G8 bans ENR

Reproducing a comment from Defence Pk. While some of the language used below will be found objectionable by some but its important to understand the US-India Nuke deal is hardly a deal but more a sell out of India to the US....Some conculsions I draw are:

- Indian Nuclear program is in grave danger and needs external assistance
- India has not produced (criminally) as many weapons as we Indians think..
- The Pakistan Nuclear program is more advanced than ours (like their missile program)
- 123 deal is a sham and a backdoor NPT
- Dr Singh is bad for India and should be booted out; as either he is stupid or corrupt or both
- US or anyone else cannot be trusted to give India any assistance with this program
- India needs to improve our weapons else we will be the only Nuke power without functioning weapons
- Lets stop fooling ourselves by blind faith in Russia, US, France etc and build it ourselves and revoke the 123 agreement in some way now....
- Make the IAEA notified nuclear plants dysfunctional
- Be prepared for a pre-emptive strike by US to take out our capability

One can differ on details but overall picture of Indian politicians is that they cannot be trusted with a simple deal.....criminal....and the scientists cannot produce the weapons we want...criminal... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the G-8 nuclear ban the final nail in the coffin of the Indo-US Nuke deal
There is a new Sheriff in town in Washington, and the past practices of the Republican Administration are not so popular in the Democratic majority. Why the US gave up India as a strategic partner. In another sign of the the fraying Indo-US relations, the Obama Administration has backed the G-8 (United States, Britain, France, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan) demand not to sell Nuclear enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Only three countries have not signed the NPT. The three countries are Israel, Bharat and Pakistan. Israel gets all the nuclear materials she needs from a variety of sources and has built up an arsenal of more than 250 bombs. Pakistan has a totally indigenous program which is not dependent on any imported nuclear material from any country. Therefore the only target of the G-8 Memorandum is Bharat. Delhi is directly affected by the G-8 ruling.The lack of a statement from Delhi on the subject leaves analysts to fear the worst. The Delhi diplomats have been so surprised by the US reversal that they do not know what to say and how to put a spin on the subject. They should have expected this.

In fact Rupee News already predicted this several weeks agon in a series of articles listed here.* Indian gloating on Nuclear deal challenged by China-Pakistan nexus.* Pakistan already has a Nuclear Deal with China! India tried to raise expectations to portend* India trapped in Nuclear 123 Treaty: Ban on future testsThe 123 agreement was the singular foreign policy achievement, some would say the singular achievement of the Congress government. Now that symbol of American-Bharati cooperation is not only tarnished, it is sinking into a black hole.The decision, which hits Indian expectations from the go-ahead on nuclear trade it got from the Nuclear Suppliers Group last year, figures in the LAquila Statement on Non-Proliferation that was adopted at the just-ended G8 summit in Italy.

New Delhi has not reacted officially. Indian Express* United States has persuaded the G8 to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including India* The move, which effectively negates the promise of full civil nuclear cooperation lying at the heart of the 2005 India-U.S. nuclear agreement* The second U.S. target will be spent fuel reprocessing. Existing agreements with Russia and France do not stipulate a new standalone facility or more intensive safeguards. And as the Obama administration presses ahead with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, attempts could be made to get the NSG to adopt a version of the U.S. right of return for exported items in the event that India is seen as deviating from the disarmament and non-proliferation commitments it made last September* Is the US India 123 Nuclear deal in trouble again?*

US-Indian 123 nuclear deal puts planet at risk By Jimmy Carter.As of 2009 the NSG has 46 members: Argentina, Australia,Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.It is incomprehensible that the NSG would defy the ruling of the G-8 summit.New Delhi: Less than a year after the Nuclear Suppliers Group waived its export rules to allow the sale of nuclear equipment, fuel and technology to India, the United States has persuaded the G8 to ban the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including India.

The move, which effectively negates the promise of full civil nuclear cooperation lying at the heart of the 2005 India-U.S. nuclear agreement, took the Indian establishment by surprise with officials unaware that the G8 was even adopting such a measure at LAquila, Italy. That this was done at a summit in which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was an invited guest is likely to add insult to injury when the full implications of the latest decision fully sink in.The ban, buried deep within a separate G8 statement on non-proliferation, commits the eight countries to implement on a national basis the useful and constructive proposals on ways of strengthening controls on ENR items and technology contained in the NSGs clean text developed at the 20 November 2008 Consultative Group meeting.

The HinduThe G-8 ruling affectively bans the Nuclear Suppliers Group from exporting Nuclear ENR to Delhi. The G-8 ruling along with the Hyde amendment puts severe dampers on the US-Bharti Nuclear deal. The G-8 ruling could also have a catastrophic effect on the NSGs ability to supply nuclear material and reprocessing plants to Bharat.Minimum criteria: Though the clean text is not a public document, a senior diplomat from a G8 country confirmed to The Hindu that the eight countries had agreed to certain minimum criteria including adherence to the main instruments of nonproliferation as a condition for the sale of equipment and technology destined for safeguarded ENR activities in a recipient country.

In the run-up to the final NSG plenary on India last September, Washington sought to get New Delhi to agree that the nuclear cartels rule waiver would not cover ENR transfers. But with the Indian side sticking to its guns, the NSG finally agreed to a clean exemption allowing nuclear exports of all kinds, including sensitive fuel-cycle-related items and technologies, provided they were under safeguards.Under pressure from the Bush administration, the NSG subsequently debated new ENR rules last November but failed to evolve a consensus because of opposition from countries like Brazil, Canada and Spain to restrictions that would go beyond what the NPT itself provided for.With consensus proving elusive during the recent June meeting of the 45-nation club, the Obama administration decided to decouple the question of ENR sales to India from the NSG process something the latest G8 agreement on interim implementation of a national-level ban effectively does.Indias ability to purchase nuclear fuel and reactors from the G8 or NSG countries will be unaffected by the latest ban. Unless, of course, the new decision becomes the trigger for attempts to further dilute or qualify the core bargain contained in the India exception last year.

G8 blocks full nuclear trade with India, The Hindu. Siddharth Varadarajan, Adopts rules making fuel cycle transfers conditional on NPTIn July 2006, the United States Congress allowed US laws to be amended to accommodate civilian nuclear trade with India. A meeting of NSG members on 21-22 August 2008 on an India-specific exemption to the Guidelines[2] was inconclusive. Several member countries, including Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, and New Zealand, expressed reservations about the lack of conditions in the proposed exemption.[3] In another meeting on September 6, 2008, the NSG members agreed to grant India a clean waiver from its existing rules, which forbid nuclear trade with a country which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NSGs decision came after three days of intense U.S. diplomacy.[4] The approval was based on a formal pledge by India stating that it would not share sensitive nuclear technology or material with others and will uphold its voluntary moratorium on testing nuclear weapons. The pledge was contained in a crucial statement issued during the NSG meeting by India outlining the countrys disarmament and nonproliferation policies.

WikiHowever this version of events is not universally accpeted. Other versions state that the NSG has not fully endorsed the export of Nuclear materials to Bharat.The NSG has come up with a clean text of guidelines on ENR but these are yet to be formally adopted. In the G8 statement, however, the eight countries have agreed to implement this text at their individual levels from next year. The Indian ExpressIt is too early to tell yet, but all indications are that the Indo-US 123 deal is pretty much a dead duck in the water. There will be a lot of rhetoric to resuscitate it, but without the NSG the deal will be useless. It will be interesting to see the song and dance on the subject with Ms. Hillary Clinton when the visits New Delhi.For now, it prefers to go by the fairly clean waiver it extracted from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Groups on the earlier ban on nuclear trade. The United States, Britain, France, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan that form the G8 are part of the NSG. India has its developed its own ENR capability and can live with a ban, officials say. The Indian ExpressIt is pedagogical to note the happenings when Mr. Sarkozy visits Islamabad this December. What gifts will the French Trojan horse bring to Pakistan?Ms. Hillary Clinton appointed Mr. Robert J. Einhorn as Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control a known apponent of the 123 treaty with Bharat. Mr. Einhorn was not the only one who has consistently opposed the US-Indian 123 deal.

President Jimmy Carter came out against it lock, stock and barrel. US-Indian 123 nuclear deal puts planet at risk By Jimmy Carter.Knowing since 1974 of Indias nuclear ambitions, other American presidents and I have maintained a consistent global policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refuses to sign the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. To embed this concept as official national policy, I worked closely with bipartisan leaders in the U.S. Congress to pass the Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.More recently, in 2006, the Hyde Act was passed and signed by President George W. Bush to define appropriate terms of the proposed U.S.-India nuclear agreement. Both laws were designed to encourage universal compliance with basic terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been accepted by more than 180 nations. President Jimmy CarterThe fine print of the Hyde Amendment is a minefield for those moving forward on the Indo-US Nuclear deal. The Hyde Amendment is a piece of legislation that Congress passed in December 2006, called the Henry J Hyde Act, which imposes numerous conditions upon India, including an end to nuclear cooperation with the US if India conducts a nuclear test. A Democratic Administration could impose the Hyde Amendment on the 123 deal and cause havoc with the Bush-India deal.

The Bush Administration had made the Nuclear deal a cornerstone of its Pro-India and Anti-China policy. Those were the days of building India as a counterweight to China.In the Administrations eagerness for a foreign policy success, the deal was concluded in great haste, driven by the calendar of Bush-Singh meetings rather than by the seriousness and complexity of the task at hand. Key stakeholders in the U.S. Congress and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) were not consulted in advance. While speed and exclusivity are often necessary to overcome bureaucratic and international resistance to major initiatives, this must be balanced against the need for buy-in, especially when the success of the initiative depends on approval by both the Congress and NSG. In its desire to show boldness and demonstrate a clean break with the past, the Administration gave too little weight to the nonproliferation downsides and too much weight to proving to the Indians its dedication to building a qualitatively new relationship. In the process, it failed to use the leverage available to it to achieve U.S. objectives.Robet Einhorn. Statement to the US Senate Foreign Relations committee in April 2006Indian Americans overwhelmingly voted for the Republican candidates and ploughed in millions of Dollars to get President Bush rel-elected.

In one the worst cases of foot-in-mouth disease the Congress Party and the Manmohan government made it very obvious that it would prefer a Republican in the Whitehouse. It backfired.It is pedagogical to note that after being elected to power, Presdent Elect Obama and after being sworn to office did not call Delhi. He did call Mr. Zardari and the Beijing. When the Democrats took power, they placed Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton is a a very pro-Chinese Democrat. On her maiden trip to Asia, she was handed an itinerary to visit Sydney, Jakarta, Tokyo an Beijing. Hillary Clinton personally crossed out Delhi from her itinerary and went to Beijing asking China to continue to purchase T-Bills.Where there is smoke there is fire. Denials tell a very distinct theory.A key aide to President Barack Obama has dismissed reports that the new US Administration has kept the nuclear deal with India on the back-burner. Mr Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who co-chaired an inter-agency committee which formulated Mr Obamas Afghanistan-Pak policy, also did not see Robert Einhorns recent appointment as Secretary of State Hillary Clintons special adviser on non-proliferation issues as an impediment in implementation of the nuclear deal, signed during the Bush era.Senator Obama voted for the US-India civil nuclear deal last fall and he has made clear that he wants to see it implemented. At the same time, President Obama has also made it clear that arms control and non-proliferation are back on the American agenda, Mr Riedel said.

On the appointment of Mr Einhorn which has caused a flutter in India because of his strong views against the Indo-US nuclear deal, Mr Riedel said: Einhorn is a very qualified American diplomat and an expert on nuclear issues. I think, you would see, early on in this Administration the attempt to get the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and I think you would see in time that the United States would once again be urging all countries around the world to sign onto CTBT, he said. Indo-US N-deal not on back-burner: RiedelThe appointment of Mr. Robert Einhorm as an American diplomat has caused more than consternation in Delhi. Already panicked Delhi diplomats are now close to hitting the SOS button. Mr. Einhorn is a vociferous opponent of the American deal of exporting Nuclear technology to India. He has made it abundantly clear in his writings. His book discusses other countries that may follow India in acquiring Atomic weapons in his book The nuclear tipping point: why states reconsider their nuclear choicesBy Kurt M. Campbell, Robert J. Einhorn, Mitchell Reiss (Published by Brookings Institution Press, 2004). The Book is available on Google Books free of cost. Book reivewIf India steps up production, Pakistan can be expected to follow suit, China could decide to resume production, and others may be encouraged to seek their own production capabilities.

The more materials produced, the more difficult and costly it will be to secure them, and the greater the risksRobert EinhornIn fact Mr. Einhorn was right on the money. This is exactly what has happened. Pakistan has expedited production of Plutonium in Khushab and has increased the manufacture of atomic material in its Chasnupp plants. Pakistan already has a Nuclear Deal with China! The implications on China are not lost to the world. When Delhi increases production, Islamabad and Beijing fire up their production plans. This may force Japan to go nuclear.Another reason we should care about stepped up Indian production of fissile materials is that it could lead to increased tensions and destabilizing arms competition in southern Asia, involving India, Pakistan, and China. Pakistani authorities have publicly taken special note of the failure of the U.S.-India nuclear deal to limit Indian fissile material production. Reportedly, the Pakistani National Command Authority recently met to assess the impact of the deal and consider adjustments Pakistan may need to make to its own strategic plans. President Musharraf said, We cannot remain oblivious to the changes evolving in the region. All the steps will be taken for the defense, security, and safety of Pakistan. Moreover, China has warned that the deal threatens to undermine global disarmament moves, suggesting that Beijing may also decide that it needs to respond programmatically. Robert EinhornThe Hyde Amendment as well as US laws on termination of the agreement led to the Communist Party of India (CPI) leaving the coalition government.

Congress Party survived by the skin of its teeth with widespread report of huge amounts of cash given to members of parliament to save the treaty.In terms of the substantive elements of the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, there are several the Congress will want to probe and understand more clearly. Among them will be whether an Indian nuclear test explosion or some other Indian actions would trigger the termination of U.S. nuclear cooperation. A related question is whether the U.S. would be committed to assist India in obtaining reactor fuel from third parties if U.S. fuel supplies had to be cut off as a result of an Indian nuclear test or some other action. Robert EinhornThe Indian National Congress has since obtained a fresh mandate from the voters, but for a while it was touch and go. Bruce Reidels recent statement in defense of Hillary Clinton says more about the future of the Indo-US deal than reams of papers presented to the UN Senate.Many Democrats including President Carter had opposed any Nuclear deal with the US.Knowing since 1974 of Indias nuclear ambitions, other American presidents and I have maintained a consistent global policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refuses to sign the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. To embed this concept as official national policy, I worked closely with bipartisan leaders in the U.S. Congress to pass the Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. NUCLEAR ARMS India nuclear deal puts world at risk By Jimmy Carter Published: September 11, 2008

Pakistan already has a Nuclear deal with China and President Zardari passed up the supply of Nuclear raw material from Central Asia. Pakistan also claims that France has offered Islamabad a Nuclear deal similar to the US-India deal. According to the Pakistani Foreign Minister that deal is to be signed in September. Details remain sketchy on what has actually transpired between Paris and Mr. Zardari but something is cooking.Rupee News had predicted the unraveling of the 123 deal on September 9th, 2008. This is what we wrote. India trapped in Nuclear 123 Treaty: Ban on future testsThe Indian left is right! Panglossian elitist triumphalism has inebriated the elitist ruling class into thinking that 123 will instantly propel them into the 23rd century with some sort of magical competitive advantage- blinding the penury stricken pullulating millions into embracing an inequitable deal which seriously impinges on Indian sovereignty & exacerbates the arms race in the Subcontinent, and only fills the coffers of the corrupt & multinationals. Every time the elite has tried to leapfrog the competition, it has had to face unsurmountable impediments.

India is now fully ensnarled with all the provisions of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without actually signing the treaty. India cannot conduct another test, and almost all of its facilities are under IAEA or other monitoring. If the contract is broken, the US has the ability and the legal wherewithal to retrieve all facilities, and technology. The US will not transfer sensitive and dual use technology to India. The agreement forces India to conform to the Hyde Laws which are NPT in another form:It is a trap, and it prevents India from any future nuclear test. We firmly believe that India has walked into the nonproliferation trap that the U.S. has set for us, said Yashwant Sinha, a member of Parliament from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.# BJP president Rajnath Singh, while addressing the partys national executive meeting in Bangalore, said that the issue of fuel supply, if the deal came through, was only an assurance and not a commitment.# Mr Singh said there were several reasons for opposing the deal. For instance, the Peoples Daily recently published an article that China does not intend to limit its nuclear power.#

According to this newspaper, China needs to conduct further nuclear tests, Mr Singh said. If either Pakistan or China conducts a nuclear test that might threaten the balance of our regional strategic and security arrangement, then would not our right to conduct a nuclear test in response be seriously compromised?# The Bharatiya Janata Partys president, Mr Rajnath Singh, also accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of misleading the country to win a trust vote over the nationally divisive deal.# A similar accusation also came from the Left Front. It followed US President George W Bush pitching the 123 Agreement to the US Congress as something that is not legally binding.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/images/smilies/cute/smokin.gif

AFPAK and India

This is a reproduction of a blog by Desh@ http://drishtikone.com/?q=blog/strategic-importance-afghanistan-indian-national-interests

I think the key question is who funds Taliban and Mehsud? This question is at the heart of understanding who is on who's side. War on terror is only a name for having US presence in Afghanistan. The question is why? To stop Russia, China? The why not co-opt an Indian role there, instead of letting Taliban or Pak Army play a role there...the eventual strategy current is to give Pak a role after defeating Taliban..moot point.

India and the Af-Pak Geopolitical game - By Desh - Posted on 15 July 2009
There was an interview on CNN with Pakistan military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas. where he suggested several things, of which two were most significant.[1]Talks are possible between U.S. and Taliban, and Pakistan can broker it Pakistan wants U.S. concessions over Islamabad's dealings with India in return Pakistan has overtly voiced one major concern against India in Afghanistan - of how India is "brewing trouble" in Balochistan for Pakistan. India has maintained that this is patently untrue.

Situation as it unfolds

Afghanistan/Pakistan area is in a flux right now. The US are fighting the Afghanistan Taliban aided by Pakistan, and Pakistani army are fighting the Pakistani Taliban. While the US is clear about who the enemy is and what it feels about it, Pakistani Army is not so lucky.
In fact, Abbas even puts it like that:

That can only happen when you have an intense, uh, negotiations and engagement only then you can understand the real difficulties of operating against those people who were the allies in the past, and in the area which were the sort of a training centers of the past.

and

Now that situation has reversed. It is we find these tribes on the other side, and it is difficult for their recruits or their people also to understand, why once we were allies are fighting against each other. Now, although he is decidedly talking about the Afghan Taliban, somewhere in there - is also some reference point of Pakistan Taliban. Why? Because Pakistan Taliban - despite the Pakistani rhetoric IS AN offshoot of Afghanistan Taliban. And as Muslim Khan, Taliban leader (Muslim Khan, Chief Spokesman of Tehrik-e-Taliban) has said clearly - that there is only ONE Taliban.

Some interesting points need to be remembered:

Advances against Taliban: There have been significant advances in Afghanistan and in Pakistan against the Taliban in both areas in the past few weeks. There is a strong offensive and successes of bombings by US drones have been very apparent.Confusion / emotional dichotomy in Pakistan: That there are two camps within Pakistan - pro-Taliban and pro-Pakistan-ONLY is pretty apparent. There is a division within Pakistani army as well.. as is the case in the civilians. The reconciliation between the two groups will increasingly become tougher and tougher.Economic Deadend: Pakistan really does not have much in terms of economy and the current situation has made things even worse.

Af-Pak Policy
I think if the Af-Pak policy of the current times has to be described then the best way is that this time around, a thief has been turned up against another thief. One thief has been asked to eliminate another. The very thief he brought up and mentored.

What was the bane of the world - Islamic terrorism - has now become the bane of Pakistan. The monster has been turned on internally. Beyond the rhetoric of outside enemies, there is some element of internal soul searching occuring - honest or otherwise. But this may lead into a direction that may be good for the world. For example, here is a person who is advocating elimination of Madrasa Education completely in Pakistan.[2] Something unheard of.

While common men and women are forced to look at this situation - of Taliban and Jehadis uprooting the foundation of their country - those in power, who cultivated these monsters as a means to create and perpetuate power/war/strife for their own good, are not entirely convinced. Which means that there is still an internal dichotomy continuing.

Abbas's statement of Pakistan "helping" and brokering dialog between Taliban and US should be viewed in light of the following:
1. Despite the continued stand by George Bush and Musharraf that Pakistan was working as an "ally", the truth was that Pakistan had not really delivered much of value and used the aid given to it against India. A fact, acknowledged by Obama on his campaign trail as well. Basically, Pakistan was playing a "double game".2. After 9-11, after announcing its alignment with the US, a group of Pakistani intelligence officials went to Afghanistan to "help the Taliban prepare their defences and a strategy against US attacks".[3]3. The way Pakistanis can keep their relevance is by being the brokers (dishonest, albeit) between the US and the Jehadis/Taliban AND leading that discussion and action on the ground so they can turn it the way they want. To understand this strategy of engagement, please listen to Hamid Gul in detail here on the modus operandi and how it is done.

What Hamid Gul says in this video is the place where Pakistanis yearn to be again. That is where the "offer" for brokering comes from.

India's StrategyLast time in the 1990s, in Afghanistan, India lost big time. Taliban won and Northern Alliance was routed and with it went all the bets that India placed in that country. This time, the victory of US and British is IMPERATIVE for the future success of India in this region. Failure in Afghanistan will cost us DEARLY!!

BalochistanI am not sure whether indeed India is helping the Balochs or not. If it is not, then strategically and to maintain parity with Pakistan's game, it should. You leave India alone, and we leave your country alone. That should be the motto of our intelligence game. Period. There is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to be apologetic about.

Balochistan is a good place to engage in this game of "Quid pro quo" chess at for various reasons:
Balochistan is the home of the Nuclear Testing facilities (Chagai Hills in the Chaghai district). Balochistan is rich in minerals - one of the largest copper deposits are fond in Reko Diq in the Chagai District. Also Balochistan is one of largest supplier of Natural gas to its nation. Balochistan is also the home of Gwadar Port - Pakistan's main port - which is being expanded into a Naval base with the help of Chinese technical and financial assistance. Its importance is critical in terms of Pakistan-China nexus and partnership. A control or ability to exercise leverage in Balochistan over the Gwadar Port is CRITICAL to India in time of war against Pakistan and/or China. Wikipedia explains its importance here which is self-explanatory: China has acknowledged that Gwadar's strategic value is no less than that of the Karakoram Highway, which helped cement the China-Pakistan nexus. In addition to Gwadar serving as a potential Chinese naval anchor, Beijing is also interested in turning it into an energy-transport hub by building an oil pipeline from Gwadar into Chinese-ruled Xinjiang. The planned pipeline will carry crude oil sourced from Arab and African states. Such transport by pipeline will cut freight costs and also help insulate the Chinese imports from interdiction by hostile naval forces in case of any major war.

Preparation for times when a war breaks out and creating leverage for national interest should be viewed in strict terms. Importance of Balochistan to India's National Interest is VITAL!
Conclusion: If we have a leverage in Balochistan, then lets enlarge it. If we don't, then lets create it!

Afghanistan
Pakistan's goal is to take India out of the Afghanistan picture and calculations. India hasn't until now committed military to US/NATO forces. India is probably helping militarily but not explicitly. I believe, India should announce that we will be part of the NATO forces in Afghanistan and help US/NATO forces this time. Let India help in Afghanistan. Why? Because India DOES need to be part of the decision making ON THE GROUND!
But it is not "our war"? HECK yes, it is OUR WAR! Any war which will influence our national interests is ultimately India's war. Just as Afghanistan is US's and NATO's war.. it is India's war as well. In fact, India stands to lose more if US forces lose there than US will stand to lose overall!

So, lets BECOME a part of this war to BE on the table of decision making. We need to make sure that future decisions take our perspective into account.

ConclusionIn the coming months, Pakistanis will try and change the discussion in new directions. China will also use its leverage. For, it also stands to lose from India's engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan's loss.

In the coming days, probably, India may be attacked. By terrorists or by a nation.
And to succeed in all this we must be sure to recognize our National interest and make sure we don't lose in Afghanistan this time.

Press Freedom Absent in India

Im reproducing a blogpost that will reveal to all why Indian media is so biased and 'unanalytical'.

Suddenly, Hillary Clinton was giving a media conference but it was audible only two channels, one owned by the below group and another by CNN. Why no live press conference? Was it fixed?
Suddenly, before Clinton's engagements start, Pak is reported by the below channel as having capitulated. One channel seems to have all the right connections. Its all pervasive and surely not free press

Lets make India democratic, starting by freeing the press....

http://ajayshahblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/murky-ethics-on-part-of-media-and-firms.html
Monday, January 21, 2008 Murky ethics on the part of the media, and the firms they cover.

Bennett Coleman, a very big media house, is onto difficult ethical terrain with a concept of `private treaties'. Here, they get invested in some companies, and then these companies get favourable media treatment. Their media outlets trumpet these stocks, hopefully a good IPO takes place, and Bennett Coleman makes a good return on their portfolio. The expectation of free advertising and glowing editorial treatment probably leads to their purchases of these stocks getting done at bargain basement prices.

MoneyLIFE has in its possession a document to prove that journalists are being designated as champions for PT clients to tailor editorial coverage to enhance the value of these companies and TOIs investment. An e-mail by The Economic Times editor, Rahul Joshi (dated 29 November 2007), says, At ET, we are carving out a separate team to look into the needs of Private Treaty clients. Every large centre will have a senior editorial person to interface with Treaty clients. In turn, the senior edit person will be responsible, along with the existing team, for edit delivery. This team will have regional champions along with one or two reporters for help - but more importantly, they will liaise with REs (Resident Editors) and help in integrating the content into the different sections of the paper. In this way, we will be able to incorporate PT into the editorial mainstream, rather than it looking like a series of press releases appearing in vanilla form in the paper. He then goes on to name the PT champions for each region, who will advise the regional editorial chief to carry stories about PT clients. He also designates trouble shooters in each region, probably to ensure that no PT client is offended with negative coverage. It reflects poor ethical standards on the part of Bennett Coleman to do such a thing. First, a question of fact: Do good papers in the world, such as New York Times, have private equity portfolios where editorial coverage and advertising are bartered in return for shares? Compare and contrast against the soul-searching that the New York Times has institutionalised on far more subtle kinds of conflicts of interest.

I am curious about the role that law can play here. If the New York Times embarked on such a thing, would it be outright illegal? If it was not outright illegal, what else might go wrong for New York Times if they did such a thing?

The only saving grace lies in the fact that Bennett Coleman has put up their hall of shame, of firms who are willing to cooperate with such a scheme, on the web. Some names in there make no sense - e.g. I can't see how they can get a fabulous return on an investment in ISB. But many are recognisable targets of laudatory coverage.

I have often felt that in order to become a well functioning market economy, there has to be a culture of high ethical standards, a sense that certain things are just not done. While ethical standards require legal foundations, there is something about ethics which goes well beyond law. A go-getting atmosphere, where all kinds of behaviour is welcome, is a highway to becoming a banana republic. You may like to see something that I wrote in 1997, about how an atmosphere of low ethical standards induces entry barriers and hampers competition.

While there are signs of progress on the economy as a whole, in recent years, the scale of corruption in India associated with real estate and natural resources appears to be straight out of your worst stereotypes of a banana republic. CEOs have an incentive to do bad things: e.g. the stock market likes electricity generation projects which have locked down coal supplies, which favours entrepreneurs with a gift for manipulating the government. Ministers are rumoured to have become like Bennett Coleman, asking for shares in return for unethical actions. With natural resources and land, we are experiencing the well known pathologies of the `resource curse'. The only saving grace for us is that by now, the real estate and natural resource related sectors are a small part of the economy.

I'm not one of the proponents of the view that blogging fundamentally changes mainstream media. But in this one respect, I can see that it helps. The rise of the Internet in general and blogs in particular has helped to reduce the mindshare of Bennett Coleman. Blogs have helped make such murky practices more visible.

Independence - a byproduct of power

What a striking contrast does July 2008 makes to July 2009. In 08, GOI was breaking ties, rules, paying bribes to ensure that they stay in power and ensure passage of the Nuke deal with US.

Not only did GOI succeed but it also make Dr a hero. From being unable to take a stand to somebody who would do anything to ensure his stand prevails, the change was immense.India was the new counterweight to its large neigbour and it seemed finally India had made it and righted all wrongs...and then Obama won.

Under Bush, US and India saw eye to eye on almost all issues. India had to turn its back to the happenings in Iraq and what could happen in Iran.We were on the same page on 'Outsourcing', NPT/CTBT, Kashmir....everything....Now, apart from being flawed democracies, India and US share nothing.The change that Obama promised has happened....The economy sunk, with which its ability to live without China and vice versa.The world loves Obama except India (the reverse was true during Bush years). India does not agree with most of what Obama wants...

- Insourcing
- NPT signing
- Gift Kashmir
- Climate change

The change has implications that have overnight changed India's status from an aspiring Superpower to a also ran regional one.Perhaps, the truth is that India is neither of the above. Also, perhaps Obama is a god send opportunity to correct its course and become a superpower on its own rather than as someone else's stooge; one way or the other.

This begs the question, how did we land here?We landed here simply because we do not understand geopolitics. At the stroke of Independence, India was poor. It wanted to be a big power but by keeping its independence during its journey to power.

This was a fallacy in itself. India needed external assistance to grow and not non-alignment. Nehru or Gandhi might have ideologically disagreed with the powers to be in 47 but did they really think they could deliver to India the industrial revolution without a close alliance. The whole arguement is flawed, basically as it assumes the current powers will be stupid enough to allow a new power to develop amongst them which professes independence from the system of nationhood that they lord over. Why would the US, Britain or others allow the same to happen?If India was to become a big power using 5 year plans, it failed miserably. It failed in being pragmatic. It failed in doing simple maths. Its easy to calculate how many years will a non trade dependent economy take to grow its GDP 10 times over.

What the Nehru generation believed in luck. It expected to get away by bashing up China on morality. Instead got bashed itself.Basically, it seems the people in Power in India were intellectuals with no understanding of how Power is attained and once attained how its used. What gave India the divine right to be able to develop without the assistance and cooperation of external powers.At the end of the day, while the British Raj was bad for India and is despicable but we had allowed it to fester. Britain and the imperialist powers had done what they had to do to remain in power and get richer.

Even if Nehru was to be non-aligned why did they screw up the execution of the plans. Why did they go around preaching the world?People know whats model book behaviour, Nehru lecturing them wouldnt have helped; they had chosen their path.The preaching got India to a situation where the big powers never trusted India. In world politics, if you preach something it better be backed by facts action. India's preaching was just professoring !

It made India join a loose alliance with Russia and profess non-alignment. So in other words, we anotgonised US/UK and did not fully embrace USSR fully. To the world, it was hypocrisy.By 1965, it was very clear our policies have been an utter failure.Nehru had died, but sowed the seeds of professoring without action.

Today, we face the issues with US because of policy years of Nehru and their successors. Holbrooke's of the world see India as hypocritic and insincere.China got its nukes in 1964 a decade before India. China started its capitalism a decade before India.China was never in doubt to its policies at the global stage. It was always anti-american. Ironically, Sino-American trade tops USD 1 Trillion. It was never non-aligned but rather always aligned with its own interests.The policy India takes cannot change with each change in the American President or Indian PM. It has to have a longer lasting ring to it.India cannot expect to be Independent and be awarded for it. It will invite sanctions or quasi unstated sanctions amongst other things.Why did India explode a device in 74 and stop instead of continuing and building an arsenal?The muddle or the middle path is strewn with mediocrity that we tolerate in the name of democracy.India missed the bus in 50's and 60's.

It missed a train in 80's and 90's and seems to missing the flight now. Why India didnt have a WMD program in 50s while China had one and exploded it in 64.If we were in the soviet camp, then why did we not collaborate with them just like China did. In fact, China initially took training and knowledge from them and them continued its development once they had a fallout. However, its record thereafter is impressive. India still doesnt have a thermonuclear device, China had one by 1967. The NPT came into being on July 1, 1968.Till today, India per external experts does not even create as many bombs as they could given the technical and material resources available.

Clearly, China used the initial period from 1949 to 1967 in alliance with Russia to get Nuclear weapons and then joined US in an economic embrace in 1979. However, this initial Strategic, Military alignment with Russia and then ecnomic alignment with US has only helped China.India's alignments have followed a similar path with have beem more muddled and therefore ineffective. Even in 1980, India and China were on a similar growth trajectory. But once China embraced capitalism it has gone the whole hog. It sits today on a huge stockpile of dollars and a detterence driven military capability.

US is economically bankrupt but militarily a superpower.How about India?

Due to its muddled policies, it neither has the currency of power bought by its military nor does it have actual currency power with a smaller market and stockpile of dollars.India wanted a middle path. Its got itself a middle path to being powerless.China has an GDP 4 times of India, a military maybe 3 times as large. Dollar reserves 8 times as large. Olympic medals 40 times more...Whats India's advantage? The problem is not that India cannot still rise; but the fact that its thinking is flawed and therefore unlikely to rise. It gets bullied by a neighbour with much smaller resources. It also gets bullied by the larger resourced Chinese and americans.In other words, size is unimportant when you want to bully someone.

The victims ability to handle himself or lack of it is all it takes.It might be a good strategy to let a criminal run the policy, given we have so many in Parliament.The thinking is theoretical and project driven instead of being process driven.

We spend a lot of time deciding what to do, instead of actual doing or planning of the doing. For instance, The Air force deal for 126 planes that will be delivered in 2015. It will take India many years to decide which plane to take. By the time they are inducted they will certainly be a generations behind. It might make better sense to induct quickly lower gen plane now.How this simple thing can be missed by the babus is either graft driven or plain stupid.Another issue is the irrational sensitivity to criticism of what we consider top notch in their field. This can range from Bachanan to SU-MKI's. They are great planes, everyone agrees but maybe they arent the best. Its less risky to believe the one's who criticise as Indians tend to overestimate themselves and underestimate advesaries.

To be continued....