India Votes - and How!

Ref Jayabharti, RSidhar and Left-wing Loonies:

Have all the thousands of crores invested by the government in publicly-owned companies had any results even closely resembling this?

On the other hand, when interest rates are falling, the Leftists in India are demanding 12% interest to be paid on Provident Fund schemes!

From The Indian Express:

A shy little town and its people are counting their hi-tech millions

Premji Sr set up firm in Amalner in 1947. And gave shares to locals. Azim’s done the rest

RAJESH MENON


AMALNER (JALGAON DIST), JUNE 5: Maybe this is one small town market-bashers should visit in these days of frenzy.

It’s like any other remote Indian town—dirty bylanes and bullock-carts, harassed cyclists pulling up to let cattle and people pass, rickshaw pullers and hawkers of red chillies and clove.

The difference, though, is that many of them are lakhpatis—even crorepatis. It is an amazing story of what a company, Wipro, and its shares can do to the lives of ordinary people, hundreds of miles and tech generations away from Dalal Street.

Most here may not know what a computer looks like, mobile telephones go dead 30 kilometres from their borders, and morning newspapers don’t reach them until long past noon. Yet in this little sepia town, 425 kilometres from Pune, small-time traders and factory hands double up as stock brokers and financial news junkies.

Much of this town’s life and hopes revolve around Wipro shares, those pieces of paper stashed away in too many home cupboards since 1947, when Azim Premji’s father Mohammad Hussain Hasham Premji set up the company’s first plant here. Then it was Western India Vegetable Products and had got listed on the stock exchange in 1946.

Decades and an info-tech boom later, Amalner’s residents are cashing in on Wipro. ‘‘If you want to marry off your daughter, buy a Wipro share the day she is born, leave the rest to Azim seth,’’ is now Amalner’s mantra. Or if it’s a hospital, a mosque, or anything else that requires money to build — they simply dip into their Wipro shares.

‘‘Park your vehicle somewhere nearby. It will not go inside the lane,’’ a 26-year-old Alpesh Thakkar, assistant to local broker Satish Khanderia, points to Barabhai Mohallah, now Jewellers’ Street. It is a row of houses screaming for a coat of paint. The only thing out of place is the spanking new two-storey mansion of Shaikh Masoom.

Zahoor Ahmed Haji Sheikh Masoom, 65, the patriarch of a 32-member family, owns about 70,000 Wipro shares—last valued at over Rs 10 crore. ‘‘Mujhe thodi si English ati hain,” says the retired headmaster as he throws a smile at his curious kin peeping through the door. ‘‘My father was a tobacco merchant but also sold Wipro products. Mohammad seth used to come to our shop and that’s how he took those shares,’’ he explains.

The five shares that Shaikh Masoom bought in 1947 from Premji senior for Rs 100 each have today gone up — after several bonuses, stock splits and a bit of trading — to 70,000.

Today, Zahoor and his brothers, all except one (Kamil Ahmed, who works for Wipro), lead a contented retired life. ‘‘He (Azim Premji) is a Kohinoor. He deserves to flourish. With his growth we will also grow. Azim seth ne Amalner ka naam bahut uncha kiya,” says Zahoor’s younger brother Manzoor Ahmed.

Hamzabhai Kadarbhai Bohari, 86, who gave up his hardware business some time ago, is paralysed and too ill to talk. His son says Hamzabhai bought five shares for Rs 100 each a long time ago. He’s today rich enough to spend Rs 50 lakh to build a Bohra masjid.

There’s also a retired commerce professor who sold all but 50 of his Wipro shares to build a Rs 13.5-lakh hospital for his son. ‘‘In a single trading, I made a windfall and now the stock market is my full-time passion,’’ says Prof R.R. Bahujune. The hospital, of course, is named Wipro House.

RSridhar, Jayabharti and other Left-wing Loonies:

Read this from the Ney York Times and then tell me which Indian government owned company comes even close to this kind of performance.

A Giant So Big It`s a Proxy for India`s Economy
By SARITHA RAI

Published: June 4, 2004


MUMBAI, India - In the tumult of putting a new government in place in India, the stock of Reliance Industries was a good gauge of expectations about the prospects for continued economic liberalization.

It registered each low and high point in the political process. It plunged at the incumbent prime minister`s surprising loss and chugged upward as fears of a sharp leftward swing abated and a new prime minister, Manmohan Singh, an economist who began the liberalization of India`s economy, was named.

Reliance Industries, the country`s largest private-sector business enterprise, is just one - albeit the biggest - piece of India`s largest conglomerate, the Reliance group of companies. The group, a behemoth with interests in many businesses like energy and telecommunications, is in many ways the face of India`s industrial renaissance.

Its sales equal 3.5 percent of the country`s gross domestic product, more than the combined global sales of all of India`s outsourcing companies. Its $3.6 billion worth of exports are 6.1 percent of India`s total. It helps fill government coffers, contributing 9.4 percent of India`s so-called indirect tax revenues, from things like sales taxes, customs and duties.

Foreign investors bullish on India`s economy and its recent double-digit growth rates are even more enthusiastic about Reliance Industries, with its huge, ultra-modern projects. In 2003, they bought $900 million worth of its shares, an amount that constituted 13 percent of the total foreign inflows into Indian equity.

``Reliance is a great indicator of India`s corporate growth, the bullishness of its reforms and the robustness of its consumer market,`` said Rahul Singh, an analyst at the Mumbai-based equity research firm SSKI Securities.

Reliance Industries, an integrated giant with numerous products, including oil and textiles, has big American customers - it sells ingredients to detergent makers like Unilever, and the plastic resin for Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottles, for instance.

Its business muscle is the envy of competitors as well as a magnet for complaints of abuse of power. It is 34 percent owned by the Ambani family, mainly by Anil D. and Mukesh D. Ambani, who have been running the show since the death of their father, the group`s founder, in 2002.

In an interview in the group`s elegant corporate headquarters here, Anil Ambani, the vice chairman of Reliance Industries, spoke proudly of his heritage. ``We are rooted in India, but have set our sights on becoming a world-beating company,`` he said.

That is no mere pipe dream. The Reliance group - five listed companies and an undisclosed number of unlisted ones, with complex ownership structures and with interests that also include energy distribution, mobile and broadband services, insurance and financial services - reported net profits of $2.8 billion for its fiscal year ended in March. Sales were $22.6 billion, more than Coca-Cola or Halliburton reported for 2003.

The group has grown aggressively in India, a country where per capita consumption of gas, electricity and polyester fiber, three of the group`s main offerings, is among the world`s lowest. Exports are 20 percent of the group`s total revenues, so there is room to grow, there, too. A recent acquisition of a British company is a signal that the group is venturing farther overseas.

Reliance is frequently compared to General Electric for its ambition and drive. And the Ambanis are likened to the Rockefellers for their political and financial influence.

``If most Indian business houses have corporate lobbies, theirs is the strongest,`` Mr. Singh, the analyst, said. ``If other Indian business groups fund political parties, Reliance holds the most powerful of strings.``

``Think Big`` is the group`s unofficial motto, and expansions, these days largely by acquisitions, are often aimed at controlling all aspects of a business.

Reliance Industries, which accounts for 30 percent of the total profits of India`s private sector, runs the world`s third-largest refinery, in Jamnagar, in the western state of Gujarat. The $6 billion refinery accounts for around 28 percent of India`s refining capacity.

Reliance Energy struck the world`s largest gas find of 2002, and the country`s biggest in three decades, in the Krishna-Godavari basin in eastern India. In January, it announced plans to build the world`s biggest gas-fired power plant, in northern India, with a $2.2 billion investment.

And when the power distribution systems in India`s two biggest cities, New Delhi and Mumbai, were privatized in 2003, Reliance Energy became the largest electricity distributor in both cities.

Reliance Infocomm, despite being a late entrant into the country`s booming mobile phone market, is already the market leader a year after the introduction of its cheap wireless service.

In the 13 years since India`s economic reforms process began, the Reliance group has grown at a healthy clip, and many stockholders are said to have built homes and paid for their children`s education through profits from shares in the Reliance companies that trade.

Tens of thousands of investors joined many of the group`s 90,000 employees in 2002 at a memorial service for its founder, Dhirubhai Ambani, hailed as the first son of capitalist India. His rise from gas station attendant to creator, in 1958, of what became the country`s biggest industrial conglomerate, is the stuff of legend here.

Like the country`s other prominent business families, including the Tatas and the Birlas, Dhirubhai Ambani started with a textile business. ``But unlike the other groups,`` Anil Ambani said, ``we neither had the strength of capital nor strength of lineage.``

In 1977, when his father floated a public stock offering in what was then Reliance Textile Industries to finance his expansion plans, thousands of investors bought in, setting off an equity market boom among India`s middle class. There were so many investors that shareholder meetings were held in a soccer stadium.

The Reliance group companies now have more than 3.5 million shareholders, and the Ambani brothers have a combined personal wealth estimated at $6 billion.

Reliance`s initial growth came in prereform India, in the era of the License Raj, as India`s infamous, monopoly-perpetuating system of granting licenses and privileges was called, and it was slow going.

But while the fortunes of most of India`s old business dynasties fell by the wayside when the economy opened up, Reliance flourished. And it holds its own against India`s new-economy stars.

The Ambani brothers now overseeing the vast Reliance empire seem to be good foils for each other. Anil, 44, Reliance Industries` vice chairman, is an outgoing man, a financial whiz married to a former Bollywood movie star. Mukesh, 47, the company`s chairman, is a quiet man, an engineer who is a stickler for detail.

Though both received M.B.A.`s from American business schools - Anil from Wharton, Mukesh from Stanford - people at the company said their survival skills were honed in the ``Dhirubhai Ambani school.`` They inherited their father`s tenacity, his intuition in consolidating businesses, even his ability to work India`s convoluted bureaucratic system to their advantage.

They also inherited their father`s drive to become the biggest, or nearly, in whatever business they were in, often to the derision of others along the way.

For instance, when Reliance announced plans in the mid-1990`s to build its petrochemical refinery in a barren stretch of India`s west coast, competitors predicted it would be the group`s downfall.

One Reliance veteran, Yogesh Desai, the president for corporate development, recounted how Mukesh Ambani, who had taken over the daily operations of the company, met the challenge. ``The approach was: `There`s no road? Let`s build a road. There`s no power? Let`s build a power station. There`s no port? Let`s build a port.` ``

Now, thousands of acres of once-arid land support thriving mango orchards. There is a bustling township with a school, a hospital, even a hotel. Nearby villages have schools, hospitals and drinking water, courtesy of Reliance. And the huge Jamnagar refinery is among the world`s most efficient.

The group has also made a big foray in the country`s booming telecommunications sector. With an ambitious $4 billion plan to make the mobile phone ubiquitous, even among the poor, in India, the world`s second-most populous country, Reliance Infocomm introduced a rock-bottom-priced wireless service in 2002.

Initial glitches predictably appeared. So did the doomsayers.

But Reliance said it was determined to leverage the cost advantages of Qualcomm`s code division multiple access, or C.D.M.A., technology, widely used in the United States. ``Our strategy is to make money on scale, not from skimming the market,`` Anil Ambani said.

From a subscriber base of 500,000 in 2002, Reliance had 7.8 million mobile customers by the end of March, more than 20 percent of the total market, leapfrogging the previous leader, Bharti Tele-Ventures. Its countrywide fiber optic system, scheduled to be completed in 2005, will further broaden the service`s reach.

In January, Reliance Infocomm acquired its first non-Indian operation, the London-based FLAG Telecom, a bandwidth supplier with underseas cable connecting Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the United States, in a $211 million deal.

Though the group has remained vibrant in the post-founder era, there have been murmurs that differences between the Ambani brothers fueled by such things as Anil`s conspicuous absence from the rollout of Reliance Infocomm, his brother`s pet project, will eventually affect the group.

For now, there is no obvious friction. Their families share a 100,000-square-foot luxury building in Mumbai`s upscale Cuffe Parade neighborhood, complete with multiple servants` quarters and a temple, though Mukesh Ambani is planning to move out as soon as his mansion in the Altamount Road neighborhood is built.

Reliance`s competitors declined to comment for this article.

Reliance has come in for criticism for its recent back-door entry into the booming wireless market. While global system mobile communications companies with international investors like AT&T and Singapore Telecommunications bid for cellular licenses that have averaged hundreds of millions of dollars each in public auctions, Reliance received limited-mobility rights along with fixed-line licenses sold by the government at a fraction of the cost.

By interconnecting different circles of limited-mobility services, Reliance has assembled a nationwide network comparable to that of the G.S.M. operators` systems.

Cellular operators accused Reliance of breaching regulations on limited-mobility phones. But Reliance turned the commercial dispute into a technological one, settled out of court, and became the prime beneficiary of a changed regulatory regime.

``Reliance managed a de facto national license for a bargain price,`` said Mahesh Uppal, director of Telecommunications and Computer Information Systems, a consultancy based in New Delhi. ``It is a company of amazing dimensions; it works on all different planes.``

Even some of the company`s staunchest critics find much to admire.

India`s former privatization minister, Arun Shourie, who as a journalist crusaded against Reliance in the 1980`s, said he did ``a 180 degree turn.`` In a speech on the first anniversary of Dhirubhai Ambani`s death, Mr. Shourie said, ``Dhirubhais are to be thanked not once, but twice over.``

``First, they set up world-class companies and facilities in spite of those regulations,`` he said, ``and, second, by exceeding the limits and restrictions, they created the case for scrapping those regulations. They made a case for reforms.``

RSridhar, Dost-Mittar, Congresswallahs and Left-wing Loonies,

Here is some statistic that ought to get you thinking.

In the US, 7% of the population is engaged in agriculture.

In India, agriculture employs 70% of the population and produces 26% of the GDP.

What you all want is continued mollycoddling of these parasites whose productivity is abysmal.

You need to get them off the farms and into factories. Which was what the Industrial revolution accomplished in England, Europe and the US. And what China is trying to do with a great degree of success.

Continuing to keep them on the farm is a recipe for economic disaster.

But that is what the Left-wing Loonies want to do.

Ref rsridhar #473

[Gold is a hidden wealth in India. It is a locked up capital. Traditionally, it is kept in Indian households for future security. If attempts at bringing this asset to open market has failed in the past, it does not still take away the fact that the asset exists and is of enormous value.]

So is real estate. Why live in modern housing when a thatched hut is so much cheaper? Let everyone in India move into a thatched hut, save tons of money and invest it? Convert all of India into Dharavi!

Do you think you could get your parents to agree?

Ref rsridhar #472

[India`s poverty has nothing to do with Nehru.]

It has everything to do with Nehru. At the end of WW II, India was one of the creditor nations with the UK owing hundreds of millions of pounds to India for the war effort and India had one of the strongest foreign exchange positions in the world. All that wealth was squandered by Nehru and his loony socialist policies.

[If India were a colony today, Mr Harimau Iyer would not have the freedom to call Nehru a bandit but would be washing an Englishman`s A$$ and not have the luxury of having a muslim driver drive his car.]

Sure I could call Nehru a bandit if the Brits were still in India. They wouldn`t mind it all!

I probably would have had a car earlier in my life because there would be none of this crap of affirmative action. After all, didn`t Nehru himself continue to live on the wealth created by his father? So I see no reason why I couldn`t have gotten ahead in British India in a technical/professional environment.

No idea whymy post came so many times.
Gujjubania, this is not about my own gold, which is next to nothing, anyway. It is about the co-opting of women`s assets by a patriarchal society and the assumption that women should give up what they own without a protest. I don`t expect you to understand, any more than rsridhar understands. This is a feminist issue. I am sure there are men who understand, but it`s not the end of the world if some don`t.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rsridhar,
I have what little gold I own in the bank, so do all my female relatives, because it is unsafe to keep it at home. What good is it doing India there in the bank locker?
Besides, is the problem with personal ownership of the gold?That`s dangerously close to communism.
Why not ask people to contribute the money they spend on cars and hi-fi systems to the government instead? Gold usually belongs to women, the one asset in their name. No government has been able to give women-Hindu or Muslim- any modicum of security. In the last week, there has been an appalling rape of a medical student by a doctor in Delhi-the police told her parents to give her a shower before bringing her to the station, because they wanted all evidence to be lost! If the government can`t look after us, we will have to ourselves.
I`m not going to get into Modi, because I wasn`t there. The evidence I have seen doesn`t suggest the police went out and rioted, but I`m not saying it can`t happen.

rsridhar,
I have what little gold I own in the bank, so do all my female relatives, because it is unsafe to keep it at home. What good is it doing India there in the bank locker?
Besides, is the problem with personal ownership of the gold?That`s dangerously close to communism.
Why not ask people to contribute the money they spend on cars and hi-fi systems to the government instead? Gold usually belongs to women, the one asset in their name. No government has been able to give women-Hindu or Muslim- any modicum of security. In the last week, there has been an appalling rape of a medical student by a doctor in Delhi-the police told her parents to give her a shower before bringing her to the station, because they wanted all evidence to be lost! If the government can`t look after us, we will have to ourselves.
I`m not going to get into Modi, because I wasn`t there. The evidence I have seen doesn`t suggest the police went out and rioted, but I`m not saying it can`t happen.

Ref Jayabharti, RSridhar, Loonies of the Left and Congresswallahs who can`t get enough of Nehru.

From Rediff:

Forty years ago, India`s first prime minister passed into the ages. On his death anniversary, May 27, Lieutenant General Eric A Vas (retd) commenced rediff.com`s series to evaluate Jawaharlal Nehru`s legacy with a perspective of the premier`s relationship with the military.

Today, national security and foreign affairs expert Brahma Chellaney continues the debate with an assessment of Nehru`s foreign policy.

Talleyrand, the illustrious foreign minister of Napoleon and the Bourbons, prescribed one basic rule for pragmatic foreign policy: by no means show too much zeal. In India`s case, gushy expectations, self-deluding hype, and oozing zealousness have blighted foreign policy since Independence, constituting the most enduring aspect of the Nehruvian legacy, other than the hold of the Nehru family dynasty over the Congress party and the continued strength of Indian democracy.

Zeal is to Indian diplomacy what strategy is to major powers. India has rushed to believe what it wanted to believe. Consequently, India is the only known country in modern history to have repeatedly cried betrayal, not by friends but by adversaries in whom it had reposed trust.

Reflecting India`s decline in its own eyes, however, while one `betrayal` in 1962 hastened the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, another in 1999 kept Atal Bihari Vajpayee going as if it did not happen despite his public admission that his `bus to Lahore got hijacked to Kargil.` It was finally the voters who decided they had had enough of Vajpayee.

Earlier, in 1972, even the strategist Indira Gandhi slipped up at Simla by trusting her opponent`s word on Kashmir.

The strength of any nation`s foreign policy depends on the health of its institutional processes of policy-making, on realistic goals, strategies, and tactics, and on the timely exploitation of opportunities thrown up by external conditions. Indian foreign policy, regrettably, has been characterised by too much ad hocism, risk aversion, and post facto rationalisations.

Institutional processes are operationally weak and there is no tradition of strategy papers to aid political decision-making. An uncritical media only encourages a political proclivity for off-the-cuff decisions.

In the absence of a set of clear, long-term goals backed by political resolve, Indian foreign policy has not been organised around a distinct strategic doctrine. Without realistic, goal-oriented statecraft, the propensity to act in haste and repent at leisure has run deep in Indian foreign policy ever since Nehru hurriedly took the Kashmir issue to the UN Security Council without realising that the Security Council, as the seat of international power politics, has little room for fair dealing.

The India-China territorial dispute is another problem bequeathed by Nehru to future generations of Indians. Nehru`s first blunder was to shut his eyes to the impending fall of Tibet even when Sardar Patel had repeatedly cautioned him in 1949 that the Chinese Communists would annex that historical buffer as soon as they had installed themselves in power in Beijing. An overconfident Nehru, who ran foreign policy as if it were personal policy, went to the extent of telling Patel by letter that it would be a `foolish adventure` for the Chinese Communists to try and gobble up Tibet -- a possibility that `may not arise at all` as it was, he claimed, geographically impracticable!

In 1962, Nehru, however, had to admit he had been living in a fool`s paradise. `We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation,` he said in a national address after the Chinese aggression.

Nehru had ignored India`s military needs despite the Chinese surreptitiously occupying Indian areas on the basis of Tibet`s putative historical ties with them and also establishing a land corridor with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir through Aksai Chin. Although Indian military commanders after the 1959 border clashes began saying that they lacked adequate manpower and weapons to fend off the People`s Liberation Army, Nehru ordered the creation of forward posts to prevent the loss of further Indian territory without taking the required concomitant steps to beef up Indian military strength, including through arms imports. Nehru had convinced himself grievously that China only intended to carry out further furtive encroachments on Indian territory, not launch a full-fledged major aggression.

In fact, Nehru accepted the Chinese annexation of Tibet in a 1954 agreement without settling the Indo-Tibetan border. While Nehru thought he had bought peace with China by accepting Chinese rule over Tibet on the basis of the five principles of peaceful co-existence, Mao and his team read this as a sign of India`s weakness and a licence to encroach on strategically important areas of Ladakh.

So betrayed was Nehru by the 1962 attack that he had this to say on the day the Chinese invaded: `Perhaps there are not many instances in history where one country has gone out of her way to be friendly and co-operative with the government and people of another country and to plead their cause in the councils of the world, and then that country returns evil for good.`

Four decades after Nehru`s death at the age of 74, the Nehruvian legacy in foreign policy continues to influence Indian policy-making. Much before the recent national election made Sonia Gandhi the most powerful political figure in India, the Nehruvian legacy was intact in Vajpayee`s foreign policy. In fact, nothing pleased Vajpayee more than to be compared with Nehru.

Vajpayee`s foreign policy was in reality an updated, post-Cold War version of Nehruvian diplomacy.

Nehru and Vajpayee mistook casuistry and word games for statecraft, with the latter addicted to parsing and spinning his words. Both valued speech as a substitute for action or camouflage to concession. Vajpayee`s fascination with telling the world about the `greatness` of Indian culture was his rendering of Nehru`s moralistic lectures to the mighty and powerful. Like Nehru, he was so enthralled by his own illusions and desire for international goodwill that he could not deal with ill will from India`s implacable adversaries. Even in war, Vajpayee declined -- unlike Lal Bahadur Shastri -- to take the fighting to the aggressor`s territory, battling the enemy on the enemy`s terms and relying on the United States to midwife a `victory` in Kargil.

Except for a period under Indira Gandhi, India has found it difficult to kick its `hug, then repent` proclivity. Take the case of the past decade. The 1990s began flamboyantly with the famous I K Gujral hug of Saddam Hussein and ended spectacularly with Jaswant Singh`s hug of the thuggish Taliban, as the then foreign minister chaperoned three freed terrorists to Kandahar. In the midst of the IC-814 hijacking saga, Jaswant Singh fed to the media his hallucinations about driving a wedge between the Taliban and its sponsor, Pakistan.

Until India fully absorbs the fundamentals of international relations, it will continue to get `evil for good.` The fundamentals include leverage, reciprocity, and negotiating strategies that do not give away the bottom line. For five decades, India has put itself on the defensive by publicly articulating its Kashmir bottom line as the starting line -- turning the LoC into the international border.

Some nations have a built-in craving for revision or hazardous gain, while others want only the status quo. Randall L Schweller, in his brilliant study Deadly Imbalances, labels the revisionist nations `wolves` and `jackals`, while the status quo states are either `lambs` or `lions`. India certainly qualifies as a `lamb,` surrounded by `wolf` China and `jackal` Pakistan. The `lamb` status is in keeping with its intrinsic disposition and meek objectives. Although its borders have shrunk since Independence and it is a poor state, India is, lamb-like, content with the status quo.

Only a `lamb` state will make unilateral concessions and deal with invaders and hostage-takers on their terms. Again, only a `lamb` will accept the outside portrayal of Kashmir as a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan, condoning the third-party role of China, in occupation of one-fifth of J&K. A `lamb` state is wary of traditional friends, but wishes to cuddle up to elusive new buddies or even enemies. Its diffidence makes external affirmation and certification important for its policies. A `lamb` also assumes that others change their beliefs and policies as rapidly as it meanders to a new course.

Ref RSridhar various posts

If you read today`s ``Dinamalar`` (www.dinamalar.com, you may need to install Tamil fonts to read the news), you will find that water from Veeranam lake has come to Madras through the pipeline and tests are being conducted on the pipeline for leaks before full-scale pumping of water begins.

I guess it is a bit too late for your parents to go and vote in the elections.

``Let us start in India by prohibiting polygamy, divorce through `talaq`, marriage of Muslim children to Arab sheiks for money, subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage and supporting the right to convert FROM Islam and the right to alimony after divorce.

Let us see how much you then b!tch about the anti-Islamic nature of India.``

I agree. How come there is separate family law for Muslims in India. There should be only one law in India strictly based on the correct definition on secularism.

I am waiting for that day.

Aameen.

re: Harimou`s post # 456
``Oh, give me a break. Pandit the Bandit recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet whereas the British government had only conceded Chinese suzerainty. Bandit didn`t say `Boo` to the Chinese in any domestic or international fora. Don`t take credit for not handing over the 19-year-old Dalai Lama to the Butchers of Beijing.... handing him over would have been the most contemptible thing any human being could have done. ``
If Harimau Iyer read Mao Tse Tung`s biography, he will realize that the attack on India had as much to do with inflicting a huge blow to Nehru`s personality and fame as to territorial ambitions. After the war, Nehru`s fame as a leader of third world took a nosedive. Mountbatten would comment later (after Nehru`s death) how Nehru would have been remembered a great leader of Asia if it were not for the 1962 war. A victory for China also added personal glory to Mao Tse Tung.

India`s poverty has nothing to do with Nehru. Nations that depend on one individual do not attain their goals. I see in USA the flame of individual liberty and drive driving the nation to greatness. OTOH, India is one of those nations which seem to resurrect somebody to the exalted post of a hero and then, when the nation fails, the leader then becomes an easy scapegoat.
Nehru, Gandhi and others made India`s independence a reality. Nehru did not impose himself on Indians. They elected him, time and again, with overwhelming numbers.
Recognize this single fact. It is the Indians who failed.
Today`s generation of Indians have become so pathetic that they fail to even acknowledge the greatness of their leaders who made them free. If India were a colony today, Mr Harimau Iyer would not have the freedom to call Nehru a bandit but would be washing an Englishman`s A$$ and not have the luxury of having a muslim driver drive his car.
Sridhar

re:#440 by harimau
Find out why only 10% of Indians pay taxes. I have personally known many people in India (including a prosperous medical practioner) who have a cynical attitude when it comes to paying their dues. Then they expect the govt to do good!

Nehru`s socialism did create poverty but then it also created an era of building institutions, fostering democracy all of which are being used as launch pads today.
Gold is a hidden wealth in India. It is a locked up capital. Traditionally, it is kept in Indian households for future security. If attempts at bringing this asset to open market has failed in the past, it does not still take away the fact that the asset exists and is of enormous value.
Sridhar

re:#439 by Tmk
If u want to honor someone, start with Abdus Salam. He tried to do more for Pak than any other person connected with Science. The tragedy is, Pak rejected him everytime because he was an Ahmadiyya.
Sridhar

re:#446 by nb
I presume u are a woman, so your comments about Gold are well taken. I do not begrudge awoman her right to wear gold but for God`s sake, do not hoard any at home but deposit it in a bank. Gold sitting at home is a locked up capital and of no use to the country.
You are also wrong to presume that no state machinery was involved in the Gujarat riots. Face the truth. The state machinery with active connivance of its leader (Modi) did indulge in the pogrom.
Sridhar

re:#447 by ballukhan
Thanks. Agree with your post.
This election has proved that minorities including the IMs have used the power of the ballot to bring about a change at the center. BJP was punished for, shall we say, complacency in dealing with the problems of the minorities. Pak lacks this kind of a corrective mechanism. It is like a boiling cauldron waiting to spill over.
Sridhar

ref Ahmed Bilal #463
Ahmed Bilal,
It is not a question of ideologies.It is not a question of any model.
It is not a question of living up to any particular defintion of secularism.
It is a question of equal opportunity and equal rights for everyone regardless of religion.
Now what are the inherent problems with such a state?
The problems are that the people of one religion might be indulging in some practice that is not tolerable to the people of the other religion.
This is the case of beef eating.Hindus perceive cow as something sacred.Cow Slaughtering might result in communal chaos.
Another case is that of polygamy in Islam.Now,Islam is so pedantic a religion that it will not accept interference to itself, even if it is for the cause of something as blatantly wrong as polygamy.
So Muslim personal law takes precedence in such cases.But it is not the case for criminal offences or crimes against the state.Criminal Procedure Law is still the same for all people.
How big a deal is it? Abolish the ban on cow slaughtering and it is not a problem with me.In any case,I wonder how difficult it is to have an access to beef in the states where it is banned.
Having Common Civil Code would obviously be a big deal to Muslims, to Muslim men at least.
They would not want to give up the advantageous postion they have in law so easily.Anyhow, since that is the position Islam holds in all of the world,so,unless some large scale radical thinking and revolution takes place all over the world,I don`t think anything is going to be done for that.
Obvious it(Muslim personal laws)is a big anomaly if you examine it with justice,equity and good conscience, but it is hardly a big anomaly when you see that Muslim personal laws are almost the same all over the world.
I wonder if it is a big price to pay for peaceful coexistence.
Now, if you want to examine India against some Merriam-Webster Oxford defintion of secularism, of course this discussion is closed from your side.
But if you want to understand what makes us tick,what makes India function, I am here to reply to your queries.And so will other people on this site.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

mohar11:
``Well - you should. You should know more about the chinese system.``

I know as much as most people, but I do not have the indepth knowledge of the somewhat inscutable way in which the Chinese economy works.
It is strange that I am being asked to defend the statism of the earlier era. I am perhaps the earliest chowki in condemning the Nehruvian socialism. In fact, I have even been critical of the Indian-style democracy and have frequently expressed my admiration for Lee Kuan Yieu`s approach, who incidentally is also the role model for the Chinese reformers.
And I have also been on record that Arun Shouries was perhaps the best minister in the NDA cabinet. My relief on the defeat of the BJP has nothing to do with its economic agenda.

whatever mohar

The Loony Left-wing and the Congress (and their supporters here on Chowk) should read this. Pay particular attention to the stats and how the encouragement of ``ant labor`` in India has put India in a disadvantageous position.

From Rediff:

25% of Chinese job growth comes from FDI

Sunil Jain in New Delhi | June 01, 2004 07:56 IST


``We will allow foreign investment only if it creates jobs`` is the kind of comment Left party leaders have been making since the election results. Well, China`s booming foreign inflows today account for a fourth of its annual employment growth, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

In 1985, when China hardly had any foreign investment worth the name, this contribution, not unexpectedly, was zero. But by 1992, with FDI flows surging, China was getting $11 billion and the FDI-induced employment growth was 10 per cent of the total annual growth in jobs.

Much of this employment is generated by FDI in units that export out of the country. China, according to work done by economists TN Srinivasan and Suresh Tendulkar, has close to a fourth of the world`s market for labour-intensive exports.

India, by contrast, the same study shows, has just a 3 per cent share in this market for incremental exports of labour-intensive products.

In the textiles sector where India has a very low export share, for instance, years of tax-breaks for small units discouraged larger units from coming up and stunted the country`s ability to service large orders.

The share of big players is 93 per cent in the spinning sector, to cite one instance of the importance of large manufacturers, and India`s share of global exports is 26 per cent.

In the weaving sector, larger players have only a 4 per cent share in local production, and their global share is a mere 3 per cent.

As in India, in China too, there has been a decline in employment in state-owned enterprises, from 103 million in 1990 to 68 million now.

But in China this was made up by the increase in urban private industrial employment, from 6 million to 42 million in the same period.

The biggest providers of jobs to new entrants as well as those rendered surplus in agriculture are the small town and village enterprise (TVEs) which, in 2003, provided employment to 136 million surplus rural workers.

In India, by contrast, small and medium-scale enterprises are not creating the same pace of employment because they are hamstrung by high costs and poor infrastructure.

While net bank credit to the small-scale sector fell from 17.5 per cent of total bank credit in 1998 to 14.2 in 2001, just investing in a genset to deal with frequent power cuts locks up a sixth of the average small firm`s capital.

While the Left parties in India are fundamentally averse to foreign investment, and to making life easier for the organised manufacturing sector (where wages are at least double those in the unorganised sector), the states of West Bengal and Kerala, where there have been Left-run governments, have the highest unemployment in the country; indeed even the highest growth in unemployment has been seen in these states.

At 21 per cent, Kerala had the country`s highest unemployment rate in 1999-00, up from 15.5 in 1993-94. West Bengal has the next highest unemployment rate, growing from 10.1 per cent in 1993-94 to 15 in 1999-00. States like Gujarat, by contrast, have seen unemployment fall from 5.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent, and Haryana from 6.5 per cent to 4.8 per cent.

Interestingly, while a lot of emphasis is being placed on special employment programmes, their efficacy is low. While the money spent on such programmes rose from Rs 4,121 crore (Rs 41.21 billion) in 1990-91 to Rs 8,697 crore (Rs 86.97 billion) in 1999-00, the employment created remained stagnant at around 4.5-5 million.

In a rural work force of over 300 million, these numbers represent a 1.5 per cent share of jobs.

#451 by omar_r_quraishi
//...your arguments are getting a bit boring -- try something new -- //

Sure. Next time.

DM
//....I do not know enough about the Chinese system to make a comment...//

Well - you should. You should know more about the chinese system.

Only then you would realize how far back India stands - how pathetic is the state of Indian ``system``. Hopefully that will open your eyes. Hopefully that will stop you from defending the ``loopholes`` in the commie agenda that have been just put out on this blighted nation - the largest freaking democracy in the world, where morons with 60 seats are dragging a billion people to their outdated ideologies.

#453, #454 by harimau

[Let us start in India by prohibiting polygamy, divorce through `talaq`, marriage of Muslim children to Arab sheiks for money, subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage and supporting the right to convert FROM Islam and the right to alimony after divorce.]

Yes, that would move India closer to secularism. :) And in same line of action, the state may also consider dissociating itself from laws concerning cow slaughter and conversion TO Islam. Once again, you shouldn`t judge anyone`s point of view based on his/her country of origin. I didn`t write anything supporting hudood laws or whatever, so your outcry on it is quite out of context. Thanks.

#459 by rahul_capri

You have again raised some interesting points. :) One can`t deny presence of indicators (which are quite fascinating) you mention, but then there are indicators totally opposite to that too. So that’s why my impression is that secularism is a dream of many in India, but as a state India isn’t there yet. Atheism is a matter of personal belief (or lack of it), so we can’t confuse it with secularism. There is a difference between abolishing religion, and keeping religion out of the matters (for example, laws) of state. From what you are saying, it appears that the way secularism is perceived in India isn’t really secularism. So maybe India doesn’t have to claim to be a secular state, because if Gandhi’s model works well for you, then you have your own ideology to be proud of. Thanks.

arjun-m:
``Why is it good when China has almost half a trillion $ of forex and bad when India has a 120billion $ forex reserve? Is it because the bulk of the reserves built up when the BJP was in power?``

As I said to harimou, I do not know enough about the Chinese system to make a comment. I don`t even know if the forex reserves are measured in the same way in the two countries. But if they are, then the Chinese are subsidising their exports against its domestic sectors.

harimou:
``Would you prefer the times of Congress mis-rule when India had forex reserves to cover 3 weeks` worth of imports?

With forex reserves of $119 billion, India could afford to BUY Israeli AWACS, Russian aircraft carrier, British jet trainers, and any weaponry we want.

India can import high-tech goods because in the depressed world market we are able to pay cold hard cash.

Would you prefer that India go about looking for aid from donor countries?

Should there be a food shortage, we can afford to BUY the grains we need. Would you rather India went to the US and asked for food aid?

If the forex reserves do not rise any further, it would be proof that Nehruvian socialism and Communist ideology have triumphed over sound economic policy.``

...Did I say that India should not have the current level of forex reserves? The question is how much more reserve does India need? I think that the reserves are quite adequate for India`s needs now, which is also the opinion of the RBI which spends a good deal of its time to study this issue. We do not need more reserves for meeting our needs. If they go up higher, we will be getting increasing attention from the US for revaluing our currency, which might have an adverse effect on some of the booming sectors of the economy, such as IT and textile exports.(but I will be the first to admit that economics works in unforeseen ways and stronger currency could have some beneficial effects also, apart from a lid on inflation and an even leaner exports sector).

``Is China wrong to have $380 billion in forex reserves?``
I do not know the Chinese economy enough to offer an informed opinion. But it is an indicator of perhaps an undervalued yuan. And some of it may be because of the Chinese underwriting American profilgacy by buying the US treasury bills.

Ref jayabharti68 #448

[....the list is endless and i only wish Harimau that you do`nt substitute fact with myth and fiction. and also show more grace, character and respect towards others.]

Exactly where did I substitute myth for fact? Also, I notices that you didn`t have much of a comeback when I pointed out that the State Bank of India could have by itself addressed the rural credit issue if it thought rural credit was a worthwhile ides. So, who is ignoring facts and who is fostering myths?

[to be honest i was quite stung by your reply, so latent it was with vitriol. instead of giving cogent replies to my posits, you chose to peddle age old myths, cliches and jingoism , it seems, straight from the RSS mouthpiece `Organiser`. calling me koop mandook and panditji , a bandit shows that the Hindu etho of having respect for others( even if they have an alternative viewpoint), especially elders is not a part of your `save hinduism` mission. not particularly surprised after listening to Mr. Narendra Modi at an election rally in my hometown. that he has trouble accepting Sonia and her foreign origins, i can understand but to oppose it he has to employ such vulgar language is beyond me.]

My post was written more in sadness than in anger.

I have not once read ``Organiser`` nor have I ever been a member of the RSS.

When I called you a ``koop mandook``, it was to state the obvious that you haven`t seen how the rest of the world works or functions.

And don`t tell me that you would support Sonia Gandhi for anything except as a worker in a child-care center.

[.....As to the secularism of Congress, tell us why Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc., are not allowed to have multiple wives but Muslims alone are entitled to polygamy? ....
dear Harimau, only sikhs are allowed to keep weapons(Kripans), hindus their ` hindu undivided family` law, etc. special provisions have been made for all the communities. why single muslims out?]

Are Sikhs allowed to carry their kirpan on board planes?

As to walking around with a knife in your belt, I think I can do that in India without anyone trying to tell me I can`t do that. In fact, try it next time you go grocery shopping.

Hindu Joint Family Act applies to anyone who operates as a joint family... such as Jains who do not consider themselves Hindus. If Muslims do not have joint families, the law won`t apply to them. Let them form joint families and take their case to the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Wakf Boards and trusts control mosques, the CSI and CNI and various trusts control church property but temples alone are under government control under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Establishments Act. Why do you accept this discrimination AGAINST Hindus?

[....Why should Muslims be given tax money, at least 85% of it paid by its 85% Hindu population, to go to Mecca......
tax money not only goes towards haj pilgrimage but also for the upkeep and building attendant infrastructure for a number of hindu and sikh shrines.]

Which Hindu temple or shrine is being maintained by PUBLIC money? The HRCE Act permits the government to control the income and expenditure on temples. The temples` incomes are spent on maintenance not tax funds. Do not confuse the issues. So when you go to the Balaji Temple in Tirupathi, it is the billions of rupees that flow from the devotees that is used to build rest-houses there just as the same money was used to make a diamond-studded crown for the idol. It is NOT the government`s money.... it is the temple`s money.

[abolition of Zamindari system was more about challenging the status quo and the traditional power of the entrenched landed aristocracy( not an easy task), than land distribution. please do not confuse these two issues. land distribution gradually happened by itself in western U.P( my native region) under the aegis of jat leader charan singh but failed to succeed in eastern U.P and north bihar, where dominant thakurs scuttled it. bhudaan movement was primarily concentrated in that region. in fact even now W.Bengal is the only state which can claim comprehensive land reforms.]

There were zamindars in every state in India. When the zamindari was abolished and also the princely states were absorbed into India, in my native state of Tamil Nadu the government went about re-distributing land and the mission was pretty much complete by 1965. Similarly, Karnataka with its princely state of Mysore incorporated in it also went about redistributing state land and zamindari land to its peasants. So that contradicts your claim that West Bengal is the only state with comprehensive land reforms. Kerala was probably ahead of West Bengal anyway, having elected a Communist government as early as 10 years before West Bengal.

[.....The moral standing is shown to be in fact moral bankruptcy when he stood by and watched China invade Tibet in 1952.... that is moral cowardice. The same moral cowardice continued in 1956 when ......

panditji did`nt exactly stood by and watched. he condemned the chinese invasion from every forum and gave official refuge to the dalai lama against the chinese wishes.]

Oh, give me a break. Pandit the Bandit recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet whereas the British government had only conceded Chinese suzerainty. Bandit didn`t say `Boo` to the Chinese in any domestic or international fora. Don`t take credit for not handing over the 19-year-old Dalai Lama to the Butchers of Beijing.... handing him over would have been the most contemptible thing any human being could have done.

[1956 Hungary invasion was condemned jointly by both India and China. and in no uncertain terms.]

I would like to see the Bandit`s speech on this and compare it to his speeches on the 1954 Indo-French invasion of the Suez canal.

[i.e even when pakistan had signed baghdad pact in 1955 and had started to receive huge arm assistance from America.]

America offered security cooperation pact first to India. If you were so stupid as to say `No`, don`t blame the US if they went looking for another partner or if Pakistan jumped at the chance.

[.... that the same Soviets supported India over Goa in 1961,when U.S & U.K and most of the western world screamed as if it was one of the most wile aggression and transgression of freedom,...]

Did China invade Macao any time after 1948? In fact, when the Portuguese dictator died and Portugal offered to return Macao in 1979, China refused because it wanted to set the stage for the 1997 lease expiration of Hong Kong. China got world accolade for its statesmanship over Hong Kong. Exactly what did you get in 1961 from Goa? Salve for your ego?

But that ego didn`t prevent you from begging the US for assistance in Nov 1962 when the Chinese invaded, did it? Or begging the US for food under PL-480 for more than 5 years starting with 1962, did it?


[.... is different matter. by 1968 chek issue, panditji was long gone and geopolitics had altered considerably. it was only because of our pro soviet tilt at this time, that Indira could dismember Pakistan. Soviet veto in the security council was vital.]

You didn`t need anybody`s veto if your defences were strong. Since Pandit the Bandit had weakened the Indian Army, India HAD to rely on the Soviet Union for its veto.

[the list is endless and i only wish Harimau that you do`nt substitute fact with myth and fiction. and also show more grace, character and respect towards others.]

I repeat, who is substituting myth for facts here?

With an attitude like yours, Jaya Bharti can only be a name. Victory to India will come from economic and military strength, not from international conferences on Panch Sheel and Non-Alignment.

Ref jayabharti68 #448

The kind of stunts pulled on the Indian public by Indira Gandhi are mind-boggling.

Do you remember the time when there were the I, II and II classes in the trains? A middle-class person in India could choose to travel in II Class so that he could avoid the crush of the III Class.

Indira Gandhi abolished the II Class and re-named the II Class as the II Class. No, the III Class carriages were NOT upgraded with thin cushions to MAKE them into II Class, they were simply re-labelled II Class and the cushions were ripped off from the earlier II Class carriages. Now, if you wanted to send your pregnant wife to her maternal home, you didn`t have the original II Class anymore, perhaps you couldn`t afford the I Class so she had to endure the crowds in the III Class. That was equality under the Socialist system.

Did she abolish the I Class? Did she abolish planes travel? After all, they cater to the super-rich! No. She screwed the middle-class.

The BJP handed SOME sops to the middle-class. The poor and the loony Left cannot stand it. They recognize they can never pull the Tatas and the Birlas down to their level of poverty but, by Ram, they could make life for the middle-class miserable. They are now on their mission to bring all of India to the level of Bihar and UP.

So, Mr. Jayabharti, can you tell us why states that produced National leaders like Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, GB Pant, Acharya Kripalani, etc., have come to depend on Sonia Gandhi and Lalloo Prasad Yadav and have slipped behind the rest of India when it comes to literacy?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ahmed Bilal,
Now you mention two issues.
a)Image of India in world media-
Well,Lets see what can be a more objective statistic. A state that has 82% of a majority, some news of communal malfunctions are sure to come through. And thats what makes news.Saying that I celebrate Eid and Christmas would absolutely not make news, would it? I know it would sound cliched, but I do.And so do all the stauch BJP supporters, the so called exreme rightists. I come from a caste, kayastha, who are called half muslims, in jest.My grandfather arranged tuitions for Arabic and Persian for me in my summer vacations.It is another matter that I somehow dodged the class after two weeks and my retention is negligible now. But thats my story .Its hardly something worth getting reported by world media., is it? Lets talk about something more objective. Talk about cinema and cricket,which would really indicate popular view point, wouldn`t it?.Do u think we really care whether our players and cinema stars are Hindu /Muslim? Do u think it affects their popularity in anyway? Look at them and ask yourself. Secularism is built into our psyches. How could you ignore such indiactors and cite some reports from world media? Of course, the picture is not all hunky dory.We have our own problems and hiccups; we have our share of cynics and suspicions and fears. A beautiful account is presented by Rahi Masoom Raza in ``Topi Shukla``.Try to get hold of that book and read it.
b) Laws that favour one community/other community
Now, secularism is a little bit different from atheism where the state has no religion.This is actually the western concept of secularism. The Gandhian concept is promoting each religion equally. So the Hindus have HUF, muslims have Shariat and so on. If the aforesaid law deals with conjugal rights and matters of family, the personal laws are given priority. I am not saying that this is correct, I am only saying that this is how secularism is defined in India.The strong majority Rajiv Gandhi government had the chance to take a step towards
going for a Common Civil Code in the Shah Bano Case, but chose not to.But thats another debate.

Ref dost-mittar #450

[Forex reserves are primarily a function of the attractiveness of a country`s currency; it could mean that the currency is undervalued for the terms of trade, or expected to be revalued, or yields higher interest rates than available elsewhere, or that preferential treatment is given to forex inflows, such as no tax on NRI deposits. As a matter of fact, I would hope that forex reserves do not rise any further; that the Indian corporations use these reserves to acquire attractive companies abroad to seek a global presence or to import the latest machinery and technology to increase their productivity and international competitiveness. This is what I would look for rather than a mindless climbing of the forex reserves.]

If you have forex reserves, you don`t have to go hat in hand (or, in the Indian context, begging bowl in hand) for aid.

Would you prefer the times of Congress mis-rule when India had forex reserves to cover 3 weeks` worth of imports?

With forex reserves of $119 billion, India could afford to BUY Israeli AWACS, Russian aircraft carrier, British jet trainers, and any weaponry we want.

India can import high-tech goods because in the depressed world market we are able to pay cold hard cash.

Would you prefer that India go about looking for aid from donor countries?

Should there be a food shortage, we can afford to BUY the grains we need. Would you rather India went to the US and asked for food aid?

If the forex reserves do not rise any further, it would be proof that Nehruvian socialism and Communist ideology have triumphed over sound economic policy.

Is China wrong to have $380 billion in forex reserves?

Or is the Indian model going to be different where we will all be equally poor and can jointly hang down our heads in shame when the next drought hits?

Ref AhmadBilal #452

[You have raised some very valid points. Since I don’t know much about the internal politics of India, I can’t comment on strength of the opposition to secularism in India. But from what reaches the world through media, it appears that they are in considerable numbers. Another thing is Indian law. Some of your laws seem to be based on religious reasons. For example, some of your states prohibit cow slaughter and some states prohibit conversion from one religion to another. And from what I understand, there are also certain laws which give certain concessions to minorities based on their religious values. These laws don’t necessarily exploit people and I understand that they could be necessary due to composition of Indian society. But they do negate the basic idea of secularism because a secular state (in principle) shouldn’t have laws based on religious reasons.]

Let us start in India by prohibiting polygamy, divorce through `talaq`, marriage of Muslim children to Arab sheiks for money, subsidy for the Haj pilgrimage and supporting the right to convert FROM Islam and the right to alimony after divorce.

Let us see how much you then b!tch about the anti-Islamic nature of India.

Ref AhmadBilal #452

Of course we in India can always extend the Sharia to Muslims for criminal punishments so that we can have one-armed ex-thieves and raped women jailed for adultery.

That ought to sit well with some of you folks.

I understand the courts in Pakistan refer to the CrPC of Pakistan of 1935... which would actually be the CrPC of India.

I think we should return the compliment by incorporating the Hudood Ordinances into Indian law.

Can we expect the Protectors of Minorities aka the Congress and the Leftists to protect the virtue of Indian Muslim women by enforcing the burqa and the Hudood laws?

#442 by rahul_capri & #446 by nb

You have raised some very valid points. Since I don’t know much about the internal politics of India, I can’t comment on strength of the opposition to secularism in India. But from what reaches the world through media, it appears that they are in considerable numbers. Another thing is Indian law. Some of your laws seem to be based on religious reasons. For example, some of your states prohibit cow slaughter and some states prohibit conversion from one religion to another. And from what I understand, there are also certain laws which give certain concessions to minorities based on their religious values. These laws don’t necessarily exploit people and I understand that they could be necessary due to composition of Indian society. But they do negate the basic idea of secularism because a secular state (in principle) shouldn’t have laws based on religious reasons.

#447 by ballukhan

Political state of affairs in Pakistan is actually worse than what you are saying. The composition of most of the leadership of Muslim League in 1947 says a lot about what followed. Most of the leaders belonged to a certain elite class which had just switched sides from the British to Muslim League sensing the strong public mood in favor of formation of Pakistan. This elite class has been ruling Pakistan ever since, regardless of elected government or military dictatorship. No one (including the extremist Mullahs) has any chance in front of these people. And masses in general are so disheartened that they have gone into an indifferent state of mind, where they don’t even care anymore about what’s going on.

mohar ji - your arguments are getting a bit boring -- try something new --

harimou:
``So, what is it likely to be: $200 billion, $280 billion or $400 billion?

I want to see all you frikking idiots who mindlessly spout the drivel that Rajiv Gandhi/Manmohan Singh were the economic liberators of India come out with your preditions.``

You talk as if forex reserves are the only criterion of a country`s well-being. They may be an indicator of economic health but only in conjunction with other indicators. If the reserves go up to $400 billion, it would not automatically imply good economic management or vice-versa. In case you didn`t know, the RBI has been for some time been concerned about the large increases in forex reserves.

Forex reserves are primarily a function of the attractiveness of a country`s currency; it could mean that the currency is undervalued for the terms of trade, or expected to be revalued, or yields higher interest rates than available elsewhere, or that preferential treatment is given to forex inflows, such as no tax on NRI deposits. As a matter of fact, I would hope that forex reserves do not rise any further; that the Indian corporations use these reserves to acquire attractive companies abroad to seek a global presence or to import the latest machinery and technology to increase their productivity and international competitiveness. This is what I would look for rather than a mindless climbing of the forex reserves.

AhmadBilal#438:
You are right in saying that an India claiming itself to be secular should not be compared to a Pakistan which openly calls itself an Islamic Republic. However, you are not correct in suggesting that for India to be secular Indians ought to be secular.

India is secular because its constitution is secular and not for other reasons, although the fact that none of the head of the state, the chief executive and the chief of the ruling party is currently from the 85% religous majoriyu, is a feat of which any country claiming to be secular can be proud of. In case you did not know, when John F. Kennedy contested the President`s election in 1960, his religion, Roman Catholic, was considered to be a serious handicap; and he was the first Roman Catholic to be elected as the President. And even in the recent gubernatorial elections in Louisiana, the Indian Bobby Jindal widely publicised the fact that he had renounced his religion of birth and was a convert to christianity to win the acceptance by the voters.

Indians by and large are not secular, nor are all Indian institutions, especially the police, flawless in administering the country in a completely secular way. But these are imperfections of a work in progress, not a reason to disqualify it as a secular state.

to be honest i was quite stung by your reply, so latent it was with vitriol. instead of giving cogent replies to my posits, you chose to peddle age old myths, cliches and jingoism , it seems, straight from the RSS mouthpiece `Organiser`. calling me koop mandook and panditji , a bandit shows that the Hindu etho of having respect for others( even if they have an alternative viewpoint), especially elders is not a part of your `save hinduism` mission. not particularly surprised after listening to Mr. Narendra Modi at an election rally in my hometown. that he has trouble accepting Sonia and her foreign origins, i can understand but to oppose it he has to employ such vulgar language is beyond me.

.....As to the secularism of Congress, tell us why Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc., are not allowed to have multiple wives but Muslims alone are entitled to polygamy? ....
dear Harimau, only sikhs are allowed to keep weapons(Kripans), hindus their ` hindu undivided family` law, etc. special provisions have been made for all the communities. why single muslims out?

....Why should Muslims be given tax money, at least 85% of it paid by its 85% Hindu population, to go to Mecca......
tax money not only goes towards haj pilgrimage but also for the upkeep and building attendant infrastructure for a number of hindu and sikh shrines.

abolition of Zamindari system was more about challenging the status quo and the traditional power of the entrenched landed aristocracy( not an easy task), than land distribution. please do not confuse these two issues. land distribution gradually happened by itself in western U.P( my native region) under the aegis of jat leader charan singh but failed to succeed in eastern U.P and north bihar, where dominant thakurs scuttled it. bhudaan movement was primarily concentrated in that region. in fact even now W.Bengal is the only state which can claim comprehensive land reforms.

.....The moral standing is shown to be in fact moral bankruptcy when he stood by and watched China invade Tibet in 1952.... that is moral cowardice. The same moral cowardice continued in 1956 when ......

panditji did`nt exactly stood by and watched. he condemned the chinese invasion from every forum and gave official refuge to the dalai lama against the chinese wishes.
1956 Hungary invasion was condemned jointly by both India and China. and in no uncertain terms. i.e even when pakistan had signed baghdad pact in 1955 and had started to receive huge arm assistance from America. that the same Soviets supported India over Goa in 1961,when U.S & U.K and most of the western world screamed as if it was one of the most wile aggression and transgression of freedom, is different matter. by 1968 chek issue, panditji was long gone and geopolitics had altered considerably. it was only because of our pro soviet tilt at this time, that Indira could dismember Pakistan. Soviet veto in the security council was vital.

the list is endless and i only wish Harimau that you do`nt substitute fact with myth and fiction. and also show more grace, character and respect towards others.

I remember some of the idiots bitterly criticizing the NDS government`s ``interference`` in educational institutions when Murli Manohar Joshi ordered a reduction in the tuition charged by the IIM`s.

I am sure those same people have nothing to say about this piece of information. After all, it is being done by the Leftists who are the only ones capable of looking out for the financial welfare of the people of India.

Govt may stop funding 4 IIMs

Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi

Even though the new HRD Ministry is working out a fresh formula to implement the fee-cut decision of the previous Government, it is expected to stop funding four of the six resource-rich Indian Institute of Management (IIM).

Sources said the ministry may propose to stop grants to IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Bangalore, IIM Calcutta and IIM Lucknow centres at the meeting of the Board of Governors and IIM directors with HRD Minister Arjun Singh on Monday.

According to top officials in the ministry, the annual income of the four top IIMs range anywhere between Rs 8 and 10 crore. Officials said that IIM Kozhikode and IIM Indore are likely to be provided grants of Rs one crore each for a period of three to five years until they are able to sustain themselves.

Sources said the ministry is planning to utilise the savings for opening three new IIMs in the North, the North east and along the eastern coastline between Bhubaneswar and Chennai.

The Shunglu Committee, set up to go into the fee-cut issue, had recommended that the three leading IIMs at Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Kolkata are rich enough to take care of themselves without charging any fee at all.

The meeting between Mr Singh and the directors and the chairmen of all the six IIMs on Monday will take up for discussion the views of these prestigious B-schools on the fee-cut decision taken by former HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi.

``We are open to discussions with the new minister,`` said Devi Singh, director, IIM Lucknow. ``Until last year, the Government grants have been to a tune of Rs four to eight crore per annum depending on our requirement,`` he said.

Sources said the HRD Ministry is expected to put forth a new graded fee-cut formula for the IIMs to fix fees per student on the basis of family income. The IIMs will provide free education to students from families whose total income is less than Rs 1.5 lakh per year. For families earning Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh, the IIMs will ensure that their wards receive bank loans on easy terms to pay the Rs 1.5-lakh annual fee. And for those who earn more than Rs 5 lakh a year, the IIMs will charge the current fee of Rs 1.5 lakh, the sources said. These figures and slabs are tentative pending discussions with the IIMs.

However, sources said that the ministry will emphasise that proper accounting and auditing be done by the IIMs. The ministry might suggest an audit by a Government-approved Chartered Accountant firm or the right to veto the choice of the IIMs.

According to the Shunglu Committee recommendations, IIMs should be audited by accountants appointed by the Government and should then have a supplementary audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that, all IIMs should follow the same policy and format for accounting.

Besides exploring an amicable solution to the issue, which is pending before the Supreme Court, the crucial meeting is expected to take up the issue of autonomy as well, the sources said.

All of you continuing to claim that but for Manmohan Singh`s economic reforms in the early 1990s, India would be in dire straits today, here is something I want you to think about.

When Manmohan Singh left office, the forex reserves of India stood at $18 billion. That was after 45+ years of Congress ``governance``.

As the NDA government left office (after 6 years in power) the forex reserves stood at $119 billion.

Can we expect that 5 years hence, India`s forex reserves would be $200 billion ($101 billion in 6 years translates to a rate of $16 billion a year, giving us an additional $80 billion if the UPA stays in power for 5 years)?

If we consider that during the last year, the forex reserves grew at the rate of $3 billion a month, we should expect an increase of $180 billion in 5 years leading to reserves of $280 billion in 5 years.

Instead of linear growth, if we consider accelerated growth, India`s forex reserves should hit probably $400 billion in 5 years.

So, what is it likely to be: $200 billion, $280 billion or $400 billion?

I want to see all you frikking idiots who mindlessly spout the drivel that Rajiv Gandhi/Manmohan Singh were the economic liberators of India come out with your preditions.

I shall be repeatedly posting this question during the next 5 years along with any monthly report on forex position so that one of us (you or me) can eat crow.

Rsridhar, leave the gold alone, thanks.
It has traditionally been the only thing women received. Why go for the gold(excuse the pun-in this country, it also means other things not suited to a family site, but I don`t mean that)?Men own so many things, but you don`t have an eye on that. No, straightaway, it`s the gold-let`s take away from women what little they have so that they can be even more dependent on men. The Brits used to claim in the days of the Raj that Indians were actually rich, just pretending,starving to death to be contrary, after all, look at the gold the women wear.
Ahmed Bilal,
The Gujarat riots were a disgrace, no two ways about that, but I still do not accept that the state machinery was involved. They didn`t do as much as they could have, or should have, but you suggest they actively encouraged the targeting of Muslims. I have yet to see proof of that. Please don`t ask me to see articles by Arundhati, et al, she may be an ok writer, but plucks her facts from thin air. The Supreme Court has done the right thing by getting the Bilkis case heard out of Gujarat, because in any case where the police look incompetent, they will try to hush things up. Surely Pakistanis know all about that?

#436 by rsridhar on May 29, 2004 6:38pm PT
The truth of the matter is that Pakistan has been living in the shadow of its powerful military dictators and feudals. It`s muslim citizens are hopelessly impoversihed and un-able to determine their own fate in their own chosen land. Their dictators have cried hoarse about the lack of `genuine` democracy elsewhere- and have always fooled its citizens with the `great` work they have done in instilling the genuine `democracy` with their equally `genuine` referendums. Their constitution had been doctored by hundreds of LFO since last 50 years- and they have been fed with the images of horror that IM would have to suffer in living in a multi-religious , multi-ethnic country. THEY actually are hopelessly unable to do anything about their own political future- unlike what IM have shown in this election in India. One can only pity these creatures of delusion who refuse to acknowledge the truth that PAkistani muslims are in a hopeless political mess today.

Ahmed Bilal - 433
You are right in saying that we should be talking about India.Ok, lets do that.
You say-``Government machinery in a secular state doesn’t take sides based on religious affiliations.`` Says who? You are confusing the behaviour of some people with the fabrication of the Indian constitution. State machinery has been known to take sides in communal riots.State machinery has also been known to misuse its power, but not on the basis of the religion alone. It can be caste, class,political ideology.Sometimes students have their human rights violated,sometimes transvestites,sometimes theatre people.Relegious discrimination by state machinery is a part of the larger problem of human rights violation, not a denial of secularism per se.See, in a society there will always be all kinds of people.We can say that there are few people on the extreme end of the spectrum because there is no glass ceiling for people of any race/class/creed/religion in India.This is not only written in stone in our constitution, you can see examples in Indian life anywhere.And so, we are a secular state.Citing an exception, (riots are an exception/aberration) only proves the rule.

Ref 441 harimau:

Punjab University should honor an alumnus (Khorana) like every other university in the world. He should atleast be mentioned on the PU website.

Ref rsridhar #434

[Another thing.
Do a little research (since you have a computer at home and a lot of spare time) and find out how much Gold is hidden among the households in India. This is a whopping sum but it lies dormant in individual homes as security. Schemes to bring this into open would result in unbounded prosperity. So, you see, you do not need any foreign investments. There is plenty at home. Only there is no will, no honesty.]

Omigod, another pathetic attempt to spread the gospel of socialism and state control!

We already must have ``unbounded prosperity`` in India. In fact, we must have had ``unbounded prosperity`` since the end of 1962. It is just that those of us who believe our own eyes don`t want to accept the simple fact ``unbounded prosperity`` exists in India. On the other hand, it is those who can see the ``unbounded prosperity`` of India through their inner eye do not accept that ``India is shining``.

FYI, the Congress government under Nehru passed the Gold Control Act back in 1962 -- just after the Chinese invasion of India -- which limited the amount of gold individuals could possess, the purity of that gold (18 karat as opposed to 22 karat), and mandated the surrender of the excess over the limit to the government.

We all have been enjoying ``unbounded prosperity`` since then.

PS. I do hope your knowledge of medicine is better than your knowledge of history or economics.

Ref Tmk #439

Well, here is another nugget for your next letter to Daily Times.

Prof. Subramaniam Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel Prize for his theoretical prediction of black holes was born in Lahore.

As Brother Jay is wont to point out, of all the people from the subcontinent who won the Nobel Prize, the one man who carried a green passport did not get the recognition he deserved from his country. So, why add Khorana to the list, particularly when he carried an Indian passport when he left to go abroad?

#436 by rsridhar on May 29, 2004 6:38pm PT

Why are you so predictable? :) I didn’t claim that Pakistan is a secular or democratic state, so save your energies on that. And you also need to learn about freedom of speech and political science. Isn’t it tragic that a Pakistani has to tell you that too? In your thoughtful replies, you conveniently chose not to deal with the point I was making, and used my country of origin as your only excuse. A state is not equal to leader of the house in the parliament, and legislature is just one pillar of the state. In all communal riots in India, elements of the state took sides based on their religious affiliations, as pointed out in the reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. This doesn’t happen in a secular state. Will it change overnight? Probably not! To me it seems that many of you dream of a secular India, but a comparable number of you are opposed to it too. That’s why overall character of the state remains in the grey zone, swinging between secularism and Hindu nationalism. Thanks.

Interesting letter to Daily Times:

Sir,

While browsing the Nobel e-Museum website, I noticed that the 1968 Nobel
Laureate for Medicine, Har Gobind Khorana, was born in a little village called
Raipur in what is now the Pakistani part of Punjab. Khorana was born into a
poor family, but his father was dedicated to educating all his children, which
resulted in their being the only literate family in the village of about a 100
people.

Khorana later studied at the D.A.V. High School in Multan before going to Punjab
University in Lahore where he attained an M.Sc. degree. He then went abroad to
continue his education, and was awarded the Nobel prize in 1968 for his work on
the describing the genetic code.

This is a story of a man who, despite his very humble beginnings, succeeded
through sheer hard work and determination, resulting in ultimate triumph. It is
very much a story that can still inspire young Pakistanis with humble
backgrounds (and priveleged ones for that matter). Yet, the Punjab University
does not even honor him on its website as a distinguished alumnus, nor is he
ever mentioned in Pakistani textbooks as a one-time local who went on to become
a brilliant scientist. It is still not too late to honour this son of our land,
the student who started his academic life studying under the open skies of
Raipur and went on to provide us with the basis of modern genetics.

Regards,

Taimur M. Khan
Philadelphia, PA,
U.S.A.

re:#433 by AhmadBilal and #436 by rsridhar

``Show me one minority leader, i mean just one minority leader, in your blighted country who has risen to a top civilian/military post in the last 50 years of your country`s existence. ``

I think the same can be said of bangladesh.

re:#433 by AhmadBilal
Now i have to learn about secularism from a Paki?
What is this world coming to!
Sridhar

re:#433 by AhmadBilal
I live in USA dude. So, what i think does not matter as far as India is concerned.
But, yes. The multitudes of Indians who recently voted are not in denial. They have strongly voted for secularism.
Show me one minority leader, i mean just one minority leader, in your blighted country who has risen to a top civilian/military post in the last 50 years of your country`s existence.
After u have done that, we can talk more about secularism.
You Pakis just hide behind defintions.
Which is why Mushy today claims Pak is a democracy!
Sridhar

re:#430 by gujjubania

You have not still answered my question: does your dad pay taxes for the income he earns? You were the one who boasted one time on chowk that your dad`s income, if revealed, would result in the IT officers raiding your dad`s house.
Be a good Indian and find out if your dad really pays taxes. Since only 10% of Indians pay taxes, this is one way of making India an economic powerhouse. Who told you that only Microsoft and IBM can bring in prosperity? If Indians honestly pay their taxes, follow rule of law, prosperity will come. Do you know how much black money is in the country?
http://www.freedomindia.com/01.html
``Dishonest industrialists, scandalous politicians and corrupt officers have deposited in their illegal personal accounts the huge sum of about US$ 1000 Billion which have been misappropriated by them creating scandals and by corruption. This amount is about 13 times larger than foreign debt. This amount is such a big amount that from it 45 crores of poor people can get Rs. 100000/- each.``

http://www.samachar.com/features/191101-fpj.html

``We simply do not know how much of this kind of cash is being skimmed off the top.Ten per cent? 20 per cent? We just don`t know.It is said that black money in India accounts for 20 per cent of GDP.If this is true, then black money generated every year must be around Rs 400,000 crore or $80 billion.``
So, it is not even necessary to have all those MNCs in India. Only if Indians pay up their taxes honestly, India would be a rich country without any foreign investments.
MNCs investing in India do it for a reason. They get to save money. It is that simple. They are not doing this for any altruistic reason. If tomorrow Pakistan can offer same kind of skills for less money, all these MNCs will move from Bangalore to Karachi.
Another thing.
Do a little research (since you have a computer at home and a lot of spare time) and find out how much Gold is hidden among the households in India. This is a whopping sum but it lies dormant in individual homes as security. Schemes to bring this into open would result in unbounded prosperity. So, you see, you do not need any foreign investments. There is plenty at home. Only there is no will, no honesty.
May be you can start by asking your dad the question that every honest kid in India should be asking: Dad, do you pay your taxes honestly?
Sridhar