Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 19 Apr 2014 19:24

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2957 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 74  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2012 09:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3696
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Rob ?? er, the english know that definition of Rob means that you take away something which belongs to another forcefully against their will. Now, who had told UK that Eurofighter would be selected?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2012 09:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2010 06:44
Posts: 330
Location: Vivo en K-PAX
In many ways the Brits are just like Pakis. The sense of entitlement is just mind boggling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2012 10:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Posts: 2277
Brits of all people should know what rob means. However this has more to do with Anglo- Gallic rivalry than India.

Too bad the Brits do not have the breadth of wares and the strategic autonomy to offer India what the French have. $30 billion dollars of high technology deals would have been very significant for Britain, a nation with which India has a little more in common than France.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2012 21:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Dec 2011 23:15
Posts: 290
UK says will urge India to reconsider warplane decision
London, Feb 1, 2012, (Reuters): British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday that India's decision to choose France's Dassault Aviation over Eurofighter as preferred bidder for a $15 billion war plane contract was disappointing and he would urge India to reconsider.

"Of course I will do everything I can, as I have already, to encourage the Indians to look at Typhoon (Eurofighter) because I think it is such a good aircraft," Cameron told parliament.

"The decision is obviously disappointing but it is about who the Indians have assessed as making the lowest bid and therefore asked to enter into further negotiations. They have not yet awarded the contract," he added.

He said he did not expect any job losses in Britain as a result of the decision and said "it doesn't rule out Typhoon for India."

"We must go on making the case. This (Eurofighter) is a superb aircraft with far better capabilities than Rafale and we will try and encourage the Indians to take that view," he added.

Rafale, made by Dassault, emerged on Tuesday as preferred bidder in the contest to supply India with 126 warplanes.

While exclusive talks are not a guarantee of sale, they deal a probable knockout blow to Rafale's chief rival in India, the Eurofighter Typhoon, a fighter plane developed by a consortium of four European aviation companies --the German and Spanish branches of EADS (EAD.PA), Britain's BAE Systems (BAES.L) and Italy's Finmeccanica (SIFI.MI).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012 00:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36
Posts: 4609
Location: land of strip and search
^^^^
considering the reactions of britpakis-
see this
"Why is England in India at all?" Old article in 1908
Quote:
In order to find answers to these questions we must first of all get clearly in mind the fact that India is a subject land. She is a dependency of Great Britain, not a colony. Britain has both colonies and dependencies. Many persons suppose them to be identical; but they are not. Britain's free colonies, like Canada and Australia, though nominally governed by the mother country, are really self-ruling in everything except their relations to foreign powers. Not so with dependencies like India. These are granted no self-government, no representation; they are ruled absolutely by Great Britain, which is not their "mother" country, but their conqueror and master.


Quote:
Why is England in India at all? Why did she go there at first, and why does she remain? If India had been a comparatively empty land, as America was when it was discovered, so that Englishmen had wanted to settle there and make homes, the reason would have been plain. But it was a full land; and, as a fact, no British emigrants have ever gone to India to settle and make homes. If the Indian people had been savages or barbarians, there might have seemed more reason for England's conquering and ruling them. But they were peoples with highly organized governments far older than that of Great Britain, and with a civilization that had risen to a splendid height before England's was born. Said Lord Curzon, the late Viceroy of India, in an address delivered at the great Delhi Durbar in 1901: "Powerful Empires existed and flourished here [in India] while Englishmen were still wandering painted in the woods, and while the British Colonies were a wilderness and a jungle. India has left a deeper mark upon the history, the philosophy, and the religion of mankind, than any other terrestrial unit in the universe." It is such a land that England has conquered and is holding as a dependency. It is such a people that she is ruling without giving them any voice whatever in the shaping of their own destiny. The honored Canadian Premier, Sir Wilfred Laurier, at the Colonial Conference held in London in connection with the coronation of King Edward, declared, "The Empire of Rome was composed of slave states; the British Empire is a galaxy of free nations." But is India a free nation? At that London Colonial Conference which was called together for consultation about the interests of the entire Empire, was any representative invited to be present from India ? Not one. Yet Lord Curzon declared in his Durbar address in Delhi, that the "principal condition of the strength of the British throne is the possession of the Indian Empire, and the faithful attachment and service of the Indian people." British statesmen never tire of boasting of "our Indian Empire," and of speaking of India as "the brightest jewel in the British crown." Do they reflect that it is virtually a slave empire of which they are so proud; and that this so-called brightest jewel reflects no light of political freedom?


Read all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012 21:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2010 21:24
Posts: 5438
David Cameron pays price in India for poor links with Gandhi dynasty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wint ... nia-gandhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2012 22:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11028
Location: Beneath the pleasure dome of the great khan
btw - the lithuanian burglary suspect who was arrested for the murder of the indian man and his english wife - was found hanged in his police cell last week
an enquiry is underway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 00:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08
Posts: 2446
Just noticed that DailyMail has an India section on its homepage mast , beating even Unkil in precedence.
And as expected that section is a repository of all the negative news coming out of india.

What gives?
Is this focussed india flogging the usual penile pump kind of stratagem for the increasingly senile britturds or is this a directed effort by the albion to modify aam whitepaki opinion for something else.

but either way at this rate next they will be wailing at the world (read Unkil) to treat India UK as == onlee :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 01:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jan 2012 02:33
Posts: 836
krisna wrote:
^^^^
considering the reactions of britpakis-
see this
"Why is England in India at all?" Old article in 1908
Quote:
In order to find answers to these questions we must first of all get clearly in mind the fact that India is a subject land. She is a dependency of Great Britain, not a colony. Britain has both colonies and dependencies. Many persons suppose them to be identical; but they are not. Britain's free colonies, like Canada and Australia, though nominally governed by the mother country, are really self-ruling in everything except their relations to foreign powers. Not so with dependencies like India. These are granted no self-government, no representation; they are ruled absolutely by Great Britain, which is not their "mother" country, but their conqueror and master.


Quote:
Why is England in India at all? Why did she go there at first, and why does she remain? If India had been a comparatively empty land, as America was when it was discovered, so that Englishmen had wanted to settle there and make homes, the reason would have been plain. But it was a full land; and, as a fact, no British emigrants have ever gone to India to settle and make homes. If the Indian people had been savages or barbarians, there might have seemed more reason for England's conquering and ruling them. But they were peoples with highly organized governments far older than that of Great Britain, and with a civilization that had risen to a splendid height before England's was born. Said Lord Curzon, the late Viceroy of India, in an address delivered at the great Delhi Durbar in 1901: "Powerful Empires existed and flourished here [in India] while Englishmen were still wandering painted in the woods, and while the British Colonies were a wilderness and a jungle. India has left a deeper mark upon the history, the philosophy, and the religion of mankind, than any other terrestrial unit in the universe." It is such a land that England has conquered and is holding as a dependency. It is such a people that she is ruling without giving them any voice whatever in the shaping of their own destiny. The honored Canadian Premier, Sir Wilfred Laurier, at the Colonial Conference held in London in connection with the coronation of King Edward, declared, "The Empire of Rome was composed of slave states; the British Empire is a galaxy of free nations." But is India a free nation? At that London Colonial Conference which was called together for consultation about the interests of the entire Empire, was any representative invited to be present from India ? Not one. Yet Lord Curzon declared in his Durbar address in Delhi, that the "principal condition of the strength of the British throne is the possession of the Indian Empire, and the faithful attachment and service of the Indian people." British statesmen never tire of boasting of "our Indian Empire," and of speaking of India as "the brightest jewel in the British crown." Do they reflect that it is virtually a slave empire of which they are so proud; and that this so-called brightest jewel reflects no light of political freedom?


Read all.

Thanks for the link.
A nice read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 04:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jan 2012 02:33
Posts: 836
UK Delegation coming to India
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_br ... ia_1645616

Quote:
Seeking to form a strong partnership with Indian defence industry, a UK trade mission comprising over 20 defence firms -- the largest since the David Cameron government assumed power -- will undertake a 5-day visit to India from Monday to meet key decision-makers and potential partners in the crucial sector.

The high-profile delegation's visit comes days after UK-backed Eurofighter Typhoon lost out to French firm Dassault Rafale in bagging the 126 fighter jet deal worth $10 billion from India.

The mission is organised by the UK's Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO) in cooperation with UK trade association Aerospace Defence Security (ADS).

It will be led by Parliamentary Undersecretary of State Gerald Howarth, MP, who is also UK's Minister for International Security Strategy.

The mission has the full support of the Indian Ministry of Defence, a statement here said.

The trade mission will visit three Indian cities, each with a particular focus: Delhi for the overarching Indian government perspective; Bangalore for aerospace, electronics and land systems; and Mumbai for maritime systems.

Each hub will provide an opportunity for real business to business interaction identifying opportunities and potential partnerships as well as providing UK companies a better understanding of how to do business in India. A range of private sector and government speakers will provide an overview of the defence market place and environment in India.

Face-to-face discussions between UK missioners and Indian defence companies will be facilitated in each hub by the Indian defence trade associations Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM).

Gerald Howarth said "I am proud and excited to be leading this Defence Trade Mission. This mission is not just simply about securing defence exports for the UK companies—it is about forming long-lived partnerships with Indian companies—both public and private—as India emerges as a leading nation in the world and pursues its policy of self reliance and indigenisation of the defence market."

UK companies have a great deal to offer—cutting edge technology, modern work practices and an open approach to collaboration and innovation, he said.

"We also have a long, deep and common cultural history which I believe provides a superb platform for really working together and forging a strong defence as well as business alliances," the minister said.

"This defence trade mission to India is historic. Over 20 major UK defence companies are going to India this week to both learn about how to do business in India but also seek opportunities to work with Indian businesses and the Ministry of Defence."

This is the largest UK defence trade mission since this government came into power in may 2010 and reinforces the importance the UK government places on relationship with India, he said.

Richard Paniguian, Head of UKTI DSO said: "India is a truly exciting defence and security market for UK companies to be in. It is an emerging global power of immense importance.

"It is also at a real point of evolution in its defence industry as it looks to turn around from importing some 70% of its defence equipment to designing, developing, manufacturing and supporting some 70 per cent indigenously."

"I want UK companies to be part of that journey, forming strong partnerships with the Indian defence industry along the way. There is an immense breadth of defence and security opportunities in the Indian market, as the one billion pounds of business done here by UK defence companies in 2010 demonstrates."


http://www.lep.co.uk/news/lep-business/ ... _1_4208375

Quote:
A leading defence minister has been told to go and fight for Lancashire as he jets into India this weekend.

Gerald Howarth, the minister for international security strategy, is due to meet with his counterparts in New Delhi, just days after it handed the initiative in a battle for a £10bn fighter jet deal to a French firm.

The Rafale jet, built by French firm Dassault, was named as the lowest-priced bidder for the deal to sell 126 aircraft to the Indian air force, ahead of the Eurofighter Typhoon.

But, officials at BAE Systems, which is part of the Typhoon jet-building consortium, has insisted the deal is not lost, with months of talks over the details of the work share yet to take place.

Fylde MP Mark Menzies, whose constituency includes BAE’s factory at Warton, near Preston, said Mr Howarth would be raising the matter during his visit.

He said: “I think the Indian government has a duty to reflect on the fact the UK taxpayer has been a generous supporter of it, both in terms of international aid, and as a commercial partner, over the years. :lol:

“It is very important it takes that relationship seriously, and is prepared to be open about the process it is following for this contract.

“The Prime Minister has already committed himself to delivering this message to India, and I have no doubt Gerald Howarth will do the same.

“Now is not the time to write this contract off, now is the time to redouble our efforts.”

Chorley MP Lindsay Hoyle said it was “the absolute duty” of all ministers to step up its efforts to ensure the Typhoon was still in the running for the work.

He warned that thousands of jobs at BAE Systems’ plants at Warton and Samlesbury, near Preston, could be at risk if the order is lost.

The Labour MP said: “This is a two-way relationship with India, the Prime Minister and the whole Government needs not just to be telling them this – they need to believe it.”

Talks are still under way with regards 1,300 proposed job losses as part of the slow-down in existing Typhoon orders announced last year.

Union officials are seeking talks with BAE management about the possible impact on jobs, although a BAE spokesman has said there will be “no immediate impact.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 08:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36
Posts: 4609
Location: land of strip and search
^^^^

viewtopic.php?p=1236380#p1236380-- The article is still relevant for these britpakis.
They still think India should bankroll them. :twisted: :evil:
look at the gall in making those statements. :(( :((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 08:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 13880
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
All this rhona dhona shows that Briturds are not over their colonial instincts. In his book "Indian economic model' Subrahmanyam Swamy quotes US and UK senators and MPs quoting "foreign aid is the means that we keep a foreign economy low and control it's policies" or something like that (will post the real quotes in a couple of days).

It is high time india kicks out the western influence that comes to india under the guise of foreign-aid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 10:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14218
Location: Deepest & Highest
Let them bring Milipide crawling like Centipide and give lecture on the sensitivities of Pakipides with not Haddi of reed. Since Poaq India equal equal , let Brit compete in in similar deal by Poaqoonders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 10:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Posts: 1023
Location: Calcutta
Rafale is much better deal than Typhoon. Good decision. Only thing better would have been F22 from US but that is probably reserved for close allies like Pakis and Brits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 15:30 
I would strongly urge members to not read the DM for intellectual simulation esp the online version. Using it for intellectual simulation can be injurious for health. However having said that they are primarily using this issue as a should to fire pot shots at the Conservative/Lib Dem as a majority of the british people would prefer that the money spent as part of foreign aid to emerging economies should be spent at home. They also believe with the growing defecit they cannot be a major player in the foreign aid department. This is contrarty to what the Coalition wants to do.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 18:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08
Posts: 2446
Quote:
Initial post: Jul 5, 2011 2:35:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 7, 2011 12:12:50 PM PDT
Strategos says:
Helpful review and insightful opinions. As a student of the subject for several decades, and with British, Indian, and Pakistani friends and colleagues I add the following thoughts.

With regard to Churchill and India:


In 1943, despite intense lobbying by the Viceroy (Wavell), Churchill was adamantly opposed to providing relief supplies or releasing shipping for the purpose when Bengal went through its great famine. (See "Famine: A Short History" by Cormac O'Grada, 2009 for a useful up-to-date account). About 3 million are estimated to have died - in part because the British confiscated water transport (to prevent the Japanese, who had reached Burma, penetrating farther west); in part because the central and Bengal governments refused to recognize the gravity of the situation and censored news to bolster morale; and in part because food stocks were allotted to the military preferentially and even taken out of India. Lord Chertwell, Churchill's scientific adviser, recommended no additional effort to provide food on the (Malthusian) grounds that Indians would only breed more rapidly, leading to greater catastrophes. It was at this time that Churchill is reported to have called Indians a beastly people with a beastly religion.

Churchill and other imperialists made much of the "civilizing"/modernizing British role in India. But it's difficult to grant the British Empire any legitimacy when it was marked by the most terrible human calamities which could have been mitigated. The first massive effect of Company rule in Bengal (the most prosperous province of the Moghul Empire until 1765: the East India Company took over the tax revenues of Bengal after the Battle of Buxar) was the famine of 1769-70, in which a third of the population, or 10 million, are estimated to have died. The extortionate land revenues were not commuted, but actually raised during this time, while the British "nabobs" made their fortunes from monopolies and by granting licenses to trade in basic commodities.

Major famines stalked India again in the 1870s, coincident with the proclamation of Victoria as Empress of India, and in the 1890s - rations in government "relief" camps were lower than in Buchenwald in calories, and the deat rates were horrific. (See "Late Victorial Holocausts" by Mike Davis, 2002). Official (British Indian) statistics, available publicly (e.g. on the internet), show that at the height of the British Empire in India, between 1871 and 1920, the population of India fell by almost 20 percent. What kind of beneficent rule would guarantee a 5 percent rate of return to British investors in Indian railways (paid from peasant taxes) even when these were never profitable, as the people starved and the Viceroy (Lord Lytton, certifiably manic) called for more fiscal stringency? This was Churchill's India - where in the 1890s, as a young man in the cavalry, he played polo, enjoyed the hospitality of princes, and fought on the north-west frontier - a set of memories which froze the country forever in his mind.

It's impossible not to ask how Churchill could so blind himself to reality as to argue that the British Empire was the greatest boon to Indians and the only protection the common people had against both frontier raiders and Brahman oppression (the two greatest dangers as far as he was concerned). Of course, India not only provided the soldiers for Britain's earlier colonial wars (in Afghanistan, Abyssinia, Burma) but in both World Wars - in the Second, as many as 2-1/2 million troops. To that extent, Britain's imperial might reflected India's subordinate position, and the moment Nehru's interim government (1946) put a stop to the use of Indian troops in colonial ventures, British interventions as in Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies had to come to a stop. (See "Forgotten Wars" by Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, 2010). Perhaps the most charitable view of Churchill's blindness on India is that he could not, by his basic personality, see any other role for Indians than as colonial soldiers in the service of the greater good (for him, the greatest good of the world as a whole): to keep the British Empire a going concern.

Naturally, Gandhi (at least from 1919 and the boycott of the visit of the Prince of Wales, British goods, and non-cooperation), the Congress (which from 1930 asked for complete independence), and "Hindustan" as Churchill preferred to think of independent India (by contrast with Pakistan) were all the antithesis of his imperial vision. As Alex von Tunzelmann comments in her personality-focused history of independence, if Jinnah was the father of Pakistan, Churchill was at least its uncle. Churchill (and Lord Linlithgow as viceroy) attempted to put back the clock on Indian independence, and Gandhi and Nehru helped, as the Congress decided to leave office in 1939 and launched the Quit India movement in 1942 , leaving the Muslim League to gain popularity and strength.

A book well worth reading on the subject of the events leading to India's independence is "The Transfer of Power" by V.P. Menon, Constitutional Secretary to the Viceroy, Reforms Secretary, Secretary to the 1946 Cabinet Mission, etc., and Patel's right-hand man in integrating the princely states. It's quite amazing how many times he comments that Congress (and Gandhi's) decisions were not based on reality and could not be understood (e.g. on the 1940 Ramgarh resolution or launching the agitation for the British to quit India with the Japanese at the gates). Depite the official (Indian) propaganda idealizing Gandhi and the cult around him as a quasi-saint, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that perhaps he was the worst possible leader for the Indian independence movement between 1920 and 1947 - detached from the world of practical deal-making, totally dismissive of the consequences of unconsidered positions, preoccupied by his own guilt-ridden struggles for personal and collective release from sin, projecting religiosity offensive to secular or Muslim sensibilities, and intolerant of dissent. Nehru was not much better with his idealism, impatience, and sweeping faith that everything would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds if only the British would leave and atavistic attachment to his family's original home: Kashmir, with all the consequences this would bring.

Poor India (and what was to become Pakistan) with such mediocre leadership all around in Congress, the Muslim League, and among the British. If only those who made decisions had been sufficiently grounded, pragmatic, and far-sighted for (undivided) India to have reached dominion status by around 1925, perhaps the later tragic course of history in the sub-continent could have been changed. Interestingly, Churchill in the early 1920s was very much a proponent of the agreements which ended the conflict in Ireland and founded the Irish Free State. Perhaps there was no way he could see Indians as with the same legitimate aspirations or capabilities given the premise of imperial rule in superior and inferior races.

The million slaughtered in Partition and the ten million torn from their homes at the time, the four wars between the successor states, and the decline of Pakistan into fundamentalist anarchy are mute tribute to the monstrous incapacity of the generation of Indian independence for foresight, compromise, and tactical decency. All the praise for non-violence as a tactic perfected by Gandhi which was uniquely powerful in the Indian independence struggle, and for Gandhi's own peace-making between Hindus and Muslims hardly weakens the judgment that he and other Indian leaders as well as the British were blind, misguided, and criminally incompetent in important respects. Surely, no one should expect perfection from political leaders - but was it too much to rise beyond manipulative racists, half-baked cranks, visionaries blind to reality in potential inter-religious strife, and self-seeking founders of nations willing to clamber to power and their place in history over corpses?

A sophisticated analysis is provided in ""The Partition of India" by Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh, 2009. It also examines the continuing legacy in both India and Pakistan of the founding trauma of Partition which truly became inevitable from the great Calcutta killing of August 1946 and the pattern of state-sponsored/allowed organized political violence it established which spiraled upwards and then continued into the 1950s.


Found this as a comment by Strategos on Sarila's book in Amazon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 21:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Posts: 2629
Location: PA, USA
Never forget that Brits are the original Pakis who not only divided India but also appointed R. Cawthome as the first head of ISI. They divided our country to keep them in control. Our Babus should tell that it is R. Cawthome policies that are directly responsible for this Typhoon deal along with all the attacks on India (including Wars in 1948 - 1999).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 22:27 
SBajwa wrote:
Never forget that Brits are the original Pakis who not only divided India but also appointed R. Cawthome as the first head of ISI. They divided our country to keep them in control. Our Babus should tell that it is R. Cawthome policies that are directly responsible for this Typhoon deal along with all the attacks on India (including Wars in 1948 - 1999).


Point 1: The french got the deal because they had the a/c which was more suitable and economical for the IAF than the typhoon. The deal, and correctly so, was not influenced by geopolitical considerations otherwise the deal would have gone to the US.
Point 2: Nations dont have permanent friends they have permanent interests. Which basically means that what is true for 1949 is not true for 2012.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 22:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Posts: 1023
Location: Calcutta
The money saved from this deal would be more than adequate to supplement the British aid. Also shame on Brits for linking charity with weapons' deal. That is a very uncivilized thing to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2012 22:53 
Karan Dixit wrote:
The money saved from this deal would be more than adequate to supplement the British aid. Also shame on Brits for linking charity with weapons' deal. That is a very uncivilized thing to do.



The fault of the coalition government in the UK. They needed to justify continued aid to India. First they explained that it was the issue about poverty esp in a few places. The population was not too convinced (and in my mind rightly so.Would i want my tax to be spent as aid to sub saharan africa. No i would prefer it going to the poor in the poor states of India). So a (dis)injenious argument was put forward to the people of UK stating that it benefits the UK as the goodwill generated will mean an increase in trade (which obviously benefits the British population). The argument failed with the failure of the EF in this deal (Politicians across the word are alike lol) . It will be a chance for Labour to kick some solid ass if they want to. But i guess they will be too scared of the guardian to do it. I would be very surprised if any of the parties make any electoral promises around foreign aid in the next general election unless they are campaiging in the villages and suburbs where you may find a high proportion of a typical Lib Dem type voter.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 00:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 1255
What also needs to be highlighted is that the aid that is being mentioned several times is not the one that India wants, but British wants to give to India to promote its own interests. Since that failed now, let them stop it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 00:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14218
Location: Deepest & Highest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml
The Indian aid and jet scandals just prove we are governed by self-righteous idiots .
( Desi Patka)
Quote:
Every year Britain gives a staggering £280million in aid to India.
India, the country that for the last thousand years has been one of the largest economies in the world.
Today India has a space programme, whilst the UK cannot afford one, yet our government continues to pump millions into the Indian economy. India has more billionaires than the UK (in dollar terms), yet the Government continues to channel tax-payer's money there.India is a country that has an economic purchasing power on global markets that is significantly greater than the UK’s. Yet the Government continues to spend British taxpayers' money by siphoning off aid to India. So much for the shortage of funds for sex and ethical education to help the proliferation of teenage mothers in Newcastle. Our own people, when it comes to our politicians, can of course go to hell.At least one might hope that some trade and investment benefits would come from India as a result of our Government throwing so much money at one of the largest economies in the world, and an economy that is projected to be one of the biggest three in the world in around twenty years.However, despite all this aid expenditure, it is France that will enjoy the fruits of the next Indian armaments deal, worth £13billion and 40,000 jobs. Yes, you’ve spotted it, a country that can spend $13bn on fighter jets still receives UK aid money from the UK taxpayer, and then doesn’t deal with the UK


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 01:00 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 13554
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
by what stretch of imagination is 280 million pounds staggering ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 01:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14218
Location: Deepest & Highest
Rahul M wrote:
by what stretch of imagination is 280 million pounds staggering ?


For poor UK, it is . Its a different matter that LN Mittal can write check for this amount for 100 years without blinking an eye .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 01:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27
Posts: 463
The sad thing about that Daily Mail story is that it is written by somebody of Indian origin.

OK I was born in the UK and I have to be loyal to the country, we don't want to be like the paks, however the writer is repeating the same old ignorant misconceptions that the average "John Smith" gora has because he has been fed them by the tabloid media.

He appears to be stating look at me a brown skinned Brit I don't like those Indians either.
He reminds me of the character in that film "Bhawani Juntion" thge anglo Indian who is being abandoned by his British masters at Independence he refers to his fellow Indians as "bloody wogs" :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 02:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2010 06:44
Posts: 330
Location: Vivo en K-PAX
The argument that India should have selected Euro fighter because it gets british aid is nothing but blackmail.
Now the cat is out of the bag..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-aid.html
Quote:
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid .
India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

Quote:
Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 03:45 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38
Posts: 13590
Location: Khalasi-in-Chief, 9211th Sanitary Battalion, Northern Light Infantry, Skardu
Kanishka wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-aid.html
Quote:
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid .
India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

Quote:
Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


The comments from the Brits are hilarious. Most of them are on the lines of "Oh! They dare refuse our aid becoz they don't need it. Then we should stop all business transactions with them!"

Truly a lets-eat-grass mentality prevailing amongst the UKstanis - I guess Paki in-breeding is starting to take its toll on the Blighty :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 03:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14218
Location: Deepest & Highest
BoseUlla , Hope all good.
Nowu i Sing to Singh for Both Brit+Poak and other Khandani GaddheY.

Subb se Pejhli maan hamari, Rafale ko Hatado
Parr rahen hai Dande Mra Eurofighter Bikwado
Main Samjha Nahi Hajoor ,yeh Nya Desi Dastoor
Taras Karo kusch Hum par, Ham hai Garib majboor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRUW-xyGP28


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 03:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 14218
Location: Deepest & Highest
If PM Cameron comes calling for real partnership then , India ought to take a look at the coperation in Naval facilties/designing etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 04:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 9775
Location: India
In retrospect,Britishers in India,their political masters at home were of two varieties.Those who came, saw, and were conquered by India,its antiquity and contribution to human civilization-as Curzon said (wasn't he the one who prevented the Taj from being demolished and donated the lamp which shines under the dome?),and Curzon was a supreme egoist or egotist,depending upon one's viewpoint,consider this ditty by which he was lampooned:

"My name is George Nathaniel Curzon,
I am a most superior person,
My cheek is pink, my hair is sleek,
I dine at Blenheim once a week. "

Like Curzon,there were innumerable Brits who realised India for what it was,the well of ancient knowledge and philosophy that surpassed the best that Europe could offer.They studied Indian languages,literature,art and architecture,their archaeologists and surveyors like Lambton travelled the length and breadth of the entire country undergoing huge hardships for years,archaeologists discovering the Indo-Gangetic civilisation remains of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa,"found" Asoka the Great,etc.,etc.many "went native",marrying into Indian families like Lord Liverpool's,whose grandmother was a Bengali lady-he went on to become Britain's longest serving PM.Read John Keay's book "India Discovered".There was an artist who spent a decade painting the Ajanta frescoes and took them to Britain,were they were destroyed in a fire.He came back to India,spent another ten years repainting them and took them back again.They were again destroyed by fire,but fortunately he had made copies,which brought to the world the glory of Indian painting.

But there were others like Churchill who saw India mainly as a vast repository of wealth to be purloined by Britain,to make it "greater",and for whom the welfare of the millions of toiling masses of Indian peasants meant b*gger all.When the Empire went to war,millions of India soldiers were press ganged into fighting "their war".If you go to the Royal Pavilion in Brighton,one of the maddest ,curious and delightful pleasure palaces ever built by a monarch, favourite haunt of the Prince Regent,you will see pics and clips of the time when this grand edifice was used for recuperating soldiers from India in WW1! It was a shocker to realise that our gallant "natives",fought in WW1 too and in such large numbers.We generally remember only the great contribution in WW2 and the exploits of Monty's 8th Army in Egypt and the battle for Cassino and the epic battles in the Burma theatre against the Japanese and the patriotism of Netaji and the INA.

Sadly,this "Churchillian" mentality has resurfaced in Britain (or should one say more accurately"England",as the Scots are now demanding their independence too) where it was thought to be long buried.It is also not a coincidence that it is resurfacing at a time when Britain stands aloof from its fellow European nations,preferring to stand alone economically and politically,rather than integrate more fully with the Europe for some very good financial reasons too.Europe's profligacy,both financial and political-by roping in without discrimination,struggling post Cold War east European nations into its flock and with all their economic baggage woes, is wounding the more prosperous EU economies like Britain who do not want to shell out their pounds to support the sinking Euro.When Cameron returned to London after cocking a snoop at the "Eurozone",he was hailed back home like a conquering Caesar! The bad blood between Britain and Germany and France in particular has reopened old wounds of animosity and a yearning for a new imperial era.Britain's military involvement in Iraq,Afghanistan ,Libya and elsewhere in the future,actually started during the era of Tony B.Liar,who saw himself as another Margaret Thatcher,and had delusions of even surpassing her (the Iraq war was his "Falklands"), striding triumphant upon the world stage by the side of,or by the ankles of,Dubya Bush and Uncle Sam.David Cameron is trying to maintain the "importance" of Britain in global affairs,despite that famous saying by Dean Acheson that "Britain has lost an empire and yet to find a role".

PS:Some say that Britain eventually did find its role,by being the most loyal servant of Uncle Sam!

PPS:Tx Lilo.Facts speak for themselves...no?


Last edited by Philip on 05 Feb 2012 05:33, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 05:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08
Posts: 2446
Philipji , an engrossing read as always.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 06:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 9775
Location: India
As a continuation to my above post,the British and European woes of today,mainly economic,stem from the over-ambitious promoters of a European "empire",where there was a mad rush to acquire and agglomerate the former pro-Soviet Warsaw Pact nations into the EU/NATO bloc.This was done primarily at the behest of right wing elements in the US,to "turn" the weapons of these nations against Russia,encircle it and effectively crush it geo-strategically and economically! sadly,instead of Europe getting stronger,both militarily and economically,it has actually slumped disastrously into an economic "landfill" and is now desperately trying to get the Chinese to drag it out of the pit! The Russians fuelled with their oil wealth,are sitting pretty in much better shape,laughing from the sidelines at the discomfort of the Eurozone,freezing in this winter's cold and being kept warm with Russian gas!

How did this all happen? As said before,the desire to crush Russia was very strong within the US and its fellow travellers in the EU.They seized the opportunity of the fall of the USSR to first reunite Germany.This should've given them a warning.German reunification came at a very heavy economic price and many "Ozzies",East Germans, now penniless and angry at reunification,look back upon the years of their Communist days as a golden era.Everyone had a job,no one starved,even though mediocrity ruled in the quality of consumer products like cars,etc.However,few heeded the experience of Germany.Instead of adopting a two-tier Europe,where an exclusive club of prosperous EU nations would be the equivalent of the "Premier League",while setting up a second tier of "Associate states",who would graduate in time only after proving their economic capability and discipline,economically backward nations like Bulgaria,Romania,Albania,etc.,were press ganged into joining the EU primarily to turn their weapons against Russia.The former Yugoslavia was "Balkanised",through great hypocrisy,never mind the appalling loss of life in the process,as these were mostly "Slavs fighting Turks" who could slit each others throats at will,"good riddance to both" was the attitude. Poland was chosen as to be the base for NATO missiles to counter Russia,under the pretence of countering Iranian missiles! Lickspittles like cowardly Georgian leader Shakashvili (now being wined and dined in the US (presumably to give him "dutch courage" to fuel his next disastrous campaign in the Caucasus?) were bought lock,stock and barrel.

The radical Republican right in the US and old Cold War warriors in Whitehall,led by the Bush and Blair buffoonery pair (Don Quixote & Sancho Panza,Gallagher & Shean,Abbot & Costello,Laurel & Hardy,rope in Rumsfeld with B&B and you get the Three Stooges-you take your pick!),launched their latter day "Crusades" against the dervish hordes of Islam while simultaneously "bottling up" Russia while wooing instead China.True,they wrought in the Muslim world destruction of the kind of Biblical proportions,but failed to defeat Russia geo-strategically,because these two beauties and their associated nincompoops of Europe,studied history using the wrong end of the telescope.
They have learnt nothing from past European history.Like Napoleon and Hitler who waged war with Russia and failed before,the latter-day ambitions of a US-led NATO and its campaign to crush Russia economically and militarily will again come to naught.There are enough economic,social and military indicators available to show that far from collapsing under the weight of western encirclement and pressure,Russia is regaining its former superpower stature.I was sent recently stats about the richest nations in the world and the most indebted.An eyeopener ,which will be posted here later.

A few years ago I posted news of the death of that great Bulgarian blind clairvoyant Vanga,as famous in Eastern Europe as Nostradamus was in the west.On Jan. 31st this year,Vanga would've celebrated her 100th birthday.There have been too many true experiences in my life to discount omens and the occult.Anyway,Vanga had made during her lifetime many prophecies about Russia which all came true,including Chernobyl,assassinations of JFK,IG and RG,etc.,etc.here are some excerpts made about Europe/Russia before she died.Are we seeing her predictions coming true? Europe and Britain are in sharp decline.The US is trillions in debt and according to many experts cannot afford another war,which will bankrupt it.Russia,he nation with the largest landmass and mineral wealth in the world is now poised to reap rich rewards from its Arctic regions as the Artic gets warmer and more accessible.Whether Vanga is going to be ultimately proven right or wrong,right now her predictions seem to be on track.

One prophecy:
Quote:
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."

"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.


http://english.pravda.ru/society/storie ... 0-vanga-0/

Quote:
On January 31st, legendary Bulgarian mystic and clairvoyant Vanga would celebrate her 100th anniversary. Vanga became world-known for her incredibly precise prophesies which she made in many fields, including politics.

Vangelia Pandeva Dimitrova's interest in politics was not incidental. She was born on the territory of modern Macedonia - the land which was an apple of discord for years between Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. Her native land experienced two World Wars in which the Bulgarians and the Serbs were struggling in different camps.

Vanga settled in Bulgaria's Petrich during the 1930s, where she predicted the beginning of WWII. Her fame spread very quickly throughout Bulgaria, and one day she was visited by King Boris III. Vanga warned the king against Bulgaria's participation in the war. Bulgarian politicians did not listen: the country joined Hitler and then found itself among the defeated. It was only the post-war patronage of the USSR that rescued Bulgaria from the territorial dismemberment.

The Bulgarian politicians, who visited Vanga, spread the news about the prophetess to their counterparts from other countries. As a result, Vanga became known in the whole world. The list of events, which she predicted so precisely, is really impressive.

In 1987, when Todor Zhivkov was still ruling the country, Vanga predicted major changes for the nation to come. She said that Bulgaria would soon have another leader, a prominent scientist, who would not be a proponent of Lenin's doctrine. In 1992, Bulgarian philosopher Zhelyu Zhelev came to power in the country. The socialist regime in Bulgaria collapsed, and the country continued its development following EU and NATO standards.

Vanga was predicting major political events happening in the whole world. She predicted the incursion of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia, the assassinations of US President John F. Kennedy, Indian prime ministers Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, the collapse of Anastasio Somoza's dictatorship in Nicaragua and many other historic events.

Nowadays, many Russians wonder if Vanga's prophecy about Russia is going to come true some day or not. In 1979, during her meeting with writer Valentin Sidorov, Vanga said: "All will thaw, as if ice, only one remain untouched - Vladimir's glory, glory of Russia. Too much it is brought in a victim. Nobody can stop Russia. All will be removed by her from the way and not only will be kept, but also becomes the lord of the world."

Before her death in 1996, Vanga predicted glorious future for Russia again. According to the Bulgarian clairvoyant, Russia will be the world's only superpower. Specialists calculated that 68 percent of her prophecies had come true. We only can wait and see if her other prophecies become real or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 10:49 
Kanishka wrote:
The argument that India should have selected Euro fighter because it gets british aid is nothing but blackmail.
Now the cat is out of the bag..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-aid.html
Quote:
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid .
India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

Quote:
Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


As i have stated earlier the british idea to give aid was all politics and not out of benevolance. This was done to appease the Lib Dem type voter and by DC to detoxify the Tory party. Obv it has now backfired as it was bound to. A lot of people make the mistake thinking that vote bank politics is an issue only in India but what they dont realise is that it is a negative feature of democracy as all parties/individuals have to practice it to win elections.
On the issue of what motivates nations in dealings with other countries its understood that a nation will only look after its own interests. For eg it could be sufficiently argued that Indias action in SL was not just because of the plight of the tamil population but because of strategic reasons.
The point i am making, in conclusion, is that no one is better than us and we are not better than anyone.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 15:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30586
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
that telegraph article has attracted 1900+ comments so far and more flooding in every second. MASSIVE KHUJLI POWDER effect inside the undie :mrgreen:

I liked this from Aussie:

moonboyroberts2
13 minutes ago
If this is the reaction from having your money rejected by a country considered comfortably down the pecking order, I can't imagine the outrage when you lose your seat on the Security Council, and when your leaders have to genuinely Kowtow to rising powers to win valuable business.

It is part of the changing order and you will just have to get used to it. For example, you were formerly part of an elite of seven nations that made up the G7; this has been superseded by the G20 which better reflects the state of the world now.

In the same way the UN Security Council will be reshaped to reflect the changing order and Europe will get one seat. This will happen either within the UN or outside the UN in a new grouping; either way you will lose that element of your profile. It is reasonable too considering the influence you maintain in that forum which is not really commensurate with your size or power; same goes for France. Both countries benefit from a structure that reflected power in 1945, not now.

And I can foresee a time when the future of the Falklands is less certain as Britain weighs up the value it gets from keeping the islands to the value it could get from being on decent terms with a major Sth American country that has a reasonable level of influence in Sth American forums, and which can make your trade with that region 'complicated.'

Kowtowing to China and other Sth East Asian nations is already on the horizon. You, like all western countries, will just have to get used to it. I think part of the problem, evident from the reaction on this board, is that many of you still have an inflated sense of Britain's standing on the world stage. Possibly if you were like other western countries that do not have this illusory self regard it would not be so upsetting for you. In any case, you will learn; but I can see the learning will be painful. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 16:35 
A majority of people out there dont have illusions of their standing in the world. If given a choice they would never have got involved with Iraq or Afghanistan...Would stop the business of foreign aid except to people who really want it....Would want to to be in the EU only for free trade and not for world domination/competition ( which is the aim of the european project)....but they would definitely would be ready to defend the Falklands esp as the residents have voted to stay with the UK.....In short they would want to be like the Scandanavian Countries...Willing to defends itselfs and its values and increase their prosperity through trade and not through global domination....Unfortunately like in India or any other country in the world the vision which people have for their country is completely different from the vision of the government ( and then we talk abt democracy )


Top
  
 
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2012 20:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Posts: 1883
Location: Andromeda
Kanishka wrote:
The argument that India should have selected Euro fighter because it gets british aid is nothing but blackmail.
Now the cat is out of the bag..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... r-aid.html
Quote:
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid .
India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.

Quote:
Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


Quote:
As i have stated earlier the british idea to give aid was all politics and not out of benevolance. This was done to appease the Lib Dem type voter and by DC to detoxify the Tory party. Obv it has now backfired as it was bound to. A lot of people make the mistake thinking that vote bank politics is an issue only in India but what they dont realise is that it is a negative feature of democracy as all parties/individuals have to practice it to win elections.
On the issue of what motivates nations in dealings with other countries its understood that a nation will only look after its own interests. For eg it could be sufficiently argued that Indias action in SL was not just because of the plight of the tamil population but because of strategic reasons.
The point i am making, in conclusion, is that no one is better than us and we are not better than anyone.
[/quote]

The aid is also given to NGO's and organizations that promote British self interest within India e.g., Oxfam, awards to those who promote their worldview, dubious leftist movements in India and others. Frankly, it is hardly aid and more PR money that is masked as aid. British still have many longstanding financial interests in India including BP and other investments.
The Indian side is saying that we will stop this funding of your self interests if you squawk too much. It is not as though the congress is being benevolent - they are just saying that we can decide who to sell the Indian theater too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2012 05:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 9775
Location: India
Aid (civil and military) from developed to developing "turd world" nations is most often a subsidy for the donor nation's industry.Very often it is to keep alive a dying industry,or manufacturing line closing down, and defence deals in particular are subject to this policy.Westland helicopters,now C-17 transports,kept,are keeping manufacturing product lines alive.The F-16 was being touted for the MMRCA contest as almost every US ally operates the plane and that there are few if any major orders before production stops.Large projects like dams,power plants,etc.,in least developed nations are always executed by the donors chosen contractor.In many cases,this results in a long logistic relationship to keep the facility operational.

It is only in the case of disaster relief that one sees true aid arriving without strings,but even here,promises of billions by rich nations ultimately ends up in the arrival of only millions! Indian aid to Lanka after the tsunami is one shining example of dedicated aid,delivered at lightning speed and when the US marines arrived a month later,they found that there was no work for them to do as the IN had restored Galle Port and the IA had provided the immediate aid and relief on the ground that saved lives and began rehabilitation.

One must here state that the ordinary Britisher is very generous when it comes to disaster relief,and support for such tragedies around the world find a number of aid agencies in the UK providing much needed support,including celebrity shows,remember Bob Geldof and the concerts for African famine?

However,what we need to do is to uplift the suffering of the nation's peasants and poor,and provide the "aid" ourselves,which is perpetuated by the unceasing and cancer like growth of the corrupt ,which has spread its tentacles into every institution in the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2012 11:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Posts: 525
Location: Gods own country
I am surprised that no one remembers the West land helicopter deal under which M. Thatcher supplied Pavan Hans with substandard helicopters

We had very bad deals with British but they did supply us with Aircarft carriers and Harriers apart from Jaguar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/18/lukeharding


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2012 12:45 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Posts: 4491
Location: Dehradun
Nice find Symont Ji..will quote this from above:

Quote:
India has sold its entire fleet of Westland helicopters back to Britain for the scrap value of just £900,000, nine years after the machines were found to be technically faulty and grounded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2012 14:16 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13
Posts: 324
symontk wrote:
I am surprised that no one remembers the West land helicopter deal ...


Wasn't there some issue with supply of spares for the Hawks recently bought?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2957 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 74  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Nijalingappa, ranjbe, saip, UlanBatori, Yogi_G and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group