Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Feedback
View Statistics
Members
Current visitors
Buy Sell Trade
WTB
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
about that 123 agreement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="blr_p" data-source="post: 338863" data-attributes="member: 10952"><p>Read below and you might get the answer, it certainly helped explain why a Japanese Bank loaned half the upfront cost for the Bangalore Metro project.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2" target="_blank">Source</a></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px">Bharat versus Karat</span></p><p></p><p><strong>Ashok Malik</strong></p><p></p><p>Aug 14 2007</p><p></p><p>The Communist parties' attack on the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement and India's relationship with America is actually a positioning exercise for the 2009 general election </p><p></p><p>Despite occasional recourse to the draft of the 123 Agreement, it is increasingly clear the Left Front is not objecting to the India-US nuclear deal as much as to the philosophy underpinning it, and to its strategic potential. After all, the Communists have never quite been votaries of an Indian Bomb and to have them shed tears for possible challenges to the military nuclear programme is downright strange.</p><p></p><p>Three elements to the political drama that has followed the 123 Agreement need to be analysed. Indeed, they need to be rescued from the alarmism and rhetoric that the Left, true to form, is resorting to. In the process it is hijacking the debate, seeking to set the terms of discourse and adopting, as usual, a bogus high ground.</p><p></p><p>The first conspiracy theory concerns the Indian freedom to test a nuclear device in the future, or at least for the 40 years of the agreement's life. As Mr Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Adviser, pointed out in a recent television interview, the deal does not prohibit India from testing but does increase the cost of testing.</p><p></p><p>Actually, Mr Mishra's observation is a bit of a truism, irrespective of whether the 123 Agreement was reached or not. There are a host of reasons for this. India's economic engagement with the world has in any case restricted its operational autonomy to detonate a nuclear device just because it feels like, or acts in a manner others construe as adventurism.</p><p></p><p>In 2002, the India-Pakistani mobilisation on the international border persuaded at least one major American IT/BPO company to defer investment in Rajasthan. The logic was that an outsourcing facility in a border State was a risky venture. It could have been argued that Delhi and Gurgaon are about as far from Pakistan as Jaipur, but the fact is the MNC's executives stuck by their decision.</p><p></p><p>As such the opportunity costs of a nuclear test without an immediate provocation will be far higher today than they were in 1974 or 1998. That situation will not change even if the Government bows to Mr Prakash Karat and tears up the 123 Agreement.</p><p></p><p>That aside, at least in the foreseeable future, a nuclear test is not going to make as much of a domestic political statement as it did in 1974 or the 1990s. The geopolitical factors have changed, nobody is pushing India to sign unequal international treaties such as CTBT. As such, there is no nationalist resentment brewing. Quite simply, India has moved on.</p><p></p><p>The second scare theory the Left has pulled out of its hat is that India is being forced to join a coalition against China. The reference is to the so-called 'Quadrilateral' of Asia-Pacific democracies - India, Australia, Japan and the US. The sight of Mr Karat and Mr AB Bardhan leading jathas down India's east coast, flailing their arms against joint exercises by the navies of the Quadrilateral countries and Singapore, may appear appealing or even entertaining. It represents, however, a gross oversimplification of diplomacy.</p><p></p><p>The Quadrilateral is an idea for the 21st century; it is the fall-back option for its partners should China spin into a rogue orbit. Nations do this all the time. The Chinese are similarly buying insurance in Central Asia - where American involvement has gone up since 9/11 - by promoting the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.</p><p></p><p>It is instructive that the most fervid votaries of the Quadrilateral are not the Americans, contrary to popular belief, but the Japanese. Tokyo is investing strategically in Indian infrastructure and manufacture and clearly seeking an Asian architecture that is not perilously tilted in favour of China.</p><p></p><p>Washington and Canberra are, on the other hand, wary of pushing the idea too quickly, extremely sensitive to Beijing's concerns. Substantial American capital is invested in China and, in the case of Australia, the big market for that country's commodities - its primary source of income - are the factories on China's eastern sea-board.</p><p></p><p>There is a lesson here for India, but perhaps not one Mr Karat and his friends would want to consider. India has to give the US and the West enough of a stake in its economic development. This would render Governments in those countries more amenable to persuasion or - if you prefer a harsher expression - soft blackmail. </p><p></p><p>For instance, if American, French and Japanese companies are helping build a dozen nuclear energy plants in India, servicing contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, then those countries may be willing to "understand" a hypothetical Indian re-interpretation of some provisions of the 123 and similar Agreements.</p><p></p><p>The third round of bogeyman sloganeering is devoted to domestic politics rather than foreign policy. Consider the political time-table. The UPA Government is close to the end of its effective term. In six months it will present its final Budget and a long election season will begin.</p><p></p><p>The CPI(M) has got all it could from the UPA arrangement. One of its MPs was elected Lok Sabha Speaker. It easily won Assembly elections in Kerala and West Bengal without its support for the Congress at the Centre being an embarrassment. The Left masterminded a witch-hunt in educational and cultural institutions in the name of "detoxification". It vetoed "politically incorrect" presidential candidates and installed a fellow traveller intellectual in the vice-presidency.</p><p></p><p>Now the Communists have one final item on the agenda. They have to grab the Opposition space in the coming 12 to 18 months and pretend they are not responsible for the 'sins' of the UPA Government. These are the sort of principles usually exhibited by the cad who seduces a lady and then pretends he's not the father of her child.</p><p></p><p>In the case of the UPA, Comrade Karat obviously sees advantage in converting "proximity to America" into a faultline. The problem is his party may not quite want to bring down the Government so much earlier than the summer 2009 national election. It is enjoying its influence in Delhi. Further, there is no certainty the Left Front will repeat its 2004 performance and enter the next Lok Sabha with a 61-seat bonanza.</p><p></p><p>So what will the Left want to do? It will seek to completely neuter the Congress by targeting the Prime Minister, painting him as an American agent and asking for his removal. A perusal of Left criticism of Mr Manmohan Singh in the early-1990s, when he was Finance Minister, would be educative. The late Nikhil Chakravartty wrote an article in The Telegraph referring to him as a traitor and a "quisling".</p><p></p><p>Even if the Congress doesn't give in and refuses to change its Prime Minister - it would be politically suicidal to surrender to Left bullying - there are enough old fogeys in Mr Manmohan Singh's party who may see their chance and attack him. </p><p></p><p>The Communists have retreated somewhat over the weekend but they are waiting to hit back. The Prime Minister's proposed visit to President George W Bush's ranch in September and the resultant photo-ops may be the moment for the next attack, a personalised assault rather than a broad-sweep foreign policy criticism. The battle will be renewed - between India that is Bharat, and India that is Karat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="blr_p, post: 338863, member: 10952"] Read below and you might get the answer, it certainly helped explain why a Japanese Bank loaned half the upfront cost for the Bangalore Metro project. [URL="http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2"]Source[/URL] [SIZE="5"]Bharat versus Karat[/SIZE] [b]Ashok Malik[/b] Aug 14 2007 The Communist parties' attack on the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement and India's relationship with America is actually a positioning exercise for the 2009 general election Despite occasional recourse to the draft of the 123 Agreement, it is increasingly clear the Left Front is not objecting to the India-US nuclear deal as much as to the philosophy underpinning it, and to its strategic potential. After all, the Communists have never quite been votaries of an Indian Bomb and to have them shed tears for possible challenges to the military nuclear programme is downright strange. Three elements to the political drama that has followed the 123 Agreement need to be analysed. Indeed, they need to be rescued from the alarmism and rhetoric that the Left, true to form, is resorting to. In the process it is hijacking the debate, seeking to set the terms of discourse and adopting, as usual, a bogus high ground. The first conspiracy theory concerns the Indian freedom to test a nuclear device in the future, or at least for the 40 years of the agreement's life. As Mr Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Adviser, pointed out in a recent television interview, the deal does not prohibit India from testing but does increase the cost of testing. Actually, Mr Mishra's observation is a bit of a truism, irrespective of whether the 123 Agreement was reached or not. There are a host of reasons for this. India's economic engagement with the world has in any case restricted its operational autonomy to detonate a nuclear device just because it feels like, or acts in a manner others construe as adventurism. In 2002, the India-Pakistani mobilisation on the international border persuaded at least one major American IT/BPO company to defer investment in Rajasthan. The logic was that an outsourcing facility in a border State was a risky venture. It could have been argued that Delhi and Gurgaon are about as far from Pakistan as Jaipur, but the fact is the MNC's executives stuck by their decision. As such the opportunity costs of a nuclear test without an immediate provocation will be far higher today than they were in 1974 or 1998. That situation will not change even if the Government bows to Mr Prakash Karat and tears up the 123 Agreement. That aside, at least in the foreseeable future, a nuclear test is not going to make as much of a domestic political statement as it did in 1974 or the 1990s. The geopolitical factors have changed, nobody is pushing India to sign unequal international treaties such as CTBT. As such, there is no nationalist resentment brewing. Quite simply, India has moved on. The second scare theory the Left has pulled out of its hat is that India is being forced to join a coalition against China. The reference is to the so-called 'Quadrilateral' of Asia-Pacific democracies - India, Australia, Japan and the US. The sight of Mr Karat and Mr AB Bardhan leading jathas down India's east coast, flailing their arms against joint exercises by the navies of the Quadrilateral countries and Singapore, may appear appealing or even entertaining. It represents, however, a gross oversimplification of diplomacy. The Quadrilateral is an idea for the 21st century; it is the fall-back option for its partners should China spin into a rogue orbit. Nations do this all the time. The Chinese are similarly buying insurance in Central Asia - where American involvement has gone up since 9/11 - by promoting the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It is instructive that the most fervid votaries of the Quadrilateral are not the Americans, contrary to popular belief, but the Japanese. Tokyo is investing strategically in Indian infrastructure and manufacture and clearly seeking an Asian architecture that is not perilously tilted in favour of China. Washington and Canberra are, on the other hand, wary of pushing the idea too quickly, extremely sensitive to Beijing's concerns. Substantial American capital is invested in China and, in the case of Australia, the big market for that country's commodities - its primary source of income - are the factories on China's eastern sea-board. There is a lesson here for India, but perhaps not one Mr Karat and his friends would want to consider. India has to give the US and the West enough of a stake in its economic development. This would render Governments in those countries more amenable to persuasion or - if you prefer a harsher expression - soft blackmail. For instance, if American, French and Japanese companies are helping build a dozen nuclear energy plants in India, servicing contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, then those countries may be willing to "understand" a hypothetical Indian re-interpretation of some provisions of the 123 and similar Agreements. The third round of bogeyman sloganeering is devoted to domestic politics rather than foreign policy. Consider the political time-table. The UPA Government is close to the end of its effective term. In six months it will present its final Budget and a long election season will begin. The CPI(M) has got all it could from the UPA arrangement. One of its MPs was elected Lok Sabha Speaker. It easily won Assembly elections in Kerala and West Bengal without its support for the Congress at the Centre being an embarrassment. The Left masterminded a witch-hunt in educational and cultural institutions in the name of "detoxification". It vetoed "politically incorrect" presidential candidates and installed a fellow traveller intellectual in the vice-presidency. Now the Communists have one final item on the agenda. They have to grab the Opposition space in the coming 12 to 18 months and pretend they are not responsible for the 'sins' of the UPA Government. These are the sort of principles usually exhibited by the cad who seduces a lady and then pretends he's not the father of her child. In the case of the UPA, Comrade Karat obviously sees advantage in converting "proximity to America" into a faultline. The problem is his party may not quite want to bring down the Government so much earlier than the summer 2009 national election. It is enjoying its influence in Delhi. Further, there is no certainty the Left Front will repeat its 2004 performance and enter the next Lok Sabha with a 61-seat bonanza. So what will the Left want to do? It will seek to completely neuter the Congress by targeting the Prime Minister, painting him as an American agent and asking for his removal. A perusal of Left criticism of Mr Manmohan Singh in the early-1990s, when he was Finance Minister, would be educative. The late Nikhil Chakravartty wrote an article in The Telegraph referring to him as a traitor and a "quisling". Even if the Congress doesn't give in and refuses to change its Prime Minister - it would be politically suicidal to surrender to Left bullying - there are enough old fogeys in Mr Manmohan Singh's party who may see their chance and attack him. The Communists have retreated somewhat over the weekend but they are waiting to hit back. The Prime Minister's proposed visit to President George W Bush's ranch in September and the resultant photo-ops may be the moment for the next attack, a personalised assault rather than a broad-sweep foreign policy criticism. The battle will be renewed - between India that is Bharat, and India that is Karat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
The Social Lounge
General Talk
about that 123 agreement
Top
Bottom