Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

India to Britain: We don't need the 'peanuts' you offer us in aid

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Star Wars, Feb 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rocky.idf

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    High time South Asians got together seeking to get back the mountains of loot the British took from here, beginning with Bengal's textile. Britain should be made to pay compensation for all the atrocities they have been committing here. Their Delhi massacre along-with physical destruction of iconic structures of the time beats any plunder of Attila or Changez Khan. The truth is now coming out only now through the pages of history they manufactured and have been teaching us.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Steel

    Steel Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    226
    India aid to continue: U.K.

    [​IMG]

    Prime Minister David Cameron has re-affirmed Britain’s decision to continue its aid programme to India, amidst a row sparked by some ruling Conservative MPs demanding an end to it, and reports that India did not need it.

    The Prime Minister’s spokesman said, “We have reviewed our aid commitments to India. We continue to think it is right to stick to those aid commitments. We continue to provide aid to India, but we focus it on the three poorest states.”

    He added, “The reason we are doing that is because a huge number of the poorest people in the world live in these states. The Government has always been very clear about sticking to its aid commitments and the fact that it would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. It is going to stick to that.”

    International Development secretary Andrew Mitchell on Monday defended the aid, and said, “We will not be in India for ever but now is not the time to quit. Our completely revamped programme is in India’s and Britain’s national interest and is a small part of a much wider relationship between our two countries“.

    He, however, added, “We are changing our approach to India. We will target aid at three of India’s poorest states, rather than central Government. We will invest more in the private sector, with our aid programme having some of the characteristics of a sovereign wealth fund.”

    International aid is among few areas that have not been subjected to deep funding cuts by the economically-strapped David Cameron government, which has faced much ridicule and more for continuing to send aid to an increasingly prosperous India.

    The Hindu : News / International : India aid to continue: U.K.
     
  3. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Please just stop it, people never get any of it.
    Its the corrupt officials who bag it.
     
  4. Rehan123

    Rehan123 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    60
    No. It would just do so on the backs of the poorest people in the UK as they have amply demonstrated in their attempts to privatise the NHS, to slash child and disability benefits, and in actually forcing people on job-seeker's allowance to stack shelves in supermarkets for no pay and so on. The Cameron government is one of the most openly pro big-business and anti-people government that I have ever seen. For god's sake, they actually tried to sell off Britain's national forests... Has there ever been a more inept and out-of tune government in UK ever?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  5. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Make people on the Dole work, what is the world comming to.
     
  6. Rehan123

    Rehan123 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    60
    You really should get some background before making comments, otherwise you just end up looking dumb. The job-seeker's allowance is given for a limited period of time only during which the person getting the allowance is to attend a minimum number of acceptable interviews/ file enough applications or else he/she loses the allowance. The work for no pay was aimed at getting people on the allowance to do productive work which they could site as work experience on their resume. They were also promised interviews for posts as per their qualifications during the course of their unpaid employment.

    Of course it has not worked that way- people are being basically forced to stack shelves in supermarkets regardless of their qualifications/ sectors in which they are looking for employment in. There was this case of a history major who was looking for employment in a museum being forced to stack shelves in the local supermarket or the case of the English honours holder who again had to stack shelves. How does that count as work experience? The supermarkets in question admitted that they had no idea about how they could productively employ these people other than stacking shelves or even imagine a post where these particular qualifications would be useful in their organization, let alone offer interviews for those jobs. There are many more cases like these.

    Getting people on dole back into the productive workforce is a good idea but when it is implemented in the ham-handed manner the Cameron government has done then it becomes a terrible terrible idea... Really mate, get some perspective before make smart-alec comments.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  7. Guynextdoor

    Guynextdoor Lt. Colonel SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    1,740
    Man, till yesterday I was fuming because I thought these people villanous and malicious. But today, I fell calmer because I suddenly realized.....these people aren't malicious...they are just very weird people. And a very weird country...
     
  8. rocky.idf

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    That happens to be one of the main goals. Corrupt the officials and do your deeds through them. And once in a while call the country corrupt, posing Britain and the White race "sadhus"/saints untouchable.
     
  9. tilopa

    tilopa Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    216
    averageamerican really sounds like an average american
     
  10. tilopa

    tilopa Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    801
    Likes Received:
    216
    yeah and buddha also preached freedom and non-greed and ethics
    its not an aid..its LB(legal bribe)
    germany and japan give much larger aid packages to NGO's inside india but they dont make fuss about it.
     
  11. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    India’s Foreign Aid Program

    India has a longstanding foreign aid program and with economic growth has come the ability to play like the big boys, even if not with them. Yet, very little information is available, so I decided to do some web research. Here is what I learnt:

    Basics

    The foreign aid program is called Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme, or ITEC, and was established in 1964.
    ITEC covers 156 countries, together with the Special Commonwealth African Assistance Programme (SCAAP).
    Both programs are run by the Economic Division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
    The MEA also runs the Indian Council of Cultural Relations, which provides assistance and programs to improve cultural ties, for instance through student and teacher exchange programs.
    The ITEC’s official aid budget is roughly Rs. 500 million, annually, and over $2 billion has been disbursed since its inception.

    Afghanistan as Major Recipient

    ITEC is not, however, the only channel for foreign aid. Indeed, large amounts of aid is directed outside ITEC. Afghanistan is by far the largest recipient of that aid. From 2002, to 2006, $650 million had been pledged to India’s Assistance Programme for Afghanistan. The MEA and UN have a list of major commitments:

    $100 million grant (2001-02)
    $70 million grant to build the Zarang-Delaram Highway
    $200,000 to the World Bank’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (2002)
    $4 million grant to repair and build the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul (2003)
    $4 million grant to build the Habibba School
    $52 million to the World Food Programme, for Afghanistan and Iraq (India is today a net donor to the WFP and IMF).
    $25 million to build the Afghan parliament in Kabul
    A gift of 3 Airbus airplanes to Ariana, the Afghan national carrier.

    Other Bilateral Aid

    Beyond ITEC and Afghanistan, significant amounts of aid are directed to Africa, much of it delivered in the form of loans, or delivered in-kind as consultancy. Some of these are offered under the India Development Initiative and include (partly drawn from IndiaDaily editorial):

    $218 million in economic aid to Nepal (summer 2006). This is in addition to previous loan waivers for military supplies.
    $500 million to West African nations.
    $110 million in long-term loans to finance Indian exports to Africa. Offered through the Exim Bank, these loans funded the sale of 500 buses by Tata Motors to Senegal.
    $40 million to Angola, for a railway project managed by RITES, Indian Railway’s consultancy division.
    Support and upgrade of the Farkhor Air Force base in Tajikistan (since 2004). The base is India’s first permanent military presence outside India, and operated jointly with Russia and Tajikistan.

    The Broader Context

    These figures combined, India’s aid probably stands at over $150-200 million per year, much more than what is provided through ITEC. However, even this inflated figure hides the vast amounts that are invested through private and public enterprises. For instance, India’s oil exploration company ONGC invested $6 billion for railroads in Nigeria (2005). ONGC has also acquired oil assets in Sudan worth more than $750 million.

    Even these amounts pale in comparison to China’s beneficence, only to Africa. Late last year China unveiled preferential credit of $3 billion for Africa. China has also provided loans of over $100 million to Ghana and Egypt.

    Africa is all too happy to receive this aid which comes with significantly fewer conditions than World Bank, US or EU loans. However, the aid has accompanied a general increase in trade and investment flows between Africa and Asia – particularly China and India.

    Fundamentally, however, it reflects a shifting balance of power in the world. India and China have the resources to play power politics, without the conditional rhetoric of ethics, development, and values.

    India’s Foreign Aid Program | The Discomfort Zone

    hope it will help AA to understand
     
  12. Nirmzz

    Nirmzz 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    74
    What does India want from Britain?

    How ungrateful are the Indians? Our hard-working taxpayers give them £280  million a year in aid, and they fail to hand Britain a lucrative £13 billion fighter jet contract in return. That is the mood among a number of backbench Tory MPs after India’s decision last week to overlook the Typhoon Eurofighter jet in favour of the French Rafale; a feeling fuelled by a report in The Sunday Telegraph last weekend that the country’s finance minister had described British aid as an unwanted “peanut” in the greater scheme of its development spending.

    The comments, though made in the Indian parliament the summer before last, were widely condemned and brought ritual calls from MPs for British aid to India to be cancelled. Philip Davies said the “tens of billions” India spends on defence, including the £13 billion deal we may have lost to the French, made it unacceptable to give further aid. “Given that they don’t even want it, it would be even more extraordinary if it were to be allowed to continue,” he said.

    Indian newspapers reported senior Tory backbencher David Davis urging his leader to “pull his weight” in persuading India to change its mind, pointing out that “we give aid to India many times more than what France gives”.

    It’s not what David Cameron had in mind when he visited India shortly after his 2010 election victory and spoke of our “shared history”. After landing in India’s hi-tech capital Bangalore, he said he wanted to take the relationship with the world’s second fastest-growing economy “to the next level”.

    “I want to make it stronger, wider, deeper,” he said, and to see “thousands more jobs created in Britain and India through trade in the years and months ahead”.

    In the 20 months since then, the relationship has instead been characterised by disappointment and rancour as ministers and businessmen voiced growing frustration at the pitfalls of doing business in India. Vodafone found itself in court facing a $2 billion tax demand, which was only withdrawn last month. Cairn Energy, one of Britain’s most successful oil firms, was stopped from completing a £6 billion sale of its local operations until it agreed to cut the Indian government in on a larger slice of the deal. Small British firms found themselves facing bankruptcy as Indian government officials withheld millions of pounds in payments for work on Delhi’s 2010 Commonwealth Games.

    Something, it seems, has been lost in translation and it is the rift between us that has become wider. That tension was exposed in embarrassing style over Christmas when Jeremy Clarkson’s Top Gear arrived in India for a “trade promotion special” in a customised Jaguar complete with its own toilet in the boot to spare our colourful presenter the reality of India’s notorious sanitary facilities. The Indian High Commission eventually lodged a formal complaint.

    So why when we want to talk and treat do we chafe and sneer? The truth is that when the going gets tough, the rampaging bull elephant in the room is our “shared history” of colonialism – Britain’s subjugation of India for more than 200 years, centuries of professed superiority, and countless cruelties from the Amritsar massacre to Churchill’s refusal to aid millions of starving Bengalis during the Second World War.

    Those memories co-exist with a warmer shared history of language, literature, education, curry, cricket and the family ties of more than a million Indians who live in Britain. But when conflicts arise, as they do in all trade and political relationships, the clash between the affinity our fonder memories of empire expect and the generational resentment taught to Indians in school is never far from the surface.

    Vikram Sood, a former head of India’s intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing, believes Britain’s aid programme is a “colonial hangover” which has become an obstacle to better relations and should be gracefully retired. He still remembers Duncan Sandys, the former secretary of state for the colonies, threatening to withdraw British aid in 1962 if India did not agree to a deal with Pakistan on Kashmir.

    “There is a hangover there, the feeling that you give aid and should get something,” he says. “Our finance minister said we can live without it and we can. The British were here as colonisers, not the Salvation Army. It would be better if the two prime ministers met and agreed we just don’t need the aid any more. Not having it would lend greater equality.”

    According to Dilip Cherian, one of India’s most powerful lobbyists, there is still great goodwill towards Britain, but tensions have increased over the last 20 years as British governments have become more “transactional” in their demands. Since Sir John Major’s premiership, British governments have become more demanding of “immediate payback” for aid and concessions to India, he says. “Everything is 'if we do this, you do that’, which negates what went before. We’re used to transactionalism as far as the Americans are concerned but it somehow grates [from Britain].”

    Colonial baggage obstructs the path to projecting our culture in India, too. At a recent Delhi party, a British Council official was asked why Britain’s arts programmes in India are dominated by British-Indian music acts, often regarded, with amusement, as pale imitations by Indians. The reason, he said, was our colonial past meant there was a resistance to the promotion of British culture. The result is the misleading promotion of Britain as a culture dominated by Indian artists.

    British business leaders believe that while our colonial past is a factor, the blame for our disappointing trading performance in India rests with British businesses. “India is a young country with most people under 30 who don’t care about the past. They care about what they were taught at school, which is that the British came here and were bad, but they want to move on,” says Alan Rosling, a business executive based in Mumbai.


    He says it is easy to forget the advantages Britain still enjoys in India – the common language, educational ties, cricket and business. “Britain is the second most important outside investor in this country. We’re ahead of the game but losing our relative position because the Americans and Germans are moving very fast. It’s the fault of the private sector. Too few British companies take the long-term view required.”

    Those companies that overcame the initial difficulties of trading in India, such as Reckitt, Cadbury and HSBC, enjoyed great success, while JCB now has 70 per cent of India’s digger market. Last year BP clinched a massive $7.2 billion Indian oil and gas deal. Other British firms must think about the long term, while the British government should get the “mood music” right, Mr Rosling says. “You have to treat it like a grown up country, not a poor country.”

    A senior British-Indian business leader says one of the obstacles to commercial success in India is that many of our strengths are in sectors that remain closed to foreign investors. Britain’s legal, financial and banking services are restricted from opening in India, along with higher education colleges and supermarket giants such as Tesco.

    Much of Britain’s efforts have been aimed at persuading India to lift these restrictions, but so far they have had little success. India’s government has been effectively paralysed since the opposition joined a nationwide anti-corruption campaign, and its only major announcement to break the logjam – opening the country to foreign supermarket giants – was short-lived. Within days of announcing that firms such as Tesco could open in India if they invested in the country’s backward farming and food processing sectors, ministers withdrew after a revolt by coalition partners. So, despite its status as India’s largest aid donor, Britain has been left with its nose pressed to the window looking in as American and French nuclear suppliers, German engineering firms and Japanese and Korean car, motorbike and consumer electronics companies play supermarket sweep.

    The British-Indian business leader, who plays an important role in promoting trade between the two countries, believes Britain needs to counter an impression of hostility to Indians by relaxing tough visa restrictions, and to turn the aid issue in Britain’s favour by privatising it.

    “It’s an easy target,” he says. “Indians ask, 'Why are these white people giving us money? We don’t need their charity, we’re going to be the biggest economy in the world.’ India has gone beyond aid. What it needs isn’t money, but technical expertise and experience, and it’s possible for [British agencies] to do that on a commercial basis.” In that way, one door could be opened to British business – and the elephant might be encouraged to leave the room.

    What does India want from Britain? - Telegraph

    just have a read of the comment below. stupid british idiots.
     
  13. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Maybe I understand, its not the charity part you dont like, its just the amount.
     
  14. Nirmzz

    Nirmzz 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    74
    It has nothing to do with the amount; the aid itself is not required period. We have not asked for it, the amount that this nation has been looted while the British were here does not even add up to .0001% of what is returned back in aid. Aid itself should be re-defined India, India provided all the aid to the monarch back in the days to build what Britain is today. Their colonial hegemony is not to be tolerated, it’s time to return the favour a slap across the face was the best way to teach them a lesson.
     
  15. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    It will be hard for AA to understand India. In his view we are a poor corrupt and weak country which need their pampering to grow. and this is the main obstacle in normal friendship course to take place.... Grow up before it is too late. India is not British colony anymore
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page