Shunning UK aid would show India’s rising confidence
Choosing to jump on its own terms than face the ignominy of waiting to be pushed, India may have politely but firmly asked the UK not to send any more aid from next year in a sign of the country’s increasing self-confidence on the global stage.
Citing whispers in London’s corridors of power that suggest the country’s Department for International Development (DFID) was preparing to radically reduce the cash sent to India, the Indian Express reported on Wednesday that Nirupama Rao, India’s Foreign Secretary, had asked the Finance Secretary “not to avail any further DFID assistance with effect from 1st April 2011.”
A DFID spokesperson told Reuters: “All DFID’s country programmes are currently under review to ensure our aid helps the poorest people in the poorest countries. No decision on future funding to India has been made and we are in close dialogue with the Government of India.” The Ministry for External Affairs were not available for comment.
Since 1998, India has received more British aid than any other country, worth over £1.5 billion ($2.3 billion) in the past five years.
If the report is true, the Indian government’s decision to end aid would signal that the country wants to be in control of its own financial affairs, rather than appearing dependent on others. It demonstrates a confident approach to international relations and an assertion that the country is able to look after itself.
Sending taxpayer funds to India has become increasingly difficult to justify for the cash-strapped British government, who have committed to cutting the country’s record deficit by 25 percent over the next five years.
What makes a religious symbol conspicuous?
Last week, a college in Mangalore in India banned a student wearing a burqa from attending class. The principal told local media the college had a policy of not allowing symbols of religion.
The media did not say if there were students on campus with a ‘bindi’ (dot) on their foreheads or crucifixes around their necks or turbans on their heads, other symbols of religion one commonly sees in India, besides the ubiquitous “Om” scarves and t-shirts.
Mangalore, a cosmopolitan city, is no stranger to controversy; it was recently in the news for attacks on bars and women by a fundamentalist Hindu outfit that declared they were against Indian culture.
Nor is the controversy over headscarves and burqas limited to India. UK’s Jack Straw sparked a heated debate when he asked Muslim women in his constituency to remove their veils to promote better relations between people.
Turkey last year lifted a ban on women wearing headscarves at universities, ruling it violated the country’s secular constitution.
More recently, French president Sarkozy said burqas have no place in the country because they are a symbol of the subjugation of women. The issue has divided France, home to Europe’s largest Muslim minority, over how to reconcile secular values with religious freedom.
A 2004 French law bans students from wearing “conspicuous” signs of their religion in state schools, prompting Sikhs to launch a protest to allow them to keep their turbans on.
I would just like to make it clear that Muslim women are NOT forced to wear a hijab by their religion but by the way a country they live in is ruled. There is no rule in Quaran that tells you to ‘always cover yourself’! It is just if a country is quite strict, like Saudi Arabia, you will need to cover yourself, and if it is not, like Kuwait or Kazakhstan, women can dress in whatever they want! It just annoys me so much, when people say that ‘poor Muslim women need to wear the hijab all the time because of their religion’! It is not the religion, people, it is the way a country is ruled! I am a Muslim woman, from a Muslim country, but living in UK and I do not wear a hijab and do not cover myself up.
Riding out the global crisis…in a Bentley
If you want a break from a global financial meltdown, the launch of Bentley’s latest luxury car in India can be welcome relief – and show that the rich are still doing what they do best. Buying unnecessary things.
It means you can, in my case, leave behind an office full of tired journalists hunched over ever more depressing data, and ignore TV screens showing grimfaced politicians and weepy traders.
Out there somewhere, someone has the cash to buy the ‘New Continental Flying Spur Speed’ Bentley – even if that somebody isn’t you.
The car – which costs a cool Rs2.5crore (over half a million USD) – was on display at one of the capital’s high-end hotels on Friday.
Boasting a stylish black finish and a retro-style front grille, the car’s specs are, in the current climate, almost satirical.
To get to 100kmh needs just 4.8 seconds of pedal pressing; while your top speed – if you were ever tempted to try it out – is 322kmh.
Every car is also custom-made to fit the whims of those who can still afford to be whimsical; and is built with a decadent slowness that means that the cover for the steering wheel, for example, takes 5 1/2 hours to stitch together.
“Is that enough to justify being here or being in Business?”
They aren’t exactly selling them for peanuts. 60 is more than enough to finance 100 more Bently’s.
India is over confident about its economy which in a impoverished country always will dwindle and where the poverty line is intentionally hidden to show a better face of the real situation of the country to the world as if the world community do not know the facts.
It is good that a country can look after itself, aid countries would be happy to see that they are relieved of the burden to some extent. Well the British government will always have a soft corner for its colonial servants especially this very country.