Certain Lined Paper Products From India Decision Memorandum: Fill & Download for Free

Let us first recall brief history of Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Program.A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program“Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.”[1]Role of USA (and Western allies) in Pakistan’s Nuclear Program (Not Weapons)Pakistan began its nuclear efforts during the 1950s as an energy program. It was prompted in large part by the United States’ “Atoms for Peace” program, which sought to spread nuclear energy technology across the globe. In 1956, the Pakistani government created the Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) to lead the new program. The United States gave Pakistan its first reactor—the five megawatt Pakistan Atomic Research Reactor (PARR-1)—in 1962.Although Pakistan claimed that its nuclear program was only pursuing peaceful applications of atomic energy, there were signs that its leadership had other intentions. This fact was particularly evident in wake of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, which ended in a nominal victory for India. “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own,” proclaimed then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.The humiliation of 1971 was a turning point in Pakistan’s decision to build an atomic bomb. In 1972, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto—soon to be elected Prime Minister—called a meeting in which he instructed top Pakistani scientists to build the bomb. Physicist Munir Ahmad Khan was among the scientists invited to the meeting. Trained in the United States at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Khan had worked at Argonne National Laboratory and served as head of reactor engineering for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He was quickly named chairman of PAEC and would lead the new direction of Pakistan’s nuclear program.Around the same time, Pakistan began receiving considerable international support for its nuclear program. Canada, for example, provided a 137-megawatt heavy water nuclear reactor known as Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU). The reactor was installed at the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) and was soon producing weapons grade plutonium. France likewise agreed to supply the Chashma plutonium separation plant.Nevertheless, the international community cracked down on the proliferation of nuclear materials after India’s first nuclear test in 1974. Canada withdrew its support for Pakistan in 1976, while France never completed the Chashma plant. A plutonium bomb suddenly seemed like a distant reality.In 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had a significant impact for Pakistan. Under President Ronald Reagan, the United States gave military support to the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union. Pakistan—a neighbor of Afghanistan with crucial supply routes—proved to be an essential ally in this effort. As a result, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Pakistani nuclear program. In 1982, for example, Zia made an official visit to the United States. “He’s a good man,” wrote Reagan in his diary. “Gave me his word they were not building an atomic or nuclear bomb. He’s dedicated to helping the Afghans & stopping the Soviets” (Reed and Stillman 249). (This is exactly what Trump said recently about Imran Khan since it wanted Pakistan’s support in talks with Taliban)In 1985, the U.S. Congress passed the Pressler Amendment, which established a protocol for sanctions against Pakistan if it crossed certain “red lines,” such as manufacturing highly enriched uranium and making a fissionable bomb core. The law was designed to allow the United States to maintain good relations with Pakistan, but it ultimately forced the American government to implement sanctions in the 1990s.[2]Enter China where USA LeftChinese government invited Pakistani scientists to Beijing. On May 26, 1990, China tested a Pakistani bomb (Pak-1) on Pakistan’s behalf at the Lop Nur test site. The so-called “Event No. 35” was most likely a uranium implosion bomb, a derivative of the Chinese CHIC-4 design. Pakistan also reached an agreement with North Korea for Nodong ballistic missiles in exchange for Pakistani uranium enrichment technology.On May 28, 1998—less than three weeks after India’s nuclear tests—Pakistan exploded its first devices at the Ras Koh test site. “Today, we have settled a score and have carried out five successful nuclear tests,” announced Sharif. With a total yield of 9 kilotons, however, there is some debate about how many bombs were actually tested (Reed and Stillman 257). Two days later, Pakistan conducted an additional test, Chagai-II.[3]Secrets of USA and Allies besides and China Fathering Pakistan’s Nuclear ProgramAug 12, 1966: Intelligence reports about recent visits to Beijing by Pakistani defense and science officials raised questions whether China was or would be providing nuclear aid to Pakistan. The latter was already developing close relations with China, a matter which was of great concern to U.S. policymakers, but INR analyst Thomas Thornton concluded that Pakistan was highly unlikely to seek a significant degree of Chinese nuclear assistance.[4]Nov 04, 1978: U.S. demarche and "non-paper" on Pakistan's attempts to complete the plutonium reprocessing plant and develop nuclear weapons. Sent to 12 countries to ensure that they "exercise vigilance and appropriate control to deter Pakistan from acquiring sensitive facilities."[5]Nov 14, 1978: U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan advises against informing the Indian government about U.S. concerns over Pakistan's nuclear program. It would have an "adverse impact" for the U.S. government to be seen colluding with India by Pakistan.[6]Nov 17, 1978: U.S. Ambassador to India reports that the Indian government is aware that the U.S. believes Pakistan seeks nuclear weapons capability. An Indian diplomat informed him that Pakistan was two to three years away from nuclear capability.[7]May 17, 1979: The Hungarian Embassy in Pakistan reports that according to the Soviet Ambassador in Pakistan, the Pakistani government was able, in 1979, to build a nuclear explosive device within one and a half years. In the view of the Soviet ambassador, because of the perceived inevitability of a Pakistani test, the socialist bloc must consider means of stopping the Pakistani nuclear program. [8]May 19, 1979: Letter from Begin (Israeli PM) forwarding a memorandum to Thatcher on activities of the Pakistani government to build a nuclear weapon.[9]Jun 06, 1979: U.S. State Department cable states that the Carter administration has “reached a dead end” in its efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in South Asia. The State Department is wary of taking too strong an approach to Pakistan’s nuclear endeavors, given the security ties between the two countries and concerns about Pakistan’s stability.[10]Jan 31, 1980: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 had an immediate impact on U.S. policy toward Pakistan and U.S. aid to the anti-Soviet resistance through Islamabad. With these considerations, the U.S. chose to “set [the nuclear issue] aside for the time being.”[11]Aug 20, 1981: In response to an IAEA report that Pakistan diverted plutonium from the Karachi nuclear power plant, a CIA analysis suggests that the Pakistanis “were not overly concerned” about these events. Of greater concern to regional security and stability was the discussions of the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers as part of a U.S. aid package to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the covert efforts against Soviet troops in Afghanistan.[12]Oct 25, 1982: In a follow-up message after his trip to Islamabad, Ambassador General Vernon Walters noted that at the end of the conversation with Zia the Pakistani President had given his “word of honor” that Pakistan “will not develop a nuclear device or a weapon.”[13]Dec 07, 1985: A State Department telegram discussing the possible Chinese-Pakistani nuclear assistance and reports that Pakistan had acquired a nuclear weapon in October of 1985.[14]Nov 21, 1987: Secretary Shultz had recommended that Washington “now certify” that Pakistan “does not possess a nuclear device” (as required by the Pressler amendment).[15]Dec 17, 1987: Reagan informed Congress that he had “concluded that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device.”[16]Jan 05, 1988: Recognizing the facts brought out by the Pervez conviction, in January 1988 the Reagan White House invoked and then waived the Solarz amendment.[17]Jul 21, 1988: Short report on a visit to Moscow by Indian President Venkataraman. He asked for more military support from the Soviet Union to counterbalance Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. There were disagreements about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[18]In a nutshell, USA has deliberately and in complete knowledge of Pakistan’s intentions helped it acquire Nuclear Weapons through China and saved it from any sanctions due to Non Proliferation Treaty for using it for fighting the soviets in Afghanistan. India lost out till 1999 Kargil War. Trump plans to repeat what Reagan did.Post Script: For those who wish to read more about US duplicity after 1998 Nuclear Weapons Tests by Pakistan here is a detailed account.“Post-1998American sanctions failed to prevent Pakistan from building its nuclear programme, the glaring proof of which was the successful execution of multiple nuclear tests by Pakistan in May 1998. The logical progression for American policy should have been a tougher sanctions regime on Pakistan. On the contrary, one month after military coup-related sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in 1999, initially banning the sale of US military equipment and economic aid, the US President exercised waiver authority by invoking the Brownback Amendment, permitting the US Department of Agriculture to continue sale of agricultural commodities to Pakistan.”[88]He also allowed US banks to continue to provide loans to Pakistan. Furthermore, under the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, financial assistance to Pakistan to fund basic education programmes was also permitted.[89]”[19]Read more evidence since 1947 about this duplicitous love of US for Pakistan at US sanctions on Pakistan and their failure as strategic deterrent | ORFFootnotes[1] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/[2] Pakistani Nuclear Program[3] Pakistani Nuclear Program[4] Wilson Center Digital Archive[5] Wilson Center Digital Archive[6] Wilson Center Digital Archive[7] Wilson Center Digital Archive[8] Wilson Center Digital Archive[9] Wilson Center Digital Archive[10] Wilson Center Digital Archive[11] Wilson Center Digital Archive[12] Wilson Center Digital Archive[13] Wilson Center Digital Archive[14] Wilson Center Digital Archive[15] Wilson Center Digital Archive[16] Wilson Center Digital Archive[17] Wilson Center Digital Archive[18] Wilson Center Digital Archive[19] US sanctions on Pakistan and their failure as strategic deterrent | ORF

A Govt. employee is not allowed to engage in any business as per law, therefore ownership as a promoter/director of a Private Limited Company is also not allowed. However, they can run it in a trustable person's ownership. Like father, mother or wife and if they can have time from job they can operate it.A public servant cannot engage in part-time job or any other business. It is a clear provision in Conduct Rules. There are few exceptions eg certain State Government doctors can practice outside office hours with permission from department, provided s/he is not drawing non-practicing allowance.Rule 15(1)(d) of CCS (C)Read the following text for reference:The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964RULE 15. PRIVATE TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT:Government of India Decisions(1) Joining of Educational Institutions by Government servants outside normal office hours.It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry on behalf of Government servants belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, that certain Ministries/Departments do not permit members of their staff belonging to these communities to join educational institutions outside the normal office hours.2. As the Ministries are aware, it was proposed in this Ministry’s OM No. 25/27/52-Est., dated the 3rd May, 1952 (not reproduced) to issue general instruction on the subject. The replies received to that OM however revealed that while some Departments found that efficiency was suffering on account of Government servants attending a regular course of study for University Degree even outside office hours, a great majority of the Ministries was able to permit their employees to pursue such studies without detriment to official duties and that no serious problems had been created in most of the Departments by Government servants joining educational institutions. It was, therefore, not considered necessary to issue any specific instructions on the subject. Ordinarily there can be no objection to the pursuit of knowledge by Government servants in their leisure hours. But this must be subject to the condition that such pursuit does in no way detract from their efficiency. Wherever found necessary, the administrative authorities may require that Government servants under their control should take prior permission before joining educational institutions or courses of studies for University Degrees as the joining of educational institutions involves advance commitment about attendance at specific hours and absence from duty during periods of examinations. Ordinarily, permission is to be granted but with a view to summarily dealing with cases where it is noticed that the Government servant has been neglecting his duties for the sake of his studies, a condition may be attached saying that the permission may be withdrawn at any moment without assigning any reason. This will, of course, be without prejudice to any other departmental action being taken where mere withdrawal of the permission is not considered adequate.3. Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes may be allowed to take full advantage of the educational facilities subject to the policy stated above.4. These instructions have been issued with the concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General in so far as persons serving under him are concerned.[MHA OM No. 130/54-Ests.(A), dated 26.02.1955.](1A) Period of tenure of the official should be taken into account while granting permissionIt is clarified for information, and compliance by the Ministry of Finance, etc., that while taking into account the various administrative considerations in deciding upon a request for permission to attend courses of study outside office hours, the period of tenure of the Government servant concerned should also be taken into account so that in the ordinary course, occasions do not arise to ask for extension of tenure to cover the period of the course attended by him which may continue beyond the expiry of the tenure. Should a case of permission to a tenure officer to join an educational course the completion of which would require the extension of tenure of the officer concerned come up for consideration, this Department may please be consulted before the permission is granted.[MHA OM No. 11013/4/77-Ests.(A), dated the 21st May, 1977](2) Participation in Shramdan activities organized by Government departments or the Bharat Sewak SamajA question was raised recently whether central Government servants can be permitted to participate in a “Shramdan” drive organized by a State Government with the object of enabling the participants to devote some time and labour in furthering of the objects and work of public utility. Participation of a Government servant in such activity in his spare time is not only unobjectionable but even welcome subject; of course, to the consideration that such activity does not interfere with the performance of his official duties. It is, in fact, considered desirable that Government servants should be encouraged to participate in such activities so long as official duties of the employees concerned are not unduly interfered with.The Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to inform the Departments and offices under them accordingly. It should however, be made clear that these instructions apply only to activities organized by Government departments or the Bharat Sevak Samaj and not by private organizations.[MHA OM No. 25/8/55-Ests. (A), dated 03.05.1955](3) Permission to participate in the AIR programmes and to receive honorarium thereforA reference is invited to this Ministry’s Office memorandum No. 25/05/47-Est., dated the 16th June, 1947, on the subject mentioned above (not reproduced). With the issue of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 Government servants are now not required to obtain any sanction to broadcast on All India Radio if such broadcasts are purely literary, artistic or scientific character. In such cases the onus of ensuring that the broadcasts are of such a character rests on the Government servant concerned.2. A Question has, however, arisen whether the permission of competent authority is now necessary for the purpose of acceptance of honorarium under F.R. 46(b) by a Government servant in such cases. The matter has been considered by this Ministry in consultation with the Ministries of Finance and Information and Broadcasting and it has been decided that in cases in which no sanction is required for such broadcasts, no permission is necessary for Government servants to receive the honorarium.3. In cases where sanction to broadcast is necessary, such sanction, if given, should be taken to carry with it also the sanction to receive the honorarium.4. These orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General and are applicable to employees of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department also.[MHA OM No. 25/32/56-Ests.(A), dated 15.01.1957](4) Acceptance of part-time employment Examinership of examination papers set by recognized Universities.It is felt that the offers of Examinership are generally of a casual nature, occurring once or twice a year for a few days when the answer books etc. may have to be evaluated. There may, therefore, be no serious objection to giving permission in such cases.[MHA OM No. 25/5/56-Ests.(A), dated 06.09.1957 to the Ministry of Defence](5) Part-time lectureship amounts to regular remunerative occupation attracting need for sanction under supplementary Rule 11.A question has been raised whether a Government servant who is permitted under SR11 Supplementary to undertake a part-time job of a lecturer in an educational institution should also obtain sanction of the Government in terms of Rule 12 of the Central Civil (Conduct) Rules, 1955, (now Rule 15) before accepting the assignment.2. It has been decided in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Ministry of Home Affairs that the powers delegated under S.R. 11 should only be exercised in cases where a Government servant undertakes to perform some work of a causal or occasional nature but where the work done is of the nature of a regular remunerative occupation, Conduct Rule 12 (now Rule 15) will be attracted and the sanction of Government will be necessary. Accordingly, the acceptance of a part-time lectureship in the case referred to is to be regarded as regular remunerative occupation which requires the sanction of Government under Conduct Rule 12 [now Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964].[Min. of Finance OM No. F.10(94)-E-II(B)/58, dated 13.09.1958](6) Acceptance of part-time employment of Government servants after office hours ordinarily not to be allowed.Instances have come to notice in which Government servants have been allowed to accept regular part-time employment in other Government, quasi-Government or private institutions. Such employment, even though it is outside office hours, is contrary to the principle embodied in rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (now Rule 15), prohibiting engagement in any trade or undertaking of any employment by a Government servant other than his public duties. It may result in some deterioration in his efficiency because if he does part-time work in addition to his full working hours in his office, he may not get sufficient time for rest and recreation and will, therefore, be unable to give undivided attention to his work even during office hours. Moreover, such part-time work by Government servants leads generally to depriving unemployed people of work which they would otherwise have got.2. Having regard to all these consideration, it has been decided that while the competent authority may permit a Government servant under S.R. 11 to undertake work of a casual or occasional character, a whole time Government servant should not ordinarily be allowed to accept any part-time employment whether under Government or elsewhere, even though such employment may be after office hours. In rare cases where it is proposed to give permission to a Government servant to accept part-time employment, prior sanction of Government should be obtained. In this connection a reference is also invited to the Ministry of Finance, Office memorandum No. F.10(94)-E-II(B)/58 dated 13th September, 1958 on the subject (Decision No. 6).3. In so far as the personnel serving in the Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General.[MHA OM No. 25/42/58-Ests.(A), dated 16.10.1958](7) Enforcement of the restriction against canvassing by Government servants of the business of Life Insurance Agency, Commission Agency owned or managed by members of his family.Sub-rule (1) of rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 (Now rule 15), inter alia lays down that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment. It has been further emphasized in the ‘explanation’ thereunder that canvassing by a Government servant in support of the business of insurance agency, commission agency, etc., owned and managed by his wife or any other member of his family shall be deemed to be a breach of this sub-rule.2. In spite of specific provisions in this rule, during the past two years quite a number of cases have been reported to the Special Police Establishment in which Government servants have been found carrying on life insurance business on their own or in the names of their wives or dependent, etc.3. It appears that the Government servants have either not realized the full importance of the above rule or are willfully ignoring it. This rule should, therefore, be brought to the notice of all Government servants under the Ministry of WHS etc., and the importance of observing the rule impressed on them.[MHA DO No. 24/10/61-AVD, dated 01.01.1962](8) Joining Civil Defence Service permissibleEnquiries have been made whether Government servants employed in the offices or establishments under the Central Government in Delhi and elsewhere could be allowed to join as volunteer in the Civil Defence Service. These volunteers have to play an important and useful role in the lives of the citizens. The Ministries are, therefore, requested to permit Government servants working under them to join this service and also to provide them necessary facilities for this purpose. Such of the Government servants as are holding key posts and who cannot be released during an emergency need not be permitted to join the Service.As far as possible, it is envisaged that the normal period of training will be outside office hours. However, if in an emergency, a Government Servant, who is enrolled as a member of the Civil Defence is required under the C.D. Service Rules, 1962 to perform any duties and functions during office hours, the period of absence shall be treated as special casual leave. The Government servants concerned may also be permitted to receive in addition to their civil pay, such allowances as may be prescribed for them under the Civil Defence Service Rules, 1962.These orders are not applicable to Government servants desiring to join Civil Defence Organisation on a whole time paid basis. Such Government Servants would be sent on deputation basis if they are permanent, and other individual cases should be examined on merits.As regards employees of Semi-Government organisation and Public Undertakings, the Ministry of Finance etc., are requested if there is no objection to take action on the above lines in respect of the undertakings under their control.[MHA OM No. 47/7/63-Ests.(A) dated 23.05.1963](9) Medical practice during spare time – Permission to be given to only those holding recognized qualificationsThe Government of India have had under consideration the question of permission to Central Government servants to practice medicine on a purely charitable basis during their spare time. Since such practice of medicine by unqualified and untrained persons will be harmful to the community, it has been decided that permission to central Government servants to undertake practice in any system of medicine should not be granted unless they hold recognized qualifications. Only persons holding recognized qualifications in any system of medicine and registered under the relevant law in force in the State or Union Territory concerned should be allowed to undertake medical practice. Head of departments may grant the required permission, provided the practice is undertaken during spare time, on a purely charitable basis, without detriment to the official duties of the Government servant concerned.2. Past cases, if any, in which permission has been granted to Government servants to undertake medical practice during their spare time may be reviewed in the light of the above decision.3. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.[MHA OM No. 25/4/64-Ests.(A), dated 29.02.1964](10) Commercial employment – negotiations for, while in serviceInstances have come to notice where Government servants enter into negotiations with private firms to secure commercial employment even while they are in service under Government. A Government servant is under an obligation to devote his energies whole-heartedly to the performance of his duties and not to divide his attention and efforts in search of employment elsewhere. It is, moreover, likely that in initiating such negotiations, the Government servant may in some measure utilise his official position or the official position of his friends and colleagues to further his interest in securing commercial employment or at any rate give reason for an impression that he might have done so. It has, therefore, been decided that no Government servant should negotiate for commercial employment without obtaining the prior permission of the Head of Department, or, if he is a Government servant serving in a Ministry of Department of the Government of India or a class I (Group A) Officer serving in an office under its control, of the Ministry or Department administratively concerned. It has been further decided that such permission should not be given unless there are any special reasons for doing so.[MHA OM No. 29/3/66/Ests.(A), dated 08.02.1966](11) Incentive to Central Government servants who are members of St. John Ambulance BrigadeUnder the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. F.25/21/49-Ests dated 31st May, 1949 (not reproduced), Central Government servants may in suitable cases be permitted by the Head of Office etc., concerned to enroll themselves as members of St. John Ambulance Brigade and to receive the necessary training subject to the condition that the grant of permission in such cases would not interfere with the efficient discharge of their official duties by the Government servants concerned. In regard to the treatment of the absence of the Government servant from duty while receiving training, it was declared that in cases where Government servants who may be permitted to join the Brigade and required to undergo the necessary training, etc., during office hours there will be no objection to the period of training etc. being treated as casual leave to the extent such leave is due and to the extent such leave is not due, as special casual leave. The question what should be allowed to the Government servants who are the members of the Brigade and who are detailed for duty by the Brigade on the first-aid posts organized by them in Fairs and on important occasions, has been receiving attention of the Government of India for some time. It has now been decided that special casual leave not exceeding three (3) days per annum may be allowed to Government servants who are members of the Brigade to cover their absence on any special duties that may assigned to them by the Brigade provided that –(i) such duties are performed during office hours on working days; and(ii) if the duties so performed extend only to half a day only half day’s special casual leave should be allowed.[CS (Deptt. of Personnel) OM No. F.27/5/70-Ests.(B), dated 12.01.1971](12) Sub-letting of Government accommodation by Government servants – Departmental action against.Where Government servants are found guilty of letting out the accommodation allotted to them by Directorate of Estates, action is taken against them under the provisions of Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. The question whether any departmental disciplinary action may be taken against such employees, apart from the action taken against them under the Allotment Rules, has been considered carefully. It has been decided that in all cases where a Government servant has been found guilty of letting out the Government residential accommodation allotted to him/her, the Directorate of Estates will intimate to the administrative authority concerned the details of the case and action taken against the employees under the Allotment Rules and the concerned disciplinary authority after considering the facts of the case may take suitable departmental disciplinary action under the disciplinary rules for imposition of a suitable penalty on grounds of unbecoming conduct of the Government employees involving violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or any other similar rule governing them. Similarly, disciplinary action may be taken in those cases also where the accommodation in question is controlled by an authority other than the Directorate of Estates.[DOPT OM No. 11013/14/85-Estt.(A), dated 06.03.1986](13) Canvassing in support of business owned or managed by members of familyUnder Rule 15 (1) (d) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, canvass in support of any business of insurance agency, Commission etc. owned or managed by any member of his family. Sub-rule (3), ibid, further provides that every Government servant shall report to the Government if any member of his family is engaged in a trade or business or owns or manages an insurance agency or commission agency.2. The business of advertising agencies carried on by a member of the family of a Government servant besides other similar services, is thus covered under the aforesaid rules. A Government servant shall not, except with the previous sanction of the Government, canvass in support of any such business.[DOPT OM No. 11013/1/89-Estt.(A), dated 11.03.1989](14) Participation of Government servants in competitions/events organized by Private Companies etc. with the objective of promoting their products.Instances have come to notice where Government servants participated in competitions and other social events organized by some private companies and organizations with the objective of promoting their business interests. Attention in this regard is invited to the provisions of Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which provides, inter alia, that while a Government servant may undertake honorary work of a social or charitable nature or take part in sports activities as an amateur, he should not, except with the previous sanction of the Government, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or take part in the registration, promotion or management of any company or co-operative society etc. for commercial purposes.2. The social events and competitions promoted by various private companies can be put into different categories;(i) where the social events are organized purely with an intention to promote the business interests of the company and the competitiveness amongst the participants is not relevant;(ii) where the competition by way of games and sports are sponsored by private companies and the spirit of the competitiveness amongst the participants is very much evident.The nature of events referred to in item (i) above are quite distinct from those referred to in item (ii) as in the latter case, it is the competition or the event which remains in the forefront and not the sponsors and as such the involvement of the private companies as sponsors cannot be taken as solely for the purpose of promotion of their business interests.3. The Government servants are advised not to take part in any competition or social event referred to in item (i) of para 2 organised by private companies or organizations, the primary objective of which is only to promote their business activities or their products, without the prior sanction of the Government. Such a participation without the previous sanction is liable to be construed as a violation of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Conduct Rules. However, the participation in the events referred to in item (ii) of the preceding para does not require any previous sanction of the Government.[DOPT OM No. 11013/2/89-Estt.(A), dated 28.03.1989](15) Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Clarification regardingThe Staff Side in the National Council (JCM) has pointed out that officials in some of the Departments are being prohibited from holding elective offices in Government cooperative societies and in that context has urged for suitable amendment to Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Official Side, while holding that no amendment of the rule is necessary has however, agreed to issue clarificatory instructions in the matter.2. Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules provides for previous sanction of the Government being taken by a Government servant for holding an elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not. Rule 15 (2) (d) provides that a Government servant may, without previous sanction of the Government take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of elective office) of a literary, scientific or charitable society or of a club or similar organization, the aims or objects of which relate to promotion of sports, cultural or recreation activities, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 or any law for the time being in force. Thus, there is no bar, as such, on a Government servant holding an elective office and the rules only provide for previous sanction of the Government being taken for this purpose. Holding an elective office in a body or society covered under Rule 15 (1) (c) and 15 (2) (d) would generally involve exercise of some administrative responsibilities in that organization. Subject to the administrative authority satisfying itself that this will not interfere in any manner with the discharge of official duties by the Government servant concerned, the question of permitting Government servants to hold elective office can be considered.3. The position under the rules, as clarified in the preceding para, may be kept in view by the Ministries/Departments while considering the requests of Government servants for permission to seek/hold elective office in a body or society covered under Rule 15 (1) (c) and 15 (2) (d) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.[DOPT OM No. 35014/6/92-Estt.(A), dated 10.06.1993](16) Rule 15-Contesting in elections to sports bodies etc.As the Ministries/Departments are aware, previous sanction of the Government in required as per Rule 15 (1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for a Government servant to hold an elective office or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any body whether incorporated or not. Under Rule 12 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, previous sanction of the Government or of the prescribed authority is also necessary for a Government servant associating himself with raising of any funds or other collections in pursuance of any object whatsoever. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the entire time of the Government servant, particularly a senior officer, should be available to the Government and no activities unconnected with his official duties should be allowed to interfere with the efficient discharge of such duties. The need for curbing the tendency on the part of a Government servant to seek elective office in sports federations/associations at the national/state level has been considered carefully and it has been decided that the following principles should be followed while considering requests from Government servants for seeking election to or holding elective offices in sports federations/associations:-(i) No Government servant should be allowed to hold elective office in any sports association/federation for a term of more than 4 years, or for one term whichever is less.(ii) While seeking office (for which prior permission of Government should be obtained) or supporting the candidature of any person for election to sports bodies, a Government servant should not indulge in conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.(iii) A Government servant must refrain from raising of funds or other collections from official as well as non-official sources for the promotion of sports at any level.(iv) Prior clearance from the Government of India must be obtained for any travels abroad in connection with the work or other activities of any sports federation/association. While seeking such clearance, the officer must indicate the source of funding for the foreign trip including travel, hospitality and other expenses and when permitted to go, he must do so by availing of leave due and admissible to him.[DOPT OM No. 11013/9/93-Estt.(A), dated 22.04.1994](17) Subletting of Government accommodation – Departmental action againstThe Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order passed on 29.11.1996 in Writ Petition No. 585/94 (S.S.Tiwari Vs. UOI & Others) had directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Government servants who sublet their accommodation allotted to them by the Government. It was also directed that the findings of the Directorate of Estates regarding subletting shall be binding on the disciplinary authority for the purpose of initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The relevant extract from the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced below:“Rule 15-A has been inserted under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by the Notification dated August 16, 1996 as published in the Government Gazette dated August 31, 1996. The said rule is as under:-15-A. Sub-letting and vacation of Government accommodation.(1) Save as otherwise provided in any other law for the time being in force, no Government servant shall sub-let, lease or otherwise allow occupation by any other person of the Government accommodation which has been allotted to him.(2) A Government servant shall, after the cancellation of his allotment of Government accommodation vacate the same within the time-limit prescribed by the allotting authority.It is thus obvious that a Government servant who sub-lets the Government accommodation or otherwise allows occupation by any other person of the said accommodation, that would per se amount to misconduct. Even otherwise, keeping in view the shortage of Government accommodation and thousands of Government employees on wait list for years together (even today, according to Mr. Harcharanjit Singh, the wait list in certain types of houses is 20 years), the sub-letting of the Government accommodation by the Government servant for pecuniary gain is a grave misconduct. It is, therefore, obligatory for the disciplinary authority of the department concerned to initiate disciplinary proceedings against concerned Government servant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. As soon as the allotment is cancelled by the Directorate of Estate on the ground of sub-letting, the disciplinary authority of the Department concern shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant concerned. The findings of the Directorate of Estates regarding sub-letting shall be binding on the disciplinary authority for the purpose of initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Once the disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the procedure laid down under the CCS (CCA) Rules shall take its own course. Since the disciplinary proceedings in such cases would be initiated on a charge of grave misconduct, the competent authority may consider placing the delinquent Government servant under suspension.”2. All Ministries/Departments/Offices etc. are requested to bring the above ruling of the Supreme Court to the notice of all concerned under their control and to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the Government servants in whose cases subletting of allotted Government residential accommodation has been established by the Directorate of Estates. It may be ensured that charge sheets are issued immediately in cases where persons are likely to retire shortly or those cases which are likely to become time-barred by virtue of the misconduct being more than four years old.[DOPT OM No. 11012/2/97-Estt.(A), dated 31.12.1997](18) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Provisions of rule 15 regarding the holding of elective office by Government servants in Co-operative Societies etc.As a number of references are being received in this Department regarding the need for obtaining permission by Government servants to hold elective offices in Co-operative Societies and other bodies, the necessity to reiterate the relevant provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 has been felt. Rule 15(1) (c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 provides that no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government hold an elective office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any body, whether incorporated or not. Under Rule 15 (2)(d), a Government servant may, without the previous sanction of the Government, take part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of an elective office) of a literary, scientific or charitable society or of a club or similar organization, the aims or objects of which relate to promotion of sports, cultural or recreational activities, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force. Rule 15 (2)(e) provides that no previous permission is required for taking part in the registration, promotion or management (not involving the holding of elective office) of a co-operative society substantially for the benefit of Government servants, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or any other law for the time being in force.2. It needs to be stressed that the entire time of the Government servant should be available to the Government and that no activities unconnected with his or her official duties should be allowed to interfere with the efficient discharge of such duties.All Ministries are requested to ensure that the participation of Government servants in the activities of cooperative societies conform to the above provisions and does not interfere with the discharge of their official duties.3. The relevant Acts and bye-laws of the Co-operative Societies contain necessary provisions regarding eligibility of candidates to contest election including restrictions on tenure/number of terms.4. The request from Government servants for permission to participate in the activities of Co-operative Societies and other bodies may also be examined keeping in view the provisions of the relevant Act and bye`-laws governing the activities of such societies apart from the aforesaid provisions of rule 15(1) & (2) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.[DOP&T O.M. No. 11013/4/2007-Estt.(A) dated 13th November, 2007]Source: Referencer | Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964 | GOI_Decisions_15

INDIA – USBilateral RelationshipThe frequency of high-level visits and exchanges between India and the U.S. has gone upsignificantly of late.External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to USA (September 2015)• The visit was part of the UNGA meet.• She also participated in the meetings with the Foreign Ministers of the G4, IBSA,BRICS, Commonwealth and SAARC.• She met with her US counterpart. It signaled the first political level engagementbetween the Obama administration and the Modi government, and was significantgiven the strain in India-U.S. ties in the past few months.PM Modi’s visit to US (September 2014)• He held meetings with President Obama, members of the U.S. Congress and politicalleaders, including from various States and cities in the U.S., and interacted withmembers of President Obama's Cabinet.• He also reached out to the captains of the U.S. commerce and industry, the Americancivil society and think-tanks, and the Indian American community.• The two countries reached an agreement on a MoU between the Export-Import Bankand an energy agency, which provides up to $1 billion to help India develop low-carbonenergy alternatives and aid US renewable energy exports to India.US SoS John Kerry’s visit to India (January 2015)• His visit was aimed at laying the groundwork for Obama’s India visit.• He also attended the Vibrant Gujarat Summit among other major dignitaries.US President Obama’s visit to India (January 2015)• He was the Chief Guest at India's Republic Day, the first US President to have been so.• During the visit, the two sides issued a Delhi Declaration of Friendship and adopted aJoint Strategic Vision for Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region. This specificallyaddressed maritime territorial disputes involving China and, among other things,affirmed the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom ofnavigation and freedom of the air throughout the region, especially in the South ChinaSea.• Both sides elevated the Strategic Dialogue between their Foreign Ministers to Strategicand Commercial Dialogue of Foreign and Commerce Ministers.• The two leaders also announced a breakthrough on nuclear-related issues that couldhelp implement the US-India civil nuclear deal.• US President Obama also heralded the relationship between the two largestdemocracies saying that “America can be India’s best partner.”• The announcement of four "pathfinder” projects under the DTTI rubric involvingrelatively minor technologies was made.US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter’s visit to India (June 2015)• He and Manohar Parrikar signed the documents to renew the ten-year US India DefenceFramework Agreement.PM Modi’s visit to US (September 2015)• He held a bilateral meeting with President Obama, interacted with leaders of business,media, academia, the provincial leaders and the Indian community, including duringhis travel to the Silicon Valley.• During the visit, the top executives of tech giants pledged support for Digital Indiainitiative.• PM Modi also declared that India, US have responsibility to shape Asia Pacific’s future,and that the dynamic Asia Pacific region will shape the course of this century.• The two countries also call for reform to the UNSC.External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to USA (September 2015)• She attended the UNGA meet.• On the sidelines, she also attended the inaugural US-India-Japan trilateral ministerialdialogue. Together, these three countries represent a quarter of the world's populationand economic production power. Some of the issues that were discussed weremaritime security, freedom of navigation and overflight.• The inaugural US-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue also took place.PM Modi’s visit to USA (March-April 2016)• The visit was for the purpose of attending the Nuclear Security Summit.• In the summit, PM Modi announced several key initiatives taken by his government inthe area of nuclear security and non-proliferation, including countering nuclearsmuggling and deployment of technology to deter nuclear terrorism.• He announced India’s support to IAEA’s central role in nuclear security by a furthercontribution of USD1 million to the nuclear security fund.• Finally, it was also announced that India will host a meeting of Global Initiative toCombat Nuclear Terrorism in 2017.• Modi also sought the NSG membership for India.PM Modi’s visit to USA (June 2016)• This visit was termed as a “consolidation” by the Foreign Secretary of India.• The joint statement issued during the visit, spoke of the two countries pledging to“provide global leadership on issues of shared interest”.• At the U.S-India Business Council, PM stressed on the “reform to transform” message,to do away with the apprehensions about the pace of reform of the Indian economyand the lack of ease of doing business. His message to his American audience also wasthat developed countries must open their economies not only to goods but alsoservices from developing economies like India.• One of the major announcement was that the U.S. recognised India as a “majordefence partner”.• PM Modi also proceeded to observe that “India had moved beyond the hesitations ofhistory” suggesting that India has firmly put its Cold War compacts behind it.According to M.K. NARAYANAN, the two largest democracies in the world thusappeared finally to be on the same page.• The PM also addressed the two houses of the US Congress upon invitation by theSpeaker. It was not only an opportunity to engage with a political body that has beensupportive of India’s strategic aspirations, but also to ensure continued bipartisanconsensus on India when a new administration takes office.Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s visit to US (August 2016)• This resulted in the signing of the Logistics Exchange Memorandum Agreement (LEMOA)that will give the militaries of both countries access to each other’s facilities forsupplies and repairs.• The US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter welcomed India’s membership of theMissile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and reaffirmed the U.S. support for India’smembership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).• They also discussed cooperation on capabilities to augment India’s capacity formaritime domain awareness• He also said that the designation of major defence partner allows defence trade andtechnology-sharing of a higher grade. The designation also supported the two"important handshakes" between the two nations, he noted.o The first handshake is strategic, as the U.S. rebalances to the Asia-Pacific, andIndia extends its reach towards east, in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.o The second handshake, is technological and is demonstrated in the DefenceTechnology and Trade Initiative.According to him, these two handshakes have brought our two militaries closertogether.2 nd Indo-US Strategic and Commercial Dialogue (September 2016)• The Dialogue was elevated into a Strategic and Commercial Dialogue (S&CD) during thevisit of US President Barack Obama to India in January 2015.• The first S&CD was held on September 22, 2015 in the US.• The two-way trade between the countries stood at about USD 109 billion last yearDEFENCE COOPERATIONDefence ties have been a pillar of the two countries’ burgeoning relationship, and have beenconsolidated in three ways:1. Defence procurement from the U.S. as well as co-development projects, which areworth over $14 billion;2. In coordination, cooperation and sharing of information between the two defenceforces; and3. Increasingly, on the idea of working together on operations on piracy, peacekeepingand patrolling.It was in 2005 that India and the U.S. signed their first Defence Cooperation Agreement. Thisagreement was renewed and expanded in 2010 and 2015, leading to a loosening of strictcontrols that existed regarding the transfer of excluded categories of technologies.This engagement is growing in complexity and sophistication. Issues of co-development andco-production of military equipment have also gathered some momentum, but have seen onlymodest progress over the past two years.But now, the recognition of India as a Major Defence Partner (or, a “major partner of equalstatus”) of the U.S., a designation specially created to describe this new relationship and onethat is just short of a military alliance, becomes a clarion call for deeper and moresubstantive defence ties, especially given the understanding that India will receive license-free access to a wide range of dual-use technologies for defence production. This signals aneven more dynamic phase in defence cooperation and indicates the long road covered intaking defence ties forward in the last few years. The tying in of the co-production and co-development of technologies covering naval, air and weapons systems under the DefenceTechnology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) with the Make in India mission is another positivedevelopment.LEMOAAround 2007-2008, the U.S. made initial moves to get India to sign three foundationalagreements viz., the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA); the Communications Interoperabilityand Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA); and the Basic Exchange and CooperationAgreement (BECA) for Geo-spatial Cooperation. While India welcomed the idea of relaxationof technology norms, it resisted signing the foundational agreements on the ground that itundermined India’s strategic autonomy.What is the agreement and what are its implications?The Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement is the agreement that the U.S. hasassiduously pursued since 2002 and which India had, till now, resolutely refused to endorse.The Defense Ministers from both the nations have consequently gone to great lengths toexplain that LEMOA does not amount to a military pact.According to ASHOK K. MEHTA, it is much more than just an agreement, it is a strategicbinding between India and US.LEMOA only facilitates establishing “mutual basing facilities”. This would be on a case-by-casebasis, intended to help speed up humanitarian relief operations as also emergency evacuationfrom conflict-prone regions. In certain circumstances, it could also help smoothen operationallogistics between the navies of the two countries. It does not mention setting up of“permanent bases” in either country.Since India does more joint exercises with US more than any other country, this agreementwill also help in reducing the paper-works for even the smallest such exercises.It enables the Indian navy and air force specially, should the need arise, to tap into thelogistic train of the US wherever it is available, and vice versa. Some scholars believe thatsince US is such an overwhelming militarily superior power, that it is currently in India’sadvantage as it increases its sustainability. But there is also a geopolitical subtext. How Indiauses it is a political decision but now there is an enabling framework.In this direction, the creation of the India Rapid Reaction Cell in the Pentagon, the firstcountry-specific cell of its kind, for simplifying defense collaboration, is another small butsignificant step toward overcoming bureaucratic bottlenecks.However, strategic experts, especially those in the West, are of the view that the LEMOA is acritical link in the U.S.’s plans for a larger pivot towards Asia. Also, that it is intended to meetthe threat from an increasingly assertive China.Moreover, M.K. NARAYANAN believes that with LEMOA in place, it is almost certain thatpressures would intensify to sign the other two foundational agreements — CISMOA and BECA,and if India were to sign them, it could convey an impression that India had gone frombecoming a “major defence partner” to a significant “non-NATO ally”.STRATEGIC RELATIONS-Views of KANWAL SIBBAL:India-U.S. ties have been transformed in recent years, best exemplified with the newlydeclared global strategic partnership between the two countries.The India-U.S. relationship is being increasingly consolidated. However, like in any suchrelationship — especially between the world’s foremost political, military, economic andtechnological power and a large developing country advanced in certain sectors of theknowledge economy, but beset with serious problems of poverty as well as at unequal stagesof development internally — differences are normal.Much work lies ahead to make the India-U.S. relationship a "defining one” in the 21st century,but we are headed in the right direction.-Views of NIRUPAMA RAO:• What sets the current India-U.S. relationship apart is its political and economic heftand the growing geopolitical and security dimensions of the friendship.• India under Mr. Modi has moved beyond the hesitations of history, as the PrimeMinister put it, to a state of “comfort, candour and convergence” in its“extraordinary” partnership with the U.S.• Both India and the U.S. have consciously set aside the estrangements and alienation ofthe past, they are elaborating the concept of a regional and global commons definedby the values of democracy, good governance, the centrality of development, thecelebration of plurality and diversity, open and inclusive security structures thatensure the management of regional tensions, particularly in the maritime space. Thereferences to oceanic security (which is as they should be, considering particularly theorganic connectivity between the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea) are bound,no doubt, to be observed with a gimlet eye in Beijing, which has already vented itsdiscomfort with what we should all acknowledge is the welcome confidence andassertion with which India is engaging partners like the U.S., Japan, Australia, Vietnamand Singapore in the maritime sphere.• Moreover, the bonhomie that PM Modi and President Barack Obama exude has had asalutary impact on diplomatic ties.-Views of M. K. NARAYANAN:• India-U.S. relations are hardly a “zero-sum game”. Overcoming “the hesitations ofhistory” is one thing; not ignoring the lessons of history is equally, if not more,important.• The U.S. is a true practitioner of the art of “realpolitik”. Changes in policy areconstantly effected to suit its global requirements. In Europe, for example, today theU.S. seems to be preparing to jettison its long-standing “special relationship” with theU.K. In West Asia, as U.S.-Iran relations improve, Saudi Arabia is now the new villain onthe block.• The geopolitical situation across the region in South Asia is more confused today thanit was only a few years back. Geopolitical alignments are changing at a bewilderingpace. As India moves closer to the U.S., Russia is seen to be coming closer to China, interms of South China Sea and opposing US attempts to stall a missile defence system inAsia. Russia is also enhancing its partnership with ASEAN and currently carving out azone of influence for itself in Central Asia. India does not figure in any of these plans.When the strategic balance across the entire Asian region is undergoing a seismic shift,India cannot be seen to be playing a losing hand. The main players, today, are theU.S., Russia and China. The current effort of countries such as China and Russia is torestrict, if not exclude, U.S. influence from the region, labelling it as a non-Asianpower.• The U.S.’s role in the region is thus becoming restricted, leaving it with fewalternatives.• Hence, India’s leaders need to reflect whether this is the opportune moment for thecountry to reset its compass and move away from its long-term insistence on strategicautonomy. It is also hardly the time to be seen to be the ally of One Power, that tooone whose power seems to be waning. It might diminish India’s image in the regionand beyond.-Views of C RAJA MOHAN:All major actions in the world of foreign policy, as elsewhere, have consequences; someintended and other unintended. This would result in either a “do-nothing” strategy or thestrategy which ignores the consequences of what one does.Modi’s challenge, therefore, is two-fold: Move decisively to take full advantage of the ententewith America; at the same time, anticipate and manage some of the inevitable consequencesof the new strategic warmth towards Washington. If external possibilities saw India wring itshands in the past, Delhi must now broaden its diplomatic activism to reduce the potentialcosts and maximize benefits.US – RUSSIA Relations and Implications on INDIAWith the two countries repeatedly failing to reach a disagreement over the Syrian conflict,talk about a post-Cold War partnership between the world’s two greatest military powers isnow a thing of the past. It looks like a throwback to the Cold War days with Russia and theU.S. fighting a proxy war in Ukraine, leading two competing military operations in Syria andraising allegations and counter-allegations on a host of issues, ranging from human rightsviolations and breaking international norms to interfering in each other’s domestic politics.The real problem is that the Cold War-era mistrust between Washington and Moscow wasnever really buried.To be sure, Russia is a shadow of what the Soviet Union was at its peak. But in aninternational system largely dominated by the U.S., Russia, still an extremely consequentialmilitary power, remains the key player whose cooperation is necessary to resolve several oftoday’s crises.In this light, it is important to remember that the U.S. had always been suspicious of India’srelations with Russia, that go back to the period of non-alignment. And today, as U.S.-Russiarelations are at their nadir since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. can be expected to tryand further weaken India-Russia relations that are lately facing some strain. Furthermore,given Pakistan’s location, it would be a mistake to believe that the U.S. would completelydetach itself from Pakistan.Moreover, coincidence or not, Moscow and Beijing held high-level strategic exchanges withPakistan when India was about to sign the LEMOA. Moscow said the development ofconstructive relations with Pakistan is an important factor in ensuring regional stability andinternational security. It expressed appreciation for the sacrifices Pakistan has made in thefight against terrorism.India must, therefore, strive to ensure that the West does not treat Russia as a “rogue” nationor try to isolate and weaken it through sanctions and other means, as that could only becounterproductive. The Iran nuclear deal shows that even the most complex internationalissues could be resolved if Russia and the U.S. work together with creative diplomacy. Ideally,that should set the model for U.S.-Russia partnership.US – CHINA Relations and Implications on INDIAAccording to SRINATH RAGHAVAN, the argument that India needs such a relationship with theUS in order to deal with China is specious. Indeed, by echoing the US line on “freedom ofnavigation” in the South China Sea – starting with Mr. Modi’s visit to the US in September 2014– India has unnecessarily muddied the waters. As a response to this, China has taken unkindlyto our strategic embrace of the US in this way. Beijing’s behaviour on a range of issues fromNSG to Nepal is clearly an indication of the toughening Chinese stance towards India on thingsthat they would otherwise have let pass.As per MK BHADRAKUMAR, in the light of the recent trends in Indo-US relations, Beijing hasunderlined the “in-depth development of bilateral practical cooperation and soundcoordination and cooperation” between China and Pakistan in international and regionalaffairs and reiterated China’s willingness to “constantly enrich the connotation of China-Pakistan all-weather strategic and cooperative partnership”.TRADE AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSDespite the advances in political and defense ties, one area that has not seen expectedresults after Modi’s first two years is the India-U.S. economic relationship.There is a growing feeling among political and economic observers that bilateral economicrelationship has reached a plateau.• There has been no significant progress on negotiations of the Tantalization Agreement.• There is deathly silence on the Bilateral Investment Treaty – an area of priority forAmerican businesses, but a thorny one for the Indian government, especially ontaxation and investor state dispute settlement.• India also continues to remain on the US government’s intellectual property rightswatch list.• India’s quest for APEC membership remains in the realm of vision, and there has notbeen any progress on that front. And also with the TPP, India is being kept out of themost dynamic economies in the Asia-Pacific. In short, India’s emerging partnershipwith the US in the Asia-Pacific will stand on a weak economic leg.QUESTION MARK ON INDIA’S STRATEGIC AUTONOMYWith the increasing number of agreements being signed and high level visits, questions arebeing raised on India’s policy of non-alignment and strategic autonomy.-Views of SRINATH RAGHAVAN:New Delhi should ponder the limits of such a misshapen relationship with US. The engagementwith the US of every Indian government since 1991 has been premised on the idea ofleveraging these ties for the internal transformation of India. If the current state of bilateraland multilateral economic relations persists, we might end up in a position where Indiabolsters American strategic primacy with little to show in return.-Views of UDAY BHASKAR (Director, Society for Policy Studies):The non-aligned predication is no longer a postulate for India, especially since the Indo-USnuclear agreement.-Views of ARUN MOHAN SUKUMARThe new symphony in India-U.S. ties does not limit New Delhi’s engagement with other worldpowers or emerging economiesFor its declaratory intent alone, the joint statement signed during the visit of Prime MinisterNarendra Modi to Washington D.C. sets India’s foreign policy on new and untested waters. Theclaim that it “tilts” India towards the U.S., however, needs to be examined seriously.• Even though India made concessions in climate change, but China also made similarcommitments. Rather in return for India’s commitments, the U.S. agreed to pursuemembership in the International Solar Alliance (ISA), which is an Indian initiative.• Defence cooperation, as envisioned by the joint statement, is an area where the “tilt”seems pronounced. However, India’s designation by the U.S. as a ‘major defencepartner’ is not by itself likely to translate into any meaningful engagement.The India-U.S. joint statement clearly nudges New Delhi towards new climate, trade andcyber regimes, the economic and strategic implications of which Indian negotiators shouldassess. It does not, however, limit India’s engagement with the G77, China, or other emergingeconomies. In fact, New Delhi should work with like-minded countries to balance U.S.preferences in new regimes.While optics matter in strategic cooperation, the rhetoric of the joint statement on defenceissues is unlikely to turn heads in Moscow. China will view the pronouncement with concern,but if India-China ties have lost steam in recent months, it is on account of New Delhi’sfailure to engage consistently with the top leadership of the Communist Party.The test of strategic autonomy will be in the Modi government’s ability to carry its relationswith other crucial players, using the limited diplomatic resources at its disposal.-Views of M.K. BHADRAKUMAR (Former Ambassador to US)Needless to say, it is a most awkward juncture in international politics for India to wear on itssleeve and flaunt its growing alliance with the US, when both Russia and China are nearingtowards Pakistan. Pakistani foreign policy and diplomacy seems to be in sync with the spirit ofour times, whereas India appears to belong to a bygone era, transfixed on its ‘unipolarpredicament’.India’s move to align itself closely with the US is bucking the contemporary trend. There isnot a single case in recent times of a country outside the NATO system is wanting to align withthe US militarily.On the other hand, at a time when most countries are diversifying their external relations andintensely networking, India’s foreign policy is moving in the opposite direction. It isconsciously limiting its foreign-policy options.LEMOA was kind of a litmus test for the relations into getting India away from non-alignmentand de-couple from the obsession with strategic autonomy, and to identify with US strategicand regional policies in a more harmonious way. So with the signing of the agreement, fromthe US narrative, it believed that India has taken a leap of faith.Moreover, the LEMOA will get noted not only in Moscow and Beijing but also many regionalcapitals. It will not enhance India’s influence or prestige in its neighborhood. Rather, it hasthe possibility of creating a precedent for South Asian countries to have similar frameworkagreement involving China. And India cannot object to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or Maldivesgiving similar access to the Chinese Navy. In fact, it may also cause misgivings in the Iranianmind. Therefore, it is not in India’s interests to be identifying – albeit indirectly – with the US’interventionist policies in West Asia.All things considered, therefore, prudent thing would have been to stick to preserving India’sstrategic autonomy.