India Votes - and How!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whatever mohar

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

From Rediff:

25% of Chinese job growth comes from FDI

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. Next time.

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

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

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

#453, #454 by harimau

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

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

#459 by rahul_capri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref jayabharti68 #448

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

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

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

My post was written more in sadness than in anger.

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

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

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

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

Are Sikhs allowed to carry their kirpan on board planes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I repeat, who is substituting myth for facts here?

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

Ref jayabharti68 #448

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

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

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

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

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

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

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