Italy didn't see it coming

[rubyjackass]

lets us not discuss about the posts and cadres here. but what I meant is, those who go for IFS are only representatives where as policy makers and all who does that are from administrative service.

as a whole yes you are right any one can become a diplomat but I was talking ministry wise

That is not correct. IAS people don't decide what IFS people do. The chain of command is: Cabinet decides something. Will instruct Foreign minister to do so and so and say information minister to say so and so etc. Foreign minister and foreign secretary decide the plan and briefs their diplomats on ground. The diplomats handle the situation.

 

[Screambowl]

That is not correct. IAS people don't decide what IFS people do. The chain of command is: Cabinet decides something. Will instruct Foreign minister to do so and so and say information minister to say so and so etc. Foreign minister and foreign secretary decide the plan and briefs their diplomats on ground. The diplomats handle the situation.

sir the foreign secretary reports to the cabinet secretary who is always from admins' service. policy making is not in the hands of foreign ministry

 

[IND151]

we handled this case with cool head and diplomacy

our diplomats deserve a credit

 

[rubyjackass]

sir the foreign secretary reports to the cabinet secretary who is always from admins' service. policy making is not in the hands of foreign ministry

I admit my ignorance here. Foreign Secretary does report to Cabinet Secretary. But what you say is not entirely correct. Granted that high profile issues like the Italian marines issue will be discussed explicitly in Cabinet, each department is independent in its affairs. Policy making is in the hands of the politicians(Ministers, Cabinet and PM) not bureaucrats.

 

[peep]

To be honest, the Supreme Court made a boo-boo letting the marines go back without sufficient guarantee. The sole guarantee was the guy who had diplomatic immunity. If you see the report on the hearing of Italian ambassador after the 'no return' announcement, our Chief Justice Altamas Kabir reportedly said with anger 'We don't think you have immunity'. Which means, in the worst case, if Italy was willing to sacrifice ties with India, and they managed to convince some International law body like ICJ that he did have immunity, then Supreme Court would have lost its face.

The only card India had was to cut ties with Italy and India used it very wisely, with perfect timing and escalation, I might say. We did not seriously strain our relations. There was enough threat when Indian ambassador did not take his position in Rome(and at the correct juncture). And Italy took the hint wisely.

Hence the point is Italy gave up only because they are afraid for our ties. Please don't bring politics here. India's MEA once again was at its best. Simple truth.

Supreme Court sought enough guarantees as it deemed fit like many other cases also.. As some other member had earlier pointed out, two chinese workers were allowed to go back for marriage or something on the guarantee of the company's senior manager after signing a bond. They were returned also in stipulated time.

The simple point is there is nothing above a person's word. The italian ambassadaor gave his word and SC considered him to be a representative of his state and gave permission.. The supreme Court is not at fault. It just that somebody in Italy thought of taking political mileage on an international issue.

 

[Screambowl]

I admit my ignorance here. Foreign Secretary does report to Cabinet Secretary. But what you say is not entirely correct. Granted that high profile issues like the Italian marines issue will be discussed explicitly in Cabinet, each department is independent in its affairs. Policy making is in the hands of the politicians(Ministers, Cabinet and PM) not bureaucrats.

policy is made by bureaucrats where as the approval is given by ministers after thorough discussions with all the counterparts. And taking advice from from other officials master of their fields. In this case it was judiciary who ordered the government and plan was made. IFS is only beneficial to find the friends abroad but they do not make policy. They are the liaison officers

 

[rubyjackass]

policy is made by bureaucrats where as the approval is given by ministers after thorough discussions with all the counterparts. And taking advice from from other officials master of their fields. In this case it was judiciary who ordered the government and plan was made. IFS is only beneficial to find the friends abroad but they do not make policy. They are the liaison officers

Fine. I correct myself. Policy making is done under the name of civilian ministers(politicians). However IFS is part of policy making. I don't know what makes you berate them so much . Some IFS officer did something bad to you?

In this case, Supreme Court only ordered the Government to place Italian ambassador on Exit Control List. The decision to rachet up the tensions and not send the ambassador was completely from the Government.

 

[Viper0011.]

The Indian military is sponsored by the Indian taxpayer. Nobody else.

The Indian 'tax payer' pays the taxes that were resulted from an American 'Tax Payer' losing its job that was outsources to India.....so indirectly, the Americans are sponsoring your military and other advancements. Go back to 1992 and tell me twenty years ago...how much tax was going to cause this growth by the Indian tax payer. It was the IT boom that caused it and resulted in millions non IT jobs getting eliminated and sent to India due to bribes, corruption, etc. I know the business deals that happen through offshore accounts and by taking execs to Bangalore. Let's leave it at that!!

 

[rubyjackass]

Supreme Court sought enough guarantees as it deemed fit like many other cases also.. As some other member had earlier pointed out, two chinese workers were allowed to go back for marriage or something on the guarantee of the company's senior manager after signing a bond. They were returned also in stipulated time.

The simple point is there is nothing above a person's word. The italian ambassadaor gave his word and SC considered him to be a representative of his state and gave permission.. The supreme Court is not at fault. It just that somebody in Italy thought of taking political mileage on an international issue.

But the problem is that the Italian ambassador might have had immunity before Indian courts. The judges who accepted his guarantee did not think about the question of immunity IMO. Given how so many people were wondering whether the immunity was there or not, it is obvious that the bench could not have thought this through in such a less time during the election-leave hearing. The ambassador's guarantee is not guarantee at all. I think this is an important moral to all other countries' judges.

 

[Screambowl]

Fine. I correct myself. Policy making is done under the name of civilian ministers(politicians). However IFS is part of policy making. I don't know what makes you berate them so much . Some IFS officer did something bad to you?

In this case, Supreme Court only ordered the Government to place Italian ambassador on Exit Control List. The decision to rachet up the tensions and not send the ambassador was completely from the Government.

hahahaha. I have seen IFS very very closely that's why

Yes after MMS ji conveyed that in Parliament that consequences will be severe, so you took away the marine, we will partially detain your ambassador to India as laws are for those who abide them. This could be the best decision to show eye. Now the policy makers will do their best for reviving the old relation. Though I think it was a stage drama.

 

[Viper0011.]

You speak like a non resident Pakistani .....but nicely put

Even though I don't like Pakistan a stable Pakistan is good for entire Asia. So good luck with that.

I can talk just as extensively and deeply about India that you'd think I was a Non Resident India. Let me know if I need to do a 'deeper dive' into Indian society related issues, from RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP to Satti and other issues

Second, the stable Pakistan means stability for India. Until both of you stop cross border terrorism, you'll keep the 1.5 billion people under significant danger of nuclear war. And trust me, all the new weapons and all.....don't make a big difference as you guys are RIGHT NEXT to each other. But do let me know if I need to sound like a non resident Indian here.

 

[Sergi]

I can talk just as extensively and deeply about India that you'd think I was a Non Resident India. Let me know if I need to do a 'deeper dive' into Indian society related issues, from RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP to Satti and other issues

nah I see that in PAK-Fa thread. You lose all your temper there . Trust me you don't know the real things but the impressions of what people want you to know. Anyways that's your opinion and I can't argue on that. Try being neutral and you will get it.
BTW Satti ??? I know 1 case in last 60 years.
Shiv Sena - ???
RSS - ok. Not an issue though.
And you are welcome to dive as deep as you want

Second, the stable Pakistan means stability for India. Until both of you stop cross border terrorism, you'll keep the 1.5 billion people under significant danger of nuclear war. And trust me, all the new weapons and all.....don't make a big difference as you guys are RIGHT NEXT to each other. But do let me know if I need to sound like a non resident Indian here.

And this was exactly why I though you were Pakistani

According to some planners internally destabilised Pakistan is good for India. I don't agree with them.
And please show me one evidence that India supporting anything inside Pak.
Nuclear war ---- no comments
And you can never sound like a NRI - from past experience of PAK-FA thread

Please tell me what do you think of Modi ??? And then check your answer with the other NRI answers

 

[jaunty]

You speak like a non resident Pakistani ....

Do you expect an Aurangzeb to be someone else?

 

[Screambowl]

I can talk just as extensively and deeply about India that you'd think I was a Non Resident India. Let me know if I need to do a 'deeper dive' into Indian society related issues, from RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP to Satti and other issues

Second, the stable Pakistan means stability for India. Until both of you stop cross border terrorism, you'll keep the 1.5 billion people under significant danger of nuclear war. And trust me, all the new weapons and all.....don't make a big difference as you guys are RIGHT NEXT to each other. But do let me know if I need to sound like a non resident Indian here.

Stable Pakistan has too many definitions:

1) Economically and Military stable Pakistan with anti Indian ideology.(not good for India)
2) Stable Pakistan with hardcore, extremist Islamic ideology. ( not good for itself and India )
3) Only economically Stable Pakistan with moderate military. ( not good for itself)
3) Only Stable military. ( Not good for the Pakistanis)

The point I am making is Ideology persists to harm each other, whether either one of them is stable or not.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I can talk just as extensively and deeply about India that you'd think I was a Non Resident India. Let me know if I need to do a 'deeper dive' into Indian society related issues, from RSS, Shiv Sena, BJP to Satti and other issues

Second, the stable Pakistan means stability for India. Until both of you stop cross border terrorism, you'll keep the 1.5 billion people under significant danger of nuclear war. And trust me, all the new weapons and all.....don't make a big difference as you guys are RIGHT NEXT to each other. But do let me know if I need to sound like a non resident Indian here.

OMG; now you even want to masquerade as a "NRI" ? Please spare us, we seen you as an "Aviation Specialist", "Material Scientist" and on that Erieye thread as an "Insurance Actuarial Professional". Pretty much enough "Professional Opinions" to keep us amused.

Thanks but No Thanks.