Pokhran II , CTBT and beyond

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 11:02

I am not sure how true Shiv's comment on Indians not wanting the high table is, yes people did vote in a party with a pathetic record on internal and external security, but it would be a stretch to assume that it was because they didnt care. Maybe the other group was not convincing that they could do better.

I also admit that there are a large number of people who do not understand the concept of national boundaries either being too poor for that, let alone CTBT, however using such lowest common denominator of have nots has not been the only guiding factor of our state craft in the past either.

I would put this into the bucket of unverified/unverifiable assumptions and then move ahead with the rest of the discussion.

-------------------------------

Ramana, Muppalla, the program was indeed War of words, I cant seem to find the transcript online though, As far as I remember the participants were Bharat K, S K Singh and R Gopalan (who?)

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 08 Sep 2009 11:15

Sorry ot ... re. our voting public, & their priorities. The reality is the upper & middle class dont vote (very small fraction does). majority of the voters are poor, for whom the primary motivation is economic issues, food, water, health education etc all of which is provided by the govt. So for us to believe that strategic issues, national security matters to the average voters is quite unrealistic. We are really dependent on the people in power i.e. Bureaucrats, Scientists & Political Leadership to take these matters seriously based on their own convictions rather than due to any voter pressure. If we can put any pressure it will have to be through the media. In that sense what the scientists & defence people are doing is the only way to influence govt policy in this regard.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2009 11:21

Sanku wrote:I am not sure how true Shiv's comment on Indians not wanting the high table is, yes people did vote in a party with a pathetic record on internal and external security, but it would be a stretch to assume that it was because they didnt care. Maybe the other group was not convincing that they could do better.

Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand what Shiv is trying to say if you consider the fact that during the past twenty years or so every group which has ruled India has had a pathetic record on internal and external secuirty (just cast your mind back to the time when the LKA was Home Minister, for eg).

The question that should arise then is, why is this so? Is it because of a lack of ability (leadership) or something else?

I believe Shiv is trying to answer this question.

Folks sorry for the OT post but I find that if something is repeated for sufficient number of times on BRF it gets the status of incontestable truth. Having an image of being tough on issues like internal and external security is one thing. Track record is an entirely different thing. I think we've discussed this many time in various threads.

JMT

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 11:29

If I understand correctly what shiv is saying, signing CTBT is not going to be an issue, at least from a technical point of view, for countries that have the ability to test and/or simulate in a way that the CTBT monitoring mechanisms are rendered ineffective.

Shivji, are you also saying that India has achieved that ability now? I am not very clear on that point, when reading your post. By interpreting the sub-kiloton explosions in POK II, it seems likely that we have the capacity to do sub-kiloton explosions without the CTBT monitoring network knowing it. Is this a right interpretation? Also, if we do sign the CTBT, would it also entail us allowing the CTBT monitoring team to set up stations in India as well?

What about other aspects of the CTBT (reading still the 191 pages -so let me see if there are any other direct references to things other than testing)? Or is this purely a technical test ban treaty?

One way to look at this as purely as a technical treaty, signing which is not going to cause any problems because there is ways and means that have been acquired to render it meaningless and ineffective.

The other view point is whether by signing CTBT, is India in any way endorsing the NPT in its present form, which means accepting the status of India to be a de jure NNWS as per that treaty? Some hold the view that CTBT, FMCT and the Disarmament Conference Treaty are extensions of perpetuating NPT in its present form. If that is the case, the by signing up to CTBT is India willing to accept NPT's basic premise?

On India's track record, it is really mixed. All parties have had a mixed record as pointed out by shiv and amit. There are positive contributions, appalling negligence, resolute actions by all. It is going to continue. So no point in getting into that. Best avoided.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2009 11:34

Raja Ram wrote:On India's track record, it is really mixed. All parties have had a mixed record as pointed out by shiv and amit. There are positive contributions, appalling negligence, resolute actions by all. It is going to continue. So no point in getting into that. Best avoided.

Raja Ram,

I agree with you totally. However, as I said something which is not factual should not be repeatedly hammered on BRF so that it acquires an aura of its own. As you say India's track record is really mixed. MMS screwed up big time on Mumbai. But there are also several instances where the NDA govt did not exactly cover itself in glory.

What we need to understand, IMO when discussing issues such as this one, climate change, WTO talks etc, is that there is a sort of consensus cutting across party lines on what should be India's stand. I don't think MMS would be able to ram down India's throat some deal on CTBT which goes against this political consensus. Of course I add caveat that this is JMT

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Sep 2009 11:37

amit wrote:
I agree with you totally. However, as I said something which is not factual should not be repeatedly hammered on BRF so that it acquires an aura of its own. As you say India's track record is really mixed. MMS screwed up big time on Mumbai. But there are also several instances where the NDA govt did not exactly cover itself in glory.

Why do you bring NDA into this. NDA is not in power for the last 5-6 years, It is ages in politics and all major decision in the country has been made by UPA/Congress or the communists.

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2009 11:42

Acharya wrote:Why do you bring NDA into this. NDA is not in power for the last 5-6 years, It is ages in politics and all major decision in the country has been made by UPA/Congress or the communists.

Acharya,

Instead of reading my post in isolation, you should look at the context.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 08 Sep 2009 11:49

On CTBT,

MMS made a reference to it in his June 2008 address to IFS probationary officers

...In recent years our government has sought a new dimension to our relationship with the United States in the form of a nuclear deal. I don’t want to talk a great deal about it. But I think it is for the first time we got the US to appreciate that India is a nuclear weapons state, that India has the right to develop nuclear power to protect it’s strategic interests, and that it is a decision that must be made by the people of India not subject to any international supervision or any international interference. And despite the fact that we are not a signatory to the NPT, and we have also said that if the CTBT came into being we will not sign it

http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content4print.asp?id=689

Then in his reply to the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008

I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT.

http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content.asp?id=695

Do folks here know anything more on GOI's alleged move to sign the CTBT ?

UPrabhu · Post by **UPrabhu** » 08 Sep 2009 11:51

amit wrote:
Acharya wrote:Why do you bring NDA into this. NDA is not in power for the last 5-6 years, It is ages in politics and all major decision in the country has been made by UPA/Congress or the communists.
Acharya,

Instead of reading my post in isolation, you should look at the context.

What is up with we Indians... someone elase screwed up in the past.. let us screw up even now... that's all we can do.. all the screws ups starting with Nehru... lets say we just repeat them

amit · Post by **amit** » 08 Sep 2009 11:59

arnab wrote:On CTBT,

MMS made a reference to it in his June 2008 address to IFS probationary officers

...In recent years our government has sought a new dimension to our relationship with the United States in the form of a nuclear deal. I don’t want to talk a great deal about it. But I think it is for the first time we got the US to appreciate that India is a nuclear weapons state, that India has the right to develop nuclear power to protect it’s strategic interests, and that it is a decision that must be made by the people of India not subject to any international supervision or any international interference. And despite the fact that we are not a signatory to the NPT, and we have also said that if the CTBT came into being we will not sign it
http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content4print.asp?id=689

Then is reply to the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008

I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT.
http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content.asp?id=695

Do folks here know anything more on GOI's alleged move to sign the CTBT ?

Arnab, the only one I know of which is later than your two links is Shyam Sharan, India's special envoy on nuclear matters and climate control, and his speech at Brookings in March this year. I've post that link at least twice.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 12:05

FWIW, I did a quick check of GOI websites and there is nothing there that remotely suggests that GOI may consider signing CTBT. The only official references indicate that we will not sign such an unequal treaty as posted earlier in this thread. This has been reiterated a couple of times.

Please also bear in mind that CTBT was in the backburner during the Bush Administration as the US was not willing to ratify. Now the democrats are in power both in the congress and in the white house and CTBT is in the agenda once again. So the whole discussion may revive.

So far GOI has not pre-empted that revival. Neither reiterating its official stance of not finding the CTBT acceptable in its current form nor by indicating that it might be willing to reconsider.

Except for one recent speech ( I cannot recall exactly where- was it at the G8 or G20 meet?) by the PM where he indicated that India would like to be a constructive partner on international initiatives rather than be on the outside. This can be interpreted in any number of ways ranging from Indian positions with regard to climate control, to Doha Round to Nuclear Disarmament.

So as of now, my conclusion is the GOI is not interested in signing CTBT. Its moratorium is good enough and as it did with regard to the NPT by scrupulously following the Proliferation safeguards, it will follow CTBT provisions without signing it.

Let us not rush to criticise the GOI for what it is not even planning to do.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 12:17

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:I am not sure how true Shiv's comment on Indians not wanting the high table is, yes people did vote in a party with a pathetic record on internal and external security, but it would be a stretch to assume that it was because they didnt care. Maybe the other group was not convincing that they could do better.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand what Shiv is trying to say if you consider the fact that during the past twenty years or so every group which has ruled India has had a pathetic record on internal and external secuirty (just cast your mind back to the time when the LKA was Home Minister, for eg).

Amit before going ballistic, please look at the additional lines I have highlighted, does that seem like partisan ship remotely?

However, the track record of the govt speaks for itself. Dont make me go into painting the various issues that would be OT (such as the number of casualties, the number of naxal affected districts, Sachar committee in Armed forces, the move to give up siachen, the number of armed forces aquisitions etc) Just because some one likes MMS it would be a folly to give him a clean chit on all aspects and play equal equal.

I know you have a particular political pov, and I don't go about saying that you are incapable of looking at the truth because of that, I suggest you don't do that either. If you disagree with something I say please say so in civil polite terms without any need for educating me on how to think, because frankly I am not the one who needs it.

Now I would humbly request you to not drag this matter any further and take this thread OT.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 12:35

arunsrinivasan wrote:Sorry ot ... re. our voting public, & their priorities. The reality is the upper & middle class dont vote (very small fraction does). majority of the voters are poor, for whom the primary motivation is economic issues, food, water, health education etc all of which is provided by the govt. So for us to believe that strategic issues, national security matters to the average voters is quite unrealistic.

I am sorry I would disagree, for one there is a increasing large urbanization of India and cities like Delhi Banglaore have a large voting population (who also vote) who do not fall in the roti-kapada-makan category. This constiuncency is still increasing.

Even in rural heartlands, the concepts sell if they can be sold, the 1998 BJP campaign on the basis of Shakti II was a big hit, I have seen it personally.

Further the state elections in MP were swung by the cooked up MOCCA against Sadhvi Pragya Sinh etc.

I do think that there is a large very politically aware constituency in India which cares about these things, we are letting our vision be colored only because of MMS coming back to power despite the Congress record over 5 years. I would suggest that was more of a BJP failing than congress success.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Sep 2009 12:55

If India is to sign the CTBT, will it require approval of the Parliament?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 12:59

RayC wrote:If India is to sign the CTBT, will it require approval of the Parliament?

Not in the way our laws are structured now, this issues was debated at length during 123 as well when folks wanted a parliament backing for the same.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 08 Sep 2009 13:07

RayC wrote:If India is to sign the CTBT, will it require approval of the Parliament?

In a sense of true democracy - it should. The issue probably needs to be debated in parliament and sought approval.

But when the world's two largest "democracies" came together to sign 123-agreement, only one democracy debated it in senate.. the other democracy did not take it up for debate in the parliament.. instead it "gimmicked" by calling for a trust vote -- many parties which felt they were on soft ground to go to elections at that point of time came around to support the govt and it survived.. which the UPA "made believe" us was the support/approval of the people for the govt's policies including 123-agreement.. ofcourse, the parties like SP which voted for the govt have since been offloaded (suits them right, though)..

When the US senate debated the 123-agreement and tied us in knots with Hyde act etc.. why didnt our govt do the same? Why didnt we debate and introduce amendments to Atomic energy act to the effect that any vendor who does not guarantee fuel for the lifecycle & also enable reprocessing of fuel will not be eligible to compete & supply reactors to us ? We could have still got the reactor from Frech & Russian sources who have no qualms.. but placed more responsibility on US vendors who are more likely to hide behind the Hyde act !!!!

So if the question of signing CTBT comes up, it is most likely that there will be no debate or vote on motion... At best the external affairs minister or the prime minister will read out a statement (however flawed it is), and say they have respected the parliamentary procedures worthy of a democracy..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 13:24

rakall wrote: but placed more responsibility on US vendors who are more likely to hide behind the Hyde act !!!!

Oh with the GoI falling over itself to make rules which put the onus of nuclear catastrophe on Indian companies rather than suppliers, just to make sure that US has a level playing ground (a euphemism to change rules such that US does not suffer from disadvantages compared to others who are prepared to do more for us when US wants to do less) expecting that US vendors would be asked to show responsibility on matters such as fuel supply is way too far fetched.

We are proud on how we are clearing the decks for them by forgoing our interests even in the most basic of issues, to expect we will be able to stand up for our interests in more advanced areas is just fond but misplaced hope.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 08 Sep 2009 14:18

If India signs the CTBT now, it won't be because of pressure from US or anyone else, but because of our own eminent PM and his gang. Because, even a weak PM like Gujral had withstood the pressure from a person no less than Clinton, the original Ayatollah of CTBT.

So, let us stop blaming US - they had always put us under pressure. They have taken it as part of their daily chore.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 15:24

Raja Ram wrote: Shivji, are you also saying that India has achieved that ability now?

I have no idea about this and anybody's guess is as good as, but no better than mine. India probably has some ability to model future nuclear weapons and a little "past experience". Whether India has done sub-kiloton tests outside of what we know will not become public.

But a series of PMs have helped India follow the same stated path - i.e that India will abide by all international treaties with regard to nukes without actually signing them. This is what I call hypocrisy. We like to give the impression of "behaving well" without actually toeing any lines and reserve the right to break out at any time. Breaking out is what Vajpayee did. To that extent India is "untrustworthy" in terms of the future of military nuclearization or denuclearization of the world. India is a wild card whose behavior nobody can predict. Not even Indians.

Technically the P5 have retained a testing option for themselves, but they too have abided by the CTBT. They have flouted the NPT though. India has not done that.

India's apparent behavior at an international level is hardly that of a country that is seeking to dominate the rest of the world with military and nuclear weapon power. The behavior is actually "Gandhian" in seeking to cover oneself with a loincloth of nuclear ability while arguing for a day when everyone can give up all clothes - suits or loincloths. This "sadhu-like" behavior has extended across the political spectrum and over many decades.

And while India behaves like an international mendicant/sadhu in not seeking to dominate anyone, India is hardly isolating itself from the world and defying the world as one would expect from a power that wants to claw and fight its way to the top of the pyramid that has been defined by the Western world. India is actually a begging mendicant - the true sadhu living on alms. We do ask for aid for infrastructure projects, development projects, healthcare projects, water supply projects etc. We take loans which other nations call "aid".

Why does india behave in this way? Probably because all Indian leaders, across the political spectrum depend on a mass of extremely poor people to elect them. Hving been elected by those people they have to work on programs that seem to feed those people - which is also a convenient way to skim off money for the political class. That money is ploughed back into electoral bribery and sops to get parties voted into power.

So perhaps India's international behavior can be explained by the mass of naive poor in India who have been given the power to elect those who give them sops. The politicians who give the electorate sops then do not do anything to raise India's international power and status. They beg for aid, part of which goes for development projects and partly as slush funds for elections. This suits the donors who understand that India can never ever become a world power as long as India politcians are paid indirectly in the form of "aid".

Not only does this explain the behavior of the entire political class in India across all parties (that is not just Congress, but BJP, commies, anyone) but it also explains why there is no real effort to raise India's status and power. In order to beg and get you have to appear weak and poor. India's development has come despite the rotten system.

As you can see - nuclear weapons will scare off donors. But we want to make a pretence of standing up to Pakistan and China while not threatening the donors. Hence our ballistic missile will never go over 3000 km and our nukes will never reach yields that scare the richest donors. We will always abide by treaties made by rich donors - even ones that we have not signed.

The point I am trying to make is that India is a beggar nation by design because that design keeps the system going. You and I, the elite are outside the system that depends on beggary to keep a few people rich and in power while the vast mass remain poor and the rich donors are not frightened away. And if you or I clamor for a seat "on the high table" we get our wrists slapped by both GoI and the donors who say "Hush. Can't you see how poor and sick your countrymen are?"

Coming back to the point - this only means India will not test. If India is not going to test - might as well sign the CTBT. If we grow cojones at some future date - maybe we can blow up the treaty in a real nuclear explosion.

If India must get a seat at the high table it can come only by saying "Balls to the world - we will accept any sanctions and punishment meted out and not beg". But even the private sector in India is looking for engagement and investment. So there is no near term hope of challenging the world order.

We cannot make India rule the world without changing India inside out. As long as we pretend that India is doing fine we - who want India to do better are scoring self goals against ourselves. we first need to accept that India is a bullshit beggar nation that has a lot of useless and corrupt people doing things that nobody can control. By pretending that India is doing fine and covering up the rot (no drinking water, no toliets) we are fooling ourselves into thinking that there is one chair for us at the high table. There is no such thing. The rot in India is so deep that it is utilised by fellow Indians to get aid which they misuse. Hankering for that high table ain't going to get it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 15:39

shiv wrote:
Raja Ram wrote: 1) To that extent India is "untrustworthy" in terms of the future of military nuclearization or denuclearization of the world. India is a wild card whose behavior nobody can predict. Not even Indians.

2) Coming back to the point - this only means India will not test. If India is not going to test - might as well sign the CTBT. If we grow cojones at some future date - maybe we can blow up the treaty in a real nuclear explosion.

These two statements are mutually exclusive aren't they, if no can say what we will do (which I think is right) India is a completely unpredictable entity -- however that unpredictability is built upon the predicate of space to maneuver, no space no unpredicatblity.

CTBT et al destroy the operating space, just as the nuke deal did, without getting much out of it (barring some yellow cake), thankfully we still have Russia and France which (no thanks to Indians negotiating the deal) are still willing to provide us the extra needed space which some Indians themselves would happily remit.

So yes, as long as we have the luxury of being unpredictable, NO ONE cants say we wont test, there is always the space for a Vajpayee to spring forth.

Keeping that space alive is crucial -- and hence claiming that since we aren't testing we cede the operating space is a fallacious argument.

Of course that is my understanding of our national interest, some people have very different understanding.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 15:40

I would like to make a rhetorical point about discussions on BRF that seek to blame some individual or the other and why that is bad and misleading.

Imagine a personality "X" who is a leader of some sort. He has a bunch of supporters called X team

Imagine another similar leader "Y" with Y team as his supporters.

Discussions tend to revolve around whether X and his team are better or whether Y an his team are better.

Sooner or later on BRF one of them - say X - is branded as a liar/traitor/cheat by a Y supporter - with no proof.

Once that chorus is picked up - everything that X represents is discarded as the work of "liar/traitor/cheat", while Y gets all the glory because nobody has used the opportunity to character assassinate Y.

No only is this unfair, it also helps us ignore the faults of Y who may also be a liar/traitor/cheat. This is typically true of much of the leadership in India so it is important for us to understand that in order to debate a topic it is better to either consider every side as consisting of liars/traitors/cheats or say that everyone is clean. That way we do not end up covering one criminal because we imagine that the other guy is he criminal.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 15:45

shiv wrote: Once that chorus is picked up - everything that X represents is discarded as the work of "liar/traitor/cheat", while Y gets all the glory because nobody has used the opportunity to character assassinate Y.
.

I do not think that we can apriori decide that all are equal equal, it may be a good idea to stay off personalities because the constraints of the forum and the fact that the discussion will become acrimonious, however that restriction should not be extended to mean that all the leaders are the same.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 15:52

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote: 1) To that extent India is "untrustworthy" in terms of the future of military nuclearization or denuclearization of the world. India is a wild card whose behavior nobody can predict. Not even Indians.

2) Coming back to the point - this only means India will not test. If India is not going to test - might as well sign the CTBT. If we grow cojones at some future date - maybe we can blow up the treaty in a real nuclear explosion.
These two statements are mutually exclusive aren't they,

In fact the two statements are meant to mean that India is hypocritical and untrustworthy (and corrupt as well - but that is not in the quoted text) . It is untrustworthy in its inconsistency but is too corrupt to defy the world order from which it makes money and India will never take that defiance to its logical conclusion.

We can continue to be corrupt and sign the treaty. But since we are corrupt and untrustworthy we might grow balls someday and tear up the treaty that we have signed. It will hardly make a difference either way. China, Pakistan and the US flout treaties left right and center anyway. Why are we so hooked on imagining that a signature will restrict India, a nation that is screwed up to the core.

We don't even acknowledge our own behavior as a nation. Is that an indicator of blindness or hypocrisy or both?

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 15:55

shiv wrote: As you can see - nuclear weapons will scare off donors. But we want to make a pretence of standing up to Pakistan and China while not threatening the donors. Hence our ballistic missile will never go over 3000 km and our nukes will never reach yields that scare the richest donors. We will always abide by treaties made by rich donors - even ones that we have not signed.

The point I am trying to make is that India is a beggar nation by design because that design keeps the system going. You and I, the elite are outside the system that depends on beggary to keep a few people rich and in power while the vast mass remain poor and the rich donors are not frightened away. And if you or I clamor for a seat "on the high table" we get our wrists slapped by both GoI and the donors who say "Hush. Can't you see how poor and sick your countrymen are?"

Coming back to the point - this only means India will not test. If India is not going to test - might as well sign the CTBT. If we grow cojones at some future date - maybe we can blow up the treaty in a real nuclear explosion.

If India must get a seat at the high table it can come only by saying "Balls to the world - we will accept any sanctions and punishment meted out and not beg". But even the private sector in India is looking for engagement and investment. So there is no near term hope of challenging the world order.

We cannot make India rule the world without changing India inside out. As long as we pretend that India is doing fine we - who want India to do better are scoring self goals against ourselves. we first need to accept that India is a bullshit beggar nation that has a lot of useless and corrupt people doing things that nobody can control. By pretending that India is doing fine and covering up the rot (no drinking water, no toliets) we are fooling ourselves into thinking that there is one chair for us at the high table. There is no such thing. The rot in India is so deep that it is utilised by fellow Indians to get aid which they misuse. Hankering for that high table ain't going to get it.

[/quote]

An alternate view of India for sure!

So if we are a beggar nation, and it is by design. Then why did we embark on a nuclear programme anyway? We are after all beggars, what were our beggar PMs thinking all this time? Why waste time and effort to irritate our annadatas. That is not good begging mendicant behaviour. Beggars have no for use nuclear bombs anyway.

By doing such things like building nuclear bombs or cryogenic engines, we are upsetting and irritating our benefactors no? It is better that we give up this charade as you say and sign up to NPT direclty, why waste time on silly things like CTBT? Imagine how happy our benefactors will be then. They will be happy and throw a few crumbs our way even.

We can also get new shiny cities and trains, bollywood stars will be treated well when they go visiting, we can educate all our children, everyone will make money, despite our wretched and crooked leaders getting even more rich. All in 10 years flat.

shivji, I am assuming that your post was not another one of your piskological experiments!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 15:57

Sanku wrote:
I do not think that we can apriori decide that all are equal equal, it may be a good idea to stay off personalities because the constraints of the forum and the fact that the discussion will become acrimonious, however that restriction should not be extended to mean that all the leaders are the same.

I just made the suggestion. Nobody has ever stopped himeslf from character assassination on BRF and it will not stop just because I said it. But I want to point out now that I will use the tool as well in order to randomly question the character of anyone I please. That is a super way of destroying discussions and once threads start getting locked and posters warned sense tends to prevail. It's all fun onlee.

Assassinate away and I will have my chance to defame someone else and have a ball.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:07

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:
I do not think that we can apriori decide that all are equal equal, it may be a good idea to stay off personalities because the constraints of the forum and the fact that the discussion will become acrimonious, however that restriction should not be extended to mean that all the leaders are the same.
I just made the suggestion. Nobody has ever stopped himeslf from character assassination on BRF and it will not stop just because I said it. But I want to point out now that I will use the tool as well in order to randomly question the character of anyone I please. That is a super way of destroying discussions and once threads start getting locked and posters warned sense tends to prevail. It's all fun onlee.

Assassinate away and I will have my chance to defame someone else and have a ball.

Character assassination destroys thread for sure, and it was first tried on fellow posters by some here as well. However that point stands on its own, and there is no need what soever to drag in either
1) equal equal of all figures
2) to equate criticism with character assassination

To do that only dilutes your original point by bringing in what appear to be gag measures for dissent and thus changing the focus of what you are saying.

Furthermore, I do not behave in a particular manner just because some one else is, if I can help it. Yes there are times where there is no option but to scream, (such as after being on receiving end of posts in rather poor taste) but to do it deliberately because others are also doing it is not what I would expect from a serious poster.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:08

Raja Ram wrote: shivji, I am assuming that your post was not another one of your piskological experiments!

A very dangerous assumption, in fact, I suspect there is no post which is entirely free of one.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 16:10

Sankuji,

Then you must read my post once again!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 16:13

Raja Ram wrote: So if we are a beggar nation, and it is by design. Then why did we embark on a nuclear programme anyway? We are after all beggars, what were our beggar PMs thinking all this time? Why waste time and effort to irritate our annadatas. That is not good begging mendicant behaviour. Beggars have no for use nuclear bombs anyway.

By doing such things like building nuclear bombs or cryogenic engines, we are upsetting and irritating our benefactors no? It is better that we give up this charade as you say and sign up to NPT direclty, why waste time on silly things like CTBT? Imagine how happy our benefactors will be then. They will be happy and throw a few crumbs our way even.

We can also get new shiny cities and trains, bollywood stars will be treated well when they go visiting, we can educate all our children, everyone will make money, despite our wretched and crooked leaders getting even more rich. All in 10 years flat.

I believe that India still has hope. There are people who keep India going - people who keep India alive.

But hopes and aspirations will not change India, we need a fundamental acknowledgment of all that is wrong without trying to hide behind excuses. You have made a list of things that are right in India. I have made a list of things that are wrong.

But before this discussion veers of uncontrollably into off topic areas, let me try and address the fundamental reason why India is not rocking the nuclear boat.

1) India does not want to appear threatening to the world
2) India wants the money flowing in to lift the majority of Indians who are in the shit pit.

The consequences of these two points are clear (to me)

By not threatening the world with our strength, we will never "lead" the world. We could technically use the money that is flowing in to actually improve Indians, but a lot of that money gets siphoned away. That sets up a vicious cycle in which India's apparent weakness brings in the money that lines the pockets of some. This is eerily similar to the situation in Pakistan.

We have to depend on Pakistan and China to upset India's applecart for things to change (a bit). It would be great if the US also attacked us. Maybe people would wake up. India would never have gone nuclear if it were not for China and Pakistan. And India can send a payload to the moon, but it won't send a bomb more than 3000 km.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:15

shiv wrote:
shiv wrote: 1) To that extent India is "untrustworthy" in terms of the future of military nuclearization or denuclearization of the world. India is a wild card whose behavior nobody can predict. Not even Indians.

2) Coming back to the point - this only means India will not test. If India is not going to test - might as well sign the CTBT. If we grow cojones at some future date - maybe we can blow up the treaty in a real nuclear explosion.
In fact the two statements are meant to mean that India is hypocritical and untrustworthy (and corrupt as well - but that is not in the quoted text) .

No Sir, it does not mean anything of that sort. Even if we take your statements are being true, there is a fundamental conflict in the two statements.

We can being either unpredictable or be able to predict our behavior w.r.t. testing
and
Explicitly keeping your options open, while promising to not do anything which is unnecessarily disruptive is a plain and simple dharmic behavior, in fact not even Chankian, as a matter of fact naive even.

If we were all that you say, Indian leaders would be like China, who believe in uniformly doing business with all internal and external parties and shafting them in one breath all together as well.

We are fortunately or unfortunately not China.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:16

Raja Ram wrote:Sankuji,

Then you must read my post once again!

Oh no sir, just using your post as an convenient excuse to say something I have been meaning to say for a while.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:23

shiv wrote: 1) India does not want to appear threatening to the world
2) India wants the money flowing in to lift the majority of Indians who are in the shit pit.

The consequences of these two points are clear (to me)
.

you do set up the stage before the climax eh?

Yes, India has been in the mode that you describe, however the exact mechanics that you describe are one such way to achieve the twin goals of growth with security (which you of course describe in a much colorful manner)

There are other means, and yes corruption is a factor (does not refer to simple monetary bribe, but all step which are taken to perpetuate hold on power) but corruption has always been a factor and we have muddled along, there has never been such a serious split in Indian thinking before.

Even the liberalization was hardly a split, just a return to the factions asking for less socialistic govt right from the times of Patel (the DCH think it was a brand new discovery

) the change in strategic focus now is different.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 16:32

Raja Ram wrote: shivji, I am assuming that your post was not another one of your piskological experiments!

The post came from what I believe to be true. But I also believe that Indians are selectively blind and selective blindness leads to conclusions that are untenable.

The fact that we made nuclear weapons does not translate to an Indian desire to dominate or lead. The fact of nukes can be translated into a very much more "Indian" tendency.

I believe that the "ideal" situation for Indian leaders is when the moolah keeps pouring in. Whether the moolah is foreign aid or domestic taxes does not matter. But this happy situation was upset by Pakistan and China who attacked India. Security is costly and takes away precious money that can line one's pockets partially.

Have you noticed the ridiculous and ill placed pride that the Indian government seems to display when they say "Oh we spend only 2% of our budget on defence"?

Why do you think they say this? Why do you think they do this?

They say this because they want to appear non threatening to anyone and hope that all threats will go away. But when they are forced to spend on defence, they spend as little as possible.

It is easy for me to use the psychological trick of "projection" and pretend that this form of "kanjoosi" shown by the Indian government is like a typical Marwadi businessman. But no. We Indians are like this. We, or our families in India behave this way. We spend very little on what we see as a waste of money with no tangible return. As individuals Indians do not spend on health insurance, we do not spend on teachers, we do not pay labor fairly. We want work done cheap. And we want defence cheap. So we make a token nuclear force and hope it will scare some nearby people away. But when our donors start getting scared we back down and degrade our own force by promising not to test.

CTBT will not make us any weaker than we are. If the karma exists for us- we will be strong despite CTBT. We are currently a sham beggar power without signing a single treaty that all the big powers have signed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 16:36

Sanku wrote: Explicitly keeping your options open, while promising to not do anything which is unnecessarily disruptive is a plain and simple dharmic behavior,

Yes Yes yes.

Dharma it is. Indic and all.

I love it - gives me such a warm fuzzy.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Sep 2009 16:37

shiv wrote: CTBT will not make us any weaker than we are. If the karma exists for us- we will be strong despite CTBT. We are currently a sham beggar power without signing a single treaty that all the big powers have signed.

Bharat Karnad's article on Indian freebooting attitude to defence and world power seat translated for BRF by Shri Shiv. Kudos.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 16:39

Indians respect power but respect money more. When it comes to the crunch we prefer Lakshmi over Parvati (Shakti).

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 16:41

shiv wrote:
But before this discussion veers of uncontrollably into off topic areas, let me try and address the fundamental reason why India is not rocking the nuclear boat.

1) India does not want to appear threatening to the world
2) India wants the money flowing in to lift the majority of Indians who are in the shit pit.

The consequences of these two points are clear (to me)

By not threatening the world with our strength, we will never "lead" the world. We could technically use the money that is flowing in to actually improve Indians, but a lot of that money gets siphoned away. That sets up a vicious cycle in which India's apparent weakness brings in the money that lines the pockets of some. This is eerily similar to the situation in Pakistan.

On point 1, can't it be said that with POKII, India has already threatened the world? And followed up with further threats with Agni and Arihant. Or these threats do not matter to the "world" - read US and west. Alternatively, point 1 may be amended to read as India does not want to appear threatening to the US and West. That is again hypocritical. As a beggar nation we have no right to threaten other superior nations like China or a fellow beggar like Pakistan. We should unilaterally give up nuclear weapons capability that we have today and sign up so that we prove to the world we are not a threat but a beggar only.

On point 2, by agreeing to be good beggar mendicant, wholly dedicated in realizing nirvana for its unwashed masses, and signing up to all treaties, will money and tech flow? Surely - we can expect a few more crumbs thrown our way. After all beggars are beggars, why should they get anything more than crumbs. Besides a mendicant's wants are limited. With those crumbs we can build all the nice things, feed everyone and abolish poverty and all other ills.

You are also right that it sounds very similar to our neighbour pakistan. In fact, we all share a common destiny in the region. We should amend our domestic policies to ensure that we share that destiny. Madame Clinton was right, soft power is what counts and nuclear capability is not necessary for India. She has got our place in the sun figured out for sure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 17:01

Raja Ram wrote:
On point 1, can't it be said that with POKII, India has already threatened the world? And followed up with further threats with Agni and Arihant. Or these threats do not matter to the "world" - read US and west. Alternatively, point 1 may be amended to read as India does not want to appear threatening to the US and West. That is again hypocritical. As a beggar nation we have no right to threaten other superior nations like China or a fellow beggar like Pakistan. We should unilaterally give up nuclear weapons capability that we have today and sign up so that we prove to the world we are not a threat but a beggar only.

Rajaram I will fault you on two counts.
1) Having an ability to think
2) Actually coming up with logical solutions

More seriously I would like to use an anthropomorphic analogy to explain the dance that I see.

Imagine a man who rolls up his sleeves, flexes his muscles and challenges a powerful man

The powerful man laughs and says, "Bullshit. What can you do?".

The challenger now has the choice of actually confronting or even punching the powerful opponent. The other choice is to back down as say "he he he - I was joking"

India tested in 1998. The world laughed and said "What tests? Only fizzles. LOL" What did India do? It backed down.

This is not the language of a country that is serious about challenging the world.

Raja Ram wrote: On point 2, by agreeing to be good beggar mendicant, wholly dedicated in realizing nirvana for its unwashed masses, and signing up to all treaties, will money and tech flow? Surely - we can expect a few more crumbs thrown our way. After all beggars are beggars, why should they get anything more than crumbs. Besides a mendicant's wants are limited. With those crumbs we can build all the nice things, feed everyone and abolish poverty and all other ills.

Sadly this is the behavior I am seeing.

But let me add a caveat. Maybe there is Chankianness here. If there is i would like someone else to point it out. Anyone who detects Chanakyan behavior from the Indian government is laughed off the stage - so I am afraid of saying anything that accuses india of intelligence and good planning.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 08 Sep 2009 17:27

What India wants to achieve? I chanced upon a speech made by the PM in the HT Leadership summit in Nov 2006 titled "India: The next global super power" It is available in the PMO website under PM's speeches. I am not able to give a URL link here.

Worth a read. Certainly gives an insight to the centrality of economic progress and the role he wants for India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2009 17:36

Raja Ram wrote:What India wants to achieve? I chanced upon a speech made by the PM in the HT Leadership summit in Nov 2006 titled "India: The next global super power" It is available in the PMO website under PM's speeches. I am not able to give a URL link here.

Worth a read. Certainly gives an insight to the centrality of economic progress and the role he wants for India.

http://www.ibef.org/artdisplay.aspx?cat ... t_id=14060