I came across this article in the Indian online papers about the 1971 War, and how India, led by Mrs. Gandhi and General 'Sam Bahadur', scored one of India's most glorious victories in our modern era.
Before I begin quoting the article, I just want our politicians to realize that the world only respects those who stand up for themselves. If they think the countries of the world will respect them for the visionless pussies that they are, then they are grossly mistaken. I am absolutely positive that the flag of India is being led across the world by our entrepreneurs and the common citizen, while the politicians are just scurrying along behind them, desperately trying to still look important. Sure they are ruthless tyrants at home, but I am sure the rest of the world considers them inconsequential.
1971 War: How the US tried to corner India
'India won a glorious victory against Pakistan in the 1971 war. It was the first decisive victory in a major war in centuries. And it was won singlehandedly, in the face of opposition and threats from a majority of the UN member-States, including a superpower. Every Indian patriot felt proud of this glittering chapter in the nation's history.'
-- Dr S N Prasad in his introduction to the Indian government's 'restricted' Official History of the 1971 War.
A few months ago, the Office of the Historian at the US State Department released Volume XI of the Foreign Relations of the United States devoted to the 'South Asia Crisis, 1971': in other words, the Bangladesh War.
This 929-page publication groups together documents which were already known like the minutes of Henry Kissinger's secret visit to China in July 1971 as well as scores of freshly declassified material available for the first time to the public.
It throws light on a less known angle of the India-Pakistan conflict: The role of the nascent friendship between the United States and China. This is a welcome new piece in the puzzle of the history of the 1971 War.
Another piece is the Hamidur Rahman Report, ordered by the government of Pakistan after the war, which analyses the Pakistani defeat. 'Due to corruption... lust for wine and women and greed for land and houses, a large number of senior army officers, particularly those occupying the highest positions, had not only lost the will to fight but also the professional competence necessary for taking the vital and critical decisions demanded of them for the successful prosecution of the war.'
The US administration saw the unfurling events differently.
According to Kissinger, then American President Richard M Nixon's national security adviser, 'When the Nixon administration took office, our policy objective on the subcontinent was, quite simply, to avoid adding another complication to our agenda.'
But events in the subcontinent and the Chinese factor forced Nixon to change his stand. The new closeness between Washington, DC and Beijing and the involvement of the Pakistan president as a secret go-between greatly influenced US policy.
According to the State Department historian, 'When the fighting developed, the Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan. The tilt involved the dispatch of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal to try to intimidate the Indian government. It also involved encouraging China to make military moves to achieve the same end, and an assurance to China that if China menaced India and the Soviet Union moved against China in support of India, the United States would protect China from the Soviet Union. China chose not to menace India, and the crisis on the subcontinent ended without a confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.'
In a telegram sent on March 28, 1971, the staff at the US consulate in Dhaka complained, 'Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government... We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.'
When US Secretary of State Will Rogers received this 'miserable' cable, he informed President Nixon that the 'Dacca consulate is in open rebellion.' This did not change Nixon's opinion: 'The people who bitch about Vietnam bitch about it because we intervened in what they say is a civil war. Now some of the same bastards...want us to intervene here -- both civil wars.'
From the start, the Nixon administration knew 'the prospects were "poor"... the Pakistani army would not be able to exert effective control over East Pakistan.' Washington believed India was bound to support Mujibur Rahman. The CIA had reported that 'India would foster and support Bengali insurgency and contribute to the likelihood that an independent Bangladesh would emerge from the developing conflict.'
It is here that the Chinese saga began. In a tightly guarded secret, Nixon had started contacts with Beijing. The postman was Pakistani dictator Field Marshal Yahya Khan.
When on April 28 1971, Kissinger sent a note defining the future policy option towards Pakistan, Nixon replied in a handwritten note: 'Don't squeeze Yahya at this time.' The Pakistan president was not to be squeezed because he was in the process of arranging Kissinger's first secret meeting to China. The events of the following months and the US position should be seen in this perspective.
In May, Indira Gandhi wrote to Nixon about the 'carnage in East Bengal' and the flood of refugees burdening India. After L K Jha, then the Indian ambassador to US, had warned Kissinger that India might have to send back some of the refugees as guerillas, Nixon commented, 'By God we will cut off economic aid (to India).'
A few days later when the US president said 'the goddamn Indians' were preparing for another war, Kissinger retorted 'they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.'
During the second week of July, Kissinger went to Beijing where he was told by then Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai: 'In our opinion, if India continues on its present course in disregard of world opinion, it will continue to go on recklessly. We, however, support the stand of Pakistan. This is known to the world. If they (the Indians) are bent on provoking such a situation, then we cannot sit idly by.' Kissinger answered that Zhou should know that the US sympathies also lay with Pakistan.
On his return, during a meeting of the National Security Council, Nixon continued his India bashing. The Indians, he noted, are 'a slippery, treacherous people.'
The State Department historian says, 'in the perspective of Washington, the crisis ratcheted up a dangerous notch on August 9 when India and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation.' It was a shock for Washington as they saw a deliberate collusion between Delhi and Moscow.
During the following months, the situation deteriorated and many more refugees came to India. The Indian prime minister decided to tour Western capitals to explain the Indian stand. On November 4 and 5, she met Nixon in Washington, who told her that a new war in the subcontinent was out of the question.
The next day, Nixon and Kissinger assessed the situation. Kissinger told Nixon: 'The Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.'
To divert the pressure applied by the Mukti Bahini on the eastern front, the Pakistan air force launched an attack on six Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab on December 3. It was the beginning of the war.
The next day, then US ambassador to the United Nations George H W Bush -- later 41st president of the United States and father of the current American president -- introduced a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces by India and Pakistan. It was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The following days witnessed a great pressure on the Soviets from the Nixon-Kissinger duo to get India to withdraw, but to no avail.
The CIA reported to the President: 'She (Indira Gandhi) hopes the Chinese (will) not intervene physically in the North; however, the Soviets have warned her that the Chinese are still able to "rattle the sword" in Ladakh and Chumbi areas.'
On December 9, when the CIA director warned Nixon that 'East Pakistan was crumbling', Nixon decided to send the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India.
Let me recount an anecdote related to me by Major General K K Tewari (retd), Chief Signal Officer, Eastern Command, during the 1971 War.
General Tewari was present at a briefing the three defence services held for Indira Gandhi. She was seated at a large table. On one side was General S H F J Manekshaw, the army chief, and on the other Admiral S M Nanda, the navy chief.
During the course of the presentation, the admiral intervened and said: 'Madam, the US 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.' Nothing happened; the briefing continued. After sometime, the admiral repeated, 'Madam, I have to inform you that the 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.' She cut him off immediately: 'Admiral, I heard you the first time, let us go on with the briefing.'
All the officers present were stunned. Ultimately, their morale was tremendously boosted by the prime minister's attitude. She had demonstrated her utter contempt for the American bluff.
For Kissinger it was clear that Indira Gandhi wanted the dismemberment of Pakistan.
On November 10, Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some troops toward the Indian frontier. 'Threaten to move forces or move them, Henry, that's what they must do now.'
This was conveyed to Huang Hua, China's envoy to the United Nations. Kissinger told Huang the US would be prepared for a military confrontation with the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union attacked China.
On December 12, the White House received an urgent message. The Chinese wanted to meet in New York. General Alexander Haig, then Kissinger's deputy, rushed to the venue, but was disappointed. Huang just wanted to convey his government's stand in the UN, no words of an attack in Sikkim or in the then North East Frontier Agency (now, the northeastern states).
The myth of the Chinese intervention is also visible in the secret Pakistani dispatches. Lieutenant General A A K Niazi, the Pakistani army commander in Dhaka, was informed: 'NEFA front has been activated by Chinese although the Indians for obvious reasons have not announced it.'
Until the last day of the war, Pakistan expected its Chinese saviour to strike, but Beijing never did.
In Washington, Nixon analysed the situation thus: 'If the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis...we may be looking down the gun barrel.' Nixon was not sure about China. Did they really intend to start a military action against India?
Finally, on December 16, Niazi surrendered to Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora. Nixon and Kissinger congratulated themselves for achieving their fundamental goal -- the preservation of West Pakistan. They were also happy for having 'scared the pants off the Russians.'
It is worth mentioning an episode which, of course, does not appear in the American archives -- The Tibetan participation in the conflict. After the debacle of 1962, the Government of India had recruited some Tibetans youth in the eventuality of another conflict with China. The Special Frontier Force was trained in Chakrata in Uttar Pradesh under the command of an Indian general.
In 1971, nine years after its creation, the SFF was sent to East Pakistan to prepare for the arrival of regular Indian troops. Their saga is one of the least known parts of the Bangladesh war.
Late October 1971, an AN-12 airlifted nearly 3,000 Tibetans who later assembled at Demagiri close to the India-East Pakistan border. On the other side of the border were the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Armed with Bulgarian-made assault rifles, the SFF was given the task of organising guerrilla raids across the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Opposite the SSF, in thick jungles and leech-infested marshes, was stationed a Pakistan brigade, including a battalion of its elite Special Services Group.
During the second week of November, Operation Eagle began. Leaving Demagiri in canoes, the Tibetans commandos entered East Pakistan. The SFF then started overrunning one Pakistani post after another.
By the time the war was officially declared, the Tibetans had already been inside East Pakistan for more than three weeks. Using both their Bulgarian rifles and native knives, they advanced swiftly. Their Indian commandaner, Major General S S Uban later said, 'They were unstoppable.'
On December 16, the SSF was 40 kilometers away from Chittagong port, having successfully managed to neutralise the Pakistani brigade.
After Pakistan's surrender, they paraded through Chittagong. Unfortunately, 49 Tibetans lost their lives for a nation which was not theirs.
The release of the State Department volume on the 1971 conflict is a posthumous homage to the courage of the Indian Army which despite heavy odds and the might of the United States freed Bangladesh from Pakistani clutches.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Fighting terror? Not if you are neta
Indian Government is working on an anti-terror law that, among other things, adds the new clause that we will not negotiate with hostage-takers anymore. Any self-respecting Indian will recall the numerous instances where the gutless politicians of India have completely crumbled under threats from terrorists.
Many people will probably not remember that a daughter of the former Kashmir CM, Mufti Mohd Sayeed, was kidnapped and the scared politicians released some dreaded terrorists that were caught by our forces.
Then of course, the world renowned IC-814 happened, and the entire government of India was wondering what the hell to do. The crying and fighting relatives of the people on the plane convinced the politicians that the safety of this nation is not as important to them. There was lack of decision making on all levels. The NSG commados could have stormed the plane in Amritsar, but no green signal was forthcoming from New Delhi. Finally we negotiated with the terrorists in their territory, and obviously got the raw end of the deal. But like they say, there is no use digging up dead corpses. I don't know if there is such a phrase in English, but there is one in Hindi, hence the usage. :)
Since then I have been hearing of new laws that will legally bar any government to negotiate with terrorists. I had no idea it would take more than 6 years for something of that necessity to be put into place. But then, national security was never a priority for any politician. The good people in our governments do not make the decisions, the paid off, selfish, self-serving politicians do.
Recently, the Chief of the Information Bureau, the agency responsible for dometic intelligence, pleaded to the Prime Minister to bring about a change in our terror and intelligence laws so that our RAW and IB sleuths have more teeth to do their job. But as expected, the PM ducked the call to become tougher with our nation's enemies.
I ask this question - Can one imagine the low morale of our soldiers, not only on the border but in every aspect of national security, when thei r own elected leaders do not give two hoots about the well being of their own country? They are literally being put as a first line of defense without giving them any weapons to fight with. Our weapons deals take forever to be inked, and when they are inked, they come with the inevitable payoff scandal. Our domestic defense industry is in tatters so that the politicians can pocket their cut. Our soldiers on the borders, especially the Bangladesh border, have no amenities and absolutely no support to fight the hordes of Bangladeshis ready to cut our North-east from us. But you think the impotents sitting in their well guarded mansions in New Delhi will care? They will not till the next bullet from a terrorist's gun hits somebody who is close to their heart.
The politicians of this country stopped feeling the pain of the common man a long time ago. Anyways, I digress. I really get swept in my emotions, and it becomes hard for me to stick to my theme of my posts. I wanted to post the news items related to the new terror laws and all that.
Kalam for special force to fight terror
Even as the debate on modernisation of the police force is underway, President APJ Abdul Kalam has proposed the setting up of a dedicated police force equipped with sophisticated gadgetry to fight low-intensity warfare to combat terrorism and extremism.
"In order to contain terrorism, the police force will have to create a new cadre trained in low-intensity
warfare and equipped with state-of-the-art technologies,"he said.
Noting that terrorists were using latest technologies in their disruptive activities, Kalam said "very conscious" police personnel using a combination of human intelligence and connectivity across police forces in many states is the need of the hour. Such a modern police force can effectively contribute to the eradication of terror, he said.
Kalam added that the country would have to use innovative tools like mutual legal assistance treaties with other nations "to ensure that organised criminals do not defeat the law enforcement process by taking advantage of crossing national boundaries and evading prosecution".
He said legal reforms like witness protection, concealing the identity of witnesses, compounding of offences and suitable protection to judges would go a long way in reducing the stress on the criminal justice system.
------------------------------------------
That is what our President has to say, but of course, like I said, the people who actually have balls and care enough for this country do not get to make the decisions. Dr. Singh, under orders from Her Highness the Queen and his gutless political alliance, says that no, we are fine the way we are.
Existing laws enough to tackle terror: PM
PM Manmohan Singh on Saturday joined the debate on whether a special law was needed to fight the challenge of terrorism, virtually turning down the demand of Intelligence Bureau chief E S L Narasimhan for the enactment of a new law.
In what was seen as a riposte to Narasimhan’s spirited pitch for a special law on the ground that existing legal architecture was not adequate to deal with the new-age terrorist, Singh suggested that authorities should take recourse to "stringent measures" under existing laws to "cut off" the illegal flow of money to terrorists through money laundering and organised crime.
Speaking at a seminar on "Law, Terrorism and Development" here, the PM was in complete agreement with the IB on the threat posed by different forms of terrorism. "Having large financial and material resources at their disposal, terrorist groups are able to use modern communication systems and state-of-the art technology to pursue their agenda. They have become more sophisticated, better networked and highly motivated in carrying out their nefarious designs. A matter of extreme concern is also their linkage with organised crime, like drug trafficking, gun running, counterfeit currency and money-laundering," he said.
However, he appeared to suggest that existing laws had enough teeth. "We also need to use relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to cut off the flow of funds to terrorist groups," Singh said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satyamev Jayte, Sir ji, butchering our brothers and sisters daily notwithstanding. As long as my neta is safe in his/her house, I can sleep in peace. That is our karma.
Many people will probably not remember that a daughter of the former Kashmir CM, Mufti Mohd Sayeed, was kidnapped and the scared politicians released some dreaded terrorists that were caught by our forces.
Then of course, the world renowned IC-814 happened, and the entire government of India was wondering what the hell to do. The crying and fighting relatives of the people on the plane convinced the politicians that the safety of this nation is not as important to them. There was lack of decision making on all levels. The NSG commados could have stormed the plane in Amritsar, but no green signal was forthcoming from New Delhi. Finally we negotiated with the terrorists in their territory, and obviously got the raw end of the deal. But like they say, there is no use digging up dead corpses. I don't know if there is such a phrase in English, but there is one in Hindi, hence the usage. :)
Since then I have been hearing of new laws that will legally bar any government to negotiate with terrorists. I had no idea it would take more than 6 years for something of that necessity to be put into place. But then, national security was never a priority for any politician. The good people in our governments do not make the decisions, the paid off, selfish, self-serving politicians do.
Recently, the Chief of the Information Bureau, the agency responsible for dometic intelligence, pleaded to the Prime Minister to bring about a change in our terror and intelligence laws so that our RAW and IB sleuths have more teeth to do their job. But as expected, the PM ducked the call to become tougher with our nation's enemies.
I ask this question - Can one imagine the low morale of our soldiers, not only on the border but in every aspect of national security, when thei r own elected leaders do not give two hoots about the well being of their own country? They are literally being put as a first line of defense without giving them any weapons to fight with. Our weapons deals take forever to be inked, and when they are inked, they come with the inevitable payoff scandal. Our domestic defense industry is in tatters so that the politicians can pocket their cut. Our soldiers on the borders, especially the Bangladesh border, have no amenities and absolutely no support to fight the hordes of Bangladeshis ready to cut our North-east from us. But you think the impotents sitting in their well guarded mansions in New Delhi will care? They will not till the next bullet from a terrorist's gun hits somebody who is close to their heart.
The politicians of this country stopped feeling the pain of the common man a long time ago. Anyways, I digress. I really get swept in my emotions, and it becomes hard for me to stick to my theme of my posts. I wanted to post the news items related to the new terror laws and all that.
Kalam for special force to fight terror
Even as the debate on modernisation of the police force is underway, President APJ Abdul Kalam has proposed the setting up of a dedicated police force equipped with sophisticated gadgetry to fight low-intensity warfare to combat terrorism and extremism.
"In order to contain terrorism, the police force will have to create a new cadre trained in low-intensity
warfare and equipped with state-of-the-art technologies,"he said.
Noting that terrorists were using latest technologies in their disruptive activities, Kalam said "very conscious" police personnel using a combination of human intelligence and connectivity across police forces in many states is the need of the hour. Such a modern police force can effectively contribute to the eradication of terror, he said.
Kalam added that the country would have to use innovative tools like mutual legal assistance treaties with other nations "to ensure that organised criminals do not defeat the law enforcement process by taking advantage of crossing national boundaries and evading prosecution".
He said legal reforms like witness protection, concealing the identity of witnesses, compounding of offences and suitable protection to judges would go a long way in reducing the stress on the criminal justice system.
------------------------------------------
That is what our President has to say, but of course, like I said, the people who actually have balls and care enough for this country do not get to make the decisions. Dr. Singh, under orders from Her Highness the Queen and his gutless political alliance, says that no, we are fine the way we are.
PM Manmohan Singh on Saturday joined the debate on whether a special law was needed to fight the challenge of terrorism, virtually turning down the demand of Intelligence Bureau chief E S L Narasimhan for the enactment of a new law.
In what was seen as a riposte to Narasimhan’s spirited pitch for a special law on the ground that existing legal architecture was not adequate to deal with the new-age terrorist, Singh suggested that authorities should take recourse to "stringent measures" under existing laws to "cut off" the illegal flow of money to terrorists through money laundering and organised crime.
Speaking at a seminar on "Law, Terrorism and Development" here, the PM was in complete agreement with the IB on the threat posed by different forms of terrorism. "Having large financial and material resources at their disposal, terrorist groups are able to use modern communication systems and state-of-the art technology to pursue their agenda. They have become more sophisticated, better networked and highly motivated in carrying out their nefarious designs. A matter of extreme concern is also their linkage with organised crime, like drug trafficking, gun running, counterfeit currency and money-laundering," he said.
However, he appeared to suggest that existing laws had enough teeth. "We also need to use relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to cut off the flow of funds to terrorist groups," Singh said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satyamev Jayte, Sir ji, butchering our brothers and sisters daily notwithstanding. As long as my neta is safe in his/her house, I can sleep in peace. That is our karma.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Check out DIAL!!
The impending upgrades of the DIAL and the MIAL are being eagerly awaited for quite a while now, and things looked positively ahead last month when the Delhi High Court rejected Reliance Energy's appeal against the contract being awarded to the GMR consortium.
After a long wait, the plans for Delhi International Airport (DIAL) are finally out. The airport will be a massive structure, no doubt, but personally, I was hoping for a snazzier design. I hope that does not make me an ungrateful person. The bottom line, of course, is that anything will be better than these current shitpots we all call our airports. So I am glad that this plan is finally off the ground, and while it is unfortunate that our government still decided to give the Airports Authority of India some stake in the project, the good thing is that it is only limited to 13%, thus effectively nullifying their vetoing ability. As we will all agree, bloody netas love to veto a good idea in favor of their own benefits. Hopefully our airports will not have to see this in the future.
Next stop: Privatizing the Kolkata and Chennai airports. Meanwhile, the new plans for DIAL are being enthusiastically discussed at the SSC forum, and I invite you all to partake with the rest of us Indian infrastructure fanatics.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=347516
As somebody once said, "Yeh century humare haathon mein hai, Sir." Inshallah.
After a long wait, the plans for Delhi International Airport (DIAL) are finally out. The airport will be a massive structure, no doubt, but personally, I was hoping for a snazzier design. I hope that does not make me an ungrateful person. The bottom line, of course, is that anything will be better than these current shitpots we all call our airports. So I am glad that this plan is finally off the ground, and while it is unfortunate that our government still decided to give the Airports Authority of India some stake in the project, the good thing is that it is only limited to 13%, thus effectively nullifying their vetoing ability. As we will all agree, bloody netas love to veto a good idea in favor of their own benefits. Hopefully our airports will not have to see this in the future.
Next stop: Privatizing the Kolkata and Chennai airports. Meanwhile, the new plans for DIAL are being enthusiastically discussed at the SSC forum, and I invite you all to partake with the rest of us Indian infrastructure fanatics.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=347516
As somebody once said, "Yeh century humare haathon mein hai, Sir." Inshallah.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
How do things look for the Indian economy
In the last couple of months, the Indian economy has continued its rise, and seen its regular share of criticisms and skeptisms. This morning I read that the Indian economy finally crossed the 9% growth rate last quarter, growing at 9.2%. This is good news, but it puts pressure on the Reserve Bank to slow down the chances of overheating, and they will probably raise the rates again. Just like any other public entity in the country, they are pretty conservative too.
A lot has been said about the lack of government spending on our basic infrastructure, and a lot will continue to be said, because I do not forsee any change in the way netas think about the country and themselves. The one good thing is that for the most part, the government has been letting the private sector spend money where it needs to go.
Andy Mukherjee is a journalist at Bloomberg, a financial news outlet in the United States, and he has written a nice article on the rise of the private sector. He is saying exactly what a lot of people have said before, that India is growing despite its government. There are so many sectors where the private enterprise wants to enter and make a change.
Here is how I think it works - as a social democracy, it is the Indian government's duty to provide the basic services to its people. These include civic amenities such as water, power and housing, law and order and justice. If you look at all of them, you will realize that they have a miserable track record on all of them. I could go on and on about what is wrong with all of them, but that'll take a long time.
So here are these services that the people need and their government totally incompetent to provide them, and that creates a gap in the demand and supply. So earlier with our Socialist tendencies, the government did nothing, and did not allow the private sector to do anything.
But today things have changed. I must give credit to some parts of the government where it is due. Despite the weak PM he may be, Dr. Singh does have the right mind about reforms in all the right places, including the police forces, the courts, the bureaucracy and cutting red tape.
Now we have private sector building our power plants, laying and expanding roads, building sea ports, and flying in our airports. In fact, we have private companies now running our most important airports. In a way it is good to see the netas shake off their distrust for the private individual. For long they have compounded on the false notion that only they know what is best for India and anybody else is just trying to hurt the country. The truth, as we would all agree, has been exactly the opposite. I am pretty sure the common Indian on the street has a lot more patriotism in him/her than a neta sitting in the assembly or the Parliament.
My friend Mayank used to use the phrase, "wealth to the villages" all the time when we discussed the Indian economy. And he is absolutely right. Our biggest concern is to see that the benefits of this capitalism led growth trickle down to the grassroots. Successful western economies such as England and the United States have witnessed this trickle down effect, but unlike India, they have seen active support from dilligent governments. Despite their shortcomings and corruption and politicking and all that, their governments have worked to allow the private individual to grow in his/her own right, cut red tape and allowed them to take over the reigns of the economy, while still keeping control of legislation and all that.
Prosperous nations have programs that benefit the poor, and ensure a just distribution of wealth (in an ideal world that is). England has the dole, US has the social security, India just has some legislation with no action on the ground.
How India's rich are plugging gaps in power and transportation
It's easy, perhaps too easy, to become pessimistic about India's deficient infrastructure.
Everything from potholed roads and clogged airports to frequent power blackouts and creaking urban transportation would appear to be daunting, if not intractable, shortcomings.
Sure, the challenges are humonguous, and the pace of their resolution is slow. The highly indebted Indian government hasn't the wherewithal to make a decisive improvement, which is estimated to require additional spending equal to 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. That's almost three-quarters of what India is spending on transportation, power, water, irrigation, communications and storage capacity in a year.
Private enterprise is playing an increasingly important role. Inadequate public spending is still a huge constraint, yet domestic non-state companies are slowly taking the lead in allocating much-needed capital to some of India's most overlooked requirements.
A glance at the latest Forbes magazine list of 40 richest Indians should prove that point. Except for the "knowledge- economy" czars -- the computer-software and generic-drug exporters who are mostly sticking to what they know -- almost everyone else on that list is investing in infrastructure.
The government's biggest headache is acquiring land; Mukesh Ambani's plan to build a new city a third as big as Mumbai is already dogged by the protests of farmers who feel they are being compensated too little for their land.
The private sector in India is awash with money and has a huge appetite for risk. Infrastructure-related work is already so brisk that it's creating capacity bottlenecks for machinery suppliers, says Ved Prakash Chaturvedi, managing director of Tata Asset Management Ltd. in Mumbai.
Supply-side bottlenecks, across a range of capital-goods businesses, may become a short-term impediment, especially if the economy continues to grow at about 8 percent, the pace at which it has expanded the past three years.
To remove the temporary deficiencies in capacity, the Indian financial system, the brain of the economy, has to step in.
The better banks are reading the hunger for investment demand correctly. ICICI Bank Ltd., India's largest by market value, is raising a record US$1 billion in yen loans.
Give it a few years. The private sector in India will build and operate substantial amounts of physical infrastructure. Quality public-sector projects will remain limited to rare successes such as Delhi Metro Rail Corp. because of the sheer paucity of management skills within the government. Adequate power supply and tolerable transportation networks are within India's reach, and sooner than people realize. Yet the key is with India's entrepreneurs, not its government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He agrees, India's growth should be linked to its citizens, and not its government. Recently the government announced that it will welcome foreign universities wishing to set up campuses in India. A couple of big names from all around the world have expressed their desire to do so, and all that is fine, but what is more important is what we do for ourselves. Sitting on the laurels of just 6 IIT's for a billion people is nothing to be proud of. The same with IIM's and the AIIMS's. India does not need more IIT's or IIM's, it needs its other engineering and business schools to rise to the standards of these institutions. And this is where the private enterprise is very important. The government does know how to run institutes of higher learning. IIT's, AIIMS and IIM's are autonomous bodies and are just fortunate to not be on the feeding bowl of an unscrupulous neta. Even then, AIIMS could not protect itself from the politics that these netas play. The Health Minister, Ramadoss, has filled the AIIMS board with his posse, and took on the MD for defying his orders. Thus while we set about making our lives and the lives of the people around us better, we must always remember that India is always at a constant threat from its politicians. This knowledge will serve us better as we try to break the shackles that have been cast on us for the last 6 decades.
A lot has been said about the lack of government spending on our basic infrastructure, and a lot will continue to be said, because I do not forsee any change in the way netas think about the country and themselves. The one good thing is that for the most part, the government has been letting the private sector spend money where it needs to go.
Andy Mukherjee is a journalist at Bloomberg, a financial news outlet in the United States, and he has written a nice article on the rise of the private sector. He is saying exactly what a lot of people have said before, that India is growing despite its government. There are so many sectors where the private enterprise wants to enter and make a change.
Here is how I think it works - as a social democracy, it is the Indian government's duty to provide the basic services to its people. These include civic amenities such as water, power and housing, law and order and justice. If you look at all of them, you will realize that they have a miserable track record on all of them. I could go on and on about what is wrong with all of them, but that'll take a long time.
So here are these services that the people need and their government totally incompetent to provide them, and that creates a gap in the demand and supply. So earlier with our Socialist tendencies, the government did nothing, and did not allow the private sector to do anything.
But today things have changed. I must give credit to some parts of the government where it is due. Despite the weak PM he may be, Dr. Singh does have the right mind about reforms in all the right places, including the police forces, the courts, the bureaucracy and cutting red tape.
Now we have private sector building our power plants, laying and expanding roads, building sea ports, and flying in our airports. In fact, we have private companies now running our most important airports. In a way it is good to see the netas shake off their distrust for the private individual. For long they have compounded on the false notion that only they know what is best for India and anybody else is just trying to hurt the country. The truth, as we would all agree, has been exactly the opposite. I am pretty sure the common Indian on the street has a lot more patriotism in him/her than a neta sitting in the assembly or the Parliament.
My friend Mayank used to use the phrase, "wealth to the villages" all the time when we discussed the Indian economy. And he is absolutely right. Our biggest concern is to see that the benefits of this capitalism led growth trickle down to the grassroots. Successful western economies such as England and the United States have witnessed this trickle down effect, but unlike India, they have seen active support from dilligent governments. Despite their shortcomings and corruption and politicking and all that, their governments have worked to allow the private individual to grow in his/her own right, cut red tape and allowed them to take over the reigns of the economy, while still keeping control of legislation and all that.
Prosperous nations have programs that benefit the poor, and ensure a just distribution of wealth (in an ideal world that is). England has the dole, US has the social security, India just has some legislation with no action on the ground.
How India's rich are plugging gaps in power and transportation
It's easy, perhaps too easy, to become pessimistic about India's deficient infrastructure.
Everything from potholed roads and clogged airports to frequent power blackouts and creaking urban transportation would appear to be daunting, if not intractable, shortcomings.
Sure, the challenges are humonguous, and the pace of their resolution is slow. The highly indebted Indian government hasn't the wherewithal to make a decisive improvement, which is estimated to require additional spending equal to 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. That's almost three-quarters of what India is spending on transportation, power, water, irrigation, communications and storage capacity in a year.
Private enterprise is playing an increasingly important role. Inadequate public spending is still a huge constraint, yet domestic non-state companies are slowly taking the lead in allocating much-needed capital to some of India's most overlooked requirements.
A glance at the latest Forbes magazine list of 40 richest Indians should prove that point. Except for the "knowledge- economy" czars -- the computer-software and generic-drug exporters who are mostly sticking to what they know -- almost everyone else on that list is investing in infrastructure.
The government's biggest headache is acquiring land; Mukesh Ambani's plan to build a new city a third as big as Mumbai is already dogged by the protests of farmers who feel they are being compensated too little for their land.
The private sector in India is awash with money and has a huge appetite for risk. Infrastructure-related work is already so brisk that it's creating capacity bottlenecks for machinery suppliers, says Ved Prakash Chaturvedi, managing director of Tata Asset Management Ltd. in Mumbai.
Supply-side bottlenecks, across a range of capital-goods businesses, may become a short-term impediment, especially if the economy continues to grow at about 8 percent, the pace at which it has expanded the past three years.
To remove the temporary deficiencies in capacity, the Indian financial system, the brain of the economy, has to step in.
The better banks are reading the hunger for investment demand correctly. ICICI Bank Ltd., India's largest by market value, is raising a record US$1 billion in yen loans.
Give it a few years. The private sector in India will build and operate substantial amounts of physical infrastructure. Quality public-sector projects will remain limited to rare successes such as Delhi Metro Rail Corp. because of the sheer paucity of management skills within the government. Adequate power supply and tolerable transportation networks are within India's reach, and sooner than people realize. Yet the key is with India's entrepreneurs, not its government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He agrees, India's growth should be linked to its citizens, and not its government. Recently the government announced that it will welcome foreign universities wishing to set up campuses in India. A couple of big names from all around the world have expressed their desire to do so, and all that is fine, but what is more important is what we do for ourselves. Sitting on the laurels of just 6 IIT's for a billion people is nothing to be proud of. The same with IIM's and the AIIMS's. India does not need more IIT's or IIM's, it needs its other engineering and business schools to rise to the standards of these institutions. And this is where the private enterprise is very important. The government does know how to run institutes of higher learning. IIT's, AIIMS and IIM's are autonomous bodies and are just fortunate to not be on the feeding bowl of an unscrupulous neta. Even then, AIIMS could not protect itself from the politics that these netas play. The Health Minister, Ramadoss, has filled the AIIMS board with his posse, and took on the MD for defying his orders. Thus while we set about making our lives and the lives of the people around us better, we must always remember that India is always at a constant threat from its politicians. This knowledge will serve us better as we try to break the shackles that have been cast on us for the last 6 decades.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
I've missed you, Blog
Dear blog, i've been away for almost a month, and its sacrilageous on my part to do so. A lot has passed since my last post, like the great showing of Indian golfers in tournaments in Asia and Europe, the airports in various cities trudging along, the Democrats coming back to near power in the United States, and a lot of other paraphernalia that has affected my life in one way or the other.
Last week, the Supreme Court had rejected Reliance Energy's case against the awarding of the Delhi/Mumbai airport contracts to GMR and GVK consortiums respectively. That supposedly was the last hurdle that these consortiums would have faced in their endeavour to transform the current airports from pig stys to worldclass establishments.
A lot of hullabaloo is being raised about the state of Indian infrastructure. These days, its not about the state per se but more about the investment that is being put into it. While it is growing by leaps and bounds, it is never enough to satisfy any media commentator the world over.
Our tens of billions of American dollars of investment are still dwarfed by the hundreds of billions of American dollars of Chinese investment, and that status quo has remained for all of last decade and all of this one.
Here is what my fragile little mind can't understand, and maybe I am wrong when I write this, but this is how the governments in India, at the state and center, seem to work - we have no money, you have the money, but we will not let you do your thing because of 'policy' restrictions. The new mantra in this Con'gress led government is something called public-private partnership. I haven't really looked into how it works, but I think it is something like government letting the private sector do their thing while the government will try to cut red tape and give them enough freedom to build and control what they have built. Now I am certain this is not exactly how it works, but I think its something to that effect. I think it also involves the government taking a stake in the project but giving the managing control to the private company. Like the new airports that are coming up have minority stakes owned by the Airports Authority of India and some of the respective state governments.
While all this infra talk is taking place, the Indian economy seems to be growing at a brisk rate, although the background chatter of a widening economic chasm between different classes and sectors is growing louder. While many argue that this economic growth is not worth a lot because it is not generating the necessary growth in employment, there are many other reports that say that different sunrise sectors have the ability to create millions of additional jobs. Who do I believe? Being the nationalist and the optimist and the saner person I am, I am going to say that this growth is here to stay, and despite what the naysayers say, this growth will trickle down and trickle wide.
By the way, today is Children's Day. On Pandit ji's birth anniversary, I think we must take a vow to make this country a better place for our children. We must work hard to get them out of hazardous jobs and into schools. my heart cringes at the level of exploitation that the children in our country face. In addition to that is the problem of malnourishment. Most of the world's malnourished are in India. So tell me, after all these years of a green revolution, what have we achieved? Very little, to tell you the truth. India produces enough to feed itself, but much of it is lost on its way to the poor and needy. And is there anybody to care? Well, the common man is too stuck up in him/herself and too meek to do anything, and the netas and babus and police are happily taking a cut of all the stolen food, and so this wheel keeps going round and round.
Is sadi mein humarein liye Bhagwan ne sirf achhi baatein hi sochi hain, yeh mera vishwas hai. Parantu Bhagwan ne yeh bhi socha hai ki agar humein apne aapko sudharna hai to humein hi sabse zyaada mehnat karni hogi.
Last week, the Supreme Court had rejected Reliance Energy's case against the awarding of the Delhi/Mumbai airport contracts to GMR and GVK consortiums respectively. That supposedly was the last hurdle that these consortiums would have faced in their endeavour to transform the current airports from pig stys to worldclass establishments.
A lot of hullabaloo is being raised about the state of Indian infrastructure. These days, its not about the state per se but more about the investment that is being put into it. While it is growing by leaps and bounds, it is never enough to satisfy any media commentator the world over.
Our tens of billions of American dollars of investment are still dwarfed by the hundreds of billions of American dollars of Chinese investment, and that status quo has remained for all of last decade and all of this one.
Here is what my fragile little mind can't understand, and maybe I am wrong when I write this, but this is how the governments in India, at the state and center, seem to work - we have no money, you have the money, but we will not let you do your thing because of 'policy' restrictions. The new mantra in this Con'gress led government is something called public-private partnership. I haven't really looked into how it works, but I think it is something like government letting the private sector do their thing while the government will try to cut red tape and give them enough freedom to build and control what they have built. Now I am certain this is not exactly how it works, but I think its something to that effect. I think it also involves the government taking a stake in the project but giving the managing control to the private company. Like the new airports that are coming up have minority stakes owned by the Airports Authority of India and some of the respective state governments.
While all this infra talk is taking place, the Indian economy seems to be growing at a brisk rate, although the background chatter of a widening economic chasm between different classes and sectors is growing louder. While many argue that this economic growth is not worth a lot because it is not generating the necessary growth in employment, there are many other reports that say that different sunrise sectors have the ability to create millions of additional jobs. Who do I believe? Being the nationalist and the optimist and the saner person I am, I am going to say that this growth is here to stay, and despite what the naysayers say, this growth will trickle down and trickle wide.
By the way, today is Children's Day. On Pandit ji's birth anniversary, I think we must take a vow to make this country a better place for our children. We must work hard to get them out of hazardous jobs and into schools. my heart cringes at the level of exploitation that the children in our country face. In addition to that is the problem of malnourishment. Most of the world's malnourished are in India. So tell me, after all these years of a green revolution, what have we achieved? Very little, to tell you the truth. India produces enough to feed itself, but much of it is lost on its way to the poor and needy. And is there anybody to care? Well, the common man is too stuck up in him/herself and too meek to do anything, and the netas and babus and police are happily taking a cut of all the stolen food, and so this wheel keeps going round and round.
Is sadi mein humarein liye Bhagwan ne sirf achhi baatein hi sochi hain, yeh mera vishwas hai. Parantu Bhagwan ne yeh bhi socha hai ki agar humein apne aapko sudharna hai to humein hi sabse zyaada mehnat karni hogi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)