Webbo Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 By Andrew Gilligan 9:00PM GMT 04 Feb 2012 2162 Commentshttp://www.telegraph...t-your-aid.html Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. The disclosure will fuel the rising controversy over Britain’s aid to India. The country is the world’s top recipient of British bilateral aid, even though its economy has been growing at up to 10 per cent a year and is projected to become bigger than Britain’s within a decade. Last week India rejected the British-built Typhoon jet as preferred candidate for a £6.3 billion warplane deal, despite the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, saying that Britain’s aid to Delhi was partly “about seeking to sell Typhoon.” Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament. “We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session. “It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure].” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up. According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed “not to avail [of] any further DFID [british] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,” because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”. Thoughts?
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 If true totally disgusting, we should do what the french did and behead them all
FoxyPV Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I heard something about this on Radio 4 during the week and the jusitifcation that was put forth, aside from trade, was that the UK is trying to help those in poverty everywhere and the % of the population in India that was below the poverty line was the main reason.
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 India has large armed forces, a space program, nukes and we send them aid. Does not matter who we have in power, they are all incompetent or corrupt.
I am Rod Hull Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I`v been receiving aid from India for years.... I`v been getting 2 free poppadoms with every main meal I buy from my local Indian takeaway and I really appreciate it. Thank you India. Also get a bag of prawn crackers from the good people of China.
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Two free popadoms, the swine charge for over one
I am Rod Hull Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Two free popadoms, the swine charge for over one Not from the Little Bangla in Swadlincote they don`t but I have been using them for nearly 15 years...
The Year Of The Fox Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I heard something about this on Radio 4 during the week and the jusitifcation that was put forth, aside from trade, was that the UK is trying to help those in poverty everywhere and the % of the population in India that was below the poverty line was the main reason. Charity begins at home. Get our own country off its arse before trying to sort one out that will never get off its arse. I was reading somehwere that India have given France the job of building their new fighter jets. What do France do for India?
Finnegan Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Charity begins at home. Get our own country off its arse before trying to sort one out that will never get off its arse. I was reading somehwere that India have given France the job of building their new fighter jets. What do France do for India? Probably didn't enslave them for a hundred odd years, for a start. Edit: Shows what I know about Indian history, apparently they did. Forget that, then!
ithuriel Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 They tried but like most things we were better at it
Haydos Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Probably didn't enslave them for a hundred odd years, for a start. Edit: Shows what I know about Indian history, apparently they did. Forget that, then!
breadandcheese Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Probably didn't enslave them for a hundred odd years, for a start. Erm.... we didn't enslave them. It's a common misconception that we enslaved the empire. Whilst there was certainly an element of using force, it would have been impossible for Britain to enslave the entire empire, bearing in mind the size of the places they were conquering and the distances involved. The spread of the empire, was the from number of colonies who signed deals and treaties to become part of the empire. The benefits were not only one way. During the period of the British empire, foreign direct investment to less developed countries as a percentage of world GDP were at the highest levels ever (today's figures are nowhere near the level they were under the empire). You can see the results in India with the development of the railways, civil service, some of the buildings, etc. The true example which shows that the empire was not a one-way relationship was the amount of troops from colonial countries who fought on behalf of Britain during the World Wars. These are people who uprooted and travelled huge distances to fight for a country they had never been to. This is not to say that we should wish for the Empire back. I am not advocating it, nor do I wish it. It is a historical footnote. However, I don't think we should rubbish it. In terms of the aid, if Indian ministers no longer believe they need it, then there's no need for discussion, India's made the decision already. Better to route the aid to other places that need it more or reduce the aid budget.
acooling08 Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Good on the Indians for trying to get it stopped. Our politicians sometimes make me despair. Why why why why why are we paying aid to a country that doesn't need or want it when we are neck deep in shit ourselves?
Captain... Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Aid to India was discussed on question time this week, although this article wasn't mentioned. If India don't want our aid then we should send it to a country that needs it more, the problem is, if we withdraw our aid will the Indian government put the same amount of money into projects to help the poorest in their country, of which there are many. Reading the article above it seems the reason for not wanting our aid is "because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”." That is a bit of a stupid reason to not want aid, when there is widespread poverty in India. India are trying to develop their way to being a super power, but the wealth is held by very few and there are huge amounts of poverty in the country. We can only morally withdraw our aid if India are prepared to continue with the welfare projects the aid goes to. The issue on QT was should we be giving aid to a country that is developing it's own space program, as is so often the case the most sensible argument came from the audience who stated that for every dollar of investment in the US space program they have received 45 dollars return on that investment. (I can't find any evidence to support that exact figure but I can find similar evidence that NASA makes a lot of money back on its investments I have read 7-22 dollars for each dollar or 2 dollars for each dollar). If we want India to not need our aid we should be supporting them while they grow, now whether they have grown enough to not need our aid I guess depends on if you take the country as a whole, GPD, national budget , wealth within the country then you could argue yes, but then if you look at the numbers that are still in poverty, and what commitments the Indian government has to tackling poverty, you could argue no.
dave the caveman Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Good intentions ruined by the crapshoots of politics and corruption. The Indian finance minister may not need the money, but the millions living in poverty probably do. Like China, India is succeeding economically by running the country like a business and treating the citizens as employees. The success of this questionable approach has led to a certain arrogance among their top officials, but the reality is that the vast majority of people in both countries are still desperately poor, and we should not allow their top level arrogance to put us off completing worthwhle projects. Or at least that's what i'd say if I didn't suspect the whole thing is just a sweetener in a bid to get their business.
davieG Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I'd be more interested to know how much if any reaches it's intended target if the country is being run as describe in this topic I'd have serious doubts it's certainly been shown to be the case not only abroad but in England where money for specific improvement projects gets swept up by anonymous officialdom.
Captain... Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I'd be more interested to know how much if any reaches it's intended target if the country is being run as describe in this topic I'd have serious doubts it's certainly been shown to be the case not only abroad but in England where money for specific improvement projects gets swept up by anonymous officialdom. Well this was one of the things addressed by Alan Duncan on Question Time, they do not just give money to the government, they support specific projects and invest time as well and money in ensuring that these projects are run well. This may be one of the reasons why they don't want to cut the aid because they have invested a lot of time and money in projects attempting to bring areas out of poverty and want to see them through to fruition, and maybe do not believe that the Indian Government would do the same. He was also adamant that it is purely aid they are providing and do not expect any business favours or trade favours for providing this aid.
dave the caveman Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I'd be more interested to know how much if any reaches it's intended target if the country is being run as describe in this topic I'd have serious doubts it's certainly been shown to be the case not only abroad but in England where money for specific improvement projects gets swept up by anonymous officialdom. I would be suprised if there isn't a culture of siphoning off money and high level corruption in the world of international aid. Our recent expenses scandal is a hint at the kind of thing that goes on, only with aid you're looking at millions, rather than thousands of pounds.
Fox92 Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 We shouldn't support any other country, in my opinion. The money we donate to other countries is ridiculous, especially when our country is in a mess and our industries need the money.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 It's just a guilt trip for the Raj. History lesson over.
Zingari Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I just always assumed that foreign aid were code words for unaccountable slush funds to help our businesses abroad to get huge contracts from that country by way of bribes and oiling the wheels of negotitions .
I am Rod Hull Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 I just always assumed that foreign aid were code words for unaccountable slush funds to help our businesses abroad to get huge contracts from that country by way of bribes and oiling the wheels of negotitions . Amen....
Saxondale Posted 5 February 2012 Posted 5 February 2012 Is this is a bit like when the council go round wanking away their budgets at the end of the financial year to get it used up? "Here India, you might as well have this aid, otherwise our budget will be less next year" EDIT: "If you don't have it, we'll give it Pakistan. So who's it gonna be?"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.