Author Topic: India (Superthread)  (Read 34101 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,178
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #175 on: March 03, 2011, 14:55:37 »
Paying to play in the big leagues:
   
India Raises Defense Budget by Nearly 12%
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab424b11e-a5bf-41b6-8eec-dc4e86787e61

Quote
India has raised its defense budget by nearly 12% for 2011-12, about 1.8% of its GDP. Last year it raised its budget by just 4%. But according to the respected Hindustan Times, defense “spending ought to have been around 3% of the GDP, seen in the backdrop of China's rising military might.”

Strategic affairs expert Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (retd) was quoted by the daily as saying “the hike is hardly adequate to meet the military’s rising responsibilities in view of the feverish pace of China’s military modernization. India’s defence modernization gathered steam only during the last three to four years. Much needs to be done to build offensive capabilities in the long term.”

The increase to $36.5 billion for 2011-12, from $32.74 billion this year, includes a 12% boost in spending for weapon systems and platforms. As a comparison China's 2010 defense budget was $78 billion.

Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told the country's parliament, the Lok Sabha, when he was presenting the budget earlier this week that "more than 40% of the Indian defense budget for 2011 will be spent on capital expenditure [emphasis added], while the rest will go toward maintaining its armed forces.”

Among procurements which could be finalized next year are the $11 billion deal for 126 multi-role combat aircraft as well as 197 light helicopters and 145 ultra-light howitzers for the army. During Aero India last month, the Chief of Air Staff P.V. Naik stated that, barring complications, the combat aircraft contract should be signed by September...

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,178
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #176 on: March 07, 2011, 16:24:56 »
Slowly, slowly:

MMRCA Shortlist To Be Announced Early April
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/03/07/09.xml

Quote
NEW DELHI — The shortlist for the six contenders for India’s Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program is to be announced in the first week of April.

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik had declared at Aero India on Feb. 10 that he was optimistic that price negotiations would start within a few weeks and a deal could be signed by September, “provided dissatisfied vendors do not put a spoke in the wheel and delay proceedings.”

Aviation Week has learned that two or three vendors will be asked to submit their offset proposals within six months. The defense ministry will negotiate offsets with the down-selected companies only. Recently, the ministry asked all MMRCA vendors to hold back on presenting their offset proposals.

According to India’s Defense Procurement Procedures, the offset proposals are not a primary criterion for the source selection, as they are compliant.

The 126-aircraft MMRCA contract is the largest defense procurement program in India and the most-watched fighter competition around the world. In the running are Mikoyan’s MiG-35, the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18E/F and Lockheed Martin F-16.

Some observers here have been speculating that the Typhoon and Rafale are the leading contenders. It is not clear if a decision has been made on a third down-select vendor; sources in the defense ministry have indicated it could be Boeing.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,178
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #177 on: March 13, 2011, 13:08:53 »
The other religious-inspired terrorists--important article, I think:

Hindu terrorism charges force India to reflect on prejudices against Muslims
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031204921.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

Quote
IN DEWAS, INDIA When a series of bomb attacks ripped through Muslim neighborhoods, mosques and shrines in India in recent years, suspicion fell firmly on a familiar culprit: Islamist terror. After each incident, scores of Indian Muslims were rounded up, and many were tortured. Confessions were extracted, the names of various militant "masterminds" leaked to the media and links with Pakistan widely alleged.

Never mind that most of the victims were Muslims; it seemed natural to many people, from New Delhi to Washington, to assume the attacks were the work of extremist Pakistani militants and their Indian Muslim sympathizers, intent on fanning religious tensions in India and disrupting the peace process between the nuclear-armed rivals.

But those investigations, and the assumptions behind them, were turned on their head early this year by the confession of a Hindu holy man. Swami Aseemanand told a magistrate that the bomb makers were neither Pakistani nor Muslim but Hindu radicals, bent on revenge for many earlier acts of terrorism across India that had been perpetrated by Muslims.

His statement, subsequently leaked to the media, alleged that a network of radicals stretched right up to senior levels of the country's Hindu nationalist right wing. It also exposed deep-seated prejudices within the police against the country's minority Muslim population.

Ironically, the charges may also have helped India and Pakistan to get back to the negotiating table last month after relations broke down in the wake of the 2008 attacks on Mumbai.

A string of attacks

Like many Indians, Aseemanand was furious with terrorist attacks in the country carried out by Muslims. "We should answer bombs with bombs," he told a small group of Hindu extremists in June 2006, only to discover a plot was already well under way.

In the ensuing 18 months, bombs were placed on bicycles in a Muslim cemetery in the western town of Malegaon, hidden under a granite slab in a mosque in Hyderabad and left in a tiffin lunchbox in an important Sufi shrine in Ajmer, all targets Aseemanand said he suggested.

In another attack, 68 people, most of them Pakistanis, were killed when suitcases packed with explosives were placed next to gasoline bottles on a train headed from western India to Pakistan. Many of the victims were unable to escape the inferno because of bars on the train windows, and their bodies were burned beyond recognition.

Evidence that radical Hindus, including an army colonel who is suspected of supplying the technical expertise and the explosives, were behind several of these bombings began to surface more than two years ago, and several people were arrested, including Aseemanand.

But his statement is the first clear evidence that Indian Hindu terrorists were to blame for the deaths of Pakistani Muslim travelers on the Samjhauta, or Friendship, Express.

Pakistan reacted to the news with ill-disguised glee, arguing that the botched investigations and the subsequent confession confirmed its suspicions that India "lacked the courage" to prosecute radical Hindus.

In India, there was sober reflection in some quarters about prejudices against Muslims. The Hindu right's old adage, that "while not every Muslim is a terrorist, every terrorist is a Muslim," could no longer be trotted out with a straight face.

India had been insisting it would not restart a formal peace process with Pakistan until that country properly investigated and prosecuted state-sponsored militants blamed for the attacks on Mumbai, which left 166 people dead.

Pakistan responded in kind, demanding a fuller and faster investigation into the train attack. India put on a brave face, but the revelations were an embarrassment, one official privately admitted, as Indian media judged that their government had lost some of the moral high ground...

Meanwhile, nine Muslims have languished in jail for more than four years, accused of carrying out the Malegaon bombings, in which 37 people were killed. They have been subjected, their attorney says, to horrific torture [emphasis added], their families reduced to poverty. But they hope Aseemanand's confession will soon persuade a judge to release them on bail...


As for torture, see this at the CDFAI's 3Ds Blog:

Corruption? What stinking corruption? And what stinking torture?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=44

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,178
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #178 on: March 14, 2011, 10:31:51 »
Very indicative:

Ambitious India now world's largest arms importer (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_INDIA_ARMS_IMPORTS?SITE=TXNEW

Quote
NEW DELHI (AP) -- In its race to join the club of international powers, India has reached another milestone - it's now the world's largest weapons importer.

A Swedish think tank that monitors global arms sales said Monday that India's weapons imports had overtaken China's, as the South Asian nation pushes ahead with plans to modernize its military, counter Beijing's influence and gain international clout.

"India has ambitions to become first a continental and (then) a regional power," said Rahul Bedi, a South Asia analyst with London-based Jane's Defense Weekly. "To become a big boy, you need to project your power."

According to the report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India accounted for 9 percent of all international arms imports in the period from 2006 to 2010, and it is expected to keep the top spot for the foreseeable future...

China dropped to second place, with 6 percent of global imports, as it continued to build up its domestic arms industry, something India has so far failed to do, Wezeman said.

The United States was the largest arms exporter, followed by Russia and Germany, according to the report...

India's investment comes amid its rising concerns about China's regional power and its designs over vital Indian Ocean shipping lanes, which New Delhi sees as part of its sphere of influence.

It is spending billions of dollars on fighter jets and aircraft carriers to modernize its air force and navy. Tensions also linger over unresolved border issues with China which led to war in 1962.

India also remains in its traditional faceoff with neighboring Pakistan, with which it has fought three wars...

India's defense budget for the coming year is 1.5 trillion rupees ($32.5 billion), a 40 percent increase from two years before. It imports more than 70 percent of its arms.

The vast majority of those imports, 82 percent, come from Russia, which has long been India's supplier of choice, the report said. But other countries have been pushing for a chunk of the lucrative market, with world leaders streaming here in recent months, in part to push defense deals.

During British Prime Minister David Cameron's July visit, the two countries announced a nearly $1.1 billion deal for India to buy 57 Hawk advanced trainer jets. During President Barack Obama's November visit, a $4.1 billion sale of 10 C-17 transport aircraft was announced.

France and India moved closer to finalizing a $2.1 billion Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft upgrade deal during President Nicolas Sarkozy's December visit, and a few weeks later India and Russia agreed to jointly develop a fifth generation fighter aircraft during President Dmitry Medvedev's visit.

India is awaiting delivery of a $2.3 billion rebuilt aircraft carrier from Russia - as it builds another carrier itself - and has ordered six submarines worth $4.5 billion from France.

With India expected to spend $80 billion over the next decade to upgrade its military, more plums await.

India is in the market to buy 126 fighter jets, a deal worth $11 billion, and about 200 helicopters worth another $4 billion. It also has plans to buy large amphibious landing ships at $300 million to $500 million each [emphasis added, Mistrals?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,88747.msg870091.html#msg870091 ]
and is discussing another $10 billion submarine order, Wezeman said...

At least CIDA no longer has a bilateral aid program,
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/india
though we do for some reason maintain one in China:
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/china

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #179 on: June 06, 2011, 07:13:09 »
See here, please.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #180 on: November 03, 2011, 19:31:45 »
India is already a major power, and getting them on side (through free trade or some sort of formal or informal "Anglosphere" pact) will be one of tghe most pressing issues for Canada and the West in the coming decades. A nation with a middle class population of 300 million will certainly be a very important trading partner at the very least. Dr. Rice makes the case for the United States, I don't think our situation is that much different:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/98706

Quote

Building a New Relationship with India
by Condoleezza Rice (Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow and member of the Task Force on Energy Policy)
And managing our hot-headed allies, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the war on terror.
Editor's note: The following essay is an excerpt from the book, "No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington," by Condoleezza Rice

…On February 28 [2006], the President left for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The trip required the most delicate balancing act to get the messaging right in each of the places. Our delinking of relations with Islamabad and New Delhi was working—there was no more talk of U.S. policy toward India-Pakistan, or Indo-Pak, as it was sometimes called. We now had distinct approaches to both important countries. And we were doing really well with India: while there the President would sign the landmark civil nuclear deal.

The nuclear deal was the centerpiece of our effort to build a fundamentally different relationship with India. From the earliest stages of the 2000 campaign, it had been our intention to change the terms of U.S.-Indian engagement. As I noted earlier, the crucial nuclear agreement required breaking many taboos. India had refused to sign the NPT in 1968 and had then conducted a nuclear test in 1974. Only five countries had been “grandfathered” as nuclear powers in 1968—the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China. Any country that subsequently acquired a nuclear capability was deemed to be in violation of this important set of prohibitions. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed a bill that cut off all nuclear trade with India.

 
Photo credit: Google images
The United States thus maintained a web of restrictions on technology transfer and cooperation with India. The list of prohibitions grew over the years, with the condemnation reaching its height in 1998. That year, in response to a long-range missile test by Pakistan, Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee authorized the Indian military to conduct a series of underground nuclear tests, including India’s first test of a thermonuclear weapon. When Pakistan followed up with its own nuclear test, the two countries became linked as the poster children for crimes against the non-proliferation regime.

Their behavior was different, however. India had developed an excellent record of respecting proliferation safeguards in terms of not transferring technology to other countries. Pakistan—well, it was the home of the nuclear proliferation entrepreneur A. Q. Khan, who had spread nuclear enrichment technology to North Korea and Iran, among other places.

India needed civil nuclear power and wanted to break out of the constraints on high-technology cooperation that were stunting its growth. The proposed civil nuclear deal would make it possible for the United States—and American companies—to help India develop its potentially rich market for this environmentally friendly energy source. But the breakthrough was not just about nuclear power—it would unlock a wide range of possible areas of cooperation with a country that was an emerging power in the knowledge-based revolution in economic affairs. The Indians made clear, too, that they hoped to become a customer for U.S. military hardware. That was an exciting prospect for the defense industry. And for us, even though we were not seeking to “balance” China, cooperation with another emerging power in Asia, especially a democratic one, was a welcome development.

The interests of the United States and India were in substantial alignment. But any change of this magnitude brings resistance. In Washington, the high priests of non-proliferation accused us of gutting the NPT, a treaty that had significantly limited the emergence of nuclear weapons states.

Our problems were considerable in 2006 but Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s were far more complicated, stemming from the Indian national security elite’s almost existential attachment to the “independence” of its nuclear program. For some officials, the requirement to place India’s nuclear reactors (only the existing civilian ones and any new ones) under IAEA supervision amounted to nothing less than an attack on India’s sovereignty. Many of those Indian bureaucrats and pundits also valued their country’s “non-aligned status,” a relic of the Cold War, when India had declared itself as belonging to neither the Soviet nor the American “bloc.” When confronted with that argument, my Indian counterpart, K. Natwar Singh, said, “The Cold War is over. Exactly against whom are we non-aligned?” Good point. But for many in New Delhi the idea of close technological cooperation with the United States was just too much to swallow.

To some, the requirement to place India’s nuclear reactors under IAEA supervision amounted to an attack on India’s sovereignty.

As a result of these tensions, the deal suffered several near-death experiences before and after Singh and Bush signed it in New Delhi. The first had come a year before in Washington, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the United States in July 2005.

The two leaders were expected to sign a framework document to end the moratorium on nuclear trade and pave the way for a full agreement on civil-nuclear cooperation. I met the day before with my Indian counterpart Natwar Singh in his suite at the Willard Hotel. Frankly, there was so much buzz around the State Department that we wanted to work in a location away from the press and where the atmosphere was more informal. I also thought it a sign of respect to go to him, even though we were in Washington.

Natwar was adamant. He wanted the deal, but the prime minister wasn’t sure he could sell it in New Delhi. We pushed as far as we could toward agreement. Finally, Natwar said that he would take the document to the prime minister and let me know.

That evening, [Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs] Nick Burns asked to see me. With Bob Zoellick, the deputy secretary, and several members of the senior staff, Phil Zelikow, Brian Gunderson, and Sean McCormack, in tow, he came down the hall from his office and entered mine. “It isn’t going to work,” Nick said. “The foreign minister tried, but the prime minister just can’t sign on to the agreement.”

I was a bit surprised, perhaps having misread Natwar’s determination as an indicator that he had the authority to speak for his government. It was late, and I was tired. “Well, if they don’t want to get out of the nuclear ghetto, I can’t do anything about it,” I said. “Why don’t you go and meet with the Indians and try one more time.” I called the President. “It isn’t going to work. Singh just can’t make it happen,” I said.

“Too bad,” he answered and didn’t press further. Later that night Nick called to tell me what I already knew—there wouldn’t be a deal. I went to bed, constructing a script in my head for the press the next day about needing more time for the negotiations. That sounds lame, I thought as I drifted into a fitful sleep.

I woke up at 4:30 a.m. and sat straight up in bed. I am not letting this go down, I thought. I called Nick at 5:00 a.m. “I am not prepared to let this fail. Arrange for me to see the prime minister,” I said. The meeting with the President was set for ten. “How about breakfast at eight?” Nick called while I was exercising to say that the prime minister didn’t want to meet. “Get the foreign minister,” I answered. Natwar picked up the phone. My heart was beating pretty fast—maybe from the exercise, maybe from the sense of an important initiative slipping through my fingers. “Natwar, why won’t the PM see me?”

“He doesn’t want to tell you no,” he said. “I’ve done my best. I told him that the United States wants to take this thirty-year millstone from around your neck. You should do it. But he can’t sell it in New Delhi.”

I wasn’t ready to surrender. “Ask him again,” I pleaded. A few minutes later, Natwar called to say that the prime minister would receive me at his hotel at 8 a.m.

I went to the office for a few minutes and then to the Willard, having called the President to tell him I would try personally one more time. Steve asked if I wanted him to go with me. “No, I think I need to do this alone,” I said. I entered the prime minister’s suite and sat there with Natwar and his boss—all three of us not bothering to touch the pastries and coffee that had been served.

“Mr. Prime Minister, this is the deal of a lifetime. You and President Bush are about to put U.S.-Indian relations on a fundamentally new footing. I know it’s hard for you, but it’s hard for the President too. I didn’t come here to negotiate language—only to ask you to tell your officials to get this done. And let’s get it done before you see the President.” Prime Minister Singh, a mild-mannered man who speaks slowly and softly, pushed back but eventually gave the nod to his people to try again.

There was a lot of discussion—but no commitment—regarding India’s pursuit of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

end part 1
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #181 on: November 03, 2011, 19:33:18 »
Part 2

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/98706

Quote
I went directly to the White House and told the President what I’d done. When the Indians arrived, our negotiators and theirs sat in the Roosevelt Room, trying to find agreement, while the President, Prime Minister Singh, Natwar, and I sat nervously in the Oval pretending to focus on other matters. Finally, I got a note to join the negotiators. Natwar and I entered the room to the smiling Nick Burns and his counterpart. “We’ve got it,” Nick said.

The two leaders released the framework agreement to the press, most of whom were already writing stories of failure. Bob Zoellick came into my office. “Sometimes the secretary of state gets tested. You wouldn’t take no for an answer,” he said. I felt very good, but the New York Times’s editorial board soon reminded me that there would be a push back. The U.S.-India deal, it opined, would cause responsible NPT signatories to “be more inclined to regard the non-proliferation treaty as an anachronism, reconsider their self-restraint, and be tempted by the precedent that India has successfully established and that now, in effect, has an American blessing.”

The arguments from the non-proliferation community were not without merit. The whole premise of the regime was that countries who pursued civilian nuclear power under safeguards—inspections, reporting, and so on—would not pursue military weapons programs. It was too easy, it was thought, to divert technology from one to the other. That, some said, had been the argument vis-à-vis Iran. How could we argue that India was different?

It was a good question, but, unlike Iran, India was not lying to the IAEA about its enrichment activities and the fact of the existence of a military program was well known. Though ideally India—or Pakistan, for that matter—would not have built a nuclear weapons program, this was now a fact of life. The key from our point of view was to get India within the IAEA regime, even if they could not and would not be party to the NPT. Our thinking tracked closely with that of Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA and thus the guardian of the NPT. Better to have India in the tent in some fashion, even if New Delhi could not formally join the NPT. ElBaradei understood this point.

At least new construction of reactors would be under safeguard. India already had more than enough nuclear material for its military program. It needed help on the civilian side and we needed the strategic breakthrough with this emerging, democratic power.

The work to move from that initial announcement of a civil-nuclear deal in 2005 to a more detailed framework agreement by March 2006, when the President would visit New Delhi, was extremely difficult and the effort almost failed several times. The prime minister had indeed encountered difficulty when he returned home from Washington in the summer of 2005. By the time of the trip, the Indian delegation was trying to walk back some of the language on IAEA safeguards. Steve and Nick went to the Foreign Ministry to try to hammer out a solution. I thought that I would stay away this time, giving us another bite at the apple should they fail. After several ups and downs and near misses over a period of eight hours, they succeeded. The United States and India had a civil-nuclear deal. Now the really hard work would begin. The reality was that the deal could not go into force until we met a number of criteria stipulated by U.S. law. But we’d lived to fight another day—and that was good enough for the time being.

The nuclear deal was the news of the President’s visit to India. Yet other elements of the trip demonstrated why it was time to change the relationship with this emerging global power. I remember well the President’s meeting with students at the business school in Hyderabad, a center of technological sophistication that personified India’s potential as a high-tech leader and economic dynamo. This could be Stanford, I thought.

There was a lot of discussion—but no commitment—regarding India’s pursuit of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Indians had a good argument and one for which I had some sympathy. The UN Security Council did not reflect the changes in the balance of power that had taken place with World War II. International institutions are like the rings of a tree—you can date their birth by looking at their membership. The original permanent five members of the Security Council (those with veto authority) were the Soviet Union (Russia became the successor state in 1991), China (with the PRC replacing Chang Kai Shek’s ROC in Taiwan in 1971), France, the UK, and the United States. But now there were other important powers and whole continents that were not represented. What about Japan, the world’s third largest economy? What about the Middle East? And of course the emerging market powers of Brazil and India did not hold permanent membership either.

The meeting with Pakistan’s President Musharraf was dominated by talk of terrorism and our response.

The United States had long championed Japan’s case but frankly the politics of UNSC reform were just too complicated to take on. The incorporation of India was opposed by China. Brazil’s candidacy raised the question of Mexico’s exclusion. The Africans could never settle on a candidate to represent a continent split between the Arab north and the Sub-Saharan black south. And reform would have raised a sticky question for our closest allies. Germany wanted membership, too. Did it make sense to have three European representatives—particularly when the European Union was supposed to have a common foreign policy?

We adopted a strategy of acknowledging the importance of reform and welcoming reasonable proposals, but we never acted on any of them. That said, the continued focus on the issue by emerging powers such as India underscored their growing insistence on a voice in international affairs.

***

By way of contrast to our time in New Delhi, the trip to Pakistan began with the news upon arrival that there had been an attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi. A U.S. consular officer had been killed. The President, always gracious to his hosts, endeavored to convince the Pakistanis that this in no way cast a shadow on the visit. But of course it did. There was an air of unreality as we fought to make the visit appear normal. The Pakistanis had been insistent that the President sleep just one night in Islamabad to show that it was safe. After a lot of debate, he decided to push the Secret Service beyond its comfort zone and grant the Pakistanis’ request: we’d stay at our ambassador’s fortress-like home.

The contrasts continued. The meetings with Prime Minister Singh had been focused on technological cooperation and removing bureaucratic barriers to foreign investment. The President met for lunch with the members of a joint U.S.-Indian CEO council. But the meeting with Pakistan’s President Musharraf was dominated by talk of terrorism and our response.

And it wasn’t just the conversation that was different. In India, we were treated to a beautiful dinner outdoors on the veranda of the Presidential Palace, a fresh breeze blowing through as we looked out across the beautifully manicured grounds. In Pakistan, aware that we needed to be wheels up for Washington that evening, we sat in the Palace for a hurried two-hour dinner and a “cultural performance” that oddly featured a Western-style fashion show.

Still, the visit to Islamabad allowed us to see a glimpse of a different Pakistan. Musharraf, a classic “man on horseback” who came to power in a military coup, was making important changes in his country. I was struck by the presence of strong women ministers representing the Pakistani government in our meetings. It was also encouraging to see a vibrant press corps peppering both presidents with questions about everything from the possibility of a civil-nuclear deal with Pakistan—not possible from our point of view—to expectations about coming elections in the country. For all his limitations, with the freeing of the press and of the judiciary, Musharraf had laid the groundwork for a civilian government to return. Ironically, those changes would soon turn out to be his undoing.

India and Pakistan were successfully delinked. Unfortunately, the stop in Kabul underscored a link of another kind—Pakistan and Afghanistan were tied together more than ever as the problem of cross-border terrorism deepened. And a proposed policy change in Pakistan would only exacerbate the problem.

In September 2006 we had first gotten wind of a possible deal between the Pakistani military and the tribal leaders in North Waziristan, the territory deep in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Negotiating with the Pakistani Taliban, Musharraf agreed to withdraw troops from their territory in exchange for assurances that the tribal leaders would cease attacks on the military and stop the infiltration of militants across the Afghan border. The territory has been ungoverned throughout its history. The British had tried and failed, and the Soviet Union had simply left the suspicious, pious, and xenophobic tribes to their own devices. Pakistan had rarely interfered in the area either, but the war on terror required military engagement in the region, as al Qaeda and the Taliban had fled there after our invasion of Afghanistan.

The Pakistani military proved unequipped and poorly trained for the mission and reluctant to transform its capabilities to do a better job. Still focused on India, the Pakistani army was ready for an engagement in Kashmir but not in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier province. Though we had already given Pakistan more than $4.5 billion in security-related assistance by October 2005, Pakistan had accomplished very little in restructuring its armed forces. In fact, Islamabad’s primary concern was the release of the F-16s that had been purchased and then withheld in 1990 when Pakistan was suspected of secretly producing nuclear weapons.

The President had acceded to Musharraf’s plea to deliver the airplanes. “This will make it easier to work with my military and build a spirit of partnership,” Musharraf told me on one occasion. But it said something about the mind-set of the Pakistanis that high-performance aircraft, rather than the nuts-and-bolts of equipment and training for counter-terrorism, dominated our conversations.

The truth is that the Pakistanis had no stomach for fighting in the rugged border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Musharraf decided to cut a deal with the tribal leaders—a kind of live and let live. In exchange for a stand-down of the Pakistani military, the tribes agreed to control their “guests,” the terrorists. Only the first half of that deal was realized and the region became a safe haven for several terrorist groups: fighters commanded by Baitullah Mehsud; the Haqqani network, still active after we left office; and remnants of al Qaeda.

In late September 2006, Musharraf would come to Washington to present this deal to the President. We told Musharraf that the United States wouldn’t criticize him publicly and that we’d give the deal a chance to work. But the President made clear to him in the Oval Office meeting that the United States would take action itself if we learned of an imminent threat to our territory or if we learned that key al Qaeda figures were being harbored there. Musharraf was told point blank that we considered it our prerogative to act without permission or—possibly—Islamabad’s knowledge.

Karzai was proving to be a brilliant prosecutor, and Musharraf had few answers.

That night, the President invited Musharraf, Afghan President Karzai, and their respective ambassadors to a small dinner in the family dining room at the White House. The Vice President, Steve Hadley, and I joined President Bush at what turned out to be a contentious affair.

The dinner started routinely enough, with Karzai and Musharraf sharing their thoughts about how things were going against the Taliban and al Qaeda. But after about an hour, Musharraf started to explain the agreement that he’d made with the tribes. Sugarcoating the facts and overselling the potential benefits, he talked for more than thirty minutes. Karzai suddenly interrupted, saying that Musharraf had made a deal not with the tribal leaders but with the terrorists. When Musharraf protested, Karzai dramatically pulled out a piece of paper from his long flowing cape. “See, it says right here that the Taliban will not be disturbed,” he said. Musharraf tried to answer, but Karzai was on a roll, stopping just short of accusing the Pakistani of complicity in the cross-border raids into his country.

Things were getting pretty hot. The ambassadors were shifting in their seats, and, frankly, so were we. It was as if we were watching a heavyweight bout where one overmatched fighter had somehow gotten into the ring by mistake. Karzai was proving to be a brilliant prosecutor, and Musharraf had few answers; he seemed suddenly not to know what he’d signed.

President Bush interjected the thought that perhaps they could monitor the progress on the deal together. It was a bit lame but about all anyone could think of at the moment to separate the verbal combatants. It didn’t work, and the two were getting hotter under the collar by the moment. A photograph from that dinner says it all: Karzai and Musharraf glaring at each other while we, the ever-sunny Americans, sit with nervous—almost silly—grins on our faces.

Finally Karzai mentioned something about a joint loya jirga (tribal council) that he’d proposed. He’d never received an answer. We jumped on the opening, turning the conversation to getting such a council established. I said that I’d call Ryan Crocker and Ronald Neumann, our ambassadors in Islamabad and Kabul, to help coordinate the establishment of the jirga. When the two men left, the Vice President, Steve, the President, and I looked at one another in amazement. “They almost came to blows,” the President said. Everyone nodded in agreement.

The management of the relationship between our allies in the war on terror suddenly seemed daunting in the extreme. However, the relationship between the two men had soured well before that dinner, and the strains were very much on display as we visited Afghanistan during the President’s trip on March 1, 2006, months before their Washington encounter. When we arrived in Kabul, Karzai vented about Musharraf, whom he accused of wanting to annex Afghan Pashtuns into Pakistan. Musharraf had made a similar claim about Karzai’s desire for a greater Pashtunistan during our time in Islamabad.

The President turned the conversation with President Karzai to the training of the Afghan security forces, fighting corruption, and—most troubling—the failing effort to rid Afghanistan of poppy. The President gently suggested that we might have to use some of the methods that had succeeded in Colombia, including aerial spraying.

Hamid Karzai is a proud man, and, as had been the case in my encounter with him the year before, he tended to emphasize the positive. But it was frustrating as he declared problem after problem to be under control. “We’re making real progress with the governors on poppy eradication,” he said, a statement belied by the estimates of numerous monitoring organizations. “All we need are some alternative crops—maybe pomegranates—for them to grow,” he continued, only to note that the road network didn’t allow for the transport of perishable fruits and vegetables to market. “So we need roads, roads, roads—as quickly as possible,” he added. There was always a story of villagers who’d come to him promising to plant good crops, not bad ones.

In fact, it was good that Karzai was an optimist—maybe that was what got him up in the morning to do one of the hardest jobs on Earth. But sometimes I couldn’t tell if Karzai believed what he was saying or just thought that we might. He did not want to even acknowledge the possibility of dramatic measures such as crop destruction through aerial spraying. The issue would be a source of tension between our two countries for the remainder of the President’s term. But as frustrating as the relationship with Karzai sometimes was, he was the elected president of Afghanistan. Though in time we would come to see the importance of the governors of the provinces in addressing the country’s challenges, there was no alternative to Karzai, who stepped up to be the first freely elected president of his country.

That afternoon, the President and Laura, Karzai, our ambassador Ron Neumann, and I cut the ribbon dedicating the gigantic but not particularly attractive new U.S. Embassy in Kabul. The President asked if I’d had anything to do with the architectural design. I made clear that I hadn’t. But the big, ugly building would serve its purpose and it sent the message that, for better or worse, we were in Afghanistan for the long run.

Condoleezza Rice is the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, professor of political economy in the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and professor of political science at Stanford University.

From January 2005 to 2009, she served as the 66th secretary of state of the United States. Before serving as America’s chief diplomat, she served as assistant to the president for national security affairs (national security adviser) from January 2001 to 2005.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #182 on: November 09, 2011, 06:43:05 »
Not everything works as expected according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/asian-pacific/indias-nano-hits-bumps-on-the-road/article2229888/
Quote
India’s Nano hits bumps on the road

STEPHANIE NOLEN
NEW DELHI— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011

When Indian industrial giant Tata launched the Nano, the hype was huge. Sleek and cute in buttercup yellow, its sticker price was $2,000, making it the “world’s cheapest car.”

It promised to revolutionize both its market – putting low-income consumers behind the wheel – and car-making, through a process called “frugal engineering.” The Indian public clamoured with excitement; people lined up for hours at events to sit in a prototype. Auto companies outside India watched with great anticipation, too: was this the future for emerging markets in developing countries?

Two years later, the Nano is a cute, yellow disaster – not because there’s anything wrong with the car, which remains something of an engineering triumph, but because of a series of surprising blunders on the part of Tata.

Nano sales were predicted to be 25,000 cars a month by this point. Instead, the company sold just 2,936 in September, half as many as a year before. August was even worse, with just 1,202 Nanos sold countrywide.


Image from the Globe and Mail

So what went wrong? Missteps in everything from distribution, advertising, marketing and financing plans hobbled the car from the start.

The Nano, so the story goes, was the brainchild of Ratan Tata, the venerable head of the Tata Group. He had a vision for what the Nano would do, and it wasn’t as simple as selling millions: He said he wanted to get low-income Indian families who typically travel by scooter (families of four, five, even six, piled on a single cycle, helmet-less) off their two-wheeler, as they are called here, and into something safer. As a side benefit, he hoped the car could be produced in an IKEA-esque flat pack and shipped to remote corners of the country, creating a business opportunity for mechanics to assemble them.

Some who have watched sales of the teeny car sputter speculate that Mr. Tata’s altruistic intentions may have blinded him to some harsh marketing realities.

In essence, the Nano was marketed as the car for people who could barely afford a car. But in a market where car purchases are hugely aspirational, nobody wants that car, said Vinay Sharma, a professor of marketing and strategic management at the Indian Institute of Technology at Roorkee, whose classes study the fate of the Nano. People save for years for their first vehicle; if they drive a Nano home, the reaction from the kids is, “ ‘What have you brought, a compromise, a car that is almost a motorcycle?’ This was not the car people were dreaming of,” he said.

Most of those who have driven the Nano come away full of praise: It’s remarkably roomy, a pleasure to steer and is economical with fuel. It doesn’t feel like the world’s cheapest car.

But that hasn’t translated into people buying them.

The Nano faced two big problems early on. Its original production facility, in West Bengal, got tangled up in messy politics with the state’s Marxist then-government, and at the 11th hour the plant was shifted to Gujarat – so the company wasn’t able to meet an early rush of orders.

Once cars were on the road, there were safety fears. A few early Nanos burst into flames while being driven, and Tata didn’t mount the public relations offensive it should have over those incidents, said Ray Titus, professor of marketing and consumer behaviour at Alliance University in Bangalore.

But the company had larger woes. There was barely any print or television advertising to give the Nano a brand identity beyond cheap, and the company made equally severe missteps in distribution. Tata marketed the Nano through showrooms in big cities, which meant that much of its target market in small cities and towns never saw one.

In addition, although the car was cheap (about $2,500 once it finally went on sale), the company failed to make it easy for the lowest earners to obtain financing – the Nano needed below-market interest rates and fast onsite loans, Prof. Titus said. Instead, as would-be buyers struggled through the process of getting a bank loan based on their low-wage jobs, they realized they could get a slightly larger loan, and perhaps buy a Maruti Swift, the lowest-price vehicle from Tata’s main competitor, which has none of the stigma of being a poor person’s car.

Tata is scrambling to address some of these problems: today a buyer can put down 15,000 rupees, or $300, and drive off with the car; there are finance plans with local banks. The base price has been pushed down again. Debases Ray, spokesman for Tata Motors, said the company is currently setting up a network of Nano dealerships in towns with populations of less than 500,000 people; it hopes to have 300 by March, 2012.

Mr. Ray also noted that a big hike in fuel prices and interest rates last summer squashed all of India’s car market, not just the Nano, and that the Nano’s target customers are the most vulnerable to those kinds of expense increases. While there is gaping overcapacity at the Gujarat plant, which can produce 250,000 units a year, the company has begun exports to Sri Lanka and Nepal.

The Nano story has been followed closely by the automotive world outside India – as the first experiment with low-income consumers in developing countries that represent a massive vein of new sales potential for car markers the world over. The “frugal engineering” idea, of making a low-cost product as simply as possible (which originated with the French car maker Renault, but has been embraced by a number of firms in India) involves stripping the manufacturing process down to its component parts, and doing each as cheaply and simply as possible.

It worked for the product, said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, who teaches in the centre for automotive research at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany; the Nano is a good one. But the collapse of sales have prompted other companies that had plans for a Nano-esque product of their own, for India or elsewhere, to shelve those plans for now. Still, if they learn from Tata’s errors with the Nano, the basic idea is still solid, he said. “They just have to refine it – the production system and design system are good,” he said. “It will just need a different approach.”


This doesn't mean that "frugal engineering" is a bad idea, nor that Nano like cars will not appear, soon, in China, India, Indonesia, Philippines and so on.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #183 on: December 26, 2011, 01:33:04 »
The global economy catches up with India as well:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/12/india’s-economy

Quote
Slip-sliding away
Dec 12th 2011, 17:25 by P.F. | KOLKATA

EXPECTATIONS for India’s economic growth rate have been sliding inexorably. In the early spring there was still heady talk about 9-10% being the new natural rate of expansion, a trajectory which if maintained would make the country an economic superpower in a couple of decades. Now things look very different. The latest GDP growth figure slipped to 6.9% and industrial production numbers just released, on December 12th, showed a decline of 5.1% compared with the previous period, a miserable state of affairs. The slump looks broadly based, from mining to capital goods, and in severity compares with that experienced at the height of the financial crisis, in February 2009, when a drop of 7.2% took place. Bombast is turning to panic.

Several riders apply. The industrial production series is notoriously volatile—most economists admit to being baffled by its swings. The comparison with the prior year period was unflattering. And it would be surprising if India were not hurt by the agonies of the rich world—after all from China to Brazil investors are jittery about the outlook, too. Moreover the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has been raising rates through the year to try to bring inflation, running at some 9%, under control. At Mumbai drinks parties, after a scotch too many, industrialists can be reduced to apoplexy on this subject—the central bank, they argue, has overreacted, killing growth to tame an inflation problem that is largely the result of structural factors such as poor food supply chains.

Yet another factor looms. Years of government drift have meant a loss of momentum on reform, from building infrastructure to controlling graft. That drift was symbolised by the ruling coalition’s decision this month to allow in foreign supermarkets into India, which it was forced to reverse two weeks later after widespread protests and objections from the smaller parties it relies on to stay in power. India’s economy can seem like a bicycle—it needs to keep moving fast to be stable. Once conviction in the destination falters, companies curb investment and hope turns to fear that the country’s problems may be intractable.

An optimistic reading of these latest numbers is that they might force India’s politicians to move beyond the rancour of recent months and agree a program of reforms that would bolster confidence at home and abroad. But given a busy electoral cycle the odds of that seem poor. The concern now is that if growth slows a whole lot of other worries come to the fore, from potential bad debts in the banking system, the government’s poor fiscal position and the challenge of funding a current-account deficit when outside investors have got cold feet. Already the rupee has slid reflecting the last of those worries. India’s finances look solid when it is motoring along at close to double digits and weak when it is expanding at half that rate.

Given all this an uncomfortable burden of expectation now sits on the shoulders of the RBI, one of the few government institutions in India that commands respect, albeit grudgingly from some business folk. It could start cutting rates. But given inflation is still quite persistent, this would involve a theological U-turn. It has other tools available to try to ease the supply of credit, such as lowering the amount of cash banks must hold as reserves, creating room on their balance sheets to lend more. Unless there is a sudden change in government policy—or those statistics are shown to be cranky—action now seems likely. But as in the rich world, India may find that central banks cannot always work short-term economic miracles, nor sustain long-term ones all on their own.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #184 on: January 16, 2012, 19:04:49 »
India seems quite optomistic about their prospects and long term planning:

http://www.asianscientist.com/topnews/isro-indian-mission-to-mars-red-planet-2013/

Quote
Indian Scientists Propose 10 Experiments For 2013 Mission To Mars

Srinivas Laxman
January 9, 2012

A Indian mission to Mars is taking shape with space scientists proposing 10 experiments, mostly related to the study of the Red Planet’s atmosphere.

Proof that this challenging mission is no longer a dream is amply evident in a report of the Planetary Sciences and Exploration conference, organized by the Ahmedabad-based Planex group of the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), an affiliate of ISRO, between December 12 and 14, 2011.

The report shows that scientists from various ISRO centers and the PRL are extremely enthusiastic about the flight to the Red Planet, and are awaiting a formal ‘go’ from ISRO, the Space Commission, and the Union Cabinet.

As a precursor to the mission, a Mars Mission Study Team has already been formed to prepare the science and mission scenarios for ISRO.

In addition, a brainstorming session on Mars science and exploration was held at the PRL on March 24 and 25, 2011, as a preparatory step for ISRO’s Mars exploration plans. This two-day session served as an initial platform for scientists and students to fuel up their proposals and plans for an Indian Mars mission.

The December conference report states that the 10 Indian Martian experiments suggested are:

■Probe For Infrared Spectroscopy for Mars (Prism) which will study certain aspects of the Martian atmosphere and “spatial and seasonal variations of these gases over the lifetime of the mission.”
■Mars Exospheric Neutral Composition Analyzer (Menca) which will analyze the Martian upper atmosphere-exosphere region 400 km above the surface.
■Another instrument (Tis) will measure thermal emissions from the surface of the Red Planet. Its primary science goals include mapping the surface composition and mineralogy of Mars and understanding the dynamics of the Martian atmosphere by monitoring carbon dioxide levels.
■Using radio signals to study the atmosphere.
■Mars Color Camera (MCC) which can image from a highly elliptical orbit of 500 km x 80,000 km. It will be designed as a multi-purpose instrument which can image the topography of the Martian surface and map Martian polar caps. “It is expected to observe and help in furthering our understanding of events like dust storms and dust devils. From an elliptical orbit around Mars, the camera will return high quality visual images of Mars, its moons, asteroids and other celestial bodies from close quarters,” the report states.
■A Methane Sensor For Mars (MSM) has been recommended for detecting methane in the Martian atmosphere.
■A Mars Radiation Spectrometer (Maris) which can measure and characterize charged particle background levels during the cruise and orbit phase of the spacecraft. This instrument will play an important role for a possible future human mission to Mars as it will determine radiation exposure doses.
■A Plasma and Current Experiment (Pace) which will assess what is known as “atmospheric escape and processes of the Martian atmosphere and the structure of the Martian tail.”
■A microwave remote sensing technique for sounding the Martian atmosphere. Scientists connected with this instrument say that it will be designed to be minimally affected during a dust storm.
■A suite of instruments to detect plasma waves in the Martian atmosphere.
If this much-awaited mission finally gets off the ground with the required approvals, only some of the 10 experiments and payloads will be selected, with a focus on experiments that have not been done before, sources tell Asian Scientist Magazine.

Mars fever has gripped many scientists at the PRL, with an Indian chapter of the Mars Society formed at IIT-Mumbai.

Planning for the Mars lift off has progressed to such an extent that the provisional launch windows have already been fixed for either 2013, 2016, or 2018 from Sriharikota, India’s main spaceport near Chennai.

According to the scientists, if the launch takes place in November 2013, then the Indian spacecraft will enter the orbit around Mars in September 2014. It will be an orbiting mission and not a landing one. On reaching Mars after a 10-month flight, the spacecraft will operate and pick up scientific data in a highly elliptical orbit of 500 km x 80,000 km.

Some scientists even feel that the mission to Mars must be given precedence over the second Indian mission to the moon, Chandrayaan-2, since India has already done a lunar mission successfully.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Colin P

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,331
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #185 on: January 24, 2012, 15:24:09 »
Not everything works as expected according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:


This doesn't mean that "frugal engineering" is a bad idea, nor that Nano like cars will not appear, soon, in China, India, Indonesia, Philippines and so on.

I think a big problem is the nanos is nowhere near as flexiable as a scooter. A scooter can be be brought inside safe from flooding, thieves. Sidecars and hawker stalls can be bolted onto them.

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,604
  • Freespeecher
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #186 on: February 21, 2012, 15:59:15 »
The Atlantic on the "Two India" problem. This is a difficult issue given the various divisions in Indian society, but there are lots of different initiatives (ranging from sub $100 laptops for children to new cooking stoves that don't require animal dung as fuel, and lots of things in between [agricultural improvements, microloans etc.]).

How it plays out will be very important to the stability of India and the region; we can help by pushing free trade with India and broadening and deepening social, political and economic links between our countries:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/the-two-indias-astounding-poverty-in-the-backyard-of-amazing-growth/253340/

Quote
The Two Indias: Astounding Poverty in the Backyard of Amazing Growth
By Kentaro Toyama
Feb 20 2012, 1:50 PM ET 7

With the world's largest democracy in the embrace of a freer-than-free market capitalism, India may prove a bellwether for liberal societies everywhere.

"Incredible India" is the brand this country's Ministry of Tourism has been pushing in a global marketing campaign launched in 2002, and it couldn't be more fitting. Over the last decade, India has witnessed a stunning acceleration of rapid changes, both good and bad, that it began in the 1990s.

The most widely noticed metamorphosis is economic. Over the last ten years, India's GDP has grown between 7-9% per year, second only to China's sustained growth rates. In 2011, Forbes counted 57 Indian billionaires, up from only four a decade before. The same period saw Indian corporations vaulting onto the international stage. Tata Motors shocked the automobile industry with an acquisition of the British Jaguar Land Rover business in 2008. India's famed business-process outsourcing industry has expanded beyond call centers and software development to medicine, law, tax preparation, animation, and even music-video production. And, several IT giants have turned the tables on offshoring: No longer are jobs only "Bangalored." Today, Indian companies employ thousands of Americans on U.S. soil.

All of this is striking for an economy that languished for decades. From 1947, when India won its independence, through the 1980s, annual per-capita income grew at 1.3% per year, a snail's pace oft-derided by the Indian elite as the "Hindu rate of growth." Today, though, any social theorists walking the bustling streets of Mumbai might be tempted to revise Max Weber's classic treatise: The Hindu Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Economic change has been accompanied by a less noted, but no less significant, political inflection point. Alongside the enthralling Arab Spring and China's stillborn Jasmine Revolution, something that might be called the "Turmeric Revolution" has been bubbling over in India.

Though theoretically a democracy, India's governance has resembled something of a feudal system in practice. Politicians and bureaucrats often act like dukes and barons with term limits. They routinely apply a corrupt layer of graft for their personal benefit.

A self-confident educated class, however, has risen up to say "No more!" Last year, hundreds of thousands of protesters rallied around a series of hunger strikes by social activist Anna Hazare. The movement shined a spotlight on the terms of an anti-corruption bill that many criticize as being too weak. In West Bengal, May elections saw an end to the 34-year reign of the communist Left Front alliance. It lost to the Trinamool Congress party, which made corruption-free governance the pillar of its campaign.

Meanwhile, the bar for being above the law appears to be rising, as high-profile culprits in corruption cases are brought to account. Karnataka Chief Minister B. S. Yeddyurappa was arrested over accusations of illicit land and iron mining deals that benefited his family. And, the headline-dominating "2G scam" was partially resolved this month with a Supreme Court decision to nullify all 122 2G wireless spectrum licenses issued under the tenure of former Telecommunications Minister A. Raja. Raja, who is believed to have personally pocketed $600 million at a cost to the government treasury of $39 billion, has been arrested and charged, along with several others implicated in the scandal.

HALF A BILLION ON $2 A DAY

These successes are far from being universally shared, however. Though rates of poverty are declining, in 2005 the World Bank estimated that 42% of India's population still lived at under $1.25 a day (PPP), and nearly twice as many under $2. Thus, 800-900 million Indians live in conditions that most developed-world citizens would consider destitution.

The challenges for this vast, voiceless majority are multidimensional and stark. Discrimination by caste, religion, and gender remains pervasive. Low literacy blocks meaningful social mobility. India's rate of child malnutrition is greater than in any other country in the world. In many communities, the sick and the elderly are left to die for lack of means to support them, and bonded slavery is not unheard of.

What's worse, there is some evidence that conditions for the least privileged are deteriorating. A paper by public policy researchers Anirudh Krishna and Devendra Bajpai points out that rural incomes are declining in absolute terms, likely due to systemic stresses to agriculture and differential access to markets and education. It is common to speak of "two Indias," and the widening canyon between them is the greatest threat to the nation's well-being.

What does the future hold? Much depends on how energetically the fruits of the country's success are applied towards greater equality of opportunity. The government's rural employment guarantee act is a start, despite its flaws. Healthcare, agriculture extension, and other government services that accrue to poorer communities deserve far greater resources and attention. Outdated constraints on industries that employ low-skill labor must be relaxed. The country's vibrant civil society should continue to give voice to the marginalized. Most importantly, public education could use a budgetary boost and a management miracle.

The next ten years may hold a lesson for developed countries, as well. With the world's largest democracy in the embrace of a freer-than-free market capitalism, India may prove a bellwether for liberal societies everywhere.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,824
Re: India (Superthread)
« Reply #187 on: February 21, 2012, 16:11:58 »
The Atlantic on the "Two India" problem. This is a difficult issue given the various divisions in Indian society, but there are lots of different initiatives (ranging from sub $100 laptops for children to new cooking stoves that don't require animal dung as fuel, and lots of things in between [agricultural improvements, microloans etc.]).

How it plays out will be very important to the stability of India and the region; we can help by pushing free trade with India and broadening and deepening social, political and economic links between our countries:

The other side of that is the insane corruption in India and others that just defeats a level playing field......
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.