Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

India To Fast Track Four Projects In Indus River Basin

Discussion in 'International Relations' started by ranjeet, Oct 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    Incorrect. Please go through this article:


    Russia and the Ukraine Crisis: An Indian Perspective
    Ranjit Gupta

    Former Member, National Security Advisory Board (NSAB)



    Since the Crimean Parliament’s 6 March, 2014, decision to seek independence, India has issued several official statements regarding evolving events in or related to Ukraine, including a warmly worded message of congratulations to Mr. Petro Poroshenko on his election as Ukraine’s President.

    The statement issued on 6 March, inter alia, stated that “India hopes that a solution to Ukraine’s internal differences is found in a manner that meets the aspirations of all sections of Ukraine’s population. It would be important, in this context, for a legitimate democratic process to find full expression through free and fair elections that provide for an inclusive society. India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighboring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue.

    Later on 6 March, India’s National Security Advisor speaking informally to the press said, “We hope that whatever internal issues there are within Ukraine are settled peacefully and that the broader issues of reconciling the various interests involved, and there are after all legitimate Russian and other interests involved, are discussed and negotiated.

    The statement issued on 18 March, inter alia, stated that “President Vladimir Putin telephoned the Prime Minister today and discussed the evolving situation in Ukraine and the recent referendum in Crimea… The Prime Minister thanked President Putin for explaining the Russian position with regard to recent developments in Ukraine. He emphasized the consistent position India has had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries. The Prime Minister expressed his hope that all sides would exercise restraint and work together constructively to find political and diplomatic solutions that protected the legitimate interests of all countries in the region and ensured long-term peace and stability in Europe and beyond.”

    It would be relevant to note Russia’s take on this conversation. As per published excerpts from a press conference held by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 24 May at St. Petersburg, in relation to India’s position he stated that “Speaking of India’s stance, we are, of course, grateful to the Indian government and to the Indian people for their level-headed stance. I am glad that the Indian government considered the historical and the current political aspects in approaching this issue. I am glad that they based their opinion on these fundamental principles, including the importance of Russia-India relations. We appreciate it.”

    The main reason why Putin was pleased with India’s stance despite the Indian Prime Minister specifically raising the issue of the importance of maintenance of the unity and territorial integrity of states in his conversation with Putin was because India had not condemned the Russian action and had – along with 57 other countries, including all BRICS countries – abstained in the vote on the UN resolution on 27 March.

    Though India has been uncomfortable about the annexation of Crimea, India has also been cognizant of Russia’s very deep civilisational and historical linkages with Crimea. Also, India cannot entirely ignore the fact that Western activities and policies in the peripheral regions of Russia ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union have hardly been altruistic, and appear motivated by a Cold War mindset.

    Though the problem in Ukraine is pre-eminently a European problem, in an increasingly economically and geopolitically interlinked world, there are consequences even far away: the $400 billion Russia and China gas deal, which had been under negotiation for a decade, and prospects were not very optimistic, suddenly got finalised very quickly. Another and even bigger gas deal between them may soon see the light of day. These are significant strategic consequences and they enhance China’s strategic flexibility and leverage increasing its proclivity to be assertive vis-à-vis all its neighbours. Any strengthening of the Russia-China relationship has implications for India.

    Even though India has very good relations with Ukraine and is sympathetic to its plight, India has a vital national interest stake in maintaining a strong partnership with Russia. The erstwhile Soviet Union, and later Russia, has been India’s strongest, indeed more often than not the only strategic supporter amongst the major powers for India for the best part of the past six decades. Lacking the leverage provided by Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council to protect its vital national interests, India needs to maintain a strong strategic partnership with Russia. Therefore, India cannot become a partner in any Western scheme of isolating Russia.

    Notwithstanding the high sounding rhetoric about principles and values that great powers constantly spout, the unvarnished reality is that it is the mechanics of global geopolitics and the imperatives of national interests that determine the stances of every country on any particular issue. There is no reason why it should be any different for India.

    Some or all of these reasons would perhaps have gone into determining India’s stance in relation to events in Ukraine, which has been somewhat ambiguous and decidedly nuanced, but admittedly tilted in favour of Russia.

    Worse things have happened in the past decade – the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and the complete dismantling of its erstwhile administration and army leading directly to the utterly tragic consequences we are witnessing today. No major power can claim the moral high ground.

    It is highly unlikely that the annexation of Crimea would be reversed. Attempts to do so will not succeed. However Russia must cease interference in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine should have a more decentralised and federalist internal polity. Neither Russia nor the West would like a major breakdown in their mutual relationship; nor can they afford it. There are indications that Russia is stepping back. A via media will be found. The Ukraine issue is amongst many and more dramatic geopolitical changes in Eurasia in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and all concerned countries have learnt to live with the changes and so it is likely to be with the situation in Ukraine.

    This is an edited version of Ambassador Ranjit Gupta's speech, presented as part of the IPCS delegation, at the Nato-Asia / Pacific Dialogue, titled 'Cooperative Security in a New Strategic Security Environment' that was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, from 24–25 June, 2014.

    http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/russia-and-the-ukraine-crisis-an-indian-perspective-4541.html


    The only statement I see is a very neutral and self serving statement here (as should be the case). You see, Crimea was carved out of Russian Empire and incorporated into Ukraine by the then USSR in 1954 after Khanate of Crimea ceased to exist as a separate entity after the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774. Prior to that, it was a part of the Ottoman Turkish Empire.

    When such acts occur, they have potential ramifications for Indian security too. If you allow the annexation of territories legally held by another nation and support the same on basis of a remote historical possession, you open a pandora's box for yourself, as you have China as a neighbour, who claims everything and anything that has been either held by it, or even was remotely under influences for howsoever small period of time and the Principalities of Ladakh-Gilgit-Baltistan, which form an integral part of Indian claims over Jammu & Kashmir, till 1870s, were paying tribute to both the Maharaja of Kashmir and the Chinese and in Ladakh, the Tibetans (and Tibetans are part of China now; officially recognised as such by India).

    So, the ramifications of your statement are pretty serious.
     
    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  2. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    680
    Country Flag:
    India
    Can't this government do the work and then publicize. Not everything needs to be politicized especially when it is not in national interest.
     
    Inactive likes this.
  3. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States
    The BJP has some serious bigmouths, but I'll take em over Congress any day of the week.
     
    dadeechi likes this.
  4. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    As you will see in your own posts so far on the subject, I have started from the narrative you have followed in the thread and taken all your posts into the context. So, to lay the onus of 'not understanding' hardly lies with the other; the art of communication clearly lays the onus on you to be clear. As you shall see with your subsequently posted statements, you have, indeed, presented your point wherein you have certainly espoused "shutting off the tap" from first post itself. Strange that now you leave it on me to understand what you did mean but did not portray.

    Inherently a contradictory statement here. At the outset, you asked if there is any 'manmade solution' which would make it feasible to turn off Pakistan's "tap".(posted below for your consumption). Here itself you call it irrelevant and then you harp on infrastructure. Opposing for the sake of opposing? It is indeed interesting to see an antithetical statement here.


    Has it occurred to you that merely threatening the population of Pakistan with starvation en masse will leave you without any political backing the world over and would allow China to do exactly the same, keeping in view the origins of Indus lie in Western Tibet? And in effect, you would have created conditions for war upon yourself and given the moral right of waging it to them? I stress on moral right as today you see hardly a word being squeaked by anyone as our forces pound them for every terror act, that may not be the case in this scenario.

    This is your first post here. What do you think does it mean in the highlighted part?

    And again.




    Another instance of contrarian statement. You say you do not necessarily want Pakistan to turn into Sahara, and next sentence you call it turning off the tap. Turning off the tap means shutting off the supply. Not graduating the water supply.

    For your refernce

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/turn-off_1




    It is not beneficial. It is a source of a very serious conflict. You think it will benefit us? No sir, it shall not.



    And then you said poor infrastructure is not an issue to my statement as earlier quoted here.


    Thanks

    Have a Great Day
     
  5. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    There is no plan to abrogate the IWT. Just threat thereof. Even if we scale up our water harnessing till the prescribed limit, we will have enough repercussions downstream.

    Till date, even when we are not using our full quota, the GoP blames India. Imagine if we use our full quota.

    Why India shall not abrogate the treaty is because Pakistan has done that in every single pact ever since independence, right from Karachi Agreement of 1949 till Shimla Agreement of 1971 to Undertaking not to allow terrorists to act from it's soil in 2003.

    A perfect situation wherein India can do whatever it wants without any international hue and cry. Now we only need to wait for Pakistan to implode, something that will occur in all probability. We should do no such thing that allows them to unite and also puts us in a negative picture internationally.
     
    PARIKRAMA and dadeechi like this.
  6. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    680
    Country Flag:
    India
    My issue is not with plan of action per se but with the political angle.

    India already has rights under IWT to construct the run of river projects. This is not even a question or contention or debate.

    Its unfortunate the governments in the past have not implemented and exploited the resources to the fullest extent permitted under IWT but what is the need for publicizing such stuff now? Just to score some brownie points that BJP is doing what Congress did not do? Couldn't they even wait until the projects come to fruition?
     
    Joe Shearer and Inactive like this.
  7. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    680
    Country Flag:
    India
    I know we are not talking about abrogating IWT. See my response above.
     
    Inactive and Lion of Rajputana like this.
  8. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I did my part by making clear points, the onus was on you to understand, and you have clearly not done your part. Quite unfortunate that, but not my problem. I clearly said I did not want to turn off the tap completely, but that you never publicly take any option off the table from the beginning, and that the enemy should always think you'll go all the way.

    As for infrastructure, the point you made, was NOT relevant to my argument. I was asking if there is any way to make it possible to turn off the tap completely in the future, you were saying we currently do not have infrastructure to use our quota, which is irrelevant to my point because I never said we have the necessary infrastructure right now. Your point would ONLY be relevant if I was saying "Let's shut off the tap altogether at this very moment,' which I wasn't.

    Morals Morals Morals, blah blah blah. The world doesn't give two damns about morals. Might is right, and all things considered, India has built up immense amounts of moral points over history through restraint and reasonable action. Again, if you had taken the trouble to read my comments, I said that move in gradual escalatory fashion to put the squeeze on the Pakistani establishment and be clear TO LINK THIS ISSUE TO PAKISTANI TERRORISM. There's your moral justification.

    I do not need your thinly veiled condescension in the form of a dictionary link, keep it yourself, my understanding of English is just fine. And plucking out of context references to "turning off the tap" doesn't change the point I was making. I stated a million times over that my primary interest and intention was not to shut off the water altogether, but to have the capability to threaten Pakistan with the very real possibility of the tap being shut (otherwise nobody would take you seriously if you don't have the ability to carry out what you threaten). My only intention is to have that capability so PAk takes us seriously, and then you gradually alter water supply based on Pak receptiveness and compliance.

    The possibility of a civil uprising against the military is actually fantastic for us, the military would be distracted and weakened.

    Again, read more carefully, it's getting tedious correcting you, the fact that we CURRENTLY do not have the infrastructure to use our quota is IRRELEVANT to my point because I ACKNOWLEDGED that from the very beginning. I am AWARE of this already. But we have already accelerated that infrastructure work and I am discussing a future where we have the capability to use our own quota and then begin considering the possibility of building the necessary infrastructure to shut off the water IF WE WANT.
     
  9. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States
    It's probably a public projection of Gvt's multi-pronged retaliation. Part of it for domestic political brownie points (which let's face it, is necessary b/c that's how politics works in India) and part of it is to show Pakistan that things are serious now and they will face retaliation on every frontier and in every form.
     
    dadeechi likes this.
  10. dadeechi

    dadeechi Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    680
    Country Flag:
    India
    And that's exactly the point

    India not utilizing it shares till date was result of inefficiencies in planning and execution rather than benevolence towards Pakistan. Now claiming this as retaliation, we are unnecessarily giving an impression and building a perception that India is violating the IWT which is not the case at all.
     
    Lion of Rajputana likes this.
  11. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I think they are pursuing a "best of both worlds policy," they want to emphasize that we are rightfully using the full amount of water given to us by the the treaty; but at the same time characterizing this move as a retaliation for terrorism ("blood and water can't flow together" etc). This statement gives the impression that if Pakistan didn't conduct this terrorism, we may have left the current water balance untouched; true or not.
     
    dadeechi likes this.
  12. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    Surprisingly, world and Indian Government also does not give two damns for your view so far also, thankfully. And not likely to either.

    You can keep the discourse civil and control the tenor you employ. It is mighty rich of you to say that the onus of understanding your statement is on others. There are three members who have engaged your viewpoint - @MilSpec, @Joe Shearer and I. Either you are trying to portray all three as daft idiots that they have not understood what you are saying, or clearly your communication skills are wanting. Hence, I suggest take a serious look at the plethora of anti-thetical and shifting statements you have made here.

    It is tedious correcting you also, the tendency to change your statement from the first till last and then trying to squirm out. Stick to the Government of India policies as enunciated and discuss the merits and demerits thereof. This forum will not become a platform for misinformation detrimental to Indian Interests period.
     
    PARIKRAMA and MilSpec like this.
  13. Inactive

    Inactive Guest

    PARIKRAMA likes this.
  14. Lion of Rajputana

    Lion of Rajputana Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    1,918
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Kind of a pointless comment, when the country has been too lazy/shortsighted to build the necessary capability to build up enough infrastructure to fully utilize it's own share, how on Earth will they use the waters as leverage without capability to stop the waters...? For the first time we have a Gvt with the necessary strategic knowledge and foresight to weigh up this possibility, and first things first they're accelerating projects to at least first use our share to its maximum. This is the logical first step before my plan can be implemented, so sounds like you jumped the gun there by saying the Gvt doesn't give a damn about what I say, slick.

    I kept the discourse perfectly civil until you and your buddy Joe Shearer attempted to tag team me and began condescending to me; especially your good buddy Joe, and you didn't find it necessary to say a damn thing to him about his tone and tenor, so now don't teach me about my discourse when I have been provoked into abandoning niceties. But then, you sat by quietly watching when Joe Shearer asked me if I was a Pakistani in an intentionally provoking and inflammatory manner, so what can be expected of you anyways.

    I never attempted to portray milspec as daft, because he was civil, and not condescending like you and Joe Shearer, and therefore our small conversation at the beginning was perfectly civil and good natured. The fact that you and Joe have managed to turn this conversation sour is not my fault. Milspec clearly said he knew where I was coming from and understood my point, so don't try to fire from behind Milspec. The onus was on you and Joe to understand the points which I articulated quite well and which Milspec understood perfectly. The only problem here is with you and your friend Joe. That in itself is telling.

    I have not contradicted myself or squirmed out of anything. And what on Earth is the final sentence supposed to mean? Now you can't present your own thoughts and possible actions/policies? Should we all just regurgitate official Government policy? That makes both a debate and forumn pointless then. And if you are seriously attempting to slander my views as detrimental to Indian interests, you need to take a break and go "think it over." Because that is just about the most ridiculous cooked up charge anyone could manage to come up with.
     
  15. MilSpec

    MilSpec Mod MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    976
    Likes Received:
    1,764
    Country Flag:
    India
    Alright.

    To all of the contributing members on topic. Please calm down, all the positions on the topic are quite clear to the readers. Both positions have reached an impasse and neither side is going to change the opposing view. Please keep further posts civil and do not engage in any personal comments.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page