India's influence wanes on world stage

[someone]

Nations lose international influence and power when they are either militarily unprepared or floundering economically. We are still to recover psychologically from the humiliating military defeat inflicted by China in 1962. THEN… The 1962 conflict led to an adventurist Field Marshal Ayub Khan seeking to seize Kashmir and failing to do so, in a largely inconclusive conflict in 1965. This conflict had disastrous diplomatic consequences, with the once-friendly Soviet Union seeking the role of a mediator, while readying to supply weapons to Pakistan. India became a basket case, dependent on the Soviet Union for arms and on the US for IMF assistance, to deal with a balance of payments crisis. With begging bowl in hand, India sought American food aid, as chronic food shortages led people to the verge of starvation. Things turned for the better when Indian agriculture revived, through a “Green Revolution” spearheaded by then Agriculture Minister C. Subramaniam. The Soviet Union came out in support of an economically self-reliant, rhetorically Left-leaning Indian Government. The dark shadows of 1962 receded when, backed by the Soviet Union, India emerged victorious, while pitted against a Nixon-Mao-Yahya Khan Axis, in the 1971 Bangladesh conflict. By the early 1990s, however, the Soviet Union collapsed and we had to mortgage our gold reserves to stay afloat. A malevolent Clinton Administration was prepared to go to any length in pressurising the Russian Federation to end cooperation even in space with India, in a relentless effort to “cap, roll back and eliminate,” India’s nuclear weapons programme. Our prestige sank so low that we were humiliated in an ill-advised contest against Japan for a seat in the UN Security Council in 1997. It was only when the economic reforms and liberalisation initiated by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao took effect that India’s economy recovered, for India to withstand global economic sanctions, which the country faced after the nuclear tests of 1998. A chastened Bill Clinton visited India once he realised that it was pointless to sanction an economically vibrant country. The NDA Government under A. B. Vajpayee observed the fiscal prudence required to not let runaway inflation set in. The UPA-1 built on all these developments. Global nuclear apartheid against India ended, with India assuming a larger global profile by its participation in forums like G-8, G-20 and BRICS. …AND NOW But, the UPA political dispensation still remains wedded to populism and fiscal irresponsibility. Few remember that the economic disaster in 1991 followed a populist loan waiver for farmers by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh. Now, fiscal deficit has crossed 5 per cent of GDP, and growth is down to 5 per cent levels. A populist Environment Minister brought in regulations destined to inordinately delay project clearances. New investments are becoming scarce, as Indian entrepreneurs seek greener pastures abroad. Every rating agency, foreign investor and foreign government knows that India has become a difficult investment destination. BRICS FARCE It is now commonly mentioned that BRICS would be better served if India is replaced by Indonesia, where economic management is prudent and sound. The current joke is that while corruption is present everywhere in emerging markets, one sees “efficient corruption” in China, but “inefficient corruption” in India! With the current account deficit at 6.7 per cent of GDP in Q3 of 2012-13, it was ludicrous for New Delhi to be advocating a BRICS Investment Bank. India will be a relatively minor player, given China’s vast reserves and potential. This at a time, when observers believe that we may have to seek a bailout from the Western dominated IMF, whose influence the BRICS Bank is designed to erode. Reports from Durban that South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma did not bother to meet our Prime Minister, and was busy feting President Xi Jinping and President Putin, are disturbing. Moreover, while other Heads of Government were housed comfortably in Durban, Manmohan Singh was made to stay 40 kilometres away from the Conference venue. Indian prestige and credibility today are at its lowest in recent years. In Maldives, we have been out-manoeuvred by a wily President Waheed, who skilfully bought insurance from China and Pakistan. On Sri Lanka, we have vacillated in the UNHRC. In the process, we have gratuitously offended a friendly neighbor and not persuaded public opinion in Tamil Nadu of the merits of our stand. Moreover, we should ask ourselves whether our diplomacy has really helped a friendly Prime Minister, facing serious challenges from Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. These issues will hopefully, receive attention, when the Budget session of Parliament resumes.

And we talk about being a global power which can never be a case especially when we have such a soft leader. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-parthasarathy/indias-influence-wanes-on-world-stage/article4602927.ece

[jairamesh]

Boss, what is source?

[Crookbond]

Mentioning the source is out of fashion.

[BeautifulGame]

Such a wussy article :cantstop:

[ravishingravi]

Not sure if we ever were that influential.

[jairamesh]

The term BRIC is such a nonsensical invention by bankers.

[G_B_]

the source might be FirstPost...... and the problem with manmohan singh is that everybody knows its the gandhi clan (or a faction of it) who hold the real power. So its common knowledge that MMS is simply a person who occupies a post and has no real power.

[jairamesh]

the source might be FirstPost...... and the problem with manmohan singh is that everybody knows its the gandhi clan (or a faction of it) who hold the real power. So its common knowledge that MMS is simply a person who occupies a post and has no real power.

Theek hai

[someone]

India's influence wanes on world stage That's the source

[kubrickian]

I dont know if India's influence has waned but we have plenty of losers like Parthasarathy in our country who slit their wrists at the first sign of trouble. Spineless feckers.

[Lurker]

Not sure if we ever were that influential.

Yes we were quite influential. In some case we still are, but there has been a fall in certain areas for sure. A few reasons I can think of why this has happened: a) The fall of International organizations like NAM. At the height of cold war, NAM used to maintain its own. Even though India was in Soviet Block it was hardly a blind Soviet supporter. Most developing countries, Asian and African, did indeed look up to India at this point. Delhi was replete with International exchange students and just as American-studied students influenced world over, Delhi trained students did the same (look at Afganistan, their leaders were often read/educated in Delhi). b) Heavy politicization of India. Purely from the stature perspective the 60s-80s was maybe our Golden years. Our leaders specially Nehru and Indira Gandhi were well regarded on International Stage. I believe Shastri would have been too, but he died unfortunately too soon. Nehru was a world statesman regarded by the best of them and Indira was feared by top leaders. If you watch Indira Gandhi meeting a world leader and those that followed her do the same you see a clear distinction. Indira walked like she represented a top nation, MMS walks like he has a begging bowl. Only Vajpayee was different, but still not a difference maker. Unfortunately the heavy politicization of India means there is precious little written good about Indira Gandhi, or India or 70s/80s. There are no impartial journalists and like the IPL commentarors they are happy to yap about T20 whole day long. c) Slow but sure demise of Indian media/culture. There has been a steady demise of what I would call authentic Indian bent media, and definite growth of American influenced ones. In a largely disconnected world the influence was limited to copying a song here and there, today it is about copying everything. That has killed our intellactualism. It has also killed our thinking and risk taking abilities. Think of Parveen Babi and Zeenat Aman, for example. Can you conjure a modern day Indian actress who are as much of a rebel? There was always something ethereal beauty about them and yet downright sexy. A very Indian-esque if you will. Thats how Indian cinema was construed in West too. Not like today when there are 20 odd countries better than us in Asia itself. By the by, here is an oft-saught TIME cover of Praveen Babi in 1970s. That is a beautiful, smart and very confident woman right there. :nice:

[The Outsider]

Yes we were quite influential. In some case we still are, but there has been a fall in certain areas for sure. A few reasons I can think of why this has happened: a) The fall of International organizations like NAM. At the height of cold war, NAM used to maintain its own. Even though India was in Soviet Block it was hardly a blind Soviet supporter. Most developing countries, Asian and African, did indeed look up to India at this point. Delhi was replete with International exchange students and just as American-studied students influenced world over, Delhi trained students did the same (look at Afganistan, their leaders were often read/educated in Delhi). b) Heavy politicization of India. Purely from the stature perspective the 60s-80s was maybe our Golden years. Our leaders specially Nehru and Indira Gandhi were well regarded on International Stage. I believe Shastri would have been too, but he died unfortunately too soon. Nehru was a world statesman regarded by the best of them and Indira was feared by top leaders. If you watch Indira Gandhi meeting a world leader and those that followed her do the same you see a clear distinction. Indira walked like she represented a top nation, MMS walks like he has a begging bowl. Only Vajpayee was different, but still not a difference maker. Unfortunately the heavy politicization of India means there is precious little written good about Indira Gandhi, or India or 70s/80s. There are no impartial journalists and like the IPL commentarors they are happy to yap about T20 whole day long. c) Slow but sure demise of Indian media/culture. There has been a steady demise of what I would call authentic Indian bent media, and definite growth of American influenced ones. In a largely disconnected world the influence was limited to copying a song here and there, today it is about copying everything. That has killed our intellactualism. It has also killed our thinking and risk taking abilities. Think of Parveen Babi and Zeenat Aman, for example. Can you conjure a modern day Indian actress who are as much of a rebel? There was always something ethereal beauty about them and yet downright sexy. A very Indian-esque if you will. Thats how Indian cinema was construed in West too. Not like today when there are 20 odd countries better than us in Asia itself. By the by, here is an oft-saught TIME cover of Praveen Babi in 1970s. That is a beautiful, smart and very confident woman right there. :nice:

This post is so full of crap. Can't even think where to start. :facepalm:

[BeautifulGame]

Yes we were quite influential. In some case we still are, but there has been a fall in certain areas for sure. A few reasons I can think of why this has happened: a) The fall of International organizations like NAM. At the height of cold war, NAM used to maintain its own. Even though India was in Soviet Block it was hardly a blind Soviet supporter. Most developing countries, Asian and African, did indeed look up to India at this point. Delhi was replete with International exchange students and just as American-studied students influenced world over, Delhi trained students did the same (look at Afganistan, their leaders were often read/educated in Delhi). b) Heavy politicization of India. Purely from the stature perspective the 60s-80s was maybe our Golden years. Our leaders specially Nehru and Indira Gandhi were well regarded on International Stage. I believe Shastri would have been too, but he died unfortunately too soon. Nehru was a world statesman regarded by the best of them and Indira was feared by top leaders. If you watch Indira Gandhi meeting a world leader and those that followed her do the same you see a clear distinction. Indira walked like she represented a top nation, MMS walks like he has a begging bowl. Only Vajpayee was different, but still not a difference maker. Unfortunately the heavy politicization of India means there is precious little written good about Indira Gandhi, or India or 70s/80s. There are no impartial journalists and like the IPL commentarors they are happy to yap about T20 whole day long. c) Slow but sure demise of Indian media/culture. There has been a steady demise of what I would call authentic Indian bent media, and definite growth of American influenced ones. In a largely disconnected world the influence was limited to copying a song here and there, today it is about copying everything. That has killed our intellactualism. It has also killed our thinking and risk taking abilities. Think of Parveen Babi and Zeenat Aman, for example. Can you conjure a modern day Indian actress who are as much of a rebel? There was always something ethereal beauty about them and yet downright sexy. A very Indian-esque if you will. Thats how Indian cinema was construed in West too. Not like today when there are 20 odd countries better than us in Asia itself. By the by, here is an oft-saught TIME cover of Praveen Babi in 1970s. That is a beautiful, smart and very confident woman right there. :nice:

NAM was never taken any seriously by either US or USSR. And Nehru despite creating Nam blindly supported Sovietto lose any credibility it had to start with.

[Lurker]

This post is so full of crap. Can't even think where to start. :facepalm:

Start some place :winky:

[Lurker]

Although the article is specific about diplomacy, it may not be a bad idea to open up the discussion a bit more. Here is another (irrelevant perhaps) angle- Yandex Just Passed Bing to Become 4th Largest Global Search Engine The top 5 search engines on the world today: Google(US) Baidu (China) Yahoo (US) Yandex (Russia) Bing (US) http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2242374/Yandex-Just-Passed-Bing-to-Become-4th-Largest-Global-Search-Engine?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Chinese and Russian search engines are the only ones challenging US. Where are the multi billion dollar Indian IT giants? By the by, this reminds me of Fidelity holding a stock seminar at a place I worked for and recommending certain stocks. One of the stocks they recommended was Baidu, the recommendation being it is used by all Chinese. Someone in the crowd mentioned if Chinese used Baidu what do Indians use? The expert replied Oh they all use Google, in a burst of laughter. I think the larger question here is not so much about our influence, but also of our identity. And if we do not have a definite identity do you really expect a lot of influence?

[youngindia]

Chinese and Russian search engines are the only ones challenging US. Where are the multi billion dollar Indian IT giants?

that's not a realistic question. developed countries can handle high end projects and also have the personnel for it. china and india are emerging power with pockets of high end work. but generally doing low end to mid end work.china maybe a decade ahead of us but a poor man's russia. russia ofcourse has been in the second world for a long time.but not as good as the west except in pockets. its difficult to see a google or microsoft out of china or india for the next 20 years with the socio economic factors involved. even the next generation of jobs and gates are likely to be american citizens. baidu and lenovo are like milestones in a long journey. the indian giants are service based.product companies in india do niche work .no world class product on the horizon.

[youngindia]

this article is a pain.why can't immature souls understand ups and downs are part of life. the entire world is in a slowdown. india 's opportunities were missed when the SE asian nations followed a similar model of being a low end manufacturing base and graduating to higher levels with ebtter education. right now,china has completely turned into the world's factory. the task is to grab the manufacturing pie finally as wages in china become higher -not a mean task considering the weak infra and sloth governments. also education means a ticket out of poverty and its up to individual families.

[Lurker]

this article is a pain.why can't immature souls understand ups and downs are part of life. the entire world is in a slowdown.

Not sure about the whole slowdown thing, but you are right about the ups and downs of life. If one takes India out of the equation, isn't the same (influence on the wane on world stage) true for most countries in the world? Russia of today clearly does not have the same clout as USSR of 60s/70s/80s. England, France & Germany have their strength in numbers. None of these countries can do jack on their own. If France would have declared war on Iraq without USA support world would have laughed at them, and very doubtful if England can pull out another Falkland war today. Even USA, inspite of being Superpower, finds itself in that situation today. It is often mocked, laughed and made fun of by un-friendly country. Of course bad economy has not helped the situation either. So yes it does seem to be a global phenomenon although as an Indian one obviously expect the Indian influence to be on the up and not down.

[Lurker]

that's not a realistic question. developed countries can handle high end projects and also have the personnel for it. china and india are emerging power with pockets of high end work. but generally doing low end to mid end work.china maybe a decade ahead of us but a poor man's russia. russia ofcourse has been in the second world for a long time.but not as good as the west except in pockets.

This I dont agree with. In my opinion the issue is two folds: a) We are lacking on innovation side. Young companies who do not have the same infrastructure as large companies come up with their own unique disruption model. This is what Japanese and Koreasn car manufactures have done against American car and won handsomely. I see some of this on more traditional businesses in India - TATA Steel competes with the best of then, and Indian Hotel companies are widely respected around the world. Unfortunately not the same case with IT. b) Language issue. The success of Baidu and Yandex shows the use of an App built on a native language. We have accorded that respect to English, hence we may have shot ourselves in the foot on some levels. (It remains to be seen though as I suspect we are in a churning phase and only history will prove us right, or wrong)

[Crookbond]

b) Language issue. The success of Baidu and Yandex shows the use of an App built on a native language. We have accorded that respect to English, hence we may have shot ourselves in the foot on some levels. (It remains to be seen though as I suspect we are in a churning phase and only history will prove us right, or wrong)

Before you make that assertion, make very well note that the success of these apps are native to their countries/languages. Also, both these search engines cater to 1 mass global language in their respective countries. Unlike China and Russia, India is a segregated market when it comes to languages and hence economies of scale for search engines do not work. That said, there are flavors of local linguistic apps but they haven't caught up as far as Baidu or Yandex due to the aforementioned reasons.