What if India was allied with the US during the Cold War?

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
People will find following as interestinf and the best explanation as to why USA- india behave as estranged democracies.....


Indo-American Relations: A History

As part of an interesting discussion at BRF, RamaY and I challenged each other to provide a snapshot of what we thought was America's views towards India. My task was to provide a brief summary of sources of America's foreign policy decisions when it came to India.

What I did was browsed the internet & read articles plus 'Google Books' and provided a glimpse into the relations in zimple englipees. To put it crudely, I am just regurgitating, albeit in a form that hopefully is easy to understand for Ram, Robert and Rahim. After you have read it top to bottom, you should see a pattern and be able to explain the nuances to your parents, siblings, friends, offspring, relatives and enemies. If you are not able to do so, then it mean I have much more to learn about the art of writing - which is actually a lot. Or, that you might be lacking in certain areas. Give that a thought too :)

If you want to spend more time away from your family, work and leisure, then the references should provide you plenty of hours to while away.

Here is what I summarized. Ensoy thangamani.

Prior to WWII
1. America's disinterest towards India was primarily because the countries did not share history. However the American missionaries were interested in India. Missionaries were a prime source for uninformed information about India.
2. Katherine Mayo projected India as either opulent or having pervasive poverty. Mayo's India resembled British and Missionaries' India. {ref 14}. School textbooks, the media, and the academic writings depicted India as a backward society. Hence the public opinions were predominantly negative. Indian immigrants were considered undesirable. Read more under section 'American images of India'.
3. A few New England philosophers admired and sought solace in some Indian sacred texts. They came to know about India from 18th century European missionaries and writers.
4. American Isolationism {ref 12}
a. America felt, by participating in the European wars, it would be weakened thereby reducing survival chances of America or that America would cease to exist as a free republic.
b. WWI had left a bad taste in America's mouth – Europe, except Finland, did not pay America its war debts. The horrors of war had reduced the appetite to support European wars. In addition Americans perceived Britain & France did not nurture democracy in Europe at Munich. Some thought Britain and France to be the destroyers of democracy.
c. Isolationism did not mean America did not seek new territories or strong defense and seek economic spheres of influence. America would pursue all of them for the sake of the republic's survival, and helping capitalism & corporations flourish. Geography & natural resources helped America to achieve isolationism.
d. Some scholars point out America was not isolationist but expansionist all the time. They point to the history of America.

1940s and 1950s
1. After 1946, America hoped India will emerge as the stabilizer in Asia. In order to do this America hoped India will open its commerce, investment and raw materials to America and the West. USA considered India and Nehru as an unofficial spokesman for most of South East Asia.
2. Jawaharlal Nehru had a different view of the World as he had just witnessed the birth of a new country – India, and understood the horrors of WWI and WWII. He chose to remain neutral and nationalistic. Nehru chose to see the World, rightly in my opinion, in terms of communism and anti-communism. Nehru's nationalism butted India and America's head in the Cold War. V.K.Krisna Menon saw America as attempting to be the next Great Britain in Asia.
3. The "tragic holocaust of Hindu-Muslim massacres" overshadowed a sympathetic image of Indians fighting for their freedom. India was a fanatic and violent mob.
4. Norman A. Graebner argues that until the defeat of Chinese Nationalism in 1949, India mattered little to Washington. Norman concludes Nehru was the winner as he understood the power of Nationalism in Asian affairs better than America.
5. American invited Nehru and attempted to convince him & India regarding the matters of Communism; Nehru visited but did not dance to the tunes of Washington. Nehru, who WAS India in those years, and America viewed the growing Communism in Asia differently.
6. Eisenhower rubbed India the wrong way by having Defense agreements with Pakistan. America embraced Pakistan and India tilted towards USSR. This made the American elite hostile and dismissive of India.
7. As years went by America became more stringent against Communism, leading to more criticism from India. Nehru was convinced that Communism did not pose a danger to India. India and America exchanged rhetoric, long story short America began to consider India to be anti-American.
8. In 1949, after deciding to make India central to its Asian plans, America disengaged from this strategy. Truman's administration downplayed India and set the containment policy – emphasized military aid but no economic assistance. America, instead, decided to increase defense capabilities in Japan, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, French Indo-China and the pacific.

Between 1950s and 1960s
1. "India became an experimental laboratory for American backed development" {ref 15}. America strove to indirectly control India's future by making India a model for capitalistic economic growth.
2. After Indo-China war, and ambivalence from JFK, Indo-US ties improved. JFK objected to Dulles Doctrine, which was: 'non-alignment was neutrality between right and wrong and a sign of anti-Americanism'. JFK engaged neutral countries more and American-Indian relations turned less hostile.
3. Lyndon Johnson thought Indians were weak and indecisive. {ref. 9}.John Lewis, a former AID official, describes majority of White House personnel, State Department and Congress to be anti-Indian, in the 60s. {ref. 9}
4. In 1965, INS reversed decades of discrimination and initiated preferred admission of skilled Asian workers. The ensuring impact was arrived only in 1980s.

1970s
1. Nixon had a long-standing dislike for India and Indians. Nixon's tilt towards Pakistan in 1971 sent the relationship south. Cold-war fears and prejudices against India were key factors in dispatching the Enterprise in 1971. {ref. 9}
2. Carter accepted Asia's version of nationalism, and the Indo-US relationship improved. Carter administration ratified the decision to treat India as the dominant state in South Asia, rather than build Pakistan's military. Reagan continued the pleasant relationship but continue to also work with Pakistan.
3. America began to build strategic alliance with China against USSR. Though India disliked the alliance, India saw reasons in America's actions.
4. Academic scholars still considered India to be backward {see prior to WWII section}.
5. "The Asia Society, in a review of some 300 school textbooks, found that the presentation of India was the most negative of all Asian countries". American attitudes concerning India focused on disease, death, and illiteracy more than for any other place in the World. {ref. 9}
6. After the 1974 nuclear tests, India lost support from American activists and disillusioned the liberals.

1980s
1. With the collapse of Communism, American interests and outlook towards international order changed.
2. India was bothered by American and Chinese help to Pakistan in the context of Afghanistan. But India still saw a reason.

1990s
1. In 1993, Congressmen Frank Pallone (D) and Bill McCollum (R) created the Indian Caucus in the House of Representatives. 96-97 saw improved relations.
2. Cold-war habits hung over America even after the end of USSR. However, American businesses began to warm up; but the American elite nursed the cold-war ideologies – they still were dismissive or hostile towards India. India did not like the cold-war like behavior in the 90s – especially Clinton's views on strategic alliance with China.
3. Indian Nuclear tests caused sanctions against India, but USA began to look at India more seriously. America began to think it terms of India's security concerns and capabilities.
4. In '99 USA blamed Pakistan for initiating the Kargil crisis.
5. Ayoob feels America courted China, in the post cold-war to counter Japan. America did not want East Asia to be under any one dominant or regional power. {ref 3}
6. China alone now stands in the American path to spread democracy across the World. China's support to Pakistan emboldens Pakistan to defy American pressures.

Ideologies, beliefs, thoughts espoused by American Elite over centuries:
1. Open Door – a policy of commercial and political expansion to extend American influence in the World.
2. American Capitalism needed ever expanding markets to make the World more democratic.
3. Favored private enterprises over state owned enterprises to remedy social ills.
4. America provides benevolent leadership and international system to the World – representative democracy and market capitalism.
5. America could achieve economic hegemony by supporting IMF, World Bank and GATT; and political hegemony by becoming a great power in the UN.
6. "Free trade and the free flow of capital and, along with it, privatization and deregulation have become the order of the day. Policies consistent with this strategy are supported with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by most elite state and by nearly the entire political class, Democrat as well as Republican." {ref. 6}
7. It is against American global interest for any one power to dominate Europe, hence America dropped its tradition of isolation to counter USSR.{Kissinger}.
8. Democrats and Republicans both have displayed ethnocentrism & appalling ignorance of "third world" countries. Superior & patronizing attitude and the insistence that America knows what is best for these countries. Liberalism or Conservatism might throw its weight little more than the other at times, but over a long period they have behaved the same.
9. America has power over the globe because of its power to move ships and aircraft. Michael Lind views that India could translate its economic power into naval, air and space power. India is expected to challenge America in South Asia in the years to come {ref. 11}
10. Michael Lind thinks India & China's ascension will hurt Europe more than America. He also thinks the affluent Indian population offers a good market for America.
11. India's poverty so repulsed many Americans that India represented to them the "living end" of mankind. {ref. 13}. India and Indians were viewed as deep and peculiarly concerned with religious life. India because associated with mysticism in Asia.
12. South Asian, that included India, was spoken in terms of potential value to America's economic and security interests.
13. Olaf Caroe's geo-strategic ideas found grounds to grow America's role as an offshore balancer in South Asia. This act actually destabilized the region. Caroe worried about 'wells of power'. Pakistan was used by America to balance Indian hegemony in South Asia. {ref 16}
Note: The American ideology has two components Economic and Political, as seen above.

Nehru's beliefs:
1. The key to eradicating differing standards of living was in economic development and industrialization.
2. American model was not the only one to follow, and that Socialism offered a viable model too (probably a better one per Nehru)
3. Wanted to avoid the errors of Capitalism and Communism. However, he criticized Capitalism harsher.
4. Sought American aid, but did not want India to become dependent on America.

Kissinger's beliefs:
1. Hinduism is a religion of endurance and not a religion of personal salvation. Considers Islam and Christianity as egalitarian religions.
2. India maintained identity, for centuries, without a specific Indian state. Considers Britain to have brought homogeneous administration, law and government to India.
3. Thinks India survived because of its cultural imperviousness and psychological skill in dealing with foreigners.
4. Opines that India under Nehru, correctly, like the Founding Fathers of America, chose to stay aloof from quarrels not affecting its vital interests.
5. Considers India a major player in South East Asia and expects India to dominate from Singapore to Aden.

India underrated, unimportant, hostility and not taken seriously by America:
1. Ayoob feels it was because of two reasons: 1) USSR & China. All other policy concerns took back seat when it came to Cold War concerns. 2) India's non-alignment policy. Ayoob feels the historical baggage is carried by both the countries. {ref. 3}
2. India did not have natural resources vital to American economy. Unlike Latin America, there was no serious American private investment. Geo-politics of India posed no danger to America. India did not have cultural or historic ties to America, unlike China. Unlike Western Europe, Israel, Greece no significant population of India settled in India {ref. 9}
3. Apart from lacking natural resources that interested West, India was not seen vital in terms of communication routes. America did not see any gains from large scale support of India's development. India's economic growth mattered little to America's economy{ref 13}
4. America believed India was on the wrong side during WWII and Cold-War. Though millions of Indians fought in WWII, INC refused to support against the Axis. As far as Cold-war see Nehru and the 1940s-1950s section.

Role of race, ethnicity & religion
1. Benjamin Franklin wished the number of White people was more than the others; he termed his partiality as only natural to mankind. His racism, contributed to his opinion on acquisitions and opening of new lands.
2. In the 1800s, race still was a factor in "external affairs" especially to the people in the Southern USA. Race contributed to the feeling of "American Greatness" and reflected in American foreign policy.
3. The Southerners hated the "African Americans", while the Frontier people hated the "Native Americans".
4. In the early part of the 20th century all Indian immigrants were deemed Hindus and subjected to prejudice against Asia & India that existed in USA in those times. Supreme Court in 1923 ruled Indians, being Hindus were "not whites" and hence were ineligible for citizenship. India retaliated in 1924 {gone are those days, right when India had the spine to retaliate} passing the Indian Naturalization Act.
5. Apart from Indians considered as dark skinned, owing to white racist prejudice, Indians were always associated with caste system and untouchability. Indians were deemed to have strong color feeling and race prejudices and people who hated each other.

American images of India:
Types of Images: {ref 14}
1. Visual: "sacred cows roaming the streets; mobs of religious fanatics hurling themselves into the Ganges; naked ascetics, scrawny fakirs on nails; the multiarmed goddess; the burning ghats; the skull-laden figure of Kali; Benares; obscene Hindu sculpture, phallic symbols and erotic carvings on the temples"¦"
2. Judgment: "a debased, hopeless sort of religion; a complicated, alien mess; mystic nonsense; stupid taboos; horrible practices in a clutter of cultural dead weights; a benighted, superstitious, fatalistic philosophy; fanatical, barbarous religiosity; the elevation of animal life above the human"¦"
3. Social commentary: "caste system; untouchability; child marriage, purdah, suttee; religion as a dragging burden on growth and development; terrific waste from the animal cult, cows and monkeys sacrosanct amid starvation; oppression of ignorance, of religious and caste prejudice; a ridiculous idealization of poverty; religion as a sanction for barriers between people between clean and unclean, making for crippling social differences and divisions"¦"

Some of the entities involved in shaping Indian image in America
1. Missionaries
2. Katherine Mayo
3. Time magazine
4. Ripley's cartoons (was seen by millions)
5. National Geographic
6. Sunday supplements
7. Rudyard Kipling
8. Olaf Caroe's ideas

Between 1947 and 1956: {ref 13}
1. "Geographically remote, culturally exotic, psychologically unfathomable, lacking in religious or philosophical exactitude, socially disunified, economically inefficient, oppressive in physical environment, its people poor, non-aggressive, oppressed, keen-minded but in large numbers uneducated, morally sensitive but difficult to deal with personally."
2. Hollywood propagated several stereotypes, notably highlighted tribesman rising against British forces.
3. America was perceived as the richest country, India the poorest. India was filled with poverty and spiritualism was a panacea. India was a land of contrast, ethnic differences and POVERTY.
4. The term "Indian Mind" equated to "Hindu Mind" and this was perceived as a reason for the non-aligned movement. The term 'Muslim' was associated with Pakistan (after 1947).
5. India was perceived as a country that did not ask the right questions to solve problems, and hence reached wrong conclusions. "Hindu Mind" was attributed the cause.
6. American humanitarianism, liberal internationalists create a new 'love affair' that ended in 1960s. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru made favorable impressions among the American Liberals. They looked upon Nehru and the liberated Indian upper class upon which Asian democracy would rest.

In 1960s: {ref 13}
1. Under Kennedy administration, image of India as a permanent friend grew.
2. In the minds of the public, America was still a generous patron and India was a needy client. India was the petitioner calling upon American charity. Indians were depicted as destitute, sleeping on the city streets or starving in the villages. After self-interest American sense of humanitarianism led to the aid. Indian representatives nurture this sentiment.
3. India's poverty was a key in policy making, but there was still a sense of an enlightened democracy struggling out of poverty; and India could be won over to the West my massive economic support.
4. Popular writers and editors in America sought sensational formats to sell their products, and Katherine Mayo's grisly portrayal of India still lingered in the publishing field.
5. Some Americans spread the image of India awakening and controllable in the future and thus portrayed India eligible for American support.

Between 1960s and 1970s {ref 13}
1. India was still exotic, but now a land of despair, political institutions were faltering, economic growth stagnating, and social tensions leading straight towards chaos.
2. Doubts began to creep in about the effectiveness of the earlier aids to India; an image of complacent India entered into the minds.
3. India, Nehru & NAM began to increase the negative image.
4. The image of India being a non-ally caused Nixon to perceive the 1971 crisis from Pakistan's point of view. He saw a friendly nation being dismembered; and ordered Kissinger to tilt policies towards Pakistan.
5. Americans saw India as ungovernable force and 'biological multiplication' beyond American capacity to influence; India became an enemy from a "threat to human survival" perspective.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Ajtr, india is not pakistan. Indias a democratic society. India could have been what others like those I mentioned would have been. May be we would have had or reform process started right up with industrialization. We could have attracted a lot more FDI. We missed all that as the west economically was more powerful than the soviets.

But I think the discussion so far has not been to the level I was hoping for,
Leaving aside who did what in history, and using the points I raised as a cue and having the benefit of hindsight lets discuss the topic.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
One Mistake Indian Leadership did not capitalize on was the role of Indian soldiers "volunteers" in ww1 and ww2 why no economic reward was given for this still puzzles me today?? No UNSC seat, no trade ,no acknowledgement etc...??? (5 million Indian soldiers fought in ww1 and ww2 for the allies in both fronts).
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
Let us look at this issue from Pakistani eyes.

Our Pakistani friends are EXASPERATED with our Russian friends's REPEATED REFUSAL to sell arms to Pakistan. Their Analysts and commentators also wonder if they should have allied with US

For USA , the most important business is BUSINESS ITSELF. There fore they are now in love with INDIA.

USA USED AND THREW AWAY PAKISTAN.

In 1990 PAkistan was showing off its nukes when it loaded its nukes on F 16 during the Indo- Pak crisis of
1990. USA realised PAkistan has become too big for its boots. AND Promptly imposed the PRESSLER
Amendment.
In 1990- 91 our economy was weak.WHen Arms aid to PAkistan was stopped IN 1990 it HELPED US A LOT.

SO Looking from Pakistan's eyes we have been FAR BETTER OFF with USSR.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
Today we are self reliant in Nuclear Space and Missile programmes
But initially ,Our Russian friends also helped in Nuclear and Space programmes. Also IN our missile programme Russian consultants have helped. THis fact has been acknowledged by Dr Kalam.
Later on as our scientists became more experienced we slowly became self reliant

And our nuclear submarine Arihant was IMPOSSIBLE without Russian help.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Let us look at this issue from Pakistani eyes.

Our Pakistani friends are EXASPERATED with our Russian friends's REPEATED REFUSAL to sell arms to Pakistan. Their Analysts and commentators also wonder if they should have allied with US

For USA , the most important business is BUSINESS ITSELF. There fore they are now in love with INDIA.

USA USED AND THREW AWAY PAKISTAN.

In 1990 PAkistan was showing off its nukes when it loaded its nukes on F 16 during the Indo- Pak crisis of
1990. USA realised PAkistan has become too big for its boots. AND Promptly imposed the PRESSLER
Amendment.
In 1990- 91 our economy was weak.WHen Arms aid to PAkistan was stopped IN 1990 it HELPED US A LOT.

SO Looking from Pakistan's eyes we have been FAR BETTER OFF with USSR.
Pankaj your assessment about USA is on dot but now a days even our Russian friends are also with us for business. Look at the price that we are paying for Latest lot of Sukhoi 30 MKI . Now everyone is with us only for business so we should extract best deals for us be it from USA or Russia.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
One Mistake Indian Leadership did not capitalize on was the role of Indian soldiers "volunteers" in ww1 and ww2 why no economic reward was given for this still puzzles me today?? No UNSC seat, no trade ,no acknowledgement etc...??? (5 million Indian soldiers fought in ww1 and ww2 for the allies in both fronts).
Exactly! Instead India supported Chinese UNSC seat thinking that PRC can represent Asia better.
But after Sino-soviet split, I don't think even if India has been close to US, any UNSC wonders were possible....
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,478
Likes
17,797
Good we were not US allies see what happened to our neighbour indebted nearly bankrupt state,they supported resistance in the Soviet-Afghan war now see what they reaping from this.it should be noted that India upon independence approached western states to build its industrial base but they turned us down the Soviet helped us with setting industrial plants (Oil refineries etc)
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
One Mistake Indian Leadership did not capitalize on was the role of Indian soldiers "volunteers" in ww1 and ww2 why no economic reward was given for this still puzzles me today?? No UNSC seat, no trade ,no acknowledgement etc...??? (5 million Indian soldiers fought in ww1 and ww2 for the allies in both fronts).
Credit of this Goes to our Reverend Pandit Nehru Ji . He offered UNSC seat to his best friend Mao . India owe a lot to Mr Nehru . china defeat and J&K mess are another ones .
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Ok I think the purpose of the thread is not being served. At least from my PoV or what I wanted to achieve in this thread. We know the historical baggage. I am not interested in that. Early on after independence if we had embraced america and capitalism and had become firm allies, then all that has happened later on would not have happened. India would be central in american scheme of things to counter commie influence in asia. Being a firm ally, we would have got all the benefits from it. india is not pakistan. We could have become what japan or south korea became, we could have industrialized faster. May be we could have been an industrialized country by now like SK.

Now if we had allied with the US first up, we would not have then seen the US get close to Pak during the 50s and 60s. Pakistan got all it wanted from the US only after the soviet invasion of Astan. we could have then seen the soviets embracing pakistan and the Afghan war of 80s could have been something else.
Then couple that with the sino US bonhomie of the 70s we could have also may be have been able to force the issue with pakistan on Kashmir. No chinese backing for pakistan the way it would have gone.

Basically trying to see what history would have been if Indias choice was different to what nehru took.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Well what we have to realise is that the US was looking after its geo-politcal interests and India was looking after its own interests. And as some members have mentioned, UK played an instrumental role in creating a rift of sorts. Many people might not know but US had pushed the UK to NOT partition India. US had already established diplomatic relations with India BEFORE independance. US diplomats had held meetings with Nehru and Azad as holder of the foreign policy portfolio and head of the Congress party respectively in the 1940s.

However, UK had insisted that partition was necessary to have a strategic base to contain USSR i.e. NW India. It did not help that the Congress had a left leaning agenda and Communists were wuiet popular among the Indian elite at that time. In contrast the ML leaders including Jinnah had guaranteed full defence co-operation with UK and US if Pakistan is guaranteed. And this is what happened. Lets not forget that the HQ of the British Indian Army was in Rawal Pindi and the ISI was established by a British Australian officer right after independace.

India was never expected to survive for long looking at the historical perspective. And it is to the credit of the founding fathers that understood theneed of unity in diversity. Some very real crisis based around language, caste religion e.t.c were defined and a solid foundation stone was set. This was holly unexpected for the British and later the Americans who relied on the British for their understanding of the sub-continent.


Now having said that, the US still tried to chart an independant relation with both India and Pakistan pre-1970s. Infact, there are reports of India allowing overflights toAmerican planes to airdrop supplies to Tibetian rebels in China in the 60s. AndNehru's socialism was more pragmatic compared to the complete command economy created by Indira. It was mainly the Indira years that led to economic stagnation.

There were dissenting voices though. Morarji Desai in the late 70s softened its stand with the USSR, improved relations with US, China and Pakistan, and also criticised the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Soviet soil. Ofcourse he lost the elections some say thanks to the millions of roubles given to Indira Ghandi. From 71 onwards till the late 90s US-India relations were trouble to say the least. This also pushed US to improve relations with Pakistan and China as a counter result and to balance a what they perceived USSR-India alliance.

What if scenarios are very hypothetical
IF you consider pre-partiion politics, if congress party had assured the US and UK of having defence (and in affect foreign policy) pacts then probably the partition itself would not have happened. But then, India would have been expected to play a heavy military role in the region based on THEIR threat perception. Taking an agressive stance on both USSR and China. India would also under the umbrella of US pacts had excellent relations with Cold war allies like Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran before the Shah was overthrown. However, soviet aligned states or even non-aligned states would turn hostile. Egypt, Syria and later Iraq in the ME as well as post-Shah Iran to powerful USSR-China bloc that would see India as a threat to them. Ofcourse economically India would probably had a very fast growth but with a huge poor population, not having populist policies could result in internal strife.
USSR and China being land neighbours would both have put enormouse effort in containing India and US being half a world away would hardly be able to support India as much as USSR could support China. We would have seen support of sepratists movements across India by teh USSR under the garb of freedom from colonialism with active involment of Soviet and Chinese spies. A counter move of by India being poor and over populated would be train and send militants across to Tibet or Afghanistan to counter that. All in all a messy situation still. Espicially if a partition had takenplace nevertheless, then you would have seen USSR and China supporting Pakistan as a counter balance.

Give the vision of early leaders the Non-aligned movement was possibly the best way to go ahead in the polarised world. Although the US "thought" India was left leaning. It was only after the 70s that realations were really affected. India's support to various independance movements that were being supressed by western countries didnt help either but garnered the praise of these newly emerging nations. The only problem was Indira's era of too much nationalisation that sapped economic growth.

Now that the cold war is over, India should go full speed ahead with putting all those cold war allied countries on a strong relationship. These include Japan, Australia, Indonesia as well as the gulf countries particularly Saudi ARabia and other ME countries like Israel and Turkey. By capitalising on this era were alliances are still being built India will have its ability to keep its options open when the next era of Cold war begins
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Thanks to rudra @BR i'm copying and pasting his entire post here.Take it what you feel is worth.Overall nice explanation by him....

If we're really serious about analyzing the dynamics between ideological groups that determine US foreign policy, let's begin with a taxonomy based on existing scholarship. IMHO this would be far more useful than trying to come up with nomenclatures of our own based on pet theories and very limited observations.

A good example would be the ideological classification proposed by Walter Russell Meade. He divides US policy groups into four classes: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, based on their broad imperatives.

Here are a few articles explaining Meade's "spectrum" and its four subdivisions from the American point of view:


http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/the_carter_syndrome

To be useful to our analysis, we must reconstruct this "spectrum" from an Indian point of view. Here's an attempt.

In general, Hamiltonians and Wilsonians are the more "outward looking" of the four groups. Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are the more "inward looking."

Also in general, most of the American public tend to be either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their broad geopolitical outlook. The Hamiltonians are mostly represented by a powerful elite of corporate and business interests. The Wilsonian base is a well-entrenched Washington intelligensia with strong influence over institutions like the State Department and the Pentagon (the "babudom" of America.) Wilsonians also dominate American academia and think-tanks.

Let's look at these four groups one by one.

1) Hamiltonians: named for America's first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, this group stands for Economic Expansionism. They support global political and military involvement for the purpose of creating and maintaining a system of trade and commerce dominated by the United States, with an American agenda at the helm.

Bretton Woods was the cradle of the modern Hamiltonian movement. The Marshall Plan, and the Roosevelt-Ibn Saud agreement (which formalized the USD as the currency in which international oil prices would be set) were early initiatives undertaken with Hamiltonian support to establish American economic supremacy.

Domestically, Hamiltonians are backed by big-business corporate interests.In nations where a climate favourable to international commerce exists, Hamiltonians try to further their agenda by political means (through American-dominated institutions such as the World Bank, G8 and WTO.)

In regions where a climate favourable to international commerce, the Hamiltonians are most concerned with making sure nothing happens to threaten the domination of global commerce by the United States. Chiefly, this means using the military, and shoring up military alliances, to ensure America's energy security"¦ and sometimes, to deny other nations the energy security they would need to compete economically with America. Hamiltonians insist that American foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia focus on enhancing American influence over the oil and mineral resources of those regions.

With respect to India, Hamiltonians generally ignored the socialist avatar of India as a lost cause, but they have begun to take increasing notice of India since liberalization and economic growth began in the early 1990s.

The most pro-India Hamiltonians would like to shape the rise of India into an economic partner and hedge against other potential economic competitors such as China. This sub-group of Hamiltonians were fully supportive of the India-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They are generally in favour of outsourcing and guest worker programs, as long as American corporations continue to receive growing access to Indian markets.

The least pro-India Hamiltonians, on the other hand, are skeptical about the relatively "slow" rise of India, about the obstacles to economic liberalization posed by the exigencies of India's democratic system, and instead choose to support China as a relatively "sure bet." They are the ones who would gladly overlook human-rights abuses or nuclear proliferation by China as long as market access and profit mechanisms remained intact.

As India continues to develop economically, it is likely that of all the four groups, the Hamiltonians will adopt policy attitudes most favourable to India. Along the way, however, there will be hiccups: India refusing to sign the Nuclear Liability Bill (thereby denying access to American energy corporations into the reactor-building market), or India choosing not to opt for an American-made MRCA, will be detrimental to the support we have among the Hamiltonians.

All Hamiltonians are realists for whom the bottom line is all about the money.
They see the maintenance of a running trade deficit with China as the best insurance against an inimical, confrontational US-PRC relationship in other spheres of competition. They figure that as long as China is invested in the economic well-being of the United States, its will to threaten the political interests of the United States will be limited.

Very few US presidents have been overt Hamiltonians, chiefly because being overtly associated with big business interests could be detrimental to the electoral success of a US presidential candidate. However, ALL US Presidents since Ronald Reagan have relied on the support of Hamiltonians to exercise their policy initiatives, and no president since Reagan has managed to enact a policy that was opposed by the Hamiltonians.

The most overtly Hamiltonian president so far might be George H.W. Bush, who actually ran the first Gulf War in such a way that America ended up making a profit! In recent years, meanwhile, some potential and actual Presidential candidates have been openly Hamiltonian, in background as well as in terms of their policy platforms. These include Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney and the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, who make no secret of their connection with US corporate interests.

2) Wilsonians are Ideological Expansionists. They seek to use the economic, political and military might of the United States to create a world where all nations look to the United States for ideological leadership. Their goal is to have all other nations willingly subject themselves to the geopolitical dominance of the United States in a global Pax Americana.

Wilsonians pretend to be "anti-imperialistic", and conceal their intentions behind rhetoric of "democracy", "American moral compass" and "multi-lateralism." In this sense, the Wilsonians are the most hypocritical of all the four groups.

The Wilsonians favour democracy in other nations, only when such democracy is guaranteed to be dominated by essentially pro-American parties who will toe the American line when it comes to making policy. They are intolerant of democratic systems which could potentially be dominated by independent parties who put their own national interest ahead of America's.

In this sense, Wilsonians are the most likely group to be anti-India. They are relatively happy with Manmohan Singh because of his willingness to accommodate American interests; but they are deeply distrustful of Indian babudom, and they are completely against nationalist Indian parties like the BJP.

In fact, even though they claim to stand for "democracy", Wilsonians prefer dictatorships that can be successfully manipulated by America, to democratic countries that are independent enough to oppose America. The Wilsonian path to American global dominance involves "balance of power" games which essentially amount to divide-and-rule. The Wilsonians see America as the true legates of the British Empire, even though they would like to couch their subsidiary alliances in the guise of "independent democratic regimes" that only seek the leadership of America because America is morally superior.

One important thing to realize about the Wilsonians is that, since the end of the Cold War, they have actually split into two competing camps.

As long as the Cold War was in progress, Wilsonians were more or less united in seeing international Communism, specifically Soviet Communism, as the chief obstacle to ideological dominance of the world by the United States. Henry Kissinger could be described as the archetypal old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonian.

However, following the USSR's collapse, there is disagreement among the two camps of Wilsonians as to what America's priorities should be.

These two camps of Wilsonians can be broadly described as:

2A) The "Bush Wilsonians", also commonly known as "Neoconservatives", who gained prominence during the George W. Bush regime. They include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, as well as lower-profile figures such as Robert Blackwill. Think-tanks of the Bush-Wilsonian persuasion include the CATO institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Project for a New American Century.

The term "Neoconservative" is actually a misnomer for this group, because they are actually less conservative than the other camp. They sought to radically reconstruct the American foreign policy establishment's view of the world following the end of the Cold War.

From the Bush-Wilsonian perspective, the demise of the Soviet Union was the start of a brand new era in which America had a unique opportunity as the sole superpower to shape the world for domination. Ideologically, the Bush-Wilsonians subscribe to the notion that America must be the unilateral forerunner of Western civilization, inspired by a Judeo-Christian (mainly Christian) perspective.

They deviate from the old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonians in no longer seeing Russia as the chief threat to the United States, and rejecting the idea that American dominance must be pursued multilaterally through such organizations as the UN.

The Bush-Wilsonians regard China as the major future threat to the United States, followed closely by international Islamism. They are fervent supporters of Israel, owing to a strongly Biblical ideology.

As a means to ensuring American global dominance, the Bush-Wilsonians have sought to reconstruct the geopolitical framework of alliances and strategic partnerships that prevailed during the Cold War. They have tried to rope in India into the American camp by offering such carrots as the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They have also strengthened America's ties with former Soviet Bloc nations in Eastern Europe, bringing Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia into NATO.

On the other hand, the Bush-Wilsonians have downgraded the American reliance on allies in Continental Western Europe, which they dismissively describe as "Old Europe", even as they have sought to shore up a few key alliances of the Cold-War Era such as with the UK, Australia, and Japan.

Similarly, they have made some moves towards engaging Russia as a potential strategic partner rather than a competitor, especially in light of the challenges Russia appeared to be facing from a resurgent China and from Islamist terrorism in the early 2000s.

However, their approach to Russia has been wary, and often contradictory, as seen in the American support for the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, American initiatives to station missiles in East European countries such as Poland, and American backing of such individuals as Georgia's Shakashvili who were belligerently anti-Russian. In such cases, some of the old-school Cold-War-Era Wilsonian prejudices seemed to re-establish themselves with regard to Bush-Wilsonian foreign policy.

These contradictions also manifested themselves when, after invading Afghanistan, the Bush-Wilsonians decided to rely on Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban, with fatal consequences.

The highlight of the Bush-Wilsonians' dominance over the US Foreign Policy Establishment was of course, the Iraq War"¦ something which has ended up destroying their credibility for the present.

As far as India is concerned, the Bush-Wilsonians have made overtures to India that sharply contrasted with the dismissive attitude of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians. However, the growth of predatory Evangelical missionary activity as Washington's influence increased in Delhi during the Bush administration, is a warning sign that not all was well with US-India relations during this period. Additionally, the Bush-Wilsonians have repeatedly insisted that India "prove" its sincerity towards Washington, by downgrading its relationship with Iran for example.

When and if the Bush-Wilsonians regain their influence in Washington, India should game them deftly"¦ securing all the benefits we can from their willingness to abandon Cold-War Era policy, but remaining careful not to cede an undue level of influence that might prove to be detrimental to our national and civilizational interests.

2B) The second camp of Wilsonians that has emerged following the USSR's demise are the "Clinton-Wilsonians." They are actually more conservative than the Bush-Wilsonian "Neoconservatives", in that their attitudes more closely reflect the classical Cold-War-Era Wilsonians' worldview.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the closest group to what Sanjay M likes to call "Atlanticists". They are deeply distrustful of Russia, and less averse to China; they are also strongly invested in the idea of revitalizing the trans-Atlantic alliances with Western Europe that America maintained during the Cold War. For the rest of the world, the Clinton-Wilsonians firmly trust in the British techniques of divide-et-impera, and in our region in particular, they are the modern torchbearers of Olaf Caroe's geopolitical agenda. They are more likely than any of the other groups to entertain the idea that Jihadi Islamism can continue to be a coercive policy tool in America's hands.

(Aside: However, I don't believe that this necessarily has anything to do with the "East European ethnic background" of Clinton-Wilsonians. True, some high-profile members of this camp, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeline Albright, are of East European extraction. However, many others of this camp are not ethnic East Europeans, and besides, all the other policy groups in Walter Russell Meade's spectrum also include a good number of ethnic East Europeans, which makes the correlation doubtful.)

Think-tanks of the Clinton-Wilsonian persuasion include the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Most of the Non-Proliferation types who bash India while ignoring Chinese/Paki proliferation, are Clinton-Wilsonians.

The Clinton-Wilsonians showed their eagerness to reshape the world in America's favour following the end of the Cold War, most prominently in two instances. One was the war in Yugoslavia, which was deliberately split up into ethnic nationalities, providing additional levers of control that the West could easily manipulate. The second was the secession of East Timor from Indonesia.

In both of these cases, it should be noted that the Clinton-Wilsonians proceeded to fulfill their agenda under the cover of "international consensus", using the UN to pull together "coalitions" of nations which supported the American initiative. This modus operandi is a key point of differentiation between Clinton-Wilsonians from Bush-Wilsonians, who have been much more prone to reject the authority of multilateral bodies like the UN and carry out unilateral actions such as the Iraq war.

As far as India is concerned, the Clinton-Wilsonians (who include such functionaries as Strobe Talbott, Richard Holbrooke and Robin Raphel) are an inflexible, implacable enemy. This is the single worst group that could come to dominate US foreign policy, from our point of view. They continue the most anti-India traditions of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians, supporting Pakistan to the maximum extent possible and winking at Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, even while they bash India for developing its own nuclear arsenal. They refuse to see India as a potential strategic counter to China, and prefer to cultivate China in a "G2" model of cooperative partnership for the short-to-medium term.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the group who most fervently support Pakistan as a counter to India's regional dominance, as described in George Friedman's Stratfor article. They are the most likely group to retain the India-Pakistan hyphen wherever possible, bombard India with equal-equal psyops, and overtly rake up the Kashmir issue as a pressure point against India. They seek to restrict Indian influence to a sub-dominant level even within the "South Asian" region. This is in sharp contrast to the Bush-Wilsonians who made some attempt to dehyphenate India and Pakistan, with a view to bolstering India as strategic rival against China.

I do not see how the Clinton-Wilsonians can be won over"¦ when they are in charge of US foreign policy, it makes more sense for India to engage with other powerful interest groups such as the Hamiltonians so as the modulate the virulence of the Clinton-Wilsonians' initiatives against India.

Speaking of Wilsonians in general, Lyndon Johnson (who began the Vietnam war) was a classic Wilsonian president, as was his successor Richard Nixon (who reached out to China via Pakistan to form an alliance against the Soviet Union). This is an illustration of how the policy groups of Meade's spectrum can often cut across Republican/Democrat party lines.

More recently, Bill Clinton has been a Wilsonian president who was, however, always careful to secure the backing of the Hamiltonians (whose power greatly increased during the Reagan years.)

It should be noted that there are many in the US Foreign Policy Establishment who do not fully commit to either the Bush-Wilsonian or Clinton-Wilsonian camps. Robert Gates is one such. Other examples include academics like Stephen Cohen and Christine Fair, who pretend to an independent "maverick" image but in reality always make statements that are in line with the Wilsonian flavour-of-the-month in Washington.

3) The Jeffersonians, compared to the Hamiltonians or Wilsonians, are decidedly inward-looking. They believe in a largely non-interventionist foreign policy, and in concentrating resources on domestic reforms.

Of the four groups of Meade's spectrum, the Jeffersonians are most inclined to oppose the rise of the "military-industrial complex""¦ something that Eisenhower famously warned against as he was leaving office, and which is an important source of political influence for both Hamiltonians and Wilsonians.

As I mentioned earlier, many common Americans are either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their outlook. If you talk to an American about the India-Pakistan situation and he says something like "sort it out yourselves, it's none of our business""¦ that American is most likely a Jeffersonian.

The typical Jeffersonian is to the "left" of the American political spectrum, upholding traditional "liberal" ideas such as increased Federal Government involvement in social and economic development, upliftment of underprivileged sections, civil rights, environmental conservationism, regulation of corporations, global initiatives against poverty/disease/global warming and so on. Such politicians as Dennis Kucinich are at the extreme left of this group.

However, not all Jeffersonians are leftist. Libertarian Isolationists such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, who believe in a Fortress America model where the US military is exclusively employed to guard America's borders and enforce illegal immigration laws, also purvey an essentially Jeffersonian foreign policy.

As such, the Jeffersonian attitude towards India tends to be neutral"¦ but this is largely irrelevant. That is because Jeffersonian Presidents tend to hand over control of foreign policy to Wilsonians. Jimmy Carter relied on Cold-War-Era Brzezinski, and Barack Obama relies on Clinton-Wilsonians such as Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke and co. with Brzezinski still present as a mentor-figure. The advantage India has today is that it has cultivated a constituency with the Hamiltonians, who are much more powerful at present than they were during the Carter regime. With the Bush-Wilsonians largely in disgrace, the Hamiltonians are our primary channel of influencing American foreign policy in a positive manner at present.

4) The Jacksonians are also, primarily inward-looking, though they differ dramatically from the Jeffersonians in their domestic policy agenda. While the Jeffersonians tend to be idealists, the Jacksonians are fervent populists. In the tradition of Andrew Jackson, they stand for increased power of the executive branch (the President) relative to the legislature or judiciary; limited federal government role and in the affairs of the country, the "patronage" policy of actively placing political supporters into appointed offices, expanded states' rights and decentralization.

Also in the tradition of Andrew Jackson, who pledged to expand the United States "from sea to shining sea", the Jacksonians believe in America's Manifest Destiny as the natural leader of the world and in securing America's influence overseas by any means necessary"¦ not shying away from unilateral military action whenever required.

Some articles on Meade's spectrum describe Jacksonians as the only group that believes in American Exceptionalism. From an Indian point of view, this is not strictly true"¦ ALL the four groups believe in American Exceptionalism"¦ but the Jacksonians are the ones who most prominently wear it on their sleeves.

Jacksonians tend to be issue-based in their politics, rallying around anti-abortion movements, restriction of gay rights, defence of second-amendment gun rights, unapologetic Christian influence in schools and government institutions etc.

Jacksonians, unlike Jeffersonians, do not make "non-intervention" a cornerstone of their foreign policy views; they are quite happy to intervene in a muscular fashion whenever they deem it necessary to do so. However, their perspective is largely focused on internal priorities, so again, Jacksonian Presidents of the United States have traditionally handed over control of foreign policy to other groups. Reagan depended on Hamiltonians like James Baker and Cold-War-Era Wilsonians such as Alexander Haig. George W. Bush also depended on Hamiltonians, but ceded a large amount of policy space to the new Bush-Wilsonians or Neoconservatives of his day.


***

In conclusion, is not easy to identify any one of these groups as the "best" from India's point of view.

Also, it is important to realize that no one group typically has complete dominance over a particular US administration's foreign policy. The actual policy is often a vector sum of competing influences brought together by political expediency and self-interest.

For example, Clinton's initiatives were planned by Clinton-Wilsonians but strongly modified to accommodate Hamiltonian interests (which became extremely powerful during the Reagan years.)

Bush's Iraq War was a Bush-Wilsonian policy initiative to bring an American-controlled "democratic" regime change to Iraq. But to enact it, the Bush administration relied on support from both Hamiltonians (interest in the oil fields of Iraq) and Jacksonians (strong popular opposition to Islamism following 9/11.)

Obama is a Jeffersonian who is torn between his Jeffersonian electoral base, which favours a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Clinton-Wilsonian foreign policy establishment, which pursues a flawed policy based on alliance with Pakistan and negotiations with "good" Taliban.

It seems clear that the Clinton-Wilsonians are the most implacable foes of India among all these groups.

Others, particularly Bush-Wilsonians and Hamiltonians, can be engaged on some specific points of convergent interest, but must be handled carefully because other aspects of their agendas are inimical to Indian interest.

Ultimately, a Jacksonian President is perhaps most likely to nuke Pakistan or take a confrontationalist posture towards China"¦ but depending on various factors, the specific circumstances and consequences may or may not be in India's interest.. We will have to be quick on our feet to translate any advantage out of such situations.

And finally, if India ever rises beyond the confines of the region to the beginnings of global superpowerdom"¦ probably our best bet is for the United States to follow a Jeffersonian line of limited intervention, leaving a power vacuum that we can endeavour to fill.

To close, let me propose (tongue in cheek)"¦ the Indian equivalents of the W.R. Meade spectrum.

Hamiltonian—Narasimhavadi (for PVNR)
Wilsonian—Indiravadi
Jeffersonian—Jawaharlalvadi
Jacksonian—Thackerayvadi!
To me, this entire episode has stunk of USA's hand from the beginning (circa June this year.)

For years, the Pakistanis have been openly asking Unkil to "intervene in Kashmir" by sending Bill Clinton to mediate and what not. Because of the emerging India-Usa trade relationship, notably the Nuclear Energy and MRCA contracts, the Americans have so far fought shy of doing that by making the excuse "we can only mediate if both sides want it."

But behind the scenes, several other things are going on.

1) USA does not want India to get too comfortable in J&K as a result of the turmoil in Pakistan. USA does not want us to become a windfall beneficiary of the AfPak situation, as Iran has become of the Iraq situation. As George Friedman of Stratfor has indicated, containment of India's rise within the subcontinental region is a geostrategic priority for USA. Therefore it is in USA's interest, for his own sake, that the J&K pot should be kept boiling.

2) Furthermore, USA wants to give the Pak a bone by undermining Indian sovereignty over J&K. PA/ISI are always complaining to USA that they are forced to support the "militant groups" (i.e. Jihadis), even the ones that are anti-Western, precisely because such "militant groups" are the only leverage Pakistan has to pressure India on Kashmir. Clinton-Wilsonians like Brzezinski openly buy this argument... so it's not surprising that USA's current foreign policymakers buy it too.

3) However, USA does not want to use Jihadis (the classic Pakistani method) to keep the J&K pot boiling, because USA has realized where that road ends up... with HuJI/JeM/LeT killing Western soldiers and civilians. Also, USA has paid lots of lip-service to India's concerns on Cross-Border Terrorism, and he cannot wink and nod at the continuing use of Jihadis by Pakistan in J&K, as easily as he could from 1990 upto 2002-03.

4) So USA has worked out a game plan with the PA/ISI whereby pressure can be kept up on India in J&K without using overt Jihadi tanzeems to fight the proxy war as before. In return,USA hopes to convince the "Americanised" factions of PA/ISI (as opposed to the "Islamic" ones) that they should take firmer action against the Jihadis threatening USA's troops in Afghanistan. After all, if USA is keeping India busy in J&K, then Pakistan has available another avenue for pressuring India apart from the use of Jihadi tanzeems.

5) This is a classic case of USA's acting on his misperceptions.

First of all, USA is mistaken in seeing an "westernized " and an "Islamic" faction in the PA/ISI. The allegedly "westernized" faction of Kiyani/Pasha are nothing but Islamic jernails engaging in Taqqiya, but the Brezinski-type Clinton-Wilsonians refuse to believe that. They see the "westernized" faction as distinct and opposed to the "Islamic" Hamid Gul faction.

Secondly, USA thinks that by his using other means to pressure India in J&K, the PA/ISI can be convinced to let go of their "dependence on Jihadis" for this purpose... again, an incorrect impression.

5) The present situation, I speculate, has been launched with Unkilian funds and American management. PA/ISI are very much in the picture, of course, but this time they are operational proxies performing in lock-step with USA's instructions. They are not sending Jihadis (as per the Hamid Gul technique) in significant numbers YET. Instead they are working with USA to "internationalize" Kashmir as a political/human-rights/self-determination issue rather than as a jihadi Islamist issue (something which would kill its popular appeal in the West.)

6) Hence the repeated attempts in lifafa articles all over the international media, to portray the current disturbances in J&K as an "intifada-type" popular uprising which is entirely justifiable and worthy of support... and the repeated emphasis that this is a "non-jihadi, non-militant, bissful and 400% indigenous movement."

7) At home, the Clinton-Wilsonians are using this ploy to bring the (normally non-interventionist) Jeffersonians over to the cause of bashing India on J&K. In Islamabad, they are trying to use it to convince Pakistan to abandon its support for jihadis (because see, we can undermine the Indians in J&K without the use of Jihadis so much more effectively.)

8 ) In a sense this is identical to the role the US was playing in J&K in the early 1990s when they launched and sponsored the Hurriyat Conference. Then, too, the Clinton-Wilsonians were the architects of US foreign policy towards India. Their agent at the time was Robin Raphel. Recently Robin Raphel was recruited by Richard Holebroke in some phony-sounding capacity ("overseeing non-military aid to Pakistan" or some such.) I wonder if what we are seeing in J&K are the fruits of Robin Raphel's labour in her real job... something that she definitely has qualifying experience for.

9) Pakistan is going along with the situation because it is to their benefit. They are probably itching to unleash Jihadis in J&K, but since they aren't getting the green light from Washington, they are content to let USA take the lead in manufacturing this "peaceful intifada" instead. Eventually the Pakistanis hope that India will provide some excuse, either through inaction or over-reaction, and then they can start infiltrating jihadis under the guise of "indigenous militancy" once again. But of course, one thing is for sure: Pakistan will never be so satisfied with the USA-manufactured pressure on J&K that it will permanently abandon its support for Jihadi tanzeems.

10) As this situation progresses, many countervailing forces will come into play.

a) On the one hand, Brzezinski and the Clinton-Wilsonians will see that Pakistan (despite going along with USA's game plan in J&K) has not abandoned its support for jihadi tanzeems in Afghanistan. They will argue that even more pressure has to be brought on India in J&K to make Pakistan abandon its jihadi proxies. Hence, as the situation cooks further for India in J&K and meanwhile USA is faring no better in AfPak, media coverage of "peaceful intifada" will intensify further, and more and more "intervention-type" statements will be made by Washington on Cashmere. So far it is only the Pakistanis who continue to whine that "root cause of AfPak problem is Cashmere"... but as time goes by the Brzezinskis of the world will start jumping into the public debate to lend credibility to Pakistan's POV. This is already happening, on the part of some motivated slimebags in the UN Secretary General's office.

b) However, there may be some in Washington who see that the whole exercise of trying to get Pakistan to ditch its support for jihadis by promoting "peaceful intifada" in J&K was futile. This will happen as the situation progresses and Pakistan meanwhile continues to supply MANPADS to the Taliban, refuses to invade N. Waziristan, continues to protect the Haqqanis and Quetta Shura, etc.

c) Finally, certain interest groups in the US are afraid to openly pressure India on J&K these days, as Washington used to in the 1990s. These are mainly the Hamiltonian groups who have much to lose in terms of investments and business deals if India gets pi$$ed off. Again, the MRCA deal is the best axe we have hanging over Unkil's head. It is also an incentive for the EU not to go along if Unkil tries too hard to "internationalize" J&K... because the EU wants the MRCA deal equally badly.

India's best option is to balance the groups defined in (b) and (c) above against the Clinton-Wilsonians, the group defined in (a). This will take some deft diplomacy and most importantly, a unity of vision and motivation of purpose among the GOI. If we let things slide it will go badly for us.

However, if we use diplomacy to maximum effect, I don't think the rock-throwers of J&K are anything to worry about in and of themselves. If they try to go to Pakistan to train for Jihad and then infiltrate back into J&K, we are prepared this time, as we were not in the early 1990s. We have a security establishment which has been through all that before, an intelligence network of Ikhwans in place, a fence on the border, and much better training and equipment to deal with incoming Jihadis.

It might actually be to India's interest if this current situation takes on a clearly visible Jihadi colour (and destroys the basis for the "peaceful intifada" propaganda that the Clinton-Wilsonians would like to use against India.)

It seems that the Kashmiri's were relatively quite peaceful when an actual Jihad was being waged, and quite happy to have the IA in the streets of Srinagar when Kashmiri themselves were seeing their shops and homes and children blown up by LET grenades. It is only now that the Jihadis have largely been destroyed in the valley, that the Kashmiri have become very brave and started throwing rocks at their erstwhile protectors, demanding "azaadi" once again.

When IA is all that stands between them and head-chopping Pathans, the Kashmiri are quite grateful to have us around, and in such situations the international community tends to see J&K from our point of view as well.
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
It is ironic that once India was out of favour with USA vis a vis its relations with China and Pakistan.
China was necessary for containing soviet union and PAkistan was ALSO necessary in the first Afghan war of 1979 to1989.

Now India is looked as" balancing power" against BOTH
1.the growing power of China AND
2.the unstable and jihadi and fundamentalist Pakistan.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,797
Likes
48,276
Country flag
China became the #2 economy as a reward for containing USSR, what will India get??
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
China became the #2 economy as a reward for containing USSR, what will India get??
Bingo!

Indeed there was no need & even there is no need to be aligned with USA. Mahatma Gandhi gave us the message of 'Self-sufficiency', it is to be followed. India had/has no long term gains by aligning with USA. What has happened is better in a way..
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
Foreign Policy is a very dynamic thing.
ALL countries WERE VYING for US attention. And offering themselves as allies TO EITHER SUPER POWERS

To expect that USA would have found India as MORE USEFUL than both CHINA and PAkistan TOGETHER in 50s and 60s is just impossible to believe.

China Pak alliance was in Place after 1962.

USA found China as a WILLING ally.IT wanted to break SOVIET China alliance and it succeeded
 

ahmedsid

Top Gun
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
2,960
Likes
252
Simple, If we were US Allies, Pakistan Would be the Worlds Next Superpower, and would have taken over the India is holding today!

USA Chose Pakistan, because Pakistan was basically willing to do all the dirty work. India Wasnt!

India, would have been split into many pieces now, if we were US Allies I believe, because to be an ally, we would have had to train Mujahideen, and remember, it is these very Mujahideen striking Pakistan now! Just think, If we had fed these snakes, would even one of our Temples or Mosques be Safe now?

To Get even with us the USSR, would have fed other insurgent groups in India, and like I said, all this will make Pakistan peaceful, and they would have taken over the Place we are holding now!

Thank God, for Us not being US Allies during Cold War! God Speed
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
Pakistan received liberal aid from USA AND DID NT look towards self reliance .
It has consequently become an IMPORT ADDICTED COUNTRY with a very poor industrial base.

We never took our focus away from self reliance.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Everyone worships or salute rising sun. India is on rise and will be very useful for USA in future to contain Chinese Influence in Asia.
In politics no one is permanent friend or enemy. so I would expect India to get best possible deals for its former or current allies. Look at the price we are paying to Russians for recent Defence purchases.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Ajtr, india is not pakistan. Indias a democratic society. India could have been what others like those I mentioned would have been. May be we would have had or reform process started right up with industrialization. We could have attracted a lot more FDI. We missed all that as the west economically was more powerful than the soviets.

But I think the discussion so far has not been to the level I was hoping for,
Leaving aside who did what in history, and using the points I raised as a cue and having the benefit of hindsight lets discuss the topic.
Yusuf,
Partnership with usa during cold war days would had to have been on usa's terms i.e. india should behave like junior partner like Japan south korea etc do.Btw its your thinking that india is not pakistan but in usa's/west thinking india=pakistan.And the result of equal=equal we still see in the cold war warriors of pentagon in obama admin.What is the meaning of indo-usa partnership in typical usa politicians eys...
1. india has to sign all CTBT/NPT/FMCT etc.
2.Only p-5 are allowed to keep nukes.India has to CRE (Cap-Rollback-Eliminate) its nuke as other partners of it like japan south korea did.
3.India has to be a member of NATO to be eligible for usa nuke cover.But NATO itself is racists.

If india is ready to surrender its independence like many other usa partner do then sure india would ve benefited fro usa during cold war.But one thing we have learned and learned it hard durin 200 years of colonial struggle that never at any cost surrender your freedom.USA partnership during cold war was just extension of imperialism in new bottle. And i'm glad indian leadership never accepted that slavery again.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top