Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts

Saturday, July 16, 2022

Rishi Sunak: UK's Obama



Rishi Sunak born 12 May 1980 .... is a British politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2020 to 2022, having previously served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 2019 to 2020. A member of the Conservative Party, he has been Member of Parliament (MP) for Richmond (Yorks) since 2015. ......... Born in Southampton to Indian parents who migrated from East Africa, Sunak was educated at Winchester College. He subsequently read Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Lincoln College, Oxford, and later gained an MBA from Stanford University as a Fulbright Scholar. While studying at Stanford, he met his future wife Akshata Murty, the daughter of N. R. Narayana Murthy, the Indian billionaire businessman who founded Infosys. Sunak and Murthy are the 222nd richest people in Britain, with a combined fortune of £730m as of 2022. After graduating, he worked for Goldman Sachs and later as a partner at the hedge fund firms The Children's Investment Fund Management and Theleme Partners. .......... His father Yashvir was born and raised in the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya (present-day Kenya), while his mother Usha was born in Tanganyika (which later became part of Tanzania). .......... His grandparents were born in Punjab Province, British India, and migrated from East Africa with their children to the UK in the 1960s. ......... Sunak attended Stroud School, a preparatory school in Romsey, Hampshire, and Winchester College, a boys' independent boarding school, where he was head boy and the editor of the school paper. ........ He waited tables at a curry house in Southampton during his summer holidays ......... Sunak worked as an analyst for the investment bank Goldman Sachs between 2001 and 2004. He then worked for the hedge fund management firm The Children's Investment Fund Management, becoming a partner in September 2006.[18] He left in November 2009[19] in order to join former colleagues at a new hedge fund firm, Theleme Partners, which launched in October 2010 with $700 million under management. He was also a director of the investment firm Catamaran Ventures, owned by his father-in-law, Indian businessman N. R. Narayana Murthy. ........... Sunak was selected as the Conservative candidate for Richmond (Yorks) in October 2014. The seat had previously been held by William Hague, a former leader of the party, Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State, who chose to stand down at the following general election. The seat is one of the safest Conservative seats in the United Kingdom and has been held by the party for over 100 years. ........... He was elected as MP for the constituency at the 2015 general election with a majority of 19,550 (36.2%). .......... Sunak was re-elected at the 2017 general election, with an increased majority of 23,108 (40.5%). ........... Sunak was re-elected in the 2019 general election with an increased majority of 27,210 (47.2%). .......... During the election campaign, Sunak represented the Conservatives in both the BBC's and ITV's seven-way election debates. ............ Sunak was fined alongside Johnson for attending a party .......... In an Ipsos MORI poll in September 2020, Sunak had the highest satisfaction score of any British Chancellor since Labour's Denis Healey in April 1978. ........ On 26 September, Sunak was said to have opposed a second lockdown with the threat of his resignation, due to what he saw as the dire economic consequences it would have and the responsibility he would have to suffer for that. ......... In November 2020, Sunak was reported by The Guardian to have not declared a significant amount of his wife and family's financial interests on the register of ministers' interests, including a combined £1.7 billion shareholding in the Indian company Infosys. .............. In June 2021, at the G7 summit hosted by Sunak at Lancaster House in London, a tax reform agreement was signed, which in principle, sought to establish a global minimum tax on multinationals and online technology companies. .......... As Chancellor, Sunak privately lobbied to impose a green levy, which would have led to higher petrol and diesel prices, to help pay for the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 .......... The proposed Fossil Fuels Emissions Trading Scheme, drawn up by the Treasury, sought to levy pollution from road transportation, as well as shipping, building heating and diesel trains, which together make up more than 40% of UK carbon emissions. The proposal was ultimately rejected by Boris Johnson, who instructed officials that he did not want to increase costs for consumers ........... He said that the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic had been disrupted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He cut fuel duty, removed VAT on energy saving equipment (such as solar panels and insulation) and reduced national insurance payments for small businesses and while continuing with a planned national insurance rise in April he promised to align the primary threshold with the basic personal income allowance as of July. ............ As Chancellor, Sunak was pushing ahead with a new law that would pave the way for stablecoins to be used for everyday payments, despite fears from the Bank of England about the financial stability of the technology. In April 2022, Sunak ordered the Royal Mint to create a UK government-backed non-fungible token (NFT) to be issued by summer 2022. .............. Sunak's wife Akshata Murty has[when?] non-domiciled status, which means she does not[when?] have to pay tax on income earned abroad while living in the UK. She pays[when?] around £30,000 to secure the status, which allows her to avoid paying an estimated £20 million in UK taxes ......... Following media controversy, Murty announced on 8 April that she would pay UK taxes on her global income, adding in a statement that she didn't want the issue "to be a distraction for my husband". ......... Sunak had continued to hold the U.S. permanent resident card he had acquired in the 2000s until 2021, including for 18 months after he was Chancellor, which required filing U.S. tax returns ........... Conservative politicians who had supported Johnson criticised Sunak as "leading the charge in bringing down the prime minister", and Jacob Rees-Mogg called him a "high tax chancellor" ........ The domain readyforrishi.com was first registered with GoDaddy on 23 December 2021, while ready4rishi.com was registered on 6 July 2022, two days after Sunak resigned as Chancellor. ......... In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, he was very popular by the standards of British politics, being described by one analyst as having

"better ratings than any politician since the heydays of Tony Blair"

. ......... During this time, he was widely seen as the favourite to become the next Prime Minister and leader of Conservative Party. Sunak developed something of a cult media following with jokes and gossip about him being sexually attractive becoming widespread on social media and in magazines. .......... Sunak married Akshata Murty, the daughter of the Indian billionaire N. R. Narayana Murthy, the founder of Infosys, in August 2009. Murty owns a 0.91% stake in Infosys, which is valued at about $900m (£690m), as of April 2022, making her one of the wealthiest women in Britain. Infosys continued to operate in Russia following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which led to criticism of Sunak and his family, but in April Infosys announced it was closing its Russian office. Murty also owns shares in two of Jamie Oliver's restaurant businesses, Wendy's in India, Koro Kids and Digme Fitness. ............. Sunak and Murty met while studying at Stanford University; they have two daughters. Murty is a director of her father's investment firm, Catamaran Ventures. They live at Kirby Sigston Manor in the village of Kirby Sigston, near to Northallerton, North Yorkshire. They also own a mews house in Kensington in central London, a flat on the Old Brompton Road, London, and a penthouse apartment in Santa Monica, California. ............. Sunak is a Hindu, and has taken his oath at the House of Commons on the Bhagavad Gita. He is a teetotaller. ........ Sunak is close friends with The Spectator's political editor James Forsyth, whom he has known since their schooldays. Sunak was the best man at Forsyth's wedding to the journalist Allegra Stratton, and they are godparents to each other's children........... In the Sunday Times Rich List 2022 ranking of the wealthiest people in the UK, Sunak and Murty were placed 222nd, with an estimated combined wealth of £730 million, making him the "first frontline politician to join the rich list".



Rivals Vying to Replace Johnson Are Diverse in Background, Not in Plans The Conservatives running to be Britain’s prime minister include women and people of non-European descent, but they sound a lot alike: They like Brexit and want to cut taxes. ......... Four are women. Six have recent forebears hailing from far beyond Europe — India, Iraq, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria and Pakistan. Of the three white men, one is married to a Chinese woman while another holds a French passport. ........... On paper, the nearly dozen candidates vying to replace Boris Johnson as Conservative Party leader and prime minister are a kaleidoscopic tribute to Britain’s rich diversity. In terms of policy proposals, however, the mosaic they create is resolutely monochromatic. ......... Many would continue to put illegal migrants on planes to Rwanda. ........ are competing to replace a prime minister who was criticized for lurching wildly from crisis to crisis, running a government that is, by all accounts, drifting in the face of grave economic stress and deepening tensions with Brussels. ........... What they should be talking about, Professor Portes said, is how Britain is going to avert a full-blown crisis in its schools and hospitals in a few months, when surging inflation and budget cuts will hit teachers and nurses, prompting some to quit their jobs and others to strike. Tax cuts will not solve the cost-of-living squeeze, he said, but they will stoke inflation and deplete Britain’s already shaky public finances. ........... the support of 20 lawmakers needed to run in that first contest, and ending next week with a shortlist of two ........... In theory, a two-person race will sharpen the debate and surface more difficult issues. .......... The party’s rank-and-file membership, which is largely made up of activists, also tends to be more right-wing than average voters ............. the early front-runner, Rishi Sunak, whose resignation as chancellor of the Exchequer last week helped set in motion the events that brought down Mr. Johnson. ........... The candidates are, by and large, coalescing around Mr. Johnson’s plan to tear up a deal he made with the European Union on trade rules for Northern Ireland. The move led Brussels to accuse Britain of violating international law and has sparked fears of a trade war. .......... There is growing evidence that Brexit has imposed an extra burden on the British economy. But Britain’s sharp split from the European Union is now a matter of political orthodoxy. Expressing doubts about it, Professor Ford said, was “like making a case for atheism at St. Peter’s.” .......... The least well-known contender, Rehman Chishti, put out a video that appeared to have been recorded outside by phone, with wind noise in the background. ............ “Perhaps the most remarkable fact about it is that people don’t see it as remarkable,” Professor Ford said. It showed, he said, “how far the party has come on that in really a quite short period of time.” .

Sunak Takes the Lead in the Voting to Replace U.K. Prime Minister The former chancellor of the Exchequer led a pack of candidates after the first round, while an obscure trade minister surprised in second place. ........ Rishi Sunak, a former chancellor of the Exchequer, stayed at the front of the pack of candidates vying to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain after the first round of the Conservative Party’s leadership contest on Tuesday. .......... But Penny Mordaunt, a relatively little-known junior trade minister, finished a strong second in the vote among Conservative lawmakers. And she has opened a commanding lead among the party’s rank-and-file members, according to a new poll, which suggested she could soon supplant Mr. Sunak as the favorite. .......... They will spend a hectic summer wooing the party’s membership — a larger, though still limited group — which will elect Mr. Johnson’s replacement in early September. ......... While Mr. Sunak was expected to be the front-runner, and won a respectable 88 votes, Ms. Mordaunt’s 67 votes placed her within striking distance of him. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, emerged as the third top-tier candidate, with 50 votes. .......... In a poll conducted by the market research firm YouGov, Ms. Mordaunt, a paratrooper’s daughter who serves in the Royal Naval Reserve, holds a wide lead among members over Mr. Sunak, Ms. Truss and all other candidates. ....... To complicate the picture further, Mr. Johnson suggested that the process of replacing him could move more quickly if the second-ranked candidate bowed out after the initial rounds and the leader was elected by acclamation. ......... In a sign that his rivals are already beginning to turn the page on him, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, devoted most of his questions to pressing Mr. Johnson for his views on people who have non-domicile tax status in Britain. That status is claimed by the wife of Mr. Sunak, Akshata Murty, whose father is the Indian technology billionaire Narayana Murthy. Mr. Starmer signaled that Labour would make the wealth of Mr. Sunak and his wife the centerpiece of its attack on him if he emerges as the next Tory leader. ........... Mr. Johnson has declined to endorse any of the candidates, saying that to do so might hurt their chances. But in a lively exchange with Mr. Starmer, he predicted that any one of them would be able to “wipe the floor” with the Labour leader, whom he lampooned as “Captain Crash-a-Roony Snooze Fest.” .



Who is Rishi Sunak? Mr. Sunak had a swift rise from his first election to Parliament in 2015. In February 2020, when he was 39 years old, Mr. Johnson appointed him chancellor, the government’s chief financial officer and often second in power only to the prime minister. ......... As the coronavirus crisis gripped the country, Mr. Sunak, a former hedge fund manager, rolled out a series of aid packages for businesses and individuals that were widely applauded. Those moves, and his air of competence, quickly made him a popular face of the government response. ......... Mr. Sunak, the eldest son of Indian immigrants, attended the elite Winchester College boarding school and Oxford. He earned his M.B.A. at Stanford and has been held up as an example of a multiethnic and more modern Britain. ............ First came the revelation that his wealthy wife had claimed a tax status that allowed her to avoid paying taxes on some of her income. Then it was revealed that Mr. Sunak continued to hold a green card, allowing him to live and work in the United States for months after he became chancellor. .

Ex-Goddess Works to Reform 700-Year Tradition. Her M.B.A. Helps. As a child, Chanira Bajracharya was worshiped in Nepal, but still made time to study. She is now encouraging the girl goddesses who’ve followed her to do the same. .

Rishi Sunak plugs for honesty in first UK PM race debate Trade Minister Penny Mordaunt, among the top three candidates, also wants to cut some taxes, with with Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat slightly more measured in laying out their plans over the dominant issue of the race........

“You have to be honest. Borrowing your way out of inflation isn't a plan, it's a fairytale,” Sunak told Truss, as the Channel 4 debate on Friday night got heated and he rubbished her proposals and warned against an "unfunded spree" of tax cuts.

.

at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

Time For China And India To Shed "Neutrality"



China did not know beforehand that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. India did not.

And while the two militaries clash on Ukrainian territory with the overwhelming damage to Ukrainian lives and property, it is at one level. It is localized war.

Putin can not complain about economic sanctions. For one, they have not been a surprise. And he, on his part, has issued retaliatory economic sanctions.

Nobody owes the Putin regime a world power status. He is not even fighting for second place. Or third, or fourth, or fifth. China is the second largest economy. India is the third largest. And if Russia were not an authoritarian kleptocracy, it migth be a vibrant knowledge economy. Putin is the problem.

These nuclear threats by Putin can not be thought of as empty words. Autocrats are known to commit suicide. The Putin inner circles often get described as a prison yard. You watch your back, I will watch mine.

Putin is not threatening Finland, or Britain. We all know a nuclear threat by either Russia or the US is a threat to the entire planet.

China and India must step in.

By that I do not mean China and India should now do what Britain has been doing, what many NATO countries have been doing. I am not asking that you take sides. But I am asking that you stop staying on the sidelines. Get actively involved in the conversation. Weigh in on both sides.

China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia all need to step into the void and help resolve the situation. This game of brinkmanship has gone too far already.

The Chinese and the Indian leadership need to demand that the heads of states of Russia, the United States, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, Britain, France and Germany meet them for a summit in a neutral territory like Brazil or South Africa, or even Indonesia and hold in person negotiations to walk back from the brink.

Putin's nuclear threats to Finland and Britain are not localized threats. They are immediate nuclear radiation threats to Russia and Europe, and an existential threat to the entire planet. That threatening posture can not be allowed to stand.

China and India should work to impose a no first use policy on all nuclear powers. Nothing less makes any sense.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 05, 2022

Ukraine Is Putin's Brexit With Too Many Dead Bodies

Russia did not go to war with the US, or Ukraine. Russia declared war on China. Russia is not competing to be number one. It is trying its best to suggest it is still number two. But that spot was long taken by China. The Ukraine misadventure is Russia trying to suggest one last time that, no, it's not China, it is Russia still.

Brexit was hubris. A former world power reduced to being an island that itself was on the verge of disintegrating. Ukraine is also hubris. Only there were no dead bodies to go with Brexit. And Brexit can be easily reversed. This was is the end of the road for Putin. And if he and his regime do not quickly exit the scene due to public pressure in the streers, the Russian economy, already in a bad shape, is going one major step down. Russians will be eating bread and drinking vodka, and there will be not much else.

Singapore paved the way for China. Deng Xiaoping learned a lot from Singapore. He had the humility to admit China was in a poor shape. Putin leacks that humility. Ukraine was his Singapore, though not as arrived, but still a few steps ahead of Russia in embracing true democracy, and a proper free market economy.

The Soviet Communist Party got ousted in 1991. But the KGB remained. It is the KGB clique that runs all aspects of Russian life. That is no way to run a major country.

Now it is the KGB's time to go.

What Russia needs is people out in the streets of Moscow to topple this regime.



Ukraine invasion: did China known about Putin’s plans, or was Beijing tricked? It remains unclear what Beijing knew and when about Moscow’s plans, but its implied support for the Kremlin is damaging China’s interests ...... Observers are divided but there are growing doubts about the competence of Chinese intelligence gathering and strategic decision-making .

China-backed AIIB puts Russia and Belarus lending ‘on hold’ over war in Ukraine Russia is a founding member and shareholder of the Beijing-based lender, holding a 6.7 per cent stake ....... China is the biggest member, with a 30 per cent holding in the AIIB, which is seen as a potential rival to the World Bank ............ The China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has announced that “all activities relating to Russia and Belarus are on hold and under review” due to Russia’s war on Ukraine. “As the war in Ukraine unfolds, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) extends its thoughts and sympathy to everyone affected. Our hearts go out to all who are suffering,” read a statement published on the website of the Beijing-based lender. ........... the bank, which was founded in 2016 and seen by some as a potential rival to the US-backed World Bank. .......... With Russia facing isolation from the multilateral system, there has been intense scrutiny of China’s reaction. ......... a Chinese state bank saw a “surge in inquiries from Russian firms wanting to open new accounts”. ......... Moscow has hiked interest rates, temporarily closed the stock market and imposed strict capital controls. ...... the European Union said it was considering “the possibility of removing [most favoured nation] treatment to Russia on the basis of the WTO national security exception”. .

Putin blows up Brexit While the EU-UK relationship has been acrimonious since the latter left the bloc, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has seen a rapprochement. ..... While the years following the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union have been characterized by one-upmanship, failures to communicate and outright disagreements, the days since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have seen politicians and officials on both sides of the Channel come together to coordinate their response. ....... And despite grave predictions from many on the pro-EU side of the Brexit debate that the U.K. would now be marginalized on the world stage, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has taken his place alongside counterparts in Washington and Brussels as the West grapples with how to respond. Britain, with its military and intelligence strength, and as one of the economies where Russian oligarchs have for decades sought to wash their dirty money, is well-placed to play a key role. .......... NATO, the G7 and the E3 group comprising France, Germany and the U.K. ........ Contact between senior British ministers and the European Commission is now frequent, according to diplomats. ...... Brexit doesn’t change the fact that we are liberal democracies that live in peace, freedom and security, and obviously when that’s threatened, Brexit doesn’t affect our desire to work together at all.” ......... The first British official quoted above said sanctions against Russia issued by Western allies are “all pretty aligned” despite some slight differences among the packages, and it “doesn’t really make sense to say that one side is going faster than the other.” ........ many believe Brexit disputes will resurface with the same strength of feeling once the heat of this crisis is over. .

The fighting is in Ukraine, but risk of World War III is real Conflict could easily escalate into a direct confrontation between Russia and the West, officials and analysts warn. .......... senior Western government officials, diplomats and military analysts acknowledge that there is now a grave danger that the United States and other NATO allies could be drawn into the war — at virtually any moment, as the result of any number of scenarios. ...... “One is a mistake,” said a Washington-based analyst whose work is partly financed by the U.S. government. “They lob a missile into Poland. That is not impossible and then it very quickly escalates. But we have to respond. We can’t not respond.” “Or the outcry against the crimes against humanity is so strong that we feel compelled to take what we think is a limited and judicious action,” the analyst said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. “The enforcement of a no-fly zone means killing Russians,” the analyst said. “Anything that we do that results in killing Russians puts us into World War III.” ........ The shelling and a fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in the early hours of Friday morning provided yet another frightening example of the type of emergency scenario that could ensnare a broader international coalition in Putin’s war: to urgently prevent a global catastrophe. But other more mundane scenarios abound. Already, on Wednesday Russian planes violated Swedish air space multiple times. An Estonian cargo ship sunk off the coast of Odesa, apparently after hitting a mine. Any such incident could easily escalate..........

“Russia is ready to use a thermonuclear bomb in Ukraine”

....... “Today the problem is not only Donbas, the problem is not only Ukraine — what is at stake is the stability in Europe and the whole international order” .......... Officials and diplomats who are experts on Russia say the effort to portray the conflict as Ukraine’s war misses the key point: Putin has attacked Ukraine precisely because it chose a path toward the EU and NATO. Fighting Ukraine, they say, is a proxy for fighting the West. ......... Some believe the conflict can only be resolved if Putin’s complaints about the U.S. and NATO are resolved. Until then, he will continue the war, seeking to conquer or destroy the country, and making the peace negotiations with Ukrainian officials of little significance. ............. That calculation, of course, presumes Putin choose self-preservation over nuclear Armageddon. ........ the situation in Ukraine will get far worse in the coming days ........ As Putin realizes that fury among the Ukrainian population means he will lose politically, no matter the military outcome, there is a heightened risk he will simply seek to destroy Ukraine, flattening its cities and towns just as Russian forces obliterated the Chechen capital of Grozny. ........ And the devastating barrage of severe sanctions that are punishing the Russian economy will almost certainly remain in place, giving Putin little incentive to back away from his goal of conquering Ukraine and toppling its government. Putin chose war fully knowing there would be severe economic consequences — a calculation he made previously with the invasion and annexation of Crimea, which led to sanctions and steep absorption costs. ......... “The Union is not at war with Russia,” the second official said. “We are in line with the U.N. Charter.” The second official added: “But we need to help Ukraine because Ukraine is being attacked and has the right to self-defense.” ....... by denying their centrality in the dispute, Western powers were failing to seize on an opportunity to unite the three Slavic nations that Putin often talks about — Ukraine, Russia and Belarus — but against the Russian autocrat, in support of democracy. .......... “It’s like we’re not understanding that we’re a participant in this war already — not because we put ourselves there, not because we were looking for this war, not because of any decision that NATO made or any individual bilateral partners of Ukraine made, but because Vladimir Putin is fighting a war against us,” McKew said. “And if we show up to the war, it will end sooner and faster with less people dead, and that’s really the decision we have to make now.” ........ Putin is known to harbor deep anger over the death of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who was taken prisoner, humiliated, beaten and killed while begging his captors for mercy. The scenes were filmed on a mobile phone. ......... the Russian president would go to any lengths to avoid Gaddafi’s fate, and that suggestions Putin should be tried as a war criminal could trigger him. ........ the talk about trying him before the International Criminal Court,” the analyst said. “That’s kind of Gaddafi territory. You have to be real careful about putting a dictator who still has his finger on a nuclear button in a Gaddafi mindset.” .

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, December 13, 2019

Britain's Vote

Has the economic theory on trade been debunked by political process? I don't think that is the case. Trade leads to rises in productivity, but if the new riches are not widely shared, then the people will revolt. I think that is the message.

The UK is in a political funk. 52% of the voters voted for remain parties. And yet the results show a sweeping victory for the "Get Brexit Done" party. The country could use political reforms. But I don't see them coming.

If Brexit will happen, Scotland will break away. Northern Ireland might also. Europe is the "country" they might choose.

I think Boris Johnson and Donald Trump attempting a trade deal will be quite a horror show. The National Health Service will be part of the discussion. That will cause a lot of churn.

Socialism makes people uncomfortable. People clearly did not like the idea of someone like Corbyn coming anywhere close to 10 Downing Street. I think the vote was more about that than Brexit. Although clarity of message always helps. BoJo had great clarity. Corbyn was all over the map on the message. Was he for Brexit? Against? Was he for a second referendum?

This is a democratic downsizing of Britain. People are choosing this.

Plenty of Brits of South Asian origin are next in line for power. BoJo was London Mayor. So is Sadiq. BoJo's cabinet colleagues are several Indians. England + Wales might end up with a brown Prime Minister before 2030. That is one extrapolation.

It is still not computing. A hard Brexit will bring all sorts of horrors. I think, despite this vote, the negotiations with Europe will simply continue. A hard Brexit will form bread lines in England.

Britain's Brexit and the US-China trade war both point out the need for WTO reform. They don't suggest ending trade.

Most people lining up to replace Corbyn are women. I think that is positive.

There are those who are saying Labour lost this election, as well as the next one. One can't be so sure about that. Now BoJo has to deliver. That is the hard part. A clean Brexit is a fantasy, not a smart option. Britain has never been an island.

As for ideology, it is not that the market does not work. The market is not being allowed to work. Crony capitalism, bought capitalism is causing market distortions. It is not that democracy does not work. Democracy is not being allowed to work. A centrist leader who understands the implications of the impending fourth industrial revolution could build a counterweight. I have no idea who that is, or if someone of that description is waiting in the wings even.

In the US that might be a Pete-Yang ticket.

In the meantime, the world flirts with a willful global recession. You can badger trade for only so long before it has been too long.

What does Britain know and understand that France and Germany do not? All three are similar size economies.





U.K. Election Result Starts Clock on Brexit Talks With E.U. Few expect the negotiations on the country’s future trade and security relationship with the bloc to be quick or easy........... European leaders on Friday welcomed the clarity of the British election result, since they, too, want to “get Brexit done.” But Boris Johnson’s substantial majority will only start the clock on new negotiations about Britain’s future trading and security relationship with the European Union. ....... Few except Mr. Johnson expect the talks to be quick or easy. They can be quick, Brussels argues, if Britain agrees to keep its regulations and tariffs the same or very close to those of the bloc.......... But European leaders, in Brussels for the last day of a summit meeting, remain unsure whether Mr. Johnson, with his resounding mandate to ratify his Brexit deal by the end of January, will stick to his campaign pledge to finish any trade negotiation with the European Union by the end of 2020, or whether he will choose next summer to seek a year’s delay for longer talks.........

So long as the two sides are negotiating, Britain will be in a “transition” period, with its relationship with the European Union essentially unchanged, even if it will legally have ceased to be a member.

...... Brussels, in its conclusions on Brexit, is demanding a future relationship that “will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations and ensure a level playing field.” That is Brussels-speak for British regulations and rules that do not diverge too far from Europe’s........ But if Mr. Johnson wants a free hand to make trade deals with the United States and other countries and to position Britain as more of a low-tax, light-regulation economy, Brussels will demand a tougher set of trade restrictions, unwilling to have a large competitor so close with significantly more favorable conditions for business and finance........ Mr. Johnson may favor a hard deadline, but that will put Britain, which will soon be negotiating from outside rather than inside the European Union, into a weaker position ......

The risk is that a quick trade negotiation, considered almost a contradiction in terms by trade experts, could fail, bringing Britain and Brussels back to the prospect of a “no deal” Brexit.

...... Many British businesspeople — and presumably some of the new Conservative Party members of Parliament from the industrial north of England — will want to be able to trade with Brussels with as little friction and paperwork as possible. That would mean closer alignment to the European Union than harder-line Brexiters advocate........ Leo Varadkar, the prime minister of Ireland, has managed his key goal: preventing the restoration of a hard border on the island with Northern Ireland. But he also wants to preserve close ties in a future relationship, he said on Friday — “a trade deal or trade deal plus” — to “ensure that we still have a tariff-free trade between Britain and the E.U. and a set of minimum standards.” ........ Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary insisted that the less-affluent countries of Central Europe must get generous financial guarantees. “We cannot allow Brussels bureaucrats to have poor people and poor countries to pay the costs of the fight against climate change,” he said.

‘No ifs, no buts’: Johnson vows to get Brexit done after sweeping election win
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Donald Trump Is Messing Up A Good Thing



Donald Trump is America's Boris Johnson. The two admire each other greatly. Trump is rooting for Boris to become Prime Minister of Britain. This is hubris melting into recklessness.

If America had three dollars in 2001, it made one of those three dollars in the 1990s. Something like the Internet can give you a marked rise in productivity. But the technology on its own is agnostic. It does not innoculate you against harmful inequality. That the people get to do through the democratic process.

If America has five dollars today, it stands to have another 10 dollars by something like 2035. The new technologies are about to bring forth massive gains in productivity. But left to its own devices you could end up with a society like portrayed in The Hunger Games. There is a tiny rich elite. And the masses can barely get by.


Inequality has to be thought of in the same breath as climate change. It will take civilization to a cliff.

Trump's attitude towards it is (1) denial, (2) deliberate misdiagnosis (The Mexicans! The Chinese!), and (3) Pied Piper leadership (read my tweets!).

Projections that put China at number one in 2050 and India at number two also put the US at number three. For the tiny population that the US is in comparison, that is not a bad slot to be in. Measured by per capita income, the US might still be number one.

But that whole projection has to be taken with a grain of salt. Which projection in 1980 put China in 2019 where it is today? The leading economy in 2050 might as well be a country not even on the radar right now.

Boris Johnson will wreck the British economy. Given the chance, Donald Trump will do the same thing on this side of the pond.




Inequality And Climate Change Are Existential: A Blueprint For Survival
Towards A World Government
30-30-30-10: A More Thoughtful And Egalitarian Formula For Equity Distribution In Tech Startups For The Age Of Abundance
The Blockchain: Fundamental Like The Internet
The Character Called The Tech Entrepreneur



India 2050: Amitabh Kant
5G Challenges US Hegemony
Brexit, Aexit, And Trump
African Economic Union
Understanding China (2)
Trump's Prospects In 2020
Understanding China
Political Fallout For Xi
Made In China 2025
Trade War: The Spiral Down Scenario
Three Crises: China, Iran, DC

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 28, 2017

भारत १५% कर सकता है

जब अमरिका बेलायत जैसे देश समृद्ध हुवे तो उस समय उनके लिए ५% तो क्या ३% भी बहुत हुवा करता था। शताब्दी लगाते थे। समय तो कोइ गिन नहीं रहा था। जब चीन ने १९९० में छलांग मारने की सोंची तो उसने १०% कर दिखाया। न कोइ रिसेशन न कुछ। दशकों तक १०% । लेकिन भारत आज ६% पर है तो सब तौबा तौबा कर रहे हैं। एक समय आएगा जब भारत १०% कर रहा होगा। लेकिन वो १०% भी कम मानो। भारत १५% कर सकता है। Complete digitization, total electrification, absolutely clean energy, total transparency.


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Britain And America Are Trying To Readjust



The post World War II world order is over. But a new world order has not taken shape yet. The Brexit vote and the Trump victory are Britain and America admitting the leadership role they have had for 70 years is now too expensive. They simply can't afford it anymore.

And that is not a vacuum for China to fill. It is not for any one country to fill. China can't afford it either.

A new world order will be the one person one vote principle taken to its global conclusion. A world government is in the offing.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 14, 2016

Morning Shows The Day


Nigel Farage, the British right-wing enemy of the European Union, became one of the first foreign politicians to meet with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump over the weekend, upending the diplomatic order to the embarrassment of the U.K’s ruling Conservative Party.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, July 11, 2016

Women To Lead Both Parties In The UK

Angela Eagle launches leader bid 'to heal Labour' 

One of the pleasant surprises of the Brexit vote was not the guy with Donald Trump hair and temper but a woman is going to be Prime Minister. Now looks like the opposition might also go to a woman. Men have created enough mess.

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Trump 2016: Hurting People's Feelings

Feelings (David Byrne album)
Feelings (David Byrne album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
So far I have not seen any kind of political program from Trump, even programs I might dislike, possibly even abhor. He is not planning to cut taxes. He is not planning to invade a country. So far all the talk has been about enticing certain feelings. Vague feelings like xenophobia. He just wants the power. He is not seeking to govern. That is the impression I get. More like, he is offended he, or someone like he, is not in power. And this guy was not even a Republican, until last year. If Britain holds a debate in parliament about banning a white guy from entering the country, you know this is a new century. We are looking at a new reality here. The kind of psychological warfare he is engaging in is the kind that trolls engage in online. And they win because they have the numbers. When the Internet came about, Julia Robert discovered people hated her. Muslims are the new Julia Roberts, if Trump will have his way. If Trump is a troll, he is just one person. If more people find out he exists, I expect him to get mauled on places like Twitter. It will be one troll versus millions of trolls. It will be an unfair race. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 02, 2016

Sardar Patel

I am not sure I agree completely with the criticism. America did take a stand on Korea, a military stand, that some people wish India had taken on Tibet, and America is still at war to this day. Besides Korea has easy ocean access, Tibet is remote even today. Tibet is so remote, India did not even have ways to get ground intelligence on Akshai Chin, a territory it supposedly claimed or at least disputed. India going all in to defend Tibet was perhaps not a real option. Especially when you consider that Nehru was a die-hard socialist. He probably thought Lenin's 1917 revolution was a good thing, and he thought Mao was a good guy who wanted the best for China's poor. After all, both Mao and Nehru had just defeated major imperialist forces. So to Nehru it looked like both were anti-imperialist and socialist. India going all out to defend Tibet was not an option. And if it was, why did America not go all out? America didn't. Perhaps the only thing that might have saved Tibet was a Chinese non-aggression.

On the other hand, Patel does come across as more of a realist. If he had lived another 10 years, things might have been different. Nehru did not handle the India-China war well. He was in shock the war even happened. Nehru's strengths lay elsewhere. But we should not be too harsh on him with our 20/20 hindsight. Remember, the Cold War had already started, and Nehru was not exactly on the American side.

But a full fledged study and criticism is always welcome, if only to learn the lessons of history.

Like they say, the past is not even past. India China still don't have a final border. Goes on to show, Nehru's problems were not easy as some make it sound. If those problems are still thorny today, they must have been more so back then. And you have to take into account the lack of infrastructure back then. No roads, no satellites, weak communication.



Patel's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 November 1950
I have been anxiously thinking over the problem of Tibet ...... The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention. My own feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to instill into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful means. There can be no doubt that during the period covered by this correspondence the Chinese must have been concentrating for an onslaught on Tibet. ....... the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence. ....... we shall not be able to rescue the Dalai Lama. ...... It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet. ......

indicates that even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as their friends.

...... With the Communist mentality of "whoever is not with them being against them", this is a significant pointer, of which we have to take due note. ...... we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into UN and in securing from the Americans assurances on the question of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend its legitimate claims in our discussions and correspondence with America and Britain and in the UN. Inspite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism perhaps mixed with a little hostility. .........

I doubt if we can go any further than we have done already to convince China of our good intentions, friendliness and goodwill.

....... Their last telegram to us is an act of gross discourtesy not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in the wild insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences.

It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.

....... In the background of this, we have to consider what new situation now faces us as a result of the disappearance of Tibet, as we knew it, and the expansion of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history we have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier. The Himalayas have been regarded as an impenetrable barrier against any threat from

the north. We had a friendly Tibet which gave us no trouble.

........ In 1914, we entered into a convention with Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting during the last half a century. China is no longer divided. It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the north and north-east, we have on our side of the frontier a population ethnologically and culturally not different from Tibetans and Mongoloids. The undefined state of the frontier and the existence on our side of a population with its affinities to the Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements of the potential trouble between China and ourselves.

Recent and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield against imperialism and that the communists are as good or as bad imperialists as any other.

Chinese ambitions in this respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side but also include the important part of Assam. They have their ambitions in Burma also. ............ Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism of the western powers. The former has

a cloak of ideology which makes it ten times more dangerous.

........ While our western and north-western threat to security is still as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from the north and north-east. .......

for the first time, after centuries, India's defence has to concentrate itself on two fronts simultaneously.

Our defence measures have so far been based on the calculations of superiority over Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon with communist China in the north and in the north-east, a communist China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does not, in any way, seem friendly disposed towards us............ The people inhabiting these portions have no established loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During the last three years, we have not been able to make any appreciable approaches to the Nagas and other hill tribes in Assam. ........

Nepal has a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force: it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age.

...... In these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task indeed and that difficulty can be got over only by

enlightened firmness, strength and a clear line of policy.

......... We must have a clear idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of decisiveness in formulating our objectives or in pursuing our policies to attain those objectives is bound to weaken us and increase the threats which are so evident....... Hitherto, the Communist Party of India has found some difficulty in contacting communists abroad, or in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc., from them. They had to contend with the difficult Burmese and Pakistan frontiers on the east or with the long seaboard. They shall now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese communists and through them to other foreign communists. Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and communists would now be easier. Instead of having to deal with isolated communist pockets in Telengana and Warrangal we may have to deal with communist threats to our security along our northern and north-eastern frontiers, where, for supplies of arms and ammunition, they can safely depend on communist arsenals in China. ........

the action will have to be fairly comprehensive, involving not only our defence strategy and state of preparations but also problem of internal security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose



Nehru and the China-Tibet blunder
In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, the Chinese intervention in the Korean War. ..... By all canons of logic, India should have devoted utmost attention to the immediate situation in Tibet ...... But Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s Prime Minister did exactly the opposite. He treated the Tibetan crisis in a haphazard fashion, while getting heavily involved in Korea. ...... India today is paying for this folly by being the only country of its size in the world without an official boundary with its giant neighbor. Tibet soon disappeared from the map. As in Kashmir, Nehru sacrificed national interest at home in pursuit of international glory abroad. ...... India at the time maintained missions in Lhasa and Gyangtse.

Due to the close relations that existed between India and Tibet going back centuries and also because of the unsettled conditions in China, Tibet’s transactions with the outside world were conducted mainly through India. Well into 1950, the Indian Government regarded Tibet as a free country.

........ The Chinese announced their invasion of Tibet on 25 October 1950. According to them, it was to ‘free Tibet from imperialist forces’, and consolidate its border with India.

Nehru announced that he and the Indian Government were ‘extremely perplexed and disappointed with the Chinese Government’s action...’ Nehru also complained that he had been ‘led to believe by the Chinese Foreign Office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner by direct negotiation with the representatives of Tibet…’

....... in September 1949, more than a year before the Chinese invasion, Nehru himself had written: “Chinese communists are likely to invade Tibet.” The point to note is that Nehru, by sending mixed signals, showing more interest in Korea than in Tibet, had encouraged the Chinese invasion; the Chinese had made no secret of their desire to invade Tibet. In spite of this,

Nehru’s main interest was to sponsor China as a member of the UN Security Council instead of safeguarding Indian interests in Tibet.

......... when the Chinese were moving troops into Tibet, there was little concern in Indian official circles. Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was ‘lack of confirmation’ of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an “interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UN”. ........ Panikkar was more interested in protecting Chinese interests in the UN than India’s own interests on the Tibetan border! Nehru agreed with his Ambassador. He wrote,

“our primary consideration is maintenance of world peace… Recent developments in Korea have not strengthened China’s position, which will be further weakened by any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet.”

So Nehru was ready to sacrifice India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN! ....... the two greatest influences on Nehru at this crucial juncture in history were Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar, both communists ....... Sardar Patel remarked that Panikkar “has been at great pains to find an explanation or justification for Chinese policy and actions.” India eventually gave up its right to have a diplomatic mission in Lhasa on the ground that it was an ‘imperialist legacy’. This led to

Nehru’s discredited ‘Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai’. Mao had no reciprocal affection for India and never spoke of ‘Chini-Hindi Bhai Bhai’— or its Chinese equivalent.

Far from it, he had only contempt for India and its leaders. Mao respected only the strong who would oppose him, and not the weak who bent over backwards to please him. ........ Sardar Patel warned Nehru:

‘Even though we regard ourselves as friends of China, the Chinese do not regard us as friends.”

He wrote a famous letter in which he expressed deep concern over developments in Tibet, raising several important points. In particular,

he noted that a free and friendly Tibet was vital for India’s security, and everything including military measures should be considered to ensure it.’

......... ‘In Kali Yuga, we shall return ahimsa for ahimsa. If anybody resorts to force against us, we shall meet it with force.’ But Nehru ignored Patel’s letter. The truth is that India was in a strong position to defend its interests in Tibet, but gave up the opportunity for the sake of pleasing China. It is not widely known in India that

in 1950, China could have been prevented from taking over Tibet.

......... Patel on the other hand recognized that in 1950, China was in a vulnerable position, fully committed in Korea and by no means secure in its hold over the mainland. ....... The world in fact was looking to India to take the lead. The highly influential English journal The Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: ‘Having maintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strong claim to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a lead in this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a buffer state between itself and China, Britain and U.S.A. will do well to extend formal diplomatic recognition to it.’ ....... Nehru ignored Patel’s letter as well as international opinion ....... With such a principled stand, India would also have acquired the status of a great power while Pakistan would have disappeared from the radar screen of world attention. Much has been made of Nehru’s blunder in Kashmir, but it pales in comparison with his folly in Tibet.

As a result of this monumental failure of vision—and nerve—India soon came to be treated as a third rate power, acquiring ‘parity’ with Pakistan. Two months later Patel was dead.

...... Even after the loss of Tibet, Nehru gave up opportunities to settle the border with China. To understand this, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that

what China desired most was a stable border with India.

....... the Chinese proposal amounted to the following: they were prepared to accept the McMahon Line as the boundary in the east—with possibly some minor adjustments and a new name—and then negotiate the unmarked boundary in the west between Ladakh and Tibet. In effect, what Zhou-en-Lai proposed was a phased settlement, beginning with the eastern boundary. Nehru, however, wanted the whole thing settled at once. The practical minded Zhou-en-Lai found this politically impossible.

And on each visit, the Chinese Premier in search of a boundary settlement, heard more about the principles of Pancha Sheela than India’s stand on the boundary.

He interpreted this as intransigence on India’s part.........

China in fact went on to settle its boundary with Mayammar (Burma) roughly along the McMahon Line following similar principles.

Contrary to what the Indian public was told, the border between Ladakh (in the Princely State of Kashmir) and Tibet was never clearly demarcated. As late as 1960, the Indian Government had to send survey teams to Ladakh to locate the boundary and prepare maps. But the Government kept telling the people that there was a clearly defined boundary, which the Chinese were refusing to accept. .......... Had Nehru recognized this he might have proposed a creative solution like asking for access to Mount Kailash and Manasarovar in return for Chinese access to Aksai Chin. The issue is not whether such an agreement was possible, but no solutions were proposed. ........ Nehru deceived the Indian public in his pursuit of international glory through PanchaSheel. PanchaSheel, which was the principal ‘policy’ of Nehru towards China from the betrayal of Tibet to the expulsion of Dalai Lama in 1959, is generally regarded as a demonstration of good faith by Nehru that was exploited by the Chinese who ‘stabbed him in the back’. This is not quite correct, for Nehru (and Krishna Menon) knew about the Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Aksai Chin but kept it secret for years to keep the illusion of PanchaSheel alive. ...... Now Thimayya had proof of Chinese incursion. When the Army presented this to the Government, Menon blew up. In Nehru’s presence, he told the senior officer making the presentation that he was “lapping up CIA propaganda.” .......

He was still trying to sell his PanchaSheel and Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai to the Indian public.

Even today, Nehru’s family members exercise dictatorial control over the documents pertaining to this crucial period. Even documents in the National Archives are not available to scholars without permission from the Nehru-Gandhi family heirs. This is to protect his reputation from being damaged by the truth (But many of the same documents are available in the British Museum and Library in England)....... In the Bangladesh war, India achieved one of the most decisive victories in modern history. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were in Indian custody. The newly independent Bangladesh wanted to try these men as war criminals for their atrocities against the people of East Bengal. The Indian Government could have used this as a bargaining chip with Pakistan and settled the Kashmir problem once and for all. Instead,

Indira Gandhi threw away this golden opportunity in exchange for a scrap of paper called the Shimla Agreement.

How things would have been different had Sardar Patel been out first PM?
Nothing much would have changed. ....... Patel died in 1950, and in all likelihood, Nehru would have succeeded him as the next PM(which was more than likely given his popularity at the time)....... Firstly, I'm guessing we wouldn't have lost a portion of Kashmir in the '48 war with Pakistan. Patel would not have gone to the UN before the war was over. ........ Two, Patel was a staunch capitalist, so he would have tried to frame policies based on that, but as mentioned earlier, his tenure woul have been too short for such policies to make an impact in the long run............

besides Kashmir, Patel would likely have negotiated a lot better with the China on the Tibet issue.

.....1947-1950 represented a very tumultuous time in Chinese history. There was a window of opportunity for India to help negotiate a favorable agreement between Tibet and China that would have prevented Chinese armies from ever reaching India's borders. Eventually, China would have invaded Tibet anyways, but a delaying tactic would have helped India secure it's borders....... Nehru completely capitulated and did not provide any kind of substantive support to the Tibetans which led to a collapse of the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. At the very least, Nehru could have made ratification of the 1914 Simla accord a precondition for Indian support to the Chinese position in Tibet. .........

India's poor strategic moves in this time period, directly led to the 1962 debacle in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh

..........


Congress periodical criticises Nehru
Nehru faltered in his initiatives in Kashmir, China and Tibet. ..... Congress won India's first general elections in 1951-52 under Nehru's leadership. Much of India's domestic and foreign policy was based on his ideas in the early years of India's independence....... The article in the latest Hindi edition of the periodical says Nehru should have listened to his deputy prime minister Vallabhai Patel's views on foreign policy....... Today's problems wouldn't have existed had Patel's foresight in the Kashmir issue been considered then .....

"As far as Kashmir is concerned, Nehru was in charge. But it's true that Patel was upset with the decision to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and take the issue to the United Nations."

...... Nehru sent troops into the state to support India's claim. A UN ceasefire was negotiated, but Kashmir remains deeply unstable to this day. ..... The article also cites a letter that Patel reportedly wrote in 1950 to caution Nehru against China's policy towards Tibet and where "Patel described China as unfaithful, and a future enemy of India"....... Despite efforts at co-operation by both countries, Indian-Chinese border disputes escalated into war in 1962 and Indian forces were decisively beaten..... This had a significant impact on Nehru's declining health and he died in May 1964.
Where was India’s Tibet Policy?
in August 1950, the rumours of an impending Chinese attack had trickled in; it did not bother anybody in the Summer of Delhi........ In a communication to the Chinese Foreign Office on October 2, 1950, he told the Chinese that the Tibetan delegation, at that time in India, would be shortly leaving for Peking for negotiations; the Indian Ambassador expressed the hope that further military action would, therefore, not be necessary. “It will help the peaceful settlement of the Tibetan question if the Chinese troops which might have entered territory under the jurisdiction of the Lhasa authorities could restrict themselves to western Sikang.” ...... To thank the Tibetan Government, the President of the United States had sent three radio sets which were still packed in their crates in 1948. Many officials in Tibet were not keen to have foreigners operate these sets, but as no Tibetans had yet been trained to use them, they remained packed up in crates. ......... From the remote capital of Kham Province, on New Year’s Day 1950, Ford heard an ominous communiqué broadcast by the People’s Republic of China: “The task for the People’s Liberation Army for 1950 is to liberate Taiwan, Hainan and Tibet.” ....... It is difficult to ascertain the true number of Tibetan troops stationed on the 200 mile long border along the banks of the Yangtze, Goldstein speaks of about

3,500 soldiers

, but Ford estimated their strength to be much less. ....... Whatever might have been the number of Tibetan soldiers, they were no match for the Second Field Army based in Sichuan and

led by its Political Commissioner, Deng Xiaoping

. On the other side of the great river more than 40,000 much better equipped troops waited to ‘liberate’ Tibet.......... One of the major problems faced by the Tibetans was the lack of unity between the local chieftains and the Lhasa government. ..... The Chinese Liberation Army was also much better trained and far more disciplined than the Tibetans. .....

the Tibetan State had no clear policy regarding China

....... another question: had India a Tibet Policy at the beginning of 1950? The answer is a clear ‘no.’ ........ In India, the demise of Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister and holder of a more holistic vision on the security issues of the Indian border, stopped the search for a Tibet Policy with all the consequences which can be seen today. ...... In fact, looking at the tragic events in Tibet and the Communist menace over the Himalayas, the populations of Nepal, Sikkim and NEFA would turn towards India for security and support. ......... Tibet is a cultural daughter of India10 and we of lesser Tibet seek the bosom of that gracious mother to receive more nutriment for growth to our full stature in every way. She has given us that [which] we prize above all other things, our religion and culture and it is the experience of having been the recipients of such a precious gift which encourages us to ask for more. The Asoka wheel on her flag, symbol of goodwill for all humanity and her concern for her cultural children calls us irresistibly. Will the great mother refuse to take to her arms one of her weakest and most forlorn and distressed children, a child whom filial love impels to respond to the call? .......... The populations of the Indian Himalayas have remained among the most patriotic of the country. ........ Sardar Patel criticized Chinese intervention in Tibet and said that to use the ‘sword’ against the traditionally peace-loving Tibetan people was unjustified.

No other country in the world was as peace-loving as Tibet.

India did not believe, therefore, that the Chinese Government would actually use force in settling the Tibetan question. ....... The Deputy Prime Minister further states: “In this kalyug we shall return ahimsa for ahimsa. But if anybody resorted to force against us we shall meet it with force.” ...... Unfortunately, this concept would not be acceptable to Nehru and Panikkar. ...... the Ambassador’s position: China and India should in a united way fight the ‘Western dominance’ and the Tibetan issue should not come in the way of the friendship between the two nations. ....... The future proved Patel right and it has now been shown that Mao had planned and prepared the invasion of Tibet for months in advance and the sweet words of Zhou Enlai where only soporific pills to put his idealist Indian ‘brother’ to sleep. .....

It is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machinations in Tibet.

............. The best proof came three/four years later when at the height of the

Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai euphoria

, Mao began building a strategic road linking Tibet to Sinkiang, cutting across the Indian territory. .......

The Western world was a symbol of imperialism, oppression of the masses and the slavery of the Asian race. While keeping the principle of ‘non-alignment’ as the official Indian policy, many Indian politicians and diplomats felt much closer to the Communists in China or in Russia than the ‘western imperialists.’

........ One thing was forgotten, that the western world and specially the United States with all its imperfections, was also the symbol of struggle against totalitarian and fascist forces and ultimately of freedom. ....... Was the China of 1950 very different from 1962’s China? Or was it the same China who had already decided in 1949 who would be the new leader of Asia and was ready to use all available means to achieve its plans. ...... The first plans for ‘liberating’ the people of Asia were made in the mid-twenties by Stalin who, on the occasion of the opening of University of Orient in May 1925, spoke about the socialist revolution being the motor of the national liberation movements: “you have to win your own independence”, he said. ....... In November 1949, a meeting of the World Trade Union Association was held in Beijing. Moscow accepted that the New China would take the lead and conduct the ‘liberation’ of all the people of Asia. With Soviet help, a detailed plan was prepared by a Liaison Bureau located in Beijing. Its objectives were clear: to create revolutionary nodes and with the help of the working classes liberation should be brought to the entire South Asia and South East Asia through guerrilla warfare which was later to spread to cities. ......... The value of Patel’s letter resides in the fact that the Tibetan issue is not seen from an ideological point of view, but from a very practical angle; it is seen from the point of view of India’s security interests, not from Tibetan or Chinese or Western concerns. ...... He passed away on December 15, five weeks after having written the letter. ....... Nobody was left on the Indian scene to counter or balance Jawaharlal Nehru and his advisors. Some other leaders like Rajendra Prasad, the President of India, Acharya Kripalani, Dr. Ram Lohia tried to oppose the Prime Minister, but without success, they could not match the charisma and aura of the idealist Prime Minister. ....... great clarity of thought and its prophetic tone. ...... Till November/December 1950, India regarded Tibet as a separate and independent nation; it only recognised a vague suzerainty of China over Tibet, which was more a ‘constitutional fiction’ as Curzon had described it. ............. Six months later, as a first consequence of the new policy of non-interference by the Government of India, a 17 Point Agreement would be forced ‘under duress’ on the Tibetans. The further consequence was that the Indo-Tibetan border in the western and eastern sector became the Indo-Chinese border.... It is what the British had tried to avoid at any cost........

The imbroglio created by the idealist views of Nehru remains unresolved.

...... It was wrong to assume that the Chinese had cooled down. As Charles Bell had explained to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, after any action, the Chinese always prefer to wait a bit and see the reaction of their foes. ........ Nehru could only comment: “All this is much the same as has been said before… [but] there are repeated references in the note to China desiring the friendship of India.” ....... In November 1950, Nehru had accepted that the frontier between India and Tibet had de facto become the border between India and China. It was a surprising statement because at that time, the Chinese troops had not marched further than Chamdo and were still several weeks walk away from Lhasa, and several months from the McMahon Line. ......... Nehru adds: “I think it may be taken for granted that China will take possession, in a political sense at least, of the whole of Tibet.”....... He further admits that for the Tibetan people the “autonomy can obviously not be anything like the autonomy, verging on independence, which Tibet has enjoyed during the last forty years or so.” ....... “it is reasonable to assume from the very nature of Tibetan geography, terrain and climate,18 that a large measure of autonomy is almost inevitable.” ....... one reason which motivated Nehru to this easy acceptance of the disappearance of Tibet from the Asian maps, was that

he thought it was in the interest of Tibet to have a socialist regime

. For Nehru, the old theocratic system had to be reformed and a more ‘democratic’ set-up had to be installed; the ‘liberation’ was Tibet’s chance. We should not forget that at the same time, he was himself trying to introduce democracy in Nepal and Sikkim. .......... “it is exceedingly unlikely that we may have to face any real military invasion [of India] from the Chinese side, whether in peace or in war, in the foreseeable future.” ...... “there is far too much loose talk about China attacking and overrunning India. If we lose our sense of perspective and world strategy and give way to unreasoning fears, then any policy that we might have is likely to fail.” ....... This gave a green light to the Chinese to begin building a road on Indian territory. It would take five more years for the Government of India to ‘officially’ discover it. .......

At that time, the main thorn in India’s flesh was Kashmir. One can understand that the Government of India was not keen to open a second front in the Himalayas. It meant a lot of human and financial resources which were hardly available. From the time of independence, Pakistan had been designated as the enemy number one and for many strategists and politicians, it was out of the question to open ‘a second front.’

....... Nehru admitted that: “Pakistan is taking a great deal of interest, from the point of view of the developments in Tibet. Indeed it has been discussed in the Pakistan press that the new danger from Tibet to India might help them to settle the Kashmir problem according to their wishes.” ......... Pakistan systematically took a position opposite to India’s in its dispute with China; whenever India voted against a resolution in the UN, Pakistan voted in favour and vice-versa. We were even told by an informant that when Pakistan saw that India was abandoning Tibet in the UN in 1950, Pakistan informally made it known that they were ready to help support the Tibetan cause. ....... India had two enemies, but refused to accept the existence of one of them ..... “The idea that communism inevitably means expansion and war, or, to put it more precisely, that Chinese communism means inevitably an expansion towards India, is rather naïve.” ...... Nehru thought that in introducing his own brand of socialism in India, he would counter Communist propaganda. ....... “In a long-term view, India and China are two of the biggest countries of Asia bordering on each other and both with certain expansive tendencies, because of their vitality. If their relations are bad, this will have a serious effect not only on both of them but on Asia as a whole.” ...... The ‘Ambassador of China’ as Panikkar is sometimes referred to, had himself admitted, in 1948, that “a China so organized will be in an extremely powerful position to claim its historic role of authority over Tibet, Burma, Indo-China and Siam. The historic claims in regard to these are vague and hazy.” .........

After having lost more than one million of their countrymen, having had more than 6,000 of their monasteries destroyed and their thousand-year old culture erased, the Tibetans can certainly question the validity of this contention!

......... ten months before the Chinese troops entered Lhasa,24 Nehru had already accepted that Tibet could not be saved and that what was formerly the Indo-Tibetan border had already become the Indo-Chinese border.
Nehru's Five Mistakes
Declaration to take Kashmir issue to the UN ....... He said, "As usual Nehru spoke on issues like the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God and others. But after listening to all Sardar

Patel lost his temper. Patel said, 'Jawaharlal Do you want have kashmir ? Or you want to lose it?

The Nehru said - Of course, I want Kashmir. Patel said then, please give your order. Then, without listening to Nehru, Patel told me to pursue military action".Indian military planes were sent in the Srinagar and fitting reply was given to pakistani tribals ........ When the conversation was taking place, Nehru suddenly on November 2 announced on AIR (aakashvaani radio) a unilateral message to the nation that he would raise the issue at the United Nations ,and the decision to join India or Pakistan or remain independent , will be a done by referendum (जनमत संग्रह) among the people of Kashmir. ...... But a uniform civil code has not been implemented in India to date. Any efforts to make a uniform civil code get widely objected by other religions. ........

Nehru had turned down the offer of the United States in 1953 which offered India to be a permanent member of the Security Council of UN instead of that Nehru advised to include China in the Security Council.

..... Nehru's wanted to resolve border disputes with China by peace and deals. No one doubted his motives. But

he failed to read the Chinese wicked moves

. ....... Nehru on linguistic grounds divided Madras State to make Andhra Pradesh, and Bombay State to make Maharashtra and Gujarat. Formation of linguistic states continue , once the process had been started. Today, condition is that over a dozen states are sparking with fire over creation of a separate state in the country.
Kashmir: Nehru’s baby, nursed by Patel
Patel was provided with limited space. Nevertheless, his timely, swift and decisive action saved Kashmir from the perils of imminent danger and ruthless invaders. ......

About 565 princely states had been left to decide their own fate- to adhere to India, to accede to Pakistan or to remain independent, as they wished.

........ Stafford Cripps, the British statesman also thought that it would take at least ten to fifteen years to liquidate them and to merge them with the rest of India. ...... Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka’s dream had been rekindled in him. ...... ingenuity, resourcefulness and his tact and firmness ....... He coaxed the rulers, cajoled them and even threatened them reluctantly with dire consequences. Sardar Patel warned the princes that they could not exist independently in the wake of the great changes taking place in the country. ....... he faced acute difficulty in integrating - Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. The case of Kashmir was different from other states as it had important international boundaries- to the East was Tibet, to the North-East lay the Sinkiang province of China and to the North-West was Afghanistan. ....... Sheikh Abdullah’s closeness to Nehru, caused apprehension in Maharaja’s mind towards India’s future prime minister and like other Indian Princes, he began to ponder- ‘whether to remain independent, or to accede to Pakistan under pressure or go with India, where the top leadership will be hostile to him and he also toyed with notion of an ‘Independent Jammu and Kashmir.’ Patel’s role in clearing the atmosphere of distrust and indecision and bringing Maharaja Hari Singh closer to India was of far reaching importance. ....... Knowing Pakistan’s intentions about Kashmir and the changing situation, Patel took initiative and a series of steps were taken immediately. Planes were diverted to Delhi-Srinagar route, and wireless and telegraph equipment were dispatched to both ends of the Amritsar-Jammu link. Telephone and telegraph lines were laid between Pathankot and Jammu as well. Sardar Patel further undertook two strategic steps. First, he ensured termination of prime minister Kak’s services and oversaw the appointment of Mehr Chand Mahajan, as the new prime minister. The second was appointment of Lt. Col. Kashmir Singh Katoch, an officer of Indian army as Commander-in-Chief of Kashmir forces. ..These strategic moves by Patel placed India in an advantageous position. ........ The Pakistan invasion of Kashmir began on 22 October, 1947. Some 5,000 tribesmen from Pakistan entered Kashmir, carrying surplus arms and ammunition in nearly 300 lorries from Abbottabad in the NWFP along the Jhelum Valley Road. ....... But Mountbatten emphasised that since Kashmir had not yet decided to accede to either country, it would be improper to send Indian troops into an independent country. Mountbatten who was presiding the committee meeting put two offers- firstly, Hari Singh’s accession should be secured before the troops were dispatched and secondly in view of the composition of the population, accession should be conditional to plebiscite, once law and order had been restored.

Patel found neither proposal appealing but even then, yielded to Nehru’s advice.

....... When Jinnah heard about the unexpected and prompt airlifting of Indian troops to Srinagar, he flew into a rage. Not prepared to lose the valley, he ordered General Gracey to move troops forthwith into Kashmir. Gracey did not carry out the orders; instead he sought approval of the Delhi based Supreme Commander General Auchinleck who was in charge of all the British officers that remained on either side. Auchinleck refused to oblige Jinnah. But he did not give up his plan. He carried out an invasion of Kashmir by the Frontier tribesman. ....... Patel had realised immediately that the battle would be long. ...... Patel took upon himself the task of building the road link. .............

Within a fortnight necessary materials were assembled at worksite, around 10,000 workers were brought in special trains from Rajasthan and the entire workforce involved in round the clock job numbered over 40,000. The 65 miles were completed on time.’ Behind the success of the project lay Patel’s resolute mind.

........ Even in the judgement of Sheikh Abdullah, ‘events took a decisive turn’ after Vallabhbhai’s Srinagar visit. ‘The Sardar did not lose even one minute. He studied the situation and said that the enemy must be driven back.’ ....... General S P P Thorat confirms that ‘our forces might have succeeded in evicting the invaders, if the prime minister (Nehru) had not held them in check and later ordered the cease-fire...’ ......... Patel had a pragmatic and practical approach in dealing with Kashmir and preferred to take timely action whereas it seemed at times that Nehru had emotional attachment for Kashmir- the land of his ancestors and for Sheikh Abdullah. It also appeared that Nehru hesitated in taking firm steps as he was weighed down by international opinion and personal friendship. .......... Jawaharlal’s agreement, albeit on Mountbatten’s persuasion, to make a broadcast, offering a UN-controlled plebiscite in Kashmir was also opposed to Patel’s strong view of timely action in Kashmir and instead of bringing India’s affairs into the vortex of international politics.

Patel said, ‘We should never have gone to the UNO...

at the UNO, not only has the dispute been prolonged but the merits of our case have been completely lost in the interaction of power politics.’ ........ Kashmir was Jawaharlal’s baby and to avoid clashes with Nehru over it, Patel adopted a bystander’s attitude, but helped whenever the situation demanded or he was called upon to do so. ......

‘If all the decision rested on me, I think that I would be in favour of extending this little affair in Kashmir to a full-scale war with Pakistan... let us get it over once and for all.’

....... hard evidence with regard to integration of 565 States indicates that Sardar Patel’s approach would not have allowed the Kashmir problem to arise and even if any problem had arisen, it would have been nipped in the bud.’
Nehru..Was Always Childish..Read Sardar Patel's Views..
Nehru always tried to passify London and Moscow whereas,Patel,believed in Selfrespect without seeking others help..He spent more time in our villages,whereas Nehru spent more time in those fabulous cities.So there was a growing gap in the very Ideology between the two. ..... It was the exemplary skills of Sardar patel which forced all the 550 small princes and zamindars to surrender to Independent India,tho' Nizam of Hyderabad,Kashmir,Junnahath,Trivancore,Bhopal,Jodhpur,and such small kingdoms refused to budge in .Junaahath Nawab openly challenged Patel saying they wd join Pakistan.Mount baton also encouraged Junnahath Nawab to openly revolt against India.Patel was able to tackle all these problems including Kashmir,which alone gave max troubles to Patel as they were constantly instigated by Jinnah from Pakistan......Kashmir Problem,Mountbaton said,can be referred to U.N......Nehru always sided whatever Mountbaton said and Patel was dead against this move of taking Kashmir to UN. ........ Patel sent our troops and there was clear victory for our troops as the infiltrators were successfully repulsed..Alas!Despite this Nehru referred this Kashmir issue to UN which was totally opposed by Sardar Patel..He said "it is purely an internal matter and why should we refer this to UN" ...... Patel raised this issue in the Congress Working committee and Nehru & Patel were at loggerheads on this issue often..Nehru started showing his hatred towards Patel as Nehru always wanted only Yes men around him.There were Nehru Group & Patel Group in the party. ....... Patel who returned to Bombay refused medical attention and died on 15th Dec 1950....Nehru wanted to bring the body to Delhi and give a fitting memorial which was refused by Patel's daughter,Maniben,who knew to what extent Nehru had done the damage on this great Soldier of India.. ........ One man didnt attend the funeral..Chacha Nehru..
Pakistan India China And Borders
WHEN in 1846 Britain brought the Jammu and Kashmir Territories within its Empire, it acquired a boundary problem with China. ........ "a classic pattern for a boundary dispute is present" (The Times of India, December 7, 1950). It was pre-eminently susceptible to a solution....... Nehru replied to Patel on November 18, 1950: "Our major possible enemy is Pakistan. This has compelled us to think of our defence mainly in terms of Pakistan's aggression. If we begin to think of, and prepare for, China's aggression... we might well be got (sic.) in a pincer movement" ...... Nehru laid down the line in regard to the frontier at the very beginning of his note: "We should not raise this question. If China raises it we should express our surprise and point out that this is a settled issue" ....... Nehru added: "This frontier should be considered a firm and definite one which is not open to discussion with anyone" ...... You cannot claim Mexico by showing it as Indian territory on our maps. ..... When and how, then, did the boundary dispute with China arise? First, it was over the old Chinese maps. Nehru complained of them to Zhou in 1954. Interestingly, his memo of July 1, 1954, while drawing a new line unilaterally, instructed the Ministry of External Affairs "to point out to the Chinese government" errors in their maps when occasion arose. ........ Nehru's claim that "the area now claimed by China [in Ladakh] has always been depicted as part of India on official maps" was manifestly untrue. ......

The linear boundary is a modern innovation. In the 19th century the frontier zone (ilaqa) prevailed.

...... India was non-aligned and had friendly relations with China. Pakistan was the United States' much allied ally ...... China was most reluctant to accept Pakistan's proposal and responded only belatedly. It got no territory. Instead, it was Pakistan which secured from China 750 square miles of administered territory. ...... there was no defined boundary right from the Sino-Afghan-India trijunction in the west to the Sino-Nepal-India trijunction in the east. Only the McMahon Line was defined in 1914. Thus, in Kashmir both the boundary to the west as well as to the east of the Karakoram Pass was "still undefined". ...... If the 1842 treaty was decisive, as Nehru asserted in 1959, why did Britain, a far stronger power militarily, ask China repeatedly to define the boundary? Also, why did it not draw up a line unilaterally as Nehru did in 1954? Despite repeated rebuffs, Britain persisted in its efforts. A lot happened after 1846. ........ The Chinese revolution in 1911 induced second thoughts. The Viceroy questioned the Macartney-MacDonald line of 1899: "Russia would be brought thereby within 300 miles of Simla and 150 miles of Srinagar". ..... 1924: "So far as we know there is no officially recognised boundary, though obviously the main Muztagh-Karakoram divide would constitute a natural frontier." ..... The Ardagh line died as a suggestion but survived as a myth ..... Yet after the agreement of 1963 Nehru upbraided Pakistan for giving away those very 11,000 square miles which admittedly were wrongly shown on its map as Kashmir territory. After Independence, India made good the McMahon line and occupied Tibet. China built the road through the Aksai Chin and fanned out westwards. In the entire western sector, to the east and west of the Karakoram Pass, the boundary remained undefined. In 1959, India and Pakistan reacted differently to the situation then obtaining and also to the common historical record. Hence the different results in their respective parleys with China.

Pakistan succeeded in arriving at a boundary agreement on excellent terms. India got bogged down in conflict.

China operationalises biggest dam on Brahmaputra in Tibet, raises concerns in India over water supplies disruption
China on Tuesday operationalised the $1.5 billion Zam Hydropower Station, the largest in Tibet, built on the Brahmaputra river ....... will produce produces 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity a year. ..... It will alleviate the electricity shortage in central Tibet ...... China is reportedly building few more dams. China seeks to ally Indian fears saying that they are the run-of-the-river projects which were not designed to hold water. ..... the three dams, Jiexu, Zangmu and Jiacha are within 25 kms of each other and are 550 kms from the Indian border ..... India is concerned that if the waters are diverted, then projects on the Brahmaputra, particularly the Upper Siang and Lower Suhansri projects in Arunachal Pradesh, may get affected.
Patel’s Concerns on Tibet were Driven by Class Rather Than National Interests
Sardar Patel was as much a secularist, as Pandit Nehru was a socialist. The duo could co-exist because Nehru was a willing warrior against communism and Patel agreed to keep RSS at bay. Patel wanted the RSS to dissolve into Congress. Nehru desired the communists to buy his half-baked socialism called the “socialistic pattern”. The two were diiferent to the extent that Nehru could hide his politics under the garb of ‘humanistic paternalism’ - While Patel's saffron slip showed. ...... Nehru who died 14-years later - almost succeeded in his objective to de-fang the communists. ....... Patel’s 07 November, 1950, letter to Nehru is cited as proof of former’s vision and latter’s myopia. .....

Patel did not have to inform Nehru. In 1949, speaking to Indian army officers in Srinagar Nehru had said, “Chinese revolution has upset the balance of power and the center of gravity has shifted from Europe to Asia thereby directly affecting India.“

....... It was well known in early 1950s that the US had embarked on a Soviet containment strategy. Willy-nilly both were too eager to be a part of this western game; because such a global game helped them tame the domestic communists like the BT Ranadive and EMS Namoodripad. ...... Patel wanted an all out aggression against China. Nehru’s approach was more nuanced. Much like the Americans, Nehru saw Mao’s communism as an opportunity drive a wedge in the Soviet camp as well as slice the Indian communist movement. ........ Nehru’s Tibet policy in the early 1950s was in tune with the American thought process. With the Korean front about to open up, America wanted the issue to only simmer and not blow up. Patel was in a hurry to join the western bandwagon and rhetoric on Tibet. And there in lay the genesis of India- China war of 1962. ...... the Chinese never questioned Patel’s tactics in Hyderabad or Kashmir, the question that we need to dispassionately ask is why did Patel shout about Tibet? ....... Post Independent India had been truncated and vast chunks of territory sacrificed at the altar of Western strategic imperatives - similarly, China too had been chipped (Taiwan, Macau, Tibet, and Hong Kong) by the transatlantic big bankers. ......

In 1950s our Air and Naval chiefs were still British - Nehru had PMS Blackette as his military advisor and Chester bowels as his international affairs guru. Under such circumstances, India was as independent as Afghanistan or Iraq is today.

...... The Pakistan front had been kindled through regular arms supplies and support on Kashmir from America. Therefore, any Indian leader who even thought of opening up the China front in the East could hardly be called a visionary. It is for this reason that on Sino-Indian question Patel should fall into the category of class warrior rather than a statesman. .....

The only explanation for these leaders and many others with similar ideological bent of mind is that they were driven by the interests of propertied elite rather than any larger national interests.

India’s Generic Shift From Nehru’s Suicidal Idealism To Patel’s Self Respecting Pragmatism
In this visit Modi-Abe duo gave a clear and unambiguous signal to their common bête-noir on who stands where in the most delicate triangle of today's Asia. ...... the fact that Indian President visited Vietnam via China only to ensure that he was not missed by the Chinese diplomatic radars on his visit to Vietnam. ...... What followed was something that was never seen or expected on such moments earlier during Congress dominated rule in New Delhi when bowing down to Chinese threats and hiding such events from the public view had come to stay as an accepted norm. Unlike ever in the past, instead of downplaying the Chinese incursion, the Indian Prime Minister strongly objected to this act of Chinese army and demanded his guest Mr. Xi to withdraw this aggression. Mr. Modi's argument that Chinese army could not have taken such a step without approval of its high command, Mr. Xi, who also happens to be the head of China's defence forces, had to eat the humble pie. Chinese army contingent vacated this aggression and moved back to its previous position by 9.45pm on the first night of its Commander-in-Chief's stay in India. .......... It also exposed the Chinese government's confused mind in dealing with the new Indian government under Mr. Modi. ......... In the same public speech before a select audience Mr. Xi's attempt to put down India as a 'small' and a 'regional' power did not contribute much in improving feelings on the Indian side either. ...... Chinese practice of issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal. ...... Looking at China's claims over Arunachal Pradesh as 'Southern Tibet' the issue appears to go from bad to worse in future more because of internal pressures in China than from India. Chinese think tanks and government controlled media has raised so much hype over past few years on Arunachal that it will be difficult for Mr. Xi's government to climb down. ....... China's offer to open Nathu La road for Indian Hindu pilgrims to visit Kailash Mansarovar will be seen as a welcome step in India. But this issue has its disadvantages also like a double edged knife. It has been seen that most pilgrims on return from the Yatra develop a feeling of hurt by seeing their holy place under Chinese control. ...... Mr. Modi's style of dealing with India's neighbours, China's foes and now with China surely marks a qualitative and generic shift of Indian polity from a six decade old Nehruvian suicidal idealism to a pragmatic and self respecting style for which Sardar Patel has been always remembered and respected.


Revisiting Nehru-Patel Differences
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, its first deputy prime minister were two towering figures of India’s anti-colonial freedom movement. Both were Mahatma Gandhi’s closest associates and wielded enormous influence within the Congress Party. But their worldviews differed widely, which reflected in their contrasting attempts to shape the trajectory of the freedom movement, the Indian constitution, issues related to integration of the reluctant princely states, and matters relating to combating communal violence. ..... Nehru admitted in a candid letter to Gandhi towards the end of the latter’s life that it was ‘true that there are not only temperamental differences between Sardar and me but also are differences in approach with regard to economic and communal matters’. The intensity of Nehru and Patel’s conflicting opinions were often matters of grave public speculation and embarrassment for the government. ....... proof of some ‘fundamental unity between the two’ ........ These tensions reached an acrimonious climax when Puroshottam Das Tandon supported by Patel defeated ‘Acharya’ J B Kriplani who had Nehru’s backing for the post of Congress President in 1950 ...... Nehru’s revulsion of Tandon interestingly stemmed from his alleged “communal and revivalist outlook" while Patel found him to be only a ‘little pro-Hindu’ ....... Patel also was subjected to unwarranted harassment by some of the Nehru’s female admirers. In his letter to Gandhi dated 7th January 1947, an emotional Patel expressed dismay at Mridula Sarabhai who ‘ha(d) made it her pastime to heap abuses upon (him)’. Patel alleged that she ‘(was) indulging in a nauseating propaganda that (Patel) want(ed) to get rid of Jawaharlal and also found a new Party’ ........ Manibehn, Patel’s daughter had also suspected Mridula Sarabhai and Padmaja Naidu conniving with Rafi Ahmed Kidwai to undermine her father’s position which adversely affected his health ...... It is true that despite their immense differences, both Nehru and Patel found a working relationship which endured till Patel’s death. But it was rendered possible in large measure by Patel’s deep sense of loyalty towards Gandhi, the Congress and the country. It is another matter that Gandhi promoted Nehru over Patel despite the latter enjoying the overwhelming confidence of the Congress Working Committee; an act which required truncation of inner party democracy ........ Nevertheless, Patel did not challenge Gandhi’s wisdom. Sarvepalli Gopal, Nehru’s rather sympathetic biographer, who was otherwise quite critical of Patel, conceded that Patel’s ‘stoic decency’ was a major factor which prevented a permanent schism between the two ...... After Patel’s demise, Nehru became the undisputed leader of the Congress party and ruled with an iron fist. The last semblance of internal democracy within the Congress had truly died with Patel. ..........

Nehru and Patel’s economic views differed drastically. Nehru envisioned a socialist India with the ‘elimination of profit in society…With social service and cooperation taking place of competition

....... He stopped short of forceful redistribution because he felt there was just too little money ........

Patel on the other hand believed that capitalism could be ‘purged of its hideousness’. A native Gujarati raised under the influence of the Swaminarayan Hindu sect, he did not view the spirit of enterprise with disdain.

For him, creation of wealth for ushering in societal prosperity was a desirable trait. He was unfairly charged of being in cahoots with capitalists such as GD Birla, to which he responded by stating that he enjoyed no personal property and that he considered friendship towards all irrespective of their creed or class his duty ....... Had Patel lived longer, it is doubtful if Nehru could have thrust his socialist agenda on the Indian economy. ...... Nehru and Patel’s foreign policies too were fundamentally opposed. Patel rightly questioned the legitimacy of India’s policy in delaying recognition to the state of Israel only to placate the sentiments of its Muslim citizens. He was also perturbed by the approach of Nehru towards the Chinese and was deeply anguished in India being unable to defend the right of the Tibetan people ........

Patel presciently warned Nehru that ‘while we regard the Chinese as friends, they do not regard us as their friends’.

..... Nehru ‘rule(d) out any major attack on India by China’. Moreover, he rejected Patel’s advice of modernizing the army and making adequate security provisions since it would ‘cast an intolerable burden on us, economic or otherwise and it would weaken our general defence position’ ....... Nehru’s brief tryst with disarmament was a disaster. The fate of Tibet and India’s China war can be attributed to Nehru’s lack of foresight, his reluctance to heed to the warnings of his peers, and ultimately his grave pretensions. ....... With regards to Pakistan, Nehru and Patel’s disagreements were further accentuated. Gandhi himself was a key player against Patel in this drama. He went on an indefinite fast in protest against

Patel withholding the payment of Rs 55 crore to Pakistan. Patel had judiciously deferred payment until the issue of Kashmir and its Hindu minorities was resolved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

India was under no obligation to pay the entire sum all at once. However, Gandhi’s fastidiousness and his failing health compelled Patel to yield to his demands. .......... for Nehru, as Harmans Singh states, ‘Sheikh Abdullah was the key to first exposing the fallacy of the two nation theory and then establishing the secular credentials of new India’ ...... how Nehru was seized with indecision until an infuriated Patel himself passed the order to carry Indian troops through air which prevented the fall of Srinagar ...... Later, Patel confessed to Baxi Ghulam Mohammad that he was unable to resolve the Kashmir problem since he did not enjoy Nehru’s confidence ...... The Muslim league secured 86.6% of the vote of the Muslim electorate with many pro-India nationalist Muslim candidates losing their deposits ...... post partition it was found India would be home to more Muslims than even Pakistan while large Hindu minorities were left behind in East and West Pakistan ............ Nehru’s policy of combating communalism rested on positioning himself as the paramount defender of Muslim interests while Hindu communal organizations like the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha had to be eliminated from public life. It did not matter that organizations like RSS were responsible for the safety of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs in certain riot torn areas of Pakistan ...... Patel, on the other hand, had a far more nuanced, just and pragmatic view of the situation. He was frank in admitting that the root cause of communal violence in India was the continued pogroms directed against Hindus in Pakistan, East and West. Patel was absolutely committed to securing the lives and property of Indian Muslims. ........ Manibehn had observed her father of ‘worrying day and night’ over the perils which awaited the Hindus in East Bengal, possibly not unlike those in the Pakistani provinces of ‘Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan and Frontier’ where Hindus were on the verge of being history. Patel was deeply anguished at the fate which had befallen those unfortunate Hindu women in Pakistan who were kidnapped, raped and forcibly converted by Islamic fundamentalists ....... Nehru admitted that Hindus were ‘terrified’ of living in Pakistan but immediately qualified with a specious generalization that there was ‘hardly a Muslim in Bengal or even Delhi who has a sense of safety’ ......... Patel believed in the principle of determined action for protection of minorities even at the risk of precipitating military conflict with Pakistan. Nehru believed that averting war was more important, even if it meant making unilateral concessions to Pakistan. This flawed generosity or rather appeasement was subject to exploitation by Pakistan. In fact, Nehru did not really avert wars, he merely deferred them. ....... the reality of partition through the ballot could not be ignored by Patel. ....... Later, RSS received a clean chit as it was not involved in the assassination of Gandhi.Similarly, with regards to the Hindu Mahasabha, Patel agreed that the organization was not involved in the conspiracy ...... Nehru had actually denied K M Munshi’s request on the grounds that a secular government could not engage in religious activity. ....... Patel’s name had long fallen into disuse by carefully crafted and wilful neglect until attempts by Narendra Modi to resurrect his memory and pay homage to his grand contributions in unifying India’s 500 odd princely states through creation of a ‘statue of unity’ ......

in life Patel was painted as ‘an enemy of the Muslims’.

...... a left wing daily published during Indira Gandhi’s early reign indulged in the calumny of dubbing Patel as “a die-hard reactionary, given to even communalism and chauvinism” and that he was “a drag on Nehru” .....

The differences between Nehru and Patel represent two competing worldviews. Nehru’s shaped India’s destiny for a bulk of its independent history. If Patel’s worldview gains currency, and eventually triumphs, India could well be on its way to fulfil its true potential.

Sardar Patel's Letter to Nehru on China dated 07 November,1950
Sardar Patel - A Himalayan Vision for Friendship & Amity
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, known as

the Bismarck of India

, took over as Independent India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minster at a time when the world situation was turbulent. ...... had Sardar Patel been in charge of external affairs, things would have been handled in a different way and perhaps our borders would have been much more settled and calmer without losing an inch in Kashmir to Pakistan. ....... To the surprise of many Sardar Patel was in favour of India’s continued membership to the Commonwealth. Pt Nehru was of the view that “Purna Swaraj” means severance of ties with the Commonwealth. ...... His pragmatic diplomacy made him to take a decision that no payment of cash-balances be made to Pakistan till Kashmir issue was settled. He advised Finance Minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty on 12th December 1947 to put off the payment of Rs 550 million to Pakistan. Mr. C.D. Deshmukh, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India approached Gandhi ji, who was already briefed by Pt Nehru and Mountbatten to believe that India was morally bound to transfer the balances to Pakistan . At that time Gandhiji’s fast unto death to restore communal harmony created a public perception that it was directed against Panel’s refusal to give the cash balances to Pakistan. That was the only time when we saw Patel yielding against his wishes and releasing money to Pakistan.

He was of the opinion that Pakistan was created under a nefarious design of the British.

Noted writer Prakash Nanda quotes in his book ' Sardar Patel's Foreign Policy'- "In fact, in one of his letters to industrialist G D Birla, Sardar Patel had clearly linked the creation of Pakistan to the unhindered access of the Western powers to oil in the Gulf region". .......

Sardar Patel was a great supporter of the African unity and wanted India to forge strong ties with African nations.

It’s a great coincidence that while our nation prepares to celebrate his birth centenary, one of the greatest followers of the Patel legacy, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi is hosting the African Summit , turning it into the biggest international event post independence.
India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you
“He said both countries should see each other's growth as an opportunity and not a challenge.”
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)