[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,

> 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

> 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.

> India 
> needed economic support but it was in best interest of India to be 
> away from these "war-mongers", if you will.

India needed economic support and not Govt. of India. You have to
distinguish between the two. It is possible to get economic support for
Indian economy (foriegn direct investment) without little Govt.
involvement. There was nothing in India at that time that suggested
that Govt. of India was the best vehicle for investment in India. In
fact given our political and National Security problems like Divison of
States, integration of various states into India, Kashmir problems,
etc. it actually suggested that Govt. should have concentrated on these
matters than economic. Look at Israel. Because Israel's private
companies got investment from private US companies they prospered and
they developed much better than India. Not only that Israelis managers
and engineers got a headstart because of their experience in dealing
with US companies. Indians are just begining to get that. See what a
difference that can make.

Being away from War mongers is not the same as siding with Communists. 

> Things have changed now. Russian collapse, American economic 
> supremacy (should anybody doubt that?), terrorism problems India 
> faces and possible use of American influence to curb the same, 
> statistical evidences of the success of liberal societies do 
> suggest that India gets associated with this and such countries. 
> That also explains India's recent foreign policies. That is, 
> indeed, in our national interest TODAY. Of course, utmost care has 
> to be exercised in building such association knowing the peculiar 
> structure of Indian society but that can be discussed in separate 
> debate.

These changed things are getting recognized now. Lots of intellectuals
like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, our own economists like Shenoy
have long recognized that this was the shape of things to come. We
didn't listen to them.


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