Posts Tagged ‘India’
Here’s the last ODI series results among test playing nations since 2008. India has the best results at home while England has the best away results.
Green = Home wins
Red – Away wins.
Link to original spreadsheet.
|*||Tri-Nation having at least 2 matches|
|***||Result of 2002|
|****||Result of 2004|
|*****||Result of 2006|
|******||Result of 2007|
|*******||Result of 2003|
Subprime loans are back, this time to the auto industry!!
This happens only in Bangladesh, evicted JU VC gets most votes and possibly will be reinstated.
Why does India does so poorly in Olympics? Euronews correspondent thought out of the box and put the blame on academic minded parents, that’s interesting!!
Foxconn, the manufacturer of iPads, iPhones and tons of other smart devices, is starting to use robots in their newly proposed plants. The same might be replicated to Garments industry soon. Factory workers in India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh face new competition?
India loses more manufacturing investment due to “labor unrest/rights” than due to lack of infrastructure, tax issues and problems in land acquisition. The recent Maruti incident is a mere manifestation of the same.
Archery has the best chances to fetch India a medal. In the three World Cup events this year, Indian Men bagged two silvers and the Women bagged a Silver and a Gold. The Men’s team is ranked no. 5 in the World, while the Women’s team is ranked second. Archer Deepika Kumari, who won the gold in one of the World Cup events, is highest ranked Archer right now. Even last year, Indians bagged several medals in World Cup events. It’s notable that only recurve Archery is included in Olympics.
Shooting is getting most media coverage this time, due to Bindra’s feat in last Olympics. It’s important to note that the only Indian to be ranked within top 10 in ISSF’s ranking list is Ronjan Sodhi (#10 in Double Trap), no other shooter is in Men’s or Women’s top ten list. However, the competition is intense and performance on the day matters more than consistency in case of shooting. For example, Bindra didn’t get a Gold in WC’s a year before or after he hit the top position in the Olympics 2008, even fellow Gagan Narang had higher ranking and more consistency than what he had. Same way, India did bag a gold and a bronze in 2010 ISSF World Cup despite not having anyone in the top ten ranking. So, we can cross our fingers and wait for the day.
India has a medal hope in Badminton too. Saina is currently ranked 5th and she was the winner of last 4 out of 7 tournaments played. Kashyap (ranked #21), the other contender, doesn’t have ranking to back him, but he reached semis in a couple of recent tournaments. Indian doubles pairs though don’t have any recent glory (last one goes back to 2011 World Championship).
Boxing is another medal hope. In last men’s world cup (2011), India bagged a solitary bronze (Vikas Yadav), as in the last Olympics. But a few others also came close. Devendro Singh, Manoj Kumar and Jai Bhagwan reached QF while Dinesh lost to the eventual Champion. In women’s section though, only Mary Kom has a chance although in the 2012 World Cup she lost in the QF. It’s notable the women’s boxing has only three categories in this Olympics.
What could have been a certain medal, now looks more uncertain in Tennis. The legendary partnership of Bhupathi-Paes is broken but a third rising star in form of Bopanna (ranked #13) can bring a medal for India partnering Bhupathi (ranked #15). In mixed doubles, in form Paes (ranked #5) is partnering Sania Mirza (ranked #18) – who recently had a lot of success with her mixed doubles partner Bhupathi. However chances in Men’s singles and Women’s doubles are slim. This time, matches will be played in Grass which is not the favorite turf for Indians as per the recent performances. There are a couple more factors – a lot of pairs appear in the Olympics who are not traditional doubles player – such as Roger Federar in Olympics 2008. They are a genuine threat to established doubles pairs.
India bagged a bronze in 2008 Olympics when Sushil Kumar had the bronze medal from wrestling. However, the chances of a medal from wrestling this time is not so bright. No Indians finished in top six in their individual categories in World Championship Wrestling 2011. However, in Women’s wrestling, Geeta narrowly lost in QF of 55kg category can can be considered as a medal hope. If you go a year back, Sushil won gold in the same tournament in 66kg category.
Even though a lot of media focus is on Indian hockey and they actually are playing well at times, I don’t expect them to have a podium finish. I will be very happy if Indian hockey team makes through Champions’ League, i.e. finishes within top six. They are currently ranked #10 and a finish within top 6 should be a realistic success story.
In many other events, Indians will just add the numbers and diversity. I don’t expect a medal from Weightlifting, Athletics, Table Tennis, Rowing or Judo. Among these, woman weightlifter Chanu finished 7th in World Cup but the gap between her and the bronze medalist was significant.
From 1984, India have never performed worse than its last outing. If they can maintain that trend, they should at least get a gold and some more medals. Given India’s population, it might appear that we are under-performing but I believe it has a regional effect. India’s neighbors are doing equally poorly as that of India. So, chances of a rapid recovery is slim, unless we build up some sports infrastructure at home.
I have been reading for a while about post-colonial world and how colonies were able to turn things around. The blog post from Jyoti Rahman made me think twice. Was it all correct?
Being Indian, the version I read and heard a hundred times from my childhood, was that Indian subcontinent along with a lot of other former European colonies were hammered quite heavily by colonialist masters. The sole reason of our current state of poverty seems to be related to our history, which has a couple of hundred years of colonial rule in its timeline. During this period, our raw resources were taken away and were used in factories across Europe to produce items for consumption of rest of the world. On the other hand, our local small industries were bulldozed with high restrictions and they soon mired into oblivion – leaving us a nation full of poor people. Little or no investment in Agriculture and food-distribution caused several famines during colonial rule. No effort for public education system left a bunch of illiterate people. To add on top of that, ever since we became independent, we are doing better and better, with more food, some industries and now the services industries to cheer about. There are multiple examples around us to justify this pattern. (Read an article by Amartya Sen on this topic)
To question this understanding, the first graphics I would refer to, is simply of growth of some of the countries post-independence. If I have to assume that it was raw materials from colonies that caused the growth in masters, then there should be an economic effect of increased availability of those resources in colonies post independence. And a scarcity of the same should be causing growth to limp in the masters.
But the graph above shows absolutely the opposite. In last 50 years, colonies might have got little improvement of per-capita growth, but the gap between colonies and their former masters has expanded at a rapid pace. This makes me comment that rather than we demanding our independence, the masters should have voluntarily freed our nations.
But then comes the next question, why is this disparity, even after the decolonization? There are two answers – one in the side of the masters, the other was from the colonies. After world-wars, the European nations were better of without colonies because they avoided one of the core reasons of their disputes – ownership of colonies. Post-world-war, Germany developed rapidly and this time they didn’t have a problem with other European countries, as they didn’t vie for colonies. There are no intra-state war (not even a proxy one) among Western European colonialists after the colonialism ended. Rather the cold-war kept them united.
The second reason would probably be attributed to a successful shift of their economy to tertiary one, which these countries already doing good at. With higher level of average education and skills in Science, they were bound to lead the world in services and innovation driven economies.
On the other hand, most of the colonies inherited better institutions than their previous native rulers have built (Indian institutions were far better in 1947 than what was left by Mughals in 1757). However, for most of these countries, strong nationalist sentiments drove them to success in the form of independence. These sentiments, coupled with fear from recent-past experiences, made these countries extremely business-unfriendly. They became inward looking, anti-foreign-investment and invested most of the resources into less-productive sectors such as Agriculture and small-scale industries. However, standard of living were improved in these countries in the form of health, education and social indices went up and towards the end of the graph, those start to yield some good results for them.
Now going back to where I started, were these colonies better off being never fallen into the grips of masters? I see point for and against it clearly. The points in favor of this view are discussed in the beginning. The points against it are also becoming clear. For example, between 1750 and 1947, the growth in the World economics were mostly fueled by manufacturing. There were new innovations all along the Europe and an active patent system to protect interest of investment on innovation. Indian rulers before the British did never thought of value of innovation, nor did they encourage it with more business. The culmination of pre-Raj Indian empires were said to be Akbar’s rule that created space for peaceful existence, but not even an iota of industrialization and literacy drive that one would expect in contemporary Europe. If you look at Akbar’s EU contemporaries, you’ll find Elizabeth of England and she appears to be much more farsighted than Akbar. Long later in 1857, Indians started their first war of independence with an objective of getting their old Mughal-Maratha rulers back but not for democracy, literacy, separation of church and state or modernization of infrastructure and institutions. India didn’t yet have enough decision-makers to think in those terms.
In summary, I feel we got what we deserved. Even if there were no such thing named colonization (which again was inevitable) or we were never colonized, we were having roughly the same standard of living that we have today. Whether we named our country as India, or were we have 20 different countries instead of three – are different questions and I can not address them. Guided by democracy with no political setup or autocracy with an extension of Mughal-Maratha-like empires would not have taken us far beyond where we are today.
Bangla Version with a lot of discussion.
I saw a couple of them are coming up for bloggers of West Bengal. So far, Bangla blogging was an effort by bloggers Bangladesh and all blogging sites were hosted by Bangladesh groups. New efforts by Bangla speaking people in India won’t probably bring in competition since Bangladesh is far ahead in this area. I hope this would add a lot of quality materials in web.
Having said that, I must add that there were no troubles for Indians to write in Bangladesh blogs. They generally accommodate everyone cordially. Apart from core Indian political issues, almost every other Indian topics are also discussed in these blogs. I have been writing in quite a few of them and I am happy with them. The one hosted by a group of enthusiasts at sachalayatan.com stands out to be the best in the group, though somewhereinblog.com is the most popular one.
Welcome to the league –
Happy Blogging !!!!
This is the part of World Commission of Dams report on large Indian dams.
Generally speaking, for centuries dams have played a key role worldwide in development. Dams were built all over the world to resolve the problems of spatial and temporal insufficiencies of natural precipitation resulting from growing needs. Dams were built to supply water, control floods, irrigate agricultural lands and provide for navigation. They have also been built to generate electric power. As technology advanced increasingly large dams and complex structures were undertaken.
As the President of ICOLD recently (Hoeg 2000) pointed out “fresh water resources were limited and very unevenly distributed. Seasonal variations and climatic irregularities impeded the efficient use of river runoff with flooding and drought having catastrophic consequences”. He claimed that about 45 000 dams higher than 15m (and about 800 000 smaller ones) “were improving the living conditions of many of the world’s six billion people.”
Different countries or regions, at different stages of development, have developed and will continue to pursue their own policies to face their challenges and fulfil their needs. These policies cannot be labelled intrinsically “bad” or “good” merely because they favour or oppose construction of large dams. The impacts of large dams are location specific. However, the recent debates on large dams have increasingly become polarised and polemical which has tended to cloud issues.
As development priorities changed, particularly in the affluent developed world, and experience accumulated, various groups argued that the expected economic benefits of large dams were not being obtained and that major environmental, economic and social costs were not being taken into account. In recent decades, proposals for new dams and even ongoing dams began to be questioned by affected interests and global coalitions. Some critics (Robbroeck, 1999) of this critical approach asked vehemently if the poor South should stop developing dams because some armchair critics in rich countries want to do whitewater rafting or salmon fishing, while profiting from the lifestyle enabled by decades of dam construction in their part of the world. Yet others (Economist, 1997) point out that predictions of ecological doom have such a poor track record that they should be taken with a pinch of salt. This second group argues that it is possible to be in favour of the environment without being a pessimist. There ought to be room in the environmental movement for those who think that technology and economic freedom will make the world cleaner and will also take the pressure off endangered species.
Large dams have become the subject of controversy and a growing international debate in which India has also been caught up. As India is influenced by the monsoon regarding its water resources, the need for such large dams and storage schemes has been felt even more acutely. However, untill India became an independent nation there was acute poverty and frequent famine with too little economic activity. By the time India launched her belated planned development, the world had gone forward leaving a large gap between the industrialised nations and the poor developing countries. In the 1950s, 1960s and even early 1970s, there was also very limited awareness of the environmental and social issues relating to large dams. The most visible impact of a large dam lay in the submersion of lands and the displacement of people. It has also been pointed out (Verghese, 1999) that while dams displace, so does acute deprivation, but to a far greater degree: also that while the migrants of deprivation are just condemned, those displace by reservoirs are a charge on the Project, with a better package of rehabilitation. It is important to consider not only those displaced by dams, but also those afflicted by drought (Omvedt, 1999).
It is true in many cases that displacement was seen more as an inevitable concomitant of development. There was no dedicated agency or system for dealing with the trauma of displacement or for handling rehabilitation sensitively. It is however equally true to say that India was on a learning curve, which is not the same thing as condoning mistakes, if any, of the past. The question remains if any scientific endeavour has advanced without some mistakes, for example, would NASA stop its shuttle programme because of some failures, would roads or railways be discontinued because accidents continue to happen on them? Rather, such setbacks provide opportunities, for instance, the rehabilitation package for the Sardar Sarovar Project is a vast improvement on how such issues were looked at earlier. Even globally, it was perhaps the World Environment Conference at Stockholm in 1972 that awakened consciences and brought into focus the social, environmental and economic impacts of large dams.
In India, few large dams have aroused as much controversy or such a bitter campaign of hatred as the Sardar Sarovar Project. It had been likened by some to a disaster and yet regarded by others as the most desired and most delayed answer to their problems. Pressure was brought to bear on the World Bank to “step back” from this project, virtually terminating the approved loan. The Sardar Sarovar Project is not an isolated case; there are many others which are the targets of virulent criticism.
In the enthusiastic build up of criticism against large dams, all the ills of faulty agricultural planning, improper use of the developed water made available by the dam, corruption in society, malgovernance, perceived inability of the Government to lay down and enforce right and progressive policies etc, are also heaped on the large dams themselves.
Some critics (Arundhati, 1999) seem to have already come to a firm conclusion that big dams do more harm than good and that in any case they are a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and giving it to the rich. Large dams lay the earth to waste, they cause floods, waterlogging, salinity, they spread disease and so on.
Another analyst (Verghese, 1994:239-253) considers that these critics have not been able to prove their case by rational argument. He points out that the ecological impacts are greatly outweighed by project benefits in the absence of which environmental degradation, migration and distress would take a further toll. The benefits in each case are far greater than the costs, howsoever computed, and if social and indirect costs and benefits are compared, with and without the project, the net gains would be all the greater. Many analysts and even the Central Water Commission concur.
Arguments on the basis of the human rights of the displaced people, particularly the tribals have also been advanced to support the case against large dams. It has been argued (Arundhati, 1999) that no one should take the poor tribals away from their forests, their river, submerge their lands and sacred sites smash their community links and resettle them against their will. The counter arguments (Verghese, 1994) are forceful: It is wrong to attempt to divide Indians on the analogy of the tribals being akin to “indigenous” people, such as the American Sioux Indians. The tribal Indians of India are as much a part of “have-not India”. They too must have access to education, better health, and economic and social opportunity. The choice must be theirs. Under-privileged communities, including the tribals, are moving out from undammed catchments in vast numbers because of the lack of development and opportunity. Satisfaction of a basic water requirement must be considered a basic human right. There is clearly an emerging consensus (Gleick, 1998) which accepts the right to development itself as a basic human right.
The present study is concerned only with the development effectiveness of dams. This is not a study about irrigated agriculture or energy management in India. This is not a study on the social, environmental and economic discrimination that is deemed to be present in India today, nor an outline of the steps needed to make India a welfare state without any discrimination, as is indeed enshrined in India’s constitution.
The World Commission on Dams was set up to address the central issues of controversy with respect to large dams and to provide an independent review of their effectiveness in sustainable development.The Commission cannot deal with matters that are, appropriately, the concern of India, that need to be handled within the country by its lawful government and people. The India case study should, therefore, aim at eschewing passion and sentiment and seek to look at the scene objectively in the light of the Indian experience of large dams and the related needs and aspirations for the future as perceived by the Indian people as well as the lessons these might offer to the developing people of the world.
Arundhati Roy, one of the best Human Rights activists in South Asia, has probably got it wrong this time. So far, she was right to some extent to connect Indian city bombings with the Social Justice. This time, it has gone far beyond the justice and it seems she didn’t wake up in time.
I agree to her that the Hindu fundamentalists are a threat to country. It has been proved repeatedly for last 20 years. I also agree that social injustice has fermented a lot of friction points inside India. But, I don’t attribute this particular attack to the same cause.
There are a list of factual and analytic errors in her article – “9 is not 11” published in The Guardian and The Outlook. It also has a lot of “contextual errors”. Let me go over a few of them.
“The Mumbai attacks are only the most recent of a spate of terrorist attacks on Indian towns“
It’s an absolute failure to identify the distinctive nature of the Mumbai attack. Unlike the others, it was carried out by a set of foreigners who came to India only to launch the attack. The preparation and training involved in the Mumbai attack was far greater than the “hit and run” bomb attacks on other Indian towns. If the other ones required only the knowledge of Mobile phones, SIM cards, detonators, RDX and co-ordination over the internet, then this one requires additional skills such as – handling of GPS, lobbing Grenades, use of AK-47s and intense training on fighting till death for 60 hours.
It’s (The Taj) an icon of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure every day.
This one hardly contextual in the ongoing Mumbai attacks.
On one side (let’s call it Side A) are those who see terrorism, especially ‘Islamist’ terrorism, as a hateful, insane scourge that spins on its own axis, in its own orbit and has nothing to do with the world around it, nothing to do with history, geography or economics. Therefore, Side A says, to try and place it in a political context, or even try to understand it, amounts to justifying it and is a crime in itself.
Side B believes that though nothing can ever excuse or justify terrorism, it exists in a particular time, place and political context, and to refuse to see that will only aggravate the problem and put more and more people in harm’s way. Which is a crime in itself.
The sayings of Hafiz Saeed, who founded the Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Pure) in 1990 and who belongs to the hardline Salafi tradition of Islam, certainly bolster the case of Side A. Hafiz Saeed approves of suicide bombing, hates Jews, Shias and Democracy, and believes that jehad should be waged until Islam, his Islam, rules the world.
Among the things he has said are:
“There cannot be any peace while India remains intact. Cut them, cut them so much that they kneel before you and ask for mercy.”
This one is the most contextual in the ongoing Mumbai attacks. She admits that in some cases, terrorism doesn’t have any contexts. LeT and its mastermind belongs to that category.
Unfortunately, after this she compares Hafiz to Babu Bajrangi and tries to juxtapose the end results of these two persons. As per her article, Babu Bajrangi is set free despite his hate speech but Hafiz Saeed is “banned” by the UN.
Hafiz Saeed has lived the life of a respectable man in Lahore as the head of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which many believe is a front organisation for the Lashkar-e-Toiba. He continued to recruit young boys for his own bigoted jehad with his twisted, fiery sermons. On December 11, the UN imposed sanctions on the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the Pakistani government succumbed to international pressure, putting Hafiz Saeed under house arrest. Babu Bajrangi, however, is out on bail and continues to live the life of a respectable man in Gujarat.
True, but how does it link Justice to the attacks. It’s rather proved that either of these two would have attacked their perceived opponents without any contextual reasons. For an update, Pakistan virtually did not take any action against Hafiz Saeed, neither can they take one.
Interestingly, with all these examples, she took up the the option B.
So, on balance, if I had to choose between Side A and Side B, I’d pick Side B. We need context. Always.
However, she did not include religion, illiteracy and blind-belief as context, which is unfair and creates an analytic error.
In this nuclear subcontinent, that context is Partition.
And what was the context of Partition? Isn’t that a mix of politics, religion and illiteracy? Why the history begins at partition and not from a thousand years of Caste system in India? Why doesn’t it include the rule of Aurangzeb? Why doesn’t it include the divide and rule policy of the British? History is eternal and so is the context. The history of justice and the absence of it is as long as the history of mankind.
air strikes to ‘take out’ terrorist camps may take out the camps, but certainly will not ‘take out’ the terrorists. And neither will war. …
A superpower never has allies. It only has agents.
Absolutely. I agree to this.
Terrorism is a heartless ideology, and like most ideologies that have their eye on the Big Picture, individuals don’t figure in its calculations except as collateral damage. It has always been a part of—and often even the aim of—terrorist strategy to exacerbate a bad situation in order to expose hidden fault lines. The blood of ‘martyrs’ irrigates terrorism. Hindu terrorists need dead Hindus, Communist terrorists need dead proletarians, Islamist terrorists need dead Muslims. The dead become the demonstration, the proof of victimhood, which is central to the project.
Wonderful way of putting it. Now, where does the social justice fit here? Aren’t we going farther away from the arguments in favor of social justice and more towards another deadly cause – propaganda?
After this she went into media-apathy in covering other news and the “good” and “bad” classification by the media which ended up asking for a “Police state”. I believe, if dacoits would have attacked my house, I would have put more vigil at my home from the time being. Why is it wrong to have as an immediate reaction? Isn’t it expected?
Next she delves deep into the Parliament attack, Delhi encounter with Indian Mujaheedin and Malegaon blast. Those are no way related to Mumbai attack, at least the no links has yet emerged. After that she blames the Nation states – India and USA – for a lot of misdeeds. I don’t disagree with most of them, but of course fail to see a connection with Mumbai attacks.
If 10 men can hold off the NSG commandos and the police for three days, and if it takes half-a-million soldiers to hold down the Kashmir Valley, do the math. What kind of Homeland Security can secure India?
Then she raises one question which is valuable to me. However, she did not propose any solution to that. The hint of solution came at her ending lines :
The only way to contain (it would be naive to say end) terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We’re standing at a fork in the road. One sign says ‘Justice’, the other ‘Civil War’. There’s no third sign and there’s no going back. Choose.
I know the best answer to this actually came from Salman Rushdie. I am adding the video entry for his comments.
Also quote –
But the point I want to make is that I do not believe that the terrorists such as these — I do not believe that their project has anything to do with justice.
Ask yourself the question that if the Kashmir problem were resolve tomorrow, if Israel-Palestine reached a lasting peace, do we believe that al-Qaeda would disband? Do we believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad would put their guns down and beat them into plough-shears and say we would now be farmers because our job is done.
I mean the point about is that is laughable, right? And the point about that is that that is not their project. Their project is power. This is a power grab by the most obscurantist, revanchist, old-fashioned, medievalist idea of modern culture that attempts to drag the world back into the middle ages at the point of modern weaponry …
That’s what is fueling the Terrorism – as it did always in the past – the hunger for power. At this point, one might argue that its the social injustice that is generating that sense of deprivation and hunger for power. However, History doesn’t show us many such examples. Nor did it show the end of that hunger once the justice was “won”. One major example could be the Afghanistan Mujaheedins, who were nurtured by Pakistan and USA. They targeted the Soviet Army to expell them from Afghanistan to get their perceived justice. However, after the Soviet Army withdrew, they did not returned to the “Plough-shares” as mentioned by Rushdie. Rather, the majority of them, exported terror outside the territory – from Osama bin Laden in 9/11 to Bangla Bhai in Bangladesh. The case was simple for them – the sense of “injustice” changed once they achieved their bloody battle.What happens to the sense of injustice those are impractical – “Establishing a Ram rajya” or “Re-establishment of Caliphate in India”? Is it possible to arrange “Social Justice” to the victims of so-called context – the Partition.
Social justice, like everything else, has an equilibrium. Suppose there are two communities in a society – A and B. In a perfect democratic setup, A always wins since they are the majority. Now, B has a deep sense of injustice. Let me assume, as per Arundhati, that led to radicalization of the B community. The paradox is, if there are measures taken by the Government ran by A, to improve the status of B – that itself will create similar sense of injustice among A – may be less in percentage. However, the overall percentage of person, who are extremists because of injustice, remains the same, though, they are equally spread among the communities. So, the society doesn’t gain out of effort towards inclusiveness before we remove the community barrier. If both group A and B prioritize their Nation ahread of their Community, half the problem gets resolved. Now, the next question becomes – who creates the community barrier? I believe, there lies the answer … it could be race, color or religion.
The argument from injustice is a never ending one. The absolute justice is never possible. Because, the justice itself is a perception which, like all other inputs to human brain, can be manipulated or brainwashed. A deep sense of injustice can easily be injected into a person who has little to analyze. In our societies, where rational thoughts are always discouraged and elders are always true – no better can be expected.