We will not be able to match China man-to-man, machine-to-machine in next several decades. Hence if we decide to wait then we may have to wait forever.
India has been forced to extend her reach because if we don't reach SCS, then China will certainly trap us in our own neighborhood. We have been pushed in a situation where Offence is the best Defence, we don't have an option.
It appears there are 5 different permutations of the possible solutions which each of us is combining and to form their opinion.
1)India should not join the US alliance.
2)India should join the US alliance.
3)India should join the US alliance
before provoking China.
4)India can provoke China independently and join the US alliance
only if push comes to shove.
5)India should not provoke China at all; we are not ready, we can do that when we are ready.
For me, 5) is not tenable, because there is no such thing as a completely ready country. The disparity is only increasing. I think 4) offers the best possible leverage for us now. We are ready to provoke China, but with our own might, the lollipop of EMALS which US is offering us in exchange for joining their alliance is just that, a lollipop. Besides, as long as China is being opposed, why should the US care if India is in an US-led alliance or an independent player? Therein lies the crux of the matter. Joining an alliance entails acting as one monolithic organism whose nerve center is the US, which is a proposition I am not fond of. We are capable of acting independently in co-ordination with the US if need be, but in US terms, co-ordination means India should submit to their beck and call and give up our autonomy.
What I am saying is, for something to be co-ordinated, it doesn't have to be in unison or joint venture, it can be a synchronized action of two independent entities. Can it not?
The US subterfuge about India needing the same communications suite as US warships is to take India's autonomy away, so that we cannot pull out of the alliance if we want to. Our biggest bargaining chip in this war is the ability to pull out. For example, tomorrow if China get's cold feet and preemptively offers certain concessions to us which are in our interest, should we not take it and backoff amicably (since our war is not ideological)? We wont be able to do that if we are in an 'alliance'. If you form an alliance, your nerve center will be taken over by the American parasite. We can always co-ordinate our attacks with the US if we want. If a war erupts, US forces can capture Area A and India can capture Area B,
independently. So that, if China offers us something favorable in exchange for releasing Area B, we should be able to exercise that option instead of being talked down by the US. We shouldn't give in at any point in the negotiations, we should remain in a constant 'negotiation mode' to keep our enemies and so called allies on their toes constantly.
My main issue is only that we should take on China, and we should take a piggyback ride on top of ongoing US efforts by timing our own efforts such that the effects are maximized, but we must not get stuck in an alliance. Let US do the lion's share of the work, let us do the bare minimum, just enough to get China worried. After all, the very reason China has propped up Pakistan is to one day use them as a bargaining chip to assuage India. If, in exchange for dropping off the US alliance, China offers us resolution of land border issues, safety of our oil rigs in Vietnam and a mutual Sino-Indian non-aggression pact in case of an India-Pak war, why not take it? But in order to take it, we need to be free in our strategic options, which is not possible if there is an alliance. We cannot become 'two bodies one soul' with the US, we have to remain two bodies two souls.
Our current stance reflects this thinking, it seems.
@tarunraju