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

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Nobody has a clue to what "enhanced relationship" means


Whatever be its other failings, Britain's new government cannot be faulted for the way it has played to Indian ego. The charm offensive started with that famous reference to India in the Queen's speech and shows no sign of abating.

Last week, in what was seen as a special gesture Prime Minister David Cameron dropped by to say hello to the Commerce and Industry Minister, Anand Sharma, when he discovered that the latter was in Downing Street for a meeting with Business Secretary Vince Cable and other British officials. And these days, his Foreign Secretary William Hague seldom says anything on Britain's external relations without a hyperbolic mention of India.

In his first major speech a few days ago, Mr. Hague pointedly referred to India as a place where the "real economic action" was taking place and said Britain needed to "connect much more strongly" with this new power-house than it had done under the previous Labour government.

The "big" news, of course, is that Mr. Cameron is all set to visit India (the first Asian country after the NATO-occupied Afghanistan to be blessed with a prime ministerial visit so early in his innings) as part of his desire to seek an "enhanced" relationship with New Delhi.

Indians are, no doubt, mightily pleased with all the attention they are getting. Some of the self-congratulatory rhetoric in Indian diplomatic and business circles has to be heard to be believed. One prominent NRI businessman breathlessly hailed India as the "future" that had "arrived." There is a new unmistakable swagger among visiting Indian ministers and officials.

And, well, why not? After being ignored for so long (remember the days when India House struggled to set up meetings for visiting Indian VIPs?) the idea of "empire striking back" can be rather seductive. But has the equation really changed much beyond rhetoric?

Just so that we don't get too carried away, Brits make it a point to remind us from time to time that India remains the single largest recipient of U.K. overseas aid and was given an estimated £1 billion between 2003 and 2008. The entry on India on the Department for International Development (DFID)'s website is headed with a photo of a "family group in a slum" in Patna and highlights the "scale" of the country's need for assistance noting: "The country has accomplished a great deal since independence in 1947, making slow but steady progress. However, despite its strong economic growth, the scale of its need is huge. Today 456 million Indians — 42 per cent of the population — live in poverty, comprising one-third of the world's poor."

The truth is that for all the talk about the "new global India" ultimately the country is still largely defined by its poverty, illiteracy and corruption. The tone in London remains patronising.

For flavour, here's the opening paragraph of a newspaper article by International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell: "Today I want to deliver a message from the new Coalition Government of Britain directly to the millions of Indians who are battling against poverty and disease. Our message is this: the people and Government of Britain are on your side, and we will use every tool in our policy armoury — aid, trade, climate policy, diplomacy, business investment, and more — to champion fairness and prosperity for you. It is worth reminding ourselves of the scale of the challenge that confronts us. Globally, over eight million children die before the age of five each year. More than 70 million children are missing out on primary education. A fifth of global child and maternal deaths, and cases of TB occur in India. Over 40 per cent of children in India are underweight and a child dies every 15 minutes from easily-preventable diseases.''

So this is how India is still perceived: "millions of Indians"¦battling against poverty and disease" and the former colonial power coming to their rescue!

What is new?

And now a reality check on the new government's supposed love-in with India and the hype over the proposed "enhanced relationship," a term that since it first appeared in the Queen's speech two months ago is being repeated as a new mantra by both sides. But what does it really mean? Some excited commentators have even suggested that it is a code for a "special relationship" that, in the long run, could supplant Britain's historic and often controversial "special relationship" with America.

The fact is that nobody has a clue to what it means — either in Whitehall or South Block. The standard line in Indian circles is: let's see how it pans out. Mr. Sharma, speaking to reporters after his "focused" talks with Mr. Cameron, struggled to explain how this "enhanced relationship" would actually translate on the ground beyond saying that there would be greater focus on areas such as technology, education and trade, etc.

But wasn't that always the foreign policy goal of the two countries? Every ministerial visit in the past decade has invariably ended with both sides expressing their "resolve" to "further strengthen" existing relations and "expand" cooperation. What's new then?

Meanwhile, the suggestion that Labour "neglected" India as Mr. Hague alleged in his big foreign policy speech last week is simply misleading and Tory propaganda. It was Labour that did much of the heavy-lifting in raising the level of India-U.K. engagement by establishing what the two countries grandly hailed as a "strategic relationship." And, occasional difficulties notwithstanding, even cynics acknowledge that New Delhi and London are closer today than they were in 1997.Remind yourself who was in power before that and reach your own conclusions.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Cable shatters coalition truce on immigration by hinting migrant cap could change to suit trade partners


Vince Cable today risked exposing differences within the coalition Government over immigration by telling the Indian media that he wanted to see 'as liberal an immigration policy as it's possible to have'.
The Business Secretary's comment came as David Cameron travelled to India for his first visit to the sub-continent as Prime Minister.
It raised questions over whether the Business Secretary supports the Government's policy of capping migrant numbers.
Home Secretary Theresa May's plans for an annual limit on non-EU migrants - and her imposition of an interim cap from this month - have sparked concern in India.
The Confederation of Indian Industry recently warned that the cap would make it difficult to take relations between Britain and the emerging economic super-power to a new level.
The cap was a key plank of the Conservative manifesto, but was opposed by the Lib Dems ahead of the general election.
The coalition agreement between the parties committed the Government to introducing 'an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants'.
Today, the Hindu Business Line website reported that Mr Cable had told the Indian press he was continuing to press for changes to the policy.
'It's no great secret that in my department and me personally, we want to see an open economy, and as liberal an immigration policy as it's possible to have,' Mr Cable said.
'We are arguing, within Government, about how we create the most flexible regime we can possibly have, but in a way that reassures the British public.'

More...
A tale of two shambles as immigration officials ignore evidence of Pakistani marriage visa fraud
The Business Department said Mr Cable's comments came in a briefing for Indian foreign correspondents on July 22.
In response to questions on the cap, Mr Cable said Britain was listening to Indian concerns but did not regard it as a negotiating issue.
He said the Government was seeking 'to reconcile two different objectives, one of which is to reassure the British public that immigration is under control, and the other is to have an open economy where we can bring in talents from around the world'.
Downing Street claims the views expressed by Mr Cable 'don't differ from other pronouncements by Government ministers'.
A spokesman said: 'There is a balance to be struck. We need to address the concerns of the British people about having immigration controls and the Home Secretary has taken action already by introducing an interim limit, and there are consultations ongoing.
'At the same time we want to encourage economic growth, we want to attract the brightest and the best to come and work and study here and help us grow our economy.
'These are the things which this Government is tackling and they are both very important aspects of our immigration policy."
CII director general Chandrajit Banerjee told Hindu Business Line last month: 'We wouldn't want to see the cap. We are trying to have a different type of engagement.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ange-suit-trading-partners.html#ixzz0uwe4uJp7
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Wow British PM David Cameron writing Opinion piece in "The Hindu"

A stronger, wider, deeper relationship


DAVID CAMERON

Economy isn't the only reason India matters to Britain. There's also its democracy with its three million elected representatives — a beacon to our world.

It's a real pleasure to be back in India. This is my third trip here and with each visit, time seems to have leaped forward by decades in just a few years. It is exhilarating to see a country growing at super-speed before your eyes. But I'm not just here to enjoy the energy of this country. I'm here with a very clear purpose: to renew the relationship between India and Britain — to re-launch a relationship that is stronger, wider and deeper. Both our countries have talked about it long enough. Now it's time to turn those words into reality.

To show how serious I am, I have brought with me the biggest visiting delegation of any British Prime Minister in recent memory: members of my cabinet, industry leaders, top businessmen and women, figures from the arts, sports and local government. We're all here to make the case that this deeper relationship will be beneficial not just for our own countries, but for the world.

From the British perspective, it's clear why India matters. Most obviously, there is the dynamism of your economy. In the U.S., they used to say: "Go West, young man" to find opportunity and fortune. For today's entrepreneurs, the real promise is in the East. But your economy isn't the only reason India matters to Britain. There's also your democracy with its three million elected representatives — a beacon to our world. There is your tradition of tolerance, with dozens of faiths and hundreds of languages living side by side — a lesson to our world. And there is this country's sense of responsibility. Whether it's donating reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan, peacekeeping in Sierra Leone or providing intellectual leadership in the G20, India is a source of strength to our world.

So it's clear why India matters to Britain. But why should Britain matter to India? I believe our two countries are natural partners. We have deep and close connections among our people, with nearly two million people of Indian origin living in the U.K. We share so much culturally, whether it's watching Shah Rukh Khan, eating the same food or watching cricket. Beyond the cultural bonds, Britain has practical attractions for India. We speak the world's language. We are still the world's sixth largest manufacturer and the best base for companies wanting to do business in Europe. We have some of the best universities in the world and we are a great hub for science and innovation. Britain still has the strengths of its history, not least our democracy, rule of law and strong institutions, but there is also the modern dynamism of the nation that helped pioneer the internet, unravel the DNA code and whose music, films and television are admired the world over. All of these things can mean opportunity for Indian investors and entrepreneurs.

So if these are the foundations of a stronger relationship, how can that relationship benefit our countries and the wider world? I believe there are three global challenges we must take on together.

The first challenge is economic. In the past couple of years, we have seen global economic turmoil. Now both our nations must ask how we can emerge from the storm stronger and more prosperous. We come at this challenge from very different angles. On any measure, India's economy is on an upward trajectory. In Britain, we're waking up to a new reality. For centuries my country assumed we could set the global economic pace. But economic power is shifting — particularly to Asia — so Britain has to work harder than ever before to earn its living in the world. I'm not ashamed to say that's one of the reasons why I'm here in India. I believe that to spread opportunity for all our people, from Delhi to Dundee, Bangalore to Birmingham, we would benefit from a common strategy for economic growth.

We must start by making our own economies as open and dynamic as possible. That's why within fifty days of coming into power, our government introduced an emergency budget to cut red tape, reduce corporation tax rates, improve our infrastructure and show that Britain is open for business. Next, both India and Britain must encourage more investment from each others' countries. Companies like Vodafone, Wipro and Infosys are showing the way — now let's go further. Yes, that means bringing together the best and brightest from both our countries through scholarships and by twinning universities. But it also means doing the more difficult thing of opening up our own economies to foreign direct investment. We have welcomed your expertise in car manufacturing and steel production; and we need you to reduce the barriers to foreign investment in legal services, defence, banking and insurance.

But perhaps the biggest economic boost of all will come from more trade. EU-India trade is worth £50 billion a year already — and I'm determined we expand that by sorting out an EU and India Free Trade Agreement by the end of the year. We also need to hammer out a global deal. Agreement on Doha would add $170 billion to the world economy. Together we need to make the argument that we will only get things moving on Doha if we expand it — because when the pie gets bigger, we'll all get a greater share. So let's demonstrate our commitment by opening up our economies and showing we mean business.

The second challenge we must meet together is ensuring global security. Both India and Britain have suffered grievously at the hands of terrorists. We've worked together in the fight against terrorism before and I'm here in India to propose an even closer security relationship. This year and in 2012, Delhi and London are hosting the Commonwealth and Olympic Games. It makes sense that we co-operate closely to ensure both are as safe as possible. It also makes sense for us to share expertise on defence technology — as we've seen with the building of Jaguar and Hawk aircraft in India in recent decades. And when it comes to the security of our people, we cannot ignore what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let me be clear: India's relations with those countries are a matter for you — and you alone. But because when we both want to see a Pakistan free from terror, when we both want to see an Afghanistan that is secure in its own right, again it makes sense that we work together to realise those interests.

The third challenge we must meet together is climate change. Decisive action is long overdue — and that must be global action, with all major economies playing their part. It's only fair that those with the longest history of carbon emissions make the biggest contribution to this. But it's also fair that the largest polluting countries contribute too. Indian action is of course different to U.K. action. We know that India's development needs mean that its energy needs and carbon emissions will have to grow. But by working together, we can help you avoid some of the high carbon mistakes we made.

So this is the case I'm making for a stronger, wider, deeper relationship between India and Britain. I have come to your country in a spirit of humility. I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India's future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door. But I believe Britain should be India's partner of choice in the years ahead. Starting this week, that is what we are determined to deliver.

(David Cameron is British Prime Minister.)
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Cameron Urges India to Lift Barriers to Trade to Create Thousands of Jobs


U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron will press India today to remove barriers to free trade to create thousands of jobs in both countries.

Cameron is visiting the southern city of Bangalore, India's technology hub, with a delegation that includes 39 business leaders and four members of his Cabinet. The premier will seek to sell Britain as a place for Indian companies to do business while asking India to create opportunities for U.K. investors.

"We want you to reduce the barriers to foreign investment in banking, insurance, defense, manufacturing and legal services -- and reap the benefits," Cameron will say in a speech, according to excerpts released in advance by his office. "There are no two ways about this, we've got to take on the vested interests and open up."

The threat to the British economy from the euro-region debt crisis and the need to cut the budget deficit prompted Cameron to focus foreign policy on trade and investment. India's government estimates this year's growth will be the fastest in three years. Global negotiators have been in talks since 2001 to lift trade barriers in emerging economies such as India because they've been unable to reach agreement on farm subsidies.

The prime minister will also announce today an Indian order for 57 Hawk pilot-trainer aircraft from BAE Systems Plc, valued at around 500 million pounds ($775 million), two people familiar with the matter told reporters.

'Generate Growth'

In his speech, Cameron will say that Indian plans to invest more than $750 million in infrastructure in the coming years are "good for Indian business, but it is also a chance for British companies to generate growth."

He will cite the "deep and close connections" between the two nations. India achieved independence from Britain in 1947, and almost 2 million people of Indian origin live in the U.K.

"I want this to be a relationship which drives economic growth upwards, and drives our unemployment figures downwards," Cameron will say. "I want to see more Indians setting up in Britain and more Brits setting up over here."

Bangalore is home to Infosys Technologies Ltd., India's No. 2 software-services provider, and Wipro Ltd., the country's third-largest software exporter.

In an article for the Chennai-based Hindu newspaper published today, the prime minister said he'd come to India "in a spirit of humility," aware that "Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India's future."

Cameron said he's traveling with "the biggest visiting delegation of any British prime minister in recent memory."

Barclays, Vodafone

Business leaders on the trip include BAE Systems Plc Chairman Richard Olver, Michael Queen, chairman of 3i Group Plc, John Varley, chief executive officer of Barclays Plc, Vodafone Group Plc CEO Vittorio Colao and Stuart Popham, senior partner at international law firm Clifford Chance LLP.

Foreign lawyers are lobbying the Indian government to be able to give corporate advice to Indian clients. Barclays plans to quadruple the amount of money it manages for rich clients in South and Southeast Asia in the next five years, the London- based bank said last month.

While Cameron is calling on India to open up its markets, his Conservative-led coalition government is planning a cap on non-European Union immigrant labor at home. That has led to criticism from the Indian government, with Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma warning the quota could hit Indian doctors, nurses and engineers seeking employment in the U.K.

The proposal is also at odds with the views of Cameron's Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable told Indian journalists before the trip that he wants a "liberal" immigration policy.

Second Behind U.S.

India is the second-largest foreign investor in Britain after the U.S., with Indian-owned businesses generating more than 14.4 billion pounds of sales in the year ending March 2010, according to the Indian Commerce Ministry. Mumbai-based Tata Motors owns the Jaguar and Land Rover brands and Tata Steel Ltd. owns U.K. steelmaker Corus Group Ltd.

While the U.K. ranks fourth among foreign investors in India, its share of the total is just 5 percent in rupee terms.

Indian exports to the U.K. fell 0.8 percent to $6.6 billion in the year ended March 31, ministry figures show. Imports from Britain during the period rose 18.5 percent to $5.9 billion.

Cameron will also call on India today to reach agreement on a free-trade deal with the European Union by the end of the year and to make progress on a global trade accord. The so-called Doha Round of talks collapsed in July 2008.

"Agreement on Doha would add $170 billion to the world economy," Cameron wrote in The Hindu. "Together we need to make the argument that we will only get things moving on Doha if we expand it -- because when the pie gets bigger, we'll all get a greater share."

After his visit to Bangalore today, Cameron will travel on to New Delhi for a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tomorrow.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kitty Donaldson in Bangalore, India, at [email protected].
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
'Britain, India must forge new economic partnership'




Mumbai: Britain and India have the potential to forge a new economic partnership and further develop trade and investment links in the financial services sector as well as the wider economy, a top UK Ministry official said.



"It is a good opportunity for both the countries to enhance relationship by helping each other. This is also an opportunity where the Indian investor can invest in Britain, and British investors can also invest in India. I think it's a mutual partnership," United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told reporters during the launch of Vodafone's new solar-powered mobile handset here today.

Osborne said that it is a good chance for Indian IT contractors to get involved and provide services to the British government.

"TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) has a back office in the UK and we would like to see more companies coming. We want smaller and mid-size companies to provide services to the British Government," he said.

Commenting on stress tests in view of the European financial crisis, he said they have helped build confidence in the banking system. "It was necessary and it was picked up in a transparent way. However, it is not the only measure we need to look up. It is in Europe's interests and indeed whole of G20's interests, including India," he said.

In Mumbai, he will call on RBI Governor D Subbarao at an event co-hosted by the British Deputy High Commission, UK Trade and Investment and the Indian Bankers' Association. It will be attended by senior representatives of the banking, financial services and business communities in the city.
 

Neil

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,818
Likes
3,546
Country flag
Can David Cameron win friends in India?

For several weeks leading up to UK Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to India, the British media has speculated long and hard about what he is set to achieve.

Much has been written about this "special relationship" coming close on the heels of the other, transatlantic one.

There has been insider commentary from Conservative MP Jo Johnson, a former Financial Times bureau chief in Delhi, reports on lucrative trade deals ready to be struck, and even questions about whether Britain has missed the boat by neglecting its relationship with India for so long.

In contrast, the Indian media has devoted no coverage to the impending visit - at least not yet.

Nothing on the fact that Mr Cameron will be accompanied by some of the most senior members of his cabinet, nor that he brings with him one of the largest UK trade delegations ever to visit India.

In fact, just a day before his arrival, Delhi rolls out the red carpet for the Burmese military leader, Than Shwe, a pariah in much of the Western world.

It is illustrative of one of the key questions the British prime minister will face as he arrives in India.

His government may well want to forge a special relationship with India and view it as a major partner. But does India really care?

Political sympathy
It has been more than a decade since a Tory premier visited India. The following Labour years are largely seen by both sides as having done little to push the relationship on.

Much of this has to do with the fact that, historically, Indian governments have been more comfortable dealing with the Conservatives, who are seen as business-friendly and pragmatic.

In contrast, Labour (including New Labour) have often raised Indian sensitivities, especially in connection with Pakistan and the complex issue of Kashmir.

Robin Cook, in his capacity as foreign secretary, was particularly unpopular for his frequent pronouncements on Kashmir - something that was repeated only last year by the then holder of the same ministerial office, David Miliband.

But India has also changed substantially in the intervening years.

Its fast growing economy, which unlike the UK's has managed to comfortably ride out the global recession, has made it an aggressive international player with growing ambitions.

It is also a major voice in the G20, which is increasingly seen as the definitive driver of global economic policy, and it has also played a key role in climate change talks.

Both of these issues are at the heart of the new Tory government.

Mr Cameron has openly stated that business lies at the centre of his foreign policy and insisted that Britain will have to reach out to countries such as China and India.

The question people in India are asking is - what does he have to offer?

Competitor nations
The game-changer for relations between the United States and India was the civilian nuclear deal struck between George W Bush and Manmohan Singh.

It opened up the lucrative billion-dollar Indian civilian nuclear market to Western (especially American) business, but more importantly, it pushed India into the big league of global political powers.

t was a happy marriage of India's growing economic ambitions and its hunger for major player status.

The UK, in contrast, is hamstrung in what it can bring to the table. Economically, it is competing for a slice of Indian business with the Americans, the Europeans and even the Chinese and Japanese.

And while it publicly backs India's push for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and supports its position in global trade talks, it cannot realistically hope to do a lot more.

So Mr Cameron will have to fall back on a well-worn cliché - India's historical ties to its former colonial power, which are more than 300 years old.

The PM will hope to use the influence of the two million strong British-Indian community and also the fact that a number of top Indian companies are now operating in the UK.

Currying favour
It may just work.

Despite the fact that Indians tend to look more to the US for opportunities, Britain still has considerable appeal.

Every year, Indian students spend some £300m ($465m) in tuition fees at British colleges and universities.

British high-street retailers such as Marks and Spencer and Debenhams have done surprisingly well in India.

There has even been a modest attempt at reintroducing curry to the country of its birth by British Asian chefs.

But it is a narrow window of opportunity - and one that could close quite rapidly - especially as many in India recognise that, at least for now, they hold the cards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10768105
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
'Special relationship' maybe. Only if they reciprocate just as 'special'ly.

Trade barriers off our products, and visa restrictions lifted, if they want us to open the doors to our financial service products and banking industry.

Anyway, don't want to faze the joy out of the occasion.

So, here's David Cameron and his posse in India:




Biocon Chief Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Dr Devi Shetty seen
waiting for David Cameron, before delivering his speech at the
Infosys campus in Bangalore on Wednesday.



David Cameron interacts with students of the Bangalore Infosys
campus,after delivering a key note speech on trade relations
between Britain and India on Wednesday.



British Treasury chief George Osborne rings the opening bell at
the Bombay Stock Exchange in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, July 28, 2010



British P.M. David Cameron speaks with the Governor of the State of Karnataka,
H.S.Bharadwaj during a meeting at his office in Bangalore on Wednesday.



Britain's Finance Minister, George Osborne outside the
Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai, India on Wednesday.


All pics are courtesy of: the Economic Times.
 
Last edited:

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
David Cameron agrees nuclear deal with India against official advice

David Cameron has agreed to lift a ban on the export of nuclear technology and components to India against official recommendations.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent in Bangalore
Published: 7:43AM BST 28 Jul 2010


-------------------- ----------------------

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 for products intended for civilian use unless there are specific concerns about a deal.

The move will be announced today during a three-day trade mission by the Prime Minister to India, and includes a pledge to share research.

The last, Labour government had blocked the export of nuclear technology on the grounds that India had refused to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

There were also concerns that, despite requests from the Americans, India had failed to ensure a proper separation of its civilian and military programmes.

The move is part of a wider push by the Prime Minister to strengthen trade ties and capitalise on India's rapidly growing economy. However his attempts threaten to be undermined by a row over an immigration cap which threatens to prevent thousands of Indian workers from coming to Britain.

In June, a few weeks after the Coalition came to power, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, wrote to the entire Cabinet proposing that the restrictions be lifted, on the grounds that the United States had agreed to trade with India two years ago, and British firms were missing out on a multi-billion pound industry.

He suggested that Britain continue to make the case for the Indians to separate their military and civilian nuclear programmes, and under a programme of "assessed risk," deals which raised specific concerns continue to be blocked.

Following the letter, the Prime Minister "held back" relevant ministers after a Cabinet meeting to discuss the matter – and it was agreed that exports would be allowed.

Downing Street confirmed that the decision made despite official advice from both the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.

Senior civil servants were said to have urged more "caution," although the previous administration is said to have been "leaning towards" relaxing the export regime.

Rolls Royce and Serco are already said to be in the process of applying for licences.

As well as the business aspect of the policy change, Britain and India will today announce that the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will take part in a £2.4 million programme with the Indian Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to develop research. The costs are being shared between the two countries.

Also during the visit by the Prime Minister, and the 60-strong delegation of business leaders he has brought with him, defence firm BAE is expected to sign a deal worth around £500 million to supply India with 57 Hawk jets. Westland helicopters also hopes to conclude a trade agreement.

Mr Cable said that he had "no qualms" about providing India with such expensive equipment when millions of children were starving, saying that the country was a democracy enjoying rapid economic growth.

Mr Cable said UK firms: "potentially could do a large amount of business in India".

He added: "There are obvious security sensitivities. We are conscious of those, as are the Indians.

"But within those constraints we really want to push ahead with civil nuclear co-operation.

"That would be quite a big sector within which we could really make progress."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-deal-with-India-against-official-advice.html
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
David Cameron bound for India but Delhi is hardly agog

The Indian media are covering the prime minister's visit, but he features way down the news lists

David Cameron was making headlines in India today – although not necessarily as large as his advisers had perhaps hoped for.

The news of the imminent arrival of the biggest party of British dignitaries for decades barely featured in local newspapers, got almost no coverage on television bulletins and prompted only six lines – sandwiched between "Light showers bring down temperature in Delhi" and "North-east shaken by moderate earthquakes" – in dispatches from the government-run Press Trust of India.

"He may get some coverage when he is here," said Manoj Joshi, an editor at the Mail Today. "In India we tend to cover education, culture, business in the UK, but much less political material."

Some blamed the sheer number of distractions. "The Commonwealth Games are coming [to New Delhi in October]. There are technical faults with the metro. Just a little bit of rainfall has crumbled the entire city," said Sania Bhatia, a 21-year-old student.

Chapal Mehra, a 31-year-old consultant from the new town of Gurgaon, said he had heard of Cameron but would be more interested in a visit by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state.

"I think England has a role to play in the political and economic sphere, even though it contributes very little to the world today," he said.

Saniyasnain Khan, a 50-year-old author and director of an Islamic bookshop, said he was glad Cameron was coming, although not without reservations. "Britain is no longer great," he said. "Its economy has gone down. The Commonwealth has become increasingly unimportant [and] there are more, bigger clubs to join where we can push our agenda."
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Ah...How times change with in one year.....churchill must be turning in his grave, who could have think that his beloved conservatives would one day have to run to India in UK's own interests.:emot112:

Cameron and co tread carefully over Kashmir

It is clear that every minister accompanying David Cameron on his trip to India has been told not to talk about Kashmir

Don't mention Kashmir. That is the unequivocal message from every minister accompanying David Cameron on his trip to India.

The six cabinet ministers have been drilled by the Foreign Office, which was bruised after Labour ministers repeatedly slipped up on the acutely sensitive issue, to say absolutely nothing on Kashmir.

Vince Cable, the business secretary who is attuned to Indian sensitivities after visiting the country regularly since 1965, gave a taste of the new approach this morning. Asked about Kashmir, he said:

That is a dispute within the sub-continent that we are not expressing a view on.
The silence on Kashmir is a sign of the depth of preparations by Downing Street and the Foreign Office to ensure ministers do not cause offence to their Indian hosts. The prime minister, who wants to forge a new special relationship with one of the world's great booming economies, believes Labour harmed relations by lecturing India on Kashmir.


Labour's worst moment came in 1997 when Robin Cook, the late, former foreign secretary, offered to mediate between India and Pakistan. Delhi accused Britain of nursing "illusions of grandeur of its colonial past".

The British Raj hangs over every British official visit to India even though both sides say they have moved on. On this visit British ministers are saying in private that they must tread carefully over Kashmir because Britain is partly to blame for the dispute after British forces left the territory in haste at independence in 1947.

Some would dispute that claim and say that some responsibility lies with Hari Singh, the Maharajah of Kashmir. He had initially exercised his right, as ruler of a princely state, to be independent and be part of neither India nor Pakistan. When war broke out he called in the India army. Delhi said help would only be sent if Kashmir became part of India.

While the decisions of 1947 will be disputed for decades, all sides agree that Britain needs to tread carefully. Harsh V Pant, an academic at King's College London, underlines this point in the Times of India this morning. He says David Miliband caused great offence when he said that resolving the Kashmir dispute was essential to dealing with extremism in south Asia:

Miliband not only revealed his fundamental ignorance about the regional issues but also ended up demolishing whatever little credibility Britain had in India.
Cameron has clearly heeded such advice. But has he gone too far the other way and neglected the feelings of Pakistan?


Downing Street wants this trip to show that India can be treated as a normal trading partner, with tricky issues around security moved onto a separate track. But Pakistan – and therefore Kashmir – are never far away.

One of the biggest trade announcements of the trip – a relaxation of licence rules to allow the export of civil nuclear technology and expertise to India – may upset New Delhi's nuclear neighbour. Islamabad was certainly angry this morning when Cameron told an audience of Indian business leaders that elements of the Pakistan state are promoting the export of terrorism abroad.

Labour may have been insensitive about Kashmir and Cameron has good reason to want to treat India as a normal trading partner. But then he is not visiting India, as Tony Blair did in January 2002, when it is on the verge of nuclear war with Pakistan.

The cause of that dispute? Terrorists had attacked the Indian parliament the month before. The terrorists, similar to those groups named today by Cameron for launching the 2008 attack on Mumbai, were linked to the Kashmir dispute and New Delhi blamed Islamabad for sanctioning the parliament attack.

Cameron says he wants to treat India and Pakistan on separate tracks. His criticism of Pakistan, at the start of a trade trip devoted entirely to India, shows that is an ambitious aim 63 years after Britain gave birth to the two independent neighbours.
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Briefing on UK Prime Minister's Visit to India



28/07/2010

Official Spokesperson (Shri Vishnu Prakash): A very good morning to all of you. My colleague Joint Secretary (Europe West) Mr. Seetharam and I will endeavour to give you a perspective on the very important state visit of the Rt Hon. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of UK, who is currently visiting India.

He arrived last night at Bangalore and today in the evening he would be reaching New Delhi. He leads a very high-level delegation. In fact, in recent memory, a delegation at this scale from UK has not been to India. His delegation includes a number of his Cabinet colleagues including British Foreign Minister; Chancellor of the Exchequer; Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; Minister of State for Universities and Science; National Security Advisor; Vice-Chancellors of a number of key universities; a number of CEOs of leading business houses in UK; senior officials; and others.


Let me quickly take you through the programme. As I said, he arrived last evening. Today he would be meeting with the Governor of Karnataka; visiting Infosys and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Later in the evening he would be arriving at New Delhi. Tomorrow there would be a ceremonial welcome by Prime Minister at Rashtrapati Bhavan. There would be a call on him by the External Affairs Minister Shri S.M. Krishna; a meeting with Chairperson of UPA Shrimati Sonia Gandhi. He would be calling on Rashtrapatiji and Hon'ble Vice-President and meeting with the Leader of Opposition Shrimati Sushma Swaraj.

In the afternoon tomorrow there will be a business luncheon which will be organized by the three apex business chambers in India for the delegation including the CEOs that are accompanying the Prime Minister. Tomorrow evening he holds delegation-level talks with the Prime Minister. There would also be a joint media interaction that is slated around 1930 hours. The two Prime Ministers would have an interaction with the UK business delegation that is accompanying the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh will be assisted by our External Affairs Minister in the talks; Commerce and Industry Minister; Minister of Road Transport and Highways; Minister for Human Resource Development; Minister of State for External Affairs Shrimati Preneet Kaur; Principal Secretary to Prime Minister; National Security Advisor; Foreign Secretary Smt. Nirupama Rao, a number of other senior officials and of course our High Commissioner to London.


Prime Minister Cameron visited India in October 2006 as the Leader of Opposition, when he had a number of very useful interactions including a meeting with the Prime Minister of India. It is indeed significant that within weeks of assuming office he is paying a state visit to India which is reflective of the importance that both sides attach to this vital relationship. The two Prime Ministers also had a very good meeting at Toronto on the sidelines of the G20 Summit on the 26th of June.

India enjoys multifaceted relations with UK which have intensified in the recent years. During the visit of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to UK in 2004 it was decided to elevate our relations to the level of a strategic partnership. There has been no looking back. Regular high-level exchanges have become a hallmark of our ties. To just give an example, last year in 2009 the two Prime Ministers had four meetings and had a number of telephonic conversations.

President of India paid a state visit to UK in October 2009 which gave a very useful momentum to our bilateral ties. The series of meetings that she had also included a call on her by present Prime Minister David Cameron, who was then the Leader of Opposition. I would like to say that our vibrant ties encompass a variety of sectors of mutual interest including trade and investment, human resource development, energy, high technology, science and technology, tourism, culture, defence, counterterrorism and the others.


UK is one of our major trading partners. Our bilateral trade, which was about 3.6 billion dollars equivalent in 2003-04, has since surged to over $ 12.8 billion last year in 2008-09. UK is also the fourth largest investor in India. According to my figures, the cumulative FDI equity inflows have been of the order of close to six billion dollars. By the same token, recognizing that UK is an attractive investment destination, Indian companies have been actively investing in UK. In fact, Indian companies have become the second largest investor in London. And close to 600 Indian companies are already based in UK of which close to half are in London.

In recognition of the tremendous potential, an India-UK Joint Economic and Trade Committee (JETCO) was set up at the level of Commerce Ministers, in 2005. It has since emerged as a very useful mechanism to impart more content and depth to our economic and trade ties. The sixth JETCO meeting was held in London in February this year.

UK also plays host to over 30,000 Indian students who go to UK for higher education. This is the second biggest foreign student body in UK. Again to give our cooperation in the HRD sector, which is a very vital area of cooperation, a boost an India-UK Education Forum at a Ministerial level has been established. The second meeting of the Forum, which was co-chaired by our Minister of HRD from the Indian side, was held in London earlier this year in January. The interaction has thrown up a number of useful ideas and initiatives which the two sides are actively working on.


Similarly, tourism has now emerged as an important area of cooperation. We have close to 130 weekly flights connecting cities between the two countries and ferrying more than a million tourists in both directions. Defence sector is also an important area of cooperation, with regular bilateral visits, training courses and other contacts.

We have a sizeable Indian community of close to two million in the UK, which comprises of almost three per cent of the population of UK. The community is doing well economically, politically and is well assimilated. Presently there are eight Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and 22 Peers in the House of Lords.

I would like to note that UK has been steadfast in its support for India's candidature of permanent membership of the UN Security Council. It has also been a valuable interlocutor for us at a number of international fora including the G20, EU, Climate Change talks, and so on.

The two Prime Ministers are expected to hold wide-ranging discussions on bilateral, regional and multilateral matters of common interest. The visit is expected to give a further fillip, further boost to our robust and multifaceted bilateral relations.


Thank you. My colleague and I will be happy to take a few questions pertaining to the visit of the Rt Hon. David Cameron.

Question: We saw in January at the Kabul Conference where India's position was not taken as seriously by Britain regarding its role in Afghanistan. Now with this visit will you take the opportunity to raise the issue of Afghanistan perhaps looking at a more meaningful role for India?

Official Spokesperson: As I said, UK is a very valuable interlocutor of India. I did mention that during the visit, especially the delegation-level talks between the two Prime Ministers, we expect a whole range of bilateral, regional and multilateral issues of common interest to be discussed. What actually would be discussed, I do not know and I cannot speculate.

Question: I just wanted to know what are the agreements – I know most of them might be in discussion stage at this point – that are expected, in what areas.

Joint Secretary (Europe West) (Shri T.P. Seetharam): In Delhi the only agreement, or rather the Memorandum of Understanding that is to be signed is on culture. You will be surprised to know that after all these years we do not have a cultural agreement with UK. So, for the first time we will have a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in areas of culture that will be signed in New Delhi after the talks.


Question: Would it be possible for you to give a little more detail about what the MoU on culture might actually involve. I understand that you are going to have one. What would that mean? Secondly, I understand that you do not want to go into details or speculate but there is a very wide divergence between the Indian position on Taliban and the UK, US and other European states' position. Similarly there is a wide gap in US and Indian positions. Can you tell us whether both positions will converge perhaps during the talks today?

Joint Secretary (Europe West): On culture, I believe immediately after the signing of the agreement there will be a joint press interaction. So, details of the agreement would be shared with the media as soon as it is signed. But as you know, it is in the nature of these agreements that there will be sharing of information, organizing events in each other's countries, exchange of scholars, organizing seminars, exhibitions, performing events. So, it is in that nature a broad cultural cooperation agreement. The specifics will be made available as soon as it is signed.


Official Spokesperson: I can spell out for you the Indian position and thinking on this issue. Government of India is supportive of the initiative of the elected Government of Afghanistan to integrate such elements into the national mainstream which abjure violence, abide by the Constitution of Afghanistan, and are respectful of the economic and political gains that Afghanistan has made in the past several years. We also are of the view that any such initiative should be Afghan-led and Afghan-driven. That is our position on Afghanistan, on this issue in particular which is well-documented and which has been unequivocally put across to our interlocutors. Just a word on our role in Afghanistan - which you are aware of perhaps, but let me briefly touch upon that - we are actively engaged in the reconstruction, development and providing economic assistance to our friends in Afghanistan in keeping with the wishes of the friendly people of Afghanistan, of the Government of Afghanistan. And till this date India's assistance has been of the order of about 1.3 billion dollars. So, that is our position on this issue.

Question: Visas have been a huge issue. You said that you have got 30,000 Indian students in UK, and a lot of Indian business leaders have raised the issue when they were in London. What is the position now? Does the Government intend to discuss it?


Joint Secretary (Europe West): As you would be aware, there have been reports that the Government of the United Kingdom proposes to restrict non-EU emigration to UK. So, naturally this is an issue related to movement of people and it is possible that such an issue would be among the various items that could come up. Exactly how it would be taken up or what would be discussed, I am not able to comment on.

Question: Britain is giving millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. The recent intelligence leaks have revealed for the first time the stunning scale of ISI's involvement in Pakistan. Are we going to ask the British Prime Minister "¦(Inaudible)"¦ allegation about the need for some sort of monitoring mechanism of their aid to Pakistan? Secondly, Britain has been tom-toming this visit as forging a special relationship. What is there in it for us? From India's point of view what is so special about this visit apart from the huge delegation?

Official Spokesperson: As to your first question, we have always maintained and we believe that a stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest. We have no difficulty, obviously stemming from that, with economic assistance or cooperation being extended to Pakistan by any country. As far as the issue of WikiLeaks is concerned, my response is already on the website and I am sure you have seen that.


Joint Secretary (Europe West): Yes, we have naturally seen reports and are aware of the intention of the Government of UK to have a 'new special relationship' with India. This was actually a term used when Mr. David Cameron had come to India earlier. Subsequently this also became part of the coalition document in UK. There has also been talk of 'enhanced partnership' with India. I guess the discussions will naturally throw light on what these terms mean. So, we will have to wait till tomorrow for the joint press interaction by the two Prime Ministers. Some of you would have already seen perhaps an article written by the Rt Hon. David Cameron in one of the Indian newspapers today which also gives some idea of his views on these aspects.

Question: I want to share with you the case of the passenger plane crash in Islamabad and would like to know if there are any Indians on the flight, if the High Commission is aware of it, and if the manifest and the names of passengers can be given to us. That is one thing. The second thing is, Sir, you would have seen what Keith Vaz had to say about the Kohinoor. Is that something either country is looking at?

Joint Secretary (Europe West): On the Kohinoor, I think it is something which has been going on for a long time. I believe the ASI is in the process of compiling a large number of cultural items of a similar nature. This is a process that is ongoing and not necessarily specific to this particular visit.


Official Spokesperson: As to your first question, we will ascertain the facts and will come back to you.

Question: You mentioned that India and UK are looking to broaden their defence cooperation. Is there any defence deal going to be signed? There have been reports of the deal being signed when the Prime Minister is here? Can you give us some details on that?

Joint Secretary (Europe West): Yes, there are discussions on for an additional 57 Hawk Jet Trainer aircraft. I believe it is all ready to be signed and may be signed this afternoon in Bangalore. Since the Prime Minister of UK is visiting HAL it is quite possible that it would be signed there.

Question: There is one question on educational links. We have also been hearing reports of several Memoranda of Understanding being signed between British Universities and the Ministry of HRD here. Any elaboration on that? Can we expect some MoUs?

Joint Secretary (Europe West): Yes, education is a very important area of cooperation. As was mentioned, our Minister of Education had gone to London earlier this year. There is already an ongoing programme called the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) which was started in 2008. The first phase is ending in 2011. So, there is some discussion on both sides about extending this for another five years. This will include a large number of projects, research awards, scholarships, and interactions between say about 300 schools in India with an equal number of schools in UK, collaborative research projects between universities, and a massive interaction at all levels in education. This is something that is being looked at. There could be other projects also in the education field.


Question: A follow-up question on the foreign university campuses. We know that Imperial College, Oxford, Cambridge are also coming with Mr. Cameron's delegation. Any concrete MoUs between them and the Government of India?

Joint Secretary (Europe West): I think a law relating to this aspect of permitting foreign universities to open campus etc., is still to be adopted in Parliament. So, I do not think there will be specific concrete agreements at this stage. But these are ideas that will be explored and we are happy to see that reputed universities in UK are represented in this direction.

Official Spokesperson: All that I would like add, as I said, is that this is a very important sector of collaboration to which both sides attach the highest importance. That is precisely why you have a high-level mechanism led by the Ministers of Education, and we would very much want to see rapid progress in cooperation in this vital sector.

Thank you very much.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
UK to lift nuclear ban on India

From: The Australian July 29, 2010 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA is expected to come under pressure to lift its ban on uranium sales to India after British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to allow the export of nuclear technology and components to New Delhi against official recommendations.

Britain's The Daily Telegraph reported that Mr Cameron was to make the announcement on the nuclear deal last night. The paper said British companies would be able to strike deals worth billions of dollars under the new regime, which will be based on a presumption that export licences will be granted for products intended for civilian use unless there are specific concerns about a deal.

Britain's former Labour government had blocked the export of nuclear technology on the grounds that India had refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It has been longstanding Australian Labor Party policy not to sell uranium to India despite a 2008 agreement by the members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which Australia is a member, to allow its members to sell uranium and civilian nuclear technology to India.



Mr Cameron is hoping that his visit to India will win over a key business partner seen as vital to boosting Britain's post-recession recovery. He is heading the largest British delegation to travel to India in recent memory.

The trip kicked off yesterday in the southern city of Bangalore -- the showcase of India's IT industry -- where Mr Cameron visited the country's second-largest software exporter, Infosys, and the state-run defence giant Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Among a raft of trade agreements to be signed, the expected highlight is a deal worth up to $720 million for BAE Systems to supply 57 more Hawk trainer jets. India ordered 66 Hawk jets from BAE in 2004. All the aircraft in the follow-up deal will be jointly assembled locally with HAL.

Mr Cameron arrived in India after visiting Turkey, where he risked opening a rift with Israel after branding the Gaza Strip a "prison camp".

"Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp," Mr Cameron said as he addressed Turkey's diplomatic rift with Israel after the raid on the Gaza flotilla, in which nine Turkish citizens were killed.

He said humanitarian goods and services "must flow in both directions" from the Palestinian territory, under partial blockade from Israel.

Hamas, the Islamist movement in control of Gaza, welcomed Mr Cameron's remarks.

Earlier, Mr Cameron lauded Turkey's "unique relationships and influence" in the Middle East, waving aside his host's opposition to new EU and US sanctions on Iran as a "difference of emphasis".

Turkey, together with Brazil, is pushing a swap under which Tehran would surrender some of its uranium stockpile in return for civil nuclear fuel. A key meeting to discuss the proposal will take place shortly in Istanbul.

But speaking on Tehran's doorstep, Mr Cameron said: "Let's be frank about this. Iran is enriching uranium to 20 per cent with no industrial logic for what they are doing other than producing a bomb."

He said that under the proposed deal Iran would keep about half the material that it needs to make a nuclear arsenal. "We need Turkey's help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community."

AFP, The TImes
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Pakistani envoy to Britain criticises Cameron's remarks



LONDON: Pakistan's envoy to Britain Thursday accused Prime Minister David Cameron of "damaging the prospects of regional peace" after the premier warned Islamabad against promoting the export of terror.

Cameron made the comments Wednesday on a trip to India. "One would have hoped that the British prime minister would have considered Pakistan's enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has made since 9/11," wrote Wajid Shamsul Hasan in Britain's Guardian newspaper.

"He seems to be more reliant on information based on intelligence leaks, despite it lacking credibility or corroborating proof," added Hasan, who is Pakistan's high commissioner (ambassador) in Britain.

"A bilateral visit aimed at attracting business could have been conducted without damaging the prospects of regional peace."

Cameron made the remarks on a trade-focused trip to India, days after the leak of secret US military documents that detailed links between Pakistan's intelligence services and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

India has long accused Pakistan of harbouring and abetting extremist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba which New Delhi blames for attacks like the murderous 2008 assault by militant gunmen on Mumbai.

The British premier told reporters in Indian IT hub Bangalore: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) 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."—AFP
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
What's the reason for this wordings? If we see carefully it is co-ordinated plan of US and UK to there rant boy in to corner?

Are they shivering that they will not be able to re direct those jihadis only to us?
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
It's India's poor who need British aid, not its military and business elites

In tickling the vanity of Delhi's super-rich, David Cameron shuns the most principled area of the two countries' relationship

This week David Cameron flew to India in a chartered plane, accompanied by six ministers, innumerable corporate chiefs, and even a few Olympic medallists. Cameron has vowed to forge a "new special relationship" with the world's second-fastest growing economy, which the Labour government, infatuated with the old special relationship, neglected to build. A foundation for this alliance was apparently laid today when BAE signed a £500m contract to supply 57 Hawk jet trainers to India's air force and navy.

India seeks urgently and expensively to modernise its military. No one in the British delegation will be pressing Indian flesh more eagerly this week than representatives of BAE and Rolls-Royce, who in India are vying for some of the world's biggest weapons contracts. The rest of the Indian scene is not so inviting (and Cameron is wise to refrain from invoking old colonial links, which would slight India's new amour-propre as much as it might gladden British hearts).

The foreign policies of the two countries remain at odds. While Britain sensibly advocates negotiations with the Taliban, India wants its own zone of influence in Afghanistan. India is much closer, politically and commercially, to the US than it is to Britain; the UK government's proposed immigration caps will further deter highly skilled Indians from contributing to the British economy. And British business people seeking fresh openings in India's tightly regulated finance, banking, insurance and retail sectors are likely to be disappointed.

Nevertheless, the coalition government, and its approving media chorus, seems intoxicated by its Rip-Van-Winklish discovery of "Shining India". The old Jewel in the Crown has suddenly mutated into the new El Dorado, and this widespread but unexamined fantasy is already helping the coalition government to dismantle the most principled aspect of Britain's relationship with India. Jo Johnson, the Conservative MP for Orpington, seemed to amplify a growing Tory consensus when, in the Financial Times, he described British aid to India as an "anachronism". Citing India's grand projects and superpower ambitions, Johnson claimed that the country is "no longer a natural aid recipient".

This is certainly a bold assertion. According to the latest measure of the United Nations Development Programme, which includes such indicators of deprivation as education and health, just eight Indian states have more poor people – 421 million – than the 28 poorest countries of Africa. In fact, undernutrition in India is twice as high as that in sub-Saharan Africa, with nearly half of India's 120 million children exposed to early death.

Survival is no less a challenge for many children in Gujarat, one of India's richest states. Poverty and inequality stubbornly persist across India despite spectacular GDP growth, proving the moral nullity of the trickle-down theory, memorably derided by John Kenneth Galbraith as the notion that "if you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows".

A relatively tiny minority monopolises the oats in India, and now claims an exalted position for itself in the world. As innumerable urban "beautification" programmes reveal, these powerful Indians would ideally like their less well-off compatriots – like the woman from the Mumbai slum who was run over by a car in David Cameron's cavalcade in 2006 – to disappear from sight. To take their vanity projects, such as October's £1.5bn Commonwealth Games in Delhi or India's planned junket to the moon, as evidence of inclusive economic growth is to fall for the flimsiest of illusions.

India's political and business elites have not only failed to provide basic public services to the deprived majority; their preferred model of economic development actively victimises the poor, provoking India's conservative supreme court to marvel last week at how "every step that we take seems to give rise to insurgency and political extremism".

The court was ruling over the acquisition of land by a company that failed to compensate its tribal owners for 23 years. Business people and politicians in India have perpetrated many such blatant, and bigger, injustices in the name of development, forcing many dispossessed people to take up arms in the intensifying Maoist insurgency in central India. As the supreme court observed, development has become a "dreadful and hated word" to millions of Indians.

Dfid – Britain's international development department – has occasionally been complicit in the kind of economic growth that strangulates the poor while making the richest even richer. However, with all its flaws, it is still more conscientious than most of its western peers – especially US aid agencies, which blatantly funnel large portions of "aid" money to American "consultants" while advancing the interests of large American companies. Two-thirds of Dfid's outlay in India is spent on providing health and education services where almost none exist. There is of course ample scope for cutting down wasteful spending and reducing, if not altogether eliminating, corruption. But foreign aid is not an anachronism in a country whose more than 800 million people still live on less than $2 a day: a pitiable budget under assault by double-digit inflation.

It is surely no accident that Cameron's high-powered delegation could not find a place for Andrew Mitchell, the minister in charge of Dfid, which runs the largest single-country programme in India, accounting for nearly 30% of all foreign aid received by the country. Mitchell himself probably put his name on the no-fly-to-India list. "£250m of public money spent annually on nuclear-armed India could be scaled back," he said recently.

Jo Johnson, too, cites India's huge defence budget as evidence that the country can attend to its own development needs. But this defence outlay, which grew by an unprecedented 34% last year and is almost entirely exempt from parliamentary scrutiny or public debate, is an exclusive bonanza for India's alarmingly numerous corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and army officers (whom BAE, with its experience of Saudi Arabia, may be well placed to indulge). Delhi's opulent five-star hotels swarm with lobbyists for Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Dassault and other arms companies. A recent rash of ill-suited and extravagant acquisitions by the Indian government prompted even Sunil Khilnani, a sober political scientist and author of The Idea of India, to warn of a nascent "military-industrial complex" in India.

This is particularly disturbing as the expensive new weapons are likely to be turned against people India claims as its own – and not just in the valley of Kashmir where an anti-India insurgency has consumed more than 80,000 lives, and where Indian security forces have shot dead 17 Muslim protesters, mostly teenagers, in just the past six weeks. The Indian government is also considering deploying the army and air force to suppress the growing Maoist rebellion.

Flying into this gathering storm, the British delegation seems to want little more than safe landing for its Hawk jets and other military hardware. Cameron will no doubt play to the Indian gallery by accusing Pakistan of terrorism while remaining silent about murder and torture in Kashmir. He will tickle the vanity of India's elite by supporting their claims to a permanent seat at the UN security council and other high tables. He may even relax visa rules for Indians. But none of this can compensate for the severing of Britain's old links with India's great mass of ordinary people – or the replacement of Dfid's lifelines to India's poorest with a "new special relationship" that at present promises to do little more than enliven the parties of Delhi's arms dealers.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Can Cameron be sensitive over Kashmir?

Cameron's ability to discuss India-Pakistan relations intelligently will be crucial to an 'enhanced partnership' with India

On Tuesday David Cameron began his official visit to India – a major step towards establishing an "enhanced partnership". From India's perspective, the manner in which he handles questions on India-Pakistan relations and the Kashmir dispute will determine whether or not momentum can be sustained.

Indeed, the India visit will serve as the first test in maintaining a delicate balance between Cameron's vision for Britain and India with Nato's need for Pakistan's support in the Af-Pak theatre. In this regard, key tensions underlying the New Labour era are worth keeping in mind.

New Labour's approach to India was marred in controversy from the beginning. In the runup to the Queen's visit to the subcontinent in October 1997, a slew of comments made by the late Robin Cook, the foreign secretary, irritated the Indian leadership. While in Pakistan, Cook stated that the UK would be willing to help "in the achievement of a negotiated and peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute". Although third-party intervention has no doubt been a Pakistani demand, it has been rejected by India since at least the early 1960s and the ruckus led to a well-orchestrated media attack on the foreign secretary.

Fast-forwarding a decade, the policies and rhetoric adopted by David Miliband appeared to only have succeeded in replacing the Indian media's anti-Cook commentary in the late 1990s with attacks on Miliband towards the end of Labour's reign.

Uncannily, Miliband wrote that a resolution of the Kashmir dispute would discourage extremist groups from taking up arms. By solving the Kashmir dispute, he argued, the Pakistani military could focus more of its attention on stemming the insurgent tide along Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan, rather than the perceived threat from India in the east.

India's dislike was palpable. The government stated that the foreign secretary should have been better "educated", while the opposition claimed that "in recent years, there has been no bigger disaster than David Miliband's visit".

To be sure, Miliband's comments on Kashmir echoed the new American president's views on the subject. After all, during the election campaign, Senator Obama often referred to the resolution of the Kashmir dispute as a means to allow the Pakistani military to focus their efforts along the Durand Line. Further, by following the American line of argument, Miliband managed to confirm to India's elite that British foreign policy lay hostage to initiatives and ideas bandied about in Washington.

On the Conservative side, William Hague's seemingly concerted effort to delink India from policy towards the Af-Pak region is noteworthy. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the Bush administration's efforts to follow a "de-hyphenation" policy in the early 2000s. Accordingly, India was made a strategic partner in 2004 and the Bush administration pushed through a major nuclear deal, increasing military ties dramatically. Meanwhile, Pakistan was made a "major non-Nato ally", and assisted with over $10bn of economic aid.

The Bush administration appeared to have done the unthinkable: simultaneously improving relations with India and Pakistan. Kashmir no longer served as the lynchpin for Pakistani co-operation. Some have argued that a similar British version of this strategy could provide the political space the Cameron government needs to engage India without losing support in Islamabad.

However, a key point to be borne in mind is that the entire de-hyphenation construct was feasible because no one in the Iraq-obsessed Bush administration focused on the war in Afghanistan. Hence, low strategic expectations from Pakistan allowed limited Pakistani pressures on the US government to focus attention on India.

Today, given that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the top foreign policy issues for the UK, a policy of de-hyphenation will constantly be hostage to Pakistan's demands. As the need for political reconciliation in Afghanistan requires greater support from Pakistan, the temptation to evoke the Kashmir card, or to pressure the Indian government to limit its involvement in Afghanistan, will be a serious test for the future of UK-India relations.

One way to maintain this balance is to seek greater economic and defence co-operation with India while making clear that Pakistani interests are critical for western strategies in Afghanistan.

On the one hand, statements and public appearances may stress the need for a strategic partnership, beginning with the creation of a high-level UK-India contact group. A prepared package consisting of relevant talking points and a schedule of meetings will communicate the reality of a fresh approach.

On the other hand, it will be important to make clear that there is no necessary contradiction between India's strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan's crucial support for the Isaf mission.

In the end, a genuine effort to understand the need for balance, rather than the somewhat thoughtless approach adopted by the last government, will go a long way in convincing India of Cameron's appeal, without necessarily irking Islamabad's privileged classes.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Why David Cameron's words disappoint Pakistan

Pakistan has made huge sacrifices in the war on terror. Yet the PM criticises us based on intelligence leaks that lack credibility

I was surprised to read the reported remarks made by David Cameron when speaking to Indian businesspeople in Bangalore this morning, especially when he said: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country [Pakistan] 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". These remarks are completely contrary to the realities on the ground, and are intended to embroil Pakistan in issues for which it cannot alone be held responsible.

One would have hoped that the British prime minister would have considered Pakistan's enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has made since 9/11. He seems to be more reliant on information based on intelligence leaks, despite it lacking credibility or corroborating proof. A bilateral visit aimed at attracting business could have been conducted without damaging the prospects of regional peace.

His remarks have come soon after the leak of US military documents about the war in Afghanistan and the alleged involvement of Pakistan's security institutions. As far as Pakistan's role in the war is concerned, it is sufficient to quote the Persian proverb: "Fragrance does not need recommendations of a perfume seller". The sacrifices endured by Pakistan are enormous. Since 2001 more than 2,700 members of the security forces have laid down their lives and more than 9,000 have been severely wounded. These figures far exceed the total casualties suffered by Nato allies in the region over the same period.

For the west, it may seem as though terrorism began on 9/11. But Pakistan's experience started back when the Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan. The invasion posed a threat to the "free world", so we were told, and Pakistan was declared a "bulwark against communism". We are still struggling with the devastating and economically crippling fallout with limited resources and in an environment of mistrust.

We should not forget that the resistance offered by the Afghans against the Soviets mesmerised the west so much that it bestowed the title of "mujahideen" upon them. The new madrassas – in reality, more like guerilla training centres – were financed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the free world to recruit and train religiously fanatic elements as mujahideen.

The so-called intelligence leaks that allege Pakistani involvement do not have any credibility. The timing of the leaks is instructive. Just a week ago an international conference held in Kabul called for the need to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan through reconciliation, reintegration and the gradual withdrawal of coalition forces by 2014.

This conference offered an opportunity to stabilise Afghanistan by engaging antagonists in order to find a political solution. The overwhelming majority of the conference favoured this approach. However, a few factions within Afghanistan and some countries in the neighbourhood who are trying to dominate the country do not like the idea.

For the stability of Afghanistan and for a smooth withdrawal of coalition forces, it is important not only that the political process in Afghanistan should be led by Afghans themselves but also that the country's neighbours honour the commitments made at the Kabul conference of 20 July. Mere lip service will not bring stability.

Pakistan has proved through its actions that stability in Afghanistan is an imperative. Pakistan has taken firm action against terrorists and observes zero tolerance against foreign extremists trying to take refuge within its borders. More importantly, the democratic government in Pakistan believes in a stable Afghanistan and by extension a stable region so that all nations in the region may focus their energies on addressing the plight of their poor. Instead of manufacturing evidence against Pakistan, it would be advisable for us all to work for stability in Afghanistan through peaceful means.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
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 ?
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
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 ?
He already said in interview that he can give us only sympathy on terror attacks from pak. :emot15: He won't even admit that Pak sponsors Terrorism. Better thing is to wait, play & see what he actually wants.....
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
The time is not far when UK becomes "UKstan" and becomes the new jihad central.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top