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

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2009 07:41

http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/95

Annual reports from DDTC have provided some information relating to unfavorable “Blue Lantern” determinations including an analysis of unfavorable determinations by region and commodity. These reports, however, did not single out individual countries. The FOIA disclosures provide data on specific countries for FY 2002 through 2004, and the results are interesting:

Code: Select all

Country
Unfavorable findings
Malaysia  15
  Bolivia  10
  Hong Kong  8
  Singapore  8
  Israel  7
  Guatemala  6
  Indonesia  5
  Saudi Arabia  5
  Canada  4
  Dominican Republic  4
  El Salvador  4
  Germany  4
  India  4
  Pakistan  4
  South Korea  4
  Switzerland  4
  UAE  4
  UK  4
  Argentina  3
  Belize  3
  Costa Rica  3
  Ecuador  3
  France  3
  Italy  3
  Oman  3
  Peru  3
  South Africa  3
  Taiwan  3
  Thailand  3
  Thailand  3
  Australia  2
  Greece  2
  Honduras  2
  Jordan  2
  Philippines  2
  Portugal  2
  Russia  2

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2009 07:43

somnath wrote: Plain wrong..When required, we can be as bone headed about our national interests as anyone else..

Really?

You'd never guess that from reading this forum from which I get 99% of my information.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 07:43

Shiv, I posted some case studies of EUM in a post above...China does not allow blue lantirn checks..But the US doesnt allow defence exports to China - its a strategic comparative advantage for us! If required, the chinese dont baulk at making the same sort of "give and take"..You only have to look at the Uranium supply deal between China and Australia for that....

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 07:46

shiv wrote:
somnath wrote: Plain wrong..When required, we can be as bone headed about our national interests as anyone else..
Really? You'd never guess that from reading this forum from which I get 99% of my information.

Well, this forum is a very useful source of info - but by no means the only one!!

Finally, empirical data is what matters, not suspicions and opinions..And there, there isnt a lot of evidence that we tend to sell out core national interests all that easily as is being surmised...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jul 2009 07:50

somnath wrote: Finally, empirical data is what matters, not suspicions and opinions...

What? Are you crazy? You mean information outside of suspicions and opinions actually matters? Tell me another one. Are you trying to suggest that the first 9 pages of this thread be ignored?

munna · Post by **munna** » 24 Jul 2009 08:06

shiv wrote:
somnath wrote: Finally, empirical data is what matters, not suspicions and opinions...
What? Are you crazy? You mean information outside of suspicions and opinions actually matters? Tell me another one. Are you trying to suggest that the first 9 pages of this thread be ignored?

Too good

! Actually the only thing that matters is a big hurrumph from our leader everytime he sees the Paki PM otherwise he is a sell out. I sincerely feel that with this EUM and enhanced strategic initiatives India will see a high tech revolution similar to the IT revolution we witnessed in 1990s. My gut feels says within a decade India shall be a big name in aerospace outsourcing and engineering industry, (WJKK WJKF). MMS is playing a mature and long term game while people are thinking on petty lines and accusing him of a crime he did not commit. He is a lambi race ka ghoda and this khalsa will win all his battles.

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 24 Jul 2009 09:34

OT

shiv wrote:
somnath wrote: Finally, empirical data is what matters, not suspicions and opinions...
What? Are you crazy? You mean information outside of suspicions and opinions actually matters? Tell me another one. Are you trying to suggest that the first 9 pages of this thread be ignored?

Shivji,

Hasn't that been the case with most threads most of the time the past few years? Even in 2001, I remember threads going this way. It is always interesting to read though..And once in a while, I stumble upon nuggets and strange psych-ops by you and N^3 and other gurus, and am left chuckling..

And, incidentally, the country is still there..and no one seems to have succeeded in selling out the country yet - hell, we might even be getting to grips with the red corridor.

Santayana's quote on 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' is applicable to forums and forum threads as well.

Somnath:

Your reasoned posts and patient responses in the face of such sniping is creditable. My salutations!

Mohan

/OT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 12:34

Prediction 1 comes through (wasn't expecting so soon though)

1) US is not even going to acknowledge Kalam's indignity, let alone do something about it. In fact the way it was done it is pretty clear that a message is being sent to a certain constituency in India (I think its obvious which constituency and which message)

arun wrote:In effect the US Government via its Transportation Security Administration has given India the middle finger and says that US laws override Indian laws on Indian territory .

Somehow I am not confident that our Congress party led Dr.Manmohan Singh administration has the capability to defend India's sovereignity and make the US see the error of its ways :

Airline followed rules, India’s VIP list irrelevant: US

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 12:35

Cross posting

RaviBg wrote:The bottom line behind India-U.S. 3.0 - Siddharth Varadarajan

...
The purpose behind Ms Clinton’s visit was twofold. First, to build new structures of engagement that might bring Indian thinking on major global issues like climate change, trade and disarmament in line with the “strong and constructive positions” the U.S. takes and away from the alternative consensus India is trying to build at different forums like BRIC, IBSA, G-20, G-77 and NAM. This she did by proposing a strategic dialogue consisting of “five pillars,” ranging from non-proliferation and climate change to trade, investment and agriculture. The second purpose was transactional: how to translate the strategic partnership with India into commercial gains for American businesses.

On both counts, Ms Clinton’s five-day visit was an unqualified triumph. The new strategic dialogue architecture was unveiled, and a strong foundation laid for nuclear and military sales. Both sides pretended to exchange views on burning international issues. But with barely an hour set aside for her official meeting with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, it is obvious that Ms Clinton was not particularly interested in hearing what her Indian hosts had to say on Iran and other subjects. Especially since she had already heard the one thing most important to her — end use.

Setting aside the publicly and privately expressed reservations of its armed forces, the United Progressive Alliance government agreed to an end use monitoring (EUM) agreement providing for the physical verification of defence items purchased from the U.S. None of India’s major defence suppliers imposes such a condition, though of course it may welcome the opportunity to do so in the future now that the country has shown a willingness to open its doors. India also gave in to the U.S. request to identify the two nuclear parks where American-supplied reactors will be installed. This at a time when Washington is attempting to renege on its commitment to facilitate full civil nuclear cooperation with India by getting the Nuclear Suppliers Group to introduce an NPT-only rule for the sale of enrichment and reprocessing items.
...
...
As the CAG discovered during his scrutiny of the Jalashva (formerly USS Trenton) landing dock ship India bought from the U.S. a few years ago, American weapons contracts come not just with potentially intrusive inspections but also with a “legitimate self-defence” end use requirement whose interpretation is bound to be contingent on wider political equations. For example, Israel has used U.S.-supplied aircraft and munitions in nakedly aggressive acts against its neighbours countless times but Washington has never held these to be a violation of the self-defence condition. But tomorrow, if India uses an American-supplied jet for an anti-terrorist operation outside its borders that the U.S. does not approve of, the end-use language of SAMM 4.5.7 may well be invoked against New Delhi. The Trenton was sold to enable India to deploy troops for humanitarian missions in the region that the U.S. may be unable or unwilling to undertake. If India tries to use it for “offensive” purposes, however, it may well have to contend with U.S. protests.

...
Part of the problem has to do with mistaken assumptions and flawed understandings in India of what its strategic partnership with the U.S. involves. India assumes that American interests and strategies in the region are congruent with its own. India also believes a strategic partnership means the Americans will understand and share its concerns and priorities on most big issues and, at a minimum, not act against Indian interests wherever there are divergent views. For the U.S., on the other hand, the partnership is all about shaping India’s choices and priorities. It is about ensuring that India does not bandwagon with other rising powers. And acting against Indian interests (as it is now doing at the G8 and NSG) is not seen as a contradiction. That is why Indian apprehensions about President Barack Obama’s commitment to the strategic ties established by George W. Bush were so misplaced. This partnership helped open the doors of nuclear commerce for India but also led to a number of Indian doors being opened for the American side. Surely it would be most un-American for the new administration to not seek entry.
...
...
India’s engagement with the U.S. is one of the most exciting and challenging aspects of the country’s foreign policy today. But unless this high-stakes game is handled properly, with planning, foresight and determination, it could well turn out to be dangerous.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 12:43

As predicted, the standard EUVA is much better for us than individual EUMs negotiated on a case-tocase basis.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-r ... x/493486/0

Other countries that have signed end user laws with the US, including Pakistan, give US inspectors complete access to their military bases.
Government sources say that in India’s case, the clause has been modified to introduce a new system of scheduled inspections. In the clause, inspectors wishing to check the equipment will need to inform India which will in turn set up a place and time for the checks.

The key change in the new agreement that has been worked, government sources say, is that the clause for on-site inspections has been done away with.

The first time the end user clause was agreed to was in 2002 by the BJP-led government when it signed a deal to purchase Weapon Locating Radars from the US. The $200 million deal to purchase 12 ANTPQ 37 Firefinder radars that help locate enemy artillery positions contains an end user agreement with the US that gives permission to its inspectors to carry out “compliance assistance visits” on their locations. In fact, sources say that the crucial radars have already been subject to an inspection by US regulators in 2005 when they were deployed in Jammu and Kashmir.

So much for selling the country short!

So basically, India chooses the time and place for the inspection..Each time they want to check, we take them to Silchar!

In case that is not possible, we simply dont buy!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 12:49

somnath wrote:As predicted, the standard EUVA is much better for us than individual EUMs negotiated on a case-tocase basis.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-r ... x/493486/0

No sir, this is a IE take on possible EUMA, since you are the one advocating holding the horses. Do hold yours till you see a signed one.

Same standards onlee? Yes?

Secondly -- this discussion seems to suggest that since a gang rape is much worse than a one on one rape, if some one gets raped one on one, it is a good thing only.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 12:51

Shiv ji, interesting data points. But I dont see what you are trying to say there.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 12:52

mohan wrote:Santayana's quote on 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' is applicable to forums and forum threads as well.

Yes indeed and how about those who spin or lie on history what does it say?

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 24 Jul 2009 12:56

Shivji,

Hasn't that been the case with most threads most of the time the past few years? Even in 2001, I remember threads going this way. It is always interesting to read though..And once in a while, I stumble upon nuggets and strange psych-ops by you and N^3 and other gurus, and am left chuckling..

And, incidentally, the country is still there..and no one seems to have succeeded in selling out the country yet - hell, we might even be getting to grips with the red corridor.

Santayana's quote on 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' is applicable to forums and forum threads as well.

Somnath:

Your reasoned posts and patient responses in the face of such sniping is creditable. My salutations!

Mohan

Well nobody tells the general public that they are selling the country and then sells it.How do you say they have not succeeded in selling it yet. 200 of our people got killed, but we are asked to go and romance with the perpetrators by the big uncle and we without sharm surrender at sharm. Oh what is the use of having the 3 rd biggest army, 4 the biggest airforce and 5 or 6th biggest navy(pardon me if Iam wrong with these numbers). The Prithvis, agnis and brahmos did not scare off the pakis and did not help us in standing firm against the pakis.
Oh well life is cheap in the east ! Well from 2001 onwards few things happened such as
1. Accepting Pak is a victim of terrorism along with India
2. Signing on the nuclear agreement which till now nobody understands except perhaps the guys who signed off (or do they?)
3. Putting a cap on ICBM ( I am not sure on the status of it now)
4. Now Baluchistan
5. Allowing US embassy officials to talk to our politicians to influence alliances. Nobody bothers about it

Others please list anymore surrenders such as these

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 13:00

Secondly -- this discussion seems to suggest that since a gang rape is much worse than a one on one rape, if some one gets raped one on one, it is a good thing only

Well, to me it only seems like being a license to sleep - the lady has a choice not to sleep with the guy!

It is Express's take, but no one's yet contested the essential claims its making in terms of facts -

1. inspection at the time and place of our choosing,
2. a "better" deal than the cae-by-case thing we have now,
3. that other countries (incl NATO allies) have agreed to a far more intrusive regime..
4. We have bought an option only, not incured an obligation.

Rest is interpretation and level of confidence one feels as Indians - not thye "dur hato yeh duniyawalon" types, but the 1991 post reform generation..

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 24 Jul 2009 13:02

India is too large and too important to be sold out by anyone, even a "sold out" PM...People BTW said the same thing in 1992, when the first flush of reforms took place - look what happened since then!

Somnath,
I am very skeptical regarding the contribution of MMS towards the economy. I read his paper he submitted to Rajeev gandhi, While the later was PM, on liberalisation. it sounded almost like a socialism lecture for India. It's been almost 17 years since i read that( don't recollect much).
MMS had been a clerk aka babu all his life, I never expected him to change his leanings and mindset overnight. He could never turn against the system he had served as a babu for so many years. I feel the interim budget yashwant Sinha presented during Chandrashekhar's regime was almost taken as a road map by MMS with some changes. This is something we must discuss.
In the end, he is an overrated academician( I don't consider him much of an economist anyway) and a poor politician lacking any strategic insight. He remains in the shadows of Milton freedman, nothing new MMS has espoused(considering he is supposed to be a macro economist).
Sadly, in my youth days in DU, we used to admire him for his humbleness and so called intellect

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 13:08

End-user pact must to access US arms market: Experts

"I think this is really not as extreme as it is made to sound. If India wants to obtain access to US military supplies it has to enter a protocol of this type. We wouldn't need the agreement if we could have done without US help," National Maritime Foundation Director C. Uday Bhaskar told IANS.

The opinion is echoed by Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

"Every country ensures that its technology does not fall into wrong hands. If you need American hardware, if you want to diversify your inventory and not be completely dependent on the Russians, we would like to go to the US, which has the most sophisticated technology today," Mehta said.

he provisions will be applicable to all military purchases from the US with retrospective effect and will provide for the physical verification of the military hardware purchased from the US to prevent its misuse.

India had inked deal-specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, including Business Boeing Jets to ferry VIPs and the troop carrier INS Jalashwa.

"We have specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, but so far they have never come for inspections," said a senior defence official, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.

The US has signed end-user agreements with 82 countries, including Pakistan, Britain, France and Germany.

"The Americans have never harassed any country due to the end-user agreement. The best example is Pakistan, which has been using US military equipment against India," Bhaskar pointed out.

According to a defence official privy to the negotiations for the pact, physical inspection by the US comes to the picture only when there are "credible" allegations of equipment misuse.

"Ideally, we would not like to have this contract at all. We do not have this with other countries. We just give an undertaking. The US has it on its statute; so we had to factor in their concerns," the defence official, who did not want to be identified as he was not authorised to speak to the media, said.

Bhaskar seconded this.

"First of all, the US has to show mala fides on the Indian part," he said.

A senior Navy official who did not want to be named said that India needed to broaden its options to enhance its military capabilities.

"It makes sense to have options; otherwise the seller will bargain hard with you. With 70 percent of our defence equipment being imported, we cannot afford to have a single vendor and the US is a worthy contender," he said.

Moreover, India has been giving end user certificates to other countries as well, including Russia, which is analogous to an undertaking against selling the technology of the military equipment to a third party.

"The fact is that it is not the Americans only who want to make sure that the equipments that they provided is not misdirected. Even when the Soviets provided us with military hardware there were certain conditions about transfer of technology and use of those equipments," Mehta added.

On Wednesday, Defence Minister A.K. Antony defended the measure, saying it was the result of three years of tough efforts and that the government did not have any reservations about it.

"It has been signed after three years of hard bargaining. Everything has been sorted out. We do not have any reservations," Antony told reporters here.

The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party had staged a walkout in the Lok Sabha Tuesday to protest against the pact, terming it intrusive and saying it should not have been inked without parliament being taken into confidence.

This is the Hindu newspaper's take and a different one from Sidhartha's. Sidhartha's political leanings are quite well known.

I would point out the point made by Antony - it took three years to negotiate this deal. This is an important data point. Why?

Well some folks have been agruging that in case one of the F-designated planes won the MRCA contract then we can sit and negotiate the EUMA. Now if an omnibus EUMA took three years, would it be too much to expect that a EUMA for a contract as massive as the MRCA, which is supposed to inducted a whole new set of technologies into India - most of them state-of-the-art - would take at least one-year of hard negotiations? So effectively we would postpone the MRCA induction by one whole year?

And suppose at the end of the one-year the US, knowing that they had won the deal stuck to clauses which were not acceptable? What do we do, go back and start the process all over again?

Added later: Another important quote which I missed:

India had inked deal-specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, including Business Boeing Jets to ferry VIPs and the troop carrier INS Jalashwa.

"We have specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, but so far they have never come for inspections," said a senior defence official, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.

The US has signed end-user agreements with 82 countries, including Pakistan, Britain, France and Germany.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 13:09

somnath wrote: Well, to me it only seems like being a license to sleep - the lady has a choice not to sleep with the guy!

Yes, its a license to sleep with no promises of marriage, and the lady ends up holding the baby.

You have got it.

And we go and sign this document happily.

It is Express's take, but no one's yet contested the essential claims its making in terms of facts -

Not true. Many articles/posts have, you are displaying selective reading here. You and to a great extent the other guys display this very "selective reading" behavior -- just ignore the contrary evidence.

Rest is interpretation and level of confidence one feels as Indians - not thye "dur hato yeh duniyawalon" types, but the 1991 post reform generation..

I see that you keep coming to this line of defence more than once, it is also easy to brand others and get into a personal fight once you lose on logic (a fav of some posters here)

In fact the two vehement supporters of this were also doing their best to support MMS on SeS tells me a lot doesnt it.

I also like the fact that you believe in the faith theory so much -- reminds me of Evolutionary vs Creationist debate.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 13:15

amit wrote:And suppose at the end of the one-year the US, knowing that they had won the deal stuck to clauses which were not acceptable? What do we do, go back and start the process all over again?

Amit, you have raised this bogey more than once without responding to the rebuts that get made.

What part of "parallel" negotiations is so hard to understand?

-----

Meanwhile -- I will be first to admit that AK Antony coming behind this publicly gives me a "sliver" of hope. However I think the other retired officers you are quoting are hanging on to misplaced hope as they are looking at this from a very narrow perspective (and are correct within that)

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 13:16

chandrabhan wrote: Somnath,
I am very skeptical regarding the contribution of MMS towards the economy. I read his paper he submitted to Rajeev gandhi, While the later was PM, on liberalisation. it sounded almost like a socialism lecture for India. It's been almost 17 years since i read that( don't recollect much).
MMS had been a clerk aka babu all his life, I never expected him to change his leanings and mindset overnight. He could never turn against the system he had served as a babu for so many years. I feel the interim budget yashwant Sinha presented during Chandrashekhar's regime was almost taken as a road map by MMS with some changes. This is something we must discuss.
In the end, he is an overrated academician( I don't consider him much of an economist anyway) and a poor politician lacking any strategic insight. He remains in the shadows of Milton freedman, nothing new MMS has espoused(considering he is supposed to be a macro economist).
Sadly, in my youth days in DU, we used to admire him for his humbleness and so called intellect

Well, the credit for the reforms should go to two individuals, PVNR and MMS - PVNR for the political cover, and MMS for the intellectual inputs..Not just his paper to Rajiv Gandhi (which I wasnt aware of), but even his PhD thesis and later works have been quoted to burnish him as a socialist...I hold no brief for MMS, but intellectual honesty demands that one changes with time..As Keynes once told someone accusing him of changing his stance, "when data changes, I change my views, what do you do sir?"

You dont need nobel prize winners to be policy makers..You need people withy enough intellectual depth to grasp the issue at hand and enough "credibility" within the system to "work" it...MMS was the perfect choice then on both counts...In fact PVNR's first choice was not MMS, but fellow Hyderabadi (ooops, forgot the name)..But in the end, MMS delivered, thats what matters..

The Yashwant Sinha interim budget is a myth spread widest by Yashwant Sinha himself - as an irrelevant policy document (the vote on account is worth very little more than the salaries that it enables for the govt employees), any number of wishes could be inserted...The trick is in actual implementation..

He is no Milton Friedman, or even Amartya Sen, or for that matter even Kaushik Basu (my bet for the next economics Nobel from India!

)...But then, Myron Scholes developed the bellwether options pricing model (Black Scholes) - the quant fin company he founded went bankrupt (LTCM)!!!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 13:25

Sanku wrote:
Not true. Many articles/posts have, you are displaying selective reading here. You and to a great extent the other guys display this very "selective reading" behavior -- just ignore the contrary evidence.

I see that you keep coming to this line of defence more than once, it is also easy to brand others and get into a personal fight once you lose on logic (a fav of some posters here)

In fact the two vehement supporters of this were also doing their best to support MMS on SeS tells me a lot doesnt it.

I also like the fact that you believe in the faith theory so much -- reminds me of Evolutionary vs Creationist debate.

there is no selective reading here..In fact there are no facts in the "other" side of the debate, besides general opinions on "selling out to the US"..Sid VArdarajan is also not quoting anything contrary, barrign saying that using US equipment for purposes contrary to US wishes would incur protests from them...Well so what? War breaks out, we use the F18 to raid Sargodha - US doesnt like it...So? they will stop supplies? by the time that starts taking effect, the war would be far over, and we would be talking to them about the next big TXN where money will talk..

I am sticking completely to available facts, there is nothing personal or matters of faith....."Dur hato yeh duniyawalon" is symptomatic of a mentality of defensiveness, which is what I am pointing out...

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 13:30

Somnath,

The problem I have with skepticism shown on BRF about MMS' abilities as an economist is that we don't know the abilities and qualification of the poster to make such a comment!

I can for example say that I feel Sachin Tendulkar is susceptible to the moving ball on a fast track.

Now I know BRF cricket gurus like Tanaji would take me the cleaners for such a statement and rightly so, if I may add. Though I've played cricket up to college level, I have absolutely no locus standi to doubt Tendulkar's abilities as a cricketer just due to his sheer track record.

When someone pops up on BRF and doubts the abilities of a well-known PhD of economics who's been the ex-RBI governor, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and former Finance Minister during the most crucial period in India's post-Independence economic history, what can on say? Save for chuckle at the audacity?

Yes I know everyone loves to hate MMS and to not do so is considered blasphemy by many shinning lights on this forum.

PS: I hope you're right about Kaushik Basu! But I'm sure you know the joke about Amartya Sen's Noble. After Myron Scholes' fiasco, the Nobel committee in 1998 wanted a "safe" economist and who else but the economic philosopher Sen. They had enough of econometricians after the Scholes sooper dooper model!

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 24 Jul 2009 13:52

somnath wrote:
chandrabhan wrote: He is no Milton Friedman, or even Amartya Sen, or for that matter even Kaushik Basu (my bet for the next economics Nobel from India! )!!!

Amartya sen is another or Milton's ideological disciple and he prooved my theory, that is, 'One needs to marry a Rothschild in order to break in that elite club of Nobel.' I always Put IG patel as a far better governor, Courageous and economist. One candidate from My side for economics nobel is Prof Bhagwati but sadly he won't be able to make it as he is considered too right wing inspite of making the nominee list many times.

PVN, sadly never got the due from Kangress and country he is entitled to. MMS is a waste of time and I do understand that it is normal to change leanings , opinions and philosophies over a period of time but I don't see any evidence. He is too enamored by his love for anything English i guess. Honesty is no substitute for effectiveness and right decision making.
Issue is not too much of EUA here, It is more of the attitude displayed at Sharm with no Sharam . mard-e- pakistan Gillani has extended one hand and our PM is holding his hand in two and seems obligated.

Engage, Please do but know where you come from? What are the strengths we possess? More importantly what is that we want actually and what bargaining chips we hold? Being an economist did he not read anything on Game theory and their usage in negotiations with entities like trade unions? Even for one second I give him a benefit of doubt and accept him as an economist but for god sake he is no foreign policy expert and should let the baboos do their work. FP is by consesus always.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 13:58

After Myron Scholes' fiasco, the Nobel committee in 1998 wanted a "safe" economist and who else but the economic philosopher Sen. They had enough of econometricians after the Scholes sooper dooper model!

Yes, have heard of that...They followed it up with a bunch of behavioral economists (Kahneman) and quant theory guys (Aumunn, Kydland)...And back to a public intellectual now with Krugman!! But I think it is ok to critique, but to question motives stretches it too far..

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 24 Jul 2009 14:03

amit wrote:Somnath,

The problem I have with skepticism shown on BRF about MMS' abilities as an economist is that we don't know the abilities and qualification of the poster to make such a comment!

I can for example say that I feel Sachin Tendulkar is susceptible to the moving ball on a fast track.

Now I know BRF cricket gurus like Tanaji would take me the cleaners for such a statement and rightly so, if I may add. Though I've played cricket up to college level, I have absolutely no locus standi to doubt Tendulkar's abilities as a cricketer just due to his sheer track record.

When someone pops up on BRF and doubts the abilities of a well-known PhD of economics who's been the ex-RBI governor, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and former Finance Minister during the most crucial period in India's post-Independence economic history, what can on say? Save for chuckle at the audacity?

Yes I know everyone loves to hate MMS and to not do so is considered blasphemy by many shinning lights on this forum.

No Sir,
I am not a PHD of economics but i went to a better college and University( KMC & DU) than him, DSE(where he has taught also) have gone through only some papers he wrote and spoke on. Governor of RBI, well he did nothing great there, IG patel was much better , Handled the crisis better and stood upto a stupid Minister and Indira Gandhi and refused to give a license to BCCI( sounds familiar

) not the cricket control board but the notorious bank founded by ISI to launder drug money during Mujaheddin years.
Finally I made far more money than he could have imagined at my age even if i calculate the NPV for his earnings.

I incidentally got a chance to witness a debate where he was challenged by a batch mate of few points while he was Finance minster and it was effusive smile that he managed to save. Yaaaaa Even Deve gowda was PM of this country , he must be a great thinker, visionary and well versed with the financial nuances of the economy. Correct?

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 14:07

somnath wrote:But I think it is ok to critique, but to question motives stretches it too far..

Oh I'm fine with a critique and everyone makes mistakes and each should be pointed, especially in the case of public figures. But when a critique starts with a "I think..." kind of stand that raises by suspicion.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 14:07

chandrabhan wrote:
Amartya sen is another or Milton's ideological disciple and he prooved my theory, that is, 'One needs to marry a Rothschild in order to break in that elite club of Nobel.' I always Put IG patel as a far better governor, Courageous and economist. One candidate from My side for economics nobel is Prof Bhagwati but sadly he won't be able to make it as he is considered too right wing inspite of making the nominee list many times.

PVN, sadly never got the due from Kangress and country he is entitled to. MMS is a waste of time and I do understand that it is normal to change leanings , opinions and philosophies over a period of time but I don't see any evidence. He is too enamored by his love for anything English i guess. Honesty is no substitute for effectiveness and right decision making.
Issue is not too much of EUA here, It is more of the attitude displayed at Sharm with no Sharam . mard-e- pakistan Gillani has extended one hand and our PM is holding his hand in two and seems obligated.

Engage, Please do but know where you come from? What are the strengths we possess? More importantly what is that we want actually and what bargaining chips we hold? Being an economist did he not read anything on Game theory and their usage in negotiations with entities like trade unions? Even for one second I give him a benefit of doubt and accept him as an economist but for god sake he is no foreign policy expert and should let the baboos do their work. FP is by consesus always.

Well, I would disagree with you Prof Sen, but it will derail this thread..Jagdish Bhagwati would be the second deserving gujarati (after Gandhi) to not get the Nobel!!

the point really is not about MMS, or about the recent declaration..On facts, by and large, is something in our interest or not? The topic of this thread, EUVA - by all available accounts seems to be kosher..the joint declaration is a separate topic..

But at a larger level, there have been 3 epoch making events for India in the last 2-3 decades

1. Reforms in 1991
2. shakti in 1998
3 Indo US nuke deal

MMS was involved in/instrumental for 2 out of the three...the EUVA is a very small piece of detail, not comparable to the other three - but data does not suggest that it is, like the other three major ones, selling the coun try out!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 14:12

chandrabhan wrote:
No Sir,
I am not a PHD of economics but i went to a better college and University( KMC & DU) than him, DSE(where he has taught also) have gone through only some papers he wrote and spoke on. Governor of RBI, well he did nothing great there, IG patel was much better , Handled the crisis better and stood upto a stupid Minister and Indira Gandhi and refused to give a license to BCCI( sounds familiar ) not the cricket control board but the notorious bank founded by ISI to launder drug money during Mujaheddin years.
Finally I made far more money than he could have imagined at my age even if i calculate the NPV for his earnings.

I incidentally got a chance to witness a debate where he was challenged by a batch mate of few points while he was Finance minster and it was effusive smile that he managed to save. Yaaaaa Even Deve gowda was PM of this country , he must be a great thinker, visionary and well versed with the financial nuances of the economy. Correct?

Chandrabhan, you are taking it too far!! MMS went to Oxford as well (to notpick and argue, KMC is not all that great a college at least by cutoff marks!)....As for money made, well in Delhi my neighbourhood grocery shop owner made more money than I do - so what?

But wont derail the thread here - this is about the EUVA!!

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 14:13

chandrabhan wrote: I am not a PHD of economics but i went to a better college and University( KMC & DU) than him, DSE(where he has taught also) have gone through only some papers he wrote and spoke on.

Fair enough Chandrabhan ji.

But what is your contribution to public policy in India? Mind you it could very well be you have a huge contribution. I would be grateful if you could share some highlights so that we can understand where you are coming from.

And it's nice to know you went to a better college and university than MMS. Incidentally this is what WiKi says of the educational background of MMS:

He attended Panjab University, Chandigarh studying Economics and attaining his bachelor's and master's degrees in 1952 and 1954 respectively, standing first throughout his academic career. He went on to read for the Economics Tripos at Cambridge University as a member of St John's College. (In the Oxbridge tradition, holders of the BA degree with honours are entitled in due course to an MA degree.) He won the Wright's Prize for distinguished performance in 1955 and 1957. He was also one of the few recipients of the Wrenbury scholarship. In 1962, Singh completed his DPhil from the University of Oxford where he was a member of Nuffield College. The title of his doctoral thesis was "India’s export performance, 1951-1960, export prospects and policy implications", and his thesis supervisor was Dr I M D Little. From this thesis he published the book "India’s Export Trends and Prospects for Self-Sustained Growth".[2]

In 1997, the University of Alberta presented him with an Honorary Doctor of Laws. The University of Oxford awarded him an honorary Doctor of Civil Law degree in June 2005, and in October 2006, the University of Cambridge followed with the same honour. St. John's College further honored him by naming a PhD Scholarship after him, the Dr Manmohan Singh Scholarship.

Mods: This is getting seriously OT, so my apologies and please delete my post if you think inappropriate. And in case my last post on this subject on this thread. However, if Chandrabhan ji wishes to continue on some other thread, I'll be more than happy to.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 14:22

somnath wrote: there is no selective reading here..

yes sir totally, including the current post.

In fact there are no facts in the "other" side of the debate,

I like your definition of neutrality. "There are two sides, one is mine and the wrong one" types.

besides general opinions on "selling out to the US"..Sid VArdarajan is also not quoting anything contrary, barrign saying that using US equipment for purposes contrary to US wishes would incur protests from them...Well so what?

thank you for proving my point on selective reading totally missed out on Trenton bit did you? (one of the many)

I am sticking completely to available facts, there is nothing personal or matters of faith....."Dur hato yeh duniyawalon" is symptomatic of a mentality of defensiveness, which is what I am pointing out...

[/quote]

Of course ascribing faith to others and not even reading the facts that other put forth is hallmark of true balanced logic.

This is just like the spin on S e S issue from the MMS fan brigade.

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 14:23

Meanwhile -- I will be first to admit that AK Antony coming behind this publicly gives me a "sliver" of hope. However I think the other retired officers you are quoting are hanging on to misplaced hope as they are looking at this from a very narrow perspective (and are correct within that)

I hope the knowledgeable poster knows the background of the the two "retired officers". Particularly C. Uday Bhaskar.

Narrow perspective indeed. And we were reading lectures about the virtues of being open-minded. Sigh!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 14:26

somnath wrote:[
3 Indo US nuke deal

Already a success???? Even with all the perfidy on ENR etc?

Good going.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 14:29

thank you for proving my point on selective reading totally missed out on Trenton bit did you? (one of the many)

Well I didnt - and mentioned the point about "US being displeased"...So the US will be displeased in case we used Trenton for offensive ops...Well so what? Is the US going to check if Trenton is being used disgorge troops on the shores of Karachi, if it came to that?

So barring the purported impact of the "displeasure" of the US, havent come across any other facts..the other "fact" is US inspectors coming into our bases - thats already debunked given that a) inspection is at a place of our choosing and b) americans already come to most of our bases by inivitation, no need for the EUVA!

MMS fan brigade - if I were part of one, it wouldnt be wrong - I am one of the many millions of this generation who benefited from what he did in 1991..

amit · Post by **amit** » 24 Jul 2009 14:31

thank you for proving my point on selective reading totally missed out on Trenton bit did you? (one of the many)

Two takes from the Naxal Ram's Hindu on the Trenton/Jalashwa. (Both on this page of the thread and anyone who's reading should have noticed)

Sidharta's take:

The Trenton was sold to enable India to deploy troops for humanitarian missions in the region that the U.S. may be unable or unwilling to undertake. If India tries to use it for “offensive” purposes, however, it may well {in other words he's not too sure - speculation} have to contend with U.S. protests.{Even he's not talking about intrusive inspections}

The other report from Hindu:

India had inked deal-specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, including Business Boeing Jets to ferry VIPs and the troop carrier INS Jalashwa.

"We have specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, but so far they have never come for inspections," said a senior defence official, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.

One, could of course just read Sidhartha's piece and ignore the second. But didn't someone just complain about selective reading?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 14:33

Sanku wrote:
somnath wrote:[
3 Indo US nuke deal
Already a success???? Even with all the perfidy on ENR etc?

Good going.

ENR? OT here, but first, its only a statement by G8 - if all pious pronouncements by G8 were to come true, Africa would be awash with aid, and NK would have lost its nukes! Second, ENR is but one part of the entire nuke deal, the benefits of which are already accruing - uranium supplies from everywhere (not US!!), power plants from everywhere (not US!!)...

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 24 Jul 2009 14:36

Sorry Mods, I think it is going off too far and not that I am afraid of it but it is derailing the thread. One thing I must add is that none of us who post here have managed this country( may be one or two with assumed names) but we still comment on the state of affairs, foreign policy included.
Should I add that I too went to Stanford for a PHD though in different discipline. Will I get on par with MMS? KMC is better than Punjab university any day.
I provide employment to 350 families and that is my contribution to this country. As far as money is considered I employ my faculties to make money not selling groceries and I am fairly profitable at that

I chose private sector and he public. what is Ratan Tata's contribution to Public policy for that matter?

Would suggest, we stay getting personal

Leave it at that.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Jul 2009 14:41

^^^ Chandrabhan, no problems in criticquing, but making personal comments (I make more money than he does) takes you nowhere..

OT again, but I must say that the girls from KMC were second only to those of LSR,and that too only just!!

so its a good place!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 14:44

amit wrote:
Meanwhile -- I will be first to admit that AK Antony coming behind this publicly gives me a "sliver" of hope. However I think the other retired officers you are quoting are hanging on to misplaced hope as they are looking at this from a very narrow perspective (and are correct within that)
I hope the knowledgeable poster knows the background of the the two "retired officers". Particularly C. Uday Bhaskar.

Narrow perspective indeed. And we were reading lectures about the virtues of being open-minded. Sigh!

Yes I know, I am only talking about their artciles in question and not about their thinking.

Surely it is a travesty to assume that they have listed all they have thought in that article?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 14:46

somnath wrote:^^^ Chandrabhan, no problems in criticquing, but making personal comments (I make more money than he does) takes you nowhere..

Perhaps you missed that he was only responding to a personal attack on him.

Good tactic though, I see a particular group has employed it with great success from very first days.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Jul 2009 14:47

amit wrote:
"We have specific agreements with the US for earlier purchases, but so far they have never come for inspections," said a senior defence official, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.
One, could of course just read Sidhartha's piece and ignore the second. But didn't someone just complain about selective reading?

Of course I have read the second as well as the first.