When celebrating progress on NSG and MTCR, thank Manmohan Singh and the Indo-US nuclear deal

[GodToons]

Not necessarily mate , i was born in the 70s . The only difference is that i read books not articles from the net. (i also had the advantage of having a father who was an officer in the army.
The trouble with people today is that they try to judge history by today's standards., now those things may not have even been prevalent in those days.


May i suggest you spend some time reading "History of modern India" "Indian army after independence " you might get a better insight into things.

Thanks for your suggestion.. I will go through them

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

One of the my favourite Prime Ministers of India and India's best is MMS no matter how people troll him, which were quite true. The parliament voting on nuke deal is the pinnacle of his achievement and the way world leaders admired his way.

In the words of Barack Obama "An man of uncommon decency and humility......".
Its tough to find an person like MMS yet. But he was in the wrong camp, especially in UPA 2, when Rahul was promoted in his backdrop.

 

[magudi]

MMS had his heart in right place but was constrained by the company he got

Watch the last few minutes of the discussion - Shekar Gupta explains how Sonia-Ahmed Patel-Anthony Nexus sought to thwart MMS's overtones to US and bring lethargy into US-India strategic relationship

 

[arp2041]

There is no Problem in saying Thank You......

The Question is, will MMS be able to Reply "You are Welcome" without Madam's consent?

 

[dray]

One of the my favourite Prime Ministers of India and India's best is MMS no matter how people troll him, which were quite true. The parliament voting on nuke deal is the pinnacle of his achievement and the way world leaders admired his way.

In the words of Barack Obama "An man of uncommon decency and humility......".
Its tough to find an person like MMS yet. But he was in the wrong camp, especially in UPA 2, when Rahul was promoted in his backdrop.

I think Sonia Gandhi picked him as the PM because he was a 'good man', just too good and too decent to ever assert that he is the PM, and nobody should interfere with his office. He remained silent, obedient and allowed himself to be dictated by the 'high command' aka Sonia Gandhi, allowed the PM's chair to lose its gravity, and allowed Sonia Gandhi to enjoy power without responsibility and run her personal agenda of making her son the PM of India.

I strongly think that leadership is a quality that either you have or you don't...sure one can train himself to become a better leader, augment his leadership qualities, but one need to have those qualities, confidence, assertiveness, and natural inclination to take charge, and make hard decisions, to begin with. That's why many technocrats with excellent track records in their domain fail miserably in leadership roles, because that requires different human qualities and a different personality altogether. No doubt PM's post requires extraordinary level of leadership skills, and people who have risen to a position on their own capacity in politics, i.e. proved their leadership qualities, are better suited for PM's role (and CMs' role too). A top down approach is likely to fail here.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I think Sonia Gandhi picked him as the PM because he was a 'good man', just too good and too decent to ever assert that he is the PM, and nobody should interfere with his office. He remained silent, obedient and allowed himself to be dictated by the 'high command' aka Sonia Gandhi, allowed the PM's chair to lose its gravity, and allowed Sonia Gandhi to enjoy power without responsibility and run her personal agenda of making her son the PM of India.

I strongly think that leadership is a quality that either you have or you don't...sure one can train himself to become a better leader, augment his leadership qualities, but one need to have those qualities, confidence, assertiveness, and natural inclination to take charge, and make hard decisions, to begin with. That's why many technocrats with excellent track records in their domain fail miserably in leadership roles, because that requires different human qualities and a different personality altogether. No doubt PM's post requires extraordinary level of leadership skills, and people who have risen to a position on their own capacity in politics, i.e. proved their leadership qualities, are better suited for PM's role (and CMs' role too). A top down approach is likely to fail here.

Yea. Only if he had a cabinet who respected the post of Prime Minister, we would be having an UPA 3. I agree with the rest of your assessment.
Also RG was promoted as in the place in PM in the later half of UPA as a way to groom him, which backfired on the Congress more than they expected. Looking back, even today why RG gave that stupid speech on one Dalit's family during Nuclear deal.
But MMS stance on Nuclear Deal will be one stuff of legend in Indian Political history and Narendra Modi is good enough to take the good work of his predecessors. Salute to both the PM's of India.
I think as a unwritten rule, Indian PM's should shy away from standing from a third term whoever that person maybe.

 

[SAS]

US and Indian relations have taken a 180 degree turn and far far cry from days of Indira Nixon bitterness.

Informative post. Sorry, but my interior geek couldn't help but notice themathematical error.

180 degrees is not an angle. Just like 0 degrees isn't an angle. angle by definition 360>Angle>180>angle>0.

Imagine, you/re going somewhere and 90 degree turn will be sharp left/right turn. but 180 degrees is just a straight line. You keep going in the direction you were already going.

 

[dray]

Yea. Only if he had a cabinet who respected the post of Prime Minister, we would be having an UPA 3.

He was supposed to earn that respect, he had to assert his final authority in PM's chair, every leader is supposed to do that. That's the quality he was lacking, that's the quality Rahul Gandhi lacks (apart from a good functional brain), and that's why MMS remained a 'weak' leader, and Rahul Gandhi remained a butt of jokes even after getting high posts by default.

Some people say that Congress need to project a good technocrat as their PM candidate, while a good technocrat would be a better deal than Rahul Gandhi, but that person will remain very dependent on the Congress high command, and may go the MMS way. Because that person will have superficial authority within the party and a good professional background is no guarantee for leadership qualities and political sense. All political parties should have a bottom up approach to find credible successors, but a technocrat PM promoted by Congress is like appointing a professional as manager for a fixed term to run a family business, this doesn't work in politics as party members and workers are not paid employees.

 

[fsayed]

Take a look at @INCIndia's Tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/740913944278114305

 

[asad71]

http://thewire.in/2016/06/09/what-the-mtcr-membership-means-for-india-and-what-it-doesnt-41725/

What MTCR Membership Means for India, and What It Doesn’t
India’s formal membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime is being hailed as a breakthrough, but the implications may be somewhat less dramatic.

 

[cerberus]

What MTCR Membership Means for India, and What It Doesn’t
India’s formal membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime is being hailed as a breakthrough, but the implications may be somewhat less dramatic.

• It Means We can Now In-fact can Operate Brahmos to its full range above 600 Km+(russians offered)
• Import of Composite materials from Member States Like France ,russia Us
• Import of cutting Edge Tech from Russians Like Turbofan Engine tech Required for Long range Cruise missiles
• Joint Partnership with Western firms on UCAVs & Tech related to ABM

List goes on

 

[Nilgiri]

Manmohan Singh was a good technocrat with poor political and leadership skills, US nuclear deal was the first time when he showed some spine and stood his ground. Unfortunately that was also the last time when he showed some spine.

Basically this.

At least he got this one task accomplished. I will not take that away from him along with his role in 91 reforms.

 

[TejasMk3]

We did approach the Americans during the 62 war and they refused military help to us , it was the Russians who stepped in giving us their latest mig 21 , tanks and subs(the foxtrot) they also strengthened our artillery systems which till then were solely depended on western systems.

Relationship with the U.S has always been complicated, there a very nice chapter in B.Ramans (Kao Boys) book about how on one side we worked with the Americans against China, esp in Burma, and the North east side, but on the other side, Pakis were working with them, on issues like Khalistan, and goes on to say that such things are totally normal.

 

[guest11]

I agree that MMS deserves credit for current US-India relations but not before ABV. He was one who ended decades of stalemate not MMS and on the other side it was Clinton who aggressively sought better relations with India much before Bush and it was his visit to India that changed the dynamics of the relations between the two nations.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...s-signals-major-shift-in-policy/1/243770.html

 

[dray]

Basically this.

At least he got this one task accomplished. I will not take that away from him along with his role in 91 reforms.

That's true, I am not taking away from him what he has accomplished. Also look at the 1991 reforms, he could do his job as an finance minister because he was working under a strong leader PV Narsimha Rao. He found his leader in Sonia Gandhi during his tenure as PM, and that was disastrous because this time the leader was bad, not 'poor' but 'bad', 'India' was not her concern, only power and her son were. You see, it's not only that Sonia Gandhi controlled MMS, but MMS also needed a leader to function. He is a follower, a good employee, a good batsman but a poor captain.....he should have resigned by 2011 and saved his dignity, and saved us from the frustration of living under a government that is paralyzed and doesn't function.