How did India give UNSC seat to China?

[p2prada]

guy, are you really think that india's economy is post-industry serivce-based economy ,just because 50% of its eocnomy is service?

India's economy is a abnormal economy....or premature serivice-based economy . its service section occupy most share of its economy, not because its service section is very developed ,but because its industry section is too undeveloped.

What a load of tripe. We were growing at 7% last year simply because of our service industry. During the recession our agriculture was stagnant, industry was in red while it was our service industry which was holding us up.

More than 55% of our industry is service and it was barely affected by the recession.

Get your facts straight. The US economy breakup is as follows: Agriculture 1%, Industry 20%, Services 79%. So, does that mean the American service industry is abnormal and underdeveloped.

Our industry base is large. It's just that our service industry simply overshadows the industry in sheer volume and capability.

It is the Chinese economy which is abormal. Healthy agriculture, humongous industry but no service sector. This will ensure you will barely be able to weather any kind of fluctuations in the global market. We will provide value added goods to the world while you will simply be a very large factory for cheap goods.

 

[no smoking]

What a load of tripe. We were growing at 7% last year simply because of our service industry. During the recession our agriculture was stagnant, industry was in red while it was our service industry which was holding us up.

More than 55% of our industry is service and it was barely affected by the recession.

Get your facts straight. The US economy breakup is as follows: Agriculture 1%, Industry 20%, Services 79%. So, does that mean the American service industry is abnormal and underdeveloped.

Our industry base is large. It's just that our service industry simply overshadows the industry in sheer volume and capability.

It is the Chinese economy which is abormal. Healthy agriculture, humongous industry but no service sector. This will ensure you will barely be able to weather any kind of fluctuations in the global market. We will provide value added goods to the world while you will simply be a very large factory for cheap goods.

Take it easy.

The point made by Badguy is: in general, the countries' development is following agriculture-->industry-->service. Every developed country experienced their industrilization period. The dominance of their service segment in their economy is the result of fully industrlization. Today, India jumps into service dominant stage without fully industrilization is a new development route, no one has ever tried. So, he thought this is abnormal.

Of course you can argue that india can reach its destination at the end of this route.

 

[Yusuf]

Common misconception is that India doesn't have an industrial base. We have a very good industrial base but it is over powered by the services sector.
India manufactures what it needs and more.

 

[p2prada]

Take it easy.

Point taken.

The point made by Badguy is: in general, the countries' development is following agriculture-->industry-->service. Every developed country experienced their industrilization period. The dominance of their service segment in their economy is the result of fully industrlization. Today, India jumps into service dominant stage without fully industrilization is a new development route, no one has ever tried. So, he thought this is abnormal.

All this was Pre-information age. Now computers are a perfect substitute for any kind of development in the economy. Note that the IT industry in India is less than 10% of the total service sector in India. We are mainly focusing on
providing value added services to all other companies in India and the world. It's nothing abnormal, its just unique.

We also have a lot of domestic and foreign companies setting up both research centers and manufacturing centers.

One important point, we were one of the most industrialized nations in the world during and after WW2. All that stagnated due to bad policies, wars and crippling sanctions for more than 30 years.

 

[badguy2000]

Common misconception is that India doesn't have an industrial base. We have a very good industrial base but it is over powered by the services sector.
India manufactures what it needs and more.

I didn't say India has no industry base.

I just point out that India's industry base is not powerful enough to support the postion of one major power.

compared with USA, EU ,China and russia, the industry chain of either India or Brazil is broken.

 

[badguy2000]

Point taken.



All this was Pre-information age. Now computers are a perfect substitute for any kind of development in the economy. Note that the IT industry in India is less than 10% of the total service sector in India. We are mainly focusing on
providing value added services to all other companies in India and the world. It's nothing abnormal, its just unique.

We also have a lot of domestic and foreign companies setting up both research centers and manufacturing centers.

One important point, we were one of the most industrialized nations in the world during and after WW2. All that stagnated due to bad policies, wars and crippling sanctions for more than 30 years.

I am sure that it will become a stock of laugh.if I quote your bold word on a USA or EU's !

 

[Rage]

I am sure that it will become a stock of laugh.if I quote your bold word on a USA or EU's !

You're obviously daft.

guy, UK and France were the 3rd and 4th biggest industry power when UN was founded in 1945.

however ,after WW II,quite a part of industry bases of west countries (including UK and France )were shifted to Japan,Asia tigers ,then to CHIna.

compared with that in 1945, the industrybases of UK and France today have shrinked while that of CHina and Japan rise up.

before 1949, CHina could manufacture nothing but rifles,that was why chinese troops were kicked ass by japanese during WW II. but in 1959, CHina could already manufacture tanks, jet fighers,cannon,autos and warships.

Guy....what a load of crock! You don't know JACK SQUAT about what you are talking.

At the time of the Inter-War years, India had one of the largest Industrial bases in the world, where the capacity to manufacture most consumer and capital goods existed, even though imports were still sizable and important:

The benefits and costs of import ... - Google Books


Dr. Stephen P Cohen, Professor emeritus PhD. at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, senior Fellow of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, former member of the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. Department of State, and Senior Research scientist in the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security (ACDIS), who measured the Purchasing Power Parity of India at the onset of Independence in 1947, puts India's PPP at $1,661 billiion, not far behind Japan's $2,928 billion in gross PPP terms. He insists that "India emerged after World War II as the world's fourth largest Industrial power and the world's second most populous state".

The idea of Pakistan - Google Books


Furthermore, here is an example of a confidential document indicative of India's industrial strength penned in Shimla in 1946 on the 'Consequences of the transfer of political power in India to the British Commonwealth':

Indian Independence: World War II Source 9


Don't spout your tripe when you don't know kocchie boo.

 

[Yusuf]

I didn't say India has no industry base.

I just point out that India's industry base is not powerful enough to support the postion of one major power.

compared with USA, EU ,China and russia, the industry chain of either India or Brazil is broken.

You keep harping on this industry chain and how it's complete in china and broken in India. For once please in detail list out what exactly you mean by that. In DETAIL so that we know and can rebutt or keep quiet.

 

[ppgj]

ok guys. this is interesting. just found it. badguy, no smoking- good news for you.
The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies
from the link above-
dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

 

[StealthSniper]

Our industrial base is not as large as say America or Russia but we are growing at a good rate. Many of our systems that we make are now done indigenously or we buy systems and make them in house. Everyday I see things that Indians made that are successful. Examples are the new destroyer INS Kochi which has more indigenous parts then ever, and even ISRO that has built it's space program indigenously and even our automotive sector that sells cars in most countries and will sell cars in North America soon.

To compare with China we are building aircraft carriers in house already and on top of that we are exporting cars to other countries that are indigenous designs that pass crash tests, while your cars are copied designs that have failed crash results horribly.

Our cheapest car in the world, Tata Nano has done very well in crash test results by the way. Indians invent and develop new technologies while Chinese copy designs and use the very designs in various products. And that's a fact. That's why you see large companies invest alot of money to build research facilities in India while their manufacturing base is in China.

 

[p2prada]

compared with USA, EU ,China and russia, the industry chain of either India or Brazil is broken.

compared with USA, EU ,China and russia, the industry chain of either India or Brazil is smaller (and not broken).

 

[samarsingh]

k. here's my take after ww2 the victors (US, Soviet Union, UK) and their chief allies (France , China) were made permanent members of UNSC, communists win the civil war in china, KMT escapes to taiwan...the UN general assembly recognises PRC as the sole govt representing China in the UN...technic ally now ROC is no longer a member of the UN...The US is able to gather enough votes every
year to oppose resolutions in general assembly to allow ROC' seat to go to PRC...the US does this throughout the 60's....Then there is a major shift in US foreign policy with the arrival of President Nixon and in 1971 PRC is inducted as a permanent member in UNSC. as a matter of fact Taiwan is still not a member of UN cos UN considers it as a part of China...even the USA does not recognise Taiwan, though it has military bases near Taiwan...
it was much simpler in case of Russia as it did not face opposition and was regarded as the "legal succesor state" to Soviet Union..
As far as India is considered we were never offered the permanent UNSC.....and whoever has started such rumours should stop to think....we were not that important in the global scheme of things in the 1950's.....

 

[AkhandBharat]

k. here's my take after ww2 the victors (US, Soviet Union, UK) and their chief allies (France , China) were made permanent members of UNSC, communists win the civil war in china, KMT escapes to taiwan...the UN general assembly recognises PRC as the sole govt representing China in the UN...technic ally now ROC is no longer a member of the UN...The US is able to gather enough votes every
year to oppose resolutions in general assembly to allow ROC' seat to go to PRC...the US does this throughout the 60's....Then there is a major shift in US foreign policy with the arrival of President Nixon and in 1971 PRC is inducted as a permanent member in UNSC. as a matter of fact Taiwan is still not a member of UN cos UN considers it as a part of China...even the USA does not recognise Taiwan, though it has military bases near Taiwan...
it was much simpler in case of Russia as it did not face opposition and was regarded as the "legal succesor state" to Soviet Union..
As far as India is considered we were never offered the permanent UNSC.....and whoever has started such rumours should stop to think....we were not that important in the global scheme of things in the 1950's.....

What you've said about about ROC/PRC is pretty much spot on. Regarding India, it was misunderstood and perhaps was seen with suspicion in 50's and 60's because of India's hatred of Britain. Not to mention, Britain just had won the war (albeit with American help) and still was very active on the international stage and was not so stoked about losing control over India. Moreover, Pakistan was more strategically important to USA in those decades because it provided the US access to any part of Asia (west for oil, east and north for resources) and that meant increasing alienation of India by the US. An unaligned India was of no strategic use to anyone other than Russia and hence was not given consideration. The splitting of Pakistan was probably the final straw in giving PRC UNSC membership to curtail India by leveraging China.

UNSC membership will come with time. It is inevitable. We have done some arm wrangling without staying in the UNSC though. Case in point is continued presence in Afghanistan, which both the US and China can do nothing about, splitting of Pakistan without any UNSC support and so on.

 

[samarsingh]

What you've said about about ROC/PRC is pretty much spot on. Regarding India, it was misunderstood and perhaps was seen with suspicion in 50's and 60's because of India's hatred of Britain. Not to mention, Britain just had won the war (albeit with American help) and still was very active on the international stage and was not so stoked about losing control over India. Moreover, Pakistan was more strategically important to USA in those decades because it provided the US access to any part of Asia (west for oil, east and north for resources) and that meant increasing alienation of India by the US. An unaligned India was of no strategic use to anyone other than Russia and hence was not given consideration. The splitting of Pakistan was probably the final straw in giving PRC UNSC membership to curtail India by leveraging China.


UNSC membership will come with time. It is inevitable. We have done some arm wrangling without staying in the UNSC though. Case in point is continued presence in Afghanistan, which both the US and China can do nothing about, splitting of Pakistan without any UNSC support and so on.

totally agree,
PRC was given the seat in Oct 1971, and Bangladesh was liberated in Dec 1971
do appreciate your point about our non alignment...heard Nixon watergate on youtube once....was suspicious of India and surprisingly praised "Mao"...

yes security council seat should come with time, we are all hopeful of that

 

[tony4562]

however, the myth spread so widely in india that its seems to have become a "truth" in India.....:113:

Just like the 'truth' of 36% of nasa scientists are indian or the 'truth' of 34% of microsoft employees are indian or the 'truth' of 1 in 3 doctors in the US is an indian

STICK TO THE TOPIC

 

[LurkerBaba]

Okay...sorry for reviving a dead thread

This is from The Economist

Indian foreign policy - Hard questions
By David M. Malone

Its few leaders who bothered seriously with foreign matters, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, the brilliant and charismatic first prime minister, fell into moralising about others' wicked deeds and tried to avoid being embroiled in the cold war, but he did little to promote national interests. India still rues his baffling early decision to reject an offer of a permanent Security Council seat

Full article: Indian foreign policy: Hard questions | The Economist

 

[Tianshan]

this is from Nehru himself.

The Hindu: Miscellaneous / This Day That Age: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

Prime Minister Nehru has categorically denied any offer, formal or informal, having been received about a seat for India in the UN Security Council. He made this statement in reply to a short notice question in the Lok Sabha on September 27 by Dr. J.N. Parekh whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the Security Council. The Prime Minister said: "There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.''

he is right, un charter says that usa/uk/france/russia/china are the veto powers. "china" the country was first represent by RoC, then later by the PRC.

seat has never change from country to country, only from government to government. for russia it was USSR->russian federation... for china is was RoC->PRC.

 

[warriorextreme]

considering our huge contribution in WWII we should have got UNSC seat..
but our weak political babus did not care about it..

 

[roma]

considering our huge contribution in WWII we should have got UNSC seat..
but our weak political babus did not care about it..

the difference between india and china is that india was a colony of the brits whereas china was totally independent and showed the world a level of resoluteness and ability to organise themselves that i personally feel went far ahead of india at that time (1945 ) although these days the gap is fast closing... any congratulations of india being "powerful" in WW2 is of benefit to the brits and unfortunately not to india (?)

my feeling is that indian folks should not bother about being part of an extended p10 together with brazil, japan , germany and southafrica as some have proposed - as far as i would be concerned that wouldnt be worth the paper it was written on

rather india shuld concentrate on getting that manned space program going and keep the economy doing well and raising folks out of poverty then india would be a nation with access to high tech and a population of 1.5 billion approx and then who cares about being p6 they would be begging you to be in !

 

[LETHALFORCE]

considering our huge contribution in WWII we should have got UNSC seat..
but our weak political babus did not care about it..

I agree but at the time the politicians had to deal with the mess from partition. Indians fought in WW1 and WW2. In ww2 the contribution was great 3 million Indians+ fought for the British and 1.5 million + reportedly died fighting on 2 fronts. The victories were decisive against Rommel in North Africa and Japanese in Burma; and also in Italy.
British showed their gratitude by dividing India.

http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties