1990: The Year That Changed India And Pakistan

It is easy for a person to look back at their lives and pinpoint a time or a decision which was a turning point in their lives. We can do that for nations also although it may be a period rather than a date or a series of decisions rather than just one which could be construed as the turning points.

I have selected 1990 (for convenience because it actually was a period of two to three years) as the year when India and Pakistan changed their paths. At that time Pakistan was ahead of India in many social and economic yardsticks. They had earned the gratitude of the Americans by fighting their proxy war against the USSR. Anyone who follows history knows that the US has always helped such countries become economic powerhouses (Germany, Japan and South Korea), But they threw all that away. We all know what happened but discussing the two stories together it puts things in perspective and could offer a compass for a path forward.

A decade long proxy war against the USSR benefited the Pakistanis greatly. They developed their nuclear program during those days. The US knew about that nefarious program but did not do anything because they needed the Pakistanis who in turn squeezed the Americans for large amounts of money and weapons. The Pakistanis also developed the Taliban and various other terrorist outfits to control Afghanistan for strategic depths thinking once again that they will be the first ones in the history of mankind to control the monsters they had created. But once the Soviets were defeated, the US left with Pakistan holding the bag. They could still have done the right thing and rehabilitated the Talibs and they could have either controlled the terrorist groups like LeT of marginalized them by starving them of funds and personnel. But what they did would constitute this turning point in their history. All this happened in the 1989-90.

The hatred that the Pakistanis have for Hindus is unfathomable. It is this hatred that led to the policy of using the Taliban to control Afghanistan for a strategic depth in case of a war with India and use terrorist groups like Let to bleed India. They did bleed us and in the process destroyed J&K, forced a Hindu exodus from the valley and caused a lot of deaths- civilian as well as military. Every peace effort between the politicians of India and Pakistan was sabotaged by either ill-conceived military operation like Kargil or a terror attack. It was a lost decade for Indian citizens of J&K. Indian defence forces finally prevailed and ensured the safety of J&K for the most part. But the price paid for the giving birth to Taliban and Osama Bin Laden was very steep for the US and Pakistan.

When the terrorists and the talibs ran out of targets, they turned on their masters. In the last decade, Pakistanis have lost over 50,000 people to a very bloody terror campaign. As usual, they responded by differentiating between good terrorists (ones who kill Hindus and assorted non-Muslims) and bad terrorists. In fact it wasn't until 140 or so children of Sunni military personnel were gunned down, the Pakistanis were still hesitant in clamping down on their strategic assets. Now that they have started a campaign against various terrorist outfits, one hopes that they succeed. Aside from the loss of life, the economic ruin that these attacks have brought are incalculable. Pakistan has gone from what could have been a reasonably prosperous country to a basket case snatching that title from their estranged Bangladeshi brethren.

Around the same time in India, even with fires burning in J&K we had the good luck of seeing a non Gandhi family Congress PM. As per Wikipedia: With India’s foreign exchange reserves at $1.2 billion in January 1991[2][3][4] and depleted by half by June,[4] barely enough to last for roughly 3 weeks of essential imports,[3][5]India was only weeks way from defaulting on its external balance of payment obligations.

PV Narsimha Rao who was the best Congress PM (the most honest one being LB Shastri) abandoned Nehruvian economics and appointed his second choice for Finance Minister i.e. Manmohan Singh. Again, as per Wikipedia,

Major reforms in India's capital markets led to an influx of foreign portfolio investment. The major economic policies adopted by Rao include:
• Abolishing in 1992 the Controller of Capital Issues which decided the prices and number of shares that firms could issue.[31][33]
• Introducing the SEBI Act of 1992 and the Security Laws (Amendment) which gave SEBI the legal authority to register and regulate all security market intermediaries.[31][34]
• Opening up in 1992 of India's equity markets to investment by foreign institutional investors and permitting Indian firms to raise capital on international markets by issuingGlobal Depository Receipts (GDRs).[35]
• Starting in 1994 of the National Stock Exchange as a computer-based trading system which served as an instrument to leverage reforms of India's other stock exchanges. The NSE emerged as India's largest exchange by 1996.[36]
• Reducing tariffs from an average of 85 percent to 25 percent, and rolling back quantitative controls. (The rupee was made convertible on trade account.)[37]
• Encouraging foreign direct investment by increasing the maximum limit on share of foreign capital in joint ventures from 40 to 51% with 100% foreign equity permitted in priority sectors.[38]
• Streamlining procedures for FDI approvals, and in at least 35 industries, automatically approving projects within the limits for foreign participation.[31][39]

The impact of these reforms may be gauged from the fact that total foreign investment (including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, and investment raised on international capital markets) in India grew from a minuscule US $132 million in 1991–92 to $5.3 billion in 1995–96.[38] Rao began industrial policy reforms with the manufacturing sector. He slashed industrial licensing, leaving only 18 industries subject to licensing. Industrial regulation was rationalised.[31]

The path PM Rao put us on was the turning point for India. In fact it enabled us to utilize our hitherto untapped potential. In fact even during the disastrous ten years of Manmohan Singh who abandoned his own ways in exchange for the PM’s seat could not derail what he had initiated. When the central government tried to move away from our newly found path, the state governments like Gujarat took that and developed it even further. With the current PM, there can be no stopping us (even with the bureaucracy and the socialistic opposition’s mischief).

My analysis may sound simplistic but while watching a video where Moeed Pirzada (who is a very rational man until his hatred for India overtakes his rational part of his brain, is interviewing Simbal Khan comes to the same conclusion as I did or vice versa. Not only him but scores of Pakistani analysts have tried to analyze the mess they are in. Some of them have started to the conclusion that their proxy war with India has nearly destroyed them. Unfortunately for the poor Pakistanis, they keep placing inordinate amount of trust in the only functional organization in their country which is their army which is the solution and cause of their problems. Maybe there is no real hope for that country. That is unfortunate for all concerned including us.

The source of the information for the article are as follows:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak-1990.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kashmir_conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._V._Narasimha_Rao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Indian_economic_crisis

Giriraj Singh Is Right

The definition of racism is as follows:

rac·ism: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

What does it imply when in a lot of our poetry, the woman is referred to as “Gori” (the fair one)? What does it imply when a woman’s face is compared to a moon as in “Chaand sa chehra” (a white orb in a dark background)? What does it imply when in ads for marriages, the groom’s parents explicitly demand a fair girl or the bride’s parents go out of their way to describe their daughter in terms which make her sound fair (using terms like wheatish etc to describe the skin tone)? What does it say about us when a whole lot of our beauty products are supposed to make you fairer? Does this make us racists? It does not and I will explain later.

Spike Lee who is a brilliant moviemaker tackled the issue in his movie “Jungle Fever” where there exist a preference in black population for black women with lighter skin tones. Does that make them racist? I don’t think so. What about the obsession of the white population all over the world who are willing to risk melanoma for a tanned skin? In my dealings with white people I have heard them mock fellow whites with very pale skin? Does that make them racist? No.

Racism is about hatred not about preference. People with darker skin prefer lighter skin because that makes them unique. Same goes for people with white skin who prefer darker skin tones. It is our self loathing that makes us do so not our hatred for others. This preference is a collective burden, our cross to bear if you will.

That said, we in India have another issue adds to the burden that is our natural preference for lighter skin and that is our institutional memory of the British rule. For many Indians, white skin and English language makes us acutely aware of our insecurities. Even the most aggressive Indians tend to abandon their natural tendencies when faced with a person of European origin. I have seen this in the US.

Now coming to the main point I would like to ask you one thing – If Sonia Gandhi had not married Rajiv Gandhi will she be a leader of equal power and prominence in Italy? Will she be locking horns with Silvio Berlusconi and other Italian conservatives for the right of Italian poor? Before you answer that remember her background. In fact her only qualification is that she married the right guy. Before we condemn Giriraj Singh to the depths of hell, we should not forget that the only reason why the Congress leaders brought her to the fore. She has the Gandhi family name which Congress worker worships and she is unique which will be her USP for the voters. What makes her unique? Is it her staggering intellect? Is it her prior experience as a CM of a state or a minister in Central Government or a senior bureaucrat? If she were this brilliant statesperson, then why would Congress be in such doldrums? Going back to the last days of PV Narsimha Rao when Congress wanted a new direction, how did the Congress bigwigs like Janardhan Dwivedi, Oscar Fernandez, Ambika Soni et. al fathom Sonia Gandhi’s administrative capabilities? All of it points to the only thing that makes her unique. If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Hindu or a Muslim housewife like so many other prominent Indian politicians, do you think we would be having this discussion? Clearly Giriraj Singh, in his attempts to make this statement with a dramatic flair decided to go to the other extreme of the color spectrum and replaced white Italian with a Black Nigerian.

Giriraj Singh’s statement should not offend Sonia Gandhi. She is only guilty of the usual human follies. The people who thought her leadership would get a typical Indian voter curious and vote for her are the ones who are guilty of racism. The voters who voted for her because of her “unique features” are also guilty of ignorance and their aforementioned racial burden. So of what is Giriraj Singh guilty? All he did was point out our own weaknesses.

Giriraj Singh is clearly not a diplomat. He has a remarkable ability to say the wrong thing at the worst possible time making him a huge liability for the BJP. However, with his latest remark he has inadvertently brought attention to not only his but the entire country’s attitude about races. Condemn him if you must but look within. See if you or your loved ones have a completely clear conscience about racism.

After Nina Davuluri won the Miss America contest, it was said that she would never win the equivalent title in India. Why? Because she is too dark skinned. Giriraj Singh may be a loudmouth but for once, he is right.

PS: We support Giriraj Singh's right of freedom of speech as we always do. I wish the usual leftist brigade who are for complete freedom of speech will throw their weight behind Singh.

A similar article can be read at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/what-if-rajiv-had-married-a-nigerian-indians-are-racist-giriraj-singh-is-right-2182249.html