes, jobs, health and educational
services. Within 10 years, India will have effectively banished the
worst poverty.
What India wants India will get. Within a decade India will be the
world‘s No. 1 economic power. And its social policies will be witness
to its success.
http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art20091218145740
chhotemianinshallah
K.P. NAYAR
Manmohan Singh, Barack Obama
Washington, Dec. 17: Barack Obama’s good wishes to Manmohan Singh for
2010 will not be accompanied by the New Year gift which the US
President had hoped to send to the Prime Minister in the form of a
nuclear deal, completed and ready to be put into operation.
Elements within the Obama administration opposed to the principles
behind the nuclear deal, although unable to stop it or roll it back,
have managed to delay a round of talks that would have led to the
finalisation of a bilateral agreement for the reprocessing of spent US
nuclear fuel by India, which is the next step towards operationalising
the controversial deal.
The delay is embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who had declared at
his news conference in Washington at the end of a state visit on
November 25 that “I am confident that in the next couple of weeks we
can sort out these things” and complete the deal.
National security adviser M.K. Narayanan had elaborated on the Prime
Minister’s remark in Port of Spain three days later and told reporters
that “it is almost done. The difficulty is in the legalese. It can
take up to a week, it could take a little longer.”
But foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said in New Delhi yesterday that
“the next round of talks has not been scheduled as yet. It will be
done shortly. We hope to finalise the agreement at the earliest.”
Following the public announcements of a deadline by the Prime Minister
and his national security adviser, it is understood that India
approached the US state department for immediate dates for a round of
talks to resolve sticking points which were holding up the agreement.
Aware that Obama was keen to fulfil his commitment to Singh that he
would stand by the nuclear deal finalised between the Prime Minister
and former US President George W. Bush “as it is” without any changes,
state department officials were at their sweet best in responding to
the Indian request.
But elements within the department, working in concert with others in
the administration and the US Congress who are firmly opposed to even
minor adjustments in the existing global non-proliferation regime,
decided to resort to that time-honoured tool of bureaucrats that is
used to thwart the will of their political bosses: delay, delay.
The Americans told their Indian interlocutors of the difficulty in
persuading negotiators from Washington to travel half way round the
globe to India for a nuclear dialogue around Christmas time, which is
sacred family time here.
And then, there are the New Year holidays soon after, they pleaded.
The Indians said “of course”, and showed sensitivity to the plight of
any hapless American who would be asked to be away from stateside
during the Christmas and New Year season.
Then they offered to send an Indian delegation to Washington, instead,
so that the Americans would not be inconvenienced. The real aim of the
Indian interlocutors, though, was to salvage the Prime Minister’s
public commitment in Washington that “in the next couple of weeks”,
the stalemate would be resolved.
“No”, the officials of the state department firmly told the Indians at
this stage. Nothing doing. We will see in the new year, was their
reply.
And to make sure that the Indians do not pile more pressure and twist
the arms of the Obama administration, these elements, which want to
delay the nuclear deal — if they cannot stop it — persuaded the state
department to take a public position on this issue, just as the Prime
Minister and his national security adviser did.
The state department spokesperson was made to say at his daily
briefing that “the US and India continue to negotiate reprocessing
arrangements and procedures as provided for by Article 6 (iii) of the
US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement”.
He then added that “the President (Obama) and Prime Minister Singh
discussed their mutual commitment to implementing the US-India Civil
Nuclear Cooperation Initiative. In this connection, the United States
is confident that the arrangements and procedures will be concluded
well in advance of the August 2010 deadline.”
In language that will be well understood by those familiar with the
clauses of the nuclear deal, the spokesperson was telling India:
“Don’t rush things. We have our time-table. We will do things at our
pace, in our time.” Yesterday, the foreign secretary conceded the US
argument. She said: “I am talking about the agreement on arrangements
and procedures — and it will certainly be within the timelines of the
bilateral agreement on civil nuclear energy. The agreement basically
provides for these talks to conclude within one year, basically before
July 2010.”
On February 3, then foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon wrote to the
US under secretary of state for political affairs, William Burns,
asking for reprocessing talks to start under the terms of the nuclear
deal.
The US had six months to start the talks and the state department took
its own time to do so, but stuck to the terms of the deal. Now, they
have time until August 2010 under the deal to complete the
negotiations and sign a reprocessing agreement.
By waiting until this deadline and not hurrying with the talks,
hardcore non-proliferationists within the Obama administration hope to
watch how India behaves in the run up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) review conference next year as part of their firm belief
that New Delhi ought to sign the NPT, although they are probably aware
that this will not happen.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091218/jsp/nation/story_11881114.jsp
bademiyansubhanallah
18 Dec 2009, 1513 hrs IST, PTI
COPENHAGEN: As negotiators struggled to finalise a draft for the
climate summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Chinese
counterpart Wen Jiabao on Friday held talks in a bid to consolidate
the position of developing countries ahead of the world leaders'
meeting in Copenhagen.
In his opening remarks during his meeting with Wen, Singh recalled
that the two countries have been cooperating at various fora,
including the G-20.
"We need to continue the cooperation," said the Prime Minister, who
arrived in the Danish capital late last night to take part in the high-
level segment of the 12-day UN climate talks.
Besides Singh and Wen, US President Barack Obama, British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy are among
the 110 world leaders who would attend the 15th Conference of Parties
(COP) on its final day today.
The developing countries have been resisting attempts by the rich
nations to set aside the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for industrialised
nations.
The 1997 protocol also has a strong compliance mechanism which
penalises the rich nations if they do not meet emission reduction
targets agreed upon by them.
Singh, during his talks with Wen, expressed the hope that they would
be able to take their strategic partnership further.
He said he believed that the importance of the Sino-India relations
was underlined by the fact that the two leaders were meeting again now
on the sidelines of COP, recalling that they had earlier met in
Thailand on the margins of the ASEAN summit in October.
Sid Harth
Venkatesan Vembu
Friday, December 18, 2009 10:57 IST Email
A recent study conducted by a US-based language analysis group
established that the top news story of the newsy, eventful decade gone
by was China's rise as a political and economic power. The study,
whose findings were based on a program that tracked words and phrases
used in the media, found that as a news story, China's ascendance
trumped other vastly consequential events of the decade like the 9/11
terrorist attacks and the Iraq war.
In an unconnected, recent opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research
Centre, a stunning 44% of Americans said they considered China to be
the world's leading economic power. Strikingly, only 27% of Americans
considered the US to be the pre-eminent economic power. That's a
remarkable change from February 2008 - before last year's wrenching
crisis on Wall Street - when 41% Americans said the US was the top
economic power, against just 30% who put China on that pedestal.
China has undoubtedly begun to 'colonise' the minds of people by
implanting itself as an economic and political force of considerable
weight. This effect is probably somewhat more pronounced in the US,
where a sense of despair appears to have gripped large sections of the
population consequent on the rapid unravelling of the bubbly-frothy
American dream since last year.
And viewed through that prism of despair, China, registering over 8%
GDP growth and gradually enhancing its profile on the world stage,
perhaps appears bigger and more powerful than it is. Nor does it
uplift the American spirit to see that even Statue of Liberty
souvenirs - which symbolise the shining 'beacon of liberty' spirit of
America - are mass-manufactured in Shenzhen!
Nothing succeeds like excess, of course, and the media's glowing and
breathless attention to China's ascendance is a narrative that
continually grows with each telling. Yet, such overly adulatory
commentary fails to do full justice to the complexity of the China
story if doesn't also reflect the numerous challenges that confront
China.
For there is, on the other side, a large and growing body of economic
and political thinkers who increasingly believe that China's mind-
numbing, too-good-to-be-true, supernormal economic growth of recent
decades may perhaps mask a house of cards that's as fragile as the
bubble economies that burst spectacularly last year.
For instance, in his most recent book The Corruption of Capitalism,
economist and analyst Richard Duncan notes that "the China boom",
which was kept alive by an export-led growth model that's now broken,
is over. And if the Chinese government attempts to prop up GDP growth
through vastly enhanced credit - as it did over the past year - it
could result in "complete economic collapse" in a few years, he
reckons. In any case, even if a crashlanding is averted, it would, he
adds, be a serious mistake to continue to extrapolate China's rapid
economic growth rates of the past decade into the future.
Likewise, legendary billionaire and fund manager James Chanos, who
heads the hedge fund Kynikos (which, in Greek, means 'cynic') is
putting his money where his mouth is and betting against China. Chanos
argues that China's GDP numbers are "massively inflated" by under-
depreciating a very shaky capital asset base. In his estimation,
demand in China is overinflated, and so he's looking to short-sell
commodities that are riding the current China investment boom - which
he expects will go bust at some point.
Chanos points to the irony that Western investors - who rile against
US government intervention in financial markets or in healthcare
reforms - are ready to embrace China, where 25 all-knowing members of
the Communist Party polit bureau micromanage the country's rapidly
growing economy.
Equally bearish analysts at Pivot Capital Management argue that
China's capital spending boom - which is propping up GDP growth this
year - cannot be sustained, and that chances of a "hard landing" are
increasing. They caution that the "coming slowdown in China" has a
potential to shake world markets in the same way that last year's
reversal of the US subprime and housing boom did.
This isn't the first time that prophesies of a "coming collapse" in
China have been made. Conservative Chinawatcher Gordon Chang authored
an eponymous book in which he outlined a bearish scenario under which
one-party Communist rule would unravel in China by the end of this
decade. That deadline is near at hand, but China's Communist rulers
retain an authoritarian grip on the levers of power, and superficially
face nowhere near a serious challenge to their authority as they did
during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Even so, there is a discernible turn in the tide of smart money
thinking about China. However implausible a hand landing scenario may
appear to those in awe of China's rise, the coming year promises to be
an exciting one for China watchers of all persuasions.
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_will-china-crashland_1324871
bademiyansubhanallah
Pooja Pillai
Posted: Saturday , Dec 19, 2009 at 1013 hrs
Mumbai:
It’s his first visit to India since he won the 2009 Nobel Prize for
Chemistry, but Professor Venkatraman Ramakrishnan walks down Marine
Drive without being mobbed. “I’m not a movie star,” he says, “movie
stars need the media and public attention, because they’ve built their
careers around a certain image. But for us scientists, it’s scarcely
about an image — it’s about the problems we like solving.” Remind him
of the rockstar-worthy applause his lecture in Stockholm garnered and
he modestly acknowledges, “It feels good.”
Prof. Ramakrishnan is in town to attend Sangat 2009, Mumbai’s annual
chamber music festival organised by the Mehli Mehta Music Foundation,
where his son Raman, a cellist, and his daughter-in-law Melissa
Reardon, a violist, are performing.
After spending two days in Mumbai, he will be heading to Chennai to
spend some time with family and also take in some Carnatic music
concerts, of which he’s an enthusiastic listener. “I really cherish
these opportunities to listen to Carnatic music live in India, because
there are so many exciting young performers I wouldn’t know about in
England.” However, a visit to Vadodara, where he grew up, is not on
this time. “I just don’t have the time.”
Work, however, does find its way into his schedule. “I am giving a
lecture at the Madras University in Chennai and the reason I’m doing
so is because they’d approached me before I won the Nobel. So you see,
it doesn’t have to do with my having won awards, they’re genuinely
interested in my work.” For a scientist, he stresses, a prize is a way
of rewarding a breakthrough, it’s not the culmination of his career.
“This breakthrough of ours has opened up new avenues to be explored.
There is a whole new set of questions that requires answers.”
On the subject of why Indians tend to do better when they go abroad,
Ramakrishnan says, “It’s not just applicable to the sciences. Former
President APJ Abdul Kalam pointed out that when Indians are in
Singapore, they’re careful not to litter or bribe a policeman, while
in their own country, they’re not quite so conscientious.” But he does
acknowledge that the West, and more specifically, the United States,
is more conducive to excellence because the society there is
meritocratic.
“India is getting there slowly. People are doing excellent work here
and some of their research gets published in the best science journals
around the world, but these are just a few instances. The US gets a
Nobel almost every year and the UK gets one every few years — India
will take much longer to arrive at that stage because it’s still not a
meritocracy.”
He attributes his own ability to do well in his chosen field to the
freedom of choice he had as a young student. “I’ve been lucky to have
teachers who were genuinely pleased when we solved a given problem,
they didn’t stress on cramming for exams.” He feels the reluctance of
students to opt for basic sciences is a troubling one and again here
he blames society’s attitude.
“Parents pressure their children into opting for careers in medicine
and engineering, believing that these will safeguard their future. But
there’s no joy there.” Ramakrishnan has had first hand experience of
this attitude and he narrates, “I’d just been admitted to medical
school and I won a Physics scholarship in the National Science Talent
Search Examination. I went to the office to get myself shifted to the
Physics course and the clerk there couldn’t believe I was voluntarily
opting out of medical school. He actually called the other clerks
around to share the joke.”
But, he says, there must be something going right with the Indian
education system. “Indian students do so well abroad. The foundations
laid here must be doing some good.”
4 Comments |
reservation
By: Rajesh | Saturday , 19 Dec '09 12:29:21 PM
India is a reservecracy. People who are good can not get admission to
good institutes because they are upper caste and poor. So the best
talent is wasted in the source itself. Government practice of
reservation is worse than South Africaion apartheid. Why thse so
called human rights are keeping quite
Nice Story
By: Bijan Arora | Saturday , 19 Dec '09 10:51:13 AM
Well done Pooja......with an interesting story.....and Indian
Express.....again to make some sense to journalism.
Meritocracy is not practiced here since Indian polity believes in
VOTE BANKS.
By: BG Subhash | Saturday , 19 Dec '09 10:36:46 AM
Thank you professor Venkatraman Ramakrishnan for pointing out that
"India still not a meritocratic society". Hope our MP`s/MLA`s read
what you have said! Professor please note that our world renowned
Democracy gives primacy to Reservation in the name of the upliftment
of disadvantaged which is truely what in India we call " VOTE BANKS"
which elects the lowly MP`s/MLA`s. Proof the pudding is in the eating
and the results are there for all to see!In states like Tamilnadu we
are told that reservation have gone to the extent of more than 90%. In
fact there is competition between various communities in India as who
is more backward. Recent example is between Meena & Gujjar communities
in Rajasthan who brought the rail/road transport to halt & caused huge
losses to State. There is a clamour to get the backward tag. This is
again to create vote banks. Indian Americans would have created
Trillions of $ of wealth for USA who went out to escape the
reservation politics.
meritocracy? NO , it is all politics in India
By: sraboni | Saturday , 19 Dec '09 13:01:45 PM
Thank you Subhash for pointing out the present situation in
India.Other news in Indian express says, 'Rajgopalcommission suggests
10% reservation for Muslims. Some one else suggested 5% earlier.
Unfortunately it is only out of100 the politicians has to decide the
reservations. In India there is no meritocracy, it is all politics,
everywhere it is only politics and the ultimate aim is "vote bank" and
to be in power by any means so to protect & supply money in Swiss
bank.People in India is allowing this to happen like blind folded they
vote for corrupt uneducated & well dressed bafoons year after year.
People should wake up,otherwise GOD BLESS INDIA!
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wait-for-a-nobel...-india-still-not-a-meritocracy/556366/0
chhotemianinshallah
CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA, TOI Crest
19 December 2009, 10:03am IST
There was a remarkable moment during the recent Obama-Singh meeting in
Washington that was barely captured by the cameras. As the two leaders
met for their one-on-one, Singh's principal assistant and note-taker
was his private secretary Jaideep Sarkar, a young gun of the Indian
Foreign Service. No surprise there. And aiding Obama? Anish Goel, a
senior staffer of the National Security Council and a rising star of
the US foreign service. Similarly, when the US side engaged New Delhi
on Af-Pak issues, the Indians found, much to their surprise, that the
Senior Defense Advisor to Richard Holbrooke, the Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan was Vikram Singh.
It's a sight that has become increasingly common in Washington -
Indian-Americans and Americans of East Indian origin walking the
corridors of power that were once an all-American domain, with an
occasional black or latino interlude. It's a development neither New
Delhi nor Washington want to read too much into - other than the fact
that the United States, like India, has the rare ability to absorb
foreigners, minorities, and immigrants into the mainstream without
much effort, an idea that is both foreign and anathema to countries
such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China.
"That's just the way this country is," an Indian-American who now
holds a senior position in the Obama administration said, recoiling at
the idea of a story on the new tribe of desi pols. "Just as people of
European, East Asian and African ancestry made their mark without a
splash, so too will people of Indian origin. To see that as anything
else will be a disservice to both India and America."
ARNIE TO ALBRIGHT
Indeed, no one makes much of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian origin
or Madeleine Albright's Czech lineage or Bill Richardson's Hispanic
background. The idea of America as a melting pot has advanced so much
that no one even considers the fact that Barack Obama is, strictly
speaking, ethnically, half Kenyan. In fact, Albright and
Schwarzenegger could never become the US President because they were
not born in the United States; Obama, who was born in the US, could,
and so can Louisiana-born Bobby Jindal, despite their more "foreign"
origins and looks.
But try telling all this to the Pakistanis, who are openly agitated at
what they see as the "Indian influence" in the US, or the Chinese, who
are less demonstrative but are equally leery. Last month, ahead of
Manmohan Singh's US visit, Pakistani ambassador to Washington Hussain
Haqqani produced 26 as the number of Indian-Americans serving in
Obama's administration. "Pakistan is wary of the Indo-US relationship,
which is robust and multifaceted," Haqqani told a meeting of US
lawmakers and staffers. "Facts like these naturally make Pakistan
nervous."
EDGE OVER CHINA
Twenty six might include support staff, interns etc, but it's a fact
that Obama's has more Indian-Americans in senior positions than any US
government - at least a dozen at last count. While there is some talk
of Obama's special regard for Indian-Americans (with overheated tales
of his passion for desi cuisine and familiarity with its culture), the
fact is there has been an incremental increase in the profile of
Indian-Americans in the administration, politics, and public life in
successive presidencies from Clinton to Bush to Obama, in keeping with
their rising numbers (2.5 million now) and growing success. The
Chinese are more numerous (3.2 million), but Indians, with their
familiarity with Democratic traditions and better facility with
English leading to better assimilation, seem to be doing well in the
political sphere.
While young professionals and pols of Indian-origin first began to dot
the Hill as interns and staffers to US lawmakers in the 1990s, the
otherwise negative noughties have seen them, in large numbers, take
giant positive strides into the administration, where many desi uber-
whizzes are now making and executing policies while their peer Indian-
Americans on the Hill oversee legislative activity. Many Indian-
American parents consider it a badge of honour to have kids serving as
interns on the Hill or in the White House.
PAK WORRIED
This has India's adversaries clearly worried. Time and again during
the nuclear deal, Pakistanis moaned about the "Indian lobby" on the
Hill doing the heavy-lifting and allying with the "Jewish lobby." Now,
they fear the influence will extend into the administration. They
should not have any reason to, though. Initial accounts of the spread
of the "Indian influence" in Washington DC appear misplaced and
exaggerated, with no sign that that first and second generation
Indians in the administration are in any way favourable to New Delhi.
For instance, Anish Goel, who received his PhD in chemical engineering
from MIT, has in no way influenced the outcome of the US-India nuclear
deal (still in limbo over the reprocessing issue) even though that is
his area of expertise and he initially served as the Desk officer
dealing with the subject in the State Department. Similarly, Vikram
Singh's influential role in Af-Pak policy making hasn't exactly
endeared his boss Richard Holbrooke to New Delhi, which has balked at
efforts to add "In" to Af-Pak. If anything, the fact that they are of
Indian origin may have made them even more self-conscious not to be
seen as favouring India. While many of the nearly one dozen Indian-
Americans currently in the senior and mid-levels of the administration
will go in and out of the government and the academic/thinktank
spheres in a revolving door system that is typically American, a few
will doubtless go on to occupy higher office. Some may even choose to
run for high office, as did Bobby Jindal, who was a policy wonk in the
healthcare area before running for Congress and then for governor of
Louisiana. In fact, standing outside the White House on a bleak, grey
morning in November when Singh arrived for his ceremonial state visit,
some scribes wondered how long it would be before a person of Indian-
origin occupied the Oval Office.
The idea is not all that far-fetched. Jindal himself came pretty close
to an office that is considered a heartbeat away from the Presidency
when John McCain shortlisted him as a Republican vice-presidential
running mate. Eventually, he decided to go with Sarah Palin, but many
American pundits think Jindal has a bright future in the Republican
Party, particularly if he delivers in Katrina-struck Louisiana state.
But while Jindal is one of few Indian-Americans in a Grand Old Party
that is generally seen as anti-immigrant, the Democratic Party is
teeming with them. Within months of coming to White House, Obama chose
a slew of Indian-Americans, many of them from his campaign, for
important jobs in his administration.
Two of his most significant choices were Aneesh Chopra to be the First
Chief Technology Officer and Vivek Kundra as the Federal Chief
Information Officer, appointments which endorsed the Indian presence
in the technology sector. But there were also appointments in Obama's
own specialty, law, a discipline where Indian-Americans are seen in
high numbers now. Among Obama's choices - Preet Bharara as the US
Attorney for New York, a job previously held by Rudy Giuliani and seen
as a stepping stone to a political career; Preeta Bansal, general
counsel and senior policy advisor in the Office of Management and
Budget; and Georgetown University Don Neal Katyal as principal deputy
solicitor general.
By far the most high-profile Indian-American appointment came just
ahead of Singh's visit when Obama named Rajiv Shah to head USAID, a
job that will include disbursing massive foreign aid to Pakistan,
which is already worried that the "Hinjews" are starting to control
the US purse-string. A whiz-kid who served as undersecretary for
research, education and economics and chief scientist in the
Agriculture Department before he was bumped up to the sub-cabinet
level appointment, Shah is among several desi science brains in the
government, a list that includes Arun Majumdar, Director of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the US Department of
Energy.
While many of Obama's political appointees are from the academia,
there is a separate stream of Indian-Americans which is coming up from
the grassroots in the Democratic Party. Since Obama himself was a
state legislator (from Illinois) before getting elected to the US
Senate and then making the presidential bid after only four years
there, he serves as an inspiration to lawmakers such as Satvir
Choudhury (Minnesota Senate), and Swati Dandekar, Jay Goyal and Raj
Goyle, all of whom are state level lawmakers and invitees to Obama's
state dinner banquet for Manmohan Singh.
RUNNING FOR CONGRESS
In fact, at least half dozen Indian-Americans are running for Congress
in the 2010 elections to the US House of Representatives, among them
Raj Goyle (D-Kansas), Manan Trivedi, (D- Pennsylvania), Ami Bera (D-
California), Ravi Sangisetty (DLousiana ), Reshma Sejauni (D-New York)
and Surya Yalamanchili (I-Ohio ). Only Goyle among them is said to
have a realistic chance to become the third US lawmaker of Indian
origin after Dalip Singh Saund and Bobby Jindal, but the fact that
most aspirants are in the 27-40 age group augurs well for the Indian-
American political future. Then there are others running for offices
ranging from Governor (Nikki Haley Randhawa in South Carolina) to
Attorney General (Kamala Harris in California) to State Comptroller
(Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois). Anyone could turn out to be a future
desi Obama.
There are Indian-Americans who are widely tipped as lateral entrants
at a future date - among them Fareed Zakaria, who has been spoken of
as a putative Secretary of State, and Indra Nooyi, whose experience as
CEO of Pepsi marks out her as a future appointee in the Department of
Commerce. So, to the question of a person of Indian-origin sitting
behind the "Resolute Desk" in the Oval Office of the White House…it
would appear the answer is not if, but when. And when it happens, the
Obama success in the US will be seen as the turning point in the
political history of the country.
TOP INDIANS IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
RAJIV SHAH
USAID administrator
RICHARD VERMA
Assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the state department
RO KHANNA
Deputy assistant secretary for domestic operations of the US and
Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration
VIVEK KUNDRA
Federal chief information officer
ANEESH CHOPRA
First chief technology officer
ARUN MAJUMDAR
Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy in the US
department of energy
PREET BHARARA
US attorney for Southern District of New York
NEAL KATYAL
Principal deputy solicitor general
RAJESH DE
Deputy assistant attorney general, US department of justice
SONAL SHAH
Deputy assistant to the President, director, Office of SICP, Domestic
Policy Council
FARAH PANDITH
US special representative to Muslim communities
ANJU BHARGAVA
Member, faith-based advisory council
RAJEN ANAND
Executive director, policy, USDA Center for Nutrition and Promotion
GRASSROOTS POLITICIANS TO WATCH
RAJ GOYLE
Democrat, Kansas
KAMALA HARRIS
District attorney, San Francisco
THOSE TO WATCH FROM BUSINESS AND MEDIA
INDRA NOOYI
CEO, PepsiCo
FAREED ZAKARIA
Editor of Newsweek International and host, CNN's GPS
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Desis-in-DC-/articleshow/5354920.cms
chhotemianinshallah
PTI 16 December 2009, 07:30pm IST
NEW YORK: Troubled financial services major AIG's chief Edward Liddy,
India-origin chief of debt-ridden Hartford Financial Services Ramani
Ayer and bailed out GM's head Rick Wagoner are among the Forbes' list
of 12 high profile CEOs who left their companies in 2009.
According to the US magazine's list of the top 12 CEO Departures of
2009, many of the American entities, whose chiefs' left their
companies this year, had received federal bailout funds at the peak of
financial crisis.
"Many of them ran companies that took federal aid. Others made a
fortune when they sold their companies. One may have mishandled data
that was tied to his company's most promising product," Forbes said
about the chief executives in the list.
Edward Liddy came out of retirement to lead troubled insurance giant
AIG in September 2008, then faced hostile questioning from Congress
over bonuses and had to step down.
Robert Benmosche, a former chief executive at MetLife Inc, replaced
Liddy in August.
Besides, Indian-origin Ayer left Hartford Financial Services in June
after serving for 12 years. The company had received USD 3.4 billion
in government aid.
"Ayer was responsible for the company's push into riskier versions of
variable annuities--life insurance contracts whose value fluctuates
with that of underlying securities."
bademiyansubhanallah
19 Dec 2009, 2027 hrs IST, ET Bureau
MUMBAI: Domestic equities are likely to be volatile in the January-
March quarter of 2010 on concerns the government may draw back fiscal
stimulus, Tips to pick potential stocks the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI) could absorb money supply and over bubbles in asset prices
worldwide, said Credit Suisse.
But investors should add exposure to shares in this period, according
to the investment bank, which remains confident of India’s growth
prospects.
Credit Suisse is optimistic about Indian equities in 2010. “2010 is
expected to be a positive year for Indian equities, though the move
will not be as linear as in 2009,” said the investment bank in a
report co-authored by analysts Toral Munshi and Chirag Shah.
The S&P Nifty has risen almost 98% from its lows on March 9, led by
share purchases by global investors worth over $15 billion. This sharp
jump has sparked fears about a bubble in global equity markets,
including India’s, because most global economies are still struggling
to come out of recession, while inflation is on the rise, partly
driven by surplus money.
With global policymakers indicating their intent to mop up some of the
money supply early next year on expectations of rising inflation,
investors are pondering to what extent will such moves impact investor
sentiment.
“While strong GDP and earnings growth parameters are supportive for
equities, the withdrawal of monetary and fiscal stimulus is likely to
weigh on investor sentiment in the first quarter,” the Credit Suisse
analysts said.
The investment bank expects RBI to raise the cash reserve ratio (CRR)
— the amount of cash banks need to deposit with the central bank — in
early 2010, followed by hike in repo rate — the rate at which banks
borrow from RBI — of 125 basis points during the year.
“The 125 basis points of tightening repo rate, though substantial,
should be viewed in the context of the 425 bps reduction from October
2008 to Tips to pick potential stocks April 2009,” the analysts said.
Investors will closely watch the government’s actions to drive
economic growth in 2010, according to Credit Suisse. Share sales of
public sector companies, deregulation of the oil sector and reforms in
the pension and insurance sectors are expected in 2010, the investment
bank said.
“This would send a positive signal to investors and can attract
significant capital flows into the country, a key requirement for
sustaining India’s growth momentum,” the analysts said.
“While the government’s intention itself was enough to drive momentum
in 2009, the conversion of intention to action will be the key driver
of investor sentiment in 2010,” according to them.
“On the other hand, inability or disappointment in implementing
reforms can lead to a P/E (price to earnings) derating,” they added.
bademiyansubhanallah
Indian Institute Of Idiots
Chetan Bhagat19 December 2009, 12:00am IST
I avoid writing columns on the Indian education system as it is not
good for my health. For days, my blood continues to boil, i have
insomnia and i feel like hurting someone real bad. The Indian
education system is a problem that can be fixed. It affects the
country's future, impacts almost every family, everyone knows about it
and it is commercially viable to fix it. Still, nothing happens
because of our great Indian culture of avoiding change at all costs.
And because change means sticking out your neck and that, ironically,
is something we are not taught to do.
Still, with a movie coming on the education system, which came about
because of a book i wrote nearly six years ago, it is important to
revisit the issues. Soon, all the media will talk about is the
anatomy, diet and romantic chemistry of the main actors. While that
makes insightful breakfast reading, it is also important to understand
the main problems with our education system that need to be fixed or,
rather, should have been fixed 10 years ago.
There are two main problems: one, the supply of good college seats
and, two, the actual course content and intent behind education.
The first issue is about the supply of A-grade institutions vs the
number of A-grade potential students. With one crore students taking
the class XII exam each year, the top 10 per cent, the high potential
population by any global standard, deserves a world-class institution.
That means we need 10 lakh good, A-grade, branded college seats per
year. Either the government provides them, or they work with private
participants to make it happen. Until that is done, the scramble for
seats will be worse than a peak hour Virar fast. No amount of well-
meant advice to parents to go easy on kids, telling children to not
take stress, will work. I'm sorry, if i have a child who i think is
bright, i will fight to make sure he has a good college. If the number
of seats is well below the required number, the fight is going to be
bloody and ugly. And that is what happens every year.
What makes me most curious is: why doesn't the government fix it? Real
estate and faculty are often the biggest requirements in creating a
university. The government has plenty of land. And any advertisement
for government teaching jobs gets phenomenal responses. After this,
there could be running costs. However, most parents are happy to pay
reasonable amounts for college. With coaching classes charging crazy
amounts, parents are already spending so much anyway. I understand
Indians send $7 billion (over Rs 30,000 crore) as outward remittance
for Indian students studying abroad. Part of that money would be
diverted inwards if good colleges were available here. The government
can actually make money if it runs universities, and add a lot more
value to the country than, say, by running the embarassing Air India
which flushes crores down the drain every day.
Why can't Delhi University replicate itself, at four times the size,
in the outskirts of Gurgaon? The existing professors will get more
senior responsibilities, new teachers will get jobs and the area will
develop. If we can have kilometre-long malls and statues that cost
hundreds of crores, why not a university that will pay for itself?
This is so obvious that the young generation will say: Duh!?
The education system's second problem: the course content itself. What
do we teach in school and college? And how much do you use it in daily
life later? Ask yourself, has the world changed in the last 20 years?
If yes, has our course content changed at the same pace? Has it even
changed at all? Who are the people changing our course materials? Do
they have real life corporate exposure?
I am not saying we study only to get a job (though many, many Indians
actually do it with that main intention). However, even in the 'quest
for knowledge' goal of education, our course materials fall short. We
emphasise sticking to the course, testing endlessly how well the
student has revised his lessons. We treat lessons as rules to be
adhered to, and the better you conform, the more likely you are to
score. I hated it personally, and i am sure millions do too but they
have no choice. Innovation, imagination and creativity crucial for the
country as well as more likely to bring the best out of any student
have no place in our education system. In fact, we actually ensure we
kill this spirit in the child as fast as possible. Because innovation
by definition means challenging the existing way, and that is just not
something good Indian kids who respect elders do.
The cycle perpetuates itself, and we continue to create a second-rate
society of followers rather than change-embracing leaders. I have hope
that the current generation will break this norm and start questioning
the great Indian way. I have hope that the current HRD minister will
acknowledge this problem and do something. I have hope that Indians
will start questioning any politician they meet on what they are doing
about the education system at every place possible. I have hope that
people will realise that making new states is less important than
making new state universities. Maybe i am right, maybe my hope is
justified and maybe i will live to see the change. Or maybe i've got
it all wrong, my optimism is misplaced and i am just, as they say, one
of the Idiots.
The writer is a best-selling novelist.
chhotemianinshallah
winner Ramakrishnan
PTI 20 December 2009, 01:49pm IST
MUMBAI: Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Indian-American scientist
Venkataraman Ramakrishnan says he is willing to help India if the
government asks for the same on some focussed research on his subject
but will not be "wasting" his time for a "ceremonial" project.
"The scientists in India are good and, therefore, if the Indian
government asks me to help them, it has to give me a convincing reason
for that. I am ready to help if it is focussed on research on the
subject I am working on," he said in an exclusive interview.
However, the Indian government has so far not approached him, said
Ramakrishnan who is on his first visit to India after winning the
Nobel prize.
"I have not been asked but I can tell you if it is something focussed
in my field where it is worthwhile, then I will consider. But if it is
something ceremonial where they want just a guy who has been awarded a
Nobel prize, then I won't do it. I have a lot of work to do and won't
be wasting my time on some ceremonial kind of things."
Asked if the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) is very serious, he
said "yes. But why do they need me as there are several Indians here
and they have to convince me why they need me.
"All these scientists working in Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research, Indian Institute of Science, Centre of Molecular Biology,
National Centre for Basic Science, how come none of them can do and if
DBT or the government can answer me this seriously, then I will
consider," he said.
Sid Harth
PTI Sunday, December 20, 2009 18:30 IST
New Delhi: The Indian Navy has foiled a piracy attempt in the Gulf of
Aden by stopping a suspected pirate skiff from taking over a merchant
vessel.
"Around 1730 hours on Saturday, Indian Naval Ship (INS) Godavari
received a distress call from a Cayman Island-registered vessel 'MV
Soderling Ace' about sighting a white skiff approaching her. Located
around two miles from the vessel, the ship immediately launched a
'Chetak' helicopter towards it," Navy officials said here.
After reaching the area, the 'Chetak' sighted the suspected white
skiff with around seven men on it, and fired warning shots, which made
the skiff stop there, they added.
After closing in and boarding the skiff, Navy troops did not find any
piracy triggers such as weapons and ladders on it.
"They must have dropped their weapons in the sea after seeing the Navy
chopper coming towards them," officials said.
After investigations, the navy released the seven suspected pirates
along with their boat as no weapons or other suspicious items were
found with them, they added.
Earlier this month, the Navy had thwarted an attempt by pirates to
hijack a US-owned tanker in the area off Somalia's coast. For more
than a year now, the Indian Navy has deployed its assets in the Gulf
of Aden from anti-piracy operations, and has escorted over 700
merchant vessels from 45 countries there during this period.
Meanwhile, after completing its stipulated tenure in the pirate-
infested gulf, the 'INS Godavari' will be heading back to India, and
will be replaced by another Godavari-class guided missile frigate,
'INS Ganga', officials said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_indian-navy-foils-piracy-attempt-in-gulf-of-aden_1325701
bademiyansubhanallah
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
Once again a “mischief-maker” is able to expose colleagues to
radiation doses at an Indian nuclear power plant.
The Kaiga Atomic Power Station, where 65 NPCIL employees were found to
have received radiation doses in excess of prescribed limits in
November.
ON April 17, 2004, three employees of the Waste Immobilisation Plant
(WIP) of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at Tarapur,
Maharashtra, were exposed to radiation doses when they used, at
different times, a particular chair in a room at the plant. Embedded
in a fold of the cushioned seat of the chair was a vial of liquid
waste containing caesium and strontium, both radioactive substances.
The vial should have been sent to a “counter” for “counting” its
radioactivity. Instead, it was found lodged in the chair. Top
officials of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) laid the blame for
the incident on “mischief” by a “disgruntled” WIP employee, who was
dismissed.
Tarapur, about 130 km from Mumbai, then had two nuclear power
reactors. (It has four now.) Liquid waste from these reactors is
stored in underground tanks. Liquid waste is categorised as high-level
and low-level. Solid waste is vitrified (converted into glass) and
stored in capsules.
Five and a half years later, on November 24, 2009, at the Kaiga Atomic
Power Station on the banks of the Kalinadi river in Karwar district of
Karnataka, bioassay tests of the urine samples of 65 employees working
in the first reactor building revealed that they had received
radiation in excess of the prescribed limits. They were all employees
of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), which designs,
builds and operates nuclear power reactors in the country. They had
drunk water mixed with tritiated heavy water from a water cooler kept
in the operating island of Unit-1. Tritiated heavy water is a
radioactive fluid in the heavy water. The three operating reactors at
Kaiga use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as both coolant and
moderator.
Two of the 65 employees received radiation doses above the annual
limit of three rem (or 30 millisieverts) set by the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board (AERB), the watchdog organisation that monitors
safety in nuclear installations in India.
A top DAE official blamed the incident on “an insider’s mischief”. He
said “an insider had mixed tritiated heavy water in the drinking water
kept in the cooler in the operating island of the reactor”.
S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director, NPCIL, also called the
incident “possibly an act of mischief”. He explained that there was
heavy water in the reactor’s moderator system and primary heat
transporter. During the reactor’s operation, a part of the deuterium
in the heavy water gets converted into tritium. (Deuterium and tritium
are isotopes of hydrogen.) While light water contains two atoms of
hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O), heavy water contains two atoms
of deuterium and one atom of oxygen (D2O). Tritium oxide, or super-
heavy water, contains two atoms of tritium and one atom of oxygen
(T2O). “Trained, qualified workers” took out vials of tritiated heavy
water from the sampling points in the reactor building to the chemical
laboratory (which, in this case, was situated outside the building)
for analysis, Jain explained. This is done every day. When urine
samples of 250 workers were tested on November 24, it came to light
that 65 of them had received tritium radiation. Investigation revealed
that water in the water cooler had been contaminated with tritiated
heavy water. “Preliminary inquiry does not reveal any violation of
operating procedures or radioactivity release or security breach,” he
said.
Jain was confident that since the “computerised access control system
has a record of all the personnel who have entered the operating
island”, it was only a matter of time before the mischief-maker would
be identified.
The DAE/NPCIL do not seem to have become wiser after the incident at
the WIP at Tarapur. No closed-circuit cameras have been installed in
the corridors/passages leading from the sampling points in the reactor
buildings to the chemical laboratories, which are generally situated
outside the reactor building.
With touching naivete and implicit faith in their staff, top NPCIL
officials explained away the absence of closed-circuit cameras. Their
unanimous argument was: “The workers are our staff. Their antecedents
were checked before they were appointed. So there is no need to
monitor every movement of a worker.” Besides, they argued, it was not
feasible to install cameras all over the nuclear power plant “from end
to end”, and that cameras had been installed in what they called
“strategic areas”, “sensitive spots” or “vital points”.
But all of them declined to reveal what were the “strategic areas” or
“sensitive spots” where closed-circuit cameras had been installed. An
AERB official frankly admitted: “The closed-circuit cameras have been
installed at strategic locations so that nothing is removed without
authorisation. But who would have thought a fellow would go out of his
mind and mix tritiated heavy water with drinking water?” One NPCIL
official said that the vial containing tritiated heavy water would not
be detected by radiation-monitoring counters if it was covered with a
piece of cloth.
A top DAE official said, “There are a large number of places where
closed-circuit cameras have been installed. There were no cameras here
because it was a corridor [in Unit-1 at Kaiga]. The cameras were not
installed then because the decision at that time was based on a
[particular] scenario. Now you have to factor in this scenario [of an
employee spiriting away the vial containing tritium and mixing it with
drinking water in the cooler].”
The AERB sent two of its officers to Kaiga. They concluded that a
drinking water cooler was the source of the tritium contamination. The
water tank of this cooler, like other water coolers, was kept locked.
“However,” said Om Pal Singh, AERB Secretary, in a press release, “it
appears that a mischief maker added a small quantity of tritiated
heavy water to the cooler, possibly from a heavy water sampling vial,
through its [cooler’s] overflow tube.”
Officials of NPCIL and the AERB also played down the gravity of the
ingestion of tritiated heavy water by the 65 employees. An “update” on
the incident from Jain on November 29 said: “Any contamination caused
by heavy water inside the human body is quickly flushed out through
natural biological processes like urination and perspiration. These
processes can be hastened through simple medication. The contamination
detected in this incident has been brought down quickly and one worker
is currently close to the limit specified by the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board.… No worker is hospitalised.”
Om Pal Singh argued that the “administration of diuretics accelerates
the process of removal of tritium from the human body by urination”
and said the personnel who ingested the tritiated heavy water were
referred to hospitals for the administration of diuretics.
But according to an article in Science and Democratic Action,
published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research,
United States, in its August 2009 issue: “As radioactive water,
tritium can cross the placenta, posing some risk of birth defects and
early pregnancy failures. Ingestion of tritiated water also increases
cancer risk.” These observations form part of the lead article,
“Radioactive Rivers and Rain: Routine Releases of Tritiated Water from
Nuclear Power Plants”, by Annie Makhijani and Arjun Makhijani. They
observed: “The problem of routine tritium emissions is, in our
opinion, underappreciated, especially because non-cancer foetal risks
are not yet part of the regulatory framework for radionuclide
contamination and because tritium releases constitute the largest
routine releases from nuclear power plants.”
Although the Kaiga incident came to light on November 24, it was not
before November 30 that the Kaiga station officials “formally”
requested the Mallapur police for an investigation. Notwithstanding
the NPCIL top brass’ confidence in the computerised access control
systems, biometrics and the list of 250 employees who work in Unit-1,
neither the State police nor the Central intelligence agencies had
zeroed in on the “mischief-maker” as of December 7.
Volume 26 - Issue 26 :: Dec. 19, 2009-Jan. 01, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100101262602900.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
Interview with Anil Kakodkar, who recently retired as Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission.
MOHAMMED YOUSUF
Anil Kakodkar: “Through strong linkages between Indian basic research
and Indian technology, we will be able to make India much stronger.”
ANIL KAKODKAR, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, and Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy, retired on November 30 after a marathon
45-year career in the DAE. His tenure included nine years as Chairman
of the AEC and Secretary of the DAE. He was earlier the Director of
the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at Trombay near Mumbai.
During his professional career, Kakodkar was primarily involved in the
research and development of nuclear reactors. He made pioneering
contributions to the development of many critical systems for the
indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), both the 220
megawatt electrical capacity and 540 MWe capacity reactors. These
systems helped India establish its self-reliance capability in nuclear
power reactors. He was among the chosen few involved in India’s first
nuclear test in May 1974 at Pokhran, Rajasthan. He played an important
role in the five nuclear tests conducted in May 1998, again at
Pokhran.
He is one of the architects of the Dhruva reactor at Trombay. This
reactor is based on a completely original concept and is one of the
most powerful reactor systems of its type. Kakodkar’s engineering
capability came to the fore again when he helped in the rehabilitation
of both the power reactors at the Madras Atomic Power Station at
Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, when they were on the verge of being written
off. He made significant contributions to the designing of the
futuristic 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), which will use
thorium as fuel. He drove a hard bargain with the United States before
India signed the 123 Agreement, and he was able to convince the
Nuclear Suppliers Group to relax its guidelines, which enabled India
to enter the nuclear mainstream. Frontline met him at his office in
Mumbai on November 23. Excerpts from the interview:
Tomorrow, the fifth reactor at Rawatbhatta in Rajasthan is reaching
first criticality. You are going there.
This reactor was ready for some time and waiting for fuel. It forms
part of the Separation Plan, and accordingly, we have fuelled this
reactor with imported fuel. So it is ready to start. Capacity addition
is always a good thing. This fuel is from Russia.
You have had a distinguished 45-year career in the DAE, capping it
with your retirement as Chairman of the AEC and Secretary of the DAE.
What was its most satisfying part? Was it getting India out of nuclear
isolation by convincing the Nuclear Suppliers Group to waive its
guidelines, or India signing the 123 Agreement with the U.S., or India
building its own 540 MWe PHWRs at Tarapur, or BARC building the
Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) for the nuclear-powered submarine
Arihant?
There are many important milestones that I was fortunate enough to
see. But the important thing for me is that we are a homogeneous lot
today, the entire DAE. There is a high degree of coherence in our
strategy to implement our programmes, and it looks to me that a
thousand minds working in coherence will be formidable. That is the
biggest satisfaction for me.
But what was the most challenging assignment of your career?
Luckily for me, I have been able to engage myself in new things, every
time something different from what I had done earlier. So everything
was a new challenge. Everything new has more excitement compared to
something which has gone by.
Can you give some examples?
For example, the Dhruva reactor is unique even conceptually. It is
completely Indian. Even today, Dhruva is the only reactor of its kind.
We began it as a concept and engineered it all the way through. In
PHWRs, I had a lot of opportunity to develop different components and
various systems. But decidedly, the 540 MWe reactors at Tarapur going
critical was a very important moment. The beginning of the
construction of the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor [PFBR] at Kalpakkam
was also important – it is not an event completed yet – but one had to
go through an assessment of where we were and the capability to do
things.
Of course, building the submarine reactor was an excitement in itself.
The nuclear tests – I was involved in both the 1974 and 1998 nuclear
tests – were challenging. The PHWRs, the opening of civil nuclear
cooperation… they are all unique in themselves, each one is different,
each one full of excitement. As I said, it is always the new challenge
which has more excitement than the old one. So for me, what is
important is that I got the opportunity to do new things every time.
Do you feel sad that the thorium-fuelled AHWR project did not take off
during your tenure? You told me in 2004 that the ground-breaking
ceremony for the AHWR would take place by the end of 2004. It is yet
to take place. Has the AHWR become a non-starter?
It is not a non-starter. I would have liked to see the AHWR
construction start before I laid down office. Nevertheless, the AHWR
will continue to remain an important development both from the Indian
and the global perspective. [The construction of] the AHWR will be an
important development whenever it takes place, and it will take place.
There is no doubt about it at all. It is just that for a new
development, you have to ensure that everything that should be taken
care of has been taken care of and in the process, you lose time. I
have no great excitement about when it takes place – during my time or
others’ time. But that it will happen one day is an important thing.
Can you give me an assessment of what you have been able to achieve
both as the Director of BARC and as the Chairman of the AEC?
I listed them just now. The important thing for me is that we have
been able to take bold decisions, which are right for making rapid
technological progress. There is the satisfaction, when you look back,
that these bold decisions were timely. It is these things that allow
you to move faster and even leapfrog.
What were those bold decisions?
V.V. KRISHNAN
An inside view of the research reactor Dhruva at BARC at Trombay.
“Dhruva is unique even conceptually. It is completely Indian.”
To begin with, we decided to adopt electron beam welding for the
Dhruva reactor. An electron beam welding machine for such a large
construction was unthinkable in those days. Even now, not many have
adopted it for such large constructions. We did it, and that was how
we were able to make that unique design.
There were several bold decisions we took in the context of the
submarine reactor, the Pressurised Water Reactor. I cannot give you
the details. We took technologically bold decisions in the repair of
the two units at the Madras Atomic Power Station. Conventional wisdom
would have led to writing these reactors off. There are many examples
like these. But the important thing is that we could pick up enough
courage and confidence to take these bold decisions and I am very
happy about it.
You had your doubts about the 123 Agreement with the U.S. You opposed
the U.S. demand that India put its breeder reactors under safeguards.
Later, you became a supporter of the agreement. Why did you change
tack?
The fact is that the energy requirements of our country are very
large. As I had mentioned several times at BARC, even with the
contributions you can get from different kinds of energy sources in
the most liberal fashion, you will find that there will be an energy
deficit in terms of availability. The only way now to meet this
deficit is to import energy.
It is clear that when you import energy in the form of fossil fuels,
you will have to keep importing that energy for all time to come. On
the other hand, if you import that energy in the form of uranium, you
can recycle the uranium used in the reactor because it contains a lot
of energy value. In fact, you get more and more energy out of the same
fuel. So it becomes an extremely valuable additionality to our
indigenous programme because we have a significant multiplier of
energy production on the basis of our three-stage programme. We have
only a limited quantity of uranium and we can set up only 10,000 MWe
of PHWRs using this uranium. But when you recycle this uranium and
adopt the three-stage strategy, you can go up to 200,000 MWe.
Likewise, whatever uranium we import, we can bring in a similar
multiplier on that uranium also if we have gone through the
development of the three-stage strategy.
So the opening of the civil nuclear cooperation not only brings in
that additionality but because of the domestic development of the
three-stage programme, we will be able to bring in a multiplier on the
imported uranium and bridge the shortage for the future. This is what
I call the move towards energy independence. For us to be able to do
that, the domestic programme must continue, the way it was planned
earlier. There should be no constraints on its implementation.
If there were to be constraints on that, I would have opposed the
whole thing. But we have been able to negotiate well, and people are
also convinced [about it]. So we are in a position to go ahead with
the civil nuclear cooperation without hindrance to our domestic
programme and bring in both additionality and energy independence in
the long term. So it was not either my being opposed to or supportive
of.… It is a pragmatic move forward which benefits the country.
The Prime Minister was in the U.S. on November 23. What exactly is the
sticking point with the U.S. on our reprocessing the spent fuel from
the reactors to be imported from that country? You told a delegation
of the U. S.-India Business Council in January 2009 that there would
be no reactor purchases from the U.S. without reprocessing rights. Has
the U.S. gone back on allowing India the right to reprocess the spent
fuel from the reactors that will be imported from that country?
No. The 123 Agreement gives us the upfront reprocessing consent
rights. It is a done thing. What the 123 also says is that we have to
negotiate and agree on “arrangements and procedures” [to do that].
What we are discussing now are the details of the “arrangements and
procedures”. This work is in progress. We have had a number of rounds
of discussions and we are making progress on that with the U.S. As far
as other countries are concerned, there is no issue on that.
You have told me that “If I want, I can reprocess the spent fuel from
[the existing American reactors at] Tarapur tomorrow”. Will you do
that?
We will do the reprocessing in accordance with our priorities.
Reprocessing the spent fuel from Tarapur is not the most important
priority at this moment. But what I stated was the legal position.
The Union Cabinet has approved the Nuclear Liability Bill, which, it
is said, will protect American companies from demands for compensation
if there are any accidents involving the American reactors to be built
in India. Why should we do that?
No. It is not a question of protecting the American companies or any
such thing. Our effort to develop the domestic nuclear liability
legislation, in fact, predates the start of the discussion on the
India-U.S. nuclear deal. We have gone through a lot of studies. We had
appointed external groups to look at the necessity or otherwise of
developing civil nuclear liability legislation and what form it should
take.
Now the issue is the following. In case of an unfortunate accident –
which is very unlikely but supposing it takes place – then we will
have to be able to compensate for the damage caused. Currently, all
the reactors belong to either the government or the Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Limited, which is a government company. So it is
a 100 per cent government activity. If the scale of compensation that
becomes necessary is very large, then we should be able to mobilise
the required funding. It is a kind of insurance. For that, there are
four different international instruments for mobilising the
compensation. So this group looked at the merits and demerits of
joining one of them and came to the conclusion that India’s best
choice would be to be part of the Convention on Supplementary
Compensation [CSC] because this allows, beyond the threshold, tapping
international funding for compensation.
Now the CSC requires domestic legislation which is consistent with the
provisions of the CSC. That is where our action to develop the
domestic legislation began. As India expands its nuclear programme,
with several business partners being a part of such a programme, it is
important that we have a proper nuclear liability regime, and this is
at the core of the development of such legislation.
India has to give an “Assurance 810 letter” to the U.S. that commits
it (India) to the non-transfer of U.S. nuclear technologies to third
countries. Without this letter, the U.S. Department of Energy may not
give licences to American companies to sell reactors to India. Why
should we give such a letter?
Whatever we do, we will do within the framework of the bilateral
agreement, which provides for assurances on the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy or non-diversion [of nuclear material]. It is
consistent with whatever we have agreed. After all, we are talking of
civil nuclear cooperation, is it not?
Now that locating the DAE’s India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) at
Singara in the Nilgiris district in Tamil Nadu has been ruled out,
where will it go from here?
This is a setback, I must admit. We will propose this problem to the
INO group to think about what to do. One important thing is the
urgency. It was planned to be a very important experiment. But it will
not remain important if time is lost because the world of science
would have moved on. So the INO group is looking at what to do.
How will you ensure the strategic component of India’s nuclear
programme 15 years down the line? You had stressed earlier that you
would not allow the 123 Agreement to compromise India’s strategic
programme.
First of all, in our agreements with different countries, we have
built in enough protection. There is a legal part of it. In technical
terms, we are looking at it as a multiplier of the three-stage
programme, even on the imported part. This, in turn, will mean that
you cannot build the multiplier if you have not mastered the fast
breeder reactor technology or the thorium technology. That thrust has
to be continuous. Our ambition is not just to expand our nuclear power
generation capacity through imports, which is a short-term
requirement. The long-term requirement is to make India energy
independent. That can happen only through the full development of our
three-stage programme. That action remains undiluted because it is
necessary for multiplying both the domestic and the imported
programme. So our strategic independence is guaranteed.
During your tenure as AEC Chairman, there were landmarks such as the
50th year of the DAE, the 50th year of BARC and Homi Bhabha’s birth
centenary. Which was closest to your heart? Did you use them
adequately to project the DAE’s achievements?
They are all important. I used them more for introspection, to send
out messages internally in terms of understanding our own legacy, for
recommitting ourselves to the goals of the DAE, to look at strategies
where we can do better than what we have been doing in the past. All
these events have helped us to consolidate our position and develop
greater clarity in our strategy. That is how I look at these things.
What was the most frustrating part of your career? Was it when you
could not exploit the natural uranium in Meghalaya because of
opposition?
I am still optimistic that we will exploit all the uranium deposits in
the country, including in Meghalaya, for nuclear energy production.
But obviously, it is a difficult exercise – taking people along, which
we will do because after all everything is in the country’s interest.
As long as everybody understands that, I am sure they will cooperate.
I have no doubt about that. There are delays, of course. I would have
been happier if it [mining of natural uranium in Meghalaya] had
happened earlier. But I remain optimistic.
Would you like to say something about the recent controversy over the
yield of the thermonuclear device that was tested in 1998?
That controversy was unnecessary. We said earlier and we are saying
now, after this controversy erupted, and we have given a lot of
information in the public domain [that we got the yield we wanted from
the thermonuclear device]. Since you have asked me this question, let
me again state that the yield of the tests done at Pokhran in 1998
have been verified by independent methods. These independent methods
have been used by diverse groups, and we get the same answer,
confirming that the desired yield [of the thermonuclear device] was
achieved. So, there is no issue whatsoever.
What lies ahead for the DAE?
We have to concentrate on our continuous search for technological
advancement. That should remain the key to our progress. Now I look
forward to such technological achievements on the basis of Indian
basic research. Through strong linkages between Indian basic research
and Indian technology, we will be able to make India much stronger.
You are a workaholic. You work 18 hours a day. So what is your next
assignment?
No problem. I can also sleep 18 hours a day!
You have survived on two to four hours of sleep a day.
I can survive on two hours of work! (Laughter)
You said in Kolkata recently that if the people of Haripur in West
Bengal were opposed to setting up a nuclear power project there, then
“we will not go there....”
No. The question [that was posed to me] was that the people were
opposed to the project. What I said was: “As a first step, we have to
take the people into confidence. We have to tell the people that
nuclear reactors will bring benefits and not create any harm. I hope I
will be successful in doing so. But we do not want to do anything
against the wishes of the people.”
Volume 26 - Issue 26 :: Dec. 19, 2009-Jan. 01, 2010
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20100101262604100.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Last Updated: Dec 22, 2009
NEW DELHI (BNS): India –Russia rediscovered their defence cooperation
in the year 2009. Many defence deals stepped into progress, which is
beneficial for both the countries at global front.
Both countries share multi-billion dollar lucrative arms market which
will further increase this month as India will buy more nuclear
reactors from Russia.
This year top Indian powers visited Russia, President Pratibha Patil
in September followed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in December to
concrete the association between the two nations after the New Delhi's
pro-US tilt.
India has given a green signal to remain Russia as its key strategic
partner after signing an umbrella civilian nuclear deal and inter-
governmental agreement by another 10 years till 2020, as said by PMO
sources.
Prime Minister Singh attended the summits of BRIC and Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation in Yekaterinburg and gave a signal of special
importance India attaches to its relations with Russia.
According to Tatiana Shaumyan, Director of Centre of Indian Studies of
the Oriental Institute of the Russian Science Academy, “The Kremlin
did not fail to notice Singh's gesture, which to a great extent
dispersed the 'India falling into the lap of Americans notion widely
subscribed in Russia”.
Delay in the delivery of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov was described
by President Dmitry Medvedev as the 'sole irritant' in Indo-Russian
relations.
An ambitious target of USD 20 billion bilateral trade by 2015 double
the USD 10 billion target is set for 2010 between the countries at
‘The Indo-Russian CEO's Council meeting’ in the presence of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh.
"Strengthening the strategic partnership with India remains one of the
key priorities of Russia's foreign policy. This to full extent applies
to interaction on the global arena, as well as to the development of
multi-faceted economic relations," Putin said at Indo-Russian CEO's
Council meet.
Russian President Valdimir Putin urges to bring about 'qualitative'
changes in the bilateral economic ties between the two nations. His
visit is scheduled for 2010 on the invitation of Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh.
"We see, that cooperation with India has acquired real anti-crisis
stability, it is not afraid of sharp fluctuations in the global
economic conjuncture. Now our task is to move further, activate the
whole arsenal of opportunities for the diversification of Russian-
Indian contacts," Putin declared.
The 'Year of India in Russia' was also celebrated in 2009 after the
success of the 'Year of Russia in India' in 2008.
http://www.brahmand.com/news/India-Russia-long-standing-ties--in-2009/2769/1/10.html
bademiyansubhanallah
New Delhi, Dec 22
The Rajya Sabha Tuesday witnessed the rare site of Congress ministers
and MPs applauding a suggestion by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
member on improving the country's civil defence preparedness.
"You have two billion eyes in this country. Involve them in your civil
defence measures," BJP's Anil Madhav Dave said while participating in
the debate on the civil defence bill which has been passed by the Lok
Sabha.
"Involve panchayats in the effort," he said, adding that in Madhya
Pradesh school children in the age group of six to 12 years were being
taught the basics of security and civil defence.
"These children are at an impressionable age when they can
differentiate between right and wrong," he said, urging the government
to involve all sections of societies in civil defence.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram, Information and Broadcasting Minister
Ambika Soni and a number of congress MPs vigorously thumped their
desks as Dave concluded his maiden speech as a Rajya Sabha member.
Last updated on Dec 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm IST--IANS
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a102096.html
chhotemianinshallah
Indrani Bagchi, TOI Crest 26 December 2009, 05:14am IST
Success can be a mixed blessing. It brings money, power and glory; but
it also brings with it envy if not enmity, scrutiny, and the burden of
expectation. Relationships change; they are often rooted less in
idealism , more in opportunism. You tend to walk differently, talk
differently, even smile differently. There's a danger of often-
unarticulated tensions subtly but significantly redefining old
friendships. Your new friends, you cannot be sure of - will they stand
by you when the chips are down? As for those you do not trust, those
who you do not believe have your best interests at heart, you tend to
tread gently around them, especially if they're more powerful than
you; meanwhile, you wonder if you should seek a powerful ally. Life is
less black-and-white , and a lot less constant . The old certainties
are replaced by new, complex variables. How you negotiate the
maelstrom of change will decide whether you get to play in the
Champions League, or in the Europa League.
And so it is with India. The world was once an easier, more familiar
place. Through the Cold War years, India rarely, if ever, strayed from
its basic foreign policy template: Non-alignment . It had few
interests (beyond its timeless favourites, Kashmir and Pakistan), and
even fewer choices. As a French diplomat said, "We used to refer to
India as the 'porcupine' . You stayed in the cave and ventured out
occasionally. If anyone hissed 'Kashmir' , the prickles would be out
and you would scurry back into your cave. You are now coming out, but
slowly."
After two decades of economic growth, India finds itself , willy-
nilly , in the vortex of dizzying change. Its interests have grown in
many new directions, too numerous to count - driven in part by its
recently-acquired status as an emerging superpower. The game has
become more complex: if India's earlier geo-political manoeuvres were
akin to checkers, they now resemble poker where the hand keeps
changing, the stakes are higher, and it's absolutely essential to
think several moves ahead so as not to lag behind the competition.
Does India have what it takes to play the new game? As the first
"noughties" decade of the 21st century draws to an end, India feels
less secure, even as it's being called upon to make deft strategic
decisions in a rapidly-morphing world it is plainly illequipped for.
As a top policymaker observed, "We are entering an uncertain phase
where multiple crises are coming at us, intersecting and reinforcing
each other." This means India's friends and enemies change with each
new point of departure. Its geopolitical choices, therefore , are no
longer binary. John Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I
change my mind" - and that could well be India's new mantra.
In the early years of this decade, the external environment seemed
tailor-made for India. Sure, China was rising, Pakistan was
Talibanising and sending terrorists into India. But India, with an
economy growing at a steady clip, found in George Bush's US a
superpower that made it a declared objective to give India a leg-up in
the global power stakes. The resultant nuclear deal proved to be a
strategic game-changer for India.
By the winter of 2008, the world had changed yet again, and India
found itself confronting a changed global matrix and new strategic
challenges. These will test the resilience of not only Indian foreign
policy, but the nature of the Indian state itself. The coming
challenges are fundamentally different from the past, because the old
templates of dealing with them no longer apply.
CHANGING PAK THREAT
For example, terrorism from Pakistan presents the most obvious
security threat. But after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan's internal
unravelling and the Af-Pak challenge, India cannot rely on old
solutions. There is no Kashmir, or mediation to worry about. It could
be the unthinkable - a jihadist takeover in Pakistan? State failure?
India restricted contacts with Pakistan and the only time Manmohan
Singh attempted yet another breakthrough in Sharm-el-Sheikh , he was
beaten back by the Baluchistan bug. And now he has no one to talk to.
On the terror front, as Bruce Riedel of Brookings Institution
observes, "Pakistan is in the midst of a civil war between its
jihadist Frankenstein and a weak civilian government. Yet the army
remains unwilling to crack down on some of the most dangerous elements
of the jihadi syndicate like LeT. And New Delhi has little or no
influence on its neighbour's descent into chaos." The Islamist jihadi
threat has metastasised, spreading from the badlands of NWFPFATA
(North West Frontier Province-Federally Administered Tribal Areas)
into southern and eastern Punjab and comprising an al-Qaida core,
together with Taliban and Pakistani jihadi groups that are flush with
funds from drugs and Islamist organisations. How India deals with this
challenge will determine its own future trajectory.
AFTER THE SURGE
In Afghanistan, India faces another test as all predictions of Obama's
"surge" are dire. If the US holds itself to a deadline, an outcome the
Taliban/al-Qaida has worked hard for, India will need serious hedging
strategies to maintain its presence and influence in Afghanistan while
minimising human casualties. Bill Roggio, terrorism analyst, says, "If
the US draws down its presence before the Haqqanis, Hafiz Gul Bahadur
and a host of Taliban groups and their havens in Pakistan are not
dismantled, then you'll see a resurgence of activity in Pakistan."
India's challenges will be further complicated if, as many believe,
China steps into the breach after a US exit. China is currently in
wait-and-watch mode, but Mohan Malik, professor of Asian security at
the Asia-Pacific Centre for Security Studies, says, "Beijing will
offer full support to Pakistan in installing a pro-Islamabad regime
that rolls back Indian influence and promotes and protects Chinese and
Pakistani foreign policy interests in the region." Should India
jettison its held beliefs and offer to train the Afghan army to help
out NATO? Or should it retreat? It's already spooked enough to reduce
its development footprint in Afghanistan, and isn't embarking on any
new infrastructure projects there.
DRAGON AIN'T HIDING ANYMORE
China is perhaps the single largest challenge that India faces in the
world, and it's way more than border intrusions that India will have
to deal with. Notwithstanding the apparent camaraderie in Copenhagen
this week and "heart-warming" chats with Manmohan Singh, the new
superpower and the wannabe superpower will inevitably clash, because
their strategic cultures are at odds. Sumit Ganguly , professor of
political science at University of Indiana , observes, "China
considers India its only viable peer competitor, a pesky rival, you
could say." India needs to adapt in order to manage the inevitable
friction.
Mohan Malik goes further. "For India, the 'decade of living
dangerously under China's shadow' begins in 2010. Beijing's assessment
of the US as overextended militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
weakened economically following the financial crisis, has imbued
Chinese policymakers with the confidence to be more assertive on the
international stage in ways that are inconsistent with Indian
interests."
Ashley Tellis, strategic expert at Carnegie Endowment, wonders, "Can
India develop the instruments and the coalition partnerships required
to meet this challenge at a time when many other states
internationally will be reluctant to confront China for various
reasons?"
Indian strategy, unlike China or the US, has rarely been outcome-
oriented or solution-minded . In the Chinese context, India could play
the balance-of-power game, but remains mired in tactical nitty-
gritty . Other countries in the region are also looking for a
counterbalance to China. India's challenge would be to step up to the
table. For instance, the India-Asean freetrade agreement is perhaps
the best instrument India has for countering China's looming shadow
over south east Asia. Yet India got waylaid by narrow industry
interests - ending up with an FTA that was years too late, and left
many Asian states scratching their heads. This week, India should be
feting the new Japanese PM Yukio Hatoyama, because Japan and India
have similar strategic interests. Japan is making one of its biggest
strategic investments in India (an industrial corridor at a cost of
$90 billion). Japan is vital to India's interests, yet New Delhi is
still to put its heart and soul into the deal, which could prove to
become another game-changing investment, helping India leapfrog in
manufacturing.
In its neighbourhood (China has 16 countries compared to India's six),
China has been known to be remarkably generous in negotiations,
particularly with smaller countries - in marked contrast to the
hardball it plays with India. In the process, it builds a sphere of
influence. India, say exasperated senior officials , continues to be
hung up on the process, not the outcome. Even with tiny countries like
Bangladesh and Nepal, India always wants to "win the transaction"
rather than be the generous regional power. This leaves India's
neighbours insecure, suspicious, or plain pissed-off - and limits its
sphere of influence. For instance , India could have easily pre-empted
the now infamous Hambantota port in Sri Lanka dropping into China's
lap - had it not passed up the initial offer.
China, on the other hand, leaves no room for ego or emotion in its
global strategy. For instance, unlike India's intangible
"civilizational links" with Iran, China has very real economic and
strategic connections. Yet, China had no qualms in using them as a
lever with the US to order curbs on Iran by co-sponsoring a resolution
against Teheran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
November. India, on the other hand, went through severe heartburn in
2005 when it first voted against Iran. You would have thought it would
be easier by 2009. But no - in November , when the International
Atomic Energy Agency referred the Iran dossier to the UN Security
Council yet again, India suffered similar pangs. Its vote in the IAEA
was a foregone conclusion, but by dithering until a last-minute phone
call from the US national security adviser, it came across as being
unneccesarily difficult. A seat on the Security Council would require
New Delhi to make tough choices every day of the week. The indigestion
might kill us. Says Ashley Tellis, "India needs to develop a stable
vision for its partnership with the US - which will be essential for
dealing with a range of problems - and implement that vision without
it being subject to the vicissitudes of domestic politics."
POST-MELTDOWN WORLD ORDER
The global financial crisis started a contagion that - at least in the
short term - has put the US on a path of decline. As Fareed Zakaria
wrote, "On every dimension other than military power - industrial,
financial, social, cultural - the distribution of power is shifting,
moving away from US dominance." Simultaneously, China's position on
the financial seesaw has turbocharged its status from "rising" to
"dominating" .
For a multipolarity-seeking India, this is the worst of outcomes,
because there's a fundamental clash of interests with the new global
leader. India's best bet seems to lie with the US. While it remains
the favourite bugbear of the Indian Left-leaning elite, New Delhi has
over the years moved much closer strategically to the US. In the Bush
years, this was a winning combination. Obama is a different kettle of
fish, and the fact that China is, by far, America's biggest creditor
makes him naturally deferential to Beijing. The prospect that the
balance of world power might shift from Washington to Beijing is
spooking our foreign policymakers; they would rather the sun didn't
set on American power.
While this line of thought is openly articulated in the top-levels of
government, there is little that the government actually does about
it. So you need to draw Obama's attention to India - there are many
sweeteners India can offer, particularly in defence acquisitions and
space cooperation. The big powers use such instruments routinely
without getting overtly moralistic about it. By the time India
actually gets to make a decision, the opportunity to cash in on them
has often passed. Strategic affairs analyst K Subrahmanyam believes
India should help the US get back on its feet by working together in
technology where the US is still generations ahead of China.
Manmohan Singh is perhaps one of the few who understands this. It was
no coincidence that we saw the extraordinary spectacle of the Indian
PM talking up the US economy in Washington, when he said he believed
the US economy would bounce back and there really wasn't an
alternative to the dollar.
As a matter of fact, Singh - and Pranab Mukherjee - are the two people
in this government with a strategic vision. In September, when the
Dalai Lama's proposed visit to Tawang came up, the view from the
foreign minister S M Krishna and the PMO was the same: If Obama
avoided meeting the Dalai Lama, why should India stick its neck out
and court China's displeasure ? Singh and Mukherjee recognised the
implications of stopping the Lama. They ordered the visit to go ahead.
Ultimately, of course, the national security establishment recognises
that India's ability to deal with these never-before challenges
depends on expanding economic growth, a stable domestic situation and
peace along its periphery. Over the years India has also accumulated
some international clout, and should be able to leverage it to its
advantage.
Where India falls short is its ability to anticipate challenges, game
out scenarios and plan strategic moves, because its infrastructure is
severely lacking despite some of the finest minds in the corridors of
power. China, US and even Pakistan do it better. Singh has personally
rued the lack of a strategic culture in India, but only now is this
proving to be an obstacle. "Part of being strategically mature is to
be able to pursue multiple, often contradictory goals. We are not
there yet," says a top official. According to Ganguly, India needs to
dispense with the past to fashion a strategic doctrine. "It must
engage in some historical amnesia," he says.
In 2011, India will pitch to become a non-permanent member of the UN
Security Council. The last time India tried, in 1996, Japan pipped us
to the post with NAM refusing to support New Delhi's bid. Will it be
able to swing it this time around?
This might sound like a clichéd conclusion, but it is a fact that the
coming decade will be critical to India's growth as a global power.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-to-play-the-great-new-game-/articleshow/5380549.cms
Sid Harth
AMIT ROY
Singh at the G20 meet in London
London, Dec. 27: Manmohan Singh may come to be seen as “the great
politician of our age”, according to an end of decade review which
appears today in The Sunday Times.
The article by Bryan Appleyard, who pens weighty “think pieces” for
the paper, confirms the Indian Prime Minister’s status as “a
thoroughly good egg”, to use the kind of English slang of which P.G.
Wodehouse, for one, would probably approve.
Singh has collected honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge.
The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, always appears genuinely
pleased to meet his “old friend” on occasions as disparate as the G20
summit in London and the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in
Trinidad and Tobago.
While some of the acclaim heaped on Singh results from the desire of
others to forge closer links with India during a period when the
country is seen as being on the rise, both economically and
politically, at least, a portion of the praise is probably because of
the man himself.
The British media, which practically ignored Pratibha Patil’s state
visit on its own doorstep in October, covered President Barack Obama’s
state banquet at the White House for the visiting Indian Prime
Minister not as a politically significant development but more as a
celebrity event.
Indira Gandhi, in marked contrast from the old days, always felt she
was given a rough ride by the British press, which did not get any
friendlier when she declared a state of emergency in 1975. But even
before that, when she was facing a crisis not of her own creation with
the looming civil war in East Pakistan in 1971, she received neither
sympathy nor understanding in Washington.
Sections of the Sikh population in the UK felt her son, Rajiv Gandhi,
was involved in events leading to the storming of the Golden Temple in
Amritsar, with the result he received mixed reviews from the British
media.
Prime Ministers since then have aroused no great feelings one way or
the other though Atal Bihari Vajpayee was recognised as being
personally a decent man even though questions were being asked about
the BJP’s attitude towards Muslims. Before him, Narasimha Rao got
credit for opening India to the global economy.
The recession has made “thinking people” in the west aware that power
is shifting to the east. While China is considered as the dominant
economic power, more and more in the West are attracted by “the idea
of India”.
In a recent editorial, the Guardian observed: “India is more than a
country. It is also an idea, expressed by Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar.
As India grows in regional importance, the challenge will be to
express that idea clearly and attractively to others.”
When Singh was re-elected Prime Minister in May, Brown’s message of
congratulation was not entirely routine.
“I have sent a message of congratulation — I believe it will be on
behalf of the whole House (of Commons) — to Prime Minister Singh, who
is very respected not only in the region but throughout the world,” he
said.
In 2005, when Oxford, which had once also honoured Mrs Gandhi (but not
Margaret Thatcher or Zulfikar Ali Bhutto), was conferring an honorary
Doctor of Civil Law on Singh, The Scotsman newspaper noted that the
leader of the world’s largest democracy was “an economist credited
with crafting India’s economic liberalisation policies during his
tenure at the country’s finance ministry”.
As the British satirical magazine Private Eye would say, Singh is now
in danger of becoming “a legend in his own lunchtime”.
Appleyard writes: “As we wondered, the slow, quiet shift of power to
the East continued. Led by the man who may come to be seen as the
great politician of our age, Manmohan Singh, India rose steadily in
influence and authority through the Noughties. China, meanwhile,
continued to grow, buying up dollars as it did so. Now the debt-crazed
mall rats of America are kept shopping only by the acquiescence of the
Chinese Communist party.”
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091228/jsp/nation/story_11915199.jsp
Sid Harth
Columns
2009: another tipping point for India?Looking back at 2009, it would
seem, taking a long view of the future, that the country is, 25 years
later, at yet another watershed; a string of events and initiatives
undertaken years ago came to a head in the current year
Capital Calculus | Anil Padmanabhan
With the benefit of hindsight, one can safely hazard that 1984 was the
tipping point of India’s modern political and economic history. It saw
the successful transition of political power in the country’s oldest
party to the next generation under the most testing circumstances. The
new order that took charge of the country’s policymaking machinery
then accelerated the discourse on economic liberalization and set the
stage for the big burst in 1991. In fact, Outlook magazine devoted its
issue of 19 October to brilliantly detail the reasons why it was the
year that changed India.
Looking back at 2009, it would seem, taking a long view of the future,
that the country is, 25 years later, at yet another watershed; a
string of events and initiatives undertaken years ago came to a head
in the current year. To be sure, whether or not 2009 does turn out to
be a tipping point would largely depend upon how India seizes the
opportunity at hand even as it quells the challenges. There are
several reasons to justify the claim that 2009 has all the portents.
First, it marks the beginning of a new political era. L.K. Advani
joined Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the top leadership of the Bharatiya
Janata Party exited; the general secretary of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist), Prakash Karat, virtually signed off his stint at the
helm after being part of a resolution that caps the tenure to a
maximum of two terms. Most importantly, it was the anointment of Rahul
Gandhi as the leader-in-waiting after he led the Congress party to an
unexpected 200-plus seats win in the 15th general election. With the
Opposition in total disarray, it is not clear whether it is Gandhi’s
Midas touch alone that has endured as the Congress party has gained
with every electoral show of strength ever since.
Second, it also marks the beginning of the transition to smaller
states; Telangana is unlikely to be the last. Political expediency is
nudging Mayawati to press for a further division of Uttar Pradesh and
elsewhere activism is generating similar momentum. This need not be a
bad thing, as some commentators have pointed out—it would, for one,
lead to a greater political representation of diverse regions in
India.
Third, the year was the first evidence of India growing up to sup with
the “big boys”, as it were. What was initially a perception has turned
out to be a fact: At the inconclusive climate change negotiations in
Copenhagen, India turned its back on a constituency—represented by the
developing nations that come under the bloc of Group of 77 countries—
that it has nurtured over the last six decades and joined hands with
the richer nations. This did not happen overnight and was in the
making over the last few years. But it got the impetus in UPA 2.0, and
happened, coincidentally, at a time when the ruling world economic
order suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression and when
China was leaving its singular footprint on global polity.
Fourth, the year saw the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, or
UPA, formally setting the stage for two crucial pieces of tax reform
in the country. While the direct tax code would, among other things,
freeze rates over the medium term and simplify laws—removing the
arbitrariness of the revenue collection machinery—the transition to a
uniform single goods and services tax regime will not only lead to a
lower tax incidence (and hopefully lower prices for consumers such as
you and me), but most importantly economically unify the country as
never before. The benefits of a common market are self-evident in the
economic success of the European Union; at present, given the myriad
tax regimes, at times the movement of goods across states is the
equivalent of that across countries. And of course, the economic glue
would work to counter any political efforts to secede.
It is apparent, then, that India is poised at a critical crossroad.
The final outcome will be an obvious net of the opportunities and
challenges. The latter will consist of managing the external and
internal pressures—including the need to evolve a development strategy
that would be more inclusive to address growing aspirations as well as
eradicating poverty among 500 million Indians.
Time will tell whether the rear-view mirror of history did indeed flag
2009 as yet another turning point.
Anil Padmanabhan is a deputy managing editor of Mint and writes every
week on the intersection of politics and economics. Comments are
welcome at capital...@livemint.com
http://www.livemint.com/2009/12/27214747/2009-another-tipping-point-fo.html
Sid Harth
Columns
The baffling silence of the massesWhile food inflation has been
burning a hole in everybody’s household budget but it’s not
translating into some kind of collective fury. The middle class is
strangely quiet
Capital Calculus | Anil Padmanabhan
On 27 November, Mint ran an infographic on its front page, reporting
that the annual food price inflation had touched an 11-year high at
15.58% for the week ended 14 November; and, the next peak was 18.18%
recorded on 12 December 1998. Two weeks later (11 December) Mint yet
again reported on its front page that even this peak had been scaled
with the annual increase in food prices at 19.05% for the week ended
28 November.
Commodity-wise, for staples, the annual inflation was 42% (10% at the
same time in 2008) for pulses, 102% (decline of 10%) for potatoes, 23%
(6%) for onions, 13% (14%) for fruits and 31% (21%) for vegetables.
Anecdotally, too—for quite some time, in fact—whenever I went out to
make a household purchase, this uncomfortable statistical truth was
played out.
Ever since Mint first front-paged it, I was also connecting it to the
fact that while this food inflation has been burning a hole in
everybody’s household budget, the poor more so, it was not translating
into some kind of collective fury. The middle class, which is the
first to articulate this sentiment, often with devastating
consequences for political parties, is strangely quiet.
Coincidentally, a day before food inflation accelerated to a new 11-
year high last week, I posed this dilemma (as a possible column idea)
to some of the best economists and at Mint’s morning news meeting. It
came up in the context of the fact that a government-appointed
committee had reported an under-counting of the rural poor—and pegged
it at 42% instead of 29% as assumed earlier—and we were proposing to
run the findings on Mint’s front page.
Since inflation, particularly that in food prices, hurts everyone, it
is only natural that they would articulate their concerns and
politicians would reflect them publicly. Nobody had answers to explain
this contradiction. In fact, one of the economists quipped that maybe
“you journalists” can offer a clue. I am sorry to say that we are as
much in the dark and have only plausible explanations to offer.
In fact, during the 15th general election, one of my colleagues, who
did an extended field level tour of the political campaign, came back
and disputed the theory that double-digit food inflation would be a
critical factor that would hurt the ruling Congress-led United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) at the polls. Most of us dismissed it as
impossible.
At the back of our minds was the spurt in the price of onions, a
staple in general for Indians and the poor in particular, in 1998 that
led to the defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the assembly
elections in Delhi—something from which it has not recovered ever
since, ensuring an uninterrupted reign for the Congress. So, how could
food inflation not hurt the incumbent?
Surprisingly, it didn’t.
Since 16 May, when the Congress renewed its tenure at the Centre for
another five years, food inflation has only accelerated. As this trend
has been around for nearly two years, drought, a shortfall in crop
production, etc., may not provide clues. The endurance may be
explained by the fact that the unprecedented cash transfers in the
last four years, through poverty alleviation schemes such as the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, no matter how flawed, may
be reinforcing the purchasing power of the poor. It is an established
fact that the poor report a very high marginal propensity to consume
food with every unit increase in disposable income. So increase in
demand without commensurate rise in supplies may be fuelling food
inflation. Which begs an aside Capital Calculus raised previously: Are
we as a nation willing to pay the cost of alleviating poverty?
But what is with the lack of a public outcry? The fact that
politicians, especially the BJP and the Left, are not exploiting the
issue only reiterates the point that it is not an emotive issue with
the masses. A cynical response could be that people are reconciled to
bad times.
A more plausible suggestion: Changing aspirations?
In the previous three decades, roti and kapda were the rallying issues—
particularly when there was hardly any economic growth.
Now, with the abandoning of exogenous constraints and the economy
growing almost fivefold in a decade, popular aspirations have
increased; not only are there more means of livelihood, many consumer
goods, such as cellphones, are now affordable enough to be owned
collectively, if not individually. The aspirations lexicon, especially
for the middle class, has consequently expanded and some hardship is
in order in the short run.
But all this rests on the premise that the aspirations will be
realized, sooner if not later. Which we know is bound to be belied.
What then? To an extent, the Congress rode back to power stoking these
dreams. Just hope the Congress is as adept in dealing with the
disappointment. Alternatively, India may be ripe for an unprecedented
social upheaval. A sobering thought seven years away from what will be
the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution that gave the world
communism as a ruling ideology.
Anil Padmanabhan is a deputy managing editor of Mint and writes every
week on the intersection of politics and economics. Comments are
welcome at capital...@livemint.com
http://www.livemint.com/2009/12/13214336/The-baffling-silence-of-the-ma.html
Sid Harth
In the first of a three-part series on China, Satyajit Das explains
its economic rise.
In 1971 Ralph Lapp, a nuclear physicist, used the term ''China
syndrome'' to describe a hypothetical nuclear reactor meltdown, where
the molten core melts through the crust of the Earth reaching China.
The economic China Syndrome describes a process where China's strong
growth, abundant savings and foreign exchange reserves assists a rapid
restoration of global growth.
Glenn Stevens, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, has on
more than one occasion referred to the importance of China's role in
insulating Australia from the worst of the present global recession.
Australia's mild economic downturn, relative to the US, Britain,
Germany and Japan, reflects China's position as a major trading
partner and its demand for Australian commodities.
The nuclear metaphor ignores the geographical fact that the opposite
side of the globe from the US is actually the Indian Ocean and that
the entire idea is physically impossible. The economic metaphor
conveniently discards some significant doubts about the ability of
China to act as a catalyst for global recovery.
Today's economic commentary is almost unanimous in declaring China a
saviour from the global financial crisis. It largely ignores how
China's economic growth model contributed to the crisis.
Under Deng Xiaoping, the leader of the Communist Party from 1978,
China undertook Gaige Kaifang (Reforms and Openness) - reform of
domestic, social, political and economic policy. These changes were
forced on the country by economic stagnation and serious social and
institutional woes that could be traced to the Cultural Revolution.
The centrepiece was a suite of economic reforms that combined
socialism with elements of the market economy. It entailed engagement
with the global economy, reversing the country's traditional policy of
economic self-reliance and a lack of interest in trade. As Robert
Hart, a 19th-century British trade commissioner for China, wrote:
''[The] Chinese have the best food in the world, rice; the best drink,
tea; and the best clothing, cotton, silk, fur. Possessing these
staples and their innumerable native adjuncts, they do not need to buy
a penny's worth elsewhere.''
In embracing markets, Deng observed that: ''It doesn't matter if a cat
is black or white, so long as it catches mice.'' Deng also embraced a
change in philosophy: ''Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is
glorious.''
China's economic reforms coincided with the ''Great Moderation'' - a
period of strong growth in the global economy based on low interest
rates, low oil prices and the deregulation of key industries such as
banking.
China's growth model, inspired by the postwar recovery of Japan, used
trade to accelerate the growth and modernisation of its economy. The
economic engine was export-driven growth. Special Economic Zones, for
example in Shenzhen, located strategically close to Hong Kong, were
established to encourage investment and industry.
The model took advantage of China's large, cheap labour force. The
strategy benefited from rising costs in neighbouring Asian countries
such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. China was
able to attract significant foreign investment, technology and
management and trading skills from countries keen to outsource
manufacturing to lower-cost locations to improve declining
competitiveness.
China converted itself, at least in part, into the world's factory of
choice. It imported resources and parts that were then assembled or
processed and then shipped out again. The Great Moderation ensured a
growing market for exports.
Innate conservatism, the desire to maintain Communist Party control of
the domestic economy and avoid social disruption favoured partial
market liberalisation. China's need to provide employment for its
underemployed population and improve its technology also favoured this
strategy. China needs to grow at about 7 to 8 per cent annually to
absorb workers entering the formal workforce each year.
As economic momentum increased, foreign businesses invested to take
advantage of the growth and rising living standards. Opportunities
encouraged Chinese nationals living, studying and working overseas to
return. As Deng noted: ''When our thousands of Chinese students abroad
return home, you will see how China will transform itself.''
Over time, a novel liquidity system also accelerated growth to
staggering levels. Export success created large foreign reserves that
now total more than $2 trillion. These reserves became the centre of a
gigantic lending scheme where China would finance and thereby boost
global trade flows.
Dollars received from exports and foreign investment have to be
exchanged into Renminbi, or yuan. In order to maintain the
competitiveness of its exporters, China invests the foreign currency
overseas to mitigate upward pressure on the Renmimbi.
As reserves grew, paralleling its growing trade surplus, China
invested heavily in dollars, helping to finance America's large trade
and budget deficits. It is estimated that China has invested about 60
to 70 per cent of its $2 trillion reserves in dollar-denominated
investments, primarily US Treasury bonds and other high-quality
securities.
Chinese funds helped keep American interest rates low, encouraging
increasing levels of borrowing, especially among consumers. The
increased debt fuelled further consumption, and housing and
sharemarket bubbles that enabled consumers to decrease savings as the
paper value of investments rose sharply. The consumption fed increased
imports from China, creating further outflows of dollars via the
growing trade deficit. The overvalued dollar and an undervalued
Renminbi exacerbated excess US demand for imported goods.
In effect, China was lending the funds used to purchase its goods.
The Asian crisis of 1997-98 encouraged China to build even larger
surpluses. Reserves were seen as protection against the destabilising
volatility of short-term foreign capital flows that had almost
destroyed many Asian countries during the crisis.
The substantial build-up of foreign reserves in China and the central
banks of other emerging countries was a liquidity creation scheme. The
arrangements boosted growth and prosperity in China, other emerging
markets and the developed world. Commodity exporters, such as
Australia, benefited significantly from the increased demand for
commodity and the higher prices for resources.
Satyajit Das is a risk consultant and the author of Traders, Guns &
Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-china-syndrome-and-the-crisis-20091227-lg83.html
Sid Harth
They scupper climate talks, jail dissidents and execute prisoners.
Some leaders just don't care what the world thinks
Sunday, 27 December 2009
They didn't even wait until the dust had settled on the disastrous
Copenhagen climate summit. In the middle of last week, China's leaders
watched approvingly as a leading dissident, Liu Xiaobo, was hauled
into court and tried on charges of "incitement to subvert state
power". Relatives, journalists and foreign diplomats were barred from
the hearing, leaving two dozen consular officials from Europe, Canada
and the US waiting impotently outside the courthouse. Two days later,
on Christmas Day, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Post-
Copenhagen, the message to the rest of the world could hardly be
clearer: China's leaders will go on doing exactly what they like, at
home and on the international stage.
Liu's trial has rightly attracted widespread condemnation; the rituals
of disapproval must be observed, even if the Chinese leadership
insists it will take no notice. For the same reason, Ed Miliband, the
UK's Climate Change Secretary, was right to single out China in a
newspaper article, arguing that the Chinese government had set out to
"hold the world to ransom" at the summit. It is clear that China's
intransigence emboldened other developing countries, with India
admitting – boasting might be a better word – that it worked with the
Chinese to get a weak accord. This is a hugely worrying development,
but even now China has apologists as well as critics. They ask why it
should accept binding limits on development when industrialised
Western countries, principally the US, have such a terrible record;
they hail China's willingness to open up to the outside world, see
opportunities in its markets and envy its economic growth.
Some of them are willing to overlook grotesque human rights abuses on
the grounds that they are an internal matter or claim, in the face of
all the evidence to the contrary, that economic freedom will
eventually drag political liberalisation in its wake. The reality is
that China has developed a brand of authoritarian capitalism, heavily
dependent on coal, in which the state is unchecked by any of the
constraints of civil society. It enthusiastically uses the death
penalty, "harvesting" organs from dead prisoners; the Foreign Office
is making last-ditch attempts to prevent the execution of a British
man this week. The leadership's engagement with the outside world is
ruthlessly mercantilist, focused on trade and hostile to both
political reform and binding international agreements which might
limit economic development.
Liu's trial last week was a two-fingered gesture to the outside world,
and a warning to potential dissidents. Neither Liu nor the handful of
other dissidents whose names are known outside China pose a threat to
the entrenched power of the Communist Party; his offence was to
publish six articles and help draft an online petition calling for
greater political freedom, an apparently intolerable affront to a
regime which employs 30,000 people to close down such sites. Liu has
been in prison before and also served three years in a labour camp for
calling for the release of demonstrators after the Tiananmen Square
protests. These camps have been used to get rid of journalists who
accuse local officials of corruption, petitioners who seek redress for
police brutality and anguished parents who want to know why so many
children died in shoddily built schools that collapsed during last
year's earthquake. Accurate figures are hard to come by, but another
leading dissident, Harry Wu, claims that between three and five
million people are being held in labour camps.
Dazzled by China's economic growth, the world's democratic leaders
have responded with muted protests, sending confused signals to the
regime. It is just over a year since presidents and prime ministers
trooped to Beijing to gawp at the spectacular displays that opened and
closed the Olympic Games, seemingly oblivious to the thousands of
people whose houses had been torn down to build Olympic venues and the
brave few who were carted off to camps when they protested about
losing their homes. In that sense, what world leaders experienced at
Copenhagen last weekend was a taste of the total disregard China
displays for anything but its own narrow economic interests; that's
why Miliband's frank remarks last week were so refreshing.
It is a species of suicidal madness to argue that because Western
industrialised nations have done so much harm to the environment, it
is only fair for developing countries to have their turn. That is the
rhetoric which carried the day at Copenhagen, allowing China to
posture as the champion of emerging countries even though its refusal
to countenance emissions limits will have catastrophic consequences on
some of the world's smallest nations. It was left to my old friend
Mohamed Nasheed, a former political prisoner who is now president of
the Maldives, to challenge China's bogus claim to speak on behalf of
the developing world: "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" he
demanded. Sadly, Nasheed is in a minority among leaders of developing
nations; even India's admission that it worked with China to frustrate
a binding agreement is not that surprising, for both countries are
characterised by an absence of civil society. India's concept of
democracy is superficial, allowing staggering inequalities of wealth
while millions cannot read and lack even the basic necessities of
everyday life.
We can see now that China used last weekend's summit to position
itself as the leader of the world's emerging nations, and that's as
much a political disaster as an environmental one. In the last few
days, Western leaders have discovered that their short-sighted policy
of indulging China's hard-line regime has produced very little co-
operation, and nothing in terms of political freedom. Tougher economic
measures may be necessary, such as a carbon tax on Chinese exports.
But no one should be surprised by the regime behaving as badly on
climate change as it habitually does on human rights.
chhotemianinshallah
By Jyoti Thottam / New Delhi Tuesday, Dec. 08, 2009
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Indian Prime Minister Manmoham
Singh enter a hall during their meeting at the Kremlin
Alexander Nemenov / AP
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Moscow this week to
negotiate a multibillion-dollar arms deal, meet the Russian President
and Prime Minister and seal a new civilian nuclear deal with Russia —
which the Indian press hailed as even more advantageous than India's
similar technology-sharing agreement with the U.S. Singh told a
Russian news channel, "We have been able to get equipment and
technologies from Russia which were not available to us from any other
countries."
So what happened to that new era of Indo-U.S. friendship, celebrated
so elaborately and so recently over gilded plates of collard greens
and basmati rice? It certainly hasn't been forgotten, but the ritual
pomp and genuine goodwill of the Nov. 24 state visit to Washington
have quickly made room for the realities of Indian politics. The
Russian bear hug is a "note of caution" and a reminder of earlier
American agreements gone sour, says G. Parthasarathy, a former Indian
ambassador and visiting professor at the Centre for Policy Research in
New Delhi. While the details of the U.S. deal are still being ironed
out and President Obama has stressed his commitment to completing it,
Russia has a much longer history of supporting India's nuclear
ambitions. "Russians have a track record of reliability," says
Parthasarathy. "With the U.S., we'll have to wait and see. That memory
within the Indian establishment runs very deep."
(See TIME's photo essay "Obama's First State Dinner.")
The Indian foreign policy establishment may welcome the new and much
more prominent role that India is playing in Washington, but it will
always look for assurances that it hasn't sacrificed its strategic
independence. India's top foreign-service officers and politicians are
still steeped in Jawaharlal Nehru's vision of a nonaligned India, a
belief that cuts across party lines. So every step closer to the
U.S.'s embrace is likely to be followed with at least a symbolic show
of keeping its distance. Witness Singh's ceremonial review of a fur-
hatted Russian honor guard less than two weeks after dining at the
Obamas'.
Even where the U.S. and India agree, India has been careful not to
appear to be too close. India joined the U.S. and 24 other countries
in voting to censure Iran's nuclear program at a meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on Nov. 27. This
was the third time India had voted for a similar resolution, and India
didn't want to jeopardize its own safeguards agreement with the IAEA,
but the Indian Foreign Ministry issued a statement clarifying that its
vote shouldn't be read as support for new sanctions: "India firmly
supports keeping the door open for dialogue and avoidance of
confrontation." This isn't just diplomatic bet-hedging; it's a mirror
of India's sharpening picture of itself as a superpower, one that will
interact with other countries on its own terms.
(See TIME's photo essay "Bhopal 25 Years Later.")
The true test of India's new strategic importance is still to come.
The Indian Defense Ministry has announced a massive modernization
program estimated to cost as much as $100 billion over the next
decade. Russia has long been India's biggest defense supplier, but the
civilian nuclear deals and safeguards agreement that India has signed
with several countries opens the doors for U.S. and European companies
to win some of that massive spending.
The most closely watched deal will be the Indian Air Force's planned
purchase of 126 multirole combat aircraft, a contract worth about $10
billion. The IAF has recently begun its field tests of the six
finalists, who represent India's old and new allies. In the running
are Russia's MiG35, Boeing's FA-18, Lockheed's F-16 and fighter jets
from EADS, Dassault and Saab. This is the biggest single tender ever
floated by the Indian military, and the decision will be influenced as
much by geopolitics as by technical superiority. "Strategic weapons
are not only about technology," says Deba Ranjan Mohanty, a defense
expert at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. "It's also
about building relationships with the country." Those in the running
will have about two years to demonstrate how willing they are to share
technology and how closely their national interests are aligned. A
state dinner is just a start.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946236,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
Sidhartha / Mumbai December 29, 2009, 0:17 IST
The country emerges as a bigger player on the global scene
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls the 21st century ‘India’s
century’. If the trends of the first decade are anything to go by, the
seeds have certainly been sown.
Be it India’s moon odyssey in 2008 or Olympic medals, acquisition by
Indian companies or the late Murosali Maran’s solo show at Doha that
went a long way in blocking contentious trade issues, the country
emerged as a bigger player on the global scene.
For Indian scientists, one of the biggest adrenaline boosters came on
October 22, 2008 when Chandrayaan-I, the unmanned spacecraft was
launched from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. India became
part of a select group of countries to have launched a moon mission.
Though the mission was short-lived, it did ensure the country’s
scientists’ contribution in detecting water on the moon.
But India’s new found confidence was most visible in the global
mergers and acquisitions filed. In the previous decade itself, Indian
companies understood that there was need to have a global footprint
but the strategy was more organic. But by the start of the decade,
when Tata acquired Tetley in 2000, the situation had changed
dramatically. Suddenly, the fear that M&A would only be one-way
traffic, with only inbound deals taking place, was gone.
Though the Tata Tetley deal remained the largest Indian deal till
Betapharm’s $560-million acquisition by Dr Reddy’s lab was completed
in 2006, the next record was broken much faster. Tata Steel went on to
acquire Corus for $12 billion. In 2007, pushed by Tata Motors’
acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford and the Aditya Birla
group’s $6 billion Novellis deal, outbound acquisitions had overtaken
inbound transactions.
Amid the success stories of corporate India, there were also failed
attempts to establish a global footprint, which included Tata’s bid to
acquire Orient Express and Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communication’s
unsuccessful MTN safari.
But the emergence of India on the global scene was not just brute
power. Soft power was in play as Indian artists and chefs lent a
helping hand to companies at the World Economic Forum’s annual
conclave in Davos and other such events.
There were also attempts by India to secure its energy needs through
acquisition of assets in countries as diverse as Sudan, Columbia and
Russia. While ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) and other Indian companies did
make some inroads, Chinese companies have so far been one-up in the
battle. With higher aid, China changed the way business was done with
Africa, especially when it came to bagging oil assets.
It was not just oil where the Chinese held an upper hand, they had
their way on most things globally. In 2007, China emerged as the third
largest economy, overtaking Germany, as it reported double-digit
growth year after year to become the factory to the world.
While it was a few years away from becoming the second largest
economy, a slot occupied by Japan at present, the financial crisis
meant that China only strengthened its position on the global scale.
In the first half of 2009, it emerged as the world’s largest exporter,
overtaking Germany again, amidst demands that it shift its currency to
a free-float one. The achievement came seven years after China joined
the World Trade Organization, which many said would lower its export
edge as it had to follow a rule-based system.
It was also a decade which changed the way things worked and we lived.
The Capital got its first taste of Metro railway in 2002 when a small
section was opened ahead of schedule. Soon, that became the norm as
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation under Chairman E Sreedharan opened one
line after another before time — something that most public projects
were not used to in India. By the time the second phase is completed
in 2010, Delhi would have a 186-km Metro rail network.
The Metro buzz that started with Delhi spread to other parts of the
country. Commuters in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangalore will also board
the Metro in the coming years.
If Metro trains are redefining the way we commute, more internet and
broadband connections, thanks to falling tariffs, have pushed
households to avoid queues. From online trading portals that
mushroomed to electronic payment of utility bills, the shift was
evident all across. The change was most visible in the railways. The
facility to avoid long queues helped the departmental enterprise sell
nearly a third of its tickets online.
Similarly, when the National Stock Exchange and Geojit Securities
conducted the first online share transaction in early 2000, few gave
the system a chance. A decade later, housewives transact via the
internet and most retail investors keep track of their investments
online.
In the initial years, there was skepticism about online trading, which
partly stemmed from the dotcom collapse. During the boom months,
valuations soared as portals and B2B (business-to-business) and B2C
(business-to-consumer) became part of everyday vocabulary. In India,
deals were done at astronomical prices. But soon several companies in
the US went under and the economy was hit. In a matter of months, B2B
stood for back-to-Bangalore as software professionals, hit by job
losses, started returning.
The technology boom, which pushed market indices to what were record
levels then, also meant that stock broker Ketan Parekh used ramped up
prices, especially at the ‘K-10’ counters such as DSQ Software and
Global Telesystems. The chartered accountant, who had access to funds
from various sources, would identify companies with low floating stock
and acquire significant holdings either directly or through sub-
accounts of foreign institutional investors and overseas corporate
bodies. Bank loans and overdrafts were used in creating a web of
transactions to hide the link with flow of funds and flow into the
markets.
But in 2001, a bear cartel spoilt Parekh’s party. What followed was
pressure on lenders such as Global Trust Bank, which had to be
rescued, and Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank, which could not
clear dues. Unit Trust of India (UTI) had to be bailed out by the
government to protect retail investors. It was split into two, with
the arm handling the assured return schemes set to wind up after
paying the investors.
The regulators stepped in to change the rules. In came a uniform
settlement cycle, OCBs were banned and other norms were tightened.
But all this paled in comparison to what the world got to see towards
the end of the decade — the global financial crisis, the seeds for
which were sown several decades earlier. The trigger was the repeal of
the Glass-Steagall Act — which prevented the consolidation of
investment, commercial banking and insurance — in 1999. Aimed at
creating more competition, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 allowed
consolidation among banks, securities firms and insurance companies.
As a result, like investment banks, commercial lenders began engaging
in trading mortgage-backed securities, collateralised debt obligations
and other complex instruments. With interest rates falling in the post-
dotcom era, mortgage business thrived, and that in turn, generated a
large market for exotic derivatives.
The derivatives market neared the $600 trillion mark in 2007 and
highly leveraged securities outfits, which made riskier mortgage
investments, began feeling the heat in 2008. Starting with Baer
Stearns rescue in March to nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac in the first week of September, the US government tried to do
everything it could to prevent the financial crisis from precipitating
further. But the collapse of Lehman on September 14, 2008, meant that
the global credit markets froze. Interest rates rose as no one was
willing to lend.
While Indian banks remained safe, companies found it tougher to raise
overseas capital and demand for local funds shot up. Stimulus packages
and lifelines such as Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) became the
buzzword as most of the developing world was in recession.
Amid the global doom, B Ramalinga Raju’s misdeeds started tumbling out
of the closet. First, the Satyam Computer Services founder and
chairman tried to merge two companies — Maytas Infra and Maytas
Properties — where his sons had significant interests due to
opposition from investors.
Barely three weeks later, Raju confessed to committing the biggest
fraud in the history of corporate India. By his own admission, the
magnitude was almost Rs 8,000 crore, but the Central Bureau of
Investigation, which got the case belatedly, expects it to be much
bigger.
What saved the company and the investors was prompt action from the
government. Within days of Raju’s confession, Satyam’s directors were
removed and a new board, comprising eminent persons, was set up. A few
months later, the company was sold to the Mahindras who now have a
42.69 per cent stake in the IT firm.
While Satyam attracted global attention on India’s corporate
governance standards, the 26/11 terrorism attack finally got the word
to take notice of what the government had been saying all these years
— Pakistan’s links with the terror syndicate.
In any case, during the decade, terror stopped being a problem that
countries such as India had to deal with. On September 11, 2001, the
United States faced its worst-ever terror attack when terrorists
hijacked planes and flew them into the Pentagon, which was partly
damaged, and the World Trade Centre, which collapsed, killing around
3,000 people. A year later, on December 13, terrorists from Pakistan
attacked the Indian Parliament, driving the neighbours to the brink of
a war.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/metro-to-moon-amidst-bustboom/381041/
chhotemianinshallah
WTO ruling can open doors for Indians too
Business Standard / New Delhi December 29, 2009, 0:11 IST
Last week’s ruling of the appellate court of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) opening China’s doors wider to entertainment
exports from the United States can also boost Indian cinema’s markets
in China. The WTO appellate court has upheld an earlier ruling that
China has been too restrictive in its import policies with respect to
foreign music, cinema, literature and theatre. The WTO dispute
settlement body will have to confirm this decision within 30 days
after which China gets another 30 days to reply on how it proposes to
respond to the ruling. If China falls in line with WTO discipline, it
will have to adopt a more liberal import policy with respect to
literature, film, music and other entertainment products, including
mobile phone ring tones. China could still use its censor boards to
restrict imports, and it can impose some ceiling on total imports, but
it cannot any longer shut out foreign entertainment and literature
from its markets.
While the WTO ruling is in response to a US complaint, it should be
obvious that India would have a huge interest in the matter. Though
India’s entertainment and publishing industry is nowhere near as big
as that of the United States, with Walt Disney studios alone having
revenues twice as much as the entire Indian film industry, the
prospect of exporting to China should be welcomed. At present, very
few Indian films are able to make it into the Chinese market. Indian
diplomats and the entertainment industry have been knocking at closed
doors. With great effort, India managed to get the film Lagaan
commercially released in China, but few others have made it without
difficulty. The popular success of the few Indian films that have made
it into China shows that there is a potentially large market for
Indian entertainment exports in China.
The WTO ruling serves to show the wisdom of getting trade in
entertainment products and publishing under multilateral discipline.
When this was originally proposed by the United States in 1994, many
in India opposed the proposal on the grounds that this would result in
western cultural imperialism. The growth of the Indian entertainment
industry in the past decade shows that rather than fear invasion from
outside, Indian entertainment should be better prepared to go global.
In 2008, the Indian entertainment industry was estimated to be about
Rs 58,400 crore. It is forecast to grow at the annual rate of 12.5 per
cent to an estimated Rs 1,05,200 crore by 2013. While Hollywood
exports 50 per cent of its total entertainment output, Bollywood is
estimated to export only 20 per cent of its output. The global market
for Bollywood is almost entirely accounted for by overseas Indians.
With some creativity and imagination, the Indian publishing and
entertainment industry can easily tap the wider global market. The
opening up of the Chinese market should, therefore, be viewed with
greater interest in India than has been the case so far. For China,
transparent and faithful adherence to the WTO ruling would be a test
of its commitment to become a more open society.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/bollywood-in-beijing/381001/
chhotemianinshallah
29 Dec 2009, 1841 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: India and Japan on Tuesday decided to work out all
logistical and funding issues related to the western Dedicated Rail
Freight Corridor with an aim of implementing its first phase next
year.
A joint statement issued after talks between Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and his Japanese counterpart Yukio Hatoyama, said the two
leaders will work together for conclusion of the agreement for the
main loan for the first phase by March 2010.
The main loan amount for the 900-km long first phase of the project
from Rewari in Haryana and Vadodara in Gujarat is Rs 17,700 crore,
mainly from Japan.
"Both sides will strive for early finalisation of a funding and
implementation schedule for the whole western corridor (that covers a
distance of 1,483 km from Jawaharlal Nehru Terminal in Mumbai to
Tughlakabad in Delhi via Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan and
Gujarat.)
"We have decided to finalise all details for phase I within the next
few months, so that actual implementation can begin in 2010 itself,"
Singh said.
"We also endorsed the plan to take the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial
Corridor project forward," he said, adding both the projects will have
a significant positive impact on the Indian economy and on the scale
of economic cooperation with Japan.
The second phase would involve an investment of about Rs 8,424
crore.
chhotemianinshallah
29 Dec 2009, 0028 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: India and Japan signed two important agreements on Monday
for implementing the ambitious Rs 3,60,000 crore Delhi-Mumbai
Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project which seeks to create integrated
investment regions and industrial areas across six states.
The agreements include collaborating in the development of eco cities
that are environmentally and ecologically sustainable along the
corridor and setting up of a project development fund to undertake
activities like master planning & feasibility studies, preparing
project reports and obtaining approvals and bid process management for
projects.
Bidding for the ‘early-bird’ projects — around twenty four identified
by five states — is likely to begin in five months time, a government
official has said.
“DMIC is an important project and Japan has been an important partner
in India’s development journey,” commerce and industry minister Anand
Sharma said after the agreements were signed.
The Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Development Co-operation signed a
memorandum of understanding with JETRO (in co-operation with Japan
Bank for International Co-operation) for facilitating collaboration
between Japanese and Indian companies from environment related sectors
and providing expertise in development and promotion of DMIC projects
including model eco cities or smart community initiatives at various
locations in the DMIC region.
The DMIC project development fund will be set up with equal
contribution from the government of Indian and government of Japan.
India has already approved a grant of Rs 330 crore (approximately $75
million) as the country’s contribution.
The Japanese component of $75 million is being provided in the form of
an untied loan from JBIC.
According to DMICDC CEO and MD Amitabh Kant, bidding for the early
bird projects will begin in the next four-five months. Most of the
infrastructure work connected to the industrial corridor will be
executed in public-private partnership (PPP) format.
The DMIC, which is conceived to be developed as a global manufacturing
and trading hub with emphasis on expanding the manufacturing and
services base, will pass through Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and
Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujarat.
chhotemianinshallah
28 Dec 2009, 2103 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: Giving a push to the ambitious Rs 3.6-lakh crore Delhi-
Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) project, New Delhi and Tokyo today
signed two pacts, including collaboration in developing eco-cities
around the project.
"The DMIC is conceptualised as a global investment and manufacturing
destination with emphasis on expanding manufacturing and services
base," Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said after signing
the two pacts here today.
The Minister also said the project will involve huge investment and
initial projection points at a whopping Rs 3,60,000 crore.
The DMIC Development Corporation entered into a pact with the Japan
External Trade Organisation for collaborating with the environment-
related projects and for transfer of Japanese expertise in developing
and promoting 'smart communities' (eco-cities) around the DMIC project
area.
The Japan Bank of International Cooperation also singed a loan
agreement totalling up to USD 75 million (Rs 330 crore) with India
Infrastructure Finance Company to prepare plan for overall DMIC region
and developing plans for investment in Phase-1.
The DMIC Project Development Fund is envisaged to be set up with equal
contribution from India and Japan. The Centre has already approved a
grant of Rs 330 crore towards this.
The signing of the pact coincides with the visit of Japanese Prime
Minister Yukio Hatoyama to the country who today met Indian business
leaders in Mumbai and New Delhi.
Sid Harth
Siddharth Varadarajan and K.V. Prasad
Tells Yukio Hatoyama that U.S., Chinese accession will create ‘new
situation’
Photo: R.V. Moorthy
MOVING AHEAD: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Japanese
counterpart Yukio Hatoyama exchange documents after signing a joint
statement at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi. —
New Delhi: While reiterating India’s commitment to its unilateral and
voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
told his visiting Japanese counterpart that any Indian accession to
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would have to await American and
Chinese ratification.
The Prime Minister’s remarks signal a subtle return to the CTBT line
adopted by the erstwhile Vajpayee government, which declared soon
after the 1998 nuclear tests that India “would not stand in the way”
of the treaty entering into force.
Dr. Singh told Yukio Hatoyama during their discussions on Tuesday
morning that there was as yet no national consensus on India acceding
to the CTBT. But if the U.S. and China were to complete their
ratification process, this would likely generate momentum within the
country in favour of accession, senior officials told The Hindu.
Giving an account of his talks on the matter with Dr. Singh at the
joint press conference later, Mr. Hatoyama told reporters that he had
conveyed Tokyo’s desire that India sign and ratify the CTBT. “Globally
there is a rising momentum of [the CTBT] entering into force. I
expressed my hope that along with China and the USA, India will sign
and ratify CTBT,” the Japanese leader said, adding: “The [Indian]
Prime Minister said with regard to the CTBT [that] should the U.S. and
China sign, it will create a new situation.”
Since the CTBT cannot enter into force without the ratification of the
U.S., China, India, Pakistan and a handful of other states, the
Vajpayee-era formulation was seen throughout the world as an assurance
that once Washington and Beijing became parties, New Delhi would
follow, on the expectation that Islamabad and the other stragglers
were quickly brought on board then.
The Prime Minister’s latest message to Japan is significant because
the UPA government has until now avoided directly or indirectly
endorsing the Vajpayee line. Indeed, Dr. Singh and other senior
officials had linked India’s refusal to sign the CTBT to the fact that
the treaty does not promote the cause of disarmament.
In a meeting with Indian Foreign Service probationers in June 2008
during the height of the domestic political controversy over the Indo-
U.S. nuclear deal, the Prime Minister had said India would not sign
the CTBT “if … it came into being.”
By reverting to the earlier position, India hopes to remind Japan and
other countries concerned about the test ban that the real obstacle to
the CTBT’s entry-into-force is the U.S. and that is where any
diplomatic pressure ought to be applied.
Unified position
Unlike the CTBT, India and Japan presented a unified position on the
proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, with the two Prime Ministers
supporting the immediate commencement of negotiations and the FMCT’s
early conclusion.
But cooperation in the field of civil nuclear energy is still some
distance away. “We discussed civil nuclear cooperation. This would
become a very important agenda in the future.”
The joint statement blandly noted the shared view that “nuclear energy
can play an important role as a safe, sustainable and non-polluting
source of energy” in meeting rising global demand and that the two
sides will “exchange views and information on their respective nuclear
energy policies.”
Mr. Hatoyama acknowledged that his country has a strict export control
regime for trade in dual-use high technology items.
Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/30/stories/2009123052960100.htm
Sid Harth
T.S. Subramanian
Scores of villages in Tamil Nadu celebrated King George V’s Durbar in
Delhi by erecting plaques
— Photos: K.V. Srinivasan/ A. Shaikmohideen/ K. Ganesan
(Top) The statue of King George V, removed from near the War Memorial,
Chennai, lying on the premises of the Government Museum in the city.
Above, the plaques commemorating the coronation of King George V at
Kalakkad in Tirunelveli district and at Tiruvadavur near Madurai.
CHENNAI: They were father and son. They were King-Emperors of India.
The father was King Edward VII, who reigned from January 22, 1901 to
May 6, 1910. The son, King George V, who succeeded him, ruled from May
6, 1910 to January 20, 1936.
Crude operation
Around December 12, 2009, in a crude operation, their beautifully
sculpted statues in the heart of Chennai, were sliced from their
pedestals, the statues and pedestals carted away, and dumped on the
premises of the Government Museum, Chennai. An emblem on the pedestal
of King Edward VII’s statue was smashed up. Both the majestic statues
are lying on mud today. The statue of King George V is covered with
sack-cloth. Its pedestal is damaged.
But December 12, 1911 was an important day for King George V. Two
years from now, it will be the centenary of the Durbar he held in
Delhi on December 12, 1911.
As a website says, he was keen on visiting India soon after his
coronation in London on June 22, 1911. He wanted to be crowned King/
Emperor of India again in Delhi. But his advisers were against it.
They suggested that he could receive the homage of the Indian princes
and rulers while seated on his throne. So a Durbar in Delhi was held.
Scores of villages in Tamil Nadu celebrated King George V’s Durbar in
Delhi by erecting plaques. They include Tiruvadavur and Thenkarai,
both near Madurai, Kalakkad in Tirunelveli district, Vizhupathur near
Srivilliputhur and Srivilliputhur itself.
The plaque at Kalakkad, in front of Sri Sathyavageeswarar temple,
reads: “In commemoration of the coronation of King George V, Emperor
of India, by the Kalakkad public, 12th December 1911.” It adds in
Tamil that it is the commemoration plaque on the “mahudabishekam of
Chakravarti George V.”
The plaque at Tiruvadavur, a couple of km from a Tamil-Brahmi
inscription site, says, “The Indian coronation lamp, Tiruvathur (sic)
of their Majesties George V … Emperor and Mary, Queen Empress of
Delhi, 12 Dec. 1911.” There is a hole on top of the granite-plaque to
hold the lamp.
Almost all these plaques are situated in “agraharams” (Brahmin
settlements) in villages in Tamil Nadu. But 98 years later, almost to
his Delhi Durbar of December 12, his and his father’s statues received
rough-shod treatment. Their pedestals have been hacked from the
statues themselves and damaged.
The statue of King George V was situated near the War Memorial in
Chennai, and it posed no hindrance to traffic. Still, it was removed,
point out history buffs. In fact, George Town in Chennai is named
after him.
The statue of his father, King Edward VII, was situated opposite
Simpson and Co. Limited, Anna Salai, in front of the entrance to the
Government Estates, where a new Assembly/Secretariat complex is coming
up.
S. Muthiah, chronicler of Madras, said, “It is one of the strong
points of various Tamil Nadu governments to have respected the statues
of the past. If they are a hindrance to traffic, sensitivity can be
shown by re-erecting them in big parks.”
The Museum officials are preparing to re-erect the statues in an
obscure corner of its campus.
Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/30/stories/2009123054872000.htm
Sid Harth
K.V. Prasad
Manmohan urges Hatoyama to liberalise visa regime
India and Japan finalise action plan of security cooperation
Disarmament, Non-proliferation among areas of collaboration
NEW DELHI: India and Japan on Tuesday finalised an action plan to
strengthen security cooperation, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
and his visiting Japanese counterpart Yukio Hatoyama signing a joint
statement here. They also identified nine areas of collaboration and
reviewed economic cooperation especially in infrastructure
development.
Japan offered to provide bullet train technology to the Indian
Railways in its quest to build the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor
project from Rewari in Haryana to Vadodara in Gujarat. Both sides
decided to work to conclude the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Act
at the earliest. Twelve rounds of talks have been held so far.
The joint statement, which came at the end of the annual bilateral
summit, expressed satisfaction at the deepening of the annual
strategic dialogue between the Foreign Ministers as well as other
policy dialogues and the desire to enhance exchanges in the defence
field.
Strengthening of collaboration on issues of common strategic interest;
setting up of a strategic cooperation mechanism; increase in defence
and coast guard cooperation, exchange of information to fight
terrorism and other transnational crimes; cooperation at the U.N.; and
cooperation on disarmament and non-proliferation were some of the
areas earmarked for enhanced collaboration.
Under a new framework, a 2+2 dialogue at Sub Cabinet/Senior Official
level was envisaged besides maritime security dialogue.
On the defence front, the action plan visualises regular meetings
between the Defence Ministers, annual official- level defence policy
dialogue, annual military-to-military talks, regular reciprocal visits
of the Service chiefs and ground-to-ground staff talks, Navy-to-Navy
staff talks, and developing an annual calendar of defence cooperation
and exchanges.
In his statement, Mr. Hatoyama mentioned that the two sides discussed
cooperation in defence of sea lanes of communication. India and Japan
are among the nations that provide escort to merchant ships off the
coast of Somalia to guard against pirate strikes.
The action plan also includes joint exercise and meeting between the
Coast Guards of both nations.
Both nations will hold annual bilateral exercise alternately off India
and Japan, and if possible hold multi-lateral cooperation too. The
Malabar 2007 exercise involves five navies — India, Japan, the United
States, Australia and Singapore. The plan also envisages participation
as observers in major army and air force exercises and passing
exercises during ship visits.
Bedrock of ties
In his opening statement, Dr. Singh said economic partnership between
the two countries was the bedrock of the relationship. The two Prime
Ministers shared the view that the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor
project was moving forward from planning to the implementation stage.
They also took note of the Memorandum of Understanding on Smart
Communities and Eco-friendly Townships between DMIC and JETRO.
Dr. Singh urged Mr. Hatoyama to liberalise the visa regime to promote
investment and the latter too made a similar request. Dr. Singh
highlighted the move to provide visa on arrival to visitors from
Japan.
Both also noted that the Japanese side had set up a consortium of
government, academia and industry to establish Indian Institute of
Technology at Hyderabad.
Wednesday, Dec 30, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/30/stories/2009123054771000.htm
chhotemianinshallah
Afshain Afzal
Bhutan, a Himalayan kingdom of 635,000 people, geographically located
between China and India, has one of the highest per capita incomes in
South Asia at over $2,000. Bhutan is a very peace loving and friendly
country and its people are happy and prosperous. On November 6, 2008,
formal coronation of 29-year-old Bhutanese King Jigme Khesar Namgyel
Wangchuck took place in Thimphu. King Wangchuck, like his father, is a
ray of hope for the Bhutanese people and is contributing a lot for the
uplift and development of his country. Presently, he is on his six-day
state visit to India.
India had tense relations with Bhutan due to allegations of direct
interference in Thimphu’s internals affairs and New Delhi’s support to
insurgent groups in northeast. It is, however, good to see that India
is trying to mend its fences with South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) countries. In the latest positive development,
talks between King Wangchuck and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
resulted in signing of 12 agreements including four on hydropower
generation, civil aviation, health and Information Technology (IT)
fields. India will prepare the initial technical reports for four new
hydro-electricity projects with capacity of over 3500 MW in the
Himalayan kingdom. Bhutan, with the domestic consumption of only 400
MW has currently an installed capacity of 1500 MW of hydropower. The
entire surplus power is presently exported to India.If we recall, the
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had concluded an agreement with
Bhutan in 2008 that it will help Bhutan build additional installed
capacity of 10,000 megawatt in hydropower by 2020. It is pertinent to
mention here that India also assisting Bhutan to build three major
hydro-electric projects at Chukha, Kurichu and Tala. Besides, India is
also helping in the construction of Punatsangchhu-1 project.
The latest four agreements are for preparing detailed project reports
for the hydropower projects of Amochu reservoir (620 MW), Kuri Gongri
(1800 MW), Chamkarchhu (670 MW) and Kholongchhu (486 MW). Besides, a
4,000-MW Sankosh project is also under negotiation. In Information
Technology (IT) sector, India and Bhutan have inked a major project
worth Rs.205 crore. Under this project, computer training will be
given to over 7,000 government officials, 5,000 teachers and 1,600
enterprises and 200,000 rural children. In the field of education,
India would set up a 50-seat undergraduate medical college on the
lines of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Other
agreements included curbing illicit drug trafficking.
During discussions, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh strongly
convinced King Wangchuck that India wants democratic experiment in
Bhutan to succeed. It is pertinent to mention here that the people of
Bhutan are very loyal to the King and are happy and contended but
India and other countries including US and Britain are attempting to
abolish monarchy from Bhutan. Some analysts feel that on the
instigation of western powers and own vested interests; India is
playing a double game to bring popular revolt against King Wangchuck
somewhere in the next decade. This cannot be achieved unless the minds
of Bhutanese are brainwashed with the help of IT. Indian has hegemonic
ambitions in the region and Bhutan is an easy prey. India’s main
objective seems to create greater India by placing Bhutan under loose
confederation under Indian union. One wonders that the agreement in
hydropower generation is New Delhi’s tool to enter Bhutan and win the
hearts of masses. India believes that since Bhutan is surrounded by
India on three sides and is dependent on India for access to the sea
so it should be part of India. Although Bhutan shares borders with
China but India claims that a pro-China policy is not viable for
Bhutan.
During the ongoing discussions between King Jigme Khesar Namgyel
Wangchuck and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it also came to
light that India in interested in security and defence cooperation
with Bhutan. No doubt, it would be a greatest folly for Bhutan to fall
in this trap.
We have an example of Sri Lanka before us when Indian Armed Forces
physically occupied Sri Lanka in 1986 in the name of helping Colombo
to get rid of insurgents. One wonders, if India Armed Forces are so
smart why they are unable to control law and order situation in more
than 28 of its insurgency hit states. India is also controlling Bhutan
External Relations through the 1949 treaty between the two countries.
Article 2 of the treaty requires Bhutan to be guided by the advice of
India in the conduct of its external relations while Article 6 bars
Bhutan from import of arms, ammunition, machines, warlike material or
stores without assistance and approval of India. Although there were a
lot of reviews discussions but still Bhutan cannot frame its
independent policies. India must realize that Bhutan is a sovereign
country and by the changing the language of the 1949 treaty it won’t
suffice. It needs to be the decision from Bhutanese King and its
people and not India that whether to purchase lethal or no-lethal
weapons. It is irony that Bhutan can only purchase non-lethal military
stores and equipment whereas for others there is requirement of
approval from New Delhi.
The Indian past record is not very clean as regard to Bhutan but we
must give a try to mend our fences by not repeating our past mistakes.
It is interesting to note that previously SAARC conference use to fail
due to India interference in the internal affairs of the member
countries but hopefully this is not going to happen this time. Bhutan,
which is hosting of the SAARC summit next year, is likely to bring
member countries to a single platform. India needs to end its
imperialist and capitalist approach to bring real change in this
region.
The time has changed; Bhutan should be allowed to make its own
independent decision and treated at par with other countries of the
world. It is a time to get united for which SAARC can act as a
powerful platform in bringing South Asian nations together. India has
taken a good step in connection with cooperation with neighbouring
countries in the shape of recent agreements; it is high time for other
countries to follow the path of regional cooperation.
http://pakobserver.net/200912/30/Articles04.asp
chhotemianinshallah
By Prakash Nanda
Column: Right Angle
Published: December 30, 2009
New Delhi, India — Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his
Japanese counterpart Yukio Hatoyama launched on Tuesday an action plan
to take their security dialogue, including counter-terrorism, to the
"next stage" and gave a push to a key economic pact.
But a breakthrough in the critical civil nuclear area eluded them,
with the visiting Japanese prime minister expecting India to sign the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty, and Singh indicating that
India’s decision on the CTBT would follow ratification by the United
States and China.
In a nutshell then, how did the first trip of the new Japanese prime
minister to India go? The habitual naysayers will regard the visit as
below average, highlighting Hatoyama’s cool response to India’s hope
of securing civil nuclear technology from Japan. But such a view does
not stand close scrutiny. Overall, the trip was a success.
As the only country that has faced nuclear attacks, it is
understandable that Japan is sensitive on matters such as the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty and the CTBT. But that does not detract from
the fact that over the last few years India and Japan have agreed on
more issues, disagreeing on only a few.
In fact, the most important aspect of Hatoyama’s three-day visit to
India from Dec. 27 to 29 was that it took place. Unlike the Liberal
Democratic Party that long ruled Japan and had a clear policy of
strengthening ties with India in the 21st century, Hatoyama’s
Democratic Party of Japan, which stunned the world with its remarkable
victory in parliamentary elections last August, has focused on China.
In its election manifesto, India was not mentioned at all.
The DPJ and its Secretary-General Ichiro Ozawa have been extremely
sensitive to China’s concerns and aspirations in Asia and the rest of
the world. Ozawa flew 645 people, including 143 DPJ members of
Parliament, to Beijing in five airplanes early this month. He also
forced Japanese Emperor Akihito to grant an exceptional audience to
Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping during his visit to Tokyo two weeks
ago. These actions reveal the changed foreign policy priorities of
Japan under the new regime.
Indian policymakers were naturally worried as to whether the Hatoyama
regime would share the vision of the LDP, which had strongly advocated
a greater role for India in the Asia-Pacific region and its proposed
East Asian Community – something China has never appreciated.
Similarly, it was unclear whether Hatoyama would continue the recent
practice of annual summit meetings between India and Japan. Since
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went to Tokyo last year, it was the turn
of the Japanese prime minister to be in New Delhi before the year
ended.
Hearteningly, Hatoyama dispelled Indian worries on both counts. He
kept his appointment with India, and Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada
has envisaged opening EAC membership to Japan, China, South Korea,
ASEAN, Australia, New Zealand and India – the same countries that
participated in the East Asia Summit in 2005.
What all this indicates is that factors promoting India and Japan as
global partners are becoming more relevant with each passing day,
thereby ensuring that the momentum is not lost with the change of
regimes, whether in New Delhi or Tokyo. Some hard facts will make this
point clear.
A recent Japanese survey revealed that India is the most favored
destination for long-term Japanese investment. India is regarded by 70
percent of Japanese manufacturers as the most attractive country to do
business, followed by China (67 percent), Russia (37 percent) and
Vietnam (28 percent).
In 2008 Indo-Japan bilateral trade stood at over US$13 billion and was
in favor of Japan with US$2.6 billion. This figure is expected to
cross the $20 billion mark by the end of 2010.
Japan has been India's largest bilateral donor for more than a decade.
For the last four fiscal years India has also been the largest
recipient of Japanese official development assistance, overtaking
China. Japanese ODA has been and is being utilized mainly for
infrastructure projects such as power plants, transportation,
environmental projects and projects related to basic human needs. In
fact, the summit between Singh and Hatoyama specifically focused on
infrastructural developments, particularly the proposed dedicated rail
freight corridor between New Delhi and Mumbai.
In February this year Japan’s Foreign Ministry conducted an opinion
poll in India on the image of Japan. The results showed that most
Indians have a positive image of Japan, with 76 percent of respondents
saying they perceived the current state of Japan-India relations
either as being very friendly or friendly.
Asked which countries are important partners for India, 48 percent, 30
percent and 14 percent of respondents chose the United States, Russia
and Japan, respectively; 92 percent of survey participants responded
positively when asked whether Japan is a reliable friend of India.
Respondents perceived Japan as a technologically advanced,
economically powerful and peace-loving country, in descending order of
the number of responses. Also, 79 percent perceived Japan’s economic
assistance to India as beneficial, and 94 percent welcomed the
presence of Japanese companies in India.
But economic relations constitute only one component if India and
Japan are to remain global partners. The other pillar of India-Japan
relations has to be strategic convergences. There are compelling facts
to support this.
India is the largest democracy in Asia and Japan the most prosperous.
Both are functioning and vibrant democracies, with a social matrix
that emphasizes harmony and consensus, rather than confrontation.
Their economies are market oriented and largely complementary. Both
share a common desire for peace and stability. Both believe that the
United Nations should be strengthened and its decision-making
apparatus made more representative. Both support a cooperative and
comprehensive approach to combating international terrorism and sea
piracy.
Therefore, it was fitting that Singh and Hatoyama signed an ambitious
joint declaration titled a “New Stage of India-Japan Strategic and
Global Partnership,” with an action plan on security cooperation as
its centerpiece.
The action plan to advance security cooperation, based on a
declaration signed in October last year, included a newly established
"2 plus 2" dialogue framework at the sub-Cabinet senior official
level, involving the external affairs and defense ministries. The
action plan includes an annual strategic dialogue at the foreign
minister level, regular consultations between national security
advisers, and regular meetings between defense ministers.
India and Japan are natural allies in the Asia-Pacific region, sharing
common potential threats, particularly from China – which, concurrent
with its economic advancement, has embarked on significant upgrading
and modernization of its conventional forces and nuclear arsenal.
There is also a strategic nexus with North Korea, which is problematic
for Japan, and Pakistan, which is problematic for India.
By themselves neither North Korea nor Pakistan had the technological
capability or financial resources to afford nuclear weapons and long-
range missiles. These missiles in the case of North Korea cover the
Japanese heartland and Okinawa and in the case of Pakistan cover the
Indian heartland.
It is legitimate to question why China provided these deadly arsenals
to failing states likes North Korea and Pakistan. The answer is
obvious: China’s intentions have been to develop strategic pressure
points by proxy in South Asia against India and in Northeast Asia
against Japan.
This is all the more reason, therefore, why India and Japan must have
strategic congruence.
(Prakash Nanda is a journalist and editorial consultant for Indian
Defense Review. He is also the author of “Rediscovering Asia:
Evolution of India’s Look-East Policy.” He may be contacted at
Prakas...@hotmail.com. ©Copyright Prakash Nanda.)
http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/12/30/india_and_japan_strategic_convergence/7836/
Sid Harth
India`s H-bomb failed, say top scientists
2009-12-21 10:42:28
Last Updated: 2009-12-22 11:22:45
Statement by Deeply Concerned Senior Scientists regarding our
Thermonuclear Weapon Capability & its Implications for the Nation’s
Credible Minimum Deterrence
Soon after the Pokhran-II tests on 11 May 1998, the scientists of the
two organizations concerned - the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
and the Defense R&D Organization (DRDO), had jointly evaluated the
success of the two tests – the fission device (A – bomb) and the
fusion device (H - bomb).
While the former device performed perfectly including creating a
crater of the expected size, the fusion device failed on many counts –
very low yield, no crater etc. International monitoring centres also
recorded low intensity of shock waves, resulting in low yield
estimates – estimates that were more in consonance with the DRDO
numbers. This was discussed among the BARC and DRDO scientists
involved – and resulted in a dispute between them.
A detailed report submitted by DRDO to the Government fully
corroborated its original assessment viz. that, while the fission
device worked successfully as expected, the fusion device did not. The
recent revelations by Dr. K. Santhanam, who was in charge of all of
DRDO’s activities at the site, testify to this.
By all accounts - geological, radiochemical as well as seismic - it is
now quite clear that the fusion device yielded a very low value of
explosive power. The articles by K. Santhanam and Prof. Ashok
Parthasarathi in The Hindu (17 September 2009) and P. K. Iyengar in
Outlook (26 October 2009) attached, (Appendices I and II) go into
considerable technical detail and present a credible case, beyond all
reasonable doubt, that the H – bomb tested on May 11, 1998 failed.
These findings are extremely serious for the security of the nation,
particularly in the context of our pronouncement of being a nuclear
weapon power, along with our enunciated doctrine of ‘no first use’ and
our ‘unilateral voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing’. They strike
at the root of our weaponisation capability and compromise our
strategy of Credible Minimum Nuclear Deterrence.
Soon after the Pokhran-II Tests, the then government almost succumbed
to Western pressure to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),
backing off only at the last moment due to an outcry in the country
against doing so. The refusal of the US Senate to ratify the CTBT
then released the pressure on the government. The renewed pressure
from President Obama on us in recent months to sign the CTBT is
causing the issue of our signing the CTBT to be raised again. We
strongly urge the present government to remain firm in its opposition
to our doing so as the Prime Minister has publicly assured the nation
more than once in recent months.
Obama has actually gone further than trying to secure universal
adherence to the CTBT, and secured a UN Security Council Resolution
urging such adherence to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
also. Not signing the highly discriminatory NPT has been an article
of faith of all our governments – irrespective of hues – since the
Treaty was drawn up in 1968. The present government, we strongly
urge again, should continue that policy steadfastly, despite whatever
threats and blandishments are applied to it. Even the slightest
succumbing would convert our ‘voluntary moratorium’ into an
involuntary, permanent, cessation of nuclear weapon testing and so
forever deny us our legitimate place in the great powers’ league.
The international political and diplomatic aspects as set out in the
previous para apart, the grave situation we are in regarding our
Thermonuclear (H-bomb) capability it demands resolute, speedy and
comprehensive corrective action. We are well aware of the nature,
sources and scales of nuclear threats the nation faces. To meet that
threat effectively, an in-depth analysis of our real capabilities in
terms of: Command & Control Systems, Nuclear Weapon Delivery Systems
and the types, character and numbers of nuclear weapons needing to
constitute our nuclear arsenal and the keeping of that arsenal up-to-
date, is essential - indeed acutely pressing. To address these issues
and take well informed competent and speedy decisions instead of
depending entirely on the existing bureaucracy, administrative,
military and scientific, it is essential to have the involvement, on a
continuing basis, of a wide variety of opinions and assessments from
scientists, strategic analysts and defense & diplomatic personnel with
a deep understanding of the many complex issues involved, including
the technologies needed to be developed, and the minimum time-scale in
which this can be achieved. While secrecy is crucial, an open mind
and willingness to learn are equally important.
We therefore, strongly urge the government to immediately set up a
High Level, Independent, Broad-Based Panel of Experts to define and
monitor the implementation, on a continuing basis, of an effective
course of action, in the realm of thermonuclear weapons, so central
to our national security.
All of us have worked on different aspects of this problem with a
sound understanding of the harsh ground realities and the immense
magnitude of what is at stake. It is now for the government to Take
the Call – and without losing a minute more – as its counterparts in
our adversaries have and are continuing to do so.
Signatories to the statement
Dr. P.K. Iyengar, former Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, Director
BARC and a key architect of the Pokhran I nuclear test of May 18, 1974
and internationally acknowledged as India’s top nuclear weapons
expert
Professor Ashok Parthasarathi, former Science Adviser to Late Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi for many years and Secretary of many major
Scientific Departments of Government of India.
Dr. A.N. Prasad, former Director, BARC and Member (R&D) of the Atomic
Energy Commission, a former Senior Adviser to the IAEA, Vienna for
many years on nuclear safeguards, and a key member of India’s original
weapons grade plutonium extraction technology development since
inception in 1960 and a former Commissioner of UN MOVIC (UN
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) for disarming Iraq
of Weapons of Mass Destruction)
Mr. K. Santhanam, Chief Adviser (Technologies), DRDO and Project
Coordinator of Pokhran II Series of Nuclear Weapon Tests
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan one of the key Technology Directors of our
Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) project for several years, which
developed the indigenous nuclear submarine Arihant and former
Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Dr. C.K. Mathews, former Head, Radio Chemistry Division, BARC and
Director Chemistry Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research,
Kalpakkam
Dr. Jaipal Mittal, Raja Ramana Fellow and former Director, Chemistry
Group, BARC
Dr. A.D. Damodaran, former Director, Special Materials Plant, Nuclear
Fuel Complex and former Director, Regional Research Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram
Dr. S.R. Valluri, former Director, National Aerospace Laboratory and
first Director General of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA),
the Organization specially set up to design and develop the Light
Combat Aircraft – Tejas
Captain S. Prabhala, Indian Navy former Chairman & Managing Director
Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Rear Admiral J.J. Baxi, former Director, Weapons and Electronics
Systems Organization, Ministry of Defense and Chairman & Managing
Director Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Brigadier M.R. Narayanan former Director, Army Radio Engineering
Network, Ministry of Defense
Dr. K.S. Jayaraman, formerly Nuclear Physics Division, BARC, Science
Correspondent of the PTI for many years, Science Correspondent for
South Asia for leading international journal ‘Nature’ and President
Indian Science Writers Association.
http://sify.com/news/india-s-h-bomb-failed-say-top-scientists-news-columns-jmvkG2ighfb.html
Sid Harth
2009-11-02 11:06:09
Last Updated: 2009-11-02 12:11:50
By Claude Arpi
``Is India a superpower?``
That is a question often raised by the Indian media.
Less-optimistic observers phrase it differently: ``will India one day
become a superpower?`` they ask.
Before trying to answer this question, it should be noted that of
late, India is always rated in comparison with China. It is an
association difficult to avoid. This is why it is worth looking at two
serious papers recently published by US think tanks.
The first one, about India, is titled Developing India`s Foreign
Policy `Software`. Written by Daniel Markey, a former Senior Fellow
for India, Pakistan, and South Asia from 2003 to 2007 at the Council
on Foreign Relations, it appeared in July 2009 in Asia Policy.
The second, on China`s quasi-superpower diplomacy: prospects and
pitfalls was researched by China expert Willy Lam for the Jamestown
Foundation and released in September 2009.
Let us take the first study. A former Indian diplomat, TP Sreenivasan,
reacted to it in The Times of India: ``Just as Keralites discovered
Kathakali after it was staged at the Lincoln Centre, the state of the
Indian Foreign Service began to be examined after an American analyst,
Daniel Markey, came out with a critique.`` The fact that fresh
thinking has to be triggered from the outside, is a statement in
itself. The ex-IFS officer however believes that ``Markey had nothing
novel to say.``
Markey admits that his objective is to outline ``significant
shortcomings in India`s foreign policy institutions that undermine the
country`s capacity for ambitious and effective international action,
and proposes steps that both New Delhi and Washington should take,
assuming they aim to promote India’s rise as a great power.``
He believes that India will not be able to achieve superpower status
soon unless four shortcomings are rectified:
(1) The Indian Foreign Service is small, hobbled by its selection
process and inadequate midcareer training, and tends not to make use
of outside expertise;
(2) India`s think-tanks lack sufficient access to the information or
resources required to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant
scholarship;
(3) India`s public universities are poorly funded, highly regulated,
and fail to provide world-class education in the social sciences and
other fields related to foreign policy; and
(4) India`s media and private firms—leaders in debating the country`s
foreign policy agenda—are not built to undertake sustained foreign
policy research or training.
Markey (who often compares India`s `soft power` to the United States`
super one) is probably right; the fact is that these four
qualifications are a requisite to become a power to reckon with. It
enables a State to take the necessary decisions to occupy this envied
position.
The case of the United States (and its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)
is however a blatant instance that this is not sufficient to become a
respected superpower. India, no doubt, would like both, but this
raises an interesting point: can a nation become a superpower and be
respectable (and respected) at the same time?
In his paper on China`s quasi-superpower, Willy Lam affirms: ``Seeing
itself as a quasi-superpower, Beijing is no longer shying away from
frontal contests with the United States, China’s strategic
competitor.``
It is not only the improvement of the Foreign Service, universities or
think tanks that the superpower-to-be needs (India in the present
case), but a new mindset coupled with strong muscles. The candidate
super-power should also be ready to show (if not flex these muscles),
as Beijing did on October 1 on Tiananmen Square or over Arunachal.
Lam writes: ``The year 2009 will go down in history as a watershed for
the epochal expansion of China’s global influence.`` Not only does
China`s economy keep growing despite the world financial crisis, but
the People`s Liberation Army has begun to build new nuclear submarines
and aircraft carriers.
Interestingly, Beijing tries to impose its own currency the Yuan in a
first stage in Asia; in Lam`s words: ``the Communist Party is gunning
for a novel international financial architecture, or one that is not
dominated by the United States. …Beijing is waging quasi-superpower
diplomacy to bolster the country`s pre-eminence in the new world
order``.
Recently, China has greatly enhanced both its hard and soft power
(this shows in the current aggressiveness vis-Ã -vis India).
Though he does not take into account the `hard` power, Markey suggests
different `improvements` for the IFS to be able to stand as a bigger
power:
• Expand, reform, pay, and train the Indian Foreign Service to attract
and retain high-caliber officers
• Encourage the growth of world-class social science research and
teaching schools in India through partnerships with private Indian and
U.S. investors, universities, and foundations
• Invest in Indian think-tanks and U.S.-India exchange programs that
build capacity for foreign policy research
• Bring non-career officers into the Indian Ministry of External
Affairs and other parts of the foreign policy establishment as term-
limited fellows to improve outside understanding of the policy process
• Support the efforts of Indian researchers to maximize public access
to material related to the history of India`s foreign policy by way of
the 2005 Right to Information Act
``South Block has its cupboards full of reform proposals by many
ignited minds. But as long as the service does not get a soul, a sense
of belonging, arising out of a sense of fairness, equality and
justice, no reform, no expansion will transform the software of Indian
diplomacy,`` Srinivasan admits in The Times of India.
But it is not a `soul` or new plans for the future which are needed
today. It is acting as a superpower which is required.
China has begun to act. It has earmarked some $6.62 billion for its
`overseas propaganda` (or publicity, as it has been renamed). The
State media like CCTV or Xinhua News Agency will increase their
coverage in several different languages, mainly in the West, in Asia,
Middle East and Africa.
An English news channel modeled upon Al Jazeera which will feature
issues such as politics, finance and culture will be beamed all over
the world. This will help Beijing to project its point of view on
world events and sell the `Chinese model`.
There is more. The Party will set up about 350 Confucius Institutes
around the world to spread `Chinese culture`. This at a time when most
Western nations are cutting down on their cultural offices across the
world citing costs.
Beijing`s Great Leap Outward has allowed its powerful diplomacy to
make dents in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and even in
Eastern Europe where the heir-apparent Vice President Xi Jinping
recently toured.
A superpower diplomacy has to be backed by `cultural` propaganda (or
publicity) and economic diplomacy.
Has a reduced Indian Foreign Service the capacity to match Beijing`s?
No.
Is Delhi ready to open 350 Tagore Institutes? No.
One finds the same picture for academic institutions. I was recently
told that China already has 120 think tanks on South Asia and India
with a large number of scholars involved in studying the policies of
the region. India has only 3 or 4 such institutions devoted to Chinese
studies, most of them with meager means or under government
supervision (meaning incapable of independent thought).
A prospective superpower should be ready to pay a price, as the
recognition inevitably creates jealousy, envy and fresh rivalry.
In the case of China, Lam notes: ``Friction between China on the one
hand, and Southeast Asian nations including Vietnam, Malaysia and the
Philippines on the other, has intensified owing to sovereignty
disputes over a dozen-odd islets in the South China Sea. There are
also indications that countries including Australia, India, Japan and
South Korea may consider it advantageous to join hands with the United
States to check China’s ascendancy.``
And he concludes: ``This is why despite the Middle Kingdom`s
formidable economic and military heft, the CCP leadership has become
more nervous than ever about the exacerbation of a Washington-led
“anti-China containment policy.``
The rise of China (peaceful or not) has undoubtedly increased the
`China threat` theory.
In India, the point remains that the mindset of many diplomats,
bureaucrats or media persons is still geared to a post-colonial way of
thinking, either full of an inferiority complex (or arrogance as a
counterpart).
We have seen this recently with the proposed visit of the Dalai Lama
to Arunachal Pradesh with many so-called `thinkers` and `experts`
suggesting that the Dalai Lama should be told to back out of the visit
in order to not irritate Beijing further.
But a superpower is not scared to irritate or anger others; a
superpower stands on its own feet, defending its own interests.
India has to learn this from China.
Born in Angouleme, France, Claude Arpi`s real quest began 36 years ago
with a journey to the Himalayas. Since then he has been an
enthusiastic student of the history of Tibet, China and the
subcontinent. He is the author of numerous English and French books
including. His book, Tibet: the lost Frontier (Lancers Publishers) was
released recently.
http://sify.com/news/what-india-must-learn-from-china-news-columns-jlclgjgeeej.html?cid=13180904
Sid Harth
Column: Time for India to fight back
2009-11-09 15:43:43
Last Updated: 2009-11-10 14:33:22
By Bharat Verma
New Delhi cannot afford to sit around while others plot its
destruction.
Surrounded with a sullied strategic environment and the spreading fire
that engulfs the region, New Delhi can either continue to live in fear
as it has in the past, or fight back.
There are two distinct threats that endanger the existence of the
Union.
First are the imperial ambitions of China that threaten to ultimately
dismember the Indian Union in twenty or thirty parts.To succeed in its
aim, Beijing over a period of time unleashed the first phase of the
strategy and intelligently encircled India. This initial phase
resulted in shrinking New Delhi`s strategic frontiers in its own
neighbourhood.
Indians unwittingly made the Chinese task a cakewalk, as they were
preoccupied with internal bickering for short-term personal gains,
overlooking the vicious expansionist agenda designed jointly by
Beijing and Islamabad to tear apart the Union.
Even as it pretended to withdraw its covert support to the rebels in
India`s northeast in late seventies, China took advantage of
Islamabad`s hatred for India, and deftly invested in Pakistan to carry
out the task on its behalf.Editor’s pick
The Danger
Threat from China
Unmasking China
The primary segment of the Chinese strategy moved with clockwork
precision by investing in autocratic and Islamic fundamentalist
elements in countries on India’s periphery, i.e., Myanmar, Bangladesh
and Maoists in Nepal.
In Sri Lanka, while Indians dithered, Beijing and its proxy Pakistan
quickly moved in to help arm Colombo against the LTTE, develop the
Hambantota port etc. While the adversary invested in encircling India
on its land and sea frontiers, Indians merrily continued to indulge in
their favorite past time i.e. meaningless and endless debates.
Invited by Islamabad, the Chinese moved into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir
(PoK). With growing irrelevance of Pakistan as a nation-state, this
area in times to come will become Chinese Occupied Kashmir (CoK).
Similarly, China fabricated its territorial claim on Bhutan and is
working to eclipse the prevailing Indian influence there.
Is New Delhi prepared to defend its strategic frontiers in Bhutan
unlike our timid response in Tibet?
The second phase of the long-term strategy to unravel India based on
smaller geographical regions is now underway. After successfully
encircling India, the recent spurts in Chinese incursions on the
border, objections to the Indian prime minister’s visit to Arunachal,
lobbying against India in ADB, the drama of apportioning official
annual budgets for the development of the so-called Southern Tibet
(Arunachal), devising opinion polls against India, issuing visas on
separate sheets to residents of India from Kashmir etc., are clear
pointers in that direction.
The concluding part of the plot of unraveling the Union, if
successful, will remove perhaps the only challenge to the unquestioned
supremacy of China in Asia.
China’s initial thrust succeeded not only in effectively rolling back
India’s influence in its external periphery but also helped its
proxies to extend their tentacles deep into India, threatening the
Union’s internal stability.
Therefore, the second distinct aspect that endangers the existence of
the Union is the rapidly increasing internal security threat.
While the external adversary devised strategy to shrink India’s
influence in its ‘near abroad’, the individual States’ inability to
govern ensured rollback of authority towards their respective
capitals. Indian sway unwittingly stands reduced simultaneously,
within its borders and in its immediate vicinity. if not handled with
ruthlessness, the combined intensity of the external and the internal
threat, where each feeds on the other, will unravel India in times to
come.
Negligence in governance is primarily responsible, since it permits
the hostile external actors to take advantage of the internal dissent
to further their imperial ambitions.
To power itself out of the largely self-inflicted external-internal
encirclement, New Delhi should work out a comprehensive counter-
strategy with an offensive orientation. For an enduring win against
the heavy odds, the national goal should be to emerge as the single
most dominant power in Asia by 2020.
This aim envisages an economically powerful India backed by
extraordinary military capabilities and reach, and formation of potent
international alliances that help defend multi-cultural democratic
values under adverse conditions in Asia.
Instead of endlessly ceding strategic space as in the 62 years, we
must learn to fight at multiple levels, and secure and extend our
influence in Asia through hard and soft power on land and sea.
Pursuit of this singular national goal will automatically force us to
gear up the entire infrastructure, resources, policies and strategies
towards the fulfillment of this endeavor. At present, we are an inward
looking, bickering, dithering and indecisive nation. New Delhi lacks
the key aspiration and therefore the vision that motivates and impels
a nation to excel and achieve worthy living standards for its
citizens. Centrality of such national core ambition will remove the
prevailing confusion and the attendant aimlessness.
However, to be the pre-eminent Asian power, it is essential that New
Delhi first set its own house in order by reclaiming the space lost
within to the non-state actors.
Lack of skills and direction, self-serving gimmicks and dwindling
integrity in the Civil Administration ended up in handing over the
control of 40 percent area to the Maoists and 10 percent on the
borders to the insurgents. It is vital that the State recaptures this
space in the shortest possible time frame and establishes its
authority up to the borders. Otherwise, India will be the next state
after Pakistan to be consumed by civil war.
Since the Maoists and the insurgents are armed and supported by the
external actors, it is appropriate that they be dealt by exercise of
requisite military force, before development and effective policing
can take roots. The nation is witness to the fact that Indian Police
and the Civil Administration just do not have what it takes to disarm
those who wield weapons against the State.
To rapidly develop the sinews of the Civil Administration including
the Police to face war like situation brewing inside, it is crucial to
inject military thinking and muscle.
First, the State should infuse military talent by offering attractive
terms and conditions to the retired military personnel on fixed tenure
and contract basis to take the battle effectively into the heartland
of Maoists and the insurgents. They are fairly young, have military
skills, are motivated, and understand combat in all its hues to take
on the Maoists and the insurgents.
Second, from the pool of retired military personnel, create military
advisory cells in the Home Ministry of the states and at the centre
with adequate resources. Inter-link them with each other on a national
grid to develop military appreciation of the situation on the ground
and offer clear and decisive options.
Third, since it is a long haul, the central and all state police
forces should pay the Indian Army and the Navy to select and train at
least 100 constables each year in their various regimental training
centre to augment the armed constabulary. Fourth, the Indian Army can
select and train a few officer cadets every year for Indian Police
Service, at its Officer Training Academy in Chennai on the same tough
pattern as the military officer cadets. This will rapidly induct
precision of military thinking and sinews that the Civil
Administration urgently requires to fulfill the task at hand.
The success of expanding Chinese strategic reach in Asia is due to the
singular fact that, unlike other communist parties, Communist Party of
China from its inception has the advantage of precise military
thinking inside the party, as PLA officers are integral to it. The
above suggestions are particularly relevant to pacifist India, as
military thinking in most of the other cultures is a natural
component.
In addition, remove all man made barriers like inner line permits etc
to allow inter-mingling of citizenry, and establishment of businesses
and industry into the Northeast and Kashmir and other states.
While the terrorist, jehadi and the infiltrator forcibly change the
demography, citizens are not allowed to settle and buy land in many
areas of the Union. Such contradictions besides being illogical defy
national integration, consolidation and fusion of the nation into one
entity. However, we should avoid forced settlements like the Han
Chinese in Tibet or Pakistan in the Shia majority Northern Areas.
But of course, the writ of the state cannot be re-established within,
unless it can deliver high quality governance and development
programs.
If India had developed its military power on requisite scale and
demonstrated the gumption to use it when and where necessary in the
past sixty-two years, if the foreign office had injected military
spine into its policy making, and if the enemy knew that New Delhi
would respond ruthlessly if threatened, with a clear message, “Don’t
mess with us!” — I am convinced that multiple wars would not have been
imposed on India. Neither export of terrorism would have occurred on
the scale it does, nor would China have dared to be so nasty. Adequate
military preparedness and the ability to wield it tellingly act as
deterrence, taking away the cost-benefit ratio of war from the
adversary.
To emerge as the dominant force in Asia, it is therefore, essential
that offensive orientation in thinking be injected across the spectrum
from the young age. This entails confronting adverse geopolitical
situations differently to achieve dominance.
Beijing has created an excellent infrastructure of roads and railway
network in Tibet that allows them to bolster its hostile posture
towards New Delhi. To create similar infrastructure on our side of the
border is going to be time consuming.
Therefore, if push comes to a shove, how can we innovate to neutralize
the imminent threat posed by the adversary?
We should induct massive heavy lift capabilities for troops by
introducing fleet of helicopters and transport aircrafts on war
footing. Initiation of superior means of mobility for the troops and
extraordinary firepower will act as a robust deterrence.
We should create military capabilities to disrupt enemy’s rail supply
line to Tibet. Indian thinkers are nervous at China’s declaration to
further extend the railway line to Nepal and Myanmar. Brought up on
pacifism, they forget that railway lines and roads can move traffic in
two directions. Therefore, in case hostility breaks out, we must
ensure military wherewithal to dominate these railway lines and use it
to induct our troops in the reverse direction. We must always plan to
take war to the enemy using his vulnerabilities!
Kashmir legally acceded to the Indian Union, therefore, in my mind
there is no dispute. However, Tibet and Sinkiang (East Turkistan) were
forcibly annexed by China. These indeed are matters of dispute.
As sovereign nations, India and Tibet did not have any major boundary
dispute. Therefore, illegal occupation of Tibet by China does not
bestow on it any legitimacy to raise bogus boundary claims on India.
Similarly, Baluchistan was tricked into joining Pakistan. This also
can be a subject of dispute. New Delhi should learn to think
differently!
Wielding the weapon of psychological warfare, Chinese recently prodded
their friends in Pakistan to project via the Indian media that this is
going to be the Chinese century and in Asia, and that the American
influence is going to disappear leaving Beijing as the dominant power.
Therefore, India must decide whether it wants to side with the losing
Western Alliance led by America or the winning side led by China.
These are symptoms of acute anxieties in Beijing and Islamabad. The
presence of Americans in Afghanistan-Pakistan and the growing Indo-US
strategic partnership unnerves China.
However, despite technological superiority, Americans in Afghanistan
without India’s help cannot win the war. They just do not have
adequate boots-on- the –ground. Similarly, India on its own cannot
prevail in this region and requires assistance of the Western
alliance. There is a synergy of purpose. Equally true is the fact that
Americans are fighting India’s war too. If they withdraw from AF-PAK
area, the entire Jihad factory will descend mercilessly upon India to
create mayhem. Hence, it is in India’s national interest to synergize
with the West in AF-PAK to benefit from the resource rich Central Asia
and deny the centuries’ old route of invasion to the adversary.
New Delhi must contest and reclaim the strategic space lost within and
in its vicinity. Otherwise, in times to come, the Union will slip into
civil war and finally wither away.
Column: Calling China's Bluff | 'Nervous China may attack India by
2012' | Interview with Capt. Bharat Verma
Bharat Verma is the editor of Indian Defence Review, India’s premier
defence and strategic affairs magazine.
http://sify.com/news/column-time-for-india-to-fight-back-news-columns-jljpHGjifcg.html?cid=13180904
Sid Harth
Dr Swaran Singh | 2009-10-26 12:34:06
Four recent meetings brought India back under the nuclear
nonproliferation searchlights.
As the strident debate on whether India’s thermonuclear tests of May
1998 subsided or began to fizzle-out into stalemate over whether or
not India really needed thermonuclear weapons for deterrence, these
four meetings early this month seemed to trigger a rethink its
strategic positioning.
The innings began with US President Barack Obama Chairing a Special UN
Security Council Summit session, which endorsed Resolution 1887, which
asks all countries “ to sign and ratify” the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT) early last month.
Perhaps to reassure India that this resolution was not specifically
aimed at New Delhi, President Obama, the host of the follow-up G20
Pittsburg summit, ensured that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
was seated next to him at the official banquet. This seating was
interesting as Obama chose to have no bilateral meetings on the
sidelines of the Pittsburg meet.
The second significant meeting at the UN Security Council was to
review of its Resolution 1540, passed in 2004. This essentially sought
to find new ways and means to prevent the proliferation of nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons, particularly to non-State actors (read
terrorists). This too had a clear South Asia-centric orientation.
While the exposure of the A Q Khan nuclear network in October 2004 had
put Pakistan on the defensive, India had passed its WMD Act in May
2005, changing the course of its nuclear history.
But even as the Indian media was debating the intent and implications
of these two events at the UN Security Council, two equally
significant conferences were held in New Delhi. One was the three-day
International Conference on ‘Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy-2009,
inaugurated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh September 29. Dr Singh
chose this platform to herald his vision of increasing India’s
nuclear-power by one-hundred times over the next 40 years i.e. to
raise it from about 4,000 MW today to 470,000 MW by 2050.
In doing so he reposed his faith in indigenous nuclear know-how and
technologies, especially Dr Homi Bhaba’s visions of three level fuel
cycle which would enable India to use its enormous reserves of thorium
to ensure relative autonomy for India’s nuclear industry. More
interestingly, he not only sought to press on India’s commitment to
evolve sustainable and climate friendly energy strategies by making
nuclear power generation central to it, he also sought to address the
discourse of western powers and whet the appetite of their business
lobbies. This marks a fundamental shift from India’s conventional
strategy of taking a high-moral ground on disarmament and/or raising
the bogey against the “discriminatory western sponsored
nonproliferation regimes” to doing business in a more pragmatic
fashion.
Organized by Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to commemorate the
birth centenary of the father of Indian nuclear science, Homi Jahangir
Bhaba, this conference also hosted El Baradei – Director General of
International Atomic Energy Agency – who was conferred the 2008 Indira
Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development. But while El
Baradei praised India’s disarmament credentials and urged New Delhi to
take the lead, he also suggested that India may be able to sign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) if not NPT in the near future.
This comment echoed the views of Gareth Evans – former foreign
minister of Australia – who was in New Delhi as the Co-Chair of
International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament
(ICNND) that also held a weekend of parleys with South Asia’s
strategic community.
The ICNND meeting was an apt climax to the nuclear humming and fuming
taking place at the time. Chaired jointly by the two of the closest
friends of the United States – Australia and Japan – the commission
was set up in June last year to “reinvigorate international efforts on
nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament” before the May 2010 NPT
Review Conference.
However, instead of pious ‘global zero’ paradigms or efforts to
eliminate nuclear weapons from earth, it focused primarily on India-
Pakistan polemics. So while the conference press release underlined
that support from India would be “vital to global efforts to stem
proliferation” of nuclear weapons, the subtext could be seen in the
extensive press coverage and delegate media bytes, where the basic
refrain was that India will never be allowed to enter NPT as a nuclear
weapon state. This was backed up with veiled warnings on how
entertaining any thoughts on further nuclear tests could prove
extremely costly.
As India moves from victimhood to a stakeholder profile in the nuclear
sweepstakes, several fundamentals need to change as well.
To begin with, the subtle changes in our nuclear strategy need to
trickle-down from the leadership and sync-in with India’s rather small
strategic community. This disconnect was obvious last month when
prime minister heralded his new vision while India’s strategic
warriors continued to press old slogans. Either they did not
comprehend that variables of India’s nuclear trade unionism have
changed for long, or find it tough to comply with this subtle change
in India’s disarmament diplomacy. Perhaps it was also a case of
difficulty to publicly undermine our longstanding USP (unique selling
point) of being the rebel, alas often unsolicited.
But unless India’s strategic community backs this vision of change it
will be difficult for change to maximize India’s advantages or even to
sustain it vigour. Moreover, this has to be done with care as there
will always be different voices which will seek to dilute our position
on such a critical juncture of change. Not to forget that promise of
change was recently recognized strong enough by the Nobel peace prize
committee that conferred this years award on US President.
Also read: Is this India's newest nuke bomb factory? | Time to test
our nuclear deterrence | Will not join NPT as non-nuclear weapon
state: India
(Prof. Swaran Singh, is Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament School
of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
http://sify.com/news/column-the-nuclear-disconnect-news-columns-jk0m8gdigeg.html?cid=13180904
Sid Harth
2009-09-22 14:34:52
Last Updated: 2009-09-23 11:39:21
Bhaskar Roy, who retired recently as a senior government official with
decades of national and international experience, is an expert on
international relations and Indian strategic interests.
It is indeed sad that the depth and quality of India`s nuclear
deterrence was washed in public by eminent scientists and former
leaders of the country`s nuclear programme.
When K. Santhanam, Director and the DRDO`s points man for the Pokhran-
II or the May 11 and 13, 1998 nuclear tests told a seminar in New
Delhi that the thermo-nuclear test (hydrogen bomb) did not yield the
desired results, various experts in the country jumped into the fray
and loudly called the test a failure. Santhanam is a quick witted
scientist and can be sharp in tongue at times. Did he slip up with a
Malapropism, or was he reigniting some educated speculation?
What Santhanam said was `fizzle` not `failure'. In nuclear science
terms, this would be a partial success. There are various views on
the test, both Indian and Foreign. Some of them could be inspired,
some real. Nobody has come out with a definite conclusion.
It is understandable that eminent nuclear scientists, who spent their
entire life to give the country nuclear teeth, are frustrated with the
reports. Dr. P. K. Iyengar, a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) and his senior Dr. Homi Sethna were both outraged by
the news of the `fizzle'. Dr. Iyengar had always questioned the test.
Dr. Iyengar also has strong views against the Indo-US nuclear
agreement. So have many others from the nuclear community in India.
The manner in which the Indo-US nuclear deal came to the open in
mid-2005 had shocked many. While the George W Bush administration
coursed on to a new and enhanced relations with India, the anti-India
nuclear ayatollahs in the US tried to ensnare India into such a
position that India would have to roll back its weapons programme.
But India fought back hard in the negotiations and went through the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) scrutiny with US support , despite
Chinese opposition till the end. There are still some knotty ends to
clear before civilian nuclear cooperation with the US companies can
start, but the road has been cleared with Russia and France. Moscow is
going more than a step forward to accommodate India`s requirements
including reprocessing spent fuel, and India has emerged from the
nuclear black hole.
In every aspect you win some and lose some, but what you win should be
what serves you best. The nuclear deal was a matter much more in open
discussions. On the issue of nuclear deterrence ambiguity is a very
important weapon for a small nuclear country, which only sends a
message that if you hurt me you will also be hurt and can you absorb
that?
Does it really matter if the yield was 45 kt or 30 kt? Since India has
voluntarily imposed a test ban on itself, it is more the reason that
an ambiguity is maintained. Similarly, what data the test has yielded
must be kept closely within the core group working on the programme.
The sharp debate brought some ridicule from Pakistan and close study
by China. Soon after the acrimonious exchanges broke out, a Chinese
official newspaper interviewed a number of Indian experts to try and
further investigate the views and come to a conclusion of India`s
nuclear capability.
Just to give a couple of example that are not really parallel to the
Indian situation but illustrative, the US attacked Saddam Hussain only
after making sure that Iraq had thoroughly dispensed with its nuclear
capability and missile force. On the other hand, North Korea and Iran
managed to stand up to US pressure with their nuclear ambiguity. With
North Korea now declaring it has begun to extract plutonium from spent
fuel rods, and also nearing enriching uranium to weapons grade,
Washington finally agreed to have direct talks with Pyongyang.
There is also a strong suspicion, not perception, abroad, that the
drama in India was created to raise public pressure using which as an
excuse India would conduct another test. If ever there was such a plan
it would have been stupid.
On the other hand, India may have lost an opportunity to conduct
another test even if it wanted to. With the issue Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) coming up in the US towards the end of this year for
ratification, India could conduct a test and signed the CTBT
immediately after. Some dust would be raised, India would have
gathered the data it wanted for simulated tests, and the signing the
CTBT would have closed the matter.
Any how, that option could be kept aside for the right time.
The ‘fizzle` debate has certainly harmed India. Scientists should
keep more to the laboratory than join a strategic debate with one-
dimensional views. The world is a much more complicated place than it
was a couple of decades ago. Spoken and written words have serious
ramifications all over, given the position that India has come up to,
and the detractors that are waiting to trip India at every possible
opportunity.
It would be wise for the government to come out with a clear paper on
the tests and put an end to fighting in the shadows.
http://sify.com/news/pokhran-ii-fuss-over-a-fizzle-news-columns-jjwo8Qcbfcb.html?cid=13180904
Sid Harth
Time to test our nuclear deterrence
2009-09-16 22:04:31
Last Updated: 2009-09-16 22:14:33
Lt Gen Vinay Shankar
The recent revelation that the yield of the fusion bomb tested in 1998
was low- puts the spotlight again on the credibility of our nuclear
deterrence.
The subject was ferociously debated during the run up to the signing
of the nuclear deal. At that time the support for the deal was so
overwhelming that the few who expressed concerns about the limiting
effects of the proposed agreement went unheard.
Nuclear deterrence is determined by its credibility. Credibility flows
from demonstrated capability and the potential adversary’s
perception of our national resolve. Claims may not always convince.
Consequently, an unconvinced adversary can be tempted to gamble;
besides uncertainty fuels instability.
Nuclear deterrence is built primarily around warheads, their yield and
delivery systems. The range of delivery systems is dependent on the
weight of the warhead; heavier the warhead lesser the range. Hence the
imperative of maximising yield to weight ratios. Efficient fusion
bombs give yields in megatons as against the kiloton yields of fission
bombs.
We claimed the yield of the hydrogen bomb we tested in 1998 to be
about-42 kiloton. Agencies monitoring such tests assessed it to be of
a much lower value. This is the nub of the current debate.
The big question that the current debate poses is: does India need to
carry our further tests to construct a credible nuclear deterrent
capability?
As against the two tests that we have conducted over a span of 24
years, China has carried out 45 tests within a period of 32 years; at
the rate of more than one test per year. Its first test was in 1964.
Within 3 years it conducted 6 more tests including the first hydrogen
bomb test in 1967. Let us look at the other nuclear weapon states. The
USA has conducted more than 1000 tests, the Soviet Union (Russia)
around 800, the French more than 200 and the British about 50.
Admittedly, simulation techniques in the 21st century are much more
sophisticated than they were earlier but whether they can totally
obviate the requirement to test is highly questionable. In any case if
they did the CTBT would lose its relevance and consequently we should
have no issues about becoming a signatory to it.
For Editor’s pick box
Steering India’s Military Capabilities
Carrot and Stick!
Rain of terror on India
Blacklisting Foreign Vendors
Shaping of the Indian Military
Before taking the discussion forward it is important to recapitulate a
few features of our nuclear doctrine. The first is that our nuclear
weapons capability is not country specific.
To quote: `The fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear weapons is to
deter the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any State or
entity against India.` The second equally important commitment is:
`Highly effective conventional military capabilities shall be
maintained to raise the threshold of outbreak both of conventional
military conflict as well as that of threat or use of nuclear
weapons.`
How has our conventional and nuclear deterrence operated in the last
decade? Kargil, Parakram and 26/11 have each highlighted two obviously
very unpalatable deductions: the first is that our conventional
deterrence is inadequate and the second- Pakistan’s nuclear
deterrence is effectively in place.
Militarily, India stands neutralised against Pakistan so all we can do
is to `talk` and `not talk` interspersed with complaints to all and
sundry. We seem to have no other options. The preceding is admittedly
an overstatement, but necessary to make my point.
The equation between Pakistan and India can in some ways be compared
to the equation between India and China. China`s conventional military
capability is greater than India`s but both are nuclear weapon states.
Yet China seems to be getting away with intimidation and intrusions
with no country in the world raising alarms about the possibility of a
nuclear exchange between India and China.
Should not China be worrying about India`s nuclear threshold and
drawing `red lines` of the kind we have been engaged in drawing
against Pakistan? Why can we not indulge in nuclear brinkmanship of
the kind that Pakistan has practiced? Is it because we do not possess
the nuclear deterrence that we should and China knows it, as also the
rest of the world?
The Naval Chief`s much commented upon prescription on how to manage
the glaring national and military power asymmetry between India and
China should be viewed in this context. Having said this I do believe
that as an enlightened military professional he would have offered
numerous propositions to redress the growing imbalance between the two
countries. It is also my belief that for more than a decade as a flag
officer and as the Naval Chief, Admiral Mehta would have pushed for
decisive action to improve our military posture.
I would therefore surmise that it is the outcome of such effort that
provoked the Naval Chief to suggest a placatory approach towards
China.
But for the debatable `no first use` stipulation, our Nuclear Doctrine
is extremely sound and well crafted. To illustrate I have two
important quotes from the preamble: the first-``India`s security is an
integral component of its development process` and the second -``
Autonomy of decision making in the developmental process is an
inalienable democratic right of the Indian people`.
Our failure lies in not having the national resolve and commitment to
acquire the conventional and nuclear forces that the doctrine
postulates. The price of such failure, it must be emphasized, can be
catastrophic.
The complexity of pursuing nuclear weapons capability or for that
matter even conventional military hardware is recognised. It should
also be accepted that the institutional decision making apparatus with
its inherent caution and conservatism is unlikely to be up to the
challenge of addressing these intricacies without political direction.
Can our political leadership provide such direction?
On available evidence it would appear that India has to test. The
timing and how the event is to be orchestrated are issues that merit
examination, unless we can access the technology from those who have
it.
Lastly an unrelated though relevant observation: this is about the
perennial gap in perception of the performance of military hardware
between the military and the designer -scientists. In such instances
it would be prudent to go by the views of the military.
Also see: The Indo-US nuclear deal | By the same author: `Time for
offensive action`
Lt Gen Vinay Shankar`s last assignment in the Army was as Director
General of Artillery, in which capacity he closely oversaw the Kargil
War of 1999. He writes regularly on international relations, defence,
national strategy and security. He is also an Editorial Advisor to the
Indian Defence Review.
http://sify.com/news/time-to-test-our-nuclear-deterrence-news-columns-jjqwe5dddea.html?cid=13180904
chhotemianinshallah
By Shashi Tharoor | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 30, 2009
Issues 2010
the convulsions in the international financial markets led many to
expect that the cause of economic reform in an increasingly globalized
India would suffer a decisive setback. "See, we were right in opposing
all this liberalization," one revanchist told me, stressing that it
was India's intrusive regulatory system that had saved it from a worse
fate. Communist politicians formerly allied to Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh even argued that it was their obstructionism that saved India
from deregulating itself into disaster.
Their exultation was premature. In the short term, the reformers were
indeed pushed on the defensive by the crisis. The Indian stock markets
dropped, foreign investors pulled out, and trade fell.
But the country recovered quickly. In part that's because it is much
less dependent than most on global trade and capital. India relies on
external trade for about 20 percent of its GDP versus 75 percent in
China; India's large and robust internal market accounts for the rest.
Indians continued producing goods and services for other Indians, and
that kept the economy humming. So did domestic investors, who also
kept most of the money at home. Remittances from overseas Indians
remained robust, reaching $46.4 billion in 2008–09. And soon foreign
investors returned. When the crisis began in September 2008, they had
withdrawn $12 billion from our stock markets, but they are now
flooding back: foreign direct investment reached $27.3 billion in 2008–
09 and hit a rate of $1 billion per week in May 2009.
Sure, India's generally conservative financial system helped. Our
banks and financial institutions were not tempted to buy the exotic—
and toxic—financial instruments that ruined several Western
institutions. But precisely be-cause our system held up so well, there
has been no rush to reregulate.
India's achievement is all the more striking when you remember the
terrorist attacks on Mumbai in late November2008. Those terrorists
struck at India's financial nerve center and commercial capital, a
city emblematic of the country's energetic thrust into the 21st
century. They sought to destroy the image of India as an emerging
economic gi-ant and an increasing magnet for investors and tourists,
to make India seem insecure and vulnerable, a soft state bedeviled by
enemies who could wound it with impunity. Yet once again India proved
resilient and restrained in response. And the country was rewarded:
despite all the setbacks, its GDP growth rate hit 6.7 percent in 2008–
09.
Government policy has also helped. India rolled out two rounds of
fiscal stimulus. Its financial authorities have pushed for lower
interest rates, expanded credit, and reduced excise duties, all of
which have boosted growth. And now there are signs that the crisis is
already bottoming out: industrial production has either stabilized or
is expanding, India's trade is picking up, and financial markets are
thriving.
So the cause of economic liberalization remains safe in India. Indeed,
it is proceeding, led by a confident Prime Minister Singh, who knows
he has steered the ship of state through some particularly treacherous
waters. India has recently concluded free-trade agreements with ASEAN
and South Korea, and similar arrangements are being negotiated with
other East Asian countries. India is also eyeing other ways to
integrate with its neighbors.
As for the reactionaries who hoped to return India to the era of over-
regulation, they've been silenced. India was less affected by the
crisis than the rest of the world, not because it was isolated but
because its capitalist fundamentals are strong. In the last 15 years,
India has pulled more people out of poverty than in the previous 45.
The country has prospered, and despite population growth, per capita
income has in-creased faster than ever before. The financial crisis,
far from prompting us to retreat, is being used to safeguard these
gains and to build on them. India will not return to the economics of
nationalism, which equated political independence with economic self-
sufficiency and so relegated us to chronic poverty and mediocrity.
Instead of retreating from the world, India is advancing with more
confidence than ever.
Tharooris India's minister of state for external affairs.
© 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/225619
chhotemianinshallah
31 Dec 2009, 0058 hrs IST, REUTERS
TORONTO: Auto sales will gain momentum worldwide in 2010 on the back
of better access to credit and a return to 3% growth in the global
economy, Milestones for auto sector
setting the stage for record volumes in 2011, according the latest
industry forecast from Scotia Economics.
China, which became the world’s largest auto market in 2009, will lead
the way, along with India and Brazil, but the US market will also see
a double-digit advance, according to the report, which was released on
Tuesday.
“Global car sales will continue to be buoyed by the ongoing massive
and synchronised monetary and fiscal stimulus, which has generated a
global economic recovery, including improving auto lending across the
globe,” said Carlos Gomes, senior economist at Scotia Economics.
“In fact, we estimate that auto loans across major markets bottomed in
the first quarter of 2009 and have improved consistently alongside a
thawing in global credit markets and falling interest rates.”
Gomes said vehicle purchases in the US would be bolstered by rising
incomes, pent-up demand and low prices.
chhotemianinshallah
PTI 31 December 2009, 10:43am IST
MUMBAI: The Bombay Stock Exchange benchmark Sensex today rose by over
139 points, or 0.80%, in early trade after on selective buying by
funds and retail investors in power and metal stocks.
The 30-share index gained 139.81 points, or 0.80%, at 17,483.63
points. the barometer had closed lower by 75.74 points in the previous
session.
The wide-based National Stock Exchange index Nifty also regained 5,200
level in the first five minutes of trading rising by 40.45 points to
5,209.90 points.
Marketmen said buying activity picked up after a firming trend in
Asian regions following overnight gains in the US markets.
Ending of current month settlement in the derivatives contract also
fuelled the buying activity, they said.
Power, realty and metal stocks were the major gainers. The Hong Kong's
Hang Seng index was up 1.68% in the morning trade. The US Dow Jones
Industrial Average closed 0.03% higher in overnight trade.
chhotemianinshallah
IANS 23 December 2009, 01:12pm IST
NEW DELHI: Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee said on Wednesday that
India's economy would grow at 9-10% in the coming two to three
years.
"The target of growth of 9-10% has been there for a very long period.
It is now within our reach and we shall achieve it," Mukherjee told
the 104th annual session of the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
here.
"In the next two to three years, we are targeting economic growth of
9% and the growth rate will be more inclusive and widespread. Our
country remains one of the fastest growing economies in the world," he
added.
"Our agricultural growth should be at 4% so that there is a balanced
growth."
Referring to the mid-year fiscal review where the government has
suggested growth of 7.75% in 2009-10, the finance minister said: "It
would be better to say that it would be between 7.5-8%."
chhotemianinshallah
Reeba Zachariah, TNN 31 December 2009, 12:00pm IST
MUMBAI: The world sat up and took notice of the Tata Group in the
first decade of the 21st century. How? A string of prestigious
acquisitions abroad and an unimaginably cheap car, transformed the 140-
year-old Indian business house into a global conglomerate. However, it
will be interesting to see where the group heads for in the next
decade when its charismatic chairman Ratan Tata makes way for a
younger person to take over the reins.
Just imagine, at the beginning of the millennium, the Tata group was
staring at two disappointments — a huge loss of Rs 550 crore at its
flagship company Telco (now Tata Motors) and the financial mess at
Tata Finance. However, after a decade, the group is a name to reckon
with in the international corporate scene on the basis of Ratan Tata's
daring acquisitions of coveted global assets, starting with Tetley in
the fall of 2000 and moving to top gear with Jaguar Land Rover in June
2008.
Tata Steel's $13 billion Corus acquisition is the largest overseas
deal by an Indian firm. The group's revenues have jumped nine times
from Rs 35,937 crore in the late 90's to Rs 3,25,334 crore in 2008-09,
with 65% of the revenues coming from overseas.
But apart from these big-ticket deals, what made the group tick was
the creation of a business model that will tap the masses — a model
that was inspired by the bottom of the pyramid theme. And here's where
the Nano drives in — an almost impossible feat, a people's car with a
Rs 1 lakh tag.
It was the brainchild of Ratan Tata, a Capricorn, who turned 72 a
couple of days ago, became the group's chairman in 1991. According to
a a Tata veteran, the group has gone through three phases since then.
One, he established control over the group, which was then tightly
managed by a few people. Two, he kicked off the restructuring and
restrategising programme: He set a goal to be among the top three
players in the businesses the group has a presence in, to increase the
group's minuscule holding to a comfortable position; and formation of
a common brand identity in the two-dimensional Tata blue logo.
Third, perhaps the most ambitious, was building a global empire. The
group had some setbacks too during the decade. For example, the
abandonment of the $3 billion investment in Bangladesh, pulling out
the Nano project from West Bengal, the terror attacks on its hotel,
Taj Mahal Palace and Tower, and the financial stress it experienced as
a result of the global meltdown.
However, the next decade would see a major change in the Tata group.
Ratan Tata would retire from Tata Sons in 2012, when he turns 75, to
make way for a successor. However, he may continue to be the chairman
of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and Sir Ratan Trust — the two charitable
trusts that hold a major stake in Tata Sons — a position his
predecessor JRD Tata held till his death. He has built a global
business empire. What's next for the Tata Group?
chhotemianinshallah
Journal
IANS 30 December 2009, 11:13am IST
WASHINGTON: Calling it "The Decade That Was India's", a leading US
daily says India's ability to make the success of the last 10 years
the norm across regions and industries, "could well pave the way for
an Indian century."
"Nobody knew what would happen when 1999 ended. Would computer systems
crash and paralyse machines, power lines, lights, life as we know it?"
the Wall Street Journal said recalling how the world turned to India
to take on the dreaded Y2K bug.
"This was the decade that defined India - and India defined. Think
back to the mid-1990s, as software services entrepreneurs assure me,
and Americans didn't know India at all," the leading US financial
daily said. "Ten years later, the world is in panic mode again -and
some economists think India will come to the rescue yet again."
"This time, it's from the evolution of that nascent outsourcing model
into the engine of a robust global player that can do more than serve
US companies; Indians can buy their products, too," the Journal said
noting, "The bookends of this decade are significant for India and its
place in the new economic order."
"The backlash against outsourcing remains a very real threat,
intensifying amid 10% unemployment in the US," it said. "But
outsourcing - and the idea that companies must operate cheaply,
efficiently, globally - has come to be an accepted, inescapable
reality."
A majority of Americans believe the US is in decline, the daily said
citing a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll from earlier this month. "A
plurality went as far as to say the US will be surpassed by China in
20 years as the world's top power."
"India can hardly be far behind, given its population projected to
exceed China and its democratic form of government," the Journal said
noting, "That would have been unthinkable in 1999."
"But congratulations for India must be fleeting. It is too easy to
look backward to see how far it has come. It is hardly fruitful to
look forward to a time that it might surpass China or the US as a
superpower," the daily said.
"What will distinguish India in the decade that begins Friday is its
ability to now look inward, to clean its government, to uplift more of
its population, to foster the businesses and innovations ... and make
their success of the last 10 years the norm across regions and
industries," the daily said.
"That might just clinch more than the next decade - it could well pave
the way for an Indian century," the Journal said.
chhotemianinshallah
New Delhi, Dec 31 (PTI)
Within a month of the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow, the Admiral
Gorshkov aircraft carrier issue between India and Russia seems to have
been resolved as the two sides have agreed on the final price for the
warship after several years of protracted negotiations.
Talks on the issue between Defence Ministry's Contract Negotiation
Committee (CNC) and a Russian team were concluded recently, Defence
Ministry sources said here.
The proposal will now be sent to the Finance Ministry and after
getting clearance from there, the Cabinet Committee on Security will
take a final call on the issue, they added.
The aircraft carrier is expected to join the Indian Navy fleet in 2012
as 'INS Vikramaditya'.
The two countries have been renegotiating the deal since 2007 after
Moscow demanded an additional USD 1.2 billion for the warship. Later,
the demand was increased to USD 2.9 billion for refitting and
refurbishing the aircraft carrier.
The deal finalised during the NDA regime in January 2004 and India had
paid USD 1.5 billion for the warship and 16 MiG 29K fighter aircraft.
Of this amount, USD 948 million were paid for refitting the 44,500
tonne vessel and the balance was for the combat jets and Kamov anti-
submarine warfare helicopters to be deployed on the ship.
During Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Russia earlier this
month, officials had said the two countries have ended the stalemate
over the contentious price and technical issues for aircraft
carrier.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/44136/india-russia-agree-final-price.html
chhotemianinshallah
''The coalition polity has strengthened participation.''
It is double celebration time, today. As we welcome the New Year, we
have stepped into the first day of the 21st Century’s second decade.
We, as a nation, might have been weighed down a bit on confidence
count by past year’s unending stories of the global economic downturn
and the excruciatingly slow pace of recovery. India, though, has fared
better than most during the testing times of the past one year. One
year is too short in the life of a nation. That is why it is relevant
for us to have a decadal perspective of what the first decade of this
century has meant to us as we look to the future.
Ten years ago, the world acknowledged that the 21st Century would
belong to India and China. This prognosis may not be erroneous. For
one, India’s image in the comity of nations has changed in the first
decade of the century. There is no more the talk of that ‘Hindu growth
rate’ of India — a euphemism for slow economic and high population
growth rates. If the economy grew by an average of about six per cent
in the first half of the decade, it gained momentum to record an
average of 8.5 per cent in the next five years. There is near-
consensus at home and abroad about sustaining this growth story in the
decades to come. It is also recognition of the need to translate this
growth rate into better standards of living for all sections, in
particular to bridge the urban-rural divide. While it might be early
to draw any definitive conclusion about their effectiveness, mega
schemes like the national rural employment programme have been
launched to ensure that the rural poor join India’s growth story. But
it is by now accepted that the last decade of the national coalition
polity has significantly strengthened the democratic polity’s
participatory essence.
Yet, there are serious and fundamental challenges that act as
obstacles: lack of political and bureaucratic accountability,
pervasive corruption, myriad socio-economic tensions, etc. A galloping
India has not only drawn the world’s attention, it has also attracted
the underworld, what with organised international terrorist groups
making the country their target. We have to demonstrate far more
commitment to combat the menace, particularly since the country’s
immediate neighbourhood is the epicentre of global terrorism. As our
national quest for peaceful development will have to surmount these
roadblocks, we have a responsibility that we cannot duck: to avert an
environmental disaster while seeking economic growth and
development.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/44186/leap-faith.html
chhotemianinshallah
Rajat Pandit, TNN 30 December 2009, 04:32am IST
NEW DELHI: The Army is now revising its five-year-old doctrine to
effectively meet the challenges of a possible `two-front war' with
China and Pakistan, deal with asymmetric and fourth-generation
warfare, enhance strategic reach and joint operations with IAF and
Navy.
Work on the new war doctrine -- to reflect the reconfiguration of
threat perceptions and security challenges -- is already underway
under the aegis of Shimla-based Army Training Command, headed by Lt-
General A S Lamba, said sources.
It comes in the backdrop of the 1.13-million strong Army having
practised -- through several wargames over the last five years -- its
`pro-active' war strategy to mobilise fast and strike hard to
pulverise the enemy.
This `cold start strategy', under a NBC (nuclear-chemical-biological)
overhang, emerged from the `harsh lessons' learnt during Operation
Parakram, where it took Army's strike formations almost a month to
mobilise at the `border launch pads' after the December 2001 terrorist
attack on Parliament.
This gave ample opportunity to Pakistan to shore up its defences as
well as adequate time to the international community, primarily the
US, to intervene. The lack of clear directives from the then NDA
government only made matters worse.
"A major leap in our approach to conduct of operations (since then)
has been the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be
able to go to war promptly)," said Army chief General Deepak Kapoor,
at a closed-door seminar on Tuesday.
The plan now is to launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle
groups', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at
their core, adequately backed by air cover and artillery fire
assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.
Gen Kapoor identified five thrust areas that will drive the new
doctrine. One, even as the armed forces prepare for their primary task
of conventional wars, they must also factor in the eventuality of `a
two-front war' breaking out.
In tune with this, after acquiring a greater offensive punch along the
entire western front with Pakistan by the creation of a new South-
Western Army Command in 2005, India is now taking steps -- albeit
belatedly -- to strategically counter the stark military asymmetry
with China in the eastern sector. There is now "a proportionate focus
towards the western and north-eastern fronts", said Gen Kapoor.
Two, the Army needs to `optimise' its capability to effectively
counter `both military and non-military facets' of asymmetric and sub-
conventional threats like WMD terrorism, cyber warfare, electronic
warfare and information warfare.
Three, the armed forces have to substantially enhance their strategic
reach and out-of-area capabilities to protect India's geo-political
interests stretching from Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait.
"This would enable us to protect our island territories; as also give
assistance to the littoral states in the Indian Ocean Region," said
Gen Kapoor.
Four, interdependence and operational synergy among Army, Navy and IAF
must become the essence of strategic planning and execution in future
wars. "For this, joint operations, strategic and space-based
capability, ballistic missile defence and amphibious, air-borne and
air-land operations must be addressed comprehensively," he said.
And five, India must strive to achieve a technological edge over its
adversaries. "Harnessing and exploitation of technology also includes
integration of network centricity, decision-support systems,
information warfare and electronic warfare into our operational
plans," he added.
Apart from analysing the evolving military strategy and doctrines of
China and Pakistan, the Army is also studying the lessons learnt from
the US-launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in 2001 and
Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and their relevance to India.
QnA: Does China meddle in Indo-Pak relations