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

[chandrabhan]

^^^ 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!

I accept for the second LSR were more bohemian in their approach to life .. hahahaha In the first case it was not meant to be an insult but reflect implementation of a business principle. Apology in case it hurt anyone. Personally speaking he is a nice man
EUA is the right of the supplier in any case when technology is involved but inspection is something that is the critical factor here. How do the Chinese manage with Russians when they reverse engineer the products? What happened to the penalty on TSP for donating that unexploded cruise missile to Chincoms to reverse engineer and have their CM?
Sab Unkil ki kripa hai. MMS's fault is that he capitulates or gives the impression atelast, bad communicator too the core.

[Sanku]

ENR? OT here, but first, its only a statement by G8 - if all pious pronouncements by G8 were to come true,

I have never understood why none of guys mysteriously start missing out on critical pieces of information (I have some speculations)

Read this and some other posts below

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 45#p701945

[somnath]

ENR? OT here, but first, its only a statement by G8 - if all pious pronouncements by G8 were to come true,

I have never understood why none of guys mysteriously start missing out on critical pieces of information (I have some speculations)

Read this and some other posts below

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 45#p701945

I have read this..But as SV says himself, its still up for negotiation, the Indo-US negotiation on ENR is going to start now...So based on a G8 homily, the worst case scenarios of "selling the country down the line" are proclaimed! And as Dr Kakodkar himself and many other point out, ENR is not something India is looking to buy from the rest of the world..In practical terms, what India wanted from the nuke deal was simple - formalise its nuke weapons as something for "keeps", access uranium from the world, and access nuke power tech from the world - we have nailed all of this.

Chandrabhan, every country has end user monitoring system of some sort..Its a question of what type and what is the consequence of an "offence"..For example, we transferred our Islanders to Myanmar, against the wishes of Britain. Does it mean GB has stopped doing ANYTHING with us? they cant afford not to..US has a particular regime of EUM, we have (by available data) negotiated an EUVA that is better than any other cuctomer of US equipment...Now its a question of whether we buy US equipment, and if we do, what equations we manage with them through the service life of that....

[Sanku]

I have read this..But as SV says himself, its still up for negotiation, the Indo-US negotiation on ENR is going to start now..

So SV clearly points to the fact that US is clearly perfidious intentions etc but you obviously gloss over that and move into "it can be negotiated some more"

What do we do with such thinking?

.Now its a question of whether we buy US equipment, and if we do, what equations we manage with them through the service life of that....

No its a question of whether US can sign a EU agreement with us and not a EUM -- again your base line start is to start by already accepting most of what US wants and only quibbling on details.

[Sanku]

Simple logic three steps

1. US is a perfidious country to deal with (lots and lots of examples)
2. Therefore we must make sure that our intersts are solidly protected when we deal with them
3. Signing documents which codify an unequal distribution of power such as 123, EUMA etc IS NOT A GOOD IDEA

This is the basic principle that India has followed since 47, all this "let us be practical" is just a poor mask on the fact that
1. We have an ideological vacuum and don't really want or care about what we want other than "take care of immediate family the best"
2. More sinister motives.

[AjayKK]

OT but necessary to reply :

Well, the credit for the reforms should go to two individuals, PVNR and MMS

The "credit" for "reforms" , if any, should go to Chandrashekhar and VP Singh.
The massive expenditure by the governments of Rajiv Gandhi, first under VP Singh (1984-87) and later SB Chauhan (1987-1989) left a huge deficit. The oil shock caused due to Iraq-Kuwait invasion increased the import bill. Add to this, the evacuation of Indians from the Gulf further weakened the economy. Chandrashekhar took his katora to IMF for 2 Bn $ in credit.
The IMF agreed and imposed its conditions, which "humble" Chandrashekhar swallowed.

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..

Plain intellectual dishonesty .

The IMF "asked" Chandrashekhar to draft their clauses. Yashwant Sinha drafted the "interim budget" which contained terms of divestment and denationalisation. Rajiv Gandhi did his "act" and elections were called for in May 1991. The budget was defered and no aid was given.

I see that you have carefully implanted "vote on account" in the description.

There were NO LS elections scheduled in 1991. It was NOT "vote on account", but the actual budget. However the government was reduced to a minority in March, as a result, the budget postponed. Fresh elections were scheduled in May. After first phase got over on May 20, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated at Sriperembudur on May 21. As a result the next 2 phases were postponed to June 12 and June 15. The 10th Lok Sabha commenced on July 10, 1991 with PVN Rao as PM and MMS as FM.

...PVNR for the political cover, and MMS for the intellectual inputs..

PVN Rao is out of scope for discussion.
MMS modified the draft and added devaluation of Rupee. In fact it is alleged that he was pushed to the fore by his backers at IMF as they were most comfortable with him and he got the budget draft from someplace else. So even his drafting takleef was saved.

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...

Manmohan Singh was "Secretary-General and Commissioner, South Commission August 1, 1987 to November 10, 1990". While At the South Commission, he criticised the approach of IMF in a book that he wrote....

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?"

"One changes with time" , but not so fast. Between his stint at South Commission and his selection to Rajya Sabha to facilitate his backdoor entry as FM, he transformed from IMF policuy basher to one who accepted and implementd the changes in the name of "Liberalisation". All in a period of a few months...

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...

Intellectual depth is a very flexible depth. To share a point of Manmohan's Singh "strength" to make independent changes, Chandrashekhar and Sinha suggested him to present the 92 budget at 11 AM. We used to present the budget at 5:30 PM if you remeber, a gift of the British legacy. Apparently it is 12 PM in Britpakistan when the budget was presented in India, a convenient time for them to follow it. Manmohan Singh "humbly" rejected the proposal. For all his "strength" and a written draft, he couldnot change the time. It took six more years for Yashwant Sinha to change the time. Just an example to show the "independent" decision making ability of the person in question.

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..

It was his second budget in 1992 March. Again he continued the same path. IF you recall, MMS for all his position as a RBI head could not figure out the beginnings of the massive scam at the BSE. In fact he is accused of wilful neglect. Howrever, the dealings of his party, the Big Bull and the industrialists of this time is beyond this thread.

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)!!!

Pious words does not a person make. Repeat a lie two hundred times and the "truth" is twice shiny. Sixty days of term 2 have passed, not to speak of the hundred day terror program. The way things are going seems to be a race to the bottom in the first hundred days itself. Anyway, we have his history of the past five years to judge him. And four years 10 months ( Hey Ram ! ) to go. So best of luck at judging history if we are not history.

[chandrabhan]

I was aware of the interim budget and also read a few parts of the proposals by yashwant sinha and this point of intellectual cheating and blaming earlier govts for mismanagement was debated a lot in one of the sessions of Prof Dharmendra kumar at DSE.
MMS has presided over two massive crashes of Indian stock exchange, Is yet to come out with some ground breaking economic theory that could change the way wealth can be generated. last but not the least, he is yet to put any genuinely pathbreaking reform in retail, healthcare,education, transport or leverage india's position on climate change, armanment, Foreign affairs, home affairs or even marital affairs
I just don't this thread to get spoiled by bashing MMS. He should just retire peacefully

[amit]

I must say this convoluted logic is now getting plain funny.

In the Hindu article C. Uday Bhaskar says the following when asked by the reporter:

"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.

And

"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.
>
>
>

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

Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta says this to the reporter:

"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.

And:

"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.

In response we get this from a respected BRFite:

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?

This is too Chanakyan for poor ol'me to understand.

Is it a travesty to assume, after reading the article, that both Mehta and Bhaskar are saying that the omibus EUMA is generally a good move for India?

Or is it that they are actually opposed to it but they have hiddent that from the reporter?

Or is it they are actually talking in coded language and really mean they are opposed to EUMA?

Hey Chanakya please help me to understand!

[Sanku]

Is it a travesty to assume, after reading the article, that both Mehta and Bhaskar are saying that the omibus EUMA is generally a good move for India?

No but I never said it was not the case (that they think its ok)? Very obviously they are saying "ok" to an agreement (while reserving judgement as details awaited)

I only said that they are not likely to put up everything they think here.

For example none of them (those two) say anything about the intrusive inspection part.

Another example is that "Cdmr Bhaskar says that they have not stopped Pakistan from war", now to me thats funny, since none of the concern ever raised was because of war and because the gentleman officer knows better than to compare US-Pak relations of the past with US-India relations of the future (and hopefully should all BRFites)

I also said that I disagree with them on their hopes of US Bona fides

So dear Amit, please stop twisting my words and read what I have actually written and try and understand what I am saying rather than running off on a tangent always.

[amit]

1. US is a perfidious country to deal with (lots and lots of examples)

Everyone is entitled to their POV since one assumes that this POV comes after careful deliberation.

However, sometimes if different POVs are given at different times gets very confusing. I read this on page 9 of this thread:

Again I am glad that Indians have a positive view on US. I would be one of those for example.

How can one have a positive view about a country whom one thinks regularly indulges in acts of perfidy (deliberate breach of faith or trust; faithlessness; treachery)?

More confusing than the EUMA text?

[shiv]

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

What I am saying is unimportant. I should request admins to delete all my posts as off topic. I am just saying what all this End User verification has been about so far. But I really don't want the facts to get in the way of discussion. There are some deeply disturbing aspects to what I have posted which suggest that there is no US intent to use the clause to spy or to paralyse Indian defence by some covert or overt means. This is highly inconvenient and is totally out of character for what we know within our heart of hearts

Two things are very clear
1) The US means perfidy and cannot mean well for India
2) The Indian government, especially the Congress cannot possibly have taken any action other than capitulation and sellout

Once we grasp these facts we simply must dismiss all other inconvenient evidence to the contrary and stick to the accusations. No matter what the EUA agreement has really meant so far - from now on it means only an intent to spy on India while India has capitulated easily.

[Sanku]

How can one have a positive view about a country whom one thinks regularly indulges in acts of perfidy (deliberate breach of faith or trust; faithlessness; treachery)?

More confusing than the EUMA text?

No, because its not either US good good good or US bad bad bad.

US has many good points, I for one also think that an interaction with India is in the interest of both countries, as such it is inevitable.

However the terms of the interaction can have different points for different people.

[Sanku]

There are some deeply disturbing aspects to what I have posted which suggest that there is no US intent to use the clause to spy or to paralyse Indian defence by some covert or overt means.

Can you tell me how they follow from the data points you posted? I for one can not understand.

Meanwhile unless you are playing a piskological game once more (one can never be sure) many of the points on US perfidy have been given by you yourself on different points of time.

Anyway, my point is that we can not make a statement like "US means well, lets sign, what the hell" lets not care about the clauses line of argument anyway.

We should also desist from extrapolating US-Australia relationship (say) to US-India one.

----

This

two things are very clear
1) The US means perfidy and cannot mean well for India

to my mind is a debating tactic which has been used to deliberately dumb down the criticism, and make it appear that a criticism of approach is the criticism of country or a goal.

[RajeshA]

But I really don't want the facts to get in the way of discussion.

Too good ji, too good ji!

There are some deeply disturbing aspects to what I have posted which suggest that there is no US intent to use the clause to spy or to paralyse Indian defence by some covert or overt means. This is highly inconvenient and is totally out of character for what we know within our heart of hearts

Maar diya re!

[somnath]

Simple logic three steps

1. US is a perfidious country to deal with (lots and lots of examples)
2. Therefore we must make sure that our intersts are solidly protected when we deal with them
3. Signing documents which codify an unequal distribution of power such as 123, EUMA etc IS NOT A GOOD IDEA

This is the basic principle that India has followed since 47, all this "let us be practical" is just a poor mask on the fact that
1. We have an ideological vacuum and don't really want or care about what we want other than "take care of immediate family the best"
2. More sinister motives.

Exactly the sort of naive defensiveness that has no place in high international politics.. EVery country looks after its own national interests..Its upto each country to decide what is in its best interests and act acccordingly..Morality is for the weak, as far as international politics is concerned..

The axioms that mean something are the following:

1. The US is the dominant superpower
2. It is however stretched, and is looking for alliances beyond the traditional ones like NATO
3. Asia is the place where the jostling for dominance (over resources, finance and influence) will take place in the 21st century
4. there are 2 major powers in Asia - India and china
5. Pan Islamism will be the greatest military threat to the world in the foreseeable future - that threat is common between US, China and India..

India's main threat to its grand strategic ambitions are from pan Islaism and China, not in the same order necessarily..US provides the "tilt" necessary for India in our jostling with China - technologically, politically, and even financially (US will remain the largest economcy for the foresseable future)..

therefore an alliance of issues with the US is in our own strategic interest..

On this particular issue, its a no brainer - no country haas achieved anywhere close to the level of sophisitication in military hardware as the US, and given expenditure patterns, no one's going to match it anytime soon...US weapons tech is a debarred area for China - we can have a comparative advantage in cherry picking American tech to leapfrog our miltech levels..Give and take is a natural process of bargaining on any issue - nothing's free..We can of course remain in the "dur hato yeh duniyawalon" mould and remain the international high table "pest" that we were in the '60s and '70s..This generation refuses to do that..

Sanku, again give data on "perfidy" on the EUVA - what you mention are again SV's views on US perfidy...There is zero data point on the fact that the EUVA by India is less attratcive than any that we have entered into on an ad oc basis, or that entered into by any other customer of US wweapons..

Ajaykk, Chandrabhan, wont get into a lengthy debate on the reforms process in 1991 and MMS - will derail the thread..

As to the Vote on account in 1991 - it was a vote on account presented by Yashwangt Sinha - see here

When former finance minister Yashwant Sinha presented the vote-on account in 1991, he announced the Chandra Shekhar government's plan to divest government equity in public sector undertakings.

As I said, any number of wishes can be expressed in a vote on account - it means zilch till someone implements them in real terms..As to the rest, we can discuss in an appropriate thread..

[Lalmohan]

arre daktaarsaab, your sense of humour/irony is lost on the janata!
never mind boss, lage raho!

[AjayKK]

OT

As to the Vote on account in 1991 - it was a vote on account presented by Yashwangt Sinha - see here

Quote:
When former finance minister Yashwant Sinha presented the vote-on account in 1991, he announced the Chandra Shekhar government's plan to divest government equity in public sector undertakings.


As I said, any number of wishes can be expressed in a vote on account - it means zilch till someone implements them in real terms..As to the rest, we can discuss in an appropriate

It is your wish if you want to believe the Rediff lifafa journalist. I have made the point about the draft and the way the government was felled before the budget was presented. I do not wish to debate on that. In case you wish to read another review of the same budget, here it is . It is by Sanjaya Baru and the person at the other end is Deepak Nayyar, who joined the government as economic advisor in the Union commerce ministry and was later chief economic advisor in the finance ministry.

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/to ... 91/38672/0

I repeat, Manmohan Singh merely added the point of devaluation of the rupee to the draft and more conditions as required by IMf. And implementation was never a question. Moreover, someone actually claiming the credit of "reforms" is equal to passing Sharam al Sheikh harakiri as Chanakyan. Also read why Deepak Nayyar quit the ministry in 1991 due to policy differences with Manmohan Singh.[/b]

[Sanku]

Exactly the sort of naive defensiveness that has no place in high international politics.. .

No just a simple summary since the details appear very difficult to understand for some, to make it at a suitable level for consumption.

And I have noticed you have spun the discussion away into some third dimension, bringing in many irrelevant points and again many axiomatic truths (to you) "India cant deal with China without US blessings"

And again instead of disputing any points in my logic you go into attacking "the 70s mindset"

[shiv]

we can not make a statement like "US means well, lets sign, what the hell" lets not care about the clauses line of argument anyway.

What is the clauses line of the argument relevant here? Just point me to the forum page and I will read it myself.

[John Snow]

Bravo Shiv garu,

"As far as India is concerned US is bigger art of the problem than a solution"

"Keep at safe distance"

[Sanku]

we can not make a statement like "US means well, lets sign, what the hell" lets not care about the clauses line of argument anyway.

What is the clauses line of the argument relevant here? Just point me to the forum page and I will read it myself.

Will the following by Brahma Chellaney be considered adequate? Or do you want me to post from the raw documents themselves?

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

# EUMA will allow the US to periodically carry out an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred to India. In the negotiations, India strenuously objected to physical inspection and instead sought an inspection of the records and other measures in place. In the end, the Americans had their way, but it was agreed that the physical inspection would be done at a time and place granted by India. Supplying-State officials, in any case, would need visas and other assistance from the recipient State, including about the location of the equipment, to carry out an inspection.

# The US will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended.

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.

# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.

# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

These 'cradle-to-grave' restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.

[somnath]

Exactly the sort of naive defensiveness that has no place in high international politics.. .

No just a simple summary since the details appear very difficult to understand for some, to make it at a suitable level for consumption.

And I have noticed you have spun the discussion away into some third dimension, bringing in many irrelevant points and again many axiomatic truths (to you) "India cant deal with China without US blessings"

And again instead of disputing any points in my logic you go into attacking "the 70s mindset"

Really, barring repeating ad nauseam that US is evil, and quoting some journalists that say the same thing, you havent presented any logic..Or facts..There is no "spinning" away to another dimension..And words about US blessing are yours not mine...

Obviously high politics is beyond you, hence you are taking refuge in sloganeering and little else...About the type of give-and-take undertaken by big powers, read into the Chinese contract to buy Australian uranium (I posted the link some pages back..and Oz is not even a major power - but national interest reigns supreme for most people who earn their bread in intl high politics..

TO get more insight, start by reading Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy...Also for a more immediate perspective C Raja Mohan "Crossing the Rubicon" - you will understand how major powers (India incl) negotiate their national interests..

Ajaykk, my limited point was on the fact whether what Yashwant Sinha presented a vote on account or not..Here is S Narayan on that..about the rest, we can discuss in an appropriate thread!!no prbs..

[Sanku]

Really, barring repeating ad nauseam that US is evil, and quoting some journalists that say the same thing,..

I have never said US is evil -- its people like you who keep spinning

Somnath if you WONT read, there is little I can do.

[somnath]

# EUMA will allow the US to periodically carry out an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred to India. In the negotiations, India strenuously objected to physical inspection and instead sought an inspection of the records and other measures in place. In the end, the Americans had their way, but it was agreed that the physical inspection would be done at a time and place granted by India. Supplying-State officials, in any case, would need visas and other assistance from the recipient State, including about the location of the equipment, to carry out an inspection.

# The US will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended.

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.

# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.

# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

Brahma Chellaney says nothing that hasnt been covered already..

1&2. there is physical inspection - yes, at a time and place of India's choosing..Other countries purchasing US stuff do it onsite..Our bespoke deals with the US before require onsite..
3. This is a non sequitor - how can US monitor? at best it can analyse and express its displeasure post facto, by which time it would be too late..
4.True for ANY weapon system purchased from anywhere - is there any weapon system that India "modifies" on its own? All platforms are undergoing MLU at their vendor's plants..
5. Ditto as above - does France allow us get M2ks serviced in Israel?

Why arms, in any contract with oligopolistic suppliers, goods are sold with cradle - to - grave features...why even the MS Vista Home that I am using now is cradle to grave - cant get Google or Oracle to service/upgrade it!! How unfair!! Or my Hyundai car - can only get it serviced reliably with the Hyundai service stattion, cant go to MAruti!!!how unfair!!

[somnath]

I have never said US is evil -- its people like you who keep spinning

Really!!what waas this?

Simple logic three steps

1. US is a perfidious country to deal with (lots and lots of examples)


2. More sinister motives.

[Sanku]

]Why arms, in any contract with oligopolistic suppliers, goods are sold with cradle - to - grave features...why even the MS Vista Home that I am using now is cradle to grave - cant get Google or Oracle to service/upgrade it!! How unfair!! \

Wow Somnath I am sure your vista agreement is as critical as Nations strategic imperative, in fact something tells me to you it completely is, thats why we are talking different languages.

[shiv]

Will the following by Brahma Chellaney be considered adequate? Or do you want me to post from the raw documents themselves?

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

# EUMA will allow the US to periodically carry out an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred to India. In the negotiations, India strenuously objected to physical inspection and instead sought an inspection of the records and other measures in place. In the end, the Americans had their way, but it was agreed that the physical inspection would be done at a time and place granted by India. Supplying-State officials, in any case, would need visas and other assistance from the recipient State, including about the location of the equipment, to carry out an inspection.

# The US will have the right to check that India is using any purchased weapon for the purpose for which it was intended.

# EUMA restricts what the purchasing country, India, can do with the US-origin defense equipment, even within its own borders.

# Under the terms of EUMA, India cannot modify the purchased defence article or system in any form.

# Also, to prevent the buyer country from freeing itself from dependency on the United States for maintenance, EUMA restricts India from getting US-origin defence equipment serviced by any another country without prior American permission. Even spare parts need to be sourced only from the United States.

These 'cradle-to-grave' restrictions arm Washington with continuing leverage over the recipient country. After all, any equipment or system needs maintenance. Such leverage, in turn, can help ensure that the recipient country cooperates with Washington on larger political matters.

Yes. This fits in with all other EUAs that the US has signed with various nations, including India

Show me the part where it says that something extra is being slapped on India and that India has capitulated to that?

India has already been subject to this agreement and one of the off topic non relevant posts I made was a table showing the number of times India had been "caught" by the US for non compliance. There is nothing new or unique about this agreement. The US can handle India's testimonials to the extent that India allows the US to handle them. That much was clear right from the beginning. So exactly what has been signed away? Does the matter gain special importance or new meaning not visible in the text because Brahm Chellaney has a problem with it?

Or are we all fretting because the US has laws and we are compelled to follow them like good boys? But the US is a superpower remember? The only superpower. The US does and we follow. Don't like that? Fine. No need to buy anything from the US. Or is this whole breast beating exercise about the inability to buy from the US and yet do whatever we want - like telling the pani puri seller to stuff it after you have paid him off. But the US isn't selling Pani puri and is making that fact absolutely clear to us. We could always settle for pani puri instead and not be subject to all these conditions. Perhaps we could ask Brahm Chellaney if he would be happy to get pani puri minus the preconditions.

[Sanku]

I have never said US is evil -- its people like you who keep spinning

Really!!what waas this?

Simple logic three steps

1. US is a perfidious country to deal with (lots and lots of examples)


2. More sinister motives.

Uh do you need a dictionary? Here let me help

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfidious

1 : the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery 2 : an act or an instance of disloyalty

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

[Sanku]

Show me the part where it says that something extra is being slapped on India and that India has capitulated to that?

.

I dont understand why does it have to be extra to capitulate? Its more than BC for sure who have a problem

From the above article again

For example, Navy chief Admiral Suresh Mehta had publicly described EUMA as 'intrusive.' Speaking at an April 2008 conference organised by the London-based International Strategic Studies Institute in New Delhi, Admiral Mehta said: 'There are certain things we can't agree to. As a sovereign nation, we can't accept intrusiveness into our system, so there is some fundamental difficulty.'

He added: 'The US may have this kind of (end user) agreements with everyone. I don't believe in that. We pay for something and we get some technology. What I do with it, is my thing.'

Don't like that? Fine. No need to buy anything from the US.

Then why sign bhai, may me sometime in future (given the trajectory) we will sign on our terms.

[somnath]

]Why arms, in any contract with oligopolistic suppliers, goods are sold with cradle - to - grave features...why even the MS Vista Home that I am using now is cradle to grave - cant get Google or Oracle to service/upgrade it!! How unfair!! \

Wow Somnath I am sure your vista agreement is as critical as Nations strategic imperative, in fact something tells me to you it completely is, thats why we are talking different languages.

Obviously you are too naive (or maybe too selective!) to understand the point...In ANY oligopolistic market (read Samuelson to understand what an oligopoly is - thats the basic textbook), goods tend to be sold with cradle-to-grave features...Software is one example of an oligopoly, Military h/w is at best an oligopoly, at worst a monopoly - so such cradle-to-grave is but natural..

Our Mig21s are upgraded by Russia, M2ks by France, Mig29s by Russia, An32s by Ukraine - which platform isnt cradle-tograve? this despite the "loose" sort of friendship cntracts with the Soviet Unnion for a lot of the legacy equipment..

[Sanku]

Our Mig21s are upgraded by Russia, M2ks by France, Mig29s by Russia, An32s by Ukraine - which platform isnt cradle-tograve? this despite the "loose" sort of friendship cntracts with the Soviet Unnion for a lot of the legacy equipment..

Thank you Sir, that was very educative of your knowledge. Please spend some time on MKI and Bison upgrades etc (and other indgenisation efforts)

[shiv]

Show me the part where it says that something extra is being slapped on India and that India has capitulated to that?

.

I dont understand why does it have to be extra to capitulate?

From the above article again

For example, Navy chief Admiral Suresh Mehta had publicly described EUMA as 'intrusive.' Speaking at an April 2008 conference organised by the London-based International Strategic Studies Institute in New Delhi, Admiral Mehta said: 'There are certain things we can't agree to. As a sovereign nation, we can't accept intrusiveness into our system, so there is some fundamental difficulty.'

He added: 'The US may have this kind of (end user) agreements with everyone. I don't believe in that. We pay for something and we get some technology. What I do with it, is my thing.'

So there is nothing extra. The EUA itself is capitulation. In fact that is exactly what it is meant to be, if you choose to call it capitulation.

May I ask if the capitulation is prospective from now on, or would the C 130 and P 8 deals also be capitulation.

I mean we need not buy anything from the US taking good advice from Adm Mehta. But should we not also pull out of previously signed deals? What about GE engines for the LCA. That too is capitulation.

Or is some capitulation allowed, but no further capitulation from some cutoff date - such as the date of start of this thread.

[somnath]

I dont think you are even making any rhetorical sense (you were never making logical sense anyway)...It would require huge imaginsation to impute a real difference between "disloyal and treacherous" and "sinful and of bad character"...But thats hugely besides the point..the fact is that your '70s "dur hato yeh duniyawaon" mentality is far too entrenched to fathom the new India..My generation has enjoyed the fruits of the '90s reforms, and is supportive of a much larger engagement with the US....

[somnath]

Or is some capitulation allowed, but no further capitulation from some cutoff date - such as the date of start of this thread.

Every s/w contrct is capitulation...after all, those American imperialists are exploiting slave labour "cyber coolies" of India!!!Not done at all!! We should have penal taxes on companies doing this...further, they are "using" our talent to run their companies - Vikram Pandit, Indra Nooyi et al should be asked to come back, their passports should be cancelled if they dont!!!Who knows, the Americans are using VP to gain insights into our banking system to take it over! And Indra Nooyi to destroy our bhujiya business with her Lehar Kurkure!!!

[Sanku]

May I ask if the capitulation is prospective from now on, or would the C 130 and P 8 deals also be capitulation.

I mean we need not buy anything from the US taking good advice from Adm Mehta. But should we not also pull out of previously signed deals? What about GE engines for the LCA. That too is capitulation.

Or is some capitulation allowed, but no further capitulation from some cutoff date - such as the date of start of this thread.

Well this is not the first time this question has been raised on the thread and has been answered, I will refer to the following posts

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 83#p704583

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 91#p704691

[shiv]

One of the more interesting tidbits given to me by a forum member who visited HAL and had a detailed look at the LCA assembly line was that people of various nationalities were milling about all over the HAL shop floor. Notable were the Chinese technicians milling (pun unintended) over the CNC machines that they were tasked to maintain - i.e they were the company maintenance technicians.

Must have been some stupid intrusive agreement signed about maintenance of those machines...

[shiv]

May I ask if the capitulation is prospective from now on, or would the C 130 and P 8 deals also be capitulation.

I mean we need not buy anything from the US taking good advice from Adm Mehta. But should we not also pull out of previously signed deals? What about GE engines for the LCA. That too is capitulation.

Or is some capitulation allowed, but no further capitulation from some cutoff date - such as the date of start of this thread.

Well this is not the first time this question has been raised on the thread and has been answered, I will refer to the following posts

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 83#p704583

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 91#p704691

Neither of these posts actually addresses the question of why existing EUAs suddenly become more intrusive and represent a new threat that they did not represent till a few months ago. The same intrusive clauses already exist.

The US makes it pretty clear that all sales come with certain strings attached. It is up to us not to buy the stuff. We could of course sit and argue with the US and ask them to flout their own laws. Better not to buy American at all.

China after all, a frequently quoted example of an upright nation with spine seems to be doing quite well without the US. We could take a leaf of of the Chinese book and tell the US to stuff its products where the sun don't shine. We don't need them. Or else we could buy some stuff from the US and cheat the US and tell the US to stuff it when they ask for inspections. Or alternatively we can swallow our pride and comply.

Where exactly is the "capitulation" before any of these have occurred?

Or does the "capitulation" bit come from the GE engine deal, the P8I and C 130 deals and we are now making a lot of noise so that further capitulation is promptly stopped.

[Sanku]

I dont think you are even making any rhetorical sense (you were never making logical sense anyway)...It would require huge imaginsation to impute a real difference between "disloyal and treacherous" and "sinful and of bad character"...But thats hugely besides the point..the fact is that your '70s "dur hato yeh duniyawaon" mentality is far too entrenched to fathom the new India..My generation has enjoyed the fruits of the '90s reforms, and is supportive of a much larger engagement with the US....

Somnath, I am very well aware of your world view you made it very clear in the very beginning, "best we can do is make sure our families are better off" werent these your words?

I have already said many a times already that there is wide chasms in our world view -- however the only difference is that you chose to mock me for it and some how desperately need to prove me wrong.

Meanwhile how do you know that I am also not "My generation has enjoyed the fruits of the '90s reforms, and is supportive of a much larger engagement with the US."


I have never expressed a desire for disengagement even?

[Sanku]

One of the more interesting tidbits given to me by a forum member who visited HAL and had a detailed look at the LCA assembly line was that people of various nationalities were milling about all over the HAL shop floor. Notable were the Chinese technicians milling (pun unintended) over the CNC machines that they were tasked to maintain - i.e they were the company maintenance technicians.

Must have been some stupid intrusive agreement signed about maintenance of those machines...

Shiv are you have a rhetorical discussion or real one? Do you really want to compare the presence of some other nationalities on the floor of HAL manufacturing unit to a EUMA with the clauses given before?

Are we having a serious discussion here?

[somnath]

China after all, a frequently quoted example of an upright nation with spine seems to be doing quite well without the US. We could take a leaf of of the Chinese book and tell the US to stuff its products where the sun don't shine. We don't need them. Or else we could buy some stuff from the US and cheat the US and tell the US to stuff it when they ask for inspections. Or alternatively we can swallow our pride and comply.

Where exactly is the "capitulation" before any of these have occurred?

Or does the "capitulation" bit come from the GE engine deal, the P8I and C 130 deals and we are now making a lot of nose so that further capitulation is promptly stopped.

China would probabyl give an arm, a leg and bit more to buy if they had a choice..They dont...Their willingness to strike bargains at national interest is exemplified by their agreement with Australia on Uranium supply - posted earlier..

The TOI article on the bespoke EUMs entered into for the BBJ or ANTPQ37 or other american contracts amply show that we were giving away far more than we have in the std EUVA....

We have bougtht an option, as I repeat ad nauseam, not incurred an obligation - its upto us to buy or pass up!