Indian warplane maker promises faster delivery after air chief's rebuke
India's state fighter jet maker Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) said it understood why India's air force was impatient over delays in delivering warplanes and would start rolling them out once General Electric supplied engines for them.
In a pre-scheduled press conference on Tuesday that was held a day after the head of the air force rebuked company officials, HAL Chairman D.K. Sunil said when asked about the delays: "The concern of the air chief is understandable. Of course, his squadron strengths are going down."
"We have now promised that we will have all the structures ready," Sunil said. "We are building this. Once the engines are available, this will start rolling out."
The Indian Air Force's fleet of mainly ex-Soviet aircraft has been operating with only 31 fighter squadrons compared with a target of 42, frustrating its officials given the country's tense relations with neighbours China and Pakistan.
The Air Force has ordered 83 Mk-1A light combat aircraft from HAL, an advanced variant of the operational Mk-1 "Tejas", with deliveries initially planned to start in February 2024 as part of a 364.68 billion rupees ($4.20 billion) contract. It plans to procure 97 more Mk-1As, which would take the total of the Tejas group of aircraft to 220.
But deliveries have been repeatedly delayed, due in part to the slow arrival of engines from GE, which has been facing supply chain issues.
Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh was seen rebuking HAL officials at the Aero India air show in Bengaluru in a video filmed by defence news outlet National Defence that went viral on Tuesday.
"At the moment I am just not confident of HAL," Singh said, seating inside the cockpit of a trainer aircraft as HAL officials crouched by his side on a platform.
"I was promised that when I come here in February I will see 11 Mk1As ready, minus the engines," Singh said. "Not a single one is ready. Not impressed."
India's defence production secretary, Sanjeev Kumar, said at the same air show that production lines had stabilised both at HAL and GE, and that the Indian company would have the capacity to hand over 16 to 24 aircraft in the fiscal year that starts in April.
GE Aerospace referred to a company statement from earlier this month that said the company has so far delivered 65 engines for the LCA Mk-1 programme, and another 99 are on order for the LCA Mk-1A variant.
India's close defence partner Russia this week also offered to make its fifth-generation stealth fighter jet Sukhoi Su-57 in India for the Indian Air Force, by enhancing the Indian production line of the Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft, 260 of which are in India's fleet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
India's Kashmir railway is an engineering feat - and an occupation project
On 5 June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated a new railway project in Indian-occupied Kashmir. In scenes that have since been played on a loop and celebrated across India, Modi is seen gripping an Indian flag high above his head, and dramatically marching across a bridge like a standard-bearer of a conquering army. To accomplish this railroad project, Indian engineers had to build the "world's highest bridge", 359 metres above the Chenab river bed in Jammu. Likewise, the Anji Khad Bridge, India's first cable-stayed railway bridge, towers 331 metres above the river gorge. "This shows that our resolve is as big as the dream for India's development," Modi said after signalling the commencement of the rail line and the two new rail bridges over the Chenab and Anji Rivers, on 5 June. He added that the network "ensures all-weather connectivity" and will "boost spiritual tourism and create livelihood opportunities". The Vande Bharat (Praise India) train, which connects the northernmost part of Indian-occupied Kashmir to Katra in Jammu, has been marketed as "setting a new benchmark in comfort for the people of Jammu and Kashmir". But as hinted by Modi, the train is not for Kashmiris. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Instead, it serves Indian interests: transporting Hindu pilgrims, flooding the region with Indian tourists, and crucially, creating a direct line for the transfer of troops and resources for the Indian military. Militarised mobility A new documentary by Channel 4, Is India quietly tightening its grip on Kashmir? - released in mid-June - found that the number of Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir was on the rise. It is estimated that up to 750,000 troops, or around half of India's total army, were now operating in the region. India's ambition in Kashmir is so thinly veiled that the train itself was suffused in saffron orange, the colour of Hindu nationalism and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Usually, trains in India are blue, red or green. In this, India borrows from the colonial textbook of using bridges and railways as means to exert influence over territory as well as to communicate power and imperial ambition. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi holding national flag during the inauguration of the Chenab Rail Bridge, on 6 June (Indian Press Information Bureau/AFP) There are numerous examples of such efforts in history. In its bid to transform Mexico into a modern state, the Spanish introduced European infrastructure, including roads and buildings. But it was the British who pioneered the use of bridges and railways to consolidate trade and ensure the mobility of their troops. Even the King Hussein or Allenby Bridge that connects Jordan to Israel, used today as an alternative route into the West Bank (via Israel), was initially constructed by the British during World War One as a crossing point for troops. Constructed ties Beyond the obvious imperialist ambitions of the Indian state to build a breathtaking connection to Kashmir, the sheer scale of the project itself is reason enough to understand why the connection between Kashmir and India has had to be literally constructed - it is not natural. The sheer scale of the project is reason enough to understand why the connection between Kashmir and India has had to be literally constructed - it is not natural Before the 1950s, the Kashmir Valley had no year-round connection to the Indian mainland to its south, as the bitter winters made the road up in the Himalayan mountains to Kashmir impassable. As part of the historic Silk Road, Kashmir traces a longer and stronger history with the areas to its west, including cities in today's Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, such as Muzaffarabad, Rawalpindi, and Lahore, as well as the Central Asian cities of Bukhara, Samarkand, Kabul and Kashgar. And had it not been for the Boundary Commission suspiciously giving the Muslim-majority Punjab district of Gurdaspur (technically meant to be given to Pakistan) to India on 17 August 1947 - two days after Indian independence, no less - Delhi wouldn't have even had a road link to Kashmir in the summer. It was only in 1956 that India blasted a tunnel through the Pir Panjal mountain to arrange access through the winter. Even then, the priority was for the transportation of troops and tourists. And as the years went by and Delhi looked to reinforce ties with Kashmir, by installing puppet regimes, promoting development and marketing tourism in the valley as a means to assimilate Kashmir with India, the people of Kashmir continued to be separated from their loved ones by an artificial border with Pakistan-administered Kashmir, called the Line of Control. A general view of Chenab bridge, the world's highest rail arch bridge in Reasi, Jammu and Kashmir, on 6 July 2024 (Tauseef Mustafa/AFP) That the bridge today is being flaunted as a means to connect India with Kashmir, for the development of Kashmir, while Kashmiris are divided from each other across the Line of Control, is a historic injustice. It raises questions, too, about whether Indian or western scholars are even remotely interested in hearing who Kashmiris regard as "invaders" and "infiltrators" in their native land. Empty promises Beyond the spectacle, other dimensions of the project lay bare the absurdities of this Indian project. Throughout the project's construction, Kashmiri farmers lamented about the impact it would have on their farms and homes. In some cases, farmland was razed and families were displaced to make way for the railway line. India's attack on Pakistan is a declaration of Israel-style expansionism Read More » Of course, the train will be used by Kashmiris - in the same way the much-mythologised Indian independence leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi travelled in British trains, even as he waged a famous critique over their rapid expansion across India. In his book Hind Swaraj, Gandhi wrote, "The English could not have such a hold on India as they have. Railways accentuate the evil nature of man: Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity." But even as the rail project has opened, regular travel is not about to become seamless either. Passengers from Srinagar will be required to disembark in Jammu for additional security checks before heading to Delhi. This itself negates the promise of seamless connectivity. That the Indian state and its sycophantic media would tout how the railway would improve connectivity in a region that endures some of the world's longest internet shutdowns - and where journalists cannot report freely without receiving a knock on the door from Indian intelligence - is as ludicrous as believing that Delhi - overseeing a country with more inequality today than under the British Colonial Raj - is on the cusp of becoming a world power. Myth of progress At its core, the railway project is not just an engineering marvel - it is an act of empire-making. And empire-making is a fundamental part of this story. "Designed to overcome the region's challenging geography, it connects remote areas to the national rail network and marks a new chapter in mobility, trade and tourism for Jammu and Kashmir," the Indian government said. The inability of Indian media and scholars to see this engineering feat as anything but proof of Delhi's costly and unnatural grip on Kashmir makes for a stunning study of mass delusion "Built to endure tremors, strong winds and shifting geology, the Anji Khad Bridge is more than an engineering feat," it added. Its purportedly unbreakable quality is further enhanced by the notion that it's also bombproof. One might think that a multi-billion-dollar railway, specifically constructed to overcome nature's objections - landslides, fragile ecology, and extreme weather - would be deemed proof of incongruity with the geography. But here, it is seen as a Titanesque symbol of India's rise and Modi's legacy. That Indian media and scholars are unable to see the engineering feat in Kashmir as anything but proof of how costly and unnatural Delhi's determination to wrestle control over Kashmir, not to mention its imperial and colonial genealogies, makes for a stunning study of mass delusion. We might call it Indian nationalism. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye
11 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Shattered Lands: How Doha and Dubai could have joined India or Pakistan in 1947
A century ago a large part of the Arabian peninsula, including modern-day Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, was legally part of India. Today most people, including in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, have no idea about this, and many would find the idea ludicrous and absurd. But it was indeed the case, as historian Sam Dalrymple shows in his newly published book Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia. It is a remarkable fact that Dubai and Doha could easily have ended up as part of modern India or Pakistan. Very rarely can a book on history transform the public's understanding of an entire continent and region's past. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters But this could be such a rarity. Shattered Lands, Dalrymple's first book, is magisterial. In fact, I can confidently say it is groundbreaking. Drawing on evidence from myriad archives and private memoirs and interviews in several languages, Dalrymple has produced an outstanding debut. But better than that, it is a delight to read. Too many history books render extraordinary characters and events dull. Shattered Lands, out now, is published by Harper Collins. (Supplied) Dalrymple's energetic, electrifying prose is thus a breath of fresh air. Every paragraph is practically bursting with colour. The scope of the work is enormous. The premise is that as recently as 1928, 12 modern nations - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait - were "bound together" as part of Britain's Indian empire, the Raj. An entity of its own, the Raj housed a quarter of the world's population and was governed by the Indian rupee. Shattered Lands documents how, over half a century, this vast empire was torn apart. The book is vast in scope but particularly pertinent to Middle East Eye readers is the story of the Arabian Peninsula and how it was split off from India. Much of the British Raj was hidden. Official maps never depicted the whole empire. To avoid the ire of Istanbul, Arab states bordering the Ottoman Empire were bizarrely left off maps "as a jealous sheikh veils his favourite wife", in the words of one Royal Asian Society lecturer. Oman, like Nepal in the east, was not officially part of the Indian empire, but it was governed as an informal protectorate by the viceroy of India and included in the list of Indian princely states, which were under indirect British rule. As Dalrymple writes: "The standard list of princely states even opened alphabetically with Abu Dhabi, and Viceroy Lord Curzon himself argued that Oman should be considered 'as much a Native State of the Indian Empire as Lus Beyla or Kalat'." 'Central to the very idea of India' Muscat, Doha and Dubai were legally part of India under the Interpretation Act of 1889. The wealthy Gulf states today are thus some of the few Indian princely states that actually survived; the larger ones which went to India or Pakistan were doomed. Dalrymple tells us that "the Arabian and Burmese frontiers of the Raj were once central to the very idea of India, and several of the founding fathers of Yemen and Burma had even once conceived of themselves as Indian nationalists". Close ties between the Gulf and the subcontinent stretched back long before the onset of British rule: "For more than two millennia, South Asian communities and their cultures had spread across Asia into China, Afghanistan and Arabia." Persian or Arabian Gulf? A brief history Read More » But the British Empire took this to an unprecedented level. In the early 20th century many Arab elites were educated in Bombay and Aligarh in India, and wore Indian-style sherwanis. The partition of the Arabian peninsula from the Indian empire began in 1937 with the separation of Yemen. That same year it was also decided that India would "not be allowed to run the Persian Gulf" if it became independent. A decade later, in April 1947, the Gulf states were partitioned from India and ceased to be run by the Indian Political Service (staffed mainly by Indians). Indian soldiers were replaced by British ones, and India and Pakistan lost the (then largely undiscovered) vast oil wealth of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE. As Dalrymple argues, this was "India's greatest lost opportunity". It was only decades later, in 1971, that Britain finally abolished its protectorates over the Gulf states. An age of nationalism One of the book's most fascinating sections examines the crucial role played by Hindu nationalism in the partition of the Arabian peninsula. Because many Indian nationalists fixated on the ancient Hindu holy land of Bharat as their historical reference point, they were uninterested in Burma and Arabia. This weakened Indian nationalism in those parts of the Raj and boosted alternative political visions. We are introduced at one point in the book to the young Arab journalist Muhammad Ali Luqman, who in Aden served as the Gujarati-Arabic translator for one Mahatma Gandhi when he visited before Aden's separation from India. Gandhi's supporters unfurled an Indian flag to "mad cheers by all those present". But many in Aden were turning against Indian nationalism. Shattered Lands is Sam Dalrymple's first book (Supplied) After its separation from India, the discovery of oil turned Aden into one of the world's most important ports. By the 1950s, it was a "vibrant city of businessmen and dreamers where cruise ships jostled alongside the old Arabian dhows and Yemeni Jews mingled with Gujarati Hindus and Somali Muslims". But monumental changes arose with the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who became president of Egypt in 1954. 'A dangerous environment for non-Arabs' Nasser's brand of Arab nationalism spread like wildfire across the region. "In quick succession states all over the Arabian Raj formally tied citizenship to 'a fair knowledge of Arabic' and being 'Arabs belonging to an Arab Country'," Dalrymple writes. "In the process the once cosmopolitan Indian Ocean society would gradually be replaced by arbitrary new national identities." And nearly everywhere South Asians "found themselves on the wrong side of the citizenship line and were forced to sell their properties". 'So ended the idea that 'Arab' could be an Indian ethnicity like Bengali or Punjabi - one that had been common for centuries' - Shattered Lands, Sam Dalrymple By this point, Luqman, once an Indian nationalist, was campaigning for a "Greater Yemen". The Aden Trade Union, meanwhile, announced it aimed to create "a hostile and dangerous environment for non-Arabs". Anti-Indian sentiment was also fuelled by the consequences of the fall of Hyderabad, India's largest princely state - which was widely recognised as a centre of the Islamic world. Hyderabad had a population of tens of thousands of Arabs. Indian soldiers rounded them up and detained them when the state was annexed by the fledgling Indian nation in September 1948. In the end many left and a few thousand were deported. "So ended the idea that 'Arab' could be an Indian ethnicity like Bengali or Punjabi - one that had been common for centuries," Dalrymple writes. Imperialism was often a brutal and oppressive affair, but it could also be cosmopolitan and multicultural. Nationalism could be just as brutal - and regularly very bloody. Much that was complex and attractive was destroyed in the violent convulsions of decolonisation. The Qu'aiti sultanate Under the rule of the nizam, the richest man in the world and the patron of the deposed Ottoman caliph, Hyderabad had effectively governed the Qu'aiti sultanate - the third-largest state in the Arabian peninsula - as a vassal. This gave rise to a rich cultural fusion which produced, among other things, the famous dish of haleem - a Hyderabadi variation on the Arabian dish harees that is famous today. One of the most remarkable figures Dalrymple interviewed for Shattered Lands is Sultan Ghalib al-Qu'aiti, the charming and scholarly former ruler of the sultanate, whose mother was the nizam of Hyderabad's niece. The seventh nizam of Hyderabad (centre) with some members of the ruling family of the Qu'aiti sultanate in around 1940 (Wikimedia Commons) In 1966, he became ruler of the Hadhramaut region of southern Yemen at the age of 18. Enormously popular with his people, Sultan Ghalib worked with manual labourers three times a week to convey "the true meaning of socialism in conformity with the teachings of Islam". But in 1967 the young ruler was betrayed by the British and overthrown in a coup by the National Liberation Front, an Arab nationalist militia, which declared the socialist republic of South Yemen. After he was deposed, he went to Oxford and Cambridge and became a distinguished historian. To this day, however, Sultan Ghalib remains tragically stateless. 'Unimaginable class reversal' Another fascinating fact Dalrymple documents is that Omani sultans owned the port of Gwadar on the Pakistani coastline until the mid-1950s (a Baluchi khan had given Gwadar to an Omani prince in 1783). The Omani Sultan Said bin Taimur was educated as an Indian prince in Ajmer, and was so Indian in his tastes and sensibilities that the British consul-general called him "Babu". Revealed: Why there is an abandoned Ottoman tomb in remote India Read More » The sultan even discriminated against Arabs in his own polity, denying them education and government positions. Unsurprisingly, he was spectacularly unpopular and was ultimately replaced by his reformist son, Sultan Qaboos. Qaboos bucked the Arab nationalist trend by declaring "many communities from across the Indian Ocean as indigenous tribes". He even declared Kanak Khimji, a Gujarati merchant, to be a sheikh with responsibility for Oman's 200,000 Hindus - the first Hindu sheikh in Arab history. Few non-fiction books are worth reading cover to cover, but Shattered Lands is a rare exception. Outside of some academic circles, the history of the Arabian Raj has been largely forgotten. Dalrymple's book should make waves in the Gulf, which today hosts a massive South Asian population - mostly poor migrant labourers, in what Dalrymple calls an "unimaginable class reversal". But the book will also shatter historical orthodoxies in the subcontinent itself. Shattered Lands is a triumph - and I strongly suspect Dalrymple has much more up his sleeve.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Maersk halts stops in Israel's Haifa due to Iran-Israel conflict
Danish shipping giant Maersk announced on Friday that it was temporarily suspending vessel calls in Israel's Haifa port due to the country's conflict with Iran. Maersk said it made the decision after "careful analysis of threat risk reports in the context of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, specifically regarding the potential risks of calling Israeli ports and the ensuing implications for the safety of our vessel crews". "At the moment we are not experiencing further disruptions to our scheduled operations in the region," it added in a statement. The conflict erupted a week ago when Israel launched air strikes on Iran, saying its arch foe was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. The Danish company said it had not experienced any further disruptions to its scheduled operations in the region. Haifa port, which was privatized in 2022, is owned 70% by India's Adani Ports while the remaining 30% is held by Israel's Gadot Group. Adani Ports is the ports operating arm of Adani Group, led by billionaire Gautam Adani. Including Haifa port, the company operates four ports outside Indian waters. A spokesperson for the Adani Group did not immediately respond to Reuters' email and text messages requesting comment. Israel has been hitting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it describes as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied plans to develop such weapons and has retaliated by launching counterstrikes on Israel. On Thursday, Iran's Revolutionary Guards said it had launched combined missile and drone attacks at military and industrial sites linked to Israel's defence industry in Haifa and Tel Aviv. Agencies
