Indian Air Force C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft fly in a low-level tactical formation during the Shoor Veer military exercise near Hanumangarh, located near the India-Pakistan border, on May 3, 2012. – Photo by AFP/ Ministry of Defence.

Indo-China border opens for readymade garment trade

May 10, 2012 (India)

Garments have now been included in the revised list of tradable items through the Indo-China border, issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. It is for the first time that the items for exports and imports between the two countries have been increased after the opening of the Nathu La trade route in Sikkim. Seven new items in exports and five new items in imports have been added to the earlier list of tradable items under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, taking the total number of items that can be imported and exported to 20 and 36, respectively. Readymade garments and handloom and handicraft products are among the items that can now be exported from India to China through the border route, whereas readymade garments, quilt/blankets and carpets are among the items that can be imported by India. The items of import and export through the Indo-China border have been increased in response to the demands of the local people, BK Kharel, Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of Sikkim, said. The revised list of tradable items would enter into force as soon as the border trade resumes on May 21, 2012. The border trade is currently stopped owing to heavy snowfall in the region, which has blocked roads. The items that were earlier allowed to export through the border, including blankets, clothes and textiles as well as items that were imported, including wool and goat cashmere, would continue to be traded, the DGFT notification said. It added that the border trade will continue only through three Land Customs Stations, viz. Nathu La in Sikkim, Gunji in Uttarakhand and Namgiya Shipkila in Himachal Pradesh.

Dr.Shastra Dutta Pant: A Top Nepalese Analyst & Nationalist

Saturday, 05 May 2012 18:28 Dirgha Raj Prasai

MAY 5 2012. Now, I have illustrated the noted Nationalist the well-known scholar Dr. Shartra Dutta Pant. Actually, the fact is that the destroyer and the creator are always remembered in history. The Creators become immortal and a subject of worship, while the destroyers become a character for hatred. I found Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant as a great nationalist to explain the real history and sovereign existence of Nepal. As we know- Prithvi Narayan Shah had kept the originality of mountainous Nepal by holding the Moon-Sun depicting flag to wave, which obliged all the Nepalese in the world. Nepalese who disrespects Prithvi Narayan Shah are never a patriot and almost every body hates them with curse.Similarly, in 1961, King Mahendra saved Nepal from the Indian conspirator intervention. King Mahendra decided- Nepali language was continued as national language across the nation. Before 1960, 90% of Indian currency notes were in use which was removed and use of Nepali currency was made compulsory then. The foundation for East-West Highway (Mahendra Rajmarga) at Gaindakot is unforgettable to free the people from the Indian torment. King Mahendra without any condition asked the Indian Army, the security force, deployed for security of Nepal to leave. Dr. Pant has dedicated his full life to expose the reality of Sovereign-Nepal.

Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant Founded Dhawalagiri Mahendr College (recent past Mahendra Campus and presently Dhaulagiri Campus) in Banlung-1963 and became the first honorary principle of that College. And then he joined in government service as the project manager in the rehabilitation project rehabilitating million from poverty ridden to a prosperius lives. After his PHD, he became the director at Nepal Administrative Staff College where I was hired as a Consultant. When I became the Member of Parliament-second times, Dr.Pant resigned from the post of NASC and joined in Nepalese politic and began to write many challenging research based books and articles with evidences.

I found that he is a-one of the devotees of the great nationalist-'King Mahendra'. From the very beginning, I had and have been expressing the contribution of King Mahendra that the Kinghad incorporated the phrase ‘HinduKingdom’ in the constitution upgrading the morale of Indians and Hindus all over the world. His work increased Nepal's prestige. He introduced Nepal in the United Nations by adopting the ideology of foreign policy. He maintained a balanced friendship with Chinese powerful leader Mao Ze Dong and Indian powerful Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nobody can forget such great creators. The history is the evidence that Nepal always fought against colonial forces to preserve its unique civilization, its sovereignty and free existence. Nepal is the nation with multiethnic, multi religion, multi culture and indigenous population. Nepal features religious tolerance and unity in diversity.

Since 1990, Nepal has been suffering from the Nepalese ruler and the naked intervention of India. Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant has contributed his whole life to express the Nepalese unity, identity and Nepal as a very ancient sovereign nation in the world. In that context Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant has written a analytical research book-'Illusion of Independence' just two year after of his world famous book 'Machination of RAW in South Asia'. The main objective of these books is to make Nepali people aware of the need to safeguard national integrity; freedom and sovereignty of Nepal, from covert onslaught of alien agencies like the Research and Analysis Wing ( RAW). The RAW of India continues to launch destabilizing campaign against Nepal through the use of quislings in the Nepali political cadres, media and some intellectuals. 

The relationship between Nepal and India can be categorized into five levels: the government, the people, the political parties, administration and the RAW. The relationship between government and government is virtually friendly, compared to other neighboring countries; India’s government relation with Nepal is friendlier. However, Nepal is more suppressed and exploited. Despite of good relation at people to people level, Indian bureaucrats have time and again acted to sour the relation between two countries. Sometimes they instigate political parties, their leaders and mass media to develop negative image of Nepal, and thus create tensions between two countries. The RAW has been playing the most active roles in such petty undertakings.

The RAW along with the Christian Missionaries has been playing to destabilizing those unique features. The Subservient attitude of Nepal’s political parties and their leaders, citizenship issue and flow of Indian immigrants, border encroachments and Hate Crimes, the trade and industries, the natural resources have equally posed serious threat to its progress. India has annexed Sikkim, and kept Bhutan in its grip, and is planning to colonize Nepal through Mithila, Terai part of Nepal. India has been playing a negative role; a double standard policy. India has sustained its grand design, to make its neighbors fragile. India has played as much role to bring Maoist into mainstream politics has grabbed political power through it. India’s game plan is to promote political force, and then keep it in its control. India has sparked the recent Terai conflict with a view to bringing all the political forces under its control.

Even after 50 years of the Gandak agreement, India has failed to work as per the agreement and Nepal did not dare to ask India about such breaches in border agreements.When a Prime Minister like Girija Prasad Koirala in an interview to the Kantipur Television dears to accept the fact that he had hijacked an aero plane of Royal Nepal Airlines in 1973 under the instruction of the RAW; the then chief of the RAW, Mr. Kao, had been behind this incident, the Nepali party launched an armed rebellion in Nepal under the supervision of the RAW, however he fears to disobey RAW even in the interest of the nation. Nepal’s communists also carried out movements with the assistance of the RAW. The Maoist party also took up weapons with the support of the RAW. Nepal has no enemy all over the world. We must not tolerate foreign pressures and interference in any form. In brief, the RAW has played a dominant role in paralyzing South Asia.

The domineering and disruptive activities of the RAW have antagonized all the neighboring countries. Some of the high officials of RAW have been found to be working for the CIA, and carrying out espionage activities Britain’s/USA. And some such officers have also been bound to be working as double agents.The RAW has as many as 10,000 staff, but there is not a single Muslim and Sikh. The RAW’s annual spending is as much as $ 145 million. Some Indian diplomats came into lime light on the charge of misusing such funds of the RAW. The RAW is estimated to be spending one sixth of its total budget, and engaging most of the workers in Nepal after 2006.The RAW has following working procedures. Destabilization, Disintegration, Creating anarchy and Draining the economy of the neighboring countries. The prime objective of the RAW is to disintegrate its neighboring countries, and make them engage in their own internal problems, so that they will never be strong and prosperous.

'The main aspiration of Sikkim is to exist as an independent nation, and freely enjoy its sovereignty. The RAW terms people as anti-Indian elements those who voice for the protection of their nation.' The same propaganda technique of the RAW can be observed in the case of Nepal as well. PM Mr Desai, during his visit to Sikkim had condemned the annexing of that otherwise sovereign state. Dr. Shastra Dutta Pant points the naked intervention of Indian Congress (I)'s regime-'The RAW being a strange agency, also secretly carries out other types of nefarious activities. Chinese companies carry out different development works based on bilateral contracts in South Asian countries. However, India cannot tolerate their presence in South Asia.

Dr. Pant notes- 'With the effort of RAW, Sikkim became a democratic republic in May 8, 1973. Unfortunately, Sikkim lost its independence, and India colonized it. Democracy or republic does not hold any sense, if a nation loses its identity and independence. Some traitorous leaders’ tall dream of buying a custom duty free car from India became main cause of Sikkim’s loss. Various evidences show that India, RIM, ULFA, NAXALITES, Tamil Tiger, Christian missions, smugglers of arms and explosives assisted the Maoist in Nepal. We can easily summarize that the Christian Missions helped the Maoist party on the pretext of helping the poor and backward people. The media of India have also admitted to their roles.

Therefore the Nepalese nationalist citizens have to understand the RAW’s tactics, its techniques of propaganda and hate-crimes.Similarly, during 2006, many Indian leaders come to Nepal on the invitation of Nepaliese Dewan Dorjis (traitors)to teach lesson of political activation.They have beenspreading the slogan of secularism, republic and federalism, reservation, castes, language, remoteness, Tarainess and ethnicity.The western and southern forces at the backing of the Maoist want to fulfill their stake. Anti Indian activities got impetus in Nepal because India, at the backing of Christian force, remained engaged in erasing its identity as a Hindu Kingdom since 1989. Citizenship act (1963) was formulated in the interest of India. The RAW’s game plan and its plot was to get the Citizenship Bill passed here in Nepal. Nepal is also gradually heading towards the path undergone by colonized India. For instance, there is the demand for Hindi language to be made into national language of Nepal.

There are at least 20-25 traitors in Nepal. The traitors- former PM, late Girija Prasad Koirala has been the main architect of the strategy to support India. Dr. Pant expresses- 'Nepali’s people are imbued with patriotic feelings. They can face any challenges to safe gourd nationality and national integrity. They do not tolerate alien domination in any form. Nepal is noted for unity in diversity in the world. There is excellent religious tolerance. Nepal has more than one hundred dialects and nationalities.  All the communities in Nepal respect other’s ideology and assist them in their sorrow. Nepal’s party leaders started to imitate western like style, and then they felt the need for wealth and lavish life style, putting sincerity, truth, morality, spirituality and nationality at bay.

Consequently, the traitors who have been exercising the regime have become mere tools in the hands of India’s RAW, and Western Christian Missions. The RAW gets financial support from India and Christian Missions from America, Oceania and EU member nations. Nepal’ s political leaders’ attitudes of vested interests, myopic vision, dependent on aliens, f ear in speaking truth have hindered the progress of Nepal. They have failed to cultivate notion that they have to develop this nation in the broad interest of Nepal and Nepalese people. The analyst Dr. Shastra Datta Pant could expose all the conspiracies of Indian rulers and diplomats.

We Nepalese people are not anti-Indian but, we never resist the naked and conspirator intervention of Indian ruler. So I extend thanks Dr. S. D. Pant and I hope his prosperities and good health for the sake of Nepalese dignity. Therefore, Nepalhas to incur huge financial loss because of tax evasion in the border points and many more. Border regulations have led Nepalese to lose their employment opportunities. The situation of Nepal is in danger positionNepal could remain an independent and sovereign country only because of monarchy with Hindu & Buddhism. The monarchy was pivotal in integrating Nepal, establishing democratic and just society at par with the modern world. So, there must be reinstated the benevolent constitutional monarchy. Only this option will open the doors for political resolution in Nepal. Then we can able to chase away the traitors' regime.

Email: dirgharajprasai@gmail.com  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Managing the Rise of a Hydro-Hegemon in Asia: China’s Strategic Interests in the Yarlung-Tsangpo River

By Jesper Svensson

This Paper examines the Sino-Indian water-relations in Yarlung-Tsangpo/Brahmaputra river in order to suggest policy implications for India. Though the Great Plan to divert water from the Yarlung-Tsangpo to the Yellow River has been dismissed or ignored by all legitimate academic institutions in China, it has been reinforced throughout this Paper that a strong water demand management policy, combined with the South-to-North Water Diversion Project will be unable to solve the water shortage crisis of the North China Plain. However, it argues that if national interest of China demands major water diversion projects in Tibet, it will undertake such projects if the price of transferred water is cheaper than conservation or getting water from the sea. Although Chinese scholars have taken an initiative to cooperate with India on smaller and less contentious water issues, Beijing has not been transparent to its lower riparians given the fact that China has started preliminary work on building a 38 gigawatt dam at the Great Bend of Yarlung-Tsangpo/Brahmaputra. To address China´s position as a negative hydro-hegemon, a two-step strategy seems appropriate: widen the field of cooperation with less contentious water issues so that it creates ”spillover” effect into greater benefits for China, while trying to bring Bangladesh into the negotiations over the Yarlung-Tsangpo/Brahmaputra.
The Paper examines China´s general performance as a hydro-hegemon in Asia, presents the case study on China´s hydro-behaviour in the Yarlung-Tsangpo river basin, and outlines a framework for promoting trans-boundary watercooperation.

India, China next destination for talent from the West

DUBAI: The booming markets of India and China, where a new war for professional talent is hotting up, will see incredible opportunities for Western professionals, a noted marketing expert has said.

"The new war for professional talent is hotting up like never before and will see huge and developing opportunities for westerners looking for jobs in India and China," Nirmalya Kumar, Professor of Marketing at London Business School said.

Speaking to industry leaders, students and alumni at a session at the Dubai Centre celebrating London Business School's five years of commitment to education in the region, Professor Kumar highlighted the shift from Indians and Chinese looking to the west for jobs and the reverse happening at a rapid rate.

"When you go to the emerging markets it's about growth, it's about ambition and setting up businesses and factories," Kumar, who recently launched his book India Inside and is the co-director of the School's Aditya Birla India Centre, said.

Multinational companies are ramping up in new markets on a scale that is incredible and presents opportunities for Westerners looking for jobs in India and China.

"We have to move our people from the west to the east and we have to make it easier. We have to pressure China and India to be as open to western people as westerners have been to Indian and Chinese immigrants," he said.

Kumar believes this change will set corporate agendas over the next decade. According to him, the Indian government needs to be encouraged to make it easier for Europeans and Americans to get visas to work in India.

Delivering his presentation on 'The Emergence of Growth Economies and Corporate Giants' here, Nirmalya Kumar, Professor of Marketing at London Business School also touched on India's ability to transition from services whilst changing perceptions that the country is not innovative enough.

"Bright ideas are bizarrely regarded as a Western preserve. Indians make good accountants and programmers, but are not the best for innovation. After all, where are the Indian Googles and iPods?," Kumar asked the audience.

"Take for example, Intel - a company that prides itself on "Inspired Innovation that's Changing the World." While Intel ensures consumers know they're using a personal computer powered by Intel innovation, there isn't any label on the product showing that the innovation originated in India," he said.

Britain's Strategy

May 1, 2012 | 0900 GMT

 By George Friedman

Britain controlled about one-fourth of the Earth's land surface and one-fifth of the world's population in 1939. Fifty years later, its holdings outside the British Isles had become trivial, and it even faced an insurgency in Northern Ireland.

Britain spent the intervening years developing strategies to cope with what poet Rudyard Kipling called its "recessional," or the transient nature of Britain's imperial power. It has spent the last 20 years defining its place not in the world in general but between continental Europe and the United States in particular.

The Rise of Britain
Britain's rise to its once-extraordinary power represented an unintended gift from Napoleon. It had global ambitions before the Napoleonic Wars, but its defeat in North America and competition with other European navies meant Britain was by no means assured pre-eminence. In Napoleon's first phase, France eliminated navies that could have challenged the British navy. The defeat of the French fleet at Trafalgar and the ultimate French defeat at Waterloo then eliminated France as a significant naval challenger to Britain for several generations.

This gave Britain dominance in the North Atlantic, the key to global power in the 19th century that gave control over trade routes into the Indian and Pacific oceans.

This opportunity aligned with economic imperatives. Not only was Britain the dominant political and military power, it also was emerging as the leader in the Industrial Revolution then occurring in Europe. Napoleon's devastation of continental Europe, the collapse of French power and the underdevelopment of the United States gave Britain an advantage and an opportunity.

As a manufacturer, it needed raw materials available only abroad, markets to absorb British production and trade routes supported by strategically located supply stations. The British Empire was foremost a trading bloc. Britain resisted encroachment by integrating potential adversaries into trade relationships with the empire that they viewed as beneficial. In addition, the colonies, which saw the benefits of increased trade, would reinforce the defense of the empire.

As empires go, Britain resembled Rome rather than Nazi Germany. Though Rome imposed its will, key groups in colonial processions benefitted greatly from the relationship. Rome was thus as much an alliance as it was an empire. Nazi Germany, by contrast, had a purely exploitative relationship with subject countries as a result of war and ideology. Britain understood that its empire could be secured only through Roman-style alliances. Britain also benefitted from the Napoleonic Wars' having crippled most European powers. Britain was not under military pressure for most of the century, and was not forced into a singularly exploitative relationship with its empire to support its wars. It thus avoided Hitler's trap.

The German and U.S. Challenges
This began to change in the late 19th century with two major shifts. The first was German unification in 1871, an event that transformed the dynamics of Europe and the world. Once unified, Germany became the most dynamic economy in Europe. Britain had not had to compete for economic primacy since Waterloo, but Germany pressed Britain heavily, underselling British goods with its more efficient production.

The second challenge came from the United States, which also was industrializing at a dramatic pace -- a process ironically underwritten by investors from Britain seeking higher returns than they could get at home. The U.S. industrial base created a navy that surpassed the British navy in size early in the 20th century. The window of opportunity that had opened with the defeat of Napoleon was closing as Germany and the United States pressed Britain, even if in an uncoordinated fashion.

The German challenge culminated in World War I, a catastrophe for Britain and for the rest of Europe. Apart from decimating a generation of men, the cost of the war undermined Britain's economic base, subtly shifting London's relationship with its empire. Moreover, British power no longer seemed inevitable, raising the question among those who had not benefitted from British imperialism as to whether the empire could be broken. Britain became more dependent on its empire, somewhat shifting the mutuality of relations. And the cost of policing the empire became prohibitive relative to the benefits. Additionally, the United States was emerging as a potential alternative partner for the components of the empire -- and the German question was not closed.

World War II, the second round of the German war, broke Britain's power. Britain lost the war not to Germany but to the United States. It might have been a benign defeat in the sense that the United States, pursuing its own interests, saved Britain from being forced into an accommodation with Germany. Nevertheless, the balance of power between the United States and Britain completely shifted during the war. Britain emerged from the war vastly weaker economically and militarily than the United States. Though it retained its empire, its ability to hold it depended on the United States. Britain no longer could hold it unilaterally.

British strategy at the end of the war was to remain aligned with the United States and try to find a foundation for the United States to underwrite the retention of the empire. But the United States had no interest in this. It saw its primary strategic interest as blocking the Soviet Union in what became known as the Cold War. Washington saw the empire as undermining this effort, both fueling anti-Western sentiment and perpetuating an economic bloc that had ceased to be self-sustaining.

From Suez to Special Relationship
The U.S. political intervention against the British, French and Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, which was designed to maintain British control of the Suez Canal, marked the empire's breaking point. Thereafter, the British retreated strategically and psychologically from the empire. They tried to maintain some semblance of enhanced ties with their former colonies through the Commonwealth, but essentially they withdrew to the British Isles.

As it did during World War II, Britain recognized U.S. economic and military primacy, and it recognized it no longer could retain their empire. As an alternative, the British aligned themselves with the U.S.-dominated alliance system and the postwar financial arrangements lumped together under the Bretton Woods system. The British, however, added a dimension to this. Unable to match the United States militarily, they outstripped other American allies both in the quantity of their military resources and in their willingness to use them at the behest of the Americans.

We might call this the "lieutenant strategy." Britain could not be America's equal. However, it could in effect be America's lieutenant, wielding a military force that outstripped in number -- and technical sophistication -- the forces deployed by other European countries. The British maintained a "full-spectrum" military force, smaller than the U.S. military but more capable across the board than militaries of other U.S. allies.

The goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.

Much of this was covert, such as U.S. intelligence and security aid for Britain during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Other efforts were aimed at developing economic relationships and partnerships that might have been questionable with other countries but that were logical with Britain. A good example -- though not a very important one -- was London's ability to recruit U.S. support in Britain's war against Argentina in the Falkland Islands, also known as the Malvinas. The United States had no interests at stake, but given that Britain did have an interest, the U.S. default setting was to support the British.

There were two dangers for the British in this relationship. The first was the cost of maintaining the force relative to the benefits. In extremis, the potential benefits were great. In normal times, the case easily could be made that the cost outstripped the benefit. The second was the danger of being drawn so deeply into the U.S. orbit that Britain would lose its own freedom of action, effectively becoming, as some warned, the 51st state.

Britain modified its strategy from maintaining the balance of power on the Continent to maintaining a balance between the United States and Europe. This allowed it to follow its U.S. strategy while maintaining leverage in that relationship beyond a wholesale willingness to support U.S. policies and wars.

Britain has developed a strategy of being enmeshed in Europe without France's enthusiasm, at the same time positioning itself as the single most important ally of the only global power. There are costs on both sides of this, but Britain has been able to retain its options while limiting its dependency on either side.

As Europe increased its unity, Britain participated in Europe, but with serious limits. It exercised its autonomy and did not join the eurozone. While the United States remains Britain's largest customer for exports if Europe is viewed as individual countries, Europe as a whole is a bigger customer. Where others in Europe, particularly the Germans and French, opposed the Iraq war, Britain participated in it. At the same time, when the French wanted to intervene in Libya and the Americans were extremely reluctant, the British joined with the French and helped draw in the Americans.

Keeping its Options Open
Britain has positioned itself superbly for a strategy of waiting, watching and retaining options regardless of what happens. If the European Union fails and the European nation-states re-emerge as primary institutions, Britain will be in a position to exploit the fragmentation of Europe to its own economic and political advantage and have the United States available to support its strategy. If the United States stumbles and Europe emerges more prominent, Britain can modulate its relationship with Europe at will and serve as the Europeans' interface with a weakened United States. If both Europe and the United States weaken, Britain is in a position to chart whatever independent course it must.

The adjustment British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made in 1943 when it became evident that the United States was going to be much more powerful than Britain remains in place. Britain's willingness to undertake military burdens created by the United States over the last 10 years allows one to see this strategy in action. Whatever the British thought of Iraq, a strategy of remaining the most reliable ally of the United States dictated participation. At the same time, the British participated deeply in the European Union while hedging their bets. Britain continues to be maintaining its balance, this time not within Europe, but, to the extent possible, between Europe and the United States.

The British strategy represents a classic case of a nation accepting reversal, retaining autonomy, and accommodating itself to its environment while manipulating it. All the while Britain waits, holding its options open, waiting to see how the game plays out and positioning itself to take maximum advantage of its shifts in the environment.

It is a dangerous course, as Britain could lose its balance. But there are no safe courses for Britain, as it learned centuries ago. Instead, the British buy time and wait for the next change in history.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.source: Britain's Strategy | Stratfor