Re: Mr. Ashish should respect....

[Venkat Kesaraju <kevenkat@yahoo.com>]

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

IPI_Marker

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
India.
Atleast that is the gift of Nehru and his colleagues
to India.



Venkat
--- 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:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------