PM says UK should show India some "humility." Should it not be the other way round?
British Prime Minister David Cameron has arrived in India with the largest British delegation to visit that country since the British Raj ended in 1947.
And, fresh from his gaffe during his recent visit to Washington in which he said that Britain was the "junior partner" to the US in WWII during 1940 - despite the fact that the US hadn't even entered the war in 1940 and Britain was fighting the Nazis on its own - the Prime Minister has yet again succeeded in talking Britain down, breaking a convention that British PMs do not do such a thing.
Cameron has refused to apologise after writing in The Hindu newspaper that Britain came to the world's largest democracy "in a spirit of humility."
'I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India’s future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door,' he said.
There is now more criticism of the PM back home over his comments which make it appear he has a reduced view of Britain's once-mighty place on the world stage.
The PM went on: 'There is no one more patriotic about Britain, our history, our place in the world, our potential, than me. But I think it is important to recognise that with rising countries like India, we have to work at the relationship and show all the things that we can offer India, as well as the great markets they can offer us.'
There are those in the UK who believe that rather than Britain showing India humility, it should be India showing Britain humility. India may not be the great, wealthy nation that it is today if it wasn't for the British who, for example, introduced the railway, Western education, science, technology, the English language and a good administration into that country, just like the Romans introduced coins, wine, stinging nettles, bricks and cement, apples, pears, grapes, aqueducts and cats to Britain. The Indian railway network is now the second largest in the world.
Another reason why it should India showing humility to Britain? Well, there's the millions Britain gives India every year in Third World aid, and many in Britain are starting to question whether the £250 million that India receives in Third World aid each year are justified when it is now one of the world's most sophisticated and booming economies.
Whilst in India, Cameron has also slammed neighbouring Pakistan - India's arch-enemy - for supporting terrorism and the Taliban.
During a question and answer session in Bangalore, Cameron said: We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.
Pakistan was a part of India when India - now the world's second-largest nation and largest democracy - was a British colony. It was known as the jewel in Britain's imperial crown. India gained independence in 1947.
'I'm not talking Britain down', Cameron insists, after claiming we should show India humility
By Mail Online Reporter
28th July 2010
Daily Mail
The Prime Minister insisted he was not talking down the UK but argued it was right to be 'realistic' about our place in the modern world.
He tried to quell a row over his suggestion as he arrived in India that the UK should bend its knee to its former colony.
But he managed to spark yet more controversy by suggesting Pakistan was promoting the 'export of terror' around the world.
This came hours after Mr Cameron infuriated Israel by branding Gaza a 'prison camp' and criticising its attack on an aid flotilla arriving from Turkey earlier this year.
He has raised eyebrows by being so trenchant during his first spate of international visits since taking power in May.
The British are coming: David Cameron and the UK delegation boarding the plane to India
Lavish: David Cameron with the Governor of Karnataka, Dr Hans Raj Bharadwaj in Bangalore today as he starts his two-day trip to India
The PM arrived in Bangalore today at the head of the largest UK delegation since the sun set on the British Raj in August 1947.
Despite coming under fire for describing Britain as the 'junior partner' to the U.S. last week, he wrote in The Hindu newspaper that he came 'in a spirit of humility'.
'I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India’s future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door,' he said.
He stood by his comments this morning despite fierce criticism at home that they make it appear he has a reduced view of Britain's once-great place on the world stage.
'There is no one more patriotic about Britain, our history, our place in the world, our potential, than me,' he said this morning. 'But I think it is important to recognise that with rising countries like India, we have to work at the relationship and show all the things that we can offer India, as well as the great markets they can offer us.'
The good old days: British soldiers in Lucknow, India, 1857. Britain ruled India from 1857 - when it took over from the British East India Company - to 1947.
He added: 'I'm not in any way talking Britain down... I'm fiercely patriotic about Britain. I think we have a huge role to play in the world. We do still punch above our weight in the world for many reasons - not least the brilliance of our armed forces and our proud traditions, history and institutions, all of which I am madly proud of.
'But at the same time, if you want to win strong relationships with countries like India and China, you have got to talk about the future. Taking a realistic view of our position and place in the world and how we are going to build those relationships, I think, is a very sensible thing to do.'
The Prime Minister also apologised for his gaffe in Washington last week when he said that Britain had been the 'junior partner' to the U.S. in 1940.
He told the BBC he had meant the latter part of World War II and that '1940 is the proudest year in all of British history'.
David Cameron and Infosys Technologies Chairman N. R. Narayana Murthy at the company's headquarters in Bangalore today
Welcome: The Prime Minister with Dr Hans Raj Bharadwaj (third right) at the start of his two-day visit to India
Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit yesterday accused the Prime Minister of speaking as though Britain had something to ‘apologise’ to India for. ‘I begin to wonder if Mr Cameron has read any history,’ he said.
‘I spent quite a bit of time in India before Mr Cameron was born and I doubt very much if an apologetic tone is the right one. ‘We should be proud of our time in India, and India should be proud of what it is today.’
Andrew Rosindell, the Right-wing Tory MP for Romford, said Mr Cameron was right to try and forge a special relationship with India.
But he added: ‘We need an equal partnership with India. I don’t believe we have anything to be apologetic about. British influence in India has been a positive thing for the country.’
Nigel Farage, of the UK Independence Party, said: ‘Isn’t it time we stopped
apologising for stuff our great-grandfathers may or may not have done? We should treat India like every nation, as a grown-up competitor, colleague and friend.’
A Downing Street source insisted Mr Cameron’s words were not designed to do Britain down. ‘It’s not about inferiority or superiority, it’s just recognising the fact that India is a fast-growing economy,’ the source said.
‘We can’t afford to rest on our laurels and rely on the old colonial ties.’
Tough talk: David Cameron answers questions after delivering his speech at Infosys Technologies in Bangalore
Whistlestop: Mr Cameron on stage at the Infosys Technologies headquarters
Others pointed out that Indian culture prides itself on extreme politeness to guests or hosts.
But Mr Cameron’s remarks appear to indicate that he is ready to adopt a ‘realist’ foreign policy and is more prepared than his predecessors to acknowledge Britain’s diminished status on the world stage, even if it leads to criticism at home.
In a speech to business leaders in Bangalore today, Mr Cameron heaped further praise on India, saying: ‘The Indian tiger has been uncaged and its power can be felt around the world. And we feel that power too.’
There was further controversy as the Prime Minister appeared to step up the rhetoric against Pakistan over accusations that it supports terrorist groups.
Aides were later forced to clarify his comments and insist he was not talking about the Pakistan government.
He said: 'We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan,' he said during a question and answer session in Bangalore.
'But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.
'That is why this relationship is important. It should be a relationship based on a very clear message - that it is not right to have any relations with groups that are promoting terror.'
Mr Cameron said it was an issue he discussed with U.S. president Barack Obama last week and would talk to Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh about tomorrow.
Feeling bullish: George Osborne poses outside the BSE in Mumbai today
'Of course, when it comes to protecting our people, we cannot overlook what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan,' he said.
'Let me state clearly, your [India's] relations with those countries are a matter for you and you alone. But let me also say we - like you - want a Pakistan that is stable, democratic and free from terror.
'We, like you, want an Afghanistan that is secure, free from interference from its neighbours and not a threat to our security.
'We, like you, are determined that groups like the Taliban, the Haqqani network or Lakshar e Taiba should not be allowed to launch attacks on Indian and British citizens in India or in Britain.
'Nor against our people, whether soldiers or civilians, from both our countries who are working for peace in Afghanistan.'
Aides to the Prime Minister said he had not been talking about the Pakistani government.
A spokesman for Mr Cameron said: 'The Prime Minister is not saying that the Pakistan government is a sponsor of terrorism.
'But he is saying, and has said previously, that the Pakistan government needs to do more to shut terror groups down.'
Mr Cameron also tried to clarify his position later.
'The point I was simply making in response to a question this morning is that we have to be clear in our dealings with the Pakistanis - as we are and the Americans are - that it is unacceptable for any support to be given from within Pakistan for any terrorist organisations that export terror,' he told the BBC.
'It is well-documented that that has been the case in the past. It is an issue where we have to make sure that the Pakistani authorities are not looking in two ways.
'They must only look one way, and that is to a democratic and stable Pakistan that can have, of course, good relations with a democratic and stable Afghanistan.'
Asked if his comments indicated that he believed elements in Pakistan were currently backing terrorism, he replied: 'I have said what I've said. But to be fair, there has been big progress in Pakistan in terms of targeting terror and terrorists in Pakistan.
'We have seen that in recent years and the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a result has got stronger. But we need to see that progress continued.'
Mr Cameron's comments come shortly after the leak of confidential 'war logs' which included detailed claims that Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency was secretly helping the Taliban.
But Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit dismissed the claims as 'crude, self-serving and unverifiable' and said Mr Cameron should not use them as a basis for his analysis of the situation.
Mr Basit told BBC Radio 4's World at One: 'We believe it is important that we don't create unnecessary hype around these reports.
'As the international community knows very well, Pakistan is committed against terrorism, against militancy, and we are committed not to allow our territory to be used for terrorism or terrorist actions anywhere in the world.
'So there is no question of Pakistan looking the other way.
'I think the Prime Minister was referring to these reports, which are unverifiable and out-dated. If we start drawing inferences from these self-serving reports, then obviously we are distracting ourselves.'
Pakistani Senator Khurshid Ahmad, vice-president of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami Party warned that Mr Cameron's remarks risked fuelling 'anti-American, anti-West' feeling on the streets.
'I am deeply concerned,' Professor Ahmad told World at One. 'The basis on which this statement has been made is very fragile.
'The documents released are unreliable - 90 per cent of them have been attributed to the Afghan intelligence agencies, whose reports are totally unreliable and fabricated.
'On the basis of such a report, it is not acceptable to make the statement that has been made.'
Sophisticated India shouldn't need third world aid
By Roshan Doug
28th July 2010
Daily Mail
David Cameron’s visit to India is proving to be a little uncomfortable for both Britain and his host country.
He’s expected to walk a political tight-rope – appeasing those in his coalition party who think there should be a cap on immigration from Asia whilst at the same time recognising there is a mass consumer market in countries like India of which Britain need to take advantage.
Meet and greet: David Cameron with Karnataka state Governor H.R. Bhardwaj by a statue of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi in Bangalore today
No one would doubt that Britain needs to develop a closer trade and economic alliance with the Indians. It’s clear, for instance, that both China and India are emerging as technologically-based economies that are going to influence global trade and commerce – and Britain has got to be at the heart of that expansion.
How is Cameron going to justify – to the Indian government – the cap on immigration from their country which his party is proposing?
Of course it makes sense that we need to control immigration in this country, and to argue otherwise is politically naive. But it’s going to be diplomatically tricky to convince the Indians.
But what is equally tricky – indeed, difficult – is for Cameron to justify why India needs to be given roughly £250 million every year as third world aid. India has a sophisticated space programme, extensive nuclear power and defence projects. It is spending colossal amounts of money on luxuries like google earth and other satellite navigation systems. So it would be reasonable to ask why Britain – and indeed, other developed countries – need to feel obliged to give anything in the way of financial aid.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for humanitarian efforts. And I do believe that as a developed country Britain should – or must – take an active part in erasing the world’s malnutrition, poverty, illiteracy, disease, homelessness, exploitation and child-labour.
It is our responsibility as people in the privileged northern hemisphere to support countries that are tackling these issues because their existence says something about humanity and mankind. Our refusal to intervene – or to show a blatant indifference – is morally inexcusable.
However, it is also rather disingenuous for countries like India to ask for aid to tackle poverty whilst at the same time developing luxurious space programmes that indicate egotism, vanity and an abandonment of social and moral responsibility.
India can’t have it both ways. The country’s government must show a complete commitment to erasing the abject poverty that is visible in so many states - like Bihar, where basic commodities like water are not only scarce but sometimes dangerously contaminated. And that requires accountability – showing clearly where the millions of pounds’ worth of aid is going. A basic tub-well needed to irrigate a field or two does not constitute a full £250 million worth of expenditure.
Either that or India stops asking for aid and Britain reviews its criteria to support international aid programmes.
Colonial power: Cameron offers a traditional greeting as he leaves a meeting. He is heading the largest British delegation to travel to India in recent memory
Clearly the people that Britain is supposed to be helping see very little of the aid we send – evidence speaks for itself. You only have to go to the rural areas to see how dreadful the conditions are, and they’ve been like that for over half a century. I think this country needs to re-examine the way money filters down to the ordinary, desperate people in India.
So who is benefiting from the aid the British taxpayer is sending to that ‘jewel in the Crown’? Well, not the poor – that is for sure.
To understand why India hasn’t solved its problems relating to various aspects of poverty you only have to look at how aid is distributed. As it is passed down from one official or office to another it is pocketed. How else can the senor politicians and government officials justify their huge properties and sizeable bank accounts?
Money that trickles down to the poor is misappropriated by everyone from government officers to village ‘officials’ and in the end the corrupt, local politicians will appease the poor with just a few rupees. Violence is rife when it comes to politics, law and justice and the poor don’t stand a chance.
People recognise this sorry state of affairs. Very few Indians - including British Asians - would refute the allegation that at the heart of India’s problems lie its burgeoning bureaucracy and corruption.
Anyone who has ever been on holiday in India knows that to get anything done there you have to either wait forever – or you pay officials. It is all to do with bribery, part and parcel of the social fabric of Indian society.
Bribery is embedded in the system. A couple of years ago I went back to India in search of my father’s will, made back in 1972. After three days of going from one office to another I was intensely fed up. A relative suggested I paid an official something like 4,000 rupees, around £50 to speed things up. In a matter of hours the document miraculously appeared.
That says a lot about India’s officialdom - money and pay-offs are the basis of its system. Unless India can show clear accountability for the money it receives from the developed world, Britain should halt further aid and review the means it employs to alleviate world poverty.
And I’m speaking as one who was born in northern India.
READERS' COMMENTS
Folks, Cameron may be weak and useless but his position makes him dangerous as he pontificates on behalf of the British people to the rest of the world - some one should remind him that he did not win the election (!)
- alan, beverley, east yorks
****************************************
Perhaps India should show us some humility considering the British tax payer has paid for their new airport, space program and fed, sheltered and vaccinated their poor too, if we're funding their government and then doing its job for them then what exactly has changed since they were a colony?
- Dave, Warwick
*************************************
Yep, our servile Prime Minister's done it again. After relegating Britain's war effort to "junior partner" status when he was in America and creeping to Turkey over their efforts to get their snouts in the EU trough when he was there he's now grovelling to India by "bending the knee" and deliberately offending their long-time enemy, Pakistan. He really will say anything to curry favour (no pun intended) with whichever nation he happens to find himself in.
Where's Sir Vile Creep going next on his Grand Tour of Grovelling and how's he going to make Britain look foolish there? If this is his idea of international diplomacy can't we confiscate his passport?
- Chris, Lichfield,
******************************
Well Dave. You really know how to cut a figure on the world stage. You better get off your knees before you get calluses on them. Can't we get ourselves a leader of some note who will stand on the world stage for our interests? He might want to tell India that until it opens its markets up we won't allow its big conglomerates to take over our industries. He could let them know that as they are now sending rockets into space, they shouldn't need our money to feed their people. But why bother when you can just have a nice jolly and not upset anyone.
- Craig, Leeds, UK
*********************************
David,
I can assure you that this trip will go down in history as a gigantic blunder.
Your speech yesterday in Turkey was way out of line.... who gave you the mandate to make such a speech, we the people didn't, do you remember us ,the people who voted for you? The same people you promised to empower !
Then to go to India in 'humility' , well really , many of us think you have lost your marbles !
- katie, Uk
***********************************
as we can all see india is doing quite well for its self so can someone explain to me why are we still giving them financial aid as the are clealy not a poor country,this money saved could go a long way building back up england instead of supporting another country who clearly does not need it.can this idiot of a prime minister explain this while he is cutting services in england he is not cutting foreign aid.
- sj, birmingham england
**********************************
Whether he intended to take Britain down or not, Cameron has certainly tried to take Scotland down over the Al-Megrahi release. There was tacit approval of the release from the UK and from the US administrations, as letters and papers released recently show, but neither Cameron nor Obama have any compunction in making Scotland the fall guy in this affair. Scotland in Cameron's eyes is disposable and unimportant, in spite of his lip service to showing "respect".
He will have difficulty in uttering the word 'respect' again in relation to Scotland.
- Jwil, Lanarkshire Scotland
**********************************
be happy on your small island and watch India and China gobble you up. welcome to the third world status
- Ramesh, Mumbai, India
*******************************
Ramesh, of Mumbai says in response to India's growth prospects.:. 'welcome (Britain) to the third world status'
Careless and ungrateful words indeed. Just remember which nation handed all of you in the third world, freely, this modern world to begin with, one in which you hope to, and do, prosper and with the expectation to be able to Lord it over us in gleeful revenge.
Remember this next time you want help feeding yourselves or with your nuclear program. The world in fact owes us a debt they can never repay, but you'd never think it to listen to the bile and vitriol emanating from your ungrateful mouths.
If you think this technology stuff is easy then why don't you lot invent something new, instead of just copying us. After all there's enough of you. But, you haven't so far and you never will. Same applies to the rest of the world, waiting for Brits to do it all for you, and then biting the hand that feeds you (literally).
- Cynic, Dyed in the wool,
*********************************
Reading the comments of gobbling my country up , China 's power , how many Indians, Pakistanis etc are here? Good heavens above , why the hell do you not ALL go home whence you came . And if India is so great why is so many here ?
- parrcent, merseyside
dailymail.co.uk
British Prime Minister David Cameron has arrived in India with the largest British delegation to visit that country since the British Raj ended in 1947.
And, fresh from his gaffe during his recent visit to Washington in which he said that Britain was the "junior partner" to the US in WWII during 1940 - despite the fact that the US hadn't even entered the war in 1940 and Britain was fighting the Nazis on its own - the Prime Minister has yet again succeeded in talking Britain down, breaking a convention that British PMs do not do such a thing.
Cameron has refused to apologise after writing in The Hindu newspaper that Britain came to the world's largest democracy "in a spirit of humility."
'I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India’s future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door,' he said.
There is now more criticism of the PM back home over his comments which make it appear he has a reduced view of Britain's once-mighty place on the world stage.
The PM went on: 'There is no one more patriotic about Britain, our history, our place in the world, our potential, than me. But I think it is important to recognise that with rising countries like India, we have to work at the relationship and show all the things that we can offer India, as well as the great markets they can offer us.'
There are those in the UK who believe that rather than Britain showing India humility, it should be India showing Britain humility. India may not be the great, wealthy nation that it is today if it wasn't for the British who, for example, introduced the railway, Western education, science, technology, the English language and a good administration into that country, just like the Romans introduced coins, wine, stinging nettles, bricks and cement, apples, pears, grapes, aqueducts and cats to Britain. The Indian railway network is now the second largest in the world.
Another reason why it should India showing humility to Britain? Well, there's the millions Britain gives India every year in Third World aid, and many in Britain are starting to question whether the £250 million that India receives in Third World aid each year are justified when it is now one of the world's most sophisticated and booming economies.
Whilst in India, Cameron has also slammed neighbouring Pakistan - India's arch-enemy - for supporting terrorism and the Taliban.
During a question and answer session in Bangalore, Cameron said: We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.
Pakistan was a part of India when India - now the world's second-largest nation and largest democracy - was a British colony. It was known as the jewel in Britain's imperial crown. India gained independence in 1947.
'I'm not talking Britain down', Cameron insists, after claiming we should show India humility
By Mail Online Reporter
28th July 2010
Daily Mail
- PM is in India with largest UK delegation since 1947
- Cameron insists 'no one is more patriotic than me'
- But he says UK has to be 'realistic' about its place
- He suggests Pakistan is promoting 'export of terror'
- Warning his claim could fuel 'anti-West' feeling
The Prime Minister insisted he was not talking down the UK but argued it was right to be 'realistic' about our place in the modern world.
He tried to quell a row over his suggestion as he arrived in India that the UK should bend its knee to its former colony.
But he managed to spark yet more controversy by suggesting Pakistan was promoting the 'export of terror' around the world.
This came hours after Mr Cameron infuriated Israel by branding Gaza a 'prison camp' and criticising its attack on an aid flotilla arriving from Turkey earlier this year.
He has raised eyebrows by being so trenchant during his first spate of international visits since taking power in May.
The British are coming: David Cameron and the UK delegation boarding the plane to India
Lavish: David Cameron with the Governor of Karnataka, Dr Hans Raj Bharadwaj in Bangalore today as he starts his two-day trip to India
The PM arrived in Bangalore today at the head of the largest UK delegation since the sun set on the British Raj in August 1947.
Despite coming under fire for describing Britain as the 'junior partner' to the U.S. last week, he wrote in The Hindu newspaper that he came 'in a spirit of humility'.
'I know that Britain cannot rely on sentiment and shared history for a place in India’s future. Your country has the whole world beating a path to its door,' he said.
He stood by his comments this morning despite fierce criticism at home that they make it appear he has a reduced view of Britain's once-great place on the world stage.
'There is no one more patriotic about Britain, our history, our place in the world, our potential, than me,' he said this morning. 'But I think it is important to recognise that with rising countries like India, we have to work at the relationship and show all the things that we can offer India, as well as the great markets they can offer us.'
The good old days: British soldiers in Lucknow, India, 1857. Britain ruled India from 1857 - when it took over from the British East India Company - to 1947.
He added: 'I'm not in any way talking Britain down... I'm fiercely patriotic about Britain. I think we have a huge role to play in the world. We do still punch above our weight in the world for many reasons - not least the brilliance of our armed forces and our proud traditions, history and institutions, all of which I am madly proud of.
'But at the same time, if you want to win strong relationships with countries like India and China, you have got to talk about the future. Taking a realistic view of our position and place in the world and how we are going to build those relationships, I think, is a very sensible thing to do.'
The Prime Minister also apologised for his gaffe in Washington last week when he said that Britain had been the 'junior partner' to the U.S. in 1940.
He told the BBC he had meant the latter part of World War II and that '1940 is the proudest year in all of British history'.
David Cameron and Infosys Technologies Chairman N. R. Narayana Murthy at the company's headquarters in Bangalore today
Welcome: The Prime Minister with Dr Hans Raj Bharadwaj (third right) at the start of his two-day visit to India
Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit yesterday accused the Prime Minister of speaking as though Britain had something to ‘apologise’ to India for. ‘I begin to wonder if Mr Cameron has read any history,’ he said.
‘I spent quite a bit of time in India before Mr Cameron was born and I doubt very much if an apologetic tone is the right one. ‘We should be proud of our time in India, and India should be proud of what it is today.’
Andrew Rosindell, the Right-wing Tory MP for Romford, said Mr Cameron was right to try and forge a special relationship with India.
But he added: ‘We need an equal partnership with India. I don’t believe we have anything to be apologetic about. British influence in India has been a positive thing for the country.’
Nigel Farage, of the UK Independence Party, said: ‘Isn’t it time we stopped
apologising for stuff our great-grandfathers may or may not have done? We should treat India like every nation, as a grown-up competitor, colleague and friend.’
A Downing Street source insisted Mr Cameron’s words were not designed to do Britain down. ‘It’s not about inferiority or superiority, it’s just recognising the fact that India is a fast-growing economy,’ the source said.
‘We can’t afford to rest on our laurels and rely on the old colonial ties.’
Tough talk: David Cameron answers questions after delivering his speech at Infosys Technologies in Bangalore
Whistlestop: Mr Cameron on stage at the Infosys Technologies headquarters
Others pointed out that Indian culture prides itself on extreme politeness to guests or hosts.
But Mr Cameron’s remarks appear to indicate that he is ready to adopt a ‘realist’ foreign policy and is more prepared than his predecessors to acknowledge Britain’s diminished status on the world stage, even if it leads to criticism at home.
In a speech to business leaders in Bangalore today, Mr Cameron heaped further praise on India, saying: ‘The Indian tiger has been uncaged and its power can be felt around the world. And we feel that power too.’
There was further controversy as the Prime Minister appeared to step up the rhetoric against Pakistan over accusations that it supports terrorist groups.
Aides were later forced to clarify his comments and insist he was not talking about the Pakistan government.
He said: 'We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan,' he said during a question and answer session in Bangalore.
'But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.
'That is why this relationship is important. It should be a relationship based on a very clear message - that it is not right to have any relations with groups that are promoting terror.'
Mr Cameron said it was an issue he discussed with U.S. president Barack Obama last week and would talk to Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh about tomorrow.
Feeling bullish: George Osborne poses outside the BSE in Mumbai today
'Of course, when it comes to protecting our people, we cannot overlook what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan,' he said.
'Let me state clearly, your [India's] relations with those countries are a matter for you and you alone. But let me also say we - like you - want a Pakistan that is stable, democratic and free from terror.
'We, like you, want an Afghanistan that is secure, free from interference from its neighbours and not a threat to our security.
'We, like you, are determined that groups like the Taliban, the Haqqani network or Lakshar e Taiba should not be allowed to launch attacks on Indian and British citizens in India or in Britain.
'Nor against our people, whether soldiers or civilians, from both our countries who are working for peace in Afghanistan.'
Aides to the Prime Minister said he had not been talking about the Pakistani government.
A spokesman for Mr Cameron said: 'The Prime Minister is not saying that the Pakistan government is a sponsor of terrorism.
'But he is saying, and has said previously, that the Pakistan government needs to do more to shut terror groups down.'
Mr Cameron also tried to clarify his position later.
'The point I was simply making in response to a question this morning is that we have to be clear in our dealings with the Pakistanis - as we are and the Americans are - that it is unacceptable for any support to be given from within Pakistan for any terrorist organisations that export terror,' he told the BBC.
'It is well-documented that that has been the case in the past. It is an issue where we have to make sure that the Pakistani authorities are not looking in two ways.
'They must only look one way, and that is to a democratic and stable Pakistan that can have, of course, good relations with a democratic and stable Afghanistan.'
Asked if his comments indicated that he believed elements in Pakistan were currently backing terrorism, he replied: 'I have said what I've said. But to be fair, there has been big progress in Pakistan in terms of targeting terror and terrorists in Pakistan.
'We have seen that in recent years and the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a result has got stronger. But we need to see that progress continued.'
Mr Cameron's comments come shortly after the leak of confidential 'war logs' which included detailed claims that Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency was secretly helping the Taliban.
But Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit dismissed the claims as 'crude, self-serving and unverifiable' and said Mr Cameron should not use them as a basis for his analysis of the situation.
Mr Basit told BBC Radio 4's World at One: 'We believe it is important that we don't create unnecessary hype around these reports.
'As the international community knows very well, Pakistan is committed against terrorism, against militancy, and we are committed not to allow our territory to be used for terrorism or terrorist actions anywhere in the world.
'So there is no question of Pakistan looking the other way.
'I think the Prime Minister was referring to these reports, which are unverifiable and out-dated. If we start drawing inferences from these self-serving reports, then obviously we are distracting ourselves.'
Pakistani Senator Khurshid Ahmad, vice-president of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami Party warned that Mr Cameron's remarks risked fuelling 'anti-American, anti-West' feeling on the streets.
'I am deeply concerned,' Professor Ahmad told World at One. 'The basis on which this statement has been made is very fragile.
'The documents released are unreliable - 90 per cent of them have been attributed to the Afghan intelligence agencies, whose reports are totally unreliable and fabricated.
'On the basis of such a report, it is not acceptable to make the statement that has been made.'
Sophisticated India shouldn't need third world aid
By Roshan Doug
28th July 2010
Daily Mail
David Cameron’s visit to India is proving to be a little uncomfortable for both Britain and his host country.
He’s expected to walk a political tight-rope – appeasing those in his coalition party who think there should be a cap on immigration from Asia whilst at the same time recognising there is a mass consumer market in countries like India of which Britain need to take advantage.
Meet and greet: David Cameron with Karnataka state Governor H.R. Bhardwaj by a statue of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi in Bangalore today
No one would doubt that Britain needs to develop a closer trade and economic alliance with the Indians. It’s clear, for instance, that both China and India are emerging as technologically-based economies that are going to influence global trade and commerce – and Britain has got to be at the heart of that expansion.
How is Cameron going to justify – to the Indian government – the cap on immigration from their country which his party is proposing?
Of course it makes sense that we need to control immigration in this country, and to argue otherwise is politically naive. But it’s going to be diplomatically tricky to convince the Indians.
But what is equally tricky – indeed, difficult – is for Cameron to justify why India needs to be given roughly £250 million every year as third world aid. India has a sophisticated space programme, extensive nuclear power and defence projects. It is spending colossal amounts of money on luxuries like google earth and other satellite navigation systems. So it would be reasonable to ask why Britain – and indeed, other developed countries – need to feel obliged to give anything in the way of financial aid.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for humanitarian efforts. And I do believe that as a developed country Britain should – or must – take an active part in erasing the world’s malnutrition, poverty, illiteracy, disease, homelessness, exploitation and child-labour.
It is our responsibility as people in the privileged northern hemisphere to support countries that are tackling these issues because their existence says something about humanity and mankind. Our refusal to intervene – or to show a blatant indifference – is morally inexcusable.
However, it is also rather disingenuous for countries like India to ask for aid to tackle poverty whilst at the same time developing luxurious space programmes that indicate egotism, vanity and an abandonment of social and moral responsibility.
India can’t have it both ways. The country’s government must show a complete commitment to erasing the abject poverty that is visible in so many states - like Bihar, where basic commodities like water are not only scarce but sometimes dangerously contaminated. And that requires accountability – showing clearly where the millions of pounds’ worth of aid is going. A basic tub-well needed to irrigate a field or two does not constitute a full £250 million worth of expenditure.
Either that or India stops asking for aid and Britain reviews its criteria to support international aid programmes.
Colonial power: Cameron offers a traditional greeting as he leaves a meeting. He is heading the largest British delegation to travel to India in recent memory
Clearly the people that Britain is supposed to be helping see very little of the aid we send – evidence speaks for itself. You only have to go to the rural areas to see how dreadful the conditions are, and they’ve been like that for over half a century. I think this country needs to re-examine the way money filters down to the ordinary, desperate people in India.
So who is benefiting from the aid the British taxpayer is sending to that ‘jewel in the Crown’? Well, not the poor – that is for sure.
To understand why India hasn’t solved its problems relating to various aspects of poverty you only have to look at how aid is distributed. As it is passed down from one official or office to another it is pocketed. How else can the senor politicians and government officials justify their huge properties and sizeable bank accounts?
Money that trickles down to the poor is misappropriated by everyone from government officers to village ‘officials’ and in the end the corrupt, local politicians will appease the poor with just a few rupees. Violence is rife when it comes to politics, law and justice and the poor don’t stand a chance.
People recognise this sorry state of affairs. Very few Indians - including British Asians - would refute the allegation that at the heart of India’s problems lie its burgeoning bureaucracy and corruption.
Anyone who has ever been on holiday in India knows that to get anything done there you have to either wait forever – or you pay officials. It is all to do with bribery, part and parcel of the social fabric of Indian society.
Bribery is embedded in the system. A couple of years ago I went back to India in search of my father’s will, made back in 1972. After three days of going from one office to another I was intensely fed up. A relative suggested I paid an official something like 4,000 rupees, around £50 to speed things up. In a matter of hours the document miraculously appeared.
That says a lot about India’s officialdom - money and pay-offs are the basis of its system. Unless India can show clear accountability for the money it receives from the developed world, Britain should halt further aid and review the means it employs to alleviate world poverty.
And I’m speaking as one who was born in northern India.
READERS' COMMENTS
Folks, Cameron may be weak and useless but his position makes him dangerous as he pontificates on behalf of the British people to the rest of the world - some one should remind him that he did not win the election (!)
- alan, beverley, east yorks
****************************************
Perhaps India should show us some humility considering the British tax payer has paid for their new airport, space program and fed, sheltered and vaccinated their poor too, if we're funding their government and then doing its job for them then what exactly has changed since they were a colony?
- Dave, Warwick
*************************************
Yep, our servile Prime Minister's done it again. After relegating Britain's war effort to "junior partner" status when he was in America and creeping to Turkey over their efforts to get their snouts in the EU trough when he was there he's now grovelling to India by "bending the knee" and deliberately offending their long-time enemy, Pakistan. He really will say anything to curry favour (no pun intended) with whichever nation he happens to find himself in.
Where's Sir Vile Creep going next on his Grand Tour of Grovelling and how's he going to make Britain look foolish there? If this is his idea of international diplomacy can't we confiscate his passport?
- Chris, Lichfield,
******************************
Well Dave. You really know how to cut a figure on the world stage. You better get off your knees before you get calluses on them. Can't we get ourselves a leader of some note who will stand on the world stage for our interests? He might want to tell India that until it opens its markets up we won't allow its big conglomerates to take over our industries. He could let them know that as they are now sending rockets into space, they shouldn't need our money to feed their people. But why bother when you can just have a nice jolly and not upset anyone.
- Craig, Leeds, UK
*********************************
David,
I can assure you that this trip will go down in history as a gigantic blunder.
Your speech yesterday in Turkey was way out of line.... who gave you the mandate to make such a speech, we the people didn't, do you remember us ,the people who voted for you? The same people you promised to empower !
Then to go to India in 'humility' , well really , many of us think you have lost your marbles !
- katie, Uk
***********************************
as we can all see india is doing quite well for its self so can someone explain to me why are we still giving them financial aid as the are clealy not a poor country,this money saved could go a long way building back up england instead of supporting another country who clearly does not need it.can this idiot of a prime minister explain this while he is cutting services in england he is not cutting foreign aid.
- sj, birmingham england
**********************************
Whether he intended to take Britain down or not, Cameron has certainly tried to take Scotland down over the Al-Megrahi release. There was tacit approval of the release from the UK and from the US administrations, as letters and papers released recently show, but neither Cameron nor Obama have any compunction in making Scotland the fall guy in this affair. Scotland in Cameron's eyes is disposable and unimportant, in spite of his lip service to showing "respect".
He will have difficulty in uttering the word 'respect' again in relation to Scotland.
- Jwil, Lanarkshire Scotland
**********************************
be happy on your small island and watch India and China gobble you up. welcome to the third world status
- Ramesh, Mumbai, India
*******************************
Ramesh, of Mumbai says in response to India's growth prospects.:. 'welcome (Britain) to the third world status'
Careless and ungrateful words indeed. Just remember which nation handed all of you in the third world, freely, this modern world to begin with, one in which you hope to, and do, prosper and with the expectation to be able to Lord it over us in gleeful revenge.
Remember this next time you want help feeding yourselves or with your nuclear program. The world in fact owes us a debt they can never repay, but you'd never think it to listen to the bile and vitriol emanating from your ungrateful mouths.
If you think this technology stuff is easy then why don't you lot invent something new, instead of just copying us. After all there's enough of you. But, you haven't so far and you never will. Same applies to the rest of the world, waiting for Brits to do it all for you, and then biting the hand that feeds you (literally).
- Cynic, Dyed in the wool,
*********************************
Reading the comments of gobbling my country up , China 's power , how many Indians, Pakistanis etc are here? Good heavens above , why the hell do you not ALL go home whence you came . And if India is so great why is so many here ?
- parrcent, merseyside
dailymail.co.uk
Last edited: