The strategy lately practiced in India has been manufacturing cheap mobile phones that are pretty affordable for common masses. The industry sets base for heavy competition with mobile manufacturers providing cell phones for a cost as low as Rs. 1000/-. Telecom fraternities evaluate a good margin for cheap cell phones and cell phone plans.

In the recent times Motorola V188, the Nokia 7370, and the Cingular 2125 are gaining popularity as low cost phones in the mobile market. Before hooking on to any of these, users have to carefully study user reviews and technical reviews provided by mobile manufacturers and network carriers.

Business geeks and travelers can seek advantage from cell phone companies and can chalk out terrific arrangements on special business rates. Consumers should however consider the life of the technology when deciding on the phone.

Studying the present mobile usage scenario, the telecom market aims at a target where a high ratio of users join the mobile troop. Selling mobile phones with good features demanded by consumers would surely shoot the sales up and bring targets closer and also make consumers believe in technology.

Buying a dream cell phone may bring loads of initial excitement but is also trailed with stacks of burden on the pockets of consumers. Consumers devote a lot of effort and time researching on the desired cell phone. However, if the cell phone plans are not appropriate it might just end with the customer shelling out more moolah.

Multifunctional phones are in vogue and the customers want something that is contemporary, long-lasting and is in synchronization with the current trends. Purchasing a brand new mobile cell phone is not a continuous outgoing of cash – it’s an investment that lasts till the cell is upgraded. The variant factor that influences the outgoing is the network that is signed upon by the consumers.

An organized and carefully programmed cell phone plan can save both time and money. For this, consumers have to update themselves with all the network providers in the market and the latest cell plans. In-depth research on networks is very essential when consumers switch from one network to another.

Various aspects have to be looked at while zeroing on the network. Where are the calls used? Is the purpose personal or commercial? Are international calls needed? What are the roaming charges? …are some of the questions that the consumers have to cross-examine before making the final decision.

 Mobile network providers introduce many attractive schemes in the market. However, it is upto the customer to calculate his best interests. Network providers in India have presented exciting and economical solutions for consumers as a steep growth of mobile users has been observed in a few years time.

Different prepaid plans, variety of phone calling cards providing lowest call rates, plans packaged with the Cingular, Nextel, T Mobiles etc. are some of the most selling cell phone plans in India. Such a wide range of choice ensures long association with customers.

I have also witnessed the horrifying prejudice against homosexual people and patients with AIDS.

The primary reason for teachers and students shying away from the topic is because of their strong views formed at an earlier age. At the beginning of adolescence itself, when children come up with queries regarding sex, parents here tend to hush them up or change the topic. This makes them think that sex is taboo and at their mouldable age form extremely unscientific and inappropriate views.

The issue of homosexuality needs to be discussed at the family and school level. Many students here think that anything outside textbooks is abnormal and they swear by information from textbooks. Changing this attitude needs the cooperation of students and teachers as well as the authorities, who at the least have to repeal the barbaric criminalisation of homosexuality.

I come from an extremely conservative society, and the only reason for my open views on sexuality are my open minded family. All my queries regarding sex were answered in a scientific manner by my parents, and I too do my best to answer queries posed by my younger brother.

Parents should keep in mind the grave dangers posed by bigotry and prejudice and sensitise their children to the atrocities committed against so called abnormal people. Please teach your children to respect the views of everyone-there is no one who is “normal.”

EMBA redirects here; for the Mutation Mink Breeders Association, see American Legend Cooperative

The Master of Business Administration (MBA) is a master’s degree in business administration, which attracts people from a wide range of academic disciplines.

//

[edit] Background

The MBA designation originated in the United States, emerging as the country industrialized and companies sought out scientific approaches to management. The first American business school, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, was established in 1881. The Tuck School of Business, part of Dartmouth College, was the first graduate school of management in the United States. Founded in 1900, it was the first institution conferring advanced degrees (masters) in the commercial sciences, the forebearer of the modern MBA. Founded in 1898, the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, the second oldest U.S. business school, was the first graduate school in 1940 to offer working professionals the Executive MBA (EMBA) program, a mainstay at most business schools today.

As the U.S. MBA model emerged at the turn of the 20th century, Europeans developed such business schools as Webster Graduate School at Regent’s College, London; elsewhere colleges such as Cranfield School of Management, Cass Business School, London, IMD, SIBM, and MBA-HSG were established for management training. In 1950 the first MBA degrees were awarded outside the United States by the University of Western Ontario in Canada,^[1] followed in 1951 with the degree awarded across the Atlantic by the University of Pretoria in South Africa.^[2] Moreover, the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi in Pakistan was established in 1955 as the first Asian business school by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

In 1957, INSEAD became the first European university offering the MBA degree, followed in 1964 by IESE (first two-year program in Europe), in 1967 by the Cranfield School of Management and in 1969 by the HEC School of Management (in French, the École des Hautes Études Commerciales) and the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris. In 1968, the Asian Institute of Management was founded.

The MBA degree has been adopted by universities worldwide, and all six habitable continents have universities offering MBA programs.

In Europe, the recent Bologna Accord established uniformity in three levels of higher education: Bachelor (three years), Masters (five years), and Doctorate (eight years). Students can acquire professional experience after their initial bachelor degree at any European institution and later complete their masters in any other European institution via the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. A European masters degree in Management is therefore equivalent to the American MBA having additional scientific content; for example, a European master of science in management requires writing and defending a master’s thesis.

[edit] Accreditation

Business schools or MBA programs may be accredited by external bodies which provide students and employers with an independent view of their quality, and indicate that the school’s educational curriculum meets specific quality standards. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation is generally regarded as the standard for MBA programs. The AACSB covers business schools worldwide.

The United States also has six regional accreditation agencies as members of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA): Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA), New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASCSC), North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), and Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).^[3]

Other U.S. accreditation agencies include the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) which typically accredits smaller, private American schools, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).

Accreditation agencies outside the United States include the Association of MBAs (AMBA), a U.K. based organization that accredits MBA, DBA and MBM programmes worldwide; the Council on Higher Education (CHE) in South Africa; the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) for mostly European and Asian schools; and the Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA) in Europe.

[edit] Basic types of MBA programs

Full-time MBA programs are the most common, normally lasting two years. Students enter with a reasonable amount of prior real-world work experience and take classes during weekdays like other university students.

Accelerated MBA programs are a variation of full time programs, lasting 18 months or less, involving a higher course load.

Part-time MBA programs normally hold classes on weekday evenings, after normal working hours. Part-time programs normally last three years or more. The students in these programs typically consist of working professionals, who take a light course load for a longer period of time until the graduation requirements are met.

Executive MBA (EMBA) programs developed to meet the educational needs of managers and executives, allowing students to earn an MBA or another business-related graduate degree in two years or less while working full time. Participants come from every type and size of organization – profit, nonprofit, government — representing a variety of industries. EMBA students typically have a higher level of work experience, often 10 years or more, compared to other MBA students. In response to the increasing number of EMBA programs offered, The Executive MBA Council^[4] was formed in 1981 to advance executive education.

Distance learning MBA programs hold classes off-campus. These programs can be offered in a number of different formats: correspondence courses by postal mail or email, non-interactive broadcast video, pre-recorded video, live teleconference or videoconference, offline or online computer courses. Many respectable schools offer these programs; however, so do many diploma mills. Potential students should check the school’s accreditation before undertaking distance learning coursework.

Dual MBA programs combine MBA degree with others (such as ACCA, CIMA, MS, J.D. etc) to let students cut costs (dual programs usually cost less than pursuing 2 degrees separately), save time on education and to tailor the business education course to their needs.

[edit] Admissions criteria

Most programs base admission on the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), significant work experience, academic transcripts, essays, references or letters of recommendation, and personal interviews. Schools are also interested in extracurricular activities, community service activities and how the student can improve the diversity and contribute to the student body as a whole. All of these qualifications are important for admission; however, some schools such as Harvard University do not weigh GMAT scores as heavily as other criteria.^[5]

Most schools are first concerned with whether or not the applicant can handle the quantity of course work. The GMAT (the quantitative score) and academic transcripts help determine this. Once the school determines that the student can succeed academically, they examine the remainder of the application to evaluate the applicant’s experience and leadership abilities.

[edit] Program content

Most top MBA programs cover similar subjects within their core required courses. For information about the typical content of an MBA program’s core curriculum, see the overview at the Wikiversity MBA topic page.

[edit] Breadth

MBA programs expose students to a variety of subjects, including economics, organizational behavior, marketing, accounting, finance, strategy, operations management, international business, information technology management, supply chain management, project management and government policy. Students traditionally study a wide breadth of courses in the program’s first year, then pursue a specialized curriculum in the second year. Full-time students typically seek an internship during the interim.

[edit] Specialization

Many programs allow students to specialize or concentrate in a particular area. Standard concentrations include accounting, corporate strategy, decision sciences, economics, entrepreneurship, finance, general management, human resources, international business, marketing, organizational behavior, project management, and operations management. Unspecialized MBA programs often focus second-year studies on strategic management or finance.

In addition, a program may offer more specialized concentrations such as Asian business, consulting, sports management, or degrees emphasizing real estate or insurance. Many schools offer unique concentrations available nowhere else.

[edit] The MBA degree outside the U.S.

Today, MBA and Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) designations can be found anywhere and even accessed through on-line, distance learning or e-learning. Because of the varying standards of MBAs worldwide, many business schools are accredited by independent bodies, such as the Association of MBAs and the European Foundation for Management Development.

[edit] United Kingdom

The UK based Association of MBAs (AMBA) was established in 1967 and is an active advocate for MBA degrees. The Association’s accreditation service is internationally recognised for all MBA, DBA and PEMM programs. AMBA also offer the only professional membership association for MBA students and graduates. UK MBA programs typically comprise a set number of taught courses plus a dissertation or project.

Persons holding an MBA from the world’s top 50 business schools (according to the list published by the U.K. government^[6]) automatically receive the minimum score necessary to qualify for the U.K.’s Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. This program initially entitles the person to a two-year U.K. work permit, after which it can be renewed for an additional three years, if that person is gainfully employed at the time of renewal.^[7]

[edit] Germany

Germany was one of the last western countries to adopt the MBA degree. In 1998 the Hochschulrahmengesetz (Higher Education Framework Act), a German federal law regulating higher education including the types of degrees offered, was modified to permit German universities to offer master’s degrees. The traditional German degree in business administration was the Diplom but since 1999, bachelor’s and master’s degrees have gradually displaced the traditional degrees (see Bologna process). Today most German business schools offer the MBA. German MBA degrees should be accredited by the Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA), the only agency officially recognized by the German Akkreditierungsrat (accreditation council), the German counterpart to the US-American CHEA. Furthermore, most German states require that universities receive accreditation by an officially recognized accreditation agency, so FIBAA accreditation is mandatory in these states although accreditation by other agencies remains voluntary. All universities themselves must also be recognised by the state (staatlich anerkannt), which guarantees that they have the relevant funds to offer education, and are able to award degrees that have value.

[edit] Ukraine

Recently MBA programs appeared in Ukraine where there are now about ten schools of business offering a variety of MBA programs. Two of these are subsidiaries European schools of business, while the remaining institutions are independent.

[edit] South Africa

In 2004, South Africa’s Council on Higher Education (CHE) completed an extensive re-accreditation of MBA degrees offered in the country. The process was the first of its kind in the world to be undertaken by a statutory body and attracted widespread international media attention for its innovation and thoroughness.

[edit] Ghana

Business schools of the traditional universities such as the University of Cape Coast and the University of Ghana run a variety of MBA programs. In addition, foreign accredited institutions offer MBA degrees by distance learning in Ghana.

[edit] India

The Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) are the oldest institutions for management education in India. Gaining admission to any of the IIM schools requires passing the Common Admission Test. The acceptance rate is less than 1%, making the IIMs among the world’s most selective schools. Although the institute offers a postgraduate diploma in management rather than an MBA degree, the institute’s diploma has gained prestige in India.

The Indian School of Business (ISB), founded by its partners Wharton Business School, Kellogg School of Management, and London Business School, offers a non-accredited one-year program focusing on Indian-International Businesses. The school awards a certificate rather than a diploma or degree.^[8]

[edit] Pakistan

The Institute of Business Administration (IBA) is the oldest business school outside North America. The Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) MBA program has instituted exchange programs with other schools in Europe and Asia. The Asian Development Bank recognizes LUMS as a center of excellence and awards full scholarships to MBA applicants from ADB member countries, covering the tuition fees, medical insurance, housing allowance, and other expenses. In addition to LUMS, IQRA University offers MBA degrees in affiliation with several American universities.

[edit] Rest of Asia

International MBA programs are acquiring brand value in Asia. For example, while a foreign MBA is still preferred in South Korea, many students are now studying at one of many “Global MBA” English language programs being offered.

In Japan, the Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy at Hitotsubashi University offers a full-time MBA program taught entirely in English. In Taiwan, the College of Commerce at National Chengchi University offers the first fully accredited English-taught International MBA program in Taiwan. Hong Kong and Singapore are also becoming MBA destinations.

For North American students who want a different experience, many of these programs offer scholarships and discounted tuition, to encourage an international environment in the classroom.

[edit] MBA program rankings

The MBA degree has become one of the most popular masters’ degrees. As more universities started offering the degree, differences in the quality of schools, faculty, and course offerings became evident. Naturally, establishing some criteria of quality is needed to differentiate among MBA programs, especially for prospective students trying to decide on where to apply. As MBA programs proliferated, a variety of publications began providing information on them. Some of these consisted of compilations of information gathered from the universities offering the degree, usually published in book form. Eventually periodicals began publishing articles describing various MBA schools and ranking them according to some perceived quality criteria. One of the most prominent of these is Business Week, which devotes a biennial issue to ranking MBA programs. Financial Times, The Economist, Forbes magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and U.S. News & World Report also publish MBA program rankings. See the External links section below to view some of these rankings.

Different methods of varying validity were used to arrive at rankings of MBA programs. The Gourman Report, for example, did not disclose criteria or ranking methods,^[9] and these reports were criticized for reporting statistically impossible data, such as no ties among schools, narrow gaps in scores with no variation in gap widths, and ranks of nonexistent departments.^[10] In 1977 The Carter Report published rankings of MBA programs based on the number of academic articles published by faculty. Periodicals based their rankings on interviews with company recruiters who hired MBA graduates, surveys of MBA schools’ deans, polls of students or faculty, and a variety of other means. The defunct MBA Magazine asked deans to vote on the best programs. The methods of obtaining ranks often changed from year to year. Initially, rankings included only a small number of universities consisting of the largest and best known Ivy League and state schools. There are also many privately compiled rankings, including the Global Top 100 Business Schools compiled by the QS network.

The ranking of MBA programs has been discussed in articles and on academic Web sites.^[11] Critics of ranking methodologies maintain that any published rankings should be viewed with caution for the following reasons:^[12]

• Rankings limit the population size to a small number of MBA programs and ignore the majority of schools, many with excellent offerings.
• The ranking methods may be subject to biases and statistically flawed methodologies (especially for methods relying on subjective interviews of hiring managers).
• The same list of well-known schools appears in each ranking with some variation in ranks, so a school ranked as number 1 in one list may be number 3 in another list.
• Rankings tend to concentrate on the school itself, but some schools offer MBA programs of different qualities (e.g. a school may use highly reputable faculty to teach a daytime program, and use adjunct faculty in its evening program).
• A high rank in a national publication tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One study found that objectively ranking MBA programs by a combination of graduates’ starting salaries and average student GMAT score can reasonably duplicate the top 20 list of the national publications.^[12] The study concluded that a truly objective ranking would be individualized to the needs of each prospective student.^[13] National publications have recognized the value of rankings against different criteria, and now offer lists ranked different ways: by salary, GMAT score of students, selectivity, and so forth. While useful, these rankings still are not tailored to individual needs, and their value is diminished if they use an incomplete population of schools, fail to distinguish between the different MBA program types offered by each school, or rely on subjective interviews.

[edit] See also

[edit] Related information

• Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT)
• Business school, for a more comprehensive understanding of business programs
• Category: Business schools

[edit] Alternate degrees and certifications

• Bachelor of Commerce (Bcomm), an undergraduate degree in business management
• Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA), a bachelor degree in business administration
• Doctor of Business Administration (DBA), a doctorate in business administration
• Certified Business Manager (CBM), a professional credential based on the MBA curriculum
• Master of International Business (MIB), an emerging alternative to the MBA degree

home | news | search | contribute | subscribe <!– about us | NGOs | contribute | resources | news | subscribe –>

	ProPoor is an internet portal that provides information, resources and news about development work in South Asia. ProPoor is not a funding organization. As we create a platform to match resources with needs, we hope rekindle the spirit of service in individual hearts around the globe. South Asian Development News Oct 19, 2007 India Announces New Resettlement Policy The Union Cabinet’s recent approval of the new rehab and resettlement policy is meant to address …	Raising Access to Education for Tribals

Latest News From ProPoor Community

• New Organization Added: National Media Foundation
• CSR Essentials 2
• Call For Papers : Sustainable Rural Development Anthology
• New Organization Added: PARMAKHTAG
• New Organization Added: Arthacharya Foundation
• More updates on the ProPoor blog >>

“Signs of Light”: Good News From South Asia

more good news

Search for: nonprofits projects people donors publications links

–>

Search Databases   NGOs (13588)   Projects (1488)   Individuals (10984)   Donors (1064)   Publications (1562)   Success Stories (133)   Resources (789)

Tell us about an NGO we should add!

ProPoor Stats

922,785 Hits this year

12,159 Active subscribers

$0 Our overhead

About these numbers

About Us | Disclaimer | Contact Us | © Copyright 2003

_uacct = “UA-472633-10″; urchinTracker();

Brief on India’s Nuclear Tests
Ministry of External Affairs
Disarmament & International Security Affairs Division

Global Disarmament or Equal and Legitimate Security for All

The background to the decision taken by the Government to conduct a limited series of underground nuclear tests has been set out in the paper on “Evolution of Nuclear Policy” laid before Parliament on May 27. In brief, the tests were dictated by considerations of national security. Every country has the right and obligation to assess its legitimate national security concerns and work out appropriate policies in the light of factors, specific and unique to each country such as geographical configuration, location, regional and global developments and historical/political experience’. ‘We have done so rationally, reasonably and objectively, in good faith and with restraint and in an open democratic system. Taking all these into account, we were obliged to conclude that for reasonable and assured national security, we needed to develop a minimal credible nuclear deterrent. This is an irreducible and essential requirement on which there can be no compromise.

In taking security linked decisions based on compelling and valid national interest, India is also acting as a consistently responsible member of the international community. India has not violated any international law through these tests, neither in 1974 nor in 1998. India has been in the forefront of efforts to promote and strengthen international cooperation – in development, the socio-cultural domain, and in particular, in disarmament. We have, through the decades been an active participant, and a pioneer in the international community’s efforts to bring about universal, nuclear disarmament. We have done so because we are firmly convinced that a nuclear weapons free world is the ultimate guarantee for our own national security as well as that of other nations. In keeping with this approach, we would have preferred to build our national security through the alternative path of working towards universal nuclear disarmament. It is because the effort to establish credible global nuclear disarmament did not make headway, and because there was an unabated increase over the years of nuclear/missile presence in our own immediate neighborhood that we were left with no choice but to establish our nuclear weapon capability, through a minimum program of tests.

Nuclear weapon states who are critical of us have worked rigorously over the years to take care of their own security requirements, in a maximal manner, taking care of all eventualities. They have also periodically reaffirmed the continuing relevance of nuclear weapons, deterrence, etc. to their national security, and made it clear that they intend to maintain these instruments. As yet there is no credible movement towards comprehensive nuclear disarmament. NWS are also modernizing and qualitatively improving their arsenals, even while numbers are being reduced. If they insist on their security assessments, they cannot equally deny us the right to work out our own security policies. The leading non-nuclear weapons States who have shown an insufficient understanding of our concerns enjoy the protection of nuclear umbrellas or alliances or such arrangements. This is being spelt out and confirmed in specific terms by many of these countries. Australia” for example, has confirmed the need for nuclear weapons for security but explained that it does not require to develop them on its own because of its security umbrella. Some of these alliances and such arrangements have been renewed in recent years. We have not had the benefit of such protection while living in an increasingly adverse nuclear environment.

The Imperative of India’s Security Environment

The evolution of our security assessments and concerns has been elaborated in our statements; to recapitulate:

• Deteriorating regional security environment, especially from the 60′s onwards (appearance of nuclear weapons/missiles in neighborhood and their progressive growth and global nuclear build up in subsequent years).
  
• We did not then go in for a nuclear weapons/ missile response to this development although we could have done so. Instead, in good faith, we first sought security assurances and guarantees from the major nuclear weapon states( i.e. in the mid 60′s). These were not forthcoming.
  
• We also reinforced our efforts, initiated in the 50′s, for working towards universal nuclear disarmament, e.g. by joining in the global negotiations to institute a non-discriminatory nuclear non-proliferation regime in the hope that this would lead to a denuclearisation within a reasonable period of our neighborhood as well. These efforts did not make progress. We found that the NPT that emerged was a distortion of the genuine non-proliferation agenda.
  
• Taking this situation into account, we developed a nuclear option in 1974. However, for 24 years we refrained from exercising it. This patient, utmost effort for building security through means other than the established method of developing national nuclear capability is a unique instance of nuclear restraint. We also consistently maintained the most stringent control on export of nuclear/missile related materials/technology/equipment and know-how. Our impeccable record speaks for itself and is better than that of many of the countries who are now instructing us on non proliferation.

We found over these years, that despite the active endeavour of India and some other countries, there was little genuine progress towards comprehensive, universal nuclear disarmament Meanwhile, nuclear and missile arsenals in our neighbourhood continued to grow steadily over the 80s and 90s to the detriment of our security. In specific terms, this involved the continuing and clandestine transfer of nuclear weapons technology/missiles to Pakistan throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This development has been extensively documented. This offensive nuclear/missile capability acquired clandestinely over many years (by Pakistan) was directed solely against India. Thus, by the 1990s, we had to reckon with the presence in our immediate neighbourhood an overt declared nuclear weapons state, as well as a clandestine, covert nuclear weapon state, and a nuclear presence in the Indian ocean. We have also been the target of aggression and for several years, of unrelenting terrorism and militancy sponsored in India by Pakistan.

Timing of India’s Decision

There has also been criticism that there is no evidence of the sudden emergence of a substantial new threat in the neighbourhood which compelled India to go nuclear at this moment. The essential point is that there was indeed a serious and compellig threat. This did not appear overnight but was the result -of evolution. over the years as described above. We could perhaps,- have taken earlier action, but acting in our best judgement at that time we did not do so for the reasons indicated. Instead we exercised restraint and resorted to operationalising the nuclear option, as a last resort. We had also repeatedly and clearly drawn the attention of the NWS and others to what was happening in our neighbourhood -and the compulsions we were living under – as well as our determination to retain the freedom of choice of doing what we considered to be necessary in our legitimate interest. This was neither acknowledged nor action taken to address the concem.

Another impression which needs to be promptly coffected is that because Pakistan’s tests followed ours, it was a reaction to India’s action. Again, as the evolution of events makes clear, it was India that was obliged to react to a progressive build up of nuclear weaponry and missiles in our neighbourhood. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme predated ours and was built after years of clandestine acquisition. While we are mentioning the Pakistan factor, there is no obsession with Pakistan. Our security concerns go far beyond Pakistan and South Asia.

These concerns, set out in our statements after our tests ‘ had already been made known earlier. We had repeatedly shared our security assessments and anxieties in full detail and in a transparent manner with other countries which had been expressing concern at the danger of proliferation, especially the nuclear weapons States. We drew attention to the steady growth of nuclear and missile presence over the years, in our region, at cost to our vital security interests. What we said was not heeded. Instead we were given no credit for our restraint and repeatedly told that our concerns were exaggerated and were also subjected to restrictions on peaceful technology transfer. The countries that were in a position to prevent the proliferation of nuclear capability and missiles in our neighbourhood did not act.

Addressing Internadonal Concerns

We have noted the reactions from different countries – as well as collective reactions (P-5, G-8, etc.) to our nuclear tests. We understand that these responses centre around two basic themes – (a) ensuring that the international nuclear nonproliferation disarmament regime does not unravel and (b) reducing regional tensions. We would like to address these concerns through a serious dialogue with the countries concerned.

India has had a strong and consistent commitment to working to set-up a comprehensive, universal, non-discriminatory, global, nuclear disarmament system. We believe that this is the ultimate guarantee for national and global security. We remain fully committed to this approach in the new situation. We are not seeking to undermine or destroy the global nuclear disarmament / nonproliferation system. What we have been conveying unambiguously over the decades, and are repeating now is that this system which the NWS have put in place centring around the NPT, is badly flawed. Ironically, it failed to achieve the very purpose. for which it was devised, i.e. it has not prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missiles. One of the major regions where this has taken place is our own. It is also blatantly discriminatory because it uses a contrived categorisation of the world into nuclear and non’-nuclear weapon states to deny technology for legitimate peaceful purposes to the latter, if they have not signed the NPT. India is a major target in this regard. We have borne the brunt of its defects. The system ignores our genuine security concerns. We have repeatedly drawn attention of the international community to our strong and legitimate reservations on this discriminatory, NPT-based regime and called for rectification of its flaws which would take care of every nation’s security interests. If our calls had been heeded, we would not have had to conduct nuclear tests. We remain an integral part of the global nuclear disarmament effort; but we are, on entirely reasonable and unassailable grounds, calling for its rectification.

It appears that these countries have reacted neptively to our tests, because we are questioning the finely constructed system they have put in place and, which they thought was going to be consolidated, following the NPT and subsequent measures spearheaded by the nuclear weapon states. Our questioning of the existing regime is not meant to be a militant challenge, but a call on the entire international community, in particular the NWS, to recognise that this system is defective and needs substantive modification.

We are aware that there is need to find practical solutions to the problem of proliferation. Any solution would have to take into account the point that if some nuclear powers are here to stay, including those in our immediate neighbourhood, then India has no choice, i.e. as long as the existing strong regional and global nuclear/missile presence continues, India will have to maintain its minimal assured nuclear/missile capabilities. This factor -will have to be incorporated in the discussions on setting up a rational, non-discriminatory, global nuclear disarmament system. In working out answers, we have to keep in mind that a non-proliferation programme cannot be pursued in a narrow South Asian regional framework. A contrived so-called “South Asian” non-prolfferation programme, which does not take into account its immediate external linkages will not work. It is precisely because the existing NP regime has persisted in a constricted programme limited to South Asia, that we have the present position.

Keeping all this in mind, we have now made a number of policy announcements and put forward well considered proposals and initiatives which provide a sound framework for discussion / dialogue with other countries, especially the nuclear weapon states, which would enable a rational, universal,, non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament system to be put in place, which would meet everybody’s concerns. These are:-

We have clarified that our tests are intended solely for-assuring our -own security. Their only purpose is to prevent nuclear threats to us, and coercion, and thus preserve peace and stability. We have declared that we will not be the first to use nuclear weapons against any state, and are willing to enter into treaty obligations in this regard.

2. Our tests are not directed at any particular country. We are only reacting rationally to a nuclearised environment – as other countries have.

3. We have clarified that our sole objective is to ensure our own security through a minimal and credible deterrent cgRabilLty. We are not striving to achieve nuclear parity with any other country. India does not wish to enter into any kind of nuclear arms race with any country.

4. immediately after completing our tests programme on May 13, we announced a unilateral voluntary moratorium on further nuclear tests. Despite the subsequent tests carried out by Pakistan, we have reaffirmed that our moratorium will be maintained. We have also made known our willingness to explore ways and means by which this commitinent can be formalised de jure

5. Under the CTBT, States parties are prohibited from conducting “any nuclear test explosions or any other nuclear explosion”. Our voluntary moratorium on finther testing and indication of willingness to move towards de jure formalisation of this moratorium, meets the basic requirements of the CTBT. In 1996 there as a strong national consensus against our signing the CTBT as it was felt that the treaty text did not address our security concerns. There have been significant changes in the situation since then in particular, the fact that we have since 1998 conducted our own tests which have given us the basic capability for assured security. This is the rationale for the voluntary moratorium. We are now prepared to move forward on discussing adherence to the CTBT.

6. We have indicated our willingess to engage in negotiations on a FMCT in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. In consultations that we have had on this issue since 1993, when India and US co-sponsored the resolution- on an FMCT in the UN General Assembly, there has been a degree of understanding between Indian and US positions. After our negative experience during the CTBT negotiations, our willingness to engage in FMCT negotiations is a step forward.

7. We have declared that we will continue to undertake stringent export controls on nuclear and missile related technologies as well as those relating to other weapons of mass destruction. Our record on this area is impeccable (as against that of some states party to the NPT including P-5 members). We’are ready to make these controls more stringent in keeping with international guidelines on the basis of discussions with relevant interlocutors. An important, relevant aspect here is that We- are also seeking India’s integration into the international civilian, high technology areas in commerce and industry, in which we have faced obstacles due to inadequate appreciation of our security concerns and restraint. We have noted concerns expressed by some countries about our tests possibly triggering off proliferation in other regions, Middle East. We will not contribute to such proliferation. Further responsibility for this hes primarily with NWS and others whose actions in the past have in fact encouraged proliferation. It is also pertinent to note that except for India, Pakistan and Israel who are not parties to the NPT, these countries are and would be in violation of these obligations. Further, these countries have acquired some limited capability only from nuclear weapon states and other of  NPT.

India is concerned with security and national interest and not status. It is, therefore, a trivialization of our motives to say that we are desperately keen to join the nuclear club. The reality is that we are a Nuclear Weapon State. A substantive point relates to the implications of denials of technology etc. on this ground that we are seen as NNWS and a non-NPT signatory. This will be one of the questions, for discussion in our dialogues.

Continued commitment to Nuclear Disarmament

India’s strong commitment to global nuclear disarmament and our’ conviction that our security as well as that of the rest of the world would be best ensured in a nuclear weapons free world, remains the principal element and formulation of our nuclear policy. Accordingly, we will continue working on effective programmes and initiatives – including participation in collective initiatives to reach this objective. In particular, we will continue working actively for a Nuclear Weapons Convention on the pattern of the CWC and the BWC in the UN, NAM and other forums. This is by no means a utopian proposition. It is an idea that has wide support. We are in touch with like-minded countries which have recently articulated the importance of global nuclear disarmament. We have responded positively to the joint declaration issued by the Foreign Ministers of 8 countries (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden) – “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World : The need for a new Agenda” and Minister of State has written to these eight countries reflecting our desire to work closely towards achieving this mutually shared objective. India is the only nuclear weapon state to have responded to this Declaration.

Experience of negotiations in dealing with other weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons and biological weapons) indicates that the only successful way is to negotiate agreements and treaties which are comprehensive in scope, universal in applicability, non-discriminatory in charaoter and effectively verifiable. We are convinced that such an approach is also necessary in dealing with nuclear weapons.

India’s reladons with its neighbours

India continues to seek good relations with all its neighbours, to work with them to build on our commonalties, and shared aspirations for development, making use of the many possibilities of mutually agreed cooperation, and building trust and confidence. Differences should be resolved in a rational, factual manner,

peacefully and through bilateral negotiations. Direct bilateral dialogue is the proven and the only means to achieve these objectives. The purpose of dialogue is to identify the possibilities of cooperation and indicate ways of implementing them, to building confidence and settle outstanding differences. We have consistently been in favour of a serious sustained dialogue on these lines. Re. differences, it should be kept in mind that many of them are complex and require time and patience to resolve. Further, bilateral issues should be dealt with bilaterally. Third parties have no role whatsoever. They cannot be aware of the nuances and intricacies of our problems. Nor can they gain the confidence of the people of the area. Experience makes it clear that third party involvement brings in new complications – and special interests. The best contribution outside powers can make is to allow countries of the region to sort out the problems without outside interference.

Concern has also been expressed about possible heightened tensions in the region following our nuclear tests (and thereafter Pakistan’s), that this could begin an uncontrolled arms race, that this region is even more a “flash point” than hitherto, that border frictions would be nuclearised etc. We have noted these concerns and are looking at them in a business-like manner. In the first place, no constructive purpose is served by exaggerating or dramatising them. Indeed, there are vested interests who are keen to do so. It is essential that these developments should be seen with a sense of proportion and focus. The fact is that there are no heightened tensions in the region, or an enhanced danger of war, leave alone nuclear war. While it is true that there is a certain level of friction and tension which is also reflected in India-Pak border incidents, the fact is that this is at a low and entirely manageable level. It is also a well established fact that Pakistan is working systematically to create border tension and LoC/border firing as a proven method for attracting attention and encouraging the “flash point” theory. Indeed, it is precisely such talk, either well-intentioned or motivated, which could “heighten tensions”. Our actions make it clear that there is no question of any intention -on our part to destabilise the region. On the contrMy-, India remains a major force for stability in the region. We look forward to further discuss with Pakistan, China and other countries in the region to reinforce confidence building and security structures.

Fears that border clashes might escalate to a nuclear level are groundless. This has never happened anywhere in the world. For example, border clashes between China and the former USSR did not escalate in this manner. Global experience is that nuclear weapons minimise the risk of major war. USSR and the US with vast differences in their political systems had successfully kept the nuclear peace for over five decades. There is no reason why we in South Asia cannot do as well. Indeed, we have a tradition of good sense that equip us to do this. There have been concerns regarding safety. As a responsible country, India will pay due attention to all these aspects. We expect that all others concerned will do likewise.

We are committed to building a relationship with China based or, cooperation and non-confrontation and mutual respect for concerns. There has been progress over the last decade – economic and fimctional cooperation, high level exchanges, people-to-people contact, border Wks based on search for a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution; high level CBMs are in place and are working, border is largely tranquil. We want to build on this. It is in the interest of both countries that the CBMs continue’to be implemented meaningfully, and peace and tranquility is maintained in the border areas. Our concerns regarding China’s nuclear and missile transfers to Pakistan remain. Even if it is diminishing, damage has been done. China has to pay attention to the depth of feeling on the Indian side. The Indian people must feel assured that friendship with China is a factor for peace and stability and will contribute in enhancing our security. We remain committed to the process of dialogue to resolve outstanding differences, and to the development of a friendly, cooperative, good neighbourly and mutually beneficial relationship with China.

Assuring a minimum deterrent without compromising the primary goal of economic development

Concerns have also been expressed that our nuclear tests and its follow-up will impose a heavy financial burden on us, which a poor country like India should not take on. The facts are as follows :- our defence budget in. absolute as well as in terms of GDP percentage, is in the lower range by global standards (the current figure is 2.5% of GDP); in the 50′s and 60′s, it was a lower figure but we had to then increase defence expenditure, in the wake of our experience in 1962. Since the mid-80′s, our defence expenditure has come down from about 3.5% of GDP to a present level of 2.5%. (Equivalent figures for China and -Pakistan are -much higher. Much of our defence outlay goes on payment of salaries and establishment). Security, economic growth and the peoples welfare are not mutually exclusive. One has to reconcile economic demands with the minimal requirements of security. Also, the NWS are. themselves not exempt from this dilemma. This applies not only to the poorer ones among them like China but even to the more affluent.

As far as the likely additional expenditure due to exercising the nuclear option is concerned, the fact is that India already has large and well established civilian, nuclear power sector as well as a sound industrial (engineering) infrastructure. Developing a minimal deterrent will, therefore, involve incremental and manageable expenditure.

A Continuing Dialogue

The Government is engaged in a dialogue with key interlocutors particularly with the US. The Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Shri Jaswant Singh has met W. Strobe Talbott, US Deputy Secretary of State in Washington on June 12, in Frankfiirt on July 9 and in Delhi on July 20-21. A further round is scheduled for the end of August. Principal Secretary to PM has had discussions with the leaders of Russia, France, UK and South Africa. MOS’s visits to South East Asian countries, to NAM Ministerial meeting in Cartagena, extensive official level visits and contacts in Africa, Gulf, West Asia-North Africa, Europe, renewed contacts at Heads of State/Government level within the SAARC region as well as at the official level and contacts in the UN, including UNSG are also part of this process. While communicating with the NWS and other industrial countries which are NNWS, we have also paid due attention and given emphasis to the Non-aligned world. Our representatives were well received in all capitals. While expressions of concern, particularly from Western countries continue, there has also been an appreciation of the compelling security rationale of India’s decision, and the validity and relevance of the steps taken by us to address these concerns. In recent meetings of NAM countries, the ASEAN Regional Fonun at Manila or the SAARC Summit at Colombo, our role, our interaction with other countries has been constructive. Nowhere has India been isolated. We value our relations with members of the international community who have shown understanding of our bona fide requirements and the reasonableness of our policy. Our dialogue with key members of the international community is continuing.
]]> http://pratamnu.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/indias-nuclear-tests/feed/ 0 pratamnu http://pratamnu.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/indians-loose-ground/ http://pratamnu.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/indians-loose-ground/#comments Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:30:44 +0000 pratamnu http://pratamnu.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/indians-loose-ground/ ]]> Sunday, October 14, 2007 (Nagpur)

Australia beat India by 18 runs in the sixth one-dayer at Nagpur on Sunday to seal the seven-match series 4-1.

India: Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Yuvraj Singh, Mahandra Singh Dhoni, Robin Uthappa, Irfan Pathan, Murali Kartik, Harbhajan Singh, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth.

The Bombay Stock Exchange

The BSE Sensex or Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive Index is a value-weighted index composed of 30 stocks with the base April 1979 = 100. It consists of the 30 largest and most actively traded stocks, representative of various sectors, on the Bombay Stock Exchange. These companies account for around one-fifth of the market capitalization of the BSE.

The base value of the Sensex is 100 on April 1, 1979 and the base year of BSE-SENSEX is 1978-79.

At irregular intervals, the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) authorities review and modify its composition to make sure it reflects current market conditions.

The abbreviated form “Sensex” was coined by Deepak Mohoni around 1990 while writing market analysis columns for some of the business newspapers and magazines. It gained popularity over the next year or two.

The index has increased by over ten times from June 1990 to today. Using information from April 1979 onwards, the long-run rate of return on the BSE Sensex works out to be 18.6% per annum, which translates to roughly 9% per annum after compensating for inflation.

Sensex milestones

Here is a timeline on the rise and rise of the Sensex through Indian stock market history.

• 1000, July 25, 1990 – On July 25, 1990, the Sensex touched the four-digit figure for the first time and closed at 1,001 in the wake of a good monsoon and excellent corporate results.

• 2000, January 15, 1992 – On January 15, 1992, the Sensex crossed the 2,000-mark and closed at 2,020 followed by the liberal economic policy initiatives undertaken by the then finance minister and current Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh.

• 3000, February 29, 1992 – On February 29, 1992, the Sensex surged past the 3000 mark in the wake of the market-friendly Budget announced by the then Finance Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh.

• 4000, March 30, 1992 – On March 30, 1992, the Sensex crossed the 4,000-mark and closed at 4,091 on the expectations of a liberal export-import policy. It was then that the Harshad Mehta scam hit the markets and Sensex witnessed unabated selling.

• 5000, October 11, 1999 – On October 8, 1999, the Sensex crossed the 5,000-mark as the BJP-led coalition won the majority in the 13th Lok Sabha election.

• 6000, February 11, 2000 – On February 11, 2000, the infotech boom helped the Sensex to cross the 6,000-mark and hit and all time high of 6,006.

• 7000, June 21, 2005 – On June 20, 2005, the news of the settlement between the Ambani brothers boosted investor sentiments and the scrips of RIL, Reliance Energy, Reliance Capital and IPCL made huge gains. This helped the Sensex crossed 7,000 points for the first time.

• 8000, September 8, 2005 – On September 8, 2005, the Bombay Stock Exchange’s benchmark 30-share index — the Sensex — crossed the 8000 level following brisk buying by foreign and domestic funds in early trading.

• 9000, December 09, 2005 – The Sensex on November 28, 2005 crossed 9000 to touch 9000.32 points during mid-session at the Bombay Stock Exchange on the back of frantic buying spree by foreign institutional investors and well supported by local operators as well as retail investors.

• 10,000, February 7, 2006 – The Sensex on February 6, 2006 touched 10,003 points during mid-session. The Sensex finally closed above the 10K-mark on February 7, 2006.

• 11,000, March 27, 2006 – The Sensex on March 21, 2006 crossed 11,000 and touched a life-time peak of 11,001 points during mid-session at the Bombay Stock Exchange for the first time. However, it was on March 27, 2006 that the Sensex first closed at over 11,000 points.

• 12,000, April 20, 2006 – The Sensex on April 20, 2006 crossed 12,000 and touched a life-time peak of 12,004 points during mid-session at the Bombay Stock Exchange for the first time.

• 13,000, October 30, 2006 – The Sensex on October 30, 2006 crossed 13,000 and still riding high at the Bombay Stock Exchange for the first time. It took 135 days to reach 13,000 from 12,000. And 124 days to reach 13,000 from 12,500. On 30th October 2006 it touched a peak of 13,039.36 & closed at 13,024.26.

• 14,000, December 5, 2006 – The Sensex on December 5, 2006 crossed 14,000 and touched a life-time peak of 14028 at 9.58AM(IST) while opening for the day December 5, 2006.

• 15,000, July 6, 2007- The Sensex on July 6, 2007 crossed another milestone and reached a magic figure of 15,000. it took almost 7 month and 1 day to touch such a historic milestone.

• 16,000, September 19, 2007- The Sensex on September 19, 2007 crossed the 16,000 mark and reached a historic peak of 16322 while closing. The bull hits because of the rate cut of 50 bps in the discount rate by the Fed chief Ben Bernanke in US.

• 17,000, September 26, 2007- The Sensex on September 26, 2007 crossed the 17,000 mark for the first time, creating a record for the fastest 1000 point gain in just 5 trading sessions. It failed however to sustain the momentum and closed below 17000. The Sensex closed above 17000 for the first time on the following day. Reliance group has been the main contributor in this bull run, contributing 256 points. This also helped Mukesh Ambani’s net worth to grow to over $50 billion or Rs.2 trillion. It was also during this record bull run that the Sensex for the first time zoomed ahead of the Nikkei of Japan.

• 18,000, October 9, 2007- The Sensex crossed the 18k mark for the first time on October 9, 2007. The journey from 17k to 18k took just 8 trading sessions which is the second fastest 1000 point rise in the history of the sensex. The sensex closed at 18,280 at the end of day. This 788 point gain on 9th October is the biggest single day absolute gains ever. Sensex also saw intra-day gains of 1000 points from the day’s lows in the backdrop of political uncertainty between the UPA and Left parties on the Nuke deal. The markets started coming off the day’s lows on news that the immediate threat to the government had receded after the warring factions agreed to talk further. Reliance Industries was again the biggest contributor in this 1000 point gain. The Reliance-pack along with Infosys and L&T lead the bull run.^[2]

On May 22, 2006, the Sensex plunged by a whopping 1100 points during intra-day trading, leading to the suspension of trading for the first time since May 17, 2004. The volatility of the Sensex had caused investors to lose Rs 6 lakh crore ($131 billion) within seven trading sessions. The Finance Minister of India, P. Chidambaram, made an unscheduled press statement when trading was suspended to assure investors that nothing was wrong with the fundamentals of the economy, and advised retail investors to stay invested. When trading resumed after the reassurances of the Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Sensex managed to move up 700 points, still 450 points in the red. This is the largest ever intra-day crash (in points terms) in the history of the Sensex.

The Sensex eventually recovered from the volatility, and on October 16, 2006, the Sensex closed at an all-time high of 12,928.18 with an intra-day high of 12,953.76. This was a result of increased confidence in the economy and reports that India’s manufacturing sector grew by 11.1% in August 2006.

On July 23, 2007, the Sensex touched a new high of 15,733 points. ^[3] The index touched the 15,828.98 mark the very next day. ^[4] On July 27, 2007 the Sensex witnessed a huge correction because of selling by Foreign Institutional Investors and global cues to come back to 15,160 points by noon. ^[5] Following global cues and heavy selling in the International markets, the BSE Sensex fell by 615 points in a single day on August 1, 2007, the third such biggest fall in its history. ^[6] Following the same trend, the BSE Sensex fell by 643 points in a single day on August 16, 2007, which is the biggest fall since April, 2007 and the second biggest ever (absloute terms) in history. ^[7]

Companies in the Sensex

List of BSE Sensex companies provides the full list of companies that have been part of the BSE Sensex since its inception in 1986 (baselined to 1979).

(as of October 5, 2007) ^[8]

Code	Name	Sector	Adj. Factor