Super powers need India or India needs them ?

[A.V.]

the year 2010 official visits by 5 top leaders from the 5 so called super powers and permanent members of the security council

starting from england , now US then france , russia and finally china

what is most interesting many are coming here with huge unseen for before delegations which asks the questions ?

1. the british were here to woo the indians and mock the neighbours in june

2. obama is coming with a big list of offers to create more sales and jobs for his country

3 the french will come to sell their technology and get some cash

4. russians will bring huge lists of orders and needs all the help possible

5. the chinese will come also to sell some of their telecom and other products


all this shows that inian has got the big 5 under the armpit except for china i guess still the debate for now andf the future is

HOW MUCH INDIA NEEDS THEM AND HOW MUCH DO THEY NEED INDIA keeping an eye to the next 10 years lets find out that india;s days as a market superpower is here finally

 

[SHASH2K2]

I would say its mutual need for both parties. They need India for access to one of biggest and untapped market to get out of recession . ON the other hand we need them for access to some critical technologies and for strategic depth. Its a win win situation for all.

 

[roma]

apart from the off-topic (usual ) indo-pak bashing above - it was an interesting topic

my comment is that it just goes to show how importatnt the economy is and as long as "we" keep not getting it as good as it could be we still continue to underperform . Sure india has made great strides but the inventiveness of the people and other qualities are being underutilised . IF we can pul the superpowers to us then by the same logic i guess china dragon can do the same a perhaps a bit more . Loads of work need to still be done to max our peoples talent in the sense of allowing them to do what they really can for the country

 

[thakur_ritesh]

If we just look at the present day scenario, its india's need more today than the other way round.

There is a striking difference between the two, one (the P5 and the west) is well established and struggling lately except for the PRC, other (India) has struggled all along and only now has got its act together (to be more precise just this decade or more specific, then last 7-8 years, which is where all the hype comes from).

India has two aces up its sleeves:

A). An emerging strength, the economy:

An economy which is growing at a very rapid pace is where our real strength is.

The west struggling today doesnt mean they will keep struggling all along and in that recovery india just marginally comes across as an opportunity where we atleast for now don't offer an opportunity of more than a couple of billions of dollars, at best a few 10s of billions of dollars yoy which to those huge economies doesn't make that big a difference but only a partial difference. On this front our bargaining power remains intact till the time we have an economy which keeps growing at the rapid pace that it has seen for the past 7-8 years, else we lose out on that sheen and come across as lot less attractive and we would just be another of those promising dreams terribly gone wrong and nothing more, much like what happened in latin America to an extent to the asian tigers or germany and japan.

India remains interested because on this front when we talk to these western countries then there are things like trade agreements that come up for negotiation and this is where india would want a bigger share for its exports.

B). A default strength, a strategic location:

We are located right next to a country, the PRC, which has economically grown tremendously but that is not really the thing that makes them a suspect, it's the ideology they follow that makes them a suspect, an ideology which in practice is alien to the three members of P5 and to most west and for Russia the expansionist nature of this country is the real threat. India in here fits in perfectly because we share a border with the PRC, geographically are a big country, match them up in terms of population, have professional armed forces and all this provides an opportunity to these other countries to raise the stakes by propagating india as a counter balance, and this is where india scores fairly well.

The PRC is interested to make sure that india doesn't emerge as a counter balance to it, atleast not militarily and so they are trying various things, testing india's patience by crossing the LAC from time to time, feed Pakistan and their mercenary army which is ready to fight india till the last Pakistani army mercenary and another ploy and that is to talk politely and try and suggest that we are friends, which is far from reality.

India remains only interested to the extent that it doesn't lead to any sort of confrontation with the PRC but since this is the fear of the west then based on this fear india certainly wants to negotiate stuff for its benefit. On this front, even if india was not to have grown economically as much our importance would have been there but then not as much as is seen today.

Looking at the above two aces that india holds as of date, the question to be asked is, can the P5 and the rest live without these two strengths that we provide them and still come out without being scratched, well the answers for me atleast is, yes they can!

The actual reason behind this flurry in all these visits that we see today is because india is spending 10s of billions of dollars on its military hardware and no one in these down times wants to miss out on that pie which to an extent will address their immediate concerns but will also make sure that they be a part of these deals (military and otherwise) in future as well by when india would be spending trillions of dollars.

At best these visits can be described as an investment for the future with little immediate benefits.

What india wants and who and how that gets addressed:

• India looks to play a global role by being a part of various important international bodies which run the real show across the globe.

• India plans to raise its share of manufacturing from present 17% of gdp to 25%, which is what will lead to the much talked about industrialization of this country.

• We intend to have double digit gdp growth, and our own consumption based economy marginally addresses that, we need a bigger market for that and that takes india outside its borders and more specifically to the west, which is where the real consumption happens.

• India is looking to develop itself and doesn't have the requisite money to do that.

• We need to create all sorts of jobs, right from semi-skilled to white collar jobs and for that we need fdi, an economy which is export driven, a services back office, and much more.

• Access to high-end technology.

• Access to high-end military equipment.

India is looking to raise its stature significantly on all fronts and all these get addressed only by active support of all those western countries which hold all the clout and the P5. India's just an emerging player with little to offer but wanting to gain a lot, need is more on india's part than other way round and india realizes it pretty well and is working to get these countries more and more involved in india.

 

[ajtr]

A HOST OF FRIENDS
- India must balance its relationships with a number of countries​

Kanwal Sibal

India will host presidential visits from the United States of America, France and Russia in quick succession in November and December. The bunching may be coincidental, but it does reflect mounting interest in engaging an economically rapidly growing India with rising clout in international affairs.

India's "strategic relationship" with each of these countries requires tending. France was the first to propose a "strategic dialogue" with India after our 1998 nuclear tests. It understood better than others India's motives and compulsions in going nuclear. France sensed the opportunity that had emerged to forge a strategic relationship with an independent-minded country that could be a partner in promoting multipolarity as a response to US unilateralism.

With Vladimir Putin taking over as prime minister, India and Russia established a strategic partnership, ending the drift in bilateral relations during the Yeltsin years. Russia's desperate Westward plunge after the Soviet Union's demise was met with a strategic rebuff by way of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union expansion. This pushed Russia away from the unifying security and economic structures of Europe, inflicted on it a loss of vital strategic space in its immediate periphery and threatened its political and economic heartland. Putin saw the strategic need for Russia to restore its traditional ties with India as part of a more balanced foreign policy that reflected Russia's Asia dimension.

With the US, India is forging a new strategic partnership, the foundation for which has been laid by the nuclear deal. Historically, the US has damaged India strategically by subjecting it to sanctions on the nuclear and missile fronts, erecting technology denial regimes, arming Pakistan, interfering in Kashmir, overlooking the India-endangering strategic cooperation between China and Pakistan, unleashing Islamic extremism in our region to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ignoring Pakistan's role in regional and international terror. Shared values of democracy, pluralism, rule of law, religious tolerance, respect for human rights and so on, that are of "strategic" importance in shaping the international landscape and governance in individual countries, have until now not figured as a "strategic" bond between India and the US. The burden of responsibility to eliminate the negative elements from the India-US relationship still remains with the US.

All three countries have played their role in obtaining the exception from the Nuclear Suppliers Group for international civilian nuclear cooperation with India, though the US's role has been central, and all three are looking, as well as competing, for nuclear business in return. All three have been rewarded by being allocated separate sites in India for installing their reactors, without regard to cost differentials. Russian and French companies are much ahead of those from the US in commercial negotiations with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. The last have demanded in advance a liability regime in case of a nuclear accident compliant with "international practice" in India, that is, one giving total immunity to suppliers. The actual nuclear liability bill passed by India has upset the US side as it is seen as being incompatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, but India has gone ahead with signing it, and so the legal issues involved remain unresolved. France and Russia have been discreet about their concerns regarding the Indian legislation. France has indicated its willingness to work within its framework subject to clarification on the government's understanding of the law and how it intends to implement it. Russia is not visibly agitating over the issue. The overly demanding US attitude is inconsistent with the logic of a "strategic" relationship and points to further difficulties that may lie ahead in negotiating with US companies.

All the three "strategic" partners are competing in the Indian defence market. Russia is India's biggest defence partner, and has obtained additional major orders for aircraft, besides agreements on collaboration for developing the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft and the Multi-Role Transport Aircraft. Russia supplies equipment and technologies not available from other countries, as exemplified by the lease of a nuclear submarine and technical help for India's indigenous programme.

The India-France defence collaboration is decades old, but France, to its acute discomfiture, has lately lost out on key new contracts for helicopters and refuelling aircraft, though some others are near closure. The French are sore that the US and Russia are beneficiaries of major defence contracts on a government-to-government basis, while they are wrung through our convoluted, dilatory and non-transparent tendering process. The political strategic element seems to be lacking in Indian thinking in viewing France as the choice European defence partner.

The US is quickly gaining ground in Indian defence acquisitions with major contracts for maritime surveillance and transport aircraft. While "superior" US defence technology is alluring, there are concerns also about intrusive conditions with which it comes, as well as the risk of disruption of supplies for extraneous reasons. India continues to have reservations about signing pending defence agreements with the US for fear of being drawn too closely into the US defence embrace. France and Russia do not impose sovereignty-infringing conditions on defence purchases. Unlike them, the US is a major supplier of arms to our implacable adversary, Pakistan, and has just announced another $2.3 billion arms aid to Pakistan, on top of the India-centric acquisitions Pakistan has already made with massive US aid. India has held 50 military exercises with the US in the last seven years, and only three with Russia. With France, periodic naval exercises are being held, the French being keen on stepping up anti-piracy cooperation with India in the Indian Ocean. The 126 combat fighter aircraft tender has companies from all these three countries in fray. India would need to finely tune the balance of its defence ties with each of these strategic partners to ensure that all three contribute to Indian security optimally.

The rise of China and the uncertainties associated with it, especially in the context of China's recent muscle-flexing in the South China Sea, would certainly figure in our conversations with the three visiting dignitaries. India is concerned about the strategic threat from China, sharpened by more aggressive Chinese policies on Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir, but it also wants to keep China engaged and soft-pedal differences. The US has become more open about its China concerns in its conversations with India, though the US-China interdependence precludes any sharp change in US policy towards that country. France would be wary of the consequences of China's rise for Europe, but keen to preserve its economic interests in the huge Chinese market. Russia-China relations have become strategically stronger in order to counter US global dominance and expand their own strategic space that has to come at US expense. India is part of the trilateral Russia-India-China dialogue as well as the BRIC dialogue pushed by Russia. India will have to continue to play this complex game of promoting multipolarity through RIC and Brazil-Russia-India-China dialogues and work with the US and Asian democracies, especially Japan, to devise hedging strategies against a threatening China.

Finally, while France and Russia both support India's permanent membership of the security council, vital for India strategically, the laggard US ought to announce its support during President Barack Obama's visit as a sealing strategic gesture.

The author is former foreign secretary of India [email protected]

 

[SHASH2K2]

India's quest for UN seat difficult and complicated: Obama​

US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he sees see India as a cornerstone of America's engagement in Asia. "I see India as a cornerstone of America's engagement in Asia," he told PTI.

"A series of announcements are expected to be made during my visit,"said Obama.

"There will be big-ticket items on the agenda with PM Manmohan Singh," the US President said.

Issues relating to US curbs on dual-use technology exports to India and India's quest for permanent membership of UN Security Council "are very difficult and complicated", Obama said.

Obama on outsourcing: India should give US companies the same access to their markets that US gives.

Obama on India's Nuclear Liability Act: US has concerns over it and the governments of the two countries are working together to resolve them.

Obama on 26/11: Pakistan has a special responsibility to bring the perpetrators of Mumbai terror attacks to justice "transparently, fully, and urgently".

Obama on PM: Manmohan Singh is one of the most extraordinary leaders I have met. I support India's rise as a global power, says the US President.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

for now the above two posts are being allowed since they got approved, henceforth in the DFI HQ forum please do not post any articles sourced from else where no matter who has written it and in what context.

DFI HQ is only for self written analysis and nothing else.

 

[bengalraider]

What was once being recognized as India's greatest hurdle is now being recognized as it's greatest asset(if utilized correctly), i am talking about our population. we are today a nation of 1.2 billion souls, our land holds a sixth of humanity and more than the numbers what is important is that the way these numbers are interacting with the world at large is undergoing a rapid change . everyone from CEO's of multinational companies based in Mumbai to the bahubali for the local neta in small town UP now uses a cellphone, accesses the internet(albeit for totally different purposes)and uses a bank, toothpaste and soap apart from other daily use items.The per capita income of the average Indian has gone up from 720$/annum in 1991 to nearly 3500$/annum today , even if only a third of per capita income is taken as net buying power we still end up with 1.32 trillion dollars/annum this gentlemen is power "buying power" a power the world cannot afford to ignore.We are well on our way to become the golden bird of the east once again(if Delhi doesn't mess up big time) and the big 5 recognize this and hence they have come calling nothing more nothing less, of course our strategic location straddling the Indian ocean is also our trump card and as a self-styled neo-curzonian i love to pint that out but the fact remains that without the moolah(read willpower)to build a truly formidable blue water naval armada we would get nowhere in the ocean that bears our name. It's all about the money honey and we got a lot of it.

 

[roma]

India's quest for UN seat difficult and complicated: Obama​

QUOTE]

may not be so complicated after all - Obama may be on the way out in 2 yrs and the republicans are likely to be much more amenable