Geopolitical Shifts: The Balance of Power Amidst the Global Tensions.

In our current times, the global geopolitical landscape is a dynamic arena where the balance of power is constantly evolving. In the past year alone, the Russia-Ukraine war and mounting tensions between China and the USA have led to a reconfiguration of power dynamics. Today, we will explore the current state of affairs between Western countries, Middle-Eastern countries, and Asia, with a focus on China and India, as these regions navigate the complexities of international relations.

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict:

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had far-reaching implications on the balance of power. It has strained relations between Russia and the Western countries, leading to economic sanctions, diplomatic tensions, and heightened security concerns. The West, comprising primarily the United States and European Union, has supported Ukraine, imposing sanctions on Russia and providing military aid to the Ukrainian government. The conflict has shifted the balance of power in favor of the West, as it strengthens alliances and galvanizes support against Russia's expansionist ambitions. A year after Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, the repercussions continue to reverberate around the world. Not only has the war in Ukraine set off a geopolitical realignment, but it has caused economic hardship far from the epicenter of the fighting.

The Feb 2022, invasion has touched off a refugee crisis, as Ukrainians flee the conflict in their homeland and many Russian men seek to avoid conscription. More than eight million refugees have fled Ukraine in what the World Health Organization [WHO] describes as "the largest movement of people in the European Region since the Second World War." Many have been involuntarily relocated by Russia. Others have put a strain on resources, as well as schools and hospitals, in Poland and Germany. However, one of the positive effects has been that Ukrainian refugees are filling factory jobs left vacant by Europe's labor shortage. The political effect has been the faster process toward expanding NATO, with Finland and Sweden pursuing membership after decades of official neutrality.

A 21st century war in Europe, led by a nuclear power, is pushing the world toward realignment. It has rattled NATO, the European Union and the U.N., forcing countries to take sides in ways that have led to escalating tensions and diplomatic shifts. For example, Turkey, despite being a NATO member, has increased trade with Russia since the start of the war and has strenuously objected against Sweden and Finland joining the NATO alliance.

There is a push-back to the US efforts to widen this war into a global conflict. When NATO’s secretary-general called on South Korea to supply military assistance to Ukraine, stressing Kyiv’s “urgent need” for more ammunition, Seoul refused. Despite being a NATO member, Turkey has refused to join Western sanctions against Russia or to supply Ukraine with weapons, instead pushing the two to begin peace talks. South Africa went ahead with joint military exercises with both Russia and China despite Western criticism; and Iran has acknowledged that it is providing Russia with attack drones.

India has refused to take sides in what it views as essentially a power struggle between the East and West. India has instead opted to walk the middle path: preserving its time-tested relations with Russia, seeking to improve relations with China, and strengthening relations with USA and Japan. India’s middle-path approach has gained greater relevance and urgency with its leadership of the G-20 this year. Prime Minister Modi has reinforced India's long-standing policy of nonalignment, and creatively rephrased it as “multi-alignment”. Multi-alignment, according to India's Foreign Minister Dr. Jaishankar, is “more energetic and participative.” India currently balances its memberships in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, alongside Russia and China (the SCO), and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (known as the Quad) with Australia, Japan, and the United States. India has placed a significant emphasis on debt relief for developing economies, and Prime Minister Modi recently expressed his concern for the unsustainable debt that threatens the “financial viability” of many countries. 

The Middle-East set-back to USA. 

The Middle-East, long characterized by geopolitical complexities, finds itself in a unforeseen position amidst the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Historically, the region has been influenced by both Western powers and Russia, primarily due to its strategic importance in terms of energy resources and geopolitical significance. The old US Middle-East policy strategies of the US which asked Arab partners for their undivided loyalty, and which assumed collective enmity toward Iran, does not work anymore. There was a time when USA was able to impose, or at least rudely communicate its preferences to its Arab partners. But that time is now gone. The USA does not have the leverage it once had in the region. It is also less trusted by its Arab partners, who have interpreted the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and tolerance of Iranian aggression in the region to mean that it is headed for the exit from the region.

There is no doubt that USA has stepped back from diplomatic leadership on the Middle-East peace process and conflict management across the region. Only on issues related to Iran, the USA has a sustained but not consistent, focus. Other actors have been inserting themselves into regional decision-making. As these two dynamics converge, a new geopolitical structure is evolving. It has seven primary countries; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, the United States, India and Russia. Others, like Egypt, maintain some of their past influence, although at significantly diminished levels. The Iran - Saudi Arabia peace pact, brokered by China has the potential of bringing about a higher level of peaceful co-existence, that the USA has not been able to achieve over decades.

US officials understand very well  that asking regional partners to downgrade their economic relations with China is a nonstarter (since, China is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner). They also recognize that encouraging these partners to limit their political relations with China is not an option either. These partners are likely to increase their cooperation under the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. The one major area where the USA still has enough influence to shape the policy agenda with its Arab partners, is defense and security. The big challenge for USA will be to offer substantial incentives to its Arab partners to refrain from military cooperation with China, while ensuring they (the USA) do not promise anything it cannot deliver, including, most notably, a formal defense pact or official security guarantees. Economic interests have compelled several regional powers to increase their trade and do more business with China, and Gulf Arab partners’ new diplomatic approach to security has sought to pacify and normalize ties with Iran.

In the Middle-East, India is not supporting another country’s empire but advancing its own interests. When the United States, India, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates set up a new joint working group to coordinate strategy earlier this month, the four-country combination inevitably drew comparisons with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Indo-Pacific Quad that joins the United States and India with Australia and Japan. 

Two factors have played an important role in India’s relations with Middle Eastern countries: economics and India’s internal politics. The economic factor is centered on the oil trade and remittances from the sizable Indian diaspora in the Middle East. The second factor is India’s internal politics with regard to its own large Muslim population. Over a period of time, however, India has diversified its relations beyond these factors. Especially in the case of Saudi Arabia, where India has been developing an extended strategic partnership over the past few years, leading to an agreement to set up a Indo-Saudi Strategic Partnership Council, and to increase cooperation on counter-terrorism. 

China's Rising Influence:

China's rapid rise as a global power has been a defining feature of the 21st century. With a robust economy, expansive military capabilities, and an assertive foreign policy, China seeks to challenge the dominant global position of Western countries and reshape the geopolitical landscape in Asia and beyond. The ongoing trade tensions and ideological differences between China and the United States have strained relations and increased the likelihood of armed confrontation. As the world's two largest economies, any conflict between China and the United States would have profound consequences for global stability and the balance of power.  

On his recent visit to China, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pledged to work with Beijing to “re-balance” global politics and expressed a desire to settle more trade in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, another interest that is shared by China. In addition to Lula, heads of state or government from the European Union, France, Malaysia, Singapore and Spain have visited China since late March 2023, and senior Chinese officials have met with their counterparts in multiple countries. French President Emmanuel Macron in particular raised eyebrows after voicing support for Chinese narratives and releasing a joint statement pledging cooperation in areas of nuclear energy and food security.  China is waging what could be termed a new “great game” for geopolitical dominance. While China frequently deploys military coercion tactics to back up its extensive territorial claims, it seeks to secure global dominance not by a risky campaign of military conquest, but by a more subtle and gradual approach of amassing political and economic influence.

The balance of power in the 21st century is characterized by a complex interplay between Western countries, Middle Eastern countries, India and China. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has led to the consolidation of Western alliances, bolstering their position vis-à-vis Russia. However, the rise of China, which is being countered by the rise of India, introduces a new dynamic, as it challenges the Western-led order and seeks to assert its influence regionally and globally. 2023 looks set to be a transition year for geopolitics. An end to the war in Ukraine does not appear in sight. Putin looks unlikely to win decisively and Ukraine will not give up. The West still lacks a common strategy on how to end the war. The war will continue to modify the post-Cold War world order but no clear alternative structure is emerging. While Western unity has been strengthened, particularly through NATO and the G7, the partnership between China and Russia remains strong. Amongst this fragmentation and uncertainty, one thing is clear: the China-US relationship will remain the single most important fault line in geopolitics. 

To counter China's 'Belt and Road Initiative', national security advisors from India, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the United States met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman in Riyadh to discuss an ambitious connectivity project to link the Middle East to India through roads, rails, and seaports. The connectivity project aims to leverage India’s capacity as an infrastructure provider. Its track record includes the construction of the world’s largest rail system in Asia and contributions to cross-border electricity-sharing arrangements. Through the new initiative Indian officials hope to develop a deeper infrastructure footprint in the Middle East to counter China’s BRI. This Middle East-India connectivity initiative is still purely aspirational, but its potential is vast, linking India with a region critical to its interests and in cooperation with some of its top partners. It is planned that India could eventually benefit from land and sea trade routes stretching from Israel and the UAE all the way to Greece’s Piraeus port and onward into Europe.

Despite remaining strong in 2022, Western unity will be tested. The EU and the US do not share the same approach towards China. The EU itself is divided, with Germany advocating for a more balanced approach. Tensions between the EU and the US are also growing on trade and subsidies following the US Inflation Reduction Act which provides massive subsidies for US green industries, threatening European industry at a time when it is already facing high energy prices. The EU has announced that it will develop its own subsidy package in response. 

Many countries in the ‘Global South’ will seek to insulate their interests from big power competition. This new form of non-alignment is motivated by practical concerns, including leveraging market access to and support from the West and China for investment, technology and debt. They may still align with either side on different issues on a case-by-case basis. Three major developing countries will chair the G20 in 2023, 2024 and 2025: India, Brazil and South Africa allowing them to influence the geopolitical agenda. 

The possibility of an armed confrontation between China and the United States poses significant risks. It could potentially destabilize the global economy, disrupt international trade, and escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. The USA, recognizing China's growing influence, has adopted a more assertive stance, strengthening alliances in the region and engaging in economic and military partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia. These alliances serve as a counterweight to China's ambitions and contribute to maintaining a balance of power.

Against this backdrop, the global economic situation will remain uncertain and challenging throughout the year. Geopolitical instability will continue in 2023 and has become a key driver of policy developments. Geopolitical developments are directly leading to rapid policy changes in energy, digital, tech, trade, and defense areas as well as to investment screening rules. Corporate and investors need to anticipate and analyze these trends and understand how they will impact governments’ priorities. Businesses are facing governments that are becoming economically less rational. The political dimension is now taking a leading role in business policy decisions. Understanding the political context of these decisions is key to understanding and anticipating future policy changes and engaging with governments effectively. 

Today, Geopolitical instability remains prominent, 30 years after the Cold War and the alleged “end of history.” State-sponsored cyber risk, pandemics, adaptation to climate change, economic retrenchment, accelerating technological change, and demand internalization are all combining to create a risk environment that is unprecedented in terms of the challenges it poses. Financial disruptions, national and global security issues, supply chain vulnerabilities, existing and emerging cybersecurity threats, disruptions in food security, sudden and unexpected changes in the environment, and concerns about public health are interrelated like never before and therefore risk management must become an increasingly collaborative enterprise, and there is a clear and urgent need for uncommon collaborations in risk management. 

Essentially, there are many new policies and actions that are needed. Failures to accurately assess risk are, at their foundation; failures of imagination. Therefore, all stake-holders must embark on a focused “campaign of learning” to build a wider and stronger foundation of relationships and knowledge that allows them to see connections that they may not otherwise notice. 

We can win the race to reduce our vulnerability to risk and take advantage of the opportunities that arise. That is, if we acknowledge the extent to which things have changed, allow ourselves to be less comfortable in what we think we know, take ownership of the challenge, and act; early and often.

 

References & Citations:

https://en.majalla.com
https://www.npr.org
https://www.csis.org
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/
https://flint-global.com/
https://www.dw.com/en/
https://foreignpolicy.com/

Israel, Palestine and India’s Balancing Act!

To listen to this article- Click here 

 The conflict between Israel and Palestine is rooted in political, cultural, religious and territorial factors. The complex issue is based on one desire from both sides, to acquiring land. And, it is not only about land, it is also about the right to self-determination. Regardless of the historical claims on the contested land by both sides, this is a modern conflict.

From 1516 to 1917, the land known as Palestine was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The inhabitants included Christians, Muslims and Jews; sharing the same land for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire, without any conflict. The dynamics of the region changed due to two factors; British colonialism and the formation of a Jewish nation.

The Ottoman Empire crumbled when the Allied powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan and the United States) defeated the then Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire) during the Great War (aka World War I) that was fought from July 1914 to November 1918.

In 1920, the ‘League of Nations’; headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland was formed by USA, Britain and France to provide an international forum for resolving international disputes without conflict and to ensure equitable peace in Europe. In 1922, the League formally approved the appointment of Britain to act as Palestine’s administrator. This appointment was meant to be temporary, lasting only until the League recognized Palestine as an independent nation. This goal was never achieved since the British were parallelly giving assurances to Zionist organizations about creating a Jewish state in Palestine. Zionism was an ideology specifically aimed towards this purpose, since according to the Zionists in Europe at that time, Jews constituted a nation since they did not consider themselves just a religious group but also an ethnic one that deserved their own state.

The rise of anti-Semitism (i.e.: hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people) in the late 19^th century in Russia and Eastern European countries encouraged Jewish migration to Palestine from Europe. At the same time, Jews from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey also started to migrate to Palestine. Interestingly, while Zionism originated in Europe, its roots are in the belief of a historical attachment between Judaism and the lands of Palestine. The problem was that the lands where the Jews wanted to create their new state was inhabited by an Arab majority who had lived there for over a thousand years. These locals were against the Zionist goal of forming a Jewish state and instead were seeking the opportunity to create their own state or be part of a larger Arab entity. The divide between these opposing ambitions was the ‘Balfour Declaration’ of 1917 made by Britain (right in the middle of WW1); that provided for the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. This declaration did not provide Palestinian Arabs with national or political rights, prompting their disapproval of the declaration, and eventual rebellion. 

Britain was playing a double game. On one hand, it supported the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, while at the same time, assuring the Palestinian Arabs of an independent Arab state, to be established when WW1 was over. Interestingly, Britain was planning the partition of Palestine even before it had defeated the Ottoman Empire which in 1917 still ruled this territory. Under British rule, there was unrestricted Jewish migration to Palestine allowing them to purchase land and settle there, leading to increasing hostilities between the migrant Jews and the local Arabs. Britain’s feeble efforts towards reconciliation between these two adversaries was impossible because these two communities had different ideas and visions for this contested territory.

Despite various efforts by Britain from 1920s to 1948 to bring peace and reconciliation in the region, the British departed from Palestine in 1948, leaving the Jews and the Arabs to fight it out for territory. On 14 May 1948, Israel was officially declared an independent state. Four wars were fought between these adversaries, the 1967 being important since Israel occupied most of the Palestinian territory. The West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip which remained in Palestinian hands became occupied territory since it came under Israeli rule-of-law, and even today is considered as Israeli occupation.

India was one of the early supporters for formation of the Palestine State. This support was an integral part of our nation’s foreign policy in the early years of independence from British rule. India was the only major non-Arab, non-Muslim country to support the Palestinian demand for an independent state. In 1974, India recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and the initial PLO office set-up in Delhi in 1975, which became a full-fledged embassy in 1980.  In 1988, India recognized the state of Palestine. At the United Nations in 2003, India voted against the construction of the separation wall by Israel. On 21 December 2017, India voted in favor of the UNGA [United Nations General assembly] to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

India has also built a strong relationship with Israel following the establishment of India–Israel diplomatic relationship in 1992. Today, Israel is a crucial defense technology and agricultural production technology supplier to India. People-to-people contacts are growing, and India-Israel bilateral merchandise trade grew from US$200 million in 1992 to US$7.86 billion during the financial year (FY) 2021-2022, with the balance of trade being in India’s favor.

This has changed India’s stance from being pro-Palestine to a careful balancing act, whereby there is a tilt towards an independent Indian foreign policy wherein the bi-lateral relationship with Israel is based solely on its own merits and separate from India’s relationship with Palestine. India does emphasize that there is no alternative to the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and said the peace process can’t be put on hold amid concerns about rising tensions between the two adversaries.

India shares its land borders with the Islamic countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh and an ever-hostile China; while being dependent on the Islamic Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar for energy supplies. Since 2014, India and its charismatic Prime Minister Narendra Modi have improved and strengthened relationships with Arab countries while ensuing a nuanced effort to maintaining its positive relationship with Israel. The message from India to the world has been clear; that India supports an end to every global conflict and endorses peaceful dialogue and discussions for conflict resolution.

 

 

 

 

Wal - Mart Overview

 

Wal-Mart, the biggest American retailer, has a huge impact not only on the local economy but on the global one as well. The company’s strategy of having the lowest prices (which is not always necessarily true) seems to have much more implications than people think. The fact is that a low cost for a Wal-Mart customer is actually a higher cost for many other stakeholders, mainly referring to the American economy.

Wal-Mart was one of the first retailers to discover and leverage the power of information that is hidden in the barcode of every product on their shelves. The black and white stripes hold an encyclopedia of information, from tracking sales throughout the time to product and inventory information. This gives Wal-Mart a competitive advantage, making it an efficiency machine: it allowed to speed up deliveries from plants to shelves (Wal - Mart has a high turnover and low inventories). In this way, Wal-Mart became a world leader in logistics, giving them the edge to change the way goods are produced: a shift from “push production” to “pull production” where the retailer is the one making the decisions– the manufacturer is being told what and when to produce.

An interesting story refers to the relationship between Rubbermaid and Wal-Mart. Changes in the market made Wal-Mart Rubbermaid’s most important customer since it significantly contributed to its growth in a very short period of time. Their relationship went well until the moment when the price of a production material went up. Wal-Mart, a strictly cost focusing company, did not accept the price increase for the Rubbermaid products, which lead to less shelf space for the supplier. This case reflects the risks a supplier takes when focusing too much on a single customer with such a big market share. Having such a high negotiation power, Wal-Mart can always go for the best deal, most of the times bargaining for an amount as low as 20 paise.

Lately, the markets have become more and more competitive among the suppliers in their quest of getting on retailers’ shelves. China, the world’s supermarket for the production market, has a lot to do with Wal-Mart’s strategy to keep costs as low as possible. 90% of Wal-Mart’s suppliers are Chinese. In order to sell in a Wal-Mart, a supplier has to be very competitive in finding ways of cutting costs. In most of the cases, the place where that is possible is actually China.
The bottom line is that Wal-Mart offers consumers a wide range of products at very low prices at the expense of putting local people out of work and lowering living standards.

'Expression of regret' is not an apology.

 

 

Recently the Indian Ambassador to the USA was singled out by the TSA in the USA for a full body pat down. This has violated not only the rules of diplomatic behavior but also the laws of humanity since the Ambassador was singled out just because she was wearing the traditional Indian dress of a saree. This points out towards discrimination without any doubt. Over the past two years, the Americans have insulted one former President of India; rwo Cabinet Ministers and as umpteen other Indian dignitaries. All this.while the American Ambassador to India scampers around New Delhi with a special Delhi police escort. Traditionally, Indians are a Nation that respect humanity and social norms. Americans seem to be lacking in the required values of tradition and diplomacy. The Indian humility should not be considered a weakness. Soft at heart, Indians are also strong of resolve and determination. The Indian nation must receive a full apology from the American government. An 'expression of regret' is frivolous and indicates a " high and mighty attitude" that will only bring more negativity in the Indo - US relationship.

Nigerian cocaine peddlers in India

 

The increasing number of Traffic accidents and acts of insane rage by the youth of India are mostly due drug abuse, cocaine being the illicit drug of choice. In most cases, the cocaine is said to be supplied by Nigerians in India. The Indian police are said to be afraid of the Nigerian drug peddlers, as these Nigerian drug suppliers are supposedly HIV-carriers. Nigerians use one of their local dialects to communicate with one another and have thus built an impressive drug supply chain all across India, especially in India’s big cities. These drug dealers come to India pretending to be students, and once they’re in, become part of an already-existing impressive network of operatives. One of the first things The Indian Government needs to do is stop approving student visas for Nigerian students. Secondly, as soon as the Nigerians are caught, instead of leting them loose to their consulates, they should be taken directly to the prison and have their hand chopped off. (In Africa it's called as giving criminals the "half sleeve" choice). Thirdly, the Indian government needs to raise this issue all the way to the top of Nigerian food chain. We can’t have these guys messing our youth up. And if any Nigerians are found bribing the local police (how else have they been able to do what they’ve been doing for last 20 years), let us deport those local police officers to Nigeria as well. The real perpetrators are the cocaine supply chain specialists who need to be either hanged to death for messing up with India’s next generations or sent back to their dismal tribal life in the Nigeran delta, minus a hand or two.

Is it time to pull out of the Commonwealth?

 

 Over the last one year, India and Indians have been put down by the three leading nations of the Commonwealth. First, Australia started the ball rolling with their total disregard for International norms and stated as a matter of their Government's policy; that they would not supply Nuclear Reactor material to India for peaceful purposes. 

Australia stopped just short of calling India a "nuclear non-trustworthy state". And this does not even start to cover the blatantly racial crimes of assault against and murders of Indian students in Australia. The policy of Racial discrimination against Indians was then shouldered by England; where 10 days ago, members of the Indian Shooting Contingent were insulted verbally and then left stranded by the employees of a Transport company which was contracted to transport the participating teams to & from the ranges to their hotels. 

Whether this transport company had an additional contract for Insulting Indians is yet to be clear. The latest incident is the first secretary of the Canadian Embassy in New Delhi; accusing in writing the Border Security Force of War Crimes and Actions against Humanity. (This insult would be the equivalent of calling the Canadian Mounties as Mafia in Red Tunics). 

A First Secretary of an Embassy represents his / her nation in a foreign country. Are the comments of the First Secretary of the Canadian embassy the official position of Canada towards a legal Police Force of the Indian Government? This has not been clarified till date. 

 All in all, it is time that India & Indians world-wide gave up the 'slave mentality' towards the Commonwealth countries and withdrew immediately from the Commonwealth.

Non Confidentiality In India

 

With the increase in cross-border trade and an enhanced competitive climate in India, confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation agreements are becoming increasingly popular there, especially in the IT and technology sectors. An increasing number of outsourcing and IT companies are including confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in agreements with their employees, with terms ranging from a few months to several years after the employment relationship is terminated. The companies claim that such restrictions are necessary to protect their proprietary rights and their confidential information. Similarly, foreign companies doing business in India often seek to include confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in their agreements with senior management and employees, as is customarily done in certain foreign jurisdictions. However, Indian courts have consistently refused to enforce post-termination non-compete clauses in employment contracts, viewing them as “restraint of trade” impermissible under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the Act), and as void and against public policy because of their potential to deprive an individual of his or her fundamental right to earn a livelihood. The principles of Section 27 were aptly summarized by the Supreme Court of India in Percept D’ Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd v Zaheer Khan (AIR 2006 SC 3426), in which the Supreme Court observed that under Section 27 of the Act a restrictive covenant extending beyond the term of the contract is void and not enforceable. The court also noted that the doctrine of “restraint of trade” is not confined to contracts of employment only, but is also applicable to all other contracts with respect to obligations after the contractual relationship is terminated. This long-standing stance was clearly reaffirmed recently in a 2009 decision by the New Delhi High Court in Desiccant Rotors International Pvt Ltd v Bappaditya Sarkar & Anr (I.A. No.5455/2008, I.A. No.5454/2008 & I.A. No.5453/2008 in CS(OS) No.337/2008), which involved a senior marketing manager at a manufacturer of evaporative cooling components, products and systems. As part of his employment agreement with Desiccant, the manager agreed that for two years following the termination of his employment, he would be bound by a covenant with Desiccant that would require him to keep Desiccant’s matters confidential, and that would prevent him from competing with Desiccant and soliciting Desiccant’s customers, suppliers and employees. Expressly embodied in the employment agreement was an acknowledgement by the manager that he was dealing with confidential material of Desiccant, including know-how, technology trade secrets, methods and processes, market sales and lists of customers. After a few years of employment, the manager resigned and, notwithstanding the terms of his old employment agreement, within three months of his resignation joined a direct competitor of Desiccant as country manager in charge of marketing and started contacting customers and suppliers of Desiccant. In injunctive proceedings against the manager by Desiccant, the High Court reiterated the principles embodied in Section 27 of the Act and the individual’s fundamental right to earn a living by practicing any trade or profession of his or her choice. Brushing aside any argument by Desiccant that the restrictive covenants were primarily designed to protect its confidential and proprietary information, the High Court ruled that in the clash between the attempt of employers to protect themselves from competition and the right of employees to seek employment wherever they choose, the right of livelihood of employees must prevail. Similarly, in a 2007 decision in V.F.S. Global Services Ltd. v. Mr. Suprit Roy (2008 (2) BomCR 446 ) the Bombay High Court held that a fully paid three-month “garden leave” agreement with a senior manager did not renew the employment contract and constituted a “restraint of trade” unenforceable by V.F.S. Foreign investors in India need to be aware of Section 27 of the Act and the well-established line of court cases under it, as they structure their employment relationships and incentives with local management. As a general principle, confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation agreements will be enforceable during the term of the employment relationship. After termination of employment, however, many provisions of these agreements will be struck and deemed unenforceable by Indian courts in enforcement proceedings, even if the provisions are reasonable in scope and duration, subject to certain exceptions. One of the few instances in which non-competition clauses will generally be enforceable is in the context of the sale of a business, where the owners of the business will agree to a non-compete in exchange for consideration for the goodwill associated with the business (for example, in a stock sale where the promoters will sell their stock in the business to a buyer in exchange for consideration). To be enforceable, the non-compete will need to be reasonably limited in time and scope, and consideration will need to be attributed to the goodwill in the transaction, as evidenced in the documentation. Similarly, a non-compete clause in a joint venture in which shareholders mutually agree not to compete with each other on certain terms and conditions, which include time and geographic restrictions, will generally be enforceable in India. Non-solicitation obligations post-termination of employment may be enforced in limited circumstances, based upon the facts of each individual case. For example, they were upheld in the Desiccant case, in which the High Court did allow an injunction against the manager prohibiting him from soliciting Desiccant’s customers and suppliers to stand in effect. In the V.F.S. case, however, relief for breach of non-solicitation obligations was denied on the basis of vagueness of the relief claimed. Confidentiality obligations post-termination of employment will similarly be enforced in limited circumstances so long as they remain reasonable and limited in time and scope and the employer can support that the information is confidential and proprietary to it. Indeed, while denying enforcement of the garden leave in the V.F.S. case, the Bombay High Court established the principle that a restraint on the use of trade secrets during or after cessation of employment is not tantamount to a “restraint on trade” under Section 27 of the Act and therefore can be enforceable under certain circumstances. This case and others show that Indian courts will in certain circumstances enforce confidentiality agreements intended to protect an employer’s proprietary rights. But the courts remain sensitive to the possibility that employers may try to use these covenants as a back-door means of restraining employees from exercising their trade and will place an extremely high burden of proof on employers seeking to enforce these provisions. In the Desiccant case for example, the court held that a marketing manager could not be deemed to possess confidential information and that his written declaration to that effect in his employment agreement were meaningless; the court rejected Desiccant’s claim to enforce the confidentiality obligations of the manager. Therefore, when dealing with local management and key employees in India, foreign investors need to remember that the position of Indian courts on the question of non-competes is unmistakably clear—any restriction with regard to freedom of employees to seek employment and earn a living after termination of their employment contract will generally be unenforceable as contrary to public policy as set forth under Section 27 of the Act. Quote-pull, if needed: Indian courts remain sensitive to the possibility that employers may try to use restrictive covenants as a back-door means of restraining employees from exercising their trade and will place an extremely high burden of proof on employers seeking to enforce these provisions.

Bloody Tuesday as Maoists massacre 75 security personnel

 

 On Tuesday 06 April, Maoist guerrillas Tuesday carried out the worst ever massacre of security personnel by trapping and slaughtering 75 men of the CRPF in the dense forests of Chattisgarh. Over the last 3 months the Maoists have shown a remarkable improvement in their battle tactics, inflicting massive damage on the security forces of India. This cannot be attributed to either a large number of Maoists forces attacking smaller numbers of security personnel or to the sudden high level of efficiency in the Maoist cadres. The finger of suspicion points unwavering to the other “Mao forces” namely elements of the People’s Republican Army (PLA) of China. Over the last 18 months, Chinese companies invested into projects in India. Some of these projects are in the mining sector in Central India regions. Based on this contract the Chinese companies brought into India 100,000 Chinese laborers and strangely enough the Indian Government allowed this to happen. Nobody in the Government of India even thought about the fact that maybe, just MAYBE these 100,000 young Chinese laborers could be members of the PLA. Can the Indian Intelligence services track down the locations of these 100,000 laborers? Is there any system in India that can track the movement of foreigners in India? The real answer is a big ‘NO’. It is my opinion that today we our forces and our nation are suffering from the consequences of inefficient bureaucracy compounded by wide scale corruption in our society. Till June 2008 attacks by Maoists usually resulted in casualties in single digits. It’s only after June 2008 till date that the efficiency of the Maoists has suddenly shot up that they are planning and executing operations on a battlefield combat level with Indian security forces sustaining climbing number of casualties in every incident. Our police are not combating half starving bands of guerillas; but a disciplined and well trained army. And that can only be the PLA of China. Our politicians and our bureaucracy may or may not admit this fact but, India today is in a ‘State of War’. Our enemies are as yet undefined, but are well trained, well equipped, strongly financed and highly motivated. And the finger of suspicion points towards China. Recent violent activities by Maoists • April 6, 2010: At least 73 CRPF and district force personnel were killed when a large group of Naxals ambushed them in the Mukrana forests of Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district. • February 20, 2010: Maoists killed a village guard by slitting his throat. • February 18, 2010: Twelve villagers were killed and 9 injured in indiscriminate firing by the Maoists in Jamui district of Bihar. The dead included three women and one child. Twenty five village houses were also burned down by the Maoists. • February 16, 2010 : Silda camp attack • October 8, 2009 : About 150 Maoist ambushed a Police patrol and killed 17 Policemen in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra • October 6, 2009 : Police inspector Francis Induwar was beheaded by Maoists in Jharkhand. The action has been compared to the tactics of the Islamist Taliban of Pakistan-Afghanistan • April 13, 2009: 10 paramilitary troops are killed in eastern Orissa. • February 23, 2009: Maoists kill a contractor, sets fire in police post at Govindpalli of Malkangiri. • July 16, 2008: A landmine hit a police van in Malkangiri district, killing 21 policemen. • June 29, 2008: CPI forces attacked a boat on the Chitrakonda reservoir in Orissa carrying members of an anti-Naxalite police force. The boat sunk, killing 33 policemen, while 28 survived. • In November 2007 reports emerged that the anti-SEZ movement in Nandigram in West Bengal had been infiltrated by Naxalites since February; the reports quoted unnamed intelligence sources. Recently, police found weapons belonging to Maoists near Nandigram. • In 2008, The Hindu newspaper reported that a Maoist killed a man and publicly cannibalized him in Malkangiri district of Orissa to terrorize villagers. The alleged incident occurred in Bandiguda on August 14, 2007. • On March 15, 2007 an attack happened in the rebel stronghold area of Dantewada, in Chhattisgarh state. Fifty-four persons, including 15 personnel of the Chhattishgarh Armed Force, were killed in an offensive by 300 to 350 CPI (Maoist) cadres on a police base camp in the Bastar region in the early hours of Thursday. The remaining victims were tribal youths of Salwa Judum, designated as Special Police Officers (SPOs) and roped in to combat the Maoists. Eleven person were injured. The attack, which lasted nearly two-and-a-half hours, was spearheaded by the "State Military Commission (Maoist)", consisting of about 100 armed naxalites. • On March 6, 2007 the CPI (Maoist) reportedly claimed responsibility for the Mahato assassination, but JMM members of the Jharkhand state cabinet, including the Chief Minister, subsequently announced that a state police investigation is under way into the authenticity of this claim. Police reportedly believe that political rivals of Mahato, including organized criminal groups, may have been behind the assassination. • On March 5, 2007 Maoist shot dead a local Congress leader (Prakash, a member of the local Mandal Praja Parishad (MPP)) in Andhra Pradesh while he was inspecting a road construction project in Mahabubnagar district. • On March 4, 2007 Maoist shot dead a member of the parliament (Sunil Mahato) of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party from Jharkhand state. • On December 2, 2006 the BBC reported that at least 14 Indian policemen had been killed by Maoists in a landmine ambush near the town of Bokaro, 80 miles from Ranchi, the capital of the State of Jharkhand. • On October 18, 2006 women belonging to the Maoist guerrilla forces blasted four government buildings in the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. On the day before, over a dozen armed cadres of the group, with support from male colleagues, blocked traffic on the Antagarh-Koylibera Road in the Kanker district, near the city of Raipur. They also detonated explosives inside four buildings, including two schools, in Kanker. This incident occurred two days after a major leader of the party's operations in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, Kone Kedandam, surrendered to authorities in the town of Srikakulam. • On July 16, 2006 the Maoists attacked a relief camp in the Dantewada district where several villagers were kidnapped. The death toll was 29. • On February 28, 2006 the Maoists attacked several anti-Maoist protesters in Erraboru village in Chhattisgarh using landmines, killing 25 people. • On 13 November 2005 CPI (Maoist) fighters stunned authorities by attacking Jehanabad in Bihar, freeing 250 captured comrades and taking twenty imprisoned right wing paramilitaries captive, executing their leader. They also detonated several bombs in the town. A prison guard was also reported killed. • In August 2005 Maoists kidnapped from the Dantewada district of the state of Chhattisgarh.This follows violent incidents in 2004 in the same region when 50 policemen and about 300 villagers were killed in the Dantewada district and over 50,000 villagers were staying in relief camps out of fear from Maoists. • In February 2005 the CPI (Maoist) killed 7 policemen, a civilian and injured many more during a mass attack on a school building in Venkatammanahalli village, Pavgada, Tumkur, Karnataka. On August 17, 2005, the government of Andhra Pradesh outlawed the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and various mass organizations close to it, and began to arrest suspected members and sympathizers days afterwards. The arrested included former emissaries at the peace talks of 2004.

Letter from former President Dr. Abdul Kalam

 

Why is the media here so negative? 

Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. 

Why? • We are the first in milk production. We are number one in Remote sensing satellites. We are the second largest producer of wheat. We are the second largest producer of rice. 

 Look at Dr. Sudarshan , he has transferred the tribal village into a self-sustaining, self-driving unit. There are millions of such achievements but our media is only obsessed in the bad news and failures and disasters. 

I was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary. It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among other news. 

In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism, crime.. Why are we so NEGATIVE? 

Another question: Why are we, as a nation so obsessed with foreign things? We want foreign T.Vs, we want foreign shirts. We want foreign technology. Why this obsession with everything imported. Do we not realize that self-respect comes with self-reliance? 

I was in Hyderabad giving this lecture, when a 14 year old girl asked me for my autograph. I asked her what her goal in life is. She replied: I want to live in a developed India . For her, you and I will have to build this developed India. You must proclaim. India is not an under-developed nation; it is a highly developed nation. 

Do you have 10 minutes? Allow me to come back with a vengeance. 

Got 10 minutes for your country? If yes, then read; otherwise, choice is yours.. • 

YOU say that our government is inefficient. YOU say that our laws are too old. YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage. YOU say that the phones don't work, the railways are a joke. The airline is the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination. YOU say that our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits. YOU say, say and say. 

What do YOU do about it? Take a person on his way to Singapore . Give him a name - 'YOURS'. Give him a face - 'YOURS'. YOU walk out of the airport and you are at your International best. In Singapore you don't throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU are as proud of their Underground links as they are.. You pay $5 (approx. Rs. 60) to drive through Orchard Road (equivalent of Mahim Causeway or Pedder Road) between 5 PM and 8 PM. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity… In Singapore you don't say anything, DO YOU? 

YOU wouldn't dare to eat in public during Ramadan, in Dubai .. YOU would not dare to buy an employee of the telephone exchange in London at 10 pounds (Rs.650) a month to, 'see to it that my STD and ISD calls are billed to someone else.'YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 km/h) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, 'Jaanta hai main kaun hoon (Do you know who I am?). I am so and so's son. Take your two bucks and get lost.' 

YOU wouldn't chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand .. 

Why don't YOU spit Paan on the streets of Tokyo? 

Why don't YOU use examination jockeys or buy fake certificates in Boston? 

We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU, who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. 

YOU, who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country, why cannot you be the same here in India? In America every dog owner has to clean up after his pet has done the job. Same in Japan .. Will the Indian citizen do that here?' 

We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. 

We expect the government to clean up but we are not going to stop chucking garbage all over the place nor are we going to stop to pick a up a stray piece of paper and throw it in the bin. 

We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms. 

We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity.This applies even to the staff who is known not to pass on the service to the public. 

When it comes to burning social issues like those related to women, dowry, girl child, and others, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. 

Our excuse? 'It's the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons' rights to a dowry.' So who's going to change the system? 

What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But definitely not me and YOU! 

When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we lock ourselves along with our families into a safe cocoon and look into the distance at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand or we leave the country and run away. 

Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. When New York becomes insecure we run to England . When England experiences unemployment, we take the next flight out to the Gulf. When the Gulf is war struck, we demand to be rescued and brought home by the Indian government. Everybody is out to abuse and exploit the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money. Lets do what India needs from us. Forward this mail to each Indian for a change. 

Thank you, 

Dr. Abdul Kalam

NOTE: This article has not been verified as the original speech of Dr. Kalam. Kindly read it for its content and not necessarily for its author. Thanks 

Let's bring about a Positive Change

The essence of “Tilak Stotra” is “Badlav” or The Change! 

 Change in the way we think as Individuals and as a society. Change in our attitude as a Nation. Change in our personality from being servants of the world to be the leaders of communities’ world wide; to sponsor peace, harmony and exchange of knowledge. 

 Let it be known to friends and others that Hindustan was, is and always will be a powerful nation of ideas and ideals and that a powerful nation is not known by the wars it fights; but for the peace that it ensures within the country and across the world! The concept of Hindustan in this 21st Century: The People! 

The people of India will ensure that the nation is a strongly – disciplined and regulated society with strict standards of civil and social discipline. ‘Discipline’ will be the Mantra of the Nation! Punishment for violation of social, civil and criminal laws will be severe and punitive. 

The people will work towards achieving a strong and balanced society by observing a few simple rules that enhance living standards and ensure peace within the nation. 

The Change in Government work procedures: 

a) Expanding the work hours of the Government offices to catch up with the work load back log as well as to give more work time for the government employees as well as to the people who approach the government department for various purposes. The Government of Hindustan will work in two shifts; from 6 AM to 2 PM and again from 3PM to 11 PM. All government departments will work Monday through Friday and the nation will enjoy a full 48 hours weekend every week. The only exemptions will be the Police and Emergency personnel which will work 24/7/365 to ensure the availability of assistance to the people at all times. 

b) There will be only two government holidays. Independence Day (15th August) and Republic Day (26th January). All other civil, religious, political and sundry holidays will be cancelled. This will assist the government to catch up with the work of national governance and ensure an effective government. 

 c) Extended work hours in the Government will ensure that the Government work force will have to be doubled. This will mean a 100% immediate increase in employment for the youth of our nation. 

d) All government offices will be technologically upgraded so that work flow is efficient and time saving. 

e) Government departments will be legally required to reach a final decision within 30 days of the start of any work file in any department; from the Central level, all the ways down to District & Town level. Violation of this policy by Government officials will be punishable severely in the form of loss of employment as well as punitive financial punishments. 

f) The pay and financial benefits of the Government employees will be on par with those employees in the private industrial / commercial sector; and there will be substantially extra financial benefits to those employees who exceed the general performance standards. The change in Social procedures and the contribution of the People: 

g) All citizens will proudly wear any of our National dress(s) during all work hours. 

h) The morning hours from 4 AM till 12 Noon will be used by the Radio & TV Media to publicize national and cultural aspects of the nation; by broadcasting national / patriotic / cultural songs and programs that reinforce the image of a strong and progressive nation. The radio & TV media will have full freedom to broadcast all entertainment programs post noon till 3 AM; as long as such entertainment is not obscene in any form or manner. 

i) The use of foul language in public or inside government establishments will be deemed a cognizable offense and punished punitively. 

j) The use of foul and or obscene language by any person (male or female) towards any other person within the confines of the residences will be deemed as a cognizable offense; if it is reported to the police officials by any other member of the family or a visitor, and will be punished punitively. 

k) The use of footpaths, over- bridges, under-passes used for pedestrian traffic for any purpose other than walking will be a cognizable offense. Pedestrian areas are meant for pedestrians and the use of these areas as shops, hutments, or any other purpose will be punished harshly. 

l) The use of public areas for spitting or for releasing of body waste(s) will be a criminal offense and punished harshly. 

m) Punishment for Civil offenses will start with a minimum 03 years in a civil prison camp and people so convicted will become part of the prison workers detail which will be used to clean up the nations filth and garbage dumps, repair roads, build gardens, water lawns and work on the farm – fields.

Let's make our country Great ....

Jai Hind 

 

 

Political Oversight Policy, 2010

Oversight Autonomy would be a fitting concession to make to the people of India. 

This will involve the operation of oversight of the State Governments in connection with the internal administration of the country and putting in place the control of the representatives of Hindustani Polity through legislative process. 

Below is a brief outline that this form of administration oversight that should be set up in the states to carry out this idea. 

Each state should have: 

1. A “Chief of People” appointed from the People at the head of the Oversight Administration Council. 

2. A Cabinet or Executive Council of six members, three of whom should be political party(s) members and three nationals with oversight on the following portfolios: (a) Home (including law and justice). (b) Finance. (c) Agriculture, irrigation, and public works. (d) Education. (e) Local self-government (including sanitation and medical relief). (f) Industries and commerce. 

While members of the Bureaucracy should be eligible for appointment to the Executive Council, no place in the Council should be reserved for them, the best people available being appointed, male and female. 

3. A Oversight Council of between fifty-five and sixty members, of whom not less than four-fifths should be elected by different constituencies and interests. Thus each district should return two members, one representing municipalities and the other districts. 

Mega-Metro Cities should have about ten members allotted to the state bodies. There should be no nominated non-official members, except as experts. A few official members may be added by the ‘Chief of Party’ as experts or to assist in representing the Executive Government. 

4. The relations between the Elected Government and the Oversight Council so constituted should be under the preview of the “Interests of the People”. The Council will have the right to examine all state legislation and its assent may be necessary to additions to or changes in local and state taxation policies. The Budget too will have to come to it for discussion; and its resolutions in connection with it, as also on questions of general administration, will have to be given effect to, unless vetoed by the ‘Chief of People’. 

The members of the Executive Council shall not depend, individually or collectively, on the support of a majority of the Councils for holding their offices. The term of office for each member will not exceed five years; and no member will serve consecutive terms. 

5. The Oversight Council, so constituted and working under the control of the Executive Council as outlined above, should have complete charge of the oversight of internal administration of the states and it should have independent financial powers. 

The Oversight Council will have oversight authority over all the revenue expenditure exclusive to the Governments. 

Such a scheme of Oversight Autonomy will be incomplete unless it is accompanied by the liberalizing of the present form of district administration and a great role of local self-government. Oversight Council should be legally allowed to raise funds from the people so that they have adequate resources at their disposal for the due performance of their duties. 

Subject to the principle of “Interests of the People” the Oversight Committee should have increased opportunities of influencing the policy of the Government by discussion, questions connected with policy and issues of the citizens being placed on the same level with other issues; all within the boundaries of the Constitution of the Nation.

 

Ode to Success

“Victory” 

You are the person who used to boast That you would achieve the utmost, Someday. 

You merely wished to show, To demonstrate how much you know, And prove the success that you can grow… 

Another year we have just passed through, 

What new ideas came to you? 

How many good things did you do? 

Time; left 12 months in your care, 

How many of them did you share? With opportunity and dare,

Again where you so often missed? 

We do not find you on the list of those who succeed. 

Explain the fact! 

No, it was not the chance you lacked! 

As usual, you just failed to act!

 

The Confident People

Be confident, not just in yourself but in your country and your fellow citizens. 

Remember, it’s much easier to despair over what might seem an irrevocable erosion of our institutions and traditions which made this country great, than it is to see the progress we are making in preserving our institutions and traditions. 

Compounding our despair is the dominant media culture, especially the foreign media like CNN, Fox, NBC, which do not reflect our values and concerns. The media constantly pounds us with gloom and doom scenarios, which have a negative effect on our psyche. 

The truth is that when we look at our national policies and national priorities, it is not the people who are out of touch with reality; it is the political parties and their national level leadership. Political parties are simply unable to extricate themselves from the bondage they have placed themselves in, by building their power base on beggar vote constituencies. 

The across-the-board sycophancy is now failing as they have exploited the masses to the extreme and have not been able to steer mass quantities of money towards this beggar constituencies for the past few years. The socialists and the likes had sustained themselves for years on government grants and subsidies. These are now reduced to a trickle. 

Political parties now exist primarily off the donations of the rich, on political kickbacks and whatever contributions they can get from the public at large. Remember, the people in politics or their party groups do not work for a living in the traditional sense. They survive only by inventing crises or by fabricating some threat to the social fabric. That is why they appear to be more active and visible, while becoming more hysterical every day. They cannot provide for themselves so they hope that by making a nuisance of themselves they will get others to feed them. 

These people have made our country bankrupt, financially and morally. Reputed economists have pointed out that with the money we have spent on poverty reduction programs since the 1950s, we could have purchased the entire assets of every fortune 50 companies in the world and developed virtually every acre of land in our country. 

Yet, not only we have not eliminated poverty, but also many social problems are far worse than before. 

You know it and I know it. 

And more important, they know it too. Indians are no longer willing to burden the millions of rupees that are poured into programs that fail to accomplish any goal. We are weary of supporting a socialistic system that is anti-progressive, indicts tradition, promotes cultural disharmony and serves as a breeding ground for more anti social elements. 

Policies that are nothing more than threats for more violence and disharmony should we refuse to meet the financial demands of those who are representing thugs, murderers, arsonists and looters. They are making threats about instability of the nation, out of desperation and panic. 

First, they realize that government largesse in the form of development funds for social assistance is over, because the money is just not there. 

Second, the cold realization that, after 50 years of uninterrupted catering of their demands, their primary ideas and theories on social justice and economic fairness just does not work. They do not know what to do, except to shout and scream in an attempt to frighten and intimidate those who are now more educated and will no longer be controlled by these demons. 

 We are the future. 

We cannot give up what is right. We have to break this strangle hold that the socialists and the communalists have on our nation and our society. We have to be confident. 

Our nation has not run out of opportunities. Our children can live in an India that is better, safer, and more prosperous. Life is a never-ending battle and we have to fight the battle that we land into.

 

History of the India Nuclear Program

The Indian nuclear program was started in the mid-forties, around the time it gained independence from over two centuries of British rule, and soon after the United States bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

Both these factors had a powerful impact on Indian leaders, who saw India's technological backwardness and military inferiority as the main causes of colonization over two centuries ago. It was therefore natural that India would also follow the dominant power at the end of the Second World War, the United States, which relied on nuclear technology for energy as well as defense. 

From the very beginning, the Indian nuclear program was ambitious and envisaged having indigenous capability for covering the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Over the years, apart from nuclear reactors, India also developed facilities for mining Uranium, fabricating fuel, manufacturing heavy water, reprocessing spent fuel to extract Plutonium and, more recently, enriching Uranium. 

During the early years, though only a part of the infrastructure needed to manufacture nuclear weapons was in place, the program never lost sight of the possibility that the facilities constructed and expertise gained could be used for military purposes. 

The strategy used, perhaps not intentionally, were remarkably close to something that Robert Oppenheimer said in 1946 while responding to a proposal for the international control of nuclear weapons. "We know very well what we would do if we signed such a convention: We would not make atomic weapons, at least not to start with, but we would build enormous plants, and we would design these plants in such a way that they could be converted with the maximum ease and the minimum time delay to the production of atomic weapons saying, this is just in case somebody two-times us; we would stockpile uranium; we would keep as many of our developments secret as possible; we would locate our plants, not where they would do the most good for the production of power, but where they would do the most good for protection against enemy attack." 

Several countries, like the U.K., Canada and the U.S., offered technical help to India's fledgling nuclear program. The framework for U.S. aid was the Atoms for Peace program, initiated by Eisenhower to forestall criticism of the use of atomic energy for military purposes and to wean away third world countries from the Soviet Union. 

As part of this initiative, the U.S. offered $80 million as a low interest loan towards the cost of the first Indian nuclear reactor at Tarapur, constructed by General Electric. As it became clear that China was developing a nuclear bomb, there was even a proposal that the U.S. help India conduct a nuclear test. 

In a 1961 memorandum to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, George McGhee, Director of the Policy Planning Council, suggested that assisting India to test a nuclear device first was one way to reduce the political impact of a Chinese bomb. Rusk did not approve this idea, in part, because India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was likely to reject it. At the same time as the development of its nuclear infrastructure was going on, India under Nehru also tried to change the world so that it was not necessary to develop nuclear weapons. 

As a champion of the non-aligned movement, Nehru had made several disarmament proposals. Prominent among them was the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In a proposal dated April 8, 1954, he requested the nuclear weapon states to negotiate: "Some sort of what may be called `Standstill Agreement’, in respect at least, of these explosions, even if arrangements about the discontinuance of production and stockpiling must await more substantial agreements among those principally concerned." 

The reactions to this proposal from the two superpowers of the day are worth recalling. The Soviet Union said that the proposal made sense only in the context of general and complete disarmament, a linkage that is even more ambitious than the one that India gave when it rejected the treaty in 1996. 

The United States first said that the proposal was worth of "respectful attention." But Eisenhower, the president at that time, was soon persuaded by Lewis Strauss that a ban on nuclear explosions was not in the US interest. Nevertheless, the proposal, coupled with worldwide concern about the dangers of radioactive fallout, galvanized opposition to testing. It resulted in the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. 

India was one of the first countries to sign it. Despite the buildup of nuclear infrastructure, Nehru’s avowed opposition to nuclear weapons as well as India’s recent history of non-violent struggle for independence under Mahatma Gandhi, ensured that there was never any support for developing nuclear weapons. 

Three events mark the shift in India’s nuclear program during the early sixties. The first was the completion of a reprocessing plant at Trombay and the CIRUS research reactor, which gave India the ability to extract plutonium and thus to make nuclear weapons. The second was the death of Jawaharlal Nehru. While encouraging the development of a militarily capable nuclear infrastructure, Nehru had always opposed explicit weaponization. The third event was the first Chinese nuclear test in 1964, barely two years after India lost the border war with China. 

In hindsight, the Chinese nuclear test was the most significant since the Chinese nuclear program allowed and has continued to allow the construction of a security rationale for the Indian nuclear program. With Nehru's death the most significant political opposition to an explicit nuclear weapons program had been removed. 

Following the Chinese test, several influential individuals among the bureaucracy, political parties and intellectuals started arguing for India developing nuclear bombs. The chief arguments for developing nuclear weapons were largely based on the rationales used by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the cold war. The "bomb lobby" argued that nuclear weapons are required to counter nuclear weapons, they guarantee security, and that they are relatively cheaper than conventional weapons and provide more destructive power. 

The elite in India also identified having a nuclear bomb as a source of international prestige. The first official policy decision shaped by this constellation of factors was at the negotiation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1967. After initial attempts to seek security assurances from the nuclear weapon states, India decided to vote against the treaty and argued against the its discriminatory aspects and pushed ahead with its nuclear program. 

 A little over a year after the NPT went into force, India and Pakistan fought their third war. During this war the US Seventh Fleet, led by the USS Enterprise, was sent into the Bay of Bengal. Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State at the time, claimed the move was designed not only to 'assist' Pakistan, but also to 'back up the Chinese'. 

For some Indian policy makers, however, the 1971 intrusion was a form of "gunboat diplomacy" – one that was possibly nuclear. This is regarded by some as a factor in the decision to conduct India’s first nuclear test. The first Indian test was conducted on May 24, 1974. At that time, in order to try and limit negative international reaction, the Indian Prime Minister termed it a "Peaceful Nuclear Explosion." At that time, of course, this term was very much in vogue. 

The U.S. was still pursuing its own series of PNEs under Project Ploughshares. The Soviet Union also had a similar program. The IAEA conducted several meetings on PNEs. Indian officials and policy makers now admit that the 1974 test was, in part, a bomb and that since then it has always been part of India's security calculus. For a variety of reasons, primarily domestic, India did not proceed with further nuclear tests after this. 

We now know that there were a couple of attempts to carry out a test in the early eighties but they were called off. However, the eighties saw the establishment of a missile program that started delivering its first products around the end of the decade. The decision to induct these missiles into the Indian armed forces was made only in the early nineties. 

Throughout this period, i.e. ever since the 1974 test, India maintained that it had demonstrated its capacity to build nuclear weapons should the need arise, but had chosen not to manufacture or deploy them. There were calls within the domestic debate, by what can be called the "bomb lobby" to proceed with these activities but they were not particularly popular. 

It is only in the mid-nineties that we see the first shifts within the debate. This happened on the occasion of the question of what to do with the NPT when it came to the end of its 25 year life in 1995. Due to the complete failure of the Nuclear Weapon States to comply with their Article VI commitments under the NPT, the Non Nuclear Weapon-States seemed to be more inclined towards a rolling or definite-period extension. 

The Nuclear Weapon-States, led by the US, forced through an indefinite extension of the NPT. This provided grounds for a renewed campaign for nuclear weapons by the Indian bomb lobby who argued that the indefinite extension signaled that nuclear weapons were going to be around forever; therefore, India should either develop nuclear weapons or settle for permanent second-class status. To develop militarily use-able nuclear weapons India had to test. 

Therefore it had to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In international forums, as well as official circles, two main arguments were used against the CTBT. First, the CTBT was no longer a step towards disarmament as had always been envisioned. Indeed, the Nuclear Weapon-States viewed it as merely a measure that would, in the words of the head of the erstwhile Arms Control and Disarmament Agency of the USA, "freeze countries on the nuclear learning curve." 

Second, the CTBT did not really constrain the weapons development programs of the Nuclear Weapon-States, especially the U.S. The U. S. had started a multi-billion dollar Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program involving the construction of several facilities that could develop new weapons designs. 

Further, the rationale for the Stockpile Stewardship Program was to ensure the US nuclear arsenal would remain functional for the foreseeable future, thus making it clear that the U.S. was not interested in nuclear disarmament. 

India demanded that the CTBT be coupled to a time-bound program for nuclear disarmament. The Nuclear Weapon-States were completely opposed to this. Quoting these reasons, India voted against the CTBT. Despite refusing to sign the CTBT, the last two Indian Prime Ministers belonging to the center-left United Front party did not authorize nuclear tests. 

This was left to the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The large number of tests with differing designs – a thermo-nuclear fusion weapon, a light weight fission weapon and three sub-kiloton tactical nuclear weapons – suggest that, unlike the 1974 explosion, these tests are intended to develop weapons for military purposes. 

The Indian Prime Minister also stated that a Command and Control system was in place, thus making it clear that it is possible to deploy these weapons.