India is the Last BRIC standing

[sancho]

You seems like have a strong hope on Hillary becoming next president. We can't say, always someone will emerge from no where in American politics. Too early to predict.

By the lack of real competition mainly, same reason why Angela Merkel wins in Germany all the time and so far. Add the factor of the women votes and you have a strong candidate.

 

[arbit]

No of course not, as a personality he is much more appealing than MMS, no doubt on that. But at the end of the day, we need to see what results India get and increased interests in Indias stock market won't raise the GDP, nor does it creates jobs or gives us a better political standing in the world right?
That then was what MMS gave India, with reforms, the nuclear deal or the political standing in the UN and the large support India got and still gets. No matter how bad people looks at him now, he did achieved credible things for India, lets see and hope that the current PM can say similar one day too

And still people think that UPA 2 was bad for our economy and has caused the problems, while the reality always was, that the problems were created abroad and but even in these bad times India was one of the few countries that stood strong. That's why our GDP is growing since last year again, that's why India will benefit even more when the global situation improves and investors get back to actually investing and that's when India can show it's potential.

Affecting policy changes is rather different from changing channels on a TV. I am under the impression that countries and their policies take their own sweet time to change and the results are visible much later. And this is only about the change that one brings in one's own country. And to effect changes in attitudes of other nations and consequently affect policy changes by forming alliances and forging financial ties takes even longer. 6 months to pore over job creation statistics or GDP increase will be a little early to judge when all you saw during the 10 years rule of MMS was a nuclear deal. Give Modi sometime. He is going in the right direction. The journey can take a while though.
This brings me to another point.

You have to consider the fact that mms was in power for 10 years. And if the UN deal is the only tangible that you can cite then it would be considered as below par. I quote tangible, 'cos 'standing in UN and the large support' that we apparently get is vague and frankly debatable. And what reforms are you mentioning. Can you please be specific. Do keep in mind whatever reforms you mention have to be seen in the context of 10 long years at the helm. What ever MMS did were absolutely bare minimum to keep this country afloat. We ought to be really thankful for that ICU support. Sure.

A little off tangent though, no body is discussing what MMS did but rather what he could have avoided and prevented from happening and how much more could have been done! Much of the angst comes from this angle of thought. The country all this while was in neutral gear. 'We ain't stopping brah but we ain't gonna go faster' was the motto of Sonia and company. That is why UPA 2 cannot be absolved of the brickbats it gets in ample measure.
you need to read more about the financial 'prudence' that UPA 2 practiced all this while.

Of course not, that's why India needs reforms too and why the push to get more manufacturing to India (and even better the developments from India) is a good approach. But a PR show alone doesn't cut the deal, that's why many foreigners are not that impressed by the PM's foreign visits as NRI's or the stock markets are, since a sentiment alone doesn't make foreign investors invest in building production companies in India, that requires proper reforms to ease making business in India too and that where both, the former and the current government lack behind the expectations.
We will see 6 to 7% growth in the next 2 years for sure, based on the reforms the former governments passed between 2012 and 2013, but we need more reforms if we want to get back to 9% or more, so we need more proper actions.

1. What in your opinion could he have done more. Going a little deeper, since calling it a PR show implicitly lowers the substance of the job done, I assume you have strong basis to declare it unsuccessful.
2. You are wrong about that impression thing.

Business-friendly India is abuzz with private jets - The Economic Times

3. We will be lucky if we achieve >6% growth in next two years. Its not a given.
4. What reforms do we need? Your opinion on why those reforms were not initiated earlier.

Neither did we had any issues with foreign policy, nor did he even tried to change things on a political level during most of his visits. He was promting his pro business stand, rather than a political push to change India stand. Take the Japan or US trips, much PR and advertisement for doing business in or with India, but little to no substance on the political levels. Indo - Japan relations are as good as before, Indo - US relations haven't changed either and in both visits the agreements basically are the same as under the former government, which once again shows that no matter who is in power in India, the foreign policy remains the same and that's good!

We had plenty foreign policy issues while UPA 2 was in power.
1.They sat on the water sharing agreement on the whims of Mamata. unnecessarily antagonising a friendly regime. Totally Needless
2. Tax terrorism. Vodafone, Uninor influenced the business sentiment in their respective countries which were taken up at the national level by their respective countries. Definitely not a glowing signpost.
3. Nepal, the only country to in the world we can truly call brotherly developing anti India sentiment. Giving unnecessary leeway to Chinese. I mean common! seriously!

However if you discount these countries as unimportant, then yes i do get your point i.e. until i dig further. Our foreign policy was 1 step ahead then 2 backwards.

Political relations are irreversibly linked with economical ties. Stronger the economy, heavier the political clout. What Modi is doing is raising the economic profile of country, courting businesses to India. Making an effort to revive manufacturing in INDIA. Nothing wrong with that. Intentions to "change things on a political level" require heft and that comes with economic clout.
Modi has a very commonsensical approach to things and he has got his priorities right. Thank god for that.

Also what do you mean by "rather than a political push to change India stand" ? stand regarding what ?

That can't be said from what we see today. Indo - Russian political relations are more than strong, while Indo - US political relations are more than low after the issues in the recent years and not much promissing signals during and after the visit of the PM. I hope Hillary can change that!

Oh there have been enough promising signals . Their new Pentagon chief is Pro- India.
The acrimony between the two leaders is dissolved and my sources tell me both Modi and Obama go along just fine . Things will look up. Don't be so pessimistic and lastly I seriously hope you are not hoping for Hillary to be the next President of USA

 

[sancho]

6 months to pore over job creation statistics or GDP increase will be a little early to judge...

That's why I'm all open and even hopefull that we will see reforms and certain policy changes in this term and why I am judging only the things we see happening today wrt what they promised during the elections, since that is the yardstick the NDA has the be hold accountable to. But as said, I neither expected much change in foreign policy, nor did I expected any major chievements in these first foreign visits, but the fact remains that the PR shows doesn't get you any political nor economy related results.
The current (since 2012) GDP growth is not something unexpected, nor based on anything the new government did so far and the opening article just showed once again, that India actually is in a pretty good shape contrary what the public perception or the expectations are.

you need to read more about the financial 'prudence' that UPA 2 practiced all this while.

You seems to forget in that we are in a global crisis time and that spending money while your GDP is going down and the interests to invest in emerging markets is at a low is clearly not the way forward. Infact cutting government spending was the goal all over the world, while India did well in balancing government spending (constant defence budget increase, no decrease!). That in fact is the reason why India is in such a good shape today as the opening article shows, otherwise we had to cut down spending like Brazil did for example too

1. What in your opinion could he have done more. Going a little deeper, since calling it a PR show implicitly lowers the substance of the job done, I assume you have strong basis to declare it unsuccessful...

PR show means, that acting in the Madison Square Garden with Hollywood actors, didn't changed anything wrt to US companies being more interested in invest in India, what they need or want, are lower bureaucracy, ease of making business and that's the work the government has to do at home, not on foreign PR trips. If they do their job here right and the global financial situation stabilizes, investments into India will come naturally, even without such PR. And as I already said, that show didn't changed anything in terms of political improvements to Japan or the US either. So all the hype about the "improved sentiments" doesn't resulted in substance yet, but lets hope it will in future, because it simply have to.

However if you discount these countries as unimportant, then yes i do get your point i.e. until i dig further. Our foreign policy was 1 step ahead then 2 backwards.

Sorry, but that's nonsense! Our look east policy got us closer to most of the Asian nations, the relations to Japan mainly improved after the nuclear agreement and the importance MMS gave to it, we even got Myanmar away from China closer to us, our Afghanistan policy was perfect, not too getting too involved and influenced to send troops, but enough financial and political support to create the basis of the good relations we have today. We improved relations to all Arabian countries (which evidently helped us during the hostage situation in Iraq), while balancing ties with Iran, Palestina and Israel at the same time. We opposed the US on nearly all global matters and still improved the relations to them and in the UNC big times (why do you think that we have more support their than countries like Germany?). Same goes with the relations to our opponents like China, can you name a single other country that has so close political, economic and even defence related (joint exercises, visits of defence officials, port visits of naval vessels) with another country that is meant to be a possible opponent? Are you honestly ignoring all that?

Also what do you mean by "rather than a political push to change India stand" ? stand regarding what ?

Political changes to improve the relations, for example by getting more involved into the IS crisis as the US wanted, he could had supported that to show a move towards US policies, especially since the IS is a larger problem that already effected India in Iraq. That would had opened the door for political a political push, while the US government surely doesn't care much about the PR campaign around the visit.
As I said earlier, improving the sentiment or aiming on increased manufacturing in India is not wrong, but doesn't cut it. You have to do more than PR to achieve that and even more so if you want political changes and that's what the government needs to work on.

 

[arbit]

you were selective in your response. Anyway

That's why I'm all open and even hopefull that we will see reforms and certain policy changes in this term and why I am judging only the things we see happening today wrt what they promised during the elections, since that is the yardstick the NDA has the be hold accountable to...

I hope you understand fighting elections on poll rhetoric and running a government are two different things. Not that i support the hypocrisy. But when the option is between Rahul Gandhi and Modi. All bets are off.
But you are right. Modi should be held accountable to the yardstick of his poll promises. Currently i am unaware of any where he has fallen short. (Please don't point out bringing back Black money within 100 days). Yes India is in alright shape. Something to do with service economy and less of manufacturing. Could this have played a role?

You seems to forget in that we are in a global crisis time and that spending money while your GDP is going down and the interests to invest in emerging markets is at a low is clearly not the way forward. Infact cutting government spending was the goal all over the world, while India did well in balancing government spending (constant defence budget increase, no decrease!). That in fact is the reason why India is in such a good shape today as the opening article shows, otherwise we had to cut down spending like Brazil did for example too

.

That India did so well, as you point out is 'inspite' of the generosity of UPA2 in doleouts and entitlements. One small particular incident comes to mind.
When Manmohan Singh in his sound mind had reduced the subsidised gas cylinders to (I think) 8. Rahul gandhi in his family conclave, in front of his party workers in a churlish 'PR' exercise asked the PM to increase it to 12. While sonia smiled benignly, MMS and chidambaram duly obliged! So much for the sound economic sense and clever policies . You need to watch that to know what i m saying. Try youtube.

The fact that India has managed to come out relatively unscathed is a tribute to the inherent strength of indian economy. No thanks to the clever management of Sonia and party. Don't give undue credit to them.

PR show means, that acting in the Madison Square Garden with Hollywood actors, didn't changed anything wrt to US companies being more interested in invest in India, what they need or want, are lower bureaucracy, ease of making business and that's the work the government has to do at home, not on foreign PR trips. If they do their job here right and the global financial situation stabilizes, investments into India will come naturally, even without such PR. And as I already said, that show didn't changed anything in terms of political improvements to Japan or the US either. So all the hype about the "improved sentiments" doesn't resulted in substance yet, but lets hope it will in future, because it simply have to.

Well thats nonsensical. That Madison Square Garden event was held to interact with Indian Diaspora. To motivate them. To goad them into action to increase tourism among other things. To instil a sense of pride and employ the soft power of INDIA effectively.
How do you connect it with attracting foreigners willing to setup plants, ease of business etc. is beyond me. For that purpose he held separate meetings with industry leaders. Which were covered in Print and Television. And there was no song and dance about it.

For the bold part: It certainly needs to. But it doesn't have to. Not if we have an incompetent leadership at helm.

Sorry, but that's nonsense! Our look east policy got us closer to most of the Asian nations, the relations to Japan mainly improved after the nuclear agreement and the importance MMS gave to it, we even got Myanmar away from China closer to us, our Afghanistan policy was perfect, not too getting too involved and influenced to send troops, but enough financial and political support to create the basis of the good relations we have today. We improved relations to all Arabian countries (which evidently helped us during the hostage situation in Iraq), while balancing ties with Iran, Palestina and Israel at the same time. We opposed the US on nearly all global matters and still improved the relations to them and in the UNC big times (why do you think that we have more support their than countries like Germany?). Same goes with the relations to our opponents like China, can you name a single other country that has so close political, economic and even defence related (joint exercises, visits of defence officials, port visits of naval vessels) with another country that is meant to be a possible opponent? Are you honestly ignoring all that?

Like i said. One step forward. Two backwards. You need to pick low hanging fruits before reaching for those at the top. They couldn't manage their immediate neighbourhood and formulate a policy. As for Look East, ironically they got only a look.
The UPA 2 govt was timid in nature. Clever no doubt but always held back due to the assertiveness of the Chinese. What NDA is doing is holding Beijing in a bear hug by increasing interdependence on defence and trade while doing what needs to be done on the border and increasing engagement with eastern countries. Its called 'Act East' now.
Secondly we interact with all the countries you have mentioned in a neutral manner. Not too close not too far. That has been that way since ages. Whats new ? Not to mention we voted AGIANST Srilanka sometime back on a humanitarian resolution. That was some legitimately fine foreign policy right there!

Political changes to improve the relations, for example by getting more involved into the IS crisis as the US wanted, he could had supported that to show a move towards US policies, especially since the IS is a larger problem that already effected India in Iraq. That would had opened the door for political a political push, while the US government surely doesn't care much about the PR campaign around the visit.
As I said earlier, improving the sentiment or aiming on increased manufacturing in India is not wrong, but doesn't cut it. You have to do more than PR to achieve that and even more so if you want political changes and that's what the government needs to work on.

No government, whether be it UPA or NDA will ever involve the country's resources in a war of ideological nature so far away from shores. Correctly too. And if you are in favour of this to score some brownies and to be 'in tune' with Americans then we have nothing to discuss.

Again about PR. That PR was held for indian diaspora not for Obama OR business community to watch and be impressed. If they did get impressed. Consider it as a collateral gain!
And he did go beyond PR. You haven't looked closely enough.

Lastly not to be a grammar nazi but "nor did I expected any major chievements in these first foreign visits" should be - "nor did I expect any major chievements in these first foreign visits" Its a common mistake.

 

[dray]

The Manchus were the ones who changed their own culture to follow Han language and customs. They did it themselves.

Whereas the British still look down on you, after they created you. You are the ones speaking their language, in fact English is the de facto national language of India.

They are the ones (BBC) putting out headlines that India is poorer than Africa, India is the rape capital of the world, and all that stuff. In fact the whole International media is doing it.

It is time for a reality check, China has a higher incidence of rape per 100,000 people compared to India.

Tough facts about rape in China - China.org.cn

 

[arbit]

@sancho Another proof of your assertion being incorrect. It had more substance than that of a PR exercise. You need to look closer to be more balanced in your views.


Obama impressed with PM Narendra Modi for shaking India's 'bureaucratic inertia' - The Times of India

 

[sancho]

Currently i am unaware of any where he has fallen short

Then you clearly are not following the news properly, in terms of defence the slowed modernisation of key procurements must be blamed on him, since the preference was given to his economic agenda, rather than on the best for the forces.

That Madison Square Garden event was held to interact with Indian Diaspora. To motivate them.

Exactly and that's why it didn't resulted in any substance to US industry investing in India, nor in deepening ties with US government. That's why the PR show were good personal advertisment, but of no substance for India as a nation!

No government, whether be it UPA or NDA will ever involve the country's resources in a war of ideological nature so far away from shores.

Which is why India has no use in getting involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, while the case is different in Iraq and the IS because it already effected Indian citizens, that logically makes it not ideological but in Indias interest!

@sancho Another proof of your assertion being incorrect. It had more substance than that of a PR exercise. You need to look closer to be more balanced in your views.

Actually it just shows that you have very little clue of what you are talking, since it has nothing to do with Indo-US relations, nor was a result of the US visit. He only states that Modi is doing good in reducing bureaucracy in India, which I have stated in defence relation too, but the "substance" of the US visit would had been economic, defence related or political improvements and none of this was achieved.

 

[arbit]

Exactly and that's why it didn't resulted in any substance to US industry investing in India, nor in deepening ties with US government. That's why the PR show were good personal advertisment, but of no substance for India as a nation!
.
.
but the "substance" of the US visit would had been economic, defence related or political improvements and none of this was achieved.

You keep on running in circles. You asserted that the PR exercise yielded no benefits to Indian political relations. Implicit in this assertion is that that PR exercise was held to that purpose specifically and it was unsuccessful. I just established that the event in Madison Square Garden had no linkages to the policy making. It was held for indian diaspora and to beget any improvement in relations between US and INDIA talks were held in a closed environment.
Do you see any connect? I don't.

Once you have applied your mind to above, comes the second part. I will try to be as clear as possible for your sake.
The 'substance' is not something that you take out of a box and show to the media. The 'substance' of the visit whether it be economic, defence related of political improvements takes time to manifest on ground. Unless in your wisdom you expect it to suddenly appear out of thin air after a meeting. Please refer to the '6 months' argument in our previous posts.

Exactly and that's why it didn't resulted in any substance to US industry investing in India, nor in deepening ties with US government.

It wasn't meant to. That was not the purpose for it! It is akin to Modi going on a shopping spree in US and you blaming that, that shopping trip did not further both nation's political ties!
My good Sir Shopping is meant for buying stuff, Madison Square Garden address was meant to energise the significant NRI community into action. For furthering the Indo-US political ties, he held meetings with the industry captains, and political leaders. Chalk and cheese.

Since it has nothing to do with Indo-US relations, nor was a result of the US visit

That link i posted was in response to something else entirely and you took off in a totally different direction.

One other thing i noticed. From linking an allegedly unsuccessful PR event to Indo-US ties and a profit loss analysis, you migrated to 'no substance for India as a nation !' Interesting.