Indo-UK relations: UK PM David Cameron tries to cultivate a "special relationship"

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
PM David Cameron ought to realize India doesn't really care about the UK and that the UK has any influence whatsoever on India. You are here to beg money, we know but what will you give us in return and what can you give us in return ?
precisely what has got me wondering, as to what is it that PM cameron gets to the table.

one big concession which might go out could be an invisible quota for indians for immigration to that country, but i doubt if this were to happen will there be any public mention to it.
other than that there was a very important question put forth to their foreign minister by the head of hindi service of the bbc, as to will they officially recognize india as the 6th nuke state and there was a dilly dally answer to that.
over and above all this with the global economic situation improving and indian cos lining up funds for overseas acquisitions, i am sure there will be a lot of stress from the indian side to get a favorable view from the torries over all such M&A in the uk.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
precisely what has got me wondering, as to what is it that PM cameron gets to the table.

one big concession which might go out could be an invisible quota for indians for immigration to that country, but i doubt if this were to happen will there be any public mention to it.
other than that there was a very important question put forth to their foreign minister by the head of hindi service of the bbc, as to will they officially recognize india as the 6th nuke state and there was a dilly dally answer to that.
UK can not take firm stand on recognizing India as nuke state without clearing its intentions to NATO or mainly US. Clearly the Cameron Gov isnt even internally united to go on with India on highway since difference exists on many policies including economic revival, intelligence sharing. I do not expect any strong impact of this visit, its just good-will meeting i will say unless our babus have some very lucrative candies to offer.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
UK can not take firm stand on recognizing India as nuke state without clearing its intentions to NATO or mainly US. Clearly the Cameron Gov isnt even internally united to go on with India on highway since difference exists on many policies including economic revival, intelligence sharing. I do not expect any strong impact of this visit, its just good-will meeting i will say unless our babus have some very lucrative candies to offer.
You are right. This is most high profile visit from Britain after independence but its one of least publicized visit of any foreign premier in India. very little coverage as we all know no one is going to gain anything from it .
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
David Cameron accused of stoking anti-Western feeling on the streets of Pakistan

David Cameron was accused of stoking "anti-Western" feeling on the streets of Pakistan after accusing the Islamic nation of promoting the "export of terror" in Afghanistan and around the world.

In words which were greeted with indignation in Islamabad, the Prime Minister also suggested that Pakistan had links with terrorist groups, and was guilty of double dealing by aligning itself with both the West and the forces it was opposing.
Mr Cameron's attack was even more unwelcome given that he was speaking during a visit to India, Pakistan's neighbour and great military rival.Further inflaming the situation, the Prime Minister announced that export controls on British companies selling nuclear technology and secrets would be lifted, and two UK firms signed a £700 million deal to supply Hawk fighter jets.
Mr Cameron's remarks came during a question and answer session following a speech in Bangalore, after he was asked by a member of the audience why the UK was pouring money into Pakistan, given reports that it was linked to the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks.
A leak on the whistleblowing website Wikileaks of unverified US intelligence this week suggested that Pakistan had given support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Mr Cameron said: "We can not tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.
"It should be a relationship based on a very clear message: that it is not right to have any relationship with groups that are promoting terror.
"Democratic states that want to be part of the developed world can not do that."
Pakistan responded with alarm to Mr Cameron's words. Abdul Basit, spokesman for the Pakistan Foreign Ministry, said: "Pakistan is fully committed against militancy and terrorism anywhere in the world as we ourselves are victims of this hydra-headed menace."
Senator Khurshid Ahmad, vice-president of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami Party warned that Mr Cameron's remarks risked fuelling "anti-American, anti-West" feeling on the streets.
He told the BBC's World at One: "I am deeply concerned. The basis on which this statement has been made is very fragile."
Later, Mr Cameron appeared to soften his strong line, insisting that he had only meant to suggest that any support for terrorism from "within Pakistan" was unacceptable.
He told Radio 4's Today Programme: "I choose my words very carefully,"
A Downing Street spokesman added: "The Prime Minister is not suggesting that the government of Pakistan is a sponsor of terrorism, but he is saying, as he has said previously, that the Pakistan government needs to do more to shut terror groups down."
Earlier, No 10 confirmed that the decision to lift a ban on the export of nuclear technology and components to India for civilian use came in the face of official Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence advice not to do so.
British companies will be free to strike deals worth billions of pounds under the new regime which will be based on a "presumption" that export licences will be granted unless there are specific concerns about a deal.
As part of the move, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will take part in a £2.4 million programme with the Indian Vivha Atomic programme to develop research.
As Mr Cameron was speaking, Royal Navy submarines were taking part in secret naval war games off the coast of Goa.
The whereabouts of British warships is usually kept a closely-guarded secret, with Ministry of Defence officials refusing to confirm even which ocean a particular sub is operating in.
But hours before the games began, the Times of India published full details of the exercise, in which the "hunter-killer" Trafalgar Class HMS Talent was tasked with tracking down the Indian sub INS Shankush.
As part of the enhanced cooperation on counter-terrorism, Mr Cameron also announced that the United Kingdom and India would help each other to guard a series of forthcoming sporting events, including the 2012 London Olympics as well as the Commonwealth Games which take place in Delhi.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Keith Vaz, the Indian-origin British MP, has raised voice on the need for Kohinoor diamond to be returned to India and asks Prime Minister David Cameron to discuss the issue of its return during his visit to India. http://www.istream.in
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
If a country comes with an offer of friendship we shouldn't kick them away. Brits want to feel they are important, then we should play along, host state dinners, ask the media to give a little more coverage, have a joined press conference covered live by the television channels, so on and so forth. Britain is clearly weak but they could still be of great help in many international affairs, if they wanted to be treated with great deal of importance then lets give them that, after all we are not going to lose anything by doing all this.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Contrast the way in which British PM David Cameron defended his interests (berating Pak for exporting terror worldwide),while India's Min of MEA,Krishna criticised our own Home Sec. for saying virtually the same thing!

David Cameron defends 'plain speaking' on Pakistan

David Cameron has embarked on a new era of 'plain spoken' foreign policy it emerged today as he defended his robust criticism of Pakistan.

No 10 said that the Prime Minister had no intention of rowing back from his warning to Pakistan that the country must not "promote the export of terror" around the world.
Islamabad warned that his words had made the region more unstable.During a series of interviews in Pakistan's great rival, India, where he is on a three-day trade mission and where his words have been welcome, he insisted that he had a duty to say what he thought.
"I don't think the British taxpayer wants me to go around the world saying what people want to hear," he said.
Asked if his remarks had "overshadowed" his visit, he added: "I don't think it's overshadowed anything.
"I think it's important to speak frankly and clearly about these issues. I have always done that in the past and will do so in the future."
Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari is due to visit Mr Cameron at his country retreat Chequers next week.
Striking a somewhat molifying tone, Mr Cameron insisted that he had not meant to accuse the president or government, but blamed "people within Pakistan".
Earlier in the trip, following a speech in the Turkish capital of Ankara, Mr Cameron was also criticised by Israel for comments he made about Gaza, after he claimed Palestinians there were forced to live in a 'prison camp'.
A Downing Street source said: "The Prime Minister believes in plain speaking. This is how he intends to conduct his foreign policy."
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, who is also on the trip, insisted that far from blundering, Mr Cameron was a "natural diplomat'.
In a briefing in Delhi he said: "The Prime Minister is very consistent wherever he is.
"He doesn't shrink from giving sometimes tough messages.
"The Prime Minister is a great diplomat and I see that in action every day when he is dealing with foreign leaders.
"He is a natural at it. "The Prime Minister speaks the truth and we are all united and clear about what he said."
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Brit PM rules out returning Kohinoor to India

IANS
Posted on Jul 29, 2010 at 15:33

New Delhi: British Prime Minister David Cameron visiting has clearly ruled out the return of the Kohinoor diamond to India, saying if such demands were agreed to, it would lead to empty rooms in British Museums.
"I know there is also a great argument about the original provenance of the Kohinoor diamond. I'm afraid this will disappoint viewers, but it's going to have to stay put," Cameron said in an interview to a news channel.
The issue about the fabled diamond, which was mined in the Deccan and is now part of the British crown jewels, had been raised by British MP of Indian origin Keith Vaz just before Cameron began his two-day visit to India.

Vaz had said in a statement: "I believe that this is the perfect opportunity for the prime minister to discuss the issue of the Kohinoor. It would be very fitting for the Kohinoor to return to the country in which it was mined so soon after the diamond jubilee of the Indian republic and 161 years after its removal from India."
Cameron, however, pointed out that the return of the diamond would set a precedent, which could lead to the emptying of museums in Britain.
"What tends to happen with these questions is that if you say yes to one, you suddenly find the British Museum will be emptied," he asserted.
Greece has also been vocal about its demand for return of the marble frieze looted from the Parthenon by the Earl of Elgin 200 years ago.
India and Britain will be signing a bilateral deal related to culture during Cameron's visit that ends on Thursday.
Jeremy Hunt, the British secretary of state for culture, media and sports, pointed out that Cameron's trip was "to discuss about cultural exchanges and to create a climate for holding several cultural exchange programmes."
But he parried the on whether Britain was open to exhibiting the Kohinoor in India saying, "it's a controversial issue and (he) would not like to comment".
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
David Cameron's over-the-horizon strategic thinking on India is viewed as both visionary and consistent. India was the first country he visited after becoming Conservative leader in Britain in 2006. He appreciated then what many were still reluctant to embrace: global power was shifting
related stories

* Pak, stop terror export: UK PM

fundamentally away from the dominance of the developed, industrialised West.

"India, one of the great civilisations of the world, is truly great again," he wrote four years ago. "So this is India's time. For most of the past half century, we in the West have assumed that we set the pace and we set the global agenda. Well, now we must wake up to a new reality. We have to share global leadership with India, and with China."

Cameron's appreciation then is British government policy now.

The Conservative election manifesto three months ago also found space to promise specifically establishing "a new special relationship" with India. That commitment had a place among the bleak policy options for a Britain that confronted having to take severe measures to pull itself out of recession and massive debt.

Less than three weeks after the British election in May, Queen Elizabeth read to the State opening of her new parliament in Westminster this single, sharp line

that confirmed the policy of the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government: "My government looks forward to an enhanced partnership with India."

So two Cameron phrases: "Special relationship" and "Enhanced partnership". Special? Enhanced? What might the difference be? The political commitment for new British relations with India in those four words must now find shape and direction that can somehow secure achievement. There is not much time to achieve it. Neither is there great clarity on what form it will take.

Like Cameron's intriguing but shapeless British election promise of a new 'Big Society' earlier this year, there is now an overarching expectation for India. But an achievable ambition and meaning must now be defined for those two alluring phrases. Both in Britain and here in India, official and unofficial sources give 10 Downing Street's ambitions a fair wind. Yet there is also diplomatic head-scratching, plus an understandable caution laced with scepticism.

In London the current Britain-India relationship is one of 'under-achievement' that has gone off the boil, partly because of the negative legacy left by the previous Labour government over Kashmir and diplomatic style. It is like a "long-standing marriage where there is a need to inject more excitement and ambition". The aspiration must be a "newer and even deeper relationship".

In Delhi, I have heard warm official appreciation for Britain from senior political voices like those of the Union Transport and Highways Minister Kamal Nath, and Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit. Even with the new cacophony of fast-growing international attention from the US, Russia, France, Japan, Canada and many other countries, they volunteered to me that Britain still has a 'special' place. And it is nothing to do with being the ex-colonial power. I have heard under 30s here describe how Britain now has 'special' resonance with India's next generation for a host of reasons. But that is not apparently matched in Britain.

Cameron's India focus seven days after visiting President Barack Obama in the White House is not bringing with him even a measurable minority of Brits. The leading think-tank, Chatham House, is undertaking an ongoing appraisal of Britain's new place in the world. It commissioned polling on the host of foreign policy initiatives from the new coalition government. Despite the Cameron determination, it discovered apparent indifference on India. The British public is not that interested.

In two separate British samples of both the general public and elite 'movers and shakers', the idea of an 'enhanced partnership' with India found little interest. YouGov concluded two weeks ago: "The poll shows ambivalence from the general public, with a low score in both positive and negative perceptions of the country." But Cameron wants his initiative of bringing senior ministers and 90 leading businessmen with him to fan out to several leading Indian cities to start what must be a long, determined re-asserting of a new British relationship with India.

As one diplomatic source said, two days will only lay a foundation stone here. Meanwhile, the imagination back home of a British public coming to terms with the new realities of economic austerity will somehow have to be fired up. Britain must sustain its new efforts for India in parallel with many other nations. It, too, recognises its vital need to adjust and realign itself with India's new economic and political power.

The simultaneous red carpet treatment given by India this week for a five-day State visit by the reclusive leader of Burma's junta General Than Shwe underscores the variety of foreign policy priorities for India. Within weeks, Presidents Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy will be here. Like Cameron, each will reinforce the US, Russian and French claims for a new place in India's attentions. The British challenge is to ensure Delhi remembers London's calling card, along with the hopes and promises.

Why? Because other leaders will be leaving their own cards just as loudly and hopefully. And they will do it not long after the Cameron entourage has boarded its British Airways jumbo jet within sight of Indira Gandhi International's sparkling, newly- opened Terminal 3, and returned home.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-Britain-ties-mind-the-gap/H1-Article1-579171.aspx
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
What have the Indians ever done for us?


What have they done to deserve a "special relationship"? You'd think the answer is a clear "duh, nothing!" from the comments made on my earlier blog post. They reveal a Britain caught in inside a billiard ball state, where globalisation might yet, if we fight to the last, be held at bay a while longer, and where Indians are lucky blighters to be here.
Some respondents ask if I've lost my mind in suggesting we can't have more Indian business without welcoming more Indians. "India needs to be told to get stuffed," wrote one, while another asks: "Are you insane Mr Nelson ? Or do you live in a different world to the one I inhabit?"
She is right. I live in a country where growth is at nine per cent, but come from a country where it languishes at just one per cent. Where I live is full of hope and optimism, and British cabinet ministers pleading for more business, and where I'm from is full of fear.
Britain needs David Cameron's mission to be successful, but for that to happen we need to be warmer in our attitudes towards the Indians who have given so much to Britain over the last three or four centuries. The truth is Indians have made us what we are today. In fact without India, Britain may never have come into being.
It's largely forgotten in England and Wales that the 1707 Union with Scotland was sealed on the prospect of Scottish families gaining access to the East India Company, and specifically its trade in India. This is why today there are villages throughout Punjab where men still learn to play the bagpipes and wear tartan kilts (with turbans) for weddings.
India gave Britain vast wealth through its supply of cheap raw materials to British mills, but it also helped to protect our freedom and independence in two world wars. One million Indians served and 60,000 died in the First World War, Pavan K. Varma reveals in his excellent book Becoming Indian, while two and a half million Indians fought for Britain in the Second World War.
Britain's colonial adventure in India changed the food we eat, the beer we drink, and the English we speak. The blob of HP Sauce on the side of your "Full English" has its origins in India, along with Worcestershire sauce, piccalilli and Camp Coffee (Ready? Aye Ready!), not to mention our love of Mulligatawny, kedgeree and Chicken Tikka Masala. There would have been no need for India Pale Ale (IPA) had our Tommies never been stationed in India and our beloved Gin and Tonic really came of age because of its anti-malarial properties.
Our ladies wear bangles, our children dungarees, Moss Bros rent cummerbunds and millions of Britons living in suburbia dwell in bungalows. Our thugs get sent to chokey so we can relax in our pyjamas"¦ we wash our hair with shampoo, get water from the tank, occasionally enjoy a tiffin lunch, scold our children for eating too much candy, and, until the slump, generally enjoyed a cushy life. We listen to pundits until we go doolally. The list is endless, but my personal favourites are the Sid James classic "randy" (which derives from the Hindi word rand for prostitute) and, childishly I'll admit, "goolies", which is course derives from gol for circle or ball.
Britain of course created modern India, built the heart of its major cities – Mumbai and Calcutta still feel recognisably British, while New Delhi was modelled by Lutyens on our garden cities– its railways and its legal and political institutions. It is often forgotten, in both Britain and India, that the Congress Party which still dominates the country's politics and government more than sixty years after its independence was founded by Allan Octavian Hume, a retired colonial civil servant, who summed up his hopes for India in this verse:
Sons of Ind, why sit ye idle,
Wait ye for some Deva's aid?
Buckle to, be up and doing!
Nations by themselves are made!
India eventually took his advice and created the country whose business we are so desperate to share today. To succeed, Britain will need to be reminded how much we already owe India, the part it played in making us what we are, and why the "shared history" we have is much more equally shared than those who obsess about immigration realise.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
INDIA AND THE UK: Equal partners in education and research

Alya Mishra
29 July 2010



Britain's partnership with India on education, research and innovation, should be a partnership of equals in recognition of India's growing economic importance, UK prime minister David Cameron said on a visit to the sub-Continent this week.

From now on each country will pitch in an equal amount of money. This marks a shift from previous decades when Britain was the bigger partner, largely funding the setting up of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs).

In a speech in Bangalore on 28 July, Cameron said: "Education is not just vital for national success, it is one of the best growth businesses of the 21st century. I want us in Britain and India to pool some of our advantages for our mutual benefit."

Britain announced the second phase of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI), committing £2.5 million (US$3.9 million) over the next five years while India will match the sum via its University Grants Commission.

Through the UKIERI collaboration the two nations will join hands to set up new institutes, increase skills development programmes, hold leadership programmes and work on quality assurance of courses offered to students.

"The relationship has changed from mentor to partner. When India was setting up the first IITs (in the 1960s) it did not have either expertise or money. Now we have both and can look at the UK as an equal," a senior Indian government official said.

Since 2006 UKIERI has overseen around 500 new UK-Indian partnerships, from schools through to higher education, which are helping to drive world-class research into issues such as climate forecasting, biomedicine and oceanography.

Cameron also said that some of Britain's aid to India could be redirected to education. This was in response to domestic calls for Britain's development aid to India to be scaled back, now that India is emerging economically.

In an interview with the BBC while he was in India, Cameron said: "Education is another area where aid money can be used in some circumstances to grow educational opportunities in India that are also opportunities for Britain."

The British government has encouraged UK universities to internationalise their higher education provision and seek out Indian partners to develop mutually beneficial research projects, skills programmes, exchange schemes and complementary curricula.

The two countries are already collaborating on a new IIT at Ropar in Punjab, and the new Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) in Pune, with five UK universities involved, including London's Imperial College.

"The delegation is keen to extend the India-UK collaboration further to include diverse fields such as energy, food security, water, urban development, sustainability, public health, cultural heritage and English language at undergraduate and higher levels," the Indian official said.

India's proposal to set up Innovation Universities, as the 14 new centres of excellence are known, has also found favour with the UK, which has formally expressed interest in developing these and other institutions.

While visiting IIT Madras, David Willetts, UK higher education and science minister, one of a handful of ministers accompanying Cameron to India, said: "Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, Essex, Birmingham, Newcastle, Exeter and the Open University are eager to forge links during the design and eventual creation of the new innovation universities."

He said he would be visiting India again in November, accompanied by leading British university vice chancellors, to establish a framework for collaboration between British institutions and the innovation universities.

"The UK already has more than 80 university-related collaborations up and running in India, making us the most active international partner here. We seek to move things on substantially," Willets said.

The Indian government is keen to welcome foreign universities to set up campuses in India, which will be permitted by the Foreign Education Institutions Bill, currently going through parliament, and leading British universities are keen to collaborate.

Willets said he was confident that future co-operation would bring more UK students to India.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
India, U.K. CEOs forum to be set up

New Delhi, July 29 : India and the United Kingdom on Thursday agreed to set up an India-UK CEOs Forum and an India-UK Infrastructure Group besides working to double up bilateral trade in five years.


Speaking during a joint press meet in the national capital, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said: "We have decided to constitute an India-UK CEOs Forum and an India-UK Infrastructure Group. We will work towards doubling our trade in five years. Building upon past experience, we have also agreed to launch a new phase of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative. We will intensify bilateral exchanges at all levels."

Describing India and the United Kingdom as "natural partners for shaping a better world", Dr. Singh said: " If we join hands together, we can make a meaningful contribution to addressing the challenges of poverty and development, reform of global institutions, terrorism and climate change."

Dr. Singh said that Prime Minister Cameron has a distinguished political career and he brings with him the finest qualities of leadership and a bold vision for Britain and a better and safer world.

Stating that Cameron's presence in India, so soon after his election victory in May this year, indicates the strength of the bonds that tie India and the United Kingdom, Dr. Singh said: "It also demonstrates the Prime Minister's strong personal commitment to take our partnership to an even higher level of understanding and purpose."
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
David Miliband calls the Prime Minister a 'loudmouth'

David Miliband has criticised Prime Minister David Cameron, accusing him of being a ''loudmouth'' over his remarks about Pakistan's record on terrorism.

The former Foreign Secretary was speaking as the row continued over comments Mr Cameron made during his trip to India.
Mr Miliband said there was a ''big difference between straight talking and being a loudmouth'' as he claimed Mr Cameron had been ''going off script'' in recent public statements.The Labour leadership contender said everyone had ''two ears and one mouth'' and it was important to use them ''in that proportion'' when it came to foreign policy.
Mr Cameron caused anger in Islamabad when he warned that Pakistan should not be allowed ''to promote the export of terror'' in the world.
But the Prime Minister denied his comments had overshadowed his trip and maintained that he had good relations with Pakistan, whose president will be visiting him at his country retreat, Chequers, next week.
''I don't think it's overshadowed anything,'' he said. ''I think it's important to speak frankly and clearly about these issues. I have always done that in the past and will do so in the future.''
But he did not repeat the phrase in a series of broadcast interviews, but stressed that he was talking about ''people within Pakistan'' who are responsible for terror rather than the country's government.
Mr Miliband accused Mr Cameron of only ''telling half the story'', pointing out that thousands of innocent civilians in Pakistan had been killed by terrorism.
Put to him that it was ''pretty strong'' to accuse the Prime Minister of being a loudmouth he said: ''Well, I think there is a big difference between straight-talking and being a loudmouth.
He told BBC Radio 4's The World At One: ''It is very, very important that the Prime Minister, who in three unscripted appearances at press conferences has gone off script and has said, as I say, in the Pakistan case half the story, understands that we have got two ears and one mouth and it is very important to use them in that proportion.''
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
British PM David Cameron speaks to NDTV: Full transcript


New Delhi: British Prime Minister David Cameron who is on a visit to India, spoke about UK's relation with Pakistan, WikiLeaks, British economy and Kate Moss among others in an exclusive interview to NDTV's Dr Prannoy Roy.

Here is the full transcript of the interview:

Prannoy Roy: Good evening and welcome to this very special interview. It's for the British Prime Minister David Cameron. Just 43 years old, the youngest Prime Minister in 198 years. I am not going to ask him what he feels like mixing around with all of us in India, but he has just moved into 10 Downing Street from Notting Hill Gate or North Kenzington.

David Cameron: We had a family home in North Kenzington

Prannoy Roy: What's it like? What was the move like?

David Cameron: It's a big change because you are used to living at home with your family and then suddenly you are living above the office, so it is a big change and it doesn't feel like home, I hope I will get used to it.

Prannoy Roy: Did you do any fixture or fitting change, kitchen furniture?

David Cameron: So far hardly anything, there is number 10 Downing Street, there is number 11. We have started living above number 10 and we hope to move to number 11. We are making some changes to the flat because a new baby on the way.

Prannoy Roy: Yes ...yes?

David Cameron: So we need to make some preparation.

Prannoy Roy: So it's getting back to making a home again?

David Cameron: That's right ...that's right. It is only that you are very close to the office and you walk out of your front room and go down the stairs and suddenly everyone is working on computers... so it's a short trip to work but it makes it feel less like home if you are top of the office.

Prannoy Roy: Well you can get used to staying at 10 Downing Street because you are a young man and you are going to get re-elected.

David Cameron: Well, we've just had an election ...we didn't quite...my party didn't quite win an overall majority so we formed this coalition government which you are used to in India but it's very new for us. But it's working well and we have a good relationship and a good partnership and it means we have majorities in both our Upper House and Lower House. We are able to get things done and look at long term.

Prannoy Roy: Did you compromise a lot?

David Cameron: We had to make some compromises. Coalition involves compromise.

Prannoy Roy: One that hurt a bit?

David Cameron: There's some of the policy on tax and crime, something we had to change. But I'd like to think that we have a lot of conservative policies which we are producing, very important particularly in getting our deficit under control, getting our economy growing again and making Britain one of the most enterprising...making a change but making us an enterprising country again.

Prannoy Roy: There are two things I would like to focus on in this discussion - your whole thrust over change and this special relationship with India, which was in the Queen's speech and about which you wrote and spoke. So coming to this change you want to bring about...when your predecessor government came here, they made some fairly controversial statements about Kashmir which created bit of bad blood and negative attitude between the two countries. what's your stand on Kashmir?

David Cameron: Well, we want India and Pakistan to have good relations, to have good dialogue and to discuss and settle these issues.

Prannoy Roy: But you don't intend to mediate? You think this is India's issue?

David Cameron: I don't think Britain is in a great place to mediate on this issue and we welcome the fact that India and Pakistan have had more contact but it is for you to decide.

Prannoy Roy: So I would say that's the first change from what Miliband and Cook said. You call that a change?

David Cameron: Well I don't seek to draw a dividing line and a division. I will handle this relationship and the important issues in a way that I think is right. When I came to India, one of the first trips I made was to the leader of the opposition back in 2006, because I think there is a real opportunity for Britain and India to have to have a real strong partnership for the future. Of course, we have had this great relationship going in the past... we have shared history and language and culture, but it is the future I am interested in for our economies, what we can do together on so many global issues....climate change and security. We should be working together and I think that's what this opportunity is about and that's why although I have been Prime Minister only for few months, I wanted to come to India as fast as I could to make a case for this relationship.

Prannoy Roy: I will tell you another change which you just brought about. You you came to India because Obama first went to China then he is coming to India, Gorden Brown first went to China then came to India. You have come to India before China... is that part of the special relationship?

David Cameron: This relationship is special because of the history we share and what I hope we are going to do for the future but I don't think people should read too much into it....for a country like Britain it's not just India or China...you know we have to have a relationship with all countries. But with India, as we are two democracies... as we believe in the rule of law... well I have come and it is received positively.

Prannoy Roy: But you have come here first?

David Cameron: Right and also bringing with me, which I think is important, a plane full of not just business leaders but some of businesses' best leaders, also leaders of our top museum, great sporting stars, people involved in the cultural industry. Because I think this relationship is about business, but it is also about defence and security and culture and sport and it is also a relationship between the British people and the Indian people as well and the politicians and the diplomats.

Prannoy Roy: You know I have interviewed Gordon Brown two to three times...once I interviewed him and there was this huge scandal and was over-shadowed by the Shilpa Shetty episode in England...that was not the best time to come to India... but you have come at the time when these wikiLeaks have come out. I need to ask you about your Af-Pak policies because that affects us directly. You have said very clearly you will not deal with Taliban till they give up arms and violence right?

David Cameron: Yes, there are really three conditions - we want Taliban to give up weapons, we want them to divide themselves from Al-Qaida and we want them to accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution. But it is for Afghanistan to lead this process of political reconciliation and it is important . But it goes alongside the military surge... we are saying increase in the British troops and the American troops so we are protecting more of the people and providing more security to the people of Afghanistan and it goes together with the aid and the governance that we are delivering for that country to have progress and stability.

Prannoy Roy: As you know India is involved in aid and reconstruction... so when these wikiLeaks came out and showed that American and England are working with the Pakistan army and the ISI knowingly and these are forces which have helped the Taliban, the violence...how can you work with the force that helps violence and helps terrorism?

David Cameron: What we have to do in our relationship with Pakistan is to encourage Pakistan to go after the militants and the terrorists on their side of the border and to be fair to Pakistan they have made progress in arresting members of Al-Qaida and in pushing the terrorist from their side of the border. Do we want them to do more? Of course we do but we are going to solve this problem if we have good relationship with Pakistan as well as the work we are doing in Afghanistan. That is essential.

Prannoy Roy: You have been so forthright in your statements, apologizing to the people of Northern Ireland, your recent statement describing Gaza. Is there some regret that you can say, to people of India? Working with the ISI according to all these documents found, now admitted by US as well, working with ISI which has helped in bombing in Kabul, in the Indian embassy and helped in the Mumbai attacks... some regret?

David Cameron: First of all, I feel the deepest sympathy for the people in India and for the Government for the loss that you have suffered from terrorism. We too in Britain have suffered on the streets of London where terrorism in some cases, emanated from the same part of the world. And that is what I said today... it is unacceptable within Pakistan to support terrorism and terrorist groups elsewhere. We need to work with the Pakistan Government to make sure we close down all of the terrorism that exists from Pakistan... that is very clear and that is what our relationship is about.

Prannoy Roy: So what you are saying is that Pakistan is supporting terrorism and you want them to stop that?

David Cameron: What I have said is that it is unacceptable for anything to happen within Pakistan that is about the promotion of terror elsewhere and to be fair to the Pakistan Government they have taken steps to deal with some of the problems and we have seen great activity by them and we welcome and support that and everyone who wants to see stability should support that. Does more need to happen? Of course it does.

Prannoy Roy: You are worried about the terrorism in the western part of the Pakistan but on the eastern side, where they have got camps, you have the same problem that we have been talking about for years... cross-border terrorism. But you are on the western side so are you also worried about the eastern side cross-border terrorism to India?

David Cameron: Of course, but we want to see a stable and democratic Pakistan, we want to see a stable and secure Afghanistan, we want to see over time a better relationship between India and Pakistan and it is all in our interest that there is better stability security and relationship in this part of the world and good for all of us throughout the world. But we don't see our relationship with India... this special relationship with India that I am talking about....we don't see that through the prism of the problems that come out of it.

Prannoy Roy: So you de-link?

David Cameron: I don't link those two. I see a relationship with India which is about our mutual corporation for our mutual advantage, whether that is business, whether that is trade, the cultural exchanges and relationship between our countries... that is a good thing in itself irrespective of any conversations we might have about a stable and secure Afghanistan.

Prannoy Roy: Now that you have raised economic issues, just to summarize, and if I am wrong please correct me, I am bound to exaggerate what you have said... one is that you would like to see Pakistan to do more within their country and two, Britain will not mediate or interfere in the Kashmir at all?

David Cameron: I have said on both these points very clearly what I want to see happen. Of course we want India and Pakistan to discuss issues between them and it is better for them. Absolutely!

Prannoy Roy: Between them?

David Cameron: In terms of terrorism, nothing happens within Pakistan that supports terrorism. And we will support the Pakistan Government in what they do to stop that and be fair to them. They too have suffered from terrorism themselves but we need to make sure that this work continues.

Prannoy Roy: No regret working with ISI one last time?

David Cameron: I have said what I have to say.

Prannoy Roy: Your brutal fiscal measures that you have taken, our Prime Minister went to the G-20 and said the risk of deflation is much higher today then the risks of inflation so don't contract too much now. But you and he seem to differ on that... you seem to have taken some really tough measures, deficit is 14 % of your GDP and it is pretty bad.

David Cameron: Not 14 % but 11%..but very serious.

Prannoy Roy: But you have stepped on the brake so hard those passengers are flying through the window?

David Cameron: I don't think that's the case and I don't think Dr Manmohan Singh, whom I respect as a very eminent economist as well as a very respected Prime Minister, a world leader... I don't think there is a deep disagreement here. At the G-20 what we discussed was that each country has to do what is right for its own circumstances and together that would contribute to global growth. So if in Britain you have 11 % budget deficit and elsewhere in Europe you have seen countries suffering with debt crisis. It is right to take action and action can actually increase the level of confidence in your economy but elsewhere we do need global imbalances that have built up where other countries have very large amount of current surpluses. We do need to see from those countries more domestic consumption and then dealing with those part of balances and that's part of how we get greater global growth.

Prannoy Roy: Do you think there is going to be double dip recession?

David Cameron: I very much hope not but the greatest threat to British economy is not dealing with deficit when you see what has happened with other European countries

Prannoy Roy: The greatest threat not dealing with it?

David Cameron: The threat is not dealing with it rather than dealing with it and let me make one point... the very act of dealing with the deficit means that you can have a loose monetary policy and keep interest rate lower for longer. And as you can see in the case of British economy, some of the market interest rates responded to what we did in terms of deficit and in the end that is the way of maintaining the demand is loose monetary policy and the second way is that we have better trade negotiations and more trade between our countries from which we all can gain and get great stimulus.

Prannoy Roy: One of the worries when you come talking about trade is that you are talking of the time when you are contracting and India is saying... look we are trying to expand and we are coming to your country and you have contracted? Not a best of the time to come?

David Cameron: It's infact a great time to come and invest in Britain because there is a strong and stable government dealing with one outstanding problem which is our deficit and it is great that so many Indian businesses, like for instance, Tatas have come and invested in Britain. If you look, we have now independent forecast and that independent forecast is for good growth this year and the year after...and for unemployment to fall that's an independent forecast, that's not me. It's a great time to come and invest in Britain... access to European market and English language that we share and we are cutting down our rate of co-operation tax to 24 % which will make us the lowest taxed countries in whole of the developed world. It is a great time to come and invest.

Prannoy Roy: I hope our Finance Minister is listening to you... 24% is not bad at all. Quickly, before we end on this topic of economy, it's a global world everybody is affected by what China does...do you also believe that China should change their exchange rates?

David Cameron: We want to see the imbalances in the world economy adjusted. I know that the Chinese don't react well to being told exactly how to... I think the world would benefit. Those countries with very big surpluses like China saw an increase in their own domestic consumption and if they took steps, and their own saving rates were not quite high as they were, then the imbalance in the world that was a cause of the problem of excessive borrowing in the West and excessive saving in China that was one of the causes and that was one of the problems that lead this great yield search, that leads to great boom in housing and stocks and everything else, we need to address the fundamental imbalances and the Chinese situation is part of that, we too must address our problem.

Prannoy Roy: Let me also add to that. If imbalances have to be changed then exchange rates can't be artificial because we have our market regulated.

David Cameron: My own view is that I support market exchange rate. In Britain we have decided to keep our currency pound and we haven't joined the euro and I believe in the inflexible exchange rates and that's my own personal view on how economy operates the best.

Prannoy Roy: You are a strong believer of the markets that is in your DNA, markets for goods, markets for services... what about markets for talent?

David Cameron: Yes I do believe in people being able to travel and for economy to benefit from...there is a great cross culture between British working in India and the Indian people working in Britain, but I do want to see some control on immigration. I know where that is going.

Prannoy Roy: No I don't think that's the old India where people want visas and all that...I think the free market in talent?

David Cameron: Yes there is market for talent but one of the problems that we had in last 10 years was that we had a lot of people coming to study, but who were studying in sort of bogus courses and bogus colleges, and it was really to come and work in the black economy rather than to study properly. So we must have an immigration policy that should try to capture some of the talent world so that people, the bright Indian students are coming to best Britain university...that's good for India... that's good for Britain but that does mean a proper immigration policy rather than a free for all.

Prannoy Roy: I have been told, and I know you are in a rush... this is one of the most hectic trips any Prime Minister has done... last question... I don't know whether to ask about Shah Rukh Khan or Kate Moss...let me ask you to tell us how you met Kate Moss.

David Cameron: I met her at a charity dinner and she lives in my constituency in Oxfordshire and we had terrible floods and so I said to her if she had any problems with floods, I would help. I would call the counsel and then I went back to table after that and said that the good news is that I met Kate Moss and the bad news is she thinks I am a builder or plumber rather than a Member of Parliament!

Prannoy Roy: The last question all the twitters have told me to ask you... the Kohinoor diamond are you going to return that ever?

David Cameron: That is a question I have been never been asked before... what tends to happen with these questions is that if you say yes to one, then you would suddenly find the British museum empty and I know there is a great argument about the original provinence of the Kohinoor diamonds, I am afraid to say it's going to stay where it's put.

Prannoy Roy: Well but we are going to keep trying. Thank you so much for spending time with us.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/british-pm-david-cameron-speaks-to-ndtv-full-transcript-40658?cp
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Cameron fed Pakistan's victim complex

Cameron's comments stoke a dangerous perception in Pakistan that its efforts in the war against the Taliban have been ignored

News of Cameron's visit may have been sidelined by Pakistan's worst-ever air disaster. Yet his speech in Bangalore, India, has fast become infamous here. It isn't so much the substance of his remarks that have raised our collective ire. We have already heard ad nauseum that Pakistan must end its double game of supporting both the militants and US-led forces in the region. No, what irked was the fact that they were uttered in the heart of elite India. Coming from a first-term British prime minister on his first official tour of the south Asian country, Cameron's comments inevitably fed the perception that the world, and especially India, is out to get Pakistan.

A similar sentiment has followed the voluminous WikiLeaks allegations of massive ISI support for the Afghan insurgency. Namely, that the leak is part of a deliberate smear campaign against the military, Pakistan's most robust national institution. Along with this, the British prime minister's comments "will reignite the hatred Pakistanis have for the west", according to Khurshid Ahmed, a Pakistani senator and vice-president of Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest Islamic political party. His sentiments are echoed by commentators in the Urdu press.

Some have rightly noted Cameron's positively dismissive attitude to India's oppressive crackdown in Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, the deafening silence over yet another bloody Indian response to Kashmiri protests is but the tip of the iceberg. Cameron's comments coincide with a proposal to sell civil nuclear technology and British military jets to India. In contrast, Pakistani demands for a similar nuclear deal with the west have been met with consistent refusal. War is peace, and good business, it seems. As Pakistan's high commissioner to the UK noted here on Wednesday, "a bilateral visit aimed at earning business could have been done without damaging the prospects of regional peace".

To most people here, Britain does not register much. The US is the main player, whether for better or worse, and most of the anti-western rhetoric vented from the mass media or mosques focuses on Washington and its "AfPak" war. Whereas most would not have thought much of Britain's role in our region otherwise, the first, loud message emanating from Cameron's government is distinctly pro-Indian. The fact that his comments were immediately trumpeted by Indian media outlets – readily accessible on satellite televisions across the border – will serve to confirm this in Pakistani eyes.

Pakistan's foreign office noted that the country is as much a victim of terrorism as neighbouring Afghanistan and India. The overwhelming perception here is that Pakistan's effort in the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban have been largely ignored. Cameron's comments will further stoke a dangerous "damned if we do, damned if don't" mentality that leads many to conclude that this is not our war.

But this issue is bigger than Cameron or even Britain's relations with the subcontinent. Fed on a steady diet of victimhood and international intrigue, we in Pakistan tend only to see that which we wish to see. The prime minister's comments querying Pakistan's involvement in the AfPak war may have played well in India. But they also point to lingering international doubts over our ability or willingness to root out extremism from our soil. The irony is that, rhetoric aside, little else will change in our relationship with the west. The west will continue to seek greater access to Indian markets while its relationship with Pakistan's will remain steeped in the language and interests of the war in Afghanistan.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Pakistan cannot play both sides forever

David Cameron was right to take the country to task for its role in terrorism, argues Michael Burleigh.

The Wikileaks revelations about murderous collusion between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and the Afghan Taliban have underlined the central role that country plays in the sponsorship of terrorism. This is despite the US disbursing $1 billion a year to enable the Pakistanis to fight it. In this respect, it would seem that enemies like Iran or Syria are a secondary problem.
And the collusion goes far beyond corrupt and dozy Pakistani border guards turning a blind eye to the Taliban launching cross-border raids on coalition troops in Afghanistan. It also means ISI involvement in planning the insurgents' operations, as well as even more murky links alleged between ISI figures and mysterious "Arabs". That's the preferred synonym, by the way, for members of al-Qaeda, who are embedded with the Haqqani and Hekmatyar networks, which the ISI once sponsored to fight the Soviet invasion.Let's not forget, too, that Pakistani weddings seem to be the preferred excuse for British jihadists – as well as for the likes of would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad – to visit the many terrorist training camps there.
Although Pakistani collusion with terrorists is a deplorable fact of life for Western forces fighting the Afghan Taliban, we have a simultaneous dependence on Pakistan's tacit collusion in aerial drone strikes on al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. This has ensured that it was David Cameron, speaking in Bangalore on his trip to India, who criticised Pakistan's "export of terror", rather than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was right to do so.
Pakistan is the world's most dangerous source of international terrorism, responsible for 70 per cent of conspiracies to bring murder and mayhem to Britain, not forgetting serial atrocities perpetrated in India. Whereas Saudi Arabia has finally got a grip on its indigenous jihadists (after blithely allowing them to slaughter people elsewhere), Pakistan's weak democracy and powerful military – within which the ISI nestles like a parasite – seem powerless to grip a problem which threatens not only its neighbours, but through a large diaspora, Western domestic security, too.
The conventional wisdom is that this problem only dates back to the 1980s, when the ISI was co"‘opted into a broader Western (and Saudi) campaign to encourage Islamic resistance against the atheist Soviets in Afghanistan. That idea enables many Leftists to spout cheap theories that the CIA was responsible for creating al"‘Qaeda, a movement whose origins in fact lie in the domestic politics of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Others, such as the Indian journalist Sadand Dhume, argue that the problem stems from Pakistan having Islam inscribed in its identity, from the green crescent flag to former prime minister Zulfikar Bhutto's advertisement of "an Islamic Bomb". Pan-Islamism is in the country's DNA, they argue, in ways that are simply not true of other Muslim states such as Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia or Turkey. Without Islam, the self-styled "Land of the Pure" is an unjustifiable congeries of regions cobbled from the wreckage Mountbatten left in British India.
Whatever the truth, Pakistan is host to a bewildering array of terrorist movements. They include Baluchi and Punjabi separatists, Kashmiri irredentists (who would like to annex Indian Kashmir); the Afghan Taliban, whose leadership around Mullah Omar is believed to be in Quetta; remnant al-Qaeda, presumed to be in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and the Pakistani Taliban, whose intention is to convert Pakistan into a strictly Islamist state.
The Pakistani state has consistently indulged those groups which ostensibly conform to its strategic interests, notably in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The familiar excuse is that these are "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists. That is why although Lashkar-e-Taiba is widely known to have been responsible for the atrocity in Mumbai, it continues to operate inside Pakistan, allegedly as a religious charitable organisation, while sundry terrorists have either escaped from custody or dodged the executioner after being convicted. The perceived closeness to India of the Karzai regime in Kabul explains the favour Pakistan shows towards the Afghan Taliban. This is partly a reflection of Pashtun solidarity, but also of a longer-term aim of strengthening its defences for any major confrontation with India.
One imagines that the spooks of the ISI thought they were being outrageously Machiavellian in their multiple dealings with terrorists they construed as freedom fighters. They would not be alone. Of course, terrorism has had a baleful impact on Pakistan itself. While from 2003 to 2008, some 13,185 Pakistanis were killed by terrorists, the figure for 2009 was 11,585, victims of 723 major incidents. The state itself has come under direct attack, including the murder of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 and an assault on the army headquarters in Rawalpindi after the military belatedly acted against indigenous Taliban with selective rigour.
Two questions present themselves. Are enough conditions being attached to that $1 billion a year that the West disburses on Islamabad? And what contingency planning is there should the feeble, nuclear-armed, Pakistani state succumb to the incubuses its own elites have played such a deplorable role in creating?
Michael Burleigh is the author of 'Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism'
 

Pintu

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
12,082
Likes
348
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...o-more-biz-with-India/articleshow/6235110.cms

UK willing to do more biz with India
30 Jul 2010, 0459 hrs IST,ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed possibilities of increasing co-operation between Indian and British firms in key sectors, such as education and infrastructure, in his meeting with industrialists in the Capital on Thursday.

The British PM, who is leading a business delegation on his two-day India visit, spoke of refreshing the relationship between the two countries and creating a stronger bond, CII president Hari Bhartia told ET.

"UK is willing to do more business with India and the PM's visit is directed towards finding new ways to do so," he said.

Ficci president and Bharti Group's Rajan Mittal, JK Paper managing director Harsh Pati Singhania, Modi Enterprises' chief K K Modi, Fortis Healthcare managing director Shivinder Singh, Max India chairman Analjit Singh and HSBC India country head Naina Lal Kidwai were among those who attended the meeting.

British finance minister George Osborne and Britain's business secretary Vince Cable were also present in the meeting that was addressed by Indian commerce minister Anand Sharma besides HRD minister Kapil Sibal and Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

Earlier in the day, Mr Cable announced several deals between Indian and British companies, worth millions of pounds. These include three projects won by a London-based architecture firm Benoy in Bangalore and Mumbai besides Bath-based picoChip's deal with Rancore Technologies for development of 4G basestations for the rollout in India's next-generation networks.

Griffon Hoverwork, a Southampton-based manufacturer, won a £34 million contract to sell hovercraft to the Indian coastguard while London-based business processing firm Xchanging has signed a MoU with the state government of Karnataka to build a 2,000 seat BPO centre on a five-acre site in a new special economic zone.
 

Pintu

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
12,082
Likes
348
British PM in the Joint Press Conference with The Indian Prime Minister :


Regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
28
Link to this please?

I meant @atjr, the link to the blog post...
 
Last edited:

Pintu

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
12,082
Likes
348
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...t-benefit-UK-business/articleshow/6234358.cms

'Cameron's delegation won't benefit UK business'
Jul 29, 2010, 10.58pm IST

David Cameron is to be congratulated for making the effort to bring a delegation to India but why subsidize companies that already conduct business in India? Do Barclays Bank, ARUP, BAE Systems, Vodafone, Rolls-Royce and Standard Chartered need to be a part of a delegation? Good publicity but nothing more, writes Christopher Lamb .

David Cameron, British prime minister, has decided that India has become vital to the interests of the UK. He may be a couple of hundred years late but one could say that his heart is in the right place. Cameron and a large proportion of British citizens are possibly of the opinion that without the Raj, Indians would still be ruled by warring maharajas and could not possibly have done anything for themselves by way of development to this day.

It would probably be more correct to say that without India and the Indians, the UK would be far poorer and had the British not pillaged their way through India, there are many British concerns that might not even exist. Without the Indian Army the Japanese might have reached the Middle East and it might be Nippon Oil with a problem in the Gulf of Mexico!

Britain did leave a lasting legacy to India by way of an infrastructure and bureaucracy second to none. Britain's fault since Indian independence has been that it has not bothered to build on the fact that a large number of Indians speak English, the engineering standards are all Imperial, India has the steering wheel on the same side of the car and Brits have come to make curry their national dish. Germany has overtaken the UK in trade with India because the Germans make an effort and look to the long term whereas the UK managers sit arrogantly waiting for orders to materialize together with short-term gains and the chance of a seat near the PM.

Let us [the UK] hope that David Cameron does better than his predecessors.

David has decided to share his curry with the following personalities:

William Hague, foreign secretary - clever, bright, but little or no foreign affairs experience and an accent sometimes hard to follow.

George Osborne, chancellor - little or no experience at anything apart from politics and University with 'David' - today he opened a Vodafone mobile powered by the sun!

Vince Cable, business secretary - good guy, former chief economist at Shell Oil but no 'down and dirty' business experience. Has no grants to give away and probably hopes that his electric personality will convince Ratan Tata to invest more in the UK!

Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary - good solid constituency MP, owns a company that publishes university guides and set up a couple of charities. Out of his depth in India.

David Willetts, universities and science minister - superbright, known as 'two brains' but another career politician.

Gregory Barker, minister of state for department of energy & climate change - former head of international investor relations for a Russian oil company and now an expert on climate change.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top