India US Relations

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
I have written about this before but I'll restate my basic points. I believe that the Indo-US relationship will be one of the defining developments in the coming century. Here are some of the reasons why

1. Individual freedom and political representation: The Indo-US relationship is bound to be the greatest example ever of how societies that value individual liberty and truly democratic governance can benefit from each other vs. the rise of autocratic China (the other defining development of the coming century). Sooner or later there will be a face off between the two philosophies and I hope the former wins.

2. Re-defining the fundamentals of international relationships: The one common feature that both India and the US share is that the true value of the nations rest in it's people and not the governments. Likewise the true potential of the Indo-US relationship can only be realized when the respective governments step back and merely play facilitator to fostering the people to people accord. This relationship will be the first of it's kind between a developed nation and a developing one.

3. Economic: Again, due to sheer size the biggest economic transactions in this century will be the infrastructural development of China and India. The best thing India can do to catch up is to implement American expertise. This will again have a massive economic impact on both countries for a variety of reasons.

3b. Fair trade: Unlike China India cannot artificially control it's currency which means, it is bound to be a far more equitable trade partner.


Potential Impediments: There are numerous potential challenges that can derail the above mentioned relationship:

  1. Protectionism: India has a long history of shooting itself in the foot by instituting protectionism. On the other hand the American law makers are increasingly falling into the trap of turning to protectionism due to the current economic downturn. Both of them are grossly wrong.
  2. Right wing elements: While both countries have balanced societies due to their libertarian and democratic nature, there are influential right wing bigots on either side who are aggressively attempting to push their way into power. Although I doubt either one of these nations will ever end up being fascist states per se the constant battle between centrists and the right wing will be a distraction which will stunt growth.
  3. Government interference and/or ineptness: This is more so the case for India where the government controls everything and exploits that power to choke development- mostly for the sake of institutionalized corruption. Red tape-ism is the biggest hurdle for India and has to be done away with asap. As I said in point #2 the true potential of this relationship can only be met by promoting people to people accords with backing from the respective governments.
  4. Inability to shed old ideals: The US has to learn how to interact with nations with an equitable outlook. And Indians have to get over this constant paranoia that everything is a threat.

This is actually a grossly simplified and poorly written post. But currently I just don't have the time to revise it.
 

Iamanidiot

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
5,325
Likes
1,504
@Energon generic observation the babus of both countries hate each other
 

SADAKHUSH

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
1,839
Likes
780
Country flag
@Energo

What makes you think Indian Babus will let go of the power they have in their hand? Although I agree with your forward looking thinking, it is going to be uphill battle for the central and state Governments to overhaul the existing system. These Babus are not only protecting their own future but also of their children who might follow in to their footsteps.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Energon wrote
This is actually a grossly simplified and poorly written post. But currently I just don't have the time to revise it.
Happily, your post perfectly suits my level of comprehension.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
@Energo

What makes you think Indian Babus will let go of the power they have in their hand? Although I agree with your forward looking thinking, it is going to be uphill battle for the central and state Governments to overhaul the existing system. These Babus are not only protecting their own future but also of their children who might follow in to their footsteps.
Good question. You are right the Indian Babus may not change their ways, but there is also a possibility they will.

There are two things to note here. Corruption isn't synonymous with ineffectiveness. And also corruption is a common phenomenon world wide including the developed nations. It's just a matter of what kind of corruption we are talking about.

The way I see it India has two levels of corruption:
Obstructive: where the party is made to pay rents in order to achieve their objective. This form of corruption is common in most countries but in India's case it is institutionalized; as in, it is the government's unoffcial- official way of doing things. The root of this problem is the years of overwhelming governmental control and license raj. This is primarily geared toward the middle class and business who have the money to pay the bribes. Which is not to say the poor aren't victimized; they too have to pay bribes in order to have their basic necessities met but the amounts are smaller.

Larceny: As in straight out theft. Pocketing resources that are allocated for projects. This form of corruption is primarily intended to exploit the poor who cannot fend for themselves. India's poverty "reduction" schemes are probably the biggest example of larceny out there.

What may possibly change is the obstructive method of corruption. When a country starts to rapidly develop there comes a stage when politicians realize that they can make more money by facilitating projects rather than blocking them. The best example we see is modern China. China has one of the highest rate of corruption, but it is on account of rapid development. This phenomenon is guided by the principle of critical mass meaning there is certain number of politicians who start doing this and then suddenly everyone starts copying the example. One cannot condone corruption, but at least this form of corruption promotes rapid development.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Out of ignorance I must ask, who are Babus?
 

Aruni

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
47
Likes
37
I think there are areas of strong mutual self-interest that should trascend the remit of the corrupt civil servants (i.e. the babus). However, it doesn't quote transcent the remit of the inept babus, which is why the Indo-US relationship hasn't exactly taken off. There is a Nehruvian suspicion of the West that infects our political discourse, when quite frankly we should be cementing our ties with the West (US, EU, NATO, etc.) because in essence our society has more similarities with theirs than, say, Russia or China. We are a democracy (albeit malfunctioning), we have freedom of speech (to an extent), and a constitution that is respected (except on some occasions), and that is a far cry from the thuggery that exists in authoritarian societities.

Even at a geopolitical level, our biggest potential rival is China, and the US is extremely keen to form a sphere of friendly countries ranging from Japan to Australia to India. Its just that India hasn't exactly behaved like a steady ally but has dithered between moments of non-aligned madness and making some friendly overtures. India needs to think about a multi-faceted strategic alliance with the West, which would involve lower barriers to trade, agreements to receive Western soft fundings and economic aid, increase joint military exercises, cultural exchanges and scientific/educational activities. In my mind this would be a multi-party agreement signed by, at least, the US, Britain, Germany, France (the EU alltogether would be even better), Japan and Australia.

I have said before on the board- an alternative would be to seek membership of NATO.

....or there is the other option: in 20 years' time when China attacks Arunachal Pradesh, we will stand alone. The tomb of the unknown soldier in Tawang will be overrun, and the failure of our foreign policy for the past 50 years will culminate in yet another defeat.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
I think there are areas of strong mutual self-interest that should trascend the remit of the corrupt civil servants (i.e. the babus). However, it doesn't quote transcent the remit of the inept babus, which is why the Indo-US relationship hasn't exactly taken off. There is a Nehruvian suspicion of the West that infects our political discourse, when quite frankly we should be cementing our ties with the West (US, EU, NATO, etc.) because in essence our society has more similarities with theirs than, say, Russia or China. We are a democracy (albeit malfunctioning), we have freedom of speech (to an extent), and a constitution that is respected (except on some occasions), and that is a far cry from the thuggery that exists in authoritarian societities.

Even at a geopolitical level, our biggest potential rival is China, and the US is extremely keen to form a sphere of friendly countries ranging from Japan to Australia to India. Its just that India hasn't exactly behaved like a steady ally but has dithered between moments of non-aligned madness and making some friendly overtures. India needs to think about a multi-faceted strategic alliance with the West, which would involve lower barriers to trade, agreements to receive Western soft fundings and economic aid, increase joint military exercises, cultural exchanges and scientific/educational activities. In my mind this would be a multi-party agreement signed by, at least, the US, Britain, Germany, France (the EU alltogether would be even better), Japan and Australia.

I have said before on the board- an alternative would be to seek membership of NATO.

....or there is the other option: in 20 years' time when China attacks Arunachal Pradesh, we will stand alone. The tomb of the unknown soldier in Tawang will be overrun, and the failure of our foreign policy for the past 50 years will culminate in yet another defeat.

If freedom of speech, democracy and all that nonsense was a serious consideration then your west wouldn't be allies with countries like saudi arabia. Quite frankly the west has the habit of siding with dictators and all this fancy talk means squat. Every country has its self interest and the self interest of the west is that pakistan bogs down India and India bogs down china. Joining nato is out of the question. First of all china will not attack and even if it does then in 20 years time we will be better off...if they have to attack then the time is right now. Basically the west needs India more than India needs the west.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
If freedom of speech, democracy and all that nonsense was a serious consideration then your west wouldn't be allies with countries like saudi arabia. Quite frankly the west has the habit of siding with dictators and all this fancy talk means squat. Every country has its self interest and the self interest of the west is that pakistan bogs down India and India bogs down china. Joining nato is out of the question. First of all china will not attack and even if it does then in 20 years time we will be better off...if they have to attack then the time is right now. Basically the west needs India more than India needs the west.
Do you think the West's need for oil is too simple a reason for that? In the US there is an argument that we need to develop our own resources. The environmentalists (e.g. "global warming" believers) object to that, and the silly Obama administration puts obstacles in the path of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. In the meantime, Chinese and Cubans drill in the Gulf now.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
If freedom of speech, democracy and all that nonsense was a serious consideration then your west wouldn't be allies with countries like saudi arabia. Quite frankly the west has the habit of siding with dictators and all this fancy talk means squat. Every country has its self interest and the self interest of the west is that pakistan bogs down India and India bogs down china. Joining nato is out of the question. First of all china will not attack and even if it does then in 20 years time we will be better off...if they have to attack then the time is right now. Basically the west needs India more than India needs the west.
We are siding with Burmese and Sri Lankan's arent we. Its geo-politics, we will be exactly like the Americans when we attain their power. I agree with your assesment on China, but they will bully through Pakistan, in borders and in South China sea
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
I think there are areas of strong mutual self-interest that should trascend the remit of the corrupt civil servants (i.e. the babus). However, it doesn't quote transcent the remit of the inept babus, which is why the Indo-US relationship hasn't exactly taken off. There is a Nehruvian suspicion of the West that infects our political discourse, when quite frankly we should be cementing our ties with the West (US, EU, NATO, etc.) because in essence our society has more similarities with theirs than, say, Russia or China. We are a democracy (albeit malfunctioning), we have freedom of speech (to an extent), and a constitution that is respected (except on some occasions), and that is a far cry from the thuggery that exists in authoritarian societities.

Even at a geopolitical level, our biggest potential rival is China, and the US is extremely keen to form a sphere of friendly countries ranging from Japan to Australia to India. Its just that India hasn't exactly behaved like a steady ally but has dithered between moments of non-aligned madness and making some friendly overtures. India needs to think about a multi-faceted strategic alliance with the West, which would involve lower barriers to trade, agreements to receive Western soft fundings and economic aid, increase joint military exercises, cultural exchanges and scientific/educational activities. In my mind this would be a multi-party agreement signed by, at least, the US, Britain, Germany, France (the EU alltogether would be even better), Japan and Australia.

I have said before on the board- an alternative would be to seek membership of NATO.

....or there is the other option: in 20 years' time when China attacks Arunachal Pradesh, we will stand alone. The tomb of the unknown soldier in Tawang will be overrun, and the failure of our foreign policy for the past 50 years will culminate in yet another defeat.
You are correct. The bottom line is that the values of many Indians (especially the expanding middle class) come closest to that of the United States as opposed to Russia, China or the Middle East. Individual freedom, the freedom of speech, the freedom to express one's cultural practice or adhere to any religion etc. This also holds true for the economic mindset, the idea of combining hard work and capitalistic principles to attain the enter country here dream.

I've read your arguments about military and NATO pacts before and I still stand against them. NATO is a vestige of the cold war and essentially a concept that is in its last throes. Also India does not possess the sort of military or economic resources to participate in NATO operations if they were to arise in the future. Furthermore we the United States need to abandon our perennial practice of inundating all solid bilateral relationships with military objectives. The matrix of our future foreign policy should be limited to economics based on free market capitalism and the promotion of people to people relationships.

I don't think Chinese will engage India in a military confrontation in the foreseeable future and jeopardize their own economy. And even if they end up giving India another drubbing, it'll be because of the incompetence of the Indian establishment to properly equip their forces for said confrontation just as it was the last time around. There is nothing any Western power can do about this, it is entirely an Indian problem requiring an internal solution.

What China will do however is overwhelm all markets with their finished goods (thanks to their gargantuan industrial work force that is getting more and more sophisticated every day) and possibly their rigged currency. To me this is the avatar of future mercantilism which should be checked by every other nation with the ability to retaliate.

Currently the biggest impediment in both the Indo-West relationship and rapid industrialization is the Indian government itself, or at least some virulent portions of it. Unfortunately the GOI has squeezed its own people (like the colonial power that preceded them) for such a long time that they are unwilling to liberalize the economy and lose control over their cash cow. The resulting lackadaisical and hostile attitude is jeopardizing Western involvement day by day. I recently read a great piece about this by the BBC.

Either way, I have no doubts that the Indo-US relationship will be a defining event of this century and it is up to both of them to see how well they carry it out.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Babus are politicians. The abbreviation of BABUS is BRIBERY by ABDUCTION of BUDDHUS of the URBAN class in the SOCIETY of INDIA. This is what they do.
Please don't confuse others if you don't know who 'babus' are. Babus are civil servants in the government also referred to as bureaucrats. Politicians are called 'Netas'.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
I have written about this before but I'll restate my basic points. I believe that the Indo-US relationship will be one of the defining developments in the coming century. Here are some of the reasons why

1. Individual freedom and political representation: The Indo-US relationship is bound to be the greatest example ever of how societies that value individual liberty and truly democratic governance can benefit from each other vs. the rise of autocratic China (the other defining development of the coming century). Sooner or later there will be a face off between the two philosophies and I hope the former wins.

2. Re-defining the fundamentals of international relationships: The one common feature that both India and the US share is that the true value of the nations rest in it's people and not the governments. Likewise the true potential of the Indo-US relationship can only be realized when the respective governments step back and merely play facilitator to fostering the people to people accord. This relationship will be the first of it's kind between a developed nation and a developing one.

3. Economic: Again, due to sheer size the biggest economic transactions in this century will be the infrastructural development of China and India. The best thing India can do to catch up is to implement American expertise. This will again have a massive economic impact on both countries for a variety of reasons.

3b. Fair trade: Unlike China India cannot artificially control it's currency which means, it is bound to be a far more equitable trade partner.


Potential Impediments: There are numerous potential challenges that can derail the above mentioned relationship:

  1. Protectionism: India has a long history of shooting itself in the foot by instituting protectionism. On the other hand the American law makers are increasingly falling into the trap of turning to protectionism due to the current economic downturn. Both of them are grossly wrong.
  2. Right wing elements: While both countries have balanced societies due to their libertarian and democratic nature, there are influential right wing bigots on either side who are aggressively attempting to push their way into power. Although I doubt either one of these nations will ever end up being fascist states per se the constant battle between centrists and the right wing will be a distraction which will stunt growth.
  3. Government interference and/or ineptness: This is more so the case for India where the government controls everything and exploits that power to choke development- mostly for the sake of institutionalized corruption. Red tape-ism is the biggest hurdle for India and has to be done away with asap. As I said in point #2 the true potential of this relationship can only be met by promoting people to people accords with backing from the respective governments.
  4. Inability to shed old ideals: The US has to learn how to interact with nations with an equitable outlook. And Indians have to get over this constant paranoia that everything is a threat.

This is actually a grossly simplified and poorly written post. But currently I just don't have the time to revise it.
Great point!
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
Thanks to US for arming our enemy, with F-16
They have been provided with a Kill-Switch, which is part of the end user agreement.

Therefore before a war, the pukes, or for that matter any other nation which buys weapons from the US, have to get an OK from US before they launch a war
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Do you think the West's need for oil is too simple a reason for that? In the US there is an argument that we need to develop our own resources. The environmentalists (e.g. "global warming" believers) object to that, and the silly Obama administration puts obstacles in the path of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. In the meantime, Chinese and Cubans drill in the Gulf now.
There are many reasons why the West sides with various dictators around the world. Access to strategic resources (i.e. oil) is just one.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top