All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Saying you can't resell it 20 years later without approval is hardly a noose, especially considering India tends to hang on to equipment till it's completely worn out.
yeah right hardly a noose.
forget about selling we can't even scrap these birds without permission from whitehouse
hardly a noose
GeorgeWelch wrote:
You have no understanding of your own strategic situation.
If there were a major 'incident' with China and you needed lots of equipment up there yesterday, something like the C-17 would be very, very useful.
GeorgeWelch ji,
That area is well covered by our third world satellites. The hans will be taken out in their own territory in case of a major "incident". We have been pushed around long enough.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the hans are breathing down our necks. Will some US ITAR compliant company feverishly build us a beautiful ITAR quality paved runway with a good Load classification group so that these delicate ITAR limited C-17 darlings can actually land?
How long will this take? weeks, months, years?
The fact is that the C-17 cannot haul anything to the terrain and to the real estate you are talking about.
chetak wrote:Let's assume for the sake of argument that the hans are breathing down our necks. Will some US ITAR compliant company feverishly build us a beautiful ITAR quality paved runway with a good Load classification group so that these delicate ITAR limited C-17 darlings can actually land?
India is building plenty of perfectly good runways in the region, in places that aren't accessible by rail.
Plus it will land in the dirt just fine. Even in relatively poor soil conditions, it will go through several landing cycles before repair is necessary.
chetak wrote:
India has been subject to ITAR created sanctions for the last 40 years on its space industry ISRO and lots of other industries. India has built completely its space industry with non-ITAR business eco system within the country and outside the country.
Indian industry also has avoided as much as possible ITAR regulated companies and countries. India may want to consider banning companies which are ITAR certified to work inside the country.
We have a US fanboy who is urging us to fashion a noose and put it
around our own necks! and a miniscule Indian cheer leading team which wants us to smile while doing it.
We must listen to the fanboy as he knows what's best for the heathens, like all americans.
C-17s to India are as useful as tits on a bull, period. We can have no strategic ambitions. The last one went out with our departed nehru gandhi family product. We have learned to concentrate on economic growth and abjure foolish adventures.
How can India transport equipment to the north east in case of issues with China..thro rail which will run thro the tiny chicken neck?
India desperately needs transport aircraft..the IAF know that really well which is why they choose the C-17. There is no other aircraft in it's class. The alternative being the Russian An-124 which if they say will be delivered in 3 years will come in 10. While if the C-17 is to be delivered in 3 years it will be in India in 3 years.
Gilles wrote:India will learn it the hard way I'm afraid.
Learn what? I don't believe they have the same issues with discriminating by country of birth that Canada does.
That is absolutely not correct. Indian constitution guarantees equal rights to all its citizens regardless of their religion, color, language, etc. In addition, India honors the humanrights charter of UN. That means every human being while on Indian soil will be treated with dignity. Indian Airforce and Indian Government definitely will get sued if they violated Indian constitution. What complicates the matter even further is unlike US India does not have two types (Natural Born and Naturlalized) of citizenships. India just has one type of citizenship, which means once you are Indian, you are Indian. So, frankly, I do not know how they are going to work this ITAR thing out. I guess they are counting on all IAF workers to be India born. At least the ones who will be handling C17.
Karan Dixit wrote:That is absolutely not correct. Indian constitution guarantees equal rights to all its citizens
Sorry if that came across wrong, didn't mean to imply India didn't have basic human rights.
On the other hand, there is a lot of latitude as to what actually constitutes a 'right'.
And my impression (could be completely wrong) is that limitations on certain military personnel from serving in certain areas doesn't fall under that umbrella.
George,
ITAR is such a discriminatory and stupid rule that it makes my skin crawl. India is a democratic country which doesnt distinguish between its citizens. Any rule which forces it to do so is unconstitutional.
I have nothing against C-17 as a platform. But if it needs to be ITAR compliant, throw it out. we would be better off without. Sell it to China; they would have no qualms following the rules.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
And my impression (could be completely wrong) is that limitations on certain military personnel from serving in certain areas doesn't fall under that umbrella.
OT, but GeorgeWs comments are actually enlightening in a different way--
It appears that India is actually a country of all citizens being equal which the US folks cant even begin to imagine, despite many years after formal abolition of apartheid type rules. Nor can it understand the concept of fundamental equality of humans irrespective of the country of origin.
Sanku wrote:OT, but GeorgeWs comments are actually enlightening in a different way--
It appears that India is actually a country of all citizens being equal which the US folks cant even begin to imagine, despite many years after formal abolition of apartheid type rules. Nor can it understand the concept of fundamental equality of humans irrespective of the country of origin.
Sanku wrote:OT, but GeorgeWs comments are actually enlightening in a different way--
It appears that India is actually a country of all citizens being equal which the US folks cant even begin to imagine, despite many years after formal abolition of apartheid type rules. Nor can it understand the concept of fundamental equality of humans irrespective of the country of origin.
Fascinating.
That is not what he meant,naturalized citizens have the same rights as native born citizens in the US....anyway I would like to know what percentage of Indian armed forces are born on the blacklisted list. I would bet anything that it is less than .1 of a percent.
Nair wrote:
That is not what he meant...anyway I would like to know what percentage of Indian armed forces are born on the blacklisted list. I would bet anything that it is less than .1 of a percent.
How does that make any difference?
The constitution of India takes precedence over all else in India.
You cannot have some silly foreign regulation that says their requirements are above our constitutionally mandated freedoms.
If we don't discriminate in India, why should they be allowed to do so in our country?
Sanku wrote:OT, but GeorgeWs comments are actually enlightening in a different way--
It appears that India is actually a country of all citizens being equal which the US folks cant even begin to imagine, despite many years after formal abolition of apartheid type rules. Nor can it understand the concept of fundamental equality of humans irrespective of the country of origin.
Fascinating.
That is not what he meant,naturalized citizens have the same rights as native born citizens in the US....anyway I would like to know what percentage of Indian armed forces are born on the blacklisted list. I would bet anything that it is less than .1 of a percent.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
I'm pretty sure India does distinguish between its citizens.
As I recall you have an 'affirmative action' analogue for some of the castes.
Wow just wow! "Affirmative Action"== Negative Discrimination imposed upon Indian citizens under foreign diktats and that too totally ultra vires of India constitution. I am learning new things.
PS: I never knew about this ITAR thingy in addition to all those EU agreements. Thanks for the enlightenment.
munna wrote:Wow just wow! "Affirmative Action"== Negative Discrimination imposed upon Indian citizens under foreign diktats
Nope, just pointing out that distinguishing between citizens is not against the constitution as some claim.
It is against the constitution! Period. Since you would not agree with me otherwise, I will post the relevant Article and the sub-clause to debunk your claims. (I have decidedly an upper hand in this since I am a Phd in Constitution Compliance Strategy)
Article 15 (Part III) of Indian Constitution states that:
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
The affirmative action is derived from the sub-clause that is meant only for and can be used only for upliftment of backward sections of Indian society.
Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision
for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
ITAR compliance does not lead to advancement of any backward section of Indian society and on top of it runs contrary to fundament right enshrined in Art. 15. This will be thrown out by any court any day.
Last edited by munna on 26 Mar 2010 21:52, edited 2 times in total.
U.S. Law Trumps World Treaty, High Court Says
SUPREME COURT RULINGS
June 29, 2006|David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Stating that American law outweighs an international treaty, the Supreme Court said Wednesday that foreign criminals held in state prisons did not have a right to reopen their cases if their rights under the Vienna Convention had been violated.
Article 15 (Part III) of Indian Constitution states that:
The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
Then explain how forbidding female combat pilots is constitutional.
GeorgeWelch wrote:Then explain how forbidding female combat pilots is constitutional.
This is a grey area! Constitutionally speaking Indian Armed Forces be it the Army, Navy or the Air Force use a ruse of medical fitness and availability. The medical fitness rules and regulations are a result of the hand me down manuals of RAF. This is not discrimination per se because IAF regularly downgrades its injured pilots or other personnel who have medical conditions from combat duty to transport duty. Now whether the medical regulations are archaic or not is a separate question and the IAF needs to answer that.
munna wrote:This is a grey area! Constitutionally speaking Indian Armed Forces be it the Army, Navy or the Air Force use a ruse of medical fitness and availability
It's not a gray area at all. They are being determined unfit solely because of their sex, which is discrimination based on sex and clearly forbidden by the constitution.
You would have more success arguing that it is not discrimination in the first place.
Nothing to be apologetic about not having women in combat roles. US too has some restrictions on having women in some combat roles, as do other democratic countries.
Plus our neighbourhood isn't well known for treating PoWs decently, leave alone women PoWs. That too is a major factor for limiting women's role in combat duties. They do fly transports, helicopters etc.
Karan Dixit wrote:
...... India has good roads and railways going that way and, Pakistan does not have more infrastructure in the border area than India. But China is not the same story. China has built lots of roads along Indo – China border. This includes illegally occupied Tibet. Do we have matching capacity? Answer is no.
Notwithstanding whether we buy C 17 or AN xyz, the need of the day is to make SUPER roads all along the the borders and connecting the outposts with all weather roads
munna wrote:This is a grey area! Constitutionally speaking Indian Armed Forces be it the Army, Navy or the Air Force use a ruse of medical fitness and availability
It's not a gray area at all. They are being determined unfit solely because of their sex, which is discrimination based on sex and clearly forbidden by the constitution.
You would have more success arguing that it is not discrimination in the first place.
Like I said the armed forces are taking plea behind medical regulations and availability. They do not bar women's employment in forces but merely decide their doctrinal role based on medical regulations. Now, to what degree can the courts set doctrines for armed forces personnel? Remains to be seen! So on their part they have set an objective criteria that determines the availability of personnel in war times and they decide to allocate personnel based on that. Also IAF regularly forces male pilots too to quit combat duty on medical grounds. Hence bar on female combat pilots is not a watertight ground to claim discrimination.
It is a grey area no matter how you look at it. Discrimination? Maybe, but that is for courts to decide.
alexis wrote:India is a democratic country which doesnt distinguish between its citizens. Any rule which forces it to do so is unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure India does distinguish between its citizens.
As I recall you have an 'affirmative action' analogue for some of the castes.
Thus citizens from some castes are treated differently than citizens from other castes
NOT in the Indian Armed Forces!!
All are equal and the Services have already and will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent any such 'affirmative action' analogues, as you put it.
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Likewise ITAR does not bar employment in forces, but merely decides doctrinal role.
Sorry, we can't accept some other country telling us whom to employ in doctrinal roles in our armed forces. And it is not based on any medical/physical requirement but rather on the person perceived to be inimical to US interests while they are not so for Indian interests
munna wrote:They do not bar women's employment in forces but merely decide their doctrinal role based on medical regulations.
Likewise ITAR does not bar employment in forces, but merely decides doctrinal role.
Gotcha! Doctrine is an inhouse strategic exercise and is dictated by armed forces of the country and NOT two bit document from a third country. Or maybe are you telling us gently that ITAR will even dictate the armed forces doctrine?
PS: George under the current constitution of India you cannot justify ITAR, cannot.
C17 is the only real and long term solution available to IAF/IA for their strategic airlift needs. Rest all is makebelieve patch-up solutions that would work for a while. No one in the world is manufacturing (or have any plan to manufacture in future) a heavy military transport aircraft except USA. So either you get C17 or you find a patch up solution for now....
P.S.
Beating up George with comments like "massa" "turd world" "Nixon" etc is outright mean and below the belt attack. What if he calls you names like Brahmin, untouchables, Sati, godman, Moraraji Desai etc?
munna wrote:This is a grey area! Constitutionally speaking Indian Armed Forces be it the Army, Navy or the Air Force use a ruse of medical fitness and availability
It's not a gray area at all. They are being determined unfit solely because of their sex, which is discrimination based on sex and clearly forbidden by the constitution.
You would have more success arguing that it is not discrimination in the first place.
EDITED Indian Armed Forces Act determines who are eligible for what role in the Indian armed forces. They uphold the constitution with its own rules for combat engagement.
Last edited by Rahul M on 27 Mar 2010 00:21, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:unwarranted rude comment deleted.
PS: George under the current constitution of India you cannot justify ITAR, cannot.
Interpretation of ITAR and application of ITAR rules are determined by the US establishment outside the US and hence could be arbitrary. Past history of rules on India does show a consistent application of rules by US on these matters.
