[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

PUBLIC: Re: Wow!! That's getting hot!

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Population

    Yes, agreed 100%.  Complete openness is a necessary pre-requisite to 
     discussion and indeed to agreement.  And yes, what we are trying to 
     devise is policies which can help India to take her rightful place
     the world (I am actually sceptical about the desire to make India
     number one country in the world".  I would be happy if India WERE
     number one country but, as a policy objective, I would be quite 
     satisfied with India becoming a prosperous and just rather than a 
     rich-POOR country as it is today).  
     However, a Manifesto or Agenda needs to be suitably MOTIVATING, on 
     these grounds I have no actual objection to this kind of excessive 
     Professor Prabhu Guptara
     Director, Organisational and Executive Development
     Wolfsberg Executive Development Centre
     (a subsidiary of UBS AG)
     CH-8272 Ermatingen
     Tel: + 41.71.663.5605
     Fax: +41.71.663.5590
     e-mail: prabhu.guptara@ubs.com

______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Wow!! That's getting hot!
Author:  sabhlok (sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu) at nyuxuu
Date:    02.10.98 20:38

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Dr. Subroto Roy wrote:
> I think with this the India Policy Institute has reached a critical 
> and serious political subject-matter.  Both statements above seem to 
> me highly contentious and misleading, especially Professor Guptara's 
> statement "Unfortunately, some fanatics are actually in political
> power in our country."  What does he mean? Does he mean to speak of
> the present PM and his Council of Ministers?  If so, let him say so.  
> Does he mean that someone like, say, the Hon'ble Defence Minister is a 
> "religious fanatic" or has allowed himself to be in the same Council
> of Ministers as "religious fanatics"?  What is the basis in evidence 
> for such remarks?  I do think here we have here an example of remarks 
> being made totally disengaged from Indian experience.
Dear Professor,
We can carry on this debate only through completely openness to other 
people's views, even if those views might appear contrary to one's
The struggle on this forum is to arrive at a MINIMUM consensus on the 
kinds of statements we can all support.
The Preamble to the manifesto (we can change that word from Manifesto to 
something else if you like) states:
"That political groups which use differences of religion, caste, or 
language, to come to power, have hurt India very badly both before and 
after independence."
In other words, we have a broad, and non-specific criticism (so far) of 
anyone who has used - deliberately - any religious motif or religious 
belief, to attract people, rather than using policy debate. The above 
statement I believe is sufficient and we need NOT (on this forum) either 
elaborate on it nor expand on it, just like I am not going about 
elaborating who was corrupt, how that corruption took place, etc. We are 
not going into personalities at all (at least to the extent possible).
If you or anyone else likes, we could modify this statement in the 
Preamble, but surely we are not - none of us are - representing any 
political groups/ views. We are saying: this is what we as citizens want 
as a bare minimum of policies for our governance. Let us therefore
everyone on board (and that is good) but not as reps of any side. Just
citizens. All of us vote and therefore might be pro- this or pro-that.
at the moment, we are saying that NONE of these political groups have a 
consistent set of policies designed to take India to #1 position in the 
world. We are designing those policies.
Thanks! SS
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: 
Rules, Procedures, Archives:           

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/