Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik!

You are not clear what was India`s relationship with Iran during the Cold War. That would have made, at least me, understand India`s most recent policyache.

Didn`t the purported raison d`etre for NAM come to an end when the Soviet Union ceased to exist?

Israel `must be wiped from map`

Thursday, October 27, 2005 Posted: 0410 GMT (1210 HKT)


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.RELATED
Full story: Iran pursuing nuclear program
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

Iran
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
United Nations
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran`s new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be ``wiped out from the map,`` insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called ``World without Zionism`` and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran`s Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran`s Islamic revolution, who said that Israel ``must be wiped out from the map of the world.``

The president then said: ``And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,`` according to a quote published by IRNA.

The Jewish state has diplomatic relations with major Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, and the Gaza disengagement has improved ties between Israel and some other Muslim nations and leaders.

But Ahmadinejad said the ``new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away,`` according to paraphrased statements in the IRNA report.

He also described Israel`s disengagement from Gaza as a ``trick`` meant to make ``Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel,`` according to the report.

The United States and Israel are sowing ``discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world,`` the report paraphrased Ahmadinejad as saying.

In the process, such attempts were forcing Muslim nations to normalize relations with Israel, he said.

Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation`s fury.``

Ahmadinejad`s comments prompted the French foreign minister to summon the Iranian ambassador to Paris for an explanation. France is one of the European countries that has been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he learned about Ahmadinejad`s comments from news reports that indicate the Iranian president called for Israel`s destruction and said the conflict in the Middle East would result in a fight between Jews and Muslims.

``If these comments are correct, they are unacceptable. I greatly condemn them and have asked for the Iranian ambassador in Paris to be summoned to the Foreign Ministry to demand explanations,`` Douste-Blazy said.

``For France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested. This state was created by a decision of the U.N. General Assembly. International law applies to all. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist.``

One top Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Nori Hamadani, said in a written statement it is incumbent upon Muslims to wrest Palestine from the Israelis.

He urged Iranians to protest on Friday -- which is Jerusalem Day, commemorated by Iranians to honor Jerusalem, where Israel has established its capital, and renew their support for an establishment of a Palestinian state.

Journalist Shirzad Bozorghmehr contributed to this report

Absolutely, India did the right thing by jettisoning the values and principles that guided NAM. We would be fools if we continued to harp on the virtues of non-alignment in a blatantly unipolar world. Just look at Pakistan. The country stills swears by the Ummah even as the most vocal proponents of that mythical construct like Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries go about their business silently, leaving Pakistan to look like a fool.

As kaal rightly put it, there is just no reason why the NAM should continue to exist given the fact that the USSR ceased to exist more than a decade and a half ago.

India should continue to be guided by its national interests alone. Only those countries that have put their national interest above everything else have thrived. And by national interest, I don’t mean the term that Paki dictators use to justify their rule ;-)

We have to keep two things in mind while talking about the Iranian Vote. Do we stand for Nuclear proliferation or not. That is first. Secondly, how long will we cling to the supposed high ground of Non-alignment when the world knows that Non-alignment actually meant ``alignment`` with the former USSR.

We should stand for nuclear non-proliferation in the world. If that sounds somewhat hypocritical as we are ourselves nuclear (capable) power, so be it. We have good relations with Iran, no doubt, but there may be some issues where friendly countries may differ with each other. Particularly, when it comes to the weapons of mass destruction. Iran may, tommorrow-if need arises- may not support India if we try to acquire/develop some deadly arsenal.

Now coming to high moral ground of NAM, the non-alignment was actually on paper rather than on the ground. Because of the geo-politics of the region, we were compelled to align the the ex-USSR. With the end of cold war, we are in a better position to arrive at our best national interests.

A better way to write such articles is to first inform the reader about India’s nuclear energy, Natural Gas, and Petroleum (gas) needs. All three have separate implications. As I understand it, India currently heavily depends on Iranian Gas (petroleum). It has no reliance on Iran for natural Gas. Nuclear energy is for producing Power (electricity) and has no bearing whatsoever on Natural Gas or Gas supplies for transportation and home consumption. India’s power plants are coal fired. So the decision must be between Gas fired plants or nuke energy. Now what are the plans in India for developing new power plants? If a decision was made to abandon planning for Gas fired plants then it does not matter whether India gets LPG or Gas thru pipeline from Iran.

Political decisions of this nature are not made on whims. A whole thought process goes in to these decisions. It is alright to write articles after reading some newspaper clippings but if someone wants to write an intelligent article on such an important issue they should research it a little bit more before making conclusions about the fundamentals of the Indian foreign policy.

How far India was in its planning to have to natural Gas fired power plants? What are the cost differentials between Gas fired power plants and nuke energy? What costs Indian Industry can support? Nuke is definately going to cost more than the Gas. Author should have at least provided an overview of the plans for readers to understand the importance of the decision.

One thing people should understand that making a decision about LPG is becoming harder every day. A ship carrying LPG in the high seas is like having an unprotected nuke plant floating in the sea. Any mishap would be 10-20 times more environmentally disastrous than the Valdez. The Ship can never be terrorism proof and that is a major concern in today’s shipping industry.

Many things go into consideration before making a decision and the decision is easy or difficult diplomatically is entirely based on the timing and the urgency of the issue. For Iran, it may be a diplomatic blow but if they can see Indian rationale for making the decision, they will not hold this against India for a long time. Nations like people don`t have long memories. They make alliances based on the situation. Irani help in OIC may have already been reciprocated by India some where else. Relying on an unreliable piece of information does not make this assertion credible.

This is a half baked article and little research would have allowed the author to make some credible analysis instead of patching some newspaper clipping together and presenting that as analysis.

Can someone shed some light on this point:
India has inked a deal with the US for supply of nuclear technology? (or material?) to meet its domestic energy needs. The deal still needs to be approved by the US Congress, and is still not a done deal. Can India get the same or similar nuclear technology from other sources - such as Russia or France? Surely, the US cannot object since the US President himself has inked such a deal with India.

I think as a matter of precaution, in case the US Congress does not approve the deal, India should engage in talks with Russia/France for a similar deal. This will also give India more leeway in the Iran case, where India is stuck between the devil and the deep sea. It cannot afford to antagonize either Iran or the US since it needs energy from both, and runs the risk of getting neither. OTOH, if Russia were to supply nuclear tech to India, we would have the best of both worlds.

Why would Russia need permission from the NSG to supply nuke tech to India, if the US does not require such permission?

Any comments?

Research and development in nuclear technologies is far more important for India than relations with Iran. It has to still mature its fast breeder reactors, the thorium route and miniturisation of warheads for the delivery systems.

The cost of downgrading her realtions with Iran, a neighbour of Pakistan is far too less when compared with unprecedented cooperation with USA. It also relieves India of an un neccesary burden. The equation itself circumvents Pakistan. So that divide of Pacific Command and CENTCOM is now complete.

Cherios

Re: # 6 you have hit the nail right through the head. It went in and came out.

That along with #8 indicates the raison detre for the decision.

Plus add kyoto requirements. Add energy reuirements of future. Add the chinese experience of increasing power through coal (low grade) and the pollution there.

I agree with HP mittar has let the ball slip through his fingers. The article is lame, and doesnot have the required detail to come to a valid judgement. Superficial to say the least.

Relations among countries should not be based on single issues – and seldom are.

You continue to show a great affinity for what the diplomatic-types occasionally spurt out for press coverage – usually niceties! Action is always more important – and must be constantly re-tuned to current realities!

Lets face it. India has become to America what Pakistan has been accused of by the very Indians: a well-lubricated condom.

RE- #11 by godot

It seems like you would like this to happen. History of US influencing Indian foreign policy(or any policy for that matter) is not as much as US influencing the Pakistani foreign policy and every other policy including Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation”.

On a scale of 1 – 100 in a being a “Well lubricated condom” to be used and thrown away by US, if Pakistan scores a grand 100, for India it will be something like 2.

hohoho Godot!, highly unlikely that Indians will do Uncle Sam`s bidding like Pakistan did in Afghan war. On the contrary US will be called upon to do the dirty work for Indians; Eg: Pakis Kargil withdrawal

Re: # 12 & 13

Yeah, okay. Whatever makes you happy. For Uncle, both condoms cost the same, only the brand is different.

I was recently at the Indian Consulate in NY for some program around Economic development in certain states. There were parliamentary reps akin to the India Caucus in the US congress that focus on increasing cross border understanding and trade. One gentleman form Uttar Pradesh, spoke in length about how important a decision it was for India to call a spade a spade, i.e. Iran..all rolled-up in the ``national interest`` paradigm. He spoke about how he led the effort and deliberations wiithin the external affairs organization within the gov`t and built consensus to adopt this watershed position. He was a muslim. He spoke also about democracy and the importance of that in the Indian polyglotic society.

Incidentally, they had a wharton educated 27 yr old MP from Rajasthan who has been in th eparliament for 2 yrs and he said that ``when I was elected, I was the youngest...now I am the third youngest`` It brought a chuckle from a crowd but is a great testament to the process of democracy and the involvement of the young people that is on the rise..in a country where people under 30 will make up more than 70% of the population.

DMji,
The decision to vote against iran is a good one for india if
1. nuclear power generation is a sure thing, and
2. there are stopgap arrangements to meet the energy requirements between now and when adequate nuclear power production is achieved.

I am sure there were detailed policy deliberations that went into this decision but that in itself doesn`t guarantee that the decision was a good one. One possible reason may also be to offset pakistan`s closeness to the Bush administration and another could be to protect india`s growing exports to the US.
I agree with you that realpolitik is more important than moralizing. However, morality or an apparent adherence to it could also be a matter of strategy and a bargaining chip.
I don`t understand how Iran is in violation of NPT so long as it is not sharing its technology with anyone else.

DM Sir,
I am glad that someone wrote on this topic. Like they say ``Countries do not have friends but Interests``, and in the present day scenario Iran is not aligned with India`s interests, as simple as that.

India`s ruling Congress Party, since 50ies has been trying to hug Iran, PLO, Iraq and many other 3rd, 4th World countries to emerge as a Non Aligned Front`s leader. NAM always had the secret blessing of USSR, and frankly I think USSR enjoyed NAM`s presence to counter the weight differential between USA/West. India has already dumped PLO, Iraq by forging alliance with Israel and Saddam`s episode, so why is Iran Chapter a surprise, it was so obvious to me.

Natural Gas Pipeline sounds good, but frankly is not a viable option. It`s feasibility is questionable, especially as it goes through Pakistan. Who would stop Pakistan from shutting off the valves during tension that always exists between India and Pakistan?

America`s offer of helping to rebuild and sell the Nuclear Reactors to India is more preferable anyday, in fact it is a ``blessing and Boon``. Power generated by Nuclear technology is the futuristic concept along with Solar Energy. I have no doubts in my mind that when the World`s existing Gas reserves are exhausted then Nuclear Power would be the main vortex of Power.

Nobody likes to be friends with Fundamentalist country, at least openly.

GoodBye NAM
Hello SAM

Re: # 15

It`s good to know that more and more young people are getting into parliament..... I, for one, am sick of these old mothf**kers like Deve Gowda and all...... these people should be retired and put out to some pasture somewhere......

In US, the devout Christians ask themselves WWJD (what would jesus do) before doing anything

It seems in Pakistan, the rulers who devise any policy ask themselves 5 questions

WWMD – what would mohammad do
WWUS – what would ummah say
WWSS – what would the Saudis and other arabs say
WWAS – what would America say
WWHD – what would the hindus do and lets do the exact opposite OR do it before they do

India also has the largest Shia community outside Iran``
India does not have the largest Shia community, outside Iran.

The vote on Iran actually had two interesting aspects. India voted against Iran, as this article highlights. However, Pakistan, despite intense US pressure, did not vote agaisnt Iran. This is the second time in a row, that Pakistan has voted independently, outside US pressure. The first, being unwilling to send troops to Iraq. This is a good sign, in my opinion.....

Interestingly, when India tested its nuclear weapon, the argument put forth by the India govt. was based on nuclear apartheid by USA, i.e. any country should be allowed nukes. Now it is supporting exactly the opposite argument in case of Iran.

The vote on Iran, is a much bigger event internationally, than this article highlights. It is much bigger than India`s association, or lack thereof, with NAM. That was one small aspect of it.

The biggest event was the fact that so many countries did not vote agaisnt Iran. Usually such votes are open and shut cases. The second biggest event was that China and Russia voted on the same side, and in support of Iran. As did Brazil and Vanuezula. Vanuezula being the only one that did not abstain and openly voted in favor of Iran.

India, all along, was going to vote in favor of Iran. It is not a question of theoretical issues like NAM. It is a simple question of energy supplies. For an economy to grow at a certain %, its energy supplies need to grow at three times that %. For India to maintain 6% economic growth rates, it will need energy growth of 18%.

However, at the last moment, it changed its mind, due to intense lobbying and pressurising by the USA. The return deal being access to nuclear know-how......

I think this article, incorrectly, highlights the fact that India has energy resources in Bay of Bengal, Myanamar etc. Currently, India uses the same amount of natural gas, as Pakistan. This means the average Indian uses 1/7th the natural gas, as the average Pakistani. Thus the demand of natural gas (and oil) in India is going to go up manifold. Ten-fold to twenty-fold and more. Such energy is not available to India. There is only one place from which India can get such energy resources, at a cheap price. And that is Central Asia/Iran. If a country cannot get such natural resources, its economy hits a wall, regardless of literacy rates and govt. policies.......

There is, however, a huge problem with such access for India. Pakistan sits right in the middle. Hence, to satisfy its energy resources, India has to go through Pakistan. And we all know, that is not an easy or acceptable proposition for India........

I think there are two major theatres of war that are developing. The first, ``Great Game`` is for the oil resources of Central Asia. With China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran on one side. And US, Japan, UK, India, Afghainstan on the other. The second, ``Great Game`` is Israel/USA vs. Arab/Iran countries. This game is eventually going to center around Iran. Iranis are passionately connected to their nukes. Much like Indians and Pakistanis. Mullahs/non-Mullahs, all want them. At the same time, Iran has a govt., which gets elected every x number of years. Thus Iran is a difficult nut to crack.........

Pakistan has played its cards well. Its future lies with the China block on the North Side. And with the Middle Eastern block on the West side. These are the directions Pakistan should be looking at. And these are the directions Pakistan should be voting along. The more I am seeing the voting patterns and policies of India, the more I am begining to get convinced that Pakistanis should not be looking towards South Asia, as a viable economic and social partner. This is not to say that Pakistan should not trade there. It should. But that is not where Pakistan`s future lies. The situaiton is too unstable. A good example being India`s immediate change of mind on the Iran-Pak-India gas line, which was to be the future of Indo-Pak friendship. The decision changed in one day. That is how most decisions will be...........

In addiiton, Pakistan needs to make one final move. It needs to fully, or conditionally, recognize Israel. And it should link any major transit access to India, towards Central Asia for energy, with a justifiable principle based dealings in South Asia. This access is India`s achilles heel..........This is where, India`s large size is actually a liability for India, i.e. its energy needs will be massive, if it is to grow. Much like being of smaller size is Pakistan`s achilles heel, in most dealings with India.........

However, the real fight is not Pakistan/India. These are minor players. The real fight is USA, Russia, China over the Central Asian/Middle Eastern resources of energy...........

P.S. How possible is it to replace natural gas and oil needs with nuclear energy. To the best of my knowledge, no country has been able to make that replacement (otherwise the price of oil would not be so high). France seems to have had some success, but even it is dependent on Middle Eastern oil..........

Romair# 20

Your thesis is viable only if viewed thru the pradigm of energy sources that India utilizes today. However, I think that we should consider the option of alternative energy sources that are open to India. The Indo-US cooperation in Nuclear technology means that India is shifting its policy of the consumption from fossil fuel to the nuclear fuel. Just imagine an India where all households, all factories, all agriculture equipment, all mass transit are supplied with electricity that has been generated by nuclear fuel. Where would be the demand for fossil fuel then? Just for the privately owned vehicles or the petroleum based products like plastic, fibres, and lubricants etc. I think Manmohan government has made the best energy related decision ever. It will make India more efficient and cost effective in it production.

Practically, getting nuclear fuel should not be a problem no more. American and British companies like Bechtel, a subsidiary of Haliburton are extracting Uranuim from Central Asia like there is no tomorrow. This fuel has to be sold somewhere; so why not India. I do not think that they are digging it up just for their amusement.

Why can`t Pakistan think on these lines. Why can`t we replace our dams and diesel powered power plants with nuclear ones. Theoretically, and as this regime paints the rosy picture of its relationship with US because of its war on anti-American resistence aka terrorism, Pakistan should expect to face least of resistence. In my opinion, since 9/11 Pakistan should have laid foundation for at least three nuclear power plants by now - with American cooperation. But as usually, duffers in Na Pak fuaj are only menatlly trained to obey the orders from their masters. Corruption and shortsightedness have renederd them imbiciles and arrogant who are only good at killing their own people and whose dictator is apt at insulting helpless rape victims. They could have gotten the debt on Pakistan forgone by now, but they didn`t because then it will close the door for their corruption. They could have established nuclear power plants but they are busy insulting and hounding Pakistans scientists and heroes. We should look at INdia and should lower our heads in shame instead of giving them lectures on what is good for them and what is not.

Congratulations to the indian nation on taking a measured and pragmatic approach towards its relations with others.

Iran is yet another of these loser countries with a lot of oil. It is technologically backward and xenophobic nation. If it continues on its current path, its population will increase by 60 million by 2020. It has no plans to develop industry so all of these people will live of oil revenues.

Re: # 22: Agree with you completely, Saudi arabia`s per capita GDP went from $20K/yr in 1982 to $7.5 a yr in 2003. The only thing countries like these have been capable of doing is producing retards via cousin marriages who destroy value.

Senator Lanto’s


It`s congresscritter Lantos, not Senator(he wishes!!)


India also has the largest Shia community outside Iran and alienating Iran also means a potential political cost to the Congress Party, especially in the state of Uttar Pradesh.


Indian leftist/pacifists/liberals are no different from the gujjubanias: Both assume Indian muslims will be more loyal to their co-religionists than to India...of course, Indian muslims(and most muslims worldwide) have given people ample reason to suspect that..but still....

Re: # 20
Interesting perspective from a Pakistani, however still lacking in objective inference.

India needs Nuclear Technology more than Gas Pipeline to sustain it`s projection as a Super Power for Energy needs. Down the road, Nuclear Technology would remove all the dependence of foreign countries and will make Indian self sufficient for at least 50-60 yrs and support India in it`s Space Conquests.

Indian think-tanks did not plan for this shift in American offer until 6 months ago. India never thought that USA would want to make India as its strategic partner to counter China and Islamic counter-measure in coming days. Though BJP govt`s Jaswant Singh, a very learned man himself tried his best to appeal to USA to make it adverse to Pakistan, USA never agreed to it.

I think that American Govt had a big policy change vis-a-vis India/Pakistan after the Colin Powell`s demise and Condi Rice`s succession, unlike Colin, Condy is a trained strategician in foreign affairs specialising in Balkans/Russia and China. USA, it seems values India more now than ever, and would never want to lose it over Iran.
Indian IT was a major factor in shaping India`s image in Western mindset that was tarnished as pro-soviet, beggars, disease ridden skinny people. Now, Americans view India as educated, still poor, but reasonable friend.

Condy is the fulcrum of Republican Party. 9-11 helped India politically than ever before.

Re: # 25
I meant Colin Powell`s departure NOT DEMISE.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Another example of Slave mentality of Indians at work here. Another sign that the Indian rat is one step closer to a cage......East India Company all over again.

Re: # 27
Please take this nonse elsewhere.
Spare the readers on Front Page with your childish, silly grudges.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 28 kaura

Come on - East India company? that`s freaking commie-talk...... See - that`s the mentality which has taken India where it is today - poor, wretched and isolated.....

Re: # 31
Mr Kaura, what is wrong with what India did and why they should not do what they did?
I think history will remember MMS as the leader who made India as America`s strategic partner, meanwhile BJP and others will complain that he took the credit for their work.
Purely from tactical and logistical purposes MMS leaped India forward.

I also agree with you on; pretty much that goes on around the world is still controlled by the Western Powers. But less Powerful countries try to make the most by what-so-ever means just to survive, hoping that one day they would be powerful.

Re: # 28: this is actually the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. There are no negative impacts of taking this stand for India.

Dear Energy Specialist Urstruly: Great to see you in fighting form. Look forward to Field Marshall Romair`s counteroffensive.

Re: # 20 romair
//.....pakistan should link any major transit access to India, towards Central Asia for energy, with a justifiable principle based dealings in South Asia....//

You don`t have to say - it`s already done...... any major or even minor transit access has already been ``linked`` to ``principle based`` dealings[read kashmir]..... so much so that even much-needed energy biscuits for afgan children now pass thru Iran......

Keep it up..... you pakis are doing great......

Re: # 32
//....less Powerful countries try to make the most by what-so-ever means just to survive....//

Very simple - if you can`t fight them, join them...... :)

Delhiwali: Very good comment. Thoughtful and precise. Nothing less is expected from you. (This is my be-good-on-chowk week). :-)

#21 by Urstruly on October 27, 2005 8:23am PT


They could have gotten the debt on Pakistan forgone by now,


With the card they were holding? I don`t think anybody other than the self-deluded pakis with their t-shirts with pakis flags ever thought that would be possible...In case you haven`t noticed, anything offered to Pakistan is only done after India is made a much better offer..for e.g. the F-16s...India was offered a choice of a more advanced version of F-16 or the F-18, in addition to the PAC-3...

When Powell threatened to bomb Pakiland to the stone age if he didn`t dump the taliban, mushy had no choice...

You couldn`t even get the feds to stop deporting pakis en-masse...debt forgiven..haha..

Urstruly #21: Your analyses would be a lot better, if you stopped suffuxing them with ideological views. You tend to ruin otherwise good analyses in such a manner.......

``Your thesis is viable only if viewed thru the pradigm of energy sources that India utilizes today. However, I think that we should consider the option of alternative energy sources that are open to India.``

This is the question I asked. If nuclear power is a comprehensive replacement for other energy resources, then I think India has made a perfect move. If it is a replacement, then why haven`t the Western countries adjusted to it? Why is oil and natural gas in such high demand, to the point that countries are willing to invade and occupy other countries to control it. And why is price of oil going through the roof?

Delhiwalla #25: ``Down the road, Nuclear Technology would remove all the dependence of foreign countries and will make Indian self sufficient for at least 50-60 yrs and support India in it`s Space Conquests.``

Kindly explain what India is planning to conquer in space :) Is nuclear technology a compreshensive replacement for fossil fuels? Is fossil fuel demand dying? I think this is a key factor in deciding the importance of nuclear technology. If India will be self-sufficient for 50-60 years, through nuclear technology it gains from the USA, then why is the USA fighting over oil. And why are China and Russia fighting over oil and natural gas?

There seems to be a disconnect here.............

``Condy is a trained strategician in foreign affairs specialising in Balkans/Russia and China.``

Condaleeza Rice is an expert in Cold War Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Eastern Europe. I am not aware of her area of expertise being China. Or post-cold War Russia or post-Cold war Balkans. Could you point to some references..........

Her only foreign affairs assignment that I know of was a two-year stint in Bush Srs. administration, under Brent Scowcroft. Other than that, her career has been in various managerial and academia positions, in political science, at Stanford. Could you highlight how she became a, ``trained foreign affairs strategician?``

Re: # 38

arjun

``With the card they were holding?``

Bingo!

#6 by HP on October 26, 2005 11:39pm PT


What are the cost differentials between Gas fired power plants and nuke energy? What costs Indian Industry can support? Nuke is definately going to cost more than the Gas.


Most people with an IQ over room temperature can do a simple google search and come up with this information...being that you`re a paki, and a denser-than-usual one at that, I`ll do it for you...

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.




Bottom line: nuclear is cheaper for a country that doesn`t have the gas reserves in-country.

“Apparently, these two Nehrvian war-horses from a bye-gone era did not know what was brewing in the Prime Minister’s Office.”

Dost mittar is working feverishly to portray a rift in the Congress admin. Now where his talking points are coming from?

Straight from the RSS HQ or from the BJP ideologues?

He is implying that the two most prominent and important members of the Manmohan cabinet are not on the same page with the Prime Minister. In fact, he is going even further than that and implying not only a rift between the manmohan cabinet exists but there is also an ideological split between the Prime Minister and two important ministers, one being the Foreign Minister.


“The US administration told India in no uncertain terms that its support for the Indo-US Accord in the US Congress would depend upon India’s support for the IAEA resolution against Iran.”

Where is the link for this? “No uncertain terms” is strong language, let see who said that.

“Non-Align Movement will continue to exist, if for no other reason than that the large bureaucracy that supports it will continue to find a rationale for its survival.”

The Non aligned movement died the day communist bloc died.

Which bureaucracy is the writer talking about? The Indian bureaucracy is not as highly politics driven as the one in the US.

I don’t know but can someone enlighten me if there are political appointees in the India bureaucracy, especially in the foreign office. Is this just another cliché to drive some unknown point home? I have serious doubt that Indians bureaucracy is running its own show from the south block.

The IAEA resolution was a negotiated document. The US along with Germany and France had taken the position that the Iranian violations must be reported to the UN right away and a strong language should be used. Russia and China and other members (possibly including India) did not support the idea of taking this issue to the UN on an expedited course.
A compromised was reached when the language was toned down and the question of UN action was left open-ended. That gave some members the opportunity to either abstain or vote in favor of the resolution.


“India also has the largest Shia community outside Iran and alienating Iran also means a potential political cost to the Congress Party, especially in the state of Uttar Pradesh.”

I am not going to go out looking for the link but this exact line appeared in one RSS mouth piece ”Pioneer” and now it finds its way on Chowk.

This site is now extensively being used to promote the RSS agenda.

Romair:

I wont quote any example from European countries but just your country Canada only. Canada is the country that can meet its 100% energy requirements thru nuclear power and even then it is left with surplus electricity, which it sells to United States. The electric power is so surplus that some years ago, I remember, Canada shut down several nuclear facilities because it was not cost effective being over-capcity. Canada can easily switch 100% to electricity, but the economy of two of its provinces, Alberta and Ontario still (partially) dependent on petroleum industry. The discovery of Petroleum in these two provinces actually made the Canada as rich as it is today. In comparison, India and Pakistan have no alternative indiginuous fuel indutry that is hard to replace.

Nuclear power is our Lord`s gift to humanity. It is every individual`s and nation`s birth right to benefit from our God`s wonderful bounty and those who keep others from enjoying its benefit are the enemies of God.

Re: # 42

HP:

Why do you drag Hindutva/RSS/BJP in all debates? From Amartya Sen to Iran.

The first sentence Natwar gave to the media after becoming the Foregin Minister was that India will ``re-junevate`` NAM. Whatever it meant. This guy is old chap from 80`s. His mindset is still stuck in the cold war era. Its difficult to teach new tricks to old dogs.

---

``This site is now extensively being used to promote the RSS agenda. ``

was that innocuous (if wrong) statement a RSS agenda? may be you don`t know rss enough.

---

``The Non aligned movement died the day communist bloc died. ``

Not in ``secular`` ``communist`` ``socialist`` india. the communist are still swearing by NAM. they too are pissed off on MMS.

---

agreed, this article is not a research paper. but atleast we are discussing it. maybe someone with time and interest could look at it in more detail.

Re: # 39

Space Conquests does not mean conquering Planets and unfurling Indian Flag. It means launching satellites and exploring Moon and Mars for some other Potential mineral resources or futuristic technologies that are yet to be invented/discovered.

Having its own Space Program would help in following:

1) Launching Satellites (own and whoever pays for them), it is a very lucrative business.
2) Weather forecasting, Communications N/W (for civil and defense applications).
3) GPS tracking etc. I can go on......

Fossil Fuels:
We all know that they are not going to last more than 30-40 years. All big players are chasing their control not only because they are there but also because western economies are tied to them. Lot of money has been invested in Oil Industry and its ancillary applications. If USA looses its control over Fossil Fuel, that would be the collapse of existing World Order leading to WW-3.
Besides, Fossil Energy is easily available and the cost of controlling it by conquering nations, or politically dominating them, pales in comparison to the Chaos that would come otherwise.

India going after Civil Nuclear Energy instead of Iranian Gas can be compared to Telephone N/W in India. For e.g. these days even remote villages in Bihar have access to SMS and other sophisticated Cell Phones. Whereas 10 years ago Administration used to shudder thinking about laying land lines and dealing with the mess of vendettas, favoritism, violence etc that often comes with new initiatives in India. Latest Technology of Cell Phones using relays and transmitters leap-frogged India ahead of even America. Cellphones and SMS are more integrated to India’s Middle Class than in USA.

Similarly Civilian Nuclear Technology would alter India’s dependence on external factors. Even wondered why India supported Muslim Nations for the last 50 years, even more than Pakistan did? Indian Muslim Population was one factor but Fossil Fuel was another catalyst to this Foreign policy. Especially Iraq and Iran, now that both are gone bad in the eyes of the World, it is in India’s interest to befriend USA. It can be compared to Pakistan’s friendship with China that is alive despite the fact that Chinese are killing and sterilizing Uguar Muslims for the last 60 years.

Arjun

``When Powell threatened to bomb Pakiland to the stone age if he didn`t dump the taliban, mushy had no choice... ``


This is an ugly myth that is used by Pakistani establishment to scare people into complacency and cover up their own cowardice and incompetence. As a matter of fact a mere hint that Pakistan would handover its nuclear weapons to Al-Qaida would have been enough to make anyone think twice before uttering any threat to Pakistan sending back to stone age.

As a matter of fact, as the truth has now come out from no where but from the horse`s mouth itself i.e. Powell, that he was quite surprised by the level the Pakistani dictator would lower himself to, to show his complacency. Musharaf appears to be a duffer little bully when compared to the master poker player Zia ul Haq, who faught a ten year war with a superpower and defeated it. Had Soviet Union threatened or actually used a nuclear weapon against Pakistan, do you think America or any Western European country would have done anything about it? I don`t think so. So the threat of nuclear as well a a two pronged coventional attack from Russia and India combined was there during the 10 year war but Zia didn`t lower himself.

HP

Netizen is the same guy who was upset by the campaign of secular indians to stop US corporates from funding hate via the VHP`s front organisations.

He said alternative means of funding the RSS would know have to be found

Romair:

I think russian and china abstained form the voting, they didn`t vote in favor of iran.

also,

i think that as long as gas is available in the world, u.s/china will vie for it. it doesn`t make any economical sense to abondon the infrastructure worth billions (could be trillions) of dollars that the oil companies throughout the world have invested.

if a country like india can utilize alternate source of energy, it could save a lot of foreign exchange.

Re: # 47

Hindvi:

``Netizen is the same guy who was upset by the campaign of secular indians to stop US corporates from funding hate via the VHP`s front organisations.

He said alternative means of funding the RSS would know have to be found``


So ????

urstruly: God has also gifted mankind with sunshine and wind. And both have the virtue of being replenishable (for another 4 billion years) and non-polluting.

European countries are already trying to tap into it, with Denmark in the lead I think, projecting 40% of its energy needs by 2010 (I am writing from what I recall reading in a brochure when visiting that country a few years ago) to be met by windmills which you can see even today all over the Danish countryside, and Germany close beind. The US too has windmill farms and there is plenty of pressure to follow Europe`s lead in this.

Sunlight is another example, yielding a potentially tremendous about of energy. In Pakistan, a friend of mine has installed solar panels on his rooftop to meet part of his energy needs (and God has not yet bothered to send him a power bill).

So, there are these other options that you are going to see more and more of in future. But trust our desi braaderaan to aim for where the advanced countries used to aim for a hundred years ago.

Re: # 37
Tahmed: Kithey AjjKal?

UP very boring..

Urstruly #43: `` wont quote any example from European countries but just your country Canada only. Canada is the country that can meet its 100% energy requirements thru nuclear power and even then it is left with surplus electricity``

Thanks for the info......I agree that access to nuclear technology is any country`s God-given right. In fact, I think access to nuclear weapons is also, unless there is a ban on all countries..........This was the argument used by India (and Pakistan) historically.........

To me, 100% energy requirements include things like electricity to light my light-bulbs, fuel to drive my car, gas to heat my house, energy to run my factories, fuel to grow my transportation systems, etc.

How can all of this be met 100% by nuclear energy. I don`t think it is being met 100% in Canada. It would require a complete re-construction of various entities that use energy. For example, the automotive industry will have to be revamped to create cars that can run on nuclear fuel. As will the transportation industry, the manufacturing plants etc.

If, however, nuclear energy is a 100% replacement, then why is the price of oil going through the roof? And why are countries fighting over gas and oil fields?

Re: # 47

hindvi:

HP knows me for sometime. I am sure he knows by now that I am a rightwinger, isn`t HP?

Anyway, if the ``secular`` indians think that by licking their americans masters they can stop funding for the vanvasi programme then they are mistaken. why don`t you fight these ``hate-programmes`` in india itself. Go tell your muslim-hugging congress/commies to stop the vanvasi programmes.

As for India, I am surprised that there has been no public debate about investing in alternative energy sources rather than merely bollywoodizing western economies. After all, sunshine falls freely and directly on India, and there is no need to kow-tow to Iran or to pay us hated Pakis for the pipeline. And the wind blows freely across these lands.

But as I said. Trust the desi mind to not think for itself. and slavishly to aim for where the west used to aim for in the past.

france gets over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. ............it is the world`s largest electricity exporter...............

delhiwala: i am very much around on chowk sir. maybe the frequency is less: thora jiyaa kam parna pai gya ai. ;-)

hamidm: never do what the french do. treat this as a golden rule. hitler ignored this rule (despite my sincere advice to him) when he attacked russia and look what happened to him!!

#39 by Romair on October 27, 2005 10:59am PT


Kindly explain what India is planning to conquer in space


India is trying to catch up with Pakistan..which el-presidente told us is ahead of India in space technology because they rented a used hughes satellite that only works for part of the year....

dont flatter urself ur no right winger, arjunm might qualify for that, u are a genocide proponent.

Re: # 54

tahmed:

it needs r&d to come up with new technologies. unless and until the gov or private sector invests in those fields, what can you expect? thats the reason the third world remains third world for a long time.

india does generate wind-energy. i don`t have a lot of detail though.

``Dost mittar is working feverishly to portray a rift in the Congress admin. Now where his talking points are coming from?

Straight from the RSS HQ or from the BJP ideologues?
``

HP

Dude, you seem to have some sort of a paranoia about the RSS and the BJP. The abive view was also vocalized by Praful Bidwai, a leftist. Yes, there is a split within Congress between Nnehruvian ideologues and pragmatic thinkers. However, this split is as old as the Republic of India and was played out in the Nehru-Patel divide, the Indira-Morarji divide etc.

Even Narasimha Rao, the person credited with economic reforms, was a socialist in his thinking and was pushed to reforms by a BoP crisis. PV became the darling of the mddle class but he was always apologetic about his role in reforms; taking a defensive posture in his subsequent rivalry with the Gandhi family.

Manmohan Singh has been accused of being a neo-liberal by the Iindian left. The fact that they still support is because they consider the BJP to be worse. OTOH, there is a split between RSS and BJP in the views of globalization and pro-Americanism. RSS is closer to Left in restraining the extent of globalization and they use Swadeshi Jagran Manch
(RSS trade union) to pressure the BJP in economic reforms.

Romair;

Like everything else electricity has its limits too. Off course, You cannot drive an automobile with electric power delivered thru a cable yet. But most of the energy needs, where mobility acn be an issue, can be met thru alternative methods eg fuel cells, hybrid engines, and solar power. In my last trip to Pakistan I noticed that China is marketing electric motorbikes in Pakistan. I don`t think that it is impossible to replace fossil fuel altogether in near future. But transition has to be made now. It will take India decades to build nuclear facilities to power their needs but at least they have taken the first steps. Where do we stand?

Re: # 59


hindvi,

hahahaha...whatever

BTW, i didn`t see you for a long time, especially after the trashing you got in the kashmir board. do you remember your logic about `` rich indians getting lazy and janbaaz jihadis winning kashmir....``

we needed your/``minority`` support for gandhis secularism when manto and family was maligning him.

get well/recover soon.

#43 by Urstruly on October 27, 2005 11:15am PT


Nuclear power is our Lord`s gift to humanity.


If I did believe in god, i`d say opposable thumbs and the ability to think would be the real gift...OTOH, seeing how many people lack the later, that might go against a value system based on a just and equitable almighty....

Re: # 54
Well Said Tahmed.

There are some initiatives by private organizations but to no avail. These R&D type of projects would have to come from dynamic, thinking, progressive leaders.

Speaking of Solar Energy, did you see the newage houses being demoed in front of Wash Memorial last week.

A company from CO won the top prize, for $20,000 investment you can run and manage a 2000 SqFt house of all it`s Energy needs(heating, cooking, washing m/c etc).

This is phenomenal. Prices might go down this year.

Netizen #49: ``I think russian and china abstained form the voting, they didn`t vote in favor of iran.``

Yes, this is correct. Only Vaneuzula voted in favor of Iran.........Others abstained, including Pakistan.........

Delhiwallah #45: ``Fossil Fuels: We all know that they are not going to last more than 30-40 years.``

Sardarji, thora hath hola rakho, tay saday tay rahm karo. Aye, tusseen, kidroon khich khich kay knowledge di barsaat kar raye hoo :)............

You keep coming up with some pretty wild assertions. Condi is an expert on China and had a background as a master strategician in foreign affairs. That was bad enough........But now the supply or energy resources are going to run out in 30-40 years. Not only that, but, aparently, ``we all know`` that.........

Could you kindly let us know where you got this formula from. The world is, today, more self-sufficient in oil, than ever before. In fact, the world will not even hit its peak production of oil till thirty to forty years from now - a point at which you are stating that the world will actually, ``run out`` of oil! And this is based on current technologies related to drilling.......The only reason the price of oil is high today, is not because of shortage of supply, but because of shortage of refining plants..........

If we take the evolution of technologies into account, then the supply becomes even higher, in the future. The tar-oil reserves in Alberta alone, make Canada a larger reservoir of oil than Saudi Arabia! And these reserves alone will be able supply the USA all its oil needs, for 40 years..........

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

I hope your fellow Sardarji, Manmohan Singh, thought through this, a bit more than you did.........

I still believe in what i said, there is no guarantee that India will forcibly be able to supress Kashmir, only a political solution will solve the problem. As long as the local population supports the militants and gives them shelter nothing will change.

``Prime Minister and two important ministers, one being the Foreign Minister. ``

HP

Dig deep into the political growth of these individuals and you will see where that statement is coming from. He did not say rift between Manmohan and P Chidambaram. That would be false. But the traditional family loyalists are more so in the left mould. That si changing as Sonia Gandhi is not a leftist by Instinct as Indira Gandhi was. Even Rajiv Gandhi made the initial effort to break out of the Indian traditional mould, but he tried it too soon when Iindia was still connected to the USSR and geo political realities were different. RG brought in Sam Pitroda to reform telecom etc, but the views in the Congress of the 80S WERE STILL VERY MUCH TRADITITIONAL NEHRUVIAN.

Re: # 61

stuka:

``Manmohan Singh has been accused of being a neo-liberal by the Iindian left.``

infact, congress blamed the liberalisation policies of MMS (as a finance minister) for losing out ot BJP as the largest party in 96 (?)

#61 & 68 by stuka

“The abive view was also vocalized by Praful Bidwai, a leftist.”

You don’t get it. Dude, you just don’t get it.

No two people have exactly the same thoughts and the congress is a big party. I can either take DM a total naïve-and he is very close to it- for bringing that up or see where he is coming from. When he is not naïve, he is RSS or may be a reformed old parcharak. You know one can leave the RSS but the RSS never leaves you….

Discuss #68 later...


Neti,

Nobody writes political articles without an agenda.
When you see lines straight out of the RSS mouthpiece Pioneer, you take notice.

Romair:

``To me, 100% energy requirements include things like electricity to light my light-bulbs, fuel to drive my car, gas to heat my house, energy to run my factories, fuel to grow my transportation systems, etc.

How can all of this be met 100% by nuclear energy``

Dude, I think you are confused. Nuclear energy can be used to produce electricity. Electricity can then meet eenrgy needs including lighting, heating, production etc. including cars in the near future. Even if you reduce fossil fuel dependence world over by say 50%, (obviously a huge target) it will lead to a glut in the market.

Pakistan hasnt accidentally stumbled upon the strategy of injecting jihadis among the local militants, nor is Musharraf a fundu. The weaker side in guerilla warfare needs to have the higher morale. Pakistan has conciously used the jihadis to give the other militants backbone. this along with the local populations support is what prevents 500,000 troops from quelling 3000 militants.

Stuka #71: ``Even if you reduce fossil fuel dependence world over by say 50%, (obviously a huge target) it will lead to a glut in the market.``

50% is something one can consider. But 100% was a bit too much for me. However, even on the 50%, can you point me to some studies, on the basis of which, you have come up with this figure. Or is it your own guess?

But as I said. Trust the desi mind to not think for itself. and slavishly to aim for where the west used to aim for in the past

TAhmed, my wife is in the energy field and she is very much in the mould of a northern California enviro-hippy. But she is the first to say that the infrastruture costs of solar, wind and other alternative energy sources are far higher than nuclear, thermal etc. Simply put, third world economies simply do not have the capital to transform their energy requirements to alternative sources in a comprehensive manner. Neither for that matter does the US at current prices of fossil fiuels and nuclear energy costs. Taking the example of low population high income countries is not appropriate.

#72 by hindvi

You make a good point and the only valid point. No guerrilla war in the world has survived w/o an ideology. But how you are gonna teach this to the rightwing ‘gorillas’ here? They just love the 500,000 vs 3000 equation and believe that they are winning it and winning it for the last 18 years….

Re#72
Hindvi - you are only partially correct. A major factor of the kashmir problem today is that
the GoI genuinely tried to give Kashmir a sense of autonomy. Had we done what is the
sensible thing to do (China in Tibet, Pakis in Pork) ... the script today would have been kinda
different.

regards,
SN

`` However, even on the 50%, can you point me to some studies, on the basis of which, you have come up with this figure. Or is it your own guess?
``

Actually, what I did read was a paper on the impact of high energy prices on US consumption and conservation in the 1970s. Essentially, the oil blockade of the 70s was considered a huge victory for the Arab world because of visuals like long lines at American gas stations, stagflation, negative impact on the economy etc. However, the direct impact of high oil prices was a serious effort by both US businesses and consumers to conserve and to find alternative sources of energy. Correspondingly, as oil production and trading came back to pre-blockade levels and then increased, there was an abundance of supply in the oil markets.

Tthe unfortunate Three Mile high accident, followed by Chernobyl, put paid to the expansion of the nuclear energy industry in the States. But, I would not be surprised if that political battle becomes easier to win.

``76 by wiseguyin on October 27, 2005 12:26pm PT
Re#72
Hindvi - you are only partially correct. A major factor of the kashmir problem today is that
the GoI genuinely tried to give Kashmir a sense of autonomy. Had we done what is the
sensible thing to do (China in Tibet, Pakis in Pork) ... the script today would have been kinda
different. ``

The problem is that Indian govt. went mid way, it couldnt and still cant go the China way because of its image in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world as a democracy. On the other hand it never gave the Kasmiris the right to choose their own govt. freely under the fear that they would start making excessive demands in a totally representative state legislature.

if India had given the Kashmiris a large degree of autonomy the problem might never have arisen and could still be solved. But the real problem is that demands for autonomy are viewed as anti national by both the right and the congress in India and always have been.

``this along with the local populations support is what prevents 500,000 troops from quelling 3000 militants.
``

Sure, but not enough to gain traction for actual independence. You see, India does not have to ``win`` anything. Just keep managing the conflict as it exists. The Brits did it in Northern Ireland for over 80 years. Iindia itself has managed conflicts in Nagalnd since independence.

Pakistan can only afford to keep the insurgency alive to the level that is manageable by India. And India is fine with that. If they raise the temperature, India has to threaten war for the international community to pile on to Pakistan. This is simply a statement of fact. I am not saying India is right or Pakistan is right in a moral sense.

India simply enjoys the advantage of being a status quo power that is militarily, politically, and economically stronger than Pakistan which is a revisionist power.

Heck, if you look at history, there have been only two cases of seperation since WW2. One was Pakistan, the other was East Timor in Iindonesia. The latter is a different case because the seperati0on was political. The Timorese never won the insurgency against the military.

Take Pakistan`s example..there is no way that Bengalis would have succeeded without aid of a conventional war that pitted Pakistan against India.

In current circumstances, there is no way a Balushistan or a Sind can get indepence from Pakistan even if they seriously want it. Simply put, Punjab has the power to put it down and the rest of the world does not care enough.

Re: # 75

HP:

india is not claiming that the insurgency problem has all but vanished. But it is far better than 90`s when indian flag was burnt in lal chowk. its a slow process but in the right direction. kashmiris will form their own gov. and build their own future with the central help, similar to what has happened in other parts of india.

the Indian order of battle has 38 combat divisions, approx. 20 of these are tied up in Kashmir at any given time, a fair chunk of the rest are in rotation. thats a considerable drain, for the other sides expenditure is supplying ammo to 3000. India may well have the capacity to bear it out indefinitely because they are 1 billion strong and Kashmiris are only 8 million, but its not a done thing. thats all I am saying.

tahmed, you`re exactly right!
But... solar or wind or tidal energy is not ``dual use.``
We want sources of power that also would turn us into a Super Power.
We want to be treated as equal to japan or france or UK even tho a third of our population is starving.

Anyway, solar power can be harnessed in many different ways - we could use its heat (solar cookers) or its light (photovoltaic). The latter is more expensive to set up but more and more light industries and office complexes in india are tapping into it. A significant part of BP`s solar energy program is situated in india. There`s more, a lot more to be done.
The article that arjunm cited IMO severely underestimates the capital and environmental costs of nuclear energy.
I really think that the ``dual use`` aspect of nuclear energy is what`s attractive to the indian government.

#80 by Netizen
Neti,

You have got to figure it out some time that Pakistan army never wants Kashmir as part of Pakistan. It wants Kashmir where it is right now. Kashmir would be just another Balochistan for the Army.
Only a civilian government could think of Kashmir as part of Pakistan but that would not fly very far in Pakistan.

What you and to some extent stuka are saying is just window dressing.

There are lots of issues involved, this doesnt lend itself to a simplistic discussion. Some things for people interested to find out more about:

1) For comparing gas versus nuclear. Look at capital costs and gestation periods for a gas fired dual cycle plant versus a nuclear plant. Gestation period includes permitting, procurement and construction. Construction periods for nuclear plants are 5-8 years in India today. Similar size gas fired plants can be constructed in 2 years. This plays a crucial role in power plant economics.

2) For operating cost calculations for gas fired plants, the world does not operate on US gas prices! In India there have been lots of developments in this area, I estimate Reliance KG basin gas will cost about $2/MMSCF to produce, other reservoirs even cheaper than that, LNG based gas from Iran/Qatar/Australia/Malaysia/Oman will all be below $4/MMSCF.

As I always say, remember ``gas is not liquid``! i.e. the same kind of economic calculations does not apply for gas as oil. Oil is a freely traded global commodity which gas is not. There is a very small spot market for LNG today, probably not even 1% of the size of the oil market.

4) For ``alternate power`` just do a calculation for (say) solar. For instance, for the most efficient solar cells today generating 500 MW (a medium size power plant) will require a surface area approximately covering the entire Washington beltway. Look at capital costs of such a power plant. Also a critical factor for such power is ``availability``. Solar power is intrinsically ``offline`` for 1/2 the day.

#80 by Netizen
Neti,

I was reading about Qazi of Gurukul fame and his family is called ‘Hindustani’ by his neighbors because they don’t support the Kashmir case though they are ethnic kashmiris. Now that is almost like burning flag.

Btw, It was good to see him win as that will with help change the Kashmir image in India.

Re: # 75
//... 500,000 vs 3000 equation ....and believe that they are winning it //

Sometime back - pakis used to parrot the number at 700,000..... suddenly it has come down to 500,000....

Nevertheless - the equation is NOT 500,000 Vs 3,000 - the 3,000 that you see is just the tip of the jihad iceberg.... A lot goes into making those 3,000..... So the right equation is: 500,000 vs 3,000 + paki military establishment + some million jihadis + 1 billion $ a year jihad collection from paki people + jihadization of paki society......

See - that`s why, after 15 years of war - pakis are scraping at the bottom while Indian strength has grown by manifold - economically, politically, technologically and otherwise.....

It was supposed to be the war of thousand cuts on the hinuds and yet hinuds are doing just fine - where was pakis have been bleeding thru their collective a$$es..... So may be India is not winning this war, but so what?

#86 by mohar11

You are one of those squealing Indian of Amartya Sen fame, so a discussion with you would be fruitless and what I say would fly over your head anyway.

As expected this article has generated an interesting discussion on new directions in India`s policy in general and energy field in particular. I would like to give individual responses to the extent I can.

theedge#1:

``You are not clear what was India`s relationship with Iran during the Cold War``

I did not touch upon that subject. India opposed the US intervention in Iran when Dr. Mussadaq tried to nationalise that country`s petroleum industry. Then followed the strong Pro-US period of Iran government during its cold war with the Soviet Union. So, India and Iran were in the opposite camps in the international arena. But the Shah was otherwise not anti-Indian and India was not anti-Iran. There were always strong cultural and religious links between the two countries, especially between the Shias of Lucknow and the Ayotallahs of Qom; there were rumours at one time that even Khomeini had a Lucknow connection. If you want to view this relationship from an Indo-Pak prism, Iran had at that time perhaps stronger links with Pakistan than India and, I believe, provided logistic support to Pakistan during the 1965 war. But this relationship soured when the shia-sunni conflict started in Pakistan, with Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni groups and Iran accused of supporting militant shia organizations. This is a very brief synopsis of the cold war period.

kaalchakra#2, harish_hyd#4:
``Didn`t the purported raison d`etre for NAM come to an end when the Soviet Union ceased to exist?``

Yes, but its proponents have tried to find a new role for it. This role is not well-defined but it seems to centre around anti-gl