End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 21 Jul 2009 22:28

Am reposting my query again because inspite of all the

and

on the thread I still haven't got any answers.

The point I am trying to understand is, whether this agreement will stop India from taking punitive action against our "friendly neighbours" should GoI decide to do so? Will the arms of our forces be tied because of this agreement? Will GoI's hands be tied by this agreement when it is taking a decision to take action ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 22:35

g.kacha wrote: The point I am trying to understand is, whether this agreement will stop India from taking punitive action against our "friendly neighbours" should GoI decide to do so? Will the arms of our forces be tied because of this agreement? Will GoI's hands be tied by this agreement when it is taking a decision to take action ?

My understanding is yes to two and three and therefore indirectly (not in the legalese though) for one.

Please note there would probably be no 1,2,3 clause containing your points, its just that the implicit "if you are good boy we will renew certificate and give spares and permissions to upgrade" coupled with we know exactly what you are up to (understanding of use etc) will alone achieve 1 and 2.

Please note one of the reason why PAF was ineffectual during Kargil and as such is in a bad shape in the Pressler amendment (despite everything Pak and US have done to dilute the act)

We underestimate, "some words on paper onlee" at great peril. Sounds to me like the Raja's of old signing protection deals with the Brits and chuckling to themselves how they pulled a smart one over the idiot Firangi who has onlee taken the promise of a future rule (if no child) and paying by current mil protection.

Guess who laughed last?

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 21 Jul 2009 23:32

The point I am trying to understand is, whether this agreement will stop India from taking punitive action against our "friendly neighbors" should GoI decide to do so? Will the arms of our forces be tied because of this agreement? Will GoI's hands be tied by this agreement when it is taking a decision to take action ?

Tacitly yes , the US would impose a significant degree of control as vital aspects such as replenishing spares , MLU's , avionics upgrade , weapons source codes etc would be at the mercy of US.

So indeed if America does not want us to either initiate or escalate a conflict it would impose sanctions which would handicap us , this is especially important given that US is perpetually obsessed over TSP and Obama regime is looking for much warmer ties with China too.

However EUVA would probably not have a very big impact on use of P8 and C-130j as these are not active combat jets in the league of F-18 , more pertinent to monitoring and cargo ops instead.

I personally think signing the agreement is a good move until and unless we choose an American jet for MRCA , which could well be a serious compromise on defence , apart from that - as other mentioned it increases competition and would make Russia and France offer more than they currently do in lieu of US competition.

An F-18 with EUVA would be playing a much more restrained role in a conflict than suppose an MKI would.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 21 Jul 2009 23:39

Nihat wrote: Tacitly yes , the US would impose a significant degree of control as vital aspects such as replenishing spares , MLU's , avionics upgrade , weapons source codes etc would be at the mercy of US.

So indeed if America does not want us to either initiate or escalate a conflict it would impose sanctions which would handicap us , this is especially important given that US is perpetually obsessed over TSP and Obama regime is looking for much warmer ties with China too.

However EUVA would probably not have a very big impact on use of P8 and C-130j as these are not active combat jets in the league of F-18 , more pertinent to monitoring and cargo ops instead.

I personally think signing the agreement is a good move until and unless we choose an American jet for MRCA , which could well be a serious compromise on defence , apart from that - as other mentioned it increases competition and would make Russia and France offer more than they currently do in lieu of US competition.

An F-18 with EUVA would be playing a much more restrained role in a conflict than suppose an MKI would.

thanks to you and Sanku for the replies ... now my next question is that if we are asking for ToT for the big deals wherein we will have the production line in our country, how effective will the sanctions be ?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 23:45

g.kacha wrote:thanks to you and Sanku for the replies ... now my next question is that if we are asking for ToT for the big deals wherein we will have the production line in our country, how effective will the sanctions be ?

ToT?? As of now, ToT is one of the most abused words in indian defence market. Usually, the supplier gives you all the components and you fix them using a screw driver and building all the screws for the same (indegenisation

), commonly known as screw driver technology.

Then you start asking how effective sanctions will be

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 23:45

g.kacha wrote:thanks to you and Sanku for the replies ... now my next question is that if we are asking for ToT for the big deals wherein we will have the production line in our country, how effective will the sanctions be ?

Well the way ToT will work is not clear (deep, shallow, blueprints, assembly lines), right now I think it might mean the ability to produce up to 60% of the components in house. Now even if upto 90%, it still leaves 10%, it stands to reason that this would be the most critical 10%, the ones that the maker holds really close. We may be sourcing these directly from outside. Even MKI has components which are not manufactured in house.

As such in aviation and most mil fields, the loss of a even a few critical components can ground an entire fleet and coming up with a replacement may not be feasible in short run.

So TOT definitely will help a lot but will still leave strings attached. Almost no way to cut them. Heck even the Mig 21 upgrade needs to involve Russia.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 00:00

An additional advantage that EUM gives US is that now it can rachet up pressure by degrees. So instead of going for ban "all items on Congress list A or congress list B", it can just say, "hey the process for XYZ components is not completed so we will temporarily halt the supplies till the paper work is done, onlee a minor bureaucratic issue you see" and ground an entire fleet making it seem like an Indian problem

This helps them that they can hurt is in a more precise manner without breaking any redlines that will cause us to respond (as if we would anyway

) and more importantly lets them carry on most commerce with us. In past the sanctions in some cases had cut both ways from the perspective of them making money off us.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 00:46

The point I am trying to understand is, whether this agreement will stop India from taking punitive action against our "friendly neighbors" should GoI decide to do so? Will the arms of our forces be tied because of this agreement? Will GoI's hands be tied by this agreement when it is taking a decision to take action ?

What does the EUMA have to do with US sanctions or a US instigated UNSC arms embargo on all combatants during a war?
EUMA or no EUMA, if foggy bottom decides to impose an arms embargo, they will impose it.

Such things I am sure are taken into account by the MOD. Remember who sent urgent supplies during the Kargil war, in one case, direct from their own war stocks.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 00:48

ground an entire fleet making it seem like an Indian problem

And there is nothing that will sour the Indian armed forces on buying any more US kit faster than this.
Incentive for US arms manufacturers to oppose US sanctions.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Jul 2009 00:50

Cross posting my post from the India-US News and Discussions dhaga

BijuShet wrote:All those who see no harm/foul in India signing on to the EUM agreement, please indulge me in a simple Shivsaar type piskology exercise.

Lets assume you desire to buy Victoria's Secret(VS) products for your significant other. VS store policy states that they need to periodically inspect the products after the sale by either visiting your bedroom, laundry basket or the clothes line or any part of your home. As a compromise they may agree to periodically conducting the inspection at their store or some other place of mutual agreement. Their intent of this check is ensure that you have not tried to decode Victoria's Secret and that it is still a secret to you and all your friends. They claim that this check is to protect their brand as they do not want another store making a quick buck by selling imitation Victolia's Seclets. Given these conditions would still buy VS products for your loved one?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 00:56

It depends on whether you really want those VS products. If your marital relations are dependent on the VS products, you may very well agree to carry the things back to the store periodically. It is a choice for the buyer.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 22 Jul 2009 01:05

What does the EUMA have to do with US sanctions or a US instigated UNSC arms embargo on all combatants during a war?
EUMA or no EUMA, if foggy bottom decides to impose an arms embargo, they will impose it.

Such things I am sure are taken into account by the MOD. Remember who sent urgent supplies during the Kargil war, in one case, direct from their own war stocks.

Indeed , EUMA has nothing to do with sanctions , even if today USA decided to impose all round weapons sanctions on us - it would severly hit the LCA project as well as IAC.

The threat always looms with US weapons , only way around it is to not purchase from the US at all.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jul 2009 01:34

India not to allow U.S. inspectors at bases

NEW DELHI: With India formally conveying to the United States that it is fine with the End-Use Monitoring Agreement, under negotiations for nearly two years, American inspectors would be able to physically verify that the sensitive equipment was being put to the use it was procured for and there was no diversion.

Highly placed sources in the government, however, told The Hindu on Tuesday that New Delhi reserved the right to select the venue of inspection of such equipment, thereby disallowing U.S officials to visit defence bases, it did not want them to enter.
...
An important clause in the agreement allowed India to freeze the text, to prevent unilateral application of any future changes to U.S. laws. Any amendments to the text can be incorporated only through mutual consultation.
...

Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon described the end use agreement as a “big victory” and asserted there was no deviation in the foreign policy.

Taking questions from MPs at the end of his lecture in Parliament Library, Mr. Menon said now there was a provision for a joint decision and the text cannot be amended unilaterally, as was the case earlier. The U.S., he said, had end use agreements with 82 countries.

...

ppatil · Post by **ppatil** » 22 Jul 2009 02:10

Gerard wrote:
What does the EUMA have to do with US sanctions or a US instigated UNSC arms embargo on all combatants during a war?
EUMA or no EUMA, if foggy bottom decides to impose an arms embargo, they will impose it.

Such things I am sure are taken into account by the MOD. Remember who sent urgent supplies during the Kargil war, in one case, direct from their own war stocks.

As I understand(based on existing generic EUMA in the link posted by you), there is no need for US to invoke arms embargo. EUMA itself contains provisions for doing that. Following are the conditions under which weapons procured can be used

Internal Security
Legitimate Self-Defense
To Prevent the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Participation in Collective Arrangements Consistent with the UN Charter
Economic and Social Development Activities

In case of a war with TSP due to terrorist attack by non state actors(most likely cause of war), what justification will you give unkil regarding use of their weapons? and more importantly will Unkil buy it? (The language is not very clear and the devil might be in the details)

However I am not clear on how unkil ensures adherence to EUMA(authorization codes?? locks?? disabling using GPS??) or what is the punishment in case of non-conformance. Can somebody please enlighten me.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 02:20

For non-compliance, see the "case studies"

NRao wrote:End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2007

ppatil · Post by **ppatil** » 22 Jul 2009 02:26

Sanku wrote:
g.kacha wrote:thanks to you and Sanku for the replies ... now my next question is that if we are asking for ToT for the big deals wherein we will have the production line in our country, how effective will the sanctions be ?
Well the way ToT will work is not clear (deep, shallow, blueprints, assembly lines), right now I think it might mean the ability to produce up to 60% of the components in house. Now even if upto 90%, it still leaves 10%, it stands to reason that this would be the most critical 10%, the ones that the maker holds really close. We may be sourcing these directly from outside. Even MKI has components which are not manufactured in house.

As such in aviation and most mil fields, the loss of a even a few critical components can ground an entire fleet and coming up with a replacement may not be feasible in short run.

So TOT definitely will help a lot but will still leave strings attached. Almost no way to cut them. Heck even the Mig 21 upgrade needs to involve Russia.

Through ToT, If you want access to critical components as growler suite on F-18 or AESA source code(which other countries are willing to provide), then EUMA puts an end to that. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations which form the basis of EUMA explicitly prohibit transfer of such technology. The only way to overcome that would be an exemption via the congress

ppatil · Post by **ppatil** » 22 Jul 2009 02:44

Gerard wrote:For non-compliance, see the "case studies"

NRao wrote:End-Use Monitoring of Defense Articles and Defense Services Commercial Exports FY 2007

Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious here.
I have read that document which only lists instances of non-compliance. It does not specify the corrective measures or punishments that were handed out.

An example of F-16 violation from from TSP

Request for Permanent Export
Items: F-16 jet fighter parts
End-User: South Asian military
Foreign Consignee: European company

Reasons for Check
No documentation from end-user
Suspicious third-country consignee

Findings
Consignee provides letter of intent but could not specify which parts were going to the South Asian military
Consignee also could not provide POC at South Asian military
Embassy unable to confirm order with South Asian military

One thing I would like to add that the diplomatic language in all these documents is such that on one hand unkil can nail you for something very trivial, but you can also get away with blatant violation. Sab unkil ki kripa hain.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 02:47

It does not specify the corrective measures or punishments that were handed out.

Corrective measures? Punishments?

US starts delivery of F-16s to Pakistan

The United States on Tuesday started delivery of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan when two were flown from the US & were handed over to the Pakistani Air Force in a ceremony at PAF Mushaf.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 02:56

Umbrella pact gives way to standard text

Both countries have also shelved a proposal for an overarching agreement, opting for a “standard text” that will be attached to individual bilateral defence deals.

This suggests that wherever weapons can be shifted, the inspections can take place away from military installations or even in third countries.

the senior official said that the words “physical on-site” do not figure in the “standard text”.

India has negotiated separate end-user pacts with the US for defence deals it has done over the past eight years. With a “standard text” now agreed on, there will be no separate overarching pact. Neither is there need for separate discussions on end-user monitoring for each US military equipment that India now imports, the official said. The “standard text” will now onwards be an appendix to all letters of agreement India and the US sign for defence transactions.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 03:10

--eases the foot out of the mouth--

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 03:49

Gerard wrote:Umbrella pact gives way to standard text
Both countries have also shelved a proposal for an overarching agreement, opting for a “standard text” that will be attached to individual bilateral defence deals.
This suggests that wherever weapons can be shifted, the inspections can take place away from military installations or even in third countries.
the senior official said that the words “physical on-site” do not figure in the “standard text”.
India has negotiated separate end-user pacts with the US for defence deals it has done over the past eight years. With a “standard text” now agreed on, there will be no separate overarching pact. Neither is there need for separate discussions on end-user monitoring for each US military equipment that India now imports, the official said. The “standard text” will now onwards be an appendix to all letters of agreement India and the US sign for defence transactions.

This raises even many many more questions than it answers.
Can US attempt to change the "standard" text? What are the arrangements which are stopping that? What happens if a future US "Jackal" law changes which might bring this "standard" text into conflict. Whats to stop US from citing this law and demanding new rules?

One of the advantages of an overarching agreement is precisely this. It stop US from doing above and moving the goal posts as it did and is doing for the nuke pact. Now Indians have accepted for this stupid arrangement with no guarantees.

The words "physical on-site" are not there in this text. Are there "on-site physical" or "physical" and "on-site" or words with the same meaning in the text? Diplomacy is this specific art of lying only. Unfortunately Indian govt instead of practising against other countries, practises against us. Note the reply, it doesnt say there are no physical on-site inspections required. It simply says those words in that particular order are not there in the text. I take that particular reply as yes, there are physical on-site inspection in diplomatese couched for Indian public.

No foot in the mouth, negi. I maintain that this IS selling out, unless anyone can prove otherwise.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 03:56

An important clause in the agreement allowed India to freeze the text, to prevent unilateral application of any future changes to U.S. laws. Any amendments to the text can be incorporated only through mutual consultation.

In a separate announcement by another top official, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon told MPs during a lecture today: “We can show the text of the agreement to a standing committee (of MPs)

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 04:03

Gerard wrote:
An important clause in the agreement allowed India to freeze the text, to prevent unilateral application of any future changes to U.S. laws. Any amendments to the text can be incorporated only through mutual consultation.

which agreement?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 04:05

We haven’t signed any agreement. We have finalised the arrangement. Now we will be signing a letter of acceptance.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 04:10

Gerard wrote:
We haven’t signed any agreement. We have finalised the arrangement. Now we will be signing a letter of acceptance.

Can anybody make me understand what is going on? There is no agreement, only an arrangement (meaning there is absolutely no legal backing). Then they turn around and say, that the agreement stop US from making changes. and there will be some letter signed.

What is the value of this signed "letter of acceptance"?

All I see is hara kiri and diplomatese along with smoke and mirrors to hide the "physical on-site" inspections or in my words, selling out.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 22 Jul 2009 07:23

Gerard wrote:
We haven’t signed any agreement. We have finalised the arrangement. Now we will be signing a letter of acceptance.

Agreement - Arrangement - Acceptance - Willingness for the Arrangement - Finalization for willingness of the Agreement - Finalization for the Acceptance of willingess of acceptance to the arrangement of agreement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jul 2009 07:28

One way of looking at things is India is not yet ready for US supplies. Hence its an arrangement and not an agreement.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 22 Jul 2009 07:54

When one goes begging for technical help, why expect the conditions to be any favorable for the one seeking help ? When any great nation wannabe becomes dependent on imports to meet its weapon needs, discussing capitulation to US interests makes no sense at all due to the wording on any EUA document.

It will always be one-sided just like the multitude of license agreements in small letters one never reads.

We as a nation has yet to show any initiative at large scales to do things ourselves by hook or crook,

but we keep harping endlessly about various agreements and technology denials.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Jul 2009 08:33

ramana wrote:One way of looking at things is India is not yet ready for US supplies. Hence its an arrangement and not an agreement.

I am not sure of that. I believe the MRCA contract will go to one of the US companies

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Jul 2009 08:37

Dont worry

In the end we will not use the equipment anyway, because our Generals keep telling us War is expensive, just procure for ID parades onlee

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 08:40

F-22 production has been capped, per COTUS. Time is ripe 4 foreign sales. Unless the Russians get a hold of this and make something nearly as good, there is not much hope of an F-37. And what better way to do that, than to have a EUMA with India? Used to be that UMMAH sales were better than EUMA sales, but today, selling to the UMMAH runs the risk of having the weapons used against US carriers, and I am not sure US carriers are ready to fight off an attack using F-22s. So... India.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 13:15

ravi_ku wrote:
Gerard wrote:We haven’t signed any agreement. We have finalised the arrangement. Now we will be signing a letter of acceptance.
Can anybody make me understand what is going on? There is no agreement, only an arrangement (meaning there is absolutely no legal backing). Then they turn around and say, that the agreement stop US from making changes. and there will be some letter signed.

What is the value of this signed "letter of acceptance"?

All I see is hara kiri and diplomatese along with smoke and mirrors to hide the "physical on-site" inspections or in my words, selling out.

No no its all very Chankyan onlee, so Chankyan that no one can understand admittedly, but Chankyan never the less.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 13:19

Gerard wrote:
ground an entire fleet making it seem like an Indian problem
And there is nothing that will sour the Indian armed forces on buying any more US kit faster than this.
Incentive for US arms manufacturers to oppose US sanctions.

Ah the souring of relations based on perfidy!!

Just like the righteous indignation post the case where J18 commitments were implemented in a slightly different form in 123+Hyde?

Or are you referring to India learning not to trust US after the sanctions on LCA stuff?

Or perhaps the case in future where -- India is refusing to buy any more spares for 200 MMRCAs from America ever in future since they did not send the supplies for a crucial 6 months period ?

Yes Sir.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 13:27

RaviBg wrote:
ramana wrote:One way of looking at things is India is not yet ready for US supplies. Hence its an arrangement and not an agreement.
I am not sure of that. I believe the MRCA contract will go to one of the US companies

I would go further, this looks like something that has been done to ensure best possible advantage for US in the MRCA deal -- a precursor to the act so to say.

To me its more than obvious that -- PMO is making sure in a slow and sure manner that any possible roadblock and disadvantages to US are carefully removed while keeping the pretense of a fair trial.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 14:04

One would think in the tenor of the discussions that the EUVA is the 2nd battle of Plassey (so what would the nuke deal be, battle of buxar, or battle for srirangapatna?!), handing India over to American imperialists!!!

India is not some banana republic that anyone, even the PM can sell it short (or for that matter long!)..

Not one platform of "game breaking" nature has been ordered from the US yet (barring maybe P8I for which there wasnt an alternative in any case)...Only an agreement has been signed for monitoring and verification of equipment to be sold in the future.

EUVA is but one part of a broader engagement with the world (incl US) on defence dealings...There are offset clauses, ToT, a whole range of factors that play in the give-or-take of high international politics...

For argument's sake, consider that the EUVA calls for physical verification and we have to take every single F18 we buy to Maldives and incur the logistical cost of that...In return the ToT gives us access to the source codes of AESA, or single crystal blade tech (among other things) - how many years of tech leapfrogging does that mean? Whats the monetary value of that? And if they dont add up, we simply dont buy the F18!!

We need to have confidence in ourselves and engage the world accordingly..The GOI in the last few years, under boh ABV and MMS, has been doing that...As far as I can see, in every single facet of national power - we are far better off today than in 1991, which is the time when "standing up to the US" was so fashionable and worthy! Its strage that some people want to go back to our attitudes of the "wasted" decades of the '60s, '70s and '80s...

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 14:31

somnath wrote:One would think in the tenor of the discussions that the EUVA is the 2nd battle of Plassey (so what would the nuke deal be, battle of buxar, or battle for srirangapatna?!), handing India over to American imperialists!!!

One MirJafar was enough for British. Lets hope that Rajmata, MMS or anyone near power is not his modern day avatar.

India is not some banana republic that anyone, even the PM can sell it short (or for that matter long!)..

I know that India was not a banana republic. Today, I am not so sure. All the signs are starting to point to it.

We follow them on Iran. We follow them on Pakistan. They interfere with our dealings with Nepal, Bangladesh. They interfere even in state political level, talking to two bit political parties even before the election results. We dont even whine when they start to go back on nuke deal.

Not one platform of "game breaking" nature has been ordered from the US yet (barring maybe P8I for which there wasnt an alternative in any case)...Only an agreement has been signed for monitoring and verification of equipment to be sold in the future.

Without selling even token semi decent equipment to them, we are already talking of allowing them to physically verify. I can only shudder to think what they will if they achieve a good share

EUVA is but one part of a broader engagement with the world (incl US) on defence dealings...There are offset clauses, ToT, a whole range of factors that play in the give-or-take of high international politics...

Yada, yada. what have we got out of it? nada, zilch.

For argument's sake, consider that the EUVA calls for physical verification and we have to take every single F18 we buy to Maldives and incur the logistical cost of that.
You are talking about cost and cost alone. Now for the time, that this F18 is being paraded for show infront of this mahaan videshi massa inspector, our frontline has no f-18 protecting it. The time India requires to set up this logistical chain, gives an easy info into how the airforce logistics are being maintained and its weak points, their original location so on. The type of bombs which were recently used gives a beautiful peek into the airforce strategies being developed.

..In return the ToT gives us access to the source codes of AESA, or single crystal blade tech (among other things) - how many years of tech leapfrogging does that mean? Whats the monetary value of that? And if they dont add up, we simply dont buy the F18!!

ToT is shortform for screwdriver tech mister

. No body is going to give AESA code or single crystal blade tech

, in your dreams only.

Dont worry I wont disturb you from your MUTU dreams.

We need to have confidence in ourselves and engage the world accordingly..The GOI in the last few years, under boh ABV and MMS, has been doing that...As far as I can see, in every single facet of national power - we are far better off today than in 1991, which is the time when "standing up to the US" was so fashionable and worthy! Its strage that some people want to go back to our attitudes of the "wasted" decades of the '60s, '70s and '80s...

eloquent words of praise. nice grammar. Is that what you want me to say? If you want India to be US poodle, i.e. engage the world in this fashion, what are we doing right now. When we can have 19% economic growth rate, what happens if tommorow one has to gift kashmir, arunachal pradesh, north east, punjab, bengal, tamilnadu, deccan, orissa gujarat......., at the alter of 19% growth rate. After all attaining 19% is important rather than living right?

MMS has been doing WHAT exactly? Yes throwing away 200 of Indian dead bodies for the sake of peace process is national power. Signing a nuke accord which is already being thrown into dust bin by US by proposing ENR restrictions is national power. Signing away the right to inspect onsite is national power.

Sometimes, I really wonder what some Indians(including you , Sir) have become so westernized in mindset that they cant even see the difference between national power and national slavery.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 22 Jul 2009 14:38

Sometimes, I really wonder what some Indians(including you , Sir) have become so westernized in mindset that they cant even see the difference between national power and national slavery.

Same thing happened when Slumdog got an Oscar. It was disgusting to see Indians (especially Hindus) celebrating their own humiliation. It is strange when normal people cannot distinguish between a compliment and an insult, between freedom and slavery.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 22 Jul 2009 14:42

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Sometimes, I really wonder what some Indians(including you , Sir) have become so westernized in mindset that they cant even see the difference between national power and national slavery.
Same thing happened when Slumdog got an Oscar. It was disgusting to see Indians (especially Hindus) celebrating their own humiliation. It is strange when normal people cannot distinguish between a compliment and an insult, between freedom and slavery.

Jai Ho Maculay

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 14:49

The critique here has got nothing to do with lack of confidence in India as a nation.

It is a normal democratic exercise which holds the Government's feet to the fire and tries to hold it accountable. This critique demands that the GoI officials, who were also human, the last time I checked, do not fall prey to external pressures or make decisions based on ideological tilts but rather solely on the basis of national interest.

Every politician has to explain to the public why they took xyz decision, and the public is not satisfied with arrogance of the type, "This issue is too complicated for the common man", "Don't worry, we will take the necessary decisions. You don't need to stress yourself with the details". These arguments just would not fly in India for long.

Just because Singaporeans leave everything to their leaders, does not mean Indians are going to put the ship on auto-pilot as well.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 15:54

A report on End Use Monitoring, with case studies...

the checks are not exhaustive, not even random, but based on "risk assessments"....Reading prima facie, there isnt anyting that cannot be "managed" by us, if it came to that..

RajeshA wrote:The critique here has got nothing to do with lack of confidence in India as a nation.

It is a normal democratic exercise which holds the Government's feet to the fire and tries to hold it accountable. This critique demands that the GoI officials, who were also human, the last time I checked, do not fall prey to external pressures or make decisions based on ideological tilts but rather solely on the basis of national interest.

Every politician has to explain to the public why they took xyz decision, and the public is not satisfied with arrogance of the type, "This issue is too complicated for the common man", "Don't worry, we will take the necessary decisions. You don't need to stress yourself with the details". These arguments just would not fly in India for long.

Just because Singaporeans leave everything to their leaders, does not mean Indians are going to put the ship on auto-pilot as well.

no one's denying that - the vigorous debate on all issues is tetimony to that..Question is why should it be so kosher to argue in favour of the "anti imperialist" stand, while the argument to negotiate, to give-and-take, would be Mir Jafarian! I havent heard any comment on the lines you are suggesting (too complex, leave it us etc) - the debate has been quite vigorous, and I for one find the defensiveness of the "other" side out of tune with the realities of new India...the new India deals with the world at a different level - so ISRO has not problems having US equipment onboard Chandrayaan, Indian companies dont fear foreign equity, the best Indian students do not go abroad for tertiary education, but climb the highest floors in the global corporate ladder...None of the "dur hato yeh duniyawalon hindustan hamaara hai" rubbish...MMS (and PVNR) started the process of its burial in 1992 - literally putting their necks on the block (remember the famous "sarfaroshi ki tamanna" budget speech?)...

PS: I will ignore the snide one on Singaporeans (and I am not one

)- you get personal when you have run out of logic!

Ravi_ku, addrssing your points..the vote on Iran was absolutely in our national interest, why should we be supporting another country legitimising nuke weapons? US diplomats meet our politicians, our diplomats meet Republican and Democratic politicians all the time as well! Hell, there is an Indian caucus in the US Congress that our diplomats regularly deal with - are we interetefring in their politics? If we dont think theuy will transfer tech, we dont buy, simple!