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

Re: Mr. Ashish should respect....

Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!


Hi Yogesh

I must congratulate you for your mail. Yours is a
balanced opinion without any jingoism.

Nehru was a product of his time, and we cannnot choose
our history.

I believe Nehru took most of the beatings from all
sides because he stood head and shoulders above rest. 

There is no point berating a single person/ideology
for all the ills. We have got complex issues- which
require complex solutions. No 'ism' can provide all
the solutions. 
I, for myself, am skeptical all 'isms'.

We need to adopt whatever appears to be the best for
us . and how do we know which one is the best? by
dialog,discussion- without jingoism.

There 'll be the enlightened ones who are impatient to
move ahead, and damning everyone who doesnot agree
with them. But there is no escaping the dialog-not in
Atleast that is the gift of Nehru and his colleagues
to India.

--- Yogesh Upadhyay <u_yogesh@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it,
> and propagate it!
> IPI_Marker
> Hi Ashish,
> While I agree with your views on decentralization
> and 
> privatization in today's context, I fail to see,
> that how could a 
> free trade concept have convinced the policy makers
> in 1950s era, 
> when we had such bitter experience of foreign
> influence on India. 
> It may be said that the policy making was
> "over-cautious" to any 
> potential foreign entry into India. I dont see how
> erstwhile India 
> could have been thrown open for "free-trade" (so
> synonymous to 
> free investment, but later on that..). It is easier
> to imagine its 
> viability today (with some apprehensions about the
> long term 
> prospects especially in a country like India) but
> certainly it was 
> not in those years. That is as far as FDI goes.
> As regards India's Russian association, at the time
> Russia was as 
> strong as America (in fact, it was stronger that
> America). 
> Moreover, and this is what Nehru's idea were, he did
> not want to 
> antagonize and make enemies all over Asia. India was
> already in 
> conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir and a "cold war"
> with China 
> over Aksai Chin and other areas. A Russian
> inclination also 
> provided for balance of power in the Asian region,
> more so in 
> favor (favour) of India. From US's point of view, it
> did not care 
> about India's position and security concerns but it
> feared the 
> spread of communism in Asia whether it was Vietnam
> or Afghanistan 
> or any other country. That solely explains US
> interest in Asia 
> (whether its pivot was Pakistan or India, it did not
> matter). 
> India rejected US offer and that was birth of NAM,
> which was a 
> strong "bloc" in itself. America got involved in
> Vietnam war (and 
> suffered heavily, which is the reason why it pulled
> off. Sanity 
> precludes us from believing that it was public
> pressure that 
> America called off. Rocketing inflation rates back
> home were main 
> causes). Nevertheless, as is historically evident,
> USA was back in 
> action; it used Pakistan to curb Russian entry into
> Afghanistan. 
> And Pakistan used that US association to cause
> infiltration in 
> Kashmir. And you think USA was for Pakistan. All of
> us know here, 
> with "US falling for Pakistan" today who is better
> of; India or 
> Pakistan. So let us put that off. I dont say that
> present US 
> association of India is going to be as detrimental
> or detrimental 
> even. No!!! Because, unlike one-eyed Pakistan, India
> administration has been sensible enough to
> differentiate between 
> the US motives at different times.
> Also, Nehru himself was particularly aware of 
> "threat" of 
> Communism, as the ertwhile bureaucrats put it, not
> internationally 
> but within India itself. I do not have specific
> quotations and 
> examples of hand, but he has provided many instances
> to support 
> that claim. So, your conclusion that "Communism was
> so much 
> respected because lots of intellectuals considered
> it morally 
> superior to Western Capitalism" is based on a biased
> sample size 
> or a sample too small to make any statistically
> valid conclusion, 
> as a statistician would like to put it. (Sorry for
> that piece of 
> light vein).
> I am not sure of your sources of information about
> India's foreign 
> policy but I think certain points that you have
> raised need to get 
> straightened. I would suggest the interested folks
> to read 
> "India's Foreign Policy: The Nehru Years" edited by
> B.R.Nanda. 
> Even the critical reading of the text is convincing
> of the fact 
> that Nehru was, arguably, the most visionary Prime
> Minister India 
> has produced. (Some would argue in favor of Narsimha
> Rao for his 
> policy of economic liberalization but audience might
> be interested 
> to know that the blueprints for the liberalization
> were ready 
> before PVN govenrment came into power. So the credit
> goes to our 
> bureaucrats...poor souls, they always bear the brunt
> and hardly 
> get credit for anything). Unfortunately for Nehru,
> and fortunately 
> for debaters like us, he put his hands into too many
> things at a 
> time and for his distrust of his ministers, handled
> most himself, 
> only to leave after him a bunch of riddles, which
> gave rise to 
> different schools of thought about his policies.
> And while it is tempting for us to compare the
> merits of various 
> economic policies in other countries like Hongkong,
> Israel, 
> Singapore, no country is as special as India for its
> huge 
> population and religious, cultural, linguistic and
> what-not 
> potpourri in face of which the  viability of any
> policy can be 
> testified only by time. Till then all we can do is
> speculate at 
> best.
> Regards,
> Yogesh
> PS: This is a bunch of most talented individuals I
> have come 
> across on any online forum. Congratulations IPI.
> India will win. 
> You are there for her.
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 Ashish Hanwadikar wrote :
> >Hi Yogesh,
> >
> > > As is known, India has had NAM association since
> Nehruvian 
> >period.
> > > If you trace back in time and read India's
> foreign policy of 
> >the
> > > times, you would realize that it was the need of
> the hour 
> >for
> > > India to be in neutral position. India had its
> bag full of
> > > internal concerns to cope up with; education,
> communalism 
> >and
> > > cessationist movements all over the place to
> name the few.
> >
> >I agree with you. But way to deal with these things
> is not by
> >centralizing power and responsibility but
> distributing them. So 
> >the
> >central Govt. can focus on foriegn policy,
> protection of its 
> >borders
> >and major breakdowns in law and order and such
> stuff. If you 
> >compound
> >your problems by running all sorts of factories
> including 
> >condoms,
> >bakeries, and such non-sense then obviously
> protection and 
> >integration
> >of Kashmir and other terrories into India are going
> to take a 
> >back
> >seat. How come Nehru was so stupid as not to
> realize that a 
> >young
> >democracy like India can never micromanage close to
> a billion 
> >people
> >without jeopardizing national security? (I know
> Population was 
> >less
> >then but there was never any doubt that central
> program that 
> >were
> >started then will have to scale up for more
> population).
> >
> >And it was Russian economic and technological
> assistance to the 
> >Govt.
> >of India that perpetuated this problem. Because
> without Russia's 
> >help
> >there was no way a young democracy like India can
> ever dream of 
> >taking
> >such massive infrastructure projects.
> >
> >Instead if we have opened our economy to foriegn
> investment GOI 
> >would
> >have been free to pursue National Security and we
> would not have 
> >been
> >saddled with such an inefficent and corrupt economy
> and 
> >political
> >system.
> >
> >
> > > There
> > > is no denying of Nehru's socialistic bent (which
> to some 
> >extent
> > > explains India's Russian association) but do you
> think India 
> >had
> > > resources to support what could have turned into
> open war 
> >between
> > > the blocs of the world? No!!! So while indeed
> there were two 
> >blocs
> > > (America and Russia..rather liberalism and
> communism), yes,
> > > "India's struggle was unique" (more local than
> global), 
> >hence
> > > India's stance on NAM. It meant neutrality to
> the lust of 
> >imposing
> > > own ideologies on other nations.
> >
> >I don't see any thing wrong on imposing ideas of
> democracies, 
> >freedom
> >on other Nations. I think those dictators who do
> not recognize 
> >the
> >freedom of their own subjects have no right to
> expect from others 
> >to be
> >left alone. Atleast we should not give them moral
> legitimacy.
> >
> > > If we are to trust history, then
> > > remember that US support to India was
> conditional (support 
> >for
> > > Vietnam war etc.) whereas Russia's support was
> more due to
> > > ideological reasons (India was (is)socialist
> country).
> >
> >Ideology? What Idealogy? Centralization of
> productive resources 
> >in the
> >society? Nonsense. I have repeatedly said and will
> say again 
> >that
> >benevolent but stupid ideas like Communism and
> Socialism have 
> >done more
> >harm than what oppressive westerners can ever
> possibly dream of. 
> >US
> >support to India might have been conditional. I
> don't care. 
> >Whether US
> >supports us or not atleast we should have allowed
> US to support
> >Pakistan. US has a democracy and free press. It
> would have been
> >possible to get investment from private US citizens
> for India 
> >without
> >getting any official support from US Govt. Because
> unlike Russia 
> >these
> >two things are different in US. That's why even
> though officially 
> >US
> >hates China and is worried about its policies
> private US 
> >investment in
> >China is at record level.
> >
> >And also we could have critized US involvement in
> Vietnam and 
> >other
> >places and still have got military help from US if
> we had 
> >critized
> >Russia for its communism. But the problem is that
> Communism was 
> >so much
> >respected because lots of intellectuals considered
> it morally 
> >superior
> >to Western Capitalism. That's the reason even if we
> had 
> >provided
> >Psychological support to US that Capitalism is
> efficient and 
> >economic
> >equivalent of democracy I think US would have never
> drawn to 
> >Pakistan.
> >Why would US have shifted to Pakistan given that it
> was a 
> >Muslim
> >theocratic state and US was helping Israel against
> precisely this 
> >kind
> >of nonsense? Had we condemned Russia agression
> against 
> >Afghanistan and
> >joined US (at that time India has already made a
> mark for itself 
> >in
> >World diplomacy and economically also India was not
> that bad) 
> >there was
> >no reason for US to fall for Pakistan. Granted
> Pakistan was
> >strategically in a superior position for
> Afghanistan but so is it 
> >now.
> >US now praises Pakistan for its support in
> Afghanistan but does 
> >not
> >justify or condone its behavior in Kashmir because
> India is 
> >firmly
> >supporting US. The same thing would have happened
> during 
> >Russia's
> >agression in Afghanistan.

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/