The Uncertain Future of India-Pakistan-Iran Pipeline

Dear D-M

I am not sure why it came as a surprise to you... I had an idea that Mani Shankar Aiyar would get into trouble with the Americans when I met him in Lahore at Ferozk`s house.

He told us.. ``We have ancient Indo-Iranian ties and we will tell the Americans that``

Rewind 40 years back to 1966... Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took a trip to the US with the then dictator FM Ayub Khan ... and met President Johnson... He was made to wait outside the Oval Office for 30 minutes while Ayub and Johnson had a private conversation about Bhutto (or so he claimed)... within 2 months Mr Bhutto was out of the Cabinet...

Bhutto was increasingly cosying up with the USSR after having secured a Steel Mill deal with the Soviets... Americans wanted him taught a lesson.

Mani unfortunately has neither the charisma nor the background that Bhutto had to reinvent himself.. but he is a good man.

DM,
You give too mch credit to Mani Shankar Aiyar. All his proposals were big talk and none in action.

For example - the so-called co-operation with China on bidding for oil sites has not yet resulted in any concrete joint bidding.

As far his performance goes, his delay in presenting an increase in gas products prices to the cabinet cost the oil companies a huge chunk of their profits.
His almost regular interferance in the affairs of the oil companies only delayed actions.
Most importantly his efforts to push his friends to the board of directors at ONGC is all the more well known.

Mani Shankar Aiyar was despised in his ministry.

DMji,

The only positive outcome of the ongoing Iran nuclear issue is that we`ll not go ahead with the pipeline. Pakistan is hard put to secure its own vital installations in Baluchistan. It would be madness to assume that the pipeline would not be sabotaged with/without the blessings of government in that country. Besides, Iran seems to be heading the path of confrontation with great powers.

Aiyar is a man of letters and IMHO he should commit to writing books. he should follow the example of another former diplomat J.N.Dixit. This politics thing is not his cup of tea. His sole qualification is being a court bard in the first family corridors. His support base in Tamilnadu is limited to people whose kids he has named as Rajiv, Indira, Sonia, Priyanka and Rahul. By his self-admission, he speaks better French than Tamil :-)

BTW, can you or someone following this thread tell me what this nuclear deal is all about. I`ve read some reports about the deal in passing but couldn`t understand the full ramifications of the agreement. I`m also puzzled by this mention of nuclear deal and gas deal in the same article. Can nuclear energy replace gas/oil?

A nation has no permanent enemies but only permanent interests. Maintaining good relations with Iran is vital not only in India`s geopolitical but also economic interest.

Ever since independence, India has always maintained good to excellent relations with most Muslim countries. Having the second largest Muslim population in the world, the Muslim world has always closely scrutinised how India treats its minorities. This policy issuing from the country`s avowed secular structure and its spin offs like anti Israel and pro Palestinian stance through the first fifty years has paid rich dividends. Barring aberrations that surface through occasu ional sectarian riots, India`s secular structure is sound, which is comforting to the leadership in most of the Muslim world. This is why all the propaganda carried out by Pakistan against the so called ill treatment of Muslims in India has not been paid heed to by the Muslim world at large. It is a fact that in India Muslims lead a peaceful and largely secure life, notwithstanding the disparagement in employment, a matter which must be corrected or which will auto correct as the economy booms and throws up more and more employment opportunities. Embassies of Muslim countries are the eyes and ears of their respective governments and obviously they have been giving positive feedback to their respective govts about treatment of Muslims in India. As a result relations with these countries are good. Except for voting in favor of Pakistan-sponsored resolutions on Kashmir in that talking shop called OIC, none of these countries have taken steps inimical to India`s interests. In short our good relations with Muslim countries have always put paid to Pakistan`s devious designs to muster their support in its adventures against India.

It is in this light we must look at our relations with Iran. Being home to the second largest population of Shias in the world, India has a special bond with Iran which needs to be strenghthened. Like India, Iran is an old civilisation with age old historical ties with us. Iran is also a counterweight to Pakistan`s (till it continues to exist as a state) shenanigans in our neighbourhood. So, Iran plays an important role in India`s quest for a troblefree neighbourhood which is so essential for economic development.

It is very important to further consolidate economic ties with Iran by joining the pipeline project. There is pressure from the Americans on India to keep away from the project
but in our geopolitical and economic interest we must resist this pressure. As for America`s new found love for India, they will any how come back to India, because they want us to counter rising Chinese influence in the world.

As for economic benefits which the pipeline will bring, there are no two opinions that they will be plenty.

A nation has no permanent friends neither permanent enemies but only permanent interests. Maintaining good relations with Iran is vital not only in India`s geopolitical but also economic interest.

Ever since independence, India has always maintained good to excellent relations with most Muslim countries. Having the second largest Muslim population in the world, the Muslim world has always closely scrutinised how India treats its minorities. This policy issuing from the country`s avowed secular structure and its spin offs like anti Israel and pro Palestinian stance through the first fifty years has paid rich dividends. Barring aberrations that surface through occasional sectarian riots, India`s secular structure is sound, which is comforting to the leadership in most of the Muslim world. This is why all the propaganda carried out by Pakistan against the so called ill treatment of Muslims in India has not been paid heed to by the Muslim world at large. It is a fact that in India Muslims lead a peaceful and largely secure life, notwithstanding the disparagement in employment, a matter which must be corrected or which will auto correct as the economy booms and throws up more and more employment opportunities. Embassies of Muslim countries are the eyes and ears of their respective governments and obviously they have been giving positive feedback to their respective govts about treatment of Muslims in India. As a result relations with these countries are good. Except for voting in favor of Pakistan-sponsored resolutions on Kashmir in that talking shop called OIC, none of these countries have taken steps inimical to India`s interests. In short our good relations with Muslim countries have always put paid to Pakistan`s devious designs to muster their support in its adventures against India.

It is in this light we must look at our relations with Iran. Being home to the second largest population of Shias in the world, India has a special bond with Iran which needs to be strenghthened. Like India, Iran is an old civilisation with age old historical ties with us. Iran is also a counterweight to Pakistan`s (till it continues to exist as a state) shenanigans in our neighbourhood. So, Iran plays an important role in India`s quest for a troblefree neighbourhood which is so essential for economic development.

It is very important to further consolidate economic ties with Iran by joining the pipeline project. There is pressure from the Americans on India to keep away from the project
but in our geopolitical and economic interest we must resist this pressure. As for America`s new found love for India, they will any how come back to India, because they want us to counter rising Chinese influence in the world.

As for economic benefits which the pipeline will bring, there are no two opinions that they will be plenty.

All his proposals sound good on paper. I want to know what he achieved in practice. He has never been a Tamil politician. I know he won a MP seat in the 1990s from Tamilnadu. The guy is a sycophant for the Nehru family.

It seems likely that over the next couple of decades there will be a technological shift towards more environment friendly sources of power in the west. So, this dimming of prospects for the pipeline project may in fact turn out to be good for everyone - even Pakistan, since what it loses in reveneus and investments may well be more than made by by the reduced pollution of the global/regional environment as India (a sixth of the global population) is pushed towards using alternative and newly developing technologies as well.

That is my uneducated take on it, at least.

as for the chinese and indian competition in this sector:

india was outbid in many areas and the chinese overpaid in billions.

But I wonder what the signing of MoU with the Chinese is going to resolve.

why would the chinese, who have more capital and immediate needs, care about indias long-term prospects?

it is too early to say whether the aiyar doctrine would be of any help to india.

---

to begin with, aiyar was not capable of heading the oil ministry (as most of the indian ministers are). this guy has more ideological baggage than business acumen. Murli Deora (who used to contest and win from South Bombay) is a successful businessman with close friends in corporate india. he will do far better than aiyar.

Aiyar was arguably the most competent and energetic Petroleum Minister India has seen in a long time.


Umm..ok..let`s see what else we know about his record..From another source on the internet


Aiyar had a two-pronged approach to meeting India’s energy imports. The first was for the ONGC’s international wing, Videsh Oil Nigam, to bid for oil fields in oil-producing countries. This policy, which had in fact been initiated during the earlier NDA regime, has so far met with only limited success.


Strike 1


His Burma pipeline proposal did not succeed as Burma chose China over India for selling its gas.


Strike 2


It was said, moreover, that Pakistan could not guarantee the security of the pipeline even if it wanted to because it could not control the jihadis within its borders and because the pipeline would pass through the turbulent territory of the Balochistan province, notorious for frequent sabotages of gas pipelines. Under these circumstances, it was Aiyar’s single-minded efforts which kept the India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline proposal afloat despite both domestic and external opposition.


Single minded efforts for a pipeline through an enemy country..one that can`t guarantee the safety of it`s own pipelines running through balochistan: Strike 3


Aiyar still soldiered on


yup...he thought HE was the PM..hope things are clearer now..


It has already signalled its displeasure with India by announcing its desire to renegotiate the price of the LNG deal signed last year.


so you think Iran wouldn`t have asked for a higher price if India had abstained...?

(insert bridge cliche here)...

#1 by Mantolives on February 2, 2006 4:57am PT


He told us.. ``We have ancient Indo-Iranian ties and we will tell the Americans that``


We who? Him and his ego? Or the Indian government, which didn`t share his views..Maybe that`s the problem..he thought he was the PM and he created policy. As a minister, he job really is to execute policy, the broad outlines of which are defined by the PM..

and the Bhutto comparison isn`t even valid...America carries Pakiland`s military dictatorship around on a leash and the dictatorship, in turn, carries the elected/selected government behind it on a leash...

netizen
[....why would the chinese, who have more capital and immediate needs, care about indias long-term prospects? ....]

Exactly..... But Aiyar and his fellow-traveller jack-a$$es don`t understand that - they are high on rhetoric and low in common sense and real-politics..... And get this - Aiyar says ``India-iran have ancient ties`` - yeah, so what?.....Such bullsh!t doesn`t cut anything in highly complex and competitive world of energy diplomacy.....

But ``leaders`` in India never understood such things - which is why india has been and still is in economic dog-house.....

Also look at the author - this Aiyar guy has nothing to show for except for rhetoric - and yet the author declares him ``most competent`` minister......How in god`s name can this guy be considerd ``most competent``?...... I suspect - it`s a generational thing - Indians born during that period somehow love mindless rhetoric and ignore the common sense.....

God - when are we going to get free from these geriatric ideologues? Can we, for a change, have some real leadership in our politics, please?.... A billion people - is that too much to ask for????

Re: # 10


``and the Bhutto comparison isn`t even valid...America carries Pakiland`s military dictatorship around on a leash and the dictatorship, in turn, carries the elected/selected government behind it on a leash...``


thats funny

Netizen #12 That is funny indeed - but only to the Indian ``sense of humor`` (which is based on ridiculing other people as a way to compensate for your inferiority complexes).

It is also wrong - anyone who thinks Bhutto was on anyone`s leash has to be smoking pot. Or having a Creip-brain like arjun (which is the same thing).

You Chowk Indians are incapable of seeing any topic outside the blinders of your Pakistan-obsession.

Re: # 13

chacha akhmad:

The thought of a dog leading another dog on a leash was funny to me. Nevertheless, if it causes some acid burn to you then i do regret it.

FYI, the reference to pak was made by your fellow paki, manto; not by any indian.

pak doesn`t and should not matter to india, other than kashmir.

It`s very strange that india is willing to sacrifice much for the sake of nuclear ENERGY technology from a country that has very few functioning nuclear power reactors.
Even if you devalue ties to iran, what`s at stake is india`s traditional position that all signatories to the NPT ought to adhere to their commitments. The US has pretty much given up on honoring its commitment to work towards reducing its number of nuclear weapons to zero. The pentagon is busy finding new enemies and is busy researching new kind of nukes altho funding for a compact ``bunker buster`` nuke did not come thru for reasons other than international treaties & commitments.
By voting against iran`s RIGHT to build & operate nuclear power reactors under IAEA inspection, india is ceding power to the EU and the US. Contrast this to china which is rather circumspect and is not very eager to act against its own long term interests in return for short-term favors. India is commiting a huge blunder in anticipation of a strategic partnership with the US that may (1) never come, and (2) would earn it enemies within its sphere. We don`t want to end up as another japan which essentially is a US protectorate having no independent foreign policy of its own.
The pipeline thing, on the other hand, is too premature. Until there is a friendship treaty or some such thing with a popularly elected civilian govt in islamabad, the pipeline idea is like sowing oats in the wind - it may have unintended consequences.
Mani Shankar Aiyar is an old friend of Rajiv Gandhi. I wonder if his sacking indicates a distancing of Manmohan Singh from Sonia or if Aiyar has fallen out of favor with Rajiv`s family.

netizen #14 OK, regrets accepted. Even though the regret does not specifically mention the reason I objected - which was on polluting the discussion on article topic on chowk with the same monotonous set of insults to Pakistan and crowing about India (of which arjun is a prime example).

As for Pakistan not mattering to India: I dont care whether or not Pakistan matters to India. All I am saying is for chowk Indians to try and talk about something beyond their usual limited repertoire of subjects, namely on how bad Pakistan is and how good India is.