in future became sunami how change in india?

Answer 1

Hi,

The current Fourth ASEAN-India Summit is an occasion when India is emphasizing the ‘non-antagonistic’ aspects of its rivalry with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). The late Mao Zedong had long established how the antagonistic and the non-antagonistic aspects of contradictions governed the class warfare within a society. The antagonistic contradictions lead to conflict and even internecine warfare, while the non-antagonistic contradictions may lead to rapprochement and stability. The non-antagonistic contradictions are highly manageable, while the antagonistic contradictions are potentially cataclysmic.

Applying that adage on international politics, both India and China currently seem to be emphasizing their mutual non-antagonistic contradictions, which would prove to be highly beneficial to both of them.

Call it a rare phase of history when the two giant Southern Asian nations are embarking on their momentous journey of becoming great powers. Both of them have highly vibrant economies, both are viewed by the global entrepreneurs as highly promising markets, and both of them have made their firm commitments to market economy.

Considering the fact that a radical transformation related to global economic transactions have powerful implications for their domestic economic activities, both India and China are experiencing equally radical mutations regarding domestic patterns of consumerism. Their markets are being flooded with cheap goods and new malls; their consumer credit practices are creating buying booms of automobiles, cheap cell phones, and moderately priced electronic goods, etc.

The information revolution in both India and China is creating new shock waves of change, which may have a potentially deleterious effect on China, but it may also bring about some unanticipated changes for India as well.

China as a communist polity has never really understood, an even less appreciated, how powerful the notion of information can become in terms of its capabilities to bring about manageable changes. Just recall what happened to the former Soviet Union, when Mikhail Gorbachev introduced Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness). That was done when the Soviet Union was operating as a totalitarian society. When the openness (leading to the flow of information) was introduced in such a system, the force of change became a tsunami of change within a short period of time, sweeping away everything that came in its way, thereby imploding the Soviet Union.

The Chinese leaders have every reason to be both mindful, as well as fearful, of that example. Yet there is nothing they can do to forestall the impending change because, as the economic system becomes increasingly integrated into the global trade system, all attempts to keep the totalitarian political system intact increasingly become nothing but an uphill struggle. If the Chinese leaders do not want to be caught off guard, they had better be aware of the radical change that their polity would face within less than a decade or so. That means that the Chinese totalitarian system is facing an exorable challenge of impending radical change. About the only option the Chinese leaders may have is to anticipate it and attempt to manage it. But they cannot do it by keeping their totalitarian political system altered for long.

For India, the impact of the information revolution is likely to be even more democracy, an increased amount of transparency in governmental decisions, and eradication of political corruption. Increased democracy in a country that already operates on the principles of democracy means the continued process of coalition-based government, and even increased instability. Increased instability for India poses no danger to the future of democracy. The only question is how would increased governmental instability affect India’s future commitment to market economy? However, as long as India’s commitment to market economy remains intact, the larger introduction of globalization in India is likely to push it toward even increased implementation of capitalistic practices and economic openness.

One of India’s greatest pathologies is a high degree of political corruption at all levels of government [the Transparency International’s “corruption perception index” for India is 88, considerably higher that of China, which is 78). Even the information revolution has failed to bring about a focused and targeted eradication of corruption. Only a combination of increased openness and increased practices of coalition-based governance over a long period of time might be able to uproot a variety of vested interests that have assiduously promoted political corruption.

India’s Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, made a point of emphasizing on the occasion of the ASEAN Conference that “There is a misconception that India and China are competitors and this is not true.” That is, indeed, a major change of policy from 1998, when, in the aftermath of India’s testing of its nuclear weapons, the then defense minister of that country, George Fernandez, named China as a major reason underlying India’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons.

The question now is whether India and China are no longer potential competitors or adversaries. To the extent that both of them are rising powers, the notion of competition is an integral aspect of their regional as well as global policies.

However, after becoming a nuclear power, India does not have to struggle to become a military equal of China. Its conventional forces—air and naval—definitely have an edge over those of China. China’s land forces, however, may be qualitatively roughly equal to that of India. With an increased buildup of its land-based ballistic missiles, India is in a toe-to-toe competition with China’s nuclear forces. At the same time, as long as both of these giants remain focused on economic competition (non-antagonistic contradiction), the entire issue of the dynamics of the nuclear doctrines of both countries do not remain highly relevant. By the same token, if their relations were to become antagonistic, the specifics of their nuclear doctrines become irrelevant, since both sides are likely to opt for a nuclear exchange at the first sign of a military conflict going badly for either of them.

So, the statement of Dr. Singh—that the Sino-India ties are no longer competitive—is not too relevant as long as India and China remain focused on building on their respective economic strengths and economic spheres of influence.

That is precisely what India is doing through its long-standing practice of “Look East” policy. That policy is now creating palpable results, especially with Malaysia’s recent decision to make a major investment in India’s infrastructure. It is through enhancing its economic presence in East Asia that India is making its presence felt in that region, which is traditionally considered as China’s area of primary sphere of influence.

The economic competition is now on without much fanfare or without the use of rhetorical hyperboles. Both India and China are increasingly focused on letting their economic performance make a case for their increased strategic presence and influence in East Asia as well as in West Asia. The latter region is an area where China had a low economic presence and interest. However, with its ever-escalating energy needs driving its presence and interests, China has already acquired high visibility in West Asia. India’s high degree of economic development is also driving India seek energy resources all over the world.

The Southern Asia has become a region for intense economic progress, thus a region where the chances of the outbreak of military are minimal at the present time. In all likelihood, both rising powers of Asia would remain focused on economic competition, progress and stability in the coming years, and would do everything to avoid wars. In that sense, India’s continued pursuit of East Look policy is quite promising.

Narendra

Answer 2

Give this person a break. It makes sense to me. It is quite evident he is asking, "In the future because of the threat of one or more sunamis, especially the really big ones, how has this threat changed the public mindset and changed low lying building codes in shore-front communities susceptible to ocean flooding". Well, since it is in India, not a whole lot.

Answer 3

As long as earth is there, there will be some kind of natural disasters. Therefore, it is better to safe guard our future interests right now. All the states near the shores should move their fishermen villages away from the beaches. Should not construct their important structures near the shores. There is no one time solution for these things.

Answer 4

You need to translate this into something more understandable in English.

Answer 5

dont come to yahoo unless you have a good english!