Should India try to join NATO?

[Crusader53]

India needs to join some type of Alliance or Partnerships with NATO and/or RIMPAC. That is if it wants to contain China.

 

[Aruni]

India lacked the power necessary to "draw" other nations prior to 1990. But we still accomplished a lot for a third world country, and a middle power. If we had joined NATO, or more accurately, its Eastern variant, CENTO, we would have been even more restricted in our foreign policy.

Japan and Germany, the two countries who imposed pacifism upon themselves and therefore had a much more restrictive foreign policy than India today have more bilateral and multilateral alliances to their name than a supposedly free India. All you can come up with is Bhutan, Maldives and Mauritus. This clearly shows that joining NATO has nothing to do with independence of foreign policy- it is more about the terms on which membership is sought, and also on how potent (or impotent, in our case) the Ministry of External Affairs can be.

Say what you want, but if India showed anything in its short modern history, it showed that it was capable of following an independent foreign policy that looked after its own interests. This is something that very few other "Third World" or developing countries can claim.

This is a joke. What interests of ours have been fulfilled? To be surrounded by unfriendly neighbours? To turn previously friendly countries into hostile territories (e.g. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh)? To fail to secure local energy supplies (e.g. Myanmar)? To lose 1/3rd of a state and have the whole state referred to as "disputed" in the international media? To be humiliated in a border war?

If this is your vision of success, what is your vision of failure?

Yes. Bangladesh is pro-India when the Awami League is in power. If you disagree with that statement, the bold part in particular, you should do some more reading on the history of Indo-Bangladesh relations.

You have absolutely no idea about the extent to which Bangladesh has been party to tolerating anti-India elements. It goes beyond simply when the BNP is in power. There are at least 300 "most wanted" criminals that India has requested Bangladesh to hand over, only for Dhaka to deny their very existence in Bangladesh. This list includes ULFA top brass Paresh Baruah and Arvind Rajkhowa who lived in Bangladesh from the mid 90s to 2009. It was common knowledge that Baruah was living in Bangladesh under the alias of Kamruj Zaman Khan. Although Rajkhowa was caught in 2010, Baruah was helped by the Bangladesh security forces to be smuggled into Yunan, China where it is thought he currently resides.

In addition, India has identified around 180 locations of "terror camps" where thugs are trained in anti-India activities with the Dhaka government turning a blind eye. This has been going on irrespective of who is in power in Bangladesh.

No, it is not a joke. The ignorant French guy should also take a look at this.
The Hindu : Front Page : India signs defence pact with Qatar

India has a lot more influence in the Middle East than you think. Not just politically, but also in terms of people-to-people relations, which is India's strong point in the region.

You are having a laugh, aren't you? What proportion of the Middle East's oil is sold to India? What is the India-Middle East annual trade figure? How many "boots on the ground" does India have in terms of charities, military aids, businesspeople, policy advisers (i.e. "soft power") in the Middle East?

The Ministry of External Affairs is sh*t-scared of investing too much effort into the Middle East lest the jihadist get angry and start lobbing bombs at us.

Be in the Middle East, or Africa, or South East Asia, or South America, China has stolen a march on us in terms of securing access to natural resources, investing in domestic economies to create a nexus of mutual dependence and securing potential allies.

We have failed. And we have failed because of your ridiculous safety first, effeminate policies. The time has come to be decisive and NOT settle for second best all the time.

Today, we are getting plenty of investment while still being neutral politically. I say continue.

This is what is called economics for the insane. What is "plenty of investment"? One that leaves the world's largest number of infant deaths in India? One of the world's worst drinking water supplies? Dodgy roads, sporadic electricity, 40% illiteracy?

The optimum level of investment presumably is the level just below that which fuels rampant inflation. China attracted over £50 billion of FDI (i.e. bricks and mortar investment rather than FII which is mainly equities, bonds, etc.) for over 15 years and look what it has done to its economy.

I have repeated this several times- It is very easy to be arm chair intellectuals and give sermons about how we're doing enough and receiving enough investment. Our countrymen- the vast majority of them- could do with an upliftment in their living standards and it is terribly insulting to hint that they're doing all right by struggling from meal to meal.

You are if you are advocating a formal alliance with the West.

Doing so would mean India would never again be able to act independently and offensively against Pakistan.

Just like Turkey which ignores calls for sitting down and talking to the PKK rebels? You conveniently ignored this point in my previous post.

In 1982 when Argentina occupied the Falkland Islands, the US initially tried to broker a peace deal because it considered a British recapture of the islands "a military impossibility". Yet, Britain sent a naval task force and refused to compromise on the sovereignty of the Falklands and in the end the Americans and the French ended up supporting the British.

Its all about the terms on which India joins NATO. We could push for veto over our right to pursue pre-emptive offensive attacks to prevent our territorial sovereignty being compromised.

Lol, this is just a gem. Having 40,000 Americans in a base in Andaman pose no threat to us. I think I should frame this.

I hope you know that prostitution is illegal in India.

Prostitution may be illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Why try and play this dirty trick of insinuating about American soldiers when the Indian ones have plenty to be ashamed about their behaviour in UN missions in Africa?

We are unable to dedicate sufficient military resources to protecting our strategic interests which is natural because we are a democracy and cannot simply make up a defence budget according to the kit we want to buy, such as China. As such, it would be useful from our perspective to join NATO because that would relieve us of the pressure to divert resources from human development to pile into the military.

We continue our existing level of spend and investment into defence, but buy an extra level of security this way. Its like having an anti-virus but not visiting dodgy websites at the same time. Just good sense, no?

Russia is not our main source of energy today because the Middle East is a lot closer (easier/cheaper to access) and fulfills our present energy demands. But in the future, you can definitely expect Russia to become a major supply of energy to India.

"You can definitely expect"¦." What is this? Madam Renata's crystal ball?

Things just don't drop into your lap. You need to plan for it and make them happen. Why should Russia switch its focus to India? Does our experience in Africa or Latin America give me cause for confidence in the ability of our over-comfortable babus? No.

How much Iranian energy could we get if we were part of NATO?

Iran does more business wih China simply because they China has a greater demand for energy than we do, and Iran has the reserves to export to whatever countries it wishes. But India's demand is increasing at a rapid pace, and this will see a correlating increase in our business with Iran and other countries.

Since you don't know, Chinese state owned oil companies have been signing exclusivity agreements with oil producing nations in the Middle East and Africa at a rapid pace. ONGC has managed to sign a few, but has lost an alarming number of bids to CNOOC, Sinopec and other similar Chinese oil companies.

This is a major cause for concern for the Indian government although they haven't yet figured out how to work this one out.

Which shows how much America values its non-Western allies. I don't know why are advocating India joining into a formal alliance with the US despite knowing this.

You've completely missed the point haven't you? The reason why in 60-odd years NATO has been limited to 28 countries is precisely because it doesn't like to admit members it has to defend. Pakistan is not a NATO member, nor is Georgia.

I am not pushing for an alliance with NATO. I am arguing for a membership of NATO. And not just a pre-Sarkozy limp French type membership. I want India to be part of the integrated military command structure of NATO.

America DOES have a huge strategic interest in the region, but that interest will be pursued at the expense of Pakistan.

And since you've missed everything else, let me also fill you in on America's biggest fear- to be usurped by China in this century. This means that it is in America's interests to forge a strategic alliance with as many notable powers in Asia as possible- apart from Japan which other country comes to mind? Lo and behold, its India.

Wait, what? Are you saying that the reason why China grew so rapidly has something to do with India? Now you've lost me.

The point is that China pursued a coherent and focussed foreign policy which involved forging tactical alliances with Russia, raw materials suppliers (mining countries, oil-producing countries, etc.), coupled with a sensible economic policy and opened its doors to investment (including American, Japanese and European investment) which allowed it to pour resources into defence.

On the other hand India dithered, mumbled something about non-alignment so failed to build alliances, did not go far enough with economic reforms, did not open itself to investment and failed to secure energy or raw material supplies.

Result- China is four times as large and the Chinese are at least twice as better off as us Indians.

How long will we stick to the ridiculous notion that we've done all right? No we haven't. Our people deserve better.

We've already grasped America's hand, while making it clear to America that it can't grasp us by the balls (like it has with out neighbors).

The rejection of American planes in the MMRCA deal shows that.

I really hope our defence folk made the decision based on the requirements of our military rather than simply to make a point to the Americans. Anyway, the wider point is that America has nothing to gain from alienating India and by working against India's interests. This is the whole point- America and India see eye to eye on several world issues- so why not make the relationship more meaningful and more profitable for both countries?

Well, you've proved my point. China and the US/West will never go to war because their economies are too inter-dependent. Also, in the case of a Sino-Indian War, why would the US/West support us against China, when they have a lot more invested in China?

China has proved that it is possible to profit from the West while staying away from political alignment with the West. Your insistence that India politically align with the West to gain economically is unfounded; we should just repeat what China itself has done.

Well you've very cleverly shifted goal posts here. Your initial point was that China is totally dependent on the West to which I responded by demonstrating that closer economic ties do not necessarily mean economic dependence. When you realised that you'd erred, you simply tried to change the argument by raising a different one. Whilst I am happy to answer it below, don't think that this has gone unnoticed.

Economic policy can indeed be improved without touching our foreign policy, although given the political atmosphere in India, I don't really see this happening. Anyway, this is not the crux of the matter.

My point is simply that we should push for joining NATO and one of the by-products will be closer economic co-operation (read up on the trade figures between NATO countries). The main benefit, however, is not economic. The main advantage of NATO membership would be an additional layer of security on our territorial and national sovereignty.

Despite all the hype, China would be very hard-pressed to repeat 1962, especially with 200,000 Indian troops and multiple squadrons of combat aircraft in the NE. It cannot secure a quick, relatively bloodless, or politically acceptable victory.

This is what Indians were told in 1962 as well- that our military had enough resource to repel a Chinese invasion. So forgive me for not believing a hapless post from you on the internet.

What's the harm in being prepared? Its like refusing to put an extra lock on the door. No-brainer.

The anti-West sentiment in China and the anti-China sentiment in the West is for public consumption only. Read some real news, rather than Xinhua or Fox:
Chinese to view sensitive U.S. sites - Washington Times

Oh sure, now you'll argue that China and the US are secret allies. What a joke!

Because it is in India's interest to be friendly with China, rather than engage in a fruitless US-Soviet style Cold War. In a few decades, India's own power and geopolitical position will not be the same either.

Two points here. First, trying to resolve the border disputes, improving economic ties and political confidence building measures should of course be carried on. Who is saying abandon bilateral ties? We should pursue a multi-faceted foreign policy, not a one dimensional one.

Second, India's own power and clout would depend to a great extent on a successful foreign policy. If we pursue the moribund Nehruvian policies in the coming decades, you can kiss our chances goodbye and be satisfied with pricking a voodoo doll of Hu Jintao.

Funny thing, is that over 80% of Nazi casualties were inflicted by the Soviet Union. The war was fought and won on the Eastern Front. U.S. deserves credit for defeating Imperial Japan, but not Nazi Germany. Britain doesn't deserve credit for either, although the Royal Air Force did a good job in defending the island itself from the Germans.

Soviet Russia did indeed inflict the vast majority of Nazi casualties and the Red Army was the first to reach Berlin. But the failure of Operation Barbarossa was not the first defeat of the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe.

The first defeat was inflicted over the skies of southern England, by the Royal Air Force's repulsion of Operation Sea Lion. If Britain would have fallen, the war may have taken a difference course (as the Nazi-Soviet pact was still in place).

When France fell in 1940 up until Pearl Harbour, the beacon of the world not consumed by the darkness of fascism was held aloft by Winston Churchill's England and the British Empire. Indians, Canadians, Africans, Australians, New Zealanders fought side by the side with the British all over the world to keep Nazism at bay.

Don't try and re-write history, for this was Britain's "finest hour".

There is nothing great about a nation that exploits others for its own benefit, as Britain had done for over three centuries before its empire crumbled.

Britain should not only be thrown into the dustbin of history, the lid should be permanently glued shut. Let us end this horrid chapter of history.

And which nation does not have skeletons in the cupboard? Every empire in the world has a blood soaked history be in the Roman, the Ottoman, the Maurya or the Mughal.

Britain has given the world some of the world's most foremost thinkers, scientists, political philosophers, artists, and so on. It is home to the mother of all Parliaments and the world's first constitutional monarchy.

A little overcrowded island in the North Atlantic pioneered the industrial revolution and became the world's foremost power. This is something we ought to acknowledge.

You were arguing about lebensraum before, what happened to that argument?

What China is doing today is trying to assert its influence in its neighorhood, which it has not been able to do in the past due to its struggling economy. China has a right to pursue and obtain its own sphere and influence, as every great power does. Compare China's actions today with America's actions in the early 20th century in the Caribbean, when it was emerging into great power status.

What India should do, is not pursue a reactive policy against China as you are suggesting, but a proactive one aimed at securing its own interests and carving out its own sphere of influence. This is what India is attempting to do, but the fruits of this labour will not be apparent immediately.

The lebensraum argument stands, and is similar to the "sphere of influence" argument you are making above. But our current sphere of influence extends to, according to you, Bhutan, Maldives and Mauritius. Is that good enough?

If not, then we need to shift our foreign policy focus and try and gain some influence through alliances, and joining NATO.

We should also change our strategies with regards to improving ties with our neighbours, securing natural resources and making strategic investments.

These two approaches together make for a sensible foreign policy. Doing what we've done before will lead us to where we've been before, i.e. quagmire.

 

[ejazr]

I think Aruni raises some interesting points in good faith, but I don't agree with all of them including joiing a military alliance like NATO.

There is no doubt that China is the short term and medium competitor for India. Unfortunately too much of our time is speant on focussing on the Pakistan threat when in reality it has now become an irritant rather than an existential threat.

So the main idea is we should join a military alliance to counter China because India alone can't do so.

My take, is that you don't need a formal alliance, but most definintely an informal one. And this will have to be a very large informal alliance which will and must include US and its allies i.e. Western Europe, GCC countries, ASEAN, Japan and S. Korea.

The competition is not just security based compettion but also economic and strategic. This does not mean that India should start active hostilities with China. But some clear red lines will have to be drawn and clearly explained to China. And this can be sucessful. The recent case of stopping stapled visas for Kashmir is an example of sucessful diplomacy. IMO at present the main focus should be that Chinese and infact any major power including the US should not interfere in areas south of the Himalayas including the Indian Ocean region. While they can do trade and so on, any military intervention or any action that requires security intervention should not be done without Indian consultation. This means India should be ready to take up the slack as well if needed like the piracy issue in the Arabian sea for example.

So in short, India should redouble its efforts on building up a strategic partnership with US and its allies. At the same time, it can build up its own security communities. The IOC-ARC is one such example where India has taken the lead for Indian Ocean security and kept China out of it. A SAARC based security pact should be probably the next thing to keep China out of the SAARC region. I also do feel that the MMRCA should have gone to a US company because this was more about building the partnership rather than getting the best fighter jet but I guess getting a European jet is not too bad either. In this case, the Eurofighter would possibly be the best deal as more European countries will have a stake in Indian ties rather than just France if we go for the Rafael.

In short stregthen the SAARC framework by adding a internal policing framework, CT framework and finally a defence pact as well. Stregthen the IOC-ARC and build Indian Navy dominance including operability with major navies in the region like Australia, Indonesia, UAE, South Africa e.t.c And build up the defence partnership with US and Western European partners without joining a formal alliance. And if you really want to scare China, then build up those defence partnerships with Japan and S. Korea as well.

And let me also state that the MEA is already working on most of these aspects already and within a few years these results will be more obvious as these are still at the planning stage. The important aspect is to leave the focus on Pakistan and think about CHina. And not just border clashes but globally engaging China whenever it goes against Indian interests.

 

[Aruni]

Good post. Whilst there are some positional differences, I broadly agree with your approach. Allow me to pick out a couple of extracts-

And build up the defence partnership with US and Western European partners without joining a formal alliance. And if you really want to scare China, then build up those defence partnerships with Japan and S. Korea as well.

This is the crux of my argument. A security alliance is what we should seek, not as a substitute for an independent foreign policy, but in addition to it.

And let me also state that the MEA is already working on most of these aspects already and within a few years these results will be more obvious as these are still at the planning stage.

This I am not too sure about. I think our planning and execution has been very poor. What's so different now? We need fresh faces and fresh ideas in the MEA.

 

[Crusader53]

India lacked the power necessary to "draw" other nations prior to 1990. But we still accomplished a lot for a third world country, and a middle power. If we had joined NATO, or more accurately, its Eastern variant, CENTO, we would have been even more restricted in our foreign policy.

Say what you want, but if India showed anything in its short modern history, it showed that it was capable of following an independent foreign policy that looked after its own interests. This is something that very few other "Third World" or developing countries can claim.




Yes. Bangladesh is pro-India when the Awami League is in power. If you disagree with that statement, the bold part in particular, you should do some more reading on the history of Indo-Bangladesh relations.



No, it is not a joke. The ignorant French guy should also take a look at this.
The Hindu : Front Page : India signs defence pact with Qatar

India has a lot more influence in the Middle East than you think. Not just politically, but also in terms of people-to-people relations, which is India's strong point in the region.




It is. And joining NATO/CENTO would not have helped that.

Today, we are getting plenty of investment while still being neutral politically. I say continue.




You are if you are advocating a formal alliance with the West.

Doing so would mean India would never again be able to act independently and offensively against Pakistan.




Lol, this is just a gem. Having 40,000 Americans in a base in Andaman pose no threat to us. I think I should frame this.

I hope you know that prostitution is illegal in India.




Read about the TAPI pipeline project.

Russia is not our main source of energy today because the Middle East is a lot closer (easier/cheaper to access) and fulfills our present energy demands. But in the future, you can definitely expect Russia to become a major supply of energy to India.




How much Iranian energy could we get if we were part of NATO?

Iran does more business wih China simply because they China has a greater demand for energy than we do, and Iran has the reserves to export to whatever countries it wishes. But India's demand is increasing at a rapid pace, and this will see a correlating increase in our business with Iran and other countries.




Which shows how much America values its non-Western allies. I don't know why are advocating India joining into a formal alliance with the US despite knowing this.




America DOES have a huge strategic interest in the region, but that interest will be pursued at the expense of Pakistan.




Wait, what? Are you saying that the reason why China grew so rapidly has something to do with India? Now you've lost me.




We've already grasped America's hand, while making it clear to America that it can't grasp us by the balls (like it has with out neighbors).

The rejection of American planes in the MMRCA deal shows that.




Well, you've proved my point. China and the US/West will never go to war because their economies are too inter-dependent. Also, in the case of a Sino-Indian War, why would the US/West support us against China, when they have a lot more invested in China?

China has proved that it is possible to profit from the West while staying away from political alignment with the West. Your insistence that India politically align with the West to gain economically is unfounded; we should just repeat what China itself has done.




Even with that budget size, China can't invade India. The terrain of the Himalayas is such that it equalizes the conflicting armies.

Despite all the hype, China would be very hard-pressed to repeat 1962, especially with 200,000 Indian troops and multiple squadrons of combat aircraft in the NE. It cannot secure a quick, relatively bloodless, or politically acceptable victory.




The anti-West sentiment in China and the anti-China sentiment in the West is for public consumption only. Read some real news, rather than Xinhua or Fox:
Chinese to view sensitive U.S. sites - Washington Times




Because it is in India's interest to be friendly with China, rather than engage in a fruitless US-Soviet style Cold War. In a few decades, India's own power and geopolitical position will not be the same either.




Funny thing, is that over 80% of Nazi casualties were inflicted by the Soviet Union. The war was fought and won on the Eastern Front. U.S. deserves credit for defeating Imperial Japan, but not Nazi Germany. Britain doesn't deserve credit for either, although the Royal Air Force did a good job in defending the island itself from the Germans.

But all of this is off topic.



There is nothing great about a nation that exploits others for its own benefit, as Britain had done for over three centuries before its empire crumbled.

Britain should not only be thrown into the dustbin of history, the lid should be permanently glued shut. Let us end this horrid chapter of history.




You were arguing about lebensraum before, what happened to that argument?

What China is doing today is trying to assert its influence in its neighorhood, which it has not been able to do in the past due to its struggling economy. China has a right to pursue and obtain its own sphere and influence, as every great power does. Compare China's actions today with America's actions in the early 20th century in the Caribbean, when it was emerging into great power status.

What India should do, is not pursue a reactive policy against China as you are suggesting, but a proactive one aimed at securing its own interests and carving out its own sphere of influence. This is what India is attempting to do, but the fruits of this labour will not be apparent immediately.

LOL The whole post is boarding on "Absurdly Ridiculous" and sound like some "Twisted Fantacy of a Crazed Adolescent". Which, has no idea of what he speaks............


I will say it was entertaining.

 

[ejazr]

Good post. Whilst there are some positional differences, I broadly agree with your approach. Allow me to pick out a couple of extracts-

Thanks,

This is the crux of my argument. A security alliance is what we should seek, not as a substitute for an independent foreign policy, but in addition to it.

A security alliance is not applicable now, but a partnership and understanding is crucial. We still need to work with countries like Russia and Iran that are vary of the US but are very important to our strategic interests.

Besides, its the diplomatic leverage, high tech industry transfers and a place at prominent International institutions like IMF, NSG e.t.c. We are far behind China in many aspects and need to build up capabilities as well as international influence in this regard ofcourse with Uncle Sam's help. Just like China did at one point in time.

This I am not too sure about. I think our planning and execution has been very poor. What's so different now? We need fresh faces and fresh ideas in the MEA.

Well if you are closely following diplomacy of the MEA for the last five years you will know why I said that.

The main aspect is our defence diplomacy. Already, India conducts more military exercises with the US than anyother country in the world. The same with the US. The US has also after a lot of prodding finally included our liason officers into CENTCOM alongwith PACOM. In 2008 we launched the IONS which is an organisation covering navies of the Indian ocean region. And we are also raising defence ties with countries that we never had such ties before like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Armand2REP]

Apparently we are "responsibility of the security of Qatar". Is this a joke or what? We have next to zero influence in the Middle East and Qatar is a strong Western ally which does not look to India as its benefactor.

No, it is not a joke. The ignorant French guy should also take a look at this.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/11/stor...1158180100.htm

A "framework" for maritime security and anti-terrorism cooperation does not make India responsible for the security of Qatar nor does it give it much influence over the nation. 80% of Qatar's military is French produced and every time they need protecting they call on France to fulfill its defence pact. In the 2003 Gulf War France sent over NBC protection teams, set up SAMs and flew air patrols over their airspace. The fact Qatari pilots are under French command over Libya is evidence enough who has the most influence.

 

[amitkriit]

A "framework" for maritime security and anti-terrorism cooperation does not make India responsible for the security of Qatar nor does it give it much influence over the nation. 80% of Qatar's military is French produced and every time they need protecting they call on France to fulfill its defence pact. In the 2003 Gulf War France sent over NBC protection teams, set up SAMs and flew air patrols over their airspace. The fact Qatari pilots are under French command over Libya is evidence enough who has the most influence.

Unfortunately some Indians overestimate India's influence and reach. India doesn't even have control over her own neighborhood. I am not even sure whether Government of India has total control over India's own territory. We must not forget that India imports more than 50% of her defense equipments. NATO controls world's trade routes and energy supplies. We import most of our oil from countries which host USA's military bases.

 

[anand_6869]

This is a joke. What interests of ours have been fulfilled? To be surrounded by unfriendly neighbours? To turn previously friendly countries into hostile territories (e.g. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh)? To fail to secure local energy supplies (e.g. Myanmar)? To lose 1/3rd of a state and have the whole state referred to as "disputed" in the international media? To be humiliated in a border war?

If this is your vision of success, what is your vision of failure?
quagmire.

The main reason for these unfriendly neighbors stems from the partition which was a by product of greedy British colonialists please take a look at India's economic size before the British and after the British,The Chinese were badly bloodied after their little war with India and remember it wasn't even a full fledged war despite the lack of equipment and resources the Indian soldiers did not run away like a bunch of cowards Men like Shaitan singh stood to their last breath and showed the Chinese we were not a pushover we put up one hell of a fight with our limited resources ,that is not humiliation, if the Chinese would have ventured further they would have been definitely bloodied and pushed back there is no chance that the Chinese would have captured India, India had a few border skirmishes after that and we gave the chinks a bloody nose remember 1967 at Nathu la and Chola incident where the chinese were thought a lesson when they tried a 1962 again.

About Kashmir it is all about bad government policies remove sec 370 and give the Pandits their land back, let Kashmir develop like the rest of India and see the difference it is all vote bank politics by the Incompetent govt. India is a failure by no means only individuals who cannot contribute effectively to the country and can only badmouth India are failures on part of them being Indian citizens the only failure that India faces on a daily basis are the politicians bring a bad name to the nation, u see every country in the world has a handful of them too.

You have absolutely no idea about the extent to which Bangladesh has been party to tolerating anti-India elements. It goes beyond simply when the BNP is in power. There are at least 300 "most wanted" criminals that India has requested Bangladesh to hand over, only for Dhaka to deny their very existence in Bangladesh. This list includes ULFA top brass Paresh Baruah and Arvind Rajkhowa who lived in Bangladesh from the mid 90s to 2009. It was common knowledge that Baruah was living in Bangladesh under the alias of Kamruj Zaman Khan. Although Rajkhowa was caught in 2010, Baruah was helped by the Bangladesh security forces to be smuggled into Yunan, China where it is thought he currently resides.

In addition, India has identified around 180 locations of "terror camps" where thugs are trained in anti-India activities with the Dhaka government turning a blind eye. This has been going on irrespective of who is in power in Bangladesh.
quagmire.

This is due to incompetent politicians who bank on the Votebank that these Naxals and terrorists provode to keep them in power, why isnt Afsal guru hanged yet why keep Kasab in jail and spend 11 crore per year on security instead of providing health facilities to the poor with the same money ?? u get my point??

You are having a laugh, aren't you? What proportion of the Middle East's oil is sold to India? What is the India-Middle East annual trade figure? How many "boots on the ground" does India have in terms of charities, military aids, businesspeople, policy advisers (i.e. "soft power") in the Middle East?

The Ministry of External Affairs is sh*t-scared of investing too much effort into the Middle East lest the jihadist get angry and start lobbing bombs at us.

Be in the Middle East, or Africa, or South East Asia, or South America, China has stolen a march on us in terms of securing access to natural resources, investing in domestic economies to create a nexus of mutual dependence and securing potential allies.

We have failed. And we have failed because of your ridiculous safety first, effeminate policies. The time has come to be decisive and NOT settle for second best all the time.
quagmire.

If success is waging a war on a country resulting in the death of many hundreds of thousands of of Innocent civilians and sending Fighter jets to bomb libya under the pretext of Global policing while turning a blind eye to mass murder by dictators in African countries Is success, then I am glad India failed.

This is what is called economics for the insane. What is "plenty of investment"? One that leaves the world's largest number of infant deaths in India? One of the world's worst drinking water supplies? Dodgy roads, sporadic electricity, 40% illiteracy?

The optimum level of investment presumably is the level just below that which fuels rampant inflation. China attracted over £50 billion of FDI (i.e. bricks and mortar investment rather than FII which is mainly equities, bonds, etc.) for over 15 years and look what it has done to its economy.
quagmire.

Thats because China is a highly industrialized nation and India is not, China is already begining to face the ill effects of over Industrialization, India has already been a victim to foreign companies taking advantage of India and I hope for a better home economy rather than more FDI, I would not like to see more Bhopal Tragedies and polluted lakes.

Indians are not capitalist and the Indian mindset is different from the Chinese and American mindset, we do not spend lavishly like the Americans and have strong cultural roots but due to globalization Indians are beginning to ape the American model. Hunger In india can easily be tackled just take a look at the amount tonnes of wheat and rice rotting in reserve granaries, India is developing sorting out its problems one by one and where did u get the 40% illiteracy figure from???
If the solution to the electricity problem is setting up of Nuclear plants then id rather have power cuts we need to rely on solar power and we have the resources to implement them but bureaucracy gets in the way, the situation is improving rite now and not as bad as u think.

I have repeated this several times- It is very easy to be arm chair intellectuals and give sermons about how we're doing enough and receiving enough investment. Our countrymen- the vast majority of them- could do with an upliftment in their living standards and it is terribly insulting to hint that they're doing all right by struggling from meal to meal.
quagmire.

Absolutely we need to start thinking about equitable utilization of resources, Indian doctors must not just start flocking to the UK and US look at the USA more than 40% of doctors are of Indian origin, we need the docs in India where there is more of a gap between the no of docs and no of patients than the ratio of docs to patients in the USA. It is up to us to prevent overstocking of food grains by the govt the govt hasn't released the surplus wheat rotting in go-downs even after a supreme court order, we need more people to believe in change we need more people to come forward.

Since you don't know, Chinese state owned oil companies have been signing exclusivity agreements with oil producing nations in the Middle East and Africa at a rapid pace. ONGC has managed to sign a few, but has lost an alarming number of bids to CNOOC, Sinopec and other similar Chinese oil companies.

This is a major cause for concern for the Indian government although they haven't yet figured out how to work this one out.
quagmire.

There are many alternative technologies to oil and natural gas solar power and electric power are the technological practices to be adopted but the world economies want to milk the consumers dry until every drop of oil is sold before implementing them, remember in the early 1920s Nicola tesla came up with a device to provide free electricity the Wardenclyffe tower but the capitalist JP morgan pulled it down, tesla came up with efficient electric cars long before the internal combustion engine became mainstream but world economies prevented his vision from being realized, what we need is not more oil not to create wars in the name of Natural resources but implementation of Alternative technologies.

The point is that China pursued a coherent and focussed foreign policy which involved forging tactical alliances with Russia, raw materials suppliers (mining countries, oil-producing countries, etc.), coupled with a sensible economic policy and opened its doors to investment (including American, Japanese and European investment) which allowed it to pour resources into defence.

On the other hand India dithered, mumbled something about non-alignment so failed to build alliances, did not go far enough with economic reforms, did not open itself to investment and failed to secure energy or raw material supplies.

Result- China is four times as large and the Chinese are at least twice as better off as us Indians.

How long will we stick to the ridiculous notion that we've done all right? No we haven't. Our people deserve better.
quagmire.

There are many disadvantages of Indian policies we should have encouraged a better home market with technological tie up not just foreign companies operating in India as Indian companies and denying other multinationals entry with economic blocks, Id like a better home economy rather than rely on multinationals for my economic growth,
Chinese twice better off ??? yeah curb on Internet, execution and jail for treason, im sure you haven't has a look at Chinese mine workers and those Chinese who aren't in the cities, yes china is much larger than India but look at the total arid able land and total land which can be converted for occupation there is not much of a difference if you count unlivable wastelands and rough terrain as land then I have nothing to say.

And which nation does not have skeletons in the cupboard? Every empire in the world has a blood soaked history be in the Roman, the Ottoman, the Maurya or the Mughal.

Britain has given the world some of the world's most foremost thinkers, scientists, political philosophers, artists, and so on. It is home to the mother of all Parliaments and the world's first constitutional monarchy.

A little overcrowded island in the North Atlantic pioneered the industrial revolution and became the world's foremost power. This is something we ought to acknowledge.
quagmire.

May be you forget that the first University was in India Nalanda, may be you forget that mohenjodaro and Harappa had planned cities long before the westen mind had brgun to settle down in organised groups, bay be you forget the basics of binary the number 0 may be you forget that in India we had gunpowder long before the brits we called it agni choorna, maybe you forget the instructions on making a battery found in the Aghastya samhita many thousands of years back, maybe you have forgotten minds like CV Raman, Vivekananda, J.C Bose, Ramanujan and many more of the great philosophers our country has produced and look elsewhere for insperation , May be you forget that the earliest constitution was drafted in the arthashastra, or may be you prefer the art of war to Indian timeless classics.May be you forget that when the western mind waas still contemplating religion we had philosophers in India many thousands of years back estimating the age of the universe in billions of years , when string theory and M theory hasnt gone past 10 dimensions we had Indian philosophers thinking beyond 24 dimensions many thousand years back, even this is something we ought to acknowledge.

I would like to end this post with a few sentences by Dr Kalam from a speeech he made sometime back:
YOU say that our government is inefficient.
YOU say that our laws are too old.
YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage.
YOU say that the phones don't work, the railways are a joke, the airline is
the worst in the world, mails never reach their destination. YOU say that
our country has been fed to the dogs and is the absolute pits. YOU say, say
and say. What do YOU do about it? Take a person on his way to the States or Singapore.
Give him a name - YOURS.
Give him a face - YOURS.

 

[pmaitra]

Early lessons from S Ossetia conflict

But Sakaashvili thought the bear was tied down...?

The lesson he learned was:
"Don't shit in the bear's backyard, 'cuz he'll smell it and proceed to kick your ass."

Actually, it was from BBC:

Early lessons from S Ossetia conflict

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Although the fighting over South Ossetia is not over, and fighting for another Georgian enclave, Abkhazia, looks like developing, it is perhaps not too early to learn some tentative lessons from the crisis.

Did President Saakashvili miscalculate?

1. Do not punch a bear on the nose unless it is tied down.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili must have thought that Russia would not react strongly when he sent his forces in on the eve of the Olympic games to regain control of a territory he had insisted must remain part of Georgia, albeit with some form of autonomy.

Yet Russia was always likely to respond. It already had forces there, leading the peacekeeping force agreed back in the easier days of 1992 between President Boris Yeltsin of Russia and President Edward Shevardnadze of Georgia, himself the former Soviet foreign minister who helped bring the Cold War to an end.

Russia has been supporting the separatists in South Ossetia and handed out Russian passports to the population, thereby enabling it to claim that it was defending its own citizens.

The result of what many see as his miscalculation is that President Saakashvili might well lose any hope of reasserting Georgian power in the enclave.

2. Russia is in a determined mood, to say the least.

Russia, as it has so often done in the past, sees itself being encircled.

In a revealing interview with former BBC Moscow correspondent Tim Whewell earlier this year, an adviser to the then President Vladimir Putin, Gleb Pavlosky, said that the Russian leadership had concluded after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that "this is what we faced in Moscow, that they would try to export this to us, that we should prepare for this situation and very quickly strengthen our political system..."

What applied after Ukraine moved towards the West also applied as Georgia did the same. Moscow wanted to prevent any such internal revolution in Russia itself and therefore saw Ukraine and Georgia as hostile influences.
It is not clear how far Russia wants to push this, but given that it says it wants to re-establish order in South Ossetia, that probably means a permanent presence, with no return to a Georgian government role. Diplomats think it unlikely that Russia will invade Georgia 'proper'.

3. Remember Kosovo.

Russia was mightily displeased when the West supported the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and warned of consequences. This might be one of them. Of course, Russia has not argued in this crisis that it is simply doing what the West did in Kosovo - that would undermine its own argument that states should not be broken up without agreement. But everyone knows that underneath, Kosovo is not far from its mind.

4. Georgia is unlikely to join Nato anytime soon.

Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership of Nato in April, although they were allowed to develop an action plan that could lead to membership one day.

The Americans argued for both countries to be accepted, but the Germans and others countered that the region was too unstable for these countries to join at the moment and that in particular Georgia, a state with a border dispute, should not be given formal Nato support.

5. Vladmir Putin is still in charge.

It was Mr Putin, prime minister not president these days, who went to Beijing for the Olympic opening ceremony and who then rushed to the crisis region to take control of the Russian response. His language was uncompromising - Russia was right to intervene, he stated.

6. Do not allow a cuckoo to police the nest.

Mr Shevardnadze's decision in 1992 to allow Russia into South Ossetia as part of the peacekeeping force enabled a later and very different Russian government from the one led by Boris Yeltsin to gradually extend its influence and control. It was not hard for Russia to justify its intervention. It simply stated that its citizens were not only at risk but under attack.

7. The West still does not know how to deal with Russia.

Some of the old Cold War arguments are resurfacing, with no consensus about what to do. There are the neo-conservatives, led by US Vice-President **** Cheney (and supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain) who see Georgia (and Ukraine) as flag bearers for freedom which must be supported. In due course, they argue, Russia will be forced to change, just as the old Soviet Union was.

Against that is the argument, expressed to the BBC for example on Sunday by the former British Foreign Secretary Lord Owen, that it is "absurd" to treat Russia like the Soviet Union and that Georgia made a miscalculation in South Ossetia for which it is now paying.

8. Are borders in Europe to be sacrosanct for ever?

It has been one of the rules of post-war Europe - borders cannot be changed except by agreement, as say in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps this rule has been applied too inflexibly. Yet governments like that of Georgia are reluctant to give up any territory, even when the local population is so clearly hostile and might be in that state simply as a result of some past arbitrary decision. It was the Soviet Union that created a semi-autonomous region of South Ossetia in Georgia in 1922. Nikita Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. Will this lead to trouble one day?

9. August is good month in which to reflect on alliances.

In August 1914, the First World War broke out following the assassination in June of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. It did so because alliances had been formed in Europe which came into play inexorably. Russia supported Serbia, Germany supported Austria, France supported Russia and Britain came in when Belgium was invaded.
Alliances must not be entered into lightly or unadvisedly. If Georgia had been in Nato, what would have happened?

Source: BBC NEWS | Europe | Early lessons from S Ossetia conflict

 

[roma]

just one question please - why a war in 25 years ? i thought it was supposed to be within this decade otherwise dragon felt that india would have developed too far militarily for them to risk a war ..... the general consensus is taht the expected conflict between india and dragon ( well a limited one or larger ) will be around 2012 - 2014 ... (even well-known analysts Ashley J Tellis and Brahma Chellaney say so ) most likely with a possilbility of extension till 2018 . later than that india would be too strong militarily and it would take too much on the part of dragon to be successful ? comments welcome please

 

[roma]

Although full-blown war between India and China is unlikely, a short a bloody conflict in the North East in about 25 years is more than likely unless India can join a wider strategic alliance. China does not do compromise. It wants its lebensraum, and it will come. We can either be prepared, or cry over split milk later.

just one question please - why a war in 25 years ? i thought it was supposed to be within this decade otherwise dragon felt that india would have developed too far militarily for them to risk a war ..... the general consensus is taht the expected conflict between india and dragon ( well a limited one or larger ) will be around 2012 - 2014 ... (even well-known analysts Ashley J Tellis and Brahma Chellaney say so ) most likely with a possilbility of extension till 2018 . later than that india would be too strong militarily and it would take too much on the part of dragon to be successful ? comments welcome please

 

[chex3009]

just one question please - why a war in 25 years ? i thought it was supposed to be within this decade otherwise dragon felt that india would have developed too far militarily for them to risk a war ..... the general consensus is taht the expected conflict between india and dragon ( well a limited one or larger ) will be around 2012 - 2014 ... (even well-known analysts Ashley J Tellis and Brahma Chellaney say so ) most likely with a possilbility of extension till 2018 . later than that india would be too strong militarily and it would take too much on the part of dragon to be successful ? comments welcome please

Bharat Verma has also stated this from time to time and thats exactly what i have been posting around for quite some time now. This 5 years is the time for China if they are planning any adventure, else they will stand no chance once we cross the 2018 mark.

That said, even in the above stated time-frame, China wouldn't risk hostilities with us as they would fear losing what they earn from us by trade which the Premier Web Jiabao projected to grow upto $100 Billion.

China's surrounded by too many neighbours which are skeptical of China's intentions, recent one being issues in south China sea with Vietnam.

 

[AOE]

Well Pakistan is a Major None NATO ally, which is almost as good as being an NATO ally and look what they got!

So is Israel, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, and even my own country. I hear often on here that Pakistan gets free handouts and weapons for being in such a relationship, so wouldn't that translate across to India if it were also a major non-NATO ally?

I'm indifferent to whether or not India joins NATO, although as others have said already; it helps if you're somewhere near the North Atlantic Ocean. If India became a major non-NATO ally, that might not upset Russia as much; unless they rely upon Indias weapon purchasing.

If not that, why not an international political organization setup called the Alliance of Democracies? A democracy-only geostrategic alliance designed to share economic and military interests.

 

[Energon]

Aruni, its great to see you here. Hope you stick around.

I think this is a great discussion. I'm with ejazr on this one, he's pretty much hit most of the points. India should undoubtedly form an alliance with Western nations particularly the US.

However NATO is very much a first world developed nation club and in the realm of military affairs I don't think India is a good fit. Now the monetary and economic factors aren't necessarily the dominant ones in my judgment, but rather what you've highlighted here...

I think our planning and execution has been very poor. What's so different now? We need fresh faces and fresh ideas in the MEA.

based on my experience of listening (first hand) to American diplomats, the biggest frustration when dealing with India is the ineffectiveness of its decision making and executive faculties. There is absolutely no way a party with a crippled apparatus can effectively work alongside organized states.

This also leads up to India's foreign policy woes on a whole. The constant insular obsessions and insecurities within the Indian camp are themselves an impediment to solid partnerships India can potentially form with Western nations. Unless these barriers are overcome there is very little that will materialize in the realm of security pacts.

Having said all of that, I honestly don't think military pacts are the most important concern per se. At the end of the day the primary currency of security in the modern context is economic in nature and not necessarily in military hardware. India has to redouble its efforts to fix its internal apparatus, infrastructure etc. to gain at least some functional parity with the West. The exchange of goods and services with the West will automatically bring with it the security coverage India seeks to nullify any threats from China.

China remains far ahead of India because it has managed to assemble a competent leadership model with which it has formulated coherent strategies and most of all, executed them.

 

[mayfair]

NATO- North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Unless Indian territory expanded to include all of Europe, where do we fit in with "North Atlantics"?

 

[sandeepdg]

Why the hell will we want to join NATO & why the hell should NATO accept India ?? . North Atlantic Treaty Organization is meant for countries that are on both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. North American and European countries since they share same values, cultures, principles and have had similar aspirations since WW2. How the hell could some one think that India will fit into it ?

 

[sandeepdg]

So is Israel, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, and even my own country. I hear often on here that Pakistan gets free handouts and weapons for being in such a relationship, so wouldn't that translate across to India if it were also a major non-NATO ally?

I'm indifferent to whether or not India joins NATO, although as others have said already; it helps if you're somewhere near the North Atlantic Ocean. If India became a major non-NATO ally, that might not upset Russia as much; unless they rely upon Indias weapon purchasing.

If not that, why not an international political organization setup called the Alliance of Democracies? A democracy-only geostrategic alliance designed to share economic and military interests.

The way we are going, we will eventually become the most important non-NATO ally for the Americans in the next 2 decades or so, the Americans are already started licking our asses as was evident in the MMRCA, since the world knows that no other country in Asia can act as an effective counter to the China's meteoric rise as India !

 

[AOE]

The way we are going, we will eventually become the most important non-NATO ally for the Americans in the next 2 decades or so, the Americans are already started licking our asses as was evident in the MMRCA, since the world knows that no other country in Asia can act as an effective counter to the China's meteoric rise as India !

Don't flatter yourself too much lol, I agree India is important but it is not the only country the US has been friendly to in this regard. I could also argue that a more militarized Japan would also be a good counter-balance, but that's a separate subject.

 

[sandeepdg]

Don't flatter yourself too much lol, I agree India is important but it is not the only country the US has been friendly to in this regard. I could also argue that a more militarized Japan would also be a good counter-balance, but that's a separate subject.

There's nothing flattering about it, mate ! It just plain fact, even a militarized Japan would be hardly a match for what Indian defense capabilities will be in the next two decades. Even the Japs know that, hence the reason why there was increased talk sometime back of an India-Japan-US association to counter balance the Chinese, and keep stability in Asia.