All posts by webadmin

There have been times in history when a single event has triggered a chain such that it led to catastrophic results for the international security situation, something which could not have been ordinarily visualised at the time of occurrence. No better example than that of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife on 28 Jun 1914 in Sarajevo. It led to the First World War which paralysed much of the world for four years and resulted in approximately 15 to 19 million deaths of civilian and military personnel. This is not to say that the murder of Jamal Ahmad Kashoggi at the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul on 2 Oct 2018 is a parallel to an event such as that which triggered the First World War, nor is it implied that in 2018 the world is heading anywhere near a world war. Yet seldom in recent history has an event unrelated to global politics had an impact which can drastically change the strategic environment of a crucial region of the world, as the Kashoggi killing. The gruesome murder and dismemberment of the body of the veteran US based Saudi journalist just a few weeks ago, at the Saudi consulate purportedly on the orders of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), is by now too well known to recount here. It has, however, set off a chain of unpredictability which has all portends of a transformative change in international politics the effects of which are yet in drift. It could create immense challenges for the Trump Administration to pursue its policy in the Middle East, a region which it was hoping to stabilize and move on from, towards greater challenges that await it in the Indo Pacific and elsewhere.

          At the core of the issue is the US attempt to create an order in the Middle East which could suitably empower a reasonably reformed Saudi Arabia under its heir apparent,  MbS to counter the perceived growing power of an allegedly rogue Iran. Iran’s dominance of the Levant achieved largely with the help of Russia, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Bashar Assad regime of Syria has already altered the balance of power in the Middle East. The proverbial Shia crescent extending into this sub region militates against the interests of Israel the staunchest US ally. Equally it directly impinges on Saudi interests especially its status in the sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam in which Saudi Arabia is at the core centre of Sunni interests. After a short period of reticence displayed by former President Obama the US had returned to resuming its special economic and military relationship with the Saudis. Under President Trump this received a further impetus with all stakes placed in the leadership of MbS, the young and bold Crown Prince who displayed all the signs of loosening Saudi ideological and political make up in order to prepare it for a greater strategic role  in a future devoid of energy as its mainstay. With Trump’s known stance against Iran and avowed efforts at bringing regime change in that country he set up the mechanism for a greater US-Israeli-Saudi strategic equation to offset Russian and Iranian gains from the Syrian Civil War. Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner became the US points man and his special relationship with MbS and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was the cornerstone of the US policy pursuance to regain the power balance.

With the hand of MbS now reasonably suspect in ordering the killing of Jamal Kashoggi, equations appear getting upset. It all commenced with MbS displaying what analysts suspected were his true colours which are far from the professed reputation of being an ardent reformist and a relative liberal in the maze of Middle Eastern authoritarianism. It’s not as if the US has not supported non democratic forces in the past but its investment in MbS and creation of a new Saudi Arabia was huge. So how does a single murder of a journalist upset the US applecart?

As an ardent supporter of rights and stability the US has always attempted to project the need for a rule based order. Haaretz, the mainstream Israeli newspaper has this to say about the whole affair – “ The Kashoggi murder, beyond obliterating red  lines of immorality, also points to the fundamental unreliability of Saudi Arabia under MbS as a strategic partner”. The focus immediately comes on the almost single point investment of US policy in MbS to play the right cards in the messy game of Middle Eastern politics. Yet even the US, despite many instances of a murky past, cannot easily morally justify its position by continuing with this partnership. Other instances of MbS’ alleged reckless and impulsive attitude come into focus and lend to potential US embarrassment; the fruitless war in Yemen which has created vast suffering of civilians; or even the Qatar blockade which has diverted attention from the strategy of containing Iran; and the severing of relations with Canada over a tweet criticizing Saudi detentions of human rights activists.

President Trump has vainly held on and desisted from direct condemnation of the Prince which would strain relations. He has personal business stakes in Saudi Arabia it is said. However, more importantly it is US business interests which are also at stake. The agreement to sell 110 billion USD worth of weapons was a big achievement being projected by Trump. This could well be under threat with a new political equation in the US legislature now in place; even without that there are Republican Senators who have been the harshest critics of the murky affair.  In fact justification of holding MbS hand for the sake of pursuing strategic interests would become a contentious affair against collective American conscience. A continuation of the relationship with MbS could hurt Trump electorally as there is greater progress in the investigation. The CIA itself appears to be sufficiently convinced to take a public position on the issue sparking what could be one more internal squabble in the US to the detriment of the Administration.

If the US attempts to force King Salman the Saudi monarch to alter the planned succession it would firstly undo a crucial two years of strategic investment and weaken the US  hold over the Middle East. It cannot be overlooked that MbS may not go quietly. By now he has embedded himself powerfully and cultivated the required loyalties. It would cause turbulence in one of the most stable states in the Middle East which holds the key to many other strategic links in the region. The weakening of the US-Israeli-Saudi equation is to Iran’s interest and advantage but it would bring in greater unpredictability in Israel’s stance leading to even greater instability. The ‘Deal of the Century’ that Trump is contemplating about the Israel-Palestine issue would be a non-starter in such a case.

The killing of Kashoggi is unlikely to peter off into a forgotten affair; the ‘Murder on the Bosporus’ has yet to see the emergence of many other hidden linkages which could upset even more equations. It is the rule based and ethical order that the US promotes which would most of all return to pressure President Trump into stronger decisions in the near future. Each such decision would obviously have its own spin off sparking an era of greater uncertainty in the Middle East. 

The new Income Tax department notification says that individuals like the managing director, director, partner, trustee, author, founder, karta, CEO or office-bearer of such entities should also apply for a PAN card, in case they don’t have one, within 31 May of the next financial year.

New Delhi: To prevent tax evasion, the Income Tax department has changed PAN card rules with effect from 5 December making it mandatory for all entities doing business worth over Rs 2.5 lakh in a financial year to have a Permanent Account Number. According to a new notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, all entities which made financial transactions of at least Rs 2.5 lakh in a financial year must apply for a PAN card till May 31 of the next financial year.

5 things to know about new PAN card rules:

1. “In the case of a person, being a resident, other than an individual, which enters into a financial transaction of an amount aggregating to two lakh fifty thousand rupees or more in a financial year and which has not been allotted any permanent account number, on or before the 31st day of May immediately following such financial year,” says the new amendment in Income Tax Rules, 1962.

2. The new income tax rule is not meant for individual taxpayers who are not associated with such entities.

3. The new I-T department notification also says that individuals like the managing director, director, partner, trustee, author, founder, karta, chief executive officer or office-bearer of such entities should also apply for a PAN card, in case they don’t have one, within 31 May of the next financial year.

4. “In the case of a person, who is the managing director, director, partner, trustee, author, founder, karta, chief executive officer, principal officer or office-bearer of the person referred to in clause (v) or any person competent to act on behalf of the person referred to in clause (v) and who has not been allotted any permanent account number, on or before the 31st day of May immediately following the financial year in which the person referred to in clause (v) enters into financial transaction specified therein,” reads the amendment.

5. Nangia Advisors LLP Partner Suraj Nangia said that now resident entities shall have to obtain PAN even if the total sales or turnover or gross receipts are not or are not likely to exceed Rs 5 lakh in a financial year. “This will help the income tax department track financial transactions, broaden the tax base and prevent tax evasion,” said the tax expert.

Read: How to apply for PAN card online using Aadhaar

In another development, the Income Tax authorities have made it optional for individual tax payers to give their father’s name in PAN card application forms for those with single parents. If a PAN applicant’s father is deceased or separated, he or she can chose not to mention father’s name at all in the form.

Kra canal is part of the grand design in the waters around India and in the Indian Ocean

Vivek Katju
Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

I first heard of the ‘Kra canal’ in Kuala Lumpur 25 years ago where I was posted as the Deputy High Commissioner. A Malaysian geographer friend who was on a team conducting a quiet study on the project’s feasibility told me that the physical construction of the canal which would link the Andaman Sea to the Gulf of Thailand traversing the Kra Isthmus was doable but its economics, domestic politics, and, even more, its geopolitics, were problematic. Clearly, the project was not pursued further by the interested party.

In giving up on the project, the party had followed the example of others who had considered it since it was first imagined in the 17th century by a Thai monarch. Now, however, the situation appears to be changing for a weight of opinion is developing in its favour. China is relentlessly pushing it and has worked hard to foster a strong lobby for it in Thailand. Reports indicate that Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who had earlier declared that it was not a Thai priority, has asked the country’s National Security Council and the National Economic and Social Development Board to examine it. No doubt the former body will look at its security implications while the latter will consider its economic aspects.

The Kra canal which is expected to take a decade to get completed, will reduce the distance for ships sailing currently via the busy and narrow Malacca Straits from the Persian Gulf to the east by at least 1,200 km. Merchant ships which wish presently to avoid the Malacca Straits have to go further south to the Sunda or the Lombok Straits considerably increasing the distance to the east. Thus, prima facie the Kra canal, which at present estimates will cost around $30 billion — this figure will surely go up — makes sense, but its economic and strategic viability have yet to be fully established. Its Thai proponents argue that its financial viability must take into account both the volume of traffic and the economic activity generated through the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) that will be set up as part of the project.

China is willing to put in the money for the canal but will it be ready to subsidise it for its strategic purposes? That remains to be seen (and is perhaps unlikely because it will become a precedent for unviable BRI projects), despite the strategic advantages that it will bring. The Malacca choke makes China uneasy, for it is not only dependent on West Asian oil which passes through the straits, but also its general trade uses these waters. Hence, the canal alternative is strategically valid.

A principal historical Thai strategic inhibition is that it will notionally ‘separate’ the country’s southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat from the rest of the country. Thailand is Buddhist and ethnically Tai but these provinces are Muslim and Malay. They are part of the Malay world but along with some other Malay territories were annexed by an expanding Thai kingdom around 1785. Under the Anglo-Thai treaty of 1909, Thailand relinquished its claims to some Malay territories which are now part of Malaysia and its sovereignty over these provinces was recognised. These provinces have always been restless but have witnessed an insurgency since 2004. Its current intensity is low but alienation is substantial and violent acts continue. More than 6,000 have died in the past 14 years. Thailand can create military installations to the canal’s south to ensure effective counter-terrorism but the way the strategic landscape by the Thai elite is imagined will need to change.

The Kra canal’s impact on ASEAN will go beyond the re-orientation of shipping, though that too will be substantial and adverse on Singapore and to an extent on Malaysian ports. Conversely, some ports in Vietnam may benefit. If the SEZs take off, they will attract investments that would have gone elsewhere. However, Singapore’s attractions as a financial centre and its ability to strengthen itself as a hi-tech base are great, even as it may have to lose its pivotal place as a shipping hub.

The US has not taken an official position on the project but is wary of enhanced Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean. The European states are not concerned with that aspect and look to gaining work for their companies in the project construction. Other countries will not be overly concerned. International civil society and concerned global organisations will look at the canal’s environmental impact more than anything else.

There is no doubt that the Kra canal is part of China’s grand design in the waters that surround India and in the Indian Ocean. It is gaining access or acquiring ports or building bases —Hambantota, Gwadar and the base in Djibouti — and has now signed an agreement to develop the Kyaukphyu port in Myanmar’s troubled Rakhine state. All this is impacting on Indian interests and so will the canal. It would be timely for Indian economic and strategic planners to examine the implications of the canal. Perhaps the process has already begun but it has to be pursued in a holistic and sustained manner.

Indian official agencies and business should engage Thailand on the Kra canal even while the Thai system’s consideration is in the initial stages. While the canal will be built on Thai territory it will impact the interests of many countries, including India. Hence it will be in order to exchange views to make it a win-win, as far as possible, for all. One way to do so would be to ensure that except Thailand no other country is allowed to use it for the passage of its naval vessels. That will assuage strategic apprehensions of the region and beyond.

A peaceful mahatma may prevent a war, but he is certainly not going to win one. This is why it is all the more reason for other members of society to be sensitive in their official and unofficial dealings with the armed forces.

The Bomdila incident has cast an unpleasant shadow over this year’s Deepavali celebrations in military circles. What is known is that two soldiers of the Arunachal Scouts were picked up by the Police because they were allegedly misbehaving at a public event. They were then taken to the Police station. When they were handed over to their unit, they were found to have been severely beaten.Subsequently, the Police Station was allegedly vandalised by the Scouts and police personnel were beaten up. A video later emerged of the Commanding Officer (CO) of the Arunachal Scouts apparently warning a Police Officer to stay away from his men or face dire consequences.

On social media, most of the outrage was targeted at the CO. Many members of the public and those from the Police and civil services fraternity expressed indignance at the tone and tenor of the CO’s words. How, they asked, could an Army officer so brazenly threaten a Police officer and be allowed to get away with it? Especially after his men had apparently vandalised the police station too.

Unfortunately, due process was not followed. In fact, the soldiers were manhandled and roughed up, eventually leading to their hospitalisation. This brings us to the second aspect, that is, the subsequent alleged conduct of the Scouts Battalion and its Commanding Officer. Why they acted the way they did, needs to be understood.

An infantry battalion has been famously stated to be the last hundred metres of foreign policy. The battalion is the largest composite unit to go into active battle, led by its commanding officer. The soldiers know that when they run into a hail of bullets, the only ones beside them will be their fellow soldiers. There is nobody else anywhere to back them up when the proverbial metal meets the meat. The man leading the charge will be the CO. His every action and command would be higher than the word of god for the soldiers of the battalion. Therefore, there is a bond of trust between the soldiers amongst themselves and between the soldiers and the CO. This bond takes years to develop. A commanding officer is usually groomed in the battalion and the regiment for more than fifteen years before he takes charge.

http://

What this means is that the Commanding Officer knows that he must stand behind his men in peace, so that they might stand behind him in war. This necessarily means that if a man under his command is in anyway ill-treated, it becomes the sacred duty of the CO as embodied in the Chetwode Code to set right that wrong. If this involves actions which skirt the thin line between legality and illegality, then the CO will not hesitate to do it even if it costs him his job. For if he is seen to take a wishy-washy approach when his soldier is beaten up, the faith of his soldiers in his command and leadership would be extinguished that instant. He would know that nobody would follow him anywhere, least of all into battle. Thus, in the present instant, the die was cast when the two soldiers, however guilty they have been of any offence, were roughed up by the Police. This is why the Commanding Officer of 2 Arunachal Scouts allowed things to play out the way they did. If he did not stand up for his men, his moral right to command them would have been over and any future CO would have had to live with the fact that the men of the battalion could never have full faith in their leader.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1060015304124841985

This ethos may be unfamiliar to many. Many might wonder if these aren’t the ethos of the Police. These aren’t. And for good reason. Uniformed forces differ in their mandate. Militarising the Police is not desirable. The Police perform the daunting task of maintaining law and order and individual Police officers often have to stand alone in facing not only lumpen elements but also inconvenient politicians. The contribution of Policemen to our nation and each of our lives deserves the highest respect. Their lives are not any less important than a soldier’s life.

However, soldiers must necessarily be rough men. A policeman need not be. In a democratic society, the Police is a service and not a force.

A peaceful mahatma may prevent a war, but he is certainly not going to win one. This is why it is all the more reason for other members of society to be sensitive in their official and unofficial dealings with the armed forces.

All this must weigh on the minds of those who are going to sit in judgement over the conduct of the CO of the Scouts Battalion. It is hoped that wisdom will prevail.

(This article was originally published here)

mallufideintent

The author studies law at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. He has previously worked with Capital IQ as a Mergers & Acquisitions analyst specialising in the European markets. He actively blogs about law, geopolitics, strategy and current affairs with a focus on security and military matters. He is Anti pro and Pro anti on most matters under the sun.

Ruchika M Khanna
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 9

Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh has urged Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to take up with the government of Pakistan the issue of opening of the corridor from Dera Baba Nanak to Sri Kartarpur Sahib.

In a letter to Sushma Swaraj, the Chief Minister said Kartarpur Sahib was one of the most revered religious places for Sikhs as Sri Guru Nanak Dev spent a large part of his life there.

Pointing out that the gurdwara lies around 4 km westwards from Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur, on the Pakistan side, he said the Punjab government had, time and again, requested the Union government to take up with issue with Pakistan.

Referring to the 550th birth anniversary of Sri Guru Nanak Dev, the Chief Minister apprised the External Affairs Minister that the Punjab Vidhan Sabha had passed a unanimous resolution on August 27, seeking uninterrupted opening of corridor from Dera Baba Nanak to Sri Kartarpur Sahib in Pakistan.

The Chief Minister had earlier also requested Sushma Swaraj, through a letter on August 20 to take up the matter with the government of the neighbouring country.

Meanwhile, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar, said, “I have to check the contents of the letter. We have taken up the matter of opening up of the border with Pakistan for Sikh pilgrims to go and visit the gurdwara on the other side. We have heard from Pakistan this is something they want to do. But we have not received any official communication from Pakistan that they are keen to work with us on this matter”.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has projected Pakistan’s economy to expand by an annual average of 2.9% in 2018/19 till 2022/23, compared with 5.4% growth in the previous years.

The advisory issued by the EIU comes amidst Pakistan’s ongoing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which commenced on November 7th and are expected to conclude by November 20th. Its not going to be an easy task for Pakistan to get an IMF bailout package as the United States holds the largest voting share in the Fund’s decision-making process.

Pakistan has had a history of economic failures due to inefficient govt policies that have always been directed towards targeting India in the form of either terrorism or a covert economic war by injecting fake currencies in the financial system. Instead of focusing on education, infrastructure and human development it drew closer to religious Islamic fanaticism and became a hot bed for Islamic Terror.

Pakistan is currently in a financial mess where it cannot stay afloat without bailout packages from China and the UAE and it still dreams of snatching Kashmir away from a country like India which is the world’s fastest growing economy with a defence budget of $52.5-bn, more than what the United Kingdom spends annually.

India’s military capabilities under PM Modi’s leadership are advancing rapidly towards challenging China in the 21st century leaving Pakistan so far behind that it has virtually become insignificant in the Asian power balance.

Pakistan’s current account deficit widened by 43 percent to $18 billion in the last fiscal year and its budget deficit has ballooned to 6.6 percent of economic output, creating a financial crunch that economists say will lead to a collapse if it doesn’t get Financial AID.

India should target Pakistan’s export markets and completely annihilate the remaining little industry that it has. This will lead to a faster guaranteed economic collapse and force Pakistan to further drop its defence budget.

Pakistan has not imported any major weapons system that can threaten India since the last batch of F-16s given in AID by the United States. All it relies on currently is cheap sub-standard Chinese Fighter Jets and a few Drones. At this rate, Pakistan should become a Banana Republic in less than a decade.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Article written by Darshil R Patel exclusively for www.DefenceNews.in
Bsc. in CASFX (U.K.)
Location : Mumbai
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Bengaluru, November 7

Amid a political slugfest over the Rafale fighter jet deal, state-run HAL’s Chairman and Managing Director R Madhavan on Wednesday said the aircraft manufacturing company is contending not to be an offset partner of any original equipment manufacturer (OEM).

But it would like to be a “total technology transfer partner” for production of aircraft, he said.

Madhavan’s reply came when he was asked to clarify on one among many charges that defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) had been deprived of an offset contract from the Rafale deal.

“We are not contending to be an offset partner to any OEM, rather HAL would like to be a total technology transfer partner for production of aircraft,” he told PTI here.

He also said HAL’s basic focus was on manufacturing of aircraft, helicopters, associated accessories and their repair and overhaul, and not in garnering offset business.

Production of aircraft from transfer of technology is totally different from offsets, according to him.

Some portion of the offset business from various other programmes were being administered at the HAL, but it does not form a major business, Madhavan said.

“HAL will continue to get these offset business,” he added.

The Congress recently accused the government of forcing Dassault Aviation to make Reliance Defence its offset partner for the Rs 58,000 crore deal to purchase 36 Rafale jets.

It alleged that the government was helping the Anil Ambani group get a contract worth Rs 30,000 crore from the deal.

However, the Reliance Group, in a statement, has said Dassault Aviation’s investment in Reliance Airport Developers Limited has no link with the Rafale fighter jet deal, and has accused the Congress of resorting to “blatant lies” for political gains.

Reliance has also said the Indian government, the French government, Dassault and Reliance have clarified on multiple occasions that there was no offset contract for Rs 30,000 crore to Reliance as alleged by the Congress.

Earlier, in an interaction with the media on November 2, Madhavan had said that the HAL was completely out of the Rafale deal, but at one point of time, it was part of it, which did not kick-off.

“We are not in that (Rafale) business now. We were in it at one point of time. It is a direct purchase by the government and (I) cannot make any comments on pricing and policy changes,” he had said.

Escalating his campaign against the Modi government over the Rafale deal, Congress president Rahul Gandhi last month accused it of destroying the “strategic asset”, state-run aerospace company HAL, and told its employees that “Rafale is your right”.

In an interaction, Gandhi had sought to reach out to present and former HAL employees, alleging that “temples of modern India are being attacked and destroyed; we cannot allow it to be done.” The Congress has also been demanding answers on why the HAL was not involved in the deal as finalised during the UPA regime.

However, the BJP and Reliance Defence have dismissed all the allegations as false. – PTI

MK Bhadrakumar
Former ambassador

Albert Einstein once said, ‘In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.’ The difficulties that have been piled on India in the recent past, for no real fault of its own, by the US are turning out to be a wake-up call — especially the arrogant, intolerable American demands that Delhi must curb its friendly ties with Russia and Iran.

The grit to push ahead with the S-400 ABM deal with Russia became a celebrated case. India made its payments in roubles and sidestepped the dollar system, calling the American bluff. Meanwhile, new thinking appeared to revive the old rupee-rouble clearing system in economic transactions, characteristic of the Soviet era. Exploratory talks have begun. The two countries are rich with experience as regards the charms and inadequacies of barter trade. Accumulation of currencies was an embarrassing feature.

But then, conditions are vastly different today. Russia’s ‘Czarist instincts’ have reappeared with a vengeance and the great Russian barons of the 19th century are once again on the move, wading into the world market, scouting for business in far-flung regions — Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, China, Turkey, South Korea, Poland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Korea, US, etc. Washington felt the pressure to sanction Russia’s United Company RUSAL, the world’s largest aluminium company by primary production output. With foreign currency reserves of $460 billion, Russian business also has investible surplus in expanding operations in the world market. (Russia manages a budget surplus if oil price is in $50-$55 bpd range, whereas, the current price is around $75 a barrel Brent.)      

India, on the other hand, is in a period of high growth. The economy is luring foreign investment and is slated to be a big guzzler of energy. A case in point is the acquisition of Essar Oil by the Russian consortium led by oil major Rosneft in a deal worth $12.9 billion last year. According to reports, Essar is now considering approaching the Russian state-controlled Inter RAO, a diversified energy major with operations in generation, transmission and power trade, to become an investor in its 2×600 MW Mahan thermal power project in Madhya Pradesh. Similarly, the Russian financial group VTB is intent on investing in Essar Steel, the fourth largest steel producer in India and undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

These are only tell-tale signs of a long-awaited breakthrough in India-Russia economic relations sailing into view, finally. Suffice to say, with the backlog of the experience and lessons out of the Soviet era, India and Russia will be wise to highlight investments in any rupee-rouble framework they may negotiate to counter the ‘weaponisation’ of dollar by Washington as a geopolitical tool. Arguably, the future of Indian-Russian economic relations lies in investments where there is tremendous complementarity. Such a panorama never really existed in the Soviet era. 

Take, for example, the energy sector. Apart from the upstream investments India is making in the Russian oilfields, there is vast scope for Russian investments in the downstream sector in India. Thus, Essar Oil owned a retail network of Essar-branded fuel stations, which were steadily increasing their share on the growing Indian market. Now, in the 12 months since Rosneft’s takeover in March last year, the number of Essar fuel stations expanded by 20 per cent to reach 4,200. Rosneft’s short-term plan is to expand Essar’s fuel-station network to 6,000.

Again, the Nayara Energy Refinery in Vadinar, Gujarat (Essar’s oil company which is now owned and operated by Rosneft), has docking facilities, including an SBM capable of handling vessels up to 3,50,000 DWT with a capacity of 25mtpa (million tons per annum), tankages with interconnecting pipelines of 20mtpa capacity, marine product dispatch capacity of 12mtpa and rail-car and truck-loading facilities. Trust Rosneft to multiply its investments in Essar. Rosneft’s plans stem from the ‘big picture’ — far-sighted visions of the immense potentials of the Indian energy market. Rosneft and the National Iranian Oil Company have signed a road map on the implementation of ‘strategic’ projects in Iran with total investments worth $30 billion.

In the Soviet era, we had a USSR-Iraq-India triangle operating in the ambit of the rupee-rouble trading system, which proved beneficial. Can we now create a Russia-Iran-India triangle with a similar ‘win-win’ potential? To be sure, the government has thoughtfully timed the trilateral meeting on the India-Iran-Russia International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) on November 23 in Delhi. Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu has been quoted as saying to a visiting Russian delegation for stepping up investments and business between the two countries that ‘all issues (relating to INSTC) may be resolved in order to operationalise the route as early as possible’. Prabhu pointedly stressed that the corridor is an important Indian-Russian-Iranian initiative. INSTC is the shortest multimodal transportation route linking the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf via Iran to Russia and North Europe. The estimated capacity of the corridor is 20 to 30 million ton goods per year and will reduce time and cost by 30 to 40 per cent. Analysts are calling it the Suez Canal of the 21st century.

Free market theories disfavour the barter system, but these are extraordinary times, when a new payment system is necessary, not only to boost mutual trade and investments, but also to avoid being entrapped by self-serving US policies. Russia matters because it is a sheet anchor for India’s foreign policy. Equally, it is a balancer augmenting India’s strategic autonomy. Above all, it is intrinsically an economic partner with seamless potential. Smart geopolitics devolves upon geo-economics — or else, it becomes an esoteric affair bypassing India’s present stage of development. Giving primacy to job creation in the millions, in particular, ought to be the focus of our foreign policy.

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 29

Setting aside the lateral shifting of an Air Marshal to the post of Director General Medical Services (Army), the Supreme Court on Monday directed that the senior-most officer in line, Lt Gen Manomoy Ganguly, be appointed to the said post.

On August 10, the government posted Air Marshal Rajvir Singh then DGMS (Air Force) as the DGMS (Army) in the rank of Lieutenant General. Medical officers are rotated amongst the three services and don the uniform and ranks of the service they are posted to.

This was challenged by Lt Gen Ganguly, recently promoted from the rank of Major General after a court battle, on grounds of seniority and merit. The issue of the appointment of DGMS (Army) has seen several rounds of litigation in the Armed Forces Tribunal and the apex court that had also resulted in the appointment of another Lieutenant General being quashed earlier.

“We are of the opinion that the process undertaken by the respondents in taking decision to appoint Air Marshal Rajvir Singh as DGMS (Army) does not stand judicial scrutiny. We are constrained to set aside the appointment,” a Bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan ruled.

Pointing out that the first fundamental error occurred in lateral shifting of Air Marshal Rajvir and considering his candidature along with others, the Bench said it was contrary to guidelines that permitted lateral shifting only in exceptional circumstances, which did not exist in the instant case.

Remarking that it failed to understand why the methodology of Overall Average Performance (OAP) was thought of by the Army Chief to adjudge comparative merit of officers in the fray when, concededly ACR grading has never been used as a criteria for posting of a Lieutenant General officer earlier, the Bench said the OAP mechanism was foreign to the Army’s selection guidelines.

The case

• On August 10, the government had posted Air Marshal Rajvir Singh, then DGMS (Air Force), as the DGMS (Army) in the rank of Lieutenant General
• This was challenged by Lt Gen Manomoy Ganguly, recently promoted from the rank of Major General after a court battle, on grounds of seniority and merit.