1) Bhutan is 100% in India's orbit.
2) The Maldives are 100% in India's orbit.
3) Bangladesh (whose creation itself was a major foreign policy success) is pro-India provided the Awami League are in power.
4) We are responsible for the security of Qatar, a major oil-producing nation.
5) We have naval listening stations in Mauritius and Madagascar.
6) We have extensive defence cooperation with Russia, that's matched by few other nations in the world.
7) Most important of all, we have created a general impression in the world that India is a benevolent and peace-loving nation. Besides Pakistan, no other nation in the world regularly resorts to anti-India rhetoric.
If all we can point to are Bhutan and Maldives after 67 years, then I think its a given that our foreign policy has been a dismal failure.
You think Bangladesh is pro-India? Which world are you in? I am from West Bengal and let me tell you that anti-India bias is very strong in that country. We are perceived as a big lumbering bully which is why Dhaka is now cosying up to China. Try and explain your theory to the family of the BSF jawan who was dragged across the border by the BDR guards, tortured and maimed, and finally killed. Whilst you are at it, try and read up on the covert support given to ULFA camps in Bangladesh, together with the drugs and people smuggling nexus that exists between the BDR and various local gangs.
Apparently we are "responsibility of the security of Qatar". Is this a joke or what? We have next to zero influence in the Middle East and Qatar is a strong Western ally which does not look to India as its benefactor.
If we're down to thumping our chest about Mauritius and Madagascar, I really have nothing else to say.
Russia is the only country with whom we have a close working relationship on defence projects. And that leaves all our eggs in one basket, which is worryingly prone to renting out basket space to whoever bids the highest.
And today, the Germans and Japanese are prevented by their postwar constitutions from deploying troops on external missions, and their foreign policy and defence are almost entirely in the hands of the U.S. That's what they got for losing WWII.
I would rather India not receive any investment at all than become castrated like Germany and Japan were. Besides, India today is one of the largest destinations for foreign investors, so I don't understand your point.
India is a poor country. Not even a medium income one. It is a very poor country. Over 40% of the population lives on less than $2 a day which is a damning statistic. We need all the investment we can get. It is very easy for us to sit behind our laptops (costing many times our countrymen's monthly income) and type away about how we don't need any more investment, but we could always do with more schools, hospitals, better roads, clean drinking water, etc.
Nobody is advocating imposing a forced pacifism on India. The point is that Germany and Japan turned their countries from a wasteland (in Japan's case, a nuclear wasteland) to not only two developed industrialised nations, but into two of the world's most pioneering economies, achieving standards of excellence unparalleled in the world. A lot of that had to do with their close alliance with the free nations of the world.
There is no harm or shame in learning lessons from others' development. No need to copy their model wholesale- just pick the strengths and leave the weaknesses.
Such a military umbrella would violate our sovereignty and our strategic independence. Foreign troops on Indian soil is completely unacceptable.
Besides, India is not a small nation like Belgium or Denmark that needs to rely on the great powers for its own defence.
Why does India have to rely on others? I don't understand. India can develop its own capabilities as it is doing now. It is about securing an added layer of security. An extra set of locks on the door, that's all.
I don't understand what is wrong with having NATO troops on Indian soil if Indian troops can also be on, say, US or British soil. As part of the same security umbrella, it is only natural for such exchanges to take place. I don't see this as a threat to our sovereignty. 40,000 Americans in a base in Andaman pose no threat to us. In fact, it may act as a deterrent to China in trying anything too sneaky in the Bay of Bengal.
Yes. Russia contains the largest natural resource deposits in the world, and they have India's name on them. We have an extensive strategic partnership with Iran, which insures that they remain one of India's largest suppliers of oil. India's security treaties with Gulf countries like Qatar has already been mentioned.
This is just complete nonsense. Russia's largest market is Westwards, into Europe not India. One of our massive failures has been to secure large supplies of Russian energy even though we share close ties with them. Yes, the logistics of it makes it difficult but I'm not sure we've even tried as hard as we could.
Our relationship with Iran has some value in terms of energy supplies, but they already do more business with China. As always, we're just too satisfied of being second all the time.
Partially, yes. A complete buffer is impossible since our enemies also happen to be our neighbors. What I don't understand is how you think joining NATO will give us this "buffer", when the US itself has designated Pakistan as a "major non-NATO ally". How many NATO countries have their own sphere of influence?
Pakistan's status as major non-NATO ally means zilch. The Obama administration has repeatedly carried out drone attacks in gross violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. America is simply using Pakistan to fulfil its tactical objectives- it has no future common strategic goals with them.
With India, however, the US has many common strategic interests- improving commercial ties and checking the rise of China.
If you think India's standing in the world today is the same as its standing in 1947, then you know absolutely nothing.
Obama's visit to India in November 2010 is not something that every third world country gets.
You've just answered your own point. We are still a "third world country" as you call it. And why is that? It is our acceptance of mediocrity, of the status quo, just like what you are proposing, that has led to China from having a smaller economy in 1990 to having one four times as large in 20 years.
The US clearly cares about deepening its ties with India, hence the Obama visit. But when will we grasp the hand?
It seems you don't know much about the Indo-Russian relationship. Russia not only sells us equipment, but also jointly develops a wide variety of defence equipment ranging from BrahMos hypersonic missiles to fifth generation fighter jets, and lets India manufacture its own weapons based on Russian designs, such as the T-90S Bhishma and HAL Su-30MKI. The level of trust shown in this partnership is exemplary, because I believe no other group of two nations has the same level of defence cooperation as India and Russia. Even the US and UK, who are widely considered to be very close allies, do not have as close of a defence relationship as India and Russia. Compare the UK's share in the JSF program with India's share in the FGFA program.
Indo-Russian relationship is important not just to equip India's own armed forces, but to give India's domestic military industries the skills and technology they require to make India self-sustainable in its defence needs, which should be a top priority. Russia is willing to transfer to us the critical defence technology that we require, while the West is not.
This is not a zero-sum game. No one is saying sacrifice the relationship with Russia, which by the way is not a one-sided one. Russia gains a lot out of this relationship too. Anyway, a conflict between NATO and Russia is very unlikely so India is not going to be in a position where it will have to choose. In any case, all treaties are negotiable. Just look at the opt-outs Margaret Thatcher secured for Britain from the European Union in the 1970s. We could push for an opt out clause where NATO is in conflict with a nation with which India has a strategic relationship, such as Russia.
India's diplomats already carry out numerous balancing acts, with the two major ones being Russia/USA and Iran/Israel. We have excellent relations with all four of these countries.
Excellent relations on their own mean zilch. We need tangible benefits. Investment, knowledge sharing, security pacts. On all counts our diplomacy has been trumped every time by China.
China's economy is booming because they can manufacture goods cheaper than the West can, and they rely on the West to buy their goods. Without the West buying China's goods, China's economy is gone. If the West really wanted to kill China, all they have to do is boycott their goods. Can you tell me why they don't?
This is a ridiculous statement. Western companies have invested trillions of dollars in building facilities in China which cannot simply be abandoned overnight. Also, China holds trillions of US Treasury bonds and as such the US would have to think twice before trying to shaft China by trying to prevent its companies from doing business there. Also, the Western economies are now used to cheap products and how would the Western consumer react if goods suddenly became 10 times more expensive? There would be a dramatic fall in demand that is likely to cripple the economies of the West, at least temporarily. Also, China is a heavy importer of capital goods from the West which would be another blow for its export industries, in countries such as the US and Germany.
Yes, in a way China is a lot more entangled in the global economic system than India which means that any trade war is likely to hurt both it as well as the West. But they have also massively gained by it. They have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in less than a generation. And we have 40% of the world's malnourished children.
I repeat, it is very easy for us to lecture about India's place in the world, but as a democracy our government's primary duty is to work towards the betterment of the people who elected it. India and the West are far less likely to be in conflict, so why not bolster our alliance with this bloc of nations and use that to reduce some of the destitution that is prevalent all over India.
Anyway, the US and EU can't penetrate Indian and Chinese markets (like they did in the 19th century), because they can't compete with the lower costs in India and China. That's why jobs get outsourced.
Again, not quite the case. In China, Western companies set up factories and offices and used their local base to target the market. It has worked very well. GM is the market leader in cars in China, for example. Haven't Unilever and Proctor and Gamble done well in India? Even if we forget the local subsidiaries, expensive imports have been lapped up by the newly affluent middle classes in China and India. For example, the French luxury goods businesses (Gucci, Dior, etc) are increasingly doing very good business in these countries.
You under-estimate the ability of the West to innovate and stay ahead of the curve.
Every single business magazine is talking up China and India. Not because they love them. But because there is a massive potential for Western companies to make money there.
The official military budget of the United States is around $700 billion, with the actual budget likely to be well over $1 trillion.
China's budget and military capabilities are nothing compared to America's. Anyone with a basic understanding of China's capabilities will know that the whole "China threat" syndrome is a joke.
China may not be a major threat to the US now, but since you've forgotten, we're talking about India here. China spends, by conservative estimates, around £100 billion on defence. India spends less than £17-18 billion. This will make a difference, not today perhaps, but in 20 years.
The West is not anti-China, and China is not anti-US. The talk of the hour is all about trade and making money, and that's all that China cares about. China may dream about one day replacing America as the dominant military power in the world, but that day is many decades away.
If you follow Xinhua regularly, you will note the rabid underlying West-bashing that continues in China. Capitol Hill is also full of xenophobic papers and rants from Congressmen and policy wonks about the "China threat". There is a deep sense of suspicion in the West about China's intentions.
And if you're admitting that China may become a threat in a few decades, why should we not plan for that day now? This is precisely the kind of short-termism that has doomed us until this day.
Unfortunately, China is no Nazi Germany, and India is no Britain, so your comparison makes no sense. I would prefer that you avoid insulting India by comparing it with Britain.
When did I compare India to Britain? In fact, if India was ever able to stand alone for a year against one of the most feared military force in the world whilst the world around it crumbled (as Britain did after France fell until Pearl Harbour), it should be proud of itself. Ultimately, though, the "special relationship" between Britain and America proved decisive in the free world's triumph over Hitler. The learning point from this is that strong alliances matter in times of need. People rarely get there alone.
I don't believe in comparisons. Britain is a great nation, as is India. Both have their own rich pasts and different challenges in today's world. But I strongly believe in learning from others, as a certain Mohan used to say nearly 70 years ago.
If Nehru was smart, he would have realised that Mao and Enlai had ill intentions starting from 1951 itself. It was his fault that he didn't realize it.
And whose fault is it that we continue to ignore this problem?
Anyway, that was a very different time back then, before India or China got nukes and before India or China started experiencing major economic growth.
Nuclear weapons will prevent full-blown war, not short border skirmishes.
You think China wants to invade NE India for lebensraum? That's some crappy lebensraum they're going to get.
In the 1962 War, China invaded and captured all of Arunachal Pradesh. Why didn't they hold on to it, if they wanted lebensraum?
The only possible scenario where India and China might go to war in the near future is if India attempts to liberate PoK from Pakistan, which itself is an unlikely scenario.
You miss the point, yet again. Why did China threaten Japan with serious consequences, and go as far as ban certain exports to Japan and imprison Japanese workers on false charges over some small insignificant islands? Why does China continue to pick fights with Vietnam over where the maritime border lies in the South China Sea?
With totalitarian regimes like the one in China, its not always about the incremental benefits. It is about status, appearances, dominance and ultimately hegemony. China's eyes are fixed on the North East and we should take note.
There is a war memorial in Tawang remembering the sacrifices made by our soldiers in 1962. It reads:
For how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temple of his Gods.
I do not want my countrymen, the brave souls who survive on so little and yet give so much, to face fearful odds again.
I do not want communists celebrating in Kolkata, waiting to welcome their Chinese brethren as victors, as they did in 1962.
I don't want my soldiers to be asked to do the impossible once again.
I don't want to take a chance with my country. I want to be prepared.
