All doctoral degrees of “Dr” Kalam are honorary, conferred due to his official sinecure status after he superannuated as a space department staffer. Kalam was later made president of India by a grateful Vajpayee India in return for his services to him as a “nuclear scientist.”
The credentials of Kalam, then considered the highest authority on the subject, are questioned by many scientists, including Homi Sethna, another former chairman of the AEC, who was the guiding force behind India’s first nuclear test in 1974.
The most profound statement made by Kalam, who later became president of India, immediately after the tests was not scientific – but political. He said how a nuclear-armed India “will be free of foreign invasions which have constantly remolded the ancient Hindu civilization”. Those who believe that this was the statement – more than the bomb itself – that endeared Kalam to the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruling at that time, may have a valid point. Sethna has suggested that Kalam’s statement refuting Santhanam was that of a politician. Asia Times. India battles with nuclear fallout By Ninan Koshy
Major source: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_03/March-IndiaFeature
Delhi recently set off a rocket to the moon. This set off alarm bells in Washington. Richard Speier a reputable American defense analyst wrote an excellent article (U.S. Missile Nonproliferation Policy and India’s Path to an ICBM Capability Richard Speier) on the apprehensions of the US administration as well as the concerns of the US military with respect to the transfer of technology form the American Scout program to the Bharati corridors of duplication and reverse engineering. We have produces sections of that article and a plethora of other information from reputable sources to trace and track the thefts, stealing of sensitive US information by Bharati scientists with approval from the highest icons of power in Delhi. Richard Sepier lists the chronology clearly describing the chain of events.
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | 
Defensebriefs
Intellibriefs
Translate to: 
RSS feed: 
| RUPEE NEWS | January 23rd, 2009 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? |
The path to India’s ICBM capability has spanned more than four decades and is largely based on space-launch vehicle technology obtained from foreign sources. The United States has taken measures over the last several decades to restrict missile proliferation, but the policies took effect only after India’s missile program had begun. Moreover, U.S. nonproliferation policy has also not been consistently applied, particularly in India’s case. Indeed, the relationship between space launch vehicles and missile proliferation seems to have been obscured. U.S. Missile Nonproliferation Policy and India’s Path to an ICBM Capability Richard Speier
While this theft is known in the intelligent community, it is often overlooked by the Murdockized press.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2iBXKgkcIg
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2iBXKgkcIg]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1f6vbiuUt0
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1f6vbiuUt0]
There are many dimensions to Bharat’s arms. First it is using all means necessary to come to a level to challenge other powers in Asia. However as Speier and a large body of American, Western and Russian arms experts note that it is donwright dangerous for the US or even Russia to arm Bharat. Russia takes the money and has refused to transfer technology. The US multinationals will never commit commercial sucide by sharing the secret “Coke formula” with the locl counterparts. However Bharat has used underground netwroks to acquire technology. This has been reported in the press but not highlighted. Mr. Spier raises concerns about US help to Bharat.
1) Do not be naive about the nature of India’s program.
After more than two decades of reports about India’s interest in an ICBM, includ ing reports from Russia, statements on India ’s ICBM capability by the U.S. intelligence community, and the firing of an Indian official after he publicly described the Surya program, there should be no illusions. The reports consistently state that India’s ICBM will be derived from its space-launch vehicle technology.
The United States should not believe that it is possible to separate India’s “civil ian” space-launch program-the incubator of its ballistic missiles-from India’s military program.
The United States would be the primary target of an Indian ICBM, which would be used to protect India from the theoretical possibility of “high-tech aggression.”
The U.S. intelligence community should resume its semi-annual unclassified report ing to Congress on India’s nuclear and missile programs, which was discontinued after April 2003.
2) Do not assist India’s space launch programs.
The United States should not cooperate either with India’s space launches or with satellites that India will launch. India hopes that satellite launches will earn revenues that will accelerate its space program, including rocket development. U.S. payloads for Indian launches, such as the envisioned cooperative lunar project, risk technology transfer and invite other states to be less restrained in their use of Indian launches.
The United States should resume dis couraging other states from using Indian launches, while encouraging India to re sume the practice of launching satellites on other states’ space launch vehicles.
Given the frequent reports of Russian cryogenic rockets being used in the Surya, the United States should work with Russia to ensure that Russian space cooperation with India does not undercut U.S. restraint.
Because there is no meaningful distinc tion between India’s civilian and military rocket programs, the United States should explicitly or de facto place ISRO back on the “entities” list of destinations that require export licenses.[23]
In addition, Congress should insist that the administration explain its red lines regarding space cooperation with India. If these lines are not drawn tightly enough, Congress should intervene.
3) Review carefully any cooperation with India’s satellite programs.
India is reportedly developing multiple nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles. If India develops an ICBM, the next step will be to develop countermeasures to penetrate U.S. missile defenses. Certain satellite technologies can help India with both of these developments.
The United States should review its satellite cooperation to ensure that it does not aid India inappropriately in the technologies of dispensing or orienting spacecraft, of automated deployment of structures in space, or of other operations that would materially contribute to mul tiple warheads or countermeasures against missile defenses.
4) Stop using cooperation in dangerous technologies as diplomatic baubles.
India is the current example of a broader, dysfunctional tendency in bilateral relations to display trust and friendship by opening up the most dangerous forms of cooperation. The United States should not fall further into this trap with India or with any other state.
India needs many other forms of economic and military cooperation more than it needs nuclear and space technology. If India insists on focusing technology co operation in these areas, the United States should interpret that it as a red flag.
The U.S. removal of technology sanctions imposed after India’s 1998 nuclear tests was an adequate and perhaps exces sive display of friendship. Further tech nology cooperation should be limited to areas that do not contribute to nuclear weapons or their means of delivery.
Conclusion: A primary target of an Indian ICBM would be the United States. The technology of an Indian ICBM would be that of a space launch vehicle, either directly via the PSLV or indirectly via the Agni, which is based on India’s SLV-3. The United States should not facilitate the acquisition or improve ment of that technology directly or indirectly. In this matter, U.S. clarity and restraint are what the world and India need.
The United States needs to divert from the present glide path and reorient itself and India onto a more produc tive course of cooperation. It would be a cruel irony if, in the hope of becoming strategic partners, we became each other’s strategic targets. (Richard Speier. Arms Control)
Proliferation, overlooked by the previous administration will be a major issue for the new Democratic Administration. Already President Barack Obama has outlined this in his various papers. His advisors also have sent the signals to Delhi–making most Bharati leaders nervous and at least one literally having a heart attack!
- 1960s: NASA trains Indian scientists at Wallops Island, Virginia, in sounding rockets and provides Nike-Apache sounding rockets to India.[1] France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union also supply sounding rockets.[2]
- 1963-1964: A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, an Indian engineer, works at Wallops Island, where the Scout space-launch vehicle (an adaptation of Minuteman ICBM solid-fuel rocket technology) is flown.[3]
- 1965: Following Kalam’s return to India, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission requests U.S. assistance with the Scout, and NASA provides unclassified reports.[4]
- 1969-1970: U.S. firms supply equipment for the Solid Propellant Space Booster Plant at Sriharikota.[5]
- 1970s: Kalam becomes head of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), in charge of developing space launch vehicles. During the same time period, the United States begins to consider a broad policy against missile proliferation.
- May 1974: India conducts a “peaceful nuclear explosion.”
- 1980s: The United States and its six economic sum mit partners secretly negotiate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). After one and a half years of difficult negotiations on the question of space launch vehicles, all partners agree that they must be treated as restrictively as ballistic missiles because their hardware, technology, and production facilities are interchangeable. The MTCR is informally implemented in 1985 and is publicly announced in 1987.
- July 1980: India launches its first satellite with the SLV-3 rocket, a close copy of the NASA Scout.[6]
- February 1982: Kalam becomes head of the Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), in charge of adapting space-launch vehicle technology to ballistic missiles.
- May 1989: India launches its first Agni “technology demonstrator” surface-to-surface missile. The Agni’s first stage is essentially the first stage of the SLV-3. Later, the Agni becomes a family of three short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[7]
- 1990: The United States enacts a sanctions law against missile proliferation. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union agrees to supply India with cryogenic upper-stage rockets and technology, and the two parties become the first countries sanctioned under the new U.S. law.[8]
- 1993: The United States lifts sanctions on Russia after Moscow agrees to limit the transfer to a small number of rocket engines and not production technology.[9]
- 1994: India launches the Polar Space Launch Ve hicle (PSLV). Stages 1 and 3 are 2.8-meter-diameter solid-fuel rockets. Stages 2 and 4 are liquid-fuel Vikas engines derived from 1980s French technology transfers.
- The earliest reported date for when the Surya ICBM program, using PSLV technology, is said to have been officially authorized. However, India’s space and missile en gineers, if not the “official” Indian government, had opened the option much earlier.
- May 1998: India tests nuclear weapons after decades of protesting that its nuclear program was exclu sively peaceful. The United States imposes broad sanctions on nuclear- and missile/space-related transfers.
- April 1999: India launches the Agni II, an extended range missile that tests re-entry vehicle “technology [that] can be integrated with the PSLV programme to create an ICBM” according to a defense ministry official.[10]
- Kalam quoted in Jane’s Defence Weekly that he wants to “neutralise” the “stranglehold” some nations have through the MTCR, which had tried but failed to “throttle” India’s missile program. “I would like to devalue missiles by selling the technology to many nations and break their stranglehold.”[11]
- May 1999: Defense News cites DRDO officials as stating that the Surya is under development.[12]
- November 1999
- India ‘s minister of state for defense (and former head of DRDO), Bachi Singh Rawat, says India is developing an ICBM known as Surya that would “have a range of up to” 5,000 kilometers. A little more than two weeks later, Rawat is reportedly stripped of his portfolio because of his disclosure.[13]
- 2000s
- April 2001: Khrunichev State Space Science and Pro duction Center announces that it will supply five more cryogenic upper stages to India within the next three years.[14]
- September 2001
- The United States lifts many of the technology sanctions it imposed in 1998. Subsequently, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visits the United States amid agreement to broaden the technology dialogue.
- December 2001: A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate states, ” India could convert its polar space launch vehicle into an ICBM within a year or two of a decision to do so.”[15]
- July 2002: Kalam becomes president of India.
- September 2002: The United States tells India it will not object to India launching foreign satellites as long as they do not contain U.S.-origin components.[16]
- April 2003: The last mention of India as a proliferator or a supplier to proliferators is made in the director of central intelligence’s unclassified semi-annual report to Congress on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.[17]
- January 2004: President George W. Bush agrees to expand cooperation with India in “civilian space programs” but not explicitly to cooperate with space launches. This measure is part of a bilateral initiative dubbed “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership.”[18]
- October 2004
- A Russian Academy of Sciences deputy director reportedly states that India is planning to increase the range of the Agni missile to 5,000 kilometers and to design the Surya ICBM with a range of 8,000-12,000 kilometers.[19]
- July 2005: Bush agrees to cooperate with India on “satellite navigation and launch,” and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees to “adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime…guidelines.”[20]
- August 2005: According to Indian Ministry of Defense sources, there are plans to use the noncryogenic Vikas stage for the Surya and to have the missile deliver a 2.5-3.5-metric-ton payload with two or three warheads with explosive yields of 15-20 kilotons.[21] U.S. Missile Nonproliferation Policy and India’s Path to an ICBM Capability Richard Speier
The Americans are very nervous about helping Bharat and very apprehensive that technology will be stolen again.
Richard Arms Control mentions the fact that India’s naked ambitions are there to target the USA.
Indian commentators generally cite two reasons for acquiring an ICBM: to establish India as a global power and to enable India to deal with “high-tech aggression” of the type demonstrated in the wars with Iraq.[10] Because there is no obvious reason for India to want a military capability against Europe, there is one target that stands out as a bull’s-eye for an Indian ICBM: the United States. The reported 12,000-kilometer Surya-2 range is tailor- made to target the United States.
Richard Speir also makes some solid recommendations on what the US should do to prevent India acquiring the capability to attack the USA.
The United States now might have dimin ished leverage if India decided to export missile technology to countries such as Iran , given that certain types of MTCR agreements tend to provide a shield from U.S. sanctions.[11]
India historically has had a close relation ship with Tehran.[12] Indian entities have supplied sensitive military technology and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-re lated items to Iran. In diplomatic talks, the United States and Israel have urged India to cool this relationship, specifically in areas of military and energy cooperation and with respect to deliberations on Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency.[13] Additionally, the United States has imposed sanctions on several Indian firms and individuals for providing the militarily sensitive and WMD-related items.[14]
Nonetheless the Indian-Iranian relationship is strong. In January 2003, then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami joined Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to watch Agni missiles roll by in the Indian Republic Day parade; and the two presidents signed a strategic accord providing India with access to Iranian bases in an emergency in return for Indian transfers of defense products, training, maintenance, and military mod ernization support.[15] This relationship is strongly supported by India’s left wing, and India cannot seem to extricate itself.[16] Even if the current ruling party could disentangle itself from Iran, the underlying political support for Iranian ties might lead a future Indian government to resume the relationship.
Aside from Iran, Indian entities have engaged in WMD-related transfers to Libya and Iraq,[17] India appears to be seeking new customers. India’s DRDO has aspirations to export missiles-said to be below the MTCR threshold at present-to “many African, Gulf and South-East Asian coun tries,” subject to government approval.[18] Arms Control. Richard Speier
India’s faltering $41 Billion IT economy cannot salvage the lot of the poor. While a triumphalist media discusses the “growth of the Indian middle class”, the reality of India’s penury stricken population is very different. The higher the number the worse off the country. India ranks below Cambodia and Burkino Faso in terms of hunger. It is slightly better off than Haiti, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Pakistan’s fares much better and is not listed on this chart. Cuba has taken care of its population and eliminated malnutrition, hunger and child mortality. It has done more with less and is the example that needs to be followed. Cuba produces more doctors for less and offers free medical education to citizens of the world. 1000 Cuban doctors served in cold Azad Kashmir and helped the victims of the earthquake. Richard Speier
How could a country that cannot feed, or clothe its population build space vehicles. How can a country whose entire missile program was scrapped by the military send rockets into space? How can a country which takes 10 years to design a plane creates a dud explore the moon? How can a country where 75% of the population lives below Sub-Saharan poverty find the money to spend on satellite technology (India: More than 75% live below Sub Saharan poverty line ). How can the hungriest country in Asia compete with the Chinese and the Japanese?
It is a paradox of American and Japanese policy that is building India to counterbalance China.
THE COUNTRIES WITH THE WORST RECORD ON HUNGER. THE HIGHER THE NUMBER THE WORSE IT IS. INDI RANKS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HEAP. On this chart Cambodia is the best and Congo the worst. India is worse than Burkino Faso and slightly better than Zimbabwe, and Haiti.
| 64 | Cambodia | 32.4 | 23.2 |
| 65 | Burkina Faso | 25.1 | 23.5 |
| 66 | India | 32.5 | 23.7 |
| 67 | Zimbabwe | 20.2 | 23.8 |
| 68 | Tanzania | 26.1 | 24.2 |
| 69 | Haiti | 35.9 | 24.3 |
| 70 | Bangladesh | 32.3 | 25.2 |
| 71 | Tajikstan | n/a | 25.9 |
| 72 | Mozambique | 40.9 | 26.3 |
| 73 | Mali | 29.6 | 26.9 |
| 74 | Guinea-Bissau | 23 | 27.5 |
| 75 | Central African Rep | 32 | 28 |
| 76 | Madagascar | 29.1 | 28.8 |
| 77 | Comoros | 26.4 | 29.1 |
| 78 | Zambia | 29.1 | 29.2 |
| 79 | Angola | 39.8 | 29.5 |
| 80 | Yemen | 30.7 | 29.8 |
| 81 | Chad | 37.5 | 29.9 |
| 82 | Ethiopia | 44 | 31 |
| 83 | Liberia | 27.3 | 31.8 |
| 84 | Sierra Leone | 32.4 | 32.2 |
| 85 | Niger | 38 | 32.4 |
| 86 | Burundi | 32.6 | 38.3 |
| 87 | Eritrea | n/a | 39 |
| 88 | DR Congo | 25.5 | 42.7 |
| Source: IFPRI (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7670229.stm) | |||
Why does India, a poor country, want to explore the moon instead of using that money to alleviate poverty?
That was the question raised six years ago when India space agency ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) asked the government for $65 million to build and launch an unmanned scientific spacecraft to circle the moon.
The government ultimately sanctioned the funds – the mission is all set to take place early 2008 – but only after critics were appeased by protracted public debates and several seminars….The project, yet to be formally cleared by the government, will cost $2.2 billion in the first phase to put an Indian in orbit by 2014, and at least twice as much in the second phase to land him or her on the moon by 2020 – four years ahead of China.
Indian poverty
A country where hundreds of millions live below the Indian poverty line (Rs 1250) and scores of millions live below Sub Saharan penury levels buys a Russian rocket, paints the Tri-Color on it and claims it as an Indian achievement in science and technology. India’s space odyssey – from bullock cart to moon rocket. Submitted by kashif on Wed, 11/29/2006 – 01:53. Features By K. Jayaraman
Amnesty International (AI) 2008 report on issues within India: http://rupeenews.com/2008/05/29/amnesty-int-2008-report-excoriates-horrid-india
Penury in india
- Indian missle failures. Program Scrapped!
- Trail of tears and failure: Indian missiles.
- Indian missle failures. Scrap the program?
All of Indi’a Rockets have failed. 1) Agni 2) Pirthivi 3) Akash 4) Trishul and 5) Nag 6) Agni.
Prithvi: Failure: To date the only reliable delivery system inducted is the Pirthvi missile with a range of 300 kilometres. The subsequent versions of this missile are still undergoing tests. The pride of India the Agni missile tested last time landed 200 kilometres off target.
Akash: Failure: After several years of testing has been shelved for reasons best known to the Indians. Akash was meant as a substitute for Pechora. On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akashwas to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Both missiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.
Trishul: Failure: Trishul is being replaced by Israeli Barak and Russian systems. Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.
Nag: Failure: The Nag proved to be as deadily as the Holy Cow.
Agni:Failure: The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.
————————————————————————–
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR1WfWPZECo&feature=player_embedded]
News about India’s space program, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.What is amazing is that if a country can’t build a rocket how can it send one to the moon? India score worse than Barkino Faso on Hunger Index: Edges out Haiti–worst in South Asia
Red Nepal: Clear and present danger to India
Chilled Urine drinking hot in India. From Gandhi to PM Desai. 
Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? 
Reviving Hinduism in Budhdist lands: The Hindu extremists use the Safron Swastika flag instead of the tri-colored flag of India. (see Hindu unity dot org)
Indian penury: The reality vs. the Bollywood marketing gloss:
India as World Power 1 
Extremist Hindus show power using the Swastika in triple entendre–as an ancient Hindu symbol, reverence for Hitler and sign of Anti-Western Indian power
Superpower India Pt 2 
Extremist Hindus revere Hitler and use the Swastika as the Indian flag
How long to extripate penury from india? 300 years! 
India’s budget– fit for a superpower
Murder of 10 million Indian girl babies:Before or right after birth. The media is silent.
Sino-Indian relationship 
India Balkanizing? Naxalite insurrection widening cracks in deep cavaties 
The 2nd world revolution (after Buddhism) from Nepal: Another threat to India
The Singh Doctrine Fails to achieve Akhand Bharat
ENDNOTES
1. Sundara Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation: Poised for Take-Off?” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, p. 203.
2. Gary Milhollin, ” India’s Missiles: With a Little Help From Our Friends,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1989.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation.”
6. Alexander Pikayev et al., ” Russia, the U.S., and the Missile Technology Control Regime,” Adelphi Paper No. 317, International Institute for Strategic Studies, March 1998.
7. Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, ” India’s Nuclear Forces, 2005,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sep tember/October 2005.
8. Pikayev et al., ” Russia, the U.S., and the Missile Technology Control Regime.”
9. Ibid.
10. V. G. Jaideep, ” India Building ICBM With 8,000-Plus Km Range,” Asian Age, February 8, 1999, pp. 1-2; Barbara Opall-Rome, “Agni Test Undercuts U.S., Angers China,” Defense News, April 26, 1999, p. 17.
11. Agni IRBM Built to Carry Nuclear Warhead,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 28, 1999.
12. Vivek Raghuvanshi, ” India to Develop Extensive Nuclear Missile Arsenal,” Defense News, May 24, 1999, p. 14.
13. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, “Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” Report No. 2000/09, March 23, 2001; Iftikhar Gilani, “Premature Disclosure of ICBM Project, Rawat Stripped of Defence Portfolio,” Daily Times, November 23, 1999.
14. “Khrunichev Space Center to Supply Rocket Boosters to India,” Interfax, April 16, 2001.
15. “Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015,” December 2001.
16. . Raja Mohan, ” U.S. Gives Space to ISRO,” Hindu , September 30, 2002, p. 11.
17. Director of Central Intelligence, “Unclassified Re port to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relat ing to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced ConventionalMunitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2002,” April 2003.
18. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership With India,” Janu ary 12, 2004.
19. Moscow Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey, November 1, 2004 (internet news service in English).
20. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” July 18, 2005.
21. N. Madhuprasad, “Boost to Indian Armed Forces’ Deterrence Arsenal; India to Develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, August 25, 2005.
Richard Speier is a private consultant on nonproliferation and counterproliferation issues. Speier spent more than 25 years in government at the Office of Management and Budget, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, andthe Office of the Secretary of Defense. While in government, he helped negotiate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This article is based on a paper published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
1. Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin, ” Washington Post Reporters Interview Powell,” The Washington Post, October 3, 2003.
2. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” July 18, 2005.
3. For early reports, see Maurice Eisenstein, “Third World Missiles and Nuclear Proliferation,” The Washington Quarterly, Summer 1982; “Liquid Fuel Engine Tested for PSLV,” Hindustan Times, December 13, 1985, p. 1; “Growing Local Opposition to India’s Proposed National Test Range at Baliapal, Orissa,” English Language Press, October 1986; “India Faces Rising Pressure for Arms Race With Pakistan,” Christian Science Monitor, March 9, 1987, p. 1. The latest detailed report, appearing less than six-weeks after the presidents’ joint statement is N. Madhuprasad, “Boost to Indian Armed Forces’ Deterrence Arsenal; India to Develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, August 25, 2005.
4. Vivek Raghuvanshi, “Indian Scientists Poised to Test-Launch Country’s First ICBM,” Defense News, April 30, 2001, p. 26.
5. International missile nomenclature defines an ICBM as a ballistic missile with a range of 5,500 or greater. However, Indian officials have sometimes exaggerated missiles’ capabilities by bumping missiles into the next range-class.
6. Gary Milhollin, ” India’s Missiles-With a Little Help From Our Friends,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1989; Sundara Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation: Poised for Take-Off?” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, p. 203.
7. See Arun Vishwakarma, “Agni-Strategic Ballistic Missile,” April 15, 2005. The report states that India is taking a different ICBM approach: developing a 1.8-meter-diameter, solid-fuel rocket that will extend the Agni to intercontinental range and that could be the basis for a longer-range ICBM. The 1.8-meter-diameter rocket represents a combination of PSLV and Agni technology. Such a lighter ICBM makes far more military sense than a PSLV-sized missile. The lighter ICBM might be mobile and able to survive a first strike. However, Vishwakarma consistently reports far higher ranges for the existing Agni missiles than have been reported elsewhere. Given this reporting bias, Vishwakarma may be describing the wish lists of Indian engineers or programs that have not yet been funded. The PSLV exists, and the existence of a 1.8-meter-diameter missile has not yet been reported except by Vishwakarma. The impending test of the Agni-3 may reveal whether a 1.8-meter-diameter rocket stage, which could make possible a mobile ICBM, has been developed. See “Missile Plan,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, November 26, 2005; Rajiv Nayan, “Agni Three Missile: Sino-Centric?” Bangalore Deccan Herald, December 12, 2005; Sayan Majumdar, “Defense Developments for 2006,” New Delhi India Defence Consultants, January 13, 2006.
8. Moscow Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey, November 1, 2004 (internet news service); Vishwarkarma, “Agni-Strategic Ballistic Missile.” It is possible that either or both of these references have conflated the Surya-1 with the Agni program.
9. John Wilson, ” India’s Missile Might,” The Pioneer, July 13, 1997, p. 1.
10. Brahma Chellaney, “Value of Power,” The Hindustan Times, May 19, 1999.
11. See Richard Speier et al., Nonproliferation Sanctions (Rand Corporation, 2001).
12. For an official Indian history of relations as of 2002, see http://www.indianembassy-tehran.com/india-iran.html.
13. Barbara Opall-Rome and Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India’s BalancingAct,” Defense News, September 15, 2003, p. 1; Sultan Shahin, “India Sticks WithIran, for Now,” Asia Times, September 20, 2003; Patricia Nunan, “U.S. Signals Concern About India-Iran Pipeline Project,” VOA News.com, March 17, 2005; Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India, U.S. to Boost Tech Flow,” Defense News, December 12, 2005.
14. Those sanctioned, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, include Bharat Electronics Ltd., Dr. C. Surendar, Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, NEC Engineers, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Projects and Development India Ltd., Rallis India, and Transpek Industry Ltd.
15. ” Iran’s Ballistic Missiles: Upgrades Underway,” IISS Strategic Comments, November 2003; Opall-Rome and Raghuvanshi, ” India’s Balancing Act.”
16. John Larkin, “India Bets on Nuclear Future: Backing Probe of Iran Draws Closer Look at New Delhi’s Ambitions,” The Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2005; Somini Sengupta, “Nuclear Deal and Iran Complicate Efforts by U.S. andIndia to Improve Ties,” The New York Times, January 23, 2006; Jo Johnson and Caroline Daniel, “New Delhi Faces a Diplomatic Balancing Act Ahead of Bush’s State Visit,” FinancialTimes, January 26, 2006; “India’s Left Parties Demand Recall of U.S. Envoy,” AgenceFrance Press, January 30, 2006.
17. Nicholas Kralev, “Firm Helping Arms Program Sanctioned,” Washington Times, February 20, 2003; “Indian Police Arrest Man for Alleged Export of Chemicals to Iraq,” Agence France Presse, October 18, 2003.
18. “DRDO Plan to Export Missiles,” The Hindu, November 21, 2005.
19. Robert D. Blackwill, “The India Imperative,” The National Interest, Summer 2005, pp. 9-15.
20. Israel has already stepped into the breach to contract for an October 2006 Indian launch of an Israeli radar imaging satellite. See Barbara Opall-Rome and K. S. Jayaraman, “India to Launch Israeli Spy Sat,” Defense News, November 14, 2005, p. 1; “India to Launch Israeli Military Imaging Radar Satellite,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 21, 2005, p. 17.
21. Mir Ayoob Ali Khan, “Agni-III to Get Light Motor for Bigger Bombs,” The Asian Age, Oc tober 14, 2005.
22. “Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China,” 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1999, H. Rep. 851.
23. Bureau of Export Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based,” Regulation Part 744. ISRO was removed from the “entities” list under a U.S.-Indian agreement signed on September 17, 2004.
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? |
The entire world is aghast,surprised, amazed stunned and bewidered. The planet doesn’t know what to make of it. There are several aspects to the development.DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: RSS feed: | RUPEE NEWS | October 24th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? |
obama is urging americans to learn from india’s space success,very soon the so called bullock cart will reach Mars.
Amrit , I see no point in educating Moin Ansari. He is a pessimist and he sees everything around himself in a negative perspective. We know and the whole World knows that Pakistan is in the top 10 of the failed states…and they talk as if they are much better off than India. I think the whole vituperative thoughts emanate of of inherent weakness and inferiority complex of Pakistan and its people. The more they blog , anti-India , the more they dig themselves-in. What Pakistan is today is known to the World , the less talked , better it is for them.
Inability to refute evidence forces your ilk to post insults. Vacuity of ideas allow you to denegerate into rude writers. If you had the gumption to challenge the facts you would have. But you cannot.
Who is Amrit? His message was never posted and never made public. How did you know what he posted? Oh! we see, you posted both messages, one responding to the other.
That shows your credability.
Posting messages under false names and letters surely does tell the world about your character.
Read this about Failed States
Moin Ansari, on January 25th, 2009 at 8:38 pm Said:
Amrit: Please note that Mr. Kalam stole the Scout program. The launcher is Russian STILL
..
[...]
You have the option of continueing to read the propaganda news of your choice.
The comment was weeks ago and did not fall into the current train. We also communitaced with an Amrit in 1994–it doesn’t count.
You have still not addressed the fact of the issue.
Pseudo intellectuals disguise fiction as facts. To me it sounds like a 10 year old , when cornered in a game , the child screams REPLAY or IT DOESNT COUNT …keep trying your luck ! No one has the time or patience to rebut your claims , but let me advise you in the long ( Short !) run , you will have very few audience , except your friends and colleagues to trumpet and cheer you !
You have not posted a single comment which refutes the argument made which has many international references.
We are sorry to say, but the inabaility to see a different point of view tells us reams about you and the temple education you grew up with.
Inability to refute evidence forces your ilk to post insults. Vacuity of ideas allow you to denegerate into rude writers. If you had the gumption to challenge the facts you would have. But you cannot.
We simply presented the facts about Mr. Kalam. We did not abuse him or use any deragatory langauge. Any unbaised observer would weigh the facts and say, you have been unable to produce any evidence to the contrary, and we have published many reports about the Scout program and Mr. Kalam’s associattion with it. The Scout program was reproduced in Bharat. Additionally, many US defense experts have lobbied against Mr. Kalam. All this makes a point. You may agree with it or disagree with it. That is your perogative. However all you can do is hurl insults and threats.
Our readers now know your calibre and will judge you accordingly.
During the past few weeks 1.3 million people visited this site. Out growth trends upwards. We have increased traffic by 30%. Our columns are quoted all over the world, Asia Times, Times of India, and on hundreds of boards across the planet. Obviously we are doing something right.
We expose facts which are not covered by the sychopahntic media. You can stick to reading the propoganda outlet of your choice. Reading bigoted reacism is within your comfort zone. You should stay in it.
We do not seek unsolicited advice from anyone. When we need advice we pay for it. Please do not give us any advice, as it will end up in the round file
according to pakistanis the space programme of india is a bullock cart programme,
The frustration and jealousy is reflected in the writing,the world embraces India and not Pakistan.
Look how the cricketers of England came to India,will they do the same with Pakistan- NO.
America embraces India and not PAKISTAN ,so the bullock cart is making india more pouplar in the world.
Amrit: Please note that Mr. Kalam stole the Scout program. The launcher is Russian STILL
Musharaf wanted a similar nuclear deal with Pakistan ,but Bush refused to do that.
Indians are great and off course
All because of Bhagwan,allah,jesus,buddha,guru nanak.
LONG LIVE INDIA. you are the biggest secular democratic republic of the world,no one can break you ,all the terrorist will go to hell
Your emotional opinion about your Bharat are your personal opinion and cannot be forced.
All terrorists who occupy will surely got to hell
Thats the same thing which I also need to tell you!!
“Your emotional opinion about Bharat are your personal opinion and cannot be forced.”
i have friends who are my coleagues from pakistan working here in london,they all say Pakistan is not inhabitable for the educated people,they want to hold a British CitizenSHIP and want to stay in U.K.
We Indians are going to go back to INDIa we dont want to be a British citizen.
Whether you admit or not India is certainly better than Pakistan,
be it temple education or bullock cart space programme.
Surely 160 million Pakistanis are inhabiting and many have returned like Shaukat Aziz, Zardari etc.
not every one belongs to priviliged class like shaukat aziz or bhuttos ,common ,educated people of pakistan does not want to return to pakistan,there heart and soul may say i love pakistan ,but for practical reasons they dont want to go back as they know future holds nothing for them.
The US has many Britons, Australians, Bharatis, and Pakistan. Fail to see your point
[deleted] can you post those historical evidences to our vistors how kalam stole russian engines whatever it is. india is very bad. moin you are tiger of pakistan . let our india people know the truth. come on let you you posty some evidences. is it possible for india to breach patents for engines. most of the invention regarding space are from russian and amerca. almost all space superpower like india , japan, france, britain uses those inventions for their launch of satellite. stupid indian abdul kalam some how copied this from russian and america. we [pakistani must unmask show the world the theft by providing evidences. please show me the evidence. i also going to put this on my hate india website
Gon: Thank you for your feedback. We take pride in brining news and view not found in the mainstream media. In the past few weeks more than a million have visited out site. About 20% of the readership is from Bharat. You can think of us as “Tehilka on Steroids”, shattering paradigms and breaking news which has been hidden. Please read, “India as a Space power” on our site and kindly visit http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_03/March-IndiaFeature
Unfortunately the inability to read is a dangerous handicap that cannot be remedied through temple indoctrination.
Mr. Richard Speier (an American arms control expert) in his multiple writings has clearly defined the breach of US secrets by Mr. Kalaam. The US “Scout Program” is only one such example where technology was stolen. Perhaps you can refute his findings directly with him or the more than a dozen sources listed. That is why the Hyde Amendment will bring migraine headaches to the Bharatis on the Nuclear deal. Someone has forgotten to read the fine print.
Obviously this sort of information (not found on triumphalist Hindustan Times and those which emulate it on the Bharti media) beyond the reading level of the temple bred illiterates. Perhaps you can find someone to read the references clearly posted in the original article.
1. Sundara Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation: Poised for Take-Off?” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, p. 203.
2. Gary Milhollin, ” India’s Missiles: With a Little Help From Our Friends,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1989.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation.”
6. Alexander Pikayev et al., ” Russia, the U.S., and the Missile Technology Control Regime,” Adelphi Paper No. 317, International Institute for Strategic Studies, March 1998.
7. Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, ” India’s Nuclear Forces, 2005,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sep tember/October 2005.
8. Pikayev et al., ” Russia, the U.S., and the Missile Technology Control Regime.”
9. Ibid.
10. V. G. Jaideep, ” India Building ICBM With 8,000-Plus Km Range,” Asian Age, February 8, 1999, pp. 1-2; Barbara Opall-Rome, “Agni Test Undercuts U.S., Angers China,” Defense News, April 26, 1999, p. 17.
11. Agni IRBM Built to Carry Nuclear Warhead,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 28, 1999.
12. Vivek Raghuvanshi, ” India to Develop Extensive Nuclear Missile Arsenal,” Defense News, May 24, 1999, p. 14.
13. Canadian Security Intelligence Service, “Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” Report No. 2000/09, March 23, 2001; Iftikhar Gilani, “Premature Disclosure of ICBM Project, Rawat Stripped of Defence Portfolio,” Daily Times, November 23, 1999.
14. “Khrunichev Space Center to Supply Rocket Boosters to India,” Interfax, April 16, 2001.
15. “Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015,” December 2001.
16. . Raja Mohan, ” U.S. Gives Space to ISRO,” Hindu , September 30, 2002, p. 11.
17. Director of Central Intelligence, “Unclassified Re port to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relat ing to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced ConventionalMunitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2002,” April 2003.
18. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership With India,” Janu ary 12, 2004.
19. Moscow Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey, November 1, 2004 (internet news service in English).
20. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” July 18, 2005.
21. N. Madhuprasad, “Boost to Indian Armed Forces’ Deterrence Arsenal; India to Develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, August 25, 2005.
Richard Speier is a private consultant on nonproliferation and counterproliferation issues. Speier spent more than 25 years in government at the Office of Management and Budget, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, andthe Office of the Secretary of Defense. While in government, he helped negotiate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This article is based on a paper published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center.
1. Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin, ” Washington Post Reporters Interview Powell,” The Washington Post, October 3, 2003.
2. Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” July 18, 2005.
3. For early reports, see Maurice Eisenstein, “Third World Missiles and Nuclear Proliferation,” The Washington Quarterly, Summer 1982; “Liquid Fuel Engine Tested for PSLV,” Hindustan Times, December 13, 1985, p. 1; “Growing Local Opposition to India’s Proposed National Test Range at Baliapal, Orissa,” English Language Press, October 1986; “India Faces Rising Pressure for Arms Race With Pakistan,” Christian Science Monitor, March 9, 1987, p. 1. The latest detailed report, appearing less than six-weeks after the presidents’ joint statement is N. Madhuprasad, “Boost to Indian Armed Forces’ Deterrence Arsenal; India to Develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, August 25, 2005.
4. Vivek Raghuvanshi, “Indian Scientists Poised to Test-Launch Country’s First ICBM,” Defense News, April 30, 2001, p. 26.
5. International missile nomenclature defines an ICBM as a ballistic missile with a range of 5,500 or greater. However, Indian officials have sometimes exaggerated missiles’ capabilities by bumping missiles into the next range-class.
6. Gary Milhollin, ” India’s Missiles-With a Little Help From Our Friends,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1989; Sundara Vadlamudi, “Indo-U.S. Space Cooperation: Poised for Take-Off?” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, p. 203.
7. See Arun Vishwakarma, “Agni-Strategic Ballistic Missile,” April 15, 2005. The report states that India is taking a different ICBM approach: developing a 1.8-meter-diameter, solid-fuel rocket that will extend the Agni to intercontinental range and that could be the basis for a longer-range ICBM. The 1.8-meter-diameter rocket represents a combination of PSLV and Agni technology. Such a lighter ICBM makes far more military sense than a PSLV-sized missile. The lighter ICBM might be mobile and able to survive a first strike. However, Vishwakarma consistently reports far higher ranges for the existing Agni missiles than have been reported elsewhere. Given this reporting bias, Vishwakarma may be describing the wish lists of Indian engineers or programs that have not yet been funded. The PSLV exists, and the existence of a 1.8-meter-diameter missile has not yet been reported except by Vishwakarma. The impending test of the Agni-3 may reveal whether a 1.8-meter-diameter rocket stage, which could make possible a mobile ICBM, has been developed. See “Missile Plan,” Bangalore Deccan Herald, November 26, 2005; Rajiv Nayan, “Agni Three Missile: Sino-Centric?” Bangalore Deccan Herald, December 12, 2005; Sayan Majumdar, “Defense Developments for 2006,” New Delhi India Defence Consultants, January 13, 2006.
8. Moscow Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey, November 1, 2004 (internet news service); Vishwarkarma, “Agni-Strategic Ballistic Missile.” It is possible that either or both of these references have conflated the Surya-1 with the Agni program.
9. John Wilson, ” India’s Missile Might,” The Pioneer, July 13, 1997, p. 1.
10. Brahma Chellaney, “Value of Power,” The Hindustan Times, May 19, 1999.
11. See Richard Speier et al., Nonproliferation Sanctions (Rand Corporation, 2001).
12. For an official Indian history of relations as of 2002, see http://www.indianembassy-tehran.com/india-iran.html.
13. Barbara Opall-Rome and Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India’s BalancingAct,” Defense News, September 15, 2003, p. 1; Sultan Shahin, “India Sticks WithIran, for Now,” Asia Times, September 20, 2003; Patricia Nunan, “U.S. Signals Concern About India-Iran Pipeline Project,” VOA News.com, March 17, 2005; Vivek Raghuvanshi, “India, U.S. to Boost Tech Flow,” Defense News, December 12, 2005.
14. Those sanctioned, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, include Bharat Electronics Ltd., Dr. C. Surendar, Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad, NEC Engineers, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Projects and Development India Ltd., Rallis India, and Transpek Industry Ltd.
15. ” Iran’s Ballistic Missiles: Upgrades Underway,” IISS Strategic Comments, November 2003; Opall-Rome and Raghuvanshi, ” India’s Balancing Act.”
16. John Larkin, “India Bets on Nuclear Future: Backing Probe of Iran Draws Closer Look at New Delhi’s Ambitions,” The Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2005; Somini Sengupta, “Nuclear Deal and Iran Complicate Efforts by U.S. andIndia to Improve Ties,” The New York Times, January 23, 2006; Jo Johnson and Caroline Daniel, “New Delhi Faces a Diplomatic Balancing Act Ahead of Bush’s State Visit,” FinancialTimes, January 26, 2006; “India’s Left Parties Demand Recall of U.S. Envoy,” AgenceFrance Press, January 30, 2006.
17. Nicholas Kralev, “Firm Helping Arms Program Sanctioned,” Washington Times, February 20, 2003; “Indian Police Arrest Man for Alleged Export of Chemicals to Iraq,” Agence France Presse, October 18, 2003.
18. “DRDO Plan to Export Missiles,” The Hindu, November 21, 2005.
19. Robert D. Blackwill, “The India Imperative,” The National Interest, Summer 2005, pp. 9-15.
20. Israel has already stepped into the breach to contract for an October 2006 Indian launch of an Israeli radar imaging satellite. See Barbara Opall-Rome and K. S. Jayaraman, “India to Launch Israeli Spy Sat,” Defense News, November 14, 2005, p. 1; “India to Launch Israeli Military Imaging Radar Satellite,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 21, 2005, p. 17.
21. Mir Ayoob Ali Khan, “Agni-III to Get Light Motor for Bigger Bombs,” The Asian Age, Oc tober 14, 2005.
22. “Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China,” 105th Cong., 1st sess., 1999, H. Rep. 851.
23. Bureau of Export Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based,” Regulation Part 744. ISRO was removed from the “entities” list under a U.S.-Indian agreement signed on September 17, 2004.
Richard Arms Control mentions the fact that India’s naked ambitions are there to target teh USA.
Indian commentators generally cite two reasons for acquiring an ICBM: to establish India as a global power and to enable India to deal with “high-tech aggression” of the type demonstrated in the wars with Iraq.[10] Because there is no obvious reason for India to want a military capability against Europe, there is one target that stands out as a bull’s-eye for an Indian ICBM: the United States. The reported 12,000-kilometer Surya-2 range is tailor- made to target the United States.
Richard Speir also makes some solid recommendations on what the US should do to prevent India acquiring the capability to attack the USA.
The United States now might have dimin ished leverage if India decided to export missile technology to countries such as Iran , given that certain types of MTCR agreements tend to provide a shield from U.S. sanctions.[11]
India historically has had a close relation ship with Tehran.[12] Indian entities have supplied sensitive military technology and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-re lated items to Iran. In diplomatic talks, the United States and Israel have urged India to cool this relationship, specifically in areas of military and energy cooperation and with respect to deliberations on Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency.[13] Additionally, the United States has imposed sanctions on several Indian firms and individuals for providing the militarily sensitive and WMD-related items.[14]
Nonetheless the Indian-Iranian relationship is strong. In January 2003, then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami joined Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam to watch Agni missiles roll by in the Indian Republic Day parade; and the two presidents signed a strategic accord providing India with access to Iranian bases in an emergency in return for Indian transfers of defense products, training, maintenance, and military mod ernization support.[15] This relationship is strongly supported by India’s left wing, and India cannot seem to extricate itself.[16] Even if the current ruling party could disentangle itself from Iran, the underlying political support for Iranian ties might lead a future Indian government to resume the relationship.
Aside from Iran, Indian entities have engaged in WMD-related transfers to Libya and Iraq,[17] India appears to be seeking new customers. India’s DRDO has aspirations to export missiles-said to be below the MTCR threshold at present-to “many African, Gulf and South-East Asian coun tries,” subject to government approval.[18] Arms Control. Richard Speier
India’s faltering $41 Billion IT economy cannot salvage the lot of the poor. While a triumphalist media discusses the “growth of the Indian middle class”, the reality of India’s penury stricken population is very different. The higher the number the worse off the country. India ranks below Cambodia and Burkino Faso in terms of hunger. It is slightly better off than Haiti, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Pakistan’s fares much better and is not listed on this chart. Cuba has taken care of its population and eliminated malnutrition, hunger and child mortality. It has done more with less and is the example that needs to be followed. Cuba produces more doctors for less and offers free medical education to citizens of the world. 1000 Cuban doctors served in cold Azad Kashmir and helped the victims of the earthquake.
Hi Moin,
Just a simple suggestion. Its upto you to prove whether you are capable of understanding it. Why pakistanis always spend their time to find out what India is doing and how they are doing. Indians never bother what and how pakistanis are doing something. The reason why you people are lagging far behind from indians (I know, you will certainly oppose) is becuase pakistanis always provide their valuable time and effort only to defame India. If you are sure that India is so poor, so underdeveloped then why are you wasting your time to defame India. What is the sense to defame an already defamed country (as you think). Better you utilize your time to do something that can fame your own country, glorify your country. If you don’t have this type of capability or environment in your country then I understand why you are writing this kind of blog.
Please remember, India having a vast educational legacy and qualified people, is always capable of building this type of ammunation. But only because of political scenarion of the world it did not expose it to the rest of the world during the cold war era.
That vastness has been unable to manufacture anything. Bharat is spending $10 billion to buya rustable planes that it cannot make
We comments on all countries of the world, China, UK, US, ALgeria, Lanka, and Pakistan. Why would Bharat be an exception?
Today, Indians are taking benefits of World political environment. How come Bharat suddenly becomes the “great India” when throughout its 1000s of years of history it had been ruled by other nations? During cold war, when India was USSR’s partner, we didn’t hear from any Indian that their country was “great India”. So, what changed now is basically the global politics. Because, I can see what India will look like without a political support from global powers like USA, UK, Israel and Russia. There is a propaganda war against people of Pakistan at all forums by Indians and India’s media partners. My congratulations and regards to Mr. Moin Ansari who is responding in this blog with concrete facts and figures.
Just a side note, if Bharat is so “great” than why are hundreds of thousands of Indians moving out of India and they prefer to settle down in countries all over the World, and this rate is increasing every year? That’s not true when one of the poster said that Indians were returning to India, I have never seen any Indian family with kids going back to India permanently. Every year, out of 55000 H1B work visa cap in US, almost all are received by Indians. It will be illogical to think that out of 200 nations in the World only Indians have qualification to get jobs in US on H1B visa. The fact is, there are literally hundreds of Indian IT recruiters in US, who network with Indian IT hiring managers in the companies and these recruiters sponsor Indians to bring them onboard on H1B work visa. These recruiters play with immigration rules and take care of the green card processing for their fellow Indians even if their contract is terminated by the client company due to lay off. In fact, one of the reasons why is US still in recession, is due to the unemployment rate in US, which is not decreasing. There are too many H1-B visa holder Indians in US who switch from one contract to another through Indian recruiter companies and keep the employment. There is a constant flow of more H1B visas holder Indians to US, while on the other hand the US citizens are continually getting laid off.
Malik:
You have brought out some excellent unexplored points that need to be converted into an article and a book. The mafia that control 55000 H1B visas gives kickbacks to the hiring managers and charge a percentage of the salaries. The 55000 visas bring in ten times that number who work illegally for cash arranged by the same mafia. For the first time in 35 years, I have noticed blatent discrimination against Non-Indian by those who get into some sort of position of authority. The H1b scandal has yet to be exposed.
Thank you for your comments. We have been growing exponentially and more than 2 million people read our articles in the past few weeks. In response to our readership–we are upgrading this site to a News Portal which will archive all 4000 of our artilces meticoluusly archived–and we hae seven sites where we place artilces. Bloggers.pk does not allow Pakistan Leger, The Dawn News, Military Strategy, Mohandas Gandhi articles to be published. Despite the censorship–we have been growing—we will begin advertising on the Pakistani media as soon as the news portal is up and running–here is a sneak preview–Rupee News new Beta Site–active January 2010
We need 200 Crescent volunteeres who can thwart the proppoganda!
Hi all,
Is it wise to think that India is a technically low advanced country and pakistan a nation dont have any know how to build even a tooth brush of itsown a technically high advanced nation? ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my goodness dat’s we called delusion of grandiosity
Hi-
First things first it is easy to mud sling on each other, please understand we are the same race and a very powerful race. Fighting amongst ourselves wont help anyone. It was britishers who wanted to divide and rule atleast we can stop it now. Just imagine if Pakistan and India joins hand then both the countries will benifit immensely.
Northern India can buy power from Pakistan and in return grains, sugar molasses can be provided.
This is one such example. Remember China is nobody Friend. It is slowly influenced Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma and was previously supplying arms to both LTTE and the Sri lankan Government. It is building a base in Srilanka now. Slowly it wants to take over India and then other neighboring countries.
Again religion is not an issue with China, so the only thing that is creating a problem amongst India and Pakistan is personal hatred and China wants to take advantage of that.
Some of the images posted on the site as Gujarat riots are also the people who were burnt alive in the train. I know this because I was there from the government team. Trust me the ground reality is totally different from the medias relaity.
I have seen Hindus saving lot of muslims in the riots and viceversa, Please respect the people who died and do not spread hatred through websites by posting photos with captions spreading hatred.
We are for peace among all people. War is bad. As a sign of its good intentions, Bharat should immediately withdraw her forces from Kashmir, Jungarh, Manvadar, Sir Creek and Siachin. It should stop construction of all dams and start discussions on paying war reparations to Pakistan for invading East Pakistan and for sending insurgents to Balochistan. Bharat should also pay the amount owned by Bharat for the assets that were due Pakistan in 1947–and wer nive given.
Bharati law should stop using the word “partition” and make a crime like “Holocaust Denial” is a crime in Europe.
We all can have peace forever.
Actually the point here is when ever india achives any technical feat you can be rest assured that either its been smuggled or just bought out from some other
country with a tri colour painted on it…but when some
of the Indian projects fails ? then wht ? yehhhhhhh
actually in that case Indian spies failed to get the tech
stolen from USA or RUSSIA and tried to make it on their own and obviously they failed. ITS sooo simple but still why we Indian cant understand it. Ahhh yehh now i got it man. I think our IQ level is really low ..hmm.
@ Smart Indian
Inability to read is a serious handicap
Unable to rebut the irrefutable evidence of Mr. Kalam stealing information from the American Scout program, the only thing a “smart” Bharati can do is hurl insults.
Of course Pokran was a fizzle–so now the Bharati status as a Nuclear power is in doubt! Additionally after signing the 123 deal Bharat can never test again.
The LCA has been in the design phase for two decades, half the IAF is grounded–very high IQ indeed!
this website should be renamed as [...] site. probably a bunch of morons sitting up in their jihadi outfit racking up things about INDIA. Indian space program is a bullock cart which sends up couple of satelites every year. including international payload. And For anyone’s information A P J ABDUL KALAM is one hellava guy who made wonders. be it space or missile technology. on the other hand. our friend what is his name… the merchant of menace. AQ Khan.. less said the better. to cut the long story short. try stopping from pakistan bombed from ur own taliban for atleast 48 hours in one stretch.. by the way. My uncle was a 1971 war veteran,,, he enjoyed flying around Islamabad… sure my fellow soldiers wont mind doing it again…
@ Mani
Inability to see the faults of Mr. Kalam as reported in the Bharati press is a disease that some of your ilk has to overcome. Mr. Kalam stole secrets from the US Scout program. That is a fact Jack–and the sources are listed.
Jumping up and down about AQK is a Western trait, and monkey say, monkey do Bharatis need not bother with the term “proliferation”–because we all know what Bharat has been doing.
My uncle was a Gazi from 1948, and we all enjoy visiting him in AZAD KASHMIR and GILGIT—liberated parts of Kashmir–too bad you can’t say the same about any Pakistani territory. Even Bangladeshis hostile territory for Bharatis.
The TTP is a Bharati terror outfit just like the Bharati Anti-Lankan outfit called LTTE.
Bharat is terror central trying to destabilize all her neighbors in pursuit of an insane dream of Akhand Bharat (Greater India) which supposedly stretches from Afghanistan to Indonesia. This hegemonic nightmare is based on a demented interpretation of Hindu religious texts
In every human endeavor and statistic Pakistan is either better, or equal to India. In those few areas in which India is better, it is better only marginally.
The simple fact is that India is a dilapidating millstone on South Asia pulling down a dozen countries and forcing arrested development and cretinism on the entire region. While Indians starve–its Nero-like aristocracy is wasting $2 billion on a Russian rust bucket. Unable to produce a plane, the pugnacious and corrupt Indian politicians want to waste $10 billion on 126 fighters–to pursue its wild maniacal dream of becoming a truculent hegemonic bully. Impotent in its struggles with manufacturing, India buys Viagra in the shapes of guns, and ships which would allow to continue its aggressively expansionist conquest in the revanchist madness of creating “Greater India”. It is in Afghanistan, not because of trade, but because of religious dogma and extremist warmongering
I don’t disbelieve . What is it that we Indians are not stealing ?
Most of bollywood kollywood fare is mishmash of several English movies. The end product is often a pain. That should answer Smart Indian.
What Malik has written about Indians manipulating visas is very true. Most Indians are cheats & liars , covering up for one another.
On what basis are we so atrociously selfcongratulatory ? Most Indians are spiteful towards the Americans , the West on the whole wallowing in some delusions of grandeur.
I could only see the stomach burning of the Pakis because of India’s space program. Traditionally Pakis always talk big and less in action. Even for their nuke program they need an Indian born (A.Q.Khan).
If you Pakis think your Nukes are better, then you demonstrate it. Do not talk big with foul mouth. Come and show it. Let the World see, who is go to get perished.
Our respectable Dr.Abdul Kalam is simple humble and honest straight forward man, no one will believe Kalam is a Nuke thief, unlike A.Q.Khan. Even his Presidential days, he did not allow his relatives to stay unnecessarily in the Rastrapathi Bhavan. His total asset value is equivalent to any middle class common people. He do not belive in sophisticated life like A.Q.Khan. It is sin, and God will not spare if you continue write like this.
If India can put satellite in moon’s orbit , it is not a big deal for them to make a ICBM; You can envy on India but do not tell cock and bull stories to others. If you are honest, ask your scientist to work hard catch up with India. Do not be jealous.
Unless and otherwise you Pakis change your attitude, you can not near India in any mission. Indians do not bother about your half baked comments. You can only make hue and cry by comparing your ‘made in China’ painted in pakistan n-arms and missiles with our indagenous made nuke bomb and missiles. Yes, we Indaians failed in many Occasion. But we converted each failure as a stepping stone to reach success. Today US wanted space co-operation with India because of our striving effort and technologically Indians are cost effective than US!!!
You can always tell pak’s n-arms and missiles are superior by living in fool’s paradise. No one will question you, only your chinese friends will laugh at you uncontrollably from Peking.
If you think India is poor, I would say you are not updated yourself. What you are telling were correct 15 years back. Not Today. The latest is when pak is begging for US loan, while India is lending money to Bangladesh around 1 billon $. Update yourself and comment.
Rammez
Your comment could not be published because of 4 letter racial epithets. You make some good points which could not be answered because of the racism. Try posting a more civilized note which is acceptable to the code of conduct on this site.
Hats off to Mr. [...].. Keep up the good work. I bet providing facts with concrete evidence is an intense pain for Indians. Its written all over this site.