Rulers of India and China.

A democracy is not ruled by the people. It is ruled by a Prime Minister or the strongest member of the ruling party. This definition might be expanded to include a few other senior and powerful members of government. A communist country is not ruled by the premier (North Korea does not count). It is ruled by a council consisting of the premier and other top brass of the party. India and China have very similar forms of government.
Think of it again, see the scenes at the Lok sabha(Lower House of India) when a bill is being passed; and you realize that it isn’t always true. The fact that the incumbent party in power does not always get its way, at least easily, is the only major difference between the system in India and China. Why then, is there a difference in what our government can deliver and theirs? Why a difference that has led us from being close competitors to underachievers in economy and international influence. Why is it that by 2073, we would be the third largest economy, and not the first like the Chinese?

There are many reasons and I’ll take one. To me the cause of the problem lies in the unwillingness of people to consider a career in politics. I could wager that no one from my graduating class or from the ones that were before or after me ever desired to really become a politician. A career in politics is something that is seen in a very poor light in India. Then too very few youth choose to become politicians. Those who do tend to come from an exclusive and not necessarily bright, class of people. The concept of dynastic succession is also very strong particularly in the Congress party. With so little fresh talent seeping in it is no surprise why we lag behind the Chinese in government delivery.

For all its ills the Communist party in China have got some things right. To control dissent, they have a very active system of recruiting new members for the communist party. This they do by establishing two feeder services. One exists in the cities. They recruit the crème de la crème of society. The middle class is involved but generally does not get too active in politics. The other feeder service exists in the rural hinterland of China. From here the brighter part of the population is taken in to get an education in Shanghai or Beijing. These people who understand the situation of the majority of Chinese people join their compatriots who represent the majority of the Chinese economy. The Party takes measures to ensure at least a handful of these chosen few get some exposure to the Council or domestic/ foreign politics.

It struck me as amazing when I realize that despite its communist status, the Chinese government takes a more pro active step to induct newer and quality members. There are incentives too, how else do you get a bunch of bright people to dedicate their lives to service. The biggest feature that makes the Communist party a better employer than those in India is its brand. For while corruption is rampant in the country, there is a great deal of prestige that surrounds the higher echelon of leaders. As long as the government provides a way to fast track the young up that high, the talent pool is secure. As the economy soars and the Chinese people see their nation re assert its age old position of dominance; the trust, faith and pride they have on those people in the Great Hall grows ever larger. More people flock to be a part of the venture and he cycle begins anew.

Starategic scenario in South Asia.

"Strategic scenario", huh? Its a big cool word which might give people a sense that this post is not for commoners. It is an irony though, that the problem this post conveys can be solved only if the common people understands it. So let me start with a story I once heard.

Back when the British were still masters of our country, in the town of Jamshedpur there lived two Indian boys, Ram and Nitish. They went to a missionary school were a british boy, Eric also came. Eric was richer and often used his money and the inborn superiority complex to gain his friends. Nitish being quick witted joined Eric's gang and often joined the English boy in ragging others including Ram. Independence changed that. In a stroke, all of Erics power was stripped and he faced the reality of leaving India. Nitish, forever quick, struck up a friendship with Ram. In one quick and sudden moment of history, the rolesof the people in the game changed.

Something very similar is happening all around us in te neighbourhood we call South Asia.

There are two very powerful forces in world diplomacy and relations. The power of brute military and economic force, also called hard power and the power of integrity, honesty, righteousness and values, also called soft power. The very nature of India's independece(non violent) ensured that we inherited considerable amount of soft power. We used this, judiciously dring the cold war. Since the end of the 90s, we have used soft power to achieve several quick and decisive foreign affairs objectives.

1. Substantial progress with Pakistan under Musharaff


2. Indo-US nuclear deal


3. NSG waiver


4. To be seen as a possible counter to China


5. Warming relationship with East Asia


6. Closer ties with EU in military sphere


7. Retention of close Russian ties despite flourishing contact with USA.

These objectives set us up as a crucial great power and a future world power, especially when the USA considered us to be an effective counter to China. The support we got from the one super power was tremendous. Things now are different

Today, April the 23rd, 2010. Five days before the 2010 SAARC summit in Bhutan things are much more grim for India. Pakistan is belligerent over every issue even terrorism, China is testing the Indosphere, creating naval bases in southasian countries of Myanmar, Sri lanka, bangladesh, Pakistan and maldives.

How did we reach this mess. It started on a night nearly a year ago, in a country far far away, with the words, "America is a place where all things are possible". Barrack Obama, 44th president of the United States, will prove just that. What we Indians thought impossible is now quickly becoming our fate. Obama was faced with two quick and obvious long term popular decisions.

1. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq


2. Withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan

As a clever man he realized that the latter would be much more difficult than the former. Iraq is relatively straightforward, compared to the cauldron of Afghanistan. To ensure future stability of that country would require not just the support of a faction of the taliban, but more that of its immediate neighbour, Pakistan. As prudence has always guided american policy Obama gave Pakistan an important bargain chip. One that could be effectively used to pressure India to remain amicable to Pakistan after 28/11.

Pursuing his direct policy to China Obama has attempted to neutralize the Chinese threat and turn it into a meaningful co-operation by directly engaging with Beijing, sidelining India. China and Pakistan have excellent foreign relations and they know when 1+1=2. India is being hit on two fronts by the USA.

What can India do? History has shown us that at defferent times we find different ways to succeed. Soft power took us through for a decade, but pure reliance on soft power use with Pakistan is getting us nowhere. It is neccesary that India demonstrate a trace of its hard power, in making firm demands and other affirmative actions to ensurethe establishment of its superiority in South Asia. Otherwise, the once China containment which has already meted away will slowly but surely become the Indian containment. A show of will by the Indian people, government and military can do wonders. It is sullying to hear the foreign minister of Pakistan, Mr Qureshi say India is coming back to talks on its knees.

What about America? The decisions taken by Mr Obama have logic, but are nevertheless wrong. Afghanistan has never been a dear friend of Pakistan, but one of India's. By restricting Indian influence at the behest of Pakistani request, he is handing over control of one failed state to another failing one. Pakistan neither has the will or acumen to achieve the Obama objective. The identity of the Pakistani nation is itself built around anti Indian beliefs. As for China, well the chinese are powerful. Mr Obama is still making one fundamental mistake in foreign affairs. Never trust a friend who is not of your flock. Especially when he is as big as you. Obama is turning sour the opinion of america in the only true democracy of south asia. As he does so he may find out that he has achieved a narrow sighted domestic target at the loss of complete american strategic gains in Asia, and by 2030, the Eastern hemisphere.