Sidhartha Varadarajan: The variegated challenges confronting Narendra Modi

Rashmun wrote:http://time.com/108648/modi-and-the-world/

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://time.com/108648/modi-and-the-world/

>>>>>Varadarajan is right on economics. This will trump everything to a very significant extent. His point about Pakistan and Bangladesh doesn't make sense. They are peripheral to where he wants to take India. Also, I am not sure why he thinks there won't be chemistry with Obama, but that is not going to be what sets the tone of the relationship anyway. It is going to be commercial self interest. He is speaking from an old paradigm perspective on managing relationships with China, the US and Japan. The US and China are rivals in terms of spheres of influence, but he doesn't have to pick sides here. Japan is a different kettle of fish, but he may have a personal relationship with Abe which he may want to build on. I am not sure how that factors in with the other two.I will re-read the article when I get a chance. The above are just some initial thoughts.

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://time.com/108648/modi-and-the-world/

>>>>>Varadarajan is right on economics. This will trump everything to a very significant extent. His point about Pakistan and Bangladesh doesn't make sense. They are peripheral to where he wants to take India. Also, I am not sure why he thinks there won't be chemistry with Obama, but that is not going to be what sets the tone of the relationship anyway. It is going to be commercial self interest. He is speaking from an old paradigm perspective on managing relationships with China, the US and Japan. The US and China are rivals in terms of spheres of influence, but he doesn't have to pick sides here. Japan is a different kettle of fish, but he may have a personal relationship with Abe which he may want to build on. I am not sure how that factors in with the other two.I will re-read the article when I get a chance. The above are just some initial thoughts.

The crucial point about Bangladesh is that just as there are Bangladeshi migrants working in India, so there are Indian migrants working in Bangladesh. As per Varadarajan, the Indian migrants in Bangladesh transmit around two thirds of the money out of the country that Bangladeshi migrants transmit out of India. So Modi's claim that Bangladeshi migrants in India need to be kicked out of the country because they are taking away jobs which could be done by Indians seems to be uncalled for. It would be in the interest of India if it has a good relationship with Bangladesh.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://time.com/108648/modi-and-the-world/

>>>>>Varadarajan is right on economics. This will trump everything to a very significant extent. His point about Pakistan and Bangladesh doesn't make sense. They are peripheral to where he wants to take India. Also, I am not sure why he thinks there won't be chemistry with Obama, but that is not going to be what sets the tone of the relationship anyway. It is going to be commercial self interest. He is speaking from an old paradigm perspective on managing relationships with China, the US and Japan. The US and China are rivals in terms of spheres of influence, but he doesn't have to pick sides here. Japan is a different kettle of fish, but he may have a personal relationship with Abe which he may want to build on. I am not sure how that factors in with the other two.I will re-read the article when I get a chance. The above are just some initial thoughts.

The crucial point about Bangladesh is that just as there are Bangladeshi migrants working in India, so there are Indian migrants working in Bangladesh. As per Varadarajan, the Indian migrants in Bangladesh transmit around two thirds of the money out of the country that Bangladeshi migrants transmit out of India. So Modi's claim that Bangladeshi migrants in India need to be kicked out of the country because they are taking away jobs which could be done by Indians seems to be uncalled for. It would be in the interest of India if it has a good relationship with Bangladesh.

>>>>I don't know what the numbers are in terms Indian nationals in Bangladesh, but what I was saying was this is not a high priority item in the what needs to be on his agenda. The main battles are economics, relationships with the west and china and of course, security in the neighborhood. At best, Bangladesh would be a subset of the security issue.

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://time.com/108648/modi-and-the-world/

>>>>>Varadarajan is right on economics. This will trump everything to a very significant extent. His point about Pakistan and Bangladesh doesn't make sense. They are peripheral to where he wants to take India. Also, I am not sure why he thinks there won't be chemistry with Obama, but that is not going to be what sets the tone of the relationship anyway. It is going to be commercial self interest. He is speaking from an old paradigm perspective on managing relationships with China, the US and Japan. The US and China are rivals in terms of spheres of influence, but he doesn't have to pick sides here. Japan is a different kettle of fish, but he may have a personal relationship with Abe which he may want to build on. I am not sure how that factors in with the other two.I will re-read the article when I get a chance. The above are just some initial thoughts.

The crucial point about Bangladesh is that just as there are Bangladeshi migrants working in India, so there are Indian migrants working in Bangladesh. As per Varadarajan, the Indian migrants in Bangladesh transmit around two thirds of the money out of the country that Bangladeshi migrants transmit out of India. So Modi's claim that Bangladeshi migrants in India need to be kicked out of the country because they are taking away jobs which could be done by Indians seems to be uncalled for. It would be in the interest of India if it has a good relationship with Bangladesh.

>>>>I don't know what the numbers are in terms Indian nationals in Bangladesh, but what I was saying was this is not a high priority item in the what needs to be on his agenda. The main battles are economics, relationships with the west and china and of course, security in the neighborhood. At best, Bangladesh would be a subset of the security issue.

I understand the need to have a good relationship with China and the west. Can u explain to me the importance been given to having good relations with Japan? Thanks.