According to this AOL and CNN story, India is rejecting aid from other countries (but accepting aid from multinational entities such as the UN). The reason for this, it seems, is because of India’s belief in the Nonaligned Movement. This means that it attempts to handle its own problems by itself, without help from other countries. So, while it will accept help from the United Nations or the Red Cross, they would not accept help from any specific government or country.
How would you rate such a policy? Unwise or wise? Arrogant or confident? Admirable?
In ther bad old days of the Cold War this would have made sense, at least from a geopolitical point of view, and tough titty for the suffering poor who will go without aid.
Now it seems the non-aligned movement is a bit of an anachronism. With whom is India not aligned? It all seems like a warped sense of nationalistic pride, paid for by those who can least afford it.
I think India is wise. Aid from specific countries may make it less easy to say no to them should they want favors later. Let us put this base here, c’mon didn’t we give you, give not loaned, several million dollars and fresh water when you needed it? Easy to get dragged into the conflicts of others that way.
The first aid to the victims in Sri Lanka came aboard Indian military helicopters.
I started twice to write about why India’s position is a good idea, but I couldn’t do it without my own, from-a-distance preconceptions about the Indians.
In this particular case I don’t think it matters too much. India wasn’t hit as hard as Sri Lanka or Indonesia, and probably can take care of the matter with the aid of international NGOs, without any direct assistance from foreign governments.
I’m far more concerned about Burma, where the ruling junta is not only trying to keep foreign aid out, but is denying that they were even seriously affected. One look at a map puts the lie to that position. The media isn’t even commenting on this, so far as I can tell.
Wise or unwise, it’s a fact that countries wishing to offer aid need to consider.
India is a growing economic power, a growing force in the high tech world, an increasingly rich country, an increasingly modern nation, and a nation with a rich history and ancient civilization. Hence, India is a (justlyu) proud country… unfortunately, that pride makes many Indians loath to admit they still have one foot in the Third World, that they’re still a relatively poor country, one that still occasionally needs help from richer, more advanced nations.
It’s not surprising that they resent suggestions that they’re a poor, backward nation that still sometimes needs handouts from the West. So, Western nations would do well to remember that, and to offer aid only in ways that allow India to save face. Quite apart from the tsunami, Western nations should make quiet, back-door arranegments with the Indian government so that help can be given on the QT when it’s needed.
Seems like whereas such a policy would be in the best interest of self-sufficiency and national pride, it may not be the best for the people.
I don’t think that a country “rich” enough to have nuclear weapons can necessarily take care of itself. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but certainly needs all the help it can get.
They share a border with China. Occasionally Chinese tank tracks are found in the Himalayas. They don’t want to piss China off. More importantly, they don’t want an East-meets-West conflict between China and the US playing out in their country.