Rafale Wins MMRCA Bid

[snapper]

I am told by people that know these things that a 'firm decision' is not yet made and the Eurofighter may yet win out. However since the Indians say they no longer wish aid I cannot see why HMG should force taxpayers money on them.

[subba]

I think the Aid issue is blown up too much. Mostly by the British. Once they openly have acknowledged it was primarily to satisfy some political constituency, it becomes very onerous to receive that aid. Across forums on the internet clearly every news topic on Indian Nuclear program, Space program invites hundreds of posters that question aid and get quite nasty. No one likes receiving aid that is given with such baggage. It's even more embarrassing when it is linked so brazenly to the Typhoon deal. 57+ 66 AJT Hawks plus Rolls Royce MK871 engines deals worth about 2 billion USD in the past were just forgotten. So also the fact that after the Russians it's UK and France that are the biggest beneficiaries of Indian defense spending.

[jlvfr]

*The Indian marketing campaign was led by the Germans, a decision which Mr Lake described as “clearly mad” given India’s historic ties with Britain.

The culture and structure of the Indian Air Force is still heavily influenced by its British origins, with identical ranks and near-identical Air Force blue uniforms.

“The Typhoons they sent to India [for evaluation] were German, flown by German aircrew" *

Seriously?! What were they thinking?!

[Blademaster]

I, for one, very much hope thay the Indian Government does not have the opportunity to spend any more British aid (my money!) on French arms contracts. Lets face it whatever 'aid' gets sent get pocketed by people like the guy who doesn't want it.

Read the article again. It is not spent by the government but through aid agencies in which the government has no control over. By the way, take your aid and take a hike if it means that we don't have to listen to your holier than thou bullsh!t. BY the way, give us our money back which your country has stolen from us over 200 years.

[snapper]

Read the article again. It is not spent by the government but through aid agencies in which the government has no control over. By the way, take your aid and take a hike if it means that we don't have to listen to your holier than thou bullsh!t. BY the way, give us our money back which your country has stolen from us over 200 years.

I would happily advise HMG not to donate more to India and shall when I return to work. I wasn't aware that your permission was required by thankyou nevertheless.

As for Britain owing you money this is, I believe, a 'what if?' question. Would India even be a country if Britain hadn't unified it? How much did it cost you to learn English? I am not sure this debate belongs in this thread though.

[subba]

Snapper/ Blade Sirs lets not get personal here. This is indeed a sensitive topic and it rankles a lot of Indians including myself and i am sure it rankles a lot of people in the UK too. We are just giving opinions here mostly many through our own biases and frog well vision. What universally i am sure even our UK friends will acknowledge is aid given with baggage is hard to swallow. Culturally Indians in general never declare aid and charity given openly. That's a difference with the West and it's cultural.

Most donors in India prefer remaining private. Privacy of donation to charity is significant. One must never expect a return/ reward if one does a favor is something we are taught since we are small. So 280 m Pounds a year is indeed a significant sum. It comes from UK taxpayers. And they have been loud about it every time India launches a rocket or explodes a nuke or does anything that is considered a privilege of the 1st world.

When the British left India we had 11% literacy, a 35 year lifespan, we endured famines every decade or so of British rule. Nothing really to rail about then. No Indian today, except an odd matron in the Calcutta club who jumped and said 'We won' when UK won at Falklands, really thinks the British left us in tip top shape or that things were better for us then. That's something debatable, because i could also come up with the fact that it was the British that ended Islamic rule in India. That IMHO is a bigger achievement than railways etc. Democracy and rule/ respect of law have been pretty much indic traits..exceptions to the rule may be there, but as a rule yes Indics have respected regimes and supported status quo in governance to reduce chaotic conditions. But all that is another topic and subject..

What the FM said in parliament was during a heated exchange..that the aid was being delivered was very small in comparison to Govt programs and most British people were not in favor of it. Why take aid when the donor is not happy. Parliament was also informed that the British Govt literally 'begged' GOI to accept it as it would put embarrass them as they had put political capital into there constituencies.

Simply put, the aid is rankling both sides. Why continue with it. Last i heard it was the British Govt that insisted for all the wrong reasons. From what i see the actual donor that is the British tax payer is not happy giving away his or her tax dollars.

[snapper]

I can certainly confirm that the increase in the foreign aid budget (not just to India) is NOT a popular policy within Britain. Can't find the survey offhand but I recall 60- ish % didn't agree with this spending. "Charity begins at home".

[Doktor]

Then don't give charity.

Especially if you want something in return.

I will admit I am not giving charity to anyone. I pay taxes and vote the party who will invest rather then give away.

Now, can we open another thread on charity?

[subba]

Indic cultural context to Charity may be understood here from the Bhagavad Gita:

A) Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness


B) But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion.


C) And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance.

I would say that British Aid to India falls in category B. I agree with Lord Krishna here.

[snapper]

I would say category C.

[Double Edge]

I can certainly confirm that the increase in the foreign aid budget (not just to India) is NOT a popular policy within Britain. Can't find the survey offhand but I recall 60- ish % didn't agree with this spending. "Charity begins at home".

Then why was the aid so high ?

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question when the topic came up last March. Either there is a lack of transparency here or as usual something minor is getting amplified by the tabloids. As yet i lack the ability to differentiate when it matters or not. Then after the tabloids shaped the mood the surveys come out and of course they will be skewed.

Think if so many strings are attached merely to aid, what sorts of strings will be attached to a major arms contract like this one.

ASDA/Waitrose comparison by Cameron is so simplified as to be laughable. All the candidates we selected were of the same generation and the performance difference was not major. They would not have been invited to bid otherwise. Therefore the technical aspects are minor here. What is important is lifecycle costs and then ontop of that strategic costs ie will we be left in the lurch at a crucial moment. How much is that reliability worth. Given the French have other deals going as well its possible they managed to cut enough that it matters.

The $10 billion or so is just the starting costs there will be much more by end of the lifecycle. Anyone know what that will amount to.

[Firestorm]

*The Indian marketing campaign was led by the Germans, a decision which Mr Lake described as “clearly mad” given India’s historic ties with Britain.

The culture and structure of the Indian Air Force is still heavily influenced by its British origins, with identical ranks and near-identical Air Force blue uniforms.

“The Typhoons they sent to India [for evaluation] were German, flown by German aircrew" *
Seriously?! What were they thinking?!

As long as the German crews spoke English (which I'm sure they did), it would have made absolutely no difference had the crews been English or Spanish or Italian instead. The IAF evaluated the aircraft not the crews. And more importantly it was satisfied with the aircraft and recommended it as a candidate for acquisition along with the Rafale.

There was nothing wrong with the Typhoon or the European MRCA campaign. The aircraft is simply more expensive than the rafale. Now what the British are saying is that we should have selected the more expensive aircraft simply because we receive aid from the country which is selling it. That is pretty much the argument isn't it? What use is the effing aid then?

And I like how a thread about a weapon acquisition by India has automatically turned to the number of poverty stricken people in the country.

[Tronic]

I, for one, very much hope thay the Indian Government does not have the opportunity to spend any more British aid (my money!) on French arms contracts.

That statement is incorrect for several reasons.

1.) Aid money is not channeled through the Indian government.

2.) The money spent on defence procurement is about 40 times greater than the aid provided by your government.

3.) India has gifted UK more contracts than the aid your country provides. Infact, the Hawk Trainer deal alone more than doubles the amount of aid provided.

People have a short memory:

"BAE Systems, Britain's biggest weapons maker, today clinched a contentious £1bn order to supply Hawk training aircraft to India"
BAE wins £1bn Hawk contract | Business | guardian.co.uk

5,000 jobs safe as India buys Hawks | Business | The Guardian

and than the follow up order for an additional 57 Hawks not 2 years ago;

"Defence group BAE Systems and engine supplier Rolls-Royce have signed a £700m deal to supply India's Hindustan Aeronautics with 57 Hawk training jets."
BBC News - BAE Systems signs Indian Hawk jet deal

Ironical when the first Hawk contract was awarded to BAE, British politicians were complaining;

About 70 MPs from all parties have signed a Commons motion expressing concern that the deal was "beyond [India's] legitimate military needs". The £1bn cost equalled 10 years of UK bilateral aid to India, it was pointed out.
BAE wins £1bn Hawk contract | Business | guardian.co.uk

Seems to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And these are only contracts regarding the Hawk trainer; nevermind the fact that British firms are still lined up for the upgrade of 100s of Jaguar aircraft, aswell as for India's artillery procurement which alone is worth ~$5 billion.

To still flash the "British aid" card in front of the MMRCA contract is a bit out of proportion, don't you think?

Lets face it whatever 'aid' gets sent get pocketed by people like the guy who doesn't want it.

The aid is not channeled through the Indian government, so whatever gets "pocketed", gets pocketed by your own administrators.

[Tronic]

That's something debatable, because i could also come up with the fact that it was the British that ended Islamic rule in India.

That would be incorrect history. When the British arrived, Sikhs were ruling North India, while the Marathas ruled the South. The British won India after the Anglo-Maratha and Anglo-Sikh wars; there was never an Anglo-Mughal war as the Mughals were a token force restricted to Delhi, and were tributaries to the Sikh Kingdom in Greater Punjab.

[subba]

You are right Tronic Sir. But i was referring to the context in which 1857 mutineers were wanting to install back the Mughal Bahadur Shah Zafar..and the Battle of Plassey which provided a major foothold in the Bengal region. Anyways OT here..

2.) The money spent on defence procurement is about 40 times greater than the aid provided by your government.

IIRC the Indian Defense Budget is almost 40 Billion USD a year..the aid given is about 300 m USD a year.. so the Defense budget is some 300 plus times the aid figure.