_______________
In short, there is NO foreign policy being followed in India except the culture of handing out a few handouts.
We don't even know the military-strategic developments that our government is (if at all doing) doing in Afghanistan where $ 2 billion of Indian money has gone without any tangible results beyond Kabul's government.
Afghans view us favourably which is a good thing but the only kitty in our bag is the massive iron ore deal which our companies have won.
A caveat no one is perfect. The beauty is that there is always room for improvement. And there are opportunities and the old gets replaced by the new. I don't want to sound like I am anti-PRC as a lot of your points refer to our eastern neighbor. I have try to answer all your points and added a few points to what you say:
Others will also have their views. I would like to hear and read them and like to learn new things but i still havent changed my mind - if i look closely good (mature) decisions are getting made by india and others are taking notice:
1- Trade, financial and commercial engagement
The importance and significance of Indian corporations and diaspora. The approach of indian industry we can take the example of Arcelor Mittal, Jaguar Land Rover and SsangYong Motor Company and Novelis and locally Hindustan Unilever and Maruti Suzuki. Dwell into each one and discover why "Indian" works. in fact if the local countries and partners examine if it was worthwhile that Indians got involved the answer would be in affirmative.
The reason was not to steal ipr, and raid assets. It was for development, cooperation and in good faith. That is preferred to certain eastern asian role models.
The foreign policy of india has the indian business model as a sword not a shield. and the sword is not openly used.
Also your equation of power (export economy):
Infrastructure --> manpower skill development ---> transition economy ---> heavy FDI magnet ----> production capabilities ----> foreign dependence on your goods.
I add that is only a certain approach.
"The foreign dependence on your goods". It also means making sure you have raw materials and human resources. These resources that would have been done at the foreigners place are now the responsibility of the manufacturer. Also these resources that can be used for local benefit is now done for foreigner benefit. The responsibility to manufacture a plastic bucket for a foreigner is not a responsibility I would like to have. Yes I would like to manufacture plastic buckets, high-technology and things for (internal) nation building. FDI is welcome for internal supply.
Also steady supply of raw material like pig iron, copper, zinc, special metal alloys etc is not used in producing weapons in times of conflict but for manufacturing sector and infrastructure sector that is dependent on social stability of that country. I would rather be the foreigner making you dependent on making sure that the foreigner gives you order(s) of plastic buckets. I would also focus to make our internal economy strong and change your equation to:
Infrastructure --> manpower skill development ----> production capabilities --ïƒ strong internal (self-sufficient) economy.
We are going down that path. Look around you. We have a high current account deficit. Mainly due to the USD and oil import (being done in USD). The solution to oil dependence is not only an indian problem. And I believe it is being worked on. But we use what we use and efficiently more compared to others.
Efficient economy vs Inefficient economy: In fact a theory goes that our economic development is not bad. A benefit of the indian approach is the latest best practice is available without wasting too many resources on the redundant. We also get on the development curve at a later stage. the first mover advantage is not always a advantage (one can see with the timeline of Telephone Landline and Cellular development - we skipped the first part).
2- Military engagement, diplomacy, trade and usage (yes, usage)
I don't see a problem. Our military engagement is robust and our military and diplomatic leaders have interactions that are at a high strategic level with like minded and professional countries. I think you are trying to say we ought to be selling our military hardware overseas. Its more a question of developing our local defence industry. I refer to you the following article that was well written:
The realisation of India's grand-'naval engineering' dreams - Hindustan Times
On the other hand we are able to import advanced weapons and jointly produce them because we respect intellectual property rights and are trustworthy. We get offered advanced systems. Having a Sukho MKI, Brahmos, Rafael is good model(s) for us to follow. So what if these are not exported to other countries by us. Do you doubt their ability. With reference to Vietnam and many countries. The potential for developing that friendship is there naturally. Its not fake and coerced into and also without any underlying innuendos. Our partnerships with countries are because we are trustworthy and won't backstab. We also justify our actions openly with reason.
I think it might be better if you said why don't we have a naval and airforce base in Vietnam instead of exporting weapons to them. That could be a consideration why we don't sell. We can move weapon systems to our partners - are we doing that is an evolving question. Also we respect the original manufacturer of the weapon systems and will give them the authority to sell. That means we have three allies not two allies because of our approach.
3A- Cultural/ soft power projection.
A bit like M. Gandhi's journey its better for the reader to discover the beauty of india on their own. Its difficult for the immature. But the good and reasoned discover. That's why the soft power will spread without forced projection.
3B. Potential allies who seek military help or protection from us.
Maldives:
I support Indias position on Maldives 100%.
For reference our official position at this moment on the surface is: We will not interfere in their internal policies and respect the choice of the democratic voice of their people. If the majority of population hates us we have to deal with it. That is far from the reality in Maldives. Infact India is viewed favourably by Maldivians. The Airport situation at the moment is that it will be decided after the elections. We would rather be on the side of the people. Instead of being on the side of certain individuals that have been coerced into favouring certain countries. Because the support of the people and support the democratic system will provide long term benefits. The next leader will also have more authority.
Wait for the elections to finish. We are playing our hand well. (we also don't know whats below the surface and all of our cards).
Bhutan:
I support Indias position on Bhutan 100%. And Bhutan will consult India not PRC for its future direction even when they are talking with PRC. Talking about border to PRC means there is a problem with PRC. India will give advice for the benefit of Bhutan. As a Indian when I meet a Bhutanese I always ask them: "would you rather be in Bhutan, would you rather be in Tibet". He shakes my hand and smiles at me and thanks me. I always wonder why. We must be really bad.
4-Rapid strategic asset building
Why do you doubt that India has no capacity for strategic asset building. The intellectual side of that can be seen by what we are doing on the borders as we speak. Also I am not a military expert and there are many elders here who will have more to say on this but our military capability and strategic asset building is there.
"Strategic reserves include multiple things such as defence platform spares, logistical equipment, transport infrastructure, transport approach, manpower readiness and most importantly the very fuel to warfare: OIL and GAS." I don't see a problem.
Do you realise that the intellectual thought process that has gone into making the India – Pakistan relationship to what it is now. Shimla Agreement was an intellectual document and the current dynamics is intellectually done. Now with reference to PRC. We are moving our intellectual resources and focus there. Look closely I don't see a problem but confidence and optimism.
"Talking about strategic build up, the reason why China is getting so belligerent for a battle is because: it has already got massive strategic reserves for war:"
It could be also because of internal (any of economic, structural, leadership, social, political, etc) problems. Diverting internal attention. That's the danger. Not because we are weak.
Also
"Extended massive strategic cooperation with countries that are enemies of my enemies". Like I said we are moving our intellectual resources and focus there. There are many state players that would favour India relationship over others.
For Afghanistan again the answer is I support India position 100%. The Pakistan approach was (disaster and stupid) wrong. The PRC approach would be to get the raw materials for their export industry and forget the longer term development. The Indian approach is to support a sustainable and friendly republic. I would rather have an afghan that supports me even 100 years later compared to one the supports me only for 3 years. Please read this document:
http://www.mea.gov.in/Uploads/Publi...and-afghanistan-a-development-partnership.pdf