Indian Rupee INR has fallen again now to a new historic low of Rs. 52.76/ 1 USD$. At this rate it will touch Rs 58/$ by end of 2012. Now as we say that India is growing as an economic power is it possible to allow its currency to fall at this rate. Currently Indian Rupee is one of the weakest currencies of the top 10 economic powers. How can we say India as an economic power when its actual power i.e. its currency is one of the weakest in the world. Indian government is fuelling inflation by not revaluing the rupee as it says that it will hurt IT and Exports? How? Is India an export oriented country? Then let me point out that Chinese Yaun and Thai Bhat are both stronger than the rupee and both countries export far more goods than India. India imports large amount of cured oil which cost us USD to pay our vendors. Why can't Indian Government force these countries to accept Rupees rather than USD to pay for our oil requirements. Iran recently agreed for the same, but our government made the payments in Euros rather than Indian Rupee. Do we print Euros or USD to give these countries? No so the best option is to make payments in Indian Rupee. We should make agreements with all our trade partners for a currency Swap program which will allow these countries to buy Indian Rupees and pay in them for goods imported from us. This will also revalue our currency and allow it to be accepted world wide.
23 November 2011
17 July 2011
Indonesia invites Indian investments in infrastructure
Indonesia invites Indian investments in infrastructure
CHENNAI: Indonesia has invited Indian industrialists to invest in infrastructure sectors and also look at it as a source of many other products apart from coal in order to expand bilateral trade and investments between the two countries, its envoy said on Saturday."Indonesia is not just a large coal producer. We have other national resources which India can look at. We would like to grow the bilateral trade between India and Indonesia to $25 billion by 2015 from the current $13 billion," Indonesian Ambassador to India Andi M. Ghalib said here at a meeting with industrialists organised by Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
Referring to the 32 memorandums of understanding (MOU) signed between India and Indonesia early this year, he said 18 are business-to-business with an investment/business potential of around $16 billion.
Inviting Indian industrialists to invest in infrastructure sectors in Indonesia, Ghalib said the discussions between the two countries on signing a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) will be held.
Investment cooperation between the two countries is also increasing by the year. India's investment in Indonesia has increased from $11.6 million in 2007 to $44 million in 2010.
Indian investment is present in various industries including mining, automotives and machinery, clothing, agriculture and chemicals.
India is also Indonesia's largest buyer of crude palm oil and an importer of its mining, petroleum and paper products.
On its part, India exports refined petroleum products, wheat, rice, sugar and steel to Indonesia.
According to Ghalib, the two countries are in the process of setting up an Eminent Persons' Group (EPG) to develop 'Vision Statement 2025' for the Indonesia-India strategic partnership.
The EPG would guide the future progress and prepare a blue print of Indonesia-India relations over the next 15 years.
Ghalib said Garuda Airlines is in discussion with India in securing landing rights in couple of major Indian cities.
Is Afghanistan ready to decide its own destiny?
Is Afghanistan ready to decide its own destiny?
US President Barack Obama's announcement of the start of American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, and his administration's increasing emphasis on reconciliation with the Taliban, have been studied attentively in one capital that has a large stake in the outcome — New Delhi.
India has no troops in Afghanistan, but it has invested roughly $1.5 billion to help reconstruct the country, with projects ranging from maternity hospitals to Kabul's electricity grid. During his visit toAfghanistan in May, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced additional assistance of $500 million, over and above India's existing commitments. This is by far India's largest foreign aid program, because Afghanistan — separated from India only by its hostile neighbour Pakistan — remains a country of vital strategic significance for India.
So, what does the looming US withdrawal mean for India's role in Afghanistan? India has largely focused its aid efforts on building institutional capacity and developing human resources, so that Afghans can stand on their own feet before long. One ongoing project is the construction of a new parliament building in Kabul, a symbol of India's desire to see representative institutions flourish. But it is no secret that India does not believe that Afghanistan is ready to dispense with the foreign forces that have been shoring up domestic peace.
India is not a member of the United States led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a largely Nato operation to which it was not invited to contribute, given Pakistani sensitivities about a possible Indian military presence in Afghanistan. But India regards the foreign military presence as indispensable to promoting political stability and economic reconstruction. Without the security provided by a serious troop presence, the kind of development projects in which India is engaged would become impossible.
No one in India's government really expects US forces to disappear overnight from Afghanistan, despite the elimination of Osama bin Laden. The plan is to withdraw only 10,000 US troops by the year-end. Later, when winter sets in (traditionally the season when military activity declines ), America will withdraw another 5,000. But Obama says that he intends to bring the 30,000 "surge" troops back home by next summer, after the Afghan snows melt and the US election season starts heating up. Even if he does, 68,000 US troops would remain — twice the number deployed in Afghanistan when he became President.
By 2014, the US intends to reduce its operational presence to a role largely confined to supporting Afghan forces. Even that does not imply full withdrawal. After all, the rationale for the original US intervention was to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for the next Bin Laden. Indications are that the US will maintain about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, even in the most modest scenario. Indians have every reason to be relieved. An Afghanistan without ISAF will be prey to the machinations of Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which created, trained, financed, and directed the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s.
As a result, America's interest in reconciliation with the Taliban is viewed with concern in India. After long rejecting this approach (on the reasonable grounds that there can be no such thing as a good terrorist), India has come around to accepting dialogue with those Taliban elements that are prepared to renounce violence.
Obama speaks of dealing with Taliban members who agree to break with al-Qaida and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But India is wary of those who, under Pakistani tutelage, might pretend to be reborn constitutionalists, but seize the first opportunity after a US withdrawal to devour the regime that compromises with them.
This is why India stresses the importance of improving the Afghan government's capacity to fight and overcome terrorism. The role of Pakistan — whose over-ambitious military has made no secret of its desire to control the government in Kabul in order to gain "strategic depth" — remains of serious concern, particularly given China's recent progress in making Pakistan its own zone of "strategic depth," with access from the Karakoram mountains to the Arabian Sea.
India shares America's commitment to what Obama described last December as the "longterm security and development of the Afghan people." But, for India, any process of reconciliation should be Afghan-led, inclusive, and transparent. India fully supports the "red lines" affirming Afghan leadership and ownership of the negotiating process laid down by President Hamid Karzai's government in its London and Kabul communiqués.
The bottom line for India remains the Afghan people's right to decide their own destiny. It views the international community's role as being to help Afghans accomplish that. And it doesn't believe that Afghanistan is ready for the world to give up on it yet.
US President Barack Obama's announcement of the start of American troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, and his administration's increasing emphasis on reconciliation with the Taliban, have been studied attentively in one capital that has a large stake in the outcome — New Delhi.
India has no troops in Afghanistan, but it has invested roughly $1.5 billion to help reconstruct the country, with projects ranging from maternity hospitals to Kabul's electricity grid. During his visit toAfghanistan in May, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced additional assistance of $500 million, over and above India's existing commitments. This is by far India's largest foreign aid program, because Afghanistan — separated from India only by its hostile neighbour Pakistan — remains a country of vital strategic significance for India.
So, what does the looming US withdrawal mean for India's role in Afghanistan? India has largely focused its aid efforts on building institutional capacity and developing human resources, so that Afghans can stand on their own feet before long. One ongoing project is the construction of a new parliament building in Kabul, a symbol of India's desire to see representative institutions flourish. But it is no secret that India does not believe that Afghanistan is ready to dispense with the foreign forces that have been shoring up domestic peace.
India is not a member of the United States led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a largely Nato operation to which it was not invited to contribute, given Pakistani sensitivities about a possible Indian military presence in Afghanistan. But India regards the foreign military presence as indispensable to promoting political stability and economic reconstruction. Without the security provided by a serious troop presence, the kind of development projects in which India is engaged would become impossible.
No one in India's government really expects US forces to disappear overnight from Afghanistan, despite the elimination of Osama bin Laden. The plan is to withdraw only 10,000 US troops by the year-end. Later, when winter sets in (traditionally the season when military activity declines ), America will withdraw another 5,000. But Obama says that he intends to bring the 30,000 "surge" troops back home by next summer, after the Afghan snows melt and the US election season starts heating up. Even if he does, 68,000 US troops would remain — twice the number deployed in Afghanistan when he became President.
By 2014, the US intends to reduce its operational presence to a role largely confined to supporting Afghan forces. Even that does not imply full withdrawal. After all, the rationale for the original US intervention was to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for the next Bin Laden. Indications are that the US will maintain about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, even in the most modest scenario. Indians have every reason to be relieved. An Afghanistan without ISAF will be prey to the machinations of Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which created, trained, financed, and directed the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s.
As a result, America's interest in reconciliation with the Taliban is viewed with concern in India. After long rejecting this approach (on the reasonable grounds that there can be no such thing as a good terrorist), India has come around to accepting dialogue with those Taliban elements that are prepared to renounce violence.
Obama speaks of dealing with Taliban members who agree to break with al-Qaida and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But India is wary of those who, under Pakistani tutelage, might pretend to be reborn constitutionalists, but seize the first opportunity after a US withdrawal to devour the regime that compromises with them.
This is why India stresses the importance of improving the Afghan government's capacity to fight and overcome terrorism. The role of Pakistan — whose over-ambitious military has made no secret of its desire to control the government in Kabul in order to gain "strategic depth" — remains of serious concern, particularly given China's recent progress in making Pakistan its own zone of "strategic depth," with access from the Karakoram mountains to the Arabian Sea.
India shares America's commitment to what Obama described last December as the "longterm security and development of the Afghan people." But, for India, any process of reconciliation should be Afghan-led, inclusive, and transparent. India fully supports the "red lines" affirming Afghan leadership and ownership of the negotiating process laid down by President Hamid Karzai's government in its London and Kabul communiqués.
The bottom line for India remains the Afghan people's right to decide their own destiny. It views the international community's role as being to help Afghans accomplish that. And it doesn't believe that Afghanistan is ready for the world to give up on it yet.
14 April 2011
BRICS working for shared prosperity: Manmohan Singh
BRICS working for shared prosperity: Manmohan Singh
Sanya, Apr 14 (ANI): Emphasising that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) economies occupy a strategic economic position, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, today said that all these countries share the vision of inclusive growth and prosperity in the world.
Addressing the plenary session of BRICS Leaders here, Dr. Singh said: "The challenge before us is to harness the vast potential that exists among us. We are rich in resources, material and human. We are strengthened by the complementarities of our resource endowments."
"We stand for a rule-based, stable and predictable global order. We respect each other's political systems and stages of development. We value diversity and plurality. Our priority is the rapid socio-economic transformation of our people and those of the developing world. Our cooperation is neither directed against nor at the expense of anyone," he added.
He further said: "We have the opportunity to give concrete meaning to the concept of sustainable and balanced development, and produce innovative models of development. We can cooperate in clean and alternative sources of energy and technologies.
Stressing that nuclear safety has emerged as a major source of concern the world over after the tragedy in Japan, Dr Singh said: "We should cooperate in this area, as well as in disaster relief and management."
"We live in an age when science and technology and the growth of human knowledge are becoming major determinants of the power and wealth of nations. We should share our experiences in capacity building, education and skill development," he added.
Emphasising that as large and diverse societies we are vulnerable to new and emerging threats, Dr. Singh said: " It is our duty to our citizens that we cooperate in the fight against terrorism, extremism and intolerance and other non-traditional threats like piracy."
"We should join hands in ensuring a peaceful and orderly transformation of the world order that reflects contemporary and emerging realities. This should be the case whether it is the reform of political and security governance structures in the United Nations or the international financial, monetary or trade system," he added.
Reaffirming India's commitment to a balanced and ambitious outcome to the Doha round of WTO negotiations, Dr. Singh said: " India will continue to engage with its partners to facilitate a rule-based multilateral trade regime which is fair, equitable and addresses the development agenda effectively."
"Cooperation among BRICS holds the promise of building an external environment for ourselves that helps each of us and complements our task of nation building. To that extent I would say the best is yet to come," he added.
He further said India stands ready to work with other BRICS countries to realize these goals.
"Our Ministers and officials must be mandated to give practical shape to our vision and take steps that bring the benefits of our collaboration to the common man," he added.
World trade talks hinge on China, India, Brazil - U.S.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fate of long-running world trade talks depend on whether China, India and Brazil are willing to make a deal that will open their markets to additional foreign goods and services, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said on Wednesday.
"If I can just be blunt, the question is whether they are willing to walk in the room, close the door and hammer out a deal," Kirk said in a speech at a trade symposium hosted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection .
The remark came a day after European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht warned that the nearly 10-year-old Doha round of trade talks were at a difficult stage and there was "no reason to be optimistic" about the chances of success.
"We're still at the table," Kirk said. "There's an anxiety that we may not get there. But we think it would be a real shame if we weren't able to find a way to rationalize global trade and get a Doha deal that works for everyone."
Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Kirk and De Gucht's comments show the "precarious" state of the talks one week before the World Trade Organization is due to release new draft texts for the supposedly final stage of negotiations.
"I suspect there are last gasp efforts right now to try to avoid another breakdown," Schott said, referring to the numerous setbacks and missed deadlines in the talks since they were launched in late 2001 in Doha, Qatar.
"It's very hard to see how there would be a positive response to the secretariat's overtures unless there was some prospect that the major trading nations were going to offer more at the negotiating table," Schott said.
China, India and Brazil don't bear all the responsibility for the state of the talks, but each has its own reasons for resisting U.S. pressure for deeper market openings than they have offered so far, Schott said.
China argues it has already opened its market more than most developing countries, while Brazil and to some extent India worry about the competition their manufacturers will face from China if they make deep tariff cuts, he said.
Brazil, a major agricultural exporter, also has complained about the amount of farm subsidy and tariff cuts the United States and the European Union are willing to make in exchange for the new market openings they want.
Kirk said developing countries often complain that the United States and the European Union have long dominated the process of establishing the international rules for trade.
"We've gladly opened that door and shown them we have three more chairs: one for China, one for India and one for Brazil."
"No three economies have benefited more from trade liberalization over the last 10 years than China, India and Brazil. That's a good thing," Kirk said.
"But with that blessing comes a responsibility, and we believe China, India and Brazil have the opportunity to find out just how bloody awful it is to bring these things to a close," Kirk said.
Despite De Gucht's bleak assessment of the talks, Kirk said he thought substantial progress had been made over the past 18 months in persuading other WTO members that a draft July 2008 deal did not do enough to open markets to more trade.
"If I can just be blunt, the question is whether they are willing to walk in the room, close the door and hammer out a deal," Kirk said in a speech at a trade symposium hosted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection .
The remark came a day after European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht warned that the nearly 10-year-old Doha round of trade talks were at a difficult stage and there was "no reason to be optimistic" about the chances of success.
"We're still at the table," Kirk said. "There's an anxiety that we may not get there. But we think it would be a real shame if we weren't able to find a way to rationalize global trade and get a Doha deal that works for everyone."
Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Kirk and De Gucht's comments show the "precarious" state of the talks one week before the World Trade Organization is due to release new draft texts for the supposedly final stage of negotiations.
"I suspect there are last gasp efforts right now to try to avoid another breakdown," Schott said, referring to the numerous setbacks and missed deadlines in the talks since they were launched in late 2001 in Doha, Qatar.
"It's very hard to see how there would be a positive response to the secretariat's overtures unless there was some prospect that the major trading nations were going to offer more at the negotiating table," Schott said.
China, India and Brazil don't bear all the responsibility for the state of the talks, but each has its own reasons for resisting U.S. pressure for deeper market openings than they have offered so far, Schott said.
China argues it has already opened its market more than most developing countries, while Brazil and to some extent India worry about the competition their manufacturers will face from China if they make deep tariff cuts, he said.
Brazil, a major agricultural exporter, also has complained about the amount of farm subsidy and tariff cuts the United States and the European Union are willing to make in exchange for the new market openings they want.
Kirk said developing countries often complain that the United States and the European Union have long dominated the process of establishing the international rules for trade.
"We've gladly opened that door and shown them we have three more chairs: one for China, one for India and one for Brazil."
"No three economies have benefited more from trade liberalization over the last 10 years than China, India and Brazil. That's a good thing," Kirk said.
"But with that blessing comes a responsibility, and we believe China, India and Brazil have the opportunity to find out just how bloody awful it is to bring these things to a close," Kirk said.
Despite De Gucht's bleak assessment of the talks, Kirk said he thought substantial progress had been made over the past 18 months in persuading other WTO members that a draft July 2008 deal did not do enough to open markets to more trade.
03 April 2011
::Cricket World Cup 2011: India Win World Cup
India has won the Cricket world Cup 2011 by defeating Sri Lanka by 6 wickets. India defeated Sri Lanka by 6 wickets at Wankhede Stedium Mumbai, India. The man of the match was MS Dhoni, Captain of Indian Cricket team.
25 March 2011
::Cricket World Cup 2011:: India Beat Australia
India has defeated Australia to storm into the Semi Finals of Cricket World Cup 2011. India beat Australia by 5 wickets at Ahmadabad, India. India now play Pakistan in the Semi Finals.
21 March 2011
::Cricket World Cup 2011:: Its Australia vs India in the Quarters
Its Australia vs India in the 2nd quarter finals of Cricket world Cup 2011 which will be played on 23rd March 2011 at Ahemdabad, India.
13 March 2011
::Cricket World Cup 2011: Australia Beat Kenya
Australia beat Kenya in their group encounter at Cricket World Cup 2011. Australia won by 60 runs. Australia Kenya Scorecard
::Cricket World Cup 2011: New Zealand Beat Canada
New Zealand beat Canada in their league match at Cricket world Cup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)