|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | AT HOME ABROAD | |||
|
November 18, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
'Why should we stop at getting parity with Pakistan?'
How Readers responded to Rajeev Srinivasan's columns
Date sent: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 10:22:27 -0800
Excellent article. Please mail this to the Indian negotiators and bill me the postal! Rajiv
Date sent: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Though I do agree with Rajeev, I fail to understand why we should stop at getting parity with Pakistan. We are a much bigger nation with best behaviour. We don't clandestinely sell our weapons technology or help other nations build N-weapons. The world can vouch for this. The famous politicians of yesteryear never really considered the sacrifices of our jawans while signing the Shimla Agreement and giving away what our jawans claimed by putting their lives at stake. It certainly is puzzling that India went to the UN to sort out the Kashmir issue then; and now, we do not want the UN in the picture. The clause that allows sub-critical tests should be treated as the main hurdle between India and the CTBT. Not only that, India must push forward its stance on reducing the nuclear alertness. We can even make this a bone of contention for not signing the CTBT. Let the US and other N-powers first reduce the level of alertness from a few seconds to a few minutes and then India will THINK about signing the CTBT. The world standard today is to go back on words by giving one excuse or the other. North Korea and Iraq are best examples. North Korea is certainly at its best in this game. India too can go back on the "Unilateral Moratorium", "No First Use", etc. which we have blurted out to the world by stating our compulsions. Pakistan and China have already been our favourite reasons. We can add in Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan too. Prakash
Date sent: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:02:16 PST
Congratulations. Rajeev Srinivasan is brilliant as usual. They should make this guy policy advisor or something for India!!!!
Baba Gurjeet Bedi
Date sent: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 02:14:03 EDT
Rajeev Srinivasan is quite right in suggesting that India's economic progress cannot rest upon any "cookie-cutter" model. Economics, like politics, must be the art of the possible. Pragmatism and adaptability, innovation in the face of change must govern. Still, two things should be clear: 1. India will prosper only if its masses prosper; and 2. infrastructure and education are prerequisites to national progress. Henry Ford was a major influence in world economics because he understood that for his business to prosper, his employees had to be able to buy the products they produced. This was not a macroeconomic theory but simple common sense. Nonetheless, his common sense observation is infinitely relevant. Businesses must pay better; taxation must minimise impositions upon the poor; wealth must be widely distributed. Economic democracy is economic security. Srinivasan is quite correct in seeing the creation of modern infrastructure as a sine qua non for Indian economic development. You can't put a modern factory into an area that has no electricity, no phones, no faxes, no roads, no bridges, no ports, yet expect it to produce quality goods and be able to get them to markets. And you can't expect illiterates to run modern equipment. Education, especially in English, is crucial to India's future. Another thing should also be clear: India must value NRIs for the network of trading partners and customers they represent in themselves and can produce through their contacts abroad. To the extent cultural trends in India seek to extinguish English and berate or cut off NRIs, these trends consign India to failure in isolation.
L Craig Schoonmaker
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 12:38:28 +0530
Dear Rajeev Srinivasan, I read your article. It was very good. I fully support your stand that the so-called pro-socialist groups are not justified in vilifying the capitalist model of growth merely because of its current failure. Your example of China was appropriate. Just because a model fails in a particular situation doesn't mean that it is permanently useless. Perhaps the export-led growth model, with a few modifications and touches here and there, can still be used by India to achieve the sky-high growth rates of the south-east Asian Tigers. I would, however, point out that the mixed economy model is conceptually sound. The failure of this model in India has again been due to implementation failures rather that conceptual or theoretical flaws. Vijay
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:50:38 -0400
Great articles. Everyone should reed this. Write many more like this. Shanmugasundaram
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:55:11 EDT
What a wonderful article! All encompassing, brilliant! Thanks a lot! Mukund Kher
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:33 -0500
The article should be an eye-opener to many of our Nehruvian (peace-loving) folks that unless one is secure, he can't be stable. By ending nuclear virginity, India has made it clear to the world that she can't be bullied around for the sake of a few colonial imperialists, much less, Pakistan. No country in the world has the moral right to stop India from going nuclear, as unlike these very countries, India never started a war before in history. India's Hindutva is much better than Pakistan's right wing Muslim fundamentalism that calls for blood. We folks in the US are proud that the BJP government had the guts to counter global blackmail with technological capability. Economic repercussions like sanctions don't mean much to India now, as no businessman tries to harm his own business interests in an economy whose market is huge. Kudos to our scientists and engineers who made this come true and also to Vajpayee and his team who made India's position unenviable by making it a potential nuclear power.
Srinivas Dharmaji
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:15:37 -0400
Very well said. Excellent. India made us proud.
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:30:58 -0700s
It is one of the most thought-provoking articles that I have read in my life. It truly makes me feel proud to be a citizen of a new India which is capable of defending itself against any MIGHT in the world.
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:30:00 -0600
Strident, but cogently argued. Vijay Luthra
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 06:58:36 +0530
Excellent piece. Very refreshing when considered against many who are apologetic about the tests, and apprehensive about the international thugs' retaliatory responses. S G V Mani
Date sent: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:19:41 -0700
It's about time we spoke out! I don't necessarily agree with the nuclear testing. But, I do agree with Rajeev on opposing the 'Western finger pointing'! Kudos Rajeev!
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:58:15 +0800
Very much true, every word that Rajeev writes is true. I hope more of us understand it. Only then can we have butter. Only the strong can claim peace. Cowards and weak can talk of peace and non-violence, that's all. Anurag
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:12:43 +0530
Excellent. Amit |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL
SHOPPING HOME | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK |
|