PAKISTAN POLL SPECIAL

New Delhi, 19 February 2008

Pak Poll: Setback To Democracy

MUSHARRAF STILL HOLDS KEY

By Sreedhar

Before analyzing the Pakistani elections held on 18 February 2008, three factors need to be noted. First, the much-anticipated sympathy wave on Benazir’s assassination to her Party PPP withered away in no time. The reasons too are obvious. The top leadership of the PPP entered into an informal understanding with Musharraf even after Benazir’s death in January 2008. In fact, Benazir herself entered into a power-sharing agreement with the military, like in 1988, before returning to Pakistan.

At another level, the Pakistani politicians including Benazir Bhutto were sufficiently discredited by the media and the Armed Forces. The best example was the fight between Nawaz Sharif when he was the Prime Minister and the judiciary. In that bitter fight the arbitration was given to the Armed Forces. This by itself demonstrated the pre-dominance of the Pakistani Armed Forces in the country’s politics.

Therefore, in the just concluded elections most of the people who favored the return of democracy stayed indoors on the plea that there is very little choice among the contesting candidates in terms of improving the governance.

Second, for the past decade or so, we have been hearing that the radical Islamic groups in Pakistan are against any type of elected Government to an Islamic country like Pakistan. They even threatened that they will not allow elections to take place in a peaceful manner. During the past four weeks the people killed in electoral violence reached a three-digit figure and sent a clear signal to the advocates of democracy. The radical groups also furthered their cause by selecting some candidates from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) in Baluchistan to further their cause in the event of the National Assembly elections being held in time.

Such an approach from the radical groups suited the ruling elite very well. According to the preliminary estimates put out by the Election Commission of Pakistan, the percentage of voters was as low as 35%. This low percentage of turnout means only those who were allowed to vote by the President and his men were encouraged to come out openly and cast their votes. In the process, President Musharraf will be the key person to allow a coalition Government to assume power in the coming weeks.

It is too early to predict which way the alignments will take place. There is some speculation in the Pakistani media that there maybe a coalition between Bhutto’s PPP and Sharif’s PML (N) and this may give absolute majority for them to form the Government. But, after the election, it became too obvious that even if the two Parties merge and work on a common minimum program, it is highly unlikely that they will get absolute majority.

In such a situation, the jockeying for power will be largely revolving around which way the President will exercise his preferences. This means the Pakistani Armed Forces will continue to dominate Pakistani politics for some more time to come.

Lastly, Pakistan is basically a feudal society where even after 60 years of Independence a viable middle class has not emerged. The Zamindari and the Jagirdari system in a feudal fashion is in operation even today. The population is divided into the rich and the poor with the rich constituting less than five per cent of the total population. The late 70’s assessment of the Pakistani polity that 22 families run the whole country seems to be valid even today.

The so-called civil society constitutes a microscopic minority confined to places like Lahore and Islamabad and acts as the show pieces for foreign observers. People like me, who have been following Pakistan for almost four decades now, feel the Dawn newspaper is not the reflection of Pakistani politics but The News, The Nation and the Urdu press like Nawai - e – Waqt illustrate the mood of the nation. Therefore, the highly publicized American involvement in the return of democracy to Pakistan is being seen by Pakistani’s as a part of the ongoing Christian Jewish war against the Islamic world.

In these circumstances, the 18th February 2008 elections can be seen as a major setback to the return of democracy to Pakistan. It is not going to undermine in any way the importance of the Armed Forces in the polity. The General-cum-politician Musharraf is going to rule Pakistan for sometime to come.

The immediate question that rises in this context is what will be the future of Pakistan? Will there be some normalcy in that strife-torn country in the coming months? What will be the future of the radical Islamic groups in the emerging political scenario in Pakistan?

For all these questions the answer seems to lie to what extent the extra regional powers like the US are going to support Gen Musharraf.  The General knows that as long as there is a threat from the radical Islamic groups he is indispensable to the US and its allies.

According to many Pakistani observers the problem of the radical Islamic groups in Pakistan is unlikely to come to an end so easily because a section of the State is in collusion with these groups. Some observers even feel that terrorism and violence has become a part and parcel of the statecraft in that country.

If we go by the Indian experience, terrorism and violence started in October 1947 when the Pakistani Armed Forces along with a bunch of Lashkars attacked Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore the future that is emerging in Pakistan clearly indicates that radical elements are not going to be liquidated completely but would be advised to take a low profile and continue their operations.

The organizations like the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and their sister organizations like the Lashkar-e-Taiyaba  and the Jaish-e–Mohammed are going to be active in their own way giving tactical support to people like Musharraf and continue their war to establish a Caliphate in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan to begin with.

The Pakistani elections were being closely monitored by the mandarins in South Block. According to various assessments it appears that New Delhi visualized a scenario that there would be a low turnout of the electorate and the verdict would be fractured. Therefore, like many other Pakistani well wishers it not only kept all its options open but kept the lines of communication with various groups intact.

The Prime Minister's casual remark that he is not interested in furthering the troubles of Gen Musharraf by itself indicates that the political establishment in India realized that they have to deal with the General in Islamabad even though he is a retired General. --- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

CHINA SPECIAL

New Delhi, 15 January 2008

Sino-India Ties

WILL CHINA DELIVER AT IAEA?

By M D Nalapat

(Holds UNESCO Peace Chair, Prof, Geopolitics, Manipal Academy of

Higher Education, Ex-Resident Editor, Times of India, Delhi)

When chosen by Sonia Gandhi to be the UPA's Prime Ministerial choice, it was expected that Manmohan Singh would concentrate on his core competence, which is economics, and leave foreign policy and national security to those with a better understanding of the subject. Instead, he has neglected the economy, remaining a passive spectator to the slowing down of liberalisation under pressure from the Communists.

In place of a reduction in restraints on Indian corporates, the period since 2004 has witnessed a steady increase in the Regulation Raj. Whether it is the buying of shares or the paying of income-tax, the process has been made more difficult and complicated for those hundreds of millions of citizens who lack money power or political influence. Although the UPA touts the growth rate of 9% as proof of the success of its economic management, the fact remains that this is still the "Vajpayee rate of growth". It was expected that the "Manmohan rate of growth" would be the 12% and more that China has achieved for the past two decades

It is a matter for our leaders to ponder that the Indian economy, which was double the size of the Chinese in 1950, is less than half its size today, even after the 1991 liberalisation. China's foreign exchange reserve is six times that of India, and its trade with just the US equals the entire foreign trade of India. Even as the Left parties demand a rollback of economic liberalisation, the communists in China are showing that they are the best businesspersons in the world.

At this rate, China will become a superpower in ten years, and usher in a "bipolar" world where it alone can be compared to the US. As for India, it would still be far behind, with a per capita income that is a third of China’s, despite the fact that the population of that country is even higher than India's. It is as the head of a much smaller economy that the economist Prime Minister met with his Chinese counterparts in Beijing.

Long before the PM's visit, the Chinese leadership had signalled that it was unwilling to accept the "Zhou En Lai" formula of 1961 on the boundary dispute. Then Premier Zhou had made repeated visits to India to offer Jawaharlal Nehru a border settlement based on the existing reality. Under this plan, Aksai Chin would be accepted by India as Chinese, while Arunachal would be taken as Indian by China.

Nehru, who was convinced that the Chinese were too much in awe of his stature and reputation to fight a war, rejected Zhou's offer and launched the "forward policy”, under which an under-equipped and poorly-led Indian army was asked to advance to locations held by the Chinese and "throw them out”, in Nehru's ringing words.

Instead, in October-November 1962, it was the Chinese army that threw out Indian forces from much of the territory they had claimed, although Zhou En Lai withdrew all Chinese forces from land seized by them during the humiliating conflict, that diminished Nehru and India internationally. Since then, most of the world has seen China as a pan-Asian power and India as a regional power. However, lately China is regarded as a world power and India as a pan-Asian force

If there is virtually no hope of a breakthrough in the border talks, because of the Chinese insistence on taking over Tawang and legitimising Pakistan's occupation of part of Kashmir, and if commercial treaties of any significance are impossible because of the control that the Chinese Communist Party has over product prices and raw material costs, what is Manmohan Singh aiming for in Beijing?

The Prime Minister has bet his legacy on a single issue, the Indo-US nuclear deal, and he knows that Chinese backing would be crucial in both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Thus far, directly and through other players, China has taken a stance hostile to India in both bodies. Beijing is demanding that India abandon its nuclear weapons programme and leave China with a monopoly in Asia in advanced nuclear weaponry and the missiles needed to deliver them.

This hard-line approach by Beijing will make it impossible for Anil Kakodkar and the rest of the Department of Atomic Energy team to get the minimal concessions from the members of the IAEA and the NSG that they are asking for. And in case there is no deal, the Singh-Bush agreement collapses, for it depends for its operationalisation on an acceptable safeguards agreement with the IAEA and an assurance of fuel supply from the NSG. If these are not possible, then the entire deal becomes worthless to India.

Already, the numerous concessions made by Manmohan Singh to please the US and other major powers --- concessions far in excess of that discussed by the NDA --- have created a political and scientific backlash against the deal. Unless the PM can get the minimal concessions he seeks from the IAEA and the NSG (assurance of fuel supply and non-interference with the defense programme), he will not be able to get enough political support in India to implement the deal. As Washington is finding out, New Delhi is not Beijing, Riyadh or Islamabad, where an unelected authority, a monarch and a general can agree to conditions that a democratic system would not tolerate

To get the deal past the IAEA and the NSG, Manmohan Singh needs the support of President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Will they give it? True, there are news reports about China's support for the India-US nuclear deal, but it remains to be seen if the hardheaded Chinese Communist Party leadership --- after decades of following a policy of containment of India --- would support a reduction in nuclear restrictions on India. Not only would such a move challenge China's current strategic monopoly in Asia, it would push India and the US closer together --- a nightmare for China. Clearly, while soothing words will as always be plentiful, actual support may yet be distant

The fact remains that India is the only country in Asia that has the potential to match and surpass China. Australia has too few people and Japan has been having economic problems for more than a decade. In case the IAEA and the NSG accept Kakodkar's present terms, it would result in the Singh-Bush nuclear deal suddenly becoming attractive to many of its critics, thus clearing the way for its adoption. The Left parties, once China is on board, will be in a bind on their stand of total opposition to a deal that would have the consent of much of the scientific community. India and the US would come much closer together, and India's economic outlook would improve.

None of this would be good news for China. It is a measure of the Nehruvian dissociation from reality of the UPA's top policy makers that they seriously expect the hard-headed Chinese leadership to help India become a strong economic power and an ally of the US. Such idealistic thinking may be what works in India (that turns the other cheek to Pakistan repeatedly, building on the concessions made at Tashkent in 1965 and Shimla in 1972), but thus far, China's leadership has shown that it is made of stronger stuff

All that Manmohan Singh is likely to get are sugary words and vague promises. In exchange, the Chinese leadership will expect substantive and painful concessions from the Indian side, such as the handing over of Tawang and the granting of free entry to Chinese companies in India. In the field of infrastructure, especially, the demand for good infrastructure has been saturated in many parts of China, even while India has primitive facilities. The Chinese will seek to send their teams to India, to build roads, ports, bridges and power plants at a profit even while they thus stave off unemployment.

Oddly, when China wanted visas for hundreds of its workers to come to India rather than recruit local labour some of the UPA’s allies lobbied (successfully) with Manmohan Singh to allow this. Beijing’s friends in the UPA can be expected to ensure that tens of thousands of Chinese workers will be given visas to come to India and work on infrastructure projects. Unless the Prime Minister agrees to this, he his unlikely to get any actual Chinese support at the IAEA and the NSG.

The question is: will he be willing to pay such a high price in order to get support from Beijing for his nuclear deal? Even if China formally backs the deal, the clout of Beijing is sufficient to ensure that several other countries (including a few in Europe) oppose India and thereby derail the deal. Manmohan Singh has shown what a forgiving and generous man he is in his negotiations with Pakistan, towards which he has taken a stand even more conciliatory than South Asia's Man of Peace, IK Gujral.

It remains to be seen if this big-heartedness of his will lead him towards the commercial and territorial concessions that China seeks. The nation awaits the price that it will be made to pay to China so as to keep Manmohan Singh's pet project, the Indo-US nuclear deal, alive. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)       

Defence Notes

New Delhi, 25 February 2008

Defence Ties With Russia

WHY INDIA PREFERS ISRAEL ?

By Radhakrishna Rao

The smooth and successful launch of Israel’s military satellite TECSAR by an Indian space vehicle this January and the presence of a number of defence and aerospace firms from Israel at the DefExpo-2008 in Delhi in February are a clear pointer of Israel emerging as India’s most-preferred defence partner in the near future. In sharp contrast, the subdued and modest presence of Russian defence entities at the Expo was a mirror to the growing friction in Indo-Russian defence ties. From being a reliable defence partner, Russia has come to be looked upon in India as an undependable supplier of military hardware, many of which have proved to be “poor performers”.

In fact, India is far from happy over the cost escalation, time slippages and poor after- sales service including the non-availability of spares on number of occasions in respect of many defence projects for which it has signed up with Russia. Perhaps the most galling to the Indian defence establishments is the Russian insistence on an additional payment of US$1.2-billion for the retrofitting and modernization of the Admiral Gorshkov, a 44,750 tonne Kiev class aircraft carrier. Russia had originally agreed to retrofit this decommissioned aircraft carrier for US$1.5-billion and supply it to the Indian Navy by 2008-09. Now it will reach India only by 2012-2013 .Currently, negotiations are on between the two nations to sort out the controversy.

Sometime last year the Chief of Navy Admiral Suresh Mehta had stated that it was high time that New Delhi stopped putting all its eggs in one basket, thereby implying that India should stop depending totally on the Russians and instead expand its defence ties with more reliable partners such as Israel. Obviously, Mehta was referring to the change of Russian stance over the retrofitting of Gorshkov.

Clearly and apparently, Gorshkov is not the only case of Indo-Russian defence collaboration gone sour. It is only the tip of the ice-berg. Citing global inflation and depreciating US dollar, Russia has already asked India to cough up more for SU-3)-MKI combat aircraft. And, the Indian Navy on its part has refused to take delivery of the Kilo class submarine and the land attack missiles it was equipped with to fire, after it came a cropper in test firings. Similarly, last year India withheld the payment for one of the three IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft upgraded with the Sea Dragon submarine detection equipment since it did not fulfill the stringent norms set by the Indian Navy.

Another bone of contention between India and Russia is the issue of technological transfer in critical areas for production of T-90S battle tank by the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi near Chennai. There is a dismay in India over the way Russians are putting impediments in its plan to indigenously manufacture 1000 T 90S battle tanks. Now India has decided to develop the critical technological elements in respect of T-90S that Russia has refused to make available.

As a defence analyst in New Delhi put it, India is irritated with Moscow for its failure to keep its commitment of delivering weapons systems on time and also failing to sustain a system to provide uninterrupted supply of spares, apart from jacking up the cost arbitrarily halfway through the implementation of the project.

The break-up of the mighty Soviet empire leading to the bankruptcy of its vast and sprawling military industrial complex has been blamed for India’s far from happy track record in dealing with the Russian defence contractors. As it is, India had a taste of this in 1992, when succumbing to the American pressure, Russia refused to honour its commitment of transferring the critical cryogenic engine technology to India. Russia, which had signed with Glavkosmos as part of the deal with Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) before the break up of the Soviet Union was required to make available the cryogenic engine technology. Subsequently, ISRO managed to build and test a fully Indian cryogenic engine stage meant to power its high performance GSLV (Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle).

Diplomatic observers in New Delhi believe that the growing chill in Indo-Russian defence ties has to do with India’s growing bonhomie with the US. The Russian supreme Vladimir Putin who is at logger heads with the American administration is quite keen about India remaining within the orbit of Russian influence. However, Russian political and defence commentators continue to believe that Indo-Russian defence ties are as healthy as ever despite “frictions and tensions”  In this context, they point out to the Indo-Russian high-level cooperation for developing a fifth generation combat aircraft and a multi-role cargo transport aircraft.

The Brahmos supersonic cruise missile, developed through a joint Indo-Russian endeavor, is being cited as yet another example of robust Indo-Russian military ties. Interestingly, India and Russia are now not only exploring the possibility of exporting Brahmos to friendly countries, but also are working on building an advanced version of Brahmos missile.

Russia which currently sells defence hardware worth about US$1.5-billion to India could in the years to come yield place to Israel whose annual sale of defence equipment to India clocks a turn over of US$1-billion. In fact, Israel has now displaced France as India’s second largest defence partner.

The sky seems to be the limit for India to expand its defence ties with Israel. At DefExpo-2008, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) entered into an agreement with Tata Industries to float a joint venture meant to cater to the needs of the Indian customers of IAI. Tata Industries is looking at digging deeper into the Indian defence market. Further, the Bangalore-based state-owned defence enterprise BEL (Bharat Electroncis Ltd) tied up with three Israel-based companies at the Expo. BEL has singed a “term sheet” with Rafael Advanced Defence Systems to form a joint-venture company to “encourage indigenous advanced technology capabilities of missile electronics and guidance systems”. On the other hand, BEL has signed a MOU with IAI-Malat for the joint development of unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, a 12-year tie up with Elisra envisaged the joint working on various air borne electronics warfare programmes.

Israel, which has supplied Barak missiles to the Indian Navy, is also assisting the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in upgrading many of the Soviet era weapons including MiG series of combat aircraft. It is a tribute to the growing Indo-Israel ties that the Government-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and IAI have joined hands to develop a missile capable of intercepting aircraft and other aerial objects. And despite the opposition from the US, Israel has struck a deal with India to supply three state-of-the art AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System).

These AWACS would help the Air Force gain a deeper and more detailed insight into the enemy territory. First of the three AWACS would reach India by the year-end. In addition to supplying a variety of missiles, UAVs, and electronics warfare hardware for all the wings of the Indian defence, Israel is also assisting many Indian entities in developing missiles and radars for a variety of end uses. For instance, Israel is helping Bangalore- based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) to test and integrate the multi mode radar (MMR) into the indigenously developed fourth generation Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. HAL has also decided to equip its Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv meant for export market with IAI made avionics system.

Meanwhile, the launch of the 300-kg TECSAR featuring a synthetic aperture radar capable of seeing through the clouds and cover of darkness by means of the four stage Indian space vehicle PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle) has stirred political and diplomatic controversy. The CPM whose support is crucial to the survival of the  UPA Government has hit out at ISRO for launching a spy satellite belonging to Israel. “The launch of Israel’s TECSAR shows how India is aiding the military efforts of Israel. The satellite has the capability to track the activities in Iran and the region”, said a CPM spokesman.

The Left party has also alleged that ISRO has agreed to launch two more defence satellites from Israel. Iran on its part has made its displeasure over the TECSAR launch by India with the statement that India should have weighed the geo political situation before agreeing for this launch contract on purely commercial terms. Time will tell how far India goes with its defence requirements with Israel. --INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Defence Notes

New Delhi, 15 March 2008

Defence Deals

LURE FOR INDIAN MARKET

By Radhakrishna Rao

In keeping with the growing strategic importance of India in the contemporary geo-political environment, the budgetary allocation for the country’s defence sector over the years has been witnessing a steady growth. Not surprisingly then, the  budgetary defence spending for the first time is set to cross Rs.1,00,0000-million mark As it is, India’s national budget for 2008-09 allocates  Rs.1,056,000-million for the defence sector as against Rs.96,0000-million  outlay for 2007-08.

As expected the Indian Air Force (IAF), which has drawn up a massive up-gradation plan with a focus on supporting the net centric warfare and the creation of a tri-service aerospace command, has walked away with the highest share of the budgetary allocation for the acquisition of a range of state-of-the-art equipment. During the current year, IAF stands to get Rs.19,0000-million in contrast to its spending of Rs.14,0000-million last fiscal On the other hand, the Army will have a proposed allocation in excess of Rs.12,0000-million against its spending of Rs.11,0000-million. The Navy stands to get Rs.11,0000-million as against its spending of Rs.80,000-million.

Meanwhile, a study by the Associated Chamber of Commerce and  Industry states that the country’s military equipment imports are expected to go up by 12-fold to US$30-billion by 2012. This fact-filled study  also drives home the point that  India has drawn up a concrete plan to purchase a range of high profile defence hardware including multi-role combat aircraft,1.55-mm howitzers, helicopters, military transport aircraft as well as  long range  maritime surveillance  aircraft. According to consulting firm Ernst and Young Global Ltd, right now, India is the second largest buyer of conventional weapons systems.

New Delhi-based strategic analysts are of the view that India is now boosting its defence spending as China is developing into own state-of-the-art combat aircraft and Pakistan is in the process of getting F-16 aircraft from the US. Significantly, sometime back Defence Minister A.K. Antony had stated that the government plans to acquire military aircraft and helicopters valued at US$ two billion from the global defence vendors.

The offset policy forming part of India’s defence hardware procurement programme aims at to encourage the development of home grown defence systems for the use of the three Services, he added. On the other hand, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh, observes, “The offset policy will help equip the armed forces with sophisticated technology as well as strengthening of the technology base of the country’s defence industry”.

As it is, the offset policy spelt out in the 2006 Defence Procurement Policy makes it abundantly cleat that any defence contract worth over Rs.3,000-million that we will enter into with a  foreign defence vendor  will have a direct offset liability to the extent of  30 per cent. This puts the onus on the vendor to source from India equipment or services worth at least 30 per cent of the contract value.

In fact, the massive Indian offset business worth Rs.40,000-million that the defence market presents is highly alluring to global defence contractors. As pointed out by a top ranking functionary of the Confederation of Indian Industry: “In the new scenario, each foreign vendor will need multiple Indian partners to meet offset obligations. This could also help Indian public-private sector firms improve their technology skills”.

India’s state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), which has covered much ground in indigenously developing and deploying a range of missiles, is now focusing on involving both the Indian and foreign high-tech companies as part of its long-term goal of developing indigenously a wide spectrum of defence hardware including long range missiles. On its part, the government has made it clear that defence deals far from being a buyer-seller relationship should involve sharing of the know-how and transfer of technology to enable India to take up the indigenous production of the equipment it is initially sourcing from a foreign vendor.

Recognizing India’s growing strength in defence technology, Charles Edelstenne, Chief Executive Officer of French defence and aeronautical outfit Dassault, which is one of the six competitors in the race to give India’s high ticket defence order for 126 multi-role combat aircraft said, “We are used to transfer of technology and foreign companies taking over production”. In the similar vein, Jean Marie Carnet, CEO of GICAN, an umbrella organization of 129 French outfits engaged in the design and development of naval ships and armaments remarked, “France is ready for complete transfer of technology”.

However, India’s offset clause in respect of the contract for 126 multi-role aircraft stipulates that 50 per cent of the contract value should be invested by the supplier in India. As the value of this contract is expected to run into more than Rs.40,0000-million, the Indian companies hope to get business worth more than Rs.20,0000-million. Under the contract 18 aircraft will be delivered in flyway condition and the rest will be produced by the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. The competitors for this mega Indian defence deal are Rafale of France, RSK Mig-35 of  Russia, Saab Gripen of Sweden, F-16 of Lockheed Martin, F/A-18E/F- Super Hornet of  Boeing and Euro-fighter Typhoon.

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin which has bagged an Indian order for six C-130 J military transport aircraft is optimistic about India converting option for six more aircraft into a firm order as soon the first batch is delivered. Indeed, Rick Kirkland, its President of S.Asia has stated that India is potentially the biggest growth market in Asia Pacific region for Lockheed Martin and its competitors. He also drove home the point that India is likely to buy US$4-billion worth of defence communications system and spend as much as US$5-billion to expand its naval ships and submarine programme. Incidentally, Lockheed Martin has bagged a contract worth US$498-million from Pakistan for the supply of F-16 fighters. As such F-16 fighters – of course with many superior features—offered by Lockheed Martin to India is not likely to find favour with the defense establishment.

The increasing lure of the Indian defence market for foreign vendors was clearly mirrored in a number of partnership ventures that foreign defence companies signed with the   industrial majors at the Defence Expo 2008 held in the Capital last month. Bangalore-based Bharat Electronics (BEL), a major player in the national electronics sector, entered into agreements with three Israel-based defence companies .Mumbai-based Tata Industry not only joined hands with Sikorsky to make S-92 helicopter cabins but also singed an agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for an unspecified number of military hardware and software projects. At the same time, auto major Mahindra and Mahindra  joined hands with Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei, a subsidiary of the Italian firm Finmecanica for developing underwater systems. Further, heavy engineering giant Larsen and Toubro (L&T), signed an MOU with EADS and another with Boeing.

Thus, as things stand today, sky seems to be the limit for both the Indian companies and their foreign partners, competing for the highly lucrative Indian defence market. –INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)