Massive Foreign Aid to India Continues

[Hutchroy]

I see there is some progress here!

You have moved from denying that India receives any aid at all ( or calling it just normal loans), to pointing out that India does not get enough of it and could use more.

This is where you are patently wrong.

Yes India receives Aid-Loans (which it returns in full) but every right thinking Indian (majority of the Population) wants the Aid-Loans to be minimized for the simple reason that India always repays its Loans and as such India should carry as less a Financial-Debt Burden as possible.

All Soft Loans do carry the condition that the recieving country must buy goods for the purpose of the Aid-Loan (i.e. infrastructure etc.) and this is where the Aid-Loan Giving country ensures that its Industry and Commece benefits from the Aid-Loans given.

Simple as that!

For your benefit I would suggest you find out the amount of India's Debts as compared to the Indian Foreign Exchange Reserves. Compare that with Pakistan's External Debt as well as Foreign Exchange Reserves.

Vive la Différence!

 

[ramu]

I see there is some progress here!

You have moved from denying that India receives any aid at all ( or calling it just normal loans), to pointing out that India does not get enough of it and could use more.

Show me a single post of mine where I have said anything in the contrary. India can live without aid. About Indian competition against Pakistan for aid, dream on.

However, the progress is lacking on your side as you have not admitted that you tried fabricating Soft loans as Aid. You will still have a theory and equate the two.

 

[karan.1970]

Foreign aid receipts, including soft loans, to Pakistan have also been falling as percent of GDP for decades. In the 1960s, it was as high as 8-10% of GDP, and now it's a couple of percent or less.

Agreed.. Check point number 4 in my thread

 

[karan.1970]

I see there is some progress here!

You have moved from denying that India receives any aid at all ( or calling it just normal loans), to pointing out that India does not get enough of it and could use more.

Not really Riaz. Called putting words in someone's mouth. He has simply said that aid per sq km is lower in India and more in Pakistan

 

[RiazHaq]

Show me a single post of mine where I have said anything in the contrary. India can live without aid. About Indian competition against Pakistan for aid, dream on.

However, the progress is lacking on your side as you have not admitted that you tried fabricating Soft loans as Aid. You will still have a theory and equate the two.

What was the intent of your following post? Was it not redefine aid as loan in India's case?

Let us define Aid:
Aid is a voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another, given at least partly with the objective of benefiting the recipient country. It may have other functions as well: it may be given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behaviour desired by the donor, to extend the donor's cultural influence, to provide infrastructure needed by the donor for resource extraction from the recipient country, or to gain other kinds of commercial access.

Let us now define Loan
A loan is a type of debt. Like all debt instruments, a loan entails the redistribution of financial assets over time, between the lender and the borrower.
In a loan, the borrower initially receives or borrows an amount of money, called the principal, from the lender, and is obligated to pay back or repay an equal amount of money to the lender at a later time. Typically, the money is paid back in regular installments, or partial repayments; in an annuity, each installment is the same amount. The loan is generally provided at a cost, referred to as interest on the debt, which provides an incentive for the lender to engage in the loan. In a legal loan, each of these obligations and restrictions is enforced by contract, which can also place the borrower under additional restrictions known as loan covenants. Although this article focuses on monetary loans, in practice any material object might be lent.

And not to forget the word borrow:

Borrow or borrowing can mean: to receive (something) from somebody temporarily, expecting to return it.

 

[ramu]

What was the intent of your following post? Was it not redefine aid as loan in India's case?

The Intent was to tell you that an aid is not same as loan.

Read the first paragraph of the first post in this thread. You talk about Pakistan's aid in the headlines and then talk about India's request for increasing the limit on its soft loan.

Now does it still not make sense ?

 

[RiazHaq]

Not really Riaz. Called putting words in someone's mouth. He has simply said that aid per sq km is lower in India and more in Pakistan

It's clear to me that you are saying India gets less aid per capita than Pakistan...and it comes across as Indian posters complaining "we could use more, given our bigger population".

Here's a reference point for you from a post where one of your fellow countrymen is lamenting the fact that "foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people" in India because of India's "fake national pride":

"India is the World Bank’s largest borrower. In June 2007 it provided $3.7bn in new loans to India. Due to the fake ‘India Shining’ propaganda launched by Hindutva id----, foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people in this country. According to figures provided by Britain’s aid agency, the total aid to India, from all sources, is only $1.50 a head, compared with an average of $17 per head for low-income countries. [Financial Times]"

A Zillion reasons to escape from India

 

[ramu]

It's clear to me that you are saying India gets less aid per capita than Pakistan...and it comes across as Indian posters complaining "we could use more, given our bigger population".

Here's a reference point for you from a post where one of your fellow countrymen is lamenting the fact that "foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people" in India because of India's "fake national pride":

"India is the World Bank’s largest borrower. In June 2007 it provided $3.7bn in new loans to India. Due to the fake ‘India Shining’ propaganda launched by Hindutva id----, foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people in this country. According to figures provided by Britain’s aid agency, the total aid to India, from all sources, is only $1.50 a head, compared with an average of $17 per head for low-income countries. [Financial Times]"

A Zillion reasons to escape from India

You cannot post cheaper than this...
I would prefer 0 aid but you can't stop countries who want to donate to private organisations against one header or another to gain some influence just as India is doing in many countries.

 

[ramu]

Not really Riaz. Called putting words in someone's mouth. He has simply said that aid per sq km is lower in India and more in Pakistan

Karan, here is my moral victory. How low can he stoop ?

 

[Hulk]

Why are we wasting time on someone who just keeps opening thread on same topic and goes over and over.

There is no problem is taking aid, as long as you do not start depending only on aid and reach to a point where your existence comes into question if you do not get aid.

Now what is the problem here?

 

[karan.1970]

It's clear to me that you are saying India gets less aid per capita than Pakistan...and it comes across as Indian posters complaining "we could use more, given our bigger population".

Here's a reference point for you from a post where one of your fellow countrymen is lamenting the fact that "foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people" in India because of India's "fake national pride":

"India is the World Bank’s largest borrower. In June 2007 it provided $3.7bn in new loans to India. Due to the fake ‘India Shining’ propaganda launched by Hindutva id----, foreign donors are reluctant to help the poor people in this country. According to figures provided by Britain’s aid agency, the total aid to India, from all sources, is only $1.50 a head, compared with an average of $17 per head for low-income countries. [Financial Times]"

A Zillion reasons to escape from India

Haq... Here you were implying that Ramu said that India could use more aid and when challenged you are pointing me to an article in an anti India taboloid (worse than some blogs) which has no connection to Ramu...Neither do I see any indian commenting that we can use more aid or complaining that we get less...

Now I am not saying India gets less Per Capita aid.. I am saying India needs less per capita aid. Also the Aid/soft loans form close to 0.1 percent of its GDP or 1 % of its budget. This shows that the dependence on aid is low..If it comes across as me complaining about less aid, then I cant help it..

 

[RiazHaq]

Haq... Here you were implying that Ramu said that India could use more aid and when challenged you are pointing me to an article in an anti India taboloid (worse than some blogs) which has no connection to Ramu...Neither do I see any indian commenting that we can use more aid or complaining that we get less...

Now I am not saying India gets less Per Capita aid.. I am saying India needs less per capita aid. Also the Aid/soft loans form close to 0.1 percent of its GDP or 1 % of its budget. This shows that the dependence on aid is low..If it comes across as me complaining about less aid, then I cant help it..

An anti-India blog? Just because the blog criticizes India's shortcomings with real data from credible sources? And you don't agree with the blogger? Come on!!

As to aid to India, I am finally glad to see that we are now arguing about the amount and form of foreign aid India gets, rather than the existence of such aid. That is still progress, regardless of your quibbles.

 

[RiazHaq]

The Intent was to tell you that an aid is not same as loan.

Read the first paragraph of the first post in this thread. You talk about Pakistan's aid in the headlines and then talk about India's request for increasing the limit on its soft loan.

Now does it still not make sense ?

It absolutely makes sense. Soft loans from donor nations, and IFIs such a World Bank, are given to the poor nations as aid. That is true for all such loans, whether the are extended to India, or Pakistan, or any other developing nation.

In fact, most of what is called foreign aid is in the form of soft loans.

 

[Jade]

It is simply a waste of time arguing with Mr. Haq, unless you would like to learn more about Indian economy

 

[Jade]

It absolutely makes sense. Soft loans from donor nations, and IFIs such a World Bank, are given to the poor nations as aid. That is true for all such loans, whether the are extended to India, or Pakistan, or any other developing nation.

In fact, most of what is called foreign aid is in the form of soft loans.

All aid is not equal. The kind of aid poor nations and developing nations receive is qualitatively different. However, the most important question is what kind of aid nations receive, in which sectors and on whose terms.