What is India?

[Humanoid]

Suggest take him out for Dinner, Bhat and Machali ,btw these are few words I know in Bengali.

Mach Bhaat ...Illish, Shutki r puti r chochori... r kosha mangsho .. .ki Munshi Miyaan or Munshi Babu .. cholbe to ??amar kintu sarshe diye lillish khete darun laage... Padma r Illish er kono tulona e hoi na.. r by the way ami Sylheti.. Hobiganja er .. amar baba .. desh bhag er samai India te esechilen... ....

 

[Neo]

Closed for moderation.

 

[Neo]

Thread is moderated and reopened, please stick to the topic: What is India?

Don't derail the thread by draging Bangladesh or Pakistan into it.

Neo

 

[jeypore]

Bangladesh is about 1/20th the size of India but has an economy that is roughly 1/10 of India's. No single state of India is doing better than Bangladesh economically. In other words each of the states of India should secede and their economies would do even better (some are doing dismally). This is certainly the case for the seven sisters, Kashmir, Punjab and Tamil Nadu. We in Bangladesh do not have the number of poor people that are in India and our farmers certainly do not commit mass suicide. India is clearly not a happy place to live. Only good for the upper class Hindu Brahmins.

Mr. Munshi your logic fails me. If Bangladesh is doing better then India, then why India has BD illegal immigration problem (it could be looked at same as Mexico with US senirio). And your second statement regarding every state would be better off because of economy, then that same case should be made of America, State like Mississippi, Lousiana, Idaho, Neveda, New mexico, Michigan, I can go on if you like.

 

[Humanoid]

Thread is moderated and reopened, please stick to the topic: What is India?

Don't derail the thread by draging Bangladesh or Pakistan into it.

Neo

Well to defend the logic you need to sometime draw some circumstantial evidence .. so that frnds can relate to that... but I do agree with your opinion that discussion has as usual deviated....

 

[Humanoid]

Assasino

refer to my earlier post -- The academic is right, Indian are confused abut their global role because they have people who refuse to engage in debate and discussion - you are a good example of this.

Instaed of exploring the issue you choose to suggest no such issue exists. And worse still you think you are doing a service, in fact you have only proved the academic right.

You choose to shift the academic's position - and again you prove her right, by shoing that the discussion is uncomfortable and unnerving for for some indians

First of all before making this quick shot judgment about an article written by a Phd. Student .. let me tell you one thing...

most of the academicians interests are strongly coupled with Special Interest Groups from where they get their funding for Research...
in Research Funding is what keeps you relevant.. for securing that Funding you have to do so some tweaking here and there...

it is true that we as a nation lack any specific strategy to be a global power..and majority of our political leaders are headless chicken with hardly any clue of geopolitical landscape... but to claim that .. China aspire to be a world power within a peaceful agenda.. .boundary ...is simple not true. i mean these days ..there is nothing called "either black or white" .. most of the things fall in between.... what to say .. she is mostly right about India's lack of direction as far as proper foreign policy is concerned.. but she is also wrong about China's plentiful discussion on the same... All Chinese Academicians can do is to hold Govt. line and policy .. otherwise they will be made political prisoners.. we don't exactly have the same scenario in India..

 

[BanglaBhoot]

I have deleted several of my posts in consideration of sensibilities on this forum. I suggest members stick to the topic at hand and stop bringing Pakistan and Bangladesh into this.

 

[muse]

Humanoid

Allow me to accurately summarize the lead article and the relevant points and then see if you still think the same way:

The author (learned academician) makes the point

1.that India as a rapidly developing power has not developed a policy framework for it's rise, for it's role in the world. Are you disputing this assertion? If yes, please educate us as what the policy frame work may be.

2. That government policy makers and the thinking public have not engaged in a public discourse about this rise and that this is one of the reason that the the policy framework has not been developed.

3. The author contrasts the policy framework the Chinese have developed and followed with the lack of one for the Indian. The author suggests that China, under the policy framework, has been working to solve her problems with her neighbors - and inpointing this out, she is suggesting a model for "others" to follow in solving their problems.

To be an acceptable member of the UNSC, India cannot afford to go into whatever role she decides on while serious problems with neighbors exists and which exacerbate internal strife within India.

For our discussion, as Indian military power, particularly the Navy, accrues more capablity, the questions as to the proper role of such a Navy will become of greater interest, however; that role(s) is again dependent of the larger policy framework.

I must admit that I have been confused by the response of Indian interlocutors to this thread - they are argued, and negated and in general refused to deal with the central points of the lead article as summarized above.

The best way to tackle the points raised, if you find you cannot agree with them, is to offer a counter point which negates the assertions of the learned academician - no need to bad mouth China, Bangladesh or anyone else - just deal with the points that the author raises. No point in telling anybody that Chinese intellectuals cannot take any line other than the government line - this is both simplistic and factually untrue - focus on the the points the author makes and not cheap tactics of argument.

 

[Humanoid]

Humanoid

Allow me to accurately summarize the lead article and the relevant points and then see if you still think the same way:

The author (learned academician) makes the point

1.that India as a rapidly developing power has not developed a policy framework for it's rise, for it's role in the world. Are you disputing this assertion? If yes, please educate us as what the policy frame work may be.

2. That government policy makers and the thinking public have not engaged in a public discourse about this rise and that this is one of the reason that the the policy framework has not been developed.

3. The author contrasts the policy framework the Chinese have developed and followed with the lack of one for the Indian. The author suggests that China, under the policy framework, has been working to solve her problems with her neighbors - and inpointing this out, she is suggesting a model for "others" to follow in solving their problems.

To be an acceptable member of the UNSC, India cannot afford to go into whatever role she decides on while serious problems with neighbors exists and which exacerbate internal strife within India.

For our discussion, as Indian military power, particularly the Navy, accrues more capablity, the questions as to the proper role of such a Navy will become of greater interest, however; that role(s) is again dependent of the larger policy framework.

I must admit that I have been confused by the response of Indian interlocutors to this thread - they are argued, and negated and in general refused to deal with the central points of the lead article as summarized above.

The best way to tackle the points raised, if you find you cannot agree with them, is to offer a counter point which negates the assertions of the learned academician - no need to bad mouth China, Bangladesh or anyone else - just deal with the points that the author raises. No point in telling anybody that Chinese intellectuals cannot take any line other than the government line - this is both simplistic and factually untrue - focus on the the points the author makes and not cheap tactics of argument.

I agreed with all the points above and I mentioned that in bold in my reply..so I amused to see why you are asserting these points again..? I just could not agree with the last point which i have marked in bold here...If u believe this is simplistic and untrue hold the same argument for India as well ...never mind...

 

[muse]

Humanoid

The thread is not about Chinese intellectuals -- Focus!

It does ot matter whether we agree or disagree with what the Academician is saying - what matter is the "WHY"?

If we agree to the assertions of the learned academician, then we are left to examine why should it be the case in a society that thinks of itself as open and has a press that thinks of itself as critical and open, that an issue as important as this goes undiscussed and debated.

If we disagree with the learned academician, then we are left to fashion a response that reflects vibrant public discussion and debate and we then have to produce a policy framework for the rise of India.


What I have found puzzling about the response of Indian interlocutors is that I thought this would have electrified them and brought out more discussion and debate - but I suppose many of our interlocutors have been on forums where discussion and debate is bashing and demeaning - so to that degree it's understandable - however; the questions raised are not only important, they are fun - and ofcourse it is not everyday that a policy framework for the rise of a nation of more than 1 billion is formulated - and ofcourse we must examine precedent from all kinds of places, East and West - and in the end we may find that instead of being lonely, that an informed and engaged discussion and debate will produce an "authentic" Indian solution to an Indian problem.

 

[Humanoid]

Humanoid

The thread is not about Chinese intellectuals -- Focus!

It does ot matter whether we agree or disagree with what the Academician is saying - what matter is the "WHY"?


If we agree to the assertions of the learned academician, then we are left to examine why should it be the case in a society that thinks of itself as open and has a press that thinks of itself as critical and open, that an issue as important as this goes undiscussed and debated.

If we disagree with the learned academician, then we are left to fashion a response that reflects vibrant public discussion and debate and we then have to produce a policy framework for the rise of India.


What I have found puzzling about the response of Indian interlocutors is that I thought this would have electrified them and brought out more discussion and debate - but I suppose many of our interlocutors have been on forums where discussion and debate is bashing and demeaning - so to that degree it's understandable - however; the questions raised are not only important, they are fun - and ofcourse it is not everyday that a policy framework for the rise of a nation of more than 1 billion is formulated - and ofcourse we must examine precedent from all kinds of places, East and West - and in the end we may find that instead of being lonely, that an informed and engaged discussion and debate will produce an "authentic" Indian solution to an Indian problem.

I agree with the fact that we don't have the proper framework and strategy which behooves an aspiring global player... but we do have enough internal debate day in and day out... the sad part is ... it is one thing to have a debate ..and completely another dimension to bring within the national foreign policy framework... bcos India's politicians are mostly guided by internal populist agendas..hardly we have seen them raising the voice for india's foreign policy other than holding age hold partyline like communist protesting the Indo-US nuclear deal..
and I seriously fail to understand why cant we discuss other nations here..?even the lady in the question herself .. compared two nations... how can you judge yourself without having a reference frame.? .. coming back to China.. their politician mostly do not have sectoral agendas.. I am not sure if they ..since I am not privy to what happens in the Communist party headquarter of China.. but the biggest problem of India's apparent lack of a proper foreign policy is the lack of visionary leaders.. domestic political issues keep them so busy .. that they just cant fathom anything on a world scale.. n i m not defending those leaders....so please don't come back lecturing me .. what to "focus"..

 

[third eye]

Arre relax..

We have muddled along for 60 + years and reached this far. We shall continue like this and reach where we should.

If we goof it, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Things will be alright so long as the fundamentals stay in place.

The young are naturally impatient & tend to compare. The young at heart see things differently.

All in all, though sluggish things are moving.

 

[muse]

the sad part is ... it is one thing to have a debate ..and completely another dimension to bring within the national foreign policy framework... bcos India's politicians are mostly guided by internal populist agendas..hardly we have seen them raising the voice for india's foreign policy other than holding age hold partyline

Alright, so we have possible reason that the national debate has not caught, politicians with vision (we'll come back to this one.

We have muddled along for 60 + years and reached this far. We shall continue like this and reach where we should.

If we goof it, we have no one but ourselves to blame

.

Is that good enough? more years "chaalega"?? Is such an attitude compatiblel with golabl aspirations?

One of the things for good or bad, the Englishers left the sub-continent is this business of "muddling through" - I suggest it's not good enough, it is a vastly different world out there than the Englishers knew - however; whether they were mudling through or not, the Englishers came up with English solutions.

I seriously fail to understand why cant we discuss other nations here..?even the lady in the question herself .. compared two nations... how can you judge yourself without having a reference frame.? .. coming back to China.. their politician mostly do not have sectoral agendas.. I am not sure if they ..since I am not privy to what happens in the Communist party headquarter of China.. but the biggest problem of India's apparent lack of a proper foreign policy is the lack of visionary leaders.. domestic political issues keep them so busy .. that they just cant fathom anything on a world scale.. n i m not defending those leaders

Two things - In the lead article, you will note the academician refers not to the communist party by to traditions of China -- and I was pointing to this when I suggested that having looked East and West for precedent, that the Indian will have little opion but to look at their own tradition, to fashion a policy framework from within their own tradition.

Humanoid is mistaken with regard to Communist party's role in developing such a framework - it is from within Chinese tradition - It is a useless stereotype, this business about the all knowing all see communist party - China is China, not communist or Marxist -- Also if you think the intellectuals of China are constrained, see a thread I have about Chinese intellectuals and Ideas on th China board -- for me the most noeworthy thung about the lead article i that thread is how the Chinese have seemingly escaped or discarded the notion that style of governance has to be Western only - they have nt discarded the notion of representative governance, but the notion of conflict as a cause or mover of government action.

 

[Logic note]

Economist's View: What China Can Learn from India

What China Can Learn from India
Yasheng Huang from the MIT Sloan School of Management says China could learn a thing or two from India about economic development. He believes India will outperform China in the next few decades unless "China embarks on bold institutional reforms":

China could learn from India’s slow and quiet rise, by Yasheng Huang, Financial Times: In an article published in 2003 called “Can India overtake China?” Tarun Khanna of Harvard Business School and I argued that India’s domestic corporate sector – strengthened by the country’s rule of law, its democratic processes and relatively healthy financial system – was a source of substantial competitive advantage over China. At that time, the notion that India might be more competitive than China was greeted with wide derision.

Two years later, India appears to have permanently broken out of its leisurely “Hindu rate of growth” ... and its performance is beginning to approach the east Asian level. ... More impressively, India is achieving this result with just half of China’s level of domestic investment in new factories and equipment, and only 10 per cent of China’s foreign direct investment. ...

Why, then, is India gaining strength? Economists and analysts have habitually derided India’s inability to attract FDI. This single-minded obsession with FDI is as strange as it is harmful. Academic studies have not produced convincing evidence that FDI is the best path to economic development compared with responsible economic policies, investment in education and sound legal and financial institutions.

An economic litmus test is not whether a country can attract a lot of FDI but whether it has a business environment that nurtures entrepreneurship, supports healthy competition and is relatively free of heavy handed political intervention. In this regard, India has done a better job than China. From India emerged a group of world-class companies... This did not happen by accident.

Although it has many flaws, India’s financial system did not discriminate against small private companies the way the Chinese financial system did. Infosys benefited from this system. ... It is unimaginable that a Chinese bank would lend to a Chinese equivalent of an Infosys. With few exceptions, the world-class manufacturing facilities for which China is famous are products of FDI, not of indigenous Chinese companies. ...

Pessimism about India has often been proved wrong. Take, for example, the view that India lacks Chinese-level infrastructure and therefore cannot compete with China. This is another “China myth” – that the country grew thanks largely to its heavy investment in infrastructure. ... China built its infrastructure after – rather than before – many years of economic growth and accumulation of financial resources. The “China miracle” happened not because it had glittering skyscrapers and modern highways but because bold economic liberalisation and institutional reforms – especially agricultural reforms in the early 1980s – created competition and nurtured private entrepreneurship.

For both China and India, there is a hidden downside in the obsession with building world-class infrastructure. As developing countries, if they invest more in infrastructure, they invest less in other things. Typically, basic education, especially in rural areas, falls victim to massive investment projects... China made a costly mistake in the 1990s: it created many world-class facilities, but badly under-invested in education. Chinese researchers reveal that a staggering percentage of rural children could not finish secondary education. India, meanwhile, has quietly but persistently improved its *educational provisions, especially in the rural areas. For sustainable *economic development, the quality and quantity of human capital will matter far more than those of physical capital. ...

Unless China embarks on bold institutional reforms, India may very well outperform it in the next 20 years. But, hopefully, the biggest beneficiary of the rise of India will be China itself. It will be forced to examine the imperfections of its own economic model ... China was light years ahead of India in economic liberalisation in the 1980s. Today it lags behind in critical aspects, such as reform that would permit more foreign investment and domestic private entry in the financial sector. The time to act is now.

I dont belive that India dont have its priority and foreign policy in its mind ..
for any Indian in this forum commenting on indian views about its own existence in world diaspora is foolish ..
The reason that we have reached here without using autocracy like china , or confusion of reason of its own existence like Pakistan tells a lot about our understanding of our own future ..
every society will have existential problems .. but that society will be judged by the Path it takes to solve them .. some use Gun and brutality , some use faith , some use slavery of ideology (communism) and pay the price for it in long term ..

 

[third eye]

Is that good enough? more years "chaalega"?? Is such an attitude compatiblel with golabl aspirations?

One of the things for good or bad, the Englishers left the sub-continent is this business of "muddling through" - I suggest it's not good enough, it is a vastly different world out there than the Englishers knew - however; whether they were mudling through or not, the Englishers came up with English solutions.

I conceed its not good enough.

The bane of Indian polity has been that at a time when things started looking up & when all the hard work should have begun to pay ( mid 90 onwards), we have mostly had coalition Govts.They have their own dynamics & wheels within wheels. Consequently, the push has not been able to be applied at right time wherever needed. The Nuc deal is a case in point.

We indians will I am sure come up with " Indian soloutions' to Indian problems. The basics are in place.