Anglosphere - India's Future?

[argumentum]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579195922823363280

I know many nationalistic Indians might recoil at this overly rosy portrayal of British history, but I'm interested in opinions of the author's conclusion regarding India:

"Perhaps the most important geopolitical question of the 21st century is this: Will India define itself primarily as a member of the Anglosphere or as an Asian power? ...

If India were to take its place at the heart of a loose Anglosphere network, based on free trade and military alliance, the future would suddenly look a great deal brighter. Of course, to join such a free trade area, the U.K. and Ireland would have to leave the EU. But that's another story."​

 

[Srinivas_K]

India will never go into Anglo sphere ... India is happy to be a Strong Asian power.

But todays world is very complicated and based on that the strategic partnership are done. Economic and trade relations with China and co operation in military area with USA is an example.

The rise of China and the factors that are changing around India is like a puzzle and catch 22 situation to our foreign policy. India has to overcome that and convert them into opportunities to grow !

 

[ezsasa]

First off this is a 2013 article, Global geopolitics are a lot different now.
The way things are going as of today, india does not need anglosphere. India would be quite content maintaining it's dominance over Indian ocean region and being asian soft power for now.

 

[prohumanity]

Times have changed....being inside anglosphere is no more rewarding for any nation as Anglosphere have earned billions of enemies in last 14 years.

 

[argumentum]

Indians need to start thinking bigger. India's goal should not be to become an "asian power", India's goal should be to be Asia's Hegemon. It may seem unrealistic now, but from 300bc to 1200ad, India was Asia's dominant culture and economy. There is no reason why that shouldn't be the case 50 years from now.

Joining an anglosphere alliance can help India achieve this for the following reasons:

1. India is already "in" the anglosphere, due to its large English speaking population. The question is whether to acknowledge and take advantage of this membership militarily and economically. Anglosphere countries are strategically located around the world to dominate trade & geopolitics. United, we can control the sea lanes, push back the advance of Islamism, contain the threat of Chinese or Russian expansionism. We can ensure the world bends to our rules (personal liberty, political equality, rule of law) rather than us bending to its rules.

2. English is the world's lingua franca for the foreseeable future. India will soon house the world's largest population of native english speakers (those brought up knowing English). With the advent of the internet, conversation is global. Those who dominate the English conversation will exert extraordinary influence over world opinion.

3. I see many complaints in this forum about America looking out for its own self-interest. The real question is when will Indians realize the true genius of America is understanding how to channel self-interest to create a prosperous & free society. Indian and American interests weren't aligned during the cold war, because while they agreed on political principles but disagreed on economics. America looked the other way on Saudi/Pakistan because its greatest ideological enemy was communism. Now that India has intellectually accepted free markets & free trade, and America has defeated communism and been attacked by Islamism, our interests are perfectly aligned.

3. There are powerful Indian origin communities in all the other anglosphere nations (Britain, USA (like me), Australia, South Africa, Canada, Singapore). Many of us are eager to help facilitate India's rise, partly for reasons of pride or duty, but also for reasons of self-interest. The closer India and America get, the more job & investment opportunities we will get as a bridge between the two powers. The Indian diaspora is much younger than the Jewish diaspora, so we have not yet built global institutions to coordinate our activities. With India's help, we will.

The era of "non-alignment" & "third-worldism" is over. India can and will rule Asia, and dare I say the world, but only when its people realize they are a free people, who no longer fear foreign domination, and who engage with the world to promote their interests.

It's time to stop playing the victim and start planning for victory.

 

[ezsasa]

Dude @argumentum, like i said before India need not need to join anglosphere. in current Geo political environment 50 Yrs is a long time to plan a ahead. There is too much backlog at this point in time to focus on long term strategic goal for ourselves. Once economy is back on track i am sure long term goals will reveal themselves. In all probability these long term goals will be based on India's energy and raw material needs.

I am told today that most of the infrastructure funds for india are coming from NRI's, so it seems NRI's are interested in india and all that govt needs to do is to ensure maintain those confidence levels. This is what china did when it started to grow and this is what we are doing now...

Either way i don't think general public like you and me have much say in defining strategic goals of a country like india.

However if you have time and resources to spare and you really want to help india, you can pitch-in in exposing the corrupt media in india. Indians listen more to opinions from the outside than within the country. i was planning on a social media based public rating system for Media houses, TV Channels, News anchors, Journalists, and TV debates.

My idea was that on SM people would rate on parameters like:
"Do they take sides"
"Are they neutral"
"Do they give sufficient time for all sides to explain their point of view"
"Do they frequently in interrupt speakers during a debate"

ultimately the goal is to have users to rate them in simple "Yes/No". Ratings can be published real time.
i am sure if we have a simple UI we can make people understand how biased media is....

What say you?

 

[argumentum]

India is a democratic republic, like America, and in such countries it is exactly the people (like us) who ultimately decide on the direction our countries take. This doesn't mean the government is perfectly reflective of public opinion at any point in time, but it is always converging toward the will of the people.

If the only thing India gets from its diaspora is money, it would be a shame. We have so much more to offer; we can lobby our own governments towards policies favorable to India, we can help build a global network so that young Indians can get preferential access to the best opportunities everywhere etc.

Strategy is by definition long term thinking.

In the long run, do you want India to be the next China, or the next America? When the American founders were drafting our Constitution in the late 1780s, they wrote a series of papers analyzing history and outlining a strategy to remake the world in their own image. 200 years later, by sticking by and large to that strategy, America is the most prosperous, powerful, influential and inventive state in the world. It defeated its ideological enemies one by one: monarchy, colonialism, fascism, communism. Now it stands alone.

Every Indian should read them: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/introduction.php

I don't worry too much about the media being biased (anywhere, not just India). In the US, liberals claim it's biased in favor of the conservatives, while conservatives say its biased in favor of liberals. It's important not to get too paranoid about these things, lest we end up like Pakistan. I also think the professional media is losing influence, as the conversation now happens as much on social media and p2p on the web.

I think its more important to know which officials and bureaucrats are influenced by which special interests. I could imagine a dashboard like what you describe being useful for that.

 

[ezsasa]

India is a democratic republic, like America, and in such countries it is exactly the people (like us) who ultimately decide on the direction our countries take. This doesn't mean the government is perfectly reflective of public opinion at any point in time, but it is always converging toward the will of the people.

If the only thing India gets from its diaspora is money, it would be a shame. We have so much more to offer; we can lobby our own governments towards policies favorable to India, we can help build a global network so that young Indians can get preferential access to the best opportunities everywhere etc.

Strategy is by definition long term thinking.

In the long run, do you want India to be the next China, or the next America? When the American founders were drafting our Constitution in the late 1780s, they wrote a series of papers analyzing history and outlining a strategy to remake the world in their own image. 200 years later, by sticking by and large to that strategy, America is the most prosperous, powerful, influential and inventive state in the world. It defeated its ideological enemies one by one: monarchy, colonialism, fascism, communism. Now it stands alone.

Every Indian should read them: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/introduction.php

I don't worry too much about the media being biased (anywhere, not just India). In the US, liberals claim it's biased in favor of the conservatives, while conservatives say its biased in favor of liberals. It's important not to get too paranoid about these things, lest we end up like Pakistan. I also think the professional media is losing influence, as the conversation now happens as much on social media and p2p on the web.

I think its more important to know which officials and bureaucrats are influenced by which special interests. I could imagine a dashboard like what you describe being useful for that.

The fact that Riche Verma has been sent here as ambassador is indicator of the fact that America has realised the importance of indian diaspora in the relationship building between two countries. This is a positive sign.

The fact that Modi makes a point to address indian diaspora which ever country he visits is an indicator that the current Govt understands the relevance of Indian diaspora at world stage, simply because we are practically every where.

India and America have different starting points in history. India is a very old country which was reborn just 67 years back and america is a very young country which had a fresh start 200 odd years back. It is unlikely that india will have the same strategic goals as america obviously, more importantly because of the geography. Like i said in my last post until the breakeven in terms of economy happens, it is difficult to judge what the next set of strategic goals would be. Just like an army cannot march on hungry stomach, a true democracy should not think of conquering the world when there are hungry in your own house.i am pretty sure current strategic goals is to have a peaceful and prosperous south asian and indian ocean region, so that indian economy can progress without too much of a fuss.

We have primarily been a country run by economics of socialism which has held india back , after a long time we seem to be moving away from that thought process and we are now ready to embrace free market for the second time in last thirty years.

i am assuming you don't track Indian news channels, imagine if almost every channel in america behaves like Fox News. that is the state we are in.

 

[argumentum]

I agree the signs are positive, especially in India (less so in America, which seems to be diluting the ideas which made it great). I hope India takes this opportunity to cement this new direction.

Also, it's not either or. India needs to secure access to resources, free trade agreements, freedom of navigation etc in order to grow the economy. This entails political, diplomatic and military maneuvering, as the best deals are secured from a position of strength. "War is a continuation of politics by other means", said the German military philosopher Klausewitz. The long term strategic goal for any empire should be world domination.

I don't know Hindi, but I've seen a few youtube clips of an english channel with a crazy guy called Arnab arguing with some Pakistani generals. I found him funny, nationalistic, but not fundamentally biased.

Americans on the left tend to be hyper-sensitive about political correctness, and if you don't toe their line you can easily be demonized (like Fox News has been). No question Fox has an ideological pov, is nationalistic, pro-business etc. During the Bush years progressives like Jon Stewart berated them for "fear mongering" about Islamism and predicting a caliphate. But they were right..

The more dangerous channels are stated owned ones like Al Jazeera, Russia TV and even the BBC, which feign a veneer of even-handedness while pursuing a government agenda. If you have a free private media, any corporate interests will tend to balance each other out. (I.e. for every ideologically rightist channel like Fox News, you will get an ideologically leftist channel like MSNBC).

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This anglosphere idea is interesting. I always wondered why indian government never capitalized on helping Britain win two world wars and opium wars etc....?

 

[ezsasa]

This anglosphere idea is interesting. I always wondered why indian government never capitalized on helping Britain win two world wars and opium wars etc....?

They are doing it now, that was the reason behind modi's visit to that french 1st world war monument for indian soldiers.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

They are doing it now, that was the reason behind modi's visit to that french 1st world war monument for indian soldiers.

This is kind of late . Leaders should have did this after independence rather than three generations later when the wars are history.

 

[ezsasa]

This is kind of late . Leaders should have did this after independence rather than three generations later when the wars are history.

"Better late than never' i guess.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

"Better late than never' i guess.

There was a time when a UN Security Council seat was offered to india rather than having to ask for it. This was rejected at that time.

http://www.quora.com/India-famously...decision-affect-Indias-history-over-the-years

India famously rejected a UN Security Council permanent seat. How did that decision affect India's history over the years?

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/10/stories/2004011004021200.htm

`Nehru declined offer of permanent U.N. seat'​

 

[Abhijat]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303289904579195922823363280

I know many nationalistic Indians might recoil at this overly rosy portrayal of British history, but I'm interested in opinions of the author's conclusion regarding India:

"Perhaps the most important geopolitical question of the 21st century is this: Will India define itself primarily as a member of the Anglosphere or as an Asian power? ...

If India were to take its place at the heart of a loose Anglosphere network, based on free trade and military alliance, the future would suddenly look a great deal brighter. Of course, to join such a free trade area, the U.K. and Ireland would have to leave the EU. But that's another story."​

India is already "in" the anglosphere, due to its large English speaking population. The question is whether to acknowledge and take advantage of this membership militarily and economically. Anglosphere countries are strategically located around the world to dominate trade & geopolitics. United, we can control the sea lanes, push back the advance of Islamism, contain the threat of Chinese or Russian expansionism. We can ensure the world bends to our rules (personal liberty, political equality, rule of law) rather than us bending to its rules.

In the long run, do you want India to be the next China, or the next America? When the American founders were drafting our Constitution in the late 1780s, they wrote a series of papers analyzing history and outlining a strategy to remake the world in their own image. 200 years later, by sticking by and large to that strategy, America is the most prosperous, powerful, influential and inventive state in the world. It defeated its ideological enemies one by one: monarchy, colonialism, fascism, communism. Now it stands alone.

Some interesting quote from above article itself:

Churchill, of all people, knew that the affinity between the United States and the rest of the English-speaking world rested on more than a congruence of parliamentary systems, and he was determined to display that cultural affinity to maximum advantage when he met FDR.

So you think , by "speaking" an adopted language, we do become the part of "anglosphere".

They want a "cultural hegemony" , and do you think, India as Nation , should give up it's "culture" and adopt "Anglo-Saxon values and principals" .

A better long time strategy , would be to spread it's own cultural influence, like what current government is doing.

 

[Rowdy]

I don't know Hindi, but I've seen a few youtube clips of an english channel with a crazy guy called Arnab arguing with some Pakistani generals. I found him funny, nationalistic, but not fundamentally biased.

:biggrin2::biggrin2:..................................................................................................

 

[argumentum]

I disagree with a lot of the article's reading of history. I also disagree with the author that these are anglo-saxon principles, they are more universal principles that were discovered over time by various cultures (greeks, romans, indians, british, and americans).

I absolutely do not believe India should accept British or American "cultural hegemony" (btw, British culture is more similar to Indian culture in many ways than to American culture).

India needs to take the best ideas of the rest of the world and export its own best ideas to others. What we need to ask is what ideals do we have in common, and with whom. I think the anglosphere shares the following:

1. Common law (a genuinely British, or rather English, innovation).
2. Secularism & religious pluralism (an ancient Indian & Greek innovation re-discovered by America).
3. Freedom of Speech (again an ancient Indian & Greek idea re-discovered by America)
4. Government of, by and for the people (ancient greece for democracy, rome for republicanism)
5. Political equality & Federalism (American innovations)
6. Free markets & Free trade (an originally scottish idea perfected by america)
7. Openness to the ideas of others.

These are a solid basis for a military and economic alliance.

 

[Abhijat]

I disagree with a lot of the article's reading of history. I also disagree with the author that these are anglo-saxon principles, they are more universal principles that were discovered over time by various cultures (greeks, romans, indians, british, and americans).

I absolutely do not believe India should accept British or American "cultural hegemony" (btw, British culture is more similar to Indian culture in many ways than to American culture).

India needs to take the best ideas of the rest of the world and export its own best ideas to others. What we need to ask is what ideals do we have in common, and with whom. I think the anglosphere shares the following:

1. Common law (a genuinely British, or rather English, innovation).
2. Secularism & religious pluralism (an ancient Indian & Greek innovation re-discovered by America).
3. Freedom of Speech (again an ancient Indian & Greek idea re-discovered by America)
4. Government of, by and for the people (ancient greece for democracy, rome for republicanism)
5. Political equality & Federalism (American innovations)
6. Free markets & Free trade (a british & american idea)

These are a solid basis for a military and economic alliance.

That's better.

But, what about India's "spiritual hegemony" in these countries.

Do you think , we can spread it, via institutions like ISKCON , or others ?

 

[argumentum]

That's better.

But, what about India's "spiritual hegemony" in these countries.

Do you think , we can spread it, via institutions like ISKCON , or others ?

If that's what you want, by all means. I myself do not believe in anything supernatural. I think "faith" is a middle eastern idea exported to Europe & India.

I'm more interested in the ancient non-religious, non-spiritual philosophies of India & Greece.

 

[ezsasa]

There are flip sides to india getting fully integrated into so called anglosphere. Among those countries which have willingly integrated themselves with americans, success stories are very few. South Korea is the only country i can think of in asia which came out profitable. they have embraced americanism early on and reaped the benefits. the same cannot be said about other countries like pakistan.

Total integration with America is like Midas touch, while you might gain a lot of gold but ultimately you may loose your essence of life. America tends to use it's friends as pawns in a bigger game, and not always these countries get the better end of the bargain.