Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

A meeting of Speakers unanimously decided that India will boycott a <keyword id="2990273" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="commonwealth-parliamentary-union">Commonwealth Parliamentary Union</keyword> meeting in <keyword id="3002" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Islamabad">Islamabad</keyword> next month in protest against Pakistan not inviting the Speaker of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, a decision that comes in the midst of tensions over two terror attacks in Punjab and J&amp;K. <keyword id="6355187" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> Speaker <keyword id="6354934" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Sumitra-Mahajan">Sumitra Mahajan</keyword> said this was against a rule in the CPU in which all the Speakers, who are members of the <keyword id="112537" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Commonwealth-Parliamentary-Association">Commonwealth Parliamentary Association</keyword> (CPA), have to be extended an invitation to the CPU meeting. "It is wrong (on the part of Pakistan). They cited an old rule of 1951-57 regarding their having raised an issue in the <keyword id="55859" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="UN-Security-Council">UN Security Council</keyword> for not inviting J and K Speaker," she said adding it had lost relevance. Welcoming the decision J&amp;K Speaker <keyword id="684192" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ravindra-Gupta">Ravindra Gupta</keyword>, who attended the meeting, thanked the Speakers for the decision saying it was a question of unity and integrity of the country. He called Pakistan a terrorist state. "The meeting resolved to call upon Dr Shirin Chaudhury, Speaker of <keyword id="141158" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bangladesh-Parliament">Bangladesh Parliament</keyword> and Chairperson of the CPA Executive Committee to use her good offices to immediately resolve the matter and ensure issue of invitation to the Jammu and Kashmir 'CPA Branch' failing which 'CPA India Region' including the Union and State Branches' (will) boycott the 61st Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan from September 30 to October 8...," the resolution said. 

	India's Parliament and Assemblies are treated as 'India region' and all the Assemblies are the members of the CPA. 

	The resolution underlined that Jammu and Kashmir "fulfills all conditions" of CPA membership. 
 

	"The meeting further resolved that Chairperson and members of the Executive Committee of CPA view this matter in all seriousness and insist that Pakistan CPA Branch forfeit its right to host the 61st CP conference for not inviting Jammu and Kashmir CPA Branch to the conference in violation of Article 8 of the CPA Constitution and that the venue of the conference be shifted to another country,” it said.

	Article 8 of the CPA Constitution says that each 'Branch' (meaning Parliament and State Assemblies) "shall be entitled to send prescribed number of delegates and officials to each plenary conference and accordingly Jammu and Kashmir Branch is entitled to send one delegate to the Conference." 
 

	The meeting authorised Lok Sabha Speaker, who is the chairperson of CPA India Region, to take "such further action as may be deemed necessary in the matter". 
 

	Gupta said Pakistan deliberately wanted to keep his state away from the conference to "humiliate" India. 
 

	He said Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and thanked the Lok Sabha Speaker and Speakers of other Assemblies on taking the stand. 
 

	Gupta added that "Pakistan is a terrorist state and many countries do not want to go there" to attend the Conference. PTI AKK "The meeting resolved to call upon Dr Shirin Chaudhury, Speaker of Bangladesh Parliament and Chairperson of the CPA Executive Committee to use her good offices to immediately resolve the matter and ensure issue of invitation to the Jammu and Kashmir 'CPA Branch' failing which 'CPA India Region' including the Union and State Branches' (will) boycott the 61st Commonwealth P .. 
 

	India's Parliament and Assemblies are treated as 'India region' and all the Assemblies are the members of the CPA. 
 

	The resolution underlined that Jammu and Kashmir "fulfils all conditions" of CPA membership. 
 

	"The meeting further resolved that Chairperson and members of the Executive Committee of CPA view this matter in all seriousness and insist that Pakistan CPA Branch forfeit its right to host the 61st CP conference for not inviting Jammu and Kashmir CPA Branch to the conference in violation of Article 8 of the CPA Constitution and that the venue of the conference be shifted to another country," it said. 
 

	Article 8 of the CPA Constitution says that each 'Branch' (meaning Parliament and State Assemblies) "shall be entitled to send prescribed number of delegates and officials to each plenary conference and accordingly Jammu and Kashmir Branch is entitled to send one delegate to the Conference." 
 

	The meeting authorised Lok Sabha Speaker, who is the chairperson of CPA India Region, to take "such further action as may be deemed necessary in the matter". 
 

	The Speaker said India took up the issue with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Secretariat after Jammu and Kashmir was not invited while all other states of India received the invitations. 
 The CPA Secretariat talked to <keyword id="2990321" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Pakistan-Assembly">Pakistan Assembly</keyword> Speaker who expressed "constraint" in inviting Jammu and Kashmir. Invitations for the conference are sent by the host country. 

	Gupta said Pakistan deliberately wanted to keep his state away from the conference to "humiliate" India. 
 

	He said Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and thanked the Lok Sabha Speaker and Speakers of other Assemblies on taking the stand. 
 

	Gupta added that "Pakistan is a terrorist state and many countries do not want to go there" to attend the Conference. 

	 
	 
	(Image credits: Indiatimes)

India to boycott Commonwealth Parliamentary Union meeting in Islamabad next month: Lok Sabha Speaker

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Insider published a database of 1,133 positions in the royal household, shedding light on one of the UK's most protected institutions.</li><li>The palace releases only select financial information and is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.</li></ul><keyword id="11893534" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="queen-elizabeth-ii" source="Orion">Queen Elizabeth II</keyword> is among the most-watched people in the world, but the inner workings of her household are obscured by a web of legal exemptions and arcane privileges which make it difficult to see how it works. So Insider has compiled a <a href="https://www.insider.com/the-firm-royal-org-chart-who-works-for-queen-2022-01">searchable database</a> of 1,133 royal household positions that make up "the firm." Compiled entirely from publicly available sources, the database illustrates the massive scale of the British monarchy.The household is responsible for everything from cleaning the palaces to counting the Queen's swans.The database includes mysterious-sounding titles — such as fendersmith, carpet planner, and yeoman of the glass and china pantry — along with hundreds of workers in less glamorous roles who support the official business of the Queen.At the top of this vast workforce are an elite number of executives, in highly paid and influential positions, such as the Queen's private secretary.Insider spent months combing through the Crown's public announcements and job advertisements to compile the database, which demonstrates how unwieldy it is to get an accounting of the royal household that goes beyond top-line budget numbers.Although it produces an annual financial report that's audited independently, legal exemptions keep much of the household's inner workings — and their effect on the UK — shrouded in obscurity.In response to a detailed request for comment and a review of the database, Buckingham Palace spokesperson disputed its accuracy and clarity, without providing specifics.They said: "Details of employee [sic] paid by the Sovereign Grant are disclosed annually by The Royal Household in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report and Accounts, providing transparency and information on the wide range of roles within The Royal Household which support the official work and public duties of the <keyword id="11893535" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="royal-family" source="Orion">Royal Family</keyword>."It is disappointing to find glaring inaccuracies and outdated information being relied on for a series of ill-informed and baseless claims about the operations of The Royal Household." <h2>Where does the royal household's funding come from?</h2>The Queen draws on public funds to cover her official business as head of state. The UK government has been funding the sovereign since 1760; since 2012, the <a href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130129110402/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/leg_sovereign_grant_secondreading_140711.pdf">public payout</a> that subsidizes the Queen's official duties has been known as the Sovereign Grant. Each year, the UK treasury determines an amount of taxpayer pounds to pay into the Sovereign Grant, based on a percentage of the profits generated by the <a href="https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/">Crown Estate</a>.The estate includes land, property, and mineral reserves that have passed from monarch to monarch for centuries. But the Crown Estate isn't the Queen's private property, and it surrenders all its revenues to the treasury.In addition to covering the Queen's official costs, the Sovereign Grant funds some of the duties of senior <keyword id="11893529" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="royals" source="Orion">royals</keyword>, such as Charles and Camilla, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall; and William and Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The grant also pays for the upkeep of occupied palaces, travel arrangements, and staffing and running the Queen's household.For 2020-21, the Sovereign Grant was equal to 25% of the Crown Estate's revenue, or £85.9 million ($116.1 million). That percentage was raised considerably in 2017, from 15%, after the royal household argued it needed to modernize and make urgent repairs to its palaces.<div type="image" title="Buckingham Palace" height="2499" width="5000" msid="89253346" hostid="261"></div>The royal household also generates income for one of its departments by opening up palaces to the public. That income took a hit after the pandemic began, with the royal household reporting a 53% loss — largely from loss of visitor income — in 2020-21."At the moment, people are feeling a bit sorry for the palace because they've got a big black hole in their pocket due to COVID," David McClure, the author of "The Queen's True Worth," told <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/royal-family-could-take-35m-hit-because-of-covid-19-as-figures-reveal-familys-most-expensive-trips-12080887">Sky News</a> when losses were first projected early in the pandemic."But one should equally remember that in the last nine years, the Sovereign Grant has really gone up and up and up," he added. "It's actually gone up by two-thirds in the last nine years and if you look at inflation, inflation has only gone up 20%, so they really have had a rise in income in the last decade or so."<h2>'It's an opaque institution'</h2>In its annual report on the Sovereign Grant, the royal household presents itself in terms familiar to any corporate employer, and it volunteers some key data.Its accounts are vetted annually by an independent body and can come under political scrutiny via a parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, which last reviewed them in 2014.Despite the modern tone of its self-reporting, the royal household has made extraordinary efforts to excuse itself from the scrutiny that other UK institutions undergo. In successive legislation since the early 2000s, the royal household has secured for itself complete exemption<a href="https://www.royal.uk/freedom-information"> from Freedom of Information requests</a>, <a href="https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/03/royalty-free-freedom-of-information/">as Index on Censorship</a> reported. "As a consequence, what we know about this fascinating and hugely significant part of the British state still consists mostly of reheated gossip, self-interested briefings from a range of current and former royal flunkeys, and tabloid revelations," professor Philip Murphy, the director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at London University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-royal-family-can-learn-from-mi5-about-secrecy-45023">wrote</a>. Graham Smith, the CEO of Republic, a group that advocates eliminating the monarchy, told Insider that the household's self-reporting didn't go deep enough. "The finance report misses an awful lot of costs," he said. As an example, he said the household only itemizes its travel spending when the cost of a trip tops £15,000 ($20,500). "It simply doesn't measure up to the scrutiny that you would get elsewhere," he continued. "If it's an NHS trust, for example, if they feel they have misspent money, or if their standards are slipping, there'll be consequences."He added, "But if it's the royal household, nothing.""It's an opaque institution," he said. <h2>An employer exempt from discrimination law — and with the privilege to vet those laws</h2>There are even more gray areas when it comes to the royal household's employment practices. Its <a href="https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/sovereign_grant_report_2020-2021_0.pdf">2020-21 Sovereign Grant report</a> showed that senior roles are largely held by men. Ethnic minorities make up 8.5% of its workforce — compared to about 13% of the UK population. The report gave no breakdown of how those employees are distributed across senior positions. These disclosures are entirely voluntary. An investigation by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal'">The Guardian</a> in June found that the royal household is exempt from race and sex discrimination laws.The paper also found that, back when the palace made the case for that exemption in 1968 — when the UK's fledgling Race Relations Act was under review — its reasoning was that it was "not, in fact, the practice" to employ people of color in office roles at the time. <div type="image" title="A side view of several Yeomen of the Guard in full red regalia at a royal event. One man peers sideways." height="1000" width="2000" msid="89253347" hostid="261"></div>Buckingham Palace told the paper that it now has its own process for complaints of discrimination, but it didn't elaborate.The 2020-21 Sovereign Grant report said the royal household aims to be a "best in class" employer for diverse applicants, "appointed on merit." The Public and Commercial Services Union, which said it represents a number of royal household workers, said the exemption was "a relic of the past and must be reversed.""The public sector should be leading the way on equality duties, and the royal household should be no exception, particularly given its historical and cultural significance with many in the country," a PCS spokesperson told Insider.Historically, the royal household has also exercized unique rights over legislation that might affect its workings.<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent">The Guardian reported</a> that more than 1,000 draft laws have come under the Queen's consent. This is a little-known privilege that allows the royal household to examine bills for any issues that might affect royal workings before they are debated in Parliament. <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742221/Queen_s_and_prince_s_consent_pamphlet__September_2018___accessible_.pdf">Government guidance to ministers on the procedure</a>, dating back to 2018, discusses at least three draft bills where the royal household's employment practices justified invoking the Queen's consent. It's unclear whether the palace lobbied for any changes to the bills.Grant Harrold, who served as Prince Charles' butler for seven years, said he relished his work for the royal family. But he believed transparency was key to seeing the institution he loved continue past Elizabeth's reign."There's a lot of admiration, there's a lot of time for the Queen. And when she's gone, that will go," he said. "And they will be scrutinized, and they will be questioned: 'Is it worth having a royal family? Is it worth the money?'"He added, "And these questions will come up, and they have to get it right."

Why Insider is publishing a database of positions in the Queen's household, one of the least-scrutinized parts of British public life

<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image"></div></div>
Scotland's referendum on independence - a vote to decide if Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom or secede - is less than one month away. The political leaders of each side will participate in the last televised debate before the Sept. 18 referendum on Monday night. Here's what you need to know.
When did Scotland and England unite?
The Act of Union between Scotland and England was signed on Jan. 16, 1707. It came into effect on May 1 of that year, creating the United Kingdom of Britain. The Scottish Parliament was dissolved and a single Parliament was created at Westminster in London.
Why did Scotland and England join in the first place?
Scotland and England and have a complicated history, but the short answer is that Scotland needed an economic boost. The country's finances were a mess after a failed attempt to establish a trading colony in Panama. This unsuccessful scheme "was conclusive evidence that Scotland's future prosperity was best served by union," <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/feb/08/scotland.britishidentity" target="_blank">the Guardian writes</a>.
What are the opposing sides in the referendum?
There are two groups: The Yes campaign is in favor of independence. The official name for this campaign is <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/" target="_blank">Yes Scotland</a>. The No campaign wants to keep the Union intact. The official name of this campaign is <a href="http://www.bettertogether.net/" target="_blank">Better Together</a>.
Who are the campaign leaders?
<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image"></div></div>
Alex Salmond is leading the Yes Scotland campaign, which supports independence. He is currently the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP).
Alistair Darling is leading the Better Together campaign, which supports staying with the UK. He was the British Chancellor from 2007 to 2010.
When is the referendum?
September 18, 2014. That's a Thursday.
What will the ballot say?
There is just one question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Voters will tick one box: Yes or No.
When did Scotland get the power to hold a referendum?
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image"><a title_source="AP Photo/Gordon Terris, Pool" title_caption="The referendum agreement signed by Prime Minister David Cameron, Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon during a meeting at St Andrews House in Edinburgh on Oct. 15, 2012." class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/53f91cddeab8ea810de0eb8c-960/ap2604045292.jpg"></a>AP Photo/Gordon Terris, PoolThe referendum agreement signed by Prime Minister David Cameron, Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon during a meeting at St Andrews House in Edinburgh on Oct. 15, 2012.</div></div></div>David Cameron signed an agreement in October 2012 ensuring that the Scottish parliament, known as Holyrood, could hold a referendum on independence. This is called the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130109092234/http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agreement-final-for-signing.pdf" target="_blank">Edinburgh Agreement</a>. This followed a majority win by the Scottish National Party in the 2011 parliamentary elections, indicating a growing desire for independence. 
Who is eligible to vote?
For the most part, anyone over the age of 16 (the voting age was was lowered from 18 for general elections) who lives in Scotland can vote. It is alright if you were not born in Scotland, but you must be a EU or Commonwealth citizen who is living in Scotland now. Members of the armed services who are now overseas but are registered to vote in Scotland can also cast a ballot.
Can Scottish people who are not living in Scotland vote?
No. The Scottish government decided it would less complicated if it was restricted to those living in Scotland. As a result, 800,000 Scots who live in other parts of the UK will not be allowed to vote, while 400,000 people from other parts of Britain who live in Scotland will be able to vote.
What is the main case for staying in the UK?
The Better Together campaign argues remaining a part of the UK gives Scotland "<a href="http://bettertogether.net/the-facts/entry/case-for-the-uk" target="_blank">the best of both worlds</a>." The Scottish Parliament, reestablished in 1999, can make local decisions about health, education, and transportation, while the small country of 5 million reaps the benefits of being apart of a larger economy. As part of the UK, Scotland can easily trade across other parts of the UK and gets access to more jobs. Scotland also has the protection of the UK armed forces and influence on the UN Security Council.
What is the main case for independence?
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image"></div></div></div>Those who support independence believe Scotland "<a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/#theReality" target="_blank">would be richer</a>" if it breaks from England.
Proponents of independence want Scotland to make its own decisions about how resources are controlled and money is invested. Rather than investing billion of pounds in nuclear weapons, for example, they would prefer it go to things like childcare or programs to retain talent and encourage young Scots to stay.
What does the data say?
"Figures produced by the Scottish government suggest an independent Scotland would be in better financial shape than the U.K. as a whole, with a 2017 budget deficit of between 1.6% and 2.4% of annual GDP, compared with a forecast deficit of 3.4% for the U.K. as a whole," <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/scotland-ponders-in-independence-referendum-to-leave-or-not-to-leave-1408389397" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal said.</a>
Those numbers are contradicted by stats from the The U.K. treasury, which state "each Scot will be £1,400 ($2,400) richer per year if Scotland stays in the union."
What about currency?
This is a central focus of the debate. While Salmond believes it's possible for Scotland to share the pound after independence, Britain's finance minister George Osborne has been clear that a <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/12/uk-britain-scotland-osborne-idUKBREA1B0EQ20140212" target="_blank">currency union is not in the cards</a>. An independent Scotland could join the euro, but it would first have to be accepted into the EU. Opponents <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-ban-on-scotland-if-it-votes-for-independence-2014-7">are skeptical of Salmond's stance</a> that it will be easy to join the EU.
What do the polls say?
It's a close race. Right now, the polls are in favor of No campaigners with data showing "just over a third of Scotland's four-million-strong electorate support independence, while around half favor staying in the U.K.," <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/scotland-ponders-in-independence-referendum-to-leave-or-not-to-leave-1408389397%20" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal reports</a>. A large portion of votes haven't yet made up their minds.
What groups oppose Independence?
The three main political parties in London - Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats - are against independence. Leaving the U.K., they say, would have a huge cost for Scotland. 
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image"></div></div></div>
What happens if Scotland votes No?
That's it for now, folks. Scotland and the UK will carry on as they have been for the last 300 years. There won't be another chance to vote on independence for another generation.
What happens if Scotland votes Yes?
If Scotland votes Yes to independence, the country will be in full control of its defense, tax revenue, fiscal and foreign policies, and immigration. Discussions will have to take place to transfer power over from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. 
When is the next televised debate?
The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/13/second-Scottish-independence-debate-live-uk-bbc-alistair-darling-alex-salmond" target="_blank">second live televised debate</a> will air on Monday, Aug. 25 on the BBC. It will also be livestreamed by Sky News. The event will be held at the Kelvingrove art gallery in Glasgow and last 90 minutes. The pressure is on for Salmond, who was viewed to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11015027/Alex-Salmond-loses-first-independence-TV-debate.html" target="_blank">have lost the first head to head on Aug. 5</a>.

Everything You Need To Know About The Scottish Independence Referendum

FULL TEXT: May's momentous Brexit speech

When former Union Minister <keyword id="42332" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Jairam-Ramesh">Jairam Ramesh</keyword> coined the word ‘Chindia’ almost a decade ago, it was a term that spoke of aspirations. It was what described the dream of coming together of two formidable forces that were to define the direction of global economy. 
 
The idea was to bring together the two neighbouring countries that seemed to nurture more tension than trade. The aim was to create an ambience where trust and trade would thrive. It was all about co-operating and competing with each other for mutual benefits. 
 But the dream went awry as the time passed. Internal problems plagued both <keyword id="3658" type="COUNTRY" weightage="100" keywordseo="India">India</keyword> and <keyword id="1334" type="COUNTRY" weightage="100" keywordseo="China">China</keyword> and the road became foggy. Nevertheless, both of them now stand on the threshold of a new dawn, with the process of change in leadership having reached its culmination. Now, the past history of attrition must be laid to a peaceful rest if that is possible. After all, that baggage of the past can never help the nations move forward to meet dreams of the generations ahead. 
 Incidentally, the leaders of both nations – <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> of India and Xi Jinping of China – seem quite alike and committed to their vision. And the hopes of ‘Chindia’ have been stoked by the generations that have passed the baton to their offspring. Change of perception is, indeed, imminent. Or so it seems. 
 
Only, in India’s case, hope has taken shape with the Parliamentary elections that were held across the nation over the past few months. Indian citizens voted for their dream of seeing better days. It is not just about seeing India sprint forward, but sprint without diseased innards. While China has gone from strength to strength with shooting GDP, economic stability and prowess, and grabbed the attention of the entire world by hosting international events such as the Olympic Games in 2008, India turned out to be a lame duck during the 2010 Commonwealth Games that cost the country its image and credibility in the international arena. Corruption gnawed at the very core of the country. Economic growth had gone from bad to worse and inflation ate up the meager resources of the common man. This had to change. 
 
Now that the internal changes have been implemented, both countries have shown strong commitment towards mitigating recurrent tension in their relationship. But even then, Tibet will always remain a painful memory for both nations. China’s partnership with Pakistan will make India uncomfortable. And Modi’s proximity to Japan’s nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe makes Beijing wary. These apart, China and India have a lot to look forward to do, especially as they have common interest when pitted against the established super powers of the world. 
 
As far as bilateral trade goes, the path adopted by the two nations is extremely dismal, compared to the potential they have. However, India’s Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj recently met her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Delhi, much as a show of hope for the coming times. 
 
China’s efficiency and expertise could make for some of the biggest exports from that nation into India’s hinterlands. Just consider this – China could be helping India meet its infrastructural needs. That is one of the ways to explore modern trade possibilities. 
 
The keyword here is not benevolence but participation. China has been showing strong signs of moving away from low-end manufacturing to higher levels of production. India could probably explore the ways to fulfil this gap and push its manufacturing ability a few notches up, compared to other nations such as Thailand, South Korea and Malaysia, which are in the same league. 
 
Governments of both the countries should also put their heads together in a bid to support the new-found middle class, which is expanding its base by leveraging its own strengths and fighting its own challenges. The new economy has also brought in new issues that need some redressal mechanism soon, failing which Chindia can suffer the worst nightmares of global warming. 
 
Interestingly, India’s growth is concentrated in the urban areas although agriculture continues to claim a bigger margin of the budget year after year. Similarly, the Chinese coastline is swelling with thriving cities while areas located away from the pockets of economy await some fresh lease of life to be pumped into them. In other words, India stands exactly in the same position as China does in this respect. So it is time for both the countries to find a feasible solution and compare notes on their progress. 
 
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did send out a strong message even during the run-up to the polls, clarifying his stand on protecting the Indian borders from intruders. But when the ‘intrusion’ issues are laid to rest in an amicable manner, it will be time for both India and China to take the most feasible route of trade and support each other in the growth trajectory. It will not only help the two neighbouring nations, but will also be a shining example of how nations can be fast friends after long years of atrocities. Love thy neighbour, in true sense.

You Searched For "commonwealth parliamentary union" and got 6 results

India to boycott Commonwealth Parliamentary Union meeting in Islamabad next month: Lok Sabha Speaker

BI India Bureau

Why Insider is publishing a database of positions in the Queen's household, one of the least-scrutinized parts of British public life

Mia Jankowicz,Hannah Beckler

Everything You Need To Know About The Scottish Independence Referendum

Dina Spector

FULL TEXT: May's momentous Brexit speech

Will Martin

Chindia: Now Is The Time For Rising Together

Preetam Kaushik

FULL TEXT: Theresa May's speech to the Republican 'Congress of Tomorrow' conference

Adam Bienkov

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides